the impact of country personality, product-country images ... · 1 the impact of country...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Impact of Country Personality, Product-Country Images and Socio-
Psychological Constructs on Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions
Abstract
In recent international marketing research, a new construct called country personality has emerged
that is intended to complement the well-researched country image construct. The present study seeks to
extend our understanding of the conceptual nature and functioning of country personality and investigates
its value-added in explaining consumer behavior. Specifically, based on social identity theory, a
conceptual model is developed and subsequently tested incorporating country personality, product-country
image (PCI), and socio-psychological traits of consumers (notably consumer ethnocentrism, consumer
cosmopolitanism and national identity) as predictors of consumers’ behavioral intentions. Results reveal
that (1) a country’s personality can significantly enhance or diminish a country’s PCI, (2) that PCI directly
impacts on consumers’ intentions to purchase products from and visit a particular country, (3) that
consumer ethnocentrism, consumer cosmopolitanism and national identity also affect behavioral
intentions directly and indirectly through their effects on country personality and PCI, and (4) that the
relative importance of country versus consumer characteristics in determining consumer behavior varies
depending on the context at hand. Our analyses revealed that for countries that are popular tourism
destinations such as Italy, socio-psychological traits of consumers are more important than PCI. For
countries that are known for the meticulous workmanship of their products such as Germany, on the other
hand, PCI is the most important predictor, and can even be an important determinant of tourism intentions.
Implications for theory development and managerial practice are highlighted and directions for future
research identified.
Keywords
Country Personality, Country Image, Consumer Ethnocentrism, Consumer Cosmopolitanism,
National Identity
2
1. Introduction
Higher standards of living coupled with better affordability of worldwide transportation, increasing
development of worldwide communications, and the globalization of markets all contribute to the fact that
people know much more about countries than they did in the past. Thus, they are more likely than ever to
have formed organized mental representations about countries (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007). Country
managers, on the other hand, do their best in shaping these images in their marketing communications.
The Vancouver 2010 graphic identity, for example, thought to stress the progressive and youthful
personality of Canada as host of the winter Olympic Games (Vancouver 2010 Olympics).
Recent image research in marketing has adopted the position that commercial objects, such as
products (Govers & Schoormans, 2005), brands (Aaker, 1997), corporations Keller & Richey, 2006),
stores (d'Astous & Lévesque, 2003), or even countries (Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2006) can be described
with human personality traits. A key reason behind the use of the personality construct is that it captures
an object’s symbolic and self-expressive function to the consumer (Hirschmann, 1994; Plummer, 1985)
which is considered to be a significant determinant of consumer preferences (Elliott, 1994; Lefkoff-
Hagius & Mason, 1993). Country-of-origin (COO) research to date has approached the country image
construct almost exclusively from a functional/ utilitarian perspective focusing on aspects such as
innovativeness, design, and workmanship of products or brands associated with a particular country (see
Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009 for a review). However, “country-of-origin may associate a product with
status, authenticity, and exoticness” (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999, p. 523), and country personality
captures such aspects.
D'Astous and Boujbel’s (2007) develop a country personality scale that profiles a particular country
along six personality dimensions. They specifically stress that country personality “represents one
particular way of looking at country images and should be considered as a complement rather than as a
substitute to existing country image measuring instruments” (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007, p. 239, added
3
emphasis). Surprisingly, there is a dearth of empirical research exploring the symbolic value of countries
to a consumer. In addition, the relationship between “traditional” attribute-based conceptualizations of
country image and country personality has not been assessed so far, leaving it unclear whether future COO
research should focus on country image, country personality, or both constructs at the same time.
Apart from consumers’ perceptions about a particular country, whether conceptualized as images or
personality traits, past research has also identified several consumer characteristics significantly impacting
consumer behavior (Samiee, 1994). Such characteristics are represented by socio-psychological traits such
as consumer ethnocentrism (for a review, see Shankarmahesh, 2006), consumer cosmopolitanism (for a
review, see Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2009), and national identity (for a review, see Dinnie, 2002). For
example, a consumer might purchase domestic products because (s)he thinks that buying foreign products
hurts the domestic economy and puts local people out of work, as suggested by the construct of consumer
ethnocentrism (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). Samiee (2009, p. 3) argues that COO is only relevant for these
consumer segments, and that “empirical studies of CO have yet to formally incorporate the[se]
concept[s]”. In our study, we therefore want to evaluate the impact of country personality and country
image on consumer behavior while at the same time controlling for socio-psychological traits of
consumers. Such a simultaneous examination should also help us to reveal the extent to which (perceived)
characteristics of countries rather than characteristics of consumers are a stronger driver of behavioral
intentions. For example, would a favorable country personality (e.g., the progressive and youthful
personality of Canada) outweigh the domestic country bias (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004) expected
to be exhibited by ethnocentric consumers in terms of buying intentions?
Against this background, the current research seeks to offer insights into whether and how country
characteristics interact with socio-psychological traits of consumers in determining behavioral intentions.
Specifically, the intended contribution of our study is three-fold. First, we conceptually link the well-
established product-country image (PCI) construct to the recently introduced country personality construct
in order to assess the extent to which PCI perceptions are driven by country personality evaluations. This is
4
consistent with recent calls in the literature for more research into the antecedents/drivers of country image
perceptions (Josiassen & Harzing, 2008; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2003). Second, the impact of socio-
psychological traits of consumers, namely consumer ethnocentrism, consumer cosmopolitanism and national
identity on behavioral intentions is contrasted with that of PCI evaluations in an attempt to identify the extent to
which the former are a more important driver of intentions than the latter. Again, this is consistent with calls in
the literature for a more holistic treatment of country and consumer characteristics in COO research (Samiee,
2009; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). Third, in testing the predictive validity of country versus consumer
characteristics, we extend the range of outcome variables from product-related decisions to other important
behavioral consequences, namely consumers’ intentions to visit a particular country. This is important because
the notion of country images includes “the country as exporter, importer, and potential tourism, investment, or
immigration destination, making its image a matter of vital importance to anyone living or otherwise interested
in it” (Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2003, p. 427).
In the section that follows, we introduce the core constructs under study and follow this with a
discussion of our conceptual model and associated research hypotheses. Next, we outline the study’s
methodology, highlighting data collection and construct measurement issues. We then present the results
from estimating our model and testing the research hypotheses. We conclude the paper by considering the
theoretical and managerial implications of the findings and offering suggestions for future research.
2. Theoretical Model and Hypotheses
We link the five constructs of interest - country personality, PCI, national identity, consumer
ethnocentrism and consumer cosmopolitanism - to each other as well as to behavioral intentions by means of
a conceptual model as shown in Figure 1. In past COO research, country image is often conceptualized as
mediating the impact of consumer characteristics on outcome variables. For example, Balabanis, Mueller and
Melewar (2007) place country image as a mediator between patriotism, nationalism and internationalism
and consumers’ likelihood to buy foreign products, while Samiee (1994) suggests that socio-psychological
5
traits such as consumer ethnocentrism and patriotism are themselves antecedents of country images.
Consequently, in Figure 1, we model national identity, consumer ethnocentrism and consumer
cosmopolitanism as antecedents of country personality, PCI, and consumers’ intentions to purchase
products from and visit a particular country. The hypotheses underlying the various model relationships in
Figure 1 are discussed below.
Insert Figure 1 about here
2.1. Country Personality
While studies focusing on product or brand personality can be traced back to the 1960s (e.g.,
Birdwell, 1968; Dolich, 1969; Malhotra, 1981), it was not until very recently that the personality construct
was applied to countries (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007; Ekincy & Hosany, 2006). In this context, two distinct
approaches can be identified in the literature, involving (1) the stereotypic image of a buyer of specific
products from a certain country (Chao & Rajendran, 1993; Nebenzahl, Jaffe, & Usunier, 2003)1, and (2)
people’s description of traits of a country as if it were a person (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007; Hosany et al.,
2006). Our study is based on the second approach because focusing on personality traits ascribed to the
country itself rather than traits associated with people buying products from a particular country enables to
characterize a country regardless of its products.
The conceptual roots of the country personality construct can be traced back to the notion of
anthropomorphism, which refers to “the tendency of people to make attributions of humanlike
characteristics to animals and nonhuman entities” (Kiesler, 2006: 149). In this context, humans have a felt
need to anthropomorphize objects in order to facilitate interactions with the non-material world (Fournier,
1998). Guthrie (1997) introduces two complementary theories to explain this phenomenon, namely
familiarity theory and comfort theory. According to familiarity theory, humans use their self-concept as a
reference point of how to interpret the outside world because of their extensive knowledge of themselves.
6
The comfort thesis, on the other hand, posits that people feel uncomfortable with what is nonhuman and
therefore try to reassure themselves by projecting human characteristics to inanimate objects.
Note, in this context, that the personality that is projected on the object is different to the personality
of the person himself/herself. To understand the difference between the personality of an object (such as a
brand or a country) and a person, Kapferer (2008) developed a brand identity prism in which he considers
a brand as a speech flowing from a sender to a receiver. He argues that the brand identity dimension
physique (i.e., physical features and qualities) and personality (i.e., human personality traits) picture the
sender (i.e., the brand or country), and the identity dimensions’ reflection (i.e., image of the target group)
and self-image (i.e., how the brand makes consumers feel) picture the receiver (i.e., the consumer). It is
important to make this distinction between sender and receiver, because otherwise “brand and user
personality get mixed up, leading to uncertainty about how to take action in case of a gap between the
desired and the perceived personality” (Geuens, Weijters, & DeWulf, 2009, p. 98). Numerous studies on
the congruity between oneself and a brand (e.g., Sirgy et al., 1997; Sirgy, Johar, Samli, & Claiborne,
1991), company (e.g., Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005) or a tourism destination (e.g. Sirgy & Su,
2000) show that these are distinct but related constructs.
Country personality has been investigated in two relatively independent research streams, namely
the COO and the tourism literatures (see Mossberg & Kleppe, 2005 for a review). In COO research,
country personality is conceptually defined as “the mental representation of a country on dimensions that
typically capture an individual’s personality” (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007: 233). This definition is similar
to the definition of destination personality in tourism research as “human characteristics associated with a
destination as perceived from a tourist rather than local resident viewpoint” (Hosany et al., 2006: 128).
Both definitions thus emphasize human characteristics associated with a particular country.
To operationalize country personality, in the tourism literature, Ekincy and Hosany, (2006),
Hosany, Ekinci, and Uysal (2006) and Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) all employ Aaker’s
(1997) brand personality scale (BPS). In the COO literature, on the other hand, d'Astous and Boujbel
7
(2007) recently developed a new country personality scale with six dimensions based on exploratory
interviews and a review of extant personality scales from the psychology and marketing literatures.
Similar to the Big Five personality dimensions (see DeNeve & Cooper, 1998 and Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz,
2008 for relevant reviews), some dimensions of d’Astous and Boujbel’s (2007) scale capture favorable
personality traits, whereas others unfavorable traits. In what follows, we retain d’Astous and Boujbel’s (2007)
terminology and consider “wickedness”, “snobbism” and “unobtrusiveness” as negative country personality
dimensions while “agreeableness”, “assiduousness” and “conformity” as positive (see also the discussion
below). Note, in this context, that country personality is a profile construct (Law, Wong, & Mobley,
1998) whereby scoring high on a favorable dimension (e.g., agreeableness or assiduousness) does not
necessarily mean that the same country automatically scores low on an unfavorable dimension (e.g.,
wickedness or snobbism). Note also that scores on the dimensions cannot be aggregated to obtain an
“overall” country personality score; instead, the individual scores on the dimensions have to be considered in
conjunction with each other to describe a country’s personality profile.
2.2. Product-Country Image
Product-country-image refers to the “overall perception consumers form of products from a
particular country, based on their prior perceptions of the country’s production and marketing strength and
weaknesses” (Roth & Romeo, 1992: 480). There is an impressive stream of research that demonstrates
that PCI perceptions impact on consumers’ product evaluations, risk perceptions, and buying intentions
(for comprehensive reviews, see, for example, Samiee, 1994; Peterson & Jolibert, 1995; Verlegh &
Steenkamp, 1999; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2003; Jaffe & Nebenzahl, 2006). Roth and Romeo (1992)
identify four basic dimensions of PCI, namely innovativeness, design, prestige, and workmanship; all
dimensions “relate to the production and marketing perceptions of countries, and as such appear to capture
a single [product-] country image construct” (Roth & Romeo, 1992: 487).
Previous literature shows that PCI can be analyzed at two different levels, an “overall” or “general”
level concerning all products and services coming from a particular country (see also Heslop,
8
Papadopoulos, Dowdles, Wall, & Compeau, 2004; Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Mourali, 2005;
Pereira, Hsu, & Kundu, 2005; Pisharodi & Parameswaran, 1992) or a product category specific level (e.g.,
Hsieh, Pan, & Setiono, 2004; Ittersum, Candel, & Meulenberg, 2003). Similar to d’Astous and Boujbel
(2007), the focus of our study is on countries, rather than (specific) product categories. We thus need
findings that can be generalized at a country rather than product category level. According to the
literature, “product-specific images cannot be generalized to the origin country overall, and thus the value
of such research is limited” (Papadopoulos, Heslop, Szamosi, Ettenson, & Mort, 1997, p. 998). We
therefore approach PCI from a general rather than product category specific level. Our focus on “overall”
PCI is also consistent with the level of aggregation of the country personality construct, which, as already
noted, is conceptualized at the country rather than product category level.
2.2.1 Country Personality and Product-Country Image
Past COO research consistently shows that people’s perceptions of a country impact on consumers’
perceptions of products from that country (e.g., Roth & Romeo, 1992; Usunier & Cestre, 2007). In our
study, we specifically focus on consumers’ country personality perceptions and their likely impact on PCI
assessments.
As already noted, country personality captures both positively and negatively perceived traits of a
country. Among the positive traits of a nation, agreeableness – in accordance with the “agreeableness”
dimension of the Big Five – focuses on the quality of life and interpersonal relationships (DeNeve &
Cooper, 1998). This dimension contains items such as “agreeable”, “amusing” or “bon-vivant”, and, thus,
is closely related to the “people affect” facet appearing in past COO research. The latter has been
consistently shown to positively influence consumers PCI evaluations (e.g., Papadopoulos, Heslop, &
IKON Research Group, 2000; Parameswaran & Pisharodi, 1994) because “ people like and trust those
whom they see as of agreeable culture and political views” (Heslop, Papadopoulos, & Bamossy, 1993:
44). We thus expect a positive relationship between agreeableness and PCI.
9
Assiduousness is comparable to the “conscientiousness” dimension of the Big Five which is defined
as “goal-directed behavior (such as efficacy and rule conscious) and control-related traits” (DeNeve &
Cooper, 1998: 199). This dimension comprises items such as “organized”, “rigorous” or “hard to work”,
and, thus, is closely related to the “people competence” dimension in extant COO research (e.g., Heslop et
al., 2004; Verlegh, 2001 ). It is thus expected that the more competent consumers perceive a country, the
better the evaluation of that country as a production and marketing location.
Finally, conformity captures agreement with established rules and customs (Longman, 1987) and is
characterized by items such as “religious”, “spiritual” or “traditional”. Comparing the items of the
conformity dimension with the items contained in the Big Five dimensions of human personality,
conformity is closest to John’s (1990) “openness to experience” dimension, which has been originally
defined in terms of measures of intelligence, openness, and creativity, but has been later broadened to
include any personality variable that is primarily cognitive in nature, such as belief in a just world, mental
absorption, and rigidity (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998)..Regarding the relationship between conformity and
PCI, the sign of the relationship among these two constructs is not straightforward. When interpreted from
the perspective of conformism, conformity is likely to be a negative trait as it signifies lack of originality.
Recent brand personality research, however, found similar items like the ones used in our study when
describing favorable characteristics of brands (Geuens et al., 2009). Specifically, Sung & Tinkham (2005)
report a strong positive correlation between likeableness and traditionalism in the case of US brands
(r=.63) and a weaker but still positive correlation between these two dimensions in the case of Korean
brands (r=.39). Thus, especially from the perspective of Western economies (and products), conformism
seems to be interpreted from the perspective of production-related traditions rather than lack of originality.
A country that has high production standards (e.g., Germany or Switzerland) that are grounded in strong
religious and/or cultural beliefs is likely to produce good products. Therefore, conformity is expected to
have a positive impact on PCI in our study. Hence, we expect that:
10
Hypothesis 1: Positive country personality dimensions (i.e., agreeableness, assiduousness and
conformity) positively impact on a country’s PCI.
Among the unfavorable personality dimensions, wickedness is similar to the neuroticism dimension
of the Big Five that focuses “on adjustment variables (such as psychoticism and distress) as well as
negative emotional and behavioral traits” (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998: 199). This dimension comprises traits
such as “immoral”, “vulgar” or “decadent” and can be compared with negative affect (Yik & Russel,
2001). In line with models of affect (see Larsen, McGraw, & Cacioppo, 2001 for a review) which assume
that positivity fosters approach whereas negativity fosters avoidance, wickedness is likely to result in a
negative PCI (see also Brijs, 2006; Verlegh, 2001 in a country context).
A second country personality dimension with unfavorable traits is snobbism. In general, a snob is
defined as “a person who is too proud of having special knowledge or judgment in the stated subject, and
thinks that something liked by many people is no good” (Longman, 1987: 997). This dimension contains
items such as “snobbish”, “haughty” or “chauvinist”, which also tap into the domain of negative affect.
Note that also Nebenzahl et al. (2003), who analyzed the personality of individuals supposedly buying
products from a particular country also included aspects relating to chauvinism in their study (i.e., “a
person buying products from that country is a chauvinist”). Thus, in contrast to the Big Five of human
personality where only one dimension (neuroticism) captures negative affect, a country’s personality
seems to have a second facet that is related to the latter. Similar to wickedness, snobbism is therefore
expected to have a negative impact on PCI, since a country scoring high on this dimension is likely to be
perceived as arrogant, thus resulting in unfavorable perceptions of products produced in that country.
The last country personality dimension is unobtrusiveness. An unobtrusive person is a person who
is not blatant, arresting, or aggressive (Merriam-Webster, 2008), in other words, an inconspicuous person.
In the Big Five, unobtrusiveness could be best compared to extraversion that focuses on the quantity and
intensity of relationships (such as sociability and dominance), energy level, and excitement seeking
(DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). However, the items used in this dimension, such as “cowardly”, “wimpy” or
11
“dependent”, clearly point into the opposite direction of these aspects, and, hence, appear to be negative
traits of a nation. D'Astous and Boujbel (2007) also include the item “neutral”, which – especially in a country
context – could well be perceived as a positive trait (e.g., a neutral country does not interfere in disputes among
nations). On the other hand, “neutral” could have negative connotations as well (as in “indifferent”)2, which
seem to be much more conceptually consistent with the other items of this dimension which are clearly
unfavorable personality traits. In contrast to wickedness and snobbism which are likely to evoke negative
associations due to “offensive” characteristics of a country, unobtrusiveness is more related to the
perceived disability of a country to “defend” itself and its products. This inability of a country to
distinguish itself and its offerings from other countries might trigger negative effects on the evaluation of
that country as a production and marketing location. Thus, we expect that:
Hypothesis 2: Negative country personality dimensions (i.e., wickedness, snobbism and
unobtrusiveness) negatively impact on a country’s PCI.
In line with personality literature, no direct effects of country personality on behavioral intentions
are postulated. This is because personality traits are highly abstract and thus not expected to directly
predict specific behavioral patterns (Bosnjak, Bratko, Galesic, & Tuten, 2007; Kassarjian, 1971); indeed,
in consumer behavior research, personality traits are linked to behavior only indirectly through intervening
variables (e.g., Baumgartner, 2002; Mowen, 2000). In the COO and tourism literature, the few studies that
exist also do not model a direct impact of country (or destination) personality on behavior-related
outcomes (e.g., d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007; Ekincy & Hosany, 2006).3
2.2.2 Product-Country Image and Behavioral Intentions
Past research has consistently reported that a positive evaluation of a country’s PCI results in
favorable behavioral reactions in terms of willingness to purchase, buying preferences, and
recommendations to others (e.g., Hsieh et al., 2004; Roth & Romeo, 1992). This is because, similar to
other external cues such as price or brand name, consumers’ positive PCI perceptions reduce perceived
risk and – in case of low familiarity with a particular product or brand – help consumers infer the true
12
characteristics (e.g., workmanship, innovativeness) of a particular product (Han, 1989; Verlegh &
Steenkamp, 1999). Thus a favorable PCI positively impacts on consumers’ general decision to buy
products from that country.
Research further shows that PCI also impacts on other, non-product related outcomes of a country
(Heslop et al., 2004; Parameswaran & Pisharodi, 1994). Specifically, it has been pointed out that “the
image of a country (including what it produces and the quality of those products) can directly affect the
intention to visit” (Nadeau, Heslop, O'Reilly, & Luk, 2008, p. 90). Mossberg & Kleppe (2005) provide an
example for that. They trace the popularity of tapas and paella as well as feta cheese and moussaka back to
Scandinavian’s frequent travelling to Spain and Greece. However, according to Kleppe et al. (2002), it can
also work the other way around, i.e., due to the fact that Scandinavians eat a lot of moussaka and feta
cheese, they might want to go to Greece. This is in line with Han’s (1989) argument that PCI can serve as
a summary cue into which consumers consolidate previously acquired product information. The summary
argument proposes that consumers use their experience with one product (category) from a country (e.g., a
Toyota) to infer the quality of others (e.g., a Honda). We propose that the same mechanism applies for
tourist intentions, that is, consumers’ experience with products from a specific country (e.g., moussaka or
feta cheese) combined with the image of that country (e.g., friendly people, warm weather) might be
accessed in memory when other (i.e., non-product related) country conations are considered, such as the
selection of a holiday destination. We therefore expect that:
Hypothesis 3: PCI positively impacts on consumers’ intentions to (a) purchase products from, and
(b) visit the focal country.
2.3 Socio-Psychological Influences
The phenomenon of in-group bias, that is, the tendency to favor the in-group (i.e., home country)
over the out-group (i.e., foreign country) in evaluations and behavior has been receiving increasing
attention in literature. Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) provides an explanation
13
for such bias. Our study introduces three socio-psychological constructs which are based on social identity
theory, namely national identity (Dinnie, 2002; Verlegh, 2007), consumer ethnocentrism (Sharma, Shimp,
& Shin, 1995; Shimp & Sharma, 1987), and consumer cosmopolitanism (Cannon & Yaprak, 2002; Yoon,
Cannon, & Yaprak, 1995); a brief conceptual discussion of each follows.
2.3.1 National Identity
Social identity captures the component of an individual’s self-image which derives from
membership in a social group (Tajfel, 1978). In case of national identity, the relevant social group people
identify with is the nation (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998; Feather, 1981). However,
holding a certain nationality is not a sufficient precondition for the development of national identity. What
is essential is the emotional and evaluative significance assigned to the feeling of belonging to the home
country (Tajfel, 1978). It is important to have the willingness to internalize the national culture and to
identify with and positively value the distinctive features of one’s country (Billig, 1995; Blank & Schmidt,
2003). Based on the above, national identity can be defined as “the importance of national affiliation as
well as the subjective significance of an inner bond with the nation” (Blank & Schmidt, 2003: 296). It
captures the extent to which individuals identify with and have a positive feeling of affiliation to their own
nation as well as the importance they attach to this feeling (Blank & Schmidt, 2003). Note that, in the case
of national identity, in-group identification or attachment is not accompanied by out-group derogation or
hostility (Brewer 1979, 1999). Indeed, out-groups such as foreign nations could be “viewed with
indifference, sympathy, even admiration, as long as inter-group distinctiveness is maintained” (Brewer,
1999, p. 434). Thus, national identity focuses on in-group favoritism only and does not explain consumers’
evaluations of other countries and behavioral intentions with regard to these countries (see also Verlegh,
2007).
Consumers who have a strong feeling of belonging to a nation are expected “to be favorably biased
toward the in-group, and its members, products, and achievements” (Verlegh, 2007). This is because
national identity is rooted in social identity theory which assumes that group membership provides an
14
individual with a social identity that is part of his or her self-concept (Tajfel, 1978). Social identity theory
states that people are motivated to maintain a positive social identity (Brown, 2000). The latter is based on
favorable comparisons between the in-group (i.e., home country) and out-groups (i.e., foreign countries)
whereby the in-group must be perceived as being positively differentiated or distinct from the relevant
out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). When the result of the in-group/out-group comparison is
unsatisfactory, people are likely to engage in identity protecting- or enhancing strategies (Crocker &
Luhtanen, 1990; Hewstone, Jaspars, & Lalljee, 1982). These include “changing the dimension of comparison
for a more favorable one, reevaluating the unfavorable group characteristic, or choosing another lower status
group with which to compare ones’ own” (Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995: 412). These activities, in turn,
lead to a stronger identification with one’s own group. Thus, in a country context, it is expected that
consumers with a strong sense of national identity will more strongly believe in the positive traits
associated with their own country and downplay the negative ones in order to enhance the positively
valued distinctiveness of their home country (Turner, 1999). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: In a home country context, national identity (a) positively impacts on positive country
personality dimensions (i.e., agreeableness, assiduousness, and conformity), and (b) negatively
impacts on negative country personality dimensions (i.e., wickedness, snobbism, and
unobtrusiveness).
The ingroup bias derived from a strong sense of national identification is expected to go beyond more
favorable perceptions of the own nation, and also (positively) affects the perceptions of the home
country’s products (Verlegh, 2007). Social identity theory suggests that positively evaluating the own
nation’s products is one way of enhancing or protecting the own country’s image, and this is likely to be
particularly important for those who strongly identify with their country (Turner, 1999). For example, in
an experiment, Doosje et al. (1995) found out that the need for protecting the own group’s image was
manifested in the tendency of subjects to rate dimensions seen as more characteristic of the own group as
more important than dimensions characteristic of the comparison group. This finding is in line with social
15
identity predictions that groups will value those comparative dimensions that favor the own group more
highly (Ellemers, Wilke, & Van Knippenberg, 1993). Hence, we propose that:
Hypothesis 5: National identity positively impacts on consumers’ PCI perceptions of the home
country.
Ultimately, this bias in the perceptions of the own country as well its products should lead to a bias
with respect to actions related to the own country (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). Indeed, social identity
theory posits that people identify with social groups as a means of achieving a sense of who they are;
identification with a group and enhancement of that group identity can increase self-esteem (e.g.,
Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Mackie & Smith, 1998). Consequently, as a means of showing who they are
and in order to support the nation they belong to, people may engage in actions, such as purchasing
products from the home country or spending their holiday in the home country. Hence, we propose the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: National identity positively impacts on consumers’ intentions to (a) purchase products
from, and (b) visit the home country.4
2.3.2 Consumer Ethnocentrism
Consumer ethnocentrism was introduced by Shimp and Sharma (1987: 280) and is defined as
“beliefs held by […] consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made
products”. Although based on the broader concept of ethnocentrism which is the “view of things in which
one’ own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it”
(Sumner, 1906: 13), consumer ethnocentrism is a unique economic form of ethnocentrism capturing only
economic motives for in-group bias, such as fear that opting for foreign products in some way threatens
the domestic industry and causes unemployment (Verlegh, 2007).
In contrast to national identity where the in-group bias does not necessarily lead to a devaluation of
out-groups, “[t]he distinguishing feature of [consumer] ethnocentrism lies not as much in the development
16
of an ‘in-group’ pride as in its equal contempt for out-groups and portrayal of ‘out-groups’ as the ‘anti-
thesis’” (Shankarmahesh, 2006: 147). This is because the in-group (i.e., home country) “nourishes its own
pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders”
(Sumner, 1906: 13). Thus, in line with social identity theory that assumes that out-group discrimination may
occur when inter-group relations involve competition, conflict, and/or perceived threat (Duckitt & Mphuthing,
1998; Jackson, 1993), consumer ethnocentrism is expected to affect consumer behavior in both a home
country and a foreign country setting.
According to literature (Levine & Campbell, 1972; Sumner, 1906), highly ethnocentric individuals
perceive the own nation as virtuous and superior while out-groups such as other countries are seen as
contemptible, immoral, and inferior. As the construct of consumer ethnocentrism represents an economic
form of ethnocentrism, these feelings of superiority are expected to result in biased perceptions of the own
country coupled with an equal contempt of foreign countries (Shankarmahesh, 2006). Hence, in a home
country context, a positive relationship between consumer ethnocentrism and favorably perceived country
personality dimensions and a negative link between consumer ethnocentrism and unfavorable country
personality dimensions is expected. In the case of foreign countries, on the other hand, the opposite is
expected. We therefore propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 7: In a home country context, consumer ethnocentrism (a) positively impacts on positive
country personality dimensions (i.e., agreeableness, assiduousness, and conformity), and (b)
negatively impacts on negative country personality perceptions (i.e. wickedness, snobbism, and
unobtrusiveness).
Hypothesis 8: In a foreign country context, consumer ethnocentrism (a) negatively impacts on
positive country personality perceptions (i.e., agreeableness, assiduousness, and conformity), and
(b) positively impacts on negative country personality perceptions (i.e., wickedness, snobbism, and
unobtrusiveness).
17
Ethnocentrists hold stereotyped negative opinions and hostile attitudes toward members of out-
groups and positive opinions and uncritically supportive attitudes toward in-groups (Granzin & Painter,
2001; Hewstone, 1986). In the specific case of consumer ethnocentrism, consumers feel a moral obligation
to buy domestic and are prejudiced against imports as this behavior is seen as appropriate by the in-group.
Purchasing imported products is perceived as wrong, inappropriate, and even immoral because it harms
the domestic economy, increases unemployment and is unpatriotic (Sharma et al., 1995; Shimp & Sharma,
1987). Indeed, past research has consistently reported strong and positive relationships between consumer
ethnocentrism and consumers’ quality perceptions of and preference for domestic products and
corresponding negative relationships with respect to foreign products (e.g., Balabanis & Diamantopoulos,
2004; Klein, Ettenson, & Morris, 1998). However, it is reasonable to expect that consumers’ concern for
their own country and their fear of harmful effects that foreign products might bring to themselves and
countrymen is not limited to the purchase of goods, but also affects other areas such as holidays (i.e., it
affects travel intentions). Indeed, as Shimp and Sharma (1987: 280) note, consumer ethnocentrism gives
the individual “an understanding of what purchase behavior is acceptable or unacceptable to the ingroup”.
This moral component is likely to be “a general tendency ‘in toto’ as opposed to a specific attitude”
(Shankarmahesh, 2006: 148). Thus, we expect that:
Hypothesis 9: Consumer ethnocentrism (a) positively impacts on consumers’ PCI perceptions of the
home country, and (b) negatively impacts on PCI perceptions of foreign countries.
Hypothesis 10: Consumer ethnocentrism positively impacts on consumers’ intentions to (a)
purchase products from, and (b) visit the home country.
Hypothesis 11: Consumer ethnocentrism negatively impacts on consumers’ intentions to (a)
purchase products from, and (b) visit foreign countries.
18
2.3.3 Consumer Cosmopolitanism
The term cosmopolitanism originates from the Greek words cosmos [world] and politis [citizen] and
describes a tendency of individuals to feel as a world citizen rather than a citizen of a specific country
(Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2009). Cosmopolitan consumers travel frequently, are routinely involved with
other people in various places worldwide, and provide doorways into other territorial cultures (Cleveland,
Laroche, & Papadopoulos, 2009; Hannerz, 1992; Turner, 2002). Hannerz (1990) regards the involvement
with foreign people, traditions, and lifestyles as a central characteristic of cosmopolitan people that sets
them apart from certain tourists and expatriates who may stay abroad but simply import their home life
style. Thus, for cosmopolitans, the boundaries between the in-group, that is, the home country, and the
outgroup, that is, the foreign country, are not salient anymore, and they may start to identify with a foreign
country even more than with the home country. Thus, in contrast to national identity and consumer
ethnocentrism that both share a pro-ingroup and (in the case of consumer ethnocentrism) anti-outgroup
orientation, consumer cosmopolitanism is a pro-outgroup construct that can explain outgroup bias only,
but not a bias towards the home country or products from the home country (Jaffe & Nebenzahl, 2006).
Marketing literature has recognized the potential relevance of cosmopolitanism for explaining
consumer behavior and has put forward the construct of consumer cosmopolitanism (Cannon & Yaprak,
2002; Yoon et al., 1995). In an interdisciplinary review of the literature, Riefler and Diamantopoulos
(2009: 415) define a cosmopolitan consumer as “an open-minded individual whose consumption
orientation transcends any particular culture, locality or community and who appreciates diversity
including trying products and services from a variety of countries”. They further propose three aspects of
consumer cosmopolitanism for which broad consensus seems to exist in the literature. The first facet is
open-mindedness. Cosmopolitan consumers are aware of and appreciate consumption opportunities from
other countries. Second, they have a positive stance towards variety. This diversity appreciation
“manifests itself in a search for or appreciation of difference and diversity in the world rather than a
preference for uniformity” (Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2009: 414). Finally, consumption transcending
19
borders “reflects an interest in and readiness to seek out consumption objects from different cultures and
countries” (Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2009: 414).
Cosmopolitan consumers do not derive their identity from their membership to a certain state. They
have spent a lot of time in foreign countries (Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2009), have a higher level of
formal education (Cannon, Yoon, McGowan, & Yaprak, 1994), and are frequently exposed to national and
international media (Yoon, Cannon, & Yaprak, 1996). Thus, they might perceive themselves as
transnationals who are “those intellectuals who are at home in the cultures of other peoples as their own”
(Konrad, 1984: 208). Consequently, identity-enhancing mechanisms proposed by social identity theory are
likely to result in favorable evaluations of people from foreign countries as these people are part of their
social identity. Hence it is expected that cosmopolitan consumers will overemphasize the positive traits
and downplay negative traits associated with a foreign country. We therefore propose that:
Hypothesis 12: In a foreign country context, consumer cosmopolitanism (a) positively impacts on
positive country personality dimensions (i.e., agreeableness, assiduousness, and conformity), and
(b) negatively impacts on negative country personality dimensions (i.e., wickedness, snobbism, and
unobtrusiveness).
Concerning the relationship between consumer cosmopolitanism and PCI, extant literature suggests
that cosmopolitan consumers base their buying decisions mainly on functional needs rather than tradition
or social pressure and, therefore, evaluate products objectively in terms of product features (Cannon &
Yaprak, 2002; Jaffe & Nebenzahl, 2006). Social identity theory, on the other hand, suggests that the bias
derived from the identification with a certain group will result in biased perceptions, feelings and behavior
toward that group and its members, products and achievements (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Indeed, literature
states that cosmopolitans tend to consume international media, foreign books and films while in their
home countries (Hannerz, 1990). Thus, cosmopolitan consumers will in general appreciate products from
foreign countries more than non-cosmopolitan consumers, which might result in a more positive
perception of these products. Hence, we propose that:
20
Hypothesis 13: Consumer cosmopolitanism positively impacts on consumers’ PCI perceptions of a
foreign country.
An interesting view on cosmopolitanism been put forward by Thompson & Tambyah (1999) who
suggest that cosmopolitan consumers are made, not born. They argue that consumers seek social status, or
cultural capital, by acquiring cosmopolitan characteristics (Bourdieu, 1987). Travel plays a key role in this
process because it represents a way of breaking free of national boundaries to achieve the sophistication
implied by the exotic (Belk, 1998). Travel may take the form of tourism or, as in the case of Thompson &
Tambyah’s (1999) study, it can be achieved by living and working abroad. Furthermore, cosmopolitan
consumers will try to eschew the parochial culture of their local surroundings and consume exotic foods,
international movies and books, and original and authentic objects (Holt, 1997). Thus, cosmopolitan
consumers are expected to actively search for foreign products in order to experience something new. This
is further supported by social identity theory, that suggests that identification with a group (in this case, a
foreign country), will results in biased actions with respect to this group (Mackie et al., 2000). Thus, we
propose:
Hypothesis 14: Consumer cosmopolitanism positively impacts on consumers’ intentions to (a)
purchase products from, and (b) visit a foreign country.
3. Method
3.1 Country Selection
Given our research hypotheses, we chose three countries as COO stimuli, that is, one home country
and two foreign countries with different but compensating profiles. The home country is located in Central
Europe and is a member of the European Union. In terms of GDP per capita, it is similar to the countries-
of-survey typically chosen in COO research (i.e., the United States, UK, Canada, Japan, and Germany).
The country has several bordering countries making its citizens likely to have been directly exposed to
21
other countries and their people. It ranks among the top three countries in the KOF index of globalization,
which takes into account economic, social and political aspects of globalization (Dreher, 2007). In 2008,
imports (goods and services) accounted for approximately 55% of its GDP (source: latest available
confirmed data by EUROSTAT). Thus, overall, we have evidence that this country is significantly
intertwined with other countries in terms of culture, economy, and politics.5
With respect to the choice of foreign COO, the following criteria guided the selection of the
stimulus countries. First, the countries had to be a relevant origin or destination country with respect to the
outcome variables considered. Specifically, both countries should be in the consideration set of
respondents for both outcomes, but one country should be a popular tourism destination whereas the other
should be well-known for its products. Second, respondents had to be reasonably familiar with these
countries to enable valid ratings on country personality and PCI measures. Third, in order to test the
stability of the psychometric properties of the country personality scale, the target countries should have a
different profile than the home country with respect to its personality. Finally, one country should be
regarded more as an affinity country whereas the other as an animosity country to provide a contrasting
setting for testing the model relationships.
Based on these criteria and following intensive discussions with several experts in COO research,
we finally chose Italy and Germany as foreign country stimuli. Both countries are the main export and
import partners of the survey country, with Germany representing by far the most important (volume share
of approximately 45% of all imports) and Italy the second most important trading partner (about 7% of all
imports; source: National Statistics Bureau, 2009). Thus, we can assume that respondents are sufficiently
familiar with those country’s products. In terms of preferred tourism destinations, Italy ranks first
(accounting for 21% of all journeys) and Germany second (13% of all journeys; source: National Statistics
Bureau, 2009). Finally, several pre-tests showed that Italy was clearly perceived as an affinity country,
whereas Germany scored among the top three animosity countries (see authors, 2007).
22
3.2 Data Collection
All construct measures used in our study were drawn from previous studies (see subsequent section)
and most were originally developed in English. Whenever a scale was developed in several languages
(e.g., in the case of the CETSCALE or the scale for cosmopolitanism), the authors were contacted and the
original measure was used in the questionnaire. For the rest, to ensure translation equivalence, the English
version of the questionnaire was first translated into the local language by one bilingual person and then
retranslated into English by a second bilingual person. The two expert translators reconciled any
differences (for a similar procedure, see Behling & Law, 2000; Homburg, Cannon, Krohmer, &
Kiedaisch, 2009). The translated questionnaire was subsequently pre-tested with 20 consumers using the
protocol approach (Reynolds, Simintiras, & Diamantopoulos, 2003) to ensure that all items were
comprehensible and no difficulties in answering occurred. In order to guard against common method bias
effects, several techniques suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003) were employed during data collection.
Specifically, different response formats were used in the questionnaire, respondents were assured
anonymity, it was stressed that there were no right or wrong answers, a counterbalancing question order
was adopted, and the pre-test results were used to avoid item ambiguity as far as possible.
The questionnaire was further pre-tested on a second sample of 83 university students to gain first
insights on the psychometric properties of the measurement items. On average, it took respondents 15
minutes to fill out the questionnaire, which lies within the range of recommended questionnaire length
(Hinkin, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Included in the pre-test questionnaire
was also a 10-item measure for social desirability (SDR) taken from Netemeyer, Burton and Lichtenstein
(1995) and originally developed by Crowne & Marlowe (1960). All individual items were screened in
terms of means, actual ranges, variances and missing values (DeVellis, 2003) and showed desirable
qualities (i.e., means were close to the centre of the theoretical range, variances were relatively high, and
no item had excessive missing values). Moreover, all internal consistency estimates of the scales capturing
the constructs of interest were acceptable (well exceeding .70) except for the conformity dimension of
23
country personality (α=.62 home country, α=.56 Italy). However, a somewhat lower level of reliability for
conformity was already expected, as d’Astous and Boujbel (2007) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of only .64
for this dimension.6
For the main survey, we employed a quota sample which was nationally representative for the
population of the home country with respect to sex and age. Data were professionally collected by a major
international research agency that maintains representative online panels in several countries around the
world. All panel members agree to fill out surveys on a regular basis and receive incentives in return. In
our study, respondents were assured privacy and confidentiality and appropriate checks by the market
research agencies guaranteed quality of responses. The target population was defined as “males or females
between the ages of 18 and 70 who had been living in the survey country for more than 10 years and/or
have the citizenship of the survey country”. For legal reasons, individuals below the age of 18 could not be
asked without permission of their parents. In a similar vein, consumers beyond the age of 70 were thought
not to be suited for an online survey and were therefore also excluded. In total, 422 completed
questionnaires were returned; after excluding individuals which did not fulfill the requirements mentioned
above the sample used for analysis comprised 411 consumers. The participation rate was nearly 100%,
that is, practically each panel member that was invited also actually participated in the survey. Thus non-
response bias is not an issue in this study.
Table 1 summarizes the demographic profile of the sample with respect to sex and age. Mean net
income was around 18,880 Euros a year, which is slightly above census data (18,360 Euros). People were
slightly higher educated (80% graduated from high-school compared to 70% in the overall population)
and the sample was also fairly in line with census figures in terms of employment (approx. two thirds of
the people were employed, 20% retired), however, with a slight over-representation of unemployed people
(8 % as opposed to 4% of the working population) and students (7% compared to 5% of the overall
population). Thus, overall, the sample is comparable to other samples typically used in cross-sectional
24
research (i.e., slightly more educated but representative of the target population with respect to sex and
age).
Insert Table 1 about here
3.3 Construct Measurement
We extensively screened relevant literature and selected established scales to measure our
constructs. Table 2 lists the items used to measure each construct in our model along with relevant
psychometric information (to be discussed in a subsequent section).
Insert Table 2 about here
3.3.1 Country Personality.
Country personality was measured with the 24 items developed by d’Astous and Boujbel (2007).
We employed the latter rather than Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale (BPS) because (1) none of the
studies applying the BPS in a country context (e.g., Hosany et al., 2006; Murphy, Moscardo, &
Benckendorff, 2007) could fully replicate its original five-dimensional structure, (2) the number of
dimensions and items derived from the BPS differs from study to study thus questioning the applicability
of the BPS in a country context, and (3) the scale of d'Astous and Boujbel (2007) has been specifically
developed to operationalize the construct of country (rather than brand) personality making it more
conceptually appropriate for purposes of the present study.
Respondents were told that people sometimes think of countries as if they were persons and
associate them with characteristics that are typically used to describe human beings. As an example, they
were told that Canada could be described as “somebody” welcoming, calm, and wise (see also d'Astous &
Boujbel, 2007). Using a seven-point format, subjects were subsequently asked to rate the extent to which these
24 personality traits describe the three stimuli countries (1=“does not describe this country at all”, 7=“describes
this country perfectly”).
25
3.3.2 Product-Country Image
PCI was measured with Roth and Romeo’s (1992) scale capturing consumers’ evaluations of
products from a specific country in terms of innovativeness, design, prestige, and workmanship. This scale
has subsequently been widely used in previous COO research (e.g., Li, Fu, & Murray, 1997; Okechuku &
Onyemah, 1999; Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2007). However, in contrast to previous applications, we
approach PCI as an aggregate (i.e., summary) construct rather than as a latent construct (Law et al., 1998).
Such a specification is conceptually fully consistent with Roth and Romeo’s (1992: 480, added emphasis)
own definition of PCI as “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” as
well as Narayana (1981: 32, added emphasis) who emphasizes that “the aggregate image for any
particular country’s product refers to the entire connotative field associated with that country’s product
offerings, as perceived by consumers”. The four items were rated on a nine-point semantic-differential
format. Subsequently, an aggregate score showing consumers’ overall evaluation of products stemming
from each stimulus country was created and used in the analysis.7
3.3.3 Socio-Psychological Constructs
An extensive literature review revealed that there is “little disagreement on the measurement of
national identity” (Blank & Schmidt, 2003: 296). Thus, similar to Verlegh (2007), we used a four-item
measure with items drawn from Doosje et al. (1995; 1998) and Mlicki and Ellemers (1996). Consumer
ethnocentrism was measured with the five-item version of the CETSCALE which has been previously
validated in a survey of more than 3000 consumers across the EU (Steenkamp, Hofstede, & Wedel, 1999).
Consumer cosmopolitanism was operationalized based on the three-dimensional structure proposed by
Riefler & Diamantopoulos (2009). Specifically, open-mindedness was measured with four items (e.g., “I
like to learn about other cultures”), diversity appreciation with three items (e.g., “having access to
products coming from many different countries is valuable to me”), and consumption transcending
borders with four items (e.g., “I love to buy bits and pieces from different countries to bring the world into
26
my home”). All items were rated on a Likert-type format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
3.3.4 Behavioral Intentions
Consumers’ purchase intentions were measured with three items taken from Putrevu & Lord
(1994). Consumers’ intention to visit a country were measured with four items taken from previous COO
and tourism research (i.e., Um & Crompton, 1990; Ger, 1991; Javalgi, Thomas, & Rao, 1992). All items
for the outcome variables were rated on a seven-point scale.
3.4 Manipulation Check
As a first check, based on prior measures of affect (Schmitt, Pan, & Tavassoli, 1994), four semantic
differential items ranging from 1 (“like”, “positive”, “good”, “pleasant”) to 8 (“dislike”, “negative”,
“bad”, “unpleasant”) of country affect were included in the questionnaire. It was expected that the three
stimuli countries would score differently on these items, with the home country scoring highest followed
by the affinity and animosity countries (in that order). A repeated measures ANOVA confirmed that
means were indeed significantly different at p<.001 across the three countries, with the home country
receiving the highest scores and Germany the lowest.
As a second manipulation check on the content validity of the personality dimensions as well as the
countries chosen, the personality profile of the home country was compared to those of Italy and
Germany. Using repeated measures ANOVA and controlling for familywise error using a Bonferroni
adjustment, significant differences (at p<.001) were observed for all three dimensions, with Italy scoring
higher than Germany on positive affect dimensions (i.e. agreeableness) and lower on negative affect
dimensions (i.e., wickedness and snobbism), these results are consistent with the affinity/animosity
distinction between Italy and Germany as country stimuli. Italy also scored highest on conformity,
consistent with its perception as a religious and traditional country in Europe (partly due to the influence
the Roman Catholic Church has in the country). Another criterion for selecting our foreign COO as stimuli
27
was the degree to which they were perceived as good production origins (as captured by assiduousness).
Here, Germany was expected to score significantly higher than Italy as it is well known for its high
production standards (see also Usunier & Cestre, 2007). Results confirm this hypothesis (at p<.001).
Finally, regarding unobtrusiveness, Italy and Germany received exactly the same scores and were
significantly different from the home country (at p<.001). The reason for this probably lies in the
relatively small size of the home country as well as its neutral stance in the European Union. Italy and
Germany belong to the largest economies and are both NATO members in addition to being EU members.
The home country has a much weaker vote in the European summit, which, coupled with its neutral status,
might induce people to feel inferior compared to the other two countries. Thus, in total, we find evidence
for the appropriateness of the countries chosen as stimuli as their personality profiles are indeed quite
distinct.
Insert Table 3 about here
4. Results
Structural equation modeling (SEM) using LISREL 8.80 was used to evaluate the measurement
properties of the operationalizations of our focal constructs and subsequently test the research hypotheses.
Following Gerbing & Anderson (1988), a two-step approach was employed, whereby the relevant
measurement models were examined first, followed by an estimation of the structural paths aimed at
testing the research hypotheses.
4.1 Measurement Model
Since all scales employed in our study had been validated in previous research, we used
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the psychometric properties of our measures (see Table 2
earlier). We used several criteria to evaluate the measurement items, including the magnitude of each
item’s loading and error variance estimate, cross-loadings of items, and the presence of correlated error
28
variances (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Steenkamp & Trijp, 1991). Based on this analysis, one item in the country
personality scale, namely “mysterious”, showed undesirable properties (i.e., factor loadings below the
recommended threshold value of .5, relatively high cross-loadings, and significant error correlations). As
omitting this item could be also defended from a content validity perspective (see endnote 6), we decided
to eliminate “mysterious” from the conformity dimension. This resulted in a significant improvement in fit
for the country personality model (home country: ∆χ²=101.27, ∆d.f.=22, p<.001; Italy: ∆χ²=129.77,
∆d.f.=22, p<.001; Germany: ∆χ²=100.43, ∆d.f.=22, p<.001). The measurement models for the other
constructs in our study showed acceptable fit requiring no adjustments in their original specification.8
Having established the overall fit of the measurement models, composite reliabilities were
calculated and were all well above the recommended threshold value of .60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
Convergent validity at the item level was assessed by examining the magnitude and significance of the
factor loadings and their associated t-values; the relevant parameter estimates were all positive and in the
expected direction (see Table 2). Discriminant validity between the six dimensions of the country
personality construct was assessed using procedures outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981), whereby the
shared variance between the dimensions of a construct should be less than the average variance extracted
(AVE) by either of the individual dimensions. Shared variances ranged from a minimum of almost 0 %
(conformity and wickedness) to a maximum of 44 % (snobbism and wickedness), whereas the AVEs from
46 % to 70 %, thus providing support for discriminant validity of the dimensions.
The discriminant validities of country personality, PCI, the three socio-psychological traits and the
behavioral intentions variables were assessed following Bagozzi’s (1993) procedure. The inter-construct
correlations between the six country personality dimensions and PCI ranged from a minimum of φ=-.19
(snobbism and PCI) to a maximum of φ=.52 (assiduousness and PCI). Next, for the two constructs with
the highest inter-correlations (i.e., assiduousness and PCI), two nested models were specified, one with
free correlation between the constructs, and one in which the inter-construct correlation was set to unity
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). The difference in χ² was significant (∆χ²=
29
31.30, ∆d.f.=1, p<.001), confirming that country personality and PCI are indeed distinct constructs. The inter-
construct correlations for purchase and visit intentions were φ= .36 (∆χ²=473.47, ∆d.f.=1, p<.001) for the
home country, and φ= .54 (∆χ²=405.58, ∆d.f.=1, p<.001) for Italy, indicating discriminant validity
between these two constructs.
For the socio-psychological traits, the inter-construct correlation between consumer ethnocentrism
and national identity was φ=.31 (∆χ²=1545.22, ∆d.f.=1, p<.001), between consumer ethnocentrism and
consumer cosmopolitanism φ=-.35 (∆χ²=226.85, ∆d.f.=1, p<.001), and between national identity and
consumer cosmopolitanism φ=-.07 (∆χ²=344.57, ∆d.f.=1, p<.001), suggesting that all are related but
nevertheless distinct constructs (see also Cleveland et al., 2009; Verlegh, 2007). These correlations are
also in line with our theoretical expectations. Consumer ethnocentrism is positively correlated with
national identity, because both share a pro-ingroup orientation. Consumer cosmopolitanism is strongly
negatively correlated with consumer ethnocentrism because the first values outgroups whereas the second
devalues them. Consumer cosmopolitanism has a small (but not significant) negative correlation with
national identity because these two constructs are almost orthogonal in nature with the first being pro-
outgroup, the second pro-ingroup. Thus, we have evidence that our socio-psychological construct cover a
wide range of ingroup and outgroup orientations.
4.2 Common Method Bias
Because all data are self-reported and collected using a cross-sectional research design, common
method bias might have confounded the true relationships among the theoretical constructs of interest
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). As noted, we took several procedural steps to minimize common method bias
during data collection. Regarding statistical remedies, in the pre-tests, we also included a measure of
social desirability (Netemeyer, Burton, & Lichtenstein, 1995), which refers to the tendency of some
people to respond to items more as a result of their social desirability than their true feelings (Podsakoff et
al., 2003). The correlations between the social desirability scale and our construct measures were all low
30
(the maximum being φ=-.25 for wickedness in the case of Germany and φ=-.23 in the case of Italy), which
is in line with the results of Netemeyer, Burton and Lichtenstein (1995) who reported on values ranging
between -.26 and .09. We thus conclude that socially-desirable responding is unlikely to pose a major
problem in our study.
For the main study, Harman’s one-factor test, confirmatory factor analysis, and Lindell &
Whitney’s (2001) marker variable assessment technique were used to assess common method bias.
Regarding the first assessment, all variables were entered into an exploratory factor analysis, to determine
the number of factors that are necessary to account for the variance in the variables. In no case did a single
factor explain the majority of the total variance and in all instances the number of factors extracted
corresponded to the number of theoretically expected constructs. In the home country model, eleven
factors (eigenvalues>1.0) were extracted; the first factor accounted for 24 % of the variance and all factors
together accounted for 73 % of the total variance. The models for Italy and Germany revealed similar
results: the eleven factors together accounted for 72 % (Italy) and 64 % (Germany) of the total variance;
the first (largest) factor did not account for a majority of the variance (Italy: 21 %; Germany: 18 %).
We also estimated a CFA model with all of the items loading onto a common method factor (see
also Iverson & Maguire, 2000; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995). Comparing this model with a measurement
model containing eleven latent variables for the home country and Italy, respectively, revealed a highly
significant deterioration in chi-square (home country: ∆χ²=9998.05, ∆d.f.=54, p<.001; Italy:
∆χ²=8343.02, ∆d.f.=54, p<.001; Germany: ∆χ²=10117.06, ∆d.f.=54, p<.001). This finding also did not
indicate that common method bias was severe.
Finally, Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker variable assessment technique was used. In line with
Rindfleisch, Burroughs, & Wong (2009) we conducted an analysis using education (1=less than high
school, 4=graduate school) as the marker variable. This item was selected as it was conceptually unrelated
to both our dependent variables and our predictor variables. Following Lindell and Whitney (2001), all
variables with negative correlations with either the predictor or criterion variables were reverse-scored (i.e.,
31
wickedness, snobbism, and unobtrusiveness). Next, the correlations between the marker variable and the
two criterion variables (i.e., consumers’ purchase and travel intentions) were inspected. As correlations were
all non-significant (i.e., -.01 and .04 in the home country context and .02 and .04 in the case of Germany), or
really low (i.e., .10 and .13 in the case of Italy), we have further support for the discriminant validity of our marker
variable. Next, we picked the smallest positive correlation of our marker variable with the predictor and/or
criterion variables, which was φ= .03 for the home country, φ= .02 for Italy, and φ= .01 for Germany. After
partialing out this value from the significant zero-order correlations between our constructs, all correlations
among our predictors and outcomes maintained statistical significance. Overall, the results of these
analyses did not suggest a threat of common method bias and provided further support for our measures’
validity.
Having established the psychometric soundness of our measures, we then proceeded to estimate the
structural model and test our research hypotheses.
4.3 Structural Model
Consistent with our research hypotheses, three models were estimated for the home country, Italy,
and Germany respectively (Table 4).9
Insert Table 4 about here
4.3.1 Country Personality and PCI (H1 – H3)
In both a home and foreign country context, out of the six personality dimensions, four showed a
significant impact on PCI. Specifically, among the positive dimensions, assiduousness and conformity were
significant predictors of PCI in the case of the home country and Italy, and all three dimensions significantly
impacted PCI in the case of Germany. This provides partial support for H1 for the home country and Italy, and
full support in the case of Germany. Regarding the negative personality dimensions, only unobtrusiveness was
a significant predictor (in all three countries). Thus, weak support for H2 is obtained. Overall, as
hypothesized, positive and negative traits of a country impact the evaluation of a country’s PCI, with the
32
former traits playing a more important role than the latter. PCI turned out to be a significant predictor not
only of consumers’ intentions to purchase products from a country (H3a), but also their intentions to visit a
particular country (H3b). This fully supports H3 and highlights that consumers’ country image perceptions
have behavioral implications that go beyond product purchases.
4.3.2 National Identity (H4-H6).
In line with social identity theory, national identity had a strong and positive impact on positive
home country personality traits and a negative impact on negative home country personality traits. Thus,
H4 is fully supported. In a home country context, national identity strongly and significantly impacted on
PCI and consumers’ intentions to purchase products from, and visit a particular country. Thus, H5 and H6
are also fully supported.
4.3.3 Consumer Ethnocentrism (H7-H11).
The impact of consumer ethnocentrism on the focal constructs in our model turned out to be
dependent on the country setting. Specifically, in a home country context, the impact of consumer
ethnocentrism on the behavioral outcomes is fully mediated via its impact on assiduousness; this offers
only weak support for H7a. As no direct impact on PCI or any of the outcomes was observed, H9a and
H10 (a,b) were not supported. In a foreign country context, on the other hand, consumer ethnocentrism
had a strong and direct impact on purchase intentions (supporting H11a), but not visit intentions (H11b)
and PCI (H9b); these findings apply to both Italy and Germany. The impact of consumer ethnocentrism on
the country personality dimensions varied depending on the specific foreign country used as stimulus. In
the affinity country context (Italy), a strong link to negative traits such as snobbism and unobtrusiveness
was found, and in the animosity country case (Germany) a strong impact on wickedness was additionally
observed. Thus, H8b is partially supported with respect to Italy and fully supported with respect to
Germany. Regarding the impact of consumer ethnocentrism on the positive country personality
dimensions, no effect was found for Italy, while a positive link between consumer ethnocentrism and
33
conformity was found for Germany, which is contrary to expectations. Thus, H8a is rejected. An
explanation for this counterintuitive finding is perhaps provided by research on the Big Five. There,
openness to experience is expected to serve as a ‘double-edged sword’ that predisposes individuals to feel
both the good and the bad” (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998, p. 199). Thus, despite being perceived as a positive
trait of a country with respect to PCI (H7a/H8a), conformity appears to be a negative trait of a country
from the perspective of ethnocentric consumers.
4.3.4 Consumer Cosmopolitanism (H12-H14).
In line with our expectation, consumer cosmopolitanism had a significant impact on PCI and
consumers’ purchase and visit intentions, thus providing full support for H13 and H14 (a,b). An
interesting finding was detected with respect to its impact on the country personality dimensions (H12). In
the affinity country context (Italy), consumer cosmopolitanism had a significant impact on agreeableness
and conformity as well as wickedness. In the animosity country context (Germany), on the other hand, no
impact on any country personality dimension was found. Thus, in contrast to consumer ethnocentrism that
seems to bias consumers’ positive traits of the home country and negative traits of a foreign country,
cosmopolitan consumers seem to focus more on positive traits of a foreign country. Furthermore, the
influence of consumer ethnocentrism seems to be relatively more influential in an animosity country
context, and cosmopolitanism in an affinity country context.
4.3.5 Mediation analyses.
To test the mediation effect of PCI linking the antecedents (i.e., the six personality dimensions and
the socio-psychological traits) and the two outcomes in our model (i.e., purchase and visit intentions), we
estimated alternative structural models based on Baron & Kenny (1986) and the application thereof by
Maxham & Netemeyer (2002) and Andrews, Netemeyer, Burton, Moberg, & Christiansen (2004).
Specifically, we investigated four conditions under which the existence of mediation can be satisfactorily
documented (see Table 5). The first condition is satisfied when all antecedents directly impact on the
34
mediator (PCI). The second condition is satisfied if the mediator affects the dependent variables (purchase
and visit intentions). Both conditions were tested by the paths estimated in the hypothesized model
previously illustrated in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 4.
The third condition is satisfied if the antecedents (the six personality dimensions and the socio-
psychological traits) affect the two outcomes in our model. In line with Maxham and Netemeyer (2002),
we estimated a model with only direct paths from the antecedents to purchase and visit intentions. In this
direct model, the covariations among the socio-psychological traits, the six country personality
dimensions and PCI, and the covariation between PCI and the two outcome variables have not been
accounted for, thus decreasing model fit.
As expected, and shown in Table 5, the relationships between the socio-psychological traits and the
outcomes did not change compared to the hypothesized model, with national identity and consumer
cosmopolitanism having a strong impact on all outcomes, and consumer ethnocentrism influencing
consumers’ intentions to purchase foreign products only. Surprisingly, and in contrast to the argument
usually raised in the literature that an object’s personality is too abstract to be directly related to consumer
behavior (Kassarjian, 1971), most of the country personality also showed direct and strong effects on the
outcomes in our model. Agreeableness had a strong and significant (p < .05) impact on consumers’
intentions to purchase products from the home and foreign countries, as well as intentions to visit foreign
countries. In a foreign country context, assiduousness significantly (p < .01) impacted on consumers’
purchase and visit intentions. Wickedness had a strong (p < .01) and negative impact on consumers’
intentions to purchase products from the home country, and snobbism on consumers’ intentions to visit
foreign countries (p < .01). The only counterintuitive finding was the positive effect of unobtrusiveness on
consumers’ intentions to purchase products from the home country. Thus, despite having a negative effect
on PCI in all three settings (i.e., home and foreign), unobtrusiveness seems to be positively related to
purchase behavior in the home country. A possible explanation for this unexpected result is offered by the
special position of the home country in relation to the other two countries (see also earlier section on
35
manipulation check). Specifically, because respondents come from a country that is neutral and relatively
small compared to the other two, they might feel inferior; this might lead them to engage in identity
enhancing mechanisms such as purchasing home country products. At the same time, the respondents
seem to acknowledge that countries that are dependent, cowardly and wimpy (as implied by the
unobtrusiveness dimension) do not produce high quality products (hence the negative relationship with
PCI).
Overall, we can conclude that the third condition for mediation is satisfied for the socio-
psychological traits as well as for agreeableness, assiduousness, wickedness, snobbism and
unobtrusiveness in the instances described above (Table 5).
Insert Table 5 about here
The fourth condition is satisfied if the direct paths from the independent variables (the six
personality dimensions and the socio-psychological traits) to the dependent variables (purchase and visit
intentions) become nonsignificant (full mediation) or their impact is reduced (partial mediation) when the
paths from the independent variables to the mediator (PCI) are included in the model. The full model
(incorporating direct paths from the antecedents to the outcomes) performed significantly better than the
hypothesized model shown in Figure 1 in all three countries (home country: ∆χ2 = 30.50, ∆d.f. = 12, p <
.001; Italy: ∆χ2 = 69.17, ∆d.f. = 12, p < .001; Germany: ∆χ2 = 59.09, ∆ d.f. = 12, p < .001). This indicates
that PCI does not fully mediate all the effects of the antecedents to the outcomes in our model.
Specifically, a closer inspection of these models revealed that the path from assiduousness to the outcome
variables in a foreign country context became nonsignificant, supporting full mediation. On the other
hand, the direct paths from agreeableness (home and foreign country) and snobbism (foreign country) to
purchase and visit intentions and wickedness and unobtrusiveness to purchase intentions (home country)
remained significant thus rejecting the full mediation hypotheses.
In line with Maxham and Netemeyer (2002), we finally estimated a model in which all
nonsignificant paths were removed (i.e., a partial mediation model). Comparing the latter to the full
36
model, the increase in chi-square was significant for Italy (∆χ2 = 42.17, ∆d.f. = 12, p < .001), but not the
home country and Germany (home country: ∆χ2 = 8.76, ∆d.f. = 12, p > .10; Germany: ∆χ2 = 7.97, ∆d.f. =
9, p > .10). These analyses collectively indicate that PCI either fully or partially mediates the relationships
between country personality and socio-psychological traits and the outcomes in our model.
4.3.6 Additional Analysis.
To investigate the relative predictive validity of PCI versus socio-psychological traits on behavioral
intentions, we compared two modified versions of our conceptual model shown earlier in Figure 1. In the
first version, the paths from consumer ethnocentrism and national identity or consumer cosmopolitansim
to the three behavioral outcomes were set to zero (thus leaving PCI as the sole predictor of behavioral
intentions), whereas in the second version the paths from PCI to the two behavioral outcomes were set to
zero (thus leaving the socio-psychological traits as the only predictors of behavioral intentions). As
Table 6 shows, PCI was less important than socio-psychological in the case of the home country and Italy,
but not in the case of Germany. Thus, it appears that for countries that are popular tourism destinations,
socio-psychological traits of consumers are more important than PCI. For countries that are known for the
meticulous workmanship of their products such as Germany, on the other hand, PCI is the most important
predictor, and can even be an important determinant of tourism intentions.
Insert Table 6 about here
We used a similar approach to identify the relative importance of country personality versus socio-
psychological influences as antecedents of PCI perceptions. The results showed that country personality is
a much stronger predictor of PCI than either national identity, consumer ethnocentrism or consumer
cosmopolitanism (36% vs. 17% for the home country; 26% vs. 14% for Italy; 27% vs. 14% for Germany).
Thus, and in line with Shankarmahesh (2006) who calls for more caution when distinguishing between
country and consumer characteristics, our research findings show that the symbolic value of a country is a
more important driver of a country’s product image than socio-psychological traits of consumers.
37
5. Conclusions and Implications
Drawing from social identity theory, this study developed and tested a conceptual model linking
five key constructs in COO research (country personality, product-country image, national identity,
consumer ethnocentrism, and consumer cosmopolitanism) to consumers’ behavioral intentions in both
domestic and foreign country settings. Our study thus offers a response to the often expressed criticism
that COO studies lack a solid theoretical foundation (e.g., Usunier, 2006; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999)
and also provides a holistic treatment of both country-specific (captured by country personality and PCI)
as well as consumer-specific characteristics (captured by national identity, consumer ethnocentrism, and
consumer cosmopolitanism) and their impact on distinct outcome variables (namely intentions to purchase
products from, and visit a given country). Importantly, our study is the first to embed the newly-developed
country personality construct within a network of theoretically relevant constructs and to examine its
relationships to both potential antecedents (i.e., socio-psychological traits of consumers) and
consequences (i.e., PCI).
From a theoretical perspective, the present study expands the scope of extant COO research by
recognizing that “country-of-origin is not merely a cognitive cue for product quality” (Verlegh &
Steenkamp, 1999: 523) and by approaching consumers’ perceptions of countries from a personality
perspective in addition to a conventional PCI perspective. Previous studies focusing on country images
often faced the problem that, especially in low familiarity situations, consumers were not always able to
evaluate a country (e.g., its political stability or stage of economic development; see Martin & Eroglu,
1993). In contrast, consumers do not face this problem when evaluating a country’s personality because a
rather abstract object such as a country is assigned with concrete personality traits that are easily
accessible in memory by consumers since they routinely use them to describe other people in their day-to-
day environment (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007). Given that consumers tend to anthropomorphize objects to
facilitate interactions with the non-material world (Fournier, 1998), assigning countries a personality may
simply help consumers “connect” with different countries and, thus, facilitate the formation of PCI
38
perceptions. In this context, with the exception of snobbism, a parallel of the country personality
dimensions to the Big Five human personality dimensions could be drawn. Interestingly, the neuroticism
dimension of the Big Five – which in many aspects is comparable to negative affect – seems to be split
into two distinct negative dimensions, namely wickedness and snobbism.
Regarding the relationships of the six country personality dimensions to extant COO research, our
findings show that country personality has a strong impact on the PCI of both the home and foreign
countries, although the relative importance of each personality dimension differs. Specifically,
assiduousness, conformity, and unobtrusiveness significantly influence PCI in both a domestic and a
foreign country setting, and agreeableness in the case of Germany. Wickedness and snobbism, on the
other hand, did not significantly affect consumers’ PCI perceptions, but impacted purchase intentions and
visit intentions directly. In a similar way, agreeableness consistently impacted both outcomes in a home
and foreign country setting. Thus, it appears that dimensions that are related to the evaluation of a country
as a production location, such as assiduousness, conformity and unobtrusiveness, are fully mediated via
PCI. Affective dimensions such as agreeableness, wickedness and snobbism, on the other hand, impact
consumer behavior directly and independently of PCI. This is in line with findings from the emotions
literature, showing that emotions can be a strong predictor of behavioral intentions independent of
cognitive factors (e.g., Richins, 1997; Schoefer & Diamantopoulos, 2008).
Our study also extends our understanding of the factors that influence consumers’ country
personality and PCI perceptions by highlighting the role of consumers’ socio-psychological traits as
relevant antecedents (Samiee, 2009). In this respect, we address another gap often highlighted in the COO
literature, namely that “research into the antecedents and influences of national image formation remains
virtually non-existent” (Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2003: 424). Particularly interesting in this respect is the
identified impact of national identity in a home country and consumer cosmopolitanism in a foreign
country context on country personality, PCI and behavioral intentions. Both national identity and
consumer cosmopolitanism appear to be key drivers of these three constructs which is not the case for
39
consumer ethnocentrism.10 The latter appears to mainly influence the negative personality dimensions of
foreign countries, which ultimately result in negative buying intentions. Thus, our study provides further
support for a central conceptual feature of the ethnocentrism construct, namely the devaluation of out-
groups (Shankarmahesh, 2006), especially in an animosity country context. At the same time, consumer
cosmopolitanism seems to affect country personality in an affinity but not in an animosity country context.
Thus, we find further evidence for the pro-outgroup orientation of cosmopolitan consumers (Jaffe &
Nebenzahl, 2006).
A third theoretical contribution of the present study is that it highlights the role that (perceived)
characteristics of countries (i.e., country personality and PCI) play relative to socio-psychological
characteristics of consumers (i.e., national identity, consumer ethnocentrism, and consumer
ethnocentrism) in shaping consumer behavior. Previous COO studies have tended to focus on either
country characteristics (typically PCI) or consumer characteristics (usually consumer ethnocentrism) but,
with few exceptions (e.g., Balabanis, Mueller, & Melewar, 2007), have failed to consider both sets of
characteristics simultaneously. In contrast, our approach, using social identity theory as an integrative
framework, has enabled us to assess the relative importance of both country and consumer characteristics
as predictors of different behavioral intentions. Of particular interest – and relevance for related research
streams such as tourism research – is the revealed impact of PCI not only on purchase intentions but also
on visit intentions. This supports Han’s (1989) view that PCI can serve as a summary cue which may also
affect the non-product related decisions.
On the methodological front, our study’s main contribution lies in the independent validation of
d’Astous and Boujbel’s (2007) country personality scale. While the latter was originally developed in a
single country (Canada), our study replicated the scale in a different national context and intensively
assessed its psychometric properties. Our results revealed a valid and reliable scale that behaved as expected in
a network of theoretically-relevant constructs. We thus increase confidence regarding the use of the scale in
future research. The only exception might be the conformity dimension, which showed undesirable
40
measurement properties as indicated by relatively low AVEs and composite reliabilities. Hence, future
research should be cautious when using this dimension and perhaps employ all items originally comprised
in this dimension rather than the short 4-item version put forward by d’Astous and Boujbel (2007).
A second methodological contribution of our study is that it highlights the fact that consumers’
socio-psychological traits and PCI perceptions are not orthogonal (i.e., uncorrelated) predictors of
behavioral intentions. From a statistical modeling perspective, this implies that omission of either set of
constructs in models of behavioral outcomes is likely to result in model misspecification with all the
negative consequences (e.g., biased parameter estimates) this entails.
From a managerial perspective, our study provides insights regarding country-related and
consumer-related factors that drive behavioral intentions and which, therefore, need to be considered when
developing international marketing strategies. Marketers who seek to promote a “buy domestic” theme
should reinforce positive associations of the home country and, in particular, target people via their
feelings of national attachment. Companies promoting their products internationally, on the other hand,
have several options. They could focus on socio-psychological traits of consumers such as
cosmopolitanism to define their target group. Alternatively, they could reinforce the traits associated with
their origin country in their international campaigns. A current example of the latter strategy is provided
by Citroën that wanted to pitch its C5 saloon model as a credible company car alternative to German
competitors Audi and BMW in the UK. It knew this would be no easy task - not only has Citroën
traditionally been thought of as a value brand, it also lacks the German heritage typically associated with
top-end cars. Citroën launched an advertising campaign where its new C5 model was shown in front of
famous German sights (e.g., the Brandenburger Tor) and the strap-line '"Unmistakably German*" *Made
in France' was used at the end of the commercial. The C5 gained a fourfold increase in sector share as a
result, spontaneous awareness of the C5 has risen from 3% to 15%, and purchase consideration up 50%
from 4% to 6%. Thus, associating a product with positive traits of a country seems to pay off.
41
Country personality can also serve as a benchmarking tool for public policy officials when they
want to know how their country is positioned in the international arena from the perspective of a
consumer. In this respect, the country personality scale can be used to create country profiles enabling
comparisons of the focal country with the profiles of its most important competitors. From a diagnostic
perspective, the country personality dimensions provide concrete guidance on which factors public policy
has to focus on when designing image enhancement or repositioning strategies. For example, as
assiduousness seems to be the most important determinant of a favorable PCI, countries scoring high on this
dimension obviously have an advantage as a production location. On the negative side, countries scoring high
on, say, unobtrusiveness seem to face a significant problem as this personality trait negatively influences
consumers’ PCI perceptions.
6. Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Research on country personality is still at a very early stage. Our study lays the first ground in
exploring whether country personality impacts PCI and behavioral intentions in different contexts (i.e.,
home, animosity, and affinity country). Given that our study was conducted in a single country within the
European Union, further replication in other settings and with other target countries (e.g., varying in terms
of cultural distance and/or geographical proximity) as stimuli is necessary to generalize our findings.
Replication efforts in this direction are, of course, also needed to test the cross-national invariance of the
country personality scale.
Second, in terms of scope, the key focus of our study was on linking the relatively new country
personality construct to established constructs in the COO literature. In line with previous research (see
Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009), we have focused on overall product evaluations in order to ensure
generalizability of findings. Otherwise, it would be difficult to identify whether the observed effects is due
to the country (home, animosity or affinity) or the specific product category chosen (e.g., functional versus
hedonic). Future research should analyze whether our findings also hold for specific product categories
42
(e.g., do cognitive country personality dimension also have an impact on the PCI of hedonic products?)
and/or brands. Also, visit intentions could be broken down into specific destinations (e.g., a town, a
region, a holiday resort). Such a research design could also consider other extrinsic cues such as price,
brand or warranty in order to evaluate the relative importance of country personality and socio-
psychological traits relative to these other cues on behavioral intentions.
Third, our findings show that apart from consumer ethnocentrism, which is an established construct
in the COO literature, national identity and consumer cosmopolitanism seem to be very promising
constructs in explaining behavior in a home and a foreign country setting respectively (see also Riefler &
Diamantopoulos, 2009; Verlegh, 2007). However, several other socio-psychological traits such as
xenocentrism (Kent & Burnright, 1951), xenophilia (Perlmutter, 1954) or global consumption orientation
(Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 2006) could also be investigated in conjunction with the country personality
and PCI constructs in future research efforts to identify their impact on consumer behavior.
43
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and Consequences of Customer-Company Identification: Expanding the Role of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574-585.
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Batra, R. (2006). Consumer Attitudes Toward Marketplace Globalization: Structure, Antecedents and Consequences. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 227-239.
Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., Burton, S., Moberg, D. P., & Christiansen, A. (2004). Understanding Adolescent Intentions to Smoke: An Examination of Relationships Among Social Influence, Prior Trial Behavior, and Antitobacco Campaign Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 110-123.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1993). Assessing Construct Validity in Personality Research. Applications to Measures of Self-Esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 27(1), 49-87.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421-458.
Balabanis, G. & Diamantopoulos, A. (2004). Domestic Country Bias, Country-of-Origin Effects, and Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Multidimensional Unfolding Approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 80-95.
Balabanis, G., Mueller, R., & Melewar, T. C. (2007). In-Group and Out-Group Orientations and Their Relation to Formation of Country-of-Origin Image Stereotypes. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 1(3), 328-344.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychology Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a Personology of the Consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 286-292.
Behling, O. & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating Questionnaires and other Research Instruments: Problems and Solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Belk, Russel W. (1998). Been There, Done That, Bought the Souvenirs: Of Journeys and Boundary Crossing. In S. Brown & D. Turley (Eds.), Consumer Research: Postcards from the Edge, 22-45. New York: Routledge.
44
Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London, UK, Sage.
Birdwell, A. E. (1968). A Study of the Influence of Image Congruence on Consumer Choice. Journal of Business, 41(1), 76-88.
Blank, T. & Schmidt, P. (2003). National Identity in a United Germany: Nationalism or Patriotism? An Empirical Test With Representative Data. Political Psychology, 24(2), 289-312.
Bosnjak, M., Bratko, D., Galesic, M., & Tuten, T. (2007). Editorial: Consumer Personality and Individual Differences: Revitalizing a Temporarily Abandoned Field. Journal of Business Research, 60(6), 587-589.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). Distinction. London, Routledge.
Branscombe, N. R. & Wann, D. L. (1991). The positive social and self concept consequences of sport team identification. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15, 115-127.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444.
Brijs, K. (2006). Unravelling Country-of-Origin - Semiotics as a Theoretical Basis for a Meaning-Centred Approach Towards Country-of-Origin Effects. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Brown, R. (2000). Social Identity Theory: Past Achievements, Current Problems and Future Challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745-778.
Cannon, H. M. & Yaprak, A. (2002). Will the Real-World Citizen Please Stand Up! The Many Faces of Cosmopolitan Consumer Behavior. Journal of International Marketing, 10(4), 30-52.
Cannon, H. M., Yoon, S.-J., McGowan, L., & Yaprak, A. (1994). In Search of the Global Consumer. In 1994 Annual Meeting of the Academy of International Business.
Chao, P. & Rajendran, K. N. (1993). Consumer Profiles and Perceptions: Country-of-Origin Effects. International Marketing Review, 10(2), 22-39.
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2009). Cosmopolitanism, Consumer Ethnocentrism, and Materialism: An Eight-Country Study of Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal of International Marketing, 17(1), 116.
Crocker, J. & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective Self-Esteem and Ingroup Bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 60-67.
Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. (1960). A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(August), 349-354.
d'Astous, A. & Boujbel, L. (2007). Positioning Countries on Personality Dimensions: Scale Development and Implications for Country Marketing. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 231-239.
d'Astous, A. & Lévesque, M. (2003). A Scale for Measuring Store Personality. Psychology & Marketing, 20(5), 455-469.
45
DeNeve, K. M. & Cooper, H. (1998). The Happy Personality: A Meta-Analysis of 137 Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197-229.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Dinnie, K. (2002). Implications of National Identity for Marketing Strategy. The Marketing Review, 2(3), 285-300.
Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence Relationships Between Self-Images and Product Brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80-84.
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. (1998). Guilty by Association: When One's Group Has a Negative History. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 872-886.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived Intragroup Variability as a Function of Group Status and Identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(5), 410-436.
Dreher, A. (2007). Does Globalization Affect Growth? Evidence from a new Index of Globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091-1110.
Duckitt, J. & Mphuthing, T. (1998). Group Identifiication and Intergroup Attitudes: A Longitudinal Analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 80-85.
Ekincy, Y. & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination Personality: An Application of Brand Personality to Tourism Destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 127-139.
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the Legitimacy of Low Group or Individual Status on Individual and Collective Status-Enhancement Strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 766-778.
Elliott, R. (1994). Exploring the Symbolic Meaning of Brands. British Journal of Management, 5(Special Issue), S13-S19.
Feather, N. T. (1981). National Sentiment in a Newly Independent Nation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(6), 1017-1028.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373.
Ger, Güliz (1991). Country Image: Perceptions, Attitudes, Associations, and Their Relationships to Context. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference in Marketing and Development, 390-8. New Delhi, India.
Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186-192.
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & DeWulf, K. (2009). A New Measure of Brand Personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97-107.
46
Govers, P. M. & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). Product Personality and Its Influence on Consumer Preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 189-197.
Granzin, K. L. & Painter, J. J. (2001). Motivational Influences on "Buy Domestic" Purchasing: Marketing Management Implications from a Study of Two Nations. Journal of International Marketing, 9(2), 73-96.
Guthrie, Stewart E. (1997). Anthropomorphism: A Definition and a Theory. In R. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals, 50-8. Alban, NY: State University of New York Press.
Han, C. M. (1989). Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct? Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 222-229.
Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and Locals in a World Culture. Theory, Culture and Society, 7, 237-251.
Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning. New York, Columbia University Press.
Heslop, L. A., Papadopoulos, N., & Bamossy, G. (1993). Country and Product Perceptions: Measurement Scales and Image Interactions. Dimensions of International Business, 9(1), 39-58.
Heslop, L. A., Papadopoulos, N., Dowdles, M., Wall, M., & Compeau, D. (2004). Who Controls the Purse Strings: A Study of Consumers' and Retail Buyers' Reactions in an America's FTA Environment. Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1177-1188.
Hewstone, Miles (1986). Towards a Socio-Psychological Analysis of 'Europeanism'. In M. Hewstone (Ed.), Understanding Attitudes to the European Community: A Social-Psychological Study in Four Member States, 51-94. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hewstone, M., Jaspars, J., & Lalljee, M. (1982). Social Representations, Social Attribution and Social Identity: The Intergroup Images of "Public" and "Comprehensive" Schoolboys. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12(3), 241-269.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.
Hirschmann, E. C. (1994). Consumers and Their Animal Companions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(March), 616-632.
Holt, D. B. (1997). Poststructuralist Lifestyle Analysis: Conceptualizing the Social Patterning of Consumption in Postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 326-350.
Homburg, C., Cannon, J. P., Krohmer, H., & Kiedaisch, I. (2009). Governance of International Business Relationships: A Cross-Cultural Study on Alternative Governance Modes. Journal of International Marketing, 17(3), 1-20.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination Image and Destination Personality: An Application of Branding Theories to Tourism Places. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 638-642.
47
Hsieh, M.-H., Pan, S.-L., & Setiono, R. (2004). Product-, Corporate-, and Country-Image Dimensions and Purchase Behavior: A Multicountry Analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 251-270.
Ittersum, K. v., Candel, M. J. J. M., & Meulenberg, M. T. G. (2003). The Influence of the Image of a Product's Region of Origin on Product Evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 56(3), 215-226.
Iverson, R. D. & Maguire, C. (2000). The Relationship between Job and Life Satisfaction: Evidence from a Remote Mining Community. Human Relations, 53(6), 807-839.
Jackson, J. W. (1993). Realistic Group Conflict Theory: A Review and Evaluation of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature. The Psychological Record, 43(3), 395-413.
Jaffe, E. D. & Nebenzahl, I. D. (2006). National Image and Competitive Advantage. Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School Press.
Javalgi, R. G., Thomas, E. G., & Rao, S. R. (1992). US Pleasure Travelers' Perceptions of Selected European Destinations. European Journal of Marketing, 26(7), 45-64.
John, Oliver P. (1990). The "Big Five" Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Natural Language and in Questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 66-100. New York: Guilford Press.
Josiassen, A. & Harzing, A.-W. (2008). Descending from the Ivory Tower: Reflections on the Relevance and Future of Country-of-Origin Research. European Management Review, 5, 264-270.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management. London, Kogan Page.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(4), 409-418.
Keller, K. L. & Richey, K. (2006). The Importance of Corporate Brand Personality Traits to a Successful 21st Century Business. Journal of Brand Management, 14(1/2), 74-81.
Kent, D. P. & Burnright, R. G. (1951). Group Centrism in Complex Societies. American Journal of Sociology, 57(November), 256-259.
Kiesler, T. (2006). Anthropomorphism and Consumer Behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), 149.
Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People's Republic of China. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 89-100.
Konrad, G. (1984). Antipolitics. San Diego, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Korsgaard, M. A. & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural Justice in Performance Evaluation: The Role of Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Voice in Performance Appraisal Discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M. (2005). The Influence of Country Image Structure on Consumer Evaluations of Foreign Products. International Marketing Review, 22(1), 96-115.
48
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can People Feel Happy and Sad at the Same Time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 684-696.
Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a Taxonomy of Multidimensional Constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 741-755.
Lefkoff-Hagius, R. & Mason, C. H. (1993). Characteristic, Beneficial, and Image Attributes in Consumer Judgments of Similarity and Preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(June), 100-110.
Levine, R. A. & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior. New York, NY, Wiley.
Li, Z. G., Fu, S., & Murray, W. L. (1997). Country and Product Images: The Perceptions of Consumers in the People's Republic of China. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 10(1-2), 115-138.
Lindell, M. K. & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121.
Longman (1987). Dictionary of Contemporary English. München, Langenscheidt.
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, A. R. (2000). Intergroup Emotions: Explaining Offensive Action Tendencies in an Intergroup Context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602-616.
Mackie, D. M. & Smith, E. R. (1998). Intergroup Relations: Insights from a Theoretically Integrative Approach. Psychological Review, 105(4), 499-529.
Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A Scale to Measure Self-Concepts, Person Concepts and Product Concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 3(December), 456-464.
Martin, I. M. & Eroglu, S. (1993). Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct: Country Image. Journal of Business Research, 28(3), 191-210.
Maxham, J. G. & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). Modeling Customer Perceptions of Complaint Handling Over Time: The Effects of Perceived Justice on Satisfaction and Intent. Journal of Retailing, 78, 239-252.
Merriam-Webster (2008). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Accessed 9 April 2008.
Mlicki, P. P. & Ellemers, N. (1996). Being Different or Being Better? National Stereotypes and Identifications of Polish and Dutch Students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(1), 97-114.
Mossberg, L. & Kleppe, I. A. (2005). Country and Destination Image - Different or Similar Image Concepts? Service Industries Journal, 25(4), 493-503.
Mowen, J. C. (2000). The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to Consumer Behavior. Boston, Kluwer Academic.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using Brand Personality to Differentiate Regional Tourism Destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 5-14.
49
Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O'Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008). Destination in a Country Image Context. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 84-106.
Narayana, C. L. (1981). Aggregate Images of American and Japanese Products: Implication on International Marketing. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16(2), 31-35.
Nebenzahl, I. D., Jaffe, E. D., & Usunier, J.-C. (2003). Personifying Country of Origin Research. Management International Review, 43(4), 383-406.
Netemeyer, R. G., Burton, S., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1995). Trait Aspects of Vanity: Measurement and Relevance to Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(March), 612-626.
Okechuku, C. & Onyemah, V. (1999). Nigerian Consumer Attitudes toward Foreign and Domestic Products. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3), 611-622.
Papadopoulos, Nicolas & Heslop, L. A. (2003). Country Equity and Product-Country Images: State-of-the-Art in Research and Implications. In S. C. Jain (Ed.), Handbook of Research in International Marketing, 402-33. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & IKON Research Group (2000). A Cross-national and Longitudinal Study of Product-Country Images with a Focus on the U.S. and Japan. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute, 1-67.
Papadopoulos, Nicolas, Heslop, L. A., Szamosi, L., Ettenson, R., & Mort, G. S. (1997). 'Czech Made' or Check Mate? An Assessment of the Competitiveness of East European Products. In D. Arnott, S. Bridgewater, S. Dibb, P. Doyle, J. Freeman, T. Melewar, V. Shaw, L. Simkin, P. Stern, R. Wensley, & V. Wong (Eds.), 26th EMAC Conference, 20-23rd May 1997, 993-1012. Coventry.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2007). Country Image and Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Relationship and Implications for International Marketing. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 726-745.
Parameswaran, R. & Pisharodi, R. M. (1994). Facets of Country of Origin Image: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Advertising, 23(1), 43-61.
Pereira, A., Hsu, C.-C., & Kundu, S. K. (2005). Country-of-Origin Image: Measurement and Cross-national Testing. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 103-106.
Perlmutter, H. V. (1954). Some Characteristics of the Xenophilic Personality. The Journal of Psychology, 38, 291-300.
Peterson, R. A. & Jolibert, A. J. P. (1995). A Quantitative Analysis of Country-of-Origin Effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), 883-900.
Pisharodi, R. M. & Parameswaran, R. (1992). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Country-of-Origin Scale: Initial Results. Advances in Consumer Research, 19(2), 706-714.
Plummer, J. T. (1985). How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(6), 27-31.
50
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Putrevu, S. & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and Noncomparative Advertising: Attitudinal Effects Under Cognitive and Affective Involvement Conditions. Journal of Advertising, 23(June), 77-90.
Reynolds, N. L., Simintiras, A. C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2003). Theoretical Justification of Sampling Choices in International Marketing Research: Key Issues and Guidelines for Researchers. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 80-89.
Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 127.
Riefler, P. & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Consumer Cosmopolitanism: Review and Replication of the CYMYC Scale. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 407-419.
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. The Safety of Objects: Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection. Journal of Consumer Research, in press.
Roth, K. P. & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 726-740.
Roth, M. S. & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching Product Category and Country Image Perceptions: A Framework for Managing Country-of-Origin Effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(3), 477-497.
Samiee, S. (1994). Customer Evaluation of Products in a Global Market. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(3), 579-604.
Samiee, S. Advancing the Country Image Construct - A Commentary Essay. Journal of Business Research, in press.
Schmitt, B. H., Pan, Y., & Tavassoli, N. T. (1994). Language and Consumer Memory: The Impact of Linguistic Differences Between Chinese and English. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(December), 419-431.
Schoefer, K. & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). Measuring Experienced Emotions During Service Recovery Encounters: Construction and Assessment of the ESRE Scale. Service Business, 2(1), 65-81.
Shankarmahesh, M. N. (2006). Consumer Ethnocentrism: An Integrative Review of its Antecedents and Consequences. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 146-172.
Sharma, S., Shimp, T. A., & Shin, J. (1995). Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents and Moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 26-37.
Shimp, T. A. & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280-289.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J. O., Kye-Sung, C., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J. S., & Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 229.
51
Sirgy, M. J., Johar, J. S., Samli, A. C., & Claiborne, C. B. (1991). Self-Congruity Versus Functional Congruity: Predictors of Consumer Behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 363.
Sirgy, M. J. & Su, C. (2000). Destination Image, Self-Congruity, and Travel Behavior: Toward an Integrative Model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340-352.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138-161.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Batra, R., & Alden, D. L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53-65.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Hofstede, F. t., & Wedel, M. (1999). A Cross-National Investigation into the Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 55-69.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. & Trijp, H. C. M. (1991). The Use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283-299.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: The sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York, Ginn & Co.
Sung, Y. & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 334-350.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Reations. London, Academic Press.
Tajfel, Henri & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In S. Worchel & Austin W. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7-24. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Tajfel, Henri & Turner, J. C. (2004). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational Identity, 56-65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, C. J. & Tambyah, S. K. (1999). Trying to be Cosmopolitan. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 214-241.
Turner, B. S. (2002). Cosmopolitan Virtue, Globalization and Patriotism. Theory, Culture and Society, 19(1-2), 45-63.
Turner, John C. (1999). Some Current Issues in Research on Social Identity and Self-Categorization Theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social Identity, 6-34. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Um, S. & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude Determinants in Tourism Destination Choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432-448.
Usunier, J.-C. (2006). Relevance in Business Research: The Case of Country-of-Origin Research in Marketing. European Management Review, 3, 60-73.
52
Usunier, J.-C. & Cestre, G. (2007). Product Ethnicity: Revisiting the Match Between Products and Countries. Journal of International Marketing, 15(3), 32-72.
Verlegh, P. W. J. (2001). Country-of-Origin Effects on Consumer Product Evaluations. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Verlegh, P. W. J. (2007). Home Country Bias in Product Evaluation: The Complementary Roles of Economic and Socio-Psychological Motives. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3), 361-373.
Verlegh, P. W. J. & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1999). A Review and Meta-Analysis of Country-of-Origin Research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5), 521-546.
Yik, M. S. M. & Russel, J. A. (2001). Predicting the Big Two of Affect from the Giv Five of Personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 247-277.
Yoon, S.-J., Cannon, H. M., & Yaprak, A. (1995). Evaluating the CYMYC Cosmopolitan Scale on Korean Consumers. Advances in International Marketing, 7, 211-232.
Yoon, S.-J., Cannon, H. M., & Yaprak, A. (1996). A Cross-Cultural Study of the "Cosmopolitanism" Construct: Validation of a New Cosmopolitanism Scale. In Annual Meeting of the Academy of International Business.
Zeugner-Roth, K. P., Diamantopoulos, A., & Ángeles Montesinos, M. (2008). Home Country Image, Country Brand Equity and Consumers' Product Preferences: An Empirical Study. Management International Review, 48(5), 577-602.
53
Endnotes
1 Specifically, Chao and Rajendran (1993) asked consumers to describe two hypothetical consumers, namely a college professor and a plant foreman owning products from Japan and Germany. In a similar vein, Nebenzahl, Jaffe and Usunier (2003) requested from their participants to portray a prototypical person who buys electronic products made in a particular country.
2 We found out that “neutral” can be interpreted from these two perspectives during the translation back-translation process of the questionnaire into the language of the survey country. As our pre-tests further showed that the literal translation into “neutral” resulted in different results in terms of range and distribution of that item compared to the other items contained in that dimension (i.e., “dependent”, “cowardly”, “wimpy”), we finally chose to use the item “indifferent” in the final questionnaire.
3 Note, however, that we later empirically test the extent to which the effects of the six country personality dimensions on behavioral intentions are fully mediated by PCI (see section on mediation analysis and Table 5).
4 Visiting the home country captures consumers’ domestic travel intentions (e.g., spending the holidays at home rather than abroad).
5 We are not disclosing the identity of the home country at this stage as doing so would be tantamount to revealing the authors’ identities and thus compromise the integrity of the double-blind review process. We will, of course, do so upon completion of the latter.
6 Although omitting the item “mysterious” led to a considerable improvement in reliability (α=.72 home country, α=.62 Italy) and although this item did not seem to be closely related to the other items in the conformity dimension from a face validity point of view, we nevertheless decided to retain this item in the main study and re-evaluate it then.
7 In the structural model, PCI was modeled as a latent variable with a single composite indicator; the loading of the latter was fixed to unity and its error variance to zero. For a similar procedure, see Zeugner-Roth, Diamantopoulos, & Ángeles Montesinos (2008).
8 As consumer cosmopolitanism was the only multi-dimensional construct in our study, we first assessed the psychometric properties of that scale separately by specifying consumer cosmopolitanism as a higher second-order factor with three first-order dimensions (i.e., open-mindedness, diversity appreciation, and consumption transcending borders). As this operationalization showed acceptable measurement properties (χ2=168.89, df=41, RMSEA= .08, NNFI= .96, CFI= .97), an average score of each dimension was calculated and subsequently used in the analysis (see Steenkamp, Batra, & Alden, 2003 for a similar approach).
9 We also considered possible confounding effects and incorporated in an initial model consumer demographics (age, gender, income) and country knowledge as control variables. As the substantive findings between the models in which the control variables were incorporated and those of the models without the controls were not materially different, we subsequently report the model estimates of the ‘trimmed’ models (for a similar approach see Steenkamp et al., 2003).
10 Note that, on a bivariate basis, consumer ethnocentrism is positively (negatively) related to consumers’ behavioral intentions in a home (foreign) country setting. However, its influence becomes non-significant when the other socio-psychological traits (i.e., national identity and consumer cosmopolitanism) are also included as predictors of behavioral intentions.
54
TABLE 1: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE
Sample
n Percentage
Demographic Profile of the Survey Country (Percentage)*
Gender
Male 202 49.1 49.7
Female 209 50.9 50.3
Total (18-70 year old population) 411 100 100
Age
18-25 years 58 14.11 14.35
26-35 years 77 18.73 18.96
36-45 years 100 24.33 24.12
46-55 years 85 20.68 19.46
55-70 years 91 22.14 23.11
Total (18-70 year old population) 411 100 100
*Source: National Statistics Bureau
55
TABLE 2: CONSTRUCT MEASUREMENT
CONSUMER-LEVEL CONSTRUCTS
National Identity C.R. AVE λ t-value
NAT1 I see myself as [citizenship]. .76 -
NAT2 I am glad that I am [citizenship]. .91 20.08
NAT3 I feel strong ties with [country]. .92 20.33
NAT4 Being [citizenship] is important to me.
.93 .77
.92 20.39
Consumer Ethnocentrism C.R. AVE λ t-value
CET1 [Country] people should not buy foreign products, this hurts domestic business and causes unemployment. .53 -
CET2 It is not right to purchase foreign products, because this puts [country] people out of jobs. .75 10.61
CET3 A real [citizen] should always buy domestic products. .88 11.46
CET4 I always prefer domestic products over foreign ones. .90 11.55
CET5 We should purchase products manufactured in [country], instead of letting other countries get rich of us.
.89 .64
.87 11.36
Consumer Cosmopolitanism C.R. AVE λ t-value Open-mindedness .81 -
Diversity appreciation .57 10.39
Consumption transcending borders
.78 .54
.81 12.14
Model Fit χ
2=180.77; df=51, RMSEA=.08, NNFI=.96, CFI=.97
COUNTRY-LEVEL CONSTRUCTS
Home Country Italy Germany
Purchase Intentions C.R. AVE λ t-value C.R. AVE λ t-value C.R. AVE λ t-value
PI1 It is very likely that I will buy products from [country].
.85 - .92 - .88 -
PI2
I will purchase products from [country] the next time I need products.
.82 16.73 .88 25.30 .85 22.14
PI3 I will definitely try products from [country].
.84 .64
.73 15.17
.90 .76
.81 21.52
.91 .77
.89 23.53
Visit Intentions C.R. AVE λ t-value C.R. AVE λ t-value C.R. AVE Λ t-value VI1 A trip to [country] will be a lot of fun. .78 - .85 - .83 - VI2 I would recommend going to [country] to others. .86 15.54 .95 22.32 .93 21.13 VI3 [Country] is a place one has dreamed of visiting. .54 10.41 .59 13.05 .68 14.94 VI4 [Country] is a place popular with travelers.
.81 .52
.67 12.98
.80 .53
.37 7.57
.86 .61
.66 14.33
† C.R.=Composite Reliability; AVE=Average Variance Extracted; λ=Standardized Loading; RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; NNFI=Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI=Comparative Fit Index.
56
TABLE 2: CONSTRUCT MEASUREMENT (CONTINUED)
COUNTRY-LEVEL CONSTRUCTS Home Country Italy Germany
Country Personality C.R. AVE λ t-value C.R. AVE λ t-value C.R. AVE λ t-value
Agreeableness AGR1 Bon-vivant .64 - .89 - .67 - AGR2 Reveler .74 12.45 .88 22.64 .71 12.32 AGR3 Amusing .90 13.96 .77 18.93 .87 14.22 AGR4 Agreeable
.85 .59
.76 12.73
.87 .63
.59 12.78
.84 .57
.77 13.18 Wickedness WIK1 Immoral .77 - .72 - .80 - WIK2 Vulgar .87 18.06 .82 14.79 .84 18.16 WIK3 Decadent .76 15.62 .72 13.22 .74 15.75 WIK4 Offender
.88 .64
.81 16.84
.83 .64
.73 13.34
.87 .70
.79 16.98 Snobbism SNO1 Haughty .63 - .62 - .74 - SNO2 Snobbish .89 14.06 .92 13.89 .92 18.41 SNO3 Mannered .90 14.16 .85 13.44 .82 16.71 SNO4 Chauvinist
.87 .63
.72 12.20
.85 .59
.63 10.89
.88 .65
.72 14.60 Assiduousness ASS1 Organized .88 - .85 - .87 - ASS2 Rigorous .88 23.73 .91 22.78 .88 23.15 ASS3 Flourishing .80 20.12 .76 18.05 .80 19.63 ASS4 Hard to work
.90 .70
.78 19.23
.89 .68
.75 17.51
.90 .70
.80 19.88 Conformity CON1 Religious .77 - .75 - .82 - CON2 Spiritual .63 10.26 .50 8.21 .69 11.79 CON3 Traditionalist
.72 .46
.62 10.17
.71 .46
.75 9.54
.76 .52
.64 11.14 Unobtrusiveness UNO1 Cowardly .80 - .82 - .76 - UNO2 Wimpy .90 19.51 .90 19.73 .87 16.77 UNO3 Dependent .81 17.79 .77 16.89 .78 15.53 UNO4 Indifferent
.87 .62
.62 12.76
.85 .59
.56 11.58
.84 .57
.56 10.94
Model Fit χ2=840.00; df=377, RMSEA= .06,
NNFI= .96, CFI= .97 χ
2= 1088.72; df=377, RMSEA= .07, NNFI= .94, CFI= .95
χ2=794.28; df=377, RMSEA= .05,
NNFI= .96, CFI= .97 † C.R.=Composite Reliability; AVE=Average Variance Extracted; λ=Standardized Loading; RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; NNFI=Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI=Comparative Fit Index.
57
TABLE 3: MEANS AND REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA
Home Country Italy (Affinity Country)
Germany (Animosity Country)
F p-value†
Agreeableness 5.44 5.94 4.54 289.14 <.001
Assiduousness 5.47 3.96 5.56 404.48 <.001
Conformity 4.84 5.39 4.23 233.11 <.001
Wickedness 2.66 3.06 3.22 52.53 <.001
Snobbism 3.53 3.95 4.59 125.23 <.001
Unobtrusiveness 3.34 2.95 2.95 22.67 <.001
† Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni; all dimensions are significantly different from each other at p<.001 except for Unobtrusiveness (Italy, Germany) and Assiduousness (home country, Germany)
58
TABLE 4: RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL MODEL
Home Country Italy Germany Hypo-theses
Constructs /Paths Expect. sign
Beta p-value Support Expect.
sign Beta p-value Support
Expect. sign
Beta p-value Support
CP& PCI
Agreeableness → PCI + .10 n.s. no + -.01 n.s. no + .21 <.001 yes Assiduousness → PCI + .31 <.001 yes + .32 <.001 yes + .21 <.001 yes H1 Conformity → PCI + .15 <.05 yes + .11 <.05 yes + .21 <.001 yes Wickedness → PCI - -.04 n.s. no - -.13 n.s. no - -.02 n.s. no Snobbism → PCI - -.02 n.s. no - -.04 n.s. no - -.01 n.s. no H2 Unobtrusiveness → PCI - -.15 <.01 yes - -.12 <.05 yes - -.12 <.05 yes
H3a PCI → purchase + .25 <.001 yes + .41 <.001 yes + .40 <.001 yes H3c PCI → visit + .19 <.001 yes + .27 <.001 yes + .33 <.001 yes
National Identity
NATID → agreeableness + .36 <.001 yes NATID → assiduousness + .20 <.001 yes H4a NATID → conformity + .14 <.05 yes NATID → wickedness - -.32 <.001 yes NATID → snobbism - -.33 <.001 yes H4b NATID → unobtrusiveness - -.39 <.001 yes
H5 NATID → home PCI + .16 <.01 yes H6a NATID → purchase + .26 <.001 yes H6b NATID → visit + .57 <.001 yes
n.a. n.a.
59
TABLE 4: RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL MODEL (CONTINUED)
Home Country Italy Germany Hypo-theses
Constructs /Paths Expect. sign
Beta p-value Support Expect.
sign Beta p-value Support
Expect. sign
Beta p-value Support
Consumer Ethnocentrism
CET → agreeableness + .06 n.s. no - .07 n.s. no - .11 n.s. no CET → assiduousness + .12 <.05 yes - -.03 n.s. no - .03 n.s. no H7a/8a CET → conformity + .07 n.s. no - .10 n.s. no - .14 <.05 no CET → wickedness - .09 n.s. no + .11 n.s. no + .18 <.01 yes CET → snobbism - .01 n.s. no + .13 <.05 yes + .12 <.05 yes H7b/8b CET → unobtrusiveness - .07 n.s. no + .24 <.001 yes + .16 <.01 yes
H9a/b CET → PCI + .08 n.s. no - .01 n.s. no - -.02 n.s. no H10a/ 11a
CET → purchase + .07 n.s. no - -.27 <.001 yes - -.18 <.001 yes
H10b/ 11b
CET → visit + -.09 n.s. no - -.05 n.s. no - -.05 n.s. no
Consumer Cosmopolitanism
COSMO → agreeableness + .18 <.01 yes + .08 n.s. no COSMO → assiduousness + .05 n.s. no + .10 n.s. no H12a COSMO → conformity + .14 <.05 yes + .11 n.s. no COSMO → wickedness - -.14 <.05 yes - .00 n.s. no COSMO → snobbism - -.11 n.s. no - .04 n.s. no H12b COSMO → unobtrusiveness - .06 n.s. no - .07 n.s. no
H13 COSMO → foreign PCI + .29 <.001 yes + .11 <.05 yes H14a COSMO → purchase + .14 <.05 yes + .20 <.001 yes H14b COSMO → visit
n.a.
+ .33 <.001 yes + .23 <.001 yes
Model fit χ2=1426.65, d.f.=701, RMSEA= .05, NNFI= .96, CFI= .97
χ2=1675.16, d.f.=663, RMSEA= .06, NNFI= .94, CFI= .94
χ2=1307.10, d.f.=663, RMSEA= .05, NNFI= .96, CFI= .96
† n.s.=not significant; RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; NNFI=Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI=Comparative Fit Index.
60
TABLE 5: MEDIATION ANALYSIS
CS Path Estimates: Home Country CS Path Estimates: Italy CS Path Estimates: Germany
Constructs /Paths Hypo-theses
Hypo-thesized Model
Direct Model
Full Model
Partial Mediation
Model
Hypo-thesized Model
Direct Model
Full Model
Partial Mediation
Model
Hypo-thesized Model
Direct Model
Full Model
Partial Mediation
Model Agreeableness → PCI .10 .10 -.01 -.01 .21*** .21*** .21*** Assiduousness → PCI .31*** .31*** .33*** .32*** .32*** .34*** .2 1*** .20*** .20*** Conformity → PCI
H1 .15* .15** .17** .11* .11* .11* .21*** .21*** .21***
Wickedness → PCI -.04 -.01 -.13 -.13 -.02 -.02 Snobbism → PCI -.02 -.02 -.04 -.05 -.01 -.01 Unobtrusiveness → PCI
H2 -.15** -.15*** -.18*** -.12* -.11* -.20*** -.12* -.12* -.13**
PCI → purchase H3 .25*** .19** .21*** .41*** .34*** .39*** .40*** .33*** .32*** PCI → visit H4 .19*** .20*** .18*** .27*** .19*** .21* ** .33*** .21*** .19*** NATID → home PCI H5 .16** .16*** .19*** NATID → purchase H6a .26*** .23*** .20*** .20*** NATID → visit H6b .57*** .62*** .59*** .57***
n.a. n.a.
CET → PCI H9a/b .08 .08 .08 .01 .01 .02 -.02 -.02 -.02 CET → purchase H10a/11a .07 .09 .07 .08 -.27*** -.25*** -.28*** -.28*** -.18*** -.19*** -.20*** -.20*** CET → visit H10b/11b -.09 -.09 -.10 -.09 -.05 -.04 -.07 -.07 -.05 -.07 -.08 -.06 COSMO → foreign PCI H13 .29*** .30*** .42*** .11* .12* .12* COSMO → purchase H14a .14* .27*** .11* .11* .20*** .28*** .20*** .20*** COSMO → visit H14b
n.a. .33*** .39*** .29*** .29*** .23*** .28*** .22*** :2 3***
Agreeableness → purchase - .16** .14* .17** .11* .12* .16*** .21*** .15** .13** Assiduousness → purchase - .09 .04 .13** .03 .18*** .12* .08 Conformity → purchase - .08 .05 .11 .08 .01 -.05 Wickedness → purchase - -.21** -.21** -.24*** -.06 -.02 .08 .08 Snobbism → purchase - -.07 -.07 -.07 -.06 -.12 -.11 Unobtrusiveness → purchase - .17** .19** .18** -.05 -.01 .00 .04 Agreeableness → visit - .07 .05 .15** .16** .15*** .27*** .23*** .21*** Assiduousness → visit - -.03 -.09 .14** .10 .18*** .15** .11* Conformity → visit - .14* .11 .03 .02 .02 -.02 Wickedness → visit - .01 .01 -.03 -.01 .07 .08 Snobbism → visit - .01 .01 -.19** -.19** -.15*** -.17** -.17** -.10* Unobtrusiveness → visit - .05 .07 .10 .12* .11 .04 -.07 R2: PCI .39 .39 .39 .33 .37 .32 .29 .29 .29 R2: Purchase Intentions .20 .26 .28 .27 .36 .33 .34 .38 .29 .27 .33 .31 R2: Visit Intentions .41 .41 .43 .41 .26 .32 .32 .30 .20 .26 .28 .26 χ2 1426.65 1535.69 1396.15 1404.91 1675.16 1822.99 1605.99 1648.16 1307.10 1451.18 1248.01 1255.98 d.f. 701 697 689 701 663 659 651 663 663 659 651 660 RMSEA .050 .054 .050 .049 .061 .066 .060 .060 .049 .054 .047 .047 NNFI .964 .957 .964 .965 .936 .928 .937 .938 .954 .944 .956 .956 CFI .967 .962 .968 .968 .943 .936 .945 .944 .959 .951 .961 .961 * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001
61
TABLE 6: VARIANCE EXPLAINED BY PREDICTORS (R²)
Home Country Italy Germany
Models Purchase Intentions
Visit Intentions
Purchase Intentions
Visit Intentions
Purchase Intentions
Visit Intentions
Socio-psychological traits & PCI
.20 .41 .36 .26 .29 .20
Socio-psychological traits only
.16 .38 .28 .27 .18 .13
PCI only .13 .14 .25 .15 .20 .13
62
FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Cosmopolitanism(Foreign)
ConsumerEthnocentrism
COUNTRYPERSONALITY
•Wickedness•Snobbism•Unobtrusiveness
•Agreeableness•Assiduousness•Conformity
PCI
PurchaseIntentions
VisitIntentions
H3a (+)
H3b (+) H6b/H14b (+)
H10a(+)/H11a(-)
H10b(+)/H11b(-)
H5/H13 (+)
H9a (+)/H9b (-)
H6a/H14a (+)
National Identity(Home)