The effect of consumer ethnocentrism on the acceptance of imported grocery products in Harare, Zimbabwe

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model

Table 1. Constructs, items, item codes and sources of items

Constructs	Items and codes	Sources of items
Consumer ethnocentrism	CET1. Zimbabwean people should always buy Zimbabwean-made grocery products instead of imports	Makanyeza & du Toit, 2017; Sharma, 2015; Sharma et al., 1995; Shimp & Sharma, 1987
	CET2. Only those grocery products not available in Zimbabwe should be imported
	CET3. Buy Zimbabwean-made grocery products; keep Zimbabwe working
	CET4. Zimbabwean grocery products first, last and foremost
	CET5. Purchasing imported grocery products is un-Zimbabwean
	CET6. It is not right to purchase foreign-made grocery products
	CET7. A real Zimbabwean should always buy Zimbabwean-produced grocery products
	CET8. We should purchase grocery products made in Zimbabwe instead of letting other countries get rich off us
	CET9. It is always best to purchase Zimbabwean-made grocery products
	CET10. There should be very little trading or purchasing of grocery products from other countries unless out of necessity
	CET11. Zimbabweans should not buy foreign grocery products because this hurts Zimbabwean business and causes unemployment
	CET12. Curbs should be put on all grocery imports
	CET13. It may cost me in the long run, but I prefer to support Zimbabwean grocery products
	CET14. Foreigners should not be allowed to put their grocery products on our markets
	CET15. Foreign grocery products should be taxed heavily to reduce their entry into Zimbabwe
	CET16. We should buy from foreign countries only those grocery products that we cannot obtain within our own country
	CET17. Zimbabwean consumers who purchase grocery products made in other countries are responsible for putting their fellow Zimbabweans out of work
Consumer attitude towards imported grocery products	CAI1. Imported grocery products are good for our health	Balasubramanian & Kamakura, 1989; Burton et al., 1998; Makanyeza & du Toit, 2016; Makanyeza & du Toit, 2017
	CAI2. Imported grocery products are of high quality
	CAI3. Imported grocery products are affordable
	CAI4. Imported grocery products are good
	CAI5. Imported grocery products are favourable
	CAI6. Imported grocery products are attractive
Consumer intention towards imported grocery products	CII1. I intend to buy imported grocery products the next time I make a purchase	Hosein, 2015; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006
	CII2. I am likely to buy imported grocery products whenever I buy groceries
	CII3. I will definitely recommend others to buy imported grocery products
	CII4. I would not mind buying imported grocery products next time
	CII5. I plan to purchase imported grocery products on a regular basis
	CII6. I intend to consume imported grocery products whenever they are available
Actual purchase behaviour towards imported grocery products	API1. I often buy imported grocery products	Ismail & Mokhtar, 2017; Wee et al., 2014
	API2. I purchase imported grocery products on a regular basis
	API3. I always purchase imported grocery products if they are available
	API4. I frequently buy imported grocery products

Table 2. Sample profile

Demographic profile of the sample	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	229	45.3%
Female	276	54.7%
Age
19 years or below	22	4.4%
20–29 years	168	33.3%
30–39 years	154	30.5%
40–49 years	108	21.4%
50–59 years	49	9.7%
60 years and above	4	0.8%
Level of Education
Primary	16	3.2%
Secondary	120	23.8%
Tertiary	369	73.1%
Income level
RTGS $499 or below	91	18.0%
RTGS $500 -RTGS $999	196	38.8%
RTGS $1 000-RTGS$1 499	113	22.4%
RTGS $1 500 -RTGS$1 999	61	12.1%
RTGS$2 000 and above	44	8.7%

Table 3. Measurement model fit indices

Fit indices	Initial measurement model	Modified measurement model	Recommended values	Sources
χ2/DF	3.032	2.171	≤ 3.000	Kline (1998)
GFI	.873	.917	>0.900	Reisinger and Mavondo (2007)
AGFI	.829	.910	>0.900	Reisinger and Mavondo (2007)
NFI	.873	.920	>0.900	Reisinger and Mavondo (2007)
TLI	.886	.933	>0.900	Reisinger and Mavondo (2007)
CFI	.910	.948	>0.900	Reisinger and Mavondo (2007)
RMSEA	.063	.047	˂0.070	Hooper et al. (2008)

Table 4. Items, λ, SMCs, CRs and CRα

Constructs	Items	λ	SMC	CR	CRα
Consumer ethnocentrism (CET)	CET1	0.758	0.574	-	0.912
	CET4	0.692	0.479	16.276***
	CET5	0.754	0.569	16.082***
	CET6	0.730	0.533	14.757***
	CET7	0.753	0.567	15.937***
	CET8	0.735	0.540	16.296***
	CET9	0.639	0.409	13.711***
	CET11	0.676	0.457	14.708***
	CET12	0.680	0.463	13.955***
	CET17	0.714	0.510	15.613***
Consumer attitude towards imported grocery products (CAI)	CAI2	0.707	0.500	-	0.852
	CAI3	0.704	0.495	13.642***
	CAI4	0.718	0.515	13.850***
	CAI5	0.876	0.767	15.563***
	CAI6	0.642	0.412	13.768***
Consumer intention towards imported grocery products (CII)	CII1	0.793	0.599	-	0.897
	CII2	0.774	0.628	18.011***
	CII3	0.792	0.628	18.334***
	CII4	0.772	0.596	17.775***
	CII5	0.794	0.630	17.280***
	CII6	0.778	0.606	17.575***
Actual purchase behaviour towards imported grocery products (API)	API1	0.882	0.778	-	0.893
	API2	0.842	0.708	23.282***
	API4	0.850	0.723	23.581***

CR is fixed; *** p < 0.001.

Table 5. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD), AVEs and SICs

Construct	M	SD	CET	CAI	CII	API
CET	3.290	1.353	0.510
CAI	3.282	1.289	0.118	0.538
CII	2.999	1.317	0.244	0.343	0.593
API	2.999	1.317	0.011	0.109	0.269	0.736

Diagonal elements in bold represent AVEs.

Table 6. Results of hypotheses test

Hypothesis	Path	Standardised estimate	Critical Ratio	Supported (Yes/No)
H2	CET→CAI	−.343	−6.462***	Yes
H3	CAI→CII	.499	9.443***	Yes
H4	CET→CII	−.325	−6.894***	Yes
H5	CII→API	.501	10.015***	Yes

*** p < 0.001.

Makanyeza, C., & du Toit, F. (2017). Consumer Ethnocentrism in Developing Countries: Application of a Model in Zimbabwe. Acta Commercii, 17(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v17i1.481

 Google Scholar

Sharma, P. (2015). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Reconceptualization and Cross-Cultural Validation. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 381–389. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.42

 Google Scholar

Sharma, S., Shimp, T. A., & Shin, J. (1995). Consumer ethnocentrism: A test of antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894609

 Google Scholar

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378702400304

 Google Scholar

Balasubramanian, S. K., & Kamakura, W. A. (1989). Measuring Consumer Attitudes toward the Marketplace with Tailored Interviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 311. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378902600305

 Google Scholar

Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Garretson, J. A. (1998). A Scale for Measuring Attitude toward Private Label Products and an Examination of Its Psychological and Behavioral Correlates. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 293–306. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398264003

 Google Scholar

Makanyeza, C., & du Toit, F. (2016). Factors Influencing Consumers‘ Choice of Imported Poultry Meat Products in a Developing Market: Lessons from Zimbabwe. Agrekon, 55(3), 191–215. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2016.1203800

 Google Scholar

Hosein, N. Z. (2015). Measuring the Purchase Intention of Visitors to the Auto Show. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21427/1.649.6330

 Google Scholar

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude – Behavioral Intention” Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3

 Google Scholar

Ismail, S., & Mokhtar, S. S. M. (2017). Linking Attitude to Actual Purchase of Herbal Product in Malaysia: The Moderating Role of Perceived Risk. Journal of Asian Business Strategy, 6(2), 22–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1006/2016.6.2/1006.2.22.30

 Google Scholar

Wee, C. S., Ariff, M. S. B., Zakuan, N., & Tajudin, M. N. (2014). Key factors affecting consumer purchase intention a study of safe vegetable in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 3(2), 378–397. http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html

 Google Scholar

Kline, R. B. (1998). Software Review: Software Programs for Structural Equation Modeling: Amos, EQS, and LISREL. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16(4), 343–364. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299801600407

 Google Scholar

Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Critical issues and new developments. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 21(4), 41–71. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v21n04_05

 Google Scholar

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21427/D79B73

 Google Scholar