The Effect of Global Company Animosity on Global Brand Attitudes in Emerging and Developed Markets:...

The Effect of Global Company Animosity on Global Brand Attitudesin Emerging and Developed Markets:Does Perceived Value Matter?Dana L. Alden, James B. Kelley, Petra Riefler, Julie A. Lee, and Geoffrey N. Soutar

ABSTRACTCountry-level animosity effects on foreign products from disliked countries are fairly well understood, but little isknown about the role of global company animosity (GCA). Such understanding is important in a world increasinglydominated by global brands that are rapidly losing their associations with individual countries. This study proposes anomological net that features GCA and perceived value of global brands (PVGB) as “dual process antecedents” toglobal brand attitudes and mediators of four relevant exogenous constructs (consumer ethnocentrism and localismthrough GCA and cosmopolitanism and materialism through PVGB). Using nonstudent consumers, the authors testthe model in three diverse national markets ranging from emerging to developed: Brazil, South Korea, and Germany.The results show support for the importance of PVGB as a counterbalance to GCA in Brazil and Germany. The domi-nance of the PVGB path in South Korea is due to the country’s unique socioeconomic milieu. Although replication iswarranted, international marketing managers should benefit from strategic consideration of the antecedents and path-ways from GCA and PVGB to global brand attitudes.

Keywords: global brands, animosity, materialism, cosmopolitanism

Events such as BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexicoheighten policy makers’ and consumers’ concernsabout the adverse impacts of global companies on

local communities (e.g., Cherry and Sneirson 2011).Attitudes toward BP turned negative overnight, creat-ing a rapid-fire backlash that culminated in boycotts of

BP’s retail outlets. Such boycotts are an extreme exam-ple of how consumer animosity toward a global com-pany can affect brand sales. Indeed, many globalbrands face strong opposition from some consumerssimply because they are global (e.g., Dimofte, Johans-son, and Ronkainen 2008). Despite the potential impor-tance of company-level consumer animosity effects, todate international marketing research seems to havemodeled animosity as a country-level construct (e.g.,Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998; Riefler and Diaman-topoulos 2007).Country-level animosity remains a pow-erful and relevant construct. However, growing numbersof firms produce and market in multiple regions aroundthe world. As a result, consumers are increasingly less

Journal of International Marketing

©2013, American Marketing Association

Vol. 21, No. 2, 2013, pp. 17–38

ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)

The Effect of Global Company Animosity 17

Dana L. Alden is William R. Johnson Jr. Distinguished Professor ofMarketing, Shidler College of Business, University of Hawai‘i atManoa (e-mail: [email protected]). James B. Kelley is AssistantProfessor of Marketing, Haub School of Business, Saint Joseph’s Uni-versity (e-mail: [email protected]). Petra Riefler is Assistant Professor inInternational Marketing, Department of International Marketing,University of Vienna (e-mail: [email protected]). Julie A. Leeis Winthrop Professor (e-mail: [email protected]), and GeoffreyN. Soutar is Winthrop Professor (e-mail: [email protected]),Business School, University of Western Australia. The study wasundertaken as part of an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant,in conjunction with Tourism Western Australia. Additional supportwas provided by the William R. Johnson Jr. Distinguished Professor-ship, Shidler College of Business, University of Hawai’i.

18 Journal of International Marketing

likely to strongly associate global or regional brandswith specific nations. Indeed, only 22% of a sample ofU.S. respondents could accurately name a foreignbrand’s country of origin, and only 49% identified theirown country as the origin of several well-known U.S.brands (Samiee, Shimp, and Sharma 2005). In additionto a general weakening of country-of-origin associationsfor many global brands, strong consumer concernsabout the homogenization of consumer choice, associ-ated with the perceived destruction and/or dominationof the “local” by global companies and their brands,have emerged in several studies (e.g., Alden, Steenkamp,and Batra 2006; Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2008;Thompson and Arsel 2004). Such concerns are likely tofuel additional animosity directed toward the firmsthemselves as agents of perceived negative change.Given these trends, international marketing managersshould benefit from a more detailed understanding ofthe antecedents to and consequences of global companyanimosity (GCA).

To this end, this study examines the role of GCA in abroader nomological net of antecedents that predictconsumer global brand attitude (GBA). In particular, wemodel GCA as an endogenous antecedent to GBA, alongwith a second endogenous predictor, the perceived valueof global brands (PVGB). Whereas GCA emphasizesresentful thoughts and feelings of anger toward globalcompanies, PVGB focuses on beliefs about the deliveredperformance of global brands. We hypothesize that twosocial normative antecedents, consumer ethnocentrismand localism, amplify GCA. At the same time, we pre-dict that two identity-based variables, materialism andconsumer cosmopolitanism, positively affect PVGB.

The proposed model is grounded in cognitive–affectiveprocessing system (CAPS) theory (Fleeson and Noftle2009; Mischel 2004), according to which people main-tain relatively stable if–then contingencies. Over time,they tend to access similar contingencies in similar situa-tions, which results in patterns of consistent responses.These contingencies are referred to as cognitive–affectiveunits, and they include “representations of the self,people, and situations, goals, expectations–beliefs, feel-ing states, as well as memories of people and pastevents” (Mischel 2004, p. 11). Accessibility is a key con-struct in the CAPS model because a person’s ease ofaccessibility to a given representation frequently pre-dicts attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Scholars ininternational marketing have suggested similar theoreti-cal perspectives. For example, in their study on attitudestoward alternative brand positioning strategies, Nijssen

and Douglas (2011, p. 117) suggest that consumers holdboth ethnocentric and world-mindedness attitudes“simultaneously” and that these “may compete orsoften each other to some degree.” Building on Nijssenand Douglas’s work, we argue that consumers may haveboth GCA and PVGB cognitive–affective units and that,depending on accessibility, their relative influence onGBA will differ. Furthermore, we suggest that relativeaccessibility to GCA or PVGB will depend, in part, onthe extent to which consumers are chronically influ-enced by social normative concerns (consumer ethno-centrism and localism) or self-identity issues (material-ism and cosmopolitanism).

Given the global focus of the proposed model, Study 1employs representative samples from three culturallyand economically diverse countries (Brazil, SouthKorea, and Germany). The results of Study 1 supportthe focal relationship between GCA and GBA in two ofthe three markets. The absence of a significantly nega-tive relationship between the two constructs in SouthKorea suggests a boundary condition for the model inthe case of newly developed countries whose nationalfirms have achieved prominence as global companies.To further investigate this possibility, Study 2 comparesSouth Korean consumers in the chronic GCA condition(similar to Study 1) with a group primed with informa-tion designed to increase GCA. The results of Study 2further clarify the relationships in the proposed modeland suggest the importance of considering moderatingfactors in additional research involving GCA and GBA.

Overall, this research contributes to extant knowledgeby (1) proposing an extension of country-level ani-mosity to include GCA as an endogenous antecedent toGBA, (2) examining two sets of exogenous antecedentsthat reflect social normative concerns (consumer ethno-centrism and localism) and self-identity influences(materialism and cosmopolitanism) on GBA, (3) provid-ing evidence of GCA and PVGB as mediators of the nor-mative and identity antecedents to GBA, and (4) offer-ing insights into cross-national similarities anddifferences regarding GCA as an antecedent to GBA. Inaddition to these theoretical contributions, this investi-gation offers practical guidance on how internationalmarketers can reduce negative GCA effects through theeffective management of competing consumption-relevant antecedents to GBA, such as the PVGB.

In the following sections, we review the relevant litera-ture on GBA, introduce the concepts of GCA andPVGB, and present hypotheses about the relationships


in the proposed model. We then report the results of twostudies in which we examine the model and a possibleboundary condition. Finally, we discuss the theoreticaland managerial implications.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUNDGBA

Prior research suggests that widely available and highlyrecognized global brands have several competitiveadvantages over local brands, including more positiveaffect, higher perceived quality, greater esteem, andglobal myth appeal (e.g., Dimofte, Johansson, andBagozzi 2010). Such effects may be particularly strongin developing country markets (Batra et al. 2000). Inaddition, consumers with positive global consumptionorientations seem to hold more favorable attitudestoward global brands (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra2006). At the same time, several scholars have notedvariation in consumer attitudes toward global brandsaround the world (Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen2008; Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004), which may bedue to the growing confusion about brands’ local ornonlocal origin (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2008;Samiee, Shimp, and Sharma 2005; Zhou, Yang, and Hui2010). Other factors may also contribute to changingattitudes toward global brands. For example, Riefler(2012) finds that consumers’ attitudes toward economicglobalization affected their attitudes toward Coca-Colathrough perceived product quality. Consumers withnegative attitudes toward economic globalizationtended to degrade quality perceptions, which in turndecreased their brand attitudes.

As we noted previously, the proposed model hypothe-sizes that GBAs are influenced by the relative accessi-bility of negative, normatively driven GCA versus posi-tive, identity-driven PVGB. Thus, the model reflects agrowing theme in the literature about the likelihood ofcompeting influences on consumer attitudes towardglobal brands (Nijssen and Douglas 2011; Steenkamp,Batra, and Alden 2003; Steenkamp and De Jong 2010;Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010).

Consumer Animosity and GCA

Klein, Ettenson, and Morris (1998) refer to consumer ani-mosity as a country-level construct. Several studies havefound that negative feelings associated with a given coun-try’s political, economic, and social past reduce some con-sumers’ willingness to purchase products from that coun-

try (e.g., Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2007). In recentyears, the focus of consumer animosity studies has shiftedfrom investigating overall effects on products made in aspecific country to examining the effects on individualbrands associated with the target country. For example,Russell and Russell (2010) find that McDonald’s andCoca-Cola suffered more severely from consumer ani-mosity toward the United States than other U.S. brands.Funk et al. (2010) investigate brand-related animositytoward Toyota when it shifted production from Canadato India and Iran. They find a negative impact of Cana-dian consumer animosity toward India and Iran onpeople’s willingness to purchase Toyota products. In sum-mary, these studies tie brands to country-specific feelings.

The current study aims to broaden existing perspectivesof consumer animosity to negative thoughts and feelingsassociated with global companies in general. In thisvein, we model GCA as a generalized subjective norm(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) that is independent of indi-vidual companies or brands. As we discuss subsequently,GCA is influenced by normative beliefs (i.e., consumerethnocentrism and consumer localism). Thus, an impor-tant difference between prior research on consumer ani-mosity (Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998) and the cur-rent study is that GCA does not refer to a specificcountry or company. Rather, GCA serves as a broaderconstruct that reflects a latent set of beliefs and feelingsassociated with global companies in general. Becauseoverall attitudes toward global companies, as relativelyconcrete symbols of globalization (Alden, Steenkamp,and Batra 2006), may influence consumers’ evaluationsof global brands, investigating the GCA construct at amore abstract level is important.

The PVGB

Zeithaml (1988, p. 14) defines perceived value as a“consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of product(or service) based on perceptions of what is receivedand what is given.” When accessing brand knowledge,consumers make inferences about the tangible (qualityand value for money) and intangible (prestige andsocial value) aspects of the brands’ or products’ attrib-utes compared with other brands (Özsomer and Altaras2008). For example, in the United States, consumersperceive Honda as high in quality and a good value forthe money, which results in strong cognitively groundedperceived value (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000).Aaker (1996, p. 111) notes that brand value reflects abrand’s success in creating a “value proposition” andoperationalizes the construct with measures of whether


the brand provides “good value for the money” and “areason to buy this brand over others.” While Aakeralso refers to the high correlation between perceivedquality and value, he distinguishes between them byreferring to the “functional benefits” and “practicalutility” inherent in the value construct. To date, mostglobal researchers have emphasized “perceived quality”rather than value (e.g., Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden2003).

Studies modeling “perceived value” of global brands areless frequent. One notable exception is Zhou, Yang, andHui’s (2010) study, which uses a multidimensionaloperationalization of brand value that includes per-ceived quality, perceived brand leadership, and per-ceived brand signaling value. However, this study mod-els the construct as an outcome measure in the contextof perceived brand foreignness. Furthermore, the inclu-sion of a perceived quality dimension in the study sug-gests the potential of modeling the construct as anantecedent to GBA and in a manner more consistentwith Aaker’s (1996) conceptualization of brand value.Thus, in the current study, we define PVGB in terms ofconsumer perceptions of the category’s overall value forthe money and social signaling value.

Compared with GCA, which reflects cognitive–affectiveunits that contain thoughts and feelings of resentment

toward producers of global brands, PVGB reflects cognitive–affective units that feature thoughts about theutility of the brands produced by companies. Thus, indi-vidual consumers are likely to have both types of cognitive–affective units and the degree of competition,and therefore the “softening” (Nijssen and Douglas 2011)of their relative influence on GBA is likely to vary acrossconsumers, depending on other exogenous antecedents.For example, as we discuss in detail in the next section, theproposed model hypothesizes that PVGB is influenced bycognitive–affective units related to consumers’ self-identities (i.e., consumer materialism and cosmopoli-tanism), whereas GCA is influenced by cognitive–affectiveunits associated with consumers’ social normtive values(i.e., consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism).

HYPOTHESES

The proposed model (see Figure 1) aims to advance cur-rent knowledge of GBA by investigating the parallelimpact of social norms versus identity-based beliefs.This model specifies GCA and PVGB as two focalvariables that directly affect consumers’ GBAs andmediate the effects of other antecedent variables. Fur-thermore, in line with CAPS theory (Fleeson and Noftle2009; Mischel 2004), the nomological net investigatesthe effects of relative accessibility to GCA and PVGB on

Figure 1. Proposed Model!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

LOC

CET

MAT

COS

PVGB

GCA

GBA

H1 (–)

H4 (+)

H3 (+)

H2 (+)

H5 (+)

H6 (+)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

1 (

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!


consumers’ GBAs. We expect that heightened chronicaccessibility (i.e., void of any specific context) to GCAdecreases GBA whereas heightened chronic accessibilityto PVGB increases GBA. We include the individual dif-ference constructs (consumer ethnocentrism and local-ism) as relevant antecedents to heightened accessibilityto negative subjective norms regarding global compa-nies (i.e., stronger GCA). In contrast, consumer materi-alism and cosmopolitanism represent relevant identity-based predictors of heightened accessibility to positivePVGB (i.e., higher PVGB). In turn, GCA (PVGB) shouldlead to more negative (positive) GBA.

GCA as a Direct Antecedent to GBA

Prior research has found differences between globalfirms’ marketing of their corporate image and theirglobal brands. For example, Sony’s corporate brandingcommunicates a general set of values, whereas Sony’sbranding of VAIO laptop computers focuses on productfeatures (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000; Hatch andSchultz 2003; Schultz and De Chernatony 2002). AsBalmer and Gray (2003, p. 992) argue, “corporatebrands are crucially different from product brands interms of their composition, constituencies, maintenance,management as well as disciplinary roots.” Global com-panies use macro strategies to manage their corporatebrands and draw on their economic, management, andmarketing practices, whereas global brand strategiesfocus on the consumer. Consequently, global companyattitudes and GBAs are distinct but related constructs.

Research has also found positive relationships betweenattitudes toward global companies and their brands.Kim and Chan-Olmsted (2005) report a significant cor-relation between consumer attitudes toward Sony as anorganization and their attitudes toward the company’sbrands. Because research typically models general atti-tudes (in this context, generalized animosity towardglobal companies) as antecedents to more specific atti-tudes (e.g., attitude toward Nike; Fishbein and Ajzen1975), stronger GCA should negatively influence atti-tudes toward global brands. This expectation is sup-ported by the associative model of memory (Anderson1983; Keller 1993; Wyer and Srull 1986), which sug-gests that affect transfer from generalized GCA to globalbrands negatively influences evaluations.

Finally, Ang et al. (2004) note that GCA can arise frommultiple sources, which can be both personal or collec-tive and short or long term—for example, negative per-sonal experiences (e.g., frustration arising from a desire

for global company products but an inability to pur-chase due to higher prices) and negative collective expe-riences (e.g., the dissemination of unfavorable news sto-ries regarding poor working conditions in globalcompanies’ production facilities in the country orregion). In the long run, country animosity rises andfalls (Ettenson and Klein 2005), and thus GCA likelyfollows a similar pattern. At its most extreme, high GCAmay lead to calls for a boycott. Such calls are more fre-quent than might be assumed. John and Klein (2003)estimate that 42% of Fortune 50 companies have expe-rienced a boycott call for one or more of their products.Thus, consumers’ responses to the GCA construct mayreflect a cognitive–affective unit comprised of multipleand varying types of global company interactions. Tothe extent that these interactions include unfavorableassociations and affect, GCA should negatively affectattitudes toward brands widely known as produced byglobal companies. Thus:

H1: Stronger GCA leads to more negative attitudestoward global brands.

GCA as a Mediator of Consumer Ethnocentrism

Consumer ethnocentrism reflects “beliefs held by con-sumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, ofpurchasing foreign made products” (Shimp and Sharma1987, p. 280). Consumer ethnocentrism and consumeranimosity are distinct constructs because they are theresult of different motivations (Klein 2002; Klein andEttenson 1999; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998;Witkowski 2000). People high in consumer animositychoose not to purchase goods from a specific country orculture because of past events, such as wars or economichistories, whereas people high in ethnocentrism choosenot to purchase foreign products in general because theybelieve such products threaten their county’s livelihood(Shimp and Sharma 1987).

Prior research has found that animosity toward specificcountries is positively related to consumer ethnocen-trism (Jiménez and San Martín 2010; Nijssen and Dou-glas 2004). Thus, we expect a similar pattern for con-sumer ethnocentrism and GCA. Consumers who aregenerally opposed to foreign-produced productsbecause of concerns about their country’s welfare andtheir livelihoods are likely to view global companies,which produce in multiple foreign locations and markettheir brands to many countries, as part of the overalleconomic challenge their local community faces from


globalization. For this reason, consumers with higherconsumer ethnocentrism are also likely to displaystronger animosity toward global companies. Thus:

H2: Higher consumer ethnocentrism leads to lesspositive GBAs by increasing GCA.

GCA as a Mediator of Localism

Localism is an individual difference factor that character-izes consumers who have strong emotional ties to andpositive attitudes toward their local community (Allen andMeyer 1996; Merton 1957). Localists have a strong senseof pride in their local community and tend to actively sup-port the maintenance of its core values, beliefs, and behav-iors (Cannon and Yaprak 2002; Yoon, Cannon, andYaprak 1996). In a consumer context, Riefler, Diaman-topoulos, and Siguaw (2012, p. 296) define consumerlocalism as “a consumer’s engagement and interest inlocal activities, events, and products.” In response to therapid globalization of markets, consumers have shown atrend toward relocalization, which emphasizes localembeddedness (Hines 2000). Given the revival of local-ism, the construct has recently regained attention inmarketing literature (e.g., Riefler, Diamantopoulos, andSiguaw 2012; Steenkamp and De Jong 2010). Thoughrelated, localism differs from consumer ethnocentrism.Localists may share ethnocentric consumers’ negativitytoward global companies but, presumably, for differentreasons, primarily because of concerns about the firms’potential disinterest in preserving the local cultureand/or environment. A sense of corporate “intrusion”may also increase feelings of community pride, resultingin more strongly felt animosity. This rationale suggeststhe following:

H3: Higher localism leads to less positive GBAs byincreasing GCA.

PVGB as a Direct Antecedent to GBA

To date, little research has directly examined the influ-ence of perceived value (PVGB) on GBA. As we notedpreviously, prior research has focused on perceivedquality rather than on perceived value as an antecedent(e.g., Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Zhou andWong (2008) find that perceived value significantlyaffects global brand purchase intentions for peoplewith low but not high tendencies toward social compli-ance. Although Zhou, Yang, and Hui (2010) include aperceived quality dimension in their operationalizationof brand value, the current study employs Aaker’s

(1996) theoretical perspective, which emphasizes theoverall value for the money and the social signalingvalue of global brands. This conceptualization differsfrom perceived quality because a brand may possesshigh levels of perceived quality but not be deemed asoffering good value for the money, but research indicat-ing a positive relationship between perceived qualityand evaluation suggests that PVGB likely plays a simi-lar role (Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008;Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Thus:

H4: Higher PVGB leads to higher GBA.

PVGB as a Mediator of Materialism

Materialism is “a set of centrally held beliefs about theimportance of possessions in one’s life … that guidespeople’s choices and conduct in a variety of situations,including, but not limited to, consumption arenas”(Richins and Dawson 1992, p. 308). Research hasfocused on the types of brands materialistic people pre-fer, including prestigious, luxurious, and global brands(Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Rindfleisch, Bur-roughs, and Wong 2009). This suggests that material-istic consumers will perceive higher value associatedwith global brands and that this perception will medi-ate their attitudes toward these brands (Holt, Quelch,and Taylor 2004; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003).Thus:

H5: Higher materialism leads to more positiveGBAs by increasing PVGB.

PVGB as a Mediator of Cosmopolitanism

A cosmopolitan is “an open-minded individual whoseconsumption orientation transcends particular cultures,localities or communities and who appreciates diversityincluding trying products and services from a variety ofcountries” (Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009, p. 415).Cosmopolitan consumers do not eschew global con-sumer culture or global products but appreciate theiravailability as one of many diverse options (Cannon andYaprak 2002; Hannerz 1992; Holt, Quelch, and Taylor2004; Thompson and Tambyah 1999). However, cos-mopolitanism does not necessarily lead to a preferencefor global brands. As Hannerz (1990) notes, cosmopoli-tan consumers may search for the authentic, resulting insome cosmopolitans challenging global brands (Thomp-son and Arsel 2004). Yoon, Cannon, and Yaprak (1996)also suggest that consumers can be globally oriented,locally oriented, or both. Today’s global companies


rarely intend to impose standardized sameness on localconsumers. Rather, they attempt to hybridize and offernew and interesting combinations of global and localproducts (Steenkamp and De Jong 2010). As a result,although cosmopolitans’ embrace of the diverse maylead to concerns about homogenization, we expect thathigh cosmopolitans (vs. low cosmopolitans) appreciateglobal companies’ innovativeness (e.g., Apple’s iPad)and therefore perceive relatively higher value, leading tomore positive GBAs. Thus:

H6: Higher cosmopolitanism leads to more posi-tive GBAs by increasing PVGB.

Possible Cross-National Differences in theHypothesized Framework

We examined the proposed model in three culturallyand economically different countries (Brazil, Ger-many, and South Korea). Brazil is an emerging econ-omy with a predominantly Latin culture. Residentshave relatively low disposable income (gross domesticproduct [GDP] per capita was $12,594 in 2011;World Bank 2013) and, potentially, less exposure toglobal companies. Germany is a highly developedcountry with a Western European culture. Residentshave relatively high disposable incomes (GDP percapita was $44,060 in 2011; World Bank 2013).South Korea is a newly developed country with anEast Asian culture. Residents have medium to highdisposable incomes (GDP per capita was $22,424 in2011; World Bank 2013). The countries differ sub-stantially on Hofstede’s (1980) well-known culturalvalue dimensions. In combination, these differencesenable a strong test of the proposed model’s externalvalidity. However, such contrasts also imply the possi-bility of varying outcomes.

As the least developed national market of the three,Brazil most closely resembles developing country mar-kets, in which prior research has consistently found rela-tionships between GBA and antecedents such as per-ceived quality, materialism, cosmopolitanism, localism,and consumer ethnocentrism (e.g., Batra et al. 2000;Cleveland and Laroche 2007; Steenkamp, Batra, andAlden 2003). Furthermore, from the previously citedresearch (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Thomp-son and Arsel 2004), we do not find it unreasonable toconjecture that GCA is relatively more pervasive inBrazil than in Germany or South Korea. For these rea-sons, the proposed model should be most strongly sup-ported in Brazil.

Germany is the wealthiest and most highly developed ofthe three countries and is one of the world’s most inter-national countries, ranking 18th on globalization (KOFSwiss Economic Institute 2011). Furthermore, Germanconsumers are continually exposed to global and regional“mediascapes” (Appadurai 1996). An estimated 67% ofcitizens can hold a conversation in a foreign language(Directorate General Press and Communication 2006),and they are among the most frequent travelers to othercountries (Mintel Oxygen 2011). Such high levels ofexposure to global and foreign stimuli may produce lowervariation in one or more of the model’s related exogenousindividual difference factors (e.g., cosmopolitanism andlocalism) and therefore lead to nonsignificant paths to theendogenous mediators. However, in light of recentresearch that continues to find consumer ethnocentrismeffects in highly developed countries, such as the Nether-lands (Nijssen and Douglas 2011), at least one individualdifference factor (consumer ethnocentrism) is likely tohave strong predictive validity in Germany.

Finally, South Korea has witnessed the rapid growth and dominance of large multinational corporations(MNCs), such as LG, Daewoo Hyundai, and Samsung.Such companies are a source of pride to many SouthKorean consumers (Yu, Pysarchik, and Suh 2005) andare likely to be top-of-mind when schema containingGBA is cued, diminishing the potential impact of GCAon GBA. In addition, enhanced accessibility to thesepositive attitudes may upwardly bias South Korean con-sumers’ assessments of global brand value. The effectsof such unique, nation-specific characteristics on path-ways in the proposed model are difficult to predict, butwe conjecture that they decrease the effect of GCA andincrease the effect of the PVGB on GBA.

STUDY 1: TESTING THE MODEL IN THREECOUNTRIESSample and Data CollectionWe collected data using online consumer panels, whichresulted in samples with similar age, gender, and incomedistributions. The samples comprised 206 consumers inBrazil (mean age 35 years; 50% female), 200 in Ger-many (mean age 39 years; 51% female), and 189 inSouth Korea (mean age 37 years; 51% female).

Procedure and Measures

We provide items used and scale measurement propertiesin Appendix A. Following Riefler and Diamantopoulos


(2007), we measured GCA with two reflective items (i.e.,“I do not like global companies,” and “I feel angry towardglobal companies”; see also Klein, Ettenson, and Morris1998; Sharma 2011). We measured PVGB by adaptingSweeney and Soutar’s (2001) and Dodds, Monroe, andGrewal’s (1991) scales to tap consumers’ perceptions offunctional (quality and value for money), social, and hedonic–experiential value associated with global brands.We measured cosmopolitanism using Cleveland andLaroche’s (2007) 11-item scale and consumer ethnocen-trism using the 10-item version of Shimp and Sharma’s(1987) CETSCALE. We measured materialism usingRichin’s (2004) 9-item scale and localism by adaptingAllen and Meyer’s (1996) affective organizational commit-ment scale (e.g., “I enjoy discussing my local communitywith people outside it”). In each case, the participantsresponded to a Likert-type scale ranging from “stronglydisagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). We used Interbrand’s(2010) “Annual Top 100 Global Brands Survey” to selectthree well-known global brands that originated in thethree major regional markets of the world (i.e., Nike,North America; Sony, Asia; and Nestlé, Europe). Weassessed attitudes toward these global brands with a 7-point single-item scale ranging from “negative” to “posi-tive.” The questionnaires were double-back-translatedfrom English to German, Portuguese, and Korean, andinconsistencies were resolved through discussion to ensuresimilarity of meaning by the translators and researchers.

Constructs’ Measurement Properties

Previous research has established the multidimensional-ity of perceived value in Australia (Sweeney and Soutar2001). However, similar analyses have not been under-taken in Germany, Brazil, or South Korea. In Germany,on the basis of the scree plot (60% variance explained)and the items’ communalities (.53 to .85), we retained asingle dimension.1 Confirmatory factor analysis led tothe deletion of some scale items. We also examined thefit of the retained items in Brazil and South Korea. AsTable 1 shows, fewer items did not appear to affect themeasurement of the latent construct; correlationsbetween the initial and revised scales ranged from .94 to1.00 (Thomas, Soutar, and Ryan 2001). We conductedsimilar analyses for all the study’s constructs. Therevised constructs fit the data well; most of the chi-square statistics were not significant in the three coun-tries (Hair et al. 2006). Furthermore, all the items’ load-ings were statistically significant, with the lowestloading (.66) suggesting that the constructs were unidi-mensional. In addition, the six constructs (Germany:materialism, PVGB, and GBA; South Korea: material-

ism, PVGB, and GBA) that had significant chi-squarestatistics also had acceptable fit on other generally usedindexes (Hair et al. 2006).

We assessed the constructs’ convergent and discrimi-nant validity by computing composite reliabilities andaverage variance extracted (AVE) scores (Fornell andLarcker 1981). As Table 2 shows, all the compositereliabili ties exceeded .70 (ranging from .76 to .94 inGermany, .70 to .92 in Brazil, and .71 to .92 in SouthKorea), suggesting that the constructs had good internalconsistency in all three countries. All but one of the con-structs had convergent validity; their AVE scores were.50 or greater (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Although theAVE score for GBA was .53 in Germany, .47 in Brazil,and .46 in South Korea, the construct had only threeitems; thus, it is reasonable to assume convergentvalidity in this case as well. Furthermore, in all the coun-tries, the squared correlations between construct pairs(.13, .20, and .44) were less than the smallest AVE score(.53, .47, and .46), suggesting that each construct alsohas discriminant validity in the three countries (Fornelland Larcker 1981).

This study uses a single survey to measure the independ-ent and dependent variables, and thus investigation ofcommon method variance (CMV) is important (Pod-sakoff et al. 2003). First, the use of a web-based surveyand respondent anonymity reduced the likelihood ofsocially desirable responses. Second, incorporation ofalternative item scale formats (e.g., Likert scales, seman-tic differentials, select-one options) further lessenedpotential of CMV. Podsakoff et al. (2003) also suggestthe use of Harman’s single-factor test, which involvesconducting an exploratory factor analysis with the sum-mated constructs under investigation. The test suggeststhat CMV is minimal if each construct loads separately,which was the case in this study.2

Measurement Invariance

Before estimating the model, we assessed measurementinvariance (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). AsTable 3 shows, all the constructs had full metric invari-ance, and all but three of the constructs had full factorvariance invariance. However, when the change in thechi-square statistic was significant (materialism, PVGB,and localism), the difference in comparative fit indexwas acceptable (less than .01; Cheung and Rensvold2002). This suggests that factor variance invariance canbe assumed across all three countries. According toSteenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), metric and factor


Tabl

e 1.

Good

ness

of F

it of

the

Mod

el’s

Cons

truct

s: G

erm

any,

Braz

il, a

nd S

outh

Kor

ea

Ger

man

yB

razi

lSo

uth

Kor

ea

Fina

lC

orre

lati

ons

Cor

rela

tion

sC

orre

lati

ons

Ori

gina

l #Se

t #

Fina

lw

ith

Fina

lw

ith

Fina

lw

ith

ofof

Chi

-Squ

are

Init

ial

Chi

-Squ

are

Init

ial

Chi

-Squ

are

Init

ial

Con

stru

ctIt

ems

Item

sSt

atis

tic

Prob

abili

tySc

ale

Stat

isti

cPr

obab

ility

Scal

eSt

atis

tic

Prob

abili

tySc

ale

CO

S11

54.

74.4

5.9

45.

50.3

7.9

512

.81

.03

.97

MAT

95

12.2

8.0

3.9

02.

19.8

2.9

417

.26

.00

.94

LO

C5

42.

91.2

3.9

71.

00.5

9.9

82.

00.3

7.9

9

CET

104

1.41

.49

.94

2.48

.29

.95

1.11

.57

.97

PVG

B14

618

.43

.03

.98

12.7

0.1

8.9

816

.35

.06

.96

GBA

a3

33.

87.0

51.

00.8

1.3

71.

003.

85.0

51.

00

GC

A2

2—

—1.

00—

—1.

00—

—1.

00

a Bec

ause

the

re w

ere

only

thr

ee it

ems,

tw

o of

the

err

or v

aria

nces

wer

e m

ade

equa

l to

prov

ide

the

degr

ee o

f fr

eedo

m n

eede

d to

exa

min

e go

odne

ss o

f fit.

Not

es: C

ET

= c

onsu

mer

eth

noce

ntri

sm, L

OC

= lo

calis

m, M

AT =

mat

eria

lism

, and

CO

S =

cosm

opol

itan

ism

.


variance invariance is necessary to compare standard-ized path coefficients across samples of consumers.

Model Fit

Model fit in the three countries was acceptable: Germany(c2(338) = 565.140, p < .05; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] =.93; comparative fit index [CFI] = .93, standardized rootmean square residual [SRMR] = .07; root mean squareerror of approximation [RMSEA] = .06), Brazil (c2(338) =461.25, p < .05; TLI = .96; CFI = .96, SRMR = .06;RMSEA = .04), and South Korea (c2(338) = 553.58, p <.005; TLI = .93; CFI = .94, SRMR = .08; RMSEA = .06).

Consequently, we examined relationship generalizabilityacross the three countries using a multigroup model inwhich we constrained the structural paths to be equal.Generalizability across countries can be assumed if thechanges in the chi-square statistic between the uncon-strained and the constrained models are not significant.In this case, the chi-square statistic was not significantwhen the paths in the measurement model were uncon-strained across countries (c2(42) = 53.70, p = .12).Conversely, the change in the chi-square statistic whenthe path coefficients were constrained to be equal wassignificant (c2(42) = 61.43, p < .05). Therefore, thepath coefficients do not appear generalizable across the

Table 2. Construct Reliability and AVE Scores: Germany, Brazil, and South Korea

Germany Brazil South Korea

Construct Composite Reliability AVE Composite Reliability AVE Composite Reliability AVE

COS .94 .77 .92 .69 .91 .68

MAT .80 .51 .84 .57 .84 .56

LOC .92 .73 .89 .68 .90 .70

CET .90 .68 .91 .71 .92 .74

PVGB .90 .60 .90 .60 .88 .56

GBA .77 .53 .73 .47 .71 .46

GCA .82 .70 .84 .73 .87 .77

Notes: CET = consumer ethnocentrism, LOC = localism, MAT = materialism, and COS = cosmopolitanism.

Table 3. Invariance Tests on the Model’s Constructs: Germany, South Korea, and Brazil

Unconstrained Model Metric Invariance Significance of Factor Variance Invariance Significance ofConstruct c2 (d.f.) c2 (d.f.) Change c2 (d.f.) Change

COS 23.10 (15) 6.12 (8) .64 8.89 (2) .01

MAT 31.73 (15) 11.01 (8) .20 14.11 (2) .00

CET 5.00 (6) 5.00 (6) .54 1.43 (2) .49

LOC 17.24 (6) 8.97 (6) .33 12.79 (2) .05

PVGB 103.90 (39) 1.57 (5) .91 19.13 (1) .00

GCAa .00 (0) 1.38 (1) .24 .93 (1) .35

GBAb 28.74 (5) 6.06 (4) .20 5.09 (2) .08

aBecause there were only two items, the error variances were made equal to provide the degree of freedom needed to examine goodness of fit.bBecause there were only three items, two of the error variances were made equal to provide the degree of freedom needed to examine goodness of fit.Notes: CET = consumer ethnocentrism, LOC = localism, MAT = materialism, and COS = cosmopolitanism.


three countries, and the use of the unconstrained coeffi-cients, which we provide in Table 4, is appropriate toexamine the results.

Competing Models

Before testing the hypothesized relationships, we rancompeting models to determine whether the proposedframework provides a better fit than alternative specifi-cations. In particular, it might be that the social norma-tive and self-identity pathways are not independent pre-dictors of GBA. To examine this possibility, Rival Model1 included a path from consumer ethnocentrism toPVGB. The fit statistics for this model were as follows:c2(1011) = 1566.19, p < .05; TLI = .94; CFI = .94,SRMR = .07; and RMSEA = .03. However, across allthree countries, the proposed path was not significant.

Rival Model 2 included a path from cosmopolitanism toGCA. The fit statistics were acceptable (c2(1011) =1558.37, p < .05; TLI = .94; CFI = .94, SRMR = .07;RMSEA = .03), but the path was significant only inBrazil (b = –.18, p < .05). Furthermore, neither rivalmodel exhibited significantly better fit than the hypothe -sized model (c2(1014) =1579.99, p < .05; TLI = .94; CFI = .94, SRMR = .07; RMSEA = .03). Therefore, weused the more parsimonious, proposed framework totest the hypotheses.

Hypotheses Testing

H1 predicts that consumers with stronger GCA have morenegative attitudes toward global brands. This was the casein Germany and Brazil but not in South Korea (see Table5). H2 proposes that higher consumer ethnocentrism leads

Table 4. Multigroup Measurement Model Results: Germany, Brazil, and South Korea

Model Specification ModelsMeasurement Model c2 d.f. Compared c2 p-Value SRMR RMSEA CFI TLI c2/d.f.

Model 1: Configuralinvariance 1,579.99 1014 — — — .07 .03 .94 .94 1.56

Model 2: Full metricinvariance 1,633.19 1056 Model 2 vs. Model 1 53.20 >.05 .07 .03 .94 .94 1.55

Model 3: Structural Paths 1,694.62 1068 Model 3 vs. Model 1 61.43 <.05 .08 .03 .94 .93 1.57

Table 5. Standardized Coefficients: Germany, Brazil, and South Korea

Germany b Brazil b South Korea b Hypotheses

GCA Æ GBA –.24** –.32*** –.04 H1: Partial

CET Æ GCA .34*** .62*** .49*** H2: Supported

LOC Æ GCA –.11 .15* .14 H3: Partial

PVGB Æ GBA .42*** .59*** .85*** H4: Supported

MAT Æ PVGB .58*** .59*** .49*** H5: Supported

COS Æ PVGB –.03 .16** .29*** H6: Partial

*p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.Notes: CET = consumer ethnocentrism, LOC = localism, MAT = materialism, and COS = cosmopolitanism.


to stronger GCA. This relationship was in the expecteddirection and was significant in all three countries. H3predicts that consumers with high levels of localismexperience stronger GCA. We found support for thishypothesis in Brazil but not in Germany or South Korea.H4 proposes that consumers with higher PVGB havemore positive GBAs. This relationship was in theexpected direction and was significant in the three coun-tries. H5 suggests that more materialistic consumers dis-play higher PVGB. This relationship was in the expecteddirection and was significant in all three countries. H6predicts that more cosmopolitan consumers displayhigher PVGB. This was the case in Brazil and SouthKorea but not in Germany.

Discussion

As we expected, the strongest support for the proposedmodel occurred in Brazil. In this country, all hypothe-sized paths among the individual difference antecedents,mediators, and outcomes were statistically significantand in the predicted directions. In Germany, we foundsupport for the overall competing pathway model butnot for two of its hypothesized antecedents (i.e., local-ism and cosmopolitanism). Finally, we found strongsupport for the pathway from materialism and cos-mopolitanism through perceived brand value to GBA inSouth Korea. However, contrary to predictions that thenegative path from GCA to global brand would beweaker in South Korea than the other two countries, itwas not significant.

On the basis of a single study, it is premature to concludethat the country-specific factors we identified previouslyled to the inconsistent findings for certain hypothesizedrelationships. Such conclusions are particularly problem-atic for South Korea, in which the key mediating path-way from GCA to GBA was not significant. Although weexpected the relationship to be weaker in South Korea,we did not expect it to disappear entirely. Enhancedaccessibility to the stellar performance of South KoreanMNCs may have exaggerated assessment of global brandvalue, producing the strong positive path coefficientbetween PVGB and GBA and, simultaneously, decreasingor perhaps blocking the influence of GCA on GBA.Strengthening confidence in this null result is the findingthat localism did not predict GCA in South Korea, pos-sibly, again, because many consumers think globallywhen it comes to consumption.

At the same time, the significant, positive path betweenconsumer ethnocentrism and GCA suggests that a sub-

set of South Koreans (as well as Brazilians and Ger-mans) continue to have concerns that corporate globali-zation will translate into lost jobs in their country, lead-ing this segment to have strong negative attitudestoward global companies. That such concerns did notcarry over to GBAs suggests the importance of furtherinvestigating the path from GCA to GBA in SouthKorea. Finding a significant, negative relationshipbetween GCA and GBA for global companies whenGCA is primed (but not in an unprimed control condi-tion as in Study 1) would provide additional evidence ofthe proposed rationale for the outcomes occurring inStudy 1.

STUDY 2: PRIMING GCA IN SOUTH KOREA

According to the theory of culture as situated cognition(Oyserman 2011), priming may increase accessibility toculturally based cognitive–affective systems (e.g., cognitive–affective units; Fleeson and Noftle 2009; Mis-chel 2004) already in memory (e.g., self-construal) (Lal-wani and Shavitt 2009). As Oyserman (2011, p. 183)notes, “temporary and chronic accessibility effects aresimilar (and thus comparable) but independent (thusadditive) in influencing social judgments.” Alter andKwan (2009, p. 742) find that “familiar culturally-ladencues sometimes prime people within one cultural milieuto make so-called extracultural judgments.” The use ofpriming in the animosity literature is relatively limited,except for Funk et al. (2010), who prime cognitive–affective units related to country-level animosity bytelling three groups of randomly assigned Canadiansthat a Toyota Corolla had been wholly produced inCanada, partially produced in India, or partially pro-duced in Iran.

As we noted previously, chronic accessibility to culturallyrelated cognitive–affective units stressing national pride inthe success of domestic MNCs, such as Samsung,Hyundai, and LG, may have significantly attenuated theeffects of GCA on GBA in Study 1. However, like mostnewly developed countries, South Korea has witnessedserious labor strife in these companies, particularly duringthe 1980s (Gray 2007). Thus, for many Korean con-sumers, preexisting knowledge that is contrary to theirchronic set of global company cognitions/affects and,therefore, similar to “extracultural” information is likelyto exist but be relatively less accessible.

Priming Korean consumers with negative news aboutnegative multinational practices in various countries


(e.g., the BP oil spill in the United States, Apple’s labormanagement relationships in China) should increaseaccessibility to these less positive cognitive–affectiveunits and thereby heighten GCA, leading to more nega-tive GBAs. We propose the expected outcome resultingfrom priming Korean consumers’ chronic GCA as a for-mal hypothesis:

H7: The negative relationship that emergedbetween GCA and GBA for Brazilian and Ger-man consumers in Study 1 will also emerge(not emerge) for Korean consumers primed(not primed) with negative information aboutglobal company practices.

Procedure and Measures

We collected a sample of 201 Korean consumers (meanage 40 years; 53% female) using an online panelprovider. Respondents were randomly assigned to anegative prime that emphasized unfair labor practices forcertain MNCs, a positive prime focusing on the recentsuccess of Korean MNCs, or a control group. Afterremoving respondents who failed the attention filter, weundertook hypothesis testing using 66 negative treatmentrespondents, 62 positive treatment respondents, and 68control group respondents (196 respondents).

Respondents in the negative treatment group read a nega-tive press article on an actual news story of the allegedunfair treatment of workers in multiple countries inwhich MNCs manufactured their products (see AppendixB). Respondents in the positive treatment group read apositive press article on an actual news story of an inter-national MNC modeling the best managerial practicesfrom a Korean MNC. We included the positive prime toprovide additional insight into Korean consumers in thecontrol (unprimed) condition. If, in general, Korean con-sumers have weak GCA because of positive attitudestoward their domestic MNCs, priming with positiveinformation about a Korean MNC should have littleadditional impact on their GBAs relative to the controlgroup. Thus, the central tests of H7 involve contrastsbetween Korean consumers primed with negative infor-mation and those in both positive and control conditions.

Constructs measured in this study were the same asthose in Study 1. All scales showed good reliability,yielding alphas greater than .70. According to the over-all averages across the three conditions, respondentsperceived Nike (M = 5.1) more favorably than eitherSony (M = 4.4) or Nestlé (M = 4.1), but the difference

between Sony and Nestlé was not significant. In addi-tion, Nike (M = 6.47) received the highest overall aver-age rating on perceived globalness, but Sony’s (M =5.82) rating was significantly higher than Nestlé’s (M =5.34), and all brands received ratings significantly abovethe midpoint on the perceived globalness scale. Theseresults suggest that the respondents perceived the brandsas global and that potential national associations didnot significantly affect their attitudes.

Analysis and Results

Manipulation Check. We expected exposure to a nega-tive prime to increase GCA and lead to a negative rela-tionship between this construct and GBA, but only forrespondents primed with negative information; we didnot expect this relationship in the positive prime condi-tion or the control group, replicating findings for SouthKorean consumers in Study 1. As Table 6 shows, posthoc mean comparisons for GCA, PVGB, and GBAacross the three treatment groups indicated significantdifferences between the negative prime group and thepositive prime and control groups, in the expected direc-tion. These results suggest that Korean respondents whowere negatively primed experienced stronger GCAs,lower PVGB, and less positive GBAs than those in thepositive prime and control groups. As we expected, nosignificant differences occurred in these constructs forthe positive prime and control groups. As a result, wecollapsed the two groups for further analysis.

Regression Analysis. We tested H7 using multiple regres-sion, including the sum-score dependent measure(GBA), three direct predictors (GCA, PVGB, and primetreatment group), and the interaction between GCA andtreatment group. To minimize multicollinearity, wemean-centered the two continuous predictors (Aikenand West 1991). The final model was significant (F(4,191) = 8.0, p < .001; adjusted R2 = .13; see Table 7). TheDurbin–Watson and variance inflation factor statisticsindicated that neither autocorrelation nor multi-collinearity was a problem in the model. Both PVGB (b = .18, p < .02) and treatment group (b = .22, p < .01)significantly predicted GBA. In addition, GCA was notsignificant (p > .10), although the interaction betweenGCA and treatment group was significant in the pre-dicted direction (b = –.26, p £ .02). This last result sug-gests that the relationship between GCA and GBA wassignificantly more negative for Korean consumers nega-tively primed than for those exposed to either the posi-tive prime or no prime (the collapsed group). Simpleslopes analysis (see Figure 2) indicated a significant,


negative slope from –1 standard deviation on GCA to+1 standard deviation on GCA (p < .001) for those inthe collapsed group condition. The slope for those in thenegative prime condition did not significantly differfrom zero. These results suggest that the negative primeprimarily affected Korea consumers with weak GCA. Athigh levels of GCA, the negative prime exerted no addi-

tional impact on GBA (i.e., attitudes toward globalbrands were relatively low regardless of the prime).Conversely, at low levels of GCA (i.e., –1 SD), the nega-tive prime (vs. the collapsed group) significantlydecreased attitudes toward global brands. Thus, Study 2provides support for H7 and additional evidence thatthe findings for Korea in Study 1 were not due to meas-urement error or some other confound. Rather, suffi-cient numbers of consumers in South Korea may haveweak enough GCA to restrict variance on that constructin the absence of a prime, leading to a nonsignificantrelationship between GCA and GBA. Even so, note thatthere are consumers with stronger GCA in this countryas well, and their attitudes toward global brands arerelatively more negative, regardless of the prime.

Discussion

As we expected, the negative prime increased accessi-bility to less positive cognitive–affective units, result-

Table 6. Group Mean Differences: Korea

Dependent Variable (I) Treatment (J) Treatment Mean Difference (I – J) SE Significance

GBA Negative Positive –.480* .161 .009

Control –.532* .158 .003

Positive Negative .480* .162 .009

Control –.053 .160 .942

Control Negative .533* .158 .003

Positive .0527 .160 .942

GCA Negative Positive .911* .181 .000

Control 1.05* .177 .000

Positive Negative –.911* .180 .000

Control .138 .179 .722

Control Negative –1.05* .177 .000

Positive –.138 .179 .722

PVGB Negative Positive –.226 .160 .337

Control –.487* .157 .006

Positive Negative .226 .160 .337

Control –.260 .159 .233

Control Negative .487* .157 .006

Positive .260 .159 .233

*p < .05.

Table 7. Regression Results for GBA: Korea

StandardizedVariables Coefficients b t Significance

GCA .46 1.8 .07

PVGB .18 2.5 .01

Treatment group .67 3.0 .003

GCA × treatment –.60 –2.4 .02


ing in a negative relationship between GCA and GBA,a relationship we also found in Study 1 among Brazil-ian and German consumers. These findings provideevidence that Korean consumers in an unprimed or“normal” condition experience weak GCA, possiblybecause of the greater accessibility to positive domesticGBAs (e.g., for Samsung). High accessibility may haverestricted variance on GCA, leading to the nonsignifi-cant associations between GCA and GBA in Studies 1and 2.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

This research extends country-focused animosity (e.g.,Funk et al. 2010; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998) tothe realm of global companies (GCA) and embeds theconstruct in a nomological net that includes a compet-ing pathway through PVGB, individual differenceantecedents (consumer ethnocentrism, localism, cos-mopolitanism, and materialism), and an outcome ofimportance to international marketing managers (GBA).Given the worldwide shift from nationally based toglobally distributed firms, extension of the animosityconstruct to include a generalized cognitive–affective

unit that features negative thoughts and feelings aboutMNCs and demonstrates their role in a larger theoreti-cal framework is particularly timely.

Both Studies 1 and 2 provide support for the use ofCAPS theory (Fleeson and Noftle 2009; Mischel 2004)and featured two social normative pathways (localismand consumer ethnocentrism) through GCA and twoidentity-based pathways (cosmopolitanism and materi-alism) through PVGB. In Study 1, the pathway fromGCA to GBA did not hold in South Korea, and areasona ble explanation may be that this newly devel-oped country is dominated by a small number of home-grown MNCs, leading to strong positive linkagesbetween PVGB and GBAs.

To provide further evidence to support or dispute thispossible explanation for the results in South Korea,Study 2 negatively primed Korean consumers on GCAand found a similar relationship (negative) betweenGCA and GBA to that in Study 1 for Brazil and Ger-many. Furthermore, the significance of PVGB’s effect onGBA is consistent with the results from Study 1 andhighlights the importance of perceived value in futuretheory development and managerial application.

Figure 2. Interaction: Negative/Positive–Control Prime by GCA on GBA Simple Slopes Analysis

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

GCA =-1 SD GCA=+1 SD

GB

A

NegP

PosConP

5

6

7

GB

A

2

3

4

GB

A

NegP

PosConP

NegP

PosConP

1 GCA =-1 SD

GCA =-1 SD GCA=+1 SD

GCA=+1 SD

GCA = –1 SD GCA = +1 SD


ImplicationsFirst, the proposed model offers international marketingmanagers several ways to offset consumer animositytoward global companies that may otherwise harm atti-tudes toward global brands. Brands that provide con-sumers with functional (quality and value for money),social, and hedonic–experiential aspects of value arelikely to reduce the impact of any negative attitudestoward global companies held by consumers in the localmarket. However, although promotional strategies servean important role in communicating such brand value,given the nature of the construct, managers should con-tinually find ways to infuse real utilitarian brand value inaddition to less tangible social and hedonic value intotheir global brands. According to CAPS theory, buildingmultiple value-based connections into the brand schemais likely to render PVGB relatively more accessible. Fur-thermore, given the global nature of information and thelikelihood of negative news about global companies dif-fusing rapidly throughout the world through worldwidemediascapes (Appadurai 1996), continual reminder com-munications through multiple communication channelsare likely to help maintain consumers’ accessibility toPVGB and therefore induce more positive GBAs.

Second, by stressing the benefits of local production andjob creation (as in the case of Japanese cars made in theUnited States; Woodyard 2011), managers may be ableto lessen the strength of the positive relationshipbetween consumer ethnocentrism and GCA. However,managers should not assume that high levels of localattachment will lead to high levels of GCA. Localism isa less specific construct than consumer ethnocentrismand pertains to a general sense of social belonging.Although consumers with high consumer ethnocentrismseem to have relatively strong GCA, the more generalconstruct of localism was not significantly related toGCA in Germany and South Korea and only weaklyrelated in Brazil (.15, p < .05). Thus, although globalbrand managers may want to reduce GCA by advertis-ing their firm’s generalized local relevance, they arelikely to fare better by focusing on more specific topics,such as partnerships with local firms that are increasingdomestic employment and wages.

Third, by applying the constructs tested in this study tonational samples of consumers in various markets inwhich the firm is active, global managers will be able tobetter understand which factors are particularly salientpredictors of attitudes toward their brands. In develop-ing countries, such as Brazil, this study suggests thatcosmopolitanism and materialism are relatively accessi-

ble through marketing communications, lessening theimpact of the negative path from GCA to GBA. Again,though, even in developing countries, the positive pathfrom PVGB to GBA (.59) may be significantly strongerthan the negative path from GCA to GBA (–.32, p <.05). However, as Study 2 demonstrates, managersshould not take nonsignificant paths, such as that fromGCA to GBA (–.04) in South Korea, for granted. Shoulda global company disaster (e.g., the BP oil spill in theGulf of Mexico) occur in the East Asian region, GCAmay spike. In such cases, additional emphasis on thefunctional, social, and emotional value of global brandsin the company’s marketing communications may helpreduce the negative effect of GCA on GBAs.

Further Research and Limitations

As with any study, this study has several limitations thatsuggest the need for further research. First, althoughprior research indicates that attitudes can be stronglyassociated with behavior (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980;Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), this study did not include ameasure of brand purchase intentions or purchase fre-quency. Further research should investigate whether themodel’s predictions hold with the addition of such fac-tors. In addition, although we used three well-knownglobal brands representing different product categoriesand different world regions to operationalize GBA andalthough all measurement properties of this latent con-struct were acceptable, replication with alternativemeasures of GBA would strengthen confidence in theexternal validity of the model.

A second limitation is the use of national samples fromthree countries. The samples, though broadly represen-tative of each country’s unique populations, were notrandom but rather members of panels. As such, theirresponses may differ from those of randomly selectedconsumers. Validation using broader samples and differ-ent methods of data collection is warranted. In addition,the samples did not include consumers from the lessdeveloped countries such as those in sub-SaharanAfrica. Brazil is considered farther down the develop-ment road than many other countries (The Economist2011). Given the growing importance of urban marketsin emerging countries (The Economist 2008), an exten-sion of the model to less developed countries would bebeneficial.

Third, this study modeled PVGB as a single-dimensionlatent factor with five reflexive items. Although prece-dence for this approach exists in the literature (Zhou,


Yang, and Hui 2010), many other studies have usedmultiple dimensions when examining perceived value(e.g., Sweeney and Soutar 2001). Thus, further researchshould investigate whether the addition of perceivedglobal brand value dimensions not specifically modeledherein would produce more nuanced relationships inthe overall GBA model. In addition, we tested a limitednumber of antecedents to GCA and PVGB. Other indi-vidual difference factors, such as environmentalism(Chang 2011), consumer innovation (Baumgartner andSteenkamp 1996), and cultural value orientation (Lee etal. 2011), along with age and gender, may play impor-tant roles and should be tested in the future. It mightalso prove fruitful to compare GCA with global com-

pany affinity derived from the country affinity litera-ture (e.g., Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011;Wongtoda, Rice, and Bandyopadhyay 2012). Forexample, consumers with weak GCA may not rankhigh on global company affinity. Thus, how this con-struct should be included within a broader GBA nomo-logical net remains a worthwhile question. Finally,although we modeled GCA as an endogenous variableusing reflective items, Riefler and Diamantopoulos(2007) suggest that it could be formative. ModelingGCA as a formative endogenous variable would facili-tate a more robust explanation of how specific percep-tions (e.g., environmental vs. economic) influence con-sumer animosity toward global companies.

Appendix A. Study 1 Measures

Brazil Germany South Korea

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

GCA

“I do not like global companies.” 2.65 (1.54) 4.02 (1.65) 3.71 (1.34)

“I feel angry toward global companies.” 2.89 (1.63) 4.01 (1.65) 3.63 (1.30)

Cosmopolitanism

“I am interested in learning more about people who live in other countries.” 5.80 (1.35) 5.46 (1.36) 5.23 (1.18)

“I like to learn about other ways of life.” 6.11 (1.12) 5.53 (1.29) 5.32 (1.09)

“I enjoy exchanging ideas with people from other cultures and countries.” 6.01 (1.30) 5.29 (1.35) 4.90 (1.24)

“I like to observe people of other cultures, to see what I can learn from them.” 6.00 (1.17) 5.32 (1.39) 5.16 (1.20)

“Coming into contact with people of other cultures has greatly benefited me.” 5.90 (1.33) 5.37 (1.51) 5.05 (1.26)

Consumer Ethnocentrism

“Purchasing foreign-made products is un-(country, e.g., un-Brazilian).” 2.31 (1.67) 2.22 (1.53) 3.13 (1.46)

“It is not right to purchase foreign-made products because it puts (country) out of work.” 2.71 (1.71) 3.05 (1.80) 3.48 (1.52)

“A real (country) should always buy (country)-made products.” 2.73 (1.74) 2.42 (1.66) 3.26 (1.52)

“(Country) should not buy foreign products, because this hurts (country) business and causes unemployment.” 2.77 (1.72) 2.73 (1.55) 3.23 (1.52)

Materialism

“I would be very happy to spend many more years in my local community.” 3.71 (1.84) 4.06 (1.84) 4.06 (1.37)

“I am ‘emotionally attached’ to my local community.” 3.41 (1.90) 3.32 (1.79) 3.97 (1.48)

“My local community has a great deal of personal meaning to me.” 3.94 (1.84) 3.16 (1.71) 4.23 (1.39)

“I have a strong sense of belonging to my local community.” 3.67 (1.81) 3.48 (1.77) 4.18 (1.40)

GBA 1 (1 = “I have a negative opinion of [brand],” and 7 = “I have a positive opinion of [brand]”)

Sony 6.17 (1.08) 5.32 (1.21) 5.00 (1.19)

Nike 5.65 (1.51) 5.04 (1.39) 5.52 (1.19)

Nestlé 5.97 (1.27) 5.09 (1.37) 4.95 (1.08)


PVGB

“Well-known international brands are good products for the price.” 4.12 (1.67) 3.57 (1.43) 4.63 (1.19)

“Well-known international brands offer good value for money.” 4.48 (1.70) 2.81 (1.34) 4.68 (1.11)

“I make a good impression on other people when I buy well-known international brands.” 4.29 (1.97) 3.16 (1.55) 4.46 (1.29)

“Well-known international brands are dependable products.” 4.85 (1.53) 3.71 (1.48) 4.91 (1.14)

“I enjoy buying well-known international brands.” 4.52 (1.75) 3.47 (1.54) 4.26 (1.33)

“Well-known international brands are generally good overall value.” 4.44 (1.65) 3.88 (1.39) 4.91 (1.11)

Appendix A. Continued

Brazil Germany South Korea

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Appendix B. Study 2 Primes

Negative Prime: The Bad News About Global Company Sweatshops—Summer 2012

Wages and working conditions in many global company factories in developing countries are so low that workers remain inpoverty even while fully employed. Workers in many parts of the world earn about 24 cents for each shirt they make. The 60cents an hour the workers earn covers only about one-third of the cost of living, and even their governments say this wagekeeps them in poverty.

Proponents of global companies claim that developing countries have a comparative advantage at producing cheaper clothing.Moving factories there is more “efficient” because workers are willing to work for less. What they’re really saying, however, isthat taking advantage of the desperation of poor workers and countries—paying workers less, making them work longerhours, and preventing unions—is more profitable for global companies.

Union organizers are often beaten, thrown in jail, blacklisted, and even killed. In some countries, the government cooperateswith global companies to defeat organizing drives. In a few countries with strong labor histories, unions are tolerated, but feware allowed in “free-trade” zones where many global companies are located.

Of course, not all global companies operate sweatshops. Many treat workers fairly. But too many global companies pressurecountries to keep wages low, ignore domestic labor laws, violate international environmental codes, break up unions, and cre-ate poor working conditions. These global companies are creating and perpetuating poor working conditions.

Positive Prime: The Good News About Korean Global Companies—Summer 2012

The global consulting firm, Bain & Company, recently noted that an Indian company with sales of more than 40 trillion wonwanted to know the management methods of Korean companies. Bain’s Seoul office manager said, “Chinese and Indian com-panies that have grown in scale in a short time are considering as role models Korean conglomerates that took similar paths ofgrowth,” and added that “They are especially interested in group management structures.”

More foreign companies are also trying to learn the strategies of Korean global companies. These global companies have repu-tations for making strategic but prompt decisions and undertake aggressive investments despite the economic slump. For exam-ple, a Chinese information technology company with annual sales of 16 trillion won and 80,000 employees recently inquiredabout Samsung’s global strategy through the Korean trade office in China.

Last year, staff from a Japanese electronics company that is a rival of Samsung Electronics visited the Korean trade agency’sNew Delhi office and asked for information on how Samsung manages its Indian affiliates and materials on Samsung’s market-ing. In addition, Harvard Business Review printed a research paper on factors behind Samsung’s success.


NOTES

1. The results of the exploratory factor analysis areavailable on request.

2. The results of the CMV are available on request.

REFERENCES

Aaker, David (1996), “Measuring Brand Equity Across Prod-ucts and Markets,” California Management Review, 38 (3),102–120.

——— and Erich Joachimsthaler (2000), Brand Leadership.New York: The Free Press.

Aiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regres-sion: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications.

Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Atti-tudes and Predicting Social Behavior. New York: PrenticeHall.

Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and RajeevBatra (2006), “Consumer Attitudes Toward MarketplaceGlobalization: Structure, Antecedents and Consequences,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (3),227–39.

Allen, Natalie J. and John P. Meyer (1996), “Affective, Contin-uance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: AnExamination of Construct Validity,” Journal of VocationalBehavior, 49 (3), 252–76.

Alter, Adam L. and Virginia S.Y. Kwan (2009), “Cultural Shar-ing in a Global Village: Evidence for Extracultural Cognitionin European Americans,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 96 (4), 742–60.

Anderson, John (1983), The Architecture of Cognition. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ang, See Hoon, Kwon Jung, Ah Keng Kau, Siew M. Leong,Chanthika Pornpitakpan, and Soo J. Tan (2004), “AnimosityTowards Economic Giants: What the Little Guys Think,”Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21 (3), 190–207.

Appadurai, Ajun (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimen-sions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress.

Balabanis, George and Adamantior Diamantopoulos (2008),“Brand Origin Identification by Consumers: A ClassificationPerspective,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (1),39–71.

Balmer, John M. and Edmund R. Gray (2003), “CorporateBrands: What Are They? What of Them?” European Journalof Marketing, 37 (7–8), 972–97.

Batra, Rajeev, Venkatram Ramaswany, Dana L. Alden, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander (2000),“Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on ConsumerAttitudes in Developing Countries,” Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 9 (2), 83–95.

Baumgartner, Hans and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (1996),“Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior: Conceptualizationand Measurement,” International Journal of Research inMarketing, 13 (2), 121–37.

Cannon, Hugh and Attila Yaprak (2002), “Will the Real-WorldCitizen Please Stand Up! The Many Faces of CosmopolitanConsumer Behavior,” Journal of International Marketing, 10(4), 30–52.

Chang, Ching H. (2011), “The Influence of Corporate Environ-mental Ethics on Competitive Advantage: The MediationRole of Green Innovation,” Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 361–70.

Appendix B. Continued

Korea has even started to export global company management and economy know-how. The Korean Institute of Global Man-agement has teamed up with a Chinese university to teach Chinese chief executive officers in Korea and China and to intro-duce case studies of Korean companies to the Chinese market. In addition, Harvard Business Review printed a research paperwritten by professors at Seoul National University on factors behind Samsung’s success.

Evidence of the growing prominence of Korean global companies is reflected in the Forbes Global 2000, which lists the mostpowerful companies in the world. Korean companies registered impressive 30% gains in both sales and profits. Sixty-eightglobal companies on this important list were Korean, including Samsung Electronics and Hyundai Motor Group, which areamong the top 100 in the world.


Cherry, Miriam and Judd Sneirson (2011), “Beyond Profit:Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility and Greenwash-ing After the BP Oil Disaster,” Tulane Law Review, 85 (4),2010983.

Cheung, Gordon and Roger Rensvold (2002), “EvaluatingGoodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invari-ance,” Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (2), 233–55.

Cleveland, Mark and Michel Laroche (2007), “Acculturation tothe Global Consumer Culture: Scale Development andResearch Paradigm,” Journal of Business Research, 60 (3),249–59.

Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Richard Bagozzi(2010), “Global Brands in the United States: How ConsumerEthnicity Mediates the Global Brand Effect,” Journal of Inter-national Marketing, 18 (3), 81–106.

———, ———, and Ilkka A. Ronkainen (2008), “Cognitiveand Affective Reactions of U.S. Consumers to GlobalBrands,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 113–35.

Directorate General Press and Communication (2006), “Euro-peans and Their Languages,” Eurobarometer, Wave 64.3,1–65.

Dodds, William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991),“Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August), 307–319.

The Economist (2008), “Lump Together and Like It,” 389(8605), 75–76.

——— (2011), “The Sun Shines Bright,” 401 (8762), 382–84.

Ettenson, Richard and Jill G. Klein (2005), “The Fallout fromFrench Nuclear Testing in the South Pacific: A LongitudinalStudy of Consumer Boycotts,” International MarketingReview, 22 (2), 199–224.

Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Inten-tion and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fleeson, William and Eric E. Noftle (2009), “In Favor of theSynthetic Resolution to the Person–Situation Debate,” Journalof Research in Personality, 43 (2), 150–154.

Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Struc-tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.

Funk, Charles A., Johathan D. Arthurs, Len J. Treviño, and JeffJoireman (2010), “Consumer Animosity in the Global ValueChain: The Effect of International Production Shifts on Will-ingness to Purchase Hybrid Products,” Journal of Inter-national Business Studies, 41 (4), 639–51.

Gray, Kevin (2007), Korean Workers and Neoliberal Globaliza-tion. New York: Routledge.

Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Bill Black, Barry Babin, and Rolph E. Ander-son (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hannerz, Ulf (1990), “Cosmopolitans and Locals in a WorldCulture,” Theory, Culture and Society, 7 (1), 237–51.

——— (1992), Cultural Complexity: Studies in the SocialOrganization of Meaning. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Hatch, Mary J. and Majken Schultz (2003), “Bringing the Cor-poration into Corporate Branding,” European Journal ofMarketing, 37 (7/8), 1041–1064.

Hines, Colin (2000), Localization: A Global Manifesto. Lon-don: Earthscan/James & James.

Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage Publications.

Holt, Douglas B., John A. Quelch, and Earl L. Taylor (2004),“How Global Brands Compete,” Harvard Business Review,82 (9), 68–75.

Interbrand (2010), “All Brands Are Not Created Equal: BestGlobal Brands 2010,” (accessed March 10, 2011), [availableat http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/previous-years/Best-Global-Brands-2010.aspx].

Jiménez, Nadia H. and Sonia San Martín (2010), “The Role ofCountry-of-Origin, Ethnocentrism and Animosity in Promot-ing Consumer Trust. The Moderating Role of Familiarity,”International Business Review, 19 (1), 34–45.

John, Andrew and Jill G. Klein (2003), “The Boycott Puzzle:Consumer Motivations for Purchase Sacrifice,” ManagementScience, 49 (9), 1196–1209.

Keller, Kevin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, Manag-ing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1–22.

Kim, Jesun and Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted (2005), “ComparativeEffects of Organization–Public Relationships and Product-Related Attributes on Brand Attitude,” Journal of MarketingCommunications, 11 (3), 145–70.

Klein, Jill G. (2002), “Us Versus Them, Or Us Versus Everyone?Delineating Consumer Aversion to Foreign Goods,” Journalof International Business Studies, 33 (2), 345–63.

——— and Richard Ettenson (1999), “Consumer Animosityand Consumer Ethnocentrism: An Analysis of UniqueAntecedents,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing,11 (4), 5–24.


———, ———, and Marlene Morris D. (1998), “The Ani-mosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Testin the People’s Republic of China,” Journal of Marketing, 62(January), 89–100.

KOF Swiss Economic Institute (2011), “KOF Index of Globaliza-tion 2011: Economic Crisis Slows Down Globalization,” pressrelease, (accessed February 24, 2012), [available at http://scienceofsciencepolicy.net/publication/kof-index-globalization-2011-economic-crisis-slows-down-globalization].

Lalwani, Ashok K. and Shoron Shavitt (2009), “The ‘Me’ IClaim to Be: Cultural Self-Construal Elicits Self-PresentationalGoal Pursuit,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,97 (1), 88–102.

Lee, Julie A., Geoffrey N. Soutar, Timothy M. Daly, and JordanJ. Louviere (2011), “Schwartz Values Clusters in the UnitedStates and China,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2), 234–52.

Merton, Robert (1957), “Patterns of Influence: Local and Cos-mopolitan Influentials,” in Social Theory and Social Structure,Robert Merton, ed. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 387–420.

Mintel Oxygen (2011), “Germany Outbound–August 2011,”(accessed August 15, 2012), [available at http://academic.mintel.com.ezproxy.sju.edu/display/587491/].

Mischel, Walter (2004), “Toward an Integrative Science of thePerson,” Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22.

Nijssen, Edwin J. and Susan P. Douglas (2004), “Examining theAnimosity Model in a Country with a High Level of ForeignTrade,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1), 23–38.

——— and ——— (2011), “Consumer World-Mindedness andAttitudes Toward Product Positioning in Advertising: AnExamination of Global Versus Foreign Versus Local Position-ing,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (3), 113–33.

Oberecker, Eva M. and Andmantios Diamantopoulos (2011),“Consumers’ Emotional Bonds with Foreign Countries: DoesConsumer Affinity Affect Behavioral Intentions?” Journal ofInternational Marketing, 19 (2), 45–72.

Oyserman, Daphna (2011), “Culture as Situated Cognition:Cultural Mindsets, Cultural Fluency, and Meaning Making,”European Review of Social Psychology, 22 (1), 164–214.

Özsomer, Ay�igül and Selin Altaras (2008), “Global Brand Pur-chase Likelihood: A Critical Synthesis and an Integrated Con-ceptual Framework,” Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 1–28.

Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong Y. Lee, andNathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases inBehavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and

Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Richins, Marsha L. (2004), “The Material Values Scale: Meas-urement Properties and Development of a Short Form,” Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 209–219.

——— and Scott Dawson (1992), “A Consumer Values Orien-tation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Develop-ment and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3),303–316.

Riefler, Petra (2012), “Why Consumers Do (Not) Like GlobalBrands: The Role of Globalization Attitude, GCO and GlobalBrand Origin,” International Journal of Research in Market-ing, 29 (1), 325–34.

——— and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2007), “ConsumerAnimosity: A Literature Review and a Reconsideration of ItsMeasurement,” International Marketing Review, 25 (1),87–119.

——— and ——— (2009), “Consumer Cosmopolitanism:Review and Replication of the CYMYC Scale,” Journal ofBusiness Research, 62 (4), 407–419.

———, ———, and Judy A. Siguaw (2012), “CosmopolitanConsumers as a Target Group for Segmentation,” Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 43 (3), 285–305.

Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Nancy Wong(2009), “The Safety of Objects: Materialism, Existential Inse-curity, and Brand Connection,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 36 (1), 1–16.

Russell, Cristel A. and Dale W. Russell (2010), “Guilty byStereotypic Association: Country Animosity and Brand Preju-dice and Discrimination,” Marketing Letters, 21 (4), 413–25.

Samiee, Saeed, Terence Shimp, and Subhash Sharma (2005),“Brand Origin Recognition Accuracy: Its Antecedents andConsumers’ Cognitive Limitations,” Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 36 (4), 379–97.

Schultz, Majken and Leslie De Chernatony (2002), “Introduc-tion: The Challenges of Corporate Branding,” CorporateReputation Review, 5 (2), 105–112.

Sharma, Piyush (2011), “Country of Origin Effects in Devel-oped and Emerging Markets: Exploring the Contrasting Rolesof Materialism and Value Consciousness,” Journal of Inter-national Business Studies, 42 (2), 285–306.

Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash Sharma (1987), “ConsumerEthnocentrism: Construction and Validation of theCETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3), 280–89.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Hans Baumgartner (1998),“Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National


Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1),78–107.

———, Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden (2003), “How Per-ceived Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value,” Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 34 (1), 53–65.

——— and Martin G. de Jong (2010), “A Global Investigationinto the Constellation of Consumer Attitudes Toward Globaland Local Products,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (November),18–40.

Sweeney, Jillian C. and Geoffrey N. Soutar (2001), “ConsumerPerceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale,”Journal of Retailing, 77 (2), 203–220.

Thomas, Raymond W., Geoffrey N. Soutar, and Maria M. Ryan(2001), “The Selling Orientation-Customer Orientation(SOCO) Scale: A Proposed Short Form,” Journal of PersonalSelling & Sales Management, 21 (1), 63–69.

Thompson, Craig J. and Zeynep Arsel (2004), “The StarbucksBrandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences ofGlocalization,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3),631–42.

——— and Siok Tambyah (1999), “Trying to Be Cosmopoli-tan,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 214–41.

Witkowski, Terrence (2000), “Effects of Animosity TowardsChina on Willingness to Buy Chinese Products,” in Managingin a Turbulent International Business Environment, G.McClean, E. Kaynak, and O. Aliaga, eds. Hummelstown, PA:The International Management Development Association,470–77.

Wongtada, Nittaya, Gillian Rice, and Subir K. Bandyopadhyay(2012), “Developing and Validating AFFINITY: A New Scaleto Measure Consumer Affinity Toward Foreign Countries,”Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 24 (3),147–67.

Woodyard, Chris (2011), “7 in 10 Japanese Cars Sold in U.S.made in N. America,” USA Today, (December 14), [availableat http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/12/seven-of-out-10-japanese-cars-made-in-the-usa/1#.T0Zpvocgef4].

World Bank (2013), “GDP Per Capita: Current US $,” (accessedFebruary 26, 2013), [available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD].

Wyer, Robert and Thomas Srull (1986), “Human Cognition inits Social Context,” Psychological Review, 93 (3), 322–59.

Yoon, Sung-Joon, Hugh Cannon, and Attila Yaprak (1996),“Evaluating the CYMYC Cosmopolitanism Scale on KoreanConsumers,” in Advances in International Marketing, C. Tay-lor, ed. New York: JAI Press, 211–32.

Yu, Jong P., Dawn T. Pysarchik, and Yong-Gu Suh (2005),“Country-of-Manufacture Effects in Consumer Choice:Made-in Korea vs. Made-in Malaysia,” Journal of KoreaTrade, 9 (1), 5–29.

Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price,Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evi-dence,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2–22.

Zhou, Lianxi and Amy Wong (2008), “Exploring the Influenceof Product Conspicuousness and Social Compliance on Pur-chasing Motives of Young Chinese Consumers for ForeignBrands,” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7 (6), 470–83.

———, Zhiyong Yang, and Michael K. Hui (2010), “Non-Local or Local Brands? A Multi-Level Investigation into Con-fidence in Brand Origin Identification and its Strategic Impli-cations,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 202–218.

The Effect of Global Company Animosity on Global Brand Attitudes in Emerging and Developed Markets:...

Documents

Transcript of The Effect of Global Company Animosity on Global Brand Attitudes in Emerging and Developed Markets:...