a conceptual study on the country of origin effect on

Asian Social Science; Vol. 8, No. 12; 2012 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

205

A Conceptual Study on the Country of Origin Effect on Consumer Purchase Intention

Samin Rezvani1, Goodarz Javadian Dehkordi1, Muhammad Sabbir Rahman1, Firoozeh Fouladivanda1, Mahsa Habibi1 & Sanaz Eghtebasi1

1 Graduate School of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia Correspondence: Samin Rezvani, Graduate School of Management, Multimedia University, 63100, Cyberjaya, Malaysia. Tel: 60-12-256-4481. E-mail: [email protected] Received: May 29, 2012 Accepted: June 25, 2012 Online Published: September 20, 2012 doi:10.5539/ass.v8n12p205 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n12p205 Abstract Country of origin has become a significant phenomenon in consumer behaviour studies. Hence, increasing the knowledge of customers about products makes research about factors that influence their decisions more worthwhile than before. The purpose of this paper is to review the country of origin literature and mention different variables that influence consumer purchase intention, and also highlight the relationship of variables and customer purchase intention based on the previous literature. This research is valuable for promoting the consumer behaviour literature and providing support for relationships between the variables and purchase intention. In addition, it also helps marketers who work on related topics according to the country of origin perspective. The existing literature shows that all of the variables mentioned in this paper have a relationship with customer purchase intention from the country of origin point of view. However, there are many factors for which it has not been determined whether they influence consumer purchase intention related to the country of origin issue and there is wide scope for future research and development. Keywords: country of origin, purchase intention, country image, product knowledge, patriotism 1. Introduction In just over 30 years, international trade and the development of the global market have grown considerably. Companies and international marketers are also looking for more opportunities in the global market and multinational firms, which causes international competition between companies. There are many factors that have an impact on this growth as well as consumer products and services evaluation, such as brand name and perception of country. Among the many parameters, country of origin is one of the most important affecting this competitive market. Studies show that country of origin (COO) is one of the factors that most concern marketers in respect of its impact on consumer purchase intention (L. Y. Lin & Chen, 2006). There are many journals concerning nationalized stereotypes, and the understanding of different nations goes back to the 1930s. Country of origin was an interesting issue for marketing examiners in the 1960s, and researchers have argued that focusing on dissimilarity and the same options for people all over the world is one of the factors of success for them. Studies show that the country of origin of products is an indicator of its quality. Country of origin is an exciting subject for marketing managers (Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009). The impact of country of origin on the buyer’s intention dates back over three decades and purchase intention is one of the main issues considered in purchase behaviour and the international business literature (Ghazali, Othman, Yahya, & Ibrahim, 2008). Although there are many parameters that consumers consider when they want to buy something, such as brand, colour and design, researchers cannot ignore extrinsic factors like country of origin. The international marketing literature shows that consumers use this extrinsic factor for evaluating products. In other words country of origin is a higher risk for international trade because it reflects consumer intention. In brief, in respect of other studies and the literature, country of origin is usually abbreviated as “COO”, which refers to the country that manufactures, designs or assembles a product or brand with which it is associated (J. K. Lee & Lee, 2009). There are various factors that have an impact on country of origin cues like product knowledge, country image and patriotism, which will be studied in this research.

www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 8, No. 12; 2012

206

2. Background of Country of Origin Nowadays, in this modern and competitive era, in which global marketing is growing day by day, country of origin, as a significant parameter, has been studied in much research, and it is shown that this factor influences consumer behaviour and also their purchasing. The other point that studies demonstrate is that people care about which country products come from and where they are made and consider these factors when evaluating the quality of products, (Parkvithee & Miranda, 2012). The improvement of country of origin goes back to World War 1. At that time, the defeated countries, such as Germany, were forced to put the symbol of COO on their product, by those that triumphed. Studies show that the aim of this act was to punish countries like Germany thereby creating a bad reputation for them (Cai, 2002). Country of origin’s influence on customer purchase intention has been a topic of study for many decades. Different cultures and histories cause dissimilar perceptions among consumers, which may lead to different evaluations about products when they want to choose. There are many parameters that have an effect on this issue, of which country of origin plays an important role in competitive markets and consumer behaviour. Stereotypes of country and the preference of customer influence the purchase intention. Political system, culture and the economy of the country can be a cause of sensitivity to people (Teo, Mohamad, & Ramayah, 2011). Scholars have shown that country of origin has been an extrinsic indication for evaluating products since the 1960s, and that it is still a topic of study now. Globalization gives the chance to companies to distribute their products all over the world, and presents the opportunity for people to choose between different types of product; consequently, country of origin is a significant subject when examining consumer purchase behaviour according to foreign products. In addition, it is also a label for brands, which guides the consumers to know the firm and the country of origin (Chen, Wu, & Chen, 2011; Michaelis, Woisetschläger, Backhaus, & Ahlert, 2008). Additionally, scholars believe that describing country of origin is a complex job in this global market, and they also consider that “made in” is another label for country of origin. Johansson et al. (1985) and Ozsomare and Cavusgil (1991) believe that when the headquarters of the company are gathering in one country and marketing for that brand, that location is the country of origin of that product. It is also named as the “home country” of the products. There are many researchers that also describe the country of origin (Bilkey and Nes, 1982, Cattin et al., 1982, Han and Terpstra, 1988, Lee and Schaninger, 1996, Papadopoulos, 1993 and White 1979), as the “country of manufacture or assembly”. As a clear cut example, although Sony is a Japanese brand, there are some products that are assembled outside of Japan, like Singapore, so they refer to these as being “assembled in Singapore”, but when they are (Sony products) assembled in Japan they are “made in “Japan.(Yasin, Noor, & Mohamad, 2007). Country of origin is also labelled by other names like” country of manufacture”, “country of assembly” and “country of design”, in all issues it has a power to reviewing date about products and customer’s purchase behaviour, as a result buyers think about different countries according to their awareness and beliefs, so they consider their purchase in respect of this impact (Jiménez Torres & San Martín Gutiérrez, 2007). 3. Purchase Intention Nowadays, the international trade market is very competitive and there are many new ideas on the market to attract customers. In this case, customers have many alternatives for buying products, however, there are many elements that have an effect on product success and customer purchase intention. Scholars define purchase intention as personal action tendencies according to brand. They have also concluded that intention is different from attitude. While attitude means evaluation of products, intention is the person’s motivation in the sense of his or her intention to perform behaviour. Another definition declares that purchase intention is the individual’s awareness to make an attempt to buy a brand (Shabbir, M. S., Kirmani, S., Iqbal, J., & Khan, B. 2009). Other researchers believe that purchase intention is “what we think we will buy” (Park, J. 2002). It also describes the feeling or perceived likelihood of purchasing the products that are advertised, moreover, purchase shows the level of loyalty to products. Other scholars like Daneshvary and Schower (2000) believe that purchase intention has a relationship with demographic factors like age, gender, profession and education (Lu, M. 2007). There is another statement that shows that particular features of products, perception of consumers, country of origin and perception of country of origin, all have an influence on customer purchase intention (C. L. Wang, Li, Barnes, & Ahn, 2012). Purchase intention can also be defined as the decision to act or physiological action that shows an individual’s behaviour according to the product (X. Wang & Yang, 2008). 4. Influence of Country of Origin on Purchase Intention and Product Evaluation The influence of COO on product evaluation and purchase intention has been studied since the 1960s. Many researchers who have conducted surveys on country of origin effects on consumer behaviour (Cordell in 1992,


207

Brouthers and Xu in 2002, Cordell in 1992, Johansson and Ebenzahl in1986, Klein in 2002, Lee, Yun, and Lee in 2005, Nagashima in1970 and Roth and Romeoin 1992) believe that country of origin is a significant factor in influencing international marketing. The findings show that consumers evaluate goods from developing countries unfairly because of the previous beliefs of people; therefore, developing countries have a problem with this issue and face unjust evaluation. Studies have also shown that this effect differs among people similar to brand, guarantee and price, which contrasts to other tangible characteristics. In addition, buyers use country of origin as an indicator of a product’s quality (J. K. Lee & Lee, 2009). The history of the literature about country of origin goes back over 40 years, and explores whether or not the ‘country of origin’ of a product has an effect on consumer purchase intention (Zeugner-Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2010). The progress of globalization means that the customer’s assessment according to the country of origin is more complex than before. There is considerable literature on this issue from the 1980s, which demonstrates the clear proof of country of origin influence on consumers ‘purchase intention and evaluation’. Lou and Johnson (2005) concluded that COO can be a predictor for customer thoughts and preference trend. Studies show that as an extrinsic cue, country of origin helps people in judging. This happens because evaluating extrinsic cues is more convenient than intrinsic attributes, and the important thing that should be considered is that the country of origin effect is involuntary on people’s evaluation (Dagger & Raciti, 2011);(Powers, N., & Fetscherin, M. 2008);(Yasin, et al., 2007) COO can have a positive or negative impact on customer intention, according to every effect that the country of manufacture has on the perception of the buyers. In this competitive market, companies have an opportunity to participate in the global market; therefore, the accessibility to foreign products is improved. In this situation, the role of the country of origin is more significant than before in which only domestic goods were available. In this day and age, the place of manufacture may influence people’s insight in their evaluation of the quality of products. Therefore, when the number of international companies increased with globalization, more research was required about the performance of customers to lead marketers and managers in the global market. One of the most important subjects that have been studied for many years is consumer behaviour, which is capable of affecting country of origin from a different perspective. One of these perspectives is that customers basically use COO as an indicator among many attributes of a product for assessing the product. Another point of view is that buyers may use the “halo effect” according to country of origin for their purchase behaviour. This also plays a considerable role in customer thinking when choosing from a wide range of products. Every person has a special attitude towards his or her purchase behaviour and the parameters that influence it; even people who live in the same country with the same beliefs have different buying behaviours. As studies have demonstrated before, COO still affects this issue (Ghazali, et al., 2008). Another scholar, in 1989, concluded that there are different understandings of country of origin’s effect on product evaluation. First, COO has an impact on observations concerning specific products that can be extended to the whole product evaluation. Second, the country of origin also controls customer opinion about the country and overall goods that have been manufactured in that country; therefore, this perception may have a positive or negative effect on explanation of other data for specific product. Another point of view is that COO is a prominent factor that motivates concerns about the country of origin of the product, and, generally, product evaluation. Lim and Darley, in 1997, added that countries with a weak picture have a higher risk in making purchase intention (Ahmed, Johnson, Ling, Fang, & Hui, 2002). Scholars like Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) supposed that purchase intention could be labelled as an assessment of the act of buying, “or psychological situation which presents a special perception towards particular behaviour”. Hsieh (2004) believed that the origin of customer attitude has a relation to purchase intention according to customer attitude. Lin and Chen (2006) also concluded that COO has a direct relationship with purchase intention (X. Wang & Yang, 2008). As a marketing tip, North American and Western European firms that compete in the global market should be aware of the domestic and foreign market according to customer perception about purchase behaviour of these products. Scholars have also conducted surveys about the judgment of products from developing countries. The scarcity of resources makes multinational companies vast and many of their operations are conducted in developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. People get rich and the wealth of the customer in advanced developing countries has increased together with their power of purchase. This power has created the chance for Western companies whose domestic products are mature enough to trade internationally and be competitive in a foreign market (Kaynak & Kara, 2002). 5. Country Image The history of country image dates back to 1970, when Nagashima wrote about it in an academic paper. In a

Ethnocentrism and Buying Intentions: . . . . Yelkur, Chakrabarty and Bandyopadhyay

Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2006 26

INTRODUCTION Among the key issues facing all countries is the increasing internationalization of the world economy. International competition is faced both in the domestic markets and in foreign markets as tariffs are reduced, markets are deregulated, and businesses transcend national borders (Wilkinson and Cheng 1999). The deregulation and restructuring of the Australian economy which started in the early 1980s and continued through the 1990s have laid the foundation for an aggressive and internationally competitive Australian industry. Following such economic liberalization in recent years, consumer products from many countries compete with each other in the Australian market. The Australian economy grew by about four percent from 1997 to 2002, reflecting a strong increase in both domestic demand and business investment (Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs 2004). With a high and rising per capita income level, low unemployment (nearly five percent), and low inflation, today, Australia is fully integrated into the world economy and is a commercial

and financial center for the region (US Department of Commerce 2005). Australia is a country that is quite open to foreign products. It also has a small economy and population making it more vulnerable to foreign competition (US Department of Commerce 1999). One study compared consumer perceptions of ethnocentrism-pitched advertisements in Australia and India (Jo 1998). Australia and India were the countries chosen in this study specifically because the two countries differ greatly in terms of threat from foreign competition; Australia rates very high on level of foreign threat due to the openness of the market to foreign products (Jo 1998). Australia is a culturally diverse country and is a part of the Oceanic continent. The Oceanic continent is the geopolitical region consisting of countries and territories in the Pacific Ocean, including Australia and New Zealand. Other than the territories of the U.S. where the currency is the U.S. Dollar, Australia and New Zealand have the strongest economies in the Oceanic continent (Wikipedia 2005). In 1999-2000, New Zealand was the fourth largest destination for Australian exports, and was the sixth largest source for Australian imports (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005).

ETHNOCENTRISM AND BUYING INTENTIONS: DOES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MATTER?

RAMA YELKUR, University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire

SUBHRA CHAKRABARTY, Mississippi State University SOUMAVA BANDYOPADHYAY, Lamar University

The purpose of this study was to investigate if the level of economic development of a country influ-ences the effect of ethnocentrism on purchase intentions and to study country of origin as a product quality cue in the presence of other explicit measures of product quality using data from Australia. The hypotheses were tested by a series of OLS regressions. The results indicated that consumer eth-nocentrism had a significantly negative effect on purchase intentions for products from developing countries and provided partial support for the hypothesis that the effect of COO on purchase inten-tions is independent of explicit product quality attributes.

The Marketing Management Journal Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 26 - 37 Copyright © 2006, The Marketing Management Association All rights of reproduction in any form reserved


27 Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2006

The USA is Australia’s largest source of imports. The ratification and implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Australia (AUSFTA) in 2005 has made the Australian market even more rewarding and attractive for U.S. companies (US Department of Commerce 2005). The Australian economic future is also inextricably intertwined with the Asian region, which is the home of seven of Australia’s export markets. The continuing growth of India and China, which in 2002 accounted for 38 percent of the world’s population and India’s emergence as a major economic player in the Asian region with a growth rate of over eight percent in 2004 - the second highest growth market in the region, after China - has resulted in increased bilateral trade between Australia and these two countries respectively (Australian High Commission New Delhi 2005). Although the subject of ethnocentrism has been widely researched (Papadopoulous and Heslop 2003), estimate over 600 studies on the subject, little has been written on the relationship between ethnocentrism and purchase intentions (O’Cass and Lim 2002). Previous research has also stopped short of investigating if the level of economic development of a country is a factor in explaining the influence of consumer ethnocentrism on purchase intentions. Also, there is no evidence of the studies investigating the impact of country of origin as a product quality cue in the presence of explicit product quality evaluations. The purpose of this study is to investigate if the level of economic development of a country influences the effect of ethnocentrism on purchase intentions and to study country of origin as a product quality cue in the presence of other explicit measures of product quality. This study is expected to fill a void in the literature and provide managerial directions to international competitors seeking expansion into the Australian market.

LITERATURE REVIEW Ethnocentrism The sociological meaning of ethnocentrism as defined by Sumner is: “the view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and related with reference to it .... Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts in its own divinities and looks with contempt on outsiders” (1906, p. 13). Shimp and Sharma (1987) define consumer ethnocentrism as the belief held by consumers about the appropriateness and morality of purchasing foreign-made products. Consumer ethnocentrism results first from the love and concern for one’s own country and the fear of losing control of one’s economic interests from the harmful effects of imports (Sharma, Shimp and Shin 1995). Consumers who are highly ethnocentric are unwilling to purchase foreign products and tend to look at the issue of buying foreign goods as a moral rather than just an economic problem. From a managerial perspective, ethnocentrism refers to consumers’ preference for domestic products and prejudice against imports. Ethnocentric consumers tend to purchase domestic products even if the quality is lower than that of imports (Wall and Heslop 1986). However, high ethnocentrism scores found in developed countries may mean that consumers in these countries prefer domestically-made products first, followed by products from other highly developed countries, followed by products from less developed countries (Wang and Lamb 1980; Okechuku 1994). When ethnocentrism scores for a country are high, generally, consumers take country of origin into consideration when evaluating products (Ahmed et al. 2004). The construct of ethnocentrism prevails; consumers’ patriotic emotions have an effect on purchase intentions and ultimately behavior. Many country-of-origin studies conducted in various countries, such as the United States (Shimp and Sharma 1987), Canada (Hung 1989), France (Baumgartner and Jolibert 1977),



the United Kingdom (Bannister and Saunders 1978), and Korea (Sharma, Shimp and Shin 1995) have illustrated that consumers with ethnocentric tendencies have a proclivity to evaluate domestic products unreasonably favorably compared to imported products. This indicates a definite positive association between ethnocentrism and evaluation of products made domestically, and a negative association between ethnocentrism and evaluation of imported products. Country of Origin During the last three decades, numerous articles have examined various aspects of country-of-origin influence. Country of origin (COO) is an overall perception of a country (Nagashima 1977; Wall and Heslop 1986; Papadopolous and Heslop 2003). There is also evidence that COO is contingent on a specific product category (Gaedeke 1973; Cattin, Jolibert and Lohnes 1982; Eroglu and Machleit 1988; Han and Terpstra 1988). Consumers’ judgments of product quality are thought to be influenced by the country associated with the product (Klein, Ettenson and Morris 1998). There is a substantial body of research on consumers’ evaluation of products based on the country-of-origin (Papadopolous and Heslop 1993; Maheswaran 1994). People tend to have stereotypical notions concerning products and people of other countries, and real product evaluations are almost always influenced by country stereotyping (Bilkey and Nes 1982; Cordell 1992; Tse and Gorn 1993). Products from more developed countries are generally found to receive more positive evaluations from consumers than products from less developed countries (Gaedeke 1973).

THE CURRENT STUDY AND HYPOTHESES

The study of ethnocentrism and purchase intentions would be appropriate in a product market where fierce competition exists between

domestic and foreign-made products. It is necessary to select an appropriate product category, in view of the previously documented relationship between the strength of COO effects and the nature of the product (Liefeld 1993). The textile, clothing, and footwear industry is undergoing significant restructuring in Australia. The government’s target is to have complete free trade in this sector by the year 2010. As a result of the gradual phasing out of tariffs, domestic manufacturers are facing extreme competition from imports from Asian countries. The Australian government recently eliminated a number of existing taxes for consumers on textile products and added a ten percent goods and services tax (GST) on the reduced cost base instead. As a result, the retail prices of textiles and clothing are expected to rise (Ahern 2000). As a consequence of the reduction of tariffs for imports and the creation of the new GST, the demand for this product category is expected to slow down. The textile and clothing market in Australia is going to become a highly competitive one, with a large number of imports competing with domestic brands. Level of Economic Development, Ethnocentrism and Purchase Intentions Cordell (1993) studied the effect of country of origin based on the economic level of the producer country. That is, the economic level of the producer country was investigated as a determinant of consumers’ value for the product from that country and it was concluded that consumers prefer products from highly developed countries over those from less developed countries. The few studies that specifically examined the effect of the level of economic development of a country on product quality judgments show that consumers derogate products from less developed countries (Gaedeke 1973; Cordell 1991; Cordell 1993; Heslop, Papadopolous and Bourk 1998), it is assumed that consumers lack confidence in product quality of goods originating from such countries. Along similar lines, as Okechuku (1994) and Wang and Lamb



(1980) demonstrated, consumers in highly developed countries prefer to purchase products originating from highly developed countries. Research on ethnocentrism indicates that for a country with strong ethnocentrism, country of origin becomes significantly important when evaluating products (Ahmed et al. 2004). In addition, there is a definite positive association between ethnocentrism and evaluation of products made domestically, and a negative association between ethnocentrism and evaluation of imported products. In summary, previous research on consumer ethnocentrism has focused on the impact of ethnocentrism on: attitudes and behavioral intentions (Shimp and Sharma 1987), beliefs about products (Netemeyer, Durvasula and Lichenstein 1991), product and behavioral attitudes (Durvasula, Andrews and Netemeyer 1997), product ownership (Nielsen and Spence 1997), brand preference and purchase intention (O’Cass and Lim 2002), and actual purchases (Shoham and Brenþiþ 2003). None of these studies investigated if the impact of ethnocentrism on purchase intentions is influenced by the level of economic development of the country. Therefore: H1: The effect of ethnocentrism on purchase

intention varies by level of economic development of the competing countries.

Country of Origin and Purchase Intentions There is a substantial body of research on consumers’ evaluation of products based on the country-of-origin (Papadopolous and Heslop, 1993; Maheswaran 1994; Liefield 2004; Ahmed, d’Astous and Champagne 2005; Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop and Mourali 2005; Liu and Johnson 2005; Speece and Nguyen 2005). A product’s COO is an informational cue which, like other informational cues such as price, brand name, etc., helps consumers evaluate products and develop attitudes towards them (Papadopoulos and Heslop 1993). The most direct way in

which this cue can be given is through the product’s “made in” label. In spite of the current proliferation of global brands, COO remains an important factor in consumer product evaluation (Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop and Mourali 2005). Consumers tend to exhibit “national stereotyping,” which is a biased way of thinking about people and products from a country (Johansson and Thorelli 1985; Cordell 1992). Consumers’ perceptions of a foreign country (economic prosperity, technological advances, etc.) are often translated into consistent perceptions regarding the quality of products from that country (Bilkey and Nes 1982). A consumer might be cognitive of positive characteristics of those countries towards which she has a positive attitude, and such positive cognition and attitude might well result in the consumer purchasing products made in those countries (Schooler and Sunoo 1969). Country of origin studies continue to provide value for several reasons. Country of origin plays an important role in the perceptions of product quality and influence(s) consumers’ choice of brands. COO research that provides generalizable strategic guidelines on how to successfully compete in a global market is especially useful (Kim and Chung 1997; Ahmed, d’Astous and Champagne 2005). Although country of origin is a widely researched subject, most published COO studies have been carried out in occidental countries (Ahmed, d’Astous and Champagne 2005); there is little known research conducted on the subject in the Australian continent. Liefeld (1993) reviewed the results of experimental research on COO effects through a meta-analysis, and observed that, in the vast majority of experiments, there was a significant statistical relationship between COO and consumer product evaluations and choices. If the country of origin has a favorable image, that is, is viewed positively by respondents being surveyed, product quality has a significant impact on the purchase intention for products from that country. As proposed by Klein,



Ettenson and Morris (1998), a product’s country of origin can affect consumer buying decisions independent of other product quality evaluations. It can be said therefore, that if the country of origin is viewed highly by consumers, product quality is used as a basis of judgment since the country of origin is no longer an issue. Does country of origin then serve as a product quality cue even in the presence of other explicit product quality measures? Therefore: H2: Country of origin as a product quality cue

impacts purchase intention even in the presence of other explicit product quality measures.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The sampling frame for the study consisted of business students enrolled at two premier institutions in Southern Australia [1]. The students were citizens of Australia, and were expected to have variations in their product COO evaluations (Netemeyer, Durvasula and Lichtenstein 1991). Business graduates in Australia command some of the highest salaries of all professional occupations. They are more likely to be able to afford expensive foreign products when they enter the workforce, and hence are the target market for most foreign companies expanding into the Australian market. The survey was distributed among 150 students at the two business schools. One hundred and one usable surveys were returned, representing a response rate of 67 percent. Of the 101 respondents, 45 (44.6 percent) were male, and 56 (55.4 percent) were female. The average age of the respondents was 20 years, with a range between 16 and 54 years. Twenty-nine (28.7 percent) of the respondents had high school diplomas, 62 (61.4 percent) were enrolled in an undergraduate program, 6 (5.9 percent) had completed their bachelor’s degrees, 2 (2 percent) were working toward a master’s degree, and 1 (1 percent) had a master’s degree. One respondent did not indicate his/her level of education.

Measures of Constructs The subjects in the sample were given a self-administered questionnaire that included two sections. One section consisted of Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) 17-item CETSCALE to measure ethnocentrism (with references to the United States in the original scale replaced with references to Australia). The respondents were asked to indicate their extent of agreement with various statements describing ethnocentric proclivities on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The other section included a scale to measure respondents’ general attitudes toward Australia, New Zealand, the United States, China, and India as countries (COO, 4 items) and scales to measure their attitudes regarding the quality (product quality, 3 items), value (i.e., price with respect to quality, product value, 2 items), and image (product image, 3 items) of clothing products originating from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, China, and India. The scales in the second section were adapted from the established country-of-origin measure by Pisharodi and Parameswaran (1992). Finally, the respondents were also asked how likely they were to actually buy clothing products from these five countries in question (measuring purchase intention), also on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all likely, 7 = very likely).

ANALYSYS AND RESULTS The measures for COO, product quality, and consumer ethnocentrism were subjected to an item analysis. For each construct, items with less than 0.40 item-to-total correlations were eliminated. This resulted in 3-item scales for quality of clothing from all five countries, and 3-item scales for COO for China, India, and New Zealand. The COO measures for Australia and USA consisted of two items. Barring COO for India, the coefficient alpha for each of these scales exceeded 0.70. Thus, the measures were reliable. The coefficient alpha values of the items measuring image of clothing from China, India,



and USA were less than 0.50. The coefficient alpha of the items measuring the value of clothing from Australia was less than 0.50. Therefore, the effects of image and value were omitted from further analysis. The scale items and coefficient alpha values of the constructs retained for analysis are displayed in Appendix 1. The item analysis of the CETSCALE yielded a 16-item measure of consumer ethnocentrism. The unidimensionality of this measure was assessed by a confirmatory factor analysis of the covariance matrix of the scale items using LISREL 8.54. All items were specified to estimate a single factor (consumer ethnocentrism). The initial fit statistics revealed that the fit of the measurement model of CETSCALE can be improved by respecifications. Four items were deleted based on modification indices and standardized residuals. The fit of the resulting 12-item measure of consumer ethnocentrism was satisfactory (GFI = 0.84; CFI = 0.96; NFI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.06). The coefficient alpha of this scale was 0.93 (see Appendix I for the scale items). The descriptive statistics and correlations of all the variables studied are presented in Table I. The research hypotheses were tested by a series of OLS regressions where purchase intentions were regressed on consumer ethnocentrism, COO, and quality of clothing. Collinearity statistics revealed that multicollinearity was unlikely to bias the results since the largest VIF value was 1.525. The regression results for each of the five countries are displayed in Table II. As Table II indicates, consumer ethnocentrism had a significantly negative effect on purchase intentions of clothing manufactured in China and India. Consequently, ethnocentric Australian consumers were less likely to purchase clothing made in less developed countries such as China and India, but their purchase intentions were unaffected for clothing manufactured in their oceanic neighbor New Zealand, or in a highly developed country

such as USA. H1 predicted that the effect of ethnocentrism on purchase intentions varies by the level of economic development of the competing nations. The statistical significance of the negative effect of consumer ethnocentrism on purchase intentions for clothing made only in less developed countries (China and India) provides strong support for H1. H2 predicted that the effect of COO on purchase intentions is independent of the availability of explicit product quality attributes. Meaning, COO itself will serve as a cue for clothing quality even when Australian consumers are able to judge the quality of the clothing they intend to purchase. As Table II shows, COO predicted purchase intentions for clothing products made in India, USA, and Australia. Consequently, H2 was supported for these countries. The relationship between COO and purchase intentions was not supported for clothing made in China and New Zealand. Ethnocentrism was found to be the only factor to have a significant (and negative) impact on the purchase intentions for Chinese-made clothing. This may be caused by Australia’s huge trade deficit with China. In fact, China has recently overtaken the U.S. as the largest source of imports for Australia (Garnaut 2005). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia’s $2.7 billion monthly trade deficit in January, 2005 was its second-largest in history, exceeded only by a $2.8 billion deficit in April, 2003. This trade deficit was fuelled mainly by an increasing import of clothing and electronics from China. Fear of losing control of one’s economic interests from the harmful effects of imports is a major cause of ethnocentrism (Sharma, Shimp and Shin 1995). Australian consumers who are alarmed by the country’s rising trade deficit with China are likely to develop greater levels of ethnocentrism, and lesser intent to purchase clothing imported from China. On the other hand, Australian consumers may have different criteria for evaluating clothing made in their oceanic neighbor



TABLE I Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. 1 Buy = Buying Intentions, COO = Country-Of-Origin, Quality = Product Quality.

Variable1 Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. BuyChina 4.541 2.136 1

2. COOChina 3.149 1.516 0.305** 1

3. QualityChina 2.348 1.510 0.353** 0.485** 1

4. Ethnocentrism 2.911 1.224 -0.238* 0.135 -0.253* 1

1. BuyIndia 4.229 2.110 1

2. COOIndia 2.656 1.148 0.370** 1

3. QualityIndia 2.691 1.380 0.284** 0.321** 1

4. Ethnocentrism 2.911 1.224 -0.202 0.081 -0.257* 1

1. BuyNew Zealand 5.260 1.467 1

2. COONew Zealand 5.150 0.931 0.107 1

3. QualityNew Zealand 4.829 1.211 0.361** 0.208* 1

4. Ethnocentrism 2.911 1.224 0.052 -0.259* -0.025 1

1. BuyUSA 6.142 1.226 1

2. COOUSA 5.737 1.132 0.434** 1

3. QualityUSA 5.646 0.805 0.076 0.261* 1

4. Ethnocentrism 2.911 1.224 -0.003 0.073 -0.080 1

1. BuyAustralia 6.404 0.819 1

2. COOAustralia 5.994 0.892 0.458** 1

3. QualityAustralia 5.735 1.045 0.068 0.283** 1

4. Ethnocentrism 2.911 1.224 0.068 0.106 0.090 1



country, New Zealand. As Table II indicates, product quality explained 15 percent of the variance in purchase intentions for clothing made in New Zealand. This may be the result of Australian consumers’ more definitive perceptions regarding the quality of clothing made in New Zealand, a country they are likely to be very familiar with due to the geographic and cultural proximities.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS As seen from the results of hypothesis H1, Australian consumers’ purchase intentions were negatively impacted by ethnocentrism for clothing made in the developing countries of China and India. Consequently, clothing exporters from less-developed countries might want to use consumer ethnocentrism as a psychographic segmentation variable while marketing their products in Australia. This strategy could yield good results since the overall level of ethnocentrism in Australian consumers was found to be low (only 2.91 on a 7-point scale), and the ethnocentrism had no effect on Australian consumers’ purchase intentions of clothing made in Australia. The significance of COO as a proxy cue for

clothing quality also has managerial implications for foreign clothing manufacturers targeting the Australian market. Indian and American clothing exporters should include elements in their promotional campaigns that would project their respective countries in a more favorable light. This task would be more challenging for Indian exporters because of India’s developing country status. To compete effectively against lower-priced imports, domestic clothing manufacturers in Australia would need to keep the image of the home country favorable too, as COO was found to be a strong influencer of Australian consumers’ intentions to purchase domestically-made clothing. Clothing exporters from New Zealand should focus more on the quality aspects of clothing from that country in their promotional campaigns, since the quality perception of New Zealand-made clothing has a direct impact on Australian consumers’ purchase intentions. Chinese and Indian clothing exporters to Australia, in particular, might want to target risk-takers among Australian consumers. Targeting risk-takers (a psychographic segmentation approach) has been previously recommended as a market entry method for

TABLE II Standardized Coefficients of Predictors of Purchase Intentions1

1 t-values in parentheses. a p < 0.01 b p < 0.05 c p < 0.10

Variable China India New Zealand USA Australia

Ethnocentrism -0.19 -0.23 0.11 -0.04 0.03

(-1.70)c (-2.06) b (1.03) (-0.42) (0.28)

COO 0.18 0.25 0.06 0.48 0.50

(1.45) (2.15) b (0.59) (4.67)a (4.98)a

Product Quality 0.19 0.05 0.41 -0.02 -0.06

(1.47) (0.39) (3.83)a (-0.19) (-0.61)

Adjusted R2 0.12 0.09 0.15 0.19 0.21

Model Fit F3,77 = 4.64a F3,77 = 3.62b F3,76 = 5.73a F3,78 = 7.63a F3,79 = 8.61a



exporters with unfavorable-image brands from unfavorable-image countries (Ahmed, d’Astous and Zouiten 1993). The promotional messages from these exporters should emphasize how such risk-taking might yield better value for money.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study tries to fill a void in the product-country images literature by investigating how ethnocentric effects on Australian consumers’ intentions of purchasing products made in various countries are mediated by the economic development level of the source countries; and how such purchasing intentions might be affected by COO perceptions acting as a proxy for product quality. The study found that ethnocentrism did negatively impact the intention to purchase products from less-developed countries, while it did not have any significant influence on the intention to purchase products from economically advanced countries. Also, for some countries, COO perceptions, serving as a product quality cue, positively influenced purchase intentions. Clothing was used as the product category in the study since it represented a heavily imported product into the Australian market. Caution should be exercised in generalizing the results across all product categories, as the product category is a salient factor in product COO evaluations (Wall, Liefeld and Heslop 1989). It will be interesting to see if the results in this study hold for other products as well, particularly products that have traditionally favorable associations with specific countries.

STUDY LIMITATIONS The study has several limitations. The sample size needs to be increased, and non-student consumers need to be included in the sample to better represent the Australian population. The reliabilities of the measures should be improved by conducting more field studies, and refining the measurement scales in the process. Alternative measurement scales containing a

greater number of items need to be developed particularly for the predictor variables that are likely to have an impact on consumers’ purchase intentions. In the present study, the measures for product image and product value had to be deleted from the analysis because of inadequacies in the measures.

SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Future research on the impact of COO on purchase intentions should also include more demographic and psychographic variables. Variables such as age, gender, education, economic affluence, foreign travel, and political animosity toward specific countries have been found to significantly affect COO perceptions (Schooler 1971; Shimp and Sharma 1987; Schellinick 1989; Klein, Sharma, Shimp and Shin 1995; Ettenson and Morris 1998). The possible mediating effects of these variables on COO cues that ultimately influence purchase intentions should be covered in future extensions of this study. [1] The authors would like to acknowledge

Professor Stephen Holden at Bond University, Australia for his assistance with the data collection.

REFERENCES

Ahern, A. 2000. National Trade Data Bank, U.S. Department of Commerce [cited 21 June 2000). Available from http://www.doc.gov/; INTERNET.

Ahmed, S. A., A. d’Astous and C. Champagne. 2005. “Country Images of Technological Products in Taiwan,” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 17(2), 44-70.

Ahmed, S.A., A. d’Astous and S. Zouiten. 1993. “Personality Variables and The Made-in Concept,” In Product-country images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, edited by E. N. Papadopoulos and L.A. Heslop. New York: International Business Press, 197-222.



Ahmed, Z.U., J. P. Johnson, X. Yang, C.K. Fatt, H.S. Teng and L.C. Boon. 2004. “Does Country of Origin Matter for Low Involvement Products?” International Marketing Review 21(1), 102-120.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2005. Available from http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats; INTERNET.

Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2004. “A Competitive Economy: Australia in Brief,” Available from http://www.dfat.gov.au/; INTERNET.

Australian High Commission New Delhi. 2005. “Australia’s Trade with India,” Available http://www.ausgovindia.com/; INTERNET.

Bannister, J.P. and J.A. Saunders. 1978. “U.K. Consumers’ Attitudes Towards Imports: The Measurement of National Stereotype Image,” European Journal of Marketing 12: 562-70.

Baumgartner, G. and A. Jolibert. 1977. “The Perception of Foreign Products in France,” In Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 5, edited by H.K. Hunt. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 603-05.

Bilkey, W.J. and E. Nes. 1982. “Country of Origin Effects on Product Evaluations,” Journal of International Business Studies 1(Spring/Summer), 89-99.

Cattin, P., A. Jolibert and C. Lohnes. 1982. “A Crosscultural Study of ‘Made in’ Concepts,” Journal of International Business Studies 2(Winter), 131-41.

Cordell, V.C. 1991. “Competitive Context and Price as Moderators of Country of Origin Preferences,” Academy of Marketing Science Journal 19(2), 123-28.

Cordell, V.C. 1992. “Effects of Consumer Preferences for Foreign-Sourced Products,” Journal of International Business Studies 23(2), 251-70.

Cordell, V.V. 1993. “Interaction Effects of Country of Origin with Branding, Price, and Perceived Performance Risk,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 5(2), 5-21.

Durvasula, S., J.C. Andrews and R.G. Netemeyer. 1997. “A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Consumer Ethnocentrism in the United States and Russia,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 9(4), 73-93.

Eroglu, S. and K.A. Machleit. 1988. “Effects of Individual and Product Specific Variables on Utilising Country of Origin as a Product Quality Cue,” International Marketing Review 6(6), 27-41.

Gaedeke, R. 1973. “Consumer Attitudes Towards Products ‘Made in’ Developing Countries,” Journal of Retailing 49: 14-24.

Garnaut, J. 2005. “China Goods Fuel Leap in Trade Deficit,” The Sydney Morning Herald cited 1 March 2005. Available from http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/China-goods-fuel-leap-in-trade-deficit/2005/ 1109546803553.html; INTERNET.

Han, C.M. and V. Terpstra. 1988. “Country-of-Origin Effects for Uninational and Binational Products,” Journal of International Business Studies 19(Summer), 235-55.

Heslop, L.A., N. Papadapoulos and M. Bourk. 1998. “An Interregional and Intercultural Perspective on Subculture Differences in Product Evaluations,” Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration Montreal 15(2), 113-27.

Hung, C. 1989. “A Country of Origin Product Image Study: The Canadian Perception and Nationality Biases,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 13: 5-26.

Jo, M. 1998. “Contingency and Contextual Issues of Ethnocentricism-Pitched Advertisements: A Cross-National Comparison,” International Marketing Review 15(6), 447-57.

Johansson, J.K. and H.B. Thorelli. 1985. “International Product Positioning,” Journal of International Business Studies 16(3), 57-76.

Kim, C. K. and J. Y. Chung. 1997. “Brand Popularity, Country Image and Market Share: An Empirical Study,” Journal of International Business Studies 28(2), 361-386.



Klein, J.G., R. Ettenson and M.D. Morris. 1998. “The Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People’s Republic of China,” Journal of Marketing 62(1), 89-100.

Laroche, M., N. Papadopoulos, L. A. Heslop and M. Mourali. 2005. “The Influence of Country Image Structure on Consumer Evaluations of Foreign Products,” International Marketing Review 22(1), 96-115.

Leifeld, J. P. 2004. “Consumer Knowledge and Use of Country-of-Origin Information at Point of Purchase,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4(2), 85-96.

Leifeld, J.P. 1993. “Experiments on Country-of -Origin Effects: Review and Meta-Analysis of Effect Size,” In Product Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, edited by N. Papadopoulos and L.A. Heslop. New York: International Business Press, 117-56.

Liu, S. S. and L. A. Johnson. 2005. “The Automatic Country-of-Origin Effects on Brand Judgements,” Journal of Advertising 34(1), 87-97.

Maheswaran, D. 1994. “Country-of-Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise and Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research 21(2), 354-66.

Nagashima, A. 1977. “A Comparative ‘Made in’ Product Image Survey Among Japanese Businessmen,” Journal of Marketing 41(July), 95-100.

Netemeyer, R.G., S. Durvasula and D.R. Lichtenstein. 1991. “A Cross-National Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research 28(3), 320-27.

Nielsen, J.A. and M.T. Spence. 1997. “A Test of the Stability of the CETSCALE, a Measure of Consumers’ Ethnocentric Tendencies,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 5(4), 68-77.

O’Cass, A. and K. Lim. 2002. “Toward Understanding the Young Consumer’s Brand Associations and Ethnocentrism in the Lion’s Port,” Psychology and Marketing 19(9), 759-75.

Okechuku, C. 1994. “The Importance of Product Origin: A Conjoint Analysis of the United States, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands,” European Journal of Marketing 28(4), 5-19.

Papadopoulos , N. and L.A. Heslop. 1993. Product-Country Images: Role and Implications for International Marketing. New York: International Business Press.

Papadopoulos, N. and L.A. Heslop. 2003. “Country of Equity and Product-Country Images: State of the Art in Research and Implications,” In A Handbook of Research in International Marketing, edited by S.C. Jain. Cheltenham, U.K.: Eward Elgar, 402-33.

Pisharodi, R.M. and R. Parameswaran. 1992. “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Country-of- Origin Scale: Initial Results,” In Advances in Consumer Research, edited by J. Sherry and B. Sternthal. Ann-Arbor, MI: 19.

Purnell, L. 1996. “Australian Industry Needs Globalization,” Asian Business Review (June), 70.

Schellinck, D.A. 1989. “Determinants of Country-of-Origin Cue Usage,” In Marketing, Volume 10, edited by A. d’Astous. Montreal, Quebec: Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, 268-75.

Schooler, R.D. 1971. “Bias Phenomena Attendant to the Marketing of Foreign Goods in the U.S.,” Journal of International Business Studies 2(Spring), 394-97.

Schooler, R.D. and D.H. Sunoo. 1969. “Consumer Perceptions of International Products: Regional vs. National Labelling,” Social Science Quarterly (March), 886-90.

Sharma, S., T.A. Shimp and J. Shin. 1995. “Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents and Moderators,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23(1), 26-37.

Shimp, T.A. and S. Sharma. 1987. “Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research 24(August), 280-89.

Shoham, A. and M.M. Brenþiþ. 2003. “Consumer Ethnocentrism, Attitudes, and Purchase Behavior: An Israeli Study,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 15(4), 67-86.



Speece, M. and D. P. Nguyen. 2005. “Countering Negative Country-of-Origin with Low Prices: A Conjoint Study in Vietnam,” Journal of Product and Brand Management 14(1), 39-48.

Sumner, W.G. 1906. Folkways: The Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York: Ginn and Co.

Tse, D.K. and G. Gorn. 1993. “An Experiment on the Salience of Country-of-Origin in the Era of Global Brands,” Journal of International Marketing 1(1), 57-76.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. “U.S. National Trade Estimate,” National Trade D a t a B a n k . A v a i l a b l e f r o m http://www.doc.gov/; INTERNET.

US Department of Commerce. 2005. “Doing Business in Australia,” In Australia 2005 Country Commercial Guide. Available from http://www.buyusainfo.net/docs/x_369806. pdf; INTERNET.

Wall, M. and L.A. Heslop. 1986. “Consumer Attitudes Toward Canadian-Made versus Imported Products,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 14(Summer), 27-36.

Wall, M., J.P. Liefeld and L.A. Heslop. 1989. “Impact of Country-of-Origin Cues and Pa t r io t i c Appeal s on Consumer Judgments:Covariance Analysis,” In Marketing, Volume 10, edited by A. d’Astous. Montreal, Quebec: Administrative Sciences Association of Canada.

Wang, C.K. and C.W. Lamb Jr. 1980. “Foreign Environmental Factors Influencing American Consumers’ Predispositions Toward European Products,” Academy of Marketing Science Journal 8(4), 345-57.

Wikipedia. 2005. Oceania. Available from http: / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania; INTERNET.

Wilkinson, I.F. and C. Cheng. 1999. “Perspectives: Multicultural Marketing in Australia, Synergy in Diversity,” Journal of International Marketing 7(3), 106-25.

APPENDIX

Coefficient Alphas of COO COOChina = 0.76; COOIndia = 0.61; COONew Zealand = 0.76; COOUSA = 0.801; COOAustralia = 0.721

Items Measuring Country of Origin 1. People of this country are well educated. 2. People of this country have a high standard of living. 3. People of this country have high technical skills. 1 Item 3 excluded.

Coefficient Alphas of Product Quality QualityChina = 0.81; QualityIndia = 0.76; QualityNew Zealand = 0.72; QualityUSA = 0.73; QualityAustralia = 0.83

Items Measuring Quality of Clothing Products 1. Clothing products from this country are of high

quality. 2. Clothing products from this country are long-lasting. 3. Clothing from this country looks cheaply made

(reverse scored). Items Measuring Consumer Ethnocentrism in Australia (Coefficient Alpha = 0.93) 1. Australian people should always buy Australian-

made products instead of imports. 2. Australian products first, last, and foremost. 3. Purchasing foreign-made products is un-Australian. 4. A real Australian should always buy Australian-made

products. 5. We should purchase products made in Australia

instead of letting other countries get rich off us. 6. There should be very little trading or purchasing of

goods from other countries unless out of necessity. 7. Australians should not buy foreign products because

this hurts Australian businesses and causes unemployment.

8. Curbs should be put on all imports. 9. Foreigners should not be allowed to put their

products in Australian markets. 10. Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce

their entry into Australia. 11. We should buy from foreign countries only those

products that we cannot obtain within our own country.

12. Australian consumers who purchase products made in other countries put their fellow Australians out of work.


208

statement about country image he defined it as a “special image, stereotype and standing, which customers have in their mind about specific country ,this picture can be shaped by historical, economical and traditional variables” (L. Y. Lin & Chen, 2006). In addition, country image is one of the first variables that researchers test in according to foreign product and also carry on in international business and consumer behaviour studies (Kotler, 2011). Studying issues concerning country image has been prominent in international business for many years. There is considerable literature on this topic, which has caused misunderstandings among researchers about this subject (Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Mourali, 2005). Martin and Eroglu, in 1993, added that country of image usually refers to the “economical, political, technological and social part of each country”. In addition, several researchers believe that this issue (country image) is about product characteristics. In some studies country image is representative of the country and its people, and, also, it can be shaped by experiencing the products from before. Studies show that there is considerable literature about how country of image affects the purchase intention of customers (C. L. Wang, et al., 2012). Consequently, country image in respect of customer purchase intention is one of the most significant subjects among marketers for supporting their manufactured goods. The attention to this issue is because many researchers have demonstrated that a country’s image influences the prior purchase decision of customers. These kinds of investigation about country image and other related subjects dates back over three decades in developed countries (YAMOAH, 2005). Martin and Eroglu (1993) added that the macro point of view can be defined as the overall data and explanatory beliefs gathered from a specific country. Some scholars believe that country image is because of the halo effect, especially when the manufactured goods of a country are not well-known to people, as it affects their opinions and, ultimately, the product’s attributes and brand. The other point of view, which is contrary to the previous statement is that country image acts as a review construct, which means that the country of the product is memorable to customers and they are familiar with it and have experience about it. The level of involvement of products is very important in product evaluation, as a clear cut example, when people want to buy goods like wine, cosmetics, cigars or caviar, the country image and country of origin play a significant role in the purchase decision. However, it may have less effect on products with low involvement like T-shirts. By considering all the statements of researchers, it can be concluded that, the insight of people about products can be dependent on the country in which they are made. Therefore, country image has the power to affect customer belief and evaluation. It also has the power of making a weak or strong product, and, if it matches with the product, it has a positive effect, and, if not, it has a negative one; for example: BMW and Mercedes as German automobiles have a viable advantage because of the famous engineering that Germany is renowned for. In contrast, the royalty of Britain, fish and chips and the land, show that this country is not renowned for engineering in airline services and the automobile industry. Country image is not an important issue just for consumers and marketers, as it also plays an important role for global and international companies. Opinions about country image vary among different categories of products and the marketing of products is important according to the country image. When the customer assesses goods, the country of origin and positive and negative marketing also act as an important variable too (Chao, 1998). Roth and Romeo (1993) commented that Japan is a high ranked country in country image in respect of automobiles, as is Germany, which also has a high status (Srikatanyoo & Gnoth, 2002). Researchers add that Japan is a high rating country and has a good image because of the design and high value of workmanship. They believe that the next countries with a strong ranking in image are the USA and Canada, whereas, in contrast, Korea and China are the lowest rated for country image. The matching between product category and country is another significant variable in the literature. A powerful match between country and product means that a specific country specializes in that area. Moreover, strategies to strengthen and encourage the positive aspects of each product category and country image can be an effective way. Advertising programmes can also help consumers have a good and positive image about the product’s country (Dagger & Raciti, 2011);(Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2007). There is also another point of view that considers the country image as emotional acts, which is because of certain ideas in their mind, which might also be the image from the residents of a particular country (Maher & Carter, 2011). Some scholars believe that country image can ease the process of purchase decision, which is related to country of origin and helps marketers in developing the strategies for global companies to improve their exports. Kim and Chung (1997) added that studies about the country image effect can be a good guide for international firms to compete in this global market. Kara (2001) included that most of the research concerns advanced countries like the USA, Japan and Western Europe, which produce high quality products and are well-known brand countries which do not provide strong marketing strategies for their product , would receive little attention (Souiden, Pons, & Mayrand, 2011). One literature suggested that country image is an indefinable asset and that it makes a helpful contribution to marketing strategies and sales (Zeugner Roth, Diamantopoulos, & Montesinos, 2008).


209

Country image can also describe the findings and judgment for extrinsic and intrinsic cues to the rank of objects. The country image effect also concerns different types of decisions that people make like investors, buyers, customers, and which remain with the particular country. Overall, researchers concluded that country image influences the decision making process and product evaluation (Bilkey & Nes, 1982);(Nagashima, 1970). Country image is a vital attribute in the modern and global era. Studies show that geographic areas like countries, provinces and cities can be labelled as a brand to inform people about the locations, tourists, customers and businesses (Keller, 2008). 5.1 Country Image and Purchase Intention Studies about country of origin effect, have shown how country image can influence customer opinion about product quality (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 1993). Scholars have concluded that it has a direct effect on the perception about product quality (Laroche, et al., 2005). Additionally, researchers have demonstrated that product characteristics and customer information about sources of the country about manufactured goods have an effect on purchase intention. The effect of country image on purchase intention is a basic control, as a result, there is a connection between cognitive country image and purchase intention. The cognitive country image can be the technological and economic level of the country, which can influence the product image related with the workmanship and design of the country. Other researchers believe that country image has an indirect influence on purchase intention. When people are familiar with the product, they tend to use country of origin as data for intention to purchase (Chen, et al., 2011). 6. Concept of Product Knowledge The literature demonstrates that product knowledge has a significant position in consumer behaviour studies (Alba, 1983; Bettman & Park, 1980; Brucks, 1985; Cowley & Mitchell, 2003), and, hence, is a crucial issue for other related research. A scholar defines product knowledge as the memories and knowledge’s that are in people’s minds(Brucks, 1985). Other researchers added that product knowledge has a relationship with consumer knowledge and recognising products and also the confidence that consumers have about it (L. Lin & Zhen, 2005). Although there are different definitions of product knowledge it can be broken up into three main categories: 1-subjective knowledge or perceived knowledge, 2-objective knowledge, and 3-experience based knowledge. Although other scholars divide product knowledge in two portions: 1-expertise and 2-familiarity with products. Familiarity is defined as the amount of experience that a consumer has of the related products and expertise is defined as the skill in carrying out of product in a successful way, finally, the definition of experience goes to amount of products’ purchase and their use. To sum up, these three definitions are used for product knowledge in the literature (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). Among the three definitions described above, product familiarity is the most significant one, and has dimensions of both objective and subjective knowledge. Particular characteristics of the data of the product are defined as objective knowledge and subjective knowledge is how much the customer thinks they know about products. In 1979, a scholar found that an enormous use of new information created a high level of objective knowledge; therefore, customers with a high level of objective knowledge have a tendency to search for product information. Studies show that subjective knowledge has a greater effect on product evaluation because experience is more important than information concerning this issue, in addition, subjective knowledge is also about self judgment, and customers who are confident have less tendency to search for information relating to the product and are likely to apply stereotypical data to help them make purchase decisions. The literature revealed that customers with a high level of objective knowledge are less likely to rely on country of origin cues for their purchase intention and product evaluation and are likely to search for another trait of the product rather than country of origin. However, people with a high level of subjective knowledge have a greater tendency to rely on country of origin for evaluating the quality of a product (J. K. Lee & Lee, 2009). One scholar believed that customer product knowledge is one of the most prominent attitudes and affects all parts of the process of making decisions, and that people with different degrees of product knowledge vary in their understanding about products. Researchers also added that customers with considerable knowledge have a better ability to compare other attributes of products and evaluate them; moreover, they are more up to date and informed. The level of knowledge has an indirect relationship with evaluation bias; if the level is high, the bias is reduced. In addition, other product knowledge, such as self-perceived knowledge, has a direct positive relationship with purchase intention (Bian & Moutinho, 2011). Other scholars divided product knowledge into three categories: brand knowledge, attribute knowledge and experience knowledge (Hanzaee & Khosrozadeh, 2011). Studies show that you can measure the product knowledge in different ways, for example:

x The customer information about how much they (he or she) know the products.


210

x The quantity and type of the companies that they save in their minds and memories. x The total buying experience.

Product knowledge also plays a prominent role in information search behaviour and it is an important indicator of consumer behaviour. Usually people undertake certain actions before actually purchasing, including:

x Information search: this is a method that happens when people face several questions about consuming and they need some data about it to help them make decisions about their purchase process. This type of search is named information search. x Information processing: this is the customer’s options about agreement, accepting, selecting or retaining and it is not dependent on consumer’s information; it influences the methods of information search and processing.

Researchers believe that when customers want to evaluate products, frequently, they rely on their product knowledge after choosing the product, which also influences the information search process. Moreover, the level of product knowledge is also significant, and, ultimately, has an effect on purchase intention and buying behaviour (L. Lin & Zhen, 2005). Josiassen and other scholars (2008) concluded that the country of origin of products has a relationship with the knowledge that the customer has about the products. They also added that consumers with little knowledge use the country of origin as an indicator for the evaluation of products more than others. The reason being that they have less information about manufactured goods (Josiassen, Lukas, & Whitwell, 2008). Other scholars have shown that the level of technical fairness depends on the degree of familiarity of people with products. Studies show that customers with low levels of familiarity like to rely on technical fairness for purchase intention more than others (Laroche, Nepomuceno, & Richard, 2010). Some consumers added that they have cognitive abilities and decision strategies that are different from the people who do not have knowledge or less knowledge. Customers with a high level of knowledge have a greater tendency to have more information in their memory than people with a low level of knowledge. Furthermore, they are also more conscious about particular product knowledge and product characteristics. In comparison they are less involved in product information and analysing the quality of product is very hard and complicated for them. Frey and Foppa (1986) suggested the idea about knowledge which name is personal knowledge and means “what a special things that person do and take a contemplation for her or himself”. Moreover realizing the role of subjective and objective knowledge is very important for consumer scholars, especially the relationship between variables and constructs and the process of decision making (Frey & Foppa, 1986). Several researchers have shown that various quantify of knowledge create different prediction about customers’ reactions. The content and structure of product knowledge is a significant issue in the literature. The definition of structure refers to how data are settled in the memory; in addition, the knowledge structure in the network model of memory is shown with nodes like brand and attributes. Content is about particular information concerning the class of product and special brands in the memory and also can be mentioned as a willing to choose between different products and judging about them. Overall, people with a high degree of product knowledge have vast information and an organized knowledge structure, and, also, they are aware of the product subcategories (B. K. Lee, 2005). 6.1 Influence of Product Familiarity on the Country of Origin Image and Product Evaluation Previous studies show that country of origin is a complicated issue and that there are many moderators and variables that affect it. In addition, product knowledge is one of the variables that has a prominent role in respect of extrinsic cues (Chiou, 2003). The product familiarity definition explains how familiar the customer is with the product type. The relation of product familiarity and country of origin depends on the theories that scholars create according to how customers rely on the country of origin as a product evaluator for purchase decision. When researchers studied the influence of country of origin on purchase behaviour, the country of origin was defined as a halo that people were not familiar with, and used it as an indicator for product evaluation. This shows that when people have little knowledge and information about products, they use country of origin as an indirect proof, for example: people do not know a special lawn mower from Germany but they know that Germany is a country with high quality products, so although they are not familiar with the brand, they evaluate it positively. Other researchers concluded that customers use country of origin image as a cue for assessing products when they are familiar with them. In this issue, customers use country of origin as an alternative for the performance of the product while they have a perilous experience of their products in a same country of origin. For instance, a customer might have a positive experience for using a lawn mower from Germany and know the


211

high standard of the products, therefore, when a new lawn mower from Germany but with a different brand is suggested to the customer, he or she will accept it because he or she believes that the quality is standard and similar to previous experience (Josiassen, et al., 2008). Product knowledge also has an effect on advertisements; customers with different levels of knowledge for various type of products, show dissimilar reaction to advertisements. Customers who have a low level of product knowledge have more passion for advertisements that have data about the product, whereas people with a high level of knowledge and information have less passion for advertisements and responding to them (Chuang, Tsai, Cheng, & Sun, 2009). Studies about product knowledge and consumer behaviour have a significant position in marketing strategy. The quantity of knowledge that customers have is not only useful for information search and has an effect on it, but also has an influence on the decision making procedures, and, moreover, on customer purchase intention. Some researchers demonstrated that realizing product knowledge has a positive relationship with the amount of information search (Hanzaee & Khosrozadeh, 2011). The literature shows that customer product knowledge is the main topic in consumer behaviour studies. Customer product knowledge has an influence for the duration of making purchase decisions and in searching for information. One scholar added that customers make decisions after collecting and learning information, and, also, memory plays an important role in choosing products, because customers refer to their memories for purchasing behaviour and they should remember various data according to the different decision making processes. Other studies demonstrated that subjective and objective product knowledge is not unrelated, while other literature shows that consumers with high subjective knowledge do not necessarily have high objective knowledge (Yeh & Chung, 2011). From all the data concerning product knowledge, scholars have concluded that product knowledge plays an important role in making decisions in accordance with previous memories. They also argued about the influence of product knowledge on the willingness to buy and the value of the product and the price of particular brands (Chung, S, 2008). 7. Patriotism Another variable that must be considered according to country of origin is patriotism. The concept of patriotism had been demonstrated in political science literature and international business. Most of the literature presented about the topic of bias that comes with admiration of in-group and out-group. One scholar, Adorno (1950), argued about ethnocentric patriotism and healthy patriotism. Ethnocentric patriotism has been defined as when someone likes one’s country with prejudice, although the healthy customer is the one with no prejudice (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). Other researchers have added that patriotism includes a positive feeling besides the love of people for one’s own country, and, in this case, national power and governance are not essential. The other definition for patriotism is being ready to sacrifice for the country, moreover, patriotism is not associated with a negative feeling, (Akhter, 2007). Other scholars concluded that patriotism is an emotional feeling that people have about their own country, and that it does not mean that they ignore other countries. Another scholar commented in respect of the above that patriotism is a good and positive feeling about one’s nation and that it is the ability to view across the borders and fell self seemed about supra nation. In addition, it is an emotional sense about traditional customs, symbols and values about national attributes and it has a relationship with the coherent reflection of personal benefits as well as all the emotional feelings concerning one’s own nation (Meier-Pesti & Kirchler, 2003). Some literature highlighted consumer ethnocentrism, which is another definition related to patriotism about the customers who have a tendency to buy domestic products and brands. For instance, the proportion for purchasing domestic cars by the Americans and the French is 50% to 60%, respectively, even though there are imported products in these countries. How can this behaviour be realized in these countries? Even though the people know that the products that are manufactured in their own country may be of a low level of quality, they think about the advantages for their own society and they close their eyes through nationalistic loyalty and believe that the products of their own country have a higher level of quality than others. This influences the global market and international production (Morse & Shive, 2011). 7.1 Ethnocentricity and Country of Origin There is considerable research about the influence of country of origin on buying decisions (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Peterson & Jolibert, 1995; Samiee, Shimp, & Sharma, 2005). Scholars believe that the influence of country of origin depends on the kind of manufactured goods, consumer perceptions, country of origin, level of patriotism depending on home country and also demographic factors. Some researchers, like Thakor and Lavack (2003), concluded that the effect of country of origin of brand is more important than country of origin of the place in


212

which the product is manufactured, for example, the product may be made in Vietnam but the brand is originally from Italy, and, therefore, the country of origin plays a significant role on purchase behaviour (Thakor & Lavack, 2003). The subjects of ethnocentrism and patriotism are discussed in any country of origin effect issue. Patriotism is also a kind of obstacle for international companies for entering the global market. This attribute arises from the preference of customers and their purchase intention towards some particular brand. Patriotism and ethnocentricity are a kind of physiological variable that influences buying foreign products. Therefore, some questions come to mind concerning what happens to domestic products versus foreign products and brands. There are many international brands on the market from various countries. For instance, the reaction of customers from developing countries is different from those from industrialized countries, when they want to choose a product, Moreover, if some brands, which are hybrid, and have some relationship with the home country, it can ease the tendency in respect of ethnocentric attitude (Shergill, Rosmala, & Parsons, 2010). The literature shows that regardless of the developing homogeneity of the world market, patriotism and ethnocentricity are the strongest factors in the competitive global market (Vida, Dmitrovic, & Obadia, 2008). Ethnocentric attitude usually happens when customers want to buy foreign products and they are loyal to the brands that are manufactured in their home country, which is often the result of the country of origin effect. People with a high degree of ethnocentrism like to focus on positive parts of the domestic products and ignore the characteristics of foreign brands and have a tendency to buy local and domestic manufactured goods. The literature shows that ethnocentrism influences customer perception about the quality of foreign products and also the purchase intention. One scholar suggested that ethnocentrism can result from overestimation of the domestic products characteristics and quality or the underestimation of the attributes of foreign product. Pecotich and Rosenthal (2001) added that patriotism and ethnocentrism have a direct relationship with consumer perception about purchase intention, price and country of origin, despite the quality of products. Some findings show that for the companies whose targets are Chinese customers, the country of origin effect and other variables related to it, have limited influence on their purchase intention and evaluation (Wong, Polonsky, & Garma, 2008). Improving international deals and shaping the global economic and political trade attracts attention to the effect of various national origins. This subject shows the interest in the role of country of origin according to domestic and foreign products and its result on the international market and customer behaviour. Furthermore, as per the earlier discussion, it would be a barrier in the trade market to goods and services among countries. The tendency of customers for local or foreign products can depend on trust in the foreign manufacturers and brands, customer‘s negative feelings and ethnocentrism. Scholars found that consumer ethnocentrism is a factor that describes the preference of people about a product according to the country of origin. These kinds of studies are the result of social events and relations of groups and also human nature and conservation. Sumner (1960) defined ethnocentrism as: “Observation in which one's group is the heart of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. Each group nourishes its own control and looks with contempt on outsiders”. This statement is good for describing customer behaviour. It is also believed that consumer ethnocentrism is a set of beliefs that people have in their mind concerning the purchase of foreign products (Ouellet, 2007). These kinds of people suppose that buying domestic manufactured goods has more advantage for their own country than buying imported ones; in addition, they mentioned that this action is immoral and unpatriotic and harms the economy of the country as well as increasing unemployment (Granzin & Painter, 2001). Consequently, patriotism has a negative effect on consumer purchase intention and evaluation. These ethnocentrism consumers also protect the domestic market and economy and also the focus on the positive attributes of domestic products. This factor (ethnocentrism) is social and interracial (Kinra, 2006). Waston and Wright (2000) concluded that in the case that domestic products are unreachable, customers with a high level of patriotism and ethnocentrism prefer to buy imported goods from the countries that have the same culture as their own country rather than from a country with an unrelated culture. There is also another point of view that customer patriotism results in a negative reaction to foreign advertisements and products (Yeong, Mohamad, Ramayah, & Omar, 2007). 8. Conclusion By reviewing the different literature, it can be concluded that there are many factors that have an impact on consumer purchase intention. Research and methodologies have shown that even when consumers can evaluate all the intrinsic product characteristics by experiencing the product, the effect of extrinsic cues has more influence on consumer product evaluation. Country of origin is one of the extrinsic cues; in addition, there is no doubt that country of origin has considerable influence on the purchase intention process. Subjects, such as


213

product familiarity, have been the concern of foreign firms and companies that enter into global trade, since it can build consumer trust in order to achieve consumer tendency to purchase. This matter increases the return for the firm in the global market to overcome the strong competition in the global marketplace. References Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Ahmed, Z. U., Johnson, J. P., Ling, C. P., Fang, T. W., & Hui, A. K. (2002). Country-of-origin and brand effects

on consumers’ evaluations of cruise lines. International Marketing Review, 19(3), 279-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330210430703

Akhter, S. H. (2007). Globalization, expectations model of economic nationalism, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(3), 142-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760710746148

Alba, J. W. (1983). The effects of product knowledge on the comprehension, retention, and evaluation of product information. Advances in consumer research, 10(1), 577-580.

Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 411-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209080

Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 234-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208812

Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). The role of brand image, product involvement, and knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits: Direct and indirect effects. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1-2), 191-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111095658

Bilkey, W. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies, 89-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490539

Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209031

Cai, Y. (2002). Country-of-origin effects on consumers' willingness to buy foreign products: an experiment in consumer decision making.

Chao, P. (1998). Impact of country-of-origin dimensions on product quality and design quality perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 42(1), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00129-X

Chen, L. S. L., Wu, Y. J., & Chen, W. C. (2011). Relationship between country of origin, brand experience and brand equity: The moderating effect of automobile country.

Chiou, J. (2003). The impact of country of origin on pretrial and posttrial product evaluations: The moderating effect of consumer expertise. Psychology and Marketing, 20(10), 935-954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.10103

Chuang, S. C., Tsai, C. C., Cheng, Y. H., & Sun, Y. C. (2009). The effect of terminologies on attitudes toward advertisements and brands: Consumer product knowledge as a moderator. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(4), 485-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9122-4

Cowley, E., & Mitchell, A. A. (2003). The moderating effect of product knowledge on the learning and organization of product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 443-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/378620

Dagger, T. S., & Raciti, M. M. (2011). Matching consumers' country and product image perceptions: an Australian perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(3), 200-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761111127626

Frey, B. S., & Foppa, K. (1986). Human behavior: possibilities explain action. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7(2), 137-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(86)90001-2

Ghazali, M., Othman, M. S., Yahya, A. Z., & Ibrahim, M. S. (2008). Products and country of origin effects: The Malaysian consumers’ perception. International Review of Business Research Papers, 4(2), 91-102.

Granzin, K. L., & Painter, J. J. (2001). Motivational Influences on" Buy Domestic" Purchasing: Marketing Management Implications from a Study of Two Nations. Journal of International Marketing, 73-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jimk.9.2.73.19883

Hanzaee, K. H., & Khosrozadeh, S. (2011). The Effect of the Country-of-Origin Image, Product Knowledge and Product Involvement on Information Search and Purchase Intention. Middle-East Journal of Scientific


214

Research, 8(3), 625-636. Jiménez Torres, N. H., & San Martín Gutiérrez, S. (2007). The purchase of foreign products: the role of firm's

country-of-origin reputation, consumer ethnocentrism, animosity and trust. Documentos de trabajo" Nuevas tendencias en dirección de empresas", (13), 1-34.

Josiassen, A., Lukas, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2008). Country-of-origin contingencies: Competing perspectives on product familiarity and product involvement. International Marketing Review, 25(4), 423-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330810887477

Kaynak, E., & Kara, A. (2002). Consumer perceptions of foreign products: An analysis of product-country images and ethnocentrism. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7-8), 928-949. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560210430881

Keller, K. (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson Prentice Hall: USA. Kinra, N. (2006). The effect of country-of-origin on foreign brand names in the Indian market. Marketing

Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 15-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500610641534 Kotler, P. (2011). Philip Kotler's Contributions to Marketing Theory and Practice. Review of Marketing Research:

Special Issue–Marketing Legends, 8, 87-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008007 Laroche, M., Nepomuceno, M. V., & Richard, M. O. (2010). How do involvement and product knowledge affect

the relationship between intangibility and perceived risk for brands and product categories? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(3), 197-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761011038275

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M. (2005). The influence of country image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. International Marketing Review, 22(1), 96-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330510581190

Lee, B. K. (2005). The effects of product knowledge on product memory and evaluation in competitive versus non-competitive ad context: Within the item-specific and relational processing framework. The University of Texas At Austin.

Lee, J. K., & Lee, W. N. (2009). Country-of-origin effects on consumer product evaluation and purchase intention: the role of objective versus subjective knowledge. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21(2), 137-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08961530802153722

Lin, L. Y., & Chen, C. S. (2006). The influence of the country-of-origin image, product knowledge and product involvement on consumer purchase decisions: an empirical study of insurance and catering services in Taiwan. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(5), 248-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760610681655

Lin, L., & Zhen, J. (2005). Extrinsic product performance signaling, product knowledge and customer satisfaction: an integrated analysis–an example of notebook consumer behavior in Taipei city. Fu Jen Management Review, 12(1), 65-91.

Maher, A. A., & Carter, L. L. (2011). The affective and cognitive components of country image: Perceptions of American products in Kuwait. International Marketing Review, 28(6), 559-580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651331111181411

Meier-Pesti, K., & Kirchler, E. (2003). Nationalism and patriotism as determinants of European identity and attitudes towards the euro. Journal of Socio-Economics, 32(6), 685-700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2003.10.006

Michaelis, M., Woisetschläger, D. M., Backhaus, C., & Ahlert, D. (2008). The effects of country of origin and corporate reputation on initial trust: An experimental evaluation of the perception of Polish consumers. International Marketing Review, 25(4), 404-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330810887468

Morse, A., & Shive, S. (2011). Patriotism in your Portfolio. Journal of Financial Markets, 14(2), 411-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.finmar.2010.10.006

Nagashima, A. (1970). A comparison of Japanese and US attitudes toward foreign products. The Journal of Marketing, 68-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1250298

Ouellet, J. F. (2007). Consumer racism and its effects on domestic cross-ethnic product purchase: an empirical test in the United States, Canada, and France. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 113-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.113

Papadopoulos, N. G., & Heslop, L. (1993). Product-country images: Impact and role in international marketing. Routledge.

Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2007). Country image and consumer-based brand equity:


215

relationships and implications for international marketing. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 726-745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400293

Parkvithee, N., & Miranda, M. J. (2012). The interaction effect of country-of-origin, brand equity and purchase involvement on consumer purchase intentions of clothing labels. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(1), 7-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555851211192678

Peterson, R. A., & Jolibert, A. J. P. (1995). A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 883-900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490824

Roth, K. P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Advancing the country image construct. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 726-740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.014

Samiee, S., Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (2005). Brand origin recognition accuracy: its antecedents and consumers’ cognitive limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 379-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400145

Shergill, G. S., Rosmala, Y., & Parsons, A. G. (2010). Young New Zealand shoppers' brand perceptions and ethnocentricity. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 38(8), 613-624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590551011057435

Souiden, N., Pons, F., & Mayrand, M. E. (2011). Marketing high-tech products in emerging markets: the differential impacts of country image and country-of-origin's image. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(5), 356-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111157883

Srikatanyoo, N., & Gnoth, J. (2002). Country image and international tertiary education. Journal of Brand Management, 10(2), 139-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540111

Teo, P. C., Mohamad, O., & Ramayah, T. (2011). Testing the dimensionality of Consumer Ethnocentrism Scale (CETSCALE) among a young Malaysian consumer market segment. African Journal of Business Management, 5(7), 2805-2816.

Thakor, M. V., & Lavack, A. M. (2003). Effect of perceived brand origin associations on consumer perceptions of quality. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(6), 394-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420310498821

Vida, I., Dmitrovic, T., & Obadia, C. (2008). The role of ethnic affiliation in consumer ethnocentrism. European Journal of Marketing, 42(3-4), 327-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560810852968

Wang, C. L., Li, D., Barnes, B. R., & Ahn, J. (2012). Country image, product image and consumer purchase intention: Evidence from an emerging economy. International Business Review. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.11.010

Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2008). Does country-of-origin matter in the relationship between brand personality and purchase intention in emerging economies? Evidence from China's auto industry. International Marketing Review, 25(4), 458-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330810887495

Wong, C. Y., Polonsky, M. J., & Garma, R. (2008). The impact of consumer ethnocentrism and country of origin sub-components for high involvement products on young Chinese consumers’ product assessments. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(4), 455-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555850810909759

Yamoah, F. A. (2005). Role and Impact of Product-Country Image on Rice Marketing: A Developing Country Perspective. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 7(2), 265-276.

Yasin, N. M., Noor, M. N., & Mohamad, O. (2007). Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(1), 38-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420710731142

Yeh, R. C., & Chung, P. (2011). Study of Product Brand Image and Individual’s Product knowledge and Perceived Risk Affecting on Consumer Purchasing Behavior.

Yeong, N. C., Mohamad, O., Ramayah, T., & Omar, A. (2007). Purchase preference of selected Malaysian motorcycle buyers: the discriminating role of perception of country of origin of brand and ethnocentrism. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 12(1), 1-22.

Zeugner Roth, K. P., Diamantopoulos, A., & Montesinos, M. Á. (2008). Home country image, country brand equity and consumers’ product preferences: an empirical study. Management International Review, 48(5), 577-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11575-008-0031-y

Zeugner-Roth, K. P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2010). Advancing the country image construct: Reply to Samiee's (2009) commentary. Journal of Business Research, 63(4), 446-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.09.009

Copyright of Asian Social Science is the property of Canadian Center of Science & Education and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

a conceptual study on the country of origin effect on

Documents