4 Theoretical framework of values and motivations
4.2 Main theories of values and measurement approaches
4.2.4 Hofstede: dimensions of culture
Another important theory explaining values in human behavior is the work of the Dutch psychologist Hofstede. His model is one of the most useful for studying values in manifold research areas such as cross-cultural comparisons, management theories, marketing, and advertising. Hofstede developed four dimensions of culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, and long-term orientations, all of which could be analyzed separately within the cultural dimension.
According to Hofstede (2001), within the construct of culture it is important to distinguish three main levels: 1) universal level, which is shared by all individuals as the expressive behavior (from a biological viewpoint); 2) collective level, a learned behavior that is shared among people belonging to the same group or category therefore different than people belonging to other groups or categories; finally, 3) the individual level which refers to the
44
internal, unique part of individuals, for instance personality. However, the borders between individual personality and collective culture are not clear (Hofstede, 2001).
Hofstede defines value as a “broad tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over others”.
Thus, the same value can be activated in a variety of situations. Values are also feelings depicted as arrows on a plus or minus pole, as feelings also include intensity and direction.
For instance, if we “hold” a value, this means that the issue involved has some relevance for us (intensity). Direction is established whenever we identify outcomes as “good” or “bad”
(see Figure 3) (Hofstede, 2001). Values are mutually related and are integrated systems which are arranged internally by hierarchies. However, these value systems need to be in a state of harmony with each other, otherwise a change in behavior is produced. It is generally assumed that individuals are not fully aware of their value systems, because value systems or hierarchies are not clear at the conscious level.
Therefore, Hosftede (2001) classifies values into two main levels: desired values, i.e. what people actually desire, and desirable values, i.e. what they think they ought to desire. This implies that, in contrast to other studies, in Hofstede’s study of values social desirability is not an undesirable effect which one has to control, for it is part of the whole studied phenomena.
Figure 3: The “onion diagram”: manifestations of culture at different levels of depth
Source: Own elaboration based on Hofstede (2001, p. 11).
45
This means that asking for the desirable is a perfectly legitimate research approach and serves to differentiate between desired and desirable values. It appears clear that desired values are more related to pragmatic issues. The exploration of such a dimension results in the values actually held by the majority of individuals within a society. On the other hand, the desirable dimension is more related to a subordinate ideology, an absolute norm, which is deontologically analyzed (see Table 9) (Hofstede, 2001).
To measure culture across nations, Hosftede developed a model of five dimensions to understand value differences: power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation. These dimensions are measured by means of interval scales with a score ranging from 0 to 100. The samples were collected in 75 countries (Hofstede, 2001). In comparative cross-cultural studies Hosftede’s dimensions have been widely used as independent variables to explain consumer behavior. Several comparative studies have confirmed and supported Hosftede’s indices and measurement usefulness. An overview of Hofstede’s dimensions regarding the case of our two- country comparison is summarized in both Table 10 and Figure 4. In the following, five dimensions underlying value differences are explained in detail.
46
Table 9: Distinction between the desired and the desirable and associated distinctions
Nature of a value Desirable Desired
Dimension of value Direction Intensity
Nature of corresponding norm of value
Absolute, deontological, ideological
Statistical,
phenomenological, pragmatic
Corresponding behavior Approval or disapproval Choice and differential effort allocation
Dominant outcome Words Deeds and/or words
Terms used in the measurement instrument
Good, right, agree, should Important, successful, attractive, preferred Affective meaning of a term Evaluation only Activity plus evaluation Person referred to in the
measurement instrument.
People in general. Me, you.
Source: Hofstede (2001, p. 7).
Power distance is defined by Hofstede (2001) as “the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally”. This dimension is reflected in the values of both less and more powerful members of a society. In societies with a large power distance culture (high scoring), everybody is in the right place in the social hierarchy; as a result, acceptance of power and legitimacy of authority come naturally. Within these societies older people are important, because respect for the aged plays an important role in demonstrating social position. In cultures with small power distance equality scores lower (Hofstede, 2001). According to Hosftede, the national culture in Mexico shows traits of large power distance (81 points); whereas, power distance in Germany is low (31 points).
Individualism/collectivism refers to people who look after themselves and their immediate family only (individualism) and to people who belong to groups (collectivism) that are taken care of in exchange for loyalty. Individualistic cultures are universalistic with more explicit verbal communication. Values are intrinsic on a personal level and include the desire for differentiation from others. Within these cultures, people attach priority to values such as
47
variety and adventure (Hosftede, 2001). Conversely, collectivistic cultures are more particularistic and share a “we-consciousness”. Furthermore, identity is based on social systems. Harmony is developed because the goals of a group(s) are preferred to individual aims (e.g. Latin American countries) (Hosftede, 2001). According to these parameters, the national culture in Mexico is collectivistic and score low (30 points) and the German national culture is individualistic and scored higher (63 points).
Masculinity/Femininity: within this dimension from Hofstede, “the dominant values in a masculine society are achievement and success, whereas dominant values in feminine societies are nurturing and quality of life”. Within masculine societies, what is big and fast is beautiful. Conversely, feminine societies are more service-oriented, people oriented, and
“small is see as beautiful” (Hosftede, 2001). Thus, regarding this dimension Mexico and Germany both demonstrate masculine like societies, but their scorings are different. The Mexican society scored (69 points) and the German society scored (62 points).
Uncertainty avoidance refers to “the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid these situations” (ibid.). Some people despise uncertainty or ambiguity, and therefore involve themselves in making rules and prescribing behavior;
whereas, other people do not mind ambiguity (Hosftede, 2001). Within cultures of strong uncertainty avoidance (high scoring) there is a need for rules and formality in structuring life, and experts’ beliefs are seen to be very trustworthy. People are more interested in how a product works than in results. Purity is an important value, and communication traits are formal. Within high uncertainty avoidance cultures, people tolerate a higher level of anxiety and aggressiveness. Furthermore, showing emotions is acceptable. Conflict and competition are considered threatening (Hosftede, 2001). On the contrary, in countries with low uncertainty avoidance cultures (low scoring), people feel that there should be as few rules as possible. Furthermore, individuals are more result-oriented and are more likely to believe in generalization and common sense. There is less ritual behavior. They do not consider conflict and competition as threatening (Hosftede, 2001). Regarding this dimension, Mexico scores high (82), whilst Germany scores high (61 points).
Long-term orientation was the latest dimension discovered by Hofstede and Bond (Mooij, 2004). This dimension focuses on long-term versus short-term orientation in life. Long-term
48
orientation cultures consider that there is no one truth; thus, changes are acceptable. Within such cultures, individuals form values such as perseverance, thrift, and pursuit of peace of mind. In contrast, in short-term orientation cultures “spend now” is more important than saving for tomorrow (Anglo-Saxon societies). This dimension is particularly interesting in combination with the previous ones. For instance, countries with a combination of long-term orientation and the collectivistic dimension might be characterized by the following values:
importance of family ties, filial piety, and paternalism (e.g. Chinese populations). A paradoxical value is generated by the combination of strong respect for tradition and short-term orientation; this is the case in a large part of the Western world (Hosftede, 2001). For the interest of this study, Germany scored within this dimension (27 points); while no single score is available for Mexico.
Table 10: Hofstede’s dimension of values across German and Mexican national culture
Dimension of value Mexico Germany
Power distance Large distance
(high scoring: 81 points).
Small distance (low scoring: 31 points)
Individualistic/
Collectivistic
Collectivistic (low scoring:
30 points). Individualistic (scoring:
63 points).
Masculine/Feminine Masculine (scoring: 69
points). Masculine (scoring: 62
points).
Uncertainty avoidance High uncertainty (high scoring: 82 points).
Middle uncertainty (scoring: 61 points).
Long-term orientation Information not available (none scoring).
Low term-orientation (low scoring: 27 points).
Source: Own elaboration based on Hosftede (2009).
4.3
50
state that activates goal-oriented behavior”. Arnould et al. (2004) define motivation as “an inner drive–internal stimulus. Motivations drive behavior in the pursuit of a goal and create willingness to spend time and energy to achieve a goal”. Human motivations are developed within a social context and culture. Although it is possible that all human cultures share some common basis of motivations (organismic, biological or physiological needs), a consistent theoretical framework has not been developed regarding universal motives of human behavior (Arnould et al., 2004).
In 2006, Solomon defined motivations as “the processes that lead people to behave as they do”. When a need has been activated, a state of tension drives the individual to attempt to reduce or eliminate the tension caused by the need; this process may be described in terms of degrees of strength. The particular way(s) that consumers attempt to reduce their motivational tension describe(s) the direction. In addition, a drive refers to the degree of arousal.
Accordingly, Hoyer and McInnis (2007) define motivation as “an inner state of arousal” with aroused energy directed toward achievement of a goal. Schiffman et al. (2008) claim that motivation “is the driving force that moves people to actions”. Driving force is produced by a state of tension which exists as a result of an unfulfilled need, wants, and desires. The way people strive to reduce tension may be conscious or unconscious. Thus, motivation is a component of the motivational process (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Model of the motivational process
Source: Own elaboration based on Schiffman et al. (2008, p.105).
51
4.4 Main theories of motivations and measurement approaches
According to Mooij (2004) and Blackwell et al. (2006), most motivations are classified in dichotomous needs categories (e.g. utilitarian/functional versus hedonic/experimental needs).
The theory of unconscious motivation which relies on the concepts of Id, Ego and Superego by Freud is widely used in marketing as well (Blackwell et al., 2006; Mowen & Minor 2001;
Schiffman et al., 2008). However, Mooij (2004) highlights the Austrian-Hungarian cultural context of Freud in the early 1900s. Hence, the facts observed by Freud correspond to the cultural background of that period and therefore might not be universalized in all countries, cultures, and societies. The theory might still be valid for Hungarians and Austrians and those sharing a similar culture. This is confirmed by the findings of Hofstede (2001) who scores Austria and Hungary extremely low on power distance and high on uncertainty avoidance.
4.4.1 Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs
Regarding human motivations, one of the most common and relevant theories is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Mowen and Minor (2001) mention that the classification proposed by Maslow since the 1970s has been criticized and inspired as a broad theory of motivation. For Blackwell et al. (2006), in marketing the Maslow’s hierarchy is a useful concept in order to understand consumer motivations, because it reminds us that people attach different priorities to their needs. All in all, the most relevant classification of needs is the Maslow’s Hierarchy which “classified the human needs into five categories: 1) physiological, 2) safety, 3) social, 4) esteem, and 5) self-actualization”. Maslow’s hierarchy ranks “needs” from the most important to the least important (Figure 6).
52 Figure 6: Maslow´s hierarchy of needs
Source: Own Elaboration based on Solomon et al. (2000, p.126).
Although Maslow’s hierarchy is useful in pointing out that people attach different priorities to their needs and refers to the priorities of many, it does not reflect the priorities of everyone in all situations, nor how social environment and culture influence the priorities of need to explain consumer behavior.
4.4.2 McClelland’s theory: achievement, power, and affiliation
Another important theory on motivations was developed by McClelland. According to Mowen and Minor (2001) this theory proposes four basic learned needs—achievement, affiliation, power and uniqueness or novelty—to explain human motives. The need for achievement is linked to getting ahead, striving for success, and taking responsibility for solving problems. The need for affiliation relates to the need for people to become a member, to be associated with others, or belong to a group. The need for power refers to the desire to obtain and exercise control over others. This need might go in two directions: in a positive way, resulting in persuasive and inspirational power, and in a negative way, resulting in the
53
desire to dominate and obtain submission from others. Finally, the need for uniqueness coincides with the desire to perceive oneself as different and original.
4.4.3 Classical conditioning
This label indicates a set of theories used to explain motivations as well. According to Mowen and Minor (2001), these theories are based on the idea that a motivational state can be created to lead people to engage in a variety of behaviors.
The so-called vicarious learning, or observational learning, is based on the premise that there is a phenomenon whereby people observe the actions of others and develop their own
“patterns of behavior” accordingly. Thus, observational learning creates a motivational state that might influence a variety of behaviors.
Figure 7: Psychological-cognitive theories of motivation
Source: Own elaboration based on Mowen and Minor (2001, p. 354)
The opponent-process theory refers to the situation where a person receives a stimulus that elicits an immediate positive or negative emotional reaction. In this case two new situations
More psychologically
More cognitively based theories 1. Opponent-process theory
2. Maintaining optimum stimulation level 3. Desire to maintain behavioral freedom 4. Motivation to avoid risk
5. Motivation to attribute causality
54
may be elicited: firstly, the immediate positive or negative reactions felt. Secondly, an emotional reaction occurs that acts in opposition to the initial experience. The output of the combination of both emotional reactions is the gradual decline of feelings (Mowen & Minor, 2001). According to Mowen and Minor, individuals seek an optimum stimulation level and take action to correct it when it becomes too high or too low. Internal or external factors may influence a person’s level of stimulation. Within internal factors are personal history and personality characteristics. Within the external factors are uncertainty and risk perceived in the environment.
The desire to maintain behavioral freedom refers to the reaction to preserve freedom if it has been threatened. Two kinds of threats can lead to reactance: social threats involve external pressure from others; impersonal threats are barriers restricting the ability to buy a particular product or service (Mowen & Minor, 2001).
Motivation to avoid risk implies a consumer’s perception of an overall course of action based on an assessment of possible negative outcomes and of the likelihood that those outcomes will occur (Mowen & Minor, 2001).
Motivation to attribute causality: this theory is based on the premise that consumers look for explanations about events that happen in everyday life. Meaning, the explanation of the processes by which people make such determinations of causality of action has been labelled attribution theory, because people attempt to determine whether the cause of an action was either internal or external to the person or object in question (Mowen & Minor, 2001). In the words of Arnould et al. (2004) “consumers adapt their motivations”. For instance, in a new environment, consumers take action to adapt to change. As a consequence, motivations tend to vary among cultures; therefore it can be concluded that there is no direct relationship between culture and motivations. Specific motivations would be better supported in some cultures than in others”.
In summary, in the literature there is evidence that although people’s motivations are different, they are related to a values system. As a consequence, individuals strive first and foremost to satisfy their conscious or subconscious needs. Thus, studying motivation which is inclusive with other elements of human behavior is a challenging task. Understanding why people behave in the way they do is often a difficult endeavor. In line with Blackwell et al.
55
(2006), difficulty arises because people may not be willing to disclose the actual reasons behind their actions. Another challenge stems from the fact that reality changes continuously.
Consequently, what motivates consumers to buy today may not be what motivates them in the future.
56
5 Development of the theoretical framework
Food satisfies one of the universal physiological needs of humans. However, in the study of human behavior what and how people choose food is a complex phenomenon. Cognitive and affective variables have an influence on the choice of food within and across cultures. In line with Magistris and Gracia (2008) “food satisfies one of the universal human requirements;
however preparation of meals and surroundings of social activities might differ among cultural groups and individuals”. Similarly, Steptoe et al. (1995) recognize that “cultural factors influence food selection as well as habitual consumption of certain foods and habits of preparation of meals, social environment or social interaction which plays a role in the consumption, cooking, preparation, and eating of food products”.
Hence, the definition of cultural levels according to Hofstede (2001) also applies to food consumption. The latter is from the physiological viewpoint as universal activity and has a social dimension (i.e. search and consumption imply interaction). Finally, since each person has a personal attitude toward food, it is an individual activity. These considerations are shared by a vast number of scholars (Krondl & Coleman, 1984 cited in Steptoe et al., 1995;
Baker et al., 2004; Magistris & Gracia, 2008). For instance, what Mexicans, Italians or Chinese prefer or expect from meals might be different from the expectations of Germans, Norwegians, or Algerians. As a consequence, cultural differences are important when examining habits of consumption and preparation of food.
In this chapter, the theoretical framework of the study is provided, beginning with international literature on consumer buying behavior with special emphasis on, above all, motives and values driving the choice to purchase organic food. After that, the theoretical constructs, as well as the first tentative model, are described and finally some considerations concerning cross-cultural studies are made.
57
5.1 International literature review on purchase of organic food
Since the 1990s, the production and consumption of organic food has increased in the world, especially in European countries. Thus, several studies concerning consumption of organic food show that this is an interesting topic in the study of consumer behavior. To estimate demand, consumption, and the development of markets for organic products most of the earliest studies focus on the demographic profile of the consumers. However, an increasing number of studies with emphasis on psychographic variables have recently appeared to understand better the purchase of organic food. Psychographic variables have been suggested to contribute to a more complex understanding of organic food purchase.
Overall, studies seem to devote attention to the following topics: 1) perception of organic food (Cicia et al., 2002; Harper & Makatouni, 2002; Roddy, 1994; Roitner-Schobesberger et al., 2008; Wier et al., 2008); 2) beliefs/attitudes toward organic food (Baker et al., 2004;
Bruhn, 2001; Chinnici et al., 2002; Magnusson et al., 2001; Magistris & Gracia, 2008;
Radman, 2005; Roddy, 1994; Roininen, 2001; Tarkiainen & Sundyvist, 2005; von Alvensleben, 1998;); 3) lifestyle (Gil & Sanchez, 2000; Grunert et al., 1993); 4) values (Grunert et al., 1995; Honkanen et al., 2006; v. Alvensleben, 1998; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002;);
5) motivations (Baker et al., 2004; Fotopoulos & Krystallis, 2002; Honkanen et al., 2006;
Lockie et al., 2002; Makatouni, 2002; Sirieix et al., 2007; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002;); 6)
Lockie et al., 2002; Makatouni, 2002; Sirieix et al., 2007; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002;); 6)