-
Beyond country image favorability: How
brand positioning via country personality
stereotypes enhances brand evaluations
Peter Magnusson,Stanford A. Westjohn andNancy J. Sirianni
Culverhouse College of Business, University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
Correspondence:P Magnusson, Culverhouse College ofBusiness,
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,AL 35487, USA.Tel:
205-348-8932;Fax: 205-348-6695;e-mail: [email protected]
AbstractAcross four lab experiments and a field study, we find
that brands are evaluated
more favorably when the brand is positioned in a manner that is
congruent
with the brand’s home country personality stereotype than when
brandpositioning is incongruent. Results demonstrate that cultural
authenticity
mediates this effect. We also uncover a moderating effect
whereby brands are
viewed more favorably when brand positioning and country
personalitystereotypes are incongruent, rather than congruent,
under conditions of
consumer animosity toward the firm’s home country. This study is
the first to
demonstrate how international firms can leverage
country-of-origin personalitystereotypes as a brand-building
advantage.
Journal of International Business Studies (2019) 50,
318–338.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0175-3
Keywords: country personality; country of origin; international
consumer behavior;cultural authenticity; consumer animosity
Havaianas of Brazil has emerged as the world’s largest casual
sandalbrand, selling about 200 million pairs of flip flops each
year (Baker,2017). Despite Brazil’s generally weak country image
(Fetscherin,2010), Havaianas closely associates its brand with its
Brazilianorigin and employs common stereotypes about Brazilian
peopleand values in its positioning, including the use of vibrant
colors,Carnival, joy, and fun. Such a brand positioning strategy
contra-dicts common guidance in the international marketing
literature,which suggests that only brands from countries with a
strongcountry image should emphasize country association;
whereasbrands from countries with a weak country image should
avoidcountry association (e.g., Herz & Diamantopoulos, 2017;
Kumar &Steenkamp, 2013).
Havaianas’ success associating itself closely with Brazil
highlightsa gap in the understanding of country-of-origin (COO)
effects.Specifically, the extant literature fails to account for
how strategicbrand positioning can help firms circumvent a weak COO
image orbetter leverage a favorable image. To remedy this issue, we
posit thatother COO-related associations beyond country image
favorability
Received: 16 May 2017Revised: 20 June 2018Accepted: 30 July
2018Online publication date: 12 September 2018
Journal of International Business Studies (2019) 50, 318–338ª
2018 Academy of International Business All rights reserved
0047-2506/19
www.jibs.net
-
must be accessed. We suggest that a brand can beeffectively
positioned to associate with its homecountry’s personality
stereotype. Country personal-ity stereotypes, defined as ‘‘the
mental representa-tion of a country on dimensions that
typicallycapture an individual’s personality’’ (d’Astous
&Boujbel, 2007: 233), differ from general countryimage
favorability since they are not typicallyperceived as inherently
good or bad. For example,country personality stereotypes include
extrover-sion versus introversion (Rojas-Méndez, Papado-poulos,
& Alwan, 2015) and warmth versuscompetence (Cuddy et al.,
2009).
We posit that a brand’s positioning, defined asthe use of
promotional messaging to establish keyassociations in customers’
minds (Heinberg,Ozkaya, & Taube, 2017), will have positive
effectson consumers’ brand evaluations when it is con-gruent with
its COO personality stereotype (here-after referred to as ‘‘brand
positioning-countrypersonality congruity’’). Importantly, we
contendthat brand positioning-country personality con-gruity will
result in positive effects for brands fromcountries with both
favorable and unfavorableimages. Thus, we expect that a brand
positioning-country personality congruity strategy can
helpinsulate, or circumvent, problems associated withan unfavorable
country image.
Our theory of brand positioning-country person-ality congruity
is founded in schema congruitytheory (Heider, 1946; Mandler, 1982).
Using thisperspective, we offer the following contributions
tointernational marketing practice and theory. First,recent studies
highlight consumers’ interest inreading product labels and using
brand origin as apurchase driver (Gürhan-Canli, Sarıal-Abi,
&Hayran, 2018). Consequently, it is important forinternational
marketing managers and researchersto understand how and why COO
associations—specifically COO personality stereotypes—can
bestrategically leveraged to enhance brand perfor-mance. This study
demonstrates how brand posi-tioning-country personality congruity
isadvantageous—even for brands from countrieswith unfavorable
images. This is a notable theoret-ical contribution because
existing theory suggeststhat brands associated with countries with
unfa-vorable images should de-emphasize their COOassociation.
However, our findings suggest analternative strategic path forward
through brandpositioning-country personality congruity.
Second, we uncover the underlying mechanismthat drives the
relationship between brand posi-tioning-country personality
stereotypes andenhanced brand evaluations. We posit that
culturalauthenticity, defined as the consumer’s perceptionthat the
brand is culturally genuine (Southworth &Ha-Brookshire, 2016),
helps explain our proposedeffects. We predict that when a brand is
positionedin a manner congruent (incongruent) with con-sumers’
commonly held country personality stereo-types, consumers will
perceive the brand as more(less) culturally authentic, and this
process willresult in more (less) positive brand evaluations.
Theidentification of this mediating process is animportant
theoretical contribution because itenhances our understanding of
how schema con-gruity operates in the context of country
associa-tions and consumer brand evaluations.
Third, we investigate a condition under whichcountry personality
stereotype incongruity, ratherthan congruity, is the preferred
brand positioningstrategy. Specifically, we examine the
moderatinginfluence of consumer animosity, defined as
‘‘anger[toward a specific country] related to previous orongoing
political, military, economic, or diplo-matic events’’ (Klein,
2002: 346). We posit thatwhen consumers hold feelings of animosity
towardthe target country, brands may actually benefitfrom
distancing themselves (via incongruity) fromtheir COO personality
stereotype. This illustratesan important difference between a
merely unfavor-able country image and overtly negative
animositytoward a country. This is a unique and
importantcontribution as it forges a theoretical and manage-rially
valuable connection between the consumeranimosity and brand
positioning literature streams.
Finally, experimental research designs, whichhave been rare in
IB research, are now beingencouraged because of their ability to
isolate causalvariables, and when combined with field studies
inrealistic settings, offer convincing evidence (Zell-mer-Bruhn,
Caligiuri, & Thomas, 2016). In Study 1,we test the main thesis
(H1) with a preliminary fieldstudy and investigate the mediating
effect ofcultural authenticity (H2) across two
laboratoryexperiments. In Study 2, we examine the moderat-ing
effect of consumer animosity (H3) across twodifferent country
contexts in two separate experi-ments. Thus, we build evidence to
support ourhypotheses across a series of five experiments thattest
our predictions across a variety of countrypersonality stereotypes
and across countries withvarying levels of overall favorability.
Across our
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
319
Journal of International Business Studies
-
studies, we examine two related brand evaluationconstructs,
which capture different facets of abrand’s operational performance
in the consumers’mindset (Katsikeas, Morgan, Leonidou, &
Hult,2016). We examine brand evaluations in the formof quality
ratings of a product following a taste test(Veale & Quester,
2009) and we examine customer-based brand equity, defined as ‘‘the
differentialeffect of brand knowledge on consumer response tothe
marketing of the brand’’ Keller (1993: 1). Byexamining two
distinct, yet related, outcome mea-sures, we extend the
generalizability of the concep-tual framework. Given that both are
relatedcustomer mindset performance constructs (Kat-sikeas et al.,
2016), we expect the effects of brandpositioning-country
personality congruity will holdin the same pattern for each
construct.
We proceed by providing a review and concep-tual background on
country image and personality,as well as schema congruity theory.
Then, wedevelop and present hypotheses, which are sup-ported with
evidence from five experiments. Weconclude by discussing the
theoretical and man-agerial implications, and identifying
limitationsand future research directions.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONDichter (1962: 116) first suggested that
‘‘the littlephrase ‘Made in [y]’ can have a tremendousinfluence on
the acceptance and success of prod-ucts.’’ Since then, it has
received significantresearch attention; we summarize influential
arti-cles that have advanced the field in Table 1.Following the
early realization that country asso-ciations can influence brand
evaluations, a vastbody of literature has found corroborating
evi-dence of a significant link between consumers’perceptions of a
country (i.e., country image) andtheir evaluations of products
associated with thatcountry, highlighted by several notable
reviewarticles (e.g., Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Verlegh
&Steenkamp, 1999). A consistent conclusion acrossthe literature
is that COO ‘‘has been observed toinfluence people’s attitudes,
even when subjectsare given a chance to see, touch, feel or taste
thevery same physical product’’ (Kotler & Gertner,2002: 252).
Research suggests that these effects arepowerful and hold when
consumers attribute thebrand to the wrong home country
(Magnusson,Westjohn, & Zdravkovic, 2011) and when con-sumers
deny relying on COO information (Herz &Diamantopoulos,
2017).
Country ImageGiven the role of country associations in
influenc-ing consumers’ brand evaluations, it is not surpris-ing
that significant research efforts have tried togain a better
understanding of country image. Afundamental assumption underlying
countryimage is that consumers form stereotypes aboutcountries
(e.g., Shimp, Samiee, & Madden, 1993;Verlegh & Steenkamp,
1999). Country stereotypesreflect a person’s perceptions about the
features of acountry and are developed through
socializationprocesses and exposure to information about coun-tries
(Diamantopoulos, Florack, Halkias, & Palcu,2017). Accordingly,
country image is a schema, or aknowledge structure, that
synthesizes what weknow about a country and it has been defined
as‘‘the total of all descriptive, inferential and infor-mational
beliefs one has about a particular coun-try’’ (Martin & Eroglu,
1993: 193). Even thoughthere seems to be agreement in viewing
countryimage associations as a schema of stored knowl-edge, some
researchers have viewed it as a broad,overall construct, based on
‘‘representative prod-ucts, national characteristics, economic and
polit-ical background, history, and traditions’’(Nagashima, 1970:
68). Other researchers havefocused on a narrower product country
imageemphasizing consumers’ perceptions about thequality of
products made in a particular country(Roth & Romeo, 1992).
However, regardless of the breadth of conceptu-alizations of
country image, researchers have gen-erally viewed this construct
from a positive–negative valence perspective. For example,
productcountry innovativeness measures have ranged fromvery
innovative to not innovative, workmanshipfrom high to low quality
(Roth & Romeo, 1992),and the macro image of a country has
beenevaluated as, for example, more or less economi-cally developed
and with higher versus lower levelsof technological research
capacity (Martin & Ero-glu, 1993). Whereas the country image
favorabilityperspective has contributed valuable insights intothe
understanding of COO effects, it fails toaccount for country
stereotype associations thatare not always viewed as more or less
favorable.Specifically, country personality associations can
bepositive, negative, or neither, but they are animportant part of
consumers’ country schema.
Country PersonalityA growing body of evidence indicates that
con-sumers spontaneously associate countries with
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
320
Journal of International Business Studies
-
human personality traits as part of their mentalschema (e.g.,
Barbarossa, De Pelsmacker, & Moons,2018; Kim, Shim, &
Dinnie, 2013; Rojas-Méndez,Murphy, & Papadopoulos, 2013).
Using humantraits to stereotype countries is appealing,
because‘‘human traits are associated with universal
mentalrepresentations that are easily activated becausethey have
been used previously to characterizepeople in our environment and
predict theirbehavior’’ (d’Astous & Boujbel, 2007: 232).
Furthermore, unlike favorability perceptions,which can often be
contained to specific productcategories (Pappu, Quester, &
Cooksey, 2007; Roth& Romeo, 1992), country personality
stereotypesrepresent broad macro-level associations of
acountry.
With the realization that country personalitystereotypes may be
a salient country association,researchers have aimed to identify
the dominantcountry personality dimensions that people use to
Table 1 Overview of influential articles in country-of-origin
and country personality literatures
Author(s) (year) Context Key findings/conceptualizations
Representative studies on how country image favorability
influence brand evaluations
Schooler (1965) 200 Guatemalan part-time students First
empirical assessment illustrating that products from
Mexico and Guatemala are preferred over products from El
Salvador and Costa Rica
Bilkey and Nes
(1982)
Qualitative review of 11 COO articles, published
1965–1974
Review of findings confirm that COO does indeed influence
product evaluations
Verlegh and
Steenkamp
(1999)
Quantitative meta-analytic review of 41 studies
(278 effect sizes), published 1980–1996
Findings confirm that COO influences product evaluations.
Effects are stronger for, for example, quality judgments
over
attitude and purchase intentions, and COO effects are
stronger when comparing developed with less developed
country products
Representative studies defining country associations as a
schema
Shimp et al.
(1993: 323)
64 in-depth interviews with American consumers ‘‘Cognitive
structure connotes consumers’ encoded
representations of information in memory, which, in present
usage, refers to what consumers know/believe about
products from different countries’’
Martin and
Eroglu (1993:
193)
200 American students Country image is defined as ‘‘the total of
all descriptive,
inferential and informational beliefs one has about a
particular country’’
Pappu et al.
(2007: 727)
539 Australian consumers Country image (similar to brand image)
is a set of COO
associations organized into groups in a meaningful way
Representative studies focusing on fit between product category
and country image
Roth and Romeo
(1992)
368 US, Mexican, and Irish consumers COO influence varies
depending on how well the country’s
perceived production and marketing strengths are related to
the product category
Pappu et al.
(2007)
539 Australian consumers COO effect depends on match between
country’s macro and
micro country image and product category
Representative studies identifying country personality
dimensions
d’Astous and
Boujbel (2007)
170 French-speaking Canadians evaluated 11
different countries.
First country personality effort. Identified (1)
agreeableness,
(2) wickedness, (3) snobbism, (4) assiduousness, (5)
conformity, and (6) unobtrusiveness
Cuddy et al.
(2009)
755 European evaluated 15 EU countries Warmth and competence are
negatively correlated.
Stereotypes of countries are either high warmth, low
competence, or high competence, low warmth
Kim et al. (2013) 1221 university students from nine countries
Identified country personality dimensions of (1) leadership,
(2) excitement, (3) sophistication, (4), tradition, and (5)
peacefulness
Rojas-Méndez
et al. (2015)
561 Saudi Arabian consumers Evaluated the US based on the big
five personality
dimensions
This study Five experiments in the US Extends literature by
demonstrating how positioning brands
via COO personality stereotypes signals cultural
authenticity
and enhances consumer brand evaluations
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
321
Journal of International Business Studies
-
stereotype countries. Several broad frameworkswith multiple
dimensions, akin to the Big Fivepersonality framework (John &
Srivastava, 1999),have been proposed. For example, d’Astous
andBoujbel (2007) developed a framework based on sixdimensions
(agreeableness, wickedness, snobbism,assiduousness, conformity, and
unobtrusiveness).Kim et al. (2013) found five personality
dimensions(leadership, excitement, sophistication, tradition,and
peacefulness), and Rojas-Méndez et al. (2013)identified three
dimensions (amicableness,resourcefulness, and
self-centeredness).
Others have developed frameworks that attemptto identify the
most salient stereotype peopleassociate with other countries. For
example, JWThompson conducted a large-scale study to under-stand
how people stereotype other countries byfocusing on the (perceived)
dominant personalitytrait for each country (Ayala, Truss, &
Montecuollo,2012). Similarly, the stereotype content model
hassuccessfully been used to categorize countries,using two primary
dimensions that people use tostereotype outgroups (Fiske, Cuddy,
Glick, & Jun,2002). Warmth reflects friendliness,
good-natured-ness, and sincerity; whereas competence
reflectscapability, confidence, and skillfulness (Cuddyet al.,
2009).
Whereas multi-dimensional personality frame-works enable the
development of a descriptivecountry personality profile across a
number oftraits, a more useful approach with respect to
brandpositioning is focusing on a salient, dominantpersonality
stereotype. We argue that a single-traitfocus enables consumers to
process country per-sonality imagery more clearly, and thus,
createstronger associations in their existing schema forthe focal
brand and country, and this processshould result in more positive
brand evaluations.Similarly, Aaker’s (1997) brand personality
frame-work is a rich multi-dimensional framework, yetresearch has
shown that brands may only be able toleverage one dominant brand
personality dimen-sion to enhance brand equity (Sirianni,
Bitner,Brown, & Mandel, 2013).
Although some country personality dimensionsthat have been
identified in the literature (e.g., self-centeredness
(Rojas-Méndez, Papadopoulos, &Murphy, 2013) or wickedness
(d’Astous & Boujbel,2007) may fit the more versus less
favorable con-tinuum common in the traditional COO
literature,several country personality stereotypes are
notinherently positive or negative. For example, bothwarmth and
competence are desirable attributes,
yet countries are typically stereotyped as predom-inantly one or
the other (Cuddy et al., 2009). Ineffect, the stereotype content
model suggests thatambivalent stereotypes are the norm and
outgroupsare generally viewed as either competent, but cold,or
warm, but incompetent, and it is unclear if oneof these is more
favorable than the other. Similarly,countries can be viewed as
introverted or extro-verted; however, one trait is not necessarily
morefavorable than the other. Given that firms areunlikely to
actively position their brands usingobviously negative traits,
e.g., wickedness, thefocus of this study is on country
personalitystereotypes that are not inherently valenced, suchas
warmth (but incompetent) versus competence(but cold), or
extroversion versus introversion.
In sum, the current state of knowledge in theCOO and country
personality literatures suggeststhat (1) consumers organize their
associationsabout countries into mental schemas, which influ-ence
brand evaluations, and (2) beyond generalfavorability perceptions,
consumers develophuman personality associations about
countries.Such personality stereotypes are often not inher-ently
valenced. This suggests an important researchgap and we posit that
country personality stereo-types offer a strategic opportunity for
brand man-agers to capitalize on COO associations in ways thatprior
research based on general favorability percep-tions is unable to
explain.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Schema CongruityConsumers organize their associations about
acountry into a schema, defined as a ‘‘cognitivestructure that
represents knowledge about a con-cept or type of stimulus,
including its attributes andthe relations among those attributes’’
(Fiske &Taylor, 1991: 98). The schema provides a framethrough
which consumers interpret new informa-tion and serves as an anchor
in forming brandevaluations (Stumpf & Baum, 2016). A family
oftheories in psychology, including balance theory(Heider, 1946),
cognitive dissonance theory (Fes-tinger, 1957), the principles of
persuasion (Cart-wright, 1949), and schema congruity
theory(Mandler, 1982) emphasize the benefits of cogni-tive
consistency or schema congruity.
Schema congruity is defined as a match betweenan object and the
schema it invokes. Cognitiveconsistency theories suggest that
consumers are
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
322
Journal of International Business Studies
-
predisposed to prefer elements cognitively consis-tent with
their existing knowledge (e.g., Festinger,1957). New information
(i.e., brand positioninginformation) that is consistent with prior
knowl-edge (i.e., country schema) reinforces previousstereotypes
and is viewed more favorably. Thisimplies that consumers should
value congruitybetween the personality associations evoked by
abrand through its brand positioning and con-sumers’ country
personality stereotypes. In con-trast, when the new information
(i.e., brandpositioning information) is inconsistent with aperson’s
prevailing cognitive structure (i.e., countryschema), consumers are
more likely to reject it(Cartwright, 1949).
Related empirical evidence also supports thebenefits of
cognitive congruity. For example, cor-porate social responsibility
campaigns are perceivedmore favorably when there is a stronger
alignmentbetween the brand and the social cause (Zdravko-vic,
Magnusson, & Stanley, 2010). Anthropomor-phized products are
evaluated more favorably whena human schema has been activated
beforehand,creating congruity (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007),
andconsumers are more likely to refer a brand to othersif there is
congruity between the referral reward andthe brand (Stumpf &
Baum, 2016).
Accordingly, we posit that brand evaluations willbe more
favorable when brand positioning iscongruent with consumers’
country personalitystereotypes. When objects are placed in a
predictiveconceptual context, this leads to a sense of famil-iarity
that is associated with positive evaluations ofthe object
(Whittlesea, 1993). In sum, brand posi-tioning-country personality
congruity fits con-sumer expectations about brands from
thatcountry, ‘‘makes sense,’’ and produces cognitiveharmony and
balance that engenders favorablebrand evaluations. In contrast,
brand positioning-country personality incongruity contradicts
expecta-tions, produces cognitive dissonance, and imbal-ance that
engenders unfavorable brand evaluations(Mandler, 1982). Thus, on
the basis of this discus-sion, and under the assumption that the
country’sdominant personality stereotype is not obviouslynegative,
e.g., wickedness or snobbism, we proposethe following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Consumer brand evaluations aremore favorable under
conditions of brand posi-tioning-country personality congruity than
underbrand positioning-country personality incongruity.
The Mediating Effect of Cultural AuthenticityCultural
authenticity is defined as the consumer’sperception of whether a
brand is culturally genuineor real (Southworth & Ha-Brookshire,
2016). Argu-ably, some firms have strategically infused
countrypersonality stereotypes into their branding effortsto appear
more culturally authentic; yet priorresearch does not explain why
this may or maynot be a successful branding strategy. Notable
ex-amples include Volkswagen’s use of German lan-guage (Das Auto)
and strong German accents in itsUS advertisements, the
incorporation of the kan-garoo into the brand symbol for
Australia’s Qantasairline, and Ricola’s herbal lozenge
commercials,which have included characters dressed in leder-hosen,
scenes of the Swiss Alps, and the sound ofthe iconic Swiss
Alpenhorn. While such brandingefforts are frequently practiced,
there is a lack ofempirical evidence explaining any
interveningmechanisms between brand positioning-countrypersonality
congruity and favorable consumerbrand evaluations.
Recent research evidences that cultural authen-ticity positively
affects brand attitudes (Spielmann,2016) and consumers’ willingness
to try brands(Southworth & Ha-Brookshire, 2016). We build
onthese findings and posit that cultural authenticityserves as a
key mediating variable that helpsexplain why brand
positioning-country personalitystereotype congruity leads to
enhanced brandevaluations. A brand’s COO acts as a source
ofcultural meaning (Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra,1999), and we
argue that positioning brands toemphasize COO personality
stereotypes will serveto reinforce consumers’ previously formed
schemafor that country. Moreover, we propose this
schemareinforcement process permits consumers to cred-ibly link the
brand to the home country’s culture(Kumar & Steenkamp, 2013)
and allows the brandto be perceived as more culturally
authentic.Finally, because consumers have shown a prefer-ence for
more authentic market offerings, wepredict that consumer brand
evaluations will bemore favorable as a result of this brand
positioningstrategy. In contrast, if a brand’s personality
expres-sion is inconsistent with consumers’ culturalstereotype for
that brand’s home country, (i.e.,brand positioning-country
personality incon-gruity), we argue that the brand will be viewed
asless culturally authentic, and consumer brandevaluations will be
less favorable as a result.
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
323
Journal of International Business Studies
-
Hypothesis 2: Cultural authenticity mediatesthe positive effect
of brand positioning-countrypersonality congruity on consumer
brandevaluations.
The Moderating Effect of Consumer AnimosityIn H1, we offered
theoretical arguments suggestingthat when a brand’s
personality-based positioning iscongruent with its COO personality
stereotype,consumers will evaluate brands more favorably as aresult
of cognitive congruity. However, a fit betweenan object (e.g.,
country-associated brand) and itscorresponding schema can also
activate affect thattransfers to the object to the degree that it
fits theschema, a process referred to as schema-triggeredaffect
(Fiske, 1982). Importantly, since affect associ-ated with a schema
can be just as often negative aspositive, the transferred affect
could also be negativeor positive. The stronger the fit between the
brandpositioning and the country schema, the more
easilyschema-triggered affect will transfer to the brand(Mandler,
1982). This raises the question whether anincongruent
country-personality brand positioningwould be advantageous in
instances of schema-triggered negative affect.
One instance where the country schema maytrigger negative affect
is in the case of consumeranimosity. Consumer animosity is defined
asintense negative affect toward a specific countrydue to a
perceived injustice, based on past orongoing military, political,
or economic events(Klein, 2002). Consumer animosity differs
fromunfavorable country image in that it is a strongnegative
emotion (Harmeling, Magnusson, &Singh, 2015). In contrast, an
unfavorable countryimage is generally viewed as a cognitive
construct,reflecting perceptions about a country’s
economicdevelopment or the quality of the products itproduces (Roth
& Diamantopoulos, 2009). Signifi-cant examples of consumer
animosity include thehistorical conflict between China and Japan
(Gao,Wang, & Che, 2017), Egyptian animosity towardIsrael
(Papadopoulos, El Banna, & Murphy, 2017),and animosity toward
Russia in former Sovietrepublics, such as Lithuania and Ukraine
(Ginei-kiene & Diamantopoulos, 2017). In sum, con-sumers can
hold temporary or persistentanimosity feelings toward countries
that otherwisehave generally favorable country images (Leonget al.,
2008).
This raises questions as to how a brand shouldbest position
itself if consumers harbor animositytoward the brand’s home
country. We posit that
consumer animosity will moderate the effect ofbrand
positioning-country personality congruitysuch that when animosity
is high, incongruentbrand positioning may lead to more
favorableevaluations than congruent brand positioning. Inthis
sense, congruity turns into a disadvantage andincongruent brand
positioning may be preferred,because negative associations with the
schemainterfere with the positive effects of congruity. Ineffect,
even though congruity has generally positiveoutcomes, we predict
that in the case of consumeranimosity, congruity can activate
negative schema-triggered affect embedded in consumers’
mentalassociations (Fiske, 1982). The intense negativeaffect caused
by consumer animosity will over-power the positive experience of
cognitive con-gruity, and should result in less-favorable
brandevaluations (Lee & Labroo, 2004). Thus, in caseswhere
consumer animosity is high, incongruentbrand positioning weakens
the association betweenthe brand and its COO, and the negative
schema-triggered affect will not transfer as easily (Lane
&Fastoso, 2016). Conversely, when animosity is low,congruent
brand positioning, for the reasons laidout in H1, should lead to
more favorable brandevaluations than incongruent brand
positioning.
Hypothesis 3: Consumer animosity moderatesthe brand
positioning-country personality con-gruity effect. When consumer
animosity is high(low), brand positioning that is incongruent
withthe brand’s country personality leads to more(less)-favorable
brand evaluations than whenbrand positioning is congruent with the
brand’scountry personality.
STUDY 1Study 1 is comprised of a preliminary field studyand two
laboratory experiments. The field studymeasured the effects of
brand positioning-countrypersonality congruity on consumer wine
tasteperceptions at a wine bar during regular operatinghours. The
field study, which used German andSpanish wines as the study
context, providedpreliminary support for H1, and served as a
plat-form for the remaining experiments. The fulldetails of the
field study are provided in the ‘‘WebAppendix’’.
Study 1-A largely replicated the field study with afew notable
differences. First, we included a controlcondition (neutral country
personality stereotypepositioning), second, we examined
customer-based
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
324
Journal of International Business Studies
-
brand equity as the outcome variable, and third, weincluded a
test of the mediating effect of culturalauthenticity (H2). Study
1-B provides additionalevidence in support of H1 and H2, with
threeimportant extensions. First, we examined a differ-ent product
category and international brandingcontext: airlines. We chose this
context in order toextend the generalizability of the framework
fromtangible goods to a more experiential service offer-ing.
Second, we expanded our investigation beyondGermany and Spain to
two new countries: Italy andIndia. We investigated (American)
consumers’ per-sonality stereotypes for the two new countries,which
were found to be slightly different from thedimensions used for
Germany and Spain in Study1-A. Third, because India has a
significantly lessfavorable country image (Fetscherin, 2010),
Study1-B allowed us to explore whether the benefits ofbrand
positioning-country personality congruityalso holds for countries
with less-favorable countryimages.
Study 1-A: Participants and ProceduresWe focused on wine in the
preliminary field studyand in this study since it is a product
closelyassociated with its home country (Veale & Quester,2009).
Further, we chose Germany and Spain asfocal countries because they
are both top-ten wine-producing countries of the world (UN Food
andAgriculture Division, 2013), relatively similar interms of
economic wealth, generally elicit favorablecountry images
(Fetscherin, 2010), and are in thesame geographic region; yet
Germany and Spainhave different salient country
personalitystereotypes.
As a first step, we determined the salient countrypersonality
stereotypes for Germany and Spain bytriangulating evidence from
three sources. First, weconducted interviews with ten American
con-sumers (even gender split, ages 23–63) to determineperceptions
of the most salient country personalitystereotypes. Respondents
were asked to describeGermany’s and Spain’s respective country
person-alities. Adjectives used to describe Germany
were‘‘organized, disciplined, methodical, and focused,’’whereas
adjectives used to describe Spain were‘‘charming, warm, and
romantic.’’
Second, we examined the JW Thompson Person-ality Atlas (Ayala et
al., 2012), which asked 6075adults from 27 countries how they
perceived thepersonalities of other countries. Germany waslabeled
as ‘‘Uniformany’’ and described as ‘‘hard-working, successful,
orderly, and disciplined.’’ In
contrast, Spain was labeled ‘‘Funlandia’’ anddescribed as
‘‘charismatic and fun.’’ Third, wereviewed Cuddy et al.’s (2009)
analysis of Europeancountries, which found that Germany was
per-ceived as a notably ‘‘high-competence, low-warmth’’ country,
whereas Spain was perceived asa ‘‘high-warmth, low-competence’’
country.Accordingly, based on the triangulation of evi-dence, we
deemed competence (Germany) andwarmth (Spain) as the two most
salient descriptorsof those countries.
We recruited 174 non-student participants fromthe US (see
‘‘Appendix’’ for demographic character-istics) using Amazon’s MTurk
online consumerpanel. We included a control condition to
enhanceconfidence in our findings. Thus, the experimentwas a 3
(brand positioning: competent vs. warm vs.neutral-control) 9 2
(country personality stereo-type: competent vs. warm)
between-subjectsdesign. Participants were randomly assigned
toconditions, which meant that some participantswere exposed to a
brand positioning-country per-sonality stereotype congruity
condition, whereasothers were exposed to a brand
positioning-countrypersonality stereotype incongruity condition,
andsome received a neutral-control condition. For thecompetent and
warm brand positioning condi-tions, we used the same brand
positioning promo-tional brochure stimuli as in the preliminary
fieldstudy (see ‘‘Web Appendix 3’’). For the controlcondition, we
created a similar-looking descriptionabout each of the wines, but
it emphasized brandattributes that were intended to be neither
compe-tent nor warm. For example, the wine wasdescribed as
‘‘food-friendly and suitable for pairingwith a wide range of
foods.’’
Participants were instructed to imagine that theyhad just
entered a wine shop and were looking topurchase a bottle of white
wine, and that theywould be presented with information about
aspecific bottle of wine. On the next page, partici-pants viewed
the promotional material for the focalwine brand for at least 30 s.
The next pagemeasured the brand evaluation variables of
interest.Customer-based brand equity was measured usingfour items
to capture perceptions of quality versuscompetitors, value for the
cost, brand uniqueness,and willingness to pay a premium for the
brand(Netemeyer et al., 2004). We created a customer-based brand
equity index by averaging the fourmeasures (a = 0.87). Cultural
authenticity wasassessed with a three-item scale measuring
percep-tions of the cultural authenticity of the brand
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
325
Journal of International Business Studies
-
positioning. The scale is adapted from Moulard,Garrity, and Rice
(2015) and included items such as‘‘the brand… (1) embodies
genuinely [country]characteristics, (2) exhibited real [country]
behav-iors, and (3) is authentically [country].’’ We aver-aged the
three items to form a cultural authenticityindex (a = 0.92). For
brand positioning competenceversus warmth, we used a three-item
manipulationcheck based on (Cuddy et al., 2009). We averagedthe
three items to form a competence versuswarmth index (a = 0.92).
Study 1-A: ResultsFirst, we tested the effectiveness of the
manipula-tion in a 3 9 2 ANOVA with brand positioningcompetence
versus warmth as the dependent vari-able. It revealed a main effect
of brand positioning(MCompetent positioning = 5.50 vs. MNeutral
positioning-= 4.53 vs. MWarm positioning = 3.53, F(1,
168) = 21.34, p\0.001). As expected, the maineffect of country
and the interaction betweencountry and brand positioning were
non-signifi-cant. Post hoc tests revealed that the neutral-control
condition was perceived as significantlyless competent than the
competent condition andsignificantly more competent than the warm
con-dition, suggesting that the manipulation wassuccessful.
To examine H1, we conducted a 3 9 2 ANOVAwith customer-based
brand equity as the depen-dent variable. As expected, the main
effects ofcountry and brand positioning were not
significant(MCompetent positioning = 4.91 vs. MNeutral
positioning-= 4.70 vs. MWarm positioning = 4.84, F(1, 168) = 0.72,p
= 0.36), (MGermany = 4.88 vs. MSpain = 4.75; F(1,168) = 0.85, p =
0.36), indicating that neithercountry nor brand positioning alone
influencedthe evaluation of the brand. Importantly, in sup-port of
H1, the interaction between country andbrand positioning was
significant (F(1, 168) = 4.65,p = 0.01). Follow-up planned
contrasts indicatedthat participants gave more favorable
customer-based brand equity ratings to the German brandwith
competent brand positioning (M = 5.26) thanwith neutral brand
positioning (M = 4.73;t(63) = 1.91, p = 0.03) or warm positioning(M
= 4.66; t(63) = 2.46, p = 0.01)1. In contrast, theSpanish brand was
rated more favorably with warmbrand positioning (M = 5.02) than
with neutralbrand positioning (M = 4.67; t(55) = 1.68, p = 0.05)or
competent positioning (M = 4.56; t(53) = 1.67,p = 0.05). There were
no significant differencesbetween the incongruent and neutral
positioning
for both the German and Spanish wine brands. Weillustrate this
effect in Figure 1a.
To test H2, the mediating effect of culturalauthenticity, we
first conducted a 3 9 2 ANOVAwith cultural authenticity as the
dependent vari-able. As expected, the main effects of brand
posi-tioning and country were not significant, but theinteraction
between brand positioning and countrywas significant (F(l, 168) =
13.79, p\0.001). Forthe German brand, the competent positioning(M =
5.26) was viewed as more culturally authenticthan the neutral
positioning (M = 4.75;t(55) = 1.69, p = 0.05) or the warm
positioning(M = 3.85; t(63) = 5.58, p\0.001). In contrast, forthe
Spanish brand, the warm positioning(M = 5.31) was viewed as more
culturally authenticthan the neutral positioning (M = 4.71;t(55) =
2.29, p = 0.01) or the competent position-ing (M = 4.48; t(53) =
2.71, p = 0.01), which isshown in Figure 1b.
4.66 4.73
5.265.02
4.67 4.564.50
5.00
5.50
WarmPositioning
NeutralPositioning
CompetentPositioning
WarmPositioning
NeutralPositioning
CompetentPositioning
German Brand Spanish Brand
Cus
tom
er-B
ased
B
rand
Equ
ity
(Study 1-A)
3.85
4.755.25 5.31
4.71 4.48
3.50
4.50
5.50
WarmPositioning
NeutralPositioning
CompetentPositioning
WarmPositioning
NeutralPositioning
CompetentPositioning
German Brand Spanish Brand
Cul
tura
l Aut
hent
icity
(Study 1-A)
4.95
6.086.51
5.75
4.75
5.75
6.75
ExtrovertedPositioning
IntrovertedPositioning
ExtrovertedPositioning
IntrovertedPositioning
Indian Brand Italian Brand
Cus
tom
er-B
ased
B
rand
Equ
ity
(Study 1-B)
6.567.51
8.24
5.155.00
7.00
9.00
ExtrovertedPositioning
IntrovertedPositioning
ExtrovertedPositioning
IntrovertedPositioning
Indian Brand Italian Brand
Cul
tura
l Aut
hent
icity
(Study 1-B)
A
C
D
B
Figure 1 The mediating effect of cultural authenticity.
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
326
Journal of International Business Studies
-
Next, to establish whether cultural authenticitymediated the
interactive effect of brand position-ing-country personality
congruity on customer-based brand equity (H2), we conducted a
mediatedmoderation analysis using 5000 bootstrap samplesand Model 8
of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013).Because they were not
significantly different fromone another, we collapsed the neutral
and incon-gruent brand positioning conditions into one con-dition.
The interaction between brand positioningand country was
significantly related to culturalauthenticity (b = 1.72, t(170) =
4.49, p\0.001)and cultural authenticity was significantly relatedto
customer-based brand equity (b = 0.38,t(169) = 6.95, p\ 0.001). A
95% bias-correctedbootstrap confidence interval for the indirect
effectof brand positioning-country personality congruityon brand
equity was wholly above zero (0.35–1.03).Therefore, consistent with
H2, cultural authenticitymediated the moderated effect of brand
position-ing-country personality congruity on customer-based brand
equity evaluations for the Germanand Spanish wine brands (Table
2).
Study 1-B: Participants and ProcedureThe objective for Study 1-B
was to extend ourinvestigation to a different branding context
anddifferent country personality stereotypes. Weselected airlines,
an experiential service offering,as the brand context, and chose to
focus on Italyand India. Similar to Study 1-A, we first
determinedwhich personality characteristics (American) con-sumers
most closely associate with Italy and India,using a triangulating
process. Based on qualitativeinterviews, adjectives used to
describe Italy were‘‘passionate, loud, energetic, and outgoing.’’
Incontrast, adjectives used to describe India included‘‘cautious,
humble, calm, and refined.’’ Combined,these descriptions suggest
that consumers perceiveItaly as more extroverted and India as
moreintroverted.
Following the qualitative interviews, we quanti-tatively
confirmed the dominant personalitydimensions for the two countries
by adapting theBig Five Inventory (BFI) (John & Srivastava,
1999)and asking respondents to assess the personality ofa country
rather than that of a person. In abetween-subjects design, 150
non-student partici-pants recruited via MTurk were randomly
assignedto assess the country personality of either Italy orIndia.
Confirming the qualitative interviews, theANOVA revealed a
significant difference in extro-version/introversion between the
two countries
(MIndia = 3.23 vs. MItaly = 4.06; F(1, 148) = 57.03,p\0.001).
Differences in other personality dimen-sions were modest in
comparison to the differencesin extroversion/introversion. There
were no signif-icant differences on the agreeableness, openness,
orneuroticism dimensions, however; India was ratedas slightly more
conscientious than Italy. However,the differences in
extroversion/introversion wereconsiderably larger than the
differences in theconscientiousness dimension, suggesting
thatextroversion/introversion is the most salient coun-try
personality dimension for these countries. Fur-ther, we assessed
the country images of Italy andIndia, with a three-item scale (a =
0.90) adoptedfrom (Rojas-Méndez et al., 2015). Consistent
withprior literature, India’s country image (M = 4.15)was
significantly less favorable than Italy’s(M = 5.87; F(1, 150) =
82.62, p\ 0.001). Havingestablished extroversion/introversion as
salientcountry personality stereotypes for Italy and India,we
proceeded to examine whether brand position-ing that is congruent
with these country personal-ity stereotypes would influence
consumer brandevaluations.
We recruited 144 non-student participants (see‘‘Appendix’’ for
demographic characteristics) fromthe US using MTurk and randomly
assigned themto conditions. The experiment was a 2
(brandpositioning: extroverted vs. introverted) 9 2 (coun-try
personality stereotype: extroverted vs. intro-verted)
between-subjects design. Thus, we fullycrossed extroverted and
introverted brand position-ing with extroverted and introverted
country per-sonality stereotypes. We selected the nationalflagship
airline for each country, Alitalia and AirIndia, to test our
predictions. A professional graphicdesigner produced print
advertisements that posi-tioned the airlines as either extroverted
or intro-verted. The extroverted ad emphasized words suchas
friendly, outgoing, and cheerful, and the intro-verted ad
emphasized words such as quiet, gentle,and soft-spoken (see ‘‘Web
Appendix 4’’).
The advertisements were developed through aniterative process to
ensure that the stimuli success-fully conveyed the intended
personality and weresimilar in likability. We pre-tested the
stimuli witha small sample of non-student MTurk participants(n =
33) to examine whether they conveyed theintended position and
whether there was a signif-icant difference in the attitude toward
the adver-tisements. Participants were asked to identify
thepositioning of the advertisement on four semanticdifferential
items: (1) introverted/extroverted, (2)
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
327
Journal of International Business Studies
-
quiet/expressive, (3) reserved/outgoing, and
(4)thoughtful/talkative. We averaged the four itemsto form a
perceived extroversion versus introver-sion advertising positioning
index (a = 0.98). Wealso measured attitude toward the
advertisementwith three items (a = 0.97) (MacKenzie &
Lutz,1989). As intended, there was a significant differ-ence in the
perceived extroversion versus introver-sion positioning of the ads
(MExtroverted ad = 5.79,MIntroverted ad = 2.18, F(1, 31) = 82.66,
p\0.001).However, there was no difference in the attitudetoward the
advertisement (MExtroverted ad = 5.41,MIntroverted ad = 5.50, F(1,
31) = 0.03, p = 0.87).Thus, based on the pre-test, we were
satisfied thatthe advertisements conveyed the intended
posi-tioning, and that neither advertisement was
significantly more appealing than the other onthe basis of
design alone.
In the full study, after viewing the advertisement,participants
responded to the outcome questions aswell as manipulation check
questions. Customer-based brand equity (a = 0.89) and cultural
authen-ticity (a = 0.95) were assessed with the same scalesthat we
used in Study 1-A. To ensure the manipu-lation was successful, we
used the same four-itemscale to measure perceived extroversion
versusintroversion ad positioning as in the pre-test(a = 0.97).
Study 1-B: ResultsFirst, we tested the effectiveness of the
manipula-tion in a 2 9 2 ANOVA with brand positioningextroversion
versus introversion as the dependent
Table 2 Summary of results for all studies
Preliminary Field Study: Germany–Spain (wine bar customers)
ANOVA results: DV—wine taste rating F p
Country (Germany/Spain) (1, 91) = 1.58 0.21
Positioning (competent/warm) (1, 91) = 0.00 0.99
Country 9 positioning (1, 91) = 7.24 0.01
Study 1-A: Germany–Spain (online panel)
ANOVA results: DV—customer-based brand equity F p
Country (Germany/Spain) (1, 168) = 0.85 0.36
Positioning (competent/warm/neutral) (1, 168) = 0.72 0.36
Country 9 positioning (1, 168) = 4.65 0.01
PROCESS results b t p
Country 9 positioning ? cultural authenticity 1.72 (170) = 4.49
\0.001Cultural authenticity ? customer-based brand equity 0.38
(170) = 6.95 \0.001
LLCI–ULCI
Mediation test—95% bootstrap confidence interval 0.35–1.03
Study 1-B: Italy–India (Online panel)
ANOVA Results: DV—customer-based brand equity F p
Country (Italy/India) (1, 140) = 5.42 0.02
Positioning (extroverted/introverted) (1, 140) = 0.48 0.49
Country 9 positioning (1, 140) = 12.93 \0.001PROCESS results b t
p
Country 9 positioning ? cultural authenticity 4.04 (140) = 7.36
\0.001Cultural authenticity ? customer-based brand equity 0.34
(139) = 4.52 \0.001
LLCI–ULCI
Mediation test—95% bootstrap confidence interval 0.79–2.16
Study 2-A: Germany Animosity (students—lab)
ANOVA results: DV—chocolate taste rating F p
Animosity (high/low) (1, 156) = 0.08 0.78
Positioning (competent/warm) (1, 156) = 0.00 0.99
Animosity 9 positioning (1, 156) = 6.50 0.01
Study 2-B: Colombia Animosity (online panel)
ANOVA results: DV—customer-based brand equity F p
Animosity (high/low) (1, 139) = 6.23 0.01
Positioning (extroverted/introverted) (1, 139) = 0.02 0.89
Animosity 9 positioning (1, 139) = 5.82 0.02
DV dependent variable, LLCI-ULCI lower and upper limit
confidence interval, PROCESS refers to the SPSS macro by Hayes
(2013), b unstandardizedregression coefficient.
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
328
Journal of International Business Studies
-
variable. It revealed a main effect of brand posi-tioning
(MExtroverted positioning = 5.44 vs. MIntro-verted positioning =
2.24, F(1, 140) = 177.47,p\0.001). As expected, the main effect of
countryand the interaction between country and brandpositioning
were non-significant. To examine H1,we conducted a 2 9 2 ANOVA with
customer-basedbrand equity as the dependent variable. Asexpected,
the main effect of brand positioningwas not significant
(MExtroverted positioning = 5.73 vs.MIntroverted positioning =
5.92, F(1, 140) = 0.48,p = 0.49). However, the main effect of
countrywas significant (MItaly = 6.13 vs. MIndia = 5.52; F(1,140) =
5.42, p = 0.02), which is consistent withtraditional COO
literature, as Italy generally has amore favorable country image
than India(Fetscherin, 2010).
More importantly, in support of H1, the interac-tion between
country and brand positioning wassignificant (F(1, 140) = 12.93,
p\0.001). Follow-upplanned contrasts indicate that participants
gavemore favorable customer-based brand equity rat-ings to the
Italian airline brand with extrovertedbrand positioning (M = 6.51)
than with introvertedbrand positioning (M = 5.75; t(74) = 2.15,p =
0.02). In contrast, for the Indian airline brand,they gave more
favorable customer-based brandequity ratings with introverted brand
positioning(M = 6.08) than with extroverted brand positioning(M =
4.95; t(66) = 2.89, p = 0.002). We illustratethis effect in Figure
1c.
To test H2, the mediating effect of culturalauthenticity, we
conducted a 2 9 2 ANOVA withcultural authenticity as the dependent
variable. Themain effects of brand positioning and country werenot
significant, but as expected, the interactionbetween brand
positioning and country was signif-icant (F(l, 140) = 54.24, p\
0.001). For the Italianairline brand, the extroverted positioning
(MExtro-verted positioning = 8.24) was viewed as significantlymore
culturally authentic than its incongruentcounterpart (MIntroverted
positioning = 5.15;t(74) = 8.78, p\0.001). In contrast, for the
Indianairline brand, the introverted positioning wasviewed as more
culturally authentic (MIntroverted posi-tioning = 7.51) than its
incongruent counterpart(MExtroverted positioning = 6.56; t(66) =
2.23, p = 0.02),which is illustrated in Figure 1d.
Next, to establish whether cultural authenticitymediated the
interactive effect of brand position-ing-country personality
stereotype congruity oncustomer-based brand equity (H2), we
conducted amediated moderation analysis using 5000 bootstrap
samples and Model 8 of the PROCESS macro(Hayes, 2013).
Consistent with the ANOVA, theinteraction between brand positioning
and countrywas significantly related to the mediating
variablecultural authenticity (b = 4.04, t(140) = 7.36,p\0.001) and
cultural authenticity was signifi-cantly related to customer-based
brand equity(b = 0.34, t(139) = 4.52, p\0.001). A 95%
bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for theindirect effect
of brand positioning-country per-sonality stereotype congruity on
customer-basedbrand equity was wholly above zero
(0.79–2.16).Therefore, consistent with H2, cultural
authenticitymediated the effect of brand
positioning-countrypersonality congruity on customer-based
brandequity for brands from both Italy and India.
Study 1: DiscussionThe three experiments in Study 1 provide
strongsupport for our theory of brand positioning-coun-try
personality stereotype congruity. In the prelim-inary field study,
we provide initial support for H1by establishing the relationship
between brandpositioning-country personality congruity and
con-sumer brand evaluations, as customers evaluatedthe wine as
tasting better when brand positioningand country personality
stereotypes were congru-ent. Because it was conducted in a live
retailenvironment, the field study offers external validityto our
conceptual framework. While both countriestested (Germany and
Spain) have generally a veryfavorable country image and both
countries havebuilt strong reputations for producing certain
vari-etals of wine, results suggest that favorability for
acountry’s brands and products can be improvedthrough alignment of
brand positioning and coun-try personality stereotypes. The
conclusion is thatcountry personality characteristics
reachingbeyond typical COO favorability can significantlyinfluence
brand evaluations.
Testing the same two countries and countrypersonality
stereotypes, Study 1-A provides addi-tional support for H1 in that
consumer brandevaluations are more favorable when the
brandpositioning is congruent with consumers’ countrypersonality
stereotypes. The evidence is furtherstrengthened by the inclusion
of a neutral controlcondition as the congruent condition leads to
morefavorable brand evaluations over a neutral non-personality
based positioning. Furthermore, Study1-A sheds initial light on why
brand positioning-country personality stereotype congruity leads
tomore favorable brand evaluations. In support of H2,
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
329
Journal of International Business Studies
-
we demonstrate the underlying role of culturalauthenticity as a
mediating factor. That is, whenbrand positioning is congruent with
country per-sonality stereotypes, it fits with the consumers’mental
schema about the country. Consistent withour theoretical
predictions, congruity in brandpositioning satisfies consumers’
desire for consis-tency and harmony. The brand is viewed as
moreculturally authentic, and it is evaluated morefavorably due to
enhanced credibility.
Finally, the findings from Study 1-B offer specificcontributions
beyond what was learned in the fieldstudy and Study 1-A. First, we
extend the general-izability of our results by examining two
additionalcountries and different salient country
personalitystereotypes (Italy and India). Importantly, weinclude a
country that has a generally less favorablecountry image. The main
effect findings are con-sistent with the traditional COO literature
in thatthe Indian brand was rated significantly lower thanthe
Italian brand. However, when the Indian brandis positioned in a way
that is congruent withconsumers’ personality stereotypes of India,
thebrand’s evaluation improves significantly. This is asignificant
finding, as it suggests a strategic path forbrands from countries
with overall unfavorablecountry images to successfully capitalize
on theirCOO. The context of our study, airline brands, alsoadds to
the generalizability of our framework, sincethe findings have been
consistent for both atangible good (wine) and a more
experientialservice offering (airlines).
STUDY 2In this final set of experiments, we turn ourattention to
H3, which investigates the moderatingeffect of consumer animosity.
We conducted twoseparate experiments to test the moderating
effectof consumer animosity from the perspective of USconsumers’
animosity reactions toward a countrywith a generally more favorable
country image(Germany: Study 2-A) and toward a country with aless
favorable country image (Colombia: Study 2-B).We selected Germany
(Study 2-A) because of itspotential to be viewed as a threat to US
companiesand workers. The US runs a large trade deficit withGermany
and some accuse Germany of adoptingneo-mercantilist policies as
evidenced by its largecurrent account surplus (Becker, 2015).
Further,German brands compete directly with US alterna-tives (e.g.,
Adidas/Nike, Volkswagen/GM), and thecountry was the enemy of the US
in both World
Wars that continue to be popularized in Hollywoodmovies and TV
shows. Thus, there is a potentialbasis for consumer animosity as a
result of pastwars, brand rivalries, and current economic
policy.
Colombia (Study 2-B) was deemed suitable due toits close
proximity and the US-Colombian TradePromotion Agreement, which
makes the US animportant market for Colombian companies. Fur-ther,
although the relationship between the US andColombia is generally
stable, there is a history ofconflict surrounding drug cartels and
the flow ofnarcotics to the US. Thus, economic competitionfrom
Colombia and the role of Colombian drugcartels in supplying
narcotics to the US serves as apotential basis for animosity.
Lastly, we selectedchocolate as our study context across both
exper-iments to provide an additional test of the gener-alizability
of our findings across a new andpreviously untested product
category. Both Ger-many and Colombia actively export chocolates
tothe US, therefore the product context has strongexternal validity
and represents a realistic con-sumer advertising situation.
Study 2-A: Participants and ProcedureWe recruited 160 student
participants from a USuniversity student subject pool (see
‘‘Appendix’’ fordemographic characteristics). In a 2 (country
ani-mosity: high vs. low) 9 2 (brand positioning: com-petent vs.
warm) between-subjects design, we firstmanipulated consumers’
feelings of animosity byadapting the animosity prime developed by
Russelland Russell (2006). Participants were randomlyassigned to
either a high or low-animosity condi-tion, and read a brief story
discussing details aboutUS-German trade relations. The
high-animositycondition presented US-German relations as
turbu-lent, filled with restrictions against American prod-ucts,
and hurting the US economy. In contrast, thelow-animosity condition
presented US-Germanrelations as open and friendly, including
significantUS exports to Germany, which create well-payingjobs in
the US and a higher quality of life forAmericans.
In a controlled lab setting, participants weresubsequently
presented a cover story that a Germanchocolate brand was
considering entry into the USmarket pending a favorable response by
US con-sumers. Participants were randomly assigned toproduct
positioning conditions that emphasizedeither the competence or the
warmth of the focalproduct. In the competent brand positioning
con-dition, the chocolate was presented as being
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
330
Journal of International Business Studies
-
meticulously produced by chocolatiers who dili-gently selected
each cocoa bean and who roastedeach bean using a pin-point roasting
technique,with each morsel engineered to contain exactly74% cocoa.
In contrast, in the warmth brandpositioning condition, the
chocolate was presentedas fun and flirty, with a silky texture and
decadentflavor notes, produced by chocolatiers who reliedon their
playful imaginations (see ‘‘Web Appendix5’’).
After reading the product description, partici-pants were asked
to sample an actual piece ofchocolate handed to them by a lab
assistant. Thechocolate was identical across all conditions. It
wasunwrapped and served in a clear, plastic bag so as toconceal its
original branding and to fit with ourcover story. Immediately
following the chocolatetasting, participants completed a brief
question-naire that measured the dependent variable as wellas
manipulation check questions. Similar to thefield study, we
operationalized our dependentvariable of consumer brand evaluations
as theparticipants’ taste evaluations. The respondentswere asked to
indicate how much they liked thechocolate on a scale using 1)
like-dislike, 2) veryappealing-very unappealing, and 3) very
desirable-very undesirable as end points. We averaged thethree
items to form a perceived taste index(a = 0.97). To examine the
effectiveness of themanipulations, we included a four-item
angertoward Germany scale based on Harmeling et al.(2015). We
averaged the four items to form aconsumer animosity index (a =
0.90). For brandpositioning competence, we used the same three-item
competence versus warmth scale as in Study1-A (a = 0.85).
Study 2-A: ResultsFirst, we tested the manipulations with a
series of2 9 2 ANOVAs. The ANOVA with the brand posi-tioning
competence versus warmth index as thedependent variable revealed a
main effect of brandpositioning (MCompetent = 5.26 vs. MWarm =
4.88,F(1, 156) = 3.98, p = 0.05). Second, an ANOVA withconsumer
animosity toward Germany as the depen-dent variable revealed a
significant main effect ofthe animosity prime (MHigh animosity =
2.68 vs.MLow animosity = 2.10, F(1, 156) = 11.31, p\0.001).As
expected, all other main and interaction effectsfor these ANOVAs
were non-significant.
To examine H3, we conducted a 2 9 2 ANOVAwith taste evaluation
as the dependent variable. Itrevealed non-significant main effects
of consumer
animosity (MHigh animosity = 5.74 vs. MLow animosity-= 5.80;
F(1, 156) = 0.08, p = 0.78) and brand posi-
tioning (MCompetent = 5.76 vs. MWarm = 5.78, F(1,156) = 0.01, p
= 0.92). However, the interactionbetween consumer animosity and
brand position-ing was significant (F(1, 156) = 6.50, p =
0.01).Consistent with the earlier experiments, follow-upplanned
contrasts showed that participants in thelow animosity condition
rated the German choco-late more favorably when presented in the
congru-ent competent brand positioning (M = 6.08) thanwhen
presented in the incongruent warm brandpositioning (M = 5.53; t(82)
= 1.94, p = 0.03). Incontrast, participants in the high animosity
condi-tion preferred the incongruent warm positioning(M = 6.04)
over the congruent competent position-ing (M = 5.44; t(74) = 1.69,
p = 0.05). The resultssupport H3 and are illustrated in Figure
2a.
Study 2-B: Participants and ProcedureAs a first step, we
established consumers’ personal-ity stereotypes of Colombia. Based
on qualitativeinterviews, Colombia was described as
‘‘flirtatious,enthusiastic, outgoing, and loud,’’ which was
sim-ilar to the extroverted adjectives used to describeItaly.
Subsequently, we asked a small sample(n = 36) of MTurk participants
to evaluate Colom-bia on the Big 5 inventory, the same test used
forItaly and India in Study 1-B. The findings con-firmed that
Colombia was viewed as having a moreextroverted personality
stereotype (M = 4.20),which was significantly more extroverted
thanIndia (M = 3.23), but the same as Italy (M = 4.06).Further, on
country image, Colombia (M = 4.44)was rated significantly less
favorable than Italy(M = 5.87), but no better than India (M =
4.15).
Having established that Colombia is most closelyassociated with
extroversion, we developed a 2(consumer animosity: high vs. low) 9
2 (brandpositioning: extroverted vs. introverted) between-subjects
design. We recruited 143 non-studentparticipants (see ‘‘Appendix’’
for demographic char-acteristics) from the US via MTurk and
randomlyassigned them to conditions. First, we
manipulatedparticipants’ feelings of consumer animosity, withan
adapted version of the animosity prime devel-oped by Russell and
Russell (2006). Then, wepresented them with a cover story that a
Colom-bian chocolate brand, Santander, was consideringentry into
the US market. Santander is a realColombian chocolate brand, but is
not well knownto the vast majority of American
consumers.Participants were randomly assigned to either an
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
331
Journal of International Business Studies
-
extroverted or introverted brand positioning con-dition. A
professional advertising agency producedthe advertisements. Most
attributes were held con-stant across the two advertisements, which
used thesame image of the chocolate drawn from thebrand’s website,
and featured the word ‘‘happi-ness.’’ To manipulate the brand
positioning, theextroverted advertisement illustrated a group
ofpeople at a party and with supporting text indicat-ing the
chocolate would be best enjoyed withfriends. The introverted
advertisement illustrated asolitary environment, suggesting the
chocolate wasbest enjoyed during a quiet evening at home (see‘‘Web
Appendix 5’’).
We pre-tested the ads with a small sample of non-student MTurk
participants (n = 38) to examinewhether they conveyed the intended
brand posi-tion and whether there was a difference in theattitude
toward the ads. Participants were asked torate the ads on the same
extroversion versusintroversion ad positioning scale (a = 0.92)
andattitude toward the ad (a = 0.94) as we used inStudy 1-B. As
intended, there was a significantdifference in the perceived
extroversion versusintroversion of the advertisements (MExtroverted
ad-= 6.09, MIntroverted ad = 3.32, F(1, 36) = 45.68,p\0.001).
However, there was no difference inthe attitude toward the ads
(MExtroverted ad = 5.91,
MIntroverted ad = 6.07, F(1, 36) = 0.37, p = 0.55).Thus, based
on the pre-test, we were satisfied thatthe stimuli conveyed the
intended brand position-ing and that neither advertisement was
signifi-cantly more appealing than the other based on itsdesign
alone.
In the full study, after viewing the advertisement,participants
immediately responded to the out-come measures as well as
manipulation checkquestions. Given that this was an online study,
ataste test was not possible. Thus, we used the samecustomer-based
brand equity measure as in Studies1-A and 1-B (a = 0.89). To
examine the effectivenessof the consumer animosity manipulations,
we usedthe same four-item consumer animosity scale as inStudy 2-A
(a = 0.97) and the same four-item scalefor perceived brand
positioning extroversion versusintroversion as in the pre-test (a =
0.96).
Study 2-B: ResultsWe again tested the effectiveness of the
manipula-tions with a series of 2 9 2 ANOVAs. First, anANOVA with
perceived brand positioning extro-version versus introversion as
the dependent vari-able revealed a main effect of brand
positioning(MExtroverted ad = 5.87 vs. MIntroverted ad = 3.32,
F(1,139) = 145.40, p\0.001). Second, an ANOVA withconsumer
animosity toward Colombia as thedependent variable revealed a main
effect of ani-mosity prime (MHigh animosity = 4.05 vs.MLow
animosity =1.49, F(1, 139) = 108.11, p\0.001). As expected,
allother main and interaction effects for these ANOVAswere
non-significant.
To examine H3, we conducted a 2 9 2 ANOVAwith customer-based
brand equity as thedependent variable. It revealed that the
maineffect of brand positioning was not significant(MExtroverted
positioning = 3.85 vs. MIntroverted positioning =3.87, F(1, 139) =
0.02, p = 0.89). However, asexpected, the main effect of consumer
animositywas significant (MHigh animosity = 3.61 vs. MLow animosity
=4.11, F(1, 139) = 6.23, p = 0.01). More central to thepurpose of
this study, the interaction betweenconsumer animosity and brand
positioning wassignificant (F(1, 139) = 5.82, p = 0.02).
Consistentwith the German animosity study (and Study 1),the
follow-up planned contrasts revealed that inthe low animosity
condition, the congruent extro-verted brand positioning (M = 4.34)
led to morefavorable customer-based brand equity evaluationsas
compared with the incongruent introvertedbrand positioning (M =
3.88; t(70) = 1.68, p =0.05). However, in the high animosity
condition,
6.04
5.44 5.53
6.08
5.25
5.75
6.25
WarmPositioning
CompetentPositioning
WarmPositioning
CompetentPositioning
High Animosity Low Animosity
Cho
cola
te T
aste
(Germany)
3.35
3.86
4.34
3.88
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
ExtrovertedPositioning
IntrovertedPositioning
ExtrovertedPositioning
IntrovertedPositioning
High Animosity Low Animosity
Cus
tom
er-B
ased
B
rand
Equ
ity
(Colombia)
A
B
Figure 2 The moderating effect of consumer animosity.
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
332
Journal of International Business Studies
-
the incongruent introverted brand positioning(M = 3.86) led to
more favorable customer-basedbrand equity evaluations compared with
the con-gruent extroverted brand positioning (M = 3.35;t(69) =
1.73, p = 0.04), in support of H3 and illus-trated in Figure
2b.
Study 2: DiscussionStudy 1 offers robust support for the effect
of brandpositioning-country personality stereotype con-gruity on
brand evaluations. Results from Study 2reveal that in a context
where consumers harboranimosity toward the COO, brand
positioning-country personality congruity results in a
negativeeffect, instead of a positive effect on brand evalu-ation
as previously demonstrated. This highlights apotential risk of
country personality stereotypepositioning. The positive effect as
evidenced bythe early experiments is not merely weakened,
butreverses valence. Under conditions of animosity,brands are
viewed more favorably when brandpositioning and country personality
are incongruent.The theorized predictions were supported in
twoseparate contexts, which lend further generalizabil-ity to the
findings.
Further, in the Colombian context, we found amain effect of
consumer animosity, which is con-sistent with the general animosity
literature. Some-what surprisingly, this effect did not materialize
inthe preceding German context. We can only spec-ulate as to why
this occurred, but two potentialexplanations may be that the degree
of animositygenerated toward Germany was somewhat modest,which may
have led to the non-significant maineffect for animosity.
Alternatively, the outcomevariable in that study was taste-related,
which maybe somewhat less malleable than attitudinal out-comes.
Nonetheless, the expected interaction withbrand positioning emerged
in both the Germanand Colombian contexts, which provided supportfor
our theorized prediction.
GENERAL DISCUSSIONAcross five experiments, we built conclusive
evi-dence to support our theory of brand positioning-country
personality congruity. We supported ourpredictions across a variety
of country personalitystereotypes, countries with varying levels of
overallfavorability, and different product categories. Thefield
study, conducted in a retail store duringoperating hours, revealed
that customers evaluatedbrands more favorably when positioned in a
manner
that was congruent, rather than incongruent, withthe brand’s
home country personality stereotype.Therefore, this study supported
H1 and developedexternal validity for our research premise.
Internalvalidity was established across the more
controlledremaining studies. Studies 1-A and 1-B providedadditional
tests of H1 and also revealed support forH2, the mediating effect
of cultural authenticity.Study 2 demonstrated support for H3 by
examiningthe moderating effect of consumer animosity. Insum, our
findings shed light on an understudiedaspect of COO brand
positioning, which explainhow and why brand managers can use
COOpersonality stereotypes to their advantage. Thus,our research
has significant implications for inter-national marketing theory
and practice.
Theoretical ImplicationsMore than a half century of COO research
hasprovided insight into how country associationsaffect brand
evaluations. However, much of theCOO literature conceptualizes
country image as ageneral favorable/unfavorable continuum.
Thisstudy adds to our knowledge by examining theunder-explored
dimension of country personality.As an extension of the common
usage of overallfavorability attitudes in country image
research,our investigation recognizes new relevant stereo-type
associations. Evidence gleaned from our fiveexperiments indicates
that country personalityinfluences consumer evaluations of brands
associ-ated with a country. Thus, country image effects aremore
complex than previously thought.
The overarching theoretical explanation for ourfindings is
schema congruity, which is a novelperspective from which to examine
the influence ofCOO on consumer brand evaluations.
Cognitiveconsistency theories suggest that consumers arepredisposed
to prefer elements that are cognitivelyconsistent with their
existing knowledge (e.g.,Festinger, 1957). So when presented with
newinformation (i.e., brand positioning information)that is
consistent with prior knowledge (i.e., coun-try schema), it
reinforces the consumer’s previouslyheld stereotypes and is viewed
more favorably. Theuse of schema congruity is novel, because
iteschews traditional reliance on country imagefavorability and
attractiveness of specific personal-ity attributes, i.e.,
generalized attractiveness ofextroversion. Instead, it relies on
the congruity ofbrand positioning and country personality, suchthat
when congruent, it facilitates more favorablebrand evaluations.
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
333
Journal of International Business Studies
-
The mediating and moderating variables improveour understanding
of how and when brand posi-tioning-country personality congruity
matters.First, the effect of congruity enhances perceptionsof
cultural authenticity of the brand. Trends ofidentity-related and
authentic experiential con-sumption are becoming more relevant to
con-sumers as they navigate a landscape of marketglobalization and
subsequent standardized strate-gies of global brands. This effect
offers someunderstanding of how schema congruity affectsconsumer
brand evaluations through culturalauthenticity. Second, the
moderating effect ofanimosity on the relationship between brand
posi-tioning-country personality stereotype congruityand consumer
brand evaluations underscores thecapacity of schema congruity to
favorably affectbrand evaluations. Whereas Study 1 shows
thatcongruity enhances brand evaluation, Study 2evidences that
congruity under conditions of highanimosity toward the country of
association resultsnot in a weakened positive effect, but rather
areversed effect. This reversal offers evidence that ageneral
favorability spectrum lacks the dexterity tocapture other more
complex effects of countryimage.
A common criticism of the broad COO literatureis that research
findings have been artificiallyinflated due to ecologically
unrealistic researchdesigns and it has even been suggested that
‘‘underexternally valid, real-life conditions most consumerdo not
consider the COO of the products theypurchase’’ (Samiee &
Leonidou, 2011: 75). Thisstudy adds to the body of literature
(e.g., Herz &Diamantopoulos, 2013, 2017), which has
illus-trated the significant effect of country associationsin
realistic settings. For example, in the field study,we worked with
the wine shop owner to ensure thatpresentation of the wines
mirrored how wines aretypically presented during normal wine
samplings.The chocolate advertisements in Study 2 employedimages of
Santander chocolate from the brand’swebsite. Further, participants
were never informedof the country’s salient personality being
investi-gated. Thus, we conclude that focal participantsheld the
same country personality stereotypes asthe participants in the
qualitative and quantitativepre-tests. In effect, this study
combined externallyvalid, real-life conditions with more controlled
labenvironments to find evidence of significant
brandpositioning-country personality congruity.
Furthermore, across multiple experiments, weutilize different
samples (wine shop customers,
Mturk participants, and student subject pool par-ticipants), and
we use two related, but distinct,outcome variables to
operationalize consumerbrand evaluations (taste quality and
customer-based brand equity). We also find consistent resultswith
brands from both countries with and withoutfavorable country
images. Finally, we manipulatethe brands’ positioning with tangible
goods (wineand chocolate), and with an intangible serviceoffering
(airlines). Combined, this suggests thatthe conceptual framework is
relatively generaliz-able and not confined to a specific context
ormeasurement.
Managerial ImplicationsThe traditional COO literature has mostly
beendescriptive and advice for managers has beenlimited to
‘‘emphasize’’ or ‘‘hide’’ country associa-tions depending on the
country’s degree of favor-ability. With this study, we offer a
clearermanagerial lever for managers as our findingssuggest that
how the brand emphasizes the countryassociation is of great
importance. Particularly, thefindings offer a strategic path for
brands fromcountries with unfavorable country images to notonly
circumvent the challenge of an unfavorablehome country image, but
capitalize on congruity forstrategic gain. Consistent with the
traditional COOliterature, in Study 1-B, the Italian brand is
signif-icantly preferred over the Indian brand. However,by
positioning the brand in a schema-congruentmanner consistent with
the country personalitystereotype, brands from countries with a
weakcountry image can ‘‘close the gap’’ compared withbrands from
advanced economies. Thus, it becomescritically important for
managers to be aware of andtrack consumers’ perceptions about its
home coun-try’s personality.
Further, merely relying on a favorable countryimage may be
sub-optimal when positioning is notcongruent with the dominant
country personality.For example, in our follow-up conversations
withthe wine shop owner and his wine distributors,they shared an
anecdote that German wine makersregularly emphasize the ‘‘passion
and enthusiasm’’involved in the production process, perhaps in
aneffort to match the passion and love typicallyexpressed by
Spanish and French wine makers.Despite the seemingly beneficial
assumption that‘‘passion and enthusiasm’’ connote positive
asso-ciations for wine (i.e., engagement and love ofcraft), such a
positioning is incongruent withGermany’s country personality and,
somewhat
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
334
Journal of International Business Studies
-
counterintuitively, German brands would appearto benefit more by
emphasizing competence. Theopposite perception may be prevalent in
otherindustries. For some industries, it may be easy toassume that
competence is a favorable brandattribute that all brands should
tout. However,based on our results, there is no evidence of
asignificant main effect for either competence orwarmth, it appears
that it is only schema con-gruity with country personality
stereotypes thatdrives enhanced brand evaluations.
We caution managers that it is highly likely thatconsumers from
different countries will perceivecertain target countries
differently. Research oncultural values (e.g., Hofstede, Hofstede,
& Minkov,2010) has found that our perceptions of othercountries
are influenced by our own cultural values,and we suspect this will
also influence countrypersonality stereotypes. Thus, firms which
attemptto align brand positioning with consumers’
countrypersonality stereotypes must verify the most salientcountry
personality stereotypes in each given mar-ket and it is likely that
cultural adaptations arenecessary.
Limitations and Future Research DirectionsThe literature
provides significant evidence thatcountry associations are a
powerful brand associa-tion for many brands competing in
internationalmarkets (e.g., Diamantopoulos et al., 2017; Herz
&Diamantopoulos, 2017). Accordingly, it should beimperative for
brand managers to understand andtry to leverage such country
associations, as shownin this study. However, we can, of course,
not claimthat brand positioning based on country associa-tions is
the only way to be successful. There may beother brand positioning
strategies that also havepositive effects.
To combat COO research criticism of overlyartificial research
designs, we employed a mix ofstimuli, including ‘‘real’’ wine
tasting notes in thefield study, simple product descriptions, and
moreelaborate professionally-designed advertisements.Combined, the
consistent results across all thestudies with the ‘‘clean, but less
realistic’’ simplestimuli to the ‘‘more realistic, but less
clean’’elaborate stimuli gives us confidence in the
robustness of the results, but additional researchcan examine
consequential outcome variables.Potential extensions also include
investigatingwhether the effects hold for other country
contextswith different country personality stereotypes. Fur-ther,
we adopt the common perspective that brandorigin refers to the
country which a consumerassociates with a brand as being its
source, regard-less of where the product is made or parts
aresourced from (Diamantopoulos et al., 2017). Apotential
confounding effect of a diversified globalvalue chain is probably
also less of a concern giventhat brand origin and country of
manufacture tendto be one and the same for the product
categories(e.g., wine and chocolate) examined in this
study.However, a potential issue would arise if consumersview a
brand as bicultural and particularly if thetwo home countries have
different country person-ality stereotypes. For example, Royal
Dutch Shell isa British-Dutch company with bicultural
identities.The number of bicultural companies, however,
isrelatively limited and it was thus beyond the scopeof this study,
but it may be a source for futureresearch.
Finally, this research has identified one signifi-cant mediator,
cultural authenticity, and one sig-nificant moderator, consumer
animosity, that helpus understand the main thesis of this
study.However, we cannot rule out that there may beother
significant mediators or moderators thatinfluence the brand
positioning-country personal-ity congruity relationship, which can
be uncoveredin future research. Limitations notwithstanding,
byexamining brand positioning-country personalitystereotype
congruity, this research advances ourunderstanding of the role of
country image associ-ations in a more complex and precise way
thatmoves beyond a general favorability continuum tooffer a deeper
understanding of the role of COO onconsumer brand evaluations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors gratefully acknowledge Nicolas
Papado-poulos, Colleen Harmeling, and participants at theAMA Global
Marketing Conference in Havana, Cubafor feedback on early versions
of this manuscript and
Beyond country image favorability Peter Magnusson et al
335
Journal of International Business Studies
-
the valuable guidance provided by Editor CostasKatsikeas and the
three anonymous JIBS reviewers.
NOTES1One-tailed tests were performed on all planned
contrasts.
REFERENCESAaker, J. L. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality.
Journal ofMarketing Research, 34(3): 347–356.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. 2007. Is that car smiling at
me?Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomor-phized
products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4):468–479.
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Batra, R. 1999.
Brandpositioning through advertising in Asia, N America, andEurope:
The role of global consumer culture. Journal ofMarketing, 63(1):
75–87.
Ayala, N., Truss, M., & Montecuollo, K. 2012. JWT
personalityatlas. http://personalityatlas.com/. Accessed 27 March
2018.
Baker, V. 2017. Havaianas: How a Brazilian flip-flop took over
theworld. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40610739.
Accessed 27 March 2018.
Barbarossa, C., De Pelsmacker, P., & Moons, I. 2018. Effects
ofcountry-of-origin stereotypes on consumer responses to
pro-duct-harm crises. International Marketing Review,
35(3):362–389.
Becker, J. 2015. German neo-mercantilism: Contradictions of
a(non-)model. In B. Unger (Ed.), The German model: Seen by
itsneighbours. London: SE Publishing.
Bilkey, W. J., & Nes, E. 1982. Country-of-origin effects
onproduct evaluations. Journal of International Business
Studies,13(1): 89–99.
Cartwright, D. 1949. Some principles of mass persuasion.Human
Relations, 2(3): 253–267.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P.,
Demoulin,S., Leyens, J.-P., et al. 2009. Stereotype content model
acrosscultures: Towards universal similarities and some
differences.British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1): 1–33.
d’Astous, A., & Boujbel, L. 2007. Positioning countries
onpersonality dimensions: Scale development and implicationsfor
country marketing. Journal of Business Research, 60(3):231–239.
Diamantopoulos, A., Florack, A., Halkias, G., & Palcu, J.
2017.Explicit versus implicit country stereotypes as predictors
ofproduct preferences: Insights from the stereotype contentmodel.
Journal of International Business Studies, 48(8):1023–1036.
Dichter, E. 1962. The world customer. Harvard Business
Review,40(4): 113–122.
Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Stanford,CA.: Stanford University Press.
Fetscherin, M. 2010. The determinants and measurement of
acountry brand: The country brand strength index. Interna-tional
Marketing Review, 27(4): 466–479.
Fiske, S. T. 1982. Schema-triggered affect: Applications to
socialperception. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect
andcognition, 17th annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition
(pp.55–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Jun, X. 2002. A
model of(often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth
respectively follow from perceived status and
competition.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6):
878–902.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition. New
York:McGraw-Hill.
Gao, G. Y., Wang, D. T., & Che, Y. 2017. Impact of
historicalconflict on FDI location and performance: Japanese
invest-ment in China. Journal of International Business
Studies,advance online publication..
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0048-6.
Gineikiene, J., & Diamantopoulos, A. 2017. I hate where
itcomes from but I still buy it: Countervailing influences
ofanimosity and nostalgia. Journal of International
BusinessStudies, 48(8): 992–1008.
Gürhan-Canli, Z., Sarıal-Abi, G., & Hayr