The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm
IMR
28,5
“What? I thought Samsung was
Japanese”: accurate or not,
perceived country of origin matters
454
Peter Magnusson
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
Stanford A. Westjohn
The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA, and
Srdan Zdravkovic
Bryant University, Smithfield, Rhode Island, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Extensive research has shown that country-of-origin (COO) information significantly
affects product evaluations and buying behavior. Yet recently, a competing perspective has emerged
suggesting that COO effects have been inflated in prior research and even that the COO concept has
become irrelevant. The purpose of this paper is to reconcile these two competing perspectives by
examining the effects of individual brand origin perceptions.
Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual framework is grounded in consumers’ learning.
Empirically, the authors’ hypotheses are tested using hierarchical linear modeling on a sample of 4,047
brand evaluations by 544 consumers.
Findings – The results provide strong evidence that product country image of the consumer’s
perceived brand origin strongly affects brand attitudes, and this happens regardless of the
perceptions’ objective accuracy. The authors also find evidence that educating consumers about
brands’ true COO can contribute to changes in brand attitudes.
Practical implications – It is concluded that suggestions that COO has become an irrelevant
construct in international marketing may be premature. The study offers meaningful insights for
managers in understanding how brands’ country associations affect brand attitudes.
Originality/value – This study aims to reconcile tensions in the current COO literature and does so
by demonstrating that although consumer knowledge of brand origin is often mis-calibrated,
consumers’ perceptions of brand origin still matter.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Brand evaluation, Country of origin, Global marketing,
Brand origin recognition accuracy, Global branding, Hierarchical linear modelling
Paper type Research paper
International Marketing Review
Vol. 28 No. 5, 2011
pp. 454-472
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-1335
DOI 10.1108/02651331111167589
Country of origin (COO) research has been heralded as one of the most widely
researched topics in international marketing (Pharr, 2005). Testifying to the
importance of the concept, International Marketing Review recently published two
special issues dedicated to the topic, one focussed on the COO phenomenon directly
(2008, Vol. 25, No. 4) and a second focussed on nation branding (2010, Vol. 27, No. 4).
The vast majority of research from these two special issues as well as the entire
COO research history concludes that a product’s COO does affect product evaluations
and purchasing behavior (Demirbag et al., 2010; Phau and Chao, 2008; Sharma, 2011;
Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999), and the management of a country’s image has been
brought to the forefront (Anholt, 2010; Dinnie et al., 2010; Heslop et al., 2010).
Consistent with the research findings, many multinational firms continue to
manage their consumers’ COO perception in their promotion campaigns. For example,
Volkswagen often uses a German-accented narrator, emphasizes that its cars are
“German-designed,” and includes the “Das Auto” slogan in many advertisements
around the world. The furniture retailer IKEA promotes its Swedish heritage
by painting its stores blue and yellow like a Swedish flag, naming all products
with traditional Swedish names despite pronunciation difficulties in the local
language (e.g. Skänka and Försiktig), and maintaining a Swedish grocery store and
restaurant in all retail outlets. Singapore Airlines uses “Singapore Girl” to build a
brand and country image that is warm, tender, and friendly (Chattalas et al., 2008).
Chevrolet’s “Our Country” and Budweiser’s “The Great American Lager” campaigns
emphasize the firms’ American roots and their importance as a part of American
history.
However, despite abundant evidence of a COO effect and ongoing marketing
practices, the COO phenomenon has come under increasing scrutiny. In effect, a
conflicting research stream has emerged, which suggests that most consumers care
very little about the origin of products. Liefeld (2004) found that only 1.4 percent
of consumers explicitly acquired a product’s COO and only about 6 percent knew the
COO prior to the purchase. In contrast, 88.8 percent reported that they did not know a
product’s origin and suggested they had no interest in finding out. Similarly, two recent
studies examining consumers’ brand origin recognition accuracy showed that
consumers’ knowledge of brands’ origin is indeed limited. Samiee et al. (2005) found
that US respondents were only able to identify the correct origin for 35 percent of
the examined brands, whereas Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2008) found that a
sample of UK consumers were able to correctly identify 27 percent of the brand origins
for microwave ovens. Combined, these studies demonstrate that consumers neither
possess much accurate knowledge of the origins of brands, nor actively seek out such
information.
This led Samiee et al. (2005, p. 379) to conclude that “past research has inflated the
influence that country of origin information has on consumers’ product judgments
and behavior and its importance in managerial and public policy decisions.” Usunier
(2006) added that the COO research field is suffering from a progressively widening
relevance gap and Samiee (2010, p. 444) concluded that recent research “clearly point to
the apparent insignificance of CO as a consideration in purchase decisions in the vast
majority of cases.” Samiee et al. (2005) and Samiee (2010) draw their conclusion
based on multiple studies (e.g. Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2008; Liefeld, 2004;
Samiee et al., 2005) which found that consumers’ brand origin knowledge is
remarkably poor. In effect, they argue that since consumers are oftentimes unfamiliar
with brands’ true origin, COO cannot be an important factor affecting consumers’
attitudes and behavior.
This study aims to contribute to the COO body of knowledge by reconciling the
current tension. We argue that the focus in COO research should be shifted away from
the objective accuracy of consumers’ brand origin knowledge to the relevance of
consumers’ perceived COO associations. We suggest that consumers’ perceived COO of
a brand, regardless of accuracy, affects brand attitude. Consequently, we extend
previous literature to conceptualize a new construct, product country image (PCI) of the
perceived COO, which explicitly emphasizes consumer perceptions of origin.
Empirically, we relate perceived PCI with brand attitude and we demonstrate a
significant relationship regardless of brand origin perceptions’ objective accuracy.
Finally, we examine the malleability of consumer attitudes based on learning a brand’s
true home country. This study also responds to Samiee’s (2010, p. 444) challenge to
design COO research that “does not artificially expose subjects to [country] locations
of products and brands included in the study.”
Accurate or not,
perceived COO
matters
455
IMR
28,5
456
In addition to a contribution to the research literature, this study has important
implications for international marketing practice. Specifically, this study offers some
guidance on whether marketing efforts to associate a product with a specific country
or culture is worthwhile, despite recent studies concluding that COO effects have
been inflated (Samiee et al., 2005) and that the concept has become irrelevant
(Usunier, 2006). For the remainder of the paper, we first review the relevant COO
literature, outline the theoretical hypotheses, and follow it with a presentation of the
empirical results. We conclude by discussing the implications of our study for
international marketing research and practice.
Literature review and hypotheses development
COO as an influential extrinsic cue
The COO cue has long been of great interest to both international marketing managers
and researchers. Dichter (1962, p. 116) originally suggested “the little phrase ‘Made
in [y]’ can have a tremendous influence on the acceptance and success of products”
with the first empirical tests conducted by Schooler in 1965. COO effects have since
been examined with a variety of methodologies, product categories, and source
countries and the broad conclusion emerging from almost 50 years of research on this
topic is that COO does affect product evaluations (Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Peterson and
Jolibert, 1995; Pharr, 2005; Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999).
The theoretical explanation for why COO affects product evaluations and purchase
behavior has primarily viewed consumer decision making as a cognitive process
(Bloemer et al., 2009). According to this perspective, a product consists of a collection of
information cues, such as the physical make-up of the product, including material,
color, technical specifications, performance, taste, texture, and design, which have
traditionally been referred to as intrinsic cues. However, information cues also come
from aspects external to the product, such as reputation, brand equity, price, brand
name, and COO (Liefeld, 1993).
By definition, consumers face inherent difficulties in gaining access to intrinsic
information prior to purchasing, which means that consumers are often forced to
rely heavily on extrinsic cues when forming a product judgment (Bredahl, 2004).
Extrinsic cues serve as stimuli, which automatically activate internally stored schemas
(Shimp et al., 1993) and drive product judgments. Research has shown that consumers
view extrinsic cues, e.g. brand name, price, retail outlet, and COO, as consistent and
credible predictors of value and quality (Dodds, 1991; Kardes et al., 2004). In other
words, extrinsic cues provide a cognitive shortcut when intrinsic cues are difficult
to obtain, the motivation to understand intrinsic cues is lacking, or the consumer
seeks to expedite the decision process (Bredahl, 2004). Veale and Quester (2009) provide
a recent example of the importance of extrinsic cues by finding that product
evaluations of wine were affected more by extrinsic cues, COO and price, than an
intrinsic taste cue.
Has the COO cue become irrelevant?
Although our understanding of the COO phenomenon and its underlying
psychological drivers have benefited from decades of research, theoretical
explanations and empirical examinations have assumed that some sort of COO cue
is available and processed by the consumer when making purchase decisions. Recent
research has indicated that consumers’ interest (or ability) to consciously process the
COO cue may not be as extensive as prior research has assumed (e.g. Liefeld, 2004).
COO skeptics have argued that COO matters little to the consumer. Empirical
evidence suggests that consumers are neither interested in finding out products’ origin
nor care about using COO information in the buying process (Arndt, 2004; Liefeld,
2004). Building on these findings, Samiee et al. (2005) and Balabanis and
Diamantopoulos (2008) set out to examine the extent of consumers’ knowledge
about the national origin of brands. Based on two separate samples, one of US
consumers and one of UK consumers, they found that consumers are only able to
correctly identity brands’ COO about one-third of the time. The combined conclusions
of these studies are that consumers do not know where brands are from, care where
brands are from, or use COO information as part of the buying process.
Usunier (2006) argues that COO is no longer relevant because COO information has
become increasingly difficult for consumers to ascertain, in part due to changing
labeling requirements; global sourcing and globalization of the supply chain have
made assigning COO to a product a subjective exercise; and “global” companies prefer
to de-emphasize origin. Consequently, consumers view COO information as
unimportant and non-salient (Usunier, 2006; Usunier and Cestre, 2008).
In sum, traditional COO research has assumed that COO information is readily
available (memorized from advertisements or other channels of information or at point
of sale) and that consumers use the information to make product judgments and
purchase decisions. Accordingly, most traditional experimental COO research has
made COO information readily available (through experimental stimuli) and “forced”
respondents to evaluate products based on a COO cue. In contrast, recent research has
found that consumers’ actual knowledge of COO information is often miscalibrated
(Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2008; Samiee et al., 2005) and that the traditional
experimental approach has produced “artificial” effects sizes that have exaggerated the
effects of COO (Samiee, 2010).
To reconcile these competing perspectives, we present an explanation, which takes
into account advances from both the traditional COO literature as well as the more
recent competing perspective. In the coming sections, we develop a hypothesis
which shifts the focus away from consumers’ assumed knowledge to consumers’
brand origin perceptions, and argue that correct brand origin classification is
irrelevant. A graphical illustration of our proposed framework is presented
in Figure 1.
Accurate or not,
perceived COO
matters
457
Perceived COO
COO and brand attitude. The relationship between perceived COO and brand
attitude can be attributed in part to how consumers respond to complex environments.
Cialdini (2001, p. 7) describes such consumer responses as follows: “To deal with
Initial perceived COO
Product
country image H1a (+)
of perceived
COO
H1b (ns)
Brand origin
perception accuracy
Brand
attitude
Learned actual COO
Consumer
learns
actual COO
Product country
image of actual
COO relative to
prior perceived
COO
H2 (+)
Change in
brand attitude
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
IMR
28,5
458
[environmental complexity], we need shortcuts. We can’t be expected to recognize and
analyze all the aspects in each person, event, and situation we encounter in even one
day. We haven’t the time, energy, or capacity for it. Instead, we must very often use our
stereotypes, our rules of thumb, to classify things according to a few key features and
then to respond without thinking when one or another of these trigger features is
present.”
Hence, consumers seek to minimize elaboration, resort to peripheral information
processes (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), and deploy heuristic cue-based cognitive
short-cuts (Chaiken, 1987). Over time, these judgments take place automatically as a
“thoughtless” response in the cognitive repository in a manner introspectively
unavailable to the actor (Greenwald and Banaji, 1995). In effect, automaticity is the
human cognitive ability to complete effortlessly, mundane tasks without conscious
thought to intermediate steps or sequence. As a cue-based cognitive short-cut, brand
origin information is a place association reflecting the personal meaning about a brand
stored in the consumer’s memory (Keller, 2003).
Challenge of learning the correct origin. Given the vast amount of information and
diversity of sources of information about brands, it is easy to understand how
consumers develop inaccurate brand origin perceptions. For example, if not explicitly
and accurately stated in advertisements or on brand packaging, consumers may rely
on cues from other sources to determine brand origin, e.g. perceived language of the
brand name. Further complicating the learning of accurate origin information is that
such information is obtained in a manner that is often incidental rather than
intentional (Hutchinson and Alba, 1991). In other words, consumers can actively seek
to memorize product information, i.e. intentional learning; or learn about a product
unintentionally as a by-product of interactions with the product category, i.e. incidental
learning (Markman and Ross, 2003). Although some consumers actively seek out and
memorize COO information (Liefeld, 2004), the majority of consumers do not. This is
consistent with broader consumer research that shows that the vast majority of
product-related experiences are incidental (Hutchinson and Alba, 1991). Thus, it
should not be surprising that brand origin perceptions are frequently miscalibrated
(Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2008; Samiee et al., 2005).
Several other factors contribute to consumers’ challenge in learning brands’ origin.
First, origin perceptions are shaped through features such as the spelling or
pronunciation of the brand name (Leclerc et al., 1994), which are not always consistent
with the brand’s home country (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2008). Second, product
price points often serve as a proxy for quality, and low-priced products are often
associated with emerging markets (Brouthers and Xu, 2002). Third, misperceptions
may result from a lack of salience of origin information for a particular brand. Finally,
and perhaps most importantly, marketers may employ a foreign branding strategy and
deliberately attempt to obfuscate a brand’s actual origin and instead replace it with
another more favorable association. For example, ice cream aficionados may be drawn
to Häagen-Dazs thanks to its Scandinavian-sounding brand name, but Häagen-Dazs is
an American brand employing a foreign branding strategy. The Chinese Haier brand
switched from Qingdao Refrigerator Company to its current German-sounding
brand name in 1992. Similarly, Seagull, Jasonwood, Eastcom, Bird, and Draft are all
examples of other Chinese brands that have adopted a foreign branding strategy
(Zhuang et al., 2008).
Accuracy and brand attitude. Samiee et al. (2005) and Samiee (2010) use consumers’
low correct identification rates to conclude that COO must not matter. However, at the
individual brand evaluation level, we reject the implication that inaccurate brand
origin knowledge renders COO information irrelevant. For instance, how can the
association of a brand with Germany be any less influential for a consumer who
incorrectly perceives Volvo to be German than for the same consumer who correctly
perceives Mercedes to be German? Would the stereotypical association of high-quality
German engineering have a stronger positive influence on an individual consumer’s
brand attitude toward Mercedes than Volvo simply because of objective accuracy?
Josiassen and Harzing (2008) corroborate our argument by suggesting that examples
of foreign branding where firms deliberately create an inaccurate brand origin
perception serve as evidence that country associations matter, not as indication that
COO information has become irrelevant.
Thus, rather than arguing that consumers must know a brand’s correct origin in
order for COO effects to exist, we posit that perceived brand origin does influence
brand attitude regardless of the degree of accuracy of the perception. The importance
of brand origin perception over “reality” is supported by Thakor and Kohli (1996,
p. 28), who suggest that “the actual place that the brand originates from is almost
irrelevant.” Indeed, Usunier (2006, p. 62) acknowledges that “COO is increasingly
considered as that country which consumers typically associate with a product or
brand, irrespective of where it is actually manufactured.”
Related empirical evidence also supports our argument. For example, Batra et al.
(2000) found that Indian consumers have more favorable attitudes toward brands
perceived as non-local compared with local brands. Zhuang et al. (2008) and Zhou et al.
(2010) found that Chinese consumers rated Chinese brands perceived (incorrectly) as
foreign brands more favorably compared with Chinese brands perceived (correctly)
as domestic brands. In addition to the dichotomous local or foreign distinction
examined by Batra et al. (2000), Zhuang et al. (2008), and Zhou et al. (2010), we posit
that specific country associations affect brand attitude.
The preceding arguments can be illustrated with the following examples. If a
consumer believes Häagen-Dazs is a Danish ice cream brand, Häagen-Dazs is
associated with the consumer’s attitude toward Denmark, which may include images of
jovial people, the little mermaid, fine pastries, and other desserts. Alternatively, the
consumer who perceives Häagen-Dazs to be a US brand will have completely different
country associations. Similarly, someone who perceives Samsung as a Japanese brand
may have a favorable attitude toward Samsung based on images of Japan as the place
for high-technology innovation and high quality (Anholt, 2010). In contrast,
the consumer who associates Samsung with South Korea may still have a less
favorable image toward the brand based on associations of South Korea with images
such as “emerging market, low price, and below-average quality” (Anholt, 2010).
Research has shown that consumers’ overall country image is closely related with
specific PCIs (Pappu et al., 2007; Pharr, 2005). It is important to note that while the
preceding examples may reflect common stereotypes about Denmark, Japan, and
South Korea (Anholt, 2010), any individual consumer may have different country
images. For example, someone might view South Korea as a newly industrialized
country with a highly educated work force and advanced engineering capabilities
and consequently have a very favorable PCI of South Korean high-tech electronics.
Such a consumer is expected to have a favorable attitude toward Samsung if he or she
associates Samsung with South Korea.
Traditional COO research has viewed PCI as the place-related images of a brand’s
home country (Baldauf et al., 2009). We extend this construct by making the perceptual
Accurate or not,
perceived COO
matters
459
IMR
28,5
460
aspect of “place-related associations” explicit. Thus, we define PCI of perceived COO as
the place-related images of the brand’s perceived home country. While seemingly
minor, this represents an important shift in the conceptualization and subsequent
operationalization of PCI. Furthermore, we expect a positive relationship between
PCI of perceived COO and brand attitude. More importantly, we posit this relationship
holds true regardless of the objective accuracy of consumers’ perceived brand origin,
i.e. the accuracy of brand origin perceptions will not moderate the relationship between
the PCI of the perceived COO and brand attitude. Thus, we offer the following
hypotheses:
H1a. PCI of perceived COO is positively related with brand attitude.
H1b. The relationship between PCI of perceived COO and brand attitude is
significant regardless of brand origin perception accuracy.
In addition to investigating the COO effect in accurate vs inaccurate contexts, we
investigate the malleability of consumers’ brand attitudes in response to shifting
country associations. Given the documented high degree of miscalibrated brandcountry perceptions (e.g. Samiee et al., 2005; Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2008), we
examine the effect on the consumer’s brand attitude upon learning the true brand
origin. Thus, how is brand attitude affected when the consumer’s knowledge is
correctly calibrated following a misperception?
The malleability of attitudes has been linked with the process under which the
attitude was developed, e.g. Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) elaboration likelihood model.
Attitudes developed through the peripheral route, such as heuristic-based or simple
association-based processing, are less persistent and less resistant to change than
attitudes developed as a result of greater elaboration of the arguments central to the
merits of the attitude object (e.g. Petty et al., 1991). Bloemer et al. (2009) suggest that of
the four different cognitive COO effects, only the summary construct-effect is
considered central processing. The remaining three effects, i.e. halo-effect, product
attribute-effect, and default heuristic-effect, are all categorized as peripheral
processing. While there is no empirical evidence indicating the frequency of central
vs peripheral processing in the context of COO effects, the high rate of brand-country
misperceptions (e.g. Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2008; Samiee et al., 2005) may
serve as an indication of a more peripheral processing. Related consumer research
also suggests that limited cognitive capacity often forces consumers to rely on
peripheral processing. Petty and Cacioppo (1986) and Chaiken (1987) suggest that
consumers seek to minimize elaboration, resort to peripheral information processes,
and deploy heuristic cue-based cognitive short-cuts. Attitudes developed using the
peripheral route should be subject to greater malleability.
To investigate the malleability of brand attitudes, we emulate traditional COO
research methods by making a brand’s actual home country explicitly known to
respondents, but not until after they have already evaluated the brand and indicated
its perceived COO. Then, we examine whether informing consumers of a brand’s actual
home country leads to a change in brand attitude. Presumably, if attitude toward a
brand’s perceived home country affects brand attitude, then upon learning the actual
COO, attitude toward the brand will logically change according to the relative
favorability of the actual COO compared to the incorrectly perceived COO. For
example, if a consumer perceives Samsung to be a Japanese brand, the attitude toward
Samsung is influenced by the PCI of the brand’s perceived COO ( Japan). That is, a
favorable image of Japan leads to a favorable attitude toward Samsung. When the
consumer learns that Samsung is actually a South Korean brand, the consumer’s
attitude toward Samsung is expected to improve or deteriorate in accordance with
the relative difference between his or her PCI of South Korea and Japan. That is, a less
favorable image of South Korea, in comparison with Japan, leads to a less favorable
attitude toward Samsung, whereas a more favorable image of South Korea is expected
to lead to a more favorable image of Samsung. The preceding arguments are
summarized in the following hypothesis:
H2. More (less) favorable PCI toward the actual brand home country (compared
with the perceived brand home country) leads to more (less) favorable brand
attitude.
Method
Sample
Data regarding three diverse product categories (LCD TVs, automobiles, and fashion
brands) were gathered in three separate samples of US consumers. The respondents
were surveyed via an online questionnaire administered through Questionpro and we
adopted the technique suggested by Bitner et al. (1990), in which undergraduate
business students from three separate universities trained in recruitment and data
collection procedures identified and contacted potential respondents. Each student
completed the survey and recruited a maximum of five other non-student respondents.
To verify the integrity of the data, each respondent was asked to provide an email
address. One week after the close of the surveys, 10 percent of the respondents were
randomly contacted to verify their participation in the research project. No problems
were detected. Following the elimination of incomplete surveys and surveys taken
by non-US citizens, 544 usable responses remained, 210 for the LCD TVs, 194 for
automobiles, and 140 for the fashion brands. Although the sample was not randomly
collected, the demographic characteristics exhibited broad representation in the
categories of income and education levels with equal gender representation and a mean
age of 36.
We deemed the LCD TV, automobile, and fashion industry as appropriate contexts
for this study for multiple reasons. These industries are global in nature with
prominent brands originating in multiple countries of varying degrees of economic
development; respondents are expected to have a broad familiarity with the product
categories; and these product categories have been commonly examined in past
COO research, which allows for comparison across the literature. Combined, these
arguments suggest that this is an appropriate context to explore the proposed
theoretical framework. In total, 35 of the largest brands from diverse country origins
were selected for inclusion in the study (see Table I). Each respondent evaluated
brands from only one category and following the elimination of incomplete evaluations
of individual brands, a sample of 4,047 brand evaluations by 544 respondents
remained.
Questionnaire design
The online format forces respondents to answer each question in a predetermined
order, with no opportunity to skip between pages of the survey. Thus, it was possible
to minimize response bias by the ordering of the items on the questionnaire.
Accurate or not,
perceived COO
matters
461
IMR
28,5
462
Table I.
List of brands
Brand
LCD TV brands
Haier
LG
Ölevia
Philips
Polaroid
Samsung
Sanyo
Sharp
Sony
Toshiba
Vizio
Westinghouse
Automobile brands
Audi
Buick
Dodge
Hyundai
Kia
Land Rover
Mazda
Mini
Nissan
Saab
Volvo
Volkswagen
Fashion brands
Burberry
Christian Dior
Calvin Klein
Gucci
H&M
Hugo Boss
Louis Vuitton
Prada
Ralph Lauren
Shiseido
Tag
Brand origin
Accuracy rate (%)
Mean brand attitude
China
South Korea
USA
The Netherlands
USA
South Korea
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
USA
USA
24.78
15.63
18.95
8.08
80.41
25.46
64.95
25.51
68.42
79.65
41.44
80.53
3.16
5.16
3.41
5.02
3.99
4.90
4.46
5.27
5.87
4.89
4.22
3.73
Germany
USA
USA
South Korea
South Korea
UK
Japan
UK
Japan
Sweden
Sweden
Germany
82.08
97.25
97.38
49.72
51.68
47.95
65.34
66.18
85.71
53.33
54.65
95.08
5.57
3.91
4.05
3.63
2.96
4.55
4.51
4.23
4.96
4.78
5.06
4.95
UK
France
USA
Italy
Sweden
Germany
France
Italy
USA
Japan
Switzerland
43.38
47.22
76.83
71.15
15.60
18.26
49.65
59.58
71.34
55.31
30.98
5.06
5.08
5.35
5.16
4.73
4.64
4.93
4.94
5.72
4.36
4.89
Specifically, the first page asked respondents to rate their attitude toward the different
brands. The respondents had not yet been prompted to recall any country associations
related to that brand, been informed about the correct home country, or even been
instructed that the research study was interested in country-related information, which
means the relationship between perceived PCI and brand attitude should not be an
artifact of the research design. On the following pages of the questionnaire, we asked
respondents to indicate each brands’ COO. At this time, it was impossible for the
respondent to return to the set of brand attitude items once country-related
associations had been primed. The change in brand attitude item was limited to the
LCD TV questionnaire. In this questionnaire, a final page of items asked respondents
to once again evaluate each brand, but this time, the brand name was accompanied
with the brand’s actual home country.
Variables
Brand attitude. The dependent variable in our study is consumers’ attitude toward
the brand. In order to reduce respondent fatigue due to the number of brands
evaluated, we measured attitude toward the brand with a single item asking the
respondent to rate their overall attitude toward each brand on a scale from 1 to 7
anchored by “dislike very much” to “like very much.” An option of “not familiar with
this brand” was also available, ensuring that the respondents had at least a minimum
level of familiarity to provide an attitude rating. Although multiple-item measures are
commonly used, evidence shows that single-item measures can perform equally well
for doubly concrete constructs (Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007, 2009). Doubly concrete
constructs are constructs for which both the object of measurement and the attribute of
measurement are clear and unambiguous for those rating the object on the attribute,
such as brand attitude (Drolet and Morrison, 2001; Rossiter, 2002). Furthermore, it has
been suggested that increasing the number of items of a doubly concrete construct
potentially decreases its validity (Drolet and Morrison, 2001) and that multiple-item
scales may actually increase the threat of common methods bias (Bergkvist and
Rossiter, 2007).
PCI of perceived COO. The measurement of PCI of perceived COO is created
by matching each respondent’s brand origin perception with the associated
product-category country image. To measure consumers’ brand origin perception,
each respondent was asked to write each brand’s home country in an open-ended
question.
Then, we asked the respondents to rate the PCI for several countries in the relevant
product category. The PCI question was similar to the brand attitude question in that it
asked a single question: “In general, my attitude toward oproduct category4
products from ocountry4 is” on a seven-point scale anchored by “highly
unfavorable” and “highly favorable.” Although it was impossible for us to anticipate
all countries with which the respondents would associate the various brands,
more than 85 percent (4,047/4,750) of all brands’ origins were assigned to one of the
available countries. Finally, each respondent’s brand origin perception was matched
with the appropriate PCI to assign PCI of perceived COO rating. For example, one
respondent associates Volvo with Germany. Accordingly, PCI of perceived COO
is based on the respondent’s attitude toward German automobiles. It should be noted
that PCI is not averaged across consumers, but rather measured at the individual
consumer level. For instance, Japan had the highest average PCI for automobiles; yet,
any individual consumer may rate Japanese automobiles poorly.
Brand origin perception. We split the sample into two groups based on whether the
brand’s origin was perceived correctly or not. Correct brand origin classification rates
at the brand level are presented in Table I. At the product category level, correct
classification rates were 71.1 percent for the automobile brands, 52.0 percent for the
fashion brands, and 45.1 percent for the TV brands. This is slightly higher compared
with Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2008) and Samiee et al. (2005) whose respondents
provided correct classification rates of 27 percent and 35 percent, respectively.
Presumably, this is due to the fact that we studied popular product categories with
relatively large, familiar brands, several of which are recognized by Business Week as
the world’s “Top Global Brands” (BusinessWeek, 2009).
Change in brand attitude. The second dependent variable is change in brand
attitude, which was only tested in the LCD TV sample. The last item of the
questionnaire asked the respondents to evaluate all brands yet again with one
Accurate or not,
perceived COO
matters
463
IMR
28,5
464
important difference. This time, all brand names were accompanied by the brand’s
actual home country (e.g. Philips – The Netherlands). Change in brand attitude is
measured as the difference between the second value of brand attitude and the initial
value of brand attitude, which did not include a country cue.
PCI of actual COO relative to prior perceived COO. We calculated the change in
PCI as the difference between the respondent’s PCI of the brand’s actual home country
(e.g. Samsung – South Korea) and the PCI of the brand’s prior perceived home
country (e.g. Samsung – Japan).
Control variables. To add robustness to the analysis, we also include several
individual-level and firm-level control variables. Individual demographic control
variables include age, gender, income, and education. We also controlled for consumer
ethnocentrism, which was measured with a previously validated (Steenkamp et al.,
1999) four-item abbreviated version of Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) original CET scale
(a ¼ 0.92). At the firm level, larger and older brands are expected to be more familiar
and also be viewed more favorably. Therefore, we control for brand age (years since
founding) and brand size (total brand sales).
Results
Although all of the hypothesized variables of interest are measured at the brand level,
the individual and firm-level control variables are higher-level variables. Hence, the
framework is evaluated with hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The model is a twolevel cross-classified model, where lower-level units (brand-level) are cross-classified
by two higher-level units:
(1)
individual-level variables; and
(2)
firm-level variables (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002).
The results for H1 are presented in Table II, combined and separated by product
category. As predicted in H1a, there is strong support across all models that PCI of
perceived COO is significantly related with brand attitude. More importantly, H1b
predicts that this relationship will hold regardless of whether perceived brand origin is
accurate or not. For the samples with incorrect perceptions, PCI of perceived COO is
significant in the combined sample (b ¼ 0.18, po0.001), in the TV category (b ¼ 0.16,
po0.001), in the automobile category (b ¼ 0.21, po0.001), and in the fashion category
(b ¼ 0.16, po0.05), providing support for H1b across all models. Furthermore, the
deviance statistic examines the presented model with a model that excludes PCI of
perceived COO. The chi-square test is significant for all models, suggesting that adding
PCI of perceived COO to the model improves data fit. For the control variables, as
expected, brand size and age are positively related with brand attitude, except in the
fashion category, which is consistent with the luxury brand concept.
The results testing H2 are presented in Table III. As predicted, we find a significant
relationship between the difference between the PCI of a brand’s actual home country
and the PCI of the prior perceived COO and change in brand attitude (b ¼ 0.13,
po0.001). Model fit statistics also support the inclusion of the “difference” variable
with a significant w2 statistic (w2 ¼ 12.61, po0.001), and an increase in pseudo r2 from
10 to 12 percent. In terms of control variables, larger brands are less subject to changes
in brand attitude (b ¼ 0.01, po0.01). This seems reasonable since consumers are
more familiar with larger firms and these firms’ brand equity may be based on multiple
facets, brand stereotypes may be more central, and consequently less prone to change
based on new information.
LCD TVs
Model 5 Model 6
Incorrect Correct
BO
BO
Model 7
Full
sample
40.33*** 289.61***
1,281
2,766
50.86***
4,047
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.34***
0.18***
16.97***
1,069
0.11
0.13***
13.29***
503
0.18
0.16***
6.12*
566
0.13
0.11**
85.42***
1,917
0.09
0.33***
4.52***
4.74*** 4.54***
4.39***
4.57*** 4.31***
0.00
0.01** 0.00
0.01w
0.01
0.00
w
0.06
0.17*
0.18
0.01
0.37** 0.14
0.04
0.09w
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.09*
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.08w
0.01
0.01*
0.01w
0.02**
0.02**
0.02**
0.01w
0.01w
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18***
4.57***
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01*
0.01w
Model 4
Full
sample
0.28
0.48***
21.22*** 322.43***
440
1,477
0.07
0.21***
4.28***
4.55***
0.00
0.01**
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.10w
0.01
0.09*
0.09
0.03
0.01w
0.00
0.01
0.00
Automobiles
Model 8 Model 9
Incorrect Correct
BO
BO
5.26*
1,061
0.04
0.13*
0.13**
0.08
10.59**
723
0.06
5.07*
338
5.18***
0.01
0.13
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.16*
4.91***
4.89***
0.00
0.01
0.23
0.25
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.13
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fashion
Model 10 Model 11 Model 12
Full
Incorrect Correct
sample
BO
BO
Notes: aComparison with a model that does not include brand origin perception; wpo0.10, *po0.05, **po0.01, ***po0.001
Variables
Constant
Age
Gender (F ¼ 1)
Education
Income
Ethnocentrism
Brand size
Brand age
PCI of perceived
COO
Model fit
Explained variance
(pseudo r2)
Deviance statistic
(w2-difference)a
Level 1 sample size
All product categories
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Full
Incorrect Correct
sample
BO
BO
Accurate or not,
perceived COO
matters
465
Table II.
HLM results: the effect of
brand origin perception on
brand attitude
(H1a and H1b)
IMR
28,5
466
Table III.
HLM results: the effect of
changed brand origin
perception on change in
brand attitude (H2)
Variables
Constant
Age
Gender (F ¼ 1)
Education
Income
Brand size
Brand age
PCI of actual COO relative to prior perceived COO
Model fit
Explained variance ( pseudo r2)
Deviance statistic (w2-difference)
Level 1 sample size
B
B
0.17
0.01
0.19
0.10
0.05
0.01**
0.00
0.22
0.01
0.21
0.09
0.03
0.01**
0.00
0.13***
0.10
0.12
12.61***
503
Notes: *po0.05, **po0.01, ***po0.001
Discussion
Following nearly five decades of COO research, a number of contemporary studies
have begun to question the importance of COO information and argue that traditional
COO research has inflated the influence of COO on consumer attitudes and behavior
(Samiee et al., 2005; Samiee, 2010) and, consequently, that the field of COO research has
become irrelevant for marketing practice (Usunier, 2006; Usunier and Cestre, 2007).
Those advancing this perspective convincingly argue that traditional experimental
COO research poorly reflects actual consumer product evaluations and buying
behavior. Research supporting this point of view (e.g. Balabanis and Diamantopoulos,
2008; Samiee et al., 2005; Usunier, 2006) raise interesting questions, yet, this study
empirically refutes the notion that brands’ country associations do not affect brand
attitudes and consumer behavior. As a result, this study serves as a bridge reconciling
traditional COO research with the emerging competing perspective.
To accomplish our objective, we have conceptualized a new construct that extends
prior literature. PCI of perceived COO explicitly captures the perceptual, and often
flawed, nature of consumers’ brand origin perceptions. Empirically, this study
demonstrates that the PCI of the brand’s perceived origin is positively related with
brand attitude. More importantly, the findings suggest that the PCI of the brand’s
perceived origin significantly affects brand attitude regardless of the objective
accuracy of brand origin perceptions. Hence, we demonstrate that accurate COO
knowledge is not a prerequisite for COO to affect brand attitude.
Brand origin information has become more ambiguous and difficult to ascertain.
Usunier (2006) points to globalization with its accompanying global sourcing, global
and foreign branding strategies, and advancements in international trade regulations
as main contributors to the confusion over brand origins. Consequently, Usunier (2006)
concludes that COO has become an irrelevant construct in international marketing.
Consistent with previous studies, this research reveals only relatively modest levels of
accurate brand origin perceptions. While we do not dispute the confounding effects
of globalization on assigning brand origins, the evidence from this research points to a
different conclusion, i.e. it is perceived brand origin, regardless of accuracy, that
matters.
Although objective evaluations of the origin of a brand can be difficult, consumers
still associate a brand with a particular country and these associations drive
consumers’ attitudes toward the brand. Consequently, while the extent to which
consumers actively seek COO information remains debatable, this study offers
evidence that an implicit perception about a brand’s COO influences attitude toward
the brand. Acknowledging that consumers make implicit associations between a brand
and a particular country can help reconcile recent skepticism about the relevancy of
COO effects (Samiee et al., 2005; Samiee, 2010; Usunier, 2006).
Managerial implications
While the importance of COO information has come under scrutiny in the academic
arena, the use of COO image marketing is still a common marketing practice. Despite
assertions questioning the relevance of COO image, examples of companies employing
some facet of COO marketing stretch the gamut of industries including automobile
companies (e.g. General Motors, Volkswagen, and Toyota), furniture companies
(e.g. IKEA), food companies (e.g. Pillsbury, Conagra), electronics companies (e.g. Vizio),
as well as luxury fashion companies (e.g. Rolex, Gucci). Hence, one can still find many
marketers incorporating COO image management as part of their marketing strategy;
the results of this study offer some justification for their actions.
This study’s findings provide further guidance as it relates to branding and
promotion. International marketers need to be keenly aware of the country associations
consumers draw with their brand. The evidence suggests that for most brands,
consumers identify the correct home country less than half the time. Thus, it becomes
imperative for brand managers to assure that brand-country associations, whether
accurate or inaccurate, add to (or at least not detract from) brand value. For example,
less than 10 percent of the respondents in this study were able to identify Philips
as a Dutch firm; yet, the majority of respondents believed that Philips is a US firm
(75 percent). This inaccurate identification of Philips as a domestic firm (by US
consumers) potentially benefits Philips depending upon the relative difference between
the perceptions of electronics firms of US vs Dutch origin. Our findings indeed
show that being misperceived as a domestic (US) brand (e.g. Philips perceived as
American by American consumers) benefits Philips.
Alternatively, the findings suggest education efforts that inform consumers of the
correct COO can result in a corresponding change in attitude. After informing
respondents of a brand’s actual home country, we found significant changes in brand
attitude. For respondents with a more negative attitude toward a brand’s actual
home country, brand attitude became less favorable, whereas when consumers had a
more favorable attitude toward a brand’s actual home country, their attitude toward the
brand became more favorable. This serves as evidence that brand-country associations
can be managed and that they may have significant positive effects on associated
brand evaluations.
Limitations and future research
Our study is subject to several limitations which offer several fruitful avenues to
contribute to the research on COO effects. It may be worthwhile to extend this study
and tease apart any moderating effects. For example, consumers with low productcategory knowledge, i.e. novices, may rely more on heuristic decision-making
processes by relying on simple cues such as COO information (e.g. Sujan, 1985). These
factors suggest that replicating this study in additional product categories as well as
Accurate or not,
perceived COO
matters
467
IMR
28,5
468
additional environmental contexts would help support, or refute, the findings of this
study. Another natural extension would be to examine this model in a different cultural
environment. Traditional COO experiments have been conducted with significant
findings in multiple cultural environments (e.g. Klein et al., 1998; Roth and Romeo,
1992) suggesting some generalizability across cultures. However, others have
suggested that cultural orientations lead to different responses to COO cues
(Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran, 2000; Hsieh et al., 2004). Thus, it would be valuable
to examine our model in multiple cultural environments and explore potential
moderating cultural factors.
Finally, the focal dependent variable in this study is brand attitude, not actual
buying behavior. Previous meta-analyses (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995; Verlegh and
Steenkamp, 1999) have shown that, in general, COO is a stronger predictor for quality/
attitude perceptions than purchase intentions. Usunier (2006) uses this gap between
attitude perceptions and purchase intentions to argue for the irrelevance of COO.
However, it has long been established that consumers’ behavior directly depends on
their attitude about the behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Accordingly, Verlegh and
Steenkamp (1999) argue that it should be expected that COO effects are stronger for
attitudes than buying behavior, due to other external factors such as budget
constraints. In effect, even though consumers may like a product very much and
prefer to buy it, they may not be able to afford it. Josiassen and Harzing (2008, p. 265)
acknowledge this situation and suggest that “any good research design in COO
research will need to anticipate and accept that COO has a stronger effect on
consumers’ product evaluations than on their purchase intentions. Nonetheless, it may
be fruitful to try to determine brand origin perceptions’ influence on actual buying
behavior separately from brand attitude.”
Limitations notwithstanding, we conclude by restating our core contribution.
Despite decades of research finding evidence of COO, recent studies have suggested
that the effect of COO on product evaluations and purchase behavior is inflated or
irrelevant. This study has aimed to reconcile these two competing perspectives. The
empirical findings demonstrate that consumer knowledge of brand origin is indeed
limited, but more importantly, we offer evidence that consumers’ perception of brand
origin, regardless of accuracy, significantly affects brand attitude.
References
Anholt, S. (2010), Places: Identity, Image and Reputation, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Arndt, M. (2004), “Not made in the U.S.A.? Who cares?”, Business Week Online, May 24.
Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2008), “Brand origin identification by consumers:
a classification perspective”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-71.
Baldauf, A., Cravens, K.S., Diamantopoulos, A. and Zeugner-Roth, K.P. (2009), “The impact of
product-country image and marketing efforts on retailer-perceived brand equity: an
empirical analysis”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 437-52.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Ramachander, S. (2000),
“Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 83-95.
Bergkvist, L. and Rossiter, J.R. (2007), “The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 175-84.
Bergkvist, L. and Rossiter, J.R. (2009), “Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete
constructs”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 607-21.
Bilkey, W.J. and Nes, E. (1982), “Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-99.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Bloemer, J., Brijs, K. and Kasper, H. (2009), “The Coo-Elm model: a theoretical framework for the
cognitive processes underlying country-of-origin effects”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 43 Nos 1/2, pp. 62-89.
Bredahl, L. (2004), “Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef”, Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 65-75.
Brouthers, L.E. and Xu, K. (2002), “Product stereotypes, strategy and performance satisfaction:
the case of Chinese exporters”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 657-77.
BusinessWeek (2009), “100 best global brands”, BusinessWeek, September 28.
Chaiken, S. (1987), “The heuristic model of persuasion”, in Zanna, M.P., Olson, J.M. and Herman, C.P.
(Eds), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-39.
Chattalas, M., Kramer, T. and Takada, H. (2008), “The impact of national stereotypes on the
country of origin effect: a conceptual framework”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 54-74.
Cialdini, R.B. (2001), Influence, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Demirbag, M., Sahadev, S. and Mellahi, K. (2010), “Country image and consumer preference for
emerging economy products: the moderating role of consumer materialism”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 141-63.
Dichter, E. (1962), “The world customer”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 113-22.
Dinnie, K., Melewar, T.C., Seidenfuss, K.-U. and Musa, G. (2010), “Nation branding and integrated
marketing communications: an ASEAN perspective”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 388-403.
Dodds, W.B. (1991), “In search of value: how price and store name information influence buyers’
product perceptions”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 27-36.
Drolet, A.L. and Morrison, D.G. (2001), “Do we really need multiple-item measures in service
research?”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 196-204.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Greenwald, A.G. and Banaji, M.R. (1995), “Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes”, Psychological Review, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 4-27.
Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000), “Cultural variations in country of origin effects”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 309-17.
Heslop, L.A., Nadeu, J. and O’Reilly, N. (2010), “China and the olympics: views of insiders and
outsiders”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 404-33.
Hsieh, M.-H., Pan, S.-L. and Setiono, R. (2004), “Product-, corporate-, and country-image
dimensions and purchase behavior: a multicountry analysis”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-70.
Hutchinson, J.W. and Alba, J.W. (1991), “Ignoring irrelevant information: situational
determinants of consumer learning”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 325-45.
Josiassen, A. and Harzing, A.-W. (2008), “Descending from the ivory tower: reflections on the
relevance and future of country-of-origin research”, European Management Review, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 264-70.
Accurate or not,
perceived COO
matters
469
IMR
28,5
Kardes, F.R., Cronley, M.L., Kellaris, J.J. and Posavac, S.S. (2004), “The role of selective
information processing in price-quality inference”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 368-74.
Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.
470
Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R. and Morris, M.D. (1998), “The animosity model of foreign product
purchase: an empirical test in the People’s Republic of China”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 89-100.
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B.H. and Dube, L. (1994), “Foreign branding and its effects on product
perceptions and attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 263-70.
Liefeld, J.P. (1993), “Experiments on country-of-origin effects: review and meta-analysis
of effect size”, in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (Eds), Product and Country
Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, Haworth Press, New York, NY,
pp. 1117-56.
Liefeld, J.P. (2004), “Consumer knowledge and use of country-of-origin information at the point of
purchase”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 85-96.
Markman, A.B. and Ross, B.H. (2003), “Category use and category learning”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 592-613.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2007), “Country image and consumer-based brand
equity: relationships and implications for international marketing”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 726-45.
Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J.P. (1995), “A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-900.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J. (1986), Communication and Persuasion – Central and Peripheral
Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Petty, R.E., Unnava, H.R. and Strathman, A.J. (1991), “Theories of attitude change”, in Robertson, T.S.
and Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, pp. 241-80.
Pharr, J.M. (2005), “Synthesizing country-of-origin research from the last decade: is the concept
still salient in an era of global brands?”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 34-45.
Phau, I. and Chao, P. (2008), “Country-of-origin: state of the art review for international marketing
strategy and practice”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 349-53.
Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data
Analysis Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Rossiter, J.R. (2002), “The C-Oar-Se procedure for scale development in marketing”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 305-35.
Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992), “Matching product catgeory and country image perceptions: a
framework for managing country-of-origin effects”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97.
Samiee, S. (2010), “Advancing the country image construct – a commentary essay”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 442-5.
Samiee, S., Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (2005), “Brand origin recognition accuracy: its
antecedents and consumers’ cognitive limitations”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 379-97.
Schooler, R.D. (1965), “Product bias in the Central American common market”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 394-7.
Sharma, P. (2011), “Country of origin effects in developed and emerging markets: exploring the
contrasting roles of materialism and value consciousness”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 285-306.
Shimp, T.A., Samiee, S. and Madden, T.J. (1993), “Countries and their products: a cognitive
structure perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 323-30.
Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the
CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 280-9.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M.A. (1999), “Cross-national investigation into
the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 55-69.
Sujan, M. (1985), “Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer
judgments”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Thakor, M.V. and Kohli, C.S. (1996), “Brand origin: conceptualization and review”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 2-42.
Usunier, J.-C. (2006), “Relevance in business research: the case of country-of-origin research in
marketing”, European Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 60-73.
Usunier, J.-C. and Cestre, G. (2008), “Further considerations on the relevance of country-of-origin
research”, European Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 271-4.
Veale, R. and Quester, P. (2009), “Do consumer expectations match experience? Predicting the
influence of price and country of origin on perceptions of product quality”, International
Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 134-44.
Verlegh, P.W.J. and Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (1999), “A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin
research”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-46.
Zhou, L., Yang, Z. and Hui, M.K. (2010), “Non-local or local brands? A multi-level investigation
into confidence in brand origin identification and its strategic implications”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 202-18.
Zhuang, G., Wang, X., Zhou, L. and Zhou, N. (2008), “Asymmetric effects of brand origin
confusion”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 441-57.
Further reading
Ahmed, S.A. and d’Astous, A. (2008), “Antecedents, moderators and dimensions of countryof-origin evaluations”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 75-106.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (2000), “Knowledge calibration: what consumers know and what
they think they know”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 123-56.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (1999), “The theory of planned behaviour: assessment of predictive
validity and ‘perceived control ’ ”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 35-54.
Dinne, K., Melewar, T.C., Seidenfuss, K.-U. and Musa, G. (2010), “Nation branding and integrated
marketing communications: an ASEAN perspective”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 388-403.
Kamins, M.A., Alpert, F. and Perner, L. (2007), “How do consumers know which brand is the
market leader or market pioneer? Consumers’ inferential processes, confidence and
accuracy”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 7/8, pp. 591-612.
Kaynak, E. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1983), “Consumer attitudes toward products of foreign origin: do
they vary across product classes?”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 147-57.
Accurate or not,
perceived COO
matters
471
IMR
28,5
472
Verlegh, P.W.J. (2007), “Home country bias in product evaluation: the complementary roles of
economic and socio-psychological motives”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 361-73.
Zeugner-Roth, K.P., Diamantopoulos, A. and Montesinos, A. (2008), “Home country image,
country brand equity and consumers’ product preferences: an empirical study”,
Management International Review, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 577-602.
Corresponding author
Peter Magnusson can be contacted at: magnusson@niu.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints