You are on page 1of 13

Intern. J.

of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127 – 139


www.elsevier.com/locate/ijresmar

Country-of-origin effects in consumer processing of


advertising claims
Peeter W.J. Verlegha,*, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkampb, Matthew T.G. Meulenbergc
a
ERIM and Department of Marketing Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
b
Department of Marketing, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
c
Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1,
6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Abstract

We propose that country of origin has a dual impact on product evaluations, acting as informational cue, but also as source
variable, moderating the impact of ads on product evaluations. In support, we find a direct effect of country of origin on product
evaluations, and a three-way interaction between country of origin, claim favorability and ad involvement. Further analyses
show that country of origin influences the way in which consumers respond to moderate and extreme claims under conditions of
low and high ad involvement. The dual impact of country of origin on consumer behavior emphasizes its relevance to
(international) marketing.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Country of origin; Source credibility; Attitude change; International marketing

1. Introduction product–country images (Heslop & Papadopoulos,


1993), and may be based on actual product experi-
Consumers differentiate between products from ence, but also on information gathered through
different origin countries, a phenomenon that has advertising and other sources of product information,
become known as the country-of-origin effect (for including word-of-mouth and articles in the popular
reviews see Agrawal & Kamakura, 1999; Verlegh & press.
Steenkamp, 1999). The country-of-origin effect is Previous research on country-of-origin effects has
rooted in consumers’ images of the quality of specific examined the composition of product–country images
products marketed by firms associated with a country (e.g., Han, 1989; Roth & Romeo, 1992; Verlegh,
of origin. These images have been referred to as 1999), and how consumers use country of origin as a
cue for determining product quality — either by itself,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 10 4082732; fax: +31 10 or in conjunction with other product information (e.g.,
4089011. Häubl & Elrod, 1999). These studies have shown that
E-mail address: pverlegh@rsm.nl (P.W.J. Verlegh). consumers use product–country images as a cognitive
0167-8116/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.05.003
128 P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139

shortcut when evaluating products, especially when of ad involvement — McKenzie & Lutz, 1989; Petty
other information is scarce (Verlegh & Steenkamp, & Cacioppo, 1986). In addition, however, the a priori
1999). Country of origin has a greater impact on image of Russian cars will affect the perceived
product evaluations when consumers are less moti- credibility of the claims in the ad, especially when
vated to process available information, for example consumers are involved with the ad and process it
when involvement is low (Han, 1989; Maheswaran, more carefully (cf., Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990).
1994). Erickson, Johansson and Chao (1984) found In the remainder of this paper, we examine two
that country of origin may bias consumers’ product ways in which country of origin can influence product
beliefs. They found for example that perceptions of evaluations: as an informational variable, and as a
cars’ economy were biased upward for Japanese cars, source variable. We also discuss the role of ad
while perceptions of the quality of the cars were involvement in both types of influences. In the
biased upward for German cars. Johansson, Douglas empirical part of our paper, we present an experiment
and Nonaka (1985) build on this study and confirm in which we test hypotheses derived from this
that country of origin affects consumers’ product framework. Our study uses a fairly large and
attitudes by biasing their perceptions of particular representative sample of consumers. The paper con-
attributes like gas mileage or driving comfort. The cludes with a discussion of our findings, and their
authors also find that this bias is stronger when implications for the study and use of country of origin
product knowledge is low. as a marketing tool.
The present study extends this research by exam-
ining whether country of origin has a dual role when it
is presented in conjunction with other product 2. Informational and source variable roles of
information (i.e., advertising claims). We propose that country of origin
country of origin does not only act as an informational
cue, but also affects consumers’ interpretation of 2.1. Country of origin as product information
advertising claims. This view extends the research of
Johansson and colleagues (Erickson et al., 1984; Consumers have (often well-developed) product–
Johansson et al., 1985), who showed that country of country images, i.e., sets of associations related to
origin biases perceptions of product attributes. We use quality and other attributes of products from a specific
the term bsource effectQ to refer to the proposed country of origin. For a given country, this image and
moderating influence (cf., Goldberg & Hartwick, its valence may vary across products, so that it is best
1990). The persuasion literature (e.g., Eagly & defined at the level of product categories (Balabanis &
Chaiken, 1993; Petty, Wegener & Fabrigar, 1997) Diamantopoulos 2004; Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran
has examined a dual role for several elements of 2000). A large body of research shows that consumers
(advertising) messages, but not for country of origin, use product–country images as information when they
although Keller (2003) recently suggested that theo- evaluate products. This results in different evaluations
ries on source credibility may be used to achieve a of identical products with different country-of-origin
better understanding of country-of-origin effects. labels, even when additional product information is
To illustrate the dual role of country of origin in presented (for reviews, see Agrawal & Kamakura
product evaluations, consider an ad for a car made in 1999; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999).
Russia. Based on actual experience or information
H1a. Products from a country with a relatively
obtained from other sources, consumers may have a
favorable product–country image will be evaluated
negative a priori image of the quality of cars made in
more positively than products from a country that has
Russia. The product information supplied by claims in
a relatively unfavorable product–country image.
the ad may be used by consumers to update their
judgments of Russian cars (cf., Gatignon, 1984). The Country of origin is often presented together with
extent to which consumers use the claims in the ad to advertising claims that contain product information.
update their image of Russian cars will increase with Dual-process models like the Elaboration Likelihood
the amount of attention given to the ad (i.e., their level Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), and the Heuristic
P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139 129

Systematic Model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) hold that not an increase in ad involvement leads to an increase
the influence of product–country images depends on in the impact of ad claims on product evaluations
the level of consumers’ involvement with the ad depends on the source and the content of the claims.
(hereafter referred to as bad involvementQ). Dual- While marketing research on source credibility has
process models distinguish between two modes of been mostly focused on celebrities and other spokes-
information processing. The first mode, viz., heuristic persons, Rossiter and Percy (1997, p.260) argue that
or peripheral processing, refers to low-effort process- the definition of source variables should not be taken
ing in which consumers use shortcuts or heuristics to too narrowly, and that entities such as companies and
form an evaluation. The second mode, viz., systematic brands should be regarded as sources of advertising
or central processing, is more elaborate, and entails claims. This view is in line with studies investigating
effortful scrutinizing of attitude-relevant information. the role of corporate credibility in consumer evalua-
A low level of ad involvement implies that tions of advertising and other marketing tools (Brown
consumers rely heavily on heuristic cues such as & Dacin, 1997; Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990; Keller &
country of origin (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Petty & Aaker, 1992). In these studies corporate credibility is
Cacioppo, 1986). As the level of involvement defined as bthe extent to which consumers believe that
increases, consumers will be less influenced by a company can deliver products and services that
country of origin, and elaborate more on additional satisfy customer needs and wantsQ (Keller & Aaker,
product information provided in the ad. Hence, 1992, p. 37; see also Brown & Dacin, 1997).
consumers should rely more strongly on country of Analogously, we propose that country-of-origin cre-
origin in low involvement situations than in high dibility is determined by consumers’ product–country
involvement situations (cf., Maheswaran, 1994). image. As this image and its valence may vary across
products, we define credibility at the category level.
H1b. The impact of country of origin on evaluations For a given category, country-of-origin credibility is
of an advertised product will be larger when consum- high when consumers have a favorable image of the
ers have a low (as opposed to a high) level of ad country’s products in that category, and low when the
involvement. product–country image is unfavorable.
Goldberg and Hartwick (1990) have shown that
2.2. Country of origin as a source variable corporate credibility influences consumers’ evaluation
of advertising claims. They find that corporate
When ad involvement is higher, consumers are credibility moderates the impact of claim favorability
more motivated to process attitude-relevant informa- on product evaluations. When corporate credibility is
tion in the ad. As a result, they devote more cognitive high, extremely favorable claims (e.g., bour product
resources to the processing of product information ranked #1 in an independent testQ) lead to more
that is presented in the form of advertising claims favorable product evaluations than moderately favor-
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This does not necessarily able claims (e.g., bour product ranked #5 in an
mean that the claims get a larger impact on product independent testQ). When corporate credibility is
evaluations. Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983) low, moderately favorable claims lead to better
show that bweakQ ad claims are evaluated less product evaluations than extremely favorable claims,
positively when consumers become more involved because the latter are perceived to be less credible.
with an ad. Consumers who process an ad in a more The detrimental effects of overclaiming have been
bcentralQ or bsystematicQ way, will more carefully widely recognized in the advertising literature (Ros-
examine the content of ad claims, so that they attach siter & Percy 1997, p.252).
less value to claims that are weak and not convincing. Although increasing ad involvement implies that
McKenzie and Lutz (1989) propose that an increase in consumers pay more attention to advertising claims,
involvement also implies that consumers pay more this does not necessarily imply that these claims
attention to the credibility of the source of the subsequently have a stronger effect on product
advertising claims, in order to determine how much evaluations. Building on Goldberg and Hartwick
weight should be attached to them. Thus, whether or (1990), we propose that the effect of an increase in
130 P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139

ad involvement will depend on the favorability of the involvement increases, consumers will pay more
claims and the credibility of the source. If the attention to the advertising claims. If ad claims are
favorability of the product–country image of a country moderately favorable, an increase in attention may
of origin determines its source credibility, we may lead to more favorable product evaluations, because
expect a three-way interaction between country of consumers are less likely to doubt the validity of
origin, claim favorability and ad involvement. This is claims that are moderately favorable. If however, the
visualized in Fig. 1, where the left panel shows the ad contains claims that are extremely favorable,
effect of increasing involvement when country-of- consumers are likely to doubt the validity of the
origin credibility is high, and the right panel shows the claims as they pertain to a country of origin that is low
effect of increasing involvement when country-of- in credibility. As a result they perceive these claims to
origin credibility is low. be less credible, and attach less weight to then when
The impact on product evaluations of increasing they update their a priori product images. Based on
levels of ad involvement varies with the favorability of the above discussion we hypothesize that:
consumers’ product–country images, and the favor-
ability of advertising claims. An increase in ad H2. When consumers are presented with an ad for a
involvement implies that consumers devote more product from a country with a relatively favorable
attention to the ad claims. If country-of-origin credi- product–country image, product evaluations will be
bility is high (i.e., the advertised product is from a more favorable when ad involvement is high, than
country with a favorable product–country image) an when ad involvement is low, regardless of the level of
increase in attention to the claims implies that claim favorability.
consumers attach more weight to the ad claims, so that
H3a. When consumers are presented with an ad for a
they lead to more extensive updating of consumers’ a
product from a country with a relatively unfavorable
priori images of the product (cf., Gatignon, 1984). This
product–country image, and this ad contains claims
effect is visualized in the left-hand panel of Fig. 1.
that are moderately favorable, product evaluations
If the country-of-origin credibility is low, (i.e., the
will be more favorable when ad involvement is high,
advertised product is from a country with an
than when ad involvement is low.
unfavorable product–country image), higher levels
of ad involvement will not necessarily lead to a H3b. When consumers are presented with an ad for a
greater impact of advertising claims on product product from a country with a relatively unfavorable
evaluations, as visualized in the right-hand panel of product–country image, and this ad contains claims
Fig. 1. Instead, a negative interaction between ad that are extremely favorable, product evaluations will
involvement and claim favorability may be expected not be more favorable when ad involvement is high,
(cf., Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990). That is, as ad than when ad involvement is low.

Favorable Product-Country Image: Unfavorable Product-Country Image:


Credibility is HIGH Credibility is LOW
product evaluation

product evaluation

Involvement Involvement

moderate claims
extreme claims

Fig. 1. Illustration of Hypotheses 2, 3a and 3b: Country of origin moderates the interaction between claim favorability and ad involvement.
P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139 131

3. Method Table 1
German consumers’ evaluations of Dutch and Spanish tomatoes*
3.1. Study setting Dutch tomatoes Spanish tomatoes
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
We test our hypotheses in a real-world setting, Good taste** 56.5 (28.3) 81.5 (17.7)
Natural 51.6 (25.3) 71.7 (19.6)
investigating German consumers’ evaluations of
Good quality 63.3 (26.0) 79.2 (17.6)
tomatoes from The Netherlands. The Netherlands is
* Based on our analyses of data collected by GfK (1998).
a major exporter of fruit and vegetables, with an ** Ratings on a 10-point scale (10–100). bDon’t know Q responses
export value of 5.7 billion euros in 2002. About 40% were deleted.
is exported to Germany, rendering it by far the most
important export market for Dutch fruits and
vegetables (figures obtained from the Dutch Product gated this for lower and higher levels of ad
Board for Horticulture). In the past decade Dutch involvement. Our questionnaire and related stimulus
producers of fresh fruit and vegetables have received material were part of a larger survey on consumers’
a great deal of criticism in Germany. Dutch tomatoes opinions with regard to food-related issues. We
have been targeted in particular, and are referred to employed a 2  2  2 between-subjects design to
as bWasserbombeQ (waterbombs). The criticisms manipulate country of origin, claim favorability and
have received widespread attention in the German ad involvement.
press. Market research conducted to establish the Our questionnaire was distributed among a sample
effects of this negative publicity showed that Dutch of households drawn from a household panel that is
tomatoes are well-known (aided brand aware- maintained by a large market research company. The
ness = 95%), but carry strong negative associations panel is representative of the general population in
like btastelessQ, bwateryQ and bartificialQ (GfK, 1996, terms of age (of the person responsible for grocery
1998). Thus, Dutch tomatoes suffered from a shopping) and household size. All our respondents
negative product–country image in their most impor- were responsible for grocery shopping within their
tant export market, which put them at a competitive household, and randomly selected from this panel.
disadvantage vis-à-vis products from other countries, Care was taken to match the cells in the design with
most notably its most important competitor, viz. regard to geographic and demographic characteristics.
Spanish tomatoes. In total, the questionnaire was sent to 1500 consumers
Spain is a major exporter of tomatoes to in the western part of Germany. Questionnaires were
Germany, and German consumers are familiar with distributed by mail, and accompanied by a postage-
Spanish tomatoes (aided brand awareness = 88%). paid reply envelope. We received 813 questionnaires
Unlike Dutch tomatoes, Spanish tomatoes are seen that were filled out completely and properly (54%),
as natural and sun-ripened produce (GfK, 1996, but deleted 106 questionnaires of respondents who
1998). This is confirmed by data obtained from the had indicated that they knew nothing about Dutch or
1998 edition of the Holland Imago Monitor (HIM), Spanish tomatoes. The remaining 707 respondents
which surveyed 1500 German consumers on their were more or less evenly distributed across the eight
image of agricultural products from different Euro- cells in the design.1 Demographics on this sample are
pean countries. Table 1 is based on our own analyses given in Table 2.
of these data. Data collection was carried out by GfK, a large
international market research company. Our question-
3.2. Data collection naire consisted of two pages containing a short
instruction, followed by the measures for our depend-
We examined how this difference in product– ent variables. In the instruction consumers were asked
country images affects the impact of moderately and to examine the enclosed stimulus material and fill out
extremely favorable ad claims on consumers’
evaluations of tomatoes from The Netherlands and
1
Spain. To capture processing effects, we investi- Cell sizes varied between 81 and 92.
132 P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139

Table 2 3.4. Independent variables


Sample demographics (in percent)
Age Sample Country of origin was varied across two levels, i.e.,
b 35 23.6 The Netherlands and Spain, which differ in favor-
35–49 28.9 ability of the product–country images for tomatoes
N 49 47.5
(Section 3.1).
Household size Claim favorability was varied across two levels,
1 28.3 i.e., moderately favorable and extremely favorable. In
2 34.9 the bmoderately favorableQ condition, the ad stated
3 17.5 that farmers growing Spania (Hollandia) tomatoes
4 13.6
paid attention to nature and tradition, which resulted
N4 5.7
in a quality product, with a good taste and aroma. It
Children b 15? also stated that tests had shown that 6 out of 10
Yes 78.6 consumers rated Spania (Hollandia) tomatoes as
No 21.4 tastier than other tomatoes. In the bextremely favor-
ableQ condition, the ad stated that Spania (Hollandia)
the items in the questionnaire. As we discuss below, tomatoes paid attention to nature and tradition more
the introduction was also used to manipulate ad than in any other country, resulting in a product of
involvement. Throughout the questionnaire items unmatched quality, with an unsurpassed full taste and
were worded as evaluative statements. Consumers a rich aroma. It also stated that tests had shown that 9
indicated their agreement on a 10-point scale with out of 10 consumers rated Spania (Hollandia)
numbers 10, . . . ,100. The left end of the scale [10] tomatoes as much tastier than other tomatoes.
was labeled bnot agree at allQ, and the right end [100] Ad involvement was varied across two levels, in a
was labeled bfully agreeQ. manner that is similar to the standard manipulation
used in many information processing studies (e.g.,
3.3. Stimulus materials Petty et al., 1983). In the low involvement condition,
consumers were informed that the advertised tomatoes
Stimulus materials were full-page magazine ads (in were not available in their own country, and that the
color) consisting of a body text and pay-off line, study was a pre-test for a larger study that would take
supported by a matching visual. The ads were created place in a different country. They were instructed to
by one of the authors, and pre-tested in a mall- look at the ad, and then fill out the questionnaire. In
intercept study in which 25 German shoppers were the high involvement condition, consumers were
asked to comment on the ads. These comments were informed that the tomatoes featured in the ad would
used to further improve the ads, which were then sent soon be introduced in nearby supermarkets, and that
to professionals at a large advertising agency who the ad was pre-tested on a select group of customers.
made final improvements. We developed four ver- They were told to carefully look at the ad before
sions of this ad, in which country of origin and claim filling out the questionnaire.
favorability were varied with two levels each, and the
rest of the ads were kept identical. Ad involvement 3.5. Measures
was manipulated in the instruction (cf. Petty et al.,
1983). Each ad presented a brand of either Dutch or Multi-item measures of purchase intentions and
Spanish tomatoes. We used fictitious brand names product attitudes were used to assess product evalua-
derived from the country names to ensure that tions. In addition, we included a multi-item measure
consumers’ responses reflected their opinion on the of ad involvement, and a single-item measure of
advertised tomatoes: we used bHollandiaQ for Dutch perceived credibility of the advertising claims.
tomatoes, and bSpaniaQ for Spanish tomatoes. These
brands did not exist in the market at the time of the Purchase intention was measured with two items,
study. i.e., bIf I came across X in my store, I would
P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139 133

definitely buy itQ, and bI would rather buy X than Table 3


any other brandQ. Reliability of this measure was Means of dependent variables in each of the experimental
conditions
high, with a correlation between the two items of
.79 (Cronbach’s a = .88). HOLLANDIA SPANIA
Product attitude was measured with three items: bI Low High Low High
involved involved involved involved
like XQ, bI appreciate XQ and bI have a positive
image of XQ. Reliability of the measure was high Purchase intention
Moderately favorable 45.6 58.9 71.1 61.3
(Cronbach’s a = .94). Extremely favorable 54.6 52.5 65.5 66.3
Claim credibility. The ads were evaluated on Overall 49.9 55.7 68.4 63.6
credibility with one item: bI find the claims in this
ad credibleQ. Attitude
Ad involvement. Consumers’ involvement with the Moderately favorable 50.1 60.1 70.5 67.1
Extremely favorable 54.6 55.9 67.6 69.3
ad was measured by two items, taken from
Overall 52.2 58.2 69.1 68.1
Zaichowsky’s (1985, 1994) involvement inventory:
bThis ad is appealingQ, and bThis ad is interestingQ. Claim credibility
Construct reliability was good, with Cronbach’s Moderately favorable 56.7 60.3 69.3 66.0
a = .92, and an inter-item correlation of .85. Extremely favorable 57.6 49.8 66.8 68.6
Overall 57.1 55.0 68.1 67.2

4. Results F(1,699) = 56.58; p b .001; ATT: F(1,699) = 65.54;


p b .001). We also find significant interactions
The success of the task involvement manipulation between country of origin and ad involvement (PI:
was checked by comparing the means for the ad F(1,699) = 8.30, p = .004, ATT: F(1,699) = 4.12;
involvement scales between the high and low involve- p = .043), as proposed in H1b. Inspection of the cell
ment groups. Ad involvement was significantly higher means in Table 3 reveals that the country-of-origin
(t = 2.07; p b .05) in the high involvement condition effect is strongest when ad involvement is low: The
(64.0) than in the low involvement condition (60.0). difference in mean scores for purchase intentions
(Spanish vs. Dutch tomatoes) is 18.5 when involve-
4.1. Hypotheses testing ment is low, and 7.9 when involvement is high. The
difference in mean scores for attitudes is 16.9 when
In this paragraph we discuss the results of analyses involvement is low, and 9.9 when involvement is
of variance (ANOVAs) of the data obtained in the high. These results show that the country-of-origin
experiment. These analyses were used to test our effect is smaller when ad involvement is high (vs.
hypotheses. The cell means obtained in the experi- low), which support H1b.
ment are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 2A and B. Hypotheses 2, 3a and 3b together specify a three-
In line with H1a, ANOVAs with purchase intention way interaction of country of origin, involvement and
(PI) and attitude (ATT) as dependent variables claim favorability. This interaction was significant for
revealed significant main effects of country of origin; PI ( F(1,699) = 13.71, p b .001), and ATT ( F(1,699) =
i.e., a positive difference between consumers’ evalua- 4.63, p = .032). To investigate this interaction in detail,
tions for Spanish and Dutch tomatoes 2 (PI: we separately analyzed the results for products from a
country with an unfavorable product–country image
2
In addition, we entered the two measures for product evaluations (i.e., Dutch tomatoes), and products from a country
into a multivariate analysis. The results of this analyses parallel with a favorable product–country image (i.e., Spanish
those of the univariate analyses, and revealed a significant main
tomatoes).3
effect of COO ( F(2,698) = 33.32, p b .001), a significant COO  Ad
Involvement interaction ( F(2,698) = 4.54, p = .011) and a significant
3
three-way interaction of COO, Ad Involvement and Claim favor- In these analyses, the overall MSE (obtained by conducting a
ability ( F(2,698) = 8.91, p b .001). All other effect were not full ANOVA on the entire data set) was used as the error term, so
significant ( p N .05). that the error-df is always equal to 699.
134 P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139

A B
Hollandia - purchase intention Spania - attitude
moderate extreme moderate extreme

60 70

50 60

40 50
Low High Low High
ad involvement ad involvement

Hollandia - attitude Spania - purchase intention


moderate extreme moderate extreme

60 70

50 60

40 50
Low High Low High
ad involvement ad involvement

Hollandia - credibility Spania - credibility


moderate extreme moderate extreme

60 70

50 60

40 50
Low High Low High
ad involvement ad involvement

Fig. 2. (A) Purchase intention, Attitude and Claim credibility for Hollandia tomatoes, for moderately vs. extremely favorable claims under low
vs. high ad involvement. (B) Purchase intention, Attitude and Claim credibility for Spania tomatoes, for moderately vs. extremely favorable
claims under low vs. high ad involvement.

For Spanish tomatoes source credibility is high, this interaction is due to an absence of an effect of ad
which according to H2 should lead to positive effects involvement for Spanish tomatoes advertised with
of ad involvement on product evaluations. Our data, extremely favorable claims ( F(1,699) b 1), and a
however, indicate that the main effect of ad involve- negative effect of ad involvement for Spanish
ment, as well as that of claim favorability, was not tomatoes advertised with moderately favorable claims
significant for either of our measures, so that H2 is not that is significant for purchase intention ( F(1,699) =
supported by our results. We do however find an 7.98; p = .005), but not for attitude ( F(1,699) = 1.09;
interaction between claim strength and ad involve- p = .30). One possible explanation for this finding is
ment that is significant for PI ( F(1,699) = 4.93, that consumers’ a priori images of Spanish tomatoes
p = .037), but not for ATT ( F(1,699) = 1.15, p = .28). were so favorable that they were not affected by
Further analyses of the means in Table 3 reveal that extremely favorable claims, while the moderately
P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139 135

favorable claims led to a downward adjustment of the when ad involvement is high (vs. low). As noted in
evaluation. We briefly expand on this in the Dis- Section 2.2., this interaction is mediated by claim
cussion section. credibility: when extremely favorable claims are
For products from a country with an unfavorable made by a source low in credibility (i.e., a country
product–country image (i.e., Dutch tomatoes), the of origin with an unfavorable product–country
source credibility is low. This should lead to a positive image), an increase in consumers’ attention to these
effect of ad involvement when claim favorability is claims will lead to a decrease in the perceived
moderate (H3a), and a negative or zero effect when credibility. This negative effect of ad involvement
claim favorability is high (H3b). Together, H3a and will not be present for moderately favorable claims.
H3b predict an interaction effect of claim favorability These predictions are corroborated by ANOVAs with
and ad involvement on product evaluations (for claim credibility as a dependent variable, which
products from a country with an unfavorable prod- revealed a significant interaction between claim
uct–country image). ANOVAs reveal that this inter- favorability and ad involvement ( F(1,699) = 5.51,
action is significant (PI: F(1,699) = 10.01, p = .002, p = .019). This finding can be attributed to the fact
ATT: F(1,699) = 3.96, p = .047). The means in Table 3 that an increase in ad involvement has no effect on
show that evaluations of Dutch tomatoes advertised claim credibility when claims are moderately favor-
with moderately favorable claims are more favorable able ( F(1,699) = 1.11, p = .29), and a negative effect
under high involvement than under low involvement when claims are extremely favorable ( F(1,699) =
conditions (PI: F(1,699) = 15.15, p b .001; ATT: 5.08, p = .024). These results are visualized in the
F(1,699) = 10.43, p = .001). These findings lend strong bottom graph of Fig. 2A, and the means are
support for H3a. For Dutch tomatoes advertised with represented in Table 3. We obtained no significant
extremely favorable claims we found no effect of ad effects on claim credibility for ads for Spanish
involvement ( F(1,699) b 1), which is in line with H3b. tomatoes (for cell means see Table 3 and the bottom
The interaction is visualized in the upper two panels graph of Fig. 2B).
of Fig. 2A. This line of reasoning implies that, for products
It is noteworthy that the results for Dutch from a country with an unfavorable product–country
tomatoes advertised with moderately vs. extremely image (i.e., Dutch tomatoes), the interaction of ad
favorable claims show a reversal in the effects of involvement, and claim favorability should be medi-
claim favorability under high and low involvement ated by the perceived credibility of the claims made in
(see Fig. 2A). For purchase intentions we find a the ad. We examined this notion in a moderated
positive effect of claim favorability when involve- mediation analysis, following the procedure recom-
ment is low (PI: F(1,699) = 6.69; p = .010), reversing mended by Baron and Kenny (1986). These authors
to a negative effect when involvement is high (PI: propose that mediation occurs when three conditions
F(1,699) = 3.53; p = .061). For attitudes, we find are met. Firstly, the independent variable (i.e., the
similar, but nonsignificant effects: (Low involve- two-way interaction term in our model) should have a
ment: F(1,699) = 1.87; p = .172, High involvement: significant effect on the dependent variables (i.e.,
F(1,699) = 2.10; p = .148). purchase intention and attitude, respectively). Sec-
ondly, the independent variable should have a
4.2. Effects on claim credibility and tests for significant effect on the mediating variable (i.e., claim
mediation credibility). Thirdly, the effect of the independent
variable on the dependent variable should reduce in
For products from a country of origin with an terms of effect size when the mediating variable is
unfavorable product–country image, H3a and H3b incorporated in the analyses. In the last step, a
propose that moderately favorable claims lead to (substantial) reduction in terms of effect size is
product evaluations that are more positive when ad referred to as partial mediation. Complete mediation
involvement is high than when ad involvement is is shown when the effect of the independent variable
low, whereas extremely favorable claims lead to reduces to nonsignificance. The three steps in this
product evaluations that are equal or less positive analysis are discussed below.
136 P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139

Firstly, ANOVAs with purchase intention and consumers use country of origin as a cognitive
attitude as respective dependent variables revealed shortcut, a strategy that is relied upon when consum-
that the interaction was significant for both measures ers seek to minimize cognitive efforts (Han, 1989;
(PI: ( F(1,699) = 10.01, p = .002; g 2 = .014; ATT Maheswaran, 1994).
( F(1,699) = 3.96, p = .047; g 2 = .006). Secondly, the Earlier studies (Erickson et al., 1984; Johansson
interaction is also significant in an ANOVA with et al., 1985) show that country of origin affects
claim credibility as a dependent variable consumers’ perceptions of product attributes. We
( F(1,699) = 5.51, p = .019, g 2 = .008). Thirdly, ANCO- extend this finding by showing that country of origin
VAs with claim credibility as covariate and purchase may act as a source variable that moderates the
intention and attitudes as respective dependent vari- effect of ad claims on product evaluations. In line
ables, reveals a significant effect of the claim with the literature on (corporate) source credibility,
credibility covariate ( F(1,698) = 393.18; p b .001), as we propose that the source credibility of a country of
well as substantially reduced interaction effects. For origin is higher when consumers associate it with a
purchase intention, the remaining interaction effect is more favorable product–country image. In line with
significant ( F(1,698) = 4.45, p = .035), but the effect earlier research (e.g., Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990),
size is reduced by 55%, when compared to the effect we argue that country-of-origin credibility deter-
obtained without claim credibility as covariate mines the extent to which consumers are influenced
(g 2 = .006 vs. g 2 = .014). For attitude, the remaining by moderately vs. extremely favorable ad claims. We
interaction effect is not significant ( F(1,698) = .12, extend this research by explicitly incorporating the
p = .72), and the effect size is reduced by 97%, when role of ad involvement in this process. Ad involve-
compared to the effect obtained without claim ment is an important determinant of the extent to
credibility as covariate (g 2 = .0002 vs. g 2 = .006). which consumers carefully consider both the credi-
Thus, claim credibility partially mediates the two- bility of the source and the favorability of claims. At
way interaction of claim favorability and ad involve- lower levels of involvement, consumers are more
ment when purchase intention is used as dependent likely to take ad claims at face value, and
variable, and we find full mediation when attitude is incorporate them into their product evaluations.
used as dependent variable. However, as involvement increases, consumers more
carefully examine the level of favorability of ad
claims vis-à-vis their product–country images. In that
5. Discussion case, an ad for a product from a country with an
unfavorable product–country image will be per-
5.1. Findings and implications ceived as less credible when it features extremely
favorable claims, than when it features moderately
This study examined a dual role of country of favorable claims. In other words, we propose that
origin in influencing consumers’ product evaluations. increasing claim favorability has a negative effect
We find support for the notion that country of origin when source credibility is low, and ad involvement
acts both as information variable and as source is high. This notion is supported by a significant
variable. We find that country of origin strongly interaction between ad involvement and claim
influences consumer product evaluations, even in the favorability when product–country image is unfav-
presence of additional information presented by ad orable. The impact of this interaction on product
claims. This finding adds to the body of research evaluations is mediated by the perceived credibility
indicating that consumers use country of origin as an of the advertising claims.
informational variable, and reinforces the notion that When product–country image is favorable, the
country of origin plays an important role in consumer source credibility of the country of origin is high,
product evaluations (cf., Verlegh & Steenkamp, and we hypothesized that an increase in ad involve-
1999). Furthermore, our results show that consumers ment should have a positive effect on product
rely more on country of origin when they are less evaluations, regardless of the favorability of adver-
involved with the ad. This supports the notion that tising claims. Our results do not support this
P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139 137

hypothesis, but instead we find a marginally Those who are marketing products or brands from
significant interaction, which can be attributed to a country of origin with an unfavorable product–
the fact that ad involvement has no effect on country image are often advised to conceal or at least
evaluations of products from a country of origin de-emphasize the origin of the product (e.g., Roth &
with a favorable product–country image when ad Romeo, 1992). This is not always a feasible practice,
claims are extremely favorable, and ad involvement as trade regulations often require a clear and legible
has a negative impact on evaluations when ad claims indication of the country of origin for a product.
are moderately favorable. This finding can be Moreover, consumers often associate brands with
accommodated in our framework if we assume that specific countries (cf., Leclerc et al., 1994), so that
consumers’ product–country images for Spanish country of origin is implicitly communicated through
tomatoes were more favorable than the moderately the brand name (note that this may be enhanced by
favorable claims used in our ad. In that case, both past advertising with an emphasis on country of
averaging and updating processes of impression origin). Thus, when faced with negative product–
formation predict that an increase in the weight that country images, marketers might be forced to
is attached to ad claims (caused by an increase in ad address these images directly, for example by means
involvement) produces a decrease in product evalu- of advertising campaigns. In doing so, it should be
ations. These results corroborate Rossiter and Per- taken into account that country of origin is not
cy’s (1997, p. 252) warning that bUnderclaiming is merely a shortcut that consumers use to form product
just as much an error as overclaimingQ. Although evaluations. The present study indicates that con-
plausible, this explanation of our findings remains sumers use country of origin when they seek to
post-hoc, and alternative explanations might be determine the credibility of advertising claims,
construed. One such alternative explanation4 is that especially if ad involvement is high. In order to
consumers rejected the extreme claims altogether, and effectively improve consumers’ product evaluations,
instead relied on their a priori images based on the marketers should adapt the (favorability of their)
country of origin of the products. These and other claims to the favorability of consumers’ product–
explanations remain to be examined in future research country images.
on over- and underclaiming and its effects on product Our study indicates that country of origin affects
evaluation. how advertising claims are processed under condi-
tions of low vs. high ad involvement. An interesting
5.2. Implications and suggestions for future research extension of our study might be to examine country-
of-origin effects in conjunction with other factors that
Marketers often seek to leverage the effects of are known to affect information processing, such as
country of origin on consumer product evaluations, product expertise, time pressure or repeated expo-
and attempt to build brand equity by associating their sures. All of these factors influence the amount of
brand to a country of origin with favorable con- message elaboration, allowing consumers to more
notations (Leclerc, Schmitt & Dubé, 1994; Keller, carefully consider the credibility of advertising claims.
2003). A disadvantage of this strategy is its inherent Another issue that warrants further research is the
vulnerability, which is due to the fact that consum- generalizability of our results to other products and
ers’ perceptions of country of origin may be attributes. The advertising claims studied in this paper
influenced by many factors beyond the control of related to attributes that are not verifiable before
(individual) marketers, including negative publicity purchase. Previous research (e.g., Feick & Gierl,
and low quality products by other brands from the 1996) has shown that consumers are more skeptical
same country of origin. These factors may produce toward advertising for experience claims. This sug-
changes in consumers’ product–country images that gests that high source credibility is more important
are able to transform country of origin from an asset when claims cannot be verified before purchase (cf.
to a liability. Jain & Posavac, 2001).
In spite of its limitations, we feel that the present
4
We thank one of the reviewers for suggesting this explanation. study offers an important extension to our current
138 P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139

knowledge of country-of-origin effects. The finding Goldberg, M. E., & Hartwick, J. (1990). The effects of ad-
that country of origin acts as a source variable that vertiser reputation and extremity of advertising claims on
advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research,
moderates the processing of advertising claims, 17(2), 172 – 179.
stresses the relevance of studying country-of-origin Gqrhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Determinants of
effects, and at the same time broadens our view of this country-of-origin evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research,
phenomenon. A thorough understanding of country- 27(1), 96 – 108.
Han, C. M. (1989). Country image: Halo or summary construct?
of-origin effects continues to be of great importance to
Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 222 – 229.
academics and practitioners in the field of interna- Häubl, G., & Elrod, T. (1999). The impact of congruity between
tional marketing. brand name and country of production on consumers’ product
quality judgments. International Journal of Research in Market-
ing, 16(3), 199 – 215.
Heslop, L. A., & Papadopoulos, N. (1993). But who knows where
Acknowledgments
and when: Reflections on the images of countries and their
products. In N. Papadopoulos, & L. A. Heslop (Eds.), Product–
The authors thank Alfred Dijs, GfK, and the Dutch country images: Impact and role in international marketing.
Horticultural Board for their kind cooperation. This New York7 Haworth Press.
paper has benefited from the insightful comments of Jain, S. P., & Posavac, S. S. (2001). Prepurchase attribute
verifiability, source credibility, and persuasion. Journal of
the editor and three anonymous reviewers. Ale
Consumer Psychology, 11(2), 169 – 180.
Smidts, Luk Warlop, Rik Pieters, and seminar Johansson, J. K., Douglas, S. P., & Nonaka, I. (1985). Assessing the
participants at Tilburg University provided helpful impact of country of origin on product evaluations: A new
comments at earlier stages of the research. methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing Research,
22(3), 388 – 396.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality
of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4),
References 595 – 600.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential
Agrawal, J., & Kamakura, W. A. (1999). Country of origin: A introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing
competitive advantage? International Journal of Research in Research, 29(1), 35 – 50.
Marketing, 16(4), 255 – 267. Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dubé, L. (1994). Foreign branding
Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2004). Domestic country and its effects on product perceptions and attitudes. Journal of
bias, country-of-origin effects, and consumer ethnocentrism: A Marketing Research, 31(2), 263 – 270.
multidimensional unfolding approach. Journal of the Academy Maheswaran, D. (1994). Country of origin as a stereotype:
of Marketing Science, 32(1), 80 – 95. Effects of consumer expertise and attribute strength on
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4),
variable distinction in social psychological research: Concep- 354 – 365.
tual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Person- McKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of
ality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173 – 1182. the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2),
Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Jour- 48 – 65.
nal of Marketing, 61(1), 68 – 84. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and
Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Worth persuasion. New York7 Springer.
Fort7 HBJ. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and
Erickson, G. M., Johansson, J. K., & Chao, P. (1984). Image peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating
variables in multi-attribute product evaluations: Country-of- role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2),
origin effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 694 – 699. 134 – 148.
Feick, L., & Gierl, H. (1996). Skepticism about advertising: A Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997).
comparison of East and West German consumers. International Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology,
Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(3), 227 – 235. 48, 609 – 647.
Gatignon, H. (1984). Toward a methodology for measuring Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1997). Advertising communications and
advertising copy effects. Marketing Science, 3, 308 – 326. promotion management (2nd ed.). Oxford (UK)7 Blackwell.
GfK (1996). Image der Holländischen agrarwirtschaft. Research Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching product category and
Report, AGB Fresh Foods, Dongen (NL) (in German). country image perceptions: A framework for managing country-
GfK (1998). Holland imago monitor 1998. Research Report, GfK, of-origin effects. Journal of International Business Studies,
Dongen (NL) (in Dutch). 23(4), 477 – 497.
P.W.J. Verlegh et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 127–139 139

Verlegh, P. W. J. (1999). Ingroups, outgroups and stereotyping: Zaichowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.
Consumer behavior and social identity theory. Advances in Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 341 – 352.
Consumer Research, 26, 162 – 164. Zaichowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory:
Verlegh, P. W. J., & Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M. (1999). A review and Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of
meta-analysis of country-of-origin research. Journal of Eco- Advertising, 23(4), 59 – 70.
nomic Psychology, 20(5), 521 – 546.

You might also like