The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm
Antecedents, moderators and
dimensions of country-of-origin
evaluations
Sadrudin A. Ahmed
Faculty of Administration, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, and
Alain d’Astous
HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Country-of-origin
evaluations
75
Received August 2006
Revised June 2007
Accepted July 2007
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an in-depth examination of country-of-origin
(COO) perceptions of consumers in a multinational setting. It shows how explanatory factors like
demographics, familiarity with a country’s products, purchase behaviour and psychological variables
jointly work to explain consumers’ COO perceptions.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a quantitative study using a drop-off and pick-up survey
among three samples of consumers in Canada, Morocco and Taiwan. The final sample size was
comprised of 506 male consumers. The data were analyzed using factor analysis to group countries of
origin and analyses of variance to relate COO perceptions to the explanatory variables.
Findings – The familiarity with products made in a country was the strongest predictor of country
perceptions, followed by nationality and the manufacturing process and product complexity
dimensions of country evaluation. Canadians had the highest propensity to distinguish between
countries of origin on the basis of product technological complexity and manufacturing dimensions
and Moroccans the least. Taiwanese appeared to show animosity towards China.
Research limitations/implications – The study used an only-male sample from a limited number
of countries. Future research should seek to develop a multi-dimensional scale for the familiarity
construct. They should also explore the concept of consumer capacity to distinguish between COOs.
Cross-national studies using cognitive style scales should be carried out. A qualitative examination of
Taiwanese’s COO perceptions is also recommended.
Practical implications – It seems important to increase consumers’ familiarity with a COO and its
products to improve its overall perception. Products made in Latin American countries have the lowest
level of familiarity in general. Thus, increasing familiarity with their products is particularly
important to achieve export success.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the marketing and international business literatures
and provides insights to international marketers by bringing valuable information that can help make
decisions as to where to manufacture and how to promote global products. It provides guidance as to
what types of nations are likely to require multi-dimensional information about countries of origin.
Keywords Country of origin, Consumer behaviour, International marketing, Canada, Morocco, Taiwan
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
A large body of research has provided strong empirical evidence of country-of-origin
(COO) effects on product evaluations (Pharr, 2006). COO is one of the most widely
The authors would like to thank Christian Champagne, Jelloul Eljabri and Jean Brice Yoou for
their help in collecting the data for this study.
International Marketing Review
Vol. 25 No. 1, 2008
pp. 75-106
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-1335
DOI 10.1108/02651330810851890
IMR
25,1
76
researched concepts in marketing and consumer behavior, yielding over 700 published
studies to date (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2003). From a marketing point of view,
global companies that are operating in highly competitive domestic and foreign
markets need to understand consumers’ perceptions and evaluations of foreign-made
products. Understanding global consumer behavior is the first step of corporate
learning about how to compete in the world market (Craig and Douglas, 1996).
Questions such as whether to cluster countries based on the similarity of target
consumer groups within each country or to target different segments in different
countries with the same product (Hassan et al., 2003) need to get appropriate answers.
This is why international marketing academics have shown a great deal of interest in
identifying the variables that affect consumers’ evaluation of domestic and foreign
products. Within this context, instead of simply considering COO information as a
single cue, recent studies have attempted to compare the relative salience of
manufacturing dimensions such as the country of assembly (COA) and the country of
design (COD) on product evaluations (Insch and McBride, 2004) and additionally, to
understand how this salience may vary across such product dimension as the level of
technological complexity (e.g. low versus high) (Ahmed et al., 2002a, b). Other authors
have attempted to delineate the antecedents and moderators of COO image (Balabanis
and Diamantopoulos, 2004; Hsieh et al., 2004; Kucukemiroglu et al., 2005; Roth, 1995;
Samiee et al., 2005).
Although some research has linked the evaluation of countries of origin to
antecedents and moderators such as the familiarity with a country, demographic
characteristics, shopping behaviour, attitudes and human values (Balabanis et al.,
2002; Hsieh et al., 2004; Kucukemiroglu et al., 2005; Samiee et al., 2005; Wall et al., 1991),
or manufacturing dimensions such as COD and COA (Insch and McBride, 2004) across
products of varying degree of complexity, little is known about how these variables
jointly work in a multinational setting. Understanding how country evaluations are
related to the product and manufacturing dimensions of a COO and antecedents such
as demographics, and personal traits, and moderators such as product familiarity and
shopping behaviour across a variety of nations may help international marketing
researchers to better understand the contributing factors underlying the formation of
COO evaluations and how these vary across nations. It may also help to uncover
gaps in our knowledge of the COO concept and suggest further research avenues to fill
these gaps.
The aim of this research is to examine the COO perceptions of consumers in the
context of increasing global trade flows. Our interest centres on an in-depth
examination of consumers from Canada, Taiwan and Morocco (three culturally and
economically diverse countries) with regards to their perceptions of highly
industrialized countries (HIC) and newly industrialized countries (NIC) in the
Americas, Europe and Asia, varying both as sources of technologically simple (TS) and
technologically complex (TC) products and as CODs and COAs. We are particularly
interested in examining the effect of nationality on these perceptions. This research
should be particularly relevant for learning about cross-national differences in the
evaluations of products originating from diverse countries along their design and
assembly dimensions, taking into account their degree of technological complexity.
International marketing researchers need answers to such questions as: What are the
cross-national differences in the perceptions of products made in NICs and in HICs?
Do these differences in perception depend on the technological complexity of products?
Do consumers view design and assembly functions differently? Can these systematic
variations in perception across nations be attributed to differences in the cultural
heritage and/or level of economic development of a country?
A number of studies have looked at COO’s evaluative dimensions (Chao, 2001;
Thakor and Lavak, 2003) or its demographic and socio-psychological antecedents and
moderators (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004; Balabanis et al., 2002; Hsieh et al.,
2004; Kucukemiroglu et al., 2005; Wall et al., 1991), but these studies were mostly
conducted in a single-country context. There does not seem to be an in-depth
multi-country study directly linking COO evaluations with their manufacturing and
product dimensions, antecedents and moderators. Although there is a growing
recognition that COO is a multidimensional concept varying across dimensions such as
manufacturing process and technology (Pharr, 2006), so far there has been little
attempt to understand how a country’s culture and economic development impact on
product/country perceptions along these dimensions. To this end, in this study, COD
and COA consumer perceptions of durable products varying in technological
complexity, collected in three culturally and economically diverse countries, namely,
Canada, Taiwan and Morocco, are examined along with their antecedents and
moderators. The paper reviews the COO literature relevant to fulfilling the objectives
of this study, derives the research propositions that guided the study design and
provides a research framework and a description of the research methodology. This is
followed by a discussion of the empirical results, conclusions and managerial and
public policy implications.
In the paragraphs below, some background to the study is offered through a
discussion of the three data collection sites, namely, Canada, Taiwan and Morocco.
Following this, the literature dealing with COO effects on consumer product
evaluations is briefly reviewed and research propositions based on this literature are
presented. The research propositions are put forward with a view to provide a research
structure and build a conceptual framework.
Data collection sites
The data collection sites were chosen with the objective of gathering data from
countries with a large variance in the level of per capita income, geographical location
and socio-cultural background. In the following section, a brief description of each site
is presented, based on CIA (2007). The per capita GNP figures are stated in $US
purchasing power parity.
An affluent, high-tech industrial society, Canada today closely resembles the USA
in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production and high standards of
living. With a population of 33 million, its GNP per capita is $35,500. The median age
of the Canadian population is 38 and the average population growth of 0.9 per cent
is largely attributable to immigration. Canada’s dominant religion is Christianity
(60 per cent Catholic and 40 per cent Protestant) (Statistics Canada, 2001). The
proportion of Catholics in the French speaking province of Québec is about 80 per cent.
Taiwan has a dynamic capitalist economy. Largely urban-based, the Taiwanese
population is 23 million with an annual growth rate of 0.65 per cent and a median age
of 33.6 years. The per capita GNP is $25,300. Buddhism and Confucianism, the two
main religions, have had a profound and pervasive influence on the Taiwanese culture.
Country-of-origin
evaluations
77
IMR
25,1
78
Morocco is a fast-growing, economically-emerging North-African country located
only 12 kilometers from Europe, with a population of 33 million and a per capita
income of $4,200. With a young and rapidly growing population, it possesses a small
but very wealthy middle class. With a median age of 23.3 years, its population is
growing at a rate of 1.6 per cent. Strong cultural and economic ties are maintained with
France and the European Union and the French language is widely used by the
middle class and in the country’s educational institutions and commerce. Islam is the
prevailing religion in Morocco and Arabic is the most common language. While
Morocco is located in Africa, it belongs in fact to the Arab World.
The three countries also differ with respect to their fundamental cultural
orientations (Hofstede, 2001). Among the three groups, Canadians are the most
individualistic, least masculine, least prone to uncertainty avoidance, and least likely to
maintain power distance. Moroccans, on the other hand, score low on individualism,
maintain the highest degree of power distance and are more prone to uncertainty
avoidance and most masculine than Canadians. Taiwanese fall between Canadians and
Moroccans in terms of uncertainty avoidance, power distance and masculinity and like
Moroccans, score low on individualism. Several studies have shown the relevance of
Hofstede’s (2001) cultural value framework for understanding national differences in
consumer behaviour. Hsieh et al. (2004) have used Hofstede’s (2001) four value system
scales to explain cross-national differences in product advertising image. These value
scales have also been found to be related to country differences in tipping behavior
(Lynn et al., 1993), product usage (de Mooij, 2000), consumer innovativeness
(Steenkamp et al., 1999), perceived good-life image (Zinkhan and Prenshaw, 1994),
information search (d’Astous et al., 2005) and brand image (Kale, 1995).
Literature review
Stereotyping is one psychological process that is commonly used to explain how
consumers react to COO information (Maheswaran, 1994; Tse and Gorn, 1993).
Stereotypes are used as standards to evaluate products from foreign countries affecting
the cognitive processing of other product-related cues. Since, country stereotypes may
be negative or positive, the management of a product’s national image is therefore an
important element in the strategic marketing decision-making process of international
firms (Al-Sulaiti and Baker, 1998).
A great number of studies have demonstrated that a product’s COO affects different
aspects of consumer evaluation and choice behaviour. As an extrinsic attribute, COO
has an influence on consumers’ perceptions of a product’s quality (Ahmed et al., 2002a,
b; Kaynak et al., 2000) and of its attributes (Kim and Pysarchik, 2000; Leonidou et al.,
1999), on consumer attitudes towards a product (Lee and Ganesh, 1999), on their
perception of risk (Johansson, 1989) and the perceived value of that product (Ahmed
and d’Astous, 1996; d’Astous and Ahmed, 1999). COO has also been shown to influence
consumer preferences (Knight and Calantone, 2000) and purchase intentions (Kim and
Pysarchik, 2000). In addition, COO effects have been observed with products in general
(Kaynak et al., 2000; Leonidou et al., 1999) as well as with specific product categories
(Kim and Pysarchik, 2000; Teas and Agarwal, 2000) and both as regards the behaviour
of individual consumers and that of organizational buyers (Ahmed and d’Astous,
1995). Recent research (Laroche et al., 2005; Pereira et al., 2005) using structural
equation modelling contends that COO evaluations are part of a larger “COO image”
construct consisting of cognitive, affective and conative components. This research
suggests that COO is a complex construct, perhaps much more complex than originally
conceived and encompasses symbolic and emotional components, as well as
cognitions.
COO has been very extensively studied and is now a mature research topic
(Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2003). Detailed literature reviews on this topic have been
provided by Samiee (1994), Peterson and Jolibert (1995), Al-Sulaiti and Baker (1998),
Chao (1998), Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999), Kaynak and Kara (2002) and Pharr (2006).
Therefore, in what follows, the discussion of the COO literature will be limited to issues
directly related to the objectives of this study.
COO effects on product evaluations vary by product category (Papadopoulos and
Heslop, 1993; Roth and Romeo, 1992). The economic, social and cultural systems of
countries as well as their relative stage of economic development are pieces of
information which serve to position countries hierarchically in consumers’ mind (Lin
and Sternquist, 1994). For example, although Iran, a NIC, is generally perceived
negatively as a COO, woollen rugs made in this country are perceived quite favourably.
The global nature of businesses, the presence of multinational corporations and the
intertwined nature of commercial transactions complicate the assessment of COO
effects on product evaluations. Thus, a distinction between COD and COA is critical as
firms attempt to become global suppliers via central manufacturing, using
standardized marketing programs that include global brands and universal appeals
for their products. Although COA and COD constitute factual information, consumer
perceptions are the crucial elements (Chao, 1998; d’Astous and Ahmed, 1995; Samiee,
1994). These perceptions are influenced by such factors as product complexity (Samiee,
1994), the level of involvement in a product class (Maheswaran, 1994), the familiarity
with a COO (Zhang, 1996), as well as demographic and socio-psychological
characteristics (Kucukemiroglu et al., 2005).
Development of research propositions
The literature indicates that a COO image depends on the perception of the level of
economic development of the country (Roth and Romeo, 1992). The higher the level of
industrialization of a country, the more favourable is the perception of the quality of its
workers (Li and Monroe, 1992), which in turn is reflected in the perceived quality of its
products (Iyer and Kalita, 1997). However, as mentioned above, COO is not a
unidimensional concept (Chao, 1998; Thakor and Lavak, 2003). In an increasingly
global economy, products may be designed in one country and assembled in another.
Thus, COD and COA are two important dimensions in the perception of COO. Recent
COO studies have found that consumers do indeed distinguish between COD and COA
and take both types of information into account when making product evaluations (see,
e.g. Ahmed and d’Astous, 2002 in the Philippines and in Thailand; Chao,1993 in the
USA; Insch and McBride, 2004 in Mexico; Thakor and Lavak, 2003 in Canada). It has
also been found that NICs are less negatively evaluated as COAs than as CODs
(Ahmed and d’Astous, 2007; d’Astous and Ahmed, 1995):
P1a. HICs are more favourably perceived than NICs with respect to their product
design and assembly capabilities.
P1b. A NIC is less negatively evaluated as a COA than as a COD.
Country-of-origin
evaluations
79
IMR
25,1
80
Consumers usually place products into mental categories and make use of this
organized prior knowledge to evaluate them (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989).
Johansson (1989) states that when production technology is non-standardized, there
should be some differences in country manufacturing skills and thus, COO effects
should be more pronounced. Therefore, the influence of the perceived quality of a
country’s workers on COO perceptions (Li and Monroe, 1992) should be greater as
products get more TC:
P2.
A NIC is less favourably evaluated as a COO for TC products than it is for TS
products.
Many studies have found that COO perceptions vary across countries. Kaynak et al.
(2000) have shown that COO evaluations in a developing country differ from those in
developed countries. Koreans have been found to be more prejudiced than Americans
against less favourably evaluated countries (Nebenzahl and Jaffe, 1996). Jaffe and
Martinez (1995) report that Mexicans are literally obsessed with USA and Japanese
products. Consumers from developing countries have been shown to have more
stereotyped perceptions (Okechuku and Onyemah, 1966). Klein et al. (1998) found that
Chinese consumers demonstrated animosity towards Japanese products because of
cruelties committed by the Japanese during their occupation of China. These numerous
findings, based on cross-national differences in the level of economic development,
culture, ethnocentrism and animosity, lead to the following general proposition:
P3a. COO perceptions vary across nations.
Balabanis et al. (2001) have discussed the role of ethnocentrism in global product
evaluations. Research on consumer ethnocentrism and national loyalty indicates that
attitudes are affected by one’s sense of loyalty to the nation and to other macro-oriented
groupings (Bruning, 1997). Studies have shown that consumers tend to perceive their
country’s products more favourably than do consumers in different countries
(Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004; Elliott and Cameron, 1994; Hsieh et al., 2004).
Therefore:
P3b. Country residents evaluate their country’s products more favourably than
non-residents.
Cultures can be broadly classified as either collectivist or individualist (Hofstede, 2001).
An individualist culture is representative of a loosely knit society in which people take
care of themselves and their families, whereas a collectivist culture represents a tightly
knit society in which the group takes care of the people and the people are loyal to the
group. In such cultures, consumer behavior is dictated by group norms and individuals
tend to sacrifice their own needs and desires if this is perceived as benefiting the group
(Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran, 2000b). For example, in a study involving American
and Japanese consumers, Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2000a) found that the
cultural value of individualism/collectivism significantly explains COO perceptions.
Similar findings were reported by Suh and Kwan (2002) with American and South
Korean respondents. As discussed earlier, Canadians are much more individualistic
than Moroccans and Taiwanese. Additionally, Hall (1977) states that Arabs have a
very high-context culture, Americans a very low-context culture and that East Asians
are in between these two groups.
Thompson and Hamilton (2006) point out the role of the information processing
mode on how information is absorbed. Comparison and contrasts appear to be more
effective among consumers who use an analytic mode rather than an imagery mode.
Ng and Houston (2006) have found that individuals with an independent self-view
focus on the traits of an object whereas those characterized by an interdependent
self-view place more emphasis on the contextual factors surrounding an object.
On the basis of the size of the economy and per capita income, Canadians are most
likely to be exposed to a large number of TS and complex products and made aware of
the importance of both COD and COA in making product quality evaluations of TC and
TS products. For instance, Insch and McBride (2004) found that COD was less
important in Mexico than in the USA when evaluating athletic shoes, mountain bikes
and televisions. Therefore, it is proposed that:
P3c. Canadians’ product/country evaluations are most likely to differ based on
manufacturing process (i.e. COD versus COA) and product technological
complexity (i.e. simple versus complex), followed by those of Taiwanese and
those of Moroccans, in that order.
There are differences in the level of importance given to COO by consumers (Samiee,
1994). Rawwas et al. (1996) found that world-minded consumers display a lower level of
prejudice towards foreign products. World-minded consumers tend to be younger,
better educated and more affluent (Hett, 1993). Consumers with more income and
education accept foreign products more readily (Niss, 1996). Leonidou et al. (1999)
found that younger and upper-class consumers show a lower level of prejudice towards
products originating from less-developed countries. Several authors found that
younger, wealthier and more educated consumers evaluate foreign products more
favourably (Ahmed and d’Astous, 2002; Han and Terpstra, 1988):
P4.
COO evaluations are related to consumers’ age, marital status, having
children, income and education.
In the global marketplace, lifestyle variables are used to segment markets (Cateora and
Graham, 2004). Innovativeness is one such variable (Hett, 1993). Consumers who are
technological innovators are more willing to try out new products and to put greater
value on new product features:
P5.
Consumers who are technologically innovative evaluate COOs differentially
than consumers who are not.
Based on an extensive literature search, Samiee (1994) has concluded that product
familiarity is related to COO evaluation. Consumers tend to develop country images
through familiarity with foreign products (Roth and Romeo, 1992). According to
Balabanis et al. (2002), a greater level of direct contact with a country or its products
lead to more objective consumer product perceptions. Moorman et al. (2004) have
shown how subjective knowledge exemplified by product familiarity can affect the
quality of consumers’ choices by having an influence on where consumers search for
information. Cowley and Mitchell (2003) have found that the level of knowledge affects
the usage of information; higher levels of knowledge about an object lead to a more
efficient use of knowledge about that object. Therefore:
Country-of-origin
evaluations
81
IMR
25,1
82
P6.
COO perceptions depend on the level of familiarity with products made in that
country.
A greater involvement in shopping for a product has been shown to be associated with
a greater search for COO information (Hugstad and Durr, 1986). The elaboration
likelihood model championed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) suggests that if a stimulus
is relevant to the consumer, there is a greater likelihood of analytical information
processing. Eroglu and Machleit (1989) found that involvement in a product class was
related to the causal antecedents of COO effects. Insch and McBride (2004) reported
that the ownership of a product was related to the strength of COO cues:
P7.
Shopping variables such as purchase ease, extent of information search,
purchase, product ownership and purchase involvement have a significant
impact on COO evaluations.
Research framework
The framework underlying this research (shown in Figure 1) is derived from the
literature review and the research propositions. According to this model, antecedents
are the precursors to or the determinants of the COO construct. The empirical research
described earlier suggests that consumers’ COO evaluations derive from both
endogenous and exogenous sources. Studies of endogenous sources look for
measurable traits within consumers, such as demographics or psychological
variables, to explain variance in COO evaluations whereas studies of exogenous
sources investigate the structural or cultural dimensions of target countries to explain
variance in respondents’ COO evaluations. Studies of potential moderators, like the
familiarity with a country’s products and shopping behaviour, focus on how to better
Conceptual framework: Research model
Exogenous
Antecedents
Level of economic
developmernt
Culture (individualism/
collectivism)
Dimensions of COO Evaluations
Country-Specific
Beliefs
Endogenous
Antecedents
Demographics (income,
age, education, marital
status, children)
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework:
research model
Psychological variables
(techn. sophistication,
techn. innovativeness)
Manufacturing process (assembly,
design)
Product technological complexity (low, high)
Moderators
Product-country familiarity
Shopping behaviour (involvement, product
ownership, ease of purchase, extent of
information search)
“circumscribe” (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995) COO evaluations in the presence of
numerous influences that would be typical in real-world buying situations.
According to this framework, consumers’ country-specific beliefs (our dependent
variable) are the result of their country’s level of economic development and culture
(exogenous antecedents) and their demographic and psychological profile (endogenous
antecedents). These beliefs lead to evaluations of countries of origin along two product
and manufacturing dimensions. These evaluations are assumed to be moderated by
familiarity with a country’s products as well as various shopping behaviour variables.
Method
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was originally written for French-Canadian respondents. It was
then back-translated into Chinese for Taiwanese respondents. Before collecting data in
the three countries, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a convenience sample of
Canadian (in the city of Sherbrooke), Taiwanese (in the city of Taipei) and Moroccan (in
the city of Agadir) residents. Based on the results of this pre-test, no changes were
made to the Canadian questionnaire, but the Moroccan and Taiwanese questionnaires
had to be slightly altered to take into account the local usage of the French language in
Morocco and that of the Chinese language in Taiwan.
In the first section of the questionnaire, 13 countries had to be evaluated as CODs
and COAs using nine-point bipolar scales (very poor/excellent) and for familiarity with
their TC and simple products (very unfamiliar/very familiar). Canada, England,
Germany, Japan and the USA represented the HICs; Mexico, Chile and Argentina
represented Latin American countries (LACs); and China, Singapore, South Korea,
Taiwan and Thailand represented East Asian countries (EACs). The HICs covered
most of the large advanced economies, the LACs covered the three most prosperous
Spanish-speaking Latin economies that have also attained a moderate degree of
industrialization and the EACs covered the most prosperous and/or fastest growing
Asian exporters that have attained a moderate to high degree of industrialization. To
ensure that the concepts of COD and COA were understood, respondents were provided
with descriptive information; COD was defined as the country where the product is
conceived, designed, or engineered whereas COA was described as the country where
the product is assembled or manufactured. Similarly, in order to ensure that the
concept of technological complexity was clearly understood, it was explained as
follows in the questionnaire:
Some of the products that we buy, for example computers, are technologically more complex
than others, such as televisions. The products that are TC evolve rapidly. Therefore,
computers are quickly surpassed when new and more refined models are born. Other
products, those that are simple, don’t alter much.
The last section of the questionnaire included five questions about shopping
behaviour, two four-item purchase-related individual difference measures, namely
technological sophistication and innovativeness and standard socio-demographic
variables (these measures are presented in the Appendix). The annual income question
was framed in the local currencies being used at the research sites.
Country-of-origin
evaluations
83
IMR
25,1
84
Data collection
The Canadian study was carried out in Sherbrooke, a Canadian city located 90 miles
east of Montreal. Sherbrooke is a mid-sized city (about 120,000 inhabitants) in the
French-speaking province of Québec in Canada. Its demographic profile reflects the
average population of the province of Québec. The Taiwanese study was carried out in
Taipei, capital and the major business centre of the state of Taiwan. Taipei is a very
large city (about 3,000,000 inhabitants) located in the very top end of the Taiwan
Island. The Moroccan data were collected in Agadir, an industrial and services
(tourism) centre with a population of about 200,000. The choice of the three
locations was guided by the opportunity to collect data from very diverse geographical
locations that are also very different in terms of their level of economic development.
Homes were visited by graduate business students in the city of Sherbrooke using
an area sampling procedure. After giving appropriate instructions concerning how to
proceed with the materials, the interviewer left the questionnaire with the respondents
and picked it up the next day or at a convenient time. From a total of 250
questionnaires that were distributed in Sherbrooke, 70 (28 per cent) were incomplete, 29
(12 per cent) were badly completed and therefore 151 (60 per cent) usable answers could
be collected.
As we were particularly interested in getting the participation of present and
potential buyers of a TC product like a computer and given the relatively lower income
of Taiwanese and Moroccans, the sampling procedure was somewhat different in
Taipei and Agadir. Only middle and upper-middle class neighborhoods were selected
for the distribution of the questionnaires. In Taipei, 300 questionnaires were
distributed, 72 (24 per cent) were incomplete, 28 (9 per cent) were badly completed and
202 (67 per cent) usable answers could be collected. A further sampling restriction was
added in Agadir; respondents had to be fluent in the French language. With this
procedure, 275 questionnaires were distributed in Morocco, 83 (30 per cent) were
incomplete, 39 (14 per cent) were badly completed and 153 (56 per cent) usable answers
were collected. The lower response rate in Morocco, as compared with that in Canada
and Taiwan, can probably be attributed to the lower level of experience of Moroccans
with participating in survey research.
In order to be eligible, all participants had to be males over 18 years of age. This was
done because panel survey results indicate that in Taiwan husbands have more
influence than wives in the purchase of durable products like computers and
televisions (Panel Study of Family Dynamics, 2004). Because of cultural and religious
constraints, the collection of data from male subjects is recommended by Kaynak et al.
(2000) in patriarchic Islamic countries like Morocco. Canadian data were also collected
from male subjects in order to maintain consistency with Taiwan and Morocco.
Results and discussion
Sample description
The mean age of Canadian participants was 41 years. The sample included more
married or cohabiting people (74 per cent) than singles (26 per cent). About 12 per cent
had high school or less education, 24 per cent some post-secondary education,
18 per cent some university education, 39 per cent completed university and 7 per cent
had post-graduate education. Thus, the sample is somewhat more educated than the
average Canadian population. The mean age of Taiwanese participants was 34 years.
The sample included as many married people (50 per cent) as singles (50 per cent). About
5 per cent had high school or less education, 15 per cent some post-secondary education,
58 per cent completed university and 22 per cent had post-graduate education. The
Taiwanese sample is somewhat younger but much more highly educated than the
average population. The mean age of Moroccan participants was 30 years, 31 per cent
were married and 69 per cent were single or divorced. In terms of education, 9 per cent
had secondary education, 76 per cent had some university education and 15 per cent had
some post-secondary education. The Moroccan sample therefore is older and very highly
educated in comparison with the average population of this country. In terms of
inter-country differences, the Moroccan sample is the youngest and the most educated.
The age and educational profiles of the Taiwanese sample fall in between those of the
Moroccan and Canadian samples.
Country-of-origin
evaluations
85
Manipulation checks
As expected, respondents felt that buying a computer is more important, more difficult
and requires a greater extent of information search than buying a television. All
differences are statistically significant ( p , 0.001).
Factor analysis
To confirm the a priori country groupings into HICs, LACs and EACs, the evaluations
of the countries as COO were factor analyzed. These evaluations included the
evaluations of TC and TS products on COD and COA processes for each respondent.
A principal components analysis followed by a varimax rotation was performed. As
shown in Table I, three factors clearly emerged using both the eigenvalue . 1 and
scree plot criteria for extracting factors. The three factors explained 63 per cent of the
common variance. The results presented on Table I clearly indicate that Germany,
England, France, the USA and Canada load most heavily on Factor 1 (which can be
interpreted as HICs) with factor loadings ranging from 0.66 for Japan to 0.79 for
Germany. Chili, Argentina and Mexico load most heavily on Factor 2 (LACs), with
Countries
Japan
USA
England
Canada
Germany
France
Argentina
Chile
Mexico
China
Thailand
Taiwan
Singapore
South Korea
Factor 1
Factor loadings
Factor 2
Factor 3
0.66
0.74
0.76
0.68
0.79
0.74
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.07
0.06
0.11
0.16
0.22
20.22
20.08
0.34
0.45
20.03
0.09
0.83
0.85
0.80
0.24
0.41
20.03
0.27
0.06
0.28
0.17
0.08
0.03
0.07
0.11
0.21
0.21
0.16
0.62
0.65
0.78
0.68
0.76
Note: Mean scale values range from 1 (low) to 9 (high)
Table I.
Factor structure
matrix based on COO
evaluations
IMR
25,1
factor loadings of 0.83 for Argentina, 0.85 for Chile and 0.80 for Mexico. Finally,
Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand and China load most heavily on Factor 3
(EACs). The individual factor loadings for EACs vary from a low of 0.62 for China to a
high of 0.78 for Taiwan. Thus, the factor analysis results confirmed the initial country
grouping.
86
Psychological variables
Two four-item scales were used to measure the participants’ technological
sophistication and innovativeness as previous research has shown that these two
variables moderate COO perceptions (Ahmed et al., 2002a, b). Cronbach’s a for
technological sophistication was equal to 0.79 and that for innovativeness was 0.85.
These levels of reliability were deemed satisfactory for carrying out further analyses
with these two scales.
Country familiarity and perceptions
Disaggregated results covering the Canadian, Taiwanese and Moroccan respondents
are presented in Table II for familiarity and for the four individual COO characteristics,
namely COD and COA processes and TC and TS products in Table III. To simplify the
presentation, results of the tests of statistical significance for differences between
variables are only reported for familiarity. All the differences in country evaluations
discussed in this paper are statistically significant at p , 0.05.
Type of country
Table II.
Consumer familiarity
with countries of origin
Canada
Highly industrialized countries
Japan
7.8
USA
8.0
England
5.0
Canada
8.1
Germany
6.2
France
5.9
Mean HIC
6.8
Excluding Canada
6.5
Latin American countries
Argentina
2.8
Chile
3.5
México
4.3
Mean LAC
3.5
East Asian countries
China
5.5
Thailand
4.4
Taiwan
5.8
Singapore
3.8
South Korea
4.6
Mean EAC
4.8
Excluding Taiwan
4.6
Taiwan
Statistics
Morocco
7.7
7.6
4.7
4.4
6.7
5.1
6.1
6.4
F-value
p value
8.0
7.5
4.9
4.3
6.4
7.5
6.4
6.8
0.7
3.4
0.6
170.8
2.7
52.5
–
0.04
–
0.0001
0.07
0.0001
2.2
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.7
12.7
52.6
152.2
96.8
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
4.4
2.8
7.9
5.0
5.7
5.2
4.5
6.1
5.0
6.3
4.1
5.4
5.3
5.0
27.7
50.8
57.6
11.2
10.4
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Note: Scale values range from 1(low) to 9 (high)
COD
Complex
products
(TC)
CA TA MO
Highly industrialized countries
Japan
7.9 8.2
USA
7,6
7.8
England
6.4 6.2
Canada
7.3 5.7
Germany
7.7 7.8
France
6.6 6.4
Mean HIC
7.2 7.0
Excluding Canada
7.2 7.3
Total – HIC
Latin American countries
Argentina
3.5 3.1
Chile
3.5 3.1
México
3.1 2.5
Mean LAC
3.4 2.9
Total – LAC
East Asian countries
China
4.7 3.9
Thailand
3.9 3.2
Taiwan
4.6 7.0
Singapore
4.2 5.7
South Korea
4.8 5.7
Mean EAC
4.4 5.1
Excluding Taiwan 4.4 4.6
Total-EAC
Grand total
8.2
8.0
6.2
6.0
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.3
COA
Number of
COD versus
COA and TC
Simple
Complex
Simple
versus TS
products
products
products
differences
(TS)
(TC)
(TS)
CA TA MO CA TA MO CA TA MO CA TA MO
7.5
7.8
6.9
7.6
7.6
7.0
7.4
7.4
2.6
4.3
2.8
4.3
2.0 4,3
2.5
4.3
6.3
5.1
5.8
4.5
5.8
5.5
5.4
5.4
4.6
5.3
4.9
5.4
5.1
5.0
7.2
6.8
5.8
5.4
6.7
5.8
6.3
6.5
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.5
4.8
4.1
6.9
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.0
8.1
7.4
5.9
5.9
7.0
7.5
7.0
7.2
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.7
6.4
5.3
6.2
4.9
6.0
5.8
5.7
8.0
7.6
6.9
7.6
7.5
6.8
7.4
7.4
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.8
5.2
5.8
5.3
5.7
5.6
5.6
8.1
7.7
6.5
6.0
7.7
6.6
7.1
7.3
3.6
3.4
3.0
3.3
4.4
3.7
7.2
6.1
5.9
5.5
5.1
8.0
7.8
6.2
5.9
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.2
3.5
3.4
2.8
3.2
6.7
5.9
6.4
5.5
6.6
6.2
6.4
7.9
7.7
7.1
7.8
7.5
7.1
7.5
7.4
5.2
5.3
5.9
5.5
6.3
5.8
6.2
5.7
6.1
6.0
6.0
7.4
7.1
6.0
5.7
7.0
6.0
6.5
6.7
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.8
4.8
4.2
6.9
5.8
5.8
5.5
5.2
8.2
7.6
6.0
5.8
7.2
7.5
7.0
7.2
3.3
3.3
2.9
3.2
7.0
5.9
6.6
5.5
6.6
6.3
6.2
2
–
2
–
–
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
–
–
–
5
11
–
4
4
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
12
8
7
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
–
1
–
2
2
3
3
2
20
35
7
26
12
19
Country-of-origin
evaluations
87
–
–
Notes: Mean scale values range from 1 (low) to 9 (high); statistical significance at p , 0.05;
CA – Canada; TA – Taiwan; MO – Morocco
The order of data presentation was guided by Keller (2003), who points out that brand
familiarity precedes brand evaluation. As can be seen in Table II, respondents were
most familiar with products made in HICs and least familiar with products made in
LACs. The smallest level of cross-national differences was obtained with HICs. The
cross-national differences were substantial and statistically significant only in the case
of Canada and France. Canadian respondents were the most familiar with HIC
products, followed by the Moroccans and the Taiwanese. In comparison with
Moroccan and Taiwanese respondents, Canadians showed a much greater familiarity
with products made in LACs. On the other hand, Moroccans and Taiwanese displayed
a somewhat greater familiarity with products made in EACs than did the Canadians.
Unsurprisingly, Canadian respondents were much more familiar with products made
in Canada than were the Taiwanese and the Moroccans. Similarly, Taiwanese were
more familiar with products made in Taiwan than Canadians and Moroccans.
Table III.
Disaggregated
evaluations of countries
of origin by Canadian,
Taiwanese and Moroccan
consumers and number of
statistically significant
differences between
COD versus COA and
TC versus TS evaluations
IMR
25,1
88
Moroccan respondents were more familiar with products made in France, China and
Thailand than were the Canadians and the Taiwanese. This greater familiarity may be
explained by Morocco’s past political relationship with France, the predominance of
imports from France in the consumer market and its geographical closeness to France.
The greater familiarity displayed by Moroccans with products made in China and
Thailand in comparison with the Taiwanese is counterintuitive because these two
countries are socio-culturally very different and geographically very far from Morocco.
On the other hand, Taiwan is closer to China and Thailand both socio-culturally and
geographically. Therefore, one explanation for the greater familiarity of the Moroccans
with Chinese and Thai products may lie in the much lower per capita income of the
Moroccans in comparison with the Taiwanese. The lower one’s income, one may
surmise, the greater one’s tendency to purchase low-price products that come from
low-wage countries like China and Thailand. On a regional level, all respondents were
much more familiar with the products made in HICs (average familiarity ¼ 6.4) than
in LACs (average familiarity ¼ 2.4) and in EACs (average familiarity ¼ 5.1).
As one would expect, in general, the HICs were better evaluated by consumers than
the NICs. Among the NICs, the EACs were better evaluated than the LACs. An
examination of the results for specific HICs reveals that Japan, the USA and Germany
were evaluated somewhat more favourably than Canada, England and France. Among
the EACs, Taiwan and South Korea were evaluated substantially more positively than
Thailand whereas Singapore and China fell in between. There was not much difference
in the evaluation of the three LACs, namely, Chile, Argentina and Mexico. The overall
negative perception of NICs observed in the data conforms to the existing literature
and provides support for P1a.
In support of P2, the HICs were perceived somewhat more favourably than the NICs
as regards complex products. This superiority of the HICs was evident even more
strongly in the case of country perceptions regarding the design and engineering of
products, i.e. COD. According to Li and Monroe (1992), differences in perceived product
quality between HICs and NICs are due to consumer beliefs that HICs’ workers are
more technologically sophisticated than NICs’ workers and consequently more capable
of making TC products. It appears that Canadian, Taiwanese and Moroccan consumers
share the views held by US consumers.
The evaluation differences between the HICs and NICs were larger in the case of
design capabilities than they were with respect to assembly. Whereas, the HICs were
evaluated quite similarly on all COO dimensions, the NICs were evaluated
more positively as COAs than they were as CODs. This observation of a larger
difference between the HICs and NICs on product design and engineering than on
assembly is consistent with previous research (Ahmed and d’Astous, 2001, 2002) and
supports P1b. The function of product design is more creative and complex than
manufacturing and assembly, thus requiring a higher level of worker sophistication.
As proposed (P3a), nationality was related to COO evaluation. Moroccans evaluated
products made in France, Thailand and China much more favorably than did the
Canadians and the Taiwanese. Moroccans were, in general, more positive towards
products made in EACs. Canadians were the least negative towards products made in
LACs and Moroccans the most negative. Among the three nationalities, Taiwanese
respondents evaluated products assembled in HICs the least favourably.
More specifically, Canadian and Taiwanese respondents evaluated products made
in their own country more positively than did the respondents from other countries, a
result which is consistent with P3b. It is interesting to note that Taiwanese respondents
were less favourable toward TS products designed or assembled in HICs than were
Canadians and Moroccans. In fact, they perceived Taiwan to be as good as the HICs in
terms of both COD and COA for TC and TS products, and in fact superior to countries
like Canada and England. Ahmed and d’Astous (2003) had found that Mexicans also
evaluated their own country to be as good as an average HIC, superior to countries like
Belgium and equal to Canada, France and Italy. This may reflect a higher level of
self-confidence that comes from rapid industrialization and the fact that prestigious
brand name products are manufactured and assembled in their own country. It should
be noted that except for a higher level familiarity with France among Moroccans, there
were no differences in the familiarity with HICs between Moroccans and Taiwanese.
China was quite favourably perceived by Moroccans, both as a COD and COA for
TC and TS products. Canadians perceived China somewhat favourably as a COD and
COA for TS products and neither favorably or unfavorably as a COD and a COA for
TC products. On the other hand, China was perceived unfavorably both as a COD and
COA for TC and TS products by Taiwanese. These large differences in perceptions
with respect to China raise the question: do Taiwanese consumers hold animosity
towards the Chinese because of the perceived political threat of future annexation of
Taiwan into China? Or, is it simply the result of the somewhat lower familiarity of
Taiwanese with products made in China compared to Morocco and Canada as
indicated in Table II?
To test P3c, we compared the number of times Canadians, Taiwanese and
Moroccans made different product/country evaluations based on manufacturing
process (i.e. COD versus COA) and product technological complexity (i.e. TC versus
TS). The results are presented in Table III. In the case of HICs, there are 24 possible
occasions (6 countries £ 2 process dimensions £ 2 technology dimensions) where the
mean differences in product/country evaluations of Moroccans can be statistically
significant. As seen in the table, none of the differences was significant. This compares
with five significant differences among Canadians and 11 among Taiwanese. With
respect to LACs, out of 12 possible occasions, Canadian evaluations were different in
all the cases, Taiwanese evaluations were different in nine cases and Moroccans in six
cases. With respect to EACs, out of 20 possible occasions, Canadian evaluations were
different in all 20 cases, Taiwanese evaluations were different in seven cases and
Moroccan evaluations were different in 12 cases. Thus, in total, out of 56 possible
occasions, Canadians’ product/country evaluations were influenced by the
manufacturing process and/or product technological complexity in 35 cases, those of
Taiwanese in 26 cases and those of Moroccans in 19 cases. The differences observed in
these proportions across the three groups are statistically significant (x 2 ¼ 9.21, 2 df,
p , 0.01), which gives empirical support to P3c. As pointed out earlier, these
differences in evaluations may not be attributed to familiarity with products of a
country. For example, although Moroccans were most familiar with the HICs, their
evaluations were not influenced by manufacturing process and product complexity.
It is interesting to note that as a COO, China (per capita income $5,600) was
evaluated much more positively than Singapore by the Canadians and the Moroccans.
Apparently, the actual education and sophistication of the work force in Singapore
Country-of-origin
evaluations
89
IMR
25,1
90
(per capita income $27,800) does not seem to impact on the respondents’ evaluation of
Singapore as a COO. On the other hand, Taiwanese consumers gave much better
evaluations of COO Singapore than the Canadians and Moroccans. Taiwan is close to
Singapore, both socio-culturally and geographically. The mean level of familiarity with
products made in Singapore was 4.2 for the Canadians, 4.5 for the Moroccans and 5.7
for the Taiwanese. Thus, one may conclude that Taiwanese are more knowledgeable
about Singapore and have had more positive experiences with products made in this
country. The mean familiarity with China’s products was 4.7 among Canadians, 6.7
among Moroccans and only 3.9 among Taiwanese. Thus, these results are consistent
with those of Leonidou et al. (1999) who found that 41 per cent of their Bulgarian
respondents had a positive attitude towards products made in India, but that this
number dropped to 28 per cent for products made in Singapore.
Thus, it appears that respondents, especially the Taiwanese and the Moroccans,
have a very biased view of LACs. Similarly, Canadians and Moroccans have a biased
view of Singapore. This view seems to be rooted to a certain extent in the overall
unfamiliarity with products made in these countries. Unfamiliarity with a country’s
products, however, does seem to have a less important impact on the evaluation of
products made in HICs. For example, COO England with an average familiarity of 4.9
was rated higher than COO China with an average familiarity of 5.3. Thus, it seems
that the enormous progress made in the industrial capacity of such sophisticated
economies as Singapore (Gavin and Wilson, 2002) has been largely unnoticed by the
Canadians and Moroccans.
Analyses of variance of country perceptions
In order to ascertain whether the dimensions, antecedents and moderators of COO are
related to country perceptions and to examine the other research propositions, the
respondents’ COO perceptions were subjected to analyses of variance using as
independent variables the COO manufacturing dimensions (i.e. COD versus COA),
product complexity (i.e. TS versus complex) and various COO antecedents. In order to
further explore the possible predictors of COO effects, the ANOVA models included
interactions between COO manufacturing dimensions, product complexity and
nationality. The adjusted R 2 for the analysis of variance models and F-values of
individual variables are presented in Table IV for the HICs, Table V for the LACs and
Table VI for the EACs. Only the F-values of statistically significant independent
variables ( p , 0.05) are reported in the tables.
The results indicate that the independent variables are strongly related to the
evaluation of the COOs, especially in the case of LACs and EACs. The adjusted R 2
associated with these relationships range from very low in the case of Japan
(R 2 ¼ 0.09), the USA (R 2 ¼ 0.06), England (R 2 ¼ 0.07) and Germany (R 2 ¼ 0.06) to
high for Canada (R 2 ¼ 0.36), France (R 2 ¼ 0.32), all the LACs (R 2 ranging from 0.25
for Mexico to 0.29 for Argentina) and all the EACs (R 2 ranging from 0.24 for China to
0.34 for South Korea). The strongest COO manufacturing dimension impact is
observed with Mexico followed by Thailand. The strongest impact of product
complexity is associated with Argentina followed by Mexico. With 11 entries and an
average F-value of 58, the COO manufacturing dimension factor is more strongly
related to COO perceptions than product complexity (11 entries, average
F-value ¼ 20). This is particularly true in the case of EACs where, with six entries
Variables
COO dimensions
Manufact. process (PRO)
Tech. complexity (TEC)
COO antecedents
Nationality (NAT)
Psychological
Technological
sophistication (TS)
Technological
innovativeness (TI)
Demographics
Age
Marital status
Children
Family income
Education
COO moderators
Familiarity (FAM)
Shopping behaviour
Ease of purchase –
computer (PEC)
Ease of purchase – TV
(PETV)
Search – computer (ISC)
Search – TV (ISTV)
Own – computer (OC)
Own – TV (OTV)
Involvement computer (IC)
Involvement TV (ITV)
Interactions
NAT £ TEC
NAT £ PRO
TEC £ PRO
Adjusted R 2
HICs’ ANOVA
statistics
F-values
Number
of
Average
entries
size
Japan USA England Canada Germany France
2
5
6
17
6
27
4
13
4
2
8
5
1
13
13
2
1
2
1
–
18
6
10
5
–
6
13
5
2
543
457
629
3
8
5
7
2
3
2
2
10
9
12
9
9
8
17
12
11
10
6
6
2
33
10
67
11
40
35
15
9
32
6
6
13
18
18
9
7
13
13
1
6
4
0.16
4
0.09
28
6
30
19
13
6
7
Country-of-origin
evaluations
91
5
11
27
11
10
10
8
6
0.06
0.07
0.36
0.06
0.32
and an average F-value of 66, COO manufacturing dimensions performed much more
strongly than product complexity with four entries and an average F-value of 18. Thus,
these results conform to the disaggregated results reported earlier and provide further
insight into the level of the contribution of COO manufacturing and product
complexity dimensions.
Looking at the effects of nationality and product familiarity, two highly
inter-correlated antecedents of COO influence, it can be seen that familiarity had a
greater overall impact in terms of magnitude of explained variance, but that
nationality’s impact was across a greater number of countries. The proportion of
explained variance in the evaluations of four countries, namely Japan, the USA, England
Table IV.
F-values based on
ANOVAs involving HICs
IMR
25,1
Variables
92
Table V.
F-values based on
ANOVAs involving
LACs
COO dimensions
Manufact. process (PRO)
Technological complexity (TEC)
COO antecedents
Nationality (NAT)
Psychological
Technological sophistication (TS)
Technological innovativeness (TI)
Demographics
Age
Marital status
Children
Family income
Education
Moderators
Familiarity (FAM)
Shopping behaviour
Ease of purchase – computers (PEC)
Ease of purchase TV (PETV)
Search – computers (ISC)
Search – TV (ISTV)
Own – computer (OC)
Own – TV (OTV)
Involvement computer (IC)
Involvement TV (ITV)
Interactions
NAT £ TEC
NAT £ PRO
TEC £ PRO
Adjusted R 2
F-values
LACs’ ANOVA statistics
Number of entries Average size Argentina Chile Mexico
3
2
70
82
4
84
83
124
77
3
117
80
63
209
–
–
–
–
2
–
–
2
1
27
–
–
7
5
21
33
2
352
382
–
–
2
–
1
3
–
1
–
–
28
–
15
5
–
17
17
3
3
2
3
12
14
4
0.27
14
8
5
0.29
5
5
15
5
9
323
17
40
5
6
15
13
8
21
4
0.25
0.28
and Germany was quite low. This may be attributed to their lack of significant
relationship with familiarity and the relatively weak relationship with nationality. The
strongest performance of nationality was observed with LACs with an entry into all
three analyses of variance models and an average F-value of 117, followed by EACs with
five entries and an average F-value of 51. Nationality performed somewhat poorly with
HICs with four entries and an average F-value of 13. These results based on aggregated
multivariate analyses confirm the disaggregated results reported earlier.
With four entries and an average F-value of 524, familiarity performed the best with
EACs, followed by two entries and an average F-value of 352 for LACs. With only two
out of six possible entries (Canada and France) and a high-average F-value of 543, the
performance of familiarity in the case of HICs was unequal. Among the NICs,
familiarity did not enter into the Mexico and China models. This may be attributed to a
strong correlation between nationality and familiarity, with the nationality effect being
stronger than familiarity in these two cases. These results delineate the very important
role of product familiarity in explaining the variance contained in COO evaluations.
Country-of-origin
evaluations
F-values
Variables
COO dimensions
Manufact. process (PRO)
Technological complexity
(TEC)
COO antecedents
Nationality (NAT)
Psychological
Technological
sophistication (TS)
Technological
innovativeness (TI)
Demographics
Age
Marital status
Children
Family income
Education
Moderators
Familiarity (FAM)
Shopping behaviour
Ease of purchase –
computers (PEC)
Ease of purchase TV
(PETV)
Search – computers (ISC)
Search – TV (ISTV)
Own – computer (OC)
Own – TV (OTV)
Involvement computer (IC)
Involvement TV (ITV)
Interactions
NAT £ TEC
NAT £ PRO
TEX £ PRO
Adjusted R 2
EACs’ ANOVA
statistics
Number of Average
entries
size
China Thailand Taiwan Singapore
6
66
52
90
59
67
4
18
32
14
19
5
51
110
62
46
32
3
14
21
10
11
2
20
28
3
–
–
3
1
12
–
–
10
6
8
13
15
10
2
524
–
–
–
2
–
1
3
–
1
–
28
–
15
5
–
17
4
5
–
5
8
9
0.30
South
Korea
60
93
5
3
13
15
4
6
268
470
17
40
5
6
6
6
11
0.24
0.30
15
5
530
829
3
12
8
7
6
8
0.30
0.29
0.34
17
Our results also support the earlier findings of Insch and McBride (2004) who found
that familiarity moderates the impact of other independent variables on the evaluation
of a COO.
The results related to the interaction effects of manufacturing dimensions, product
complexity and nationality seem to indicate that, with a significant entry into 13 out of
14 analysis of variance models, the nationality £ product complexity interaction
performed the strongest among the three independent variable interaction effects.
With only three entries, the product complexity £ manufacturing dimension interaction
was marginal in the analysis of variance models. Nationality £ manufacturing
Table VI.
F-values based on
ANOVAs involving
EACs
IMR
25,1
94
dimension effects were present in the case of LACs and EACs, but not in the case of
HICs. The sizes of the F-values for the interaction effects were rather small. Thus,
although product complexity and, to a lesser degree, manufacturing dimensionality
interacted significantly with nationality, these effects were not substantial.
The results related to shopping behaviour indicate that with 20 out of 48 possible
entries into the multivariate models, the strongest relationship were observed
among HICs. With six entries and an average F-value of 33, computer involvement
was the strongest predictor for the HICs. All the other variables, except the
ownership of computers, showed some significant relationships among HICs,
ranging from three entries with an F-value of 9 in the case of information search for
computers to two entries with an F-value of 9 in the case of ownership of
computers. With seven out of 28 possible relationships for the LACs and 11 out of
40 possible entries for the EACs, the contribution of the shopping variables in
explaining the COO evaluations of LACs and EACs were more modest. With two
entries and an average F-value of 28, search for information about computers was
the strongest shopping variable for the LACs. In the case of EACs, with four entries
and an average F-value of only 7, purchase ease with computers was related to the
largest number of COO evaluations, but with only two entries and an average
F-value of 23, involvement with computers showed the strongest relationships. In
general, shopping variables related to shopping behaviour for computers showed
stronger relationships with COO evaluations. Although our results in general
support P5, the empirical evidence appears to be weak and sketchy.
Among the psychological variables, technological sophistication and
innovativeness did not enter into any of the LAC models. Their relationship with
the evaluation of HICs was also quite weak (only two marginal F-value entries for
technological sophistication and one for technological innovativeness). Technological
innovativeness performed much better with the EACs with three entries and an
average F-value of 14, followed by technological innovativeness with two entries and
an average F-value of 20. Therefore, there is some weak empirical support in support of
our research propositions.
With only six out of 40 possible entries for the HICs, five out of 15 possible entries
for the LACs and seven out of 35 possible entries for the EACs, demographic variables
were the weakest predictors of COO evaluations among the four groups of antecedents.
P8 is therefore very marginally supported. Among the demographic variables, with
two entries for the HICs (average F-value ¼ 28), 2 entries for the LACs (average
F-value ¼ 27) and three entries for the EACs (average F-value ¼ 12), age performed
the best. With only one entry with respect to the HICs, having children was the variable
having the worst performance.
The results observed with demographic variables are consistent with those reported
by Balabanis et al. (2002) who found that demographic variables had little effect on the
evaluation of COO Germany in their Czech and Turkish samples. Samiee et al. (2005)
also reported a small contribution of demographic variables in explaining COO
perceptions. The findings reported here extend their results to not one but 14 COOs in a
three-nation study. It is worth noting that previous strong relationships between COO
evaluations and three COO correlates, namely shopping behaviour (Insch and McBride,
2004), psychological variables (Ahmed et al., 2002a, b) and demographics (Ahmed and
d’Astous, 2002; Insch and McBride, 2004) were obtained by means of univariate,
one-country-at-a-time analyses. In contrast, these effects were not observed in this
research using multivariate analyses and data from three nations. This suggests
that because of their inter-correlations and very strong relationship with familiarity
and nationality, individual variables that perform well in univariate settings may not
perform substantially in multivariate settings.
Insch and McBride (2004) used product familiarity measures that bear similarity to
our shopping behaviour variables as a proxy for country familiarity. They found that
the relationship between their measure of familiarity and COO perception was not very
strong. The results of the present study indicate that a generalized country-specific
product familiarity measure appear to perform much better than the measure of
familiarity with specific products used by Insch and McBride (2004). Therefore, it
seems that the predictive strength of a familiarity measure in COO studies depends on
the degree to which the measure is country-specific.
Limitations, theoretical and managerial implications and future research
Limitations
The results presented in this paper should be interpreted with care. This research
considered only a limited number of COOs and sample sites, was conducted in a single
location in the data collection countries with a sample composed uniquely of males and
used a limited number of product stimuli and a somewhat limited sample size. Given
the large size and geographical dispersion of Canada and the existence of two language
groups, French- and English-speaking Canadians, our data are more representative of
French-speaking Canadians than English-speaking Canadians living in the eastern
part of Canada. To maintain equivalency with the Moroccan and Taiwanese samples,
the Canadian sample should have included younger respondents. In addition, with
respect to product stimuli, the use of television to represent a TS product may
have, perhaps, confused some respondents, especially in Canada and Taiwan where
expensive flat screen televisions are beginning to significantly increase their
market share.
Theoretical implications
In this study, we have examined how familiarity and purchase behaviour factors
moderate the effect of endogenous and exogenous factors on COO evaluations. Our
framework incorporates manufacturing dimensions of COO (design and assembly) and
technological product dimensions (simple versus complex). The inclusion of exogenous
factors like nationality, endogenous factors like demographics and psychological
variables and moderators like purchase behavior and familiarity in a predictor
model enhances the validity and practical utility of the results. It also provides
additional evidence of individual differences in COO evaluations, thus adding to the
present body of theory associated with COO. It seems evident that nationality and
product-country familiarity strongly affect country evaluation. However, few studies
have considered various COO evaluation sources in a single framework. Also, there is a
need to bring both manufacturing and product technological dimensions of COO
together and to consider both individual and national-level factors in a single study to
globally enhance research validity. This is what this study tried to accomplish. We have
tested our research propositions across three nations and have used reasonable sample
sizes of male consumers, which gives some empirical generalizability to our findings.
Country-of-origin
evaluations
95
IMR
25,1
96
In general, these findings have added the following new conclusions to the current COO
literature:
.
nationality is related to a consumer’s propensity to differentially evaluate COOs
on the basis of their manufacturing (COD and COA) and product technology
(TS and TC) dimensions;
.
Taiwanese respondents’ evaluation of China as a COO appears to reflect some
animosity towards China;
.
Taiwanese respondents tend to perceive products assembled in Taiwan to be
equal to or better than products assembled in HIC COOs; and
.
familiarity has a significant and substantial impact on COO evaluations.
The results of this study also indicate that whereas HICs are evaluated more
favourably than LACs and EACs on all COO characteristics, this favourable perception
is strongest in the case of COD judgements and for TC products. HICs’ COO perceived
superiority is greater when the comparison is made with LACs than when it is made
with EACs. Among the two COO evaluative dimensions, manufacturing process (i.e.
design versus assembly) was more strongly related to country evaluations than
product complexity. Both COO dimensions had a stronger impact on COO evaluations
in the case of LACs and EACs than in the case of HICs.
An examination of the impact of various explanatory independent variables
indicates that product-country familiarity (a country-specific moderator variable) and
to a lesser extent nationality (an exogenous antecedent) were strong predictors of COO
evaluations. Specifically, nationality was strongly related to the evaluation of all the
LACs and all the EACs, except South Korea. Product-country familiarity was very
strongly related to the evaluation of two HICs, namely Canada and England, two LACs,
namely Argentina and Chile and all the EACs, except China. The LACs were evaluated
more favorably by the Canadians and the EACs by the Taiwanese and the Moroccans.
As for the remaining three groups of explanatory variables, namely, psychological
variables, demographics and shopping behaviour, they did not perform well in the
context of the estimated multivariate models.
An interesting point emerging from this study is that the effect of animosity in
product-country evaluation appears to be evident not only in countries like China,
where past cruelties committed by Japanese during World War II provoked hatred
towards Japan (Klein et al., 1998) but also in countries like Taiwan where no such
cruelties were committed by China. Accordingly, we suggest that global firms continue
to engage in research activities that may help to uncover such animosities held by
consumers towards a COO in the country-markets they serve and take necessary
marketing actions to attenuate their impact.
The theory associated with the role of information processing mode on information
absorption (Thompson and Hamilton, 2006) suggests that in countries like Morocco, it
makes sense not to emphasize COD versus COA as well as TS versus TC distinctions
when providing COO information to consumers, in order to make it easier for them to
retrieve the information from memory. On the other hand, such complex information
should be provided to Canadians.
As for the moderating effect of familiarity, our findings extend Balabanis et al.’s
(2002) work, which suggests that the greater the level of direct contact with a country
or its products, the more objective are consumer product perceptions. The present
research provides additional and substantive evidence of the explanatory power of
familiarity in explaining COO evaluations. Research on consumer ethnocentrism
(Shimp and Sharma, 1987) and national loyalty indicates that attitudes are affected by
one’s sense of loyalty to the nation and to other macro-oriented groupings one belongs
to (Bruning, 1997). Our findings corroborate these conclusions by providing evidence
based on Taiwanese data and extend this theoretical statement by showing that
consumers in a very fast growing NIC like Taiwan consider products assembled in
their own country to be equal to and even superior to HIC products.
Managerial implications
The results of this research suggest that a multinational firm that chooses to
manufacture its products, especially TC ones, in an EAC in order to reduce production
costs may find better acceptance of its products in countries like Taiwan and Morocco
than in countries like Canada. On the other hand, products manufactured in LACs
should find lesser acceptance in Taiwan and Morocco, and products made in China
would find much lesser acceptance in Taiwan and much greater in Morocco.
The negative LAC COO effect may be much more difficult to overcome for
more complex products. An international LAC corporation that wishes to enter the
global market would face the impact of both a negative COD and COA perception.
Various options are open to such corporations. They may choose to assemble their
LAC products in a HIC for the North American market or in an EAC for the East
Asian market and profit from a positive COA effect and/or they may choose to
adopt a foreign sounding brand name that creates a favourable product image
(Leclerc et al., 1994) and leave an impression with consumers that the product
may indeed be associated with a more prestigious country. In a rapidly
industrializing country like Taiwan, where there is great national pride in the
country’s assembly capacity, having the product assembled in a HIC or EAC may
not have a positive effect. These strategies may involve a very heavy investment
in production or promotional programme. A less costly strategy would be to
associate LAC products with a well known HIC or EAC retail chain store and use
the already established chain brand name to convey both brand image and quality
assurance.
Among the EACs, Singapore which on the basis of its per capita GNP of $27,300
resembles a HIC, suffers from a relatively poor COO image in Canada and Morocco.
This result is not very surprising. Because of low-product familiarity, Singapore is
perhaps associated with other less developed countries in the South East Asian region.
Although COO Singapore is viewed just as favourably as COO Canada in Taiwan, this
prestige does not appear to be directly transferable to the North American and North
African consumer markets. Because of the small size of this country and the relative
unavailability of made-in Singapore consumer products in the North American and
North African markets, this negative image may not be easily overcome. The answer
may be to export Singapore-made products to countries such as Taiwan that already
have a positive opinion of this country.
In spite of its much lower per capita income of $5,000, in comparison with
other EACs, China enjoys a more positive COO image among Canadians and
Moroccans. This image may be attributed to Canadian and Moroccan consumers’
Country-of-origin
evaluations
97
IMR
25,1
98
high level of familiarity with Chinese products. China is indeed a major exporter
of consumer products to North America and North Africa. Therefore, these
consumers are likely to have had direct experience with the products made there.
Such products often carry very prestigious foreign brand names. Thus, the
positive brand image may well be carried over to the country where the product
was manufactured. In addition, China is often billed as a super power, thus
projecting an image of modernity that goes far beyond its present technological
sophistication. Thus, for global corporations that are looking for an EAC location
for manufacturing parts or assembling products, China can provide not only an
economically favourable location but also a less negative COA image in markets
like Canada and Morocco. For sophisticated NICs, such as Singapore, which
manufacture products in China to export to North American and North African
markets, there may be a lesson to be learnt. By exporting products made in China
that may have been designed in and whose parts are sourced from more
sophisticated NICs, the positive product experience is transferred to China whereas
the parent country remains relatively unknown to consumers, especially if the
brand name is not associated with the COD. Perhaps, such products should
prominently feature the source of design in order to build up a positive parent
country image. For companies located in LACs, which because of their present or
future free trade relationship with the USA and Canada are planning to export
their products designed and assembled in these countries, it makes sense to begin
the process with less complex products. Over time, as the familiarity with LAC
products increases and country reputation improves, highly complex products
made by them may then be introduced in North America. In order to get their
products accepted in the North African and East Asian markets, LACs have to
find ways of increasing consumer familiarity with their products.
For multinational corporations that market their TC products originating from
LACs or EACs at competitive prices to HICs, there is some evidence that suggests that
it will be more profitable to target such products to consumers who demonstrate a high
level of involvement in the purchase decision. Consumers who are highly involved in
the purchase of complex products are more likely to be informed about the
technologically advanced manufacturing capacity of more developed LACs and EACs
and thus, may be able to appreciate the favourable price-quality relationship provided
by products made in these countries.
Given the very low level of consumer familiarity with products made in LACs in the
Taiwanese and Moroccan markets, it is recommended that country brand promotion
efforts by LACs in such markets begin by a selection of appropriate target segments. In
this research, it was found that younger respondents are less prejudiced towards LAC
products than older ones. Therefore, this segment can be an appropriate target market
for country brand promotion.
We found that Canadians were most likely to distinguish product-country offerings
on the basis of their manufacturing and technological dimensions and Moroccans were
least likely to do so. Therefore, country-brand marketers will be well advised to
provide, through their advertising programme, detailed information about their
country’s products in countries like Canada and more global and holistic information in
countries like Morocco.
Future research
This research presents opportunities for further research, including:
.
replicating this study using a wider range of manufacturing process dimensions
and product technology dimensions, more appropriate product examples to
illustrate product technology, the inclusion of female respondents and the use of
larger sample sizes;
.
a more in-depth examination of consumers’ propensity to differentiate between
COOs on the basis of manufacturing process and product complexity;
.
a more in-depth examination of the COO perceptions of Taiwanese consumers;
and
.
constructing a valid scale to measure product-country familiarity.
In our study, we have only dealt with two dimensions of the manufacturing process,
namely design and assembly. Future studies may add a third dimension, namely parts
(Chao, 1998).
Similarly, we have used two product-complexity dimensions (simple versus
complex). Future studies may consider the inclusion of low involvement such as coffee,
bread (Ahmed et al., 2004a, b). We sampled only male respondents and therefore future
studies should include female respondents as well. Given the rapid changes that have
occurred in television technology recently, future studies may pay greater attention to
selecting examples of low- or high-technology products. Future studies should also be
conducted in a greater number of countries and regions within a country and choose
more appropriate products for each country to illustrate product complexity.
Our results indicate that the consumer propensity to differentiate between
dimensions of COOs and product types varies across nations. We proposed that this
can be attributed to differences in cultural values (Hofstede, 2001) and greater
experience with product purchase due to product availability and variety in the market
place. Future studies may find that this tendency is explained by national differences
in cognitive style (Riding and Rayner, 2001). If this was the case, these findings may
have managerial implications also for multi-cultural nations like the USA.
Given the strong role played in this research by product-country familiarity as a
moderating variable in explaining the variance contained in COO evaluations, one
question that must be asked is how can one more effectively and efficiently increase
consumers’ familiarity with a COO? In order to provide an answer to this important
question, a better measure of product-country familiarity than the one that was used in
this study must be developed. It must be recognized that there are multiple dimensions
of product-country familiarity as well as multiple sources or means to create
product-country familiarity. This familiarity may be based on tangible, product-related
information or intangibles like a halo effect (Han, 1989), or both. In addition, country
marketing can create dimensions which in turn affect consumer response. One needs to
know the antecedents and consequences of product-country familiarity. Therefore, the
construction of a multi-item scale to measure product-country familiarity is a
pre-requisite to being able to take appropriate country-branding actions.
Some surprising results came out from the analysis of the Taiwanese data. First,
Taiwanese respondents gave an unfavourable evaluation of COO China. Given that
Taiwanese and Chinese share the same racial and cultural heritage and that Taiwan is
Country-of-origin
evaluations
99
IMR
25,1
100
one of the most important investor in China in the manufacturing sector (Zhang, 2003),
this result is particularly surprising. We have attributed it to a possible animosity
towards China because of China’s expressed desire to annex Taiwan. Second, we found
that the Taiwanese consider their country’s assembly capacity to be equal to or
superior to that of HICs. We have attributed this phenomenon to an extension of
ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). It is conceivable that these two surprising
results are linked in some way and that there may be other explanations. A qualitative
study directed at examining in depth why these COO beliefs are being held may clear
up this matter. It may examine whether the home country bias is rooted in a greater
familiarity with locally-made products, allowing more informed judgments regarding
their quality. Similarly, the lack of familiarity with foreign products may perhaps
explain the less positive appreciation of their true qualities.
References
Ahmed, S.A. and d’Astous, A. (1995), “Comparison of country of origin effects on household and
organizational buyers’ product perceptions”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 31-5.
Ahmed, S.A. and d’Astous, A. (1996), “Country of origin and brand effects: a multi-dimensional
and multi-attribute study”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 93-115.
Ahmed, S.A. and d’Astous, A. (2001), “Canadian consumer perceptions of products made in
newly industrializing East Asian countries”, International Journal of Commerce and
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 54-81.
Ahmed, S.A. and d’Astous, A. (2002), “South East Asian consumer perceptions of countries of
origin”, Journal of Asia Pacific Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-41.
Ahmed, S. and d’Astous, A. (2003), “Product country images in the context of NAFTA:
a Canada-Mexico study”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 23-44.
Ahmed, S.A. and d’Astous, A. (2007), “Moderating effect of nationality on country-of-origin
perceptions: English-speaking Thailand versus French-speaking Canada”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 240-8.
Ahmed, S.A., d’Astous, A. and Eljabri, J. (2002a), “Impact of technological complexity on
consumers’ perceptions of products made in highly and newly industrialising countries”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 Nos 4/5, pp. 387-407.
Ahmed, S.A., d’Astous, A. and Yoou, J.B. (2004a), “Exporting to Morocco: consumer perceptions
of countries of origin”, in Spotts, H.E. (Ed.), Developments in Marketing Science, Academy
of Marketing Science, Vancouver, pp. 267-70.
Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Ling, C.P., Fang, T.W. and Hui, A.K. (2002b), “Country of origin and
brand effects on consumers’ evaluations of cruise lines”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 279-302.
Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Yang, X., Fatt, C.H., Teng, H.S. and Teng, L.C. (2004b), “Does country
of origin matter for low involvement products”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 102-20.
Al-Sulaiti, K. and Baker, M.J. (1998), “Country of origin effects: a literature review”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 150-99.
Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2004), “Domestic country bias, country of origin effect,
and consumer ethnocentrism”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 80-91.
Balabanis, G., Mueller, R. and Melewar, T.C. (2002), “The human values’ lenses of country of
origin images”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 582-610.
Balabanis, G., Diamantopoulos, A., Mueller, R.D. and Melewar, T.C. (2001), “Impact of
nationalism, patriotism and internationalism on consumer ethnocentric tendencies”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 157-75.
Bruning, E.R. (1997), “Country of origin, national loyalty and product choice: the case of
international air travel”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Cateora, P.R. and Graham, J.L. (2004), International Marketing, Richard P. Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Chao, P. (1993), “Partitioning country-of-origin effects: consumer evaluations of a hybrid
product”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 291-306.
Chao, P. (1998), “Impact of country-of-origin dimensions on product quality and design quality
perceptions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Chao, P. (2001), “The moderating effects of country of assembly, country of parts, and country of
design on hybrid product evaluations”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 67-81.
CIA (2007), World Fact Book, CIA, available at: www.cia.gov
Cowley, E. and Mitchell, A.W. (2003), “The moderating effect of product knowledge on the
learning and organization of product information”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 443-55.
Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (1996), “Responding to the challenges of global markets: change,
complexity, competition and conscience”, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 6-18.
d’Astous, A. and Ahmed, S.A. (1995), “Multidimensional country of origin effects on product
evaluations: a study in Morocco”, International Journal of Commerce and Management,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 32-45.
d’Astous, A. and Ahmed, S.A. (1999), “The importance of country images in the formation of
consumer product perceptions”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 108-25.
d’Astous, A., Carù, A., Koll, O. and Sigué, S.P. (2005), “Moviegoers’ use of film reviews in the
search for information: a multi-country study”, International Journal of Arts Management,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 32-45.
de Mooij, M. (2000), “The future is predictable for international marketers: converging incomes
lead to diverging consumer behavior”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 103-28.
Elliott, G.R. and Cameron, R.S. (1994), “Consumer perception of product quality and the
country-of-origin effect”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 49-62.
Eroglu, S.A. and Machleit, K.A. (1989), “Effects of individual and product-specific variables on
utilizing country of origin as a product quality cue”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 6
No. 6, pp. 27-41.
Gavin, P. and Wilson, P. (2002), Economic Growth and Development in Singapore: Past and
Future, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000a), “Cultural variations in country of origin effects”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 309-17.
Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000b), “Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 96-108.
Hall, E.T. (1977), Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, Garden City, NY.
Han, C.M. (1989), “Country image: halo or summary construct”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 222-9.
Country-of-origin
evaluations
101
IMR
25,1
102
Han, C.M. and Terpstra, V. (1988), “Country of origin effects for uni-national and bi-national
products”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 235-55.
Hassan, S.S., Craft, S. and Kortam, W. (2003), “Understanding the new bases for global market
segmentation”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 446-62.
Hett, E.J. (1993), “The development of an instrument to measure global-mindedness”,
Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 52, p. 2099A.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
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.
Hugstad, P. and Durr, P. (1986), “A study of manufacturer impact on consumer perceptions”, in
Malhotra, N. and Howes, J. (Eds), Development in Marketing Science, Vol. 9, Academy of
Marketing Science, Coral Gables, FL, pp. 155-99.
Insch, G.S. and McBride, B. (2004), “The impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer
perceptions of product quality: a bi-national test of the decomposed country-of-origin
construct”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 256-65.
Iyer, G.R. and Kalita, J.K. (1997), “The impact of country-of-origin and country-of-manufacture
cues on consumer perceptions of quality and value”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Jaffe, E.D. and Martinez, C.R. (1995), “Mexican consumer attitudes towards domestic and foreign
made products”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 7-26.
Johansson, J.K. (1989), “Determinants and effects of the use of ‘made-in’ labels”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 47-58.
Kale, S.H. (1995), “Grouping euroconsumers: a culture-based clustering approach”, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 35-48.
Kaynak, E. and Kara, A. (2002), “Consumer perceptions of foreign products: an analysis of
product country images (PCI) and ethnocentrism”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36
Nos 7/8, pp. 115-32.
Kaynak, E., Kucukemiroglu, O. and Hyder, A.S. (2000), “Consumers’ country-of-origin (COO)
perceptions of imported products in a homogenous less-developed country”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 9/10, pp. 221-41.
Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.
Kim, S. and Pysarchik, D.T. (2000), “Predicting purchase intentions for uni-national and
bi-national products”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28
No. 6, pp. 280-91.
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.
Knight, G.A. and Calantone, R.J. (2000), “A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin
perceptions: a cross-cultural investigation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 114-26.
Kucukemiroglu, O., Kara, A. and Harcar, T. (2005), “Exploring buyer life-style dimensions and
ethnocentrism among Canadian consumers: an empirical study”, The Business Review,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 210-7.
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. and Mourali, M. (2005), “The influence of country
image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 96-116.
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B.H. and Dubé, L. (1994), “Foreign branding and its effects on product
perceptions and attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 263-70.
Lee, D. and Ganesh, G. (1999), “Effects of partitioned country image in the context of brand image
and familiarity: a categorization theory perspective”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-39.
Leonidou, L.C., Hadjimarcou, J., Kaleka, A. and Stamenoua, G.T. (1999), “Bulgarian consumers’
perceptions of products made in Asia Pacific”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 126-42.
Li, W.K. and Monroe, K.B. (1992), “The role of country of origin information on buyer’s product
evaluation: an in-depth interview approach”, Enhancing Knowledge Development, Vol. 3,
Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Educator’s Conference, pp. 274-80.
Lin, L. and Sternquist, B. (1994), “Taiwanese consumers’ perceptions of product information
cues”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Lynn, M., Zinkhan, G.M. and Harris, J. (1993), “Consumer tipping: a cross-country study”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 478-88.
Maheswaran, D. (1994), “Country of origin as a stereotype: effects of consumer expertise and
attribute strength on product evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 354-65.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A.M. (1989), “Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluations”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 39-54.
Moorman, C., Diehl, K., Brinberg, D. and Kidwell, B. (2004), “Subjective knowledge, search
locations, and consumer choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 673-80.
Nebenzahl, I.D. and Jaffe, E.D. (1996), “Measuring joint effects of brand and country images on
consumer evaluation of global products”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 5-22.
Ng, S. and Houston, M.J. (2006), “Exemplars or beliefs? The impact of self view on the nature and
relative influence of brand association”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 581-91.
Niss, H. (1996), “Country of origin marketing over the product life cycle: a Danish case study”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 6-22.
Okechuku, C. and Onyemah, V. (1966), “Nigerian consumer attitudes towards foreign and
domestic products”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 611-22.
Panel Study of Family Dynamics (2004), available at: http://psfd.sinica.edu.tw
Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (1993), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in
International Marketing, International Business Press, New York, NY.
Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (2003), “Country equity and product-country images: state of
art in research and implications”, in Jain, S.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in International
Marketing, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 402-33.
Pereira, A., Hsu, C. and Kundu, S.K. (2005), “Country-of-origin image: measurement and
cross-national testing”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 107-28.
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. 83-101.
Country-of-origin
evaluations
103
IMR
25,1
104
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral
Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Pharr, J.M. (2006), “Synthesizing country-of-origin research from the last decade: is the concept
still salient in the era of global brands?”, Journal of Marketing Practice and Theory, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 34-45.
Rawwas, M.Y.A., Rajendran, K.N. and Wuehrer, G.A. (1996), “The influence of worldmindedness
and nationalism on consumer evaluation of domestic and foreign products”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 20-38.
Riding, R.J. and Rayner, S.G. (2001), International Perspectives on Individual Differences:
Cognitive Styles, Vol. 1, Ablex Publishing, Stamford, CT.
Roth, M.S. (1995), “The effect of culture and socio-economics on the performance of global brand
image strategies”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 135-45.
Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992), “Matching product category and country image perceptions:
a framework for managing country-of-origin effects”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 477-97.
Samiee, S. (1994), “Consumer evaluation of products in a global market”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.
Samiee, S., Shimp, T. and Sharma, S. (2005), “Brand origin recognition accuracy: its antecedents
and consumers’ cognitive limitations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 379-98.
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.
Statistics Canada (2001), available at: www40.statscan.ca
Steenkamp, J.B., Hofstede, F.T. and Wedel, M. (1999), “A cross-national investigation into the
individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 55-70.
Suh, T. and Kwan, G.K. (2002), “Globalization and reluctant buyers”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 663-80.
Teas, K. and Agarwal, S. (2000), “The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions
of quality, sacrifice, and value”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 278-90.
Thakor, M.V. and Lavak, A.M. (2003), “Effect of perceived brand origin associations on
consumer perceptions of quality”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 394-408.
Thompson, D.V. and Hamilton, R.W. (2006), “The impact of information processing mode on
consumers’ responses to comparative advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 530-41.
Tse, D.K. and Gorn, G.J. (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. 57-76.
Verlegh, P.W.J. and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1999), “A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin
research”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-46.
Wall, M., Liefeld, J. and Heslop, L.A. (1991), “Impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer
judgments in multi-cue situations: a covariance analysis”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 105-14.
Zhang, W.B. (2003), Taiwan’s Modernization, World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, NJ.
Zhang, Y. (1996), “Chinese consumers’ evaluation of foreign products: the influence of culture,
product types and product presentation format”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30
No. 12, pp. 50-68.
Zinkhan, G.M. and Prenshaw, P.J. (1994), “Good life images and brand name associations:
evidence from Asia, America and Europe”, in Allen, C. and Roeder, D. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 21, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 496-500.
Country-of-origin
evaluations
105
Further reading
Kim, C.K. and Chung, J.Y. (1997), “Brand popularity, country image and market share:
an empirical study”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 361-86.
Appendix. Description of variables included in the study
Process
The products we often buy come from foreign countries. When we talk about the origin of a
product, it is important to distinguish two things:
(1) The design, the conception or the engineering: for example, the design and engineering of
a computer might have been done in the USA.
(2) The assembly: for example, the assembly of the same computer might have been done in
Japan.
Technological complexity
Some of the products that we buy, for example computers, are technologically more complex
than others, such as televisions. The products that are TC evolve rapidly. Therefore, computers
are quickly surpassed when new and more refined models are born. Other products, those that
are simple, do not alter much, which is why televisions have changed little in the past 20 years.
Country evaluation
Please evaluate the following countries with reference to the conception, the design and the
engineering (or assembly) of TC (or TS) products. Circle the number that mostly corresponds to
your opinion:
Country (e.g. the USA) Very poor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Excellent
Product-country familiarity
Please indicate your level of familiarity with TC (or TS) products made in the following
countries. Circle the number that mostly corresponds to your opinion:
Country (e.g. the USA) Not familiar at all
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very
familiar
Shopping behaviour
When you shop for a computer (or a TV),
.
Do you consider the purchase as being:
Not important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very important
.
Do you search for:
Very little information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A lot of information
.
Do you feel:
Not very involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Highly involved
.
Is it a purchase that is:
Very easy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very difficult
IMR
25,1
106
Technological sophistication
.
In general, I feel uncomfortable with technologically sophisticated products (i.e. bank
teller machines, video cassettes, computers).
.
I can say that I do not experience difficulty in understanding the functions of
technologically sophisticated products that I usually utilize.
.
I often feel incapable of operating an appliance whose technology seems complex.
.
I do not like to find myself in a situation where I have to use a technologically
sophisticated product.
Technological innovativeness
.
In general, I can say that I am very interested in new features associated with
technologically sophisticated products (cameras, computers. . .).
.
When I hear about a new high-tech product, I take advantage of the very first occasion to
find out more about it.
.
I like to buy new technologically-sophisticated products introduced in the market.
.
When it comes to buying a technologically-sophisticated product, I prefer to buy new
rather than existing products.
Corresponding author
Sadrudin A. Ahmed can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints