‘Patriotic’ Altruism and Preference for Domestic Products

Abstract

Purpose: This paper reports research that identifies eight dimensions of consumer altruism that

are tested to identify their relationship to preference for domestic versus foreign automobiles.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The research is based on a survey of 212 respondents and

consists of a purchasing scenario to capture a domestic vs. foreign product preference as well as

scales to measure the various dimensions of altruism.

Findings: The results indicate that there are distinct dimensions of altruistic behavior, some of

which represent ‘patriotic’ purchasing behavior. The results provide support that these patriotic

dimensions are related to a consumer preference for domestic products, while other non-patriotic

dimensions are not.

Originality/value: The findings of the research are important to the understanding of

altruistically based consumer purchasing behavior as well as to practitioners who desire to

implement strategies that rely on altruistic or patriotic appeals.

Classification: Research Paper

Keywords: Altruism, Buy-national, Product Preference, Marketing Strategy

1

INTRODUCTION

Understanding consumer choice behavior in a marketplace of global offerings poses a marketing

challenge that is complicated by the sheer number and variety of products available from the

consumer’s home country and abroad. To gain a competitive edge the importance of

understanding the fundamental motives that influence consumer choice cannot be overstated

(Kumar, Lee, and Kim, 2009). Altruism is a component in the consumer decision-making

process that is particularly relevant to the decision between the domestic and foreign product

alternatives. Research on altruistic behavior in the context of product preference represents a

unique application of this construct that will enable companies and brands take advantage of the

growing sense of altruism among consumers should they be perceived positively on the construct

(Hamin, 2006; Olsen, Granzin, and Biswas, 1993). In particular, consumer preferences for

domestic versus foreign automobile products represent an economic issue critical to

strengthening the global competitiveness of U. S. manufacturers and trade policy (Loeffler,

2002; Haubl, 1996; Pappu et al., 2006; Newman, 2005, Automotive Trade Policy Council, 2008).

Increasingly automobile manufacturers’ strategy for growth includes expansion, marketing and

sales in markets outside of those at home as a means of leveraging new technology, products and

markets (Moon and Kim, 2008; Taylor, 2008; Shameen, 2009; Talay and Cavusgil, 2009),

heightening the importance of understanding consumer choice behavior for the firms involved.

From the perspective of national trade policy, automobiles (and parts) comprise a substantial

portion of trade deficits for countries such as the United States (Kirgiz, 2002, Coy, 2004; Hitt,

2007; Smith, 1997; reinforcing the significance of investigating this issue.

2

Given the significance of gaining a further understanding of the motivations underlying buyer

preferences for domestic versus foreign products, research identifying the role of altruistic

motivations that influence consumer purchase behavior represents an important avenue of

investigation. Although researchers have conducted extensive studies addressing country of

origin effect on consumer decision-making (Ahmed and d’Astous, 2006), the underlying

dimensions of this phenomenon, such as the role altruism plays in the decision-making process,

are not fully understood (Fenwick and Wright, 1999). Previous research has identified the

relationship between the traditional dimensions of consumer altruism and preference for

domestic products (Powers and Hopkins, 2006). Research has also been reported that has

identified refined dimensions of altruism and the consumer demographics related to those

dimensions (Hopkins and Powers, 2009). The purpose of this research is to examine the refined

dimensions of consumer altruism and how they relate to the consumer’s preference for a

domestic automobile product. Eight dimensions of altruism are identified and are tested to

determine to what extent they influence the preference for a domestic product. By understanding

how these dimensions of altruism influence domestic product preference, manufacturers, retailers

and public policy makers can more effectively develop strategies and promotions that contain

appropriate altruistic themes that target sympathetic market segments. In the following sections

of the paper the literature is reviewed, the research method is described, and the results are

presented and discussed.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The proposition is that specific types of altruism are related to domestic product preference. The

purpose of this research is to examine the refined dimensions of consumer altruism and how they

3

relate to the consumer’s preference for a domestic automobile product. Eight dimensions of

altruism are identified and are tested to determine to what extent they influence the preference

for a domestic product. In the following sections of the paper the literature is reviewed, the

research method is described, and the results are presented and discussed.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

This study, therefore, explored whether the survey population consisting of a multistage cluster

sampling of households from a suburban metropolitan area of approximately one million

households within the United States, specifically a primarily suburban metropolitan area of

approximately one million households located in Maricopa County, Arizona, are receptive to

altruistic marketing themes. By understanding how the dimensions of altruism influence

domestic product preference, The Boeing Company can more effectively develop strategies and

promotions that contain appropriate altruistic themes that target sympathetic military and civil

market segments.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The specific objective of this research is to use new and refined dimensions of consumer altruism

that have been reported in previous research and to determine if any of these dimensions relate to

the preference for a domestic product.

BACKGROUND

Altruism has an important influence on consumer purchase decisions (Simon, 1993) and is

particularly important in the context of the effect of country-of-origin on consumer beliefs about

4

products and their attitudes towards buying them (Brodowsky, 1998; Jin, Chansarkar, B. and

Kondap, 2006; Markin, 1974; O’Cass and Lim, 2002). The modern concept of altruism is

traceable to Gouldner's (1960) proposition regarding the universal norm of reciprocity; Leed's

(1963) suggestion prescribing the norm of giving; Piaget's (1932) and Kohlberg's (1958, 1969)

approach towards the development of moral judgment; and Aronfreed's (1968) conceptualization

of conscience development, which involves actions taken by an individual that voluntarily

benefit another person without the expectation of reward from external sources (Macaulay and

Berkowitz, 1970). Based on these theoretical bases, altruistic behavior can be understood in

terms of an interaction between cultural, cognitive, and behavioral determinants (Bar-Tal, 1976).

These three areas are reflected in the three traditionally understood elements of altruism:

ethnocentrism - a universal tendency for people to favor their own group over others (Rushton,

Russell and Wells, 1984; Shimp and Sharma, 1987); cognitive moral development — the way in

which individuals acquire over time an increasingly accurate understanding of their moral

obligations (Rest, 1979); and altruistic behavior — a behavior which is carried out to benefit

another without anticipation of external rewards and performed for its own end and restitution (Bar-

Tal, 1976; Kohlberg, 1969; Rushton, 1989).

Consumer ethnocentrism is based on the universal tendency for people to favor their own group

over others (Levine and Campbell, 1972; Worchel and Cooper, 1979) and represents the beliefs

held by consumers about the propriety of purchasing foreign products (Hamin, 2006; Shimp and

Sharma, 1987). Patriotic and ethnocentric motivations can influence consumer behavior

(Hoffman and Müller, 2009). Ethnocentric consumers may regard the purchase of imported

products as being wrong as such; purchases negatively affect the domestic economy, increase

5

unemployment, or are unpatriotic. Non-ethnocentric consumers may evaluate foreign products

on their own merits without regard for the origin of their manufacture. The consumer

ethnocentrism concept can improve understanding of how consumers and corporate buyers

compare domestic with foreign-made products and how and why their judgments may be subject

to various forms of bias and error. Cognitive moral development is defined as the way in which

individuals acquire, through time, an increasingly accurate understanding of the nature of their

moral obligations (Rest, 1979). Research has documented the process of moral development to

warrant generalizing the progressive nature of moral development hypothesized by Kohlberg

(1969) across many populations and cultures. Cognitive moral development may be considered

a preliminary condition for the individual to exhibit altruistic behavior and consumer

ethnocentrism. Altruistic behavior is defined as voluntary behavior that is carried out to benefit

another without anticipation of external rewards and is performed under two circumstances: for

its own end and as an act of restitution (Bar-Tal, 1976). To be truly altruistic, behavior must

empathize with the needs of another (Aronfreed, 1970; Cohen, 1972), be self-sacrificing

(Campbell, 1975, 1978; Hatfield, Walster and Piliavin, 1978; Krebs, 1970; Midlarsky, 1968,

Wispé, 1978), as well as be treated as an end itself, voluntary, and judged by others as doing

good (Leeds, 1963). Some approaches to defining altruism include seeking self-rewards that are

self-administered (e.g., feelings of satisfaction, pride or pleasure because of a particular act.)

(Cialdini, Kendrick and Baumann, 1982; Cialdini, Darby and Vincent, et al., 1973, Bar-Tal,

1976).

Ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development, and altruistic behavior provide an initial basis in

order to understand altruistic motivations, however, the use of altruistic appeals in a business

6

environment can benefit from an increased understanding of the area. Governments and

domestic manufacturers pursue the use of buy-national campaigns that seek to generate and

exploit a latent consumer preference for products of domestic manufacture (Drickhammer, 2003;

Elliott and Cameron, 1994). In the U.S., these campaigns have occurred in several periods:

during the American Revolution, as part of a major wave of economic nationalism in the 1930s,

and in the 1970s and early 1980s as the U.S. faced increased foreign competition (Frank, 1999).

More recently American automakers, hurt by consumer preference for foreign automotive

brands, are more forcefully promoting their American heritage as a competitive advantage

(Bunkley, 2007).

Despite the wide use of buy-national campaigns, the literature reports mixed results related to

their performance (Fenwick and Wright, 1999; Granzin and Olsen, 1995; Wall and Heslop,

1986). Consumers may indicate a preference for foreign products over domestic alternatives;

however, this is not necessarily reflected in actual purchase behavior (Kinra, 2006; Kwok,

Uncles and Yimin, 2006). Consumer ethnocentric tendencies can also vary based on occupation,

gender, age, education, marital status, number of children, and income (Chao and Rajendran,

1993; Parmar, 2002; Staples, 2000). An important value that can be related to the success of

buy-national campaigns is consumer attitudes toward the welfare, maintenance and improved

well-being of their fellow citizen-consumers reflected in altruistic purchasing behavior (Batson,

1991). Previous research has identified that the purchase of domestic products and other acts are

related to an internalized responsibility for helping, and a feeling of similarity and sharing a

common fate with the workers involved in the production of that product (Granzin and Olsen,

7

1998). The present research extends the work in the area by identifying the specific dimensions

of altruism that may relate to preference for a domestic product.

RESEARCH METHOD

The survey population consisted of a multistage cluster sampling of households from a suburban

metropolitan area of approximately one million households within the United States, specifically

a primarily suburban metropolitan area of approximately one million households located in

Maricopa County, Arizona and utilized a drop and collect technique to collect survey data

(Brown, 1987). Six street intersections were randomly chosen from standard municipal maps

available from six local political jurisdictions and a 40-address sampling frame was devised,

based upon the 40 addresses nearest the intersection. Thus, 1,440 (6 x 6 x 40) addresses made up

the sampling frame. From this frame, 18 addresses were randomly selected from each of the

previously designated 36 intersections resulting in 648 addresses being selected.

The survey consisted of a purchasing scenario to capture the domestic vs. foreign product

preference as well as scales to measure the traditional aspects of altruism. After being presented

with the hypothetical problem that one of the cars they drive is no longer suitable for their needs and

wants and that they are about to purchase a new car, respondents were asked to choose in the

general context of the term between an American or Japanese automobile in a self-administered

questionnaire. Japanese automotive products were selected as the foreign purchase option, as

they are a commonly accepted foreign automotive product in the United States. The definition of

“foreign” for the purpose of this research was based on the location of the parent company.

Automobile products were chosen as they represent a very important economic sector and

8

historically account for a large portion of trade deficits between the United States and Japan

(Baily, 1993). The self-selected outcomes (Kerlinger, 1986), the choice between an American or

Japanese automotive product, were then coded as either 0 or 1. Researchers have used this

dichotomy in prior, related studies to segment populations and subject the segments to analysis

(Bucklin and Gupta, 1992; Simonson, 1992).

The traditional measures of altruism were measured based on established scales. Consumer

ethnocentrism was measured using the CETSCALE (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). The scale

contains 17 items relevant to the beliefs held by American consumers about the appropriateness

or morality of purchasing foreign products. The Defining Issues Test (DIT) was used to measure

cognitive moral development (Rest, 1976, 1986). Subjects were presented six social problems

and were asked to select a course of action and rate twelve issue statements on a five-point scale

of importance determined to be the most important in each ethical judgment. The Self-Report

Altruism Scale (SRAS), a 20-item test developed by Rushton, Chrisjohn, and Fekken (1981) was

used to assess helping behavior. This scale lists 20 everyday helping behaviors (e.g., making

donations to charity, giving directions to a stranger) and asks its respondents to rate the

frequency with which one has engaged in these helping behaviors by specifying either never,

once, more than once, often, or very often. Two hundred fifty two questionnaires were returned

and 212 responses were usable for an effective response rate of 32.7%. The response rate was

considered acceptable and is consistent with previous studies using the drop and return survey

procedure (Brown, 1987).

9

Of the 212 respondents, 98 (46.2%) were male and 114 (53.8%) were female. The average ages

of these individuals were 52 (range = 18 - 65+). 74% percent of the sample was married. The

level of education ranged from having a high school education or less to having a postgraduate

degree with the average respondent having attended college (M = 2.9; Standard Deviation = 1.3).

The average respondent’s total household income was $50,000 per year. A comparison of the

demographic profiles (age, education, and household income) of the respondents revealed no

difference between the sample and the general population from which it was drawn. Reliability

of the initial scales used in this study was tested using coefficient alpha and the split-half

method. The internal consistency reliability of the 17-item CETSCALE was .9534. The internal

consistency reliability of the DIT’s six social problems was .7886. The coefficient alpha of the

20-item SRAS was 0.8518. The coefficients of the scales had alphas greater than the 0.70

generally accepted threshold for published empirical research (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).

DIMENSIONS OF ALTRUISM

Based on the findings of Powers and Hopkins (2009), new and refined dimensions of altruism

were used in this research. A principal component analysis with a Varimax rotation was

performed on all the items from the original scales to identify the possible dimensions of

altruism. The 38 items from the three scales loaded on eight factors that explain 62.991% of the

variance in responses and are seen in Appendix A. Based on the items contained in these factors,

names for each altruism dimension were developed based on the overall nature of that altruistic

behavior (purchasing behavior, personal behavior, giving behavior, other actions) and the level

of that behavior (low, moderate, high) if there was more than one factor with similar behavior.

The first factor identified consisted of 16 of the items and was referred to as Patriotic

10

Purchasing Altruism. The second factor comprising seven items constituting a dimension we

referred to as High Action Altruism. Moderate Action Altruism, the third factor, contained four

items. The fourth factor included three items constituting a dimension we called Giving

Altruism. The fifth factor was comprised of one item referred to as Multi-ethnic Purchasing

Altruism. The sixth factor incorporating three items constituted a dimension referred to as Low

Personal Altruism. The seventh factor, Cognitive Moral Development, encompassed two items.

The eighth and last factor included only one item constituted a dimension called High Personal

Altruism. The first step in the analysis of the data was to determine reliability of the

measurement instruments used in the study by using coefficient alpha.

To assess validity of the instruments we also calculated internal consistency reliability by inter-

item correlations. For checking reliability, the study measured internal consistency through

Cronbach's (1951) coefficient. Reliability was calculated with coefficient alphas greater or

marginally beneath the established standard coefficient alpha level of 0.70 as seen in Table 1

(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Satisfactory correlations ranging from .307 to .556 resulted

from the inter-item correlation analysis performed. These results suggest the existence of well-

defined behavioral dimensions of altruism that can enhance our understanding of the factors that

influence purchasing behavior. These are now discussed based on the loadings on each.

Patriotic Purchasing Altruism

Patriotic Purchasing Altruism focuses on behaviors that support buying domestic products or

prohibit and/or refrain from the purchase of foreign products or services, after considering their

country-of-origin. Products of domestic manufacture have consistently provided a context

11

affecting consumer product evaluations of domestic versus imported products (Shimp and

Sharma, 1987). In the context of a “buy-national” program, Patriotic Purchasing Altruism

represents the belief that the failure of domestic consumers to purchase products manufactured

with materials and labor from their own country puts domestic employment at risk especially for

those working in domestic industry sectors in economic crisis. Wal-Mart, the largest employer in

the United States, clearly established this link in its “buy-national” campaign when it connected

the concept of “buying-American” to U.S. domestic employment by quantifying the number of

jobs it either created or saved through sourcing its merchandise purchases from American firms

(Drickhammer, 2003). For each of the dimensions of altruism it is hypothesized that it is or is

not related to the purchase preference for a domestic product. In the case of Patriotic Purchasing

Altruism as it relates to domestic product preference, the nature of this construct is clearly related

to domestic product preference based on a patriotic motive. It is therefore hypothesized that:

H1: There is a significant relationship between patriotic purchasing altruism and domestic product preference.

Action Altruism

High Action Altruism and Moderate Action Altruism are forms of altruism that involve financial

actions that benefit others. Examples include letting a neighbor whom one doesn’t know too

well borrow an item of some personal value (e.g., a dish, tools, etc.) or giving a stranger a lift in

one’s car. Those who engage in high action and moderate action altruistic behaviors perform

them across the full spectrum of relationships - from strangers and acquaintances to best friends

and family(McGuire, 2003). Similarity or ethnocentrism (Sumner, 1906) between individuals

and groups may be the basis for the relationship between the parties as research has determined

this factor to be significant in marriage, attraction, friendship, altruism and group cohesion

12

(Byrne, 1971). It may be there is a biological basis for ethnocentrism as theorized by Rushton,

Russell and Well’s (1984) “genetic similarity theory” (Booth, 1979; Worchel and Cooper, 1979).

Rushton 1989 posited a link between his theory of genetic similarity and the theory of altruism

indicating that genetics and heredity motivate altruistic behavior to genetically equivalent

individuals and groups (See Cunningham, 1981 for a review and examples of its application to

the study of consumer behavior in Berkman and Gilson, 1978; Markin, 1974). American

consumers have historically evaluated imports against American-made products. Given the size

of the U.S. Trade deficit, American consumers consider imports as satisfactory equivalents or

alternatives to American-made items. However, some U.S. consumers adamantly reject

imported products and reprimand others for doing so, claiming that purchasing imports puts

American employment at risk, hurts the U.S. economy and even go so far as to say it is

unpatriotic. Other Americans ardently defend their right to consume any good or service

regardless of its country-of-origin (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). It follows that Action Altruism

does not influence domestic product preference as the construct is related to proactive aspects of

altruistic behavior, not purchase behavior. It is therefore hypothesized that:

H2: There is no significant relationship between high action altruism and domestic product preference.

H3: There is no significant relationship between moderate action altruism and domestic product preference.

Giving Altruism

Giving Altruism is a form of altruism that involves self-sacrifice and financial costs to the giver

for the actions that directly benefit others. Examples include volunteering or donating money,

goods or clothing to a charity. A review of the literature addressing this form of altruism reflects

13

situations in which subjects assess the personal price of money and costs they perceive are

required to reach the optimal scenario for themselves as givers and their beneficiaries (Piliavin,

Dovidio, Gaernter, and Clark, 1991; McGuire, 2003). The benefactor, after assessing the

personal cost of taking action, may regard helping another as an opportunity for personal self-

development (Perlow and Weeks, 2002), a means of positively enhancing his or her own mood

(Gueguen and DeGail, 2003), even a means of circumventing guilt or shame for inaction

(Dovidio, Piliavin, Gaertner, Schroeder, and Clark 1991). It follows that Giving Altruism does

not influence domestic product preference as the construct is related to self-enhancing altruistic

behavior, not purchase behavior. It is therefore hypothesized that:

H4: There is no significant relationship between giving altruism and domestic product preference.

Multi-ethnic Purchasing Altruism

Multi-ethnic Purchasing Altruism suggests behaviors that promote a moderated consideration of

country-of-origin in the purchase of domestic products or frowns on the purchase of foreign

products or services when a product or service’s country-of-origin is considered. In the face of

improved foreign product quality and variety, many consumers are disposed to consider foreign

alternatives to products of domestic origin minimizing the support others lend to domestic

industries, firms and products. Other citizen consumers boycott imported products and severely

criticize their fellow consumers for purchasing foreign products claiming buying foreign goods

puts domestic workers at risk, weakens the economy and is unpardonable in the face of a

perceived threat to their personal or national well-being. They may moderate this stance when

domestic products are compared and found to be of lesser quality or when they personally hold

higher conspicuous consumption values or regard foreign products as status symbols they desire

14

(Cheng and Chen, 2004). In the case of Multiethnic Purchasing Altruism as it relates to domestic

product preference, the nature of this construct relates to domestic product preference based on

altruistic behavior unrestricted by ethnocentric ties. It is therefore hypothesized that:

H5: There is a significant relationship between multi-ethnic purchasing altruism and domestic product preference.

Cognitive Moral Development

Although not a 'new' dimension of altruism, the construct of Cognitive Moral Development was

included as it provides a fuller view of altruistic behavior and could be tested in the next stage of

the research to identify its influence on domestic product preference. Cognitive Moral

Development represents the progressive way in which individuals acquire understanding of the

nature of their moral obligations in complex social systems (Rest, 1979), in that altruism is one

aspect of the many that comprise morality (Krebs, 1978; Rubin and Schneider, 1973; Rushton,

1975). Research has documented the process of moral development to warrant generalizing the

progressive nature of moral development hypothesized by Kohlberg (1969) across many

populations and cultures. As applied to the purchase of domestic products, cognitive moral

development highlights the development of consumer awareness of the moral implications of

choosing between right and wrong, between pleasure or profit, between self interest versus

common interest (Brinkmann, 2005), between products of domestic and foreign manufacture,

and the impact of product choice on society at large and its workforce. It follows that Cognitive

Moral Development does not influence domestic product preference because the purchase of a

product lies outside the moral dimensions of this construct. It is therefore hypothesized that:

H6: There is no significant relationship between cognitive moral development and domestic product preference.

15

Personal Altruism

High Personal Altruism and Low Personal Altruism can be considered a level of personal

involvement that exposes oneself to greater risk. The items that loaded on these two dimensions

however fell into two distinct categories. The items that loaded on low personal altruism (e.g.,

given directions to a stranger) represent a low level interface with a stranger, however the one

item that loaded on high personal altruism reflects an action (donating blood) that benefits

strangers but at a much higher level of involvement. This higher level of interaction has also

been reported in the literature (Walton-Moss, Taylor and Nolan, 2005). Acts of high personal

altruism may occur when individuals recognize the negative impact of social conditions on

others and assume personal responsibility for preventing or rectifying their unacceptability.

High personal altruism may explain the willingness in green consumerism to pay for products

manufactured from recycled materials (Neilson and Ellington, 1983; Hopper and Neilsen, 1991),

participating in boycotts because of perceived unfair labor practices and loyalty to domestically

produced products in purchasing decisions (Guagnano, 2001). As an example of this, in

marketing solid organ donation/transplant programs, program sponsors appeal to the personal

values of consumers whose knowledge of the issues is factual and whose attitudes and personal

values are more altruistic (Lwin, Williams and Lan, 2002). It follows that High and Low

Personal Altruism does not influence domestic product preference as the purchase of a product

lies outside the personal self-sacrificing dimensions of this construct. It is therefore hypothesized

that:

H7: There is no significant relationship between high personal altruism and domestic product preference.

H8: There is no significant relationship between low personal altruism and domestic product preference.

16

FINDINGS

The first objective of the research identified eight dimensions of altruism that were determined to

have differing characteristics based on the items that loaded on those dimensions. The second

research objective that is now addressed is to determine if selected dimensions of altruism are

related to consumer preference for a domestic product. Based on the items contained in the

constructs, some of the constructs were seen to be related to purchasing behavior while others are

related to other altruistic behaviors not related to the purchase of a product. It is therefore

hypothesized that there is a significant relationship between the altruism dimensions that are

related to purchasing (patriotic purchasing and multi-ethnic purchasing) and domestic product

preference. It is further hypothesized that there is no significant relationship between domestic

product preference and the remaining altruism dimensions that are not purchasing related (high

action altruism, moderate action altruism, giving altruism, low personal altruism, cognitive moral

development, and high personal altruism). The research framework is seen in Figure 1.

---------------------------------Place Figure 1 about here

---------------------------------

The data in this phase of the research were analyzed using logistic regression to test the

relationship between the independent altruism variables and the dependent, binary variable,

product preference between an American or Japanese automobile product (Hosmer and

Lemeshow, 1989). The odds ratio, an estimate derived from the logistic regression coefficient,

provided the foundation for interpreting logistic regression results obtained in this analysis. The

model indicated a positive, statistically significant relationship between the predictor and the

dependent variables, and had an acceptable level (72.6% accuracy) of predicting the

17

classification of the cases. The results of the logistic regression analysis are seen in Table 2 and

a summary of the results is seen in Table 3.

Hypothesis 1: Patriotic purchasing altruism and domestic product preference. Hypothesis one is

supported (B = 0.871, p = 0.000). The relationship between patriotic purchasing altruism and

domestic product preference is statistically significant and positive. Hypothesis 2: High action

altruism and domestic product preference. The results support hypothesis two (B = 0.261, p =

0.226) as the relationship between high action altruism and domestic product preference is

statistically insignificant. Hypothesis 3: Moderate action altruism and domestic product

preference. Hypothesis three is not supported (B = 0.455, p = 0.046). Although it was

hypothesized that the relationship between moderate action altruism and domestic product would

not be significant, the results show a statistically significant and positive relationship.

Hypothesis 4: Giving altruism and domestic product preference. The results support hypothesis

four (B = 0.115, p = 0.574) as there is no statistically significant relationship between giving

altruism and domestic product preference. Hypothesis 5: Multi-ethnic purchasing altruism and

domestic product preference. Hypothesis five is supported (B = 0.602, p =.0.000). The

relationship between multi-ethnic purchasing altruism and domestic product preferences is

statistically significant and positive. Hypothesis 6: Low personal altruism and domestic product

preference. The results support hypothesis six (B = -0.151, p = 0.474) as there is no statistically

significant relationship between low personal altruism and domestic product preference.

Hypothesis 7: Cognitive moral development and domestic product preference. The results

supported hypothesis seven (B = -0.151, p = 0.575) as there is no statistically significant

relationship between cognitive moral development and domestic product preference. Hypothesis

18

8: High personal altruism and domestic product preference. The results supported hypothesis

eight (B = 0.139, p = 0.207) as the relationship between high personal altruism and domestic

product preference is statistically insignificant.

---------------------------------Place Tables 1– 3 about here---------------------------------

DISCUSSION

The objective of this research was to first examine the established altruism scales that have been

reported in the literature to determine if there are additional dimensions of altruism that may

relate to buyer motivations regarding the purchase of domestic versus foreign products. The

scales reported in the literature (CETSCALE, the Defining Issues Test, and the Self-Report

Altruism Scale) were tested and were used to identify new constructs that capture and distinguish

additional dimensions of altruism. The eight dimensions of altruism identified were patriotic

purchasing altruism, high action altruism, moderate action altruism, giving altruism, multi-ethnic

purchasing altruism, low personal altruism, cognitive moral development, and high personal

altruism. The dimensions identified provide new insights into how specific attitudes and actions

may exist consistent with the original conceptualization of altruism, but at the same time

extending it to understanding consumer preferences. Although the focus of the present research

was on those dimensions of altruism that relate to purchasing behavior, additional research may

be conducted to examine the other newly identified dimensions of altruism as they may relate to

other behaviors such as giving and personal actions.

The second phase of the research was designed to identify the relationship between the

dimensions of altruism and the preference for a domestic product. Two dimensions of altruism

19

were found to be related to the preference for a domestic product. The statistically significant

and positive correlation found between patriotic purchasing altruism and domestic product

preference indicates that consumers with attitudes and behaviors related to the patriotic

purchasing altruism scale are likely to prefer a domestic product. Contrary to expectation, it was

found that there was a statistically significant and positive relationship between moderate action

altruism and domestic product preference. Interestingly this did not hold true for high action

altruism. A reexamination of the items indicates that although moderate action altruism did not

contain items specifically related to the purchase of a product, the items referred to actions taken

in regard to a “stranger.” Hence, there may be a parallel with the notion that buying a domestic

product helps a stranger also. Some of the items for high action altruism do mention “stranger,”

but other items mention “neighbor” and “acquaintance.” In retrospect, the finding that helping a

stranger is related to a domestic product preference is really not surprising given that the person

who benefits from a domestic purchase is not known to the buyer of the product and is more

likely perceived to be member or a corporation of their own country than otherwise, if country of

origin is a factor in the purchase decision. Given this outcome, it might be more appropriate to

rename high action altruism just “action altruism” and to rename moderate action altruism

“helping others” or perhaps “helping strangers” altruism. The result that high action altruism

had no significant correlation with domestic product preference implies that higher levels of

altruistic behavior alone are not a factor in product preference. These consumers do not extend

their altruistic imperatives to their behavior in the marketplace.

Giving altruism also had no significant correlation with domestic product preference indicating

that the giving of time or money is again something that is different from giving money

20

indirectly through the purchase of a domestic product. One possible explanation for this result is

that consumers may disassociate the loss of employment and other related problems of others to

their own altruistic behavior. Low personal altruism, high personal altruism, and cognitive moral

development also had no significant correlation with a domestic product preference. Again,

these altruistic attitudes and behaviors are different from those that relate to a product purchase

and were not related to a domestic preference. Both the identification of the altruistic

dimensions and the relative level that may exist across consumer segments can be used for

developing buy-national campaigns and identifying individuals that are most likely to be

receptive to this type of message.

Limitations of the Research

Although the sample reflected the overall population of the U.S., it was limited to a single part of

the country. A sample from another area, such as the Midwest where many domestic

automobiles are manufactured might show different results. Other altruism dimensions outside

of purchasing dimensions might affect purchase preference for people in these areas. The results

might also be different for different product categories. An automobile is a relatively high level

good, and the impact that this product might have on jobs might be easily visualized compared to

a lower level product. A limitation of the research also exists with the definition of what really

constitutes a domestic versus a foreign product. Increasingly global products, and particularly

those in the automobile industry, have a mixed pedigree with their components sourced from

multiple countries (Frank, 1999). For the purpose of this research, the differentiation between

“domestic” and “foreign” was based on the location of the parent company as it was not feasible

in the context of a consumer survey to define foreign or domestic by percentage of product

21

content, or by country of origin of the parent company; this would further confuse the

respondent. Hence, a Honda, while manufactured in the United States, would be considered a

foreign product, whereas a Ford produced with parts made throughout the world, would be

considered a domestic product. This obviously creates a limitation to the research, although it is

based on the reality of the marketplace as perceived by the consumer. In addition, there are other

dimensions of a foreign or domestic brand image that may impact the consumer’s choice besides

altruistic influences. For example, Japanese products, in general, may be seen as superior in

quality to the point that it outweighs any altruistic influence on the choice of a domestic product.

Future research is suggested to control for this influence. It was not feasible in the context of a

consumer survey to define foreign or domestic by percentage of product content, or by country

of origin of the parent company; this would further confuse the respondent.

MANAGERIAL AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study have several important implications for marketing executives for firms in

the consumer goods industry and cause-based interest groups. For this reason, “made-in-”

labeling, promotions, and product literature identifying the home country identified as the

product’s source of manufacture may enable domestic manufacturers to effectively appeal to a

domestic consumer’s sense of patriotism. This consumer responding to “made-in-” labeling may

be more likely to make a purchase decision on the basis of the impropriety of purchasing foreign-

made products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987).

The statistically significant and positive correlation between multi-ethnic purchasing altruism

and domestic product preference also suggests that consumers with moderate tendencies towards

22

patriotic purchasing altruism are likely to prefer a domestic product. One explanation for this

result is that moderate “buy domestic first” attitudes may outweigh perceptions of quality and

consumer preference rankings for some products, especially when the make-up of the labor force

is perceived as being largely domestic (Levin, Jasper, Mittelstaedt and Gaeth, 1993).

Nationalistic views on the part of some consumers may be accentuated by prejudices against

imported products even in the face of economic, political, and cultural similarities with a

product's country of origin (Han, 1990). Of course, a challenge to managers is to identify up

front the individuals with these altruistic tendencies, although the development of the validated

scales in this research can certainly contribute to this effort.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes to the altruistic behavior and product choice literatures. It does so by

identifying and refining previously established scales that measured the cultural, cognitive, and

behavioral elements of altruism and determining the relationship between eight previously

unidentified dimensions of altruism and domestic product preference. The study adds to these

areas by empirically testing theory driven hypotheses. It is unique in that it applied the theory of

altruism to consumer behavior, an application that has been largely overlooked in the marketing

literature. The present study is the only study to incorporate and test the constructs addressed. At a

minimum, this study advances understanding of the relationship of “patriotic” forms of altruism

and consumer product preferences. In addition, the research provides an avenue of investigation into

the other “non-patriotic” forms of altruism. As an example, the dimension of giving altruism that

was identified in this study could further the research that has been conducted on the determinants

of giving behavior (Sargeant, Ford and West, 2005).

23

There are several directions for future research that should be noted. First, additional studies need

to be conducted applying the model of altruistic behavior used by this study in other contexts and

cultures. Replication of this research could further document whether the results are culture specific

where the results found for consumers within the United States could be contrasted to other cultures.

Second, research is needed to understand the relationship between the constructs identified in this

research and to understand how these dimensions may be influenced. Related to how the

dimensions of altruism may be influenced, it is important to determine if they are primarily

determined at an individual level as the literature suggests (Dubinsky, Nataraajan, R. and Huang,

2005), or if they may be influenced by other situational factors. In terms of the relationship between

the constructs, it is possible that some of the non-purchasing altruism dimensions such as cognitive

moral development are antecedents to both purchasing and other non-purchasing elements.

Alternatively, it may be that the purchasing and non-purchasing altruism elements are separate and

individual. In terms of how these dimensions are influenced, it is possible that buy-national

advertising campaigns might increase the relative levels of purchasing altruism for those individuals

that are already so inclined, which in turn could increase their preference for domestic products.

24

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S.A. and d’Astous, A. (2007), “Moderating effect of nationality on country-of origin perceptions: English-speaking Thailand versus French-speaking Canada”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60, pp. 240-248.

Aronfreed, J.M. (1968), Conduct and Conscience, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Aronfreed, J. (1970), “The socialization of altruistic and sympathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental analyses”, in Macaulay, J. and Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Automotive Trade Policy Council; Statement of the Automotive Trade Policy Council on the WTO Doha Round Negotiations.(2008). Economics & Business Week, 6.

Baily, M.N. (1993), “Made in the USA: Productivity and competitiveness in American manufacturing”, The Brookings Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 36-39.

Bar-Tal, D. (1976), Prosocial Behavior: Theory and Research, Halstead Press, New York, NY.

Batson, C.D. (1991), The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer, Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, New Jersey.

Berkman, H.W. and Gilson, C.C. (1978), Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Strategies, Dickenson Publishing Co. Inc, Encino, CA.

Booth, K. (1979), Strategy and Ethnocentrism, Croom-Helm, London, United Kingdom.

Brinkmann, J. (2005), “Understanding insurance customer dishonesty”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61, pp. 183-197.

Brodowsky, G.H. (1998), “The effects of country of design and country of assembly on evaluative beliefs about automobiles and attitudes toward buying them: A comparison between low and high ethnocentric consumers”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10, pp. 85-113.

Brown, S.W. (1987), “Drop and collect surveys: A neglected research technique”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 19-2 3.

Bucklin, R.E. and Gupta, S. (1992), “Brand choice, purchase incidence, and segmentation: An integrated modeling approach”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, pp. 201-215.

Bunkley, N. (2007), “Another spin for ‘buy American”, New York Times, 14 June.

Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York, NY.

25

Campbell, D.T. (1975), “On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition”, American Psychologist, Vol. 30, pp. 1103-1126.

Campbell, D.T. (1978), “On the genetics of altruism and the counterhedonic components in human culture”, in Wispé, L. (Ed.), Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociological Principles, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 39-57.

Cheng L.W. and Chen, Z.X. (2004), “Consumer ethnocentrism and willingness to buy domestic products in a developing country setting: Testing moderating effects”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, p. 391.

Chao, P. and Rajendran, K.N. (1993), “Consumer profiles and perceptions: Country-of-origin effects”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 22-39.

Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B.L. and Vincent, J.E. (1973), “Transgression and altruism: A case for hedonism”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 502-516.

Cialdini, R. B., Kendrick, D.T. and Baumann, D.J. (1982), “Effects of mood on prosocial behavior in children and adults”, in Eisenberg, N. (Ed.), The Development of Prosocial Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 339-359.

Cohen, R. (1972), “Altruism: Human, cultural, or what?”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 28, pp. 39-57.

Coy, P. (2004), “The auto deficit: Stuck in neutral”, Business Week, No. 3911, pp. 39-40.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Cunningham, M.R. (1981), “Sociobiology as a supplementary paradigm for social psychological research”, in Wheeler, L. (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A., Gaertner, S.L., Schroeder, D.A. and Clark, R.D. (1991), “The arousal cost-reward model and the process of intervention: A review of the evidence”, in Clark, M.S. (Ed.), Prosocial Behavior, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 86-118.

Drickhamer, D. (2003), “Bye-bye to 'buy American?”, Industry Week, Vol. 252 No. 9, pp. 24-28.

Dubinsky, A.J., Nataraajan, R. and Huang, W.Y. (2005), “Consumers’ moral philosophies: Identifying the idealist and the relativist”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 1690-1701.

Elliott, G.R., and Cameron, R.C. (1994), “Consumer perception of product quality and the country-of-origin effect”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 49-62.

26

Fenwick, G.D. and Wright, C.I. (1999), “Effect of a buy-national campaign on member firm performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 47, pp. 135-145.

Frank, D. (1999), Buy American: The Untold Story of Economic Nationalism, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.

Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, pp. 161-178.

Granzin, K.L. and Olsen, J.E. (1995), “Support for buy American campaigns: An empirical investigation based on a prosocial framework”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 39.

Granzin, K.L. and Olsen, J E. (1998), “Americans’ choice of domestic over foreign products: A matter of helping behavior?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 43, pp. 39-54.

Guagnano, G.A. (2001), “Altruism and market-like behavior: An analysis of willingness to pay for recycled paper products”, Population and Environment, Vol. 22 No.4, pp. 425-438.

Gueguen, N. and De Gail, M.A. (2003), “The effect of smiling on helping behavior: Smiling and Good Samaritan behavior”, Communication Reports, Vol. 16, pp. 133-140.

Hamin, G.E. (2006), “A less-developed country perspective of consumer ethnocentrism and country of origin effects: Indonesian evidence”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 79.

Han, C.M. (1990), “Testing the role of country image in consumer choice behavior”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 24-39.

Hatfield, E., Walster, G.W. and Piliavin, J.A. (1978), “Equity theory and helping relationships”, in Wispé, L. (Ed.), Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociological Principles, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 115-139.

Haubl, G. (1996), “A cross-national investigation of the effects of country of origin and brand name on the evaluation of a new car”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 76-97.

Hitt, G. (2007), “Politics and economics: Clinton underscores party's angst over trade”, Wall Street Journal, p. A7.

Hoffmann, S. and Müller, S. (2009), “Consumer boycotts due to factory relocation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 239-247.

Hopkins, R. A. and Powers, T. L. (2009), “Development and test of new dimensions of altruistic buying behavior”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing. Santa Barbara: 2009.  Vol. 26, Iss. 3, p. 185-199 

27

Hopper, J.R. and Nielsen, J.M. (1991), “Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to explain participation in a community recycling program”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 195-220.

Hosmer, D.W. and Lemeshow, S. (1989), Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Jin, Z., Chansarkar, B. and Kondap, N.M. (2006), “Brand origin in an emerging market: perceptions of Indian consumers”, Asia Pacific Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, p. 283.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1986), Foundations of Behavioral Research, Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., Orlando, FL.

Kinra, N. (2006), “The effect of country-of-origin on foreign brand names in the Indian market”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 15-31.

Kirgiz, K. A. (2002). Measuring the effects of government trade policy changes in oligopolistic differentiated product markets. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, United States -- North Carolina.

Kohlberg, L. (1958), “The development of modes of moral thinking in the years ten to sixteen”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Kohlberg, L. (1969), “Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization”, in Goslin, D., (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, p. 647.

Krebs, D.L. (1970), “Altruism-An examination of the concept and a review of the literature”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 258-302.

Krebs, D.L. (1978), “A cognitive-developmental approach to altruism”, in Wispé, L., (Ed.), Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 141-162.

Kumar, A., Lee, H. and Kim, Y. (2009), “Indian consumers’ purchase intention toward a United States versus local brand”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 521-527.

Kwok, S., Uncles, M. and Yimin, H. (2006), “Brand preferences and brand choices among urban Chinese consumers: An investigation of country-of-origin effects”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 3, p. 163.

Leeds, R. (1963), “Altruism and the norm of giving”, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 229-240.

Levin, I., Jasper, J., Mittelstaedt, J.D. and Gaeth, G. (1993), “Attitudes towards 'buy America first' and preferences for American and Japanese cars: A different role for country-of-origin in-formation”, in McAlister, et al. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, pp. 625-629.

28

Levine, R.A. and Campbell, D.T. (1972), Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Loeffler, M.A. (2002), “Multinational examination of the ‘(non-)domestic product’ effect”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 No. 4/5, pp. 482-498.

Lwin, M.O., Williams, J.D., and Lan, L.L. (2002), “Social marketing initiatives: National Kidney Foundation's organ donation programs in Singapore”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, p. 66.

Macaulay, J. and Berkowitz, L. (1970), Altruism and Helping Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Markin, R.J. (1974), Consumer Behavior: A Cognitive Orientation, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY.

McGuire, A.M. (2003), “It was nothing - Extending evolutionary models of altruism by two social cognitive biases in judgments of the costs and benefits of helping”, Social Cognition, Vol. 21 No. 5, p. 363.

Midlarsky, E. (1968), “Aiding responses: An analysis and review”, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 229-260.

Moon, H. and Kim, M. (2008). A new framework for global expansion: A dynamic diversification-coordination (DDC) model. Management Decision,46(1), 131-151.

Newman, R.J. (2005), “Invasion of the green machines: High gas prices have drivers chasing after hybrids. Is it a fad or a phenom?”, U.S. News & World Report, 9 May, Vol. 138 No. 17, pp. 48-54.

Neilson, J.M. and Ellington, B.L. (1983), “Social Processes and Resource Conservation”, in Feimer, N.R. and Scott, G.E. (Eds.), Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives, Praeger, New York, NY.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

O’Cass, A. and Lim, K. (2002), “Understanding the younger Singaporean consumers' views of western and eastern brands”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 54-79.

Olsen, J.E., Granzin, K.L. and Biswas, A. (1993), “Influencing consumers’ selection of domestic versus imported products: Implications for marketing based on a model of helping behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21, pp. 307-321.

29

Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2006), “Consumer-based brand equity and country-of-origin relationships: Some empirical evidence”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 5/6, pp. 696-717.

Parmar, A. (2002), “Dependent Variables”, Marketing News, Vol. 36 No. 19, p. 4.

Perlow, L. and Weeks, J. (2002), “Who's helping whom? Layers of culture and workplace behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 4, p. 345.

Piliavin, J. A., J. F. Dovidio, S. L. Gaernter and R. D. Clark. (1981) Emergency Intervention, New York: Academic Press

Piaget, J. (1932), The Moral Development of the Child, Long: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Powers, T. L. and Hopkins, R. A. (2006), “Altruism and Consumer Purchase Behavior” Journal of International Consumer Marketing.  New York: 2006.  Vol. 19, Iss. 1,  p. 113-136 

Rest, J.R. (1976), “New approaches in the assessment of moral judgment”, in Lackonna, T., (Ed.), Moral Development and Behavior, Theory, Research, and Social Issues, Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston, New York, NY.

Rest, J.R. (1979), Development in Judging Moral Issues, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Rest, J.R. (1986), DIT Manual for the Defining Issues Test, Center for the Study of Ethical Development, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Rubin, K.H. and Schneider, F.W. (1973), “The relationship between moral judgment, egocentrism and altruistic behavior”, Child Development, Vol. 44, pp. 661-665.

Rushton, J.P. (1975), “Generosity in children: Immediate and long term effects of modeling, preaching and moral judgment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 459-466.

Rushton, J.P., Chrisjohn, R.D. and Fekken, G.C. (1981), “The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 293-302.

Rushton, J.P., Russell, R.J.H. and Wells, P.A. (1984), “Genetic similarity theory: Beyond kin selection”, Behavior Genetics, Vol. 4, pp. 179-193.

Rushton, J. P. (1989), “Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 503-559.

Sargeant, A., Ford, J.B. and West, D.C. (2006), “Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, pp. 155-165.

30

Shameen, A. (2009), “Japan's car giants change lanes”, Barron's, Vol. 89 No. 52, p. M8.

Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 280-289.

Simonson, I. (1992), “The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 105-118.

Simon, H.A. (1993), “Altruism and economics”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 83 No. 2, p. 156.

Smith, D.C. (1997), “The global race heats up”, Ward's Auto World, Vol. 33 No. 12, p. 122.

Staples, E. (2000), “Psychographic target marketing: (Buying) actions speak louder than words”, Advisor-Today, Vol. 95 No. 11, pp. 86-96.

Sumner, G. A. (1906) Folkways. New York: Ginn Custom Publishing.

Talay, M., and Cavusgil, S. (2009), “Choice of ownership mode in joint ventures: An event history analysis from the automotive industry”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, p. 71.

Taylor, E. (2008), “VW to cut costs to produce Golf: Ambitious targets drive broad effort to simplify process”, Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. B2.

Wall, M. and Heslop, L.A. (1986), “Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus imported products”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 27-36.

Walton-Moss, B.J., Taylor, L.M. and Nolan, M.T. (2005), “Ethical analysis of living organ donation”, Progress in Transplantation, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 303-309.

Wispé, L.G. (1978), Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociological Principles, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Worchel, S. and Cooper, J. (1979), Understanding Social Psychology, The Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL.

31

32

TABLE 1

Dimension of Altruism Factor Alpha Inter Item Original Number of Items

Revised Number of Items

Patriotic Purchasing Altruism 1 0.9519 0.5560 16 16High Action Altruism 2 0.7991 0.3651 7 7Moderate Action Altruism 3 0.6732 0.3403 4 4Giving Altruism 4 0.6471 0.4479 3 3Multi-ethnic Purchasing Altruism 5 0.0000 0.0000 1 0Low Personal Altruism 6 0.6554 0.4880 3 2Cognitive Moral Development 7 0.4703 0.3075 2 2High Personal Altruism 8 n/a n/a 1 1

Table 1Reliability and Inter Item Scores

Table 2Dimensions of Altruism and Product Preference

33

HYP ISSUE INVESTIGATED RESULTS

1.0Patriotic Purchasing Altruism and Domestic Product Preference.

Supported: Patriotic Purchasing Altruism is related to domestic product preference.

2.0High Action Altruism and Domestic Product Preference.

Supported: High Action Altruism is not related to domestic product preference.

3.0Moderate Action Altruism and Domestic Product Preference.

Rejected: Moderate Action Altruism is related to domestic product preference.

4.0Giving Altruism and Domestic Product Preference.

Supported: Giving Altruism is not related to domestic product preference.

5.0Multi-ethnic Purchasing Altruism and Domestic Product Preference.

Supported: Multi-ethnic Purchasing Altruism is related to domestic product preference.

6.0Low Purchasing Altruism and Domestic Product Preference.

Rejected: Low Purchasing is not related to domestic product preference.

7.0Cognitive Moral Development and Domestic Product Preference.

Supported: Cognitive Moral Development is not related to domestic product preference.

8.0High Personal Altruism and Domestic Product Preference.

Supported: High Personal Altruism is not related to domestic product preference.

Table 3Summary of Findings

34

APPENDIX AALTRUISM DIMENSIONS AND RELATED ITEMS

Factor 1: Patriotic Purchasing Altruism

American people should always buy American-made products instead of imports (CET1).Only those products that are unavailable in the U.S. should be imported (CET2).American products, first, last, and foremost (CET4).Purchasing foreign-made products is un-American (CET5).It is not right to purchase foreign products, because it puts Americans out of jobs (CET6).A real American should always buy American-made products (CET7).We should purchase products manufactured in America instead of letting other countries get rich off us (CET8).We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot obtain within our own country (CET9).There should be very little trading or purchasing of goods from other countries unless out of necessity (CET10). Americans should not buy foreign products, because this hurts American business and causes unemployment (CET11).Curbs should be put on all imports (CET12).It may cost me in the long run, but I prefer to support American products (CET13)Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products on our markets (CET14).Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce their entry into the U.S (CET15).We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot obtain within our own country (CET 16).American consumers who purchase products made in other countries are responsible for putting their fellow Americans out of work (CET17).

Factor 2: High Action Altruism

I have helped carry a stranger’s belongings (books, parcels, etc.) (ALT 9).I have let a neighbor whom I didn’t know too well borrow an item of some value to me (e.g., a dish, tools, etc.) (ALT14).I have bought ‘charity” Christmas cards deliberately because I knew it was a good cause (15).I have before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor’s pet or children without being paid for it (ALT17).I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street (ALT18).I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing (ALT19).I have helped an acquaintance to move households (ALT20).

Factor 3: Moderate Action Altruism

I have helped push a stranger’s car out of the snow (or a rut) (ALT1).I have made change for a stranger (ALT3).I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it) (ALT5).I have given a stranger a lift in my car (ALT12).

Factor 4: Giving Altruism

I have given money to charity (ALT4).I have donated goods or clothes to a charity (ALT6).I have done volunteer work for a charity (ALT7).

35

Factor 5: Multi-ethnic Purchasing Altruism

Buy American-made products. Keep America working (CET3).

Factor 6: Low Personal Altruism

I have given directions to a stranger (ALT2).I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger (ALT10).I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a lineup (at Xerox machine, in the supermarket) (ALT11)Note: The initial CA was 0.5976, however the removal of item ALT2 improved the CA to 0.6544 and the inter item correlation from 0.3249 to 0.4880.

Factor 7: Cognitive Moral Development

I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with a homework assignment when my knowledge was greater than his or hers (ALT16).Defining Issues Test (DIT)

Factor 8: High Personal Altruism

I have donated blood (ALT8).

36