Relationship between Country of Origin, Brand Image and Customer Purchase Intentions

Far East Research Centre www.fareastjournals.com

25

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, BRAND IMAGE

AND CUSTOMER PURCHASE INTENTIONS

Dr. S. S. Bhakar DirectorPrestige Institute of Management

Airport Road, Gwalior (M.P.)

Email: [email protected]

Shailja Bhakar Assistant Professor, Prestige Institute of Management

Airport Road, Gwalior (M.P.)


Shilpa Bhakar Assistant Professor, School of Management Sciences

Apeejay Stya University, Sohna, Gurgaon (Haryana)


ABSTRACT

Today the world has become a small village.Products manufactured in one country are being

sold in every country all over the world. Manufacturers are using all the tools to build a different

brand image of their brands in the new country. This paper therefore examines the effect of

country of origin and brand image on purchase intentions of customers.

The current study is based on the responses received from 150 respondents selected on the basis

of non-probability (Purposive) sampling technique. The results indicated that country of origin

negatively affects the purchase intention of a customer while buying a fridge and the effect

becomes significant when country of origin is evaluated along with brand image at the same

time.Also, it was found that brand image positively affects the purchase intentions of a customer

while buying a fridge.Therefore,themanufacturing companies should concentrate on building a

positive and strong brand image of their products in the minds of customers so that the country

of origin cannot affect the purchase intentions of a customer.

Keywords:Origin, Brand Image, Branding, Consumer Intentions, Purchase Intentions, Buying

Decision.

Paper Type: Research Paper

INTRODUCTION

Ghazali Maznah M. Said Othman, A. Zahiruddin Yahya and M. Sarif Ibrahim defined Country

of origin effect as any influence that the country of manufacture has on a consumer‟s positive or

negative perception of a product, Cateora and Graham(1999).With increasing availability of

foreign goods in most national markets, the country of origin cue has become more important as

Far East Journal of Psychology and Business Vol. 10 No. 2 Feb 2013

26

consumers often evaluate imported goods differently than they do competing domestic

products,(Bilkey and Nes, 1982).

The country of origin may create a “halo effect” whereby consumers‟ attention and evaluation of

other product dimensions are affected, Erickson et al.(1984), Han(1989).Buyers may simply use

the country of origin as one of the many attributes employed (Johansson et al., 1985) to engage

in product evaluation (Hong and Wyer, 1989).

Elliot, Cameron, and Acharya (1994) defined the country of origin (COO) as the country of

origin or the country of manufacturing for a specific product. Numerous studies have found that

consumers have biases in favor and against products made in certain countries. Liu, Murphy, Li,

and Liu (2007) found that the country of origin effect has a significant impact on consumers‟

attitudes and intentions to buy foreign products.

The effects of country-of-origin (COO) upon consumer perceptions, and purchase intentions

remain of interest to marketing researchers, Bloemer et al.(2009). The COO concept evolved into

a more complex notion as global production operations became increasingly diverse and new

market opportunities emerged in both developed and developing countries. Initially, the notion of

the COO was perceived as analogous to the "made-in" country, Dichter (1962),(Nebenzahl et

al.,1997).

In today‟s increasingly competitive business environment, more and more international

companies are willing to seek production in less developed countries. The large body of existing

research has recognized the importance of Country of Origin (COO) effects on consumers‟

product evaluations and purchasing decisions, Bilkey and Nes (1982), Al-Sulaiti and

Baker(1998).

FIGURE - 1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRAND AND COO AND ITS EFFECT ON

PERCEPTIONS & PURCHASE INTENTIONS

Source: Bruno Godey, Daniel Pederzoli, Gaetano Aiello, Raffaele Donvito, Klause Peter

Wiedmann (2010), Luxury Brand and Country of Origin effect: Results of an International

Study, Journal of Marketing Trends, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 67-75.

A Brand is adistinguishing name and/or symbol intended to identifythe goods or services of

either one seller or a group of sellers, and to differentiate those goods or services from those of


27

competitors,Aaker(1991), Stanton(1994), and Kotler(1996).A brand thus signals to the customer

the source of the product, and protects both the customer and the producer from competitors who

would attempt to provide products that appear to be identical.Although brands have long had a

role to play in commerce, it was not until the twentieth century that branding and brand

association became so central to competitors. Infact, distinguishing characteristic of modern

marketing has been its focus upon the creation of differentiated brand associations to accentuate

the bases of differentiation. The idea has been to move beyond commodities to branded

productsto reduce the primary effect of price upon the purchase decision. Consumers associate

the value of the product with the brand. The brand can convey either a positive or a negative

message about the product to the consumer, KimandChung(1997).

Brand Image

How much is a brand worth? How does a brand represent the product? Kotler (2000) contends

that brand is a name, term, symbol, design or all the above, and is used to distinguish one‟s

products and services from competitors. For example, Nike adopts a check mark as its brand

image, which creates a positive effect indicating approval.

Keller (1993) defines brand image as an association or perception consumers make based on

their memory towards a product. Thus, brand image does not exist in the technology, features or

the actual product itself, but is something brought out by promotions, advertisements, or users.

Through brand image, consumers are able to recognize a product, evaluate the quality, lower

purchase risks, and obtain certain experience and satisfaction out of product differentiation.

When it comes to experiential product evaluation, a positive brand image may make up for an

inferior image of the origin country and raise the possibility of the product being selected Thakor

and Katsanis(1997).

According to Grewal, Krishnan, Baker, and Borin (1998), the better a brand image is, the more

recognition consumers give to its product quality. Consumers are usually limited in regards to

the amount of time and product knowledge they have to make an informed purchase decision

when facing similar products to choose from. As a result, brand image is often used as an

extrinsic cue to make a purchase decision, Richardson, Dick and Jain(1994).

Akaah and Korgaonkar (1988) concluded that consumers are more likely to purchase well-

known brand products with positive brand image as a way to lower purchase risks. This

argument is also supported by Rao and Monroe (1988) where they posited that a brand with a

more positive image does have the effect of lowering consumers‟ product perception risks and

increasing positive feedback from consumers. Therefore, consumers generally believe they can

make a satisfying purchase by choosing well-known brands and also lower any purchase risks by

doing so.

Purchase Intention

Prior to purchasing, consumerscollect product information based on personal experience and

external environment. When the amount of information reaches a certain level, consumers start

the assessment and evaluation process, and make a purchase decision after comparison and


28

judgment.Therefore, purchase intention is often used to analyze consumer behavior in related

studies. The so-called purchase intention means a subjective inclination consumers have towards

a certain product, and has been proven to be a key factor in predicting consumer behavior,

Fishbein and Ajzen(1975).

The EKB model, developed by Engel, Kollat and Blackwell (1984), depicts the process used to

evaluate consumers‟ decision making. The model stresses that consumer behavior is a continuing

process, including recognition of a problem, information gathering, solution evaluation, and

decision making. The process is also affected by both internal and external factors like

information input, information process, general motives, environment, etc. Among these factors,

information gathering and environmental stimulation are two crucial influential factors in the

final decision making.

FIGURE - 2: THE EFFECT OF COUNTRY IMAGE ON PURCHASE INTENSION

Source: Dr. Piet Pouwels and Dr Koen Harber, Department of Marketing Management,

Summary „Brand Perception and Purchase Intension‟, in a B to B Context, The effect of Brand

Origin

According to Kotler (2000), consumer behavior occurs when consumers are stimulated by

external factors and come to a purchase decision based on their personal characteristics and

decision making process. These factors include choosing a product, brand, a retailer, timing, and

quantity. This means consumers‟ purchasing behavior is affected by their choice of product and

brand.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Social Pressure

CSR Program

Esteem Among Colleagues

Others

Purchase Intension

Subjective

Norms

Attitude towards the Brand

Beliefs about Brand Origin

Country of Brand Origin Image

Other (Friendliness) Service etc.

Business Conduct

Product Performance


29

Fabris (1999), Fornari (1995)compared Pakistani consumers' perceptions regarding electronic

and electrical products made in Pakistan, the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and

Germany. Consumers in Pakistan were observed to hold distinctly different views of products

from different countries in terms of quality, value, image and promotion.Further, the

reinforcement of the brand‟s strategic dimension and of its impact on perceptions and purchasing

intentions additionally springs from the fact that the contemporary customer is less and less in

search of primary, tangible and objective, elements in products-services; rathercustomers seek

emotive elements (sometimes anchored to socio-cultural trends towards which customers feel a

sense of belonging) Fabris (1999), Fornari (1995).

In other words as a way of prompting consumers to purchase the firm‟s products in consequence

of the values and meanings summarized by the brand.The results of the study provide relative

competitive positions of manufacturers from other countries and domestic manufacturers in the

Pakistani market in terms of various marketing variables as perceived by the consumers'

themselves.

YiCai(1994) investigated the effect of foreign products' country of origin on consumers' buying

intentions. By using tangible products and providing different levels of information, this effect

was tested in the participants' decision making processes. The 'made-in' effect was found to be

significant in a multiple-attribute scenario. Also, the size of the country-of-origin effect was

examined through price manipulations. In addition, the difference between consumers' responses

to price changes in different products from a less-developed country was investigated through

elasticity computations. The durable goods from the country were found to be less own-price

elastic than was the non-durable goods from the same country.

Papadopoulos (1993) suggested that the degree of economic development of the producing

country does affect consumers‟ buying intentions when other information is also present.

Second, the country-of-origin effect does not totally prohibit consumers from considering

products from a country against which they have a bias. Decreases in the prices of products from

less-developed countries will induce the consumers to increase their willingness to buy these

products.

Heslop, Liefeld, and Wall (1987),found that pricing policies and well-known brand names could

not improve a negative country-of-origin effect. The fact that their study was done two decades

ago may be able to explain the inconsistency of the results with that of the studies carried out

recently. Today‟s global market is more integrated than that in 1980s.

Gaedeke(1973) found that there was no clear indication of the consumer‟s biasness or preference

for local over imported products, or vice-versa., since should the respondents have preference for

local over imported products, products from industrialized countries tended to be more favorably

evaluated than those from developing countries. Schooler (1971) discovered a positive

relationship between the degree of a country‟s level of development and the evaluation of its

products.

Bandyopadhyay and Syed (2000) showed that consumers were inclined to attribute higher

quality to products made in developed countries. The study also showed that the average


30

consumer did not consider the country of origin aspect to be their priority in deciding to purchase

a product. Other product attributes take precedence, particularly its quality, technological

progress and price. Results indicated that country of origin effects are not as strong as might be

expected, and varied with age and migrant status of consumers. Consumer perceptions were used

to partition the countries analyzed into two distinct groups. Ex. Apparel from New Zealand,

Australia and United Kingdom was rated significantly higher on all product attributes than was

apparel from Asian countries.

Rahul Singh(1997) reported that people seem clearly more interested in brands, and in the

projection of the nationality of these brands, than in COO. Therefore, we will have to develop a

causal model for evaluating the respective weight of the brand and COO. Some interesting

results emerge from our research, especially concerning the possibility to identify potential

country groups based on the analysis variables. This would be worth confirming by a cluster

analysis from our sample. The respondents seem to have fully grasped the globalization of

markets and especially of the value chain, from conception and design to the manufacture of a

product. Some interesting cross-cultural differences among respondents emerge for this analysis

too.

Mourali(2005)found that consumers rely more on the COO cue when the product origin facets

are perceived as congruent. Higher perceived product origin congruency increases the perceived

reliability of the COO image held by consumers. As a consequence this image is used more

when evaluating products and considering a purchase. In other words, when consumers consider

a product from a higher image product-origin, the positive relationship between COO image and

product evaluation is strengthened as the consumer perceives that the product origins are

congruent.

Ahmed & d'Astous(2004)founded that consumers utilize COO image more when making product

evaluations if they perceive that the product origins are more congruent than if they perceive that

the product origins are less congruent. In addition to augmenting our knowledge of the

conditions under which COO image is more or less salient, our study is an extension of research

that examined the role of the various facets of COO, Ahmed & d'Astous(2004), Chao(2001),

Kleppe, Iversen, & Stensaker (2002), Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Moural, (2005), Li et

al.(2000).

OBJECTIVES OOF THE STUDY

1. To develop and standardized a measure for Country Of Origin, Brand Image, and Customer

Purchase Intension

2. To develop a relationship between country of origin, brand image and customer purchase

intention.

3. To open the new vistas for further research.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Study

The study was causal in nature with survey method being used for data collection.


31

Sampling Design

Population

The population included customer‟s firm Gwalior region

Sampling frame: Since the data was collected through personal contact the sampling frame

included customers who were present at their place of residence at Gwalior during the data

collection phase of the study

Sample size

Sample size was 150 respondents.

Sample Elements

Individual respondentswere the sample elements.

Sampling Techniques

Non-probability (Purposive) sampling technique was used to select the sample elements as the

complete list of consumers of fridges was not available from any source.

Tools for data collection

Self designed questionnaireswere used to evaluatecountry of origin, brand image and customer

purchase intention. Data was collected on a 7 - point Likert type scale, where 1 indicated

minimum agreement and 7 maximum agreement with the statements.

Tools for data analysis

Internal consistency reliability of all the three measures was established through the computation

ofCronbach‟salpha reliability coefficient using PASW 18 software. Factor analysis was applied

to find out the underlying factors of the all the measures. Multiple Regressions was applied to

evaluate the effect of country of origin and brand image on customers‟ purchase intention. Linear

Regression was applied to find out the individual effect of country of origin and brand image on

customer purchase intention. One way ANOVA was applied to evaluate the effect of brand name

on all the three measures used in the study.

HYPOTHESIS

Null hypothesis H0 (1): There is no difference between the country of origin image of all the

three brands

Null hypothesis H0 (2): There is no difference between the brand image of all the three brands

Null hypothesis H0 (3): There is no difference between the purchase intentions of customers

towards all the three brands


32

Null hypothesis H0 (4): There is no effect of country of origin and brand image on purchase

intention

Null hypothesis H0 (5): There is no effect of country of origin on purchase intention

Null hypothesis H0 (6): There is no effect of brand image on purchase intention

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Country of OriginQuestionnaire Reliability

Reliability test was carried out on the data collected using country of origin questionnaire

onPASW 18 software and the Cronbach‟s Alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0.886.

TABLE-1: CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY TEST

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized

Items

N of Items

.812 .886 11

Reliability coefficient values those are greater than 0.7 indicate high internal consistency

reliability for the measure. As displayed in the table-1 above the Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient

value for the country of origin measure is 0.886 which is greater than 0.7. Therefore, the country

of origin measure is considered to have high internal consistency reliability.

TABLE - 2: KAISER- MEYER-OLKIN MEASURE OF SAMPLING ADEQUACY AND

BARTLETT’S TEST OF SPHERICITY

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .869

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 804.784

Df 55

Sig. .000

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of Sampling Adequacy

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy is an index used to examine the

appropriateness of factor analysis. High values (between 0.5 and 1.0) indicate factor analysis is

appropriate. Values below 0.5 imply that factor analysis may not be appropriate. The Kaiser -

Meyer - Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy value for the country of origin measure was

0.869 indicating that the sample was adequate to consider the data suitable for factor analysis.

Bartlett's test of Sphericity

Bartlett's test of sphericity is a test statistic used to examine the hypothesis that the variables are

uncorrelated in the population. In other words, the population correlation matrix is an identity

matrix; each variable correlates perfectly with itself (r = 1) but has no correlation with the other


33

variables (r = 0). The Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity was tested through Chi-Square value having a

value of 804.784, which is significant at 0% level of significance. Therefore, the above

hypothesis is rejected, indicating that the data collected using country of origin measure was

suitable for factor analysis.

Factor Analysis

Principle component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalization was

applied to identify the underlying factors of the country of origin measure. The principle

component analysis converged on two factors after 5 iterations. The details about the factors, the

factor name, variable convergence and their Eigen valuesaredisplayed in table-3 below.

TABLE - 3: FACTOR ANALYSIS APPLIED ON COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MEASURE

SNo Factor Name Eigen

Value

% of

variance

Items Item

Loading

1 Country of

origin

Importance

5.163 46.939 2It is important to look for a country of

origin information when deciding which

product to buy

1 When buying expensive items such

Fridge, I always seek to find out what

country the product was made in.

10 To purchase a product that is acceptable

to my family and my friends, I look for the

product‟s country of origin

7 When I am buying a new product, the

country of origin is the first piece of

information that I consider

11 I look for country of origin information

to choose the best product available in a

product class

4 If I have a little experience with a product,

I search for country of origin information

about the product to help me make a more

informed decision

9 I find out a product‟s country of origin to

determine the quality of a product

6 When purchasing a product, I believe

country of origin will determine the

technological sophistication of the product

5 I refuse to purchase a product without

knowing its country of origin

3 To make sure that I buy the highest

quality product or brand, I look to see what

.894

.826

.742

.735

.720

.688

.686

.614

.593

.573


34

country the product was made in

2 COO

Unimportant

1.242 11.288 8 A product‟s country of origin does not

determine the quality of the product

.837

The two main factors that have immerged after exploratory factor analysis are Country of origin

Important and Country of Origin unimportant. The questionnaire had ten statements that

reflected importance of COO in determining the perception of quality. The sole statement that

measured no effect of COO on determining the quality of products has formed a separate factor.

The factor analysis has perfectly identified the two dimensions of the measure.

Brand Image Questionnaire Reliability

Reliability test was carried out on the data collected using Brand Image questionnaire on PASW

18 software and the Cronbach‟s Alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0.9.

TABLE-4: CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY TEST


Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of

Items

.897 .900 25



value for the Brand Image measure was 0.9 which is greater than 0.7. Therefore, the Brand

Image measure was considered to have high internal consistency reliability.

TABLE-5: KAISER- MEYER-OLKIN MEASURE OF SAMPLING ADEQUACY AND




Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1.496E

3

Df 300

Sig. .000





Meyer - Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy value for the purchase intention measure was



35






value of 1.496E3, which is significant at 0% level of significance. Therefore, the above

hypothesis is rejected, indicating that the data was suitable for factor analysis.

Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was carried out using Principle Component Analysis with Varimax

Rotation and Kaiser Normalization to identify underlying factors of Brand Image measure.

Principle Component Analysis converged on 6 factors after 11 iterations. The details about the

factors, the factor name, variable number, variable convergence and their Eigen value is given in

the table-6 below.

TABLE - 6: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS APPLIED ON BRAND IMAGE

MEASURE

S.No Factor Name Eigen Value % of variance Items Item Loading

1 Conscientious 3.231 12.925 3 Friendly

1Honest

2Wholesome

4Young

6Up-to-date

.800

.763

.714

.714

.490

2 Professional 2.985 11.939 19Savvy

20Innovative

22Mature

18Perfectionist

21Sophisticated

.721

.671

.666

.558

.450

3 Victorious 2.772 11.087 9Technical

10Successful

8Intelligent

7Reliable

.841

.637

.610

.517

4 Sauvé 2.674 10.697 12Upper Class

5Unique

11Leader

13Good Looking

14Feminine

.721

.629

.627

.479

.463

5 Collective 1.789 7.156 25Social

23Authentic

24Competitive

.847

.561

.547

6 Manly 1.765 7.059 15Masculine

16Tough

17Persistent

.700

.692

.483


36

Customer Buying Intentions Questionnaire Reliability

Reliability test was carried out on the data collected using Customer Buying Intentions

questionnaire on PASW 18 software and the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was found to

be 0.909.

TABLE-7: CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY TEST APPLIED ON CUSTOMERS’

BUYING INTENTIONS


Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized

Items

N of

Items

.909 .909 10



value for the Customers‟ Purchase Intentions measure was 0.909 which is greater than 0.7.

Therefore, the Customers‟ Purchase Intentions measure was considered to have high internal

consistency reliability.

TABLE-8: KAISER- MEYER-OLKIN MEASURE OF SAMPLING ADEQUACY AND




Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 783.113

Df 45

Sig. .000





Meyer - Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy value for the purchase intention measure was







value of 783.113, which is significant at 0% level of significance. Therefore, the above

hypothesis is rejected, indicating that the data was suitable for factor analysis.


37

Factor Analysis

Principle component factor analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalization was

applied. The factor analysis converged into one factor therefore it can be said that all the

questions in the questionnaire were representing customer buying intentions only

One-Way ANOVA between Country of Origin and Brand Names

Null hypothesis H0 (1):There is no significant difference between the country of origin image of

all the three brands

TABLE - 8: LEVENE’S TEST APPLIED ON COUNTRY OF ORIGIN DATA

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

COO

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

4.957 2 147 .008

TABLE - 9: ONE WAY ANOVA APPLIED BETWEEN THE DATA OF COUNTRY OF

ORIGIN FOR THE THREE BRANDS UNDER STUDY

ANOVA

COO

Sum of Squares df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Between

Groups

4598.173 2 2299.087 8.709 .000

Within Groups 38806.900 147 263.993

Total 43405.073 149

One way ANOVA test was applied to find out the effect of country of origin image on the three

brands of fridge. From the ANOVA table it can be seen that the value of F is 8.709 significant at

0% level of significance which indicates a significant difference between the country of origin

image of all the three brands of fridge. Therefore null hypothesis was rejected, indicating that the

image of the country of origin for all the three brands is different.

TABLE-10: POST-HOC TEST RESULTS APPLIED ON COO DATA OF THE THREE

BRANDS UNDER STUDY

Multiple Comparisons

COO

Tukey HSD

(I)

BrandName

(J)

BrandName

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

1 2 -6.98000 3.24957 .084 -14.6740 .7140


38

3 6.58000 3.24957 .110 -1.1140 14.2740

2 1 6.98000 3.24957 .084 -.7140 14.6740

3 13.56000* 3.24957 .000 5.8660 21.2540

3 1 -6.58000 3.24957 .110 -14.2740 1.1140

2 -13.56000* 3.24957 .000 -21.2540 -5.8660

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Post hoc test was applied to check whether there is a difference between the country of origin

Image of all the three brands and it was found that there was no significant difference betweenthe

country of origin image of brand one (Godrej) and brand two (LG) as well as brand one (Godrej)

and brand three (Whirlpool) whereas there was a significant difference between brand two (LG)

and brand three (Whirlpool).

One - Way ANOVA between Brand Image and Brand Names

Null Hypothesis H0 (2): There is no difference between the brand image of all the three brands

TABLE - 11: LEVENE’S TEST APPLIED ON BRAND IMAGE DATA OF THE THREE

BRANDS UNDER STUDY


BrandImage


2.885 2 147 .059

TABLE-12: ONE-WAY ANOVA APPLIED ON THE BRAND IMAGE DATA OF THE

THREE BRANDS UNDER STUDY

ANOVA

BrandImage

Sum of

Squares

Df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Between Groups 1043.693 2 521.847 1.432 .242

Within Groups 53551.480 147 364.296

Total 54595.173 149

One way ANOVA test was applied to find out the difference between the Brand Image of all the

three brands of fridge. From the ANOVA table it can be seen that the value of F is 1.432

significant at 24.2% level of significance which indicates a no significant difference between the

brand images of all the three brands of fridge. Therefore null hypothesis was accepted, indicating

that the brand images of the three brands under study are similar.

TABLE-13: SHOWING THE RESULTS OF POST-HOC TEST APPLIED ON THE

BRAND IMAGE DATA OF THE THREE BRANDS UNDER STUDY


BrandImage


39

Tukey HSD

(I)

BrandName

(J)

BrandName

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std.

Error Sig.


Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

1 2 3.12000 3.81731 .693 -5.9182 12.1582

3 -3.34000 3.81731 .657 -12.3782 5.6982

2 1 -3.12000 3.81731 .693 -12.1582 5.9182

3 -6.46000 3.81731 .212 -15.4982 2.5782

3 1 3.34000 3.81731 .657 -5.6982 12.3782

2 6.46000 3.81731 .212 -2.5782 15.4982

Post hoc test was applied to check whether there is a difference between the brand images of

different brands taking two at a time and it was found that there was no significant difference

between brand one (Godrej) and brand two (LG), brand one (Godrej) and brand three

(Whirlpool) as well as brand two (LG) and brand three (Whirlpool).

One way ANOVA between Purchase Intention for the three brands under study

Null hypothesis H0 (3): There is no difference between the purchase intentions of customers

towards all the three brands

TABLE - 14: LEVENE’S TEST APPLIED ON CUSTOMERS PURCHASE INTENTIONS

DATA FOR THE THREE BRANDS UNDER STUDY


Purchase Intention


.305 2 147 .738

TABLE-15: ONE-WAY ANOVA APPLIED ON THE CUSTOMERS PURCHASE

INTENTIONS DATA FOR THE THREE BRANDS UNDER STUDY

ANOVA

Purchase Intention

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 6934.493 2 3467.247 35.888 .000

Within Groups 14202.280 147 96.614

Total 21136.773 149

One way ANOVA test was applied to find out differences between the purchase intentions of

customers towards all the three brands of fridge. From the ANOVA table it can be seen that the

value of F is 35.888 which is significant at 0% level of significance. indicating significant

difference between the purchase intentions of customers towards the three brands of fridge.


40

Therefore null hypothesis was rejected, indicating that the purchase intension of customers for

the three brands is different.

Table-16: POST-HOC TEST APPLIED ON THE CUSTOMERS PURCHASE

INTENTION DATA ON ALL THE THREE BRANDS UNDER STUDY


Purchase Intention

Tukey HSD

(I)

BrandName

(J)

BrandName

Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.


Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

1 2 -1.56000 1.96585 .708 -6.2145 3.0945

3 -15.14000* 1.96585 .000 -19.7945 -10.4855

2 1 1.56000 1.96585 .708 -3.0945 6.2145

3 -13.58000* 1.96585 .000 -18.2345 -8.9255

3 1 15.14000* 1.96585 .000 10.4855 19.7945

2 13.58000* 1.96585 .000 8.9255 18.2345

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Post hoc test was applied to check whether there is a difference between the purchase intentions

of customers taking two brands at a time. It was found that the difference between brand one

(Godrej) and brand two (LG) was insignificant whereas a significant difference was found in the

purchase intentions of brand one (Godrej) and brand three (Whirlpool) as well as brand two (LG)

and brand three (Whirlpool).

Multiple Regressions

Multiple regressions were carried out between Country of Origin, Brand Image and Purchase

Intention taking Country of Origin and Brand Image as independent variables and Purchase

Intention as dependent variable. The result of multiple regressionswas as indicated below:

Null hypothesis H0 (4): There is no significant effect of country of origin and brand image on

purchase intention

TABLE – 17: MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS APPLIED BETWEEN BRAND IMAGE AND

COO AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND PURCHASE INTENSION AS

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson

1 .486a .236 .226 10.47881 1.336

a. Predictors: (Constant), Brand Image, COO

b. Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention


41



DEPENDENT VARIABLE

ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 4995.370 2 2497.685 22.746 .000a

Residual 16141.403 147 109.805

Total 21136.773 149

a. Predictors: (Constant), Brand Image, COO




DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Coefficients

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

T Sig. Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 20.408 3.405 5.994 .000

COO -.152 .051 -.218 -

2.978

.003 .966 1.035

BrandImage .297 .046 .477 6.498 .000 .966 1.035

a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention

Y= a + bx + cx

Y= 20.408 +(-.152)x + .297x

Where,

X= Country of Origin and Brand Image (independent variable)

Y= Purchase Intention (dependent variable)

The model having Country of Origin and Brand Image as independent variable and Purchase

Intention as dependent variable has good fit as indicated by F-test value which is 22.746

significant at .000 level of significance. The result of regression table from the coefficient table

indicates that Country of Origin has a negative cause and effect relationship with purchase

intentions of customers having beta value of -.218 tested through t-test value of -2.978 which is

significant at .003 level of significance indicating a significant effect of country of origin on

purchase intention, whereas Brand Image has significant cause and effect relationship with

Purchase Intention having beta values of -.218 and .477 tested through t-test having t-value of -

2.978 and 6.498 which is significant at .003 and .000 level of significance

The model summary table indicates that Country of Origin and Brand Image in combination has

22.6% effect on Purchase Intention since the adjusted r square value of table is .226.Therefore

null hypothesis was rejected.


42

Linear Regression Country of Origin and Customer Purchase Intentions

Where Country of Origin is taken as independent variable and Customer purchase intentions is

taken as dependent variable

Null hypothesis H0 (5): There is no significant effect of country of origin on purchase intention

Table–20: SIMPLE REGRESSION APPLIED BETWEEN COO USED AS

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE AND PURCHASE INTENTION AS DEPENDENT

VARIABLE

Model Summary

Model R R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

Durbin-

Watson

1 .130a .017 .010 11.84864 1.010

a. Predictors: (Constant), COO


Table – 21: SIMPLE REGRESSION APPLIED BETWEEN COO USED AS


VARIABLE

Table – 22: SIMPLE REGRESSION APPLIED BETWEEN COO USED AS


VARIABLE

Coefficients


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity

Statistics


1 (Constant) 36.966 2.554 14.476 .000

COO -.091 .057 -.130 -1.599 .112 1.000 1.000


Y= a+ bx

Y= 13.544 + .889x

Where,

ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean

Square

F Sig.

1 Regression 359.007 1 359.007 2.557 .112a

Residual 20777.767 148 140.390

Total 21136.773 149

a. Predictors: (Constant), COO



43

X= Country of Origin (independent variable) and Y= Purchase Intention (dependent variable)

The model having country of origin as independent variable and purchase intention as dependent

variable has bad fit as indicated by F-test value which is 2.557significant at .112 level of

significance. The result of regression table from the coefficient table indicates that country of

origindoes not have a cause and effect relationship with purchase intention having beta value of -

.130 tested through t-test having t-value of -1.599 which is significant at .112 level of

significance.

The model summary table indicates that country of origin has only 1.7% effect on purchase

intention since the r square value of table is .017 which means country of origin does not have a

significant impact on purchase intentions. Therefore null hypothesis was accepted.

Linear regression between Brand Image and Purchase Intentions

Brand image is taken as independent variable and Purchase Intentions is taken as dependent

variable

Null hypothesis H0 (6): There is no significant effect of brand image on purchase intention

Table – 23:SIMPLE REGRESSION APPLIED BETWEEN BRAND IMAGE AS

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE AND PURCHASE INTENTIONS AS DEPENDENT

VARIABLE

Model Summary

Model R R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

Durbin-

Watson

1 .436a .190 .185 10.75379 1.278

a. Predictors: (Constant), BrandImage

b. Dependent Variable: PurchaseIntention



VARIABLE



VARIABLE

ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 4021.465 1 4021.465 34.775 .000a

Residual 17115.308 148 115.644

Total 21136.773 149

a. Predictors: (Constant), Brand Image



44

Coefficients


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity

Statistics


1 (Constant) 15.694 3.094 5.073 .000

BrandImage .271 .046 .436 5.897 .000 1.000 1.000


Y= a+ bx

Y= 13.544 + .889x

Where,

X= Brand Image (independent variable)

Y= Purchase Intention (dependent variable)

The model having brand Image as independent variable and Purchase Intention as dependent

variable has good fit as indicated by F-test value which is 34.775 significant at .000 level of

significance. The result of regression table from the coefficient table indicates that brand image

has very high cause and effect relationship with purchase intention having beta value of .436

tested through t-test having t-value of 5.897 which is significant at .000 level of significance.

The model summary table indicates that brand image has 19% effect on purchase intention since

the r square value of table is .19. Therefore null hypothesis was rejected.

CONCLUSION

Questionnaires on Country of Origin, Brand Image and Purchase Intention were developed and

standardized using item to total correlation, reliability and factor analysis. One way ANOVA

was applied to check difference between country of origin image, brand image and purchase

intentions of customers towards all the three brands of fridge i.e. Godrej, LG and Whirlpool.

The results of one way ANOVA indicated a significant difference between country of origin

image and purchase intentions of customers of all the threefridge brands where as no significant

difference was found between the brand images of all the three fridge brands. Multiple

regression was applied to check theeffect of country of origin and brand image on purchase

intention and it was found that brand image has a significant effect on purchase intentions and

country of origin has a negative effect on purchase intention and which is significant when

country of origin is taken along with brand image.

Linear regression was applied to find out individual effect of country of origin and brand image

on purchase intention and it was found that country of origin has a negative cause and effect

relationship with purchase intention and the effect was insignificant and brand image has a

significant and positive cause and effect relationship with purchase intention.

Finally, from the results we can conclude that country of origin can negatively affect the

purchase intention of a customer while buying a fridge and the effect becomes significant when


45

country of origin is evaluated along with brand image at the same time.Alsoit was found that

brand image positively affects the purchase intentions of a customer while buying a fridge

therefore all thecompanies should concentrate on building a positive and strong brand image of

their brands in the minds of customers so that the country of origin cannot affect the purchase

intentions of a customer while buying a fridge.

REFERENCES

Aaker DA (1991),Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Nam,. New

York: Free Press, 1991.

Acharya, C.; R. Cameron and G. Elliot (1994),An Empirical Investigation of Consumer

Ethnocentrism in Australia, Proceedings of ASBBS, Vol. 17, No. 1.

Ahmed, S.A. and A. d‟Astous (2004), Perceptions of Countries as Producers of Consumer

Goods: A T-Shirt Study in China,Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 8,

No. 2,187-200.

Akaah, I. P. and Korgaonkar, P. K. (1988), A Conjoint Investigation of the Relative

Importance of RiskRelievers in Direct Marketing, Journal of Advertising Research 28 (4),

38-44.

Al-Sulaiti, K and Bakar, M. J. (1998), “Country of Origin effects: a literature

review”,Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 16 No. 13.

BIkely, W.J. and Nes, E. (1982), Country of Origin Effects on Product Evaluations, Journal

of International Business Studies, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp 131-141.

Bloemer J, Brijs K, Kasper H. (2009), The COO-ELM Model: A Theoretical Framework for

the CognitiveProcesses Underlying Country Of Origin-Effects,European Journal of

Marketing, 43(1–2):62–89.

Cateora, P.R. and Graham, J. L, (1999), International Marketing, 10th,

Edition, Irwin:

McGraw-Hill.

Chao, Paul (2001), “The Moderating Effects of Country of Assembly, Country of Parts, and

the Country of Design on Hybrid Product Evaluations”,Journal of Advertising 30(4): 67-82.

Dichter E. (1962), The World Customer,Harvard Business Review, 40, 1962, p.113–22

[July–August].

Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T. and Blackwell, R. D. (1984),Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed., New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Erickson GM, Johansson JK, Chao P. (1984), Image Variables in Multi-AttributeProduct

Evaluations: Country-Of-Origin Effects,Journal of Consumer Research, 11:694 – 9

(September).


46

Fabris G., (1999), TowardsNew Patterns of Consumption, inVaraldoR.(eds.), Marketingin

thetwenty-first century,Challenges for the newcentury,Gueriniand Associates,Milan.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975),Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction

to Theory and Research, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Fornari D. (1995),The New Dimensions ofConsumption PatternsinItaly, in “Trade Marketing

No. 15.

Gaedeke R. (1973), Consumer Attitudes Toward Products „„Made in‟‟

DevelopingCountries,Journal of Retail, 49(2):13 – 24 (Summer).

Grewal, Dhruv, Krishnan, R. Baker, Julie and Borin, Norm (1998), The Effect of Store

Name, Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers‟ Evaluations and Purchase

Intentions, Journal of Retailing 74 (3), 331-352.

Heslop, L. A., Liefeld, J. and M, Wall (1987), An Experimental Study of the Impact of COO

Information,in R. Turner (ed.), Proceedings of the annual conference of the administrative

sciences association of Canada, 8, 179-85.

Hong S-T, Wyer RS. (1990), Effects of Country-Of-Origin and Product-

AttributeInformation on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective,Journal

of Consumer Research, 16:175 – 87 (September).

Johansson JK, Douglas SP, Nonaka I. (1985), Assessing the impact of country oforigin on

product evaluations: a new methodological perspective,Journal Marketing Research, 22:388

– 96 (November).

Keller K. L. (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring, Managing Customer-Based Brand

Equity,The Journal of Marketing,57(1):1-22.

Kim CK, Chung JY (1997), Brand Popularity, CountryImage and Market Share: An

Empirical Studies,Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2): 361-386.

Li, Zhan G, L William Murray, and Don Scott (2000), "Global Sourcing, Multiple Country-

Of-Origin Facets, and Consumer Reactions",Journal of Business Research, 47 (2): 121-33.

Kleppe, Ingeborg Astrid, Nina Marianne Iversen and Inger G. Stensaker (2002),”Country

Images in Marketing Strategies,Conceptual Issues and an Empirical Asian

Illustration”,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, 61-74, (Authors contributed

equally).

Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. andWong, V. (1996), Principles of Marketing, The

European Edition, Prentice-Hall, HemelHempstead, p. 556.

Kotler, Philip (2000),Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and

Control, 10th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.


47

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L., and Mourali, M (2005), “Country Image

Structure and its Influence on Consumer Evaluations of Foreign Products,” International

Marketing Review, 22 (1), 96-115.

Li, J., F.L. Liu, X. Liu and J. Murphy (2007), English and Chinese: The Role of Consumer

Ethnocentrism and Country of Origin in Chinese Attitudes towards Store Signs,Australian

Marketing Journal 14(2), 5-16.

Maznah Ghazali, M. Said Othman, A. Zahiruddin Yahya and M. Sarif Ibrahim, “Products

and Country of Origin Effects: The Malaysian Consumers‟ Perception”. International

Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 4 No.2 March 2008 Pp.91-102

Nebenzahl I.D., Jaffe´ E.D., Lampert S.I., (1997), “Towards A Theory of Country

ImageEffect on Product Evaluation”, Management International Review, 37, pp. 27–49.

Papadopoulos N. (1993), What Product and Country Images are and are Not,inPapadopoulos

N, Heslop LA, editors,Product-country images: impact and role in international marketing,

New York: Haworth Press, 1993.p. 3 – 38.

Rao, Akshay R. and Monroe, Kent B. (1988), The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on

Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2), 253-264.

Richardson, Paul S., Dick, Alan S. and Jain, Arun K. (1994), Extrinsic and Extrinsic Cue

Effect on Perceptions of Store Brand Quality, Journal of Marketing Research 58 (4), 28-36.

Schooler, R.D. (1971), 'Bias Phenomena: Attendant to the Marketing of Foreign Goods inthe

US', Journal of International Business Studies, 21: 71-80.

Soumava Bandyopadhyay and Anwar, Syed Tariq, (2000), Product Country-Of-Origin

Perceptions of Consumers in Pakistan, Southwestern Marketing Association, San Antonio,

Texas March 15-18, 2000.

Stanton, W. J., Michael J. E, and Bruce J. W. (1994),Fundamentals in Marketing, 10th ed.

New Delhi: McGraw-Hill.

Thakor, M. V. and Katsanis, L. P. (1997), A Model of Brand and Country Effects on Quality

Dimensions: Issues and Implications, Journal of International Consumer Marketing 9 (3),

79-100.

YI CAI (1994) Athens, Georgia (2002), “Country-Of-Origin Effects on Consumers'

Willingness to Buy Foreign Products: An Experiment in Consumer Decision Making”, A

Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia, Athens.

Relationship between Country of Origin, Brand Image and Customer Purchase Intentions

Documents

Transcript of Relationship between Country of Origin, Brand Image and Customer Purchase Intentions