What are the moderating effects of consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism on the relationship between country-of-origin and consumer-based brand equity dimensions?

`

University of Amsterdam

Business Administration (MSc): Marketing

MASTER’S THESIS

FULL NAME OF AUTHOR: NIEK HOGEVEEN

STUDENTNUMBER: 10894446 DATE OF SUBMISSION: 24-06-2016

QUALIFICATION: MSC BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION –MARKETING TRACK

INSTITUTION: ABS,UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

SUPERVISOR: FRANK SLISSER

“WHAT ARE THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF CONSUMER

ETHNOCENTRISM AND COSMOPOLITANISM ON THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN AND

CONSUMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY DIMENSIONS?”

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This document is written by Student Niek Hogeveen who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A special word of thanks goes to all people who supported me the last year.

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Frank Slisser, for his support and advice throughout the entire thesis process. His extensive feedback during our discussions continuously stimulated me to work towards this last step of finishing my academic career and brought out the best of me.

I would also like to thank all the participants of this study and the people who forwarded/shared the online survey for this research. I am pleased to see how many people participated on the online survey and tried to help me out. Without their participation, this work could not be brought to an end.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for their ongoing support and instilling confidence in me.

ABSTRACT

We are living in a time of rapid change due to globalization. It increases the standards of living, improves global communication and the use of internet. Consequently, consumers explore and select a wider range of foreign products and brands. To understand the consumer’s perceptions of these products or brands, marketers are recently more interested in understanding factors that affect consumer’s evaluations of foreign or domestic products/brands. Moreover, many demographic, socio-economical and psychographic factors may lead to differences in attitudes towards foreign products. Researchers implied an interesting area of study in which they asked themselves whether psychographic factors could come to exert a moderating effect on the relationship between the country-of-origin (COO) and brand equity, that is, a construct to measure the accrued value of the brand. This research question is the aim of this study. An online survey is conducted to measure the equity of three brands originating from different countries and the level of consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism.

The sample consists of N=144 participants. The first part of the study examines whether there is a significant relationship between the perceived brand origin (=COO) and brand awareness/associations. The second part aims at the moderation of consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism on this relationship. The findings reveal that there is a significant main effect of perceived brand origin on brand awareness/associations. In contrast with previous studies, this study indicates that a brand’s awareness/associations does not explain a proportion of variance in its overall brand equity. Second, it is found that neither of the two psychographic factors moderates this relationship. Finally, in line with previous studies, there is a significant weak negative correlation between both psychographic factors. However, there is no significant interaction effect between these two factors on brand awareness/associations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ... 7

1.1 Building brand equity ... 8

1.2 Problem definition ... 10 1.2.1 Problem statement ... 10 1.2.2. Sub-questions ... 10 1.3 Contributions ... 10 1.3.1. Managerial contributions ... 10 1.3.2. Theoretical contributions ... 11 1.4 Thesis outline ... 11 2. Literature review... 12 2.1 Brand equity ... 12

2.1.1. Consumer-based brand equity ... 13

2.2 Brand associations ... 15

2.2.1. Secondary brand associations ... 16

2.3 Country-of-origin associations ... 17

2.4 The relationship between COO and brand-image ... 18

2.5 Psychographic factors ... 20

2.5.1. Consumer ethnocentrism ... 22

2.5.2. Consumer cosmopolitanism ... 22

3. Hypotheses ... 24

3.1 The effect of country-of-origin on consumer-based brand equity ... 24

3.2 The moderating role of consumer ethnocentrism ... 24

3.3 The moderating role of consumer cosmopolitanism... 25

3.4 The interaction effect between consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism 26 3.5 Conceptual framework ... 27

4.1 Research design ... 28 4.2 Description of variables ... 30 4.2.1 Independent variables ... 30 4.2.2 Moderator variables ... 29 4.2.3 Dependent variables ... 30 4.3 Stimuli development ... 31 4.4 Procedure ... 33 4.4.1 Data collection ... 33 4.4.2. Data analysis ... 33 5. Results ... 35 5.1 Sample characteristics ... 35 5.2 Control variables ... 35 5.3 Reliability check ... 37 5.4 Testing Hypotheses ... 37 6. Discussion ... 48 6.1 Theoretical implications ... 47 6.2 Managerial implications ... 48 7. Conclusions ... 50

7.1 Limitations and future research ... 53

References ... 56

Appendix ... 64

Appendix A: Questionnaire ... 64

Appendix B: Measurement scales ... 67

Appendix C: Demographic factors ... 70

TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 1. Dimensions of Brand knowledge ... 14

Figure 2. The antecedents and consequences of brand origin ... 19

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework ... 27

TABLES

Table 2. Results Cronbach’s alpha test ... 37

Table 3. Tukey’s post-hoc test between the three brands ... 39

Table 4. Correlation Analysis: Dimensions of CBBE ... 40

Table 5. Moderating effects of CET/COS on the relation between perceived brand origin and brand awareness/associations... 42

Table 6. Moderating effects of CET/COS on the relation between perceived brand origin and perceived quality of the brand... 43

Table 7. Moderating effects of CET/COS on the relation between perceived brand origin and brand loyalty ... 44

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BUILDING BRAND EQUITY

In the last decades, building strong and valuable brands is one of the most important goals for marketers. Keller & Lehmann (2006) stated that brands are one of the most valuable intangible assets that firms own. From a consumer’s perspective, brands simplify choices, promise a particular quality level, reduce risks, and/or engenders trust (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). In a financial sense, several researchers argue that strong brands enhance revenue streams, sales volumes, profit margins, and/or long-term cash flows (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Srivastava & Shocker, 1991; De Wulf et al., 2005). As a result, different researchers examined the value that brands create for investors, manufacturers, retailers or consumers (Baldauf et al., 2009). One of the most used constructs to measure the accrued value of brands is through brand equity. Keller (1998) argued that building brand equity is an important part of brand building. This study uses brand equity from a consumer-perspective, which we refer to as consumer-based brand equity. Many studies focused on the development of measurement tools for brand equity. However, little empirical studies identified or evaluated the process of brand equity formation through an examination of antecedents (Valette-Florence, Guizani & Merunka, 2011). Additionally, Yasin, Noor & Mohamad (2007) argued that it is impossible to fully understand brand equity without carefully examining its sources, that is, the contributing factors to the formation of brand equity in the consumers’ mind. Especially in an international context, marketers need to understand the sources of the equity of their brands (Pappu, Quester & Cooksey, 2006). One of these sources is the country-of-origin (COO) of the brand. The country or geographical location, in which products are being produced on, has relation to the specific brand that generates secondary associations (Keller, 2003). According to Keller (1993), secondary associations are

connected to other information in memory that are not directly related to the product or service. In this paper, the focus is on the COO as secondary association of the brand.

The COO source is an important external factor related to the products and its brands (Hulland, 1999; Nayir & Durmusoglu, 2008; Baldauf et al., 2009). The COO of a product or brand is an important marketing element known to influence consumer perceptions as well as behavior and is one of the largest domains within the scientific literature on international marketing and consumer behavior (Pappu et al., Usunier, 2006; Bloemer et al., 2009). Furthermore, several studies showed that the COO influences the key dimensions of brand equity (Pappu et al., 2006, 2007; Yasin et al., 2007; Baldauf et al., 2009). Nowadays, increasing the knowledge of customers about products or brands makes research about factors that influence their decisions more worthwhile than before (Rezvani et al., 2012).

Due to globalization, markets become more interdependent and consumer research efforts become more international. The international competitiveness requires managers to target their products and brands successfully at segments that cross national frontiers (Cleveland, Laroche & Papadopoulus, 2009). Building successful marketing strategies largely depends on achieving a match between product attributes and customer attitudes and values. Therefore, it would be good to direct attention at consumer characteristics (Keillor, D'Amico & Horton 2001). Many demographic, socio-economic, and psychographic factors, for example, may lead to differences in attitudes towards foreign products (Batra, 1997; Cui & Liu, 2001; Sharma et al., 2006). More specifically, De Mooij (2004) stated that psychographic segmentations are powerful methods to classify consumers across countries.

Andéhn, Nordin & Nilsson (2015) implied an interesting area of study in which they asked themselves whether psychographic factors could come to exert a moderating effect on the relationship between country-image (COO) and brand equity. To the best of our knowledge,

this study will be the first in its nature to investigate whether two psychographic factors (consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism) moderate the relationship between country-of-origin and the brand equity dimension in the form of brand awareness/associations.

1.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION

This paragraph identifies an appropriate research gap. It defines the problem and underpins the research question and its sub-questions. This research question is the driving force of this study. In the next paragraph, different argumentations support the theoretical and managerial contributions of this study.

1.2.1 P

As discussed in the introduction, due to the importance of country-of-origin as an external cue, increasing the knowledge of customers about products makes research about factors that influence consumer’s decisions more important than before (Rezvani et al., 2012). Moreover, looking at the profitable importance of brands for marketing success (Keller, Ambler, 2003), indicating how various factors influence brand equity are an interesting path to advance the knowledge of country-of-origin effects in general. In the last decades, several studies examined the effect of COO on brand equity (Pappu et al., 2006, 2007; Yasin et al., 2007; Baldauf et al., 2009; Moradi & Zarei, 2012). However, no study examined the moderating effect of psychographic factors on consumer-based brand equity in relation to COO before. Additionally, Moradi & Zarei (2012) and Yasin et al. (2007) both proposed in their study to consider factors that moderate the influence of COO on brand equity. Therefore, this study examines the moderating effect of psychographic factors on the relation between the COO and consumer-based brand equity. The research question in this study is as followed:

“What is the moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism on the relationship between country-of-origin and consumer-based brand equity dimensions?”

1.2.2. S

-

In addition, this study developed different sub-questions that helps to derive the aforementioned research question. First, as previous studies claimed, do the brand awareness/associations items of this particular study have significant influence on the overall consumer-based brand equity? Second, whether and how does the COO of a brand affect its awareness/associations? Third, what are the moderating effects of consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism on this relationship? Finally, is there a certain interdependency or interaction between these two psychographic factors? At the end of this paper, based on the results of the main study, we will return to these sub-questions within the discussion chapter.

1.3 CONTRIBUTIONS

This study’s contribution is twofold. First, from a managerial perspective, this study is interesting for (international) marketers to understand how consumers behave and how marketers should carefully develop effective marketing activities. Second, from a theoretical perspective, there are different contributions to the brand- and marketing literature and arguments why this topic is relevant to study.

1.3.1. M

The first managerial contribution is that consumers use brand associations to help process, organize, and retrieve information in memory and to use them in making purchase decisions (Aaker, 1991). By studying the effect of COO as a particular secondary brand association in a broader perspective, in this case with the use of psychographic variables, this study contributes to international marketers to understand how they should target their brands successfully at segments that cross national boundaries since each country has its own psychographic factors and cultural differences. Second, most international marketers used countries as unit of analysis, which is problematic (Cleveland et al., 2009). There are two arguments for this. First, most

countries are multicultural. Second, within-country variation among consumers is often greater than between-country (Roth, 1995; Ter Hofstede, Steenkamp & Wedel, 1999). Corresponding with our study, measurable factors that point to the similarity of consumer behaviors around the globe would help managers plan superior international marketing activities.

1.3.2. T

From a theoretical perspective, this study is supplementary to the articles of Yasin et al. (2007) and Moradi & Zarei (2012). As they have proposed to consider factors that moderate the effect of COO on brand equity, no study researched the moderating effect of psychographic factors on the relationship between COO and consumer-based brand equity before. Furthermore, little is known about the relative influence of consumer ethnocentrism in its explanation of a consumer’s preference for their home country’s brands if other predictors of pro-in-group or pro-out-group behavior are considered (Zeugner-Rother, Zabkar & Diamantopoulos, 2015). Therefore, by using consumer cosmopolitanism as second (pro-out group) factor, this study helps to understand the relative influence of consumer ethnocentrism. Both theoretical contributions tend to add value to the existing (international) brand- and marketing literature.

1.4 THESIS OUTLINE

This paper is structured as follows. This first chapter introduced the main topic, identified the research gap and addressed the managerial and theoretical contributions of the study. The second chapter reviews the literature of brand equity, brand associations, COO effect and the two psychographic factors. Chapter 3 formulates the hypotheses and presents the conceptual framework. Next, in the fourth chapter, the methodology and the procedure are covered and the results of the study are presented in chapter five. Finally, in chapter six we discuss the outcomes of the study by linking it to the existing literature and end up with a conclusion in chapter seven.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the focus is to describe the core elements used in this paper. The effect of COO on consumer-based brand equity is at the heart of this study. In the first paragraph, we discuss the brand equity and, more specifically, consumer-based brand equity. In the second paragraph, we dig deeper into the process and understanding of (secondary) brand associations that conceptualize brand equity. One specific form of secondary brand associations, which we use in this paper, are the COO of the brands. Therefore, the COO as antecedent for consumer-based brand equity is discussed in more detail in the third paragraph. Central to this study is the effect of COO on the brand’s awareness/associations, that is, one of the dimensions for brand equity. Therefore, in the fourth paragraph, we elaborate more on this specific effect. Finally, the secondary aim of this study is to examine whether there is a moderating effect of psychographic factors on the relationship between COO and consumer-based brand equity. Therefore, in the last paragraph of this chapter, we discuss two different psychographic factors used in this study.

2.1 BRAND EQUITY

According to Kotler (1991), a brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol, design or a combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors” (p. 442). In the brand- and marketing literature, brand researchers developed several conceptualizations about brands and examined how these brands affect consumer behavior. One of the most discussed topics in research is brand equity. Brand equity is in terms of marketing effects only attributable to the brand (Aaker, 1991) or it is the incremental value of the product due to the brand name (Srivastava & Shocker, 1991). Several studies examined this concept. Hereby, Aaker’s (1991) and Keller’s (1993) dimensions of brand equity have been largely accepted as valid and inclusive. According to Aaker (1991), brand equity provides value to customers by enhancing their interpretation and processing of information, confidence in the purchase decision and satisfaction. Similarly,

Keller (1993) proposes that enhancing brand equity results in the ability to rule larger surplus from consumers, achieves increasing consumer information search and improves marketing communication effectiveness, licensing opportunities and the consumer’s responses to brand extensions. According to Keller (1993), there are two general motivations for studying brand equity. First, a financially-based motivation to estimate the value of a brand more precisely for accounting, acquisition, merger, or divestiture purposes (financial perspective). A second reason arises from a strategy-based motivation to improve marketing productivity (consumer-based perspective). One considers the latter perspective as the driving force of increased market share and profitability of the brand, based on the market’s perceptions (Christodoulides & De Chernatony, 2010). Therefore, consumer-based brand equity will be the concept in this paper.

2.1.1. C

-

Consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) is “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (Keller, 1993, p. 8). Consumer-based means the measurement of cognitive and behavioral brand equity at the individual consumer level (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). Central to the definition of CBBE is brand knowledge. Brand knowledge relates to the cognitive representation of the brand (Peter & Olson 2001). It contains two components, brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1993). These dimensions are conceptualized according to the characteristics and relationships of brand associations. The concept of brand associations is discussed in the next paragraph. The first component of brand knowledge, brand awareness, relates to brand recall and recognition performance by the consumer (Keller, 1993). Brand awareness relates to the strength of the brand node in memory. According to Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993), the brand recognition relates to the consumer’s ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brand as a cue. Brand recall relates to the consumer’s ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or some other type of probe as a cue (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). The

second component of brand knowledge, brand image, refers to the set of associations linked to the brand that consumers hold in memory (Keller, 1993). Practically, high equity brands are more likely to have more positive brand associations (brand image) than low equity brands (Krishnan, 1996). Brand associations, acquired through the firm’s marketing mix activities or product use, contribute to and ultimately define the brand’s image to the consumer (Keller, 1993). Figure 1 summarizes Keller’s (1993) dimensions of brand knowledge. Besides brand awareness and brand image, as two components of CBBE, Aaker (1991) discussed another two assets of brand equity: the consumer’s perceived quality and brand loyalty. Although brand loyalty has different definitions, this study refers to brand loyalty as the bias to be loyal to a particular brand, established by the intention to buy the brand as first choice (Oliver, 1999). Finally, the perceived quality is “the customer’s perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service relative to alternatives” (Aaker, 1991, p. 83). In sum, these four dimensions (brand awareness, brand associations, brand loyalty and the perceived quality) are found to have significant effect on the CBBE (Pappu et al., 2006, 2007; Yasin et al., 2007; Baldauf et al., 2009). However, central to this study are the two components of brand knowledge: Brand awareness and brand associations.

Figure 1. Dimensions of Brand knowledge (Keller, 1993)

Price Brand Recall Non-product-related Packaging

Brand Awareness Attributes User Imagery

Brand Recognition Product-related Usage Imagery

Brand Knowledge Functional

Types of Brand Associations Benefits Experiential Symbolic Brand Image Favorability of Brand Associations

Strength of Brand Associations Attitudes

2.2 BRAND ASSOCIATIONS

Understanding brand equity involves identifying the network of strong, favorable and unique brand associations in a consumer’s memory (Keller, 1993). This association network suggests ways in how to leverage brand equity in the marketplace (Aaker, 1996). Moreover, marketers use brand associations to differentiate, position, and extend brands, to create positive attitudes and feelings toward brands, and to suggest attributes or benefits of purchasing or using a specific brand (Low & Lamb, 2000). In this paper, we define brand associations as “the informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory that contains the meaning of the brand for consumers” (Keller, 1996, p. 106). Nodes are stored information connected by links that vary in strength, favorability or uniqueness. Brand associations take different forms. Following Keller’s (1993) article, this study classifies brand associations into three major categories based on the level of abstraction; attributes, benefits and attitudes.

Attributes are descriptive features that characterize a product either intrinsically or extrinsically (Keller, 2003). Secondly, benefits are the personal value consumers attach to the product or service attributes (Keller, 2003). These benefits can be further distinguished into three categories according to the underlying motivations to which they relate; functional, experiential or symbolic benefits. Third, attitudes are the consumer’s overall evaluations of a brand (Wilkie, 1986). The attitudes toward a product or service often form the basis for consumer behavior. Moreover, these three categories are in line with Gutman’s (1982) means-end chain model defined as the connection between product attributes, consumer consequences and personal values.

As mentioned before, the different associations can vary according to their favorability, strength and uniqueness. First, associations differ according to how favorably they are evaluated (Keller, 1993). If consumers believe that the brand has attributes and benefits that satisfy their needs and wants, they will form a positive overall brand attitude. Second,

associations can be characterized also by the strength of connection to the brand node. Strength is a function of both the quantity and quality of processing the information receives at encoding (Keller, 1993). Finally, brand associations may or may not be shared with other competing brands, that is, the uniqueness of brand associations (Keller, 1993). To enhance the network of strong, favorable and unique associations, marketers often link or associate their brands with other sources as a means of building brand equity or leveraging knowledge that might otherwise be hard to achieve. Subsequently, these secondary sources lead to secondary brand associations.

2.2.1. S

When brands are identified with other sources, consumers may infer that the brands share associations with these specific sources. This study considers these associations as secondary brand associations. Keller (1993) defined secondary associations as associations connected to other information in memory indirectly related to the product, service or in this case the brand. Keller (1993) differentiated five secondary associations that may arise from primary attribute associations; the company, the country-of-origin, the distribution channel; a celebrity spokesperson or endorser of the brand, or an event. These secondary associations can be leveraged to create favorable, strong and unique associations that otherwise may not be present. Linking the brand to other sources such as a person, place, thing or brand affects brand knowledge by (1) creating new brand knowledge or (2) affecting existing brand knowledge (Keller, 2003). In the last decade, secondary sources and their effects have been largely studied in the form of country-of-origin effects (Li & Wyer, 1994; Hulland, 1999; Pappu et al., 2006; Yasin et al., 2007), celebrity source effects (Kamins & Gupta, 1994; Till, Stanley & Priluck, 2008), cobranding or ingredient brand effects (Park, Jun & Shocker 1996), corporate branding effects (Brown & Dacin, 1997), etcetera. In this study, the focus is on the COO effect of a brand.

2.3 COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN ASSOCIATIONS

The country-of-origin (COO) is an extrinsic product cue that is distinct from physical product characteristics (Peterson & Jolibert, 1995). This term is defined, described and discussed in a large scale of international studies. Similarly, the consumer’s country-image is a set of country-of-origin associations stored in the mind of the consumer (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). The country-image helps consumers in image or attitude formation about the branded product originating from a specific country (Krupka, Ozretic-Dosen, & Previsic, 2014). The COO associations of the consumer may refer to the economic stage of the country (macro) or to the products produced in the country (micro).

According to Martin & Eroglu (1993), the macro country-image is “the total of all descriptive, inferential and informational beliefs one has about a particular country” (p. 193). This definition represents the country-image in general or overall terms. Besides this definition on a general level, Nagashima (1970) defined the micro country-image as “the total of beliefs one has about the products of a given country” (p. 68). Moreover, Roth & Romeo (1992) defined country-image as “all consumer’s formed perceptions of products of a particular country, based on their previous perceptions of that country’s production and marketing strengths and weaknesses” (p. 480). These latter two definitions are aimed at the product class level. Thus, two different conceptualizations of country-image exist in the international literature (Pappu et al., 2007). In the literature, some authors measured both country-images, whereas other authors adopted only one specific country-image. However, in line with Pappu et al. (2007), this study considers the two country-images as interrelated. In other words, we argue that the total of COO associations of a brand, made up by the interrelation of both country-images, can affect the brand’s awareness/associations as one specific dimension of CBBE.

As this study is more interested in brand management, it is important to mention another concept that is similar to the COO: the brand origin (BO). Thakor (1996) argued that BO plays

an important role in attitude formation toward a brand. Therefore, one inferred that the concept of BO relates to the COO concept (Roy & Bagdare, 2015). The BO concept will have due consideration in this study. The BO is “the place, region or country where a brand is perceived to belong by its target consumers” (Thakor 1996; p. 27).

Frequently, the literature distinguished two cognitive processes with respect to the COO effect. The first cognitive process that the literature examined is the COO effect as a ‘halo construct’ that influences the overall product attribute quality beliefs (Han, 1989). The other examination of the COO effect is a ‘summary construct’ that summarizes beliefs about product quality and only then influences attitudes or purchase intentions (Han, 1989; Heslop & Papadopoulos, 1993). However, only recently the literature has begun to examine nonquality-related, direct effects of a brand’s COO on brand attitudes or purchase intentions (Batra et al., 2014). Specifically, several studies have shown that the COO of a brand influences the key dimensions of brand equity (Pappu et al., 2006, 2007; Yasin et al., 2007; Baldauf et al., 2009). The next paragraph elaborates on this effect. As told earlier, this study particularly aims on the effect of COO on brand awareness/associations as one dimension of CBBE. However, the extant literature does not explain the relation between the COO of a brand and brand awareness (Pappu et al., 2007). Therefore, we mainly focus on brand associations. Because brand-image is made up of brand associations (Koubaa, 2008), we elaborate on the relation between COO and brand-image.

2.4 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COO AND BRAND-IMAGE

Brand equity researchers have explicitly defined brand-image as a set of perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations in the consumers’ memory (Farquhar & Herr, 1993; Keller, 1993). There seems to be general agreement that country-image and brand-image are inseparably linked (Kim and Chung, 1997; Batra et al., 2014). Moreover, the marketing literature suggests a bidirectional relationship between these two images (Pappu et al., 2007).

On the one hand, consumers have country-specific brand-images. For example, a consumers’ perceived brand-image of pen-knifes improves when they come from Swiss. On the other hand, the performances of major brands originating from the same country might affect that particular country’s image (Kim, 1995). For example, due to the great performance of Japanese digital camera brands such as Nikon and Canon, consumers may perceive Japan as an electronical- and digital competent country. Given the fact that a brand-image is a set of brand associations, the literature would appear to suggest a relationship between country-image and consumer brand associations (Pappu et al., 2007).

The perceived origin associations are a powerful source of brand appeal (Thakor & Lavack, 2003). These perceived origin associations are evident within many brand names (e.g. Air France, Turkish Airlines). Thus, in many cases the branding itself serves already as a cue (Samiee, 1994). In addition, origin information can be communicated in several other ways. For example, through symbols, logos, slogans or advertising. However, while most COO studies rely heavily on the “made in” information, such information is not expected to be the only factor in determining brand origin perceptions. In fact, according to Thakor & Lavack (2003), multiple inputs or antecedents of brand origin exist from which consumers may draw brand origin cues (see Figure 2). Using these cues, consumers formulate perceived brand origins, which they use to create general perceptions, attitudes, expectations and intentions about the product and the brand. This study expects the communication of brand names and logos already to serve as consumers’ cues to formulate perceived brand origins, which in turn appear to influence the CBBE dimensions.

According to Rezvani et al. (2012), there are several other factors for which is not determined whether they influence the consumer’s evaluation of a brand in relation to its origin. There is a major gap in the literature that relates to the evaluation of a brand’s COO and its antecedents in the context of increased globalization (Dimitrovic & Vida, 2010). One of these factors are the psychographic factors that, as proposed by different researchers, needs to be examined in relation to the COO (Yasin et al. 2007; Andéhn et al., 2015). Therefore, this study’s focus is on the psychographic factors related to the effect of COO on CBBE.

2.5 PSYCHOGRAPHIC FACTORS

Evaluations of COO cues can be affected by consumer biases or psychographic factors (Kaynak & Kara, 2002). These factors influence a consumer’s acceptance of goods or services that are from foreign or domestic countries (Kaynak & Kara, 2002; Shimp & Sharma, 1987). Moreover, extant literature focused on similarities and differences concerning several dispositional constructs such as localism, animosity, materialism, cosmopolitanism, patriotism and ethnocentrism in relation to global brand attitudes and behavioral outcomes (Cleveland et al., 2009; Alden et al., 2013). To indicate these constructs as antecedents for consumer’s attitudes towards domestic or foreign brands, this paper goes back to the theoretical background as defined by the social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974). The social identity theory distinguishes a consumer’s behavior toward either the in-group, which is the domestic country, or the out-groups, which are the foreign countries (Verlegh, 2007). However, it is not practical for a single research like this to explore all such antecedents (Sharma, 2011). Therefore, this study examines the influence of one anti-out group construct (consumer ethnocentrism) and one pro-out-group construct (consumer cosmopolitanism). There are three main reasons for this.

The first reason is that there is no information about the relative influence of consumer ethnocentrism on the brand equity of domestic products in comparison to other predictors of pro-in-group or pro-out-group behavior, like cosmopolitanism (Zeugner-Rother et al., 2015).

Therefore, by adding consumer cosmopolitanism as such a pro-out-group construct, the relative influence of both constructs are tested. A second reason is that previous studies have mainly focused on either domestic (e.g. Verlegh, 2007) or foreign (e.g. Riefler, Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2012) product preferences, that is one of the consequences of brand equity (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble & Donthu, 1995). In this study, we will use a simultaneous consideration of both foreign and domestic product preferences. Therefore, this study is different to previous studies. A third reason is that these two constructs relate to globalization strategy, which remains a field of significant interest both academically and managerially (Shimp & Sharma, 1987; Dimitrovic & Vida, 2010).

Cleveland et al. (2009) found evidence that, in the vast majority of countries, there were significant negative correlations (range between -.099 and -.291) between consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism as antecedents on various consumer behaviors. Additionally, Riefler et al. (2012) found evidence in their research that the correlation between both the COS and CET scale were strongly negative (r=-0.46). However, Riefler et al. (2012) argued that even though consumer cosmopolitanism and ethnocentrism are negatively correlated, “consumers scoring high (low) on consumer cosmopolitanism cannot be automatically assumed to also score low (high) on localism (or vice-versa)” (p. 299). Therefore, in capturing both cosmopolitan and local orientations (in this study ethnocentrism) in a theoretical model, both constructs needs to be included as separate constructs (Riefler et al., 2012). For this reason, this study examines two distinct psychographic factors, CET and COS, as they are best suited as opposite and distinct factors to explain a potential moderating effect on the relationship between the perceived brand origin and CBBE. Now that this study is interested in these two psychographic factors, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at those variables.

2.5.1. C

Some researchers suggest that COO effects can only be understood with respect to ethnocentrism (Kotler & Gertner, 2002). Consumer ethnocentrism is transmitted from the general concept of ethnocentrism. More than a century ago, Sumner (1906, p. 13) originally defined the concept of ethnocentrism as “the technical name for this view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it”. In their article, Shimp & Sharma (1987) later defined consumer ethnocentrism (CET) as “the beliefs held by consumers about the appropriateness, actual morality of purchasing foreign made products” (p. 280). CET indicates that imported products are wrong, not only because it is unpatriotic, but also because it is harmful to the domestic economy employment (Supphellen & Grønhaug, 2003). Probably, consumers with high CET are liable to biased judgment to adopt the positive aspects of domestic products and to discount the advantages of foreign-made products (Kasper, 1999). This latter effect can also be termed as spreading of alternatives (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). Several authors indicated that CET is moderately predictive of consumer’s beliefs, attitudes, purchase intentions and ultimate purchases (Kaynak & Kara, 2002). From another perspective, the CET is a definition that relates to patriotism. In his paper, Akhter (2007) defined patriotism as being ready to sacrifice for a domestic country but is not associated with negative feelings toward other countries. Patriotism and CET are two kinds of psychographic factors that influence foreign products (Rezvani et al., 2012).

2.5.2. C

The nature of cosmopolitanism is the opposite of ethnocentrism. Cosmopolitans have a “conscious openness to the world and to the cultural differences” (Skrbis, Kendall & Woodward, 2004, p. 117). Additionally, they actively want to consume cultural differences (Thompson & Tambyah, 1999). Robert Merton (1957) originally introduced the concept of cosmopolitanism within the sociological literature. He defined the construct as a personal

tendency to orient oneself beyond the boundaries of the local community. Cosmopolitanism refers to cultural openness, that is, a person’s interest in and experience with people, values and cultures from other countries (Strizkova, Coulter & Price, 2008). Cosmopolitanism in general is not necessarily a consumption-specific domain construct. In this paper, however, consumer cosmopolitanism (COS) explicitly relates to consumption-specific domain (Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 2006). In their paper, Riefler et al. (2012) captured three key dimensions of COS, which are open-mindedness, diversity appreciation and transcending borders. Following Riefler et al. (2012), this study defines the three dimensions in the following way. First, open-mindedness is “an unprejudiced disposition towards other countries and cultures as expressed in an interest in experiencing their authentic manifestations” (p. 287). Second, diversity appreciation is “a positive disposition towards the diversity offered by the availability of goods and services from different national or cultural origins” (p. 288). Third, consumption transcending borders is “a positive disposition towards consuming goods and services from foreign countries” (p. 288). Altogether, Cleveland et al. (2009) stated that cosmopolitans, because they perceive themselves as less provincial and more international (Hannerz, 1990), are more probable to adopt products or brands from other cultures and places.

3. HYPOTHESES

3.1 THE EFFECT OF COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN ON

CONSUMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY

As told in the literature review, the effect of COO on consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) is at the heart of this paper. The COO is able to arouse consumer’s beliefs about attributes and the evaluation of products and brands (Srikatanyoo & Gnoth, 2002). Thus, we expect the COO of a particular brand to have significant effect on CBBE. However, this study emphasizes on one specific dimension of CBBE, that is, the brand awareness/associations (see paragraph 4.2.3 for more details). Recent studies demonstrated that this dimension has significant effect on CBBE (Yoo & Donthu, 2001; Yasin et al., 2007). Moreover, according to Yoo et al. (2000), the dimensions of brand equity increase brand equity because each of them is positively related to brand equity. Therefore, this study expects brand awareness/associations to have significant effect on the overall brand equity. The hypotheses are formulated in the following way:

H1: The consumers’ perceived brand origin due to the given brand name and logo has

significant effect, either positive or negative, on their brand awareness/associations.

H2: Brand awareness/associations will have significant positive effect on the overall

consumer-based brand equity (OBE).

3.2 THE MODERATING ROLE OF CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM

Nowadays, due to the increased standards of living, improved global communication and the use of internet, consumers explore and select a wider range of foreign products and brands. Accordingly, to understand the consumer’s perceptions of these products/brands, marketers are more interested in understanding factors that affect consumer’s evaluations of foreign or domestic products/brands (Kaynak & Kara, 2002). One of these factors are the psychographic

characteristics of the consumer. As told earlier, this study focuses on the moderating roles of consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism.

CET proposes that nationalistic emotions affect attitudes about products/services and or brands (Kaynak & Kara, 2002). Particularly, CET implies that purchasing imported products is wrong because it is unpatriotic and harmful for the economy. In other words, in the perspective of consumers that score high on ethnocentricity, brands originating from foreign countries negatively contribute to the consumer’s perceptions of these particular brands. On the contrary, brands originating from domestic- or home countries positively contribute to the consumer’s perceptions of these particular brands. Therefore, we formulated the following hypotheses:

H3(a): The higher (lower) consumer ethnocentrism, the more (less) positive the brand

awareness/associations when the brand is Dutch.

H3(b): The higher (lower) consumer ethnocentrism, the more (less) negative the brand

awareness/associations when brands come from foreign countries.

3.3

Contrary to CET as anti-out group construct, this study also examines COS as pro-out group construct. Cosmopolitans are more likely to adopt products from other cultures and places (Cleveland et al., 2009). Moreover, according to Konrad (1984) transnationals are those people or companies who feel at home in the cultures of other people/countries as well as their own. Thus, in this study we expect consumers with high cosmopolitanism to evaluate particular brands from foreign countries in a positive way. Additionally, Sharma, Shimp & Shin (1995) argued that consumers with cosmopolitan perceptions do not necessarily regard foreign products as being inherently more attractive. Therefore, this study expects consumers scoring high on cosmopolitanism to have an equal positive effect on the evaluation of domestic brands in comparison with foreign brands. We formulated the following hypotheses:

H4(a): Consumers scoring either high or low on cosmopolitanism positively contribute to

brand awareness/associations when the brand is Dutch.

H4(b): The higher (lower) consumer cosmopolitanism, the more (less) positive the brand

awareness/associations when brands come from foreign countries.

H4(c): There is no significant difference between the effect of consumer cosmopolitanism on

brand awareness/associations when brands come from domestic or foreign countries.

3.4 THE INTERACTION EFFECT BETWEEN CONSUMER

ETHNOCENTRISM AND COSMOPOLITANISM

Different studies examined if there is a correlation between these two psychographic factors as antecedents of consumer behavior (Cleveland et al., 2009; Riefler et al., 2012). As discussed in the literature review, both studies showed a significant negative correlation between these two antecedents of consumer evaluation toward the COO of a brand. In opposite to cosmopolitans who tend to break free with national boundaries, ethnocentric consumers are unlikely to support such attitudes (Roudometof, 2005). Generally, empirical research reports that cosmopolitans reject ethnocentric perspectives and the other way around. Therefore, this study expects that there is a significant interaction between CET and COS. Specifically, the strength of the effect of CET on the relationship between the perceived brand origin and brand awareness/associations depends on the level of COS and vice-versa. Hence, we formulated the following hypothesis:

H5(a): There is a significant interaction between CET and COS that influences the brand

awareness/associations of both Dutch and foreign brands.

H5(b): The lower/higher the COS, the more/less positive the effect of CET on the brand

awareness/associations when the brand is Dutch.

H5(c): The lower/higher the CET, the more/less positive the effect of COS on the brand

3.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

To show the different relations of the variables and potential hypotheses used in this study, we drafted a conceptual framework (Figure 3). The independent variable is the COO of the brand or the perceived brand origin that we expect to have significant effect on one specific brand equity dimension: brand awareness/associations. Additionally, we expect consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism to have a moderating effect on the effect of COO on brand awareness/associations. In its turn, we expect this dimension to have a significant effect on the overall brand equity. Finally, this study also examines the influence of COO on the two other dimensions of CBBE. We expect the COO or perceived origin of a brand to have significant effect on the perceived quality and brand loyalty dimensions. In turn, we expect these dimensions, similar to the brand awareness/associations dimension, to have significant effect on the overall brand equity.

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework

Consumer ethnocentrism

H5 H3 Perceived quality

Brand awareness/associations Consumer-based brand equity

H4 Brand loyalty

Consumer cosmopolitanism Country-of-origin

H2 H1

4. METHODOLOGY

To answer the proposed hypotheses in the previous chapter, a good research design, appropriate product categories and suitable variables are required. Therefore, this chapter explains the choices made in this study. The first paragraph of this chapter aims to support and clarify the research design used in this study. Thereafter, the second paragraph elaborates on the independent, moderating and dependent variables that this study used during the research. The third paragraph appoints the adopted product categories used in the research. Finally, in the fourth paragraph we elaborate on the procedure and data analysis that we used in this study.

4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

This study looks for an explanation behind the increase or decrease of brand equity due to the interaction effect of COO as an extrinsic cue and the psychographic factors as moderators. Furthermore, the aim of this study is to provide systematic evidence to support the proposed hypotheses. Therefore, this study is of an explanatory nature.

To be able to answer the previous research questions, a quantitative research design through an online survey is the best way to gather data information. Using an online survey as research design is appropriate in different ways. First, using surveys are relatively cost effective. Online surveys have a small cost per respondent. Second, because surveys allow a broad range of data from large samples, an online survey has the potential for external validity or generalizability. Finally, the use of an online survey also tends to be a reliable method. This is because the survey is standardized in that the same questions, in the same order, are submitted to the participants.

Because this study will use an online survey, the sampling frame are people from the Netherlands that have access to the internet. Hence, not all people from the Netherlands can become respondents of the survey. Therefore, this study applies a non-probability sampling method in the form of convenience sampling. An advantage of this method is that it allows us

to formulate theories quickly and it is a cheap and straightforward method to obtain usable data. One of the major drawbacks of this sampling method is the risk of getting biased results, that is, the data collected is not representative in relation to the target population. To avoid this drawback, the aim of this study is to find respondents that vary in their backgrounds to make the sample representative in relation to the total population.

This study generates a pool of sample measures by using items from extended literature. All items were measured on 5-point Likert-type scales, which anchors of 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. In the next paragraph, we discuss the scales used to indicate the variables.

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES

4.2.1

I

The independent variable of this research is the COO (or perceived brand-origin) as extrinsic cue for the consumer’s perception of a brand. Because Samiee (1994) claimed that branding itself serves already as a cue, the main study communicates the origin information through brand names and logos. Based on these cues, we expect consumers to formulate perceived brand origins, which they use to create general perceptions, attitudes and expectations about the brand (Thakor & Lavack, 2003). Specifically, we state that the perceived brand origin (= COO) can affect the consumers’ brand awareness/associations as a dimension of CBBE.

4.2.2

M

In this study, consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism are the potential moderators for the COO effect on brand awareness/associations. According to Cleveland et al. (2009), reliable and generalizable measures of COS are rare. To measure consumer cosmopolitanism, this study uses the C-COSMO construct conceptualized by Riefler et al. (2012). This construct is developed because according to Riefler et al. (2012) the two former scales (COS and CYMYC) were both inconsistent in their measurement and do not cover all theoretical relevant

aspects for consumer research. Additionally, they argue that the current COS scale is not clear about the number of items one should use in a specific context. Therefore, to be more consistent in our outcomes, we use the 12-item C-COSMO scale that incorporates three key dimensions for consumer research purposes: open-mindedness, diversity appreciation and consumption transcending borders. The three dimensions of consumer cosmopolitanism were proved to be reliable (α > .78) as well as the construct reliability (> 0.77). Furthermore, Riefler et al. (2012) found a strong negative correlation between the C-COSMO scale and the CETSCALE (discussed below) which supports the nomological validity of the C-COSMO construct.

To measure CET, this study follows previous researches in using the four-item CETSCALE (Klein, 2002; Cleveland et al., 2009; Batra et al., 2014). This CETSCALE finds its origin from the extensively validated 17-item scale developed by Shimp & Sharma (1987). In their study, Cleveland et al. (2009) found that the factors of their CETSCALE scale had high reliability coefficients (α= 0.83). They also calculated the reliability coefficient in eight different countries and found that the reliability coefficients were all ≥ 0.75. Therefore, this study uses this four-item scale to measure consumer ethnocentrism for Dutch participants.

4.2.3

D

The consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) is the dependent variable that is defined as “the value consumers associate with a brand, as reflected in the dimensions of brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty” (Pappu et al., 2006, p. 698). Even though all dimension scales are included within the online survey, the aim of this study is to emphasize on one dimension or antecedent of CBBE. To choose one specific dimension, this study follows Keller’s (1993) study wherein brand knowledge is central to the definition of CBBE. Brand knowledge contains two components: brand awareness and brand image that consists brand associations. In their study, Yoo & Donthu (2001) found that the discriminant validity between the factors brand awareness and brand associations were unproved. In other

words, the squared correlation (R2) between brand awareness and associations in their measurement of brand equity is greater than the average variance for each factor separately. As a result, they created a new model wherein the three factors brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand awareness/associations are found to be reliable and valid dimensions of brand equity. Moreover, Yasin et al. (2007) used the same three dimensions (brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand awareness/associations) in their study and showed that these three dimensions have significant impact on brand equity. In sum, this study puts more emphasis on the brand awareness/associations dimension and less on the other two dimensions. Thereby, in their article, Pappu et al. (2007) proposed to explore the relationship between COO and brand awareness in future research. This research fills an important gap to understand the relationship between COO and CBBE. To measure the brand awareness/associations for a particular brand, the survey uses Yoo et al.’s (2001) six-item scale to indicate the components of this dimension. As already told in the literature review, brand awareness relates to brand recall and recognition whereas brand associations are classified in three major categories: attributes, benefits and attitudes. Therefore, the items in this study are designed to represent these five components of the brand awareness/associations dimension. The measurement of this dimension is an initial step to future theoretical research where marketers can use our method for the other two dimensions of brand equity to generalize and validate the outcomes of our study. To measure if the brand awareness/associations dimension relates to the overall brand equity, this study measures the overall brand equity for each brand by using Yoo & Donthu’s (2000) measurement items.

4.3 STIMULI DEVELOPMENT

Research suggests that utilitarian and hedonic considerations map two different (independent) components of product evaluations and attitudes (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). Hedonic goods provide for more experiential use, fun, pleasure and

excitement whereas utilitarian goods are primarily performance, instrumental and functional (Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998). In their study, Park & Moon (2003) found that consumers who are highly involved with utilitarian goods are more likely to link to high product attribute knowledge. These consumers tend to know what they think they know. Moreover, consumers that are involved with utilitarian goods lend themselves to the ability to process the product attribute information (Brucks, 1985). To the contrary, consumers that are highly involved with hedonic goods have difficulty to recognize that they do not know much about the concrete attributes of that product (Park & Moon, 2003). As the COO of a brand or product is such a concrete attribute, this study is more interested in the evaluations of utilitarian products because the COO becomes more relevant to the consumer. Further, in line with most studies of COO effects, we use brands with high involvement products because consumers will usually look beyond cues such as price or design in making their purchase decision (Ahmed et al., 2004). In other words, consumers that are highly involved with products will not only base their decisions on price or design, but also on other extrinsic cues such as the COO. Hence, this study examines electronic brands that offer high involvement products (televisions) with a utilitarian nature.

There are two major reasons for this choice. First, within this product category, there is a Dutch brand with strong market share in the Dutch market (Philips). Second, previous researchers have found that subjects find electronic products to be both highly relevant and interesting (e.g., Tse and Gorn 1993). Thus, this study expects participants to be highly involved with brands from this product category. Within this product category, we use three brands with different COO’s from three different continents. The broad selection of countries from three continents helps to scale different cultures that can have potential influence on the consumer’s evaluation of the brand. In sum, this survey uses three electronic brands (with different COO’s) who offer television sets. From these three brands, there is one Dutch brand to shape a difference between consumer’s perceptions of domestic and foreign countries.

Table 1. Product categories: The brands with different COO’s

Product categories Brands Countries (COO)

1. General Electric United States

2. Philips The Netherlands

3. SONY Japan

4.4 PROCEDURE

4.4.1

D

To collect the relevant data, we used Qualtrics.com to create and distribute the online questionnaire. The survey is made in Dutch. All the questions were translated from English into Dutch to prevent ambiguity that would result from having to master the English language. Relatives of the researcher checked whether this translation was correct. The link of the online survey was distributed on 6 May 2016 via the e-mail and social networks (Facebook & LinkedIn) of the researcher. In the first message, people were asked to share the link with their own relatives and friends. Therefore, the snowball technique helped to gather more respondents. Two weeks later, on 20 May 2016, the survey was closed and we gathered all the relevant data.

4.4.2.

D

This study analyzed the data with one of the latest version of SPSS, IBM SPSS Statistics 20. Before we started to analyze the data, two counter-indicative items were recoded. The item from the brand/awareness measurement scale ‘I have difficulty in imagining the brand in my

mind’, as well as the item from the perceived quality measurement scale ‘The products of the brand appears to be of very poor quality’ were recoded by using the ‘Compute Variable’ option

in SPSS. Next, we used Cronbach’s alpha to test whether the items used for the different scales were reliable and internally consistent. After that, the scale means were computed for brand associations/awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, CET, COS and the overall brand equity (OBE) of the three brands.

To test the first hypothesis, this study investigated whether perceived brand origin due to the exposure of brand name and logo affect brand awareness/associations. A one-way ANOVA test was conducted as it allows comparing whether the means of brand awareness/associations significantly differ depending on the three brand names/logos participants were exposed to.

For hypothesis number two, the study examined whether the three dimensions brand awareness/associations, brand loyalty and perceived quality have significant positive effect on the overall consumer-based brand equity (OBE). This hypothesis was tested with a multiple regression analysis in order to understand whether the outcomes of the OBE could be predicted by those variables and to what extent.

To answer the third and fourth hypotheses, we aimed to understand and predict the moderating effect of CET and COS on the relation between the perceived brand origin and brand awareness/associations. By using the new PROCESS tool from Hayes (2013), the moderation analysis were conducted.The PROCESS macro in SPSS makes it possible to test the direct effects and moderation/interaction effects of the independent variables on the dependent variables. The study used Model 1 from this macro to examine CET and COS as moderators in relation between perceived brand origin and brand awareness/associations. Further, this study examines the same moderation of CET and COS wherein perceived quality and brand loyalty are the dependent variables.

Finally, for the fifth hypothesis we examined if there is an interaction between COS and CET that influences brand awareness/associations. Prior to test this interaction effect, the study used Pearson’s correlation to measure the strength and direction of the linear relationship between the two independent psychographic factors. Again, this study used Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro to examine the interaction effect of COS on CET and vice-versa on the brand awareness/associations of the three brands.

5. RESULTS

In this chapter, the hypotheses developed in chapter 3 will be examined. Prior to the hypotheses testing, we will first start with characterizing the sample of this study. Second, we will test if the control variables influence the dependent variables. Third, we will check the internal consistency of the items by using Cronbach’s alpha. Finally, we will test the hypotheses by using different types of measures in SPSS.

5.1 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

After conducting the survey, a total of 188 people started to participate on the survey. However, 44 participants were identified that did not fully complete the questionnaire or are found to be outliers. Specifically, 12 outliers are found by using boxplots for the CETSCALE and COSSCALE. Therefore, 144 participants were left for the data analysis. 63,2 % of the respondents were female and 36,8 % were male. According to age, most of the people are between 18 and 24 years old (N=85). With regard to the educational background of the respondents, the largest group (53,6 %) have completed a bachelor degree or are in the process of obtaining one and the second largest group (16,9 %) completed a master degree or are in the process of obtaining one.

Considering consumer ethnocentrism (CET), 75,0 % of the participants scored an average of 2 (disagree) or lower on the 5-point Likert-scale. The opposite happened for consumer cosmopolitanism (COS). More than 75,0% of the participants scored an average of 3,5 (neutral/agree) or higher on the 5-point Likert-scale. Overall, the results indicate that the Dutch participants are more bending to cosmopolitanism compared to ethnocentrism.

5.2 CONTROL VARIABLES

The control variables were included in this questionnaire to be able to exclude any other influences on the expected effects than the influence of the different brand names and logos on

brand awareness/associations. This way it is possible to check if these variables influence the effects and if it is necessary to include them as covariates in the analysis.

For gender, we used the independent samples t-test to compare the means of males and females on brand awareness/associations of SONY, Philips and General Electric. First, we used Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances. This test shows that equal variances are assumed (SONY: F=0.003, p=0.959; Philips: F=0.359, p=0.550; GE: F=0.412, p=0.522). The results show that the brand awareness/associations means for SONY and Philips are significantly different due to gender (SONY: Mmale= 4.17, MFemale=3.84, p < 0.05; Philips: Mmale= 4.35,

MFemale=4.09, p < 0.05). However, for GE there is no significant mean difference between both

genders (Mmale= 2.20, MFemale=1.89, p=0.080). These results show that gender has significant

influence on the brand awareness/associations of SONY and Philips. Therefore, it is necessary to control for them in the analysis and include them as covariates in subsequent analysis. We did the same tests for the perceived quality and brand loyalty. Regarding these two dimensions, the results show for all three brands that there are no significant mean differences between both genders.

For education, we used the one-way ANOVA test to determine whether there are any differences between the educational groups on the awareness/associations of the three brands. Equal variances are assumed for SONY and Philips and variances are unequally assumed for GE (SONY: p = 0.796, Philips: p = 0.456; GE: p < 0.05). The results show that there are no significant mean differences (p > 0.05) between the educational groups on the brand awareness/associations of the brands. Therefore, there is no need for control in the analysis. We did the same tests for the perceived quality and brand loyalty. Similar to the brand awareness/associations dimension, the results show that there are no significant mean differences between educational groups in relation to perceived quality and loyalty of the three brands.