The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
EJM
41,11/12
1518
Received December 2005
Revised June 2006
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 41 No. 11/12, 2007
pp. 1518-1544
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560710821288
Ethnocentric beliefs and
country-of-origin (COO) effect
Impact of country, product and product
attributes on Greek consumers’ evaluation of
food products
George Chryssochoidis
Laboratory of Agribusiness Management, Agricultural University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
Athanassios Krystallis
National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF), Athens, Greece, and
Panagiotis Perreas
Laboratory of Agribusiness Management, Agricultural University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
Abstract
Purpose – The present study using the Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies Scale (CET-SCALE) aims
to evaluate the level of consumer ethnocentrism (CE) and its implications on their evaluation of food
products. Furthermore, it seeks to examine the level at which country of origin (COO) effect is activated
(country, product or attribute) per consumer cluster of different level of CE in a food evaluation context.
Design/methodology/approach – For attaining the above aims, a questionnaire was developed
and completed by 274 respondents. The set of countries of origin and products under consideration
encompasses Greece, Italy and Holland and yellow cheese, ham and beer.
Findings – The use of the CET-SCALE pinpointed that the sample can be characterised as
marginally ethnocentric. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses justified the
uni-dimensionality of CE. Cluster analysis allocated the sample into two clusters, the ethnocentric
and the non-ethnocentric. The results showed that ethnocentrism affects not only consumer beliefs, but
also the way perceived quality of domestic and foreign products are evaluated, culminating in the
appearance of COO-effect. In ethnocentric consumers, the COO effect is activated at the initiatory level
of the country a food product originates in (country-specific), except when the foreign country of origin
is given, where the COO effect is activated at the level of the product type (product-specific). In the
non-ethnocentric cluster, COO does not lead to an overall acceptance or rejection, but instead it affects
the evaluation of specific product attributes (attribute-specific).
Research limitations/implications – The survey suffers the limitation of focusing on the
influence of ethnocentric beliefs in food products evaluation and not on their real impact on final
purchasing behaviour. Consumer ethnocentrism and COO effect are linked together, but the stimulus
that activates their link differs according to the strength of ethnocentric beliefs held by consumers;
that given, different marketing strategies should be applied depending on the level of CE of the
target-group selected.
Originality/value – Internationally, the issue of COO-effect is comprehensively examined, yet the
literature has focused almost explicitly on hi-tech or fashion products and services. This fact attaches
particular importance to the present study, which is concerned exclusively with food products.
Keywords Ethnocentrism, Consumer behaviour, Country of origin, Food products
Paper type Research paper
Introduction Ethnocentric
International empirical studies concerning the influence of country-of-origin (COO) beliefs and COO
effect in the evaluation of various products by consumers reveal mixed and sometimes
contradictory results, possibly due to different combinations of products, samples and effect
countries where the studies were conducted (Kaynak and Kara, 2002). The majority of
surveys underline the multidimensionality of COO-effect. Reference to the country of
origin of a product made on its label influences consumers’ perceptions regarding its 1519
quality (country-specific) (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004; Lantz and Loeb, 1996),
yet the magnitude of the effect depends on the product category (product-specific)
(Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004; Watson and Wright, 2000; Sharma et al., 1995,
in Piron, 2000; Smith, 1993; Cordell, 1992). Moreover, several other studies suggest that
the influence of COO-effect depends not only on the country of origin or the product
category, but on specific product attributes as well (attribute-specific) (Supphellen and
Rittenburgh, 2001; Juric and Worsley, 1998; Johanson et al., 1985, in Showers and
Showers, 1993).
The present study attempts to assess the impact of ethnocentrism in the evaluation of
specific food products by Greek consumers. Internationally, the issue of COO effect is
comprehensively examined, yet the literature has focused almost explicitly on hi-tech or
fashion products (automobiles, home appliances, computers, apparel etc) and services
(e.g. air transportation), living the important area of food products virtually unexplored.
Few recent exceptions constitute the surveys of Juric and Worsley (1998) (food products
in general) and Orth and Firbasova (2003) (yogurt). This particular fact attaches
importance to the present study, which is concerned exclusively with food products.
Given the fact that older consumers or people with low educational level are
expected to exhibit highly ethnocentric attitude in their evaluations of Greek versus
foreign food products, the survey focuses on relatively young and well-educated
consumers. This was necessary since the study involves foreign products, so a fair
degree of familiarity of consumers with the products and countries in question was a
prerequisite. The selection of three different countries (Greece, Holland and Italy) and
three kinds of products (beer, ham products and cheese) intends to pinpoint the level at
which COO effect emerges (country or product-specific). Also, the use of the list of food
attributes introduced by Steptoe et al. (1995) is essential for determining whether the
COO effect emerges at the food attributes level (attribute-specific).

Consumer ethnocentrism and COO effect

Consumer ethnocentrism
According to various studies, the cause of the appearance of COO effect can be found in
consumer ethnocentrism (CE) (Lantz and Loeb, 1996; Lee and Ganesh, 1999; Stoltman
et al., 1991). The origins of the CE construct can be traced back to the work by Sumner
(1906, in Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004), who introduced ethnocentrism as a
general construct reflecting the view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of
everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. Sumner’s conception
of ethnocentrism is based on the formation of “we-group” feelings, whereby the in-group
is the focal point and all out-groups are judged in relation to it. Sumner emphasised a
dichotomous structure of ethnocentrism: an unfavourable attitude toward out-groups;
and a favourable attitude toward the in-groups. The in-groups determine the standard of
judging other groups and the willingness to associate with them.
EJM CE is the application of the ethnocentric construct in the economic environment and
41,11/12 has inherited the main premises and properties of ethnocentrism. It is defined as a
“trait-like property of an individual’s personality” and encompasses “the beliefs held
by the consumers about appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made
products” (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). Sharma et al. (1995, in Piron, 2000) and Rawwas
and Rajendran (1996) demonstrated that CE may lead to overestimation of specific
1520 attributes and overall quality of domestic products and to an underestimation of that of
foreign products. However, according to Watson and Wright (2000), these attitudes
may connote consumer behaviours but they are not equivalent to them, since the latter
are product-specific. Shimp and Sharma (1987) postulated that CE can provide an
explanation as to why consumers prefer domestic over foreign products even when
there is no obvious reason for such a preference (e.g. when the foreign products are of
better quality or cheaper).
There are many factors that affect CE, with the type of product per se being one of
them. It has been found that the lever of CE varies among product categories. Sharma
et al. (1995, in Piron, 2000), indicated that the less important a product category the
greater the ethnocentric tendencies and behaviour exhibited by consumers. Also,
Javalgi et al. (2005) found that the impact of CE in purchasing intention of a particular
product is moderate when this product is perceived as absolutely necessary.
Moreover, the impact of CE depends on the level of development of consumers’
home country. According to Wang and Chen (2004), consumers from a developed
country tend to appreciate more favourably domestic products over imported ones,
hence resulting to an increase of the impact of CE on buying the former and rejecting
the latter. The reverse has been observed in developing countries, where consumers
perceive foreign products (especially those originating to prestigious countries) as
superior compared to their domestic counterparts.
Furthermore, Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004) argued that similarity between
countries of origin (in terms of culture and level of economic competitiveness) is
unrelated to preference or rejection of foreign products. Additionally, they found that
CE is sometimes negatively related to preferences for foreign products, yet it is mostly
unrelated, leading to the conclusion that, overall, CE is a more consistent predictor of
preferences for domestic products rather than for foreign products. In other words, CE
leads to consumers preferring domestic products but not necessarily rejecting foreign
ones. Finally, they postulated that the CE impact varies significantly among different
product categories and countries of origin. For that reason, they suggest that
companies should not depend solely on CE levels of target markets when foreseeing
potential success or failure of their products.

CE and COO effect: review of recent literature

In the international literature one can find many diverse definitions of the COO effect
(Khachaturian and Morganosky, 1990; Okechuku, 1994; Schaefer, 1995; Ahmed and
d’Astus, 1995, 1996; Kucukemiroglou, 1997; Knight and Calantone, 2000). According to
Wang and Lamb (1983, in Al-Sulaiti and Baker, 1998), the COO effect is an obscure,
intangible obstacle that a product (or service) confronts when entering a new market.
This obstacle is manifested with the form of negative disposition, on behalf of
consumers, towards the newly imported product or service. The entire literature
concerning the COO effect suggests that consumers’ perceptions about imported
products and their attributes are affected by the country of origin (Papadopoulos, 1993) Ethnocentric
and related to CE. The country of origin, as an information cue, activates various beliefs and COO
ethnocentric or not beliefs and the antecedent knowledge of consumers, which
subsequently affect the interpretation and evaluation of product attributes. The effect
phenomenon of evaluating products based on judging the country of origin is called
COO effect.
Since the beginning of the last decade, many changes have occurred in the 1521
international economic environment, including the globalisation of markets and the
fast growth of Asian markets, which overall offered new potential for deeper
investigation of the subject. As a result, research that took place from 1990 onwards
tackled more thoroughly the COO effect.
Following, the most representative studies of the past decade are being presented.
Smith (1993) studied the beliefs of American consumers regarding imported
products whose labels pinpointed not their specific country of origin but their continent
of origin. Findings suggested that the use of such labels might moderate the negative
bias that some consumers held against products originating from developing
countries. For instance, results revealed that consumers evaluated products from South
America as equal, in terms of quality, with the products originating from Western
Europe.
Maheswaran (1994) found that, in case of existence of unambiguous information for
a specific product (in his case: computers), experienced consumers base their choices
upon the evaluation of specific product attributes, whereas less experienced consumers
rely on the country of origin. On the other hand, when information lacks or it is
ambiguous, both types of consumers rely on country of origin so as to infer the quality
of the product. Moreover, Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2000) argued that the extent
to which a product’s country of origin cue is utilised depends on the level of consumer
involvement in its purchasing. The fewer motives consumers have to engage actively
in the buying process, the greater the probability to utilise the country of origin to infer
quality, whereas highly motivated consumers are expected to focus on specific
product’s attributes. In the latter case, country of origin is perceived as a mere
informational cue and not as a measurement of overall quality.
Yarpak and Baughan (1991) and Han (1989) found that CE influences significantly
the preferences of consumers, not only indirectly – through the evaluation processes of
each product attribute, but also directly, by affecting the formation of positive or
negative purchasing intention (COO effect). On the other hand, according to Wall et al.
(1991), the evaluation of the quality of a product and its country of origin might be
linked together, but the latter was found of minor importance when purchasing
intention has being evaluated. Similar results were reported by Rahman (2000), who
found that the COO effect is prominent in product evaluation, but does not solely affect
the final purchasing behaviour, which in turn is affected by other factors, such as price.
Roth and Romeo (1992) formulated a theoretical framework for the relationship
between consumer preferences for a country’s products, and perceptions of a
country’s culture, economy and politics. COO effect is created when the skills of a
COO do not correspond with its product’s attributes that are considered by
consumers as important. They argued that consumers’ evaluations of a specific
product from country X are based on the match between product and country.
According to these authors, consumers prefer country X as an origin for specific
EJM products when they believe that there is a match between the perceived “strengths”
41,11/12 of country X and the skills that are needed for manufacturing the product under
consideration. A preference for Swiss watches or German cars, for example, might
be explained by the perception of the workmanship of Swiss or German engineers
respectively. Same findings were observed by Moon and Jain (2002), while
investigating the influence of CE in the formation of positive or negative disposition
1522 towards foreign advertisements. Juric and Worsley (1998) argued that the COO
effect is attribute-specific. A product originating from a particular country may be
evaluated favourably on one attribute (e.g. taste of French wines) but unfavourably
on another (e.g. safety of French food products).
The magnitude of the COO effect on consumer’s choices was also explored by
Watson and Wright (2000) in their study of New Zealand consumers. In case where
imported products did not have domestic substitutes (competitive of foreign ones), then
similarity in terms of culture and politics between two countries was found to be a
major factor influencing the evaluation of products. The authors also found that highly
ethnocentric consumers, under the afore-mentioned circumstances, tend to prefer
products from “similar” countries. It is notable that, when a domestic substitute
product exists, New Zealanders preferred the domestic over the imported, even when
the foreign was perceived of better quality or cheaper. On the contrary, Supphellen and
Rittenburgh (2001) in their survey of Polish consumers found that, when foreign
products are significantly better compared to domestic ones, ethnocentric consumers
were “forced” to conform to the overall public opinion, which preferred the imported
products.
Kaynak et al. (1994) examined the impact the profile of a country has in the area of
services. They studied the beliefs of American consumers regarding 24 airline services
and discovered major differences between the users of local airlines and the consumers
that used both domestic and foreign airlines. Brunning (1997) examined the case of
Canadian airlines and found that COO was affecting consumers’ attitudes in such
extent that it was ranked as the second most important factor after price. Additionally,
Al-Sulaiti and Baker (1998) in their survey in airlines of Qatar found that foreign
airlines were more attractive than the domestic, but contrariwise, consumers preferred
to travel using domestic airlines or those originating in the broader region of Persian
Gulf. Finally, similarly to the case of tangible products, de Ruyter et al. (1998) observed
that the less important or useful a service the greater the impact of COO in consumer
perceptions.

Methodology
Aims of the study – selection of products and countries
Using the findings of the previous studies as a point of departure, the present study
aims not only to evaluate the level of ethnocentrism of Greek consumers, but also to
investigate the CE-COO effect relationship and examine the implications of the fore
mentioned notions on consumers’ perceptions regarding imported food products.
Analytically, the study has the following major aims:
(1) The assessment of the level of CE is of the utmost importance, since CE
constitutes a powerful motive that activates the COO effect (Lantz and Loeb,
1996; Lee and Ganesh, 1999; Stoltman et al. 1991). Also, it has been suggested
that CE explains a greater proportion of variance in purchasing behaviour as
 compared to elements of the marketing mix (Herche, 1994), thus constituting an Ethnocentric
important strategic component that should be taken into account by marketing beliefs and COO
practitioners. Hence, the present study aims at the assessment of the level of
ethnocentrism of Greek consumer in a food evaluation context. effect
(2) In the international literature there are several scales that have been used for the
assessment of CE. However, the most commonly used measurement instrument
is the Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies Scale (CET-SCALE), introduced by 1523
Shimp and Sharma (1987). However, even though the validity of CET-SCALE
has been repeatedly proven, its use was limited mostly in measuring CE in
developed countries (USA, Canada, Japan, etc.). In validity tests of a shorter
version of CET-SCALE in less developed countries (e.g. Hungary, Czech
Republic, Poland) differences were revealed underlying the necessity for testing
the scale in more culturally variable countries (Javalgi et al. 2005; Kaynak and
Kara, 2000). Consequently, the second aim of the study is to examine the
applicability of CET-SCALE in the case of Greek consumers, as well as the
conceptual examination of the notion of CE, which is measured through
CET-SCALE.
(3) According to some studies (Watson and Wright, 2000; Herche, 1994) CE is a
concept closely linked with purchasing behaviour. Given that the analysis of the
latter is a crucial element for the implementation of any marketing strategy, it
would be useful to examine if the sample of Greek respondents can be divided
into groups of consumers with different level of CE, as well as identifying their
socio-demographic profile. The literature review demonstrated a divergence of
views regarding consumers’ demographic characteristics that are related to CE.
In some studies, for instance, educational level has been found to correlate
negatively with CE (Orth and Firbasova, 2003; Sharma et al. 1995, in Piron,
2000), while in others it was found independent from CE (Javalgi et al., 2005).
Similarly, income was found important in the studies of Sharma et al. (1995, in
Piron, 2000) and Bailey and Pineres(1997), while it was found of questionable
importance in the studies conducted by Han (1990), McLain and Sternquist
(1991) and Javalgi et al. (2005). Consequently, the third aim of the study is to
identify the existence of different consumer clusters with varying level of CE
and their distinctive demographic characteristics.
(4) It has been mentioned that COO effect is multidimensional and affects
consumers’ perceptions at the level of country (country-specific), it can become
more concrete, concerning only specific products or it can appear at an even
more analytic level, concerning specific attributes of two substitute products
originating in two different countries. The identification and verification of the
level at which COO effect is activated is important for marketing practitioners,
since it is obvious that different levels of reference require implementation of
different strategies. Thus, the fourth aim of the study is the identification of the
level at which COO effect is activated per cluster of different level of CE in a
food evaluation context.

For attaining the above aims, a questionnaire was developed and completed though
personal interviews by 274 respondents. The set of countries of origin under
consideration in the food evaluation context of the present survey encompasses Greece,
EJM Italy and Holland. The latter two of these where included because both countries
41,11/12 export a large amount of products to the Greek food market. Avoidance of more
“exotic” countries was necessary so as to ensure an acceptable degree of familiarity of
consumers with food products originating from the set of countries examined. Also,
less developed countries were excluded from the survey in order to prevent consumer
bias, since, as we have seen, products originating from such countries are often
1524 perceived as low quality products.
The same philosophy was applied while forming the set of products under
consideration. Beer, ham products and yellow cheese are considered as
representative products of the afore-mentioned countries, ensuring familiarity of
consumers as well as satisfying a substantial degree of “compatibility” between the
products and the countries’ profile. Finally, the selection of products was carried out
keeping in mind that all three products had to have at least one domestic (Greek)
competitive product and employ ingredients of different origin (namely: ham is meat
based; cheese is milk based whereas beer is crop based), an important issue for food
products.

Construction of questionnaire, data collection and sample description

The questionnaire consists of three parts: in the first part, respondents were asked to
evaluate several product attributes using seven-point Likert-type agreement questions
with end-points 1 ¼ “totally agree” to 7 ¼ “totally disagree”. The evaluation was
carried out using the following combinations of products and countries:
.
Greek beer vs Dutch beer;
.
Greek ham products vs Italian ham products; and
.
Greek yellow cheese vs Dutch yellow cheese.

The evaluation criteria were derived from the set of 36 questions formulated by Steptoe
et al. (1995), which concerned the overall evaluation criteria that consumers bear in
mind when purchasing food products. The number of questions was modified per
product, since not all questions included in the list by Steptoe et al. (1995) were
applicable. Thus, the evaluation of beer was based on 28 characteristics, whereas ham
products and yellow cheese were evaluated using 33 and 32 characteristics
respectively.
The second part of the questionnaire comprises the CET-SCALE (Shimp and
Sharma, 1987), which consists of 17 Likert-type questions with end-points 1 ¼ “totally
agree” to 7 ¼ “totally disagree”. The scale was carefully translated and tailored to fit
the Greek food market realities. This scale has been extensively used and validated in
many studies (most recent examples: Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004; Orth and
Firbasova, 2003; Kaynak and Kara, 2002; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998), but only
one concerned the relationship between CE and COO effect in a case of food products
(Orth and Firbasova, 2003).
The last section of the questionnaire consists of questions regarding purchasing
habits for Italian and Dutch food products in general, as well as demographic
characteristics.
Data collection lasted 1.5 months (from January 15 to February 28 2005). After
appointments made to visit each respondent at his/her place, the questionnaires were
self-completed with the proper instructions and clarifications. Thus, no missing values
were recorded. The time of completion varied between 15 and 30 minutes. It is worth Ethnocentric
mentioning that, according to instructions given, the evaluation for each product’s beliefs and COO
characteristic was carried out in pairs, meaning that every product characteristic
derived from Steptoe’s list was evaluated simultaneously for both of the countries of effect
origin per food product under examination.
The socio-demographic profile of respondents is depicted in Table I.
The majority of respondents are relatively young (average age: 37.6 years) and well 1525
educated, conforming to the study’s aims as described earlier. Meta-analytic research
demonstrated that using young respondents (most of the past studies used convenience
samples comprising students) did not lead to a systematic overestimation of the COO
effect (Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999; Peterson and Jolibert, 1995; Liefeld, 1993, in
Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2004).

1. Age
,25 13.9
26-35 36.9
36-45 24.5
46-55 16.1
55 or . 8.8
2. Educational level
Non formal education 0.4
Elementary or nine-year circle 5.2
High-school and/or two-year technical 43.1
University graduate 39.8
Post-graduate or PhD holder 11.7
3. Number of persons in the household
1-2 34.3
3-4 54.0
5 or . 11.7
4. Personal monthly income (e, pre-tax)
,9,000 11.7
9,000-17,999 45.3
18,000-24,999 19.0
25,000-34,999 11.3
35,000 or . 12.8
5. Presence of under-age children in the household
Yes 28.1
No 71.9
6. Marital status
Single 38.3
Married 56.6
Divorced/widowed 4.0
Unmarried couple 1.1
Table I.
7. Gender Sample’s
Male 46.7 socio-demographic profile
Female 53.3 (n ¼ 274)
EJM Analysis and results
41,11/12 Preliminary results
Purchasing habits in relation to the products under consideration. More than one in four
respondents (27 per cent) buys Italian products more than once per month, whereas
10.9 per cent neither has bought nor has ever considered buying them. The
corresponding percentages for Dutch products are 31.4 per cent and 10.2 per cent. It is
1526 notable that in both cases (Italian and Dutch products in general) purchasing
frequencies are relatively high. As for the purchasing frequency of the products under
evaluation irrespectively of their country of origin, 20.8 per cent of the sample
purchases beer at least once a week, whereas non-beer drinkers are limited to 4.7 per
cent. In the case of ham and yellow cheese, the corresponding percentages are 34.7 per
cent and 34.7 per cent (users at least once a week) and 2.2 per cent and 2.6 per cent
(non-users).
Preferences per product type. A total of 28 characteristics of beer have been
evaluated first by consumers in paired comparisons per criterion for Greek as opposed
to Dutch beer (see Table II).

Agree Disagree
(totally/rather) (totally/rather)
Greek Dutch Greek Dutch
Evaluation characteristics: beer . . . (%) (%) (%) (%)

1. Is easily consumable/drinkable 88.7 63.9 3.0 12.0

2. Contains no additives 36.1 23.7 31 39.4
3. Tastes good 81.0 65.3 7.3 12.8
4. Contains natural ingredients 52.9 36.5 18.2 23.0
5. Is not expensive 70.8 36.1 15.0 33.6
6. Is familiar 95.3 68.2 2.8 19.3
7. Is easily available in shops and supermarkets 98.2 63.1 0.7 18.2
8. Is good value for money 64.6 41.2 11.3 18.2
9. Cheers me up 60.9 45.6 17.2 11.7
10. Smells nice 70.1 54.0 11.3 15.7
11. Can be consumed/drunk very simply 87.2 72.3 4.4 7.7
12. Helps me cope with stress 27.0 21.9 46.0 49.6
13. Has a pleasant texture 65.0 52.6 13.9 17.2
14. Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way 54.4 50.0 23.4 23.0
15. Comes from country I approve of politically – 30.4 – 28.2
16. Is like the beer I drunk when I was younger 42.3 19.3 24.8 39.1
17. Contains no artificial ingredients 23.4 14.2 40.5 42.0
18. Keeps me awake/alert 15.7 10.9 59.5 60.2
19. Packaging looks nice 56.6 58.8 11.7 9.5
20. Helps me relax 56.9 48.2 24.1 25.9
21. Takes no time to consume/drink 76.3 65.7 10.2 11.7
22. Keeps me healthy 9.9 7.3 66.1 66.8
23. Makes me feel good 56.9 47.8 21.9 26.3
24. Has the country of origin clearly marked 75.2 68.2 8.8 10.9
Table II. 25. Is what I usually drink 71.2 27.4 16.8 48.5
Consumer evaluation of 26. Helps me to cope with life 8.4 4.7 71.1 71.5
Greek and Dutch beer 27. Can be bought in shop close to where I live/work 93.4 54.7 1.5 24.1
(n ¼ 274) 28. Is cheap 54.0 29.9 15.3 29.9
Greek beer was evaluated more favourably than Dutch beer in all characteristics Ethnocentric
except for its package attractiveness/appearance (question 19). However, it is worth beliefs and COO
mentioning that 19.3 per cent of the sample is totally unfamiliar with Dutch beer (q.6)
and only 27.4 per cent consumes Dutch beer on a regular basis (q.25). Regarding effect
availability, Greek beer is rated more favourably by over 90 per cent of respondents
(q.7, 27). The characteristics which exhibited the most prominent differences (always in
favour of Greek beer) were: ease of use (q.1), price and value for money (q.5, 8), taste, 1527
aroma, feel in mouth (q.3, 10, 13), ingredients/additives (q.2, 4), as well as familiarity
with the product / traditional image (q.6, 16).
Greek ham products were evaluated more favourably, as compared to the Italian
ones, in 31 out of the 32 characteristics under consideration (see Table III).

Agree Disagree
(totally/rather) (totally/rather)
Greek Italian Greek Italian
Evaluation characteristics: ham . . . (%) (%) (%) (%)

1. Is easily consumable/edible 93.4 67.2 2.4 10.9

2. Contains no additives 9.1 6.2 70.1 65.3
3. Is low in calories 17.5 10.9 65.7 67.9
4. Tastes good 91.6 75.9 2.6 6.2
5. Contains natural ingredients 26.3 16.8 37.2 39.8
6. Is not expensive 36.5 12.8 35.0, 51.1
7. Is low in fat 13.1 8.4 63.5 65.3
8. Is familiar 94.2 66.1 2.2 19.7
9. Is nutritious 41.2 36.1 32.8 35.4
10. Is easily available in shops and supermarkets 97.1 74.5 1.1 13.1
11. Is good value for money 45.3 27.0 22.6 28.8
12. Cheers me up 20.4 15.3 47.8 50.4
13. Smells nice 67.2 56.6 13.5 16.8
14. Can be consumed/eaten very simply 93.4 85.8 2.6 5.8
15. Helps me cope with stress 7.3 4.7 74.5 75.2
16. Helps me control my weight 9.1 5.5 75.2 76.3
17. Has a pleasant texture 62.4 51.1 13.5 15.3
18. Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way 35.0 29.2 30.0 32.1
19. Comes from country I approve of politically – 36.3 – 26.5
20. Is like the delicatessen I ate when I was a child 43.8 19.3 30.3 40.6
21. Contains no artificial ingredients 10.9 4.7 63.5 65
22. Keeps me awake/alert 5.5 4.0 75.9 77.4
23. Packaging looks nice 50.0 48.5 18.2 16.5
24. Helps me relax 8.4 4.7 75.9 77.7
25. Is high in protein 57.7 49.3 17.9 20.7
26. Takes no time to consume/eat 87.6 78.8 3.3 6.6
27. Keeps me healthy 10.9 5.8 63.5 67.6
28. Makes me feel good 25.9 19.0 43.4 48.5
29. Has the country of origin clearly marked 73.4 63.5 10.2 15.7
30. Is what I usually eat 76.6 26.6 13.1 51.5 Table III.
31. Helps me to cope with life 8.4 3.3 72.6 75.9 Consumer evaluation of
32. Can be bought in shop close to where I live/work 93.1 59.9 4.0 21.5 Greek and Italian ham
33. Is cheap 33.9 12.4 27.0 47.1 products (n ¼ 274)
EJM Almost 20 per cent of the sample is unfamiliar with Italian ham (q.8), whereas 26.6 per
41,11/12 cent consume it regularly (q.30). Similarly to beer, more than 90 per cent of the sample
rated more favourably the Greek ham as much more available (q.10, 32) than the
Italian. Great differences were also observed in the ease of use (q.1), taste and aroma
(q.4, 13) and familiarity with the product/traditional image (q.8, 20). One third of the
sample (33.9 per cent) considers Greek delicatessen as cheap (q.33), whereas the
1528 corresponding percentage for the Italian products is limited to 12.4 per cent. Both
products from Greece and Italy were unfavourably evaluated in terms of health and
safety issues (q.21, 5, 2).
Greek yellow cheese was evaluated more favourably than the Dutch cheese in 29 out
of 32 characteristics (see Table IV).
Unlike the previous two product types, only 8.1 per cent of the sample is unfamiliar
with yellow cheese of Dutch origin (q.8). The most favourable characteristic of Greek

Agree Disagree
(totally/rather) (totally/rather)
Greek Dutch Greek Dutch
Evaluation characteristics: yellow cheese . . . (%) (%) (%) (%)

1. Is easily consumable/edible 93.1 83.6 2.2 6.2

2. Contains no additives 36.5 17.9 34.3 46.0
3. Is low in calories 19.0 19.3 52.2 54.4
4. Tastes good 90.5 75.9 3.3 8.4
5. Contains natural ingredients 41.6 21.9 21.9 33.6
6. Is not expensive 34.3 22.6 37.2 45.3
7. Is low in fat 17.5 18.2 51.8 52.2
8. Is familiar 94.2 81.0 2.5 8.1
9. Is nutritious 75.2 60.6 8.0 12.8
10. Is easily available in shops and supermarkets 97.8 87.2 0.4 5.9
11. Is good value for money 45.6 32.5 24.1 28.4
12. Cheers me up 24.5 16.1 44.5 50.0
13. Smells nice 71.9 57.7 10.2 13.1
14. Can be consumed/eaten very simply 92.3 84.3 1.5 3.7
15. Helps me cope with stress 7.7 5.8 65.7 68.7
16. Helps me control my weight 14.2 13.5 66.5 67.2
17. Has a pleasant texture 71.5 63.5 9.5 12.0
18. Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way 42.7 37.2 18.6 21.6
19. Comes from country I approve of politically 31.1 26.4
20. Is like the cheese I ate when I was a child 48.9 29.2 29.9 37.6
21. Contains no artificial ingredients 24.1 7.7 42.0 57.6
22. Keeps me awake/alert 7.3 4.0 67.5 70.1
23. Packaging looks nice 48.2 48.5 15.3 13.2
24. Helps me relax 7.3 6.9 65.7 66.5
25. Takes no time to consume/eat 87.6 78.5 3.6 6.9
26. Keeps me healthy 35.4 24.1 31.4 37.6
27. Makes me feel good 33.9 27.7 35.1 40.2
28. Has the country of origin clearly marked 72.6 66.4 7.3 10.2
Table IV. 29. Is what I usually eat 80.7 48.5 10.2 32.9
Consumer evaluation of 30. Helps me to cope with life 11.7 7.3 61.3 64.2
Greek and Dutch yellow 31. Can be bought in shop close to where I live/work 96.0 81.4 1.1 8.0
cheese (n ¼ 274) 32. Is cheap 35.8 23.0 31.4 35.4
cheese which the overwhelming majority of respondents favours over the Dutch ones, Ethnocentric
concern its better availability (q.10, 31). Greek yellow cheese is regularly consumed by beliefs and COO
80.7 per cent of respondents (q.29), whereas the corresponding percentage for the Dutch
cheese is 48.5 per cent, significantly higher compared to Dutch beer and Italian ham. effect
Substantial differences in favour of the Greek cheese are also observed in other
characteristics, such as taste (q. 4) and price (q.6). Another important finding regards
consumer perception that Greek cheese is a safer or healthier to consume cheese (q.2, 1529
21), but Dutch cheese is better in terms of its fat/calories content (q.3, 7). Similarly to
beer, Dutch cheese is evaluated as packed in a more attractive way (q.23). Finally, it is
notable that the majority of respondents argued that all three types of Greek products
bear on their labelling a clear indication of their origin (q.28).
Results of CET-SCALE analysis. Data collected for the entire sample lead to the
estimation of mean CE at 3.85 in the 1-7 scale (SD ¼ 1:05), revealing a marginally
ethnocentric sample of consumers (see Table V).
CET-SCALE questions with the most salient results are summarised as follows:
89.8 per cent of the sample argues that buying Greek products helps creating jobs
in Greece (q.3). However, the opposite does not appears to apply, since 61.3 per cent
of respondents believe that buying foreign products does not augment the
unemployment rate in Greece (q.11). On the other hand, 64.6 per cent of the sample
disagrees with the statement that “buying foreign products constitutes an

CET-SCALE Meana St. dev.

1. Greek people should always buy Greek-made products instead of imports 3.07 0.10
2. Only those products that are unavailable in Greece should be imported 3.20 0.12
3. Buy Greek-made products. Keep Greece working 1.99 0.07
4. Greek products, first, last and foremost 3.74 0.11
5. Purchasing foreign-made products is anti-Greek 5.03 0.10
6. It is not right to purchase foreign-made products, because it puts Greeks out
of jobs 4.07 0.11
7. A real Greek should always buy Greek-made products 4.67 0.11
8. We should purchase products manufactured is Greece instead of letting other
countries get rich out of us 4.03 0.12
9. It is always better to purchase Greek products 3.45 0.11
10. There should be very little trading or purchasing of goods from other
countries unless out of necessity 3.33 0.11
11. Greeks should not buy foreign products, because this hurts Greek business
and cause unemployment 3.81 0.11
12. Barriers should be put on all imports 4.22 0.10
13. It may cost me in the long-run but I prefer to support Greek products 3.37 0.10
14. Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products in our markets 4.93 0.10
15. Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce their entry into Greece 4.15 0.11
16. We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot
obtain within our own country 3.63 0.11
17. Greek consumers who purchase products made in other countries are
responsible for putting their fellow Greeks out of work 4.80 0.11
Total mean value 3.85 1.05 Table V.
Mean value and standard
a
Note: 1 ¼ strongly agree, 2 ¼ agree, 3 ¼ rather agree, 4 ¼ neither . . . nor . . .; 5 ¼ rather disagree, deviation, CET-SCALE
6 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ strongly disagree (n ¼ 274)
EJM anti-Greek act” (q.5) and, similarly, 56.6 per cent dissent from the statement that “a
41,11/12 real Greek should buy only Greek products” (q. 7). A notable finding is also
observed in relation to the statement that foreigners should not be allowed to sell
their products in Greece (q. 14), where 64.2 per cent of respondents disagree. Finally,
55 per cent of the sample believes that it is always better to buy domestic products
(q.9) and 58.8 per cent prefers to buy Greek products, even if they are more
1530 expensive than the foreign ones (q.13).

Principal components and factor analyses of CET-SCALE

The conceptual examination of ethnocentrism aims to test the applicability of the
CET-SCALE on the present sample of young and well-educated Greek consumers, thus
fulfilling the second aim of the study. The notion of CE is conceptually explored using
principal components and factor analyses methodology (SPSS v. 12).
Principal components analysis revealed one factor (eigenvalue 10.13) explaining
59.6 per cent of the total variance (see Table VI).
The loadings of all 17 variables of the principal component are higher than 0.6,
meaning that all variables measure the same concept of consumer ethnocentrism,
which in this case is found to be uni-dimensional, as described in the relevant literature
(Orth and Firbasova, 2003; Kaynak and Kara, 2002). However, the rotated solution in
factor analysis (varimax with Kaiser normalisation) revealed that the 17 variables can
be grouped in two almost equally strong factors with exceptionally high reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha values higher than 0.90), while the two factors together explain 66.03
per cent of the total variance.
The first factor conceptually contains the expression of a combined
strong-national-geared behaviour (var.5, 7, 8, 17) and an almost hostile attitude
towards foreign products, whose purchase is regarded as detrimental for the society
(var.6, 11). Moreover, factor 1 encompasses an utterly drastic attitude against imported
products and foreign countries: “diminution of imports”, “imposition of heavy taxes on
imported goods”, “foreigners should not be allowed to sell their products in Greece”
(var.12, 14, 15). The afore-mentioned variables represent the most radical statements of
CET-SCALE and reflect the social reaction against the “menace” foreign products
constitute. Consequently, factor 1 is termed as “hard” ethnocentrism.
On the other hand, factor 2 encompasses statements with relatively more
“temperate” meaning. For instance, the following variables “Only those products that
are unavailable in Greece should be imported” (var.2), “There should be very little
trading or purchasing of goods from other countries unless out of necessity” (var.10)
and “It is always better to purchase Greek products” (var.9) are statements that do not
prompt for the overall rejection of foreign products, but simply emphasise a preference
towards domestic products and urge for their protection. Factor 2 can thus be termed
“soft” ethnocentrism.
Confirmatory factor analysis was then performed for the factor pattern suggested
by the exploratory analysis. Variables 5, 7, 8, 17, 6, 11, 12, 14 and 15 were specified as
indicators of the “hard” ethnocentrism factor and the remaining eight CET-SCALE
variables were specified as indicators of the “soft” factor. Two models were estimated
by means of maximum likelihood (using LISREL 8.54): an independence model,
assuming that the interrelationships between all variables were zero, and the
hypothesised model outlined above. The independence model was clearly rejected
 Ethnocentric
Factor analysis
Principal loadings beliefs and COO
components Factor Factor effect
loadingsa 1 2

1. Greek people should always buy Greek-made products

instead of imports 0.80 0.73 1531
2. Only those products that are unavailable in Greece
should be imported 0.72 0.78
3. Buy Greek-made products. Keep Greece working 0.61 0.75
4. Greek products, first, last and foremost 0.86 0.51 0.71
5. Purchasing foreign-made products is anti-Greek 0.80 0.80
6. It is not right to purchase foreign-made products,
because it puts Greeks out of jobs 0.86 0.69 0.51
7. A real Greek should always buy Greek-made products 0.84 0.76
8. We should purchase products manufactured is Greece
instead of letting other countries get rich out of us 0.83 0.71
9. It is always better to purchase Greek products 0.77 0.62
10. There should be very little trading or purchasing of
goods from other countries unless out of necessity 0.79 0.70
11. Greeks should not buy foreign products, because this
hurts Greek business and cause unemployment 0.87 0.71 0.52
12. Barriers should be put on all imports 0.73 0.55
13. It may cost me in the long-run but I prefer to support
Greek products 0.69 0.64
14. Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products in
our markets 0.70 0.79
15. Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce their
entry into Greece 0.67 0.70
16. We should buy from foreign countries only those
products that we cannot obtain within our own country 0.72 0.58
17. Greek consumers who purchase products made in other
countries are responsible for putting their fellow Greeks
out of work 0.78 0.70
Eigenvalue 10.13 5.90 5.32
Explained variance (%) 59.62 34.72 31.30 Table VI.
Cronbach alpha 0.9388 0.9130 Principal component and
factor analyses,
Note: a The table displays only loadings greater than 0.500 CET-SCALE (n ¼ 274)

(x 2 ½136
¼ 14; 617:96). A chi-square difference test indicated a non significant

improvement in fit from the independence model to the hypothesised model: x 2 ½118
¼
719:51 (satisfactory fit when chi square value is less than three times the degrees of
freedom) and root mean squared error of approximation RMSEA ¼ 0:137. The final
estimates are shown in Figure 1 (standardised solution).

Identification of different consumers’ clusters (cluster analysis)

The 17 variables of the CET-SCALE were used in the subsequent level of analysis in
order to examine the possible existence of consumer clusters with different CE level.
After the initial implementation of hierarchical cluster analysis, the procedure of quick
clustering (k-means cluster analysis) followed, with the option to identify two to six
EJM
41,11/12

1532

Figure 1.
Confirmatory factor
analysis model of
consumer ethnocentrism
(standardised estimates,
two-factorial hypothesis)

clusters, according to the size of the sample. Information about the distribution of
consumers in the clusters with the aid of a nominal variable is created (cluster
membership variable) for both the hierarchical and the k-means solutions. The option
of two clusters is finally selected (bivariate correlation between the hierarchical cluster
membership variable and the k-means cluster membership variable ¼ 0:841, p , 0:01):
cluster 1 comprises 164 consumers (59.8 per cent of the sample) and cluster 2 comprises
110 consumers (40.2 per cent of the sample). The analytical description of the clusters
in relation to the 17 CET-SCALE variables is as follows (see Table VII):
 Ethnocentric
Cluster 1 Cluster 2
(n1 ¼ 59:8%) (n2 ¼ 40:2)) beliefs and COO
Std Std t-test effect
CET-SCALEa Mean dev. Mean dev. t Sig.

1. Greek people should always buy Greek-made

*
products instead of imports 2.10 1.092 4.53 1.379 16.2 1533
2. Only those products that are unavailable in
Greece should be imported 2.02 1.315 4.95 1.319 18.0 *
3. Buy Greek-made products. Keep Greece working 1.49 0.779 2.73 1.401 9.37 *
4. Greek products, first, last and foremost 2.62 1.307 5.42 1.176 18.0 *
5. Purchasing foreign-made products is un-Greek 4.15 1.641 6.33 0.756 12.9 *
6. It is not right to purchase foreign-made products,
because it puts Greeks out of jobs 3.01 1.414 5.65 0.982 16.9 *
7. A real Greek should always buy Greek-made
products 3.70 1.659 6.12 0.865 14.0 *
8. We should purchase products manufactured is
Greece instead of letting other countries get rich
out of us 3.02 1.568 5.55 1.254 14.1 *
9. It is always better to purchase Greek products 2.62 1.407 4.68 1.514 11.5 *
10. There should be very little trading or purchasing
of goods from other countries unless out of
necessity 2.35 1.134 4.78 1.455 15.4 *
11. Greeks should not buy foreign products, because
this hurts Greek business and cause
unemployment 2.82 1.388 5.28 1.142 15.4 *
12. Barriers should be put on all imports 3.46 1.520 5.35 1.253 10.8 *
13. It may cost me in the long run but I prefer to
support Greek products 2.76 1.253 4.27 1.596 8.7 *
14. Foreigners should not be allowed to put their
products in our markets 4.26 1.570 5.93 1.098 9.6 *
15. Foreign products should be taxed heavily to
reduce their entry into Greece 3.52 1.746 5.10 1.354 8.0 *
16. We should buy from foreign countries only those
products that we cannot obtain within our own
country 2.71 1.383 5.00 1.465 13.1 *
17. Greek consumers who purchase products made
in other countries are responsible for putting Table VII.
their fellow Greeks out of work 3.91 1.756 6.11 0.817 12.2 * Means, standard
Mean ethnocentrism per cluster 2.97 1.407 5.16 1.225 deviations and
statistically significant
Notes: a 1 ¼ strongly agree, 2 ¼ agree, 3 ¼ rather agree, 4 ¼ neither . . . nor . . ., 5 ¼ rather disagree, differences of clusters,
6 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ strongly disagree; * Statistically significant for p , 0:01 CET-SCALE (n ¼ 274)

.
Cluster 1 (n1 ¼ 164): ethnocentric consumers. Mean agreement with all 17
statements is relatively low (2.97 in the 1-7 scale). Given that agreement score
value lower than 4 denotes ethnocentric respondents, cluster 1 encompasses
individuals with relatively pronounced ethnocentric beliefs.
.
Cluster 2: non-ethnocentric consumers. Mean agreement with all 17 statements of
CET-SCALE is 5.16, indicating a cluster that comprises individuals with
relatively weak ethnocentric beliefs.
EJM As for demographic variables, age, educational level, marital status and family size
41,11/12 exhibit statistically significant differences between the two clusters (see Table VIII).
Age has been repeatedly mentioned in the literature as a variable with high
discriminating power among consumers in terms of their ethnocentrism (Orth and
Firbasova, 2003; Sharma et al. 1995, in Piron, 2000). Marital status and family size
turned out to be statistically significant presumably due to their relation with age.
1534 Ethnocentric consumers (cluster 1) are mainly older (especially in the categories over
46 years old), as opposed to non-ethnocentric consumers (cluster 2) whose
overwhelming majority is younger than 35 years. As for education, it is impressive
that the large majority of non-ethnocentric are highly educated (tertiary level) as
compared to ethnocentric that are mostly limited to secondary education. Finally, it is
worth noting that none of the variables concerning purchasing frequency for the
products/countries under consideration was found statistically different between the
two clusters (see Table IX).

Cluster 1 (59.8%): Cluster 2 (40.2%):

ethnocentric non-ethnocentric
Characteristics (%) (%) t-test Sig.

Sex 1.299 n.s.

Male 43.9 50.9
Female 56.1 49.1
Age 16.790 *
, 35 years old 41.0 65.5
. 35 years old 59.0 34.5
Marital status 18.362 *
Married 65.9 42.7
Unmarried 30.6 50.9
Divorced/widower 2.4 6.4
Unmarried couple 1.1 0.0
Educational level 31.915 *
University graduate or higher 42.1 65.4
Personal monthly income (e, pre-tax) 2.848 n.s.
, 9,000 9.8 14.5
9,000-18,000 48.8 40.0
18,000-25,000 18.9 19.1
25,000-35,000 10.4 12.7
. 35,000 12.2 13.6
Family size 15.791 *
1-2 31.7 38.2
3-4 55.5 51.8
5 or more 12.8 10.0
Under-age children 0.921 n.s.
Yes 27.4 29.1
Table VIII. No 72.6 70.9
Demographic profile of
the two clusters Notes: * Statistically significant for p , 0:05; n.s. non statistically significant
 Ethnocentric
Cluster 1 Cluster 2
(59.8%) (40.2%) beliefs and COO
Ethnocentric Non-ethnocentric effect
Characteristics (%) (%) t-test Sig.

Italian products purchasing frequency 12.284 n.s.

I have never purchased, but I intend to do so 12.2 9.1 1535
I have never purchased nor thought of 4.9 5.5
I have purchased but I won’t again 6.7 0.9
I purchase once or twice a year 16.5 10.0
I purchase few times a year 32.3 35.5
I purchase few times a month 24.4 30.9
I purchase in a weekly basis 3.0 8.2
Dutch products purchasing frequency 3.499 n.s.
I have never purchased, but I intend to do so 7.3 7.3
I have never purchased nor thought of 3.7 1.8
I have purchased but I won’t again 6.1 3.6
I purchase once or twice a year 7.9 9.1
I purchase few times a year 38.4 34.5
I purchase few times a month 28.0 36.4
I purchase in a weekly basis 8.5 7.3
Beer purchasing frequency 1.409 n.s.
At least once a week 20.7 20.9
Few times a month 27.4 28.2
Once a month 11.6 15.5
Few times a year 34.8 31.8
Never 5.5 3.6
Delicatessen purchasing frequency 4.137 n.s.
At least once a week 35.4 33.6
Few times a month 37.2 37.3
Once a month 9.8 16.4
Few times a year 14.6 11.8
Never 3.0 0.9
Yellow cheese purchasing frequency 3.708 n.s.
At least once a week 46.3 47.3
Few times a month 32.3 39.1
Once a month 9.1 4.5 Table IX.
Few times a year 9.8 6.4 Purchasing behaviour of
Never 2.4 2.7 the 2 clusters in terms of
the products under
Note: n.s. non statistically significant evaluation, per cent

Assessment of product evaluation criteria per cluster

The process of the evaluation of products was repeated for each cluster (see Tables X
and XI).
Comparing the attributes of consumers in the two clusters towards Greek and Dutch
beer, it is found that ethnocentric consumers evaluate the two products differently
(statistically significant differences) in 26 out of 27 attributes (96.3 per cent). On the
contrary, only in 12 attributes (44.4 per cent) the two products are perceived differently
by the non-ethnocentric. Regarding ham products from Greece and Italy, ethnocentric
 t-tests)
EJM

1536

Table X.
41,11/12

Differences per cluster

beer, Greek and Italian

delicatessen and Greek
and Dutch cheese (paired
between Greek and Dutch
Beer Delicatessen Yellow cheese
Greek and Dutch Greek and Italian Greek and Dutch
Characteristics of evaluation Ethnocentric Non-ethnocentric Ethnocentric Non-ethnocentric Ethnocentric Non-ethnocentric
1. Is easily consumable/edible 0.000 * 0.0 * 0.000 * 0.003 * 0.000 * 0.330 (n.s.)
2. Contains no additives 0.000 * 0.030 * * 0.857 (n.s.) 0.610 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.000 *
3. Is low in calories – – 0.000 * 0.741 (n.s.) 0.009 * 0.164 (n.s.)
4. Tastes good 0.000 * 0.595 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.834 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.029 * *
5. Contains natural ingredients 0.000 * 0.006 * 0.000 * 0.092 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.000 *
6. Is not expensive 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.001 * 0.027 * *
7. Is low in fat – – 0.001 * 0.320 (n.s.) 0.105 (n.s.) 0.141 (n.s.)
8. Is familiar 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.017 * *
9. Is nutritious – – 0.001 * 0.052 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.000 *
10. Is easily available in shops and supermarkets 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.001 *
11. Is good value for money 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.002 * 0.000 * 0.348 (n.s.)
12. Cheers me up 0.000 * 0.735 (n.s.) 0.001 * 0.253 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.510 (n.s.)
13. Smells nice 0.000 * 0.360 (n.s.) 0.000 * 1.000 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.390 (n.s.)
14. Can be consumed/eaten very simply 0.000 * 0.089 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.038 * * 0.000 * 0.348 (n.s.)
15. Helps me cope with stress 0.001 * 0.083 (n.s.) 0.137 (n.s.) 0.707 (n.s.) 0.014 * * 0.025 * *
16. Helps me control my weight – – 0.082 (n.s.) 0.530 (n.s.) 0.054 0.339 (n.s.)
17. Has a pleasant texture 0.000 * 0.283 (n.s.) 0.001 * 0.294 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.777 (n.s.)
18. Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way 0.000 * 0.139 (n.s.) 0.002 * 0.200 (n.s.) 0.001 * 0.804 (n.s.)
20. Are like the products I ate when I was a child 0.000 * 0.002 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 *
21. Contains no artificial ingredients 0.000 * 0.071 (n.s.) 0.007 * 0.031 * * 0.000 * 0.000 *
22. Keeps me awake/alert 0.003 * 0.090 (n.s.) 0.145 (n.s.) 0.469 (n.s.) 0.008 * 0.158 (n.s.)
23. Packaging looks nice 0.414 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.526 (n.s.) 0.011 * * 0.127 (n.s.) 0.004 *
24. Helps me relax 0.000 * 0.540 (n.s.) 0.001 * 0.052 (n.s.) 0.010 * 0.259 (n.s.)
25. Is high in protein – – 0.000 * 0.264 (n.s.) – –
26. Takes no time to consume/eat 0.000 * 0.400 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.117 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.852 (n.s.)
27. Keeps me healthy 0.041 * * 0.530 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.158 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.003 *
28. Makes me feel good 0.000 * 0.625 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.196 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.334 (n.s.)
29. Has the country of origin clearly marked 0.000 * 0.302 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.221 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.927 (n.s.)
30. Is what I usually eat 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 *
31. Helps me to cope with life 0.019 * * 0.863 (n.s.) 0.001 * 0.274 (n.s.) 0.000 * 0.235 (n.s.)
32. Can be bought in shop close to where I live/work 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 *
33. Is cheap 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.035 * *
Note: Question 19 “Comes from country I approve of politically” was left out since there is no corresponding reply for the equivalent Greek product; * statistically
significant differences for p , 0:01; * * statistically significant differences for p , 0:05; n.s.: non statistically significant
 Ethnocentric
Significance
Characteristics of evaluation Ethnocentric Non-ethnocentric beliefs and COO
1. Is easily consumable/drinkable 0.000 * 0.002 *
effect
2. Contains no additives 0.164 (n.s.) 0.058 (n.s.)
3. Tastes good 0.000 * 0.650 (n.s.)
4. Contains natural ingredients 0.000 * 0.000 * 1537
5. Is not expensive 0.000 * 0.073 (n.s.)
6. Is familiar 0.008 * 0.200 (n.s.)
7. Is easily available in shops and supermarkets 0.000 * 0.000 *
8. Is good value for money 0.004 * 0.285 (n.s.)
9. Cheers me up 0.000 * 0.000 *
10. Smells nice 0.122 (n.s.) 0.250 (n.s.)
11. Can be consumed/drunk very simply 0.002 * 0.000 *
12. Helps me cope with stress 0.000 * 0.000 *
13. Has a pleasant texture 0.000 * 0.283 (n.s.)
14. Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way 0.046 * * 0.961 (n.s.)
16. Is like the beer I drunk when I was a child 0.316 (n.s.) 0.105 (n.s.)
17. Contains no artificial ingredients 0.000 * 0.029 * *
18. Keeps me awake/alert 0.027 * * 0.005 *
19. Packaging looks nice 0.264 (n.s.) 0.001 *
20. Helps me relax 0.000 * 0.000 *
21. Takes no time to consume/drink 0.007 * 0.000 *
22. Keeps me healthy 0.000 * 0.000 *
23. Makes me feel good 0.000 * 0.000 *
24. Has the country of origin clearly marked 0.258 (n.s.) 0.257 (n.s.)
25. Is what I usually drink 0.000 * 0.072 (n.s.)
26. Helps me to cope with life 0.033 * * 0.105 (n.s.)
27. Can be bought in shop close to where I live/work 0.000 * 0.000 *
28. Is cheap 0.038 * * 0.530 (n.s.) Table XI.
Differences per cluster
Notes: Question 15 “Comes from country I approve of politically” was left out since it was common for between Dutch beer and
the two products; * statistically significant differences for p , 0:01; * * statistically significant yellow cheese, per cluster
differences for p , 0:05; n.s.: non statistically significant (paired t-tests)

consumers evaluate them differently in 27 out of 33 attributes (81.8 per cent) whereas
the non-ethnocentric in only 13 (37.5 per cent). Correspondingly, the ethnocentric
consumers perceive Greek yellow cheese as differing from the Dutch one in 29 out of 32
attributes (93.5 per cent) and the non-ethnocentric consumers in only 15 out of 32
attributes (48.3 per cent).
The same pattern can be observed when comparing two products from the same
country (beer and yellow cheese from Holland). Ethnocentric respondents perceive the
two products as different in 22 out of their 27 (common) attributes (81.4 per cent),
whereas non-ethnocentric consumers evaluate them differently only in 14 attributes
(51.8 per cent).
Interestingly, for the overwhelming majority of attributes, both ethnocentric and
non-ethnocentric consumers evaluate more favourably the Greek products over their
foreign origin counterparts. More specifically, ethnocentric consumers evaluate Greek
products as superior to foreign alternatives in all attributes apart from the additional
chemical substances content in ham products. The non-ethnocentric consumers also
evaluated Greek products more favourably, albeit the differences between products of
EJM Greek and non-Greek origin are not as prominent as in the case of the ethnocentric.
41,11/12 Striking differences were observed in the price, value for money, ease of consumption
and availability/familiarity in beer and ham. Regarding Greek yellow cheese, price
along with attributes related to health and safety are the most favourably evaluated by
the non-ethnocentric consumers. A notable fact is that both ethnocentric and
non-ethnocentric perceive the three Greek product types as traditional (“Are like the
1538 products I ate when I was a child”), which adds greater emotional value.

Discussion
The evaluation of CE level of (relatively younger) Greeks consumers is the first aim of
the study. Use of the CET-SCALE (Shimp and Sharma, 1987) showed an average value
of 3.85 in the 1 to 7 scale. This result pinpoints that the sample of mainly younger and
well-educated respondents used in the present survey can not be characterised as
particularly ethnocentric.
Principal component and confirmatory factor analyses were used to fulfil the second
aim. While the former extracted two (explaining 59.62 per cent of total variance), the
latter confirmed only one component justifying the uni-dimensionality of CE
postulated in the literature.
As for the third aim, cluster analysis statistically imposed the allocation of the
sample in two clusters. The first cluster (59.8 per cent of the sample) was characterised
as ethnocentric (average value of 2.97) and encompassed the older and less educated
individuals of the sample. The second cluster (40.2 per cent) was characterised as
non-ethnocentric (average value of 5.16) and comprises mostly young and
well-educated respondents. The fore mentioned findings confirm most of the
international literature, where it has been agreed that consumer ethnocentrism is
directly related to age (the older one person, the more likely to exhibit ethnocentric
beliefs), while there is a reverse relation of ethnocentrism with education (the higher the
education, the lesser the level of ethnocentrism).
Moreover, the incongruity observed in age increments underlines the existence of a
sudden change regarding ethnocentric beliefs: the highest percentages in every age
increment can be observed in the ethnocentric cluster, excluding the respondents up to
35 years old whose majority belonged to the non-ethnocentric cluster. Consequently, it
seems that from the last generation onwards (namely people below the age of 35),
consumers are less ethnocentric as compared to previous generations. This
phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that younger individuals are more
acquainted with foreign countries and more receptive to the products they produce,
given Greece’s accession in the European Union (EU) during the early 1980s. It is thus
possible that modern consumers (between 26-35 years old) are less prejudiced when
evaluating foreign products and adopt a more sceptical stance towards traditional
stereotypes such as “Greek origin equals good quality”, etc.
Finally, concerning the fourth objective, cluster analysis results showed that
ethnocentrism affects not only consumer beliefs but also the way the perceived quality
of domestic and foreign products is evaluated, culminating in the appearance of
COO effect.
Examination of preferences of the ethnocentric consumers highlights the existence
of statistically significant differences in the way they evaluate Greek and foreign
products in favour of the former. These differences were observed for the vast majority
of product attributes (26 out of 27 beer attributes, 27 out of 32 ham attributes and 28 out Ethnocentric
of yellow cheese attributes). Moreover, it is worth noting that in all three product beliefs and COO
categories, the attribute of “clear indication of the country of origin” was evaluated
statistically differently meaning that ethnocentric consumers do pay attention in the effect
indication of Greece as the country of origin in food products. It can be thus concluded
that, in the case of ethnocentric consumers, the COO effect is activated at the initiatory
level, namely that of the country a food product originates in (country-specific), and not 1539
at the level of the product type (product-specific) or product attributes
(attribute-specific), since in every domestic vs. foreign comparison the Greek product
was evaluated distinctively and overwhelmingly higher, with no variations from
product to product or from attribute to attribute (see Figure 2).
Especially regarding the comparison between Dutch beer and Dutch yellow cheese,
ethnocentric consumers evaluated differently 22 out of their 27 common attributes (81.4
per cent), connoting that they perceive these two products as two different “entities”,
regardless their country of origin. That leads to the conclusion that when the foreign

Figure 2.
Level of activation of the
link between consumer
ethnocentrism and COO
effect per product origin
during product evaluation
EJM country of origin is given, then the COO effect is activated at the level of the product
41,11/12 type (product-specific).
Concerning the non-ethnocentric consumers, there were also statistically significant
differences observed in the way they evaluated Greek and foreign products, albeit in a
lesser degree. The non-ethnocentric generally evaluated more favourably the domestic
products however, unlike the ethnocentric, foreign products were not overall rejected:
1540 many of their attributes were evaluated as superior comparing to the corresponding
attributes of their Greek alternatives. In every comparison between the country
product and the foreign alternative non-ethnocentric consumers perceived them as
having significant differences in no more than the 50 per cent of their attributes. It is
worth noting that the attribute of “clear indication of the country of origin” was not
found statistically different, meaning that non-ethnocentric consumers do not pay
attention necessarily in the indication of Greece as the country of origin in food. Given
that statistical differences were not observed for the majority of attributes, it cannot be
claimed that country of origin has a distinctive effect over non-ethnocentric consumers’
evaluations. On the contrary, the partially only differentiation in some attributes
denotes the existence of COO effect activated at the level of product attributes
(attribute-specific). The country of origin does not lead to an overall acceptance or
rejection, but instead it affects the evaluation of specific product attributes.
Similar findings were extracted during the Dutch beer vs Dutch yellow cheese
comparison. From the body of 27 common attributes, only 15 (55.6 per cent) were found
statistically significant. This relatively modest percentage leads to the conclusion that
non-ethnocentric consumers do not perceive two products of foreign origin as two entirely
different “entities”, at least not as entirely as in the case of the ethnocentric consumers.
Since the differences are located in specific attributes, we presume that the COO effect is
salient not at the level of product but at the level of attribute (attribute-specific).
Non-ethnocentric respondents evaluated several foreign products’ attributes
positively, especially the attributes concerning their perceived quality. More
specifically, they appeared to appreciate “taste” and the “feeling in the mouth” of
the Dutch beer and Italian ham. As for the Dutch yellow cheese, it was favourably
evaluated in terms of “taste”, “feeling in the mouth”, “nutritional value”, “low
fat/calorie content” and “relaxation”. Finally, all three foreign product types where
evaluated positively in terms of “ease of consumption”, while their package was
evaluated as superior to that of their Greek counterparts.
Finally, while the effect of ethnocentrism on consumers’ beliefs towards food products
is unquestionable, no equivalent effect was observed in the purchasing frequency habits
towards products originating from foreign countries. Cross-tabulation of purchasing
frequencies with the two clusters demonstrate few trivial differences between
ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric consumers, but none of them was found
statistically significant. Thus, it appears that ethnocentrism does not apparently affect
the final purchasing behaviour, as this is reflected through the number of purchases of
foreign products. As it was mentioned earlier, Wall et al. (1991) found that the country of
origin relates to products’ quality evaluations but it is of trivial importance when it
comes to evaluation of purchasing likelihood. Similar findings arose by Rahman (2000)
who postulated that COO effect influences consumers’ product evaluations but not
necessarily their final purchasing behaviour, as the latter is affected by other more
powerful predictors of behaviour, such as price sensitivity.
Conclusions – managerial implications Ethnocentric
The current study argues that middle-aged Greek consumers (age of 40 or older) exhibit a beliefs and COO
moderate ethnocentric attitude in the evaluation of food products, whereas younger
consumers (around 35 years old) are much less ethnocentric. Focus on the three products effect
under evaluation and separately for the two clusters of ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric
consumers revealed the set of food attributes that consumers seem to mostly appreciate.
CE and COO effect are linked together, but the stimulus that activates their link 1541
differs between the two clusters. In the ethnocentric cluster, the mere mentioning of a
foreign COO suffices to create a negative bias against foreign products, which
subsequently leads to a non-favourable evaluation of their attributes, as compared to
domestic products. On the other hand, in the non-ethnocentric cluster COO effect
appears as an expression of ethnocentrism only in the level of product attributes,
resulting to a favourable but selective evaluation of only specific attributes. Simple
mentioning of the COO (between Greek and foreign foods) or the type of a product
(between foreign origin foods) is not enough to activate the link between ethnocentrism
and COO effect.
Ethnocentric consumers evaluated more favourably all three Greek products. Given
that their ethnocentric beliefs are activated at the level of the country a food product is
originated in, it is easily understandable that a successful marketing strategy should
focus on bringing out the Greek origin of products. However, in the case of
non-ethnocentric consumers such a strategy will not be effective since the superiority
of Greek products is limited to specific only attributes per product category.
The present study suffers the limitation of the sample not being representative of
the Greek population. All respondents were residence of the capital city (Athens), while
the sample is purposively biased towards relatively younger and more educated
consumers. It is not possible thus to generalise the findings for the entire population
with various demographic profiles. Results may be different in rural areas, where
educational level as well as familiarity with foreign products is lower.
Moreover, the present study focused on the influence of ethnocentric beliefs in food
products evaluation (COO effect) and not on their impact on final purchasing
behaviour. It would be challenging for future research to examine if the current
findings apply to a broader set of products and countries of origin, including countries
that differ significantly from EU countries in cultural and economic terms. Also, in
light of the current results, future research should consider products with no domestic
competitive alternatives, as well as more than two foreign countries of origin for each
product, so as to examine whether a country is regarded as the “benchmark” for each
product type or are all foreign products are being evaluated similarly. Another
promising area would be the further examination of COO effect with reference to brand
names in order to investigate their possibility of moderating or intensifying the
phenomenon. Finally, it would be useful to approach the issue of COO effect
considering more factors of psychological, political and technological nature, such as
the perceived risk and level of development of the country of origin.

References
Ahmed, S. and d’Astus, A. (1995), “Comparison of country of origin effects on household and
organizational buyers’ product perceptions”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 35-51.
EJM Ahmed, S. and d’Astus, A. (1996), “Country-of-origin and brand effects: a multi-dimensional and
multi-attribute study”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 9-31.
41,11/12
Al-Sulaiti, K. and Baker, M. (1998), “Country of origin effects: a literature review”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 150-99.
Bailey, W. and Pineres, S. (1997), “Country of origin attitudes in Mexico: the malinchismo effect”,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 25-41.
1542 Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2004), “Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects,
and consumer ethnocentrism: a multidimensional unfolding approach”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 80-95.
Brunning, E. (1997), “Country of origin, national loyalty and product choice”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Cordell, V. (1992), “Effects of consumer preferences for foreign sourced products”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 251-69.
de Ruyter, K., van Birgelen, M. and Wetrels, M. (1998), “Consumer ethnocentrism in international
services marketing”, International Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 185-202.
Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000), “Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 96-108.
Han, C.M. (1989), “Country image: halo or summary construct?”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26, May, pp. 222-9.
Han, C.M. (1990), “Testing the role of country image in consumer choice behaviour”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 24-39.
Herche, J. (1994), “Ethnocentric tendencies, marketing strategy and import purchase behavior”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 4-16.
Javalgi, R.G., Pioche Khare, V. and Gross, A.C. (2005), “An application of the consumer
ethnocentrism model to French consumers”, International Business Review, Vol. 14,
pp. 325-44.
Juric, B. and Worsley, A. (1998), “Consumers’ attitudes towards imported food products”, Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 431-41.
Kaynak, E. and Kara, A. (2002), “Consumer perceptions of foreign products: an analysis of
product-country images and ethnocentrism”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36
Nos 7/8, pp. 928-49.
Kaynak, E., Kucukemiroglu, O. and Kara, A. (1994), “Consumers’ perceptions of airlines:
a correspondence analysis approach in a global airline industry”, Management
International Review, July.
Khachaturian, J. and Morganosky, M. (1990), “Quality perceptions by country of origin”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 18 No. 5.
Knight, G. and Calantone, R. (2000), “A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin perceptions:
a cross-cultural investigation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 127-45.
Kucukemiroglou, O. (1997), “Market segmentation by using consumer lifestyle dimensions and
ethnocentrism”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 470-87.
Lantz, G. and Loeb, S. (1996), “Country of origin and ethnocentrism: an analysis of Canadian and
American preferences using social identity theory”, in Corfman, K.P. and Lynch, J. (Eds),
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, Association of Consumer Research, Provo, UT,
pp. 374-8.
Lee, D. and Ganesh, G. (1999), “Effects of partitioned country image in the context of brand image
and familiarity”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-39.
McLain, S. and Sternquist, B. (1991), “Ethnocentric consumers: do they buy American?”, Journal Ethnocentric
of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 39-57.
beliefs and COO
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, effect
pp. 354-65.
Moon, B.J. and Jain, S.C. (2002), “Consumer processing of foreign advertisements: roles of country
of origin perceptions, consumer ethnocentrism, and country attitude”, International 1543
Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 117-38.
Okechuku, C. (1994), “The importance of product country of origin”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 5-19.
Orth, U. and Firbasova, Z. (2003), “The role of consumer ethnocentrism in food product
evaluation”, Agribusiness, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 137-53.
Papadopoulos, N. (1993), “What country images are and are not”, in Papadopoulos, N. and
Helsop, L. (Eds), Product Country Images, International Business Press, New York, NY.
Peterson, R. and Jolibert, A.J.P. (1995), “A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-900.
Piron, F. (2000), “International outshopping and ethnocentrism”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 36 Nos 1/2, pp. 189-210.
Rahman, S. (2000), “Country of origin effect in a developing country: does it really matter?”,
dissertation, University of Western Sydney, Sydney.
Rawwas, M.Y.A. and Rajendran, K.N. (1996), “The influence of worldmindedness and
nationalism on consumer evaluation of domestic and foreign products”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 20-38.
Roth, M. and Romeo, J. (1992), “Matching product category and country image perceptions: a
framework for managing country-of-origin effects”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97.
Schaefer, A. (1995), “Consumer knowledge and country of origin effects”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Shimp, T. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the
CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, August, pp. 280-9.
Showers, V. and Showers, L. (1993), “The effects of alternative measures of country of origin on
objective product quality”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 53-67.
Smith, W. (1993), “Country-of-origin bias: a regional labelling solution”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 4-12.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing measurement invariance in
cross-national consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90.
Steptoe, A., Polland, T.M. and Wardle, J. (1995), “Development of a measure of the motives
underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire”, Appetite, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 267-84.
Stoltman, J.J., Lim, Y.K. and Morgan, F.W. (1991), “The effect of country of origin, product
familiarity and ethnocentrism on the acceptance of foreign products”, Marketing Theory
and Applications, Academy of Marketing Winter Educators Conference, pp. 82-9.
Supphellen, M. and Rittenburgh, T. (2001), “Consumer ethnocentrism when foreign products are
better”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 907-27.
Verlegh, P. and Steenkamp, J.B. (1999), “A review and meta-analysis of country of origin effect
research”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-46.
EJM Wall, M., Liefeld, J. and Heslop, L. (1991), “Impact of country of origin cues on consumer
judgements in multi-cue situations: a covariance analysis”, Journal of the Academy of
41,11/12 Marketing Science, Vol. 19, Spring, pp. 105-13.
Wang, C. and Chen, Z. (2004), “Consumer ethnocentrism and willingness to buy domestic
products in a developing country setting: testing moderating effects”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 391-400.
1544 Watson, J. and Wright, K. (2000), “Consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes towards domestic and
foreign products”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 9/10, pp. 1149-66.
Yarpak, A. and Baughan, C. (1991), “The country of origin effect in cross-national consumer
behaviour: emerging research avenues”, Proceedings of the 5th Bi-annual World Marketing
Congress of the Academy of Marketing Science, pp. 263-9.

Further reading
Tan, J.S., Lee, S.K. and Lim, H.G. (2001), “Warranty and warrantor reputations as signals of
hybrid product quality”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 1/2, pp. 110-32.

About the authors

George Chryssochoidis is Assistant Professor in Food Marketing at the Agricultural University
of Athens, Laboratory of Agribusiness Management.
Athanassios Krystallis is Senior Researcher, Food Marketing and Consumer Behaviour at the
National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF), Athens, Greece. Athanassios Krystallis
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: krystallis.igeke@nagref.gr
Panagiotis Perreas is an MBA Graduate at the Agricultural University of Athens, Laboratory
of Agribusiness Management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints