Chapter 1 draft
cocoddy
CMP-dissertationpapersOnline_Decision-Making_Styles_1.pdf
Online Decision-Making Styles and Modes of Acculturation: Influences on the Filipino-
American Consumers’ Pre-Purchase Behavior
Dissertation Manuscript
Submitted to Northcentral University
Graduate Faculty of the School of Business and Technology Management
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
RICARDO P. MABAYO
Prescott Valley, Arizona
April 2017
ProQuest Number:
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest
Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
10287945
10287945
2017
iii
Abstract
The fastest growing Asian American markets with substantial buying power are the
Filipino-Americans. With a population of 2.9 million, the Filipino-Americans register a
total purchasing power of $121 billion. As this population grows due to demographic
and immigration factors, so too will their purchasing power. They are clearly an
influential economic force that can contribute meaningful growth opportunities for online
retailers in the US.
A business organization needs to include the group’s cultural insights into their core
marketing strategies to tap or increase its share of the Filipino-American market. This is
an important marketing consideration since people from different cultures think, feel, and
act differently. These cultural idiosyncrasies can contribute to the variations in the online
consumers’ decision-making habits or styles. As part of cultural adaptation, acculturation
plays a role in shaping the consumers’ purchase decisions. Understanding the effect of
acculturation on the decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans will provide
businesses an opportunity to determine the group’s pre-purchase behavior in electronic
commerce.
This quantitative study aimed to: 1) determine the online decision-making styles of
Filipino-Americans; 2) examine the impact of acculturation with regard to the identified
decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; and 3) determine the extent of relationship
between the two acculturation dimensions, i.e., ethnic and host culture identifications,
and the identified online decision-making styles. Research participants included a sample
group of Filipino-American adults living in the United States selected through purposive
sampling technique. A web-based questionnaire containing two survey instruments with
iv
previously validated scales was used in the research. The modified Consumer Styles
Inventory instrument for online purchases was utilized to determine the consumers’
decision-making styles, and the ARSMA-II instrument adapted for Filipino-Americans
was used to measure acculturation.
The findings of the study indicated that Filipino-American consumers differed in their
decision-making styles when shopping for products or services from online stores. These
differences were found to be associated with the group members’ level of acculturation.
Such understanding could provide valuable information to business organizations
towards developing an effective marketing strategy to improve market sales as well as to
address the needs of the Filipino-American community. Recommendations for future
research could include examining the relationship between acculturation and decision-
making styles of Filipino-Americans within the context of a specific product category.
Possible approaches for further inquiries on this subject include replicating the study
using probability methods for better generalizability as well as exploring the progression
of behavior variations of the said ethnic group over time through longitudinal research.
v
Acknowledgements
The process of writing this dissertation has not only enabled me to internalize and
generate knowledge related to my subject matter, but it also allowed me to go through a
personal journey of self “re-discovery” as a Filipino immigrant in the United States. My
dissertation journey, which is almost ten years in the making, started when I decided to
pursue graduate work in business administration. Because of my profession in electronic
commerce and my prior involvement in a research project that deals with the social
dimensions of technology adoption, I became genuinely interested in exploring the
process of online consumer decision-making as the topic for my dissertation. However,
the details of the paper did not come to fruition until I read the book by Dr. Ronald
Takaki entitled “A History of Asian Americans: Strangers from a Different Shore.”
Learning the challenges of early Filipino immigrants and their struggles for societal
acceptance in the US has led me to uncover new insights as well as newfound sentiments
regarding my very own identity as a Filipino-American. I would like to think that this
period of self-realization and awareness has partly helped shape the foundation of this
dissertation. My newfound insights regarding my identity as an immigrant made me
want to learn more about my ethnic group in the US and this inspired me to make
Filipino-Americans the subject of my dissertation.
There are a number of people that I would like to recognize for their guidance and
support throughout my journey in higher education. Although this dissertation bears my
name, its content is undeniably a collaborative effort which was influenced by many
generous individuals who invested in my academic development and success. First and
foremost, I want to express my deep appreciation to those who participated in the study.
vi
The time that they took to answer a multitude of questions related to their cultural
identity and consumer decision characteristics has been the most significant contribution.
My dissertation journey has been enriched by the guidance, encouragement, and
mentorship of Dr. John Donnellan. I am profoundly grateful for his valuable advice,
comments, and suggestions which challenged me to look deep into my research and
critically assess every aspect of the final report. I also wish to extend my gratitude to Dr.
Lisa Blackman-Siddall and Dr. M. C. Clowes for their comments and suggestions.
I also want to express my indebtedness and utmost respect for Aryeh Hecht for his
unfaltering trust and confidence, enthusiastic support, boundless generosity, and genuine
care while I worked for him at Vitalicious, Inc. It was during one of my many
spontaneous and casual conversations with him on the psychology of color and its impact
on the consumers’ perception of a brand’s personality that my interest was sparked in
consumer behavior and marketing.
A special recognition should be given to my parents, Consolacion Lantic Pabilona
and Celso Mabulay Mabayo, whose hopes and incessant motivations enthused me to
accomplish what I have put my mind into doing.
Finally, my deepest gratitude to Andrew J. Bennett, for his invaluable support and
advice as well as his patience for scrupulously proofreading the entire dissertation
manuscript. The ensuing clean copy is a product of his vigilance. All remaining errors
are mine.
The dissertation process has been a long but fulfilling journey for me. What
started as an intellectual curiosity about Filipino-Americans has turned into a full-blown
subject of academic research which culminated in the writing of this report. It is my hope
vii
to build on what I have started with this research and continue to advance a better
understanding of the Filipino-American community and its contribution to the general
economy of the US. This personal advocacy is my small contribution to celebrate the
Filipino diaspora all over the world. Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam!
viii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 5
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 7
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 11
Nature of the Study ..................................................................................................... 12
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 14
Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................. 15
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 19
Documentation ............................................................................................................ 19
The Spanish-American War of 1898 in the Philippines ............................................. 20
Filipinos as US Nationals: American Colonial Era in the Philippines, 1898-1946 .... 22
Migration of Filipinos to the United States: History and Early Settlements .............. 24
Demographic Characteristics and Regional Dispersion of Filipino-Americans ......... 28
Consumer Power and Key Purchase Categories of Filipino-Americans .................... 35
Milestones in the History of Choice and Decision-Making........................................ 37
Culture and the Process of Decision-Making ............................................................. 45
Acculturation and Consumer Behavior ....................................................................... 46
Consumer Behavior and Decision-Making Process ................................................... 52
Consumer Decision-Making Styles ............................................................................ 55
Expanded Model of Decision-Making Styles for Online Consumers ........................ 59
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 67
Research Methods and Design .................................................................................... 70
Population ................................................................................................................... 71
Sample......................................................................................................................... 71
Materials/Instruments ................................................................................................. 72
Operational Definition of Variables ............................................................................ 73
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ................................................................. 76
Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 77
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 78
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 79
Ethical Assurances ...................................................................................................... 79
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 81
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 84
Results ......................................................................................................................... 85
Evaluation of Findings .............................................................................................. 131
Summary ................................................................................................................... 135
ix
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions ...................................... 137
Implications............................................................................................................... 139
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 144
Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 149
References ....................................................................................................................... 151
Appendixes ..................................................................................................................... 160
Appendix A: Online Consumer Styles Characteristics Instrument ................................. 161
Appendix B: Cultural Identity and Acculturation Instrument ........................................ 163
Appendix C: Personal Background Instrument .............................................................. 164
x
List of Tables
Table 1 The Top States of Residences for Filipino-Americans ....................................... 29
Table 2 Age Distribution by Nativity, 2013 .................................................................... 31
Table 3 Filipino-American Characteristics: Analysis of 2010 American Community
Survey ............................................................................................................................... 34
Table 4 A Historical Timeline and Milestone of Decision-Making ................................ 37
Table 5 Modes of Individual Acculturation and their Descriptions ................................ 50
Table 6 Consumer Decision-Making Styles: Categories and Descriptions ..................... 57
Table 7 Cutting Scores for Determining Acculturation Level Using ARSMA-II ........... 74
Table 8 Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants ......................................... 86
Table 9 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Survey Participants .................................... 89
Table 10 Immigration Characteristics of Survey Participants ......................................... 92
Table 11 Factor Loadings of the Consumer Decision-Making Characteristics ............... 94
Table 12 Mean Score and Percentile Distribution of the Selected Factors .................... 100
Table 13 Hypothesis Test Summary: Consumer Decision-Making Style of Filipino-
Americans ..................................................................................................................... 101
Table 14 Means Rank of Acculturation Modes Per Decision-Making Style................. 102
Table 15 Hypothesis Test Summary: Perfectionistic & High-Quality Conscious
Consumer ........................................................................................................................ 103
Table 16 Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Perfectionistic and High-
Quality Conscious Consumer ......................................................................................... 104
Table 17 Hypothesis Test Summary: Brand Conscious and Price-Equals-Quality
Conscious Consumer ...................................................................................................... 105
Table 18 Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Brand Conscious and Price-
Equals-Quality Consumer ............................................................................................... 106
Table 19 Hypothesis Test Summary: Novelty and Fashion Conscious Consumer ....... 107
xi
Table 20 Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Novelty and Fashion
Conscious Consumer ...................................................................................................... 108
Table 21 Hypothesis Test Summary: Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious
Consumer ........................................................................................................................ 109
Table 22 Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Recreational and Hedonistic
Shopping Conscious Consumer ...................................................................................... 110
Table 23 Hypothesis Test Summary: Price and Value-for-Money Conscious Consumers
......................................................................................................................................... 111
Table 24 Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Price Conscious and Value-for-
Money Consumers .......................................................................................................... 112
Table 25 Hypothesis Test Summary: Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer ................ 113
Table 26 Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Confused-by-Over-Choice
Consumer ........................................................................................................................ 114
Table 27 Hypothesis Test Summary: Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer ................ 115
Table 28 Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Habitual and Brand-Loyal
Consumer ........................................................................................................................ 116
Table 29 Hypothesis Test Summary: Website Content Conscious Consumer .............. 117
Table 30 Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Website Content Conscious
Consumer ........................................................................................................................ 118
Table 31 Acculturation Dimensions and Online Decision-Making Styles Correlation
Matrix .............................................................................................................................. 119
Table 32 Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Perfectionist
and High-Quality Conscious Decision-Making Style ..................................................... 120
Table 33 Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Brand and
Price-Equals-Quality Conscious Decision-Making Style ............................................... 121
Table 34 Chi-Square Tests Table Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Novelty and
Fashion Conscious Decision-Making Style .................................................................... 121
Table 35 Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Recreational
and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Decision-Making Style ........................................ 122
xii
Table 36 Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Price and
Value-for-Money Conscious Decision-Making Style .................................................... 123
Table 37 Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Confused-by-
Over-Choice Consumer Decision-Making Style ............................................................ 123
Table 38 Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Habitual and
Brand-Loyal Consumer Decision-Making Style ............................................................ 124
Table 39 Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Website
Content Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style................................................... 125
Table 40 Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Perfectionistic
and High-Quality Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style ................................... 126
Table 41 Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Brand and
Price-Equals-Quality Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style ............................. 126
Table 42 Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Novelty and
Fashion Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style................................................... 127
Table 43 Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Recreational
and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style ....................... 128
Table 44 Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Price and
Value-for-Money Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style ................................... 128
Table 45 Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Confused-by-
Over-Choice Consumer Decision-Making Style ............................................................ 129
Table 46 Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Habitual and
Brand-Loyal Consumer Decision-Making Style ............................................................ 130
Table 47 Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Website
Content Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style................................................... 130
Table 48 Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend Summary Between Acculturation Dimensions
and Online Consumer Decision-Making Styles .............................................................. 131
Table 49 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results ........................................................ 135
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of the Research.............................................................. 8
Figure 2. Filipino Population in the United States, 1910-1990 ........................................ 28
Figure 3. The Population of Foreign-Born Filipino-Americans ....................................... 30
Figure 4. Population Distribution of Filipino-Americans by Age .................................... 32
Figure 5. Labor Force Distribution by Occupation and Origin, 2013 .............................. 33
Figure 6. Percent of Change in Buying Power Per Racial Group ..................................... 36
Figure 7. John Dewey's Structure of Inquiry .................................................................... 53
Figure 8. The Decision Process Stages of the Engel, Kollat, Blackwell Model ............... 54
Figure 9. Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test ....................................................... 99
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
In recent years, the Internet has increasingly become an important tool for
business organizations in their revenue generating activities. The boundless connectivity
that it brings has created a source of commercial opportunities. Indeed, the onset of the
World Wide Web has dramatically impacted the business milieu and paved the way for
the advent of organizations that conduct buy and sell transactions on the Internet. This
process of market exchange online is known as electronic commerce.
Background
The United States Census Bureau (2014) stated that 79 percent of individuals in a
household interviewed in 2013 reported Internet use, with 78 percent reporting a high-
speed connection. This figure is significantly higher compared to the 16 percent of
individuals who admitted using the Internet in 1997 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1997).
Simultaneous with the surge in Internet usage was the growth of online shopping. Retail
electronic commerce sales in 2000 were approximately $29 billion (U.S. Census Bureau,
2002). In 2013, this amount increased by 800 percent to $261 billion (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2015). Given the steady growth of online retail sales, entrepreneurs and
marketing professionals are assiduously studying the behavior of consumers to
understand their purchase decisions. To achieve this goal in a multi-ethnic society such
as the United States (US), businesses must identify the value requirements of the target
population using the process of marketing segmentation through cultural differences
(Pankhania, Lee, & Hooley, 2007). These value requirements refer to the minimal
representation of the consumers’ preferences or predilections.
2
The US started the current year with an estimated total population of 323 million
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2015) and is expected to increase by 94 million to reach a total
population of 417 million by 2060 (Colby & Ortman, 2014). Differentiating the
population by nativity shows the discrepancy in the size of those who were born in the
US and those that were born in another country. As explained by Grieco (2009), nativity
refers to the person’s place of birth. If an individual is born in the US, he or she is
considered as native-born and classified as a U.S. national at birth. However, a person is
categorized as foreign-born if he or she is born outside of the US. Foreign-born
individuals are not classified as U.S. nationals at birth. A report from the U.S. Census
Bureau (2010) showed that the foreign-born population has continued to increase in size
since the 1970s. Colby and Ortman stated that the foreign-born population reached a
total of 42 million in 2014 and is projected to increase by 86 percent to 78 million in
2060. They further noted that the majority of the foreign-born population comes from
Latin America and Asia.
The Asian American population is composed of people who can trace their roots
to any countries in Asia, including the Philippines. Americans who identify as Filipinos
are called Filipino-Americans, and they are the second largest, and fastest growing, Asian
population in the US (Johnson-Kozlow, Matt, Rock et al., 2011). With a population of
2.9 million, the Filipino-Americans register a total buying power of $121 billion
(Humphreys, 2014). As the people of this particular ethnic group grows due to
demographic and immigration factors, so too will their purchasing power. Hence, the
group’s population growth and its potential impact on the business landscape brings into
existence an opportunity for online retailers to accommodate cultural insights into their
3
core marketing strategies. This is an important marketing consideration since people
from different cultures think, feel, and act differently. People’s cultural values generate
potential diversity regarding the way they approach the act of online shopping. These
cultural peculiarities, priorities, and orientations can contribute to the variations in the
consumer’s online purchase decision habits (Chen, Chen, & Lin, 2012). Mokhlis and
Salleh (2009) explained that the influence of culture on the people’s values and attitudes
could impact their consumer decision-making styles. It is, therefore, critical for business
organizations to learn and profoundly comprehend the dynamics of immigration as well
as the minority group’s purchase decision profiles to discern their impact on market
development and consumption patterns (Askeegaard & Ozcaglar-Toulouse, 2011). The
acculturation process is one of the dynamics of immigration that affects the consumption
behavior and purchase decisions of immigrants. Understanding the effect of
acculturation on the decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans will have a positive
impact toward distinguishing the group’s purchase behavior in electronic commerce. This
will be critical to the success of professional marketers and business organizations who
want to target this particular Asian American sub-group.
Statement of the Problem
With the plethora of choices in the online marketplace, decision-making has
become increasingly intricate for consumers. To address this issue, consumers utilize
decision-making methods in order to come up with the best possible choice (Moon,
2004). Since consumption behavior and attitudes vary from culture to culture, so too do
consumers’ decision-making styles (Chen et al., 2012). For immigrants, variations in
consumption value systems and decision-making styles can be impacted by acculturation.
4
Segev (2014) has indicated that ethnic and host culture identifications, the two
dimensions of acculturation, predict different consumer behavioral orientations. To some
degree, acculturation plays a major role in shaping consumption behaviors. As explained
by Webster (1994), attitudinal and behavioral disparities exist because the level of ethnic
culture preservation and host culture identification varies from person to person.
However, systematic study of online consumer behavior and acculturation has been
insufficient, and the examination of the relationship between online decision-making
styles and acculturation modes is scarce. Several studies have been conducted that
insinuate the role of acculturation in consumer behavior, but there is not enough literature
that shows the degree of relationship between acculturation and the consumers’ attitudes
or strategies towards online shopping (Segev, 2014). The present research was an
attempt to fill this gap. It investigated whether the Filipino-Americans’ online consumer
decision-making styles varied per their acculturation modes. By comprehending how
these styles were affected by the acculturation process, this research aimed to contribute
to the understanding of the process that guides actual online consumption patterns among
this Asian American sub-group.
For a time now, researchers and marketing professionals have attempted to
understand the behavior of online consumers from various ethnic backgrounds. To
comprehend the Filipino-American market, electronic retail businesses need to be
conscious of the basic reasons that motivate Filipino-Americans to respond positively to
their marketing activities. Business organizations must also find ways to recognize and
discern how the people from this particular ethnic group make their purchase decisions.
According to Sproles and Kendall (1986), consumers use their natural decision-making
5
styles to interact with the marketplace and deal with its intricacies. By understanding
how the decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans are affected by acculturation while
they are engaging in electronic commerce, businesses may be able to learn about the
factors which drive the purchase behavior of this ethnic group. This will give them
insights that they can use in the development of appropriate marketing and
communication strategies that target the needs of Filipino-Americans.
The study will fill in the gap in the literature regarding the purchasing behaviors
of Filipino-American online consumers. Previous studies involving minority groups and
consumer behavior have mainly focused on African Americans and Hispanics
(Morimoto, 2012). Although recent developments have shown an increase in consumer
studies focusing on Asian Americans, there is still a long way to go in order to fully
understand the purchase behavior of this fast growing ethnic consumer group, especially
those of Filipino heritage. Finally, by studying the consumer decision-making styles of
one ethnic group within one host country, the foundation of the consumer decision-
making styles literature would be enhanced. Currently, as described by Segev (2014),
consumer decision-making styles are monopolized by cross-national comparisons.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to investigate the
relationship between acculturation and consumer decision-making styles within the
context of electronic commerce. Specifically, it aimed to: 1) determine the online
decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; 2) examine the impact of acculturation
with regard to the identified decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; and 3)
determine the extent of relationship between the two acculturation dimensions, i.e., ethnic
6
and host culture identifications, and the identified online decision-making styles. These
purposes intended to improve the understanding of the factors related to the consumption
behaviors of the Filipinos in the US. The present research also made a significant
endeavor to elucidate the relationship between acculturation and decision-making styles,
and their influence on Filipino-Americans’ online purchase behavior. Also, the study
aimed to provide a complete picture for understanding decision-making as a
manifestation of acculturation. Aside from contributing to the decision-making styles
literature, the study could also be beneficial to marketing professionals in improving their
communication strategies aimed at addressing distinct customer needs and preferences as
well as increasing customer satisfaction. The study participants involved Filipino adults
living in the United States.
A web-based questionnaire containing the acculturation and decision-making
styles instruments was used in the survey. The ARSMA II instrument (Cuellar, Arnold,
& Maldonado, 1995), adapted for Filipino-Americans, was used to measure acculturation
among individuals from the target ethnic group. It evaluates the extent to which a person
identifies with the host culture and maintains his or her culture of origin using the
following concepts: language use and preference, ethnic identification and classification,
cultural heritage and ethnic behaviors, and social interactions. The measure was
originally designed for another immigrant population, but a study conducted by Lee,
Yoon, and Liu-Tom (2006) confirms that it is also suitable for use with the Asian
American population. As for determining the online decision-making styles of Filipino-
Americans, the study used a modified Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) instrument
7
primarily developed by Sproles and Kendall (1986) with the inclusion of a couple of
decision inventory items that were proposed by Sam and Chatwin (2015).
Theoretical Framework
The study’s theoretical framework was derived from two research streams:
Acculturation (Berry, 1980) and Consumer Decision-Making Styles (Sproles & Kendall,
1986). Acculturation puts emphasis on the effect that a person’s contact with a new
environment has on the person’s values, attitudes, and behavior. The consumer decision-
making styles, on the other hand, centers on the psychological orientation of the
consumer when making choices. By combining both sets of ideas, Figure 1 shows the
study’s theoretical framework, which suggests the role of acculturation in determining the
consumer’s decision-making styles.
Acculturation Theory
Acculturation is a valuable framework that explains how people modify their
behaviors, attitudes, and values by exposure to a culture that is different from their own.
Choi and Thomas (2008) defined it as a “process of adaptation and culture modification
that occurs as a result of continuous contact between two different and distinct cultures”
(p. 77). It involves three basic elements: culture, contact, and change (Lee, 1993). When
the individual’s culture of origin comes into contact with the dominant host culture,
cultural change may occur based on the nature and duration of the contact via
confrontation, adaptation, or a mixture of both (Watchravesringkan, 2011).
Cultural change can happen under various circumstances. One aspect of
behavioral change can occur within the individual’s consumption habits. Penaloza
(1994) explained that contact between two cultures could result in a change in the use of
8
goods and services as well as an overall change in the individual’s attitudes towards
specific products or services and personality orientations that determine decision-making.
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of the Research
Adapted from Berry (1997), Segev (2014), Sproles and Kendall (1986),
Sam and Chatwin (2015)
9
Studies on acculturation over the past three decades have demonstrated the
preference of immigrants to retain their original culture while embracing the
characteristics of the dominant host culture (Barker, 2015). It is, therefore, possible for
an individual to adopt more than one culture. This possibility led to the evolution of the
acculturation perspective from a linear process to a bi-dimensional concept where an
individual can adjust to dual or multiple cultures in differing levels (Berry, 2003). The
degree of cultural adaptation has two acculturation dimensions: maintenance of ethnic
culture and host culture participation. The outcome of the interaction between these two
acculturation dimensions resulted in the development of the following four acculturation
modes proposed by Berry: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization.
Hence, an individual’s acculturation can vary along these four different acculturation
modes. Table 5 shows the description for each of the acculturation modes.
Penaloza (1994) stated that the acculturation modes are affected by the socio-
cultural differences between the individuals based on their interactions with their heritage
culture as well as the host culture. Differences in the acculturation processes may result
in differences in acculturation outcomes which can have a meaningful influence on the
individual’s value orientation (Leong, Wagner, & Kim, 1995). The researcher employed
the ARSMA II (Cuellar et al., 1995) instrument to assess the individual’s acculturation
level. Specifically, the instrument measures the individual’s identification with the ethnic
and host cultures through the following concepts: language use and preference, ethnic
identification and classification, cultural heritage and ethnic behaviors, and social
interactions.
10
Consumer Decision-making Styles
A decision-making style is characterized as a cognitive and affective orientation
toward making purchase decisions (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Scott and Bruce (1995)
called it a habitual pattern that guides individual decision-making and can develop into a
relatively permanent consumer personality. This is also what Potgieter, Wiese, and
Strasheim (2013) found when reviewing decision-making styles literature. They
explained that consumers “display relatively consistent decision-making styles, by
employing certain purchasing strategies and rules to guide their decisions” (p. 13). The
decision-making styles describe how people shop and can be ascertained by
distinguishing the consumers’ overall proclivities toward the process of product
purchasing.
Sproles and Kendall (1986) created the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) to
provide a measurable process in categorizing the various decision-making characteristics
into eight different groups. These categories include the following: 1) Perfectionistic and
High-Quality Conscious Consumer, 2) Brand Conscious and Price-Equals-Quality
Conscious Consumer, 3) Novelty and Fashion Conscious Consumer, 4) Recreational and
Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Consumer, 5) Price and Value-for-Money Conscious
Consumers, 6) Impulsive and Careless Consumer, 7) Confused-by-Over-Choice
Consumer, and 8) Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer. With the advancement of
technology and development of electronic commerce, Sam and Chatwin (2015) proposed
additional inventory characteristics of decision-making. For this study, two of the
decision-making styles suggested by Sam and Chatwin were adopted and added to the
CSI model of Sproles and Kendall. These were the (1) website content conscious
11
consumer, and (2) website interface conscious consumer. Table 6 describes the general
characteristics of each of the aforesaid decision-style categories.
Research Questions
The focus of this study was to examine the effect of acculturation on the decision-
making styles of Filipino-Americans when purchasing from online stores. As mentioned
earlier, acculturation contributes to ethnic consumer behavior due to the tendency for
individuals to keep their original cultural traits while embracing the features of the host
culture. However, this bi-dimensional representation of acculturation does not suggest
homogeneity in consumer behavior. Segev (2014) argued that ethnic consumer behavior
differs based on the consumers’ acculturation modes. These modes included the
following: assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization. Furthermore, Segev
noted that decision-making styles of consumers had been found in a few acculturation
studies to be impacted by the extent of consumers’ ethnic identification. Based on the
purpose and theoretical framework of the study, the research questions that were used in
this investigation attempted to determine the extent by which the two acculturation
dimensions of ethnic and host culture identifications were related to which specific online
consumer decision-making styles. In particular, this study attempted to answer the
following research questions:
Q1. Do Filipino-Americans differ from each other in their online decision-making
styles?
Q2. Do online decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans differ according to
their mode of acculturation?
12
Q3. Do the dimensions of acculturation, ethnic and host culture identifications,
are associated with each of the online decision-making styles?
Hypotheses
The research questions for this study were investigated using the following null
(Ho) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses:
H10. There is no significant difference among Filipino-American consumers in
their online decision-making styles.
H1a. There is a significant difference among Filipino-American consumers in
their online decision-making styles.
H20. There is no significant difference among Filipino-American consumers in
the four acculturation levels on their online decision-making styles.
H2a. There is a significant difference among Filipino-American consumers in the
four acculturation levels on their online decision-making styles.
H30. There is no association between the two acculturation dimensions and the
online decision-making styles of Filipino-American consumers.
H3a. There is an association between the two acculturation dimensions and the
online decision-making styles of Filipino-American consumers.
Nature of the Study
The proposed study utilized a survey approach in data gathering. Filipino adults
living in the US were recruited to participate in the study. Considering the difficulties in
conducting surveys among ethnic minorities such as “low frequency in the population,
may be geographically un-clustered and difficult to access” (Erens, 2013, p. 45), a non-
probability sampling method was used to obtain the sample for this study.
13
For the sample percentage to be accurate at plus or minus 5 percent at 95 percent
confidence level for a population that is more than 100,000, Cozby’s (2009) sample size
of 384 was adopted. The research participants were identified using a subset of the
purposive sampling method known as snowball sampling technique. Using this
technique, the researcher sent a recruitment email to all his friends and acquaintances in
the US with a request to fill out the survey and pass along the research recruitment
information to their Filipino-American family members and friends who are also living in
the US. Research participants were also recruited through the help of the following two
Filipino-American organizations: Ugnayan Filipino Ministry at St. Francis Church in
New York, NY and the National Federation of Filipino-American Association that is
headquartered in Washington, DC.
A web-based questionnaire was used to survey the population with previously
validated scales. The modified Consumer Styles Inventory for online purchases (Sproles
& Kendall, 1986; Sam & Chatwin, 2015) was utilized in the survey to determine the
consumers’ decision-making styles. About the measurement of acculturation, the 30-item
ARSMA II (Cuellar et al., 1995), adapted for Filipino-Americans, was used in the survey.
All answers of the research participants were statistically analyzed. The
descriptive analysis was undertaken using the SPSS software package in order to indicate
the means, standard deviations, and the range of scores for these variables. A
nonparametric alternative to One-Way ANOVA known as the Kruskal-Wallis H Test and
the Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend were used to verify the hypotheses of the study.
14
Significance of the Study
The study will have important practical and theoretical implications. With the
understanding of the relationship between acculturation modes and decision-making
styles of Filipino-Americans online consumers, business organizations and marketing
professionals can improve their ability to determine how members of this ethnic group
make their purchase decisions. These insights regarding the group’s online decision
process can help businesses in the creation of appropriate marketing and communication
strategies to engage members of this particular group. In addition to this, the proposed
study may provide a theoretical framework through which ethnic marketing can be
perceived. Examination of the impact of the acculturation modes on the process of
decision-making may help in predicting actual online consumption patterns of Filipino-
Americans and other ethnic groups. Furthermore, the study results will contribute to the
enhancement of the literature on the relationship between acculturation and decision-
making styles.
Prior consumer behavior inquiries involving minority groups have primarily
centered on African and Hispanic Americans (Morimoto, 2012). While the latest
advances in this field have shown an increase in consumer studies focusing on Asian
Americans, more studies are still needed to completely comprehend the buying behavior
of this burgeoning ethnic consumer group, especially those of Filipino heritage. The
present research attempted to address this gap. Additionally, by studying the consumer
decision-making styles of one ethnic group within one host country, the foundation of the
consumer decision-making styles literature, which is monopolized by cross-national
comparisons (Segev, 2014), will be enhanced.
15
Definition of Key Terms
The terms below are significant to the current study. Since these words or phrases
have been described in various ways depending on the circumstance, they need to be
defined for clarity according to the framework of the current study.
Acculturation: Refers to a “process of adaptation and culture modification that
occurs as a result of continuous contact between two different and distinct cultures”
(Choi &Thomas, 2008).
Assimilation: Refers to a mode of acculturation where an individual believes that
it is important to acquire the attitudes and behavior of the host culture while relinquishing
one’s heritage culture (Berry, 2003).
Choice behavior: Refers to a process that involves the evaluation of two or more
options to come up with a decision about which option to choose (Beresford & Sloper,
2008). Choice behavior is used interchangeably with decision-making in the current
research.
Consumer behavior: Refers to a process that people engage in search, select,
purchase, use, and dispose of products, services, experiences, or ideas to satisfy their
needs and desires (Hawkins, Best, & Coney, 2004).
Cultural characteristics: Refer to the values, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, norms,
and other socio-psychological constructs that distinguish the members of one group from
another (Lee, Choi, Kim, & Hong, 2007).
Decision-making: Refers to a process that conveys the progression of reasoning
that involves an assessment and judgment of various options based on the decision
maker’s values and preferences to come up with a reasonable choice (Beresford &
16
Sloper, 2008). Decision-making is used interchangeably with choice behavior in the
current research.
Decision-Making Style: Refers to a cyclic cognitive pattern that determines an
individual’s approach to decision-making. Sproles and Kendall (1986) defined it as a
mental guideline that determines the way in which consumers make decisions in the
marketplace.
Ethnicity: Refers to a social identification based on the objective description of a
group with a shared history or common national or religious backgrounds (Ogden,
Ogden, & Schau, 2004). As further explained by Dressler, Oths, and Gravlee (2010), it is
a “dimension of socio-cultural systems that defines the essential group differences and
structures the relations among persons classified in terms of those differences” (p. 233).
Filipino-American: Refers to an individual who comes to the United States from
the Philippines for permanent residency as well as those Filipinos from succeeding
generations who were born in the US.
Integration: Refers to a mode of acculturation where an individual is actively
interacting with both cultures by holding onto certain aspects of his or her heritage while
adapting to certain aspects of the mainstream society (Berry, 2003).
Marginalization: Refers to a mode of acculturation where an individual is not
connected to the heritage culture or the dominant host culture and does not see the
importance of maintaining both cultures (Berry, 2003).
Online Decision-Making Style: Refers to a cyclic cognitive pattern that
determines how an individual makes purchase decisions in an online environment.
17
Separation: Refers to a mode of acculturation where an individual believes that it
is important to maintain one’s culture and avoids interaction with the host culture (Berry,
2003).
Summary
The inception of the World Wide Web has radically affected the business
landscape and resulted in the advancement of electronic commerce. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau (2002), retail sales in e-commerce have increased from $29 billion in
2000 to $261 billion in 2013. Given the steady growth of online retail sales and the
multiculturalism of the US society, entrepreneurs and marketing professionals need to
understand the consumption patterns of these various ethnic groups. By understanding
consumer behaviors, businesses will be able to motivate ethnic groups to respond to their
marketing activities and hopefully, drive revenue growth.
The Filipino-American population is the second largest, and fastest growing,
Asian ethnic group in the US. Thus, as the population of Filipino-Americans grows due
to demographic and immigration factors, so too will its purchasing power. To tap this
potential revenue source, online retailers need to incorporate cultural insights into their
core marketing strategies. Leveraging cultural dynamics and characteristics are critical to
the success of any promotional activities in a multi-ethnic society. These cultural
peculiarities, priorities, and orientations can impact the consumers’ decision-making
styles when shopping from online stores.
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to investigate the
relationship between acculturation and consumer decision-making styles within the
context of electronic commerce. Specifically, it aimed to: 1) determine the online
18
decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; 2) examine the impact of acculturation
with regard to the identified decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; and 3)
determine the extent of relationship between the two acculturation dimensions, i.e., ethnic
and host culture identifications, and the identified online decision-making styles. The
study utilized the modes of acculturation and consumer decision-making styles in
developing an integrative approach toward understanding the relationship between the
consumers’ intercultural adaptation and consumption behavior. The interaction between
the consumers’ desire to maintain their ethnic culture and identity while adapting to the
attitudes and values of the host culture results in the development of the four
acculturation modes: assimilation, integration, marginalization, and separation. The
study suggests that these acculturation modes are distinguishing elements and antecedents
that determine the consumers’ online decision-making styles. Among the online
decision-making styles are the following:
• Perfectionistic and High-Quality Conscious Consumer,
• Brand Conscious and Price Equals Quality Conscious Consumer,
• Novelty and Fashion Conscious Consumer,
• Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Consumer,
• Price and Value-for-Money Conscious Consumers,
• Impulsive and Careless Consumer,
• Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer,
• Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer,
• Website Content Conscious Consumer,
• Website Interface Conscious Consumer.
19
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between
acculturation and consumer decision-making styles within the context of electronic
commerce. Specifically, it aimed to: 1) determine the online decision-making styles of
Filipino-Americans; 2) examine the impact of acculturation with regard to the identified
decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; and 3) determine the extent of relationship
between the two acculturation dimensions, i.e., ethnic and host culture identifications,
and the identified online decision-making styles. The results of this investigation can be
used to improve the understanding of the factors related to the consumption behaviors of
the Filipinos in the US.
The literature review begins with a historical background of the Philippine-
American relations that started after the US defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War
of 1898. A discussion about the timeline of the Filipinos’ migration to the US as well as
a presentation of the Filipino-Americans’ demographic characteristics, consumer power,
and geographical dispersion follow. The final part of the literature review is devoted to
the discussion of the relationship between acculturation, decision-making process,
consumer behavior, and decision-making styles of consumers when purchasing from an
online store.
Documentation
The study primarily used EBSCOhost and ProQuest databases in identifying
scholarly and peer-reviewed articles based on the following keywords: acculturation,
consumer decision-making styles, Filipino-American consumers, and online decision-
making process. Also, books on immigration history and consumer behavior as well as
20
informational websites such as the U.S. Census Bureau were utilized to obtain specific
data and statistics related to the study.
The Spanish-American War of 1898 in the Philippines
The Philippines was under Spanish rule for 333 years (Borlaza, Cullinane, &
Hernandez, 2016). This rule started after a permanent Spanish settlement was established
in Cebu in 1565 and ended with the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898. The
tension between the United States and Spain was triggered by the former’s support of
Cuba’s long-term struggle against the Spanish regime (U.S. Office of the Historian, n.d.).
This tension between the United States and Spain developed into a war between the two
countries after an unexplained explosion of the USS Maine battleship killed 266
American sailors in Havana, Cuba on February 15, 1898 (Greguras, 2005; Offner, 2004).
Two months after the battleship explosion, the US declared war on Spain and came out
triumphant. According to Greguras, the defeat of Spain enabled the US to acquire the
former’s Pacific possessions, which included the Philippines through the Treaty of Paris.
To secure authority over the Philippines, the US paid Spain a total of $20 million
(Goldenberg, 2000).
The acquisition of the Philippines by the US infuriated the Filipino nationalists
who had been fighting for independence from Spain even before the United States
invasion of 1898. Before the Americans captured the Philippine capital city of Manila
from the Spanish army, the Filipino nationalist leader Emilio Aguinaldo entered into a
military alliance with the US “with the understanding that the United States would at
least recognize the independence of the Philippines under the protection of the U.S.
Navy” (Jacobson, 1999, p. 119). With the annexation of the Philippines by the US,
21
Aguinaldo felt betrayed which contributed to the corrosion of the relationship between
the former allies (Ablett, 2004). On February 4, 1899, a fight erupted between the
American forces and the Filipino nationalists which escalated into an all-out war between
the two groups (U.S. Office of the Historian, n.d.). According to Ablett, the American
authorities in the Philippines claimed that the Filipino rebels “had started the conflict by
firing on the flag” (p. 24). However, Tebbel (as cited in Ablett, 2004) explained that the
war, which was America’s first military campaign in the 20th century (Deady, 2005) and
its first ground war in Asia (Jacobson, 1999), was triggered by the shooting of unarmed
Filipino sentinels by American soldiers.
The Filipino insurgents were no match for the military capability of the
Americans. Aside from being disjointed due to poor communications between insurgent
groups, Filipinos also lacked weapons and ammunitions (Deady, 2005). Because of this,
the Filipino rebels failed to win any significant battles on the field against the American
military. The losses experienced by the Filipino insurgents led them to change strategy
by not engaging the American soldiers in conventional combat. Instead, as Deady
explained, they resorted to guerilla operations.
Jacobson (1999) called the Philippine-American War a “brutal war” (p. 119). He
noted that 3,000 Filipino soldiers died on the war’s first day. Over the duration of the
conflict, Jacobson quoted modern historians in putting the death toll estimate at 220,000
Filipinos and 4,200 Americans. However, other estimates put the total Filipino casualty
count anywhere between 250,000 and 600,000 civilians and 20,000 fighters (Ablett,
2004). Ablett explained that the huge number of fatalities could be attributed to the
popular support that the insurgency received from the people and the brutal tactics that
22
the American military utilized to achieve victory. Among the atrocities perpetuated by
the American armed forces were the following: “the torture of suspected rebels; refusing
to take prisoners; wholesale massacres of entire villages of men, women, and children;
and starvation resulting from relocating large populations” (Ablett, 1999, p. 26).
The leader of the Filipino resistance, Emilio Aguinaldo, was captured by the US
in 1901. After three years of fighting, the Philippine-American war ended in July 1902
with the Americans claiming victory over the Filipino revolutionaries. However,
occasional armed clashes between the two groups did not totally stop until 1913 when
Woodrow Wilson was elected President of the US and the possibility of Philippine
independence was explored (Ablett, 2004). The Philippines was a US territory from
1898 until July 4, 1946.
Filipinos as US Nationals: American Colonial Era in the Philippines, 1898-1946
After the US declared victory over the Filipino Nationalists in 1902, some
changes were implemented by the American colonial government in the Philippines. At
that time, the intention of the US administration was to remain in the Philippines
indefinitely and keep it as a territory until the Filipinos were able to govern themselves
(Wertheim, 2009). To achieve this goal, the US government sent William Howard Taft
to the Philippines to establish a civilian government and start the process of nation-
building and institutional development (Booth, 2012). As explained by Wertheim (2009),
the establishment of a civilian government with an elected Filipino Assembly was meant
to pacify the members of the Filipino resistance movement as well as teach them how to
run a government.
23
William Howard Taft was a prominent figure in the American colonial rule of the
Philippines. He was appointed by US President William McKinley to head the Philippine
Commission on March 16, 1900. His primary role was to oversee the political shift in the
Philippines from military to civil rule (Scott, 2003). A little over a year later, on July 4,
1901, William Howard Taft became the first Civil Governor.
The Philippine Commission was given both legislative and executive powers. Its
goal was to prepare the Filipinos for eventual self-governance by putting into action
activities or programs that promoted economic growth and education as well as the
formation of representative institutions (Booth, 2012). As a result, devolution of certain
governmental functions was carried out which empowered the provincial governments to
collect taxes, construct and maintain local infrastructure, and supervise the towns or local
leaderships (Hutchcroft, 2000). Furthermore, the Commission spearheaded the
establishment of a judicial system as well as the organization of civil service and creation
of local codes that set up standards related to education, agriculture, taxation, and health
(Scott, 2003). To promote representative governance, the Commission also held
elections to select municipal and provincial leaders (Hutchcroft, 2000). Even after all
these developments, the Filipinos’ attitudes were still dominated by their desire for
independence (Ablett, 2004). After the capture of the Filipino opposition leader Emilio
Aguinaldo and the significant lobbying of Filipinos and their supporters, the Tydings-
McDuffie Act was passed and provided the Philippines a commonwealth status for ten
years starting in 1935. The Philippines obtained full independence from the US on July
4, 1946.
24
Migration of Filipinos to the United States: History and Early Settlements
The Filipinos were not exactly strangers in America in the early 19th century after
the Philippines became a US territory following the Spanish-American war in 1898. As
residents of a US territory, Filipinos were classified as US nationals (Takaki, 1998); and
as such, they were exempted from immigration restrictions and could freely travel to and
from the US (Baldoz, 2011). They mostly lived and worked in Alaska, California,
Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington (Cordova as cited in David & Nadal, 2013). However,
the status of Filipinos as imperial subjects did not automatically grant them US
citizenship. Baldoz explained that the issue of Filipino naturalization ineligibility was
brought to the attention of the immigration courts multiple times. Unfortunately, the
Filipino petitioners were not successful in convincing the courts of their eligibility. In
1918, a law related to the American involvement in World War I, called the Act of May
9, 1918 clarified the status of Filipinos by stating that “Filipinos who had rendered the
requisite military service would be eligible for citizenship, while those who had not
served in the U.S. armed forces remained disqualified based on color or race” (Baldoz,
2011, p. 83).
Three major waves describe the history of Filipino migration to the US
(McNamara & Batalova, 2015) that facilitated the arrival of a substantial number of
immigrants into the country (Lee, 2015). Takaki (1998) described the influx of Filipino
immigrants as “sudden and massive” (p. 315). According to Lee, the first wave of
Filipino settlers arrived from 1903 to 1935 while the second and third waves happened in
the 1940s to 1950s and post-1965, respectively. However, Mercene (as cited by Lee)
explained that the earliest documented Filipino presence in the United States could be
25
traced back to the arrival of a Spanish galleon in Morro Bay, California on October 18,
1587. Filipinos were among the crewmembers of this Spanish merchant ship. But
according to Lee, the earliest Filipino settlers in the US were a group of Filipino seamen
who jumped ship to escape the hostile treatment of the Spanish command. These men
formed a village in the swamps of Louisiana in 1763. However, it was not until the early
years of the 20th century that Filipinos arrived in the US in large numbers.
From 1903 to 1935, the first wave of Filipino migrants comprised of the following
groups started to get in the US: college students, U.S. Navy veterans, and plantation
laborers (Baldoz, 2011). The college students were sponsored by the U.S. government to
study at U.S. colleges and universities under the Pensionado Act of 1903. This particular
program, as explained by Baldoz, was a brainchild of the first Civil Governor of the
Philippines, William Howard Taft, as part of his policy to assimilate the local inhabitants
of the Philippines to the customs and institutions of the US. These students were
considered as “trainees in democracy who would eventually return to their islands,
carrying the message of democracy to their own peoples” (Melendey as cited in Lee,
2015, p. 92) and become future leaders of the Philippines. Furthermore, the early years
of the 1900s saw teachers and school administrators from the US arriving in the
Philippines to help instill the idea of American values, culture, mental orientations, and
superiority (David & Nadal, 2013). Years of American colonial rule in the Philippines
increased the desire of Filipinos to move to the US. Pido (as cited in David & Nadal,
2013) explained this immigration trend due to colonial mentality by stating that:
Availability of educational opportunities in addition to information and
propaganda about America as the land of milk and honey . . . resulted in higher or
26
different expectations for a coming generation of Filipinos. Many no longer
wanted to make a living from the land as their parents did. . .. In addition to
having a different occupational outlook, this generation of Filipinos also had
different lifestyle expectations. They were becoming oriented as consumers
toward American products. . .. It was perceived that the only way to live like
Americans was to be in America. (p. 298)
The Filipino veterans of the U.S. Navy were also part of the first wave of
immigrants from the Philippines that settled in the US. An Executive Order that was
issued by President McKinley in 1901 allowed Filipinos to serve in the U.S. Navy. This
order is part of the Americans’ overarching goal of educating the locals using Western-
style military principles and service to instill allegiance among the indigenous population
of the Philippines (Baldoz, 2011). Some of these soldiers who completed their service
stayed in the US and found work in naval shipyards or as commercial sailors on the west
coast.
In 1908, owners of sugarcane plantations in Hawaii began recruiting Filipino
laborers to work in their fields (Bonus, 2000). These plantation workers became part of
the first wave of Filipinos who immigrated to the US. The demand for blue collar
workers started after the US banned the use of Chinese laborers, and other workers such
as the Koreans, Japanese, and Mexicans decided to stop working due to mistreatment
(Lee, 2015). Since Filipinos could freely move between the Philippines and the US due
to their unique legal status as US nationals, they became a favored source of labor by the
27
Hawaiian sugar plantation owners. Lee stated that by the early 1920s, the Filipinos
became the largest group of plantation workers in Hawaii.
After World War II, the second wave of Filipinos began migrating to the US
which occurred between the 1940s and 1950s. During this period, Filipinos who joined
the US military were given the option to become US citizens (McNamara & Batalova,
2015). Many took the opportunity and migrated to the US. Others came as brides of US
servicemen and as nurses or healthcare workers. McNamara and Batalova explained that
the post-war period saw an influx of higher-educated professionals into the US whose
numbers grew considerably after 1965.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 has dramatically impacted the
exodus of Filipinos into the US. According to Lee (2015), the said law “eliminated
national origins quotas, relieved occupational shortages (specifically health care
professionals), and achieved family reunifications” (p. 108). Before 1965, the
immigration practice in the US was based on quota and preference system. After the
passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, this restrictive system was replaced with a new
screening process based on family reunification and occupational characteristics (Espiritu
& Wolf, 2001). It provided no numerical limitations on the number of immediate
relatives that U.S. citizens could sponsor to bring to the United States after such citizens
provided affidavits of support showing their financial stability. The Immigration Act of
1965 also promoted the admittance of certain categories of immigrants, including
professionals, scientists, exceptional artists as well as skilled and unskilled workers that
were in short supply in the US. From 1966 to 1975, most of the Filipinos who migrated
to the US were doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, accountants, and other educated
28
professionals (Bonus, 2000). Pew Research Center (2013) declared that the number of
Filipino-Americans significantly increased after amendments were made to the
immigration laws that abolished the Asian immigration quotas in 1965. See Figure 2 for
the Filipino population in the US from 1910 to 1990.
Figure 2. Filipino Population in the United States, 1910-1990
Source: Melendy (as cited in Espiritu &Wolf, 2001)
As indicated in the preceding discussion, the migration of Filipinos into the US
has been going on for decades and is influenced by political, social, and economic
motivations. These migrants leave the Philippines to escape joblessness, harassment and
oppression, poverty, and natural disasters. Others are attracted to the freedom and
security as well as the stability and the promise of new opportunities that they believe
America can offer.
Demographic Characteristics and Regional Dispersion of Filipino-Americans
The diversity of the US population is more apparent now than it was in 1900
(Riche, 2000). As explained by Hero (2010), the change in the demographic composition
29
of the US population started during a “period of sustained large-scale immigration from
the 1960s and continued into the period of dramatic economic recession in 2008-2009”
(p. 446). The U.S. Census Bureau reported 309 million people in the US in 2010, and
14.7 million of these were Asian Americans (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). De Souza and
Fuller-Thomson (2013) described the Asian American population as the fastest growing
minority group in the US, with an estimated population increase to 41 million by the year
2050. Among Asian Americans in the US, the Filipinos ranked the second largest sub-
group, with one in five Asians tracing their roots to the Philippines (U.S. Census Bureau,
2004).
Table 1
The Top States of Residences for Filipino-Americans
States
Estimated Population
California
1,529,086
Hawaii
347,929
Texas
168,253
Illinois
154,883
Nevada
138,772 Note. From “Who are Asian Americans?” by Center for American
Progress, 2015.
The Filipino-American population epitomizes a varied group of people whose
heritage can be traced back to the Philippines. With an estimated 2015 population of 3.9
million, the Filipino-Americans represent the second largest Asian American group living
in the US (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015; Hoeffel, Rastogi, Kim, & Shahid, 2012). They can
30
be found all over the US. According to the Center for American Progress (2015), the top
states of residence for Filipino-Americans include the following: California, Hawaii,
Texas, Illinois, and Nevada. The metropolitan areas with the largest Filipino-American
populations are Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York which made up 31 percent of
the group’s total population in the US (McNamara & Batalova, 2015). Overall, 66
percent of all Filipinos live on the West coast, 16 percent in the South, 10 percent in the
Northeast, and 8 percent in the Midwest (Pew Research Center, 2013).
Immigration affects the size and composition of the Filipino-American
population. In 2010, 69 percent of adult Filipino-Americans in the US were classified as
foreign-born (Pew Research Center, 2013). McNamara and Batalova (2015) stated that
the entire foreign-born population of Filipino-Americans is the largest among Asian
groups after India and China. Figure 3 shows the changing Filipino immigrant
population from 1980 to 2013.
Figure 3. The Population of Foreign-Born Filipino-Americans
Source: McNamara and Batalova (2015)
31
McNamara and Batalova (2015) further noted that the foreign-born Filipino-
Americans are a little older compared to the other immigrants and native-born
Americans. The group also has the lowest number of members who are under the age of
majority. Its median age is 49 years old while the median age of other immigrants and
native-born Americans are 43 and 36 years old, respectively. Table 3 shows the age
distribution of immigrants and native-born Americans based on nativity. The “All
Immigrants” column refers to the age distribution of all Americans who were born
outside of the US while the “Filipino Immigrants” column relates to the rate of Filipino-
Americans who were born outside of the US. As defined earlier, native-born refers to all
those who were born inside the US.
Table 2
Age Distribution by Nativity, 2013
Age Group
All Immigrants
Filipino
Immigrants
Native Born
Under 18
6%
5%
26%
18 – 64
80%
76%
60%
65 – Over
14%
19%
14%
Note. From “Filipino-Americans in the United States,” by K. McNamara and J.
Batalova, 2015.
Of the 3.9 million Filipino-Americans in the US, the 2015 American Community
Survey states that 45 percent of this group is male and the remaining 55 percent is female
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). The same report also states that the median age is 35 years
old and 63 percent of the population is of the working age (i.e., 18 – 64 years old).
Figure 4 shows the group’s distribution by age.
32
Figure 4. Population Distribution of Filipino-Americans by Age
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2015)
Regarding employment, 43 percent of Filipino-Americans are working in
management, business, science, and arts compared to 30 percent of all other immigrants
and 38 percent of native-born individuals (McNamara & Batalova, 20015). Among the
three groups, McNamara and Batalova indicated that the Filipino-Americans have the
smallest number of members working in natural resources, construction, and maintenance
occupations at 4 percent. Figure 5 shows the labor force makeup by occupation and
origin.
33
Figure 5. Labor Force Distribution by Occupation and Origin, 2013
Source: 2013 American Community Survey (as cited in McNamara & Batalova, 2015)
Other findings of the Filipino-American characteristics compared to the other
Asian groups and native-born Americans regarding educational attainment, household
income, English language proficiency, average household size, and home ownership rate
are shown by the Pew Research Center analysis of the 2010 American Community
Survey below. It indicates that Asian American immigrants are more educated and
wealthier compared to the native-born Americans. While both groups have similarities in
terms of the number of members with and without a high school diploma (86 percent),
the Asian Americans have an edge with regard to the number of members with a
Bachelor’s or graduate degree (49 percent). The Filipino immigrants in the US, on the
other hand, have the highest number of members with at least a high school diploma (92
34
percent) compared to the other two groups and are only 2 percent behind the Asian
Americans for the number of members with at least a Bachelor’s degree. Furthermore,
the Filipino-Americans’ median household income is listed at $75,000 compared to
$49,000 for the native-born Americans and $66,000 for the Asian American immigrants.
This pattern supports the poverty analysis of the Pew Research Center which puts the
poverty level of the Filipino community in the US as the lowest among the three groups
at 6 percent. The poverty levels for the Asian immigrants and native-born Americans
were at 12 percent and 13 percent, respectively.
Table 3
Filipino-American Characteristics: Analysis of 2010 American Community Survey
Native Born
American Asian
American
Filipino-
American
Educational Attainment
Less than High School
14% 14% 8%
High School or More
86% 86% 92%
Bachelor’s Degree or More
28% 49% 47%
Median Household Income
$ 49,000 $ 66,000 $ 75,000
Average Household Size 2.6 3.1 3.4
Homeownership Rate
65%
58%
62%
In Poverty
13%
12%
6%
Language
Speaks English Very Well
90% 64% 78%
Speaks English Less Than Very Well
10% 37% 22%
Note. From “The Rise of Asian-Americans,” by Pew Research Center, 2013.
35
Language competency and house ownership rates are the highest for people who
were born in the US regardless of race. In terms of household size, the Filipinos have the
highest number at 3.4 persons, followed by the Asian Americans at 3.1 and native-born
Americans at 2.6.
Consumer Power and Key Purchase Categories of Filipino-Americans
Buying power refers to the “total personal income of residents available for
spending, after taxes, on goods and services in a given year” (Ramakrishnan & Ahmed,
2014, p. 93). It is not, however, a benchmark of the people’s wealth nor does it consist of
the people’s savings or borrowed money (Humphreys, 2014). Several variables affect a
group’s purchasing power as a consumer. Humphreys explained that a group’s higher
level of purchasing power could be attributed to the following: higher per capita income,
higher educational levels, different business activities, and demographic characteristics.
The total buying power of the US has steadily increased since the 1990s.
According to Humphreys (2014), the Americans’ buying power has risen from $4.2
trillion in 1990 to 12.4 trillion in 2013 and is expected to reach $15.2 trillion in 2018.
This consistent growth in the people’s ability to purchase goods and services is also being
experienced by other racial groups like the Asian Americans. Humphreys noted that the
Asian Americans’ purchasing power rose from $115 billion in 1990 to $713 billion in
2013. This 520 percent gain is way above the national rate of 195 percent for the same
period. In fact, the Asian Americans have the highest buying power growth rate when
compared to other ethnic groups. Within the Asian American marketplace, Humphreys
noted that the Filipino-Americans have the third largest purchasing power which is
36
estimated at $120 billion, after the Asian Indians ($195 billion) and Chinese ($176
billion) racial groups.
Figure 6. Percent of Change in Buying Power Per Racial Group
Source: Humphreys (2014)
When it comes to spending habits, the Asian American households top the list at
an average of $61,400 per year, which is 19 percent higher compared to the US average
(Ramakrishnan & Ahmad, 2014). A State of the Asian American Consumer report by
Nielsen (2012) states that Asian Americans spend largely on fresh produce and healthy
foods. Aside from food, Ramakrishnan and Ahmad also noted that this particular ethnic
group spends more on housing, education, and transportation as well as on insurance,
pensions, and Social Security. Asian Americans were found to spend less on alcohol,
tobacco, pets, and toys. Ramakrishnan and Ahmad further noted that the “high consumer
spending levels of Asian American households nationally is related to greater than
average levels of household income, larger household sizes, as well as distinct residential
37
patterns, as Asian Americans are more likely to live in states with a higher than average
cost of living” (p. 95).
Milestones in the History of Choice and Decision-Making
The history of decision-making has been extensive and far-reaching. Buchanan
and O’Connell (2006) explained that the word “decision-making” was first introduced by
Chester Barnard to the field of business in the 1950s. It is a concept that revolves around
making choices (Karimi, Papamichail, & Holland, 2015) and managing perceived risks.
(Punj, 2012). To facilitate this process, people use tools to help them in identifying the
best possible choice. However, Buchanan and O’Connell clarified that it was only
recently when people started to use complex means to come up with a decision. In the
past, the people’s “risk management tool kit consisted of faith, hope, and guesswork”
(Buchanan and O’Connell, 2006, p. 34). Table 4 presents the milestones in the process of
decision-making that dates back to the 6th Century BC.
Table 4
A Historical Timeline and Milestone of Decision-Making
Period
Decision-Making Milestone
Prehistory
Human decisions are guided by wisdom from prophets and
ancient divination texts as well as interpretations of entrails,
smoke, and dreams.
6th Century BC Allowing events to take their natural course without choosing
at all (Lao-Tzu) or deciding based on benevolence, ritual,
reciprocity, and filial piety (Confucius).
5th Century BC Male citizens in Athens make decisions by voting.
38
4th Century BC Plato asserts that all perceivable things are derived from
eternal archetypes and are better discovered through the soul
than through the senses.
Aristotle takes an empirical view of knowledge that values
information gained through the senses and deductive
reasoning.
399 BC In an early jury-trial decision, 500 Athenian citizens agree to
send Socrates to his death.
333 BC Alexander the Great slices through the Gordian knot with his
sword, demonstrating how difficult problems can be solved
with bold strokes.
49 BC Julius Caesar makes the irreversible decision to cross the
Rubicon, and a potent metaphor in decision-making is born.
9th Century The Hindu-Arabic number system, including zero, circulates
throughout the Arab empire, stimulating the growth of
mathematics.
11th Century Omar Khayyám uses the Hindu-Arabic number system to
create a language of calculation, paving the way for the
development of algebra.
14th Century The “Occam’s razor” principle which states that the best
theory is the simplest one that accounts for all the evidence.
17th Century Stable keeper Thomas Hobson presents his customers with
an eponymous “choice”: the horse nearest the door or none.
39
1602 Hamlet debates whether “to be, or not to be.”
1620 Francis Bacon asserts the superiority of inductive reasoning
in scientific inquiry.
1641 René Descartes proposes that reason is superior to experience
as a way of gaining knowledge and establishes the
framework for the scientific method.
1654 Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat develop the concept of
calculating probabilities for chance events.
1660 Pascal’s wager on the existence of God shows that for a
decision maker, the consequences, rather than the likelihood,
of being wrong can be paramount.
1738 Daniel Bernoulli lays the foundation of risk science by
examining random events from the standpoint of how much
an individual desires or fears each possible outcome.
19th Century Carl Friedrich Gauss studies the bell curve, described earlier
by Abraham de Moivre, and develops a structure for
understanding the occurrences of random events.
1880 Oliver Wendell Holmes says that “the life of the law has not
been logic; it has been experience.” Judges, he argues, should
base decisions not merely on statutes but on the good sense
of reasonable members of the community.
40
1886 Francis Galton discovers that although values in a random
process may stray from the average, in time they will trend
toward it. His concept of regression to the mean will
influence stock and business analysis.
1900 Sigmund Freud’s work on the unconscious suggests that
people’s actions and decisions are often influenced by causes
hidden in the mind.
1907 Economist Irving Fisher introduces net present value as a
decision-making tool, proposing that expected cash flow be
discounted at a rate that reflects an investment’s risk.
1921 Frank Knight distinguishes between risk, in which an
outcome’s probability can be known (and consequently
insured against), and uncertainty, in which an outcome’s
probability is unknowable.
1938 Chester Barnard separates personal from organizational
decision-making to explain why some employees act in the
firm’s interest rather than in their own.
1944 In their book on game theory, John von Neumann and Oskar
Morgenstern describe a mathematical basis for economic
decision-making; like most theorists before them, they take
the view that decision makers are rational and consistent.
1946 The Alabe Crafts Company of Cincinnati markets the Magic
8 Ball.
41
1947 Rejecting the classical notion that decision makers behave
with perfect rationality, Herbert Simon argues that because
of the costs of acquiring information, executives make
decisions with only “bounded rationality”–they make do with
good-enough decisions.
1948 Project RAND, its name a contraction of “research and
development,” separates from Douglas Aircraft and becomes
a nonprofit think tank. Decision makers use its analyses to
form policy on education, poverty, crime, the environment,
and national security.
1950s Research conducted at the Carnegie Institute of Technology
and MIT will lead to the development of early computer-
based decision support tools.
1951 Kenneth Arrow introduces what becomes known as the
Impossibility Theorem, which holds that there can be no set
of rules for social decision-making that fulfills all the
requirements of society.
1952 Harry Markowitz demonstrates mathematically how to
choose diversified stock portfolios so that the returns are
consistent.
42
1960s Edmund Learned, C. Roland Christensen, Kenneth Andrews,
and others develop the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats) model of analysis, useful for making
decisions when time is short and circumstances complex.
1961 Joseph Heller’s term “catch-22” becomes popular shorthand
for circular, bureaucratic illogic that thwarts good decision-
making.
1965 Corporations use IBM’s System/360 computers to start
implementing management information systems.
Roger Wolcott Sperry begins publishing research on the
functional specialization of the brain’s two hemispheres.
1966 The phrase “nuclear option” is coined with respect to
developing atomic weapons and is eventually used to
designate a decision to take the most drastic course of action.
1968 Howard Raiffa’s Decision Analysis explains many
fundamental decision-making techniques, including decision
trees and the expected value of sample (as opposed to
perfect) information.
1970 John D.C. Little develops the underlying theory and
advances the capability of decision-support systems.
43
1972 Irving Janis coins the term “groupthink” for flawed decision-
making that values consensus over the best result.
Michael Cohen, James March, and Johan Olsen publish “A
Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,” which
advises organizations to search their informational trash bins
for solutions thrown out earlier for lack of a problem.
1973 Fischer Black and Myron Scholes (in one paper) and Robert
Merton (in another) show how to accurately value stock
options, beginning a revolution in risk management.
Henry Mintzberg describes several kinds of decision makers
and positions decision-making within the context of
managerial work.
Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton develop the Vroom-Yetton
model, which explains how different leadership styles can be
harnessed to solve different types of problems.
1979 Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman publish their Prospect
Theory, which demonstrates that the rational model of
economics fails to describe how people arrive at decisions
when facing the uncertainties of real life.
John Rockart explores the specific data needs of chief
executives, leading to the development of executive
information systems.
44
1980 “Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” comes to stand for
decisions whose chief rationale is safety.
1984 W. Carl Kester raises corporate awareness of real options by
suggesting that managers think of investment opportunities
as options on the company’s future growth.
Daniel Isenberg explains that executives often combine
rigorous planning with intuition when faced with a high
degree of uncertainty.
1989 Howard Dresner introduces the term “business intelligence”
to describe a set of methods that support sophisticated
analytical decision-making aimed at improving business
performance.
1992 Max Bazerman and Margaret Neale connect behavioral
decision research to negotiations in Negotiating Rationally.
1995 Anthony Greenwald develops the Implicit Association Test,
meant to reveal unconscious attitudes or beliefs that can
influence judgment.
1996 Web users start making buying decisions based on the
buying decisions of people like themselves.
2005 In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell explores the notion that our
instantaneous decisions are sometimes better than those
based on lengthy, rational analysis.
Note. From “A Brief History of Decision-Making,” by L. Buchanan and A. O’Connell,
2006, Harvard Business Review.
45
The development of the decision-making process has evolved from gut-feeling
and divination to one that is heavily anchored on facts or data-driven analytics. This
progression is evident in the highlights summarized in the above table. Today, the
Internet has alleviated the manner by which value is created through fact-based decision-
making. A modern business organization can use the Web in seeking vital and pertinent
information to develop an effective marketing strategy and gain a competitive advantage
over its rival.
Culture and the Process of Decision-Making
The exclusion of cultural attributes in the framing of marketing messages can
negatively impact their effectiveness in influencing ethnic consumers, which in turn, can
lead to a decrease in potential business. Guseva (2013) explained that understanding the
cultural peculiarities of consumers can be a substantial benefit in promotional campaigns
that could impact consumers’ decision-making process. Culture significantly affects
people’s behavior as it encompasses a system of shared values, attitudes, and beliefs.
This is the reason why culture is an important factor in business development.
Consumers’ cultural background can affect the way they make decisions.
According to Li, Masuda, and Russell (2015), the differences in cultural cognitive
orientations can impact decisions and the decision-making processes. Studies have
demonstrated the differences in thinking styles between cultures and their influence on
the individual’s cognitive processes, including the area of decision-making. This
conclusion is also shared by Dabic, Tipuric, and Podrug (2015) by positing that the
culture of individuals influences their values and beliefs which then impact their
decisions.
46
Hosftede (1991) defined culture “as the collective programming of the mind
which distinguishes the members of one group from another” (p. 5). It is a learned and
shared collection of constructs that identify the members of society (Sojka & Tansuhaj,
1995). When taken together, these behavioral and cognitive constructs assist people in
their problem-solving activities. It is also important to note that culture is dynamic and is
continually shaped by the changes in the social or institutional environment as well as by
the changes in the individual’s values. Marketing professionals are convinced about the
role individuals’ values play in their consumption behavior (Lowe & Corkindale, 1998).
Lindridge, Vijaygopal, and Dibb (2014) argued that the culture’s impact on consumer
behavior result in similar product preferences and consumption patterns of individuals
belonging to the same cultural group. However, other studies have shown that different
decision-making styles are used by various consumers when confronted with several
options in the marketplace (Dollinger & Danis, 1998), and that culture plays a crucial role
in how these different styles of decision-making are developed (Canabal, 2002).
Acculturation and Consumer Behavior
Styles in consumer decision-making can change across cultures (Chen et al.,
2012) and can lead to variations in consumer purchase decisions. Ethnic diversification
alters the commercial landscape and reshapes the local markets of a society like the US
(Segev, 2014). Throughout American history, people from different countries
immigrated to the US to start a new life. They become a remunerative target for business
organizations given their growing purchasing power (Wilson, 2007). As they are
adapting to the socio-cultural values of the host country, immigrants’ consumption
47
behaviors are impacted by the mainstream culture. This process of adaptation is known
as acculturation.
Acculturation has been of interest to various researchers since John Wesley
Powell first used it in the 1880s (Davis, 1915). Over the years, the concept of
acculturation has been given various definitions by a variety of disciplines (Olmedo as
cited in Ownbey & Horridge, 1997). According to Lakey (2003), the first standard
definition was provided by Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits in 1936:
Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of
individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with
subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups. (p.
104)
Almost two decades later, the Social Science Research Council reinforced the above
definition by stating that:
Acculturation is a culture change that is initiated by the conjunction of two or
more autonomous cultural systems. Its dynamics can be seen as the selective
adaptation of value systems, the processes of integration and differentiation, the
generation of developmental sequences, and the operation of role determinants
and personality factors. (Lakey, 2003, p. 104)
The above definitions led to the characterization of two major schools of thought:
unidimensional and bidimensional. The difference between these two perspectives lies in
how they view the relationship between the culture of origin and the host culture. Ryder,
Alden, and Paulhus (2000) explained that the unidimensional model of acculturation
assumes that “change in cultural identity takes place along a single continuum over the
48
course of time” (p. 49). This means that the behavioral transformation may be going
towards the direction of abandoning the culture of origin and exclusively embracing the
culture of the host society or holding on to the culture of origin while rejecting the
mainstream culture. However, Yu and Wang (2011) argued that the acculturation process
in the unidimensional perspective is tilted towards the adoption of the host culture. The
immigrants’ acculturation process may vary in pace, but it always ends up in the adoption
of the dominant mainstream culture and the loss of the heritage culture (Van de Vijver &
Phale as cited in Yu & Wang, 2011). However, the key assumption of mutual exclusion
between heritage and host cultures that defines this perspective is also considered as its
principal criticism. Kang (2006) argued that this is not necessarily accurate as there are
individuals from minority groups who describe themselves as bicultural. Furthermore,
Benet-Martinez (as cited in Celenk & Van de Vijver, 2011) explained that the
acculturation of an immigrant is not a direct and clear-cut adaptation of the dominant
culture. Variations can also occur in the process that instigates a change in the host
culture (Taft, 1953). This recognition of bipolarity in the acculturation contributed to the
development of the bidimensional perspective.
The bi-dimensional conceptualization of acculturation includes both the
acceptance of the host culture and the maintenance of the heritage culture (Berry, 1997).
The interaction between the original and host cultures can fundamentally lead to a change
in the people’s values and lifestyles. According to Jun, Ham, and Park (2014), the
acculturation process goes beyond the acquisition of language, social norms, and values
from the host culture. It can also change the individual’s cognitive patterns and social
behaviors (Wong-Rieger & Quintana, 1987). For Asian Americans, retaining their ethnic
49
identity is a dominant sentiment (Jun et al., 2014). This is perhaps due to their difficulty
in assimilating with the host culture because of the group’s physical and psychological
differences. The same is true among Filipino-Americans. Karakaya et al. explained that
the Filipinos in the US adhere to their traditional cultural values regardless of their level
of acculturation.
The bi-dimensional model of acculturation gave rise to four acculturation modes:
assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization (Berry, 1980). Assimilation
happens when people discard their culture of origin and totally embrace the host culture.
In this type of acculturation, an individual has little interest in cultural maintenance but
prefers to interact with the larger society. Those who can maintain both the original and
host cultures are said to have developed a bi-cultural orientation where individuals can
successfully embrace the host culture while maintaining their original cultural heritage.
This particular acculturation category is called integration. The third acculturation
category is called separation where individuals prefer to keep their original culture and
disregard any desires for or contacts with the host culture. When individuals are not
interested in either their original or host cultures, this falls under the last acculturation
category of marginalization. To sum it up, Jun, Ham, and Park (2014) stated that
assimilation and integration emphasize the acceptance of a new culture while
marginalization and segregation concentrate on adherence to the original culture and
rejection of both cultures, respectively.
50
Table 5
Modes of Individual Acculturation and their Descriptions
Mode of Acculturation
Description
1. Integration
This acculturation mode occurs when an individual believes
that one’s own culture and the dominant host culture are
important. The individual is actively interacting with both
cultures by holding onto certain aspects of his or her heritage
while adapting to certain aspects of the mainstream society.
2. Assimilation This acculturation mode occurs when an individual believes
that it is important to embrace the characteristics of the host
culture while renouncing one’s original culture.
3. Separation This acculturation mode occurs when an individual believes
that it is important to keep one’s culture and discard any
possibility of interacting with the host culture.
4. Marginalization This acculturation mode occurs when an individual is not
connected to his or her original culture nor the host culture,
and does not see the importance of maintaining both cultures.
Note. From “Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation,” by J.W. Berry, 1997, Applied
Psychology: An International Review.
The process of acculturation impacts the immigrants’ everyday behavior
including their consumption habits or choices. With the increasing inflow of people from
other countries, ethnic communities are created across the US and become valuable
targets of businesses and marketing professionals (Wilson, 2007). Askeegaard and
51
Ozcaglar-Toulouse (2011) explained the importance for these groups to learn and grasp
the dynamics of immigration to comprehend their effect on market development. Since
acculturation is one of the dynamics of immigration, understanding acculturation will
help businesses distinguish the consumers’ purchase behavior. Ownbey and Horridge (as
cited in Jun, Ham, & Park, 2014) indicated that acculturation affects the purchasing
orientations of ethnic consumers. There is a fundamental idea in acculturation studies
that supports behavioral divergence among people from the same ethno-racial group
(Segev, 2014). The source of these differences may come from the individuals’ level of
acculturation. As explained by Donthu and Cherian (1992), members of an ethnic group
with similar acculturation level demonstrate parallel consumer behavior. Understanding
this notion of heterogeneity of certain individuals within a cultural group can help in
forecasting consumption patterns and can be a crucial factor in developing effective
market segmentation and successful sales planning.
As indicated in the above discussion, the relationship between acculturation and
consumer behavior can vary from one extreme to the other. In the acculturation scale, an
immigrant may demonstrate consumption and purchasing behavior that is based on his or
her heritage culture. However, on the other end of the scale, an immigrant consumer may
also show a behavior that is patterned after the idiosyncrasies of the dominant host
culture. Other consumers may be able to integrate both the heritage and dominant
cultures by patronizing ethnic and mainstream products and services in their consumption
patterns according to their acculturation level.
52
Consumer Behavior and Decision-Making Process
Consumer behavior is triggered by needs. Hawkins et al. (2004) defined
consumer behavior as the process that people employ to search for products and services
and decide which of the identified alternative selections or choices could satisfy their
personal requirements. One of the important aspects of consumer behavior that is
interesting to researchers and marketing professionals is the way people apply decision-
making strategies to how and what they buy. This is an important aspect towards
achieving success in business as it gives marketing professionals a significant
competitive advantage by knowing how consumers make decisions. Understanding the
decision-making process of consumers can enable business organizations to develop
appropriate marketing strategies that respond to consumer needs as well as identify
opportunities that are not currently met.
Fox, Cooper, and Glasspool (2013) defined decision-making as a process that
enables individuals to select an item from a group consisting of various potential
alternatives. It conveys the progression of reasoning from assessment to judgment of
different options based on the decision maker’s values and preferences to come up with a
reasonable choice (Beresford & Sloper, 2008). Dewey (as cited in Dimova & Kamarska,
2015; Hermanowicz, 1961) established the earlier version of the problem-solving process
that guides people in their decision-making. Dimova and Kamarska (2015) explained
that Dewey’s problem-solving process starts with an indeterminate or problematic
situation. It is a stage of the process when an individual experiences confusion or
difficulty in comprehending a situation. This stage of uncertainty motivates the
individual to review the problematic situation and conduct an inquiry to come up with a
53
potential solution. The goal of the whole process is to convert the “indeterminate
situation into a determinate one” (Dimova & Kamarska, 2015, p. 31) or from problem
identification to solution determination (Burke as cited in Dimova & Kamarska, 2015).
Figure 7 shows John Dewey’s structure for inquiry in problem-solving.
Figure 7. John Dewey's Structure of Inquiry
Source: Dimova &Kamarska (2015)
The basic elements of Dewey’s problem-solving process have been employed in
various consumer decision-making models. One of the famous models in consumer
decision-making is the Engel, Kollat, & Blackwell (EKB) shown in Figure 8. The EKB
model broadened John Dewey’s structure of inquiry and used it to understand consumer
behavior (Darley, Blankson, & Luethge, 2010). It proposes a chronological process of
54
decision-making that consists of the following: needs recognition, searches for internal
and external information, evaluating alternatives, purchasing process, and outcomes
(Engel, Kollat, & Blackwell, 1968).
The EKB Model offers a basic framework in consumer decision-making. It starts
with the condition of unsatisfied needs (SueLin, 2010). The discontent resulting from the
differences between the observed existing situation and the preferred condition leads an
individual to recognize a need or problem. After acknowledging the need or problem, the
consumer starts the process of inquiry to identify the possible solutions to the problem.
The search for solutions comes from both the internal sources, such as memory and
experiences and external environment. Evaluation of the possible alternatives based on
the consumer’s criteria follows. Once a solution is identified, the selected alternative is
purchased. After the purchase, the final step of post-purchase evaluation starts.
Figure 8. The Decision Process Stages of the Engel, Kollat, Blackwell Model
Source: Engel, Kollat, & Blackwell (as cited in SueLin, 2010)
55
In the post-purchase evaluation stage, the consumers assess the purchased product
or service based on their expectations and perceived value. The result of the evaluation
will guide the consumers in their future consumption decisions. If the purchased item
passes expectations, the consumer is happy with the decision and would be encouraged to
buy the same brand or from the same retail store in the future. However, if dissatisfaction
exists after the purchase due to the product or service not meeting expectations,
consumers might request for a refund or file a complaint with the business organization.
The consumer may also decide not to purchase from the same store in the future.
The EKB model can assist researchers and marketing professionals in
understanding the consumer’s buying behaviors by examining the entire consumer’s life
cycle from need recognition to post-purchase behavior. The consumers’ mental
orientations contribute to the differences in the way they make buying decisions. Sproles
and Kendall (1986) regarded these differences as the consumers’ decision-making styles
that help them in their search and selection of the appropriate product and services to
purchase.
Consumer Decision-Making Styles
As mentioned earlier, decision-making is a cognitive process that consumers
undertake before making a final purchase decision. Online consumers take into
consideration a few factors when interacting with online retailers. The design of the
online store is one of them (Wan as cited in Saleh, 2016). Among the elements that are
vital to web store design are the following: attractiveness, content quality, information
availability, and ease of use. The consumers’ digital literacy or technological knowledge
and their demographic profiles have also been found to influence online shopping
56
behavior (Saleh, 2016). Other factors that affect online purchase decisions are timely
order delivery and security in electronic payment (Bashir, 201) as well as product
availability and electronic service quality (Dash & Kumar, 2014). Studies have also
shown that consumers engage in online transactions and deal with the inherent intricacies
of the purchase process using their natural styles and approaches in decision-making that
influence their shopping behaviors (Segev, 2014).
Decision-making styles are defined as mental guidelines that determine the way in
which consumers make decisions among different products on the market (Sproles &
Kendall, 1986). Different consumers utilize diverse decision-making styles when they
evaluate goods and services. As explained by Sinkovics, Leelapanyalert, and Yamin
(2010), decision-making styles offer a way to determine the type of cognitive orientation
that aids people when making their purchases. They were developed to enhance our
knowledge of how individuals engage in the process of decision-making. In the EKB
Model, the decision-making styles are prevalent in the information search and evaluation
of alternatives stages (Hui, et. al. as cited in Chen, Chen, & Lin, 2012) as well as in the
selection of the most desirable choice (Potgieter et al., 2013).
Sproles and Kendall (1986) combined the following three approaches to develop
and differentiate the decision-making styles of consumers: psychographic and lifestyle
approach, consumer typology, and consumer characteristics approach. Psychographic
and lifestyle approach uses the consumers’ attitudes, choices, opinions, personality traits,
and values in segregating the various shopping styles (Wells, 1974). Consumer typology,
on the other hand, defines the different consumer types (Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980).
Among the examples of consumer types are ethnic shoppers, economic shoppers, store-
57
loyal shoppers, convenience shoppers, recreational shoppers, brand-loyal shoppers, price-
oriented shoppers, and the like. Lastly, the consumer characteristics approach centers on
consumer mental and emotional orientations. Sproles and Kendall (1986) integrated all
the approaches above to come up with a list of cognitive orientations that guide
consumers in decision-making. They proposed eight cognitive styles of consumer
decision-making and established the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) scale to assess
these various shopping orientations. The eight consumer decision-making styles are
detailed in Table 6 below.
Table 6
Consumer Decision-Making Styles: Categories and Descriptions
Decision-Making Style
Description
1. Perfectionistic and High-
Quality Conscious Consumer
Individuals scoring highly for this style are searching
and seeking the highest standards or best quality in
products. These consumers shop methodically, and
they compare products to determine the one with the
highest quality.
2. Brand Conscious and Price-
Equals-Quality Consumer
Individuals scoring highly for this style desire to buy
the best-known and most advertised brands. For
these people, the price of the product determines its
quality. Expensive products are considered superior
in quality compared to cheaper products.
58
3. Novelty and Fashion
Conscious Consumer
Individuals scoring highly for this style are motivated
to keep track of the current fashion trends. They
prefer diversity in their choices and get excited and
satisfied when trying original and innovative things.
4. Recreational and Hedonistic
Shopping Conscious Consumer
Individuals scoring highly for this style enjoy
shopping and like to kill time in stores. The
motivation for these people is recreational and
hedonistic where shopping is done just for the fun of
it.
5. Price Conscious and Value-
for-Money Consumers
Individuals scoring highly for this style shop around
to get the lowest price on the market. These
customers aim to get the best return on their monetary
investment.
6. Impulsive and Careless
Consumer
Individuals scoring highly for this style do not plan
their purchases. They are characterized as
spontaneous consumers who do not take price or
value of the item into consideration when making a
purchase. However, some of these consumers are
also known to regret their purchase decisions later.
7. Confused-by-Over-Choice
Consumer
Individuals scoring highly for this style often feel
overwhelmed by the numerous selections in the
marketplace and usually end up having difficulty in
making a choice.
59
8. Habitual and Brand-Loyal
Consumer
Individuals scoring highly for this style have a
particular brand or prefer stores with reasonable
pricing. They repetitively choose the same favorite
brands all the time.
9. Website Content Conscious
Consumer
Individuals scoring highly for this style are very
particular about the following website facilities:
privacy, security, searching tools, communication
tools for product inquiry and order tracking,
availability and richness of product information, and
customer review and social networking capabilities.
10. Website Interface Conscious
Consumer
Individuals scoring highly for this style consider
website design a significant factor in their online
purchase decisions. Website design elements include
the following: animation effects, graphics or text
display for sensitive or critical information, and
location of web tools.
Note. From “A Methodology for Profiling Consumers’ Decision-Making Styles,” by G.B.
Sproles and E.L. Kendall, 1986, Journal of Consumer Affairs. And from “Online
Consumer Decision-Making Styles for Enhanced Understanding of Macau Online
Consumer Behavior,” by K.M. Sam and C. Chatwin, 2015, Asia Pacific Management
Review.
Expanded Model of Decision-Making Styles for Online Consumers
Due to the advent of electronic commerce, the CSI model developed by Sproles
and Kendall (1986) should be expanded to take this technological advancement into
60
consideration. To incorporate the online aspect in consumer decision-making styles, Sam
and Chatwin (2015) recommended adding the following aspects to the CSI model:
privacy and security, self-service technologies and well-organized website pages, social
networking sites, and customer reviews.
Confidentiality and security are issues that consumers are continually concerned
about every time they do transactions on the Internet. With the number of reports these
days about identity theft and data breaches, people are always worried about doing
business with online stores that they believe don’t have adequate online protection in
place. Lindeman (as cited in Sam & Chatwin, 2015) explained that consumers are willing
to pay extra money to purchase from an online store that is more likely to protect their
private information.
Self-service technology is another aspect of business websites that is important to
online consumers. It refers to the adoption of self-service features that include product
and information inquiry and order tracking systems. Aside from this, online consumers
also prefer a business website with well-organized and updated home, category, and
product pages.
Social networking sites and customer reviews are essential tools that business
organizations can use to drive up revenue. Not only do these tools help connect the
business with its consumers, but they also enable consumers to exchange information and
experiences regarding the item that they purchased from the business organization.
The aforementioned company website facilities can significantly affect the buying
decisions of online consumers. Thus, Sam and Chatwin (2015) proposed to add the
following two decision style characteristics to the CSI model of Sproles and Kendall
61
(1986): website content conscious consumer and website interface conscious consumer.
Website content measures the consumers’ appraisal of the site’s privacy, search tools,
communication tools for product inquiry and order tracking, availability and richness of
product information, customer review and social networking capability offered by the
online stores. The website interface facility, on the other hand, measures the consumers’
attitudes toward website design and layout. Sam and Chatwin explained that a high score
in these two website facilities indicates that consumers consider them as critical and these
facilities can affect consumer’ buying decisions.
The eight cognitive characteristics of consumer decision-making developed by
Sproles and Kendall (1986) and the additional two decision style characteristics proposed
by Sam and Chatwin (2015) comprise the modified consumer style inventory that can be
used to assess the purchase behavior of online consumers. Hence, the modified consumer
style inventory characteristics for online consumers are: (1) perfectionistic and the high-
quality conscious consumer, (2) brand conscious and the price-equals-quality consumer,
(3) novelty and fashion conscious consumer, (4) recreational and hedonistic shopping
conscious consumer, (5) price conscious and value-for-money consumer, (6) impulsive
and careless consumer, (7) confused-by-over-choice consumer, (8) habitual and brand-
loyal consumer, (9) website content conscious consumer, and (10) website interface
conscious consumer.
Summary
The Philippines was under Spanish rule since it was first settled by Spain in 1565
until the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898. The 333 years of Spanish rule
ended when Spain lost the war and ceded the Philippines to the US for $20 million. Its
62
acquisition infuriated the Filipino nationalists who had been fighting for independence
from Spain even before the US invasion. Shortly after that, the Philippine-American War
broke out. After three years of fighting, the Philippine-American war ended in July 1902
with the Americans claiming victory over the Filipino revolutionaries.
The Philippines was a US territory from 1898 until its independence in 1946. For
almost five decades, the Filipinos were classified as US nationals and were exempted
from US immigration restrictions. Unfortunately, all attempts by Filipinos to naturalize
and obtain US citizenship were not successful. However, this did not stop Filipinos from
relocating to the US. In fact, their status as US nationals facilitated the migration of
Filipinos into the US. According to McNamara and Batalova (2015), three major waves
describe the exodus of Filipinos to the US. The first wave of Filipino settlers arrived
from 1903 to 1935 while the second and third waves happened in the 1940s to 1950s and
post-1965, respectively (Lee, 2015).
The first wave of Filipino migrants who started to arrive in the US were
comprised of the following groups: college students, U.S. Navy veterans, and plantation
laborers (Baldoz, 2011). After World War II, the second wave of Filipinos began
migrating to the US. During this period, Filipinos who joined the US military were given
the option to become US citizens. Others came as brides of US servicemen and as nurses
or healthcare workers. However, the significant increase in the number of Filipinos in the
US happened following the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The
law abolished the Asian immigration quotas which prompted the third wave of Filipino
migration into the US. It was meant to relieve occupational shortages and achieve family
reunifications.
63
Today, the Asian American group is the fastest growing minority population in
the US (De Souza & Fuller-Thomson, 2013). Among Asian Americans, the Filipinos
ranked as the second largest sub-group, with one in five Asians tracing their roots to the
Philippines (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The top states of residence for Filipino-
Americans include California, Hawaii, Texas, Illinois, and Nevada. Overall, 66 percent
of all Filipinos live on the West coast, 16 percent in the South, 10 percent in the
Northeast, and 8 percent in the Midwest. More than half of the Filipino-Americans were
born in the Philippines.
Humphreys (2014) estimated the population of this group at 2.9 million with a
total buying power of $121 billion. The group’s higher level of purchasing power can be
attributed to the following: higher per capita income, higher educational levels, different
business activities, and demographic characteristics. Within the Asian American
marketplace, the Filipino-Americans have the third largest buying power after the Asian
Indians ($195 billion) and Chinese ($176 billion) racial groups.
Due to the demographic and immigration factors, Filipino-Americans are
expected to increase in numbers and purchasing power. The potential impact on the
business environment makes it imperative for retailers to understand the dynamics of
immigration and the group’s purchase decision profiles to discern their impact on market
development and consumption patterns (Askeegaard & Ozcaglar-Toulouse, 2011).
Studies have demonstrated the differences in thinking styles between cultures and their
influence on the individual’s cognitive processes, including the area of decision-making.
In the field of consumer behavior, different decision-making styles are used by various
consumers when confronted with several options in the marketplace (Dollinger & Danis,
64
1998), and culture plays a crucial role in how these different styles of decision-making
are developed (Canabal, 2002).
In a multi-ethnic society such as the US, immigrants adapt to the host culture
through the process of acculturation. The interaction between the original and host
cultures can fundamentally lead to a change in the people’s values and lifestyles. As they
are adjusting to the socio-cultural values of the host country, immigrants’ consumption
behaviors are impacted by the mainstream culture. The bi-dimensional model of
acculturation gave rise to four acculturation modes: assimilation, integration, separation,
and marginalization (Berry, 1980). These modes impact the way people search for
products and services and help them decide which of the identified alternative selections
or choices can satisfy their personal requirements. Understanding the decision-making
process of consumers can enable business organizations to develop appropriate marketing
strategies to meet consumer needs as well as identify opportunities that are not currently
met.
Decision-making may be defined as a process that enables individuals to select an
item from a group consisting of various potential alternatives (Fox, Cooper, & Glasspool,
2013). The process starts with a problem which motivates an individual to conduct an
inquiry and come up with a potential solution. Engel, Kollat, & Blackwell (1968) offer a
basic framework that defines the stages of the decision-making process: problem/need
recognition, search for alternatives, evaluation of alternatives, choice/purchase made and
post-purchase evaluation. This framework helps businesses to examine the consumers’
life cycle from problem identification to solution determination. The differences in the
way consumers make decisions are based on their decision-making styles. Consumers
65
utilize diverse decision-making styles when they evaluate products and services. In the
decision-making framework of Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell, consumers utilize decision-
making styles in the information search and evaluation of alternatives stages (Hui, et. al.
as cited in Chen, Chen, & Lin, 2012) as well as in the selection of the most desirable
choice (Potgieter et al., 2013).
Sproles and Kendall (1986) combined the following three approaches to develop
and differentiate the decision-making styles of consumers: psychographic and lifestyle
approach, consumer typology, and consumer characteristics approach. By integrating
these approaches, the researchers came up with the following eight decision-making
styles:
• Perfectionistic and High-Quality Conscious Consumer,
• Brand Conscious and Price Equals Quality Conscious Consumer,
• Novelty and Fashion Conscious Consumer,
• Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Consumer,
• Price and Value-for-Money Conscious Consumer,
• Impulsive and Careless Consumer,
• Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer,
• Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer.
With the advent of electronic commerce, the above decision-making styles needed to be
updated. Sam and Chatwin (2015) recommended taking into consideration the following
online features: privacy and security, self-service technologies and well-organized
website pages, social networking sites, and customer reviews. Hence, they proposed to
add the following two decision style characteristics to the above list:
66
• Website Content Conscious Consumer,
• Website Interface Conscious Consumer.
67
Chapter 3: Research Method
Consumers utilize decision-making methods to come up with the best possible
choice (Moon, 2004). Since consumption behavior and attitudes vary from culture to
culture, so too do consumers’ decision-making styles (Chen et al., 2012). For
immigrants, variations in consumption value systems and decision-making styles can be
impacted by acculturation. Segev (2014) has indicated that ethnic and host culture
identifications, the two dimensions of acculturation, predict different consumer
behavioral orientations. To some degree, acculturation plays a major role in shaping
consumption behaviors. As explained by Webster (1994), attitudinal and behavioral
disparities exist because the degree of ethnic culture preservation and host culture
identification vary from person to person. However, systematic study of online consumer
behavior and acculturation has been insufficient, and the examination of the relationship
between online decision-making styles and acculturation modes is scarce. Several studies
have been conducted that insinuate the role of acculturation in consumer behavior, but
there is not enough literature that shows the degree of relationship between acculturation
and the consumers’ attitudes or strategies towards online shopping (Segev, 2014). The
present research attempted to fill this gap. It investigated whether the Filipino-
Americans’ online consumer decision-making styles varied according to their
acculturation modes. By comprehending how these styles are affected by the
acculturation process, the researcher aimed to contribute to the understanding of the
process that guides actual online consumption patterns.
To understand the Filipino-American market, electronic retail businesses need to
be conscious of the basic reasons that motivate Filipino-Americans to respond positively
68
to their marketing activities. Business organizations must also find ways to recognize
and discern how the people from this ethnic group make their purchase decisions.
According to Sproles and Kendall (1986), consumers use their natural decision-making
styles to interact with the marketplace and deal with its intricacies. By understanding
how the decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans are affected by acculturation while
engaging in electronic commerce, business organizations may be able to learn about the
factors which drive the purchase behavior of this ethnic group. This present study will
give marketing professionals insights that they can use in the development of appropriate
marketing and communication strategies that target the needs of Filipino-Americans.
Furthermore, the study endeavored to fill in the much needed gap in the literature
regarding the Filipino-American online consumers. Previous studies involving minority
groups and consumer behavior have mainly focused on African Americans and Hispanics
(Morimoto, 2012). Although recent developments have shown an increase in consumer
studies focusing on Asian Americans, there is still a long way to go in order to fully
understand the purchase behavior of this fast growing ethnic consumer group, especially
those of Filipino heritage. Finally, by studying the consumer decision-making styles of
one ethnic group within one host country, the foundation of the consumer decision-
making styles literature will be enhanced. Currently, as described by Segev (2014),
consumer decision-making styles are monopolized by cross-national comparisons.
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to investigate the
relationship between acculturation and consumer decision-making styles within the
context of electronic commerce. Specifically, it aimed to: 1) determine the online
decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; 2) examine the impact of acculturation
69
with regard to the identified decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; and 3)
determine the extent of relationship between the two acculturation dimensions, i.e., ethnic
and host culture identifications, and the identified online decision-making styles.
The study attempted to answer the following research questions:
Q1. Do Filipino-Americans differ among each other in their online decision-
making styles?
Q2. Do online decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans differ according to
their mode of acculturation?
Q3. Do the dimensions of acculturation, ethnic and host culture identifications are
associated with each of the online decision-making styles?
The research questions were investigated using the following null (Ho) and
alternative (Ha) hypotheses:
H10. There is no significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in
their online decision-making styles.
H1a. There is a significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in
their online decision-making styles.
H20. There is no significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in
the four acculturation levels with respect to their consumer decision-making styles.
H2a. There is a significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in the
four acculturation levels with respect to their consumer decision-making styles.
H30. There is no association between the two acculturation dimensions and the
online consumer decision-making styles of Filipino-American consumers.
70
H3a. There is an association between the two acculturation dimensions and the
online decision-making styles of Filipino-American consumers.
Research Methods and Design
A quantitative design to investigate the relationship between acculturation and
consumer decision-making styles within the context of electronic commerce was used for
this study. The study adopted a survey approach to gathering data for hypotheses testing.
As explained by Zikmund (2003), a survey is a “research technique in which information
is collected from a sample of people by use of a questionnaire” (p. 175). The survey
design ensures content validity. To this end, a cross-sectional type of survey analysis was
conducted with the use of a questionnaire that was administered through the website
SurveyMonkey. There are several advantages in using the survey design for this study.
One advantage is that this technique is generally inexpensive since it can be self-
administered. Also, the survey method can be administered from remote locations via the
Internet, mail, telephone, or email. Furthermore, it can be used to describe the
characteristics of a large population through sampling where the results can be
statistically significant even when analyzing multiple variables. Zikmund (2003)
summarized the advantages of the survey method by saying that it provides a quick,
inexpensive, efficient, and accurate means of assessing information about the population.
It was because of this that the survey method was considered the appropriate technique in
collecting information from a pool of research participants selected through purposive
sampling.
71
Population
A population is composed of all individuals of interest to the researcher (Cozby,
2009). For this study, the target population included all Filipino adults living in the US.
The U.S. Census Bureau (2015) estimated the population of this particular racial group at
3.9 million. The Filipino-Americans represent the second largest Asian subgroup living
in the US. They can be found all over the US. The top states where Filipino-Americans
live are California, Hawaii, Texas, Illinois, and Nevada (Center for American Progress,
2015). About 31 percent of the Filipino-Americans can be found in metropolitan areas
such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu, and New York (McNamara & Batalova,
2015). Overall, 66 percent of all Filipinos live on the West coast, 16 percent in the
South, 10 percent in the Northeast, and 8 percent in the Midwest (Pew Research Center,
2013).
Sample
The ideal aim of a research project is to involve all the population that interests
the researcher. However, this is not always feasible. If testing all the individuals in a
population is impossible, and to save time, money, and effort, researchers rely on
sampling techniques to obtain reliable, valid, and accurate results. As explained by
Zikmund (2003), most researchers consider the following elements when determining the
sample size: standard deviation of the population, the acceptable magnitude of error, and
confidence level. Considering the difficulties in conducting surveys among ethnic
minorities such as “low frequency in the population, may be geographically un-clustered
and difficult to access” (Erens, 2013, p. 45), a non-probability sampling method was used
to obtain the sample for this study.
72
For the sample percentage to be accurate at plus or minus 5 percent at 95 percent
confidence level for a population that is more than 100,000, Cozby’s (2009) sample size
of 384 was selected. The research participants were identified through a subset of
purposive sampling technique known as snowball sampling. A recruitment email was
sent to the researcher’s Filipino-American friends and acquaintances in the US with a
request to fill out the survey and pass along the research recruitment information to their
Filipino-American family members and friends who also live in the US. Research
participants were additionally recruited with the help of the following two Filipino-
American organizations: Ugnayan Filipino Ministry at St. Francis Church in New York,
NY and the National Federation of Filipino-American Association in Washington, DC.
Materials/Instruments
A web-based questionnaire was used to survey the population with previously
validated scales. The modified Consumer Styles Inventory for online purchases (Sproles
& Kendall, 1986; Sam & Chatwin, 2015) was utilized in the survey to determine the
consumers’ decision-making styles. Study participants answered each of the items in the
CSI instrument using a five-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree).
For each style, a score was computed by getting the sum of the respondents’ answers and
dividing that sum by the total number of items within each style. A copy of the survey is
presented in Appendix A.
With regard to the measurement of acculturation, the 30-item ARSMA II (Cuellar
et al., 1995) adapted for Filipino-Americans was used in the survey. A copy of the survey
is presented in Appendix B. This particular scale was originally developed to assess the
extent of acculturation among people of Mexican origin. However, it has been
73
commonly employed in acculturation studies involving Hispanics from various cultural
backgrounds (Segev, 2014) and has been found to be suitable for use among individuals
with Asian origin (Lee, Yoon, & Liu-To, 2006).
Cuellar et al., (1995) explained that the ARSMA II instrument is composed of the
ethnic orientation subscale (Filipino Orientation Subscale or FOS) and the host culture
identification subscale (Anglo Orientation Subscale or AOS). To get the linear
acculturation score that determined the individual’s level of acculturation from being
“very Filipino” oriented to “very Anglo” oriented, the FOS and AOS needed to be
computed. In the instrument, item numbers 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 23, 25, 27, and
30 made up the AOS subscale. The FOS subscale, on the other hand, is composed of the
following items: 1,3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 29. To obtain
the mean score for each subscale, the sum of the AOS was divided by 13 while the sum
of the FOS was divided by 17. The linear acculturation score was computed by
deducting the MOS mean score from the AOS mean score. Table 8 shows the cutting
score for determining the acculturation level of individuals.
Operational Definition of Variables
The main variables associated with this study are acculturation and decision-
making styles of online consumers. Each of these variables are described below.
Acculturation: Independent Variable. Acculturation refers to the “process of
adaptation and culture modification that occurs as a result of continuous contact between
two different and distinct cultures” (Choi &Thomas, 2008, p. 77). The process of
acculturation has two dimensions: maintenance of ethnic culture and host culture
participation. The outcome of the interaction between these two acculturation
74
dimensions can vary along the following four modes: assimilation, integration,
marginalization, and separation (Berry, 1980). Table 7 shows the cutting-off scores for
each of the acculturation modes.
Table 7
Cutting Scores for Determining Acculturation Level Using ARSMA-II
Acculturation
Levels
Description ARSMA-II
Acculturation Score
I
Very Filipino Oriented
< -1.33
II
Filipino Oriented to approximately balanced
bicultural
≥ -1.33 and ≤ -0.07
III
Slightly Anglo Oriented Bicultural > -0.07 and < 1.19
IV
Strongly Anglo Oriented
≥ 1.19 and < 2.45
V
Very Assimilated; Anglicized
> 2.45
Note. From “Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans – II: A Revision of the
Original ARSMA Scale,” by I. Cuellar, B. Arnold, and R. Madonado, 1995, Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences.
Assimilation happens when an individual renounces his or her original cultural
identity and adopts the characteristics of the dominant host culture. The integration
mode, on the other hand, occurs when an individual acquires a bicultural orientation and
can feel a certain sense of identity with both his or her ethnic culture and the dominant
host culture. Marginalization and separation put emphasis on the rejection of both
cultures and loyalty to the original cultural identity, respectively. These acculturation
modes were measured using the ARSMA II instrument (Cuellar et al., 1995), adapted for
75
Filipino-Americans, by assessing the following four factors: language use and preference,
ethnic identity and classification, cultural heritage and ethnic behaviors, and racial
interaction.
Decision-Making Styles: Dependent Variables. Decision-making styles are
defined as mental guidelines that determine the way in which consumers make decisions
among different products on the market (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). As explained by
Sinkovics, Leelapanyalert, and Yamin (2010), decision-making styles offer a way to
determine the type of cognitive orientation that aids people when making their purchases.
These include the following: perfectionistic and the high-quality conscious consumer,
brand conscious and the price-equals-quality consumer, novelty and fashion conscious
consumer, recreational and hedonistic shopping conscious consumer, price conscious and
value-for-money consumer, impulsive and careless consumer, confused-by-over-choice
consumer, habitual and brand-loyal consumer, website content conscious consumer, and
website interface conscious consumer. Table 5 presents the explanations of each of these
decision-making style characteristics.
A modified Consumer Styles Inventory for online purchases (Sproles & Kendall,
1986; Sam & Chatwin, 2015) was utilized in the survey to determine the consumers’
decision-making styles. This instrument used a five-point Likert scale (1=Strongly
Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree) to measure the respondents’ level of agreement or
disagreement. For each style, a score was computed by getting the sum of the
respondents’ answers and dividing that sum by the total number of items within each
style.
76
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis
Data collection was undertaken through an online survey site called
SurveyMonkey. Identification and selection of research participants were purposively
undertaken through the snowball technique where the researcher invited his Filipino-
American friends and acquaintances to fill out the survey and requested them to pass
along the research recruitment information to their Filipino friends and family in the US.
Two Filipino-American organizations -- Ugnayan Filipino Ministry at St. Francis Church
in New York, NY and the National Federation of Filipino-American Association in
Washington, DC -- also helped in the recruitment process. Each respondent was given $5
if they completed the above survey. All those who participated and completed the
questionnaire were entered into a drawing for a chance to win a $100 Amazon gift card.
A modified Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) was used to determine the decision-
making styles of the target population. Survey respondents answered each of the items in
the CSI instrument using a five-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly
Agree). For each style, a score was computed by getting the sum of the respondents’
answers and dividing that sum by the total number of items within each style.
ARSMA II, adapted for use by Filipino-Americans, was used to measure
acculturation. This particular instrument is composed of two scales. Scale One of
ARSMA II is a 30-item self-rating questionnaire that is divided into the following
subscales: 17-item FOS and 13-item AOS. Item numbers 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19,
23, 25, 27, and 30 made up the AOS subscale. The FOS subscale, on the other hand, was
composed of items 1,3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 29. The sum
of the FOS was divided by 17 to obtain the mean score for the subscale. Likewise, the
77
sum of the AOS was divided by 13 to get the mean score for this subscale. The FOS
mean was then subtracted from the AOS mean to determine the individual’s level of
acculturation score based on the suggested cutting scores shown in Table 8.
All answers of the research participants were statistically analyzed. The
descriptive analysis was undertaken using the SPSS software package to indicate the
means, standard deviations, and the range of scores for these variables. A nonparametric
alternative to One-Way ANOVA known as the Kruskal-Wallis H Test and the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend were used to verify the hypotheses of the research.
Assumptions
The whole study was undertaken with the assumption of positivism. It attempted
to elucidate a phenomenon through deductive reasoning where the resulting factual
knowledge is attained and presented by empirical means (Antwi & Hamza, 2015).
Specifically, the study made a few assumptions with regard to the following: survey
participants, instrument, and response rate.
The survey participants were assumed to be able to read and understand the
questionnaire as well as tell the truth when completing the survey. Also, it was assumed
that respondents were Filipino-Americans who could trace their ancestry to the
Philippines. To address this concern, the researcher required respondents to sign a
promise for truthfulness regarding their survey answers as well as their Filipino heritage.
Participants in the study were also briefed by the researcher about the study’s nature and
purpose including its potential benefits to the Filipino-American community.
Furthermore, participants were advised that the survey was strictly anonymous.
78
It was assumed that survey measurements were accurately presented to the
research respondents. It was also assumed that the response rate was at the acceptable
level to achieve the target sample. To make sure that the target sample was attained,
respondents were each given a $5 Amazon gift card to complete the survey, and their
names were entered into a drawing for a chance to win an additional $100 Amazon gift
card.
Limitations
There were limitations in this study. The sampling strategy was one of them. The
utilization of probability sampling techniques was preferred when using a quantitative
research design. However, since it was near impossible to obtain a comprehensive
sampling frame containing a list of all Filipino-Americans living in the US, the researcher
elected to adopt a quantitative research design using a non-probability sampling
technique. As with all non-probability sampling techniques, the identified sample was
not representative of the population being studied. The decision to use this technique put
a limit on the generalizability of the research results. This weakness regarding the
representativeness of the sample was taken into consideration when interpreting the
results, which could not be used for developing statistical inferences as a basis for
understanding the wider population of interest.
Another limitation of the study was its sole focus on the pre-purchase behavior of
the target racial group when shopping from an online store. As discussed earlier, the
process of decision-making starts with need recognition that is then followed by
information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, and ends with post-
purchase behavior. The current research only focused on the psychosocial influence of
79
the first three steps of the decision process: need recognition, information search, and
evaluation of alternatives.
Delimitations
The researcher made a couple of choices to increase the study’s manageability as
well as to narrow the scope of analysis in light of the stated research questions and
hypotheses. To manage a large number of prospective study participants, the researcher
decided to use a subset of the purposive sampling method known as snowball sampling
technique. Furthermore, the researcher elected not to limit research participation to
certain generational qualifications. Any adult Filipino-Americans residing in the US,
regardless of generational status, could participate in the study. Lastly, only Filipino-
Americans who had experience in purchasing products and services from online retailers
were eligible to participate in the research.
Ethical Assurances
The Belmont Report, which was written by the National Commission for the
Protection of Human Services of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, summarized the
basic ethical principles in conducting research. As explained by Greaney et al. (2012),
the three basic research principles are the following: respect for persons, beneficence, and
justice. These same principles guided the researcher in the implementation of this study.
Respect for persons involves two ethical considerations: treat people as
autonomous agents and protect those who have diminished autonomy (Greaney et al.,
2012). Basically, this particular moral consideration helps to ensure that exploitation of
research participants is avoided. Hence, the researcher provided a well-defined
procedure in the identification and recruitment of potential research participants.
80
Dooley and McCarthy (as cited in Greaney et al., 2012) argued that “informed
consent takes place when a competent and informed person understands the risks and
benefits at stake and authorizes a health care professional to treat them” (p. 39). For this
reason, the researcher made it a point that a consent form was completed by all research
participants and any questions and concerns of said participants were addressed at the
time of consent. Furthermore, the privacy of those who participated in the study was
guaranteed. No personal information was needed as a pre-requisite to complete the
survey.
Beneficence refers to the requirement that “researchers must ensure the wellbeing
of participants (Greaney et al., 2012, p. 40). The researcher made it a point that study
participants were not harmed during their participation in the research. If in the middle of
the survey the participants decided not to continue with the process, they could exit the
survey by just closing the browser. Aside from this, the researcher highlighted the
benefits of the study results to the target population of interest. As an option, research
participants could decide to provide their email addresses if they wished to receive a
summary of study results as a form of feedback.
Confidentiality is also an expectation of beneficence and was observed throughout
the study. The information that was gathered from the survey was grouped and analyzed
to ensure anonymity of those who contributed to the study.
The last ethical consideration based on the Belmont Report, and which the study
had adopted, was justice. In this ethical consideration, the “research must consider who
receives the benefits and who bears the burden of research” (Greaney et al., 2012, p. 42).
Justice is closely related to the other ethical principle of respect for persons. Polit and
81
Beck (as cited in Greaney et al., 2012) explained that justice requires the protection of the
vulnerable population and must not be exploited just to generate new knowledge. The
principle of justice also demands equitable selection of participants and inclusion of the
minority population.
Furthermore, all research participants were provided with full written disclosure
of the research before data collection. The researcher secured a formal approval for the
research through the Northcentral University Institutional Review Board before any data
was collected.
Summary
A survey approach was used in the study to gather data for hypotheses testing.
The target population for this study included all Filipino-American adults residing in the
US. A web-based questionnaire was used to survey the population with previously
validated scales. The modified Consumer Styles Inventory for online purchases (Sproles
& Kendall, 1986; Sam & Chatwin, 2015) was utilized in the survey to determine the
consumers’ decision-making styles. With regard to the measurement of acculturation, the
30-item ARSMA II (Cuellar et al., 1995) adapted for Filipino-Americans was used in the
survey. All answers of the research participants were statistically analyzed. The
descriptive analysis was undertaken using the SPSS software package in order to indicate
the means, standard deviations, and the range of scores for these variables. A
nonparametric alternative to One-Way ANOVA known as the Kruskal-Wallis H Test and
the Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend were used to verify the hypotheses of the research.
The whole study was undertaken under the assumption of positivism.
Specifically, the study made a few assumptions about the following: survey participants,
82
instrument, and response rate. The survey participants were assumed to be able to read
and understand the questionnaire, to tell the truth when completing the survey, and could
trace their ancestry to the Philippines. To address these concern, the researcher requested
the study participants to sign a promise for truthfulness. Participants were also advised
about the study’s nature and purpose, and that their responses were strictly anonymous
and voluntary. Furthermore, it was assumed that the online questionnaires were
accurately presented to the research participants by the survey company and the target
number of samples was achieved. To best attain these goals, the researcher carefully
reviewed questionnaires before they were posted online and a monetary incentive was
offered to increase the possibility of reaching the required sample number.
There were two limitations in this study. The first limitation was related to the
sampling strategy. Since non-probability research technique was used, the results of the
study could not be used to make generalizations regarding the wider population of
interest. The second limitation of the study was that it only focused on the pre-purchase
behavior of the target racial group when shopping from an online store.
To narrow the scope of analysis, the study only involved a purposive sample of
Filipino-American adults living in the US. Any Filipino-Americans, regardless of their
generational status, were eligible to participate in this study as long as they had
experience in buying from any online stores.
The research adopted the following three basic ethical principles in conducting
research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Respect for persons refers to the
moral obligation of the researcher to prevent exploitation of participants by ensuring the
following: informed consent, unbiased selection of research participants, and privacy.
83
Beneficence, on the other hand, requires that the participants are not harmed in the course
of their involvement with the research. Lastly, the ethical research principle of justice
denotes the protection of the vulnerable population which must not be exploited just to
generate new knowledge. All research participants were provided with full written
disclosure of the research before data collection. Also, formal approval of the research
by the Northcentral University Institutional Review Board was secured before any data
was collected.
84
Chapter 4: Findings
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between
acculturation and consumer decision-making styles within the context of electronic
commerce. Specifically, it aimed to: 1) determine the online decision-making styles of
Filipino-Americans; 2) examine the impact of acculturation with regard to the identified
decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; and 3) determine the extent of relationship
between the two acculturation dimensions, i.e., ethnic and host culture identifications,
and the identified online decision-making styles. Through a non-probability sampling
technique, a total of 384 Filipino-American respondents were identified. Scores from the
survey were tabulated and analyzed using an SPSS 24.0 statistical package.
The following research questions were adopted to guide the study:
Q1. Do Filipino-Americans differ from each other in their online decision-making
styles?
Q2. Do online decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans differ according to
their mode of acculturation?
Q3. Do the dimensions of acculturation, ethnic and host culture identifications are
associated with each of the online decision-making styles?
The null and alternative hypotheses below were tested to address the above
research questions:
H10. There is no significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in
their online decision-making styles.
H1a. There is a significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in
their online decision-making styles.
85
H20. There is no significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in
the four acculturation levels with respect to their consumer decision-making styles.
H2a. There is a significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in the
four acculturation levels with respect to their consumer decision-making styles.
H30. There is no association between the two acculturation dimensions and the
online consumer decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans.
H3a. There is an association between the two acculturation dimensions and the
online decision-making styles of Filipino-American consumers.
This chapter introduces the results of the study organized around the research
questions and hypotheses. It starts with the demographic and socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents, followed by a statistical analysis and evaluation of the
research findings. The chapter concludes with a summary.
Results
The collection of data for the study was undertaken from January 7, 2017 to
February 12, 2017. Table 10 presents the frequency and percentage distributions of the
research participants’ demographic information.
Demographic Information. A total of 384 Filipino-Americans participated in
the research with 41 percent coming from the Western region of the US and 32 percent
from the Southern area of the US. The Northeast and Midwest regions of the US had 8
percent each. Males made up the majority of the respondents at 69 percent, and 22
percent of the total survey participants were females. The remaining 9 percent did not
respond to the gender inquiry.
86
The age of the respondents varied. However, most of them were 26 to 30 years
old. Only 14 percent were between 18 to 25 years old, while 20 percent and 14 percent
were between 31 to 35 and 36 to 40 years old, respectively. The rest of the respondents
were above 40 years old.
Religious affiliations of Filipino-Americans who took the survey showed high
variability with 33 percent identified as Catholics, 27 percent as Buddhists, 17 percent as
Christians, 14 percent as Jewish, and 14 percent as Protestants. The other religions
respondents associated with included Islam, Judaism, Inter/Non-denominational, and
Native American. About 8 percent of respondents did not belong to any religion at all.
However, it is worth noting that 29 percent of the respondents identified with more than
one religion.
Table 8
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants
Categories
Frequency
%
Gender
Male
Female
No Response
264
86
34
69%
22%
9%
Region of Residence
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
31
122
29
158
8%
32%
8%
41%
87
No Response
44
11%
Age Group
18 – 25
26 – 30
31 – 35
36 – 40
41 – 45
46 – 50
51 – 55
56 – 60
No Response
54
130
78
53
20
9
1
1
38
14%
34%
20%
14%
5%
2%
0.3%
0.3%
10%
Religion
Catholicism
Buddhism
Christianity
Judaism
Protestantism
Islam
Hinduism
Native American
Inter/Non-denominational
No Religion
128
105
66
52
49
25
17
13
9
30
33%
27%
17%
14%
13%
7%
4%
3%
2%
8%
88
No Response 3 1%
Relationship Status
Married
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
In a domestic partnership or civil union
Single but cohabiting with a significant other
Single and never been married
No Response
242
29
10
6
3
23
38
33
63%
8%
3%
2%
1%
6%
10%
9%
Note. The total number of respondents was 384.
With regard to the relationship status of the survey participants, 63 percent of
individuals reported being married while 10 percent indicated they were single and had
never been married. Others reported being widowed, divorced, and separated. About 6
percent were single but living with a partner. A small number of research participants
claimed to be in a domestic partnership or civil union.
Socioeconomic Characteristics. Table 11 provides the social and economic
features of the survey respondents. It includes the following information: educational
level, employment status, occupation, and income. Education was initially divided into
thirteen categories from sixth grade to eleventh grade, graduated from high school, one
year to three years of college, graduated from college, some graduate school, and
completed graduate school. These particular educational levels were collapsed into the
following three general categories to facilitate ease of data analysis: low, intermediate,
89
and high. The first two categories are descriptions attached to those who completed high
school or less and a bachelor’s degree or less, respectively. A high level of education, on
the other hand, refers to those with post-graduate professional training or a master’s or
doctoral degree. At 74 percent, the overwhelming majority of the research participants
received an intermediate level of education. Regarding the respondents’ employment
status, 78 percent had full-time jobs and 10 percent were employed on a part-time basis.
The categories for occupation were based on the groupings provided by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010). Legal related occupations, which 29 percent of
respondents held, were the most common work category. As described by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, this field includes Arbitrators, Paralegals and Legal Assistants, Court
Reporters, Legal Support Workers, Title Examiners, and the like. Judges and Lawyers
also fall under this category. Some respondents, 14 percent, were in computer and
mathematically related occupations. The remaining study participants were almost
evenly spread out across the other work categories.
Table 9
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Survey Participants
Categories
Frequency
%
Educational Level
Low
Intermediate
High
No Response
41
284
24
35
11%
74%
6%
9%
90
Employment Status
Employed, working full-time
Employed, working part-time
Not employed, looking for work
Not employed, not looking for work
No Response
299
38
9
4
35
78%
10%
2%
1%
9%
Current Occupation
Management Occupations
Business and Financial Operations Occupations
Computer and Mathematical Occupations
Architecture and Engineering Occupations
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
Community and Social Service Occupations
Legal Occupations
Education, Training, and Library Occupations
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media Occupations
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
Healthcare Support Occupations
Protective Service Occupations
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
Building Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations
Personal Care and Service Occupations
Sales and Related Occupations
10
12
55
5
9
6
113
6
12
8
9
6
20
8
5
15
3%
3%
14%
1%
2%
2%
29%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
5%
2%
1%
4%
91
Office and Administrative Support Occupations
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
Construction and Extraction Occupations
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
Production Occupations
Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations
Other (please specify)
No Response
14
8
5
2
6
10
2
38
4%
2%
1%
1%
2%
3%
1%
10%
Income
$0 - $9,999
$10,000 - $19,999
$20,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $39,999
$40,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $59,999
$60,000 - $69,999
$70,000 - $79,999
$80,000 - $89,999
$90,000 - $99,999
$100,000 or More
No Response
1
1
1
12
25
35
43
41
130
54
1
40
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
3%
7%
9%
11%
11%
34%
14%
0.3%
10%
Note. The total number of respondents was 384.
92
The income information obtained from the survey respondents indicated that 34
percent had individual income in the $80,000 to $89,000 range. About 14 percent
declared their income to be in the $90,000 to $99,000 range while a small number of
participants earned more than $100,000. The $70,000 to $79,999 and $60,000 to $69,000
individual income categories made up 11 percent each, $50,000 to $59,000 had 9 percent,
and $40,000 to $49,999 received 7 percent. The remaining respondents declared their
individual income fell between $40,000 to $59,999.
Immigration Characteristics. The immigration description of the research
participants is presented in Table 12. This table includes information about respondents’
place of nativity, immigration period, the reason for migration, and their generational
status. An overwhelming 85 percent of respondents indicated that they were born in the
US while 5 percent reported being born outside of the US. For those who were foreign
born, 0.3 percent came to the US between 1980 to 1990 and 2 percent for each decade
after that. The majority of those who took the survey identified as belonging to the
second-generation Filipino-Americans living in the US.
Table 10
Immigration Characteristics of Survey Participants
Categories Frequency %
Nativity Classification
Native Born
Foreign Born
No Response
327
21
36
85%
5%
9%
Immigration Period
93
1980 – 1990
1991 – 2000
2001 – 2010
2011 – 2017
No Response
1
7
7
6
363
0.3%
2%
2%
2%
95%
Immigrant Generation
First Generation: You were born in the Philippines
Second Generation: You were born in the USA but either
parent was born in the Philippines
Third Generation: You were born in the USA and both
parents were born in the USA. All grandparents were
born in the Philippines
Fourth Generation: You were born in the USA and both
parents were born in the USA. At least one grandparent
was born in the Philippines with the remaining
grandparents born in the USA.
Fifth Generation: You and your parents were born in the
USA and all grandparents were born in the USA as well.
No Response
19
302
16
13
1
33
5%
79%
4%
3%
0.3%
9%
Note. The total number of respondents was 384.
Factor Loading Scores of Consumer Decision-Making Styles. The original
study on Consumer Styles Inventory conducted by Sproles and Kendall (1986) as well as
its modified version that was carried out by Sam and Chatwin (2015) performed a factor
94
analysis to examine the significance or applicability of the identified consumer decision-
making styles. Matsunaga (2010) explains that this statistical technique “evaluates
whether the collected data are in line with the theoretically expected pattern, or structure,
of the target construct” (p. 98). As described by Parsian and Dunning (2009), a factor
consists of a list of items that belong together (Parsian & Dunning, 2009). Items with a
high factor loading define the individual factors (Bryman & Cramer as cited in Parsian &
Dunning, 2009.
For the current study, the three items that loaded the highest in each factor in the
original CSI study (Sproles & Kendall, 1986) were selected to define the first eight
consumer decision-making styles listed in Table 13. The last two factors on the list were
adopted from the study by Sam and Chatwin (20015) where the top loading items were
used to characterize them.
Table 11
Factor Loadings of the Consumer Decision-Making Characteristics
Decision-Making Style
Loadings
Factor 1: Perfectionistic and High-Quality Conscious Consumer
Getting very good quality is very important to me.
When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very best or
perfect choice.
In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality.
.68
.66
.61
95
Factor 2: Brand Conscious and Price Equals Quality Consumer
The well-known national brands are for me.
The more expensive brands are usually my choices.
The higher the price of a product, the better its quality.
.63
.61
.59
Factor 3: Novelty and Fashion Conscious Consumer
I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style.
I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions.
Fashionable, attractive styling is very important to me.
.75
.70
.64
Factor 4: Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Consumer
Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me.
Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities of my life.
Shopping the stores wastes my time.
-.70
.70
-.69
Factor 5: Price Conscious and Value-for-Money Consumers
I buy as much as possible at sale prices.
The lower price product is usually my choice.
I look carefully to find the best value for the money.
.66
.56
.54
Factor 6: Impulsive and Careless Consumer
I should plan my shopping more carefully than I do.
I am impulsive when purchasing.
I often make careless purchases I later wish I had not.
.55
.53
.52
96
Factor 7: Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer
There are so many brands to choose from that I often feel confused.
Sometimes it’s hard to choose which stores to shop.
The more I learn about golf clubs, the harder it seems to choose the
best.
.68
.61
.53
Factor 8. Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer
I have favorite brands I buy over and over.
Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it.
I go to the same stores each time I shop.
.70
.60
.58
Factor 9. Website Content Conscious Consumer
It is very important for the websites to offer a product searching
service to me.
It is good if the websites can offer customer reviews on the products.
It is good if the websites can offer social networking facilities so I
can share product comments with my friends.
.88
.84
.84
Factor 10. Website Interface Conscious Consumer
It will be annoying to get a lot of animated effects on the business
websites.
Design layout of business website is one of the important factors to
make buying decisions.
.71
.90
Note. From “A Methodology for Profiling Consumers’ Decision-Making Styles,” by G.B.
Sproles and E.L. Kendall, 1986, Journal of Consumer Affairs. And from “Online
Consumer Decision-Making Styles for Enhanced Understanding of Macau Online
Consumer Behavior,” by K.M. Sam and C. Chatwin, 2015, Asia Pacific Management
Review.
97
A Cronbach’s alpha was computed to analyze the reliability of each factor and
ascertain that “the items of a measure work together as a set and should be capable of
independently measuring the same construct” (Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009, p. 52). Hence,
Cronbach’s alpha levels were deemed acceptable at .50 (Kerlinger & Lee as cited in
Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009). Table 14 presents the Cronbach’s alpha of the scale. All the
identified factors registered a coefficient alpha above .50 except for Factors 6 and 10
which had an alpha value of .49 and .44, respectively. Since they fell below the cutoff
value, they were excluded from the analysis.
Table 14
Means, Standard Deviation, and Cronbach’s Alpha of the Scale
Factors
Means
SD
Alpha
Factor 1: Perfectionistic & High-Quality Conscious Consumer
10.45
2.965
.757
Factor 2: Brand Conscious & Price Equals Quality Consumer
9.64
2.331
.521
Factor 3: Novelty & Fashion Conscious Consumer
9.76
2.642
.643
Factor 4: Recreational & Hedonistic Shopping Conscious
Consumer
10.30
2.530
.628
Factor 5: Price Conscious & Value-for-Money Consumers
9.77
2.350
.521
Factor 6: Impulsive & Careless Consumer
9.54
2.210
.493
Factor 7: Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer
9.25
2.444
.663
Factor 8. Habitual & Brand-Loyal Consumer
10.07
2.260
.576
Factor 9. Website Content Conscious Consumer
10.07
2.507
.674
Factor 10. Website Interface Conscious Consumer
6.70
1.72
.440
98
Test of Hypothesis. A critical part of the process in hypothesis testing is the
identification of the appropriate statistical procedure based on the data set and objectives
of the research. The data set in the current study failed the assumptions of a parametric
test. As a result, a Kruskal–Wallis H Test was selected. It is a non-parametric alternative
to One-Way ANOVA that can be utilized to establish significant statistical differences
between nominal independent and ordinal dependent variables (Laerd Statistics, 2015).
However, there are four assumptions that must be met before Kruskal-Wallis H Test can
be used in the study. According to Laerd Statistics, the four assumptions are:
1. The dependent variable is measured at the continuous or ordinal level.
2. The independent variable consists of two or more categorical groups.
3. There is independence of observation.
4. The score distribution for each categorical group of the independent variable is
calculated to determine whether the data has the same shape or not. This is
important because the outcome will decide on how the results of the Kruskal-
Wallis H Test can be interpreted.
The study met the first three assumptions. However, a series of steps is necessary
to evaluate the distribution of the groups in the independent variable. The first step is to
generate a boxplot and visually review the distribution. Figure 9 shows the shape of the
distribution of the independent groups.
Upon visual inspection of the boxplots, the distributions of the decision-making
styles were found to be not similar for all groups. Since the eight dependent variables
had dissimilar shape distributions for all groups of the independent variable, the Kruskal-
99
Wallis H Test was used to determine the differences by comparing the mean rank of each
distribution.
Figure 9. Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test
Research Question 1. The first research question refers to what extent, if any, do
Filipino-Americans differ in their online decision-making styles. To measure the style
characteristics of the Filipino-American online consumers, the mean score for each factor
was calculated. Table 12 shows the mean score and its percentile distribution for each
factor.
100
Table 12
Mean Score and Percentile Distribution of the Selected Factors
An individual can score from 3 to 15 on each decision-making style characteristic.
The total raw score is then divided by the number of questions, which in this case is
three, to determine the mean. Based on the information from the table below, there is no
common online decision-making style for Filipino-Americans. However, the data
indicates that a typical Filipino-American is a perfectionist and high-quality conscious
consumer.
To further support the observation above, a test of the hypothesis was conducted.
The first hypothesis was tested using a Kruskal-Wallis H Test as a nonparametric
alternative to one-way ANOVA with a significance level of .05. Table 13 shows the
Factors
Mean
Score
Percentiles
25 50 75
1: Perfectionistic & High-Quality Conscious Consumer
10.45
9
11
13
2: Brand Conscious & Price-Equals-Quality Consumer
9.64 8 10 12
3: Novelty and Fashion Conscious Consumer
9.76 7 11 12
4: Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious
Consumer
10.30 7 8 10
5: Price Conscious and Value-for-Money Consumers
9.77 8 11 11
7: Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer
9.25 7 10 11
8. Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer
10.07 9 11 11
9. Website Content Conscious Consumer
10.07 8 11 12
101
result of the hypothesis testing. The first column of the hypothesis summary table
expresses the null hypothesis in terms of the distribution of each of the identified
decision-making styles in every acculturation mode. This is followed by the type of test
conducted which, in the case of the current study, is the Kruskal-Wallis H Test. The
significance level as well as the decision made are also presented in the table.
Table 13
Hypothesis Test Summary: Consumer Decision-Making Style of Filipino-Americans
Null Hypothesis
Test
Sig.
Decision
Test
Stat.
d.f.
Asymp.
Sig.
2-sided
The distribution of
Score is the same
across categories
of CDMS.
Independent-
Samples Kruskal-
Wallis Test
.000 Reject the null
hypothesis.
58.291 7 .000
Note. The significance level is .05. The total number of cases was 2,808.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences among
Filipino-Americans in their online decision-making styles. Distributions of the decision-
making styles were not similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a
boxplot. The distributions of the online consumer decision-making styles were
statistically significantly different between groups, χ2(7) = 58.291, p = .000. Hence, the
first null hypothesis of the study (H10) was rejected. There is a significant difference
among individual Filipino-Americans in their online decision-making styles.
Research Question 2. The second question refers to the differences, if any, in
the online decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans based on their acculturation
102
mode. A series of hypothesis testing was conducted. The mean rank of each
acculturation mode per consumer decision-making style was likewise ascertained and
shown in Table 14.
Table 14
Means Rank of Acculturation Modes Per Decision-Making Style
Consumer Decision-Making
Style
Acculturation Modes and Mean Rank
Assimilation Integration Marginalization Separation
N = 42 N = 169 N = 95 N = 45
Perfectionistic and High-
Quality Conscious Consumer
(PHQ-1)
221.44
212.35
80.39
198.93
Brand Conscious and Price
Equals Quality Consumer
(BCPEQ-2)
153.51 202.32 118.93 218.62
Novelty and Fashion
Conscious Consumer (NF-3)
223.32 182.34 123.38 219.12
Recreational and Hedonistic
Shopping Conscious
Consumer (RHS-4)
238.92 189.23 113.70 199.12
Price Conscious and Value-
for-Money Consumers
(PVM-5)
187.94 209.75 103.62 190.93
103
Confused-by-Over-Choice
Consumer (COC-7)
157.45 186.68 130.97 248.27
Habitual and Brand-Loyal
Consumer (HBL-8)
194.60 207.81 94.42 211.40
Website Content Conscious
Consumer (WC-9)
216.12 219.92 83.61 168.64
1. Perfectionistic/High-Quality Conscious Consumer (PHQ). The first test
was undertaken to determine if PHQ differs across the four acculturation modes. Table
15 presents the summary of the hypothesis test results.
Table 15
Hypothesis Test Summary: Perfectionistic & High-Quality Conscious Consumer
Null Hypothesis
Test
Sig.
Decision
Test
Stat.
df
Asymp.
Sig
2-sided
The distribution of
PHQ is the same
across the
acculturation modes.
Independent-
Samples
Kruskal-Wallis
Test
.000 Reject the
null
hypothesis.
119.115 3 .000
Note. The significance level is .05. The total number of respondents was 351.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences between
the four acculturation groups of assimilation, integration, marginalization, and separation
with regard to the perfectionistic and high quality conscious decision-making style.
Distributions of the decision-making styles were not similar for all groups, as assessed by
visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of the perfectionistic and high quality
104
decision-making style were statistically significantly different between groups, χ2(3) =
119.115, p = .000.
Table 16
Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Perfectionistic and High-Quality
Conscious Consumer
Sample1-Sample2 Test
Statistic
Std.
Error
Std. Test
Statistic
Sig. Adj. Sig.
Marginalization-Separation -118.544 18.179 -6.521 .000 .000
Marginalization-Integration 131.957 12.882 10.244 .000 .000
Marginalization-Assimilation 141.051 18.615 7.577 .000 .000
Separation-Integration 13.413 16.852 .796 .426 1.000
Separation-Assimilation 22.507 21.553 1.044 .296 1.000
Integration-Assimilation 9.094 17.320 .525 .6.00 1.000
Note. The significance level is .05. Significance values have been adjusted by the
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
Pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. This post hoc analysis revealed
statistically significant differences in PHQC online decision-making style between the
Marginalization (mean rank = 80.39) and Separation (mean rank = 198.93) (p = .000),
Marginalization and Integration (mean rank = 212.35) (p = .000), and Marginalization
and Assimilation (mean rank = 221.44) (p = .000) acculturation modes, but not between
Separation and Integration (p = 1.000), or any other group combinations.
105
2. Brand Conscious & Price-Equals-Quality Conscious Consumer (BCPEQ).
The second test was undertaken to determine if BCPEQ differs across the four
acculturation modes. Table 17 presents the result of the test of the hypothesis.
Table 17
Hypothesis Test Summary: Brand Conscious and Price-Equals-Quality Conscious
Consumer
Null Hypothesis
Test
Sig.
Decision
Test
Stat.
d.f.
Asymp.
Sig.
2-sided
The distribution of
BCPEQ is the
same across the
acculturation
modes.
Independent-
Samples Kruskal-
Wallis Test
.000 Reject the null
hypothesis.
52.573 3 .000
Note. The significance level is .05. The total number of respondents was 351.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences between
the four acculturation groups of Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, and
Separation with regard to the Brand Conscious and Price Equals Quality Conscious
decision-making style. Distributions of the decision-making styles were not similar for
all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of the Brand
Conscious and Price Equals Quality Conscious decision-making style were significantly
different between groups, χ2(3) = 52.573, p = .000.
106
Table 18
Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Brand Conscious and Price-Equals-
Quality Consumer
Sample1-Sample2 Test
Statistic
Std.
Error
Std. Test
Statistic
Sig. Adj. Sig.
Marginalization–Assimilation 34.580 18.596 1.860 .063 .378
Marginalization–Integration 83.388 12.869 6.480 .000 .000
Marginalization–Separation -99.691 18.161 -5.489 .000 .000
Assimilation–Integration -48.808 17.302 -2.821 .005 .029
Assimilation–Separation -65.110 21.531 -3.024 .002 .015
Integration–Separation -16.303 16.834 -.968 .333 1.000
Note. The significance level is .05. Significance values have been adjusted by the
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
A pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. This post hoc analysis revealed
statistically significant differences in BCPEQ online decision-making style between the
Marginalization (mean rank = 118.93) and Integration (mean rank = 202.32) (p = .000),
Marginalization and Separation (mean rank = 218.62) (p = .000), Assimilation (mean
rank = 153.51) and Integration (p = .029), and Assimilation and Separation (p = .015)
acculturation modes, but not between Marginalization and Assimilation (p = .378) or
Integration and Separation (p = 1.000).
107
3. Novelty and Fashion Conscious Consumer (NF). The third test was
undertaken to determine if NF differs across the four acculturation modes. Table 19
presents the result of the test of hypothesis.
Table 19
Hypothesis Test Summary: Novelty and Fashion Conscious Consumer
Null Hypothesis
Test
Sig.
Decision
Test
Stat.
d.f.
Asymp.
Sig.
2-sided
The distribution of
NF is the same
across the
acculturation
modes.
Independent-
Samples
Kruskal-Wallis
Test
.000 Reject the
null
hypothesis.
45.293 3 .000
Note. The significance level is .05. The total number of respondents was 351.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences between
the four acculturation groups of Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, and
Separation with regard to the Novelty and Fashion Conscious decision-making style.
Distributions of the decision-making styles were not similar for all groups, as assessed by
visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of the Novelty and Fashion Conscious
decision-making style were statistically significantly different between groups, χ2(3) =
45.293, p = .000.
A pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. This post hoc analysis, shown in Table
108
20, revealed statistically significant differences in NF online decision-making style
between the Marginalization (mean rank = 123.38) and Integration (mean rank = 182.34)
(p = .000), Marginalization and Separation (mean rank = 219.12) (p = .000),
Marginalization and Assimilation (mean rank = 223.32) (p = .000) acculturation modes,
but not between Integration and Separation (p = .164) or any other group combinations.
Table 20
Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Novelty and Fashion Conscious
Consumer
Sample1-Sample2 Test
Statistic
Std.
Error
Std. Test
Statistic
Sig. Adj. Sig.
Marginalization–Integration 58.958 12.747 4.625 .000 .000
Marginalization–Separation -95743 17.989 -5.322 .000 .000
Marginalization–Assimilation 99.942 18.420 5.426 .000 .000
Integration–Separation -36.785 16.675 -2.206 .027 .164
Integration–Assimilation 40.984 17.139 2.391 .017 .101
Separation–Assimilation 4.199 21.328 .197 .844 1.000
Note. The significance level is .05. Significance values have been adjusted by the
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
4. Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Consumer (RHS). The
fourth test was undertaken to determine if RHS differs across the four acculturation
modes. Table 21 presents the result of the test of the hypothesis.
109
Table 21
Hypothesis Test Summary: Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Consumer
Null Hypothesis
Test
Sig.
Decision
Test
Stat.
d.f.
Asymp.
Sig.
2-sided
The distribution of
RHS is the same
across the
acculturation
modes.
Independent-
Samples
Kruskal-Wallis
Test
.000 Reject the
null
hypothesis.
59.027 3 .000
Note. The significance level is .05. The total number of respondents was 351.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences between
the four acculturation groups of Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, and
Separation with regard to the Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious decision-
making style. Distributions of the decision-making styles were not similar for all groups,
as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of the Recreational and
Hedonistic Shopping Conscious decision-making style were statistically significantly
different between groups, χ2(3) = 59.027, p = .000.
A pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. This post hoc analysis, shown in Table
22, revealed statistically significant differences in RHS online decision-making style
between the Marginalization (mean rank = 113.70) and Integration (mean rank = 189.23)
(p = .000), Marginalization and Separation (mean rank = 119.12) (p = .000),
110
Marginalization and Assimilation (mean rank = 238.92) (p = .000), and Integration and
Assimilation (p = .023) acculturation modes, but not between Integration and Separation
(p = 1.000) or Separation and Assimilation (p = .380).
Table 22
Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping
Conscious Consumer
Sample1-Sample2 Test
Statistic
Std.
Error
Std. Test
Statistic
Sig. Adj. Sig.
Marginalization–Integration 75.528 12.805 5.898 .000 .000
Marginalization–Separation -85.422 18.071 -4.727 .000 .000
Marginalization–Assimilation 125.217 18.504 6.767 .000 .000
Integration–Separation -9.894 16.751 -.591 .555 1.000
Integration–Assimilation 49.689 17.217 2.886 .004 .023
Separation–Assimilation 39.794 21.425 1.857 .063 .380
Note. The significance level is .05. Significance values have been adjusted by the
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
PVM)
5. Price and Value-for-Money Conscious Consumers (PVM). The fifth test
was undertaken to determine if PVM differs across the four acculturation modes. Table
23 presents the result of the test of the hypothesis.
111
Table 23
Hypothesis Test Summary: Price and Value-for-Money Conscious Consumers
Null Hypothesis
Test
Sig.
Decision
Test
Stat.
d.f.
Asymp.
Sig.
2-sided
The distribution of
PVM is the same
across the
acculturation modes.
Independent-
Samples
Kruskal-Wallis
Test
.000 Reject the
null
hypothesis.
72.984 3 .000
Note. The significance level is .05. The total number of respondents was 351.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences between
the four acculturation groups of Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, and
Separation with regard to the Price and Value-for-Money Conscious decision-making
style. Distributions of the decision-making styles were not similar for all groups, as
assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of the Price and Value-for-
Money Conscious decision-making style were statistically significantly different between
groups, χ2(3) = 72.984, p = .000.
A pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. This post hoc analysis, shown in Table
24, revealed statistically significant differences in PVM online decision-making style
between the Marginalization (mean rank = 103.62) and Assimilation (mean rank =
187.94) (p = .000), Marginalization and Separation (mean rank = 190.93) (p = .000), and
112
Marginalization and Integration (mean rank = 209.75) (p = .000) acculturation modes, but
not between Assimilation and Separation (p = 1.000) or any other group combinations.
Table 24
Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Price Conscious and Value-for-Money
Consumers
Sample1-Sample2 Test
Statistic
Std.
Error
Std. Test
Statistic
Sig. Adj. Sig.
Marginalization–Assimilation 84.325 18.228 4.626 .000 .000
Marginalization–Separation -87.318 17.801 -4.905 .000 .000
Marginalization–Integration 106.130 12.614 8.414 .000 .000
Assimilation–Separation -2.993 21.105 -.142 .887 1.000
Assimilation–Integration -21.805 16.960 -1.286 .199 1.000
Separation–Integration 18.812 16.501 1.140 .254 1.000
Note. The significance level is .05. Significance values have been adjusted by the
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
6. Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer (COC). The sixth test was undertaken
to determine if COC differs across the four acculturation modes. Table 25 presents the
result of the test of the hypothesis.
113
Table 25
Hypothesis Test Summary: Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer
Null Hypothesis
Test
Sig.
Decision
Test
Stat.
d.f.
Asymp.
Sig.
2-sided
The distribution of
COC is the same
across the
acculturation
modes.
Independent-
Samples
Kruskal-Wallis
Test
.000 Reject the
null
hypothesis.
45.573 3 .000
Note. The significance level is .05. The total number of respondents was 351.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences between
the four acculturation groups of Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, and
Separation with regard to the Confused-by-Over-Choice decision-making style.
Distributions of the decision-making styles were not similar for all groups, as assessed by
visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of the Confused-by-Over-Choice
decision-making style were statistically significantly different between groups, χ2(3) =
45.573, p = .000.
A pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. This post hoc analysis, shown in Table
26, revealed statistically significant differences in COC online decision-making style
between the Marginalization (mean rank = 130.97) and Integration (mean rank = 186.68)
(p = .000), Marginalization and Separation (mean rank = 248.27) (p = .000), Assimilation
114
(mean rank = 157.45) and Integration (p = .000), and Integration and Separation (p =
.002) acculturation modes, but not between Assimilation and Integration (p = .552) or
between Marginalization and Assimilation (p = .933).
Table 26
Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer
Sample1-Sample2 Test
Statistic
Std.
Error
Std. Test
Statistic
Sig. Adj. Sig.
Marginalization–Assimilation 26.484 18.644 1.420 .155 .933
Marginalization–Integration 55.712 12.902 4.318 .000 .000
Marginalization–Separation -117.298 18.208 -6.442 .000 .000
Assimilation–Integration -29.228 17.348 -1.685 .092 .552
Assimilation–Separation -90.814 21.588 -4.207 .000 .000
Integration–Separation -61.586 16.878 -3.649 .000 .002
Note. The significance level is .05. Significance values have been adjusted by the
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
7. Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer (HBL). The seventh test was
undertaken to determine if HBL differs across the four acculturation modes. Table 27
presents the result of the test of the hypothesis.
115
Table 27
Hypothesis Test Summary: Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer
Null Hypothesis
Test
Sig.
Decision
Test
Stat.
d.f.
Asymp.
Sig.
2-sided
The distribution of
HBL is the same
across the
acculturation
modes.
Independent-
Samples
Kruskal-Wallis
Test
.000 Reject the
null
hypothesis.
89.915 3 .000
Note. The significance level is .05. The total number of respondents was 351.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences between
the four acculturation groups of Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, and
Separation with regard to the habitual and brand-loyal decision-making style.
Distributions of the decision-making styles were not similar for all groups, as assessed by
visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of the Habitual and Brand-Loyal
decision-making style were statistically significantly different between groups, χ2(3) =
89.915, p = .000.
A pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. This post hoc analysis revealed
statistically significant differences in COC online decision-making style between the
Marginalization (mean rank = 94.42) and Assimilation (mean rank = 194.60) (p = .000),
Marginalization and Integration (mean rank = 207.81) (p = .000), and Marginalization
116
and Separation (mean rank = 211.40) (p = .000) acculturation modes, but not between
Assimilation and Integration (p = 1.000) or any other group combinations.
Table 28
Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer
Sample1-Sample2 Test
Statistic
Std.
Error
Std. Test
Statistic
Sig. Adj. Sig.
Marginalization–Assimilation 100.174 18.271 5.483 .000 .000
Marginalization–Integration 113.390 12.644 8.968 .000 .000
Marginalization–Separation -116.979 17.843 -6.556 .000 .000
Assimilation–Integration -13.215 17.000 -.777 .437 1.000
Assimilation–Separation -16.805 21.155 -.794 .427 1.000
Integration–Separation -3.589 16.540 -.217 .828 1.000
Note. The significance level is .05. Significance values have been adjusted by the
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
8. Website Content Conscious Consumer (WC). The eighth test was
undertaken to determine if WC differs across the four acculturation modes. Table 29
presents the result of the test of the hypothesis.
117
Table 29
Hypothesis Test Summary: Website Content Conscious Consumer
Null Hypothesis
Test
Sig.
Decision
Test
Stat.
d.f.
Asymp.
Sig.
2-sided
The distribution of
WC is the same
across the
acculturation
modes.
Independent-
Samples
Kruskal-Wallis
Test
.000 Reject the
null
hypothesis.
119.663 3 .000
Note. The significance level is .05. The total number of respondents was 351.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences between
the four acculturation groups of Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, and
Separation with regard to the website content conscious decision-making style.
Distributions of the decision-making styles were not similar for all groups, as assessed by
visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of the Website Content Conscious
decision-making style were statistically significantly different between groups, χ2(3) =
119.663, p = .000.
118
Table 30
Pairwise Comparisons of Acculturation Modes: Website Content Conscious Consumer
Sample1-Sample2 Test
Statistic
Std.
Error
Std. Test
Statistic
Sig. Adj. Sig.
Marginalization-Separation -85.034 18.175 -4.679 .000 .000
Marginalization-Assimilation 132.509 18.610 7.120 .000 .000
Marginalization-Integration 136.313 12.879 10.584 .000 .000
Separation-Assimilation 47.475 21.548 2.203 .028 .165
Separation-Integration 51.279 16.847 3.044 .002 .014
Assimilation–Integration -3.804 17.316 -.220 .826 1.000
Note. The significance level is .05. Significance values have been adjusted by the
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
A pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. This post hoc analysis revealed
statistically significant differences in COC online decision-making style between the
Marginalization (mean rank = 83.61) and Separation (mean rank = 168.64) (p = .000),
Marginalization and Assimilation (mean rank = 216.12) (p = .000), Marginalization and
Integration (mean rank = 219.92), and Separation and Integration (p = .014) acculturation
modes, but not between Separation and Assimilation (p = .165) or between Assimilation
and Integration (p = 1.000).
In summary, the results of the Kruskal-Wallis H Tests conducted between the four
acculturation groups of Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, and Separation with
each of the consumer decision-making style were statistically significant at p = .000.
119
Hence, the second null hypothesis of the study (H20) was rejected. There is a significant
difference among Filipino-Americans in the four acculturation levels with respect to their
decision-making styles when shopping from online stores.
Research Question 3. The third research question resolves to determine if there
is a significant association between the dimensions of acculturation, i.e., ethnic (Filipino
Orientation Subscale or FOS) and host (Anglo Orientation Subscale or AOS) culture
identifications, and the online decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans. A series of
Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend, which included the running of the Pearson’s correlation
procedures, was conducted to test the third hypothesis. Table 31 presents the results of
the Pearson’s correlation procedure for the acculturation dimensions and the online
decision-making styles.
Table 31
Acculturation Dimensions and Online Decision-Making Styles Correlation Matrix
AOS FOS PHQ BCPEQ NF RHS PVM COC HBL WC
AOS Pearson Correlation 1 .276** .527** .160** .388** .027 .419** .173** .472** .563**
Sig. (2- tailed) .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000
N 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351
FOS Pearson Correlation .276** 1 .330** .312** .134* .049 .329** .245** .343** .398**
Sig. (2- tailed) .000 .000 .000 .012 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351
Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at
the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The results of the Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend between the acculturation
dimensions and the online decision-making styles are presented in two parts. The first
part begins with the association tests involving the acculturation dimension of host
120
culture identification (AOS) and followed by the other dimension of ethnic culture
identification (FOS).
1. Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend Between Host Culture Identification (AOS)
and Online Consumer Decision-Making Styles. Tables 32 – 39 below show the results
of the Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend between the acculturation dimension of host
culture identification and each of the online decision-making style. In SPESS statistics,
the test result is found in the Linear-by-Linear Association row. A summary of all the
Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend results is shown after the presentation of the individual
tests.
Table 32
Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Perfectionist and High-
Quality Conscious Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
653.220a
348
.000
Likelihood Ratio
563.479
348
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
97.172
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 384 cells (98.5%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .01. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend showed a statistically significant linear
association between AOS and PHQ-1, χ2(1) = 97.172, p = .000, r = .527. Host culture
identification was associated with the Perfectionistic and High Quality Conscious
decision-making style and vice-versa.
121
Table 33
Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Brand and Price-Equals-
Quality Conscious Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 682.093a 348 .000
Likelihood Ratio
527.711
348
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
9.001
1
.003
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 384 cells (98.5%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .02. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between AOS and BCPEQ-2, χ2(1) = 9.001, p = .003, r = .160. Host culture
identification was associated with the Brand and Price-Equals-Quality Conscious
decision-making style and vice-versa.
Table 34
Chi-Square Tests Table Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Novelty and Fashion
Conscious Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
688.615a
348
.000
Likelihood Ratio
533.079
348
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
52.729
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 384 cells (97.7%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .01. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
122
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between AOS and NF-3, χ2(1) = 52.729, p = .000, r = .388. Host culture
identification was associated with the Novelty and Fashion Conscious decision-making
style and vice-versa.
Table 35
Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Recreational and
Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
512.991a
290
.000
Likelihood Ratio
454.258
290
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
37.233
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 321 cells (97.3%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .01. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between AOS and RHS-4, χ2(1) = 37.233, p = .000, r = .326. Host culture
identification was associated with the Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious
decision-making style and vice-versa.
123
Table 36
Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Price and Value-for-
Money Conscious Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 612.755a 319 .000
Likelihood Ratio
470.673
319
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
61.402
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 351 cells (97.5%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .02. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between AOS and PVM-5, χ2(1) = 61.402, p = .000, r = .419. Host culture
identification was associated with the Price and Value-for-Money Conscious decision-
making style and vice-versa.
Table 37
Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Confused-by-Over-
Choice Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
686.253a
261
.000
Likelihood Ratio
542.395
261
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
10.504
1
.001
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 292 cells (97.3%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .05. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
124
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between AOS and COC-7, χ2(1) = 10.504, p = .001, r = .173. Host culture
identification was associated with the Confused-by-Over-Choice consumer decision-
making style and vice-versa.
Table 38
Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Habitual and Brand-
Loyal Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
626.425a
319
.000
Likelihood Ratio
484.513
319
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
77.958
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 350 cells (97.2%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .01. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between AOS and HBL-8, χ2(1) = 77.958, p = .000, r = .472. Host culture
identification was associated with the Habitual and Brand-Loyal consumer decision-
making style and vice-versa.
125
Table 39
Chi-Square Tests Table: Host Culture Identification (AOS) and Website Content
Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 880.645a 435 .000
Likelihood Ratio
606.499
435
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
111.093
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 474 cells (98.8%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .01. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between AOS and WC-9, χ2(1) = 111.093, p = .000, r = .563. Host culture
identification was associated with the Website Content Conscious Consumer decision-
making style and vice-versa.
2. Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend Between Ethnic Culture Identification
(FOS) and Online Consumer Decision-Making Styles. Tables 40 – 47 below show the
results of the Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend between the ethnic culture identification
dimension and each of the online decision-making style is presented below. In SPESS
statistics, the test result is found in the Linear-by-Linear Association row.
126
Table 40
Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Perfectionistic and
High-Quality Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
787.334a
480
.000
Likelihood Ratio
633.952
480
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
38.184
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 525 cells (98.5%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .00. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend showed a statistically significant linear
association between FOS and PHQ-1, χ2(1) = 38.184, p = .000, r = .330. Ethnic culture
identification was associated with the Perfectionistic and High Quality Conscious
decision-making style and vice-versa.
Table 41
Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Brand and Price-
Equals-Quality Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
853.847a
480
.000
Likelihood Ratio
626.024
480
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
34.127
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 526 cells (98.7%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .01. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
127
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between FOS and BCPEQ-2, χ2(1) = 34.127, p = .000, r = .312. Ethnic
culture identification was associated with the Brand and Price-Equals-Quality Conscious
decision-making style and vice-versa.
Table 42
Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Novelty and Fashion
Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
861.303a
480
.000
Likelihood Ratio
597.608
480
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
6.297
1
.012
Note. The total number of respondents was 352. 527 cells (98.9%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .00. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between FOS and NF-3, χ2(1) = 6.297, p = .012, r = .134. Ethnic culture
identification was associated with the Novelty and Fashion Conscious decision-making
style and vice-versa.
128
Table 43
Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Recreational and
Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
756.960a
400
.000
Likelihood Ratio
538.517
400
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
15.471
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 443 cells (98.2%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .01. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between FOS and RHS-4, χ2(1) = 15.471, p = .000, r = .210. Ethnic culture
identification was associated with the Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious
decision-making style and vice-versa.
Table 44
Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Price and Value-for-
Money Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
759.090a
440
.000
Likelihood Ratio
563..809
440
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
37.869
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 486 cells (98.8%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .01. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
129
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between FOS and PVM-5, χ2(1) = 37.869, p = .000, r = .329. Ethnic culture
identification was associated with the Price and Value-for-Money Conscious decision-
making style and vice-versa.
Table 45
Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Confused-by-Over-
Choice Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 768.034a 360 .000
Likelihood Ratio
625.284
360
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
21.010
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 404 cells (98.5%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .03. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between FOS and COC-7, χ2(1) = 21.010, p = .000, r = .245. Ethnic culture
identification was associated with the Confused-by-Over-Choice consumer decision-
making style and vice-versa.
130
Table 46
Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Habitual and Brand-
Loyal Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
749.291a
440
.000
Likelihood Ratio
548.218
440
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
41.288
1
.000
Note. The number of respondents was 351. 487 cells (99.0%) have expected count less
than 5. The min. expected count is .00. The significance value of the Mantel-Haenszel
Test of Trend is 0.05.
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between FOS and HBL-8, χ2(1) = 41.288, p = .000, r = .343. Ethnic culture
identification was associated with the Habitual and Brand-Loyal consumer decision-
making style and vice-versa.
Table 47
Chi-Square Tests Table: Ethnic Culture Identification (FOS) and Website Content
Conscious Consumer Decision-Making Style
Value df Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
945.405a
600
.000
Likelihood Ratio
695.828
600
.004
Linear-by-Linear Association
55.449
1
.000
Note. The total number of respondents was 351. 653 cells (99.5%) have expected count
less than 5. The min. expected count is .00. The significance value of the Mantel-
Haenszel Test of Trend is 0.05.
131
The Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend above showed a statistically significant linear
association between FOS and WC-9, χ2(1) = 55.449, p = .000, r = .398. Ethnic culture
identification was associated with the Website Content Conscious Consumer decision-
making style and vice-versa.
Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend Summary. Overall, the Mantel-Haenszel Test
of Trend showed a statistically significant linear association between the acculturation
dimensions and the online consumer decision-making styles. Unfortunately, this
particular test does not indicate the strength or direction of the associations. Table 48
encapsulates all the results of the individual tests between the aforesaid variables.
Table 48
Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend Summary Between Acculturation Dimensions and Online
Consumer Decision-Making Styles
PHQ-1 BCPEQ-2 NF-3 RHS-4 PVM-5 COC-7 HBL-8 WC-9
AOS Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend 97.172 9.001 52.729 37.233 61.402 10.504 77.958 111.09
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000
N 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351
FOS Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend 38.184 34.127 6.297 15.471 37.869 21.010 41.288 55.449
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .012 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351
Note. Significant at different levels: *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001
Evaluation of Findings
The research results were based on the responses of Filipino-Americans who
agreed to take the online survey on consumer behavior. A total of 385 individuals from
the aforesaid group participated in the research. However, 33 of the cases were dropped
from the acculturation and consumer decision-making styles analyses due to incomplete
and missing responses.
132
The study aimed to investigate the relationship between acculturation and
consumer decision-making styles within the context of electronic commerce. To guide
the research, a theoretical framework was adapted from the works of Berry (1997),
Sproles and Kendall (1986), Sam and Chatwin (2015), and Segev (2014). It was derived
from two research streams: acculturation and consumer decision-making styles. By
combining both sets of ideas, the study’s theoretical framework suggests the role of
acculturation in impacting the online consumer’s decision-making styles.
Studies on acculturation have demonstrated that an individual’s cultural
adaptation has two dimensions: maintenance of ethnic culture and host culture
participation (Berry, 2003). The outcome of the interaction between these two
acculturation dimensions resulted in the development of the following four acculturation
modes proposed by Berry: Integration, Assimilation, Separation, and Marginalization.
Hence, an individual’s acculturation can vary along these four different acculturation
modes. Differences in the acculturation processes may result in differences in
acculturation outcomes that can have a meaningful influence on the people’s value
orientation (Leong, Wagner, & Kim, 1995) including their consumption habits and
choices (Ownbey & Horridge as cited in Jun, Ham, & Park, 2014). While making
choices, consumers utilize diverse decision-making styles when evaluating products and
services in the market, and these styles include: Perfectionistic and High-Quality
Conscious Consumer, Brand Conscious and Price Equals Quality Conscious Consumer,
Novelty and Fashion Conscious Consumer, Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping
Conscious Consumer, Price and Value-for-Money Conscious Consumer, Confused-by-
133
Over-Choice Consumer, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer, and Website Content
Conscious Consumer.
In the current study, 85 percent of the respondents are native-born. A little over
three-quarters (79 percent) of those who were born in the US identified themselves as
second generation Filipino-Americans. An ARSMA-II instrument was used to measure
the respondents’ level of acculturation. As a result, 48 percent of those who participated
in the study were found to be under the Integration mode of acculturation while 27
percent were classified as belonging to the Marginalization mode. The Assimilation and
Separation modes of acculturation had almost identical distribution levels at 12 percent
and 13 percent, respectively. This descriptive analysis of the respondents’ acculturation
levels supports the study’s contention that individuals differ in the way they interact with
their heritage culture as well as the host culture.
A series of hypothesis testing was conducted to answer the three research
questions. Since the data set did not meet the assumptions of the parametric tests, the
Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend and Kruskal-Wallis H Test were utilized in the study.
For the first question, a Kruskal-Wallis H Test was run to determine if Filipino-
Americans differ in their online decision-making styles. The distributions of the online
consumer decision-making styles were statistically significantly different between
groups. Hence, the first null hypothesis of the study (H10) was rejected. There is a
significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in their online decision-
making styles.
The second research question referred to what extent, if any, do the Filipino-
Americans’ decision-making styles differ according to their level of acculturation. A
134
series of Kruskal-Wallis H Tests was conducted to determine if there were differences
between the four acculturation groups of Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, and
Separation with regard to each of the eight online decision-making styles. Distributions
of the decision-making styles were not similar for all groups, as assessed by visual
inspection of a boxplot. The results of Kruskal-Wallis H Tests conducted for each style
were statistically significant at p = .000. Hence, the second null hypothesis of the study
(H20) was rejected. There is a significant difference among individual Filipino-
Americans in the four acculturation levels with respect to their consumer decision-
making styles.
The third research question resolved to determine if there was a significant
association between the dimensions of acculturation and the online decision-making
styles. A series of Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend, which included running Pearson’s
correlation procedures, were conducted to test the third hypothesis. The results of the
tests showed a statistically significant linear association between the acculturation
dimensions and the online consumer decision-making styles.
The findings of the study indicate the important role of acculturation in the
Filipino-Americans’ approach to shopping. They correspond to the basic tenets of the
research’s theoretical foundation which asserts the influence of the acculturation
dimensions in the behavior of online consumers. Hence, Filipino-Americans from
different acculturation levels have different decision-making styles when purchasing
items or services from online stores.
135
Summary
The study was designed to examine the relationship between acculturation and
decision-making styles of Filipino-American online consumers. It particularly delved
into the association between the acculturation dimensions of ethnic and host culture
identifications and the selected online decision-making styles. Furthermore, it looked
into the differences among the four acculturation modes with respect to the aforesaid
decision-making styles.
A total of 384 Filipino-Americans participated in the study. However, only 351
respondents were considered in the acculturation and decision-making style parts of the
survey after 33 cases were dropped due to incomplete or missing data. Kruskal-Wallis H
Test and Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend were the two nonparametric techniques used in
testing the hypotheses of the study.
Results of the hypothesis testing indicated the significant role acculturation had in
the pre-purchase decisions Filipino-Americans’ make when shopping from online stores.
Table 49 summarized the findings from the tests of research hypotheses.
Table 49
Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results
Null Hypothesis
Test
Result
Rationale
H10. There is no significant
difference among individual
Filipino-Americans in their online
decision-making styles.
Rejected
Kruskal-Wallis H Test results
indicated a significant difference
among individual Filipino-Americans
in their online decision-making styles.
136
H20. There is no significant
difference among individual
Filipino-Americans in the four
acculturation levels with respect to
their consumer decision-making
styles.
Rejected Kruskal-Wallis H Test results
indicated a significant difference
among individual Filipino-Americans
in the four acculturation levels with
respect to their consumer decision-
making styles.
H30. There is no correlation between
the two acculturation dimensions
and the online consumer decision-
making styles.
Rejected Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend results
indicated a significant linear
association between the acculturation
dimensions and the online consumer
decision-making styles.
137
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions
With the continuous growth of the online retail business and the overabundance of
choices in the digital marketplace, decision-making has become increasingly elaborate
and convoluted for consumers. As a result, consumers utilize decision-making methods
in order to come up with the best possible choice (Moon, 2004). Since consumption
behavior and attitudes vary from culture to culture, so too do consumers’ decision-
making styles (Chen et al., 2012). For immigrants, variations in consumption value
systems and decision-making styles can be impacted by acculturation. However, a
systematic study of online consumer behavior and acculturation has been insufficient, and
the examination of the relationship between online decision-making styles and
acculturation modes is scarce. Some studies have been conducted that insinuate the role
of acculturation in consumer behavior, but there is not enough literature that shows the
degree of relationship between acculturation and the consumers’ attitudes or strategies
towards online shopping (Segev, 2014). The present research attempted to fill this gap.
The purpose of the research was to investigate the relationship between
acculturation and consumer decision-making styles within the context of electronic
commerce. Specifically, it aimed to: 1) determine the online decision-making styles of
Filipino-Americans; 2) examine the impact of acculturation with regard to the identified
decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans; and 3) determine the extent of relationship
between the two acculturation dimensions, i.e., ethnic and host culture identifications,
and the identified online decision-making styles. However, the use of non-probability
sampling technique in the study limited the generalizability of the research results or their
relevance when applied to the wider target population. Another limitation of the study
138
was that it only focused on the pre-purchase behavior of the target ethnic group when
buying products or services from electronic retailers.
The three ethical principles contained in the Belmont Report guided the conduct
of the research. These principles included the following: respect for persons,
beneficence, and justice. Respect for persons requires that research participants are
treated as autonomous or intelligent agents and that those with diminished autonomy are
protected. To accomplish this ethical standard, the researcher developed a well-defined
procedure in the identification and recruitment of potential research participants including
the process of informed consent. In addition to this, the researcher also made it a point to
address the requirement of beneficence by ensuring that study participants were not
harmed during their participation in the research. If in the middle of the survey
participants decided not to continue with the process, they could exit the survey by just
closing the browser. Since confidentiality is also an expectation of beneficence, all
gathered data were grouped and analyzed to ensure anonymity of those who contributed
to the study. Lastly is the principle of justice, which is closely related to the ethical
principle of respect for persons that protects against the exploitation of people just to
generate new knowledge. The principle of justice demands equitable selection of
participants and inclusion of the minority population. To ensure that this principle was
followed, the researcher provided participants a full written disclosure of the research.
Furthermore, the researcher obtained formal study approval though the Northcentral
University Institutional Review Board before the actual data gathering.
This chapter presents the implications of the study in relation to each of the three
research questions. Recommendations for practical applications of this study as well as
139
directions of, and possibilities for, future research are also discussed. The chapter
finishes with a conclusion that recapitulates the key points of the research’s implications
and recommendations.
Implications
Humphreys (2014) estimated the total buying power of 2.9 million Filipinos
living in the US to be around $121 billion. As the population of Filipino-Americans
grows due to demographic and immigration factors, so too will its purchasing power.
The potential impact of this ethnic group on electronic commerce means there is a huge
opportunity for online retailers to capture this particular market. One way to do this is by
incorporating cultural insights into the business organizations’ core marketing strategies.
This is an important promotional approach since people from different cultures think,
feel, and act differently. They behave differently when shopping online. The
acculturation process is one of the dynamics of immigration that affects the consumption
behavior and purchase decisions of immigrants. Understanding the effect of
acculturation on the decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans will enable businesses
to distinguish the group’s purchase behavior and can contribute to businesses’ success in
penetrating this particular ethnic market.
Acculturation and consumer decision-making styles are two variables that the
current research used in understanding the relationship between the Filipino-American
consumers’ intercultural adaptation and consumption behavior. The interaction between
the consumers’ desire to maintain their ethnic culture while adapting to the attitudes and
values of the host culture results in the creation of the following four acculturation
modes: assimilation, integration, marginalization, and separation. It is the contention of
140
the current study that these acculturation modes are distinguishing elements and
antecedents that determine the Filipino-American consumers’ online decision-making
styles.
The study started with a list of ten decision-making styles as shown in Table 6.
After the computation of the Cronbach’s alpha, two of the styles fell below the cut-off
level of .50 and were excluded from the analysis. The eight remaining decision-making
styles included the following: Perfectionistic and High-Quality Conscious Consumer,
Brand Conscious and Price Equals Quality Conscious Consumer, Novelty and Fashion
Conscious Consumer, Recreational and Hedonistic Shopping Conscious Consumer, Price
and Value-for-Money Conscious Consumers, Confused-by-Over-Choice Consumer,
Habitual and Brand-Loyal Consumer, and Website Content Conscious Consumer.
Research Question 1. The first question referred to the differences, if any, in the
online decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans. Based on the mean score
calculation shown in Table 15, there was no one online decision-making style for
Filipino-Americans. However, the data indicates that a typical Filipino-American is a
perfectionist and high-quality conscious consumer. When the Kruskal-Wallis H Test was
conducted, the result was a rejection of the null hypothesis. This meant that there was a
significant difference among individual Filipino-Americans in their online decision-
making styles. This is consistent within the context of the literature reviewed for this
study. As previously discussed, decision-making style is a mental guideline that helps
consumers in their purchasing behavior and is influenced by some factors. The
consumers’ digital literacy or technical knowledge, as well as their demographic profiles,
were some of these factors. Furthermore, the results of the socio-demographic analysis,
141
including the analysis of immigration status, provided a glimpse of the Filipino-American
population that is diverse on many levels. People from diverse backgrounds make
decisions differently under different conditions. Finucane, Mertz, Slovic, and Schmidt
(2005) have argued that individual differences in age, socioeconomic status, and
cognitive abilities influence decision-making. The acceptance of the alternative
hypothesis, therefore, supports this observation and will have implications on the
consumers’ choice preferences. Since Filipino-Americans differ in their styles of
decision-making, they would respond differently to various marketing inducements from
business organizations. Moreover, the result of the first hypothesis test could also have
implications for marketing professionals who are targeting the Filipino-American market.
Advertisers need to avoid taking this particular ethnic group as one homogenous entity
with similar preferences. Instead, they should utilize different marketing strategies to
appeal to the Filipino-American consumers.
Research Question 2. The second question referred to the differences, if any, in
the online decision-making styles of Filipino-Americans according to their mode of
acculturation. Based on the generational status of survey respondents, 79 percent
identified as second-generation immigrants while the rest were almost equally distributed
among first-generation, third-generation, and fourth-generation. This is an important
insight as generational status is closely associated with the various acculturation modes as
well as the psychological and social behavior of immigrants (Matera, Stefanile, & Brown,
2011). When the research participants were categorized according to their acculturation
modes using the approach suggested by Dona and Berry (1994), a total of 42 survey
respondents fell under the assimilation mode, while the integration, marginalization, and
142
separation modes had 169, 95, and 45 respondents, respectively. However, the study did
not explore the relationship between generational status and acculturation modes. But the
above information shows that the majority of the research samples were second-
generation Filipino-Americans, and most of them have developed a bi-cultural orientation
and successfully integrated in with the host culture while maintaining their own cultural
heritage.
After classifying the research participants based on their acculturation level, a
series of Kruskal-Wallis H Tests were undertaken. The test results showed a significant
difference among individual Filipino-Americans in the four acculturation levels with
respect to their decision-making styles when purchasing from online stores. Hence, the
second null hypothesis of the study was rejected. This is consistent with the literature
reviewed for this study. The process of acculturation affects the immigrants’
consumption habits or choices. An essential concept in acculturation studies supports
behavioral diversification among people from within the same ethnic group (Segev,
2014). One of the sources of these disparities in behavior come from the people’s
acculturation modes where those with similar acculturation level demonstrate parallel
consumer behavior (Donthu and Cherian, 1992). This will have implications on how
businesses penetrate the Filipino-American market. Understanding this notion of
heterogeneity of this group can help in forecasting consumption patterns which can be a
crucial factor in developing an effective market segmentation and a successful sales plan.
Research Question 3. The third question inquired about the association between
the two acculturation dimensions and the selected online decision-making styles. A
series of Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend, which included the running of the Pearson’s
143
correlation procedures, was undertaken to ascertain the extent of association between the
aforesaid variables. Results from these tests showed that the host culture dimension
(AOS) of acculturation was linearly associated with each of the eight selected online
decision-making styles. The same was true for the other acculturation dimension. The
tests showed that the ethnic culture identification (FOS) dimension was also linearly
associated with each of the eight selected online decision-making styles.
In terms of strength of association, the AOS was strongly associated with
Perfectionistic and High-Quality Conscious and Website Content Conscious orientations.
However, the same acculturation dimension showed a weak association with the Brand
and Price-Equals-Quality Conscious and Confused-by-Over-Choice decision-making
styles. These characteristics imply that individuals who identify with the host culture are
knowledgeable of the market and shop meticulously by utilizing online stores with the
necessary functionalities that help them in selecting the best quality products regardless
of price and brand. Among the website features which these types of consumers consider
essential in choosing the right products include the following: privacy, security, searching
tools, communication tools for product inquiry and order tracking, availability and
richness of product information, and customer review and social networking capability.
The FOS, on the other hand, did not have any strong association with any of the
selected decision-making styles. It, however, showed a moderate association with all of
the styles except for the following: Novelty and Fashion Conscious, Recreational and
Hedonistic Shopping Conscious, and Confused-by-Over-Choice. These findings reflect
the focus of the less behaviorally acculturated Filipino-Americans when buying goods or
services via electronic commerce. Given that immigrants’ acculturation level influences
144
their opinions of products or services, the aforesaid outcome of the correlational analysis
signifies their indistinctness as they navigate the host marketplace. This sense of
cautiousness is understandable considering that immigrants are still trying to adjust and
learn new behavioral standards which include their consumption decisions. Hence,
Filipino-Americans who are not fully acculturated prefer to be safe with their spending
choices and concentrate on the fundamentals when shopping online by putting emphasis
on website functionalities, security, and privacy as well as on habitual shopping, quality,
brand, and price considerations. Their low association scores with the novelty and
hedonistic scales indicated that they are not inclined to diversify their purchases to
include new and innovative brands or to shop for recreational reasons. The association
between FOS with confusion due to over-choice implies that Filipino-Americans under
this acculturation dimension have some level of knowledge or understanding of the host
marketplace. This is not entirely a surprise considering the fact that the majority of the
respondents were born in the US and their second-generation status may have contributed
to their confidence in navigating the retail environment.
Recommendations
The inquiry on the pre-purchase behavior of Filipino-Americans that has been
undertaken for this dissertation has drawn attention to some areas that can be used for
practical application and further research. These are discussed in detail below.
Recommendations for Practical Application. The description of the Filipino-
American online consumers based on their acculturation level and decision-making styles
has a number of marketing and consumer policy applications. As previously discussed in
the earlier sections of this dissertation, variations in the consumption value systems and
145
decision-making styles of immigrant consumers are affected by acculturation. The
findings of this research have shown that Filipino-Americans generally differ in their
styles of decision-making when participating in electronic commerce. When the
relationship between acculturation and the various decision-making styles were explored,
the results of the study indicated that the extent of ethnic and host culture identifications
vary from individual to individual. This information can help business organizations and
marketing professionals in developing a strategy to target the Filipino-American market
based on their acculturation modes. By segmenting the target population based on this
criterion, online retailers can customize their promotional activities with the group’s
predilections. As this study has found, Filipino-Americans who are highly acculturated
have a good knowledge of the market and put a premium on perfectionism as well as
website content. Furthermore, they were found to be price conscious, brand conscious
and loyal, innovative, and love to shop. With this type of consumer, businesses need to
invest in ensuring that their online stores have a clear privacy policy and good security.
The online store should also be equipped with the necessary functionalities that include
searching and communication tools for product information and order tracking, customer
review, and social networking capability. Online businesses should also put their
promotional efforts in continually providing innovative products and new brands for
these types of consumers that are known for being risk-takers who are not afraid of trying
new things. Establishing a rewards program can also benefit the online retailers’
financial bottom line. One of the findings of the study showed that Filipino-Americans
are brand loyal consumers. As brand loyal consumers, they are devoted to selected
brands and have the tendency to make repeat purchases over their lifetime. Hence, a
146
business may use a loyalty marketing strategy through a rewards program that can
contribute to the increase in the number of customer visits which may then translate into
sales as customers want to avail of the purchase incentives. If they are happy with their
experience and involvement in the program, these consumers are more likely to leave
positive feedback online and promote the business to their family and friends.
The less acculturated Filipino-Americans, on the other hand, have shown almost
similar online decision-making styles when compared with their highly acculturated
counterparts. The difference between the groups largely lies with the strength of
association between the acculturation dimension and the identified decision-making
styles. Hence, the promotional strategies listed for the highly acculturated Filipino-
Americans can also be applied to the less acculturated members of this particular ethnic
group. Additionally, the use of the Filipinos’ native language (i.e., Tagalog) and Filipino
product ambassadors in delivering marketing messages can assist online businesses in
engaging consumers in this market. It is also important to note that both acculturation
dimensions were found to be least associated with confusion due to over choice style of
decision-making. This finding suggests a strong knowledge of the host culture
marketplace which is very plausible considering that most of the survey respondents were
native born and identified themselves as second-generation Filipinos living in the US.
Recommendations for Future Research. The findings in this study suggest
some opportunities for future research. First, the current study utilized a purposive
sampling method which limits the generalizability of its results. Hence, future research
should replicate the study using a probability sampling method in order to facilitate the
random selection of survey respondents. With a representative sample, the participants of
147
the study resemble the whole population being studied and study results can be
generalized or used to make conclusions pertaining to the general population. Second, a
longitudinal study on acculturation and decision-making styles of Filipino-American
consumers can also be explored. This type of research will enable the researcher to
observe the same group of immigrants over a period of time to identify any variations or
alterations in the behavior of the target population. The important element in this type of
methodology is its ability to establish a series of events and behavioral patterns of
immigrant consumers that will contribute to a deeper understanding of their behavior
under a variety of life situations. Third, the study should be expanded to include a
specific product category as there is no specific product that is being investigated in the
current study. This study is a general assessment of the Filipino-American consumers’
online decision-making styles based on their acculturation levels. Further research is
needed, therefore, to examine the interaction of these two variables within the context of
a particular product group. The result of this type of investigation may provide
businesses with the necessary information that will aid them in implementing strategies to
access specific markets efficiently and effectively as well as help them in addressing the
needs of the market’s consumer base. Lastly, a more detailed inquiry into the Filipino-
American’s purchasing behavior and online viewing patterns are necessary to broaden the
discourse on the impact of acculturation on the individual member’s life as a consumer.
By centering on the group’s socio-demographic and cultural dynamics as well as its
online shopping behavior and media usage trends, businesses and marketing
professionals can achieve a comprehensive picture of Filipino-American consumers.
This could help businesses in developing an effective strategy to better connect with this
148
particular ethnic group. Furthermore, the results could contribute to the overall body of
knowledge on Filipino-American consumer behavior.
In summary, the inquiry on the pre-purchase behavior of Filipino-Americans that
was undertaken for this dissertation has resulted to several areas that can be used for
practical application and further research. These are listed below:
1. Customize promotional activities with the Filipino-Americans’ predilections based on
their acculturation modes.
2. Continually implement promotions that provide innovative products and new brands.
3. Establish a loyalty marketing strategy through a rewards program that can benefit both
customers and business organizations.
4. Use of the Filipinos’ native language (i.e., Tagalog) in delivering marketing messages
and Filipino product ambassadors to assist online businesses in engaging the Filipino-
American consumers.
5. Replicate the study using a probability sampling method in order to facilitate the
random selection of survey respondents and obtain a representative sample for
generalizability of results.
6. Conduct a longitudinal study on acculturation and decision-making styles of Filipino-
American consumers over a period of time to identify any variations or alterations in the
behavior of the target population.
7. Expand the study of the relationship between acculturation and decision-making styles
within the context of a specific product category.
149
8. Conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the Filipino-American’s socio-demographic and
cultural characteristics as they relate to their online shopping behavior and media usage
trends.
Conclusions
The purpose of the research was to investigate the relationship between
acculturation and consumer decision-making styles within the context of electronic
commerce. Using the Kruskal-Wallis H Test, the hypotheses for the first two research
questions were tested. The hypotheses for the third and final research question were
tested using the Mantel-Haenszel Test of Trend. All tests resulted in the rejection of the
null hypotheses. These findings indicated that Filipino-American consumers
significantly differ in their online decision-making styles. When the survey respondents
were categorized according to their acculturation modes, the test results remained the
same. There were significant differences among individual Filipino-Americans in the
four acculturation levels with respect to their decision-making styles when purchasing
from online stores. Additionally, the association tests showed that both the host and
ethnic culture dimensions of acculturation were linearly associated with each of the eight
selected online decision-making styles. The strengths of association may be different
between the two dimensions, but the style characteristics for each are similar.
The findings of the research will have repercussions on the Filipino-American
consumers’ choice preferences. As elucidated in the review of the literature, decision-
making styles dictate the individuals’ purchase decisions. Since Filipino-Americans
differ in their styles of decision-making, they would respond differently to various
marketing inducements from business organizations. Advertisers, therefore, will need to
150
avoid taking this particular ethnic group as one homogenous entity with similar
preferences. Instead, they should utilize varied marketing strategies to appeal to the
Filipino-American consumers. Understanding the notion of heterogeneity of this group
can also help in forecasting consumption patterns and can be a crucial factor in
developing effective market segmentation and a successful sales plan.
On the whole, the potential contribution of the Filipino-American market to the
financial success of business organizations cannot be understated. Determining the
decision-making styles of the members of this ethnic population will have marketing or
practical implications as discussed above. In conclusion, the study has proven that
Filipino-American online consumers differ in their decision-making styles, and this
disparity in the choice outcome is associated with their acculturation levels.
151
References
Ablett, P. (2004). Colonialism in denial: US propaganda in the Philippine-American war.
Social Alternatives, 23(3), 22-28.
Antwi, S.K. & Hamza, K. (2015). Qualitative and quantitative research paradigms in
business research: A philosophical reflection. European Journal of Business and
Management, 7(3), 217-225.
Baldoz, R. (2011). The third Asiatic invasion: Empire and migration in Filipino America,
1898-1946. New York: New York University Press.
Bashir, A. (2013). Consumer behavior towards online shopping of electronics in
Pakistan. International Business Management, 30-50.
Beresford, B., & Sloper, T. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of decision-making and
choice: A scoping study of key psychological theories to inform the design and
analysis of the panel study. (University of York Report DHP 2215). York, UK:
Social Policy Research Unit, University of York. Retrieved April 25, 2010, from
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/decisionmaking.pdf
Berry, J.W., & Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and Adaptation. In J.W. Berry, M.H.
Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology:
Vol. 3. Social behavior and applications (2nd ed., pp. 291-326). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 46(1), p. 5-68.
Berry, J.W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.),
Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp.9-25). Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Bonus, R. (2000). Locating Filipino-Americans. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Booth, A. (2012). Measuring living standards in different colonial systems: Some
evidence from south east Asia, 1900–1942. Modern Asian Studies, 46(5), 1145-
1181. doi:10.1017/S0026749X12000145
Borlaza, G. C., Cullinane, M., and Hernandez, C. G. (2016). Philippines: The Spanish
period. Retrieved September 7, 2016, from
https://www.britannica.com/place/Philippines/The-Spanish-period
Buchanan, L., and O’Connell, A. (2006). A brief history of decision-making. Harvard
Business Review, 84(1), 32-41.
152
Canabal, M. E. (2002). Decision-making styles of young south Indian consumers: An
exploratory study. College Student Journal, 26(1), 12-19.
Center for American Progress. (2015). Who are Asian Americans? Retrieved September
22, 2016, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/report/
2015/04/28/111694/who-are-asian-americans/
Colby, S. L. and Ortman, J. M. (2014). Projections of the size and composition of the
U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. Current Population Reports, 25-1143.
Cozby, P. C. (2009). Methods in behavioral research (10th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican
Americans – II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 275-304. doi: 10.1177/07399863950173001
Dabic, M., Tipuric, D., & Podrug, N. (2015). Cultural differences affecting decision-
making style: A comparative study between 4 countries. Journal of Business
Economics and Management, 16(2), 275-289.
doi:10.3846/16111699.2013.859172
Darley, W.K., Blankson, C., and Luethge, D.J. (2010). Toward an integrated framework
for online consumer behavior and decision-making process: A review. Psychology
and Marketing, 27(2), 94-116. doi:10.1002/mar.20322
Dash, M. K., & Kumar, A. (2014). Electronic consumer style inventory: Factory
exploration and multi-comparison analysis. Asian Academy of Management
Journal, 19(2), 43-65.
David, E. J. R., & Nadal, K. L. (2013). The colonial context of Filipino-American
Immigrants’ Psychological Experiences. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 19(3), 298-309. Doi: 10.1037/a0032903
Davis, W. M. (1915). Biographical memoir of John Wesley Powell 1834 – 1902. City of
Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
De Souza, L.R., & Fuller-Thomson, E. (2013). Acculturation and disability rates
among Filipino-Americans. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 15, 462–471.
doi: 10.1007/s10903-012-9708-1
Deady, T. K. (2005). Lessons from a successful counterinsurgency: The Philippines,
1899-1902. Parameters, 35(1), 53-68.
153
Dimova, Y., & Kamarska, K. (2015). Rediscovering John Dewey’s model of learning
through reflective inquiry. Problems of Education In The 21St Century, 6329-
6339.
Dressler, W. W., Oths, K. S. & Gravlee, C. C. (2005). Race and ethnicity in public health
research: Models to explain health disparities. Annual Review of Anthropology,
34, 231-252. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120505
Dollinger, M. J., & Danis, W. (1998). Preferred decision-making styles: A cross-cultural
comparison. Psychological Reports, 82(3),755-762
Donthu, N., & Cherian, J. (1992). Hispanic coupon usage: The impact of strong and weak
ethnic identification. Psychology & Marketing, 9(6), 501-510.
Dooley, D. & McCarthy, J. (2005). Nursing ethics: Irish cases and concerns. Dublin: Gill
and MacMillan.
Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. D. (1968). Consumer behavior. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Espiritu, Y.L. & Wolf, D.L. (2001). The paradox of assimilation: Children of Filipino
immigrants in San Diego. In R.G. Rumbaut & A. Portes (Eds.), Ethnicities:
Children of immigrants in America (pp. 157-186). New York: The Regents of the
University of California.
Finucane, M.L., Mertz, C.K., Slovic, P., & Schmidt, E.S. (2005). Task complexity and
older adults’ decision-making competence. Psychology and Aging, 20, 71-84.
Fox, J., Cooper, R.P., Glasspool, D.W. (2013). A canonical theory of dynamic decision-
making. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(150). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00150
Goldenberg, B. (2000). Imperial Culture and National Conscience: The Role of the Press
in the United States and Spain during the Crisis of 1898. Bulletin Of Hispanic
Studies, 77(3), 169-191. doi:10.1080/00074900050083112
Greaney, A.M., Sheehy, A., Heffernan, C., Murphy, J., Mhaolrunaigh, S.N., Heffernan,
E., et al. (2012). Research ethics application: A guide for the novice researcher.
British Journal of Nursing, 21(1), 38-43.
Greguras, F. (2005). Spanish-American war sites in Honolulu. The Hawaiian Journal of
History, 39, 19-33.
Grieco, E. M. (2009). Race and Hispanic origin of the foreign-born population in the
United States: 2007 (American Community Survey Reports, ACS-11).
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
154
Hansen, T. (2008). Consumer values, the theory of planned behavior and online grocery
shopping. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 128-137. doi:
10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00655.x
Hawkins, D. I., Best, R.J., Coney, K.A. (2004). Consumer behavior: Building marketing
strategy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin Series.
Hermanowicz, H. J. (1961). Problem solving as teaching method. Educational
Leadership, 18(5), 299-306.
Hero, R. E. (2010). Immigration and social policy in the United States. Annual Review of
Political Science, 13, 445-4468. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.041608.135744
Hoeffel, E.M., Rastogi, S., Kim, M.O., & Shahid, H. (2012). The Asian population: 2010.
Retrieved September 22, 2016, from www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/
c2010br-11.pdf
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Humphreys, J. M. (2014). The multicultural economy 2014. Georgia Business Economic
Conditions, 69, 1-15. Retrieved from
http://www.terry.uga.edu/media/documents/Insight-Asian_2014.pdf
Hutchcroft, P. D. (2000). Colonial masters, national politicos, and provincial lords:
Central authority and local autonomy in the American Philippines, 1900-1913.
The Journal of Asian Studies, 59(2), 277-306
Jacobson, M. F. (1999). Imperial Amnesia: Teddy Roosevely, the Philippines, and the
modern art of forgiving. Radical History Review, 73, 116-127.
Johnson-Kozlow, M., Matt, G.E., Rock, C.L., De La Rosa, R., Conway, T.L., & Romero,
R.A. (2011). Assessment of dietary intakes of Filipino-Americans: Implications
for food frequency questionnaire design. Jounal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior. 43(6), 505-510. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2010.09.001
Jun, J.W., Ham, C.D., and Park, J.H. (2014). Exploring the impact of acculturation and
ethnic identity on Korean U.S. residents’ consumption behaviors of utilitarian
versus hedonic products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 26, 2-13.
doi: 10.1080/01924788.2013.848077
Kang, S. M. (2006). Measurement of acculturation, scale formats, and language
competence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(6), 669-693. doi:
10.1177/0022022106292077
155
Karakaya, F., Delener, N., Barnes, N.G. (2004). An empirical study of consumer
behavior patterns among Filipino and Korean Americans in the United States. The
Marketing Management Journal, 14(1), 30-44.
Karimi, S., Papamichail, K. N., & Holland, C. P. (2015). The effect of prior knowledge
and decision-making style on the online purchase decision-making process: A
typology of consumer shopping behavior. Decision Support Systems, 77, 137-147.
Laerd Statistics (2015). Statistical tutorials and software guides. Retrieved from
https://statistics.laerd.com/
Lakey, P. N. (2003). Acculturation: A review of the literature. Intercultural
Communication Studies, 7(2), 103-118.
Lee, J.H.X. (2015). History of Asian Americans. California: ABC-CLIO, LLC.
Lee, W. (1993). Acculturation and advertising communication strategies: A cross-cultural
study of Chinese and Americans. Psychology and Marketing, 10, 381–397.
Lee, I., Choi, B., Kim, J., & Hong, S. J. (2007). Culture-technology fit: Effects of cultural
characteristics on the post-adoption beliefs of mobile internet users. International
of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 11-51. doi: 10.2753/JEC1086-4415110401
Lee, R.M., Yoon, E., & Liu-Tom, H. (2006). Structure and measurement of
accuLilturations/enculturation for Asian Americans using the ARSMA-II.
Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 39(1), 42-55.
Leong, F.T., Wagner, N.S., & Kim, H.H. (1995). Group counseling expectations among
Asian students: The role of culture-specific factors. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 42(2), 217-222.
Lindridge, A., Vijaygopal, R., & Dibb, S. (2014). The manifestation of culture in
product purchase: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Marketing Analytics,
2(4), 250-263.
Lowe, A. C., & Corkindale, D. R. (1998). Differences in "cultural values" and their
effects on responses to marketing stimuli: A cross-cultural study between
Australians and Chinese from the People's Republic of China. European Journal
of Marketing, 32(9), 843-867. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/
237022510?accountid=28180
Matera, C., Stefanile, C., & Brown, R. (2011). The role of immigrant acculturation
preferences and generational status in determining majority intergroup attitudes.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 776 -785.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.007
156
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your fata right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s.
International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97-110.
McNamara, K., & Batalova, J. (2015). Filipino-Americans in the United States. Retrieved
June 27, 2016 from Migration Policy Institute Website:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/filipino-immigrants-united-
states#Distribution%20by%20State%20and%20Key%20Cities
Mokhlis, S., and Salleh, H.S. (2009). Decision-making styles of young Malay, Chinese
and Indian consumers in Malaysia. Asian Social Science Journal, 5(12), 50-59.
Moon, B. J. (2004). Consumer adoption of the internet as an information search and
product purchase channel: Some research hypotheses. International Journal of
Internet Marketing and Advertising 1(1) 104-118.
Morimoto, M. (2012). The influence of acculturation and in-group bias on source
credibility: The case of Asian American female consumers. Journal of Promotion
Management, 18(2), 254–274. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2012.668436
Nielsen. (20120). State of the Asian American consumer: Growing market, growing
impact.Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/
corporate/us/en/microsites/publicaffairs/StateoftheAsianAmericanConsumerRepo
rt.pdf
Offner, J. L. (2004). McKinley and the Spanish-American war. Presidential Studies
Quarterly, (34)1, 50-61.
Ogden, D. T., Ogden, J. R. & Schau, H. J. (2004). Exploring the impact of culture and
acculturation on consumer purchase decisions: Toward a microcultural
perspective. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2004(03). Retrieved
November 15, 2010 from http://www.amsreview.org/articles/ogden03-2004.pdf
Ownbey, S.F., & Hooridge, P. E. (1997). Acculturation levels and shopping orientations
of Asian-American consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 14(1), 1-18.
Pankhania, A., Lee, N., & Hooley, G. (2007). With-in country ethnic differences and
product positioning: A comparison of the perceptions of two British sub-cultures.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15(2-3), 121-138. doi:
10.1080/09652540701318997
Parsian, N., & Dunning, T. (2009). Developing and validating a questionnaire to measure
spirituality: A psychometric process. Global Journal of Health Science, 1(1), 2-
11.
157
Penaloza, L. (1994). Atravensando fronteras/border crossings: A critical ethnographic
explanation of the consumer acculturation of Mexican immigrants. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 32–54.
Pew Research Center. (2013). The rise of Asian-Americans. Retrieved from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/04/Asian-Americans-new-full-report-
04-2013.pdf
Potgieter, D., Wiese, M., & Strasheim, A. (2013). Demographic differences in adult
consumers’ decision-making styles in Tshwane,, South Africa. Journal of Family
Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 41, 11-27.
Punj, G. (2012). Consumer decision-making on the web: A theoretical analysis and
research guidelines. Psychology and Marketing, 29(10), 791–803. doi:
10.1002/mar.20564
Ramakrishnan, K., and Ahmad, F.Z. (2014). State of Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders series: a multifaceted portrait of a growing population. Retrieved
September 30, 2016, from http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/
en/microsites/publicaffairs/StateoftheAsianAmericanConsumerReport.pdf
Riche, M. F. (2000). America’s diversity and growth: Signposts for the 21st century.
Retrieved from http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/
RussiaDiversity/PopulatinBullAmericaDiversity/PBAmericaDiversity.html
Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or
bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-
identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 49-
65. doi: 10.1037//0O22-3514.79.1.49
Saleh, M.A.H. (2016). Website design, technological expertise, demographics, and
consumer’s e-purchase transactions. International Journal of Marketing Studies,
8(1), 125-138. doi:10.5539/ijms.v8n1p125
Sam, K.M., & Chatwin, C. (2015). Online consumer decision-making styles for enhanced
understanding of Macau online consumer behavior. Asia Pacific Management
Review, 20, 100-107.
Scott, J. T. (2003). Taft Commission. Retrieved on September 10, 2016, from
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804114.html
Scott, S. G. and R. A. Bruce. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and
assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 55(5), 818-831.
158
Segev, S. (2014). The effect of acculturation on ethnic consumers’ decision-making
styles: An empirical analysis of Hispanic consumers. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 26(3), 168-184. doi:10.1080/08961530.2014.889587
Sinkovics, R.R, Leelapanyalert, K., & Yamin, M. (2010). A comparative examination of
consumer decision styles in Austria. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(11-
12), 1021–1036.
Sojka, J.Z. and Tansuhaj, P.S. (1995). Cross-cultural consumer research: A twenty-year
review. Advances in Consumer Research 22(1): 461–74
Sproles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers'
decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(4), 267-279.
SueLin, C. (2010). Understanding consumer purchase behavior in the Japanese personal
grooming sector. Journal of Yasar University, 17(5), 2821-2831.
Taft, R. (1953). The shared frame of reference concept applied to the assimilation of
immigrants. Human Relations, 6(1), 45-55. doi: 10.1177/001872675300600103
Takaki, R. (1998). A history of Asian Americans: Strangers from a different shore. New
York: Little, Brown, and Company.
United States Census Bureau. (2015). 2015 American community survey 1-year
estimates. Retrieved September 22, 2016, from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/
tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_1YR_S0201
&prodType=table
United States Census Bureau. (2015). Census Bureau projects U.S. and world
populations on New Year’s Day. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps113.html
United States Census Bureau. (2011). Population distribution and change: 2000 to 2010.
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf
United States Census Bureau. (2004). We the people: Asians in the United States.
Retrieved from ttp://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
United States Census Bureau. (1997). Internet access and usage, and online
services:1997. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/97statab/communic.pdf
United States Office of the Historian. (n.d.). The Spanish-American War, 1898. Retrieved
September 7, 2016, from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/spanish-
american-war
159
United States Office of the Historian. (n.d.). The Philippine-American War, 1898-1902.
Retrieved September 7, 2016, from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-
1913/war
Watchravesringkan, K. (2011). Exploring antecedents and consequences of consumer
ethnocentrism: Evidence from Asian immigrants in the US. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 35, 383-390. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00951.x
Wertheim, S. (2009). Reluctant liberator: Theodore Roosevelt’s philosophy of self-
government and preparation for Philippine independence. Presidential Studies
Quarterly, 39(3), 494-518.
Wilson, R. T. 2007. Acculturation and discrimination in global market place: The case of
Hispanics in the U.S. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 20 (1): 67–
78. doi: 10.1300/J046v20n01_06
Yu, W., & Wang, S. (2011). An investigation into the acculturation strategies of Chinese
students in Germany. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(2), 190-210.
Zikmund, W. (2003). Business research methods (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Thomson/South-Western.
160
Appendixes
161
Appendix A: Online Consumer Styles Characteristics Instrument
For each statement, circle the number that best indicates your opinion. (CIRCLE ONLY
ONE RESPONSE PER STATEMENT)
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
1. Getting very good quality is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5
2. When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very
best or perfect choice.
1 2 3 4 5
3. In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I make a special effort to choose the very best quality
products.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I really don’t give my purchases much thought or care 1 2 3 4 5
6. My standards and expectations for the products I buy are
very high.
1 2 3 4 5
7. I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find that
seems good enough.
1 2 3 4 5
8. A product doesn’t have to be perfect, or the best, to satisfy
me.
1 2 3 4 5
9. The well-known national brands are for me. 1 2 3 4 5
10. The more expensive brands are usually my choices. 1 2 3 4 5
11. The higher the price of the golf clubs, the better the
quality.
1 2 3 4 5
12. Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best golf
clubs.
1 2 3 4 5
13. I prefer buying the bestselling brands. 1 2 3 4 5
14. The most advertised brands are usually very good choices. 1 2 3 4 5
15. I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style. 1 2 3 4 5
16. I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing
fashions.
1 2 3 4 5
17. Fashionable, attractive styling is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5
18.To get variety, I shop different stores and choose different
brands.
1 2 3 4 5
19. It’s fun to buy something new and exciting. 1 2 3 4 5
20. Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me. 1 2 3 4 5
21. Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities of my
life.
1 2 3 4 5
22. Shopping the stores wastes my time. 1 2 3 4 5
23. I enjoy shopping just for the fun of it. 1 2 3 4 5
24. I make shopping trips fast. 1 2 3 4 5
162
25. I buy as much as possible at sale prices. 1 2 3 4 5
26. The lower price product is usually my choice. 1 2 3 4 5
27. I look carefully to find the best value for the money. 1 2 3 4 5
28. I should plan my shopping more carefully than I do. 1 2 3 4 5
29. I am impulsive when purchasing. 1 2 3 4 5
30. Often I make careless purchases I later wish I had not. 1 2 3 4 5
31. I take the time to shop carefully for best buys. 1 2 3 4 5
32. I carefully watch how much I spend. 1 2 3 4 5
33. There are so many brands to choose from that I often feel
confused.
1 2 3 4 5
34. Sometimes it’s hard to choose which stores to shop. 1 2 3 4 5
35. The more I learn about golf clubs, the harder it seems to
choose the best.
1 2 3 4 5
36. All the information I get on different products confuses
me.
1 2 3 4 5
37. I have favorite brands I buy over and over. 1 2 3 4 5
38. Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it. 1 2 3 4 5
39. I go to the same stores each time I shop. 1 2 3 4 5
40. I change brands I buy regularly. 1 2 3 4 5
41. When I go shopping online, privacy and security are very
important.
1 2 3 4 5
42. It is very important for the websites to offer
communication channels to me for product enquiries and
order tracking.
1 2 3 4 5
43. It is very important for the websites to offer a product
searching service to me.
1 2 3 4 5
44. It is perfect if the websites can offer me richness of
information about products.
1 2 3 4 5
45. It is good if the websites can offer customer reviews on
the products.
1 2 3 4 5
46. It is good if the websites can offer social networking
facilities so I can share product comments with my friends.
1 2 3 4 5
47. It will be annoying to get a lot of animated effects on the
business websites.
1 2 3 4 5
48. Design layout of business website is one of the important
factors to make buying decisions.
1 2 3 4 5
163
Appendix B: Cultural Identity and Acculturation Instrument
Scale 1: Circle a number between 1 – 5 next to each item that best applies.
Rating Scale: 1 = Not at all
2 = Very little or not very often
3 = Moderately
4 = Much or very often
5 = Extremely often or almost always
1. I speak Tagalog and/or any Filipino languages 1 2 3 4 5
2. I speak English 1 2 3 4 5
3. I enjoy speaking Tagalog and/or any Filipino languages 1 2 3 4 5
4. I associate with White individuals 1 2 3 4 5
5. I associate with Filipinos and/or Filipino-Americans 1 2 3 4 5
6. I enjoy listening to Filipino language music 1 2 3 4 5
7. I enjoy listening to English language music 1 2 3 4 5
8. I enjoy Filipino language TV 1 2 3 4 5
9. I enjoy English language TV 1 2 3 4 5
10. I enjoy English language movies 1 2 3 4 5
11. I enjoy Filipino language movies 1 2 3 4 5
12. I enjoy reading (e.g., books in Filipino) 1 2 3 4 5
13. I enjoy reading (e.g., books in English) 1 2 3 4 5
14. I write (e.g., letters in Filipino) 1 2 3 4 5
15. I write (e.g., letters in English) 1 2 3 4 5
16. My thinking is done in the English language 1 2 3 4 5
17. My thinking is done in the Filipino language 1 2 3 4 5
18. My contact with the Philippines has been 1 2 3 4 5
19. My contact with the USA has been 1 2 3 4 5
20. My father identifies or identified himself as Filipino 1 2 3 4 5
21. My mother identifies or identified herself as Filipino 1 2 3 4 5
22. My friends, while I was growing up, were of Filipino
origin
1 2 3 4 5
23. My friends, while I was growing up, were of White origin 1 2 3 4 5
24. My family cooks Filipino food 1 2 3 4 5
25. My friends now are of White origin 1 2 3 4 5
26. My friends now are of Filipino origin 1 2 3 4 5
27. I like to identify myself as a White American 1 2 3 4 5
28. I like to identify myself as a Filipino-American 1 2 3 4 5
29. I like to identify myself as a Filipino 1 2 3 4 5
30. I like to identify myself as an American 1 2 3 4 5
164
Appendix C: Personal Background Instrument
Please put only one check mark (√) and provide the correct information about yourself
for each of the questions below.
1. What is your gender? Male Female
2. In what year were you born? ________
3. What is your religion?
Protestant
Roman Catholic
Buddhist
None
Other (Please specify _______________________________)
4. What is your current marital status?
Single, Never Married
Married
Divorced or Separated
Widowed
5. What is your highest level of educational achievement? (CHECK ONE)
Less Than High School
High School Diploma or Equivalent
Community College Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Post-Graduate Professional Training (Law, Medicine, etc.)
Master’s Degree
Doctoral Degree
6. What is your current employment Status? (CHECK ONE)
Full-time Student
Part-time Student/Part-time Homemaker
Part-time Student/Part-time Employee
Part-time Employee
Full-time Employee
Full-time Homemaker
Retired from Employment
Unemployed
7. Which one of the following categories best describes your current occupation?
(CHECK ONE)
Professional or Technical (e.g., accountant, artist, computer specialist, dentist,
engineer,
lawyer, librarian, nurse, scientist, teacher, technician, writer, etc.)
165
Manager or Administrator
Sales Worker (e.g., insurance salesperson, realtor, stockbroker, etc.)
Clerical Worker (e.g., bank teller, bookkeeper, cashier, office clerk, postman,
receptionist,
secretary, teacher’s aide, etc.)
Crafts Worker or Machine Operator (e.g., bus driver, factory worker, tailor, etc.)
Full-time Homemaker
Full-time Student
Service Worker (e.g., barber, bartender, dental assistant, hair stylist, nursing aide,
police
officer, sales associate, waitress, etc.)
Government or Military Worker
Other (Specify your job title and briefly describe what you do)
8. What is your approximate 2015 annual income before taxes? (CHECK ONE)
Less than $ 20,001
$ 20,001 ~ $ 30,000
$ 30,001 ~ $ 40,000
$ 40,001 ~ $ 60,000
$ 60,001 ~ $ 80,000
$ 80,001 ~ $ 100,000
$ 100,001 ~ $ 150,000
More than $ 150,000
9. Were you born in the United States?
Yes
No
9b. If you were not born in the United States, what year did you immigrate to America?
_______
11. What is reason for migration? (CHECK ONE)
Educational Opportunities
Better Economic Opportunities
To Accompany Spouse/Parents
Career Opportunities
Others. Please specify
_______________________________________________________
12. Select the generation that best applies to you. (CHECK ONE)
First Generation: You were born in the Philippines
Second Generation: You were born in the USA but either parent was born in the
Philippines
Third Generation: You were born in the USA and both parents were born in the USA.
All grandparents were born in the Philippines
166
Fourth Generation: You were born in the USA and both parents were born in the USA.
At least one grandparent was born in the Philippines with the remainder grandparents
born in the USA.
Fifth Generation: You and your parents were born in the USA and all grandparents
were born in the USA as well.
