The Effect of Perceived Country of Origin on Brand ...
Transcript of The Effect of Perceived Country of Origin on Brand ...
The Effect of Perceived Country of Origin on Brand
Attitude, Brand Trust and Purchase Intentions
Master Thesis
Student: Mariya Petrova
Student Number: 10993150
Date of submission: 29.01.2016
Supervisors: Drs. ing. A.C.J. Meulemans
Drs. F. Slisser
Program: MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track
University of Amsterdam
2
Statement of originality
This document is written by Mariya Petrova who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and
that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have
been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision
of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Drs. Meulemans for his time, guidance, expert advice and feedback
throughout the process of writing this thesis. Furthermore, I would like to express my
gratitude to all of the participants in my survey whose responses provided valuable insights
and helped me conduct this research. Lastly, I am grateful to my friends and family for their
immense support and involvement.
4
Abstract
Recent research suggests that the country of origin effect is present regardless of consumers’
knowledge of the actual country of brand origin. Thus the concept of perceived country of
origin emerged. The purpose of this thesis is to explore the effect of perceived country of
origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions. An online survey was conducted
to answer the question to what extent the perception of a favorable country of origin,
regardless of the actual country of brand origin, results in a positive effect on consumers’
attitude, trust and purchase intentions towards the brand. The questionnaire asked respondents
to express their opinion on three brands of ice cream: Perry’s Ice Cream, Häagen-Dazs and
Baskin-Robbins. A within-subjects design was used. All of these brands originate from the
United States of America; however they employ different strategies concerning the usage of
country of origin information. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the
means of brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions across the three conditions of the
perceived country of origin. The analysis showed that respondents had significantly higher
attitude, trust and purchase intentions in the condition of positive image of the perceived
country of origin. These results suggest that associating a brand with a favorable country, no
matter the real country of origin, can lead to a higher attitude and trust towards that brand, as
well as an increased likelihood to buy it. Regional differences were also found indicating that
the effect of perceived country of origin varies among people from different geographical
locations.
Keywords: country of origin, perceived country of origin, brand evaluation, brand attitude,
brand trust, purchase intentions, foreign branding
5
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7
2. Literature review .................................................................................................................. 10
2.1 Defining Country of Origin ............................................................................................ 10
2.2 Country of Origin as a Brand Building Tool .................................................................. 11
2.3 Country of Origin and Product Categories ..................................................................... 12
2.4 Country of Origin Effect across Cultures ....................................................................... 13
2.5 Developed and Developing Countries ............................................................................ 15
2.6 Criticism on Country of Origin ...................................................................................... 17
2.7 Perceived Country of Origin ........................................................................................... 18
2.8 Brand Attitude ................................................................................................................ 19
2.9 Brand Trust ..................................................................................................................... 20
2.10 Purchase Intentions ....................................................................................................... 21
2.11 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses .............................................................................. 22
3. Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 24
3.1 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 24
3.2 The Pretest ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 The Main Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 28
3.4 Measurement of the Dependent Variables ...................................................................... 29
4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 31
4.1 Sample Description ......................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Perceived Country of Origin ........................................................................................... 32
4.3 Scale Reliabilities ........................................................................................................... 34
4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations ........................................................................... 36
4.5 Hypotheses Testing: Repeated Measures ANOVA ........................................................ 36
4.6 Hypotheses Testing: Mixed ANOVA ............................................................................. 41
5. Discussion, limitations and recommendations for future research ...................................... 46
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 50
References ................................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix 1: Pretest .................................................................................................................. 57
Appendix 2: Main Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 61
Appendix 3: Respondent Nationality ....................................................................................... 68
6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................... 23
List of Tables
Table 1: Brands chosen, actual and perceived COO and favorability of the perception ......... 28
Table 2: Respondents’ Nationality and Region ........................................................................ 32
Table 3: Perceived Country of Origin ...................................................................................... 34
Table 4: Reliability Statistics ................................................................................................... 35
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations ................................................................. 36
Table 6: Brand Attitude Pairwise Comparisons ....................................................................... 38
Table 7: Brand Trust Pairwise Comparisons ............................................................................ 39
Table 8: Purchase Intentions Pairwise Comparisons ............................................................... 40
7
1. Introduction
The growth of international trade made a wide variety of foreign products available
worldwide. Marketers are struggling to differentiate their products and build a long-lasting
brand image. In a globalized world country of origin (COO) may be a way of differentiating a
brand and a source of competitive advantage if consumers hold favorable associations
towards the country. Moreover, the importance of COO is increasing due to the growing
popularity of online purchases. Most Internet advertising messages rely on extrinsic cues such
as price, brand name, and country of origin because intrinsic cues (physical characteristics)
are difficult to assess online without actually seeing the product (Insch & McBride, 2004).
COO is an important extrinsic cue, therefore its importance in consumer product evaluations
is growing (Klein et al., 1998, in Insch and McBride, 2004).
A wide body of research has investigated the effect of country of origin and country image on
consumers' perceptions, product preferences and quality evaluations (Al-Sulaiti & Baker,
1998). Most researchers agree that COO positively influences these variables; however recent
studies cast some doubt on these findings and claim that previous research has inflated the
importance of COO (Samiee, Shimp, & Sharma, 2005). Samiee et al. (2005) argue that people
do not have accurate perceptions of the country of brand origin and do not actively seek this
information, therefore COO cannot be an important factor for their brand attitude.
Magnusson, Westjohn, & Zdravkovic (2011) refute this argument by exploring perceived
COO as opposed to actual country of origin and find out that perceived country of origin
matters regardless of whether the perception is accurate. Marketers seem to be aware of this
and use it in their advantage by employing a foreign branding strategy and deliberately
associating their brands with countries characterized with a positive image even though they
are not the actual country of origin (Magnusson et al., 2011). Some examples include the
8
American ice cream Frusen Glädjé that uses Swedish words in the brand name to imply
Scandinavian origin, the Ginsu knives that uses a Japanese sounding brand name despite its
American origin, and the French dairy brand Président that uses the Greek alphabet and
images from Greece in the packaging of its feta cheese. It is interesting to further explore the
effect of this perceived country of origin on consumers’ perception of the brand.
The research on country of origin effect has been going on for decades; however the notion of
perceived country of origin is relatively new and the research on the topic is limited. The
purpose of this thesis is to explore the effect of perceived country of origin on brand attitude,
brand trust and purchase intentions, and thus fill in the research gap between perceived and
actual country of origin effect. I propose that if consumers associate a brand with a favorable
country, this will lead to more positive brand attitude, higher brand trust and purchase
intentions than in the case of associating the brand with an unfavorable country or with no
country whatsoever.
This leads to the following research question:
To what extend does the association of a brand with a favorable country, regardless of
the actual country of brand origin, result in a positive effect on consumers’ perception of
the brand?
In order to answer this question a qualitative research method was used and an online survey
was distributed among a student sample. The survey included three ice cream brands each
representing different condition of the perceived country of origin: positive country image,
negative country image and neutral condition (no country associations). Consequently the
differential effect of perceived country image was analyzed across the three conditions.
This study contributes to the marketing literature by expanding our understanding of
perceived COO as opposed to actual COO. Previous research by Magnusson, Westjohn, &
9
Zdravkovic (2011) already suggested that consumers’ perception of brand origin significantly
affects brand attitude. The present research complements this by also investigating the effect
of perceived brand origin on brand trust and purchase intentions. Moreover, this study also
has a managerial application by offering practitioner a better understanding of the foreign
branding strategy. The findings of the present research can be applied in the marketing
practice as a way to create competitive advantage. Making a brand seem like it originates
from a foreign country is a way to distinguish the brand and make it unique and easily
recognizable in local markets. However, the country image should be carefully considered.
The perceived country of origin only contributes to the brand image if it is a country with
favorable associations. This research also emphasizes marketing practitioners’ need to
consider the difference in the perceptions of people from different regions. The different
culture and level of economic development across countries/regions might cause the effect of
perceived country of origin to be stronger in some regions and weaker in others.
This thesis is structured as follows: the next chapter outlines the developments in the research
on the country of origin effect, its criticism and the emergence of the concept of perceived
country of origin. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology, including results from a
pretest and how they helped design the main questionnaire. Chapter 4 presents the statistical
analysis of the data collected through this questionnaire and includes hypotheses testing.
Consequently chapter 5 discusses the results and outlines some of the limitations of the
research. The thesis ends with a brief conclusion in chapter 6.
10
2. Literature review
2.1 Defining Country of Origin
Country image and country of origin effect have long been of research interest. Many authors
have attempted to combine the vast literature on the topic and create a review article that
summarizes the findings on the topic and provides valuable insights. Al-Sulaiti & Baker
(1998) provide a literature review of the research on the country of origin effect since the
middle of the 1960s until 1997. Through the years different definitions of “country of origin”
have emerged. Some authors use the term country of origin to refer to “the country of
manufacture or assembly” of a product while others use the term “made in –“(Al-Sulaiti &
Baker, 1998). Country of origin effect occurs when consumers prefer a certain product only
because it is produced in a particular country. This bias is caused by the overall image of the
country. Country image is defined as “consumers’ general perceptions of quality for products
made in a given country” (Bilkey and Nes, 1982 in Han, 1989, p.222). The image of the
country can affect consumers’ perceptions of the products manufactured in that country and
influence product preference, quality evaluation, and buying decisions for products that are
associated with the country - either designed, or manufactured, or assembled in that country
(Han, 1989).
The first research to explore the significance of the country of origin information in
consumers’ purchase intentions was conducted by Schooler in 1965. He proposed that
consumers evaluate identical products differently and the basis for this difference is the
national origin of the products (Schooler, 1965). He confirmed this hypothesis by conducting
a research in Central America, thus proving for the first time that country of origin effect
exists. The underlying explanation for the different product evaluation is based on people’s
different evaluations of national segments (business, labor, government, and people) and
travel experience (Schooler, 1965).
11
Nowadays brands are increasingly international and manufactured in a number of countries
which leads to a change of the definition of country of origin. Country of origin is described
as the country of brand origin where the corporate headquarters of the company are situated
regardless of the location of actual manufacturing (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2011).
There are two different views on the role of country image in consumers’ product evaluations
(Han, 1989). The view of country image as a “halo” suggests that consumers use country
image as a sign for product quality when they encounter an unknown foreign brand (Han,
1989). The idea of country image as a halo is relevant only when consumers are not familiar
with products from a certain country. However, if consumers are familiar with products of the
country, country image is regarded as a summary construct in the same way as brand image is
a summary construct (Han, 1989). The summary construct model suggests that consumers
summarize information about a country’s products, then form product beliefs and based on
them consumers form their perceptions of the country (Han, 1989). Other researchers propose
that both country image and product beliefs simultaneously influence attitudes (Knight &
Calantone, 2000).
2.2 Country of Origin as a Brand Building Tool
In the competitive environment nowadays, marketers use brand building tools in order to
differentiate their brand. These include primary brand elements such as brand name, logo,
slogan but also secondary sources of brand knowledge (Keller, 2005). Secondary sources of
brand knowledge require associating the brand to an independent entity that has associations
on its own – for example a person (when using a celebrity endorser) or a place
(country/region of origin) - in order to borrow favorable associations (Keller, 2005). Those
secondary sources can be people, places or other brands that have their own associations but
are linked to the brand in a way that positive associations are transferred. The transfer of
12
meaning, feeling and associations from the country of brand origin to the brand involves risk
because if the image of the country dramatically deteriorates (for example in case of bad
policy decisions – starting a war, mistreating foreigners), it will have a negative effect on the
brand itself. According to Keller (2005) the brand will benefit from these associations only if
they are strong, favorable and unique.
2.3 Country of Origin and Product Categories
The country of origin effect is usually specific for product categories. For example,
consumers may prefer automobiles from Germany but crystal from Ireland and shoes from
Italy (Roth & Romeo, 1992). A lot of research investigates how country image varies across
product categories. Roth and Romeo (1992) explore the fit (also referred to as “match”)
between countries and product categories. They suggest that country image has a positive
effect on product evaluations when there is a favorable product-country match. A product-
country match occurs when a country is strong in an area that is an important feature for a
product category, whereas a mismatch occurs when a country’s strengths are not important for
the product category (Roth & Romeo, 1992). In the case of product country mismatch country
image does not influence consumers’ perceptions of the product. For example, Italy is
perceived as strong in the design area so there will be a positive match between Italy and
fashion-oriented products. On the other hand, a mismatch will occur in the case of Japanese
beer. Japan has an overall positive country image; however, the country’s strengths are related
to innovation and technological precision that are not important for beer.
There are different variables that moderate the effect of country of origin on consumers’
perceptions such as consumers’ nationality, level of education, country familiarity, age,
product involvement. Verlegh, Steenkamp, & Meulenberg (2005) propose that the impact of
product-country image depends on consumers’ level of involvement with the ad. Under the
13
condition of low involvement consumers will use peripheral cues such as country of origin.
They conclude that country of origin has a greater impact when consumers’ involvement is
low (Verlegh et al., 2005). Their study supports the idea that country of origin plays an
essential role in consumer product evaluations and supports the view of country of origin as a
“cognitive shortcut”.
2.4 Country of Origin Effect across Cultures
Country of origin effect has an important cross-national component because perceptions of a
country may be different depending on the consumers’ nationalities (Roth & Romeo, 1992).
Insch and McBride (2004) decompose COO into country of product design, country of
assembly and country of parts manufacture and test its effect on consumer perceptions using
samples from two different countries – Mexico and USA. Their research discovers that
customer perception of the importance of country of origin significantly varies between these
two countries. For example, country of design has a stronger impact on US consumers
compared to Mexican consumers in the sports shoes product category.
Country of origin effect also differs across countries because of cultural differences. Cultural
differences have been vastly research during the years because they have important
implications for management and marketing. Probably the most widely used and universally
accepted research on national culture and cultural difference is the one by Geert Hofstede.
Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the
members of one category of people from another” (Hofstede, 1994, p. 1). He identifies five
dimensions of culture: power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs.
femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long term vs. short term orientation and explores the
implications of these in the family, in society and at the workplace (Hofstede, 1994). These
dimensions of culture have also been used to explain the role of country of origin in
14
customers’ perceptions of a product ((Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000) and (Insch &
McBride, 2004)). For example, Gurhan-Canli & Maheswaran (2000) explore cultural
variations in country of origin effect and find differences in product evaluations based on
whether the society is individualistic or collectivist. There are significant variations in the
evaluations of home country products and foreign products. Individualists evaluate a home
country product more favorably only if it is superior to a foreign product; however
collectivists evaluate a home country product more favorably, no matter whether the product
is superior or inferior to a foreign product (Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000). Another
example is Insch & McBride’s (2004) study on differences in COO evaluations among
American and Mexican consumers which suggests that the underlying reason for these
differences is the difference in the power distance dimension between these two countries.
Insch & McBride (2004) point out that Mexico and the United States have the opposite scores
on three of Hofstede’s dimensions - individualism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance.
Hofstede suggested that there is a negative correlation between power distance and education
and between power distance and technological sophistication which might explain the
variations in country of origin effect (Insch & McBride, 2004).
People from different cultures have different norms and values but also hold different
stereotypes about the surrounding world. National stereotypes have been researched as an
underlying explanation for the country of origin effect (Chattalas, Kramer, & Takada, 2008).
Chattalas et. al (2008) use Stereotype Content Model to explore the relationship between
national stereotypes and country of origin effect. The two dimensions of national stereotypes
(perceived warmth and perceived competence) play a role in consumers’ product evaluation.
Therefore, the contents of national stereotypes are viewed as antecedents of COO effect.
Chattalas et. al (2008) find out that there exists a relationship between national stereotypes
and attitude towards products and this relationship is moderated by a several product and
15
consumer characteristics such as cultural orientation, expertise and involvement. The most
desirable position for a country is the quadrant characterized with high warmth and high
competence (Chattalas et al., 2008).
People’s culture has an influence on their consumer behavior in general which might
eventually impact their country of origin perceptions. For example, culture has been found to
affect prices and consumers’ shopping behavior (Ackerman & Tellis, 2001). In a cross-
cultural longitudinal study of American and Chinese consumers in California Ackerman &
Tellis (2001) find out dramatic differences in the shopping practices of the two cultures. Even
though the researched supermarkets are all situated in California, there is a huge difference in
prices for identical products between Chinese and American supermarkets, indicating that
culture can in fact affect prices. Moreover, people from these two countries exhibit different
shopping behavior. Chinese customers are more price-sensitive and engage in a more
extensive inspection of the products prior to purchase, for example by smelling the product.
They view shopping as a family experience and a type of entertainment, whereas for
Americans it is simply a task to perform. When shopping Americans value saving time, unlike
the Chinese who focus on saving money, even when people from both cultures have the same
socio-economic status (Ackerman & Tellis, 2001).
In sum, country of origin effect differs from country to country, therefore branding strategies
based on origin need to be customized for each particular country.
2.5 Developed and Developing Countries
Some studies focus on variations of COO effect based on differences between developed and
developing countries rather than culturally different countries (Batra, Ramaswamy, Alden,
Steenkamp, & Ramachander, 2014). Consumers in developing countries show a higher
preference towards foreign brands because of perceived product quality and social status.
16
Foreign goods are often associated with foreign lifestyle (high standard of living) and high
quality. Moreover, Batra et al. (2014) find out that preference towards imported products is
higher for people who appreciate Western lifestyle and for products that serve as a social
signal. Sharma (2011) uses two constructs – materialism and value consciousness to highlight
the differences between consumers’ perceptions of the country of origin in developed and
developing countries. Materialism and value consciousness have significant effect on product
preferences and purchase intentions only on consumers in emerging markets (Sharma, 2011).
Consumes from emerging markets prefer products from developed countries because of
perceived high quality and status enhancement; however, these consumers tend to be more
value conscious and price sensitive (Sharma, 2011). Therefore, price might be a more
influential extrinsic cue than country of origin. Local products might be preferred in emerging
markets because they are associated with lower prices.
The differences in country of origin effect in developed and developing countries might be
explained by the differences in the national culture of these countries. Cultural dimensions
were previously discussed as influencing COO perceptions; however researchers argue that
cultural dimensions are also correlated with the level of development of a country. Cox,
Friedman & Tribunella (2011) explore the relationship between cultural dimensions and gross
domestic product (GDP) and find out that power distance is negatively correlated with
weighted gross domestic product per capita. However, individualism is positively correlated
with weighted GDP per capita which indicates that with an increased economic development
of a country, the society of that country is expected to become more individualistic (Cox et
al., 2011).
17
2.6 Criticism on Country of Origin
Despite the numerous studies that prove the effect of COO, the field has been highly
criticized. Recent research proclaims COO as irrelevant, suffering from overspecialization
and problems with generalizability; however other authors provide strong arguments that
COO is still an important cue (Josiassen & Harzing, 2008). The literature on country of origin
is based on the assumption that consumers possess accurate knowledge of brands’ country of
origin; however many researchers cast a doubt on this assumption (Balabanis &
Diamantopoulos, 2008).
One of the reasons for criticism of COO is people’s lack of knowledge about brand origin
(Samiee et al., 2005). Samiee et al (2005) develop a measure for brand origin recognition
accuracy (BORA) and determine four factors that affect the BORA score: socioeconomic
characteristics, international experience, demographics and ethnocentric tendencies. Their
study of brand origin recognition accuracy of 84 brands finds out that respondents are capable
of correctly recognizing the brand origin of only 22.3% of foreign brands and 49% of US
(local) brands (Samiee et al., 2005). Consequently, this research concludes that consumers
find COO information unimportant and unworthy of memorizing. Another study finds out
that consumers have the ability to correctly identify the country of origin of different brands
in only 22 % of the cases (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2008). After discovering consumers’
inability to correctly classify brands’ origin, a research was conducted to explore the gains
and losses of this misclassification (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2011). In that research
Balabanis & Diamantopoulos (2011) explore the consequences of brand origin
misclassification in terms of brand image evaluation and purchase intentions. They suggest
there are two types of misclassification – adverse and favorable - depending on whether the
perceived country has a worse or a better image than the image of the actual country of origin.
They propose that “weak brands have more to gain from favorable COO misclassification,
18
whereas strong brands have more to lose from adverse COO misclassification” (Balabanis &
Diamantopoulos, 2011). However, their findings suggest that even favorable misclassification
does not have a positive effect on brand image perceptions or purchase intentions – a
conclusion that cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of foreign branding strategies.
However, Josiassen & Harzing (2008) point out the importance of the concept of foreign
branding and by this refute the idea of COO becoming irrelevant. Consumers may easily
confuse a brand as coming from a country other than its actual origin and this gives marketers
the opportunity to associate their brand with any country, thus choosing one with a favorable
image. Leclerc, Schmitt, & Dubé (1994) define foreign branding as “the strategy of spelling
or pronouncing a brand name in a foreign language” which influences the way customers
perceive and evaluate a product. For example, the American bottled water company
Klarbrunn uses a German sounding brand name to elicit positive associations with the
German Alps (Leclerc et al., 1994).
Another argument suggesting the lack of significance of country of origin cue is the
increasing number of multinational companies with global production. Products of big
international corporations are often produced in different countries and assembled in yet
another country which makes COO as a term vague and even meaningless, therefore
considered as unimportant cue for forming product preference and purchasing decisions
(Pharr, 2005).
2.7 Perceived Country of Origin
Despite the lack of accuracy in country of origin perceptions COO effect matters (Magnusson
et al., 2011). However, the attention is shifted from actual country of origin to perceived
country of origin. The relevant country of origin nowadays is the country of association
(Josiassen & Harzing, 2008).
19
Magnusson et al. (2011) provide evidence that perceived brand origin influences brand
attitude regardless of the accuracy of the perception. Realizing this, marketers take deliberate
actions to differentiate their brand by associating it to a country with positive image even if it
is not the country of origin. However, the effectiveness of this type of branding strategy is not
researched in depth. Moreover, it is unclear how the moderators that affect the actual country
of origin will influence the relationship between perceived country of origin and brand
attitude.
For the purposes of this research we define perceived country of origin as the country that
customers associate with a brand. This can be the same country as the country of origin or a
different country. Moreover, consumers’ perception for this country might be positive, neutral
or negative depending on whether they hold favorable associations with this particular
country. Perceived country of origin is the independent variable in this research. The next
three sections provide definitions of the three dependent variables: brand attitude, brand trust
and purchase intentions.
2.8 Brand Attitude
Keller (1993) defines customer-based brand equity as “the differential effect of brand
knowledge on customer response to the marketing of the brand” (p. 8). Keller (2001)
identifies six brand building blocks - salience, performance, imagery, judgments, feelings and
resonance, that are organized in four levels of a pyramid. These four levels need to be reached
by consumers so that the brand can build customer-based brand equity. The four levels relate
to brand identity, brand meaning, brand response and customer-brand relationship (Keller,
2001). At the third level of this pyramid brand attitude is formed. It consists of brand
judgments (relating to the more functional aspects of the brand) and brand feelings (relating to
the emotional response to the brand).
20
Brand image and brand attitude should be differentiated. Brand image is a collection of brand
related associations (Keller, 1993). Keller (1993) explores three types of associations -
attributes, benefits and attitudes. Therefore, brand attitude is just one aspect of brand image.
Brand attitude relates to the overall evaluation of the brand and is viewed as a function of the
attributes and benefits that are associated with the brand (Keller, 1993). According to Keller
(2001) achieving positive attitude towards the brand is a critical step towards achieving brand
resonance which is the ultimate goal of any brand building program. If consumers hold a
positive brand attitude, they can move to the next level of the brand pyramid that is
characterized with brand loyalty, attachment, community and engagement (Keller, 2001).
Positive brand attitude might be created by leveraging positive associations from the country
of brand origin, which is an important source of secondary brand knowledge (Keller, 2005).
2.9 Brand Trust
Brand trust, also referred to as brand trustworthiness and brand credibility, is defined as: “the
confident expectations of the brand’s reliability and intentions” (Delgado-Ballester & Luis
Munuera-Alemán, 2005, p. 188).
Brand trust is based on consumers’ belief that the brand is consistent, honest and responsible
(Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). To trust a brand means to believe or
expect that the brand will deliver a positive outcome. Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-
Alemán (2005) investigated two distinct dimensions of brand trust – reliability and intentions.
Reliability refers to the brand’s ability to satisfy customer wants and needs while intentions
relates to the good rather than bad intentions of the brand; brand trust also involves the
brand’s behavior - the extent to which a brand keep its promises to customers (Delgado-
Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). In a previous research Delgado-Ballester and Luis
Munuera-Alemán (2001) explored the relationship among brand trust, satisfaction and loyalty.
21
They conceptualized brand trust as “the feeling of security held by the consumer that the
brand will meet his/her consumption expectations” (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-
Alemán, 2001, p. 1242). The findings of their research indicate that there is a direct effect of
overall satisfaction on brand trust and this relationship is moderated by customer involvement,
moreover brand trust is positively related to customer commitment. These results suggest that
overall satisfaction is an antecedent of brand trust whereas brand loyalty is a consequence of
brand trust.
Trust is a form of an interpersonal relationship; therefore the idea of brand trust implies that
the relationship between a consumer and a brand is similar to personal relationships (Delgado-
Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2001). This is in line with the idea of Brand as Intentional
Agents Framework (BIAF) that explores people’s perceptions of a brand using two
dimensions – intentions and ability (Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012). These dimensions are
comparable to the reliability and intensions dimensions used by Delgado-Ballester and Luis
Munuera-Alemán (2005).
2.10 Purchase Intentions
Purchase intention is the most concrete attribute compared to brand attitude and brand trust.
During the last decades researchers have explored the various effects of country of origin on
product perceptions. Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, & Palihawadana (2011) found out that
country of origin image impacts purchase intentions indirectly and that indirect relationship is
mediated by brand image. Different factors influence purchase intentions, for instance culture
has an effect on price consciousness and price sensitivity and these might also have an effect
on purchase intentions (Ackerman & Tellis, 2001). Moreover, people from developing
countries are more likely to be price conscious due to low income. Culture might also affect
22
purchase intentions indirectly by influencing the values of a society. People from a
materialistic culture will be more likely to engage in impulsive purchases.
2.11 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
We have already defined the terms country of origin and perceived country of origin and
provided evidence from previous research that the country of brand origin influences brand
attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions. The aim of the present study is to investigate
how the association of a brand with a country, without it being the country of origin,
influences these three variables. We propose that the effect will be similar to the effect of
actual country of origin but only when the perception is related to a country with a favorable
image. The favorable country image will make the brand more likeable and trustworthy, thus
resulting in a more positive brand attitude, higher trust and purchase intentions for the brand.
Therefore, the following hypotheses will be tested:
Hypothesis 1: Favorable image of the perceived country of brand origin influences positively
consumers’ attitude towards the brand.
Hypothesis 2: Favorable image of the perceived country of brand origin influences positively
consumers’ trust towards the brand.
Hypothesis 3: Favorable image of the perceived country of brand origin influences positively
consumers’ purchase intentions towards the brand.
We investigated these propositions by comparing the condition of a favorable country image
with the situations when the perception is negative and neutral. Moreover, we expect that
consumers’ nationality, in other words their own country of origin, might influence this effect
making it stronger for some consumers due to cultural differences and differences among
consumers from developed vs. developing countries.
23
However, to make this research more viable we tested this proposition based on respondents
region of origin, not nationality. More information about the four regional groups of countries
is included in chapter 4. This leads to the last hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Consumers’ region of origin impacts their perception of the country of brand
origin in a way that the effect of perceived country of origin on brand attitude (4a), brand trust
(4b) and purchase intentions (4c) will be different across regions.
Figure 1 shows a graphic presentation of the model.
H4a b c H1
H2
H3
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
Perceived
Country of
Brand Origin
Brand Attitude
Brand Trust
Purchase Intentions
Respondents’ Region of Origin
24
3. Research Methodology
In this chapter the research method used for exploring the effect of perceived country of
origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions will be presented. The chapter
includes a description of the research design, the pretest, the main questionnaire and lastly a
description of the dependent variables and the scales used for their measurement.
3.1 Research Design
In order to explore the effect of perceived country of origin, a quantitative research was
carried out using an online self-administered survey. The survey asked respondents to
evaluate three ice cream brands. All survey participants answered questions about all three
brands thus a within-subjects design was used.
The chosen brands are Perry’s Ice cream, Häagen-Dazs and Baskin-Robbins. All of these
brands are originating from the United States of America; however they employ different
branding strategies regarding the usage of country of origin information. Perry’s Ice Cream
emphasizes it American origin by offering an “All American” ice cream. Häagen-Dazs uses a
foreign branding strategy by choosing a German/Scandinavian sounding brand name. Baskin-
Robbins does not include any country cues in its packaging and has a relatively neural brand
name, thus we expect it will not cause any country associations in the mind of the
respondents. In a way this brand serves as a control item for the research.
The respondents expressed their opinion about the three ice cream brands which provided
insight about their brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions. The United States of
America were chosen as a country of interest after a pretest showed a relatively negative
quality perception towards food products coming from the US. The pretest indicated however
a rather positive attitude towards German and Danish food products. Therefore, in this
25
research Perry’s ice cream represents a brand with unfavorable perceived country of origin,
Häagen-Dazs represents a brand with favorable perceived country of origin and Baskin-
Robbins stands for a brand with neutral perceived country of origin in terms of favorability.
Ice cream was selected as a product category in this research because of four reasons. First of
all, it is a small daily purchase so consumers are expected to have a low involvement in this
product category. The elaboration likelihood model suggests that under low involvement
peripheral cues such as country of origin might be important for the purchase decision
(Cacioppo & Petty, 1983, p.13). Secondly, ice cream was chosen because of consumers’
familiarity with this product category. Respondents can easily imagine the scenario of seeing
the ice cream brands in their local supermarket and answer the questions regardless of their
previous knowledge of the brand. Moreover, ice cream consumers are often variety seeking
which means that strong customer loyalty to other brands will not interfere with respondents’
answer to the survey questions. When consumers are variety seeking there is also a higher
likelihood that they will consider purchasing an unfamiliar brand. Thirdly, ice cream was
chosen due to the availability of ice cream brands that employ the foreign branding strategy
(e.g. Häagen-Dazs, Frusen Glädjé) and this made the research more feasible. Lastly, the
findings in the ice cream product category are expected to be easily transferable to other food
products. Therefore, the results of this research will contribute not only theoretically but
might as well be actively applied in the marketing practice.
Existing brands were used in order to increase the similarity of the research to real life
situations; however if respondents had previous experience with the brands this might lead to
bias. In other words, respondents might be evaluating the brand based on their experience
rather than the information provided in the survey.
26
The questionnaire explicitly instructed the respondents not to look up additional information
about the brands while answering the survey questions in order to ensure that they make their
answer choice based solely on the given information in the survey. The survey included a
picture of the product where the brand name can be seen as well as a descriptor (e.g. in the
case of Perry’s Ice Cream - “All American”). Thus respondents could make inferences about
the country of brand origin.
All ice cream types included in the questionnaire were selected to have the same flavor
(vanilla) to avoid biased answers as a result of personal preferences.
3.2 The Pretest
Before conducting the main survey, a pretest was carried out. The purpose of the pretest was
to determine the favorability of country image for six different countries. The countries
included in the pretest were: USA, China, Germany, Denmark, South Korea, and Greece.
These were selected to represent countries with different level of development that were
hypothesized to have different country image. Moreover, these countries are well-known
therefore I expect that the survey respondents will have strong associations and hold an
opinion about the products manufactured there. The pretest consisted of 5 statements for each
country, 30 statements in total. The aim of these statements was to determine the favorability
of each country in terms of country image in general, attitude towards products produced in
these countries, quality perception of food products originating from each of these countries,
as well as purchase intentions. An example statement is: “I believe products manufactured in
country A are better than similar products produced in other countries”. Each statement was
rated on a five-point Likert scale where 1 stands for Strongly Disagree and 5 stands for
Strongly Agree. The survey ended with a few demographic questions asking about
respondents’ age, gender and nationality. The pretest questionnaire is included in Appendix 1.
27
The pretest was distributed among university students, ages between 20 and 26. In total the
survey received 15 responses. The subjects participating in the pretest have similar
demographic characteristics with the respondents of the main survey. Most importantly, the
participants in this pretest had a diverse national background including Dutch, Bulgarian,
Polish, Vietnamese, Indian, Ecuadorian, and Chinese. None of the countries included in the
survey was represented by a large number of respondents coming from this country, therefore
eliminating the chances of bias due to ethnocentricity.
All of the statements used to evaluate the countries were positive thus a higher mean score
indicates a more positive country image. The mean scores were: 3.4 for the United States,
2.68 for China, 4.05 for Germany, 3.78 for Denmark, 3.12 for Greece and 3.4 for South
Korea. However, there were big differences between the overall attitude towards the countries
and the attitude towards food products originating from these countries. While the total mean
score of the USA was relatively high, the country had the lowest score on food products
quality perception among all six countries (mean = 2.77). Since the focus of the main
questionnaire is on a food item (ice cream), the USA will be considered as having an
unfavorable country image. The findings of the pretest suggest that Germany and Denmark
have the most favorable country image (both in general and in the food product category).
Consequently, the USA was chosen as an actual country of origin for this research and the
three chosen brands of ice cream had different perceived countries of origin with different
favorability of the country image. Table 1 provides an overview of the brands chosen and
their actual and perceived countries of origin.
28
Table 1: Brands chosen, actual and perceived COO and favorability of the perception
Ice cream brand Actual country of
origin
Perceived country of
origin
Country image of the
perceived country of
origin
Perry’s USA USA Negative
Häagen-Dazs USA Denmark/Germany Positive
Baskin-Robbins USA Not country specific Neutral
3.3 The Main Questionnaire
The main questionnaire consisted of four parts. In the first part respondents were asked to
evaluate the three brands of ice cream using established scales to measure brand attitude and
brand trust. Moreover they were asked to express whether they are considering buying this
brand or would like to receive more information about it. The only information included for
each brand was a picture of the product. On the image the brand name was clearly visible, as
well as the “All American” sub-name for Perry’s Ice Cream. Brand attitude was measured
using a seven-point semantic differential scale while brand trust and purchase intentions were
measured with a seven-point Likert scale where 1 stands for strongly disagree and 7 stands for
strongly agree.
The second part of the survey asked the respondents to look at the three pictures of ice cream
brands once again and indicate whether they were familiar with each brand prior to taking the
survey. Respondents also had to write the name of the country they believe each brand comes
from.
The next part of the survey asked respondents about the importance of the country of origin of
products they buy. They had to evaluate how important the COO information is when
purchasing durable goods and food products separately. Consequently, they indicated their
29
frequency of looking for COO information. These questions were only included so that we
have a more accurate description of the sample.
The last part of the survey asked for respondents’ demographic information including age,
gender and nationality.
The instructions made it clear that respondents should answer each question based only on the
information included in the survey without looking up additional information. However, we
have to acknowledge that some of the respondents had previous experience with these brands
so it is likely that they used this experience in expressing their opinion. All respondents
answered question about all three brands. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix 2.
3.4 Measurement of the Dependent Variables
The dependent variables in this study are brand attitude, brand trust, and purchase intention.
Brand attitude and brand trust were measured using existing validated scales, whereas
purchase intention was measured using a single item (likelihood to buy the product, evaluated
on a seven-point Likert scale). Using a single item for measuring purchase intentions is
recommended in previous studies because this variable is a concrete attribute and measuring it
with only one item does not harm the validity of the research (Diamantopoulos et al., 2011).
Brand attitude was measured using a seven-point sematic differential scale adopted from the
research by Li, Daugherty & Biocca (2002) and previously published in Bruner (1998) (Li,
Daugherty, & Biocca, 2002). The scale includes six items: bad/good, unappealing/appealing,
unpleasant/pleasant, unattractive/ attractive, boring/interesting, and dislike/like. The scale
reliability is reported by Li et al (2002) as .91.
Brand trust was measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items (e.g. This brand is
reliable.). The scale is reported by Bruner in Marketing Scales Handbook (2013, p. 373) and
30
is originating from Sheinin, Varki, and Ashley (2011). The Cronbach's Alphas reported are
.88 (Study 1) and .89 (Study 2). The first scale item (This brand is dependable) is unclear and
confusing when asked about an ice cream brand, therefore it was replaced with the statement:
“This brand can deliver what it promises (e.g. good taste, premium ice cream)”. The
questionnaire also included other possible statements to be an alternative of the first one.
However, the above-mentioned statement showed a good correlation with the other two scale
items and resulted in a good scale reliability, so it was the one used in computing the brand
trust scale mean in the following chapter.
31
4. Results
In this chapter the data collected with the questionnaire will be statistically analyzed in order
to explore the effect of perceived country of origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase
intention. The chapter includes sample description, scale reliabilities, correlations and
hypotheses testing.
4.1 Sample Description
In total the survey received 109 responses with a 13% dropout rate. After eliminating unfilled
questionnaires or partial responses, we were left with 95 usable surveys.
They survey was distributed online mainly to students from the University of Amsterdam
(UvA). UvA is an international university with over 3,000 international students coming from
about 100 countries. Since it is important to ensure respondents with various national and
cultural backgrounds, UvA is a suitable environment to carry out this research. The research
used self-selection sampling technique. Respondents were invited to participate in the survey
through various online communication channels that are currently popular among university
students. The self-selection sampling technique means that respondents identify themselves as
sample members (Saunders & Lewis, 2012, p. 140). The researcher invites people to
participate in the survey by placing an advertisement announcing the research in a relevant
media (in this case Facebook). This sampling technique is increasingly popular due to the
variety of electronic media (blogs, social media, and discussion boards) however it has the
disadvantage that people who select themselves to be part of the sample might have strong
opinions about the researched topic or be particularly interested in it (Saunders & Lewis,
2012, p. 140). This means that they might not be representative of the population.
The majority of respondents were female (67%) and the average age was 25.4 years with
median age 24. This was expected since most respondents were university students.
32
Most importantly, the sample included people with diverse cultural background. Respondents
were nationals of 24 different countries including Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Germany,
the Netherlands, and the United States. The majority the respondents were from the
Netherlands (40% indicated Dutch nationality), followed by 19% Bulgarians. Respondents
were grouped into four regions based on their nationality: 8.8% are from Asia, 11% from
North America, 29.7% from Central and Eastern Europe, and 50.5% from Western Europe.
One respondent from Ecuador was not categorized in any of these regions as it was not
statistically reasonable to make a group with only one respondent. Unfortunately, some
respondents chose not to answer the question about their nationality
Table 2 shows the respondents’ distribution among regions and indicates which countries
were included in each region. For a full overview of the respondents per country, please refer
to Appendix 3.
Table 2: Respondents’ Nationality and Region
Region Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
Countries Included in the
Region
Asia 8 8.8% China, Indonesia, India, Iran,
Vietnam
North America 27 11% Canada, Mexico, the USA
Central and
Eastern Europe
10 29.7% Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary,
Poland, Romania, Russia,
Slovakia, Ukraine
Western
Europe
46 50.5% Austria, Germany, Finland,
France, the United Kingdom,
Italy, Netherlands
4.2 Perceived Country of Origin
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were familiar with each of the three ice
cream brands prior to taking the survey. Only 4% of the survey participants were familiar
with Perry’s ice cream, however 84% correctly identified the country of origin. A few people
who did not indicate the correct country of brand origin believed that the brand comes from
33
the UK or Italy. The brand emphasizes its American origin and therefore even though the
subjects of the questionnaire were mostly unfamiliar with the brand, their perception of the
country of origin matches with the actual country of brand origin.
In the case of Häagen-Dazs, 59% of the respondents indicated they were familiar with the
brand prior to taking the survey. Even though the majority of the respondents had previous
experience with the brand, only 22% of the respondents correctly indicated the USA as a
country of origin of Häagen-Dazs. However, 27% believed that the brand is from Germany
while 13% thought it is Danish. Surprisingly 16% thought it is Dutch, perhaps misled by the
fact that this is research made at the University of Amsterdam. The rest 23% mentioned other
countries among which Austria, Sweden, and Switzerland. The difference in perceptions of
country of origin is consistent with what we expected. Even though people are more familiar
with this brand they are more confused about its origin as a result of the foreign branding
strategy employed by Häagen-Dazs.
Baskin-Robbins was a familiar brand to 25% of the survey respondents. 57% of them
indicated the correct country of brand origin - the USA, while 25% believed the brand is
originating from the UK. The rest 18% had various ideas where the brand might be from such
as Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Spain. This brand served as a control condition in this
survey. Unlike the other two brands, Baskin-Robbins neither emphasizes its American origin,
nor uses foreign branding strategy. However, most survey participants still managed to
identify the actual country of origin. Due to the English-sounding brand name respondents’
perceived countries of origin were mainly English speaking countries – the USA and the UK.
Table 3 summarizes the information on respondents’ familiarity with the three ice cream
brands and the accuracy of the COO perception.
34
Table 3: Perceived Country of Origin
Ice Cream Brand Percentage of Respondents
Familiar with the Brand
Percentage of Respondents who
Correctly Identified the COO
Perry’s Ice Cream 4% 84%
Häagen-Dazs 59% 22%
Baskin-Robbins 25% 57%
Regarding the importance of country of product origin, 45% of respondents consider country
of origin information to be very important when buying durable good. Slightly less (44%)
consider country of origin to be very important when buying food products. Only 9% of the
survey participants think that COO is extremely important when purchasing durable goods,
whereas 13% consider it extremely important in the case of food products. At the same time
31% of the respondents indicated that they rarely search for country of origin information of
products they buy, while 33% look for this information sometimes. Only 7% of the research
participants search for COO information every time.
4.3 Scale Reliabilities
Brand attitude and brand trust were measured using established scales previously used by
marketing researchers. Before proceeding with analyzing the data, the scales reliabilities have
to be evaluated. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to check the scale reliability.
Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency and varies from 0 to 1. Value higher
than 0.7 indicate a high internal consistency, thus a reliable scale.
Brand attitude was measured using a semantic differential scale including 6 items. The brand
attitude scale has a good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94 for Perry’s Ice Cream, 0.96
for Häagen-Dazs and 0.97 for Baskin-Robbins. The corrected item-total correlation indicates
that all items have good correlation with the total score of the scales. The deletion of the fifth
item (boring-interesting) in the Perry’s brand attitude measure will increase the Cronbach’s
35
alpha to 0.944 but this difference is less than 0.1 so the increase is negligible. Therefore the
scale has a good degree of reliability without any items being deleted. As for Häagen-Dazs
and Baskin-Robbins brand attitude measures, the deletion of none of the times will lead to an
increase in the Cronbach’s alpha.
Brand trust was measure using a seven-point Likert scale including three items. The scale has
a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85 for Perry’s Ice Cream, 0.94 for Häagen-Dazs and 0.92 for Baskin-
Robbins. All Cronbach's alpha values are above the 0.7 threshold which means good degree
of reliabilities for all scales. All items have corrected item-total correlation above 0.30
showing a good correlation with the total score of the scales. If the first item in the Perry’s
brand trust measure is deleted, the alpha will increase from 0.847 to 0.855. If the same item is
deleted in the Häagen-Dazs and Baskin-Robbins brand trust measures, the Cronbach's alphas
would rise from 0.937 and 0.922 to 0.953 and 0.944 respectively. However, these differences
are less than 0.1 therefore the deletion is not recommended or necessary. Consequently, we
can conclude there is a good reliability of the questionnaire design. Table 4 summarizes the
Cronbach's alpha values for the brand attitude scale and the brand trust scale for Perry’s Ice
Cream, Häagen-Dazs and Baskin-Robbins.
Table 4: Reliability Statistics
Brand Attitude Scale
Cronbach's Alpha
Brand Trust Scale
Cronbach's Alpha
Perry’s 0.941 0.847
Häagen-Dazs 0.960 0.937
Baskin-Robbins 0.969 0.922
36
4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
After the preliminary analysis of the scale reliabilities, the means of the scales were
computed. Table 5 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations for the main
variables of interest. It is clear that Häagen-Dazs has the highest mean brand attitude, brand
trust and purchase intention. Häagen-Dazs is followed by Baskin-Robins in the brand attitude
and brand trust measures, however not in respondents’ purchase intentions. Respondents
showed slightly higher intentions to buy Perry’s Ice Cream compared to Baskin-Robbins.
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations
Age is not significantly correlated with any of the dependent variables. Gender is significantly
correlated only with Häagen-Dazs brand attitude (r = 0.331), brand trust (r = 0.278) and
purchase intentions (r = 0.3). The brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions for each
of the three ice cream brands are significantly positively correlated with each other for each
individual brand. This was anticipated because a more positive brand attitude will go along
with higher brand trust and purchase intentions.
4.5 Hypotheses Testing: Repeated Measures ANOVA
In this section the first three hypotheses were tested using repeated measures ANOVA.
Hypothesis 1 stated that the perception of a favorable country of brand origin has a positive
37
effect on customers’ attitude towards the brand. We tested this hypothesis by examining the
mean brand attitude across three conditions: favorable perceived country of origin,
unfavorable perceived country of origin and neutral perceived country of origin (or no country
associations). Using repeated measures ANOVA the null hypothesis of no statistically
significant differences between the means was explored. If the results show a significantly
higher brand attitude in the favorable country image condition but no difference in the other
two conditions, the hypothesis would be supported.
Brand Attitude
A repeated measure ANOVA is an appropriate test for this research because it explores the
mean difference for within-subjects design. All participants in the survey answered questions
about the three conditions of perceived country of origin; therefore we repeatedly measured
the same subjects and want to analyze the mean difference in their brand attitude in the three
scenarios. The dependent variable was brand attitude and the independent variable was
country image (of the perceived country of origin) consisting of three categorical groups:
negative image of the perceived country of origin (in the case of Perry’s Ice Cream), positive
image of the perceived country of origin (Häagen-Dazs) and neutral image (Baskin-Robbins).
In order to perform repeated measures ANOVA, the data should meet the sphericity
assumption meaning that the variances of the differences between all combinations of related
groups are equal (Laerd Statistics, 2013). One way to test this assumption is by using
Mauchly's test of sphericity in SPSS Statistics (Mauchly, 1940). The Mauchly’s test was not
significant (p = .086) therefore the sphericity assumption is fulfilled. The mean brand attitude
respondents indicated was 4.365 in the first condition (negative perceived country image),
5.514 in the second condition (positive image of the perceived COO) and 4.379 in the third
condition (neutral). The repeated measures ANOVA showed that these means are
38
significantly different, F(2, 186) = 24.16, p<.0005. The pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni
correction revealed that subjects had significantly higher brand attitude towards the positive
perceived COO condition compared to the negative country image (mean difference = 1.149,
p < .0005) and compared to the neutral condition (mean difference = 1.135, p < .0005).
However, the brand attitude in the neutral and the negative conditions did not differ
significantly. In other words, there is a statistically significant difference between the mean
brand attitude towards the positive and the negative perceived COO and between the positive
and the neutral perceived COO suggesting that respondents preferred the ice cream brand
coming from a country with a favorable image. The results of the repeated measures
ANOVA support hypothesis 1. Table 6 shows the pairwise comparisons of the three
conditions.
Table 6: Brand Attitude Pairwise Comparisons
Country Image Mean
Difference Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval for Difference
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Negative x Positive -1.149* .195 .000 -1.624 -.674
Negative x Neutral -.014 .168 1.000 -.423 .395
Positive x Neutral 1.135* .205 .000 .636 1.634
Brand Trust
Hypothesis 2 proposed that customers have a higher brand trust towards brands they perceive
as origination from a country with a favorable image. Repeated measures ANOVA was used
once again to test whether there is a significant difference in the brand trust means across the
three conditions of country image. The mean brand trust was 5.47 in the positive country
image condition, 4.33 in the negative and 4.44 in the neutral. The Mauchly’s sphericity test
was not significant (p = .651) therefore the sphericity assumption is met (Mauchly, 1940).
The repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the means of brand trust
39
across the three ice cream brands that represent the three conditions, F(2, 186) = 28.29, p <
.0005. The post hoc test indicated there was a significant difference between the positive and
negative condition (mean difference=1.144, p < .0005), as well as between the positive and
neutral (mean difference = 1.034, p < .0005). There was no statistically significant difference
between the brand trust in the negative and neutral condition. These results are similar to the
results obtained for brand attitude. The analysis showed that respondents had a significantly
higher brand trust towards the brand which they perceived as originating from a country with
positive image. These results are consistent with the proposition of Hypothesis 2. The
pairwise comparisons are presented in table 7.
Table 7: Brand Trust Pairwise Comparisons
Country Image Mean
Difference Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval for Difference
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Negative x Positive -1.144* .173 .000 -1.565 -.722
Negative x Neutral -.110 .160 1.000 -.499 .279
Positive x Neutral 1.034* .170 .000 .618 1.449
Purchase Intentions
Hypothesis 3 suggests that perceived COO has an effect on purchase intentions in a way that
favorable image of the perceived COO leads to a higher likelihood of purchasing the product.
In order to test this hypothesis the same procedure was performed. Mauchly's test of
sphericity was not significant (p = .801) thus the sphericity assumption is met once again. The
mean values for purchase intentions were 5.39 for Häagen-Dazs, 4.26 for Perry’s and 4.19 for
Baskin-Robbins. The repeated measures ANOVA showed that the difference in the mean
purchase intentions is significant F(2, 186) = 17.49, p < .0005. Similarly to the results for
brand attitude and brand trust, the pairwise comparisons indicated that there was a significant
mean difference between respondents purchase intentions in the positive and negative country
image condition (mean difference =1.138, p < .0005), as well as in the positive and neutral
40
condition (mean difference=1.202, p < .0005); however there was no significant difference in
the means of the negative and neutral condition. This suggests that respondents are more
likely to buy the product that has a positive perceived country of origin compared to the
negative or neutral COO but there is no difference in the buying intentions between the
negative and neutral conditions themselves. The results of the repeated measures ANOVA
support hypothesis 3. Table 8 below shows the pairwise comparisons of the three conditions.
Table 8: Purchase Intentions Pairwise Comparisons
Country Image Mean
Difference Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval for Difference
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Negative x Positive -1.138* .233 .000 -1.706 -.571
Negative x Neutral .064 .221 1.000 -.474 .602
Positive x Neutral 1.202* .233 .000 .635 1.769
The results obtained from the three repeated measures ANOVAs indicated that the brand
attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions for Häagen-Dazs are significantly higher than
those for the other two brands of ice cream. Häagen-Dazs represented the condition of a
favorable image of the perceived country of origin. Even though the brand is originally from
the United States, most of the research participants perceive it as German or Scandinavian.
Germany and Denmark have a more favorable image than the USA in the food products
category as the pretest indicated. Therefore, we can conclude that the favorable image of the
perceived COO contributed for a higher brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.
There were no statistically significant differences in the means of these three dependent
variables in the neutral and negative conditions. Consequently, the first three hypotheses of
this research were supported.
41
4.6 Hypotheses Testing: Mixed ANOVA
The research participants were grouped into four regions based on their nationality: Asia,
North America (NA), Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Western Europe (WE).
Hypothesis 4 suggest that there are differences in the brand attitude, brand trust and purchase
intentions across the three conditions between participants from different regions. Different
countries have different culture and different level of development and these might affect
people’s perception of other countries. To test the fourth hypothesis it is assumed that
countries within one region have similar culture and level of development. Grouping
respondents by region is appropriate also because companies often have the same marketing
strategy for brands within the same region.
Mixed ANOVA was used to test whether there are differences in respondents’ brand attitude,
brand trust and purchase intentions in the three conditions based on the respondents’ regional
background. Mixed ANOVA is also referred to as repeated measures ANOVA with a
between-subjects factor. The three conditions of country image were the within-subject factor
and respondents’ region of origin was the between-subjects factor. Each respondent was
classified in one of the four regions based on the nationality they indicated when filling in the
survey. Mixed ANOVA was also used to explore the interactive effect between country image
and respondents’ regional background.
Brand attitude
Prior to the analysis, two of the assumptions of mixed ANOVA were checked. Mauchly’s test
of sphericity was used to check the sphericity assumption (Mauchly, 1940). Levene's test of
equality of error variances was used to check the assumptions of equal variance across groups
(Gastwirth, Gel, & Miao, 2009).
42
In the current experiment the assumption of the Mauchly’s test of sphericity was met because
the test was not significant (p = .279). Afterwards, the assumption that the variance is
equivalent in each group was explored. For Perry’s ice cream, this assumption was met;
however for Häagen-Dazs and Baskin-Robbins the test was significant (p = .033 and p = .014)
hence the assumption was not fulfilled. Therefore the results of the mixed ANOVA should be
considered with caution. The mixed ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference
in brand attitude across the three conditions of country image of the perceived COO, F(2, 172)
= 10.49, p < .0005 but no significant difference between the four regional groups (p = .088).
However, there was a significant interaction between the country image and respondents’
regional background, F(6, 172) = 4.68, p < .0005. Post hoc tests indicated that in the condition
of negative image of the perceived COO, p is greater than 0.05 in all combinations of groups;
therefore there is no significant difference between the brand attitudes across regional groups.
In the condition of positive image of the perceived COO there was a statistically significant
difference in the brand attitude towards Häagen-Dazs across regions. North Americans
significantly differed from Central and Eastern Europeans (mean difference = 1.45, p = .013)
and from Asians (mean difference = 1.596, p = .046) but do not differ significantly from
Western Europeans (p > 0.05). A possible explanation for their high brand attitude might be
that Americans are aware of the actual country of origin of Häagen-Dazs and prefer it because
of it. Further investigating this possible explanation reveals that it is unlikely true. Only 22%
of the respondents from North America knew that Häagen-Dazs is an American brand, while
most of them (44%) believed it is German. However, all respondents from the United States
indicated they were familiar with the brand prior to taking the survey and this might have
interfered with their brand attitude. Nevertheless, all but one respondent were also familiar
with Baskin-Robbins before participating in the survey but we do not see these results in the
neutral country image condition where Baskin-Robbins is the investigated brand. In the
43
condition of neutral country image of the perceived COO there was a significant difference
only between the brand attitude of Asians and Europeans. Asians have a significantly higher
brand attitude towards Baskin-Robbins compared to CEE (mean difference = 1.657, p = .028)
and WE (mean difference = 2.06, p = .002). Asians were also more familiar with Baskin-
Robbins prior to participating in the survey and this familiarity with the brand might have
influenced their answers.
Brand trust
The brand trust in the three different conditions was also explored using mixed ANOVA
taking respondents’ regional background as a between-subjects factor. The Mauchly’s test
was not significant (p=0.438) thus the sphericity assumption is met. Levene’s test of equality
of error variances was not significant for brand trust in all three brands (p=0.786, p=0.161 and
p=0.824) thus the assumption of equality of variance is met.
The mixed ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference in brand trust across the
three conditions of country image of the perceived COO, F(2, 172) = 15.77, p < .0005 and a
significant difference between the four regional groups, F(3,86) = 2.86, p = .042. There was
also a significant interaction between the country image and the respondents’ regional
background, F(6, 172) = 3.33, p = .004. Post hoc tests of this interaction indicated that in the
condition of negative country image of the perceived COO there was no statistically
significant difference in the brand trust between regions. In the positive country image
condition there was a significant difference only between respondents from Central and
Eastern Europe (CEE) and North America. Americans trust Häagen-Dazs significantly more
than Central and Eastern Europeans (mean difference = 1.394, p = .004). Asians have a
significantly higher brand trust towards Baskin-Robbins than Europeans – both Central and
44
Eastern Europeans (mean difference =1.362, p = .023) and Western Europeans (mean
difference =1.658, p = .002).
The pairwise comparisons by region show that respondents from Central and Eastern Europe
have no significant differences in their brand trust across conditions. However, Asians trust
significantly more Baskin-Robbins compared to Perry’s (mean difference = 1.333, p = .033).
Americans trust significantly more Häagen-Dazs compared to Perry’s (mean difference =
1.933, p = .001) and Baskin-Robbins (mean difference = 1.500, p = .009). Similarly, Western
Europeans trust Häagen-Dazs significantly more than Perry’s (mean difference = 1.232, p <
.0005) and Baskin-Robbins (mean difference = 1.522, p < .0005). The hypothesis that the
brand with favorable image of the perceived country of origin will be more trusted holds true
only for respondents from North America and Western Europe.
Purchase Intentions
In the third mixed ANOVA test Mauchly's test of sphericity was once again not significant (p
= .785) so the sphericity assumption was met. The equality of variance assumption was also
met since the Levene’s test was not significant for purchase intentions in all three conditions
(p = .524, p = .129, p = .212).
The mixed ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference in purchase intentions
across the three conditions of image of the perceived COO, F(2, 172) = 7.71, p = .001. The
between-subjects effect was not significant (p = .102) so there was no statistically significant
difference in the purchase intentions among the four geographical regions. However, there
was a significant interaction between the country image and respondents’ regional
background, F(6, 172) = 2.163, p = .049. The post hoc tests indicated that Asians have a
significantly higher intentions to buy Baskin-Robbins than Western Europeans (mean
difference = 1.973, p = .013). Furthermore, respondents from North America are more likely
45
to purchase Häagen-Dazs compared to Perry’s (mean difference = 1.9, p = .025) and Baskin-
Robbins (mean difference = 2.3, p = .004). Likewise, Western Europeans have significantly
higher purchase intentions towards Häagen-Dazs compared to Perry’s (mean difference =
1.239, p = .001) and Baskin-Robbins (mean difference = 1.674, p < .0005). There were no
significant differences in the purchase intentions of respondents from CEE and Asian across
the three conditions. These results indicate that purchase intentions in the condition of
positive image of the perceived COO (Häagen-Dazs) are significantly higher for respondents
coming from North America and Western Europe proving that respondents’ regional
background interacts with the image of the perceived COO and influences the purchase
intentions.
The expected effect of the favorable image of the perceived country of origin on brand
attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions was significant however when exploring the
effect by region it is clear that there are significant differences among the groups of people
from different regions. This indicates that respondents’ own place of origin interacts with the
perceived country of product origin and influences brand attitude, brand trust and purchase
intentions, supporting hypothesis 4.
46
5. Discussion, limitations and recommendations for future research
The results of this research showed that there are significant differences in respondents’ brand
attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions for three seemingly similar ice cream brands.
However, they differ in terms of their perceived country of origin. Häagen-Dazs implements a
foreign branding strategy by using a German/Scandinavian sounding brand name. As a result
the perceived country of origin for that product is different from the actual country of origin
and is a country with a more favorable image. Perry’s ice cream emphasizes its American
origin by offering “all American” ice cream. In this research the brand represented the
condition of negative image of the perceived country of origin because of the low score of the
USA in the pretest measuring the favorability of country image. The third brand, Baskin-
Robbins, does not use any country information in its branding. As expected, the results
showed that favorable country image contributes for a higher brand attitude, trust and
purchase intentions. Häagen-Dazs received significantly higher values for these three
variables compared to Perry’s and Baskin Robbins.
However there might be other factors influencing these results. Häagen-Dazs is an existing
brand and 59% of the respondents indicated they were familiar with it before filling in the
survey. It is possible that a positive experience with the brand in the past influenced the
opinion expressed in the survey. Even if the respondents did not try Häagen-Dazs ice cream
before, just the fact that they have already encountered the brand and are able to recognize it
might encourage their preference; a phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect (Stafford
& Grimes, 2012).
The research also found out that there are statistically significant differences in the
perceptions of people from different geographical regions. North Americans had a higher
brand attitude towards Häagen-Dazs then Central and Eastern Europeans and Asians
47
indicating that they find the brand more attractive, interesting and appealing. A possible
explanation might be that Americans perceive Häagen-Dazs as European (German, Danish).
They see the brand as originating from a distant peculiar country. On the other hand, people
from Central and Eastern Europe perceive Häagen-Dazs as originating from Western Europe
but this cultural distance is smaller so the brand does not seem that intriguing. Asians have a
significantly higher brand attitude towards Baskin-Robbins compared to Europeans which
might be explained by the brand’s popularity in the Asian region since most of the
respondents indicated they know the brand. The trust and purchase intentions towards the
brand with a favorable image of the perceived country of origin were significantly higher for
respondents from North America and Western Europe. It is important to consider regional
differences that may cause this result. Central and Eastern Europe and Asia consist of
countries with lower level of economic development than the countries in North America and
Western Europe. Consequently, respondents from these countries are likely to be more price-
sensitive and focused on the functional benefit of a product rather than the brand name. As a
result these respondents do not exhibit higher brand attitude, trust and purchase intentions
towards Häagen-Dazs because they believe an ice cream brand is an ice cream brand no
matter the country of origin.
As every study, this research also has limitations that need to be noted. First of all, the sample
size might be problematic. The survey received 95 complete responses which represents only
a small part of the general population and decreases the generalizability of the research.
Moreover, a self-selection sampling technique was used which might lead to bias since people
who select themselves to participate in the survey might be particularly interested in the topic.
Future research could explore the effect of perceived country of origin using a larger sample
and a random sampling technique.
48
Secondly, the respondents were grouped into four regions. However, not all countries within a
region were represented therefore it is not appropriate to draw conclusions for all countries in
each region. Also within regional differences might exist as different countries have different
cultures, traditions, value and perceptions. Moreover, the research did not include an equal
number of respondents in each regional group. There were more respondents from Europe –
both Western and Eastern, than respondents from North America and Asia. It is recommended
that future research uses a more diverse sample in terms of nationality.
Thirdly, the sample consisted mostly of university students. We assumed that they are
representative of the population but it is worth further exploring the effect of perceived
country of origin in a non-student sample. International students might not be representative
of the population of their country because they are currently exposed to a multicultural
environment. They are more likely to have a called global mindset, be more open-minded
about other countries and cultures, having less prejudices and lack of stereotypical thinking.
The exposure to a variety of cultures perhaps changed students’ perceptions about other
countries and lead to a diminished effect of national stereotyping.
Additionally, a within-subjects design was used where the same subjects participate in the
three different conditions of image of the perceived country of origin. This design was
selected because it eliminates the effect of individual preferences, for example if some of the
research subjects do not like ice cream at all. By using a within-subjects design these
individual differences will be present in all conditions so they will not skew the results
towards one of the conditions. However, there are some disadvantages of this approach that
need to be addressed. The within-subjects design may lead to a carryover effect, meaning that
respondents’ evaluation of the first brand may influence their opinion on the next brands.
Moreover, this approach might cause respondent fatigue or boredom due to answering the
same questions three times.
49
Furthermore, this research explored the effect of perceived country of origin on purchase
intentions rather than actual purchase behavior. In an actual buying situation respondents
might have different opinion since other factors will play a role, for example the price of the
product.
Lastly, only one product category (ice cream) and one country of origin (the United States)
were used in the questionnaire. This limits the generalizability of the research. Moreover, the
results of a pretest suggested that the USA is a suitable country for this research, however
only 6 countries were included in this pretest. Future research could replicate the study
including a variety of product categories, as well as different countries of origin in order to
check the generalizability of the results. It is also worth carrying out a research with fictitious
brands to eliminate the possibility that respondents are expressing their opinion based on prior
exposure to the brand.
Future research could also employ both quantitative and qualitative approach as this will
likely result in deeper insights on why respondents prefer one product over the other. This
research suggests different perceptions of the country of origin makes the difference, however
there might be other factors influencing the brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions
that were overlooked by the present research; for instance product involvement.
50
6. Conclusion
The focus of this thesis was on perceived country of origin as opposed to actual country of
origin. Following this recent criticism on the country of origin effect declaring it irrelevant,
the concept of perceived country of origin emerged. The effect of the actual country of origin
has been investigated for decades but perceived country of origin is a relatively new notion.
This thesis aims at exploring its effect on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.
The findings of this thesis support the idea that perceived country of origin plays an important
role because it does influence consumers’ brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.
These results are in line with the findings of a previous research by Magnusson et al. (2011)
who first discovered that the perceived country of brand origin significantly affects
consumers’ brand attitude regardless of consumers’ ability to indicate the accurate country of
origin.
The present research used a within-subjects experiment design to explore the effect of
perceived country of origin across three conditions. In the first condition research participants
had to evaluate Perry’s ice cream. In this condition the brands actual and perceived country of
origin were both USA. This perception was negative as the pretest indicated unfavorable
image of the USA as a country of origin for food products. The second condition involved the
ice cream brand Häagen-Dazs that uses a German/Scandinavian sounding brand name in
order to associate itself with a favorable country despite its American origin. This so called
foreign branding strategy aims at influencing respondents’ perception of the brand. Only 22%
managed to indicate the correct country of origin even though more than half of the
participants were familiar with the brand. Subjects believed the brand has a German,
Scandinavian, and Dutch origin, among others. In the third condition the brand Baskin-
Robbins was evaluated by the research participants. This brand was used to represent the
condition of a neutral image of the perceived country of origin. Baskin-Robbins has a
51
relatively neutral brand name therefore it is expected the name will not lead to any strong
associations with a specific country.
We anticipated that respondents will have a higher brand attitude, brand trust and buying
intentions in the second condition due to the favorable perceived country of origin. It was also
suggested that there will be no significant difference in these three measurements between the
negative and neutral condition. The repeated measures ANOVA indeed showed that there is
statistically significant difference in the brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions
across the three conditions. As expected, respondents find Häagen-Dazs more attractive and
trustworthy and are significantly more likely to purchase it in comparison with Perry’s and
Baskin-Robbins. These results support out hypotheses that a favorable image of the perceived
country of origin will lead to higher brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.
Moreover, significant differences were found among respondents from different geographical
regions. Americans had a significantly higher brand attitude towards Häagen-Dazs compared
to people from Central and Eastern Europe and Asia. Moreover, Americans trust Häagen-
Dazs significantly more than people from CEE. Furthermore, respondents from North
America are more likely to purchase Häagen-Dazs compared to Perry’s and Baskin-Robbins.
Likewise, Western Europeans have significantly higher purchase intentions towards Häagen-
Dazs compared to Perry’s and Baskin-Robbins. These results suggested that the effect of the
favorable perceived country of origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions is
stronger for some people, more specifically Americans and Western Europeans. However, it
is unclear why this difference exists. Further research might focus on cultural differences and
explore their influence on the perception of a country of origin. It is also likely that these
finding are explained by the high familiarity with the Häagen-Dazs brand. Considering the
whole sample, 59% of the respondents were familiar with this brand prior to taking the
survey. However, the percentage of respondents from North America and Western Europe
52
familiar with Häagen-Dazs is as high as 73%. As previously discussed, past experience with
the brand or merely recognizing the brand name might lead to preference for it, and
consequently a higher brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.
The present research contributes to the marketing literature by providing insight to the notion
of perceived country of origin. The findings support the idea that researchers, as well as
marketers, should focus on the “country of association” rather than the country of actual
origin (Josiassen & Harzing, 2008). The study also has a managerial contribution by
suggesting a simple and effective approach to building higher brand attitude, brand trust and
purchase intentions. Associating a brand with a favorable country, regardless of the actual
brand origin, could be a powerful tool to achieve positive outcomes for the brand. It is a way
to improve the perception of a brand, make it more attractive, interesting and trustworthy.
This could be done as simply as using a brand name that consumers associate with a favorable
country.
53
References
Ackerman, D., & Tellis, G. (2001). Can culture affect prices? A cross-cultural study of
shopping and retail prices. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 57-82.
Al-Sulaiti, K. I., & Baker, M. J. (1998). Country of origin effects: A literature review.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 16(3), 150-199.
Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). Brand origin identification by consumers: A
classification perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 16(1), 39-71.
Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Gains and losses from the misperception of
brand origin: The role of brand strength and country-of-origin image. Journal of
International Marketing, 19(2), 95-116.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. E., & Ramachander, S. (2014).
Effects of brand local and non-local origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 83-95.
Bruner, G. C. (2013). Marketing Scales Handbook: Multi-item Measures for Consumer
Insight Research. Fort Worth, Texas: GCBII Productions, LLC.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1983). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 668-672.
Chattalas, M., Kramer, T., & Takada, H. (2008). The impact of national stereotypes on the
country of origin effect: A conceptual framework. International Marketing Review,
25(1), 54-74.
Cox, P. L., Friedman, B. A., & Tribunella, T. (2011). Relationships among cultural
dimensions, national gross domestic product, and environmental sustainability. Journal
of Applied Business and Economics, 12(6), 46-56.
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. (2001). Brand trust in the context of
consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1238-1258.
54
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand
equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187-196.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B., & Palihawadana, D. (2011). The relationship between
country-of-origin image and brand image as drivers of purchase intentions: A test of
alternative perspectives. International Marketing Review, 28(5), 508-524.
Gastwirth, J. L., Gel, Y. R., & Miao, W. (2009). The impact of levene's test of equality of
variances on statistical theory and practice. Statistical Science, , 343-360.
Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Cultural variations in country of origin effects.
Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 309-317.
Han, C. M. (1989). Country image: Halo or summary construct. Journal of Marketing
Research, 26(2), 222-229.
Hofstede, G. (1994). The business of international business is culture. International Business
Review, 3(1), 1-14.
Insch, G. S., & McBride, J. B. (2004). The impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer
perceptions of product quality: A binational test of the decomposed country-of-origin
construct. Journal of Business Research, 57(3), 256-265.
Josiassen, A., & Harzing, A. (2008). Comment: Descending from the ivory tower: Reflections
on the relevance and future of country‐of‐origin research. European Management
Review, 5(4), 264-270.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. The Journal of Marketing, , 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong
brands.
Keller, K. L. (2005). Branding shortcuts: Choosing the right brand elements and leveraging
secondary associations will help marketers build brand equity. Marketing Management,
14(5), 18.
55
Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How
perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer
Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology, 22(2)
Knight, G. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin
perceptions: A cross-cultural investigation. International Marketing Review, 17(2), 127-
145.
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dubé, L. (1994). Foreign branding and its effects on product
perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, , 263-270.
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2002). Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge,
brand attitude, and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence. Journal of
Advertising, 31(3), 43-57.
Magnusson, P., Westjohn, S. A., & Zdravkovic, S. (2011). “What? I thought samsung was
japanese”: Accurate or not, perceived country of origin matters. International Marketing
Review, 28(5), 454-472.
Mauchly, J. W. (1940). Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution. The
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(2), 204-209.
Pharr, J. M. (2005). Synthesizing country-of-origin research from the last decade: Is the
concept still salient in an era of global brands? Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, , 34-45.
Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching product catgeory and country image
perceptions: A framework for managing country-of-origin effects [corrected title:
Matching product category and country image perceptions: A framework for managing
country-of-origin effects]. Journal of International Business Studies, , 477-497.
Samiee, S., Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (2005). Brand origin recognition accuracy: Its
antecedents and consumers’ cognitive limitations. Journal of International Business
Studies, 36(4), 379-397.
Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business and management: An essential
guide to planning your project Financial Times Prentice Hall.
56
Schooler, R. D. (1965). Product bias in the central american common market. Journal of
Marketing Research, , 394-397.
Sharma, P. (2011). Country of origin effects in developed and emerging markets: Exploring
the contrasting roles of materialism and value consciousness. Journal of International
Business Studies, 42(2), 285-306.
Sheinin, D. A., Varki, S., & Ashley, C. (2011). The differential effect of ad novelty and
message usefulness on brand judgments. Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 5-18.
Stafford, T., & Grimes, A. (2012). Memory enhances the mere exposure effect. Psychology &
Marketing, 29(12), 995-1003.
Verlegh, P. W., Steenkamp, J. E., & Meulenberg, M. T. (2005). Country-of-origin effects in
consumer processing of advertising claims. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 22(2), 127-139.
Online sources:
Repeated Measures ANOVA. Laerd Statistics (2013). Retrieved January 29, 2016, from
https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/repeated-measures-anova-statistical-
guide.php
Mixed ANOVA using SPSS Statistics. Laerd Statistics (2013). Retrieved January 29, 2016,
from https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/mixed-anova-using-spss-statistics.php
57
Appendix 1: Pretest
Dear respondent,
Thank you for participating in this survey. In this short questionnaire you will be asked about
your opinion of products made in six different countries. Please note that there are no right or
wrong answers. Your responses will be treated confidentially and will be used for academic
purposes only as part of my Master Thesis in Business Administration at University of
Amsterdam. The survey will take about 5 minutes.
Your participation is this survey is highly appreciated!
Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in the United
States of America (USA).
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I believe the USA has a good
country image in general. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I believe products manufactured
in the USA are better than similar
products produced in other
countries.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I believe products originating
from the USA have a high quality. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I believe food products produced
in the USA are of good quality. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I would buy a product made in the
USA. 1 2 3 4 5
Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in China.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I believe China has a good
country image in general. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I believe products manufactured
in China are better than similar
products produced in other
countries.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I believe products originating
from China have a high quality. 1 2 3 4 5
58
4. I believe food products produced
in China are of good quality. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I would buy a product made in
China. 1 2 3 4 5
Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in Germany.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I believe Germany has a good
country image in general. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I believe products manufactured
in Germany are better than similar
products produced in other
countries.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I believe products originating
from Germany have a high quality. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I believe food products produced
in Germany are of good quality. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I would buy a product made in
Germany. 1 2 3 4 5
Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in Denmark.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I believe Denmark has a good
country image in general. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I believe products manufactured
in Denmark are better than similar
products produced in other
countries.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I believe products originating
from Denmark have a high quality. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I believe food products produced
in Denmark are of good quality. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I would buy a product made in
Denmark. 1 2 3 4 5
59
Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in Greece.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I believe Greece has a good
country image in general. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I believe products manufactured
in Greece are better than similar
products produced in other
countries.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I believe products originating
from Greece have a high quality. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I believe food products produced
in Greece are of good quality. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I would buy a product made in
Greece. 1 2 3 4 5
Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in South
Korea.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I believe South Korea has a good
country image in general. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I believe products manufactured
in South Korea are better than
similar products produced in other
countries.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I believe products originating
from South Korea have a high
quality.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I believe food products produced
in South Korea are of good quality. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I would buy a product made in
South Korea. 1 2 3 4 5
60
What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
What is your age?
What is your nationality?
61
Appendix 2: Main Questionnaire
Dear respondent, thank you for participating in this survey that is part of my Master Thesis in
Business Administration at University of Amsterdam. In the following questionnaire you will
be asked to express your opinion about three brands of ice cream. You do not need to be
familiar with the brands beforehand. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers.
Your responses will be treated confidentially and will be used for academic purposes only.
The survey will take approximately 10 minutes.
Your participation is highly appreciated!
Please express your opinion on Perry's Ice Cream using the statements underneath.
Note: Please do not look up additional information on the Internet, use only the information
included in this survey. You do not need to be familiar with the brands beforehand. If you do
not know the brands, just imagine you see them in your local supermarket for the first time.
However, it is not a problem if you are already familiar with the brands.
I believe Perry's Ice Cream is:
Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
Unappealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appealing
Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant
Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive
Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting
Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Like
62
To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding Perry's Ice Cream:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Some-
what
Disagre
e
Neith
er
Agre
e nor
Disa
gree
Some-
what
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
This brand can deliver what it
promises (e.g. good taste,
premium ice cream).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This brand is reliable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This brand is trustworthy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This brand can satisfy my
needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I trust this brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would buy this brand of ice
cream. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am interested in finding out
more about this brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please use the seven-point scale to express your opinion on Häagen-Dazs ice cream.
I believe Häagen-Dazs ice cream is:
Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
Unappealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appealing
Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant
Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive
Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting
Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Like
63
To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding Häagen-Dazs:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Some-
what
Disagre
e
Neith
er
Agre
e nor
Disa
gree
Some-
what
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
This brand can deliver what it
promises (e.g. good taste,
premium ice cream).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This brand is reliable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This brand is trustworthy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This brand can satisfy my
needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I trust this brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would buy this brand of ice
cream. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am interested in finding out
more about this brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please use the seven-point scale to express your opinion on Baskin-Robbins ice cream.
64
I believe Baskin-Robbins ice cream is:
Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
Unappealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appealing
Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant
Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive
Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting
Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Like
To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding Baskin-Robbins:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Some-
what
Disagre
e
Neith
er
Agre
e nor
Disa
gree
Some-
what
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
This brand can deliver what it
promises (e.g. good taste,
premium ice cream).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This brand is reliable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This brand is trustworthy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This brand can satisfy my
needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I trust this brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would buy this brand of ice
cream. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am interested in finding out
more about this brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
65
Take a look at the three pictures of ice cream brands again.
Were you familiar with Perry's Ice Cream before taking this survey?
Yes
No
Which country do you think Perry's Ice Cream comes from?
Were you familiar with the Häagen-Dazs brand before taking this survey?
Yes
No
Which country do you think Häagen-Dazs comes from?
66
Were you familiar with the Baskin-Robbins brand before taking this survey?
Yes
No
Which country do you think Baskin-Robbins comes from?
Please think about the importance of the country of origin of products you buy.
Not at all
Important
Very
Unimp
ortant
Neither
Important
nor
Unimporta
nt
Very
Importa
nt
Extremely
Important
How important is the country of
product origin for you when buying
durable goods?
1 2 3 4 5
How important is the country of
product origin for you when buying
food products?
1 2 3 4 5
How often do you search for
information on where the products
you buy are produced?
1 2 3 4 5
67
Finally I would like to ask you several demographic questions.
What is your gender?
Male
Female
What is your age?
What is your nationality?
68
Appendix 3: Respondent Nationality
Country Frequency Percentage Region
Austria 1 1,1% WE
Bulgaria 17 18,5% CEE
Canada 2 2,2% NA
China 2 2,2% Asia
Germany 3 3,3% WE
Ecuador 1 1,1% -
Estonia 2 2,2% CEE
Finland 1 1,1% WE
France 1 1,1% WE
UK 2 2,2% WE
Hungary 1 1,1% CEE
Indonesia 1 1,1% Asia
India 3 3,3% Asia
Iran 1 1,1% Asia
Italy 1 1,1% WE
Mexico 1 1,1% NA
Netherlands 37 40,2% WE
Poland 1 1,1% CEE
Romania 1 1,1% CEE
Russia 2 2,2% CEE
Slovakia 1 1,1% CEE
Ukraine 2 2,2% CEE
USA 7 7,6% NA
Vietnam 1 1,1% Asia
Abbreviations
WE: Western Europe
CEE: Central and Eastern Europe
NA: North America