The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

IMR
25,4

458
Received July 2007
Revised January 2008
Accepted March 2008

Does country-of-origin matter in

the relationship between brand
personality and purchase
intention in emerging economies?
Evidence from Chinas auto industry
Xuehua Wang
Faculty of Management and Administration,
Macau University of Science and Technology, Taipa, Macau, China, and

Zhilin Yang
Department of Marketing, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper aims to investigate the relationship between brand personality,
country-of-origin (COO) image and purchase intention. Specifically, it is suggested that COO image
exerts both main and interaction impact on purchase intention.
Design/methodology/approach A cross-city survey of Chinas auto industry for the
Sino-German Joint Ventures auto brand of Bora was conducted to test hypotheses, predicted on a
sample of 1,200 respondents. Another sample for Japan and the Sino-Japanese Joint Ventures Honda
auto brand was used for validation.
Findings Results reveal that both brand personality and COO image exert significant positive main
effects on purchase intention. Furthermore, COO image is found to be a positive moderator in the
relationship between brand personality and purchase intention. Specifically, a positive COO image
could enhance brand personalitys positive impact on purchase intention, whereas a negative COO
image could significantly decrease the positive brand personality effect on purchase intention.
Companies with both weak brand personality and a negative COO image achieve a higher purchase
intention than those with weak brand personality, yet a positive COO image.
Originality/value This study provides new theoretical insights into factors influencing
consumers purchase decision making by incorporating COO image as a moderator in the
relationship between brand personality and purchase intention. It also offers joint ventures useful
advice on whether to emphasize brand origin. If a company is weak in both brand personality and
COO image, it is better not to emphasize brand origin.
Keywords Country-of-origin, Brand identity, Consumer behaviour, China
Paper type Research paper

International Marketing Review

Vol. 25 No. 4, 2008
pp. 458-474
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-1335
DOI 10.1108/02651330810887495

Introduction
Country-of-origin is the country (often referred to as the home country) with which a
manufacturers product or brand is associated (Saeed, 1994). COO image is the
stereotypic perception that consumers hold toward the countrys representative
products or brands (Nagashima, 1970; Roth and Romeo, 1992; Bluemelhuber et al.,
2007). Roth and Romeo (1992) investigate COO image in association with product
categories and define it as consumers understanding of a country which is based upon

their prior product perception of the strengths and weaknesses of the production and
marketing of the product from that country. Prior research indicates that consumers
may hold different appraisals related to products from different countries, thus
significantly influencing their purchase intention (e.g. Schooler, 1965; Roth and Romeo,
1992; Yasin et al., 2007).
An important concept for brand differentiation, which significantly influences
consumers purchase decision-making, and is receiving increasing attention in the
marketing domain, is brand personality (Aaker, 1997). It describes the phenomenon
that a brand is often associated with human personality traits. A favorable brand
personality could increase consumer preference and usage (Sirgy, 1982), foster feelings
of comfort and confidence in the minds of consumers (Biel, 1993), enhance levels of
loyalty and trust (Fournier, 1998), and could provide a basis for brand differentiation
among the myriad brands on the market, thus potentially influencing consumers
brand purchase intention (Keller, 1993, 2003).
Both COO effect and brand personality effect depend largely on product category.
For COO effect, consumers may hold more positive product evaluations toward cars
made in Germany, shoes from Italy, and electronics from Japan. For brand personality
effect, preferred brand personalities may vary across product categories. For instance,
when choosing clothes for youngsters, fashion and modernity are both desired; while
when selecting cars, status and prestige may be preferred. Therefore, it is useful to
replicate effects in different research settings. Plenty of prior research in this regard
has been conducted in the West (e.g. Bluemelhuber et al., 2007), and is seldom focused
on both COO effect and brand personality effect. This study aims to investigate both
effects in emerging economies, specifically in Chinas auto market.
The interaction of COO and brand personality has not received much research
attention; indeed only a handful of research studies have been done in this area, but do
not directly address the interaction effect between COO and brand personality. For
instance, Bluemelhuber et al. (2007) study the effect of the relationship between COO fit
and brand fit on consumers attitudes towards cross-border brand alliances. Yasin et al.
(2007) find that COO image positively and significantly influences brand equity
dimensions.
The interaction of COO and brand personality is an important conceptual and
managerial issue. When buying branded products, consumers purchase intention may
not be influenced only by brand perceptions; COO image may both directly impact
purchase intention and indirectly influence the impact of brand personality on
purchase intention, which means that their interaction effects may occur when
consumers engage in purchase activity. Hence, this study aims to examine the
relationship between brand personality, COO image and purchase intention and
intends to investigate the moderating effect of COO image in this relationship,
specifically in Chinas auto industry. Regarding brand personality effect, this study
will examine the impact of brand personality strength on purchase intention.
Chinas auto industry was selected as our research setting for two main reasons.
First, since inception of the open-door policy in China, many famous foreign
automobile companies, such as Volkswagen and General Motors, have come to China
to establish joint ventures with Chinese local automobile companies. Foreign-branded
cars now occupy almost 70 percent of the domestic automobile market, which, with
many other locally branded cars, could provide us a good setting to study the COO

Does country of
origin matter?

459

IMR
25,4

460

effect as well as brand perceptions. Consequently, Germany and Japan were selected to
test their respective COO image for the product category of automobiles. Brands from
corresponding JVs (Sino-Germany JVs and Sino-Japanese JVs, respectively) in China
were chosen to test brand personality. Hence, two JVs were chosen: Yi Qi Volkswagen
and Guangzhou Honda with two auto brands, Bora and Accord, respectively. The first
pair of country and brand (i.e. Germany and Bora) was used for tests; the second pair of
country and brand (i.e. Japan and Accord) was utilized for validation of the developed
hypotheses.
Second, in view of the impressively consistent growth patterns of Chinas economy,
Chinese demand for automobiles has been growing at the astounding annual rate of
20-25 percent. In fact, China is expected to become the third largest automobile market
in the world, with a projected 6 percent global automobile market share in 2010. In
2020, automobile demand in China is anticipated to reach 20.74 million units. Given the
scale of Chinas tremendous potential in the automobile market, it is desirable and
important to gain insights into the primary factors influencing Chinese consumers
automobile purchase behavior.
Conceptual background and research hypotheses
Brand personality
Brand personality refers to the human characteristics associated with a specific brand
(Aaker, 1997). It is typically regarded as an important promotional tool to develop an
overall image appealing to targeted audiences (Gwinner and Eaton, 1999). For instance,
Pepsi may be portrayed as appealing to a fashionable, energetic, and modern young
man, whereas Coca-Cola could be personified as a gentle and conservative man. This
may be partly due to advertisers strategies to personify brands so that when
consumers think about a particular brand, human personality traits would come to
mind, thus providing a basis for brand differentiation.
In this sense, Keller (1993) points out that brand personality is considered to possess
symbolic values rather than utilitarian functions. Brand personality offers consumers
the means of constructing and maintaining social identity (Fiske, 1989), and provides a
mechanism for expressing his/her actual self, ideal self, or social self (Belk, 1988;
Malhotra, 1988). Sources that contribute to the formation of brand personality can be
classified into two categories: direct and indirect sources (Aaker, 1997). Direct sources
include the set of human characteristics associated with typical brand users, company
employees, corporate CEOs, and brand endorsers. Indirect sources consist of all the
decisions made by company managers, such as decisions related to the product, its
price, distribution, and promotion.
Research on brand personality has attracted significant attention during the last
decade, and could be subdivided into three streams. One stream investigates the
various dimensions of brand personality across countries and areas, such as Aaker
(1997); one stream focuses on the antecedents of brand personality or its fit, such as
Lau and Phau (2007) and another stream investigates the consequences of brand
personality or its fit, such as Freling and Forbes (2005). This study is categorized under
the third stream. Prior research indicates that a strong and positive brand personality
could result in favorable product evaluations. Ramaseshan and Tsao (2007) argue that
specific dimensions of brand personality such as excitement and sophistication are
found to be positively related to perceived quality when symbolic meanings are

attached to brands. Freling and Forbes (2005) find that when respondents are exposed
to positive brand personality, they tend to have a greater proportion of congruent
brand associations, greater unique brand associations, and a greater proportion of
strong brand associations. Fennis et al. (2005) observe that brand personality
dimensions could affect consumers self-perceptions on agreeableness, extroversion,
conscientiousness, and intellect. Aaker (1991) also points out that a distinctively
positive brand personality could be more indicative of more favorable brand equity
than when only product information is given. Thus, we hypothesize that:
H1. Brand personality tends to exert a significantly positive impact on purchase
intention.
Country-of-origin image
COO image plays a significant role in consumers perceptions toward products and
brands from a given country (Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Johansson et al., 1985; Saeed, 1994;
Ahmed et al., 2004), which further affects purchase intention (Roth and Romeo, 1992;
Papadopoulos and Heslop, 1993). Hong and Wyer (1989) find that COO image could
directly exert positive impact on consumers product quality evaluations. Han (1989)
further proposes two roles of COO image; one is the halo effect and the other is the
summary effect. He suggests that when consumers are not familiar with a product or a
brand, they rely on halo effects which can indirectly affect consumers product/brand
attitudes when inferring the product/brand attributes; whereas, when they are familiar
with the product/brand, they summarize their beliefs regarding product/brand
attributes and this summary construct directly influences consumers attitudes toward
the product/brand.
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) has been widely used to explain consumer
intention towards products/brands (Davis, 1989; Karahanna et al., 1999). According to
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), purchase intentions are decisions to act, or psychological
states which represent the individuals perception to engage in a particular behavior
(Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). TRA suggests that an individuals purchase intention
towards a product/brand is determined by his/her attitudes as well as by beliefs of the
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Carr and
Sequeira, 2007).
Hence, if a country has a positive image on specific product category dimensions,
which are very important to product classification, then consumers would perceive
these products more favorably and, based upon TRA, positive attitudes would result in
higher purchase intention toward products of this category from that country (Roth
and Romeo, 1992). Hsieh et al. (2004) also point out that consumers attitudes toward
COO image could affect their brand purchase intention. By providing empirical
evidence of insurance and catering services in Taiwan, Lin and Chen (2006) in a recent
empirical study also postulate that COO image is significantly positively related to
consumers purchase intention.
In Chinas automobile industry, many famous well-established brands belong to
joint ventures (JVs), such as Yi Qi Volkswagen (a JV of FAW Group Corporation,
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and Volkswagen Automobile (China) Investment Co., Ltd.)
and Shanghai General Motors (a JV between General Motors and Shanghai Automotive
Industry Corporation). Since China limits importation of and imposes heavy taxation
on whole vehicles manufactured in foreign countries, Chinese consumers have to rely

Does country of
origin matter?

461

IMR
25,4

462

mainly on cars manufactured by JVs and local companies. Compared to local brands,
JV brands are perceived to possess higher quality, more advanced technology and
design, as well as better services. More importantly, JV brands embody symbolic
meanings such as prestige and status, with which consumers would like to be
associated (Kwok et al., 2006; Zhou and Belk, 2004). Thus, JV foreign partners COO
image may be positively related to purchase intention. For instance, German cars enjoy
a favorable reputation for quality across the world, which may positively influence
purchase intention of cars produced by Sino-German JV companies in China.
Therefore:
H2. COO image tends to exert a significantly positive influence on purchase
intention.
COOs moderation effect
Although brand personality is suggested to have a direct positive impact on purchase
intention, the relative importance of brand personality may also depend on brand COO
image (Czellar, 2003; Roth and Romeo, 1992). Hsieh et al. (2004) observe that both
country image and product image exert main effects on brand purchase. Thakor and
Katsanis (1997) have developed a model of brand and country effects on quality
dimensions. They suggest that country image cues affect quality perceptions both
directly and through the brand cue. Thus, when a brand can be distinctively
differentiated from other brands on personality, and its COO image is perceived as
positive, consumers would, in theory, be more reassured about their perceptions of that
brands personality, and thus be more easily influenced by brand personality in terms
of purchase intention. In contrast, when brand personality is positive, while COO
image is negative, the connection between these two variables would become loose;
thus, brand personality would be less influential regarding purchase intention.
In other words, positive COO image could enhance the effect of brand personality
on purchase intention, while negative COO image would weaken the impact of brand
personality on purchase intention. Specifically, companies with positive COO image
may achieve higher purchase intention with positive brand personality; whereas,
companies with negative COO image might acquire less purchase intention with
positive brand personality. Therefore, brands that not only have positive
personalities, but are also supported by positive COO image, are more likely to
achieve higher purchase intention. In this sense, COO image is proposed to exert a
positive moderating effect in the relationship between brand personality and
purchase intention. Thus:
H3. COO image tends to positively moderate the relationship between brand
personality and purchase intention.
Subjective product knowledge as a control variable
Knowledge held in memory has been identified as a significant factor influencing
consumer decision making (Alba and Chattopadhyay, 1985). Product knowledge refers
to consumer memories and/or understanding related to the product (Brucks, 1985).
Petty and Cacioppo (1981) have pointed out that, when a consumer is highly involved
in purchasing a product, s/he would be inclined to undertake a detailed information

search about product advantages and disadvantages, which could positively affect
his/her decision making as well as purchase intention (Rao and Sieben, 1992).
Brucks (1985) defines product knowledge in terms of three components, i.e.
experience-based knowledge, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge.
Experience-based knowledge, which refers to the purchasing or using experience
with the product (Monroe, 1976; Marks and Olson, 1981), could affect behavior only
if it elicits differences in consumer memories; thus its influence depends, to a certain
extent, on individual habits (Brucks, 1985). Moreover, for those products of which
consumers are likely to have the same memories, the impact of experience-based
knowledge would decrease. Hence, the linkage between experience-based knowledge
and purchase behavior tends to be indirect and weak. In this study, we only
investigate subjective product knowledge (i.e. a consumers perception of how much
knowledge s/he possesses about the product), since consumers decision making is,
to a large extent, based upon their subjective perception of the product instead of
upon their objective knowledge (i.e. product knowledge that an individual actually
stores in memory). Park and Lessig (1981) also point out that subjective product
knowledge could better explain consumers systematic buying biases and heuristics
than could objective knowledge. Therefore, we include subjective product
knowledge as a control variable in our study.
Research methodology
Questionnaire and measures
The questionnaire included two parts. The first part measured the four factors (COO
image, brand personality, product subjective knowledge, and purchase intention); the
second part recorded the demographic information of the respondents. The
questionnaire was originally in English; then it was translated and back-translated
into Chinese until acceptable translation accuracy was achieved.
Based upon the most frequent citations and in light of theoretical considerations,
Aakers (1997) scale (Cronbachs alpha 0.93), i.e. sincerity (down-to-earth, honest,
wholesome, cheerful), excitement (spirited and up-to-date), competence (reliable,
successful, intelligent), sophistication (upper class and charming), and ruggedness
(outdoorsy and tough), was used to measure brand personality. The endpoints were
absolutely disagree (1) and absolutely agree (7). Roth and Romeo (1992)s scale was
adapted to measure COO image. It includes four dimensions: innovativeness (using
new technology and engineering development level), design (appearance and style),
prestige (status and reputation), and workmanship (reliability, durability,
craftsmanship, and quality). Nine items with anchors ranging from 1 absolutely
disagree to 7 absolutely agree with a Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient of 0.91
were used for measurement. Because familiarity with products has been identified as
an important embodiment of subjective product knowledge (Alba and Hutchinson,
1987), we measured subjective product knowledge by using a seven-point semantic
differential scale to correspond with the sentence please circle one of the numbers
below to describe your familiarity with cars, with the anchors being not at all
familiar and extremely familiar (Brucks, 1985). A seven-point Likert item with 1
meaning absolutely impossible and 7 absolutely possible was employed to measure
purchase intention (e.g. Dodds et al., 1991).

Does country of
origin matter?

463

IMR
25,4

464

Pilot study
A pilot study of the questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the content validity of the
measurement scales. Content validity can be assessed by a group of judges or experts
who decide whether the test represents all of the content of a particular construct (Judd
et al., 1991). After evaluation by four academics and five local professionals in this
field, some items were reworded based on their feedback.
Next, the questionnaire was administered to 50 local consumers who were recruited
through a local newspaper advertisement. They were required to answer, review and
critique the questionnaire. After completion, they were reimbursed with RMB50. All 50
questionnaires were useful; the questionnaire was then revised and finalized based on
their feedback.
Reliability and validity
The reliability of constructs used for both the German and Japanese auto
questionnaires was tested by using Cronbachs coefficient alpha, which ranged from
0.89 to 0.95, much larger than the standard of 0.7 (Churchill, 1979; Nunnally, 1978).
Since all measures were based upon prior relevant literature and were often used or
adapted in research (e.g. Lin and Chen, 2006), evidence of content validity was
provided.
Next, we conducted a validity check of the German auto questionnaire, which was
our studys main focus. To determine construct validity, the COO image and brand
personality scales were tested for both convergent and discriminant validity.
Convergent validity is the degree of agreement among two or more measures in the
same construct (Sin et al. 2005). Bivariate correlation analysis was used to provide
evidence of convergent validity. According to Table I, the correlation coefficients for
the four components of brand personality (i.e. sincerity, excitement, competence, and
sophistication) were in the range of 0.737 to 0.807, which were all significant at the
p , 0:01 level. In addition, each of the four components was highly correlated with the
overall scale of brand personality (0.877 or above). The ruggedness dimension did not
produce a significant correlation coefficient with the other four components as well as
the overall scale of brand personality, resulting in unsatisfactory convergent validity;
therefore it was excluded from analysis. Results presented in Table II showed that
correlations among the four components of COO image ranged from 0.562 to 0.731 and
all were statistically significant at the p , 0:01 level. Each component was highly
correlated with the overall measure of COO image (0.753 or above). Thus, evidence of
convergent validity was provided since the correlation pattern showed that

Table I.
Correlations among the
four components of brand
personality

Sincerity
Excitement
Competence
Sophistication
Brand personality

Sincerity

Excitement

Competence

Sophistication

Brand personality

1.000
0.737 *
0.807 *
0.784 *
0.937 *

1.000
0.788 *
0.760 *
0.877 *

1.000
0.769 *
0.924 *

1.000
0.898 *

1.000

Notes: * Statistically significant at p , 0:01 level

components of each of country image and brand personality were convergent within a
common construct.
Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which measures of conceptually distinct
constructs differ (Sin et al., 2005). To test discriminant validity, a simple factor analysis
employing the principal component method was conducted on components of brand
personality, COO image, subjective product knowledge and purchase intention to
examine the underlying dimensions (see Table III). Results showed that four factors
emerged and explained more than 82.0 percent of the total variance. Factor loadings
were all above 0.5 on their corresponding constructs, showing that the respondents
could discriminate between the measures of brand personality, COO image, product
subjective knowledge, and purchase intention, thus providing evidence of discriminant
validity (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
Finally, measures (COO, brand personality, subjective product knowledge and
purchase intention) were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) through
AMOS 5.0. The CFA allows for a validity assessment of the measures used. The fit
indices (x2 =df 1:56, p 0:000, goodness-of-fit index GFI
0:93, adjusted
goodness-of-fit index AGFI
0:92, confirmatory fit index CFI
0:97, normed fit
index [NFI] 0.93, root mean squared error of approximation RMSEA
0:04)
suggest a good fit of the measurement model. All items loaded significantly (critical

Innovativeness
Design
Prestige
Workmanship
COO image

Innovativeness

Design

Prestige

Workmanship

COO image

1.000
0.574 *
0.562 *
0.731 *
0.800 *

1.000
0.626 *
0.685 *
0.841 *

1.000
0.604 *
0.753 *

1.000
0.951 *

1.000

Notes: * Statistically significant at p , 0:01 level

Variables
Brand personality
Sincerity
Excitement
Competence
Sophistication
COO image
Innovativeness
Design
Prestige
Workmanship
Product subjective knowledge
Purchase intention

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Does country of
origin matter?

465

Table II.
Correlations among the
Four Components of COO
Image

Factor 4

0.851
0.813
0.819
0.821
0.777
0.805
0.748
0.724

Notes: Percentage of total variance explained: 82.6 percent

0.973
0.957

Table III.
Results of factor analysis
for discriminant validity

IMR
25,4

466

ratio [CR] . 1.96) on their corresponding constructs. Therefore, evidence of trait

validity is provided for the dependent measures (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
Sample and data
The sampling frame was Chinese middle class auto consumers, including potential
consumers and consumers who already own a car. The sample respondents were
recruited using random sampling by a large research agency in China. Then, they were
screened by asking a question on whether their household monthly income equals or
exceeds RMB5,000. If so, they were to be selected as the appropriate respondents. A
self-completion questionnaire was administered to respondents using the drop off and
collect method (Brown, 1987). This method has been widely used in prior studies (e.g.
Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004; Papadopoulos et al., 1994; Papadopoulos et al.,
1993). A total of 1,200 questionnaires were distributed in four cities including Beijing,
Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu. These four cities enjoy a higher per capita income
and a better standard of living than other cities in China; therefore, there are more
potential automobile buyers and owners in these locations. Each participant was asked
about his/her views on automobiles from Germany, along with perception of the Bora
brand, and automobiles from Japan, as well as perceptions of the Accord brand.
Finally, 369 usable cases with a response rate of 30.7 percent were collected for
Germany and Bora. There were 199 female (49.5 percent) and 170 male respondents
(50.5 percent). The respondents ages were mainly above 30 years old (70.9 percent).
Most of them had junior college diplomas or above (63.0 percent). Their careers mainly
fell into two categories: business and research. Most respondents had a personal
monthly income of more than 5,000 RMB (42.6 percent) and a household monthly
income of more than 8,000 RMB (51.3 percent). A total of 84 respondents did not own a
car while 252 respondents did. For Japan and Accord, 420 usable cases with a response
rate of 35.0 percent were collected, with sample characteristics similar to the data for
Germany and Bora.
Results
Data for Germany and Bora were used to test hypotheses. The correlation coefficients
among the four constructs were in the range of 0.245 and 0.457 and were all
statistically significant at the p , 0:01 level, showing a positive correlation pattern
among variables. Next, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the
hypotheses, after controlling for gender, age, education level, personal/household
monthly income, career, and product subjective knowledge. The control variables were
categorical and were entered as dummy variables. Results show that none of the
control variables was found to be significant in affecting purchase intention. Finally, a
total of four regression models were developed, as presented in Table IV. Subjective
product knowledge was found to significantly impact purchase intention with a
positive standardized coefficient of 0.284, based on the first model.
H1 predicted that brand personality was significantly positively related to purchase
intention. According to models 2 and 4, the R square change is 8 percent and is
statistically significant at the p , 0:001 level; a positive standardized regression
coefficient is related to brand personality (0.212), thus supporting H1.
It was hypothesized in H2 that COO image had a positive impact on purchase
intention. Based upon models 3 and 4, the R square change is 1.3 percent and is

Explanatory variables
Gender
Age
Education level
Career
Personal monthly income
Household monthly income
Subjective product knowledge
Brand personality

Model 1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Model 2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
(0.365)1
(0.497)2

COO image

Model 3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
(0.237)1
(0.316)2
U
U
(0.176) 1
(0.233)2

Brand personality COO image

Constant
F
R2
R 2 change
Adj- R2
Overall model p value

1.220
7.844
( p , 0.001)
0.144
0.144
0.125
0.000

2.878
11.769
( p , 0.001)
0.224
0.080
0.205
0.000

2.586
7.927
( p , 0.001)
0.237
0.013
0.212
0.000

Model 4
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
(0.212)1
(0.289)2
U
U
(0.154)1
(0.201)2
U
(0.315) 1
(0.434)2
3.545
7.813
( p , 0.001)
0.252
0.015
0.233
0.000

Notes: 1 is the standardized regression coefficient; 2 is the unstandardized regression coefficient

statistically significant at the p , 0:001 level; the standardized regression coefficient is

0.154, showing that COO image has a significantly positive impact on purchase
intention. Therefore, H2 is supported.
H3 is based on a significant positive COO image and brand personality interaction.
According to model 4, the R square change for the interaction factor is 1.5 percent
which is statistically significant at the p , 0:001 level and the standardized regression
coefficient is 0.315, indicating that the interaction has a significantly positive impact on
purchase intention, as illustrated in Figure 1. Thus, COO image acts as a positive
moderator between brand personality and purchase intention. In other words,
companies with positive COO image could attain higher purchase intention with
positive brand personality, whereas companies with negative COO image would gain
lower purchase intention with positive brand personality. Therefore, H3 is strongly
supported.
We also analyzed the data for Japan and Accord in order to validate the developed
hypotheses. Results are presented in Table V. As shown among the four models, data
strongly supported all three of the hypotheses, thus offering further empirical
validation of the hypotheses developed.
Finally, we conducted a post-hoc analysis on which of the COO dimension is better
matched with the brand personality dimension. Results revealed that the match of
innovativeness and competency achieves a lowest-difference score, indicating that an
innovative country image matches better with a brand than with a competent

Does country of
origin matter?

467

Table IV.
Hierarchical regression
analysis results (country:
German; brand: Bora)

IMR
25,4

468

Figure 1.
COO Image by brand
personality interaction on
purchase intention

Explanatory Variables
Gender
Age
Education level
Career
Personal monthly income
Household monthly income
Subjective product knowledge
Brand personality

Model 1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Model 2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
(0.273)1
(0.385)2

COO image

Model 3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
(0.217)1
(0.293)2
U
(0.114) 1
(0.165)2

Brand personality COO image

Constant
F

Table V.
Hierarchical regression
analysis results (country:
Japan; brand: Accord)

R2
R 2 change
Adj- R2
Overall model p value

2.653
6.368
( p , 0.001)
0.098
0.098
0.082
0.000

2.715
10.293
( p , 0.001)
0.167
0.069
0.151
0.000

3.737
9.153
( p , 0.001)
0.222
0.055
0.205
0.000

Model 4
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
(0.198)1
(0.245)2
U
(0.104)1
(0.133)2
U
(0.285) 1
(0.312)2
3.262
9.406
( p , 0.001)
0.265
0.043
0.247
0.000

Notes: 1 is the standardized regression coefficient; 2 is the unstandardized regression coefficient

personality. Following are the matches between workmanship and sincerity, and
between design and excitement, showing that a country, which is good at
workmanship/design matches better with a brand with a personality of
sincerity/excitement. The most dissimilar match is between prestige and
sophistication, which seems less appropriate than the other matches.

Does country of
origin matter?

469
Discussion
This study aimed to examine the relationship between brand personality,
country-of-origin (COO) image and purchase intention, specifically in Chinas auto
industry. It was suggested that COO image exerts both main and interaction impact on
purchase intention.
Results revealed that, both brand personality and COO image exert significant
positive main effects on purchase intention; COO image was found to be a positive
moderator in the relationship between brand personality and purchase intention,
which provides new research and managerial implications. In addition, very few
studies have been conducted on the interaction effect of COO and brand personality in
US or non-US settings. China is an emerging economy; therefore, with successful
replications, our findings may be generalizable to other emerging countries or regions.
Brand personality was found to positively affect purchase intention. The more
positive the brand personality was, the higher the consumers purchase intention
toward the brand would be. As described by one of the respondents: What I want is a
sharp brand personality to make me feel different and high-status when driving the
car. Our research findings fell basically in line with the positive direction of brand
personality influence on the dependent measures, a subject that has been extensively
studied in the past decade. For instance, Sirgy (1982) found that a favorable brand
personality could increase an individuals brand preference and his/her usage. Fournier
(1998) further pointed out that such a strong brand personality could increase brand
trust and loyalty; thus product differentiation based on brand personality would be
more effective (Aaker, 1997).
Considerable prior literature has offered evidence on the positive relationship
between COO image and purchase intention (e.g. Roth and Romeo, 1992). Our study is
also in line with prior findings. COO image is found to be positively related to purchase
intention. For instance, German cars are rated highly on technology and performance
in consumers mind, which would cast a positive image on brands of their joint
ventures in China, such as Bora, thus resulting in higher purchase intention.
We also investigate the moderating role of COO image between brand personality
and purchase intention and find that only those brands which are both strongly
positive in personality and COO images could elicit higher purchase intention. As
described by a female respondent who referred to her buying experience:
If I want to buy a specific car type, I first look at the brand to see whether the specific car
could make me feel very charming and confident; if the brand is manufactured by a global
and responsible company, that will give me more confidence in making purchase decisions.

Although a negative COO effect on purchase intention is found to be comparatively

smaller than a positive COO impact, a negative COO image could significantly
decrease positive brand personality effect on purchase intention. In contrast, if a

IMR
25,4

470

brands personality is not strong in the marketplace, no matter how positive its COO
image is, consumers purchase intention would not be high.
Furthermore, it is found that the dimension of ruggedness on Aakers (1997) scale is
not closely related to brand personality in Chinese consumers mind when they engage
in auto purchases. There are two facets related to this finding. On the one hand, the
reason that ruggedness is not significant may be that, the sample locations are three
major cities in China, all of which place a high value on delicacy and modernization;
thus, exquisite cars are more often preferred by consumers. Furthermore, cars in these
cities are mainly for work and home use, and most households live within the city.
Therefore, driving distance is not so large as that in some Western countries. Hence,
the attribute of ruggedness might not be so evidently desirable in Chinese consumers
mind. The same empirical evidence is also provided by Rojas-Mendez et al.s (2004)
study which investigates the Ford brand personality in Chile and also finds that the
ruggedness facet on Aakers (1997) scale does not achieve acceptable reliability or
validity. On the other hand, the reason that ruggedness is not significant may be that
the question was poorly worded and thus respondents could not understand it
properly, or were not clear with respect to the items context, which might limit the
generalizability of our research findings.

Managerial implications
JVs in China could benefit from the findings of this study. In general, JVs need both
good brand strategies to differentiate themselves among the myriad of brands on the
market, and to either stress or downplay the COO effect of various partners, depending
on whether the relevant COO is positive or not, in order to achieve market success.
First, since COO image exerts a significant role in the relationship between brand
personality and purchase intention, it is critical for managers to make good use of the
JVs foreign partners globally positive images which appear to be a great attraction for
Chinese consumers. For instance, German-ness could be highlighted to a greater extent
in communication strategy. Companies could also hold promotional festivals to
introduce auto culture from the foreign partners home country, such as Germany or
the US. However, if a company is both negative in brand personality and in COO
image, it may be better not to emphasize brand origin.
Second, in addition to emphasizing the COO image effect, designing a competitive
branding strategy and further effectively communicating the strong brand personality
through ads or websites could enhance consumers purchase intention. An effective
measure is to establish chat rooms or web-pages to introduce and promote automobiles
by providing consumers with a virtual place to discuss, since many potential
consumers turn to the internet for relevant information searches concerning autos.
This could further familiarize consumers with the companys auto brands, which
might enhance their purchase intention.
Third, brand personality can exert a stronger influence on purchase intention than
COO. Thus, although a high degree of positive brand personality and positive COO is
desirable, a high degree of positive COO is not necessary to facilitate consumers
purchase intention. However, to achieve better effect, it is necessary to actively
communicate the origin of the brands, if the brand is not familiar to consumers.

Limitations and future research

Limitations of this study directing future research should be noted. We did not include
product involvement as a control variable, which has been identified as a potential
factor that influences consumers purchase decisions. Since auto purchase in itself is a
high-involvement situation, we assume consumers are all highly involved in making
decisions. However, there might exist different degrees of high levels in product
involvement, which could result in differential attitudes affecting purchase behavior.
Therefore, future research should further investigate the effect of product involvement
in auto-buying behavior.
In addition, we did not include price and word-of-mouth in our study. Price is a very
important aspect when consumers engage in auto purchase. Moreover, word-of-mouth
might also exert influence in the buying process. For instance, an individuals decision
making could be influenced by his/her friends who already own cars. Therefore, price
and word-of-mouth effects should be examined in future research.
Furthermore, we recognize that there are many factors that influence consumer
purchase intention, such as brand personality congruence, social contexts, and peer
pressure. Most particularly, the inclusion of a Japanese brand (Accord) in China may
give rise to an undetected confounding effect resulting in consumer animosity, thus
affecting purchase intention. Hence, future research should include animosity scales
and more relevant variables to provide a more comprehensive picture leading to an
enhanced understanding of consumer purchase behavior in this regard.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 347-56.
Ahmed, Z.U., Johanson, J.P. and Boon, L.C. (2004), Does country-of-origin matter for
low-involvement products, International Marketing Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 102-20.
Alba, J.W. and Chattopadhyay, A. (1985), The effects of context and part-category cues on the
recall of competing brands, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 340-9.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), Dimensions of consumer expertise, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 55-9.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2004), Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects,
and consumer ethnocentrism: a multidimensional unfolding approach, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 80-95.
Belk, R.W. (1988), Possessions and the extended self, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 139-68.
Biel, A. (1993), Converting image into equity, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A. (Eds), Brand Equity
and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Bilkey, W.J. and Eric, N. (1982), Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 13, Spring/Summer, pp. 89-99.
Bluemelhuber, C., Carter, L.L. and Lambe, C.J. (2007), Extending the view of brand alliance
effects, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 427-43.

Does country of
origin matter?

471

IMR
25,4

472

Brown, S. (1987), Drop and collect surveys: a neglected research technique?, Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 19-23.
Brucks, M. (1985), The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, June, pp. 1-16.
Carr, J.C. and Sequeira, J.M. (2007), Prior family business exposure as intergenerational
influence and entrepreneurial intent: a theory of planned behavior approach, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 10, pp. 1090-8.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.
Czellar, S. (2003), Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: an integrative model and
research propositions, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 97-115.
Davis, F.D. (1989), Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Dodds, B.K., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), Effect of price, brands, and store information
on buyers product evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, August, pp. 307-19.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
Fort Worth, TX.
Fennis, B.M., Pruyn, A.T.H. and Maasland, M. (2005), Revisiting the malleable self: brand effects
on consumer self-perceptions of personality traits, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 32, pp. 371-7.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Beliefs, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fiske, J. (1989), Reading the Popolar, Unwin Hyman, Boston, MA.
Fournier, S. (1998), A consumer-brand relationship frame-work for strategy brand
management, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Freling, T.H. and Forbes, L.P. (2005), An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect, The
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 404-13.
Gwinner, K.P. and Eaton, J. (1999), Building brand image through event sponsorship: the role of
image transfer, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 47-57.
Han, C.M. (1989), Country image: halo or summary construct?, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26, May, pp. 222-9.
Hong, S. and Wyer, R.S. Jr (1989), Effects of country-of-origin and product-attribute information
on product evaluation: an information processing perspective, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 16, September, pp. 175-87.
Hsieh, M., Pan, S. and Setiona, R. (2004), Product-, corporate-, and country-image dimensions
and purchase behavior: a multicountry analysis, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 251-70.
Johansson, J.K., Douglas, S.P. and Nonaka, I. (1985), Assessing the impact of country-of-origin
on product evaluations: a new methodological perspective, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 22, November, pp. 388-96.
Judd, C.M., Smith, E.R. and Kidder, L.H. (1991), Research Methods in Social Relations, 6th ed.,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Orlando, FL.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. and Chervany, N. (1999), Information technology adoption across
time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 183-213.

Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management, 2nd ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Kwok, S., Uncles, M. and Huang, Y. (2006), Brand preferences and brand hcoices among urban
Chinese consumers, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 163-72.
Lau, K.C. and Phau, I. (2007), Extending symbolic brands using their personality: examing
antecedents and implications towards brand image fit and brand dilution, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 421-44.
Lin, L. and Chen, C. (2006), The influence of the country-of-origin image, product knowledge and
product involvement on consumer purchase decisions: an empirical study of insurance and
catering services in Taiwan, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 248-65.
Malhotra, N.K. (1988), Self-concept and product choice: an integrated perspective, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Marks, L.J. and Olson, J.C. (1981), Toward a cognitive structure conceptualization of product
familiarity, in Monroe, K. and Arbor, A. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8,
Association for Consumer Research, MI, pp. 145-50.
Monroe, K.B. (1976), The influence of price differences and brand familiarity on brand
preferences, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3, June, pp. 42-9.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nagashima, A. (1970), A comparison of Japanese and US attitudes toward foreign products,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, January, pp. 68-74.
Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (1993), Product-Country Image: Impact and Role in International
Marketing, International Business Press, London.
Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A. and Bamossy, G. (1994), An international comparative analysis
of consumer attitudes toward Canada and Canadian products, Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 224-39.
Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A. and Bennett, D. (1993), National image correlates of product
stereotypes: a study of attitudes towards East European countries, in Papadopoulos, N.
(Ed.), Dimensions of International Business, Carleton University, the International
Business Study Group, Ottawa, pp. 21-37.
Park, C. and Lessig, V.P. (1981), Familiarity and its impacts on consumer decision biases and
heuristics, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, September, pp. 223-30.
Petty, R.E. and Caciopppo, J.T. (1981), Attitude and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary
Approaches, Wm C. Brown, Dubuque, IA.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Ramaseshan, B. and Tsao, H.Y. (2007), Moderating effects of the brand concept on the
relationship between brand personality and perceived quality, Brand Management,
Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 458-66.
Rao, A.R. and Sieben, W.A. (1992), The effect of prior knowledge on price acceptability and the
type of information examined, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 256-70.
Rojas-Mendez, J.I., Erenchun-Podlech, I. and Silva-Olave, E. (2004), The Ford brand personality
in Chile, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 232-51.

Does country of
origin matter?

473

IMR
25,4

474

Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992), Matching product category and country image perceptions: a
framework for managing country-of-origin effects, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97.
Saeed, S. (1994), Consumer evaluation of products in a global market, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.
Schooler, R.D. (1965), Product bias in the general American common market, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 2, November, pp. 394-7.
Sin, L.Y.M., Tse, A.C.B., Yau, O.H.M., Chow, R.P.M. and Lee, J.S.Y. (2005), Market orientation,
relationship marketing orientation, and business performance: the moderating effects of
economic ideology and industry type, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 36-57.
Sirgy, J. (1982), Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-301.
Thakor, M.V. and Katsanis, L.P. (1997), A model of brand and country effects on quality
dimensions: issues and implications, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 79-100.
Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N. and Mohamad, O. (2007), Does image of country-of-origin matter to
brand equity?, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Zhou, N. and Belk, R.W. (2004), Chinese consumer readings of global and local advertising
appeals, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 63-76.
Further reading
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Dawson, J.F. and Richter, A.W. (2006), Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple
regression: development and application of a slope difference test, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 917-26.
Corresponding author
Xuehua Wang can be contacted at: mkxwang@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints