Consumption expression ofideological resistance

Cristel Antonia RussellUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Dale W. RussellSchool of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California,

USA, and

Peter C. NeijensThe Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to focus on resistance driven by animosity toward a country due tocultural, political, military and economic reasons. Previous research has linked animosity toward agiven country to explicit judgments and purchases of products from that country, thus ignoring thepossibility that latent ideological beliefs may reveal themselves behaviorally more subtly. Thisresearch focuses on implicit consumption expressions of country-based consumption resistance.

Design/methodology/approach – Cross-sectional survey data were collected from Frenchmoviegoers in seemingly unrelated studies. In study one, respondents reported the movies they hadwatched at a movie theater over the past month and these movies were subsequently coded by countryof origin. Animosity, ethnocentrism, and global openness were measured in study two. Finally,participants selected lottery tickets for either a French or foreign movie. This choice measure captureswhether ethnocentric consumption tendencies emerge after animosity is made salient.

Findings – Ideological resistance to the USA expresses itself in the anti-consumption of US movies.Further, when animosity toward the USA is made salient, high animosity French respondents expressan increased preference for domestic consumption choices, even though they are not generallyethnocentric.

Originality/value – The focus on actual consumption data provides an externally valid test of bothlatent and explicit expressions of ideological resistance to a country in the form of consumptionchoices.

Keywords Country of origin, Anti-consumption, Consumer behaviour, Culture

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionConsumer resistance is often based on ideological or cultural motivations (Varman andBelk, 2009). This paper focuses on resistance driven by negative sentiment, oranimosity, toward a country due to cultural, political, military, and economic reasons(Klein et al., 1998; Onea, 2008). Previous research in this domain has linked animositytoward a given country to explicit judgments and purchases of products from thatcountry, asking consumers directly whether they own or what they think of productsfrom country A. This focus on consumption attitudes and behaviors explicitly linked toa country ignores the possibility that latent ideological beliefs, such as those that driveanimosity, may reveal themselves behaviorally in a more subtle fashion. This research

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Expression ofideologicalresistance

1715

Received January 2010Revised July 2010

Accepted November 2010

European Journal of MarketingVol. 45 No. 11/12, 2011

pp. 1715-1724q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090561111167351

focuses on these more implicit consumption expressions of country-based consumptionresistance.

The context for this research is animosity toward the United States (US), which isexhibited by millions of people throughout the world (Grigoriadis, 2010; PEW, 2005;Sardar and Davies, 2003) and persists even though many believed that it wouldsubside following the election of President Obama (Brown, 2009). Political scienceliterature documents that animosity towards the US is rooted in major ideological,cultural, and religious differences (Berman, 2005; Sardar and Davies, 2003). It is heavilyengrained in the psyche of the people, having developed over a prolonged period oftime, and therefore unlikely to change (Onea, 2008). Despite continuous evidence ofanimosity toward the US (Grigoriadis, 2010; PEW, 2006), there is limited evidenceregarding the degree to which it reveals itself in the consumption (or anti-consumption)of US products (Ceaser, 2003; Lee et al., 2009). Furthermore, the latent nature ofideological beliefs suggests that they may reveal themselves through consumption inmore subtle and unconscious ways than previously studied (Amodio and Devine,2006).

2. Conceptual framework2.1 The expression of country-based animosity in consumptionCountry-of-origin (CoO) is an important determinant of consumer attitudes, purchaseintentions, and behavior (Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran, 2000). Traditional CoOresearch has focused on the positive effects of CoO on product judgments (e.g. Bilkeyand Nes, 1995; Maheswaran, 1994). In parallel, studies within the animosity paradigmhave documented that negative country views affect consumers’ willingness to buy acountry’s products, though not their opinions of them (Klein, 2002; Klein et al., 1998;Nijssen and Douglas, 2004; Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007; Russell and Russell,2006).

Animosity studies have shown that animosity is related to consumer preferencesand choices (Klein, 2002), and even boycotting behavior (Ettenson and Klein, 2005).One major limitation of these studies is that the CoO of products is usually madesalient to respondents: survey questions specifically state the country (e.g. “I wouldnever buy Italian products”) and experimental manipulations openly indicate theorigin of a hypothetical brand. Emphasizing a product’s CoO impairs external validityand the emphasis on CoC potentially creates demand issues. This is especiallyproblematic given the potentially latent nature of country-based resistance.

There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that animosity toward the US hasnegatively impacted US international business interests across many sectors (O’Brien,2005; Sengupta, 2005). For instance, one study, consisting of 20,000 respondents across20 countries, found that nearly 20 percent of consumers actively avoid purchasing USbrands, a form of anti-consumption (GMI, 2005). But the degree to which ideologicalresistance to a country, a type of politically motivated rejection (Sand and Ekici, 2009)catalyzed by a country (Russell and Russell, 2006) is expressed in the avoidance ofproducts from that country deserves further empirical testing (Lee et al., 2009). Further,the latent nature of the ideology construct requires not only an unbiased assessment ofits relationship to materialized forms of expressions (Althusser, 1971), such as theconsumption of US products (Varman and Belk, 2009), but also an evaluation of theimpact on consumption preferences of making one’s ideological beliefs salient.

EJM45,11/12

1716

2.2 Direct and indirect expressions of ideologyThere is indeed a large body of evidence in social psychology which demonstrates thatstrongly held ideological beliefs reveal themselves directly in people’s behaviors, andthat this process occurs automatically without conscious awareness (Dovidio et al.,2002). For instance, research on racial attitudes and behaviors has consistently foundthat people who hold strong negative views about certain ethnic groups exhibit greateravoidance behavior (e.g. sitting further away from them, reducing eye contact withthem) towards members of those groups without being consciously aware of theirbehaviors (Amodio and Devine, 2006).

Research on intergroup interactions further shows that heightening the salience ofvarious ideological views affects these behaviors (Vorauer et al., 2009). Promptingpeople about their own beliefs can alter their behavior. For instance, simply measuringa given construct, such as a dimension of one’s social identity, at the onset of a study issufficient to prime it and alter subsequent responses (Transue, 2007). Whenever peoplefeel threatened, they tend to adopt a prevention-oriented focus, avoiding choices thatincrease the threat and preferring instead those options that make them feel safer(Higgins, 1997). In the CoO domain, prompting animosity can make people feelthreatened (Russell and Russell, 2006) and this could activate a prevention-focus thatincreases ethnocentric tendencies, which manifest themselves as a preference fordomestic over foreign options (Shimp and Sharma, 1987).

3. Research context and hypothesesThe link between country-based resistance and consumption is here addressed in astudy that relates animosity toward the US and actual consumer choices of movies inFrance, which has a market where US products coexist with products of other origins,hence providing consumers with choice options. It is thus an ideal context for testingthe two key research questions:

RQ1. Is latent animosity toward the US expressed in reduced consumption of USproducts?

RQ2. Does prompting animosity toward the US activate ethnocentric tendencies,as reflected by a preference for domestic products?

In order to distinguish between latent and explicit consumption expressions, twobehavioral measures are collected. The first measure focuses on actual consumerchoices by collecting information on existing market offerings without making the CoOobvious, thus providing an externally valid and unbiased measure of consumptionchoices (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995). The second choice measure is collected aftermeasuring animosity to capture consumption behavior once the otherwise latentcountry-based resistance is activated (Transue, 2007)

3.1 Context: movie consumptionUS movies have remained prevalent on the global cinema scene for the past centuryand the trade of audiovisual products between countries is undeniably inequitable. In2008-2009, for example, US studios exported approximately $14 billion, a 30 percentincrease from 2004, in audiovisual products while importing less than $150 million(USBEA, 2010). Additionally, the US movie audiovisual industry is one of the few USindustries that maintains a positive trade balance representing 7 percent of total

Expression ofideologicalresistance

1717

services trade (MPAA, 2010). This trade imbalance and general domination of USmovies has been ascribed to the demise of some and stagnation of other nationalaudiovisual industries.

There has been ongoing concern over the potential of US movies to tug at the socialfabric of local cultures, especially where American productions dominate themarketplace (Puttnam, 1997; Kadmi-Cohen, 1930). Motion pictures were the firstcultural artifact to command a large presence in foreign markets and to be consumeden masse (Ulff-Møller, 2001). Consumption of movies can affect one’s values: moviestransfer information, ideologies, and behavioral norms, which in turn can serve as acatalyst for change within a society (Lull, 1995). The continued globalization ofmarkets and the potential impact of movie consumption on local cultures make itimportant to document whether and how animosity toward the US reveals itself inanti-consumption of US movies and whether activating this otherwise latentideological resistance awakens ethnocentric tendencies, as reflected in an explicitpreference for domestic movies.

3.2 The French contextThe turbulent history of friendliness and animosity between France and the US isespecially palpable in the movie industry (Roger, 2005). France has presented thestaunchest opposition to the mass presence of American movies due to a fear that theiromnipresence would result in the demise of French culture (Ulff-Møller, 2001). TheFrench government instituted numerous policies, ranging from quotas to taxation, inan effort to reduce the inflow of American movies. As a result, unlike most nationalmarkets, France maintains a healthy number of domestic productions (Puttnam, 1997).The French movie market is one of the most steadfast competitive markets, withdomestic production accounting for approximately 35 percent of the local market andUS productions accounting for only about 53 percent of the market, whereas they oftencommand a vast majority in foreign movie markets (CNC, 2010).

3.3 HypothesesBased on the extant research, it is predicted that animosity toward the US will beassociated with lessened consumption of US movies (H1) but that it will not be relatedto the consumption of domestic films (H2) or other foreign non-US films (H3). However,when activated, animosity toward the US should be related to an increased preferencefor domestic movies (H4).

4. MethodThe hypotheses were tested with cross-sectional survey data of movie consumptioncollected in France. Two private French undergraduate institutions circulated emailinvitations on behalf of the researchers for students to partake in an internet-basedstudy. A total of 1,500 students were contacted. Respondent participation wasencouraged with the use of free movie tickets to a theater of their choice. A total of 417participated, thereby yielding a response rate of 27.8 percent, somewhat higher than intypical internet-based surveys (Deutskens et al., 2004).

The survey was presented as a set of unrelated studies. The first study, presented asa study of people’s entertainment choices, included the main dependent variable, amovie consumption measure. Respondents were asked to list the last five movies they

EJM45,11/12

1718

had watched at a movie theater over the past month. This actual consumption measureensured the validity of the answers. All reported movies were subsequently coded byCoO to allow for accurate ratios of domestic, US and other foreign movie consumptionto be computed. Respondents were also asked a series of questions how much each often factors contribute to their movie choices (e.g. director, main actor(s), awardsreceived). These randomly presented factors were rated on a scale from 1 (not at allimportant) to 5 (very important) and included CoO. This measure was designed tounobtrusively assess the salience and relative role of the CoO criterion in participants’decisions (Bloemer et al., 2009).

The second part of the survey was presented as a study of people’s views of nationaland international politics. This section included measures of the independent variables.Using a set of five-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (stronglyagree), respondents indicated their level of agreement with a series of 24 randomlypresented statements in which a five-item measure of animosity toward the US wasincluded, adapted from the animosity scale ða ¼ 0:72; Klein et al., 1998; Russell andRussell, 2006). Two control variables were also included:

(1) ethnocentrism; and

(2) global openness.

Ethnocentrism represents the general view that one’s group is central and has beenshown to negatively relate to attitudes toward and purchase of foreign products (Kleinand Ettenson, 1999; Shimp and Sharma, 1987; Sharma et al., 1995; Vida et al., 2008). Itwas measured with five items ða ¼ 0:72; Shimp and Sharma, 1987). Global openness(Suh and Kwon, 2002) reflects interest in and openness to experience other cultures andshould be positively related to consumption of foreign products. It was measured withfour items ða ¼ 0:75; Suh and Kwon, 2002). All measures had been validated inprevious research. The measures were adapted from previously translated researchinstruments (Netemeyer et al., 1991) or generated through appropriate translation –back translation methods by bilingual English-French speakers.

In the final section, demographic information was collected. Last, all participantswere told that to thank them for completing the study they would be entered in alottery for four movie tickets. They were given the options to chose between tickets foreither a French or foreign movie. This actual choice measure captures whetherethnocentric consumption tendencies emerge after animosity is salient.

5. Results5.1 Descriptive statisticsConsumption ratios were computed based on the self-reported movies consumed.Respondents who had not seen any movies at a theater in the last month were removedfrom the analyses. Participants had watched an average of 2.52 ðSD ¼ 1:91Þ at thetheater in the past month, comparable to the national average of 2.92 in the samemonth (CNC, 2010). On average, 55 percent of these movies were American and 34percent were French, proportions that nearly mirror the overall market sharedistribution of 52.5 percent and 35.7 percent respectively (CNC, 2010). There wasvariance in animosity toward the US in the sample ðM ¼ 2:36; SD ¼ 0:72Þ; despitegenerally low levels of ethnocentrism ðM ¼ 1:57; SD ¼ 0:60Þ and high global opennessðM ¼ 4:47; SD ¼ 0:52Þ:

Expression ofideologicalresistance

1719

5.2 Relationship between animosity and movie consumptionTo test the hypotheses, each of the two consumption measures (past movieconsumption choices and end-of-study movie ticket choice) was regressed againstanimosity. To control for the general proclivity to embrace other cultures or instead torevert to one’s own, ethnocentrism and global openness were included as controls aswell as age and gender[1]. Multiple regression was used for the movie consumptionratios, also controlling for the total number of movies watched, and logistic regressionfor the choice of movie tickets. As can be seen in Table I, animosity is the only variablesignificantly and negatively related to past consumption of US movies, in support ofH1. Animosity is not related to the ratio of previously watched French movies, in linewith H2, nor the ratio of previously watched foreign, non-US films, in line with H3. It isnoteworthy that ethnocentrism is not related to past domestic movie consumption,perhaps because of the generally low levels of ethnocentrism in the studied sample.Global openness is significantly and positively associated to the ratio of foreign moviesbut, interestingly, it is not related to consumption of foreign movies in general but onlyof foreign non-US movies. This suggests that, in the context of movie consumption,cultural openness is reflected by a preference for the non-dominant cultural offerings,which leaves out the omnipresent American movies.

The logistic regression results, also shown in Table I, further show that, once it hasbeen measured and thus made salient, animosity toward the US is related to asubsequent increase in preference for domestic movies at the outset of the study, insupport of H4.

To illustrate the relationship between animosity and movie consumption, thesample was divided into quartiles to compare consumption choices across animosityquartiles. The ANOVA ðFð3; 246Þ ¼ 3:46; p , 0.05) shows that the high animositygroup (top quartile) had watched fewer US movies than the low animosity group(lowest quartile). The difference in the ratio of past consumption of US films betweenthe two groups was of 14 percent (48 percent vs. 62 percent; tð108Þ ¼ 2:39; p , 0.05),thus providing evidence that latent animosity toward the US manifests itself in some,but not complete, anti-consumption of US movies. However, the two groups do notdiffer in the ratio of French ðtð108Þ ¼ 1:62; p. 0.05) or other ðtð108Þ ¼ 1:16; p. 0.05)movies, a pattern consistent with H2 and H3. At the outset of the study, after

Dependent variablesMultiple regression Logistic regression

Ratio ofUS movies

Ratio ofFrench movies

Ratio of otherforeign movies

Choice ofFrench moviesa

Independent variablesAnimosity toward US 20.157 * 0.096 ns 0.112 ns 1.594 *

Ethnocentrism 20.023 ns 20.048 ns 20.012 ns 0.965 nsGlobal openness 20.040 ns 20.044 ns 0.132 * 0.720 nsTotal movies watched 0.257 * 20.274 * 20.006 ns n/aGender 20.218 * 0.312 * 20.116 ns 1.688 nsAge 0.010 ns 20.058 ns 0.072 ns 1.150 *

R 2 0.123 0.162 0.043

Notes: *Significant at p , 0.05; aExp (Beta) are reported in this column

Table I.Regression results(Standardized coefficientsand significance)

EJM45,11/12

1720

measuring animosity, 36.5 percent in the top animosity quartile requested tickets for aFrench movie, compared to 25.9 percent in the lowest quartile, thus providing evidenceof increased ethnocentric tendencies when animosity is salient, in line with H4.

To evaluate whether high animosity consumers watched fewer US movies becausethey pay closer attention to CoO information and this awareness enhances the scrutinythey place on consumption decisions (Bloemer et al., 2009; Klein, 2002), the rating ofimportance of CoO for selecting movies was regressed against animosity, whilecontrolling for ethnocentrism, global openness and all other movie selection criteria.The regression results ðR 2 ¼ 0:22Þ reveal that indeed animosity is the only predictorsignificantly related to the importance of CoO information ðstandardizedb ¼ 0:109; p, 0.05).

6. Discussion, limitations, and future researchThe study provides empirical evidence for the proposition that ideological resistance tothe US in France expresses itself naturally in a degree of anti-consumption of USmovies: although all the respondents had access to the same finite number of theaterswithin the metropolitan area of their regional French city, French respondents at thehigh end of the animosity spectrum had watched fewer American movies in the pastmonth. In addition, when animosity toward the US is made salient, high animosityFrench respondents express an increased preference for domestic consumption choices,even though they are not generally ethnocentric. The study reveals that consumerswho harbor high animosity toward the US pay closer attention to CoO information.

By focusing on actual consumption without making reference to CoO and by assessingthe constructs in separate studies, this research provides a more externally valid test ofthe relationship between (anti-) consumption and animosity-driven forms of resistance.The empirical evidence based on unprompted movie choices points to consumption as animplicit expression of people’s latent ideological beliefs about the country from whichthey originate. In addition, the pattern of choices at the outset of the study reveals thatbringing these latent ideological beliefs to people’s awareness also triggers a preventionfocus and heightens ethnocentric tendencies, a process not previously documented.

Of course, the results are bounded by the sole focus on movies and the cross-sectionalnature of the data. Future research should continue to disentangle the relationshipbetween ideological resistance and anti-consumption across a range of countries andproduct categories. Despite its ability to identify a relationship between ideologicalresistance and consumption choices, the quantitative survey methodology requiredcertain choices of measurement, both in the independent and dependent variables totackle constructs that other paradigms (such as anthropological research) would treatmore holistically. Clearly, the ways in which consumption is used as an expression oflatent ideological resistance must also be studied through different paradigmatic lenses.

From a theoretical standpoint, this research highlights the need to treat consumptionchoices as indirect expressions of ideology and to recognize that prompting researchparticipants about country of origin biases subsequent behaviors. The latent nature ofanimosity and the consequences of making it salient to consumers deserve furtherattention, such as through experimental manipulations that increase or decrease thesalience of animosity feelings (Russell and Russell, 2006), and with the combination ofboth implicit and explicit measures of consumption choices, as in this study.

Expression ofideologicalresistance

1721

From a practical standpoint, this research demonstrates the need for multinationalcompanies to carefully consider how they promote their products as to reduce thesalience of the CoO, if the country is viewed negatively. Whenever products originatefrom a country towards which people harbor negative feelings, they should bepromoted in a way that does not obviously associate them with that country (Ettensonand Klein, 2000). More specifically, it substantiates concerns about anti-Americanismand its consequences for US businesses (Katzenstein and Keohane, 2006). Many USbusinesses sought to address these animosity concerns by becoming involved insupporting humanitarian and other international social projects in order to create amore positive image for their brand and maintain their global market positions (Kuehn,2005). However, such initiatives have been found to have little impact, especially in thelong-term (GMI, 2005). This is not surprising given the deep historical and culturalroots of anti-Americanism (Lacorne, 2005) and the often-latent nature of resistancebased on CoO, as demonstrated in this research.

Note

1. Foreign languages spoken were also included in the regression but did not affect the resultsand not considered any further.

References

Althusser, L. (1971), Lenin and Philosophy, Monthly Review, New York, NY.

Amodio, D.M. and Devine, P.G. (2006), “Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias:evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 652-61.

Berman, R. (2005), “Americanization and Anti-Americanism”, in Stephan, A. (Ed.),Americanization and Anti-Americanism: The German Encounter with American CultureAfter 1945, Berghahn Books, New York, NY, pp. 11-24.

Bilkey, W.J. and Nes, E. (1995), “Country-of-origin effects on product evaluation”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 13, pp. 89-100.

Bloemer, J., Brijs, K. and Kasper, H. (2009), “The CoO-ELM model: a theoretical framework for thecognitive processes underlying country of origin effects”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 43 Nos 1/2, pp. 62-89.

Brown, J. (2009), “What’s happened to anti-Americanism, and to the State Department? TheObama administration and public diplomacy: March to mid-June 2009”, Place Brandingand Public Diplomacy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 247-52.

Ceaser, J.W. (2003), “A genealogy of anti-Americanism”, Public Interest, Vol. 152, Summer,pp. 3-18.

CNC (2010), “Estimations de la frequentation cinematographique en 2009”, Centre National de laCinematographie, available at: www.cnc.fr (accessed 21 June, 2010).

Deutskens, E., Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. and Oosterveld, P. (2004), “Response rate and responsequality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 21-36.

Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K. and Gaertner, S.L. (2002), “Implicit and explicit prejudice andinterracial interaction”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 663-70.

Ettenson, R.E. and Klein, J.G. (2000), “Branded by the past”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78No. 6, p. 28.

EJM45,11/12

1722

Ettenson, R.E. and Klein, J.G. (2005), “The fallout from French nuclear testing in the SouthPacific: a longitudinal study of consumer boycotts”, International Marketing Review,Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 199-225.

GMI (2005), “Global backlash against US brands: can tsunami relief efforts stem theanti-American tide?”, available at: www.gmi-mr.com/gmipoll (accessed 1 June, 2010).

Grigoriadis, I. (2010), “Friends no more? The rise of anti-American nationalism in Turkey”, TheMiddle East Journal, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 51-66.

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

Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52, pp. 1280-300.

Kadmi-Cohen (1930), L’Abomination Americaine: Essai Politique, Ernest Flammarion, Paris.

Katzenstein, P.J. and Keohane, R.O. (2006), “of anti-Americanism: a framework for analysis”,Anti-Americanisms in World Politics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 9-38.

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

Klein, J.G. and Ettenson, R.E. (1999), “Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism:an analysis of unique antecedents”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11No. 4, pp. 5-24.

Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R.E. and Morris, M.D. (1998), “The animosity model of foreign productpurchase: an empirical test in the People’s Republic of China”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 62, January, pp. 89-100.

Kuehn, K. (2005), “Managing the brand in an age of anti-Americanism”, Executive Speeches,Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 28-33.

Lacorne, D. (2005), “Anti-Americanism and Americanophobia: a French perspective”, in Judt, T.and Lacorne, D. (Eds), With Us or Against Us: Studies in Global Anti-Americanism,Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 35-58.

Lee, M., Motion, J. and Conroy, D. (2009), “Anti-consumption and brand avoidance”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 169-80.

Lull, J. (1995), Media, Communication, Culture: A Global Approach, Columbia University Press,New York, NY.

Maheswaran, D. (1994), “Country of origin as a stereotype: effects of consumer expertise andattribute strength on product evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21,September, pp. 354-65.

MPAA (2010), Motion Picture Association of America Industry Report, available at: www.mpaa.org (accessed 11 May, 2010).

Netemeyer, R.G., Durvasula, S. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (1991), “A cross-national assessment of thereliability and validity of the CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3,pp. 320-7.

Nijssen, E.J. and Douglas, S.P. (2004), “Examining the animosity model in a country with a highlevel of foreign trade”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 23-38.

O’Brien, K.J. (2005), “US brands learning to fly their flag subtly”, International Herald Tribune,February 14, p. 13.

Onea, T. (2008), “The American empire and its discontents”, International Journal, Vol. 64 No. 1,pp. 261-81.

Expression ofideologicalresistance

1723

Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J.P. (1995), “A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-900.

PEW (2005), Trends 2005, Pew Research Center Press, Washington, DC.

PEW (2006), America’s Image Slips, Pew Research Center Press, Washington, DC.

Puttnam, D. (1997), The Undeclared War: The Struggle for Control of the World’s Film Industry,HarperCollins Publishers, London.

Riefler, P. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2007), “Consumer animosity: a literature review and areconsideration of its measurement”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 1,pp. 87-119.

Roger, P. (2005), The American Enemy: A Story of French Anti-Americanism, University ofChicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Russell, D.W. and Russell, C.A. (2006), “Explicit and implicit catalysts of consumer resistance:the effects of animosity, cultural salience and country-of-origin on subsequent choice”,International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 321-31.

Sand, Z. and Ekici, A. (2009), “Politically motivated brand rejection”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 208-17.

Sardar, Z. and Davies, M.W. (2003), Why Do People Hate America?, Icon Books, London.

Sengupta, S. (2005), “In Pakistan, US brand is target: local food outlet is a lighting rod foranti-American protest”, International Herald Tribune, June 9, p. 4.

Sharma, S., Shimp, T.A. and Shin, J. (1995), “Consumer ethnocentrism: a test of antecedents andmoderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 26-37.

Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of theCETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, August, pp. 280-9.

Suh, T. and Kwon, I.G. (2002), “Globalization and reluctant buyers”, International MarketingReview, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 663-80.

Transue, J.E. (2007), “Identity salience, identity acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: Americannational identity as a uniting force”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51 No. 1,pp. 78-91.

Ulff-Møller, J. (2001), Hollywood’s Film Wars with France: Film-Trade Diplomacy and theEmergence of the French Quota Policy, University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY.

USBEA (2010), “Survey of current business”, Vol. 90 No. 5, available at: www.bea.gov/scb/index.htm (accessed 17 May, 2010).

Varman, R. and Belk, R. (2009), “Nationalism and ideology in an anti-consumption movement”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 686-700.

Vida, I., Dmitrovic, T. and Obadia, C. (2008), “The role of ethnic affiliation in consumerethnocentrism”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 327-43.

Vorauer, J.D., Gagnon, A. and Sasaki, S.J. (2009), “Salient intergroup ideology and intergroupinteraction”, Psychological Science, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 838-45.

Corresponding authorCristel Antonia Russell can be contacted at: c.russell@auckland.ac.nz

EJM45,11/12

1724

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints