The Effect of Perceived Country of Origin on Brand Attitude, Brand Trust and Purchase Intentions

Master Thesis

Student: Mariya Petrova Student Number: 10993150 Date of submission: 29.01.2016 Supervisors: Drs. ing. A.C.J. Meulemans Drs. F. Slisser Program: MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track University of Amsterdam

Statement of originality

This document is written by Mariya Petrova who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Drs. Meulemans for his time, guidance, expert advice and feedback throughout the process of writing this thesis. Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to all of the participants in my survey whose responses provided valuable insights and helped me conduct this research. Lastly, I am grateful to my friends and family for their immense support and involvement.

Abstract

Recent research suggests that the country of origin effect is present regardless of consumers’ knowledge of the actual country of brand origin. Thus the concept of perceived country of origin emerged. The purpose of this thesis is to explore the effect of perceived country of origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions. An online survey was conducted to answer the question to what extent the perception of a favorable country of origin, regardless of the actual country of brand origin, results in a positive effect on consumers’ attitude, trust and purchase intentions towards the brand. The questionnaire asked respondents to express their opinion on three brands of ice cream: Perry’s Ice Cream, Häagen-Dazs and

Baskin-Robbins. A within-subjects design was used. All of these brands originate from the

United States of America; however they employ different strategies concerning the usage of country of origin information. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the means of brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions across the three conditions of the perceived country of origin. The analysis showed that respondents had significantly higher attitude, trust and purchase intentions in the condition of positive image of the perceived country of origin. These results suggest that associating a brand with a favorable country, no matter the real country of origin, can lead to a higher attitude and trust towards that brand, as well as an increased likelihood to buy it. Regional differences were also found indicating that the effect of perceived country of origin varies among people from different geographical locations.

Keywords: country of origin, perceived country of origin, brand evaluation, brand attitude, brand trust, purchase intentions, foreign branding

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... 3 Abstract ...... 4 1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Literature review ...... 10 2.1 Defining Country of Origin ...... 10 2.2 Country of Origin as a Brand Building Tool ...... 11 2.3 Country of Origin and Product Categories ...... 12 2.4 Country of Origin Effect across Cultures ...... 13 2.5 Developed and Developing Countries ...... 15 2.6 Criticism on Country of Origin ...... 17 2.7 Perceived Country of Origin ...... 18 2.8 Brand Attitude ...... 19 2.9 Brand Trust ...... 20 2.10 Purchase Intentions ...... 21 2.11 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses ...... 22 3. Research Methodology ...... 24 3.1 Research Design ...... 24 3.2 The Pretest ...... 26 3.3 The Main Questionnaire ...... 28 3.4 Measurement of the Dependent Variables ...... 29 4. Results ...... 31 4.1 Sample Description ...... 31 4.2 Perceived Country of Origin ...... 32 4.3 Scale Reliabilities ...... 34 4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations ...... 36 4.5 Hypotheses Testing: Repeated Measures ANOVA ...... 36 4.6 Hypotheses Testing: Mixed ANOVA ...... 41 5. Discussion, limitations and recommendations for future research ...... 46 6. Conclusion ...... 50 References ...... 53 Appendix 1: Pretest ...... 57 Appendix 2: Main Questionnaire ...... 61 Appendix 3: Respondent Nationality ...... 68

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Model ...... 23

List of Tables

Table 1: Brands chosen, actual and perceived COO and favorability of the perception ...... 28 Table 2: Respondents’ Nationality and Region ...... 32 Table 3: Perceived Country of Origin ...... 34 Table 4: Reliability Statistics ...... 35 Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations ...... 36 Table 6: Brand Attitude Pairwise Comparisons ...... 38 Table 7: Brand Trust Pairwise Comparisons ...... 39 Table 8: Purchase Intentions Pairwise Comparisons ...... 40

1. Introduction

The growth of international trade made a wide variety of foreign products available worldwide. Marketers are struggling to differentiate their products and build a long-lasting brand image. In a globalized world country of origin (COO) may be a way of differentiating a brand and a source of competitive advantage if consumers hold favorable associations towards the country. Moreover, the importance of COO is increasing due to the growing popularity of online purchases. Most Internet advertising messages rely on extrinsic cues such as price, brand name, and country of origin because intrinsic cues (physical characteristics) are difficult to assess online without actually seeing the product (Insch & McBride, 2004).

COO is an important extrinsic cue, therefore its importance in consumer product evaluations is growing (Klein et al., 1998, in Insch and McBride, 2004).

A wide body of research has investigated the effect of country of origin and country image on consumers' perceptions, product preferences and quality evaluations (Al-Sulaiti & Baker,

1998). Most researchers agree that COO positively influences these variables; however recent studies cast some doubt on these findings and claim that previous research has inflated the importance of COO (Samiee, Shimp, & Sharma, 2005). Samiee et al. (2005) argue that people do not have accurate perceptions of the country of brand origin and do not actively seek this information, therefore COO cannot be an important factor for their brand attitude.

Magnusson, Westjohn, & Zdravkovic (2011) refute this argument by exploring perceived

COO as opposed to actual country of origin and find out that perceived country of origin matters regardless of whether the perception is accurate. Marketers seem to be aware of this and use it in their advantage by employing a foreign branding strategy and deliberately associating their brands with countries characterized with a positive image even though they are not the actual country of origin (Magnusson et al., 2011). Some examples include the

American ice cream Frusen Glädjé that uses Swedish words in the brand name to imply

Scandinavian origin, the Ginsu knives that uses a Japanese sounding brand name despite its

American origin, and the French dairy brand Président that uses the Greek alphabet and images from Greece in the packaging of its feta cheese. It is interesting to further explore the effect of this perceived country of origin on consumers’ perception of the brand.

The research on country of origin effect has been going on for decades; however the notion of perceived country of origin is relatively new and the research on the topic is limited. The purpose of this thesis is to explore the effect of perceived country of origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions, and thus fill in the research gap between perceived and actual country of origin effect. I propose that if consumers associate a brand with a favorable country, this will lead to more positive brand attitude, higher brand trust and purchase intentions than in the case of associating the brand with an unfavorable country or with no country whatsoever.

This leads to the following research question:

To what extend does the association of a brand with a favorable country, regardless of the actual country of brand origin, result in a positive effect on consumers’ perception of the brand?

In order to answer this question a qualitative research method was used and an online survey was distributed among a student sample. The survey included three ice cream brands each representing different condition of the perceived country of origin: positive country image, negative country image and neutral condition (no country associations). Consequently the differential effect of perceived country image was analyzed across the three conditions.

This study contributes to the marketing literature by expanding our understanding of perceived COO as opposed to actual COO. Previous research by Magnusson, Westjohn, &

Zdravkovic (2011) already suggested that consumers’ perception of brand origin significantly affects brand attitude. The present research complements this by also investigating the effect of perceived brand origin on brand trust and purchase intentions. Moreover, this study also has a managerial application by offering practitioner a better understanding of the foreign branding strategy. The findings of the present research can be applied in the marketing practice as a way to create competitive advantage. Making a brand seem like it originates from a foreign country is a way to distinguish the brand and make it unique and easily recognizable in local markets. However, the country image should be carefully considered.

The perceived country of origin only contributes to the brand image if it is a country with favorable associations. This research also emphasizes marketing practitioners’ need to consider the difference in the perceptions of people from different regions. The different culture and level of economic development across countries/regions might cause the effect of perceived country of origin to be stronger in some regions and weaker in others.

This thesis is structured as follows: the next chapter outlines the developments in the research on the country of origin effect, its criticism and the emergence of the concept of perceived country of origin. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology, including results from a pretest and how they helped design the main questionnaire. Chapter 4 presents the statistical analysis of the data collected through this questionnaire and includes hypotheses testing.

Consequently chapter 5 discusses the results and outlines some of the limitations of the research. The thesis ends with a brief conclusion in chapter 6.

2. Literature review

2.1 Defining Country of Origin

Country image and country of origin effect have long been of research interest. Many authors have attempted to combine the vast literature on the topic and create a review article that summarizes the findings on the topic and provides valuable insights. Al-Sulaiti & Baker

(1998) provide a literature review of the research on the country of origin effect since the middle of the 1960s until 1997. Through the years different definitions of “country of origin” have emerged. Some authors use the term country of origin to refer to “the country of manufacture or assembly” of a product while others use the term “made in –“(Al-Sulaiti &

Baker, 1998). Country of origin effect occurs when consumers prefer a certain product only because it is produced in a particular country. This bias is caused by the overall image of the country. Country image is defined as “consumers’ general perceptions of quality for products made in a given country” (Bilkey and Nes, 1982 in Han, 1989, p.222). The image of the country can affect consumers’ perceptions of the products manufactured in that country and influence product preference, quality evaluation, and buying decisions for products that are associated with the country - either designed, or manufactured, or assembled in that country

(Han, 1989).

The first research to explore the significance of the country of origin information in consumers’ purchase intentions was conducted by Schooler in 1965. He proposed that consumers evaluate identical products differently and the basis for this difference is the national origin of the products (Schooler, 1965). He confirmed this hypothesis by conducting a research in Central America, thus proving for the first time that country of origin effect exists. The underlying explanation for the different product evaluation is based on people’s different evaluations of national segments (business, labor, government, and people) and travel experience (Schooler, 1965).

Nowadays brands are increasingly international and manufactured in a number of countries which leads to a change of the definition of country of origin. Country of origin is described as the country of brand origin where the corporate headquarters of the company are situated regardless of the location of actual manufacturing (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2011).

There are two different views on the role of country image in consumers’ product evaluations

(Han, 1989). The view of country image as a “halo” suggests that consumers use country image as a sign for product quality when they encounter an unknown foreign brand (Han,

1989). The idea of country image as a halo is relevant only when consumers are not familiar with products from a certain country. However, if consumers are familiar with products of the country, country image is regarded as a summary construct in the same way as brand image is a summary construct (Han, 1989). The summary construct model suggests that consumers summarize information about a country’s products, then form product beliefs and based on them consumers form their perceptions of the country (Han, 1989). Other researchers propose that both country image and product beliefs simultaneously influence attitudes (Knight &

Calantone, 2000).

2.2 Country of Origin as a Brand Building Tool

In the competitive environment nowadays, marketers use brand building tools in order to differentiate their brand. These include primary brand elements such as brand name, logo, slogan but also secondary sources of brand knowledge (Keller, 2005). Secondary sources of brand knowledge require associating the brand to an independent entity that has associations on its own – for example a person (when using a celebrity endorser) or a place

(country/region of origin) - in order to borrow favorable associations (Keller, 2005). Those secondary sources can be people, places or other brands that have their own associations but are linked to the brand in a way that positive associations are transferred. The transfer of

11 meaning, feeling and associations from the country of brand origin to the brand involves risk because if the image of the country dramatically deteriorates (for example in case of bad policy decisions – starting a war, mistreating foreigners), it will have a negative effect on the brand itself. According to Keller (2005) the brand will benefit from these associations only if they are strong, favorable and unique.

2.3 Country of Origin and Product Categories

The country of origin effect is usually specific for product categories. For example, consumers may prefer automobiles from Germany but crystal from Ireland and shoes from

Italy (Roth & Romeo, 1992). A lot of research investigates how country image varies across product categories. Roth and Romeo (1992) explore the fit (also referred to as “match”) between countries and product categories. They suggest that country image has a positive effect on product evaluations when there is a favorable product-country match. A product- country match occurs when a country is strong in an area that is an important feature for a product category, whereas a mismatch occurs when a country’s strengths are not important for the product category (Roth & Romeo, 1992). In the case of product country mismatch country image does not influence consumers’ perceptions of the product. For example, Italy is perceived as strong in the design area so there will be a positive match between Italy and fashion-oriented products. On the other hand, a mismatch will occur in the case of Japanese beer. Japan has an overall positive country image; however, the country’s strengths are related to innovation and technological precision that are not important for beer.

There are different variables that moderate the effect of country of origin on consumers’ perceptions such as consumers’ nationality, level of education, country familiarity, age, product involvement. Verlegh, Steenkamp, & Meulenberg (2005) propose that the impact of product-country image depends on consumers’ level of involvement with the ad. Under the

12 condition of low involvement consumers will use peripheral cues such as country of origin.

They conclude that country of origin has a greater impact when consumers’ involvement is low (Verlegh et al., 2005). Their study supports the idea that country of origin plays an essential role in consumer product evaluations and supports the view of country of origin as a

“cognitive shortcut”.

2.4 Country of Origin Effect across Cultures

Country of origin effect has an important cross-national component because perceptions of a country may be different depending on the consumers’ nationalities (Roth & Romeo, 1992).

Insch and McBride (2004) decompose COO into country of product design, country of assembly and country of parts manufacture and test its effect on consumer perceptions using samples from two different countries – Mexico and USA. Their research discovers that customer perception of the importance of country of origin significantly varies between these two countries. For example, country of design has a stronger impact on US consumers compared to Mexican consumers in the sports shoes product category.

Country of origin effect also differs across countries because of cultural differences. Cultural differences have been vastly research during the years because they have important implications for management and marketing. Probably the most widely used and universally accepted research on national culture and cultural difference is the one by Geert Hofstede.

Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another” (Hofstede, 1994, p. 1). He identifies five dimensions of culture: power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long term vs. short term orientation and explores the implications of these in the family, in society and at the workplace (Hofstede, 1994). These dimensions of culture have also been used to explain the role of country of origin in

13 customers’ perceptions of a product ((Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000) and (Insch &

McBride, 2004)). For example, Gurhan-Canli & Maheswaran (2000) explore cultural variations in country of origin effect and find differences in product evaluations based on whether the society is individualistic or collectivist. There are significant variations in the evaluations of home country products and foreign products. Individualists evaluate a home country product more favorably only if it is superior to a foreign product; however collectivists evaluate a home country product more favorably, no matter whether the product is superior or inferior to a foreign product (Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000). Another example is Insch & McBride’s (2004) study on differences in COO evaluations among

American and Mexican consumers which suggests that the underlying reason for these differences is the difference in the power distance dimension between these two countries.

Insch & McBride (2004) point out that Mexico and the United States have the opposite scores on three of Hofstede’s dimensions - individualism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance.

Hofstede suggested that there is a negative correlation between power distance and education and between power distance and technological sophistication which might explain the variations in country of origin effect (Insch & McBride, 2004).

People from different cultures have different norms and values but also hold different stereotypes about the surrounding world. National stereotypes have been researched as an underlying explanation for the country of origin effect (Chattalas, Kramer, & Takada, 2008).

Chattalas et. al (2008) use Stereotype Content Model to explore the relationship between national stereotypes and country of origin effect. The two dimensions of national stereotypes

(perceived warmth and perceived competence) play a role in consumers’ product evaluation.

Therefore, the contents of national stereotypes are viewed as antecedents of COO effect.

Chattalas et. al (2008) find out that there exists a relationship between national stereotypes and attitude towards products and this relationship is moderated by a several product and

14 consumer characteristics such as cultural orientation, expertise and involvement. The most desirable position for a country is the quadrant characterized with high warmth and high competence (Chattalas et al., 2008).

People’s culture has an influence on their consumer behavior in general which might eventually impact their country of origin perceptions. For example, culture has been found to affect prices and consumers’ shopping behavior (Ackerman & Tellis, 2001). In a cross- cultural longitudinal study of American and Chinese consumers in California Ackerman &

Tellis (2001) find out dramatic differences in the shopping practices of the two cultures. Even though the researched supermarkets are all situated in California, there is a huge difference in prices for identical products between Chinese and American supermarkets, indicating that culture can in fact affect prices. Moreover, people from these two countries exhibit different shopping behavior. Chinese customers are more price-sensitive and engage in a more extensive inspection of the products prior to purchase, for example by smelling the product.

They view shopping as a family experience and a type of entertainment, whereas for

Americans it is simply a task to perform. When shopping Americans value saving time, unlike the Chinese who focus on saving money, even when people from both cultures have the same socio-economic status (Ackerman & Tellis, 2001).

In sum, country of origin effect differs from country to country, therefore branding strategies based on origin need to be customized for each particular country.

2.5 Developed and Developing Countries

Some studies focus on variations of COO effect based on differences between developed and developing countries rather than culturally different countries (Batra, Ramaswamy, Alden,

Steenkamp, & Ramachander, 2014). Consumers in developing countries show a higher preference towards foreign brands because of perceived product quality and social status.

Foreign goods are often associated with foreign lifestyle (high standard of living) and high quality. Moreover, Batra et al. (2014) find out that preference towards imported products is higher for people who appreciate Western lifestyle and for products that serve as a social signal. Sharma (2011) uses two constructs – materialism and value consciousness to highlight the differences between consumers’ perceptions of the country of origin in developed and developing countries. Materialism and value consciousness have significant effect on product preferences and purchase intentions only on consumers in emerging markets (Sharma, 2011).

Consumes from emerging markets prefer products from developed countries because of perceived high quality and status enhancement; however, these consumers tend to be more value conscious and price sensitive (Sharma, 2011). Therefore, price might be a more influential extrinsic cue than country of origin. Local products might be preferred in emerging markets because they are associated with lower prices.

The differences in country of origin effect in developed and developing countries might be explained by the differences in the national culture of these countries. Cultural dimensions were previously discussed as influencing COO perceptions; however researchers argue that cultural dimensions are also correlated with the level of development of a country. Cox,

Friedman & Tribunella (2011) explore the relationship between cultural dimensions and gross domestic product (GDP) and find out that power distance is negatively correlated with weighted gross domestic product per capita. However, individualism is positively correlated with weighted GDP per capita which indicates that with an increased economic development of a country, the society of that country is expected to become more individualistic (Cox et al., 2011).

2.6 Criticism on Country of Origin

Despite the numerous studies that prove the effect of COO, the field has been highly criticized. Recent research proclaims COO as irrelevant, suffering from overspecialization and problems with generalizability; however other authors provide strong arguments that

COO is still an important cue (Josiassen & Harzing, 2008). The literature on country of origin is based on the assumption that consumers possess accurate knowledge of brands’ country of origin; however many researchers cast a doubt on this assumption (Balabanis &

Diamantopoulos, 2008).

One of the reasons for criticism of COO is people’s lack of knowledge about brand origin

(Samiee et al., 2005). Samiee et al (2005) develop a measure for brand origin recognition accuracy (BORA) and determine four factors that affect the BORA score: socioeconomic characteristics, international experience, demographics and ethnocentric tendencies. Their study of brand origin recognition accuracy of 84 brands finds out that respondents are capable of correctly recognizing the brand origin of only 22.3% of foreign brands and 49% of US

(local) brands (Samiee et al., 2005). Consequently, this research concludes that consumers find COO information unimportant and unworthy of memorizing. Another study finds out that consumers have the ability to correctly identify the country of origin of different brands in only 22 % of the cases (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2008). After discovering consumers’ inability to correctly classify brands’ origin, a research was conducted to explore the gains and losses of this misclassification (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2011). In that research

Balabanis & Diamantopoulos (2011) explore the consequences of brand origin misclassification in terms of brand image evaluation and purchase intentions. They suggest there are two types of misclassification – adverse and favorable - depending on whether the perceived country has a worse or a better image than the image of the actual country of origin.

They propose that “weak brands have more to gain from favorable COO misclassification,

17 whereas strong brands have more to lose from adverse COO misclassification” (Balabanis &

Diamantopoulos, 2011). However, their findings suggest that even favorable misclassification does not have a positive effect on brand image perceptions or purchase intentions – a conclusion that cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of foreign branding strategies.

However, Josiassen & Harzing (2008) point out the importance of the concept of foreign branding and by this refute the idea of COO becoming irrelevant. Consumers may easily confuse a brand as coming from a country other than its actual origin and this gives marketers the opportunity to associate their brand with any country, thus choosing one with a favorable image. Leclerc, Schmitt, & Dubé (1994) define foreign branding as “the strategy of spelling or pronouncing a brand name in a foreign language” which influences the way customers perceive and evaluate a product. For example, the American bottled water company

Klarbrunn uses a German sounding brand name to elicit positive associations with the

German Alps (Leclerc et al., 1994).

Another argument suggesting the lack of significance of country of origin cue is the increasing number of multinational companies with global production. Products of big international corporations are often produced in different countries and assembled in yet another country which makes COO as a term vague and even meaningless, therefore considered as unimportant cue for forming product preference and purchasing decisions

(Pharr, 2005).

2.7 Perceived Country of Origin

Despite the lack of accuracy in country of origin perceptions COO effect matters (Magnusson et al., 2011). However, the attention is shifted from actual country of origin to perceived country of origin. The relevant country of origin nowadays is the country of association

(Josiassen & Harzing, 2008).

Magnusson et al. (2011) provide evidence that perceived brand origin influences brand attitude regardless of the accuracy of the perception. Realizing this, marketers take deliberate actions to differentiate their brand by associating it to a country with positive image even if it is not the country of origin. However, the effectiveness of this type of branding strategy is not researched in depth. Moreover, it is unclear how the moderators that affect the actual country of origin will influence the relationship between perceived country of origin and brand attitude.

For the purposes of this research we define perceived country of origin as the country that customers associate with a brand. This can be the same country as the country of origin or a different country. Moreover, consumers’ perception for this country might be positive, neutral or negative depending on whether they hold favorable associations with this particular country. Perceived country of origin is the independent variable in this research. The next three sections provide definitions of the three dependent variables: brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.

2.8 Brand Attitude

Keller (1993) defines customer-based brand equity as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on customer response to the marketing of the brand” (p. 8). Keller (2001) identifies six brand building blocks - salience, performance, imagery, judgments, feelings and resonance, that are organized in four levels of a pyramid. These four levels need to be reached by consumers so that the brand can build customer-based brand equity. The four levels relate to brand identity, brand meaning, brand response and customer-brand relationship (Keller,

2001). At the third level of this pyramid brand attitude is formed. It consists of brand judgments (relating to the more functional aspects of the brand) and brand feelings (relating to the emotional response to the brand).

Brand image and brand attitude should be differentiated. Brand image is a collection of brand related associations (Keller, 1993). Keller (1993) explores three types of associations - attributes, benefits and attitudes. Therefore, brand attitude is just one aspect of brand image.

Brand attitude relates to the overall evaluation of the brand and is viewed as a function of the attributes and benefits that are associated with the brand (Keller, 1993). According to Keller

(2001) achieving positive attitude towards the brand is a critical step towards achieving brand resonance which is the ultimate goal of any brand building program. If consumers hold a positive brand attitude, they can move to the next level of the brand pyramid that is characterized with brand loyalty, attachment, community and engagement (Keller, 2001).

Positive brand attitude might be created by leveraging positive associations from the country of brand origin, which is an important source of secondary brand knowledge (Keller, 2005).

2.9 Brand Trust

Brand trust, also referred to as brand trustworthiness and brand credibility, is defined as: “the confident expectations of the brand’s reliability and intentions” (Delgado-Ballester & Luis

Munuera-Alemán, 2005, p. 188).

Brand trust is based on consumers’ belief that the brand is consistent, honest and responsible

(Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). To trust a brand means to believe or expect that the brand will deliver a positive outcome. Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-

Alemán (2005) investigated two distinct dimensions of brand trust – reliability and intentions.

Reliability refers to the brand’s ability to satisfy customer wants and needs while intentions relates to the good rather than bad intentions of the brand; brand trust also involves the brand’s behavior - the extent to which a brand keep its promises to customers (Delgado-

Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). In a previous research Delgado-Ballester and Luis

Munuera-Alemán (2001) explored the relationship among brand trust, satisfaction and loyalty.

They conceptualized brand trust as “the feeling of security held by the consumer that the brand will meet his/her consumption expectations” (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-

Alemán, 2001, p. 1242). The findings of their research indicate that there is a direct effect of overall satisfaction on brand trust and this relationship is moderated by customer involvement, moreover brand trust is positively related to customer commitment. These results suggest that overall satisfaction is an antecedent of brand trust whereas brand loyalty is a consequence of brand trust.

Trust is a form of an interpersonal relationship; therefore the idea of brand trust implies that the relationship between a consumer and a brand is similar to personal relationships (Delgado-

Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2001). This is in line with the idea of Brand as Intentional

Agents Framework (BIAF) that explores people’s perceptions of a brand using two dimensions – intentions and ability (Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012). These dimensions are comparable to the reliability and intensions dimensions used by Delgado-Ballester and Luis

Munuera-Alemán (2005).

2.10 Purchase Intentions

Purchase intention is the most concrete attribute compared to brand attitude and brand trust.

During the last decades researchers have explored the various effects of country of origin on product perceptions. Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, & Palihawadana (2011) found out that country of origin image impacts purchase intentions indirectly and that indirect relationship is mediated by brand image. Different factors influence purchase intentions, for instance culture has an effect on price consciousness and price sensitivity and these might also have an effect on purchase intentions (Ackerman & Tellis, 2001). Moreover, people from developing countries are more likely to be price conscious due to low income. Culture might also affect

21 purchase intentions indirectly by influencing the values of a society. People from a materialistic culture will be more likely to engage in impulsive purchases.

2.11 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

We have already defined the terms country of origin and perceived country of origin and provided evidence from previous research that the country of brand origin influences brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions. The aim of the present study is to investigate how the association of a brand with a country, without it being the country of origin, influences these three variables. We propose that the effect will be similar to the effect of actual country of origin but only when the perception is related to a country with a favorable image. The favorable country image will make the brand more likeable and trustworthy, thus resulting in a more positive brand attitude, higher trust and purchase intentions for the brand.

Therefore, the following hypotheses will be tested:

Hypothesis 1: Favorable image of the perceived country of brand origin influences positively consumers’ attitude towards the brand.

Hypothesis 2: Favorable image of the perceived country of brand origin influences positively consumers’ trust towards the brand.

Hypothesis 3: Favorable image of the perceived country of brand origin influences positively consumers’ purchase intentions towards the brand.

We investigated these propositions by comparing the condition of a favorable country image with the situations when the perception is negative and neutral. Moreover, we expect that consumers’ nationality, in other words their own country of origin, might influence this effect making it stronger for some consumers due to cultural differences and differences among consumers from developed vs. developing countries.

However, to make this research more viable we tested this proposition based on respondents region of origin, not nationality. More information about the four regional groups of countries is included in chapter 4. This leads to the last hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Consumers’ region of origin impacts their perception of the country of brand origin in a way that the effect of perceived country of origin on brand attitude (4a), brand trust

(4b) and purchase intentions (4c) will be different across regions.

Figure 1 shows a graphic presentation of the model.

Respondents’ Region of Origin

H4a b c H1 Brand Attitude

Perceived H2 Country of Brand Trust Brand Origin

H3 Purchase Intentions

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

3. Research Methodology

In this chapter the research method used for exploring the effect of perceived country of origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions will be presented. The chapter includes a description of the research design, the pretest, the main questionnaire and lastly a description of the dependent variables and the scales used for their measurement.

3.1 Research Design

In order to explore the effect of perceived country of origin, a quantitative research was carried out using an online self-administered survey. The survey asked respondents to evaluate three ice cream brands. All survey participants answered questions about all three brands thus a within-subjects design was used.

The chosen brands are Perry’s Ice cream, Häagen-Dazs and Baskin-Robbins. All of these brands are originating from the United States of America; however they employ different branding strategies regarding the usage of country of origin information. Perry’s Ice Cream emphasizes it American origin by offering an “All American” ice cream. Häagen-Dazs uses a foreign branding strategy by choosing a German/Scandinavian sounding brand name. Baskin-

Robbins does not include any country cues in its packaging and has a relatively neural brand name, thus we expect it will not cause any country associations in the mind of the respondents. In a way this brand serves as a control item for the research.

The respondents expressed their opinion about the three ice cream brands which provided insight about their brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions. The United States of

America were chosen as a country of interest after a pretest showed a relatively negative quality perception towards food products coming from the US. The pretest indicated however a rather positive attitude towards German and Danish food products. Therefore, in this

24 research Perry’s ice cream represents a brand with unfavorable perceived country of origin,

Häagen-Dazs represents a brand with favorable perceived country of origin and Baskin-

Robbins stands for a brand with neutral perceived country of origin in terms of favorability.

Ice cream was selected as a product category in this research because of four reasons. First of all, it is a small daily purchase so consumers are expected to have a low involvement in this product category. The elaboration likelihood model suggests that under low involvement peripheral cues such as country of origin might be important for the purchase decision

(Cacioppo & Petty, 1983, p.13). Secondly, ice cream was chosen because of consumers’ familiarity with this product category. Respondents can easily imagine the scenario of seeing the ice cream brands in their local supermarket and answer the questions regardless of their previous knowledge of the brand. Moreover, ice cream consumers are often variety seeking which means that strong customer loyalty to other brands will not interfere with respondents’ answer to the survey questions. When consumers are variety seeking there is also a higher likelihood that they will consider purchasing an unfamiliar brand. Thirdly, ice cream was chosen due to the availability of ice cream brands that employ the foreign branding strategy

(e.g. Häagen-Dazs, Frusen Glädjé) and this made the research more feasible. Lastly, the findings in the ice cream product category are expected to be easily transferable to other food products. Therefore, the results of this research will contribute not only theoretically but might as well be actively applied in the marketing practice.

Existing brands were used in order to increase the similarity of the research to real life situations; however if respondents had previous experience with the brands this might lead to bias. In other words, respondents might be evaluating the brand based on their experience rather than the information provided in the survey.

The questionnaire explicitly instructed the respondents not to look up additional information about the brands while answering the survey questions in order to ensure that they make their answer choice based solely on the given information in the survey. The survey included a picture of the product where the brand name can be seen as well as a descriptor (e.g. in the case of Perry’s Ice Cream - “All American”). Thus respondents could make inferences about the country of brand origin.

All ice cream types included in the questionnaire were selected to have the same flavor

(vanilla) to avoid biased answers as a result of personal preferences.

3.2 The Pretest

Before conducting the main survey, a pretest was carried out. The purpose of the pretest was to determine the favorability of country image for six different countries. The countries included in the pretest were: USA, China, Germany, Denmark, South Korea, and Greece.

These were selected to represent countries with different level of development that were hypothesized to have different country image. Moreover, these countries are well-known therefore I expect that the survey respondents will have strong associations and hold an opinion about the products manufactured there. The pretest consisted of 5 statements for each country, 30 statements in total. The aim of these statements was to determine the favorability of each country in terms of country image in general, attitude towards products produced in these countries, quality perception of food products originating from each of these countries, as well as purchase intentions. An example statement is: “I believe products manufactured in country A are better than similar products produced in other countries”. Each statement was rated on a five-point Likert scale where 1 stands for Strongly Disagree and 5 stands for

Strongly Agree. The survey ended with a few demographic questions asking about respondents’ age, gender and nationality. The pretest questionnaire is included in Appendix 1.

The pretest was distributed among university students, ages between 20 and 26. In total the survey received 15 responses. The subjects participating in the pretest have similar demographic characteristics with the respondents of the main survey. Most importantly, the participants in this pretest had a diverse national background including Dutch, Bulgarian,

Polish, Vietnamese, Indian, Ecuadorian, and Chinese. None of the countries included in the survey was represented by a large number of respondents coming from this country, therefore eliminating the chances of bias due to ethnocentricity.

All of the statements used to evaluate the countries were positive thus a higher mean score indicates a more positive country image. The mean scores were: 3.4 for the United States,

2.68 for China, 4.05 for Germany, 3.78 for Denmark, 3.12 for Greece and 3.4 for South

Korea. However, there were big differences between the overall attitude towards the countries and the attitude towards food products originating from these countries. While the total mean score of the USA was relatively high, the country had the lowest score on food products quality perception among all six countries (mean = 2.77). Since the focus of the main questionnaire is on a food item (ice cream), the USA will be considered as having an unfavorable country image. The findings of the pretest suggest that Germany and Denmark have the most favorable country image (both in general and in the food product category).

Consequently, the USA was chosen as an actual country of origin for this research and the three chosen brands of ice cream had different perceived countries of origin with different favorability of the country image. Table 1 provides an overview of the brands chosen and their actual and perceived countries of origin.

Table 1: Brands chosen, actual and perceived COO and favorability of the perception

Country image of the Actual country of Perceived country of Ice cream brand perceived country of origin origin origin Perry’s USA USA Negative

Häagen-Dazs USA Denmark/Germany Positive

Baskin-Robbins USA Not country specific Neutral

3.3 The Main Questionnaire

The main questionnaire consisted of four parts. In the first part respondents were asked to evaluate the three brands of ice cream using established scales to measure brand attitude and brand trust. Moreover they were asked to express whether they are considering buying this brand or would like to receive more information about it. The only information included for each brand was a picture of the product. On the image the brand name was clearly visible, as well as the “All American” sub-name for Perry’s Ice Cream. Brand attitude was measured using a seven-point semantic differential scale while brand trust and purchase intentions were measured with a seven-point Likert scale where 1 stands for strongly disagree and 7 stands for strongly agree.

The second part of the survey asked the respondents to look at the three pictures of ice cream brands once again and indicate whether they were familiar with each brand prior to taking the survey. Respondents also had to write the name of the country they believe each brand comes from.

The next part of the survey asked respondents about the importance of the country of origin of products they buy. They had to evaluate how important the COO information is when purchasing durable goods and food products separately. Consequently, they indicated their

28 frequency of looking for COO information. These questions were only included so that we have a more accurate description of the sample.

The last part of the survey asked for respondents’ demographic information including age, gender and nationality.

The instructions made it clear that respondents should answer each question based only on the information included in the survey without looking up additional information. However, we have to acknowledge that some of the respondents had previous experience with these brands so it is likely that they used this experience in expressing their opinion. All respondents answered question about all three brands. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix 2.

3.4 Measurement of the Dependent Variables

The dependent variables in this study are brand attitude, brand trust, and purchase intention.

Brand attitude and brand trust were measured using existing validated scales, whereas purchase intention was measured using a single item (likelihood to buy the product, evaluated on a seven-point Likert scale). Using a single item for measuring purchase intentions is recommended in previous studies because this variable is a concrete attribute and measuring it with only one item does not harm the validity of the research (Diamantopoulos et al., 2011).

Brand attitude was measured using a seven-point sematic differential scale adopted from the research by Li, Daugherty & Biocca (2002) and previously published in Bruner (1998) (Li,

Daugherty, & Biocca, 2002). The scale includes six items: bad/good, unappealing/appealing, unpleasant/pleasant, unattractive/ attractive, boring/interesting, and dislike/like. The scale reliability is reported by Li et al (2002) as .91.

Brand trust was measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items (e.g. This brand is reliable.). The scale is reported by Bruner in Marketing Scales Handbook (2013, p. 373) and

29 is originating from Sheinin, Varki, and Ashley (2011). The Cronbach's Alphas reported are

.88 (Study 1) and .89 (Study 2). The first scale item (This brand is dependable) is unclear and confusing when asked about an ice cream brand, therefore it was replaced with the statement:

“This brand can deliver what it promises (e.g. good taste, premium ice cream)”. The questionnaire also included other possible statements to be an alternative of the first one.

However, the above-mentioned statement showed a good correlation with the other two scale items and resulted in a good scale reliability, so it was the one used in computing the brand trust scale mean in the following chapter.

4. Results

In this chapter the data collected with the questionnaire will be statistically analyzed in order to explore the effect of perceived country of origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intention. The chapter includes sample description, scale reliabilities, correlations and hypotheses testing.

4.1 Sample Description

In total the survey received 109 responses with a 13% dropout rate. After eliminating unfilled questionnaires or partial responses, we were left with 95 usable surveys.

They survey was distributed online mainly to students from the University of Amsterdam

(UvA). UvA is an international university with over 3,000 international students coming from about 100 countries. Since it is important to ensure respondents with various national and cultural backgrounds, UvA is a suitable environment to carry out this research. The research used self-selection sampling technique. Respondents were invited to participate in the survey through various online communication channels that are currently popular among university students. The self-selection sampling technique means that respondents identify themselves as sample members (Saunders & Lewis, 2012, p. 140). The researcher invites people to participate in the survey by placing an advertisement announcing the research in a relevant media (in this case Facebook). This sampling technique is increasingly popular due to the variety of electronic media (blogs, social media, and discussion boards) however it has the disadvantage that people who select themselves to be part of the sample might have strong opinions about the researched topic or be particularly interested in it (Saunders & Lewis,

2012, p. 140). This means that they might not be representative of the population.

The majority of respondents were female (67%) and the average age was 25.4 years with median age 24. This was expected since most respondents were university students.

Most importantly, the sample included people with diverse cultural background. Respondents were nationals of 24 different countries including Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States. The majority the respondents were from the

Netherlands (40% indicated Dutch nationality), followed by 19% Bulgarians. Respondents were grouped into four regions based on their nationality: 8.8% are from Asia, 11% from

North America, 29.7% from Central and Eastern Europe, and 50.5% from Western Europe.

One respondent from Ecuador was not categorized in any of these regions as it was not statistically reasonable to make a group with only one respondent. Unfortunately, some respondents chose not to answer the question about their nationality

Table 2 shows the respondents’ distribution among regions and indicates which countries were included in each region. For a full overview of the respondents per country, please refer to Appendix 3.

Table 2: Respondents’ Nationality and Region

Region Number of Percentage of Countries Included in the Respondents Respondents Region Asia 8 8.8% China, Indonesia, India, Iran, Vietnam North America 27 11% Canada, Mexico, the USA Central and 10 29.7% Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Eastern Europe Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine Western 46 50.5% Austria, Germany, Finland, Europe France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands

4.2 Perceived Country of Origin

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were familiar with each of the three ice cream brands prior to taking the survey. Only 4% of the survey participants were familiar with Perry’s ice cream, however 84% correctly identified the country of origin. A few people who did not indicate the correct country of brand origin believed that the brand comes from

32 the UK or Italy. The brand emphasizes its American origin and therefore even though the subjects of the questionnaire were mostly unfamiliar with the brand, their perception of the country of origin matches with the actual country of brand origin.

In the case of Häagen-Dazs, 59% of the respondents indicated they were familiar with the brand prior to taking the survey. Even though the majority of the respondents had previous experience with the brand, only 22% of the respondents correctly indicated the USA as a country of origin of Häagen-Dazs. However, 27% believed that the brand is from Germany while 13% thought it is Danish. Surprisingly 16% thought it is Dutch, perhaps misled by the fact that this is research made at the University of Amsterdam. The rest 23% mentioned other countries among which Austria, Sweden, and Switzerland. The difference in perceptions of country of origin is consistent with what we expected. Even though people are more familiar with this brand they are more confused about its origin as a result of the foreign branding strategy employed by Häagen-Dazs.

Baskin-Robbins was a familiar brand to 25% of the survey respondents. 57% of them indicated the correct country of brand origin - the USA, while 25% believed the brand is originating from the UK. The rest 18% had various ideas where the brand might be from such as Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Spain. This brand served as a control condition in this survey. Unlike the other two brands, Baskin-Robbins neither emphasizes its American origin, nor uses foreign branding strategy. However, most survey participants still managed to identify the actual country of origin. Due to the English-sounding brand name respondents’ perceived countries of origin were mainly English speaking countries – the USA and the UK.

Table 3 summarizes the information on respondents’ familiarity with the three ice cream brands and the accuracy of the COO perception.

Table 3: Perceived Country of Origin

Ice Cream Brand Percentage of Respondents Percentage of Respondents who Familiar with the Brand Correctly Identified the COO Perry’s Ice Cream 4% 84% Häagen-Dazs 59% 22% Baskin-Robbins 25% 57%

Regarding the importance of country of product origin, 45% of respondents consider country of origin information to be very important when buying durable good. Slightly less (44%) consider country of origin to be very important when buying food products. Only 9% of the survey participants think that COO is extremely important when purchasing durable goods, whereas 13% consider it extremely important in the case of food products. At the same time

31% of the respondents indicated that they rarely search for country of origin information of products they buy, while 33% look for this information sometimes. Only 7% of the research participants search for COO information every time.

4.3 Scale Reliabilities

Brand attitude and brand trust were measured using established scales previously used by marketing researchers. Before proceeding with analyzing the data, the scales reliabilities have to be evaluated. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to check the scale reliability.

Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency and varies from 0 to 1. Value higher than 0.7 indicate a high internal consistency, thus a reliable scale.

Brand attitude was measured using a semantic differential scale including 6 items. The brand attitude scale has a good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94 for Perry’s Ice Cream, 0.96 for Häagen-Dazs and 0.97 for Baskin-Robbins. The corrected item-total correlation indicates that all items have good correlation with the total score of the scales. The deletion of the fifth item (boring-interesting) in the Perry’s brand attitude measure will increase the Cronbach’s

34 alpha to 0.944 but this difference is less than 0.1 so the increase is negligible. Therefore the scale has a good degree of reliability without any items being deleted. As for Häagen-Dazs and Baskin-Robbins brand attitude measures, the deletion of none of the times will lead to an increase in the Cronbach’s alpha.

Brand trust was measure using a seven-point Likert scale including three items. The scale has a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85 for Perry’s Ice Cream, 0.94 for Häagen-Dazs and 0.92 for Baskin-

Robbins. All Cronbach's alpha values are above the 0.7 threshold which means good degree of reliabilities for all scales. All items have corrected item-total correlation above 0.30 showing a good correlation with the total score of the scales. If the first item in the Perry’s brand trust measure is deleted, the alpha will increase from 0.847 to 0.855. If the same item is deleted in the Häagen-Dazs and Baskin-Robbins brand trust measures, the Cronbach's alphas would rise from 0.937 and 0.922 to 0.953 and 0.944 respectively. However, these differences are less than 0.1 therefore the deletion is not recommended or necessary. Consequently, we can conclude there is a good reliability of the questionnaire design. Table 4 summarizes the

Cronbach's alpha values for the brand attitude scale and the brand trust scale for Perry’s Ice

Cream, Häagen-Dazs and Baskin-Robbins.

Table 4: Reliability Statistics

Brand Attitude Scale Brand Trust Scale Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Perry’s 0.941 0.847 Häagen-Dazs 0.960 0.937 Baskin-Robbins 0.969 0.922

4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

After the preliminary analysis of the scale reliabilities, the means of the scales were computed. Table 5 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations for the main variables of interest. It is clear that Häagen-Dazs has the highest mean brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intention. Häagen-Dazs is followed by Baskin-Robins in the brand attitude and brand trust measures, however not in respondents’ purchase intentions. Respondents showed slightly higher intentions to buy Perry’s Ice Cream compared to Baskin-Robbins.

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations

Age is not significantly correlated with any of the dependent variables. Gender is significantly correlated only with Häagen-Dazs brand attitude (r = 0.331), brand trust (r = 0.278) and purchase intentions (r = 0.3). The brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions for each of the three ice cream brands are significantly positively correlated with each other for each individual brand. This was anticipated because a more positive brand attitude will go along with higher brand trust and purchase intentions.

4.5 Hypotheses Testing: Repeated Measures ANOVA

In this section the first three hypotheses were tested using repeated measures ANOVA.

Hypothesis 1 stated that the perception of a favorable country of brand origin has a positive

36 effect on customers’ attitude towards the brand. We tested this hypothesis by examining the mean brand attitude across three conditions: favorable perceived country of origin, unfavorable perceived country of origin and neutral perceived country of origin (or no country associations). Using repeated measures ANOVA the null hypothesis of no statistically significant differences between the means was explored. If the results show a significantly higher brand attitude in the favorable country image condition but no difference in the other two conditions, the hypothesis would be supported.

Brand Attitude

A repeated measure ANOVA is an appropriate test for this research because it explores the mean difference for within-subjects design. All participants in the survey answered questions about the three conditions of perceived country of origin; therefore we repeatedly measured the same subjects and want to analyze the mean difference in their brand attitude in the three scenarios. The dependent variable was brand attitude and the independent variable was country image (of the perceived country of origin) consisting of three categorical groups: negative image of the perceived country of origin (in the case of Perry’s Ice Cream), positive image of the perceived country of origin (Häagen-Dazs) and neutral image (Baskin-Robbins).

In order to perform repeated measures ANOVA, the data should meet the sphericity assumption meaning that the variances of the differences between all combinations of related groups are equal (Laerd Statistics, 2013). One way to test this assumption is by using

Mauchly's test of sphericity in SPSS Statistics (Mauchly, 1940). The Mauchly’s test was not significant (p = .086) therefore the sphericity assumption is fulfilled. The mean brand attitude respondents indicated was 4.365 in the first condition (negative perceived country image),

5.514 in the second condition (positive image of the perceived COO) and 4.379 in the third condition (neutral). The repeated measures ANOVA showed that these means are

37 significantly different, F(2, 186) = 24.16, p<.0005. The pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction revealed that subjects had significantly higher brand attitude towards the positive perceived COO condition compared to the negative country image (mean difference = 1.149, p < .0005) and compared to the neutral condition (mean difference = 1.135, p < .0005).

However, the brand attitude in the neutral and the negative conditions did not differ significantly. In other words, there is a statistically significant difference between the mean brand attitude towards the positive and the negative perceived COO and between the positive and the neutral perceived COO suggesting that respondents preferred the ice cream brand coming from a country with a favorable image. The results of the repeated measures

ANOVA support hypothesis 1. Table 6 shows the pairwise comparisons of the three conditions.

Table 6: Brand Attitude Pairwise Comparisons

95% Confidence Interval for Difference Mean Country Image Std. Error Sig. Difference Lower Bound Upper Bound

Negative x Positive -1.149* .195 .000 -1.624 -.674 Negative x Neutral -.014 .168 1.000 -.423 .395 Positive x Neutral 1.135* .205 .000 .636 1.634

Brand Trust

Hypothesis 2 proposed that customers have a higher brand trust towards brands they perceive as origination from a country with a favorable image. Repeated measures ANOVA was used once again to test whether there is a significant difference in the brand trust means across the three conditions of country image. The mean brand trust was 5.47 in the positive country image condition, 4.33 in the negative and 4.44 in the neutral. The Mauchly’s sphericity test was not significant (p = .651) therefore the sphericity assumption is met (Mauchly, 1940).

The repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the means of brand trust

38 across the three ice cream brands that represent the three conditions, F(2, 186) = 28.29, p <

.0005. The post hoc test indicated there was a significant difference between the positive and negative condition (mean difference=1.144, p < .0005), as well as between the positive and neutral (mean difference = 1.034, p < .0005). There was no statistically significant difference between the brand trust in the negative and neutral condition. These results are similar to the results obtained for brand attitude. The analysis showed that respondents had a significantly higher brand trust towards the brand which they perceived as originating from a country with positive image. These results are consistent with the proposition of Hypothesis 2. The pairwise comparisons are presented in table 7.

Table 7: Brand Trust Pairwise Comparisons

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Difference Country Image Std. Error Sig. Difference Lower Bound Upper Bound Negative x Positive -1.144* .173 .000 -1.565 -.722 Negative x Neutral -.110 .160 1.000 -.499 .279 Positive x Neutral 1.034* .170 .000 .618 1.449

Purchase Intentions

Hypothesis 3 suggests that perceived COO has an effect on purchase intentions in a way that favorable image of the perceived COO leads to a higher likelihood of purchasing the product.

In order to test this hypothesis the same procedure was performed. Mauchly's test of sphericity was not significant (p = .801) thus the sphericity assumption is met once again. The mean values for purchase intentions were 5.39 for Häagen-Dazs, 4.26 for Perry’s and 4.19 for

Baskin-Robbins. The repeated measures ANOVA showed that the difference in the mean purchase intentions is significant F(2, 186) = 17.49, p < .0005. Similarly to the results for brand attitude and brand trust, the pairwise comparisons indicated that there was a significant mean difference between respondents purchase intentions in the positive and negative country image condition (mean difference =1.138, p < .0005), as well as in the positive and neutral

39 condition (mean difference=1.202, p < .0005); however there was no significant difference in the means of the negative and neutral condition. This suggests that respondents are more likely to buy the product that has a positive perceived country of origin compared to the negative or neutral COO but there is no difference in the buying intentions between the negative and neutral conditions themselves. The results of the repeated measures ANOVA support hypothesis 3. Table 8 below shows the pairwise comparisons of the three conditions.

Table 8: Purchase Intentions Pairwise Comparisons

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Difference Country Image Std. Error Sig. Difference Lower Bound Upper Bound Negative x Positive -1.138* .233 .000 -1.706 -.571 Negative x Neutral .064 .221 1.000 -.474 .602 Positive x Neutral 1.202* .233 .000 .635 1.769

The results obtained from the three repeated measures ANOVAs indicated that the brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions for Häagen-Dazs are significantly higher than those for the other two brands of ice cream. Häagen-Dazs represented the condition of a favorable image of the perceived country of origin. Even though the brand is originally from the United States, most of the research participants perceive it as German or Scandinavian.

Germany and Denmark have a more favorable image than the USA in the food products category as the pretest indicated. Therefore, we can conclude that the favorable image of the perceived COO contributed for a higher brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.

There were no statistically significant differences in the means of these three dependent variables in the neutral and negative conditions. Consequently, the first three hypotheses of this research were supported.

4.6 Hypotheses Testing: Mixed ANOVA

The research participants were grouped into four regions based on their nationality: Asia,

North America (NA), Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Western Europe (WE).

Hypothesis 4 suggest that there are differences in the brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions across the three conditions between participants from different regions. Different countries have different culture and different level of development and these might affect people’s perception of other countries. To test the fourth hypothesis it is assumed that countries within one region have similar culture and level of development. Grouping respondents by region is appropriate also because companies often have the same marketing strategy for brands within the same region.

Mixed ANOVA was used to test whether there are differences in respondents’ brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions in the three conditions based on the respondents’ regional background. Mixed ANOVA is also referred to as repeated measures ANOVA with a between-subjects factor. The three conditions of country image were the within-subject factor and respondents’ region of origin was the between-subjects factor. Each respondent was classified in one of the four regions based on the nationality they indicated when filling in the survey. Mixed ANOVA was also used to explore the interactive effect between country image and respondents’ regional background.

Brand attitude

Prior to the analysis, two of the assumptions of mixed ANOVA were checked. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was used to check the sphericity assumption (Mauchly, 1940). Levene's test of equality of error variances was used to check the assumptions of equal variance across groups

(Gastwirth, Gel, & Miao, 2009).

In the current experiment the assumption of the Mauchly’s test of sphericity was met because the test was not significant (p = .279). Afterwards, the assumption that the variance is equivalent in each group was explored. For Perry’s ice cream, this assumption was met; however for Häagen-Dazs and Baskin-Robbins the test was significant (p = .033 and p = .014) hence the assumption was not fulfilled. Therefore the results of the mixed ANOVA should be considered with caution. The mixed ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference in brand attitude across the three conditions of country image of the perceived COO, F(2, 172)

= 10.49, p < .0005 but no significant difference between the four regional groups (p = .088).

However, there was a significant interaction between the country image and respondents’ regional background, F(6, 172) = 4.68, p < .0005. Post hoc tests indicated that in the condition of negative image of the perceived COO, p is greater than 0.05 in all combinations of groups; therefore there is no significant difference between the brand attitudes across regional groups.

In the condition of positive image of the perceived COO there was a statistically significant difference in the brand attitude towards Häagen-Dazs across regions. North Americans significantly differed from Central and Eastern Europeans (mean difference = 1.45, p = .013) and from Asians (mean difference = 1.596, p = .046) but do not differ significantly from

Western Europeans (p > 0.05). A possible explanation for their high brand attitude might be that Americans are aware of the actual country of origin of Häagen-Dazs and prefer it because of it. Further investigating this possible explanation reveals that it is unlikely true. Only 22% of the respondents from North America knew that Häagen-Dazs is an American brand, while most of them (44%) believed it is German. However, all respondents from the United States indicated they were familiar with the brand prior to taking the survey and this might have interfered with their brand attitude. Nevertheless, all but one respondent were also familiar with Baskin-Robbins before participating in the survey but we do not see these results in the neutral country image condition where Baskin-Robbins is the investigated brand. In the

42 condition of neutral country image of the perceived COO there was a significant difference only between the brand attitude of Asians and Europeans. Asians have a significantly higher brand attitude towards Baskin-Robbins compared to CEE (mean difference = 1.657, p = .028) and WE (mean difference = 2.06, p = .002). Asians were also more familiar with Baskin-

Robbins prior to participating in the survey and this familiarity with the brand might have influenced their answers.

Brand trust

The brand trust in the three different conditions was also explored using mixed ANOVA taking respondents’ regional background as a between-subjects factor. The Mauchly’s test was not significant (p=0.438) thus the sphericity assumption is met. Levene’s test of equality of error variances was not significant for brand trust in all three brands (p=0.786, p=0.161 and p=0.824) thus the assumption of equality of variance is met.

The mixed ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference in brand trust across the three conditions of country image of the perceived COO, F(2, 172) = 15.77, p < .0005 and a significant difference between the four regional groups, F(3,86) = 2.86, p = .042. There was also a significant interaction between the country image and the respondents’ regional background, F(6, 172) = 3.33, p = .004. Post hoc tests of this interaction indicated that in the condition of negative country image of the perceived COO there was no statistically significant difference in the brand trust between regions. In the positive country image condition there was a significant difference only between respondents from Central and

Eastern Europe (CEE) and North America. Americans trust Häagen-Dazs significantly more than Central and Eastern Europeans (mean difference = 1.394, p = .004). Asians have a significantly higher brand trust towards Baskin-Robbins than Europeans – both Central and

Eastern Europeans (mean difference =1.362, p = .023) and Western Europeans (mean difference =1.658, p = .002).

The pairwise comparisons by region show that respondents from Central and Eastern Europe have no significant differences in their brand trust across conditions. However, Asians trust significantly more Baskin-Robbins compared to Perry’s (mean difference = 1.333, p = .033).

Americans trust significantly more Häagen-Dazs compared to Perry’s (mean difference =

1.933, p = .001) and Baskin-Robbins (mean difference = 1.500, p = .009). Similarly, Western

Europeans trust Häagen-Dazs significantly more than Perry’s (mean difference = 1.232, p <

.0005) and Baskin-Robbins (mean difference = 1.522, p < .0005). The hypothesis that the brand with favorable image of the perceived country of origin will be more trusted holds true only for respondents from North America and Western Europe.

Purchase Intentions

In the third mixed ANOVA test Mauchly's test of sphericity was once again not significant (p

= .785) so the sphericity assumption was met. The equality of variance assumption was also met since the Levene’s test was not significant for purchase intentions in all three conditions

(p = .524, p = .129, p = .212).

The mixed ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference in purchase intentions across the three conditions of image of the perceived COO, F(2, 172) = 7.71, p = .001. The between-subjects effect was not significant (p = .102) so there was no statistically significant difference in the purchase intentions among the four geographical regions. However, there was a significant interaction between the country image and respondents’ regional background, F(6, 172) = 2.163, p = .049. The post hoc tests indicated that Asians have a significantly higher intentions to buy Baskin-Robbins than Western Europeans (mean difference = 1.973, p = .013). Furthermore, respondents from North America are more likely

44 to purchase Häagen-Dazs compared to Perry’s (mean difference = 1.9, p = .025) and Baskin-

Robbins (mean difference = 2.3, p = .004). Likewise, Western Europeans have significantly higher purchase intentions towards Häagen-Dazs compared to Perry’s (mean difference =

1.239, p = .001) and Baskin-Robbins (mean difference = 1.674, p < .0005). There were no significant differences in the purchase intentions of respondents from CEE and Asian across the three conditions. These results indicate that purchase intentions in the condition of positive image of the perceived COO (Häagen-Dazs) are significantly higher for respondents coming from North America and Western Europe proving that respondents’ regional background interacts with the image of the perceived COO and influences the purchase intentions.

The expected effect of the favorable image of the perceived country of origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions was significant however when exploring the effect by region it is clear that there are significant differences among the groups of people from different regions. This indicates that respondents’ own place of origin interacts with the perceived country of product origin and influences brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions, supporting hypothesis 4.

5. Discussion, limitations and recommendations for future research

The results of this research showed that there are significant differences in respondents’ brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions for three seemingly similar ice cream brands.

However, they differ in terms of their perceived country of origin. Häagen-Dazs implements a foreign branding strategy by using a German/Scandinavian sounding brand name. As a result the perceived country of origin for that product is different from the actual country of origin and is a country with a more favorable image. Perry’s ice cream emphasizes its American origin by offering “all American” ice cream. In this research the brand represented the condition of negative image of the perceived country of origin because of the low score of the

USA in the pretest measuring the favorability of country image. The third brand, Baskin-

Robbins, does not use any country information in its branding. As expected, the results showed that favorable country image contributes for a higher brand attitude, trust and purchase intentions. Häagen-Dazs received significantly higher values for these three variables compared to Perry’s and Baskin Robbins.

However there might be other factors influencing these results. Häagen-Dazs is an existing brand and 59% of the respondents indicated they were familiar with it before filling in the survey. It is possible that a positive experience with the brand in the past influenced the opinion expressed in the survey. Even if the respondents did not try Häagen-Dazs ice cream before, just the fact that they have already encountered the brand and are able to recognize it might encourage their preference; a phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect (Stafford

& Grimes, 2012).

The research also found out that there are statistically significant differences in the perceptions of people from different geographical regions. North Americans had a higher brand attitude towards Häagen-Dazs then Central and Eastern Europeans and Asians

46 indicating that they find the brand more attractive, interesting and appealing. A possible explanation might be that Americans perceive Häagen-Dazs as European (German, Danish).

They see the brand as originating from a distant peculiar country. On the other hand, people from Central and Eastern Europe perceive Häagen-Dazs as originating from Western Europe but this cultural distance is smaller so the brand does not seem that intriguing. Asians have a significantly higher brand attitude towards Baskin-Robbins compared to Europeans which might be explained by the brand’s popularity in the Asian region since most of the respondents indicated they know the brand. The trust and purchase intentions towards the brand with a favorable image of the perceived country of origin were significantly higher for respondents from North America and Western Europe. It is important to consider regional differences that may cause this result. Central and Eastern Europe and Asia consist of countries with lower level of economic development than the countries in North America and

Western Europe. Consequently, respondents from these countries are likely to be more price- sensitive and focused on the functional benefit of a product rather than the brand name. As a result these respondents do not exhibit higher brand attitude, trust and purchase intentions towards Häagen-Dazs because they believe an ice cream brand is an ice cream brand no matter the country of origin.

As every study, this research also has limitations that need to be noted. First of all, the sample size might be problematic. The survey received 95 complete responses which represents only a small part of the general population and decreases the generalizability of the research.

Moreover, a self-selection sampling technique was used which might lead to bias since people who select themselves to participate in the survey might be particularly interested in the topic.

Future research could explore the effect of perceived country of origin using a larger sample and a random sampling technique.

Secondly, the respondents were grouped into four regions. However, not all countries within a region were represented therefore it is not appropriate to draw conclusions for all countries in each region. Also within regional differences might exist as different countries have different cultures, traditions, value and perceptions. Moreover, the research did not include an equal number of respondents in each regional group. There were more respondents from Europe – both Western and Eastern, than respondents from North America and Asia. It is recommended that future research uses a more diverse sample in terms of nationality.

Thirdly, the sample consisted mostly of university students. We assumed that they are representative of the population but it is worth further exploring the effect of perceived country of origin in a non-student sample. International students might not be representative of the population of their country because they are currently exposed to a multicultural environment. They are more likely to have a called global mindset, be more open-minded about other countries and cultures, having less prejudices and lack of stereotypical thinking.

The exposure to a variety of cultures perhaps changed students’ perceptions about other countries and lead to a diminished effect of national stereotyping.

Additionally, a within-subjects design was used where the same subjects participate in the three different conditions of image of the perceived country of origin. This design was selected because it eliminates the effect of individual preferences, for example if some of the research subjects do not like ice cream at all. By using a within-subjects design these individual differences will be present in all conditions so they will not skew the results towards one of the conditions. However, there are some disadvantages of this approach that need to be addressed. The within-subjects design may lead to a carryover effect, meaning that respondents’ evaluation of the first brand may influence their opinion on the next brands.

Moreover, this approach might cause respondent fatigue or boredom due to answering the same questions three times.

Furthermore, this research explored the effect of perceived country of origin on purchase intentions rather than actual purchase behavior. In an actual buying situation respondents might have different opinion since other factors will play a role, for example the price of the product.

Lastly, only one product category (ice cream) and one country of origin (the United States) were used in the questionnaire. This limits the generalizability of the research. Moreover, the results of a pretest suggested that the USA is a suitable country for this research, however only 6 countries were included in this pretest. Future research could replicate the study including a variety of product categories, as well as different countries of origin in order to check the generalizability of the results. It is also worth carrying out a research with fictitious brands to eliminate the possibility that respondents are expressing their opinion based on prior exposure to the brand.

Future research could also employ both quantitative and qualitative approach as this will likely result in deeper insights on why respondents prefer one product over the other. This research suggests different perceptions of the country of origin makes the difference, however there might be other factors influencing the brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions that were overlooked by the present research; for instance product involvement.

6. Conclusion

The focus of this thesis was on perceived country of origin as opposed to actual country of origin. Following this recent criticism on the country of origin effect declaring it irrelevant, the concept of perceived country of origin emerged. The effect of the actual country of origin has been investigated for decades but perceived country of origin is a relatively new notion.

This thesis aims at exploring its effect on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.

The findings of this thesis support the idea that perceived country of origin plays an important role because it does influence consumers’ brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.

These results are in line with the findings of a previous research by Magnusson et al. (2011) who first discovered that the perceived country of brand origin significantly affects consumers’ brand attitude regardless of consumers’ ability to indicate the accurate country of origin.

The present research used a within-subjects experiment design to explore the effect of perceived country of origin across three conditions. In the first condition research participants had to evaluate Perry’s ice cream. In this condition the brands actual and perceived country of origin were both USA. This perception was negative as the pretest indicated unfavorable image of the USA as a country of origin for food products. The second condition involved the ice cream brand Häagen-Dazs that uses a German/Scandinavian sounding brand name in order to associate itself with a favorable country despite its American origin. This so called foreign branding strategy aims at influencing respondents’ perception of the brand. Only 22% managed to indicate the correct country of origin even though more than half of the participants were familiar with the brand. Subjects believed the brand has a German,

Scandinavian, and Dutch origin, among others. In the third condition the brand Baskin-

Robbins was evaluated by the research participants. This brand was used to represent the condition of a neutral image of the perceived country of origin. Baskin-Robbins has a

50 relatively neutral brand name therefore it is expected the name will not lead to any strong associations with a specific country.

We anticipated that respondents will have a higher brand attitude, brand trust and buying intentions in the second condition due to the favorable perceived country of origin. It was also suggested that there will be no significant difference in these three measurements between the negative and neutral condition. The repeated measures ANOVA indeed showed that there is statistically significant difference in the brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions across the three conditions. As expected, respondents find Häagen-Dazs more attractive and trustworthy and are significantly more likely to purchase it in comparison with Perry’s and

Baskin-Robbins. These results support out hypotheses that a favorable image of the perceived country of origin will lead to higher brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.

Moreover, significant differences were found among respondents from different geographical regions. Americans had a significantly higher brand attitude towards Häagen-Dazs compared to people from Central and Eastern Europe and Asia. Moreover, Americans trust Häagen-

Dazs significantly more than people from CEE. Furthermore, respondents from North

America are more likely to purchase Häagen-Dazs compared to Perry’s and Baskin-Robbins.

Likewise, Western Europeans have significantly higher purchase intentions towards Häagen-

Dazs compared to Perry’s and Baskin-Robbins. These results suggested that the effect of the favorable perceived country of origin on brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions is stronger for some people, more specifically Americans and Western Europeans. However, it is unclear why this difference exists. Further research might focus on cultural differences and explore their influence on the perception of a country of origin. It is also likely that these finding are explained by the high familiarity with the Häagen-Dazs brand. Considering the whole sample, 59% of the respondents were familiar with this brand prior to taking the survey. However, the percentage of respondents from North America and Western Europe

51 familiar with Häagen-Dazs is as high as 73%. As previously discussed, past experience with the brand or merely recognizing the brand name might lead to preference for it, and consequently a higher brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions.

The present research contributes to the marketing literature by providing insight to the notion of perceived country of origin. The findings support the idea that researchers, as well as marketers, should focus on the “country of association” rather than the country of actual origin (Josiassen & Harzing, 2008). The study also has a managerial contribution by suggesting a simple and effective approach to building higher brand attitude, brand trust and purchase intentions. Associating a brand with a favorable country, regardless of the actual brand origin, could be a powerful tool to achieve positive outcomes for the brand. It is a way to improve the perception of a brand, make it more attractive, interesting and trustworthy.

This could be done as simply as using a brand name that consumers associate with a favorable country.

References

Ackerman, D., & Tellis, G. (2001). Can culture affect prices? A cross-cultural study of shopping and retail prices. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 57-82.

Al-Sulaiti, K. I., & Baker, M. J. (1998). Country of origin effects: A literature review. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 16(3), 150-199.

Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). Brand origin identification by consumers: A classification perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 16(1), 39-71.

Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Gains and losses from the misperception of brand origin: The role of brand strength and country-of-origin image. Journal of International Marketing, 19(2), 95-116.

Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. E., & Ramachander, S. (2014). Effects of brand local and non-local origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 83-95.

Bruner, G. C. (2013). Marketing Scales Handbook: Multi-item Measures for Consumer Insight Research. Fort Worth, Texas: GCBII Productions, LLC.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1983). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 668-672.

Chattalas, M., Kramer, T., & Takada, H. (2008). The impact of national stereotypes on the country of origin effect: A conceptual framework. International Marketing Review, 25(1), 54-74.

Cox, P. L., Friedman, B. A., & Tribunella, T. (2011). Relationships among cultural dimensions, national gross domestic product, and environmental sustainability. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 12(6), 46-56.

Delgado-Ballester, E., & Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. (2001). Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1238-1258.

Delgado-Ballester, E., & Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187-196.

Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B., & Palihawadana, D. (2011). The relationship between country-of-origin image and brand image as drivers of purchase intentions: A test of alternative perspectives. International Marketing Review, 28(5), 508-524.

Gastwirth, J. L., Gel, Y. R., & Miao, W. (2009). The impact of levene's test of equality of variances on statistical theory and practice. Statistical Science, , 343-360.

Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Cultural variations in country of origin effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 309-317.

Han, C. M. (1989). Country image: Halo or summary construct. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 222-229.

Hofstede, G. (1994). The business of international business is culture. International Business Review, 3(1), 1-14.

Insch, G. S., & McBride, J. B. (2004). The impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer perceptions of product quality: A binational test of the decomposed country-of-origin construct. Journal of Business Research, 57(3), 256-265.

Josiassen, A., & Harzing, A. (2008). Comment: Descending from the ivory tower: Reflections on the relevance and future of country‐of‐origin research. European Management Review, 5(4), 264-270.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, , 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands.

Keller, K. L. (2005). Branding shortcuts: Choosing the right brand elements and leveraging secondary associations will help marketers build brand equity. Marketing Management, 14(5), 18.

Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology, 22(2)

Knight, G. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin perceptions: A cross-cultural investigation. International Marketing Review, 17(2), 127- 145.

Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dubé, L. (1994). Foreign branding and its effects on product perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, , 263-270.

Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2002). Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 43-57.

Magnusson, P., Westjohn, S. A., & Zdravkovic, S. (2011). “What? I thought samsung was japanese”: Accurate or not, perceived country of origin matters. International Marketing Review, 28(5), 454-472.

Mauchly, J. W. (1940). Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(2), 204-209.

Pharr, J. M. (2005). Synthesizing country-of-origin research from the last decade: Is the concept still salient in an era of global brands? Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, , 34-45.

Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching product catgeory and country image perceptions: A framework for managing country-of-origin effects [corrected title: Matching product category and country image perceptions: A framework for managing country-of-origin effects]. Journal of International Business Studies, , 477-497.

Samiee, S., Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (2005). Brand origin recognition accuracy: Its antecedents and consumers’ cognitive limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 379-397.

Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business and management: An essential guide to planning your project Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Schooler, R. D. (1965). Product bias in the central american common market. Journal of Marketing Research, , 394-397.

Sharma, P. (2011). Country of origin effects in developed and emerging markets: Exploring the contrasting roles of materialism and value consciousness. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(2), 285-306.

Sheinin, D. A., Varki, S., & Ashley, C. (2011). The differential effect of ad novelty and message usefulness on brand judgments. Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 5-18.

Stafford, T., & Grimes, A. (2012). Memory enhances the mere exposure effect. Psychology & Marketing, 29(12), 995-1003.

Verlegh, P. W., Steenkamp, J. E., & Meulenberg, M. T. (2005). Country-of-origin effects in consumer processing of advertising claims. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(2), 127-139.

Online sources:

Repeated Measures ANOVA. Laerd Statistics (2013). Retrieved January 29, 2016, from https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/repeated-measures-anova-statistical- guide.php

Mixed ANOVA using SPSS Statistics. Laerd Statistics (2013). Retrieved January 29, 2016, from https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/mixed-anova-using-spss-statistics.php

Appendix 1: Pretest Dear respondent,

Thank you for participating in this survey. In this short questionnaire you will be asked about your opinion of products made in six different countries. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers. Your responses will be treated confidentially and will be used for academic purposes only as part of my Master Thesis in Business Administration at University of Amsterdam. The survey will take about 5 minutes.

Your participation is this survey is highly appreciated!

Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in the United States of America (USA).

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree nor Disagree 1. I believe the USA has a good 1 2 3 4 5 country image in general. 2. I believe products manufactured in the USA are better than similar 1 2 3 4 5 products produced in other countries. 3. I believe products originating 1 2 3 4 5 from the USA have a high quality. 4. I believe food products produced 1 2 3 4 5 in the USA are of good quality. 5. I would buy a product made in the 1 2 3 4 5 USA.

Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in China.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree nor Disagree 1. I believe China has a good 1 2 3 4 5 country image in general. 2. I believe products manufactured in China are better than similar 1 2 3 4 5 products produced in other countries. 3. I believe products originating 1 2 3 4 5 from China have a high quality.

4. I believe food products produced 1 2 3 4 5 in China are of good quality. 5. I would buy a product made in 1 2 3 4 5 China.

Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in Germany.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree nor Disagree 1. I believe Germany has a good 1 2 3 4 5 country image in general. 2. I believe products manufactured in Germany are better than similar 1 2 3 4 5 products produced in other countries. 3. I believe products originating 1 2 3 4 5 from Germany have a high quality. 4. I believe food products produced 1 2 3 4 5 in Germany are of good quality. 5. I would buy a product made in 1 2 3 4 5 Germany.

Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in Denmark.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree nor Disagree 1. I believe Denmark has a good 1 2 3 4 5 country image in general. 2. I believe products manufactured in Denmark are better than similar 1 2 3 4 5 products produced in other countries. 3. I believe products originating 1 2 3 4 5 from Denmark have a high quality. 4. I believe food products produced 1 2 3 4 5 in Denmark are of good quality. 5. I would buy a product made in 1 2 3 4 5 Denmark.

Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in Greece.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree nor Disagree 1. I believe Greece has a good 1 2 3 4 5 country image in general. 2. I believe products manufactured in Greece are better than similar 1 2 3 4 5 products produced in other countries. 3. I believe products originating 1 2 3 4 5 from Greece have a high quality. 4. I believe food products produced 1 2 3 4 5 in Greece are of good quality. 5. I would buy a product made in 1 2 3 4 5 Greece.

Please rate the following statements to give your opinion of products produced in South Korea.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree nor Disagree 1. I believe South Korea has a good 1 2 3 4 5 country image in general. 2. I believe products manufactured in South Korea are better than 1 2 3 4 5 similar products produced in other countries. 3. I believe products originating from South Korea have a high 1 2 3 4 5 quality. 4. I believe food products produced 1 2 3 4 5 in South Korea are of good quality. 5. I would buy a product made in 1 2 3 4 5 South Korea.

What is your gender?

o Male o Female

What is your age?

What is your nationality?

Appendix 2: Main Questionnaire Dear respondent, thank you for participating in this survey that is part of my Master Thesis in Business Administration at University of Amsterdam. In the following questionnaire you will be asked to express your opinion about three brands of ice cream. You do not need to be familiar with the brands beforehand. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers.

Your responses will be treated confidentially and will be used for academic purposes only.

The survey will take approximately 10 minutes.

Your participation is highly appreciated!

Please express your opinion on Perry's Ice Cream using the statements underneath.

Note: Please do not look up additional information on the Internet, use only the information included in this survey. You do not need to be familiar with the brands beforehand. If you do not know the brands, just imagine you see them in your local supermarket for the first time. However, it is not a problem if you are already familiar with the brands.

I believe Perry's Ice Cream is:

Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Unappealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appealing Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Like

To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding Perry's Ice Cream:

Strongly Disagree Some- Neith Some- Agree Strongly Disagree what er what Agree Disagre Agre Agree e e nor Disa gree This brand can deliver what it promises (e.g. good taste, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 premium ice cream). This brand is reliable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This brand is trustworthy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This brand can satisfy my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 needs. I trust this brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would buy this brand of ice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 cream. I am interested in finding out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 more about this brand.

Please use the seven-point scale to express your opinion on Häagen-Dazs ice cream.

I believe Häagen-Dazs ice cream is:

Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Unappealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appealing Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Like

To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding Häagen-Dazs:

Please use the seven-point scale to express your opinion on Baskin-Robbins ice cream.

I believe Baskin-Robbins ice cream is:

Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Unappealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appealing Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Like

To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding Baskin-Robbins:

Take a look at the three pictures of ice cream brands again.

Were you familiar with Perry's Ice Cream before taking this survey?

 Yes  No

Which country do you think Perry's Ice Cream comes from?

Were you familiar with the Häagen-Dazs brand before taking this survey?

 Yes  No

Which country do you think Häagen-Dazs comes from?

Were you familiar with the Baskin-Robbins brand before taking this survey?

 Yes  No

Which country do you think Baskin-Robbins comes from?

Please think about the importance of the country of origin of products you buy.

Not at all Very Neither Very Extremely Important Unimp Important Importa Important ortant nor nt Unimporta nt How important is the country of product origin for you when buying 1 2 3 4 5 durable goods? How important is the country of product origin for you when buying 1 2 3 4 5 food products? How often do you search for information on where the products 1 2 3 4 5 you buy are produced?

Finally I would like to ask you several demographic questions.

What is your gender?

 Male  Female

What is your age?

What is your nationality?

Appendix 3: Respondent Nationality

Country Frequency Percentage Region Austria 1 1,1% WE Bulgaria 17 18,5% CEE Canada 2 2,2% NA China 2 2,2% Asia Germany 3 3,3% WE Ecuador 1 1,1% - Estonia 2 2,2% CEE Finland 1 1,1% WE France 1 1,1% WE UK 2 2,2% WE Hungary 1 1,1% CEE Indonesia 1 1,1% Asia India 3 3,3% Asia Iran 1 1,1% Asia Italy 1 1,1% WE Mexico 1 1,1% NA Netherlands 37 40,2% WE Poland 1 1,1% CEE Romania 1 1,1% CEE Russia 2 2,2% CEE Slovakia 1 1,1% CEE Ukraine 2 2,2% CEE USA 7 7,6% NA Vietnam 1 1,1% Asia

Abbreviations WE: Western Europe CEE: Central and Eastern Europe NA: North America