A Conceptual Framework Examining the Effects of Consumer Animosity on Willingness

to Purchase Foreign and Hybrid Products

Garick Kea, Ian Phau, Curtin University of Technology

Abstract

This paper proposes a framework to extend the Klein’s Consumer Animosity Model.
Hypotheses relating to the main constructs are proposed based on relevant theories; bridging
the gap of one of the key criticisms in country origin studies. Specifically, the research tests
the generalisability of the consumer animosity model in three ways. First, it determines the
sustainability of the model under different levels of animosity settings (i.e. low, moderate and
high). Second, it introduces hybrid products into the model. Lastly, it evaluates the potential
cross-regional differences. A structural model is proposed and will be tested with data
collected in two different cities in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The conceptual,
methodological and managerial implications of this study will be discussed.

Keywords: consumer animosity, consumer ethnocentrism, hybrid products

Introduction

The recent spate of anti-Japanese sentiment in China has further aggravated the long-existing
tension between the two countries. The controversial Japanese history textbook has led to the
Chinese’s call to boycott Japanese products, clearly showing how such tensions between two
countries can greatly impact the consumer’s market (ABC News, 10 April 2005).

Consumer animosity is defined as remnants of antipathy (anger) related to previous or

ongoing political, military, economic, or diplomatic events that will affect consumers’
purchase behaviour (Klein et al., 1998). While the current consumer animosity studies have
focused mainly on foreign products, this study extends the consumer animosity model by
evaluating consumer’s attitudes towards hybrid products. Various research gaps identified
based in the literature include: (1) the need to revalidate the robustness of the Animosity
model (Shin, 2001, Ang et al., 2004), and to generalise to various settings (e.g. geographical,
demographic, economic and sociological difference) (Klein & Ettenson, 1999; Jung et al.,
2002; Shimp et al., 2004), (2) the need to examine the Animosity model beyond “foreign
products” (Klein et al., 1998; Nijissen & Douglas 2004) and, (3) the lack of theories in current
literature to support the conceptual framework of the Animosity construct (Li & Dant, 1997;
Klein & Ettenson, 1999; Shin, 2001). This paper will propose a theoretical framework
including hypotheses fully supported by relevant theories based on the gaps and justifications
from the preceding literature. The structural model can then be empirically tested.

Relevant Literature

Country-of-Origin

Research on Country-of-Origin (COO) effects generally examined how a country’s image (e.g.
workmanship, innovation, and technological advancement) is projected on to the products of
the producing country (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Johansson et al., 1985; Johansson, 1989) and
COO has been identified to be a key information cue that affects product judgments,
especially when consumers are not familiar with a product category (Han, 1989; Maheswaran,
1994), or less motivated to process product information (Hong & Wyer, 1989). In the more
recent COO research, focus has been placed on the more complex and ambiguous aspects of
the cue, such as hybrid/bi-national products (Han & Terpstra, 1988, Chao, 1993, 2001) and
consumer animosity (Klein et al., 1998; Shin, 2001; Nijissen & Douglas, 2004).

Hybrid (or Bi-National) Products

The derivation of hybrid (or bi-national) products usually involves two countries, one being
the Country-of-Origin of brand (COB) and the other as the Country-of-Manufacture (COM)
(Ettenson & Gaeth, 1991; Chao, 1993; Lee & Brinberg, 1995). This development of hybrid
products has been largely attributed to the effects of globalisation (Chao, 1993; Ettenson &
Mathur, 1995; Lee & Brinberg, 1995). Another major factor attributing to the increase in
hybrid products is the “strategic” benefits available to firms; giving them the ability to alter,
combine, emphasize or downplay the source country (or brand) depending on the consumer’s
perception of that country (or brand) (Han & Terpstra, 1987; Chao, 1993; Iyer & Kalita;
1997). More importantly, the attribution of hybrid products has created a paradigm shift in the
COO literature, exerting that COO as a single cue itself is no longer a unidimensional concept.
Hybrid products have led to the partition of product’s origin which has significantly
moderated the COO effects on consumer’s product judgment and purchase intentions (Sauer
et al., 1991; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 1993; Chao, 1993, 2001; Kim & Pysarchik, 2000).

Consumer Ethnocentrism

Using the sociological concept of ethnocentrism, Shimp & Sharma (1987) applied it onto the
field of marketing as “consumer ethnocentrism” and defined it as the beliefs held by
consumers about the appropriateness and morality of purchasing foreign-imported products. It
has been further explained that consumer ethnocentrism is derived from one’s love for their
own country and fear of harming the economic interests of one’s own country by purchasing
foreign products (Shimp & Sharma, 1987; Netemeyer et al., 1991; Kaynak & Kara, 2002). As
such, highly ethnocentric consumers believe that because it is unpatriotic, immoral and
inappropriate to purchase foreign products as it would damage their domestic economy; they
are more likely to rate domestic products’ quality positively and be unwilling to purchase
foreign products (Shimp & Sharma, 1987; Netemeyer et al., 1991; Sharma et al., 1995).

Consumer Animosity

The concept of animosity, also derived from sociology, refers to strong emotions of dislike
and enmity based on beliefs of past and ongoing events of hostility between nations or people
(Averill, 1982, 1983). Applying animosity onto the marketing context, “consumer animosity”
construct is a relatively new introduction into the COO literature and was initially tested by
Klein et al. (1998). Consumer animosity is defined by Klein et al. (1998) as remnants of
antipathy (anger) related to previous or ongoing political, military, economic, or diplomatic
events that will affect consumers’ purchase behaviour. Subsequently, there were a few studies
expanding on the consumer animosity construct, which include: analysing the antecedents of
the consumer animosity construct (Klein & Ettenson, 1999), determining the generalisability
of the Animosity model (Shin, 2001), determining the applicability of the animosity model in
countries largely exposed to foreign import (Nijissen & Douglas, 2004), and extending the
study of animosity into regional animosity within a country (Shimp et al. 2004)

Existing literature using structural equation modelling has treated consumer animosity as a
second order construct; predicted by war and economic animosity which form the 1st-order
constructs (Klein, 1998 Shin, 2001; Klein, 2002). Departing from traditional COO studies,
which assume a direct relationship between consumers’ product judgments and purchase
behaviour, the animosity model deviates itself on two premises. First, consumer animosity can
affect buying behaviour directly and independently of product judgment (Wilkie & Pessemier,
1973; Green & Srinivasan, 1990) Second, consumer animosity is country-specific and cannot
be generalised against all foreign countries (Klein et al., 1998, Klein, 2002).

Supporting Theories

The current literature has been criticised for the lack of theories to support the various
constructs in the Animosity Model. This paper will bridge this gap by supporting the
theoretical framework with the following relevant theories:

Attribution theory suggests that individuals need explanations to understand or interprets why
events do happen and the attributing cause that leads to the events (Heider, 1958; Weiner,
1986). As such, when consumers form animosity towards a specific country, they will try to
interpret the cause behind this animosity and their interpretation will result in them finding
answers which in turn influence their thinking (e.g. anger) and behaviour (e.g. aggression)
(Ang et al. 2004).

Social identity theory is derived from the cognitive and motivational basis of intergroup
differentiation (Tajfel & Turner, 1986); which motivates individuals to be engaged in in-
group vs. out-group comparison and create social boundaries to distinct intergroup differences
(Hogg & Abraham, 1988). Hence, ethnocentric consumers will be motivated to create
distinction by favouring their own (domestic) products and discriminating other (foreign)
products. Similarly, consumers who have animosity towards a specific foreign country would
discriminate and even boycott products from that country.

Realistic conflict theory refers to the perceived “real” threat to a group’s interest which would
lead to conflict, prejudice and discrimination with others (especially where there is direct
competition for common or limited resources) (Sherif, 1966; Levine & Campbell; 1972). The
threat or competition may be more of a perception than being real (Sherif, 1966; Jackson,
1993). Therefore, if consumers with animosity tendency perceive their country’s interest to be
threatened by another country, hostility will arise and cause consumers to resent any
association with that offending country.

Behavioural decision making theory comprises of two interrelated elements of behavioural

decision making: normative and descriptive (Slovic et al., 1977). The normative decision
making refers to the prescribed decisions that conform to actual belief and values. It involves
the specifics of what the consumer should do in particular circumstances. Thus, if consumers
have animositic and/or ethnocentric tendencies, he/she would believe that purchasing foreign
products is detrimental to their country, they would then avoid such purchase.
In cognitive dissonance theory, cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual is faced with
a contradiction to choose between two incompatible attitudes or behaviours (Festinger, 1957).
Cognitive dissonance also occurs when there are “new ideas” that the individual have to
become "open" to (Festinger, 1957). However, cognitive dissonance can be eliminated by
either removing or reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs; or by acquiring the new
beliefs to compromise or change the balance (Brehm & Cohen, 1962). For instance, when a
hybrid product is introduced to an animostic and/or ethnocentric consumer, he/she would then
be in the dilemma to choose whether to accept the product as it involves his/her home country.

Proposed Structural Model and Hypotheses

Based on the preceding review of literature and their supporting theories, the following
hypotheses are presented to study the consumer animosity and ethnocentrism effects of the
Chinese in PRC with Japan being the offending country:
H1: The two 1st-order constructs: war animosity and economic animosity will be both positive
and significant indicators of the 2nd-order construct: consumer animosity.
H2: Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism are positively correlated.
H3: If “product judgment” and “consumer ethnocentrism” are held constant, animosity will
have a direct and negative impact on the “willingness to buy” (a) foreign products and (b)
hybrid products. (c) However, the magnitude of the direct and negative impact on the
“willingness to buy” hybrid products will be lower than the “willingness to buy” foreign
products.
H4: Regardless of hybrid or foreign products, animosity will influence “willingness to buy”
independently of “product judgment”. That is, animosity will have no effect on “product
judgment”.
H5: Consumer ethnocentrism will be negatively related to “product judgment” of foreign
products.
H6: Consumer ethnocentrism will be negatively related to “willingness to buy” (a) foreign
products and (b) hybrid products. (c) However, the negative magnitude of consumer
ethnocentrism’s “willingness to buy” hybrid products will be lower than foreign product.
The set of hypotheses can be summarised with the following structural model in Figure 1:

Figure 1 - Proposed Animosity Structural Model

1st Order Construct

War Economic
Animosity Animosity

H1+

Consumer H3a-
Animosity H3c
Willingness to Buy
nd H3b-
2 Order Construct H4 Foreign Product
Foreign Product
H2+ Judgment
H5- Willingness to Buy
H6a- Hybrid Product
H6c
H6b-
Ethnocentrism

Exogenous Variables Endogenous Variables

 Research Methodology

Sample and Data Collection Methods

A convenience sampling approach was chosen for data collection through two collaborating
universities in Shanghai and Nanjing. The sample size is approximately 600 respondents from
each city making a total of 1200 respondents. The sample size is justified by the adaptation of
a similar sampling method by Shimp et al. (1995), and to conform to sample size specification
for analysis using structural equation modelling (Hair et al. 1998, Holmes-Smith et al. 2004,
Kline 2005).

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument is modified from Klein et al.’s (1998) initial test of the Animosity
model. It will consist of demographic variables and the four key constructs: (1) Product
Judgement (Darling & Arnold 1988, Darling & Wood 1990, Wood & Darling 1993), (2)
Willingness to buy (Darling & Arnold 1988, Darling & Wood 1990, Wood & Darling 1993),
(3) Consumer Ethnocentrism (Shimp & Sharma 1987, Netemeyer et al. 1991) and (4)
Consumer Animosity (Klein et al. 1998; Klein 2002, Nijissen & Douglas 2004). As noted
above, these measures and scales are modified from established sources that have been tested
for validity and reliability.

Concluding Comments

The model is currently empirically tested with data already collected from Shanghai and
Nanjing in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The study seeks to provide many potential
significant contributions. Conceptually, the study will contribute to the existing literature by:
(1) introducing hybrid products into the model (Hans & Terpstra, 1987; Ettenson & Gaeth
1991; Klein et al., 1998), (2) developing a more robust measure by splitting “Willingness to
Buy” into two separate constructs, (3) identifying the correlation between the Consumer
Animosity and Consumer Ethnocentrism constructs (Klein et al, 1998 & Shin 2001, Nijissen
& Douglas 2004). In methodological contributions, the study will generalise the Animosity
model by determining the sustainability of construct in various levels of animosity (e.g. Low
– Moderate – High) (Klein, 2002; Nijissen & Douglas, 2004) and; comparing the constructs
on regional differences (i.e. Metropolitan cities vs. Rural/Suburban regions) (Klein et al.,
1998).

Potential managerial contributions provided by the study include: (1) new market entry
implications in terms of advertising and branding strategies for international marketers or
companies who wish to expand globally (Klein et al, 1998; Klein, 2002; Jung et al., 2002), (2)
managerial implications for domestic market where local retailers, merchandisers, importers
can avoid importing products originating from offending countries (Shin, 2001) and take on
opportunity to exploit and promote “buy domestic campaigns” (Shimp & Sharma, 1995; Klein,
1998), (3) opening new opportunities for firms from neutral foreign countries and, lastly, (4)
capitalising on consumer’s evaluation of hybrid product (Han & Terpstra, 1988; Ettenson &
Gaeth, 1991; Chao, 2001)
 References

Ang, S., Jung, K., Kau, A., Leong, S., Pornpitakpan, C. & Tan, S. 2004, ‘Animosity towards
Economic Giants: What the Little Guys Think’, Journal of Consumer Marketing 21 (3), p. 190.

Averill, J. 1982, Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Averill, J. 1983, ‘Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion’,
American Psychologist 38, p. 1145.

Bilkey, W. & Nes, E. 1982, ‘Country-of-Origin Effects on Products Evaluations’, Journal of

International Business Studies 12, p. 89.

Brehm, J. & Cohen, A. 1962, Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance, Wiley, New York.

Chao, P. 1993, ‘Partitioning country of origin effects: Consumer evaluations of a hybrid

product’, Journal of International Business Studies 24 (2), p. 291.

Chao, P. 2001, ‘The Moderating Effects of Country of Assembly, Country of Parts and
Country of Design on Hybrid Product Evaluations’, Journal of Advertising 30 (4), p. 67.

Ettenson, R. & Gaeth, G. 1991, ‘Consumer Perceptions of Hybrid (Bi-National) Products’,

Journal of Consumer Marketing 8 (4), p. 13.

Ettenson, R. & Mathur, S. 1995, ‘A Conjoint Analysis of Chinese Consumers’ Decision

Making for Hybrid (Bi-National) Products’, Asian Journal of Marketing, Dec, p. 37.

Festinger, L.1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Han, M. & Terpstra, V. 1988, ‘Country-Of-Origin Effects for Uni-National and Bi-National’,
Journal of International Business Studies 19 (2), p. 235.

Han, M. 1989, ‘Country Image: Halo Or Summary Construct?’ Journal of Marketing

Research 26 (2), p. 222.

Heider, F. 1958, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York.

Hogg, M. & Abrams, D. 1988, Social identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup

Relations and Group Processes, Routledge, London.

Hong, S. & Wyer, R. 1989, ‘Effects of Country-Of-Origin and Product-Attribute Information’,

Journal of Consumer Research 16 (2), p. 175.

Green, E. & Srinivasan, V. 1990, ‘Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments With
Implications for Research and Practice’, Journal of Marketing 54, p. 3.

Iyer, G. & Kalita, J. 1997, ‘The Impact of Country-of-Origin and Country-of-Manufacture

Cues on Consumer Perceptions of Quality and Value’, Journal of Global Marketing 11 (1), p.
7.
Jackson, J. 1993, ‘Realistic Group Conflict Theory: A Review and Evaluation of the
Theoretical and Empirical Literature’, Psychological Record 43, p.395.

Johansson, K., Douglas, P. & Nonaka, I. 1985, ‘Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on
Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective’, Journal of Marketing Research 22
(4), p. 388.

Johansson, K. 1989, ‘Determinants and Effects of the Use of "Made In" Labels’, International
Marketing Review 6 (1), p. 47

Jung, K., Ang, S., Leong, S., Tan., S., Pornpitakpan, C. & Kau, A. 2002, ‘A typology of
animosity and its cross-cultural validation’, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 33 (6), p.
525.

Kaynak, E. & Kara, A. 2002, ‘Consumer perceptions of foreign products An analysis of

product-country images and ethnocentrism’, European Journal of Marketing 36 (7/8), p. 928.

Kelley, H. 1967, ‘Attribution in social psychology’, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 15,

p.192.

Kim, S. & Pysarchik, D. 2000, ‘Predicting purchase intentions for uni-national and bi-national
products’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 28 (6), p. 280.

Klein, J., Ettenson, R. & Morris, M. 1998, ‘The Animosity model of Foreign Product
Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People’s Republic of China’, Journal of Marketing 62 (1),
p. 89.

Klein, J. & Ettenson, R. 1999, ‘Consumer Animosity and Consumer Ethnocentrism: An

Analysis of Unique Antecedents’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing 11 (4), p. 5.

Klein, J. 2002, ‘Us versus them or Us versus Everyone? Delineating Consumer Aversion to
Foreign Goods’, Journal of International Business Studies 33 (2), p. 345.

Lee, D. & Brinberg, D. 1995, ‘The effects of the perception of process technology and
country-of-manufacture (COM) favorableness on consumers’ overall brand evaluation’,
Journal of Advances in Consumer Research 22, p. 286.

Levin, I. & Jasper, D. 1996, ‘Experimental Analysis of Nationalistic Tendencies in Consumer

Decision Processes: Case of the Multinational Product’, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied 2 (March), p. 17.

Levine, R. & Campbell, D. 1972, Ethnocentrism, Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and
Group Behaviour, Wiley, New York.

Li, Z. & Dant, R. 1997, ‘Dimensions of Product Quality and Country-of-Origin Effects
Research’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing 10 (1/2), p. 93.

Maheswaran, D. 1994, “Country-of-Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise

and Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations’ Journal of Consumer Research 21, p. 354.
Netemeyer, R., Durvasula, S. & Lichtenstein, D. 1991, ‘A Cross-National Assessment of the
Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE’, Journal of Marketing Research 28, p. 320.

Nijssen, E. & Douglas, S. 2004, ‘Examining the Animosity Model in a Country with a High
Level of Foreign Trade’, International Journal of Research in Marketing 21 (1), p. 22.

Papadopoulos, N. & Heslop, L. 1993, Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in

International Marketing, Haworth Press.

Sauer, P., Young, M. & Unnaya, H. 1991, ‘An Experimental Investigation of the Processes
behind the Country-of-Origin effects’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing 3 (2), p.
29.

Sharma, S., Shimp, T. & Shin, J. 1995, ‘Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents and
Moderators’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (1), p. 26.

Sherif, M. 1966, In Common Predicament: Social psychology of Intergroup Conflict and

Cooperation, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.

Shimp, T. & Sharma, S. 1987, ‘Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the
CETSCALE’, Journal of Marketing Research 24, p. 280.

Shimp, T., Dunn, T. & Klein, J. 2004, ‘Remnants of the U.S Civil War and Modern Consumer
Behaviour’, Psychology & Marketing 21 (2), p. 75.

Shin, M. 2001, ‘The Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase Revisited: Does It Work
in Korea?’, Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science 6, p.1.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. 1977, ‘Behavioural Decision Theory’, Annual
Review of Psychology 28, p. 1.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. 1986, ‘The Social Identity Theory of Inter-group Behaviour’,
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago.

Weiner, B.1986, An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion, Springer-Verlag, New

York.

Wilkie, W. & Pessemier, E. 1973, ‘Issues in Marketing’s Use of Multi-Attribute Models,’

Journal of Marketing Research 10 (4), p. 428.