{"content":[{"text":"Purchase intention is not limited to simple aspects. On the contrary, as Oliver and Lee (2010) \n point out, several variables can influence it, either situational, as the evaluation of store image, \n consumer satisfaction, product price, among others; or motivational, such as values, beliefs and \n culture of the consumer society involved. In the present study, we considered as situational \n variables consumer satisfaction and evaluation of store image, because they are elements closer \n to the reality of purchasing at supermarkets. And we chose culture as the motivational variable. \n Oliver (1981) defined satisfaction as the summary of the psychological state that occurs \n when emotion on the disconfirmation of expectations connects with consumers’ priority \n feelings about the consumption experience. On the other hand, store image is composed of \n the various procedures that the customer needs to follow in the physical environment of the \n store, the moments of contact with employees, and the retailer’s offer (Morschett, Swoboda, \n & Foscht, 2005). Regarding supermarkets, store image comprises several attributes. In our \n research, we chose the attributes layout, product and service. \n Among the motivational variables, culture is an important element for understanding \n consumer behavior, and specific models that address consumption include such element \n (Alfinito & Torres, 2012; Torres & Allen, 2009). In his seminal paper, Hofstede (1980) identified \n four dimensions of cultural variation by investigating data of more than 116,000 questionnaires \n from IBM. One of its most relevant results is that culture can be used as a predictive variable. \n The four cultural dimensions identified in his original study were masculinity–femininity, \n uncertainty avoidance, power distance and individualism–collectivism (I-C). Later on, Hofstede \n and Bond (1988), while investigating cultural values in Asia, identified a fifth dimension, \n initially called Confucian Dynamism and then long-term orientation. Yet, in his work with \n Minkov (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; Minkov, 2007), they also identified the \n dimensions of indulgence–restraint and monumentalism–flexumility. \n Among the identified dimensions, I-C has received more attention from researchers \n (Smith, Fischer, Vignoles, & Bond, 2013). Triandis (1994, 1995) argues that people’s self- \n concept can be defined either in terms of the endogroup (or intra-group), or as an \n independent entity, detached from the groups. For Triandis (1995), I-C is a very broad \n construct to measure accurately and suggests its measurement at the individual level of \n analysis. Triandis (1994) and Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, and Sinha (1995) proposed the \n personality dimensions idiocentrism–allocentrism as a construct at the individual level, \n which corresponds to the I-C construct at the cultural level. Idiocentrism–allocentrism can \n be examined through the individual definitions of the self, structure of personal goals, types \n of relationships emphasized by the individual, and if personal attitudes or social norms are \n perceived as more or less important while guiding individual behavior. They also proposed \n variations of idiocentrism–allocentrism in terms of their verticality or horizontality \n (intrinsically related to Power Distance), which are better discussed below. \n However, it is important to notice that although Triandis has coined the terms \n idiocentrism–allocentrism to differentiate the level of I-C analysis (individual × cultural), \n several authors argue and accept (Smith, Fischer, Vignoles, & Bond, 2013; Smith & \n Schwartz, 1997) that the terms can be used interchangeably, for parsimony reasons, \n provided that the level of analysis used in the research is clearly indicated. In this sense, the \n conception of I-C at the individual level, proposed by Triandis, has received much attention, \n since it is a dimension that affects consumption, both in cross-cultural research and in \n studies of the same culture (Torres, Porto, Vargas, & Fischer, 2015). It leads to a better \n understanding of consumers’ characteristics and attitudes (Torres & Allen, 2009). \n For Triandis (1995), individuals of collectivist cultures see themselves as belonging to some \n group, and submit themselves to the group’s wills. On the other hand, individuals of individualist \n cultures are independent, and the group goals are less important than personal goals. Frank, \n Enkawa, and Schvaneveldt (2015) observe the importance of investigating the role of I-C in \n developing purchase intention, considering the cultural diversity of consumers. Therefore, this","bbox":{"left":0.097241,"top":0.117923,"width":0.7011449999999999,"height":0.789397}},{"text":"Satisfaction on \n purchase \n intention","bbox":{"left":0.813794,"top":0.1155,"width":0.14567299999999994,"height":0.057073}},{"text":"257","bbox":{"left":0.916322,"top":0.213073,"width":0.04312000000000005,"height":0.02066599999999999}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}