7751

8/6/2019 7751

1/10

To the CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR TRACK

BEGINNER stage of dissertation

EMAC Doctoral Colloquium, Athens, 2006

The Impact of Consumer Ethnocentrism,

Consumer Cosmopolitanism and National Identity on

Country Image, Product Image

and Consumers Purchase Intentions

Katharina Petra Roth

Department of International Marketing

University of ViennaBrnnerstr. 72, A-1210 Vienna

Email:[email protected]

Tel (Fax): +43-1-4277-38040 (38034)

Keywords:

Country Image, Product Image, Consumer Ethnocentrism,

National Identity, Consumer Cosmopolitanism
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/6/2019 7751

2/10

Introduction

Country-of-origin image (COI) is an important driver of consumers evaluation of products

originating from different countries. Schooler (1965) is generally considered to be the first

researcher to empirically study this effect. He found out that products, identical in every

respect except for their country of origin, were evaluated differently by consumers. Since

then, more than 700 articles have been published on the subject country-of-origin(Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2003). This body of research has shown that a products national

origin acts as a signal of product quality (e.g. Han, 1989; Li & Wyer, 1994) and also affects

perceived risk as well as likelihood of purchase (see Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Ozsomer &

Cavusgil, 1991; Baughn & Yaprak, 1993; Lielefeld, 1993; Peterson & Jolibert, 1995; Verlegh

& Steenkamp, 1999; Javalgi, Cutler, & Winans, 2001 and Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2003 for

relevant reviews).

Despite the relative importance of the concept of country image, potential antecedents of

country image perceptions as well as their impact on product image and intention to purchase

have not been researched so far (Keillor, Hult, Erffmeyer, & Babakus, 1996; Balabanis,

Mueller, & Melewar, 2002). Indeed, in a recent meta-analysis of current COI research,Papadopoulos and Heslop (2003, p. 424) point out that research into the antecedents and

influences of national image formation remains virtually non-existent. Similarly, Knight and

Calantone (2000, p. 128) lament that despite hundreds of studies on the COI effect, little is

known about the cognitive processing that occurs during COI-based product evaluations. It

is this gap in the literature that the present study seeks to address, focusing specifically on the

role of potential antecedents of country image perceptions as well as their impact on product

image, product evaluations and purchase intentions.

Specific Aims and Conceptual Model

The aim of the proposed study is three-fold. First, the study seeks to empirically investigate

potential key antecedents of country image, namely (a) consumer ethnocentrism, (b) national

identity and (c) consumer cosmopolitanism. Second, based on an analysis of existing

conceptualizations of country image and additional exploratory research, the study seeks to

develop and test a comprehensive scale for the measurement of country image. Third, the

potential outcomes of country image, i.e. its impact on product image and purchase intentions

are to be assessed under different moderating conditions. Figure 1 provides a conceptual

overview of the scope of the proposed research and highlights the key constructs to be

investigated, as well as the proposed links between them. A literature review and discussion

of the various parts ofFigure 1 follows.

_______________________________________

Insert Figure 1 about here

_______________________________________

Literature Background

Country Image

Despite a large body of literature on the subject COO, the number of studies that have in fact

included country image measures remains very limited (Martin & Eroglu, 1993; Li, Fu, &Murray, 1997; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2003). Based on an extensive review of the literature,

22 studies developing a measure of country image or considerably modifying an existing

Katharina Roth, Department of International Marketing, University of Vienna 1

8/6/2019 7751

3/10

measure have been identified (a complete list of these studies is available from the author

upon request). A short discussion of key papers follows.

One of the first studies explicitly focussing on country image measures was conducted byMartin and Eroglu (1993, p. 193), who defined country image as the total of all descriptive,inferential and informational beliefs one has about a particular country. According to

Martin and Eroglu (1993), COI is a three-dimensional construct consisting of a political, an

economic as well as a technological dimension. Whereas these dimensions clearly reflectconsumers cognitive perceptions about a country, past research has shown that country of

origin is not merely a cognitive cue for product quality, but also relates to emotions, identity,pride and autobiographical memories (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999, p. 523). A number of

authors (e.g. Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1989; Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Beracs, 1989;

Parameswaran & Pisharodi, 1994; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Laroche, Papadopoulos,

Heslop, & Mourali, 2005) therefore suggest that the construct of country image is comprised of:

a cognitive component, which includes consumers beliefs about the countrys industrial,

technological as well as political background;

an affective component that describes the countrys symbolic and emotional value to the

consumer, and a conative component, capturing consumers desired interaction with the sourcing

country.

While it seems to be commonly accepted that images should consist of these three

dimensions, the majority of the existing COI studies does not include all three facets. Out of

the 22 studies analyzed, only 12 have included cognitive, affective as well as conative

measures of country image. Furthermore, most of these studies (i.e. Yaprak & Parameswaran,

1986; Heslop & Papadopoulos, 1993; Lee & Ganesh, 1999; Papadopoulos, Heslop, & IKON

Research Group, 2000; Heslop, Papadopoulos, Dowdles, Wall, & Compeau, 2004; Laroche et

al., 2005) have used two items only, i.e. people are friendly and likeable orpeople are

trustworthy to measure the affective component of country image. Thus, cognitive measures

prevail. Furthermore, these items could represent emotions as well as cognitions,1 which

makes it difficult to classify them into one of these facets. Also, several studies that

conceptually distinguish between cognitive, affective and conative facets of COI (e.g.

Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Beracs, 1990; Heslop & Papadopoulos, 1993; Hubl, 1996; Laroche

et al., 2005), mix the items in the operationalization stage. 2 Finally, a general lack of validity

and reliability assessments was detected.3

In the context of the proposed research this means that, based on the analysis of existing

measures and additional exploratory research, a new scale will be developed and validated

that clearly distinguishes between cognitive, affective and conative facets of COI. This

enables to address a key gap in the literature. Since cognitive, affective and normative

processes are interacting in consumer decision-making (Isen, 1984), country image studiesin which the cognitive, affective and normative influences of country of origin are explicitly

1 Variables such as people are friendly and likeable or people are trustworthy may reflect a cognitiveevaluation since they do not directly evoke respondents emotions. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that a

person who regards people from a specific country as friendly and likeable or trustworthy himself doesnt

like them. Thus, these items reflect emotions as well as cognitive evaluations.

2 For example, Papadoupolos, Heslop and Beracs (1990) also include refined taste and industrious in their

affect for the US dimension and Laroche et al. (2005) include hard working in their people affect

dimension.

3 Out of the 22 studies analyzed, only 12 reported on internal consistency reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) and one

on split-sample reliability; test-retest reliability and alternative forms reliability were not assessed at all.Regarding the validity of the studies under consideration, seven reported on construct (i.e. convergent and/or

discriminant validity), two on content validity and one on criterion validity.


8/6/2019 7751

4/10

modelled and their (possibly contradictory) influences are disentangled (Verlegh &

Steenkamp, 1999, p. 539) are needed. To the authors best knowledge, no COI study exists

that explicitly addresses this issue and identifies the distinctinfluences of cognitive, affective

and conative COI components on outcome variables (i.e. product image and purchase

intentions). In the proposed research, three attitude models proposed by Fishbein & Ajzen

(1975) will be used as a framework for classifying existing COI measures (see Figure 2).

Based on these findings, a model that helps to explain how cognitive, affective and conativefacets interact in consumer decision making will be developed.

Antecedents of Country Image

Based on an extensive literature review, three constructs have been identified that are

expected to impact on country image as well as product image and purchase intentions:

consumer ethnocentrism, national identity and consumer cosmopolitanism.

Several studies have shown that, in general, consumers prefer domestic products to foreign-

made ones (e.g. Bannister and Saunders, 1978; Cattin, Jolibert, and Lohnes, 1982; Supphellen

and Rittenburg, 2001; Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004). One central construct that has

emerged from the literature to describe this effect is consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp &

Sharma, 1987; Sharma, Shimp, & Shin, 1995). Current research shows that consumer

ethnocentrism has a negative impact on product image and evaluation as well as purchase

intentions of foreign products (Netemeyer, Durvasula, & Lichtenstein, 1991; Sharma et al.,

1995). Furthermore, Netemeyer, Durvasula, and Lichtenstein (1991) found a significant

correlation between peoples general attitude towards their home country (GCA,

Parameswaran & Yaprak, 1987) and consumer ethnocentrism. It is therefore expected to also

affect country image perceptions.

National identity can be defined as the set of meanings owned by a given culture that sets it

apart from other cultures (Keillor et al., 1996, p. 58). In a marketing context, the national

identity scale (NATID) was proposed for identifying the core elements that define the

uniqueness of a given culture or nation (Keillor et al., 1996; Keillor & Hult, 1999). Since theconcept of national identity is linked with the concept of consumer ethnocentrism (Keillor et

al., 1996), it is expected to work in a similar way. Thus, a stronger sense of national identity

might have a negative impact on country image perceptions for countries other than the home

country. Furthermore, as proposed by previous research on concepts such as patriotism and

nationalism (Han, 1988a; Baughn & Yaprak, 1993), it is expected also to negatively affect

product image and purchase intentions.

The concept ofcosmopolitanism was introduced by Merton (1957) and Gouldner (1957) to

refer to a tendency of people to orient themselves beyond their immediate social system.

Cannon et al. (1994) and Yoon, Cannon, and Yaprak (1995, 1996) tried to link the

sociological concept of cosmopolitanism to consumer behaviour and constructed the CYMYCscale to measure consumers cosmopolitan tendencies. In general, consumers that score high

on the CYMYC scale like to experience cultural diversity and are therefore more open to

other cultures and their products (Yoon, Cannon, & Yaprak, 1995). It is therefore expected

that consumer cosmopolitanism has a positive influence on country images, a relationship that

will also be empirically explored by the proposed research.

Outcomes of Country Image

The direct effects of country image and product image in consumers cognitive processing

during COI-based product evaluations are already well-understood (Laroche et al., 2005).

Previous COI research has shown that the concept of country image affects product beliefs

(i.e. product image in my proposed research) andpurchase intentions (e.g. Han, 1989; Knight& Calantone, 2000; Heslop et al., 2004). However, little is known about the direct and


8/6/2019 7751

5/10

indirect impact of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity and consumer cosmopolitanism

on purchase intentions, especially in connection with country image perceptions. Hence, the

mediating role of COI on outcome variables has not been investigated; the conceptual model

in Figure 1 allows for such an investigation in the context of the proposed study.

Moderating Factors

Previous COI research has shown that the impact of country image on product evaluationsand purchase intentions varies according to variables such as consumer involvement,

technical complexity of the product, consumer experience, and consumer ability to detect

interbrand differences (Han, 1988b; Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984; Eroglu & Machleit,

1988; Wall, Lielefeld, & Heslop, 1991; Baughn & Yaprak, 1993). For the purpose of my

proposed research, two key factors that have consistently shown to moderate the effect of

country image, namely product knowledge and consumer involvement, have been selected as

moderating influences.

Control Variables

Various studies evaluating the country of origin effect (e.g. Sharma et al., 1995; Balabanis,

Diamantopoulos, Mueller, & Melewar, 2001) have found that certain consumer demographicssignificantly affect domestic and foreign product acceptance. In the proposed model, four

characteristics (age, gender, education and income) are therefore included as control variables.

Research Method

The proposed research method consists of three major steps. First, a scale measuring country

image will be developed and validated. Regarding the antecedents and outcomes of country

image, existing scales for consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma, 1987), national

identity (Keillor et al., 1996; Lilli and Diehl, 1999), consumer cosmopolitanism (Yoon,

Cannon, and Yaprak, 1996) and product image (Roth and Romeo, 1992; Papadopoulos,

Heslop, and Bamossy, 1990; Nebenzahl, Jaffe, and Usunier, 2003) will be adapted to the

research settings and countries considered in the study. Second, a survey will be conducted in

Austria gathering data on the six focal constructs (i.e. consumer ethnocentrism, national

identity, consumer cosmopolitanism, country image, product image and purchase intentions),

moderating factors and control variables. Third, potentially positive and negative influences

of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity and consumer cosmopolitanism on country image,

product image and purchase intentions will be tested using structural equation modelling.

Implications and Contribution

Country image is an important construct that is of interest not only for businesses that need to

enhance their competitiveness abroad, but also for public policy makers with similar interests

but at the national or industry level (Papadopoulos et al., 2000). The main practical contributionof this research lies in the explanation of a greater proportion of variance in product image and

buying intention, thus providing international marketers with clear dos and donts when

operating in foreign markets. Furthermore, the study will provide more insights for public

officials on how they can evaluate their country image and how these images are impacted by

certain characteristics of the consumer (e.g. if he/she is ethnocentric, cosmopolitan etc.). From a

theoretical perspective, linking consumer ethnocentrism, national identity and consumer

cosmopolitanism to established constructs such as country image and product image will

contribute to the theoretical explanation of the formation of such images and how they impact

on purchase intentions. A methodological contribution will be gained by a unification of

existing literature on country image and, based on these findings and additional exploratory

research, developing a measurement scale for its operationalization.


8/6/2019 7751

6/10

References

Balabanis, G., Diamantopoulos, A., Mueller, R. D., & Melewar, T. C. (2001). The Impact of

Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies.Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1), 157-175.

Balabanis, G., Mueller, R., & Melewar, T. C. (2002). The Human Values' Lenses of Country

of Origin Images.International Marketing Review, 19(6), 582-610.

Baughn, C., & Yaprak, A. (1993). Mapping Country-of-Origin Research: Recent

Developments and Emerging Avenues. In N. Papadopoulos, & L. A. Heslop (Eds.),

Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing(pp. 89-116),New York: International Business Press.

Bilkey, W. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations.Journalof International Business Studies, 8(1), 89-91.

Erickson, G. M., Johansson, J. K., & Chao, P. (1984). Image Variables in Multi-Attribute

Product Evaluations: Country-of-Origin Effects.Journal of Consumer Research,11(2), 694-699.

Eroglu, S. A., & Machleit, K. A. (1988). Effects of Individual and Product-Specific Variables

on Utilising Country of Origin as a Product Quality Cue. International Marketing

Review, 6(6), 27-41.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975).Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior, An Introduction to

Theory and Research Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gouldner, A. W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social

Roles.Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 281-306.

Han, C. M. (1988a). The Role of Consumer Patriotism in the Choice of Domestic versus

Foreign Products.Journal of Advertising Research, 28(3), 25-32.

Han, C. M. (1988b). The Effects of Cue Familiarity and Cue Utilization: The Case of Country

of Origin. paper presented at the Conference of the Academy of International Business.

Han, C. M. (1989). Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct?Journal of MarketingResearch, 26(2), 222-229.

Hubl, G. (1996). A Cross-National Investigation of the Effects of Country of Origin and

Brand Name on the Evaluation of a New Car.International Marketing Review, 13(5),

76-97.

Heslop, L. A., & Papadopoulos, N. (1993). But Who Knows Where or When? Reflections on

the Images of Countries and Their Products. In N. Papadopoulos, & L. A. Heslop

(Eds.),Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing(pp. 39-75), New York: International Business Press.


8/6/2019 7751

7/10

Heslop, L. A., Papadopoulos, N., Dowdles, M., Wall, M., & Compeau, D. (2004). Who

Controls the Purse Strings: A Study of Consumers' and Retail Buyers' Reactions in an

America's FTA Environment.Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1177-1188.

Isen, A. M. (1984). Toward Understanding the Role of Affect in Cognition. In R. S. Jr. Wyer,

& T. K. Srull (Eds.),Handbook of Social Cognition (pp. 101-9), Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Javalgi, R. G., Cutler, B. D., & Winans, W. A. (2001). At your Service! Does Country of

Origin Research Apply to Services?Journal of Services Marketing, 15(7), 565-582.

Keillor, B. D., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). A Five-Country Study of National Identity.

Implications for International Marketing Research and Practice.International

Marketing Review, 16(1), 65-82.

Keillor, B. D., Hult, G. T. M., Erffmeyer, R. C., & Babakus, E. (1996). NATID: The

Development and Application of a National Identity Measure for Use in InternationalMarketing.Journal of International Marketing, 4(2), 57-73.

Knight, G. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin

perceptions.International Marketing Review, 17(2), 127-145.

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M. (2005). The Influence of

Country Image Structure on Consumer Evaluations of Foreign Products.International

Marketing Review, 22(1), 96-115.

Lee, D., & Ganesh, G. (1999). Effects of Partitioned Country Image in the Context of Brand

Image and Familiarity.International Marketing Review, 16(1), 18-39.

Li, W.-K., & Wyer, R. S. (1994). The Role of Country of Origin in Product Evaluations:

Informational and Standard-of-Comparison Effects.Journal of Consumer Psychology,3(2), 187-212.

Li, Z. G., Fu, S., & Murray, W. L. (1997). Country and Product Images: The Perceptions of

Consumers in the People's Republic of China.Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, 10(1-2), 115-138.

Lielefeld, J. P. (1993). Experiments on Country-of-Origin Effects: Review and Meta-Analysis

of Effect Size. In N. Papadopoulos, & L. A. Heslop (Eds.),Product Country Images:

Impact and Role in International Marketing(pp. 117-56), New York: InternationalBusiness Press.

Martin, I. M., & Eroglu, S. (1993). Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct: Country

Image.Journal of Business Research, 28(3), 191-210.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Patterns of Influence: Local and Cosmopolitan Influentials. In R. K.

Merton (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure (pp. 387-420), Glencoe, Ill.: TheFree Press.

Nagashima, A. (1970). A Comparison of Japanese and US Attitudes toward Foreign Products.

Journal of Marketing, 34(1), 68-74.


8/6/2019 7751

8/10

Netemeyer, R. G., Durvasula, S., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1991). A Cross-National Assessment

of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE.Journal of Marketing Research,

28(3), 320-327.

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. (1989). Exploring the Effects of Country-of-Origin

Labels: An Information Processing Framework.Advances in Consumer Research,16(1), 454-459.

Ozsomer, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1991). Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations: A

Sequel to Bilkey and Nes review. In M. C. e. al. Gilly (Ed.),Enhancing Knowledge

Development in Marketing, Vol. 2: 1991 AMA Educators' Proceedings (pp. 269-77),

Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Papadopoulos, N., & Heslop, L. A. (2003). Country Equity and Product-Country Images:

State-of-the-Art in Research and Implications. In S. C. Jain (Ed.),Handbook ofResearch in International Marketing(pp. 402-33), Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward

Elgar.

Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Beracs, J. (1989). National Stereotypes and Product

Evaluations: An Empirical Investigation of Consumers in a Socialist Country.

Working Paper Series 89-18, Carleton University School of Business: Ottawa, CA.

Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Beracs, J. (1990). National Stereotypes and Product

Evaluations in a Socialist Country.International Marketing Review, 7(1), 32-47.

Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & IKON Research Group (2000). A Cross-national and

Longitudinal Study of Product-Country Images with a Focus on the U.S. and Japan.

Working Paper, Report No. 00-106, Marketing Science Institute: Cambridge.

Parameswaran, R., & Pisharodi, R. M. (1994). Facets of Country of Origin Image: An

Emprirical Assessment.Journal of Advertising, 23(1), 43-61.

Parameswaran, R., & Yaprak, A. (1987). A Cross-National Comparison of Consumer

Research Measures.Journal of International Business Studies, 18(1), 35-49.

Peterson, R. A., & Jolibert, A. J. P. (1995). A Quantitative Analysis of Country-of-Origin

Effects.Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), 883-900.

Schooler, R. D. (1965). Product bias in Central American common market.Journal of

Marketing Research, 2(4), 394-397.

Sharma, S., Shimp, T. A., & Shin, J. (1995). Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents

and Moderators.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 26-37.

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of

the CETSCALE.Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280-289.

Verlegh, P. W. J., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1999). A Review and Meta-Analysis of

Country-of-Origin Research.Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5), 521-546.


8/6/2019 7751

9/10

Wall, M., Lielefeld, J. P., & Heslop, L. A. (1991). Impact of Country-of-Origin Cues on

Consumer Judgements in Multicue Situations.Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 19(2), 105-113.

Yaprak, A., & Parameswaran, R. (1986). Strategy Formulation in Multinational Marketing: A

Deductive, Paradigm-Integrating Approach.Advances in International Marketing, 1,21-45.

Yoon, S.-J., Cannon, H. M., & Yaprak, A. (1995). Evaluating the CYMYC Cosmopolitan

Scale on Korean Consumers.Advances in International Marketing, 7, 211-232.


8/6/2019 7751

10/10

Appendix

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

Outcomes of Country Image

Antecedents of

Country Image

Ethnocentrism

National Identity

Foreign

Product

Image

(Beliefs)

Intention to

Buy Foreign

Products

Country Image

cognitive

affective

conative

CosmopolitanismControl Variables

consumer

demographics

Moderating Factors

Product Knowledge

Consumer Involvement

Figure 2: Attitude Model (adapted from Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975)

Model A

(Tripartite View)

Model B

Model C (Unidimensional View)

Attitude

Cognitive(Belief)

Affective(Feeling)

Conative(Behavior)

Cognition Affect

Attitude

BehavioralIntention

Behavior

Learning Hierarchy:

Low Involvement

Hierarchy:

Cognition Affect ConationCognition Affect Conation

Emotional Hierarchy: Affect Conation CognitionAffect Conation Cognition

Conation Affect CognitionConation Affect Cognition


Documents

7751