- Email: [email protected]
Stereotyping global brands: Is warmth more important than competence?
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
Stereotyping global brands: Is warmth more important than competence?☆ a,⁎
b
Živa Kolbl , Maja Arslanagic-Kalajdzic , Adamantios Diamantopoulos a b
a
T
Department of International Marketing, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria Marketing Department, School of Economics and Business, University of Sarajevo, Trg oslobodjenja 1, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Brand stereotype Consumer-brand identification Perceived brand globalness Perceived brand localness
Drawing on international branding literature and stereotyping research, the current study seeks to answer the following research questions: (1) do consumers' perceptions of brand globalness/localness influence their stereotypical assessments of brands in terms of their warmth and competence, and (2) do these stereotypical dimensions impact consumer-brand identification and, through it, purchase intentions and brand ownership? The proposed conceptual model is tested using data from two countries (Austria: N = 243; Bosnia & Herzegovina: N = 95) and seven global brands from different product categories. The findings reveal that perceived brand globalness and localness indeed influence the content of brand stereotypes by impacting consumers' assessments of warmth and competence. Brand warmth is revealed to be the key driver of consumer-brand identification which, in turn, stimulates purchase intentions and brand ownership. Brand competence is not significantly related to consumer-brand identification (across both studies), indicating that not all dimensions of stereotype content are relevant for the consumer-brand relationship.
1. Introduction Increased marketplace globalization has made the competition between brands a central topic in international marketing research. On one hand, attention has been drawn to the ‘homogenization thesis’ under which global brands are “Trojan horses through which transnational corporations colonize local cultures” (Thompson & Arsel, 2004, p. 631), resulting in the creation of a global consumer culture (Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 2006). On the other hand, despite the convergence of consumer needs and desires around the world (Levitt, 1993), consumers do not always display preferences for global brands (Riefler, 2012) but often opt for locally positioned brands that emphasize local identity and culture (Swoboda, Pennemann, & Taube, 2012). In short, brands being perceived as global and/or local have the “ability to embody, inform, and communicate desirable consumer identities” (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012, p. 406). Consumers are exposed to numerous brands in their daily environment, so they tend to simplify and generalize beliefs about the brands they encounter through the process of stereotyping (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). The latter refers to the categorization process that helps people streamline, organize and systemize information they receive (Tajfel, 1969, 1981). Specifically, stereotypes represent sets of “oversimplified
and generalized set of beliefs about the characteristics of a social group” (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, p. 13) and are used as “energy-saving devices that serve as the important cognitive function of simplifying information processing and response generation” (Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994, p. 37). A central feature of the stereotyping process is the assignment of group characteristics to individual members of the group simply because of their group membership. For example, a stereotype portraying English people as polite and reserved, leads to the expectations that John (who happens to be English) will also be polite and reserved (i.e. that he will “conform” to the country stereotype). Although the notion of stereotyping was originally applied to social groups – such as different races, genders, nationalities or professions (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) – research shows that “stereotypical associations do not only apply to people, but also to every stimulus object that is ascribed to the stereotypical category” (Halkias, Davvetas & Diamantopoulos, 2016, p. 3642), including brands. Brand stereotypes represent consumers' beliefs about brands as intentional agents (Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012) and such beliefs can guide consumers' perceptions (e.g. brand evaluations), intentions (e.g. purchase intentions) and actual behavior (e.g. brand ownership). In this context, consumers tend to form relationships with brands in a similar fashion as they form with people (Escalas & Bettman, 2003; Fournier, 1998).
The authors acknowledge the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) for supporting this study (Research Grant: I 3727 – G27). Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Ž. Kolbl), [email protected] (M. Arslanagic-Kalajdzic), [email protected] (A. Diamantopoulos). ☆ ⁎
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.060 Received 14 December 2017; Received in revised form 18 December 2018; Accepted 19 December 2018 Available online 26 December 2018 0148-2963/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
as “those that have widespread regional/global awareness, availability, acceptance, and demand and are often found under the same name with consistent positioning, personality, look and feel in major markets enabled by centrally coordinated marketing strategies and programs” (Özsomer & Altaras, 2008, p. 1). Their availability in multiple countries, standardized marketing strategies and high level of recognition (Dimofte, Johansson, & Ronkainen, 2008; Özsomer, 2012), enables them to act as quality signals thus reducing consumers' perceived risk and enhancing perceptions of value. Global brands are successfully positioned as such, when consumers recognize their communicated cues in terms of globalness associations. In this context, perceived brand globalness (PBG) refers to the extent to which “consumers believe that the brand is marketed in multiple countries and is recognized as global in these countries” (Steenkamp, Batra, & Alden, 2003, p. 54). A substantial body of research has shown that brands perceived as global benefit from associations of high quality, prestige, status, social approval, excitement, modernity, and belongingness to the global consumer culture (e.g. Alden et al., 2006; Steenkamp et al., 2003; Xie, Batra, & Peng, 2015). However, communicating globalness associations does not mean that global brands ignore local imperatives. Many global brands often adapt parts of their market presence and strategy to local needs and wants thus also generating localness perceptions, which, in most instances, are also welcomed by consumers (Riefler, 2012). Perceived brand localness (PBL) refers to the extent to which “a brand is being recognized as a local player and a symbol or icon of a local culture” (Swoboda et al., 2012, p. 72). Brands perceived as local also benefit from positive associations of authenticity, originality, adaptability to local needs/tastes and trust (e.g. Ger, 1999; Schuiling & Kapferer, 2004; Steenkamp & de Jong, 2010; Van Ittersum & Wong, 2010). Thus PBG and PBL represent two distinct, yet mutually reinforcing perceptual constructs that shape consumer evaluations, attitudes and behaviors (Halkias, Davvetas, & Diamantopoulos, 2016; Özsomer, 2012; Swoboda et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2015). In this paper, we are specifically interested in how PBG and PBL impact the stereotypes that consumers form about brands and how such brand stereotypes (as reflected in judgements of warmth and competence) influence the degree to which consumers will identify with the focal brands.
Importantly, brands whose identities are consonant with desirable reference groups help consumers articulate their identities, thus encouraging consumer-brand identification (CBI), namely “a perceived state of oneness with the brand” (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 407). Consumer research on global/local branding, stereotyping and CBI has treated these topics largely in isolation (i.e. as separate research streams) and little is known about whether consumers' perceptions of brand globalness/localness result in more desirable brand stereotypes and thus stronger CBI. Thus there is a knowledge gap regarding how stereotyping of global brands is influenced by “footprints” of globalness and localness in the mind of the consumer. Furthermore, while simplification and generalization are processes in which consumers constantly engage in today's crowded marketplace, little is known regarding how stereotypical beliefs generated by these processes influence the consumer-brand relationship bond and, in particular, CBI. Against this background, our research draws from the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002) in social psychology and applies it to a global branding context. Specifically, we propose and test a conceptual framework linking consumers' perceptions of a brand's globalness and localness to stereotypical assessments of a brand's warmth and competence and, through them, to CBI. We also highlight the role of CBI as a predictor of both purchase intentions and actual brand ownership. Given that global brands in developed and developing countries are perceived differently (e.g. Batra, Ramaswamy, Alden, Steenkamp, & Ramachander, 2000; Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013; Steenkamp & de Jong, 2010), we empirically test our conceptual framework in two distinct country contexts using seven well-known global brands as stimuli. We contribute to global branding literature by revealing how perceptions of brand globalness and localness impact the content of the brand stereotype (as captured by warmth and competence judgements); this has important managerial implications for positioning strategies based on globalness and localness cues. We also contribute to consumer-brand relationship literature by empirically examining the relative diagnosticity of the warmth and competence dimensions in fostering CBI. We thus offer insights into how brand stereotype content impacts the consumer-brand relationship. In doing so we particularly highlight the importance of the warmth dimension which has been downplayed in previous research (e.g. Chen, Mathur, & Maheswaran, 2014). Finally, we contribute to international marketing literature by identifying pertinent differences in developed and developing country contexts regarding how perceptions of globalness/localness drive brand stereotype content. Such differences are particularly relevant for brand managers seeking to communicate a consistent stereotype for their brand in different countries. Overall, our findings offer empiricallybased insights on how to leverage the stereotype dimensions so as to bolster CBI and, ultimately, stimulate purchase intentions and brand ownership. The rest of this paper is structured as follows. First, we introduce the notions of perceived brand globalness and localness and derive theoretical expectations regarding how these perceptions guide brand stereotype content. We next link stereotypical brand perceptions to CBI and, through it, to brand purchase intentions and ownership. Subsequently, we present the results of two empirical studies offering empirical evidence on the postulated relationships in a developed (Austria) and a developing (Bosnia & Herzegovina) country context respectively. We conclude our paper with a theoretically- and managerially-relevant discussion on how to stimulate CBI through consumers' stereotypical assessments of brands and how to influence such assessments by communicating localness or/and globalness cues.
2.2. Perceived brand globalness/localness as drivers of brand stereotype content Despite being inanimate entities, brands often represent “significant others” with whom consumers form relationships (Fournier, 1998). In fact, the whole consumer-brand relationship literature is based on the idea that individuals can relate to brands in a similar way as they relate to people (Fournier, 1998), meaning that individuals also perceive brands in a similar way as they perceive people (Aaker, 1997). Thus, as previously mentioned, both the process of stereotyping in general and the notion of stereotype content in particular also apply to brands (Bernritter, Verlegh, & Smit, 2016; Ivens, Leischnig, Muller, & Valta, 2015; Kervyn et al., 2012). Social psychology research describes the content of stereotypes along two dimensions, warmth and competence, which are fundamental and universal dimensions of social judgments across stimuli, cultures and time (Stereotype Content Model - SCM; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007). These dimensions have been shown to be highly predictive as they “account for 82% of the variance in perceptions of everyday social behaviors” (Fiske et al., 2007, p. 77) and have also been repeatedly used in marketing studies (e.g. Diamantopoulos, Florack, Halkias, & Palcu, 2017; Halkias et al., 2016; Maher & Carter, 2011). Warmth captures notions such as good-nature, friendliness and kindness, whereas competence refers to notions such as capability, efficiency and intelligence (Fiske et al., 2007). Prior research on stereotyping suggests that if a stereotyping object (e.g. a brand) is perceived as having positive and cooperative intentions, it would be stereotyped as warm,
2. Conceptual background and research hypotheses 2.1. Perceived brand globalness and localness Global brands are the descendants of globalization and are defined 615
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
which customers identify and because meaning can be transferred between brands and the self” (Lam, Ahearne, Hu, & Schillewaert, 2010, p. 129). Although this relationship is not interpersonal, brands “can take the role of the “other” with whom the consumer identifies, especially if consumers animate, humanize or somehow personalize the brand” (Fournier, 1998, p. 346). Driven by a variety of factors, such as brandself similarity, brand distinctiveness, and memorable brand experiences, CBI represents an important construct for understanding consumer behavior (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Tuškej, Golob, & Podnar, 2013). Global brands, in particular, “create an imagined global identity that the consumer shares with like-minded people” (Holt, Quelch, & Taylor, 2004, p. 71) and are thus expected to be good candidates for CBI. Prior research suggests that perceptions of high warmth and competence may produce a general liking and admiration for an object (e.g. brand), which then translates into favorability towards an object (Chen et al., 2014; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Halkias et al., 2016). In a similar manner, stereotypical assessments of a brand can be viewed as determinants of CBI. For example, “warm brands are more likely, ceteris paribus, to carry more abstract, higher order meaning, pertaining for instance to its values and ethics, rather than concrete, lower-order, meanings, pertaining to its concrete features” (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 410). Thus, the higher the evaluation of brand stereotype warmth, the more attractive becomes a brand as a candidate for CBI. Consumers often express their identities through the signaling of their status. Consistent with previous literature on signaling (Kirmani & Rao, 2000; Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013) which suggests that consumers rely on the communicated cues in order to infer the quality of the product, we expect that brands that are perceived as credible and prestigious help consumers to increase their confidence regarding making the right purchasing decision and also “enhance their social status and self-worth through brand purchase” (Baek, Kim, & Yu, 2010, p. 664). Thus brands that are judged by consumers to be highly competent can also serve as good candidates for CBI. We thus hypothesize that:
whereas if it is perceived as having abilities to actually deliver its intentions it would be stereotyped as competent (Fiske et al., 2002). The application of the SCM in branding is based on the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF), which implements the warmth dimension as “how well/ill-intentioned brands seem to be” and the competence dimension as “how able are brands perceived to be” (Kervyn et al., 2012, p. 171). Thus a brand's performance features, such as quality, reliability, consistency, perceived quality and prestige are diagnostic of brand's competence (Kervyn et al., 2012) whereas the brand's warmth can be inferred from the brand's capability to promote global citizenship (Strizhakova, Coulter, & Price, 2008) or cultural iconness (Ger, 1999). In light of the aforementioned globalness/localness associations (see Section 2.1), high levels of PBG are therefore primarily expected to stimulate stereotypes about a brand's competence. On the other hand, high levels of PBL reflect a brand's tailormaking to local expectations. Such tailor-making is likely to be interpreted as a well-intentioned act of creating a bond with the local society thus stimulating brand stereotypes mainly based on the warmth dimension. We thus hypothesize that: H1. PBG will have a positive effect on brand stereotype (a) warmth, and (b) competence, but its effect on competence will be stronger than that on warmth. H2. PBL will have a positive effect on brand stereotype (a) warmth, and (b) competence, but its effect on warmth will be stronger than that on competence. 2.3. Brand stereotype content as a driver of consumer-brand identification Brands do not only help consumers identify and distinguish the goods and services of one from another (Kotler, 2001), but also act as credibility signals (Erdem, Swait, & Valenzuela, 2006), carry symbolic meanings (Levy, 1959), are seen as relationship partners (Fournier & Alvarez, 2012), and (through possession) facilitate the expression of consumer identity (Belk, 1988). Thus brands have “the ability to embody, inform, and communicate desirable consumer identities” (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 406). The idea that “to a large degree, we are what we have and possess” (Tuan, 1980, p. 472) has critically shaped our way of understanding consumer behavior. Possessions serve as the basis for the concept of extended self (Belk, 1988; Gardner & Levy, 1955), which comprises the intertwinement of “me (the self), but also that which is seen as mine” (Belk, 1988, p. 140). The notion of the extended self serves as a pillar for CBI and draws from social identity theory and, in particular, the dual nature of the “self-image” (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The latter has an individual component (which refers to the knowledge that the individual has of his social group(s) membership), as well as a social component (which includes the emotional attachment to that particular group membership). Social identity theory guides our understanding of why individuals actually identify with a certain group of people. Marketing literature has implemented social identity theory in a consumption context, based on the premise that “brands can represent self-relevant categories with
H3. Brand stereotype (a) warmth, and (b) competence will have a positive effect on CBI. Consistent with prior research (e.g. Tuškej et al., 2013), we also expect that CBI will be positively related to purchase intentions and, through them, to brand ownership. Therefore, we incorporate, but do not formally hypothesize, these previously established linkages as part of our model specification (Fig. 1). 3. Study 1 3.1. Research design Our first empirical study was conducted in Austria, which holds fourth place on the 2017 KOF Index of Globalization (ETH, 2017). Austria is a highly developed economy; according to World Bank Indicators (2016), its GDP per capita (PPP in $) was 50,077.83. A total of 243 consumers (133 female, Mage = 33.1, SD = 12.4)
Fig. 1. Conceptual model. 616
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
and Podsakoff (2003), we used different scale endpoints, as well as formats for measuring independent and dependent variables. Regarding (post hoc) statistical control procedures, we applied a variation of the marker variable procedure suggested by Malhotra, Kim, and Patil (2006). This involved using the second lowest positive correlation between the indicators measuring the study constructs (excluding control variables) as a proxy for CMV. We subsequently adjusted the zero-order correlations by partialling out this proxy and found that 90% of correlations remained significant as a result of this adjustment. Therefore, CMV does not appear to seriously threaten the validity of our study. To test our hypotheses, we estimated a structural equations model in line with Fig. 1 and obtained good fit (χ2 = 449.5, df = 271, RMSEA = 0.05, NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.96). Regarding main effects (see Table 4), both PBG and PBL have positive and significant effects on brand competence (PBG: β = 0.37, p < 0.01; PBL: β = 0.33, p < 0.01); however, only PBL has a significant impact on brand warmth (PBG: β = 0.10, n.s.; PBL: β = 0.22, p < 0.01). Thus H1b, H2a and H2b are all supported, whereas H1a is not. Given that the effect of PBG on warmth is not significant, we can directly establish that the (significant) effect of PBG on competence is stronger than its effect on warmth. Regarding PBL – which has significant links with both warmth and competence – we compared the original model specification to a model incorporating an equality constraint on the paths from PBL to warmth and from PBL to competence. A chi-square difference (Δχ2) test failed to produce a significant result (Δχ2 = 0.01, df = 1, n.s.), indicating that the effects of PBL on the two dimensions of brand stereotype content are of similar magnitude. Brand warmth further positively and significantly impacts CBI (β = 0.24, p < 0.01; H3a supported), while brand competence does not have a significant effect on CBI (β = 0.09, n.s.; H3b not supported). The remaining paths in the model exhibited expected signs consistent with previous research. Namely, CBI positively impacts PI (β = 0.43, p < 0.01) and, in turn, PI positively impacts brand ownership (β = 0.65, p < 0.01). Additionally, we find that PBG also has a direct positive effect on PI (β = 0.16, p < 0.01). Regarding the control relationships, only brand familiarity significantly impacts purchase intentions (β = 0.40, p < 0.01).
Table 1 Sample characteristics. Study 1: Austria (%)
Study 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina (%)
Gender Male Female
45.3 54.7
41.1 58.9
Residence City Rural area
84.4 15.6
94.7 5.3
Income €(Austria)/KM(Bosnia & Herzegovina) Below 800 32 800–1499 29.4 1500–2500 24.9 Above 2500 13.7
33.7 32.7 18.9 14.7
Age Mean age (standard deviation)
33.1 (12.4)
24.5 (6.4)
participated in a survey that was disseminated through a questionnaire (see Table 1 for sample characteristics). The latter was originally developed in English, but was later translated into German. As suggested by Douglas and Craig (2007), we opted for a collaborative approach for questionnaire translation, whereby bilingual local researchers ensured equivalence in meaning. This was done following the five stages, suggested by Harkness (2003) (translation, review, adjudication, pretesting and documentation) thus ensuring comparability of the research instrument from one linguistic context to another. Data was personally collected with the help of trained research assistants, who collected 30 to 40 questionnaires per brand by recruiting respondents in shopping malls and cafés. Respondents participated in a between-subjects study design and were randomly exposed to one of seven well-known global brands, across different product categories (Coca-Cola, Ebay, Pringles, The North Face, KitKat, Ikea, and Heineken). PBG and PBL were assessed via the established scales of Steenkamp et al. (2003) and Swoboda et al. (2012) respectively. The measures for the stereotypes' dimensions of warmth and competence were adapted from the original scales of Fiske et al. (2002) as used in prior branding research (e.g. Halkias et al., 2016); CBI was assessed through Stokburger-Sauer et al.'s (2012) scale. Finally, purchase intentions were captured through Putrevu and Lord's (1994) scale and brand ownership by asking respondents whether they had bought the stimulus brand in the past 12 months. Control variables included in our model were consumer's brand familiarity (1 = not at all familiar, 7 = very familiar), gender, age and monthly income. Table 2 lists the study measures together with relevant psychometric properties.
4. Study 2 4.1. Research design Prior research suggests that consumers from developed and developing countries often differ in their perceptions and evaluations of global brands (e.g. Batra et al., 2000; Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013; Steenkamp & de Jong, 2010). In particular, transition and social mobility which are common to developing countries, fuel the urge of consumers to signal differential status through the possession of brands (Batra et al., 2000; Luckmann & Berger, 1964). Thus, in developing countries, global brands mainly serve as status communicators and navigate consumers towards “creating and converging meaning and identity” (Strizhakova et al., 2008, p. 60) through their possession. In light of the above and consistent with prior global branding research (e.g. Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013), we replicated our conceptual model in a developing country context (Bosnia & Herzegovina), using the same global brands as in Study 1 as stimuli. When replicating the study, we used the same construct measures and translation procedures as for Study 1 and the same applies to the assessment of CMV. Bosnia & Herzegovina is positioned at the fifty-seventh place on the 2017 KOF Index of Globalization (ETH, 2017). According to World Bank Indicators (2016) it belongs to the developing countries group with a GDP per capita (PPP in $) of 12,074.75. A total of 95 consumers from Bosnia & Herzegovina (56 female, Mage = 24.5, SD = 6.4) participated in an online survey. The data was collected using a snowball sampling approach (Fricker, 2008). Specifically, we distributed the
3.2. Analysis and results We first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the model constructs in Fig. 1. The CFA model (see Table 2) resulted in a good overall fit (χ2 = 311.31, df = 174, RMSEA = 0.06, NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.97) and high construct reliability (ranging from 0.84 for PBG to 0.91 for CBI). In addition, convergent validity of the measures was supported, as all indicators significantly load on their respective latent variables. Average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.58 to 0.71 and all square-roots of AVEs were much larger than any of the corresponding correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) thus establishing discriminant validity (Table 3). As our data is based on consumers' self-reports, we accounted for common method variance (CMV) by means of both procedural remedies and statistical control procedures. We reassured our participants that there are no right or wrong answers and that their answers would be anonymous and confidential (Chang, Van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010). Furthermore, as recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, 617
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
Table 2 Construct measures and psychometric properties. Construct (source)
Study 1: Austria
Study 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina
λ Perceived brand globalness (Steenkamp et al., 2003) To me, [BRAND] is a global brand. I think consumers abroad buy [BRAND]. [BRAND] is sold all over the world. Perceived brand localness (Swoboda et al., 2012) I associate [BRAND] with things that are “[COO]”. To me, [BRAND] represents what “[COO]” is about. To me, [BRAND] is a very good symbol of “[COO]”. Brand competence (Fiske et al., 2002; Halkias et al., 2016) Capable Competent Efficient Intelligent Brand warmth (Fiske et al., 2002; Halkias et al., 2016) Friendly Good-natured Kind Warm Consumer brand identification (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012) I feel a strong sense of belonging to [BRAND]. I identify strongly with [BRAND]. [BRAND] embodies what I believe in. [BRAND] is like a part of me. Purchase intention (Putrevu & Lord, 1994) It is very likely that I will buy [BRAND] in the future. I will purchase [BRAND] the next time I need such a product. I will definitely try [BRAND] in the future. Model fit χ2 df RMSEA NNFI CFI
0.82 0.82 0.74 0.71 0.95 0.81 0.79 0.89 0.74 0.63 0.78 0.82 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.97 0.76 0.71 0.92 0.69 0.84
CR
AVE
0.84
0.63
0.87
0.69
0.85
0.58
0.91
0.71
0.91
0.71
0.86
0.68
311.31 174 0.06 0.96 0.97
λ
CR 0.83 0.94 0.80 0.70 0.94 0.90 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.77 0.74 0.91 0.79 0.95 0.99 0.81 0.79 0.95 0.86 0.86
AVE
0.89
0.74
0.89
0.73
0.86
0.61
0.88
0.65
0.94
0.79
0.92
0.79
261.64 174 0.07 0.95 0.96
Notes: λ – standardized loading, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted; [BRAND] = randomly assigned global brand; COO = country of origin (Austria or Bosnia & Herzegovina).
4.2. Analysis and results
Table 3 Discriminant validity assessment. #
Construct
Study 1: Austria 1 Perceived brand globalness 2 Perceived brand localness 3 Brand competence 4 Brand warmth 5 Consumer brand identification 6 Purchase intention 7 Brand ownership Study 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina 1 Perceived brand globalness 2 Perceived brand localness 3 Brand competence 4 Brand warmth 5 Consumer brand identification 6 Purchase intention 7 Brand ownership
1
2
3
4
5
0.79 −0.13 0.26 0.04 0.09
0.83 0.24 0.21 0.33
0.76 0.43 0.22
0.84 0.27
0.84
0.24 0.20
0.11 0.07
0.21 0.16
0.22 0.18
0.50 0.31
0.86 0.19 0.33 0.28 0.22
0.85 0.33 0.42 0.50
0.80 0.68 0.30
0.83 0.37
0.89
0.51 0.37
0.31 0.07
0.33 0.11
0.24 0.07
0.52 0.31
6
7
0.82 0.63
N/a
0.89 0.46
N/a
Using the same procedures as in Study 1, we assessed the measurement model through CFA (Table 2). This resulted in a good overall fit (χ2 = 261.64, df = 174, RMSEA = 0.07, NNFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96) and high construct reliability (ranging from 0.86 for brand stereotype competence to 0.94 for CBI). Average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.61 to 0.79 and all square-roots of AVEs were much larger than any of the relevant inter-construct correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) thus supporting discriminant validity (Table 3). To assess whether our construct measures are interpreted equivalently by the Austrian and Bosnian & Herzegovinian samples, we conducted measurement invariance tests using multigroup CFA (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Configural invariance (Globalχ2 = 576.77, df = 348, RMSEA = 0.06, NNFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97) as well as full metric invariance (Globalχ2 = 597.08, df = 363, RMSEA = 0.06, NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.97) was established, indicating comparability of measurement across our two study settings. The structural model (see Fig. 1) also produced a good fit in the developing country context (χ2 = 380.03, df = 271, RMSEA = 0.07, NNFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96). Regarding main effects (Table 4), both PBG and PBL have positive and significant effects on brand competence (PBG: β = 0.33, p < 0.01; PBL: β = 0.35, p < 0.01), as well as on
Notes: correlations are shown below the diagonal; square root AVEs are shown on the diagonal in bold; N/a: not applicable (single item).
survey link to academic colleagues based locally, who invited their acquaintances, colleagues and friends to answer it and share it further online.1 1
(footnote continued) (N = 243), it still offers sufficient statistical power (≥0.95) to capture at least a medium effect size (corresponding to an R2 value of 0.13 or greater – see Cohen, 1988).
Although the sample size in Study 2 (N = 95) is smaller than in Study 1 618
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
Table 4 Structural model estimation results. Study 1: Austria Estimated paths (H1a) Perceived brand globalness → warmth (H2a) Perceived brand localness → warmth (H1b) Perceived brand globalness → competence (H2b) Perceived brand localness → competence (H3a) Warmth → CBI (H3b) Competence → CBI PBG → purchase intention CBI → purchase intention Brand familiarity →purchase intention Gender → purchase intention Age → purchase intention Income → purchase intention Purchase intention → brand ownership Brand familiarity → brand ownership Gender → brand ownership Age → brand ownership Income → brand ownership Model fit
Notes: β = standardized coefficient; N(Study
1) =
Study 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina 2
β (t-value) R 0.10 (1.41) 0.05 n.s. 0.22 (3.14) ✓ 0.37 (5.02) 0.21 ✓ 0.33 (4.61) ✓ 0.24 (3.06) 0.08 ✓ 0.09 (1.20) n.s. 0.16 (2.47) 0.42 0.43 (7.43) 0.40 (6.78) 0.01 (0.21) −0.06 (−0.91) 0.01 (0.19) 0.65 (9.97) 0.43 0.00 (0.08) −0.07 (−1.24) 0.06 (0.91) −0.00 (−0.01) χ2 = 449.5, df = 271, RMSEA = 0.05, NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.96
243, N(Study
2) = 95;
β (t-value) R2 0.23 (2.28) 0.30 ✓ 0.46 (3.96) ✓ 0.33 (3.03) 0.26 ✓ 0.35 (3.07) ✓ 0.34 (1.84) 0.15 ✓ 0.05 (0.25) n.s. 0.38 (3.65) 0.52 0.47 (5.80) 0.11 (1.15) −0.19 (−2.36) 0.02 (0.23) 0.01 (0.17) 0.40 (3.87) 0.29 0.23 (2.41) 0.05 (0.57) 0.03 (0.28) −0.17 (−1.78) χ2 = 380.03,df = 271, RMSEA = 0.07, NNFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96
✓ = hypothesized effect confirmed; n.s. = hypothesized effect not significant.
brand warmth (PBG: β = 0.23, p < 0.05; PBL: β = 0.46, p < 0.01). Thus H1a, H1b, H2a and H2b are all supported.2 To compare the strength of the effects of PBG and PBL on the stereotype content dimensions, we again compared unconstrained models with models incorporating equality constraints on the relevant paths. None of these comparisons produced significant chi-square difference statistics (PBG: Δχ2 = 2.82, df = 1, n.s.; PBL: Δχ2 = 0.61, df = 1, n.s.) indicating that PBG has comparable influences on brand warmth and competence and the same applies to PBL. As in Study 1, brand warmth positively and significantly affects CBI (β = 0.34, p < 0.05; H3a supported), while brand competence does not have a significant effect on CBI (β = 0.05, n.s.; H3b not supported). Moreover, CBI positively impacts PI (β = 0.47, p < 0.01) and, in turn, PI positively impacts brand ownership (β = 0.40, p < 0.01). Again, PBG has a direct positive effect on PI (β = 0.38, p < 0.01). Regarding the control relationships, gender is significantly related to purchase intentions (β = −0.19, p < 0.01), while brand familiarity (β = 0.23, p < 0.01) and income (β = −0.17, p < 0.05) both significantly impact brand ownership.
globalness and localness; this is the case in both developed and developing markets. However, while in a developed country context, PBG only enhances stereotypical assessments of brand competence, in a developing country context PBG also impacts brand warmth. The latter finding is in line with prior research showing that globally positioned brands are more attractive to consumers in emerging markets (Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 1999). Such consumers are likely to appreciate the globalness of a brand more than consumers in developed countries (where global brands are nothing new/special/unique), meaning that they are likely to judge global brands as both competent and warm. Indeed, the PBG → warmth link observed in the developing market setting suggests that global brands have a deeper meaning for consumers in developing countries, since they represent a shortcut towards the often-desired global consumer culture, created by global brands (Alden et al., 2006). Regarding the impact of PBL, its role seems to be stable in both developed and developing market settings, having similar influences on both dimensions of brand stereotype content. Thus global brands emphasizing localness cues – such as associations of uniqueness, originality and national pride (Dimofte et al., 2008; Özsomer, 2012) are judged to be both warm and competent, irrespective of the market setting involved. Furthermore, and in contrast to previous consumer research on stereotyping that has questioned the diagnosticity of the warmth dimension (e.g. Chen et al., 2014), our results (across both studies) show that warmth is more important than competence if the aim is to stimulate and maintain CBI. In fact, only warmth is a significant predictor of CBI in both developed and developing country contexts, implying that judging a brand as being well-intentioned (Kervyn et al., 2012) is a key factor encouraging identification with a global brand. Prior literature on CBI is in line with our findings in that warmer (but not more competent) brands have been found to be “stronger and more meaningful candidates for consumer-brand identification” (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 410). Interestingly, our findings on brand warmth contradict the findings of previous research that has cast doubt on the relevance of the warmth dimension as a predictor of consumer responses (e.g. Chen et al., 2014; Halkias et al., 2016). However, whereas previous research has investigated warmth as a dimension of the underlying country stereotypes (i.e. the stereotype relating to the origin of the brand), our own studies explicitly focused on warmth as a dimension of the brand stereotype. These differences in focus may well explain the divergence of the current findings from prior research.
5. Discussion and implications Our investigation contributes to international marketing literature by integrating PBG/PBL research with stereotyping research in an effort to offer a better understanding of the drivers of consumer-brand relationships in a global branding context. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to offer insights into how brand stereotype content is influenced by consumers' perceptions of global brands and how such content impacts consumer-brand identification. Several theoretical and managerial implications emerge from our findings. 5.1. Theoretical implications The first important implication of our findings is that the stereotypes of global brands (as reflected in warmth and competence assessments) are indeed positively influenced by consumers' perceptions of 2
Due to the relatively small sample size in Bosnia & Herzegovina (N = 95), we also estimated the model in Fig. 1 using composite measures (following parcelling of individual indicators – see Bandalos, 2002) and results were stable. Detailed results of this model are available, upon request, from the authors. 619
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
Our findings also reveal that PBG and PBL do not exhibit a “symmetrical” pattern of effects in terms of impacting purchase intentions. Whereas PBL influences intentions to buy the brand only indirectly (through enhancing brand warmth which then drives CBI), both our studies also revealed direct positive effects of PBG on purchase intentions. This suggests that there are two distinct pathways linking PBG to purchase intentions (and, ultimately, brand ownership). The first pathway goes through the stereotype content of the specific brand, while the second reflects a general proclivity to opt for global brands (irrespective of the latter's specific stereotype content). As noted above, only the first pathway is relevant for PBL. Finally, it is worth noting that the explanatory power of our model in Fig. 1 – as captured by the coefficients of determination for the dependent variables – is higher in the developing (Study 2) than for the developed country setting (Study 1). For example, brand warmth explains twice as much of the variance in CBI in Bosnia & Herzegovina than in Austria (see Table 4). Similarly, PBG and PBL are much better predictors of warmth in Bosnia & Herzegovina as compared to Austria. These differences suggest that, overall, stereotype content seems to play a bigger role in developing market settings than in highly developed ones. Needless to say that this pattern needs to be replicated in additional/different country contexts before firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the importance of brand stereotypes in different settings.
focusing on local brands which are becoming more and more powerful in many markets and may therefore represent a competition to global brands in many product categories (Davvetas & Diamantopoulos, 2016; Özsomer, 2012; Riefler, 2012). Furthermore, potential moderating variables (e.g. consumers' need for cognition or his/her regulatory focus) that may condition the relationships between globalness/localness perceptions and the brand stereotype dimensions are in need of investigation. Similarly, attention needs to be paid on developing compelling theoretical explanations for the lack of impact of the competence dimension on CBI and the latter's sole dependence on warmth. Finally, undertaking more fine-grained investigations by distinguishing between domestic and foreign brands or between brands originating from animosity and affinity countries should throw additional light on the examined relationships and enrich our understanding of the formation and role of brand stereotypes in an international marketing context. References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 347–356. Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture. The Journal of Marketing, 75–87. Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Batra, R. (2006). Consumer attitudes toward marketplace globalization: Structure, antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 227–239. Baek, T. H., Kim, J., & Yu, J. H. (2010). The differential roles of brand credibility and brand prestige in consumer brand choice. Psychology and Marketing, 27(7), 662–678. Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78–102. Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Ramachander, S. (2000). Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 83–95. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. Bernritter, S. F., Verlegh, P. W., & Smit, E. G. (2016). Why nonprofits are easier to endorse on social media: The roles of warmth and brand symbolism. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 33, 27–42. Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Chen, C. Y., Mathur, P., & Maheswaran, D. (2014). The effects of country-related affect on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1033–1046. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates2. Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. Davvetas, V., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2016). How product category shapes preferences toward global and local brands: A schema theory perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 24(4), 61–81. Diamantopoulos, A., Florack, A., Halkias, G., & Palcu, J. (2017). Explicit versus implicit country stereotypes as predictors of product preferences: Insights from the stereotype content model. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(8), 1023–1036. Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J. K., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2008). Cognitive and affective reactions of US consumers to global brands. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 113–135. Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1), 30–43. Erdem, T., Swait, J., & Valenzuela, A. (2006). Brands as signals: A cross-country validation study. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 34–49. Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348. ETH Zürich KOF (2017). KOF Globalization Index. https://www.kof.ethz.ch/en/ forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html, Accessed date: 9 September 2018. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (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. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373. Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as relationship partners: Warmth, competence, and in-between. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 177–185.
5.2. Managerial implications From a practitioner's perspective, perhaps the most important implication of our findings is the critical role of brand warmth in fostering CBI. Importantly, strengthening CBI pays off as it positively affects consumers' intentions to buy the brand and, ultimately, actual brand ownership. These benefits are reaped in both developing and developed markets. In contrast – and, perhaps surprisingly – emphasizing the competence dimension of the brand stereotype is unlikely to enhance CBI and, through it, other managerially important consumer outcomes (e.g. brand ownership). Put simply, brands that are stereotyped as warm are highly promising candidates for consumer-brand relationship formation, whereas brands judged to be highly competent (but not warm) are not. A second managerial implication relates to the use of globalness and localness cues when positioning global brands. In a developed country context, globalness cues lead towards a formation of brand stereotypes highlighting competence, whereas in developing markets, such cues also enhance judgements of brand warmth. At the same time – and irrespective of the country context – emphasizing localness cues is likely to encourage the formation of both warm and competent brand stereotypes. Thus including and highlighting globalness and/or localness cues on advertising materials and/or product packages (Verlegh, Steenkamp, & Meulenberg, 2005) is important for consumer stereotype formation and CBI. Moreover, given that PBG is also directly linked to purchase intentions, emphasizing globalness associations – irrespective of the brand's stereotypical profile in terms of warmth and competence – is also likely to stimulate product purchase quite apart from its effects through CBI. This implies that brand managers can benefit from globalness associations in different ways; namely through facilitating stereotype content formation and through directly encouraging product purchase. 5.3. Limitations and future research Our investigation has several limitations which offer opportunities for further research. Given that this is the first attempt to explicitly link consumers' perceptions of globalness and localness to brand stereotype content and, through it, to CBI, replication in different countries, using different product categories and different brands as stimuli is clearly needed to establish the robustness (or otherwise) of our findings. Particularly helpful in this context would be research specifically 620
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al. Fricker, R. D. (2008). Sampling methods for web and e-mail surveys. The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 195–216). . Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33(2), 33–39. Ger, G. (1999). Localizing in the global village: Local firms competing in global markets. California Management Review, 41(4), 64–83. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4. Halkias, G., Davvetas, V., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2016). The interplay between country stereotypes and perceived brand globalness/localness as drivers of brand preference. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3621–3628. van de Vijver, F. J. (2003). In J. A. Harkness, P. P. Mohler, & J. Wiley (Vol. Eds.), Crosscultural survey methods. Vol. 325. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience. Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., & Taylor, E. L. (2004). How global brands compete. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 68–75. Ivens, B. S., Leischnig, A., Muller, B., & Valta, K. (2015). On the role of brand stereotypes in shaping consumer response toward brands: An empirical examination of direct and mediating effects of warmth and competence. Psychology and Marketing, 32(8), 808–820. Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166–176. Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 66–79. Kotler, P. (2001). Marketing management. 10. Canada: Pearson Education. Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 128–146. Levitt, T. (1993). The globalization of markets. Readings in international business: A decision approach. 249. Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117–124. Luckmann, T., & Berger, P. (1964). Social mobility and personal identity. European Journal of Sociology, 5(2), 331–344. Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 37. Maher, A. A., & Carter, L. L. (2011). The affective and cognitive components of country image: Perceptions of American products in Kuwait. International Marketing Review, 28(6), 559–580. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883. Özsomer, A. (2012). The interplay between global and local brands: A closer look at perceived brand globalness and local iconness. Journal of International Marketing, 20(2), 72–95. Özsomer, A., & Altaras, S. (2008). Global brand purchase likelihood: A critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 1–28. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. Putrevu, S., & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and noncomparative advertising:
Attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 77–91. Riefler, P. (2012). Why consumers do (not) like global brands: The role of globalization attitude, GCO and global brand origin. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), 25–34. Schuiling, I., & Kapferer, J.-N. (2004). Executive insights: Real differences between local and international brands: Strategic implications for international marketers. Journal of International Marketing, 12(4), 97–112. Sichtmann, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2013). The impact of perceived brand globalness, brand origin image, and brand origin–extension fit on brand extension success. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 567–585. Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Batra, R., & Alden, D. L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53–65. Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90. Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & de Jong, M. G. (2010). A global investigation into the constellation of consumer attitudes toward global and local products. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 18–40. Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer–brand identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 406–418. Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2008). Branded products as a passport to global citizenship: Perspectives from developed and developing countries. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 57–85. Swoboda, B., Pennemann, K., & Taube, M. (2012). The effects of perceived brand globalness and perceived brand localness in China: Empirical evidence on western, Asian, and domestic retailers. Journal of International Marketing, 20(4), 72–95. Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Biosocial Science, 1(S1), 173–191. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International Social Science Council), 13(2), 65–93. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. CUP Archive, 63. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74. Thompson, C. J., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks brandscape and consumers' (anticorporate) experiences of globalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 631–642. Tuan, Y. F. (1980). The significance of the artifact. Geographical Review, 462–472. Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53–59. Van Ittersum, K., & Wong, N. (2010). The Lexus or the olive tree? Trading off between global convergence and local divergence. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2), 107–118. Verlegh, P. W., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Meulenberg, M. T. (2005). Country-of-origin effects in consumer processing of advertising claims. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(2), 127–139. World Bank (2016). World Bank indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY. GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?end=2016&locations=BA&start=1994&view=chart, Accessed date: 20 June 2017. Xie, Y., Batra, R., & Peng, S. (2015). An extended model of preference formation between global and local brands: The roles of identity expressiveness, trust, and affect. Journal of International Marketing, 23(1), 50–71.
621
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
Stereotyping global brands: Is warmth more important than competence?☆ a,⁎
b
Živa Kolbl , Maja Arslanagic-Kalajdzic , Adamantios Diamantopoulos a b
a
T
Department of International Marketing, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria Marketing Department, School of Economics and Business, University of Sarajevo, Trg oslobodjenja 1, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Brand stereotype Consumer-brand identification Perceived brand globalness Perceived brand localness
Drawing on international branding literature and stereotyping research, the current study seeks to answer the following research questions: (1) do consumers' perceptions of brand globalness/localness influence their stereotypical assessments of brands in terms of their warmth and competence, and (2) do these stereotypical dimensions impact consumer-brand identification and, through it, purchase intentions and brand ownership? The proposed conceptual model is tested using data from two countries (Austria: N = 243; Bosnia & Herzegovina: N = 95) and seven global brands from different product categories. The findings reveal that perceived brand globalness and localness indeed influence the content of brand stereotypes by impacting consumers' assessments of warmth and competence. Brand warmth is revealed to be the key driver of consumer-brand identification which, in turn, stimulates purchase intentions and brand ownership. Brand competence is not significantly related to consumer-brand identification (across both studies), indicating that not all dimensions of stereotype content are relevant for the consumer-brand relationship.
1. Introduction Increased marketplace globalization has made the competition between brands a central topic in international marketing research. On one hand, attention has been drawn to the ‘homogenization thesis’ under which global brands are “Trojan horses through which transnational corporations colonize local cultures” (Thompson & Arsel, 2004, p. 631), resulting in the creation of a global consumer culture (Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 2006). On the other hand, despite the convergence of consumer needs and desires around the world (Levitt, 1993), consumers do not always display preferences for global brands (Riefler, 2012) but often opt for locally positioned brands that emphasize local identity and culture (Swoboda, Pennemann, & Taube, 2012). In short, brands being perceived as global and/or local have the “ability to embody, inform, and communicate desirable consumer identities” (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012, p. 406). Consumers are exposed to numerous brands in their daily environment, so they tend to simplify and generalize beliefs about the brands they encounter through the process of stereotyping (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). The latter refers to the categorization process that helps people streamline, organize and systemize information they receive (Tajfel, 1969, 1981). Specifically, stereotypes represent sets of “oversimplified
and generalized set of beliefs about the characteristics of a social group” (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, p. 13) and are used as “energy-saving devices that serve as the important cognitive function of simplifying information processing and response generation” (Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994, p. 37). A central feature of the stereotyping process is the assignment of group characteristics to individual members of the group simply because of their group membership. For example, a stereotype portraying English people as polite and reserved, leads to the expectations that John (who happens to be English) will also be polite and reserved (i.e. that he will “conform” to the country stereotype). Although the notion of stereotyping was originally applied to social groups – such as different races, genders, nationalities or professions (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) – research shows that “stereotypical associations do not only apply to people, but also to every stimulus object that is ascribed to the stereotypical category” (Halkias, Davvetas & Diamantopoulos, 2016, p. 3642), including brands. Brand stereotypes represent consumers' beliefs about brands as intentional agents (Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012) and such beliefs can guide consumers' perceptions (e.g. brand evaluations), intentions (e.g. purchase intentions) and actual behavior (e.g. brand ownership). In this context, consumers tend to form relationships with brands in a similar fashion as they form with people (Escalas & Bettman, 2003; Fournier, 1998).
The authors acknowledge the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) for supporting this study (Research Grant: I 3727 – G27). Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Ž. Kolbl), [email protected] (M. Arslanagic-Kalajdzic), [email protected] (A. Diamantopoulos). ☆ ⁎
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.060 Received 14 December 2017; Received in revised form 18 December 2018; Accepted 19 December 2018 Available online 26 December 2018 0148-2963/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
as “those that have widespread regional/global awareness, availability, acceptance, and demand and are often found under the same name with consistent positioning, personality, look and feel in major markets enabled by centrally coordinated marketing strategies and programs” (Özsomer & Altaras, 2008, p. 1). Their availability in multiple countries, standardized marketing strategies and high level of recognition (Dimofte, Johansson, & Ronkainen, 2008; Özsomer, 2012), enables them to act as quality signals thus reducing consumers' perceived risk and enhancing perceptions of value. Global brands are successfully positioned as such, when consumers recognize their communicated cues in terms of globalness associations. In this context, perceived brand globalness (PBG) refers to the extent to which “consumers believe that the brand is marketed in multiple countries and is recognized as global in these countries” (Steenkamp, Batra, & Alden, 2003, p. 54). A substantial body of research has shown that brands perceived as global benefit from associations of high quality, prestige, status, social approval, excitement, modernity, and belongingness to the global consumer culture (e.g. Alden et al., 2006; Steenkamp et al., 2003; Xie, Batra, & Peng, 2015). However, communicating globalness associations does not mean that global brands ignore local imperatives. Many global brands often adapt parts of their market presence and strategy to local needs and wants thus also generating localness perceptions, which, in most instances, are also welcomed by consumers (Riefler, 2012). Perceived brand localness (PBL) refers to the extent to which “a brand is being recognized as a local player and a symbol or icon of a local culture” (Swoboda et al., 2012, p. 72). Brands perceived as local also benefit from positive associations of authenticity, originality, adaptability to local needs/tastes and trust (e.g. Ger, 1999; Schuiling & Kapferer, 2004; Steenkamp & de Jong, 2010; Van Ittersum & Wong, 2010). Thus PBG and PBL represent two distinct, yet mutually reinforcing perceptual constructs that shape consumer evaluations, attitudes and behaviors (Halkias, Davvetas, & Diamantopoulos, 2016; Özsomer, 2012; Swoboda et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2015). In this paper, we are specifically interested in how PBG and PBL impact the stereotypes that consumers form about brands and how such brand stereotypes (as reflected in judgements of warmth and competence) influence the degree to which consumers will identify with the focal brands.
Importantly, brands whose identities are consonant with desirable reference groups help consumers articulate their identities, thus encouraging consumer-brand identification (CBI), namely “a perceived state of oneness with the brand” (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 407). Consumer research on global/local branding, stereotyping and CBI has treated these topics largely in isolation (i.e. as separate research streams) and little is known about whether consumers' perceptions of brand globalness/localness result in more desirable brand stereotypes and thus stronger CBI. Thus there is a knowledge gap regarding how stereotyping of global brands is influenced by “footprints” of globalness and localness in the mind of the consumer. Furthermore, while simplification and generalization are processes in which consumers constantly engage in today's crowded marketplace, little is known regarding how stereotypical beliefs generated by these processes influence the consumer-brand relationship bond and, in particular, CBI. Against this background, our research draws from the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002) in social psychology and applies it to a global branding context. Specifically, we propose and test a conceptual framework linking consumers' perceptions of a brand's globalness and localness to stereotypical assessments of a brand's warmth and competence and, through them, to CBI. We also highlight the role of CBI as a predictor of both purchase intentions and actual brand ownership. Given that global brands in developed and developing countries are perceived differently (e.g. Batra, Ramaswamy, Alden, Steenkamp, & Ramachander, 2000; Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013; Steenkamp & de Jong, 2010), we empirically test our conceptual framework in two distinct country contexts using seven well-known global brands as stimuli. We contribute to global branding literature by revealing how perceptions of brand globalness and localness impact the content of the brand stereotype (as captured by warmth and competence judgements); this has important managerial implications for positioning strategies based on globalness and localness cues. We also contribute to consumer-brand relationship literature by empirically examining the relative diagnosticity of the warmth and competence dimensions in fostering CBI. We thus offer insights into how brand stereotype content impacts the consumer-brand relationship. In doing so we particularly highlight the importance of the warmth dimension which has been downplayed in previous research (e.g. Chen, Mathur, & Maheswaran, 2014). Finally, we contribute to international marketing literature by identifying pertinent differences in developed and developing country contexts regarding how perceptions of globalness/localness drive brand stereotype content. Such differences are particularly relevant for brand managers seeking to communicate a consistent stereotype for their brand in different countries. Overall, our findings offer empiricallybased insights on how to leverage the stereotype dimensions so as to bolster CBI and, ultimately, stimulate purchase intentions and brand ownership. The rest of this paper is structured as follows. First, we introduce the notions of perceived brand globalness and localness and derive theoretical expectations regarding how these perceptions guide brand stereotype content. We next link stereotypical brand perceptions to CBI and, through it, to brand purchase intentions and ownership. Subsequently, we present the results of two empirical studies offering empirical evidence on the postulated relationships in a developed (Austria) and a developing (Bosnia & Herzegovina) country context respectively. We conclude our paper with a theoretically- and managerially-relevant discussion on how to stimulate CBI through consumers' stereotypical assessments of brands and how to influence such assessments by communicating localness or/and globalness cues.
2.2. Perceived brand globalness/localness as drivers of brand stereotype content Despite being inanimate entities, brands often represent “significant others” with whom consumers form relationships (Fournier, 1998). In fact, the whole consumer-brand relationship literature is based on the idea that individuals can relate to brands in a similar way as they relate to people (Fournier, 1998), meaning that individuals also perceive brands in a similar way as they perceive people (Aaker, 1997). Thus, as previously mentioned, both the process of stereotyping in general and the notion of stereotype content in particular also apply to brands (Bernritter, Verlegh, & Smit, 2016; Ivens, Leischnig, Muller, & Valta, 2015; Kervyn et al., 2012). Social psychology research describes the content of stereotypes along two dimensions, warmth and competence, which are fundamental and universal dimensions of social judgments across stimuli, cultures and time (Stereotype Content Model - SCM; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007). These dimensions have been shown to be highly predictive as they “account for 82% of the variance in perceptions of everyday social behaviors” (Fiske et al., 2007, p. 77) and have also been repeatedly used in marketing studies (e.g. Diamantopoulos, Florack, Halkias, & Palcu, 2017; Halkias et al., 2016; Maher & Carter, 2011). Warmth captures notions such as good-nature, friendliness and kindness, whereas competence refers to notions such as capability, efficiency and intelligence (Fiske et al., 2007). Prior research on stereotyping suggests that if a stereotyping object (e.g. a brand) is perceived as having positive and cooperative intentions, it would be stereotyped as warm,
2. Conceptual background and research hypotheses 2.1. Perceived brand globalness and localness Global brands are the descendants of globalization and are defined 615
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
which customers identify and because meaning can be transferred between brands and the self” (Lam, Ahearne, Hu, & Schillewaert, 2010, p. 129). Although this relationship is not interpersonal, brands “can take the role of the “other” with whom the consumer identifies, especially if consumers animate, humanize or somehow personalize the brand” (Fournier, 1998, p. 346). Driven by a variety of factors, such as brandself similarity, brand distinctiveness, and memorable brand experiences, CBI represents an important construct for understanding consumer behavior (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Tuškej, Golob, & Podnar, 2013). Global brands, in particular, “create an imagined global identity that the consumer shares with like-minded people” (Holt, Quelch, & Taylor, 2004, p. 71) and are thus expected to be good candidates for CBI. Prior research suggests that perceptions of high warmth and competence may produce a general liking and admiration for an object (e.g. brand), which then translates into favorability towards an object (Chen et al., 2014; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Halkias et al., 2016). In a similar manner, stereotypical assessments of a brand can be viewed as determinants of CBI. For example, “warm brands are more likely, ceteris paribus, to carry more abstract, higher order meaning, pertaining for instance to its values and ethics, rather than concrete, lower-order, meanings, pertaining to its concrete features” (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 410). Thus, the higher the evaluation of brand stereotype warmth, the more attractive becomes a brand as a candidate for CBI. Consumers often express their identities through the signaling of their status. Consistent with previous literature on signaling (Kirmani & Rao, 2000; Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013) which suggests that consumers rely on the communicated cues in order to infer the quality of the product, we expect that brands that are perceived as credible and prestigious help consumers to increase their confidence regarding making the right purchasing decision and also “enhance their social status and self-worth through brand purchase” (Baek, Kim, & Yu, 2010, p. 664). Thus brands that are judged by consumers to be highly competent can also serve as good candidates for CBI. We thus hypothesize that:
whereas if it is perceived as having abilities to actually deliver its intentions it would be stereotyped as competent (Fiske et al., 2002). The application of the SCM in branding is based on the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF), which implements the warmth dimension as “how well/ill-intentioned brands seem to be” and the competence dimension as “how able are brands perceived to be” (Kervyn et al., 2012, p. 171). Thus a brand's performance features, such as quality, reliability, consistency, perceived quality and prestige are diagnostic of brand's competence (Kervyn et al., 2012) whereas the brand's warmth can be inferred from the brand's capability to promote global citizenship (Strizhakova, Coulter, & Price, 2008) or cultural iconness (Ger, 1999). In light of the aforementioned globalness/localness associations (see Section 2.1), high levels of PBG are therefore primarily expected to stimulate stereotypes about a brand's competence. On the other hand, high levels of PBL reflect a brand's tailormaking to local expectations. Such tailor-making is likely to be interpreted as a well-intentioned act of creating a bond with the local society thus stimulating brand stereotypes mainly based on the warmth dimension. We thus hypothesize that: H1. PBG will have a positive effect on brand stereotype (a) warmth, and (b) competence, but its effect on competence will be stronger than that on warmth. H2. PBL will have a positive effect on brand stereotype (a) warmth, and (b) competence, but its effect on warmth will be stronger than that on competence. 2.3. Brand stereotype content as a driver of consumer-brand identification Brands do not only help consumers identify and distinguish the goods and services of one from another (Kotler, 2001), but also act as credibility signals (Erdem, Swait, & Valenzuela, 2006), carry symbolic meanings (Levy, 1959), are seen as relationship partners (Fournier & Alvarez, 2012), and (through possession) facilitate the expression of consumer identity (Belk, 1988). Thus brands have “the ability to embody, inform, and communicate desirable consumer identities” (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 406). The idea that “to a large degree, we are what we have and possess” (Tuan, 1980, p. 472) has critically shaped our way of understanding consumer behavior. Possessions serve as the basis for the concept of extended self (Belk, 1988; Gardner & Levy, 1955), which comprises the intertwinement of “me (the self), but also that which is seen as mine” (Belk, 1988, p. 140). The notion of the extended self serves as a pillar for CBI and draws from social identity theory and, in particular, the dual nature of the “self-image” (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The latter has an individual component (which refers to the knowledge that the individual has of his social group(s) membership), as well as a social component (which includes the emotional attachment to that particular group membership). Social identity theory guides our understanding of why individuals actually identify with a certain group of people. Marketing literature has implemented social identity theory in a consumption context, based on the premise that “brands can represent self-relevant categories with
H3. Brand stereotype (a) warmth, and (b) competence will have a positive effect on CBI. Consistent with prior research (e.g. Tuškej et al., 2013), we also expect that CBI will be positively related to purchase intentions and, through them, to brand ownership. Therefore, we incorporate, but do not formally hypothesize, these previously established linkages as part of our model specification (Fig. 1). 3. Study 1 3.1. Research design Our first empirical study was conducted in Austria, which holds fourth place on the 2017 KOF Index of Globalization (ETH, 2017). Austria is a highly developed economy; according to World Bank Indicators (2016), its GDP per capita (PPP in $) was 50,077.83. A total of 243 consumers (133 female, Mage = 33.1, SD = 12.4)
Fig. 1. Conceptual model. 616
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
and Podsakoff (2003), we used different scale endpoints, as well as formats for measuring independent and dependent variables. Regarding (post hoc) statistical control procedures, we applied a variation of the marker variable procedure suggested by Malhotra, Kim, and Patil (2006). This involved using the second lowest positive correlation between the indicators measuring the study constructs (excluding control variables) as a proxy for CMV. We subsequently adjusted the zero-order correlations by partialling out this proxy and found that 90% of correlations remained significant as a result of this adjustment. Therefore, CMV does not appear to seriously threaten the validity of our study. To test our hypotheses, we estimated a structural equations model in line with Fig. 1 and obtained good fit (χ2 = 449.5, df = 271, RMSEA = 0.05, NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.96). Regarding main effects (see Table 4), both PBG and PBL have positive and significant effects on brand competence (PBG: β = 0.37, p < 0.01; PBL: β = 0.33, p < 0.01); however, only PBL has a significant impact on brand warmth (PBG: β = 0.10, n.s.; PBL: β = 0.22, p < 0.01). Thus H1b, H2a and H2b are all supported, whereas H1a is not. Given that the effect of PBG on warmth is not significant, we can directly establish that the (significant) effect of PBG on competence is stronger than its effect on warmth. Regarding PBL – which has significant links with both warmth and competence – we compared the original model specification to a model incorporating an equality constraint on the paths from PBL to warmth and from PBL to competence. A chi-square difference (Δχ2) test failed to produce a significant result (Δχ2 = 0.01, df = 1, n.s.), indicating that the effects of PBL on the two dimensions of brand stereotype content are of similar magnitude. Brand warmth further positively and significantly impacts CBI (β = 0.24, p < 0.01; H3a supported), while brand competence does not have a significant effect on CBI (β = 0.09, n.s.; H3b not supported). The remaining paths in the model exhibited expected signs consistent with previous research. Namely, CBI positively impacts PI (β = 0.43, p < 0.01) and, in turn, PI positively impacts brand ownership (β = 0.65, p < 0.01). Additionally, we find that PBG also has a direct positive effect on PI (β = 0.16, p < 0.01). Regarding the control relationships, only brand familiarity significantly impacts purchase intentions (β = 0.40, p < 0.01).
Table 1 Sample characteristics. Study 1: Austria (%)
Study 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina (%)
Gender Male Female
45.3 54.7
41.1 58.9
Residence City Rural area
84.4 15.6
94.7 5.3
Income €(Austria)/KM(Bosnia & Herzegovina) Below 800 32 800–1499 29.4 1500–2500 24.9 Above 2500 13.7
33.7 32.7 18.9 14.7
Age Mean age (standard deviation)
33.1 (12.4)
24.5 (6.4)
participated in a survey that was disseminated through a questionnaire (see Table 1 for sample characteristics). The latter was originally developed in English, but was later translated into German. As suggested by Douglas and Craig (2007), we opted for a collaborative approach for questionnaire translation, whereby bilingual local researchers ensured equivalence in meaning. This was done following the five stages, suggested by Harkness (2003) (translation, review, adjudication, pretesting and documentation) thus ensuring comparability of the research instrument from one linguistic context to another. Data was personally collected with the help of trained research assistants, who collected 30 to 40 questionnaires per brand by recruiting respondents in shopping malls and cafés. Respondents participated in a between-subjects study design and were randomly exposed to one of seven well-known global brands, across different product categories (Coca-Cola, Ebay, Pringles, The North Face, KitKat, Ikea, and Heineken). PBG and PBL were assessed via the established scales of Steenkamp et al. (2003) and Swoboda et al. (2012) respectively. The measures for the stereotypes' dimensions of warmth and competence were adapted from the original scales of Fiske et al. (2002) as used in prior branding research (e.g. Halkias et al., 2016); CBI was assessed through Stokburger-Sauer et al.'s (2012) scale. Finally, purchase intentions were captured through Putrevu and Lord's (1994) scale and brand ownership by asking respondents whether they had bought the stimulus brand in the past 12 months. Control variables included in our model were consumer's brand familiarity (1 = not at all familiar, 7 = very familiar), gender, age and monthly income. Table 2 lists the study measures together with relevant psychometric properties.
4. Study 2 4.1. Research design Prior research suggests that consumers from developed and developing countries often differ in their perceptions and evaluations of global brands (e.g. Batra et al., 2000; Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013; Steenkamp & de Jong, 2010). In particular, transition and social mobility which are common to developing countries, fuel the urge of consumers to signal differential status through the possession of brands (Batra et al., 2000; Luckmann & Berger, 1964). Thus, in developing countries, global brands mainly serve as status communicators and navigate consumers towards “creating and converging meaning and identity” (Strizhakova et al., 2008, p. 60) through their possession. In light of the above and consistent with prior global branding research (e.g. Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013), we replicated our conceptual model in a developing country context (Bosnia & Herzegovina), using the same global brands as in Study 1 as stimuli. When replicating the study, we used the same construct measures and translation procedures as for Study 1 and the same applies to the assessment of CMV. Bosnia & Herzegovina is positioned at the fifty-seventh place on the 2017 KOF Index of Globalization (ETH, 2017). According to World Bank Indicators (2016) it belongs to the developing countries group with a GDP per capita (PPP in $) of 12,074.75. A total of 95 consumers from Bosnia & Herzegovina (56 female, Mage = 24.5, SD = 6.4) participated in an online survey. The data was collected using a snowball sampling approach (Fricker, 2008). Specifically, we distributed the
3.2. Analysis and results We first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the model constructs in Fig. 1. The CFA model (see Table 2) resulted in a good overall fit (χ2 = 311.31, df = 174, RMSEA = 0.06, NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.97) and high construct reliability (ranging from 0.84 for PBG to 0.91 for CBI). In addition, convergent validity of the measures was supported, as all indicators significantly load on their respective latent variables. Average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.58 to 0.71 and all square-roots of AVEs were much larger than any of the corresponding correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) thus establishing discriminant validity (Table 3). As our data is based on consumers' self-reports, we accounted for common method variance (CMV) by means of both procedural remedies and statistical control procedures. We reassured our participants that there are no right or wrong answers and that their answers would be anonymous and confidential (Chang, Van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010). Furthermore, as recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, 617
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
Table 2 Construct measures and psychometric properties. Construct (source)
Study 1: Austria
Study 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina
λ Perceived brand globalness (Steenkamp et al., 2003) To me, [BRAND] is a global brand. I think consumers abroad buy [BRAND]. [BRAND] is sold all over the world. Perceived brand localness (Swoboda et al., 2012) I associate [BRAND] with things that are “[COO]”. To me, [BRAND] represents what “[COO]” is about. To me, [BRAND] is a very good symbol of “[COO]”. Brand competence (Fiske et al., 2002; Halkias et al., 2016) Capable Competent Efficient Intelligent Brand warmth (Fiske et al., 2002; Halkias et al., 2016) Friendly Good-natured Kind Warm Consumer brand identification (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012) I feel a strong sense of belonging to [BRAND]. I identify strongly with [BRAND]. [BRAND] embodies what I believe in. [BRAND] is like a part of me. Purchase intention (Putrevu & Lord, 1994) It is very likely that I will buy [BRAND] in the future. I will purchase [BRAND] the next time I need such a product. I will definitely try [BRAND] in the future. Model fit χ2 df RMSEA NNFI CFI
0.82 0.82 0.74 0.71 0.95 0.81 0.79 0.89 0.74 0.63 0.78 0.82 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.97 0.76 0.71 0.92 0.69 0.84
CR
AVE
0.84
0.63
0.87
0.69
0.85
0.58
0.91
0.71
0.91
0.71
0.86
0.68
311.31 174 0.06 0.96 0.97
λ
CR 0.83 0.94 0.80 0.70 0.94 0.90 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.77 0.74 0.91 0.79 0.95 0.99 0.81 0.79 0.95 0.86 0.86
AVE
0.89
0.74
0.89
0.73
0.86
0.61
0.88
0.65
0.94
0.79
0.92
0.79
261.64 174 0.07 0.95 0.96
Notes: λ – standardized loading, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted; [BRAND] = randomly assigned global brand; COO = country of origin (Austria or Bosnia & Herzegovina).
4.2. Analysis and results
Table 3 Discriminant validity assessment. #
Construct
Study 1: Austria 1 Perceived brand globalness 2 Perceived brand localness 3 Brand competence 4 Brand warmth 5 Consumer brand identification 6 Purchase intention 7 Brand ownership Study 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina 1 Perceived brand globalness 2 Perceived brand localness 3 Brand competence 4 Brand warmth 5 Consumer brand identification 6 Purchase intention 7 Brand ownership
1
2
3
4
5
0.79 −0.13 0.26 0.04 0.09
0.83 0.24 0.21 0.33
0.76 0.43 0.22
0.84 0.27
0.84
0.24 0.20
0.11 0.07
0.21 0.16
0.22 0.18
0.50 0.31
0.86 0.19 0.33 0.28 0.22
0.85 0.33 0.42 0.50
0.80 0.68 0.30
0.83 0.37
0.89
0.51 0.37
0.31 0.07
0.33 0.11
0.24 0.07
0.52 0.31
6
7
0.82 0.63
N/a
0.89 0.46
N/a
Using the same procedures as in Study 1, we assessed the measurement model through CFA (Table 2). This resulted in a good overall fit (χ2 = 261.64, df = 174, RMSEA = 0.07, NNFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96) and high construct reliability (ranging from 0.86 for brand stereotype competence to 0.94 for CBI). Average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.61 to 0.79 and all square-roots of AVEs were much larger than any of the relevant inter-construct correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) thus supporting discriminant validity (Table 3). To assess whether our construct measures are interpreted equivalently by the Austrian and Bosnian & Herzegovinian samples, we conducted measurement invariance tests using multigroup CFA (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Configural invariance (Globalχ2 = 576.77, df = 348, RMSEA = 0.06, NNFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97) as well as full metric invariance (Globalχ2 = 597.08, df = 363, RMSEA = 0.06, NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.97) was established, indicating comparability of measurement across our two study settings. The structural model (see Fig. 1) also produced a good fit in the developing country context (χ2 = 380.03, df = 271, RMSEA = 0.07, NNFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96). Regarding main effects (Table 4), both PBG and PBL have positive and significant effects on brand competence (PBG: β = 0.33, p < 0.01; PBL: β = 0.35, p < 0.01), as well as on
Notes: correlations are shown below the diagonal; square root AVEs are shown on the diagonal in bold; N/a: not applicable (single item).
survey link to academic colleagues based locally, who invited their acquaintances, colleagues and friends to answer it and share it further online.1 1
(footnote continued) (N = 243), it still offers sufficient statistical power (≥0.95) to capture at least a medium effect size (corresponding to an R2 value of 0.13 or greater – see Cohen, 1988).
Although the sample size in Study 2 (N = 95) is smaller than in Study 1 618
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
Table 4 Structural model estimation results. Study 1: Austria Estimated paths (H1a) Perceived brand globalness → warmth (H2a) Perceived brand localness → warmth (H1b) Perceived brand globalness → competence (H2b) Perceived brand localness → competence (H3a) Warmth → CBI (H3b) Competence → CBI PBG → purchase intention CBI → purchase intention Brand familiarity →purchase intention Gender → purchase intention Age → purchase intention Income → purchase intention Purchase intention → brand ownership Brand familiarity → brand ownership Gender → brand ownership Age → brand ownership Income → brand ownership Model fit
Notes: β = standardized coefficient; N(Study
1) =
Study 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina 2
β (t-value) R 0.10 (1.41) 0.05 n.s. 0.22 (3.14) ✓ 0.37 (5.02) 0.21 ✓ 0.33 (4.61) ✓ 0.24 (3.06) 0.08 ✓ 0.09 (1.20) n.s. 0.16 (2.47) 0.42 0.43 (7.43) 0.40 (6.78) 0.01 (0.21) −0.06 (−0.91) 0.01 (0.19) 0.65 (9.97) 0.43 0.00 (0.08) −0.07 (−1.24) 0.06 (0.91) −0.00 (−0.01) χ2 = 449.5, df = 271, RMSEA = 0.05, NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.96
243, N(Study
2) = 95;
β (t-value) R2 0.23 (2.28) 0.30 ✓ 0.46 (3.96) ✓ 0.33 (3.03) 0.26 ✓ 0.35 (3.07) ✓ 0.34 (1.84) 0.15 ✓ 0.05 (0.25) n.s. 0.38 (3.65) 0.52 0.47 (5.80) 0.11 (1.15) −0.19 (−2.36) 0.02 (0.23) 0.01 (0.17) 0.40 (3.87) 0.29 0.23 (2.41) 0.05 (0.57) 0.03 (0.28) −0.17 (−1.78) χ2 = 380.03,df = 271, RMSEA = 0.07, NNFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96
✓ = hypothesized effect confirmed; n.s. = hypothesized effect not significant.
brand warmth (PBG: β = 0.23, p < 0.05; PBL: β = 0.46, p < 0.01). Thus H1a, H1b, H2a and H2b are all supported.2 To compare the strength of the effects of PBG and PBL on the stereotype content dimensions, we again compared unconstrained models with models incorporating equality constraints on the relevant paths. None of these comparisons produced significant chi-square difference statistics (PBG: Δχ2 = 2.82, df = 1, n.s.; PBL: Δχ2 = 0.61, df = 1, n.s.) indicating that PBG has comparable influences on brand warmth and competence and the same applies to PBL. As in Study 1, brand warmth positively and significantly affects CBI (β = 0.34, p < 0.05; H3a supported), while brand competence does not have a significant effect on CBI (β = 0.05, n.s.; H3b not supported). Moreover, CBI positively impacts PI (β = 0.47, p < 0.01) and, in turn, PI positively impacts brand ownership (β = 0.40, p < 0.01). Again, PBG has a direct positive effect on PI (β = 0.38, p < 0.01). Regarding the control relationships, gender is significantly related to purchase intentions (β = −0.19, p < 0.01), while brand familiarity (β = 0.23, p < 0.01) and income (β = −0.17, p < 0.05) both significantly impact brand ownership.
globalness and localness; this is the case in both developed and developing markets. However, while in a developed country context, PBG only enhances stereotypical assessments of brand competence, in a developing country context PBG also impacts brand warmth. The latter finding is in line with prior research showing that globally positioned brands are more attractive to consumers in emerging markets (Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 1999). Such consumers are likely to appreciate the globalness of a brand more than consumers in developed countries (where global brands are nothing new/special/unique), meaning that they are likely to judge global brands as both competent and warm. Indeed, the PBG → warmth link observed in the developing market setting suggests that global brands have a deeper meaning for consumers in developing countries, since they represent a shortcut towards the often-desired global consumer culture, created by global brands (Alden et al., 2006). Regarding the impact of PBL, its role seems to be stable in both developed and developing market settings, having similar influences on both dimensions of brand stereotype content. Thus global brands emphasizing localness cues – such as associations of uniqueness, originality and national pride (Dimofte et al., 2008; Özsomer, 2012) are judged to be both warm and competent, irrespective of the market setting involved. Furthermore, and in contrast to previous consumer research on stereotyping that has questioned the diagnosticity of the warmth dimension (e.g. Chen et al., 2014), our results (across both studies) show that warmth is more important than competence if the aim is to stimulate and maintain CBI. In fact, only warmth is a significant predictor of CBI in both developed and developing country contexts, implying that judging a brand as being well-intentioned (Kervyn et al., 2012) is a key factor encouraging identification with a global brand. Prior literature on CBI is in line with our findings in that warmer (but not more competent) brands have been found to be “stronger and more meaningful candidates for consumer-brand identification” (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 410). Interestingly, our findings on brand warmth contradict the findings of previous research that has cast doubt on the relevance of the warmth dimension as a predictor of consumer responses (e.g. Chen et al., 2014; Halkias et al., 2016). However, whereas previous research has investigated warmth as a dimension of the underlying country stereotypes (i.e. the stereotype relating to the origin of the brand), our own studies explicitly focused on warmth as a dimension of the brand stereotype. These differences in focus may well explain the divergence of the current findings from prior research.
5. Discussion and implications Our investigation contributes to international marketing literature by integrating PBG/PBL research with stereotyping research in an effort to offer a better understanding of the drivers of consumer-brand relationships in a global branding context. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to offer insights into how brand stereotype content is influenced by consumers' perceptions of global brands and how such content impacts consumer-brand identification. Several theoretical and managerial implications emerge from our findings. 5.1. Theoretical implications The first important implication of our findings is that the stereotypes of global brands (as reflected in warmth and competence assessments) are indeed positively influenced by consumers' perceptions of 2
Due to the relatively small sample size in Bosnia & Herzegovina (N = 95), we also estimated the model in Fig. 1 using composite measures (following parcelling of individual indicators – see Bandalos, 2002) and results were stable. Detailed results of this model are available, upon request, from the authors. 619
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al.
Our findings also reveal that PBG and PBL do not exhibit a “symmetrical” pattern of effects in terms of impacting purchase intentions. Whereas PBL influences intentions to buy the brand only indirectly (through enhancing brand warmth which then drives CBI), both our studies also revealed direct positive effects of PBG on purchase intentions. This suggests that there are two distinct pathways linking PBG to purchase intentions (and, ultimately, brand ownership). The first pathway goes through the stereotype content of the specific brand, while the second reflects a general proclivity to opt for global brands (irrespective of the latter's specific stereotype content). As noted above, only the first pathway is relevant for PBL. Finally, it is worth noting that the explanatory power of our model in Fig. 1 – as captured by the coefficients of determination for the dependent variables – is higher in the developing (Study 2) than for the developed country setting (Study 1). For example, brand warmth explains twice as much of the variance in CBI in Bosnia & Herzegovina than in Austria (see Table 4). Similarly, PBG and PBL are much better predictors of warmth in Bosnia & Herzegovina as compared to Austria. These differences suggest that, overall, stereotype content seems to play a bigger role in developing market settings than in highly developed ones. Needless to say that this pattern needs to be replicated in additional/different country contexts before firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the importance of brand stereotypes in different settings.
focusing on local brands which are becoming more and more powerful in many markets and may therefore represent a competition to global brands in many product categories (Davvetas & Diamantopoulos, 2016; Özsomer, 2012; Riefler, 2012). Furthermore, potential moderating variables (e.g. consumers' need for cognition or his/her regulatory focus) that may condition the relationships between globalness/localness perceptions and the brand stereotype dimensions are in need of investigation. Similarly, attention needs to be paid on developing compelling theoretical explanations for the lack of impact of the competence dimension on CBI and the latter's sole dependence on warmth. Finally, undertaking more fine-grained investigations by distinguishing between domestic and foreign brands or between brands originating from animosity and affinity countries should throw additional light on the examined relationships and enrich our understanding of the formation and role of brand stereotypes in an international marketing context. References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 347–356. Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture. The Journal of Marketing, 75–87. Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Batra, R. (2006). Consumer attitudes toward marketplace globalization: Structure, antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 227–239. Baek, T. H., Kim, J., & Yu, J. H. (2010). The differential roles of brand credibility and brand prestige in consumer brand choice. Psychology and Marketing, 27(7), 662–678. Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78–102. Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Ramachander, S. (2000). Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 83–95. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. Bernritter, S. F., Verlegh, P. W., & Smit, E. G. (2016). Why nonprofits are easier to endorse on social media: The roles of warmth and brand symbolism. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 33, 27–42. Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Chen, C. Y., Mathur, P., & Maheswaran, D. (2014). The effects of country-related affect on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1033–1046. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates2. Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. Davvetas, V., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2016). How product category shapes preferences toward global and local brands: A schema theory perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 24(4), 61–81. Diamantopoulos, A., Florack, A., Halkias, G., & Palcu, J. (2017). Explicit versus implicit country stereotypes as predictors of product preferences: Insights from the stereotype content model. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(8), 1023–1036. Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J. K., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2008). Cognitive and affective reactions of US consumers to global brands. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 113–135. Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1), 30–43. Erdem, T., Swait, J., & Valenzuela, A. (2006). Brands as signals: A cross-country validation study. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 34–49. Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348. ETH Zürich KOF (2017). KOF Globalization Index. https://www.kof.ethz.ch/en/ forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html, Accessed date: 9 September 2018. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (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. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373. Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as relationship partners: Warmth, competence, and in-between. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 177–185.
5.2. Managerial implications From a practitioner's perspective, perhaps the most important implication of our findings is the critical role of brand warmth in fostering CBI. Importantly, strengthening CBI pays off as it positively affects consumers' intentions to buy the brand and, ultimately, actual brand ownership. These benefits are reaped in both developing and developed markets. In contrast – and, perhaps surprisingly – emphasizing the competence dimension of the brand stereotype is unlikely to enhance CBI and, through it, other managerially important consumer outcomes (e.g. brand ownership). Put simply, brands that are stereotyped as warm are highly promising candidates for consumer-brand relationship formation, whereas brands judged to be highly competent (but not warm) are not. A second managerial implication relates to the use of globalness and localness cues when positioning global brands. In a developed country context, globalness cues lead towards a formation of brand stereotypes highlighting competence, whereas in developing markets, such cues also enhance judgements of brand warmth. At the same time – and irrespective of the country context – emphasizing localness cues is likely to encourage the formation of both warm and competent brand stereotypes. Thus including and highlighting globalness and/or localness cues on advertising materials and/or product packages (Verlegh, Steenkamp, & Meulenberg, 2005) is important for consumer stereotype formation and CBI. Moreover, given that PBG is also directly linked to purchase intentions, emphasizing globalness associations – irrespective of the brand's stereotypical profile in terms of warmth and competence – is also likely to stimulate product purchase quite apart from its effects through CBI. This implies that brand managers can benefit from globalness associations in different ways; namely through facilitating stereotype content formation and through directly encouraging product purchase. 5.3. Limitations and future research Our investigation has several limitations which offer opportunities for further research. Given that this is the first attempt to explicitly link consumers' perceptions of globalness and localness to brand stereotype content and, through it, to CBI, replication in different countries, using different product categories and different brands as stimuli is clearly needed to establish the robustness (or otherwise) of our findings. Particularly helpful in this context would be research specifically 620
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 614–621
Ž. Kolbl, et al. Fricker, R. D. (2008). Sampling methods for web and e-mail surveys. The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 195–216). . Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33(2), 33–39. Ger, G. (1999). Localizing in the global village: Local firms competing in global markets. California Management Review, 41(4), 64–83. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4. Halkias, G., Davvetas, V., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2016). The interplay between country stereotypes and perceived brand globalness/localness as drivers of brand preference. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3621–3628. van de Vijver, F. J. (2003). In J. A. Harkness, P. P. Mohler, & J. Wiley (Vol. Eds.), Crosscultural survey methods. Vol. 325. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience. Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., & Taylor, E. L. (2004). How global brands compete. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 68–75. Ivens, B. S., Leischnig, A., Muller, B., & Valta, K. (2015). On the role of brand stereotypes in shaping consumer response toward brands: An empirical examination of direct and mediating effects of warmth and competence. Psychology and Marketing, 32(8), 808–820. Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166–176. Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 66–79. Kotler, P. (2001). Marketing management. 10. Canada: Pearson Education. Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 128–146. Levitt, T. (1993). The globalization of markets. Readings in international business: A decision approach. 249. Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117–124. Luckmann, T., & Berger, P. (1964). Social mobility and personal identity. European Journal of Sociology, 5(2), 331–344. Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 37. Maher, A. A., & Carter, L. L. (2011). The affective and cognitive components of country image: Perceptions of American products in Kuwait. International Marketing Review, 28(6), 559–580. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883. Özsomer, A. (2012). The interplay between global and local brands: A closer look at perceived brand globalness and local iconness. Journal of International Marketing, 20(2), 72–95. Özsomer, A., & Altaras, S. (2008). Global brand purchase likelihood: A critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 1–28. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. Putrevu, S., & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and noncomparative advertising:
Attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 77–91. Riefler, P. (2012). Why consumers do (not) like global brands: The role of globalization attitude, GCO and global brand origin. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), 25–34. Schuiling, I., & Kapferer, J.-N. (2004). Executive insights: Real differences between local and international brands: Strategic implications for international marketers. Journal of International Marketing, 12(4), 97–112. Sichtmann, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2013). The impact of perceived brand globalness, brand origin image, and brand origin–extension fit on brand extension success. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 567–585. Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Batra, R., & Alden, D. L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53–65. Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90. Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & de Jong, M. G. (2010). A global investigation into the constellation of consumer attitudes toward global and local products. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 18–40. Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer–brand identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 406–418. Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2008). Branded products as a passport to global citizenship: Perspectives from developed and developing countries. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 57–85. Swoboda, B., Pennemann, K., & Taube, M. (2012). The effects of perceived brand globalness and perceived brand localness in China: Empirical evidence on western, Asian, and domestic retailers. Journal of International Marketing, 20(4), 72–95. Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Biosocial Science, 1(S1), 173–191. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International Social Science Council), 13(2), 65–93. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. CUP Archive, 63. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74. Thompson, C. J., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks brandscape and consumers' (anticorporate) experiences of globalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 631–642. Tuan, Y. F. (1980). The significance of the artifact. Geographical Review, 462–472. Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53–59. Van Ittersum, K., & Wong, N. (2010). The Lexus or the olive tree? Trading off between global convergence and local divergence. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2), 107–118. Verlegh, P. W., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Meulenberg, M. T. (2005). Country-of-origin effects in consumer processing of advertising claims. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(2), 127–139. World Bank (2016). World Bank indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY. GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?end=2016&locations=BA&start=1994&view=chart, Accessed date: 20 June 2017. Xie, Y., Batra, R., & Peng, S. (2015). An extended model of preference formation between global and local brands: The roles of identity expressiveness, trust, and affect. Journal of International Marketing, 23(1), 50–71.
621