Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Face Concerns and Purchase Intentions: A Cross-Cultural Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Global Marketing

  • 2335 Accesses

Abstract

Many multinational companies employ a premium price strategy, especially in Asian markets. Literature indicates that this is possibly due to Asian consumers’ higher face concerns (concern for self-image and/or status earned in a social network) than Western consumers. That is, Asian consumers perceive that a high price signals face. This study investigates the impact of product tangibility (watch vs. musical) and social presence (stranger vs. acquaintance vs. close friend) on the relationship between face concerns and purchase intentions for high-priced options. We classify high versus low face concern using nationality (Chinese vs. Dutch) as a proxy as literature suggests. The results show that on average, Chinese consumers are more likely to buy a high-priced product than Dutch consumers, but they do not differ with regard to high (versus low) product tangibility and social presence. The findings of this research are highly relevant for international marketers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In a meta-analysis, Bijmolt, van Heerde, and Pieters (2005) find that studies from many countries consider this positive relation between price and sales only in about 2% of all cases investigated.

  2. 2.

    The low price points of all of our studies reflected actual market prices from a large shopping website. To select effective comparison prices that could signal face, we conducted a pretest with an independent sample of 20 Chinese university students from the same subject pool. Only Chinese students participated, because face is more characteristic of Chinese culture. They read that “Some research shows that people tend to relate price to their ‘face’ (mianzi). Consuming a high- priced item can signal greater socio-economic status and prestige, which will gain the purchaser face.” Then, they had to choose, for example, “If the cheapest watch is 89 Euro in a store, which one of the following prices will gain you face?” The options ranged from 99 Euro to 149 Euro, with 10 Euro increases for each alternative. Similar indications that high prices can signal face appeared in each study, for watches (Study 1), musical performances (Study 1), and dishes (Study 2). The mean scores for the high prices were 131 Euro for a watch, 80.5 Euro for the musicals, and 10.1 Euro for dishes. On the basis of the mean prices indicated in the pretest, we determined high prices of 139 Euro for the watch (Study 1), 79 Euro for musicals (Study 1), and 10.9 Euro for dishes (Study 2). Voss, Parasuraman, and Grewal (1998) similarly used $79/$129 as low and high price points, such that they differed by about 50%.

  3. 3.

    Although the direction of the results for the third dependent variable, purchase choice, was consistent (MChinese = 0.10, SD = 0.3; MDutch = 0.09, SD = 0.29; t(1,41) = 0.05, p > 0.40), it was not significant. Therefore we do not discuss it here.

  4. 4.

    We also used product visibility (publicly consumed vs. privately consumed products) as a moderator and we find that it did not affect the price-face link which confirms our findings reported in this chapter. For further information, please refer to Zhang (2015), Customer Loyalty & Face Concerns: Differences between Eastern (Chinese) and Western (Dutch) consumers, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis in Economics and Business, University of Groningen.

  5. 5.

    We performed the same experiments with Chinese participants in the Netherlands who showed more similar purchase intentions to the Dutch participants than to the Chinese participants in Beijing.

  6. 6.

    To check whether and to what extent price is an indicator of face, we collected data on the price–face link during the experiments by including two adapted CFF items from Cocroft and Ting-Toomey (1994), rated on seven-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). For example, in Study 1, “Relative to 89 Euro [49 Euro], do you think that 139 Euro [79 Euro] for a watch [musical] can signal your social status?” and “Relative to 89 Euro [49 Euro], do you think that 139 Euro [79 Euro] for a watch [musical] can enhance your self-image?” (α = 0.89). The price–face link score is derived from the average of the two-item price–face link measures. Price–face links can be found in Appendix 2–3.

  7. 7.

    The results are available based on requests.

References

  • Ackerman, D., & Tellis, G. (2001). Can culture affect prices? A cross-cultural study of shopping and retail prices. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Pricing of conspicuous goods: A competitive analysis of social effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Manchanda, R. V. (2005). The influence of a mere social presence in a retail context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 207–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, Y., Zhou, K., & Su, C. (2003). Face consciousness and risk aversion: Do they affect consumer decision-making? Psychology & Marketing, 20(8), 733–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijmolt, T. H., Van Heerde, H. J., & Pieters, R. G. (2005). New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, L. E., Keh, H. T., & Alba, J. W. (2010). How do price fairness perceptions differ across culture? Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. R., & Garland, H. (1971). The effects of incompetency, audience acquaintanceship, and anticipated evaluative feedback on face-saving behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(5), 490–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V. A., & Naylor, G. (2000). Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3), 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder, B. J., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1977). Interpersonal influence on consumer behavior: An attribution theory approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (1987). Self definition by rejection: The case of gang girls. Social Problems, 34(5), 451–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 146–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H., Wan, L. C., & Sin, L. Y. M. (2009). The contrasting effects of culture on consumer tolerance: Interpersonal face and impersonal fate. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 292–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, C. Y. (1986). The concept of face and its Confucian roots. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 13(3), 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cocroft, B. A. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(4), 469–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 208–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Castro, J. M. (1994). Family and friends produce greater social facilitation of food intake than other companions. Physiology & Behavior, 56(3), 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelmann, R. J. (1981). Embarrassment: The state of research. Current Psychological Reviews, 1(2), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, G. M., & Johansson, J. K. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 195–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J. X., & Xiao, J. J. (1998). Consumer decision-making styles of young-adult Chinese. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(2), 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice, J. (2008). Splurge purchases and materialism. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(6), 332–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, G. (1998). An initial analysis of the effects of face and concern for other in Chinese interpersonal communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(4), 467–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18(1), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Cultural variations in country of origin effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2014). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavior Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 867–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. C., & Sin, Y. M. (1988). Consumer protection in China: The current state of the art. European Journal of Marketing, 22(1), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors. Institutions, and Organizations across Nations: Sage Publications, India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of “face”. American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, A., Francesco, A. M., & Kessler, E. (2003). The relationship between individualism-collectivism, face, and feedback and learning processes in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(1), 72–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, J. M., & Kellaris, J. J. (2004). Cross-national differences in proneness to scarcity effects: The moderating roles of familiarity, uncertainty avoidance, and need for cognitive closure. Psychology & Marketing, 21(9), 739–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashani, K., & Quelch, J. A. (1990). Can sales promotion go global? Business Horizons, 33(3), 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. (2013). Moderator variables: Introduction. http://davidakenny.net/cm/moderation.htm.

  • Kenrick, D. T., Sundie, J. M., Nicastle, L. D., & Stone, G. O. (2001). Can one ever be too wealthy or too chaste? Searching for nonlinearities in mate judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 462–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. Y., & Bond, M. H. (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man: A sociological view. Chinese culture and mental health, 35(3), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurt, D., Inman, J. J., & Argo, J. J. (2011). The influence of friends on consumer spending: The role of agency-communion orientation and self-monitoring. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 741–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, W. (2011). Why made in China costs more in China, Credit Writedowns. http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/09/why-made-in-china-costs-more-in-china.html.

  • Li, J. J., & Su, C. (2007). How face influences consumption: A comparative study of American and Chinese consumers. International Journal of Market Research, 49(2), 237–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, Y., & Bond, M. (2010). The dynamics of face loss following interpersonal harm for Chinese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, J., & Wang, L. (2009). Face as a mediator of the relationship between material value and brand consciousness. Psychology & Marketing, 26(11), 987–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, D. R., & Burton, S. (1989). The relationship between perceived and objective price-quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 429–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, T. S. (1994). Facework and interpersonal relationships: Cross-cultural and Interpersonal Issues. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X. (2005). How does shopping with others influence impulsive purchasing? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 288–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, R. A., Rawlinson, D. R., & Braunstein, L. A. (2010). Private label branding in China: What do US and Chinese students think? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(2), 104–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majaro, S. (1987). International Marketing—revised ed: A Strategic Approach to World Markets. UK: Unwin Hyman Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(3), 289–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, J. G., & Nasco, S. A. (2009). Cross-cultural equivalence of price perceptions across American, Chinese, and Japanese consumers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(7), 506–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. S. (1996). Embarrassment: Poise and peril in everyday life. The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2008). When does negative brand publicity hurt? The moderating influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 320–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morisaki, S., Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States. In The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. SUNY series in human communication processes (pp. 47–93). Albany, NY, US: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagle, T. T., Holden, R. K. (2002). The strategy and tactics of pricing—A guide to profitable decision marketing. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oetzel, J., Garcia, A., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2008). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict a cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6), 599–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X. H., Takai, J. R., et al. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qi, X. (2011). Face A Chinese concept in a global sociology. Journal of Sociology, 47(3), 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ram, J. (1989). A precision campaign. Asian Business, 25(2), 52–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redding, S. G., & Ng, M. (1983). The role of“face” in the organizational perceptions of Chinese managers. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(3), 92–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rein, S. (2002). The end of cheap China: Economic and cultural trends that will disrupt the world. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochberg-Halton, E. (1984). Object relations, role models, and cultivation of the self. Environment and Behavior, 16(3), 335–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A. K., Zhang, J., & Torelli, C. J. (2006). The horizontal/vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, J. N. (2011). Impact of emerging markets on marketing: Rethinking existing perspectives and practices. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 166–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, X. B. (2012). A cross-cultural study on the effect of perceived face on behavior intention. Forecasting(Chi), 31(4), 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 639–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stover, L. E. (1962). “Face” and verbal analogues of interaction in Chinese culture: A theory of formalized social behavior based upon participant-observation of an upper-class Chinese household, together with a biographical study of the primary informant. University Microfilms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tellis, G. J., & Gaeth, G. J. (1990). Best value, price-seeking, and price aversion: The impact of information and learning on consumer choices. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Boven, L., & Gilevich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class: New York. NY: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Völckner, F. (2008). The dual role of price: Decomposing consumers’ reactions to price. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(3), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (1998). The roles of price, performance, and expectations in determining satisfaction in service exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, K. L., & Inman, J. J. (2003). Situational price sensitivity: The role of consumption occasion, social context and income. Journal of Retailing, 79(4), 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Why does a consumer feel he has face? Study on the mechanism of consumer’s perception of face. Economics & Management (Chi), 33(7), 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertenbroch, K., & Dhar, R. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, J. B., Tynan, R., Galinsky, A. D., & Thompson, L. (2004). Face threat sensitivity in negotiation: Roadblock to agreement and joint gain. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(2), 102–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in Confucian and Western societies. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 423–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xinhua News. (2012). The price of Starbucks coffee in China is 75% more expensive than that in the U.S. (Chi). http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2012-11/02/c_123904486.htm.

  • Zhang, S., Doorn, J. V., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012). Changing consumer markets and marketing in China. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 4(4), 328–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., Doorn, J. V., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2014). Does the importance of value, brand, and relationship equity for customer loyalty differ between Eastern and Western cultures? International Business Review, 23(1), 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Shrum, L. (2009). The influence of self-construal on impulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 838–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Z., & Nakamoto, K. (2001). Price perceptions: A cross-national study between American and Chinese young consumers. Advances in Consumer Research, 28(2), 161–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Su, C., & Bao, Y. (2002). A paradox of price-quality and market efficiency: a comparative study of the US and China markets. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This chapter is based on Zhang (2015), Customer Loyalty & Face Concerns: Differences between Eastern (Chinese) and Western (Dutch) consumers, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis in Economics and Business, University of Groningen. The authors thank the editor Leonidas C. Leonidou and two anonymous reviewers’ helpful comments; Hester van Herk, Koert van Ittersum, Peter C. Verhoef, Bob M. Fennis, Jia Liu, and Hong Zhao for their insightful suggestions. The first author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71302126, 71772169, and 71302151).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Sha Zhang

  2. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jenny van Doorn & Peter S. H. Leeflang

  3. Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK

    Peter S. H. Leeflang

Authors
  1. Sha Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jenny van Doorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter S. H. Leeflang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sha Zhang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Leonidas C. Leonidou

  2. Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, USA

    Constantine S. Katsikeas

  3. Collins College of Business, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

    Saeed Samiee

  4. Faculty of Business, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey

    Bilge Aykol

Appendices

Appendix 1 Scales Used to Test the Two Assumptions

Scales used to test concern for face assumption

CONCERN FOR FACE SCALE (CFF scale) (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; White, Tynan, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2004).

  1. (1)

    I care about others’ attitudes toward me.

  2. (2)

    I am concerned with my social status.

  3. (3)

    I hate being taken lightly.

  4. (4)

    I will be very angry if others are impolite to me.

  5. (5)

    I care about praise and criticism from others.

  6. (6)

    I will be very happy if I am treated with respect.

  7. (7)

    I am concerned with my self-image.

  8. (8)

    I will be very upset if I am criticized in public.

  • (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree)

Appendix 2 Measures for Study 1

Manipulation check—product tangibility (Carter & Gilovich, 2010).

Material products are those made with the primary intention of acquiring a material good, such as a new Gucci bag; experiential purchases are those made with the primary intention of acquiring a life experience, such as a hike in the Himalayas. Please rate the extent to which a watch/musical is a material possession or an experience.

A watch/musical is ______ (1 = definitely material, 4 = does not fit either category, 7 = definitely experiential).

Control variable-product familiarity (Jung & Kellaris, 2004).

How familiar are you with the product category (i.e., watch)? (1 = very unfamiliar, 7 = very familiar).

Price–face link

  1. (1)

    Relative to 89 Euro/49 Euro, do you think that 139 Euro/79 Euro for a watch/musical can signal your status?

  2. (2)

    Relative to 89 Euro/49 Euro, do you think that 139 Euro/79 Euro for a watch/musical can enhance your self-image?

Dependent measure—purchase intentions

  1. (1)

    The likelihood that I would purchase[watch] watch/musical A (139 Euro/79 Euro) is (1 = very low, 7 = very high)

  2. (2)

    The likelihood that I would purchase[watch] watch/musical B (89 Euro/49 Euro) is (1 = very low, 7 = very high)

  3. (3)

    Please divide 100 points between the two choices. The more points you give to one choice, the more likely you will purchase that option. Please note that the sum of the points of the two choices should be 100 in total (e.g., A: 80, B: 20)! Watch/musical A (139 Euro/79 Euro) ___ points.

  4. (4)

    Watch/musical B (89 Euro/49 Euro) ___ points.

  5. (5)

    If I must choose one, the watch/musical I will choose is: (A/B).

Appendix 3 Measures For Study 2

Manipulation check—social presence

  1. (1)

    Who is the person you named? (1 = close friend, 2 = acquaintance, 3 = stranger, 4 = no one)

  2. (2)

    How close is the relationship between you and the person you imagined? (1 = very unclose, 7 = very close)

Price–face link

  1. (1)

    Relative to 6.9 Euro, do you think that 10.9 Euro for a dish can signal your status? (1 = not at all, 7 = to a large extent)

  2. (2)

    Relative to 6.9 Euro, do you think that 10.9 Euro for a dish can enhance your self-image? (1 = not at all, 7 = to a large extent)

Distribution–face link

  1. (1)

    Relative to the street vendor with an ice cream cart, do you think that ice cream specialty store can signal your status?

  2. (2)

    Relative to the street vendor with an ice cream cart, do you think that ice cream specialty store can signal your self-image? (1 = not at all, 7 = to a large extent)

Product–face link

  1. (1)

    Relative to the AH [Carrefour] toothpaste, do you think that the name branded toothpaste can signal your social-status?

  2. (2)

    Relative to the AH [Carrefour] toothpaste, do you think that the name branded toothpaste can enhance your self-image? (1 = not at all, 7 = to a large extent)

Promotion–face link

  1. (1)

    Relative to the dish that is on sale, do you think that the dish at a regular price can signal your social-status?

  2. (2)

    Relative to the dish that is on sale, do you think that the dish at a regular price can enhance your self-image? (1 = not at all, 7 = to a large extent)

Dependent measure—purchase intentions

  1. (1)

    The likelihood that I would purchase dish A (10.9 Euro)/at specialty store/name-branded tooth paste/dish at a regular price is

  2. (2)

    The likelihood that I would purchase dish B (6.9 Euro)/at street vendor with an ice-cream cart/private label tooth paste/dish on sale is (1 = very low, 7 = very high)

  3. (3)

    Please divide 100 points between the two choices. Dish A (10.9 Euro)/shop at specialty store/name-branded tooth paste/dish at a regular price ___ points.

  4. (4)

    Dish B (6.9 Euro)/at street vendor with an ice-cream cart/private label tooth paste/dish on sale ___ points.

  5. (5)

    If I must choose one, the dish I will choose is: (A/B)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zhang, S., van Doorn, J., Leeflang, P.S.H. (2018). Face Concerns and Purchase Intentions: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In: Leonidou, L., Katsikeas, C., Samiee, S., Aykol, B. (eds) Advances in Global Marketing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61385-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation