Japanese Psychological Research doi: 10.1111/jpr.

12129
2016, Volume 58, No. 4, 342–354

Consumers’ Response to an Advertisement

Using Brand Popularity in a Foreign Market

JI-HERN KIM Sejong University

DONGWON MIN* Dankook University

Abstract: This research examined how domestic consumers respond to an adver-

tisement using brand popularity in a foreign market. By using structural equation
modeling, it shows that the consumers’ response can change as a function of three
characteristics of brand popularity in a foreign market: (a) expertise of foreign consu-
mers, (b) similarity between domestic consumers and foreign consumers, and
(c) animosity to a foreign country. Meanwhile, the similarity effect is found to be
stronger for high-preference heterogeneity than low-preference heterogeneity. This
research documents the importance of understanding the underlying mechanism to
determine the effects of brand popularity in a foreign market on brand attitude and
purchase intention.
Key words: brand popularity, expertise, similarity, animosity, preference
heterogeneity.

Increasing numbers of global companies have
recently used brand popularity in a foreign
market (BPFM) as an advertising cue when
they enter a new market. For example, to
overcome the second-mover disadvantages
over Nestlé in the Korean stilltee market,
MILFORD used their brand popularity in the
German market as an advertising cue. Stilltee
is a popular herbal tea among European nurs-
ing mothers, because it is supposedly helpful
for breastfeeding by increasing the amount of
breast milk. Given the fact that nursing
mothers tend to be very risk-averse consu-
mers, they are more likely to prefer a product
made by a well-known company (Nestlé). The
sales of MILFORD stilltee, however, were
found to be higher than those of Nestlé stilltee
in the biggest Korean Internet mall
(Gmarket). This might be in part due to the
lower price of MILFORD than Nestlé. How-
ever, because stilltee would not be a price-
sensitive item for nursing mothers, MILFORD
might not overtake Nestlé without popularity
claims, such as “No. 1 sales in German
market.”
Although BPFM has received more atten-
tion by practitioners, little is known about its
effect on domestic consumer behavior. Previ-
ous studies have shown that brand popularity
is an important factor positively affecting
brand evaluation (Kim & Min, 2014). Most of
these studies, however, have been conducted
in a domestic context. Specifically, they have
investigated how brand popularity in a domes-
tic market affects a domestic consumer’s pur-
chase decision-making process.

*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Dongwon Min, Department of Business Adminis-
tration, College of Business, Dankook University, 126, Jukjeon-dong, Su-ji, Yong-in, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul 448-
701, Korea. (E-mail: dwmin@dankook.ac.kr)

© 2016 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
 Effect of brand popularity in a foreign market
BPFM has a distinctive aspect. The effect of
brand popularity on consumer behavior can
change according to the characteristics of the
country referenced in a popularity claim. For
example, what if MILFORD had used Mexico
(e.g., “No. 1 sales in the Mexican market”)
instead of Germany in a popularity claim?
The domestic consumers’ response to the
advertisement might have been quite different.
This indicates that the underlying mechanism
to determine the effect of BPFM on consumer
behavior needs to be examined.
Based on the studies about source effects in
persuasion, BPFM effects should depend on
the expertise of the foreign consumers refer-
enced in a popularity claim and similarity
between domestic consumers and the foreign
consumers (Biswas, Biswas, & Das, 2006).
According to source credibility theory, when
foreign consumers referenced by BPFM are
perceived to be knowledgeable about a partic-
ular product, domestic consumers are likely to
respond to BPFM positively. Also, according
to source attraction theory, when an unfamil-
iar product is endorsed by similar foreign con-
sumers rather than dissimilar ones, domestic
consumers are more likely to positively evalu-
ate a product advertised with BPFM
(Ibok, 2013).
Meanwhile, animosity towards a foreign
country in a popularity claim can be another
important factor influencing domestic consu-
mers’ responses to BPFM. Klein, Ettenson,
and Morris (1998) first introduced the concept
of animosity in consumer research, presenting
the finding that it has a negative impact on
purchase intention in the global market place.
Given that consumers tend not to buy a prod-
uct related to a country towards which they
have animosity (Nes, Yelkur, & Silkoset,
2012), domestic consumers would negatively
respond to BPFM if they had negative images
associated with the foreign country.
Besides the source characteristics, character-
istics of the advertised products may affect
domestic consumers’ responses to an adver-
tisement using BPFM. Especially, preference
heterogeneity (the extent of variation in con-
sumer preferences) is known to be a critical
343
factor influencing consumer attitudes towards
an advertisement and a brand, and purchase
intention (Feick & Higie, 1992). The similarity
effect would be higher for high-preference het-
erogeneity than for low-preference
heterogeneity.
Given the discussion above, this research
was conducted with two main objectives for a
better understanding of the underlying mech-
anism determining the BPFM effects. First, it
aims to examine how three characteristics of
BPFM (expertise, similarity, animosity) affect
consumer responses to an advertisement
(brand attitude and purchase intention). The
second objective is to investigate how the simi-
larity effect can be moderated by preference
heterogeneity.
Theoretical Background
and Research Model
Brand Popularity in a Foreign Market
Brand popularity is defined as the extent to
which a brand is chosen and purchased by the
general population (Kim & Chung, 1997).
Brand popularity has a positive impact on con-
sumer behaviors, which can be explained with
a norm theory (Cialdini, 2003). Social norms
consist of injunctive norms and descriptive
norms. While past research has focused prima-
rily on examining the effect of injunctive
norms on individual behavior, descriptive
norms have received more attention recently.
Unlike injunctive norms, which concern what
most people approve of, descriptive norms
involve what most people do. Individuals tend
to take advantage of descriptive norms as a
shortcut in a decision-making process because
it is perceived to be less risky and more sensi-
ble (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990). Brand
popularity is related to a descriptive norm,
and thus it can positively affect brand attitude
and purchase intention (Kim & Min, 2014).
Meanwhile, most previous studies used mar-
ket share as a proxy for brand popularity and
examined its effect on brand evaluation. It was
shown that a brand with high market share is
perceived to have good quality because a
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
344 J.-H. Kim and D. Min
manufacturer would be forced to reflect the
improvement requirements from a great num-
ber of customers (Liebowitz & Margolis,
1994). However, brand popularity could nega-
tively affect brand evaluation because of the
congestion problem and the loss of exclusivity
(Hellofs & Jacobson, 1999). The congestion
problem involves the decrease in utility from
overuse of a product. For example, the speed
of a computer network decreases as the num-
ber of users grows (Liebowitz & Margolis,
1994). In the case of a symbolic product, a
prestigious image might be lost due to wide-
spread popularity. Thus, brand popularity pos-
itively affects brand evaluation only when
congestion problems and loss of exclusivity
are not critical.
Given this discussion, BPFM is expected to
have a positive effect on brand attitude and
purchase intention at the early stages of mar-
ket entry of a foreign brand. First, BPFM
hardly results in a congestion problem.
Domestic consumers would not worry about a
decrease in their utility from overuse of a
brand by foreign consumers. Additionally,
BPFM is free from loss of exclusivity due to
the geographic distance between the domestic
and foreign consumers. Moreover, consumers
may infer that a brand can be improved by
reflecting feedback from a great number of
foreign consumers. In summary, BPFM as an
advertising cue would be expected to posi-
tively affect brand attitude and purchase
intention.
Effects of Three Characteristics of BPFM
on Consumer Behavior
Expertise. Expertise is defined as the
extent to which a communicator is perceived
to have an ability to make a valid assertion
about a particular topic (Biswas et al., 2006).
It accrues from a source’s experience, knowl-
edge, or skill (Silvera & Austad, 2004). The
level of expertise to influence source effect in
persuasion is assessed topic-specifically rather
than at a general level (Birnbaum & Stegner,
1979). Moreover, it does not matter whether a
source is a true expert or not (Erdogan, 1999).
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
Regardless of the level of expertise actually
possessed by a source, the message receiver’s
perception of expertise can change the
response to a persuasive message. In sum-
mary, the perceived level of topic-specific
expertise of the source determines the expert
endorsement effect (Biswas et al., 2006).
According to source credibility theory, con-
sumers perceive a persuasive message to be
credible when a source has expertise as well as
trustworthiness (Erdogan, 1999). Thus, they
tend to accept and agree with an opinion from
an expert and trustworthy source (Silvera &
Austad, 2004). Previous studies on endorser
effects in an advertisement have mainly
focused on expertise rather than trustworthi-
ness (Biswas et al., 2006). Expert endorse-
ments enhance the credibility of an
advertisement, and thus accelerate attitude
change (Berry & Shield, 2014).
Consumers referenced by BPFM may play a
role as endorsers of a product in a communi-
cation. When domestic consumers perceive
that foreign consumers referenced by BPFM
are knowledgeable about an advertised prod-
uct, they are likely to believe that foreign con-
sumers are credible and thus evaluate a
popularity cue more positively. For example,
consumers may believe that French consumers
have expertise in perfumes. Accordingly, if
domestic consumers see an advertisement that
touts “the best-selling perfume in France,”
they would evaluate the product endorsed by
expert groups positively and have higher
intention to buy it. This leads to the following
Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 1: The expertise of consumers
referenced by BPFM would positively affect
brand attitude (Hypothesis 1a: H1a) and pur-
chase intention (Hypothesis 1b: H1b).
Similarity. Similarity is defined as the
extent of resemblance between the communi-
cator and the recipient of a message
(Erdogan, 1999). The level of similarity can be
assessed, based on various dimensions, such as
age, gender, ethnicity, lifestyle, physical
appearance, ideology (or values), and product
usage (Amos, Holmes, & Strutton, 2008). The
 Effect of brand popularity in a foreign market
importance of similarity in endorser effects
has been emphasized in previous studies on
psychology, marketing, communication, and
international business studies (Ibok, 2013).
Kelman (1961) argued that consumers tend
to change their attitude through a psychologi-
cal process of identification when they find
similarity between a source and themselves.
According to source attraction theory, consu-
mers automatically assess the level of similar-
ity with a source during communication, which
determines the persuasive effectiveness of the
message (Silvera & Austad, 2004). Consumers
tend to perceive that similar sources are
attractive and credible, and thus adopt their
argument. Additionally, Aaker, Brumbaugh,
and Grier (2000) mentioned that a similar
source in an advertisement is likely to make
consumers perceive that they are the targeted
audience for the advertisement, which elicits a
positive attitude towards an advertised brand.
Given this discussion, when consumers per-
ceive that foreign consumers referenced by a
popularity claim have characteristics similar to
their own, they would be expected to positively
evaluate an advertisement and the advertised
brand. For example, Korean consumers may
perceive that Japanese consumers have more
similarity in coffee consumption than Chinese
consumers do. Accordingly, if Korean consu-
mers see the advertisement that touts “best-
selling coffee in Japan” versus in China, brand
attitude and purchase intention would be
higher. This leads to the following Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 2: Similarity between domestic con-
sumers and foreign consumers referenced by
BPFM would positively affect brand attitude
(Hypothesis 2a: H2a) and purchase intention
(Hypothesis 2b: H2b).
Animosity. Klein et al. (1998) defined ani-
mosity toward a foreign country as “the rem-
nants of antipathy related to previous or
ongoing military, political, or economic
events” (p. 90). It has a negative impact on
purchase intention regardless of product judg-
ment. Although consumers perceive that a
brand has a high quality, they are not likely to
buy it because hostile countries are involved
345
in it (Klein et al., 1998). Recently, some
research contended that animosity negatively
affects product evaluation (Nes et al., 2012).
Leong et al. (2008) mentioned that cognitive
and affective evaluations should be distin-
guished when analyzing the effects of animos-
ity on product judgment. Then, they revealed
that animosity had a greater impact on affec-
tive evaluation than on cognitive evaluation
across five countries.
Animosity is not a unidimensional construct;
it consists of multi-dimensions. Leong
et al. (2008) argued that animosity can be
divided into two dimensions: situational and
stable animosity. The former involves hostility
induced by a specific circumstance and/or a
particular event, and thus is a temporary emo-
tion compared to the latter. The latter refers to
long-lasting hostility driven by an accumulation
of situational animosity (Jung et al., 2002). Nes
et al. (2012) conducted a critical review of
research on animosity and classified it as four
dimensions: economic animosity, people ani-
mosity, military/war animosity, and politics/
government animosity. Then, they examined
the effects of the four dimensions on purchase
intention through psychosocial affect. Eco-
nomic and people animosity were found to
have the greatest effects on purchase intention.
Taken altogether, this research includes ani-
mosity to a country referenced by a popularity
claim as an important factor affecting con-
sumer responses to an advertisement. Animos-
ity is measured with items related to economic
and people animosity because they have
strong effects on consumer behavior. When
consumers are exposed to an advertisement
using BPFM, animosity would negatively
affect brand attitude and purchase intention.
This leads to the following Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 3: Animosity to a foreign country
referenced by a popularity claim would nega-
tively affect brand attitude (Hypothesis 3a: H3a)
and purchase intention (Hypothesis 3b: H3b).
The Moderating Effect of Preference
Heterogeneity
Preference heterogeneity is defined as variation
in consumer tastes and preferences for a
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
346 J.-H. Kim and D. Min
product (or service) (Feick & Higie, 1992). It is
said to be high when consumers have wide vari-
ation and no consensus in product evaluation.
Preference heterogeneity arises from the fact
that each consumer has idiosyncratic criteria
and standards about the mix of attributes or
amount of each attribute (Price, Feick, & Higie,
1989). For example, when three consumers buy
and drink the same beer, they may report their
experience differently, such as great, average,
and terrible. It comes from the underlying dif-
ference in evaluating the taste of the beer.
The effect of similarity on brand attitude
and purchase intention may be stronger for
high-preference heterogeneity than for low-
preference heterogeneity. That is, for high-
preference heterogeneity, consumers are
more likely to positively evaluate and pur-
chase a brand that is endorsed by a similar
source than by a dissimilar one. Suppose that
you are planning to have a family trip and
make a reservation with a hotel. You may
try to get useful information for choosing a
hotel. When it comes to choosing a hotel,
people may have idiosyncratic criteria
(e.g., price, location, cleanness) and thus
preference heterogeneity is high. If one of
your friends considers that cleanness is the
most important factor like you, you may
have a big chance to accept his/her recom-
mendation. This similarity effect is not
important for choosing toilet paper, which
has relatively low preference heterogeneity.
Wang (2005) examined the effects of expert
and regular consumer endorsements on the
evaluation of a movie, and revealed that regu-
lar consumer endorsements are more influen-
tial on consumers’ intention to watch a movie.
A movie belongs to a product category with
high-preference heterogeneity, and thus the
similar source effect may be magnified. The
importance of a similar source effect was also
found in Silvera and Austad’s (2004) study
where the stimulus product was a fragrance.
This result might also be due to a high-
preference heterogeneity. Specifically, consu-
mers are likely to have idiosyncratic tastes in
perfume, and thus they tend to depend on a
similar source in brand evaluation.
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
The findings of these two studies led to an
inference on the interaction effect between
similarity and preference heterogeneity on
brand attitude and purchase intention. How-
ever, it is noteworthy that the studies did not
measure participants’ perception of prefer-
ence heterogeneity. More importantly, a
comparison between the high-heterogeneity
group and the low-heterogeneity group was
not conducted. Because each consumer is
likely to perceive the level of preference het-
erogeneity differently, the group split and
comparison according to individual percep-
tions of heterogeneity need to be conducted
for correctly analyzing preference heteroge-
neity effects.
Given the above discussion, this research
postulates that similarity effects would be
stronger for high-preference heterogeneity
than low-preference heterogeneity.1 This leads
to the following Hypothesis 4.
Hypothesis 4: The effect of similarity on brand
attitude (Hypothesis 4a: H4a) and purchase
intention (Hypothesis 4b: H4b) would be
stronger for high-preference heterogeneity
than for low-preference heterogeneity.
The four hypotheses mentioned so far are
summarized in Figure 1.
Method
Development of Advertisements
Touting Brand Popularity in a Foreign
Market
To develop advertisements using BPFM, eight
Korean undergraduate students (female: 4)
had interviews with a researcher. Eight candi-
date stimuli were evaluated and then “Hima-
laya Hand Cream” was selected as a stimulus
1
When preference heterogeneity is extremely high,
consumers would hardly depend on popularity cues
and make a decision to buy a product, based on their
own preference, intuition, and sense of value. Since
this research did not consider the extreme case,
hand cream was used as a stimulus product. The
extreme case needs to be considered in future
research. We appreciate an anonymous reviewer for
this insightful comment.
 Effect of brand popularity in a foreign market
product in the advertisements because partici-
pants (irrelevant of gender) were familiar with
a product category but were not aware of the
brand name. Moreover, “Himalaya” is known
as the most famous local cosmetics brand with
high quality in India. However, participants
were found to have negative images (e.g., low
quality) associated with cosmetics made in
India. This indicates that Himalaya must be an
appropriate stimulus brand because marketers
may need to use BPFM in launching it in coun-
tries where a negative country-of-origin
(COO) effect may occur.
Four countries were selected as foreign mar-
kets used in popularity claims because consu-
mers are expected to perceive three
characteristics of BPFM (i.e., expertise, simi-
larity, and animosity) about them differently.
The nations were Japan, China, France, and
India. Specifically, participants perceived that
the French and Japanese have stronger exper-
tise in hand cream than the Chinese and
Indians. In addition, the Japanese and Chinese
were perceived to have more similarity in
hand cream usage than the French and
Indians. Finally, participants were found to
have stronger animosity to Japan and China
than to the other two countries. These varia-
tions in three characteristics across countries
led to the easiness of analyzing their effects on
brand attitude and purchase intention.
Preference
Heterogeneity
Expertise
in BPFM H1a H4b H4a
Brand
H1b
Attitude
H2a
Similarity
in BPFM
H2b
Purchase
H3a Intention
Animosity
in BPFM H3b
Figure 1. The conceptual model and hypotheses. Note.
BPFM = brand popularity in a foreign market.
347
By revising an original advertisement of
Himalaya hand cream used in a real Internet
mall, four different versions of advertisements
were developed with variation in foreign coun-
tries referenced by a popularity claim (see the
Appendix).
Sampling and Procedure
A total of 225 Korean undergraduate students
participated in the survey, and elimination of
incomplete responses left 216 eligible for anal-
ysis. Participants were randomly exposed to
one of four advertisements (Japan = 54,
China = 53, France = 55, and India = 54).
Then, they were instructed to imagine that
they decided to buy a hand cream and saw the
advertisement during Internet shopping. Sub-
sequently, participants were instructed to
respond to the items for measuring six con-
structs included in the research model (see
Figure 1). Demographics were measured last,
and participants were debriefed.
Measures
Six constructs in a measurement model were
scored on a 7-point scale and are shown in
Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha for all of the items
to measure each of six constructs is higher
than .7, and thus scale reliability is secured.
Except for purchase intention, all the con-
structs were measured on a 7-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree).
Expertise and similarity were measured with
four and three items, respectively. The seven
items were adapted from a study by Feick and
Higie (1992). As mentioned in a literature
review, animosity consists of many dimensions
but people and economic animosity have the
strongest impact on consumer behavior (Nes
et al., 2012). Accordingly, animosity was meas-
ured with five items adapted from a study by
Klein et al. (1998), one item for people ani-
mosity and four items for economic animosity.
Brand attitude was measured with four items
about quality, reliability, perfection, and safety
adapted from a study by Häubl (1996). Pur-
chase intention was measured with four items
adapted from a study by Gill, Gorssbart, and
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
348 J.-H. Kim and D. Min

Table 1 Operational measures of constructs in a measurement model

Standardized
Operational measures M SD loading t-value

Expertise (α = .917)
E1: (The Japanese) know a variety of hand cream brands 3.48 1.44 .82 -
E2: (The Japanese) seem to have a good sense about a hand 3.43 1.38 .82 14.38
cream
E3: (The Japanese) are knowledgeable about a hand cream 3.21 1.36 .94 17.57
E4: (The Japanese) have a lot of experience using hand cream 3.49 1.56 .86 15.35
Similarity (α = .923)
S1: (The Japanese) and I probably have similar values and beliefs 3.21 1.45 .83 -
about hand cream
S2: (The Japanese) are quite a bit like me in hand cream usage 3.23 1.46 .94 21.74
S3: It’s likely that (the Japanese) and I have similar tastes and 3.12 1.44 .91 17.29
preferences in hand cream
Animosity (α = .881)
A1: I dislike (the Japanese) 2.69 1.56 .79 8.57
A2: (Japan) is not a reliable trading partner 2.92 1.56 .91 9.53
A3: (Japan) wants to gain economic power over Korea 3.65 1.68 .90 14.98
A4: (Japan) has too much economic influence in Korea 3.45 1.72 .63 15.15
A5: (Japan) is doing business unfairly with Korea 2.97 1.38 .57 -
Brand attitude (α = .867)
BA1: Himalaya is a reliable product 4.31 1.26 .88 -
BA2: Himalaya is a good-quality product 4.16 1.26 .92 17.55
BA3: Himalaya is a flawless product 3.34 1.18 .64 10.48
BA4: Himalaya is a safe product 3.94 1.39 .72 12.41
Purchase intention (α = .928)
PI1: Very unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very likely 3.53 1.38 .86 -
PI2: Very improbable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very probable 3.43 1.40 .92 18.55
PI3: Very impossible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very possible 3.84 1.40 .89 17.70
PI4: Very non-existent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very existent 3.95 1.37 .83 15.50
Preference heterogeneity (α = .788)
PH1: Most people want the same thing from a hand cream 5.72 1.22 .86 -
PH2: Tastes and preferences are not important in how people 5.89 1.19 .88 10.19
choose a hand cream
PH3: Each consumer has idiosyncratic criteria and standards in 5.38 1.37 .55 7.88
evaluation of a hand cream

Note: Four foreign consumers or countries are in brackets.

Laczniak (1988). Preference heterogeneity was
measured with three items adapted from a
study by Price et al. (1989).
Results
Measurement Model
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was con-
ducted to examine discriminant and conver-
gent validity of three exogenous constructs
(expertise, similarity, and animosity), two
endogenous constructs (brand attitude and
purchase intention), and a moderating con-
struct (preference heterogeneity). The results
of CFA showed an acceptable goodness-of-fit
of the measurement model (χ2(215) = 403.05,
GFI = .86, AGFI = .82, RMSEA = .06, CFI =
.95, IFI = .95). As presented in Table 1, the
standardized factor loadings of all items were
higher than .5 and their coefficients were sta-
tistically significant, indicating convergent
validity (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). Fur-
thermore, as presented in Table 2, the

© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.

 Effect of brand popularity in a foreign market 349

Table 2 Correlation matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Expertise –
2. Similarity .48 (.13)** –
3. Animosity .13 (.10) .09 (.12) –
4. Brand attitude .30 (.10)** .34 (.11)** .06 (.09) –
5. Purchase intention .33 (.11)** .31 (.12)** −.06 (.10) .63 (.12)** –
6. Preference heterogeneity .07 (.09) −.06 (.10) −.03 (.09) .16 (.09)* .11 (.09) –

*p < .05. **p < .01.

confidence interval (2 SE) around the corre-
lation coefficients between two constructs does
not include 1.0, and thus discriminant validity
is also secured (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Structural Model
The three hypotheses (Hypothesis 1–Hypothe-
sis 3) in the research model were tested by
structural equation modeling. The goodness-of-
fit statistics were found to be acceptable
(χ2(160) = 322.767, GFI = .872, AGFI = .832,
RMSEA = .069, CFI = .949, IFI = .950), and
all the hypotheses were fully or partially
supported.
First, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported. The
expertise of foreign consumers referenced by
BPFM had statistically significant impacts on
brand attitude and purchase intention, and the
directions were as hypothesized. Second,
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. Similar-
ity between domestic consumers and foreign
consumers positively affected brand attitude
whereas its impact on purchase intention was
not statistically significant. This indicates that
similarity has an indirect impact on purchase
intention through brand attitude. Finally,
Hypothesis 3 was also partially supported.
Animosity negatively affected purchase inten-
tion while it did not have an impact on brand
attitude. That is, animosity has a direct impact
on purchase intention regardless of brand

E1 Preference
BA1 BA2 BA3 BA4
Heterogeneity
E2
Expertise
E3 in BPFM 0.18*

E4
0.15* Brand
Attitude
S1
0.25**
S2 Similarity
0.58***
in BPFM
S3 0.06

A1
Purchase
0.01
A2 Intention
A3 Animosity
-0.12*
in BPFM
A4

A5 PI1 PI2 PI3 PI4

Figure 2. The results of structural equation modeling. *p < .05 **p < .01. ***p < .001.

© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.

350 J.-H. Kim and D. Min
Table 3 The differences between countries in consumers’ response to an advertisement using
brand popularity in a foreign market
Expertise Similarity
M SE M SE
France 3.69 .16 3.55 .18
Japan 4.28 .15 3.73 .18
China 3.08 .15 3.13 .17
India 2.55 .14 2.32 .14
attitude. The results of the hypotheses testing
are presented in Figure 2.
Multi-group Comparison: The Moderating
Effect of Preference Heterogeneity
To test the moderating effect of preference
heterogeneity on the relationship between
similarity and consumer responses to an
advertisement using BPFM (Hypothesis 4),
sub-group analysis was conducted. Participants
were divided into two subgroups, a high-
preference heterogeneity group (n = 112) and
a low-preference heterogeneity group
(n = 104), according to the result of a mean-
split (M = 5.67) on preference heterogeneity.
The objective of the subgroup analysis was to
examine whether the effects of similarity on
brand attitude (Hypothesis 4a) and purchase
intention (Hypothesis 4b) were equal across both
groups, respectively. First, the result of χ2 differ-
ence comparison between the constraint model
(χ2(321) = 574.506) and the free model
(χ2(320) = 571.334) revealed that the difference
between the coefficients of two paths (i.e., from
similarity to brand attitude) was marginally signif-
icant (Δχ2(1) = 3.172, p < .1). Thus, Hypothesis 4a
was supported. However, Hypothesis 4b was not
supported because the coefficients of two paths
(i.e., from similarity to purchase intention) was
not significantly different (χ2(321) = 573.320,
χ2(320) = 571.334, Δχ2 (1) = 1.986, p > .1). In sum-
mary, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.
The Differences between Countries in
Consumers’ Response to an Advertisement
Using BPFM
Although it is not hypothesized, the differences
between countries in consumers’ response to
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
Animosity Purchase intention
M SE M SE
2.07 .13 4.04 .16
3.59 .16 3.90 .16
4.40 .11 3.26 .18
2.53 .11 3.54 .17
an advertisement using BPFM were analyzed
(see the Table 3). The results of analysis of var-
iance and post-hoc tests by the LSD method
showed that all of the differences of expertise
between countries were significant, F
(3, 212) = 24.12, p < .001, India had a signifi-
cantly lower score on similarity than other
countries, F(3, 212) = 13.81, p < .001, all of the
differences of animosity between countries
were significant, F(3, 212) = 67.12, p < .001,
and France had a significantly higher score on
purchase intention than China and India while
Japan had a significantly higher score than only
China, F(3, 212) = 4.42, p < .01.
Discussion
Hypothesis 1 was fully supported. However,
the other hypotheses were partially supported,
which was unexpected. The partial support of
Hypothesis 2 shows that similarity affects pur-
chase intention through brand attitude. This
indicates that when the advertisement uses a
similar source in a popularity claim, it needs to
provide additional information for consumers
to positively affect brand attitude (e.g., high
quality). Given that Hypothesis 4b was not
supported, the enhancement of quality percep-
tion is critical, especially for a product cate-
gory with high-preference heterogeneity
(vs. low-preference heterogeneity).
The partial support of Hypothesis 3 reveals
that animosity has a direct impact on purchase
intention, but not through brand attitude. This
result is consistent with the findings of Klein
et al. (1998) that animosity does not affect
product judgment but that it negatively affects
 Effect of brand popularity in a foreign market
willingness to buy directly. Given Leong
et al.’s (2008) arguments that animosity affects
cognitive evaluation more than affective evalu-
ation, this research measured brand attitude
with cognitive items and thus Hypothesis 3a
may not be supported.
Total effect (TE) analysis was conducted to
compare the three characteristics of BPFM
(expertise, similarity, and animosity) in the
magnitude of the effect on purchase intention.
The TE was calculated by aggregating the
direct effect between the characteristics of
BPFM and purchase intention and the indirect
effect that the characteristics of BPFM have
on purchase intention through brand attitude.
Purchase intention is most influenced by
expertise (TE = .252), followed by similarity
(TE = .144), and animosity (TE = −.118).
These findings imply that expertise among the
three characteristics of BPFM is most impor-
tant in enhancing purchase intention.
Conclusion
Theoretical and Managerial Implications
By testing four hypotheses regarding brand
popularity in a foreign country, this research
provides researchers with a number of theo-
retical implications. First, to our knowledge,
this is the first reported study to investigate
the characteristics of BPFM to determine con-
sumer responses to an advertisement.
Although retailers often use brand popularity
as an advertising cue, little research has been
conducted to examine its effects on consumer
behavior (Kim & Min, 2014). Furthermore,
the brand popularity effect was mostly exam-
ined in a domestic context (Dean, 1999).
Accordingly, little is known about the BPFM
effect on consumer behavior. This research
addresses that gap by examining the effects of
three characteristics of BPFM on brand atti-
tude and purchase intention.
Meanwhile, Hellofs and Jacobson (1999)
mentioned that brand popularity positively
affects brand evaluation only when exclusivity
of a product is not critical and the congestion
problem does not occur. BPFM satisfies the
351
required conditions because it is proclaimed
based on sales in foreign countries and thus it
is not heavily related to the issues on exclusiv-
ity and the congestion problem. Therefore, the
finding of this research that BPFM has a posi-
tive impact on brand attitude supports the
argument by Hellofs and Jacobson (1999).
This research extends the scope of extant
research on effect of a persuasive message
conveying descriptive norm on consumer
behaviors. Recently, some psychologists
emphasized the role of a descriptive norm in
persuasion (Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevi-
cius, 2008). Kim and Min (2014) mentioned
that a popularity claim can be a type of
descriptive norm to affect brand evaluation.
However, they did not examine the effect of
brand popularity on purchase intention. It was
assumed based on the result that brand popu-
larity affects perceived quality and risk percep-
tion. This research overcomes the limitation
by investigating the effect of brand popularity
on purchase intention.
Meanwhile, Biswas et al. (2006) revealed
that for high-technology oriented products
(e.g., computers), expert endorsers rather than
similar endorsers are more influential in redu-
cing consumers’ risk perception, while for low-
technology oriented products (e.g., treadmills)
there is no difference between the two endor-
sers. This research used a hand cream as a
stimulus product, which may belong to the
low-technology oriented product category. It
was found that there was no difference
between similar and expert endorsers in
effects on brand attitude (Similar = .25,
Expert = .18; t = −.117), which is consistent
with the findings of Biswas et al. (2006).
Interestingly, however, an expert endorser
was found to have a stronger effect on pur-
chase intention than a similar endorser
(Expert = .25 vs. Similar = .14), although the
difference cannot be statistically verified
because structural equation modeling does not
offer a way of comparing the total effect. This
result is not consistent with the findings of Bis-
was et al. (2006), indicating that their argu-
ments need to be approached with more
caution.
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
352 J.-H. Kim and D. Min
This research also provides practitioners
with important practical implications. It is
noteworthy that domestic consumers respond
to an advertisement differently according to
foreign countries referenced by brand popu-
larity and thus marketers need to be cautious
in selecting a referent country for the develop-
ment of an advertisement using BPFM. As
presented in Table 3, when France is used as a
referent country in an advertisement, Korean
consumers’ intention to purchase the Hima-
laya hand cream is the highest (M = 4.04), fol-
lowed by Japan (M = 3.90), India (M = 3.54),
and China (M = 3.26). This indicates that
Himalaya should use an advertisement con-
veying brand popularity in France (No. 1 sales
in the French market) or Japan (No.1 sales in
the Japanese market) rather than in India as a
country of origin.
More importantly, Himalaya should not
use China as an endorser in an advertise-
ment because it did not obtain a higher
score on purchase intention than India.
China had a higher score for both expertise
and similarity than India, but it also had the
highest score for animosity, which may
induce the lowest purchase intention.
Accordingly, marketers must pay special
attention to animosity (especially, people and
economic animosity) as well as expertise and
similarity when devising a communication
strategy using BPFM.
The findings of this research suggest that
three characteristics of BPFM need to be con-
sidered in determining the order of entering a
new market. Specifically, before launching a
brand in other markets, marketers may launch
it in countries that could be good endorsers
(high expertise/similarity and low animosity)
and try to get good feedback from consumers
in these countries. Then, they could develop
an advertisement using good brand perfor-
mance in these countries as endorsements
when launching a brand in other markets.
Meanwhile, given that similarity has higher
total effects on purchase intention for high-
preference heterogeneity than for low-
preference heterogeneity, marketers need to
develop an advertisement to reflect target
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
consumers’ preference heterogeneity. Specifi-
cally, marketers have to emphasize how simi-
lar consumers referenced by BPFM are with
domestic consumers in using a product with
high-preference heterogeneity.
Limitations and Future Research
This research has three major limitations that
should be rectified in future research. First, this
research does not consider the COO effect in a
research model. Overall country image can be a
counteracting force against the effects of exper-
tise, similarity, and animosity on a consumer’s
response to an advertisement with a popularity
claim (Paswan & Sharma, 2004). For example,
Korean consumers may perceive that Indian
consumers have a low level of expertise with a
car product. Moreover, the perceived similarity
in car consumption may be low. This indicates
that “No.1 sales in India” should not be an
effective advertising cue for a foreign car brand.
However, if the Korean consumers notice that
the car is made in Japan, they may have high
brand attitude and purchase intention because
of the technology advancement level of COO.
That is to say, COO image may have an influ-
ence on the effect of BPFM on consumer beha-
viors. Therefore, COO image should be
controlled in a future research model.
Second, “No. 1 sales in a foreign country” was
used as an advertising cue to examine domestic
consumers’ response to BPFM. However, mar-
keters may have difficulty in using this cue
because of the prerequisite condition that sales
of a brand must be the highest in the market.
Accordingly, other popularity cues may be used
as endorsements. For example, “Hit product”
can be a good alternative in that a brand does
not have to be best-selling in the market.
According to Kim and Min (2014), both the
“No. 1 in sales” and “Hit product” cues have an
impact on the reduction of risk perception.
However, the former is more influential than the
latter because it is a stronger argument about
brand popularity. Future research needs to com-
pare the relative magnitude of the effects of two
cues regarding BPFM on purchase intention.
Finally, the results of this research should
not be generalized without caution, owing to
 Effect of brand popularity in a foreign market
using limited samples (students), stimulus
product (hand cream), and foreign countries
referenced by brand popularity. Especially,
future research needs to use different stimulus
products that differ in technology orientation
and preference heterogeneity.
References
Aaker, J. L., Brumbaugh, A. M., & Grier, S. A.
(2000). Nontarget markets and viewer distinc-
tiveness: The impact of target marketing on
advertising attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology, 9, 127–140.
Amos, C., Holmes, G., & Strutton, D. (2008).
Exploring the relationship between celebrity
endorser effects and advertising effectiveness:
A quantitative synthesis of effect size. Interna-
tional Journal of Advertising, 27, 209–234.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Struc-
tural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Asses-
sing construct validity in organizational research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.
Berry, T. R., & Shield, C. (2014). Source attribution
and credibility of health and appearance exer-
cise and advertisements: Relationship with
implicit and explicit attitudes and intentions.
Journal of Health Psychology, 19, 242–252.
Biswas, D., Biswas, A., & Das, N. (2006). The differ-
ential effects of celebrity and expert endorse-
ments on consumer risk perceptions. Journal of
Advertising, 35(2), 17–31.
Birnbaum, M. H., & Stegner, S. E. (1979). Source
credibility in social judgments: Bias, expertise,
and the judge’s point of view. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 37, 48–74.
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages
to protect the environment. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A.
(1990). A focus theory of normative conduct:
Recycling the concept of norms to reduce litter-
ing in public places. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.
Dean, D. H. (1999). Brand endorsement, popularity,
and event sponsorship as advertising cues
affecting consumer pre-purchase attitudes. Jour-
nal of Advertising, 28(3), 1–12.
Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A lit-
erature review. Journal of Marketing Manage-
ment, 15, 291–314.
353
Feick, L., & Higie, R. A. (1992). The effects of pref-
erence heterogeneity and source characteristics
on ad processing and judgments about endor-
sers. Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 9–24.
Gill, J. D., Gorssbart, S., & Laczniak, R. N. (1988).
Influence of involvement, commitment and
familiarity on brand beliefs and attitudes of
viewers exposed to alternative ad claim strate-
gies. Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 33–43.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V.
(2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social
norms to motivate environmental conservation in
hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35,
472–482.
Häubl, G. (1996). A cross-national investigation of
the effects of country of origin and brand name
on the evaluation of a new car. International
Marketing Review, 13(5), 76–97.
Hellofs, L. L., & Jacobson, R. (1999). Market share
and customers’ perception of quality: When can
firms grow their way to higher versus lower
quality? Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 16–25.
Ibok, N. I. (2013). Factors determining the effective-
ness of celebrity endorsed advertisements: The
case of Nigerian telecommunication industry.
American Journal of Business and Management,
2, 233–238.
Jung, K., Ang, S. H., Leong, S. M., Tan, S. J.,
Pornpitakpan, C., & Kau, A. K. (2002). A typology
of animosity and its cross-national validation. Jour-
nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 525–539.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.
Kim, C. K., & Chung, J. Y. (1997). Brand popular-
ity, country image and market share: An empir-
ical study. Journal of International Business
Studies, 28, 361–386.
Kim, J.-H., & Min, D. (2014). The effects of
brand popularity as an advertising cue on per-
ceived quality in the context of internet shopping.
Japanese Psychological Research, 56, 309–319.
Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998).
The animosity model of foreign product pur-
chase: An empirical test in the people’s Republic
of China. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 89–100.
Leong, S. M., Cote, J. A., Ang, S. H., Tan, S. J.,
Jung, K., Kau, A. K., & Pornpitakpan, C.
(2008). Understanding consumer animosity in
an international crisis: Nature, antecedents, and
consequences. Journal of International Business
Studies, 39, 996–1009.
Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (1994). Network
externality: An uncommon tragedy. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 8, 133–150.
Nes, E. B., Yelkur, R., & Silkoset, R. (2012).
Exploring the animosity domain and the role of
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
354 J.-H. Kim and D. Min

affect in a cross-national context. International
Business Review, 21, 751–765.
Paswan, A. K., & Sharma, D. (2004). Brand-country
of origin (COO) knowledge and COO image:
Investigation in an emerging franchise market.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13,
145–155.
Price, L. L., Feick, L. F., & Higie, R. A. (1989).
Preference heterogeneity and coorientation as
determinants of perceived information influ-
ence. Journal of Business Research, 19, 227–242.
Silvera, D. H., & Austad, B. (2004). Factors predict-
ing the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement
advertisements. European Journal of Marketing,
38, 1509–1526.
Wang, A. (2005). The effects of expert and consumer
endorsements on audience response. Journal
of Advertising Research, 45, 402–412.
(Received December 10, 2015; accepted June 22, 2016)

Appendix

Sales No.1 in Japanese Hand Cream Market

01 Moisturizer for rough and dry hands

A super creamy balm with oils of Almond, Olive and

Sunflower protect your skin. This intensive cream
nourishes skin so it’s noticeably smoother after each
luxurious application.

02 Refreshingly light texture

The non-greasy and quick absorbing leaves hands soft and

smooth and can be applied as often as needed, providing
long lasting hydration.

03 80 years of history on natural herbs

Himalaya Herbals is a range of 100% natural and safe

products with rare herbs collected from the foothills of the
Himalayas.

© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.