Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms in Binational Households

Although it is well-known that the U.S. population is increasingly culturally diverse, cultural diversity within U.S. households is less recognized. This study investigates the effects of cultural dynamics on decision roles and influence within the binational household. In particular, the authors study households in which one spouse is from the United States and the other is an immigrant. The analysis uses survey data and in-depth interviews. Cultural competence (i.e., knowledge of country of residence) as a source of expert power and as a form of cultural capital in family decision making emerge as overarching themes. The authors also find that one family member may engage in cultural compensatory mechanisms in consumption in response to the immigrant family member’s sacrifices (i.e., moving to the United States). The authors close with a discussion of the implications for family decision-making theory, marketers, and society.

Keywords : family decision making, expertise, cultural competence, cross-cultural, cultural compensatory mechanisms

“...for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sick- When I Love Lucy was introduced in 1951, the foreign-born ness and in health, to love and to cherish, [in my country

population was less than 7%, dropping to its nadir of 4.7% or in yours?]”

(9.6 million) in the 1970 census (Malone et al. 2003). How- In the early 1950s, one of the most popular television

ever, since the Hart-Celler Act removed race-based restric- sitcoms in U.S. history aired, starring Lucille Ball and her

tions on immigration, the number of foreign-born residents real-life husband Desi Arnaz as Lucy and Ricky Ricardo. I

in the United States has steadily increased to more than Love Lucy is considered an American television classic

12% (36.7 million) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The rate of today; yet at the time, the networks were hesitant to feature

intermarriage between immigrants and natives in the United

a sitcom starring an American of Scottish ancestry married States still remains below the marriage rate between immi- to a Cuban bandleader, as network producers felt that view-

grants who were born in the same country. Yet the increas- ers would not believe that Arnaz was truly Ball’s husband

ing number of immigrants has clearly had an impact. Bean (Andrews 1985; Brooks and Marsh 2003). The academic

and Stevens’s (2003) analysis of 1995 U.S. Census data literature has mirrored this perspective. Although researchers

reveals that 29% of foreign-born men had U.S.-born wives increasingly recognized the household as a critical and

and 33% of foreign-born women had U.S.-born husbands. central decision-making and consumption unit (Commuri

In light of this demographic reality, it is evident that bina- and Gentry 2000; Davis 1976), they also made a crucial

tional households (with partners from different countries) underlying assumption about family composition: cultural

are a new, unique, and relevant context for an investigation homogeneity.

of consumer decision making and influence. The foreign-born population of the United States has

Epp and Price (2008) suggest that family consumption burgeoned since the passage of the Hart-Celler Act in 1965.

research has also ignored the notion that households act as collective enterprises. In their study of family identity, they

Samantha N.N. Cross is Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of argue that the focus on the relative influence of individual Business, Iowa State University (e-mail: snncross@iastate.edu). Mary C.

spouses has led researchers to ignore family “collective iden- Gilly is Professor of Marketing, The Paul Merage School of Business, Uni-

tity tensions” (Epp and Price 2011, p. 38). The challenges of versity of California, Irvine (e-mail: mcgilly@uci.edu). The authors grate-

“being a family” are viewed as central to the consumption fully acknowledge financial support to the first author through the Ray

experiences of contemporary families; such challenges, we Watson Doctoral Fellowship at University of California, Irvine, and through

argue, are exacerbated by the cultural heterogeneity within the Academy of Marketing Science Jane K. Fenyo Best Paper Award for

Student Research. The first author thanks her family for their unwavering

binational families.

support of her research. The authors also thank their colleagues Terry This research extends knowledge on household decision Childers, John Graham, Hope Schau, Maura Scott, and Bill Qualls for

making, focusing on binational households. Here, one part- their critical feedback and encouragement, as well as three anonymous

ner in the household is an immigrant to the United States— JM reviewers for their guidance throughout the review process. Robert born and raised in another country and immigrated to the Kozinets served as area editor for this article. United States after high school. The other partner is a U.S.

Vol. 78 (May 2014), 121 –139 Vol. 78 (May 2014), 121 –139

We ask the following key research questions: (1) What is the individual and collective impact of cultural diversity in binational homes? (2) What contributes to relative influence and drives the allocations of decision-making roles? and (3) How do the decisions that prevail in the formative stages of the household affect decisions made in later stages of the household? We intend to examine not only who makes decisions but also the context in which decisions are made, during both the formative and maintenance stages of the household. This research thus challenges another implicit assumption in the family decision-making literature stream, which to date has presumed that household decision making takes place only after the household exists. We take

a discovery-oriented approach, using a mixed-method embedded design for data collection (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011). This multiperspective approach enhances con- textual understanding, corroborates the completeness of the findings, and assists in illustrating the quantitative results with the qualitative findings (Bryman 2006).

We empirically demonstrate that relative cultural competence (i.e., knowledge of the traditions, social norms, mar- kets, language, and expections of the culture of residence) in culturally heterogeneous households is both a source of expertise and a form of cultural capital. Our findings com- plicate the conceptualization of gender roles and conjugal power found in prior research. We also show that household decision roles and relative influence at various stages of the household are interrelated and often counterbalanced. Alter- native strategies to emphasize the immigrant spouse’s consumption preferences and enhance the relevance of the immigrant spouse’s culture within the home—“cultural compensatory mechanisms”—are revealed. These cultural compensatory mechanisms are used to even out perceptions of “sacrifice,” highlighting the need for a more holistic approach to the study of family decision making. Our findings have implications for expanding family decision-making theory and furthering understanding of the adaptation patterns of immigrant populations in the United States. Our results will also help managerial and political decision makers appreciate the dynamics involved in cross-cultural interactions in the most fundamental group: the family.

In this article, we present our theoretical framework, followed by our methodology. We provide a detailed analysis and discussion of the findings and highlight the main themes and implications stemming from the study.

Theoretical Framework

Binational and Bicultural Partnerships

Although there is an increasing body of research on bicultural consumers, the emphasis has been on immigrant groups and their ability to traverse and balance cultural norms and identity-related expectations in their home and host countries (Lau-Gesk 2003; Luna, Ringberg, and Perac- chio 2008; Oswald 1999; Park 2005). Acculturation occurs as a result of two cultures coming into contact with subse- quent changes in the cultural patterns of both groups (Red-

122 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014

field, Linton and Herskovits 1936). At the group level, acculturation has received a great deal of attention in anthropology (Rudmin 2003), although individual acculturation (sometimes called transculturation) has received less notice. In consumer research, there are a few studies on the impact of culture on the consumption decisions of monocultural immigrant families (Peñaloza and Gilly 1986, 1999; Wallendorf and Reilly 1983b; Webster 2000) and a few articles on the role of culture within binational families and partnerships (Lauth Bacas 2002; Nelson and Desh- pande 2004; Nelson and Otnes 2005).

Nelson and Deshpande (2004) examine the decision making of binational couples in wedding planning, extend- ing cultural ambivalence (Merton and Barber 1976) to cross-cultural ambivalence, defined as a mixed emotional state arising from conflict between two cultures. They find that binational couples modify wedding rituals and try to accommodate different ritual audiences (parents and friends from each culture). Integrating multiple cultural elements into one ceremony results in greater creativity, as Breger and Hill (1998) also note in other contexts. Nelson and Otnes’s (2005) netnography of postings on wedding mes- sage boards indicates that binational couples use compromise to cope with conflicts concerning various wedding elements. While studies of brides and grooms with subcul- tural differences (Otnes, Lowrey, and Shrum 1997) have found similar coping mechanisms, Nelson and Otnes (2005) attribute cross-cultural brides’ wider range of coping mechanisms to the complexity of their task. Note that these studies examine binational couples solely at the formative stage of the family, and only in the context of one event.

In her research on cross-border marriages between Greek–German couples, Lauth Bacas (2002) notes that binational partners must develop coping strategies to deal with disparate family networks as well as specific compe- tencies such as tolerance, patience, and the ability to find and live with compromise. These couples face both a need and an opportunity to create a common family culture that bridges their cultural differences. Meng and Gregory (2005, p. 1) define intermarriage as a union of an immigrant with a non-English-speaking background and a native. They suggest that in Australia, through intermarriage, immigrants acquire “host country customs, language skills, knowledge of the local labour market, and obtain contacts and connec- tions,” speeding economic assimilation. They find signifi- cantly higher incomes for immigrants who intermarry versus immigrants who do not. We argue that, in addition to a labor market advantage, intermarriage offers a consumption advantage because immigrants who intermarry learn the consumer market as well. In her study of children of Asian immigrants, Park (2005) documents an important role for consumption in creating an American household identity. Cross and Gilly (2013a) note that binational families act as links between cultures, both within and outside the household, and provide a setting for decision making and creative consumption.

Family Decision Making

family decision-making literature stream has focused on For 50 years, research in household decision making focused

economic sources of power, ignoring the power and status on the influence of gender on decision-making roles (Davis

that cultural knowledge bestows. Robbins (2005) examines 1970; Green and Cunningham 1975; Shuptrine and Samuel-

the development of Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, son 1976) and the decision-making process (Davis and

concluding that Bourdieu’s interest was in understanding Rigaux 1974; Putnam and Davidson 1987). Wilk and Net-

cultural tastes and the use of objective culture. We argue ting (1984, p. 2) argue that “as a culturally defined emic

that the understanding of one’s culture of residence in gen- unit, the household is certainly of analytic value.” Studies

eral, not merely understanding cultural tastes, is also an asset on household decision making have been conducted in dif-

that confers power in decision making within the family. ferent countries (Davis and Rigaux 1974; Webster 2000), as

Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of cultural capital has been researchers have discovered that marital roles differ across

investigated extensively in educational sociology. DiMaggio cultures (Green et al. 1983). However, these non–North

and Mohr’s (1985) influential longitudinal study examines American studies remained culturally homogeneous within

the effects of status-culture participation on educational the family units studied.

attainment and marital selection. The authors operationalize Research has shown that the base of conjugal power in a

cultural capital as participation in high culture (e.g., attend- particular household often drives gender differences in mari-

ing symphony concerts, arts events, having a “cultivated tal roles (Blood and Wolfe 1960; Raven, Centers, and

self-image”). Other authors have used similar operational- Rodrigues 1975; Wolfe 1959). These gender differences

izations of cultural capital to investigate outcomes such as have evolved over time as marital roles have become more

educational attainment (De Graaf 1986) and English lan- egalitarian (Belch and Willis 2002; Lackman and Lanasa

guage achievement (Khodadady, Alaee, and Natanzi 2011). 1993; Qualls 1987). Commuri and Gentry (2000, p. 10) criti-

Kingston (2001) questions the way scholars have cize this literature stream for suggesting that many family

applied cultural capital theory in education research, calling decisions are “either/or” without recognizing that these

it “the unfulfilled promise.” Lareau and Weininger (2003, p. decisions “not only constitute conscious choice, but also

587) are critical of what they call the “dominant interpreta- incorporate a shared consensus, mutual trust, and a desire to

tion” of cultural capital as competence in “high-brow” aes- maintain harmony.” Epp and Price (2008) support this cri-

thetic culture, deeming it a narrower definition than Bour- tique, contending that the family research literature has

dieu intended: “the critical aspect of cultural capital is that ignored the notion that households act as collective enter-

it allows culture to be used as a resource that provides prises and experience the dynamics and tensions manifest

access to scarce rewards, is subject to monopolization, and, in any collective identity. Economic capital as a source of

under certain conditions, may be transmitted from one gen- conjugal power has also been overemphasized in the family

eration to the next.” We agree that previous literature has decision-making literature stream, to the detriment of con-

conceptualized cultural capital too narrowly, ignoring the sidering other forms of capital.

resources that accrue to people who have a deep understanding of the culture in which they reside.

Expertise and Capital in the Home

We suggest that understanding the dominant culture in

A major focus of the family decision-making research has terms of day-to-day norms and expectations—what we term been the power that stems from the economic capital the

“cultural competence”—is a basic form of cultural capital spouses contribute, with a proliferation of theories such as

that is readily available to people raised in that culture and resource theory (Blood and Wolfe 1960), social power

at least partially hidden from nonnatives. Although such theory, and gender- or category-based theories (Davis 1970;

knowledge may lead to understanding high culture (e.g., Qualls 1987). It is argued that shifts in power occur as a

becoming familiar with Chinese opera when living in result of shifts in economic resources. Thus, greater egali-

China), we argue that understanding how Norwegians shop tarianism in decision making in the home coincided with

for bread in Norway or the basics of cricket in India is also women joining the workforce (Lackman and Lanasa 1993;

a form of cultural capital and a source of expertise. Lan- Putnam and Davidson 1987).

guage can also be a form of cultural capital (Blackledge Bases of power have been categorized as coercive,

2001). Immigrants find their cultural knowledge lacking reward-based, legitimate, referent, and expert (Belch and

when engaging in consumption activities such as shopping, Willis 2002; Raven, Centers, and Rodrigues 1975; Webster

eating, and socializing. Those who possess cultural compe- 2000). Expert power is relevant here and is defined as the

tence are advantaged in daily life both outside and within power that comes from reliance on a family member’s supe-

the home.

rior knowledge and experience. Expertise as a source of Wilk (1989, p. 30) criticizes consumer research for power is also based on trust and the belief that the particular

elaborating particular concepts and tools to understand family member indeed possesses substantial knowledge or

household decision making “in a narrowly defined cultural experience (French and Raven 1959; Raven 1992; Raven,

context,” and yet little has improved in the ensuing years. Schwarzwald, and Koslowsky 1998).

Commuri and Gentry (2005) also advocate attention to the Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of cultural capital—defined

diversity of household forms (e.g., households in which as assets in the form of one’s talents and intellect (embodied

wives are breadwinners, second marriages), which we state), cultural goods (objectified state), and educational

extend to include culturally diverse households. By examin- qualifications (institutionalized state)—is relevant here. The

ing binational households, we expose the role of cultural

Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 123 Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 123

decisions on the triangle are based on an average across the address cultural differences.

four aspects of the decision process as well as across par- Our focus is on family decision making in binational

ticipants. Decisions for which the mean relative influence is families, in which we find that cultural competence influ-

1.5 or less are husband-dominant, 2.5 or more are wife- ences the allocation of decision roles. Cultural competence

dominant, and between 1.5 and 2.5 are joint: either syn- can be considered a type of cultural capital in that resources

cratic (defined as more than 50% of families surveyed make are more available to those who possess it.

a decision jointly) or autonomic (less than 50% of families make a decision jointly). The decision phases (syncratic or

Methodology autonomic) can have implications for the type of hierarchi-

cal models and communication strategies to be used for Data for the study were collected through surveys and 60-

these families (Davis and Rigaux 1974). The feasibility tri- to 90-minute in-depth interviews with spouses in binational

angle represents the theoretical distribution of husband– households. Data were collected from 16 couples and 2 indi-

wife authority relationships. The greater the shared author- vidual spouses whose partners were unable to participate.

ity, the more equal the relative authority of the husband and The 18 families consist of 10 immigrant women married to

wife.

U.S. men and 8 immigrant men married to U.S. women. Analysis of the interview data followed the grounded The study uses a purposive sample, and spouses were inter-

theory approach, using differing levels of coding and an viewed separately and consecutively. The sample included iterative back-and-forth process between the emerging cate- participants from key immigrant groups in the United States gories and the literature to make sense of the data and (Filipino and Mexican) as well as participants from a wider develop themes (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Locke 1996; range of countries: Taiwan, Chile, Australia, Iran, Belarus, Strauss and Corbin 1998). Our emphasis is on acquiring Vietnam, and South Africa. The split by gender and nation- deep insights into binational families, their decision mak- ality was driven by availability and the demographic char- ing, and the processes by which these households accom- acteristics of out-marriage (i.e., marriage outside one’s eth- modate cultural preferences. Our ultimate aim is to generate nic group) in the United States. Breger and Hill (1998, p. 2) theory about culture’s influence on family decision making argue that “there are features common to almost all cross-

and consumption.

cultural marriages,” even when comparing very different cultural contexts. The 34 participants all have at least some

As part of a follow-up study, we interviewed six addi- college education and reside in middle-class neighborhoods

tional adult participants, two men and four women, who with incomes ranging from $45,000 to $113,000. Table 1

grew up in binational homes in the United States. These provides a profile of the interview participants.

participants had parents from Ghana and the United States, At the beginning of the interview sessions, participants

Germany and the United States, Japan and the United completed a survey that asked about the decision maker in

States, and Nigeria and the United States. These partici- the household for different aspects of the decision-making

pants described their childhood, current experiences, and process for 15 product categories. Categories are based on

the influence of the dual cultures on their consumption, questionnaires used by Davis and Rigaux (1974) and Put-

societal interactions, and perceptions of identity. We used nam and Davidson (1987), who viewed these categories as

these additional data to explicate some of the findings in representative of the larger group of economically conse-

this study. We audiotaped all interviews and later tran- quential decisions within families. The survey was used to

scribed and extensively reviewed the interview data. assist informants in thinking about the subject matter, facil-

itate further discussion, and gather crucial decision-making

Decision-Making Roles and

data about decision roles within these families. This mixed- method embedded design (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011)

Influence

enabled us to collect both quantitative and qualitative data Survey responses showed spousal agreement at an average within a single participant interaction.

of 70% and 73% for the decision categories of “when to We mapped the survey data using the perceptual mapping

purchase” and “what to purchase,” respectively, and 67% technique (feasibility triangle) originally suggested by Wolfe

and 65% for the decision categories of “where to purchase” (1959) and later employed by Davis and Rigaux (1974).

and “how much to pay.” This result is consistent with prior The vertical axis of the triangle represents the relative influ-

literature using similar types of decision categories (Davis ence of the husband and wife in the decision, ranging from

and Rigaux 1974; Putnam and Davidson 1987). Decisions husband-dominant = 1, joint = 2, to wife-dominant = 3, as

involving other groceries, vehicles, children’s toys/clothing, indicated by the participant. The horizontal axis shows the

and children’s schools/colleges had the highest levels of extent of role specialization as measured by the percentage

agreement (same), whereas decisions on computer-related of families reporting that a decision is jointly made. The

equipment had the lowest agreement levels (different) (see two axes converge at a point 2, 100%; the triangular feasi-

Table 2).

bility region reflects that the axes are nonindependent. Figure 1 plots the mean relative influence of all 15 deci- Mapping the data enables us to easily gauge both the aver-

sion categories across all participants. Although they are not age relative influence and extent of role specialization for

generalizable due to the small size and purposive nature of each decision as well as similarity or dissimilarity among

the sample, the decision plots suggest a high degree of joint

124 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014

TABLE 1 Participant Profiles

Cultural Identity Immigrant Spouse

Participant Country of Perception of Age Years in Years of Couple Name Origin Self Report Children’s Identity Gender (Years) Citizen United States Marriage Children Residence

1 Alonso Mexico Mexican Mexican American Male 41 Yes 20 10 Yes Orange County, CA

Edith United States American American Female 47 Yes N.A. 2 Gillian Philippines Filipino Filipino American Female 41 Yes 20 13 Yes Orange County, CA 3 Hannah Philippines Non-American Citizens of the world Female 41 No 20 11 Yes Orange County, CA

John United States American No label, just people Male 50 Yes N.A. 4 Lanna United States American Mexican American Female 40 Yes N.A. 11 Yes Orange County, CA

Jorge Mexico Mexican Mexican American Male 40 Yes 15 5 Candice United States American American Female 42 Yes N.A. 20 Yes Orange County, CA 6 Cassie Philippines Filipino American American Filipino Female 39 Yes 22 9 Yes Orange County, CA

Ed United States Filipino American American Filipino Male 38 Yes N.A. 7 Jim United States Filipino Filipino American, fused Male 41 Yes N.A. 1 Expecting Honolulu, HI

w/local Hawaiian values Sarah Philippines Filipino — c Female 31 No 2

8 Julio Mexico Mexican American with Male 53 No 24 23 Yes Orange County, CA

Mexican roots Sally United States American — c Female 59 Yes N.A.

Cul

9 Terry United States American Filipino Black American Male 49 Yes N.A. 15 a Yes Los Angeles

tur

County, CA

Com al

Ria Philippines Filipino Filipino American Female 44 Yes b 28 6

10 Rosa United States Mexican American Mexican American Female 26 Yes N.A. 6 Yes Orange County, CA

David Mexico Mexican American Mexican American Male 32 Yes 14

11 Leila Taiwan Asian American American Female 48 Yes 17 17 Yes Orange County, CA

nc te

Kenny United States Irish Chinese American Male 51 Yes N.A.

12 Simone Chile Chilean and American American Female 28 No 4 4 Yes Orange County, CA

e Charlie United States Caucasian Caucasian Male 28 Yes N.A.

and

13 Sharon United States White/Caucasian White/Caucasian Female 38 Yes N.A. 7 Yes Orange County, CA

Cul

Colin Australia Caucasian or Australian Australian American Male 34 No 9 14 Karen United States Caucasian Caucasian Female 36 Yes N.A. 5 Yes Orange County, CA

tur

Alan Iran White/Caucasian American Male 45 Yes 23

15 Leona Former Soviet Caucasian Caucasian Female 31 Yes 10 2 Yes Orange County, CA

Com

Union, now Belarus

Simon United States Caucasian Not sure Male 35 Yes N.A.

16 Liang Vietnam Chinese Half Chinese, Female 48 Yes 19 10 Yes Orange County, CA

half American

or at

Daniel United States Caucasian Asian and Caucasian Male 47 Yes N.A. 17 Linda United States White not Hispanic White/American Female 45 Yes N.A. 8 Yes Orange County, CA

Gerald South Africa Caucasian Caucasian Male 42 Yes 8

ec 18 Kent United States Caucasian Japanese or Asian or Male 30 Yes N.A. 5 Yes Orange County, CA

more than one ethnicity

ni sm Tokimi Japan Japanese Japanese American Female 36 No 8 s

a Respondent seems to be including number of years of cohabitation before marriage. /1 b Naturalized citizen at birth through father.

25 c Respondent did not provide this response. Notes: N.A. = not applicable. Participants’ names have been disguised.

TABLE 2 Response Agreement Between Spouses

When to Purchase? Where to Purchase? What to Purchase? How Much to Pay? Same Different Same Different Same Different Same Different

Food 63 38 69 31 56 44 56 44 Other grocery items 81 19 88 13 75 25 81 19 Small appliances 75 25 63 38 56 44 56 44 Major appliances 81 19 67 33 67 33 67 33 Computer equipment 53 47 47 53 53 47 53 47 Furniture 69 26 69 31 63 38 56 44 Vehicles 94 6 69 31 88 13 75 25 Home decorations/decor 60 40 50 50 69 31 44 56 Music 60 40 57 43 71 29 57 43 Children’s toys and clothing 88 13 69 31 75 25 75 25 Children’s schools/colleges 80 20 73 27 87 13 73 27 Investments and savings plans 69 31 75 25 81 19 81 19 Insurance (life, auto, home) 69 31 69 31 69 31 69 31 Vacations/family trips 69 31 73 27 75 25 69 31 Capital improvements/remodeling 80 20 67 33 71 29 57 43

Average agreement 73 27 67 33 70 30 65 35 Notes: Responses are from 16 families. This table does not include responses from surveys with only one spouse or responses for couples

with missing data for the particular question in a category.

FIGURE 1 Decisions for 18 Binational Families Surveyed

Wife- Dominant

Home decorations/decor

Children’s toys and clothing

R 2.5 e la ti e v

u Food fl

Other groceries

Small appliances

Children’s schools/college

b s Syncratic u Major appliances

Furniture

Vacation

Autonomic

Vehicles

Capital exp./remodeling

Computer equipment

W iv

1.5 e s

Husband-Dominant

Extent of Role Specialization

126 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014 126 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014

FIGURE 2

these families. Influence of the husbands and wives is shared

Decisions for Families

in all but 2 of the 15 decisions. Greater egalitarianism is consistent with the findings of Putnam and Davidson (1987),

A: Families with Immigrant Wife and American

who compare the Davis and Rigaux (1974) study with their

Husband

study for 12 data points. They hypothesized that over the

ten or more years following the Davis and Rigaux study,

3.0 la

movement away from sex-role-dominated decision making

Wife-Dominant

ti e v

toward more joint decisions reflected women’s increased

resources and corresponding shifts toward egalitarianism.

Other grocery

fl u

Our data show a complete shift away from husband-

Children’s toys and clothing Food

2.5 n e

Home decorations/Decor

dominant decisions, and yet the wife still retains a dominant

influence over children’s toys and clothing and home deco-

Small appliances

rations and decor. The data also portray a heavier influence

of the wife over decisions regarding food and other gro-

s/college

Syncratic Furniture

Vacation

Autonomic

Major appliances

ceries, a reflection of the prevailing roles of the wives in

this study as primary caretakers of children and home, as

Music

Capital exp./Remodeling

1.5 s

the interviews confirm. The main decision over which hus-

Computer equipment

bands still have a higher relative influence is computer

Data were then divided between families with American

husbands and immigrant wives and families with immigrant

Extent of Role Specialization

husbands and American wives. Our analysis again shows that husbands and wives tend to share influence over deci-

B: Families with Immigrant Husband and American

sions, as evidenced by the large proportion of joint decisions

Wife

depicted in both triangles in Figure 2, Panels A and B. In

addition, decisions regarding children’s toys and clothing and

3.0 e la

home decor still tend to be wife dominant, whereas deci-

Wife-Dominant

sions regarding computer equipment still have a relatively

Home decorations/Decor

fl In u

greater husband influence. These findings are consistent

Children ’ s toys & clothing

with the overall mapping across the families in Figure 1.

2.5 n e

In the realm of shared influence, the pattern of decisions

differs. Within the immigrant husband/American wife fami-

Children䇻s schools/college

Investments

lies, we observe less dispersion and a stronger balance of

Major appliances

Small appliances

Vacation

Other grocery

Music wife– husband influence across role specialization for joint Food Syncratic Furniture Capital Exp/Remodeling

Insurance

Autonomic

decisions versus the American husband/immigrant wife

Vehicles

Computer equipment

households. Decisions regarding food purchases and other

1.5 a n

groceries are wife dominant in the American husband/

immigrant wife households but remain a joint decision in

the immigrant husband/American wife households. Deci-

Husband-Dominant

1.0 iv

sions regarding investments, insurance, capital expendi-

tures, and remodeling show a greater husband influence in

Extent of Role Specialization

the American husband/immigrant wife households but have

a stronger wife influence in the immigrant husband/Ameri- can wife families. These findings differ from Figure 1 and

decisions, consistent with prior literature (Childers and Fer- from those of prior literature. The interview data provide

rell 1981; Davis and Rigaux 1974). The wife handles additional insights into product categories for which differ-

investment and insurance decisions in only one American ences are most distinct between the two types of binational

husband/ immigrant wife household, in which the wife families: investment decisions and food purchasing.

works in the accounting/finance field. Jim (American husband) has been married to Sarah

Investment Decisions

(immigrant wife) for one year. He notes that for investments In the American husband/immigrant wife households,

and savings plans, he tends to make the decisions because investment and insurance decisions are either handled

he is the one working:

jointly or by the husband. One reason for this allocation is Yes, and that is more a function of my work and because the woman’s role in these households. Seven of the ten

they offer these incentives and programs … built into the immigrant wives interviewed in these households no longer

employment package. So it is more a matter of practicality work outside the home. Role allocation in these households rather than anything else.

tends to be gender based, with money earned by the male However, in four of the eight immigrant husband/ spouse, who also tends to handle investment and insurance

American wife households, the wives handle the investment

Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 127 Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 127

immigrant husband/American wife households, both spouses side the home in the eight immigrant husband/American

play a role in meeting the differing culinary needs of the wife households. Couples choose this household style for

family. Karen (American wife) hates grocery shopping, but several reasons, including prior experience, the origin of the

as she discusses food purchase and preparation roles, it is investments (earned vs. inherited), knowledge of the pre-

clear that it is a shared process with her Iranian spouse: vailing tax laws, and investment norms and prior estab-

lished relationships. Edith (American wife) notes, I’m largely responsible for what we need. And for getting it out of the fridge and onto the table. And he’s in charge

[My husband] has some of his own investments, but my of getting it into the house.... I get it from the fridge to the income is substantially greater than his, and he just lets

table; he gets it to the fridge.

me invest my stuff myself. We talk about it, but he would never say, “Do this” or “Don’t do this.”... It’s really up to

Interviews indicate that food purchase is primarily me.

linked to food preparation. Yet meals in binational families often reflect different cultural backgrounds. The immigrant

Alonso (her immigrant husband), corroborates her statement: wife knows how to prepare the dishes from her home coun- Yeah, it’s because when I met her, she always had some-

try and learns to prepare those of her husband. However, for body doing that and I just didn’t want to. She was fine,

several American wives, the dishes of their immigrant hus- and the person [handling her investments] knew her very

bands, while tolerated, may be regarded with disfavor. For well. example, Karen describes her immigrant husband’s weekly

yogurt drinks as “vile.” Linda also dislikes the South

Food Purchase Decisions

African delicacy Bovril (a beef or yeast extract spread), The data depicted in Figures 2 and 3 reveal that food pur-

even though it is one of her immigrant husband’s “must- chases are wife-dominant decisions in American husband/

have” purchase items in their home. Lanna (American wife) immigrant wife households but remain a joint decision in

explains,

immigrant husband/American wife households. Our interviews revealed that either the immigrant spouse shops or Like, he will make seafood soup every great once in a

while and put [in] octopus and all these weird little things both spouses shop together. In seven of the ten American

that I won’t eat, but [my daughter] will just pick out the husband/immigrant wife households, the wife does the

octopus and eat it. And [my son] will have nothing to do shopping, both to meet her culinary needs and those of her

with it, like me.

FIGURE 3 The Decision Chain

Formative Stage of Household Decisions Regarding:

• ! Whom to marry • ! Where to wed • ! Where to reside

Level of Cultural Competence

Basis for Role Allocation Source of Expertise Form of Cultural Capital

Native spouse Relative Influence Immigrant spouse

Later Stage of Household

Cultural Compensatory

Mechanisms

Decisions Regarding:

Acquiring Food Items

• ! Where to vacation

Language Exposure

Facilitating Trips • ! Which schools to choose • ! What to eat

128 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014

Thus, immigrant husbands purchase and prepare food to meet their own culinary needs.

The results of the decision-making survey, together with the interview data related to those decisions, confirm that decision-making roles and role allocations in binational families differ from the monocultural families studied by Davis and Rigaux (1974) and Putnam and Davidson (1987). In addition, American husband/immigrant wife households differ in important ways from American wife/immigrant husband households. Using the in-depth interviews, we next identify the important themes revealed about binational families.

Cultural Competence

Cultural Competence, Expert Power, and Cultural Capital

Interviews reveal the bases for the allocation of decision- making roles identified in the survey. In their discussions of decision-making roles, participants suggest that a mixture of factors are important: gender, knowledge, convenience, experience, interest, consensus, and expertise. This finding overlaps with the bases of conjugal power established in the literature. Expert power, in particular, is described as “the belief that one family member has superior knowledge or ability which will result in the best possible outcome” (Belch and Willis 2002, p. 114). Attribution of expert power has also been shown to increase with education, social class, and more joint decision making. Yet the cultural dynamic per- vading these binational households suggests another source of expert power: cultural competence. Participants identified situational factors, such as location or country of residence, as a basis for allocating decision-making roles. Some participants believed that expertise, experience, or personality would override situational factors, leaving decision-making roles unaffected by country of residence. However, most couples interviewed believe that the country of residence is

a crucial factor. They suggest that their current roles are based at least in part on their choice to reside in the United States and the native spouse’s greater familiarity with the system and culture of the United States.

Sharon (American wife), who has an accounting background, maintains that both her background and the culture of residence of her family play a role in allocating decision- making roles:

A lot of times if it’s me it’s because of my background, what I do for a living, or because I grew up here. I have some special knowledge that he doesn’t have.

Charlie (American husband), married to Simone (Chilean wife), states,

I think a lot of the decision making came down to the fact that this is my home country and when we need to get certain things like small appliances or things like that, I have

a better understanding of the products here. Simone succinctly concurs: “He knows more than me, and

better.” John (American husband) compares himself to a blind man and notes that if he and his family ever moved to the Philippines, where his wife was born, he would rely

Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 129

more on her decision making: “She would need to be my seeing-eye dog in certain ways.” Simon (American husband) is the dominant decision maker in his home. Yet even

he acknowledges that his role in the home is tied to his knowledge of the United States: “In a lot of respects, sometimes, I am the guy for us here because I know how things work.”

Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms in Binational Households