International Marketing

The impact of culture on the quality perception of Private Labels, and the moderation effect of price promotion

Table of Contents 1. Problem analysis 4 1.1 Current situation 4 1.2 Problem statement and research question 4 1.3 Theoretical background 5 2. Research 6 2.1 Research design 6 2.2 Data analysis and results 7 3. Conclusions, managerial implications, and limitations 10 4. References 12 5. Appendix 15 Appendix 1: Definitions 15 Appendix 2: Questionnaire 16 Appendix 3: Sample characteristics 20 Appendix 4: Normality and Homogeneity 24 Appendix 5: Cronbach’s Alpha analysis 25 Appendix 6: Bivariate correlation matrix of constructs 25 Appendix 7: Independent sample t-test 28 Appendix 8: Univariate analysis 29 Appendix 9: ANOVA Controlled for feeling Dutch 31 Appendix 10: ANOVA Controlled for gender 31

1. Problem analysis
1.1 Current situation
In the coming years, further consolidation and economies of scale are expected in the Dutch supermarket sector. In line with this trend is the gradual disappearance of specialty stores in the Netherlands (SPAR Nederland, 2015). In turn this leads to the reduction of a diversified product offer in certain areas, cities, and towns across the Netherlands (SPAR Nederland, 2015). In response to these developments, SPAR Nederland focuses on these urban and rural areas by the instalment of so called “convenience stores”. These convenience stores are small sized stores with a diversified product offer of national brands (NBs) and private labels (PLs) (see Appendix 1). PLs, which are also frequently referred to as store-brands, are particularly interesting for retailers since the margins are usually higher compared to retail margins on NBs. Furthermore, a high PL market share makes it possible to earn higher retail margins on NBs (Ailawadi & Harlam, 2004). PLs market share differ heavily per country (Lin, Marshall, & Dawson, 2009), and strategies of SPAR vary across countries to attract consumers (SPAR International, 2014). For example, the average European PL market share is 23 percent while the average Chinese PL market share is only 4 percent (Lin, Marshall, & Dawson, 2009). This can be seen as an indicator of a lower likelihood of PLs consumption of a Chinese person in the Netherlands. The immigration of Chinese people to the Netherlands is growing at a fast pace over the past 20 years (CBS, 2011). In addition, China is ranked second, when it comes to the amount of students studying in the Netherlands (Nuffic, 2015). SPAR Nederland aims to present itself as an involved, convenient and decisive partner towards all customers (SPAR Nederland, 2015). SPAR Nederland’s objective is to grow their PL across the Dutch market, it is therefore important for the company to gain insights in the determinants of different cultural groups, and how these determinants affect PLs.

1.2 Problem statement and research question
Existing research identified price signaling versus perceived quality as two determinants of PL choice (Sethuraman & Gielens, 2014). Although this research acknowledges that price is of great influence of PL choice, the focus is mainly on perceived quality as research shows that people around the world have different perspectives of perceived quality (Furrer et al., 2000; Armstrong, 1997; Crotts, 2000; Donthu, 2000; McSweeney, 2002; Koh, 2010; Kassim, 2010). Therefore, cultural differences among groups could explain why quality is perceived differently around the globe. Hence, it is relevant for SPAR Nederland to know how cultural groups in the Netherlands differ in their behavior towards the two important determinants of PLs, price and quality perception. The relevancy for SPAR Nederland and of this model is in line with Steenkamp and Geyskens’ (2013) call to investigate to what extent price promotions should be approached differently in countries across the world to boost PLs share. In more specific, this research defines culture by means of two groups, namely, Dutch and Chinese people living in the Netherlands. The research question that will be investigated is: “To what extent does price promotion moderate the relationship between culture and quality perception of private labels?” 1.3 Theoretical background
De Mooij and Hofstede (2002) define culture by eight dimensions. Asian cultures are associated with higher levels of uncertainty avoidance (UA) (see Appendix 1) compared to individualistic cultures, therefore these Asian cultures are more attracted to products with a lower risk (Moss & Vinten, 2001; Samli, 1995; Shannon, 2005). Furthermore, there is a strong belief that Asian consumers have a strong preference for NBs over PLs (Ahuvia & Wong, 1998; Brady et al., 2003; De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002). According to Batra and Sinha (2000) consumers who relate higher prices with higher quality are less attracted by PLs. According to De Mooij and Hofstede (2002) PLs are more frequent in individualistic cultures such as the Netherlands, than collectivist cultures such as in China. They presented two specific reasons for collectivist (Asian) nations to choose NBs over PLs, namely that NBs lead to more status, and the preference for long-term relationships and so for well-known NBs. Therefore, collectivistic cultures are more risk averse and tend to value brand names. They also value the perceived link between price and quality, which negatively affects the image of PLs in such countries. On the other hand, individualistic cultures are supposed to look after themselves, rather using logic based on price and quality which could turn out beneficial in their own interest (Mandhachitara et al., 2007).
However, when comparing the Netherlands with China on UA, the Netherlands score higher on UA than China, 52% versus 30%. The lower score is partly explained by the sense of ambiguity rooted in Chinese society. In contrast, according to the Inglehart Welzel (2010) cultural map, China rates very low on the survival - self-expression scale, resulting in a high need for survival values, while the Netherlands is high on self-expression values. This results in strong economic, cognitive and social constraints on individual choice and autonomy for China, which is a contradiction between the two theories on rules and on perceived risk. The social constraints in the Chinese society could explain the risk adverse attitude towards PLs. Based on the evidence the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Dutch people have higher level of quality perception of PLs over Chinese people living in the Netherlands.

Promoting a product in the supermarket is lowering its perceived quality. (Villarejo-Ramos & Sanchez-Franco, 2005; Yoo et al., 2000). Managers use these promotions to increase sales outputs, but “consumers believe that a positive correlation exists between price and quality. They use price as an index of product quality and vice versa. Quality = Value x Price” (Yoo et al., 2015). Moreover, the consumer will see price promotion as a negative influence on perceived quality. However, “the negative effects of a price promotion on perceived quality was counterbalanced by the positive effect of the brand’s name” (Alenazi et al., 2015). This explains why “Private label brands are negatively affected by price promotions, while national brands are positively related to price promotions” (Alenazi et al., 2015). Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: The moderating effect of price promotion is stronger for Dutch over Chinese people living in the Netherlands in the relationship with quality perception of PLs.

2. Research
2.1 Research design
The research aims to give SPAR insides on how cultural differences between Dutch and Chinese people living in the Netherlands have an effect on their quality perception of PLs. In addition, the research shows how price promotion moderates this effect. The research is based on quantitative data since it attempts the precise measurement of the causal effect (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Data is collected from a cross-sectional survey research (Sekeran & Bougie, 2013) (see Appendix 2). An online based survey was used due to the limitation constraints of time and distance. To indicate different outcomes on perceived quality of PLs, the variable price promotion is manipulated. The survey will randomly show a picture of a shopping basket of PLs with or without price promotion since perceived quality has stronger cognitive overtones than attitude (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1989; Steenkamp, 1989). To get a better understanding of how the price promotion influences the relation between cultural differences and perceived quality of PLs, the theoretical logic reasoning behind price promotion is grounded in the consumers’, s-shaped response to promotions. When a price promotion is lower than 10% it has almost no impact on consumer behavior. On the other hand, price promotions above 60% are perceived as unrealistic. Price promotions between 25% and 30% have the greatest influence on consumer’ willingness to buy the product. Therefore, price promotion is manipulated with 30% in the survey (Gupta & Cooper, 1992).
All questions regarding the conceptual model are operationalized following the 7-point Likert interval scale, to examine how strongly respondents agree with a statement. It allows to distinguish consumers in terms of how they differ from another (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). Putoni et al. (2009) argue that to avoid different emotional reactions regarding the language of the survey among the respondents, the survey must be conduct in a common language. Therefore, the survey is formulated in English, since this is the second most common language for both Dutch and Chinese participants.
Sekaran & Bougie (2013) states that convenience sampling is the best way of collecting information quick and efficient. Due to time constrains and financial limitations convenience sampling is selected. The sampling strategy is to conduct online surveys with own devices in front of several supermarkets to increase the likelihood, that the respondents meet the requirements and that they are familiar with buying grocery and are older than 18.

2.2 Data analysis and results
Out of the 129 respondents, 104 questionnaires are filled out completely (see Appendix 3.1). The sample consists out of 46 Chinese and 68 Dutch people (see Appendix 3.2) of which most of the Chinese people are living for less than 3 years in the Netherlands (see Appendix 3.3). Of the 36 Chinese respondents who recorded a score below 50% towards feeling Dutch (the control variable), 20 of them are feeling less than 10% Dutch (see Appendix 3.4). The age of the respondents ranges between 18 and 53 with an average of 27.43 (see Appendix 3.5). 49% of the respondents are male, while 51% are female (see Appendix 3.6), with varying shopping frequencies (see Appendix 3.7).
Out of all respondents, 63.5% indicated they were indeed familiar with the Spar PL. Further investigation also showed that only 20% of the Chinese respondents know the Spar PL while 100% of the Dutch respondents know the Spar PL (see Appendix 3.8).
With regards to normality and homogeneity, the Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances (see Appendix 4) indicates a p-value of 0.422 meaning that there is no significant difference from an equality of variance across the various conditions of the study. When assessing the normality, the Komogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests (see Appendix 4.1) show both p-values (0.200 and 0.458 respectively) which are greater than 0.05. Hence, there is no evidence of any significant deviation from normality for the residuals. This is again confirmed when looking at the normality plot (see Appendix 4.2) which shows that the observed residual values lie close on the diagonal line, which represents a true normal distribution. Therefore, the data of the study shows normality and equality of variance and satisfies the conditions for performing the analysis of variance calculation.
To measure internal consistency of the questions related to the perceived quality of PLs and the UA, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated indicating respectively 0.682 and 0.820 (see Appendix 5). To have a valid construct of questions the internal consistency needs to be at least 0.7 (Pallant, 2015). However, in contrast with this paper, Dodds, Monroe and Grewal (1991) found in the construct of questions about perceived quality of PLs a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95, while this paper only shows a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.682. Out of the five questions aiming on perceived quality of PLs, the question “These private label products would seem to be durable” is not consistent with the others. When this question is left out, the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.810 (see Appendix 5). Therefore, it is better to eliminate this question. As the Cronbach’s alpha for UA is 0.820, the construct seems reliable and there is no need to eliminate any question.
After revision of the construct perceived quality of PLs, the correlation matrix shows that the items measure perceived quality of PLs, as all questions are significant correlated (see Appendix 6.1). The correlation matrix for UA shows similar significant results, indicating that these questions also are validly measuring the right construct (see Appendix 6.2).
A critical point throughout this paper is whether the Chinese persons living in the Netherlands score higher or lower on UA than the Dutch persons. With an independent samples t-test, significantly at the 95 percentile it can be concluded, that Chinese persons living in the Netherlands score higher on UA than the Dutch persons, respectively 5.2489 and 4.6393 (see Appendix 7.1).
With an independent samples t-test on perceived quality (see Appendix 7.2), the first hypothesis was tested. And from this test it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 is accepted and that Dutch people have indeed a higher perception of quality towards PLs (significant at 0.050).
The univariate analysis explains the relationship between Dutch and Chinese people living in the Netherlands on perceived quality of PLs, and the potential moderating effect of promotion (see Appendix 8). The results indicate that the means of perceived quality of Dutch (4.817) is significantly F (4.688) = 0.33 higher compared to Chinese people (4.467) living in the Netherlands. Based on these results, it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 is supported.
It matters whether products are on promotion or are not on promotion (see Appendix 8.3). It seems that there is a similar interaction effect of the moderator for both groups, more specifically, Dutch (with promotion, 4.664; without promotion, 4.9911) and for Chinese (with promotion, 4.250; without promotion, 4.650); that is, both groups perceive quality lower if they are exposed to promotion (see Appendix 8.2). However, the moderating effect promotion is not significant F (0.044) = 0.835. Therefore, hypothesis two is rejected. It is interesting to note that there is a significant F 4.345 = 0.040 difference in the relationship of promotion on perceived quality of PLs, meaning that promotion directly influences perceived quality of PLs, and therefore could be interpreted as an independent variable.
Insignificant results are displayed, when controlled for the extent that people feel Dutch, meaning that no conclusions can be drawn. When controlled for gender, it can be concluded that this control variable on itself is statistically significant F (14.440) = 0,000; men generally have higher perceived quality compared to women. However, when gender is included in the model both the main and interaction effect are insignificant.

3. Conclusions, managerial implications, and limitations
This research investigated to what extent price promotion moderated the relationship between culture (i.e. Dutch and Chinese people living in the Netherlands) and quality perception of PLs. The main effect between culture and quality perception of PLs turned out to be significant, and this effect was stronger for Dutch over Chinese people. The outcomes of both hypotheses are visualized below.
Table 1. Indicates the hypotheses evaluation overview. Hypotheses | Conclusion | H1: Dutch people have higher level of quality perception of PLs over Chinese people living in the Netherlands. | Supported | H2: The moderating effect of price promotion is stronger for Dutch over Chinese people living in the Netherlands in the relationship with quality perception of PLs. | Rejected |
The fact that H1 is supported, implies that nationality makes a significant difference to what extent people perceive quality of PLs. This outcome is in line with the findings of other scholars (Furrer et al., 2000; Armstrong, 1997; Crotts, 2000; Donthu, 2000; McSweeney, 2002; Koh, 2010; Kassim, 2010). Therefore, SPAR Nederland should take into account the quality perception of PLs of different nationalities within one country.
Difference in perceived quality of PLs between the groups is also reflected in the additional measured dimension, namely UA. It turns out Chinese people score higher on the UA dimension, whereas Dutch people score lower, which contradicts the findings of De Mooij & Hofstede (2002).
After testing the interaction effect of price promotion in relationship with Dutch and Chinese people living in the Netherlands and quality perception of PLs, no significant effect was found. However, the results do indicate a significant direct relationship between price promotion and quality perception of PLs. Next to that, there is no difference between the two groups in our sample when it comes to promotion. This finding is highly relevant for SPAR Nederland since the manipulation (i.e. promotion/no promotion) in the survey was visualized with PLs products of SPAR Nederland. Nevertheless, future research should try to find out, whether these results also hold for different products or different product categories. Based on our sample, and the fact that there is no difference between the two groups with reference to promotion, it is recommended for SPAR Nederland to choose a standardized price promotion strategy rather than an adapted price promotion strategy as proposed by Steenkamp & Geyskens (2013).
Insignificant results are shown when controlled for the degree that Chinese in the investigated sample feel themselves ‘Dutch’ (see Appendix 9). This implies, that SPAR could standardize the marketing mix for China with regards to price promotion. However, when it comes to price promotion, SPAR Nederland should note, that only a 30 percent discount is used for the moderation effect (i.e. price promotion). According to the s-shaped response curve to promotions, 30 percent has the most influence on customers’ willingness to buy (Gupta & Cooper, 1992). Future research should investigate whether different promotion percentages will generate different results. Moreover, the way in which the price promotion is framed might have an important influence on customers’ quality perception of PLs (i.e. 30% discount vs. “from €2,- now €1,40”) as well.
Even though the results of the main and interaction effect are insignificant when controlled for gender, generally men perceive quality of PLs higher than women as the control variable gender on itself is significant (see Appendix 10). A possible explanation for this phenomenon could be that men in general have a higher frequency of doing groceries compared to women (see Appendix 3.9).
Furthermore, the brand recognition of SPAR Nederland among Chinese people living in the Netherlands is relatively low compared to Dutch people. Only one out of five recognizes the logo of SPAR Nederland. For this reason, SPAR Nederland should consider to enhance its brand awareness among Chinese people living in the Netherlands. Moreover, it should be taken into consideration that the survey was obtained in front of different grocery retailers and not specifically in front of SPAR Nederland shops. Therefore, it could be the case that the familiarity of Chinese people living in the Netherlands was low when it comes to the brand recognition of SPAR Nederland. However, at the same time this increases the generalizability of the findings of this paper and hence makes it relevant for grocery retailers in general.

4. References Ahuvia, A. & Wong, N. (1998). Personal Taste and Family Face: Luxury Consumption in Confucian and Western Societies. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 423 – 441. Alenazi, S., Almotairi, M. & Al-Meshal, S. (2015). The Perceived Quality of Store Brands: The Effect of Price Promotion and Quality Guarantees. International Journal of Marketing studies, 7(4), 88 – 93. Armstrong, R. W., Mok, C., Go, F. M., Chan, A. (1997). The Importance of Cross-cultural Expectations in the Measurement of Service Quality Perceptions in the Hotel Industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(2), 181 – 190. Batra, R. & Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label brands. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 175 – 191. Brady, L., Brown, A., Hulit, B. (2003). Private label: Threat to manufacturers, opportunity for retailers. Chicago, USA: Boston Consulting Group. Centraal Bureau Statistiek. (2011). Ruim 51 duizend Chinezen van de eerste generatie in Nederland. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/nlNL/menu/themas/dossiers/globalisering/publicaties/artikelen/archief/
2011/2011-chinezen-art.htm
Cooper, D. & Schindler P. (2008). Business Research Methods. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill. Crotts, J. C., & Erdmann, R. (2000). Does National Culture Influence Consumers' Evaluation of Travel Services? A test of Hofstede's model of Cross-cultural Differences. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 10(6), 410 – 419.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. & Grewal, D. (1991). The effects of price, brand and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307 – 319.
Donthu, N., & Yoo, B. (1998). Cultural Influences on Service Quality Expectations. Journal of service research, 1(2), 178 – 186. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2000). Changing Mass Priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 551 – 567. Furrer, O., Liu, B. S. C., Sudharshan, D. (2000). The Relationships between Culture and Service Quality Perceptions Basis for Cross-cultural Market Segmentation and Resource Allocation. Journal of service research, 2(4), 355 – 371. Gupta, S. & Cooper, L. (1992). The Discounting of Discounts and Promotion Thresholds. Journal of consumer research, 19(3), 401 – 411. Kassim, N., & Asiah Abdullah, N. (2010). The effect of perceived service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in e-commerce settings: a cross cultural analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 22(3), 351 – 371. Koh, N. S., Hu, N., Clemons, E. K. (2010). Do Online Reviews Reflect a Product’s True Perceived Quality? An investigation of online movie reviews across cultures. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(5), 374 – 385. Lin, C. Y., Marshall, D., Dawson, J. (2009). Consumer attitudes towards a European retailer's private brand food products: an integrated model of Taiwanese consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(9-10), 875 – 891. Mandhachitara, R., Shannon, R., Hadjicharalambous, C. (2007). Why Private Label Grocery Brands Have Not Succeeded in Asia. Journal of Global Marketing, 20(2-3), 71 – 87. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human relations, 55(1), 89 – 118. De Mooij, M. & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and Divergence in Consumer Behavior: Implications for International Retailing. Journal of retailing, 78(1), 61 – 69. Moss, G. & Vinten, G. (2001). Choices and Preferences: Testing the Effect of Nationality. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 1(2), 198 – 208.
Nielsen. (2014). The State Of Private Label Around The World: Where It’s Growing, Where It’s Not, And What The Future Holds.
Nuffic. (2015). Internationalisation in higher ecudation. Retrieved from https://www.nuffic.nl/en/library/key-figures-2015-internationalisation-in-higher-education.pdf
Pallant, J. (2015). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill. Puntoni, S., de Langhe, B., van Osselaer, S. (2009). Bilingualism and the Emotional Intensity of Advertising Language. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 1012 – 1025. Obermiller, C. & Spangenberg, E. (1989). Exploring the effects of country-of-origin labels: An information processing framework. Advances in Consumer Research, 16(1), 454 – 459. Samli, A. (1995). International Consumer Behavior: Its Impact on Marketing Strategy Development. Westport, USA: Quorum Books. Sekeran, U., & Bougie R. (2013). Research Methods for Business. Chichester, England: Wiley. Sethuraman, R. & Gielens, K. (2014). Determinants of Store Brand Share. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 141 – 153. Shannon, R. & Mandhachitara, R. (2005). Private-label Grocery Shopping Attitude and Behaviour: A cross-cultural study. The Journal of Brand Management, 12(6), 461 – 474. Steenkamp, J. B. (1990). Conceptual Model of the Quality Perception Process. Journal of Business Research, 21(4), 309 – 333.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Geyskens, I. (2013). Manufacturer and retailer strategies to impact store brand share: Global integration, local adaptation, and worldwide learning. Marketing Science, 33(1), 6-26. Steenkamp, J. B. & de Jong, M. (2010). A Global Investigation into the Constellation of Consumer Attitudes toward Global and Local Products. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 18 – 40. Steenkamp, J. B. & Kumar, N. (2007). Private Label Strategy: How to Meet the Store Brand Challenge. Boston, USA: Harvard Business School Press. Villarejo-Ramos, A. & Sanchez-Franco, M. (2005). The Impact of Marketing Communication and Price Promotion on Brand Equity. The Journal of Brand Management, 12(6), 431 – 444. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lenartonicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede’s Five Dimensions of Cultural Values at the Individual Level: Development and Validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 193 – 210. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S. (2000). An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195 – 211. Yoon, S., Oh, S., Song, S., Kim, K., Kim, Y. (2014). Higher Quality or Lower Price? How Value-increasing Promotions Affect Retailer Reputation. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 2088 – 2096.

5. Appendix
Appendix 1: Definitions

DEFINITION: Uncertainty avoidance: is the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid them. Cultures of strong uncertainty avoidance need strict rules and formality to structure life. In weak uncertainty avoidance cultures people tend to be more innovative and entrepreneurial (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002).

DEFINITION: Attitude towards PL (private label) products: is linked to the perceived quality of a product. Benedict & Steenkamp (1990) define perceived quality as “Perceived product quality is an idiosyncratic value judgment with respect to the fitness for consumption which is based upon the conscious and/or unconscious processing of quality cues in relation to relevant quality attributes within the context of significant personal and situational variables.”

DEFINITION: Private label products: store brand products that are sold under the name of the store brand and are only sold within its own supermarkets (Steenkamp & Kumar, 2007).

Appendix 2: Questionnaire

Dear respondent, Thank you for taking time to fill out this questionnaire. We are students from Tilburg University and do a research about private label products. For this research we would like you to answer some questions.

Answering this questionnaire will take about 5 minutes. Please read all the questions carefully before you answer. With your participation you agree that your answers can be used for study purposes. Nonetheless, your answers are completely anonymous and will be kept confidential in the interests of the research.

Thank you for your participation! Kind Regards,

Alexander Ebeling
Tom Helder
Martijn van Hoof
Annelies Peters
Kevin Smulders
Shannon Ray Timmer

Don’t hesitate to contact us when you have questions: a.g.peters@uvt.nl

Before answering the questions, it is important that you know what a private label is. Please read the following definition carefully: Private label products are products that are owned and branded by retailers. Most grocery stores have two different kinds of products on their shelves, namely private label products and national brand products. Private label products are owned by the grocery stores and are only available in that particular grocery store, whereas national brand products are available in a variety of grocery stores.

Please be aware of the fact that this research is only focusing on private label products! 1. What is your nationality?

* Dutch * Chinese * Other 2. For how long do you live in the Netherlands?

* Less than 1 year * Between 1 and 3 years * Between 3 and 5 years * More than 10 years

3. Give a mark on the scale how much you feel yourself a Dutch person.

Please imagine the following situation: you are shopping in a grocery store and you are about to buy private label products.

The price promotion manipulation was randomly assigned for the respondents.

4. The likelihood that these private label products would be reliable is:

Very low O O O O O O O Very high

5. The workmanship of these private label products would be:

Very low O O O O O O O Very high

6. These private label products would seem to be durable.

Strongly agree O O O O O O O Strongly disagree

7. The likelihood that these private label products are dependable is:

Very low O O O O O O O Very high

8. These private label products should be of:

Very low quality O O O O O O O Very high quality

For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you agree with the sentence.

Finally, we are asking you a few questions for statistical reasons.

14. What is your gender?

* Male * Female

15. What is your year of birth? * Drop down menu 1999 – 1940

16. How often do you do grocery shopping?

* Less than once a week * Once a week * Twice a week * Three times a week * Four or more times a week

Have a close look at this brand.

17. Are you familiar with this brand?

* Yes * No

This is the end of the questionnaire. Your response has been recorded.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Appendix 3: Sample characteristics

3.1 Sample size

| Nationality | Period_NL | Gender | Age | Frequency_shopping | Spar_ Familiar | N | 129 | 118 | 104 | 104 | 104 | 104 |

3.2 Nationality

3.3 Frequency NL

3.4 Ranking

3.5 Age Age

3.6 Gender

3.7 Shopping frequency

3.8 Familiarity Spar brand

Familiarity Spar brand | Percentage | Dutch | 100% | Chinese | 20% |

3.9 Gender and grocery shopping

Appendix 4: Normality and Homogeneity 4.1 Table Levene’s and Normality tests | Dependent Variable: PQ_AGGR | F | df1 | df2 | Sig. | ,945 | 3 | 102 | ,422 | Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. | Design: Intercept + Nationality_NEW + Prom_NEW + Nationality_NEW * Prom_NEW | Tests of Normality | | Kolmogorov-Smirnova | Shapiro-Wilk | | Statistic | df | Sig. | Statistic | df | Sig. | Standardized Residual for PQ_AGGR | ,071 | 106 | ,200* | ,988 | 106 | ,458 | *. This is a lower bound of the true significance. | a. Lilliefors Significance Correction4.2 Normality plot |

Appendix 5: Cronbach’s Alpha analysis

Variable | Existing literature | CA survey constructs | CA Adjusted | Perceived quality | 0.950 | 0.661 | 0.810 | Uncertainty avoidance | 0.904 | 0.820 | N.a. |

Appendix 6: Bivariate correlation matrix of constructs 6.1 Correlations perceived quality of private label | | The likelihood that these private label products would be reliable is:-Very low:Very high | The workmanship of these private label products would be:-Very low :Very high | The likelihood that these private label products are dependable is:-Very low :Very high | These private label products should be of:-Very low quality :Very high quality | The likelihood that these private label products would be reliable is:-Very low:Very high | Pearson Correlation | 1 | ,498** | ,570** | ,619** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | | ,000 | ,000 | ,000 | | N | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | The workmanship of these private label products would be:-Very low :Very high | Pearson Correlation | ,498** | 1 | ,456** | ,447** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | ,000 | | ,000 | ,000 | | N | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | The likelihood that these private label products are dependable is:-Very low :Very high | Pearson Correlation | ,570** | ,456** | 1 | ,510** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | ,000 | ,000 | | ,000 | | N | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | These private label products should be of:-Very low quality :Very high quality | Pearson Correlation | ,619** | ,447** | ,510** | 1 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | ,000 | ,000 | ,000 | | | N | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |

6.2 Correlations uncertainty avoidance | | For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-It is important to have instructions spelled out in detail so that I always know what I’m expected to do. | For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-It is important to closely follow instructions and procedures. | For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-Rules and regulations are important because they inform me of what is expected of me. | For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-Standardized work procedures are helpful. | For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-Instructions for operations are important. | For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-It is important to have instructions spelled out in detail so that I always know what I’m expected to do. | Pearson Correlation | 1 | ,622** | ,520** | ,275** | ,418** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | | ,000 | ,000 | ,005 | ,000 | | N | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 | For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-It is important to closely follow instructions and procedures. | Pearson Correlation | ,622** | 1 | ,530** | ,359** | ,432** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | ,000 | | ,000 | ,000 | ,000 | | N | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 |

For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-Rules and regulations are important because they inform me of what is expected of me. |

Pearson Correlation | ,520** | ,530** | 1 | ,525** | ,551** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | ,000 | ,000 | | ,000 | ,000 | | N | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 | For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-Standardized work procedures are helpful. | Pearson Correlation | ,275** | ,359** | ,525** | 1 | ,600** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | ,005 | ,000 | ,000 | | ,000 | | N | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 | For each pair of the sentences rate a point between them which reflects the extent to which you a...-Instructions for operations are important. | Pearson Correlation | ,418** | ,432** | ,551** | ,600** | 1 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | ,000 | ,000 | ,000 | ,000 | | | N | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 | **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |

Appendix 7: Independent sample t-test
7.1 Independent samples t-test - Nationality and UA | Levene's Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | | F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | | | | Lower | Upper | UA_AGGR | Equal variances assumed | 5,034 | ,027 | -2,695 | 99 | ,008 | -,60960 | ,22618 | -1,05840 | -,16081 | | Equal variances not assumed | | | -2,743 | 98,639 | ,007 | -,60960 | ,22226 | -1,05064 | -,16857 |

7.2 Independent samples t-test - Nationality and perceived quality Group Statistics | Nationality_NEW | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | PQ_AGGR | 0 | 46 | 4,4674 | ,99248 | ,14633 | | 1 | 60 | 4,8167 | ,81676 | ,10544 | Independent Samples Test | | Levene's Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | | F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | | | | Lower | Upper | PQ_AGGR | Equal variances assumed | 2,248 | ,137 | -1,987 | 104 | ,050 | -,34928 | ,17579 | -,69788 | -,00067 | | Equal variances not assumed | | | -1,936 | 86,147 | ,056 | -,34928 | ,18037 | -,70782 | ,00927 |

Independent Sample t-test Plot 0 = Chinese / 1 = Dutch
Appendix 8: Univariate analysis 8.1 Between-Subjects Factors | | N | Prom_NEW | 0 | 53 | | 1 | 53 | Nationality_NEW | 0 | 46 | | 1 | 60 |

8.2 Descriptive statistics | Dependent Variable: PQ_AGGR | Prom_NEW | Nationality_NEW | Mean | Std. Deviation | N | 0 | 0 | 4,6500 | ,97628 | 25 | | 1 | 4,9911 | ,85927 | 28 | | Total | 4,8302 | ,92348 | 53 | 1 | 0 | 4,2500 | ,99058 | 21 | | 1 | 4,6641 | ,75831 | 32 | | Total | 4,5000 | ,87294 | 53 | Total | 0 | 4,4674 | ,99248 | 46 | | 1 | 4,8167 | ,81676 | 60 | | Total | 4,6651 | ,90953 | 106 |

8.3 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances Dependent Variable: PQ_AGGR | F | df1 | df2 | Sig. | ,945 | 3 | 102 | ,422 | Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. | a. Design: Intercept + Prom_NEW + Nationality_NEW + Prom_NEW * Nationality_NEW |

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects | Dependent Variable: PQ_AGGR | Source | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Partial Eta Squared | Corrected Model | 6,599a | 3 | 2,200 | 2,796 | ,044 | ,076 | Intercept | 2227,232 | 1 | 2227,232 | 2830,471 | ,000 | ,965 | Prom_NEW | 3,419 | 1 | 3,419 | 4,345 | ,040 | ,041 | Nationality_NEW | 3,689 | 1 | 3,689 | 4,688 | ,033 | ,044 | Prom_NEW * Nationality_NEW | ,034 | 1 | ,034 | ,044 | ,835 | ,000 | Error | 80,261 | 102 | ,787 | | | | Total | 2393,750 | 106 | | | | | Corrected Total | 86,861 | 105 | | | | | a. R Squared = ,076 (Adjusted R Squared = ,049) |

Appendix 9: ANOVA Controlled for feeling Dutch Tests of Between-Subjects Effects | Dependent Variable: PQ_AGGR | Source | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Partial Eta Squared | Corrected Model | 6,777a | 4 | 1,694 | 2,137 | ,082 | ,078 | Intercept | 291,456 | 1 | 291,456 | 367,579 | ,000 | ,784 | Nationality_NEW * Prom_NEW | ,009 | 1 | ,009 | ,011 | ,916 | ,000 | Nationality_NEW | ,670 | 1 | ,670 | ,845 | ,360 | ,008 | Prom_NEW | 3,204 | 1 | 3,204 | 4,041 | ,047 | ,038 | Feel_NL | ,178 | 1 | ,178 | ,224 | ,637 | ,002 | Error | 80,083 | 101 | ,793 | | | | Total | 2393,750 | 106 | | | | | Corrected Total | 86,861 | 105 | | | | | a. R Squared = ,078 (Adjusted R Squared = ,042) |

Appendix 10: ANOVA Controlled for gender Tests of Between-Subjects Effects | Dependent Variable: PQ_AGGR | Source | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Partial Eta Squared | Corrected Model | 16,344a | 4 | 4,086 | 5,932 | ,000 | ,200 | Intercept | 2145,189 | 1 | 2145,189 | 3114,082 | ,000 | ,970 | Nationality_NEW * Prom_NEW | ,416 | 1 | ,416 | ,604 | ,439 | ,006 | Nationality_NEW | 2,065 | 1 | 2,065 | 2,997 | ,087 | ,031 | Prom_NEW | 4,716 | 1 | 4,716 | 6,845 | ,010 | ,067 | Gender | 9,947 | 1 | 9,947 | 14,440 | ,000 | ,132 | Error | 65,442 | 95 | ,689 | | | | Total | 2269,688 | 100 | | | | | Corrected Total | 81,787 | 99 | | | | | a. R Squared = ,200 (Adjusted R Squared = ,166) |