is your brand loyalty affected by the country?
TRANSCRIPT
Is your brand loyalty affected by the country?
An explanatory investigation of the relationship between brand loyalty
and country-of-origin in a Swedish context
Authors:
Julia Sunnegårdh
Christoffer Eriksson
Sofia Dahlgren
Supervisor: Viktor Magnusson
Examiner: Åsa Devine
Semester: Spring 2021
Course code: 2FE21E
Acknowledgement
This Bachelor thesis was conducted by Sofia Dahlgren, Julia Sunnegårdh and Christoffer
Eriksson at the Marketing Program during spring 2021 at Linnaeus University in Växjö.
We would like to say a huge thank you to our supervisor Viktor Magnusson. Without your
engagement and patience, we would not have managed to finish this thesis. Thank you for
your time and support. We would also like to express our gratitude towards our examinator
Åsa Devine. Your feedback has been crucial for us and has got us on the right track. We
would also like to thank the opposition groups from the seminars, your feedback and
comments has strengthened our thesis. We are also grateful for the help we got from Micheala
Sandell, your expertise in English helps our research a lot.
Last but not least we would like to say thank you to all who took the time to participate in our
survey. Without you this thesis would not have been possible.
Abstract
Background: Brand loyalty is a rather old concept and has become a central part of every
brand and there are many factors that need to be considered when choosing strategies in order
to achieve this. However, even though the concept itself is rather set-in stone the research on
how brands archive this in different contexts is constantly in motion, for instance it has been
shown that a brand's Country-of-Origin has effects on consumers purchase intent and attitudes
which are crucial factors within Brand loyalty.
Purpose: The Purpose of this paper is to explain what effect COO has on brand loyalty of
Swedish consumers.
Methodology: For this research a quantitative method was used. The research was
explanatory, and a cross-sectional research design was chosen. After this a questionnaire was
constructed and shared through two platforms in order to collect the data that was needed for
the research.
Findings: Both our hypotheses from the proposed model were rejected, therefore the
researcher could conclude that Country-of-Origin has no effect on brand loyalty of Swedish
consumers.
Conclusion: Even though both hypotheses were rejected, did the research contribute with
knowledge that COO has no significant effect on brand loyalty since such research has not
been done before. However, the research also contributes with knowledge towards previous
research, where it has been shown that perceived quality from a country has an effect on
consumers' purchase intent and attitudes. Whereby, our test showed that it also has an effect
on brand loyalty when tested alone without the country image.
Key words
Brand loyalty, country-of-origin, perceived quality, country image, repetitive purchase,
attitudinal loyalty.
LIST OF CONTENT
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem discussion ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2 Theoretical framework .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Brand loyalty ............................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Attitude ............................................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.2 Repetitive purchase ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Country-of-origin ...................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Country image ................................................................................................................................. 9
2.2.2 Perceived quality ........................................................................................................................... 12
3 Conceptual framework ........................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 Proposed model ...................................................................................................................................... 15
4 Method ................................................................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Research approach ................................................................................................................................. 16
4.2 Research design ...................................................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Data collection method ........................................................................................................................... 17
4.3.1 Operationalization ......................................................................................................................... 18
4.3.2 Operationalization table ................................................................................................................ 18
4.3.3 Execution of the questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 22
4.3.4 Translation..................................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.5 Pre-test .......................................................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Sampling ................................................................................................................................................. 26
4.4.1 Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 26
4.4.2 Sample selection ............................................................................................................................ 27
4.5 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 28
4.5.1 Descriptive statistics ...................................................................................................................... 29
4.5.2 Correlation and regression analysis ............................................................................................... 30
4.6 Research quality ..................................................................................................................................... 32
4.6.1 Reliability ...................................................................................................................................... 32
4.6.2 Validity .......................................................................................................................................... 33
4.7 Ethical and societal issues ...................................................................................................................... 35
4.7.1 Ethical issues ................................................................................................................................. 35
4.7.2 Societal issues ............................................................................................................................... 36
5 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 37
5.1 Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 37
5.2 Descriptive statistics ............................................................................................................................... 37
5.3 Construct testing, quality criterion: Spearman correlation .................................................................... 40
5.4 Reliability testing: Cronbach's alpha ..................................................................................................... 40
5.5 Analysis output: Regression analysis and hypothesis testing ................................................................. 41
6 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 45
6.1 Discussion of Hypothesis 1 - “Country image has a positive effect on brand loyalty of Swedish
consumers” ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
6.2 Discussion of Hypothesis 2 - “Perceived quality has a positive effect on brand loyalty of Swedish
consumers” ...................................................................................................................................................... 46
7 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 47
8 Implications (theoretical & managerial) ............................................................................................. 47
9 Limitations and future research .......................................................................................................... 48
10 References ............................................................................................................................................ 51
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix 1: Demographic tables ..................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix 2: Translation of questions ............................................................................................................... 62
Appendix 3: Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................... 64
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Brands have become a natural part of our everyday life and they appear everywhere in all
situations (Kapferer, 2008). Brands affect the human individual in different ways and
different levels, depending on both the perception of the brand and what we as humans find
valuable and attractive. The relationship between consumer and brand is a fundamental part of
brand management, creating a relationship with your consumer can become a competitive
advantage (Kapferer, 2008). These relationships can furthermore evolve into brand loyal
consumers (Aaker, 1991). The fundamentals of brand loyalty are that a consumer is forming a
repurchasing behavior due to the psychological process and attitude towards the brand where
the consumer is actively choosing one brand over another (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973) without
being affected by the competition on the market or even changes in the environment (Kopp,
2019). This bond between the brand and the consumer can have both a light and heavy
emotional attachment, and the level is dependent on certain criteria that the brand must never
disappoint the consumers and always live up to their expectations (Kopp, 2019). Brand
loyalty is an accomplishment and is achieved through different factors, such as repetitive
purchase and attitude (Aaker, 1991). When a consumer not only is satisfied with the product
or the service of a brand but with everything that revolves around the brand, the consumer
becomes a committed buyer, the highest level of loyalty. It is at this point that the consumer
actively chooses one brand over the other competing brands, no matter price or feature
differences (Aaker, 1991).
Furthermore, to understand why the consumers continue with these repetitive purchases
which are a fundamental part of brand loyalty (Oliver, 1999), the dimension of attitudinal
brand loyalty was added to the research of brand loyalty (Back & Parks, 2003). This
2
dimension explains and justifies the repeated behavior of consumers as an effect of attitudes
towards the brand. Therefore, it is important to measure both the repeated purchases and
attitudinal brand loyalty to gain a greater understanding of the consumers and by that
understanding their attitudes towards the brand and what makes them brand loyal (Back &
Parks, 2003).
As individuals and consumers, humans are constantly facing an uncountable amount of
choices every day, the country-of-origin (COO) plays a part in consumers decision making
where COO is of great importance in terms of brand perception (García-Gallego 2017; Moon
2017). Country-of-origin is where a person or an object is from or created (Johnsson, 2016).
In business it is often talked about brand origin, however country-of-origin covers both brand
origin and country of manufacture (Johnsson, 2016). Johnsson (2016) further claims that
Country-of-origin is argued to have an impact on consumer evaluation and product choices,
these choices are determined by the consumer choice behavior and what each consumer
values the most and their attitude towards it. Country-of-origin has a significant role in
decision-making (Aichner, 2014), and is shown to have influence on consumers, over the
world, on attitude, purchase behavior and perceived quality (Woo, Jin and Ramkumar 2017;
Cristea, Capitana, and Stoenescu 2014; Fan 2019) which all are components towards building
brand loyalty (Carvalho, Azar & Machado 2020).
3
1.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION
Within research, brand loyalty is often divided into the two dimensions of behavioral- and
attitudinal loyalty (Oliver 1999; Watson, Beck, Henderson & Palmatier 2015; Nisar and
Whitehead 2016) Whereby attitudinal refers to feelings and preferences and behavioral to
repurchasing and intentions towards the brand (Nisar and Whitehead 2016).
Hence, brand loyal consumers do not just become loyal, these consumers are earned by the
company and brand (Kapferer, 2008). Along with this, the brand must identify the consumer
and what is influencing them to purchase, especially in terms of attitudes and repurchase. To
target brand loyal consumers with the right individual marketing is crucial and often separates
a successful brand against others. This takes part in every marketing department, brand
loyalty requires a level of intelligent marketing strategy (Kapferer, 2008).
As the importance of COO has grown rapidly over the past decade and the topic continues to
grow in interest of how it really influences consumers (Semaan, Gould, Chao and Grein
2019). For instance, according to Koubaa (2008) country-of-origin affects brand image, their
study shows that it can have both good and bad effects on brands. It can even make “new”
brands more attractive on the market rather than already well-known brands.
COO has been seen to affect the purchase intention of young consumers in Europe (Bartosik-
Purgat 2018), the effect COO has on consumers depends upon product category and
development level (Maier and Wilken 2017; Bartosik-Purgat 2018). For instance, Germany is
heavily connected with cars, France with cosmetics, Italy with footwear, and Japan with
electronics (Maier and Wilken 2017; Bartosik-Purgat 2018). However, the consumer effect
and influence of COO has also been seen to differ from market to market, whereby young
consumers from France mainly prefer products from France and young consumers from
Poland prefer cars and electronics from Japan, cosmetics from France, and footwear made in
Italy (Bartosik-Purgat 2018).
4
Existing research have the tendency to take two perspectives of brand loyalty and COO in
conjoint, whereby COO image is considered to have an effect on brand loyalty (Panda and
Misra, 2014; Saydan, 2013), or that COO has an effect on the brand loyalty elements rather
than the whole concept of brand loyalty (Koubaa, 2008; Bruwer et al., 2014). Hence, research
made of both COO and brand loyalty is focusing on a specific market or industry, and it is
suggested to continue research of different countries on the field together with different brands
and products with different approaches to get a deeper understanding of how COO affects
consumers due to cultural differences in brand loyalty context (Boutin 2011; Semaan et al.
2019; Fan 2019). Additionally, research has proven that COO has a positive effect on brand
equity, attitudes and purchase intention (Panda and Misra, 2014), however the nuance of
research of relationship between the two theories in whole has not yet been conducted. The
overall suggestion collected from previous research is that continues research should aim to
answer questions of how COO affects brand loyalty, as it is of value for brands to understand
in what way COO affects brand loyalty and gain a greater understanding of the degree of
influence of preference reversals and choice behavior, to reach these highly valued consumers
(Panda and Misra; Boutin 2011; Saydan, 2013; Semaan et al. 2019; Fan 2019). In addition, the
authors will adapt the suggestion of conducting the research in context and culture not part of
the leading economies (Boutin, 2011) to get an understanding of such consumers.
To sum up what’s been said so far regarding previous research of COO respectively brand
loyalty, the authors have chosen to conduct a research with the aim to distinguish the possible
effects of COO on brand loyalty in a Swedish context. This study will aim to provide an
explanation of the two concepts and investigate possible relationships and effects.
1.3 PURPOSE
The Purpose of this paper is to explain what effect COO has on brand loyalty of Swedish
consumers.
5
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The chosen concepts for this research are brand loyalty and country-of-origin and will be
presented in this chapter. The literature reviewed below is chosen to create an understanding
of both concepts to conduct as good of a research possible.
2.1 BRAND LOYALTY
Brand loyalty is a frequently researched concept where researchers find new dimensions and
levels all the time. The overall definition of brand loyalty stated by Jacoby and Kyner (1973)
however still stands.
“Brand loyalty is the biased behavioral response expressed over time by some
decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of
such brands, and is a function of psychological processes”. (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973:
p2)
Brand loyalty is an attitudinal repurchase behavior where the consumer actively chooses a
brand over a set of other brands acting on the same market due to emotional commitment. The
psychological process where the consumer creates a relationship with the brand takes part in
the decision-making process of that consumer. A brand loyal consumer is not only pleased
with product quality but also with the brand as a whole and makes repetitive purchase
decisions based on previous experiences (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973). One can argue that a
consumer is loyal due to only repetitive purchases, however, the active choice versus the
inactive (inertia) choice must be taken into account (Huang & Yu, 1999).Inertia consumers
are of course loyal in one form; however, they do not typically have any emotional
commitment to the brand and are repeatedly purchasing from the same brand due to non-
conscious decisions. In comparison to brand loyalty where the consumer is consciously
purchasing from the same brand due to personal preference. Consumer inertia is therefore an
easily persuaded crowd that other brands reach out to that consumer with another offer
6
whereas brand loyal consumers are not (Huang & Yu, 1999). To be loyal, the consumer has to
be disloyal to other brands. Brand loyalty is therefore an active choice, a commitment, and a
positive attitude to a brand that makes the consumer come back for further purchases (Jacoby
and Kyner, 1973).
2.1.1 ATTITUDE
Attitudinal loyalty is divided into three aspects, affective, cognitive and conative loyalty
(Oliver, 1999). Cognitive loyalty stands for the consumers preference of one brand compared
to others. Conative loyalty represents the response of a satisfied usage of a brand that a
consumer experience (Oliver, 1999). Affective responses are simple like and dislike, however
these feelings can be strong, yet not based on any knowledge but prior to emotions, if these
emotions of a brand are positive and strong, they can be explained as an emotional attachment
towards a brand (Oliver, 1999).
The three aspects of attitudinal loyalty are further explained as phases, where the preference
phase represents the beginning of brand loyalty, second phase is the formation of emotional
attachment and lastly, usage phase (Oliver, 1999). The consumer is argued to be loyal
throughout all phases individually, however the phases are influencing each other leading to a
“complete” behavior of attitudinal loyalty (Oliver, 1999; Yuksel, Yuksel and Bilim, 2010).
Hence, according to Back and Parks (2003), the conative phase is affected rather than
affecting in terms of attitudinal loyalty since it represents the outcome of preference and
emotional attachment i.e., the usage of the brand. However, Vahdat et al., (2020) argue that
the phase of emotional attachment towards the brand determines attitudinal brand loyalty as it
has a strong positive influence on brand loyalty overall. Jacoby and Kyner (1973) claims for
preference to be essential for brand loyalty as it selects certain brands and selects out brands
that are not preferable. This is an important aspect as part of the essentials of brand loyalty is
that in order to be loyal, one also has to be disloyal (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973).
As each individual form’s attitudes on both objects, people and ourselves (Solomon et al.,
2016), consumers are likely to find self-recognition with brands where responses are similar
7
as they have formed for themselves (Liu, Li, Mizerski and Soh 2012). Hence, building a self-
connection with the consumer will result in an emotional attachment which increase the
consumer's attitude towards the brand in a positive way and later become a driver for brand
loyalty (Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari and Vrechopoulos 2010; Vahdat, Hafezniya,
Jarbarzadeh and Thaichon 2020).
2.1.2 REPETITIVE PURCHASE
Repetitive purchase means that the consumer comes back and repurchases a product/service
over and over again (Curtis, Abratt, Rhoades and Dion, 2011). It is also defined as the actual
action and behavior that a consumer has. Research shows that the behavior is connected to
brand loyalty and is the reaction of such biased emotion towards such brand (Curtis et al.,
2011; Jacoby and Kyner, 1973). The attitudinal dimensions of brand loyalty further both
affects and is being affected by the behavior of purchases and intention for future purchase
(Jacoby and Kyner, 1973; Oliver, 1999). To be brand loyal, the consumer must make
repetitive purchases over time and stay committed for future purchases (Jacoby and Kyner,
1973; Yi and La, 2004). Curtis et al., (2011) and Weisberg et al., (2011) further argues that if
the consumer is pleased with the purchase, the consumer’s intention for future purchases on a
regular basis will increase.
However, a distinction between random regular purchases and intended regular and future
purchases as the intended regular purchases demands a commitment from the consumer
(Jacoby and Kyner, 1973). Without the commitment the purchasing behavior is more likely to
be random and not biased. If the decision making is based on biased decisions, then the
commitment is there, and this means that the consumers are brand loyal. This simply means
that commitment is the one factor that will decide if it is random purchase behavior or loyalty.
Oliver (1999) further argues that a commitment to repetitive purchasing regularly is what
defines a loyal consumer. This means that the consumer will buy a brand regardless if there
8
are similar brands with the same products on the market. Despite marketing and other factors
that might lead to purchase exchange, the consumer will repurchase the brand that they feel
committed to (Oliver, 1999).
Ercis, Candan, and Unal (2012) claims that brand loyalty is created when you as a consumer
feel the commitment to the brand that you buy and that you repurchase the brand instead of
changing to similar brands on the market. They further argue that the commitment that a
consumer feels towards the brand can often be connected to the intentions to repurchase a
brand. Mbango (2018) also argues that there is a strong relationship between commitment and
repetitive purchase behavior. A customer's commitment towards a brand is influenced by the
satisfaction of the brand and further the purchase intention.
9
2.2 COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN
In the decision-making process, country-of-origin can be an important factor for consumers to
consider, as COO is often an indicator for quality (Solomon et al., 2016). The country image
and the perceived quality form stereotypes of such a country and can be both an advantage
and disadvantage for businesses in global markets. Previous experiences with countries and
goods from it can be both positive and negative and therefore be a guideline for consumers in
the decision-making process (Solomon et al., 2016). Josiassen, Lukas, Whitwell (2008) argue
for COO affecting purchase decisions when the consumer is not completely familiar with the
product category. COO has been shown to affect consumers perceived value and perceived
quality, whereby products from countries that have a favorable country image are perceived
with higher quality and the consumers are willing to pay a higher price compared to countries
with less favorable images (Cristea et. al 2014; Koschate-Fisher, Diamantopoulos and
Oldenkotte 2012). Yet, country image can determine the overall perception of a brand as
consumers are in some product categories domestic country biased (Magnusson et al., 2011;
Maier, Wilken, 2017). However, Cristea et al., (2015) argue that COO influences the
perceived quality of a product on a cognitive level and that managers should pay attention to
the relationship between the product and country-of-origins reputation.
2.2.1 COUNTRY IMAGE
Roth and Romeo (1992) define country image as following.
Country image is the overall perception consumers form of products from a particular
country, based on their prior perceptions of the country's production and marketing strengths
and weaknesses. (Roth and Romeo, 1992 p. 3)
Josiassen, Lukas, Whitwell (2008) argue that the product’s country-of-origin matters in the
evaluation process of products where the consumer is not previously involved with the product,
10
however, have a perception of the country and have formed a country image. The overall
impression of a country can be determined by the overall perception and image of a country
(Lascu, Ahmed, Ahmed and Min, 2020; Maier and Wilken, 2017; Martin and Eroglu, 1993).
This overall impression is called a macro dimension, where the perspective of perception
regards what effect politics and economics has on the perception (Lascu et al., 2020) and image
regards the “descriptive, inferential and informational beliefs” about a particular country
(Martin and Eroglu, 1993, p. 193). Acknowledging and paying attention to consumers'
perception and image of the COO is important in marketing strategies, brands must also be
aware of what beliefs consumers have overall of the country and act accordingly to target the
right consumers (Lascu et al., 2020). Brijs, Bloemer and Kasper (2011) argue for the importance
of familiarity of the country in mind when speaking of the effects the country has on the
consumers perception and image. It’s argued that previous studies have taken a product image
perspective to be most important, while country image in fact plays a much important part in
consumers' overall perception of the brand and product. The familiarity of the COO functions
as an indicator of quality and value of such products (Brijs et al., 2011).
As well as brands and individuals have reputations, do countries have reputations that reflect
upon the image, whereby country reputation can be defined as the sum of shared perceptions
and attitudes by the public towards the country (Wang 2006). Matarazzo, Lanzilli, Resciniti
(2018) further argues that a good country image has a positive influence on consumers' purchase
intent, and mostly on repetitive purchases. This influence grows even stronger when both a
good country image and a good corporate image are correlated. However, a good country image
cannot uphold or save up for a bad corporate reputation. Furthermore, a country’s reputation
does reflect upon what comes out from the country, for instance products from that specific
country, meaning that an unfavorable reputation could result in perception of weak competence
through the eyes of a consumer (Jiménez and San-Martin 2016).
However, Brijs, Bloemer and Kasper (2011) argue that even though a country can be perceived
with a reputation as luxurious, wealthy, and with good moral standards, marketers need to use
11
the country’s image carefully in marketing strategies. The country image should correlate with
the wanted brand image to make a distinct message where the different components are
matching. Magnusson, Westjohn, Stanford, Zdravkovic (2011) present findings that many
consumers have a misperception of the actual country-of-origin for many products. Brand and
marketing managers must be aware of the perceived country-of-origin the brand has from the
consumers’ perspective to understand their perception of the brand as a whole. Furthermore, if
the perception is wrong, correcting these perceptions can be both good and harmful for the
brand. In fact, this is due to the country's image and what reputation and perception the
consumers have regarding what they think the COO is. Woo, Jin and Ramkumar (2017)
however state that a less-known product can be enhanced by a country’s image if the country
has a well-known product with a good reputation and perception. This is due to the halo effect
where consumers can assume that a country with a good quality product is also capable of
producing other good products and therefore influence the purchase intention. This type of halo
effect is functioning between both close and far separated product categories (Woo et al.,
2017).
Woo (2019) further explains the halo effect as a domino effect, where a good brand image can
contribute to a good country image, yet a bad brand image can result in a negative country
image. Furthermore, an internationally successfully perceived brand image can influence
consumers to have a positive image of the country-of-origin, this effect extends to all product
categories of a country and can move from a general to specific aspect of product categories,
and from specific to general. The attitude towards both brand country and product is affected
by each other (Woo, 2019). For instance, if a COO image has a good reflection upon a certain
product category, such as Germany and cars, could that influence customers to choose a car
brand that is from Germany over competitors from other countries (Bartosik-Purgat 2018). This
phenomenon is also called the Country-of-Origin Effect (Roth & Romeo 1992). When it comes
to the effect of COO, could a mismatch between the customers’ values and beliefs and the
country’s perceived image result in the customer rejecting the brand (Cristea et.al 2014).
12
2.2.2 PERCEIVED QUALITY
Zeithaml (1988) defines perceived quality as following:
“Perceived quality is different from objective or actual quality, a higher-level
abstraction rather than a specific attribute of a product, a global assessment that in some
cases resembles attitude and a judgement usually made within a consumer’s evoked set.”
(Zeithaml, 1988 p.3)
In other words, perceived quality is a higher level of judgement of the quality of a product or
service (Zeithaml, 1988), and is an overall assessment of a product's functionality (Cristea et
al., 2015), performance (Zeithaml, 1988) and reliability (Bandyopadhyay, 2015).
Grönroos (2016) states that perceived quality in perspective of services is the total perception
of both expected and experienced quality. Expected quality is the perception of the brands and
other outer environments message of the quality, while the experienced quality focuses on the
technical and functional quality of the service.
According to Cristea et al. (2015), does the country's image influence the perceived quality by
affecting customer perceptions of functionality. Woo, Jin and Ramkumar (2017) follow with
this point that the reputation of a country's product category image affects purchase behavior
and consumer attitude, where the perceived quality of a product can be dependent on the
country-of-origin. Furthermore, Grönroos (2016) explains functionality as a dimension and
antecedent of perceived quality. This dimension explains how the quality is perceived and is
the overall explanation of perceived quality. Functionality characteristics of a product should
aim to meet the consumers’ needs and wants, and even if not all consumers are attracted to all
functions of a product, at least one should be (Lee, Lee and Garrett, 2012). Furthermore, the
perceived functionality is argued to be an important part of decision making and in product
attitudes (Lee, Lee and Garrett, 2012).
13
Companies should brand themselves with other attributes such as reliability instead of with a
competing price as non-domestic consumers can get confused with a “low” (competing) price
for a high-quality service (Bandyopadhyay, 2015). To make a consumer feel the reliability
that is needed in order for them to feel good about the perceived quality, it is of importance
that everything is connected and working together, which means that the country, consumer
and the product must be in harmony (Cristea et.al 2014). In order to keep reliability in the
consumer eyes the user experience needs to be constant and not change in quality. It is very
important that the quality is not getting worse, that is something that will decrease the
consumers vision on reliability. The reliability can also be connected to the image and that
image will be constant if the quality is constant. The reliability is affected by the perceived
quality and they both are dependent on each other (Cristea et al., 2014).
Performance is an important factor when looking into perceived quality (Zeithaml, 1988;
Mugge and Shoormans 2011). Does the product perform the way that the consumer needs and
wants it to and does it have any negative sides? These are only a few factors that can be
measured in performance. A consumer wants the best on the market and in order to fulfill
their needs the product must perform the way that they want to. The better the performance of
the product is, the more consumer needs will be achieved (Profiletree 2021). Mugge and
Shoormans (2011) further argue that performance is often what consumers are looking for in
order to find the superior product when comparing alternatives.
Loureiro and Kaufmann (2017) argues that consumers' perception of quality is not dependent
on the country of manufacture, however, the brand origin has a clear influence on the
perceived quality. The brand's origin plays a bigger part in consumers' perception of the
quality of the products due to the country’s reputation regarding industrialization and
technology even if that is not the country manufacturing the product Loureiro and Kaufmann
(2017).
14
3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
As both Magnusson et al., (2011) and Maier and Wilken (2017) argue, country image affects
the overall perception of a brand, COO influences the consumer attitudes with both perceived
quality and country image (Woo, 2019; Cristea et al., 2015). Attitudes are argued to be
influences by once instant perception and reaction or storage from a memory connected to a
certain situation (Bohner, Dickel, 2011) and attitudes towards a country can be based on both
reputation and a previous positive perception (Josiassen, Lukas, Whitwell, 2008).
Hence, theoretical contribution has not been given regarding the connection of brand loyalty
and a specific country. Brand loyalty is a well argumented topic (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973),
and research has shown that consumers have country preferences of certain product categories
(Bartosik-Purgat, 2018; Bruwer et al., 2014) due to previous experiences in such countries.
Research is however needed to further understand the correlation between brand loyalty and
COO. Brijs et al., (2011) discuss the large impact of country image on consumers' overall
perception of brand and product. Furthermore, Magnusson et al., (2011) argue for the
awareness of the brand’s COO reputation to be of importance in marketing because of
possible misperceptions. Yet, to what extent this misperception and reputation affects the
brand is not presented.
The image of the country-of-origin reflects upon the product, if a country has a good general
development, the perceived quality is higher than a product from a lower developed country
(Cristea et.al 2014). The apprehension of the different distinctive features of a product can be
based on or even affected by the country-of-origin. Oumlil (2020) further argues that the
perceived quality of a product is less important in the total perception of the consumer if the
country is less developed. Consumers value the enchanting quality of a country more than the
quality of the product. According to Loureiro and Kaufmann (2017) perceived quality is not
dependent on coo, however the country's reputation is. Cristea et al. (2014) future argues that
the country's image is a factor that influences perceived quality.
This leads to the discussion if perceived quality will have a positive effect on brand loyalty.
15
Based on the presented literature and its findings together with Sweden being the chosen
country of interest, the following hypotheses are formulated and further tested in this
research.
H1: Country image has a positive effect on brand loyalty of Swedish consumers
H2: Perceived quality has a positive effect on brand loyalty of Swedish consumers
3.1 PROPOSED MODEL
The proposed research model for this research is accordingly to the hypotheses. The
hypotheses are based on the basis of country-of-origin theory and perspective.
Table 1: Research model
H1+
H2+
Brand loyalty
Country image
Perceived quality
Country-of-origin
16
4 METHOD
This chapter aims to explain and justify the chosen methodology for this research
4.1 RESEARCH APPROACH
This research aims to explain how COO affects consumers brand loyalty and this will be done
by using theory that is already existing. This type of research speaks for using a deductive
perspective when it comes to the method approach. This means that hypotheses are created
and with the help of the chosen theory and data collection they can be tested (Bryman & Bell
2011). The study will be quantitative, and it will aim to see if the hypotheses are rejected or
not. According to Bryman & Bell (2011), quantitative research is good to use when taking a
deductive perspective. This is based on deductive research that aims to test hypotheses and is
often used when the theory is already existing and then tested on a chosen subject (Bryman &
Bell 2011). The deductive perspective was chosen because the purpose is to see if the
proposed research model can be applied to the Swedish market and to do this a survey design
was chosen. A survey design is used when the study wants to gain an understanding of the
participants’ attitude and opinions (Bryman & Bell 2011).
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
Research design is when the researchers decide an approach of how they want to collect data
and then later on analyze it. There are a few approaches that can be chosen from. This choice
will then be the foundation of how the research will be conducted and executed. It will affect
the process and will have a part in what the priorities will be in the research (Bryman & Bell
2011).
17
For this research it is suitable to choose cross sectional design as a research design. Bryman
and Bell (2015) further explain that a cross sectional design can be referred to as a social
research design. It is a social investigation often connected with a survey. This design is used
when a variation is needed and needs to have more than one variable in order for it to work on
a research. More than often, it has more than two variables to get a better variation and more
reliable results. This design is used in a limited time period, it is only in one point in time that
the data is collected. This is what separates this research design from some of the other
options. The cross-sectional approach involves the collection of data and then the collected
data will be analyzed and see if there is a relationship between the variables that are used
(Bryman & Bell 2011).
4.3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD
When it comes to collecting the data there are a few options that can be chosen when the
paper is based on a quantitative study. Two examples of this are questionnaires and interviews
(Bryman & Bell 2011).
For this assignment the authors believed that a questionnaire would fit the research best,
because they wanted to find out the relationship between two variables. A self-completion
questionnaire was conducted, this means that it is a questionnaire that the participants answer
by themselves, without the opinion of others that might lead to other answers (Bryman & Bell
2011). This method was also chosen because it is a good way of getting a lot of data fast,
unlike interviews this method will give the participants the freedom to do the questionnaire
whenever they have time. This also means that the author does not have to make time for
interviews. However, the questions in the questionnaire must be easy to understand. The
questionnaire must have a clear structure that is easy to follow for the participants so no
problem will accrue when they are answering it. This is mainly because they are doing it by
themselves and cannot get help from the authors when they are answering the questions
(Bryman & Bell 2011). To limit the problems that might arise a pre-test was done. The main
issue with a questionnaire is to not get as many participants as you want (or even need) to get
18
enough information for the analysis. The analysis will be based on the answers that the
questionnaire will provide (Hair et al., 2011).
4.3.1 OPERATIONALIZATION
To make it clearer the authors did an operationalization table where the concept, sub concept,
and items were divided. They did this to get a clearer structure. The concepts, sub-concepts
and items were collected from the theory. The authors found four sub concepts and twelve
items. The twelve items were later on the foundation for the twelve questions that were
conducted, these questions can be seen in the table. The aim with this research is to explain if
country-of-origin has an effect on brand loyalty on Swedish consumers.
4.3.2 OPERATIONALIZATION TABLE
Theoretical
Concept
Item number Measurement Indicator Description Measure on
the
questionnaire
Attitude
(Dependent
variable)
Attitude1 7-point Likert
Scale
Preference “Cognitive
loyalty stands
for the
consumer’s
preference of
one brand
compared to
others” (Oliver,
1999)
I prefer brand X
upon
competing
brands
Attitude2 7-point Likert
scale
Usage Usage stands
for the actions
of conative
loyalty (Back
and Parks,
2003)
I use brand X
regularly
19
Attitude3 7-point Likert
scale
Emotional
attachment
Emotional
attachment is
the affective
response of
loyalty as it
describes the
consumers
emotions (like
and dislike)
towards a brand
(Oliver, 1999).
I have an
emotional
attachment to
brand X
Repetitive
purchase
(Dependent
variable)
Rep.pur1 7-point Likert
scale
Regular
purchase
Regular
purchase is the
behavioral
outcome of a
loyal consumer
(Jacoby and
Kyner, 1973).
I regularly
purchase the
brand X
Rep.pur2 7-point Likert
scale
Intend to
future
purchase
If the consumer
is satisfied the
likelihood of
intended future
purchase is
higher (Curtis,
Abratt,
Rhoades, and
Dion 2011)
I intend to
conduct future
purchases from
the brand X
Rep.pur3 7-point Likert
scale
Commitment Consumers
who feel
committed to a
brand are less
likely to switch
brands (Ercis,
I am
committed to
brand X
20
Candan and
Unal, 2012)
Country
image
(Independent
variable)
CImage1 7-point Likert
scale
Positive
perception
Perception can
be the
determination
of the overall
impression of a
country (Lascu
et al., 2020)
My perception
of brand X
country-of-
origin is
positive
CImage2 7-point Likert
scale
Reputation “The sum of
shred
perceptions and
attitudes by the
public towards
the country”
(Wang, 2006)
My perception
is that brand X
country-of-
origin has a
good reputation
CImage3 7-point Likert
scale
Image Image regards
the
“descriptive,
inferential and
informational
beliefs” about a
particular
country (Martin
and Eroglu,
1993, p. 193)
I have a
positive image
towards brand
X country-of-
origin
Perceived
quality
(Independent
variable)
Per.qual1 7-point Likert
scale
Reliability In order to keep
reliability in the
consumer eyes
the user
experience
needs to be
constant and
not change in
I associate
brand X
country-of-
origin with
reliability
21
quality. (Cristea
et al., 2014)
Per.qual2 7-point Likert
scale
Performance What the
consumer
assesses in
evaluating the
needs and
wants when
comparing
different brands
(Profiletree,
2021)
I associate
brand X
country-of-
origin with
good
performance
Per.qual3 7-point Likert
scale
Functionality Country image
influence the
perceived
quality by
affecting
customer
perceptions of
functionality
(Cristea et al.,
2015)
I believe that
brand X
country-of-
origin reflects
good functional
Table 2: Operationalization table
22
4.3.3 EXECUTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
The authors collected the data from a survey/questionnaire. The survey was published out on
Facebook and share in groups, together with Discord in order to get as many participants and
answers as possible. These platforms where be used due to the fact that the authors have
access to them and can get many answers within a short period of time. They further made the
questionnaire in Swedish because the authors want Swedish people's opinions, and they
believe that questions in Swedish made it easier for the participants to understand the
questions correctly and get their correct opinions.
The authors had a lot to take in consideration when conducting the questionnaire. First of all,
the participants needed to be familiar with the concept of brand loyalty and COO in order to
get the most reliable results for the study. This was done because the authors wanted to make
sure that the participants' answers kept consistency and stability (Malhotra, 2010), and would
not change due to not understanding the aim of the study and the concept used. Read more
about consistency and stability in chapter 4.7 Research Quality.
The concepts were described briefly in the beginning of the questionnaire, later on the
concept of loyalty was repeated. The authors believed that a reminder would make it easier
for the participants to understand what the questionnaire aimed for. The questioner will also
consist of questions where the participants answer their age, gender, occupation and income
(Bryman & Bell, 2015). These questions were presented in the beginning of the questionnaire.
This information was considered to help the authors in their analysis and will give it more
dimensions.
The questionnaire consisted of a seven-point Likert scale, where the participant where be able
to choose between strongly agree and strongly disagree. Where one (strongly disagree) is the
lowest and seven is the highest (strongly agree). For example, my perception of brand X
country-of-origin is positive. Then the participants had to choose between the seven different
23
points that are in the scale. The 7-point Likert scale does bring more options for the
participants, hence, according to Joshi, Kale Chandel and Pal (2015) the 7-point Likert scale
can increase the chances of meeting the objective reality of people. Dawes (2008) further
argues that a 7-point scale is a good choice for a regression analysis. Their results showed that
the more range the participants had to choose the more answers options were used.
After the control questions (age, gender, income and occupation) the authors wanted the
participants to answer if there is a brand that they are loyal to, they had to write down the
name of the brand to make sure that they actually had a brand in mind. The next question was
to control if the participants were of interest for the research. To make sure of this the
question was: Do you know which country this brand comes from? If the participants
answered no to this question they were not of use for the study and were sent directly to the
end where they were thanked for their participation, but they were of no use for the study. If
the participants answered yes, they were able to carry on with the questionnaire and answer
the following questions. The questionnaire can be seen in Appendix 3.
According to Peytchev & Peytcheva (2017) participants do not keep the same focus
throughout the whole questionnaire. In the end the focus might not be the same as in the
beginning and this can lead to errors in the final results. To avoid this the authors split up the
questionnaire into four parts where each part had a different concept behind the questions.
The authors also added messages in the beginning of each part to inform the participant how
far they had come. This was done to prevent the participant from losing focus and to make
them understand how much was left for them to answer after each part.
Lastly, the most important part of the questionnaire is to make it easy to understand and to
construct the questions, so nothing is unclear for the participants (Bryman & Bell 2011). The
authors had this in mind when they decided the final questions.
24
4.3.4 TRANSLATION
In order to get results of how the country of origin affects the Swedish market, the authors
decided to make the questionnaire in Swedish. This was done because the authors believed
that the participants would be more comfortable when the questions were in Swedish and this
would lead to them understanding the purpose better.
This did lead to some complications. The first one is to translate the questions in the right way
in order to get the same meaning. If the translation is wrong and the meaning is not the same
in Swedish as in English, then the result could not be counted on. In order for the participants
to be sure that the questions were translated and perceived right they took help from two
lecturer. The first one was the supervisor for the paper who teaches in English at Linnaeus
University. Viktor Magnusson was in the process from the start and helped to see with
another eye if the translation was correct. The second one is Michaela Sandell who also is a
lecturer at Linnaeus University. She teaches in English and is extremely good at the English
language. This means that both of them are accustomed to the English language and their
knowledge when it comes to the translation were trusted. Both of them were satisfied with the
translation of the questions before the questionnaire was sent out.
4.3.5 PRE-TEST
Pre-test is done before the actual questionnaire is sent out to the public. It is a precaution that
is done in order to discover potential errors in the questionnaire. These errors can for example
be that the participants do not understand the purpose and based on this their answers will not
be reliable (Bryman & Bell 2011).
The authors of this paper pre-tested the questionnaire on 15 participants. The participants
were in a wide age range (19-67). The authors wanted to know if all ages understood the
statements the same. The pre-test was done because the authors did not want any unexpected
problems when the final questionnaire was sent out. They also wanted the answers to be as
25
reliable as possible and in order for them to know this the statements needed to be perceived
correctly. The participants were chosen through a convenience sample, and before they
answered the questionnaire the authors told them to look for errors, if there was anything that
they found unclear and if they understood and perceived all the questions correctly. When
they were done the participants gave feedback and the authors got some suggestions that
would change the questionnaire for the better.
The changes that were made was a clearer introduction, the word brand (varumärke) added in
order to make it extra clear that we wanted to know a brand's country-of-origin and not the
participants country-of-origin. A repetition of the concept loyalty was also added right before
the statements that were connected to loyalty. This was done because the authors wanted it to
be clear what the statements in this section were aiming for.
26
4.4 SAMPLING
4.4.1 DATA COLLECTION
This study was chosen to target Swedish consumers due to two reasons, firstly it is suggested
by previous research that the effect of COO on consumers should be researched in more
nations and cultures (Boutin 2011; Semaan et al. 2019; Fan 2019), and Sweden has not been
done before. Secondly, all the authors of this research have their origin from Sweden, and it is
in their interest.
Hair et al. (2011) explains the sample frame as the population that is used in the research.
Regarding the sample frame of this research the approach was non-probability. Bryman and
Bell (2011) further argue that this means that the authors have not chosen all the participants
without consciousness, this leads to that some part of the population can have a bigger chance
of being selected than others.
Furthermore, regarding sampling it is important to choose the right sampling method that will
suit the research. The choice will therefore be based on what type of research that will be
made and how to get the best results. There are a few sampling methods that can be chosen
from, it is up to the authors to decide and it will be done on a part of the population that is
chosen (Bryman & Bell 2011). A few sampling methods were used in this research in order to
get as much data as needed. The first one is a convenience sample. Bryman & Bell (2011)
explains convenience sampling as a good method to use when you have an easy availability to
the place where you are collecting data from (Bryman & Bell 2011). In this case Facebook.
The authors have used this method because they have used friends and family on Facebook to
answer the questionnaire. This method can be good when the research has a financial
limitation or if it has a time limit. It is considered a good way to get many answers fast
(Bryman & Bell 2011).
The convenience sampling later led to snowball sampling. According to Bryman & Bell
(2011) snowball sampling is when convenient sampling leads to more shares and these shares
are not any related parties of the authors. This means that the author friends, and families then
27
shares them to their friends and families which will lead to more answers and more data that
later on can be analyzed. This later helped the authors to achieve the amount of respondents
wanted.
As mentioned before the authors chose Facebook as their social media platform to post the
questionnaire together with different communities on the chatting platform Discord. Those
platforms were chosen because it is an easy way of getting answers fast and a big spread of
the questionnaire. The authors also decided to share the questionnaire in different groups on
Facebook. This was done in order to get more results from participants that are not in the
inner network of contacts of the authors.
4.4.2 SAMPLE SELECTION
According to (Bryman & Bell 2011) sampling is dependent on time and financial resources
when it is done in a business research. The more data that is collected through sampling the
better, because then there will be more data in the end to analyze. It is also good to aim for a
lot of data because then you can afford to have errors in the sampling. Although, more data
can also be a disadvantage in some cases. This also depends on time and financial resources.
If you have little time and little financial resources, then too much sampling data can have a
negative effect and will not be manageable.
When it comes to country-of-origin and brand loyalty there is much variation in sample size.
It is based on different factors and what goals the different studies have. Hence, there is a lot
of information on what the right sample size really is. For instance, Green (1991) argues that a
study that will be using multiple regression and correlation shall have as a thumb rule that the
minimum of respondents shall be 50 and that researchers shall further add 8 times the number
of independent variables to those 50. However, this would give the authors of this research
the minimum respondents of 98 (50+8x6), which is a relatively low number. Therefore, the
authors decided to investigate the research of Bartosik-Purgat (2014) who has done similar
28
research, however on purchase intention on participants all around Europe. The mean of
participants from each country in her study is 166, and that is the minimum number of
respondents the authors then decided to work for.
For the final analyses there were 183 answers that were considered reliable. The questionnaire
showed a total of 207 answers. From these 207 answers 17 of them were participants that had
answered no in the first control questions, this means that those answers were not useful for
this study. 7 more answers were removed before the final sample size was determined. These
7 answers were removed due to the fact that the participants did not answer the control
question with an actual brand. Based on this the authors made the decision to remove all 7
answers and not use it in the research. They were seen as frivolous and because of this not
considered reliable. This led to 183 answers that the authors found reliable and useful for their
study. The authors of this paper also had a limited time spread whereas many answers as
possible should come in. This also makes it hard to have a minimum of answers that is needed
for the study because the authors did not have unlimited time to get in answers.
4.5 DATA ANALYSIS
Choosing the right test is crucial in order to make sense of the data collected and make the
outcome reliable (Hair et al. 2011). Hence, to make sure that the data is as compatible with
the test(s) used, it is preferable if the researcher knows what kind of test is to be used before
the data is collected. Therefore, it is of help to make, for instance, the survey based on what
kind of test you will be using when conducting a quantitative research (Bryman and Bell
2011; Hair et al. 2011). Once the data has been collected, one can analyze and measure the
data through data analysis, hence data analysis can be seen as something that transforms data
into knowledge. However, in order for the data to be useful and give knowledge it has to be
interpreted and analyzed (Bryman and Bell 2011; Hair et al. 2011). This was done through a
statistical program called IBM SPSS Statistics, which is a good tool in order to see
correlations and relationships between variables and even detect relationships and correlations
that were not expected (Bryman & Bell 2011).
29
However, before importing the data into SPSS is it necessary to edit the data beforehand for
correctness and consistency in order to make it reliable (Bryman & Bell 2011; Hair et al.
2011). Meaning that researchers have to find if there is any missing data or other
inconsistencies (Hair et al. 2011). For instance, in this research, people who did not know
where their brand whom they are loyal to are from were sent straight to the end. Hence, they
did not answer any of the statements about their thoughts towards the country-of-origin since
they would not contribute to the study, resulting in blank answers and missing data.
Therefore, the researchers decided to not include these answers in the data tests.
4.5.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Descriptive statistics is an important part when the research aims to analyze the collected
data. It helps to measure the data in the right way and will give reliable numbers that later on
can be presented in the research. Central tendency and dispersion are two helpful
measurements when it comes to descriptive statistics. The central tendency is a good
measurement to use when the aim is to find out the data volume. The most used variables to
measure this with are the mean, mode and median.
Although Central tendency is very important when it comes to descriptive statistics, the
research might need more to measure the data. Here the measurement of dispersion comes in.
When it comes to dispersion one type of measurement, which explains the distinction of the
mean, is the standard deviation (Malhotra 2010).
To get more understanding of the data a measurement of how skewed the data it was done and
also a test to measure the kurtosis. According to Malhotra (2010), the skewness can be
defined as a measurement of how symmetric the mean in the collected data will be. It is a way
of measuring the aberrancy that will make the collected data divert in a certain direction when
it comes to the mean. This measurement will make the data tilt into left, right or be
completely symmetric. The skewness is negative if the collected data is tilted to the right and
30
has a tail that is tilted to the left. If the skewness is positive, it is the other way around. If the
skewness is symmetric then there is no tilt at all (Malhotra 2010). Then there is the
measurement of kurtosis, which will give even greater understanding of the collected data. It
is defined as the flatness or peakedness of a curve in a distribution. This measurement will
help to give the result if the curve is normal or not. If the distribution is positive the curve will
be pointed and if the distribution is negative the curve will be flatted. A normal distribution
means that the curve is zero (Malhotra 2010).
The two measurements skewness and kurtosis do have acceptable values in order for the
researchers to see if the data can be useful. According to Griffin & Steinbrecher (2013) the
measurement when it comes to skewness must be between -3 and 3. The measurements when
it comes to kurtosis must be between -10 and 10. If the measurements are outside these
numbers then they are questionable. Although Griffin & Steinbrecher (2013) claims that if the
number is just above or below these measurements it may not cause any serious injury for the
research. The results from the descriptive statistics of this research can be found in the results
chapter.
4.5.2 CORRELATION AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Correlation and regression analysis are tools used to measure possible relationships between
statistical data (Malhotra, 2010). A regression analysis measures the relationship between a
dependent variable against one or more other independent variables. It further determines the
strength of the relationship between the variables and evaluates predictors. Performing a
regression with two or more variables is further called a multiple regression analysis
(Malhotra, 2010). A multiple regression can answer questions regarding how consumers'
perception of brands is determined by different factors. To further measure the relationship, a
correlation test should be performed, this measurement calculates the strength of the
relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variable (Malhotra, 2010;
Hair et al., 2011). The strength of the relationship is determined by interpreting the correlation
31
and the variation between the variables of X and Y and how they will change accordingly to
each other. The standardized beta coefficient presents this relationship and the strength of it.
This research performs a multiple regression analysis in which the standardized beta
coefficient explains the effect and magnitude of the variables compared to one another
(Malhotra, 2010).
The variation between dependent variables, predicting the independent variables, is predicted
through the R² (goodness of fit), if R² has a positive value, the correlation is strong and vice
versa. The adjusted R² should also be considered while interpreting the correlations test
(Malhotra, 2010). Adjusted R² explains the variation caused by independent variables,
compared to R² which explains the dependent variable (Glen, 2021). There is interest in
interpreting the adjusted R² because the researcher can get an unveiling of which variables are
useful in the research and which are contributing in a negative way. This one can be
interpreted by looking at changes in the value of adjusted R², if the value decreases, there are
variables negatively affecting the results, further if the value of adjusted R² is increasing, the
added variables are useful for the study (Glen, 2021).
The correlation coefficient is further argued to determine the correlation between the variables
(Malhotra, 2010). The correlation coefficient should be between -1,0 to 1,0, however it should
not be too close to either of the values as that is an indicator that the variables are too much
alike and are basically measuring the same thing. A correlation coefficient value at 0 indicates
that there is no relationship at all between the variables (Malhotra, 2010).
32
4.6 RESEARCH QUALITY
When constructing this research, reliability and validity are important to measure to gain a
high quality of the research. The reliability aspect of quality refers to the consistency of a
measure of the chosen concept, while validity refers to if the measure of the chosen concept
actually measures it. These criteria’s does not only present the quality of the data collection
and its results but also the quality of the study as a whole. There shall be valid and reliable
reasons well-argued to carry out the research process (Bryman and Bell, 2015).
4.6.1 RELIABILITY
Bryman and Bell (2015) state the importance of reliability when collecting data as it confirms
the consistency of a measure. Ensuring that the research is reliable is important to contribute
with theoretical knowledge and valuable research (Bryman and Bell, 2015; Malhotra, 2010).
Reliability expresses the consistency (internal reliability), stability and inter-observer
consistency of a measure. Internal reliability refers to the relationship between the different
indicators to see if there is any similarity or consistency between the indicators, stability
refers to the participant's answer being consistent over time. If the same test is to be run twice
over a period of time, the answers shall not be unlike each other, but keep a stability. Stability
measurements are often used in research where the data collection is done over a period of
time to establish that participants do not change their answers and be coherence (Bryman and
Bell, 2015; Malhotra, 2010).
Furthermore, inter-observer consistency is the third and last factor of reliability and refers to
the lack of consistency of a measure. Internal reliability and inter-observer consistency are
commonly tested through Cronbach’s Alpha to ensure reliability. This test was conducted for
this research and the results are presented in chapter 5, Table 4.
33
4.6.2 VALIDITY
Validity of a research refers to if the research really measures the concept of interest as it
should or is intended to be measured. Validity is further consisting of three main aspects:
content validity, construct validity and criterion validity.
Content validity: It is of great importance to make sure that what you are measuring is
measured in the right way. Concepts that are being researched might not be straight forward
and it is therefore important when breaking down concepts into items and codes to confirm
that these will measure the concept in a correct way. Not being able to confirm the content
validity of the empirical data compared to the theoretical framework presented in the study, a
conclusion of the study cannot be carried out. It is important when conducting quantitative
research that the participants of the study actually understand the concept in question and that
the questionnaire is designed according to what is being measured (Malhotra, 2010; Bryman
and Bell, 2015).
It is furthermore suggested that the content is validated through a pre-testing of participants
with similar demographics and characteristics as expected participants and/or an expert within
the field (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Opinions and suggestions from the participants of the pre-
testing can further be taken into consideration to improve the research and data collection, to
get as qualitative content as possible. These suggestions and opinions can affect the design,
language and formulation of the questions within the questionnaire. After conducting the pre-
test, the researchers of this study chose to do some adjustments according to the feedback
from both participants of pre-testing and the expert opinion in regard to the questionnaire to
improve the quality of the content of the final version of the questionnaire (read more about
this in chapter 4.4.3 Pre-testing).
34
Construct validity:
While content validity is considered being a subject evaluation of the content, construct
validity is more objective and difficult to ensure (Malhotra, 2010). In regard to research of
hypothesis testing, construct validity is recommended to establish that the research is
measuring what it is actually supposed to do. In hypothesis testing, the research aims to
investigate a possible relationship between two or more variables. Construct validity measures
the fit of the translation from theory into words and if the operationalization captures what is
intended to, meaning that it tests how well the questionnaire in this case actually tests the
hypothesis. Furthermore, conducting a construct validity should aim to answer the question
whether the sample is being tested and analyzed correctly according to what the research aims
to do (Malhotra, 2010). Construct validity ensures that the data sample and statistical
instruments have a relationship and are answering the research, rather than the relationship
between the theory and its measurements (content validity). To ensure validity, a correlation
test was conducted between the different independent variables to make sure that they were
related, yet not too close to each other. See the results of the correlation test in chapter 5,
Table 3.
Criterion validity:
This form of validity is argued to be the most important and effective way of ensuring
validity. Malhotra (2010) states that “Criterion validity reflects whether a scale performs as
expected in relation to other variables selected as meaningful criteria (criterion variables)”
p.288. Criterion variables are further chosen variables that have a specific importance for the
research, it can be either demographic or psychographic variables that the participants answer
in relation to the research.
This study takes a predicted validity form, meaning that the model, hypothesis and
questionnaire were based on previous theoretical findings that had already been conducted.
Further, this implies that a criterion validity was performed in the process of developing the
model, questionnaire and hypothesis.
35
4.7 ETHICAL AND SOCIETAL ISSUES
4.7.1 ETHICAL ISSUES
When it comes to ethical issues there are a few factors that should be taken into consideration
when doing business research. According to Bryman & Bell (2011) there are four main
factors which are good guidelines to go after to avoid ethical issues in a business research.
The first one is that the participants should not be harmed in any way while doing the
questionnaire, the second one is that the participants privacy must be protected, the third one
is that the participants must feel safe and understand that no fraud will be done and the last
one is that there must be enough information in the questionnaire so the participants will feel
safe and secure while doing it.
It is important to make sure that the participants get enough information so that they will not
experience any mental stress while doing the questionnaire. If the information is not enough
the participants might feel like they are under pressure and answer the questions in a way
where their real opinions will not get out (Bryman & Bell 2011). To avoid the ethical issue
that the questionnaire would do any harm to the participants the authors had a pre-test done on
the questionnaire. Here they asked the participants if they were feeling stressed when taking
the test or if they felt like they were harmed in any way.
To make sure that the participants would not feel like their privacy was not invaded the
authors explained in the beginning of the questionnaire how the data collected would be used.
All of this was done because they wanted the participants to feel safe. To protect their
anonymity even more the questionnaire did not collect any names or any information that
would lead to a possible identification of the participants. This was also done to ensure the
participants that no fraud was in the research.
Bryman and Bell (2015) further explain the importance of making sure that when conducting
data, the researchers has to follow the overall guidelines provided by the institution or
university. As the authors of this research are at Linnaeus University, these guidelines were
followed. The main points out of these ethical guidelines are that participants should be aware
36
of what they are participating in and to what purpose, who’s responsible for the research and
the right to be anonymous or end the participation at any time during the data collection
(Linnaeus university, 2021)
4.7.2 SOCIETAL ISSUES
When looking into societal issues it is important to think about how the research can be
affected in this perspective. Societal issues are large problems in society that affect the whole
population. The research should take this into consideration and avoid contributing to these
problems (Malhotra 2010).
A societal issue within this study is that the research could conclude that companies and
brands would make a profit from consumers abroad from certain countries. Meaning an
increase of the already many shipments, which would harm the environment.
37
5 RESULTS
In this chapter the aim is to show the results that the collected data gave. The results were put
through SPSS and then analyzed.
5.1 DEMOGRAPHICS
The participants were asked four demographic questions at the beginning of the questionnaire,
their main occupation, age, gender and monthly income. Across all the questions, the answers
are sort of evenly spread. However, one question where one answers is of great majority is
age, where 135 of the 183 participants were in the age between 18 and 30. Gender were
almost as close to 50/50 it could be considering the biological genders, the majority of
respondents were also students but it was not that huge of a difference from participants being
employed and income were evenly spread with a slight majority of income being between 10
000 and 20 000 which can be due to the slight majority of respondents being students. See
tables of demographics in Appendix 1.
5.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The collected data needs to be carefully described to analyze it appropriately. The
questionnaire was built upon a Likert scale between 1-7 (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly
agree) and a statistical test was run to find the mean, median, mode and standard deviation of
all items in the questionnaire to see the tendency of each item. When it comes to the central
tendency the mean, median and mode will be interpreted. The highest mean is Rep.pur2
(6,70) and the lowest is Attitude3 (3,91). Overall, the mean values are similar, most of them
are around 5-6 with a few exceptions, which can be seen in the table below. Then we have the
median where the highest number is 7, which 3 of the items have and the lowest is 4, which is
38
Attitude3. 7 out of 12 has the median of 6. The mode is number 7 for all the items except one.
The one that differs is Attitude3 which has a number of 4. Then we have the standard
deviation which is a test of dispersion. This has a range between 0,772 and 2,058.
Furthermore, to understand the curve’s shape, skewness and kurtosis were interpreted. The
range when it comes to the measurement skewness is between -3,045 and 0,107. According to
Griffin & Steinbrecher (2013) the range should be between 3 and -3 in order for the numbers
to be valid, however their study also claims that when the number is close to these
measurements (3 and -3) they can still be reliable. This means that all the skewness numbers
were analyzed and used in the study.
The range between the kurtosis numbers are -1,167 and 9,636. According to Griffin &
Steinbrecher (2013) the range should be between 10 and -10. However, it is the same for
kurtosis as it is for skewness. If the number is just outside the range, they can still be
considered useful. This means that all the kurtosis numbers were used and analyzed in the
research.
Item Mean Median Mode Std.Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Image1 5,70 6.00 7 1,359 -0,991 0,878
Image2 5,73 6.00 7 1,338 -0,917 0,163
Image3 5,63 6.00 7 1,411 -0,834 -0,006
Perqual1 5,29 6.00 7 1,617 -0,835 -0,026
Perqual2 5,88 6.00 7 1,230 -1,058 0,551
Perqual3 5,89 6.00 7 1,224 -1,106 1,208
Attitude1 6,33 7.00 7 1,018 -1,813 4,18
39
Attitude2 6,52 7.00 7 1,047 -2,618 6,826
Attitude3 3,91 4.00 4 2,058 0,107 -1,167
Rep.pur1 5,43 6.00 7 1,685 -0,730 -0,636
Rep.pur2 6,70 7.00 7 0,772 -3,045 9,636
Rep.pur3 4,51 5.00 7 1,898 -0,186 -1,062
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of independent and dependent variables
40
5.3 CONSTRUCT TESTING, QUALITY CRITERION: SPEARMAN CORRELATION
As described in chapter 4.7 a construct validity was conducted to establish the validity of the
research. The method to ensure construct validity for this study was a Spearman correlation
test (Table 2). The reason to perform such a test is to see if there is any correlation between
the different variables and to make sure they are actually representative of what the study
aims to do. The Spearman correlation test was done due to the fact that the variables are
ordinal (nonmetric) data and not on an interval scale, it is argued by Hair et al., (2011) that
Spearman correlation is the most appropriate for such a test.
The test was run on the chosen independent variables of the study.
Variable Country image Perceived quality
Country image 1 0.490**
Perceived quality 0.490** 1
** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 4: Spearman correlation of independent variables
5.4 RELIABILITY TESTING: CRONBACH'S ALPHA
A Cronbach’s alpha test was performed to ensure reliable data for the research before moving
forwards with hypothesis testing. Cronbach’s alpha is the most common way to test reliability
(Malhotra, 2010) which tests consistency of the measure in fact. Tavakol, Dennick (2011)
further argue that performing reliability tests is mandatory before data can be accepted to
analyze further. The accepted values for Cronbach’s alpha for this test were equal to or above
0,6, and Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) further argue for a Cronbach’s alpha value at the
41
highest of 0,95, if the value his in fact higher than this, there is an indication that the some of
the questions within the questionnaire are too closely related. As seen in Table 3, all variables
had a value above 0,6 and below 0,95. The lowest values were Brand loyalty (0,628) and the
highest were country image (0,839), perceived quality reached a value of 0,818, meaning that
all variables were accepted and considered reliable.
Variable N of items Cronbach’s alpha
Brand loyalty 6 0,628
Country image 3 0,839
Perceived quality 3 0,818
Table 5: Cronbach’s alpha test
5.5 ANALYSIS OUTPUT: REGRESSION ANALYSIS AND HYPOTHESIS TESTING
To test the hypotheses a regression analysis was conducted. The values presented in Table 6
for all variables in Model 1 through 4, are following; intercept, standardized beta-coefficient,
R², adjusted R², std. error of estimates, F-value and degree of freedom. First of as seen in
Table 6 Model 1, each control variable (gender, age, income and occupation) was tested to
find the significance of these in the research and if they had an impact on the dependent
variables. The findings were as follows; The variable with lowest standardized beta-value was
control variable 2 (age) with a value at -0,065, control variable 3 (income) was second to
lowest value at -0,108. Control variables 1(gender) and 3 (occupation) were closest with
values of -0,173 and 0,194, yet gender was the only control variable found significant for this
test with a p-value of 0,015. Looking at Model 2, 3 and 4, gender was the only control
variable with significance to the regression analysis (p<0,05).
42
Further, when analyzing the dependent variable against all independent variables (Table 6
Model 4), neither H1 (Country image) and H2 (Perceived quality) was significant with a p-
value lower than 0,05, yet the F-value was significant with a p-value at 0,036, meaning that
the Model itself is significant.
When conducting a regression analysis, it is important to interpret the R² and adjusted R². R²
was shown to be highest in Model 3 and 4 (0,070 respectively 0,071). R² is deciding how
much of the variance in the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variable
and how strong the possible relationship is (goodness of fit). In model 5 This indicates that
only 7,1% of change in the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variables.
Furthermore, adjusted R² had low values where Model 4 represents the highest value at
0,044.
To conclude the results, gender was the only control variable shown to have a significance for
this research. H1 was rejected due to a significance level where p>0,05 both tested
individually and in Model 4. H2 was the only one shown significant, however only in Model
3 where it was tested individually. The results of this research are, based on the results from
the regression analysis, that both Hypothesis 1 (country image has a positive effect on brand
loyalty) and Hypothesis 2 (perceived quality has a positive effect on brand loyalty) was
rejected.
43
Exp.sign Model 1
Control
Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
All
Intercept
5,850*** 5,436*** 5,209*** 5,173***
Control Variables
Gender
-0,175*
(0,124)
-0,171*
(0,123)
-0,159*
(0,123)
-0,160*
(0,123)
Age
-0,065
(0,119)
-0,078
(0,119)
-0,087
(0,118)
-0,088
(0,119)
Occupation
0,194
(0,202)
0,174
(0,203)
0,175
(0,201)
0,172
(0,202)
Income
-0,108
(0,168)
-0,105
(0,167)
-0,101
(0,167)
-0,101
(0,167)
Country Image
H1: Country image has
A positive effect on brand
loyalty
+ 0,115
(0,054)
0,030
(0,068)
Perceived quality
H2: Perceived quality has a
Positive effect on brand loyalty
+ 0,158*
(0,056)
0,140
(0,070)
R² 0,046 0,059 0,070 0,071
44
Adjusted R²
0,025 0,032 0,044 0,039
Std. Error of the Estimates
0,87279 0,86949 0,86424 0,86643
F-value 2,157 2,210 2,668* 2,230*
Degrees of freedom (df)
4 5 5 6
p<0.05* p<0.01** p<0.001*** N=183
S.E. (Standard Error) is presented in the parentheses for each variable
Table 6: Multiple regression analysis
45
6 DISCUSSION
In this chapter the results of the hypotheses in the study are discussed.
6.1 DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESIS 1 - “COUNTRY IMAGE HAS A POSITIVE EFFECT
ON BRAND LOYALTY OF SWEDISH CONSUMERS”
When H1 was tested both individually with brand loyalty and together with Perceived quality,
there was no significant correlation (p-value>0,05). The Beta-value was positive on both
tests, hence due to the non-significant relationship, H1 was rejected. This results further
means that the country's image was not affected too much by perceived quality and that this
was the reason for the non-significance in the test with all variables.
The expected outcome of H1 was that it was going to have a significant impact on brand
loyalty due to previous research within the field. The theoretical findings from previous
research were pointing towards a positive correlation between brand loyalty and country
image. Country image was argued to influence the overall perception of brands and products
(Brijs et al., 2011) and that a good perception of the country's image has a positive impact on
repetitive purchases (Matarazzo et al. 2018). Furthermore, as Woo et al., (2017) argued that a
good reputation of a country can influences both overall perceptions and brands from a certain
country, it influences purchasing behavior. Woo (2019) further explains that a good attitude
towards a country can contribute to a good attitude towards a brand and vice versa. There
were further indicators that country image had an effect on brand loyalty as Lascu et al.,
(2020) claimed that awareness of the consumer's perception of the country had an effect in
marketing strategies. Yet, this was not the accepted result for this particular study.
There were no outliers (besides the non-valid answers explained previously) of the data and
nothing to be considered as being non-valid of neither of the items of country image. Possible
outliers and defaults can have an impact on the analysis output; however, this was not the case
for this research.
46
6.2 DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESIS 2 - “PERCEIVED QUALITY HAS A POSITIVE
EFFECT ON BRAND LOYALTY OF SWEDISH CONSUMERS”
H2 was tested both individually with brand loyalty and together with the independent
variables. When tested individually, H2 (perceived quality) was shown to be significant with
a p-value of 0,027 (p<0,05). However, in Model4 H2 was shown to be significant with
p>0,05, meaning that H2 was also rejected.
The cause of H2 being rejected despite being significant with p<0,05 in the individual test is
somewhat uncertain. Model 3(H2 tested individually) had the highest value of adjusted R² and
F-value. Interpreting the adjusted R² one can see that the value of adjusted R² is decreasing in
Model 4 compared to Model 3, meaning that when adding country image (H1) variables, they
are non-profitable for the regression correlation. However, the value is increasing in Model 4
compared to Model 2, meaning that from a country image perspective, perceived quality (H2)
is a useful variable in the regression Model as the adjusted R² adapts a higher value.
Previous research has argued for perceived quality and first and foremost perceived
functionality to be important in decision making and that it correlates positively with attitudes
towards products (Lee, Lee and Garrett, 2012) however, products from a country with an
unfavorable reputation can be affecting the consumers purchase intention (Jiménez and San-
Martin, 2016). Furthermore, an explanation to the results in this research were that perceived
quality showed to not be significant when country image was tested in conjoint can be
because country image is said to be of more importance for consumers rather than product
image (Brijs et al., 2011). Yet, the country image hypothesis was rejected and does not agree
with previous research.
The expected outcome of Hypothesis 2 was that it was going to be accepted due to the
theoretical outcomes. Previous research has shown that perceived quality influences consumer
attitudes and purchase intention (Woo et al., 2017) and that reliability in quality is crucial to
47
maintain the good attitude towards the brand (Cristea et al., 2014). Bandyopadhyay (2015)
further pointed out the importance of enhancing the quality of the products rather than the
price in the context of COO. This correlates with the overall definition of brand loyalty where
consumers are not brand loyal due to the price (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973).
As for Hypothesis 1, there was no outliers to be removed when performing the regression
analysis of the data and nothing to be considered as being non-valid of neither of the items of
country image. Possible outliers and defaults can have an impact on the analysis output;
however, this was not the case for this research.
7 CONCLUSION
The aim for this research was to explain how country-of-origin (COO) affects brand loyalty of
Swedish consumers. The concepts of country image and perceived quality was tested both
individually and in conjunction towards brand loyalty to find possible positive relationships
and correlations. The result of the research showed that both Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2
were rejected due to a significance level where p>0,05, which means that one cannot argue
for country-of-origin having an effect on the brand loyalty of Swedish consumers.
8 IMPLICATIONS (THEORETICAL & MANAGERIAL)
This research contributes with new knowledge of COO and brand loyalty relationship and
effects. The results of the study show that COO does not significantly affect brand loyalty
with Swedish consumers. This type of study has not been conducted previously, however
previous research has shown indicators that there should be some effect, however no study
has been testing these concepts against each other in this national context.
48
As has been stated, both hypotheses were rejected. However, when conducting the tests, we
could see that perceived quality on its own and not combined with COO-Image has an effect
on Brand loyalty when it comes to Swedish consumers. Which contributes to the existing
theory that perceived quality has an effect on attitudes and purchasing behavior (Cristea et al.
2015; Woo et al. 2017), through showing that it can have an effect on brand loyalty as well.
In terms of brand loyalty with Swedish consumers, managers do not necessarily consider what
country image the COO entails. More specifically, this research cannot prove that the image
and reputation of a country influences consumers' brand loyalty. To further follow up on the
results from the regression analysis where there was a positive correlation (yet not significant
p<0,05) between country image and brand loyalty, together with previous studies from Woo
(2019) where a good image and reputation can have a positive effect on consumer attitudes
and purchase intention, and Panda and Misra (2014) argue for the positive effect of COO on
brand equity, brand managers does not need to be too careful with presenting the brand COO
in marketing and risk a possible negative outcome in brand loyalty.
9 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In this chapter the aim is to explain the limitations that have come up during the research and
also future recommendations to studies that will be done on the same subject in the future.
Some limitations can be found in this study, the biggest one was the sampling method. The
authors only used convenience sampling and snowball sampling. This means that the results
will not be as generalizable as it could be. This limitation is also connected with the
limitations that could be found when it comes to the control variables.
49
As mentioned before, one of the control variables can also be seen as a limitation in the
research. Most of the control variables have an even range and are distributed fairly evenly,
but one control variable stands out. When it comes to age, the vast majority of participants are
between the age of 18 and 30. This can be seen as a limitation because the results will mostly
be based on “younger” Swedish people. The study would be strengthened if the age range was
distributed more evenly and it could lead to a greater generalization.
The items and theory were not just found from Swedish studies, which means that it might not
apply as well in Sweden as in other countries.
The authors of this study have recommendations for future research on this subject. As
mentioned in the limitations sampling was the main limitation with the research, this means
that the author will recommend to not only use nonprobability sampling methods such as
convenience sampling and snowball sampling. The recommendation is to use probability
sampling methods in the research as well to strengthen the generalization.
One more future recommendation in the study is that it has only been applied on Swedish
consumers. To get a broader perspective it can be good to apply the study in other countries.
Swedes might have different opinions when it comes to COO and brand loyalty. If the study
gets wider and more results can be analyzed the results will be more trustworthy.
Another recommendation for further research based on the results of the multiple regression
analysis is to further investigate a possible relationship between perceived quality and brand
loyalty. Despite the fact that perceived quality was shown to be significant with a level of
p>0,05 in Model 4, perceived quality was still significant at p<0,05 and with a positive
relationship when tested individually. All variables of perceived quality (per.qual1, per.qual2
and per.qual3) showed a high mean, all above 5 (meaning that most of the respondents
answered a higher number than 5 on the 7-point Likert scale. Functionality (per.qual3) and
performance (per.qual2) had the highest means and the authors argue for an interest in future
research within these concepts towards brand loyalty.
50
The authors suggest that further research should be made within this context to investigate
possible connections between brands and country-of-origin. Panda and Misra (2014) research
implied that COO has a positive effect on brand equity as a whole. As this research
investigated the brand loyalty dimension of brand equity, research is suggested to continue
investigating the other dimensions of brand equity.
51
10 REFERENCES
Aaker, David A., (1991) “Managing Brand Equity” The Free Press, NY
Aicher (2014) “Country-of-origin marketing: A list of typical strategies with examples” Journal
of Brand Management vol.21 (1)
Back, K., Parks, S., (2003) “A brand loyalty model involving cognitive, affective and conative
brand loyalty and customer satisfaction” Journal of hospitality & tourism research
Bandyopadhyay, S., (2015) “Investigating Quality Perceptions of International Services by
Chinese Consumers” Thunderbird International Business Review vol. 58 (3) p. 251-260
Bartosik-Purgat, M. (2018). “Country of origin as a determinant of young Europeans`
buying attitudes — marketing implications”. Oeconomia Copernicana, 9(1), 123–142.
Bohner G, Dickel N (2011) “Attitudes and attitude change” Annual review of psychology vol.
62 p.391-417
Boutin Jr, P., (2011) “the Country-of-origin Construct and Its Effect on Consumer Behavior:
A review of Selected Literature and Proposed Future Research Conference: 2011 Academy of
International Business Southeast Chapter Annual Meeting
Brijs, K., Bloemer, J., Kasper, H. (2011) “Country-image discourse model: Unraveling
meaning, structure, and function of country images” Journal of Business Research vol. 64 (12)
p. 1259-1269
52
Brodowsky, G. H., Tan, J., & Meilich, O., (2004) “Managing country-of-origin choices:
competitive advantages and opportunities” International Business Review 13 (2004) 729–748
Bruwer, J., Buller, C., John, A., Li, E., (2014) “Country-of-origin (COO) brand loyalty and
related consumer behaviour in the Japanese wine market”International Journal of Wine
Business Research vol. 26 (2)
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2015). “Business Research Methods” 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011). “Business Research Methods” 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Carvalho, L V., Azar S., Machado, J C. (2020) “Bridging the gap between brand gender and
brand loyalty on social media: exploring the mediating effects”. Journal of Marketing
Management, 36:11-12, 1125-1152
Cristea, A., Capitana, G., and Stoenescu, R., (2014) “Country-of-Origin Effects on Perceived
Brand Positioning” Procedia Economics and Finance 23 ( 2015 ) 422 – 427
Curtis, T. Abratt, R. Rhoades, L, D. Dion, P (2011) ”Customer Loyalty, Repurchase and
Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytical Review” embryriddle aeronautical university
53
Dawes, J (2008) “Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used?
An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10- point scales” Journal of market research vol.50
nr.1 pp. 61-104
Ercis, A. Candan, B. Unal, S. (2012) ”The Effect of Brand Satisfaction, Trust and Brand
Commitment on Loyalty and repurchase intentions” procedia- social and behavioral sciences
Esmaeilpour, F. and Abdolvand, M.A. (2016), "The impact of country-of-origin image on brand
loyalty: evidence from Iran", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 709-723.
Fan, Q. (2019) “Relationship among China’s country image, corporate image and brand
image: A Korean consumer perspective” Journal of Contemporary Marketing Science, Vol.2
(1), p.34-49
García-Gallego, Mera (2017) “COO vs ROO: importance of the origin in customer preferences
towards financial entities” International Marketing Review vol.34 (2)
Glen, S (2021) “Adjusted R2 / Adjusted R-Squared: What is it used for?”
https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/statistics-definitions/adjusted-r2/
found: 2021-05-20
Green, S. B. (1991). “How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?” Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 26, 499‐510.
Griffin, M., Steinbrecher, T. (2013) ”Chapter Four - Large-Scale Datasets in Special Education
Research” science direct vol.45 pp.155-183
Grisaffe D., Nguyen, H., (2011) ”Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands”
ScienceDirect vol.64 nr.10 pp.1052-1059
54
Grönroos, C. (2016). “Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Service Profit
logic” 4th edition
Hair, J., Celsi, M, W., Money, A., Samouel, P., and Page, M. (2011). “Essentials of Business
Research Methods: Second Edition”. M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 80 Business Park Drive, Armonk, New
York 10504
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R., (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th
Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited
Huang, M., Yu, S. (1999) “Are consumers inherently or situationally brand loyal?—A set
intercorrelation account for conscious brand loyalty and nonconscious inertia” Psychology &
Marketing vol. 16 (6) p.523-544
Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D. (1973) “Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior” Journal of
Marketing research vol. 10 (1) p. 1-9
Jiménez, N. and San-Martin, S. (2016), "The central role of the reputation of country-of-origin
firms in developing markets", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp.
349-364.
Johnsson, Z., (2016) “Country-of-origin fit: When does a discrepancy between brand origin
and country of manufacture reduce consumers’ product evaluations?” Journal of Brand
Management vol. 23 (4)
55
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel., and Pal, D.K. (2015) “Likert Scale: Explored and Explained”
British Journal of Applied Science & Technology. vol. 7 (4). p. 396-403
Josiassen, A., Lukas, B., Whitwell, G. (2008) “Country‐of‐origin contingencies: Competing
perspectives on product familiarity and product involvement” International marketing review
vol. 25 (4)
Kapferer, J, N. (2008) “The New Strategic Brand Management” 4th ed. London: Kogan Page.
Kopp, C (2019) ”brand loyalty” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brand-loyalty.asp
found: 2021-03-15
Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A., & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). “Are Consumers Really
Willing to Pay More for a Favorable Country Image? A Study of Country-of-Origin Effects on
Willingness to Pay”. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 19-41.
Koubaa, Y. (2008) ”Country of origin, brand image perception, and brand image structure”
vol.20 n.2 pp. 1355-5855
Lascu, D., Ahmed, Z., Ahmed, I., Min, T. (2020) “Dynamics of country image: evidence from
Malaysia” Asia Pacific journal of marketing and logistics Vol.32 (8), p.1675-1697
Lee, S., Lee, J., Garrett, T., (2012) “A Study of the Attitude toward Convergent Products: A
Focus on the Consumer Perception of Functionalities” Journal of product innovation
management vol.30 (1) p. 123-135
56
Linnaeus University – Ethical guidelines
https://lnu.se/contentassets/20efc4b0d8c744d787148f9d6de08eae/ofta-forekommande-fragor-
2020-05-19.pdf found 2021-05-25
Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D. and Soh, H. (2012) “Self‐congruity, brand attitude, and brand
loyalty: a study on luxury brands” European journal of marketing, Vol.46 (7/8), p.922-937
Loureiro, S., Kaufmann, H. (2017) “Advertising and country-of-origin images as sources of
brand equity and the moderating role of brand typicality” Baltic Journal of Management vol.
12 (3)
Magnusson, P., Westjohn, S., Zdravkovic, S. (2011) ““What? I thought Samsung was
Japanese”: accurate or not, perceived country of origin matters” International Marketing
Review vol. 28 (5)
Maier, E. Wilken (2017) “Broad and Narrow Country-of-Origin Effects and the Domestic
Country Bias” Journal of Global Marketing vol. 30 (4) p. 25-274
Malhotra, N. (2010) Marketing research; an applied orientation. 6th Edition. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Martin, I., Eroglu, S., (1993) “Measuring a Mulit-dimdensional construct: Country image”
Matarazzo, M., Lanzilli, G., Resciniti, G. (2018) “Acquirer’s corporate reputation in cross-
border acquisitions: the moderating effect of country image” Journal of Product and Brand
Management vol. 27 (7) p. 858-870
57
Mbango, B., (2018) “Examining the effects of customer satisfaction on commitment and
repurchase intentions of branded products” Cogent Social Sciences vol. 4 (1) p. 1-17
Moon, O. (2017) “Country of origin effects in international marketing channels: How overseas
distributors account for the origins of products and brands” International Marketing Review
vol. 34 (2)
Mugge, R. and Schoormans, J, P.L. (2011) “Newer is better! The influence of novel appearance
on perceived performance quality of products” Journal of engineering design, Vol.23 (6),
p.469-484
Nisar, T, H., Whitehead, C. (2016) “Brand interactions and social media: Enhancing user
loyalty through social networking sites” Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 62, pp 743-
753
Oliver (1999) “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing
Oumlil, B. (2020) “Country-Of-Origin (COO) Impact and Product Categories’ Evaluations:
The Case of an Emerging Market” Journal of Marketing development and competitiveness vol.
14 (1) p. 57-65
Panda R, Misra S (2014) “Impact of Country-Of-Origin Image on Brand Equity: A Study on
Durable Products in India” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 494 – 499
58
Peytchev, A. Peytcheva, E. (2017) ”Reduction of Measurement Error due to Survey Length:
Evaluation of the Split Questionnaire Design Approach” Survey Research Methods, vol.11
pp.361-368.
Profiletree (2021) ”Perceived Quality: What You See and What You Actually Get” found: 21-
04-27 https://profiletree.com/perceived-quality/
Roth, M. and Romeo, J., (1992) “MATCHING PRODUCT CATEGORY AND COUNTRY
IMAGE PERCEPTIONS: A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN
EFFECTS.” Journal of International Business Studies. 1992 3rd Quarter, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p477-
497.
Saydan, R (2013) “Relationship between Country of origin Image and Brand equity: An
empirical evidence in England market” International Journal of Business and Social Science
vol 4 (3)
Semaan, R, W., Gould, S., Chao, M, C-H., Grein, A, F. (2019). “We don’t see it the same way:
The biasing effects of country-of-origin and preference reversals on product evaluation”
European journal of marketing. Vol.53 (5). p.989-1014
Solomon, B., Askegaard, H. (2016) “Consumer behavior, a european perspective” Sixth
edition, Pearson
Vahdat, A., Hafezniya, H., Jabarzadeh, Y., and Thaichon, P. (2020) “Emotional Brand
Attachment and Attitude toward Brand Extension”, Services Marketing Quarterly, 41:3, 236-
255
Vlachos, P.A., Theotokis, A., Pramatari, K. and Vrechopoulos, A. (2010). "Consumer‐retailer
emotional attachment: Some antecedents and the moderating role of attachment anxiety".
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 No. 9/10, pp. 1478-1499.
59
Wang, J. (2006) “Managing national reputation and international relations in the global era:
Public diplomacy revisited” Public Relations Review, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp. 91-96
Watson, G., Beck, J., Henderson, M., Palmatier, R (2015) “Building, measuring and profiting
from customer loyalty” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science vol. 43 (6)
Weisberg, J., Té-eni, D., Arman, L., (2011) “Past purchase intention to purchase in e-
commerce” Bradford vol. 21 (1) p.82-96
Woo, H. (2019) “The expanded halo model of brand image, country image and product image
in the context of three Asian countries” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics vol.
31 (4)
Woo, H., Jin, B., and Ramkumar, B. (2017) “Utilizing country image and well-known products
for less-known products: Perspectives from a country with less-competitive country image”
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics vol. 29 (7)
Yi, Y. La, S (2004) ”what influences the relationship between customer satisfaction repurchase
intention? Investigating the effect adjusted expectations consumer loyalty” vol. 21 nr.5 pp. 351-
373 Interscience
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., Bilim, Y., (2010) “Destination attachment: Effects on customer
satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty” Tourism Management vol. 31 (2) p.
274-284
Zaithaml, A (1988) “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model
and synthesis of evidence” Journal of Marketing vol. 52 (2-22)
60
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: DEMOGRAPHIC TABLES
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Man Kvinna Annat
Gender
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Under 18 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+
Age
61
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Student Anställd Arbetslös Annat
Occupation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0-10 000 10 000-20 000 20 000-30 000 30 000-40 000 40 000-50 000 50000+
Monthly Income
62
APPENDIX 2: TRANSLATION OF QUESTIONS
Brand loyalty:
Preference
• I prefer brand X upon competing brands
• Jag föredrar varumärke X framför andra varumärken.
Usage
• I use brand X regularly
• Jag använder Varumärke X regelbundet
Emotional attachment – här är vi osäkra på vilken översättning som blir bäst
• I have an emotional attachment to brand X
• Varumärke X har en känslomässig betydelse för mig
Regular purchasing
• I regularly purchase the brand X
• Jag köper regelbundet varumärket X
Intention for future purchases
• I intend to conduct future purchases from the brand X
• Jag tänker göra framtida inköp från varumärke X
Commitment
• I am committed to brand X
• Jag känner ett engagemang för varumärke X
Country-of-origin:
Positive perception
• My perception of brand X country-of-origin is positive
• Min uppfattning av varumärke X ursprungsland är positiv
Good reputation
• My perception is that brand X country-of-origin has a good reputation
• Jag upplever att varumärke X ursprungsland har ett bra rykte
63
Image
• I have a positive image towards brand X country-of-origin
• Jag har en positiv bild av varumärke X ursprungsland
Reliability
• I associate brand X country-of-origin with reliability
• Jag förknippar varumärke X ursprungsland med pålitlighet
Performance
• I associate brand X country-of-origin with good performance
• Jag förknippar varumärke X ursprungsland med bra prestanda.
Functionality
• I believe that brand X country-of-origin reflects good functional qualities
• Jag förknippar varumärke X ursprungsland med goda funktionella kvaliteter
64
APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72