country-of-origineffectson productevaluations · 2017. 8. 25. · country-of-origineffectson...

COUNTRY-OF-ORIGINEFFECTS ONPRODUCT EVALUATIONS

WARRENJ. BILKEY*Universityof Wisconsin-Madison

ERIKNES**Gustav A. Ring, A.S.

Abstract.This article reviews the literatureregardingthe effect of countryof originon buyerevaluations of products. The issue is importantfor countries (especially resource-poor, de-veloping countries) that need to increase manufactured exports and for firms that sourceproducts in countries different fromwhere sold. Marketinginferences are drawn,and impli-cations for future research are developed.

* The international product life-cycle model incorporates only supply-side vari-ables-such as, product competition, complexity of production, and relative pro-duction costs. Demand-side variables-such as, the effect of country sourcingon the demand for that product- are not considered. Ifthe latter is important,theusefulness of the international product life-cycle model as a guide for productsourcing would be limited.The significance of the location of production on demand can be approached asan information cue question. That is, from an information theoretic perspective,products may be conceived as consisting of an arrayof informationcues, both in-trinsic (taste, design, fit) and extrinsic (price, brand name, warranties). Each cueprovides customers with a basis for evaluating the product.The study of informa-tional cues has generated much basic research in marketing-including the im-pact of various cues on perceived risk, on perceived quality, and on purchasingbehavior, and also on how cues are processed by customers. Much applied re-search by industry centers around the impacts of intrinsic and extrinsic cues re-garding products.The informational cue on which this article focuses is the country of origin of aproduct. Usually this is communicated by the phrase, "Made in (name ofcountry)."Both empirical observations and experiments indicate that country oforigin has a considerable influence on the quality perceptions of a product. Onesuch example is the West German firm, Battenfeld Mashinenfabriken,which es-tablished production of its standard injection molding machines to the U.S. toserve both the North American and Latin American markets (Business Week,1979).Although Battenfeld Mashinenfabriken has a Braziliansubsidiary with ac-cess to that country's lush export subsidies, the company's sales director statedthat many customers "won'tbuy a machine made in Brazil.U.S.-made products,by contrast, find ready acceptance abroad."Another example encountered sev-eral years ago by one of the authors was a Puerto Rican shoe manufacturerwhoshipped his entire production to New YorkCity and back and advertised thoseshoes as being from New York.Experience had convinced himthat Puerto Ricanswould buy his shoes more readilywhen they were perceived as made in New Yorkratherthan in Puerto Rico. Similar anecdotes are widespread in developing coun-tries. Experimental research on the country-of-origin informational cue is re-viewed next.

INTRODUCTION

*WarrenBilkeyis Professorof InternationalBusinessattheUniversityofWisconsin-Madison.**ErikNes receivedhis Ph.D.in internationalBusiness fromthe Universityof Wisconsinandcurrentlydirectsthe internationalaffairsof the Norwegianfirm,GustavA.Ring,A.S.

Journal of International Business Studies, Spring/Summer 1982 89

Palgrave Macmillan Journalsis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to

Journal of International Business Studieswww.jstor.org

®

RESEARCHFINDINGS

General

Within MDCs

MDCsvs. LDCs

Considerable effort has been expended in ascertaining whether country of originaffects product evaluations. Characteristics of majorresearch on the subject areoutlined in the appendix; all of those studies indicate that country of origin doesindeed affect product evaluations. This holds for products in general [Andersonand Cunningham 1972; Bannister and Saunders 1978; Darling undated; Dornoff,Tankersley, and White 1974; Gaedeke 1973; Krishnakumar1974; Lillis and Nara-yana 1974; Nagashima 1970, 1977; Reierson 1966; Wang 1978; White 1979]; forclasses of products [Dornoff,Tankersley, and White 1974; Gaedeke 1973; Krish-nakumar1974; Nagashima 1970, 1977; Reierson 1966];for specific types of prod-ucts [Gaedeke 1973; Hampton 1977; Krishnakumar1974; Reierson 1966;Schooler1965, 1971; Schooler and Sunoo 1969; Schooler and Wildt 1968; Tongberg 1972;White and Cundiff 1978];and for specific brands [Gaedeke 1973; Kincaid 1970;Yaprak 1978]. It holds whether the product source countries are various MDCs(moredeveloped countries), MDCsvs. LDCs(less developed countries), and withinLDCs.Stereotyping has been found among U.S., British, Finnish, Swedish, Japa-nese, Guatemalan, Turkish,Indian,and Taiwanese respondents. Itmay influenceboth industrial purchasing decisions and consumer purchasing decisions.

Several studies found that products made in different, more developed countriesare not all evaluated equally [Bannister and Saunders 1978;Darlingundated; Dor-noff, Tankersley, and White 1974; Hampton 1977; Kincaid 1970; Lillis and Nara-yana 1974; Nagashima 1970, 1977; Krishnakumar1974; Reierson 1966; Schooler1971;Schooler and Wildt1968;Tongberg 1972;Wang 1978;White 1979;White andCundiff1978;Yaprak1978].Attitudes may change over time-the studies indicatean improvement in the Japanese image and a relative deterioration of the U.S. im-age [Dornoff,Tankersley, and White 1974; Nagashima 1977].There is a tendencyfor consumers to evaluate their own country's products relatively more favorablythan do foreigners.This is quite clear in Nagashima [1970]and Lillisand Narayana[1974]concerning the U.S. and Japan and is indicated in Bannister and Saunders[1978] for England and in Darling [undated] for Finland. Studies reporting U.S.consumer attitudes toward U.S. products usually placed U.S. products in firstplace, while foreign studies, particularlyEuropean,have rated U.S. products com-paratively lower [Bannister and Saunders 1978; Bruskin, Int. 1962; Darling un-dated; Nagashima 1977;OpinionResearch Corp.1959;Readers Digest Corp.1963].

Several studies found a hierarchy of biases. These include a seemingly positiverelationship between product evaluations and degree of economic development[Krishnakumar1974; Schooler 1971;Tongberg 1972;Wang 1978; Hampton 1977].Other apparent explanatory variables are the source country's culture and politi-cal climate [Wang 1978]and perceived similarity with the source country's beliefsystem [Tongberg1972].The latter variable showed a strong correlation with eco-nomic development; the two formervariables also appear to correlate highly witheconomic development. The bias seems to be stronger against Eastern Europeannations than their degree of economic development should indicate [Bannisterand Saunders 1978; Darling undated; Schooler 1971; Wang 1978]. Specifically,Wang [1978]found that U.S.consumers perceived the USSR'sdegree of economicdevelopment to be higher than it actually is and still gave very low evaluations toits products. This may be explained by Wang's "political climate" variable.

Respondents from certain countries have different attitudes regarding productsfrom a given country than do respondents from other countries. Krishnakumar[1974]found that Indianstudents rated Britishproducts higherthan didTaiwanesestudents and attributed the difference to formercolonial ties. Yaprak[1978],Na-gashima [1970], and Lillis and Narayana [1974] all found differences among re-spondents' attitudes in two countries regarding products from a third country.

90 Journal of International Business Studies, Spring/Summer 1982

Gaedeke [1973]found that U.S. made products were perceived as being of higherquality than products made in various LDCs, and that specific brands might beevaluated higher or lower when LDCcountry of origin was revealed as comparedwith no country-of-origininformation being given.Schooler and Wildt [1968]demonstrated that for many consumers the effect ofproductevaluation bias can be offset by price concessions. As the price of the do-mestic good was increased relativeto the foreign good, more consumers switchedto the foreign good against which they had evidenced bias.

Schooler [1965]found that Guatemalan students gave lower evaluations to prod-ucts from El Salvador and Costa Rica than to domestic and Mexican productsand that these were related to a general negative attitude toward people fromthose countries. Yaprak[1978]tested purchase intentions among U.S. and Turkishbusiness executives for specific brands made in West Germany,Japan, and Italyand found a significant correlation between purchase intentions and varioussource country attributes.Krishnakumar[1974]used a sample of students from Taiwan and Indiastudyingin the U.S. He found that the students discriminated against their own productsin favor of MDCproducts. Students from Taiwan, with a higher GNP per capita,discriminated less than did Indianstudents. The Taiwanese students rated theirown food and fashion products as better than MDCproducts. This indicates thatMDCproducts which are very different from domestic products may not be goodsubstitutes. Some very limited evidence indicates that the hierarchy of bias, re-ferred to earlier, also is operational among LDCs.

Schooler [1971]and TQngberg[1972]found that older persons tended to evaluateforeign products more highly than did younger persons. Whereas Wang [1978]found no such effect. Schooler [1971]and Dornoffet al. [1974]found that femalesrated foreign products more highly than did males, but Dornoffet al. [1974]couldnot confirm this for products made in more developed countries. Schooler [1971],Anderson and Cunningham [1972], Dornoff et al. [1974], and Wang [1978] foundthat persons with more education tended to rate foreign products more highlythan did persons with limited education, but Tongberg [1972]found no such rela-tionship. Wang [1978] found that non-whites tended to rate products from LatinAmerica and Africa higher than did whites; Schooler [1971]found that non-whitesevaluated products from Nigeria, LatinAmerica, and Indiahigher than did whiteswhile whites rated products from the U.S. and North America more highly thandid non-whites. Wang [1978]found that higher income persons tended to have amore favorable acceptance of foreign products in general than did lower incomepersons.

Anderson and Cunningham [1972]found an inverse relationship between level ofdogmatism and preference for foreign products. Tongberg[1972]found no relationbetween a person's degree of dogmatism and his or her attitudes toward prod-ucts from 13 specific countries when the type of country was disregarded, butamong high dogmatics there was a favorable attitude toward products made inculturally similar countries. Both Anderson and Cunningham [1972] and Wang[1978]found an inverse relation between conservatism and attitude towardforeignproducts in general. Dogmatism and to a certain extent conservatism also wouldseem to be especially relevant for communist-made products, but research didnot focus on that issue. Anderson and Cunningham [1972]found an inverse rela-tion between status concern and preference for foreign products.

Bias within LDCs

DemographicVariables

PersonalityVariables


PromotionandCountryof

OriginEffect

PerceivedRiskandCountryof

OriginBias

Etzel and Walker [1974] studied the degree of congruence between general na-tional product stereotypes and attitudes toward specific products. They found asignificant difference between general country attitudes and specific product at-titudes by country of source. They concluded that it might be misleading to baseadvertising on general national product attitudes, because specific product atti-tudes are more relevant. Such differences between general national product atti-tudes and more specific product attitudes have been demonstrated or indicatedalso by Gaedeke [1973],Reierson [1966],Nagashima [1970,1977], and Krishnaku-mar[1974].This implies (and has been demonstrated in several of the studies) thatattitudes toward products froma countryvarybyproduct.Whatdetermines whichproducts are evaluated the highest and the lowest has not been studied but itmerits investigation.Schleifer and Dunn [1968]found that U.S. students' attitudes toward advertisedproducts were more favorable when the advertisements were associated withAmericans than when associated with Egyptians. The Egyptian advertisementsused Egyptian models and copy with an English translation attached. (Such anexperimental situation may have been unrealistic.) They also found that attituderegarding a product increased when a favorable national reference group ratingwas given in the formof a consumer test. Theirresults led to the speculative con-clusion that testimonial advertising may be particularlyeffective in internationaladvertising.Reierson [1967]found that exposure to communication and promotion improvedattitudes toward Italian products, but not Japanese products. He concluded thatadvertising may be effective if prejudice is not too strong. (Note that the attitudetowardJapanese products at that time was lowerthan now.)This may be explainedin terms of Sherif and Hovland's [1965] social judgment theory, with promotionfor the most negatively perceived country falling in the area of rejection. Of sev-eral promotional devices tested, Reierson [1967]found the greatest effect from aprestigious retailer's window display. A positive relationship between perceivedquality and association with a prestigious retaileralso was demonstrated inpriceresearch reviewed by Olson [1977].

Hampton [1977] tested perceived risk for American products made in the U.S.compared with the same products made by U.S. companies abroad. He found ageneral increase in perceived risk for products made abroad. Some specific prod-ucts showed lower risk when made abroad. Most of these cases were productsmade in other MDCs;one was made in Braziland one in Hong Kong.None of thesecases involved products made in poorer LDCs.The Braziliancase was for freezedried coffee and the Hong Kong case was for electronic calculators. The HongKong case may indicate a pattern for a country that has earned a reputation forthis type of product.The Braziliancase may indicate a pattern where the countryis a renowned exporter of the particular raw material and its reputation carriedover to the processed product from the same raw material. If this hypothesis iscorrect, certain LDCs may have a special advantage in exporting manufacturedgoods based on their present reputation as exporters of rawmaterials. This couldbe the case for freeze dried coffee from Brazil, Colombia, and Tanzania; cocoafrom Nigeria; sugar products from Cuba; and rubberproducts from Malaysia.Hampton's[1977]findings also indicate that there may be a hierarchyof perceivedriskhavingan inverse relationshipwith economic development. No interactionwasfound between countries and products. Hence, a low-risk product made in theU.S. might be perceived as a high-riskproduct when made in a high-riskcountry.

Industrial Significant differences in U.S. purchasing manager's perceptions of various attri-Purchasing butes of products from five MDCswere found by White [1979].White and Cundiff


[1978]found significant differences in perceived quality based on country of ori-gin. No effect on perceived quality was found by manipulating price within 10 per-cent. No interaction between price and country of origin was identified. Thesetwo studies support the suggested hierarchyof bias with regardto economic de-velopment referredto earlier,although the sample of countries analyzed was verylimited.Haakansson and Wootz [1975]tested the relative importance of supplier charac-teristics (location, size) and bid characteristics (price,quality, deliverytime) underdifferent perceived riskconditions, using a sample of Swedish purchasing manag-ers as respondents. Location (Sweden-England/West Germany-and France/Italy),explained 50 percent of the variance and was the most important of thesupplier characteristics. The researchers found the rank-orderingto be Sweden -England/West Germany- France/Italyand labeled the discriminating variable as"distance." However,the findings may also be explained interms of the consumerattitude studies reportedearlier,which indicated a relative preference for domes-tic products among the MDCs.The higher rankof the combination England/WestGermanythan the combination France/Italy is not contradicted by the consumerstudies.Price was found to be the most importantbid characteristic in low-risksituations,and quality and location in high-risksituations. Fitting an LDCsupplier of indus-trialgoods into a low-riskpurchasing situation may maximize his price advantageand minimize his location disadvantage.

All of the studies referredto earlierfound that countryof origindid influence prod- Methodologicaluct evaluations. It is tempting to try to infer the magnitude of this relationship. LimitationsUnfortunately,that would not be warrantedbecause of the following methodolog-ical limitations. First,most of the studies involvedonly a single cue; that is, countryof origin was the only information on which respondents based their evaluations.A single cue study is bound to yield a significant cue effect that might or mightnot exist in the real world.Second, in much of that research the respondents weregiven only verbal references to products, rather than shown a tangible product.One cannot be sure what respondents have in mind when such evaluations aregiven. Forexample, if a respondent evaluates the quality of an intangible sweatermade in Sweden more highly than an intangible sweater made in Morocco, itmight be that he has different sweaters in mind with regard to raw materials,sweater thickness, price, and other attributes. This is an important limitationwhen "madein "is the only informationalcue given. Schooler [1971]foundthat product evaluations might differ according to whether a tangible or an in-tangible product is used. A related type of confounding (unintentional manipula-tion of two or more variables within a single independent variable) may be foundwhere the source country is given as "aforeign country"or as a geographical area.Attitude toward foreign products could depend on whether the respondent hasWest Germanyor Afganistan in mindwhen hearing "foreigncountry,"and the atti-tude toward products "madeinAsia"mightdepend upon whetherJapan or Indone-sia is the frame of reference. A third limitation has to do with the general validityand reliability problems often encountered in consumer research. Differing ver-sions of the semantic differential scale were used in several of the studies. OnlyKincaid[1970]used the adjectives developed by Osgood [1952];unfortunately,thevalidityand reliabilitydemonstrated by Osgood's workcannot be imputedto otherscales. Demand effects are possible in most of the studies (that is, respondentsguess the purpose of the study, which affects their responses); usually there is noreport of respondent debriefing; and validity and reliability assessments of themeasurements used tend to be inadequate or nonexistent. The importance ofmeasurement validitywas demonstrated by Tongberg[1972].He obtained very low


coefficients of determination between a general preference rankingof productsfromvarious nations and multi-attributescale measures that ranged fromr2=.020to r2=.187 for various product classes.

REMAININGWithinthe limits of the methodologies employed, all of the studies reviewed indi-ISSUES cate that countryof origindoes indeed influence buyerperceptions of the products

involved. The issue of how much influence that cue provides is not yet decided.Several studies, referredto in Olson and Jacoby [1972],found that intrinsic cues(the product's characteristics) had a greater effect on quality judgments than didextrinsic cues (considerations associated with the product).This suggests thatthe country-of-origin(an extrinsic) cue might have only a limited influence on prod-uct quality perceptions.A second issue is whether, and to what extent, other cues - such as, a well-knownbrand name, a product guarantee, or a prestigious retailer-can compensate fora negative country-of-origincue. Andrews and Valenzi [1971] found that the ef-fects of price on quality evaluations of products tended to vary inversely withbrand name familiarity. Mightsimilar relationships exist between the country-of-origin cue and other extrinsic cues? Ifproducts sourced in LDCsare perceived tobe more risky than the same products sourced in an industrialized country [assuggested by Hampton 1977], then the literature on consumer risk relievers andthe effects of risk on information processing [reviewed in Ross 1974] becomesrelevant. Forexample, industrial purchasing of LDCproducts might involve pricestability risks, uncertainty regardingdeliverytimes, uncertaintyregardingquality,and so on. Risk relievers might include guarantees by thirdparties, tests by inde-pendent laboratories, and warehousing within importing countries, amongothers. This issue is importantfor multinational companies considering sourcingin LDCs and for retailers importing from such countries under private labels.A third issue is the determinants of country-of-originbiases. Is this a function ofsource country considerations (such as degree of economic development or polit-ical climate), of consuming country considerations (such as importexperiences,nationalism, or cultural affinity with the source of country),or of something else?Knowledge about this issue would provide a basis for determining whethercountry-of-originbiases are deep-seated or superficial and whether it would bemore effective to combat them or to compensate for them.A fourth issue is possible intercorrelations between the country-of-origincue andother cues. Because manufacturedimportsfromLDCstend to be lowerpricedthancomparable products made in the U.S. or imported from industrialized countries[Cline 1979], any cue effects of price on the perceived quality of products wouldtend to intercorrelate with their country of origin. This would have a reinforcingeffect on negative biases regarding products sourced in LDCs.

IMPLICATIONSCountry-of-origincues that are biased against products sourced in LDCslogicallywould rotate the international product life-cycle function counterclockwise; thatis, raise the rightend of the curve. This would result fromwhatever additional ex-penditures (or lower prices) are needed to compensate for the country-of-origincue. The amount of rotation presumably would vary directly with the behavioralimportance of this cue, which has yet to be estimated precisely.A counterclockwise rotation of the international product life-cycle functionlogically would likely reduce investments in and exports from LDCs relative towhat would occur without the adverse country-of-origincue. Both effects wouldslow down the economic development of affected LDCs at the very time theirpopulations are growing rapidly.Both the theoretical and practical consequences of the country-of-origincue are


so great that additional research on the subject would seem to be urgently needed.For example, how important is the cue? How can it be reduced or compensated?Such research must involve more than single cue surveys and experiments; multi-cue studies conforming as nearly as possible to real life purchasing conditionsare needed.

Anderson, W.T.,and Cunningham,WilliamH."GaugingForeign Product Promotion."Jour-nal of Advertising Research, February1972, pp. 29-34.Andrews, I.R.,and Valenzi, E.R."CombiningPrice, BrandName and Store Cues to FormanImpression of Product Quality."Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the Ameri-can Psychological Association, 1971.Bannister, J. P., and Saunders, J. A. "UKConsumers' Attitudes Towards Imports:The Mea-surement of National Stereotype Image."EuropeanJournal of Marketing12 (1978),pp. 562-570.Bruskin International. Europe:A Worldof Profit for Markets. New York,1962.Business Week. "Exports:German Lessons for U.S. Industry."7 May 1979, p. 50.Cline, William R. "Importsand Consumer Prices: A Survey Analysis." Study prepared forthe American Retail Federation and the National Merchants Association, 1979.Darling,John R."AnAnalysis of Consumer Attitudes Towards the Products and MarketingPractices of U.S. Manufacturers."Unpublished and undated working paper, Wichita StateUniversity,Wichita, Kansas.Dornoff, Ronald J.;Tankersley, Clint B.;and White, GregoryP. "Consumers'Perceptions ofImports."Akron Business and Economic Review 5 (Summer 1974), pp. 26-29.Etzel, MichaelJ., and Walker,BruceJ. "AdvertisingStrategy forForeign Products.";Journalof Advertising Research 14 (June 1974), pp. 41-44.Gaedeke, Ralph. "ConsumerAttitudes Toward Products 'Made In'Developing Countries."Journal of Retailing 49 (Summer 1973), pp. 13-24.Haakansson, Haakan, and Wootz, Bjorn."SupplierSelection in an International Environ-ment-An ExperimentalStudy."Journal of MarketingResearch 12 (February1975),pp. 46-51.Hampton,GeraldM."PerceivedRisk in Buying Products MadeAbroadByAmerican Firms."Baylor Business Studies, October 1977, pp. 53-64.Howard,John A. Consumer Behavior:Application of Theory.New York:McGraw-HillInc.,1977.Johanson, J., and Vahlne, J. "The Internationalization Process of the Firm-A Model ofKnowledge Development and Increasing Foreign MarketCommitments."Journal of Inter-national Business Studies, Spring/Summer 1977, pp. 23-32.Keesing, D. B. "WorldTrade and Output of Manufactures: StructuralTrends and Develop-ing Countries' Exports."World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 316, 1979.Kincaid,William M.Jr. "AStudy of the Perception of Selected Brands of Products as For-eign or American and Attitudes TowardSuch Brands."Ph.D.dissertation, The UniversityofTexas at Austin, 1970.Krishnakumar,Parameswar."AnExploratoryStudy of the Influence of Countryof Originonthe Product Images of Persons from Selected Countries." Ph.D. dissertation, The Univer-sity of Florida, 1974.Lillis, Charles M.,and Narayana, Chem L."Analysis of 'Made In'Product Images-An Ex-ploratoryStudy."Journal of International Business Studies, Spring 1974, pp. 119-127.Morgan,Theodore, Economic Development. New York:Harper&Row, 1975.Nagashima, Akira."AComparison of Japanese and U.S. Attitudes Toward Foreign Prod-ucts." Journal of Marketing34 (January 1970), pp. 68-74.

. "A Comparative 'Made In' Product Image Survey Among Japanese Businessmen."Journal of Marketing,July 1977, pp. 95-100.Olson, Jerry C. "Price as an InformationalCue: Effects on Product Evaluations." In Con-sumer and IndustrialBuying Behavior,edited by A. G.Woodside, J. N. Sheth, and P. D.Ben-nett. North-Holland1977.

., and Jacoby, Jacob. "CueUtilization in the Quality Perception Process." In Pro-ceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research,edited by M.Venkatesan. 1972.Opinion Research Corporation. "American Firms and Brands in the European CommonMarket."Public Opinion Index for Industry. Princeton, 1959.

REFERENCES


Osgood, C. E. "The Nature and Measurement of Meaning."Psychological Bulletin (May,1952).Readers Digest Corporation. European Common Marketand Britain.New York,1963.Reierson, Curtis. "AreForeign Products Seen as National Stereotypes?" Journal of Retail-ing, Fall 1966, pp. 33-40.

_ . "Attitude Changes toward Foreign Products." Journal of Marketing Research(November 1967), pp. 385-387.Ross, Ivan. "Perceived Risk and Consumer Behavior:A Critical Review." In Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. II, edited by M.J. Schlinger. Urbana, IL:Association for Con-sumer Research, 1974.Rothschild, Michael L. "AdvertisingStrategies for High and Low InvolvementSituations."In Research Plays for High Stakes, edited by John Maloney. 1979.Schleifer, Stephen, and Watson, Dunn,S. "RelativeEffectiveness of Advertisements of For-eign and Domestic Origin."Journal of MarketingResearch 5 (August 1968), pp. 296-299.Schooler, Robert D. "Product Bias in the Central American Common Market."Journal ofMarketingResearch 2 (November 1965), pp. 394-397.

. "Bias Phenomena Attendant to the Marketing of Foreign Goods in the U.S." Jour-nal of International Business Studies, Spring 1971, pp. 71-80.Schooler, Robert D. and Sunoo, Don H. "ConsumerPerceptions of InternationalProducts:Regional vs. National Labeling."Social Science Quarterly,March1969, pp. 886-890.

APPENDIXResearchDealing Reference

withCountry-of-Origin

CueEffectson General StProduct

Evaluations. cq,h, ilar 1

Subjects Products

udies

students Juice and fabric sample

Reierson 1966

Schooler andWildt 1968

Schooler andSunoo 1969

Nagashima 1970

Kincaid 1970

Schooler 1971

Tongberg 1972

Anderson andCunningham1972

Gaedeke 1973

Lillis andNarayana 1974

students

students

students

businessmen

students

adults

adults +studentsadults

students

adults

General + general perproduct class + specific2 pieces of identical

glasswareCloth sample andsimple gobletGeneral + 6 productclasses5 foreign and 5 U.S.well-known brands ofshavers, TVsets, cars,razorblades, andtypewritersCloth sample, desk pen,and simple goblet

Radio, dress shirt,cough syrupGeneral

General + productclasses + specific brands

General


Consumingcountries

Guatemala

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S., Japan

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S., Japan

ouII IUuJltl I 7UJIqr,

Schooler, Robert D., and Wildt,AlbertR."Elasticityof Product Bias."Journal of MarketingResearch 5 (February1968),pp. 78-81.Sherif, Muzafer,and Hovland,Carl I."Social Judgment; Assimilation and Contrast Effectsin Communication and Attitude Change." New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1965.

Tongberg, R. C. "AnEmpiricalStudy of Relationships Between Dogmatism and ConsumerAttitudes TowardForeign Products."Ph.D.disseration, The Pennsylvania State University,1972.Wang, Chih-Kang."TheEffect of Foreign Economic, Political and CulturalEnvironmentonConsumers' Willingness to Buy Foreign Products."Ph.D.dissertation, Texas A &MUniver-sity, 1978.White, PhillipD."Attitudesof U.S. Purchasing ManagersTowardIndustrialProducts Manu-factured in Selected EuropeanNations."Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, Spring/Summer 1979, pp. 81-90.

., and Cundiff, Edward W. "Assessing the Quality of Industrial Products." Journalof Marketing,January 1978, pp. 80-86.Yaprak, Attila. "Formulatinga Multinational MarketingStrategy: A Deductive Cross-Na-tional Consumer Behavior Model."Ph.D.dissertation, Georgia State University,College ofBusiness Administration, 1978.

Source Ta) Eb) S?) Measure ofcountries or I or S or M evaluation

Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica,Mexico

10 industrialized nations

U.S. and Japan

Asia, Africa, South America, andWestern EuropeU.S., West Germany, England, Japan,and other industrialized nations

Netherlands, Italy, West Germany,England, Japan, and U.S.

U.S., West Germany, India, Czecho-slovakia, Chile, Nigeria, +6 areas

13 nations at various stages ofeconomic development

Foreign products in general

U.S. and various developing nations

England, France, West Germany,Japan, and U.S.

T E M Attitude

I S S Qualityassessment

T E M Purchasepreference

T E M Attitude

I S S Attitude

I E M Attitude

T andI

E M Attitude

I S S Attitude

I S S Attitude

I S S Attitude

I S S Attitude


Reference

Krishnakumar1974

Dornoff et al. 1974

Nagashima 1977

Hampton 1977

Bannister andSaunders 1978

Yaprak1978

Wang 1978

Subjects

students

adults

businessmen

adults +studentsadults

businessmen

adults

Products

General + mechanicaland electronic products,food, fashion, cars,TVsets, soft drinks,and dress shirtsGeneral + food, fashion,electronic andmechanical productsGeneral +6 classes

27 products in 3 classesof perceived riskDurable goods in general

Cars, cameras, andcalculators. One brandper country per productGeneral

students +professionals

Promotion and country of origin effectsReierson 1967 students G<Schleifer and students 4

Watson Dunn cc1968

Etzel and adults G<Walker 1974 ar

Studies in industrial purchasingHaakanson and purchasing St

Wootz 1975 managers sc

White andCundiff 1978

White 1979

industrialbuyerspurchasingmanagers

to

LisyIngE

eneral+ specificads for everyday)nsumer products

eneral+ cars, cameras,id toys

tandardand special:rew,paint, and pressingolft truck, dictationIstem, and machine tooldustrial products ineneral

a)= Tangible (T)or intangible (I)products being evaluated.b)= Experimentaldesign (E)or attitude survey (S).c) = Single cue study (S) or multiple cue study (M).


Consumingcountries

U.S., India,Taiwan

U.S.

Japan

U.S.

England

Turkey,U.S.

U.S.

Darling General Finland

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

Sweden

U.S.

U.S.

Ta) Eb) SC) Measure ofor I or S or M evaluation

U.S., West Germany, England, India,Taiwan, and Japan

U.S., Japan, France, and West Germany

U.S., West Germany, England, Japan,and other industrialized nations9 nations in 3 classes

France, Italy,Japan, England, U.S.,USSR, and West GermanyWest Germany, Japan, Italy

36 countries

England, Finland, France,West Germany, U.S., Japan, Sweden,and USSR

Italy, JapanU.S., Egypt

U.S., West Germany, and Japan

Sweden, England/West Germany, andFrance/Italy (pairwise)

U.S., West Germany, Japan, and Brazil

U.S., West Germany, France, Italy, andEngland

I S S Attitude

I S S Attitude

I S S Attitude

I S S Perceivedrisk

I S S Attitude

I S S Purchaseintention

S S Willingnessto buy

S S Attitude

I E S AttitudeI E S Attitude

S S Attitude

I E M Simulatedpurchase

I E M Attitude

I S S Attitude


Sourcecountries

country-of-origineffectson productevaluations · 2017. 8. 25. · country-of-origineffectson...

Documents