Targeting The European Marketplace As A Whole: Effects of
Unrelated Cultural Cues on Bicultural Individuals
Master Thesis
MSc in Business Administration – Marketing
Author: Salamon Sebastian Student Number: 11958839
Submission Date: June 21st 2018
2 Statement of Originality
This document is written by Sebastian Salamon, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 Abstract:
Previous research concerning biculturalism and bicultural identity integration (BII) identified the underlying reasoning of why and how bicultural individuals make decisions when confronted with a familiar cultural cue. However, the present research investigates how bicultural individuals respond to cues, which are not related to them. The research was conducted on the basis of presenting typical US-American cultural cues to European citizens and identifying their assimilative or contrastive responses. As a result, the study identified that Europe, in contrast to many previous studies, possesses an overarching cultural identity and thus, provides the possibility of targeting Europe as one combined marketplace. Furthermore, the study realized a generally high score on BII for European citizens, which, however, does not lead to an assimilation but rather contrast response towards a cultural unrelated cue. Those findings are relevant for practice since companies have the possibility to target a broader audience within Europe and simultaneously reduce their marketing efforts due having one European targeting approach. Additionally, the findings show that a steadily increasing exposure to an unrelated cultural cue provides a higher likelihood to generate an assimilation response from bicultural individuals.
Key words: acculturation, assimilation, biculturalism, bicultural identity integration, culture, European culture, European market, unrelated culture
4
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 6
2. Literature Review... 10
2.1 The Concept of Culture ... 10
2.2 The Idea of Bi-and Multiculturalism ... 12
2.3 Assimilative and Contrastive Behavior through Cultural Cues ... 13
2.4 Research Context: The European and US-American Culture ... 17
2.4.1 Definitions and Comparisons ... 18
2.4.2 Cultural differences ... 20 2.5 Conceptual Model ... 23 3. Pretest ... 24 4. Method ... 26 4.1 Procedure ... 26 4.2 Measures... 28 4.3 Sample ... 29 5. Results ... 30 5.1 Respondents ... 30 5.2 Data Preparation ... 31 5.3 Hypotheses Testing ... 35 5.3.1 Hypothesis 1 ... 35 5.3.2 Hypothesis 2 ... 39
5
6. Discussion ... 41
6.1 General Discussion ... 41
6.2 Theoretical Implications ... 45
6.3 Managerial Implications ... 46
6.4 Limitations and Future Research... 48
7. References ... 50
8. Appendix ... 59
8.1 Identification Scale ... 59
8.2 Compatibility Scale ... 59
8.3 Main Survey ... 60
8.4 Main Survey Demographics ... 65
8.5 Main Survey Regression Analyses ... 68
8.6 Pretest ... 70
6
1. Introduction
“It started seven, eight months ago, right? All for this moment. It’s about honor. It’s about respect. We win this game, you’re honored! Your kids are honored! Your families are honored! Win on three!” Tom Brady, arguably the greatest American Football player ever, motivated his team shortly before taking the field with the New England Patriots to kick off Super Bowl 49 against the Seattle Seahawks on February 1st, 2015 (Frangolini, 2015). Can you relate to such phrases? Or would you argue that your children`s and family’s honor is not relying on the outcome of this one game of sports? Referring those questions about the provided statement to an American citizen, it would be no surprise to receive an answer similar to: “ The truth is the Super Bowl long ago became more than just a football game. It's part of our culture like turkey at Thanksgiving and lights at Christmas, and like those holidays beyond their meaning, a factor in our economy” (Schieffer, n.d.).
Realizing that American sports, and American Football especially, have a high stance in the US-American culture, it raises the question of how non-Americans (for this paper: Europeans) would react when this typical aspect of the US-American culture gets introduced to their country of origin?1
In general, individuals in today’s interconnected world are likely to be confronted with multiple different cultures (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006; Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Confrontation can lead to an imbrication of individuals, who originated from different countries, continents and thus, cultures. This can be seen, for example, in the high number of Chinese living in the USA who consequently are referred to as Chinese-Americans (Mitchell,
1 In fact, the National Football League (NFL) already started to build a potentially lucrative marketplace in Europe by annually sending selected teams to London in order to compete in a regular season game, since 2007 (NFL.com, 2017). Furthermore, the NFL is currently discussing multiple options to further expand their operations in Europe, for which many other countries and cities - besides London - seem to be a fitting location and could have the potential to host the first US-American sports team located in Europe (Breer, 2017).
7 2017). Those individuals, who inherent two cultural identities and thus, live with certain cultural aspects of both cultures can be labeled as bicultural individuals (Smokowski et al., 2008). However, the degree to which bicultural individuals utilize both cultures differs. For those, who assimilate, use and integrate multiple aspects from both cultures in their lives, are termed as being highly biculturally integrated (Mok, Morris, 2013). On the contrary, those bicultural individuals, who protect one of their cultural identities from influences of the other and thus, display a contrastive behavior towards the second inherent culture, are labeled as lowly biculturally integrated (Mok, Morris, 2013).
Nevertheless, how would bicultural individuals (for this paper: Europeans) react towards a culture, which they are not related to, as it would be the case when American Football gets introduced to Europe? On the one side, one can argue that due to the world’s ongoing and ever-increasing trend of globalization (Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 2006), people are less resistant to experience completely new aspects from different cultures. Hence, European bicultural individuals would rather assimilate to the unrelated cultural aspect American Football. On the other side, one can argue that American Football’s immense cultural weight for Americans might be too inapprehensible for Europeans to accept and thus, would rather contrast to the introduction of American Football in Europe.
To date, studies on biculturalism and bicultural identity integration (BII) focus on the effects a cultural cue evokes on identified high and low biculturally integrated individuals, who are culturally related to the presented cue. For example, how Chinese-Americans respond to primes emphasizing either Chinese or American cultural cues (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). Findings of those studies can be seen in practice, for example in the creation of multiple advertisements for the same product, same market and time but differing in the ethnic background of the actors within the advertisement (Maheshwari, 2017). However, what if a company plans to advertise a product, which is totally unrelated to both cultures of the
8 bicultural individuals? Would the National Football League (NFL) have a chance to become accepted by displaying typical US-American cultural aspects to Europeans by using marketing tactics similar to those used in the USA due to the Europeans’ high BII and the previously identified assimilation response? Do Europeans, and bicultural individuals in general, with a high BII continue to assimilate when an atypical cue gets introduced or does their response change? And which effects does such an unrelated cue cause on the contrastive response from low BII individuals? Moreover, past BII research focused on the caused responses, based on the presentation of either an individualistic or collectivistic cultural cue, from individuals. However, in the present BII research paper, both cultures in question are labeled as being individualistic. Hence, this research tapes into a new type of contrasting juxtaposition within the BII research domain. Due to the lack of conducted research on this topic, the presented research will be steered alongside the developed research question:
What is the relation between bicultural identity integration and response to cultural cues (assimilation vs. contrast) when the cultural cue is atypical?
The objective of the presented research paper is threefold. Theoretically, the main objective is to identify the impact of culturally unrelated cues on bicultural individuals, by the means of presenting US-American cultural cues to European citizens, who are argued to be bicultural individuals. Thus, the paper will function as an extension of the in 2013 conducted research by Mok and Morris, who explored the underlying reasons for the ass imilative and contrastive behavior in bicultural individuals. From a more practical perspective, people of today’s world are becoming more pluralistic (Hong et al., 2000), which means the likelihood for a company to be confronted with bicultural individuals increases when it is planned to expand its business operations to a new geographical market. Thus, the knowledge of the
9 potential success, or failure, in presenting a new product or service to bicultural individuals can help companies to plan their market engagement accordingly. Furthermore, through the first objective, the research will also investigate the controversial topic of whether or not Europeans regard Europe to possess its own cultural identity. Therefore, it will also be tested to which degree Europeans identify themselves as Europeans and with Europe, which provides an indication of a possible shared sense of cultural identity within Europe. This is interesting because Europe is the combination of individual countries and thus, has multiple differing markets. However, identifying an overarching European cultural identity would potentially open the door for businesses to target Europe as one combined market. In addition, and in line with the specific research context of this study, the paper will evaluate the NFL’s intentions of attracting Europe as a potential marketplace with regard to the perceived fit between a typically American cultural cue and the European society. More precisely, this research will provide an assessment of the extent to which Europeans can be referred to as highly or lowly biculturally integrated, and which managerial consequences for non-European businesses this finding could uphold in regard to expansion plans to the European market.
In order to achieve the set objectives, the remainder of this research paper is divided into four parts. Firstly, an extensive literature review will provide the foundation of the study by revealing the main constructs in regard to culture, biculturalism and bicultural identity integration. Secondly, the research design, as well as its execution, will be explained in the method section. Thirdly, the results of the research will be analyzed and discussed. Lastly, the paper will provide a concluding statement as well as the resulting managerial implications, the study’s limitations and will be finalized by suggesting opportunities for future research.
10
2. Literature Review
The following part will provide an overview of the empirical and theoretical contributions with regard to the relationship between an individual’s or society’s culture and the activated behavioral response towards different cultural cues. First, the broad concept of culture will be defined. Second, the idea of bi-and multiculturalism will be explained. Those two aspects will function as a foundation in order to provide a better understanding for the reader. Third, it will be described how different cultural cues can provoke either contrastive or assimilative behavior towards a presented cultural cue. Lastly, the two cultures in question, namely the European and US-American culture, will be analyzed based on their definitions and identified differences between each other.
2.1 The Concept of Culture
The idea of that an individual’s or society’s culture is an important influencing factor in the behavior and way of living of individuals is a widely understood concept. Studies concerning the meaning of culture for individuals as well as societies have a rich history and realized an increase in their popularity during the nineteenth century (Spencer-Oatey, Franklin, 2012). With regard to economics, scholars understood early that an individual’s and society’s culture has huge implications in the way companies have to be managed (Hofstede, 1984), especially in today’s world economy, which is marked by the effects of globalization (Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 2006).
When trying to define the concept of culture, one realizes that this is not an easy task to do. As Spencer-Oatey (2012) explained, there are hundreds of different definitions and explanations. For example, she mentions a review study from 1952, conducted by the American anthropologists Kluckhohn and Kroeber, who created a list of 162 different definitions with
11 regard to the term culture. Even though definitions of culture can vary greatly, and might even be called outdated in sorts, “[a]ll of the usages and understandings come attached to, or can be attached to, different political or ideological agendas that, in one form or another, still resonate today” (Spencer-Oatey, 2012, p. 1).
Referring to more recent definitions, Hofstede (1984) describes societal culture as a multidimensional framework, which differs in terms of a society’s individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long-term orientation. He argues that “[...] culture should be seen as a collective component shared in the minds of otherwise different individuals and absent in the minds of individuals belonging to a different society” (Hofstede, 1984, p. 82). In line with Hofstede, Spencer-Oatey (2008, p. 3) defines culture as “[...] a fuzzy set of basic assumptions and values, orientations to life, beliefs, policies, procedures and behavioural conventions that are shared by a group of people, and that influence (but do not determine) each member’s behaviour and his/her interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of other people’s behavior”. Saying this, Spencer-Oatey and Hofstede refer to the influential power of a group, to which an individual belongs to, with regard to shaping the individual’s culture. This mechanism of group influence on an individual’s behavior was studied by a multitude of researchers, who refer to it as ingroup versus outgroup behavior (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel, 1974; Brewer, 2001; Roccas, & Brewer, 2002).
By referring to culture as a ‘collective component’ (Hofstede, 1984, p. 82), which is influenced by being a member of different ingroups (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel, 1974; Brewer, 2001; Roccas, & Brewer, 2002), the question of whether individuals could uphold multiple cultures simultaneously arises. This question leads to a related body of research, namely acculturation studies. More specifically, research concerning bi-and multiculturalism.
12 2.2 The Idea of Bi-and Multiculturalism
The idea of individuals possessing two or multiple cultures simultaneously, and thus, being influenced by those, refers to cultural research, or more precisely acculturation research (Smokowski et al., 2008). Acculturation as a research topic has a long history and was early described by Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits (1936, p. 149) as a compounded phenomenon, which results in cultural change through “[...]groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, [...]”. Based on Redfield et al.’s work, Berry (1980) explains acculturation as the interplay between a dominant and a nondominant group which results in a conflict that, in turn, is solved by making adoptions for either one or both entities (as cited in Smokowski et al., 2008). Moreover, Berry (1998) realizes that the dominant culture of one group is more likely to exercise pressure, and thus, more likely to transfer its meanings (to a certain extent) to the nondominant culture (as cited in Smokowski et al., 2008). In other words, an individual is largely influenced by one culture, whereas the less dominant culture has only little influencing power.
Contrasting to what Berry describes, empirical findings suggest that individuals can, in fact, obtain and maintain two or more cultural orientations, in between which individuals utilize cultural frame switching in order to shift from one orientation to the other (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet‐Martínez, 2000). Upholding two or more cultural orientations simultaneously is phrased biculturalism (or multiculturalism respectively), which can be defined as “[...] the integration of language, food, media use, norms, and traditions from both native and host cultures, [...]” (Smokowski et al., 2008, p. 300). Especially in “[...] today’s increasingly diverse and mobile world, growing numbers of individuals have internalized more than one culture and can be described as bicultural or multicultural” (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006, p. 386). Moreover, as the aforementioned research by Hong et al. (2000) revealed, this interrelationship between different cultural orientations is controlled by cultural frame
13 switching, which can be referred to “[...] as shifting between different culturally based interpretative lenses in response to cultural cues” (Benet‐Martínez, Haritatos, 2005, p. 1018). In other words, individuals are able to switch between their cultures depending on the presented cultural cue.
However, this begs the question of why and how individuals switch from one cultural orientation to another one. By asking these questions one refers to deeper insights of biculturalism, namely bicultural identity integration research.
2.3 Assimilative and Contrastive Behavior through Cultural Cues
Within the literature of bicultural identity integration, one mainly differentiates between highly and lowly bicultural integrated individuals (Nguyen, Benet-Martínez, 2013; Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006). The difference between those two types is the degree to which an individual’s two cultures are regarded as integrated (high BII), compared to non-integrated (low BII) (Mok, Morris, 2013). Depending on whether an individual’s cultures are integrated or not, this will determine the provoked responses towards a presented cue, which represents one of the individual’s cultures (Mok, Morris, 2010). Prior research identified that responses of individuals are activated through cues, which represent the individual’s culture such as language (Luna, Ringberg, & Peracchio, 2008) or prototypical images and symbols (Hong et al., 2000).
Research concerning the impact of different cultural cues and the approach of different marketplaces through those cues in a managerial perspective are manifold. For example, Chau et al. (2002) argue that visitors of online websites can interpret the same webpage differently, based on their culture and country of origin. An individual’s country of origin, and the resulting cultural identity, also plays a huge part in the evaluation of corporate ethics (Singhapakdi,
14 Rawwas, Marta, & Ismail Ahmed, 1999). Singhapakdi et al. (1999) state that the perception, which can differ greatly between cultures, of a company’s ethical behavior has the power to make or break a company’s expansion plans. Furthermore, cues like a product’s country of origin have huge implications in the purchasing intentions of consumers (Knight, 1999). This is, according to Zhang (1996), based on an internal evaluation process of consumers. The author argues that a society’s culture influences the hierarchical evaluation of a product’s country of origin which neglects cultural similarities but is more dependent on the communication style of the product’s information. In light of communicating a product’s information, Brumbaugh (2002) identifies differences when one advertises a product by highlighting cultural aspects of a dominant culture compared to aspects of the non-dominant culture. She further states that individuals, who belong to the non-dominant culture but live within the setting of the dominant one, are similarly affected by advertisements emphasizing cues from the host culture as individuals from the dominant culture. Nevertheless, when advertisements display cues, which resemble the subculture, mainly individuals from the non-dominant culture are affected. With regard to the latter, here individuals from the non-dominant culture display a contradictive response and move in the opposite direction of the cued culture (Yang, Bond, 1980). Mok & Morris (2013) argue that this process of moving in the opposite direction from what the cultural cue proposes is a defensive and protective mechanism from individuals towards a perceived threat.
As one can identify through the definition of the term ´uncertainty avoidance`, individuals feel a sense of intimidation and peril when confronted with an unknown situation or task. The definition by Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, as reported in Kieser (1994), states that uncertainty avoidance is “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (p. 191). Moreover, individuals – in their daily affairs as well as in an economic perspective - not only dislike the unknown, but rather take preventive
15 measures to minimize the risk of engaging with an unknown and threatening situation (Cox, Rich, 1964; Ketterings, van Noordwijk, & Palm, 2001; Castaño, Sujan, Kacker, & Sujan, 2008; Hilmersson, Jansson, 2012). Consequently, this reasoning might also be applicable when an individual is confronted with an unknown culture and thus, would contrast, rather than assimilate, to the presented cultural cue.
For some bicultural individuals, responses to presented cues display a contrastive behavior (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). According to Mok & Morris (2013), bicultural individuals often experience a potential threat of losing one of their non-cued identities when engaging too much with the cued one. Thus, they further state, individuals are more likely to turn away from the cued culture in order to protect and defend their non-cued identity. Those individuals are regarded as low BII individuals. Importantly, Mok & Morris (2013) emphasize the fact that a low BII individual’s contrastive stand towards a presented cue is not deliberately made and the defensive behavior is an unconscious response by the individual. Utilizing this reasoning from Mok and Morris (2013) in combination with the aforementioned desire of individuals to avoid uncertain situations in general, it can be assumed that a low BII level will call for a contrastive response from an individual towards an unrelated cultural cue.
On the contrary, labeled with a high BII, an individual’s response towards a presented cue is mostly comprised of an assimilative, or aligning, behavior (Mok, Morris, 2013; Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). Those individuals successfully live with two cultural identities and interpret them as being compatible and cohesive (LaFromboise et al., 1993; Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). Hence, when confronted with a cultural cue high BII individuals will not respond in a defensive or protective manner (Mok, Morris, 2013). They rather utilize the idea of cultural frame switching (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002) when presented with a cue, which refers to one of their two cultural identities.
16 Referring back to the understanding of that individuals are striving for avoiding uncertain situations, it would be plausible to hypothesize that an individual’s high level of BII does not alter the contrastive response towards an unknown cultural cue. However, Korne, Byram & Fleming (2007) state that for a bicultural individual to successfully live with two cultural identities, one has to be open to accepting the differences between the known and unknown culture. They further argue that only by accepting these differences an individual is able to create a cohesive integration of both the known and unknown. Essentially, this is how high BII individuals are described, namely by living with two cultures simultaneously and interpreting them as cohesive and coherent (LaFromboise et al., 1993; Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). Additionally, Van Dijk & Zeelenberg (2007) provide an opposing perspective to individuals striving for avoiding uncertainty. In their argumentation, they state that individuals can be intrigued by unknown situations and the resulting curiosity for the unknown can exceed the anxiousness of engaging with it. This is further supported by Loewenstein’s (1994) ‘information-gap theory’, which bases the increase of an individual’s curiosity on an individual’s gap in knowledge. More elaborately, this theory argues that the more familiar somebody is with a specific topic, the more he or she is keen on understanding the unknown aspects of this topic.
Following these reasonings, one can assume that individuals with a high level of BII already have experience in combining the known with the unknown and thus, would potentially be more open-minded towards a new and unknown cultural cue. Moreover, due to their existing familiarity with the topic of integrating cultures, it can be argued that high BII individuals feel a sense of curiosity when confronted with a new cultural cue. Consequently, the unknown cultural cue would provoke an assimilative response, rather than a contrastive one. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
17 H1: There is a positive relationship between Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) and the Assimilation Response to an unrelated cultural cue.
The degree, however, to which a bicultural individual is integrated (high vs. low), or whether an individual can be regarded as a bicultural at all, is solely depending on the single individual. This can be argued based on the conducted research by Hong et al. (2000). In their work the authors “[...] proposed a dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition [...]” (p. 718), which focuses on the internal procedures of an individual’s acculturation process. They argue that today’s societies are becoming pluralistic societies in which individuals actively take part in shaping their acculturation process. This implies that the process for an individual to reach high or low BII is unique for every individual and depends “[...] on social and personal variables that reside in the society of origin, the society of settlement, and phenomena that both exist prior to, and arise during, the course of acculturation” (Berry, 1997, p. 5).
2.4 Research Context: The European and US-American Culture
Due to the study’s intension to identify the provoked responses from Europeans on US-American cultural cues, this part of the paper provides an overview of both cultures in question. Therefore, definitions of as well as comparisons between both cultures are provided. Moreover, five typically US-American cultural aspects, which differ to Europe, are identified and will function as the atypical cultural cues presented to Europeans.
18
2.4.1 Definitions and Comparisons
When referring to bicultural individuals, more precisely the geographical area in which many bicultural individuals exist, the United States of America is a prime example. Within the literature regarding societal culture and biculturalism, a multitude of studies are centered around the USA and its inhabitants (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Yamada, Singelis, 1999; Benet-Martínez et al., 2002; Nguyen, Benet-Martínez, 2013). On the one side, the USA has a favorable position for those studies due to the country’s immigration history, its division into 50 states, and its overall size and economic power (Lamoreaux, Raff, & Temin, 2003). Mainly based on its immigration history and the thereof resulting mix of cultures, many scholars describe the USA as a constitution of multiple sub-cultures (Valencia, 1989; Zhou, 1997). On the other side, when referring to the overall US-American culture one often draws from the argumentation provided by Walzer (1990). In his work Walzer argues that the belief of the existence of a country called “America” is a misperception. He goes as far as labeling the USA as a “[...] radically unfinished society [...]” (p. 614), which has no clearly defined culture, but rather a shared sense of pluralistic believes and the set goal of achieving unity. Even though Walzer describes the US-American culture as hardly definable, there was no other scholar found, who publicly states that the USA has no overall shared culture. Mostly, the US-American culture is described as being a western culture (Walzer, 1990; Benet-Martínez et al., 2002) in which patriotism (Walzer, 1990), capitalism (Hall, 2001; Ritzer, Jurgenson, 2010) and individualism (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002) stand at the forefront.
Returning to the insights provided by Walzer (1990), Valencia (1989) and Zhou (1997) comparable descriptions about an overarching culture can be given for Europe. Similar to the USA, Europe is the combination of different countries and thus, an amalgamation of a multitude of cultural influences (Askegaard, Madsen, 1998; Manzi, Vignoles, Regalia, & Scabini, 2006). Even though only one scholar, namely Echols (1998), was found who utilizes
19 the terminology ‘European culture’ in order to compare food safety regulations between Europe and the USA, more scholars argue against an overarching European culture (Smith, 1992; Perlitz, Seger, 2004; Manzi et al., 2006). Nevertheless, the definition by Spencer-Oatey (2008) can be used to argue in favor of a European culture. According to her, culture is “[...] a fuzzy set of basic assumptions and values, orientations to life, beliefs, policies, procedures and behavioural conventions that are shared by a group of people [...]” (p. 3). All of those factors can be found in Europe, more preciously, within the establishment of the European Union (EU). The EU sets guidelines for a European citizenship, a political agenda for all of Europe, and grants European citizens with rights, which are partly standing above national rights and obligations (Cini, 2016). Moreover, the European Union was the consequence of the second world war and is based in the combined efforts by European countries to create a sense of unity and prevent another inter-European conflict (European Union, 2017). The idea of an overarching European culture is further supported by the shared history of European countries and citizens. This shared history reaches back to the time of the emergence and decay of the Roman Empire (Stein, 1999), through the first and second world war, as well as a multitude of immigration streams (Hansen, 2003).
Considering all of the above, in combination with the argumentation in favor of an US-American culture, one can identify an overarching European culture. Moreover, one can reason for European citizens to possess at least two cultures, namely the one from their European country of origin and the overarching European culture. Hence, Europeans can, in fact, be regarded as bicultural individuals. However, since being bicultural does not automatically imply the degree to which one is biculturally integrated, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2: There is a positive relationship between the European Culture and Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) of European citizens.
20
2.4.2 Cultural differences
In light of the above-stated argumentation in favor of an overarching European culture as well as the paper’s intention to investigate the impact of an US-American cultural cue on European citizens, the question about the differences between the USA and Europe arises. As previously described, the US-American culture is mostly defined as being a western culture (Walzer, 1990; Benet-Martínez et al., 2002), which is marked by patriotism (Walzer, 1990), capitalism (Hall, 2001; Ritzer, Jurgenson, 2010) and individualism (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). However, most of these traits can also be referred to Europe. Europeans, too, are regarded to possess a western culture (Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 1999; Grunert, Bredahl, & Scholderer, 2003), which is denoted by individualism (Reher, 2004; Tabellini, 2010) and capitalism (Offe, Adler, 1991). Therefore, due to the accordance in western, individualistic and capitalistic attitudes of both cultures, differences were found through extensive literature reviews for the purpose of identifying differential aspects, which are regarded typical American and European.
The first cultural difference between the USA and Europe is the manifestation of patriotic believes and attitudes within the society. Referring to the USA, patriotism is an omnipresent cultural trait within the US-American society which has its origin in the discovery and colonization of the American continent (Walzer, 1990; Calhoun, 2005). Referring to European patriotism, some scholars identified a trend towards constitutional patriotism for most of the European nations (Calhoun, 2005; Müller, 2007). Constitutional patriotism, as stated by Müller (2007), who referred to insights from Cronin (2003), is defined as a “ [...] form of attachment to norms, values and procedures that are contained (or at least suggested) in a liberal democratic constitution, and, [...], the larger constitutional culture surrounding it” (p. 380). However, there are opposing views, which are hesitant to believe the emergence of a European constitutional patriotism due to the difficulty in achieving shared constitutional
21 believes within all of Europe (Kumm, 2008). In any case, one can argue that the USA has a “[...] different, stronger sense of constitutional patriotism” (Calhoun, 2005, p. 261) and thus, that patriotism in the USA is significantly more distinct than in Europe.
The second cultural difference is the utilization of religious aspects within the society. Regarding USA, phrases like `God bless America` are common themes in the US-American political landscape of today and originated from the inaugural address by George Washington 1789 (Domke, Coe, 2008). However, praising God as well as using religious gestures and phrases far exceeded the political sphere and is often times used in the daily lives of American citizens. This commercial utilization led the USA to be regarded as a more religious nation than nearly any other European nation (Reichley, 2010). This has been argued even though Europe was the continent, which “[...] has been imagined as the defender of Christianity and as Christendom’s West” (Calhoun, 2005, p. 257). In the article by Berger (2001) this argumentation is further elaborated. It states that the decrease in religious believes and attitudes of Europeans is based on the phenomenon of secularization, which is defined as “[...] a process in which religion diminishes in importance both in society and in the consciousness of individuals” (Berger, 2001, p. 443). Moreover, this article outlines the fact that Europe is only one of few geographical areas in which secularization appears and is empirically testable, whereas the USA is regarded as highly religious with an increase, rather than decrease, of religious attitudes.
Thirdly, the concept of ‘the bigger the better` is regarded as typical American, especially with regard to a business context (Adams, 2017). It derived from the mid-1950s in which the leading US car manufacturers realized the buying power of the lower-working-class. Here, manufactures identified that the lower-working-class mass allocated most of a product’s value to the design and it’s thereof resulting visual expressiveness. Thus, American car manufacturers assumed correctly that in the eyes of the consumers a bigger car represents more
22 wealth (Adams, 2017). This concept still resonates today and is visible in the US-American car market in which light-duty trucks (Pickups, Minivans, Cross-overs and SUVs) lead all car sales from the beginning of 2017 until March 2018 (The Wallstreet Journal, 2018). Referring to the European car market, light-duty trucks were less preferred in 2017, but rather small cars (e.g. the Volkswagen Golf or the Renault Clio) were at the top of the European car sales (Bekker, 2018). One potential reasoning for this is that Europeans do not emphasize external aesthetics of a product as much, but rather focus on the internal values such as safety, emissions and comfort. This can be argued based on the study by Grunert, Bredahl, and Scholderer (2003), who identified that Europeans are highly influenced by an internal top-down processing in the information of attitudes towards a product in question. Furthermore, they argue that the preservation of nature and thus, the environmental effect of a product, is highly important for Europeans and consequently, influences consumer product evaluations and willingness to purchase.
The fourth cultural difference is the disparity in traditions. As described by Mazzocchi (2006), different cultures possess different traditions, which are important to understand in order to fully engage in a different culture (Smokowski et al., 2008). One of those traditions is the US-American tradition of celebrating Thanksgiving. Due to the tradition’s origin, namely from a Protestant Anglo-Saxon, and thus European, tradition (Hobsbawm, 1983), similar traditions exist in Europe, as for example the German ‘Erntedankfest’. However, the extent to which Thanksgiving is commercialized and celebrated in the USA is no match to any other similar tradition in Europe (Schmidt, 1991).
The fifth differential aspect is sports. The engagement in different types of sports, for example soccer in Europe and football in the USA, is an important cultural trait and regarded as cultural capital by many scholars (Laberge, 1995; Holt, 1998; White, Wilson, 1999; Thrane, 2001; Wilson, 2002; Curtis, McTeer, & White, 2003). Therefore, differentiating between two
23 cultures by the means of sports – in the occasion of an accordance of cultural attitudes (being western, individualistic and capitalistic) – can be argued to be a valid approach.
2.5 Conceptual Model
Based on the precedent studies, the thereof identified research question as well as the resulting hypotheses, the following conceptual model was developed (Figure 1). The conceptual model represents the hypothesized positive relationship between the degree of Bicultural Identity Integration and the Assimilation response in light of a confrontation with an unrelated, atypical cultural cue. The research’s main emphasis lies on the analysis of this relationship, which is presented through H1. In addition, the hypothesized positive relationship between the identification of a European culture by European citizens and the degree of Bicultural Identity Integration is displayed in H2.
24
3. Pretest
Preceding the main survey, a pretest was conducted. The pretest’s purpose was to verify the context of presenting Europeans with unrelated cultural cues through the means of the previously identified differences between the European and US-American culture. Its administration was done via the online services of Qualtrics and distributed through social media platforms, such as Facebook and WhatsApp.
Within the pretest, all respondents were asked to provide demographic information (e.g. age, sex, and educational background) in order to verify that solely Europeans fill out this survey. Besides the demographic information, respondents were asked to state their opinions about the five identified differences between the European and US-American culture. In order to do that respondents rated the cultural aspects/concepts National Patriotism, Utilization of religious wording/beliefs/gestures/themes in the daily lives of citizens, The belief of ‘the bigger the better’, and Baseball, Basketball, American Football on the basis of to which degree they perceive them as typical European. Therefore, a five-item, five-point Likert scale (1=definitely not, 5=definitely yes) was used. Hence, the pretest’s intention was to verify the provision of presenting unrelated cultural cues to Europeans for the main survey. The total pretest can be found in Appendix 8.6.
Out of the 38 respondents of the pretest, two respondents were deleted listwise due to the incompleteness of their surveys. Of the 36 respondents 44.4% were female and 55.6% were male. 91.7% (N=33) of the respondents were between 21 and 30 years of age. Considering the participants’ educational backgrounds, 61.2% (N=22) were highly educated (Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctorate degree). All demographics of the pretest can be found in Appendix 8.7. As it is the pretest’s intention to analyze the degree to which the five identified cultural differences are perceived as typical European, frequency analyses were performed. For the first
25 variable, namely National Patriotism, 86.1% (N=31) regarded patriotism as not European. For the second variable, Utilization of religion in the daily lives of citizens, 75% (N=27) of the respondents identified it to be not European. The third variable, The belief of ‘the bigger the better’, was regarded as not European by 88.9% (N=32) of the respondents. The fourth variable, Thanksgiving, was identified by 97.2% (N=35) of the respondents to be not European. For the last variable, Basketball, Baseball, American Football, 94.4% (N=34) of the respondents regarded it to be not European. The results of the frequency analyses indicate that none of the variables are perceived as typically European by European citizens. Therefore, the context of presenting cultural unrelated cues to Europeans in the main survey was provided. All frequencies of the pretest can be found in Appendix 8.7.
In addition, the construct’s reliability was tested through the internal consistency method, which resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of .757 and thus, has an acceptable reliability level. After that, the scale’s mean was computed, which preceded the development of a correlation matrix. This matrix provides the variables’ means, standard deviations and reliability values (Table 1). The results indicate that there is no statistically significant correlation between the perceived Europeanness of the presented cues and the predictor variable age. Hence, it can be argued that the perceived none-Europeanness of the US-American cultural cues is not dependent on an individual’s specific demographic information but is regarded as non-European by the vast majority of Europeans. Thus, it provides another supporting argument in favor of the main survey’s context of presenting cultural unrelated cues to Europeans.
26
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, Cronbach's Alpha
Variables M SD 1 2
1. Age 27.03 9.91 -
4. Cue Europeanness 1.71 .63 -.24 (.76)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
4. Method
This part of the paper will provide the empirical aspects of the research. Firstly, the study’s general procedure and research design will be explained. Secondly, the utilized measurements and measurement scales, as well as variables will be described. Lastly, this part of the paper will describe the sample and the participants’ characteristics.
4.1 Procedure
In order to test the proposed conceptual models and thus, to answer the paper’s main research question, a quantitative research study was conducted. This was executed through the means of a survey, which featured a cross-sectional design. With regard to the survey’s administration, it was designed online via the services of Qualtrics and entailed closed fixed-response questions, which provided the respondents with a preset set of possible answers. Furthermore, the surveys entailed an encouraging description as the introduction to the survey in order to motivate the respondents to fully engage with the stated questions as well as finish the survey. Due to the most recent scandals surrounding Facebook and its misuse of customers’ private information, it was of tremendous importance to provide the respondents with a
27 guarantee of an appropriate utilization of their data. This was also clearly stated in the survey’s introductory text.
In the beginning, all respondents were asked to provide demographic information (e.g. age, educational background, sex and country of origin) about themselves. Even though asking for demographic information at the beginning of a survey can backfire due to its perceived sensitivity for some respondents, which in turn might not be willing to continue the survey afterward. However, it was important to ask those questions first due to the survey’s focus on analyzing Europeans only. Therefore, the first question was concerned about the respondent’s heritage. If a respondent had no European heritage, this person was excluded from the survey and immediately redirected to the survey’s end.
Secondly, respondents were asked to state their opinion towards two Likert scale questions. The first entailed five statements regarding an individual’s stance towards being a European citizen. The second assessed the respondent’s degree of BII on the basis of four statements, which reflected the respondent’s feelings of compatibility (vs. conflict) between their two cultures.
Lastly, respondents were asked to provide their opinion on five questions, which represented cultural unrelated, US-American, cues. Those cues derived from the five identified differences between Europeans and US-Americans, as described in part 2.4.2 of the paper. The first question asked participants to rate two US-American statements regarding patriotic beliefs. The second question asked participants to rate two US-American statements regarding the presence of religion in the society. The third question taped into the US-American believe of ‘the bigger the better’ by displaying one of the best-selling cars in the USA (Ford F-Series). Here, participants were asked to state their opinion about the type (not brand) of the car. Similar to the third question, question four displayed a typical tradition for US-Americans, namely the
28 Thanksgiving turkey. Here, participants were asked to state their opinion about adopting this tradition within Europe. The fifth and last question was about the participants’ stance towards US-American sports and the potential increase in enga gement of those types of sports in Europe.
4.2 Measures
With regard to the utilized measures of the main survey, participants were asked to first provide information about their demographics. Respondents were called upon stating their personal information concerning their age (ratio variable), their gender (nominal variable), their educational background (nominal variable) and their country of origin (nominal variable). Regarding the utilized constructs, all constructs were measured by using a seven-point Likert scale. Those scales were taken from previous studies and adjusted where possible in order to guarantee construct validity.
With the purpose of assessing the respondents’ stance towards a European culture (independent variable of H2), participants rated their identification with Europe through a validated, five-item, seven-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) by Bianchi, Mummendey, Steffens, & Yzerbyt (2010) (e.g.: I identify with the Europeans). This scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of > 0.80. One can see the five-item identification scale in appendix 8.1.
In order to assess the respondents’ degree of BII (dependent variable of H2 and independent variable of H1), participants rated their feelings of compatibility (vs. conflict) between their two cultures on a validated, slightly adjusted, four-item, seven-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) by Benet‐Martínez & Haritatos (2005) (e.g.: I feel conflicted between my home country’s and the European ways of doing things). This scale has
29 a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82. One can see the original as well as adjusted compatibility scale in appendix 8.2.
As previously described, the last part of the survey was for participants to state their opinion about five US-American cultural cues. The intention here was to recognize and thus, analyze the participants’ assimilative or contrastive responses towards an – for the participants – unrelated cultural cue (dependent variable of H1). For the first four of those five cues participants indicated their opinion by using a one-item, seven-point Likert scale (1=dislike a great deal, 7=like a great deal). Additionally, the second cue National Patriotism consisted of two patriotic statements and corresponding Likert scales due to it perceived difficulty to present one unmistakable patriotic statement. Thus, for this cue the average response of both scales was taken for further analyses. Similar to the first four, the fifth cue was also measured by a one-item, seven-point Likert scale (1=definitely not, 7=definitely yes).
4.3 Sample
The population of interest for this study was European citizens. A non-probability sampling technique was used for the main survey due to the population’s size and unknown sampling frame. Moreover, the research was conducted on the basis of anonymous respondents. The survey’s distribution was executed by sending personal e-mails and the utilization of social media platforms, namely Facebook and WhatsApp. This distribution method was used due to the enormous size of the population of interest, which entails all European citizens. Hence, this method helped to reach a large number of potential respondents. The assessment of participants’ demographic information (gender, age, educational background and country of origin) was of high importance. On the one hand, this information helped to measure the
30 similarity of the sample. On the other hand, it also verified that both surveys were solely filled out by individuals, who were born and raised in Europe and thus, Europeans.
5. Results
In this part of the paper, the results of the data analysis will be provided. Firstly, a summary of the participated respondents of the survey will be presented. Secondly, a description of the data preparation will be outlined. Lastly, the actual hypotheses testing will be displayed.
5.1 Respondents
For the survey, out of 202 people, who participated in the survey, 183 completed the survey, which equals a completion rate of 90.59%. Of the 183 completed surveys, 18 participants indicated not to be European, which reduced the sample to 165 (81.68%) respondents. Furthermore, eleven cases, which contained missing values, were identified. Therefore, 154 (76.24%) respondents were considered for further analyses. Out of the 154 respondents exactly 50% were female and 50% were male. 83.2% (N=128) of the respondents were between 20 and 30 years of age. Regarding the participants’ educational backgrounds, 68% (N=105) of the respondents were highly educated (Bachelor’s, Master’s, Professional or Doctorate degree). Moreover, 89.6% (N=138) of all respondents indicated that their country of birth is Germany or the Netherlands, whereas 90.2% (N=139) identified Germany or the Netherlands as the European country in which they spend most of their lives. All demographics of the main survey can be found in Appendix 8.4.
31 5.2 Data Preparation
About the main survey, out of the 202 respondents 48 were listwise deleted due to their none-Europeanness and incomplete surveys. This resulted in a sample size of 154 respondents. Next, the data were checked for counter-indicative items, which are phrased in a way that an agreement with the item represents a low level of the construct being measured. One counter-indicative item was found within the identification scale and three within the compatibility scale. Those items were recoded.
After that, the scales - or constructs – are tested for their reliability. Even though most of the constructs were adopted from previous studies and considered reliable by indicating a Cronbach’s alpha of above 0.7, the identification and compatibility scales were slightly adjusted. Additionally, the assimilation scale was specifically developed for this study. Hence, all constructs are tested for their reliability through the internal consistency method.
For the identification scale, the resulting Cronbach’s alpha was 0.823 and thus, a reliable scale. Regarding the corrected item-total correlation, all items displayed a score above 0.3 and thus are considered to be good. Even though the deletion of the third item (e.g. Sometimes I regret being European) would increase the Cronbach’s alpha to 0.87, the item was further incorporated due to the scale’s previous validation.
For the compatibility scale, the resulting Cronbach’s alpha was 0.714, which indicates a reliable scale. Moreover, every item had a corrected item-total correlation score above 0.3 and indicated no improvement in the Cronbach’s alpha if deleted.
For the developed assimilation scale, the resulting Cronbach’s alpha was 0.363, which indicates an unreliable scale. Furthermore, each item indicated a corrected item-total correlation score below 0.3 as well as no improvement in the scale’s Cronbach’s alpha if an item is deleted. Consequently, due to the scale’s absence of reliability, the scale has no validity
32 and thus, does not to measure the construct it was intended to measure. There are three possible explanations for this occurrence. One, this scale was newly developed for this study and therefore, was never been utilized beforehand. Two, the scale consists of five items, namely the five differences as identified in chapter 2.4 of the paper, which differ in their perceived Europeanness as indicated through the pretest’s results. Three, the scale intended to measure the assimilation (vs. contrast) response from individuals towards an unrelated, US-American cultural cue. However, the scale does not account for a preexisting acquaintance with the US culture. This means that for example, an individual perceives American Football as totally not European but generally shows empathy for this sport and thus, provides different responses than an individual, who is not acquainted with this sport. Therefore, it was decided to further use the assimilation construct for this analysis, however, in addition, the assimilation response was also analyzed by the five items of the construct as dependent variables individually. Consequently, the study’s overall results will not consist of the desired reliability and validity, however, will not change the study’s intended purpose of understanding whether bicultural individuals rather assimilate or contrast to an unknown cultural cue. On the contrary, through the utilization of the construct as the dependent variable as well as each individual Assimilation item as a dependent variable, the results might provide even deeper insights into the assimilation (vs. contrast) behavior of bicultural individuals when confronted with unrelated cultural cues.
After that, the scale means of all items were calculated. This preceded the development of a correlation matrix, which provides the variables’ means, standard deviations and reliability values (Table 2). Important here is that the correlation matrix displays not only the assimilation construct (Assimilation) but also the construct’s individual items, namely National Patriotism, Utilization of religion in the daily lives of citizens, the belief of ‘the bigger the better’, Thanksgiving, and Basketball, Baseball, American Football.
33 The results of the correlation matrix indicate that there are strong correlations between the variables. European Identification is statistical significant negatively correlated with Basketball, Baseball, American Football (p<.05). Biculturalism is statistical significant negatively correlated with Age (p<.05) as well as National Patriotism (p<.01). Furthermore, Biculturalism is statistical significant positively correlated with European Identification (p<.01). Assimilation indicates no statistically significant correlation with any of the variables except for those five items, which together compose the Assimilation construct. Regarding the five individual items, Basketball, Baseball, American Football indicate a statistically significant positive correlation with Age (p<.05). Besides this item, no other item shows a statistical significant correlation.
34
35 5.3 Hypotheses Testing
To test the aforementioned hypotheses, hierarchical regression analyses were used. First, the hierarchical regression analysis was used to analyze H1. Important here is that a total of six analyses were performed to analyze H1. The first analysis combined the five individual items within the construct of Assimilation and tried to understand the effects of BII on Assimilation within the setting of presenting unrelated cultural cues. The remaining five regression analyses were performed in order understand the separate effects of BII on National Patriotism, Utilization of religion in the daily lives of citizens, The belief of ‘the bigger the better’, Thanksgiving, and Basketball, Baseball, American Football. This type of analysis was then used to analyze H2 with the aim of identifying a linear combination of European Identification to predict in the best way the degree of Bicultural Identity Integration. In order to be able to execute the proposed analyses, dummy variables were created for Gender (0=male; 1=female) and Educational background (0=below Bachelor’s degree; 1=Bachelor’s degree or higher).
5.3.1 Hypothesis 1
The first hierarchical regression analysis was performed in order to investigate the ability of the degree of Biculturalism to predict levels of Assimilation, after controlling for gender, age and educational background.
In the first step of the analysis, three predictors were entered: gender, age and educational background. This model was statistically not significant F (3, 150) = 1.11; p > .05 and explained 2.2% of variance in Assimilation. After the inclusion of Biculturalism at Step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 3% F (4, 149) = 1.11; p > .05. The introduction of Biculturalism explained additional 1% variance in Assimilation, after
36 controlling for gender, age and educational background (R² Change = .01; F (1, 149) = 1.13; p > .05). In the final model, no predictor variable was statistically significant. Based on the results, the hypothesis of a positive relationship between Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) and the Assimilation Response within the context of an unrelated cultural cue is rejected. You can see the results of the hierarchical regression analysis in table 3.
Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Model of Assimilation
R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 .15 .00 Age .00 .01 .05 .52 Gender -.11 .10 -.09 -1.11 Educational Background -.10 .11 -.08 -.91 Step 2 .17 .03 .01 Age .00 .01 .03 .35 Gender -.11 .10 -.09 -1.10 Educational Background -.10 .11 -.08 -.92 Biculturalism -.04 .04 -.09 -1.10 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
The second, third and fourth hierarchical regression analysis were performed in order to investigate the ability of the degree of Biculturalism to predict levels of Utilization of religion in the daily lives of citizens, The belief of ‘the bigger the better’ and Thanksgiving, after controlling for gender, age and educational background. The results of these three
37 hierarchical regression analyses displayed no statistical significant outcomes. One can see the results of the analyses in Appendix 8.5.
The fifth hierarchical regression analysis was performed in order to investigate the ability of the degree of Biculturalism to predict levels of National Patriotism, after controlling for gender, age and educational background.
In the first step of the analysis, three predictors were entered: gender, age and educational background. This model was statistically not significant F (3, 150) = 0.29; p > .05 and explained 0.6% of variance in National Patriotism. After the inclusion of Biculturalism at Step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 6% F (4, 149) = 2.50; p < .01. The introduction of Biculturalism explained additional 6% variance in National Patriotism, after controlling for gender, age and educational background (R² Change = .06; F (1, 149) = 9.10; p < .01). In the final model, only one out of four predictor variables was statistically significant, with the degree of Biculturalism recording a Beta value of -.24 (p < .01). Hence, if an individual’s degree of biculturalism increases by one, their assimilation to a national patriotism decreases for 0.24. You can see the results of the hierarchical regression analysis in table 4.
38
Table 4: Hierarchical Regression Model of National Patriotism
R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 .08 -.01 Age .00 .01 -.04 -.49 Gender .03 .15 .02 .18 Educational Background -.13 .16 -.07 -.84 Step 2 .25 .06** .06** Age -.01 .01 -.08 -.96 Gender .04 .14 .02 .29 Educational Background -.14 .15 -.08 -.91 Biculturalism -.18 .06 -.24** -3.00 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
The sixth hierarchical regression analysis was performed in order to investigate the ability of the degree of Biculturalism to predict levels of Basketball, Baseball, American Football, after controlling for gender, age and educational background.
In the first step of the analysis, three predictors were entered: gender, age and educational background. This model was statistically significant F (3, 150) = 6.79; p < .001 and explained 12% of variance in Basketball, Baseball, American Football. After the inclusion of Biculturalism at Step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 12% F (4, 149) = 5.07; p > .05. The introduction of Biculturalism explained no additional variance in Basketball, Baseball, American Football, after controlling for gender, age and educational background (R² Change = .00; F (1, 149) = 0.03; p > .05). In the final model, only one out of four predictor variables was statistically significant, with gender recording a Beta value of -.29
39 (p < .001). Hence, if an individual is female, their assimilation to a US sports decreases for 0.29. You can see the results of the hierarchical regression analysis in table 5.
Table 5: Hierarchical Regression Model of Basketball, Baseball, American Football
R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 .35 .10*** Age .01 .01 .09 1.09 Gender -.68 .19 -.29*** -3.58 Educational Background -.22 .20 -.09 -1.07 Step 2 .35 .12 .00 Age .01 .01 .09 1.11 Gender -.68 .19 -.29*** -3.57 Educational Background -.21 .20 -.08 -1.07 Biculturalism .01 .08 .01 .18 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 5.3.2 Hypothesis 2
The seventh hierarchical regression analysis was performed in order to investigate the ability of European Identification to predict levels of Biculturalism, after controlling for gender, age and educational background.
In the first step of the analysis, three predictors were entered: gender, age and educational background. This model was statistically not significant F (3, 150) = 1.59; p > .05 and explained 3.1% of variance in Bicultural Identity Integration. After the inclusion of European Identification at Step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was
40 15% F (4, 149) = 6.66; p < .001. The introduction of European Identification explained additional 12% variance in Bicultural Identity Integration, after controlling for gender, age and educational background (R² Change = .12; F (1, 149) = 21.19; p < .001). In the final model one out of six predictor variables was statistically significant, with European Identification recording a Beta value of .36; p < .001. Hence, if an individual’s identification with Europe increases by one, their degree of BII increases by 0.39. Based on the results, the hypothesis of a positive relationship between the European Culture and Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) of European citizens is accepted. You can see the results of the hierarchical regression analysis in table 6.
Table 6: Hierarchical Regression Model of Bicultural Identity Integration (BII)
R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 .18 .01 Age -.02 .01 -.17 -1.91 Gender .09 .20 .04 .44 Educational Background -.05 .21 -.02 -.21 Step 2 .39 .15*** .12*** Age -.02 .01 -.16 -1.96 Gender -.08 .19 -.03 -.41 Educational Background -.03 .20 -.01 -.13 European Identification .41 .09 .36*** 4.60 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
41
6. Discussion
In this part of the paper the results’ outcomes will be discussed. At first, a general discussion of the outcomes will be provided as well as possible explanations for the specific outcomes will be given. Second, it will be discussed which theoretical implications derive from the results. Third, the results’ outcomes will be discussed in light of which managerial implications derive from them. Lastly, the paper will provide the study’s limitations and potential directions for future research opportunities.
6.1 General Discussion
The first hypothesis could not be proven. It was hypothesized that ‘there is a positive relationship between Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) and the Assimilation Response to an unrelated cultural cue’. On the contrary, the relationship between the two constructs is statistically not significant which implies that there is no relationship between the degree of BII and the assimilation response from bicultural individuals towards a culturally unrelated cue. Thus, the results differ from the previously identified positive relationship between the degree of BII and the assimilation response of bicultural individuals by Mok and Morris (2013) and Benet-Martínez et al. (2002). The most reasonable explanation for this difference in outcomes is the fact that the presented cues were culturally unrelated to the bicultural individuals, whereas previous studies only utilized cues, which were culturally related. Therefore, it could be argued that for some bicultural individuals the confrontation with an unrelated cultural cue increases their perceived uncertainty towards it, which corresponds to the definition by Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, as reported in Kieser (1994), and for others it does not. This would explain the discrepancies in responses. Furthermore, there are two additional possible explanations for this discrepancy.
