Does country-of-origin matter to Generation Y?

Srdan Zdravkovic

Srdan Zdravkovic is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Department of Marketing, Bryant University, Smitheld, Rhode Island, USA.

Abstract Purpose This study aims to examine how members of American Generation Y cohort feel about the USA and the USAs major trading partners. In addition, the studys purpose is to nd out whether products country-of-origin (COO) plays a role when members of Generation Y evaluate products. Design/methodology/approach Undergraduate university students are used as sample in this study. Experiment with 18 conditions is utilized to collect that data. Linear regression is used to test the hypothesis. Findings Results show that animosity toward the country negatively inuences COO image and that persons level of cosmopolitanism and ethnocentrism contribute to persons perception of (in)equality when evaluating COO images. Findings also indicate COO signicantly inuences product judgment and this relationship is moderated by quality of information about the product (positive, negative, or lack of information) and involvement with the product (involved or not involved). Originality/value Results from this study show that, in the context of Generation Y, country image still matters and should be considered when developing a product or promotion strategy. Although country image matters, its effect on product judgment has to be examined in conjunction with factors like quality of information about the product and involvement with the product. As such, examining COO effect on its own might be misleading and not paint a completely accurate picture of antecedents to product judgment. Keywords Generation Y, Country of origin, Buyer behaviour, Product involvement, Quality of information, Consumer behaviour Paper type Research paper

Introduction
It is quite common today to encounter brand promotion where automobile manufacturers emphasize their German origin; coffee producers promote their Colombian heritage; watch manufacturers highlight their Swiss precision; and garment producers draw attention to their Italian sense of style. One could argue that in each of these cases the brand itself is a supporting actor to the country-of-origin (Josiassen and Harzing, 2008, p. 264). In fact, one recent study indicated that country-of-origin and brand name have similar impact on overall brand evaluations (Hui and Zhou, 2002) while another one points out that, while evaluating products, the consumer stresses country-of-origin more than the brand name itself (Ahmed and dAstous, 2003). Consumers use the country where a product originated as a cue when making judgments about the product. We refer to this phenomenon as the country-of-origin (COO) effect (Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Papadopoulos and Heslop, 1993). Since Schoolers (1965) seminal article, effects of COO have been the topic of hundreds of academic studies and have frequently inuenced marketing managers to exploit positive COO and hide negative COO. The overall conclusion drawn from the COO body of research is that a products country of origin inuences product evaluations and purchasing behavior (Klein, 2002; Veale and Quester,

DOI 10.1108/17473611311305511

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013, pp. 89-102, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 89

2009). More specically, the Made in . . . label has been shown to inuence outcomes like product evaluation (Yasin et al., 2007), purchase intention (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 1993), and quality perception (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 1993). Although most research ndings have supported the existence of COO effects, some researchers have also argued that the continuing process of globalization is blurring the COO issue, making it less relevant (Usunier, 2006), or completely eliminating the effect of country-of-origin on purchase intention (Pecotich and Rosenthal, 2001). One of the reasons for this shift in attitude is the consumers inability to pinpoint a products country-of-origin due to: multinational production, global branding, and WTO rules that place restrictions on origin labeling. Such new developments have driven consumers to use COO information alongside other product-related information (image, price, etc.) to make judgments about products. Our goal is to examine whether members of Generation Y in the US (73 million individuals in the US born between 1979 and 1994) take COO under consideration when making product-related judgments. If COO effect is really losing ground one might wonder whether marketing managers are allocating their resources in the most efcient manner when attempting to exploit products positive country origin or they should be addressing up-and-coming consumers in a different fashion. In order to examine this we distributed the survey to 465 individuals from a Generation Y cohort and utilized experimental setting. We examined antecedents of COO opinion, COO effects on product attitudes, and moderating inuence of available information about the product and consumer involvement with the product. Our results contribute to both marketing theory and practice.

Literature review, research questions, and hypothesis development

Two competing country-of-origin perspectives COO effects have been examined by a variety of methodologies, in the context of many product categories, and within many countries. The overwhelming conclusion emerging from years of research is that COO provides a way to distinguish one product from others (Ahmed and dAstous, 2003; Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999), with recent research indicating that country-of-origin has an impact on the willingness to buy a product (Josiassen and Harzing, 2008). In addition, moderators, such as familiarity with the product and consumer ethnocentrism have been found to affect consumers use of the COO cue. For example, low familiarity with the product has been related with greater use of extrinsic cues (COO) to evaluate products (Veale and Quester, 2009). In addition, consumers may tend to have a preference for products from their own country or may tend to have a preference for or an aversion to products that originate from certain countries (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). The reason why COO inuences product evaluations has primarily been explained by the consumers cognitive decision-making process (Bloemer et al., 2009). According to this perspective, a product consists of a collection of information cues, such as the physical make-up of the product, which are referred to as intrinsic cues. Information cues can also be external to the product, such as its price, reputation, and country of products origin (Liefeld, 1993). When evaluating the product, consumers make decisions based on both the intrinsic and extrinsic cues available (Srinivasan et al., 2004). Whereas intrinsic cues are often preferred, consumers often face difculties gaining access to them, which means that consumers frequently rely on extrinsic cues for product judgment (Bredahl, 2004). Consumers view extrinsic cues as consistent and credible predictors of value and quality (Kardes et al., 2004) and a way to create a cognitive shortcut when intrinsic cues are difcult to obtain (Zhang, 1996). Although literature shows support for the existence of COO effect, the effect of COO has lately been debated (Usunier, 2006). This is primarily since, until now, theoretical and empirical examinations have assumed that COO cues are readily available and processed by the consumer when evaluating products. Recent research has indicated that the origin of design (ex Nike shoes designed in the US) can be more important than the country of manufacturing (ex Nike shoes manufactured in China) (Chao, 2001). Research has also

PAGE 90 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013

indicated consumers ability to consciously process the COO cue may not be as extensive as previously believed. In contrast with the traditional view suggesting a signicant COO effect, critics have argued COO does not matter to the consumer. Such argument is often based on the notion that globalization of the marketplace and a resulting convergence of consumer preferences have hidden the meaning of COO and eliminated the use of such information in molding brand attitudes (Pharr, 2005). Arndt (2004) and Liefeld (2004) report consumers are neither concerned about nding out products origin nor care about using COO information in the buying process. Pecotich and Rosenthal (2001) found quality of the product signicantly inuences purchase decision but a products country-of-origin does not. Additionally, Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2008) set out to examine the extent of consumers knowledge about the national origin of brands and found consumers are only able to correctly identity brand origin one-third of the time. Such results are in line with ndings by Buehlmann et al. (2006) who researched retailers and reported that over half of the retailers did not know where their merchandise originated. The combined conclusions of these recent studies are that consumers do not know where brands originated, do not care where brands originated, and are not willing to use COO information when evaluating products. In fact, Usunier (2006) and Usunier and Cestre (2008) suggest traditional COO research has become increasingly extraneous, arguing it is disconnected from actual business practices and consumer behavior. They cite reliance on limited cue experiments (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995) and lack of behavioral implications (Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999) for this irrelevancy. In addition, Usunier (2006) argues COO does not matter to the consumer primarily because COO information is difcult to determine due to global sourcing and promotion of a global marketing strategy, which deemphasizes a products origin. The two competing COO perspectives outlined previously clearly contradict each other. In order to resolve this incongruity we examine members of Generation Y and explore whether they take COO under consideration when making product-related judgments. Based on the current literature we present the following research question: RQ1. Do members of Generation Y take COO under consideration when making product-related judgments?

How does American Generation Y cohort feel about the USA and the USAs major trading partners? Besides examining inuence of COO on brand attitudes we were interested in nding out how exactly members of American Generation Y cohort feel about the US and other countries they might be exposed to through USs international trade interactions. For that reason we propose the following research question: RQ2. How do members of American Generation Y cohort feel about the USA and the USAs major trading partners?

Although answering this research question contributes to our present knowledge of Generation Ys mindset, we believe that certain theoretical explanations of such mindsets should be explored rst. In other words, we believe consumers level of cosmopolitanism and ethnocentrism could be a determining factor in how one views countries around the world. Consumer cosmopolitanism Nussbaum denes a cosmopolitan person as the person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world (1994). McGrew (2000, p. 405) denes cosmopolitanism as a moral frame of reference for specifying principles that can be universally shared, implying that the particular boundaries between states and other communities have no deep (over-riding) moral signicance. The concept of cosmopolitanism describes a world consumer whose orientation transcends any particular culture or setting, one that is open to other cultures (Cannon and Yaprak, 2002).

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 91

Cosmopolitanism has been described as a set of acquired cultural orientations (Cannon and Yaprak, 2002), and a toolkit from which consumers develop strategies for action (Tse et al., 1989). At its core, cosmopolitanism is really a value orientation illustrating a persons unbiasedness when processing foreign experiences (Cannon and Yaprak, 2002). Cannon and Yaprak (2002, p. 34) suggest cosmopolitans are not expected to be closed to foreign cultures, overly patriotic, overly conservative, or unduly inuenced by collective versus individual evaluations of quality and desirability. In other words, unlike their opposites (parochials), cosmopolitans are more likely to be open, tolerant, and accepting of foreign things. In addition, cosmopolitans look broadly for standards of excellence and deliberately avoid local people and culture in favor of perceived global standards (Cannon and Yaprak, 2002). In light of literature we would not expect those deemed cosmopolitan to have signicant differences in views of COOs. As such, we propose the following hypothesis: H1. Evaluations of COO images will be more similar for individuals who are more cosmopolitan than for individuals who are less cosmopolitan.

Consumer ethnocentrism Consumer ethnocentrism is the tendency to view ones own group as the center of the universe and other groups as inferior. It refers to consumer-held beliefs about the appropriateness and morality of purchasing foreign-made products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). CETSCALE (developed by Shimp and Sharma) measures whether people view their country as superior and whether people do what is in the interest of their country rst before pursuing products and services from other countries. Shimp and Sharma (1987) found stronger ethnocentric tendencies are related to the purchase of domestic brands. Past research has shown that consumers from developed countries prefer domestic over foreign merchandise, particularly when they do not have enough information about the brand (Bilkey and Nes, 1982). Buying imported products is seen as unpatriotic and can hurt the domestic economy and lead to loss of domestic jobs. The more importance one places on whether or not a product is made in his/her home country, the higher his/her ethnocentric tendency (Huddleston et al., 2001). At the same time, consumers who are ethnocentric are shown to have a strong negative attitude toward imported products (Durvasula and Lysonski, 2006). Consequently, these consumers exhibit domestic country bias (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004, p. 80). In light of this literature, we would expect people who are ethnocentric to do what is in the interest of their own country before supporting other countries. Consequently, they would be much more judgmental of foreign countries than cosmopolitan consumers. Although previous literature indicates consumer ethnocentrism can act as a mediator when evaluating COO (Rosenbloom and Haefner, 2009), in this paper we are investigating whether consumer ethnocentrism contributes to uneven COO perception. As such, we propose the following hypothesis: H2. Evaluations of COO images will be more similar for individuals who are less ethnocentric than for individuals who are more ethnocentric.

Consumer animosity Consumer animosity measures the negative attitude toward a specic foreign country. This negative attitude could be the result of war, economic relations, or any other rivalry between ones own country and other foreign countries (Klein, 2002). In addition, personal characteristics (age, level of patriotism, prejudice) have been suggested as antecedents to consumer animosity (Klein and Ettenson, 1999). Regardless of what leads to animosity, literature indicates a rms sales can be damaged by consumers animosity towards the rms home country (Rieer and Diamantopoulos, 2007). One might argue animosity and ethnocentrism are closely related constructs, however research has shown they are distinct (Hinck, 2004; Klein and Ettenson, 1999; Witkowski, 2000). Research suggests consumers who are ethnocentric are unwilling to buy products from any foreign nation (believing it is wrong to purchase a foreign nations products) (Shimp and Sharma, 1987), while consumer animosity affects only purchase decisions for products from the nation toward which the

PAGE 92 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013

animosity is directed. Ang et al. (2004) distinguished between four types of animosities: stable animosities based on a historical perspective; situational animosities situation specic and temporary; national animosities feelings based on a macro-level perspective; personal animosities based on an individuals personal experience. We would expect the COO image to suffer when consumers experience animosity toward that country. In light of the literature presented, we propose the following hypothesis: H3. Animosity toward a country will negatively inuence that countrys COO image.

Factors moderating COO image attitudes relationship Nature of information about the product. Traditionally, COO image has been described as a halo consumers use to infer an evaluation of an unfamiliar product (Bilkey and Nes, 1982). For example, a consumer may not be familiar with a type of shoe made in Italy but believes that Italian shoes are high quality. Consequently, when a consumer is presented with an unfamiliar pair of Italian shoes, he/she will evaluate them favorably. Alternatively, COO image serves as a summary cue (Johansson, 1989) where consumers summarize the evaluation of a familiar product. For example, a consumer could have had a very good experience with Italian shoes. Consequently, when a consumer has to evaluate an unknown pair of Italian shoes she/he assumes it will be of similar quality to the one used before. As described earlier, consumers rely on both intrinsic and extrinsic cues to evaluate products (Srinivasan et al., 2004). Information about the product (product familiarity) has been cited as one of the context specic factors that moderates the importance of COO image on product evaluation (Lee and Ganesh, 1999). Bilkey and Nes (1982) found that lack of information about a product triggers the desire to buy domestic goods while Veale and Quester (2009) found low familiarity with the product triggers need for extrinsic cues (like COO). Although the importance of the role of product familiarity has been identied in literature, exact function of product familiarity is still unclear and additional research has been suggested (Josiassen et al., 2008). The amount of information (familiarity) with the product impacts the product evaluation (Josiassen et al., 2008) and we believe the nature of this information (in addition to the amount) is the factor that moderates COO image attitudes relationship. When a consumer lacks information about the product she/he will rely on extrinsic cues like COO when making product evaluation. As critics of COO effect point out, in the globalized world it is often hard to decipher a products COO. As such, we believe COO information will serve as a secondary cue when a consumer knows something about the product. Specically, when a consumer is exposed to negative information about the product, he/she will primarily rely on that information when making product judgment. When the consumer is exposed to positive information about the product he/she will use COO as a supplement when making product judgment. In summary, although brand name has been found to affect attitudes and purchase intention (Hui and Zhou, 2002) we believe additional information regarding the brand that is available to the consumer will moderate the relationship between COO and attitudes. Formally, we propose the following hypothesis: H4. Nature of information about the product moderates COO image attitudes relationship.

Consumer involvement with the product. Involvement with products has been hypothesized to lead to perception of greater product importance, superior perception of attribute differences, and more commitment to brand choice (Howard and Sheth, 1969). Product involvement has been described as the general level of interest in the object or the centrality of the object to the persons ego structure (Day, 1970, p. 10). We tend to be more involved with products that are expensive, visible to others, and greatly contribute to our image creation. Based on persuasion literature research (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984), some COO studies conclude consumers rely more on COO image when they are not heavily involved with the product (Maheswaran, 1994). This reliance on COO is due to frequent availability of COO

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 93

information and the fact that consumers do not spend much time on low-involvement products. Verlegh et al. (2005, p. 128) conclude COO has a greater impact on product evaluations when consumers are less motivated to process available information, for example when involvement is low. On the other hand, some researchers argue that consumers who are dealing with high involvement products will give more attention to all information about that product, including country-of-origin information (Celsi and Olson, 1988). When choosing between high-involvement products, consumers will not only consider product features and price but also additional information like level of brand globalness (Rosenbloom and Haefner, 2009) and COO image (Ahmed and dAstous, 2008). As such, the greater the involvement, the greater the likelihood of using COO information in a product evaluation situation (DAstous and Ahmed, 1999, p. 108). Social judgment theory (SJT) (Sherif et al., 1965) is another body of literature that highlights the importance of involvement. SJT researchers argue that expectations regarding attitude change could be based on the individuals level of involvement. When consumers are highly involved with the product they will actively search for information (be more knowledgeable), which will lead to resistance to persuasive cues like COO (Lalwani et al., 2005). At the same time, when involvement with the product is low, the customer is more open to attitude change since he/she is not committed to other points-of-view (Mazursky and Schul, 1992). In light of the existing literature we propose the following hypothesis: H5. Involvement with the product moderates COO image attitudes relationship.

Methodology
Sample We used a sample of college students in order to test the proposed hypotheses and answer the research question. Students were from a medium-size American university and are representatives of Generation Y. This generational cohort is more than three times larger than Generation X. Although Generation Y is smaller then the baby-boom generation, it is expected they (Generation Y) will spend about $10 trillion on products and services over their lifetime. Generation Y is important since its members are currently starting their careers and making major purchase decisions. Our sample consists of 465 individuals 258 males and 207 females. Majority of our sample are US citizens (N 424) and a small number are not US citizens (N 41). The survey was facilitated and completed by the students in an on-campus behavioral laboratory. It took approximately 15 minutes to complete the survey. Since we implemented an experimental design, 18 different experimental conditions were created. Measurements and their reliability Country-of-origin (COO) image. International Trade Administration of the US (ITA 2009) identies the ten largest US trading partners. We asked study participants their attitude toward: each of the USs trading partner country and products from those countries. We also asked each study participant their attitude toward the US and products from the US. Country-of-origin image is measured by combining these two items. Reliability of this measure does not seem to be an issue since Cronbachs Alphas (a) for these two items in all 11 cases was greater than 0.7. Evaluation of COO images was measured by examining the average variability (spread) of COO images for each study participant. It is measured as a standard deviation of COO image evaluations. Cosmopolitanism was measured by four items developed by Yoon et al. (1996) (a 0.831). Ethnocentrism was measured by four items developed by Shimp and Sharma (1987) (a 0.902). Animosity was measured by six items for national and personal animosity developed by Ang et al. (2004) (Animosity toward China a 0.893, Animosity toward

PAGE 94 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013

Mexico a 0.923, Animosity toward Canada a 0.913). Attitudes toward the product was measured by ve items suggested by Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006) (a 0.943). Nature of information about product was manipulated. Subjects were presented with positive information about the product (coded as 2), no information about the product (1), or negative information about the product (0). Product involvement was manipulated where subjects were presented with high involvement products (coded as 1) or low involvement products (0). Study participants were presented with products originating in China, Mexico, or Canada. They received one of three types of information (positive, none, or negative) and they examined one of two types of products (high involvement or low involvement). This is how 18 experimental conditions were developed. In the Canadian case a high involvement product was an automobile and a low involvement product was shampoo. In the Chinese case a high involvement product was medicine and a low involvement product was a battery. In the Mexican case a high involvement product was a digital camera and a low involvement product was a towel. Such products are consistent with products (automobiles, VCR, and shoes) used by Ahmed and dAstous (2003) where high involvement products are more complex and more expensive, while low involvement products are simpler and less expensive. A sample of stimuli given to the subjects is provided in Figure 1.

Results
Results for the whole sample are presented in Table I. Attitudes toward the countries and attitude toward the products from those countries are consistent with each other. Not surprisingly, the US is perceived as having the best image of all 11 countries surveyed (our sample are primarily US citizens). Following the US are culturally and economically similar countries (the UK and Canada). Mexico and Saudi Arabia are perceived as having the weakest country image. Results between males and females do not differ greatly from each other. Once again, the US, the UK, and Canada are seen as having the best country image. Males perceive Mexico and Saudi Arabia as having the weakest country image while females perceive South Korea and Saudi Arabia as having the weakest country image (see Table II). Although there was a relatively small sample of non-US citizens, this is where we found some discrepancies in country image perceptions. While US citizens perceive the US, the UK, and Canada as having the best country image, non-US citizens perceive Germany, Canada, and the UK as having the best country image. For non-US citizens countries like Japan and France are also ahead of the US. Also, while the US sample sees Mexico and Saudi Arabia as having the weakest country image, the non-US sample thought Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have the weakest country image (see Table III). A simple linear regression was calculated predicting the evaluation of COO images is based on a persons level of cosmopolitanism. A signicant regression equation was found (F 1; 463 8:033; p , 0:001), however a weak Pearson correlation (r 463 20:131; p , 0:001) and R 2 of only 0.017 were found. This indicates that as the level of cosmopolitanism increases, a person sees COO images more equal to each other, which supports H1. Results also indicate that other factors besides cosmopolitanism contribute to a persons evaluation of countries around the world. A simple linear regression was calculated predicting the evaluation of COO images is based on a persons level of ethnocentrism. A signicant regression equation was found (F 1; 463 18:454; p , 0:001), however a weak Pearson correlation (r 463 0:196; p , 0:001) and R 2 of only 0.038 were found. This indicates that as the level of ethnocentrism increases a person places greater distinction between COO images, which supports H2. Although ethnocentrism has a greater explanatory power than cosmopolitanism, it still only explains a small portion of country-perception variance. We also proposed animosity toward a country will negatively inuence that countrys country-of-origin image. A simple linear regression examining the inuence of animosity on

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 95

Figure 1 Stimulus sample

COO image was calculated in the case of Canada, Mexico, and China. In the case of Canada, signicant regression equation was found (F 1; 463 118:222; p , 0:001), with Pearson correlation (r 463 20:451; p , 0:001) and R 2 of .203. In the case of Mexico, signicant regression equation was found (F 1; 463 230:659; p , 0:001), with Pearson correlation (r 463 20:577; p , 0:001) and R 2 of .333. In the case of China, signicant regression equation was found (F 1; 463 195:852; p , 0:001), with Pearson correlation (r 463 20:545; p , 0:001) and R 2 of .297. Such results indicate a persons feeling of animosity toward a country negatively inuences that countrys COO image, which supports H3. In order to answer research question one, a linear regression was calculated predicting attitude toward the product is based on COO image. In the case of Canada, signicant regression equation was found [F 1; 142 35:96; p , 0:001), b 0:450 and R 2 0:202]. In the case of China, signicant regression equation was found [F 1; 154 13:046; p , 0:001, b 0.279 and R 2 0:078]. In the case of Mexico, signicant regression equation was found [F 1; 163 12:79; p , 0:001, b 0:270 and R 2 0:073]. These results offer support for argument that COO image still matters and

PAGE 96 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013

Table I Opinion about USA and USAs major trading partners

Attitude toward country Ranking Whole sample (n 465) 1 us* 2 uk 3 can 4 ger 5 fra 6 jap 7 chi 8 ven 9 mex 10 sk 11 sa Attitude toward product Ranking Combined COO image Ranking

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

us uk jap ger can fra chi sk ven mex sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11

us uk can ger jap fra chi ven sk mex sa

Notes: *us USA, uk United Kingdom, can Canada, ger Germany, fra France, jap Japan, chi China, ven Venezuela, mex Mexico, sk South Korea, sa Saudi Arabia

Table II Opinion about USA and USAs major trading partners

Attitude toward country Ranking Males (n 258) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Females (n 207) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attitude toward product Ranking Combined COO image Ranking

us uk can jap ger fra chi sk ven mex sa us uk can fra ger chi jap ven mex sk sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

us jap uk ger can fra chi sk mex sa ven us uk can ger fra jap chi ven sk mex sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

us uk can jap ger fra chi sk ven mex sa us uk can ger fra jap chi ven mex sk sa

Notes: us USA, uk United Kingdom, can Canada, ger Germany, fra France, jap Japan, chi China, ven Venezuela, mex Mexico, sk South Korea, sa Saudi Arabia

product managers should carefully manage COO image of their products. Small R 2 values indicate other predictors or moderators of this relationship might explain additional variance of attitude toward the product. Our ndings indicate that the nature of information about the product moderates COO image attitudes relationship. In the cases of China and Canada, COO image product attitude relationship was not signicant when individuals were exposed to negative information about the product [China F 1; 48 0:164; p . 0:05), r 48 0:058; p .

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 97

Table III Opinion about USA and USAs major trading partners
Attitude toward country Ranking US sample (n 424) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Non-US sample (n 41) 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 Attitude toward product Ranking Combined COO image Ranking

us uk can ger jap fra chi ven mex sk sa can uk us fra jap ger chi sk mex ven sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

us uk jap ger can fra chi sk ven mex sa ger jap fra uk can us sk chi sa mex ven

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 11

us uk can ger jap fra chi ven sk mex sa ger can uk jap fra us chi sk mex Sa ven

Notes: us USA, uk United Kingdom, can Canada, ger Germany, fra France, jap Japan, chi China, ven Venezuela, mex Mexico, sk South Korea, sa Saudi Arabia

0:05 and R 2 of 0.003], [Canada F 1; 44 3:84; p . 0:05), r 44 0:284; p , 0:05 and R 2 of 0.08]. However, the relationship was signicant when individuals were exposed to positive information about the product [China F 1; 49 7:80; p , 0:01, r 49 0:371; p , 0:01 and R 2 of 0.137], [Canada F 1; 46 24:46; p , 0:001, r 46 0:589; p , 0:001 and R 2 of 0.347] and when they did not receive any information about the product [China F 1; 53 13:37; p , 0:001), r 53 0:449; p , 0:001 and R 2 of 0.201], [Canada F 1; 48 23:27; p , 0:001), r 48 0:571; p , 0:001 and R 2 of 0.327]. Not completely consistent with these ndings and in contrast with existing literature, results for the Mexican case indicate COO image product attitude relationship was not signicant when individuals received no information about the product [ F 1; 54 2:47; p . 0:05, r 54 0:209; p . 0:05 and R 2 of 0.044] and was signicant when positive [F 1; 54 11:11; p , 0:01, r 54 0:413; p , 0:01 and R 2 of 0.171] and negative information about the product [F 1; 51 9:108; p , 0:01, r 51 0:389; p , 0:01 and R 2 of 0.152] were communicated to subjects. Overall, these results support H4. Our ndings also indicate that product involvement moderates COO image attitudes relationship. In the cases of Mexico and Canada, COO image product attitude relationship was signicant when subjects were not involved with the product [Mexico F 1; 80 13:92; p , 0:001, r 80 0:35; p , :001 and R 2 of 0.148], [Canada F 1; 70 46:6; p , 0:001, r 70 0:632; p , :001 and R 2 of 0.4]. Relationship was not signicant when subjects were involved with the product [Mexico F 1; 81 2:08; p . 0:05, r 81 0:158; p . 0:05 and R 2 of 0.025], [Canada F 1; 70 3:125; p . 0:05, r 70 0:207; p . 0:05 and R 2 of 0.043]. Results for China were opposite. When involved with the product, subjects attitude toward the product was signicantly inuenced by COO [F 1; 79 13:14; p , 0:001, r 79 0378; p , 0:001 and R 2 of 0.143]. When not involved with the product, the attitude was not

PAGE 98 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013

signicantly inuenced by COO [F 1; 73 3:54; p . 0:05), r 73 0:215; p . 0:05 and R 2 of 0.046]. Overall, our results support H5.

Conclusion
Contradictory literature regarding the inuence COO image has on product judgment has served as the motivation for this study. In addition, we research the effect COO image has in the context of the young and upcoming Generation Y, individuals who are becoming society leaders. Although opinions regarding COO images do not differ between genders for the population originating in the US, we did nd differences between the US and the foreign sample. Findings indicate that country image matters and depends on a persons country-of-origin. Perhaps a cross-national study examining phenomena from this study is one avenue for future research. We also found that a persons level of cosmopolitanism contributes to the perception of equality when evaluating COO images while a persons level of ethnocentrism contributes to the perception of differences when evaluating COO images. Our research outlines animosity as an antecedent to COO perception and nds it has a signicant and negative effect on COO perception. In line with traditional research, COO perception is found to have a signicant positive effect on product judgment. Although this nding supports years of COO research we also understand globalization contributes to a consumers inability to access and interpret COO information. For that reason we proposed (and our results mostly supported) the moderating effect of the nature of information regarding the product and consumers involvement with the product on COO image attitudes relationship. Results from our experimental design were almost identical in three separate country scenarios (China, Mexico, and Canada). The fact that results were not identical in all three scenarios indicates that other factors like country developmental level, proximity of the country to ones own country, and knowledge about the county could be affecting the inuence COO image has on product judgment. Results from two country scenarios (China and Canada) indicate that when subject is exposed to negative information about the product, her COO opinion does not inuence product judgment. At the same time, when subject is exposed to inadequate or positive information about the product, COO signicantly inuences product judgment. Such results would indicate that negative information about the product has a stronger inuence on product judgment than COO. When one is exposed to positive information about the product or lacks any product-related information, COO helps to mold consumers product judgment. Results from two country scenarios (Mexico and Canada) indicate that when subjects evaluated high-involvement product, COO had no inuence on product judgment. Such nding indicates that consumers will search for additional information beyond COO when evaluating products that might be associated with higher level of risk. In the Chinese scenario COO signicantly inuenced high-involvement product judgment. This is perhaps due to the recent examples of risk associated with products coming from China (ex. pet food, toys, medicine, machinery parts). Consumers needs continue to converge during the globalization era and the global consumer continues to demand global products. As such, one might argue there is no benet in exploiting country name and country image. Results from our study show that, in the context of Generation Y, country image still matters and should be considered when developing a product or promotion strategy. Although country image matters, its effect on product judgment has to be examined in conjunction with factors like quality of information about the product and involvement with the product. As such, examining COO effect on its own might be misleading and not paint a completely accurate picture of antecedents to product judgment.

References
Ahmed, S.A. and dAstous, A. (2003), Product-country images in the context of NAFTA: a Canada-Mexico study, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 23-43. Ahmed, S.A. and dAstous, A. (2008), Antecedents, moderators and dimensions of country-of-origin evaluations, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 75-106.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 99

Ang, S.H., Jung, K., Kau, A.K., Leong, S.M., Pornpitakpan, C. and Tan, S.J. (2004), Animosity towards economic giants: what the little guys think, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 Nos 2/3, pp. 190-207. Arndt, M. (2004), Not made in the USA? Who cares?, Business Week Online, May 24, available at: www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnash/may2004/nf20040524_8628_db039.htm (accessed 10 June 2012). Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2004), Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects, and consumer ethnocentrism: a multidimensional approach, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 80-95. Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2008), Brand origin identication by consumers: a classication perspective, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-71. Bilkey, W.J. and Nes, E. (1982), Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-99. Bloemer, J., Brijs, K. and Kasper, H. (2009), The Coo-elm model: a theoretical framework for the cognitive processes underlying country of origin-effects, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 1/2, pp. 62-89. Bredahl, L. (2004), Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 65-75. Buehlmann, U., Bumgardner, M., Lihra, T. and Frye, M. (2006), Attitudes of US retailers toward China, Canada, and the United States as manufacturing sources for furniture: an assessment of competitive priorities, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 61-73. Cannon, H.M. and Yaprak, A. (2002), Will the real-world citizen please stand up? The many faces of cosmopolitan consumer behavior, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 30-52. Celsi, R.L. and Olson, J.C. (1988), The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 210. Chao, P. (2001), The moderating effects of country of assembly, country of parts, and country of design on hybrid product evaluations, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 67-81. DAstous, A. and Ahmed, S.A. (1999), The importance of country images in the formation of consumer product perceptions, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, p. 108. Day, G.S. (1970), Buyer Attitudes and Brand Choice, Free Press, New York, NY. Durvasula, S. and Lysonski, S. (2006), Impedance to globalization: the impact of economic threat and ethnocentrism, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 19 Nos 3/4, pp. 9-32. Hinck, W. (2004), The role of domestic animosity in consumer choice: empirical evidence from Germany, Journal of Euro-Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 87-104. Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Huddleston, P., Good, L.K. and Stoel, L. (2001), Consumer ethnocentrism, product necessity and Polish consumers perceptions of quality, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 236-46. Hui, M.K. and Zhou, L. (2002), Linking product evaluations and purchase intention for country-of-origin effects, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp. 95-116. Johansson, J.K. (1989), Determinants and effects of the use of made in labels, International Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 47-72. Josiassen, A. and Harzing, A.W. (2008), Descending from the ivory tower: reections on the relevance and future of country-of-origin research, European Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 264-70. Josiassen, A., Lukas, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2008), Country-of-origin contingencies: competing perspectives on product familiarity and product involvement, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 423-40. Kardes, F.R., Cronley, M.L., Kellaris, J.J. and Posavac, S.S. (2004), The role of selective information processing in price-quality inference, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 368-74.

PAGE 100 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013

Klein, J.G. (2002), Us versus them, or us versus everyone? Delineating consumer aversion to foreign goods, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 345-64. Klein, J.G. and Ettenson, R. (1999), Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism: an analysis of unique antecedents, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 5-24. Lalwani, A.K., Lwin, M. and Li, K.L. (2005), Consumer responses to English accent variations in advertising, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 3/4, pp. 143-65. Lee, D. and Ganesh, G. (1999), Effects of partitioned country image in the context of country image and familiarity, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-39. Liefeld, J.P. (1993), Experiments on country-of-origin effects: review and meta-analysis of effect size, in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (Eds), Product and Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, International Business Press, New York, NY, pp. 1117-56. Liefeld, J.P. (2004), Consumer knowledge and use of country-of-origin information at the point of purchase, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 85-96. McGrew, A. (2000), Democracy beyond borders, in Held, D. and McGrew, A. (Eds), The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Polity, Cambridge, pp. 405-19. Maheswaran, D. (1994), Country of origin as a stereotype: effects of consumer expertise and attribute strength on product valuations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 354-65. Mazursky, D. and Schul, Y. (1992), Learning from the advertisement or relying on related attitudes: the moderating role of involvement, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25, pp. 81-93. Nussbaum, M. (1994), Patriotism and cosmopolitanism, available at: http://sun.soci.niu.edu/ , phildept/Kapitan/nussbaum1.html (accessed 8 December 2010). Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (1993), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, International Business Press, New York, NY. Pecotich, A. and Rosenthal, M.J. (2001), Country of origin, quality, brand and consumer ethnocentrism, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 31-60. Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J.P. (1995), A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-97. Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J. (1984), Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, Advances of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 668-72. 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, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 34-45. Rieer, P. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2007), Consumer animosity: a literature review and a reconsideration of its measurement, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 87-119. Rosenbloom, A. and Haefner, J.E. (2009), Country-of-origin effects and global brand trust: a rst look, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 267-78. Schooler, R.D. (1965), Product bias in the central American common market, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 394-7. Sherif, C.W., Sherif, M.S. and Nebergall, R.E. (1965), Attitude and Attitude Change, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA. Shimp, T. and Sharma, S. (1987), Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the CETSCALE, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 280-9. Simmons, C.J. and Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2006), Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorship, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 154-69. Srinivasan, N., Jain, S.C. and Sikand, K. (2004), An experimental study of two dimensions of country-of-origin (manufacturing country and branding country) using intrinsic and extrinsic cues, International Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 65-82. Tse, D.K., Belk, R.W. and Zhou, N. (1989), Becoming a consumer society: a longitudinal and cross-cultural content analysis of print ads from Hong Kong, the Peoples Republic of China and Taiwan, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 457-72.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 101

Usunier, J.C. (2006), Relevance in business research: the case of country-of-origin research in marketing, European Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 60-73. Usunier, J.C. and Cestre, G. (2008), Further considerations on the relevance of country-of-origin research, European Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 271-4. Veale, R. and Quester, P. (2009), Tasting quality: the roles of intrinsic and extrinsic cues, Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 195-207. Verlegh, P.W.J. and Steenkamp, J.B. (1999), A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-46. Verlegh, P.W.J., Steenkamp, J.B. and Meulenberg, M.T.G. (2005), Country-of-origin effects in consumer processing of advertising claims, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 127-40. Witkowski, T. (2000), Effects of animosity toward China on willingness to buy Chinese products, in McClean, G., Kaynak, E. and Aliaga, O. (Eds), Managing in a Turbulent International Business Environment, The International Management Development Association, Hummelstown, PA, pp. 470-7. Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N. and Mohamad, O. (2007), Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity?, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-48. Yoon, S.J., Cannon, H.M. and Yaprak, A. (1996), Evaluating the CYMYC cosmopolitanism scale on Korean consumers, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 7, pp. 211-32. Zhang, Y. (1996), Country-of-origin effect: the moderating function of individual difference in information processing, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 266-87.

Further reading
ITA (International Trade Administration) (2011), Largest trade partners, available at: http://ita.doc. gov// (accessed 1 December 2011).

About the author

Srdan Zdravkovic is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Bryant University. His research interests include cross cultural consumer behavior, process of globalization, sponsorship, and country-of-origin phenomenon. Some of his work was published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, International Journal of Research in Marketing, International Business Review, International Marketing Review, and International Journal of Advertising. He received his PhD in International Business and Marketing from Saint Louis University.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 102 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013