A FORMALIZED FRAMEWORK OF CONSUMER’S MENTAL PICTURES OF COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN
저자
발행기관
학술지명
권호사항
발행연도
2016
작성언어
English
주제어
등재정보
01
자료형태
학술저널
수록면
44-48(5쪽)
제공처
The country-of-origin (COO) concept has obtained considerable attention by marketing researchers and managers since its introduction by Schooler in 1965. The relevance of this construct has been underlined by various studies indicating that a product’s COO serves as a signal for product quality, thus driving consumers’ product evaluations (Han & Terpstra, 1988), and consequently coloring their decision-making processes (Herz & Diamantopoulos, 2013). However, “despite a large body of research, country-of-origin effects are still poorly understood” (Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999, p. 521). This view is reiterated by Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006) and Knight and Calantone (2001) who argue that academicians have so far not been able to provide an integrative theoretical framework capable of explaining the country-of-origin concept and the effects it has on behavioral intentions.
The lacking consensus on a formalized and theory-based framework has resulted in various and often inconsistent views on the conceptualization of the COO concept (Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop & Mourali, 2005; Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009). More specifically, several researchers view COO as a cognitive mental construct, consisting of associations, attributes and beliefs which consumers link to a particular manufacturing country (e.g. Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000). However, other researchers propose to include not only cognitive but also affective components in the COO concept (e.g. Häubl, 1996). Further, studies also differ on the question whether COO should be viewed as a host of various beliefs (e.g. Martin & Eroglu, 1993) or rather as an overall evaluative attitudinal construct (e.g. Kotler, Haider & Rein, 1993). To complicate things further, existing studies also only loosely define whether COO should be conceptualized as a mental construct or rather as an effect that stems from a mental construct (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). As a consequence, this conceptual ambiguity within the COO literature has yielded different operationalization for the measurement of the COO construct. As a consequence, and perhaps not surprisingly, the empirical work on COO has often resulted in conflicting findings (e.g. Pappu, Queste & Cooksey, 2006), limiting the advancement of the whole research area and making it harder for managers to apply it.
Existing research (Josiassen, Lukas, Whitwell & Assaf, 2013) has addressed the conceptual ambiguity of COO by providing a framework for the macro-structure, explaining how different units of analysis relate to each other. However, researchers’
1) fk.marktg@cbs.dkIntroduction
The country-of-origin (COO) concept has obtained considerable attention by marketing researchers and managers since its introduction by Schooler in 1965. The relevance of this construct has been underlined by various studies indicating that a product’s COO serves as a signal for product quality, thus driving consumers’ product evaluations (Han & Terpstra, 1988), and consequently coloring their decision-making processes (Herz & Diamantopoulos, 2013). However, “despite a large body of research, country-of-origin effects are still poorly understood” (Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999, p. 521). This view is reiterated by Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006) and Knight and Calantone (2001) who argue that academicians have so far not been able to provide an integrative theoretical framework capable of explaining the country-of-origin concept and the effects it has on behavioral intentions.
The lacking consensus on a formalized and theory-based framework has resulted in various and often inconsistent views on the conceptualization of the COO concept (Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop & Mourali, 2005; Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009). More specifically, several researchers view COO as a cognitive mental construct, consisting of associations, attributes and beliefs which consumers link to a particular manufacturing country (e.g. Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000). However, other researchers propose to include not only cognitive but also affective components in the COO concept (e.g. Häubl, 1996). Further, studies also differ on the question whether COO should be viewed as a host of various beliefs (e.g. Martin & Eroglu, 1993) or rather as an overall evaluative attitudinal construct (e.g. Kotler, Haider & Rein, 1993). To complicate things further, existing studies also only loosely define whether COO should be conceptualized as a mental construct or rather as an effect that stems from a mental construct (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). As a consequence, this conceptual ambiguity within the COO literature has yielded different operationalization for the measurement of the COO construct. As a consequence, and perhaps not surprisingly, the empirical work on COO has often resulted in conflicting findings (e.g. Pappu, Queste & Cooksey, 2006), limiting the advancement of the whole research area and making it harder for managers to apply it.
Existing research (Josiassen, Lukas, Whitwell & Assaf, 2013) has addressed the conceptual ambiguity of COO by providing a framework for the macro-structure, explaining how different units of analysis relate to each other. However, researchers’Information about a COO is not only hold at the aggregated level, as reflected by CI, but may also be manifested through various, potentially unrelated beliefs, that individuals link with a particular country-of-origin. Attitude researchers widely agree on the notionInformation about a COO is not only hold at the aggregated level, as reflected by CI, but may also be manifested through various, potentially unrelated beliefs, that individuals link with a particular country-of-origin. Attitude researchers widely agree on the notionIn conclusion, we propose that the myriad of conceptual views on the COO concept can be theoretically integrated in a formalized model (Figure 1). Thus, instead of viewing the different conceptualizations on COO as conflicting, we show that they are indeed complementary, and can be understood by applying seminal psychology literature. The model also provides conceptual structure to the interactions between the three35
components, as well as enhancing our understanding how mental representations form behavioural intentions (Ajzen, 2001; Eagly et al., 1994).
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)