Projects - Others - A Study of Country of Origin Effects and Consumer Knowledge Amoung Taiwanese Beer Consumers - Complete

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

Beer Consumers
David Mc Guinness
MBA Student, Management of Science
National Chiao Tung University
Special Topics in Marketing Research

Dr. Charles Trappey
January 4, 2008
1
Country of Origin Effects and Consumer
Knowledge
Abstract
Country of origin and consumer knowledge has an impact on consumers purchase
intentions. This study was conducted to understand how the various dimensions of
consumer knowledge relate to country of origin effects and how this impacts a
consumers’ use of country of origin cues when evaluating products. The effects of
country of origin and consumer knowledge were investigated by gathering and analyzing
data collected through questionnaires. From the findings of this study it appears that the
various dimensions of consumer knowledge together have a significant effect on the use
of the country of origin cue in product evaluations.
2
Knowledge
Introduction
Brand name and price are factors that generally influence consumers’ evaluation
of and purchase intentions towards a product. However, the globalization of production
and markets has added another factor to the list as more and more companies shift
production to overseas locations where factors of production are superior or less costly,
and then market their products to consumers around the world. Consequently, for many
international consumers a product’s country of origin (COO) can be an important cue in
evaluating both domestic and foreign products. Ahmed et al. (2002).
Studies have proved that consumers around the world use COO as a factor in
product evaluation (e.g. Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Hong and Wyer, 1989; Maheswaran,
1994; Okechuku and Onyemah, 1999; Supanvanij and Amine, 2000). As international
trade activity is becoming a fundamental part of the world economy, it is even more
important to measure consumers’ attitudes towards both domestic and foreign products
(Netemeyer et al., 1991). How COO perceptions affect consumers’ evaluation of and
intention to purchase products, and the relative strength of COO compared with other
informational cues, are of considerable interest to international marketing practitioners
and researchers since this information can help them to devise more effective strategies to
aid firms in selling their products internationally.
However, most studies of COO effects have focused on high involvement
products such as cars and electronic goods for which consumers will usually look beyond
cues such as price or design in making their purchase decision. To date, there have been
few studies on the impact of consumers’ COO perceptions on low-involvement products;
thus, it is not clear what role COO plays in shaping consumers’ preferences and
3
Knowledge
intentions to purchase such goods or whether its effect is the same for low-involvement
products as for high-involvement products, Ahmed et al. (2002).
An individual factor which may inhibit reliance on country of origin is consumer
knowledge. Consumer knowledge has been mentioned as one such individual factor in
various publications. However, relatively few publications have addressed the issue in
detail. The purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to explore various dimensions of consumer
knowledge as it relates to country of origin effects and then investigate how these
dimensions of knowledge affect consumers’ use of country of origin in evaluating a fast
consumer product, i.e. beer.
4
Knowledge
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore various dimensions of consumer
knowledge as it relates to country of origin effects and then investigate how these
dimensions of knowledge affect a consumers’ use of country of origin cues when
purchasing beer and to test it with Taiwanese consumers.
5
Knowledge
Literature Review
Previous literatures on consumer knowledge show that country of origin (COO)
effects is a very complex issue. Various factors can influence its extent. One of these
factors is consumer knowledge (Maheswaran, 1994; Chiou, 2003). Earlier studies have
not illustrated between the different dimensions of consumer knowledge and how these
are connected with COE (Scribner and Weun, 2001). In addition, the level of product
knowledge will also affect information use since increased familiarity results in better
developed knowledge structures or “schema” about the product (Rao and Monroe, 1988).
Consumer knowledge certainly plays a role in the acquisition and evaluation of extrinsic
cues. For instance, Cordell (1997) has investigated the dimensionality of consumer
knowledge and each dimension’s moderating effects on consumer use of extrinsic cues.
In his study based on a camera, different cues such as the product’s brand (well-known
versus invented) and COO (developed versus developing) are all relevant in consumer
evaluation. As such, there is a need to examine the relationship between various
dimensions of consumer knowledge and consumers’ use of COO.
There are some inherent gaps in the literature. Previous COO studies mostly used
durable, complex and high financial risk products, such as automobiles and electronic
appliances. Very few studies investigated solely non-durable, low financial risk fast
consuming goods. Second, for such low risk (or considered low-involvement) products,
consumers don’t get very involved in the purchase and therefore unlikely to engage in
lengthy information search and processing (Hoyer and Mac Innis, 2000). It can be
suggested that consumers will rely more on their own knowledge than extrinsic cues.
6
Knowledge
Introducing country-of-origin effect
As global trade is becoming a fundamental part of the world’s economy, it is
becoming increasingly important to understand consumers’ attitudes towards domestic
and foreign products (Netemeyer et al., 1991). There are a lot of researchers in this area
who have studied COO effects: investigating how consumers see products sourced from
certain countries (Roth and Romeo, 1992). The world is often called a global village,
despite this, studies continue to imply that national stereotypes have a significant
influence on how products are perceived by consumers.
Prior literature reflects that COE is a multifaceted phenomenon and various
moderators can influence its magnitude (Maheswaran, 1994; Chiou, 2003). Studies in
COO effects go back as far as the 1960s, one of the conceptualizations of COO effects
was that of Nagashima (1970). He concluded that consumer’s relate with a given country
of origin as, “the picture, the reputation, and the stereotype that business men and
consumers attach to products of a specific country. This image is formed by such
variables as representative products, national characteristics, economic and political back
ground, history, and traditions”. Since then, much literature has been added to the study
of COE. Samiee (1994) views COE as any influence or bias that consumers may have,
resulting from a products country of origin. The source of the effect may be wide-ranged;
some are based on experiences with a product from a certain country, some from personal
experiences such as travel, knowledge of a country, political beliefs, ethnocentric
tendencies, or even the fear of the unknown.
Knight (1999), comments that Han (1989), Parameswaran and Yaprak (1987)
perceive country image as “reflecting consumers’ general perceptions about the quality of
7
Knowledge
products made in a particular country and the nature of people from that country”.
Furthermore, according to Han (1988) and Papadopoulos et al. (1990) COO perceptions
encompass cognitions, highlighting particular product and marketing attributes and
affect, concerning the country’s consumers.
COO effects as a product cue
Consumers make decisions about the quality of products based on a systematic
process of acquisition, evaluation and integration of product information or cues.
Products have extrinsic and intrinsic cues (Cordel, 1992); intrinsic cues are tangible or
physical characteristics, such as design, colour or other graphics and extrinsic cues are
intangible product characteristics, such as brand name or fame.
When intrinsic cues are not available or cannot easily be assessed, consumers are
inclined to rely more on extrinsic cues, this is frequently the situation for low-
involvement products, since the cost and time of searching for intrinsic cues to help
consumers in product evaluation is much greater than the benefits. COO has been
described as an extrinsic cue that is applied by consumers when assessing a products
quality. As a result COO, as an extrinsic cue, has a strong influence on consumer
attitudes and can increase the probability of product purchase (Schooler, 1971). COE is
also recognised as the “made in” model and has been explained as the favourable or
unfavourable influence a product’s country of origin can have on consumers’ mind-sets
and decision making. The image created is a general cognitive concept representing a
“mental picture” of the qualities of the product.
Maheswaran (1994) suggests that COO is used in product assessment as a
stereotyping procedure, consumers expect that a product manufactured in a certain
8
Knowledge
country will have certain characteristics; normally, consumers will assess a product more
favorably if it has a favorable COO. This stereotyping method affects product assessment
in three ways. First, COO acts as a hint; consumers have prior perceptions of the general
quality of products from a particular country, and they use these perceptions to infer the
other product cues such as quality and therefore the overall product evaluation.
Second, COO when used with other cues for evaluation can also be an
independent cue. Third, COO can be used as a heuristic to simplify the product
evaluation process, even though other available product cues may be more useful (Li and
Wyer, 1994). This often occurs when there is too much product information, or when
consumers are unfamiliar with the product.
Research has proven that COO influences consumer’s decisions to purchase
products; consumers from developed countries favour products from developed countries,
this preference may include products made in the consumer’s home country instead of
products originating in less developed countries. Consumers may favour domestic goods
for many reasons including familiarity, and because of the belief that it helps the
economy and provide jobs as well as bolstering national pride (Pecotich et al. 2007).
In contrast, the preferences of consumers from less developed countries were
towards products from well developed countries so the purchasing preference will also be
for products from developed countries, (Bruning, 1997). Pecotich et al. (1996) found that
developed countries such as Japan, Germany and the USA are associated with high
quality products whereas newly developing nations such as Korea, China and the
Philippines are associated with poorer quality products. Countries with the lowest
reputation are those about which consumers know very little such as, for example, the
9
Knowledge
Eastern European countries. Research suggests that the reputation of an unknown country
may be lower, than that of even a developing nation.
Country of Origin Image
As explained above, the effect of COO information on consumer purchase
behavior has created a large amount of studies. Nagashima (1970) first defined country
image as the picture, the representation, the stereotype that businessmen and consumers
attach to products of a specific country. This image is created by such variables as
representation products, national characteristics, economic and political background,
history and tradition.
The impact of COO cues on consumption behavior has been related to producing
country characteristics. It has been proven that consumers’ willingness to purchase
products is related to economic, political, and cultural characteristics of the products
COO. The perceptions of sourcing countries are impacted by cognition, affect and
conative orientation towards the country’s people. COO effects have also been connected
to beliefs about the overall product offerings of a certain country. A consumer’s image of
people which they are not familiar with may be formed upon the basis of knowledge
about that people’s abilities to produce quality products in general and that belief impacts
the evaluation of specific products from that country. Parameswaran (2002) called these
components the general country attributes (GCA) and the general product attributes.
Consumers purchase intentions and behaviour are impacted by COO effects and by
specific product attributes (SPA).
According to Parameswaran’s (2002) theoretical model of country image, the
dependent variable, consumer purchase intent and behaviour is directly influenced by the
10
Knowledge
specific product attributes (SPA) of a brand. Consumer purchase intent and behaviour are
also influenced by consumers’ general perceptions of a products COO (GPA: general
product attributes) as well as perceptions of the COO’s people (GCA general country
attributes). The influences of GCA and GPA on intention to purchase (IP) are primarily
through their influences on consumers’ perception of the attributes of a particular product
or brand (SPA). The model presented in Figure 1.1 introduces COO images and effects.
Source: (Parameswaran 2002)
Papadopoulos (1993) explains that the image of an object results from people’s
perceptions of it and the phenomena that surround it. Based on the studies conducted in
eight different countries, Papadopoulos et al. were among the first to incorporate distinct
country image measures in PCI research (in addition to measures of products simply
designated as “made in X”), and the first to attempt to model the relationship between
country beliefs, product beliefs, familiarity, and product evaluation and willingness to
buy. After further elaborating on their data and other studies, they proposed that
consumers’ perceptions of the country of origin of a product comprise (Papadopoulos et
11
Knowledge
al., 1988,1990, 2000): a cognitive component, which includes consumers’ beliefs about
the country’s industrial development and technological advancement; an affective
component that describes consumers’ affective response to the country’s people; and a
conative component, consisting of consumers’ desired level of interaction with the
sourcing country. Country image affects product evaluations, its very structure, that is the
relative importance attached to its cognitive, affective, and conative components, has a
significant impact on the extent of its influence on product evaluations.
The role of country image in product evaluation
According to Hong and Wyer (1989), when consumers are presented with the COO
cue together with other cues, such as price and brand, the effects of COO in their
cognitive process can be observed in two ways, the Halo Effect and the Summary
Construct.
The Halo Effect can serve as a halo to infer beliefs about attributes that make up the
attitude towards a product or service, Pecotich et al (2007) explains consumer evaluations
of products and services are based on their perception of the country (e.g. overall the
Japanese make good quality products, this is a camera from Japan, therefore it must be
good quality). Second, it may be used as a means of abstracting previous beliefs about
attributes of products and services from a particular country into a chunk of information
called the summary construct, which is in turn used to infer product attitudes (e.g. I
know, from experience that the Japanese make poor quality wine, this is a wine from
Japan, therefore I would expect it to be of poor quality).
The use of COO as a halo to directly infer product beliefs may be based on a
consumer’s limited ability to infer quality before purchase. This may occur because
12
Knowledge
actual quality differences are hard to detect, or because consumers lack familiarity with
the product and/or country of manufacture. The use of COO as a summary construct
occurs when consumers have greater knowledge about products and service classes from
a particular country, this knowledge is then generalised only to that specific product
class. Country image then serves as an indirect channel in affecting product attributes.
The halo process involves the use of country image which extends across different
products or services, while the summary construct covers the use of the country/product
image that is represented by the reputation of the country as a producer of particular
classes of goods. The second important factor that distinguishes the processing strategies
of the COO (or brand) cue is the amount of consumer knowledge. In terms of information
processing this is a selective and analytical use of cues. It is a selective process because
the more expert and knowledgeable the consumer, the more likely COO will only be of
importance if it is consistent with past experience of a product from a relevant country. It
is an analytical decision-making process as it is only of relevance to more knowledgeable
consumers when actual quality matches past experience. This will be the case for more
knowledgeable consumers even when differences in quality are difficult to determine.
It is, therefore, expected that consumers lacking in knowledge will use COO as a
halo because they are unlikely to be able to judge quality where differences are not
obviously apparent. These “novice” consumers do not have extensive knowledge of
countries, brands, products from a particular countries or general product class
knowledge from which to form a summary construct about a product they are evaluating.
They will rely more on the overall image of a country when rating products and services
along with information contained in extrinsic cues. More knowledgeable consumers, on
13
Knowledge
the other hand are heuristic processors using COO only when it is relevant to a product
and consistent with a level of detected quality.
Han (1989) explains COO effects through the halo and summary construct models,
the study suggests that COO image allows consumers to assume the quality of an
unfamiliar foreign brand. This is similar to the role of price which assists consumers in
their evaluation of the quality of a product when other important information is lacking.
Knight and Calantone’s (2000) replication of Han’s (1989) model in figure 1.2 suggests
that COO image directly influences product attribute beliefs, which then directly
influences attitudes towards a product. That is a structural relationship of the shape COO
image > beliefs > brand attitude. The halo model works with consumers, who are
unfamiliar with a foreign product, that is, consumers with low product knowledge.
Figure 1.2
Source: Knight et al (2000)

Halo Model
PPIM = product and people image measure
BLF = beliefs measure
ATT = attitudes measure
In comparison, Han’s (1989) original summary construct model (Figure 1.2)
suggests that, amoung consumers possessing high knowledge about the product, COO
image may summarise beliefs about product attributes, directly affecting brand attitude,
14
Knowledge
which results in a structural relationship of the shape beliefs> COO image> brand
attitude. The summary construct view states that, because short-term memory has limited
capacity, consumers are inclined to summarise information in a method that makes it
easier to store and remember in the long-term. In a later situation, consumers who are
already familiar with a country’s products may use their relevant information as a COO
cue when facing another product with the same COO. If the product possesses attributes
similar to the initial product, the consumer may infer its quality by accessing the country
cue they have previously stored from prior experience.
Figure 1.3
Summary Construct Model
Source: Knight et al (2000)
PPIM = product and people image measure
BLF = beliefs measure
ATT = attitudes measure
In Figure 1.3, product beliefs refer to consumers’ beliefs about a product’s
intrinsic characteristics such as quality and reliability. Product evaluation, in contrast,
refers to consumers’ attitudes of a product and works in terms of a consumer’s joy of
ownership and intention to purchase. This figure suggests a simultaneous processing of
country image and product beliefs regardless of consumers’ level of familiarity. In
addition, country image is expected to influence product beliefs and hence to have an
additional indirect effect on product evaluation.
15
Knowledge
Further to highlighting the simultaneous processing of country image and product
beliefs, the proposed model takes into account both the halo and summary views. The
direct effect of country image reflects its use as a summary construct, while the indirect
effect, through product beliefs, represents consumers’ use of country image as a halo.
Figure 1.4
Country Image and Product Beliefs
Source: Laroche et al (2003)
Consumer ethnocentrism
COO is normally used to rate the quality of products. Yet, sometimes consumers are
interested in the COO of the product because they have a desire to purchase domestically
produced products. Consumer ethnocentrism as defined by Shrimp et al. (1987) it
represents the beliefs held by a countries consumers about the appropriateness, indeed
morality, of purchasing foreign made products. The basic idea of the ethnocentrism
principle is that the purchase of foreign goods will damage the home.
16
Knowledge
This damage may take different structures, but focuses mainly on the ethnocentric
consumer believing the purchase of foreign products as causing a negative economic
impact and performing an unpatriotic act. Okechuku (1994) displayed that consumers in
developed countries are inclined to favor domestically made goods primarily, after which
goods from another developed nation are purchased, and then products from less
developed nations. Therefore, if consumer ethnocentrism is influential, consumers take
COO into consideration when assessing products.
Other Extrinsic Cues
Bilkey and Nes (1982) suggests if only COO is provided as an informational cue,
the outcome maybe positively biased for investigating COE. Prior research has found that
if extra cues are available, the importance of COO on product assessment decreases. If
information about the product is not available to consumers they may depend on the
brand name to assume its value; therefore, brand loyalty is evidence of the importance of
a trusted brand name in consumers’ evaluation of products (Ettenson and Gaeth, 1991).
Studies have proven that a well known and respected brand can reduce the bad
consequences of a weak COO image in product assessment (Cordell, 1993). The same
way, if price is more important than image, COO is less influential than price in
consumers purchasing choices.
Consumers apply COO as an extrinsic cue to assess the value of goods. It may
indirectly influence the understanding of different available product cues and therefore
the whole product assessment; in different situations, it may be the only cue used to
assess a good, yet there could be other cues presented. If consumers are unfamiliar with a
good, consumers use the halo effect to assess the good, if the consumer is familiar with
17
Knowledge
the good, the construct summary process is used. The halo effect and the summary
construct differ in the sequence the consumers’ cognitive procedure takes. Also, if there
is not enough available product knowledge or time is limited, consumers will use an
alternative approach and use the stereotypical ideas and use a nation’s typical image to
evaluate a good.
Consumer Knowledge
Dimensions of consumer knowledge
Various moderators can influence country of origin effects and its magnitude. One of
these is consumer knowledge (Chiou, 2003). As Phau et al (2006) suggests consumer
knowledge certainly plays a role in the acquisition and evaluation of extrinsic cues. Alba
et al. (1987) point out, consumer knowledge should be regarded as a multidimensional
construct, where different types of product-related experience lead to different
dimensions of knowledge, and these different dimensions of knowledge have different
effects on product evaluations and choice behaviour, depending on the specific situation
and task at hand.
Several important distinctions must be made between different dimensions of
consumer knowledge (Schafer, 1995). The first distinction is between product-related
experience and product knowledge. Brucks (1985), states that product knowledge is
based on memories or known knowledge from consumers. Lin and Zhen (2005) assert
that product knowledge depends on consumer’s awareness or understanding about the
product, or consumer’s confidence in it. A consumer’s idea of a product may also contain
country of origin information. These considerations mean that product experience will
only exert an indirect influence on consumer behaviour, including the use or otherwise of
18
Knowledge
the country of origin cue, and that direct measures of product knowledge, rather than
experience, are preferable. A second distinction must be made between subjective and
objective product knowledge, based on a definition of Brucks (1985) about product
knowledge, it can be divided into three major categories: subject knowledge or perceived
knowledge, objective knowledge and experience-based knowledge.
Wang (2001) summarises much literature and reports that the index used to measure
product knowledge by scholars include: the consumer’s perception of how much he or
she knows, the amount, type and organization of what the consumer has stored in his/her
memory and the amount of purchasing and usage experience. Schaefer (1995) suggests
measures of subjective knowledge can indicate self-confidence levels, and high
subjective knowledge may increase an individual’s confidence in relying on information
stored in the memory, such as country of origin. High levels of objective product
knowledge, on the other hand, mean both more information stored in the memory and a
greater ability to learn and use new information about product attributes.
Third, it is necessary to differentiate general product class knowledge and specific
brand familiarity. As general product class knowledge may allow the use of any extrinsic
product information cues, direct experience with a particular brand is likely to encourage
the use of brand name especially as a decisive factor and therefore may decrease the use
of any other cues.
A final differentiation must be made between product class knowledge and country
knowledge. Although these may to some extent overlap they are evidently not identical.
A measure that taps product class knowledge as it relates to countries of origin, or
country knowledge relating to products, may be particularly useful when investigating the
19
Knowledge
impact of consumer knowledge on country of origin effects.
Brand Familiarity
Brand familiarity has been subject to much research (Lange et al. 2003). Brand
familiarity is defined as the number of brand-related direct or indirect experiences that
have been accrued by the consumer. Brand experiences such as exposure to various
media advertisements for the brand, exposure to the brand in a store, and purchase or
usage of the brand increase brand familiarity and are an important internal source of
information (Park et al. 2005).
Brand familiarity is one dimension of consumer knowledge that is hypothesised to
have an influence on country of origin effects. This is due to the fact that there is a
distinction between general product class knowledge and specific brand familiarity.
General product class knowledge relates to knowledge about the features or attributes of
a product, regardless of whether the consumer uses these features to make a decision.
Specific brand familiarity refers to the consumer knowledge regarding the brand that
exists in a product category. This knowledge includes how brands compare on different
attributes and which brands own unique attributes (Baker et al., 2002).
According to Baker et al., (2002) among other extrinsic cues, brand name is the
most common indicator for consumers to assess products. When consumers are familiar
with a particular brand in the product category, there is a less tendency that they will
search for more information. Hence, it may be assumed that consumers who are
accustomed to a particular brand will not use country of origin, or attribute information,
to any large extent in evaluating that brand.
Knowledge that consumers obtain through direct personal experience will be
20
Knowledge
perceived to be more trustworthy than information from other communications. This
results in more strongly held beliefs (Swaminathan et al., 2001). Direct experience with a
particular brand tends to dilute country of origin effects on consumers because such
experience reinforces consumers’ reliance on brand attributes.
Schafer (1995) suggests where consumers are confronted with a familiar brand
name they tend to reach evaluations quickly and directly without much effort in external
searching, because they are familiar with the brands attributes (Brucks, 1985). In such
situations no further search for and processing of information is necessary. Thus it seems
reasonable to assume that consumers who are familiar with a particular brand will not
rely on country of origin, or attribute information, to any large extent, in evaluating that
brand.
Price
Price represents not only the monetary cost of an item but also connotes a quality
level for both the brand and the product and, by inference, the satisfaction level to be
expected (Assael, 1995). Generally price is an important cue to quality when there are
few other cues available, when the product cannot be evaluated before purchase and
when there is some degree of risk of making a wrong choice. A high price may signal that
the product is of superior quality. Therefore, for some specific goods, customers might
even reject cheaper items just to avoid the risk of dissatisfaction. (Kotler, 2003).
Price is not important in reducing perceived risk and that it may not be an
effective cue for quality. Chao (1993) lent more information to this argument by linking
it more closely to COO information. He pointed out that perceptions of extrinsic quality
based on cues such as price may be different according to both the product and the COO.
21
Knowledge
He argued for a direct link between confidence in a country’s ability to produce high-
quality products and the products themselves. Thus if a country is perceived to be
incapable of producing high quality products, this overrides other perceptions based on
price. They may perceive that the products produced in the country will generally be of
low-quality. Consequently, consumers may be less likely to use price as an indicator of
quality.
Objective product class knowledge
If a consumer is familiar with a particular brand in a product category, the
consumer’s level of objective product class knowledge may not have any great impact on
the use of the country of origin cue. However, where the particular brand is not familiar,
objective product class knowledge is likely to influence a consumer’s evaluation and
choice processes. Where attribute information is readily available and/or where the
situation warrants the search for such information, consumers with high levels of
objective product knowledge can be expected to base evaluations on intrinsic attributes
rather than extrinsic cues such as country of origin (Maheswaran, 1994).
Under a situation when both intrinsic and extrinsic cues of product attribute
information are available and the search for such information is warranted, consumers
with higher levels of objective product knowledge may base evaluations on intrinsic
attributes rather than extrinsic cues (such as country of origin). This is because highly
objective consumers value the cues that provide diagnostic utility. On the other hand, in a
case that product attribute information is not available in choice situations and the search
for it is not always warranted, consumers may rely more on extrinsic cues for evaluation
of unfamiliar brands. Therefore, it can be expected that such informational extrinsic cues
22
Knowledge
as price, value or country of origin will play a role in product evaluation (Phau, 2006). In
other words, country of origin perception is not completely independent of products
(Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 2001).
Subjective product class knowledge
According to Mattilda and Wirtz (2002), subjective product knowledge increases
consumers reliance on previously stroed information. Increased levels of subjective
knowledge lead to a greater on reliance on a consumers own evaluation skills. While
objective product class knowledge is likely to influence information processing
strategies, subjective product class knowledge is more likely to affect consumers’
confidence in using information stored in the memory. As such information is likely to
relate partly to COO, consumers with high levels of subjective product knowledge can be
expected to be more confident in using the country of origin cue. Thus consumers with
higher levels of subjective product knowledge are likely to rely more on country of origin
than consumers with low subjective product knowledge.
The influence of product knowledge on information search behaviour
To understand consumer behavior, consumer knowledge is an important factor.
This is because, before the consumer performs actual purchasing behavior, they most
likely experience two procedures: The first is Information search: this means when the
consumer faces many consuming relevant questions, he/she requires relevant information
to assist with his/her consuming decision. This type of search of appropriate information
procedure is called information search (Solomon, 1997). The second is Information
processing: includes consumer self selects to expose, notice, recognize, agree, accept, or
retain. No matter how much knowledge the consumer has, it all affects his/her procedures
23
Knowledge
concerning information search and information processing (Brucks, 1985).
Much evidence shows that product knowledge has an impact on information
processing to the consumer. Lin and Chen (2006) suggest that when a consumer selects a
product, they usually rely on their product knowledge to evaluate it, and their product
knowledge would also affect their information search procedure, attitude, and
information search quantity. In addition, their level of product knowledge would
determine consumer purchase decisions, and indirectly affect their buying intentions.
Brand’s country-of-origin image and brand equity
Brand equity refers to the value of well known brand name. Consumers may be
willing to pay more for the same level of quality due to the attractiveness of a brand name
attached to a product. In marketing literature, brand equity is referred to as the intangible
brand properties. Brand equity arose from customer brand-name awareness, brand
loyalty, perceived brand quality and favorable brand symbolisms and associations that
provide a platform for a competitive advantage and future earning streams (Bello and
Holbrook, 1995).
There are many studies to document country-of-origin perspectives. From these
studies, marketers and consumer behavior researchers generally accept that a product’s or
brand’s country-of-origin is an important influencing factor in consumer decision-
making. Most studies suggest that country-of origin information which is indicated by the
“Made in” label has many influences in consumer decision-making. It can act as the main
attribute in consumer product evaluation, stimulates consumer’s interest in the product,
affect behavioral intentions through social norms and influences buyer behavior through
affective processes as in the case of consumer’s patriotic feelings for their own country.
24
Knowledge
The overall evaluation of products is influenced by country stereotyping, that is, the
image that consumers have about a certain country will influence their perceptions of
products from that country. Since consumers’ perception of a particular country-of-origin
influence their evaluation of products from that country, this will influence their
preference, purchase intention and choice of a particular brand. Obviously, this has
implications on the brand’s equity (Piron, 2000).
25
Knowledge
Summary of Findings from Country of Origin Effects and Consumer Knowledge
Studies
Reference Findings
Country-of
Origin Effects
COO, as an extrinsic cue, has a strong influence on consumer
Schooler, 1971
attitudes and can increase the probability of product purchase
Consumer lacking in product knowledge use COO as a halo

because they are unlikely to be able to judge quality where
Hong and Wyer,
differences are not obviously apparent. Knowledgeable
1989
consumers, use COO only when it is relevant to a product and
consistent with a level of detected quality
If extra cues are available, the importance of COO on product

Ettenson and assessment decreases. If information about the product is not
Gaeth, 1991 available to consumers they may depend on the brand name
to assume its value.
Consumers make decisions about the quality of products

Cordell, 1992 based on a systematic process of acquisition, evaluation and
integration of product information or cues
A strong brand can reduce the bad consequences of a weak

Cordell, 1993
COO image in product assessment
Country image affects product evaluations, its very structure,

Papadopoulos, that is the relative importance attached to its cognitive,
1993 affective, and conative components, has a significant impact
on the extent of its influence on product evaluations.
26
Knowledge
COO, perceptions are used to infer the overall quality of a

Maheswaran, product, when used with other cues for evaluation can also be
1994 an independent cue, can be used as a heuristic to simplify the
product evaluation process
If consumer ethnocentrism is influential, consumers take

Okechuku, 1994
COO into consideration when assessing products
Consumers from developed and less developed countries

Bruning, 1997
favour products from developed countries
COO image allows consumers to assume the quality of an

Knight and unfamiliar foreign brand, it directly influences product
Calantone, 2000 attribute beliefs, which then directly influences attitudes
towards a product
Consumers’ willingness to purchase products is related to

economic, political, and cultural characteristics of the
Parameswaran, products COO. The perceptions of COO are impacted by
2002 cognition, affect and conative orientation towards the
country’s people. Consumer purchase intent and behaviour
are also influenced by consumers’ general perceptions of a
products COO and its people.
Consumer evaluations of products and services are based on

their perception of the country, the Halo effect may be used
Pecotich-and as a means of abstracting previous beliefs about attributes of
Ward, 2007 products and services from a particular country into a chunk
of information called the summary construct, which is in turn
used to infer product attitudes
27
Knowledge
Consumer
Knowledge
The level of product knowledge will also affect information
Rao and Monroe,
use since increased familiarity results in better developed
1988
knowledge structures or “schema” about the product
High subjective knowledge may increase an individual’s

confidence in relying on information stored in the memory,
such as country of origin. High levels of objective product
knowledge mean a greater ability to learn and use new
Schaefer, 1995
information about product attributes. Direct experience with a
particular brand is likely to encourage the use of brand name
especially as a decisive factor and therefore may decrease the
use of any other cues.
Consumers’ perception of a particular COO influence their

Piron, 2000 evaluation of products from that country, this will influence
their preference, purchase intention and choice of a particular
brand.
Consumer knowledge effects the acquisition and evaluation

Cordell, 1997
of extrinsic cues
Informational extrinsic cues as price, value or country of

Jaffe-and origin are important in product evaluation so COO
Nebenzahl, 2001 perceptions are not completely independent of products
Direct experience with a particular brand tends to dilute

Swaminathan, Fox
country of origin effects on consumers because such
and Reddy, 2001
experience reinforces consumers’ reliance on brand attributes.
Baker, Hunt and Consumers who are accustomed to a particular brand will not
Scribner, 2002 use country of origin, or attribute information, to any large
28
Knowledge
extent in evaluating that brand.
Consumers with higher levels of subjective product

Mattilda-and
knowledge are likely to rely more on country of origin than
Wirtz, 2002
consumers with low subjective product knowledge.
Product experience will only exert an indirect influence on

Lin and Zhen, consumer behaviour, including the use or otherwise of the
2005 country of origin cue, and that direct measures of product
knowledge, rather than experience, are preferable.
Consumers rely on their product knowledge to evaluate

Lin and Chen, products, product knowledge affects information search
2006 procedures, attitudes, and information search quantities. The
level of product knowledge can determine consumer purchase
decisions, and indirectly affect their buying intentions.
29
Knowledge
Research Objectives and Hypotheses

The study is designed to investigate the relationship between different dimensions
of consumer knowledge and consumers use of COE cues in the evaluation of beer when
purchasing. In contrast to COE on consumer behaviour, which is considered one of the
most widely researched issues in international marketing (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995),
this study uses better measures of different dimensions of consumer knowledge in one
research which enables the author to better compare the individual impacts of COE.
There have been limited studies on COE on consumers when purchasing low-
involvement products, therefore it is not clearly defined how COE influences consumer
intentions and choices when purchasing fast consumer goods. It’s not clear if the COE on
low-involvement products is similar to that of high involvement products. Therefore this
study will add to the marketing literature by evaluating COE on fast consumed low-
involvement products: Beer sales in Taiwan.
This study is different from previous studies as it focuses mainly on extrinsic
product information cues and it investigates the COE on beer sales as opposed to durable
products. As the author found little research on COE completed in this area, the author
believes there is a necessity to study the connection between different dimensions of
consumer knowledge and a consumers’ use of country of origin. Prior country of origin
studies, have mainly used durable and expensive products such as cars and consumer
electronic products.
Normally consumers don’t involve themselves in depth when purchasing beer,
therefore they are unlikely to engage in a lengthy information search and processing
(Kotler and Armstrong, 2006). In addition, product information is very limited at the
point of purchase which is where choices regarding these products are normally made. As
30
Knowledge
a result, it’s normal for consumers to depend only on the available extrinsic cues, such as
a products country of origin or their previous experience of the brand.
Consumer knowledge and awareness is undoubtedly a major factor in the
evaluation and assessment of extrinsic cues. For example, Cordell (1997) has examined
the dimensions of consumer knowledge and each dimension’s consequences on a
consumer’s use of extrinsic cues. In the study based on a camera, various cues such as the
product’s brand name or country of origin (developed versus developing), these are all
significant in a consumer’s assessment of a product.
Brand Familiarity
Consumer’s dependence on COO when evaluating a product increases if the
brand is unfamiliar to the consumer but if the brand is familiar to the consumer they will
be more likely to depend on the familiar qualities of the products brand as opposed to the
COO.
H1: When making a purchasing decision, if a consumer’s only available
information cues are a products COO and brand, they will depend more on COO
than brand if the brand is unknown to the consumer.
If a consumer has had direct experience with a certain brand, the consumer’s
dependence on COO will decrease and a consumer’s knowledge of the brands attributes
will have a greater influence on their purchasing decision.
H2: If a consumer has had direct experience with a certain brand, the consumer’s
reliance on COO will decrease further as opposed to a customer who is just
familiar with the brand.
31
Knowledge
Objective product-country knowledge
Objective knowledge refers to what a consumer actually knows about a product.
In the situation when a consumer is purchasing low involvement products, a consumer
will not undertake an extensive attribute information search. As there is not normally
much attribute information about the product available at the point of sale a consumer
will increase their dependence on objective product-country knowledge as a purchasing
cue.
H3: Consumers with higher levels of objective product-country knowledge will be
more likely to depend on COO when evaluating low involvement products than
consumers with lower levels of product-country knowledge.
Subjective product knowledge refers to how knowledgeable a consumer thinks
they are about a product, this self-confidence can affect a consumer’s use of a products
extrinsic cues. So consumers with high levels of subjective product knowledge may be
more likely to depend on COO information cues in a products evaluation. High levels of
subjective product knowledge may also increase a consumer’s self-confidence and their
dependence on the known attributes of a familiar brand. Therefore, increased reliance on
COO is more likely to occur where the brand is unfamiliar.
H4: Consumers with higher levels of subjective product class knowledge will be
more likely to depend on COO when evaluating products, especially those with an
unknown brand, than consumers with lower levels of subjective product
knowledge.
32
Knowledge
Methodology
The questionnaire was designed replicating many items from Schaefer’s (1997)
study. Some changes were incorporated. The countries of origin used Australia,
Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, China, Japan, United States, Philippines
and Mexico. These countries were chosen as it reflects the current market of the beer
industry.
The three product attributes chosen were all extrinsic cues: brand, value and COO. This is
because consumers rely more on extrinsic cues in evaluating low-involvement products,
since the cost of searching for intrinsic cues often exceeds the relative benefits (Cordel,
1992). Two brands were included for each country. The nine familiar brands chosen
were Heineken, Budweiser, Becks, Carling, Corona, Fosters, Qing Tao, Kirin and San
Miguel as these were the most representative in terms of availability and popularity in
Taiwan with respect to each of the nine countries. The nine unfamiliar brand names were
invented by the author.
Data collection
To ensure responses from the general population, the sources of our sample were
students of higher education institutions, and cafe´s, convenience stores and supermarket
customers from all classes of life across Taiwan. Questionnaires were distributed to
students in three universities; some students completed and returned the questionnaire
after immediately completing it, others mailed and e-mailed in their responses. The cafe´
and supermarket customers were approached at random by the researcher and completed
the questionnaire on the spot. A total of 100 questionnaires were returned; 82 usable
questionnaires were included in the data analysis. Questionnaires were chosen because
33
Knowledge
they are convenient and respondents are easily found.
In the questionnaire respondents were evaluated through an easy assessment
where the only available product information was the products country of origin and
brand name. Respondents were asked to rate products on the basis of the brand name, and
country of origin and then only country of origin. Respondents were asked to rate the
dimensions Quality, Image and Value for money on a five point scale.
The author analysed and correlated the ratings for the country and brand results of
the questionnaires. The differences in correlation signified how much the respondents
depended on COO when assessing each product for brand and COO. Brand familiarity
was assessed by using one famous brand and one invented brand by the author for each
COO. Only the correlations from the respondents who were familiar with the brand were
analysed. To establish brand experience, respondents were asked if they had tasted any or
all of the real brands used in the questionnaire. Subjective product class knowledge was
collected by asking respondents to choose a response from a choice of four levels which
best describes their knowledge of the various types and brands of beer available in
Taiwan. To establish objective product country knowledge, respondents were asked to
signify the beer brands which they were familiar with. The following question asked
respondents to write the country of origin of the brands which they were familiar with.
The list included eighteen brands, the nine authentic brands and the nine brands created
by the author. This method was used to determine objective product-country knowledge,
respondents could then be organised into three different levels of knowledge, high,
medium and low. The respondent’s right amount of answers allowed the author to grade
the respondent’s level of knowledge.
34
Knowledge
The sample was divided into different levels of sub groups, respondents were
divided into groups by their different levels of knowledge. This allowed the author to
calculate if the dimensions of consumer knowledge affect the use of COO in beer
assessments. The correlations of each group were calculated separately. Tests could then
establish if the different groups signified higher or lower correlations. This proved if
country of origin effects exists.
35
Knowledge
Results and Findings
This presentation of the results begins with a summary of respondents’ ratings of
products on the basis of country of origin alone and brand name and country of origin.
This will give a broad view to the results regarding consumer knowledge and country of
origin effects and help to understand the final results. After the summary of ratings it will
be evaluated if there is any proof of country of origin effects in the data in general before
examining if there is any impact of consumer knowledge.
Ratings
A summary of respondents’ ratings of the products is given in Table I. For each
country the ratings on the basis of country of origin alone are shown first, followed by the
ratings on the basis of familiar brand name and country of origin, and finally ratings on
the basis of unfamiliar brand name and country of origin. Results are shown separately
for each of the rated product dimensions for quality, value for and image/trendiness, and
include the mean, the standard deviation, and the non-response rate for each question.
Table 1
Summary statistics of ratings: mean values (M), standard deviations (S), and non-
responsive rates (NR) of brand and country ratings
　　 Value 　　　 Quality 　　　 Image 　

　 M S NR (%) 　 M S NR (%) 　 M S NR (%)
4.04 0.85 2
Germany 4.49 1.28 2 4.27 1.6 3
3.89 1.06 8
Becks 4.34 1.37 2 4.17 1.63 2
3.67 0.82 26
Totenbrau 3.58 1 26 3.54 1.26 26
The Netherlands 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
36
Knowledge
0.01 0.01 0.01
Heineken 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Silver Dutch 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
United Kingdom 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Carling 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Red Lion 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
China 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
TsingTao 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Jiao Pu 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Japan 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Kirin 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Nagasako 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
United States 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Budweiser 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Jack State 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Philippines 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
San Miguel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Majati 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Mexico 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Corona 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Hacienda 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Australia 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Fosters 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
Kuala Label 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Evidence for country of origin effects
As explained above, evidence for respondents’ use of the country of origin cue in product
evaluations was sought by correlating ratings on the basis of country of origin alone and
on the basis of brand name and country of origin. The results of this analysis are shown in
Table II.
37
Knowledge
Table 2
Evidence for country of origin effects: Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, r,
between brand and country ratings
　 Value Quality Image

Germany
Becks (95) 0.772* (94) 0.555* (93) 0.647*
Totenbrau (74) 0.167 (73) 0.051 (73) 0.048
The Netherlands 0.01
Heineken 0.01 0.01 0.01
Silver Dutch 0.01 0.01 0.01
United Kingdom
Carling 0.01 0.01 0.01
Red Lion 0.01 0.01 0.01
China
TsingTao 0.01 0.01 0.01
Jiao Pu 0.01 0.01 0.01
Japan
Kirin 0.01 0.01 0.01
Nagasako 0.01 0.01 0.01
United States
Budweiser 0.01 0.01 0.01
Jack State 0.01 0.01 0.01
Philippines
San Miguel 0.01 0.01 0.01
Majati 0.01 0.01 0.01
Mexico
Corona 0.01 0.01 0.01
Hacienda 0.01 0.01 0.01
Australia
Fosters 0.01 0.01 0.01
Kuala Label 0.01 0.01 0.01
Personal brand experience and country of origin effects
38
Knowledge
In H3 it was proposed that in the situation when a consumer is purchasing low
involvement products, a consumer will not undertake an extensive attribute information
search. As there is not normally much attribute information about the product available at
the point of sale a consumer will increase their dependence on objective product-country
knowledge as a purchasing cue. In Table III the correlations of country ratings and
ratings of familiar brands are shown separately for respondents with and without personal
experience of the brand in question.
Table III.
Brand experience: correlations between brand and country ratings by respondents
with and without brand experience
Brand No Brand
　　
Experience
　　
Experience
　
　 Value Quality Image Value Quality Image

Germany
Becks 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
The Netherlands
Heineken 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
United Kingdom
Carling 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
China
TsingTao 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Japan
Kirin 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
United States
Budweiser 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Philippines
San Miguel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Mexico
Corona 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Australia
Fosters 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
39
Knowledge
Objective product-country knowledge
H3 suggest that consumers with higher levels of objective product-country
knowledge will be more likely to depend on COO when evaluating low involvement
products than consumers with lower levels of product-country knowledge. Higher levels
of product knowledge should result in larger correlations between country and brand
ratings. Table IV presents the correlations between country and brand ratings, these are
presented separately for respondents with different levels of objective product-country
knowledge.
Table IV
Objective product country knowledge and country of origin effects: correlations
between brand and country ratings by objective product-country knowledge
　　 Low Knowledge 　　　 Medium Knowledge 　　　 High Knowledge 　

　 Value Quality Image 　Value Quality Image 　 Value Quality Image
Germany
Becks 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Totenbrau 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
The Netherlands
Heineken 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Silver Dutch 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
United
Kingdom
Carling 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Red Lion 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
China
TsingTao 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Jiao Pu 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Japan
40
Knowledge
Kirin 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Nagasako 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
United States
Budweiser 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Jack State 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Philippines
San Miguel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Majati 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Mexico
Corona 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Hacienda 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Australia
Fosters 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Kuala Label 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
High levels of subjective product knowledge may also increase a consumer’s self-
confidence and their dependence on the known attributes of a familiar brand. Therefore,
increased reliance on COO is more likely to occur where the brand is unfamiliar. H4
states consumers with higher levels of subjective product class knowledge will be more
likely to depend on COO when evaluating products, especially those with an unknown
brand, than consumers with lower levels of subjective product knowledge. Table V shows
the correlations between country and brand ratings, depending on respondents’ subjective
product knowledge.
Table V.
Subjective product knowledge and country of origin effects: correlations between brand
and country ratings by subjective product category knowledge.
Low High
　　
Knowledge
　　　
Knowledge
　
　 Value Quality Image 　 Value Quality Image
41
Knowledge
Germany
Becks 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Totenbrau 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
The
Netherlands
Heineken 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Silver Dutch 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
United
Kingdom
Carling 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Red Lion 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
China
TsingTao 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Jiao Pu 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Japan
Kirin 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Nagasako 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
United States
Budweiser 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Jack State 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Philippines
San Miguel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Majati 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Mexico
Corona 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Hacienda 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Australia
Fosters 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Kuala Label 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
References
42
Knowledge
Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Xia, Y., Chen, K.F., Han, S.T. and Lim, C.B. (2002), “Does
country of origin matter for low-involvement products?”, International Marketing
Review Vol. 21 No. 1, 2004 pp. 102-120
Alba, J. and Hutchinson, J.W., “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, March, 1987, pp. 14-25.
Assael, H. (1995), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, 4th ed., PWS-Kent
Publishing Company, Boston, MA.
Baker, T.L., Hunt, J.B. and Scribner, L.L. (2002), “The effect of introducing a new brand
on consumer perceptions of current brand similarity: the roles of product knowledge
and involvement”, Journal of Marketing, Fall , pp. 45-57.
Bello, D.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1995), “Does an absence of brand equity generalize
across product classes?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 125-31.
Bhaskaran, S. and Sukumaran, N. (2006),”Contextual and methodological issues in COO
studies”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. 25 No. 1, 2007 pp. 66-81
Bilkey, W.J. and Nes, E. (1982), “Country of origin effects on product evaluation”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 89-99.
Brucks, M. (1985), “The effect of product class knowledge on information search
behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Bruning, E.R. (1997), “Country of origin, national loyalty and product choice: the case
of international air travel”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Chao, P. (1993), “Partitioning country of origin effects: consumer evaluations of a
hybrid product”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 291-
306.
43
Knowledge
Chiou, J.-S. (2003), “The impact of country of origin on pretrial and post trial product
evaluations: the moderating effect of consumer expertise”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 935-54
Cordell, V. (1997), “Consumer knowledge measures as predictors in product
evaluation”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 241-60.
Cordell, V. (1992), “Effect of consumer preferences of foreign sourced products”, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 251-69.
Elliott, G. and Cameron, R. (1994), “Consumer perception of product quality and the
country of origin effect”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 49-62.
Jaffe, E.D. and Nebenzahl, I.D. (2001), “National Image and Competitive Advantage:
The Theory and Practice of Country-of-Origin Effect”, Copenhagen Business School
Press, Copenhagen.
Knight, G.A., Calantone, R.J. (2000), “A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin
perceptions, A cross-cultural investigation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17
No.2, 2000, pp.127-145
Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G., Principles of Marketing, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall
International, London, 2006
Kaynak, E., Kucukemiroglu, O. and Hyder, A.S. (2000), “Consumers’ country-of-origin
perceptions of imported products in a homogenous less-developed country”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 9/10, pp. 1221-41
44
Knowledge
Lange, F. and Dahlen, M. (2003) “Let’s be strange: brand familiarity and ad-brand in-
congruency”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, VOL. 12 No.7, pp. 449-461
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Mourali, N. (2003), “The influence of country image
structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products”, International Marketing
Review Vol. 22 No. 1, 2005 pp. 96-115
Lin, L.-Y. and Zhen, J.-H. (2005), “Extrinsic product performance signaling, product
knowledge and customer satisfaction: an integrated analysis – an example of
notebook consumer behavior in Taipei city”, Fu Jen Management Review, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 65-91.
Lin, L.-Y. and Chen, C.-S. (2006), “The influence of the country-of-origin image,
product knowledge and product involvement on consumer purchase decisions: an
empirical study of insurance and catering services in Taiwan
Li, W.K. and Wyer, R.S. Jr (1994), “The role of country of origin in product evaluations:
informational and standard-of-comparison effects”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 187-212.
Maheswaran, D. (1994), “Country of origin as a stereotype: effects of consumer expertise
and attribute strength on product evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
21 No. 2, pp. 354-65.
Mattilda, A.S., and Wirtz, J. (2002), “The impact of of knowledge types on the consumer
search process”, International Journal of Service Inductry Management, Vol.13 No.3,
2002, pp 214-230
Miyazaki, A.D., Grewal, D. and Goodstein, R.C. (2005), “The effect of multiple extrinsic
cues on quality perceptions: a matter of consistency”, Journal of Consumer Research,
45
Knowledge
Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 146.
Nagashima, A. (1970), “A comparison of Chinese and US attitudes toward foreign
products”, Journal of Marketing, Vo1. 34, January, pp. 68-74.
Okechuku, C. (1994), “The importance of product origin: a conjoint analysis of the
United States, Canada, Germany and The Netherlands”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 5-19.
Parameswaren, R and Pisharodi, R.M. (1994), “Assimilation effects in country image
research”, International Marketing Review, Vol.19 No. 3, 2002, pp 259-278
Park, J. and Stoel, L. (2005), “Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on
online apparel purchase”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 33 No.2, pp. 148-160.
Piron, F. (2000), “Consumers’ perceptions of the country-oforigin effect on purchasing
intentions of (in) conspicuous products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No.
4, pp. 308-21.
Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J. (1995), “A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-96.
Pecotich, A. and Ward, S. (2007), “Global branding, country of origin and expertise An
experimental evaluation” International Marketing Review Vol. 24 No. 3, 2007 pp.
271-296
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1988), “The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue
utilization in product evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15,
September, pp. 253-64.
Swaminathan, V., Fox, R.J. and Reddy, S.K. (2001), “The impacts of brand extension
46
Knowledge
introduction on choice”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1-15.
Samiee, S. (1994), “Customer evaluation of products in global markets”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vo1. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.
Schooler, R.D. (1971), “Bias phenomena attendant to the marketing of foreign goods in
the US”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-81.
Schaefer, A. (1995), “Consumer knowledge and country of origin effects”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No.1, 1997, pp. 56-72
Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and
validation of the CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp.
280-9
47
Knowledge
Research Questions
 How much do you know about the various types and brands of beer available
in Taiwan?
 I know a lot  Average

 I know very little  I know nothing
 Please circle the brands on the following list that you have previously tasted?
 Heineken  Kirin
 TsingTao
 San Miguel
 Corona
 Budweiser
 Becks
 Carling  Fosters
48
Knowledge
 Please circle the brand names on the list which you are familiar with
 Heineken  Corona  Majati

 Budweiser  Fosters  Kuala Label
 Kirin  Red Lion  Qing Tao
 Jack State  Hacienda  Becks
 Carling  Nagasako  Jiao Pu
 Totenbrau  Silver Dutch  San Miguel
 Please write the country of origin of the brands which you are familiar with

49
Knowledge
 In the following list there are the brand names and country of origin of 9
different beers. Please give your rating for each beer, regardless of whether you
are familiar with it or not. Therefore your answer can but need not be based on
you own experience with the lager in question.
Becks
Product of Germany Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad
a) Give your rating on the quality of

this beer
Heineken
Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad Product of the Netherlands
b) What is your image of this beer a) Give your rating on the quality of
this beer
Very stylish 5 4 3 2 1 very un-
stylish Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad
c) Do you think the beer is good value b) What is your image of this beer
for money?
Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad stylish
c) Do you think the beer is good value

San Miguel for money?
Product of the Philippines
Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad
a) Give your rating on the quality of
this beer
Carling
Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad Product of the United Kingdom
b) What is your image of this beer a) Give your rating on the quality of
this beer
stylish Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad
c) Do you think the beer is good value b) What is your image of this beer
for money?
50
Knowledge
stylish
c) Do you think the beer is good value

for money?
Corona Budweiser
Product of Mexico Product of the USA
a) Give your rating on the quality of a) Give your rating on the quality of
this beer this beer
Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad Very good 5 4 3 2 1 very bad
b) What is your image of this beer b) What is your image of this beer
Very stylish 5 4 3 2 1 un-stylish Very stylish 5 4 3 2 1 un-stylish
c) Do you think the beer is good value c) Do you think the beer is good value
for money? for money?
Kirin Fosters
Product of Japan Product of Australia
a) Give your rating on the quality of a) Give your rating on the quality of
this beer this beer
b) What is your image of this beer b) What is your image of this beer
Very stylish 5 4 3 2 1 un-stylish Very stylish 5 4 3 2 1 un-stylish
c) Do you think the beer is good value c) Do you think the beer is good value
for money? for money?
51
Knowledge
Tsingtao
Product of China
a) Give your rating on the quality of this beer
b) What is your image of this beer
Very stylish 5 4 3 2 1 un-stylish
c) Do you think the beer is good value for money?
 Please rate the quality of beer produced in the below countries
 Germany Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad

 The Netherlands Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad
 United Kingdom Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad
 China Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad
 Japan Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad
 United States Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad
 Philippines Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad
 Mexico Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad
 Australia Very good 5 4 3 2 1 Very bad
52
Knowledge
 Please rate the image of beer produced in the below countries
 Germany Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy

 The Netherlands Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy
 United Kingdom Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy
 China Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy
 Japan Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy
 United States Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy
 Philippines Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy
 Mexico Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy
 Australia Very trendy 5 4 3 2 1 Not trendy
 Please rate the value for money of the beers produced in the below countries
 Germany Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value

 The Netherlands Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value
 United Kingdom Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value
 China Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value
 Japan Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value
 United States Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value
 Philippines Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value
 Mexico Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value
 Australia Good value 5 4 3 2 1 Bad value
53
Knowledge
研究問題
 請問您對於下列各種在台灣可見的不同啤酒品牌的認識
有多少？
 我非常了解  普通
 我了解一些  我完全不了解
 請選出下列您曾經飲用過的啤酒品牌
 Heineken
 Carling
 Budweise
r
 Kirin
 Becks
 San Miguel
 TsingTao
54
Knowledge
 Fosters
 Corona
 請選出下列中您所熟悉的品牌名稱

 請寫下下列您所熟悉的品牌的品牌來源國
 Heineken  Totenbrau  Nagasako

 Budweiser  Corona  Silver Dutch
 Kirin  Fosters  Majati
 Jack State  Red Lion  Kuala Label
 Carling  Hacienda  Qing Tao
55
Knowledge
 Becks  Jiao Pu  San Miguel
 下列是九種不同啤酒的品牌及其來源國，請對於每一個問題分別評分，
不論您熟悉或不熟悉此品牌。
Becks 非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差

德國的產品
d) 您對於此德國啤酒的品質感受
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
e) 您對於此德國啤酒的印象
非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
Heineken
f) 您認為此德國啤酒的價值荷蘭的產品
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差 a) 您對於此德國啤酒的品質感受
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
San Miguel b) 您對於此德國啤酒的印象

菲律賓的產品
a) 您對於此德國啤酒的品質感受
c) 您認為此德國啤酒的價值
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
b) 您對於此德國啤酒的印象
非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行 Carling

英國的產品
56
Knowledge
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
b) 您對於此德國啤酒的印象 c) 您認為此德國啤酒的價值
非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
Budweiser
Corona 美國的產品
墨西哥的產品
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
Fosters
Kirin 澳洲的產品
日本的產品
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
57
Knowledge
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
Tsingtao
中國的產品
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 請對於下列不同國家所製造的啤酒品質給予評分
 德國非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 荷蘭非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 英國非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 中國非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 日本非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 美國非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 菲律賓非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 墨西哥非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 澳洲非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
58
Knowledge
 請對於下列不同國家所製造的啤酒的印象給予評分
 德國非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
 荷蘭非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
 英國非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
 中國非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
 日本非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
 美國非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
 菲律賓非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
 墨西哥非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
 澳洲非常流行 5 4 3 2 1 非常不流行
 請對於下列不同國家所製造的啤酒的價值給予評分
 德國非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 荷蘭非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 英國非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 中國非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 日本非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 美國非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 菲律賓非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
 墨西哥非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
59
Knowledge
 澳洲非常好 5 4 3 2 1 非常差
60

Projects - Others - A Study of Country of Origin Effects and Consumer Knowledge Amoung Taiwanese Beer Consumers - Complete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Projects - Others - A Study of Country of Origin Effects and Consumer Knowledge Amoung Taiwanese Beer Consumers - Complete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Country of Origin Effects and Consumer Knowledge:

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

Special Topics in Marketing Research

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

of the country of origin cue in product evaluations.

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

international consumers a product’s country of origin (COO) can be an important cue in

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

informational cues, are of considerable interest to international marketing practitioners

aid firms in selling their products internationally.

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

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

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

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

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

consumer product, i.e. beer.

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

purchasing beer and to test it with Taiwanese consumers.

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

dimensions of consumer knowledge and consumers’ use of COO.

As global trade is becoming a fundamental part of the world’s economy, it is

becoming increasingly important to understand consumers’ attitudes towards domestic

influence on how products are perceived by consumers.

Prior literature reflects that COE is a multifaceted phenomenon and various

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

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

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

tendencies, or even the fear of the unknown.

encompass cognitions, highlighting particular product and marketing attributes and

affect, concerning the country’s consumers.

COO effects as a product cue

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

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

intangible product characteristics, such as brand name or fame.

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

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

unfavourable influence a product’s country of origin can have on consumers’ mind-sets

“mental picture” of the qualities of the product.

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

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

consumers are unfamiliar with the product.

Research has proven that COO influences consumer’s decisions to purchase

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

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

Country of Origin Image

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

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

representation products, national characteristics, economic and political background,

history and tradition.

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

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

specific product attributes (SPA).

According to Parameswaran’s (2002) theoretical model of country image, the

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

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

Source: (Parameswaran 2002)

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

the country’s industrial development and technological advancement; an affective

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

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

The role of country image in product evaluation

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