Consumer Behaviors and Values in Different Cultures

Marketing Article Review

This review is of the article entitled “What Would People Do with Their Money if They Were Rich? A Search for Hofstede Dimensions across 52 Countrie” by Minkov et al. (2019) in Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 26(1), pages 93-116. The thesis of the article is that value dimensions underpin idealized consumer behavior priorities. The hypothesis of the study is that Hofstede’s value-based dimensions can be replicated in the field of consumer behavior. The dimensions are masculinity-femininity and individualism-collectivism. The research design methods included probability sampling of 51,529 participants in 52 countries, who were asked in a questionnaire what they would do with their money if they were rich. The purpose of the study was to contribute to the current gap in the literature on consumer behavior regarding understanding modern cultural differences around the world and their impact on consumer behavior. By prioritizing consumer choices, the study served as the first of its kind in cross-cultural consumer behavior research.

The study concluded that there is a “need for a radical revision of Hofstede’s classic model of national culture, reducing it to a two-dimensional model” consisting of monumentalism-flexibility and individualism-collectivism (Minkov et al., 2019, p. 107). The researchers recommend further study on this matter to better understand how different cultures socialize and how they perceive wealth and attach values to it. The researchers also stated that the study does not mean that Hofstede’s other values lack significance but only that they are not easily replicated, and therefore more study should be done to verify this finding.

This article relates to the course in terms of understanding vulnerable groups and how they are targeted by organizations, and what marketing approaches should be used for different groups based on societal values and ethical codes. For instance, it relates to Edman’s (2015) social responsibility of business presentation, because it shows that companies have an obligation to understand their consumers, not only because they are their target groups but also because the company needs to share the same values with its consumers. There has to be alignment between them, and that is part of the point that Minkov et al. (2019) make: understanding consumer behavior means taking a deep look at cultural dimensions and looking at them afresh.

The article relates to the textbook in terms of building on the idea that “every industry has been touched by dramatic shifts in the economic, sociocultural, natural, technological, demographic, and political-legal environments” as Chapter 3 points out (p. 34). The fact is that cultures and populations change, and so too does the way that the cultural dimensions are understood. Researchers should be willing to reassess these dimensions without fear—but as Minkov et al. (2019) indicate, it is not a simple approach and it requires significant appreciation for social and cultural values and customs across a broad spectrum but as well as within micro parameters.

The process made sense in the article, but it was certainly a complicated process due to the ways in which the researchers assessed the findings based on the country of the person surveyed. The limitation of the approach was that societies were defined culturally as a whole, when in reality many countries can have very different societies or sub-cultures throughout their state and it is not always going to be a one-size fits all culture that is more masculine or feminine. The researchers should adjust for this by examining sub-cultures and trying to determine what sub-culture the participant might be part of in the study. That would help to make the study more valid.

The statistics were somewhat clear and they did support the results but they might have been explained more easily. The authors rushed through some of the presentation of the findings and discussed them tersely. It was not always readily apparent what the significance of some data sets was or why information was compiled in a certain manner. The results appeared also somewhat generalizable but as was noted above there are limitations in terms of how well represented sub-cultures are and what those sub-cultures might mean in terms of cultural dimensions and consumer behavior. An additional issue is that the questionnaire was entirely hypothetical and not really based on actual evidence or practice.