projects_others_a study of country of origin effects and consumer knowledge amoung taiwanese beer...

8/8/2019 Projects_Others_A Study of Country of Origin Effects and Consumer Knowledge Amoung Taiwanese Beer Consumer

1/60

Country of Origin Effects and Consumer Knowledge:

A Study of Country of Origin Effects and Consumer Knowledge Amoung Taiwanese

Beer Consumers

David Mc Guinness

MBA Student, Management of Science

National Chiao Tung University

Special Topics in Marketing Research

Dr. Charles Trappey

January 4, 2008

1


2/60

Country of Origin Effects and ConsumerKnowledge

Abstract

Country of origin and consumer knowledge has an impact on consumers purchase

intentions. This study was conducted to understand how the various dimensions of

consumer knowledge relate to country of origin effects and how this impacts a

consumers use of country of origin cues when evaluating products. The effects of

country of origin and consumer knowledge were investigated by gathering and analyzing

data collected through questionnaires. From the findings of this study it appears that the

various dimensions of consumer knowledge together have a significant effect on the use

of the country of origin cue in product evaluations.

2


3/60


Introduction

Brand name and price are factors that generally influence consumers evaluation

of and purchase intentions towards a product. However, the globalization of production

and markets has added another factor to the list as more and more companies shift

production to overseas locations where factors of production are superior or less costly,

and then market their products to consumers around the world. Consequently, for many

international consumers a products country of origin (COO) can be an important cue in

evaluating both domestic and foreign products. Ahmed et al. (2002).

Studies have proved that consumers around the world use COO as a factor in

product evaluation (e.g. Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Hong and Wyer, 1989; Maheswaran,

1994; Okechuku and Onyemah, 1999; Supanvanij and Amine, 2000). As international

trade activity is becoming a fundamental part of the world economy, it is even more

important to measure consumers attitudes towards both domestic and foreign products

(Netemeyer et al., 1991). How COO perceptions affect consumers evaluation of and

intention to purchase products, and the relative strength of COO compared with other

informational cues, are of considerable interest to international marketing practitioners

and researchers since this information can help them to devise more effective strategies to

aid firms in selling their products internationally.

However, most studies of COO effects have focused on high involvement

products such as cars and electronic goods for which consumers will usually look beyond

cues such as price or design in making their purchase decision. To date, there have been

few studies on the impact of consumers COO perceptions on low-involvement products;

thus, it is not clear what role COO plays in shaping consumers preferences and

3


4/60


intentions to purchase such goods or whether its effect is the same for low-involvement

products as for high-involvement products, Ahmed et al. (2002).

An individual factor which may inhibit reliance on country of origin is consumer

knowledge. Consumer knowledge has been mentioned as one such individual factor in

various publications. However, relatively few publications have addressed the issue in

detail. The purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to explore various dimensions of consumer

knowledge as it relates to country of origin effects and then investigate how these

dimensions of knowledge affect consumers use of country of origin in evaluating a fast

consumer product, i.e. beer.

4


5/60


Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore various dimensions of consumer

knowledge as it relates to country of origin effects and then investigate how these

dimensions of knowledge affect a consumers use of country of origin cues when

purchasing beer and to test it with Taiwanese consumers.

5


6/60


Literature Review

Previous literatures on consumer knowledge show that country of origin (COO)

effects is a very complex issue. Various factors can influence its extent. One of these

factors is consumer knowledge (Maheswaran, 1994; Chiou, 2003). Earlier studies have

not illustrated between the different dimensions of consumer knowledge and how these

are connected with COE (Scribner and Weun, 2001). In addition, the level of product

knowledge will also affect information use since increased familiarity results in better

developed knowledge structures or schema about the product (Rao and Monroe, 1988).

Consumer knowledge certainly plays a role in the acquisition and evaluation of extrinsic

cues. For instance, Cordell (1997) has investigated the dimensionality of consumer

knowledge and each dimensions moderating effects on consumer use of extrinsic cues.

In his study based on a camera, different cues such as the products brand (well-known

versus invented) and COO (developed versus developing) are all relevant in consumer

evaluation. As such, there is a need to examine the relationship between various

dimensions of consumer knowledge and consumers use of COO.

There are some inherent gaps in the literature. Previous COO studies mostly used

durable, complex and high financial risk products, such as automobiles and electronic

appliances. Very few studies investigated solely non-durable, low financial risk fast

consuming goods. Second, for such low risk (or considered low-involvement) products,

consumers dont get very involved in the purchase and therefore unlikely to engage in

lengthy information search and processing (Hoyer and Mac Innis, 2000). It can be

suggested that consumers will rely more on their own knowledge than extrinsic cues.

6


7/60


Introducing country-of-origin effect

As global trade is becoming a fundamental part of the worlds economy, it is

becoming increasingly important to understand consumers attitudes towards domestic

and foreign products (Netemeyer et al., 1991). There are a lot of researchers in this area

who have studied COO effects: investigating how consumers see products sourced from

certain countries (Roth and Romeo, 1992). The world is often called a global village,

despite this, studies continue to imply that national stereotypes have a significant

influence on how products are perceived by consumers.

Prior literature reflects that COE is a multifaceted phenomenon and various

moderators can influence its magnitude (Maheswaran, 1994; Chiou, 2003). Studies in

COO effects go back as far as the 1960s, one of the conceptualizations of COO effects

was that of Nagashima (1970). He concluded that consumers relate with a given country

of origin as, the picture, the reputation, and the stereotype that business men and

consumers attach to products of a specific country. This image is formed by such

variables as representative products, national characteristics, economic and political back

ground, history, and traditions. Since then, much literature has been added to the study

of COE. Samiee (1994) views COE as any influence or bias that consumers may have,

resulting from a products country of origin. The source of the effect may be wide-ranged;

some are based onexperiences with a product from a certain country, some from personal

experiences such as travel, knowledge of a country, political beliefs, ethnocentric

tendencies, or even the fear of the unknown.

Knight (1999), comments that Han (1989), Parameswaran and Yaprak (1987)

perceive country image as reflecting consumers general perceptions about the quality of

7


8/60


products made in a particular country and the nature of people from that country.

Furthermore, according to Han (1988) and Papadopoulos et al. (1990) COO perceptions

encompass cognitions, highlighting particular product and marketing attributes and

affect, concerning the countrys consumers.

COO effects as a product cue

Consumers make decisions about the quality of products based on a systematic

process of acquisition, evaluation and integration of product information or cues.

Products have extrinsic and intrinsic cues (Cordel, 1992); intrinsic cues are tangible or

physical characteristics, such as design, colour or other graphics and extrinsic cues are

intangible product characteristics, such as brand name or fame.

When intrinsic cues are not available or cannot easily be assessed, consumers are

inclined to rely more on extrinsic cues, this is frequently the situation for low-

involvement products, since the cost and time of searching for intrinsic cues to help

consumers in product evaluation is much greater than the benefits. COO has been

described as an extrinsic cue that is applied by consumers when assessing a products

quality. As a result COO, as an extrinsic cue, has a strong influence on consumer

attitudes and can increase the probability of product purchase (Schooler, 1971). COE is

also recognised as the made in model and has been explained as the favourable or

unfavourable influence a products country of origin can have on consumers mind-sets

and decision making. The image created is a general cognitive concept representing a

mental picture of the qualities of the product.

Maheswaran (1994) suggests that COO is used in product assessment as a

stereotyping procedure, consumers expect that a product manufactured in a certain

8


9/60


country will have certain characteristics; normally, consumers will assess a product more

favorably if it has a favorable COO. This stereotyping method affects product assessment

in three ways. First, COO acts as a hint; consumers have prior perceptions of the general

quality of products from a particular country, and they use these perceptions to infer the

other product cues such as quality and therefore the overall product evaluation.

Second, COO when used with other cues for evaluation can also be an

independent cue. Third, COO can be used as a heuristic to simplify the product

evaluation process, even though other available product cues may be more useful (Li and

Wyer, 1994). This often occurs when there is too much product information, or when

consumers are unfamiliar with the product.

Research has proven that COO influences consumers decisions to purchase

products; consumers from developed countries favour products from developed countries,

this preference may include products made in the consumers home country instead of

products originating in less developed countries.Consumers may favour domestic goods

for many reasons including familiarity, and because of the belief that it helps the

economy and provide jobs as well as bolstering national pride (Pecotich et al. 2007).

In contrast, the preferences of consumers from less developed countries were

towards products from well developed countries so the purchasing preference will also be

for products from developed countries, (Bruning, 1997). Pecotich et al. (1996) found that

developed countries such as Japan, Germany and the USA are associated with high

quality products whereas newly developing nations such as Korea, China and the

Philippines are associated with poorer quality products. Countries with the lowest

reputation are those about which consumers know very little such as, for example, the

9


10/60


Eastern European countries. Research suggests that the reputation of an unknown country

may be lower, than that of even a developing nation.

Country of Origin Image

As explained above, the effect of COO information on consumer purchase

behavior has created a large amount of studies. Nagashima (1970) first defined country

image as the picture, the representation, the stereotype that businessmen and consumers

attach to products of a specific country. This image is created by such variables as

representation products, national characteristics, economic and political background,

history and tradition.

The impact of COO cues on consumption behavior has been related to producing

country characteristics. It has been proven that consumers willingness to purchase

products is related to economic, political, and cultural characteristics of the products

COO. The perceptions of sourcing countries are impacted by cognition, affect and

conative orientation towards the countrys people. COO effects have also been connected

to beliefs about the overall product offerings of a certain country. A consumers image of

people which they are not familiar with may be formed upon the basis of knowledge

about that peoples abilities to produce quality products in general and that belief impacts

the evaluation of specific products from that country. Parameswaran (2002) called these

components the general country attributes (GCA) and the general product attributes.

Consumers purchase intentions and behaviour are impacted by COO effects and by

specific product attributes (SPA).

According to Parameswarans (2002) theoretical model of country image, the

dependent variable, consumer purchase intent and behaviour is directly influenced by the

10


11/60


specific product attributes (SPA) of a brand. Consumer purchase intent and behaviour are

also influenced by consumers general perceptions of a products COO (GPA: general

product attributes) as well as perceptions of the COOs people (GCA general country

attributes). The influences of GCA and GPA on intention to purchase (IP) are primarily

through their influences on consumers perception of the attributes of a particular product

or brand (SPA). The model presented in Figure 1.1 introduces COO images and effects.

Source: (Parameswaran 2002)

Papadopoulos (1993) explains that the image of an object results from peoples

perceptions of it and the phenomena that surround it. Based on the studies conducted in

eight different countries, Papadopoulos et al. were among the first to incorporate distinct

country image measures in PCI research (in addition to measures of products simply

designated as made in X), and the first to attempt to model the relationship between

country beliefs, product beliefs, familiarity, and product evaluation and willingness to

buy. After further elaborating on their data and other studies, they proposed that

consumers perceptions of the country of origin of a product comprise (Papadopoulos et

11


12/60


al., 1988,1990, 2000): a cognitive component, which includes consumers beliefs about

the countrys industrial development and technological advancement; an affective

component that describes consumers affective response to the countrys people; and a

conative component, consisting of consumers desired level of interaction with the

sourcing country. Country image affects product evaluations, its very structure, that is the

relative importance attached to its cognitive, affective, and conative components, has a

significant impact on the extent of its influence on product evaluations.

The role of country image in product evaluation

According to Hong and Wyer (1989), when consumers are presented with the COO

cue together with other cues, such as price and brand, the effects of COO in their

cognitive process can be observed in two ways, the Halo Effect and the Summary

Construct.

The Halo Effect can serve as a halo to infer beliefs about attributes that make up the

attitude towards a product or service, Pecotich et al(2007) explains consumer evaluations

of products and services are based on their perception of the country (e.g. overall the

Japanese make good quality products, this is a camera from Japan, therefore it must be

good quality). Second, it may be used as a means of abstracting previous beliefs about

attributes of products and services from a particular country into a chunk of information

called the summary construct, which is in turn used to infer product attitudes (e.g. I

know, from experience that the Japanese make poor quality wine, this is a wine from

Japan, therefore I would expect it to be of poor quality).

The use of COO as a halo to directly infer product beliefs may be based on a

consumers limited ability to infer quality before purchase. This may occur because

12


13/60


actual quality differences are hard to detect, or because consumers lack familiarity with

the product and/or country of manufacture. The use of COO as a summary construct

occurs when consumers have greater knowledge about products and service classes from

a particular country, this knowledge is then generalised only to that specific product

class. Country image then serves as an indirect channel in affecting product attributes.

The halo process involves the use of country image which extends across different

products or services, while the summary construct covers the use of the country/product

image that is represented by the reputation of the country as a producer of particular

classes of goods. The second important factor that distinguishes the processing strategies

of the COO (or brand) cue is the amount of consumer knowledge. In terms of information

processing this is a selective and analytical use of cues. It is a selective process because

the more expert and knowledgeable the consumer, the more likely COO will only be of

importance if it is consistent with past experience of a product from a relevant country. It

is an analytical decision-making process as it is only of relevance to more knowledgeable

consumers when actual quality matches past experience. This will be the case for more

knowledgeable consumers even when differences in quality are difficult to determine.

It is, therefore, expected that consumers lacking in knowledge will use COO as a

halo because they are unlikely to be able to judge quality where differences are not

obviously apparent. These novice consumers do not have extensive knowledge of

countries, brands, products from a particular countries or general product class

knowledge from which to form a summary construct about a product they are evaluating.

They will rely more on the overall image of a country when rating products and services

along with information contained in extrinsic cues. More knowledgeable consumers, on

13


14/60


the other hand are heuristic processors using COO only when it is relevant to a product

and consistent with a level of detected quality.

Han (1989) explains COO effects through the halo and summary construct models,

the study suggests that COO image allows consumers to assume the quality of an

unfamiliar foreign brand. This is similar to the role of price which assists consumers in

their evaluation of the quality of a product when other important information is lacking.

Knight and Calantones (2000) replication of Hans (1989) model in figure 1.2 suggests

that COO image directly influences product attribute beliefs, which then directly

influences attitudes towards a product. That is a structural relationship of the shape COO

image > beliefs > brand attitude. The halo model works with consumers, who are

unfamiliar with a foreign product, that is, consumers with low product knowledge.

Figure 1.2

Source: Knight et al (2000)Halo Model

PPIM = product and people image measure

BLF = beliefs measureATT = attitudes measure

In comparison, Hans (1989) original summary construct model (Figure 1.2)

suggests that, amoung consumers possessing high knowledge about the product, COO

image may summarise beliefs about product attributes, directly affecting brand attitude,

14


15/60


which results in a structural relationship of the shape beliefs> COO image> brand

attitude. The summary construct view states that, because short-term memory has limited

capacity, consumers are inclined to summarise information in a method that makes it

easier to store and remember in the long-term. In a later situation, consumers who are

already familiar with a countrys products may use their relevant information as a COO

cue when facing another product with the same COO. If the product possesses attributes

similar to the initial product, the consumer may infer its quality by accessing the country

cue they have previously stored from prior experience.

Figure 1.3

Summary Construct ModelSource: Knight et al (2000)PPIM = product and people image measure

BLF = beliefs measure

ATT = attitudes measure

In Figure 1.3, product beliefs refer to consumers beliefs about a products

intrinsic characteristics such as quality and reliability. Product evaluation, in contrast,

refers to consumers attitudes of a product and works in terms of a consumers joy of

ownership and intention to purchase. This figure suggests a simultaneous processing of

country image and product beliefs regardless of consumers level of familiarity. In

addition, country image is expected to influence product beliefs and hence to have an

additional indirect effect on product evaluation.

15


16/60


Further to highlighting the simultaneous processing of country image and product

beliefs, the proposed model takes into account both the halo and summary views. The

direct effect of country image reflects its use as a summary construct, while the indirect

effect, through product beliefs, represents consumers use of country image as a halo.

Figure 1.4Country Image and Product Beliefs

Source: Laroche et al (2003)

Consumer ethnocentrism

COO is normally used to rate the quality of products. Yet, sometimes consumers are

interested in the COO of the product because they have a desire to purchase domestically

produced products. Consumer ethnocentrism as defined by Shrimp et al. (1987) it

represents the beliefs held by a countries consumers about the appropriateness, indeed

morality, of purchasing foreign made products. The basic idea of the ethnocentrism

principle is that the purchase of foreign goods will damage the home.

16


17/60


This damage may take different structures, but focuses mainly on the ethnocentric

consumer believing the purchase of foreign products as causing a negative economic

impact and performing an unpatriotic act. Okechuku (1994) displayed that consumers in

developed countries are inclined to favor domestically made goods primarily, after which

goods from another developed nation are purchased, and then products from less

developed nations. Therefore, if consumer ethnocentrism is influential, consumers take

COO into consideration when assessing products.

Other Extrinsic Cues

Bilkey and Nes (1982) suggests if only COO is provided as an informational cue,

the outcome maybe positively biased for investigating COE. Prior research has found that

if extra cues are available, the importance of COO on product assessment decreases. If

information about the product is not available to consumers they may depend on the

brand name to assume its value; therefore, brand loyalty is evidence of the importance of

a trusted brand name in consumers evaluation of products (Ettenson and Gaeth, 1991).

Studies have proven that a well known and respected brand can reduce the bad

consequences of a weak COO image in product assessment (Cordell, 1993). The same

way, if price is more important than image, COO is less influential than price in

consumers purchasing choices.

Consumers apply COO as an extrinsic cue to assess the value of goods. It may

indirectly influence the understanding of different available product cues and therefore

the whole product assessment; in different situations, it may be the only cue used to

assess a good, yet there could be other cues presented. If consumers are unfamiliar with a

good, consumers use the halo effect to assess the good, if the consumer is familiar with

17


18/60


the good, the construct summary process is used. The halo effect and the summary

construct differ in the sequence the consumers cognitive procedure takes. Also, if there

is not enough available product knowledge or time is limited, consumers will use an

alternative approach and use the stereotypical ideas and use a nations typical image to

evaluate a good.

Consumer Knowledge

Dimensions of consumer knowledge

Various moderators can influence country of origin effects and its magnitude. One of

these is consumer knowledge (Chiou, 2003). As Phau et al (2006) suggests consumer

knowledge certainly plays a role in the acquisition and evaluation of extrinsic cues. Alba

et al. (1987) point out, consumer knowledge should be regarded as a multidimensional

construct, where different types of product-related experience lead to different

dimensions of knowledge, and these different dimensions of knowledge have different

effects on product evaluations and choice behaviour, depending on the specific situation

and task at hand.

Several important distinctions must be made between different dimensions of

consumer knowledge (Schafer, 1995). The first distinction is between product-related

experience and product knowledge. Brucks (1985), states that product knowledge is

based on memories or known knowledge from consumers. Lin and Zhen (2005) assert

that product knowledge depends on consumers awareness or understanding about the

product, or consumers confidence in it. A consumers idea of a product may also contain

country of origin information. These considerations mean that product experience will

only exert an indirect influence on consumer behaviour, including the use or otherwise of

18


19/60


the country of origin cue, and that direct measures of product knowledge, rather than

experience, are preferable. A second distinction must be made between subjective and

objective product knowledge, based on a definition of Brucks (1985) about product

knowledge, it can be divided into three major categories: subject knowledge or perceived

knowledge, objective knowledge and experience-based knowledge.

Wang (2001) summarises much literature and reports that the index used to measure

product knowledge by scholars include: the consumers perception of how much he or

she knows, the amount, type and organization of what the consumer has stored in his/her

memory and the amount of purchasing and usage experience. Schaefer (1995) suggests

measures of subjective knowledge can indicate self-confidence levels, and high

subjective knowledge may increase an individuals confidence in relying on information

stored in the memory, such as country of origin. High levels of objective product

knowledge, on the other hand, mean both more information stored in the memory and a

greater ability to learn and use new information about product attributes.

Third, it is necessary to differentiate general product class knowledge and specific

brand familiarity. As general product class knowledge may allow the use of any extrinsic

product information cues, direct experience with a particular brand is likely to encourage

the use of brand name especially as a decisive factor and therefore may decrease the use

of any other cues.

A final differentiation must be made between product class knowledge and country

knowledge. Although these may to some extent overlap they are evidently not identical.

A measure that taps product class knowledge as it relates to countries of origin, or

country knowledge relating to products, may be particularly useful when investigating the

19


20/60


impact of consumer knowledge on country of origin effects.

Brand Familiarity

Brand familiarity has been subject to much research (Lange et al. 2003). Brand

familiarity is defined as the number of brand-related direct or indirect experiences that

have been accrued by the consumer. Brand experiences such as exposure to various

media advertisements for the brand, exposure to the brand in a store, and purchase or

usage of the brand increase brand familiarity and are an important internal source of

information (Park et al. 2005).

Brand familiarity is one dimension of consumer knowledge that is hypothesised to

have an influence on country of origin effects. This is due to the fact that there is a

distinction between general product class knowledge and specific brand familiarity.

General product class knowledge relates to knowledge about the features or attributes of

a product, regardless of whether the consumer uses these features to make a decision.

Specific brand familiarity refers to the consumer knowledge regarding the brand that

exists in a product category. This knowledge includes how brands compare on different

attributes and which brands own unique attributes (Baker et al., 2002).

According to Baker et al., (2002) among other extrinsic cues, brand name is the

most common indicator for consumers to assess products. When consumers are familiar

with a particular brand in the product category, there is a less tendency that they will

search for more information. Hence, it may be assumed that consumers who are

accustomed to a particular brand will not use country of origin, or attribute information,

to any large extent in evaluating that brand.

Knowledge that consumers obtain through direct personal experience will be

20


21/60


perceived to be more trustworthy than information from other communications. This

results in more strongly held beliefs (Swaminathan et al., 2001). Direct experience with a

particular brand tends to dilute country of origin effects on consumers because such

experience reinforces consumers reliance on brand attributes.

Schafer (1995) suggests where consumers are confronted with a familiar brand

name they tend to reach evaluations quickly and directly without much effort in external

searching, because they are familiar with the brands attributes (Brucks, 1985). In such

situations no further search for and processing of information is necessary. Thus it seems

reasonable to assume that consumers who are familiar with a particular brand will not

rely on country of origin, or attribute information, to any large extent, in evaluating that

brand.

Price

Price represents not only the monetary cost of an item but also connotes a quality

level for both the brand and the product and, by inference, the satisfaction level to be

expected (Assael, 1995). Generally price is an important cue to quality when there are

few other cues available, when the product cannot be evaluated before purchase and

when there is some degree of risk of making a wrong choice. A high price may signal that

the product is of superior quality. Therefore, for some specific goods, customers might

even reject cheaper items just to avoid the risk of dissatisfaction. (Kotler, 2003).

Price is not important in reducing perceived risk and that it may not be an

effective cue for quality. Chao (1993) lent more information to this argument by linking

it more closely to COO information. He pointed out that perceptions of extrinsic quality

based on cues such as price may be different according to both the product and the COO.

21


22/60


He argued for a direct link between confidence in a countrys ability to produce high-

quality products and the products themselves. Thus if a country is perceived to be

incapable of producing high quality products, this overrides other perceptions based on

price. They may perceive that the products produced in the country will generally be of

low-quality. Consequently, consumers may be less likely to use price as an indicator of

quality.

Objective product class knowledge

If a consumer is familiar with a particular brand in a product category, the

consumers level of objective product class knowledge may not have any great impact on

the use of the country of origin cue. However, where the particular brand is not familiar,

objective product class knowledge is likely to influence a consumers evaluation and

choice processes. Where attribute information is readily available and/or where the

situation warrants the search for such information, consumers with high levels of

objective product knowledge can be expected to base evaluations on intrinsic attributes

rather than extrinsic cues such as country of origin (Maheswaran, 1994).

Under a situation when both intrinsic and extrinsic cues of product attribute

information are available and the search for such information is warranted, consumers

with higher levels of objective product knowledge may base evaluations on intrinsic

attributes rather than extrinsic cues (such as country of origin). This is because highly

objective consumers value the cues that provide diagnostic utility. On the other hand, in a

case that product attribute information is not available in choice situations and the search

for it is not always warranted, consumers may rely more on extrinsic cues for evaluation

of unfamiliar brands. Therefore, it can be expected that such informational extrinsic cues

22


23/60


as price, value or country of origin will play a role in product evaluation (Phau, 2006). In

other words, country of origin perception is not completely independent of products

(Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 2001).

Subjective product class knowledge

According to Mattilda and Wirtz (2002), subjective product knowledge increases

consumers reliance on previously stroed information. Increased levels of subjective

knowledge lead to a greater on reliance on a consumers own evaluation skills. While

objective product class knowledge is likely to influence information processing

strategies, subjective product class knowledge is more likely to affect consumers

confidence in using information stored in the memory. As such information is likely to

relate partly to COO, consumers with high levels of subjective product knowledge can be

expected to be more confident in using the country of origin cue. Thus consumers with

higher levels of subjective product knowledge are likely to rely more on country of origin

than consumers with low subjective product knowledge.

The influence of product knowledge on information search behaviour

To understand consumer behavior, consumer knowledge is an important factor.

This is because, before the consumer performs actual purchasing behavior, they most

likely experience two procedures: The first is Information search: this means when the

consumer faces many consuming relevant questions, he/she requires relevant information

to assist with his/her consuming decision. This type of search of appropriate information

procedure is called information search (Solomon, 1997). The second is Information

processing: includes consumer self selects to expose, notice, recognize, agree, accept, or

retain. No matter how much knowledge the consumer has, it all affects his/her procedures

23


24/60


concerning information search and information processing (Brucks, 1985).

Much evidence shows that product knowledge has an impact on information

processing to the consumer. Lin and Chen (2006) suggest that when a consumer selects a

product, they usually rely on their product knowledge to evaluate it, and their product

knowledge would also affect their information search procedure, attitude, and

information search quantity. In addition, their level of product knowledge would

determine consumer purchase decisions, and indirectly affect their buying intentions.

Brands country-of-origin image and brand equity

Brand equity refers to the value of well known brand name. Consumers may be

willing to pay more for the same level of quality due to the attractiveness of a brand name

attached to a product. In marketing literature, brand equity is referred to as the intangible

brand properties. Brand equity arose from customer brand-name awareness, brand

loyalty, perceived brand quality and favorable brand symbolisms and associations that

provide a platform for a competitive advantage and future earning streams (Bello and

Holbrook, 1995).

There are many studies to document country-of-origin perspectives. From these

studies, marketers and consumer behavior researchers generally accept that a products or

brands country-of-origin is an important influencing factor in consumer decision-

making. Most studies suggest that country-of origin information which is indicated by the

Made in label has many influences in consumer decision-making. It can act as the main

attribute in consumer product evaluation, stimulates consumers interest in the product,

affect behavioral intentions through social norms and influences buyer behavior through

affective processes as in the case of consumers patriotic feelings for their own country.

24


25/60


The overall evaluation of products is influenced by country stereotyping, that is, the

image that consumers have about a certain country will influence their perceptions of

products from that country. Since consumers perception of a particular country-of-origin

influence their evaluation of products from that country, this will influence their

preference, purchase intention and choice of a particular brand. Obviously, this has

implications on the brands equity (Piron, 2000).

25


26/60


Summary of Findings from Country of Origin Effects and Consumer Knowledge

Studies

Reference Findings

Country-of

Origin Effects

Schooler, 1971COO, as an extrinsic cue, has a strong influence on consumer

attitudes and can increase the probability of product purchase

Hong and Wyer,1989

Consumer lacking in product knowledge use COO as a halo

because they are unlikely to be able to judge quality where

differences are not obviously apparent. Knowledgeable

consumers, use COO only when it is relevant to a product and

consistent with a level of detected quality

Ettenson and

Gaeth, 1991

If extra cues are available, the importance of COO on product

assessment decreases. If information about the product is not

available to consumers they may depend on the brand name

to assume its value.

Cordell, 1992

Consumers make decisions about the quality of products

based on a systematic process of acquisition, evaluation and

integration of product information or cues

Cordell, 1993A strong brand can reduce the bad consequences of a weak

COO image in product assessment

Papadopoulos,

1993

Country image affects product evaluations, its very structure,

that is the relative importance attached to its cognitive,

affective, and conative components, has a significant impact

on the extent of its influence on product evaluations.

26


27/60


Maheswaran,

1994

COO, perceptions are used to infer the overall quality of a

product, when used with other cues for evaluation can also be

an independent cue, can be used as a heuristic to simplify the

product evaluation process

Okechuku, 1994If consumer ethnocentrism is influential, consumers take

COO into consideration when assessing products

Bruning, 1997Consumers from developed and less developed countries

favour products from developed countries

Knight and

Calantone, 2000

COO image allows consumers to assume the quality of an

unfamiliar foreign brand, it directly influences product

attribute beliefs, which then directly influences attitudes

towards a product

Parameswaran,2002

Consumers willingness to purchase products is related to

economic, political, and cultural characteristics of the

products COO. The perceptions of COO are impacted by

cognition, affect and conative orientation towards the

countrys people. Consumer purchase intent and behaviour

are also influenced by consumers general perceptions of a

products COO and its people.

Pecotich-andWard, 2007

Consumer evaluations of products and services are based on

their perception of the country, the Halo effect may be used

as a means of abstracting previous beliefs about attributes ofproducts and services from a particular country into a chunk

of information called the summary construct, which is in turn

used to infer product attitudes

27


28/60


Consumer

Knowledge

Rao and Monroe,

1988

The level of product knowledge will also affect information

use since increased familiarity results in better developed

knowledge structures or schema about the product

Schaefer, 1995

High subjective knowledge may increase an individuals

confidence in relying on information stored in the memory,

such as country of origin. High levels of objective product

knowledge mean a greater ability to learn and use new

information about product attributes. Direct experience with a

particular brand is likely to encourage the use of brand name

especially as a decisive factor and therefore may decrease the

use of any other cues.

Piron, 2000Consumers perception of a particular COO influence their

evaluation of products from that country, this will influence

their preference, purchase intention and choice of a particular

brand.

Cordell, 1997 Consumer knowledge effects the acquisition and evaluationof extrinsic cues

Jaffe-and

Nebenzahl, 2001

Informational extrinsic cues as price, value or country of

origin are important in product evaluation so COO

perceptions are not completely independent of products

Swaminathan, Foxand Reddy, 2001

Direct experience with a particular brand tends to dilutecountry of origin effects on consumers because such

experience reinforces consumers reliance on brand attributes.

Baker, Hunt and

Scribner, 2002

Consumers who are accustomed to a particular brand will not

use country of origin, or attribute information, to any large

28


29/60


extent in evaluating that brand.

Mattilda-andWirtz, 2002

Consumers with higher levels of subjective product

knowledge are likely to rely more on country of origin than

consumers with low subjective product knowledge.

Lin and Zhen,

2005

Product experience will only exert an indirect influence on

consumer behaviour, including the use or otherwise of the

country of origin cue, and that direct measures of product

knowledge, rather than experience, are preferable.

Lin and Chen,

2006

Consumers rely on their product knowledge to evaluate

products, product knowledge affects information search

procedures, attitudes, and information search quantities. The

level of product knowledge can determine consumer purchase

decisions, and indirectly affect their buying intentions.

29


30/60


Research Objectives and Hypotheses

The study is designed to investigate the relationship between different dimensions

of consumer knowledge and consumers use of COE cues in the evaluation of beer when

purchasing. In contrast to COE on consumer behaviour, which is considered one of the

most widely researched issues in international marketing (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995),

this study uses better measures of different dimensions of consumer knowledge in one

research which enables the author to better compare the individual impacts of COE.

There have been limited studies on COE on consumers when purchasing low-

involvement products, therefore it is not clearly defined how COE influences consumer

intentions and choices when purchasing fast consumer goods. Its not clear if the COE on

low-involvement products is similar to that of high involvement products. Therefore this

study will add to the marketing literature by evaluating COE on fast consumed low-

involvement products: Beer sales in Taiwan.

This study is different from previous studies as it focuses mainly on extrinsic

product information cues and it investigates the COE on beer sales as opposed to durable

products. As the author found little research on COE completed in this area, the author

believes there is a necessity to study the connection between different dimensions of

consumer knowledge and a consumers use of country of origin. Prior country of origin

studies, have mainly used durable and expensive products such as cars and consumer

electronic products.

Normally consumers dont involve themselves in depth when purchasing beer,

therefore they are unlikely to engage in a lengthy information search and processing

(Kotler and Armstrong, 2006). In addition, product information is very limited at the

point of purchase which is where choices regarding these products are normally made. As

30


31/60


a result, its normal for consumers to depend only on the available extrinsic cues, such as

a products country of origin or their previous experience of the brand.

Consumer knowledge and awareness is undoubtedly a major factor in the

evaluation and assessment of extrinsic cues. For example, Cordell (1997) has examined

the dimensions of consumer knowledge and each dimensions consequences on a

consumers use of extrinsic cues. In the study based on a camera, various cues such as the

products brand name or country of origin (developed versus developing), these are all

significant in a consumers assessment of a product.

Brand Familiarity

Consumers dependence on COO when evaluating a product increases if the

brand is unfamiliar to the consumer but if the brand is familiar to the consumer they will

be more likely to depend on the familiar qualities of the products brand as opposed to the

COO.

H1: When making a purchasing decision, if a consumers only available

information cues are a products COO and brand, they will depend more on COO

than brand if the brand is unknown to the consumer.

If a consumer has had direct experience with a certain brand, the consumers

dependence on COO will decrease and a consumers knowledge of the brands attributes

will have a greater influence on their purchasing decision.

H2: If a consumer has had direct experience with a certain brand, the consumers

reliance on COO will decrease further as opposed to a customer who is just

familiar with the brand.

31


32/60


Objective product-country knowledge

Objective knowledge refers to what a consumer actually knows about a product.

In the situation when a consumer is purchasing low involvement products, a consumer

will not undertake an extensive attribute information search. As there is not normally

much attribute information about the product available at the point of sale a consumer

will increase their dependence on objective product-country knowledge as a purchasing

cue.

H3: Consumers with higher levels of objective product-country knowledge will be

more likely to depend on COO when evaluating low involvement products than

consumers with lower levels of product-country knowledge.


Subjective product knowledge refers to how knowledgeable a consumer thinks

they are about a product, this self-confidence can affect a consumers use of a products

extrinsic cues. So consumers with high levels of subjective product knowledge may be

more likely to depend on COO information cues in a products evaluation. High levels of

subjective product knowledge may also increase a consumers self-confidence and their

dependence on the known attributes of a familiar brand. Therefore, increased reliance on

COO is more likely to occur where the brand is unfamiliar.

H4: Consumers with higher levels of subjective product class knowledge will be

more likely to depend on COO when evaluating products, especially those with an

unknown brand, than consumers with lower levels of subjective product

knowledge.

32


33/60


Methodology

The questionnaire was designed replicating many items from Schaefers (1997)

study. Some changes were incorporated. The countries of origin used Australia,

Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, China, Japan, United States, Philippines

and Mexico. These countries were chosen as it reflects the current market of the beer

industry.

The three product attributes chosen were all extrinsic cues: brand, value and COO. This is

because consumers rely more on extrinsic cues in evaluating low-involvement products,

since the cost of searching for intrinsic cues often exceeds the relative benefits (Cordel,

1992). Two brands were included for each country. The nine familiar brands chosen

were Heineken, Budweiser, Becks, Carling, Corona, Fosters, Qing Tao, Kirin and San

Miguel as these were the most representative in terms of availability and popularity in

Taiwan with respect to each of the nine countries. The nine unfamiliar brand names were

invented by the author.

Data collection

To ensure responses from the general population, the sources of our sample were

students of higher education institutions, and cafes, convenience stores and supermarket

customers from all classes of life across Taiwan. Questionnaires were distributed to

students in three universities; some students completed and returned the questionnaire

after immediately completing it, others mailed and e-mailed in their responses. The cafe

and supermarket customers were approached at random by the researcher and completed

the questionnaire on the spot. A total of 100 questionnaires were returned; 82 usable

questionnaires were included in the data analysis. Questionnaires were chosen because

33


34/60


they are convenient and respondents are easily found.

In the questionnaire respondents were evaluated through an easy assessment

where the only available product information was the products country of origin and

brand name. Respondents were asked to rate products on the basis of the brand name, and

country of origin and then only country of origin. Respondents were asked to rate the

dimensions Quality, Image and Value for money on a five point scale.

The author analysed and correlated the ratings for the country and brand results of

the questionnaires. The differences in correlation signified how much the respondents

depended on COO when assessing each product for brand and COO. Brand familiarity

was assessed by using one famous brand and one invented brand by the author for each

COO. Only the correlations from the respondents who were familiar with the brand were

analysed. To establish brand experience, respondents were asked if they had tasted any or

all of the real brands used in the questionnaire. Subjective product class knowledge was

collected by asking respondents to choose a response from a choice of four levels which

best describes their knowledge of the various types and brands of beer available in

Taiwan. To establish objective product country knowledge, respondents were asked to

signify the beer brands which they were familiar with. The following question asked

respondents to write the country of origin of the brands which they were familiar with.

The list included eighteen brands, the nine authentic brands and the nine brands created

by the author. This method was used to determine objective product-country knowledge,

respondents could then be organised into three different levels of knowledge, high,

medium and low. The respondents right amount of answers allowed the author to grade

the respondents level of knowledge.

34


35/60


The sample was divided into different levels of sub groups, respondents were

divided into groups by their different levels of knowledge. This allowed the author to

calculate if the dimensions of consumer knowledge affect the use of COO in beer

assessments. The correlations of each group were calculated separately. Tests could then

establish if the different groups signified higher or lower correlations. This proved if

country of origin effects exists.

35


36/60


37/60


Heineken0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Silver Dutch0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

United Kingdom0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Carling

0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Red Lion0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

China0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

TsingTao0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Jiao Pu0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Japan0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Kirin0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Nagasako0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

United States0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Budweiser0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Jack State0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Philippines0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

San Miguel0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Majati0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Mexico0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Corona0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Hacienda0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Australia0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Fosters0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Kuala Label0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Evidence for country of origin effects

As explained above, evidence for respondents use of the country of origin cue in product

evaluations was sought by correlating ratings on the basis of country of origin alone and

on the basis of brand name and country of origin. The results of this analysis are shown in

Table II.

37


38/60


Table 2

Evidence for country of origin effects: Spearmans rank correlation coefficient, r,

between brand and country ratings

Value Quality Image

Germany

Becks (95) 0.772* (94) 0.555* (93) 0.647*

Totenbrau (74) 0.167 (73) 0.051 (73) 0.048

The Netherlands 0.01

Heineken 0.01 0.01 0.01

Silver Dutch 0.01 0.01 0.01

United Kingdom

Carling 0.01 0.01 0.01

Red Lion 0.01 0.01 0.01

China

TsingTao 0.01 0.01 0.01

Jiao Pu 0.01 0.01 0.01

Japan

Kirin 0.01 0.01 0.01

Nagasako 0.01 0.01 0.01

United States

Budweiser 0.01 0.01 0.01

Jack State 0.01 0.01 0.01

Philippines

San Miguel 0.01 0.01 0.01

Majati 0.01 0.01 0.01

Mexico

Corona 0.01 0.01 0.01

Hacienda 0.01 0.01 0.01

Australia

Fosters 0.01 0.01 0.01

Kuala Label 0.01 0.01 0.01

Personal brand experience and country of origin effects

38


39/60


In H3 it was proposed that in the situation when a consumer is purchasing low

involvement products, a consumer will not undertake an extensive attribute information

search. As there is not normally much attribute information about the product available at

the point of sale a consumer will increase their dependence on objective product-country

knowledge as a purchasing cue. In Table III the correlations of country ratings and

ratings of familiar brands are shown separately for respondents with and without personal

experience of the brand in question.

Table III.

Brand experience: correlations between brand and country ratings by respondents

with and without brand experience

Brand

Experience

No Brand

Experience

Value Quality Image Value Quality Image

Germany

Becks 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

The Netherlands

Heineken 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

United Kingdom

Carling 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

China

TsingTao 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Japan

Kirin 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

United States

Budweiser 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Philippines

San Miguel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Mexico

Corona 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Australia

Fosters 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

39


40/60


Objective product-country knowledge

H3 suggest that consumers with higher levels of objective product-country

knowledge will be more likely to depend on COO when evaluating low involvement

products than consumers with lower levels of product-country knowledge. Higher levels

of product knowledge should result in larger correlations between country and brand

ratings. Table IV presents thecorrelations between country and brand ratings, these are

presented separately for respondents with different levels of objective product-country

knowledge.

Table IV

Objective product country knowledge and country of origin effects: correlations

between brand and country ratings by objective product-country knowledge

Low Knowledge Medium Knowledge High Knowledge

Value Quality Image Value Quality Image Value Quality Image

Germany

Becks 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Totenbrau 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

The Netherlands

Heineken 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Silver Dutch 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

United

Kingdom

Carling 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Red Lion 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

China

TsingTao 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Jiao Pu 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Japan

40


41/60


Kirin 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Nagasako 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

United States

Budweiser 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Jack State 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Philippines

San Miguel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Majati 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Mexico

Corona 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Hacienda 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Australia

Fosters 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Kuala Label 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01


High levels of subjective product knowledge may also increase a consumers self-

confidence and their dependence on the known attributes of a familiar brand. Therefore,

increased reliance on COO is more likely to occur where the brand is unfamiliar. H4

states consumers with higher levels of subjective product class knowledge will be more

likely to depend on COO when evaluating products, especially those with an unknown

brand, than consumers with lower levels of subjective product knowledge. Table V shows

the correlations between country and brand ratings, depending on respondents subjective

product knowledge.

Table V.

Subjective product knowledge and country of origin effects: correlations between brand

and country ratings by subjective product category knowledge.

Low

Knowledge

High

Knowledge

Value Quality Image Value Quality Image

41


42/60


Germany

Becks 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Totenbrau 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

The

Netherlands

Heineken 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Silver Dutch 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

United

Kingdom

Carling 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Red Lion 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

China

TsingTao 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Jiao Pu 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Japan

Kirin 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Nagasako 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

United States

Budweiser 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Jack State 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Philippines

San Miguel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Majati 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Mexico

Corona 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Hacienda 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Australia

Fosters 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Kuala Label 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

References

42


43/60


Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Xia, Y., Chen, K.F., Han, S.T. and Lim, C.B. (2002), Does

country of origin matter for low-involvement products?, International Marketing

Review Vol. 21 No. 1, 2004 pp. 102-120

Alba, J. and Hutchinson, J.W., Dimensions of consumer expertise, Journal of Consumer

Research, March, 1987, pp. 14-25.

Assael, H. (1995), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, 4th ed., PWS-Kent

Publishing Company, Boston, MA.

Baker, T.L., Hunt, J.B. and Scribner, L.L. (2002), The effect of introducing a new brand

on consumer perceptions of current brand similarity: the roles of product knowledge

and involvement, Journal of Marketing, Fall , pp. 45-57.

Bello, D.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1995), Does an absence of brand equity generalize

across product classes?, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 125-31.

Bhaskaran, S. and Sukumaran, N. (2006),Contextual and methodological issues in COO

studies, Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. 25 No. 1, 2007 pp. 66-81

Bilkey, W.J. and Nes, E. (1982), Country of origin effects on product evaluation,

Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 89-99.

Brucks, M. (1985), The effect of product class knowledge on information search

behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Bruning, E.R. (1997), Country of origin, national loyalty and product choice: the case

of international air travel, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-74.

Chao, P. (1993), Partitioning country of origin effects: consumer evaluations of a

hybrid product, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 291-

306.

43


44/60


Chiou, J.-S. (2003), The impact of country of origin on pretrial and post trial product

evaluations: the moderating effect of consumer expertise, Psychology and

Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 935-54

Cordell, V. (1997), Consumer knowledge measures as predictors in product

evaluation, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 241-60.

Cordell, V. (1992), Effect of consumer preferences of foreign sourced products, Journal

of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 251-69.

Elliott, G. and Cameron, R. (1994), Consumer perception of product quality and the

country of origin effect, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 49-62.

Jaffe, E.D. and Nebenzahl, I.D. (2001), National Image and Competitive Advantage:

The Theory and Practice of Country-of-Origin Effect, Copenhagen Business School

Press, Copenhagen.

Knight, G.A., Calantone, R.J. (2000), A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin

perceptions, A cross-cultural investigation, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17

No.2, 2000, pp.127-145

Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,

NJ.

Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G., Principles of Marketing, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall

International, London, 2006

Kaynak, E., Kucukemiroglu, O. and Hyder, A.S. (2000), Consumers country-of-origin

perceptions of imported products in a homogenous less-developed country, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 9/10, pp. 1221-41

44


45/60


Lange, F. and Dahlen, M. (2003) Lets be strange: brand familiarity and ad-brand in-

congruency, Journal of Product & Brand Management, VOL. 12 No.7, pp. 449-461

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Mourali, N. (2003), The influence of country image

structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products, International Marketing

Review Vol. 22 No. 1, 2005 pp. 96-115

Lin, L.-Y. and Zhen, J.-H. (2005), Extrinsic product performance signaling, product

knowledge and customer satisfaction: an integrated analysis an example of

notebook consumer behavior in Taipei city, Fu Jen Management Review, Vol. 12

No. 1, pp. 65-91.

Lin, L.-Y. and Chen, C.-S. (2006), The influence of the country-of-origin image,

product knowledge and product involvement on consumer purchase decisions: an

empirical study of insurance and catering services in Taiwan

Li, W.K. and Wyer, R.S. Jr (1994), The role of country of origin in product evaluations:

informational and standard-of-comparison effects, Journal of Consumer Psychology,

Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 187-212.

Maheswaran, D. (1994), Country of origin as a stereotype: effects of consumer expertise

and attribute strength on product evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.

21 No. 2, pp. 354-65.

Mattilda, A.S., and Wirtz, J. (2002), The impact of of knowledge types on the consumer

search process, International Journal of Service Inductry Management, Vol.13 No.3,

2002, pp 214-230

Miyazaki, A.D., Grewal, D. and Goodstein, R.C. (2005), The effect of multiple extrinsic

cues on quality perceptions: a matter of consistency, Journal of Consumer Research,

45


46/60


Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 146.

Nagashima, A. (1970), A comparison of Chinese and US attitudes toward foreign

products, Journal of Marketing, Vo1. 34, January, pp. 68-74.

Okechuku, C. (1994), The importance of product origin: a conjoint analysis of the

United States, Canada, Germany and The Netherlands, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 5-19.

Parameswaren, R and Pisharodi, R.M. (1994), Assimilation effects in country image

research, International Marketing Review, Vol.19 No. 3, 2002, pp 259-278

Park, J. and Stoel, L. (2005), Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on

online apparel purchase, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,

Vol. 33 No.2, pp. 148-160.

Piron, F. (2000), Consumers perceptions of the country-oforigin effect on purchasing

intentions of (in) conspicuous products, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No.

4, pp. 308-21.

Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J. (1995), A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects,

Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-96.

Pecotich, A. and Ward, S. (2007), Global branding, country of origin and expertise An

experimental evaluation International Marketing Review Vol. 24 No. 3, 2007 pp.

271-296

Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1988), The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue

utilization in product evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15,

September, pp. 253-64.

Swaminathan, V., Fox, R.J. and Reddy, S.K. (2001), The impacts of brand extension

46


47/60


introduction on choice, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1-15.

Samiee, S. (1994), Customer evaluation of products in global markets, Journal of

International Business Studies, Vo1. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.

Schooler, R.D. (1971), Bias phenomena attendant to the marketing of foreign goods in

the US, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-81.

Schaefer, A. (1995), Consumer knowledge and country of origin effects, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No.1, 1997, pp. 56-72

Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and

validation of the CETSCALE, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp.

280-9

47


48/60


Research Questions

How much do you know about the various types and brands of beer available

in Taiwan?

I know a lot Average

I know very little I know nothing

Please circle the brands on the following list that you have previously tasted?

Heineken

Budweiser

Becks

Kirin

San Miguel

Carling

TsingTao

Corona

Fosters

48


49/60


Please circle the brand names on the list which you are familiar with

Heineken

Budweiser

Kirin

Jack State

Carling

Totenbrau

Corona

Fosters

Red Lion

Hacienda

Nagasako

Silver Dutch

Majati

Kuala Label

Qing Tao

Becks

Jiao Pu

San Miguel

Please write the country of origin of the brands which you are familiar with

Heineken

Budweiser

Kirin

Jack State

Carling

Totenbrau

Corona

Fosters

Red Lion

Hacienda

Nagasako

Silver Dutch

Majati

Kuala Label

Qing Tao

Becks

Jiao Pu

San Miguel

49


50/60


In the following list there are the brand names and country of origin of 9

different beers. Please give your rating for each beer, regardless of whether you

are familiar with it or not. Therefore your answer can but need not be based on

you own experience with the lager in question.

Becks

Product of Germany

a) Give your rating on the quality of

this beer

Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad

b) What is your image of this beer

Very stylish 5 4 3 2 1 very un-

stylish

c) Do you think the beer is good value

for money?


San Miguel

Product of the Philippines


this beer




stylish


for money?


Heineken

Product of the Netherlands

a) Give your rating on the quality ofthis beer



Very stylish 5 4 3 2 1 very un-stylish

c) Do you think the beer is good valuefor money?


Carling

Product of the United Kingdom


this beer



50


51/60



stylish


for money?


Corona

Product of Mexico


this beer



Very stylish 5 4 3 2 1 un-stylish



Kirin

Product of Japan


this beer





for money?


Budweiser

Product of the USA


this beer






Fosters

Product of Australia


this beer





for money?


51


52/60


TsingtaoProduct of China

a) Give your rating on the quality of this beer




c) Do you think the beer is good value for money?


Please rate the quality of beer produced in the below countries

Germany Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

The Netherlands Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

United Kingdom Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

China Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

Japan Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

United States Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

Philippines Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

Mexico Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

Australia Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

52


53/60


Please rate the image of beer produced in the below countries

Germany Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

The Netherlands Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

United Kingdom Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

China Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

Japan Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

United States Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

Philippines Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

Mexico Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

Australia Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

Please rate the value for money of the beers produced in the below countries

Germany Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

The Netherlands Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

United Kingdom Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

China Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

Japan Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

United States Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

Philippines Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

Mexico Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

Australia Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

53


54/60


Heineken

Budweise

r

Becks

Kirin

San Miguel

Carling

TsingTao

54


55/60


Corona

Fosters

Heineken

Budweiser

Kirin

Jack State

Carling

Totenbrau

Corona

Fosters

Red Lion

Hacienda

Nagasako

Silver Dutch

Majati

Kuala Label

Qing Tao

Becks

Jiao Pu

San Miguel

Heineken

Budweiser

Kirin

Jack State

Carling

Totenbrau

Corona

Fosters

Red Lion

Hacienda

Nagasako

Silver Dutch

Majati

Kuala Label

Qing Tao

55


56/60


Becks Jiao Pu San Miguel

Becks

d)

5 4 3 2 1

e)

5 4 3 2 1

f)

5 4 3 2 1

San Miguel

a)

5 4 3 2 1

b)

5 4 3 2 1

c)

5 4 3 2 1

Heineken

a)

5 4 3 2 1

b)

5 4 3 2 1

c)

5 4 3 2 1

Carling

a)

56


57/60


5 4 3 2 1

b)

5 4 3 2 1

c)

5 4 3 2 1

Corona

a)

5 4 3 2 1

b)

5 4 3 2 1

c)

5 4 3 2 1

Kirin

a)

5 4 3 2 1

b)

5 4 3 2 1

c)

5 4 3 2 1

Budweiser

a)

5 4 3 2 1

b)

5 4 3 2 1

c)

5 4 3 2 1

Fosters

a)

5 4 3 2 1

b)

57


58/60


5 4 3 2 1

c)

5 4 3 2 1

Tsingtao

a)

5 4 3 2 1

b)

5 4 3 2 1

c)

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

58


59/60


5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

projects_others_a study of country of origin effects and consumer knowledge amoung taiwanese beer...

Documents