(Cosmetics) US and Colombia

Please do not remove this page
The Country of Origin (COO) effect on quality

perceptions and willingness to pay in cosmetic
products: An investigation of US and Colombian
consumers
Burlefinger, Christof
https://research.usc.edu.au/discovery/delivery/61USC_INST:ResearchRepository/12155895690002621?l#13155895680002621
Burlefinger. (2021). The Country of Origin (COO) effect on quality perceptions and willingness to pay in
cosmetic products: An investigation of US and Colombian consumers [University of the Sunshine Coast,
Queensland]. https://doi.org/10.25907/00104
Document Type: Thesis
USC Research Bank: https://research.usc.edu.au

research-repository@usc.edu.au
It's your responsibility to determine if additional rights or permissions are needed for your use.
Downloaded On 2022/09/26 23:56:47 +1000
Please do not remove this page

The Country of Origin (COO) effect on
quality perceptions and willingness to pay
in cosmetic products: An investigation of
US and Colombian consumers
Submitted in fulfilment of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
Christof Burlefinger
PHD candidate
Student number 1127153
May 2021
Supervised by:
Prof. Meredith Lawley
Dr. Rory Mulcahy

Abstract
With saturated domestic markets, brands are increasingly entering new international markets. Nielsen
Media Research alone lists more than half a million brands (Incmagazine 2021), most of them
unknown to the majority of consumers. Thus, the challenge to differentiate from competitive offers and
target consumer groups who provide attractive margins also increases. One avenue international
brands use to differentiate their product portfolio is to promote their country of origin (COO), which is
an extrinsic product cue to assist consumers to evaluate products.
Research regarding COO effects in the domain of beautification products is scarce. So far,
only a handful of studies have explored the applicability of COO and its effect on consumers
evaluations of cosmetics (Kumar 2015; Ngoc 2013; Pilelienė & Šontaitė-Petkevičienė 2014). The
cosmetics industry is one of the most resilient global market segments with a forecasted growth rate
of 7% between 2018 and 2024 (Zion 2018). With more than US$530 bn turnover in 2017, it has grown
into a sizeable and important industry sector, well ahead in size of, for example, the global wine and
seafood market and even bigger than the global home appliances market, which recorded only
slightly more than US$500 bn in worldwide sales (Allied Market Research 2019; Statista 2019; Zion
2018). Thus, this research seeks to extend marketing scholars understanding of COO in the under-
researched area of beauty products.
In this thesis, a review of the marketing literature, primarily with a focus on COO research,
was undertaken. Despite the extensive body of evidence with more than 1,200 COO publications,
there are still major knowledge gaps, which are addressed in this research. Briefly, these included
investigating 1) how effective different COO and recall information interactions are on consumers’
quality perceptions; 2) whether COO and recall lead to higher levels of WTP; 3) if total quality
mediates the relationship between the interrelationships between COO, recall and WTP; 4) whether
consumer involvement and consumer ethnocentrism moderates the relationships between COO,
recall, total quality and WTP; and finally 5) whether the impact of COO varies for different markets
(e.g. general population versus users, and a developed – USA – versus a rather unexplored
developing market, such as Colombia). Thus, with these gaps in mind, this research addressed the
following research question:
“What is the influence of COO recall on product quality perceptions and WTP?”
The research design chosen for this thesis consisted of a three-study experimental design,
using three online surveys applied in the setting of skin-care cosmetic products, namely anti-ageing
creams. Study One, used a general consumer sample from the USA. While studies Two and Three
were confirmatory, one with a product user sample from the USA (exemplary for a developed country)
and the second with a product user sample from Colombia (exemplary for a developing country). Both
confirmatory studies were undertaken to assess the generalisability of the findings from Study One.
Each study consisted of a 3 (COO: France versus Germany versus USA/Colombia) x 2 (Recall: Aided
Recall versus Unaided Recall) with a no-COO control group, post-test only, between-groups, factorial
design.
Page i
The findings from this research support the majority of COO literature in relation to the
existence of the COO effect on perceptions of quality. It was consistently shown across all three
studies in two countries, the USA and Colombia, and consumers who are not regular users of skin-
care cosmetics and those who are regular users, that the COO cue influences product quality
evaluations significantly. However, it was also shown, that such an effect on product quality
evaluations does not translate into enhancing consumers WTP, a somewhat surprising finding. These
results call to mind that there is often a behavioural gap between product quality perceptions and
behavioural responses, which are the main driver of COO effects. Overall, the findings challenge the
very few publications with WTP as a dependent variable, which suggest that higher WTP result from
favourable COO. Specifically, it demonstrates that COO and the quality perceptions it increases does
not always translate to financial benefits for a brand. Interestingly, there are also minimal roles of
consumer involvement and consumer ethnocentrism noted within the thesis, which also challenges
COO literature.
Arising from the findings of this thesis, there are four key theoretical contributions. First, a
unique model was developed, which encompasses several central concepts to the COO literature but
are yet to be unified and empirically tested within a singular body of research. The thesis adds to
theory by providing not only a more detailed explanation of how these constructs interact (or do not),
but also about WTP under varying starting conditions. Second, it has explored the varying effects of
aided vs. unaided vs. no recall (no COO) considering claims in the extant literature that aided recall
conditions lead to inflated COO effect sizes. Extant literature is lacking such exploration and the
corresponding findings. Third, this thesis incorporated the economic value of COO, specifically
consumer’s WTP, which, according to extant literature, is clearly under-researched. Thus, it explored
outcomes beyond consumer’s quality appraisals and purchase intentions, which are typically used to
determine the COO effect. Fourth, this research seeks to extend the generalisability of COO research.
As such, this research and its findings took into account an underexplored market (Colombia) and
market comparisons (USA vs Colombia consumers, and users versus non-user markets) in an under-
researched product category (skin-care cosmetics), rather than high involvement products (e.g. cars,
which have been extensively studied), together with an unknown brand, where potential COO effects
are not blurred by pre-existing and varying brand-knowledge and product familiarity.
Furthermore, there are important practical implications to be drawn from this research. First,
this study established that a favourable COO, when recalled at the right moment of purchase
decisions, contributes to higher product quality assessments. However, one cannot assume that such
effects will truly benefit business success and particularly brands without established brand equity in
financial terms. Thus, even if certain COO’s contribute to favourable quality appraisals the potential
monetizable value needs to be uncovered. For this purpose, sophisticated regional consumer
targeting strategies are proposed to identify those consumer groups who are susceptible to COO
cues, value certain origin designations and are both willing and able to spend more money for
products associated with positive COO’s. Second, unnatural COO promotion such as
overemphasizing the product origin, may not necessarily lead to improved outcomes, even for quality
perceptions. Third, product pricing needs to reinforce favourable quality perceptions.
P a g e ii
Certification of Dissertation
I certify that the ideas, interviews, results, analyses and conclusions reported in
this dissertation are entirely my own effort, except where otherwise acknowledged.
I also certify that the work is original and has not been previously submitted for
any other award.
Christof Burlefinger_________________________7th June 2021

Signature of candidate / Date
ENDORSEMENT
__Prof Meredith Lawley______________________ 7th June 2021
Signature of supervisor Date
Dr Rory Mulcahy___________________________7th June 2021
Signature of supervisor Date
P a g e iii
Acknowledgements
During the initial stages of my PHD undertaking, I was told by Prof. Neuert that this will be
rather than an easy endeavour one with much blood sweat and tears. The good news is, that there
was none of them. However, for a seasoned practitioner like myself, it definitely took me substantial
diligence, time and perseverance to accomplish the USC academic research programme.
Fortunately, I had two amazing mentors, guiding, encouraging, and keeping me moving
forward through any perceived impasse and challenge. I am very grateful for having won the trust of
my principal supervisor Dr Meredith Lawley and Dr Rory Mulcahy, my co-supervisor. Their wisdom,
guidance and patience are invaluable as well as the many team discussions, on-site and online.
Interacting across different time zones does not always work smoothly and certainly tested your
patience every once in a while. However, they were always there for me with swift and straightforward
feedback. To the both of them, a sincere thank you for guiding me along the right paths to the thesis
submission. Further, a special thank you to Prof. Josef Neuert for providing guidance at the beginning
of this journey and connecting me with the USC.
I cannot miss to offer a very heartfelt thank you to all the members of my family. To my
mother, who passed away during this PhD journey, this is also your achievement by providing me with
the education, that served as the foundation of this PhD. To my children Felix, Christof and Nicole for
the support they gave me during all stages of this research and the restricted time I had for them.
Their understanding and tolerance kept me going for years and hopefully serves as their future
ambition.
Finally, and most importantly, I wish to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to my wife, Ilse for
supporting me in the undertaking of a PhD and hence putting up with the many sacrifices that this has
involved over the last years. For this, I sincerely thank Ilse for all her encouragement, assistance and
above all the patience that she steadily provided me throughout my research. Without her, the
completion of this thesis would not have been possible.
P a g e iv
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Gap 1: COO and Recall Influence on Product Quality and Willingness to Pay ..... 3
1.2.2 Gap 2: Moderating roles of Consumer Involvement and Consumer Ethnocentrism

............................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.3 Gap 3: COO and Recall influence on marketing outcomes across developed
(USA) and developing (Colombia) markets ........................................................... 5
1.4.1 Theoretical contributions ........................................................................................ 6
1.4.2 Practical contributions ............................................................................................ 9
1.4.3 Methodological significance ................................................................................. 10
2. Literature Review, theories and model/hypothesis development ............................ 17
Page v
2.5.1 Importance of COO Recall ................................................................................... 31
2.5.2 What Aids COO Recall and Recognition? ........................................................... 31
2.5.3 Criticisms from COO Recall Research ................................................................ 32
2.6.1 COO product category effects on quality perceptions ......................................... 34
2.6.2 Differences between developed and developing countries’ quality perceptions . 36
3 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 61
3.3.1 Justification for Experimental Design ................................................................... 63
3.3.2 The three study approach .................................................................................... 65
3.3.3 Country selection ................................................................................................. 65
3.3.4 Participants (sampling design) ............................................................................. 66
3.3.5 Stimuli product design .......................................................................................... 67
P a g e vi
3.3.6 Survey method ..................................................................................................... 68
3.3.7 Measurement scales ............................................................................................ 69
3.3.8 Pre-test and survey administration ...................................................................... 73
3.3.9 Data analysis techniques ..................................................................................... 74
4 Study One | USA | General Population ........................................................................ 76
4.2.1 Data preparation .................................................................................................. 77
4.2.2 Sample Profile ...................................................................................................... 77
4.5.1 ANOVA Testing Total Quality (H1) ...................................................................... 82
4.5.2 ANOVA Testing Willingness-To-Pay (H2) ........................................................... 85
5 Study Two | USA | Product Users ................................................................................ 92
5.2.1 Data preparation ...................................................................................................... 93
P a g e vii
5.2.2 Sample Profile .......................................................................................................... 93
5.5.1 ANOVA Testing Total Quality (H1) ...................................................................... 98
5.5.2 ANOVA Testing WTP (H2) ................................................................................. 101
6 Study Three | Colombia | Product Users .................................................................. 106
6.2.1 Data preparation ................................................................................................ 107
6.2.2 Sample Profile Study Three ............................................................................... 107
6.5.1 ANOVA Testing Total Quality (H1) .................................................................... 112
6.5.2 ANOVA Testing WTP (H2) ................................................................................. 115
7. Conclusions and Contributions ................................................................................. 121
P a g e viii
7.2.1 Overview of hypotheses support............................................................................ 123
7.2.2 Research Objective 1 – Determining the impact of COO aided and unaided
Recall on product quality perceptions ................................................................ 124
7.2.3 Research Objective 2 – COO and Recall on WTP ............................................ 126
7.2.4 Mediation of COO Recall and WTP by Total Quality ......................................... 128
7.2.5 Research Objective 4 – Moderation of COO Recall, Total Quality and WTP by
CInv .................................................................................................................... 129
7.2.6 Research Objective 5 – Moderation of COO Recall, Total Quality and WTP by
CE ...................................................................................................................... 130
7.2.7 Research Objective 6 – Cross-country differences ........................................... 130
7.2.8 Overarching research question results regarding WTP ..................................... 131
8. Reference List .............................................................................................................. 145
Appendix A: Questionnaires ............................................................................................... 183
P a g e ix
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Summary of all definitions encountered in extant literature ..................................... 20
Table 2.2 Involvement profiles for a set of French consumer products ................................... 38
Table 2.3 COO-related non-food/non-luxury WTP studies with WTP as a dependent variable
.............................................................................................................................................................. 48
Table 3.1 Differentiation of four main research paradigms ...................................................... 62
Table 3.2 Consumer Involvement Scale Items ........................................................................ 69
Table 3.3 Consumer Ethnocentrism Scale Items ..................................................................... 70
Table 3.4 Total Quality Scale Items ......................................................................................... 71
Table 3.5 Van Westendorp WTP questions ............................................................................. 72
Table 3.6 Juster Scale .............................................................................................................. 73
Table 4.1 Study One Sample Profile ........................................................................................ 78
Table 4.2 Construct Reliability Results Study One .................................................................. 79
Table 4.3 Construct Validity Results Study One ...................................................................... 80
Table 4.4 Hypotheses tested Study One ................................................................................. 81
Table 4.5 ANOVA Results for Product Effectiveness .............................................................. 83
Table 4.6 ANOVA Quality......................................................................................................... 84
Table 4.7 ANOVA Total Quality ............................................................................................... 85
Table 4.8 ANOVA WTP ............................................................................................................ 86
Table 4.9 Total Quality and WTP with consumer involvement included as moderator ........... 87
Table 4.10 Total Quality and WTP with consumer ethnocentrism included as moderator ...... 88
Table 4.11 Hypotheses and Study One Results ...................................................................... 89
Table 5.1 Study Two Sample Profile ........................................................................................ 94
Table 5.2 Construct Reliability Results Study .......................................................................... 95

Page x
Table 5.3 Construct Validity Results Study Two USA .............................................................. 96
Table 5.4 Hypotheses tested Study Two ................................................................................. 97
Table 5.5 ANOVA Results for Product Effectiveness .............................................................. 99
Table 5.6 ANOVA Quality....................................................................................................... 100
Table 5.7 ANOVA Total Quality ............................................................................................. 101
Table 5.8 ANOVA WTP .......................................................................................................... 102
Table 5.9 Total Quality and WTP with consumer involvement included as moderator ......... 103
Table 5.10 Total Quality and WTP with consumer ethnocentrism as moderator................... 103
Table 5.11 Hypotheses testing summary Study One and Study Two ................................... 104
Table 6.1 Study Three Sample Profile ................................................................................... 108
Table 6.2 Construct Reliability Results Study Three .............................................................. 109
Table 6.3 Construct Validity Results Study Three Colombia ................................................. 110
Table 6.4 Hypotheses tested Study Two ............................................................................... 111
Table 6.5 ANOVA Results for Product Effectiveness ............................................................ 113
Table 6.6 ANOVA Quality....................................................................................................... 114
Table 6.7 ANOVA Total Quality ............................................................................................. 115
Table 6.8 ANOVA WTP .......................................................................................................... 116
Table 6.9 Total Quality and WTP with consumer involvement included as moderator ......... 117
Table 6.10 Total Quality and WTP with consumer ethnocentrism as moderator ................... 117
Table 6.11. Hypothesis Testing Overview Study One - Study Three .................................... 118
Table 7.1 Research Objectives .............................................................................................. 123
Table 7.2 Hypotheses Supported/Not Supported .................................................................. 123
Table 7.3 Highest and lowest performing constructs ............................................................. 126
P a g e xi
Table 7.4 Cross-country differences ...................................................................................... 131
Table 7.5 Theoretical contribution overview........................................................................... 134
P a g e xii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Research design ..................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.2 Outline of the thesis ................................................................................................ 14
Figure 2.1 Outline of Chapter 2 ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2.2 COO publication frequency ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.3 COO research phases ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 2.4 Effect size of single and multiple cue studies ......................................................... 25
Figure 2.5 Impact of COO on consumer behaviour ................................................................. 26
Figure 2.6 Share of Mauritian consumers searching for the COO ........................................... 33
Figure 2.7 CE conceptual model (antecedents, demographics and moderating factors) ........ 44
Figure 2.8 Conceptual Research Model ................................................................................... 54
Figure 3.1 Outline of chapter 3 ................................................................................................. 61
Figure 3.2 Factorial Design 3 x 3 x 2 ....................................................................................... 65
Figure 3.3 Research and COO countries ................................................................................. 66
Figure 4.2 ANOVA Results for Product Effectiveness ............................................................. 83
Figure 4.3 ANOVA Quality ....................................................................................................... 84
Figure 4.4 ANOVA for Total Quality ......................................................................................... 85
Figure 4.5 ANOVA for WTP ..................................................................................................... 86
Figure 4.6 Mediation Analysis Total Quality ............................................................................. 87
Figure 5.2 ANOVA Results for Product Effectiveness ............................................................. 99
Figure 5.3 ANOVA for Quality ................................................................................................ 100
P a g e xiii
Figure 5.4 ANOVA Total Quality ............................................................................................ 101
Figure 5.5 ANOVA WTP ......................................................................................................... 102
Figure 6.1 Outline of Chapter 6 .............................................................................................. 106
Figure 6.2 ANOVA Results for Product Effectiveness ........................................................... 113
Figure 6.3 ANOVA Quality ..................................................................................................... 114
Figure 6.4 ANOVA WTP ......................................................................................................... 116
Figure 7.1 Outline of Chapter 7 .............................................................................................. 121
P a g e xiv
List of Abbreviations
CE Consumer Ethnocentrism
COI Country Origin Image
COO Country of Origin
CO$ Colombian Peso
CI Country Image
CInv Consumer Involvement
PCI Product Country Image
RO Research Objective
RQ Research Question
US$ United States of America Dollar
WTP Willingness to Pay
P a g e xv
1. Introduction
1.1 Background to the research
The Country of Origin (COO) effect is an important factor for product appraisals and purchase
decisions (Krupka 2017; Kumara & Canhua 2010) and according to a Nielsen study, 75% of
consumers report that COO is vital for purchasing decisions (Nielsen 2016). Thus, given its
importance in consumer decision making, COO can create a competitive advantage for international
products (Aichner 2014; Jaffe & Nebenzahl 2006; Vianelli & Marzano 2012). In evidence of the
competitive advantage of COO, successful international brands have achieved unprecedented
valuations, for example, the luxury beauty brand Chanel was estimated to be worth US$8 billion in
2018 (Badenhausen 2018). In addition, many country brands, such as ‘Australian made’ are also
highly valuable, with its estimated worth of US$ 1,669 billion in 2018 (Brand Finance 2018). Due to
the perceived value of COO labelling, companies are willing to pay considerable fees for the use of
such an umbrella label, which communicates the origin of the product (Australian Made 2019).
Broadly, the COO effect can be viewed as a collective consumer judgement, which goes
beyond the sphere of a company or industrial sector. Often COO is difficult for international brands to
manage as it is not always avoidable nor controllable (Papadopoulos & Heslop 2002). Even if some
countries do not require mandatory COO labelling, consumers still may want to know or make
assumptions based on where a product is produced (Samiee 2010). Thus, COO is important to
understand from marketing strategy and consumer behaviour perspectives. As such, the COO effect
has been investigated by international marketing (Homburg, Homburg-Krohmer & Krohmer 2005) and
consumer behaviour (Kotabe & Jiang 2009) scholars, and was even proposed as the fifth element of
the marketing mix (Baker & Currie 1993). COO has generated a steady stream of research with the
number of publications related to country origin product image research estimated to surpass 1,200,
making COO research arguably one of the most researched topics in international marketing (Heslop,
Lu & Cray 2008). However, whilst there is a large body of literature, there is still debate about COO’s
generalisability, relevance to consumers and business, and the methodological rigour and theoretical
foundation of studies (Roth & Diamantopoulos 2009; Samiee et al. 2016; Samiee & Leonidou 2011).
Thus, whilst “COO is extensively researched”, there are still significant gaps which require further
investigation.
One of the central tenants of COO lies in the general assumption that consumers are aware
of the products’ COO, which subsequently activates consumers’ positive or negative perception of the
country image within their minds (Peris et al. 1993). Apart from the effect some strong brands may
evoke, whole product categories from certain countries are stereotyped and classified into clusters
from inferior to superior based upon COO. For example, common stereotypes that may resonate with
consumers include: Italian pastas are superb, Russian vodkas are the best, Chinese product quality is
poor, French wine tastes better than South American wine, Colombian coffee is outstanding, and
German cars are superior (Diodato, Malerba & Morrison 2018; Ghalandari & Norouzi 2012; Yang,
Ramsaran & Wibowo 2016; Yasin, Noor & Mohamad 2007). However, while the focus on only one
Page 1
COO is debatable due to the increasing globalisation with multiple production sites (Primi 2018), the
assumption, that consumers are aware of the labeled country origin, has been questioned firmly by a
smaller body of COO literature. (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008; Liefeld 2004; Magnusson,
Westjohn & Zdravkovic 2011b; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005). Therefore, understanding COO
recall of the perceived origin and its impact upon desired marketing outcomes needs to be explored
further (Andéhn & L’Espoir Decosta 2016; Herz 2015; Samiee 2011).
The current body of COO research agrees, with some exceptions, that the country of origin
cue influences the desired marketing outcome of product quality perceptions (Han 1989; Pharr 2005;
Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999), impacts risk and value perceptions (Abraham & Patro 2015; Feige &
Annen 2013; Hulland, Todiño & Lecraw 1996), and is positively or negatively related to purchase
intentions, and willingness to buy (Carter & Maher 2014; Papadopoulos & Heslop 2002; Peterson &
Jolibert 1995). Further, COO is more influential for unknown products, where consumers – due to a
lack of product knowledge and familiarity – do not feel in a position to judge a product’s value. COO
then can become a proxy or product heuristic to facilitate decision making (Brijs et al. 2006; Král
2015). This is the result of well over 1.200 COO publications and several research streams from 1960
up to these days, such as single cue studies, multi cue studies, hybrid and multinational product
studies and globalization and BORA studies (cf. Section 2.3, historical development, and Figure 2.3,
COO research phases) (Heslop, Lu & Cray 2008).
Despite such an intensively researched theme and the increased globalization, which tends to
blur the unambiguousness of COO’s, it is still a current and newsworthy topic (Brownlees 2021
(Bayraktar & Koçak 2019; eds Casado-Cárdenas, Guillén & Tirado 2021; Mandal 2020; Zeugner-Roth
2017)), given that country images and the associated effects are changing over time as well as
consumer preferences and COO regulations (Dinnie 2016; Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas 2008; Lu et
al. 2016). In addition, it is completely unexplored, whether positive country associations as shown in
very few COO studies with cosmetics (Barrameda, Alaras & Mondia 2019; Devita & Agustini, M. Y.
Dwi Hayu 2019; Koç, Nart & Baş 2017), translate into any more tangible outcome beyond mere
perceptions and behavioural intentions. Against these themes in COO, key concepts and research
gaps in the literature are highlighted next.
The cosmetics industry is a highly resilient one, with a forecasted growth rate of 7% between
2018 and 2024 (Zion 2018) before Covid-19. Despite governmentally imposed lockdowns, the
industry has been affected less than most other industries (Illera 2020). It’s an industry with
generating more than US$530 bn turnover in 2017 and it has grown in size well ahead of, for
example, the global wine and seafood market and even bigger than the global home appliances
market, which recorded only slightly more than US$500 bn in worldwide sales (Allied Market
Research 2019; Statista 2019; Zion 2018). Skincare with the largest share of the cosmetics market is
poised to grow strongly, driven by robust ecommerce growth rates (Roberts 2021), and “will remain
resilient under all pessimistic COVID-19 scenarios” (Illera 2020, p. 1). Given that consumers’
preference for safe cosmetic products is increasing (Lim 2021), the COO seems to be relevant for this
product category, as it acts as a surrogate for fast product evaluations (Magnusson & Westjohn
Page 2
2011). Thus, this research seeks to extend marketing scholars understanding of COO in the under-
researched area of beauty products in general and skin-care cosmetics in particular.
1.2 Research gaps
Three research gaps have been identified which will be addressed by the current thesis.
1.2.1 Gap 1: COO and Recall Influence on Product Quality and Willingness to Pay
COO and Recall. Today, academia can count on an abundance of extant COO research,
however, scholars are still in the process of finding common ground (Samiee et al. 2016). Most
consumers cannot identify the COO and country of brand origin of generally well-known brands and
are not even able to recall the COO of products they have actually purchased (Balabanis &
Diamantopoulos 2008; Magnusson, Westjohn & Zdravkovic 2011b; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005).
These findings are in contrast with the majority of publications, which confirm the existence and
significance of COO effects.
While aided origin recognition accuracy has been the main focus of BORA studies, there have
been very few attempts to explore unaided origin recall, which resembles far more real market place
conditions, where usually no one finger-points to the ‘Made-in …’ label (Samiee 2010). Confronting
study respondents directly with a product’s COO may reveal the objective of the investigation and
provoke subject bias. Consequently, COO effect sizes tend to be overestimated (Balabanis &
Diamantopoulos 2008; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005; Usunier 2006) and outcome data are
contaminated (Samiee 2010).
It is still to be ascertained whether COO effects are driven by study designs which highlight
and mention the COO in an unnatural manner. The literature is not informative about whether COO
effects indeed have been inflated, either due to study designs or due to the usage of well-established
brands. A comparison between different COO recall conditions such as aided recall, unaided recall
and a no recall condition as control in combination with an unknown brand is a clear gap in the
literature, differentiating this study from past research. This gap will be addressed with H1, where the
interaction effect of Recall and COO on perceived Total Quality will be explored.
WTP. Another important limitation of current COO literature is the limited insights it provides
as to whether a COO can command higher prices or leads to a lower value perception. Accordingly,
price-related COO research has often been omitted (Bayraktar & Ahmet 2015; Toni et al. 2017).
Research has somewhat hinted at the price commanded by COO by investigating related concepts
such as quality appraisals and purchase intentions, however, they are argued as being weak
measures of COO value (Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012). Willingness to pay
(WTP), “the amount of money we must sacrifice to acquire something we desire” (Monroe 2003, 5),
on the other hand, is a more precise concept, as it monetises the COO effect (Nebenzahl & Jaffe
Page 3
1993). Especially from a managerial perspective, price influencing effects are an important
component of the marketing mix, as they have a direct impact on a firm’s financial statements
(Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012; Toni et al. 2017), which can assist in
overcoming the aforementioned relevance of COO research. Therefore, whilst research has provided
insights into the effect of COO on marketing outcomes, its effect on WTP is not yet thoroughly
understood and requires exploration. The primary aim of this research is thus to understand and
provide contemporary evidence about the relationship between COO and WTP, in particular how the
COO effect, if measurable, affects either directly or indirectly WTP. It will be addressed with H2,
where the interaction effect between Recall and COO on WTP is being tested.
Quality. Extant literature suggests that many consumers still associate products with their
perceived origin and most of the research’s empirical evidence emphasizes that consumers’ product
quality evaluations are influenced by the COO. Furthermore, product quality perceptions have been
found to be the variable, which is most affected by the influence of COO cues (Gineikiene,
Schlegelmilch & Ruzeviciute 2016; Peterson & Jolibert 1995; Usunier 2006). However, not least due
to globalization, the COO is said to have lost its relevance (Phau & Chao 2008; Samiee 2010; Usunier
2006). There is a plethora of evidence, that the COO has an impact on quality perceptions, which
however, is of limited managerial relevance, if quality perceptions do not impact business results. In
addition, contrary to this prevailing view in the literature, some studies report the COO either not being
informative for consumer product quality evaluations or that the COO has little or no effect in certain
product categories (Al-Aali, Randheer & Hasin 2015; Ohmae 1989; Teas & Agarwal 2000).
Specifically, COO literature provides limited insights into how quality perceptions of cosmetics are
influenced by COO’s. Hence, as a clear picture of the COO phenomenon has not been established
yet, calls for more research are continuously made (Aichner, Forza & Trentin 2016; Yang, Ramsaran
& Wibowo 2016; Yunus & Rashid 2016), which this study will provide with H3, where the mediation
effect of Total Quality on the interaction of both Recall and COO on WTP will be measured.
Summarising, the first aim of this research is to investigate the interaction effect of Recall and
COO on Total Quality and WTP as well as the mediation effect of Total Quality on WTP.
1.2.2 Gap 2: Moderating roles of Consumer Involvement and Consumer

Ethnocentrism
Two other important constructs, Consumer Involvement (CInv) and Consumer Ethnocentrism
(CE) should also be considered as they are important in relation to the formation of COO perceptions
(Samiee et al. 2016). First, CInv has been found to significantly moderate COO effects (Chattalas,
Kramer & Takada 2008; Samiee et al. 2016). Usually, the COO effect is more pronounced in the case
of high involvement products compared to those where consumers show low or no involvement
(BATRA et al. 2000; Bhaskaran & Sukumaran 2007; Kinra 2006; Tamas 2015). On the other hand,
there is evidence that less involved consumers trust more in positively perceived COO’s as a proxy
for quality and as a short-cut for product evaluations, as highly-involved consumers are generally
more familiar with the product category and depend less on the COO cue (Josiassen & Assaf 2010;
Page 4
Tamas 2015). H4 therefore will address the question, whether CInv indeed moderates the relationship
between the COO x Recall interaction, Total Quality and WTP
The second construct, CE, is supported by the majority of studies in the literature of general
home-country selection bias (Josiassen, Assaf & Karpen 2011; Lantz & Loeb 1996; Maheswaran, Yi
Chen & He 2013; Zeugner-Roth, Žabkar & Diamantopoulos 2015). CE is suggested to moderate
consumer behaviour (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2004; Chattalas, Kramer & Takada 2008; Jiménez
& San-Martin 2016), while some studies highlight that the manifestation of CE and its effects differ
between less and more developed countries (Hamin, Baumann & Tung 2014; Yen 2018). Due to the
ambiguity of extant COO literature, whether CE indeed acts as a moderator, H5 will deliver more
insights on the potential moderation effect of CE on the interrelationships between the COO x Recall
interaction, Total Quality and WTP.
The second aim of this research, therefore, is to explore the potential moderating role CInv
and CE may have in the COO and marketing outcome relationships in an underexplored product
category and country within a different methodological experimental study design. While both the role
of CInv and CE have been studied extensively, this research provides validation as to whether CInv
and CE indeed have a significant moderating impact on the outcome variables in a different country
setting, with a different research design and within an underexplored product category such as
cosmetics.
1.2.3 Gap 3: COO and Recall influence on marketing outcomes across developed
(USA) and developing (Colombia) markets
Despite expanding evidence regarding differences between consumer attitudes and

behaviours in developing and developed countries, little is known about differences in the expression
of COO effects between North and South America in general and the USA and Colombia in particular.
Most COO research has been conducted in developed, mostly Western and more recently also in
Asian countries. At the same time, countries in South America have been neglected in the past (Lu et
al. 2016). Colombia has been treated as a non-focus country or even scientific diaspora within the
COO domain, where, apart from two studies with a focus on the automobile industry (Parente-
Laverde 2014) and textiles (Kim & Chao 2018), no empirical product-country image (PCI) or COO
publications could be identified. This finding is confirmed by an extensive literature review provided by
Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009), where no study with the involvement of Colombia was found nor
did Usunier (2006) identify within the screening of more than 400 peer-reviewed academic
publications Colombia included even once. The third aim of this research, therefore, is to examine
and compare COO effects in the study countries by reference to quality perceptions, WTP, CInv and
CE.
Overall, this research contributes to the current debate in the international marketing and
consumer behaviour literature by demonstrating the importance (or lack of) in the interrelationships
Page 5
between COO recall, total quality product perceptions, willingness to pay (WTP), consumer
ethnocentrism and consumer involvement by extending them into an investigation of US and
Colombian perceptions of an unknown cosmetic brand.
1.3 Research question and objectives
Based upon the gaps identified in section 1.2 this thesis addresses the following research
question:
What is the influence of COO recall on product quality perceptions and WTP?
This thesis will investigate the influence of COO on consumer perceptions for unknown
brands, that is brands consumers are not familiar with, and whether a positive COO in low-medium
involvement product categories indeed does bring with it a tangible business financial benefit via
enhanced WTP. Further, this thesis develops a model to test whether the COO is perceived/recalled
in a natural manner and if WTP is influenced by COO. The model also investigates the level of
influence that both CInv and CE have as moderators on the COO recall and the WTP relationship.
The specific research objectives set for this research to address the overarching research
question are as follows:
o RO1: Determine the impact of COO aided and unaided recall on total product
quality perceptions
o RO2: Determine the impact of COO aided and unaided recall on WTP
o RO3: Determine if product Total Quality perceptions mediate the relationship
between COO recall and WTP
o RO4: Determine if consumer involvement moderates the relationships between
COO recall, Total Quality perceptions and WTP.
o RO5: Investigate the effect of consumer ethnocentrism on WTP for domestic and
imported products
o RO6: Assess if the relationships between COO recall, Total Quality perceptions
and WTP vary across developed and developing markets
1.4 Justification for the research
The current thesis makes four key theoretical contributions to the COO literature and three important
managerial implications which are described briefly next and in detail in Chapter 7.
1.4.1 Theoretical contributions
Based on a review of the extant literature, four contributions to COO research have been
identified relating to COO theoretical model development, COO recall, WTP and generalisability,
which includes geographical coverage, neglected product categories and unknown brands. These
gaps will now be discussed beginning with the theoretical model.
Page 6
Theoretical Model Development and theoretical underpinning. For this research, a unique
model was developed and tested. The Model encompasses a number of concepts central to the COO
literature, which are yet to be extensively tested within a single body of research. The thesis adds to
theory by providing not only a more detailed explanation of how these constructs interact, but also
about WTP under varying starting conditions. In addition, this research is underpinned by the cue
utilization theory for product quality evaluations and the equity theory for the evaluation of WTP (cf.
Section 2.10). Both theories, which have been applied in some of previous COO studies, provide the
theoretical basis to conceptualise the potential transfer of country images to quality evaluations and
WTP.
COO recall. There is a lack of knowledge of whether consumer COO recall differs, depending
on how study participants are exposed to the COO cue. In many cases, extant research has tested
forced COO recognition and recall, that is where special attention has been made to make sure study
participants really know where the product or products under investigation originate from. In these
cases, where the COO information is either verbally or visually highlighted, an artificial and completely
uncommon context is being investigated, where non-COO recognition and thus non-recall is not an
option. These studies have been challenged on the basis that inflated effect sizes are being produced
(Liefeld 1993; Samiee 1994; Samiee 2011). The empirical evidence about COO recognition and recall
is scant and contradictory and thus merits further investigation to supplement and contextualize prior
observations (Martín & Cerviño 2011).
Accordingly, this research provides a new understanding of COO and how it impacts
outcomes by specifically showing how different COO recall cues can achieve these outcomes. The
outcomes of this research suggest that marketing the COO cue by unnaturally accentuating it, does
not necessarily lead to improved product evaluations. On the contrary, it can have a detrimental
effect. Hence, caution needs to be considered when emphasising COO cues to consumers, who have
not been targeted according to their receptivity of COO marketing. The results also elucidate, that
effect sizes in past research, by implication, may not have been inflated through forced COO
recognition.
Willingness to pay. While there is a plethora of publications reporting the benefits of a

positive COO on product evaluations and to a lesser extent on purchase intentions/willingness to buy
(Hui & Zhou 2003; Peterson & Jolibert 1995) there is very limited evidence about the monetary value
of a positive COO in non-food sectors. So far very few studies have focused on tangible price related
outcomes. With very few exceptions (see Table 2.3), where WTP has been used as the dependent
variable, no prior COO research has capitalized on WTP as an outcome measure, thus focusing on
tangible price related outcomes (Bayraktar & Ahmet 2015; Drozdenko & Jensen 2009; Koschate-
Fischer, Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012). Yet, only if consumers are either willing to pay a
premium for a positive COO or in case of price parity, choose the product with a favourable COO,
does the extrinsic COO cue become relevant to the brand (Abraham & Patro 2015).
This research, therefore, contributes to new knowledge which will challenge the conception
that COO has a financial value for marketers. The results show that both directly and indirectly COO
Page 7
has non-significant impacts upon consumers WTP. Hence, this research suggests strong caution for
marketing scholars modelling or theorizing links between COO and monetary focused outcomes such
as WTP.
Generalisability of COO across cultures, geographies, underresearched product

categories and unknown brands. This last theoretical contribution encompasses an extended
geographical coverage across cultures, the inclusion of neglected product categories and unknown
brands (as outlined below), where all contribute to the generalisablity of the COO research. The
extension of COO research in these domains enriches both the depth and breadth of the COO
knowledge base.
Geographical coverage. With the inclusion and comparison of a general consumer

population in Study One and product user samples in Study Two and Three, this research contributes
with recent empirical evidence as to whether the COO phenomenon is generalisable between
different consumer groups. It also adds new insights to existing knowledge by conducting a multi-
study experimental research design using USA and Latin American consumers. The research
specifically demonstrated that there are important consistencies between countries in different
developmental phases such as the significant COO effect on quality evaluations, no moderating effect
of CE and no COO effect on WTP. Furthermore, there are also important nuances across these
different markets which have been demonstrated with CInv, which had a significant moderating effect
on product quality evaluations in Colombia but not in the USA. Thus, taken together, the findings
comparing US and Latin American consumers, provides direction as to how marketing scholarship
should consider the differential impact of COO across different international markets.
Neglected product categories. A number of studies have found that COO effects differ
according to the product category (Dinnie 2004; Kaynak & Cavusgil 1983; Roth & Romeo 1992). This
generally accepted finding is important because it relates to the COO generalisability question. Where
COO may be relevant for one product category (for example automobiles), it may not be the case for
everyday cutlery (Carvalho, Samu & Sivaramakrishnan 2011; Josiassen & Harzing 2008). Following
Samiee’s (2011) recommendation to extend the research to neglected product categories, this study
makes another original contribution. Furthermore, there is not even one study, which investigates the
COO effect for unknown cosmetics, which is a clear research gap. Therefore, a skin-care cosmetic
product (anti-ageing cream) is used as research object for this research.
Unknown brands. Despite the case that unknown brands represent the bulk of brands in
each country and worldwide, there is still little empirical research about unknown brands in a multi-cue
setting. Multi-cue COO studies are considered to be more realistic (Andersen & Chao 2003) and use
several extrinsic product characteristics (cues) such as price, warranty, brand, promotional material
and product descriptions, varying designs, etc., in comparison to single cue studies, where the COO
is the only criteria provided, based on which one has to judge about the object under investigation.
Unknown brands lack familiarity, trust, experience and overall brand equity. They also
represent a higher purchase risk (Akkucuk & Esmaeili 2016; Alden, Hoyer & Crowley 1993; Zain &
Page 8
Yasin 1997). On the contrary, many well-known brands bring along with them the COO which cannot
be disentangled from the brand and by juxtaposing brand and COO effects, academia has likely
compromised the validity of past research (Samiee & Leonidou 2011; Thakor 1996). Similarly, through
inferential beliefs, established brands may already be associated with some kind of positive or
negative judgments, regardless of the COO (Samiee 1994).
Hence, unknown, and even fictitious brands simulate well the market environment without the
bias real market brands bring with them, where the brand alone may already portray the country origin
(Samiee 2011). Therefore, this research extends the knowledge about unfamiliar brand COO effects
in a multi-cue setting. In current competitive environments, where product characteristics differ less
and less or differences cannot be perceived by consumers, marketing a favourable COO is frequently
thought to be beneficial in terms of product quality evaluations and willingness to pay a price
premium. However, as this research shows, unfamiliar brands may benefit from a favourable COO in
terms of quality perceptions and thus ease market entry. However, this research also suggests that
there are additional marketing measures such as market segmentation, targeting and an appropriate
pricing policy needed in order to potentially transform the COO effects into financially measurable
outcomes.
1.4.2 Practical contributions
This study’s practical contributions are threefold. First, it determines if reinforced COO
promotion provides improved outcomes. Second, the monetisable value of a COO cue for a new
beautification brand was determined and thus contributes new information on whether COO
marketing is honoured by consumers’ WTP. Third, it provides insights as to whether CInv and CE, as
well as cross-country differences, need to be considered in marketing plans.
COO promotion. The results of this study established that a favourable COO, when recalled
at the right moment of purchase decision, contributes to higher product quality assessments. In
accordance with prior research, it is also suggested that a generally positive COO in some product
categories may transfer to other product categories. With that in mind, a new beautification brand
without established brand equity could leverage on favourable country brands such as Made in
France or even Made in Germany, despite Germany not being well known for cosmetics
internationally.
In addition, unnatural or forced promotion of the country designation could become

disadvantageous as consumers may reject such an approach. Subtle COO marketing, where core
product benefits are the central part of the marketing message seems to contribute to better results.
Monetisable value of COO. This research has identified that favourable quality evaluations
must be achieved before consumers’ can be expected to purchase a product and to even pay a price
premium compared to alternative products. While the COO can contribute to beneficial quality
perceptions, this study reveals that COO alone is not strong enough to command price premiums and
premium prices. One of the learnings from this study is that product evaluations and specifically the
well-researched sphere of quality perceptions, do not necessarily lead to managerially relevant
parameters such as WTP. Quality perceptions may serve as a proxy but are not suitable to conclude
Page 9
about the dollar value of a COO cue. Hence, enterprises cannot rely on COO marketing alone to
support premium pricing but need to develop and employ additional marketing strategies in order to
leverage and carry over positive quality perceptions from certain manufacturing locations towards
purchase intentions in order to finally achieve superior margins.
Such insights support careful market segmentation, targeting, branding and price
differentiation strategies, which are not only of interest for those who are responsible for marketing
success but also for international corporations and their managers, who are directly or indirectly
responsible for the financial performance of their enterprises.
Moderating effects of CInv and CE as well as cross-country differences. This study

challenges the notion that the involvement of Colombian product category consumers has a
significant effect on product quality perceptions. However, such an effect was not evidenced in the
USA. Despite the frequent mention of CE as moderating variable, it was not shown that CE should be
a major consideration for marketing practitioners. Beyond that and with regard to cross-country
differences, the study outcomes were fairly equivalent.
These outcomes throw light upon two major marketing constructs, which may otherwise
obfuscate marketing efforts. Given that there were no major cross-country differences in this study,
this study provides indirect support for the design of international marketing strategies and plans.
1.4.3 Methodological significance
COO research has been scrutinised with regards to construct operationalization (Roth &
Diamantopoulos 2009) and methodological weaknesses relating to external validity (Johansson
1989). The methodological challenges are manifold, and COO research is facing difficult times (Lala,
Allred & Chakraborty 2008; Martín & Cerviño 2011; Pisharodi & Parameswaran 1992; Samiee 2011;
Usunier & Cestre 2008). To overcome these challenges, more contemporary research, which
addresses these methodological issues, has been proposed to be the appropriate answer (Josiassen,
Harzing 2008; Samiee 2010). Hence, this study is designed to address three methodological
shortcomings and deficiencies identified in the literature as described next.
The first methodological limitation relates to the use of a product category which is suitable for
the data collection method (Usunier & Cestre 2008). The majority of COO studies have evaluated the
COO effect via structured paper questionnaires and online surveys, among other things, for food,
wine, and automobiles. However, most consumers do not buy food online or judge food if not in the
store at the time of purchase. Automobiles too, are generally not evaluated online and cannot be test-
driven online either. Nielsen (2016) reports that only 10% of consumers have bought food and only
11% bought wine online, meanwhile online purchasing in the category of beauty and personal care
products (35%) seems to be well established. Hence, cosmetics are deemed appropriate for an image
supported online survey.
The second methodological limitation is avoiding the induction of response/subject bias. Most
empirical studies have made the COO information available to study participants in an unnatural way.
P a g e 10
The COO cue has usually been highlighted in a way that it had to be recognized by everybody (Han
1989; Liefeld 2004; Usunier 2006). Such a method contrasts with real market conditions and with its
systematic bias, is considered a major methodological flaw (Liefeld 2004; Magnusson, Westjohn &
Zdravkovic 2011a). Numerous publications have outlined that in case the COO would not have been
mentioned and highlighted in an unnatural way, subjects may not have looked for it and consequently
may not have used it as an informational cue at all, or at least to a lesser extent in comparison to
other product attributes (Baughn & Yaprak 1993; Hong & Wyer 1989; Hulland, Todiño & Lecraw 1996;
Liefeld 1993; Samiee 2010; Wall, Liefeld & Heslop 1991).
In these cases, an artificial and completely uncommon context is being tested, where non-
COO recognition and thus recall is not an option. Specifically it is argued that “the [COO] effect is
inflated when participants receive verbal descriptions of a brand’s COO compared to the more
ecologically valid situation where shoppers search for such information at the point of sale or retrieve
it spontaneously from memory” (Shimp, Samiee & Sharma 2001, p. 325). For this reason, this study’s
methodology will not direct participant’s attention in the ‘non-COO’ and unaided-COO experimental
groups towards the brand’s COO or the lack of a ‘Made in label’. Thus, it accounts for the possibility
that the COO may not be recognized and thus recalled. Moreover, special care is taken that the
questionnaire does not allow the respondent to guess the study’s purpose.
The third limitation relates to the use of a sample consisting of real product category
consumers. The appropriateness of convenience student samples, many times coercing students to
participate in exchange for course credits (Liefeld 2004), and their limited external validity has raised
considerable debate (Arora et al. 2015; Bhaskaran & Sukumaran 2007; Liefeld 1993; Lu et al. 2016;
Mai 2011; Martín & Cerviño 2011; Peterson & Jolibert 1995; Roth & Diamantopoulos 2009; Samiee
1994; Usunier 2006; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999) despite the argument that student samples would
provide similar outcomes when compared to real consumers (Peterson & Jolibert 1995; Verlegh
2001). Student samples differ from consumer samples based on their different socio-demographic
profiles and homogeneity. Students are also argued to contribute to larger effect sizes (Verlegh &
Steenkamp 1999). For example, with few exceptions, it is neither to be expected that young male
students can provide valid insights about anti-stretchmark or age spot removers nor average female
students on cross-country motorcycles or coal-mining equipment. These examples are chosen to
highlight that in the past, too often the familiarity of consumers with products and their origins was not
seen as important for the validity of study outcomes (Usunier 2006). While student samples may be
suitable for theory testing, where external validity is not the primary objective (Calder, Phillips &
Tybout 1981; Parvin & Chowdhury 2006), this thesis is designed to provide outcomes which are as
close to reality as they can be within the scope of this research.
By taking into account these methodological suggestions for improvement from past research
studies, this research will provide increased validity and addresses several calls for more rigorous
studies in COO (Josiassen & Harzing 2008; Samiee 2010).
P a g e 11
1.5 Overview of Methodology
Chapter 3 addresses the methodology used for this research. The approach within which this
study will be conducted is a post-positivist one. The research consists of 3 studies as shown in Figure
1.1, all using an experimental design. Study One, an initial study in the USA with a general population
sample will inform Study Two, largely confirmatory and with consumers who use anti-ageing creams.
The last study (Study Three) which is confirmatory in nature and with product users too, takes place in
a different country (Colombia, Latin America). Thus, Study One serves for a comparison between a
general population sample and two product user samples. Furthermore, Study Three allows for cross-
country comparisons between Colombia and the USA (Study One and Study Two versus Study
Three).
Figure 2.1 Research design
Source: developed for this research
The theoretical framework (see section 2.4) and the conceptual model were developed after
reviewing the extant literature. The latter will be tested first in Study One (USA General Population)
with an online experiment, using MTurk. With any adjustments resulting from Study One, both Study
Two (USA User Population) and Study Three (Colombia User Population) continue to further test the
findings of Study One, whereby an online panel provider facilitates the realisation of the main
experiments. All three studies will be conducted by employing a 3 x 3 x 2 post-test only, between-
groups, factorial design. This reflects three recall conditions (aided recall, unaided recall and no
COO), three COO countries (France and Germany and the home country, which is in Study One and
Two the USA and in Study Three Colombia) and finally the two study locations USA and Colombia (cf.
Figure 3.3). The data analysis technique used for the experiments is ANOVA/MANOVA. Next, a brief
comment on definitions is presented.
P a g e 12
1.6 Theoretical underpinning
The COO research domain has been regularly denounced as an atheoretic field of science
which is characterized by the lack of a domain specific theory (Crittenden & Peterson 2011;
Magnusson & Westjohn 2011; Samiee 2011). More recently, however, some academics have started
to leverage other theories, which are related to the research objectives (cf. Table 2.4, applied theories
in COO research from 1998 - 2017). This research is theoretically underpinned by the cue utilization
theory for the quality evaluations and the equity theory for consumers’ WTP assessment. According to
the cue utilization theory, consumers use both extrinsic and intrinsic product cues for product
evaluations and in case intrinsic cues are not available or accessible, extrinsic cues aid as a shortcut
in evaluation and decision processes. (Magnusson & Westjohn 2011). Thus, the cue utilization theory
supports the understand of product quality evaluations. The equity theory contemplates perceived
fairness with regard to value transactions, what humans consider as fair and how they react in case of
perceived unfairness as well as humans endeavor to maximize perceived fairness (Bruhn & Hadwich
2014; Koschate 2002). Therefore, the equity theory is well suited to support the determination of
consumers’ WTP for perceived benefits resulting from different COO’s.
1.7 Definitions
Extant literature provides many COO definitions in the broader sense. Depending on the
study objective, some fit better than others but they are all not without limitations (Roth &
Diamantopoulos 2009). In this thesis the country of origin image (COI) definition from Nebenzahl et al.
(2003, p. 388) “Consumers' perceptions about the attributes of products made-in a certain country;
emotions toward the country and resulted perceptions about the social desirability of owning products
made-in the country” is used. It is a definition which subsumes in a rather holistic way the most
important and relevant criteria of other definitions. A complete overview of definitions is provided in
Section 2.2. and Table 2.1. Willingness to pay is defined as the price a consumer considers
reasonable for the product and which each consumer is willing to pay.
1.8 Delimitations
This research is delimited by geography and product category.
Geographies. This research is framed within the USA, where most COO studies have been
conducted and where likewise most COO-authors in a wider sense are from (Lu et al. 2016; Usunier
2006). The USA serves as a benchmark (control). The second country this research focuses on is
Colombia, an exemplary country from Latin America and from a region with the lowest share of
published COO research in the last decades (Lu et al. 2016). However, the applicability and
generalisability of this study’s outcomes in different geographies would have to be explored further.
P a g e 13
Product category. This research focuses on tangible, non-luxury and non-food products,
specifically skin-care cosmetics, where an anti-ageing cream served as a stimulus. Cosmetics are
mentioned in only very few COO publications (Devita & Agustini, M. Y. Dwi Hayu 2019; Koç, Nart &
Baş 2017; Kumar 2015; Ngoc 2013; Parvin & Chowdhury 2006; Rebufet, Loussaief & Bacouël-
Jentjens 2015) and therefore can be considered an under-researched area. Hence, the comparability
with prior research is limited and the transferability of outcomes and conclusions to other product
categories would need to be assessed separately.
1.9 Outline of the thesis
Figure 2.2 Outline of the thesis
The following section of Chapter 1 will

provide a compendium of each of the main
chapters embodied in this report in order to
facilitate a brief understanding of what is
being described in much more in detail in
the remainder of this thesis.
Chapter 1 introduces the background of this research, specifically why there is a need for
further COO research, despite the extensive prevalent body of knowledge. Gaps in the literature were
outlined as well. Subsequently, the research question and objectives arising from the extant body of
knowledge were delineated with the aim to set boundaries to the research issues and clarify what this
study is all about. With a bit more detail, the justification for this research and its contribution to theory
and marketing practice was outlined. Since most studies consistently did not address some past
recommendations regarding how to improve the validity of the outcomes, chapter 1 also depicts why
the gaps identified are important and relevant (Varadarajan 1996). The delimitations and concluding
remarks will set the stage for all subsequent chapters.
P a g e 14
Chapter 2 aims to provide an overview of relevant extant literature on which the theoretical
foundation of this thesis is built. Both the background, that is the parent and focus theories are touched
upon. It serves to identify and establish the research gaps and issues, which are worthwhile to explore
further. Issues with regards to the development of the COO domain, relevance, conflicting outcomes and
moderating/mediating variables are discussed. Furthermore, it proposes a theoretical framework and a
conceptual model which underpins this thesis.
Building on the theoretical framework, it finally discusses the hypotheses derived from the
theoretical model and the context provided within the literature review. These hypotheses constitute
the rationale for the research design and specifically the subsequent data collection as well as the
data analysis
In Chapter 3 a justification for the positivism paradigm and the experimental design is
provided (Section 3.2). Section 3.3 continues to elaborate on the appropriateness of an experimental
study design, sampling frame and size, target population, online surveys, product and country
selection, stimuli development and use, and the measurement of variables. Thus, the
operationalization of the research objectives and questions for Study One, the initial study, are
outlined in detail. The chosen experimental design were conducted by means of an image and
product description supported by an online survey via MTurk with a general population sample from
the USA (Study One) and from an online panel provider with a product category user sample from
both the USA (for Study Two) and Colombia (for Study Three). Pursuant to Section 3.3, Study Two
and Three methodological specifics are described. Chapter 3 closes with all the ethical considerations
relevant to this research.
Next, Chapter 4 reports the results of Study One (USA General Population). The chapter
begins with the data preparation and the profile description of the participants in Section 4.2. It is
followed by Section 4.3 and 4.4, where both the outcomes of the reliability analysis and validity
analysis of the results are presented. Subsequently, the results from the hypotheses testing by means
of analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the main dependent variables are reported in Section 4.5,
followed by Section 4.6 with the findings originating from the mediation and moderation analysis.
Chapter 4 concludes with a general discussion and implications of the data and insights gathered in
this chapter.
Chapter 5 is about Study Two (USA User Population), the first of the two confirmatory
studies. It is structured in the same manner as Chapter 4. Thus, Section 5.2 provides details about
the data preparation and the sample profile, followed by Section 5.3 and 5.4 with the results from the
reliability and validity analysis. Section 5.5 continues with the outcomes from the ANOVA tests and
Section 5.6 provides the last statistical data arising from the mediation and moderation analysis.
Chapter 5 ends with a general discussion and implication of the study findings.
Chapter 6 refers to Study Three (Colombia User Population), the second confirmatory study.
The chapter structure replicates Chapter 5 to simplify comparisons and crosschecking later on in
Chapter 7.
P a g e 15
The seventh and final chapter integrates the findings from all three studies with the literature
review by presenting a summary of all hypotheses which were either supported or rejected (Section
7.2). Furthermore, each research objective and the overarching research question, “What is the
influence of COO recall on product quality perceptions and WTP?”, are discussed in light of the
insights gathered from all 3 studies. Section 7.3 continues with the theoretical contribution of this
research and Section 7.4 adds the practical/managerial contributions to the picture. Finally, limitations
of this research and future research directions are covered before some concluding considerations
relating to this research bring this thesis to an end.
1.10 Conclusion
This chapter outlines the framework for this thesis. It introduced the overall purpose, the
research question, research objectives and how these will be dealt with. Multiple justifications were
provided supporting why this research adds to the current knowledge base and definitions, limitations
and the methodology were briefly outlined as an introduction to the more detailed subsequent
chapters. On these foundations, this thesis will continue with step-by-step delineation of this study.
P a g e 16
2. Literature Review, theories and model/hypothesis
development
2.1 Introduction
Chapter 1 provided a brief background of the research along with the rationale for the thesis
and introduced the overall research question of ‘What is the impact of COO recall on quality
perceptions and WTP?’. It also provided a brief overview of the thesis and its structure. This chapter,
Chapter 2, presents the relevant extant literature with a review of past findings and potential
implications and inferences for this thesis. Thus, this chapter analyses prior research publications,
identifies and highlights central issues and research gaps, elucidates on a line of argument and
specifically explores if and to what extent the research domains of this thesis have previously been
researched.
The purpose of the literature review is to not only increase the understanding of topic related
issues, delimit the research problem and scope plus gain methodological insights, but to identify
patterns, academic debates, knowledge gaps and to establish the academic context for this study.
“A researcher cannot perform significant

research without understanding the literature
in the field.” (Boote & Beile 2005, p. 3)
This chapter is divided into twelve major sections as depicted in Figure 2.1. Next to this
introduction, Section 2.2 addresses the definitions used in this research domain. Section 2.3 renders
an overview of the decades-long publication history, controversies and challenges as well as gaps
identified in the extant literature. In continuation Section 2.4 informs about the COO, the first key
concept which will be used within the model of this thesis followed by Section 2.5, where the aspects
of COO recall are reviewed. Section 2.6 apprises of past findings in relation to COO and quality
perceptions. Next, Sections 2.7 and 2.8 provide a summary of past COO research which investigated
the influence of consumer involvement and consumer ethnocentrism, being followed by Section 2.9,
with the focal point on willingness to pay for products, associated with a COO. Section 2.10 informs
about the guiding theories in COO research which leads into Section 2.11 which is dedicated to the
conceptual research model and hypothesis development. Finally, this chapter concludes with some
final remarks in the summary section 2.12.
P a g e 17
Figure 2.1 Outline of Chapter 2
Prior to outlining the definitions of the key constructs of the study, there are important
delimitations of the literature review which should be outlined. The literature search was designed to
include only pertinent and topic relevant publications. To be eligible for inclusion in the literature used
for this thesis, the publications had to be related primarily to the COO domain, WTP knowledge and to
tangible products rather than to services. While knowledge about early COO research is important to
understand the foundations of the COO domain, this thesis will focus largely on post Bilkey and Nes
(1982) literature, since their thorough compilation of COO studies before 1982 with multiple
recommendations for improvement, served as a platform for future research. With very few
exceptions, the COO literature was further concentrated by avoiding publications related to non-
durable and unrelated product categories, such as food, medicine and agricultural products. Further,
the literature review scope did not consider COO research which focused on a business-to-business
view. This concludes the introduction to Chapter 2, next the definitions of the key constructs of the
thesis are presented.
2.2 Definitions of COO
More often than not, definitions of key terms used in marketing research differ (Perry 1998).
Some potentially controversial terms are defined hereinafter, to establish the stance taken in this
study.
Country of Origin (COO). There is no shortage of COO, CI or PCI related definitions in a

broader sense in the literature. This is due to the evolving understanding of the country origin
manifestation and to the different ramifications COO research has created. Although most definitions
P a g e 18
overlap and share some common understanding, historically COO has been interpreted as an
informational cue of the country in which the products are manufactured, which in the past was often
only one country and which is communicated by the phrase ‘Made in …’ (Bilkey & Nes 1982).
Accordingly, COO inferences can refer to a macro view, which is mostly the economic/ technological
development stage of a country or to the micro view, referring to the goods produced in such country.
For example, a consumer who believes that a certain country is technologically advanced would likely
derive from that perspective, that many products from such a country are manufactured with state-of-
the-art technology. In contrast, from a micro view perspective, a consumer may be convinced that
Australian beef is outstanding and thus infer from this view that all agricultural products from Australia
are of superior quality (Pappu, Quester & Cooksey 2007). While traditional definitions have described
country-of-origin as “information pertaining to where a product is made” (Zhang 1996, p. 51),
definitions with a consumer-orientation (Herz 2015) have described the concept as “the country with
which a firm is associated” (Samiee 1994, p. 581). However, the traditional definitions have been
criticized and denoted as being too narrow (Ger 1991; Papadopoulos 1993; Papadopoulos 1993).
Despite the many definitions of COO in the literature, which are all overlapping to varying
degrees, most definitions have common propositions. This includes aspects such as the country of
manufacturing, consumer perceptions about such country and about where goods are made. Most
importantly, one has to be mindful that COO is used broadly, almost as an umbrella denomination
where some authors subsume PCI and COI under COO or use it interchangeably (Samiee 1994).
Specifically, extant research, with the exception of the publication from Han and Terpstra (1988), does
not differentiate between COO and country of manufacturing. That is to say, COO which uses ‘Made
in …’ can represent the legal requirements, that is a product manufactured-in, assembled-in,
designed-in or invented-in a certain country, regardless of where the manufacturer, its assembly line
or headquarters is actually located. That includes situations where the manufacturer is just purporting
to be made-in a certain country, such as the Chinese brand Haier or the US brand Haägen-Dazs
(Papadopoulos 1993).
With many CI definitions and without clear delineation, it was purported that both CI and
product image have been confounded and that both constructs should be distinguished (Martin &
Eroglu 1993). Li et al. (1997) subsequently recognized the CI construct “consumers’ perceptions of a
particular country” (p. 116) and the PI construct “consumers’ perceptions of products made in a
particular country” (p. 116) as being different. Nonetheless, both constructs are not completely
disconnected. While both CI and PI are dissimilar, they are nevertheless connected because the
country image influences the image of products made in a country (Roth & Diamantopoulos 2009).
The fundamental proposition of the PCI concept is the relationship between country images
and products. In contrast to product images, PCI relates to all those products a country is famous for.
The term PCI was arguably debated to be a more encompassing caption than COO or ‘Made in …’,
because it considers both the product and the CI associated with it (Papadopoulos 1993). As PCI
does not only include a particular product (for example Colombian coffee) but many products from an
origin, it certainly is more inclusive than PI’s but less inclusive, when compared with the most used CI
definition (Josiassen et al. 2013). Thus, according to Magnusson (2011b, p. 466) PCI is defined as:
P a g e 19
“PCI of perceived COO explicitly captures the perceptual, and often flawed, nature of consumers’
brand origin perceptions.”
Thus, based upon the prior review and a summary provided in Table 2.1, there is no
consensus yet, on how COO and related concepts should be defined. Roth and Diamantopoulos
(2009) for example, provided a comprehensive overview of existing definitions and clustered them
into COO, CI, PCI and product image definitions. The variations are due to varying associations
between COI’s and product images, as discussed previously. Recognizing that all definitions related
to the origin concept have their limitations (Roth & Diamantopoulos 2009), this thesis, as mentioned
previously in section 1.5, uses the definition provided by Nebenzahl et al. (Nebenzahl, Jaffe & Usunier
2003, p. 388) which is defined as “[c]onsumers' perceptions about the attributes of products
made in a certain country; emotions toward the country and resulted perceptions about the
social desirability of owning products made in the country.” When considering COO as a
synonym for all holistically perceived stimuli portrayed by a products’ ‘Made in …’ label this definition
seems to encompass elements of most of the 31 definitions compiled in Table 2.1. Such a concept
provides a suitable theoretical framework for the assessment of extrinsic and intrinsic product cues
and their comparative value (Roth & Diamantopoulos 2009).
Table 2.1 Summary of all definitions encountered in extant literature
Author(s) COO, Country of Headquarters (COH) and Category

Country of Brand (COB) definitions
Johansson et al. “Country of origin is defined as the country where COO / COH
(1985, p. 389) because of multinational corporate headquarters of the
company marketing the product or brand is located.”
Özsomer and “COO refers to the country with which the firm is COO / COH
Cavusgil (1991, p. associated. Typically, this is the home country for a
270) company or where the headquarters are located”
Samiee (1994, p. “CO[O] denotes the country with which a firm is COO
581) associated. Typically, this is the home country for a
company.”
Strutton et al. “Composite ‘made in’ image consisting of the mental COO
(1995, p. 79) facsimiles, reputations and stereotypes associated with
goods originating from each country of interest.”
Li et al. (1997, Product image: “consumers’ perceptions of products COO
p. 116) made in a particular country”
Chinen et al. (2000, “Country of Origin (COO) effects refer to consumers’ COO
p. 139) reliance on COO information in evaluating the quality of
products from various countries and making their
decisions on product purchases.”
Nebenzahl (2001, “Made-in-Country. The country whose name appears on COO
p. 26) the “made-in” label. It is usually the country where final
production takes place.”
Nebenzahl (2001, “Country of origin. The country which a consumer COO
p. 27) associates with a certain product or brand as being its
source, regardless of where the product is actually
produced.”
(Liefeld 2004, “The place in the world where a product is manufactured COO
p. 86) is the ‘country of origin of the product’ (COOP)”
Jaffe and "[T]he country which a consumer associates a certain COO/COB
Nebenzahl (2006, product or brand as being its source"
p. 29)
P a g e 20
Usunier (2006, “COO is increasingly considered as that country which COO/COB
p. 62) consumers typically associate with a product or brand,
irrespective of where it is actually manufactured.”
CI definitions
(Bannister & “Generalized images, created by variables such as CI
Saunders 1978), p. representative products, economic and political maturity,
562) historical events and relationships, traditions,
industrialization and the degree of technological
virtuosity.”
Desborde (1990, p. “Country-of-origin image refers to the overall impression CI
44) of a country present in a consumer's mind as conveyed
by its culture, political system and level of economic and
technological development.”
Martin and Eroglu “country image was defined as the total of all descriptive, CI
(1993, p. 193) inferential and informational beliefs one has about a
particular country.”
Kotler et al. (1993, “The sum of beliefs and impressions people hold about CI
p. 141) places. Images represent a simplification of a large
number of associations and pieces of information
connected with a place. They are a product of the mind
trying to process and pick out essential information from
huge amounts of data about a place.”
Li et al. (1997) “consumers’ perceptions of a particular country” CI
Askegaard and “Schema, or a network of interrelated elements that CI
Ger (1998, p. 52) define the country, a knowledge structure that
synthesizes what we know of a country, together with its
evaluative significance or schema-triggered affect.”
Allred et al. (2000, “[T]he perception or impression that organizations and CI
p. 36) consumers have about a country. This impression or
perception of a country is based on the country’s
economic condition, political structure, culture, conflict
with other countries, labor conditions, and stand on
environmental issues.”
Verlegh and “Mental representations of a country's people, products, CI
Steenkamp (1999) culture and national symbols. Product-country images
contain widely shared cultural stereotypes.”
Remark: Although this definition was classified as a CI definition (Roth
& Diamantopoulos 2009), it is well suited to be used as a PCI definition
as well.
Verlegh (2001, p. “A mental network of affective and cognitive associations CI
25) connected to the country.”
PCI definitions
Nagashima (1970, "[I]mage" means ideas, emotional background, and PCI
p. 68) connotation associated with a concept. Thus, the "made
in" image is the picture, the reputation, the stereotype
that businessmen and consumers attach to products of a
specific country.
Narayana (1981, “The aggregate image for any particular country's PCI
p. 32) product refers to the entire connotative field associated
with that country's product offerings, as perceived by
consumers.”
Hooley (1988, “[S]tereotype images of countries and/or their outputs PCI
p. 67) and that these impact on behaviour”
Han (1989, p. 222) “Consumers' general perceptions of quality for products PCI
made in a given country.”
Roth and Romeo “Country image is the overall perception consumers' PCI
(1992, p. 480) form of products from a particular country, based on
their prior perceptions of the country's production and
marketing strengths and weaknesses.”
Bilkey (1993, “Buyers' opinions regarding the relative qualities of PCI
p. xix) goods and services produced in various countries”
P a g e 21
Knight and “Country-of-origin image (COI) reflects a consumer's PCI/
Calantone (Knight general perceptions about the quality of products made COO/
& Calantone 2000, in a particular country and the nature of people from that COI
p. 127) country”
Jaffe and “Brand and country images are similarly defined as the PCI
Nebenzahl (2001, mental pictures of brands and countries, respectively.”
p. 13)
Papadopoulos and “Product-country images (PCIs) or the place-related PCI
Heslop (2003, images with which buyers and/or sellers may associate
p. 404) a product”.
Nebenzahl et al. “Consumers' perceptions about the attributes of PCI
(2003, p. 388) products made-in a certain country; emotions toward the
country and resulted perceptions about the social
desirability of owning products made-in the country”.
Magnusson et al. “PCI of perceived COO explicitly captures the PCI/
(2011b, p. 466) perceptual, and often flawed, nature of consumers’ COB
brand origin perceptions.”
Strutton et al. “[A] composite "made-in" image consisting of the mental PCI
(1995, p. 79) facsimiles, reputations and stereotypes associated with
goods originating from each country of interest.”
Source: developed for this research. Amended and adapted, based on the 20 definitions provided by
Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009)
2.3 COO Overview – historical development
Now that COO has been defined, this section of the literature review focuses first and
foremost on the historical development of COO research.
As early as 1962, Dichter published his article about the world customer, which was the initial
spark for the COO research stream (Andéhn & L’Espoir Decosta 2016). The first empirical study
followed soon afterwards in 1965, where the impact of national origin designations on product
evaluations was shown (Schooler 1965). Two decades later, the COO or ‘Made in ...’ effect was
reportedly one of the hot topics in consumer behaviour research, with research generally undertaken
in the USA (Tan & Farley 1987), followed by Europe, Asia and Australia (Lu et al. 2016). A database,
developed by the research group of Papadopoulos and Heslop, covering 40 years in retrospect,
identifies more than 750 major publications with 780 authors involved (Papadopoulos & Heslop 2002),
while Usunier (2006) estimated the number of publications including PhD dissertations and
conference papers already at around 1000. Only two years later, the number of publications related to
country-product image research was estimated to surpass 1,200 (Heslop, Lu & Cray 2008), making
COO research arguably one of the most researched topics in international marketing, despite the
recent deceleration of new COO related publications overall and decline of published works in top-tier
journals (Lu et al. 2016). This growth and decline in COO research is illustrated in Figure 2.2
P a g e 22
Figure 2.2 COO publication frequency
Source: (Lu et al. 2016)
Reasons as to why the number of publications has decreased since 2010 are not clear but it
could arguably be related to the decreasing share of USA and Europe-related research (Lu et al.
2016). A study about the composition of the editorial board members of the top ten marketing journals
revealed, that 550 out of 668 were based at US institutions (Rosenstreich & Wooliscroft 2006).
Consequently, 70% of marketing publications between 2002 and 2004 dealt with US evidence and top
tier journals tend also to have low international involvement (Rosenstreich & Wooliscroft 2006). Even
more specific is the publication of Fastoso and Whitelock (2011), where a bias against Latin American
publications was shown. Thus, whilst COO research has been extensive, it has primarily been based
in the US, with little to no comparisons with other markets to attest to the generalizability of key
research findings.
As outlined earlier in this chapter, the COO construct traditionally represents the country of
manufacture (‘made in’) (Nebenzahl, Jaffe & Lampert 1997; Zhang 1996), which appears in 95% of
publications (Usunier 2006). Such a conceptualization served academia well as long as the products
were manufactured primarily in one country. With increasing sourcing, design and manufacturing
interconnectedness, COO has become more complex. As a result, COO has been further broken
down and differentiated into country of assembly, country of design, country of brand, country of parts
including the consideration of globalization effects leading to multinational or hybrid supply chains and
brands (Ahmed & d′Astous 1995; Josiassen & Assaf 2010; Nebenzahl, Jaffe & Lampert 1997;
Papadopoulos & Heslop 2002; Phau & Prendergast 2000; Tamas 2015; Thakor & Lavack 2003; Tse
& Lee 1993). This research, however, will focus on COO in relation to where the product is
P a g e 23
manufactured.
Upon a further deeper review of the themes of COO (see Figure 2.3), it appears there has
been a rapid development of different research streams and phases coming primarily from consumer
behaviour, international business and marketing disciplines (Heslop, Lu & Cray 2008; ed. Petruzzellis
L. 2016). Research has taken several avenues and COO scholars categorized them in different ways
(Dinnie 2004; Phau & Prendergast 2000; Tamas 2015). In the following sections, the phases of COO
research identified in the review of the literature will be discussed.
Figure 2.3 COO research phases
Source: developed for this research, based on and adapted from Phau and Prendergast (2000)
The first phase dates from the 1960s until 1982. The first publications by Dichter (1962) and
Schooler (1965) established that there was an influencing COO effect with a potential major
repercussion on a products’ success, and were the commencement for the subsequent and mainly
single cue studies. Back then, neither the strength nor the direction of these newly discovered COO
effects were examined (Phau & Prendergast 2000; Usunier 2006). The major objective of these first
studies was to establish the phenomenon in international marketing (Mai 2011) but “largely
demonstrational in nature and concerned with documenting the existence of COO effects” (Li, Murray
& Scott 2000, p. 122).
The second phase began with Bilkey and Nes’s seminal literature review (1982), in which 25
publications about the new research domain up to 1980 were covered. It was the first critical review
highlighting methodological weaknesses of the first COO research phase. For example, single cue
studies, where the only extrinsic informational cue is the COO (Niffenegger, White & Marmet 1980)
and products, without any other extrinsic cues such as brand, price, weight, store, etc., were labelled
instead with country names such as ‘Guatemala’ and ‘Costa Rica’. These single cue studies clearly
lacked realism and tended to overestimate the COO effect size (Al‐Sulaiti & Baker 1998; Bilkey & Nes
1982; Usunier 2006; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999). In this phase, not only the quantity of COO
investigation increased, but also the research quality (Baughn & Yaprak 1993). Since then, multi-cue
studies have evolved to be the standard in COO research. However, the more attributes tested, the
weaker the COO effect and the lower the predictive power of COO with regard to product
P a g e 24
assessments (Agrawal & Kamakura 1999; Johansson, Douglas & Nonaka 1985). These findings are
considered to be the awakening of criticism of the COO construct overall (Herz 2013).
This second phase, which lasted until approximately 1990, was characterized by more
complex multiple cue studies, where apart from the COO, both extrinsic product cues and intrinsic
product cues, such as quality, size, colour and taste were included in the research (Bertoli & Resciniti
2013). It was only then that it was repeatedly shown that the COO effect indeed was inflated in the
earlier single cue studies with their Within-Subjects-Designs and that the effect is much less
pronounced when behavioural attitudes are tested (Herz 2013; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005;
Tamas 2015; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999). In a meta-analysis, Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999)
confirmed that COO has a much larger effect on perceived quality than on attitude toward the product
or purchase intention.
More concretely, Peterson and Jolibert (1995), for example, calculated in their meta-analysis
of 52 COO research papers the COO effect size of earlier single cue studies to be 0.30, when
considering quality and reliability perceptions. However, as shown in Figure 2.4, the effect size drops
to only 0.19 when it comes to purchase intentions. Similarly, the effect size of quality and reliability
perceptions drop significantly in multiple cue studies from 0.30 to 0.16 and even more from 0.19 to
0.03 when purchase intentions within multiple cue studies were measured.
Figure 2.4 Effect size of single and multiple cue studies
Source (Peterson & Jolibert 1995) - developed for this study
Thus, there seems to be a behavioural gap between consumer perceptions and consumer
behaviour, such as WTP (Usunier 2006; Tjandra et al. 2015) Accordingly, as shown in Figure 2.5, the
finding of Peterson and Jolibert’s (1995) meta-analysis of 69 COO studies and 1,520 effect sizes
showed, that the COO effect size diminishes in multi-cue studies significantly when comparing COO
effects on quality perception versus purchase intention.
P a g e 25
Figure 2.5 Impact of COO on consumer behaviour
Source: (Mai 2011) based on findings from Peterson and Jolibert (1995)
In other words, Peterson and Jolibert’s (1995) research suggests indirectly, that it is
worthwhile to focus on more robust study designs and outcome variables, compared to merely
measuring perceptions in an artificial context. WTP as a measurement and valuation tool is more
rigorous compared to product quality evaluations and purchase intentions ( (Koschate-Fischer,
Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012; Monroe 2003), where consumers may evaluate products
favourably but finally are not willing or able to purchase them at a comparatively higher price versus
the supposedly same product from another country. As such, the willingness to “pay a price premium
may be the most reasonable summary measure of overall brand equity” (Bayraktar & Ahmet 2015,
p. 566).
This second phase also revealed that COO was more important than the brand, but when it
came to purchase intentions, the brand of generally well-known products turned out to be more
influential than COO (d'Astous & Ahmed 1999).
Apart from a further proliferation of research objectives, conceptual and methodological

progress, as for example hybrid products (Insch & McBride 1998; Li, Murray & Scott 2000; Phau &
Prendergast 2000; Phau & Siew Leng 2008) as well as the halo and summary construct (Han 1989;
Johansson 1989), phase three characterizes itself by the quest to explain COO effects based on
theories or eventually develop an own COO theory (Johansson 1989; Johansson, Ronkainen &
Czinkota 1994). Effect sizes, relationships and direction of COO effects were found to be
heterogeneous and depend very much on the research setting, differences in study design, data
collection method and study year (Peterson & Jolibert 1995; Usunier 2011; Verlegh & Steenkamp
1999), the country (Jaffe & Martinez 1995; Nebenzahl & Jaffe 1996) as well as a number of individual
consumer traits (for example consumer sociodemographics, consumer ethnocentrism, patriotism,
nationalism, affinity, dislike or xenocentrism) and product-related characteristics (Akaah & Yaprak
P a g e 26
1993; Kaynak, Kara & Unusan 1998; Okechuku 1994), and could still not be explained by means of a
simple cause-effect relationship (Mai 2011). What started in the advent of increasing globalization, a
couple of researchers continued to decompose the COO construct into country of design, country of
parts, country of assembly versus country of manufacture (Ahmed & d'Astous 1996; Chao 1993; Chao
1998; Heslop & Papadopoulos 1993), however, an explanation of what managerial relevance such
decompositions have, is yet outstanding.
The last and still ongoing phase four focuses on methodological weaknesses and content
related gaps, which have been neglected for decades. COO scholars therefore dedicated efforts on a
number of topics, for instance on exploring COO effects in relation to services (Javalgi, Cutler &
Winans 2001), advancing the understanding of consumer characteristics and attitudes such as
consumer expertise and knowledge (Cilingir & Basfirinci 2014; Ghalandari & Norouzi 2012; Paswan &
Sharma 2004), product familiarity (Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas 2008; Lee & Lee 2009; Tore,
Gabrielsen & Jaffe 2014) and psychographic factors such as CE (Oberecker et al. 2008; Oberecker &
Diamantopoulos 2011), among other concepts. In addition, CInv (Ahmed & d'Astous 2008; Guthrie &
Kim 2009; Michaelidou & Dibb 2008) and consumer behaviour (Brosekhan & Velayutham 2014;
Feyerlein & Habib 2014; Solomon et al. 2006; Zalega 2014) have received significant COO research
attention. Furthermore, the understanding and partitioning of the COO conceptualization into country
of corporate headquarters and corporate ownership, which encompasses the country of brand
ownership construct, have been pursued (Thakor & Lavack 2003).
The last important research stream focused on how brand origin recognition accuracy
(BORA) influences consumer decision making and vice versa, that is if and how consumer attributes
and stimulus-related aspects influence BORA (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008; Magnusson,
Westjohn & Zdravkovic 2011a; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005).
COO research kept expanding at a fast pace and consequently sought to explore multiple
alternatives in order to enhance the understanding of its effects. For example, one avenue was to
explore consumer decision-making, which included the investigation of information search as well as
the comparative evaluation of products during the product assessment and purchase decision
process (Ahmed et al. 2004). Another research avenue continued to further examine demographic
and sociodemographic aspects (Oumlil, L Koza & Montague 2014; Pentz, Terblanche & Boshoff
2014; Schaefer 1997), whereas other COO scholars opted for uncovering more detailed consumer
perceptions about certain countries and products originating from such, exploring their impact on
consumer attitudes and behaviour (Demirbag, Sahadev & Mellahi 2010; Diamantopoulos,
Schlegelmilch & Palihawadana 2011; Heslop, Lu & Cray 2008).
After decades of COO research, where most studies confirmed the existence and importance
of COO effects, this last phase distinguishes itself with the emergence of severe criticism of the COO
concept. It was contended that feasibility has driven research instead of managerial relevance, to the
extent of calling it irrelevant or that it has passed its expiration date (Harun et al. 2011; Samiee 2010;
Usunier & Cestre 2008; Zeugner-Roth & Diamantopoulos 2010).
P a g e 27
Since the early phases, many COO research contributions were attributable to only a few
researchers. While Papadopoulos (2002) reports that only 15 authors account for 21 per cent of the
registered 789 studies, such publication density has not changed notably in the subsequent 15 years
or so. With an extended recent literature review covering the period of analysis from 1978 to 2013, Lu
and Heslop et al. (2016) determine, that the 15 authors with the most contributions still accounted for
22 per cent of the 554 publications reviewed. In this period, however, the share of mainly US-related
studies finally declined below 50%, while primarily the share of European and Asian publications
increased to 31.7% and 19.7% respectively (Lu et al. 2016). Now that a broader overview of COO has
been provided and the key phases and themes of research has been discussed, the following section
will introduce the first key concept to begin the development of the model as well as underpinning
theoretical frameworks.
2.4 Country images (CI) activated by COO cues
COO is the first key concept which will be used within the model of this thesis. COO itself is
postulated to activate country images (CI) or country of origin images (COI) which exert an effect on
product evaluations. Thus, frequently consumers stereotypically talk about French perfumes, German
cars or Swiss watches (Stoenescu 2014). Extant literature uses both CI and COI interchangeably in
the context of COO research for non-food products. Thus, this section will use only CI hereafter. In
this section, definitions of CI are reviewed and the impact of CI is discussed. CI is an important
component of the COO literature and plays a key role in shaping consumer evaluations and behaviour
(Baldauf et al. 2009; Han 1989). CI can be defined 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 representative products, national characteristics, economic and political
background, history and tradition (Nagashima (1970, p. 68)." This definition has been broadly
accepted during the initial research decades (Roth & Romeo 1992) and the latest definition “A mental
network of affective and cognitive associations connected to the country” (Verlegh 2001, p. 25) does
to all intents and purposes concur with it.
Extant research provides many examples, where CI under certain conditions and most
importantly, when consumers are consciously aware of it, affects product and brand evaluations
(Bloemer, Brijs & Kasper 2009; Laroche et al. 2005; Smaiziene & Vaitkiene 2013), product categories
(Costa, Carneiro & Goldszmidt 2016; Herz 2015; Kumar 2015), industrial merchandise (Heslop &
Papadopoulos 1993; Li, Murray & Scott 2000; Reichert & Altobelli 2016), as well as services (Lin &
Chen 2006; Tore, Gabrielsen & Jaffe 2014; Vianelli & Marzano 2012). The effect size though varies,
depending on antecedents, moderating factors such as for example consumer psychographic factors,
CInv and the research design (Ahmed & d'Astous 2008; Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran 2000a;
Hamzaoui-Essoussi 2010; Shimp & Sharma 1987) as well as study design and methodology
(Peterson & Jolibert 1995; Usunier 2011; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999). Therefore, while the effect has
been shown in countless studies, the effect size, in general, is being discussed by academicians
P a g e 28
intensely and is still an unsettled issue (Ozretic-Dosen, Skare & Krupka 2007). These topics of
interest to CI are discussed next.
The general view is, that country images reflect consumers’ beliefs about individual countries
(Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran 2000a; Kotler, Haider & Rein 1993; Oberecker et al. 2008) and that a
favourable image, leaving aside if it is brand, product or country related, is reflected in advantageous
brand, product or country equity (Jaffe & Nebenzahl 2006; Pappu, Quester & Cooksey 2007; Yoo &
Donthu 2001). For example, certain product classes are automatically associated with certain
countries, such as French perfumes, Italian fashion or German automobiles. In these cases,
consumers use country related product cues such as COO during product evaluations (Papadopoulos
1993; Tse & Gorn 1993), regardless of whether they are conscious of it or not (Herz &
Diamantopoulos 2013; Liu & Johnson 2005; Shiffrin & Schneider 1977).
On the other hand, in the case of consumer expertise or familiarity with products from certain
countries, the so called “summary construct” which has also been described as direct affect transfer
process, explains how consumers’ overall experiences with products from certain countries and
feelings about these countries are passed onto the products under evaluation (Han 1989; Magnusson
& Westjohn 2011; Magnusson, Westjohn & Zdravkovic 2011a). The differentiation is made, as
different COO-processing pathways are thought to influence the COO effect-size. For example the
halo-construct tends to produce inferior effects compared to the summary construct (Balabanis &
Diamantopoulos 2011). Finally, the value of assessing CI perceptions for certain product categories is
backed by research (Hong & Wyer 1989), since consumer product category expertise (for example
automobiles) is frequently activated by COO information (Agarwal & Sikri Sameer 1996).
The CI can be neutral, however, it is mostly described as either favourable, thus representing
an intangible asset or unfavourable, which turns the CI into a negative attribute. The Anholt-Ipsos
Nation Brands Index (NBI) is one of the best-known country image rankings, which is based on
around 20,000 online-interviews in 20 panel countries in order to make the differences between
country images more tangible and transparent. Out of 50 nations where Colombia is not represented,
Germany was ranked the fourth year in row as #1, France #5 and the USA on #10. Just for
comparison reasons, China ranked 35th place in 2020 (Mcgrath 2020).
Such classification is useful for an overall assessment but does not necessarily reflect a
country’s position in every product category and country, given that CI can vary depending on the
product category and on the country where it is perceived (Lampert & Jaffe 1998). For example,
Australia may have an excellent reputation for its wines in Europe but not for high-tech appliances.
Likewise, Australia’s reputation for high quality wines in Europe may not be mirrored in Chile or
Argentina, two countries with excellent wines as well and who compete internationally in the wine
industry with Australia.
In this thesis’s exploration of COO effects of cosmetic products, next to the home and study
countries Colombia and USA, France and Germany have been chosen as two additional COO
countries for the experiments. Both France and Germany are within the top nation brand rankings
P a g e 29
(Brand Finance 2018; Mcgrath 2020) which should provide them with a competitive advantage in
terms of product evaluations and WTP. These countries should also contribute to avoid non-
significant or skewed study outcomes, which may be foreseeable with countries such as China in
case of relatively low nation brand rankings. Second, France as a country label enjoys international
recognition, it is a seal for quality and is well known for cosmetics (Rebufet, Loussaief & Bacouël-
Jentjens 2015). With a market share of 14% on global cosmetic exports in 2019, France is also the
world’s leading cosmetic exporting country (World's Top Exports 2020). Germany on the contrary is
rather known for technology, engineering and innovation and mostly associated with automobiles
(FutureBrand 2014; Lampert & Jaffe 1998). Apart from Nivea, there are likely no internationally well-
known cosmetic brands that are associated with Germany. Hence, despite a leading positive CI
overall, Germany is typically neither known for manufacturing beautification products nor associated
with the beauty industry, which is also reflected in its relatively low world export market share of
cosmetics. Thus, Germany represents a country with no fit between CI and the product category of
cosmetics. In addition, the first study country USA is home to several well-known cosmetic brands
and holds a share of more than 11% of the worldwide cosmetic exports (World's Top Exports 2020).
According to FutureBrand (2015), the USA is also one of the top regarded countries in the category of
beauty and personal care. The second study country Colombia, however, does not play a major role
when it comes to the international cosmetics market. In summary, the inclusion of France and
Germany brings an added dimension to this study.
2.5 Recall of COO
In this section, recall of COO is introduced and reviewed. COO recall is a crucial area of
inquiry in the current thesis to understand if consumers actually know about the product origin, as if
consumers are unaware of the COO, it cannot be assumed that there is any activation and transfer of
CI for the product evaluation process and purchase behaviour (McLain & Sternquist 1992; Paswan &
Sharma 2004). In this research recall of COO is defined as the ability to remember the COO cue
provided on the product label and product flyer. In the following sub-sections, the importance of COO
Recall is discussed, followed by a review of approaches to aid recall.
“a measure should not only entail focusing on consumers’

recognition accuracy, but also on whether consumers can recall
origin information.” (Josiassen and Harzing 2008, p. 268)
P a g e 30
2.5.1 Importance of COO Recall
The basic and regular assumption in COO research is that consumers view COO as relevant
and use this informational cue in their decision making (Liu & Johnson 2005). However, there are
several investigations which conclude that consumers, according to self-reports, deny using COO for
product evaluations and purchase decisions (Herz & Diamantopoulos 2017; Heslop & Papadopoulos
1993; Johansson 1993; Samiee & Leonidou 2011). In further criticisms of COO, consumers have
been shown in some studies to have limited brand origin awareness and correct knowledge of it
(Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008; Herz 2015; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005; Usunier 2002).
Therefore, it is rather self-explanatory, that “a consumer’s perceived COO image is likely to influence
the perceptions of a brand from that country, only if the consumer is aware of the brand’s COO”
(Paswan & Sharma 2004, p. 145) and actually use it for their decision making (Josiassen et al. 2013).
Thus, how consumers’ recall of COO is aided and its impact upon product evaluations is an area
requiring further investigation.
2.5.2 What Aids COO Recall and Recognition?
In the literature, research is only somewhat informative about what contributes to COO
recognition and subsequent recall. Research appears to suggest that there are product labelling
factors as well as consumer factors which contribute to recall and recognition.
First, regarding product labelling, several studies have found that emphasizing and
highlighting origin cues, which include verbal descriptions, contributes to increased consumer COO
recognition, awareness and recall. The opposite has been evidenced if the COO is disguised and
obviously, when the COO is not even mentioned (Herz 2015; Leclerc, Schmitt & Dubé 1994; Usunier
2006). For this reason, the majority of COO studies, which are characterised by verbal stimulus
description or disclosing the study objective from the beginning, are criticized by researchers, since
such study designs contribute to inflated COO effects (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008; Hulland,
Todiño & Lecraw 1996; Shimp, Samiee & Sharma 2001). On the contrary, asking consumers about
product origins, where the COO is being disguised or not being promoted, will consequently lead to
lower COO knowledge scores, compared with using only brands where the COO is actively promoted
(Herz 2015).
Second, studies have suggested that consumer factors such as CE and CInv, and
demographic factors (gender and age) can contribute to higher levels of recognition and recall of
COO. In relation to CE, Alexander et al. (2011) suggest that COO recognition is particularly positively
influenced by cosmopolitanism and reasonably by CE. The contribution of CE to a higher degree of
COO recognition is also mentioned in other sources of contemporary literature (Chattalas, Kramer &
Takada 2008). Whereas, the study of Martín and Cerviño (2011), shows that involvement may play an
explanatory role, in as much as higher involvement was positively related with higher country origin
recognition. Such a relationship has been reported by a number of authors (Chattalas, Kramer &
Takada 2008; Krupka 2017; Laurent & Kapferer 1985), where consumers’ involvement level is said to
influence both the search for product information, for example country origin, and in the decision
P a g e 31
making process. Thus, it appears that CInv and CE may play a pivotal role in understanding
recognition and these will be reviewed later in more depth in Sections 2.7 and 2.8.
Other consumer factors which have been suggested to contribute to recall are those related
to the demographic characteristics of consumers. For instance, gender was described to influence
country origin recognition (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005) and
Martín and Cerviño (2011) found that country origin recognition is markedly higher in men. However,
in an earlier study, Yuen and Hester (1987) mention that age and COO awareness were only
significant for females, in both the US and Canada, whereas the importance of COO had been found
to be significant for both genders in both countries, although older age groups showed more concern
for COO than younger age groups.
2.5.3 Criticisms from COO Recall Research
BORA studies (cf. section 2.3) or studies labelled as such are not without weaknesses. One
weakness is that usually global brands are used for study purposes (Usunier 2011) and that BORA
studies do not distinguish between brand origin knowledge acquired during the purchasing process or
pre-existing brand and brand origin knowledge acquired, among other paths, vía advertising,
recommendations from friends and family or experience with the product at work or elsewhere. BORA
studies (Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005) are of value when information about correct product or
brand origin knowledge is the question. However, they are not insightful in answering the question of
whether consumers do notice the COO at the point of sale or if the COO information is really used by
consumers (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008). In addition, they usually do not distinguish between
product categories, although there is largely consensus that COO effects are product category-
specific (Abraham & Patro 2015; Ahmed, d’Astous & Eljabri 2002; Herz 2015; Sharma 2011). For
some categories, for example gasoline, COO hardly plays a role (Helgeson et al. 2017). On the other
hand, automobiles are almost cohesively attached to a country designation whereas for other product
categories, like low involvement FMCG’s, less evident country cues lead to variable consumer COO
recognition rates (Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005).
A few investigations have tried to answer the question, whether consumers use the COO
information or not. However, the results are based on self-reported behaviour instead of real
behaviour during the product evaluation phase. In an Indian context and without focusing on a certain
product category or involvement level, Kinra (2006) found that around 10% of consumers search
always and another 28% frequently look for the ‘Made in …’ label. On the other hand, overall roughly
62% of respondents never or only occasionally searched for the product origin.
Deviating from these results, a recent study undertaken in Mauritius, as detailed in Figure 2.5,
reported the search for origin cues as high as 59% (often and always) versus 41% of consumers who
never or only occasionally enquired about the product origin. Interestingly, while consumers seem to
be keen to know where products are from, they are unenthusiastic about made in Mauritius products
(Ramsaran 2015).
P a g e 32
Figure 2.6 Share of Mauritian consumers searching for the COO
Look for COO on product Look for Made in Mauritius

label (%) label (%)
Always 27.0 2.0
Often 31.9 7.4
Occasionally 33.3 56.8
Never 7.8 33.8
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: Adapted from Ramsaran (2015)
These results differ significantly from research conducted in developed markets, where the
majority of consumers’ seem to be unconcerned about the product origin (Balabanis &
Diamantopoulos 2008; Samiee 2011; Samiee & Leonidou 2011; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005;
Usunier & Cestre 2007). In an investigation about consumers’ knowledge of country origins after
leaving the cash register, Liefeld (2004) found that more than 95% of USA and Canadian consumers
did not know the origin of the products they just purchased. In an adjusted Liefeld (2004) study
design, Helgeson and Kurpis (2017) reported in a very recent study even lower levels of brand origin
knowledge for Norway and the USA. As a conclusion, they support previous research in that product
origin cues are not of relevance for consumers (Usunier 2006) and also suspect that prior reported
COO relevance for consumers has declined even more during the 13 years between the studies.
Knowledge about product origins can be acquired actively, that is by learning and memorizing
the information or by chance, that is unintentionally, unconsciously or incidentally (Markman & Ross
2003). Magnusson et al. (2011b) argues that most consumers do not intentionally look for and learn
COO information, thus the product-related learning and experience process is rather a random course
of action (Hutchinson & Alba 1991). This is in contrast to the prevalent assumption that COO learning
and processing is a conscious cognitive mechanism (Herz & Diamantopoulos 2013). Although
consumers may not intentionally search for country origin cues, COO still may be perceived, rather
unconsciously and automatically through the simple exposure to COO cues (Herz & Diamantopoulos
2013a; Liu & Johnson 2005). In consequence, the self-reported importance of COO and its influence
on consumers’ evaluations and decision making needs to be taken with a grain of salt (Herz &
Diamantopoulos 2017). Another point that is never considered in BORA studies or when the COO
was not explicitly mentioned is readability. Rello et al. (2016) found in this regard, that increased font
size led to a marked boost of readability which is in line with empirical evidence, where consumers
had a higher degree of COO knowledge with athletic shoes in comparison to batteries, because of
higher involvement with athletic shoes for one thing and a more eye-catching display of the COO
(Auger et al. 2010).
2.6 COO and Total Quality
In consonance with the literature, COO cues shape directly consumers’ product quality
perceptions as well as consumer attitudes and behaviours (Baker & Ballington 2002; Teas & Agarwal
2000). COO is used stereotypically by consumers to evaluate products particularly when products are
P a g e 33
unknown or consumers are unfamiliar with them, where the stereotypes serve to infer certain product
attributes (Maheswaran 1994). Yet, extant COO literature provides mostly research about whether
and how the COO effect finds expression in product quality evaluations (Smaiziene & Vaitkiene 2013)
and a substantial amount of that empirical research supports the significance of COO effects in this
regard (Pharr 2005). As a result, COO cues are frequently reported to be used by consumers for
product quality evaluations and sometimes considered to impact quality perceptions even more than
other product information such as price and brand (Cai, Cude & Swagler 2004; Chu et al. 2010; Wall,
Liefeld & Heslop 1991). The consistent relationship between a favourable COO as a predictor for
favourable quality perceptions was also confirmed in two thorough reviews (Bilkey & Nes 1982;
Özsomer & Cavusgil 1991).
The OECD defines quality as “[t]he totality of features and characteristics of a product or
service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs”. However, particularly in the case of
unknown products or brands consumers are unfamiliar with, the actual quality cannot be determined
solely based on extrinsic product cues (Oh 2000). For this reason it is primarily perceived quality that
is being influenced by COO information (Pappu, Quester & Cooksey 2006). In situations where the
actual quality is difficult to determine or in cases of limited product knowledge and brand unfamiliarity,
consumers tend to infer product quality from available surrogate product information and thus rely,
among other information available, specifically on COO information (Eunju, Kim & Zhang 2008; Lin &
Kao 2004; Shenge 2010).
In the traditional value framework, perceived quality has frequently served as a mediator
between multiple extrinsic product cues and perceived consumer value (Szybillo & Jacoby 1974).
Accordingly, much of the COO literature confirms the role of perceived quality as a mediating variable
and that perceived quality is the main driver of the COO effect (Gineikiene, Schlegelmilch &
Ruzeviciute 2016; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999).
“The concept of country quality is really

what makes the COO effect take place.” (Roth
& Romeo 1992, p. 478)
Among others, Hui and Zhou (2002) supported the proposition that quality perceptions are the
main drivers for COO effects. It was shown that COO related information had a direct effect on the
evaluation of product and only through such product evaluation an indirect influence on purchase
intentions. Similar findings were published already with prior research from Wall et al. (1991) and Al-
Sulaiti and Baker (1998).
2.6.1 COO product category effects on quality perceptions
According to the literature, there is a strong relationship between COO and perceived quality
(Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999), however, it was shown that it is dependent on a couple of variables
including product category (Jaffe & Nebenzahl 2001; Janda & Rao 1997; Usunier & Cestre 2007).
P a g e 34
Eroglu and Machleit (1989, p. 38) for example point out, that "[t]here is clearly a product category
factor which, along with non-cue factors, determines the value of the [COO] as a quality cue."
Few studies have measured quality perceptions across several countries and product
categories at the same time. One example is Kaynak and Cavusgil’s (1983) research, which
evaluated with Canadian subjects electronic, food, fashion and household goods from 25 countries. It
was found that products from each were rated differently, depending on the product category. For
example, France ranked high on fashion products but low in other categories. Similarly, Peris (1993)
showed that both British and Spanish study participants evaluated German-made cars to the highest
degree, whereas German fashion clothes and shoes were not highly appreciated. Such findings are
supported among others by Verlegh et al. (2005, p. 128) concluding that “for a given country, this
image and its valence may vary across products, so that it is best defined at the level of product
categories”.
Generally, products from some product categories, for example cars, are more closely
attached to their country origins than others and as mentioned, COO is typically considered to be
product category-specific. However, it is to be considered that with the exception of Hennebichler
(2007), and Martín and Cerviño (2011), reporting differences in COO recognition in various product
categories, most of the COO knowledge has been generated in only a few product categories (Herz
2015). Given the very few COO studies within the cosmetics’ product category, a consistent tendency
on cosmetic quality perceptions resulting from COO effects is yet to be established.
Although COO effects are generally considered product category-specific, new brands and
products may benefit across product categories from favourable PCI’s. This has been investigated by
several academics. Therefore, a new product (unfamiliar or unknown to the consumer) can benefit
from a favourable COO if the new product is a member of an existing product category that the
country is already positively associated with. This is because once consumers’ get to know the COO,
they are likely to infer unknowns such as durability, workmanship, or product performance from the
COO (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008; Dagger & Raciti 2011). What is more, it has been found
that in some cases consumers’ transfer CI opinions from product categories a country is regarded as
a high-quality manufacturer to new products from other product categories. Therefore strong positive
country feelings or admiration for a country can extend to product categories a country is usually not
known for (Maher, Clark & Maher 2010; Pappu, Quester & Cooksey 2007). Going one step further,
the most beneficial case is described by O’Shaugnessy and O’Shaugnessy (2000) where countries
with a generally favourable CI’s in the mind of certain consumers profit from the transference of these
beliefs into almost all product categories from such countries. Ultimately it is to be kept in mind, that
the transference of images and beliefs is always two-sided, that is negative ones from one product
category will potentially also affect products from other product categories or even all products from a
country.
P a g e 35
2.6.2 Differences between developed and developing countries’ quality perceptions
With a few exceptions (Al‐Sulaiti & Baker 1998) the literature provides many examples that
commonly held perceptions of quality are higher in cases where countries are associated with
manufacturing expertise. This relationship has been substantiated in a meta-analysis (Peterson &
Jolibert 1995) and is not obscured when other extrinsic product cues beyond the COO are part of the
investigation (Lala, Allred & Chakraborty 2008; Teas & Agarwal 2000; Wall, Liefeld & Heslop 1991).
Equally, such correlation between COO and quality perception is typically negative for countries with
less or no perceived manufacturing competence (Teas & Agarwal 2000). Thus, only if a country is
thought to possess the wherewithal for quality manufacturing, can the COO among other extrinsic
product cues, turn into a favourable quality predictor (Kalicharan 2014; O’Shaughnessy &
O’Shaughnessy 2000).
There is also ample evidence, that stereotypical quality perceptions do follow a certain pattern
between developed countries (industrialized or high-tech nations) on one hand and developing
countries on the other hand. The majority of COO publications postulate that brands and products
from developed countries are stereotypically perceived as more trustworthy, as of good or very good
quality, reliable and overall more beneficial compared to products from developing countries (Cai,
Cude & Swagler 2004; Drozdenko & Jensen 2009; Kaynak, Kucukemiroglu & Hyder 2000). However,
consumers in developed countries typically use home country products as their quality benchmark
when comparing with offerings from other countries. Consumers from Western countries have shown
in a number of studies, that they usually prefer products from their home countries (Bilkey & Nes
1982; Mockaitis, Salciuviene & Ghauri 2013; Samiee 1994) and show greater appeal towards
domestically manufactured products compared to imports. Such preference has also been associated
with higher levels of CE (Ahmed & d'Astous 2001).
Mockaitis et al. (2013) for example evidenced with 330 Lithuanian consumers across 14
product categories, that consumers rated products from Western Europe, Japan and the USA as the
ones with the highest quality. Adding to this, another Lithuanian study with a smaller sample size
evaluated the COO effects of dietary supplements and vitamins from 16 different countries, where
equally products from developed countries were perceived to be of the highest quality. In comparison,
the source countries China, Ukraine, Poland and India were ranked as the ones with the lowest
product quality (Smaiziene & Vaitkiene 2013). Related to these two studies, the research from
Pileliene and Šontaite-Petkeviciene (2014) about COO effects of beauty products in Lithuania
provides an example of consumer preferences from different countries. France was clearly the most
preferred country with regard to beauty products, Germany ranked second, Lithuania placed in the
middle and consistent with Smaiziene and Vaitkiene (2013), China was ranked as the least preferred
country for beauty products.
Consumers in developing countries have provided evidence regarding higher quality

perceptions for products manufactured in economically more advanced countries too (Josiassen &
Harzing 2008; Saffu & Scott 2009; Usunier & Cestre 2008). In contrast to consumers from developed
countries, their frames of reference are frequently imported goods that serve as a quality benchmark
P a g e 36
when comparing with domestically manufactured products (Ramsaran 2015). These findings appear
to be timeless and have not changed significantly during the last decades. Chinese consumers for
example still tend to perceive imports as of higher quality, despite Chinas fast economic progress (Hui
& Zhou 2003) and such preferences seem to come through generations. Tjandra (2015) for example
shows in recent research with Generation Y consumers from nine emerging economies with fashion
products, that quality perceptions for domestically manufactured products are still lower compared
with foreign products from Western countries (including Japan). This adds to prior research, where it
was suggested that product evaluations and specifically quality perceptions tend to be lowest for
Eastern European or socialist countries and move upwards through newly industrializing countries
and are highest for most economically developed countries (Phau & Prendergast 2000). However,
economic development alone can likely not elucidate as to why such stereotypical preferences for
imports in developing countries exist. Potential reasons are thought to be the conditioning to use
brand or price information as a quality surrogate, the emotional association with the brand, product
category knowledge and familiarity, the higher status of imported goods from perceived more
advanced economies, the competitive context, and sociocultural and political-legal factors (Auger et
al. 2010; Tjiptono, Arli & Rosari 2015; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999).
While the aforementioned preferences in developing countries reflect the prevailing view in
the literature, this subdomain of COO research remains far from conclusive. The generality of
literature is contrasted by findings where differing COO effects and quality perceptions based on
product characteristics, availability of domestic products, cultural contexts and orientation and CE,
among others, are published (Bandyopadhyay & Banerjee 2003; Huddleston, Good & Stoel 2001;
Kinra 2006).
2.7 COO and Consumer Involvement
The relevance of both intrinsic and extrinsic product characteristics for product appraisals is
contended to depend on CInv levels (Bayraktar & Ahmet 2015; Prince 2020; Zbib et al. 2021). CInv is
a condition of interest or motivation, useful to evaluate consumers’ level of interest in a product or the
importance of products for them (Alonso-Dos-Santos, Llanos‐Contreras & Farías 2019; Guthrie & Kim
2009). Among the multiple involvement definitions, Zaichkowsky (1985) made an attempt to
summarize the different viewpoints in an all-encompassing definition, which defines CInv as “[a]
person's perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values and interests" (p. 342).
This definition is commonly accepted and was shared by at least seven other researchers in their
publications (Brisoux & Cheron 1990).
The central word of this and similar definitions is relevance, which refers to personal
relevance. In this context, it is the desire to fulfil a need. The greater such need, the higher the
involvement level (Zaichkowsky 1985). Similarly, the definition from 2005 of the Marketing Association
of Australia and New Zealand is worded as: “Low-involvement products. Products that are bought
frequently with a minimum of thought and effort because they are not of vital concern nor have any
P a g e 37
great impact on the consumer’s lifestyle. High involvement products. Products that are purchased
only after very careful consideration as against impulse purchasing, for example, high-capital value
goods.” (Saffu & Scott 2009, p. 187). For further insights about definitions, see Gürhan-Canli and
Maheswaran (2000a) and Galhanone et al. (2015).
Previous research findings have indicated that different levels of CInv have a moderating
influence on COO effects (Cilingir & Basfirinci 2014; Hamzaoui-Essoussi 2010; Zbib et al. 2021). It is
very business relevant to know about the varying COO effects of high and low involvement products,
as it would be a waste of resources to design marketing campaigns with origin messages, if the COO
would not exert any effect on either of the involvement categories (Ahmed et al. 2004).
Table 2.2 provides an overview of different involvement levels, and it is one of the very few
sources which have actually explored CInv with a multi-dimensional view for different product
categories (Laurent & Kapferer 1985). The higher the score, the higher the involvement with 100
being average. It shows, that on the four abbreviated dimensions shown in the columns (importance
of negative consequences, subjective probability of mispurchase, pleasure value and sign value) for
example dresses, with high scores in all four dimensions above average (100), were perceived to
potentially have negative consequences in case the wrong dress is purchased. It goes hand in hand
with the highest pleasure and sign value, which seemed to be an important involvement criterion.
Although inferior quality detergents may damage clothes over time, detergents did rank rather low on
the Laurent and Kapferer (1985) involvement scale.
Table 2.2 Involvement profiles for a set of French consumer products
Importance of Subjective
negative probability of Pleasure Sign
consequences mispurchase value value
Dresses 121 112 147 181
Bras 117 115 106 130
Washing
machines 118 109 106 111
TV sets 112 100 122 95
Vacuum
cleaners 110 112 70 78
Irons 103 95 72 76
Champagne 109 120 125 125
Oil 89 97 65 92
Yogurt 86 83 106 78
Chocolate 80 89 123 75
Shampoo 96 103 90 81
Toothpaste 95 95 94 105
Facial soap 82 90 114 118
Detergents 79 82 56 63
Average product score = 100
Source: Laurent and Kapferer (1985)
P a g e 38
The vast majority of COO publications have investigated high involvement products as is the
case with for instance automobiles, luxury goods, clothes and shoes (Ahmed et al. 2004; Peterson &
Jolibert 1995) which, however, does not reflect the vast number of low involvement products in the
marketplace (Phau & Prendergast 2000). For high involvement products, the prevailing view is that
the higher motivational state contributes to information seeking, including COO, and thus to an
increased usage of COO with correspondingly increased COO effects (BATRA et al. 2000; Datta &
Sanyal 2011; Henderson & Hoque 2010; Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas 2008; Kinra 2006; Li & Wyer
1994; Tabassi, Esmaeilzadeh & Sambasivan 2013; Tamas 2015). Thus, this view purports “[t]he
greater the involvement, the greater the likelihood of using COO information in a product evaluation
situation” (d'Astous & Ahmed 1999, p. 109).
Such a prevailing view seems not to be applicable universally. For example, the only COO
publication involving Colombia as the research context reports that in a high involvement context with
automobiles, neither the construct country of brand origin nor country of assembly had an influence
on perceived product quality and purchase intentions. It was assumed that Colombian consumers are
rational and for that reason may not use COO in their evaluation process (Parente-Laverde 2014).
As consumers become more familiar with certain high involvement products over time, their
sensitivity towards the origin cue fades. Hence, in case of high CInv, extrinsic cues, such as design,
price, ingredients, brand and COO, are left to situations with low consumer familiarity with the brand.
In other words, brand familiarity has a negative impact on COO effects in high involvement situations
but not in low involvement ones (Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012; Tamas
2015).
A number of authors propose that the lower the state of involvement, the more consumers
use the origin cue (Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran 2000a; Han 1989; Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas
2008; Maheswaran 1994; Verlegh, Steenkamp & Meulenberg 2005), as the COO serves as a proxy
for other product information and supports quick product evaluations. This is the opposite to the
mainstream view on high involvement products. The theory is supported by several other scholars
(Gürhan‐Canli & Maheswaran 2000b; Verlegh, Steenkamp & Meulenberg 2005). Gürhan-Canli and
Maheswaran (2000b) for example evidenced in two experiments that the higher consumers’
motivational intensity, that is involvement, and willingness to process all available and relevant
information, the lower the focus on COO, resulting in weaker COO effects. To put this view into
perspective, Ahmed et al. (2004) showed in their empirical study with bread and coffee in Singapore,
that the COO does matter in the case of low involvement products, however, to a much lesser extent.
Overall, there is no consensus yet, whether and to what extent the COO effect is moderated
in low and high involvement settings. Some research points towards pronounced COO effects for
high-involvement products (Aiello 2010) and others provide evidence that there are no significant
differences between high- and low-involvement products (Herz 2015).
For this reason, the call for further research has been made (Matoati & Syahlani 2017; Yang,
Ramsaran & Wibowo 2016; Zbib et al. 2021) and in order to increase the robustness of COO, CInv
P a g e 39
should be introduced as a moderator in COO research (Josiassen & Harzing 2008). In addition, CInv
is also purported to have a major effect on consumer purchase decisions (Esmailpour & Tabrizi 2016;
Khosrozadeh Shirin, Heidarzadeh Hanzaee Kambiz 2011; Saffu & Scott 2009) and may thus also
influence WTP. For that reason, CInv will be a major variable to be studied in this research.
2.8 COO and Consumer Ethnocentrism
The attitude towards national or foreign products is not only influenced by obvious extrinsic
cues such as price, quality, brand, design and warranty or intrinsic product cues, that is the physical
characteristics of a product, such as taste, feel, design and smell. For this reason, other more
intangible factors need to be observed too. With this in mind, several scholars believe, that the COO
phenomenon can only be fully understood with the consideration of CE (Cilingir & Basfirinci 2014;
Helgeson et al. 2017; Morgan 2004).
Purchasing decisions, regardless of whether they relate to imported or domestic products,

largely depend on consumer attitudes. The frontrunner construct to evaluate and explain consumer
predispositions is CE, an international marketing construct embedded in social identity theory
(Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2016). Albeit the literature about CE refers mostly to consumer
products, CE is not limited to those and can also be observed within the context of other business
segments (Chasin, Holzmuller & Jaffe 1989; Shankarmahesh 2006; Sharma & Wu 2015).
CE insights are a means of positioning products more precisely and targeting the customer
base within a customized marketing mix (Huddleston, Good & Stoel 2001). Extant marketing literature
provides evidence about the relevance and importance of CE for branding, positioning, and market
entry decisions as well as target customer segmentation (Siamagka & Balabanis 2015) and it is also
regarded as a moderating variable for country of origin effects (Chattalas, Kramer & Takada 2008;
Cilingir & Basfirinci 2014; Yen 2018).
The term ethnocentrism, in contrast to patriotism or national pride, is neither widely known nor
used in the business community. However, it is one of the integral theories in both social sciences
and psychology, a term which arguably has been coined by William Graham Sumner in 1906 but
introduced and made known more than 90 years ago in his book Folkways (Bizumic 2014). Sumners’
interpretations about ethnocentrism as “a 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" (Yang 2019, p. 14) illustrated the
concept in a dichotomous framework, where the generally favourable in-group values and beliefs are
the norm to compare with and judge outgroups as well as the willingness to get involved with them
generally unfavourable (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2004).
In contrast to the sociological concept of ethnocentrism, which encompasses all areas,

including culture, religion and politics, the subset of CE is an explicit economic manifestation of the
ethnocentrism construct (Shankarmahesh 2006; Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995; Shimp & Sharma
P a g e 40
1987). As such and for the relevance in this thesis, the term is used henceforward in the context of
consumer ethnocentrism only.
Shimp and Sharma (1987) provided the first sophisticated definition for the appropriateness of
purchasing behaviour in this context. It was explained to be understood as “the beliefs held by
consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products" (p.
280). Ethnocentric views encompass beliefs such as buying foreign made products: is harmful for the
nations’ economy; is unpatriotic; and contributes to making peer or local workers redundant
(Shankarmahesh 2006).
Another definition that describes CE tendencies in a condensed way is: “The more importance
a person places on whether a product is made in his/her home country, the higher the ethnocentric
tendency” (Huddleston, Good & Stoel 2001, p. 237). CE effects are the opposite of foreignness’
effects and describe a preference for products originating from the home country rather than foreign
countries. Thus, CE is the antagonistic effect of foreignness (Maheswaran, Yi Chen & He 2013). The
opposite of CE is also termed xenocentrism in its most pronounced form of outright preference for
non-domestic products. In contrast to CE, xenocentrism causes consumers to rate product quality of
home country products lower compared with foreign products (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2016;
Mueller et al. 2016).
The evaluation and judgement of products is comprised of many influencing factors (for
example product origin, product characteristics, price level, product quality perceptions and
functionality aspects). However, the fact of coming from abroad or not being manufactured
domestically is one of the main decision criteria for ethnocentric consumers (Siamagka & Balabanis
2015).
On the contrary, non-ethnocentric consumers, or consumers who just do not pay attention to
the product origin when shopping, judge products on their utility, affordability and product value
without having a bias towards or interest in the country of origin (Shankarmahesh 2006). This
simplified straightforward interpretation, however, is opposed to the view that despite low CE scores,
the COO may be still relevant to these consumers. It is believed, that the strength of the COO effect in
these cases would be contingent on the level of CInv, product category familiarity and other country or
situation specific aspects (Usunier & Cestre 2008; Zeugner-Roth & Diamantopoulos 2010).
Several authors have reported similar conclusions, where consumers with ethnocentric views
mostly prefer domestic products for moral reasons, that is the social inappropriateness of supporting
another economy by purchasing their products, but also, because they believe that goods from their
own country are the best (Gineikiene, Schlegelmilch & Ruzeviciute 2016; Huddleston, Good & Stoel
2001; Klein, Ettenson & Morris 1998; Özsomer & Cavusgil 1991). In this regard, Kotler and Gertner
(2002) mention the Malinchismo effect. In Mexico, the word Malinchista is used when referring to a
betrayer and in the context of CE it stands for consumers who depreciate the Mexican identity by
purchasing foreign goods. According to mostly oral tradition from a Spanish viewpoint, the term
originates from a native female slave called ‘La Malinche’ who learned Spanish with the Spaniards.
P a g e 41
Shortly after, she was reportedly a key element during the Spanish invasion of the Aztec Empire from
1519-1521, by helping Cortéz with translational services and other insights, after also becoming his
acquaintance and concubine.
In accordance with Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004), already back in 1987, the home
country bias could not be confirmed due to cross-cultural differences in a rather small qualitative
study, involving 21 countries and 67 valid responses (Papadopoulos 1987). This finding was extended
by a study conducted in India where the results showed that even within India there are more CE
variations compared to Western countries (Bawa 2004). Moreover, both Johannson et al. (1985) and
Jin-Lee (2013) add to the divergent CE landscape with statements that they could not identify in their
investigations a difference with regard to prejudice and attitude towards imports between consumers
rating high and low on CE.
The foregoing notwithstanding, one of the most business relevant factors of CE is the impact
on consumers’ disposition to buy both internationally sourced products as well as domestic products.
CE effects in this regard are thought to be even more pronounced than marketing campaigns on
those choices (Altintas & Tokol 2007). With typical and rather homogeneous consumer groups of a
country, CE has been established to affect purchase intention and willingness to buy through both
direct and indirect product evaluation (Klein et al. 2006; Ortega‐Egea & García‐de‐Frutos 2021;
Prince 2020; Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995; Watson & Wright 2000). However, for certain consumer
groups, the unwillingness to buy domestic products does not correlate with their product evaluation.
Such effect has been evidenced by Josiassen (2011) with second generation Turkish immigrants in
the Netherlands.
Similarly, in a seminal transnational eight-country study, where the relative attitude strength of
domestic versus imported products was investigated, it was evidenced that although domestic
products benefit from a certain goodwill, consumers are mindful of local product quality, technological
advancement and value offerings (Maison & Maliszewski 2016; Papadopoulos, Heslop & Bamossy
1990). Thus, “[c]onsumers in foreign markets do not have a de facto preference for domestic
products.” (Papadopoulos, Heslop & Bamossy 1990, p. 292).
To complicate matters more, even marked CE may not play a dominant role in purchase
decisions at all, despite the bulk of literature which suggests a positive correlation. The Wittkowski
(1998) study revealed with surprise, that in spite of well pronounced CE among Mexican consumers,
no relationship between CE and purchasing decisions could be encountered. This may also be typical
for many developing countries, where showcasing international brands as a form of conspicuous
consumption nurtures self-esteem and the desire for prestige (Cleveland, Laroche & Papadopoulos
2009). Similar results were obtained from an Eastern European study conducted in Russia and
Poland, where, despite different ethnocentric manifestations among the two consumer samples, no
increased purchase intentions for domestic versus international shirts and sweaters could be
observed (Good & Huddleston 1995). Finally, CE did not predict purchase behaviour in a USA sample
of mall shoppers (McLain & Sternquist 1992).
P a g e 42
Differentiation of CE from COO. CE, which is often referred to as home country bias (Lantz
& Loeb 1996; Shimp & Sharma 1987), is regularly confounded with the COO bias. However, the two
terms are distinct and should not be confused. The difference between the constructs, although not
immediately obvious, lies in the cognitive and affective influence of COO and CE. Whereas CE, which
represents in-group favouritism, is rather impelled by affective and normative factors, COO manifests
itself as a result of cognitive and affective information processing. Accordingly, CE is evoked
independently from product attributes and is rather a disposition not to buy out-group, usually foreign,
products in comparison to a specific positive or negative CI with its associated COO effects (Good &
Huddleston 1995; Shankarmahesh 2006).
An example provided by Herche (1992) relates to a consumer who may perceive a French
wine to offer more value for money compared to a domestic one, however, he/she still may not buy it
due to feelings of inappropriateness, since buying foreign products may hurt the local economy or
threaten local workplaces. In other words, “attitudes toward foreign products may be governed by
inferences other than those about product quality” (Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran 2000a, p. 310).
Thus, for reasons of differentiation, country norms were not included in the CI construct but
rather were conceptualized into more specific constructs such as CE, patriotism or nationalism (Roth
& Diamantopoulos 2009). After all, the less threatening imports are perceived in relation to one’s own
well-being or to the local economy, the less ethnocentrics are opposed to buying foreign products
(Shimp & Sharma 1987).
CE Antecedents, demographics and moderating factors. The following conceptual model

shown in Figure 2.6, established by Sharma (1995), depicts the antecedents, demographic and
moderating factors used in the CE validation study conducted by Sharma et al. (1995) with
amendments drawn from extant literature in order to provide a complete overview. It provides a visual
sketch of antecedents, demographics and moderating factors which are discussed next.
P a g e 43
Figure 2.7 CE conceptual model (antecedents, demographics and moderating factors)
Source: Sharma, et al. 1995 with researcher amendments in blue boxes
Multiple researchers have gathered evidence that products manufactured domestically benefit
from a home country bias preference in countries with a notable manifestation of national pride and
patriotism (Bilkey & Nes 1982; Han & Terpstra 1988; Nagashima 1970; Wel, Alam & Omar 2015). So
far, however, these antecedents seem not to predict or translate into a general preference for
domestic products in all countries. For example, Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2001) studied the
effects of patriotism and nationalism in Turkey and the Czech Republic and found that contrary to
prior research, neither patriotism nor nationalism automatically render ethnocentric behaviour.
Similarly, Good and Huddleston (1995) elaborated that while Russians rate very high in national pride,
this does not affect consumer behaviour. Hence, the effects vary from country to country.
Other findings have shown CE to be positively correlated with:
• sympathy for collectivism, patriotism and conservatism (Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995) and
xenophobia (Altintas & Tokol 2007);
• higher expression of materialism (Olsen, Granzin & Biswas 1993);
• a higher pronunciation in females (Good & Huddleston 1995; Josiassen, Assaf & Karpen
2011; Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995; Zafer Erdogan & Uzkurt 2010); and
• older age (Alexander et al. 2011; Josiassen, Assaf & Karpen 2011; McLain & Sternquist 1992;
Pentz, Terblanche & Boshoff 2014; Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995).
On the other hand, a negative correlation has been examined with:
• higher education (McLain & Sternquist 1992; Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995; Wall & Heslop
1986; Zafer Erdogan & Uzkurt 2010);
P a g e 44
• higher income (Alexander et al. 2011; Kaynak & Kara 2002; Pentz, Terblanche & Boshoff
2014; Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995; Zafer Erdogan & Uzkurt 2010) and related to it a higher
social class status (Usunier 1994);
• consumer innovativeness (Rašković et al. 2016; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999);
• tolerance for other cultures (Cleveland, Laroche & Papadopoulos 2009; Sharma, Shimp &
Shin 1995; Shimp & Sharma 1987; Zeugner-Roth, Žabkar & Diamantopoulos 2015); and
• “worldmindedness”, cosmopolitanism and cultural openness (Cannon Hugh M. & Yaprak
2002; Heslop & Papadopoulos 1993; Rawwas & Rajendran 1996; Sharma, Shimp & Shin
1995), whereas education levels did not prove to be a good country-bias predictor in other
studies (Han 1988; McLain & Sternquist 1992; Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995).
It is worthwhile to point out, that despite findings where CE correlates with demographic
variables, a consensus on the effect of consumer demographic or sociodemographic variables such
as age, gender and income on CE has yet to be found, given the inconsistent and contradictory
results in other publications (Bawa 2004; Josiassen, Assaf & Karpen 2011; MakanyezaI & Du Toit
2017; MakanyezaI & Du Toit 2017; Pentz, Terblanche & Boshoff 2014; Pharr 2005; Shankarmahesh
2006; Siamagka & Balabanis 2015).
Both conservatism and dogmatism, with a tendency to increase with age, are also mentioned
to potentially have a significant reinforcing influence on consumers’ ethnocentrism and thus the
sentiment towards imports (Cordell 1991; Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995; Usunier 1994). Conservatism
was interpreted as favouring traditions, social systems and advancements that have proven to benefit
the population, stronger adherence to religion and disliking of substantial and frequent changes in
socio-economic as well as political structures (Sharma, Shimp & Shin 1995) while dogmatism
encompasses one’s receptivity or closeness in relation to new or unfamiliar goods, services and ideas
(Sharma 2008). It was also identified that highly religious Muslims have a preference to stick with
one’s kind. Therefore, Kaynak and Kara (2002) conclude in their study that religiosity and the lifestyle
of Turkish consumers impacts CE (Kaynak & Kara 2002).
Furthermore, there are additional determinants, which all play a role and interact towards the
expression of CE, such as:
• the cultural heritage, cultural upbringing, the degree of exposure to private or

governmental-sponsored “buy local” campaigns (Siamagka & Balabanis 2015);
• the level of consumer innovativeness (Rašković et al. 2016; Steenkamp, Hofstede &
Wedel 1999);
• attraction of prestige (Cordell 1991); and
• the nations’ economic environment, race, ethnic group, social class, one’s personal
financial and economic situation and outlook, attraction towards foreign brands,
cosmopolitanism and national identity (Josiassen, Assaf & Karpen 2011; Shankarmahesh
2006; Zeugner-Roth, Žabkar & Diamantopoulos 2015).
P a g e 45
Buy local campaigns. CE coupled with patriotism, where both are reinforced by special
happenings such as 9/11 and the global financial crisis, has been shown to bolster CE and thus the
preference for domestic goods. This was evidenced by the increased acceptance of the “Buy Made in
USA” campaign and willingness to buy products made in the USA after these two aforementioned
events (Lee, Hong & Lee 2003; Tsai, Yoo & Lee 2013). Furthermore, buy local campaigns and alike
have been cited as an effective means to motivate consumers to buy domestic rather than imported
products (Bilkey & Nes 1982; Elliott & Cameron 1994; Han & Terpstra 1988; Hong & Wyer 1989). But
it is not only the USA that uses CE as a resource to bolster the local economy. In numerous countries
(for example Australia, India, Indonesia, Romania, South Africa, UK, United States and Vietnam)
“buy-local” campaigns have been launched by governments, business umbrella associations, unions
or large private companies (Siamagka & Balabanis 2015; Verlegh 2001) and are maintained over
decades. Taking Australia as an example, “Buy Australian” dates back as far as 1923, when the Made
in Australia week was introduced (Elliott & Cameron 1994). Campaigns of this nature try to leverage
home country bias by appealing to morality in order to support the domestic economy and can in fact
serve as a kind of non-trade barrier against imports (Elliott & Cameron 1994; Verlegh 2001).
The Advance Australia Foundation reports that the Australian Made campaign, according to a
survey, has proven successful, as 88% of Australian consumers state they opt to buy Australian
products wherever possible and 77% would even be disposed to accept a slightly higher price for
locally made products (Baker & Ballington 2002). However, despite results like this and the multiple
‘buy-local’ or ‘buy-national’ campaigns, the effectiveness of ‘buy-local’ initiatives is still a matter of
debate (Amine, Chao & Arnold 2005; Elliott & Cameron 1994; Papadopoulos & Heslop 2002;
Papadopoulos & Heslop 2002; Usunier 2006). It is hypothesized that these campaigns may not turn
out to deliver on their promise, because of a potential disassociation between CE and purchase
intention (Josiassen 2011) or simply the fact that domestic products do not offer as much value for
money compared to imports (Baker & Ballington 2002).
An example from Australia elucidates the latter. In an investigation into perceptions about
Australian made products, only 50% of sampled Australian consumers, among whom 95% expressed
being aware of recent ‘Buy Australian’ promotions, reported that they would be willing to buy
Australian made products, regardless of whether they were a bit more expensive (Patterson & Tai
1991). Overall, the outcome of this survey leaves questions about the impact of a decade-long ‘Buy
Australian’ campaign and suggests that the effect may be lower than reported in other studies from
North America and Europe (Levin et al. 1993; Patterson & Tai 1991; Wall & Heslop 1986).
2.9 COO and WTP
In the last twenty years, the COO topic and its subdomains have experienced a tremendous
increase in research activity (Lu et al. 2016). With more than 1,200 publications from this field
(Heslop, Lu & Cray 2008), there is mostly empirical evidence about COO-related consumer quality
evaluations and intentions to purchase (Iyer & Kalita 1997; Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos &
P a g e 46
Oldenkotte 2012; Liefeld 1993; Zhi, Di Bao & Luo 2017). It is also known that the strength of these
COO-related quality evaluations diminishes markedly when compared with measured consumer
purchase intentions (Peterson & Jolibert 1995; Usunier 2006; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999). Thus,
there seems to be a behavioural gap between consumer perceptions and consumer behaviour, such
as WTP (Tjandra, Omar & Ensor 2015; Usunier 2006). Additionally, there are consumers who either
do not use COO information during the purchasing process or attach little importance to the product
origin despite regularly looking for origin information (Samiee 2010).
Yet, the literature shows a clear weakness regarding its ability to explain if COO effects, if
present, will ultimately affect WTP and not only product quality perceptions and intentions to buy. The
relationship is of relevance, as the price consumers are willing to pay will be reflected directly in the
bottom line of a firms financial statements, whereas, for instance product quality assessments, even if
positive, are not directly related to profitability (Homburg, Koschate & Hoyer 2005). A few publications
(see Table 2.3) support the assumptions that consumers are willing to spend more for a brand with a
favourable COO (Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012), however, very few
publications also report about no COO effects on price perceptions and WTP (Pecotich & Rosenthal
2001) or argue, that the COO effect on WTP depends on the circumstances such as framing and
presentation (Semaan et al. 2019).
This lack of COO knowledge related to consumer WTP for non-food and non-luxury products
has been acknowledged by many researchers (Bayraktar & Ahmet 2015; Diamantopoulos et al. 2021;
Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012; Zhi, Di Bao & Luo 2017) and not much has
changed since Agrawal and Kamakura noted that overall the price-related impact of COO remains
underexplored (1999).
P a g e 47
Table 2.3 COO-related non-food/non-luxury WTP studies with WTP as a dependent variable
Table 2.3 COO-related WTP studies with WTP as a dependent variable – cont.
Data collection Sample Sample Measurement of
No.
Author(s) Year Title method participants size Study products WTP Major findings
1 Zhi et al. 2017 Economic Value of The export n/a n/a multiple Export price data CI significantly affects export prices.
Country Image: price data from was taken from Positive CI increases export prices.
Evidence from the CEPII the CEPII Trade countries with lower levels of
International Trade Trade Unit Unit Value economic development experience a
and Implications for Value database covering stronger elevating effect of positive CI
China database, cross-country data or a stronger depressing effect of
2006 and 2013 from 2006 and negative CI on export prices
2013
2 Capelli et al. 2017 Are Consumers Willing Face-to-Face workers 660 Food, fashion, One open A premium price between 10% and
to Pay More for a interviews with and friends furnishings question asking 30% is the typical value, although not
“Made in” Product? An questionnaire for the price homogeneously recognized for
Empirical Investigation premium willing to the various product categories
on “Made in Italy” pay
3 Aichner et al. 2016 The country-of-origin Point of sale Super- 200 Häagen-Dasz Open questions Foreign branding in Germany has a
lie: impact of foreign intercept market ice cream and asking for the positive impact on brand performance.
branding on survey. Two customers Milford tea max. WTP dep. on However, if the real COO is found out,
customers’ willingness interviewers COO both purchase intentions and WTP
to buy and willingness asked and decrease
to pay when the noted the
product’s actual origin answers
is disclosed
4 Ahmet 2015 Are Consumers Really Survey Undergrad. 476 LCD TV, sport Indirect WTP Brand associations significantly and
BAYRAKTAR Willing to Pay More for questionnaire business shoes and measure acc. to positively influence consumers’ WTP.
Favorable Brand and MBA chocolates Netemeyer et al. Consumers are willing to pay more for
Associations? The students in (2004) favourable brand associations
Moderating Role of Turkey and regardless of whether they live in a
Product Value and the US developing or a developed country.
Product Risk Level
5 Yohan 2014 Reinforcing Face-to-Face French 179 Respondents Open question Consumer affinity towards a country
Bernard and Willingness to Buy and interview with consumers, were free to asking for the could, in fact, reinforce his/her
Sarra to Pay Due to questionnaire thereof choose max. price willing intention to buy products from that
Zarrouk- Consumer Affinity 39% categories of to pay country (purchase intentions) and the
Karoui towards a Foreign students products price he/she is willing to pay (WTP).
Country
P a g e 48
Data collection Sample Sample Measurement of
No.
Author(s) Year Title method participants size Study products WTP Major findings
6 Koschate- 2012 Are Consumers Really 1) Experiment 1 Public 1) 127 1) + 2) Mineral Becker, DeGroot, Consumers are willing to pay higher
Fischer et Willing to Pay More for 2) Experiment 2 university 2) 129 water and Marschak’s prices for branded products from a
al. a Favorable Country 3) Experiment 3 students 3) 251 3) sport shoes (1964) procedure favorable COO country country vs.
Image? A Study of 4) Follow up 4) 219 4) DVD-player products from a COO with a less
Country-of-Origin exp. 3 favorable image. Incongruity effects,
Effects on Willingness which did not show any impact on
to Pay consumers’ WTP
7 Drozdenko 2009 Translating country‐of‐ Web-based Students, 767 11 product cat. Comparative WTP Significant price premiums consumers
and origin effects into questionnaire their Toys, pet food, question between are willing to pay for made-in-USA
Jensen prices relatives, toothpaste, MP3 a Made-in-China goods over Chinese goods across all
co-workers player, HDV, product vs. the 11 product categories studied
and shirts, cell same made in
friends. 2 phones, tires, USA, Germany
counties drinks, and India
from PA shampoos,
drinks
8 Donovan, 2003 Estimating Consumer Surveys were Home 599 ?? Contingent On average, respondents were willing
Geoffrey Willingness to Pay a administered at show valuation survey to pay an additional $82 for the Alaska-
and Price Premium for three home visitors in technique made table, above a base price of $50
Nicholls, Alaska Secondary shows in Anchorage, Hanemann (1984) (China-made)
David Wood Products Alaska Fairbanks,
and Sitka
9 Hulland et 1996 Country-of-Origin Prices collected n/a n/a 450 different Price comparison Imported products from HDC command
al. Effects on Sellers' from DAU products of between 2 price premiums compared to the same
Price Premiums in market and several product competitive local brand produced in LDC. However, even
Competitive Philippine Angeles City categories markets imports from LDC command price
Markets retailers premiums. Brand moderates the COO
effect on price
10 Johannson 1986 Multinational Face-to-Face Shopping 320 Cars Question of WTP A significant dollar preference for
and production: Effect on interviews with mall above or below certain production location could was
Nebenzahl brand value questionnaire intercept in reference price shown
New wtih dollar
Jersey, preference scale
USA
P a g e 49
2.10 COO Guiding Theories
In this section, the theoretical frameworks which guide COO research will be reviewed. This
will then build the foundation for the theoretical framework which will be used to underpin the
conceptual model. In the literature, it is argued that a serious weakness is the lack of an integrative
view or a sound theoretical structure in the matter of explaining COO effects (Abraham & Patro
2015; Auger et al. 2010; Bloemer, Brijs & Kasper 2009; Crittenden & Peterson 2011; Josiassen &
Harzing 2008). Back in 1984, Albaum and Peterson (1984) proclaimed in their summary conclusion
that “with few exceptions, existing research on international marketing issues is fragmentary,
generally a theoretic, and not sufficiently programmatic to offer anything other than simplistic and
incomplete insights into the underlying phenomena of interest” (p. 161-162). Further criticism
followed shortly after. Among other mentions, the lack of theoretical models which provide a
consistent empirical framework (Obermiller & Spangenberg 1989; Peris et al. 1993), studies that are
characterized by heavy effect testing but poor contribution to theory building (Chao 1993), a
theoretical and mainly descriptive work until 1992 (Heslop & Papadopoulos 1993; Liefeld 1993;
Obermiller & Spangenberg 1989) and; virtually none “of these theory-labelled sections actually
propose or contain “theory” as it is construed from a marketing science perspective.” (Crittenden &
Peterson 2011, p. 67).
The absence of domain-specific theories and solid theoretical frameworks which explain the
COO effects, as far as they exist under varied circumstances and situations, have been the
continuous objection of COO research history (Josiassen & Harzing 2008; Magnusson & Westjohn
2011; Usunier 2006). Nonetheless, it needs to be recognized that some of the newer research
publications do mention a theory related to the topic. While this is seen as an improvement, these
studies too are not based on a COO theory, which does not exist, but rather borrow existing theories
which may support the theoretical backing of the models and/or explain COO effects (Samiee 2011).
The COO domain is characterized by ‘effect’ studies, with a focus on confirming or rejecting
COO effects, relationships and antecedents. Studies with a focus on the theoretical rationale of the
COO phenomenon by and large are a curiosity (Dinnie 2004) and indeed, “the absence of a theory
or sound conceptual frameworks have been the hallmark of a large number of COO studies”
(Samiee 2011, p. 476).
A first noteworthy exception was the effort of Nebenzahl et al. (1997), who developed and
placed at the disposal of COO scholars a universal taxonomy with COO related definitions based on
which an integrative-dynamic paradigm of country image, with the purpose of explaining COO
influences, was provided. However, as research in the subsequent years showed, academia has not
embraced it (Dinnie 2004). Despite or maybe because of the various different theoretical
perspectives, most research is not grounded on a theoretical foundation (Magnusson & Westjohn
2011).
On these grounds, the quest to establish a conclusive theory about what causes the COO
effect is still open. Explanations and applied theories to explain the COO phenomenon are manifold.
P a g e 50
Out of the multiple explanations, the general view is that COO is a kind of mental construct or image
that, if perceived or known, plays a role for consumer’s product quality assessments and depending
on consumers expertise, affects more or less the consideration of other product cues (Janda & Rao
1997; Maheswaran 1994).
Tamas (2015) argues that despite the efforts made during several decades to establish a
theoretical foundation, COO is “impossible to be described by regular shapes or theories” (p. 410),
since there are probably too many elements involved to fully explain the phenomena. Considering
these efforts to establish an own COO-theory, one needs to be mindful that theory development,
whatsoever its contribution to the field of COO research may be, is not only beset with benefits.
Insisting on theory discourses regardless of its relevance, led to “a lot of bad writing” (Hambrick
2007, p. 1349). It is also to be questioned, if theory development is of relevant benefit, if one cannot
publish subsequent straightforward theory tests in top tier journals? In any case, theoretical research
can also support theory construction and development. Yet, the demand and publication policy that
all major scientific publications do devote to theory enhancement may actually hinder original
research and further understanding of its effects too (Hambrick 2007).
In summary, most COO publications including the more recent ones, do not mention or
underpin their conceptual models with a theory. However, there appears to be a growing trend for
COO research to be theoretically underpinned. Following, Table 2.4 presents a summary of
examples of the many theories used in COO, which provides the context for the research
hypotheses and outcomes developed in the next section.
Table 2.4 Applied theories in COO research from 1998 - 2017
No. Theory Author / Year – (example) Paper Title

1. Attitude Theory (Roth & Diamantopoulos Advancing the country image
2009) construct
2. Equity Theory (Koschate-Fischer, Are Consumers Really Willing to Pay
Diamantopoulos & More for a Favorable Country
Oldenkotte 2012) Image?
3. Stereotype Theory (Askegaard & Ger 1998) Product-Country Images: Towards a
Contextualized Approach
4. Categorization (Martín & Cerviño 2011) Towards an integrative framework of
Theory brand country of origin recognition
determinants
5. Cue utilization theory (Auger et al. 2010) The importance of social product
attributes in consumer purchasing
decisions
6. Signalling Theory (Zhou, Yang & Hui 2010) Non-local or local brands? A multi-
level investigation into confidence in
brand origin identification and its
strategic implications
7. Discourse and (Brijs, Bloemer & Kasper Country-image discourse model
Semiotics Theory 2011)
8. Cue Evaluation (Koschate-Fischer, Are Consumers Really Willing to Pay
Theory Diamantopoulos & More for a Favorable Country
Oldenkotte 2012) Image?
9. Automatic (Herz & Diamantopoulos Activation of country stereotypes
Information 2013)
Processing Theory
P a g e 51
10. Consumption Value (Aulia, Sukati & Sulaiman A Review: Customer Perceived
Theory 2016) Value and its Dimension
11. Theory of Brand (Brother 2015) Advertising and country of origin as
Equity key success factors for creating
sustainable brand equity
12. Affect Transfer (Laroche et al. 2005) The influence of country image
Theory structure on consumer evaluations of
foreign products
13. Fuzzy Set Theory (Brijs et al. 2006) Using Fuzzy Set Theory to Assess
Country-of-Origin Effects on the
Formation of Product Attitude
14. Consumer Decision (Oberecker & Consumers’ Emotional Bonds with
Theory Diamantopoulos 2011) Foreign Countries: Does Consumer
Affinity Affect Behavioural Intentions?
15. Social Categorization (Gineikiene, Schlegelmilch & Our Apples Are Healthier Than Your
Theory Ruzeviciute 2016) Apples
16. Information (Ha‐Brookshire & Yoon Country of origin factors influencing
Processing Theory 2012) US consumers' perceived price for
multinational products
17. Dual-Coding Theory (Herz & Diamantopoulos Country-Specific Associations Made
2013a) by Consumers: A Dual-Coding
Theory Perspective
18. Affirmation Theory (Herz & Diamantopoulos I Use It but Will Tell You That I Don’t
2017)
19. Dissonance Theory (Herz & Diamantopoulos Activation of country stereotypes
2013)
20. Appraisal Theory (Maher & Carter 2011) The affective and cognitive
components of country image
21. Construal Level (Reichert & Altobelli 2016) Country-of-Origin Effects in Industrial
Theory Goods Markets. Do Country-of-Origin
Image Effects Differ for Different
Buying Center Members?
22. Legitimacy Theory (Wang et al. 2014) Study of country-of-origin image from
legitimacy theory perspective:
Evidence from the USA and India
23. Accessibility- (Zhou, Yang & Hui 2010) Non-local or local brands? A multi-
Diagnosticity Theory level investigation into confidence in
brand origin identification and its
strategic implications
24. Social Identity (Motsi 2016) The Influence of National
Theory and Stereotypes on Country Image and
Consumer Culture Product Country Image: A Social
Theory Identity and Consumer Culture
Theory Approach
Most widely mentioned theories in those publications which identify an underlying theory are
the categorization and stereotyping theory. Both share commonalities, as “stereotyping is a
fundamental categorization tool and that stereotypes in relation to PCI must define the relevant
categories to evoke the meaning of the PCI” Askegaard and Ger (1998, p. 53). In addition, cue
utilization theory and attitude theory too, share the understanding that consumers use mental
shortcuts, in order to reduce mental information processing efforts. Thus, all these theories
therefore, are based in one or the other way on information classification and categorization in order
to minimize the cognitive workload.
P a g e 52
For this research, cue utilization theory and equity theory were chosen to underpin the
experiments. First, cue utilization theory, a theory established by Donald F. Cox 50 years ago (Mai
2011), has been called on to explain COO effects in several publications. According to it, people use
both extrinsic and intrinsic product cues in order to evaluate products. Extrinsic product-related cues
differ from intrinsic cues insofar as they are not directly related to the product itself. Extrinsic cues,
as framed by Magnusson and Westjohn (2011b, p. 292), “such as COO, can provide a cognitive
shortcut when intrinsic cues are difficult to obtain, the motivation to understand intrinsic cues is
lacking or the consumer seeks to expedite to decision process”. They are of importance in cases of
limited brand or product familiarity, where the COO becomes a more decisive piece of information
(Josiassen, Lukas, and Whitwell 2008). Correspondingly consumers generally use extrinsic cues
more when it is difficult or not possible to evaluate product quality based on intrinsic product cues
(Arora et al. 2015; Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012; Zeithaml 1988). Thus,
cue utilization theory is deemed suitable to support primarily the product quality evaluations.
Second, equity theory (Adams 1965) discusses the fair value of exchange, which can be
services, love, expression of friendship, merchandise, etc. It is about the perceived ratio of input
(e.g. money) compared to output received (e.g. quality, durability and utility, status, etc.) where
(perceived) inequity results in dissatisfaction by either or both parties (in a two-way transaction). In
consonance with this theory, a fair deal, win-win situation or distributive justice is achieved, when all
parties who are in some kind of exchange relationship obtain the equivalent of what they give. In
case the equation is unbalanced for one or multiple parties, a feeling of injustice or deprivation will
be the result (Adams 1965; Homans 1961; Homburg, Koschate & Hoyer 2005). While this should not
surprise anybody, equity theory contemplates perceived fairness with regard to the exchange
transaction, what humans consider as fair and how they react in case of perceived unfairness as
well as humans endeavour to maximize perceived fairness (Bruhn & Hadwich 2014; Koschate
2002).
Equity theory is comprehensive, since it encompasses all tangible and intangible product-
specific properties, including intangible attributes such as brand, price, COO, slogan, warranty,
perceived risk, etc. It considers both what one gets and what one gives. Since consumers usually
contribute on their part with a payment, i.e. a very tangible and measurable output, the input –
depending on the complexity of the purchase – is not necessarily measurable immediately. The
product may not live up to its promises, may not endure long enough, may consume more energy,
maintenance and repairs, etc. Hence, the sacrifice (money) and risk (all the unknowns) involved in a
purchase transaction are reflected by the output-to-input equation while the COO, if perceived as a
benefit, may offset partially both sacrifice and perceived risk. The perceived benefit provided by
some COO’s, may thus lead to a higher WTP (Bruhn & Hadwich 2014; Koschate-Fischer,
Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012).
P a g e 53
2.11 Conceptual Model and Hypothesis Development
The previous sections of the literature review have introduced the main concepts under
investigation in this study including CI/COO (Section 2.4), Recall (section 2.5), Total Quality (section
2.6), and WTP (section 2.9). The previous section also introduced the guiding theories in COO
research and identified that this current research will be underpinned by the cue utilization theory
and equity theory as the guiding theories and foundation of this COO research. This section
presents the conceptual model as shown in Figure 2.7, which this thesis aims to empirically test.
Specifically, the model suggests that COO and recall will interact together to influence product
quality perceptions, and subsequently WTP. Further, CInv and CE are proposed to play moderating
roles within the model. The following sections will provide theoretical support from the cue utilization
theory, the equity theory and the prior literature to support the proposed relationships within the
conceptual model.
Figure 2.8 Conceptual Research Model
Consumer
Involvement
COO x Total Willingness

Recall Quality to Pay
Consumer
Ethnocentrism
Table 2.5 summarises the five hypotheses derived from the prosed model.
Table 2.5 Summary of hypotheses proposed for this research
Recall and COO on Total Quality (H1)

H1: Recall and COO will have a significant interaction effect on perceived Total Quality of a product
Recall and COO on WTP (H2)
H2: Recall and COO will have a significant interaction effect on WTP
Total Quality as a mediator (H3)
P a g e 54
H3: Total Quality will mediate the interaction effect of Recall and COO on WTP the interaction effect
of Recall and COO on WTP
Consumer Involvement as a moderator (H4)
H4: Consumer involvement will moderate the relationship between the COO x Recall interaction,
Total Quality and WTP
Consumer Ethnocentrism as a moderator (H5)
H5: Consumer ethnocentrism will moderate the relationship between the COO x Recall interaction,
Total Quality and WTP
Influence of Recall and COO on Total Quality (H1)
Consumers’ quality perceptions are founded on personal evaluative judgments. Given that in
the current study no set price is provided and the brand is unknown, study participants can neither
infer quality from these product cues nor from prior brand knowledge or experience. Hence, in order
to assess product quality, participants will have to refer to other product cues and information such
as the ingredients on the label, the product flyer and particularly the COO. Thus, it would seem
plausible to suggest that consumers will search for, notice and recall the COO, in cases where this is
important product information for them. Therefore, the COO cue and its recall is hypothesized to
significantly influence quality evaluations. Next, support for this proposed relationship from previous
literature is discussed.
The basic premise of most COO research is that consumers recognize, perceive and
consider the COO as an important extrinsic product cue (Usunier 2006; Samiee 2011, 1994) and the
influence of extrinsic product cues on perceived quality when applying cue utilization theory is
supported by literature (Cox 1962; Mai 2011). However, whether consumers actually notice and
recall the COO is heavily debated in the literature (Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005). Therefore,
whether “there is a substantial market segment that neither seeks nor uses country-origin related
information” (Samiee 1994, p. 586) is as much debatable as the assumption that all consumers with
correct COO recall, indeed seek and care about the product origin. Specifically, it is argued that “the
[COO] effect is inflated when participants receive verbal descriptions of a brand’s COO compared to
the more real marketplace situation, where shoppers search for such information at the point of sale
or retrieve it spontaneously from memory” (Shimp, Samiee & Sharma 2001, p. 325). Similarly, it is
argued, that explicitly mentioning or highlighting the COO may again result in distorted outcomes
(Baughn & Yaprak 1993; Samiee 2010). According to these conjectures, it would appear that once a
product with a COO cue has been made available to respondents, unaided recall and as such
quality perceptions and WTP will be lower compared to aided COO information provision but still
higher compared to the control group.
P a g e 55
As outlined previously in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, consumers’ awareness about COO’s can
have a significant effect on quality perception in cases where such information is recalled during
product evaluation processes and purchasing decisions. Several researchers (Kalicharan 2014;
Okechuku 1994; Verlegh 2001) have established such a relationship between COO and quality
perceptions early on in the COO research history. It is expected that a recalled COO therefore
should influence perceived quality perceptions and that the levels of such perceptions will vary by
the country of origin. The country variance is likely influenced by preexisting country images, which
are reflected in the nation brand rankings (Brand Finance 2018; Mcgrath 2020). Specifically, France
as the worlds leader in cosmetic exports (World's Top Exports 2020) and with its reputation for high
quality cosmetics (Rebufet, Loussaief & Bacouël-Jentjens 2015) is expected to obtain the highest
quality ratings. The USA is home to a couple of internationally recognized brands (for example Estée
Lauder, Aramis, Clinique). However, it is not necessarily recognized as a cosmetic manufacturing
country, given that branding many times distracts from the country origin. Nonetheless, the USA was
ranked together with France as the top countries in the category of personal care and beauty
(FutureBrand 2015) and may consequently also rate highly for manufacturing quality cosmetics.
Germany, with very few internationally known cosmetic brands and its skewed country image
towards technology and engineering (FutureBrand 2014) will thus likely rank below France and the
USA in both quality perceptions and WTP. Colombia is rather unknown as a cosmetics
manufacturing country, although more than 50% of cosmetics sold are manufactured locally
(Mendoza 2020; World's Top Exports 2020). With a low recognition for quality cosmetic products, it
is reasonable to assume that Colombia may rank lowest for both quality perceptions as well as WTP.
From the prior theorising using cue utilization theory and review of supporting literature, the
following relationship is therefore hypothesised:
H1: Recall and COO will have a significant interaction effect on perceived Total
Quality of a product
Influence of Recall and COO on WTP (H2)
This research is also underpinned by equity theory (Adams 1965). Equity theory has recently
gained attention from marketing practice and consumer research, as it supports insight generation of
perceived value, which goes beyond mere value perceptions (Adapa & Cooksey 2013; Lim 2020).
For this research, where the overarching research question is about finding out whether certain
COO’s would lead to a higher WTP, equity theory with its convention that people are aiming at
distributive justice, that is an equilibrium between what they give and what get in return, is
considered an appropriate foundation. Such equilibrium will be expressed with the WTP consumers
are prepared to pay for products with certain COO’s. Given that consumer evaluations differ
between consumers and countries, it is hypothesised that a favourable COO should translate into a
higher value perception and thus a higher WTP. Particularly Made in France is argued to embody
value (CosmeticOBS 2014) and research shows that marketing a favourable COO supports a
P a g e 56
premium price strategy (Koo Kim 1995). However, research about WTP for cosmetics is lacking, and
so the reason why this study is novel in nature with regard to WTP.
COO is frequently used as a quality signal and as such consumers are inclined to accept
higher prices for brands with a favourable COO (Hausruckinger 1993; Koschate-Fischer,
Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012). However, as outlined in Section 2.9, the literature is not
conclusive as to whether positive quality perceptions translate into an increased WTP. However,
there has been research which confirms COO has influenced other related outcomes such as
willingness to buy and purchase intentions (Ercan 2010; Galhanone et al. 2015; ed. Petruzzellis L.
2016), which provides tentative evidence that WTP will also be impacted. Nonetheless, based on
what has been outlined for H1 and on the few COO studies with WTP as an outcome measure (cf.
Table 2.3) it is expected that particularly in the case of Made in France both in the aided and
unaided recall experiments, a significant difference between the COO’s will be seen. As explained
for H1, the purpose of H2 is to explore whether there is an interaction effect between Recall and
COO and if this impacts WTP. Therefore, from the prior theorising using equity theory and review of
supporting literature, it can be hypothesised that:
H2: Recall and COO will have a significant interaction effect on WTP
Total Quality as a mediator (H3)
Perceived quality (Zeithaml 1988) has been suggested to be an antecedent with a

favourable influence on perceived value (Cronin Jr., Brady & Hult 2000; Lapierre, Filiatrault & Chebat
1999) and as a key dimension of brand equity (Aaker 1991). Extant COO related literature provides
evidence that product quality appraisals are indicative for global and local product purchase
intentions (Özsomer 2012; Strizhakova & Coulter 2015; Xie, Batra & Peng 2015), which may also
suggest that it is likely to impact WTP. Further, the aforementioned relationships are supported by
the study of Gineikeine et al. (2016, p. 5), who postulated that most “COO studies have found that
perception of quality drives the COO effect and acts as a mediating variable among origin and
purchase behaviour”. Therefore, building upon the prior marketing literature where quality
perceptions are postulated to mediate other related relationships such as extrinsic product attributes
on brand value (Oh 2000), it is suggested that in the current research that quality will also mediate
the interaction effect of recall and COO on WTP. It is therefore hypothesised that:
H3: Total Quality will mediate the interaction effect of Recall and COO on WTP
P a g e 57
Consumer Involvement as a moderator (H4)
Hypothesis 4 proposes that the higher consumers’ involvement, the more likely it is that they
will search for or notice the COO. Consequently, it is assumed consumers are being influenced by
this piece of information (COO). Highly involved consumers usually do not make purchases in a
thoughtless manner and care for what they acquire due to heightened interest and motivation in their
decision-making process. Consider a consumer for whom their visual complexion is very important
for professional and personal reasons. In such a case, it is unlikely that such consumers purchase
just any product or service for maintaining and enhancing their skin appearance and thus are more
involved in the purchase decision.
It is known, that the COO effect on quality is moderated by the level of CInv (Lee, Yun & Lee
2005). A number of studies suggest that the more involved consumers are with a product, the more
they will search, and consider COO more thoroughly (as well as other informational cues) when
evaluating a product (Celsi & Olson 1988; d'Astous & Ahmed 1999; Galhanone et al. 2015;
Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas 2008; Lin & Chen 2006; Yang, Ramsaran & Wibowo 2016). However,
Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2000b) confirmed, on the one hand, the influence of CInv on the
COO effect, but on the other hand it is stated that highly involved consumers tend to be less
influenced by country origin cues. In further support of the heterogeneous evidence of whether Cinv
moderates the COO effect, a study conducted by Guthrie and Kim (2009) with female consumers in
the USA about cosmetics found that based upon varying levels of CInv, consumers viewed brands
dissimilarly.
While there is evidence about separate consumer behaviour traits determined by Cinv, the
relevance in business practice for skin-care products is still unclear. Understanding how CInv drives
or curbs the WTP is of managerial value for the cosmetic industry, as it will contribute to segmenting
the market accordingly and thus design appropriate marketing strategies (Guthrie & Kim 2009). As
noted by many authors (Ahmed et al. 2004; d'Astous & Ahmed 1999; Josiassen & Harzing 2008;
Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas 2008; Pharr 2005; Phau & Prendergast 2000; Prendergast, Tsang &
Chan 2010) the moderating effect of CInv is still underexplored and deserves further research. In the
same way, the call for further empirical evidence about the role and impact of CInv in different
countries and product categories was reinforced by Yang et al (2016) and Guthrie and Kim (2009),
who called for further research, considering cultural differences and the limitations of their study.
Consequently, based on the prior explanation and justification, the following relationship is
proposed:
H4: Consumer involvement will moderate the relationship between the COO x Recall
interaction and Total Quality
P a g e 58
Consumer Ethnocentrism as a moderator (H5)
Hypothesis 5 proposes that a higher level of CE (see Section 2.4.3), similar to CInv, is
positively related to a higher recognition and recall of COO and thus impacts Total Quality
evaluations. Contemplate ethnocentric consumers who have been exposed to several buy American
campaigns or are influenced by ‘compre colombiano’ (buy Colombian) messages. The former may
believe that there are no better products outside of the worlds’ leading nation and the latter may be
swayed by supporting the domestic economy. It is to be expected that such ethnocentric consumers
will pay more attention to product origins compared with others, who are not interested in the
consequences of consumer behaviour or who do not care about product country origins.
For instance, Balabanis (2004) studied six COO’s from developed countries (USA, DE, UK,
FR, IT and JP) with eight product categories (cars, food products, TV sets, toiletries, fashion wear,
toys, do-it-yourself equipment/tools, and furniture) in the UK. It was demonstrated that even a
country, which is well regarded for producing high quality goods in certain product categories, highly
ethnocentric consumers tended to evaluate these imported products negatively. On the other hand,
Batra et al. (2000) contributed to the COO understanding with an investigation in India (a developing
country), including eight product categories (laundry detergents, wristwatches, soft drinks, light
bulbs, toothpaste, washing machines, tea, and TV sets) with four brands per category. It was found
that the more a product was perceived as non-local, the more it was preferred. Interestingly this
effect was not moderated by CE and the authors conclude that it related to the admiration of living a
western lifestyle. Finally, it is to be considered that CE may offset inferior domestic product
evaluations, that is CE has been shown to neutralize the advantage from a positive COO (Moon
2004).
Given that CE related to personal care products has received almost no attention, testing the
following hypothesis will likely generate new insights into the potential interaction. Specifically, for
cosmetic products in both developed and developing countries, determining the relationship between
CE and quality evaluations requires exploration as there is a clear gap in the literature. Based on the
prior explanation, the following relationship is proposed:
H5: Consumer ethnocentrism will moderate the relationship between the COO x recall
interaction and Total Quality
To conclude the hypothesis section, the five previous hypotheses will also be examined across
different markets to explore the generalisability of these relationships. This includes comparisons
between users and non-users, as well as across USA and Colombian consumers (addressing
objective six of the thesis).
P a g e 59
2.12 Conclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of relevant extant literature, its historical
development, applied theories, controversies and challenges as well as identified literature gaps.
The literature review has led to the elaboration of the theoretical framework with its main constructs
and the development of a new theoretical model which is deemed to be suitable for this research.
The next chapter will discuss in detail the proposed methodology for the experimental investigations.
P a g e 60
3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
Chapter Two reviewed the literature related to the underlying areas of research. This
chapter, Chapter Three, details the research methodology chosen and used by the current thesis. It
also describes the operationalization of the research model and thus, how the proposed hypotheses
are tested. It will also detail the chosen experimental design and the step-wise approach to data
collection.
Chapter Three is organised into five sections as shown in Figure 3.1. Firstly, section 3.2
outlines the research paradigm which guides this research. Next section 3.3 describes the design of
the three studies including the justification of the experimental design, three study approach, the
sampling design, the stimuli product design, the survey method, measurement scales and data
collection as well as the data analysis techniques. Section 3.4 outlines ethical considerations
relevant to this study and is proceeded by section 3.5 with concluding remarks on this chapter.
Figure 3.1 Outline of chapter 3
3.2 Research Paradigm
For decades, the debate of whether multiple research paradigms, philosophies and
methodologies are beneficial or whether business research should adapt to one universal approach,
has been conducted (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2019). Given that each philosophy has its own
merits and that different philosophical viewpoints are an integral part of business research, there is
no agreement about whether a best philosophy or paradigm exists for business and managerial
research as well as whether such one should be applied universally (Morgan 2006; Saunders, Lewis
P a g e 61
& Thornhill 2019; Tsoukas & Knudsen 2003). However, it is agreed that ultimately, the paradigm
guiding a business research project should be identified. Table 3.1 reviews and compares the four
main research paradigms as to how they differ in relation to ontology, epistemology and
methodology.
Table 3.1 Differentiation of four main research paradigms
Positivism Critical Theory Constructivism Realism

Ontology Naïve realism” Historical realism Relativism Critical realism
Research can, in Reality shaped by Assumes many Belief, that there is

principle, converge multiple social, realities. Reality is only one reality, but
on the "true" state of political, cultural, constructed by formed by multiple
affairs. economic, ethnic, investigator and perceptions of that
and gender factors. study subjects. reality, which must be
triangulated to come
closer to reality
Epistemology Objective Subjective Subjective Modified objective
Findings are true The investigator and The investigator and Findings are probably
and based on a the investigated the investigated true. Investigator is
detached subject matter are subject matter are mainly involved and
investigator, who intertwined, thus interactively linked. influencing outcomes
does not influence inevitably influencing Thus, the "findings" in the qualitative
or bias the outcomes the investigation. are created with the research aspects
progression of the
investigation’
Methodology Experiments/surveys Dialogic/dialectical Hermeneutical/ Case studies/
dialectical convergent inter-
viewing
Hypotheses testing Dialectical dialogue Strong interaction Mix of quantitative
primarily with between the between and among and qualitative
quantitative methods investigator and the investigator and methods.
such as surveys and study subjects to respondents with Interpretation of
experiments transform ignorance action research and findings for example
and in-depth interviews with structural
misapprehensions equation modelling
Source: Adapted from Guba and Lincoln (1994; 2005) and Perry et al. (1999)
The research undertaken in this thesis is informed by the positivism perspective which is
guided by the fundamentals of objectivity, “knowability”, and deductive logic. Positivism was and is
still dominant in social/behavioural science and thus positivist studies are commonly published in
marketing journals (Alise & Teddlie 2010; Berkovich 2018; Hanson & Grimmer 2007). It is arguably a
rather rigid scientific approach using highly structured research methods, such as experiments,
which promise to yield observable facts and figures from social reality, detached and unbiased from
the researcher’s own values, opinions and role within the research project (Perry, Riege & Brown
1999; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2019).
Positivism was suited to this research (Kankam 2019) as ontologically the research question
and objectives sought to determine cause and effect relationships between COO and WTP, that is
the true impact of COO on WTP. In relation to epistemology, the researcher in all three studies of
this research aims to find out how study subjects perceive COO and how much they would be willing
to pay. There is no interaction between the researcher and study participants as the objective is
merely gathering unbiased feedback which can be compared to preexisting knowledge. The
P a g e 62
methodology adopted in all three studies was experimental to investigate several recall conditions
with large sample sizes for reasons of statistical significance. With a pre-tested set of questions, no
in-depth qualitative data regarding each participant was required, and thus online surveys were the
chosen method to gather the experimental data. For these reasons, the positivism paradigm was
deemed most appropriate for this research.
3.3 Research Design
This section, 3.3, details the research design for the entirety of the thesis. It first justifies the
use of three experiments, followed by a discussion of the design of the manipulation variables, the
three experimental study approach, survey methods used, measurement scales implemented, pre-
testing and analysis techniques used.
3.3.1 Justification for Experimental Design
The research design chosen for all three Studies is an experiment, using data from online
consumer panels. Three main advantages of experimental research justify its use in this thesis. First,
experiments were described by Croson and Gächter (2010) as a ‘data generating process’.
Experiments control for variations of independent variables and thus enable the investigator to draw
causal inferences and increase the validity of outcomes by limiting interfering influences (Croson &
Gächter 2010; Jackson & Cox 2013; Montgomery 2001; Shadish, Cook & Campbell 2002).
Information technology has allowed for greater ease in the implementation of experiments and has
significantly lowered the barriers such as cost and time. Thus, social researchers now benefit from
online applications which offer considerable flexibility and as such, have gained more and more
acceptance (Birnbaum 2000). However, while the researcher is in control of the experimental
approach, that is the design, administration and execution of the online experiment, one has to be
mindful, that in contrast to field experiments, researchers lack control over the study participants and
experimental conduct after the experimental execution has commenced (Jackson & Cox 2013).
The second advantage of experiments relates to how they enable causal research to
achieve its intended objectives. The objective of causal research is to segregate the independent
(IV) from the dependent variable(s) (DV) in order to document, understand and interpret the
magnitude of change caused by modification of IV on the DV (Shadish, Cook & Campbell 2002). To
achieve the aforementioned goal, experimental research designs with their increased level of
investigator’s control, are considered the ‘gold standard’ to address and accomplish causation
(Montgomery 2001).
Third, experiments are advantageous and appealing for social scientists because they are
considered to distinguish themselves from other research methods due to their high external and
internal validity. As this research takes place online with pre-set conditions by the researcher, it can
P a g e 63
be concluded that these experiments have strong internal validity, potentially providing causal
evidence that a change in the independent variable has an impact upon the dependent variable.
However, as these experiments do not take place in the field, they do have limitations
regarding external validity. Nonetheless, this “experimental method is extremely powerful,
particularly in largely eliminating the contaminating role of unobserved confounders and thereby
making causal explanation more secure” (Jackson & Cox 2013, p. 43).
When applied to the current study, these advantages of online experiments are important
because they lower the hurdle for consumers to participate in an experiment as it is confidential and
does not require attendance in a study laboratory. Recruitment and reach to such a specific study
population in remote (from the researcher) overseas territories such as Colombia and the USA is
much more feasible with an online survey (Schmidt 1997). Overall, it is far more cost-effective and
efficient when compared with field or laboratory experiments.
Experimental Manipulation Design. This research attempts to explain the monetizable

value of COO, which is to be measured by means of WTP. Thus, COO has to be manipulated in an
experimental design in order to be able to measure the hypothesised effects. An experimental
design is deemed to be an appropriate choice for the design of this research, as it allows for
substantial control of the stimulus. Therefore, this research will manipulate the COO for each
experimental group (c.f. Figure 3 2) and include in addition a control group for both the Colombian
and USA sample with no product-COO at all. Hence the effect can be tested separately in each of
these experimental study cohorts.
According to Figure 3.2, the experiments were conducted using 3 (Recall: aided recall,
unaided recall and no COO) x 3 (COO’s: France and Germany and the home country, which in
Study One and Two is the USA and in Study Three Colombia) x 2 (study countries Colombia and
USA) post-test only, between-groups, factorial design. The experiments were divided into three
studies:
• Study One, the initial study, with a general consumer sample from the USA;
• Study Two, the first confirmatory study, with a product user sample from the USA;
and
• Study Three, the second confirmatory study, with a product user sample from
Colombia.
Each study is comprised of 7 experimental groups. They are composed of 3 COO groups
with either the USA or Colombia as the home country along with Germany and France as import
countries, with 2 recall groups (aided and unaided recall) for each COO and last but not least the
control group with no COO. Thus in each study, the study participants were randomly allocated to
one of the experimental groups, which in total are 21 (3 studies x 7 experimental groups each).
P a g e 64
Figure 3.2 Factorial Design 3 x 3 x 2
U S A (Study One and Two) C o l o m b i a (Study Three)

COO USA Germany France No COO COO Colombia Germany France No COO
R None -------- -------- -------- US control R None -------- -------- -------- CO control
e e
c c
a Unaided US unaided DE unaided FR unaided -------- a Unaided CO unaided DE unaided FR unaided --------
l l
l l
Aided US aided DE aided FR aided -------- Aided CO aided DE aided FR aided --------
3.3.2 The three study approach
This research undertook a two-stage approach to empirically test the conceptual model. In
the first stage, Study One comprised an initial study with a general consumer sample from the USA.
This initial study (Study One) was designed to serve two purposes: provide valuable insights and
use a sample from the general population. Data from this study was analysed to ensure all
measures were valid and by using a sample from the general population also served as a basis to
compare results gathered from product user populations in the subsequent Stage 2 studies in the
USA and Colombia.
Following this first Study in Stage 1, Stage 2 comprised two studies. Study Two comprised a
product user sample from the USA and Study Three, a product user sample from Colombia. Analysis
of the Study 1 data indicated all measures were working as planned so no changes were required
for Study Two apart from the addition of screener questions to ensure all respondents were product
users. Study Three was translated into Spanish by a native speaker, including backtranslation, and
subsequently pretested.
3.3.3 Country selection
Section 1.2.3 provides the justification as to why the USA and Colombia have been chosen
as countries in which to carry out this research. With regards to the product origin, both the USA and
Colombia have been included as home country products, that is ‘Made in USA’ in Study One and
Two and correspondingly in Spanish ‘Hecho en Colombia’ in Study Three. France and Germany are
the two countries from which both the USA and Colombia import cosmetic products. The difference
is that France is arguably the worlds’ leader in cosmetic brand revenues and well known by many
cosmetic users, whereas Germany, despite a quite significant cosmetic industry, due to the
ingredient manufacturing sector, is not well known as a cosmetic manufacturing country, as there
are very few internationally known cosmetic brands associated with Germany. Thus two differing
P a g e 65
developed countries were chosen, rather than a developing country, which may not have contributed
to confirm the hypothesis from the outset.
The selection of the COO’s to be tested has been explained in the last paragraph of Section
2.4. In order to avoid redundancies, this section resumes with Figure 3.3, an overview of both
research and COO countries.
Figure 3.3 Research and COO countries
Research countries
Study One Study Two Study Three
USA USA Colombia
COO country 1 (foreign) France France France

COO country 2 (foreign) Germany Germany Germany
COO country 3 (domestic) USA USA Colombia
3.3.4 Participants (sampling design)
Criticism has been voiced regarding sample definition and selection in COO research. Non-
representative, non-random and above all, student samples were in the center of critique but also
the fact that the population frame included subjects without any knowledge about the products or
product category (Magnusson, Westjohn & Zdravkovic 2011a; Samiee & Leonidou 2011; Srinivasan,
Jain & Sikand 2004). Therefore, in order to increase the internal and external validity of the study
outcomes, special attention was paid to avoid these methodological limitations.
“Therefore, any future attempts to measure origin

knowledge should a priori ensure the fit of product categories
and respondents.” (Josiassen and Harzing 2008, p. 268)
In Stage 1, Study One looks at a general population sample, not specified by use of the
products, which aligns with the common criticisms of COO studies. Thus, in Stage 2, both
confirmatory studies Study Two and Three can then confirm or challenge whether such sampling
approaches are indeed problematic for COO research with cosmetics.
Thus, in Study One the non-probability sampling method targeted a general consumer
sample with no screening questions apart from the requirement to be at least 18 years of age. In
addition, a rather broad sample frame in Study One facilitated the recruitment of study participants
and could potentially have contributed to a higher degree of generalisability and enabled a
P a g e 66
comparison with the product consumer samples employed in the subsequent studies. During the
Study One execution, only minor administration related adaptions (e.g. increase of the incentive to
participate) were necessary until the target number of ≥ 150 participants with valid responses was
reached. This, however, is to be interpreted in a positive way, as recent marketing research shows
that increases in payment for MTurk panel participants leads to a higher quality result by reducing
common method bias and improving central tendency (Matherly 2019).
For both confirmatory studies (Study Two and Study Three), the sampling method was a
non-probability sampling method. It was planned to overcome the limitations of prior studies
mentioned at the beginning of this section by identifying consumers who were regular users and
buyers of skin-care cosmetics. This also enabled a comparison with Study One, which was designed
with the common criticisms of COO research in sampling non-users of products. Accordingly,
respondents needed to be chosen from a real product consumer sample, that is consumers who
were aware of and knowledgeable about skin-care cosmetics. Therefore, this purposive sampling
strategy adopted initial screener questions (see Section 3.4) to ensure that only product category
consumers, that is adult consumers who self-identified as regular anti-ageing cream users and were
residents of either the USA or Colombia, could partake in the surveys. The additional screening
questions identified what cosmetic products they regularly used, the name of the manufacturer and
brand of their most frequently used facial anti-ageing cream and the approximate price paid for their
frequently used facial creams. Such selection ensured high-quality data and reduced methodological
flaws (for example use of student samples or consumers who are completely unfamiliar with the
product category), previously criticized in the extant literature. Both samples for the confirmatory
studies were planned to consist of ≥ 300 respondents with valid responses, that is in total at least ≥
600 respondents. However, as the number of deficient answers and survey dropouts was not known
in advance, the aim was to obtain > 360 responses in the raw data set for both Study Two and Study
Three.
In all studies, the population frame was not limited to females with a much higher likelihood
of using and purchasing skincare cosmetics, but was open to all genders. Such a gender limitation
could have possibly prevented a larger variability in the sample but in the same way it could have
contributed to a decrease of the outcome validity (Galhanone et al. 2015). All studies were open for
and included all genders over 18 years of age.
3.3.5 Stimuli product design
As an aid to increase the external validity of COO studies, academics frequently utilized
well-known brands for their research instead of unknown ones. However, this approach was
subsequently deemed to be flawed, as it delivered results for these specific brands but not outcomes
which can be easily generalised due to the influence of brand knowledge and product familiarity.
When enterprises, especially multinational ones, spend on multi-million marketing campaigns to
establish or maintain brand equity, it not only extends and alters consumers’ knowledge and
perception about brands, but usually contributes to brand loyalty which in turn has a bearing on COO
investigations. Brand and product origins which are already widely known, are prone to produce
P a g e 67
skewed COO research outcomes by integrating such a pre-existing bias into the studies (Hui & Zhou
2003; Martín & Cerviño 2011; Samiee & Leonidou 2011).
Well-designed marketing strategies generally increase brand/product affinity/preference and

therefore it is contended that frequently COO research beclouds origin cue effects by the use of
heavily marketed or established brands (Iyer & Kalita 1997; Pachur et al. 2011). A recommended
solution to such inherent bias of established brands and therefore the lack of naturalistic research
conditions (Peterson & Jolibert 1995) is the use of unknown brands (Coskun & Burnaz 2015; Esch
2014; Samiee & Leonidou 2011), which are more representative of the real marketplace, given that
established and well-known brands represent only a fraction of the total number of brands worldwide
(Samiee & Leonidou 2011). Consequently, an artificial anti-ageing cosmetic brand (Beautinique) was
used as the stimuli for all three studies, in order to avoid any bias resulting from prior product
knowledge or usage.
3.3.6 Survey method
Next, the survey development process conducted for this study is outlined. Based on the
recommendation of Rattray and Jones (2007), a stepped approach was employed to systematically
answer the following questions of what should the questionnaire measure, what measurement
scales can be used and how can the questionnaire items be generated?
There are multiple options to collect survey data; by face-to-face survey administration and
collection, by telephone, via email procedures, over the internet (for example web-ex or the use of
survey platforms), or by drop-off questionnaires (Zikmund 2003). When considering the pros and
cons of survey method options, for example time requirements, sample control, quantity and quality
of data, response rates, target population access and cost, an online survey was deemed to be the
most appropriate survey method for this study. Online surveys as part of online experiments enable
fast and direct access to a multitude of consumers and allow the researcher to maintain reasonable
control over the experiment. They have also shown to be comparably valid when compared with
laboratory and field experiments. However, they mostly do not require from start to finish a steep
financial investment and extended periods of time (Horton, Rand & Zeckhauser 2011; Schmidt
1997). In addition, often it would not be feasible to execute laboratory experiments with hundreds or
even thousands of experimental subjects (Birnbaum 2000). Furthermore, as in this study, where
participants need to be recruited from different countries with large distances, samples consisting of
particular target populations make laboratory or field experiments challenging (Schmidt 1997) if not
impossible. As summarized by Evans (2005), the use of online technology is not without limitations,
however, it provides multiple advantages.
On a positive note, without the presence of an experimenter or interviewer, online surveys

do not contribute to unwanted biases, for example the experimenter bias and social desirability bias
(Reips 2000). Finally, yet importantly, the validity question needs to be considered. In this regard,
online experimental replication studies of laboratory experiments have shown similar internal validity
(Horton, Rand & Zeckhauser 2011) and Schmidt (1997) reports, that the validity of internet survey
P a g e 68
research likely exceeds other research methods, particularly in cases where a specific target
population is of interest. For the aforementioned reasons, this research will make use of online
surveys, which are suited to provide the answers to the research questions.
3.3.7 Measurement scales
This section describes how the five constructs/variables in the research model (see section
2.5.1) were measured. This research has two independent variables (Recall and COO), two
moderating variables (CInv and CE) and two dependent variables (Total Quality and WTP).
Following, a brief description of each construct, measurement will be provided including the scaling
process, which used 7-point Likert scales. A forced choice method was used in order to increase the
validity of the dataset. The full survey with all scales is provided in Appendix 1.
Mediator/Moderator Variables
Consumer Involvement. Six major scales are available to evaluate CInv. They are
Zaichkowsky’s Personal Involvement Inventory (1985), the scale from Laurent and Kapferer (1985)
and full scales from Mittal and Lee (1989) as well as McQuarrie and Munson (Mittal 1995). The latter
two are quite dissimilar and thus, one would have to conduct comparative analysis before being able
to choose one or the other for one’s study purposes. However, there are in addition two other scales
available, namely the Foote, Cone, and Belding (FCB) scale, which is embedded in the purchasing
context and was developed and validated with a large non-student consumer sample of 1792
subjects and finally Mittal’s four-item scale for measuring purchase-decision involvement (Mittal
1995).
Mittal’s (1995) comparative analysis of the four CInv scales, that is Zachkowsky’s Personal
Involvement Inventory scale, Laurent and Kapferer’s scale, FCB scale and Mittal’s purchase-
decision scale, concludes that all of the 4 scales are associated with good reliability and validity.
However, both the FCB scale and Mittal’s purchase-decision scale are specifically related to a
purchasing context. Given, that the FCB scale performed best in terms of nomological validity, the
FCB scale was chosen for this research as shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Consumer Involvement Scale Items
Original Item (Mittal 1995) Adapted Item

In deciding which facial tissues to buy, there is In deciding which anti-aging cream to buy,
there is:
A little to lose: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot to lose A little to lose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot to lose
Making one`s selection of facial tissues is: Making one’s selection of anti-aging cream is:
A very unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A very A very unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A very
important decision important decision
The decision about which facial tissue to buy The decision about which anti-aging cream to
requires: buy requires:
A little thought 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot A little thought 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot of
thought thought
P a g e 69
Consumer Ethnocentrism. The CE scale consists of 4 items and is rated on Likert scale
from 1 (I don´t agree at all) to 7 (fully agree) as shown in Table 3.3. It was used by Zhou et al.
(2010), formerly adapted by Batra et al. (2000) and is based on the seminal research of Shimp and
Sharma (1987), who developed the initial and widely used CE scale. In order to avoid priming, the
scale will be employed only at the very end of the survey.
Table 3.3 Consumer Ethnocentrism Scale Items
Original Item (Zhou et al. 2010) Adapted Item

Purchasing foreign-made products is un- Purchasing foreign-made skin-care products is
Chinese e.g. ‘un-American/un-Colombian’
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly I don´t agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 fully
agree agree
A real Chinese should always buy domestic A real American, should only buy domestically
products manufactured skin-care products
agree agree
Chinese should not purchase imported goods, Americans should not purchase imported skin-
because we need to support our own economy care products, because we need to support our
own economy
agree agree
Chinese should try not to buy foreign brands Americans should try not to buy foreign skin-
whenever possible care brands whenever possible
agree agree
Importantly, the CE questions were placed at the very end of the questionnaire, for the
purpose of avoiding any bias related to activating CE feelings. This approach builds on findings from
MacDonald, who discussed the automatic activation of CE due to the mere exposure of stimuli
material and Drozdenko and Jensen (2009) in their USA study about translating COO effects into
prices. In the latter study, respondents were divided into 2 groups and the group who were exposed
to CE questions before price related questions showed a lower willingness to pay price premiums for
USA products. The potential explanation provided was grounded in social desirability theory.
Total Quality. Product quality is a widely researched marketing construct, which is one of
the primary outcomes in most COO publications. In the context of this research, only extrinsic
product quality cues (part of the packaging or product information, however not an integral
constituent of the actual product) were evaluated, given that no samples were distributed. Hence,
the measurement is limited to perceived quality, which is part of what academics differentiate
conceptually from objective quality. The difference is laid out by Zeithaml (1988), stating that
a) Objective quality can be understood as the technical superiority of a product, which must
be objective, verifiable and comparable versus a predefined benchmark. However,
frequently such benchmark or standard is being disputed and consumers may have
different quality standards than manufacturers. On these grounds it is debatable,
P a g e 70
whether and to what extent objective quality really can be measured across consumer
groups and geographies.
b) Perceived quality on the other hand is “defined as the consumer’s judgement about a
product’s overall excellence or superiority. Perceived quality is (1) different from
objective or actual quality, (2) a higher level abstraction rather than a specific attribute of
a product, (3) a global assessment that in some cases resembles attitude, and (4) a
judgment usually made within a consumer's evoked set.” (Zeithaml 1988, pp. 3–4)
In order to avoid a single-item question about the perceived quality on one hand and to
avoid response fatigue with very extensive quality related questionnaires on the other hand, the
construct was measured with a multiple item question which was deemed to best fit this research.
Thus it is closely following prior relevant studies from Oh (2000) and Dodds (1991) given that
subjects could not physically test the product and thus a perceived quality assessment was the focus
of this research. Table 3.4 visualizes the original scale items from Oh (2000) in comparison to the
adjustments made for this research.
Table 3.4 Total Quality Scale Items
Original Item (Oh 2000) Adapted Item

Performance: Product Effectiveness:
The expected product/service performance of The expected Product Effectiveness, i.e. its
XYZ is ability to deliver on its promises, is
Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent
Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent
Extremely unfavourable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely favourable
Extremely unfavourable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely favourable
Quality: Quality:
The expected product/service quality of XYZ is The overall expected product quality is
Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent

Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent
Extremely unfavourable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely unfavourable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely favourable Extremely favourable
Source: (Oh 2000)
Dependent Variables
Willingness to pay (WTP). The measurement of WTP is based on the Van Westendorp
Price-Sensitivity Meter. It is a hypothetical method with some inherent shortcomings. However, Miller
et al. (2011, p. 172) justify these kinds of measurement tools, as they “may still lead to the right
demand curves and right pricing decisions. In other words, an approach that generates a biased
mean WTP value need not be dismissed entirely.”
While some uncertainties about price estimations will always remain with any method, this
study is not about uncovering a “right” launch price but rather different price perceptions or price
P a g e 71
differentials between products with and without COO’s and between more positive and more
negative COO evaluations. Therefore, the question of whether there is a monetary value associated
with COO does not require absolute certainty about the exact price a consumer would pay in a real
market situation. Furthermore, to support the use of the proposed Van Westendorp method
employed in this study, Kloss and Kunter (2016) conclude in their analysis of alternatives, that it is “a
method of high predictive quality for eliciting willingness-to-pay since the measurement results are
comparable to those of the incentive-aligned Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism.” (p. 1)
The scale (cf. Table 3.5) approximates the WTP by asking about the “too expensive” price
and the “too cheap” price to set the borders of a theoretical price range before asking, which price
might be slightly expensive. The latter reveals the respondent’s WTP. With all 3 questions the
optimal price point between point of marginal cheapness and point of marginal expensiveness can
be calculated.
Table 3.5 Van Westendorp WTP questions
Above what price would the product become too expensive so that you would
definitively not consider buying it? (Too expensive)
Below what price would the product become so inexpensive that you would
doubt its quality and not consider buying it?
At what price would you begin to think the product is getting slightly expensive,
but that price would still not deter you from buying it?
At what (realistic) price would you think the product is a bargain – great value
for the money?
Source: (Kloss & Kunter 2016)
Furthermore, it has been shown that often price estimates can gain further accuracy, by
asking confirmatory questions. Several studies suggest that the Juster scale is a more accurate
measure of future behaviour than mere intentions (Brennan & Esslemont 1994; McDonald & Alpert
2001). It measures the probability, in this case WTP, within the preset range on an eleven (0 – 10)
point scale. Accordingly, the Juster scale was used directly after the questions asking about the
slightly expensive and bargain price in order to validate the likelihood a consumer would really pay
the stated price.
P a g e 72
Table 3.6 Juster Scale
10 - Certain, practically certain

9 - Almost sure
8 - Very probable
7 - Probably
6 - Good possibility
5 - Fairly good possibility
4 - Fair possibility
3 - Some possibility
2 - Slight possibility
1 - Very slight possibility
0 - No chance, almost no chance (1 in 100)
Source: (Brennan & Esslemont 1994)
Finally, it should also be noted that for Study Three (Colombia User Population) translation
from English into Spanish, back translation and understanding as well as interpretation of the
questions were part of the survey instrument validation.
3.3.8 Pre-test and survey administration
The questionnaire was pre-tested according to the recommendations of Frazer and Lawley
(2001) before running Study One. Nine native English speakers and five native Spanish speaking
subjects participated in such pre-test. Pre-testing allowed for assessing the clarity and
comprehensibility of the questionnaire, the time needed for completion, the suitability for the target
group and any other issues that could be detected which may invalidate the survey as a reliable and
accurate social science research instrument. Only minor adjustments, such as formatting and
visibility improvement, sequence of questions and spelling errors had to be made.
Subsequently, the full questionnaire was launched in Study One (USA General Population)
with a small number of respondents in a soft launch (40 responses) with no adaptions to the
questionnaire necessary. Data collection was then continued until the required sample size was
achieved. This approach allowed for identifying any issues early as well as checking the validity and
reliability of the research instrument (Neuman 2014).
For Study One requiring a sample from the general population in the USA, the relatively new
platform Mechanical Turk (MTurk) from Amazon was used. It is an online crowdsourcing platform,
which provided the readily accessible general population sample needed for this research (Hulland
and Miller 2018). MTurk characterizes itself by reduced costs, rapid response, participant diversity,
data quality and flexibility. However, the downsides, such as lack of representativeness, self-
selection of higher-paid surveys, participant nonnaiveté (professional or routine survey takers) and
participant misrepresentation (when participants deceitfully answer screening questions in order to
qualify for a survey and reap the financial benefits) must also be considered (Hulland & Miller 2018).
Recent literature suggests that despite these shortcomings, the differences between MTurk and
P a g e 73
other online panels are limited (Smith et al. 2016). Nonetheless, it was planned to undertake
reliability, validity and common method bias testing for the benefit of rigour and data quality.
Participants were recruited via MTurk and after passing the screening questions of being an
adult over 18 years of age and a USA citizen, were then randomly allocated to the different
experimental groups. Furthermore, they had to have an MTurk master’s qualification or alternatively
should have completed at least 5,000 previous tasks with acceptance rates above 97 %. This
qualification of Mturker’s ensures that those who participated had a proven history of providing high
quality responses to prior surveys thus minimising the impact of low-quality data being collected.
The data for Study Two (USA User Population) and Three (Colombia User Population) was
gathered electronically through a leading online panel provider with globally, more than 62 million
consumers and business professionals to choose from and more than 100 million completed surveys
per year. Participants were recruited from the panel providers’ pre-existing consumer panels, which
facilitated the enrolment and survey execution. Mturk was not deemed to be suitable for Colombia,
given that Mturk was still in its infancy in Colombia, which may have led to complications during the
data gathering process and data from a small and potentially skewed consumer sample might have
been collected.
3.3.9 Data analysis techniques
As part of good research practice, to avoid potential issues, the datasets from all three
studies needed to be revised, cleaned and complemented if necessary, before the main data
analysis was undertaken (Tabachnick & Fidell 2010). With controlled experiments, usually large
amounts of data are gathered, analyzed and computed with statistical programs (Crook et al. 2009).
The data analysis method employed for determining whether the manipulation of the COO in
the between groups factorial design experiments resulted in statistically significant effects, was an
analysis of variance (ANOVA). It allowed for comparing differences between several conditions
(Field 2011) and therefore suited well the design of this study, as it supported the comparison of the
two study countries, sociodemographic variables, CInv and CE in relation to Total Quality and WTP.
All three studies benefitted also from the use of PROCESS macro (Hayes 2012), version 3.5, model
10, in SPSS, with one mediator and two moderators in order to analyse the mediation effect of Total
Quality in affecting WTP and the moderation effects of Cinv and CE in influencing Total Quality
perceptions. In addition, all variables/items were tested for normality, multicollinearity, and common
method bias (Tabachnick & Fidell 2010).
Special attention was also given to the comparison of Study Two and Three data, as cross-
cultural comparisons in the past have used foreign students in the US, assuming that they respond to
English questionnaires the same was as they would in their home country in their first language and
thus represent their broader home country population. Such assumptions are however, uncertain and
unsupported (Samiee 1994).
P a g e 74
3.4 Ethical considerations
Ethical practices need to be kept in mind from the start until the finish and distribution of the
research. Rather than a nuisance, ethics should be a primary concern for every researcher. It is
particularly important during data collection, reporting and distribution of any research material
(Creswell 2012).
With the purpose of providing all-inclusive guidance, Patton (2009) mentions ten key ethical
issues to be considered when conducting research. These are the explanation of the research
purpose, confidentiality issues and agreements, informed consent, promises and reciprocity, data
access and ownership, data collection boundaries, the interviewer’s health, advice, the assessment
of all potential risks, and ethical versus legal issues. Each of these, if relevant and applicable, were
considered in this research.
One specific point to be mentioned here is the participant confidentiality (Zikmund 2003). All
participants were led to a consent page, where the participants were informed about the non-
identifiable data collection, their rights to withdraw and complain, benefits and risks associated with
this study and ensuring the respondents’ confidentiality. Each participant was free to opt in or to opt
out. All three studies received ethics approval (approval number HREC S181271) from the Human
Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Sunshine Coast.
3.5 Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to describe the methodology employed in order to
accomplish the overall research purpose. This chapter provided a justification of the positivism
research paradigm, followed by a justification and description of the experimental study design, the
two-stage, three-study approach, sampling frame, survey method, measurement scales pre-test and
survey instrument as well as data analysis techniques and the measures used to ensure that data
quality was achieved. For this reason, special attention was paid to avoid priming, response bias and
the development and usage of an experimental stimuli (the product), which was designed in an
externally valid way for this research. Finally, the ethical considerations concerning this research
were identified. The next chapter will report the findings, analysis and conclusions of Study One, the
study with a general population sample from the USA.
P a g e 75
4 Study One | USA | General Population
4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter, Chapter 3, described and justified the chosen research methodology
including the operationalization of the research model, the research paradigm and ethical
considerations. This chapter, Chapter 4, presents the results of Study One, which comprises 8
sections as depicted in Figure 4.1. Following this introduction, Section 4.2 describes the data
preparation and profiles the sample used in this study as well as a descriptive overview of the data.
Next, Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 will provide the statistical analysis performed, specifically,
reliability analysis, validity analysis, ANOVA and the moderated mediation analysis. After a
presentation of the results, Section 4.7 will provide a discussion of the results. Section 4.8 then
concludes the chapter, leading into Study Two in Chapter 5.
Study One was designed to test the effect of COO and Recall on Total Quality perceptions
and WTP in a general consumer market based in the USA, as this was often determined as a
common approach used in prior literature. That is, studies often use general population samples
when considering the impact of COO. In Study One consumers were randomly assigned to one of
the 3 COO conditions (France versus Germany versus USA) and associated to one of the 2 Recall
conditions (Aided Recall versus Unaided Recall) or alternatively to the no-COO control group, all
post-test only, experimental conditions. The experiment was administered as an online survey in
MTurk. For completing the survey, respondents were rewarded with the pre-specified participation
fee. Further, as detailed previously in Chapter 3 an artificial cosmetic brand (Beautinique) was used
as the stimuli, in order to avoid any bias resulting from prior product knowledge or usage.
P a g e 76
4.2 Data preparation and sample profile
This section reports the steps taken prior to the data analysis including data preparation (Section
4.2.1) and an overview of the sample (Section 4.2.2).
4.2.1 Data preparation
The inclusion criteria for participants were based on the principles discussed in Chapter 3
(Section 3.3.2). Participants classified as adult consumers residing in the USA from the MTurk
research panel were invited via an online survey link, which was emailed to potential respondents.
The raw data-set contained 520 responses. The data were then screened and cleaned for the
following reasons. First, incomplete surveys (n= 342) were deleted as completed responses were
used as an implied consent to partake in the study. Thus, incomplete responses were not included
for analysis as it was deemed that these participants had not given consent for their data to be used.
Next, responses from the same IP address were eliminated (n = 5), as these were deemed to be
multiple responses from the same respondent. Finally, the duration each participant took to finalize
the experiment was examined. Any participant (n=2) who completed the survey in less than 5 mins
(300 seconds), was deleted as this was considered as speeding, that is, participants did not take the
time to read the stimuli and research questions thoughtfully. As a result, 171 completed survey
entries remained. These responses were used for the subsequent analysis.
For Study One, it is important to recall (as per Section 3.3.3), no preceding screeners based
upon product usage or product experience were used. This is consistent with a number of studies in
COO research, which used study participants with limited or no experience in the product category
of interest (Cakici & Shukla 2017; Samiee 1994; Usunier 2006). This will also allow for comparison in
the subsequent studies (Study Two and Three) between a general study population (Study One) and
the others, where only regular product category consumers were allowed to partake in Study Two
and Three.
4.2.2 Sample Profile
The Study One respondent profile is summarised in Table 4.1, which provides the
frequencies and percentages for age, education, income and employment status. Study One is
composed primarily of participants between the age of 25-44 years of age (75.4%) with 38% of the
sample within the age range of 25-34 years, and 37.4% between 35-44 years. Study one is
characterised by a significantly larger share of study subjects at age 25-34 (38% versus 18%) and
35-44 (37% versus 17%) when compared with the United States Census data (United States
Census Bureau 2021). This is offset by the age groups 18-24 (2% versus 10%) and 55+ (7% versus
38%) which were underrepresented. Such age distribution is no surprise, given that most people
partaking in MTurk surveys are aged below 40 (Mechanical Turk Surveys 2020) and the nature of
the studied product.
P a g e 77
The distribution according to income levels was rather homogeneous with the exception of
the US$ 50,000 – 75,000 bracket, which accounts for 31.6% of the sample. The sample consists of
mostly full-time employees (81.9%) and it had only a slight skew towards 62.6% female participants,
which could be explained by the topic of the survey being beauty products. Next, the reliability
results of the scales used within the study will be reported.
Table 4.1 Study One Sample Profile
Sample Characteristic # %
Age
18-24 4 2.3
25-34 65 38.0
35-44 64 37.4
45-54 26 15.2
55-64 7 4.1
65+ 5 2.9
Income
Up to $ 10,000 6 3.5
$ 10,001 - $ 20,000 22 12.9
$ 20,001 - $ 30,000 14 8.2
$ 30,001 - $ 40,000 28 16.4
$ 40,001 - $ 50,000 21 12.3
$ 50,001 - $ 75,000 54 31.6
More than $ 75,000 25 14.6
I prefer not to answer 1 .6
Employment
Full time 140 81.9
Part time 13 7.6
Casual 4 2.3
Retired 3 1.8
Stay at home parent 3 1.8
Student 2 1.2
Other 6 3.5
Gender
Male 64 37.4
Female 107 62.6
Education
High school graduate 50 29.2
Bachelor's degree 104 60.8
Postgraduate degree e.g. Master’s 17 9.9
degree, PHD
4.3 Reliability analysis
The reliability of the scales used within Study One were assessed using item-to-total
correlation scores, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability scores as shown in Table 4.2. All
item-to-total correlation scores were all above the recommended threshold of .30 (Hair et al. 2017).
The Cronbach’s alphas and composite reliability scores also exceeded recommended threshold
levels of .70 (Hair et al. 2017). Thus, from the results, reliability was confirmed in all scales used
within the current study.
P a g e 78
Table 4.2 Construct Reliability Results Study One
Construct/Items Item-to-total correlation

Product Effectiveness (Oh 2000)
The expected product effectiveness, i.e. its ability to deliver on .855
its promises, is poor … excellent
its promises, is inferior … superior
its promises, is extremely unfavourable … extremely
favourable
Cronbach’s Alpha .930
Composite Reliability .958
Quality (Oh 2000)
The expected product quality is poor … excellent .891
The expected product quality is inferior … superior .879
The expected product quality is extremely unfavourable … .885
extremely favourable
Total Quality (Quality and Product Effectiveness combined) (Oh
2000)
its promises, is extremely unfavourable … extremely
favourable
Consumer Involvement (Mittal 1995)
In deciding which anti-aging cream to buy, there is little to lose .693
… a lot to lose
Making one’s selection of an anti-aging cream is a very .761
important … a very unimportant decision
The decision about which anti-aging cream to buy requires a .739
little … a lot of thought
Consumer Ethnocentrism (Zhou et al., 2010)
Purchasing foreign-made skin-care products is e.g. ‘un- .866
American’
A real American should only buy domestically manufactured .892
skin-care products
Americans should not purchase imported skin-care products, .885
because we need to support our own economy
Americans should try not to buy foreign skin-care brands .914
whenever possible
P a g e 79
4.4 Validity analysis
Construct validity was conducted in SPSS version 26 on all the multiple item constructs. To
assess the construct validity of items, items were required to exceed the .50 factor loading threshold
as detailed by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). The calculated factor loading results indicate that all
scales and their items had high construct validity with factor loadings above the recommended
threshold of .50 as shown in Table 4.3. After the results confirming both reliability and now validity of
the scales, the next section presents the ANOVA hypothesis testing results.
Table 4.3 Construct Validity Results Study One
Construct/Items Factor
Loading
The expected product effectiveness, i.e. its ability to deliver on its
promises, is…
poor/excellent .94
inferior/superior .94
unfavourable/extremely favourable .94
Variance Explained 88%
Average Variance Explained .88
Quality (Oh 2000)
The expected product quality is…
poor/excellent .95
2000)
promises, is…
poor/excellent .93
Inferior/superior .92
Unfavourable/extremely favourable .92
The expected product quality is… poor/excellent .92
Variance Explained .84%
Purchasing foreign-made skin-care products is e.g. ‘un-American’ .95
P a g e 80
A real American should only buy domestically manufactured skin-care .94
products
Americans should not purchase imported skin-care products, because .94
we need to support our own economy
Americans should try not to buy foreign skin-care brands whenever .92
possible
In deciding which anti-aging cream to buy, there is little to lose … a lot .91
to lose
Making one’s selection of an anti-aging cream is a very important … a .88
very unimportant decision
The decision about which anti-aging cream to buy requires a little … a .85
lot of thought
4.5 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) H1 and H2 hypothesis testing
A series of three-way ANOVA 3 (COO: France versus Germany versus USA versus no
COO) x 3 (Recall: Aided Recall versus Unaided Recall versus No Aid recall) was undertaken to test
the hypotheses (see Table 4.4). These results are reported next.
Table 4.4 Hypotheses tested Study One
Relationship Hypothesis Relevant

Section
H1 Recall and COO on H1: Recall and COO will have a 4.5.1
Total Quality significant interaction effect on
perceived Total Quality of a product
WTP significant interaction effect on WTP
H3 Total Quality as a H3: Total Quality will mediate the 4.6

mediator interaction effect of Recall and COO on
WTP
H4 Consumer involvement H4: Consumer involvement will 4.6

as a moderator moderate the relationship between the
COO x Recall interaction, Total Quality
and WTP
P a g e 81
H5 Consumer H5: Consumer ethnocentrism will 4.6
ethnocentrism as a moderate the relationship between the
moderator COO x Recall interaction, Total Quality
and WTP
In the following sections the results for the three tested hypotheses shown in Table 4.4 are
presented. In Section 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 the tests of group differences of H1 and H2 by means of
ANOVA are summarized. This is followed by the PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2013) results examining
the moderated mediation results.
4.5.1 ANOVA Testing Total Quality (H1)
Product Effectiveness. First, the ANOVA for Product Effectiveness (cf. Table 4.4)
evidenced that recall had a significant main effect (F=6.51, p=.01), with aided recall (M=5.65) having
a significantly higher mean than unaided recall (M=5.25). The interaction between recall and COO
effect was non-significant (F=1.52, p=.221). However, due to the low sample size of 171, it is
plausible that in the subsequent larger studies, this effect may indeed become significant as the
power for the ANOVA increases. Following the ANOVA, a simple effects analysis was conducted to
identify any significant differences between the conditions. No significant differences were observed
between the COO conditions. Significant differences were observed for France between aided recall
(M=5.95) and unaided recall (M=5.25) conditions (p=.022). Differences were also found between
Germany aided recall (M=5.72) and unaided recall (M=5.11) (p=.042). A summary of the results for
the ANOVA for Product Effectiveness are shown in Figure 4.2 and Table 4.5.
Comparison of Experimental Conditions to Control Group. To further understand the

impact of recall and COO a series of independent sample t-tests were conducted with the
experimental conditions and the control group. For succinctness, only the significant results are
highlighted next. Participants in the “France aided” stimuli (M = 5.96, SD = .74) reported significantly
higher levels of Product Effectiveness in comparison to the control group with no COO (M = 5.25,
SD = 1.02) (t(59) = -2.48, p = .016). The “Germany aided” participants also reported significantly
higher levels of Product Effectiveness (M = 5.72, SD = .73) compared the control group with no COO
(M = 5.22, SD = 1.07) (t(62) = -1.83, p = .073). Thus, from these results it can be suggested that
aided COO products outperform products in terms participants reported levels of product
effectiveness with no form of COO.
P a g e 82
Figure 4.2 ANOVA Results for Product Effectiveness
Results for Product Effectiveness ANOVA

6,2
5,96
6
5,72
5,8
5,6 5,43 5,40
Means
5,4 5,25 5,22

5,2 5,11
5
4,8
4,6
USA France Germany Control
Aided recall Unaided recall No recall
Table 4.5 ANOVA Results for Product Effectiveness
Relationship F p value
COO .51 .604
Recall 6.51 .012
COO x Recall 1.522 .221
Quality. Second, in contrast to ANOVA for Product Effectiveness, ANOVA for Quality
evidenced that Recall had no significant main effect (F=2.86, p=.093), with aided recall (M=5.76)
having a higher mean than unaided recall (M=5.52). The interaction effect was also non-significant
(F=2.32, p= .102). As noted previously in this chapter, it is expected that the subsequent larger
studies will confirm the statistical significance of the interaction effect between COO and Recall. A
summary of the results for the ANOVA for Quality are shown in Figure 4.3 and Table 4.6. Following
the ANOVA, a simple effects analysis was conducted to identify any significant differences between
the conditions. Although the observed differences between the COO conditions as shown in Figure
4.2 are noteworthy, they were only just over the p significance threshold (0.05) for France (p= .067)
and Germany (p= .061).
Comparison of Experimental Conditions to Control Group. In the next round of testing,

independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare the individual experiment conditions to the
control group. Again, for succinctness, only the significant results are highlighted next. Participants in
the “Germany aided” stimuli (M = 5.96, SD = .77) reported significantly higher levels of Quality in
comparison to the control group with no COO (M = 5.31, SD = 1.07) (t(59) = -2.37, p = .021). The
“Germany aided” participants also reported significantly higher levels of Quality (M = 5.72, SD = .73)
compared to the control group with no COO (M = 5.31, SD = 1.07) (t(62) = -2.36, p = .022). Thus,
this lends further support that aided COO products outperform products with no COO.
P a g e 83
Figure 4.3 ANOVA Quality
Results for Quality ANOVA

6,20 6,00 5,96
6,00
Means
5,80 5,70
5,60 5,48 5,45 5,41
5,40 5,31
5,20
5,00
4,80
Table 4.6 ANOVA Quality
COO .234 .792
Recall 2.862 .093
Total Quality. The third ANOVA for Total Quality, encompasses both Product Effectiveness
and Quality and tests H1 in its entirety. A significant main effect was found (F=4.73, p=.03), with
aided recall (M=5.71) having a significantly higher mean than unaided recall (M=5.38). The
interaction effect, however, was non-significant but close to being significant given the smaller
sample size (F=1.98, p=.141). Subsequently to the ANOVA, the simple effects analysis, which was
conducted to identify any significant differences between the conditions, showed the following
significant differences between the COO conditions. Significant differences were observed for
France between aided recall (M=5.98) and unaided recall (M=5.35) (p=.034). Differences were also
found between Germany aided recall (M=5.84) and unaided recall (M=5.26) (p=.045). A summary of
the results for the ANOVA for Total Quality are shown in Figure 4.4 and Table 4.7.

the “France aided” stimuli (M = 5.98, SD = .64) reported significantly higher levels of Total Quality in
comparison to the control group with no COO (M = 5.27, SD = 1.04) (t(59) = -2.48, p = .016). The
“Germany aided” participants also reported significantly higher levels of Total Quality (M = 5.84, SD
= .73) compared the control group with no COO (M = 5.27, SD = 1.04) (t(62) = -2.14, p = .036).
P a g e 84
Figure 4.4 ANOVA for Total Quality
Results for Total Quality ANOVA

6,5
5,98
6 5,84
5,45 5,55
Means
5,5 5,35 5,26 5,26
5
4,5
Table 4.7 ANOVA Total Quality
COO .33 .721
Recall 4.737 .031
4.5.2 ANOVA Testing Willingness-To-Pay (H2)
After evaluating the effects of H1 noting no effect of the interaction of COO and Recall on
Total Quality, this section will provide the results to the question, whether such interaction result of
COO and Recall potentially translates to a higher WTP. The ANOVA for WTP, evidenced no
significant main effect neither for COO (p= .60) nor for recall (p= .36). The interaction effect was also
non-significant (p= .15). However, as per the prior analyses this could be contributed to the smaller
sample size and subsequent larger studies (Study Two and Three) may confirm this relationship. A
summary of the results for the ANOVA for WTP are shown in Figure 4.5 and Table 4.8. Again,
following the ANOVA, a simple effects analysis was conducted to identify any significant differences
between the conditions. However, statistically significant differences were not observed neither
between the COO nor the recall conditions.

control group. However, no significant results became manifest. Thus, this result suggests whilst
aided COO products outperform no COO products relating to Quality perceptions, however, this
does not extend to WTP.
P a g e 85
Figure 4.5 ANOVA for WTP
Results for WTP ANOVA

40,00
31,86
26,70 28,78
30,00 24,18 23,55 25,66
21,80
Means
20,00
10,00
0,00
Table 4.8 ANOVA WTP
COO .50 .604
Recall .837 .362
4.6 Mediation and Moderation analysis (H3-H5)
To test H3, H4 and H5 (cf. Table 2.5) a series of moderated mediations were conducted.
First, about H3 a moderated mediation model (Table 4.9), whereby Total Quality served as the
mediator of the interaction effect of Recall and COO on WTP. Second (H4), (Table 4.9), whereby
Total Quality served as the mediator and CInv as the moderator, was analysed. Third (H5), a
moderated mediation model (Table 4.10) was used to test Total Quality as the mediator and CE as
moderator.
To test the following mediations and moderations, the analysis followed a bootstrapping
procedure using the SPSS PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2012), version 3.5 extension in SPSS. The
analysis was conducted with 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) based on 5,000 bootstrap
samples via Model 10. The model tested the assumption that Total Quality would mediate the effects
of the COO x recall interaction as per H3 (see Figure 4.6). Specifically, it was expected that the
independent variable of COO and moderating variable of recall would interactively affect the
mediator Total Quality, which in turn influences the dependent variable WTP.
The analysis revealed that the two-way interaction had a direct effect on Total Quality
(coefficient=-.27, 95% CI [-.47, -.07], p=.008). Further, Total Quality had a significant direct effect on
WTP (coefficient=.723, CI [0.636, 0.809], p<.000). It is important to note that when Total Quality is
excluded from the model, the direct effect of the interaction between COO and recall on WTP were
significant (coefficient = .694, 95% CI [.105, 1.48], p=.027). However, when Total Quality is added as
P a g e 86
a mediator, the direct effect of the interaction became non-significant (coefficient =.124, 95% CI [-
0.339, 0.589], p=.596), demonstrating full mediation. The indirect effect (that is COO x Recall →Total
Quality→WTP) relationship was non-significant (coefficient=.194, 95% CI [-0.081, 0.586] as the CI
includes zero. The model provided an R²=.566, which indicates the model has a moderate to good
explanation of consumers WTP. Thus, the results overall support H3 confirming Total Quality
mediates the interaction effect of recall and COO on WTP.
Figure 4.6 Mediation Analysis Total Quality
Total
-.27** Quality .723***
COO x WTP
Recall R²=.566
.194ns (.694*)
The results (see Table 4.9) show that neither COO has a significant direct effect on Total
Quality (coefficient = 1.05, p=.12), nor COO x Recall interaction (coefficient = -.36, p=.24). The COO
x CInv interaction had likewise a non-significant impact on Total Quality (coefficient = -.08, p=.58) as
well as the interaction of COO x CE (coefficient = .08, p=.30). These results are somewhat
consistent with the prior hypothesis testing for H1-H2.
Table 4.9 Total Quality and WTP with consumer involvement included as moderator
Coefficient SE p
Relationships with Total
Quality
Country of Origin 1.05 .68 .12
Recall .17 .72 .81
Country of Origin x -.36 .30 .24
Recall
Involvement .06 .28 .85
Involvement
Total Quality R2 .104
Relationships with WTP
Country of Origin 4.22 11.48 .71
Total Quality 4.33 1.31 .001
Recall 18.77 12.10 .12
Country of Origin x -3.43 5.12 .50
Recall
Involvement 7.50 4.70 .11
Country of Origin x -.25 2.47 .09
Involvement
WTP R2 .119
P a g e 87
Table 4.10 Total Quality and WTP with consumer ethnocentrism included as moderator
Coefficient SE p
Quality
Country of Origin .67 .43 .12
Recall -.05 .46 .92
Recall
CE -.16 .41 .69
Country of Origin x CE .02 .20 .93
Country of Origin -5.81 7.27 .43
Recall -8.42 7.67 .27
Recall
CE -10.31 6.86 .13
Country of Origin x CE 4.90 3.27 .14
WTP R2 .104
4.7 General Discussion and Implications of Study One
With regards to the hypotheses of this thesis, Study One results support H3 and provide
partial support for H1 (see Table 4.7). From the results of the hypothesis testing, it is evidenced that
beauty products which originate from France are assisted through aided recall. French cosmetics
are consistently reported as having high quality perceptions (Aichner 2014; Rebufet, Loussaief &
Bacouël-Jentjens 2015), although it is notable that this did not transfer to WTP, where German
products with aided COO recognition had the highest reported levels of WTP, but not significantly
higher than those from France. A plausible explanation for the aided recall French products
outperforming other alternatives could be explained by the “Made in France effect”, whereby
products’ benefit from prior knowledge of French cosmetic brands, regardless of whether personal
product experience exists or positive associations are inferred from marketing and media messages
(Agarwal & Sikri Sameer 1996; Dagger & Raciti 2011; Tamas 2015). Hence, consumers could
potentially infer from past COO associated product knowledge and transfer this onto unknown
brands. Studies with a focus on classification and categorization theory support such results and
interpretations (Agarwal & Sikri Sameer 1996; Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008; Josiassen,
Whitwell & Lukas 2008; Laroche et al. 2005; Maheswaran 1994) . For instance, Dagger et al. (2011)
explored the match/mismatch between 188 Australian consumers’ product category and country
image perceptions. As a result, it was suggested that a strong favourable match between country
and product image will enable COO to advantageously influence brand evaluations and purchase
intentions. On the contrary, an unfavourable product-country match, for example a negative CI but
with a generally positive product image, exists when important product features are not the
perceived strengths of a country. That is likely to negatively influence consumers’ product
evaluations and purchase intentions based on the mismatching CI/product image. In addition,
P a g e 88
considering just a few of the many internationally known French cosmetic brands and enterprises
like Chanel, Clarins, Dior, Givenchy, Hermès, Kérastase, L’Oreal, Lancôme, Yves Rocher, Yves
Saint Laurent, such assumption that this pre-existing knowledge of consumers about France being a
known manufacturer of cosmetics (Farooq & Alcala 2017) may explain at least partially the superior
outcomes of the Made in France stimuli in comparison to other COO products in the current study.
Table 4.11 Hypotheses and Study One Results
Relationship Hypothesis Supported/Not Supported

Study One
H1 Recall and COO on H1: Recall and COO will have a Rejected
H2 Recall and COO on H2: Recall and COO will have a Rejected
H3 Total Quality as a H3: Total Quality will mediate the Supported

mediator interaction effect of Recall and COO
on WTP
H4 Consumer involvement H4: Consumer involvement will moderate Rejected

as a moderator the relationship between the COO x
Recall interaction, Total Quality and
WTP
H5 Consumer H5: Consumer ethnocentrism will Rejected

ethnocentrism as a moderate the relationship between
moderator the COO x Recall interaction, Total
Quality and WTP
Although not statistically significant, there is an interesting reverse pattern with aided recall,
whereby USA consumers reported USA made products as inferior to the French and German
counterparts. In contrast to the French and German conditions, unaided recall resulted in a higher
quality perception and WTP in the USA compared to aided recall. A few plausible reasons may
explain such an unexpected finding. Arguably, selling domestically is not associated with the
glamour and exotic aura of marketing foreign beauty products (Baker & Ballington 2002). For that
reason, dreams are sold with Made in France labelled products as they represent both quality and
luxury (Rebufet, Loussaief & Bacouël-Jentjens 2015). The many repetitions of “buy USA”
campaigns, which consecutively failed to produce the expected results in the USA, may be another
reason why the forced awareness of the “Made in USA” condition came out with the lowest Total
Quality and WTP rating (Josiassen, Assaf & Karpen 2011). Another explanation could be that
potentially a larger number of study participants tended to be xenocentric or simply disregarded
COO information while preferring foreign products in general or from certain countries or regions
(Cakici & Shukla 2017; Kilduff & Núñez-Tabales 2016; Wolter et al. 2016). As per Jaffe and
Nebenzahl’s (2006) consumer segmentation design, consumers can be positively inclined towards
certain foreign countries and their products, even and despite ethnocentric beliefs (Oberecker et al.
2008). Additionally, Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2000a) published about the influence of culture
P a g e 89
on product evaluation and choice. It was found that individualists from individualistic cultures (1994)
such as the USA, evaluated local merchandise only favourably, once they were perceived to be
superior to their foreign competition.
Finally, as expected, the control group (No COO) resulted in inferior Total Quality
perceptions across the experiments. However, in terms of WTP, no significant differences were
obtained. With the exception of “Germany aided” and “France aided”, where at least a numerical
difference versus the control group has been evidenced, it generally appears, that the COO is not of
enough importance to generate a higher WTP. This contrasts with Koschate-Fischer et al. (2012)
who argue that consumers in general are prepared to pay a higher price-tag for brands associated
with a favourable country image. Hence, it may be, that for the study participants of Study One, COO
is not an attribute which transfers into a higher value perception.
Another interesting insight from the results of Study One was the moderated mediation
relationships observed. The results show that rather than COO x Recall having a direct impact on
WTP that COO x Recall must first influence Total Quality perceptions. Thus, this provides insight of
how COO and Recall labelling manifests into WTP, that is an important step prior to this occurring is
enhancing consumers perceptions of the product. This is an important finding which extends beyond
prior research in COO which has predominately only established a link between COO and quality
perceptions and to some extent purchase intentions (Bayraktar & Ahmet 2015; Koschate-Fischer,
Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012; Zhi, Di Bao & Luo 2017). Ackknowledging that extant literature
does not unanimously support the influence of of Cinv and CE on COO effects, a moderation effect
of Cinv and CE on Total Quality was still expected. However, in this study, both CE and Cinv did not
show any direct statistically significant effect on Total Quality and thus neither indirectly on WTP.
While the outcomes of Study One provide a good lead-in to this research, it needs to be
considered that it had some study-related limitations and or anomalies, such as:
• MTurk participants were neither screened for being beauty product users nor current
consumers of an antiaging cream
• The sample size (n=171) for the 7 experimental groups and effect size was rather small and
• The data collection period had to be extended due to a rather slow recruitment process,
when compared to other online studies with a pre-existing survey panel.
This study served therefore the purpose of establishing the five relationships as described in
Chapter 2. Further, other potential influencing factors such as CInv and CE, outlined in Chapter 2,
have also been considered but need to be confirmed too in Study Two and Study Three. In order to
gain further insights into the effects of COO and Recall and the interaction of both on WTP, two
separate studies, one in the USA (replication and extension of relationships in Study One) and one
in Colombia (replication of Study Two in a new market setting), were carried out and are reported in
Chapter 5 and 6.
P a g e 90
4.8 Conclusion Study One
This chapter has presented the results for Study One, which partially address H1-H5 in a
general USA consumer sample. A brief overview of the method and sample characteristics were
provided. The reliability and validity of the study and its measures were confirmed. The results
supported H3. The next chapter, Chapter 5, presents Study Two, which replicates the design of
Study One but with an USA sample of consumers who purchase regularly skin-care beauty
products.
P a g e 91
5 Study Two | USA | Product Users
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 provided the results of the first study in a general consumer population in the
USA. Chapter 5 complements the insights gathered with Study One, with the results of Study Two,
the first confirmatory study of this research. It was designed to explore the relationships and effects
in more depth and breadth. This chapter consists of 8 sections as depicted in Figure 5.1. Following
this introduction, Section 5.2 describes the data preparation and profiles the sample used in this
study, including the descriptive data analysis. The reliability and validity results are then presented in
Section 5.3 and 5.4. The hypotheses testing results for H1-H2 are reported in Section 5.5, and the
results for H3-H5 are described in Section 5.6. Chapter 5 concludes with a discussion of the results
and their implications in Section 5.7 before Section 5.8 closes this chapter with the chapter
conclusion.
Study Two is designed to replicate Study One and extend the testing of the hypotheses with
a sample which has more involvement with the product category. In contrast to Study One,
participants were required to be aged at least 18 years and to be regular consumers of an anti-
ageing cream. Consumers were randomly assigned to a condition of the 3 (COO: France, Germany,
USA and No COO) x 3 (Recall: Aided Recall, Unaided Recall and No Aid Recall) post-test only,
between-groups, factorial design. The experiment was administered through an online panel
provider. For participation, respondents were rewarded with the pre-specified participation fee.
Again, as detailed in Chapter 3 a new cosmetic brand (Beautinique) was used as the stimuli, in order
to avoid any bias resulting from prior product knowledge or usage. Next, in Section 5.2 the data
preparation and sample profile of Study Two is outlined.
P a g e 92
5.2 Data preparation and sample profile
Prior to any analysis, the data set of Study Two was inspected to assess its suitability for
use in this research using inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria for participants were
based on the principles discussed in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3.3). Participants classified as consumers
residing in the USA from the online research panel were invited via an online survey link, which was
emailed to potential respondents. For Study Two, a preceding screener based upon regular product
usage was used in order to avoid the inclusion of “non-users”, consumers who do not purchase or
use beauty products regularly. This is an important variation to Study One, as a central aim of this
thesis was to examine whether the results are replicated in Study Two. This is because the literature
has challenged the use of consumers who do not actively use or purchase in COO studies (Cakici &
Shukla 2017; Samiee 1994; Usunier 2006). Thus, the inclusion of only consumers who regularly use
beauty products in Study Two, will provide an important comparison with the results of Study One
which examined consumers who both use and do not use beauty products.
The raw dataset contained 365 completed survey responses. Given that in Study Two, all
questions needed to be answered (forced answer required), there were no incomplete data entries.
As in Study One, the data set was screened for outliers (Osborne & Overbay 2004; Vaske 2019), in
order to ascertain that the subsequent analysis was based on valid and consistent survey
responses. The following entries have been eliminated for the following reasons:
- Double IP addresses. It may well be, that several members of a household are members
of the online research panel, nonetheless, checking the date and time of data entry and
the time needed for completing the survey suggested that the IP-address may rather
belong to identical individuals. Hence, only the first data entry was maintained, all others
(n= 3) were excluded.
- Time needed. The duration each participant took to finalize the experiment was
examined. Any participant (n=12) who completed the survey in less than 5 minutes (300
seconds) was eliminated, as it was considered that participants did not take the time to
read the stimuli and research questions thoughtfully.
As a result, 15 responses were deleted, and 350 completed and revised survey entries
remained. These responses were used for the subsequent analysis.
5.2.2 Sample Profile
Study Two respondent profiles are summarised in Table 5.1, which provides the frequencies
and percentages for age, net income, employment status, gender and education. In contrast to
Study One, Study Two was composed primarily of mature participants between 45 - 65+ years of
age (76.6%), that is 24.3% within the age range of 45-54 years, 37.7% between 55-64 years and
23.4% with 65 years or more.
P a g e 93
When comparing the study participants’ age with the United States Census data (United
States Census Bureau 2021), the age groups 18-24 (0% versus 10%) and 25-34 (1% versus 18%)
were significantly underrepresented. On the other hand, this study benefited from larger number of
consumers aged 45-54 (24% versus 16%) and 55-64 (38% versus 17%) when compared against the
official USA census data. While this is not reflective of the USA population in general, the deviation
is somewhat expected given that the product examined in this thesis is an anti-ageing cream.
Further, compared to Study One, this study is characterised by a relatively high share
(30.6%) of high-income earners (annually more than $75,000), which is also supported by many
participants with a university degree (60.5 %). Consistent with the age distribution, 29.1% of
participants categorized themselves as retired. With the exception of 1 male study participant, all
others (99.7%) described themselves as female. Again, this is reflective of the general marketplace,
with reports indicating that females use skin care products, the largest segment of the cosmetics
market, considerably more than males (HealthCareers 2020; Wonder 2018).
Table 5.1 Study Two Sample Profile
Age
18-24 1 .3
25-34 5 1.4
35-44 45 12.9
45-54 85 24.3
55-64 132 37.7
65+ 82 23.4
Annual Income
Up to $ 10,000 11 3.1
$ 10,001 - $ 20,000 30 8.6
$ 20,001 - $ 30,000 40 11.4
$ 30,001 - $ 40,000 34 9.7
$ 40,001 - $ 50,000 23 6.6
$ 50,001 - $ 75,000 87 24.9
More than $ 75,000 107 30.6
I prefer not to answer 17 4.9
I do not know 1 .3
Employment
Full time 162 46.3
Part time 28 8.0
Casual 1 .3
Retired 102 29.1
Student 0 0
Other 24 6.9
Gender
Female 349 99.7
Male 1 .3
Education
No schooling completed 2 .6
12th grade, but no diploma 3 .9
High school degree 133 38.0
Postgraduate degree e.g. 60 17.1
Master’s degree, PHD
P a g e 94
5.3 Reliability analysis
The reliability of the scales used within Study Two were assessed using item-to-total
correlation scores, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability scores as shown in Table 5.2 and 5.3.
Consistent with Study One, all item-to-total correlation scores were all above the recommended
threshold of .30. No items had to be removed with low item-total correlation (<.30) (Hair et al. 2017).
Further, as per Study One, the Cronbach’s alphas and composite reliability scores exceeded all
above the recommended levels of .70 (Hair et al. 2017). Thus, from the results reliability was
confirmed in all scales used as per Study One.
Table 5.2 Construct Reliability Results Study

The expected product effectiveness, i.e. its ability to deliver .83
on its promises, is poor … excellent
on its promises, is inferior … superior
on its promises, is extremely unfavourable … extremely
favourable
Quality (Oh 2000)
Total Quality (Quality and Product Effectiveness combined)
(Oh 2000)
on its promises, is poor … excellent
on its promises, is inferior … superior
on its promises, is extremely unfavourable … extremely
favourable
In deciding which anti-aging cream to buy, there is little to .44
lose … a lot to lose
American’
P a g e 95
A real American should only buy domestically manufactured .76
skin-care products
Americans should try not to buy foreign skin-care brands .72
whenever possible
As per the validity tests in Study One, construct validity was conducted in SPSS version 26
on all the multiple item constructs. The factor loadings were all above the recommended threshold of
.60. After establishing reliability and validity, hypothesis testing was undertaken which is reported
next.
Table 5.3 Construct Validity Results Study Two USA
Loading
promises, is…
poor/excellent .92
Quality (Oh 2000)
poor/excellent .94
2000)
promises, is…
poor/excellent .92
poor/excellent .92
A real American should only buy domestically manufactured skin- .87
care products
possible
P a g e 96
In deciding which anti-aging cream to buy, there is little to lose … a .71
lot to lose
Making one’s selection of an anti-aging cream is a very important … .85
a very unimportant decision
The decision about which anti-aging cream to buy requires a little … .85
a lot of thought
To be consistent with Study One, a series of three-way ANOVA 3 (COO: France versus
Germany versus USA) x 2 (Recall: Aided Recall versus Unaided Recall) with a no-COO control
group were undertaken to test the hypotheses. These results are reported next.
Table 5.4 Hypotheses tested Study Two

Section

WTP

and WTP

and WTP
In the following sections the results for the 5 tested hypotheses shown in Table 5.4 are
ANOVA are summarized. This is followed by the PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2013) results, examining
the mediation effect of Total Quality on the interaction of Recall and COO on WTP (H3), the
P a g e 97
moderation effect of Cinv between the COO x Recall interaction and Total Quality as well as the
moderation effect of CE.
The testing of H1 is first broken down according to the sub-dimensions of Total Quality,
Product Effectiveness and Quality. Thereupon, H1 testing is presented in full with the assessment of
Total Quality (both Product Effectiveness and Quality dimensions).
Product Effectiveness. The first ANOVA for Product Effectiveness evidenced that neither
COO (F=2.146, p=.119) nor recall (F=0.82, p=.775) had a significant main effect each for
themselves. However, the interaction did result in statistical significance (F=4.68, p= .01), with aided
recall (M=5.04) having a similar mean than unaided recall (M=5.08). This suggests, as per the
discussion points of Study One, that a larger sample will result in a significant result for this
relationship. Following the ANOVA, a simple effects analysis was conducted to identify any
significant differences between the conditions. Significant differences were observed for the
Germany condition between aided recall (M=4.92) and unaided recall (M=5.46) (p=.014). Whereas
the USA condition did not show any noteworthy difference between aided and unaided recall.
Whereas, in the case of France the difference between aided recall (M=5.30) and unaided recall
M=4.90) was close to being significant (p=.060), that is p ≤ 0.50. A summary of the results for the
ANOVA for Product Effectiveness are shown in Figure 5.2 and Table 5.5.

control group. For succinctness, only the significant results are highlighted. Participants in the
“France unaided” stimuli (M = 4.90, SD = 1.12) reported significantly lower levels of perceived
Product Effectiveness in comparison to the control group with no COO (M = 5.39, SD = 1.12) (t(82) =
2.12, p = .037). The “Germany aided” participants also reported significantly lower levels of Product
Effectiveness (M = 4.92, SD = .88) compared the control group with no COO (M = 5.39, SD = 1.12)
(t(89) = 2.06, p = .042). The “Germany unaided” participants reported significantly higher levels of
Product Effectiveness stimuli (M = 4.90, SD = 1.00) compared to the control group with no COO (M
= 5.39, SD = 1.12) (t(86) = 2.13, p = .036). The “USA unaided” participants reported significantly
lower levels of Product Effectiveness (M = 4.86, SD = 1.02) in comparison the control group with no
COO (M = 5.39, SD = 1.12) (t(89) = 2.32, p = .023). These are interesting results when compared
with Study One as they suggest the complete opposite whereby COO products have inferior
evaluations to those products with no COO.
P a g e 98

5,60
5,50 5,46
5,39
5,40
5,30
5,30
5,20
Means
5,10
5,00 4,92
4,90 4,90
4,90 4,85
4,80
4,70
4,60
4,50
COO 2.146 .119
Recall .082 .775
Quality. Second, in contrast to the ANOVA for Product Effectiveness, the ANOVA for
Quality evidenced that COO had a significant main effect (F=3.54, p=.030) with Germany (M=5.26,
p=.029) and France (M=5.27, p=.020) having a significantly higher means than the USA (M=4.89).
No significant differences were observed between the Germany and France conditions. The
interaction effect resulted again in statistical significance (F=2.66, p= .007). Again, as expected in
Study One, this study, being larger, confirmed the statistical significance of the interaction effect
between COO and Recall. A summary of the results for the ANOVA for quality are shown in Figure
5.3 and Table 5.6. Following the ANOVA, a simple effects analysis was conducted to identify any
significant differences between the conditions. For Quality, again the only statistically significant
difference was shown for the Germany aided (M=5.03) and unaided conditions (M=5.48) (p= .034).

the “Germany aided” stimuli (M = 4.92, SD = 1.21) reported significantly lower levels of Quality in
comparison to the control group with no COO (M = 5.43, SD = 1.10) (t(87) = 2.06, p = .042). The
“USA unaided” participants also reported significantly lower levels of Quality (M = 4.88, SD = 1.02)
compared the control group with no COO (M = 5.43, SD = 1.10) (t(88) = 2.45, p = .016). These
P a g e 99
results again challenge those of Study One, suggesting that products with COO labelling outperform
those with COO labelling.
Figure 5.3 ANOVA for Quality

5,60
5,48
5,50 5,43 5,43
5,40
5,30
5,20 5,12
Means
5,10 5,03
5,00 4,92
4,88
4,90
4,80
4,70
4,60
4,50
COO 3.54 .030
Recall .057 .811
Total Quality. The third ANOVA for Total Quality, which encompasses both Product
Effectiveness and Quality, was consistent with the first ANOVA of this study with Effectiveness,
where only the interaction between COO and recall was found to have a significant main effect
(F=3.715, p=.026), with aided recall (M=5.08) resulting in a similar mean than unaided recall
(M=5.09). While in Study One, the interaction effect was non-significant (F=1.98, p=.141), this study,
being larger and with increased power, delivered as expected a significant outcome. A summary of
the results for the ANOVA for Total Quality are shown in Figure 5.4 and Table 5.7. Subsequently to
the ANOVA, the simple effects analysis, which was conducted to identify any significant differences
between the conditions, showed the following significant differences between the COO conditions.
Significant differences were observed for Germany between aided recall (M=4.97) and unaided
recall (M=5.46) (p=.034). For the France conditions, there were non-significant differences between
aided recall (M=5.37) and unaided recall (M=4.99) (p=.084). There were also non-significant
differences between the USA aided (M=4.92) and unaided (M=4.88). Significant differences were
observed.
P a g e 100
Comparison of Experimental Conditions to Control Group. An independent sample t-
test was conducted for Total Quality, with only one statistically significant result. Participants in the
“USA unaided” stimuli (M = 4.84, SD = 1.10) reported significantly lower levels of Quality in
comparison to the control group with no COO (M = 5.40, SD = 1.01) (t(86) = 2.46, p = .016).
Figure 5.4 ANOVA Total Quality

5,60
5,50 5,46
5,40
5,37
5,40
5,30
5,20
Means
5,10
4,99 4,97
5,00
4,90
4,90 4,84
4,80
4,70
4,60
4,50
COO 2.941 .054
Recall 0.17 .896
5.5.2 ANOVA Testing WTP (H2)
As in Study One, the ANOVA for WTP evidenced no significant main effect neither for COO
(p= .26) nor for recall (p= .82). In addition, the interaction effect was non-significant too (p= .957).
Hence, even a larger sample size with increased power could not overcome the hurdle to achieve a
statistically significant outcome, appearing to confirm that COO and Recall have a limited impact on
WTP. A summary of the results for the ANOVA for WTP are shown in Figure 5.5 and Table 5.8.
Again, following the ANOVA, a simple effects analysis was conducted to identify any significant
differences between the conditions. However, statistically significant differences were not observed
neither between the COO nor the recall conditions.
P a g e 101
Comparison of Experimental Conditions to Control Group. The independent sample t-
tests were conducted to compare the individual experiment conditions to the control group for WTP.
However, no significant results became manifest.
Figure 5.5 ANOVA WTP

100,00
91,08
90,00
80,00
71,00
70,00
60,00 54,46 55,21
Means
50,00
40,00 35,12
30,00
18,75 18,80
20,00
10,00
0,00
Table 5.8 ANOVA WTP
COO 1.372 .256
Recall .051 .821
COO x Recall .44 .957
First, with regard to H3 a moderated mediation model (Table 5.9), whereby Total Quality served as
the mediator of the interaction effect of Recall and COO on WTP, was analysed. Second (H4), a
moderated mediation model (Table 5.9), whereby Total Quality served as the mediator and CInv as
the moderator, was analysed. Third (H5), a moderated mediation model (Table 5.10) was used to
test Total Quality as the mediator and CE as moderator.
procedure using the SPSS PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2012), version 3.5. The analysis was
P a g e 102
conducted with 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) based on 5,000 bootstrap samples via
Model 10.
The results show that country of origin has a significant direct effect on Total Quality
(coefficient = -.91, p=.004), and so too the country of origin x recall interaction (coefficient = .17,
p=.030). The COO x CInv interaction however had a borderline non-significant impact on Total
Quality (coefficient = .09, p=.060) as well as the interaction of COO x CE (coefficient = .08, p=.30).
These results are somewhat consistent with the prior hypothesis testing for H1-H2 and H3-H5.
Coefficient SE p
Quality
Country of Origin -.91 .91 .004
Recall -.34 .25 .172
Country of Origin x .17 .08 .030
Recall
Involvement
Country of Origin 11.50 .28 .68
Recall 31.70 22.27 .15
Recall
Involvement 2.88 11.95 .80
Involvement
WTP R2 .13
Table 5.10 Total Quality and WTP with consumer ethnocentrism as moderator.
Coefficient SE p
Quality
Recall .30 .39 .43
Country of Origin x Recall -.048 .125 .69
CE -.22 .21 .30
Country of Origin x CE .08 .08 .30
Total Quality -.09 2.80 .97
Recall 15.83 12.87 .22
Country of Origin x Recall -4.97 4.13 .23
CE .38 7.02 .955
Country of Origin x CE -.82 2.82 .77
WTP R2 .12
P a g e 103
5.7 General Discussion and Implications of Study Two
With regard to the hypotheses, Study Two supports H1, whilst rejecting the remaining
hypotheses as shown in Table 5.11. From the results of the hypothesis testing it is also evidenced
that beauty products which originate from France are assisted through aided recall. Products from
France which have aided recall are consistently reported as having high quality perceptions,
although it is notable that this did not transfer to a higher WTP, where the stimuli product from
Germany, had the highest reported WTP levels with unaided recall, which are clearly distinguished
from the lower aided recall outcome.
Table 5.11 Hypotheses testing summary Study One and Study Two
Relationship Hypothesis Support/Not Supported

Study One Study Two
H1 Recall and COO H1: Recall and COO will have a significant Supported Supported
on Total Quality interaction effect on perceived Total
H2 Recall and COO H2: Recall and COO will have a significant Rejected Rejected
on WTP interaction effect on WTP
H3 Total Quality as H3: Total Quality will mediate the Supported Supported
a mediator interaction effect of Recall and COO
on WTP
H4 Consumer H4: Consumer involvement will moderate Rejected Rejected

involvement the relationship between the COO x
as a moderator Recall interaction, Total Quality and
WTP
H5 Consumer H5: Consumer ethnocentrism will Rejected Rejected

ethnocentrism moderate the relationship between the
as a moderator COO x Recall interaction, Total
Quality and WTP
A plausible explanation for the aided recall French products outperforming other alternatives
in terms of Total Quality could be explained by the “Made in France” actually benefiting from prior
knowledge of French cosmetic brands, regardless of whether personal product experience exists, or
positive associations are only inferred from marketing and media messages. Consumers are known
to infer their evaluation from past COO associated product experience and transfer it to unknown
brands. Studies with a focus on classification and categorization theory support such interpretation.
(Agarwal & Sikri Sameer 1996; Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008; Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas
2008; Laroche et al. 2005; Maheswaran 1994)
Contrary to France, the unaided recall condition “Made in Germany” resulted unexpectedly
in higher Quality ratings versus the aided recall condition. This may be due to psychological
reactance, when people “react against threats of persuasion to further their own goals” (Edwards, Li
& Lee 2002, p. 83) in case of forced advertising or messaging (Dhanya & Pricilda 2018; Edwards, Li
P a g e 104
& Lee 2002). Additionally, depending on the religious, cultural and educational background of study
participants, overemphasizing “Made in Germany” may provoke a backlash, as it may have
generated animosity due to historical events, such as war, economic, religious or political conflicts
(BATRA et al. 2000; Hong & Kang 2006; Klein, Ettenson & Morris 1998).
Overall, the aided ”Made in France” and unaided “Made in Germany” condition gathered
similar results in terms of Total Quality perceptions. However, “Made in USA”, the home country for
study participants, unaided ”Made in France” and aided “Made in Germany” all gained lower Total
Quality ratings, versus the control without any COO mention. Such a finding was not anticipated, as
extant literature suggests by means of the concept of “nation equity” a carry-over effect of positive
(and negative) product country images, even when a country is not renowned for manufacturing
certain product categories (Agarwal & Sikri Sameer 1996; Agrawal & Kamakura 1999; Tamas 2015),
unless consumers have no or little knowledge of a country’s brands and products (Paswan &
Sharma 2004).
Noteworthy is specifically the reverse pattern for both USA conditions, where USA
consumers reported USA made products as inferior not only to the French and German counterparts
but also versus the control condition. A couple of reasons may explain such an unexpected finding.
As already mentioned in Section 4.7 for the first USA study in more detail, selling domestically is not
associated with the glamour and exotic aura of marketing foreign beauty products and (Baker &
Ballington 2002), the many repetitions of failed “buy USA” campaigns and potentially a larger
number of xenocentric study participants may explain these outcomes (Cakici & Shukla 2017; Kilduff
& Núñez-Tabales 2016; Wolter et al. 2016). Additionally, according to the consumer segmentation
design, consumers can be positively inclined towards certain foreign countries and their products,
even and despite ethnocentric beliefs (Oberecker et al. 2008) and cultural influence may have
played a role too.
Like study one, both CInv and CE did not moderate or play a significant role in the study.
This too confirms the challenges with the generalisability of extant research with regards to these
two consumer characteristics.
5.8 Conclusion Study Two
This chapter provided the data from a product consumer sample, the statistical analysis and
the results of Study Two, addressing H1-H5. A brief overview of the method and sample
characteristics were provided. The reliability and validity of the study and its measures were
confirmed. In comparison with Study One, the results supported the interaction of Recall and COO
on Total Quality (H1) and confirmed the support for H3. Other hypotheses were rejected. Chapter 6,
will inform about Study Three, the second confirmatory study, which replicates the design of Study
Two but with a Colombian sample of skin-care beauty product consumers.
P a g e 105
6 Study Three | Colombia | Product Users
6.1 Introduction
The previous chapter presented the results of Study Two in a product user sample from the
USA. Chapter 6 extends the findings of the two prior studies with Study Three, the second
confirmatory study with another product user sample from Colombia. Following this introduction, this
chapter is arranged in six main sections as shown in Figure 6.1. Following this introduction, Section
6.2 describes the data preparation and profiles the sample used in this study, including descriptive
data analysis. Next, Sections 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 will provide the statistical analysis performed, that
is, the reliability analysis (Section 6.3), the validity analysis (Section 6.4), the ANOVA hypothesis
testing results (Section 6.5 with H1 and H2) and in Section 6.6 the mediation and moderation
analysis (H3- H5). Chapter 6 concludes with a general discussion of the results and their
implications in Section 6.7, which leads into Study Three in Chapter 5.
Study Three was designed to extend upon Study One and Two and provides the results
from a product user sample in Colombia by testing the prior hypotheses in a new market, Colombia.
As in Study One and Two, study participants were required to be aged at least 18 years, and
consistent with Study Two to be regular consumers of an anti-ageing cream. Consumers were again
randomly assigned to a condition of the 3 (COO: France versus Germany versus Colombia) x 2
(Recall: Aided Recall versus Unaided Recall) with a no-COO control group, post-test only, between-
groups, factorial design. The experiment was administered as an online survey, consistent with
Study Two. Again, as detailed in Chapter 3 an artificial cosmetic brand (Beautinique) was used as
the stimuli, in order to avoid any bias resulting from prior product knowledge or usage.
P a g e 106
6.2 Data preparation and sample profile Study Three
For Study Three, again a preceding screener based upon current product usage was used in
order to avoid the inclusion of non-category consumers, which has been criticized in extant literature.
This will also allow for comparison with Study One, where no product usage screener was used.
Participants classified as consumers residing in Colombia from the online research panel were
invited via an online survey link, which was emailed to potential respondents.
The raw data-set contained 425 completed data entries. As in both previous studies, the
data set was screened for outliers (Osborne & Overbay 2004; Vaske 2019), in order to ascertain that
the subsequent analysis is based on valid and consistent survey responses. As per Study One and
Two, the IP addresses of respondents were reviewed to ensure only one attempt from a single IP
address was retained for analysis. On further inspection of the data, the following data cleaning
steps were undertaken:
- Incomplete responses: 97 entries were eliminated, as they were incomplete and

classified as invalid.
- Double IP addresses: It may well be, that several members of a household are members
of the online research panel, nonetheless, checking the date and time of data entry and
the time needed for completing the survey suggested that the IP-address may rather
belong to identical individuals. Hence, only the first data entry was maintained, all others
(n = 15) were excluded.
- Time needed. The duration each participant took to finalize the experiment was
examined. 12 survey participants completed the survey in less than 5 mins (300
seconds). This was considered as not taking the time needed to read the stimuli and
research questions thoughtfully. Hence, they were eliminated.
- Underage: Although the survey panel should have been composed only with adults, 1
response indicated an age below 18 years and thus was excluded.
As a result of the data preparation and cleaning, 300 completed and revised survey entries
remained for the analysis.
6.2.2 Sample Profile Study Three
Study respondent profiles are summarised in Table 6.1, which provides the frequencies and
percentages for age, net income, employment status, gender and education. In comparison to Study
Two, the age distribution reflects a younger population. Whereas in Study Two the majority (76.6%)
were aged 45-65+ years, Study Three is characterized by 89.3% of participants belonging to the age
groups of 25-54 years. This is to some extent referable to the higher average population age
P a g e 107
(approx. +9 years) in the USA when compared with Colombia (Colombia Census 2020; Statista
2021; United States Census Bureau 2021). Considering the study product, this study too is denoted
by very few study participants belonging to the age group up to 24 years of age (1% versus 16%),
when compared with official census data (Colombia Census 2020). Likewise, the age groups 55+
are underrepresented, given the younger average age in Colombia.
The majority of respondents identified as having a high education level (88.4 % professional
technicians, bachelor or postgraduate degrees). Further, 62% indicated they were within the lower
income bracket (up to Col$ 31,600,908 which is 3 times the minimum wage and amounts to USD
8,722.37 annually, at an exchange rate of Col$ 3,622.97 for 1 USD). The difference may be related
to average wage levels, which in Colombia are overall much closer to the minimum wage in
comparison to the USA (OECD 2021). Most stated that they worked full time (41%) or part time
(16.7%), with – when compared to Study Two - only 10% being retired. But again, a notable
proportion (17.7%) did not find themselves in the predefined categories or did not want to identify
themselves with any of the other employment classes. As in Study Two, the vast majority (98.3%)
identified themselves as female.
Table 6.1 Study Three Sample Profile
Age
18-24 4 1.3
25-34 69 23.0
35-44 126 42.0
45-54 73 24.3
55-64 27 9.0
65+ 1 .3
Annual Income
Up to Col$ 10,533,636 60 20.0
Col$ 10,533,637 - Col$ 21,067,272 56 18.7
Col$ 21,067,273 - Col$ 31,600,908 38 12.7
Col$ 31,600,909 - Col$ 42,134,544 28 9.3
Col$ 42,134,545 - Col$ 52,668,180 27 9.0
Col$ 52,668,181 - Col$ 79,002.270 21 7.0
More than Col$ 79,002,270 18 6.0
I prefer not to answer 38 12.7
I do not know 14 4.6
Employment
Full time 123 41.0
Part time 50 16.7
Casual 18 6.0
Retired 30 10.0
Student 0 0
Other 53 17.7
Gender
Female 295 98.3
Male 5 1.7
Education
No schooling completed 3 1.0
Basic education 13 4.3
High school education 19 6.3
Professional technician 62 20.7
P a g e 108
Postgraduate degree e.g. Master’s 48 16.0
degree, PHD
6.3 Reliability analysis (construct reliability)
The reliability of the scales used in Study Three as per the past two prior studies were
assessed using item-to-total correlation scores, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability scores as
shown in Table 6.2. All item-to-total correlation scores were all above the recommended threshold of
.30. No items had to be removed with low item-total correlation (<.30) (Hair et al. 2017). In this study
the Cronbach’s alphas and composite reliability scores exceeded all above the recommended levels
of .70, consistent with prior results in the first two studies (Hair et al. 2017). Thus, from the results
reliability was again confirmed in all scales used.
Table 6.2 Construct Reliability Results Study Three

its promises, is extremely unfavourable … extremely favourable
Quality (Oh 2000)
2000)
its promises, is extremely unfavourable … extremely favourable
In deciding which anti-aging cream to buy, there is little to lose .42
… a lot to lose
P a g e 109
Colombian’
A real Colombian should only buy domestically manufactured .67
skin-care products
Colombians should not purchase imported skin-care products, .64
Colombians should try not to buy foreign skin-care brands .62
whenever possible
Construct validity as per Study One and Study Two was conducted in SPSS version 26 on
all the multiple item constructs. The calculated factor loading results again indicate that all scales
and their items had high construct validity with factor loadings above the recommended threshold of
.60 as per Study One and Study Two as shown in Table 6.3. The only single item construct, namely
brand attitude, was not incorporated in the validity analysis, as a minimum of three items per factor is
recommended to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (Hair, Bush & Ortinau 2006). Consequently,
the measurement model consisted of five conceptual constructs operationalised through the 55
items consistent with the two prior studies.
Table 6.3 Construct Validity Results Study Three Colombia
Loading
promises, is…
poor/excellent .91
Quality (Oh 2000)
poor/excellent .92
2000)
promises, is…
poor/excellent .89
poor/excellent .90
P a g e 110
A real American should only buy domestically manufactured skin- .83
care products
possible
In deciding which anti-aging cream to buy, there is little to lose … a .70
lot to lose
Making one’s selection of an anti-aging cream is a very important … .84
a very unimportant decision
The decision about which anti-aging cream to buy requires a little … .85
a lot of thought
As with Study Two, a series of three-way ANOVA 3 (COO: France versus Germany versus
USA) x 2 (Recall: Aided Recall versus Unaided Recall) with a no-COO control group were
undertaken for Study Three to test the hypotheses. The results are shown below.
Table 6.4 Hypotheses tested Study Two

Section

WTP

and WTP

and WTP
P a g e 111
In the following sections the results for the 5 tested hypotheses shown in Table 6.4 are
ANOVA are summarized. This is followed by the PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2013) results, examining
the mediation effect of Total Quality on the interaction of Recall and COO on WTP (H3), the
moderation effect of Cinv between the COO x Recall interaction and Total Quality as well as the
moderation effect of CE.
Recall that as per Study One and Study Two, the testing of H1 is first broken down
according to the sub-dimensions of Total Quality. After, the full H1 test using Total Quality is
presented.
Product Effectiveness. A three-way ANOVA 3 (COO: France versus Germany versus

USA) x 2 (Recall: Aided Recall versus Unaided Recall) with a no-COO control group was undertaken
to test H1. First, ANOVA for Product Effectiveness evidenced that neither COO (F=1.704, p=.184)
nor recall (F=0.20, p=.887) had a significant main effect each for themselves. However, the
interaction did result in statistical significance (F=6.529, p= .002), which is consistent with Study
Two. A summary of the results for the ANOVA for Product Effectiveness are shown in Figure 6.2 and
Table 6.5. Following the ANOVA, a simple effects analysis was conducted to identify any significant
differences between the conditions. Significant differences were observed for Colombia between
aided recall (M=4.85) and unaided recall (M=5.61) (p=.004) and France, where the difference was
also significant (p=.036. In contrast, the Colombia aided recall condition resulted in a higher means
value (M=5.74) compared to unaided recall (M=5.18).

control group. For succinctness, only the significant results are highlighted next. Participants in the
“Colombia unaided” stimuli (M = 5.85, SD = 1.30) reported significantly lower levels of Product
Effectiveness in comparison to the control group with no COO (M = 5.43, SD = 1.28) (t(82) = 2.09, p
= .040).
P a g e 112

6,00
5,80 5,74
5,61 5,63
5,60 5,50
5,43
5,40
5,18
Means
5,20
5,00
4,85
4,80
4,60
4,40
4,20
Colombia France Germany Control
COO 1.704 .184
Recall .020 .887
Quality. ANOVA for Quality evidenced that COO had a non-significant main effect (F=3.54,
p=.030), with aided recall (M=5.46) having a comparable mean compared to unaided recall
(M=5.51). The interaction effect resulted again in statistical significance (F=6.539, p= .002). As
expected in Study One, this larger study too, has confirmed the statistical significance of the
interaction effect between COO and Recall, just as Study Two had for the US user sample. A
summary of the results for the ANOVA for Quality are shown in Figure 6.3 and Table 6.6. Following
the ANOVA, a simple effects analysis was conducted to identify any significant differences between
the conditions. For Quality, the only statistically significant difference was shown for Colombia
between aided (M=4.92) and unaided (M=4.88) recall (p= .030).

again independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare the individual experiment conditions
to the control group. However, no significant results became manifest. This suggests that the use of
COO did not significantly improve Colombians quality perceptions of the product.
P a g e 113
Figure 6.3 ANOVA Quality

5,80
5,68
5,59
5,60
5,44
5,40
5,21
5,20
Means
5,08
5,00 4,92
4,88
4,80
4,60
4,40
COO 1.180 .309
Recall .101 .751
Total Quality. The third ANOVA for Total Quality, which encompasses both Product
Effectiveness and Quality, confirmed that the interaction between COO and recall was found to have
a significant main effect (F=3.715, p=.026), with aided recall (M=5.08) resulting in a similar mean
than unaided recall (M=5.049). While in Study One, the interaction effect was non-significant
(F=1.98, p=.141), this study, being larger and with increased power as Study Two, delivered as
expected a significant outcome (p=.038). Subsequently to the ANOVA, the simple effects analysis,
which was conducted to identify any significant differences between the conditions, showed the
following significant differences between the COO conditions. Significant differences were observed
only for Colombia between aided recall (M=4.96) and unaided recall (M=5.65) (p=.034). France did
not result in a statistically significant difference between aided recall (M=5.67) and unaided recall
(M=5.19) (p=.073). A summary of the results for the ANOVA for Total Quality are shown in Figure
6.3 and Table 6.7.

to the control group. However, no significant results became manifest. This suggests that the use of
COO did not significantly improve Colombians Total Quality perceptions of the product.
P a g e 114
Figure 6.3. ANOVA Total Quality

5,80
5,65 5,67 5,66
5,60 5,56
5,44
5,40
Means
5,19
5,20
5,00 4,96
4,80
4,60
COO 1.341 .263
Recall 0.57 .811
6.5.2 ANOVA Testing WTP (H2)
As in Study One and Two, an ANOVA for WTP was also undertaken to assess H2. The
results show there was a non-significant main effect for COO (p= .617) and for recall (p= .727). In
addition, as shown already in Study One and Two, the interaction effect was non-significant (p= .22).
Hence, all three studies appear to confirm COO and recall do not have an impact upon WTP. A
summary of the results for the ANOVA for WTP are shown in Figure 6.4 and Table 6.8.

to the control group. However, no significant results could be obtained for this analysis either. Thus,
again COO does not seem to improve consumers WTP.
P a g e 115
Figure 6.4 ANOVA WTP

80.000
68.351
70.000
62.602
58.819
60.000 53.560 54.964
48.420 48.244
50.000
Means
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
Table 6.8 ANOVA WTP
COO 1.372 .256
Recall .051 .821
COO x Recall .44 .957
First, with regard to H3 a moderated mediation model (Table 6.9), whereby Total Quality served as
the mediator of the interaction effect of Recall and COO on WTP. Second (H4), a moderated
mediation model (Table 6.9), whereby Total Quality served as the mediator and CInv as the
moderator, was analysed. Third (H5), a moderated mediation model (Table 6.10) was used to test
Total Quality as the mediator and CE as moderator.
First, regarding H3 a moderated mediation model (Table 5.9), whereby Total Quality served as the
mediator and CInv as the moderator, was tested. Second (H4), a moderated mediation model (Table
5.9), whereby Total Quality served as the mediator and CInv as the moderator, was analysed. Third
(H5), a moderated mediation model (Table 5.10) was used to test Total Quality as the mediator and
CE as moderator.
P a g e 116
procedure using the SPSS PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2013). The analysis was conducted with 95%
bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) based on 5,000 bootstrap samples via PROCESS Model 10.
The results evidence that COO (co-efficient= .03, p=.931) and recall (co-efficient =.-.42,
p=.167) do not have significant direct effects on Total Quality. The interaction effect of COO x Recall
was non-significant on Total Quality (co-efficient= .17, p=.090). Interestingly, contrasting Study Two,
CInv had a significant direct effect on Total Quality, and was found to significantly moderate the
relationship between COO and Total Quality (co-efficient= -.07, p=.039). Considerations as to why in
this study CInv has yielded a significant effect on Total Quality will be provided in the next section.
Then again, CE confirmed not to be decisive as an influencing factor for Total Quality evaluations.
Beyond that and consistent with Study One and Two, there were no significant impacts of any of the
variables onto WTP, suggesting that COO has minimal impact on WTP.
Coefficient SE p
Quality
Country of Origin .03 .36 .931
Recall -.42 .30 .167
Recall
Involvement

Total Quality 2908.48 1950.31 .14
Recall -11931.48 10007.03 .23
Country of Origin x 4367.30 3286.53 .18
Recall
Involvement 5635.51 4655.86 .23
Involvement
WTP R2 .06
Table 6.10 Total Quality and WTP with consumer ethnocentrism as moderator
Coefficient SE p
Quality
Recall -.53 .31 .086
Recall
CE -.18 .13 .173
Country of Origin x CE -.02 .05 .666
P a g e 117
Country of Origin -10141.10 8538.04 .01
Total Quality 4067.66 1932.05 .04
Recall -13270.64 10244.90 .20
Recall
CE -3371.67 4408.88 .45
Country of Origin x CE 189.26 1769.51 .91
WTP R2 .03
6.7 General Discussion and Conclusion of Study Three
In relation to the hypotheses, Study Three like Study One and Two support H1 (see Table
6.10). Interestingly, it supports H4, which was not supported previously in Study Two. Potential
explanations for the results of Study Three will now be discussed.
Table 6.11. Hypothesis Testing Overview Study One - Study Three
Relationship Hypothesis Support/Not Supported

H1 Recall and H1: Recall and COO will Supported Supported Supported
COO on have a significant
Total Quality interaction effect on
perceived Total Quality
of a product
H2 Recall and H2: Recall and COO will Rejected Rejected Rejected
COO on have a significant
WTP interaction effect on
WTP
H3 Total Quality H3: Total Quality will Supported Supported Supported
as a mediate the interaction
mediator effect of Recall and
COO on WTP
H4 Consumer H4: Consumer involvement Rejected Rejected Supported
involvement will moderate the
as a relationship between the
moderator COO x Recall
interaction, Total Quality
and WTP
H5 Consumer H5: Consumer ethnocen- Rejected Rejected Rejected
ethnocentrism will moderate the
trism as a relationship between the
moderator COO x Recall
interaction, Total Quality
and WTP
From the results of the hypothesis testing it is evidenced that beauty Total Quality
perceptions which originate from France are moderately assisted through aided recall. A plausible
explanation has been provided in section 4.7 for Study One already. Noteworthy were the lower
Total Quality perception ratings for products from Colombia, although this did not transfer to a
similarly noteworthy difference in WTP. As in Study Two, a potential reason could be consumer
P a g e 118
reactance (Dhanya & Pricilda 2018; Edwards, Li & Lee 2002), where consumers tend to react with
resistance when exposed to forced marketing messages. In addition, Colombia is not known and
renowned for manufacturing cosmetics. Multiple times it has been shown that consumers react
positively when the products origin is congruent with a country’s image, technological development
or stereotype. It is the match or mismatch which is triggered between the associations of products
originating from certain countries and the existing country images versus the COO which states that
the product is not coming from a country known for such kind of products (Coskun & Burnaz 2015;
Josiassen & Assaf 2010; Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas 2008).
The results related to H4, that is the significant influence of CInv as a moderator on the COO
x Recall relationship on Total Quality suggest that in Study Three CInv indeed played a significant
moderating role. Women from Latin America – as far as one can generalise - are known to be
special when it comes to personal appearance. Beauty and appearance is reportedly important to 9
out of 10 Latinos (men and women) and plays a major role in most Latin American women lives
(Houghton & Thayer 2019). Furthermore, beauty and womanhood are strongly interlinked and
consciousness about it starts early in their life, lasts well after middle-age and vanity is perceived as
a positive attribute. Latin American females spend considerable time for their beauty and personal
grooming regimen (> 40 minutes daily) and being well made-up and attractive provides self-
confidence to them (Beauty Packaging 2020; Houghton & Thayer 2019; Nielsen 2015). Although
further research for involvement levels in different ethnic or geographical populations groups would
have to confirm this result, it may well be that the essential role personal appearance plays in
Colombian womens’ lives, contributed to this finding as to H4.
The fact that no condition resulted in a significant difference in WTP was not anticipated.
Given that Colombia is still considered a developing country and the COO literature at the same time
suggests that imported products on average should benefit from higher quality ratings, as well
purchase intentions and WTP (Coskun & Burnaz 2015; Lala, Allred & Chakraborty 2008; Phau &
Prendergast 2000; Tamas 2015) specifically in Study Three one would have expected a statistically
significant effect. It may be argued here again, that selling domestically is not associated with the
glamour and exotic aura of marketing foreign beauty products (Baker & Ballington 2002). However, it
is also known that the relevance of COO depends on the product category (Abraham & Patro 2015;
Ahmed & d'Astous 2008; Bhaskaran & Sukumaran 2007) and according to Study Three WTP
measurement, COO does impact (negatively) Total Quality perceptions and WTP only numerically in
the case of the aided Colombia condition but not for any other condition, when compared with the
control group.
While the outcomes of Study Three confirm the influence of the interaction of COO x Recall
on Total Quality perceptions, it had some study-related limitations and or anomalies, such as:
• Being mindful, that the majority of consumers in Colombia still acquire cosmetics in store,
the limitation of not having simulated a real POS condition may have affected the outcome
P a g e 119
• Participants had to classify themselves as consumers of anti-ageing creams, however, the
significantly lower average sample age of around 20 years less, when compared with Study
Two, may have influenced the outcomes
• Study participants income levels were on average rather low. Hence, they may be
accustomed managing well their disposable income and not in a position, to pay more than
necessary even for a well-regarded product
• An anti-ageing cream is considered a non-conspicuous product. Hence, compared to visible
cosmetics (for example lipsticks, concealers, eyebrow and eye-lid cosmetics) consumers
may prefer to spend on these, if their budget allows for it.
This study served the purpose of establishing the four relationships as described in this
chapter. The next and final chapter presents conclusions, implications, limitation of the study and
recommendations for further research.
6.8 Conclusion Study Three
This chapter provided the data from a Colombian product consumer sample, the statistical
analysis and the results of Study Three, addressing H1-H5. A brief overview of the method and
sample characteristics were provided. The reliability and validity of the study and its measures were
again confirmed. The results confirmed the interaction of Recall and COO on Total Quality (H1c) and
the brought forth the moderating effect of CInv (H4) in this setting. All other hypotheses were
rejected. The next chapter, Chapter 7, will provides a general discussion of the outcomes across all
three studies, conclusions, contributions, limitations of this research and directions for further
research.
P a g e 120
7. Conclusions and Contributions
Introduction
The previous chapter reported the results and analysis of the data collected for Study Three,
the second confirmatory study of this research. This chapter will draw conclusions on the outcomes
of all three studies followed by both theoretical and practical implications and conclude with
limitations and directions for future research. Chapter 7 is arranged into six main sections, as
illustrated in Figure 7.1. To begin with, Section 7.1 summarizes all earlier thesis chapters. It is
followed by a succinct overview, interpretations and conclusions of this study’s results and the six
research objectives including the main research question, what is the influence of COO recall on
product quality perceptions and WTP (section 7.2). Proximately, both the theoretical and practical
contributions of this research are delineated (section 7.3 and 7.4). Section 7.5 concludes with
Chapter 7 by contemplating limitations of this research beyond the delimitations laid out in Section
7.6 and potential directions for future research are proposed. Finally, the research conclusion will
summarize in Section 7.6 the most important take-aways offered by this research.
P a g e 121
The overarching research question of this thesis was “What is the influence of COO recall on
product quality perceptions and WTP?” Based upon this overarching research question and the
identified gaps in the literature, six research objectives directed this thesis’s investigation of COO:
RO1: Determine the impact of COO aided and unaided recall on total product quality
perceptions
RO2: Determine the impact of COO aided and unaided recall on WTP
RO3: Determine if product Total Quality perceptions mediates the relationship between
COO recall and WTP
RO4: Determine if consumer involvement moderates the relationships between COO recall,
Total Quality perceptions and WTP.
RO5: Investigate the effect of consumer ethnocentrism on WTP for domestic and imported
products
RO6: Assess if the relationships between COO recall, Total Quality perceptions and WTP
vary across developed and developing markets.
As a reminder, the previous chapters provided the following information pertaining to the
thesis. Chapter 1 provided a background to the research and justification of its importance. It further
outlined the research questions and objectives. Chapter 2 contributed to the thesis with a review of
the of extant literature relevant to the topic which identified important gaps in understanding of COO
including the interrelationships between COO, Recall, CInv, CE, quality perceptions and WTP. All
these factors were found, although not consistently, to influence consumer perceptions and
ultimately WTP. From the reviewed concepts, a conceptual model with hypothesised relationships
underpinned by equity theory was developed to be tested in subsequent empirical studies. Chapter
3 introduced the research design and research methodology of the thesis. The chapter presented
the rationale for the use of an experimental design, sampling approach, measurement of concepts
and analysis techniques. Chapter 4 reported the results of the Study One derived from an online
survey with MTurk, incorporating a sample of the general population of adult USA consumers.
Chapter 5 reported the results of Study Two and sought to replicate Study One with a sample of
USA consumers who were users of beauty products rather than a sample of the general population.
In addition, Chapter 5 also reported the testing of CInv and CE. Chapter 6 described the results of
Study Three, which sought to further replicate and extend the findings of Study One (Chapter 4) and
Study Two (Chapter 5).
7.2 General Discussion
This section will summarise and discuss the findings of all three studies. All hypotheses and
their relationships are discussed individually and if applicable, commonalities and differences are
featured.
P a g e 122
7.2.1 Overview of hypotheses support
The purpose of this research was to examine the main research question “What is the
influence of COO recall on product quality perceptions and WTP?”. This question was broken down
into the six research objectives depicted in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Research Objectives
Overarching RQ What is the influence of COO Recall on product quality perceptions

and WTP?
Research Objective 1 Determine the impact of COO aided and unaided Recall on product
quality perceptions
Research Objective 2 Determine the impact of COO aided and unaided recall on WTP
Research Objective 3 Determine if product quality perceptions mediate the relationship
between COO Recall and WTP
Research Objective 4 Determine if consumer involvement moderates the relationships
between COO Recall, quality perceptions and WTP
Research Objective 5 Investigate whether consumer ethnocentrism moderates the
relationships between COO Recall, quality perceptions and WTP
Research Objective 6 Assess if the relationships between COO recall, quality perceptions and
WTP vary across developed and developing markets
Further, a subset of 4 relationships was identified and subdivided into five hypotheses, summarized
in Table 7.2. Conclusions regarding each hypothesis will now be drawn by briefly summarizing the
results for each hypothesis and the corresponding relationship or relationships predicting the
hypotheses.
Table 7.2 Hypotheses Supported/Not Supported
Research Relationship Hypothesis Support/Not Supported

Objective(s)
RO1: Determine Recall and H1. Recall will have Rejected Supported Supported
the impact of COO on a significant
COO aided and Total Quality influence on
unaided recall perceived Total
on product Quality of a product
quality
perceptions
Research Recall and H2. Recall will have Rejected Rejected Rejected
Objective 2: COO on a significant
Determine the WTP influence on WTP of
impact of COO a product
aided and
unaided recall
on WTP
RO3: Determine Total Quality H3 Total Quality will Supported Supported Supported
if product as a mediate the
quality mediator interaction effect of
perceptions Recall and COO on
mediate the WTP
relationship
between COO
recall and WTP
RO4: Determine CInv as a H4. Consumer Rejected Rejected Supported
if CInv moderator involvement will
P a g e 123
moderates the moderate the
relationships relationship between
between COO x the COO x recall
Recall interaction and Total
interaction, Quality
Total Quality
perceptions and
WTP
RO5: CE as a H5. Consumer Rejected Rejected Rejected
Investigate the moderator ethnocentrism will
effect of CE on moderate the
WTP for relationship between
domestic and the COO x recall
imported interaction and Total
products Quality
RO6: Assess if the relationships between COO recall, Apart from CInv, where Study Three yielded a
Total Quality perceptions and WTP vary across significant outcome, all other relationships did
developed and developing markets not differ in terms of statistical significance
7.2.2 Research Objective 1 – Determining the impact of COO aided and unaided
Recall on product quality perceptions
The purpose of RO1 was to understand the impact of COO aided and unaided Recall on product
quality perceptions. Across all three studies, Hypothesis 1 was concerned with providing insights to
address RO1. While H1 was rejected in Study One, both for Total Quality perceptions as well as for
its subdimensions product effectiveness and product quality, the interaction between Recall and
COO, however, was supported in both confirmatory and larger studies Study Two and Study Three.
Therefore, with the two major confirmatory studies, the findings support the majority of extant
literature (Bhaskaran & Sukumaran 2007; Iacob 2016; Roth & Diamantopoulos 2009), that COO
influences quality appraisals. These findings are consistent with the cue utilization theory, where
COO provided a mental shortcut to evaluate the product quality. Given the lack of brand familiarity
and product knowledge as well as the absence of intrinsic product cues, study participants likely
were influenced by the COO, either consciously or unconsciously, to form their product quality
perceptions (Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas 2008). Furthermore, these findings provide
comprehensive support, that, in contrast to some critical publications on the effect of COO overall
(cf. Sections 1.1 and 2.5), COO matters for quality evaluations and perceptions in the product
category of beautification products.
In shedding deeper insights into RO1, Table 7.3 outlines the highest and lowest performing form of
recall across both countries and all tested constructs. Of note are some of the consistencies but also
important nuances across the three studies which will now be discussed. Firstly, in relation to the
highest performing conditions, as evidenced on the right-hand side of Table 7.3, the France Aided
COO was consistently the highest performing condition with support from Study 1 and Study Two for
Product Effectiveness and Total Quality. However, when considering Quality (the sub-dimension of
Total Quality), the consistently highest performing condition was unaided recall.
P a g e 124
Past research was criticized for generating inflated effect sizes by specifically emphasizing the
COO to study participants (Liefeld 1993; Samiee 1994; Samiee 2011). However, in this research,
where such an aided approach was compared to unaided COO provision and no COO provision, the
unaided COO recall performed best. Psychological reactance theory provides a potential explanation
as to why such behaviour was identified (Dhanya & Pricilda 2018; Edwards, Li & Lee 2002).
Reinforcing the country of origin in an unnatural way such as in the aided recall experimental groups
may have been perceived as intrusiveness and a freedom threat which in turn increased
advertisement avoidance reactions, such as advertisement and stimuli exposure avoidance and
feelings of irritation. Such forced message exposure behaviour has been observed specifically in the
context of internet use by several academics. (Dongwon Choi & Jooyoung Kim 2018; Edwards, Li &
Lee 2002; Kim 2018; Young & Kim 2019)
Next, in relation to the lowest performing conditions across the three studies, there were some
interesting insights that could be drawn in relation to RO1. It appears for the two-sub dimensions of
Total Quality as well as the overall perceptions of Total Quality, that products from a consumers
home country, Colombia and particularly the USA, were the lowest rated in comparison to the other
conditions.
Thus, based upon the results of the three studies in this thesis, the following can be
determined in relation to RO1. COO generally influences product evaluations (Papadopoulos &
Heslop 2003) and higher CE levels have been recently described as “a relatively good predictor of
consumer preferences not only for products of local or foreign origin, but also in the importance
placed on COO in comparison to other product attributes” (Mockaitis, Salciuviene & Ghauri 2013,
p. 177). Taking into account that CE did not show a significant result, US consumers seem not to
favour home country products as reported in multiple publications (Knight 1999; Sharma, Shimp &
Shin 1995; Verlegh 2007).
The study results may present a decade-long trend in most Western Countries, where imports
have gained market share relative to domestic products (Treasury.gov.au 2005). Increased world
mindedness, interest in new products and less customer-loyalty levels may contribute to this.
Notably, affordability did not play a role, as no premium price, which one would expect in the USA for
imported products from Europe, was provided. Beyond that, it is to be noted that people’s intentions
or what they say does not necessarily correspond with what they do. It is outlined in Worstall’s
(2016) article “Americans Don't Want American Goods, They Prefer Imports”, where American
Apparel, a company which built steadily on the “Buy American” theme and filed bankruptcy in 2017
is used exemplarily. Finally, Samiee (2010) questioned a decade ago, with reference to a New York
Times poll (Weisman & Conelly 2007), whether COO indeed does entail a competitive advantage in
the USA, given the avalanche of Chinese products with a reportedly inferior product country image,
that Americans buy each year (Samiee 2010). The preference for imports in the USA is also backed
by the U.S. Census Bureau (TradingEconomics.com 2020) where imports peaked in 2019, just when
the surveys for this research were running.
P a g e 125
Regarding Study Three (Colombia), some of the reasons given before may also apply. More
importantly, however, many of the COO research publications confirm that in developing countries,
imports excel in quality appraisals compared to domestically manufactured merchandise. It has been
postulated that in these countries there is a prevailing belief that high-quality products are
manufactured overseas or in one of the countries known for advanced manufacturing capabilities.
Thus, this outcome confirms prior research (Al-Aali, Randheer & Hasin 2015; Coskun & Burnaz
2015; Sharma 2011; Tamas 2015) as Colombia has not established yet a reputation for
manufacturing high quality skin-care products.
Table 7.3 Highest and lowest performing constructs
Highest Performing Consistency

Across
Studies
Concepts Study One | USA Study Two | USA | Study Three |
| General Product Users Colombia |
Population Product Users
Product France Aided Germany France Aided France
Effectiveness Unaided Aided
Quality France Aided Germany Colombia Unaided Unaided
Unaided
Total Quality France Aided Germany France Aided France Aided
Unaided
WTP Germany Aided Germany Control NO COO. Germany
Unaided
Consistency France + Aided Germany France Aided
within Studies Unaided
Lowest Performing
Concepts Study One Study Two Study Three Consistency
Across
Studies
Product Germany USA Unaided Colombia Aided Home
Effectiveness Unaided country +
Unaided
Quality Control USA Unaided Germany Unaided Unaided
Total Quality Control/Germany USA Unaided Colombia Aided Home
Unaided country
WTP USA Aided USA Aided Colombia Aided Home
country
Consistency Control or USA + Unaided Colombia Aided
within Studies Germany
Unaided
7.2.3 Research Objective 2 – COO and Recall on WTP
RO2 sought to examine the impact of COO aided and unaided recall on WTP, which relates
to H2. Overall, from the three studies of this thesis, there were consistent findings relating to these
relationships, which will now be discussed. In all three studies, there were non-significant effects of
both the direct and combined (interaction effects) of COO and recall on WTP. The implications of
these findings in relation to each study will now be discussed.
P a g e 126
For the USA samples (Study One and Study Two), it was expected that there would be at
least a difference in WTP for imported versus local products, given that several publications
(Donovan & Nicholls 2003; Gallup Inc. 2007; Johansson & Nebenzahl 1986) suggest such an effect
should be observed. For example, Gallup Inc. (2007) reports a nationwide representative study in
the USA, that USA consumers are willing to spend more for comparable goods which are made in
the USA across all product categories. In addition, a more recent Reuters/Ipsos poll (Reuters 2017)
reported that 70% of USA consumers considered it important to buy products made in the USA, and
63% would indeed pay more for USA made products, again across any specific product category.
The results of Study One and Two, therefore contrast with prior COO literature.
While these outcomes were unexpected, it is to be considered that COO effects are known
to be product category-specific (Ahmed & d'Astous 2008; Herz 2015; Usunier 2011). In addition,
surveys often lack rigour when asking about willingness to pay across product categories,
specifically when consumers improbably can gauge the financial consequences. Consider
consumers would have to pay 20% more for USA-made products. How many could likely afford this
on a permanent basis? Further, the use of single-item scales more often than not do not provide
adequate insights for construct measurement (Diamantopoulos et al. 2012). For this reason, this
research used the proven and tested van Westendorp methodology. Finally, it is to be considered
that leading questions such as “How much more would you pay for American-made products?” are
poised to bring about biased responses, which are socially desirable. This research, therefore, did
intentionally not juxtapose domestic versus imported products but investigated the WTP for the
single COO under investigation in each experimental group.
Further, specifically for Colombian consumers (Study Three), it was expected that at least one
of the two COO’s, France and Germany, would result in a higher WTP, given that literature suggests
higher value appraisals in developing countries for imported goods from countries with a favourable
CI (Bayraktar & Ahmet 2015; Drozdenko & Jensen 2009; Hulland, Todiño & Lecraw 1996). The
findings of Study Three contradict market research publications, that for example 6 out of 10
Colombians are willing to pay more for products with perceived high quality (Nielsen 2017). Thus,
the findings of Study Three here, again challenge the generalizability of previous findings, but one
needs to consider the following:
• Drozdenko and Jensen (2009) researched the WTP for 11 different product
categories, which did not include cosmetics. However, while cosmetics might
have resulted in a different outcome, their study was performed with students and
the associated drawbacks resulting from such a sample and it used only a single-
item question.
• Hulland et al. (1996) showed that smuggled products in the Philippine Dau
market, imported exclusively for the USA military and their civilian base workers
and families, were priced higher compared to the same products manufactured
either in the Philippines or imported legally from a different manufacturing country.
The finding confirms the incremental prices for smuggled goods but is not
P a g e 127
informative to what extent Filipinos could afford it or how representative such
market, for example in terms of market share, was.
• Bayraktar and Ahmed (2015) found that in both developing and developed
countries, consumer are willing to pay more for favourable brand associations.
However, the consumer sample in their study was composed of undergraduate
business and MBA students, which has raised questions about the external
validity of such study results.
• Further, the reasons mentioned already in relation to Study One and Two (product
category effects, affordability, social desirability bias, single-item questions,
leading questions) need to be considered as well, when analysing the literature
versus the Study Three findings.
Overall, the lack of empirical support for the interaction effect of COO and Recall on WTP
across three experimental studies was an unexpected finding of this thesis. After all, extant COO
related WTP literature (cf. Table 2.3) contends that favourable COO’s and CI’s translate into an
increased WTP. Bayraktar (2015, p. 571) for example states that “consumers are willing to pay more
for favourable brand associations regardless of whether they live in a developing or a developed
country” which clearly could not be evidenced in this research. However, based on the equity theory,
which supports the exploration of the fair value of both tangible and intangible product properties,
study participants stated their perceived $-value of the new anti-ageing cream. Prior to that, the
survey did ask for the price of their current anti-ageing cream, in order to apply the price anchoring
tactic where a consumer’s frame of reference for comparing and valuing a product is set. Hence,
outcomes are consistent with the equity theory, where each study participant, free from priming by a
salesperson, store images or competitor products provided the perceived fair price they are willing to
pay for the new product.
Thus, it can be concluded in relation to RO2, that in both the USA and Colombia and
consistent with the equity theory, there is no increased WTP for a new skin-care cosmetic brand
associated with a favourable country image. Hence, in terms of non-conspicuous consumption of
cosmetics, this finding expands prior knowledge about the value of COO in financial terms and it
indeed supports the notion, that the COO effect regarding WTP is not generalisable (Josiassen &
Harzing 2008; Martín & Cerviño 2011; Pharr 2005; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999).
7.2.4 Mediation of COO Recall and WTP by Total Quality
RO3 related to testing the mediating role of quality perceptions (H3), that is Total Quality as
a mediator of the interaction effect of Recall and COO on WTP, was not confirmed in Study One.
The effect in both main confirmatory studies, Study Two and Study Three, was also non-significant.
Instead, COO and recall were found to influence total quality, however, total quality did not
subsequently predict higher levels of WTP.
P a g e 128
There is ample COO literature (Ercan 2010; Galhanone et al. 2015; Gineikiene,
Schlegelmilch & Ruzeviciute 2016; ed. Petruzzellis L. 2016), that COO and related product quality
assessments serve as antecedents for intentions to purchase or supposedly for subsequent buying
behaviour measures and that quality evaluations have both an impact on the COO effect size and
act as a mediator between COO and purchase relevant behaviour, such as purchase intentions.
However, it is also known, that the strength of COO-related quality evaluations diminishes markedly
when compared with measured consumer purchase intentions (Peterson & Jolibert 1995; Usunier
2006; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999). Lin and Kao (2004) report that COO information operates
through brand equity, rather than perceptions such as quality. Thus, brand equity was proposed to
influence product evaluations as well as purchase intentions. Given that in this research a
hypothetical brand with no established brand equity was tested, this may explain why no significant
mediation effect could be shown, whereby total quality increased the level of WTP.
Consistent with the results of this study, Hui and Zhou (2002) found that country origin
information directly affected quality assessments. They however suggest that quality assessments
should next impact perceived value, before consumers purchase intentions. Thus, considering the
results of Hui and Zhou, it may be that rather than total quality impacting WTP that another mediator
such as perceived quality may need to be considered in future work. This would then result in a
chain of relationships whereby COO x Recall impacts total quality, followed by perceived value and
ultimately WTP. In summary, in relation to RO3, the outcome of this investigation supports some
scholars arguments such as Peterson and Jolibert's (1995), that COO perceptions and appraisals
have only a limited effect on intentions to purchase and likely little to no direct impact on WTP. Thus,
the mediating effect of product quality perceptions on WTP is questionable.
7.2.5 Research Objective 4 – Moderation of COO Recall, Total Quality and WTP
by CInv
RO4 examined the role of CInv, which was examined in Study One, Two and Three. A
multitude of COO related publications state the importance and influence of CInv on product
evaluations, purchase intentions and even WTP (Adina, Gabriela & Roxana-Denisa 2015; Gürhan-
Canli & Maheswaran 2000a; Khosrozadeh Shirin, Heidarzadeh Hanzaee Kambiz 2011; Koschate-
Fischer, Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012; Tabassi, Esmaeilzadeh & Sambasivan 2013; Tamas
2015). Past research has shown that COO is important in both high and low involvement conditions
(Martín & Cerviño 2011). However, there is conflicting evidence with some academics suggesting
that high CInv plays a significant moderating role (Ahmed et al. 2004; Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas
2008; Tamas 2015; Yang, Ramsaran & Wibowo 2016) whereas other studies suggest that only
under low CInv conditions does the COO become important for consumer decisions (Josiassen &
Assaf 2010; Josiassen, Whitwell & Lukas 2008; Verlegh, Steenkamp & Meulenberg 2005). As such,
this research sought to provide some clarity as to whether CInv moderates the relationship between
the interaction of COO and Recall interaction and Total Quality.
The results related to H4 and its moderating role suggest, that indeed CInv can play an
important moderating role but overall, the outcome is inconsistent. As evidenced in Study One and
P a g e 129
Two, CInv for users of beauty products was not a significant moderator of the COO x Recall and
Total Quality relationship. However, interestingly, Study Three which examined Colombian users of
beauty products found CInv to indeed be a significant moderator.
After considering sociodemographic differences between the studies, which are not
indicative, there are some other potential explanations for the differences in results between the US
and Colombian studies. First, Latin American women, are known to be particularly interested when it
comes to personal appearance. Further details about the importance which beauty plays in most
Latin American women lives have already been elucidated in Section 6.7. Second, from several
market research investigations in the USA, it is also known, that despite declining cosmetic sales in
the USA (for example 2017: -1.2% year by year), Latin American women in contrast represented the
fastest-growing and highest-spending consumer segment in the cosmetic market (Gustafson 2015;
Nielsen 2015; Sanquintin 2018; Wonder 2017). Overall, in relation to RO4 it can be determined that
CInv can moderate relationships in COO settings, but it is often context or situation dependent.
7.2.6 Research Objective 5 – Moderation of COO Recall, Total Quality and WTP
by CE
Like CInv, the COO research area has been considerably expanded by the COO related CE
research stream and for this reason, RO5 sought to examine the concept. However, as explained in
Section 2.4.3, the literature is divided between those academicians who attribute CE influence over
other variables, mainly product quality evaluations, and those, who dispute significant effects of CE
(Sharma 2011).
In this research, it could not be shown that CE moderated the Total Quality appraisals
significantly and consequently had no influence over the WTP. The results are consistent across all
three studies. It is worthwhile to recollect here the special care of this research, not to divulge the
objective of it and not to introduce CE questions before the responses for the main constructs were
obtained (here: Total Quality and WTP). This may well have aided in obtaining less biased results
which support those academicians who argue that CE is of less relevance in these days.
7.2.7 Research Objective 6 – Cross-country differences
Regarding already established cross-country differences, there is on one hand a wealth of

COO literature from the USA, but very little COO specific extant literature related to Colombia, which
may serve as guidance. Apart from Parente-Laverde (2014), who studied the COO effect on
automobile product category consumers’ (and could not find an effect of COO on consumers’
product evaluation) no COO study in the non-food sector could be located. As depicted in Table 7.4,
the cross-country differences are limited, despite the difference in culture (Hofstede Insights 2020),
country development (United Nations Development Programme 2019) and disposable income (see
this research). Only CInv was notably different for the likely reasons described in section 6.7 and
7.2.5.
P a g e 130
• RO1: The interaction effect between COO and Recall has been confirmed
consistently across the countries
• RO2: In both countries, the lack of relationship between COO and Recall on WTP
could be evidenced
• RO3: The hypothesised mediation effect of Total Quality on WTP was also
congruent between both countries
• RO4: CInv turned out to moderate the effect on Total Quality only in Colombia.
However, the indirect effect on WTP could not be evidenced neither in Colombia nor
the USA
• RO5: There was no difference between both countries relating to the moderation
effect of CE on Total Quality and WTP, which was insignificant.
Table 7.4 Cross-country differences
Research Effect tested Support/Not Supported

Objective(s)
USA USA Colombia
RO1: Interaction effect of Rejected Supported Supported
Recall and COO on
perceived Total
RO2: Interaction effect of Rejected Rejected Rejected
Recall and COO on
WTP
RO3: Mediation effect of Supported Supported Supported
Total Quality on WTP
RO4: Moderating effect of Rejected Rejected Supported
consumer involvement
on the relationship
between the COO x
Recall interaction and
Total Quality/WTP
RO5: Moderating effect of Rejected Rejected Rejected
consumer
ethnocentrism on the
relationship between
the COO x Recall
interaction and Total
Quality/WTP
7.2.8 Overarching research question results regarding WTP
The overarching research question of this research was “What is the influence of COO recall
on product quality perceptions and WTP?”, in order to address a gap in literature in relation to price-
related consequences of brand associations, which are relevant for marketing theory and practice.
Hence these findings merit special attention.
P a g e 131
As already pointed out in Section 7.2.3, in all three studies hypotheses H2 was rejected and
no significant difference in WTP could be evidenced. COO cues, together with Recall did directly
influence perceived Total Quality, which in turn, however, did not have an effect on WTP. This has
merit to be discussed further, as it relates to the essence of COO research related criticism, which is
the alleged non-relevance for marketing practice.
It is known, that COO effects depend and vary among other reasons on the product category
(Abraham & Patro 2015; Ahmed & d'Astous 2008; Bhaskaran & Sukumaran 2007). However,
despite the non-effect on WTP, Total Quality perceptions were impacted by COO in this research.
Hence, it cannot be argued, that COO has no effect in this product category. Potentially the non-
luxury and inconspicuous consumption (not publicly used) of an anti-ageing cream contributes to the
lack of a higher WTP. Such phenomenon has been studied before by Piron (2000), when it was
shown that COO had a significant effect on purchase intentions in case of luxury and conspicuous
products. However, the contrary applied for staple and privately-consumed products.
Further, literature is informative about the strength of COO-related quality evaluations, which
diminish markedly (cf. Section 2.3, Figures 2.4 and 2.5) in the case of multiple-cue studies (as is this
one) and even more when compared with measured consumer purchase intentions (Peterson and
Jolibert 1995; Verlegh and Steenkamp 1999; Usunier 2006). Thus, the behavioural gap between
consumer perceptions and consumer behaviour (Usunier 2006; Tjandra et al. 2015) was confirmed
in this research. Accordingly, these current findings confirm not only the conclusion of Peterson and
Jolibert’s (1995) meta-analysis of 69 COO studies and 1,520 effect sizes, that the COO effect size
diminishes in multi-cue studies significantly when comparing COO effects on quality perception
versus purchase intentions, but even more, when robust outcome measures, such as WTP, are
being used.
As a consequence this research confirms, that the closer the outcome measure is towards
an actual purchase (see Figure 7.3), the lower the influence of COO’s. Specifically, despite
favourable quality evaluations, consumers were not ready to assign a marked-up price for products
associated with a favourable COO. Thus, it seems, that non-financial product quality evaluations are
the determining factors for the COO-effect rather than tangible price related outcome measures.
Finally, the findings show, that both consumer samples and the general population sample
did not assign a higher value to the new brand despite favourable COO’s and thus, consistent with
equity theory, are not willing to pay for the intangible benefit of a COO. This outcome is of critical
value for the COO research stream, as it elucidates that there is a great difference in results
between different surrogate outcome measures. It is self-evident, that more tangible and closest to
realty measurements should be used in order to determine the value of COO cues in different
countries, product categories and consumer groups.
P a g e 132
7.3 Theoretical Contributions
The assessment of how, why and to what extent COO may still play a role in today’s
internationalized markets represents the main body of COO research. However, certain important
aspects to date have not received close attention yet. The most important ones which were
addressed by this study are COO, Recall, WTP and testing the generalisability of COO across
cultures and product category users, which are, prior to a more detailed elucidation, summarized in
Table 7.5.
P a g e 133
Table 7.5 Theoretical contribution overview
1 RO1: Determine the impact COO and Recall Major

of COO aided and unaided Confirmed that COO matters for product quality
recall on total product perceptions. COO cue is used, independently of product
quality perceptions knowledge and product familiarity and aided recall has
not led to inflated effect sizes
2 RO2: Determine the impact Willingness to pay Major

of COO aided and unaided Confirmation, that the COO effect diminishes along the
recall on WTP purchasing process. Positive country or product
associations do not automatically transfer to a higher
product value and brand equity and in this study, there
was, despite favourable quality perceptions, no
significant direct or indirect effect on WTP.
3 RO3: Determine if product Development and testing of a unique model Major

Total Quality perceptions Established whether COO and Recall impacts WTP directly
mediate the relationship or whether first quality perceptions need to be
between COO recall and established before any impact on WTP can be expected.
WTP In addition, both CInv and CE were included and thus the
RO4: Determine if consumer study made an additional contribution to the limited
involvement moderates the empirical COO research which deals with more robust and
relationships between COO meaningful outcome measures and show a at the same
recall, Total Quality time the links between COO, Recall, Total Quality, CInv
perceptions and WTP and WTP. Detailed explanations of how the constructs
RO5: Investigate the effect interact were provided and the unique model informed
of consumer ethnocentrism about WTP under varying starting conditions.
on WTP for domestic and
imported products
4 RO6: Assess if the Generalisability of COO across cultures, product Medium

relationships between COO categories and market users
recall, Total Quality Extension of
perceptions and WTP vary a) understanding, whether the COO effect differs
across developed and between consumers from the general population and
developing markets product category consumers.
b) the geographical COO research coverage by including
Colombia (Latin America),
c) the scope of COO research by investigating cosmetics,
which is an underresearched COO product category
d) knowledge about the COO effect in unknown and
unfamiliar brands.
Hence, the understanding of the impact of COO and recall
in these domains was broadened
Development and testing of a unique model which goes beyond quality or mere PCI
perceptions and tests whether COO and Recall impact WTP directly or whether first quality
perceptions needs to be established before any impact on WTP can be expected. In addition, both
CInv and CE, which have been mentioned in the literature as potential moderator variables, were
included. With such a model, the study sought to make an additional contribution to the limited
P a g e 134
empirical COO research which deals with more robust and meaningful outcome measures and show
at the same time the links between COO, Recall, Total Quality, CInv and WTP. This research has
added to theory by providing not only a more detailed explanation of how the constructs interact, but
also developed a unique model to inform about WTP under varying starting conditions.
COO and Recall. It has been stated that consumers’ COO awareness on average is low
(Kinra 2006; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005; Usunier & Cestre 2008) and the contentions that the
COO cue is rather irrelevant and unimportant for consumer decisions was growing (Herz 2013;
Liefeld 2004; Samiee 2010; Samiee 2011; Samiee & Leonidou 2011; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma
2005; Usunier 2006; Usunier 2006; Usunier 2011; Usunier & Cestre 2008; Zeugner-Roth &
Diamantopoulos 2010). In this context, the question, whether the ‘Made in …’ label is actually being
perceived, subsequently recalled and used for decision making, is a still unresolved concern in
academic research (Johansson 1989; Usunier 2006). There is a clear lack of insights regarding the
impact of COO recall on COO effects and effect sizes (cf. Sections 2.3.4 and 2.4.1).
As described in the literature review (Section 2.3.4), aided and even forced COO recognition
and recall comprise the predominant part within extant COO literature. Based on such common
approaches, it has been shown time after time that COO matters, for quality perceptions, willingness
to buy and even in the few studies investigating WTP for COO’s. However, confronting study
respondents directly with a product’s COO may reveal the objective of the investigation and provoke
subject bias. Hence, with such an approach COO effect sizes tend to be overestimated (Peterson &
Jolibert 1995; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005; Usunier 2006) and outcome data are contaminated
(Samiee 2010).
Within the BORA (Brand Origin Recognition Accuracy) research stream it was shown that
consumers awareness and knowledge of brand origins is fairly limited (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos
2008; Magnusson, Westjohn & Zdravkovic 2011a; Martín & Cerviño 2011). Furthermore, one has to
be cognizant, that BORA studies measure the accuracy of brand origin, rather than perceived origin,
which is, if at all, the decisive element for COO effects (BATRA et al. 2000; Herz 2013; Magnusson,
Haas & Zhao 2008). The reported low brand origin recall in extant BORA literature may have been a
surprise for some, but given that there are thousands of brands, it is hardly to be expected that
consumers know each and every brand origin, even less, if they are foreign, not promoted or if one
is not a consumer of such brands. In general, if a consumer has never seen, known or heard of a
brands origin, how can it be recalled (McLain & Sternquist 1992; Paswan & Sharma 2004)?
The lack of knowledge of whether recall impacts COO study results has been addressed by
this research and to the best knowledge of the author, there has not been any COO study yet which
in combination:
• explores the effect of recall and at the same time avoids the bias caused by stimuli based
on already marketed, promoted and known products with their respective origins and
brand equity;
• investigates within one project the effects of aided versus unaided recall, and juxtaposing
them to a control group; and
P a g e 135
• is designed to determine whether aided recall really generates inflated effect sizes as
suggested previously in the literature, when compared to unaided recall or no recall in the
case of the control group.
Although it has been pointed out that product knowledge and familiarity influences COO
effects, COO studies using unknown products are the minority and hence research has not been
able to establish whether consumers actually seek for, notice and as a consequence recall the COO
of unknown products. This study provides insights, that the COO cue is used, independently of
product knowledge and product familiarity. In addition, studies have never juxtaposed aided versus
unaided recall and controlled with a non-COO product in order to determine whether aided recall
indeed leads to inflated COO effect sizes in a multiple cue setting. In addition, it was shown, that
aided recall was not associated with increased effect sizes, as postulated in extant literature. Hence,
this research gap has been addressed and provides a further step towards understanding the real
impact of COO.
Willingness to pay. Much of the COO literature is unspecific with regard to WTP and the
actual monetisable value of a certain COO label. With more than 1,200 COO publications already by
2008 (Heslop, Lu & Cray 2008), there is mostly empirical evidence about COO-related consumer
quality evaluations and purchase intentions (Iyer & Kalita 1997; Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos
& Oldenkotte 2012; Liefeld 1993; Zhi, Di Bao & Luo 2017) and more tangible outcomes in terms of
monetisation are called for (Lu et al. 2016).
Yet, the literature, especially for non-food products, shows a clear weakness regarding its
ability to explain, whether favourable COO effects, if present, will ultimately increase WTP and thus
brand equity. Only if consumers are either willing to pay a premium for a positive COO or in case of
price parity (value gain) choose a product with a favourable COO over alternatives (volume gain),
such an extrinsic cue becomes relevant next to the brand (Abraham, Patro 2015). Such lack of
knowledge has been acknowledged by a couple of researchers (Agrawal & Kamakura 1999;
Bayraktar & Ahmet 2015; Homburg, Koschate & Hoyer 2005; Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos &
Oldenkotte 2012; Zhi, Di Bao & Luo 2017) and not much has changed since Agrawal and Kamakura
(1999) noted that overall the price-related impact of COO remains underexplored. With the few
exceptions (Cappelli et al. 2017; Donovan & Nicholls 2003; Drozdenko & Jensen 2009; Johansson &
Nebenzahl 1986; Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012; Yohan & Zarrouk-Karoui
2014), where WTP has been used as a dependent variable, prior COO research has not capitalized
on WTP as an outcome measure, thus not focused on tangible price related outcomes.
This study has contributed to the COO literature by providing empirical evidence supporting
those academics who have a rather critical view on the managerial relevance and specifically on the
monetisable value of COO’s in certain product categories (Bloemer, Brijs & Kasper 2009; Genç &
Bayraktaroğlu 2017; ed. Petruzzellis L. 2016; Samiee 2011; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005;
Usunier 2006; Wang et al. 2014). It was found in Study Two and Three that the interaction between
COO and Recall did have a significant effect on Total Quality perceptions. In line with the cue
utilization theory, such outcome was expected, given that no intrinsic product cues were available
P a g e 136
and the brand unknown. On the other hand, in all three studies there was no significant direct or
indirect effect on WTP, that is, COO’s, on average did neither increase nor decrease value
perceptions. The equity theory facilitates the interpretation of such result since the fair value of
exchange can easily expressed in monetary terms. Hence, in this research, the COO by itself, did
neither lead to a significant WTP difference compared to other COO’s presented in this research nor
to the control, the product without any COO.
This finding confirms the loss of COO effect sizes along the purchasing process (cf. Impact
of COO on consumer behaviour in Figure 2.6), that is, the more imminent actual choices have to be
made, the weaker the COO effect becomes (Peterson and Jolibert 1995; Verlegh and Steenkamp
1999; Agrawal and Kamakura 1999b; Josiassen and Harzing 2008; Usunier 2006). Therefore, the
study provides further understanding that positive country or product associations do not
automatically transfer to a higher product value and brand equity.
Generalisability of COO across cultures, different consumer groups, geographies,

underresearched product categories and unknown brands. This research also contributes to the
international marketing literature by further testing and exploring the generalisability of COO across
different international markets, yet to be tested product categories and unknown brands, without
established brand equity.
First, this thesis sought to contribute to theory by extending the geographical coverage,
that is generating data from a country with a Latin culture, where almost no empirical evidence
exists. As mentioned in Chapter 2, there is little published marketing research from Latin America. In
fact Fastoso and Whitelock (2011) reported that from the year 2000 until 2010 only 22 research
publications were identified through their systematic literature research in high quality marketing
journals. The COO literature with its well over one thousand publications, offers only two which
include Colombia as a primary research country (Kim & Chao 2018; Parente-Laverde 2014). As a
result of the lack of published research from Latin America in general and specifically from Colombia
regarding COO research, this study contributes to the literature by beginning to address the gap of
studies only examining Western and Asia consumers and strengthens the understanding about the
(lack of) generalisability across different markets.
Second, with the inclusion of a general consumer population sample and product user
samples, the studies provided evidence, that there are neither significant differences in relation to
Total Quality evaluations nor WTP. Thus, this study contributes to the understanding, whether COO
effects differ between dissimilar consumer groups.
Third, as previously outlined in Chapters 1 and 2, there are further gaps in the literature
relating to certain neglected product categories and brands in the COO literature. Investigations of
the importance of COO in beauty products is scarce and this research is one few who investigate the
COO in this product category.
Fourth, the few studies in this realm have not yet considered examining the impact of COO
for brands without established brand equity. Unknown and unfamiliar brands represent the bulk of
P a g e 137
brands in most product categories and may benefit even more from a favourable COO than
established brands, where a strong brand, customer loyalty and product familiarity reduces the
diagnosic value of COO.
In conclusion, this study makes another contribution in extending marketers understanding

of the impact of COO and recall in these domains.
7.4 Practical Contributions
The contribution of this research to theory was discussed above. In addition, this research
has implications for those who are involved in managerial and marketing practice in the cosmetic
industry. Managerial implications of the findings can be drawn primarily from two perspectives:
Pricing strategy. Price related outcomes, such as WTP, are important for both businesses
and consumers (Le Gall-Ely 2010), however, they are rarely investigated in COO studies (Homburg
et al. 2005b; Koschate-Fischer et al. 2012; Zhi et al. 2017; Bayraktar and Ahmet 2015; Agrawal and
Kamakura 1999b) and it is clearly a neglected topic in COO research (Diamantopoulos et al. 2021).
Without proper knowledge of consumer’s WTP for certain intrinsic or extrinsic cues, one can hardly
design an appropriate product marketing strategy and corresponding pricing policy, which
contributes to an increase of both volume and profitability (Breidert et al. 2006; Le Gall-Ely 2010).
A favourable COO should lead to an increased value perception which at the end translates
into either higher prices (Hulland, Todiño & Lecraw 1996) accepted by consumers and/or increased
purchase frequency and volume, whenever there are no price differences. Just like that, “intuitively,
it should be self-evident that, (…) a country having a better image than others, especially as a
source for a product, has a comparative advantage that should translate to economic value” (Jaffe &
Nebenzahl 2006, p. 59).
With its multiple-view approach to determine the difference in value between a product with
no country label versus others with a generally favourable country label, including both the home
country and imported products, this research adds to the sceptical research stream, which
challenges any dollar-value of COO at first sight. While one needs to keep in mind that COO effects
vary between product categories (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2004; Kaynak & Cavusgil 1983;
Ozretic-Dosen, Skare & Krupka 2007) this research confirms the COO effect of favourable COO’s on
quality perceptions – which has been proven over and over again – but it clearly questions and
contradicts prior research with beautification products (Pilelienė & Šontaitė-Petkevičienė 2014)
which do not evaluate the economic value of COO but allude to COO having a favourable impact on
consumer choice. It also challenges the few more recent COO studies with WTP as an outcome
measure, which postulate that COO’s with a positive connotation lead to a higher WTP and
achievable market prices (Cappelli et al. 2017; Drozdenko & Jensen 2009; Koschate-Fischer,
Diamantopoulos & Oldenkotte 2012; Yohan & Zarrouk-Karoui 2014).
P a g e 138
Despite literature suggesting that a favourable country image can be leveraged by brands
and enterprises without existing brand equity (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos 2008; Dinnie 2004;
Elango & Sethi 2007), the conclusion from this research is that the extent to which unknown
beautification brands may benefit from a positive COO alone in terms of WTP is questionable,
particularly if one is not precisely targeting the market and consumer niche for which the product is
designed and by whom the COO is valued. However, statistical non-significance does not imply
managerial irrelevance. For marketing practice, this leads to several recommendations:
• As already noted by Samiee (2011) COO marketing will not work with a one size fits
all approach, but rather needs to cherry-pick the target consumers by segmenting
potential customers. Thus, rather than relying on the COO as a differentiating,
value-adding informational cue for marketing to all consumers (for example low-high
income, frequent-infrequent consumers, utility oriented versus hedonic consumers),
implementing a selective and sophisticated targeting strategy to identify those
consumers who are susceptible to and value certain origin designations could be
beneficial.
• As previously concluded by Samiee et al. (2016), there are COO sensitive
consumers, who can be targeted based on their sociodemographic characteristics.
Hence, given the large differences in WTP between both US studies (Study One
and Study Two), it is again recommended to initially target exactly those consumers,
who not only value a favourable country designation, but are also willing and
simultaneously in a position to pay price premiums.
• Highlight the product characteristics together with the brand personality and
communicate directly the difference versus the closest and most relevant
competitor, in cases where promotion regulations permit it.
• Consider within the pricing policy, that the price-tag supports the COO label, that is
do not compete on price with a favourable COO, as it likely puts into question the
product quality.
• Even if there were no increased WTP in some consumer segments, at least initially
until brand equity has been established, contemplate that the brand may still benefit
from a favourable COO through improved quality perceptions and consequently
benefit in terms of higher purchase intentions and repeat-purchases (volume gain)
or customer loyalty in case there is no meaningful price or other differences versus
relevant competitors.
Marketing strategy. Although the COO was even proposed as the fifth element in the
marketing mix (Baker & Currie 1993; Kaynak & Cavusgil 1983) much of the popular work in
marketing for marketing practitioners about the value and importance of COO marketing, that is the
practical relevance of it, is not adequate (Josiassen & Harzing 2008; Usunier 2006; Usunier & Cestre
2008). There is, for example, next to no literature to inform marketing practitioners about how the
COO might benefit and could be used to market unknown beautification brands. For this reason, this
research was designed to investigate, whether an unknown beautification brand without established
P a g e 139
brand equity and manufactured by a SME, would benefit from a favourable COO in terms of a higher
WTP.
The results of this study establish that a favourable COO, when recalled at the right moment
of purchase decisions, contributes to higher product quality assessments. In accordance with prior
research, the results also suggest that a generally positive COO in some product categories, for
example Germany and automobiles (Coskun & Burnaz 2015) may transfer to other product
categories, as evidenced particularly in Study Three.
While positive quality perceptions are a beneficial starting point, they do not seem to
contribute to a higher WTP. Hence, enterprises cannot rely on COO marketing to support premium
pricing strategies but need to develop and employ additional marketing strategies in order to
leverage and carry over positive quality perceptions from certain manufacturing locations towards
purchase intentions and WTP price premiums.
Another noteworthy finding is that the unnatural promotion of the country designation, which
is the case in the ‘aided’ experimental groups, does not necessarily lead to improved outcomes,
even for quality perceptions (cf. Study Two, Figure 5.4). It suggests that in certain conditions and
geographies, subtle COO marketing, where the WOW effect is created first by other product
attributes leading the consumer to search for more detailed product information such as the COO,
may be more effective. Thus, it is recommended to obtain insights about consumer attitudes and
beliefs before designing a product launch campaign.
7.5 Methodological significance
On the methodological side, this research took into account several objections referring to
past research and the respective suggestions on how to improve future research (Lala, Allred &
Chakraborty 2008; Martín & Cerviño 2011; Roth & Diamantopoulos 2009; Samiee 2011; Usunier &
Cestre 2008). This research therefore has been designed to overcome the following issues in extant
research:
• Selection and usage of a product category which is suitable for the data collection
method (Usunier & Cestre 2008). With cosmetics, a product category has been
chosen, which is sold increasingly through online channels. Hence, there is a good
fit between cosmetics and online-surveys, where the product can be shown and
information provided in a similar manner as in online stores.
• Avoiding the induction of response/subject bias. Most empirical studies have made
the COO information available to all study participants explicitly, which contrasts
with real market conditions and with its systematic bias, is considered a major
methodological flaw (Liefeld 2004; Magnusson, Westjohn & Zdravkovic 2011a) By
dividing each study into three recall variants (aided and unaided COO provision,
including a control group without any COO on the product, cf. Section 3.3.31) this
research allowed on one hand non-COO recognition and recall as well as the
P a g e 140
comparison of the aided recall variant with the other 2 options (unaided recall and
no-COO). In addition, a great deal of attention has been given to questionnaire
development, so that the study’s purpose could not have been guessed. Similarly,
the stimuli was presented as a real product with all information one usually can
expect when purchasing online, including a product flyer, in order to not prime study
participants to the COO.
• Furthermore, instead of the heavily criticised student samples (Arora et al. 2015; Lu
et al. 2016; Mai 2011), this research was based on two consumer samples, that is a
consumer sample of the general population (Study One) and product user samples
(Study Two and Three).
This thesis was designed to provide outcomes which are as close to reality as they can be
within the scope of this research. The above mentioned literature based suggestions for
improvement of future COO research were taken into account with the aim to increase study validity
and addressing calls for more rigorous COO (Josiassen & Harzing 2008; Samiee 2010).
7.6 Limitations and Directions for Future Research
This thesis and its research design had several strengths to address criticisms of prior
research with COO. This included for example the reduction of response/subject bias, which is a
notable issue in COO research (Liefeld 2004; Magnusson, Westjohn & Zdravkovic 2011a). In order
to do so:
• the experimental stimuli (the product) was designed in an externally valid way;
• the product and fictional brand was not known to consumers previously, thus avoiding any
potential influence of prior brand knowledge and familiarity;
• the questionnaire was designed in such a way, that only after the product evaluation and
WTP assessment questions regarding COO were asked. Therefore, the study’s objective
could not be deduced before the core data was collected; and
• finally, in order to avoid any priming by CE questions, these were asked not before the very
end of the survey.
Other strengths were
• the design of the experimental stimuli (the product) in an externally valid way;
• the selection of a product category, which is suited for the chosen data collection method
• the avoidance of student samples as per prior COO studies. Student samples are noted for
often having limited external validity, and thus the current thesis sought to address this
limitation of prior research (Arora et al. 2015; Bhaskaran & Sukumaran 2007; Liefeld 1993;
Lu et al. 2016; Mai 2011; Martín & Cerviño 2011; Peterson & Jolibert 1995; Roth &
Diamantopoulos 2009; Samiee 1994; Usunier 2006; Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999)
P a g e 141
• the examination of both non-users from a general population sample and users of the
product category. COO research has been criticised for using samples that are not reflective
of the target market or consumers who use or have used a similar product. By examining
both non-users and users of skin-care products, the samples in this thesis allowed for a
greater investigation into the generalisability of COO effects across different market
segments.
• and finally, a notable strength of the study was its use of a control group with no COO
influence. In the literature, COO studies seldom include or examine the effect of COO in
comparison to a control, which limits the ability of COO scholars to truly determine its
impact. Nonetheless, during this research some potential limitations have been identified
and will be outlined next.
Nonetheless, this research is not without limitations. The first potential recognized limitation
is the use of a stimuli product that was not associated with a given price and subsequently tested for
WTP. Price is known as a substantial extrinsic product cue (heuristic) which influences product
evaluations and purchase decisions (Erickson & Johansson 1985; Hui & Zhou 2002; Veale &
Quester 2009). Price points are diagnostic for many consumers as they influence significantly
product evaluations and reflect the conventional wisdom of “you get what you pay for” or “the more I
pay the greater the quality of the product”. This study provides information about what consumers
believe the product is worth, however, it was not designed to answer the question of whether the
product would have been bought at a given pre-specified price, and whether this in turn also impacts
the quality perceptions of the product. Furthermore, the study design does not allow for answers as
to whether consumers would be willing to pay a price premium in head to head comparison situation
with other COO products. This provides an opportunity for future COO research to provide specific
price points (for example a price tag) or competitor products as an additional experimental
manipulation associated with the product.
Similarly, and more importantly, future research may be designed to address the question,
whether, in case of no increased WTP versus other country origins or products with no origins,
favourable COO’s lead to an increased purchase intention or more frequent product purchases, that
is contributing to increased sales volumes. The COO, which in this study has not shown an
increased WTP versus the control, may still be a trigger for purchase decisions in case of product
price-parity with other similar products from other origins (for example same price, quality, design,
ingredients, packaging, look and feel). Hence, the COO may be decisive to deliver added value by
means of purchase decisions and thus increased volume sales in a seemingly similar product
variety. If that would hold true, the COO would certainly be an important marketing cue for
cosmetics. On the other hand, it is suggested, that studies who find an increased WTP due to COO
perceptions, evaluate to what extent such increased WTP is compromised by reduced repeat
purchases or sales volumes, given that consumers’ have to reduce somewhere consumption with
limited financial budgets.
Third, with an unknown anti-ageing cream, the study focused on only one cosmetic
segment. Thus, caution should be applied before the results are generalised to the whole cosmetic
P a g e 142
market or indeed known brands with an established brand-equity in the marketplace. Further
research may seek to confirm whether these results can be replicated in other cosmetic segments
such as lip-care (lipstick, lipliner, lip gloss, etc.), eyecare (eyeliner, mascara, etc.), concealers,
foundations, powder and/or cheek colours as well as moisturizers and/or sunscreen. In addition, it
would be an interesting extension of the current thesis to examine fictional versus non-fictional
brands. This could provide additional insights which demonstrate the impact of COO for brands
entering the market (fictitious products) and line-extensions of established brands (non- fictitious).
Fourth, in recent year, cross-national invariance testing has become increasingly popular in
social science as a means to ascertain cross-national comparability of research data (Davidov,
Cieciuch & Schmidt 2018; Johnson et al. 2018). In this research, however, the level of complexity
was already elevated, due to the development of research instruments and data collection in a
multinational and multilinguistic setting (Lynn et al. 2006). Accordingly, this limitation may be
considered and addressed in future research.
Finally, further research could consider more sub-groups or markets to examine the
relationships observed in the current thesis but it is recommended future studies should seek to
make the effects more tangible, that is to use financial measurements. Whilst this research provided
a comparison of non-users and users across two cultures, future research could seek to examine if
other market characteristics impact the relationships observed and not observed in this thesis. For
example, future research could seek to identify if high income consumers are more suspectable or
persuaded by COO in comparison to other income groups (Bailey & Pineres 1997; Good &
Huddleston 1995; Ha‐Brookshire & Yoon 2012; Samiee, Shimp & Sharma 2005; Sharma, Shimp &
Shin 1995).
Overall, whilst this research had notable strengths in comparison to prior COO research, as
well as limitations, it has provided a significant step forward in furthering marketing scholarships
understanding of COO, whilst also providing a platform and directions for future research.
7.7 Conclusion
This last chapter delved into and discussed the six research objectives across the three
studies of this research. The key findings were detailed in pursuance of working out discrepancies
and inconsistencies as well as confirmation of findings in the extant literature.
After more than 60 years of COO research and well over 1,200 related studies, a kind of
mantra has been established that the COO effect exists and that it is at the same time of importance
for business practice. However, such importance has never been quantified. Although Futurebrand
and Brandfinance® assign billions of value to nation brands, for example, Australia with a brand
value of US$ 1,669 bn (Brand Finance 2018), it is yet to be corroborated which product categories
individual brands, especially those with a low brand equity, can benefit from and leverage a
favourable COO. The broader discussion begs the question of how China could offset a rather
P a g e 143
unfavourable COO with ever-increasing export volumes in the last decades? Thus, it is certainly
debatable whether favourable COO’s are still important for businesses from a financial perspective,
if such extrinsic product cues do not manifest in consumers’ willingness to pay price premiums, to
purchase larger volumes/purchase more frequently, or at least ensure in increased customer loyalty.
This research has confirmed consistently across three studies the existence of the COO
effect in relation to quality evaluations. However, such an effect could not translate to a higher
willingness to pay. The interpretation of these results do not allude to the insignificance of COO as a
marketing cue, as some academics have voiced. It rather highlights one serious challenge to be
overcome. The COO still matters in certain contexts, however, one should be cautious to generalise
and imply that COO effects contribute to a firms profitability. In consequence, further targeted and
stringent research relative to product categories, customer segments and specifically financial
outcomes is warranted, which enhance applied marketing practice.
Before closing this chapter, theoretical and practical contributions have been pointed out,
showing that this research contributes to both the theoretical development of the COO domain as
well as to marketing practice. Finally, some considerations in respect of limiting factors of this
research as well as directions for further research have been provided.
P a g e 144
8. Reference List
Aaker, DA 1991, Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name / David A.
Aaker, Free Press; Toronto: Collier Macmillan Canada, New York.
Abraham, A & Patro, S 2015, ‘Country-of-Origin' Effect and Consumer Decision-making’,

Management and Labour Studies, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 309–18.
Adams, JS 1965, ‘Inequity In Social Exchange’, in Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.) 1965 – Advances in
experimental social psychology, pp. 267–99.
Adapa, S & Cooksey, R 2013, ‘Factors affecting consumer's continued use of internet banking:
Empirical Evidence from Australia’ (en), Australasian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 18, no.
1, <https://journal.acs.org.au/index.php/ajis/article/view/751>.
Adina, C, Gabriela, C & Roxana-Denisa, S 2015, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects on Perceived Brand

Positioning’, Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 23, pp. 422–7.
Agarwal, S & Sikri Sameer 1996, ‘Country image: Consumer evaluation of product category
extensions’, International Marketing Review, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 23–39.
Agrawal, J & Kamakura, WA 1999, ‘Country of origin: A competitive advantage?’, International

Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 16, pp. 255–67.
Ahmed, SA, d’Astous, A & Eljabri, J 2002, ‘The impact of technological complexity on consumers’
perceptions of products made in highly and newly industrialised countries’, International
Marketing Review, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 387–407.
Ahmed, SA & d′Astous, 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.
Ahmed, SA & d'Astous, A 1996, ‘Country-of-Origin and Brand Effects’, Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 93–115.
——2001, ‘CANADIAN CONSUMERS' PERCEPTIONS OF PRODUCTS MADE IN NEWLY

INDUSTRIALIZING EAST ASIAN COUNTRIES’, International Journal of Commerce and
Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 54–81.
——2008, ‘Antecedents, moderators and dimensions of country‐of‐origin evaluations’, International

P a g e 145
Ahmed, ZU, Johnson, JP, Yang, X, Kheng Fatt, C, Sack Teng, H & Chee Boon, L 2004, ‘Does
country of origin matter for low‐involvement products?’, International Marketing Review, vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 102–20.
Aichner, T 2014, ‘Country-of-origin marketing: A list of typical strategies with examples’, Journal of
Brand Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 81–93.
Aichner, T, Forza, C & Trentin, A 2016, ‘The country-of-origin lie: Impact of foreign branding on
customers? willingness to buy and willingness to pay when the product's actual origin is
disclosed’, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, vol. 27, no.
1, pp. 43–60.
Aiello, Gea 2010, ‘Luxury brand and Country of Origin effect: results of an international empirical
study’, Journal of Marketing Trends, vol. 1, pp. 67–75, <http://www.marketing-trends-
congress.com/sites/default/files/AIELLO_DONVITO_GODEY_PEDERZOLI_WIEDMANN_HENN
IGS_SIEBELS.pdf>.
Akaah, IP & Yaprak, A 1993, ‘Assessing the Influence of Country of Origin on Product Evaluations’,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 39–53.
Akkucuk, U & Esmaeili, J 2016, ‘The Impact of Brands on Consumer Buying Behavior: An Empirical
Study On Smartphone Buyers: An Empirical Study On Smartphone Buyers’, International
Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 1.
Al-Aali, A, Randheer, K & Hasin, S 2015, ‘Do the subcomponents of country of origin trigger
purchase intentions?’, International Journal of Commerce and Management, vol. 25, no. 4,
pp. 627–40.
Albaum, G & Peterson, RA 1984, ‘Empirical Research In International Marketing: 1976-1982’,

Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 161–73.
Alden, DL, Hoyer, WD & Crowley, AE 1993, ‘Country-Of-Origin, Perceived Risk and Evaluation
Strategy’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 20, 678-683.
Alexander, N, Moore, M, Anne Marie Doherty & Carpenter, JM 2011, ‘Modelling Brand Origin
Recognition Accuracy’, Lugano, Switzerland.
Alise, MA & Teddlie, C 2010, ‘A Continuation of the Paradigm Wars? Prevalence Rates of
Methodological Approaches Across the Social/Behavioral Sciences’, Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 103–26.
Allied Market Research 2019, Household Appliances Market to Reach $763.45 Bn, Globally, by
2025 at 5.4% CAGR, Says AMR, 23 May, PR Newswire, viewed 23 May 2019,
P a g e 146
<https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/household-appliances-market-to-reach-763-45-bn-
globally-by-2025-at-5-4-cagr-says-amr-879404358.html>.
Alonso-Dos-Santos, M, Llanos‐Contreras, O & Farías, P 2019, ‘Family firms’ identity communication

and consumers’ product involvement impact on consumer response’, Psychology & Marketing,
vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 791–8.
Al‐Sulaiti, KI & Baker, MJ 1998, ‘Country of origin effects: Country of origin effects: a literature
review’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 150–99.
Altintas, MH & Tokol, T 2007, ‘Cultural openness and consumer ethnocentrism: An empirical
analysis of Turkish consumers’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 308–25.
Americans want U.S. goods, but not willing to pay more: Reuters/Ipsos poll 2017, Reuters,
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-buyamerican-poll-idUSKBN1A3210>.
Amine, LS, Chao, MCH & Arnold, MJ 2005, ‘Exploring the Practical Effects of Country of Origin,
Animosity, and Price–Quality Issues: Two Case Studies of Taiwan and Acer in China’, Journal of
International Marketing, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 105–34.
Andéhn, M & L’Espoir Decosta, P 2016, ‘The variable nature of country-to-brand association and its
impact on the strength of the country-of-origin effect’, International Marketing Review, vol. 33,
no. 6, pp. 851–66.
Andersen, PH & Chao, P 2003, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects in Global Industrial Sourcing: Toward an
Integrated Framework’, Management International Review, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 339–60.
Arora, AS, McIntyre, JR, Wu, J & Arora, A 2015, ‘Consumer Response to Diffusion Brands and
Luxury Brands: The Role of Country of Origin and Country of Manufacture’, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 3–26.
Askegaard, S & Ger, G 1998, ‘Product-Country Images: Towards a Contextualized Approach’,

European Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 3, pp. 50–8.
Auger, P, Devinney, TM, Louviere, JJ & Burke, PF 2010, ‘The importance of social product attributes
in consumer purchasing decisions: A multi-country comparative study’, International Business
Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 140–59.
Aulia, SA, Sukati, I & Sulaiman, Z 2016, ‘A Review: Customer Perceived Value and its Dimension’,
Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 150–62.
Australian Made 2019, How much does it cost? - The Australian Made Campaign, viewed 19 May
2019, <https://www.australianmade.com.au/for-business/how-much-does-it-cost/>.
P a g e 147
Badenhausen, K 2018, The World's Most Valuable Brands 2018, Forbes, viewed 14 February 2019,
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2018/05/23/the-worlds-most-valuable-brands-
2018/#6551323c610c>.
Bailey, W & Pineres, SAGd 1997, ‘Country of Origin Attitudes in Mexico’, Journal of International
Baker, MJ & Ballington, L 2002, ‘Country of origin as a source of competitive advantage’, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 157–68.
Baker, MJ & Currie, CA 1993, ‘Country of origin: The fifth element of the marketing mix?:
Proceedings of the Marketing Education Group Conference’, Annual conference, Emerging
issues in marketing; 1993.
Balabanis, G & 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.
——2008, ‘Brand Origin Identification by Consumers: A Classification Perspective’, Journal of

——2011, ‘Gains and Losses from the Misperception of Brand Origin: The Role of Brand Strength
and Country-of-Origin Image’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 95–116.
——2016, ‘Consumer Xenocentrism as Determinant of Foreign Product Preference: A System

Justification Perspective’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 58–77.
Balabanis, G, Diamantopoulos, A, Mueller, RD & Melewar, CT 2001, ‘The Impact of Nationalism,

Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies’, Journal of International
Business Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 157–75.
Baldauf, A, Cravens, KS, Diamantopoulos, A & Zeugner-Roth, KP 2009, ‘The Impact of Product-
Country Image and Marketing Efforts on Retailer-Perceived Brand Equity: An Empirical
Analysis☆’, Journal of Retailing, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 437–52.
Bandyopadhyay, S & Banerjee, B 2003, ‘A Country of Origin Analysis of Foreign Products by Indian
Consumers’ (en), Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 85–109.
Bannister, JP & Saunders, JA 1978, ‘UK Consumers' Attitudes Towards Imports: The Measurement
of National Stereotype Image’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 562–70.
Barrameda, KMS, Alaras, M & Mondia, G 2019, ‘Country of Origin Effect in Skincare Preference:
Comparing Japan, Korea, and US’, 7th National Business and Management Conference,
Angeles City, Pampanga, November 15-16, 2019, Holy Angel University.
P a g e 148
BATRA, R, RAMASWAMY, V, ALDEN, D, STEENKAMP, J & RAMACHANDER, S 2000, ‘Effects of
Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Developing Countries’, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 83–95.
Baughn, CC & Yaprak, A 1993, ‘Mapping Country of Origin Research: Recent Developments and
Emerging Avenues’, in N Papadopoulos & LA Heslop (eds), Product-Country Images: Impact
and Role in International Marketing, International Business Press, New York, pp. 89–115.
Bawa, A 2004, ‘Consumer Ethnocentrism: CETSCALE Validation and Measurement of Extent’,

VIKALPA, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 43–57.
Bayraktar & Ahmet 2015, ‘Are Consumers Really Willing to Pay More for Favorable Brand
Associations The Moderating Role of Product Value and Product Risk Level’, Ege Academic
Review, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 565.
Bayraktar, A & Koçak, A 2019, ‘Brand Origin Recognition Accuracy and a research for Turkish
brands in the Egypt market’, Marmara Business Review, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 111–23.
Beauty Packaging 2020, How The Buying Habits Of American Beauty Consumers Differ, 30
December, viewed 30 December 2020,
<https://www.beautypackaging.com/contents/view_experts-opinion/2019-09-19/how-the-buying-
habits-of-american-beauty-consumers-differ/>.
Berkovich, I 2018, ‘Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research

and the paradigmatic disclaimer’, Quality and Quantity, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 2063–77.
Bertoli, G & Resciniti, R 2013, International Marketing and the Country of Origin Effect: The Global
Impact of "Made in Italy", Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham UK.
Bhaskaran, S & Sukumaran, N 2007, ‘Contextual and methodological issues in COO studies’,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 66–81.
Bilkey, WJ 1993, Foreward. In: Papadopoulos N, Heslop LA, editors. Product country images:
impact and role in international marketing, International Business Press, New York.
Bilkey, WJ & Nes, E 1982, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations’, Journal of

International Business Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 89–99.
Birnbaum, MH 2000, Psychological experiments on the internet (eng), Acad. Press, San Diego,
<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10178622>.
Bizumic, B 2014, ‘Who Coined the Concept of Ethnocentrism?: A Brief Report’, Journal of Social and
Political Psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3–10.
P a g e 149
Bloemer, J, Brijs, K & Kasper, H 2009, ‘The CoO‐ELM model’, European Journal of Marketing,
vol. 43, 1/2, pp. 62–89.
Boote, DN & Beile, P 2005, ‘Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation
Literature Review in Research Preparation’, Educational Researcher, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 3–15,
<http://edr.sagepub.com/content/34/6/3>.
Brennan, M & Esslemont, D 1994, ‘The Accuracy of the Juster Scale for Predicting Purchase Rates
of Branded, Fast-Moving Consumer Goods’, Marketing Bulletin, vol. 5, pp. 47–52.
Brijs, K, Bloemer, J & Kasper, H 2011, ‘Country-image discourse model: Unraveling meaning,
structure, and function of country images’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 64, pp. 1259–69.
Brijs, K, Vanhoof, K, Brijs, T & Karlis, D 2006, ‘Using Fuzzy Set Theory to Assess Country-of-Origin
Effects on the Formation of Product Attitude’, in V Torra, Y Narukawa, A Valls & J Domingo-
Ferrer (eds), Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3885, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 138–49.
Brisoux, JE & Cheron, EJ 1990, ‘Brand Categorization and Product Involvement by Jacques E.
Brisoux and Emmanuel J. Cheron’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 17, pp. 101–9.
Brosekhan, AA & Velayutham, CM 2014, ‘Consumer Buying Behaviour – A Literature Review’, IOSR
Journal of Business and Management, pp. 8–16.
Brother, C 2015, ‘Advertising and country of origin as key success factors for creating sustainable
brand equity’, Journal of Asian Business Strategy, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 141–52.
Bruhn, M & Hadwich, K 2014, Service Value als Werttreiber: Konzepte, Messung und Steuerung,
Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Cai, Y, Cude, B & Swagler, R 2004, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects on Consumers' Willingness To Buy
Foreign Products: An Experiment in Consumer Decision Making’, Consumer Interests Annual,
vol. 50, pp. 98–105.
Cakici, NM & Shukla, P 2017, ‘Country-of-origin misclassification awareness and consumers’

behavioral intentions’, International Marketing Review, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 354–76.
Calder, BJ, Phillips, LW & Tybout, AM 1981, ‘Designing Research for Application’, Journal of
Consumer Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 197–207.
Cannon Hugh M. & Yaprak, A 2002, ‘Will the Real-World Citizen Please Stand up! The Many Faces
of Cosmopolitan Consumer Behavior’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 30–
52.
P a g e 150
Cappelli, L, D’Ascenzo, F, Natale, L, Rossetti, F, Ruggieri, R & Vistocco, D 2017, ‘Are Consumers
Willing to Pay More for a “Made in” Product? An Empirical Investigation on “Made in Italy”’,
Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 556.
Carter, LL & Maher, AA 2014, ‘Assessing Consumers' Willingness to Buy Foreign Goods: An
Integrative Modeling Approach’, International Journal of Marketing Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 23–
34.
Carvalho, SW, Samu, S & Sivaramakrishnan, S 2011, ‘The Effect of Country-Related Brand
Associations and Product Attributes on Attitude toward Unfamiliar Foreign Brands: A Schema
Congruity Perspective’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 135–50.
Casado-Cárdenas, R, Guillén, ME & Tirado, DM (eds) 2021, Country of Origin effect on consumer
purchase intention of footwear, IX Meeting on International Economics, Castellón, Spain,
September 2021, viewed 29 September 2021,
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354947510>.
Celsi, RL & Olson, JC 1988, ‘The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes’,
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 210–24.
Chao, P 1993, PRODUCT-COUNTRY IMAGES: Impact and role in international marketing,

University of Northern Iowa, New York.
——1998, ‘Impact of Country-of-Origin Dimensions on Product Quality and Design Quality

Perceptions’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 1–6.
Chasin, JB, Holzmuller, HH & Jaffe, ED 1989, ‘Stereotyping, Buyer Familiarity and Ethnocentrism’,
Chattalas, M, Kramer, T & Takada, H 2008, ‘The impact of national stereotypes on the country of
origin effect’, International Marketing Review, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 54–74.
Chinen, K, Enomoto, CE & Costley, DL 2000, ‘The country-of-origin effect on Toyotas made in
Japan, the USA and Mexico’, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 139–48.
Chu, P-Y, Chang, C-C, Chen, C-Y & Wang, T-Y 2010, ‘Countering negative country‐of‐origin
effects’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 44, 7/8, pp. 1055–76.
Cilingir, Z & Basfirinci, C 2014, ‘The Impact of Consumer Ethnocentrism, Product Involvement, and
Product Knowledge on Country of Origin Effects: An Empirical Analysis on Turkish Consumers’
Product Evaluation’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 284–310.
P a g e 151
Cleveland, M, Laroche, M & Papadopoulos, N 2009, ‘Cosmopolitanism, Consumer Ethnocentrism,
and Materialism: An Eight-Country Study of Antecedents and Outcomes’, Journal of International
Marketing, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 116–46.
Colombia Census 2020, Colombia Age structure - Demographics, viewed 28 January 2021,
<https://www.indexmundi.com/colombia/age_structure.html>.
Cordell, VV 1991, ‘Competitive Context and Price as Moderators of Country of Origin Preferences’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 123–8.
Coskun, M & Burnaz, S 2015, ‘Exploring the Literal Effect of COO for a New Brand: A Conjoint
Analysis Approach’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 106–20.
CosmeticOBS 2014, Which value(s) for the Made in France label? - CosmeticOBS-L'Observatoire
des Cosmétiques - Congress reports, 7 May, viewed 7 May 2020,
<https://cosmeticobs.com/en/articles/congress-reports-48/which-values-for-the-made-in-france-
label-2495>.
Costa, C, Carneiro, J & Goldszmidt, R 2016, ‘A contingent approach to country-of-origin effects on

foreign products evaluation: Interaction of facets of country image with product classes’,
International Business Review, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1066–75.
Cox, DF 1962, ‘The measurement of information value: A study in consumer decision-making’, in W

Decker (ed.), Emerging concepts in marketing, American Marketing Organization, Chicago,
pp. 413–21.
Creswell, JW 2012, Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research, PHI Learning Private Limited, Delhi, India.
Crittenden, VL & Peterson, RA 2011, ‘Ruminations about making a theoretical contribution’, AMS
Review, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 67–71.
Cronin Jr., JJ, Brady, MK & Hult, GM 2000, ‘Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments’, Journal of Retailing,
vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 193–218.
Crook, T, Frasca, B, Kohavi, R & Longbotham, R 2009, ‘Seven pitfalls to avoid when running
controlled experiments on the web’, Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International
Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining., ACM Press, New York, pp. 1–9.
Croson, R & Gächter, S 2010, ‘The science of experimental economics’, Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 122–31.
P a g e 152
Dagger, TS & Raciti, MM 2011, ‘Matching consumers' country and product image perceptions: An
Australian perspective’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 200–10.
d'Astous, A & Ahmed, SA 1999, ‘The importance of country images in the formation of consumer
product perceptions’, International Marketing Review, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 108–26.
Datta, SK & Sanyal, SN 2011, ‘The effect of country of origin on brand equity: an empirical study on
generic drugs’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20/2, pp. 130–40.
Davidov, E, Cieciuch, J & Schmidt, P 2018, ‘The cross-country measurement comparability in the
immigration module of the European Social Survey 2014-15’ (en), 15-27 Pages / Survey
Research Methods, Vol 12, No 1 (2018).
Demirbag, M, Sahadev, S & Mellahi, K 2010, ‘Country image and consumer preference for emerging
economy products: the moderating role of consumer materialism’, International Marketing
Review, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 141–63.
Devita, EM & Agustini, M. Y. Dwi Hayu 2019, ‘Country of Origin and Brand Image on Purchase
Decision of South Korean Cosmetic Etude House’, Journal Of Management and Business
Environment, I, I, pp. 55–70.
Dhanya, AD & Pricilda, JU 2018, ‘Consumer Reactance: A Review of Research Methodologies’,

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 118, no. 18.
Diamantopoulos, A, Matarazzo, M, Montanari, MG & Petrychenko, A 2021, ‘The “Pricing Footprint”

of Country-of-Origin: Conceptualization and Empirical Assessment’, Journal of Business
Research, vol. 135, pp. 749–57.
Diamantopoulos, A, Sarstedt, M, Fuchs, C, Wilczynski, P & Kaiser, S 2012, ‘Guidelines for choosing
between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity
perspective’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 434–49.
Diamantopoulos, A, Schlegelmilch, B & Palihawadana, D 2011, ‘The relationship between country‐

of‐origin image and brand image as drivers of purchase intentions’, International Marketing
Review, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 508–24.
Dichter, E 1962, ‘The world customer’, The International Executive, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 25–7.
Dinnie, K 2004, ‘COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN 1965-2004: A LITERATURE REVIEW’, Journal of

Customer Behaviour, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 165–213.
——2016, Nation branding: Concepts, Issues, Practice, Routledge, London.
P a g e 153
Diodato, D, Malerba, F & Morrison, A 2018, ‘The made-in effect and leapfrogging: A model of
leadership change for products with country-of-origin bias’, European Economic Review,
vol. 101, pp. 297–329.
Dodds, WB, Monroe, KB & Grewal, D 1991, ‘Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on
Buyers' Product Evaluations’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 307–19.
Dongwon Choi & Jooyoung Kim 2018, ‘Forced Exposure to online Video Ads: The role of perceived
control and desire for control’, Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the American Academy of
Advertising (AAA 2018), p. 79.
Donovan, GH & Nicholls, DL 2003, ‘Estimating Consumer Willingness to Pay a Price Premium for
Alaska Secondary Wood Products: Research Paper PNW-RP-553’, Forest Service. Pacific
Northwest Research Station, pp. 1–7.
Drozdenko, R & Jensen, M 2009, ‘Translating country‐of‐origin effects into prices’, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 371–8.
Edwards, SM, Li, H & Lee, J-H 2002, ‘Forced Exposure and Psychological Reactance: Antecedents
and Consequences of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Pop-Up Ads’, Journal of Advertising,
vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 83–95.
Elango, B & Sethi, SP 2007, ‘An exploration of the relationship between country of origin (COE) and
the internationalization-performance paradigm’, Management International Review, vol. 47, no.
3, pp. 369–92.
Elliott, GR & Cameron, RC 1994, ‘Consumer Perception of Product Quality and the Country-of-
Origin Effect’, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 49–62.
Ercan, E 2010, ‘Country of Origin and Consumers' Willingness to Purchase an Apparel’, Journal of
Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–15.
Erickson, GM & Johansson, JK 1985, ‘The Role of Price in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations’,
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 195–9.
Eroglu, SA & Machleit, KA 1989, ‘Effects of Individual and Product‐specific Variables on Utilising
Country of Origin as a Product Quality Cue’ (en), International Marketing Review, vol. 6, no. 6.
Esch, F-R 2014, Strategie und Technik der Markenführung (ger), 8th edn, Vahlen, München.
Esmailpour, H & Tabrizi, PKM 2016, ‘The Effect of Country of Origin and Product Evaluation on
Purchase Intention’, Case Studies Journal, vol. 5, pp. 80–5.
P a g e 154
Eunju, K, Kim, KH & Zhang, H 2008, ‘A Cross Cultural Study of Antecedents of Purchase Intention
for Sports Shoes in Korea and China’, Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 18,
no. 1, pp. 157–77.
Evans, JR & Mathur, A 2005, ‘The value of online surveys’, Internet Research, vol. 15, no. 2,
pp. 195–219.
Farooq, SP & Alcala, DM 2017, ‘The Effect Of Level Of Involvement On The Consumer Affinity’,
Master’s thesis in Business Administration, School of Business, Society and Engineering,
Mälardalen University, Sweden.
Fastoso, F & Whitelock, J 2011, ‘Why is so little marketing research on Latin America published in
high quality journals and what can we do about it?’, International Marketing Review, vol. 28, no.
4, pp. 435–49.
Feige, S & Annen, R 2013, Marketing with the Country of Origin - A Comparison Between the U.S.
and Switzerland, htp St. Gallen in Zurich, viewed 30 May 2017,
<http://www.amcham.ch/publications/downloads/2015/yb/marketing-with-the-country-of-origin-
by-stephan-feige-raphael-annen.pdf>.
Feyerlein, D & Habib, A 2014, ‘Affecting Customer Behavior through ‘Made in Germany’ within the
Healthcare Sector’, Asian Social Science, vol. 10, no. 15, pp. 133–42.
Field, A 2011, Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll) (eng), 3rd
edn, Sage, Los Angeles, Calif., <http://www.uk.sagepub.com/field3e/main.htm>.
Frazer, L & Lawley, M 2001, Questionnaire design and administration: A practical guide (eng), Wiley,
New York, NY.
FutureBrand 2014, ‘Country Brand Index 2014-15’, viewed 12 November 2017,

<https://www.futurebrand.com/uploads/CBI2014-5.pdf>.
——2015, Country Brand Ranking Latin America 2015 - Insights & Trends, FutureBrand, viewed 2
May 2017, <http://placebrandobserver.com/country-brand-ranking-latin-america-2015/>.
Galhanone, RF, Suzuki, RH, Trizi Amorim, MA & Costa Hernandez, JM 2015, ‘When being
international is worth it: The effect of a retail brand’s international presence on consumer
attitudes’, Review of International Business, vol. 10, pp. 30–43,
<http://internext.espm.br/index.php/internext/article/viewFile/231/227>.
Gallup Inc. 2007, American Consumers Showing Aversion to "Made in China" Label, 20 March,
viewed 15 November 2020, <https://news.gallup.com/poll/28552/american-consumers-showing-
aversion-made-china-label.aspx>.
P a g e 155
Genç, B & Bayraktaroğlu, AG 2017, ‘Exploring the Country of Origin Effect: A Qualitative Analysis of
Turkish Consumption Practices’, Qualitative Consumer Research, vol. 14, pp. 25–50.
Ger, G 1991, ‘Country image: Perceptions, attitudes, associations, and their relationships to context’,
in RR Dholakia & KC Bothra (eds), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Marketing and Development, New Dehli, India, pp. 390–8.
Ghalandari, K & Norouzi, A 2012, ‘The Effect of Country of Origin on Purchase Intention: The Role of
Product Knowledge’, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology,
vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1166–71.
Gineikiene, J, Schlegelmilch, BB & Ruzeviciute, R 2016, ‘Our Apples Are Healthier Than Your
Apples: Deciphering the Healthiness Bias for Domestic and Foreign Products’, Journal of
International Marketing, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 80–99,
<https://www.wu.ac.at/fileadmin/wu/d/i/imm/jim_15_0078__002_.pdf>.
Good, LK & Huddleston, P 1995, ‘Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russion consumers: are feelings and
intentions related?’, International Marketing Review, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 35–48.
Guba, EG & Lincoln, YS 1994, ‘Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research’, in Denzin, N., &
Lincoln, Y. (ed.), Handbook of qualitative research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.,
pp. 105–17.
——2005, ‘Paradigmatic Controversiess, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences’, in NK Denzin

& YS Lincoln (eds), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn, SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks.
Gürhan-Canli, Z & Maheswaran, D 2000a, ‘Cultural Variations in Country of Origin Effects’, Journal
of Marketing Research, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 309–17.
Gürhan‐Canli, Z & Maheswaran, D 2000b, ‘Determinants of Country‐of‐Origin Evaluations’, Journal

of Consumer Research, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 96–108.
Gustafson, K 2015, ‘These consumers can make or break sales growth’, CNBC, 20 February,
viewed 30 December 2020, <https://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/20/hispanic-consumers-driving-
growth-in-beauty.html>.
Guthrie, MF & Kim, H-S 2009, ‘The relationship between consumer involvement and brand
perceptions of female cosmetic consumers’, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 17, no. 2,
pp. 114–33.
Ha‐Brookshire, J & Yoon, S-H 2012, ‘Country of origin factors influencing US consumers' perceived
price for multinational products’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 445–54.
P a g e 156
Hair, JF, Bush, RP & Ortinau, DJ 2006, Marketing research: Within a changing information
environment (eng), McGraw-Hill/Irwin series in marketing, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston,
Mass., <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0619/2004061113-d.html>.
Hair, JF, Celsi, MW, Ortinau, DJ & Bush, RP 2017, Essentials of marketing research (eng), McGraw-
Hill Education international editions, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY.
Hambrick, DC 2007, ‘The Field Of Managements's Devotion To Theory: Too Much Of A Good
Thing?’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1346–52.
Hamin, H, Baumann, C & Tung, RL 2014, ‘Attenuating double jeopardy of negative country of origin
effects and latecomer brand’, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, vol. 26, no. 1,
pp. 54–77, viewed 13 February 2019.
Hamzaoui-Essoussi, L 2010, ‘Technological Complexity and Country-of-Origin Effects on Binational

Product Evaluation: Investigation in an Emerging Market’, Journal of Global Marketing, vol. 23,
no. 4, pp. 306–20.
Han, CM 1988, ‘The role of consumer patriotism in the choice of domestic versus foreign products’,
Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 25–32.
——1989, ‘Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct?’, Journal of Marketing Research, XXVI,
pp. 222–9.
Han, CM & Terpstra, V 1988, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects for Uni-National and Bi-National Products’,
Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 235–55.
Hanson, D & Grimmer, M 2007, ‘The mix of qualitative and quantitative research in major marketing
journals, 1993‐2002’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 41, 1/2, pp. 58–70.
Harun, A, Wahid, NA, Mohammad, O & Ignatius, J 2011, ‘The Concept of Culture of Brand Origin
(COBO): A new Paradigm in the Evaluation of Origin Effect’, International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 282–90.
Hausruckinger, G 1993, Herkunftsbezeichnungen als präferenzdeterminierende Faktoren: Eine

internationale Studie bei langlebigen Gebrauchsgütern, Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe
V, Volks- und Betriebswirtschaft Publications universitaires européennes. Série V, Sciences
économiques, gestion d'entreprise, vol. 1359, P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
HealthCareers 2020, 38 Awe-Inspiring Beauty Industry Statistics for 2020, 20 June, viewed 8
September 2020, <https://healthcareers.co/beauty-industry-statistics/>.
P a g e 157
Helgeson, JG, Kurpis, LHV, Supphellen, M & Ekici, A 2017, ‘Consumers' Use of Country-of-
Manufacture Information?: Norway and the United States: Ethnocentric, Economic, and Cultural
Differences’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 179–93.
Henderson, S & Hoque, SF 2010, ‘The Ethnicity Impact on Attitudes toward Country of Origin for
Products with Different Involvement Levels’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 271–91.
Hennebichler, P 2007, Country of Origin Knowledge: Insights into Consumers' Knowledge, VDM
Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken.
Herche, J 1992, ‘A note on the predictive validity of the CETSCALE’, Journal of the Academy of
Herz, F & Diamantopoulos, A 2013a, ‘Country-Specific Associations Made by Consumers: A Dual-

Ccoding Theory Perspective’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 95–121.
Herz, M & Diamantopoulos, A 2017, ‘I Use It but Will Tell You That I Don’t: Consumers’ Country-of-
Origin Cue Usage Denial’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 52–71.
Herz, MF 2013, ‘The country-of-origin concept reassessed – The long path from the ‘made-in’ label’,
in C Baumgarth & D-M Boltz (eds), Impulse für die Markenpraxis und Markenforschung:
Tagungsband der Internationalen Konferenz "Der Markentag 2011", Research, Springer Gabler,
Berlin, pp. 141–61.
——2015, ‘Do you know COO? An explorative perspective on consumers’ country-of-origin

knowledge’, in Schmidt, Baumgarth (Ed.) 2015 – Forum Markenforschung, pp. 101–17.
Herz, MF & Diamantopoulos, A 2013, ‘Activation of country stereotypes: Automaticity, consonance,

and impact’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 400–17.
Heslop, LA, Lu, IR & Cray, D 2008, ‘Modeling country image effects through an international crisis’,
International Marketing Review, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 354–78.
Heslop, LA & Papadopoulos, NG 1993, ‘"But Who Knows Where or When": Reflections on the
Images of Countries and their Products’, in N Papadopoulos & LA Heslop (eds), Product-Country
Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, International Business Press, New York,
pp. 39–86.
Hofstede, G 1994, Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind; intercultural cooperation and its
importance for survival, Successful strategist series, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hofstede Insights 2020, Country Comparison - Hofstede Insights, 13 November, viewed 13

November 2020, <https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/colombia,the-usa/>.
P a g e 158
Homans, GC 1961, ‘Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms’, American Anthropologist, vol. 63, no. 6,
pp. 1339–41.
Homburg, C, Homburg-Krohmer & Krohmer, H 2005, Marketingmanagement: Strategie -

Instrumente - Umsetzung - Unternehmensführung, Gabler-Lehrbuch, 1st edn, Gabler,
Wiesbaden.
Homburg, C, Koschate, N & Hoyer, WD 2005, ‘Do Satisfied Customers Really Pay More? A Study of
the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Willingness to Pay’, Journal of Marketing,
vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 84–96.
Hong, S-T & Kang, DK 2006, ‘Country-of-Origin Influences on Product Evaluations: The Impact of
Animosity and Perceptions of Industriousness Brutality on Judgments of Typical and Atypical
Products’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 232–9.
Hong, S-T & Wyer, RSJ 1989, ‘Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute Information on
Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective’, Journal of Consumer Research,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 175–87.
Hooley, GJ, Shipley, D & Krieger, N 1988, ‘A method for modelling consumer perceptions of country
of origin’, International Marketing Review, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 67–76.
Horton, JJ, Rand, DG & Zeckhauser, RJ 2011, ‘The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a
real labor market’, Experimental Economics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 399–425.
Houghton, A & Thayer, C 2019, Latinos and Beauty as We Age: A Cultural Reflection, viewed 7
October 2020, <https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/life-
leisure/2019/latinos-and-beauty-report.doi.10.26419-2Fres.00345.001.pdf>.
Huddleston, P, Good, LK & Stoel, L 2001, ‘Consumer ethnocentrism, product necessity and Polish
consumers’ perceptions of quality’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 236–46.
Hui, MK & Zhou, L 2002, ‘Linking Product Evaluations and Purchase Intention for Country-of-Origin
Effects’, Journal of Global Marketing, vol. 15, 3-4, pp. 95–116.
——2003, ‘Country‐of‐manufacture effects for known brands’, European Journal of Marketing,

vol. 37, 1/2, pp. 133–53.
Hulland, J & Miller, J 2018, ‘“Keep on Turkin’”?’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 789–94.
Hulland, J, Todiño, HS & Lecraw, DJ 1996, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects on Sellers' Price Premiums in
Competitive Philippine Markets.’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 57–79.
P a g e 159
Hutchinson, JW & Alba, JW 1991, ‘Ignoring Irrelevant Information: Situational Determinants of
Consumer Learning’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 325–45.
Iacob, A 2016, ‘Country-of-Origin Effect on Brand Perception: A Systematic Review of the Literature
between 1993 and 2013’, in J Kuada (ed.), Perspectives On International Business, ADONIS &
ABBEY PUBLISHERS, pp. 221–75.
Illera, J 2020, Beauty Industry Proves Its Resilience Amid Coronavirus, Euromonitor, viewed 1
October 2021, <https://www.euromonitor.com/article/beauty-industry-proves-its-resilience-amid-
coronavirus>.
Incmagazine 2021, Brands and Brand Names - Encyclopedia, 5 January, Mansueto Ventures LLC,
viewed 24 January 2021, <https://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/brands-and-brand-names.html>.
Iyer, GR & Kalita, JK 1997, ‘The Impact of Country-of-Origin and Country-of-Manufacture Cues on
Consumer Perceptions of Quality and Value’, Journal of Global Marketing, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 7–
28.
Jackson, M & Cox, DR 2013, ‘The Principles of Experimental Design and Their Application in
Sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 39, pp. 27–49.
Jaffe, ED & Martinez, CR 1995, ‘Mexican Consumer Attitudes Towards Domestic and Foreign Made
Products’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7–28.
Jaffe, ED & Nebenzahl, ID 2001, National Image & Competitive Advantage: The Theory And
Practice Of Country-Of-Origin Effect, 1st edn, Copenhagen Business School Press,
Copenhagen.
——2006, National Image & Competitive Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Place Branding,
2nd edn, Copenhagen Business School Press, Køge.
Janda, S & Rao, CP 1997, ‘The effect of country-of-origin related stereotypes and personal beliefs
on product evaluation’, Psychology and Marketing, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 689–702.
Javalgi, RG(Cutler, BD & Winans, WA 2001, ‘At your service! Does country of origin research apply
to services?’, Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 565–82.
Jiménez, N & San-Martin, S 2016, ‘The central role of the reputation of country-of-origin firms in
developing markets’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 349–64.
Jin Lee, W, Phau, I & Roy, R 2013, ‘"Bonds" or "Calvin Klein" Down under’, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 65–84.
Johansson, JK 1989, ‘Determinants and Effects of the Use of ″Made in″ Labels’, International
P a g e 160
——1993, ‘Missing a strategie opportunity’, in N Papadopoulos & LA Heslop (eds), Product-Country
Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, International Business Press, New York,
pp. 77–86.
Johansson, JK, Douglas, SP & Nonaka, I 1985, ‘Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on
Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective’, Journal of Marketing Research,
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 388–96.
Johansson, JK & Nebenzahl, ID 1986, ‘Multinational production: Effect on brand value’, Journal of
Johansson, JK, Ronkainen, IA & Czinkota, MR 1994, ‘Negative Country-of-Origin Effects: The Case
of the New Russia’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 157–76.
Johnson, P, T, Pennell, E, B, Stoop, I, Dorer & B 2018, Advances in comparative survey methods:
Multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts (3MC), Wiley series in survey
methodology, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken NJ.
Josiassen, A 2011, ‘Consumer Disidentification and Its Effects on Domestic Product Purchases: An
Empirical Investigation in the Netherlands’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75, pp. 124–40.
Josiassen, A & Assaf, A 2010, ‘Country-of-origin contingencies: their joint influence on consumer
behaviour"’, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 294–313.
Josiassen, A, Assaf, AG & Karpen, IO 2011, ‘Consumer ethnocentrism and willingness to buy’,
Josiassen, A & Harzing, A-W 2008, ‘Descending from the ivory tower: Reflections on the relevance
and future of country-of-origin research’, European Management Review, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 264–
70.
Josiassen, A, Lukas, BA, Whitwell, GJ & Assaf, AG 2013, ‘The halo model of origin images:
Conceptualisation and initial empirical test’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 12, no. 4,
pp. 253–66.
Josiassen, A, Whitwell, GJ & Lukas, BA 2008, ‘Country‐of‐origin contingencies: Competing

perspectives on product familiarity and product involvement’, International Marketing Review,
vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 423–40.
Kalicharan, HD 2014, ‘The Effect And Influence Of Country-Of-Origin On Consumers Perception Of

Product Quality And Purchasing Intentions’, International Business & Economics Research
Journal, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 897.
P a g e 161
Kankam, PK 2019, ‘The use of paradigms in information research’, Library & Information Science
Kaynak, E & Cavusgil, ST 1983, ‘Consumer Attitudes towards Products of Foreign Origin: Do They
Vary Across Product Classes?’, International Journal of Advertising, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 147–57.
Kaynak, E & Kara, A 2002, ‘Consumer perceptions of foreign products: An analysis of product-
country images and ethnocentrism’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 36, 7/8, pp. 928–49.
Kaynak, E, Kara, A & Unusan, C 1998, ‘Product-Country Images (PCI) in an Advanced Developing
Country’, Journal of Euromarketing, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 51–65.
Kaynak, E, Kucukemiroglu, O & Hyder, AS 2000, ‘Consumers’ country‐of‐origin (COO) perceptions

of imported products in a homogenous less‐developed country’, European Journal of Marketing,
vol. 34, 9/10, pp. 1221–41.
Khosrozadeh Shirin, Heidarzadeh Hanzaee Kambiz 2011, ‘The Effect of the Country-of-Origin
Image, Product Knowledge and Product Involvement on Consumer Purchase Decisions’,
Chinese Business Review, vol. 10, no. 08.
Kilduff, K & Núñez-Tabales, JM 2016, ‘Country Branding and its effect on the consumer in the global
market’, Cuadernos de Gestión, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 83–104.
Kim, NY 2018, ‘The Effect Of Advertising Content Control On Advertising Effectiveness In The
Different Forced Exposure Circumstance’, Journal of Promotion Management, vol. 24, no. 6,
pp. 845–62.
Kim, RB & Chao, Y 2018, ‘The effect of country of origin on consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) of
Colombian consumers: An empirical investigation of Samsung vs. Huawei brands’, Journal of
International Studies, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 70–81.
Kinra, N 2006, ‘The effect of country‐of‐origin on foreign brand names in the Indian market’,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 15–30.
Klein, G, Jill, Ettenson, R & Krishnan, BC 2006, ‘Extending the construct of consumer ethnocentrism:
When foreign products are preferred’, International Marketing Review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 304–21.
Klein, JG, Ettenson, R & Morris, MD 1998, ‘The Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An
Empirical Test in the People's Republic of China’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 89–
100.
Kloss, D & Kunter, M 2016, ‘The Van Westendorp Price-Sensitivity Meter As A Direct Measure Of
Willingness-To-Pay’, European Journal of Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 45–54.
P a g e 162
Knight, GA 1999, ‘Consumer preferences for foreign and domestic products’, Journal of Consumer
Knight, GA & Calantone, RJ 2000, ‘A flexible model of consumer country‐of‐origin perceptions’,

Koç, E, Nart, S & Baş, O 2017, ‘The influence of countroy of origin on brand image and brand
attitudes: An empirical study on Turkey’, İşletme Bilimi Dergisi, pp. 89–103.
Koo Kim, C 1995, ‘Brand popularity and country image in global competition: managerial
implications’ (en), Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 21–33.
Koschate, N 2002, Kundenzufriedenheit und Preisverhalten: Theoretische und empirisch

experimentelle Analysen, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag,
Wiesbaden.
Koschate-Fischer, N, Diamantopoulos, A & Oldenkotte, K 2012, ‘Are Consumers Really Willing to

Pay More for a Favorable Country Image? A Study of Country-of-Origin Effects on Willingness to
Pay’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 19–41.
Kotabe, M & Jiang, CX 2009, ‘Contemporary Research Trends in International Marketing: The
2000s’, in AM Rugman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Business (2 ed.), vol. 1,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 447–501.
Kotler, P & Gertner, D 2002, ‘Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand
management perspective’, Brand Management, vol. 9, 4-5, pp. 249–61.
Kotler, P, Haider, D & Rein, I 1993, Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry, and Tourism
to Cities, States, and Nations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Král, P 2015, Country of origin and its impact on marketing, Case study-assignment, 2015,
University of Economics, Prague, viewed 23 January 2017,
<https://www.coursehero.com/file/23168115/Case-study-country-of-origin-students-
assignment/>.
Krupka, Z 2017, ‘Importance of Country-Of-Origin on different product categories purchase decision’,

MINIB, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 35–54.
Kumar, N 2015, ‘Country of Origin and Consumer Preference for Personal Care Brands’,
International Journal of Research in Computer Science and Management, vol. 2, pp. 19–23.
Kumara, PS & Canhua, K 2010, ‘Perceptions of country of origin: An approach to identifying

expectations of foreign products’, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 343–53,
viewed 13 May 2018.
P a g e 163
Lala, V, Allred, AT & Chakraborty, G 2008, ‘A Multidimensional Scale for Measuring Country Image’,
Lampert, SI & Jaffe, ED 1998, ‘A dynamic approach to country‐of‐origin effect’, European Journal of
Marketing, vol. 32, 1/2, pp. 61–78.
Lantz, G & Loeb, S 1996, ‘Country of Origin and Ethnocentrism: an Analysis of Canadian and
American Preferences Using Social Identity Theory by Garold Lantz and Sandra Loeb’,
Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 23, pp. 374–8.
Lapierre, J, Filiatrault, P & Chebat, J-C 1999, ‘Value Strategy Rather Than Quality Strategy’, Journal
of Business Research, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 235–46.
Laroche, M, Papadopoulos, N, Heslop, LA & Mourali, M 2005, ‘The influence of country image
structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products’, International Marketing Review, vol. 22,
no. 1, pp. 96–115.
Laurent, G & Kapferer, J-N 1985, ‘Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles’, Journal of Marketing
Research, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 41.
Leclerc, F, Schmitt, BH & Dubé, L 1994, ‘Foreign Branding and Its Effects on Product Perceptions
and Attitudes’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 263–70.
Lee, JK & Lee, W-N 2009, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects on Consumer Product Evaluation and Purchase
Intention: The Role of Objective Versus Subjective Knowledge’, Journal of International
Lee, W-N, Hong, J-Y & Lee, S-J 2003, ‘Communicating with American consumers in the post 9/11
climate: an empirical investigation of consumer ethnocentrism in the United States’, International
Journal of Advertising, vol. 22, pp. 487–510.
Lee, W-N, Yun, T & Lee, B-K 2005, ‘The Role of Involvement in Country-of-Origin Effects on Product
Evaluation’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 17, 2-3, pp. 51–72.
Levin, IP, Jasper, JD, Mittelstaedt, JD & Gaeth, GJ 1993, ‘Attitudes Toward "Buy America First" and
Preferences for American and Japanese Cars: A Different Role for Country-of-Origin
Information’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 20, pp. 625–9.
Li, W-K & Wyer, RSJ 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.
Li, ZG, Fu, S & Murray, LW 1997, ‘Country and Product Images’, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, vol. 10, 1-2, pp. 115–39.
P a g e 164
Li, ZG, Murray, LW & Scott, D 2000, ‘Global Sourcing, Multiple Country-of-Origin Facets, and
Consumer Reactions’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 47, pp. 121–33.
Liefeld, JP 1993, ‘Experiments on the Country-of-Origin Effects: Review and Meta-Analysis of Effect
Size’, in N Papadopoulos & LA Heslop (eds), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in
International Marketing, International Business Press, New York, pp. 117–56.
——2004, ‘Consumer knowledge and use of country-of-origin information at the point of purchase’,
Journal of Customer Behaviour, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 85–96.
Lim, WM 2020, ‘An equity theory perspective of online group buying’, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, vol. 54, pp. 1–11.
Lim, YG 2021, Pandemic-driven: COVID-19 creates resilient beauty trend and accelerate clean
beauty movement in APAC - DSM, Cosmeticsdesign-asia.com, viewed 1 October 2021,
<https://www.cosmeticsdesign-asia.com/Article/2021/01/11/Pandemic-driven-COVID-19-creates-
resilient-beauty-trend-and-accelerate-clean-beauty-movement-in-APAC-DSM>.
Lin, C-H & Kao, DT 2004, ‘The Impacts of Country-of-Origin on Brand Equity’, Journal of American
Academy of Business, Cambridge, 5 (JanlFeb), pp. 37–40.
Lin, L-Y & 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’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 248–65.
Liu, SS & Johnson, KF 2005, ‘The automatic country-of-origin effects on brand judgements’, Journal
of Advertising, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 87–97.
Lu, IR, Heslop, LA, Thomas, DR & Kwan, E 2016, ‘An examination of the status and evolution of
country image research’, International Marketing Review, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 825–50.
Lynn, Peter, Japec, Lilli, Lyberg & Lars 2006, ‘What's so special about cross-national surveys?’, in
Harkness J. (ed.), Conducting cross-national and cross-cultural surveys : papers from the 2005
meeting of the international workshop on Comparative Survey Design and Implementation
(CSDI), GESIS-ZUMA, Mannheim, pp. 7–20.
Magnusson, P, Haas, SM & Zhao, H 2008, ‘A Branding Strategy for Emerging Market Firms Entering
Developed Markets’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 20, 3-4, pp. 95–107.
Magnusson, P & Westjohn, SA 2011, ‘Chapter 15: Is There a Country-of-Origin Theory?’, in SC Jain
& DA Griffith (eds), Handbook of research in international marketing, 2nd edn, Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK.
P a g e 165
Magnusson, P, Westjohn, SA & Zdravkovic, S 2011a, ‘Further clarification on how perceived brand
origin affects brand attitude’, International Marketing Review, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 497–507.
——2011b, ‘“What? I thought Samsung was Japanese”: accurate or not, perceived country of origin
matters’, International Marketing Review, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 454–72.
Maher, AA & Carter, LL 2011, ‘The affective and cognitive components of country image’,
Maher, AA, Clark, P & Maher, A 2010, ‘International consumer admiration and the persistence of
animosity’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 414–24.
Maheswaran, D 1994, ‘Country of Origin as a Stereotype: Effects on Consumer Expertise and

Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 21, no. 2,
pp. 354–65.
Maheswaran, D, Yi Chen, C & He, J 2013, ‘Nation Equity: Integrating the Multiple Dimensions of
Country of Origin Effects’, in NK Malhotra (ed.), Review of marketing research: Vol. 10 (eng),
Review of Marketing Research, Emerald, Bingley, U.K, pp. 153–89.
Mai, R 2011, ‘Der Herkunftslandeffekt: Eine kritische Würdigung des State of the Art’, Journal für
Betriebswirtschaft, vol. 61, 2-3, pp. 91–121.
Maison, D & Maliszewski, N 2016, ‘"Worse but Ours," or "Better but Theirs?" - The Role of Implicit
Consumer Ethnocentrism (ICE) in Product Preference’ (eng), frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7,
pp. 1–16.
MakanyezaI, C & Du Toit, F 2017, ‘Consumer ethnocentrism in developing countries: Application of

a model in Zimbabwe’, Acta Commercii, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 2–9.
Mandal, PC 2020, ‘Country of Origin and Consumer Perceptions: Strategies and Initiatives’,
International Journal of Business Strategy and Automation, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 73–86.
Markman, AB & Ross, BH 2003, ‘Category use and category learning’, Psychological Bulletin,
vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 592–613.
Martin, IM & Eroglu, S 1993, ‘Measuring a multi-dimensional construct: Country image’, Journal of
Business Research, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 191–210.
Martín, OM & Cerviño, J 2011, ‘Towards an integrative framework of brand country of origin
recognition determinants’, International Marketing Review, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 530–58.
Matherly, T 2019, ‘A panel for lemons? Positivity bias, reputation systems and data quality on
MTurk’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 195–223.
P a g e 166
Matoati, R & Syahlani, SP 2017, ‘The Role of Involvement as a Moderating Variable in a Country of
Origin Study’, Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 19.
McDonald, H & Alpert, F 2001, Using the Juster Scale to predict adoption an innovative product,
Deaking University. Australian & New Zealand Marketing, viewed 6 January 2019,
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239922472_Using_the_juster_scale_to_predict_adop
tion_of_an_innovative_product>.
Mcgrath, J 2020, ‘Germany Retains Top “Nation Brand” Ranking, the UK and Canada Round Out
the Top Three’, www.ipsos.com, 27 October, viewed 19 April 2021, <https://www.ipsos.com/en-
ca/news-polls/Germany-Retains-Top-Nation-Brand-Ranking-the-United-Kingdom-emerges-
ahead-of-Canada-to-Round-Out-the-Top-Three-US-and-China-Experience-Significant-Decline>.
McLain, S & Sternquist, B 1992, ‘Ethnocentric Consumers: Do they "Buy American"?’, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, vol. 4, 1-2, pp. 39–58.
Mechanical Turk Surveys 2020, Demographics of MTurk participants, viewed 31 March 2020,
<https://demographics.mturk-tracker.com/#/yearOfBirth/us>.
Mendoza, J 2020, ‘Beauty and personal care in Colombia – statistics & facts’, Statista, 2 October,
viewed 17 December 2020, <https://www.statista.com/topics/7453/beauty-and-personal-care-in-
colombia/#dossierSummary>.
Michaelidou, N & Dibb, S 2008, ‘Consumer involvement: A new perspective’, The Marketing Review,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 83–99.
Miller, KM, Hofstetter, R, Krohmer, H & ZHANG, ZJ 2011, ‘How Should Consumers’ Willingness to
Pay Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches’, Journal of
Marketing Research, XLVIII, pp. 172–84.
Mittal, B 1995, ‘A comparative analysis of four scales of consumer involvement’, Psychology and
Mittal, B & Lee, M-S 1989, ‘A causal model of consumer involvement’, Journal of Economic
Psychology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 363–89.
Mockaitis, AI, Salciuviene, L & Ghauri, PN 2013, ‘On What Do Consumer Product Preferences
Depend? Determining Domestic versus Foreign Product Preferences in an Emerging Economy
Market’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 166–80.
Monroe, KB 2003, Pricing: Making profitable decisions / Kent B. Monroe, 3rd edn, McGraw-
Hill/Irwin, Boston, <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/mh031/2002141429.html>.
P a g e 167
Montgomery, DC 2001, Design and analysis of experiments (eng), 5th edn, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ,
<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/wiley034/99057472.html>.
Moon, B-J 2004, ‘Effects of Consumer Ethnocentrism and Product Knowledge on Consumers
Utilization of Country-Of-Origin Information’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 31, pp. 667–
73.
Morgan, G 2006, Images of organization, Sage, London,

<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0659/2006002939-d.html>.
Morgan, N 2004, Destination Branding: Creating the unique destination proposition, 2nd edn,
Elsevier Science & Technology, Oxford.
Motsi, T 2016, ‘The Influence of National Stereotypes on Country Image and Product Country
Image: A Social Identity and Consumer Culture Theory Approach’, Cleveland State University.
Mueller, RD, Wang, GX, Liu, G & Cui, CC 2016, ‘Consumer xenocentrism in China: An exploratory
study’, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 73–91.
Nagashima, A 1970, ‘A Comparison of Japanese and U. S. Attitudes toward Foreign Products’,

Journal of Marketing, vol. 34, no. 1, p. 68.
Narayana, CL 1981, ‘Aggregate Images of American and Japanese products: Implications on

International Marketing’, Columbia Journal of World Business, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 31–5.
Nation Brands 2018 2018, Brand Finance, viewed 14 February 2019,

<https://brandfinance.com/images/upload/brand_finance_nation_brands_reports_2018.pdf>.
Nebenzahl, ID & Jaffe, ED 1993, ‘Estimating Demand Functions from the Country-of-Origin Effect’,
in N Papadopoulos & LA Heslop (eds), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in
International Marketing, International Business Press, New York, pp. 159–78.
——1996, ‘Measuring the joint effect of brand and country image in consumer evaluation of global
products’, International Marketing Review, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 5–22.
Nebenzahl, ID, Jaffe, ED & Lampert, SI 1997, ‘Towards a Theory of Country Image Effect on
Product Evaluation’, Management International Review, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 27–49.
Nebenzahl, ID, Jaffe, ED & Usunier, J-C 2003, ‘Personifying Country of Origin Research’,
Management International Review,, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 383–406.
Neuman, WL 2014, Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (eng),
Pearson, Harlow, Essex.
P a g e 168
Ngoc, CT 2013, ‘Understanding the Relationship between Country of Origin Image and Brand
Equity-Case of Cosmetic Brands in Ho Chi Minh City’, International University, Vietnam National
University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, viewed 2 December 2017,
<http://www.ipedr.com/vol78/003-ICSEP2014-S00011.pdf>.
Nielsen 2015, Hispanic Consumers Are the “Foundation” for Beauty Category Sales, 15 November,
viewed 15 November 2020, <https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2015/hispanic-
consumers-are-the-foundation-for-beauty-category-sales/>.
——2016, Global Connected Commerce: Is E-Tail Therapy the New Retail Therapy?, viewed 11
June 2017, <https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/jp/docs/report/2016/Nielsen-
Global-Connected-Commerce-Report-January-2016>.
——2017, 6 de cada 10 colombianos están dispuestos a pagar más por productos premium con
altos estándares de calidad: FMCG & Retail, viewed 26 March 2019,
<https://www.nielsen.com/co/es/insights/news/2017/6-de-cada-10-colombianos-estan-
dispuestos-a-pagar-mas-por-productos-premium-con-altos-estandares-de-calidad.print.html>.
Niffenegger, P, White, J & Marmet, G 1980, ‘How British Retail Manager View French and American
Products’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 493–8.
Nunnally, JC & Bernstein, IH 1994, Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill series in psychology, 3rd edn,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
O’Shaughnessy, J & O’Shaughnessy, NJ 2000, ‘Treating the Nation as a Brand: Some Neglected
Issues’, Journal of Macromarketing,, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 56–64.
Oberecker, EM & Diamantopoulos, A 2011, ‘Consumers’ Emotional Bonds with Foreign Countries:
Does Consumer Affinity Affect Behavioral Intentions?’, Journal of International Marketing,
vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 45–72.
Oberecker, EM, Riefler Petra, Adamantios & Diamantopoulos 2008, ‘The Consumer Affinity
Construct: Conceptualization, Qualitative Investigation, and Research Agenda’, Journal of
Obermiller, C & Spangenberg, E 1989, ‘Exploring the Effects of Country of Origin Labels: an
Information Processing Framework by Carl Obermiller and Eric Spangenberg’, Advances in
Consumer Research, vol. 6, pp. 454–9.
OECD 2021, Minimum relative to average wages of full-time workers, 24 January, viewed 24
January 2021, <https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MIN2AVE>.
Oh, H 2000, ‘The Effect of Brand Class, Brand Awareness, and Price on Customer Value and
Behavioral Intentions’, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 136–62.
P a g e 169
Ohmae, K 1989, ‘The Global Logic of Strategic Alliances’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 67,
pp. 143–54.
Okechuku, C 1994, ‘The Importance of Product Country of Origin: A Conjoint Analysis of the United
States, Canada, Germany and The Netherlands’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 28, no. 4,
pp. 5–19.
Olsen, JE, Granzin, KL & Biswas, A 1993, ‘Influencing Consumers' Selection of Domestic Versus
Imported Products: Implications for Marketing Based on a Model of Helping Behavior’, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 307–21.
Ortega‐Egea, JM & García‐de‐Frutos, N 2021, ‘Mapping the influence of country‐of‐origin

knowledge, consumer ethnocentrism, and perceived risk on consumer action against foreign
products’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1164–78.
Osborne, JW & Overbay, A 2004, ‘The power of outliers (and why researchers should ALWAYS
check for them)’, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1–8.
Oumlil, AB, L Koza, K & Montague, R 2014, ‘Consumers’ Demographic Differences and the Country-
of-Origin Effects on Evaluations of Product Categories: An International Study’, International
Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 48–51.
Ozretic-Dosen, D, Skare, V & Krupka, Z 2007, ‘Assessments of country of origin and brand cues in
evaluating a Croatian, western and eastern European food product’, Journal of Business
Özsomer, A 2012, ‘The Interplay Between Global and Local Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived
Brand Globalness and Local Iconness’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 72–
95.
Özsomer, A & Cavusgil, ST 1991, ‘Country-of-Origin effects on product evaluations: A sequel to

Bilkey and Nes review’, in AMA Educators' Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development in
Marketing, pp. 269–77.
Pachur, T, Todd, PM, Gigerenzer, G, Schooler, LJ & Goldstein, DG 2011, ‘The recognition heuristic:
A review of theory and tests’ (eng), frontiers in Psychology, vol. 2, p. 147.
Papadopoulos, N 1993, ‘What product and country images are and are not’, in N Papadopoulos &
LA Heslop (eds), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing,
International Business Press, New York.
Papadopoulos, N & Heslop, L 2002, ‘Country equity and country branding: Problems and prospects’,
Brand Management, vol. 9, 4-5, pp. 294–314.
P a g e 170
Papadopoulos, N, Heslop, LA & Bamossy, G 1990, ‘A comparative image analysis of domestic
versus imported products’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 283–
94.
Papadopoulos, NG 1987, Does "country-of-origin" matter?: Some findings from a cross-cultural

study of consumer views about foreign products, Report / Marketing Science Institute, no. 87-
104, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge Mass.
Papadopoulos, NG & Heslop, LA 2003, ‘Country Equity and Product Country Images: State-of-the-
Art in Research and Implications’, in SC Jain (ed.), Handbook of research in international
marketing, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northhampton, pp. 402–33.
Pappu, R, Quester, PG & Cooksey, RW 2006, ‘Consumer‐based brand equity and country‐of‐origin
relationships’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 40, 5/6, pp. 696–717.
——2007, ‘Country image and consumer-based brand equity: Relationships and implications for
international marketing’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 726–45.
Parente-Laverde, AM 2014, ‘Country of origin effect: The case of Colombian automobile consumers’,
Revista Ciencias Estratégicas, vol. 22, no. 32, pp. 221–35.
Parvin, N & Chowdhury, MHK 2006, ‘Consumer Evaluations Of Beautification Products: Effects Of
Extrinsic Cues’, Asian Academy of Management Journal, vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 89–104.
Paswan, AK & Sharma, D 2004, ‘Brand-country of origin (COO) knowledge and COO image:
investigation in an emerging franchise market’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 13,
no. 3, pp. 144–55.
Patterson, P & Tai, S-K 1991, ‘Country of origin effects in the Australian apparel industry: An
exploratory study’, Marketing Bulletin, no. 2, pp. 31–40.
Patton, MQ 2009, Qualitative research & evaluation methods (eng), 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
Calif.
Pecotich, A & Rosenthal, MJ 2001, ‘Country of Origin, Quality, Brand and Consumer Ethnocentrism’,
Journal of Global Marketing, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 31–60.
Pentz, CD, Terblanche, NS & Boshoff, C 2014, ‘Demographics and consumer ethnocentrism in a
developing country context: A South African study’, South African Journal of Economic and
Management Sciences, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 412–26.
Peris, SM, Newman, K, Bigne, E & Chansarkar, B 1993, ‘Aspects of Anglo-Spanish Perceptions and
Product Preferences Arising From ‘Country of Origin’ Image’, International Journal of
Advertising, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 131–42.
P a g e 171
Perry, C 1998, ‘A Structured Approach for Presenting Theses’, Australasian Marketing Journal
(AMJ), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 63–85.
Perry, C, Riege, A & Brown, L 1999, ‘Realism's role among scientific paradigms in marketing
research’, Irish Marketing Review, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 16–23.
Peterson, RA & Jolibert, AJP 1995, ‘A Meta-Analysis Of Country-Of-Origin Effects’, Journal of

Petruzzellis L., WR (ed.) 2016, Rediscovering the Essentiality of Marketing (eng), Developments in
Marketing Science, Proceedings of the 2015 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) world
marketing congress, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Pharr, JM 2005, ‘Synthesizing Country-of-Origin Research from the Last Decade:: Is the Concept
Still Salient in an Era of Global Brands?’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 13, no.
4, pp. 34–45.
Phau, I & Chao, P 2008, ‘Country-of-origin: state of the art review for international marketing strategy
and practice’ (en), International Marketing Review, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 349–53.
Phau, I & Prendergast, G 2000, ‘Conceptualizing the country of origin of brand’, Journal of Marketing
Communications, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 159–70.
Pilelienė, L & Šontaitė-Petkevičienė, M 2014, ‘The effect of country-of-origin on beauty products

choice in Lithuania’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 156, pp. 458–62.
Piron, F 2000, ‘Consumers’ perceptions of the country‐of‐origin effect on purchasing intentions of

(in)conspicuous products’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 308–21.
Pisharodi, RM & Parameswaran, R 1992, ‘Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Country-Of-Origin

Scale: Initial Results’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 19, pp. 706–14, viewed 25 April
2017, <http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7377>.
Prendergast, G, Tsang, AS & Chan, CN 2010, ‘The interactive influence of country of origin of brand
and product involvement on purchase intention’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 27, no. 2,
pp. 180–8.
Primi, A 2018, The future of manufacturing and development: three things to remember, OECD,
viewed 16 August 2018, <https://oecd-development-matters.org/2018/06/18/the-future-of-
manufacturing-and-development-three-things-to-remember/>.
Prince, M 2020, ‘Domestic Product Involvement and Consumer Willingness to Buy Domestic
Products: Empirical Testing of a Cognitive Consistency Theory Framework’, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 453–61.
P a g e 172
Ramsaran, RR 2015, ‘The Country-of-Origin Effect on Perceptions of Imported and Domestic
Products in a Developing Country’, International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, vol. 6,
14-24.
Rašković, M, Ding, Z, Škare, V, Ozretić Došen, Đ & Žabkar, V 2016, ‘Comparing consumer
innovativeness and ethnocentrism of young-adult consumers’, Journal of Business Research,
vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 3682–6.
Rattray, J & Jones, MC 2007, ‘Essential elements of questionnaire design and development’ (eng),
Journal of clinical nursing, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 234–43.
Rawwas, MYA & Rajendran, KN 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.
Rebufet, M, Loussaief, L & Bacouël-Jentjens, S 2015, Does the Country of Origin Matter for
Cosmetics? The “Made in France” Argument (eng), International Marketing and Management
Research, Palgrave Macmillan US, New York.
Reichert, MJ & Altobelli, CF 2016, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects in Industrial Goods Markets. Do

Country-of-Origin Image Effects Differ for Different Buying Center Members?’, Journal of
Business Marketing Management, vol. 2, pp. 623–49.
Reips, U-D 2000, ‘Chapter 4 - The Web Experiment Method: Advantages, Disadvantages, and
Solutions’, in MH Birnbaum (ed.), Psychological Experiments on the Internet, pp. 89–117.
Rello, L, Pielot, M & Marcos, M-C 2016, ‘Make It Big!: The Effect of Font Size and Line Spacing on
Online Readability’, in J Kaye, A Druin, C Lampe, D Morris & JP Hourcade (eds), CHI 2016:
Proceedings, the 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San
Jose Convention Center : San Jose, CA, USA, May 7-12, Santa Clara, California, USA,
Association for Computing Machinery, publisher, The Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, New York, pp. 3637–48.
Roberts, R 2021, Beauty Industry Trends & Cosmetics Ecommerce Statistics 2021-2020, Common
Thread Collective, viewed 27 September 2021, <https://commonthreadco.com/blogs/coachs-
corner/beauty-industry-cosmetics-marketing-ecommerce>.
Rosenstreich, D & Wooliscroft, B 2006, ‘How international are the top academic journals? The case
of marketing’, European Business Review, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 422–36.
Roth, KP & Diamantopoulos, A 2009, ‘Advancing the country image construct’, Journal of Business
P a g e 173
Roth, MS & Romeo, JB 1992, ‘Matching Product Catgeory and Country Image Perceptions: A
Framework for Managing Country-of-Origin Effects’, Journal of International Business Studies,
vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 477–97.
Saffu, K & Scott, D 2009, ‘Developing country perceptions of high- and low-involvement products
manufactured in other countries’, International Journal of Emerging Markets, vol. 4, no. 2,
pp. 185–99.
Samiee, S 1994, ‘Customer Evaluation of Products in a Global Market’, Journal of International

Business Studies, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 579–604.
——2010, ‘Advancing the country image construct — A commentary essay’, Journal of Business
——2011, ‘Resolving the impasse regarding research on the origins of products and brands’,
Samiee, S & Leonidou, LC 2011, ‘Chapter 4: Relevance and Rigor in International Marketing
Research: Developments in Product and Brand Origin Line of Inquiry’, in SC Jain & DA Griffith
(eds), Handbook of research in international marketing, 2nd edn, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd,
Cheltenham, UK.
Samiee, S, Leonidou, LC, Aykol, B, Stöttinger, B & Christodoulides, P 2016, ‘Fifty Years of Empirical
Research on Country-of-Origin Effects on Consumer Behavior: A Meta-Analysis’, in WR
Petruzzellis L. (ed.), Rediscovering the Essentiality of Marketing (eng), Developments in
Marketing Science, Proceedings of the 2015 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) world
marketing congress, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Samiee, S, Shimp, TA & Sharma, S 2005, ‘Brand Origin Recognition Accuracy: Its Antecedents and
Consumers' Cognitive Limitations’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 36, no. 4,
pp. 379–97.
Sanquintin, R 2018, Marketing to Hispanics: Buying Power in the Beauty and Fashion Industries |
HispanicAd.com, Florida State University, viewed 30 December 2020,
<https://hispanicad.com/agency/marketing/marketing-hispanics-buying-power-beauty-and-
fashion-industries>.
Saunders, MNK, Lewis, P & Thornhill, A 2019, Research methods for business students, Pearson,
New York.
Schaefer, A 1997, ‘Do demographics have an impact on country of origin effects?’, Journal of
Marketing Management, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 813–34.
P a g e 174
Schmidt, WC 1997, ‘World-Wide Web survey research: Benefits, potential problems, and solutions’,
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 274–9.
Schooler, RD 1965, ‘Product Bias in the Central American Common Market’, Journal of Marketing
Semaan, RW, Gould, S, Chao, MC & Grein, AF 2019, ‘“We don’t all see it the same way”’, European
Journal of Marketing, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 989–1014.
Shadish, WR, Cook, TD & Campbell, DT 2002, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for
Generalized Causal Inference, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston - NEW YORK.
Shankarmahesh, MN 2006, ‘Consumer ethnocentrism: An integrative review of its antecedents and

consequences’, International Marketing Review, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 146–72.
Sharma, D 2008, ‘Dogmatism And Online Consumption: Examining The Moderating Role Of Trust
And Value Of Exchange Outcome’, The Marketing Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 63–
76.
Sharma, P 2011, ‘Country of origin effects in developed and emerging markets: Exploring the
contrasting roles of materialism and value consciousness’, Journal of International Business
Studies, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 285–306.
Sharma, P & Wu, Z 2015, ‘Consumer ethnocentrism vs. intercultural competence as moderators in
intercultural service encounters’, Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 93–102.
Sharma, S, Shimp, TA & Shin, J 1995, ‘Consumer ethnocentrism: A test of antecedents and
moderators’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 26–37.
Shenge, NA 2010, ‘Impact of Country-of-Origin and Price on Product’s Advertisement Efficacy’,

Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 193–201.
Shiffrin, RM & Schneider, W 1977, ‘Controlled and automatic human information processing: II.
Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory’, Psychological Review, vol. 84,
no. 2, pp. 127–90.
Shimp, TA, Samiee, S & Sharma, S 2001, ‘The Country-Of-Origin Effect and Brand Origin
Knowledge: How Little Consumers Know and How Important Knowledge Is by Terence A.
Shimp, Saeed Samiee, and Subhash Sharma’, European Advances in Consumer Research,
vol. 5, pp. 325–6.
Shimp, TA & Sharma, S 1987, ‘Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the
CETSCALE’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 280–9.
P a g e 175
Siamagka, N-T & Balabanis, G 2015, ‘Revisiting Consumer Ethnocentrism: Review,
Reconceptualization, and Empirical Testing’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 23, no. 3,
pp. 66–86.
Smaiziene, I & Vaitkiene, R 2013, ‘Country of Origin Effect in a Lithuanian Market of Vitamins and
Dietary Supplements’, International Business Research, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 118–33.
Smith, SM, Roster, CA, Golden, LL & Albaum, GS 2016, ‘A multi-group analysis of online survey
respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel to MTurk samples’, Journal
of Business Research, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 3139–48.
Solomon, M, Bamossy, G, Askegaard, S & Hogg, MK 2006, Consumer Behaviour: A European

Perspective, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, England.
Srinivasan, N, Jain, SC & Sikand, K 2004, ‘An experimental study of two dimensions of country-of-
origin (manufacturing country and branding country) using intrinsic and extrinsic cues’,
International Business Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 65–82.
Statista 2019, Topic: Home Appliance Industry, viewed 23 May 2019,

<https://www.statista.com/topics/1068/home-appliances/>.
——2021, Colombia - average age of the population 1950-2050 | Statista, 24 January, viewed 24
January 2021, <https://www.statista.com/statistics/368964/average-age-of-the-population-in-
colombia/>.
Steenkamp, J-BEM, Hofstede, Ft & Wedel, M 1999, ‘A Cross-National Investigation into the
Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness’, Journal of Marketing,
vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 55–69.
Stoenescu, R-D 2014, ‘Country-of-Origin and its Influence on Consumers’ Buying Intention – A
Conceptual Study’, International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, vol. 4, no. 5,
pp. 824–8.
Strizhakova, Y & Coulter, RA 2015, ‘Drivers of Local Relative to Global Brand Purchases: A
Contingency Approach’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–22.
Strutton, D, True, SL & Rody, RC 1995, ‘Russian Consumer Perceptions of Foreign and Domestic
Consumer Goods: An Analysis of Country-of-Origin Stereotypes with Implications for Promotions
and Positioning’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 76–87.
Szybillo, GJ & Jacoby, J 1974, ‘Intrinsic versus extrinsic cues as determinants of perceived product
quality’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 74–8.
P a g e 176
Tabachnick, BG & Fidell, LS 2010, Using multivariate statistics (eng), 5th edn, Pearson/Allyn and
Bacon, Boston, Mass.
Tabassi, S, Esmaeilzadeh, P & Sambasivan, M 2013, ‘The influence of product involvement and
country of origin on purchase intention: A study in Malaysia toward European brands’,
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management, vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 269–77.
Tamas, A 2015, ‘The fractal nature of the country of origin effect - exploring 50 years of COO
research’, European Scientific Journal, vol. 11, no. 28, pp. 388–422.
Tan, CT & Farley, JU 1987, ‘The Impact of Cultural Patterns on Cognition and Intention in
Singapore’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 540.
Teas, RK & Agarwal, S 2000, ‘The Effects of Extrinsic Product Cues on Consumers' Perceptions of
Quality, Sacrifice, and Value’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 28, no. 2,
pp. 278–90.
Thakor, MV & Lavack, AM 2003, ‘Effect of perceived brand origin associations on consumer
perceptions of quality’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 394–407.
Tjandra, NC, Omar, M & Ensor, J 2015, ‘Advanced and emerging economies Generation Y's
perception towards country-of-origin’, International Journal of Emerging Markets, vol. 10, no. 4,
pp. 858–74.
Tjiptono, F, Arli, D & Rosari, TSDR 2015, ‘Assessing Brand Origin Recognition Accuracy and its
Antecedents in a Developing Country’, Journal of Promotion Management, vol. 21, no. 6,
pp. 631–48.
Toni, D de, Milan, GS, Saciloto, EB & Larentis, F 2017, ‘Pricing strategies and levels and their
impact on corporate profitability’, Revista de Administração, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 120–33.
Tore, K, Gabrielsen, G & Jaffe, ED 2014, ‘Is familiarity a moderator of brand/country alliances in
consumer choice?’, Transnational Marketing Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 61–77.
TradingEconomics.com 2020, United States Imports1950-2020 Data, 29 December,

<https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports>.
Treasury.gov.au 2005, Why have Australia's imports of good increased so much?, 1 January,
Australian Government / The Treasury, viewed 1 March 2021,
<https://treasury.gov.au/publication/economic-roundup-summer-2004-05/why-have-australias-
imports-of-good-increased-so-much>.
P a g e 177
Tsai, WS, Yoo, JJ & Lee, W-N 2013, ‘For Love of Country? Consumer Ethnocentrism in China,
South Korea, and the United States’, Journal of Global Marketing, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 98–114.
Tse, DK & Gorn, GJ 1993, ‘An Experiment on the Salience of Country-of-Origin in the Era of Global
Brands’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 57–76.
Tse, DK & Lee, W-N 1993, ‘Removing Negative Country Images: Effects of Decomposition,
Branding, and Product Experience’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 25–48.
Tsoukas, H & Knudsen, C 2003, The Oxford handbook of organization theory, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
United Nations Development Programme 2019, 2019 Human Development Index Ranking | Human
Development Reports, 13 November, viewed 13 November 2020,
<http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/2019-human-development-index-ranking>.
United States Census Bureau 2021, Population Estimates Show Aging Across Race Groups Differs,
24 January, https://census.gov, viewed 24 January 2021,
<https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/demo/age-and-sex/2019-age-sex-composition.html>.
Usunier, J-C 1994, ‘Social status and country‐of‐origin preferences’, Journal of Marketing
Management, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 765–82.
Usunier, J-C 2002, ‘Le pays d'origine du bien influence-t-il encore les évaluations des
consommateurs?’, Revue Française du Marketing, 189/190, 4-5, pp. 49–65.
——2006, ‘Relevance in business research: the case of country-of-origin research in marketing’,

European Management Review, vol. 3, pp. 60–73.
Usunier, J-C 2011, ‘The shift from manufacturing to brand origin: Suggestions for improving COO
relevance’, International Marketing Review, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 486–96.
Usunier, J-C & Cestre, G 2007, ‘Product Ethnicity: Revisiting the Match between Products and
Countries’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 32–72.
——2008, ‘Further considerations on the relevance of country-of-origin research’, European

Management Review, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 271–4.
Varadarajan, PR 1996, ‘From the Editor: Reflections on Research and Publishing’, Journal of
Vaske, JJ 2019, Survey Research and Analysis, 2nd edn, viewed 23 September 2020,
<https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED605453>.
P a g e 178
Veale, R & Quester, P 2009, ‘Do consumer expectations match experience? Predicting the influence
of price and country of origin on perceptions of product quality’, International Business Review,
vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 134–44.
Verlegh, PW 2001, ‘Country-Of-Origin Effects On Consumer Product Evaluations’, PhD,

Wageningen University, Wagingen, Netherlands, viewed 19 March 2017,
<http://edepot.wur.nl/139407>.
Verlegh, PW & Steenkamp, J-BE 1999, ‘A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research’,
Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 521–46.
Verlegh, PW, Steenkamp, J-BE & Meulenberg, MT 2005, ‘Country-of-origin effects in consumer
processing of advertising claims’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 127–39.
Verlegh, PWJ 2007, ‘Home country bias in product evaluation: the complementary roles of economic
and socio-psychological motives’ (En;en), Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 38, no.
3, pp. 361–73.
Vianelli, D & Marzano, FC 2012, ‘L'effetto country of origin sull'intenzione d'acquisto del
consumatore: una literature review’, Working Paper Series, N. 2, 2012, EUT Edizioni, Università
degli Studi di Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Wall, M & Heslop, LA 1986, ‘Consumer Attitudes Toward Canadian-Made Versus Imported
Products’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 27–36.
Wall, M, Liefeld, J & Heslop, LA 1991, ‘Impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer judgments in
multi-cue situations: a covariance analysis’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 105–13.
Wang, T, Zhou, L, Mou, Y & Zhao, J 2014, ‘Study of country-of-origin image from legitimacy theory
perspective: Evidence from the USA and India’, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 43, no. 5,
pp. 769–76.
Watson, JJ & Wright, K 2000, ‘Consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes toward domestic and foreign
products’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 34, 9/10, pp. 1149–66.
Weisman, S & Conelly, M 2007, ‘Americans Are Open to Chinese Goods, Poll Finds’, The New York
Times, 2007, viewed 12 April 2017,
<https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/business/22bizpoll.html>.
Wel, CAC, Alam, SS & Omar, NA 2015, ‘The Effect of Ethnocentrism and Patriotism on Consumer
Buying Intention’, Paris, viewed 28 March 2017, <http://icehm.org/upload/5905ED1115037.pdf>.
P a g e 179
Witkowski, TH 1998, ‘Consumer Ethnocentrism in Two Emerging Markets: Determinants and
Predictive Validity by Terrence H. Witkowski’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 25,
pp. 258–63, <http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8166>.
Wolter, JS, Brach, S, Cronin, JJ & Bonn, M 2016, ‘Symbolic drivers of consumer–brand identification
and disidentification’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 785–93.
Wonder 2017, Please research the beauty market value (U.S.) of Latina/Hispanic women. What do
they spend, and what brands target them? | Wonder, 30 December, viewed 30 December 2020,
<https://askwonder.com/research/please-research-beauty-market-value-u-s-latina-hispanic-
women-spend-brands-pbj8msgbr>.
——2018, What is the market size and growth rate of the global cosmetics market; and how is that
broken up between men's cosmetics and women's cosmetics? | Wonder, viewed 9 March 2021,
<https://askwonder.com/research/market-size-growth-rate-global-cosmetics-market-broken-men-
s-cosmetics-women-s-i3o2s6fde>.
World's Top Exports 2020, Beauty Cosmetics and Skincare Exports by Country, 19 November,
viewed 10 April 2021, <https://www.worldstopexports.com/beauty-cosmetics-and-skincare-
exports-by-country/>.
Worstall, T 2016, ‘Americans Don't Want American Goods, They Prefer Imports’, Forbes, 30 March,
viewed 10 September 2020, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/03/30/americans-
dont-want-american-goods-they-prefer-imports/>.
Xie, Y, Batra, R & Peng, S 2015, ‘An Extended Model of Preference Formation between Global and
Local Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust, and Affect’, Journal of International
Yang, R, Ramsaran, RR & Wibowo, S 2016, ‘A conceptual model for country-of-origin effects’, Asia
Pacific Journal of Advanced Business and Social Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 96–116.
Yang, S 2019, The way of the barbarians: Redrawing ethnic boundaries in Tang and Song China,
University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Yasin, NM, Noor, MN & Mohamad, O 2007, ‘Does image of country‐of‐origin matter to brand
equity?’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 38–48.
Yen, Y-S 2018, ‘Extending consumer ethnocentrism theory: the moderating effect test’, Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 907–26.
Yohan, B & Zarrouk-Karoui, S 2014, ‘Reinforcing Willingness to Buy and to Pay Due to Consumer
Affinity towards a Foreign Country’, International Management Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 57–67.
P a g e 180
Yoo, B & Donthu, N 2001, ‘Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand
equity scale’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–14.
Young, S & Kim, S 2019, ‘Understanding ad avoidance on Facebook: Antecedents and outcomes of
psychological reactance’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 98, pp. 232–44.
Yuen, M & Hester, SB (eds) 1987, The Influence of Country of Origin on Consumer Attitude and
Buying Behavior in the United States and Canada by Susan B. Hester and Mary Yuen, vol. 14,
Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, Utah, USA, Association for Consumer Research,
viewed 19 July 2017, <http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6760/volumes/v14/NA-14>.
Yunus, NSNM & Rashid, WEW 2016, ‘The Influence of Country-of-origin on Consumer Purchase
Intention: The Mobile Phones Brand from China’, Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 37,
pp. 343–9.
Zafer Erdogan, B & Uzkurt, C 2010, ‘Effects of ethnocentric tendency on consumers' perception of
product attitudes for foreign and domestic products’, Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 393–406.
Zaichkowsky, JL 1985, ‘Measuring the Involvement Construct’, Journal of Consumer Research,

vol. 12, no. 3, p. 341.
Zain, OM & Yasin, NM 1997, ‘The importance of country‐of‐origin information and perceived product
quality in Uzbekistan’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, vol. 25, no. 4,
pp. 138–45.
Zalega, T 2014, ‘Consumer and Consumer Behaviour in the Neoclassical and Behavioural Economic
Approach’, KONSUMPCJA I ROZWÓJ, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 64–79.
Zbib, I, Ghaddar, R, Samarji, A & Wahbi, M 2021, ‘Examining Country of Origin Effect among
Lebanese Consumers: A Study in the Cosmetics Industry’, Journal of International Consumer
Zeithaml, VA 1988, ‘Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and
Synthesis of Evidence’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 52, pp. 2–22, viewed 28 December 2017.
Zeugner-Roth, KP 2017, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects’, in H van Herk & CJ Torelli (eds), Cross Cultural
Issues in Consumer Science and Consumer Psychology: Current Perspectives and Future
Directions, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 111–28.
Zeugner-Roth, KP & Diamantopoulos, A 2010, ‘Advancing the country image construct: Reply to
Samiee's (2009) commentary’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 446–9.
P a g e 181
Zeugner-Roth, KP, Žabkar, V & Diamantopoulos, A 2015, ‘Consumer Ethnocentrism, National
Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism as Drivers of Consumer Behavior: A Social Identity
Theory Perspective’, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 25–54.
Zhang, Y 1996, ‘Chinese consumers’ evaluation of foreign products: The influence of culture,
product types and product presentation format’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 30, no. 12,
pp. 50–68.
Zhi, Y, Di Bao & Luo, C 2017, ‘Economic Value of Country Image: Evidence from International Trade
and Implications for China’, China & World Economy, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 87–111.
Zhou, L, Yang, Z & Hui, MK 2010, ‘Non-local or local brands?: A multi-level investigation into
confidence in brand origin identification and its strategic implications’, Journal of the Academy of
Zikmund, WG 2003, Business research methods, 7th edn, Thomson/South-Western, Mason OH.
Zion, MR 2018, Global Cosmetic Products Market Will Reach USD 863 Billion by 2024: Zion Market
Research, Zion Market Research, viewed 13 February 2019, <https://globenewswire.com/news-
release/2018/06/22/1528369/0/en/Global-Cosmetic-Products-Market-Will-Reach-USD-863-
Billion-by-2024-Zion-Market-Research.html>.
P a g e 182
Appendix A: Questionnaires
The English USA questionnaire was translated into Spanish for the Colombian participants
and back-translated into English for consistency purposes. In Study Three, Colombia was used in
questions 21-34 instead of USA, Colombian instead of American in questions 35-38 and Colombian
specifics were used for questions 39 (Income) and 42 (Education). Monetary values were stated in
US$ and Col$.
Screener questions
1. Nationality. What is your current primary nationality?

Japanese  terminate
Chinese  terminate
Indian  terminate
Indonesian  terminate
US citizen 
Mexican  terminate
Brasilian  terminate
Peruvian  terminate
Other  terminate
2. Age. What year were you born? Enter actual year _______ terminate if > 2001
3. Cosmetic consumption (only for Study Two and Three). Do you purchase any of the
following products regularly?
➢ Lip-care (lipstick, lipliner, lipgloss, etc…) 
➢ Eyecare (eye liner, mascara, etc…) 
➢ Concealers, foundations, powder and/or cheek color 
➢ Moisturizer and/or sunscreen 
➢ Facial anti-aging cream  if not, terminate
➢ None of them  terminate
4. Current anti-aging cream (only for Study Two and Three). What kind of anti-aging
cream do you currently use?
➢ Manufacturer: _______________ or I don´t know anymore 
➢ Brand name: _______________ or I don´t know anymore 
➢ Approx. price paid: US$ or I don´t know anymore  terminate
Participants who have been screened out will get a thank you message such as: We are sorry. You
do not meet the qualifications for this survey. We sincerely thank you and appreciate your time,
dedication, and continued participation in our online surveys.
All other participants will be informed, that they have qualified to take part in this survey.
Information Screen
You are invited to complete a short questionnaire which will take approximately 20
minutes to complete. The questionnaire will collect information about your current skin-care
purchases and your perceptions around new and improved anti-aging creams. Participation
is voluntary and you can stop the survey at any time. Please note that once the survey is
complete, the research team will be unable to remove your data as the survey is
P a g e 183
anonymous. Consent to participate will be implied by the completion of the survey. Consent
is for the use of non-identifiable information and data in this and future related research. All
responses are totally confidential and all information will be stored securely on a password
protected computer.
If you have any complaints about the way this research project is being conducted,
you can raise them with the Chief Researcher CBurlefinger@usc.edu.au or, if you prefer an
independent person, contact the Chairperson of the Human Research Ethics Committee at
the University of the Sunshine Coast: (c/ - the Research Ethics Officer, Teaching and
Research Services, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC 4558; telephone (07)
5459 4574; humanethics@usc.edu.au). The ethics approval number is HREC: S181271.
Main body of questionnaire
Consumer involvement (Mittal 1995)
5. In deciding which anti-aging cream to buy, there is:

Little to lose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot to lose
6. Making one’s selection of anti-aging cream is:

A very unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A very important decision
7. The decision about which anti-aging cream to buy requires:

A little thought 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot of thought
Following, you will be shown the information related to a new cutting-edge anti-aging cream for your
evaluation. Please take as much time as you usually spend to evaluate a product before purchasing
it.
P a g e 184
P a g e 185
Note: Only in the aided experimental groups, it was pointed out explicitly that this product is ‘Made in
…’ country.
Brand attitude (Magnusson, Westjohn & Zdravkovic 2011b)
8. Please rate your overall attitude toward this brand on a scale from 1 to 7 (anchored by
“dislike very much” to “like very much.”)
I dislike it very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I like it very much
P a g e 186
Product quality perceptions (Dodds, Monroe & Grewal 1991; Oh 2000)
9. The expected Product Effectiveness, i.e. its ability to deliver on its promises, is
Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent
Extremely unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely favorable
10. The overall expected product quality is

Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent
Extremely unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely favorable
Willingness to pay assessment (Kloss & Kunter 2016)
11. Above what price would the product become too expensive so that you would
definitively not consider buying it? (Too expensive)
12. Below what price would the product become so inexpensive that you would doubt its
quality and not consider buying it?
13. At what price would you begin to think the product is getting slightly expensive, but
that price would still not deter you from buying it?
Juster scale (McDonald & Alpert 2001)
14. How likely are you to pay the price stated as ‘slightly expensive’ before?

9 - Almost sure
8 - Very probable
7 - Probably
15. At what (realistic) price would you think the product is a bargain – great value for the
money?
US$
As per question 14 usage of the Juster scale to validate the answer
16. How likely are you to pay the price stated before as bargain – great value for money?
P a g e 187
9 - Almost sure
8 - Very probable
7 - Probably
General understanding of product evaluation criteria (Liefeld 2004)
17. What factors do you usually take into account or do influence your decision to buy one or
another skin-care product? Please state in order of importance:
1. _________________________________________ (most important)
2. _________________________________________
3. _________________________________________ ask for at least 3 criteria
4. _________________________________________
5. _________________________________________ (least important)
Checking explicit COO recall acc. to (Liefeld 2004)
18. Do you know where the new anti-aging product shown before, is made?
➢ Have you seen or read the country of origin of this product (Made in … label)?
o Yes, which one? _________________
o No ‘Made in …’ information was provided 
➔ Go to question 17 a
o Yes, but I cannot recall the country, where the product is from 
➔ Go to question 17 a
➢ Have you seen or read any brand name of the product?
o Yes, which one? _________________
o No brand name information was provided 
o Yes, but I cannot recall the brand name 
17.a You mentioned, that you cannot recall the country, where the product has
been made. Did you look for the ‘Made in …’ label in order to find out where the
product is from?
▪ YES 
▪ NO 
o Why not? _______________________
Control question (descriptive)
19. Do you know the country, where the anti-aging cream you are currently purchasing, is
from (Made in country)?
a. YES, please mention the country here: ________________________
b. NO, I do not know (anymore) 
20. What are the 3 most trustworthy countries who manufacture skin-care products (Made in
countries), when it comes to desirable high quality skin-care products you would buy for
yourself, regardless of price?
P a g e 188
1) ______________________ (most trustworthy)
2) ______________________
3) ______________________
Assessment of country image perceptions (Agarwal & Sikri Sameer 1996) – 14 items
Please rate each country according to the statements below:
Technology
The products from the following countries are
21. of superior workmanship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 inferior workmanship
➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
22. made with superior production know-how …. inferior production know-how

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
23. well-engineered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 poorly engineered

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
24. made with a lot attention to detail little attention to detail

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
25. of excellent construction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 poor construction

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
26. pass through excellent quality control poor quality control

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
27. are made with superior technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 inferior technology

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
28. are of dependable product performance unreliable product

performance
➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
29. are exclusive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 common

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
30. are of high status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 low status

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
P a g e 189
31. are prestigious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ordinary
➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
32. are reasonably priced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pricey

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
33. are good value for money 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 low value for money
➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
34. are inexpensive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 expensive

➢ USA       
➢ France       
➢ Germany       
What is your attitude to purchasing domestic or foreign products?
35. Purchasing foreign-made skin-care products is e.g. ‘un-American’

Don´t agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 fully agree
36. A real American, should only buy domestically manufactured skin-care products
37. Americans should not purchase imported skin-care products, because we need to
support our own economy
38. Americans should try not to buy foreign skin-care brands whenever possible
Socio-demographic questions
There are now only 3 more questions left, which will help to better compare and categorize all your
responses with the responses from other survey participants.
39. Income: Please remember, this survey is completely anonymous and confidential.
Individual responses are not identifiable, tracable. They are neither used nor published
for any purpose, whatsoever.
Please state honestly your current approximate annual net income after income taxes
and other deductions (adjusted from the U.S. Census Bureau)
➢ Up to $ 10,000 
➢ $ 10,001 - $ 20,000 
➢ $ 20,001 - $ 30,000 
➢ $ 30,001 - $ 40,000 
➢ $ 40,001 - $ 50,000 
➢ $ 50,001 - $ 75,000 
➢ More than $ 75.001 
➢ I don´t know 
➢ I prefer not to answer 
40. Occupation. What is your current employment status?

➢ Full time 
➢ Part time 
➢ Casual 
P a g e 190
➢ Retired 
➢ Stay at home parent 
➢ Student 
➢ Other 
41. Gender/Sex. How do you describe yourself?

➢ female 
➢ male 
➢ other 
42. Education. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (adjusted
from the U.S. Census Bureau)
➢ No schooling completed 
➢ 12th grade but no diploma 
➢ High school graduate 
➢ Bachelor’s degree 
➢ Postgraduate degree, e.g. Master’s degree, PHD 
Thank you for participating message
END
P a g e 191

(Cosmetics) US and Colombia

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

(Cosmetics) US and Colombia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Please do not remove this page

The Country of Origin (COO) effect on quality

USC Research Bank: https://research.usc.edu.au

Please do not remove this page

Submitted in fulfilment of the degree of

Prof. Meredith Lawley

Dr. Rory Mulcahy

any other award.

Christof Burlefinger_________________________7th June 2021

__Prof Meredith Lawley______________________ 7th June 2021

Signature of supervisor Date

Dr Rory Mulcahy___________________________7th June 2021

Signature of supervisor Date

1.2.2 Gap 2: Moderating roles of Consumer Involvement and Consumer Ethnocentrism

1.4.1 Theoretical contributions ........................................................................................ 6

1.4.2 Practical contributions ............................................................................................ 9

1.4.3 Methodological significance ................................................................................. 10

2. Literature Review, theories and model/hypothesis development ............................ 17

2.5.2 What Aids COO Recall and Recognition? ........................................................... 31

2.5.3 Criticisms from COO Recall Research ................................................................ 32

2.6.1 COO product category effects on quality perceptions ......................................... 34

2.6.2 Differences between developed and developing countries’ quality perceptions . 36

3.3.1 Justification for Experimental Design ................................................................... 63

3.3.2 The three study approach .................................................................................... 65

3.3.3 Country selection ................................................................................................. 65

3.3.4 Participants (sampling design) ............................................................................. 66

3.3.5 Stimuli product design .......................................................................................... 67

3.3.7 Measurement scales ............................................................................................ 69

3.3.8 Pre-test and survey administration ...................................................................... 73

3.3.9 Data analysis techniques ..................................................................................... 74

4 Study One | USA | General Population ........................................................................ 76

4.2.1 Data preparation .................................................................................................. 77

4.2.2 Sample Profile ...................................................................................................... 77

4.5.1 ANOVA Testing Total Quality (H1) ...................................................................... 82

4.5.2 ANOVA Testing Willingness-To-Pay (H2) ........................................................... 85

5 Study Two | USA | Product Users ................................................................................ 92

5.2.1 Data preparation ...................................................................................................... 93

5.5.1 ANOVA Testing Total Quality (H1) ...................................................................... 98

5.5.2 ANOVA Testing WTP (H2) ................................................................................. 101

6 Study Three | Colombia | Product Users .................................................................. 106

6.2.1 Data preparation ................................................................................................ 107

6.2.2 Sample Profile Study Three ............................................................................... 107

6.5.1 ANOVA Testing Total Quality (H1) .................................................................... 112

6.5.2 ANOVA Testing WTP (H2) ................................................................................. 115

7. Conclusions and Contributions ................................................................................. 121

7.2.3 Research Objective 2 – COO and Recall on WTP ............................................ 126

7.2.7 Research Objective 6 – Cross-country differences ........................................... 130

7.2.8 Overarching research question results regarding WTP ..................................... 131

8. Reference List .............................................................................................................. 145

Appendix A: Questionnaires ............................................................................................... 183

Table 2.1 Summary of all definitions encountered in extant literature ..................................... 20

Table 3.1 Differentiation of four main research paradigms ...................................................... 62

Table 3.2 Consumer Involvement Scale Items ........................................................................ 69

Table 3.3 Consumer Ethnocentrism Scale Items ..................................................................... 70

Table 3.4 Total Quality Scale Items ......................................................................................... 71

Table 3.5 Van Westendorp WTP questions ............................................................................. 72

Table 3.6 Juster Scale .............................................................................................................. 73

Table 4.1 Study One Sample Profile ........................................................................................ 78

Table 4.2 Construct Reliability Results Study One .................................................................. 79

Table 4.3 Construct Validity Results Study One ...................................................................... 80

Table 4.4 Hypotheses tested Study One ................................................................................. 81

Table 4.5 ANOVA Results for Product Effectiveness .............................................................. 83

Table 4.6 ANOVA Quality......................................................................................................... 84

Prof Meredith Lawley____________________ 7th June 2021