1

THE EFFECT OF BRAND GLOBALNESS ON BRAND TRUST: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF

BRAND AFFECT AND BRAND INNOVATIVENESS

Richard Huaman-Ramirez*

Kedge Business School

richahuaman@gmail.com

Noël Albert

Kedge Business School

noel.albert@kedgebs.com

* : 29 rue Béranger, 21000, Dijon. 06 17 59 17 17

Abstract:

Past research has demonstrated that the relationship between brand globalness and brand trust

is explained by the perceived quality of products, brand prestige and the identity

expressiveness of consumers. The purpose of this research is to provide a model with two

alternative explanations. Through a cross-sectional study conducted in France with 250

participants, we demonstrate that the link between brand globalness and brand trust is

mediated by brand affect and brand innovativeness. This study provides empirical evidence

in support of the notion that brands perceived as global could elicit positive emotional

responses and could be appreciated for their ability to provide new and useful products,

which in turn influence brand trust. In addition, we demonstrate the moderating role of

consumer ethnocentrism on the relationship between brand globalness and both brand affect

and brand innovativeness. Theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are

discussed. Furthermore, we identify issues and future research for a more extensive

exploration.

Keywords: brand trust; brand globalness; brand affect; brand innovativeness

L’EFFET DU BRAND GLOBALNESS SUR LA CONFIANCE DANS LA MARQUE : LE ROLE

MEDIATEUR DE L’AFFECT A LA MARQUE ET LE CARACTERE INNOVANT DE LA MARQUE

Résumé :

Des recherches précédentes ont démontré que la relation entre le brand globalness et la

confiance dans la marque est expliquée par la qualité perçue des produits, le prestige de la

marque et l’expressivité d’identité des consommateurs. L’objectif de cette recherche est de

proposer un modèle avec deux explications alternatives. À travers une étude transversale

menée en France avec 250 participants, nous démontrons que l’affect à la marque et le

caractère innovant de la marque interviennent comme variables médiatrices de la relation

entre le brand globalness et la confiance dans la marque. Cette étude fournit des évidences

empiriques qui prouvent que les marques perçues comme globales peuvent susciter des

réponses émotionnelles positives ainsi qu’être appréciées par leur capacité à fournir des

produits innovants et utiles, qui à leur tour influencent la confiance dans la marque. De plus,

nous démontrons le rôle modérateur de l’ethnocentrisme du consommateur sur la relation

entre le brand globalness et le caractère innovant de la marque. Enfin, nous identifions des

limites et des pistes de recherche pour une exploration future.

Mots clés : la confiance dans la marque ; le brand globalness ; l’affect à la marque

2

Introduction

Brand trust has been one of the main concerns for managers and researchers in the last

decade. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, there was a major decline in consumers’

trust in 2015 with 16 of 27 countries dropping below their acceptable 50% level into the

“distruster” category. For instance, Germany went from a 57% trust level in 2014 to 45% in

2015. From a theoretical standpoint, studying brand trust is relevant because of its effects on

the consumer-brand relationship (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, 2002; Delgado-Ballester

and Munuera-Aleman, 2001; Ha, 2004; Morgan et al, 1994; Sichtmann, 2007; Sung and Kim,

2010). The consequences of brand trust are well established in the marketing literature.

However, antecedents are still unclear. This research will specifically focus on the

relationship between brand globalness and brand trust (Rosembloom and Hafner, 2009; Xie

et al, 2015). Brand trust refers to the expectation of consumers that the brand will perform

them beneficial products.

Past research has demonstrated the influence of brand globalness on brand trust. For

instance, consumers from many different countries such as India and Bulgaria have more

trust in American and Japanese computers than other countries because they are more global

(Rosembloom and Hafner, 2009). Similarly, Chinese consumers have more trust in global

brands (electronic products) such as Nokia and Samsung (Xie et al, 2015). This effect is

explained by the fact that global brands are perceived as the recipient of quality and prestige

(Rosembloom and Hafner, 2009; Xie et al, 2015). Uncertainty and risk associated with

products are reduced when brands are global. A different explanation of the influence of

brand globalness on brand trust is through the psychological connections of consumers with

brands that have shared characteristics, values and common goals (Xie et al, 2015). Brand

globalness refers to the characteristic of a brand of being present in multiple countries with

generally the same name, symbols and offers (Steenkamp et al, 2003).

However, because global brands are also perceived as more exciting and up-to-date

than other brands (Dimofte et al, 2008; Dimofte et al, 2010), and both characteristics could

influence brand trust (Singh et al, 2012; Srivastava et al, 2015; 2016), the relationship

between brand globalness and brand trust could probably be explained by more than two

variables. Specifically, this research is interested in two mediating variables of that

relationship: brand affect and brand innovativeness. First, brand affect that involves positive

emotional responses of consumers towards brands (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; 2002)

could canalize the emotional aspect of global brands. Second, brand innovativeness refers to

the perceived ability of a brand to provide new and useful products (Eisingerich and Rubera,

2010). Since consumers perceive global brands as being able to provide new and performing

products, brand innovativeness should generate an influence on brand trust. In addition, given

that ethnocentrism is considered as an attitudinal bias that makes certain consumers perceive

less favorably global brands (Steenkamp et al, 2003), the influence of brand globalness on

the consumer-brand relationship might be different for this kind of consumers.

In the current research, we aim at demonstrating that brand globalness might be

related to brand trust through the mediating role of brand affect and brand innovativeness. In

addition, we wish to establish the moderating role of the consumer ethnocentrism in the

relationship between brand globalness and both brand affect and brand innovativeness.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses

Brand Affect. More recent literature shows a well-established definition of brand

affect that refers to “a brand’s potential to elicit a positive emotional response in the average

consumer as a result of its use” (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; 2002). In this sense,

consumers with a high brand affect perceive that brands make them happy, joyful, and

affectionate (Matzler et al, 2006). Brands that are perceived as global should elicit positive

emotional responses in consumers. Since consumers generally like to be a part of an aspiring

3

global consumer culture (Alden et al, 1999; Holt et al, 2004), they might perceive that

consuming a global brand makes them joyful. In addition, consumers might feel a global

brand to be pleasurable because they like the lifestyle of people associated with the global

brand country-of-origin (Batra et al, 2000). Since global brand generally comes from the most

developed countries in the world, the way in which people live in these countries is

appreciated by people from other countries. Consumers generally esteem global brands

(Johanson and Ronkainen, 2005). Likewise, consumers consider global brands as more

exciting and stylish, which in turn influence both their attitude and purchase intention

(Dimofte et al, 2008; Dimofte et al, 2010). Therefore, consuming these global brands might

provide emotional responses in consumers.

Because “affective attachments form the basis for caring and benevolent actions that

build trust” (Williams, 2001, p. 379), brand affect might influence brand trust. The trustor that

perceives an emotional investment of caring and benevolence of the trustee feels the deepest

level of trust (Rempel et al, 1985). In this sense, brands that make consumers joyful should be

perceived as trustable. For instance, consumers trust more brands from the fast-moving

consumer goods when they perceive that these brands provide them with more feelings and

emotions (Singh et al, 2012). In addition, affective reactions positively influence the

judgment of trust (Dunn and Schweitzer, 2005; Williams, 2001). This effect is based on the

theory that stipulates that individuals who are in a positive affective state evaluate other

individuals and past events more favorably (Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz et al, 1991; Schwarz

and Clore, 1988). Therefore, consumers who have positive affective reactions because brands

make them happy might evaluate more favorably the trustworthiness of brands.

H1: The link between brand globalness and brand trust is mediated by brand affect.

Brand Innovativeness. Recent literature relates innovativeness to the useful property

of new elements (Eisingerich and Rubera, 2010) and to its ability to generate a discontinuity

in the marketing process (Garcia and Calantone, 2002). In our research, having a consumer

perspective at the brand’s level of abstraction (Pappu and Quester, 2016), we define brand

innovativeness as the perceived ability of a brand to provide new and useful products to the

consumer needs (Eisingerich and Rubera, 2010). Global brands might be perceived as

innovative. Given that brands must obtain sustainable competitive advantages in order to

become global (Van Gelder, 2004), innovation is centrally prioritized in the brand strategy

(Weeraguardena et al, 2007, p. 296). In this regard, consumers might perceive that if a brand

is successful on a global reach, this brand must also deliver innovative products (Aaker,

2004). Indeed, consumers associate characteristics such as being more innovative (Dimofte et

al, 2008) and up-to-date (Dimofte et al, 2010) to global brands such as Adidas, BMW, and

Coca-Cola. In addition, when deciding if a global brand should create a new brand or extend

the brand into the a new market, literature advises that global brand extension reinforces the

perception of the brand innovativeness (Van Gelder, 2004) and that the relationship between

brand globalness and brand innovativeness should be empirically examined (Punyatoya et al,

2014).

The perceived ability of brands to generate new and useful products might influence

the consumer trust in those brands. Since brand innovation is commonly characterized by

performing better products and adding valuable features (Aaker, 2007), a perception of

innovativeness by consumers might influence trust in brands. Indeed, a reputation of the

brand to be innovative enhances its credibility (Aaker, 2004). For instance, past research has

demonstrated that mothers who perceived innovativeness in baby care product brands trust

more those brands more (Srivastava et al, 2015; 2016). These authors affirm that mothers

trust baby care product brands because these brands provide functional solutions to their

unaddressed needs. Therefore, brands that are perceived as having the competence to provide

new and useful products might be expected to offer performing products and to be trustable.

4

In addition, we argue that brand innovativeness can also be perceived as an action of the

brand to want to satisfy the needs of the consumer. Providing new solutions can be taken by

consumers as a way of caring about them. In this sense, brand innovativeness might also

influence brand trust as an action of goodwill about the needs of the consumer.

H2: The link between brand globalness and brand trust is mediated by brand

innovativeness.

The moderating role of consumer ethnocentrism. Consumer ethnocentrism refers to "the

beliefs held by consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made

products" (Shimp and Sharma, 1987, p. 280). Thus, ethnocentric consumers prefer domestic

products rather than foreign products because they believe that products from their own country

are the best (Klein et al, 1998) and because these domestic products represent intra-cultural

objects that become recipients of pride and attachment (Hershe, 1994). Given that ethnocentric

individuals tend to reject symbols and values that are different from their own values (Hershe

1994), they are less cosmopolitan and less open to foreign cultures. In our context, global brands

may be viewed as a threat for them.

The effect of brand globalness on brand affect and brand innovativeness for ethnocentric

consumer should be different from non-ethnocentric consumers. On the one hand, since

ethnocentric consumers perceive products and symbols from their own country as the best (Klein

et al, 1998), innovativeness of global brands might not be appreciated. Brands are commonly

associated with cultural symbols, thus making non-cosmopolitan consumers develop negative

evaluation towards global brands. An effect of this judgment is the underestimation of the brand’s

ability to satisfy actual consumer needs. This might make consumers perceive the brand’s

incapability of providing new and useful products. Therefore, ethnocentric consumers might value

innovativeness of global brands less. By contrast, non-ethnocentric consumers who have a

tendency to appreciate global brands might be influenced by the perception of innovativeness of

this type of brand. Non-ethnocentric consumers who judge in favor of the fact that brands have a

worldwide reach might perceive competitive advantages of those brands. On the other hand,

ethnocentric consumers might not feel affect for global brands because they rather have

preferences for domestic products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). Fewer cosmopolitan consumers

might evoke less positive emotional responses for global brands. The presence of those brands in

many countries and the cultural symbols that they represent might make ethnocentric consumers

less joyful and happy. Since this kind of consumer does not have an interest in integrating in a

global consumer culture, the fact that a brand is global might not influence the consumer

perception of the extent of pleasure of the brand. In this sense, global brands might elicit less

positive emotional responses when consumers are ethnocentric. On the other hand, non-

ethnocentric consumers might be more affectively influenced by global brands. More openness to

global brands might make consumers perceive more affect and having more emotional moments

with those brands. Based on these arguments, we propose:

H3a(b): Consumer ethnocentrism moderates the effect of brand globalness on brand

affect(innovativeness)

Method

Data collection and sample. Two hundred fifty participants were asked to complete an

online questionnaire at a business school in the south of France. Firstly, we asked them to

choose a brand from a list of most popular fast food restaurant brands in France, including

McDonald’s, Subway, and KFC. We selected this product category in our study because it is

principally represented by global brands. However, we added the brand Quick as a more local

European brand in order to obtain a better variation on the perception of globalness. Then,

participants were asked to answer questions on brand globalness, brand affect, brand

innovativeness, and brand trust. We added service quality as a control variable because of the

5

nature of restaurants and their possible effect on the independent variable brand trust. Finally,

we asked participants to answer socio-demographic questions. Two hundred forty-three

responses were considered as final sample -after deleting those doubly completed. Most of the

respondents in the sample are women (61 percent) and younger than 35 years old (96

percent). Consumers with monthly household incomes of more than 2000€ represent 56

percent of the respondents. The majority of respondents are undergraduate and graduate

students (39.2 percent and 35.6 percent, respectively).

Measure. Brand globalness was measured with the scale based on Steenkamp et al

(2003). The dependent variable, brand trust, was measured through the three dimensions

French scale (Credibility, Integrity, and Benevolence) from Gurviez and Korchia (2002).

Since the credibility dimension is the assessment of the brand’s ability, this scale represents

our conception of brand trust well. Three items developed by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)

were employed to measure brand affect. Brand innovativeness had three items taken from

Eisingerich and Rubera (2010). Consumer ethnocentrism was measured using five items

adapted from Shimp and Sharma (1987). Finally, the service quality measure consisted of

four items adapted from Ekinci (2001). All items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale

with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 7 representing, “strongly agree.”

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed in AMOS 18.0 to examine the

reliability and validity of the constructs. To evaluate measurement models fit, three types of

fit indices (absolute, incremental and parsimonious) were used, following the suggestions of

Jackson et al. (2009). The measurement model exhibited adequate fit, with a chi-square (χ2)/df

statistic of 1.955 (p< 0.01); CFI = 0.96; GFI = 0.86; IFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.067. To test for

convergent validity, factor loadings, along with the average variance extracted (AVE), were

calculated for each latent variable (see Table I). The value of composite reliability and the

coefficient of alpha values for all eight constructs were higher than the recommended limit of

0.7 and the AVE equaled or exceeded the value of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), which

suggests that the measures used are internally consistent. Standardized factor loadings

exceeded 0.5 thresholds as recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The discriminant

validity of the constructs is supported because the constructs’ AVE values are greater than

their squared correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Table 2 shows the coefficients to validate our model. We conducted the analysis using

ordinary least squares path analysis (Hayes, 2013) because of the complexity of our model,

which includes mediating and moderating effects. First, we analyzed the direct effects of

variables. Brand globalness was positively related to brand affect (t=3.75, p < .001), and to

brand innovativeness (t=2.34, p < .05), validating the direct effects of these variables.

Consumers who perceive brands as more global feel more affect toward brands, and perceive

a greater innovativeness of brands. The direct effects of brand affect on brand trust-integrity

(t=3.05, p < .01), brand trust-benevolence (t=2.19, p < .05), and brand trust-ability (t=6.73, p

< .001), were also validated. Similarly, our results validate the direct effects of brand

innovativeness on brand trust-integrity (t=3.46, p < .001), brand trust-benevolence (t=5.75, p

< .001), and brand trust-ability (t=4.1, p < .001). Consumers who feel more affect toward

brands and perceive them as more innovative trust more these brands more. Second, from a

parallel mediation analysis (Hayes, 2013; Model 4), the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence

intervals (BootLLCI to BootULCI]) based on 5,000 bootstrap samples were entirely above

zero thus validating the indirect effects of brand globalness on brand trust-integrity (0.0099 to

0.0756), brand trust-benevolence (0.0037 to 0.0641), and brand trust-ability (0.0321 to

0.1301) through brand affect, in support of our hypothesis 1. In the same way, the indirect

effects of brand globalness on brand trust-integrity (0.0029 to 0.067), brand trust-benevolence

6

(0.0044 to 0.0961), and brand trust-ability (0.0025 to 0.0668) through brand innovativeness

were validated, in support of our hypothesis 2. The results show the mediating role of brand

affect and brand innovativeness into the consumers’ trust in global brands. Third, from a

moderation analysis (Hayes, 2013; Model 8), the relationship between brand globalness and

brand innovativeness was negatively moderated by ethnocentrism (t=-3.68, p < .001),

supporting hypothesis 3a. Brand globalness is significantly related to brand innovativeness

when consumer ethnocentrism is low (one SD below the mean) (b=0.2956, t=3.99, p < .001)

and medium (the mean) (b=0.1251, t=2.06, p < .05) but not when consumer ethnocentrism is

high (one SD above the mean) (b=-0.0455, t=-0.54, p > .05) (see Figure 2).

Then, contrary to hypothesis 3b, ethnocentrism does not moderate the relationship

between brand globalness and brand affect (t=1.49, p > .05). However, we conducted a

floodlight analysis (Johnson-Neyman, 1936; Spiller et al., 2013) to identify regions of

consumer ethnocentrism in which brand globalness is not related to brand affect. The analysis

revealed that the relationship between brand globalness and brand affect was not significant (p

> .05) among consumers whose ethnocentrism level was higher than 5.94 (0.7SD above the

mean) (bJN = 0.1687, t=1.97, p = 0.05, see Figure 3). Therefore, consumers with high levels

of ethnocentrism (above 5.94) do not feel affect toward global brands, supporting our

hypothesis 3b.

Discussion and contribution

This study proposes and tests alternative pathways through which global brands can build

brand trust. Our results indicate that, unlike the previously studied pathways of perceived

quality, prestige (Rosembloom and Hafner, 2009), and brand identity expressiveness (Xie et

al, 2015), attention must also be paid to brand affect and brand innovativeness as important

intervening factors explaining favorable trust in brands perceived as global. In addition, our

results regarding the consumer ethnocentrism are in line with some past studies, which also

showed its moderating role (Akram et al, 2010; Steenkamp et al, 2003). This study

contributes to the understanding of the relationship between brand globalness and brand trust

through the mediating role of brand affect and brand innovativeness, and moderating role of

consumer ethnocentrism.

Limitations and future research

This study has analyzed a limited number of brands all being specific to the category

of fast food chains. Future studies should test our hypotheses with other global brands in

other categories in order to generalize the findings.

Participants were principally young consumers aged between 18 and 35 years old who

are more cosmopolitan in their preferences (Bannister and Saunders, 1978). Future research

should analyze the age of consumers as a moderating variable in order to find differences in

attitudes toward global brands. Elderly people may be less susceptible to global brands given

that attitudes toward domestic products generally become more favorable with increasing age

(Bannister and Saunders, 1978).

Another future avenue is the influence of brand globalness on brand trust through an

ethical judgment. Consumers represent characteristics of global brands related to the ethic

(Dimofte et al, 2008). They indicate that they perceive ethical behaviors and social

responsibilities of global brands. In addition, consumers who perceive brands as ethical (e.g.

being honest and responsible) confide more trust to those brands (Singh et al, 2012). In this

sense, brands that are perceived as global may have an effect on brand trust via the role of the

ethic. Empirical studies should be conducted in order to support our proposition.

References:

7

Aaker, D.A. (2004) Leveraging the corporate brand. California Management Review 46(3):

6-18.

Aaker, D.A. (2007) Innovation: Brand it or lose it. California Management Review 50(1): 8-

24.

Akaka, M.A. and Alden, D.L. (2010) Global brand positioning and perceptions: International

advertising and global consumer culture. International Journal of Advertising 29(1):

37-56.

Akram, A., Merunka, D. and Akram, M. (2011) Perceived brand globalness in emerging

markets and the moderating role of consumer ethnocentrism. International Journal of

Emerging Markets 6(4): 291-303.

Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Batra, R. (1999) Brand positioning through

advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture.

Journal of Marketing 63(1): 75-87.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review

and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411-423.

Bannister, J.P. and Saunders, J.A. (1978) UK consumers' attitudes towards imports: The

measurement of national stereotype image. European Journal of Marketing 12(8): 562-

570.

Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Ramachander, S. (2000)

Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing

countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology 9(2): 83-95.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001) The chain of effects from brand trust and brand

affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing 65(2): 81-

93.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2002) Product-class effects on brand commitment and

brand outcomes: The role of brand trust and brand affect. Journal of Brand

Management 10(1): 33-58.

Dawar, N. and Parker, P. (1994) Marketing universals: Consumers' use of brand name, price,

physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality. Journal of

Marketing 58(2): 81-95.

Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemán, J.L. (2001) Brand trust in the context of

consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 35(11/12): 1238-1258.

Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemán, J.L. (2005) Does brand trust matter to brand

equity?. Journal of Product & Brand Management 14(3): 187-196.

Dimofte, C.V., Johansson, J.K. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2010) Global brands in the United States:

How consumer ethnicity mediates the global brand effect. Journal of International

Marketing 18(3): 81-106.

Dimofte, C.V., Johansson, J.K. and Ronkainen, I.A. (2008) Cognitive and affective reactions

of US consumers to global brands. Journal of International Marketing 16(4): 113-135.

Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller

relationships. Journal of Marketing 61(2): 35-51.

Eisingerich, A.B. and Rubera, G. (2010) Drivers of brand commitment: A cross-national

investigation. Journal of International Marketing 18(2): 64-79.

Ekinci, Y. (2001) The validation of the generic service quality dimensions: An alternative

approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8(6): 311-324.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):

39-50.

8

Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002) A critical look at technological innovation typology and

innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation

Management 19(2): 110-132.

Gurviez, P. and Korchia, M. (2002) Proposition d'une échelle de mesure multidimensionnelle

de la confiance dans la marque. Recherche et Applications en Marketing 17(3): 41-61.

Ha, H.Y. (2004) Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online. Journal of

Product & Brand Management 13(5): 329-342.

Han, S.H., Nguyen, B. and Lee, T.J. (2015) Consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity,

brand reputation, and brand trust. International Journal of Hospitality Management 50:

84-93.

Hayes, A.F. (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:

A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Herche, J. (1994) Ethnocentric tendencies, marketing strategy and import purchase

behaviour. International Marketing Review 11(3): 4-16.

Hirschman, E.C. (1980) Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of

Consumer Research 7(3): 283-295.

Holt, D.B., Quelch, J.A. and Taylor, E.L. (2004) How global brands compete. Harvard

Business Review 82(9): 68-75.

Johansson, J.K. and Ronkainen, I.A. (2005) The esteem of global brands. Journal of Brand

Management 12(5): 339-354.

Johnson P.O. and Neyman J. (1936) Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications

to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs 1: 57–93.

Kaynak, E. and Kara, A. (2002) Consumer perceptions of foreign products: An analysis of

product-country images and ethnocentrism. European Journal of Marketing 36(7/8):

928-949.

Keller, K.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.

Journal of Marketing 57(1): 1-22.

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

62(1): 89-100.

Lau, G.T. and Lee, S.H. (1999) Consumers' trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty.

Journal of Market-Focused Management 4(4): 341-370.

Leonidou, L.C., Kvasova, O., Leonidou, C.N. and Chari, S. (2013) Business unethicality as

an impediment to consumer trust: The moderating role of demographic and cultural

characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics 112(3): 397-415.

Matzler, K., Bidmon, S. and Grabner-Kräuter, S. (2006) Individual determinants of brand

affect: the role of the personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience.

Journal of Product & Brand Management 15(7): 427-434.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational

trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 709-734.

McAllister, D.J. (1995) Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38(1): 24-59.

McCracken, G. (1986) Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and

movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research

13(1): 71-84.

Özsomer, A. and Altaras, S. (2008) Global brand purchase likelihood: A critical synthesis

and an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing 16(4): 1-

28.

Pappu, R. and Quester, P.G. (2016) How does brand innovativeness affect brand loyalty?.

European Journal of Marketing 50(1/2): 2-28.

9

Punyatoya, P., Sadh, A. and Mishra, S.K. (2014) Role of brand globalness in consumer

evaluation of new product branding strategy. Journal of Brand Management 21(2):

171-188.

Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G. and Zanna, M.P. (1985) Trust in close relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 49(1): 95-112.

Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, Floyd F. (1971) Communication of Innovations. New York:

The Free Press.

Rosenbloom, A. and Haefner, J.E. (2009) Country-of-origin effects and global brand trust: A

first look. Journal of Global Marketing 22(4): 267-278.

Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007) An integrative model of organizational

trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 344-354.

Sethi, R., Smith, D.C. and Park, C.W. (2001) Cross-functional product development teams,

creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing

Research 38(1): 73-85.

Shankarmahesh, M.N. (2006) Consumer ethnocentrism: An integrative review of its

antecedents and consequences. International Marketing Review 23(2): 146-172.

Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987) Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of

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

Singh, J.J., Iglesias, O. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2012) Does having an ethical brand matter?

The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty. Journal of

Business Ethics 111(4): 541-549.

Singh, J. and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000) Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction

and loyalty judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(1): 150-167.

Spiller, S.A., Fitzsimons, G.J., Lynch Jr, J.G. and McClelland, G.H. (2013) Spotlights,

floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression.

Journal of Marketing Research 50(2): 277-288.

Srivastava, N., Dash, S.B. and Mookerjee, A. (2015) Antecedents and moderators of brand

trust in the context of baby care toiletries. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32(5): 328-

340.

Srivastava, N., Dash, S.B. and Mookerjee, A. (2016) Determinants of brand trust in high

inherent risk products: The moderating role of education and working status. Marketing

Intelligence & Planning 34(3): 394-420.

Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., Batra, R. and Alden, D.L. (2003) How perceived brand globalness

creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies 34(1): 53-65.

Van Gelder, S. (2004) Global brand strategy. Journal of Brand Management 12(1): 39-48.

Weerawardena, J., Mort, G.S., Liesch, P.W. and Knight, G. (2007) Conceptualizing

accelerated internationalization in the born global firm: A dynamic capabilities

perspective. Journal of World Business 42(3): 294-306.

Williams, M. (2001) In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust

development. Academy of Management Review 26(3): 377-396.

Xie, Y., Batra, R. and Peng, S. (2015) An extended model of preference formation between

global and local brands: The roles of identity expressiveness, trust, and affect. Journal

of International Marketing 23(1): 50-71.

10

Figure 1

Brand

Globalness

Brand

Affect

Brand

Trust

H1

H2

Consumer

Ethnocentrism

Brand

Innovativeness

H3b

H3a

11

Figure 2

12

Figure 3

Table 1

13

Variable Stand.

loading Composite

Reliability AVE r2

Brand Globalness 0.94 0.85 0.09

To me, this is a global brand. 0.95

I do think consumers overseas buy this brand. 0.99

This brand is sold all over the world. 0.65

Brand Affect 0.89 0.74 0.56

I feel good when I dine in this restaurant brand. 0.82

This brand makes me happy. 0.88

This brand gives me pleasure. 0.88

Brand Innovatiness 0.83 0.62 0.56

I can rely on this brand to offer novel products

to my needs.

0.82

This brand always sells the same product

offerings regardless of current consumer needs *

0,79

This brand provides new products adapted to my

needs.

0.75

Brand Trust - Integrity 0.87 0.7 0.47

This brand is sincere with consumers. 0.93

This brand is honest with its customers. 0.96

This brand expresses an interest in its

customers.

0.57

Brand Trust - Benevolence 0.83 0.63 0.25

I think this brand renews its products to take

into account advances in research.

0.84

I think that this brand is always looking to

improve its response to consumer needs.

0.94

Benevolence is a value in itself for this brand. 0.54

Brand Trust - Credibility 0.87 0.7 0.55

This brand’s products make me feel safe. 0.79

I trust the quality of this brand’s products. 0.95

Buying this brand’s products is a guarantee. 0.75

Ethnocentrism 0.81 0.52 0.01

French people should only buy French-made

products.

0.84

It is always best to purchase French products. 0.7

Only those products that are unavailable in

France should be imported.

0.71

It is not right to purchase foreign products. 0.62

14

Table 2

Bran Affect Brand Innovatiness Brand Trust – Integrity Brand Trust - Benevolence Brand Trust - Ability

Antecedent Coeff SE t-Value Coeff SE t-Value Coeff SE t-Value Coeff SE t-Value Coeff SE t-Value

Brand Globalness 0.2342 0,0625 3.7496*** 0,1251 0,0534 2,3403* -0,0167 0,0387 -0,4308 0,0302 0,0387 0,7820 0,0065 0,0378 0,1710

Brand Affect — — — — — — 0,1499 0,0491 3,0524** 0,1077 0,0491 2,1939* 0,3234 0,0480 6,7331***

Brand Innovatiness — — — — — — 0,2023 0,0584 3,4647*** 0,3356 0,0584 5,7483*** 0,2345 0,0571 4,1042***

Service Quality — — — — — — 0,3199 0,0602 5,3118*** 0,1337 0,0602 2,2221* 0,2845 0,0589 4,8305***

Constant 2.8732 0.3572 8.0439*** 3.5503 0,3056 11,6162*** 1,0607 0,3316 3,1990** 1,4398 0,3314 4,3445*** 0,1355 0,3243 0,4179

R2 6,3 % 2,55 % 34,54 % 33 % 50,26 %

F 14.0598 5,4771 27,1695 25,3669 52,0467

Mediating Effect (Model 4) Coeff Boot SE Boot [LLCI; ULCI] Coeff Boot SE Boot [LLCI; ULCI] Coeff Boot SE Boot [LLCI; ULCI]

Brand Globalness (Indirect Effect) Mediator Mediator Mediator — — — 0,0351 0,0162 [0,0099; 0.0756]

0,0252 0,0145 [0,0037; 0.0641]

0,0757 0,025 [0,0321; 0.1301]

Brand Globalness (Indirect Effect) — — — Mediator Mediator Mediator 0,0253 0,0155 [0,0029; 0.067]

0,0420 0,0232 [0,0044; 0.0961]

0,0293 0,0162 [0,0025; 0.0668]

Moderating Effect (Model 8) Coeff SE t-Value Coeff SE t-Value Coeff SE t-Value

Brand Globalness 0,4983 0,1743 2.8591** 0.6281 0.1449 4.3361*** -0.1451 0.1095 -1.325 -0.2132 0.1086 -1.9632

0.0315 0.1078 0.2924

Brand Affect — — — — — — 0.1504 0.049 3.0671** 0.1068 0.0486 2.1972*

0.3233 0.0483 6.6979***

Brand Innovatiness — — — — — — 0.2126 0.0605 3.5149*** 0.3656 0.06 6.0962***

0.2322 0.0595 3.8997***

Ethnocentrism -0.3425 0.2296 -1.4915 -0.5724 0.1909 -2.9991** -0.2204 0.1405 -1.5684 -0.3394 0.1394 -2.4357*

0.0411 0.1394 0.2971

Brand Globalness x Ethnocentrism -0.0667 0.0411 -1.6209 -0.1257 0.0342 -3.6772*** 0.0329 0.0255 1.291 0.0611 0.0253 2.4147*

-0.0064 0.0251 -0.2545

Service Quality — — — — — — 0.3239 0.061 5.3104***

0.1259 0.0605 2.1143*

0.284 0.06 4.7305***

Constant 1.5315 0.9594 1.5963 1.2863 0.7974 1.6132 1.8545 0.6097 3.0417**

2.6821 0.6046 4.4365***

-0.013 0.6002 -0.0217

R2 7,48 % 9,21 % 35,4% 34,94% 50,29%

F 5.5788 7.0026 18.6325 18.2578 34.3921

15