D Martin Eroglu 1993 Country Image

7/21/2019 D Martin Eroglu 1993 Country Image

1/19

J BUSN RE S 1993:28:191-210

Measuring a Multi Dimensional ConstructCountry Image

Ingrid M. MartinUniversity Southern alifornia

Sevgin Eroglu eorgia State University

This s tudy p re se nt s t he p ro ce du re s a nd results obtained in develop ing a scale tomeasu re the multi-dimensional construct of country image. This effort intends toserv e two purpo ses. First, it is likely to explicate many aspects of how productevaluat ions are affected by country image and, therefore, has theoretical as wel las managerial implications. Second, a val id operational measure may help resolvesome of the methodological and conceptual issues raised in th e a re a o f country oforigin effects research. Tests of internal reliability an d validity were conductedacross. d if fe rent count ri es and samples to assess th e strength of th e final 14-itemscale. Th e results imply that constructs used in international marketing researchar e scalable a nd t ha t they can meet precise measurement criteria.

Introduction

Th e growing l i te rature on country image and count ry of origin effects to da te hasindicated that industrial and consumer buyers develop stereotypical images of countries and/or thei r products , which subsequently affect their purchase decisions seeBaughn and Yaprak, 1991, for a review). More specifically, a recent study by Ha n1989) identified two major functions for country image effects. First , buyers canuse country image in product eva luat ions when they are unable to detec t t he truequality of a count ry s p roduct s before purchase halo function). As such, countryimage indirectly affects brand atti tudes through inferential beliefs. Second, as buye rs become more familiar with a country s products , country image may help themsummarize their product beliefs an d directly affect their brand attitudes summaryfunction). In this capacity, the country image is f ou nd t o stimulate buyers t o thinkmore extensively about other product information as well Hong and Wyer, 1989).

Th e above findings have important practical and theoretical implications. Froma managerial perspective, international marketers an d public policy makers alike

Address correspondence t o Ing rid M. Mar ti n, Department of Marketing, Acc-301, School of Business Administration, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1421.

Journal of Business Research 28, 191-210 1993) 1993 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0148-2963/93/ 6.00


2/19

192 J BUSN RES1993:28:191-210 I. M.Martin an d S.Eroglu Measurin

n ee d to understand country images within th e co ntext o f t heir o wn offerings an dthose o f t hei r c om pe ti ti on . R es ea rc h has shown, for e xample , t hat consu mer snegative product evaluat ions based on country images constitute significant marketbarriers for companies from less dev eloped c ou nt ri es S ch oo le r e t a l. , 1987 . Theimage that consumers hold of South Africa w he re m aj or b oy co tt s h av e m an ag edto shu t dow n the market for cer tain goods and services serves as an extreme exampleof this.

Similarly, Johansson and Nebenzahl 1984 have found that multi-national firmswith foreign manufacturing operations m ay risk potential loss in brand image dep en di ng o n t he c ou nt ry iInage of th e sourcing country . Factors affecting countryimage also are instrumental for th e positioning strategies of firms that compete intheir domestic markets against foreign competi tors Hooley et aI. , 1988 . In su m,international managers need to assess t he ext en t to which relevant country imagesar e favorable or unfavorable, if an d h ow t hey affect product quality perceptionsand purchase decisions, an d h ow t hey can be used t o dev elop effective marketingstrategies.

From a theoretical standpoint researchers in t he a re a of country image effectshave become increasingly sensitive to its theoretical and nlethodological dimensions e.g., Bilkey and Nes , 1982; Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 1984; Parameswaran and Yaprak,1987 . In their review of the country of origin l i te ra ture, Baughn and Yaprak 1991conclude t ha t t he se st ud ie s h av e contributed to international Inarketing researchby increasing concerns about th e psychometric properties of cross-national meas ur es s uc h as country image in th e following ways.

Presently, the measures used in the country of origin research stream are subject. to the same criticisms that ar e d ir ec te d a t r ese ar ch in cross-cultural consumer

behavior; namely, the shortage of valid and reliable measuring instruments Daviset

aI. , 1981 .Our literature

surveyto date

indicatesthat there

isno validated

scalefor measuring country image pe r se. Furthermore, those that a re cur rent ly beingused to ta p country image effects seetn questionable for tw o reasons.

First, from a conceptual perspective most of the scales p resen tly used d o n otclearly distinguish b etween t he image objects; that is, whether it is country imageor product image that is being measured. Th e widely used Nagashima 1970, 1977scale is a case in point. Th e scale that is designed to Ineasure th e image of productswith a foreign country of origin includes items that also may capture country image.A va li d s ca le , however, requi res a precise delineation of t h e c onst ruct s doma in .I f p roduc t a tt it ud es a re of i nt er es t, t hen the final scale should reflect measurementof product-specific attributes e . g. , reliable/unreliable, expensive/inexpensive). If,on th e other hand, country image is being measured , the scale i tems should capturecountry-relevant attributes e.g., technically advanced/technically backward, cosmopolitan/ethnocentric). An accurate scale of country image needs to clearly spec-

th e construct s domain and to be exact conce rn ing wha t is included as well aswhat is excluded from th e definition.

Th e second issue concerns the low reliabili ty rat ings of th e existing scales usedin country image s tudies . Several researchers reported poor reliabilities in theirefforts to validate some o f t he po pu lar sc al es u se d in country of origin research e .g ., Narayana , 1981; Ca tt in e t aI. , 1982 . Their findings were supported by Jaffeand Nebenzahl 1984 who concluded that existing scales no t only have lowreliability bu t also ar e no t t es te d for internal consistency an d stability.

t

hhami

icssda

Methodol

TtheranG1919

inFi1919deundeimon


3/19

tin and S. Eroglu Measuring a Multi-Dimensional ConstructJ BUSN RES1993 :28:191-210

wn offerings andthat consumersgnificant market

aI., 1987). Thes have managedxtreme example

lti-national firmsbrand itnage deffecting countrythat compete in

, 1988). In sum,country images

ality perceptionsective marketing

ry image effectsgical dimensions

w r and Yaprak,nd Yaprak 1991)

rketing researchss-national mea-

ream are subjectultural consumerstruments Davisno validated scalee currently beingons.

used do notis country image

hima 1970, 1977)of products

country image..C t- ,,,,. C domain.

measurementIf,

should capturebackward, cos

ds to clearly speccluded as well as

isting scales usediabilities in theirof origin research

by Jaffenot only have lowbility.

These measu remen t conce rns p re sen t several p robl ems for researchers. Inevent that conflicting lneasures are obtained, as pointed ou t by Bilkey and N 1982) in their review of t he count ry of origin research, the researcher is n ot s uif th e discrepancy is due to actual differences in country or product image ordifferent measures. As yet, there is no val idat ed ins trumen t available to asscountry image without tapping into th e i mage of pr od uct s fr om t he respectcountry. Th e basic tenet of t he count ry of origin research is t ha t o ne s c ou nt ry

image is reflected in higher evaluations of products originating in t ha t c ou nt ry. Iis difficult to assess th e extent an d nature of country image impact o n p ro duevaluations withou t an accurate ins trument to measu re it.

Th e objective of the present study is to describe the development and evaluat ionof a multiple-item country image scale to help fill t he n ee d f or b et te r m ea su re sthis area. In sum, there ar e two distinct reasons for examining and developingmeasure for country image. First , this effort is likely to explicate many aspectshow produc t a tt ri bu te s and eva luat ions a re affected by th e images that consumerhave abou t the ir country of origin. This should have an impact on both the magerial and theoret ica l issues discussed previously. Second, a valid operationmeasure may help resolve some of th e methodological an d conceptual issues raisin t he a re a o f c ount ry image research.

In th e following pages, we first define th e country image construct an d iden

its relevant dimensions f rom a review of t he l it er ature. Nex t, we discuss t he pcedure used t o gene ra te scale items and establish t he con tent validity of th e cs t ruc t. This is followed by a discussion on assessing internal consistency an d is tabi li ty as well as th e validation techniques used to fine t un e t he scale. Finallydiscussion is p re se nt ed o n t he relevancy of th e final scale to both managersacademicians.

Methodology

Defining the Construct n d Identifying Dimensions

Th e critical first step in t he deve lopmen t of th e scale is to specify the domainth e construct of country image . Th is involves a comprehensive review of th e

erature r el at ed to count ry of origin as well as country image studies e . g ., Baughan d Yaprak, 1991; Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Cattin et aI., 1982; Dornoff e t aI., 19Gaedeke, 1973; Hafhill, 1980; Han, 1989; Ha n an d Terpstra, 1988; Hong and Wyer1989; Johansson et aI. , 1985; J oh an ss on a nd M oi np ou r, 1977; Nagashima, 191977; Narayana, 1981; Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987).

Th e review also included t he l it er ature on scale development and related issin both the psychology a nd m ar ke ti ng m et ho do lo gy a re as e.g., Campbel l anFiske, 1959; Churchill, 1979; Frazier, 1983; Jaffe and Nebenzahl , 1984; Malhotr1981; Nagashima, 1970; 1977; Nunnally, 1978; Osgood et aI., 1957; 1971981; Peter and Churchill, 1986; Wee, 1986; Wish et aI., 1972; Z in kh an a nd M uderrisoglu, 1982). On the basis of the literature in these areas as well as discussioundertaken with international faculty and students, a conceptual definition wdeveloped for th e d om ai n o f t he c oun tr y image construct. Accordingly, counimage was defined as the total o f all descriptive inferential nd informational belieone has out a particular country


4/19

194 J B US N R ES1993:28: 191-210 M. Mar tin and S. Eroglu Measurin

Again, it should be noted that this is completely different from one s attitudestoward products from a certain country. One s country image can develop as aresult of a direct experience with the country, such as tr aveling to th e country.Alternatively, it can be influenced by outside sources of information, such as advertising or word of mouth communications. Last, it could be affected by inferences correct or incorrect) based on past experience such as opinions gained from usingproducts originating in that particular country.

In order to operationalize th e def in it ion, i t was necessary t o d et er mi ne th erelevant underlying dimensions of this construct. Country image has been consistently identified as a multi-dimensional concept e.g., Jaffe an d Nebenzahl, 1984;Johansson and Moinpour, 1977; Han, 1989). Several analytic and multi-dimensionalscaling studies have indirectly implied some dimensions of country image acrossvarious countries Johansson and Moinpour, 1977; Johansson et aI. , 1985; Wish et

aI., 1972).Along with th e above studies, an interdisciplinary review of th e l i terature e.g. ,international business, political sciences, economics, sociology) resulted in th e identification of four relevant dimensions. These four dimensions used to def ine th econstruct s domain a re 1) polit ical , 2) economic, 3) technological , an d 4) socialdesirability. Th e first three dimensions are self-explanatory an d the four th dimension, social desirabil ity, includes such factors as quali ty of life, standard of living,and level of urbanization. Interestingly, the literature did no t indicate culture orcultural familiarity as an underlying dimension o f th e country image construct.

Th e format selected to measure country image in this study is t he seman ti cdifferential scale. Th e theoretical rationale for using the semantic differential scalehas been detailed by Osgood et a 1957) as well as Churchi ll 1979). Th e mostcommonly used device for measuring images of such concepts as brands or products,

stores, political candidates, countries, institutions, or ideas is the semantic differential scale. Using this scale device the researcher can measure, assess, and comparethe image of a concept or object with that of similar topics I reck and Set tl e,1985). In addition, t he seman ti c differential has enjoyed a great acceptance andrelevance in market ing research that is unmatched by any other scaling procedure Malhotra, 1981).

A two-phase procedure was used to generate the initial i tem pool. F irst , a shortquestionnaire was developed to derive a pool of phrases and adjectives that describethe image on e has of any country. This instrument was administered to studentsand faculty on two midwestern university campuses. Th e sample provided adjec-

through free association, that were then combined with t he second groupbased o n t he ir usage frequency.

The second phase involved a focus group with eight doctoral students fromvarious international backgrounds. Dur ing the 2-hour session th e participants dis-cussed their beliefs an d impressions of various countries from toFrance to K or ea t o Yugoslavia. Once both sets of items were pooled allduplicated items as well as items that were country-specific were deleted. Th e resultwas a tot al of 60 bipolar word

Th e next involved reducing the number of items to a usable subset withthe aid of five exper t judges three doctoral s tudents and two faculty members ininternational-related fields). Th e were provided with th e definition of coun-

and were ins truc ted to eva luat e the 60 bipolar word in terms of thei r

Tdctt ZTa

utth

su

coam

nofcow

al

wthar

int

of


5/19

nd S Eroglu Measuring a Multi-Dimensional ConstructJ B US N R ES1993:28:19 1-210 195

uri ying the cale t ems

Th e determination of how many items to have in a mul ti -d imensional sca le is adifficult problem. On the one hand, a multi-dimensional construct can be factoriallycomplex enough to require more than a single-item component to accurately capturethe concept. On the other hand, if to o many items are included in the questionnaire,t he n pr ob lem s o f fatigue and boredom may arise . Other scales in the l i tera ture(e .g . , Malho tr a, 1981; Lundstrom a nd L am on t, 1976; Nagashima, 1970; 1977;Zaichkowsky, 1985) were found to be shorter than the 29-item original scale.Therefore, it was decided that as we cont inued to purify the scale we also wouldallow for the delet ion of scale i tems, if deemed necessary.

T he r ed uc ti on o f t he n um be r o f i tems in the scale was done through a commonlyused procedure (e.g. , Lunds trom and Lamont , 1976; Malhotra, 1981; Wee, 1986)that r equi r ed fur ther dat a collection using th e 29-item scale. Th e sample used forthis purpose included 200 undergraduate and graduate students in the Colleges ofBusiness Admin is tr at ion and Communica tion Ar ts and Sciences on a midwesternuniversity campus. It is conside red appropr i at e and common to use students assubjects in scale developments in both market ing and psychology (e .g . , Malhotra ,1981; Osgood et aI. , 1957; Zaichkowsky, 1985). A pre-test was conducted to determine which c ou ntr y would be be st to use in th e initial test of the scale. Th ecountry of Japan was found to be a good candidate because of its high familiarityamong the subjects.

T he d at a were analyzed for internal consistency. Given the multi-dimensionalnature of th e scale, though, it is not very meaningful to estimate an overall measureof internal consistency (Peter, 1979). Therefore, first the coefficient alpha wascomputed for each subse t of scale items that made up a cer ta in fac tor. Th e resultwas a 21- item scale wi th i tem-tota l correlations rangi ng be twee n .23 and .58. Internal consistency for the scale was then tes ted by checking the reliability coefficienta lphas, which ranged f rom .77 to .81. These values were deemed reasonable whencompared with others obta ined in the marketing studies previously mentioned aswell as th e evaluation guidelines suggested by Peter (1979). Nunnally (1978) arguesthat increasing reliability beyond .8 is unnecessary because at that level correlationsare attenuated very l it tle by measurement error.

Principal component analysis was used t o determine which var iables had highintraset correlations and low interset correlations for the country of Japan. Thismethodology is common for exploratory scale development and it uncovered threeof t he f ou r factors that h ad b ee n identified in the literature. component

compatibility with th e given definition as well as making suggestions for better wording of th e items. An example of the instruction form is included in Appendix A.

Th e j udges were asked to r at e t he b ip ol ar w or d pairs using the following scale:(1) clearly representative of a country s image, (2) somewhat representative of acountry s image, and (3) not at all representative of a country s image. This procedure involved an independent evaluation by the five judges. Average interjudgeagreement and reliability was obtained for 29 of the 60 bipolar word pairs. Th eHolsti procedure (1969) was used to determine an average interjudge agreementof .848 an d a reliability of .965. These 29 i tems were .combined to form the initialscale that was then tested (see Appendix B for th e initial 29-item scale).

subset withmembers in

of counerms of

attitudesevelop as ae country.such as ad

y inferencesfrom using

ermine theeen consisnzahl, 1984;dimensionalmage across85; Wish et

rature (e.g.,in the idendefine the

d (4) socialo u r t hdimenrd of living,

e culture orconstruct.he semanticrential scale

The mostor products,antic differ

and compareand Settle,

eot:an


6/19

to ensure this point. The five social desirability items were combined into a factothat was correlated with each of th e other three factors. The result was moderatean d highly significant correlations between that factor and the political, economican d technological dimensions .43, .0001; r .50, .0001; r .2 .001, respectively). Based on these findings a nd th e ab ov e reasoning, it waconcluded that th e social desirability component was captured by the three emegent dimensions.

Next, by using the criterion of meaningfulness recommended by Gorsuch 1983)items t ha t had factor loadings less than .30 or that loaded highly on more than onfactor were deleted, resulting in a scale with 14 items. Th e items that were removefrom the scale suggest that either these i tems did no t explain a significant amounof variation in t he d at a o r t ha t these i tems were unique. The reliability coefficiena lphas for the three factors ranged from .56 to .71. Th e overall Cronbach s alphfor the new 14-item scale was foun d to be .95. Given these highly sat is factoryresults, th e scale was then tested using th e 14 bipolar word pairs.

lrtin and S Eroglu

Factors of

Technological

51 .0001)

3

.0001)

22 .002)

04 .614)

15 .036)

lations.

Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct J BUSN RES1993:28:191-210

Testing the evised Scale

Th e revised scale, Appendix C) , which consisted of 14 items, was tested t o determine if it was a reliable an d valid measurement. This was necessary for two

reasons Nunnally, 1978). First , the revised instrument was considerably shortethan the original version. Second, determining if the scale provided consistenresul ts when different count ries were used as image objec ts was necessary. If thscale held up across various countries, then it could be considered a s table ins trument Churchill, 1979).

This phase of scale testing included a new group of 230 undergraduate studenfrom 2 midwestern universities. The use of large samples during this phase of scaconstruction is recommended by Nunnally 1978). At least 10 times as many subjectas items sho uld be used to ensure t ha t the repor ted coefficients a re n ot inflated

In th is phase , the United Sta tes was the object. Confirmatory factoranalysis was used on t he 14-item scale wi th var imax rot at ion as the factors weredeemed independent. This resul ted in the same three factors emerging, as previously mentioned. Th e majority of th e i tem-to-total correlations for each of th

i tems was above .40, supporting the premise that they all relate to the single countrimage construct. Th e Cronbach s alpha for the entire scale was calculated at .92Additionally, the correlation between split halves was ca lcul at ed and found to be.78. Th e newly identified component scales are shown in Table 2 with factor loadingranging between .30 and .78.

Th e first factor contains five items that were related to the overall political climateand charac ter is tic s o f a count ry, in this in stance the United States. The seconfactor had five items that were related to the economic environment of a countryTh e last set had four items that addressed th e technological aspects and characteristics of a country. Th e majority of th e item-to-total correlations of these threfac tors were above .40. Th e high item-to-total correlations were also reflected inth e low determinant of th e correlation matrix of .0095. This measure shows little,i f any, var iabi li ty in the factors. The second column of Table 2 displays , for each

a Cronbach s alpha computed from th e other items in the scale, rangingbetween .81 and .84.

social desirabilityand .34 for thealong with the

evidence that

another set offactors. The

omponents of thethree factors

components ofof economic de

of a welfare

n d e n tfactors: 1)pportive evidence

icant factor. The

quality of life,e dthat such itemsmic political, and

of the items thatbility of economicems in the socialIl may have beenf industrialization

factors and thel o l ~ t l I n 1 H .to on e or

of per capi talast item, level

I f O l ~ l 1factors


7/19

198 J BUSN RES1993:28:191-210

Table 2. Component Scale Items

M. Martin an d S. Eroglu Measuring a

Ta

Description:

Factor One Political DimensionDemocratic versus dictatorial systemCapitalist versus communist systemCivilian versus military systemPro-western versus pro-communistFree market versus centrally planned system

Factor Two conomic DimensionLevel of s tandard of livingStability of economic environmentQual i ty of products

Existence of a wel fa re sys temLevel of labor costs

Factor Three Technological imensionLevel of industrializationLevel of technological researchLevel of literacyMass produced versus handcrafted products

Total Scale Reliability Coefficient

Construct Validation

I tem-to-Total Alpha ifCorrelation Item Deleted

Fa.713 .812.612 .820 631 .818.708 .813.573 .823

Fa.535 .825.443 .831.359 .836.278 .842.414 .834

Fa.429 .832.247 .841.381 .835 L.285 .840 M

.925 T

T he t er m construct validity is t he deg ree to which a measure assesses the const ructit is purported to describe. Thi s means the measu re only can be assessed indirectly

as the construct i.e. country image) is not observable Peter 1981). Fo r examplein this study country image was theoretically hypothesized t o have four dimensions.This hypothesis was derived from an evaluation of the interdisciplinary literatureon count ry image. Th e results of the factor analysis a nd f ur th er tests providedsignificant support for three not four underlying dimensions. It was argued earliert ha t t he lack of t he fou rth d imension social desirability, may be due to th e factthat i t fal ls within th e other three factors of country image and not as a separatedimension. This was empirically verif ied using th e social desirability items in th eoriginal 29-item scale.

Th e nex t s tep was to hypothes ize that country image has three underlying dimensions as identif ied in th e factor analysis and that these three dimensions fit thetheoretical dimensions suggested by th e literature. This fit could be interpreted assupportive evidence of construct validity Peter 1981). More substantive evidence

of construct validity was then obtained via an examination of the content validityand discriminant validity.

Construct validity concerns the adequacy of t he domain of observables O I r } ~to a c on st ru ct a nd c an b e t es te d by analyzing how item scores correlate with eachother 1979; Nunnally 1978). To do the 14-item scale was furthertested by collecting data using two other countries as image objects. Th e countriesof India a nd Wes t Germany were chosen for this purpose mainly becauseshowed t hes e co unt ri es t o b e different with to at least two of the threeunderlying dimensions of country economic and technological). Th e scale

wawh

Genolrot

tharelof

extbefor

r r II.

creundbe

con197propoo


8/19

7tin and S Eroglu Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct J BUSN RES1993:28:191-210 199

Table 3. Evaluation of Construct Validity of Count ry Image for India

Alpha ifItem Deleted

.812

.820

.818

.813

.823

.825

.831

.836

.842

.834

.832

.841

.835

.840

Description:

Factor One Political imensionDemocratic versus dictatorial systemCapitalist versus communist systemCivilian versus military systemPro-western versus pro-communistF r ee m ar ke t versus centrally planned system

Factor Two Economic imensionLevel of standard of livingStability of economic environmentQuality of productsExistence of a welfare systemLevel of labor costs

Factor Three Technological imensionLevel of industrializationLevel of technological researchLevel of literacy

Mass produced versus handcrafted productsTotal scale reliability coefficient

Item-to-TotalCorrelation

.559

.485

.482

.345

.324

.756

.718

.589

.593

.552

.734

.709

.686

.724

.895

Squared MultipleCorrelation

.455

.448

.401

.435

.390

.710

.706

.528

.477

.624

.721

.528

.540

.527

the constructsessed indirectly1 Fo r example,

dimensions..,;I n. llF literature

tests providedargued earlier

due to the fact

as a separateitems in the

ee underlying dii m n s i o n sfit the

interpreted asl t , t n r A evidencecontent validity

ervables relating o l ~ t awith each

was furtherThe

was then administered to a new group of 160 students. There were 80 studentswho rated West Germany an d 80 who rated India for country image.

Th e analys is gave highly sat is factory resul ts Tables 3 and 4) . For both WestGermany and Ind ia , t he three previously obtained political, economic, and technological) factors emerged as a resu lt of confirmatory factor analysis using varimaxrotation. Th e factor loadings varied between .52 and .85 for both countries. Th eitem-to-total correlations for the majority of th e i tems in th e scale were all greaterthan .55 and .65 for India and We st Germany, respectively. These favorable cor

relations also were reflected in the very low determinants of th e correlation.matricesof .00036 and .000055, for India and West Germany, respectively.Th e squared multiple correlations obtained provide an index of the relative

extent t o which each scale it em contributes to capturing country image. This canb e s ee n where the major ity of the squared mult ip le corre la tions were above .52for India an d .69 for West Germany. In addition, the Cronbach s alphas for eachdimension were checked an d were fo und in th e range from .686 to .887 for th ecountry of India an d from .581 to .761 for West Germany. This provided addedcredence to support t he conclusion that all the items measure oneunderlying construct, country image. Once this was established, the scale had tobe tested further for con tent and discriminant validity.

Content validity concerns th e of representativeness of the items t o theconstruct. Open-ended interviews with representat ive respondents Churchil l,

1979) as well as expert judgments and TuB, 1978) are deemed appropr iateprocedures for checking scale content. In this case, generat ion o f th e initial itempool employed both of these methods. Furthermore, th e final scale was


9/19

200 J BUSN RES1993:28:191-210 I. M. Martin an d S Eroglu Measurin

Table 4. Evaluation of Construct Validity of Country Image for West Germany

Item-to-Total Squared MultipleDescription: Correlation Correlation

Factor One Political imensionDemocratic versus dictatorial systemCapitalist versus communist systemCivilian versus military systemPro-western versus pro-communistFree market versus centrally planned system

.778

.786

.755

.735

.743

.757

.784

.783

.750

.730

Factor Two Economic imensionLevel of s tandard of livingStability of economic environmentQuality of products

Existence of a welfare systenlLevel of labor costs

.721

.663

.664

.636.555

.812

.796

.356

.561.444

ordchvd

asao

pcs

Wte

Conclusi465.687.710.693

.524

.649

.747

.440

.928

Factor Three Technological imensionLevel of industrializationLevel of technological researchLevel of Ii teracyMass produced versus handcrafted products

Total Scale Reliability Coefficient

examined independently by the initial group of judges for scale c on te nt a ndwording.

Discriminant validityneeded

tobe

established ast he domain of th e

constructis multi-dimensional Campbel l and Fiske, 1959). Discriminant validity exists tothe e xt en t t ha t o ne can empirically differentiate the construct from other similarconstructs and can indicate what is unrelated to the construct. Therefore, it wasnecessary to tes t whether the new country image scale was significantly differentfrom th e previously used Nagashima scale 1970, 1977).

Th e Nagashima scale Appendix consists of 20 bipolar i tems measured on a7-point scale. It is frequently used in international marketing research e.g., Ha nand Terpstra, 1988; 1989; Narayana, 1981) and a tt empt s to measu re the imageof products with foreign country of origin, which, in turn is purported to reflectone s country image Bilkey an d Nes, 1982).

In order to make the compari son between the country image scale a nd t ha t ofNagashima, several steps were taken. Fi rs t, a new group of 158 students was used

to rate West Germany n

79) and India n

79) with the Nagashima instrument.Because discriminant validity re qu ir es t ha t t he two constructs do not correlatewith each other e.g., an d 1959; Peter, 1981)

correlations were calcula ted between e ac h o f th e three dimensions of the countryimage scale and the Nagashima scale for both India and West Table 5).

Th e correlations for each o f t he dimensions and th e Nagashima scale were lowto moderate and non-significant for all th e dimensions across both countries.both countries tested across th e two different scales using different student cr : l I1 Y ln , lpcwe found t ha t the re was discriminant between the country scale and


10/19

lI1artin and S Eroglu Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct J B US N R ES1993:28:191-210 2

: Germany

Squared MultipleCorrelation

757 784.783.750.730

.812

.796

.356 561.444

465.687.710.693

or scale content and

main of the constructvalidity exists to

from other similaruct. Therefore, it wassignificantly different

items measured on aresearch e.g., Ha n

to measure thes purported to

scale and that ofstudents was used

Nagashima instrument.d o not c orre la te

1959; Peter, 1981)n C l l , n . n c of the country

o t n I l t :}n l . l Table 5).were low

countries. Having. IJ. .. M student samples,

ountry image scale an d

TABLE 5. Evaluation Discriminant Validity Country Image for West Germanyand India

West Germany Ind

Political dimension .18 .4 .68) .2

Economic dimension .41 .2

.32) (.50Technological dimension .51 .3

.19) .1

ote Numbers in parentheses are probability values for the respective correlations .

the product image scale developed by Nagashima 1970). This verifies the hypothesis that the new country image scale is unique and not simply a reflection of o thevariables (Peter and Churchill , 1981).

Conclusions

Countries evoke different product images in consumers minds. However, becauscountry of origin effects vary across countries, samples, an d products , the resulof this stream of research seem to lack consistency an d generalizability. Amonthe suggestions made to advance the s tate of the ar t in the country of origin literatureis more emphasis on measurement of the re levant constructs such as country image(e.g., Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 1984; Cattin et aI., 1982; Han, 1989).

To this e nd t he p re se nt s tudy was des igned to develop and validate a mu)tipleitem scale for measuring the construct of country image as dis tinc t from producimmge. Th e procedures recommended by Churchi ll s 1979) paradigm for developing better measures were followed to capture the concept of country image. Thresul ting 14-item semantic d iffe rent ia l sca le was developed by using 4 diffe rentdata sets with students from 2 midwestern universit ies. Following a series of procedures for i tem generation, expert judges were used to selec t those i tems withhigh content validity. Th e reliability of the scale was established by th e usevarious indicators across different countries as well as th e scale s construct anddiscriminant validities.

Th e present instrument is intended to be useful for practitioners and researchersalike. From a practical perspective, there ar e situations where a quantitative yardstick on country image may be necessary for managers. In marketing a countrya competi tive indus try such as touri sm, it would be useful to have a basel ine ra tingof the target market s opinion of the cou nt ry to be promoted.

Similarly, when trying to attract foreign investment into a count ry, public andprivate promoters would benef it f rom information on the percept ions tha t theconcerned part ies have about a certain country. Under th ese and other similasituations, when the product is a country, choosing the most appropriate marketing strategy largely d ep en ds o n th e type of image he ld by the target.market.

An example that we ar e now faced with is the dramatic change in eastern Europe.With the radical in the political, economic , and technological base of count ries such as Poland, Roman ia , and how will the perceptions that Westerners hold of these countries affect their ability to compete in the world market?


11/19

2 2 J BUSN RES1993:28: 191-210 M Martin and S Eroglu Measuri

These count ri es should be interested in determining exactly wha t the ir respectivecountry image is with t he Wes te rn world so that negative perceptions can bechanged to allow the m to better compete in the marketplace .

This s am e co nc ept c an b e ap pl ie d to the changes occurring in western Europeas they face 1992. Th e perception that they ar e a solid economic an d political blockis critical for th e success of their p ush to merge into a Unit ed S ta te s of Europe.Th e country image scale can provide a quantitative yardstick for these countriesto det ermine the pe rcep tion of other countries. This information then can be usedt o adap t persuasive communication campaigns to provide others with th e correctimage. I f th e image is posit ive, this should be stressed in an attempt to market thecountry s products an d services.

Th e practical importance for marketers is that a favorable c ou nt ry i ma ge c anbe used to sell inferior products only temporarily. For example, country image canact as an i nf or ma ti on c ue f or consumers . Thi s cue combines with a n array ofinformation cues, both intrinsic an d extrinsic to the product , t o aid the consumerin evaluating t he p roduct . Thi s implies that there must be a m atc h between countryimage a nd t he image t ha t o ne has of a country s products Bilkey an d Nes, 1982).

The theoretical interests of th e scale d ev el op me nt p ro je ct a re several . First,country image has three, n ot f ou r, underlying dimensions. Past l i te rature as wellas research has asserted that social desirability is an underlying dimension of countryimage, but based on extensive testing, it was determined that social desirability iscaptured by th e three factors of economic, political, an d technological aspects.

Second, researchers would bene fi t from a val ida ted instrument specifically de-signed to measure country image. Th e scale would contr ibute to designing studiest ha t a re more explanatory and/or predictive in nature rather than purely descriptive.For example, t he p resent scale would be applicable to determine if consumers

evaluations of products from a country are consistent with their overall image ofthat country. Th e scale also would help to explain how consumers develop thecountry stereotypes they have by examining the scores for each of their dimensions.Additionally, the country image scale could be used to understand if and howdifferent countries as perceived by consumers) are likely to affect consumersevaluations of different product classes. Another possible application of the scalewould be to categorize consumers into several image segments (e.g., low, medium,high) on their individual image scores for a single country. Alternatively, consumersegments could be identified based on their image scores across countries.

It should be emphasized that this scale is strictly aimed at measuring one s imageof a country and should not be used to assess image o f o r attitudes toward productsfrom a coun try. Wi th respect to limitations of this scale, dur ing the developmentand validation of the scale only a few countries were used. Further tests need to

be car ri ed ou t by using other countries as well as non-s tudent samples to verifythe stability and the validity of the scale. Along with the above, it should be furtherinvestigated as to whether social desirability continues to be a component of th ethree factors identified and verif ied in this study.

Future r esea rch cou ld look at th e ability to use measures of country i ma ge t opredict the probability of purchase behavior; that is, what ar e the stereotypes thatconsumers have for countries t ha t r an k as planned economies with low standardsof living and low literacy and level of industrialization? Th e next issueis to determine if th e stereotypes that form ou r country image also impact ou rprobability of buy ing a certain product from that country.

Appen


12/19

tin and Eroglu Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct J BUSN RES1993:28:191-210 20

1. Extroverted IntrovertedPeople People

2. Backward Advanced

Economy Economy

c. Not rep. of acountry s

@ Not rep. of acountry s

b. Somewhat rep. ofa country s image.

b. Somewhat rep. ofa country s image

representativeof a country s

a. C lear ly representativeof a country s

One s impressions of a country is based on a set of perceived ratings of thecountry along various dimensions. These dimensions include economic, social,cultural, geographical, technological and political characteristics which reflecta perception o f t ha t particular country.

a. Clearly representative of a country s image.b. Somewhat representative of a country s image.c. No t representative of a country s image.

Please remember that this a ou t process. It is important that you realizethat most or all may seem to clearly r ep resent the concept. However, we ar einterested in the fine distinctions between the a, b, c catego ri es .

Your task is to judge each of the bipolar words/phrases as to how well they representthe concept of Country Image as def ined above. Each se t of bipolar words/phrasesshould be rated using the following scale:

Only one of the above choices that best represents your opinion of the bipolarwords/phrases an d its ability to reflect the concept of Country Image, should becircled. Th e following example illustrates th e task of selecting representative concepts of Country Image.

Thank you fo r agreeing to par ti cipa te as a judge in this scaling project. This is

crucial step in the development of an accurate scale of any concept. On th e followingpages there are 60 word/ph rases tha t a re generated t o r ep re se nt t he concept o ountry Image In this study, for the purposes of scale development, the definitionof country image is:

Appendix A

Judge Evaluation Form

JUDGE EVALUATION FORM

image toC , , 0 1 I O T r \ , O C that

low standards1 1 t l l ~ : : l > t O C ~ 1 r 1 1rY issuealso impact our

western Europed political blockates of Europe.these countries

hen can be usedth the correctpt to market the

their respective e p t i o n scan be

untry image canuntry image can

with an array ofd the consumer

between countryand Nes, 1982 .

e several . First ,iterature as wellnsion of countryal desirability isgical aspects.specifically de

esigning studiesrely descriptive.e if consumers

overall image ofers develop the

dimensions.s t n dif and howect consumers

of the scale., low, medium,tively, consumerountries.

one s imagetoward products

developmenttests need to

) I - n r \ 1 ~ 3 Cto verifybe further

n [ O C ~ n e l t tof the


13/19

204 J BUSN RES1993:28: 191-210 1. M. Martin and S.Eroglu Measur

Appendix B

Original 9 Item Country Image Scale

Country Image Scale

This is a survey to find ou t what a person thinks about a certain country. Tomeasure this, we will ask you to rate the country that appears at the top of th epage against a series of descriptors by placing a check j o n the scale from on eto seven that best reflects your judgment. There ar e no r ig ht or wrong answers,We are only interested in ho w Y perceive the count ry, Consider the followingexample:

Or , if yo u feel that it is s ligh tly pro-Communist y ou w ou ld m ark th e scale in thismanner:

pro-Communist

pro-Communist

pro-Communist

economicallyunderdeveloped

dictatorialsystem

militarygovernment

nuclearfamily

smallpopulation

low pe rcapitaincome

(6) (7)

(5) (6) (7)

0 _ _ 0 0

(5) (6) (7)

(3) (4)

(3) Q _ . _ . _ 0 _ _ _ _ 0

. . . . . _ 0 _ _ _ 0 _ .

. . . . . . __ 0

_ _ _ _

Country Name

1)

1)

1 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

< i_ _ _ _

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

. . . _ _ __ _ __ ,

. . . . . _ 0_ _ '

_ ___

_

. . . . . .

. . . . . ._ __ . _ _ _

(1) (2) 3 4 5 (6) (7) 0 ,

_ _

extendedfamily

population

6) high pe rcapitaincome

1 economicallydeveloped

2 democraticsystem

3) c iv il ian

pro-Western

By placing a check j in the middle, it would m ea n t ha t you feel t ha t t he c ou nt rythat appears at th e to p of th e p ag e is neither pro-Western or pro-Colnmunist.

P le as e a sk if y ou h av e a ny q ue st io ns .

pro-Western

However, if yo u feel that th e country is extremely pro-Western you would markth e scale in the following manner:

pro-Western


14/19

rtin and S. Erogl u Measuring a Multi Dimensional Construct J USN RES 2051993:28:191-210

7 expor te r o f - - - - - - - import e r o findustrial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 industrialproducts products

8) free market - - - - - - centrallysystem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7) planned system

ain country, To

t the top of th e9) culturally - - - - - - - culturally

e scale from on e diverse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 uniformwrong answers, 10 stable unstable

der the following economic 1) 2 3 4 5 6 7 economicenvironment environment

that the country 11 export er o f - - - - - _ . _ . import e r o fCommunist. agricul tural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agricultural

products productsCommunist 12 existence of existence of - - - -

a large 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a small middleyou would mark middle class class

13 large land - - - _ . _ small landmass 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mass

Communist14 high level of _ . _ > _ . low level of

technological 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 technologicalthe scale in this research research

15 mass produced - > handcraftedCommunist products 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 products

16 high literacy _ . _ > _ . low literacyrates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 rates

17 export e r o f _ . _ _ . _ impor ter ofraw mater ia ls . 1 2 3) 4 5 6 7 raw materials

18 pro Western - - - - - - - > pro Communistomically 1 2 3 4) 5 6 7

rdeveloped 19) high labor _ . - - > low labor

torial costs 1 2 3 4 5) 6 7) costsm 20 existence of a - - - > - - - - lack of aary welfare system 1 2 3) 4 5) 6 7 welfare system

21 production of production of _ . _ - - >high quality 1 2 3) 4 5) 6 7 low qualityproducts products

22 high standard _ . _ . _ _ . _ . low standardulation of living 1 2 3 4 5) 6 7) of living

per 23 stable _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ unstablepolitical 1 3 4 5 6 7)

me environment environment


15/19

206 J BUSN RES1993:28:191-210 M. Martin an d S. Eroglu Measur

24 large socialclassdifferences

. . . . . . 0 _ 0 ____ 0 _ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

small socialclassdifferences

you would mark

pro Comm unist

low unemploymentrate

predominantlynon-industrialized

high populationout migrationrate

communistsystem

importer ofconsumerproducts

LOInmunlst you would m ar k t he scal e in this

3 5 6 7. . . . . ._ _ _

0 , _ 0 _ 0 _ 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . . . . . .0 0 0 _ 0 0 0_

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . . . . . .

0 _ 0_ 0 _ 0 0 _ 0 0

. . . . . . 0 _ 0 0 _ 0 _ 0

. . . . . ._ _ _

ountry mage Scale

Country Image Scale

if you feel that it is slightlymanner:

if y ou feel that th e country is th e scale in the manner:

pro Western

29 high unemploy _ _ : _m en t r at e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

By a check j in th e middle would mean that you feel t hat the count rythat appea rs a t t he t op of th e page is neither or pro Communist.

This is a survey to find ou t what a person thinks about a certa in country 0 Tomeasure this, we will ask you t o rate t he count ry that appears at the top of thepage against a ser ies of descriptors by p lac ing a check j on t he scale from on eto seven that best reflects your judgment. There ar e no right or wrong answersoWe ar e interested in ho w Y perceive th e countryo Consider th e followingexample:

27 high pop-ulation inmigration rate

28 predominantlyindustrialized

25 exporter ofconsumerproducts

26 capitalistsystem

Appendix C

Revised


16/19

Please ask if you have any questions.

Country Name

207

economicallyunderdeveloped

dictatorialsystem

handcraftedproducts

militarygovernment

predominantly

non-industrialized

J BUSN RE S1993:28: 191 210

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

. . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

. . . . . . _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _

. . . . . _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _

_: -L: pro Communist 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

1) economicallydeveloped

2) democraticsystem

3) mass producedproducts

4) civil iangovernment

5) predominantlyindustrialized

pro Western

Measuring a Multi Dimensional Construct

of

and Eroglu

ltsocial

lnunistem

.populationmigration

dominantlyeindustrialized

unemployment

6) high laborcosts

. . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

low laborcosts

would mark

the scale in this

low literacyrates

centrallyplanned system

lack of awelfare system

unstable

economicenvironment

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)impor ter ofagriculturalproducts

production oflow qualityproducts

_ : _ : _ : _ : _ : _ : _ : low standard 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) of living

o

_ _ _

_ : _ : _ : _ : _ : _ : _ : low level of 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) technological

research

. . . . . . _ _ _ _ _

. . . . . . _ _ _ _

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

. . . . . . _ __ . _ _ _ _

. . . . . ._

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

. . . . . . _. _ _ _

7) high l iteracyrates

11) exporter ofagriculturalproducts

12) production ofhigh qualityproducts

13) h igh standardof living

high level oftechnologicalresearch

8) free marketsystem

9) existence ofwelfare system

10) stable

economicenvironment

he country

country. Tot he top of thescale from on e

wrong answers.the following


17/19

208 J BUSN RES1993:28: 191 210 I. M. Martin and S. Eroglu Measurin

Appendix DThe Nagashima roduct mage Scale

iountry N arne)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)1) Expensive . . _ . . _ _ Inexpensive

Referenc

UnreasonablyPriced

Unreliable

Necessary Items

No t cleveruse of color

More concernedwith performance

Mostly DomesticDistribution

Imitative

Limited choiceof size model

No t much pride

of ownership

LittleAdvertising

Unrecognizablebrand names

H an d M ad e

Light ManufacturingProducts

No t so carefulmeticulous

workmanship

Technically

Backward

(7)5)

. . __

_

. . __ _

. . _ _

. . _ _

. ._ _

(3)o 0 .. .. .. . _ _ _

.

. . . _ _ _ _

. . . _ _ _ _

to ..

_ _ _ __ . _ _

(7)

. . _ _ _ _ _

. . . _ _ __ . _

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1

. . _ _

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) . . _

. . _

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _

. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _

. . _ _

Clever useof color

More concerned _ : _ _ : _ : _ _ : _ : _ : _ . with outward (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)appearance

choiceof sizemodel

2 ReasonablyPriced

4 Luxury i tems

9) World WideDistribution

5) Heavy Indus try _ : _ : _ : _ : _ _ : _ :Products (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

3) Reliable

6 Careful andmeticulousworkmanship

7) TechnicallyAdvanced

8 Mass Produced

10) Inventive

12) MuchAdvertising

13) Recognizablebrand names

11) Pride ofownership


18/19

iartin and S. Eroglu Measuring a Multi-Dinlensional Construct J BUSN RES1993:28:191-210 20

17 More for _ _ .young people 1 2) 3) 4) 5)

18) More for men _ . 1 2) 3) 4) 5)

. - _ . _6) 7)

. ._ . __ . 6) 7)

More forold people

More for women

xpensive

reasonablyced

reliable

19 Upper class

20) Exclusive

References

e * e

_ . 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

o

_ . _ _1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Lower class

Common

cessary Items

ht Manufacturingducts

so carefulticulous

kmanshipchnicallyckward

nd Made

stly Domesticstribution

tative

much prideownership

concernedperformance

tcleverof color

Alreck, P. L. , and Settle, R. B. , The Survey Research Handbook Irwin Series in Marketing.1985.

Bagozzi R . P., A Fie ld Inves tiga tion of Causal Relations among Cognitions, Affect, Intentions, and Behavior. Journal o f Marketing Research 19 (November 1982): 562-584.

Baughn, C. C. , and Yaprak, A. , Mapping the C ou nt ry o f Origin Literature: R ec en t D evelopments and Emerging Research Avenues, in Product an d Country Image: CurrentPerspective. N. Papadopoulos and L. Heslop, eds.,

Bilkey, W. J. , and Nes, E. , Count ry of Origin Effects in Product Evaluations. Journal

International Business Studies 10 (Spring/Summer 1982): 89-99.Campbell, D. T. , an d Fi sk e, D. W., Convergent and Discriminant Validat ion by th

Multitrait-Multin1ethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56 1959): 81-105.Cattin, P. , Jolibert, A. , and Lohnes, C. , Cross-Cultural Study of Made-in Concepts. Journal

o f International Business Studies 10 (Winter 1982): 131-141.Churchill, G. A. , A Pa ra di gm for Developing Bette r Measures of Marke ting Constructs

Jou.rnal o f Marketing Research 16 (Februaty 1979): 64-73.Davis, H., Douglas , S ., and Si lk, A. , Measure Unreliability: A Threat to Cross National

Marketing Research. Journal o f Marketing 45 2) 1981): 98-109.Dornoff , R . J. , Tankersley, C. B. , and Whi te , G. P. Consumers Perceptions of Imports_

kron Business a nd E co no mi c R ev ie w 5 (Summer 1974): 26-29.Frazier, G. L. , O n T he Measurement of Interfirm Power in Channels of Distribution. Journal

o f Marketing Research 20 May 1983): 158-166.Gaedeke ,R. , Consumer Att itudes Toward Products Made-In Developing Countries.

Journal o f ~ e t i l i n g49 2) 1973): 13-24.Gorsuch, R. L., Factor Analysis 2nd ed., Lawrence E rl ba um a nd Associates, Hillsdale

NJ. 1983.Green, P. , and Tull, D. S., Research fo r Marketing Decisions Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ. 1978.Hafhill, D. S., Multinational Marketing Strategy: Implications for Attitudes Toward Country

of Origin. Management International Review 20 4) 1980): 26-30.Han, C. M., Count ry Image: Halo or Summary Construct? Journal o f Marketing Research

26 May 1989): 222-229.Han, C. M. , and Terpstra, Y. , Country of Origin: Effects for Uni-National and Bi-Nationa

Products. Journal o f International Business Studies 16 (Summer 1988): 235-256.I-Iolsti, O. R. , Content nalysis fo r the Socia l Sciences an d Humanities Addison-Wesley

Publishing,Reading,MA. 1969.

Hong, S ., a nd Wyer, R . S. , Effects of Country of Origin and Product Attribute Informationon Product Evaluation. Journal o f C onsumer Research 16 1989): 175-187.


19/19

Pub gen

Miami

Raym

GautUniversit

Journal of 1993 E655 A venu

M. Mar tin and S. ErogluBUSN RES1993:28: 191-210

Hooley, G. , Shipley, D. , and Krieger, N. , A Method for Modeling Consumers Perceptionsof Coun t ry of Origin. International Marketing Review Autumn 1988 : 67-76.

Jaffe , E. D., an d Nebenzahl, I. D. , Alternat ive Quest ionnaire Formats for Country ImageStudies. Journal o f Marketing Research 21 November 1984 : 463-471.

J oh ans so n, J. K ., and Moinpour, R. , Objective and Perceived Similarity of Pacific Ri mCountries. Columbia Journal o f World Business 12 4 Winter 1977 : 65-76.

Johansson, .K. , Douglas, S. P. , an d Nonaka, I. , Assessing the Impact of Country of Originon Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective. Journal o f Marketing Re-search 22 November 1985 : 373-381.

Lundstrom, W. J. , and Lamont, L. M. , Th e Development of a Scale to Measure ConsumerDiscontent. Journal o f Marketing Research 13 November 1976 : 373-381.

Malhotra, N. , A Scale to Measure Self-concepts, Person-concepts, and Product-concepts.Journal o f Marketing Research 18 November 1981 : 456-464.

Nagashima, A. , A Comparison of Japanese and U.S. Atti tudes Toward Foreign Products.Journal o f Marketing 34 July 1970 : 68-74.

Nagashima, A. , A Compara t ive Made-In Produc t Image Survey Among Japanese Businessmen. Journal o f Marketing 41 July 1977 : 95-100.

Narayana, C. , Aggregate Images of American and Japanese Products: Implications onInternational Marketing. Columbia Journal o f World Business 16 2 Summer 1981 :31-35.

Nunnally, J. , Psychometric Theory McGraw-Hill , New York. 1978.Osgood, C. E. , Succi, G. J. , an d Tannenbaum, P. M. , The Measurement o f Meaning

University of Illinois Press, Champaign-Urbana, IL. 1957.Parameswaran, R. , and Yaprak, A. , A Cross-National Comparison of Consumers Research

Measures. Journal o f International Business Studies 15 Winter 1987 : 35-49.Peter, J. P. ,Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recen t Marke ting Practices.

Journal of Marketing Research 16 February 1979 : 6-17.Peter, J. P. , Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Market ing Practices, Journal

o f Marketing Research May, 133-45, 1981.Peter, J. P., and Churchill, G. A. , Relationships Among Resea rch Design Choices an d

Psychometric Properties of Rating Scales: A Meta-Analysis. Journal o f Marketing Re-search 18 May 1986 : 133-141.

Schooler, C. , Wildt, A. , and Jones, J. , Strategy Development for Manufactured Exportso f Th ird Wor ld Coun t ri es to Deve loped Countries. Journal o f Global Marketing 1 1-21987 : 53-67.

Wee, C. H. , Shopping Area Image : I ts Factor Analytic Structure and Relationships withShopping Trips and Expendi ture Behavior. dvances in onsumer Research Proceedings14 1986 : 48-52.

M. , Deutsch, M ., an d Biener, L. , Differences in Perceived Similarity of Nations, inMultidimensional Scaling: Theory and Application in the Behavioral Sciences A.K. Rom-ney, ed., Seminar New York. 1972.

Zaichkowsky, J. L ., M ea su ri ng t he Involvement Construct. Journal o f onsumer Research

12 1985 : 341-352.L J l L l J .l .... . l . l - 4 A A G. M. , a nd Mu der ri so gl u, In vo lv em en t, Fami liar ity, Cogn itiv e lJ11ttelrentlatlOln,

and Advertising Recal l: A Test of Convergent and Discriminant Validity. dvances in onsumer Research Proceedings 10 1982 : 356-361.

210

D Martin Eroglu 1993 Country Image

Documents

Transcript of D Martin Eroglu 1993 Country Image