1

Halal Endorsements: Stirring Controversy or Gaining New Customers?

Abstract
As multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies are becoming the norm in many countries,
different religions are mixing in many societies. Trying to strengthen their appeal to specific
religious consumer groups, companies may add religious endorsements (e.g., Halal) on the
packaging of their established products. While this increases the attractiveness of such
products among consumers of the focal religion (e.g., Muslims), such endorsements could
also lead to rejection and even outspoken disapproval by consumers of other religious
convictions. We aim to explain potential animosity and unwillingness to buy products with
religious endorsements based on Social Identity Theory and Social Dominance Theory.
Specifically, we analyse the reactions of Christian consumers toward Muslim directed Halal
endorsements. Following the development of hypotheses and a conceptual model, structural
equation modelling is used to examine key relationships. Our results suggest that higher
levels of animosity among Christians lower the willingness to buy products with Halal
endorsements.

Keywords: Consumer animosity, Halal endorsement, Social Identity Theory, Social

Dominance Theory
 2

Introduction

This research identifies reasons why consumers may reject products that carry

religious endorsements. Specifically, we analyse the reactions of Christian consumers toward

Muslim directed Halal endorsements. Our research is anchored in two of the most established

theories in social psychology, namely Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979),

which explains peoples’ predisposition to form situation contingent “in-group/out-group”

distinctions and to discriminate on the basis of these boundaries; and Social Dominance

Theory (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999), which describes human society as consisting of

oppressive group-based hierarchical structures. Adopting the terminology of these theories,

we focus on the key drivers of “in-group” (in this research context the Christian majority)

animosity against “out-groups” (in this research context the Muslim minority), and explain

the impact of potential animosity on the purchase intent of products carrying Halal

endorsements.

Although the merits of third party endorsements are well documented in the marketing

literature (Appiah, 2007; Silvera and Austad, 2004; Till and Busler, 2000; Wang, 2005),

religious endorsements used to strengthen an existing brand in the eyes of a specific religious

community have received only scant attention. This is surprising for a number of reasons.

First, religious endorsements aiming to increase the attractiveness of a brand for a particular

religious denomination are relatively common. For example, targeting Jewish consumers,

Ben and Jerry's endorses their ice cream as Kosher. Similarly, Haribo aims to leverage its

brand franchise by adding a Halal endorsement on their gummy-bears to appeal to Muslim

consumers (Rauschnabel et al., 2014). Second, the impact of religious endorsements on brand

perceptions and purchase behavior is unclear. When KFC introduced Halal endorsed products

in France, protests of non-Muslim consumers ensued (Gruber, 2012). Simonin and Ruth
 3

(1998) also note that religious endorsements may provoke negative reactions and lead to a

decrease in purchases when consumers hold unfavorable attitudes or prejudices against a

religion. In contrast, consumers may also view products with religious endorsements as

exotic and interesting (Alserhan, 2010; Havinga, 2010) or as more pure, hygienic and of

higher quality (Mathew et al., 2012; Riefler et al., 2012), even if they do not belong to the

focal religion. Rauschnabel et al. (2014) note that religious endorsements are important in

targeting religious consumers, but the effect of such endorsements on consumers with no

religious convictions or other denominations remains unclear.1 Third, multi-ethnic and multi-

cultural societies are becoming the norm in many countries, with the proliferation of Halal

meat2 remaining the most visible sign of the growth of Halal consumption in predominately

non-Muslim markets. McDonalds has recently initiated Halal trials in the UK, and one in five

Nando’s outlets (the Portuguese based chicken restaurant chain) offer Halal menus (Hassan

and Bojei, 2012). Many large European supermarkets, such as Asda, Auchan, Albert Heijn,

Carrefour, Tesco and Morrisons, stock Halal meat. Asda (a Walmart subsidiary) even hosts

the National Halal Association of UK and frequently acts as the main butchery (Political

Scrap Book, 2013; The Economic Voice, 2009).

In light of the arguments developed above, our research contributes to the literature in

three ways. First, we shed light on the role of religious endorsements, an area that has been

neglected in empirical research to date. Second, we empirically test the utility of constructs

based on two established theoretical approaches as predictors of animosity. Third, we extend

our understanding of the role of animosity in a domestic consumer setting, a construct that

has nearly exclusively been discussed in the context of cross-border purchasing.

1
While religious endorsements can be potentially controversial, controversy can also arise in other contexts.
Take, for example, a hotel that is endorsed as gay and lesbian friendly. Gays and lesbians are likely to react
positively, while other potential customers are likely to react either indifferently, positively (as they like the
hotel’s initiative) or negatively (and may even opt for a different hotel).
2
The concept of Halal goes beyond food and can also relate to products like toothpaste, shampoo and banking
services.
 4

The paper is structured as follows: we initially review the endorsement literature in

order to highlight the types, importance and impact of endorsements. While doing so, we

uncover a lack of research on potentially controversial endorsements and demonstrate their

considerable relevance. Next, we identify our constructs, develop our hypotheses and capture

our arguments in a conceptual model. Following this theoretical discussion, we describe our

methodology. Here, we also provide a rationale for using Christian dominated Austria and the

Muslim specific Halal endorsement as empirical setting. Subsequently, we use structural

equation modeling to test our theoretical framework empirically. Finally, we discuss the

theoretical and practical implications of our findings and point to avenues for future research.

The Role of Endorsements in Consumer Decision Making

Endorsements come in various shapes and forms, ranging from statements by celebrities to

quality seals issued by third parties. Friedman and Friedman (1979) suggest categorizing the

different types of endorsements into three groups, namely celebrity endorsements (CE),

typical consumer endorsements (TCE) and third party endorsements (TPE). A similar

distinction is proposed by Daneshvary and Schwer (2000), who coined the term sponsorship

advertising to denote endorsements and differentiate between identifiable people (celebrities),

unidentifiable people (typical consumers), corporation or organization and inanimate figures

(cartoon characters). Focusing specifically on TPE, Laric and Sarel (1981) further distinguish

between warranties, factual-endorsements and evaluative-certifications. Factual-

endorsements, which are central to the arguments we develop below, can also take different

forms. A religious endorsement, for example, is a special factual-endorsement relating to

ingredients and manufacturing processes, such as Kosher or Halal. Kosher means fit, and
 5

Kosher labeled food reflects that it is processed in accordance with Jewish dietary laws

(Kashruth) created more than 5000 years ago (Kamins and Marks, 1991). Halal

endorsements, the focus of this research, similarly denote a product or process that is in

accordance with the Sharia (Islamic Law). For meat, this means being slaughtered in the

prescribed way. Figure 1 provides a classification of endorsements.

*********************
Insert Figure 1 about here
*********************

Regardless of the type of endorsement, they can help to create brand equity by

increasing the distinctiveness of advertisements and/or labels (Cason and Gangadharan,

2002) without changing the physical characteristics of the brand (Narayana and Marking,

1975). Endorsements provide quality cues for specific target markets (Dean and Biswas,

2001), build confidence and signal credibility (Cason and Gangadharan, 2002), since

consumers perceive more accuracy in those claims which are endorsed by a third party

(D'Souza et al., 2007). Narayana and Marking (1975) found that endorsements can work as

catalysts for either bringing a brand into the evoked set or to shift it from evoked set to the

inert set of the consumers’ mind. And as buying decisions usually contain some perceived

risks, endorsements also help consumers to reduce such risks (Biswas, et al., 2006).

Given the pivotal role of endorsements in marketing communication, there is a rich

literature on different types of endorsements and on the mechanisms by which these

endorsements work. Examples include Dean (1999), Elberse and Verleun (2012), Lafferty et

al. (2002), Dimra and Skuras (2003), Choi, et al. (2005), Woo, et al. (2006), Seno and Lukas,

(2007) and Till, et al. (2008). There is also a noteworthy stream of research that looks at the

impact of scandals on celebrity endorsements. The findings show that a company whose

brand is endorsed by a celebrity connected to a scandal can suffer to a substantial drop in the
 6

stock market value (Carrillat et al., 2013), but that there are circumstances where the brand

would lose more by breaking off the endorsement deal than by maintaining it (Knittel and

Stango, 2014). While these contributions alert to the fact that celebrity endorsements can turn

sour, such endorsement are not identical to controversial endorsements. We define

endorsements as potentially “controversial” when they are characterized by trade-off

situations with unclear outcomes. Thus, in a potentially controversial endorsement, the trade-

off between two target markets already exists a priori. In contrast, when an endorsement goes

bad, a possible trade-off decision (e.g., keep the endorsement or drop the endorsement) is

only forced upon the company a posteriori. Potentially controversial endorsements can lead

to the rejection of a product that – without such endorsement – would have been purchased

by a particular target group.

Despite the plethora of contributions focusing on endorsements in general,

controversial endorsements involving a priory trade-off situations have scarcely attracted

attention in the pertinent literature. This is particularly regrettable, since potentially

controversial religious endorsements, such as Kosher or Halal, are rapidly growing in

importance.

To date, religious endorsements have only been investigated from the point of view of

the same religious community. Three contributions look at the impact of Halal on Muslims

(Bonne, et al., 2007; Bonne, et al., 2009; Shafie and Othman, 2006) and one looks at the

impact of Kosher on Jews (Kamins and Marks, 1991). The findings of all four studies show,

not too surprisingly, a positive attitude toward, and a positive influence of, these religious

endorsements in the respective religious communities. However, no studies were found that

explicitly examined the impact of religious endorsement on a different religious community.

In the following section, we describe the theoretical foundation of our work.

Specifically, we explain the key constructs that could influence the reactions of consumers
 7

from different religious denomination towards products carrying a religious endorsement,

develop our hypotheses, and depict our conceptual model.

Key Constructs and Conceptual Model

We propose that consumers may reject products with religious endorsements which

target consumers of different religious believes, and suggest that a central reason for such

rejection is animosity against the focal group addressed by the endorsement. We rest this

proposition in two theories that could offer explanations on the roots of such animosity,

namely the Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), and the Social Dominance

Theory (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). A brief discussion of these theories and the associated

hypotheses follows:

Social Identity Theory describes how people construct their social identities to suit their

needs. It is one of the best-known theories in social psychology and has been used to explain

a number of phenomena. Ashfoth and Mael (1989) introduced the theory to organizational

psychology, where it has been widely used to research diverse topics such as organizational

images (Dutton et al., 1994) or leadership issues (Hogg, 2001; Hogg and Terry, 2000). In

marketing, the theory has been used to research such diverse issues as social identification

with celebrities (Jin and Phua, 2014), attitudes towards sustainability brands (Bartels and

Hoogendam, 2011) and the role of online communities in raising brand commitment (Kim et

al. 2008). In our context, we use the theory to explain the psychological basis of inter-group

discrimination, i.e. in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice. The theory claims that a

person does not have one, “personal self”, but rather several selves that correspond to
 8

widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to

think, feel and act on the basis of his personal, family or national “level of self.”

The evaluation of one’s own group is determined with reference to specific other

groups through social comparison in terms of value-laden attributes and characteristics

(Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Social Identity Theory explains peoples’ predisposition to form

situation contingent3 in-group/out-group distinctions, and how they discriminate on the basis

of these boundaries. The theory posits that inter-group discrimination is motivated by the

desire to achieve positive group distinctiveness for the purpose of enhancing individual self-

esteem. The “identification” with a group has a cognitive, an evaluative, and an emotional

component (Tajfel, 1982). Cognitively, social identity is most profound in the categorization

process where an awareness of group membership and similarities with other member are

recognized. The emotional, or affective, component of social identity involves the

development of loyalty and promotes citizenship behaviors in groups. The evaluative

component involves the individual’s awareness that group membership will lead to valuable

benefits, including self-esteem or self-worth.

Self-esteem or self-worth can also be enhanced by negatively evaluating groups to

which one does not belong. For example, a person may selectively search for inter-group

differences that support his group and dismiss information that favors the out-group

(Mikulincer and Shaver, 2001). Thus, identification with a group is positively related to the

tendency to favor that group over other groups. People with high and low psychological

commitment to their group (high and low identifiers) can be expected to differ in their

reactions and evaluations (Brown, 2000). Our focal group formation, out-group (Muslim

minority) and in-group (non-Muslim majority), is reflected in this theory. In the following

3
The situation contingent aspect of the theory provides interesting parallels to the literature on brand
communities (McAlexander, et al., 2002) and raises the question of what may trigger a shift in the perspectives
of out-groups. While this points to an interesting research direction, we do not pursue this avenue with our
cross-sectional data.
 9

hypotheses, we attempt to capture the cohesion of the in-group by a general measure of group

distinctiveness. Hypothesis 1 primarily reflects the cognitive component of social identity.

Hypothesis 2 refers to a more specific measure of the strength of religious feelings and

primarily captures the emotional or affective component of social identity:

H1 Higher levels of perceived in-group distinctiveness are associated with higher

animosity towards out-groups (here religious minorities).

H2 Strong religious feelings among the in-group are associated with higher

animosity towards out-groups (here religious minorities).

Social Dominance Theory offers a different perspective on the possible antecedents

of animosity. This allows us to compare the utility of constructs based on the two established

theories in shaping the potential animosity against out-groups. The Social Dominance Theory

is based on work by Sidanius and Pratto (1999) and describes human society as consisting of

oppressive group-based hierarchical structures. It emphasizes that the means of achieving

legitimacy, prestige, and a sense of belonging differ for members of dominant and

subordinate groups because they are not equally legitimized by cultural ideologies and

because they hold different amounts of power. Focusing on both individual and structural

factors that contribute to various forms of group-based oppression, the theory views all

familiar forms of group based oppression (e.g., group-based discrimination, racism,

ethnocentrism, classism, sexism) as special cases of a more general tendency for humans to

form and maintain group-based hierarchy (Sidanius, et al., 2004¸ Pratto, 1994). This theory

helps us explain in-group (majority) animosity towards out-group (minority) oriented product

endorsements. Specifically, for our purposes we focus on racism and ethnocentrism and

propose the following relationships:

 10

H3 Higher levels of racism among the in-group are associated with higher

animosity towards out-groups (here religious minorities).

H4 Higher levels of ethnocentrism among the in-group are associated with higher

animosity towards out-groups (here religious minorities).

Animosity: Above, we have argued that Social Identity Theory and Social Dominance

Theory drive animosity. Now, we take a closer look at animosity and argue why we view

animosity as a key construct in our model: Animosity is defined as “a powerful and active

dislike or hostility” (Collins English Dictionary, 2000). Focusing specifically on consumers,

Klein et al. (1998, p. 90) define consumer animosity as the “remnants of antipathy related to

previous or ongoing military, political or economic events”. Closely related to consumer

animosity is the consumer racism. Ouellet (2007, p. 115) defines consumer racism as “the

antipathy towards a given ethnic group’s products or services as a symbolic way of

discriminating against that group.” (Klein et al., 1998) point out that animosity is associated

with a decreased willingness to buy products from the focal ethnic group but has no effect on

product judgments. In contrast, consumer racism results in decreased judgments and a

decreased willingness to buy products from the focal ethnic minority.

Based on these insights and definitions, animosity rather than consumer racism

appears to be the relevant construct: First, there is a long and unfortunate history of conflict

between Muslims and Christians. An example pertaining to Austria reaches back to 1683 the

Turkish invasion of Vienna during the extension campaign of the Ottoman Empire. In the

modern day era, crimes committed in the name of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo, as

well as ongoing violent conflicts in Africa, The Middle East and Asia evidence the tensions

that still exist between Islam and Christianity in many parts of the world (Goddard, 2001;

Kepel, 1994). Second, it appears unlikely that potentially controversial endorsements impact
 11

on the product evaluation (e.g. on the evaluation of the gummy-bears that carry a Halal

endorsement). Nevertheless, these endorsements are potentially reducing some consumers’

willingness to buy the products. Consequently, we are using animosity as the central

construct in the development of our propositions.

Animosity (Klein et al., 1998) and a number of related constructs such as patriotism

(Bilkey and Nes, 1982), ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma, 1987) and country-of-origin

effects (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 1993; Diamantopoulos, et al., 2011) have all been

intensely studied in the international marketing literature, with results consistently showing

that these constructs impact on consumers’ attitudes and purchase behavior of products

originating from foreign countries.

However, within-country boundaries, animosity of ethnic subgroups towards each

other and the possible impact on their attitudes and consumer behavior have hardly been

researched. Given that many countries pride themselves of cultural diversity (Aggestam and

Hill, 2008; Chavan, 2005; Leibold and Hugo-Burrows, 1997; Roberts and Hart, 1997) and

taking account of the increase in “ethno marketing” (Pires, et al., 2003), this represents a

substantial gap in the marketing literature. To the best of our knowledge, the only notable

exceptions are a few studies that investigated cross-ethnic product purchases: Ouellet (2007)

developed the consumer racism construct in an attempt to explain attitudes of a country’s

majority towards minority-owned businesses, and Klein et al. (1998) introduced an animosity

construct in the context of Chinese consumers’ attitudes toward Japanese products. Shimp, et

al., (2004) adapted and expanded the concept of animosity to regional animosity between

northern and southern regions of the United States and related it to preferences for their own

(in-group) geographic region compared to people from an out-group region.

Although the developed measures of consumer racism and animosity are tailored

toward minority business ownership and regional animosity respectively, they still provide
 12

important insights into the relationship between different subgroups within one country. More

specifically, their work demonstrates that constructs commonly associated with cross-country

attitudes and purchase behavior, such as consumer racism and animosity, are equally relevant

in within-country settings.

Animosity and Purchase Intent: We also hypothesize a link between animosity and

willingness to buy. Attitude–behavior links are well established in the marketing literature

and can be traced back to the principle of cognitive consistency that suggests consumers

value harmony among their thoughts, feelings, and actions, and strive to reduce dissonance

when such harmony does not exist (Festinger, 1957). More contemporary arguments points to

Ajzen (1991), who verified that attitude determines behavioral responses. In this way,

animosity towards out-groups (e.g., a religious minority) could be translated into

unwillingness to buy products related to that particular out-group. Looking specifically at

animosity, its influence on purchase intent is well documented in a number of empirical

studies. Klein, et al. (1998), for example, have focused on Chinese animosity towards Japan

due to war, and on American consumer animosity towards Japan because of economic

reasons. Shin (2001) has studied Korean consumers animosity towards Japan on the basis of

war and economic reasons, and Nijssen and Douglas (2004) have studied the animosity of

Dutch customers towards Germany based on war, occupation, and economic reasons. Similar

studies have been conducted by Kesic et al. (2005) and Jung et al. (2002).

Shimp et al. (2004) have extended the construct to a within country perspective and

studied animosity between Northern and Southern United States. Hinck (2004) has coined the

term domestic-animosity and has studied animosity prevalent in East Germany towards West

Germany on economic grounds. Similarly, Cicic et al. (2005) have studied inter-ethnic

animosities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. All these studies have consistently found animosity of in-
 13

groups to be negatively linked towards purchase intent of products associated with out-

groups. Consequently, we propose a negative link between animosity towards out-groups

and willingness to buy products with out-group focused endorsements.

H5 Animosity against out-groups (e.g., religious minorities) is negatively related

to the willingness to buy products with out-group focused endorsements (e.g.,

products carrying religious endorsements).

Conceptual Model and Constructs:

We are now describing our conceptual model (Figure 2) and the measures used to

capture the constructs in our model.

*********************
Insert Figure 2 about here
*********************

The key constructs in our model are all captured with existing measures.4 Specifically,

we used a five-item scale developed by Appiah (2007 to capture perceived in-group

distinctiveness, and a five-item scale by Zwingmann and Moosbrugger (2004) to measure

religiosity. The measure of in-group racism was based on a nine-item scale created by Ouellet

(2007), and ethnocentrism on a six–item scale used by Klein, Ettenson and Morris (1998),

which is one component of the original CETSCALE developed by Shrimp and Sharma

(1987). The wording of the latter two scales was slightly adapted to fit our research setting.

To measure animosity toward out-groups, a scale developed by Shrimp et al. (2004) was

used. It includes eight items and has been adapted to the research context at hand. Finally, to

capture willingness to buy products with out-group focused endorsements, we adapted a six-

item scale by Klein, Ettenson and Morris (1998) for our research context.

4
The full set of measures are available from the authors on request.
 14

Taken collectively, the developed hypotheses seek to understand whether negative

attitudes towards out-groups (minorities) impact the purchase intent of products carrying out-

group focused endorsements. Specifically, our conceptual model centers on the relationship

between animosities towards religious minorities (ATM) and the willingness to buy products

with minority related religious endorsements (PRE). Moreover, we propose that two sets of

theory-based antecedents influence animosity towards minorities (ATM): distinctiveness and

religiosity reflect Social Identity Theory, while racism and ethnocentrism reflect Social

Dominance Theory. Finally, we expect animosity towards minorities (ATM) to influence

customers’ willingness to buy products with a religious endorsement (PRE).

Methodology

To empirically test the hypotheses captured in our conceptual model, we conducted a

large-scale survey in Austria, a predominantly Christian country. Following a pre-test,

questionnaires were distributed to via electronic means and also handed out in person by one

of the researchers. Respondents’ age ranges from 17 years to 76 years: 49.8% are under 25

years of age, 44.0% are between 25 and 40, while 6.3% are older than 40 years. The sample

is nearly evenly split between non-students (50.2%) and students (49.8%).

The focus of our study was the reaction of majority (in-group) Christians towards

products that carry minority (out-group) related endorsements. Therefore, the target

population for the survey was Austrian Christians. Individuals who had nationalities other

than Austrian were not included in this study. Similarly, people indicating other or no religion

affiliations also were excluded from the study. According to the 2010 census, nearly 84.54

percent of the population is Christian. Non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Islam and

Buddhism) represent only about 4.6 percent of the Austrian population. The country therefore
 15

provides a suitable ground to study in-group response to perceived out-group focused

endorsements.

The responses for straight-lining and missing data were examined based on guidelines

from Hair, et al. (2010) and Baumgartner and Steenkamp (2001). The initial screening

removed outliers and straight-liner respondents. Examination of the missing responses

indicated they were distributed randomly with no systematic missing data patterns evident so

it was decided to utilize an imputation approach to deal with the missing data (Hair et al,

2010). For each missing data point, two criteria were used for imputation. First, the

demographic profile of the respondent was identified. Next, we determined the response of

individuals with similar demographic characteristics. Third, we identified and compared the

actual responses to the other items making up the construct in which there was a missing

response to an item. Finally, a number was imputed by comparing the responses of the

individuals with similar demographic characteristics to the responses on the other items

belonging to the same construct. The result was a sample of 699 usable respondents.

Hair et al. (2010) recommend randomly dividing your sample and initially examining

an analysis sample and then validating the findings with a holdout sample. To execute this

process, the sample was randomly divided into two samples. The result was a usable analysis

sample with 349 respondents and a holdout sample of 350 respondents.

Structural equation modeling provides results for the antecedent factors’ effects on

willingness to buy halal products (Hair et al., 2010). Either covariance-based methods

(Jöreskog, 1977) or variance-based partial least squares (PLS) path-modeling approach

(Wold, 1974) can be applied to estimate structural equation models. Model estimation using

CB-SEM requires a large set of assumptions to be fulfilled (i.e., multivariate normality of the

data, large sample size, well developed theory, and others), limiting the approach’s

applicability in many research situations. In contrast, researchers the PLS path modeling
 16

method is particularly appropriate in the early stages of theory development (Hulland, 1999;

Hair, et al. 2011), as is the case in this study.

PLS-SEM using SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle et al., 2005) was applied to examine the

structural relationships. Guidelines for model assessment were applied according to Hair et

al. (2011) and Hair et al., (2012). The structural model and results are shown in Figure 3.

*********************
Insert Figure 3 about here
*********************

We first examined the measurement model. Composite reliability ranged from 0.82 to

0.93 for the six constructs, exceeding the minimum requirement of 0.70. All indicator

loadings were above 0.708 (except 2 out of 34, which were >.60), confirming individual

indicator reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.50 for all constructs

thus indicating convergent validity. The Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell and Larcker, 1981)

demonstrated that all AVEs were higher than the squared interconstruct coefficients,

indicating discriminant validity. Similarly, all indicator loadings were higher than their

respective cross loadings, providing further evidence of discriminant validity (Hair et al.,

2014). Table 1 shows the AVEs on the diagonal and the squared interconstruct correlations

off the diagonal.

*********************
Insert Table 1 about here
*********************

After the constructs have been confirmed as reliable and valid, the next step is to assess

the structural model results. Before assessing the structural model, we examined the model

for collinearity, an important first step since the estimation of the path coefficients is based on

OLS regressions and they may be biased if multicollinearity is present (Hair et al., 2014).
 17

Minimum multicollinearity was found so we then examined the model’s structural

relationships. The key criteria are the size and significance of the path coefficients, the level

of the R2 values, and the predictive relevance as measured by Q2 (Hair et al., 2014).

We first examined the sizes and significance of the path coefficients that represent the

hypothesized relationships. To obtain the significance levels the bootstrapping option was run

using 5,000 subsamples (Hair et al., 2014). Table 2 shows the coefficients, T statistics, and a

summary of the results of the hypotheses tests.

*********************
Insert Table 2 about here
*********************

An analysis of path coefficients and levels of significance shows that four of the five

hypotheses were accepted. Hypothesis 1 proposes a positive relationship between

Distinctiveness and Animosity, and it was accepted at p = .05. The relationship between

Religiosity and Animosity (H2) was rejected (p = .05), however, as a positive relationship

was proposed and the relationship was negative. Hypothesis 3, which proposes a positive

relationship between Racism and Animosity is accepted at p = .01. The positive relationship

between Ethnocentrism and Animosity (H4) was accepted at p = .01. Finally, the proposed

negative relationship between Animosity and Willing to Buy (H5) was accepted (p = .01).

The sizes of the structural coefficients for the accepted hypotheses were all considered

meaningful for interpretation purposes (Hair et al., 2014).

We next examined the R2 values for the two endogenous constructs – Animosity and

Willing to Buy. Prediction of Willing to Buy, the primary outcome measure of the model,

was 0.33, while prediction of Animosity was 0.38. Blindfolding was then executed to

evaluate the predictive relevance of the endogenous latent construct indicators. The

blindfolding procedure produces the Q2, which applies a sample re-use technique that omits
 18

part of the data matrix and uses the model estimates to predict the omitted part. For PLS-

SEM models, a Q2 value larger than zero in the cross-validated redundancy report indicates

predictive relevance. As a relative measure of predictive relevance, values of 0.02, 0.15, and

0.35 indicate that the exogenous constructs have a small, medium or large predictive

relevance for a selected endogenous construct (Hair et al., 2014). For our path model the

predictive relevance Q2 of Willing to Buy has a value of 0.2023, and the Q2 of Animosity was

0.1877. The Q2 exceeded zero for both endogenous constructs, indicating predictive

relevance of the construct indicators. Moreover, the predictive relevance for both endogenous

constructs was medium.

The relationships between the Distinctiveness and Religiosity constructs are associated

with Social Identity Theory (hypotheses 1 and 2). Both of these relationships were

statistically significant, but only one was in the proposed direction. Moreover, both of the

structural coefficients were quite small. Therefore, we conclude that Social Identity Theory

is at best a very weak predictor of animosity toward out-group endorsements, and animosity

is not a mediator between the Social Identity Theory constructs and willingness to purchase

out-group (Halal) products.

The relationships between the Racism and Ethnocentrism constructs are associated

with Social Dominance Theory (hypotheses 3 and 4). Both of these relationships were highly

significant, meaningful and positive. Therefore, Social Dominance Theory does predict

animosity toward out-group endorsements. The strength of the relationship between Racism

and Animosity is .42 and between Ethnocentrism and Animosity is .28. The positive

relationships indicate that higher levels of racism and ethnocentrism lead to higher animosity.

The relationship between Animosity and Willingness to Buy is statistically

significant, meaningful and negative (-.58), as proposed. Thus, animosity is a mediator

between the two Social Dominance Theory constructs and willingness to purchase out-group
 19

(Halal) products. Moreover, the negative relationship indicates that higher levels of animosity

among Christians lower the willingness to buy products with Halal endorsements.

As noted earlier, to validate the findings the sample was divided into analysis and

holdout samples. The SEM model tested with the analysis sample was then run with the

holdout sample. The results for the holdout sample were comparable to those with the

analysis sample, which provided additional support for the validity of the findings.

Discussion

This research investigates how in-groups respond to out-group focused endorsements.

Specifically, we base our work on Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and

Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999) and analyse how Austrian Christians,

the large majority in the country (in-group), react to products that carry minority Muslim

related Halal endorsements (out-group). This addresses an interesting research gap: While

some studies investigated the impact of religious endorsements on the same religious

community, no study has examined the response of one community towards religious

endorsement of another community.

Our central proposition is that animosity towards out-groups translates into

unwillingness to buy products related to that particular out-group. Both Social Identity

Theory and the Social Dominance Theory offer explanations for potential causes of such

animosity. A conceptual framework links the key constructs to each other and provides a base

for developing empirically testable hypotheses.

Our paper extends prior research in several ways. The central contribution to theory

development is the link between the social psychology literature on in-group / out-group

relationships, consumer animosity, controversial endorsements, and purchase intent. More

specifically, our research contributes new knowledge in three areas. First, we advance the
 20

extant literature on animosity in that we offer theory-based arguments to a field dominated by

empiricism. While most animosity studies look at willingness to buy products of a country

toward which consumers harbor antipathy, we have extended the animosity debate to within

country minorities. To this end, we have addressed a call for more research on the impact of

multi-ethnicity on consumer behavior (Laroche et al., 2003). Second, focusing on the

antecedents of animosity toward out-groups, our research provides new insights into the

utility of Social Identity Theory and Social Dominance Theory. Our Distinctiveness and

Religiosity constructs are associated with Social Identity Theory. However, neither predicted

animosity toward out-group endorsements. Therefore, we conclude that the two constructs

supported by Social Identity Theory do not predict animosity toward out-group

endorsements. Our Racism and Ethnocentrism constructs are associated with Social

Dominance Theory. In contrast, both predict animosity toward out-group endorsements.

Thus, we conclude that the two constructs linked to Social Dominance Theory do predict

animosity toward out-group endorsements. Finally, our research also advances the

understanding of the relationship between Animosity and Willingness to Buy. Specifically,

we identified animosity as a mediator between the two Social Dominance Theory constructs

and willingness to purchase products that carry out-group focused endorsements (Halal). The

negative relationship indicates that higher levels of animosity among Christians lower the

willingness to buy products with Halal endorsements.

Our research is also of acute practical relevance, as the use of Halal endorsement is

rapidly increasing in predominantly non-Muslim societies to tap into Muslim customers. In

fact, the Halal food market has exploded in the past decade and worldwide is worth an

estimated 632 billion dollars annually (Power and Abdullah, 2009). The Halal food sector

alone shows a growth rate of 15% annually and has become one of the fastest growing

markets in the world (Alserhan, 2010). Nestlé has become the biggest food manufacturer in
 21

the Halal sector, with more than $3 billion in annual sales and with 75 of its 481 factories

worldwide producing Halal food (Carla and Ioannis, 2007).

Despite this apparent advancement of Halal, our findings point to the potential

drawback of using a Halal endorsement in a predominantly Christian environment. Animosity

toward the Islamic minority negatively impacts the purchase intent for Halal endorsed

products. Regrettably, marketers need be aware of the possible negative impact of using

endorsements like Halal. In particular, they should be cognizant of racism and ethnocentrism,

which could negatively impact purchase intent. Where such sentiments are strong, the word

‘Halal’ could be displayed in a manner that it addresses nearly exclusively the targeted

community. For example, it could be written in Arabic letters, which every Muslim can read.

To improve universal acceptability for products with minority related endorsements, quality

and positive ethnic image of such products should also be promoted. From a managerial point

of view, a better understanding of roots and causes of inter-ethnic animosity will help to

prevent and / or to react to unintended fallouts from inter-group conflicts (Shoham, et al.,

2006).

Our study is subject to a number of limitations and raises interesting questions for

future research. Given that the composition of the population in Europe is increasingly

becoming multi-cultural and the proportion of Muslim consumers is increasing, for the

research question at hand, the empirical setting appears to be timely and appropriate.

However, while we developed our arguments in the context of animosities against Muslim

minorities, a wide variety of different intra-group animosities could still be researched, both

religious and non-religious in nature. Thus, follow up studies may wish to focus on different

contexts to demonstrate the robustness of our findings. Moreover, only one of many possible

reactions to a potentially controversial endorsement, namely purchase intent, has been

 22

captured. Other outcome variables could also be researched, for example quality perception,

price elasticity, word-of-mouth or volume of purchase. Consequently, analysing the role of

other marketing constructs could also meaningfully extend our research. At present, we focus

on connecting well-established constructs such as consumer racism (Ouellet, 2004),

ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma, 1987) and consumer animosity (Klein, et al., 1998) to

understand the reaction to Halal endorsements. In future research, other marketing constructs

like consumer alienation (Allison, 1978) could also be included in the model to observe more

closely the reasons behind negative purchase intent.

Moreover, efforts are also required to combat the drivers of animosity between in-

groups and out-groups. This can help marketers to redress the issues and turn potentially

controversial endorsements into acceptable ancillary information that does not trigger trade-

offs. Finally, there is also an ethical dimension to our research findings in that it may be

questioned whether companies can and should act as change agents in order to break down

existing prejudices (Schlegelmilch and Öberseder, 2010) or should base their decision to use

a certain endorsement exclusively on revenue potential.

 23

References
Aggestam, L. and Hill, C. (2008). The challenge of multiculturalism in European foreign
policy. International Affairs, 84(1), 97-114.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Allison, N. K. (1978). A psychometric development of a test for consumer alienation from
the marketplace. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 565-575.
Alserhan, B. A. (2010). Islamic branding: A conceptualization of related terms. Brand
Management, 18(1), 34-49.
Appiah, O. (2007). The effectiveness of "typical-user" testimonial advertisements on black
and white browsers' evaluations of products on commercial websites: Do they really
work? Journal of Advertising Research, 47(1), 14-27.
Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Atkin, C., and Block, M. (1983). Effectiveness of celebrity endorsers. Journal of Advertising
Research, 23(1), 57-61.
Bartels, J., and Hoogendam, K. (2011). The role of social identity and attitudes toward
sustainability brands in buying behaviors for organic products. Journal of Brand
Management, 18(9), 697-708.
Bilkey, W. J., and Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journal
of International Business Studies, 13(1), 89-99.
Biswas, D., Biswas, A., and Das, N. (2006). The differential effects of celebrity and expert
endorsement on consumer risk perception. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 17-31.
Bonne, K., Vermeir, I., Bergeaud-Blackler, F., and Verbeke., W. (2007). Determinants of
halal meat consumption in France. British Food Journal, 109(5), 367-386.
Bonne, K., Vermeir, I., and Verbeke, W. (2009). Impact of religion on halal meat
consumption decision making in Belgium. Journal of International Food and
Agribusiness Marketing, 21(1), 5-26.
Brown, R. (2000). Social Identity Theory: Past achievements, current problems and future
challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(1), 745-778.
Carla, P., and Ioannis, G. (2007). Meeting the Halal test. Forbes Asia, 3(6), 38-40.
Carrillat, F. A., d'Astous, A., and Lazure, J. (2013). For better, for worse? What to do when
celebrity endorsements go bad. Journal of Advertising Research, 53(1), 15-30.
Cason, T. N., and Gangadharan, L. (2002). Environmental labeling and incomplete consumer
information in laboratory markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 43(1), 113-134.
Chavan, M. (2005). Diversity makes good business. Equal Opportunities International,
24(7/8), 38-58.
Choi, S. M., Lee, W.-N., and Kim, H.-J. (2005). Lessons from the rich and famous: A cross-
cultural comparison of celebrity endorsement in advertising. Journal of Advertising,
34(2), 85-99.
Cicic, M., Brick, N., Husic, M., and Agic, E. (2005). The Influence of Animosity, Xenophilia
and Ethnocentric Tendencies on Consumers' Willingness to Buy Foreign Products -
the Case of Croatia. Paper presented at the 34th European Marketing Conference
(May 24-27), Milan.
Collins English Dictionary (2000). HarperCollins Publishers, 5th Edition.
D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., and Peretiatko, R. (2007). Green decisions:
Demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 371-376.
 24

Daneshvary, R., and Schwer, R. K. (2000). The association endorsement and consumers'
intention to purchase. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(3), 203-211.
Dean, D. H. (1999). Brand endorsement, popularity, and event sponsorship as advertising
cues affecting consumer pre-purchase attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 1-12.
Dean, D. H., and Biswas, A. (2001). Third-party organization endorsement of products: An
advertising cue affecting consumer prepurchase evaluation of goods and services.
Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 41-56.
Dimra, E., and Skuras, D. (2003). Consumer evaluations of product certification, geographic
association and traceability in Greece. European Journal of Marketing, 37(5/6), 690-
705.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Palihawadana, D. (2011). The relationship
between country-of-origin image and brand image as drivers of purchase intentions: A
Test of Alternative Perspectives. International Marketing Review, 28 (5), 508-524.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., and Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and
member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-263.
Elberse, A., and Verleun, J. (2012). The economic value of celebrity endorsements. Journal
of Advertising Research, 52(2), 149-165.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Friedman, H. H., and Friedman, L. (1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of
Advertising Research, 19(5), 63-71.
Fornell, C. G., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39-50.
Goddard, H. (2001). A history of Christian-Muslim relations, Chicago, IL: New Amsterdam
Books.
Gruber, V. (2012). Case Study: KFC in France. In: Rudolph, T., Schlegelmilch, B. B.,
Franch, J., Bauer, A., and Meise, J. N. (Eds.). Diversity in European Marketing: Text
and Cases, Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, 41-55.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
- A global perspective (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hair J.F., Ringle C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Spring; 18 (2), pp 139-152.
Hair, J.F., M. Sarstedt, C. Ringle and J. Mena (2012). An assessment of the use of partial
least squares path modeling in marketing research,” Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 414-433.
Hair, J.F., G. T. Hult, C. Ringle and M. Sarstedt (2014). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage.
Hassan, H. and Bojei, J. (2012). The influence of Halal integrity on product adoption
strategy. Paper presented at the GIMC (Global Islamic Marketing Conference) Abu
Dhabi, UAE.
Havinga, T. (2010). Regulating halal and kosher foods: Different arrangements between state,
industry and religious actors. Erasmus Law Review, 3(4), 241-255.
Hinck, W. (2004). The role of domestic animosity in consumer choice: Empirical evidence
from Germany. Journal of Euro-Marketing, 14(1,2), 87-104.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality & Social Psychology
Review, 5(3), 184-200.
Hogg, M. A., and Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.
 25

Hulland J. (1999), Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a
review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 195-204.
Jin, S. A. and Phua, J. (2014). Following celebrities' tweets about brands: The impact of
twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers' source credibility perception,
buying intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising,
43(2), 181-195.
Jöreskog, KG. (1977). Structural equation models in social sciences: specification, estimation
and testing. In: Krishnaiah PR, editor. Applications of statistics. Amsterdam: North-
Holland, pp. 265-287.
Jöreskog, K. G. and Sörbom, D., 1979. Advances in factor analysis and structural equation
models. New York: University Press of America.
Jung, K., Ang, S. H. and Leong, S. M. (2002). A typology of animosity and its cross-national
validation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(6), 529-539.
Kamins, M. A. and Marks, L. J. (1991). The perception of Kosher as a third party
certification claim in advertising for familiar or unfamiliar brands. Academy of
Marketing Science, 19(3), 177-185.
Kepel, G. (1994). The revenge of God: The resurgence of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in
the modern world. Penn State Press.
Kesic, T., Piri-rajh, P., and Vlasic, G. (2005). The role of nationalism in consumer
ethnocentrism and the animosity in the post-war country. Paper presented at the 34th
European Marketing Conference. May 24-27 May, Milan, Italy.
Kim, J. W., Choi, J., Qualls, W., and Han, K. (2008). It takes a marketplace community to
raise brand commitment: The role of online communities. Journal of Marketing
Management, 24(3), 409-431.
Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., and Morris, M. D. (1998). The animosity model of foreign product
purchase: An empirical test in the People's Republic of China. Journal of Marketing,
62(1), 89-100.
Knittel, C. R. and Stango, V. (2014). Celebrity endorsements, firm value, and reputation risk:
Evidence from the tiger woods scandal. Management Science, 60(1), 21-37.
Lafferty, B. A., Ronald, E. G., and Stephen, J. N. (2002). The dual credibility model: The
influence of corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(3), 1-12.
Laric, M. V., and Sarel, D. (1981). Consumer (mis)perceptions and usage of third party
certification marks, 1972 and 1980: Did public policy have an impact? Journal of
Marketing, 45(3), 135-142.
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L., and Bergeron, J. (2003). Effects of subcultural
differences on country and product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
2(3), 232-247.
Leibold, M., and Hugo-Burrows, R. (1997). Broad marketing implications of recent trends in
the multicultural south african market environment. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 5(1), 67-77.
Lohmöller J.B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg:
Physica.
Mathew V. N., Mazwa Raudah A. and Nurazizah S. (2014). Acceptance on Halal food among
non-Muslim consumers, Social and Behavioral Sciences, International Halal
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, September 4-5, Procedia, 121(19): 262–271.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., and Koening, H. F. (2002). Building brand community.
Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38-54.
 26

Mikulincer, M. and Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence
that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81(1), 97-115.
Narayana, C. L., and Marking, R. J. (1975). Consumer behavior and product performance -
An alternative conceptualization. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 1-6.
Nijssen, E. J. and Douglas, S. P. (2004). Examining the animosity model in a country with a
high level of foreign trade. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1), 23-
38.
Ouellet, J.-F. (2004). Consumer racism and its effects on attitudes. Advances in Consumer
Research, 32(1), 422-428.
Ouellet, J.-F. (2007). Consumer racism and its effects on domestic cross-ethnic product
purchase: An empirical test in the United States, Canada, and France. Journal of
Marketing, 71(1), 113-128.
Papadopoulos, N., and Heslop, L. A. (1993). Product country images: Impact and role in
international marketing. New York: International Business Press.
Parkinson, T. L. (1975). The role of seals and certifications of approval in consumer decision-
making. The Journal of Consumer Affairs (pre-1986), 9(1), 1-14.
Pires, G., Stanton, J. and Cheek, B. (2003). Identifying and reaching an ethnic market:
Methodological issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(4),
224-235.
Political Scrap Book. (2013). EDL protesters hit ASDA meat counter over Halal meat.
Retrieved 4th July, 2013, from http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/01/edl-protest-asda-
halal/.
Power, C. and Abdullah, S. (2009). Buying Muslim. Time International (South Pacific
Edition), 173, 31-34.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., and Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance
orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.
Rauschnabel P. A., Herz, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B and Ivens Bjoern S. (2014). Brands and
religious labels: A spillover perspective. Journal of Marketing Management. In press -
Manuscript ID RJMM-2013-0448.R1.
Reinartz W, Haenlein M. and Henseler J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 26 (4), 332-344.
Riefler, P., Diamantopoulos, A., and J. A. Siguaw (2012). Cosmopolitan consumers as a
target group for segmentation. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(2), 285-
305.
Ringle CM, Wende S. and Will A. (2010). SmartPLS 2.0 (Beta); 2010. Available at
http://www.smartpls.de; accessed July 2014.
Roberts, S. D. and Hart, H. S. (1997). A comparison of cultural value orientations as reflected
by advertisements directed at the general U.S. market, the U.S. hispanic market, and
the Mexican market. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 5(1), 91-99.
Schlegelmilch, B., and Öberseder, M. (2010). Half a century of marketing ethics: Shifting
perspectives and emerging trends. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 1-19.
Seno, D., and Lukas, B. A. (2007). The equity effect of product endorsement by celebrities.
European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2), 121-134.
Shafie, S., and Othman, M. N. (2006). Halal certification: An international marketing issues
and challenges. Paper presented at the IFSAM 8th World Congress.
Shimp, T. A., Dunn, T. H., and Klein, J. G. (2004). Remnants of the U.S. civil war and
modern consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21(2), 75-84.
 27

Shimp, T. A., and Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation
of the CETScale. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280-289.
Shin, M. (2001). The animosity model of foreign product purchase revisited: Does it work in
Korea? Journal of Imperical Generalisations in Marketing Sciences 6(1), 6-14.
Shoham, A., Davidow, M., Klein, J. G., and Ruvio, A. (2006). Animosity on the home front:
The intifada in Israel and its impact on consumer behavior. Journal of International
Marketing, 14(3), 92-114.
Sidanius, J., and Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social
hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Laar, v. C., and Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda
and method. Political Psychology, 25(6), 845-880.
Simonin, Bernard L. and Ruth, A. Julie (1998). Is a company known by the company it
keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes.
Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 30-42.
Silvera, D. H., and Austad, B. (2004). Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity
endorsement advertisements. European Journal of Marketing, 38(11/12), 1509-1526.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-
44). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
The Economic Voice (2009). Asda goes Halal on the isle of dogs. Retrieved July 10th, 2013,
from http://www.economicvoice.com/asda-goes-halal-on-the-isle-of-
dogs/5002493#axzz2Yf3ESaVa.
Till, B. D. and Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness,
expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs.
Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 1-13.
Till, B. D., Stanley, S. M., and Priluck, R. (2008). Classical conditioning and celebrity
endorsers: An examination of belongingness and resistance to extinction. Psychology
& Marketing, 25(2), 179-196.
Völckner F, Sattler H, Hennig-Thurau T. and Ringle C.M. (2011). The role of parent brand
quality for service brand extension success. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 359-
361.
Wang, A. (2005). The effects of expert and consumer endorsements on audience response.
Journal of Advertising Research. 45(4), 402-412.
Wold, H. (1974). Causal flows with latent variables: partings of the ways in light of NIPALS
modeling. European Economic Review, 5 (1), 67-86.
Woo, K.S., Fock, H. K. Y., and Hui, M. K. M. (2006). An analysis of endorsement effects in
affinity marketing. Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 103-113.
Zwingmann, C. and Moosbrugger, H. (Hrsg.). (2004). Religiosität: Messverfahren und
Studien zu Gesundheit und Lebensbewältigung. Neue Beiträge zur
Religionspsychologie. Münster: Waxmann.
 28

Figure 1: Classification of Endorsements

 29

Figure 2: Conceptual Model

 30

Figure 3: PLS-SEM Model with Indicator Loadings and Structural Coefficients

 31

Table 1: AVEs and Fornell-Larcker Test of Discriminant Validity

Willing
Animosity Distinctiveness Ethnocentrism Racism Religiosity
to Buy
Animosity .51
Distinctiveness 0.070 .73
Ethnocentrism 0.202 0.069 .58
Racism 0.267 0.022 0.098 .53
Religiosity 0.015 0.059 0.013 0.005 .66
Willing to Buy 0.331 0.100 0.117 0.189 0.043 .62
 32

Table 2: Structural Model Results and Hypotheses Tests

Structural Relationships Structural T Accept/Reject Hypothesis

Tested Coefficients Statistics & Significance Number
Distinctiveness –> Accept** H1
0.11 2.38
Animosity
Religiosity –> Animosity – 0.10 2.02 Reject H2
Racism –> Animosity 0.42 9.44 Accept*** H3
Ethnocentrism –> Accept*** H4
0.28 5.81
Animosity
Animosity –> Accept*** H5
– 0.58 14.15
Willing to Buy
Critical T values for a two-tailed test are 1.96 (significance level = 5%**) and 2.58
(significance level = 1%***)