chattalas et al (2008)_national stereotypes and coo

8/2/2019 Chattalas Et Al (2008)_National Stereotypes and COO

1/21

The impact of nationalstereotypes on the country

of origin effectA conceptual framework

Michael ChattalasDepartment of Marketing, College of Business Administration,

Fordham University, Bronx, New York, USA, and

Thomas Kramer and Hirokazu TakadaDepartment of Marketing and International Business,

Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College,

City University of New York,New York, USA

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to advances a conceptual framework in which the impact ofnational stereotype dimensions on country of origin (COO) effects is explicitly modeled anddecomposed.

Design/methodology/approach This paper proposes that the perceived warmth and perceivedcompetence dimensions of national stereotypes underlie COO effects. The conceptual framework positsresearch propositions on the potential interactions of these dimensions with product type (such ashedonic versus utilitarian and high- versus low-contact services), while the effects of consumer

characteristics (such as cultural orientation, expertise, involvement, and ethnocentrism) are explored.Findings The Stereotype Content Model is a useful tool in exploring the relationship betweennational stereotypes and COO-based evaluations as it represents a major theoretical advance in thesystematic study of stereotype contents.

Practical implications The advanced conceptual framework holds significant practicalimplications for the international marketing strategies of corporations as well as nations.

Originality/value This paper proposes an original conceptualization and testable researchpropositions regarding the relationship between national stereotype contents and COO-basedconsumer evaluations of products.

Keywords Country of origin, National cultures, National standards, Product image, Marketing strategy

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionA recent advertising campaign for Singapore Airlines stated, In this ever changingworld, Singapore Girl, youre a great way to fly, re-introducing the warm andaffectionate, Singapore Girl to a contemporary audience. This advertising campaign,positioning Singapore as a relatively warm, tender and friendly nation, exemplifies theuse of national stereotype dimensions to influence country perceptions in marketingpractice. While academic research has recognized the importance of the country oforigin (COO) effect in a variety of domains, its antecedents have received surprisingly

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

IMR25,1

54

Received August 2006Revised June 2007Accepted July 2007

International Marketing Review

Vol. 25 No. 1, 2008

pp. 54-74

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0265-1335

DOI 10.1108/02651330810851881


2/21

little attention (see Heslop and Papadopoulos, 1993 for an exception). This lack ofinvestigation is all the more startling given the strong impact of COO effects on themarketplace. The current paper seeks to address this shortcoming. For instance,despite potentially large differences in price, consumers are likely to prefer French to

Austrian champagne; Italian to Finnish fashion; German to Chinese cars; and Japaneseto Mexican electronics.

In particular, we propose an original conceptualization regarding the relationshipbetween national stereotypes on the one hand and COO-based consumer evaluations ofproducts on the other. Stereotypes represent individuals cognitive associations andexpectations about any societal (i.e. national) group (Fiske and Taylor, 1991), whilenational stereotypes are qualities (whether accurate or not) perceived to be associatedwith a nations people (Schneider, 2005).

The study of national stereotypes and their contents has generated a considerableamount of attention, particularly in the area of social cognition, while a broad array ofresearch in the areas of consumer behavior and international marketing hasinvestigated the effects of COO on consumer evaluation. This paper attempts to mergethese divergent research streams, by proposing a comprehensive conceptualframework that delineates the impact of the contents of national stereotypes on COOeffects. In particular, based on the stereotype content model SCM (Fiske et al., 1999,2002), we propose that two independent and continuous dimensions of nationalstereotypes (i.e. perceived warmth and competence) influence COO effects. We advancea series of research propositions with important theoretical and practical implications.

The next sections are organized as follows: first, we present a brief review of priorresearch on COO effects. Next, we concentrate on the construct of national stereotypesby introducing the SCM, integrating it with past findings in the COO area, and arguingfor its applicability in future COO work. Then, we propose research propositions thatinclude implications of the contents of national stereotypes for COO effects, as well as

suggest product type and consumer characteristics as moderators of nationalstereotype effects. The final section reviews the conceptual framework and discussesits theoretical and practical implications along with its limitations and directions forfuture research.

Country of origin effects: overviewWhile a products COO has shown robust effects on its evaluation, theconceptualizations of COO effects are more diverse. These range from the extent towhich the place of manufacture influences product evaluations (Gurhan-Canli andMaheswaran, 2000), to intangible barriers to entering new markets in the form ofconsumer biases toward imported products (Wang and Lamb, 1983). However,

specifying a products COO is becoming even harder, because global sourcing andmanufacturing have resulted in many products having dual or multinational origins.For example, a Toshiba television may be assembled in Mexico, but include Japanese,Mexican, or even American parts. At the same time, the Toshiba brand name isassociated with Japanese origin.

Following Zhang (1996, p. 51), we define COO simply as information pertaining towhere a product is made, which is usually operationalized and conveyed with thephrases Made in and the country name (Amine et al., 2005).

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

55


3/21

Next, Table I provides a brief summary of past research and the findings areoutlined in this section. Given the large amount of COO-related literature, this is notmeant to be a comprehensive review but rather an overview that provides thebackground for the subsequent development of our conceptual framework and

research propositions.

Constructs Studies Findings

Single-cue COO effects Schooler (1965) and Nagashima(1970)

COO effects consumer productevaluations

Multi-cue COO effects Johansson et al. (1985), Wall et al.(1991) and Agrawal andKamakura (1999)

In the simultaneous presence ofmultiple information cues (i.e.brand, price, etc.), the COO effectis lowered

Multiple COO cues (hybrid)

effects

Han and Terpstra (1988) and Tse

and Gorn (1993)

When simultaneously presented,

the country of manufacturing cuehas a larger effect on evaluationsthan the country of brand origincue

Hui and Zhou (2003) andSrinivasan et al. (2004)

When simultaneously presented,the country of brand origin cuehas a larger effect on evaluationsthan the country ofmanufacturing cue

Product type effects Kaynak and Cavusgil (1983) andRoth and Romeo (1992)

COO effects on evaluation varyby product type

LeClerc et al. (1994) Products with a Frenchassociation are perceived to bemore hedonic than products that

lack this associationConsuming country and culturalorientation effects

Narayana (1981), Heslop andPapadopoulos (1993) andGurhan-Canli and Maheswaran(2000)

The COO effect on evaluationsvaries across consumingcountries and culturalorientations

Consumer expertise effects Han (1989) COO operates as a halo orsummary construct, dependingon familiarity

Consumer involvement effects Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran(2000)

Higher consumer involvementdecreases the COO effect

Consumer ethnocentrism effects Shimp and Sharma (1987) andBalabanis et al. (2001)

Consumer ethnocentrismincreases the COO effect onevaluations as well as purchase

intentionsNational and countrystereotypes effects

Obermiller and Spangenberg(1989) and Heslop andPapadopoulos (1993)Martin and Eroglu (1993) andVerlegh and Steenkamp (1999)

The cognitive, affective andnormative factors of nationalstereotypes affect the COO effecton product evaluationsThe political, economic andtechnological factors of countrystereotypes affect the COO effecton product evaluations

Table I.Selected literature reviewof COO effects

IMR25,1

56


4/21

Single-cue versus multi-cue COO effectsAs the Table I outlines, the earliest studies examined the effect of COO when presentedto consumers as a single information cue and found a significant impact on evaluationsof products (Schooler, 1965; Nagashima, 1970). COO research has mainly studied the

use of COO from an information processing perspective; that is, as a signal that can beused to make inferences regarding unobservable attributes such as product quality(Wall et al., 1991). When COO is just one cue among many (such as price or retailerreputation, for example), its effect on consumer attitudes is diluted (Johansson et al.,1985; Agrawal and Kamakura, 1999).

Multiple COO cues (hybrid) effectsThe literature suggests that in cases of hybrid products, where multiple COO cues areembedded in one product, consumers tend to use the perceived country of brand originas well as its country of manufacturing as distinct quality cues (Han and Terpstra,1988). Early studies by Han and Terpstra (1988) and Tse and Gorn (1993) found thatcountry of manufacturing had a larger effect on evaluations than country of brand.More recent studies, however, have found the opposite effect, with country of brandorigin accounting for the highest impact (Hui and Zhou, 2003; Srinivasan et al., 2004).

Product type effectsCOO effects do not impact evaluations of all types of products alike. A number ofstudies found that COO effects on evaluation vary by product type (Roth and Romeo,1992). Kaynak and Cavusgil (1983) found that Japanese electronic products receivedhigher quality evaluations than Japanese food products. Furthermore, LeClerc et al.(1994) found that perfume products with a French-sounding brand name associationare perceived to be more hedonic than those that lack this distinction.

Consuming country and cultural orientation effectsCross-country studies have found that COO effects also differ across consumingcountries (Narayana, 1981; Heslop and Papadopoulos, 1993), which may be due to theantecedent role of culturally shared national stereotypes whose specific contents tendto vary across cultures. Furthermore, Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2000) found thatcollectivistic cultures have the tendency to consistently favor domestic over foreignproducts.

Consumer expertise effectsSimilar to how other extrinsic cues operate, the COO effect has been found to fluctuateby consumers level of expertise with the product category (Eroglu and Machleit, 1989).For example, Han (1989) found when familiarity with a particular countrys products is

low, national stereotypes operate as a halo, allowing consumers to evaluate anyunfamiliar product associated with that nation.

Consumer involvement effectsSince, COO cues can serve as heuristic shortcuts, their use may also be moderated byconsumers level of involvement. When involvement is high, the motivation to engagein information processing is also expected to be high, which in turn leads toanalytical processing that discourages the use of heuristics. In fact, Gurhan-Canli and

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

57


5/21

Maheswaran (2000) demonstrated that the COO effect is reduced under high-consumerinvolvement.

Consumer ethnocentrism effects

One of the most researched variables moderating the COO effect is a consumers levelof ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). In highly ethnocentric consumers, theCOO cue has a relatively larger effect on product evaluations, on purchase intentions,and willingness to buy foreign products. The literature suggests that consumers highin ethnocentrism generally pay more attention to the COO cue, often perceiving theconsumption of imported products as socially undesirable and unpatriotic.For example, although these consumers are a minority of the US market, theirattitudes toward the COO cue can be strongly held and disseminated, often as aneconomic, political or cultural backlash to the perceived threats posed by globalization(Balabanis et al., 2001).

National and country stereotypesIn addition to its role as a cognitive shortcut, COO also links a product to an associativenetwork of culturally-shared national stereotypes with cognitive, affective andnormative connotations (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1989; Verlegh and Steenkamp,1999). In this paper, we adopt the standard definition that stereotypes are beliefsabout the characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of certain groups (Hilton andvon Hippel, 1996, p. 240). As a cognitive process, COO is a heuristic for makinginferences about product quality. As an affective process, COO is a stereotype-drivenattribute that links the product to positive and/or negative emotional associations withparticular nations (Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999). Finally, as a normative process,consumers may hold socially desirable behavioral norms linked to COO cues.When such norms exist regarding the correctness of purchases of products from

specific nations, or of all non-domestic products for that matter, COO may affectpurchase intentions directly, regardless of any product-related beliefs.

Despite the importance of investigating the role of national stereotypes as anantecedent to COO effects, there has been a shortage of theoretically driven research toinvestigate the effect of the national stereotypes construct and its specific contents asan antecedent of the COO effects. In one of the few studies of the impact of nationalstereotypes on COO, Heslop and Papadopoulos (1993) found that the cognitive,affective and normative factors of national stereotypes affect COO-based productevaluations. In another study of country-related images, Martin and Eroglu (1993)found that the political, economic and technological factors of country stereotypes havean effect on COO-based product evaluations. Next, we discuss the SCM whichdecomposes national stereotype into two independent dimensions.

National stereotypes and the stereotype content model (SCM)Regardless of the significant interest in investigating the COO phenomenon, there hasbeen relatively sparse effort to integrate the findings of the consumer behavior andinternational marketing literature with those of the social cognition literature onstereotypes. In an influential work in political science, Boulding (1956) conceptualizedthe image of a nation as a perceptual structure consisting of cognitive, affectiveand evaluative components. This conceptualization mirrors the previously discussed

IMR25,1

58


6/21

cognitive, affective and normative mechanisms for COO effects. The evaluativecomponent of national image in particular, provides a connection between the cognitiveand affective aspects of national stereotypes and the COO effect.

One model that decomposes the specific dimensions of national stereotypes is the

recently advanced SCM by Fiske et al. (1999, 2002). The SCM partitions stereotypesinto two orthogonal and continuous dimensions, perceived competence and perceivedwarmth. According to Fiske et al. (2002, p. 881):

. . . out-groups are perceived as more competent to the extent that they are perceived aspowerful and high status . . . (and) as relatively warm and nice to the extent that they do notcompete with others.

It follows that a nations perceived status predicts its competence ratings and its levelof perceived competitive threat predicts its warmth ratings. The Fiske et al. (2002)study utilized a continuous measurement scale composed of six competence traits(competent, intelligent, confident, efficient, competitive, and independent) and sixwarmth traits (friendly, well-intentioned, sincere, good-natured, warm, and

trustworthy).Although the two dimensions are assumed to be independent, the model posits that

stereotype contents are frequently mixed between these two dimensions, resulting instereotypes that combine higher warmth with lower competence or higher competencewith lower warmth. Only members of a perceivers in-group (defined as a group thatthe evaluator perceives to be a member of) and its allies are ascribed stereotypes withhigher scores on both independent dimensions, as a result of in-group favoritism(Tajfel, 1981).

In this paper, we propose that the SCM is a useful tool in exploring the relationshipbetween national stereotypes and COO-based evaluations as it represents a majortheoretical advance in the systematic study of stereotype contents. The SCM proposes

qualitative differences in stereotype contents based on perceptions of the evaluatedgroups relative status and level of competitive threat, with perceived status predictinghigher competence and perceived competition predicting lower warmth. Applied to aconsumer context, perceived warmth may represent the more affective dimensionof consumer attitudes toward a nations peoples and its products, whereas perceivedcompetence may represent the more cognitive component.

The empirical testing of the SCM confirms that most out-groups receive mixedstereotypes (Fiske et al., 1999, 2002). In the case of stereotypes towardAsian-Americans for example the perceived high status and competitiveness ofthis group, resulted in higher perceived competence but lower perceived warmth scores(Fiske et al., 1999, 2002). The chief implication of these studies is the existence ofdiverse stereotypes of two minds toward out-groups; namely, that most stereotypes

tend to be positive on one dimension, competence or warmth, but generally not on both.In a COO consumer context, a study by Heslop and Papadopoulos (1993)

investigated the relationship between views of countries and their people with views ofproducts. Their empirical study included an 11-item scale that combined questions oncountry as well as national image. Exploratory factor analysis indicated threeunderlying constructs showing the following scale items loading on each factor:

(1) affect (refined taste, trustworthiness, role in world politics, and likeablepeople analogous to the perceived warmth dimension;

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

59


7/21

(2) belief (industriousness of the people, management of the economy, andtechnological advancement analogous to the perceived competencedimension; and

(3) behavioral link (more investment, closer ties).

Furthermore, the Heslop and Papadopoulos (1993) study found that both the belief andaffect factors significantly correlated with product performance evaluations as well aswith consumers willingness to buy. The authors (p. 67) state that:

. . . overall then, good products come from countries whose industrial prowess we respect [atrait clearly akin to competence] and whose people we like [a trait clearly akin to warmth] andadmire.

The SCM findings add conceptual and empirical support to the Heslop andPapadopoulos (1993) exploratory findings regarding the dimensionality of nationalstereotypes. However, the SCM as put forth in this paper is a more useful tool inexploring the relationship between national stereotypes and COO-based product

evaluations as it represents a theoretical advance in the study of stereotype contents, incontrast to the exploratory nature of the Heslop and Papadopoulos (1993) study.

The SCM lends itself as a tool for COO research is that it posits that societalstereotypes are often mixed on competence and warmth, as defined by low ratings onone dimension coupled with high ratings on the other. Consequently, mixed stereotypecontents could be expected to have differential effects across product types, withsignificant managerial implications. This is a crucial theoretical advance from theHeslop and Papadopoulos (1993) conceptualization that stereotypes are uniform andconsistent in nature, with no distinction between the relative effects of their belief andaffect factors, arguing for a general attitude consistency explanation instead. From aCOO effect perspective, the SCM represents an intriguing theoretical advance, holdinga number of important implications for future research that will be explored inthe following sections. These research propositions are shown in Figure 1(conceptual framework and research propositions).

In the next section, we propose that the dimensions of perceived warmth andcompetence positively affect the COO effect on product evaluation. In subsequent

Figure 1.Conceptual frameworkand research propositions

Perceived

Warmth

(P1)

Perceived

Competence

(P1)

NationalSte

reotypes

Expertise (P7)

Product Type:

Services (P4)

Product Type:

Utilitarian (P2)

Product Type:

Hedonic (P3)Ethnocentrism

(P9)

Involvement (P8)

Culture

(P5 & P6)

COO Effect

IMR25,1

60


8/21

sections, we argue that product type, and the consumer characteristics of culturalorientation, expertise, involvement and ethnocentrism are determinants of hownational stereotype impacts the COO effect on product evaluation. Although previousresearch has shown that these factors may also determine the influence of COO effects

on product evaluation, our papers propositions focus on the direct influence of nationalstereotypes and their contents as antecedents of COO effects.

Implications of the perceived competence and warmth dimensions ofnational stereotypes for the COO effect on evaluation: researchpropositionsNational stereotypes are perceptual representations often employed in evaluationspertaining to members of that nation. Although there has been little empirical work onthe origins of stereotype contents, most of our prevailing stereotype perceptions areformed based on a combination of at least some direct and indirect (i.e. througheducation or the media) experience with relevant national groups (Schneider, 2005).

In this paper, we assume that consumers are able to position any country somewhereon the warmth/competence dimensions based on some prior knowledge or familiaritywith a nation. By default, relatively unfamiliar countries are expected to receive neutralto lower attributions. Building upon the reviewed stereotyping literature insocial psychology and specifically, the SCM, it is expected that positive (negative)national stereotypes (both perceived competence and perceived warmth) will lead toobjects or products associated with the evaluated countrys people to be positively(negatively) evaluated. Thus, it is proposed that:

P1. The perceived competence and perceived warmth dimensions of nationalstereotypes influence the COO effect on the evaluation of products.

Product types as determinants of the effects of national stereotypes contents on COOeffects on evaluationWhereas as stated, both dimensions of national stereotypes have a positive effect onproduct evaluation, this relationship may not be equally strong for all types ofproducts. Prior research (LeClerc et al., 1994) suggests that product type moderatesCOO effects, so that we propose that product type also influences the effect of nationalstereotypes on COO evaluations. Therefore, the next propositions examine themoderating role of product type. Specifically, we examine first the hedonic versusutilitarian dimensionality of products, and secondly the low- versus high-contactservices distinction on the effect of the perceived competence and perceived warmthdimensions of national stereotypes on the COO effect.

Hedonic versus utilitarian products. While some inferences about a COO and its

peoples are globally projected onto all the products associated with that country (i.e.the overall effect of the national brand), research has shown that COO-basedperceptions may also vary across product categories. For instance, Kaynak andCavusgil (1983) found that Japanese electronic products received high-qualityevaluations while Japanese food products received low ones. Thus, while nationalstereotypes do occur at the macro or global level, they also appear to be operating atthe micro or product type level. Furthermore, Liefelds (1993) meta-analysis indicatedthat the magnitude of COO effects is related to product type. Specifically, the

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

61


9/21

magnitude of the COO effect was found to be larger for technically complex,fashion-oriented, or expensive products.

One product type categorization scheme that we concentrate on in this research isbased on the hedonic versus utilitarian value product classification (LeClerc et al.,

1994). Utilitarian products reproduce a work mentality that reflects the economic andfunctional benefits they provide, while hedonic products mirror an experiential viewrelating to the affective responses elicited by a product (Holbrook and Hirschman,1982; Voss et al., 2003). Prior research has investigated the moderating effect ofutilitarian versus hedonic properties on COO evaluations. For example, in aninfluential experimental study, LeClerc et al. (1994) found that the Frenchpronunciation of a brand name affects the perceived hedonic properties of productsas well as attitudes toward the brand. For utilitarian products, on the other hand, aproduct with a French brand name was liked less than a product with an Englishbrand name because of a poorer fit between the features triggered by the culturalstereotype and the product feature.

Following Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000), we define hedonic goods as ones whose

consumption is primarily characterized by an affective experience, whereas utilitariangoods are ones whose consumption is more cognitively driven. A study by Mano andOliver (1993) found that products that rated high on a scale measuring hedonicattributes were closer to the consumers affective experience, as measured by both apleasantness and positive affect scale, than products that rated high on a utilitarianattributes scale. Recent research confirms that affective responses are more likely tohave an effect on product evaluations that are based on hedonic rather on utilitariancriteria (Yeung and Wyer, 2004).

This classification of products into hedonic versus utilitarian based on theiraffective versus cognitive evaluations suggests that the warmth and competencedimensions of national stereotypes may differentially affect the COO effect onevaluations of products that vary in terms of their level of hedonic versus utilitarianproperties. Given that the perceived competence dimension consists of intellectual andfunctional traits describing a countrys people, whereas the perceived warmthdimension consists of social and affective traits describing a countrys people, it ishereby posited that perceived competence has a stronger effect on the evaluation ofutilitarian products and that perceived warmth has a stronger effect on the evaluationof hedonic ones. We therefore propose the following:

P2. The perceived competence dimension of national stereotypes determines theCOO effect for evaluations of utilitarian (versus hedonic) products.

P3. The perceived warmth dimension of national stereotypes determines the COOeffect for evaluations of hedonic (versus utilitarian) products.

High-contact versus low-contact services. Little empirical research exists concerning theCOO effect on services. Service delivery inherently includes customer contact andinteraction with employees, so that stereotypes pertaining to the service personnelsnational origin may exert greater overall influence on consumers evaluations ofservices than on their evaluations of tangible goods (Mattila, 1999). Furthermore, anempirical study by Harrison-Walker (1995) found that selection of a service provider isdependent on the interaction between service provider nationality and consumernationality, with consumers generally favoring same-nationality service providers.

IMR25,1

62


10/21

In many service encounters however, the nationality of the service provider is of ahybrid nature, such as in the case of a Mexican receptionist interacting with a Germantourist at the Mexico City InterContinental (i.e., US-owned) hotel. In such cases,the nationality of the corporate origin may be different from that of the frontline service

personnel. For the purposes of developing a research proposition in this section, weassume that the nationality of the service-providing personnel and of the corporation isthe same. This assumption reflects the more recent findings on hybrid products inwhich the COO of the brand (or of the corporation) has a stronger effect on consumerevaluations than the country of manufacture (Hui and Zhou, 2003; Srinivasan et al.,2004). Furthermore, in an increasingly flatter world, companies engage in theoutsourcing of their service products, typically training their foreign employees inprojecting a uniform image that reflects the country of brand origin (Friedman, 2005).

Furthermore, services differ in their level of contact between the customer and thefirm; yet the interface between the customer and the firm, often referred to as customercontact, is the seminal element of service products (Kellogg and Chase, 1995). Theseauthors found that a relatively high level of emotional intensity and intimacy between

the customer and the service provider characterizes high-contact service interactions,such as tourism. This relationship was weaker for low-contact service interactions,such as the one between a bank teller and a customer.

Following a study by Granovetter (1973), the strength of a customer-serviceprovider tie is a combination of the emotional intensity, the intimacy, the amount ofinteraction time, and the reciprocal services that characterize the relationship. The levelof emotional response to a service interaction, especially one that involves a higherlevel of cross-cultural contact and interaction is critical. Given that high-contactservices are characterized by a higher level of emotional intensity, intimacy andinteraction time we expect that the potential (favorable or unfavorable) impact ofperceived warmth on COO-based evaluations will be higher for high-contact servicesand we propose that:

P4. The perceived warmth dimension of national stereotypes determines the COOeffect for evaluations of high-contact (versus low-contact) services.

Consumer characteristics as determinants of the effects of national stereotypes contentson COO effects on evaluationConsumer cultural orientation. Cross-cultural differences in how individuals construethe self, others, and the interaction between the two, as well as their impact on emotion,cognition, and motivation have emerged as one of the most investigated aspects inpsychology and consumer behavior (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). In this research, wefocus on the cultural orientation of individualism and collectivism because interest inthis cultural dimension as demonstrated by prior research in general (Aaker and

Maheswaran, 1997; Han and Shavitt, 1994; Hofstede, 2001; Kramer et al., 2007), as wellas its impact on COO effects and national stereotypes (Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran,2000) in particular. We suggest that cultural orientation may moderate theconsequences of national stereotypes, representing an important boundary conditionof the effects we have predicted. Practically, research in this area will help globalmanagers active in both individualist and collectivist cultures adjust their marketingstrategy. Further, differences in individualism-collectivism are found not only between,but also within, cultures. For example, subcultures in the individualistic USA, such as

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

63


11/21

Hispanics (Marn and Triandis, 1985), are actually relatively collectivistic, so thatunderstanding the influence of cultural orientation on the effects of nationalstereotypes even more important.

Individualism-collectivism describes a cultures emphasis on the individual versus

the larger collective (Hofstede, 2001). For example, Hofstede identified the USA as oneof the most individualistic cultures and Japan as one of the most collectivistic.Two defining attributes of individualism-collectivism that may affect the degree towhich consumers rely on national stereotypes in evaluating foreign products are thedefinition of the self and the degree to which personal goals take precedence over groupgoals (Triandis, 1995). Members of collectivistic cultures tend to emphasize collectiveaspects of the self and are oriented toward their in-group. On the other hand,individualists emphasize the self as distinct from others, and personal goals takeprecedence over group goals. However, the importance of collectivists grouporientation is limited to relevant in-groups, such as family, friends, or the nation as awhole; out-groups are not afforded the same special consideration. Thus, collectivists(versus individualists) make a greater distinction between in- and out-groups(Oyserman, 1993; Triandis et al., 1988).

The mere perception of belonging to a group is sufficient to provoke inter-groupcompetition and discriminatory or stereotypical responses on the part ofgroup members toward those perceived as outsiders (Tajfel, 1981). A higher level ofin-group identification thus often drives more negative out-group attitudes (Hewstoneet al., 2002), even more so than does out-group derogation. For example, Gurhan-Canliand Maheswaran (2000) find that collectivists always rate home products morefavorably regardless of their superiority, because they are willing to sacrifice their owngoals for those of the collective (Japan), whereas individualists evaluate home productsmore favorably only when they are superior.

Because of collectivists greater in-group favoritism and greater out-group

derogation, we propose that cultural orientation moderates the degree to which thetwo dimensions of stereotype content affect evaluations of foreign products:

P5. The perceived competence dimension of national stereotypes determines theCOO effect on evaluations for consumers high in collectivism (versusindividualism).

Vertical collectivism and individualism. While we propose that there are differences inthe degree to which collectivists versus individualists rely on national stereotypeswhen evaluating foreign goods, we expect this effect to be moderated by stable andpredictable within-culture differences. In particular, Singelis et al. (1995) argue thatindividualism-collectivism is a multidimensional construct, which can be furtherdivided into horizontal and vertical dimensions that describe how much emphasis

individuals place on horizontal versus vertical relationships. Following Singeliset al.s (1995) seminal proposition, the distinction between horizontal and verticaldimensions of individualism and collectivism has recently received increased attentionin the literature (Aaker, 2006; Meyers-Levy, 2006; Oyserman, 2006; Shavitt et al., 2006).

Overall, cultures high on the horizontal dimension emphasize equality, whereascultures high on the vertical dimension emphasize hierarchy and status. According tothis classification, the USA is high on vertical individualism, Sweden and Australia arehigh on horizontal individualism, and India and Greece are high on vertical collectivism.

IMR25,1

64


12/21

Lastly, an Israeli kibbutz is an example of horizontal collectivism. The horizontal versusvertical distinction is an important one to make. For example, cross-cultural differencesin COO effects are explained by differences on the vertical dimensions of individualismand collectivism, which is similar to Hofstedes (2001) dimension of power distance.

Differences on the horizontal dimension do not account for differential COO biases(Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran, 2000).

Additionally, the horizontal and vertical dimensions may also differentially impactthe effects of status and competition as antecedents of stereotype content. As discussedpreviously, Fiske et al. (2002) find that perceived group status predicts competence, andcompetition predicts lack of warmth. Vertical collectivism describes a cultural patternin which individuals perceive themselves as parts of a collective whose members aredistinct and of unequal status. Since, the vertical (versus horizontal) collectivismdimension emphasizes hierarchy and status, and status predicts competence (Fiskeet al., 2002), we propose that individuals high (versus low) in vertical collectivism placemore emphasis on the competence dimension of national stereotypes:

P6a. For consumers high (versus low) in vertical collectivism, the perceivedcompetence dimension of national stereotypes determines the COO effect onevaluations.

Next, individuals in cultures high on vertical individualism see themselves as distinctfrom the collective, accepting inequality among individuals and competition as animportant part of the culture. Since, the vertical (versus horizontal) individualismdimension measures individuals attitude toward competition and winning andcompetition predicts lack of warmth (Fiske et al., 2002), we propose that individualshigh (versus low) in vertical individualism place more emphasis on the warmthdimension of national stereotypes:

P6b. For consumers high (versus low) in vertical individualism, the perceivedwarmth dimension of national stereotypes determines the COO effect onevaluations.

Consumer expertise. The fundamental paradigm that has guided COO research is thatconsumers evaluate products on the basis of intrinsic (e.g. taste, style, performance andquality) and extrinsic (e.g. brand name, retailer reputation and price) information cues(Olson and Jacoby, 1972). Consumers apply extrinsic cues in evaluating a productbecause they are often unable to detect its true intrinsic attributes prior to actuallyexperiencing it. Thus, the COO cue is often conceptualized as one of these extrinsic cues.

The COO effect on evaluations has been shown to differ by consumers level ofexpertise with the product (Eroglu and Machleit, 1989). In this research, we proposethat level of expertise or familiarity also determines the impact of national stereotypes

contents on the COO effect on evaluations.According to Alba and Hutchinson (1987, p. 411), familiarity is defined as the

number of product-related experiences that have been accumulated by the consumerover time. Halo has been conceptualized as the transfer of overall attitudes toward astimulus (i.e. a product associated with a particular COO) on specific beliefs about theproducts attributes (Beckwith and Lehmann, 1975). In the case of the COO effect, it isconceivable that pre-existing national stereotypes serve as a halo from whichconsumers make inferences about all products associated with these stereotypes.

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

65


13/21

Alba and Hutchinson (1987) proposed that novices are more likely than experts to relyon such halo-based evaluation processes.

It can therefore be postulated that in accordance with the halo construct, whenfamiliarity with a particular countrys products is low, national stereotypes operate as a

halo, allowing consumers to evaluate any product associated with that nation (Han,1989). In contrast as consumers become more familiar with a countrys products, countryimage becomes a summary construct that encapsulates consumer beliefs based onaccumulated consumer knowledge about the countrys products rather than on nationalstereotypes. Additional empirical support for COO operating as a halo construct whenfamiliarity with a countrys products is low comes from Maheswaran (1994) who foundthat when product information was unambiguous, novices relied on the COO cue whileexperts based their product evaluations on attribute strength. It is thus proposed that:

P7. Consumer expertise with a countrys products moderates the COO effect of theperceived competence and warmth dimensions of national stereotypes onevaluations of products, such that the effect is greater (lower) for novices

(experts).Consumer involvement. The involvement construct captures the perceived personalrelevance of a product to an individual. A higher level of involvement reflects a durablepsychological connection between a consumer and a product (Petty and Cacioppo,1986). Two conceptual frameworks that account for the effect of involvement on theformation of attitudes are the heuristic/systematic model (Chaiken, 1980) and theelaboration likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). The Chaiken (1980) modelpostulates that systematic processing that integrates all useful information will onlyoccur at a high level of motivation and cognitive capacity. Alternatively, a lower levelof motivation reduces the degree of systematic processing while increasing theutilization of heuristics, such as stereotypes, in the evaluation process. According to

Petty and Cacioppos (1986) elaboration likelihood model, a higher level of involvementis expected to increase the motivation to engage in analytical information processing,leading to a lower reliance on cognitive shortcuts, such as stereotypes.

Adding support to the moderating role of motivation on the effect of mental heuristics,Fiske and Taylor (1991) proposed the motivated tactician metaphor as an extension ofthe cognitive miser metaphor that is based on an information-overload paradigm. Themotivated tactician metaphor assumes that people normally engage in heuristics, unlessmotivated by their current goals or involvement level to go beyond them.

Since, national stereotypes can serve as heuristic shortcuts, the above discussionsuggests that their use may be moderated by consumers level of involvement. Wheninvolvement is high, the motivation to engage in information processing is alsoexpected to be high, which in turn leads to analytical processing that discourages the

use of national stereotypes heuristics. An experimental study by Gurhan-Canli andMaheswaran (2000) confirmed the impact of involvement on the COO effect onevaluations. Their study found that when involvement is lower, consumers utilize COOas a basis for judgment. In contrast, under higher involvement, consumers are lesslikely to incorporate the COO in their evaluations. It is thus proposed that:

P8. Consumer involvement moderates the COO effect of the perceived competenceand warmth dimensions of national stereotypes on evaluations of products,such that the effect is greater (lower) following low (high) involvement.

IMR25,1

66


14/21

Consumer ethnocentrism. The construct of consumer ethnocentrism is adapted fromthe social-psychological syndrome of ethnocentrism, according to which members ofan in-group universally view fellow members as being superior and more virtuous thannon-members (Levine and Campbell, 1972). Consumer ethnocentrism captures the

personal disposition to behave in some conforming fashion across all domestic andforeign products. Shimp and Sharma (1987) conceptualized the construct to representthe beliefs held by consumers about the correctness or social appropriateness of buyingforeign products. Ethnocentric consumers believe that buying foreign products isunpatriotic, morally wrong and potentially, self-defeating.

A large number of studies generally support the proposition that when consumerethnocentrism is high, so is the effect of COO on product evaluation and purchaseintention (Knight, 1999). Adding a level of abstraction and given that consumers highin ethnocentrism pay more attention to the COO cue while exhibiting a greaterdependence on national stereotypes for the sake of crafting their own nationalidentification, it is proposed that:

P9. Consumer ethnocentrism moderates the COO effect of the perceivedcompetence and warmth dimensions of national stereotypes on evaluationsof products, such that the effect is greater (lower) for more (less) ethnocentricconsumers.

DiscussionAlthough it is well accepted in the COO literature that national stereotypes play aleading role in product evaluation, insufficient light has been shed on the applicabilityof their components in a consumer context. The conceptual framework advanced inthis paper significantly extends our knowledge of the COO effect on consumerevaluations of products by partitioning the contents of national stereotypes,investigating the dynamic relationship between their components and tracing out

relationships between their dimensionality and evaluations of products of differenttype, based on theoretically-important consumer characteristics such as culturalorientation, expertise, involvement and ethnocentrism. As such, the paper contributesto a more holistic understanding of the COO phenomenon by focusing on theantecedent effect of the national stereotypes construct.

The advanced propositions make a theoretical contribution to the literature ininternational marketing by first, conceptualizing the contents of national stereotypesas antecedents of COO effects and then, by suggesting relationships between nationalstereotypes and attitudes toward products, as moderated by a number of product andconsumer characteristics. Further, with its focus on the bi-dimensionality of stereotypecontents, our conceptual framework extends important concepts from consumerbehavior such as the utilitarian and hedonic dimensions of product experience to

an original context, that of national stereotype and COO effects.

Managerial implicationsCorporate-level. National and multinational corporations often incorporate nationalstereotypes into their manufacturing, sourcing, investment and marketing strategies.Once empirically verified, the research propositions advanced in this paper provideimportant insight into consumer response to products associated with various nationsand their associated stereotype contents. The potential applications of our proposed

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

67


15/21

framework range from branding to advertising and product design: firms operating indifferent national contexts must capitalize on the perceived strengths of the firmsnational image as it relates to the particular type of product and consumercharacteristics. Corporations often rely on the strength of a firms national image and

the research propositions advanced in this paper will help them understand how thisshould be done, based on the nature of their products and markets. For example, a firmthat markets products with higher hedonic properties should generate andcommunicate associations with nations that enjoy perceived warmth. Clothingexporters from around the world, for example, often employ French or Italian-soundingbrand names, in an attempt to benefit from the perceived warmth associated with thesenations, particularly when marketing hedonic products. In some cases, firms maystrategically select to communicate an origin country entirely different from their ownto overcome the negative associations of their home country or to appropriate positivestereotypes of another nation. The overall image of bi-national (or hybrid) productscould benefit by deliberate strategies to incorporate national origin cues that arecompensatory in terms of their perceived competence and warmth dimensions, similarto principles of co-branding strategies.

Some companies may want to consider a hybrid positioning strategy by projectingboth competence and warmth in their manipulation of national origin. For instance, theycould follow LOreals strategy who has made a deliberate effort to diversify theperceived cultural origins of its brands to include New York street smarts or Frenchbeauty, promoting an image of both competence and warmth (Edmondson, 1999, p. 71).

Lastly, the proposed framework implies that services firms, especially those thatoffer high-contact interactions such as airlines, hotels and vacation resorts that areoften characterized by a higher level of emotional intensity, should expect a higherpotential impact (favorable or unfavorable) of the perceived warmth dimension ofnational stereotypes.

Nation-level. It is clear that national images affect how consumers evaluate acountry as a potential tourist destination, an investment podium or a source ofconsumer goods. As globalization increases, nations compete with each other tosuccessfully export their goods and services, attract tourism and foreign investment(Kotler et al., 1997). As a result, nations must position and differentiate themselves inthe perceptions of consumers, managers and investors.

The consequent strategy of nation branding aims at cultivating a unique andpositive brand image of the nation and its associated symbols (Olins, 1999). Some recentexamples of nation branding strategies undertaken by developed as well as developingcountries include; Rebranding Britain: Cool Britannia, Enterprise Ireland,Singapore: Synergy for Success, Italian Made: the Quality of Life, Thailand,Land of Diversity and Refinement, the New Zealand Way, Incredible India,

Malaysia, Truly Asia and South Africa: Alive with Possibility to name a few.As with all marketing communications outcomes, it would be very difficult to

isolate the direct influence of such nation branding and positioning strategies onsales-related metrics such as foreign direct investments, tourism revenue or exports ofgoods and services. Nevertheless, longitudinal studies have shown that COO attitudescan indeed change over time (Wood et al., 1999). Furthermore, a study investigating theimpact of hosting international events such as the Olympics on country images foundthat, as a respondents media exposure to the Olympic Games increased, there were

IMR25,1

68


16/21

positive effects on attitudes toward electronic products made in South Korea as well ason the overall image of South Korea as a producing country (Jaffe and Nebenzahl,1993).

The conceptual model put forth in this paper holds significant managerial

implications for corporations and national governments alike, especially in theemergent field of the nation as a brand and the overall marketing strategies ofcountries. As Figure 2 shows, our framework suggests that nations should deliberatelyproject an image of competence and/or warmth, respectively, based on the type ofproduct and consumer market characteristics that they target. Nations that arecurrently attributed higher competence and lower warmth are best suited for exportingutilitarian products and low-contact services, while those nations that are ascribedlower competence and higher warmth are most fit for exporting hedonic products andhigh-contact services. Nations who are presently perceived as lower on both stereotypedimensions should attempt to make themselves more familiar and reposition byprojecting an image of higher warmth and/or competence that is most consistent with

their export product mix. Finally, nations who enjoy both higher competence andwarmth should maintain this most favorable position.While in the short-term it would be desirable for a favorable fit to occur between the

current national stereotype and the nations export product characteristics, in thelong-term as they diversify their international marketing efforts nations may wishto strategically promote their relatively weaker stereotype dimension. Nations with ahigh level of perceived competence such as Germany, Singapore and Japan forexample, should infuse their national brand with warmth, especially when they are

Figure 2.Matrix of positioning

strategy implications fornations

National

StereotypeDimension

LowerWarmth HigherWarmth

Higher

Competence

Mixed Position:

Best Fit for Utilitarian

Products and Low-Contact

Services

(e.g., United Kingdom)

Most Desirable Position:

Need to Maintain

(e.g., France)

Lower

Competence

Least Desirable Position:Need to Reposition and/or

make country more familiar

by promoting higher

Competence and/or Warmth

(e.g., Belgium)

Mixed Position:Best Fit for Hedonic

Products and High-Contact

Services

(e.g., Italy)

Source: Nation examples shown are adopted from a study of German perceptions of the

European Union (Fiske 2004, p. 418)

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

69


17/21

promoting hedonic or high-contact services products. Singapore Airliness utilizationof the Singapore Girl icon is an example of such an advertising appeal to compensatefor the lack of perceived warmth attributed to the nation of Singapore that is oftenstereotyped as being competent perhaps, to a fault. On the other hand, countries that

currently enjoy a high level of perceived warmth such as Greece for instance, shouldconcentrate on projecting an image of competence. The successful hosting of theAthens 2004 Olympics generated a considerable amount of positive publicity for thehost nation of Greece. As a result, a recently conducted cross-national public opinionsurvey found Greece to be perceived as a modern European country that organizedtechnically excellent Olympic Games with a human dimension (www.Athens2004.com, 2004).

Limitations and further research implicationsThe conceptual framework presented in this paper offers a comprehensive set ofresearch propositions for empirical validation. The lack of empirical verification of our

model, a limitation of our paper, can be addressed in future empirical studies.Experimental designs could test the proposed interactions of the hedonic/utilitarian(P2 and P3 ) and high-/low-contact (P4 ) properties of products with thewarmth/competence dimensions of national stereotypes, while also testing for themoderating role of consumer characteristics (P5-P9).

Once the above propositions are empirically tested, there would be a number ofimplications for future research. First, our conceptual model could be expanded toinclude COO effects on product evaluation, the ultimate variable of interest inconsumer research. Second, it would be worthwhile to investigate the effects ofmultiple (either complementary or contradictory) national stereotype contents, such asof the countries of brand origin, design, and manufacture.

Finally, as consumer familiarity with a nations products increases, the contents ofthe associated national stereotype may become increasingly based on consumerevaluations of that nations products as a summary construct. It would be interestingto further examine the nature of the relationship between national stereotypes and theCOO effect over time. As nations evolve in their level of economic development andsubsequently, level of perceived status and competitive threat, the specific contents oftheir national stereotypes may also shift.

References

Aaker, J. (2006), Delineating culture, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 343-7.

Aaker, J. and Maheswaran, D. (1997), The effect of cultural orientation and cue diagnosticity on

processing and product evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 315-27.Agrawal, J. and Kamakura, W. (1999), Country of origin: a competitive advantage?,

International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16, pp. 255-67.

Alba, J. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), Dimensions of consumer expertise, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 13, pp. 411-55.

Amine, L.S., Chao, M. and Arnold, M. (2005), Exploring the practical effects of country of origin,animosity, and price-quality issues: two case studies of Taiwan and Acer in China,

Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 114-50.

IMR25,1

70


18/21

Balabanis, G., Diamantopoulos, A., Mueller, R.D. and Melewar, T.C. (2001), The impact ofnationalism, patriotism and internationalism on consumer ethnocentric tendencies,

Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 157-75.

Beckwith, N. and Lehmann, D. (1975), The importance of halo effects in multi-attribute attitude

models, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 12, pp. 265-75.Boulding, K. (1956), The Image, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.

Chaiken, S. (1980), Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of sourceversus message cues in persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39No. 5, pp. 752-66.

Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000), Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, pp. 60-71.

Edmondson, G. (1999), LOreal: the beauty of global branding, Business Week, June 28, pp. 70-5.

Eroglu, S. and Machleit, K. (1989), Effects of individual and product-specific variables onutilizing country of origin as a product quality cue,International Marketing Review, Vol. 6No. 6, pp. 27-41.

Fiske, S. (2004), Social Beings, Wiley, New York, NY.Fiske, S. and Taylor, S. (1991), Social Cognition, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Fiske, S., Cuddy, A., Glick, P. and Xu, J. (2002), A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 878-902.

Fiske, S., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. and Glick, P. (1999), Respecting versus liking: status andinterdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth, Journal ofSocial Issues, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 473-89.

Friedman, T. (2005), The World is Flat, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, NY.

Granovetter, M.S. (1973), The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78No. 6, pp. 1360-80.

Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000), Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, pp. 96-108.

Han, M. (1989), Country image: halo or summary construct?, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 26, pp. 222-9.

Han, M. and Terpstra, V. (1988), Country-of-origin effects for uni-national and bi-nationalproducts, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 235-55.

Han, S-P. and Shavitt, S. (1994), Persuasion and culture: advertising appeals inindividualistic and collectivistic societies, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,Vol. 30, pp. 326-50.

Harrison-Walker, L. (1995), The relative effects of national stereotype and advertisinginformation on the selection of a service provider, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 9No. 1, pp. 47-59.

Heslop, L. and Papadopoulos, N. (1993), But who knows where or when: reflections on theimages of countries and their products, in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (Eds),

Product-country Images, International Business Press, New York, NY, pp. 39-86.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. and Willis, H. (2002), Intergroup bias, Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 53, pp. 575-604.

Hilton, J. and von Hippel, W. (1996), Stereotypes, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47,pp. 237-71.

Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

71


19/21

Holbrook, M. and Hirschman, E. (1982), The experiential aspects of consumption: consumerfantasies, feelings and fun, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 132-40.

Hui, M. and Zhou, L. (2003), Country-of-manufacture effects for known brands, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 1/2, pp. 133-53.

Jaffe, E. and Nebenzahl, I. (1993), Global promotion of country image: do the Olympics count?,in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (Eds), Product-country Images, International BusinessPress, New York, NY, pp. 433-52.

Johansson, J., Douglas, S. and Nonaka, I. (1985), Assessing the impact of country of origin onproduct evaluations: a new methodological perspective, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 388-96.

Kaynak, E. and Cavusgil, S. (1983), Consumer attitudes towards products of foreign origin: dothey vary across product classes?, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 2 No. 2,pp. 147-57.

Kellogg, D. and Chase, R. (1995), Constructing an empirically derived measure for customercontact, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 1734-49.

Knight, G. (1999), Consumer references for foreign and domestic products, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 151-62.

Kotler, P., Jatusripitak, S. and Maesincee, S. (1997), The Marketing of Nations, The Free Press,New York, NY.

Kramer, T., Spolter, S. and Thakkar, M. (2007), The effect of cultural orientation on responses topersonalization, Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 246-58.

LeClerc, F., Schmitt, B. and Dube, L. (1994), Foreign branding and its effects on productperceptions and attitudes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 263-70.

Levine, R. and Campbell, D. (1972), Ethnocentrism, Wiley, New York, NY.

Liefeld, J. (1993), Experiments on country of origin effects: review and meta-analysis of effectsize, in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (Eds), Product-country Images, InternationalBusiness Press, New York, NY, pp. 117-56.

Maheswaran, D. (1994), Country of origin as a stereotype: effects of consumer expertise andattribute strength on product evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2,pp. 354-65.

Mano, H. and Oliver, R. (1993), Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumptionexperience: evaluation, feeling and satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20No. 3, pp. 451-66.

Marn, G. and Triandis, H.C. (1985), Allocentrism as an important characteristic of the behaviorof Latin Americans and Hispanics, in Guerrero, R.D. (Ed.), Cross-cultural and NationalStudies in Social Psychology, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 85-104.

Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991), Culture and self: implications for cognition, emotion andmotivation, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-53.

Martin, I. and Eroglu, S. (1993), Measuring a multi-dimensional construct: country image, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 191-210.

Mattila, A. (1999), The role of culture and purchase motivation in service encounterevaluations, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 376-89.

Meyers-Levy, J. (2006), Using the horizontal/vertical distinction to advance insights intoconsumer psychology, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 347-51.

Nagashima, A. (1970), A comparison of Japanese and US attitudes toward foreign products, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 68-74.

IMR25,1

72


20/21

Narayana, C. (1981), Aggregate images of American and Japanese products, Columbia Journalof World Business, Vol. 16, pp. 31-5.

Obermiller, C. and Spangenberg, E. (1989), Exploring the effects of country of origin labels:

an information processing framework,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, pp. 454-9.

Olins, W. (1999), Trading Identities, The Foreign Policy Centre, London.

Olson, J. and Jacoby, J. (1972), Cue utilization in the quality perception process, Proceedings ofthe Annual ACR Conference, pp. 167-79.

Oyserman, D. (1993), The lens of personhood: viewing the self, others, and conflict in amulticultural society, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 5,pp. 993-1009.

Oyserman, D. (2006), High power, low power, and equality: culture beyond individualism/collectivism, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 352-6.

Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1986), The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 123-205.

Roth, M. and Romeo, J. (1992), Matching product category and country image perceptions,

Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97.

Schneider, D. (2005), The Psychology of Stereotyping, Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Schooler, R. (1965), Product bias in the Central American common market, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 2, pp. 394-7.

Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A.K., Zhang, J. and Torelli, C.J. (2006), The horizontal/vertical distinction incross-cultural consumer research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4,pp. 325-42.

Shimp, T. and Sharma, S. (1987), Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of theCETSCALE, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 280-9.

Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D. and Gelfand, M. (1995), Horizontal and verticaldimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement,

Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 241-75.Srinivasan, N., Jain, S. and Sikand, K. (2004), An experimental study of two dimensions of

country-of-origin (manufacturing country and branding country) using intrinsic andextrinsic cues, International Business Review, Vol. 13, pp. 65-82.

Tajfel, H. (1981), Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology, CambridgeUniversity Press, New York, NY.

Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M.J., Asai, M. and Lacca, N. (1988), Individualism and

collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 323-38.

Tse, D. and Gorn, G. (1993), An experiment on the salience of country of origin in the era of

global brands, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 57-77.Verlegh, P. and Steenkamp, J.B. (1999), A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin

research, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-46.

Voss, K., Spangenberg, E. and Grohmann, B. (2003), Measuring the hedonic and utilitariandimensions of product attitude, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 310-20.

Wall, M., Liefeld, J. and Heslop, L. (1991), Impact of country of origin cues on consumer judgements in multi-cue situations: a covariance analysis, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 19, pp. 105-13.

Impact ofnational

stereotypes

73


21/21

Wang, C. and Lamb, C. (1983), The impact of selected environmental forces upon consumerswillingness to buy foreign products, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 11No. 2, pp. 71-84.

Wood, V., Darling, J. and Siders, M. (1999), Consumer desire to buy and use products in

international markets, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 231-56.www.athens2004.com (2004), How Greece is perceived by the citizens of five major countries,

available at: www.athens2004.com/en/Latestnews (accessed October 19, 2004).

Yeung, C. and Wyer, R. (2004), Affect, appraisal and consumer judgment, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 31, pp. 412-24.

Zhang, Y. (1996), Chinese consumers evaluation of foreign products: the influence of culture,product types, and product presentation format, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30No. 12, pp. 50-69.

Further reading

Aaker, J., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001), Consumption symbols as carriers of culture:

a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 492-508.

Klein, J. (2002), Us versus them, or us versus everyone? Delineating consumer aversion toforeign goods, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 345-63.

Klein, J., Ettenson, R. and Morris, M. (1998), The animosity model of foreign product purchase:an empirical test in the PRC, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 89-100.

Papadopoulos, N. (1993), What product and country images are and are not, inPapadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (Eds), Product-country Images, International BusinessPress, New York, NY, pp. 3-38.

About the authorsMichael Chattalas is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Colleges of Business, Fordham

University in New York. Previously, he taught at Baruch College and Wagner College receivingteaching excellence awards from both institutions, as well as Executive Masters courses inHong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. He holds a PhD in Marketing from Baruch College, CityUniversity of New York. He has authored scholarly articles on international marketing andcross-cultural research published in the Journal of Consumer Marketing and International

Marketing Review. Michael Chattalas is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected].

Thomas Kramer is an Assistant Professor of Marketing and International Business, ZicklinSchool of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York. He received his PhD fromStanford University and his Masters and Bachelors from Baruch College. His researchinvestigates consumer decision making and cross-cultural consumer behavior and has beenpublished in numerous scholarly journals, including Journal of Marketing Research, MarketingScience, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

Hirokazu Takada is a Professor of Marketing and International Business, Zicklin School ofBusiness, Baruch College, City University of New York. He received his PhD from PurdueUniversity. His research investigates competitive marketing behavior and advertising,international marketing research and analysis of diffusion processes and has been publishedin numerous scholarly journals, including Journal of Marketing, Journal of Business Researchand Journal of International Marketing.

IMR25,1

74

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

chattalas et al (2008)_national stereotypes and coo

Documents