JBR-08904; No of Pages 7

Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Global brand ownership: The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and

brand identication
Fabian Bartsch a,, Adamantios Diamantopoulos a, Nicholas G. Paparoidamis b, Ruben Chumpitaz b,c
a
b
c

Department of International Marketing, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern Platz 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Marketing and International Negotiation Department, IESEG School of Management, CNRS-LEM (UMR 9221), 3 Rue de la Digue, Lille 59000, France
ESAN University, 1652 Alonso de Molina, Lima, Per

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 November 2015
Received in revised form 1 February 2016
Accepted 1 February 2016
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Consumer behavior
Consumer dispositions
Global brands
Brand identication

a b s t r a c t
The branding literature repeatedly emphasizes the role brands play in shaping consumer identities. In this
context, the rise of global consumer groups gives global brands a prominent role as potential tools for consumer
identication. Specically, consumer segments that idealize global communities and/or hold positive attitudes
toward various aspects of globalization are particularly prone to using global brands in order to strengthen
their identication with the global world. Against this background, this paper empirically investigates the mediating roles of (a) consumer attitudes toward globality and (b) identication with global brands on the relationship between consumer orientations toward globality and global brand ownership. Findings from a study with
300 French consumers provide evidence of full mediation in line with the theoretically derived causal structure
linking consumer orientations to brand ownership through consumer attitudes and brand identication. The
paper discusses implications of the ndings for theory, practice and future research directions.
2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Marketing literature repeatedly emphasizes the role brands play in
shaping consumer identities (e.g., Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, &
Sen, 2012, Whan Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci,
2010). Indeed, consumer behavior is to a big extent identity-driven in
that consumers choose brands that match their idealization of selfconcept (Reed, Forehand, Puntoni, & Warlop, 2012). In this context,
the rise of global consumer groups (Keillor, D'Amico, & Horton, 2001)
and the emergence of a global consumer culture (Alden, Steenkamp, &
Batra, 1999) gives global brands a prominent role as potential tools for
consumer identication (zsomer & Altaras, 2008), the latter capturing
consumers' perceived state of oneness with a brand (StokburgerSauer et al., 2012, p. 407). In particular, consumer segments that idealize
global communities and/or hold positive attitudes toward various
aspects of globalization are particularly prone to using global brands
to strengthen their identication with the global world (Strizhakova,
Coulter, & Price, 2011). Such consumer groups are characterized by
positive dispositions toward globality as reected in having a global
identity (Zhang & Khare, 2009), displaying positive attitudes toward
globalization (Spears, Parker, & McDonald, 2004), or being susceptible
toward a global consumer culture (Zhou, Teng, & Poon, 2008).
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fabian.bartsch@univie.ac.at (F. Bartsch),
adamantios.diamantopoulos@univie.ac.at (A. Diamantopoulos), n.paparoidamis@ieseg.fr
(N.G. Paparoidamis), r.chumpitaz@ieseg.fr (R. Chumpitaz).

Surprisingly, however, studies addressing the impact of positive

consumer dispositions toward globality on consumer identication
with global brands are scarce (Strizhakova, Coulter, & Price, 2008), despite the obvious role global brands play as symbols of a global consumer culture (e.g., Alden et al., 1999, Cayla & Arnould, 2008, Holt, Quelch, &
Taylor, 2004). The same applies to studies investigating consumer dispositions toward globality as potential predictors of actual consumer
behavior (e.g., Cleveland, Laroche, & Hallab, 2013; Cleveland,
Rojas-Mndez, Laroche & Papadopoulos, 2016). Prior relevant research
has sparingly examined ownership of global brands, despites its managerial relevance. (Bartsch, Rieer, & Diamantopoulos, 2016). Moreover,
extant literature provides only limited insight into the joint predictive
ability of different dispositions toward globality as drivers of consumer
behavior. To date, only a few isolated research attempts exists that take
into consideration multiple dispositions simultaneously to predict outcomes such as global brand attitude (Guo, 2013) or purchase intentions
for global brands (Rieer, 2012). Overall, the relationships between different dispositional characteristics remain an untapped research topic.
Against this background, the present study empirically examines the
mediating roles of (a) attitudes toward globality and (b) identication
with global brands on the relationship between consumer orientations
toward globality and global brand ownership. Our intended contribution is twofold. From a theoretical perspective, this study draws on
social identity theory and investigates a causal structure linking consumers' positive dispositions toward globality to ownership of global
brands as identity-congruent symbols of a global consumer culture.
From a managerial perspective, this study offers empirically based

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.023
0148-2963/ 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Bartsch, F., et al., Global brand ownership: The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and brand identication, Journal of
Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.023

F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

insights into the impact of such dispositions on consumers' actual

buying decisions for global brands, while highlighting the importance
of brand identication as a driver of brand ownership.

of globalization, rather than a result of their identity-conrming

mechanisms.

2. Positive dispositions toward globality

2.1. The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and brand identication

During the last 15 years, international marketing researchers

conceptualized consumer dispositions toward globality in an effort to
capture changes in consumer characteristics as a result of globalization
(Arnett, 2002). Consequently, marketing literature offers a range of
constructs capturing such dispositions, which are used in substantive
research efforts (see Table 1).
Consumer dispositions toward globality are conceptualized either as
orientations dened as set of values, opinions, and competencies held
by certain individuals (Cleveland, Laroche, Takahashi, & Erdoan,
2014, p. 269) or as attitudes dened as learned predisposition to
respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect
to a given object (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 10).
Orientations are rather general manifestations of the consumer selfconcept and do not relate to a concrete stimulus object (Hogg & Smith,
2007); they merely depict consumers' identications and associations
with a hypothesized global world. More specically, identication
with the global community (GCOM) (Westjohn, Arnold, Magnusson,
Zdravkovic, & Zhou, 2009) describes identication with humankind
in general rather than with a particular set of countries. Similarly,
global identity (GI) (Zhang & Khare, 2009) captures consumers' selfidentication with a global world or community by focusing on the similarities of people around the world. Finally, global connectedness (GC)
(Strizhakova & Coulter, 2013) conceptualizes an individual's attachment
and belongingness to a global world. Although the three constructs are
conceptually overlapping in that they all conceptualize positive group
identities toward globality (Bartsch et al., 2016), the international marketing literature is lacking empirical evidence about potential differences in
their predictive ability regarding the formation of consumer attitudes.
Attitudes toward globality, on the other hand, by denition involve a
concrete stimulus object, which becomes the focus of an evaluative
judgment (Ajzen, 1991). They depict consumers' positive stances toward either the economic consequences of globalization (e.g., freedom
of choice, availability of products) or several aspects of global brands
and resulting lifestyle choices. Thus, globalization attitude (GA) (Spears
et al., 2004) captures an individual's beliefs about the (un)favorable
economic consequences of globalization, while susceptibility to global
consumer culture (SGCC) (Zhou et al., 2008) conceptualizes consumers'
desire to acquire global brands as a function of their (a) superior quality,
(b) social prestige, and (c) conformity to consumption trends.
Understanding the distinction between consumer orientations and
attitudes leads to a clearer recognition of their distinct roles each plays
in inuencing consumer behavior. For instance, consumers identifying
with the global community may behave under the premise that their
behavior strengthens group identication. By contrast, the behavior of
consumers holding a positive globalization attitude may be merely
grounded in their positive evaluations of the economic consequences

Fig. 1 proposes a serial mediation model that conceptualizes a causal

sequence between consumer orientations and consumer attitudes toward globality and links these to global brand ownership through global
brand identication. The proposed model conceptually draws from social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), which seeks to explain the
aspects of an individual's self-image that derive from the social categories to which he perceives himself as belonging(Tajfel & Turner, 1979,
p. 40). In developing our hypotheses, this study draws upon social identity theory with regards to the formation of consumer attitudes (Hogg &
Smith, 2007) and the process of identity conrmation under the premises of the identity-relevance principle (Reed et al., 2012).
Consumers' orientations toward globality (i.e., identication with the
global community, global identity, and global connectedness) draw from
social identity theory, which suggests that a consumer's reference
group is not domestically anchored but rather emerges in reference to
a global world (Strizhakova & Coulter, 2013; Westjohn et al., 2009;
Zhang & Khare, 2009). According to social identity theory, social categorization and depersonalization are the processes through which consumers categorize people not as individuals but as members of a
group and, subsequently, form expectations about their attitudes and
behavior. Thus, the individual identity takes a less prominent role,
while group identication becomes the dominant driver of behavior
based upon an in-group vs. out-group distinction. As part of this depersonalization process, consumers adopt a stereotypical view of their
in-group identication and seek to strengthen this identication by embracing group norms (Hogg & Smith, 2007). For instance, consumers
who strongly identify with a hypothetical group will imagine a stereotypical role model for that group and, as a consequence, their identication seeks to conrm such (positive) stereotypical views of group
members. Consumer attitudes toward globality, as Table 1 illustrates,
represents positive evaluations of different aspects associated with a
given global society (e.g., the belief in positive consequences of economic globalization or belief in a global lifestyle). This study therefore argues
that consumers' orientations toward globality, as reected in conceptualizations of global group identities, are likely to positively impact the
formation of more specic consumer attitudes that are perceived as
being representative of an imagined global community.
H1. Consumers' orientations toward globality positively impact their
attitudes toward globality.
Drawing from attitude theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), attitudes toward a specic object reect positive or negative evaluations of the object and inuence subsequent behavior. Hence, positive consumer
attitudes toward globality (i.e., globalization attitude, susceptibility to global consumer culture) translated into positive evaluations of global brands
as representative manifestations of globality (Alden et al., 1999; Cayla &

Table 1
Conceptualizations of consumer dispositions toward globality.
Category

Constructs

Conceptual denition

Captures the degree of psychological and emotional investment one has to the global world
Identication with the global community (GCOM)
(Westjohn et al., 2009)
Consumer
Global identity (GI)
Being global means identifying with people around the world (Zhang & Khare, 2009)
orientations toward globality
An individual's overall attachment and belonging to the global world (Strizhakova & Coulter,
Global connectedness (GC)
2013)
Support or opposition to globalization based upon the individuals belief about the economic
Consumer
Globalization attitude (GA)
consequence (Spears et al., 2004)
attitudes toward globality
Susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC)
Consumer's desire or tendency for the acquisition and use of global brands (Zhou et al., 2008)

Please cite this article as: Bartsch, F., et al., Global brand ownership: The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and brand identication, Journal of
Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.023

F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Fig. 1. The mediating role of consumer attitudes and brand identication.

Arnould, 2008; Holt et al., 2004). In this context, extant literature provides evidence on the link between consumer attitudes toward globality
and global brands' evaluation (e.g., Guo, 2013, Rieer, 2012, Zhou et al.,
2008). Furthermore, international marketing literature frequently
emphasizes the role that global brands play as identifying objects of
global consumer groups (Holt et al., 2004; Strizhakova et al., 2008). For
instance, Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price's (2012) assessment of global
youth cohorts concludes that indeed consumer segments that use global
brands as identifying symbols of a hypothetical global community
with which they identify exist. Thus, in line with the recent study of
Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) showing that several aspects of positive
brand evaluation (e.g., consumer perceptions of a brand warmth, its social benets, or prestige) positively inuence consumerbrand identication, this study postulates that if consumers hold positive attitudes
toward various aspects of globality they also deliberately processed
their attitude toward global brands (Reed et al., 2012). Accordingly,
they are more likely to positively evaluate global brands as being relevant
to their identity as part of their self-concept.
H2. Positive consumer attitudes toward globality positively impact
consumer identication with global brands.
Extant literature commonly refers to two key functions that brands
fulll. First, brands are marketing tools that help a company differentiate its product offering from the competition by creating a unique
value proposition (Keller, 2013). Second, brands create meaningful
intangible associations that help consumers in their expression of the
self-concept (Aaker, 1997; El-Amir & Burt, 2010). As such, brands are
symbolic artifacts to reafrm the self-image (Elliott & Wattanasuwan,
1998) or signal group membership (Chernev, Hamilton, & Gal, 2011).
In this context, Escalas and Bettman (2005) show that brands that are
consistent with social identity (in-group) perceptions are evaluated
more positively compared to brands associated with an out-group.
Drawing from the identity-relevance principle, When identity
information is deliberatively processed, its inuence will be greatest
on stimuli that possess object relevance, symbolic relevance, goal
relevance, action relevance or evaluation relevance to the identity
(Reed et al., 2012, p. 316). Thus, this study postulates that a positive identication with a stimulus object (in our case global brands) will positively inuence consumers' intentions to own that object as a form of
identity reassurance. Consumerbrand identication is associated with
increased levels of brand advocacy and loyalty (Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
2012) as well as actual ownership of identity-congruent brands (Whan
Park et al., 2010). Given that global brands frequently serve as identifying
symbols of a desired group identity (Strizhakova et al., 2011, 2012), such
brands may be perceived as particularly relevant for identication purposes. More specically, global brands typically associate with positive
attributes such as quality, prestige, and status-enhancing features and
eventually serve as a passport to global citizenship (Holt et al., 2004;
Steenkamp, Batra, & Alden, 2003; Strizhakova et al., 2008). Therefore,
this study argues that if consumers identify positively with global brands
they are also more likely to own such brands as a form of identity
reassurance.

H3. Consumer identication with global brands positively impact global

brand ownership.
Lastly, this research expects that the inclusion of consumer attitudes
and brand identication as mediators in our model will render any direct effects of consumer orientations or attitudes on brand ownership
non-signicant (Guo, 2013; Zhang & Khare, 2009); in other words,
this study expects full mediation, as shown in Fig. 1.
3. Empirical study
3.1. Methodology
To test the model in Fig. 1, we collected data from a representative
sample of 300 French consumers through an online research agency
(Mage = 47.31; SD = 15.82; 55.7% female). France is a country with a
high degree of globalization (Dreher, 2006), ranking 20th on the
Konjunkturforschungsstelle (KOF) Index of globalization (see http://
globalization.kof.ethz.ch/for the 2015 KOF index). As such, French
consumers are likely to hold diverse sets of orientations and consumer
attitudes toward globality (Merino & Vargas, 2013), making France a
particularly suitable setting for testing our research hypotheses.
The consumer dispositions listed in Table 1 were all measured with
established scales drawn from the literature (see Appendix A) and translated into French by a professional translator followed by back-translation
from two bilingual scholars. This study measured identication with the
global community using the ve-item scale of Westjohn et al. (2009),
global identity using the shortened four-item scale of Tu, Khare, and
Zhang (2012), global connectedness using the seven-item scale of
Strizhakova and Coulter (2013), and globalization attitude using the
three-item adaptation of the original globalization attitude scale of
Rieer (2012) (Spears et al., 2004), while for susceptibility to global
consumer culture, the research drew upon the multidimensional 12-item
measurement scale of Zhou et al. (2008). Identication with global brands
(GBID) was measured by asking respondents whether they strongly identify with brand X on a scale from 0 to 100 (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012),
while global brand ownership (GBOS) was measured as the total number
of brands (from a list of 20 brands shown in Appendix B) the respondent
has purchased in the last six months.
Brands were selected based on their availability across multiple
markets (Steenkamp et al., 2003), their country of origin (Rieer,
2012), as well as their sales volume in France and covered a variety of
product categories (see Appendix B). This study deliberately limited
itself to household brands to ensure that respondents from all social
classes could afford the selected brands. To reduce potential home
country bias (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004), the questionnaire
included both global domestic as well as global foreign brands as stimuli
(e.g., Rieer, 2012, Winit, Gregory, Cleveland, & Verlegh, 2014). Prior to
the main study, the selected brands were pretested with 20 consumers
to ensure familiarity with them. Finally, to account for potential order
effects, the survey design randomized items and question blocks in
our questionnaire.

Please cite this article as: Bartsch, F., et al., Global brand ownership: The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and brand identication, Journal of
Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.023

F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Table 2
Construct correlations and psychometric properties.

Orientations toward globality

Attitudes toward globality

1. Identication with the global community (GCOM)

2. Global identity (GI)
3. Global connectedness (GC)
4. Globalization attitude (GA)
5. Susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC)
a. Conformity to consumption trends
b. Quality perception
c. Social prestige
7. Global brand identication (GBID)
8. Global brand ownership (GBOS)

.84
.90
.98
.78
.97[1]
.96
.93
.91
_[2]
_[2]

CR

AVE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(7)

(8)

.86
.90
.98
.79

.96
.94
.91
_[2]
_[2]

.60
.68
.85
.56

.84
.78
.71
_[2]
_[2]

1
.69
.80
.49
.50
.51
.44
.44
.27
.17

1
.79
.45
.40
.37
.36
.37
.19
.15

1
.50
.54
.55
.48
.48
.26
.19

1
.61
.58
.57
.56
.30
.25

1
.93
.95
.92
.40
.24

1
.82
.75
.44
.28

1
.83
.37
.21

1
.31
.17

1
.54

[1] Reliability of linear combination. [2] Not applicable due to single-item measurement.
Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

3.2. Results
The psychometric properties of our measurement scales are satisfactory as indicated by high Cronbach's (N.70), composite reliability
(N .75), and average variance extracted (AVE) (N .55) values (Table 2).
For the multidimensional construct susceptibility to global consumer
culture, we rst calculated the internal consistency for each individual
dimension (see Table 2) followed by the calculation of the reliability
of the linear combination of the three dimensions (Nunnally, 1978). A
high reliability of the resulting linear combination (.97) provides
sufcient evidence to proceed with an aggregated (summated) score
in further analysis.
Consistent with prior research (Bartsch & Diamantopoulos, 2015),
especially among consumer orientations, inter-construct correlations
are quite high (N.65), indicating that the relevant constructs share
substantial amounts of variance (N40%). To avoid multicollinearity
problems, we test our hypothesized causal structure by specifying six
separate regression models using different combinations of the orientation and attitudinal variables (Table 3). This enhances the robustness of
our ndings and also helps to empirically distinguish among conceptually similar operationalizations of consumer dispositions toward
globality and their relation to consumer attitudes. All tested models
control for the effects of sociodemographic characteristics (age, education, gender, income, and occupation) as these impact dispositional
characteristics and could therefore potentially confound our results
(Bartsch et al., 2016). Hayes's (2013) SPSS process macro with 10,000
bootstrapping samples was used to test for mediation.
Table 3 shows a consistent signicant impact ( = .413 to = .530,
p b .001) of consumer orientations toward globality on the development

Table 3
Regression analysis: individual effects on consumer attitudes toward globality.
DV globalization
attitude (GA)

IV
GCOM
GI
GC
Gender
Age
Occupation
Education
Income
R2

.49

.03
.04
.10

.46

.03
.07
.12

.057
.14

.02
.10
.23

.27

of consumer attitudes toward globality in all six tested combinations.

This supports H1 and shows that orientations toward globality, as a
form of group identication, lead to the adoption of group-conrming
consumer attitudes toward globality.
In support of H2, the analysis shows consistent positive impact ( =
.224 to = .410, p b .001) of consumers' attitudes toward globality on
global brand identication in six possible combinations (Table 4, left
panel). However, only susceptibility to a global consumer culture
(SGCC) seems to fully mediate the relationship of consumer orientation
on global brand identication, while globalization attitude (GA) only
partially mediates this relationship (as evident by the additional significant positive effects resulting from the orientational constructs).
Supporting H3H3, the analysis shows a consistent impact ( = .515 to
= .530, p b .001) of global brand identication on global brand ownership (Table 4, right panel).
The previous discussed effects of both consumer orientations and
consumer attitudes are transferred through global brand identication
on global brand ownership. The bootstrapped intervals in Table 5 reveal
that all six indirect effects do not contain zero and are therefore statistically signicant providing evidence for the proposed causal structure
beyond the individual results of H1H3. More specically, the results
demonstrate that including the attitudinal as well as brand identication constructs into the serial mediation renders any potential direct
effects of orientations on brand ownership as insignicant. However,
as previously noted, for globalization attitude, the proposed serial mediation does not capture the full relationship between consumer orientations and global brand ownership. These results may be due to the
specic stimulus object associated with globalization attitude. Whereas
susceptibility to global consumer culture is a brand-related construct
(see Appendix A) and, as such, it fully and consistently mediates the
effects from consumer orientations to global brand ownership globalization attitude is more remote (and not brand-related) since the construct only reects an attitudinal disposition toward the economic
consequences of globalization in general.

DV susceptibility to global
consumer culture (SGCC)

.50
.00
.01
.08
.05
.11
.27

.50

.03
.18

.41

.03
.20

.53
.06
.13

.07
.03
.03
.29

.08
.01
.00
.20

.04
.03
.01
.31

Identication with the global community (GCOM); global identity (GI); global connectedness (GC); globalization attitude (GA); susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC).
p b .001.
p b .05.
p b .10.

4. Discussion and implications

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the mediating effects of
(a) consumer attitudes toward globality and (b) identication with
global brands on the relationship between consumer orientations toward globality and global brand ownership. The study nds support
for the hypothesized causal relationship using different combinations
of orientations and attitudes toward globality. The stability of our
ndings suggests that our model indeed captures the way in which
consumer orientations toward globality are ultimately translated into
ownership of global brands. Implications of the ndings for theory and
managerial practice appear below.

Please cite this article as: Bartsch, F., et al., Global brand ownership: The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and brand identication, Journal of
Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.023

F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Table 4
Regression analysis: individual effects on global brand identication and global brand ownership.
DV global brand
identication (GBID)

IV
GCOM
GI
GC
GA
SGCC
GBID
Gender
Age
Occupation
Education
Income
R2

.15

.22

0.04
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.08
.12

0.07

.38

0.06
0.08
0.03
0.05
.10
.19

.06

.27

.04
.01
.04
.60
.07
.11

.02

DV global brand ownership (GBOS)

.41

.06
.08
.04
.05
.10
.18

.14
.23

.04

.39

.03
.03
.04
.05
.07
.12

.05
.08
.04
.05
.10
.18

.01

.09

.52
.10
.03
.05
.07
.00
.32

.03

.01
.53
.10
.03
.06
.07
.01
.31

.01

.08

.52
.10
.03
.05
.07
.01
.32

.05

.01
.53
.10
.03
.06
.07
.00
.31

.01
.08

.52
.10

.03
.05
.07
.00
.32

.05

.00
.53
.10
.03
.06
.07
.00
.31

Identication with the global community (GCOM); global identity (GI); global connectedness (GC); globalization attitude (GA); susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC); global
brand identication (GBID); global brand ownership (GBOS).
p b .001.
p b .05.
p b .10.

4.1. Theoretical implications

From a theoretical standpoint, our ndings support our theoretical
rationale based on social identity theory (Hogg & Smith, 2007) and
demonstrate that consumers possess global brands partly because of
the identity-reinforcing function of the latter. In turn, such identication
comes about as a result of positive consumer attitudes toward globality,
which are on the other hand driven by consumers' broader orientations
toward a global world. Thus for globally oriented consumers, the
Table 5
Mediation analysis: indirect effects with 95% condence intervals.[1],[2]
Model

1
2
3
4
5
6

GCOM SGCC GBID GBOS

Total Effect of X on Y
Direct Effect of X on Y
GCOM GA GBID GBOS
Total Effect of X on Y
Direct Effect of X on Y
GI SGCC GBID GBOS
Total Effect of X on Y
Direct Effect of X on Y
GI GA GBID GBOS
Total Effect of X on Y
Direct Effect of X on Y
GC SGCC GBID GBOS
Total Effect of X on Y
Direct Effect of X on Y
GC GA GBID GBOS
Total Effect of X on Y
Direct Effect of X on Y
Additional indirect effects[3]
GCOM SGCC GBOS
GCOM GBID GBOS
GCOM GA GBOS
GCOM GBID GBOS
GI SGCC GBOS
GI GBID GBOS
GI GA GBOS
GI GBID GBOS
GC SGCC GBOS
GC GBID GBOS
GC GA GBOS
GC GBID GBOS

Effect

SE

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

.07
.10
.02
.04
.12
.01
.07
.08
.04
.05
.11
.01
.45
.05
.02
.02
.07
.00

.02
.03
.04
.01
.03
.04
.02
.03
.04
.02
.03
.05
.01
.02
.40
.01
.02
.02

.04
.050
.06
.02
.07
.08
.04
.03
.05
.03
.05
.08
.03
.02
.03
.01
.04
.04

.10
.15
.09
.06
.18
.07
.11
.14
.12
.09
.18
.10
.07
.09
.07
.04
.11
.05

.00
.03
.03
.05
.00
.01
.03
.03
.00
.01
.02
.03

.02
.02
.03
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.01
.01
.01
.02

.03
.01
.07
.01
.03
.04
.00
.02
.03
.02
.01
.00

.04
.07
.07
.10
.04
.06
.07
.08
.03
.04
.04
.06

[1] Signicant relationship in bold refer to a 95% bootstrapped condence interval. [2] Indirect effects are based on 10,000 bootstrapping samples and control for gender, age, occupation education, and income. [3] Additional indirect effects refer to additional
mediation model without brand identication or the consumer attitude.
Identication with the global community (GCOM); global identity (GI); global connectedness (GC); globalization attitude (GA); susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC);
global brand identication (GBID); global brand ownership (GBOS).

decision to buy global brands is mediated by the relationship between

consumer attitudes and brand identication.
Second, our study provides insights into the causal order of positive
dispositions toward globality. Conceptually, this study differentiates between consumer orientations and consumer attitudes toward globality
and introduces a causal order ranging from rather general/broad orientations toward globality to quite concrete/specic consumer attitudes
toward different aspects of globalization (e.g., economic globalization,
belief in global brands). As such, this paper responds to recent calls for
further research on the interrelationship between different constructs
seeking to capture positive consumer dispositions toward globality
(Bartsch et al., 2016). In this context, general orientational constructs
may best represent a general feeling of belonging to a global society,
whereas attitudinal dispositions best represent the development of
group-conrming consumer attitudes, which emerge from consumer
orientations. Thus, consumer orientations and consumer attitudes
offer different perspectives for categorizing consumer groups susceptible to globalization and should, therefore, not be used interchangeably
in substantive research applications and managerial practice.
Third, our study provides evidence that globally inclined consumers
indeed identify with global brands as potential symbols of a global
consumer culture (Strizhakova et al., 2011). Importantly, in contrast to
previous studies that measure identication with global brands at a
generic level (e.g., Strizhakova et al., 2012), our study provides more
concrete evidence at a brand-specic level. Based on actual brands,
our ndings enhance and support literature claims that globally inclined
consumers use brands as identifying symbols when making purchase
decisions (Reed et al., 2012; Strizhakova et al., 2008).
Finally, this study extends current knowledge on the predictive
validity of consumer dispositions toward globality by showing that
such dispositions indeed predict global brand ownership. However,
this happens only indirectly through brand identication (StokburgerSauer et al., 2012). Specically, even though globally inclined consumers tend to strengthen in-group identication through expressing
positive sentiments toward global brands (e.g., Guo, 2013, Rieer,
2012, Zhang & Khare, 2009), actual ownership of global brands requires
direct identication with the (specic) brand. This inevitably questions
the salience of globalness as an additional brand attribute (i.e., beyond
attributes such as quality, value, or origin) in impacting purchase
decisions (Dimofte, Johansson & Ronkainen, 2008). If indeed globally inclined consumers make identity-conrming purchase decisions based
solely on the globalness of a brand, identication as additional mediator
on this relationship would not be necessary. Further researchers should
invest in better understanding the incremental contribution of brand
globalness as a salient attribute impacting consumers' evaluative
criteria when making brand choices (zsomer & Altaras, 2008).

Please cite this article as: Bartsch, F., et al., Global brand ownership: The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and brand identication, Journal of
Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.023

F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

4.2. Managerial implications

With regards to managerial implications, our study assists global
brand managers in two ways. First, our ndings suggest that positive
dispositions toward globality are indeed managerially relevant
constructs because they are able to explain global brand ownership.
However, their inuence on the latter operates only indirectly, that is,
through consumers' identication with the brand. Accordingly,
managers need to investigate the identity relevance of their brands
and highlight such relevance in their brand communications. Brands
may be positioned as symbols of a global consumer culture by using
English in brand communication efforts (Alden et al., 1999), drawing
upon global symbols that emphasize belongingness to a transnational
culture (e.g., The United Colors of Benetton) (Hannerz, 1990), or
employing brand logos which are not tied to a specic culture
(e.g., the logo of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Cooperation,
HSBC). Prior literature not only provides evidence on the favorability
of global consumer culture positioning (for practical guidance on the
application of GCCP as a positioning strategy, see Akaka & Alden,
2010,; Alden et al., 1999) as a marketing communication tool but also
shows that globally inclined consumers positively evaluate brands/
advertisements, which draw upon symbols of an idealized global culture (e.g., Gammoh, Koh, & Okoroafo, 2011, Okazaki, Mueller, & Taylor,
2010, Westjohn, Singh, & Magnusson, 2012). Brand strategists should
carefully leverage global communicational cues that act as catalysts
not only by strengthening their brands' global prole but also by
facilitating the consumerbrand identication process.
Second, from a segmentation perspective, our study highlights
several promising constructs that managers may use in market research
applications. Beyond the theoretical distinction of consumer orientations
and consumer attitudes, our study highlights the relevance of ve consumer dispositions (i.e., identication with the global community, global
identity, global connectedness, globalization attitude, and susceptibility
to global consumer culture) suitable for market segmentation purposes.
Using information about consumers' positive dispositions toward
globality, marketers can segment markets in a more efcient manner.
Consumer orientations essentially provide measures of consumer identities that help differentiate consumer behavior in brand-related decisions
(Bartsch et al., 2016). Constructs such as global identity or global connectedness are applied in segmentation studies and provide evidence, suggesting that these consumer groups are sensitive to manipulations of
positioning strategies (Strizhakova & Coulter, 2013; Zhang & Khare,
2009). Consequently, marketers need to carefully investigate market
communication efforts regarding their effects on likely consumer groups.
For consumer attitudes, marketers may use the reviewed constructs to
study consumers' direct responses to several aspects of an evolving global
consumer culture. Globalization attitude segments consumers' into proand anti-global groups, which may react rather differently to (non-)global
market offerings. As such, for pro-globals (Rieer, 2012), brand managers
should highlight brand cues, which link to the economic consequences of
globalization (e.g., emphasis on high quality or homogenous standards
across multiple markets), while for anti-globals, a glocalized strategy
(i.e., global products adapted to local market conditions) with an emphasis on the benets to the local society may more likely lead to success
(Cleveland, Papadopoulos, & Laroche, 2011). Finally, susceptibility to
global consumer culture explicitly focuses on consumers' positive sentiments toward global brands and, thus, captures consumer groups,
which by denition are more susceptible to global brands. Consequently,
brand strategists may leverage these global brand cues in their communication efforts (e.g., De Meulenaer, Dens, & Del Pelsmacker, 2015).
5. Limitations and further research directions
The results of our study translate into several promising directions
for future research. First, and most obvious, an examination of the stability of the proposed model in Fig. 1 using different outcome

variables (e.g., willingness to pay or actual choice between global and

local brands) would further establish its generalizability.
Second, expanding the proposed model by including brand-specic
characteristics in addition to consumer-specic characteristics (i.e., the
dispositions in Table 1) should increase overall explanatory power
regarding global brand ownership. Such brand-specic variables could
include the perceived globalness of a brand (Steenkamp et al., 2003),
the brands local icon value (zsomer, 2012), or its origin (KoschateFischer, Diamantopoulos, & Oldenkotte, 2012).
Third, future research should identify important boundary conditions
on the proposed serial mediation structure in Fig. 1. Moderating variables
worthy of consideration include the relative price of the global brand (in
comparison to local alternatives) (Dimofte, Johansson, & Bagozzi, 2010),
the economic development of the brand origin (Strizhakova et al.,
2008), and the product ethnicity of the brand (Usunier & Cestre, 2007).
Finally, the current study focuses on a highly developed market
(Merino & Vargas, 2013) in which global branding activities take place
in well-integrated marketing campaigns for several decades (Holt,
2002). As such, consumers from developed markets may not be as susceptible to the global brand lure (Dimofte et al., 2008; Johansson &
Ronkainen, 2005), while consumers from emerging markets may hold
stronger connection to global brands as identifying symbols of a global
consumer culture (Strizhakova et al., 2008). Consequently, replicating
the proposed model in the context of an emerging market is certainly
a desirable direction for future research endeavors.
Appendix A. Measurement instruments used in study

Identication with the global community (Westjohn et al., 2009)

1. I feel like Im living in a global village.
2. I feel what I do could touch someone all around the world.
3. I feel like I am next door neighbors with people living in other parts of the world.
4. I feel that I am related to everyone in the world as if they were my family.
5. I feel that people around the world are more similar than dissimilar.
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = I strongly disagree, 7 = I strongly agree
Global identity (Tu, Khare, & Zhang, 2012)
1. My heart mostly belongs to the whole world.
2. I believe people should be made more aware of how connected we are to the
rest of the world.
3. I identify that I am a global citizen.
4. I care about knowing global events.
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = I strongly disagree, 7 = I strongly agree
Global connectedness (Strizhakova & Coulter, 2013)
1. I have a strong attachment to the global world.
2. I feel connected to the global world.
3. I think of myself as a global citizen.
4. It is important to me to feel a part of the global world.
5. Thinking about my identity, I view myself as a global citizen.
6. Feeling like a citizen of the world is important to me.
7. I would describe myself as a global citizen.
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = I strongly disagree, 7 = I strongly agree
Globalization attitude (Rieer, 2012)
In my opinion, increased economic globalization
1. Encourages a maximum of personal freedom and choice
2. Leads to quality and technical advances
3. Provides consumer the goods and services they want
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = I strongly disagree, 7 = I strongly agree
Susceptibility to global consumer culture (Zhou et al., 2008)
Global brands.
1. It makes one feel good in his/her social group.
2. It makes one have the sense of global belonging.
Conformity to consumption trend
3. It makes one have a good impression of others.
4. It makes one feel close to contemporary lifestyle.
1. It has very high quality image.
2. It has a very high level of reliability.
Quality perception
3. It is associated with the latest technology.
4. It is associated with long-lasting quality.

Please cite this article as: Bartsch, F., et al., Global brand ownership: The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and brand identication, Journal of
Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.023

F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Appendix
(continued)
A (continued)
Susceptibility to global consumer culture (Zhou et al., 2008)
1. It signies one's trend image.
2. It represents the latest lifestyles.
Social prestige
3. It symbolizes one's social image.
4. It is associated with the symbol of prestige.
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = I strongly disagree, 7 = I strongly agree

Appendix B. List of brands used in study

Global domestic brands

Global foreign brands

Brand
Prsident
Bonduelle
Danone
Chevignon
Garnier
BIC
Orangina
Perrier
1664
CIF

Brand
Kellogg's
Nescaf
Barilla
H&M
Nivea
Duracell
Sprite
Red Bull
Heineken
Ariel

Product category
Cheese
Canned food
Yoghurt
Clothes
Cosmetics
Ofce supplies
Soft drink
Mineral water
Beer
Cleaning products

Product category
Cereals
Instant coffee
Pasta
Clothes
Cosmetics
Batteries
Soft drinks
Energy drinks
Beer
Cleaning products

References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),
347356.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179211.
Akaka, M. A., & Alden, D. L. (2010). Global brand positioning and perceptions: International advertising and global consumer culture. International Journal of Advertising, 29(1),
3756.
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through
advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture.
Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 7587.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10),
774783.
Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2004). Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects, and consumer ethnocentrism: A multidimensional unfolding approach.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 8095.
Bartsch, F., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2015). Predicting global brand ownership: An empirical investigation of positive consumer dispositions towards globality. 44th EMAC 2015
Conference. Leuven, Belgium.
Bartsch, Fabian, Rieer, Petra, & Diamantopoulos, Adamantios (2016). A taxonomy and
review of positive consumer dispositions toward foreign countries and globalization.
Journal of International Marketing, 24(1), 82110.
Cayla, J., & Arnould, E. J. (2008). A cultural approach to branding in the global marketplace. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 86112.
Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., & Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: Limits to selfexpression and the perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 6682.
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Hallab, R. (2013). Globalization, culture, religion, and values:
Comparing consumption patterns of Lebanese Muslims and Christians. Journal of
Business Research, 66(8), 958967.
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., Takahashi, I., & Erdoan, S. (2014). Cross-linguistic validation of
a unidimensional scale for cosmopolitanism. Journal of Business Research, 67(3),
268277.
Cleveland, M., Papadopoulos, N., & Laroche, M. (2011). Identity, demographics, and
consumer behaviors: International market segmentation across product categories.
International Marketing Review, 28(3), 244266.
Cleveland, M., Rojas-Mndez, J. I., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2016). Identity,
culture, dispositions and behavior: A cross-national examination of globalization
and culture change. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 10901102.
De Meulenaer, S., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2015). Which cues cause consumers to
perceive brands as more global? A conjoint analysis. International Marketing Review,
32(6), 606626.
Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J. K., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2010). Global brands in the United States:
How consumer ethnicity mediates the global brand effect. Journal of International
Marketing, 18(3), 81106.
Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of
globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 10911110.
El-Amir, A., & Burt, S. (2010). A critical account of the process of branding: Towards a
synthesis. The Marketing Review, 10(1), 6986.
Elliott, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction
of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131144.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378389.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Gammoh, B. S., Koh, A. C., & Okoroafo, S. C. (2011). Consumer culture brand positioning strategies: An experimental investigation. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(1),
4857.
Guo, X. (2013). Living in a global world: Inuence of consumer global orientation on
attitudes toward global brands from developed versus emerging countries. Journal
of International Marketing, 21(1), 122.
Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, Culture and Society,
7(2), 237251.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective.
European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 89131.
Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture
and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 7090.
Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., & Taylor, E. L. (2004). How global brands compete. Harvard
Business Review, 82(9), 6875.
Johansson, J. K., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2005). The esteem of global brands. Journal of Brand
Management, 12(5), 339354.
Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J. K., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2008). Cognitive and affective
reactions of U.S. consumers to global brands. Journal of International Marketing,
16(4), 113135.
Keillor, B. D., D'Amico, M., & Horton, V. (2001). Global consumer tendencies. Psychology
and Marketing, 18(1), 119.
Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand
equity (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A., & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). Are consumers really
willing to pay more for a favorable country image? A study of country-of-origin
effects on willingness to pay. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 1941.
Merino, M., & Vargas, D. (2013). How consumers perceive globalization: A multilevel
approach. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 431438.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Okazaki, S., Mueller, B., & Taylor, C. R. (2010). Global consumer culture positioning:
Testing perceptions of soft-sell and hard-sell advertising appeals between U.S.
and Japanese consumers. Journal of International Marketing, 18(2), 2034.
zsomer, A. (2012). The interplay between global and local brands: A closer look at
perceived brand globalness and local iconness. Journal of International Marketing,
20(2), 7295.
zsomer, A., & Altaras, S. (2008). Global brand purchase likelihood: A critical synthesis and
an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 128.
Reed, A., Forehand, M. R., Puntoni, S., & Warlop, L. (2012). Identity-based consumer
behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 310321.
Rieer, P. (2012). Why consumers do (not) like global brands: The role of globalization attitude, GCO and global brand origin. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
29(1), 2534.
Spears, M. C., Parker, D. F., & McDonald, M. (2004). Globalization attitudes and locus of
control. Journal of Global Business, 15(29), 5766.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., Batra, R., & Alden, D. L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness
creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 5365.
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer
brand identication. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4),
406418.
Strizhakova, Y., & Coulter, R. A. (2013). The green side of materialism in emerging BRIC
and developed markets: The moderating role of global cultural identity. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(1), 6982.
Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2008). Branded products as a passport to
global citizenship: Perspectives from developed and developing countries. Journal of
International Marketing, 16(4), 5785.
Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. (2011). Branding in a global marketplace: The
mediating effects of quality and self-identity brand signals. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 28(4), 342351.
Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2012). The young adult cohort in emerging
markets: Assessing their glocal cultural identity in a global marketplace.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), 4354.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conict. The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.
Tu, L., Khare, A., & Zhang, Y. (2012). A short 8-item scale for measuring consumers'
localglobal identity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), 3542.
Usunier, J. -C., & Cestre, G. (2007). Product ethnicity: Revisiting the match between
products and countries. Journal of International Marketing, 15(3), 3272.
Westjohn, S. A., Arnold, M. J., Magnusson, P., Zdravkovic, S., & Zhou, J. X. (2009). Technology readiness and usage: A global-identity perspective. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 37(3), 250265.
Westjohn, S. A., Singh, N., & Magnusson, P. (2012). Responsiveness to global and local
consumer culture positioning: A personality and collective identity perspective.
Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 5873.
Whan Park, C., MacInnis, D., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A., & Iacobucci, D. (2010).
Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation
of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 117.
Winit, W., Gregory, G., Cleveland, M., & Verlegh, P. (2014). Global vs local brands: How
home country bias and price differences impact brand evaluations. International
Marketing Review, 31(2), 102128.
Zhang, Y., & Khare, A. (2009). The impact of accessible identities on the
evaluation of global versus local products. Journal of Consumer Research,
36(3), 524537.
Zhou, L., Teng, L., & Poon, P. S. (2008). Susceptibility to global consumer culture: A threedimensional scale. Psychology and Marketing, 25(4), 336351.

Please cite this article as: Bartsch, F., et al., Global brand ownership: The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and brand identication, Journal of
Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.023