Culture’s Influence on Consumer Behaviors: Differences Among Ethnic Groups in a
Multiracial Asian Country
Kwon Jung, KDI School of Public Policy and Management
Ah Keng Kau, National University of Singapore
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the effects of culture on various aspects
of consumer behavior in an integrative framework among the three
ethnic groups in Singapore. Using the Hofstede’s (1980) cultural
framework, differences in their cultural orientation are hypothesized.
Then, for each cultural dimension, related consumer behaviors are
identified and differences in those behaviors are hypothesized
according to the predicted differences in each related cultural
dimension. Although the results seem to suggest that culture may be
one of the major factors that influence the consumption behaviors,
the strong evidence for the link between the Hofsted’s framework
and the related consumer behaviors is not observed in this study.
INTRODUCTION
As companies head towards a global market that deals with
people from many different backgrounds and cultures, it has
become essential for marketers to understand culture’s influence on
consumer behaviors. The recognition of the importance of culture
on consumer behaviors has led to an increasing amount of research
across cultures (Sojka and Tansuhaj 1995). More significantly,
many studies have succeeded in establishing links between culture
and consumer behaviors (McCracken 1986). According to Wallace
(1965), culture is the all-encompassing force which forms person-
ality, which in turn is the key determinant of consumer behaviors.
Numerous cultural studies on consumer behavior have been
conducted, especially in western context. In those studies, differ-
ences were found in consumption patterns between people of
various ethnic groups (e.g. Saegert, Hoover and Hilger 1985) and
various geographic subgroups that hold differing cultural values
(e.g. Gentry, Tansuhaj, Manzer and John 1988). For instance,
researchers have found differences in various consumer behavior
aspects such as brand loyalty (Saegert et al. 1985), decision making
(Doran 1994), novelty seeking and perceived risk (Gentry et al.
1988) across subcultures. Although past research has identified
differences in various consumer behaviors across cultures, most of
the past studies dissected consumer behaviors and each study
examined one or two specific aspects in a piecemeal-based way.
There has been relatively little effort to examine the culture’s
influence on consumer behaviors in an integrated framework.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the
effects of culture on various aspects of consumer behavior in an
integrative framework. Using the Hofestede’s (1980) cultural frame-
work, various consumer behaviors that could be influenced by
culture are identified and mapped to the Hofstede’s cultural dimen-
sions. Then, the influence of the cultural dimensions on the identi-
fied consumer behaviors is investigated in a multiracial Southeast
Asian country.
SINGAPORE: A MULTIRACIAL SOCIETY
Although numerous subcultural studies were done in the past,
most are done in the American or European context. Few have
investigated ethnic effects in the Asian context. With major
corporations seeking to move into Asia and sell to Asian consumers,
it is surprising to note the lack of subcultural research in this region.
Singapore provides a good starting point for subcultural stud-
ies on Asian customers as it is a multiracial society of Chinese,
366
Malays and Indians. During the years when Singapore was under
British rule, the three ethnic groups lived separately from each
other. They were encouraged to maintain their own unique culture
and customs, religious values and way of life. Although national
harmony has been emphasized, it has been encouraged to maintain
each ethnic group’s own culture by the Singapore government since
its independence.
The Chinese
The concept of ‘face’ or “public reputation” is a very important
value in the Chinese culture in the context of interpersonal interaction
and social exchange. A mirror reflection of the ‘face’ concept is the
idea of gaining respect, or the concern for public reputation. The
concept of ‘face’ points to an inner sense of worth which is
experienced by the ego (Wong 1986; Wong and Ahuvia 1998).
According to Hu (1944), the emotional impact of the loss of ‘face’
could constitute a real dread affecting the psyche of the ego more
strongly than physical fear. Hence, the Chinese tend to place high
importance on the protection of ‘face’.
In addition, the granting of ‘face’ and the maintenance of
cordial guanxi have been highly valued and widely practiced in the
Chinese community, particularly in the business community (Tan
1986). According to Alston (1989), the term guanxi refers to the
special relationship two persons have with each other. It is a
relationship combined with reciprocity and connections. A practical
consequence of guanxi is that personal loyalty is often more
important than organizational affiliation or legal standards.
According to Bond (1987), loyalty is considered to be a virtue
by the Chinese. The Chinese have been taught from young to place
their loyalty to their family and kin. In the case of services, where
there is interpersonal contact, Chinese consumers would tend to
stay loyal to the same provider. This is because switching would
render a loss of face to the provider, an unfavorable move that a
Chinese customer would choose to avoid.
The Malays
Islam is regarded as an inseparable part of Malay ethnicity and
is ingrained in its culture (Li 1989). It has been reported that 99.6%
of Malays are Muslims (Singapore Census of population 2000).
The Qur’an, the revealed word of God provides definite guidelines
for people in all walks of life to follow. The guidance is
comprehensive and includes the social, economic, political, moral
and spiritual aspects of life. It states clearly the halal (lawful) and
haram (forbidden). To the Muslims, there is no compartmentalization
between religion and secular aspects of life, rather they see life as
an integrated whole and they aim to live out Islam in all areas of their
life. Indeed, the cumulative institutionalization of Islamic values
and practices in Malay life is the single most important influence on
the development of Malay culture in Singapore presently (Tham
1985).
According to Bedlinton (1971; 1974), the Malay idea of
rezeki, or belief in the predetermination of man’s economic destiny,
results in fatalism and a “lack of will to go on striving.” As a result
of placing their full trust in Allah to provide for them in times of need
and distress, Malays are reported to avoid taking up insurance
policies. To them, they only take it up if it is compulsory (e.g., car
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 31, © 2004

insurance). This element of fatalism is also perceived to be the
likely explanation behind the lack of achievement orientation
among the Malays (Li 1989).
The Indians
Caste ideas or beliefs still operate among members of the
Indian community in Singapore despite the fact that the structural
props supporting the caste system are no more there in its entirety.
The central religious tenet of orthodox Hinduism was that men were
not equal and have never been (Tham 1985). The inequality of men
was explained in terms of the merits and demerits accrued in
previous incarnations. Therefore, each caste was required to live
according to its ordained way of life (dharma). However, in the
contemporary and meritocratic society of Singapore, the caste
system has little functional value except when Indians themselves
use it as a cultural marker to distinguish their members (Wu 1982).
As compared to the Chinese and Malays, there exists much
lesser marketing literature on Indian consumers in Singapore. One
speculation for this lack of research pertained to their size as well
as the vast diversity within the Indian community itself. The official
category of “Indian” is actually composed of its many linguistic
groups, Pakistanis, and Ceylonese. Besides this, it is the group with
the greatest heterogeneity in religion (please refer to Table 1).
Religion, like ethnicity influences behaviors by the rules and taboos
it inspires. There is also suggestion that the Indian orientation has
disappeared among a vast majority of the population, persisting
only among the most elderly Indians. Even so, it appears in a remote
idealistic sense, in the form of “nostalgia and emotional attachment
of the place where they came from” (Arasaratnam 1979).
CULTURAL DIFFERENCE AND ITS INFLUENCE
ON CONSUMER BEHAVIORS
Having reviewed the key cultural tradition of the three ethnic
groups, the differences in cultural values and associated consumer
behaviors exhibited by the ethnic groups will be analyzed using
Hofstede’s (1980) cultural framework in this section.
Individualism-Collectivism
Family is important to all three ethnic groups, as is the case for
most Asians. However, differing levels of collectivism could be
detected among three ethnic groups in Singapore. The Malays see
life as an integrated whole. According to Tham (1985), 53.8% of
Malay respondents in his study listed loyalty to one’s culture and
way of life as an important value in their culture. This same value
was listed by 40% of Indian respondents. However, it was not
named at all by the Chinese respondents. The Malays believe that
their religion holds them together as a community and it is from
Islam that they derive their collective identity (Lai 1995). This is
evidenced by the fact that 99.6% of all Malays in Singapore have
Islam as their religion.
The Indians maintain that family solidarity should be shared
by all relatives (Arasu 1975), and all members of the family should
be integrated into the community. In Singapore, social and religious
functions relating to marriage, birth and death are treated as impor-
tant occasions among the Indians and this practice helps to maintain
family and community solidarity among Indians.
The Chinese in Singapore tend to remain loyal only to their
immediate family. For instance, they are concerned with propagat-
ing the family name (Wu 1975). However, in a recent study on
Singaporean values by Kau, Tan and Wirtz (1998), it was found that
the emphasis placed by the Chinese on family is rapidly diminish-
ing. Only 67.4% of Chinese respondents agreed with the statement:
“My family is the single most important thing to me”, which was
much lower than the percentages of Malays and Indians who agreed
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 31) / 367
(78.2% and 80.2% respectively). When presented with the state-
ment: “Conforming to social norms is very important to me”, 39.7%
of Chinese respondents agreed with the statement as compared to
53.7% of Malays and 55.3% of Indians. This could be due to the
influence of Western values, as well as an increase in affluence.
Furthermore, many Chinese move out of their parents’ home when
they get married, so there is the loss of intergenerational family
togetherness. Those trends could account for the lesser emphasis on
collectivism on the part of the Chinese. Hence, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H1: The Chinese will exhibit higher levels of individualism,
compared to the Indians and the Malays.
Individualism-collectivism pertains to the behavior of people
in groups, their relationships with others around them, and how they
perceive themselves in relation to others. We can identify several
consumer behaviors that could be related to the relationships
between individuals and their interaction with the people around
them. They are reference group influence (Childers and Rao 1992;
Webster and Faircloth III 1994), information sharing (Hirshman
1981; Webster 1992), opinion leadership (Ownbey and Horridge
1997) and ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma 1987). Based on the
assumption that individualism-collectivism is one of the funda-
mental cultural dimensions that influences the related consumer
behaviors, it could be said that people from cultures high in
individualism would be less influenced by reference groups, less
likely to engage in information sharing, less likely to be opinion
leaders and are less ethnocentric. Hence, the following ethnic
differences are hypothesized:
H2a: The Chinese are less likely to be influenced by reference
groups compared to the Indians and the Malays.
H2b: The Chinese are less likely to engage in information
sharing compared to the Indians and the Malays.
H2c: The Chinese are less likely to be opinion leaders com-
pared to the Indians and the Malays.
H2d: The Malays and Indians are more likely to exhibit
ethnocentric behaviors compared to the Chinese.
Uncertainty Avoidance
The Malays, with their fatalistic nature and their belief that
everything is predestined and out of their control, may rank the
lowest in terms of uncertainty avoidance. This is because their trust
in their religion allows them greater tolerance for ambiguity and
risk. A study by Yeo (1997) found that the Malays had the lowest
levels of brand loyalty and perceived risk as compared to the
Chinese and the Indians.
The Chinese also seem to show a tendency of uncertainty
avoidance. This could be attributed to the need of the Chinese to
adhere to group norms in order to protect one’s ‘face’. This may
result in more image consciousness among the Chinese when they
select socially visible products. In addition, Buddhists or Taoists
also have inclinations towards seeking religious divinations when
it comes to making decisions in difficult life situations (Khoo
1996). This indicates that the Chinese may have a certain level of
uncertainty avoidance inherent in the culture. However, the level of
uncertainty avoidance, though expected to be lower than that of the
Indians, is likely to be higher than that of the Malays. This is because
only 64.4% of the Chinese are Buddhists or Taoists, compared to
the 99.6% of Malay Muslims.
368 / Culture’s Influence on Consumer Behaviors: Differences Among Ethnic Groups in a Multiracial Asian Country
On the other hand, several studies have suggested that Asian
Indians tend to have lower tolerance levels of ambiguity, risk and
anxiety compared to subjects from America, Canada and Japan
(Carament 1974; Orpan 1983). A study by Yeo (1997) confirmed
this tendency by finding that Singaporean Indians placed an emphasis
on product quality rather than brand when it came to making
purchases. Hence, the following hypothesis is suggested:
H3: The Indians will exhibit the highest level of uncer-
tainty avoidance, followed by the Chinese, then the
Malays.
Uncertainty avoidance refers to how the unknown aspects of
the future are dealt with. Extreme uncertainty causes anxiety and
stress, and different people have different degrees of tolerance for
such anxiety and stress. Different levels of uncertainty avoidance
tendency could influence consumer behaviors that examine the
ways people react in situations of uncertainty. Those behaviors
could be perceived risk (Gentry et al. 1988), brand loyalty (Kanwar
and Pagiavlas 1992; Hui et al. 1993), innovativeness (Hui et al.
1993; Tansuhaj et al. 1991), and information search (Garner and
Thompson 1986; Hirshman 1983). These behaviors involve an
element of risk, and therefore a culture that is high on uncertainty
avoidance would exhibit consumption behaviors that may reduce
this risk. Thus, people from such a culture would be likely to
experience higher levels of perceived risk, more brand loyal, less
likely to seek innovative products, and more likely to engage in
information search. Thus, the following hypotheses are presented:
H4a: The Indians are likely to experience the highest levels
of perceived risk in consumption, followed by the
Chinese, then the Malays.
H4b: The Indians are most likely to remain brand loyal in
their purchase of products and services, followed by
the Chinese, then the Malays.
H4c: The Indians are least likely to seek out innovative
products or services, followed by the Chinese, then
the Malays.
H4d: The Indians are the most likely to engage in informa-
tion search, followed by the Chinese, then the Malays.
Masculinity
It seems that there is evidence that sex role differentiation is
still rather prominent in the Malay culture. Traditionally, Malay
men want their wives to be submissive to the husband, and stay at
home full-time to look after the children. This has not been changed
much in modern Singapore. According to several studies, Muslim
men still hold conservative socio-cultural attitudes regarding
marriage. They feel that their authority in the house should not be
challenged, and prefer their wives not to be graduates (The Straits
Times 29/11/1995; 5/12/1995). Only 23.9% of Malay male graduates
tied the knot with fellow graduates compared to the national
average of 59.3% (The Straits Times 29/11/1995). Most of these
men still prefer marriages arranged by their parents, and marrying
down is the norm among them. These conservative attitudes are
further evidenced by the fact that working wives make up only a
third of all Malay couples, way below the figures of the Chinese and
the Indians (The Straits Times 5/12/1995).
The Indians are becoming increasingly modernized compared
to the Malays. Traditionally steeped in the notion that women
belong in the house and should look after children full-time, this
view is changing with increased education and achievements by the
Indian community in Singapore. 40% of all married Indian women
work, second only to the 41% of Chinese women (The Straits Times
3/5/1994). Traditional Chinese women tended to stay at home to
look after the household and the children. However, this has been
changed in Singapore, as statistics have shown. Many Chinese
women today are economically independent and perfectly capable
of looking after themselves. Therefore, both the Chinese and the
Indians would not be high on masculinity.
However, in a local lifestyle study conducted by Kau et al.
(1998), it was found that the Indians had the most liberal views on
feminism compared to the Chinese and the Malays. 78.5% of them
felt that a woman should have her own career, while 63.4% of
Chinese and 59.1% of Malays thought so. An even more interesting
point to note was that 37.9% of the Indians agreed with the
statement: “Women are smarter than men”, while only 18% of
Malays and 13.1% of Chinese felt so.
The above observations lead to the conclusion that the Malays
have the most prevalent values regarding sex role differentiation,
followed by the Chinese, while the Indians are the most pro-
feminists. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:
H5: The Malays are likely to rate the highest on masculinity,
followed by the Chinese, and then the Indians.
The cultural dimension of masculinity-femininity involves
sex role differentiation and the dominance of either male or female
values. This area of study is particularly of interest in the context of
the cultural dimension of masculinity-femininity because sex role
attitudes and perceptions are ascribed through cultural norms and
these attitudes influence the household decision role structure and
responsibility (Kim, Laroche and Zhou 1993; O’Connor, Sullivan
and Pogorzelski 1985). Blood and Wolfe (1960) also stated that the
degree of influence by either the husband or wife in a family
decision is contingent upon the level of traditional marital values
present in the family. It can be concluded that decision making in
the family differs across cultures and is dependent upon the extent
to which the couple’s values belong to the traditional patriarchal
system where the husband dominates, or the more modern view of
joint decision-making. Thus, people from cultures higher in mascu-
linity are more likely to engage in husband dominant decision
making because they believe that men should be in charge of the
household.
H6: The Malays are the most likely to engage in husband
dominant decision making, followed by the Chinese,
and then the Indians.
Power Distance
The Indian religion of Hinduism states that men are not equal
and have never been. This resulted in caste differentiation which
may still exist informally in Singapore today, though not in its
entirety. Similarly, the Malays, because of their fatalistic nature,
willingly accept concepts of inequality and they accept that being
born unequal is part of each person’s destiny in life and cannot be
altered. The Chinese on the other hand, are not governed by any
beliefs of this sort. Although all three ethnic groups share the values
of respect for one’s elders and filial piety, there is evidence that
these traditional perceptions of inequality result in different degrees
of power distance among the three ethnic groups. According to Kau
et al. (1998), when presented with the statement: “Respect for
authority is important in our society”, 77.4% of Indian respondents
agreed with the statement, followed by 72.2% of the Malays and
61.8% of the Chinese. Hence the following hypothesis is presented:

H7: The Malays and Indians will exhibit higher levels of
power distance than the Chinese.
Opinion seeking could be one aspect that could be affected by
the differing degrees of power distance. Opinion seekers are those
who actively seek advice from others (Engel, Blackwell and Miniard
1990). Generally, there will be significant numbers of opinion
seekers in cultures with high power distance. Therefore, people
from cultures with a large power distance are more likely to be
opinion seekers than those from cultures with a small power
distance. Hence, the following hypothesis is suggested:
H8: The Malays and Indians are more likely to show opin-
ion-seeking tendency than the Chinese.
METHODOLOGY
Samples
The research data was collected by means of a survey. The
sampling unit was a married Singaporean individual, either Chi-
nese, Malay or Indian because as one of the consumer behaviors
involved is family decision making which looks at the interaction
between husband and wife. A method of snowball sampling was
employed in the distribution of the questionnaires in order to get
respondents from each ethnic group.
A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed and 258 were
returned, thus the response rate was 86%. Among them, 27 ques-
tionnaires were rejected either because the respondents were not
from one of the three ethnic groups studied, were unmarried, or the
questionnaires were not adequately completed, resulting in 231
valid samples. The sample comprised of 83 Chinese (35.9%), 75
Malays (32.5%) and 73 Indians (31.6%). The respondents did not
appear to differ in terms of gender or age. As the requirement was
for respondents to be married, there were also no significant
differences in this aspect.
Measures
The cultural dimensions are measured using Hofstede’s (1980)
framework. However, the original values scales used by Hofstede
(1980) contained work-organization related questions which can-
not be directly applied in this study. Hence, an adapted version of
survey questions was used from various sources (Triandis et al.
1986, 1988; Lao 1977; Scanzoni and Szinovacz 1980) which met
more closely with the needs of this study. The scales were chosen
based on the following criteria: (1) the scale should be generic in its
nature, unlike Hofstede’s values module survey which pertained to
work; and (2) the scale should fit accurately to the descriptions of
the four cultural dimensions outlined by Hofstede. Using this
method, a list of statements was generated, screened individually
for their face validity and a final list of twenty items obtained.
Measures for consumer behaviors were directly adapted from
past studies (Park and Lessig 1977; Hirschman 1981; Hui et al.
1993; Shimp and Sharma1987; Raju 1980; Oliver and Bearden
1985; Green et al. 1983; Wells and Tigert 1971). With the exception
of information sharing and family decision making, all items were
measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “1” for “Strongly
Disagree” to “5” for “Strongly Agree” including measures for the
cultural dimensions. Information sharing was measured by asking
the frequency of providing information to others on a five-point
scale, ranging 1 for “Very low frequency” to 5 “Very high frequency.”
Family decision making was measured for grocery and major home
appliances in four aspects such as when to buy, where to buy, what
to buy, and how much to pay on a five-point scale, ranging from 1
for “Husband decide” to 5 for “Wife decide.”
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 31) / 369
RESULTS
Differences in Cultural Dimensions
The results of ANOVA tests on the cultural dimensions show
no difference among the three ethnic on individualism/ collectivism
(F=1.11, p=.33), uncertainty avoidance (F=.91, p=.40), and power
distance (F=.12, p=.88), rejecting H1, H3, and H7. The three ethnic
groups show significance differences on the masculinity dimension
(F=17.79, p=.00). The pair-wise comparisons with Duncan test
reveal significant differences among the three ethnic groups as
predicted. Therefore, H5 is supported (Table 1).
Differences in Associated Consumer Behaviors
Although no significant difference is found on the relevant
cultural dimensions, significant differences are found on the
utilitarian reference group influence (F=6.37, p=.00), the information
sharing (F=4.88, p=.01), the ethnocentric tendency (F=8.11, p=.00),
and the brand loyalty (F=4.37, p=.01). As for the ethnic differences,
the Malays tend to be more ethnocentric and to share information
more than the Chinese and the Indians, whereas the Indians tend to
be less brand loyal and less likely to be influenced by the utilitarian
reference group information compared to other ethnic groups
(Table 2).
It is found that the three ethnic groups differ in their family
decision-makings. For grocery products, there is significant
differences in means across the three groups for “when to buy”
(F=2.42, p=.09) and “how much to pay” (F=6.52, p=.00). The pair-
wise comparisons with Duncan test show that the Chinese and
Indians wives dominate decisions of “when to buy” and “how much
to pay” compared to the Malays. As for “where to buy”, the Malays
and Indians were significantly more husband dominated than the
Chinese, while the Malays were more husband dominated than the
Chinese for the aspect of “what to buy”. It can be seen that the
Malays were consistently more husband dominant in decision
making than the Chinese. Thus hypothesis 6 was partially supported
in grocery product category.
When it comes to major appliances, F-tests results again
showed significant differences among the three groups for “when
to buy” (F=5.14, p=.01) and “how much to pay” (F=2.66, p=.07).
According to the pair-wise comparisons among the ethnic groups,
the decisions of the Chinese and Indians were more wife dominated
than the Malays for the aspects of “what to buy” and “where to buy”.
In addition, the Chinese wives took part in more decision making
than the Malays when it came to “how much to pay”. Again, the
main differences found were those for the Chinese who were more
influenced by the wife than the Malays. Therefore, hypothesis 6 was
partially supported in major appliance category (Table 3).
DISCUSSIONS
Among the four cultural dimensions outlined by Hofstede
(1980), the dimension of masculinity produces a significant
difference among the three ethnic groups. The low masculinity
rating for the Indians suggests that they have discarded traditional
sex role ideas and are receptive to Western ideas of equality
between sexes, and changes in gender roles. This can be seen from
statistics which show that the percentage of working Indian women
enjoyed the greatest increase of 12.6% among the three ethnic
groups between 1980 and 1990 (Singapore Census of Population
1980; 1990). In addition, as the Indians become more affluent and
enjoy greater achievements in their careers, the percentage of
educated Indians also increases proportionately (The Straits Times
3/5/1994). Thus the Indians, especially the younger ones, find it
easier to accept feministic ideas and values. On the other hand, the
Chinese may still retain some of the traditional teachings that define
370 / Culture’s Influence on Consumer Behaviors: Differences Among Ethnic Groups in a Multiracial Asian Country

TABLE 1
Mean Cultural Dimensions Among the Ethnic Groups*
Chinese Malays Indians
Cultural Dimensions F F-Prob
(n=83) (n=75) (n=73)
2.85 2.73 2.87 1.11 0.33
H1: Individualism
3.03 3.02 3.13 0.91 0.40
H3: Uncertainty Avoidance
3.00a 3.35b 2.62c 17.79 0.00
H5: Masculinity
2.47 2.49 2.44 0.12 0.88
H7: Power Distance

* Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups at 0.05 level with Duncan tests.

TABLE 2
Mean Consumer Behavior Ratings Among the Ethnic Groups*

Chinese Malays Indians

Consumer Behaviors F F-Prob
(n=83) (n=75) (n=73)
H2a: Reference Group Influence
Informational 3.10 3.07 2.94 0.97 0.38
Utilitarian 3.02a 2.96a 2.64b 6.31 0.00
Value Expressive 2.66 2.70 2.47 1.70 0.19
H2b: Information sharing 2.73a 3.01b 2.73a 4.88 0.01
H2c: Opinion Leadership 3.18 3.14 3.16 0.11 0.90
H2d: Ethnocentrism 2.46a 2.72b 2.29a 8.11 0.00
H4a: Perceived Risk 3.42 3.43 3.37 0.33 0.72
H4b: Brand Loyalty 3.17a 3.15a 2.84b 4.37 0.01
H4c: Innovativeness 2.76 2.90 2.83 0.85 0.43
H4d: Information Search 3.08 3.03 3.06 0.16 0.85
H8: Opinion Seeking 3.02 3.01 2.86 1.00 0.37
* Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups at 0.05 level with Duncan tests

TABLE 3
Mean Family Decision Making Ratings Among the Ethnic Groups*

Family Decision Chinese Malays Indians

F F-Prob
Making Aspect (n=83) (n=75) (n=73)

Grocery Products:
When to buy 4.05a 3.69b 3.96a 2.42 0.09
Where to buy 3.88a 3.61b 3.58b 1.70 0.18
What to buy 4.06a 3.75b 3.89 2.16 0.12
How much to pay 3.76a 3.11b 3.56a 6.52 0.00

Major Appliances:
When to buy 2.88a 2.40b 2.78a 5.14 0.01
Where to buy 2.69a 2.44b 2.68a 1.56 0.21
What to buy 2.70 2.75 2.71 0.05 0.95
How much to pay 2.77a 2.40b 2.59 2.66 0.07
* Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups at 0.05 level with Duncan tests.
Scales are rated from 1-“ husband decided” to 5-“ wife decided”

strict gender roles and this could be the reason why they were rated
higher than the Indians in terms of masculinity. This is especially
evident in the socialization of children where girls will be clothed
in pink, boys in blue, and the girls will play with dolls and the boys
with guns. As for the Malays, they still hold traditional attitudes
which state that the wife has to be submissive to the husband, and
women should not be graduates and should not work (The Straits
Times 29/11/1995; 5/12/1995). This resulted in them rating the
highest on masculinity.
However, the differences are not as evident in the other three
cultural aspects. This may be due to the ethnic integration efforts
done by Singapore government. After Singapore became indepen-
dent in 1965, the government began to promote ethnic integration.
A situation of common national identity was constructed. All the
communities were accorded equal status and rights, and given the
fullest freedom to preserve their distinct ethnic culture, heritage and
identity.
Among the 10 examined consumer behavior variables that
were assumed to be influenced by the cultural dimensions, significant
ethnic group differences are observed on utilitarian reference group
influence, information sharing, ethnocentrism, brand loyalty, and
family decision making behaviors. Although significant, the
differences do not support the hypothesized cultural influence on
consumer behaviors except for the family decision making behavior.
A possible interpretation could be that the cultural dimensions
developed by Hofstede (1980) may lack their validity in explaining
consumer behaviors because they were not developed in the context
of consumer behaviors and practices. If this is the case, their
applicability to consumer behaviors is questionable and we may
need other cultural frameworks to find better links between culture
and consumer behaviors. However, the link between the masculinity
and the family decision making behavior suggests that the Hofstede’s
cultural framework could be, at least in some aspects, a valid
cultural framework within the Singaporean context of Chinese,
Malays and Indians.
There are a few proposed directions for future research.
Firstly, future studies should continue to investigate relationships
between culture and consumer behaviors in order to come up with
more specific relationships between them. To do this, future re-
searchers should look into other cultural models than Hofstede’s
(1980), which could help us to find better links between culture and
related consumer behaviors. Similarly, consumer Behaviors other
than the ones investigated in this study should also be examined in
future research in order to develop a full picture of the way culture
impacts behaviors. This study should also be extended to specific
products or services, and to more demographically diverse samples
of Chinese, Malays and Indians.
REFERENCES
Alston, P. J. (1989), “Wa, Ganxi and Inhwa: Managerial
Principles in Japan, China, and Korea,” Business Horizon,
March-April.
Arasaratnam, S. (1979), Indians in Malaysia and Singapore,
Oxford University Press.
Arasu, V.T. (1975), “The cultural heritage of Singapore: Hindu
culture,” Symposium on the Cultural Heritage of Singapore,
1-19.
Bedlington, S.S. (1971), “Malays of Singapore: Values in
Conflict?,” Sedar 3, 43-55.
Bedlington, S.S. (1974), The Singapore Malay Community: The
Politics of State Integration. Michigan: University Micro-
films International.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 31) / 371
Blood, R.O., Jr. and D.M. Wolfe (1960), Husbands, Wives: The
Dynamics of Married Living. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Bond, H. M. (1987), “Chinese Values and the Search for
Culture-free Dimensions of Culture,” Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 18 (2), 143-164.
Carament, D.W. (1974), “Risk-taking under Conditions of
Chance and Skill in India and Canada,” Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 5, 1, March, 23-34.
Carlson, L. and S. Grossbart (1988), “Parental Style and
Consumer Socialization of Children,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 15, 77-94.
Childers, T.L. and A.R. Rao (1992), “The Influence of Familial
and Peer-based Reference Groups on Consumer Decisions,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 9, September, 183-194.
Doran, K.B. (1994), “Exploring Cultural Differences in
Consumer Decision Making: Chinese Consumers in
Montreal,” Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 318-322.
Engel, J.F., R.D. Blackwell and P.W. Miniard (1990), Consumer
Behaviour, Sixth Edition. Chicago: Dryden.
Garner, S.J. and H.A. Thompson (1986), “Patient Perceived Risk
in the Purchase of Physician Services,” Journal of Profes-
sional Services Marketing, 1, Fall/ Winter, 149-159.
Gentry, J.W., P. Tansuhaj, L.L. Manzer and J. John (1988), “Do
Geographic Subcultures Vary Culturally?” Advances in
Consumer Research, 15, 411-417.
Green, R.T. and I. Cunningham (1980), “Family Purchasing
Roles in Two Countries,” Journal of International Business
Studies, 11, Spring/Summer, 92-97.
Green, R.T., J. Leonardi, J. Chandon, I. Cunningham, B.
Verhage and A. Strazzieri (1983), “Societal Development
and Family Purchasing Roles: A Cross-national Study,”
Journal of consumer Research, 9, 436-442.
Hirschman, E.C. (1981), “American Jewish Ethnicity: Its
Relationship to Some Selected Aspects of Consumer
Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 45, Summer, 102-110.
Hirschman, E.C. (1983), “Cognitive Structure Across Consumer
Ethnic Subcultures: A Comparative Analysis,” Advances in
Consumer Research, 10, 197-202.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hu, X. (1944), “The Chinese Concept of Face,” American
Anthropologist, 46, 45-64.
Hui, M., A. Joy, C. Kim and M. Laroche (1993), “Equivalence
of Lifestyle Dimensions Across Four Major Subcultures in
Canada,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 5, 3,
15-35.
Kanwar, R. and N. Pagiavlas (1992), “When are Higher Social
Class Consumers More and Less Brand Loyal than Lower
Social Class Consumers?: The Role of Mediating Variables,”
Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 589-595.
Kau, A.K., S.J. Tan and J. Wirtz (1998), Seven Faces of
Singaporeans: Their Values, Aspirations and Lifestyles.
Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Khoo, J.E. (1996), The Straits Chinese: A Cultural History.
Singapore: Pepin Press.
Kim, C., M. Laroche and L. Zhou (1993), “An Investigation of
Ethnicity and Sex-role Attitude as Factors Influencing
Household Financial Task Sharing Behavior,” Advances in
Consumer Research, 20, 52-58.
372 / Culture’s Influence on Consumer Behaviors: Differences Among Ethnic Groups in a Multiracial Asian Country
Lai, A. E. (1995), Meanings of Multiethnicity: A Case Study of Triandis, H.C., R. Bontempo, M.J. Villareal, M. Asai and N.
Ethnic Relations in Singapore, Lucca (1988), “Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-
Lao, R.C. (1977), “Levenson’s IPC (internal-external control) cultural Perspectives on Self-Ingroup Relationships,” Journal
Scale: A Comparison of Chinese and American Students,” of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 1, 113-124. Wallace, A.F.C. (1965), Culture and Personality. New York:
Li, T. (1989), Malays in Singapore: Culture, Economy and Random House.
Ideology, South-East Asian Social Science Monographs, Webster, C. (1992), “The Effects of Hispanic Subcultural
Singapore: Oxford University Press. Identification on Information Search Behavior,” Journal of
McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoreti- Advertising Research, 32, 5, September/October, 54-62.
cal Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Webster, C. (1994), “Effects of Hispanic Ethnic Identification on
Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Marital Roles in the Purchase Decision Process,” Journal of
Research, 13, 71-84. Consumer Research, 21, September, 319-331.
McGrath, R.G., I.C. MacMillan and S. Scheinberg (1992), Webster, C. and J.B. Faircloth III (1994), “The Role of Hispanic
“Elitists, Risk-takers, and Rugged Individualists?: An Ethnic Identification on Reference Group Influence”,
Exploratory Analysis of Cultural Differences between Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 458-463.
Entrepreneurs and Non-entrepreneurs,” Journal of Business Wells, W.D. and D. Tigert (1971), “Activities, Interests and
Venturing, 7, 115-135. Opinions”, Journal of Advertising Research, 11 (August),
O’Connor, P.J., G.L. Sullivan and D.A. Pogorzelski (1985), 27-35.
“Cross Cultural Family Purchasing Decisions: A Literature Wong, J. (1986), “The Concept of Face in Asian Culture: Its
Review,” Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 59-64. Implications to Marketing,” Emerging International
Oliver, R.L. and W.O. Bearden (1985), “Crossover Effects in the Strategic Frontiers: Proceedings of the American Marketing
Theory of Reasoned Action: A Moderating Influence Association’s International Marketing Conference in
Attempt,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 324-340. Singapore, 183-186.
Orpan, C. (1983), “Risk Taking Attitudes Among Indian, United Wong, N. and Ahuvia (1998), “Personal Taste and Family Face:
States and Japanese Managers,” Journal of Social Psychol- Luxury Consumption in Confucian and Western Societies,”
ogy, 120, 2, August, 283-284. Psychology & Marketing, 15 (5), 423-441.
Ownbey, S.F. and P.E. Horridge (1997), “Acculturation Levels Wu, D. Y.H. (1982), “Ethnic Relations and Rthnicity in a City-
and Shopping Orientations of Asian-American Consumers,” state: Singapore,” Ethnicity and Interpersonal Interaction: A
Psychology and Marketing, 14, 1, 1-18. Cross-Cultural Study, ed. David Y.H. Wu. Singapore:
Park, C.W. and V.P. Lessig (1977), “Students and Housewives: Maruzen Asia.
Differences in Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence,” Wu, T.Y. (1975), “The Cultural Heritage of Singapore: The
Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 102-110. Essence of the Chinese Tradition,” Symposium on the
Raju, P.S. (1980), “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship Cultural Heritage of Singapore, 59-78.
to Personality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behavior,” Yeo, B. P. (1997), “The Influence of Ethnicity on Values and
Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 272-282. Consumer Behavior in Singapore,” Unpublished Honor’s
Saegert, J., R.J. Hoover and M.T. Hilger (1985), “Characteristics Thesis, National University of Singapore.
of Mexican American Consumers,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 12, 104-109.
Shimp, T.A. and S. Sharma (1987), “Consumer Ethnocentrism:
Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 24(August), 280-289.
Singapore Census of Population 1980, 1990, 2000: Demograph-
ics characteristics (1980; 1990; 2000), Department of
Statistics, Singapore.
Sojka, J.Z. and P.S. Tansuhaj (1995), “Cross-cultural Consumer
Research: A Twenty-year Review,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 22, 461-474.
Tan, T. (1986), Your Chinese Roots: The Overseas Chinese
Story, Singapore: Times Book International.
Tansuhaj, P., J.W. Gentry, J. John, L.L. Manzer and B.J. Cho
(1991), “A Cross-national Examination of Innovation
Resistance,” International Marketing Review, 8, 3, 7-20.
Tham, S.C. (1985), Religion and Modernization: A Study of
Changing Rituals Among Singapore’s Chinese, Malays and
Indians. Singapore: Graham Brash.
Triandis, H.C., R. Bontempo, H. Betancourt, M. Bond, K.
Leung, A. Brenes, J. Georgas, C.H. Hui, G. Marin, B.
Setiadi, J.B.P. Sinha, J. Verma, J. Spangenberg, H. Touzard
and G. de Montmollin (1986), “The Measurement of the Etic
Aspects of Individualism and Collectivism Across Cultures,”
Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257-267.