8/21/2019 13 Qianpin Li

1/9

Consumer Attitudes towards Foreign Products:

an Integrative Review of its Origins and Consequences

Qianpin Li, PhD candidate, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT

Negative attitudes towards foreign countries and their products can arise from a number of sources. Consumers

may believe products from certain countries, e.g., emerging markets, are of inferior quality. They may hold feelings of

hostility or animosity towards a specific country and hence boycott their products. Equally, consumers may have

strong feelings of patriotism and pride in domestic products and consider it wrong, almost immoral to buy foreign

products.

In examining the literature on consumer attitudes towards foreign products, two principal streams of research

can be identified at first. One focuses on the impact of country of origin (COO) on consumer attitudes and specifically,

its use as a cue in making inferences about or evaluating foreign products. This often generated conflicting and

ambiguous findings. The second strand focuses on factors underlying attitudes towards foreign products, such as the

impact of hostile attitudes towards a specific country, and the effect on buying intent and ownership. In addition to

introduction, two allied concepts of concern, consumer ethnocentrism and consumer animosity, are discussed critically

and embrace their antecedents and consequences.

INTRODUCTION

Country of Origin

An extensive volume of study on COO has been conducted for decades and it is roughly estimated that over 600

studies have been published so far (Papadopoulos and Heslop 2003). Indeed this number might underestimate the actual

number of studies that have been conducted in an unpublished form (i.e., conference papers, working papers) and those

written in other languages except English. A prevailing theme in early research was inferences made by consumersabout product quality based on COO (Bilkey and Nes 1982). Typically products from developing countries were

perceived to be of inferior quality (Han 1988). However, this research was widely criticized on the grounds that only

madein cue is exploited to assess consumer intents, whereas in reality they are typically faced with many more cues.

In addition, it was argued that consumers were typically not aware of a products country of origin (Bilkey and Nes

1982). Some researchers have concluded that the COO cue was used in the absence of other information on which to

assess products (Jackson 1995) especially if consumers are less familiar with the product category (Han 1989).

More recent COO studies have paid more attention to such complexity and ambiguity (Levin and Jasper 1996).

For example, the respective impacts from the different perspectives of COO effects have been examined and tested,

such as country of manufacture, country of assembly, and country of design (Han and Terpstra 1988). Additionally the

influence of using misleading captions to evoke a specific country of origin has been investigated as well (Mueller,

Broderick et al. 2001). Nevertheless, these studies have resulted in substantial confusion in consumersperceptions with

regard to the COO cue, and have revealed that consumers are often misled or misinformed about its effect. Following

this thread of thinking, it has been concluded that much of the ambiguity and conflicting findings pertaining to the COO

effect might be due to misinformation and the more complex tradeoffs they make.

Factors Underlying Attitudes

Another stream of research aims at exploring consumer attitudes towards foreign products or brands. This

direction primarily paid close attention to negative attitudes towards imported or foreign products in general,

notwithstanding a mass of studies has examined consumers feeling on specific countries, particularly those

8/21/2019 13 Qianpin Li

2/9

controversial countries such as Japan for China, Israel for Palestine and the United States for Iran. In some studies,

consumer attitudes towards foreign products are the dependent variable, whereas the potential determinants that

generated these attitudes turn into the central focus of research. In other cases, however, this sort of attitude is

determined as an independent variable by which one understands consumer intent and buying behavior (Balabanis,

Diamantopoulos et al. 2001).

In recent years, the focus of research has shifted to examining whether hostile attitudes towards a specific foreign

country may spread to the similar attitudes towards their products. Klein et al. (1998) claims that its impact on foreign

product judgments may be extremely complex. For examples, they may result from attitudes towards a given countryand its historical resentment. Additional ingredients of its influence involve the COO-based interaction of quality

judgments and attitudes towards foreign products in general. Therefore, Klein et al. (1998) termed animosityas the

remnants of antipathy related military, political, or economic conflicts, whether they occurred in the past or are

underway. Differing from consumer ethnocentrism, the feelings of animosity towards a given country would affect

consumers willingness to purchase foreign productsrather than their product evaluation. Empirical evidence was found

to confirm this hypothesis, based on a study of consumerswillingness to buy Japanese products in Nanjing.

CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM

With the flourish of globalization and international trade since 1990s, one of the most lasting leverage exploited

for non-tariff barriers is consumer ethnocentrism or CET for short (Shimp and Sharma 1987)). By definition CET

reflects consumers intent to avoid purchase of all foreign products irrespective of product judgment per se. As a

contemporary practices of CET around the world, government procurement policy has been frequently utilized as a

high-sounding but unfair form to unduly benefit domestic industries (Kotabe and Helsen 2004). Furthermore, CET has

been prevalent as a common societal phenomena or tendency for decades (Shimp and Sharma 1987).

Antecedents of Consumer Ethnocentrism

In general, the concept of CET is recognized to derive from two theoretical foundations, namely, economic and

political.

1. Economic Environment

The economic environment has been highlighted by many researchers on its pivotal role played in shapingconsumer ethnocentrism. Some studies suggest that the levels of CET are significantly related to local economic

development (Rosenblatt 1964; Schuh 1994). They seek to acquire an underlying link between different capitalistic

stages and concomitant tendencies towards buying foreign products. As stated by Schuh (1994), throughout the early

stages of transition from a public owned economy to a market economy, imported goods are preferred by local

consumers due to a high-quality consideration. As an economy grows into the intermediate stage of transition,

incentives of patriotism come to life in terms of consumer behaviors. If an economy evolves into the developed stage

characterized by a great deal of their own MNCs, CET inclination goes into its shell silently. Klein and Ettenson (1999)

also tested a similar assumption and argued that the CET attitudes harbored by American consumers may negatively be

affected by the American economy at different stages. The above statements were endorsed by other researchers in two

transforming nations, Poland and Russia (Good and Huddleston 1995). Durvasula et al.(1997) study also proved that it

was a long-term economic stagnation that played down Russias CET scores and Russian consumerspreference for

foreign products.

2. Political Environment

Early in 1960s, ideological propaganda was considered as a dominant origin of ethnocentrism (Rosenblatt 1964).

In Rosenblatts view, politicians often demonize foreign countries in order to increase in-group ethnocentrism. In

practice, such effect actually upgrades domestic CET and can be illustrated by observing a subtle relationship between

political propaganda and CET. To be more precise, consumers living in authoritarian regimes are more liable to political

brainwashing compared to those inhabiting democratic nations.

8/21/2019 13 Qianpin Li

3/9

In addition to political propaganda, rewritten histories also can be exploited to meet authorities political

purposes, incidentally settling the level of CET (Good and Huddleston 1995). In the context of Poland, Good and

Huddleston found that consumers living in a country stamped with a painful history, like Poland, score higher on CET

than those dwelling in a country presented as conquerors in history like Russia. This point of view holds vice versa.

Consumers from a powerful or developed nation are apt to prefer domestic goods and more superior compared to those

from weak or developing nations.

Measuring the Construct of Consumer EthnocentrismAs discussed in last section, the construct of CET derives itself from the context of United States. Also it was

developed and initially validated there. As a prominent psychometric scale applicable in consumer behavior research,

CETSCALE has been examined and subsequently validated outside US in recent years (Netemeyer, Durvasula et al.

1991; Durvasula, Andrews et al. 1997; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). Admittedly, all of them still fell into the

similar background of developed nations, in which consumers often overvalue their domestic products and think poorly

of foreign goods (Bilkey and Nes 1982; Wall and Heslop 1986; Netemeyer, Durvasula et al. 1991; Balabanis,

Diamantopoulos et al. 2001).

Whether or not CETSCALE may be extended to developing nations contexts remains a pivotal issue but one

rarely explored in academia. This question for discussion becomes increasingly important with the economic growth of

the BRIC group (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Consumers there now are able to pay more and buy more for

imported goods by contrast with a stirring market full of shoddy goods produced domestically (Ettenson 1993; Heslop

and Papadopoulos 1993).

In the preceding literature of consumer ethnocentrism, the relationship between CETSCALE and product

evaluation is another topic of concern. Balabanis et al. (2001) argue that CET is strongly linked to product judgment on

both domestic and foreign goods. Other studies support this link and further confirm that those who score high in CET

value domestic products more positively than imported products (Shimp and Sharma 1987; Netemeyer, Durvasula et al.

1991).

In the context of transitioned developing countries, Douglas and Nijssen (2003) warned that dropping items from

a popular scale should be prudential, and reminded succeeding researchers not to abuse CETSCALE without testing

their appropriateness in different contexts. Klein et al. (2006) empirically verified the dimensionality, reliability and

validity of the CETSCALE in two transitional contexts including China. Furthermore, the original ten-item CETSCALEwas refined to a shorter version without statistical loss.

ANIMOSITY TOWARDS HOSTILE NATIONS

Origin of the Concept of Consumer Animosity

Tensions among countries are present throughout the world. These tensions may stem from territory disputes,

economic arguments, diplomatic disagreements, or religious conflicts leading to cool relations between countries or

even armed conflicts. The potential impacts of such bilateral disputes on consumer behaviour has gained more research

attention in recent years (Klein, Ettenson et al. 1998; Klein 2002; Jung, Ang et al. 2004; Nijssen and Douglas 2004).

Klein et al. (1998) were the pioneers who studied the diversifying tensions between two nations pertaining to the

manner of consumer purchasing. In particular, the scope of their research focused on consumers intention to buy

products directly or indirectly associated with a nation which was believed to be hostile. Consequently, Klein et al.

(1998) introduced the concept of consumer animosity against an extreme context of the Nanjing Massacre and probed

into persisting anger against Japan among (local) Chinese consumers. Their mail survey and structural equation

modeling (SEM) revealed that the feeling of animosity had a negative impact on Chinese consumers willingness to buy

Japanese products. Simultaneously, however, they also found that this kind of unfavorable feeling did not distort

consumers quality evaluations of Japanese products of interest. In other words, there was no direct connection between

a high evaluation of a product from specific country and their emotion of dislike against the same country.

8/21/2019 13 Qianpin Li

4/9

Klein et al. (1998) were able to provide evidence of a direct impact of COO on consumers buying decisions,

independent of product judgments. This finding challenged conventional arguments (Bilkey and Nes 1982; Liefeld 1993;

Peterson and Jolibert 1995; Verlegh and Steenkamp 1999; Papadopoulos and Heslop 2003). More Importantly,

consumer animosity was empirically validated to have independent effects on consumer intent of purchase aside from

consumer ethnocentrism, defined by (Shimp and Sharma 1987) as the beliefs held by moral consumers with regard to

the appropriateness and morality of purchasing imported goods. Hereby consumer animosity and consumer

ethnocentrism were specified as a pair of distinct factors which have distinguishable effects on foreign-made product

preferences (Klein and Ettenson 1999; Witkowski 2000; Hinck, Cortes et al. 2004). In contrast with so-calledethnocentric consumers whowould avoid buying any foreign goods, consumers holding animosity emotion may find

it appropriate to buy foreign products in general but refuse to purchase products associated with a specific nation which

is deemed as opposed to their home countries.

In more recent years, many follow-up studies pertaining to consumer animosity have been published since Klein

et al. (1998). Most of them provided replications in different contexts (Shin 2001; Klein 2002; Nijssen and Douglas

2004). Nevertheless, there exist other researchers who began to extend the applicability of the construct (Hinck, Cortes

et al. 2004; Shimp, Dunn et al. 2004) or refine its conceptualization (Jung, Ang et al. 2002; Jung, Ang et al. 2004). For

example, the managerial implications of consumer animosity, rather than its operationalization and measurement, have

been examined (Amine, Chao et al. 2005). Also, existing approaches for measuring the animosity construct were the

subject of critical review in terms of its comprehension and inconsistency with the conceptual characteristics of the

factor.

Theoretical Contributions

1. Evolutionary Development

According to their unique contributions to the theoretical foundation of the animosity construct, all concerned

studies can be classified into two distinct groups. The first group consists of the original studies by Klein et al. (1998),

Klein and Ettenson (1999). Each of them establishes their discriminant validity to the conventional construct of

consumer ethnocentrism, and whereafter examines the impact that animosity may have on willingness to buy foreign

product (Shimp and Sharma 1987).

Another six studies (Witkowski 2000; Shin 2001; Klein 2002; Russell 2003; Nijssen and Douglas 2004; Kesic,

Piri Rajh et al. 2005) are basically replications of Klein et al. (1998) and Klein and Ettenson (1999). These studiesattempt to validate the behavioral influence put on by the animosity emotion in different contexts, such as different

origins, different target countries and different product categories.

The second group including seven papers can be categorized as extensions because they either extend its scope of

applicability or refine the construct in general. For instance, the original spectrum of animosity has broken through from

a confined country-country relation to a region-region setting of tensions (Hinck 2004; Hinck, Cortes et al. 2004; Shimp,

Dunn et al. 2004; Cicic, Brkic et al. 2005; Shoham, Davidow et al. 2006). This implies that if hostilities exist between

regions in a domestic context, the integrated scale of animosity may be applicable no matter it is termed as domestic

animosity (Hinck 2004) or regional animosity (Shimp, Dunn et al. 2004). In addition, inter-ethnic animosities

become another significant topic given instances of extreme nationalism around the world, such as animosities between

Jewish versus Arab Israelis (Shoham, Davidow et al. 2006) and Bosnians versus Serbs and Croats (Cicic, Brkic et al.

2005).

2. Inducement of Animosity

Overall the animosity feelings are assumed to be diverse according to relevant literature in being. Klein et al.

(1998) argued that the animosity sense mainly stemmed from war in the past or economic conflicts between two nations

to a great extent (see Figure 1). This result is seized upon by all succeeding authors with the exception of Jung et al.

(2002; 2004) who propose another statement in their typology (see Table 1).

The specific underlying motives of consumer animosity, economic-related animosity is generally deemed to

derive from business activities perceived as unfair, unreliable and coercionary to the home country. In reverse, reasons

for war-related animosities are considered to be more country-specific in nature (Petra and Adamantios 2007). As Klein

8/21/2019 13 Qianpin Li

5/9

et al. (1998) argue, a large number of studies of interest are relevant to wartime atrocities or historic occupations. In

addition, diplomatic incidents are often specified as the fuse for an animosity event in the context of, for instances,

Australia (Ettenson and Klein 2005), French and United States (Witkowski 2000; Russell 2003).

Figure 1. Original measurement model of animosity constructSource: Klein (1998); Petra & Adamantios (2007)

Based on the dichotomy of economic-related and war-related animosities (Klein, Ettenson et al. 1998), Jung et al.(2002; 2004) develop a neoteric typology intended to classify and simplify various forms of animosity attitudes (see

Table 1).

Table 1: Matrix of Animosity Classification

National Personal

Stable

War

Nijssen and Douglas (2004);

Shimp et al. (2004);

Shin (2001);

Klein et al. (1998; 2002)

Economy

Jung et al. (2004);

*Klein (2002);

*Shin (2001);

*Witkowski (2000);*Klein et al. (1998)Economy

Jung et al. (2004);

*Klein (2002);

*Shin (2001);

*Witkowski (2000);*Klein et al. (1998)

Situational

Politics/diplomacy

Ettenson and Klein (2005);

Russell (2003);

Witkowski (2000)

Economy

Jung et al. (2004);

*Klein (2002);*Shin (2001);

*Witkowski (2000);

*Klein et al. (1998)

Economy

Cicic et al. (2005);

Jung et al. (2004);

Hinck et al. (2004);

Hinck (2004);

Nijssen and Douglas (2004);

Klein and Ettenson (1999)

War

Shoham et al. (2006);

Kesic et al. (2005);

Cicic et al. (2005);Note: * represents this research involves more than one variable.Source: adapted from Jung, et al. (2002; 2004)

Table 1 reveals the dominance of national-level animosities in the literature, whereas fewer researchers pay

attention to personal-level animosities. Perceptibly personal experiences, unpleasant in general, associated with another

country or people are very likely to influence their private attitudes towards that country as a whole. Therefore, it is

quite rational to differentiate national-level animosities from personal-level ones and especially rational for certain

animosity research in China, with regard to Japanese occupation among WWII.

8/21/2019 13 Qianpin Li

6/9

Another academic contribution offered by Jung et al. (2002; 2004) is an additional division of types between

stable animosity and situational animosity. As Table 1 shows, stable animosity overlapped with the war-related

animosity because they are analogically affiliated with specific historic conflicts in WWII, for example (Klein, Ettenson

et al. 1998; Nijssen and Douglas 2004). As a result, most studies of interest confuse war-related animosity with the

stable one. Yet situational animosity feeling is catered for in most recent years by Cicic et al. (2005), Kesic et al. (2005)

and Shoham et al. (2006). Any incident which may evoke painful memories of past wartime (such as the uninterrupted

visits to a controversial war memorial by Japanese senior politicians) is hypothesized a situational factor that stands a

good chance of triggering explosive hostility against Japan by Chinese consumers.Although this sort of classification proposed by Jung et al. (2002; 2004) seems to be a sound typology, one should

not overlook a potential evolution over time. The borderline between stable and situational animosities, for example, is

likely to blur. Bitter experiences especially during a war, are rationally expected to fade over the years. Thus, stable

animosity which derives from unfavorable conflicts historically may wear off gradually and finally vanish, and vice

verse. Situational or issue-specific aggressive posture can be upgraded and eventually inherited through one generation

to another generation (Jung, Ang et al. 2002; Ettenson and Klein 2005).

Following a brief review on main theoretical contributions made by many researchers to the knowledge system of

animosity concept, methodological achievements also need to be discussed, including operationalization of the

construct.

Methodological Contributions

A sound arrangement is required for scaling the animosity construct both theoretically and empirically. According

to the known literature concerned, methodological problems incorporate two dimensions in general, namely, the

underlying measurement models and item generation processes.

1. Measurement Models

The original model of measurement assumed by Klein et al. (1998) comprises two independent constructs and one

item (see Figure 1). War-related attitudes are measured by three items (i.e., X1~ X3), while economic-related feelings

by five items (i.e., X4~ X8). On the whole, most recent studies pertaining to animosity are concerned about these two

constructs as a whole or respectively (Witkowski 2000; Shin 2001; Klein 2002).

Figure 2. Formative measurement model of Animosity constructSource: Klein et al. (1998) and Petra & Adamantios (2007)

As shown in Figure 1, the construct of consumer animosity is prescribed as a causal intent and impacts the two

constructs of war concerns and economic concerns, and a manifest variable X9 (Petra and Adamantios 2007). Thus, this

model is seemingly a reflective and second-order measurement model (Klein, Ettenson et al. 1998; Edwards 2001;

Jarvis, MacKenzie et al. 2003). In view of the original intention of animosity, its rationality as a reflective model is

suspect. Based on the above statements, a formative model might be figured more consistent with its conceptual

definition (Bollen and Lennox 1991; Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001; Petra and Adamantios 2007). If so, two

8/21/2019 13 Qianpin Li

7/9

sub-constructs (i.e., war-related and economic-related concerns) may control the variation of consumer animosity as a

whole, while two sub-constructs would respectively be determined by the respective reasons underlying various

observations. So far, the original measurement model (Klein, Ettenson et al. 1998) is modified into a formative model

(see Figure 2). Simultaneously the single item X9 keeps the same causal direction.

In addition, Klein et al. (1998) also proposed alternative model (see Figure 3) to their original one (see Figure 1).

The alternative model explicitly designated two sub-constructs as formative variables which determine the overall level

of consumer animosity. Consistent with the revised model (see Figure 2); hence, those sub-constructs evolve into causal

factors which directly control the overall negative feeling towards the alleged hostile nations.

Figure 3. Alternative measurement model of Animosity constructSource: Klein et al. (1998) and Petra & Adamantios (2007)

Given such a vertiginous configuration of measurement model, it is quite difficult to undertake measurement

assessment from a statistical perspective (Bollen 1984; Bagozzi and Baumgartner 1994). Based on preceding studies

(MacCallum and Browne 1993; Law and Wong 1999; Jarvis, MacKenzie et al. 2003), Petra & Adamantios (2007) point

out that:

[] high coefficient alphas do not guarantee the conceptual appropriateness of a reflective measurement model;

therefore, the reliability estimates of animosity studies [] need to be interpreted with caution. In addition,

misspecification of the measurement model can result in biased estimates of structural relations between constructs (p.

106).

The above doubts and suspicions need to be dealt with carefully in this study in order to avoid misestimating

correlations among key constructs of a research model.

2. Item generation

Choosing a set of integrated items is an avenue of exploring and subsequently measuring the animosity construct.

The process of item generation is the first critical issue desired for a clear distinction. While a small-scale survey was

conducted concerning item generation in early research (Klein, Ettenson et al. 1998), only the approach of expert

screening was exploited to justify their rationality. This flaw of ignoring preliminary but fundamental process is more

serious in case of innate misjudgment.

This demerit of neglect is partially overcome by follow-up research (Klein 2002), in which in-depth interviewswere conducted to explore American consumers attitudes towards Japan,positive or negative. Shimp et al. (2004) do

more and firmly consolidate the proceeding research in the context of American regional animosity.

In brief, the foregoing reviews of the animosity measurement model illustrate the need for a set of much more

concrete items based on a better-designed empirical work for the sake of future research, in particular, other similar

context of consumer attitudes.

8/21/2019 13 Qianpin Li

8/9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amine, L. S., M. C. H. Chao, et al. (2005). "Executive Insights: Exploring the Practical Effects of Country of Origin, Animosity, and PriceVQuality

Issues: Two Case Studies of Taiwan and Acer in China." Journal of International Marketing 13(2): 114-150.

Bagozzi, R. P. and H. Baumgartner (1994). The Evaluation of Structural Equation Models and Hypothesis Testing. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell

Business.

Balabanis, G., A. Diamantopoulos, et al. (2001). "The Impact of Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric

Tendencies." Journal of International Business Studies 32(1): 19.

Bilkey, W. J. and E. Nes (1982). "Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluation." Journal of International Business Studies 13(1): 89.

Bollen, K. (1984). "Multiple indicators: Internal consistency or no necessary relationship?" Quality and Quantity 18(4): 377-385.

Bollen, K. and R. Lennox (1991). "Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective." Psychological Bulletin 110(2): 305-

314.

Cicic, M., N. Brkic, et al. (2005). The influence of animosity, xenophilia and ethnocentric tendencies on consumers' willingness to buy foreign

products----the case of croatia. The 34th European Marketing Conference. Milan.

Diamantopoulos, A. and H. M. Winklhofer (2001). "Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development." Journal of

Marketing Research 38(2): 269-277.

Douglas, S. P. and E. J. Nijssen (2003). "On the use of borrowed scales in cross-national research." International Marketing Review 20(6): 621-642.

Durvasula, S., J. C. Andrews, et al. (1997). "A cross-cultural comparison of consumer ethnocentrism in the United States and Russia." Journal of

International Consumer Marketing 9(4): 73.

Edwards, J. (2001). "Multidimensional Constructs in Organizational Behavior Research: An Integrative Analytical Framework." Organizational

Research Methods 4(2): 144-192.

Ettenson, R. (1993). "Brand Name and Country of Origin Effects in the Emerging Market Economies of Russia, Poland and Hungary." International

Marketing Review 10(5): 14-14.

Ettenson, R. and J. G. Klein (2005). "The fallout from French nuclear testing in the South Pacific: A longitudinal study of consumer boycotts."

International Marketing Review 22(2): 199.

Good, L. K. and P. Huddleston (1995). "Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russian consumers: are feelings and intentions related?" International Marketing

Review 12(5): 35-48.

Han, C. M. (1988). "The Role of Consumer Patriotism in the Choice of Domestic versus Foreign Products." Journal of Advertising Research 28(3): 25.

Han, C. M. (1989). "Country image: halo or summary construct?" Journal of Marketing Research 26(2): 7.Han, C. M. and V. Terpstra (1988). "Country-Of-Origin Effects for Uni-National and Bi-National Products." Journal of International Business Studies

19(2): 20.

Heslop, L. and N. Papadopoulos (1993). But Who Knows Where or When: Reflections on the Images of Countries and Their Products. Product-

Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing. N. G. Papadopoulos and L. A. Heslop. New York, International Business Press:

3975.

Hinck, W. (2004). "The Role of Domestic Animosity in Consumer Choice: Empirical Evidence from Germany." Journal of Euromarketing 14(1/2):

17.

Hinck, W., A. Cortes, et al. (2004). "An empirical investigation of the failure of Eastern German products in Western German markets." Journal of

International Business and Entrepreneurship Development 2(1): 104-111.

Jackson, A. (1995). "A Cross-National Investigation of Product Perception: Comparison of Products Made in China, India, Hong Kong, and the US

by Respondents from Each Country." Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 1(2): 23.

Jarvis, C. B., S. B. MacKenzie, et al. (2003). "A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and

Consumer Research." Journal of Consumer Research 30(2): 199-218.

Jung, K., S. H. Ang, et al. (2004). "Animosity towards economic giants: what the little guys think." The Journal of Consumer Marketing 21(2/3): 190.

Jung, K., S. H. Ang, et al. (2002). "A typology of animosity and its cross-cultural validation." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33(6): 525.

Kesic, T., P. Piri Rajh, et al. (2005). The role of nationalism in consumer ethnocentrism and the animosity in the post-war country. The 34th European

Marketing Conference. Milan.

Klein, J. G. (2002). "Us versus them, or us versus everyone? Delineating consumer aversion to foreign goods." Journal of International Business

Studies 33(2): 345.

8/21/2019 13 Qianpin Li

9/9

Klein, J. G. and R. Ettenson (1999). "Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism: An analysis of unique antecedents." Journal of International

Consumer Marketing 11(4): 5.

Klein, J. G., R. Ettenson, et al. (2006). "Extending the construct of consumer ethnocentrism: when foreign products are preferred." International

Marketing Review 23(3): 304.

Klein, J. G., R. Ettenson, et al. (1998). "The animosity model of foreign product purchase: An empirical test in the People's Republic of China."

Journal of Marketing 62(1): 89.

Kotabe, M. and K. Helsen (2004). Global marketing management. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley.

Law, K. S. and C.-S. Wong (1999). "Multidimensional Constructs M Structural Equation Analysis: An Illustration Using the Job Perception and Job

Satisfaction Constructs." Journal of Management 25(2): 143-160.

Levin, I. P. and J. D. Jasper (1996). "Experimental analysis of nationalistic tendencies in consumer decision processes: Case of the multinational

product." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2(1): 13.

Liefeld, J. P. (1993). "Experiments on Country-of-Origin Effects: Review and Meta-Analysis of Effect Size." Product-Country Images: Impact and

Role in International Marketing: 117-156.

MacCallum, R. C. and M. W. Browne (1993). "The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models : some practical issues." Psychological

bulletin 114(3): 533-541.

Mueller, R. D., A. J. Broderick, et al. (2001). Captious Cues: the use of misleading, deceptive or ambiguous country-of-origin cues Rene D. Mueller,

Amanda J. Broderick and Rhonda Mack. Proceedings of the 30th European Academy of Marketing Conferrence. A. W. Falkenberg and K.

Gronhaug. E. Breivik, The Norvwgian School of Economics and Business: 1.

Netemeyer, R. G., S. Durvasula, et al. (1991). "A cross-national assessment of the reliability and validity of the CETSCALE." Journal of Marketing

Research 28(3): 320-327.

Nijssen, E. J. and S. P. Douglas (2004). "Examining the animosity model in a country with a high level of foreign trade." 21: 23-38.

Papadopoulos, N. and L. Heslop (2003). "Country equity and country branding: Problems and prospects." Journal of Brand Management 9(4/5):

294V314.

Peterson, R. A. and A. J. P. Jolibert (1995). "A Meta-Analysis of Country-of-Origin Effects." Journal of International Business Studies 26(4).

Petra, R. and D. Adamantios (2007). "Consumer animosity: a literature review and a reconsideration of its measurement." International Marketing

Review 24(1): 87.

Rosenblatt, P. C. (1964). "Origins and Effects of Group Ethnocentrism and Nationalism." Journal of Conflict Resolution 8(2): 131-146.

Russell, C. A. (2003). Now Showing: Global Movies Crossing Cultural Lines. Resistance is Futile? Proceedings of the Cross Cultural Research

Conference.Schuh, A. (1994). Marketing in East Central Europe: an evolutionary framework for marketing strategy development. Conference on Marketing

Strategies for Central and Eastern Europe, Vienna.

Shimp, T., T. H. Dunn, et al. (2004). "Remnants of the U.S. Civil War and Modern Consumer Behavior." Psychology & Marketing 21(2): 75.

Shimp, T. and S. Sharma (1987). "Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE." Journal of Marketing Research 24(3):

280.

Shin, M. (2001). "The animosity model of foreign product purchase revisited: does it word in Korea?" Journal of Empirical Generalisations in

Marketing Science 6: 6-14.

Shoham, A., M. Davidow, et al. (2006). "Animosity on the Home Front: The Intifada in Israel and Its Impact on Consumer Behavior." Journal of

International Marketing 14(3): 92-114.

Steenkamp, J.-B., E. M. and H. Baumgartner (1998). "Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research." Journal of Consumer

Research 25(1): 78.

Verlegh, P. W. J. and J.-B. E. M. Steenkamp (1999). "A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research." Journal of Economic Psychology

20(5): 521.

Wall, M. and L. A. Heslop (1986). "Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus imported products." Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science 14(2): 27-36.

Witkowski, T. H. (2000). Effects of animosity toward China on willingness to buy Chinese product. Hummelstown, PA, International Management

Development Association.