Animosity, subjective norms,and anticipated emotions during

an international crisisAmro A. Maher

College of Business, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana, USA, and

Sarah MadyCollege of Business and Public Administration, Old Dominion University,

Norfolk, Virginia, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This research seeks to add to the body of research pertaining to animosity by examiningthe additional roles of anticipated emotions and subjective norms on consumers’ purchase intentionsregarding foreign products when companies’ or governments’ actions cause negative repercussions.The paper also examines the role of group responsibility as an antecedent to animosity.

Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using a snowball sampling techniqueamong undergraduate students from a prominent university in Kuwait. Of the 460 questionnairesreceived, 13 were eliminated for incompleteness. Sample members were aged 18 and above, and53.9 percent of the respondents were females.

Findings – Subjective norms related to buying Danish products – as well as the negative emotionsexpected from buying the product and the positive emotions expected from not buying the product –led to less willingness to buy Danish products. In addition, social pressure was found to be the moreimportant factor in consumers’ willingness to buy compared to anticipated emotions.

Originality/value – This paper suggests that, in addition to animosity, other factors influence aconsumer’s decision to withhold consumption. Therefore, managers need to assess the emotions andnorms characterized by citizens of the target country to capitalize on such information whenmarketing their products.

Keywords Consumer behaviour, Buying behaviour, Country of origin, Kuwait, Denmark

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionAlthough the globalization of markets has created various opportunities forinternational marketers, it has also posed many challenges. Actions of various typesby governments, companies, and the press may not always be well received by citizensof other countries. International incidents that are perceived as offensive can leadcitizens of one country to experience animosity toward the “offending” country, withpotential negative repercussions on its respective companies. In fact, consumers may optto boycott products from the offending country as an expression of disapproval andprotest (Ettenson and Klein, 2005). Many past and recent incidents illustrate thatcompany sales often suffer severely as a consequence of consumer anger toward thecountry associated with the product (Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007). For example,during Second World War consumers expressed their disapproval of the war byrenaming the German-named food sauerkraut to “liberty cabbage” (Amine, 2008).Shoham et al. (2006) demonstrated that the conflict between Arab and Jewish Israelis

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

IMR27,6

630

Received October 2009Revised December 2009,March 2010Accepted May 2010

International Marketing ReviewVol. 27 No. 6, 2010pp. 630-651q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0265-1335DOI 10.1108/02651331011088263

in general, and specifically the “Intifada” uprising, affected Jewish Israeli consumerbehavior. Specifically, they showed that Jewish Israeli domestic tourism to Arab citiessuffered immensely. Similarly, Bahaee and Pisani (2009) found that Iranian consumersexperienced animosity towards the USA stemmed from a US law that prohibits thepresence of US goods and businesses in Iran.

Previous research has investigated experiences of animosity resulting and howanimosity may have a negative impact for multinational corporations (Klein et al., 1998;Ettenson and Klein, 2005; Nijssen and Douglas, 2004). However, such models havestemmed from most behavioral frameworks in marketing which assess the impact ofconsumer product judgments (PJ) on product responses (Klein, 2002; Heslop et al., 2008).This paper explores and introduces the additional roles of anticipated emotions andsubjective norms (SN). Although emotions have been identified as an important part ofthe consumption experience and responses to advertising, Bagozzi et al. (1999) arguethat much less is known about the role of emotions in marketing behavior, compared toinformation processing and behavioral decision research. Consequences of internationalcrises on consumer purchase behavior should be assessed from both a cognitive and anaffective perspective. Accordingly, in order to enhance our understanding of the fullimpact of consumer animosity, it would be beneficial to investigate the role ofanticipated emotions, which is an example of a forward-looking emotion (Bagozzi andDholakia, 2006). Moreover, by drawing on the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein andAjzen, 1975), the current research delves into the role that social conformity plays whenconsumers decide whether or not to purchase foreign products, when actions ofcompanies or governments cause negative repercussions. Hence, the inclusion of the SNconstruct offers a significant contribution to researchers’ understanding of how socialfactors other than animosity can affect intention to buy products during strained times.

As an illustration of such controversial international occurrences, the research hereinexamines the incident involving the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danishpress, and the impact of such an incident on the perceptions of and preferences for Danishproducts by Kuwaiti consumers. What became known as the Mohammed cartoonscontroversy began when Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the ProphetMohammed on 30 September 2005, including a depiction of Mohammad with a bomb inhis turban. Many Muslims around the world, including official governments, condemnedthese cartoons. In Muslim societies, insulting the Prophet Mohammad is generallyconsidered the gravest of all crimes (Knight et al., 2009). Fury in the Middle East continuedto rise steadily when the newspaper declared that the cartoons represented freedom ofexpression, and major European newspapers in The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, andFrance continued to reprint them. By the end of January 2006, Imams from many MiddleEastern countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria, began to call for aboycott of Danish products (Jensen, 2008). In this context, the objective of this paper is todevelop and test several hypotheses concerning consumer purchase intentions towardoffending country products following an international crisis based on the animosityliterature and several additional theories pertaining to emotions and social factors.

2. Literature review2.1 Country of origin and country imagePrevious country of origin research has focused on how the image of products froma specific country influences the preference for products from the respective country.

Internationalcrisis

631

This construct typically captures beliefs of durability, workmanship, design, and valuethat consumers have of products from a specific country (Roth and Romeo, 1992) and isreferred to as product country image (Roth and Diamantopoulos, 2009). However, recentliterature has focused on country image as an antecedent, which may explain consumerpreferences for products from specific countries. Country image is defined as attitudesthat consumers hold towards a particular country. Although previous research hasapproached country image as a multifaceted concept with cognition, affect, and conationas its dimensions (Heslop et al., 2004; Papadopoulos et al., 2000), the current researchsubscribes to the view that country image consists of two components (Roth andDiamantopoulos, 2009), namely, affect and cognition, which are independent of oneanother and have a causal impact on country conations. The cognitive componentcaptures the beliefs held concerning another country, while the affective componentcaptures the emotional reactions of consumers toward another country.

Previous research on country image has focused primarily on the cognitivedimensions of a country’s image. The cognitive dimension typically includes beliefsregarding another country’s levels of technological advancement, level of economicdevelopment, political orientation (Papadopoulos, 2003; Martin and Eroglu, 1993,Pappu et al., 2007), and competence of its people (see Roth and Diamantopoulos, 2009for an extensive review of the scales used to capture this dimension). Studies havefound that cognitions of another country influence product beliefs (Papadopoulos andHeslop, 2003; Heslop et al., 2004) and product evaluations (Heslop et al., 2004; Knightand Calantone, 2000), and willingness to buy (WTB) (Wang and Lamb, 1980).

However, the affective dimension of a country’s image has not received such attentionin the literature (Heslop et al., 2008, 2009; Roth and Diamantopoulos, 2009). Only a fewstudies have examined the impact of the affective dimension of country image onproduct preference (Brijs, 2006; Haubl, 1996; Heslop et al., 2004, 2008, 2009; Orbaiz andPapadopoulos, 2003; Verlegh, 2001). These studies reported that affect has a positiveimpact on the WTB products from a country towards which affect is directed (Brijs, 2006;Heslop et al., 2004, 2008, 2009). However, there has been a drive in recent studies toclearly distinguish between the cognitive and affective aspects of country image, assome items have been classified as cognitive aspects at times while on other occasionsare classified as affective aspects of country image (Roth and Diamantopoulos, 2009).For example, trustworthiness is used to capture cognitive descriptions of people fromanother country in one study (Heslop et al., 2004), while that same item is used to capturethe affective dimension in two other studies (Haubl, 1996; Laroche et al., 2005).

An affective dimension receiving considerable attention within the marketingliterature is animosity.

2.2 AnimosityAnimosity in international marketing literature is defined as “the remnants of antipathyrelated to previous or ongoing military, political, or economic events” (Klein et al.,1998, p. 90). This factor is unique in that it measures a consumer’s feelings of hatredtoward a specific country, caused by adverse actions toward the citizens, organizations,or government of the consumer’s country. Animosity and its effects on consumerperceptions of products from perpetrators’ country of origin have received considerableattention in the marketing literature (Ettenson and Klein, 2005; Klein et al., 1998; Klein,2002; Nijssen and Douglas, 2004). For example, consumers from China have typically

IMR27,6

632

avoided purchase of Japanese products due to economic hardship and historic war-timeatrocities inflicted upon Chinese civilians by Japanese forces (Klein et al., 1998).Australians demonstrated animosity toward France as a result of the nuclear bomb testsFrance conducted nearby, in the South Pacific (Ettenson and Klein, 2005). Dutchconsumers also experienced animosity toward Germans due to economic hardship andhistoric war-time atrocities inflicted upon them (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004). Evidencesuggests that the impact of animosity can persist even years after the initial incidentcreating the animosity itself (Klein, 2002; Klein et al., 1998; Nijssen and Douglas, 2004;Shin, 2001). However, the basic premise that consumer animosity impacts purchaseintentions independent of product quality assessments has not been investigatedregarding the possible affective and cognitive factors impacting consumer behavior(Heslop et al., 2009). In the following section, we will discuss issues of measurementwithin the animosity-related literature and then discuss the modeling of animosity.

2.2.1 Issues of measurement. Two issues are of concern with regard to themeasurement of animosity. The first issue concerns the items used to measureanimosity. Klein et al. (1998) and Klein (2002) conceptualize animosity as an emotion.Klein et al. (1998) used one item “dislike” to measure general animosity, while Klein et al.(2002) used three items “dislike,” “like,” and “angry.” The general animosity measurewas a second-order construct with war animosity and economic animosity as first-orderconstructs. However, as indicated by the literature (Heslop et al., 2008, 2009; Riefler andDiamantopoulos, 2007), measures of animosity subsequent to Klein et al. (1998) andKlein (2002) have not always used emotional descriptions as items. For example, Nijssenand Douglas (2004) use economic and war animosity, two constructs identified byKlein et al. (1998), and examine their direct impact on other dependent variables whileexcluding the general animosity measure which uses emotional descriptors.Furthermore, Ettenson and Klein (2005) and Shoham et al. (2006) do not distinguishbetween the general animosity measure and the underlying reasons that lead toanimosity. This may be problematic as Klein (2002) indicated that only 4 percent ofthe respondents in her study reported issues relevant to Second World War when theywere not asked directly about it; however, 33 percent of respondents indicated that theywere angry about Second World War when asked directly about the issue. Therefore,existing measures of animosity might make issues leading to animosity salient toconsumers when the issues were not. Measures of animosity that do not make the issuesunderlying animosity salient might be more appropriate.

A second issue relates to the justification for the items used to measure animosity. Intheir literature review of consumer animosity, Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007)identified that only two studies, Klein (2002) and Shimp et al. (2004), have reported usingqualitative data to develop the measures of animosity used in these studies. The otherstudies (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004; Shoham et al., 2006) have largely adapted theanimosity measures from Klein et al. (1998). The adaptation of the items is problematicbecause the items generated for Klein et al. (1998) and Klein (2002) were developedspecifically in the context of these specific studies. As Klein et al. (1998, p. 92) mentions“we develop measures of the pan-cultural concept of animosity for specific use in China”.We agree with Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007) that measures of animosity arespecific to the context in which they are tested. Research herein, therefore, aims at testingthe suggestions of Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007), by developing an animositymeasure that is specific to the current context of Boycotting Danish products.

Internationalcrisis

633

2.2.2 Modeling of animosity. The majority of studies examining animosity in theinternational marketing literature have used the model introduced by Klein et al. (1998)as a conceptual foundation. A key advantage of this model is that it examines theimpact of animosity on the perceptions and preferences for foreign products, whilecontrolling for two constructs: PJ and consumer ethnocentrism. PJ embody thecognitive impact of a product’s country of origin, capturing the extent to which acountry’s products are usually associated with a certain image (Roth and Romeo, 1992;Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999). Meanwhile, consumer ethnocentrism, which embodiesthe normative impact of the country of origin, is defined as the morality associatedwith buying foreign products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). Several studies haveconfirmed that consumer ethnocentrism is associated with negative attitudes towardforeign products (Sharma et al., 1995; Zarkada-Fraser and Fraser, 2002) and a positiveintention to purchase domestic products (Han, 1989; Herche, 1992).

As such, the WTB products from a country that is a target of animosity isdetermined by the intensity of the animosity experienced, consumer ethnocentrism, andPJ. In the current context, it is argued that PJ and animosity will impact the willingnessof Kuwaiti consumers to buy Danish products. However, consumer ethnocentrism isnot anticipated to have an effect due to the limited domestic production in Kuwait(Meyer et al., 2007). Based on this previous discussion, we anticipate the followinghypotheses:

H1. Judgments of products from a country will be positively associated with theWTB products from that country.

H2. Animosity towards a country will be negatively associated with the WTBproducts from that country but will not be associated with judgments ofproducts from that country.

2.3 Subjective normsPrevious research has shown that a product’s country of origin might have a normativeimpact on consumer willingness topurchase such a product (Kleinetal., 1998, Sharmaetal.,1995). A product’s country of origin will have a normative impact when social normsdictate the desirability of purchasing products based on country of origin. For example,even if a consumer holds positive perceptions of foreign products, social norms mightdictate that the purchase of foreign products might be deemed “Un-American.” Suchnormative impact has typically been captured in country of origin studies using consumerethnocentrism. In the current study, normative influence of consumer ethnocentrism isreplaced by another factor, that is the SN attached to purchasing Danish products due tolimited domestic production in Kuwait (Meyer et al., 2007). Previous research has foundthat SN play a more important role than attitudes in predicting a consumer’s behavioralintentions in collectivist societies (Lee and Green, 1991).

Furthermore, the animosity model does not account for the normative influence onavoiding Danish products; yet, the current research argues that such an influence is highamong Kuwaiti consumers. According to Hofstede (1980), the Kuwaiti culture ischaracterized by a high level of collectivism. Cultures with high levels of individualismtend to place the pursuit of individual interests and desires ahead of the interest ofthe group, whereas cultures characterized by a high degree of collectivism tend to placethe goals and interests of the group ahead of those of the individual. Based on this

IMR27,6

634

understanding, social pressure would be considerable to conform to norms within theKuwaiti society as it is characterized by a high degree of collectivism. The currentresearch draws on the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) toincorporate the role of the normative influence that a person might feel to avoid buyingcertain products. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) introduced the theory of reasoned action toincorporate the social influence of relevant others on a person’s behavioral intention,captured through a construct the authors termed SN. SN reflect the perceived socialpressure that a person feels to perform a certain behavior. Accordingly, it is argued that,since Kuwait is a collective culture, consumer beliefs about how people they care aboutwill view the behavior in question will be significant. Therefore, the SN associated withavoiding Danish products will impact Kuwaiti consumer’s WTB Danish products:

H3. SN associated with avoiding the purchase of products from a country will benegatively associated with the WTB products from that country.

2.4 Anticipated emotionsRecent models of country-product image effects suggest the need for greaterconsideration of the role emotions play in consumer reactions to products from othercountries (Heslop et al., 2004; Laroche et al., 2005). One example of an emotionconsidered relevant to the study of purchase intention is known as anticipated emotion.These are forward-looking emotions that result from imagining how certain eventsmight play out in the future. According to Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006), these emotionsresult from a form of counterfactual thinking called “prefactual appraisals.” Prefactualappraisals occur when individuals “think about imaginary alternatives to events interms of the implications of these events for the future” (Gleicher et al., 1995, p. 284).For example, a person faces a choice between eating junk food or not will imagine theconsequence of his/her behavior. That person might simulate in their mind eating junkfood and the negative consequence of gaining weight, which will lead to the experienceof negative anticipated emotions (NAE). That person might also simulate the positiveconsequence of not gaining weight because he/she avoided eating junk food, whichwould lead to the experience of positive anticipated emotions (PAE).

Previous research has found that anticipated emotions affect decision making invarious contexts (Baumgartner et al., 2008; Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Hunter, 2006;Richard et al., 1996; Sierra and Hyman, 2006). Richard et al. (1996) determined thatanticipated emotions affect students’ behavioral intentions to eat junk food, use softdrugs, go out late while drinking alcohol excessively, and study hard. Bagozzi andDholakia (2006) found that, among users of the Linux operating systems, anticipatedemotions of participating in an online Linux user group influenced their we-intentionsof participating in the group. Furthermore, Baumgartner et al. (2008) found thatpositive and NAE affected the intentions to engage in behaviors that would avoid thepossible negative consequences of the Y2k problem (i.e. computers rolling the date overfrom 1999 to 2000 at the end of the last century).

In the context examined in the current study, Kuwaiti consumers face the choice ofbuying or avoiding Danish products. When faced with such a choice, the consumerultimately simulates the possible consequences of making the choice to buy or to avoidDanish products. This contention of imagining the consequence of one’s action issupported by the boycotting literature, which suggests that people when faced with aboycott decision will weigh the costs and benefits of their decisions (Klein et al., 2004).

Internationalcrisis

635

Boycott participation (i.e. the avoidance of Danish products) represents an opportunityfor the consumer to identify with a cause or group of people or simply feel that they aremoral (Dovidio et al., 1991). This imagination of positive benefits then leads to theexperience of PAE from participation in the boycott and ultimately the avoidance ofDanish products. A consumer might also imagine the consequence of boycott avoidance,which includes public reprimand and self-condemnation (Dovidio et al., 1991). Publicexpectation of boycott participation might lead to guilt (Klein et al., 2004). All of theseconsequences can lead to the experience of negative emotions and ultimately theavoidance of Danish products.

It is, therefore, expected that Kuwaiti consumers will anticipate the experience ofnegative emotions when they simulate buying Danish products because of theundesired consequences that stem from such a behavior, while they will anticipate theexperience of positive emotions when they simulate avoiding Danish products becauseof the desired consequences of the behavior. Therefore, the PAE resulting fromimagining the positive consequences of avoiding Danish products and the NAEresulting from imagining the negative consequences of buying Danish products willresult in a lower WTB Danish products:

H4. PAE linked to avoiding the purchase of products from a country will benegatively associated with the WTB products from that country.

H5. NAE linked to the purchase of products from a country will be negativelyassociated with the WTB products from that country.

2.5 Group responsibilityA key antecedent of animosity is the extent of responsibility assigned to citizens ofanother country for the perpetration of a transgression (Leong et al., 2008). If atransgression is perceived as an individual act, the transgression might not result inanimosity even if it is unjust. Animosity is evoked when citizens of the transgressor’snation are perceived as participants or as responsible for the transgressor’s action.Pennekamp et al. (2007) found that the more blame is assigned to members of a group, themore a person is likely to experience anger. The more that Surinamese held the Dutchresponsible for the Slavery of the Surinamese in the past, the more they felt animositytowards the Dutch (Pennekamp et al., 2007). Iyer et al. (2007) also found that Americanswere more likely to experience anger for the situation in Iraq when they believed that theUSA is responsible for the negative conditions created by US forces deployed in Iraq.

One must note that group responsibility (GR) does not assess whether the incidentthat occurred is just or disrespectful but rather whether the whole group should be heldaccountable for the actions of a few (Miller, 2001). This assignment of responsibility tothe group stems from perceptions that other citizens of the country (e.g. government andthe existing institutions) either encouraged or facilitated (error of commission) the actionor failed to prevent the action (error of omission) (Lickel et al., 2003). Therefore, the higherthe degree of responsibility assigned to the citizens of a country for the perceivedtransgression, the higher the level of animosity experienced toward the country. Basedon these findings, it is argued that higher levels of animosity will be experienced amongKuwaiti consumers toward the Danish if responsibility is assigned to them for eitherfacilitating or failing to prevent the publishing of the cartoons by the Danish press:

IMR27,6

636

H6. GR assigned to another country will be positively associated with animositytoward that country.

The conceptual model to be tested is shown in Figure 1.

3. Methodology3.1 MeasuresAll of the items in the questionnaire, with the exception of the SN measure, weremeasured using a seven-point scale (with 1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 7 ¼ “stronglyagree”) (see Appendix for a list of the items used). Measures of animosity and thereasons leading to animosity were developed in an emic manner, while other measureswere referenced from the literature. Items for measures not developed in this studywere translated from English into Arabic and then back-translated (Douglas and Craig,2005). Adjustments were then made based on the translation to ensure thatrespondents properly understood the items.

An exploratory study was conducted to:. uncover the items that would be used to measure animosity; and. identify the reasons that led to such animosity.

The self-administered questionnaire was completed by a convenience sample of150 respondents in the city of Kuwait. The questionnaire, which was written in Arabic,consisted of two open-ended questions. The first question asked participants about theirfeelings toward Denmark, while the second question asked about the reasons for suchfeelings. The feelings mentioned were umbrage, anger, and contempt. The top reasonsmentioned were “Denmark is trying to ruin Islam’s image,” “Denmark does not respect

Figure 1.Proposed model

Willingness tobuy

Subjectivenorms

Positiveanticipated

emotion

Negativeanticipated

emotion

Productjudgments

Groupresponsibility

Animosity

Reason 1 Reason 2

Internationalcrisis

637

other religions,” and “Denmark has tarnished the character of the prophet Mohammed.”This approach has been suggested in the previous literature to avoid the reactive natureof the previous animosity measures (Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007). Previousmeasures do not account for the fact that the reasons leading to animosity might not besalient to the average consumer. It is likely that an item which is worded “I feel angrybecause Denmark does not respect other religions” will result in more biased result than“I feel angry,” because the latter does not make the issue of respect salient. In this study,animosity and the reasons leading to animosity were modeled separately. The animositymeasure consisted of three emotional descriptors: anger, contempt, and umbrage. Thereasons leading to animosity were assessed separately, and respondents were asked toindicate the extent to which they agreed with the following statement: “Denmark istrying to ruin Islam’s image,” “Denmark does not respect other religions,” and,“Denmark has tarnished the character of the prophet Mohammed.”

Four items used to measure GR were adapted from Quigley and Tedeschi (1996), inorder to reflect the extent to which the Danish people should be held responsible for theactions committed by the Danish press. PJ of Danish products were assessed using fouritems taken from Klein (2002). These items reflect consumer perceptions of:

. workmanship;

. technological advancement;

. reliability; and

. value for money of Danish products.

In addition, four items measuring WTB were taken from Klein et al. (1998). Themeasures for positive and NAE were adapted from Bagozzi et al. (1998). Respondentswere asked about the extent to which they would feel four negative emotions if theybought Danish products, as well as the extent to which they would feel four positiveemotions if they did not buy Danish products. Finally, three items used to measureSN were adapted from Lee and Green (1991).

3.2 SamplingOwing to the difficulty involved in obtaining a representative sample in Kuwait usingprobability sampling techniques, a snowball sample was employed. Data were collectedvia undergraduate students at a major university in Kuwait, who were informed about thepurpose of the study, and were provided with a detailed data collection protocol. Eachstudent was asked to collect five questionnaires from their neighbors, parents, or otherpeople close to them who were at least 18 years old. This sampling approach has beenused in previous research, despite its limitations, due to the difficulty in obtaining samplesin countries with an infrastructure that does not support the collection of data usingprobability-sampling approaches (Cleveland et al., 2009). Of the 460 questionnairescollected, 13 were eliminated due to incompleteness, resulting in 447 questionnaires beingvalid for use in the analysis. Among the respondents, 53.9 percent were females, while46.1 percent were males. An examination of the age of the respondents indicated thatthe age of the sample was skewed toward younger age groups, consistent with the youngage of the Kuwaiti population (median age ¼ 26 years) (CIA, 2009). Furthermore, themajority of respondents were married (73.7 percent) (see Table I for statistics).

IMR27,6

638

3.3 AnalysisThe conceptual model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). The two-stepapproach advocated by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) for testing SEM was used. Thisapproach requires estimating and refining the measurement model before testing thestructural model. The fit of the model could be evaluated using several fit indices. Amongthese, the x 2 statistic is the fundamental measure of overall fit (Hair et al., 2006). However,thex 2 is sensitive to moderate and large sample sizes, so several other fit indices were used(Hair et al., 2006). Hair et al. (2006) also asserted that the x 2 value and degrees of freedom,the comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)would be sufficient for evaluating a model’s fit. The cutoff points recommended were 0.92or greater for the CFI and 0.08 or less for RMSEA.

Based on the suggestions of Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007), animosity was specifiedbased on the multiple-indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) model (Joreskog and Goldberger,1975). According to the MIMIC model, animosity is modeled as a construct with reflectiveindicators, while the reasons leading to animosity are modeled as antecedent variables (seeFigure 2 for the model). This allows for separation of the importance of the reasons leadingto animosity, from the intensity of animosity. Assessing the suitability of the reasonsidentified in SEM is accomplished by estimating the MIMIC model separate from themeasurement model, which includes the constructs with reflective indicators. The MIMICmodel exhibited adequate fit (x 2 ¼ 10.57, df ¼ 6, p ¼ 0.112, CFI ¼ 0.995,RMSEA ¼ 0.041) with regard to the cutoffs recommended by Hair et al. (2006). Inparticular, 0.97 or greater for the CFI, and 0.07 or less for RMSEA when the number ofobserved variables is,12. The significance of the path from each reason to animosity wasthen examined. Only two of the three paths were significant; the insignificant path (i.e.“Denmark is trying to mutilate Islam’s image”) was dropped from further analysis.

The measurement model including all of the constructs without the reasonsleading to animosity was then estimated. The measurement model exhibited adequatefit (x 2 ¼ 634.77, df ¼ 278, p , 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.957, RMSEA ¼ 0.054) with regard tothe cutoff sets recommended by Hair et al. (2006) – namely, 0.92 or greater for the

%Age18-24 62 13.925-34 159 35.635-44 90 20.145-54 96 21.555 þ 40 8.9Missing 0 0.0GenderMale 206 46.1Female 241 53.9Missing 0 0.0Marital statusMarried 325 73.7Single 101 22.9Divorced 10 2.3Widowed 5 1.1Missing 6 1.3

Table I.Sample characteristics

Internationalcrisis

639

CFI and 0.07 or less for RMSEA when the number of observed variables is between12 and 30.

All of the standardized factor loadings exceeded 0.5 with the exception of one item inthe WTB measure (0.185). However, this item was retained because it had been utilizedin other studies of note (Ettenson and Klein, 2005; Klein et al., 1998). Convergent validitywas evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha (cutoff ¼ 0.7), the composite reliability(cutoff ¼ 0.7), and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct(cutoff ¼ 0.5) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The composite reliability and the AVE foreach construct exceeded the minimum cutoff. The Cronbach’s alpha of each construct,with the exception of the WTB measure (0.64), and the AVE for each construct alsoexceeded the minimum. This reliability was deemed adequate as the AVE for theconstruct exceeded 0.5; moreover, previous research has argued that the compositereliability is a more advanced criterion (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Finally, discriminantvalidity was established since the AVE for each construct exceeded the squaredcorrelation between the construct and every other construct in the model (Table II)(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Next, the structural model was tested, also achieving adequate fit (x 2 ¼ 789.525,df ¼ 328, p , 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.946, RMSEA ¼ 0.057). The model accounted for20 percent of the variance in animosity and 35 percent of the variance in the WTBDanish products. Results of the significance testing indicate that only one of thereasons, namely “Denmark does not respect other religions,” had a significant positiveimpact on animosity (b ¼ 0.126, t ¼ 2.083, p , 0.05). The other reason, “Denmark hasdefiled the character of the prophet Mohammed,” was not significantly related toanimosity (b ¼ 0.070, t ¼ 1.156, p . 0.05).

3.4 Rival modelsBefore presenting the results of the hypothesis testing, several rival models were tested todetermine if the model hypothesized exhibits a more adequate fit to the data. The first

Figure 2.Animosity MIMIC model

Animosity

Reason 1 Reason 2 Reason 3

Anger Contempt Umbrage

e1 e2 e3

d1

IMR27,6

640

model considers the anticipated emotions, both positive and negative, as interveningbetween animosity and the WTB Danish products. One might expect that animosity leadsconsumers to anticipate the experience of emotion. One path was added from animosity tothe PAE and another path from animosity to NAE. The hypothesized model in this paperis considered a nested version of this rival model. Therefore, the difference in x 2-test wasused. The rival model exhibited a worse fit compared to that observed for the hypothesizedmodel: (x 2 ¼ 819.048, df ¼ 335, p , 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.057). Furthermore,the difference in x 2 between the hypothesized model and the first rival model wassignificant (Dx 2 ¼ 29.849, Ddf ¼ 7, p . 0.05), which indicated that the hypothesizedmodel exhibited a more adequate fit to the data.

A second rival model considering SN as mediating the effect of animosity on WTBwas also tested. In this model, a path was added from animosity to SN. This second rivalmodel exhibited a worse fit compared to that observed for the hypothesized model:(x 2 ¼ 836.73, df ¼ 332, p , 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.058). Furthermore, thedifference in x 2 between the hypothesized model and the second rival model wassignificant (Dx 2 ¼ 47.53, Ddf ¼ 4, p . 0.05), which indicated that the hypothesizedmodel exhibited a more adequate fit to the data.

A third rival model considering SN as mediating the effect of the negative and PAEwas also tested. Previous research supports the idea that the interpersonal influence toboycott has an effect on boycott participation (Sen et al., 2001). This third rival modelexhibited a worse fit compared to that observed for the hypothesized model:(x 2 ¼ 989.789, df ¼ 335, p , 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.92, RMSEA ¼ 0.066). Furthermore, thedifference in x 2 between the hypothesized model and the third rival model wassignificant (Dx 2 ¼ 200.59, Ddf ¼ 7, p . 0.05) which indicated that the hypothesizedmodel exhibited a more adequate fit to the data.

4. ResultsThe results of the hypothesis testing are reported in Table III and Figure 3. H1 arguedthat Danish PJ would positively influence Kuwaiti consumer WTB those products. Thehypothesis was not supported, as PJ of Danish products were not found to be related toconsumer WTB Danish products (b ¼ 0.048, t ¼ 0.937, p . 0.05). Meanwhile, the

AN NAE PAE PJ GR SN WTB

Animosity 0.76 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.19 0.09 0.16NAE 0.58 0.86 0.37 0.01 0.17 0.16 0.20PAE 0.57 0.63 0.89 0.01 0.18 0.15 0.20Danish PJ 20.10 20.08 20.07 0.67 0.01 0.01 0.02GR 0.53 0.42 0.44 20.10 0.85 0.09 0.11SN 0.34 0.43 0.37 20.12 0.32 0.70 0.17WTB 20.51 20.52 20.47 0.12 20.36 20.37 0.51Composite reliability 0.91 0.96 0.97 0.89 0.96 0.87 0.79Cronbach alpha 0.84 0.94 0.96 0.84 0.94 0.78 0.64

Notes: The numbers below the diagonal are the correlations and the numbers above the diagonal aresquared correlations; AN, animosity; NAE, negative anticipated emotions; PAE, positive anticipatedemotions; PJ, product judgments; GR, group responsibility; SN, subjective norms; WTB, willingnessto buy

Table II.Construct

intercorrelations andreliabilities

Internationalcrisis

641

results supported H2, which states that animosity is negatively related to Kuwaiticonsumer WTB Danish products (b ¼ 20.234, t ¼ 24.093, p , 0.001), but not to theirPJ of Danish products (b ¼ 20.108, t ¼ 21.904, p . 0.05). H3 argued for the impact ofSN on Kuwaiti consumer WTB Danish products. This hypothesis was also supported, asSN are negatively related to the WTB (b ¼ 20.232, t ¼ 23.750, p , 0.001). H4 and H5,concerning the effect of the Kuwaiti consumer-anticipated emotions on WTB, were alsosupported. Negative emotions anticipated from buying Danish products and positiveemotions anticipated from not buying Danish products were hypothesized to lead to lessconsumer WTB Danish products. Negative emotions anticipated from buying Danish

Dependent variable Independent variableStandardized

parameter estimate SE CR p

Animosity Reason 1 0.126 0.067 2.083 ,0.05Reason 2 0.070 0.097 1.156 .0.05GR 0.445 0.065 7.661 ,0.001

PJ Animosity 20.108 0.048 21.904 .0.05WTB Animosity 20.234 0.050 24.093 ,0.001

PJ 0.048 0.064 0.937 ,0.001SN 20.232 0.090 23.750 .0.05NAE 20.227 0.063 22.376 ,0.05PAE 20.135 0.059 22.079 ,0.05

Table III.Results of the SEM

Figure 3.Results of the SEM

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.001

Willingness tobuy

Subjectivenorms

Positiveanticipated

emotion

Negativeanticipated

emotion

Productjudgments

Groupresponsibility

Animosity

Reason 1 Reason 2

0.126* 0.070

0.445**

–0.234**

–0.108

–0.232**

–0.227*

–0.135*

–0.108

IMR27,6

642

products were negatively related to their WTB Danish products (b ¼ 20.227,t ¼ 22.375, p , 0.05). Positive emotions anticipated from not buying Danish productswere also found to be negatively related to their WTB Danish products (b ¼ 20.135,t ¼ 22.079, p , 0.05). Finally, forH6, GR assigned to Denmark for the publishing of thecartoons would be positively related to animosity and was supported (b ¼ 0.445,t ¼ 7.661, p , 0.001).

5. DiscussionThe findings of this study, like those from previous studies, support that animosity doesnot lead to less favorable PJ but rather is associated with less WTB a product from acountry perceived to have instigated a transgression. However, the results suggest thatseveral additional factors other than animosity might affect consumer intention to buyproducts from the transgressing country. These results support that SN related tobuying Danish products, negative emotions expected from buying the product, andpositive emotions expected from not buying the product were all associated withKuwaiti consumers’ reduced WTB Danish products. The standardized parameterestimates also suggest that animosity is the most important factor, followed by the socialpressure to avoid Danish products, NAE, and finally PAE. However, contrary to theresults of previous studies, the current study found that PJ of Danish products are notrelated to Kuwaiti consumer WTB Danish products. This might be due to the dominanteffect of the other variables in the model. To test this explanation, the researchersestimated a model in which product judgment was the only independent variableinfluencing WTB. The relationship was significant (b ¼ .144, t ¼ 1.972, p , 0.05),which indicates that animosity, SN, and anticipated emotions have overpowered theeffects of the PJ of Danish products.

Furthermore, this study provides insights into the MIMIC modeling of animositysuggested by Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007), who suggested that this type ofmodeling enables researchers to determine the relative importance of the reasons thathave led to animosity. These results of the current study indicated that respondentsexperienced animosity as a result of their perceptions that Denmark does not respectreligions, not that Denmark defamed the character of the Prophet Mohammed. Basedon these results, any future research should clearly distinguish between perceptionsthat might be presumed to arise from the incidents themselves and the actual emotionselicited by such perceptions.

Finally, the results of the current study suggest that GR is an important factorinfluencing animosity. This finding concurs with the results of Leong et al. (2008), whofound that, when Asian consumers blamed Americans for the Asian crisis, they weremore likely to experience animosity toward the USA.

6. Managerial implicationsBased on the results of the current research, other factors in addition to animositymay influence a consumer’s decision to withhold consumption of products from aperceived transgressor’s country. The social norms attached to buying products fromDenmark were shown to have a comparable influence on Kuwaiti consumeranimosity toward Denmark. This may be important in countries characterized byhigh levels of collective traditions or behavior. As previous research has indicated,SN tend to dominate purchase intention in cultures characterized by high levels of

Internationalcrisis

643

collectivism (Lee and Green, 1991). As such, this may suggest that producers ofpublicly consumed products might suffer more than producers of privately consumedproducts. Moreover, some business establishments focus on distributing theirproducts in channels that are not publicly visible. For example, fast food chainsmight emphasize their home delivery service (more private), as opposed to in-storedining (more public). Therefore, the motivation to comply with social norms might behigher in the latter.

The results clearly indicate that consumers experience anticipated emotions whenthey are faced with the decision to buy Danish products or not and that such emotionshave an impact on consumer decisions to buy Danish products. This indicates that theact of avoiding Danish products is emotionally driven; however, animosity is distinctfrom anticipated emotions. Specifically, animosity is a negative emotion that a consumerfeels toward another country, anticipated emotions relate to the emotions that aconsumer anticipates from either buying or avoiding the products from that country.Animosity, like anger, in the study herein, is mainly driven by perceptions of lack ofrespect and involves behaving aggressively and “getting back at” the cause of the anger(Bougie et al., 2003). However, anticipated emotions are not associated with a desire forretaliation, but rather a desire to avoid the pains of engaging in a behavior or reap thebenefits of not engaging in a behavior (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006). These resultsare consistent with boycott literature, which suggests that self-enhancement plays avery important role in consumer decision to boycott (Klein et al., 2004). According toKlein et al. (2004), self-enhancement deals with trying to avoid the negative consequencesof not boycotting (i.e. feeling guilty) while also trying to gain the positive consequencesof boycotting (i.e. feeling good about oneself). We found similar results that supportconsumers’ decisions to avoid products from a transgressing country, where they aremotivated to a great extent by how it makes the consumer feel. Consumers are morelikely to participate in a boycott if they anticipate that they will feel good as a result, oranticipate that they will be able to avoid feeling bad about themselves. Therefore, thissuggests that it is important for a marketer to understand that consumers may not onlybe venting their anger by avoiding products from the transgressing country but alsoseeking to feel good about themselves and avoid the self-blame and public reprimandthat result from not avoiding such products.

Based on the results herein, managers should assess the reasons leading to thesituation of animosity. For example, the data presented herein demonstrate that Kuwaitirespondents’ perception of a lack of respect for religion on the part of Denmark is whatignited the animosity toward Denmark. Knowing this reason would enable managers tobetter recover and respond to such crises. Indeed, responding to crises without knowingwhat the transgressed population thinks of the transgressor could spell disaster, andtherefore, careful monitoring of consumer sentiment is crucial. Moreover, the extent towhich Kuwaiti consumers assigned responsibility to Denmark for publishing thecartoons also seems to play an important role in their animosity. Therefore, while thereare limited options that marketers of all types of Danish products can adopt at such tensetimes, it is recommended that the marketer not withdraw from the Kuwaiti market for anextended period but rather “keep a low profile” until consumer sentiments change(Heslop et al., 2008; Edwards et al., 2007). For this reason, tracking research is of utmostimportance during times of international crises.

IMR27,6

644

7. Limitations and future researchThe current research utilized a general measure for assessing Kuwaiti consumer WTBproducts from a country toward which animosity had been directed as a result of aspecific event. Future research should examine whether the effects of animosity, SN,and anticipated emotions vary by product category. Indeed, the results of the currentresearch suggest that SN might be more influential for products consumed publicly. Inaddition, future research might examine the role of religiosity in crises that includereligious overtones. The effects of animosity, SN, and anticipated emotions asantecedents to animosity might differ based on an individual’s level of religiosity.

The sampling approach poses a limitation as non-probability sampling was used.The use of probability sampling approaches was difficult in the current contextbecause frames (e.g. mailing lists) are difficult to obtain in Kuwait. Other forms ofprobability (e.g. cluster) and non-probability sampling (e.g. mall intercepts) were alsoconsidered, but the use of intercept approaches might have excluded a large portion ofpotential respondents who are conservative in nature.

This research examines the role of SN in a collective society, and therefore,generalizations cannot be made regarding the impact of the collectivism on SN. Futureresearch should examine whether the impact of SN on the preference for products froma country that is a target of animosity differs based on whether the country isindividualistic or collectivistic. For example, Lee and Green (1991) found that the SNplay a more important role in Korean (collectivist culture) respondents’ decision to buySneakers compared to their US (individualist culture) counterparts. Future studiesshould examine whether individualism/collectivism moderates the impact of SN onconsumer decisions to avoid products from transgressing countries.

The current study examined animosity as the only emotional reaction that might beexperienced toward Danish entities. Although care was taken to include the emotionsthat respondents mentioned in a pilot study, future research should focus on includingadditional possible emotions. For example, in the social psychology literature,Cuddy et al. (2007) identified that individuals might feel pity, contempt, and admirationtoward other groups. Thus, future research might examine the impact of such emotionson consumer preference for foreign products.

Another limitation in this study is that the relationship between the antecedents ofanimosity and GR was not examined. The main antecedent reason to emerge as asignificant predictor of animosity was the perception of the lack of respect. Miller(2001) suggests that GR may in fact be the antecedent of animosity. Such an assertionwas not tested in the current study and can be tested in future studies by using amulti-item measure of respect.

References

Amine, L.S. (2008), “Country-of-origin, animosity and consumer response: marketingimplications of anti-Americanism and Francophobia”, International Business Review,Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 402-22.

Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: review andrecommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.P. (2006), “Open source software user communities: a study ofparticipation in Linux user groups”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 1099-115.

Internationalcrisis

645

Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H. and Pieters, R. (1998), “Goal-directed emotions”, Cognition andEmotion, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-26.

Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M. and Nyer, P.U. (1999), “The role of emotions in marketing”, Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 184-206.

Bahaee, M. and Pisani, M.J. (2009), “Iranian consumer animosity and US products: a witch’s brewor elixir?”, International Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 199-210.

Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2008), “Future-oriented emotions:conceptualization and behavioral effects”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 38No. 4, pp. 685-96.

Bougie, R., Pieters, R. and Zeelenberg, M. (2003), “Angry customers dont come back, they getback: the experience and behavioural implications of anger and dissatisfaction inservices”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 377-93.

Brijs, K. (2006), “Unraveling country-of-origin – semiotic as a theoretical basis for ameaning-centered approach towards country-of-origin effects”, PhD dissertation, RadboudUniversiteit, Nijmegen.

CIA (2009), “The world fact book: Kuwait”, available at: www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ku.html (accessed 25 December 2009).

Cleveland, M., Laroche, M. and Papadpopolous, N. (2009), “Ethnocentrism, and materialism: aneight-country study of antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of International Marketing,Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 116-46.

Cuddy, A., Fiske, S. and Glick, P. (2007), “‘The BIAS map’ behaviors from intergroup affect andstereotypes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 40, pp. 631-48.

Douglas, S. and Craig, S. (2005), International Marketing Research, Wiley, West Sussex.

Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A., Gaertner, S.L., Schroeder, D.A. and Clark, R.D. III (1991), “The arousal:cost-reward model and the process of intervention: a review of the evidence”,in Clark, M.S. (Ed.), Prosocial Behavior, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 86-118.

Edwards, R., Gut, A.-M. and Mavondo, F. (2007), “Buyer animosity in business to businessmarkets: evidence from the French nuclear tests”, Industrial Marketing Management,Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 483-92.

Ettenson, R. and Klein, J.G. (2005), “The fallout from French nuclear testing in the South Pacific –a longitudinal study of consumer boycotts”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 2,pp. 199-224.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction toTheory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Gleicher, F., Boninger, D.S., Strathman, A., Armor, D., Hetts, J. and Ahn, M. (1995), “With an eyetoward the future: the impact of counterfactual thinking on affect, attitudes, and behavior”,in Roese, N.J. and Olson, J.M. (Eds), What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology ofCounterfactual Thinking, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 283-304.

Hair, J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate DataAnalysis, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Han, C.M. (1989), “Country image: summary or halo construct”, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 222-9.

Haubl, G. (1996), “A cross-national investigation of the effects of country of origin and brandname on the”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 5, p. 76.

IMR27,6

646

Herche, J. (1992), “A note on the predictive validity of the CETSCALE”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 261-4.

Heslop, L.A., Lu, I.R. and Cray, D. (2008), “Modeling country image effects through aninternational crisis”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 354-78.

Heslop, L.A., Lu, I.R. and Cray, D. (2009), “Australian consumers’ attitudes toward France adecade after nuclear testing: evidence of forgiveness”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 192-210.

Heslop, L.A., Papadopoulos, N., Dowdles, M., Wall, M. and Compeau, D. (2004), “Who controls thepurse strings: a study of consumers’ and retail buyers’ reactions in an America’s FTAenvironment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 10, pp. 1177-88.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hunter, G.L. (2006), “The role of anticipated emotion, desire, and intention in the relationshipbetween image and shopping center visits”, International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 709-21.

Iyer, A., Schamder, T. and Lickel, B. (2007), “Why individuals protest the perceivedtransgressions of their country: the role of anger, shame, and guilt”, Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 572-87.

Jensen, H.R. (2008), “The Mohammed cartoons controversy and the boycott of Danish products inthe Middle East”, European Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 275-89.

Joreskog, K.G. and Goldberger, A.S. (1975), “Estimation of a model with multiple indicators andmultiple causes of a single latent variable”, Journal of the American Statistical Association,Vol. 70 No. 351, pp. 631-9.

Klein, J.G. (2002), “Us versus them, or us versus everyone? Delineating consumer aversion toforeign goods”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 345-63.

Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R. and Morris, M.D. (1998), “The animosity model of foreign productpurchase: an empirical test in the People’s Republic of China”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62No. 1, pp. 89-100.

Klein, J.G., Smith, N.C. and John, A. (2004), “Consumer boycott participation: consumermotivations for boycott participation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 92-109.

Knight, G.A. and Calantone, R.J. (2000), “A flexible model of consumer country-of-originperceptions”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 Nos 2/3, p. 127.

Knight, J.G., Mitchell, B.S. and Gao, H. (2009), “Riding out the Muhammad cartoons crisis:contrasting strategies and outcomes”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 6-22.

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A. and Mourali, M. (2005), “The influence of countryimage structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products”, International MarketingReview, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 96-115.

Lee, C. and Green, R.T. (1991), “Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioral intentionsmodel”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 289-305.

Leong, S.M., Cote, J.A., Ang, S.H., Tan, S.J., Jung, K., Kau, A.K. and Pornpitakpan, C. (2008),“Understanding consumer animosity in an international crisis: nature, antecedents andconsequences”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 996-1009.

Lickel, B., Schmader, T. and Hamilton, D.L. (2003), “A case of collective responsibility: who elsewas to blame for the Columbine high school shootings?”, Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 194-204.

Martin, I.M. and Eroglu, S. (1993), “Measuring a multi-dimensional construct: country image”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 191-210.

Internationalcrisis

647

Meyer, K., Rizzo, H. and Ali, Y. (2007), “Changed political attitudes in the Middle East: the case ofKuwait”, International Sociology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 289-324.

Miller, D.T. (2001), “Disrespect and the experience of injustice”, Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 52, pp. 527-53.

Nijssen, E.J. and Douglas, S.P. (2004), “Examining the animosity model in a country with a high levelof foreign trade”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 23-38.

Orbaiz, L.V. and Papadopoulos, N. (2003), “Toward a model of consumer receptivity of foreign anddomestic products”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, p. 101.

Papadopoulos, N. (2003), “What product country images are and are not”, in Papadopoulos, N.and Heslop, L.A. (Eds), Product-country Image: Impact and Role in InternationalMarketing, International Business Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-38.

Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (2003), “Country equity and product-country images:state-of-the-art in research and implications”, in Jain, S.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research inInternational Marketing, Cheltenham, Northampton, pp. 402-33.

Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A. and Group, I.R. (2000), “A cross-national and longitudinal studyof product-country images with a focus on the US and Japan”, working paper, MarketingScience Institute, Cambridge.

Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2007), “Country image and consumer-based brandequity: relationships and implications for international marketing”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 726-45.

Pennekamp, S.F., Doosje, B., Zebel, S. and Fischer, A.H. (2007), “The past and the pending: theantecedents and consequences of group-based anger in historically and currentlydisadvantaged groups”, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-55.

Quigley, B.M. and Tedeschi, J.T. (1996), “Mediating effects of blame attributions on feelings ofanger”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22 No. 12, pp. 1280-8.

Richard, R., van der Plight, J. and de Vries, N. (1996), “Anticipated affect and behavioral choice”,Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 111-29.

Riefler, P. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2007), “Consumer animosity: a literature review and areconsideration of its measurement”, InternationalMarketingReview, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 87-119.

Roth, K.P. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2009), “Advancing the country image construct”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 62 No. 7, pp. 726-40.

Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992), “Matching product category and country image perceptions: aframework for managing country-of-origin effects”, Journal of International BusinessStudies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97.

Sen, S., Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Morwitzz, V. (2001), “Withholding consumption: a social dilemmaperspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 399-417.

Sharma, S., Shimp, T.A. and Shin, J. (1995), “Consumer ethnocentrism: a test of antecedents andmoderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 26-37.

Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of theCETSCALE”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 280-9.

Shimp, T., Dunn, R. and Klein, J. (2004), “Remnants of the US civil war and modern consumerbehavior”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 75-91.

Shin, M. (2001), “The animosity model of foreign product purchase revisited: does it work inKorea?”, Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, Vol. 6, pp. 6-14.

IMR27,6

648

Shoham, A., Davidow, M., Klein, J.G. and Ruvio, A. (2006), “Animosity on the home front: theIntifada in Israel and its impact on consumer behavior”, Journal of InternationalMarketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 92-114.

Sierra, J.I. and Hyman, M.R. (2006), “A dual-process model of cheating intentions”, Journal ofMarketing Education, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 193-204.

Verlegh, P.W.J. (2001), “Country-of-origin effects on consumer product evaluations”, PhDdissertation, Wageningen University, Wageningen.

Verlegh, P.W.J. and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1999), “A review and meta-analysis of country-of-originresearch”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-46.

Wang, C.-K. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (1980), “Foreign environmental factors influencing Americanconsumers’ predispositions toward European products”, Academy of Marketing ScienceJournal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 345-56.

Zarkada-Fraser, A. and Fraser, C. (2002), “Store patronage prediction for foreign-ownedsupermarkets”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 6,pp. 282-99.

Further reading

Chavis, L. and Leslie, P. (2009), “Consumer boycotts: the impact of the Iraq war on French winesales in the US”, Quantitative Marketing and Economics, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 37-67.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998),Multivariate DataAnalysis, 5th ed.,Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Knight, G.A. and Calantone, R.J. (2000), “A flexible model of consumer country-of-originperceptions”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 Nos 2/3, p. 127.

Loughlin, S. (2003), “House cafeterias change names for ‘French’ fries and ‘French’ toast”,Vol. 2007, CNN Washington Bureau, Washington, DC.

Munter, P. (2006), “Muslim boycotts cuts Danish dairy exports by 85%”, Financial Times.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

Internationalcrisis

649

Appendix. Operational measures

Product Judgments (7 point Likert Scale; Strongly Agree-Strongly Agree; Source Klein, 2002)Products made in Denmark are carefully produced and have fine workmanship.Products made in Denmark show a high degree of technological advancement.Products made in Denmark usually show a very clever use of color and design.Products made in Denmark are usually quite reliable and seem to last the desired length of time.

Willingness to Buy (7 point Likert Scale; Strongly Agree-Strongly Agree; Source: Klein 2002)

Whenever possible, I avoid buying Danish products. (R)Whenever available, I would prefer to buy products made in Denmark.I would never buy a Danish product. (R)I do not like the idea of owning Danish products. (R)

Animosity (7 point Likert Scale; Strongly Agree-Strongly Agree)

UmbrageAngerContempt

Reasons (7 point Likert Scale; Strongly Agree-Strongly Agree)

Denmark is trying to ruin Islam’s imageDenmark does not respect other religionsDenmark has tarnished the character of the prophet Mohammed

Positive Anticipated Emotions (7 point Likert Scale; Strongly Agree-Strongly Agree; Source: Baumgartner, Pieters and Bagozzi 1998)

If I don’t buy Danish products I would feel:

HappyGladSatisfiedProud

Negative Anticipated Emotions (7 point Likert Scale; Strongly Agree-Strongly Agree; Source:Baumgartner, Pieters and Bagozzi 1998)

If I would buy Danish products I would feel:

FrustratedGuiltySadWorried

(continued)

IMR27,6

650

About the authorsAmro A. Maher is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Qatar University. He received his PhDin Business Administration with an international emphasis from Old Dominion University in2008. He has taught various courses at Indiana State University and Old Dominion University.His research interests are in the area of international marketing, with a specific emphasis onconsumers’ perceptions of foreign products. His work has appeared or is forthcoming inInternational Marketing Review, Journal of Business Research, The Journal of ConsumerMarketing and The Journal of the Global Academy of Marketing Science. Amro A. Maher is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: amaher@qu.edu.qa

Sarah Mady is a Doctoral Candidate at Old Dominion University. Her areas of researchinterest include consumer acculturation and multiculturalism, cross-cultural issues ininternational marketing, and service marketing.

Subjective Norms (Source: Lee and Green 1991)

Strongly

Disagree

Neither Agree Nor

Disagree

Strongly Agree

People close to me think I should not buy Danish products (R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

People who are important to me would:

approve of purchase ofDanish products

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 disapprove of my purchaseof Danish products

People close to me think I

should buy Danish Products

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 should not buy Danishproducts

Group Responsibility (7 point Likert Scale; Strongly Agree-Strongly Agree; Source: Quigley andTedeschi 1996)

Denmark is responsible for what has transpired in the Danish Press regarding the prophet MohammedDenmark should be held accountable for what has transpired in the Danish Press regarding the prophetMohammedDenmark should be held responsible for what has transpired in the Danish Press regarding the prophetMohammedDenmark should be blamed for what has transpired in the Danish Press regarding the prophet Mohammed

(R) refers to a reverse worded item.

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

Internationalcrisis

651