You are on page 1of 32

The current issue and full textarchiveof this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.

htm

Explaining the productspecificity of count ry-oforigin effects


Department of International Trade, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, and Cass Business School, City University London, London, UK
Abstract
Pu rpose The purpose of this paper is to test the applicability of product typicality in explaining the product-specificity of country of origin (COO)effects. Design/methodolo gy/approa ch To help select stimuli used in the study, two dimensions of product typicality regarding COO images were created. A total of 416 participants from a business school in Taiwan participated in this experiment and rated their perceived COO images and attitudes towards specific products from select countries. Findings The results indicate that product typicality can help explain the discrepancies between COO images across products from a country, and across COOs of a product. Typical products received more favourable consumer attitudes and stronger COO images than atypical ones. This study also manipulated two other factors, product type and product category level. While product type had no significant impact on the effects of typicality, tests on product category level revealed enhanced effects for subordinate product categories. Originality/ value The study provides a stepping stone towards the development of a general theory of COO. By testing the effects of a category-based concept, typicality, in the context of the COO image, this study formally testifies the applicability of categorisation theories on COO effects, which may provide informative sources for the future development of COO studies. Based on the rationale of typicality, this study also tests the possible moderation effects of product types and category levels. Key words Country of origin, Consumer behaviour, Country images, Categorization, Typicality, Product type, Product category level Paper type Research paper

Productspecificity of COO effects 581


Received April 2010 Revised October 2010, March 2011 Accepted July 2011

Ting-Hsiang Tseng George Balabanis

Introduc tion The discussion of country image or country-of-origin (CO O)issues began about four decades ago and has grown rapidly to become one of the most researched fields in international marketing. Two meta-analytical studies have shown that COO has an effect on buying behaviour (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995; Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999), which is subject to country-specific and product-specific variations. Country image is defined as the overall perception consumers form of products from a particular country, based on their prior perceptions of the countrys production and marketing strengths and weaknesses (Roth and Romeo, 1992, p. 480). The COO made in label, a legal requirement in some instances, remains a marketing tool to leverage strong country images for products. Despite the significant amount of research on the topic, accumulated findings show that the effects of COO vary across product categories, making it difficult for researchers to make theoretical generalisations. A large variation exists in the way that products are associated with their country origins. For example, while certain product

categories, such as cars, software, food, and perfume, are strongly identified with their

International Marketing Review Vol. 28 No. 6, 2011 pp. 581-600 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0265-1335 DOI 10.1108/02651331111181420

IMR 28,6

582

COO (Kotler and Gertner, 2002) (e.g. French perfume, German cars), other product categories (e.g. detergents, tools) are not immediately linked to a COO. There is variation in the size of the COO effects across products, as a COO may have high value in certain product categories but not in others (e.g. Germany has a high value for cars but not perfumes). The above mentioned variations have been shown in the literature with little theoretical explanation. Moreover, some researchers, such as Nebenzahl et al. (1997), Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2001), and Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004), suggest that a product-specific approach to COO effects is worthwhile and that a theory that can explain for such product variations of COO effects is needed. Although many studies still argue the importance of examining general country images, the present study focuses on the product-specific perspective. It may prove very problematic and impractical to generate product maps for different countries on the basis of their COO images, as an individual country usually possesses numerous products. Furthermore, one would have to measure all of the product-country images for every product in a country to have a broad view. To overcome this problem regarding the product specificity in COO effects and to develop a more general theory, the concept of typicality was used. Typicality is generally defined as the degree to which an item is perceived to represent a category (Loken and Ward, 1990). If we can connect typicality with COO research, we can then conduct research in terms of a category manner rather than a product-specific manner. This category manner could be more meaningful for researchers and marketing managers due to its inclusion of similar, though different, items. In that way, the focus could greatly reduce the complexity of product-specific COO research because product categories could be designated as far more simplified as compared to the task of measuring country images of countless product items. Moreover, the category-based concept of product typicality would help researchers and marketers to infer spillover COO effects across products that did share common characteristics. Therefore, typicality is introduced in this research as a way of integrating product-specific effects. Specifically, this paper seeks to incorporate the concept of typicality to explore product-specific differences of COO effects and to examine the applicability of categorisation concepts of COO. Categorisation and COO Hadjimarcou and Hu (1999) found that the COO cue, as a category-based heuristic, plays a major role in the evaluation of the stimulus across all conditions, regardless of the exact nature of attribute information or task complexity. Consumers resort to heuristics, when available, to avoid an intricate examination of individual attribute information. Thus, their decisions are based on a memory stored schema-triggered effect (Pavelchak, 1989) activated via a stimulus feature, such as a COO, brand name, or membership in a prototypical category (Sujan, 1985). How ever, few studies in this area have reported on the importance of single extrinsic attributes, such as COO, in the activation and promotion of categorisation-related schemas (Hadjimarcou and Hu, 1999). Categorisation refers to the process of determining what things belong together (Barsalou, 1991, 1992; Zentall et al., 2002). Lakoff (1987) emphasised the ubiquitous nature of categorisation by noting that [c]ategorisation is not a matter to be taken lightly. There is nothing more basic than categorisation to our thought, perception, action, and speech (p. 5). In other words, human beings cannot deal with their

surrounding world without categorisation. Psychologists have tried to sort out the

large and diverse literature that focuses on categorisation. This attempt could help scholars in other disciplines, such as marketing, to gain clearer insight into their own research. Past studies have treated COO as just another extrinsic feature of a product. Howeve r, COO may be more than just an extrinsic cue or just another feature if the categorisation theory is applied (Yamauchi and Markman, 2000). First, as Yamauchi and Markman (2000) observed, the label and feature are linked to category members through different relations. A category label is connected to each category member by a class-inclusion relation (e.g. this object is a giraffe). Category features are connected by partonomic relations (e.g. this object has a long neck). Second, the scope of the property can be quite different. Category labels indicate the whole object, whereas category features indicate parts of an object (Miller and JohnsonLaird, 1976; Tversky and Hemenway, 1984). These observations are bolstered by considerable evidence that category labels are special not only in the physical world. Many studies have found that category labels are treated differently from other category features, even by young children (Markman, 1989; Gelman and Coley, 1990; Gelman and Heyman, 1999). Yamauchi and Markman (2000) indeed devised several experiments to test the equivalence of labels and features. Again, all of these studies indicate that people do not treat category labels in the same way they treat other category features when making inductive inferences. Based on the above, it is plausible that the COO label should be treated as a category. First, the COO label is connected to each of its category members by a class- inclusion relation. For example, consumers usually consider that a product is a Japanese camera. Such a description is more like a class-inclusion relation. Second, unlike some other features, COO labels indicate that the whole product was made in a certain country. Other features, such as quality, price, and service, that pertain to the product made in that country can be recalled by presenting the label to consumers. Therefore, it would be more precise to take a category-based view of COO labels and the effects of COO for researchers. Mervis and Rosch (1981) tried to clarify the nature of categorisation after reviewing several streams of the relevant literature. They described six characteristics of categories that can help researchers grasp the characteristics of categorisation (Mervis and Rosch, 1981). The six elements are as follows: (1) the non-arbitrary nature of categories; (2) the non-equivalence of category members; (3) the indeterminacy of category membership and representation; (4) the nature of abstraction; (5) the decomposability of categories into elements; and (6) the nature of attributes. A category-based view of COO that is employed here can thus introduce these characteristics into this research field and provide insightful explanations for many related issues. When one looks at COO labels as a category, it is important to bear in mind that all six characteristics of the category mentioned above apply. Thus, a COO label could

Productspecificity of COO effects 583

be a category for many members, but at the same time, the category can be a member of another superordinate category. A hierarchical structure of categories is in place.

IMR 28,6

584

Moreover, it is normal that category members are not equivalent to each other in different ways. Some members would be more representative of the category than other members. For example, cameras of different country origins could be members of the product category camera. Among those members, however, a Japanese camera (a subordinate category) might be the most representative member of the camera product category. This idea leads to the concept of typicality that is examined in the next section. Produ ct typicality and COO Typicality is a category-based concept and is defined as the degree to which an item is perceived to represent a category (Loken and Ward, 1990). As category members become more typical, they often gain increasing priority for people in a number of cognitive tasks. Research shows that more typical members of a category tend to have the following characteristics:
. . . . .

named first in free recall of category instances; classified faster than less typical members; classified with fewer errors; learned more rapidly as a category member; and used as cognitive reference points in comparisons (more typical members tend to be standards of comparison for less typical members).

In addition to the above characteristics, previous empirical research has also demonstrated positive relationships between typicality and consumer attitudes in a variety of product categories (Loken and Ward, 1987; Nedungadi and Hutchinson, 1985). Any consideration of how product categories evolve suggests why members with more typical attributes should also be more preferred. As product or brand categories evolve, one or a few products tend to become market-share leaders because they have attributes that are widely desired by consumers who buy the product (e.g. McDonald s in the category of fast-food restaurants). Then, the most competitive brands are designed to appeal to larger segments of consumers, so that they are similar in many ways to the market leader but have a few points of difference (e.g. Burger King). Given this situation, consumers tend to generate a prototype or an abstraction of the product category, based on those common but desired attributes, from their consumption experience. Naturally, those most favoured market-share leaders would possess more such attributes that are characteristic of the prototype and hence, considered more typical than other products. Therefore, the more typical products are usually those favoured by more consumers. To incorporate the idea of typicality into COO research, some clarification of two possible dimensions of typicality derived from the category-based subject of this research is necessary. These two dimensions are as follows: (1) Ethnic typicality: the typicality of a countrys product in the global market of its product category (i.e. how typical is a Japanese camera in the camera product category?).

(2) Country typicality: the representativeness of a product category of a whole countrys products (i.e. how typical are cameras as a Japanese product?).

More concretely, when asking consumers to list typical products of a specific country, country typicality might be considered. When asking consumers to list typical countries as a producer of a specific product, ethnic typicality might emerge. Ethnic typicality and consumer attitude When we consider a product category with members of different country origins, some members would be more typical than others. Higher typicality leads to more positive consumer attitudes, as discussed earlier, and thus, produces discrimination among members. Take digital cameras as an example. Japanese digital cameras may be the most typical digital cameras in the world, while Taiwanese digital cameras may be the median ones, and Chinese digital cameras are the least. Although they are all members of the digital camera category, consumers may favour Japanese cameras more than the others and can even point out which properties (more or less) of Japanese digital cameras are superior. Consequently, a category-based view of COO can elucidate the discrepancy across different COO members of a product category. To testify to that view, this study proposes that in a product category with members of different countries, those members with higher ethnic typicality will attain more positive consumer attitudes: H1. Ethnically typical products will receive more positive consumer evaluations than ethnically non-typical products. Country typicality and consumer attitude When we examine country typicality, a similar effect may occur, but in a somewhat different way. Distinct from ethnic typicality, the concept of country typicality treats COO as the category label. Various products from the specific country are members of the category. Similarly, members of the COO category are inevitably graded. Those products that appear to be more typical of a specific country tend to attract better consumer attitudes and thus are distinguished from other less-typical products. As a result, a category-based view rationalises consumer discrimination across various products from a specific country. Here, typicality refers to country typicality, as mentioned above. According to the discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2. Country-typical products will receive more positive consumer evaluations than country non-typical products. After presenting the two dimensions of product typicality concerning COO images, this work also tries to establish the relationships between the traditional view of COO images and the new perspective on COO images, namely, ethnic/country product typicality. According to the discussion earlier, consumers generate in their minds prototypical abstractions about different products from their consumption experiences. The abstractions consist of mostly favoured attributes of those products. Also, the COO image of a product is regarded as the picture, the reputation, the stereotype that businessmen and consumers attach to products of a specific

Productspecificity of COO effects 585

country (Nagashima, 1970, p. 68). Usually, the image or mental representation of a products COO image consists of numerous attributes. Therefore, favourable COO images would be those that possess attributes that are more similar to the prototypical

IMR 28,6

product in the category (i.e. the typical product). Based on the above, the following are proposed: H3. The COO images of ethnically typical products are stronger than those of ethnically non-typical products.

586

H4. The COO images of country-typical products are stronger than those of country non-typical products. Produ ct char acterist ics and pro duct typicali ty According to the category-based view of COO, product characteristics seem to moderate the postulated effect of typicality on COO images and attitudes. Two product characteristics are particularly relevant here as they tend to generate the highest variation of COO effects: (1) the hedonic or utilitarian nature of the products; and (2) the product category levels (i.e. subordinate/superordinate product category). Hedonic/utilitarian products and product typicality Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000) conceptualised that hedonic goods, such as audio tapes and apartments with a view, and utilitarian goods, such as computer diskettes and apartments close to work, are expected to deliver positive payoffs but of different types. Hedonic products are those consumed primarily for affective or sensory gratification purposes, while utilitarian products deliver more cognitively-oriented benefits (Woods, 1960). Utilitarian goods are characterised by high functionality or practicality, while hedonic goods are characterised by their experiential or emotional aspects (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Several studies have suggested that variety seeking is important to hedonic products, such as restaurants, music, or leisure activities and their ensuing attitudes. For example, studies of choice behaviours find that consumers usually seek variety among hedonic products when making multiple selections simultaneously (Simonson, 1990) or even sequentially (Ratner et al., 1999). Read and Loewenstein (1995) have suggested that individuals tend to spread their choices across available alternatives among hedonic products. Similarly, Hoyer and Ridgway (1984) and Kahn and Lehmann (1991) argue that products that are hedonic have a stronger tendency to elicit the variety seeking drive than does a utilitarian product. Inman (2001)argued that variety seeking is more likely to occur based on a sense of taste than on the brand. The link between variety seeking and hedonic products, while controlling for individual differences in the need for variety, is empirically established by Van Trijp et al. (1996). Consumption of hedonic products over a period of time is likely to lead to satiation or boredom (Rolls, 1986). Therefore, consumers tend to change their tastes for hedonic products more frequently than they do for other products. They like to experience something new and prefer the feeling of switching among hedonic products. In hedonic consumption, the search for unusual products will be common. However, a typical product usually shares many common attributes with other members of the same category and possesses few distinctive features (Loken and Ward, 1990). Accordingly, typicality is not as important of a consideration in consumer evaluations as it is with utilitarian products that serve different purposes. Ward and Loken (1988) explain a negative

relationship between the preference for typical products and variety seeking. McAlister and Pessemier (1982) and Raju (1980) argue that seeking variety in experiences is a basic motivation of consumers. This motivation can be explained by optimal stimulation level theory (Driver and Streufert, 1964). This theory postulates that when stimulation falls below an optimal level, people will seek out unusual and exciting products. This hypothesis was empirically supported by Raju (1980), who found positive correlations between consumers optimal stimulation level and their desire for unusual products and services. Babin and Babin (2001)also provide an empirical argument to support the premise that low typicality in hedonic products increases consumer excitement. Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: H5. The hedonic nature of products will negatively moderate the effects of ethnic/ country typicality on consumer attitudes. Product catego ry levels and product typicality Typical products embody the more valued and more salient common (shared) attributes as compared to other products in the category. This is one of the reasons for typical products popularity with consumers. However, when the concept of category structure (i.e. superordinate vs subordinate categories) is considered, more contemplation on the effect of typicality is needed. Consumers tend to place products into logical categories. Categorisation helps the consumer process known information and classify new information both quickly and efficiently (Assael, 1992). There are various category levels in which consumers can place such information. These levels make up the structure of this category and are relatively positioned. For example, when identifying car as a superordinate category, a sedan will be subordinate. However, when a sedan and Toyota are considered, a sedan will be considered to be superordinate. This breakdown can go down to specific models and versions of models of a car. Many studies suggest that products of more subordinate categories may be more concrete and mentally represented as sharing more common attributes than those in superordinate categories (Goldberg, 1986; Rosch et al., 1976; Sujan and Deklava, 1987). This is due to the higher uniformity among members of the finer-grained subordinate category. Superordinate categories have a larger number of attributes than do subordinate categories. Compared to subordinate categories, superordinate categories tend to include more diverse members, each one possessing different attributes. Loken and Ward (1990) argue that products within a subordinate category are more comparable as purchase options than those in a superordinate category. They argued that abstract attributes dominate consumer evaluations and choice among less comparable purchase options (i.e. superordinate category members) more strongly than comparable ones (i.e. products in subordinate categories). As such, the salient attributes that delineate perceptions of typical COO products (and make them more attractive as explained in H1) will be shared more by all members of the subordinate typical product categories than the more diverse superordinate typical products categories. For example, German passenger cars are more homogeneous in their attributes than the German transport equipment category, which includes cars, trains, buses, trams, and so forth. Some products that belong to the superordinate category of German transport equipment may be perceived as better or worse on certain dimensions or as more or less typical of Germany. This lack of concreteness is likely to

Product- specificity of COO effects 587

IMR 28,6

588

make the consumer assessment of the whole category tenuous and less solid. The same argument can be applied to atypical product categories falling in the subordinate and superordinate groups. More homogeneous members of subordinate categories will be identified as atypical, more solid, and unwavering than members of the more heterogeneous superordinate categories. Hence, due to the resoluteness of the perceived attributes separating the typical from the atypical products at the subordinate level, the typicality effect on attitudes (described in H1) will be stronger at that level. On the basis of the above the following is expected: H6. For ethnically/country-typical products, consumer attitudes will be stronger for subordinate than superordinate products, all else being equal. The experim ent This study adopted an experiment to test the hypotheses. The experimental procedures and results are introduced in the following subsections. Method Design. To test the above hypotheses, a 2 2 (2) mixed factorial experimental design was used. Product type (hedonic vs utilitarian) and product category level (superordinate vs subordinate) were the two between-subjects factors while ethnic/country typicality (typical vs atypical) was the within-subjects factor. Stimuli. A pilot test was launched in Taiwan to help select suitable stimuli. A complete product list, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), was used to select consumer products. A total of 183 business school students were recruited for this pilot. There were 26 developed and developing countries as well as 26 superordinate consumer products with their various corresponding subordinate product categories picked from the NAICS for use in the pilot. Due to the mass items on this test, split questionnaires in ten different versions were given to the subjects. Participants were required to list typical countries as producers of respective product categories, and typical products of respective countries (up to three for each product and country). The participants also needed to classify the products into hedonic, utilitarian, or mixed types of products. Based on the results of the pilot test (scores and agreement ratings), two countries and four product categories were selected so that: (1) two purely hedonic and two purely utilitarian products were included; (2) one of the selected countries must be a typical producer of one of the selected hedonic products and one of the selected utilitarian products for the two dimensions of typicality, but also must be an atypical producer of the other selected products; (3) the other selected country must be a typical producer of the selected products for which the previous country is atypical for the two dimensions, and also must be an atypical producer of the other selected products; (4) relatively more subjects could clearly recognise the typical COOs of the products which is an expected attribute of typicality; and (5) relatively more subjects could clearly recognise the typical products from the countries.

According to these rules, two countries (Japan and Taiwan) and four products (video games, teapots, refrigerators, and CD-RW) as well as their superordinate categories were chosen as the stimuli for the experiment. Video games and teapots were perceived as purely hedonic products; Japan is the typical country with video games, while Taiwan is the typical country for teapots. Refrigerators and CD-RW are regarded as purely utilitarian products; Japan is the typical producer for refrigerators, while Taiwan is typical in producing CD-RW. The four product categories are subordinate and each is paired with another superordinate product category: games, porcelain, white goods, and blank discs, respectively. This selection produced a fourcell experiment, as illustrated in Table I. Participants. The experiment used student samples from a university in Taiwan. Several classes having a total of 416 business school students at a university attended this experiment. All of the subjects were randomly assigned to the four conditions in a balanced manner. Procedures and measurement A pre-test was launched weeks before the formal experiment to make sure that the manipulation of the experiment precisely captured the variables. The 416 participants were randomly assigned to the four cells in a balanced way and were asked to rate the category names on scales that measured their perceived hedonism, category level, and product typicality. Manipulation checks of the stimuli were statistically significant. The formal experiment followed weeks later. In the formal experiment, all of the subjects were assigned to the conditions they had in the pre-test and were required to rate on scales that evaluated their general attitudes towards each product category presented. Three questions were used to measure consumers general attitudes for each stimulus: (1) How favourable is your overall opinion of countries product category? (2) In general, how much do you like countries product category?

Productspecificity of COO effects 589

Experiment cell 1

Product type Hedonic

Product category level Subordinate

Stimuli Japanese video games Taiwanese video games Japanese teapots Taiwanese teapots Japanese games Taiwanese games Japanese porcelain Taiwanese porcelain Japanese refrigerators Taiwanese refrigerators Japanese CD-RW Taiwanese CD-RW Japanese white goods

Product typicality Typical Atypical Atypical Typical Typical Atypical Atypical Typical Typical Atypical Atypical Typical Typical

Hedonic

Superordinate

Utilitarian

Subordinate

Utilitarian

Superordinate

Taiwanese white goods Japanese blank discs Taiwanese blank discs

Atypical Atypical Typical

Table I. The four-cell experiment of this study

IMR 28,6

(3) Indicate how strongly you agree with the following statement: I really like countries product category? Participants also responded based on scales with nine items modified from Nebenzahl et al.s (2003) questionnaire that measured product-specific COO images of each category. Based on Nebenzahl et al. (2003), we conceptualise product-specific COO images as three-dimensional constructs, including Quality and Satisfaction Seeker, Underdog, and Economic Value Seeker. The scale carefully assured that the grand mean of all of the questions is a valid measure of the overall country image (Nebenzahl et al., 2003). All of the items used seven-point Likert scales. The purposes of the experiment were not specified during the procedure. Table II presents the results of discriminant validity analysis between the two reflective constructs, general consumer attitudes and product-specific COO images. 2 The squared correlation coefficients between the two constructs (r 0.701) do not exceed either average variance extracted for the two constructs, proving that discriminant validity between the constructs is given. The measurement reliability of the two constructs was examined through confirmatory factor analysis and the calculation of the Cronbach a coefficient (Cronbach, 1951). Analyses were conducted separately for the constructs. Table III shows the values of composite reliability and the values of the coefficient a. The coefficient a 40.7, the threshold that is generally proposed in the literature (Hair et al., 2006), for the two examined constructs. Composite reliabilities for the two constructs exceed 0.6, the generally recommended threshold (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Therefor e, the reliability and validity of the constructs in this study are acceptable. Analysis Several analyses of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures were applied to test the effects of ethnic typicality as well as the effects of country typicality. When testing the effects of ethnic typicality, the means of the same kinds of Japanese and Taiwanese products were compared, i.e., Japanese video games vs Taiwanese video games; Japanese refrigerators vs Taiwanese refrigerators, etc. On the other hand, when the effects of country typicality were interested, the study compared the means of different products from the same country, i.e. Japanese video games vs Japanese teapot; Taiwanese CD-RW vs Taiwanese refrigerators, etc. Results The hypotheses were tested with two sets of dependent measures: general consumer attitudes and product-specific COO images. Table IV presents the means of general consumer attitudes and product-specific COO images. ANOVAs with a withinsubjects factor of product typicality (typical vs atypical) and between-subjects factors of

590

Product-specific COO image Product-specific COO image General consumer attitude 0.811 a 0.701c

General consumer attitude 0.837b 0.868 d

Table II. Discriminant validity analysis

Notes: aaverage variance extracted (AVE) for a construct; bthe correlation coefficient between measurement constructs; cthe squared correlation coefficient between the two constructs

Scale/item Product-specific COO images (Nebenzahl et al., 2003)a Quality and satisfaction seeker 1. A person who buys X is getting a good deal 2. A person who buys X is making the best choice 3. A person who buys X is correct in choosing the product Underdog 4. A person who buys X is thoughtless, rash, and nave 5. A person who buys X is stupid, foolish 6. A person who buys X is getting ripped off Economic value seeker 7. A person who buys X is buying a good but expensive product 8. A person who buys X is paying top price for top quality 9. X are inexpensive products General consumer attitude sa 1. How favourable is your overall opinion of X 2. In general, how much do you like X 3. Indicate how strongly you agree with the following statement: I really like X
a

Coefficient a Composite reliability 0.893 0.974

Productspecificity of COO effects 591

0.952

0.952

Notes: seven-point scale applied. X, countries product category; w 229.416,df 48, p 0.000; goodness-of-fit statistics (GFI): 0.977; AGFI: 0.962; TLI: 0.988; RMSEA: 0.048

Table III. CFA of constructs

General consumer attitudes Product-specific COO images Typical Atypical Typical Atypical Japan Taiwan Total Japan Taiwan Total Japan Taiwan Total Japan Taiwan Total Subordinate Hedonic 6.09 Utilitarian 6.03 Total 6.06 Superordinate Hedonic 5.67 Utilitarian 5.66 Total 5.66

5.61 5.63 5.62 5.15 5.24 5.20

5.85 5.83 5.84 5.41 5.45 5.43

3.64 3.79 3.71 3.52 3.55 3.53

4.16 4.14 4.15 4.00 4.17 4.09

3.90 3.97 3.93 3.76 3.86 3.81

5.23 5.44 5.34 5.63 5.39 5.51

5.22 5.23 5.23 5.25 5.27 5.26

5.23 5.34 5.29 5.44 5.33 5.39

3.81 3.77 3.79 3.69 3.88 3.78

3.88 3.93 3.90 3.88 4.01 3.95

3.85 3.85 3.85 3.79 3.95 3.87

Table IV. Means of consumer attitudes and productspecific COO images

product type (hedonic vs utilitarian) and product category level (subordinate vs superordinate) were performed. The effects of ethnic typicality To test the overall effects of ethnic typicality, two ANOVA tests with the same kinds of Japanese and Taiwanese products assigned separately to the two levels of the withinsubjects factor (according to their typicality) were performed for consumer attitudes and COO images, respectively. The data of typical (as well as atypical) products from different countries were pooled together. The results revealed significant main effects of ethnic typicality, F(2, 411) 438.51, po0.001, product category level, F(2, 411) 11.02, po0.001, and interaction between the two (moderation

effect),

IMR 28,6

592

F(2, 411) 3.43, po0.05 for consumer attitudes; we also found a main effect of ethnic typicality, F(2, 411) 410.63, po0.001 for COO images. The significant main effect of ethnic typicality on consumer attitudes provided empirical support for H1. Typical products (mean 5.64) resulted in stronger (here more favourable) consumer attitudes than atypical products did (mean 3.87). To further check the effect, two separate ANOVA tests were performed on the consumer attitude data for the two sub-sets of stimuli: (1) typical Japanese products and atypical Taiwanese products; and (2) typical Taiwanese products and atypical Japanese products. Consistent with the overall test, participants favoured typical products more than atypical products in both sets (typical Japanese products 5.86, atypical Taiwanese products 4.12, F(1, 412) 645.77, po0.001; typical Taiwanese products 5.41, atypical Japanese products 3.62, F(1, 412) 352.84, po0.001). H3 received support from the significant main effect of ethnic typicality on COO images. Typical products (mean 5.34) possessed stronger COO images than atypical products did (mean 3.86). Another two ANOVA tests were performed separately on the COO image data for the two sub-sets of stimuli, as mentioned above. The results further support the hypothesis (typical Japanese products 5.43; atypical Taiwanese products 3.93, F(1, 412) 767.04, po0.001; typical Taiwanese products 5.25; and atypical Japanese products 3.79, F(1, 412) 324.24, po0.001). The lack of a significant effect of product type on consumer attitudes initially rejected H5. In other words, when considering ethnic typicality, hedonic products as compared to utilitarian ones will not receive less favourable consumer attitudes. However, the significant main effect of the product category level and the interaction effect (between ethnic typicality and product category levels) on consumer attitudes provided initial evidence supporting H6. In general, regardless of typicality, subordinate product categories (mean 4.89) attained more favourable consumer attitudes than superordinate product categories did (mean 4.62).As Table IV shows, typical products in the subordinate level (mean 5.84) received significantly higher consumer attitudes than typical products in the superordinate level did (mean 5.43, t(414) 6.95, po0.001). For atypical products, the difference in consumer attitudes between subordinate (mean 3.93) and superordinate categories (mean 3.81) were statistically insignificant, t(414) 1.16, p 0.25. The two ANOVA tests performed on consumer attitudes for the two sub-sets of stimuli (i.e. typical Japanese products and atypical Taiwanese products; typical Taiwanese products and atypical Japanese products) further confirmed the same results for the impacts of product category levels. Specifically, typical subordinate Japanese products (mean 6.06) attained more favourable attitudes than typical superordinate Japanese products attained (mean 5.66, t(414) 5.69, po0.001). Similarly, typical subordinate Taiwanese products (mean 5.62) were more favourable than typical superordinate Taiwanese products (mean 5.20, t(414) 5.22, po0.001). The effects of country typicality Two repeated-measure ANOVA tests with the same COO products, which were assigned separately to the two levels of the within-subjects typicality factor, were performed for consumer attitudes and COO images, respectively, to test the overall

effect s of count ry typica lity. The data of typica l (as well as atypic al) produ cts were

pooled together for different countries. The results showed significant main effects of country typicality, F(2, 411) 442.51, po0.001, product category level, F(2, 411) 10.96, po0.001, and interaction between them, F(2, 411) 4.85, po0.05 for consumer attitudes; also, a main effect of country typicality, F(2, 411) 337.62, po0.001 for COO images was shown. The significant main effect of country typicality on consumer attitudes provided support for H2. Typical products (mean 5.64) attracted more consumer attitudes than atypical products did (mean 3.87). To further check the effect, another two separate ANOVA tests were performed on the consumer attitude data within each COO. Consistent with the overall test, participants favoured typical products more than atypical products made in Japan (typical Japanese products 5.86, atypical Japanese products 3.62, F(1, 412) 886.60, po0.001) as well as products made in Taiwan (typical Taiwanese products 5.41, atypical Taiwanese products 4.12, F(1, 412) 460.81, po0.001). H4 was supported by the significant main effect of country typicality on COO images. Typical products (mean 5.34) had stronger COO images than atypical products (mean 3.86) had. Two additional separate ANOVA tests were performed on the COO image data within each country, which further confirmed the result (typical Japanese products 5.43, atypical Japanese products 3.79, F(1, 412) 622.93, po0.001; typical Taiwanese products 5.25, atypical Taiwanese products 3.93, F(1, 412) 516.74, po0.001). H5 was rejected because the effect of product type was insignificant when considering the dimension of country typicality. Therefore, hedonic products can enjoy consumer preference similarly to utilitarian ones, no matter what dimensions of product typicality regarding COO images are taken. On the contrary, the significant main effect of product category level and the interaction effect (between country typicality and product category levels) on consumer attitudes lent further support to H6. Additionally, subordinate products (mean 4.89) were favoured more than superordinate products (mean 4.62) in the dimension of country typicality. Typical subordinate products (mean 5.84) gained significantly stronger consumer attitudes than typical superordinate products did (mean 5.43, t(414) 6.95, po0.001). However, there was no significant difference between atypical subordinate (mean 3.93) and superordinate (mean 3.81) products (t(414) 1.16, p 0.25). The two ANOVA tests performed on consumer attitudes within each separate COO were also consistent with the overall test on the effects of the product category level. Regardless of typicality, subordinate Japanese products (mean 4.89) were more favourable than superordinate Japanese products (mean 4.60, F(1, 412) 11.74, po0.001). Similarly, subordinate Taiwanese products (mean 4.89) were favoured more than superordinate Taiwanese products (mean 4.65, F(1, 412) 11.02, po0.001). When comparing typical subordinate/superordinate pairs for each country separately, typical subordinate categories (Japanese products 6.06; Taiwanese products 5.62) gained more favourable attitudes than typical superordinate categories did ( Japanese products 5.66; Taiwanese products 5.2). All of these results confirmed H6.

Productspecificity of COO effects 593

Discu ssion and impli cations Drawing on theories of categorisation in psychology, the present study tried to explain the variation and product specificity of COO effects using the concept of typicality. Although there are several definitions of COO images, most do not provide a profound

IMR 28,6

594

basis for establishing a theory that can clearly explain the discrepancies of COO effects for different products within a country and across countries. The category-based concept adopted from studies in psychology, however, can help resolve the issue and provide more insight into the effects of COO images on consumer attitudes. As mentioned earlier, there are six features of a category (Mervis and Rosch, 1981). Therefore, adopting a category-based view of COO images can quite easily resolve the issues of discrepancy, indeterminacy, and decomposition that are frequently addressed in the COO literature, but without a covering theory. Due to the features of a category, many characteristics of the COO images observed in the real world are natural since COO images are the result of categorisation. Moreover, using a category-based view for COO images can allow researchers to borrow many categoryrelated theories that are available in psychology, such as category learning, categorisation flexibility, and category knowledge transfer, and apply them to research on COO effects. Two types of typicality were introduced: ethnic typicality and country typicality. Their effects on attitudes and COO images were hypothesised and subsequently tested with the help of a mixed experimental design. Consistent with the proposed hypotheses, typicality can account for the discrepancies of COO effects across products from a country and across COOs of a product. The study found that typical products from a country usually obtain stronger (here, more favourable) consumer attitudes than do the atypical products of the same country or of other countries. Moreover, typical products of a country usually possess more positive COO images than do the atypical products of that country and other countries. Typicality, indeed, can help explain the differences in consumer attitudes towards products from a country and from different countries. In other words, even if a country owns a highly praised country image in general, its various products will not equally gain consumer favourability because the different products will have different levels of ethnic or country typicality. For example, although Japan has a general positive country image in Taiwan, Japanese refrigerators have higher typicality and enjoy more favourable consumer attitudes than Japanese teapots. Therefore, accounting for ethnic or country typicality in theoretical models is a step towards a more general theory of COO effects and a way to explain variations of the effects across products and COOs. The present study can also provide some additional insights on measurement instruments. Nebenzahl et al. (2003) developed a product-specific 27-item country image scale based on consumers rather than researchers frames of reference. This product-specific scale covers a number of evaluative, social, and emotional dimensions. Although this scale is product specific and is thus far the most exhaustive and acceptable scale for COO images, the dimensions the scale covers are still debatable with regard to their applicability to various visible and invisible products in the global market. Moreover, a 27-item scale is too extensive for professionals to launch an efficient survey. All in all, researchers have not as yet provided a clear and easy way to understand and manipulate COO images. The current research, however, tried to use ethnic and country product typicality as alternatives to the traditional view of COO images. Product typicality involves intrinsically product-specific variables and is quite easy to measure. Researchers do

not need to define dimensions of COO images or dimensions of products. They can simply evaluate the level of ethnic or country typicality of a product and then use that value to infer possible consumer responses towards a product from that country.

Moreover, based on the measurement, they can have a precise grasp of whether that specific product can enjoy the benefits of a favourable COO image or not. Finally, the study tested two factors, the product type and product category level, which may impact the effects of product typicality. The study failed to confirm any differences between hedonic and utilitarian products in regard to the typicality and consumer attitudes (as well as typicality and COO images) relationship providing support for a general typicality effect. It appears that the typical products of a country, whether hedonic or utilitarian, are highly praised by consumers possibly because those products, regardless of their function, usually encapsulate favourable properties. Hedonic consumption is based on the multi-sensory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of a consumers experience with a product (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). According to Levy (1959), consumers emotional engagement underlies the choice of even ordinary hedonic products. However, certain cultures tend to discourage (or encourage) the public expression of the emotions experienced, even from the consumption of hedonic products (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Furthermore, the same authors indicate that consumers will look at a hedonic product through the definitional lenses that their culture gives to the product. Evidently, this phenomenon can be attributed to a number of product or consumer-related factors (like culture) that are not included in this study. Before hastily dismissing the validity of this hypothesis, it is necessary to test it in a different research design that accounts for emotional and cultural differences. Additionally, the psychological phenomenon of hedonic contrast (Zellner et al., 2003) may be responsible for these results. In hedonic contrast, we have a diminution in the evaluations of experimental stimuli when they are contrasted with good context stimuli as compared to when they are presented either alone or following neutral context stimuli. Probably if typical hedonic products were not contrasted, they would have produced different results. It was also suggested (Bloch et al., 2009) that typical products may spontaneously trigger higher consumer involvement which can also explain this effect across the two categories. Different product category levels were found to moderate the relationship between typicality and consumer attitudes. Subordinate products attract more favourable attitudes than do superordinate products. This moderation effect is obvious for typical products only. The result confirms our argument that typical subordinate products may possess more attributes that are common among members within the category. Subordinate categories are more homogeneous and, as such, more resolutely attractive or unattractive and typical or atypical than the more heterogeneous superordinate categories. However, in the context of country images, the difference of consumer attitudes between subordinate and superordinate categories is diminished when it comes to atypical products because atypical products lack association with the COO, which is a demarcating (or homogenising) product characteristic by itself. The statistical tests on these two factors (i.e. product types and category levels) provide some implications for policy makers who are trying to develop their COO images. While product types may not be their concern, policy makers can enhance the COO images of products more efficiently if they focus on increasing the product typicality in a more concrete, visual category name. For marketing theory, the study provides a stepping stone towards the development of a general theory of COO capable of incorporating and explaining product-based differences of COO effects. The benefits are obvious to researchers: besides charting out the effects of each product separately (e.g. dAstous et al., 2008; Michaelis et al.,

Productspecificity of COO effects 595

IMR 28,6

596

2008),they can also use the category-based concept, typicality, and deviation from it as a guide in their research. Moreover, the significant effects of typicality and category level found in this study provide evidence for the applicability of categorisation theories on COO images. Therefore, many other informative sources of categorisation theories mentioned above, such as category learning, category knowledge transfer, and categorisation flexibility, can thus be applied for the future development of COO studies. Those categorisation theories have great potential for marketing researchers to provide insights into many disputes in the COO literature, such as halo assumption vs summary assumption (Josiassen et al., 2008; Insch and Mcbride, 2004; Li et al., 2000; Johansson, 1989; Laroche et al., 2005), the moderation effects of familiarity (Phau and Suntornnond, 2006; Lee and Ganesh, 1999), and the moderation effects of involvement (Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran, 2000; Verlegh et al., 2005; Ahmed et al., 2004; dAstous and Ahmed, 1999). For practitioners, the study provides evidence to support that promoting the COO of a product is not always the best strategy, even when the COO image is globally positive. Marketers can actively publicise the COO of their products if the products are ethnically typical or country typical, as typical products of a country possess more positive COO images and are more attractive to consumers than non-typical ones. The strategy of stressing the COO of typical products can be very effective regardless of product types (i.e. hedonic or utilitarian). On the other hand, if their products are not typical, marketers should be more artful when trying to utilise the COO. They can give every effort to connecting their products with ethnically-typical or country-typical products, which may improve the typicality of their products perceived by consumers. Such a connection would be more effective if the typical product category is relatively more concrete. For example, Japanese toys may not be typical in consumers mind. However, stressing that those toys are robotic may help consumers to re-categorise Japanese toys with Japanese robots, which are quite typical in the world. If the connection is impossible, marketers should try to avoid using COO in their promotion according to the results of this study. Limitations and avenues for further rese arch Experimental research is often achieved at the expense of external validity. Although a controlled research setting can offer benefits and opportunities for researchers (Kardes, 1996), further research is encouraged to use different stimuli and samples of consumers to test the effects of ethnic and country typicality. A replication of the study hypotheses to different stimuli (product categories) can also minimise or isolate possible biases that may arise from specific product categories. However, different consumer samples and stimuli can also introduce more complex background factors and create biases. Researchers who intend to use different samples will need to be very cautious and precise in their research designs. Second, many other factors may also impact on the effects of ethnic and country typicality. Factors such as consumers personal traits, consumer ethnocentrism, and animosity are believed to have some influence on the effects. It is recommended that further research pays more attention to those factors and enriches the theory of ethnic and country typicality. Finally, there are also different dimensions of consumer attitudes. Further research can try to divide the dependent variable of consumer attitudes from those dimensions, which would allow

us to check the different potential effects of ethnic and country typicality on those components.

References Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Yang, X. and Fatt, C.K. (2004), Does country of origin matter for low-involvement products?, International Marketing Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 102-20. Assael, H. (1992),Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Wadsworth Inc, Boston, MA. Babin, B.J. and Babin, L. (2001), Seeking something different? A model of schema typicality, consumer affect, purchase intentions and perceived shopping value, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 89-96. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Scienc e, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94. Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2004), Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects, and consumer ethnocentrism: a multidimensional unfolding approach, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Scienc e, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 80-95. Barsalou, L.W. (1991), Deriving categories to achieve goals, in Bower, G.H. (Ed.), The Psychol ogy of Learning and Motivation, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 1-64. Barsalou, L.W. (1992), Cognitive Psychol ogy: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991),Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159-70. Bloch, P.H., Commuri, S. and Arnold, T.J. (2009), Exploring the origins of enduring product involvement, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 49-69. Cronbach, L.J. (1951), Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-336. Dastous, A. and Ahmed, S.A. (1999), The importance of country images in the formation of consumer product perceptions, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 108-26. Dastous, A., Voss, Z.G., Colbert, F., Caru` , A., Caldwell, M. and Courvoisier, F. (2008), Product- country images in the arts: a multi-country study, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 379-403. Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000),Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 60-71. Driver, M.J. and Streufert, S. (1964), The General Incongruity Adaptation Level (GIAL) Hypothesis: An Analysis and Integration of Cognitive Approaches to Motivation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Gelman, S.A. and Coley, J.D. (1990), The importance of knowing a dodo is a bird: categories and inferences in 2-year-old children, Developmental Psycho logy, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 796-804. Gelman, S.A. and Heyman, G.D. (1999), Carrot-eaters and creature-believers: the effects of lexicalization on childrens inferences about social categories, Psychol ogical Science, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 489-93. Goldberg, L. (1986), The validity of rating procedures to index the hierarchical level of categories, Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 323-47. Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000),Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 96-108. Hadjimarcou, J. and Hu, M.Y. (1999), Global product stereotypes and heuristic processing: the impact of ambient task complexity , Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 583-612.

Productspecificity of COO effects 597

IMR 28,6

598

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982),Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101. Hoyer, W.D. and Ridgway, N.M. (1984), Variety seeking as an explanation for exploratory purchase behavior: a theoretical model, in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 114-19. Inman, J.J. (2001),The role of sensory-specific satiety in attribute-level variety-seeking, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 105-20. Insch, G.S. and Mcbride, J.B. (2004), The impact of country-of-origin cues on customer perceptions of product quality: a binational test of the decomposed country-of-origin construct, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 256-65. Jaffe, E.D. and Nebenzahl, I.D. (2001), National Image & Competitive Advantage, Reproset, Copenhagen. Johansson, J.K. (1989),Determinants and effects of the use of made in labels, International Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 47-72. Josiassen, A., Lukas, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2008),Country-of-origin contingencies: competing perspectives on product familiarity and product involvement, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 423-40. Kahn, B.E. and Lehmann, D.R. (1991), Modeling choice among assortments, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 274-99. Kardes, F.R. (1996), In defense of experimental consumer psychology, Journal of Consumer Psycholog y, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 279-96. Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002), Country as brand, product, and beyond: a place marketing and brand management perspective, Brand Management, Vol. 9 Nos 4-5, pp. 249-61. Lakoff, G. (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A. and Mourali, M. (2005),The influence of country image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 96-115. Lee, D. and Ganesh, G. (1999), Effects of partitioned country image in the context of brand image and familiarity, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-39. Levy, S.J. (1959), Symbols for sale, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 (July-August), pp. 117-19. Li, Z.G., Murray, L.W. and Scott, D. (2000), Global sourcing, multiple country-oforigin facets, and consumer reactions, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 121-33. Loken, B. and Ward, J. (1987),Measures of the attribute structure underlying product typicality, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 22-6. Loken, B. and Ward, J. (1990), Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 111-26. McAliste r, L. and Pessemie r, E. (1982), Variety-seeking behavior: an interdisciplinary review, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 311-22. Markman, E.M. (1989),Categorization and Naming in Children, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Mervis, C.B. and Rosch, E. (1981), Categorization of natural objects, Annual Review of Psycholog y, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 89-115.

Michaelis, M., Woisetschla ger, D.M., Backhaus, C . and Ahlert, D. (2008), The effects of country of origin and corporate reputation on initial trust: an experimental evaluation of the perception of Polish consumers, International Marketing Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 27-49. Miller, G.A. and Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1976),Language and Perception, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Nagashima, A. (1970),A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes towards foreign products, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 68-74. Nebenzahl, I.D., Jaffe, E.D. and Lampert, S.I. (1997), Towards a theory of country image effect on product evaluation, Management International Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 2749. Nebenzahl, I.D., Jaffe, E.D. and Usunie r, J.-C. (2003),Personifying country of origin research, Management International Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 383-406. Nedungadi, P. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1985), The prototypicality of brands: relationships with brand awareness, preference, and usage, in Hirschman, E.C. and Holbroo k, M.B. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 498-503. Pavelchak, M.A. (1989), Piecemeal and category-based evaluation: an idiographic analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychol ogy, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 354-63. Peterson, R.A. and Jolibe rt, A.J.P. (1995),A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-900. Phau, I. and Suntornnond, V. (2006), Dimensions of consumer knowledge and its impacts on country of origin effects among Australian consumers: a case of fast-consuming product, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 34-42. Raju, P.S. (1980), Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality demographics and exploratory behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 272-82. Ratner, R.K., Kahn, B.E. and Kahneman, D. (1999),Choosing less-preferred experiences for the sake of variety, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-15. Read, D. and Loewenstein, G. (1995),Diversification bias: explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choice, Journal of Experimental Psychol ogy: Applied, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 34-49. Rolls, B.J. (1986),Sensory specific satiety, Nutrition Reviews, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 93-101. Rosch, E., Simpson, G. and Miller, S. (1976),Structural basis of typicality effects, Journal of Experimental Psychol ogy: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 491502. Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992),Matching product category and country image perceptions: a framework for managing country-of-origin effects, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97. Simonson, I. (1990),The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 150-62. Sujan, M. (1985), Consumer knowledge. Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgements, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 31-46. Sujan, M. and Deklava, C. (1987), Product categorization and inference making: some implications for comparative advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 372-78. Tversky, B. and Hemenway, K. (1984),Objects, parts, and categories, Journal of Experimental Psychol ogy: General, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 169-97. Van Trijp, H.C.M., Hoyer, W.D. and Inman, J.J. (1996), Why switch? Product categorylevel explanations for true variety-seeking behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33

No. 3, pp. 281-92.

Product- specificity of COO effects 599

IMR 28,6

600

Verlegh, P.W.J. and Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (1999), A review and meta-analysis of country-oforigin research, Journal of Economic Psychol ogy, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-46. Verlegh, P.W.J., Steenkamp, J.E.M. and Meulenberg, M.T.G. (2005), Country-of-origin in consumer processing of advertizing claims, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 127-39. Ward, J. and Loken, B. (1988), The generality of typicality effects on preference and comparison: an exploratory test, in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, pp. 55-61. Woods, W. (1960), Psychological dimensions of consumer decision, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 15-9. Yamauchi, T. and Markman, A.B. (2000), Inference using categories, Journal of Experimental PsychologyLearning, Memory and Cognition, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 776-95. Zellner, D.A., Rohm, E.A., Bassetti, T.L. and Parker, S. (2003), Compared to what? Effects of categorization on hedonic contrast, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 468-73. Zentall, T.R., Galizio, M. and Critchfield, T.S. (2002), Categorization, concept learning, and behavior analysis: an introduction, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 237-48. About the authors Ting-Hsiang Tseng obtained his PhD from Cass Business School, City University London and is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Feng Chia University, Taiwan. His research interests revolve around three themes: international marketing, cross-cultural consumer behaviour, and relationship marketing. Ting-Hsiang Tseng is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: tsength@fcu.edu.tw George Balabanis is a Professor of Marketing at Cass Business School, City University London. His research focuses on the areas of international marketing strategy, cross-cultural consumer behaviour and online relationships. He is a member of a number of Marketing Academies in the areas of Management and Marketing. He is a member of the editorial board of British Journal of Management and Business Research. His work has been published in outlets such as the Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of International Marketing, Long Range Planning, and Journal of Business Research, among others.

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

You might also like