A Cross-Cultural Study of "Made in" Concepts Author(s): Philippe Cattin, Alain Jolibert and Colleen Lohnes Source: Journal

of International Business Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Winter, 1982), pp. 131-141 Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/154470 . Accessed: 08/05/2013 12:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of International Business Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDYOF "MADEIN" CONCEPTS

PHILIPPECATTIN* Universityof Connecticut ALAINJOLIBERT** Universit6 des Sciences Sociales de Grenoble COLLEEN LOHNES*** General Foods Corporation Abstract. Cross-culturalstudies of the perceptions of countries of origin by industrial users have been few, but they are important because of their managerial implications for multinational firms. This study uses data obtained from American and French Directors of Purchasing of major industrialfirms concerningtheir perceptions of 5 major"made in" concepts. After the data were corrected for response bias, results show both how the respondents perceive the "made in" concepts and the differences between the American and French perceptions. * Consumers categorize or evaluate brands and products based on various attributes, but when they do not know much about a product, their evaluations may rely on substitute or surrogate indicators; for example, price may be used to evaluate the quality of a new syrup.1 This "surrogate indicators" phenomenon is discussed in several textbooks;2 it has also been called "stereotyping."3 According to research studies undertaken during the last 15 years, a product's country of manufacture is one such surrogate indicator that the consumer has learned to use when there are missing cues. These research studies can be classified into four groups depending upon whether the studies have been done on consumers or industrial users and whether they involved specific products or not. Schooler,4 Reierson,5 and Anderson and Cunningham6 have been concerned with the perception of the "made in" concept, in general, by consumers. On the other hand, Etzel and Walker,7 Peterson and Jolibert,8 and Baumgartner and Jolibert9 have investigated the perception of specific foreign products by consumers, whereas Gaedeke10 investigated the perception of the "made in" concept by consumers, both in general and in conjunction with specific products. Last, Nagashima11 and White12 have been concerned with the perception of the "made in" concept in general by industrial users, while White and Cundiff13 and Hakansson and Woots14 studied the perception of the country of manufacture on specific products by industrial users. Two conclusions can be drawn based on published work. First, if one finding of all these studies is that the made in concept influences perception, very few of them investigated the importance of this indicator upon purchasing behavior. One exception is the work of Hakansson and Woots,15 who presented evidence on the importance of this indicator in industrial purchasing behavior, justifying INTRODUCTION

*Philippe Cattin is an Associate Professor of Marketingin the School of Business Administration at the Universityof Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut. He has written extensively on marketing and related subjects, mostly concerning modeling and methodological issues. **Alain Jolibert is a Professor at and Directorof the Institute des Etudes Commerciales of the Universite des Sciences Sociales, Grenoble, France. He has published extensively in marketing and related literature in France and in the U.S. ***Colleen R. Lohnes is currentlyemployed by the General Foods Corporationas an Assistant Products Manager in the company's breakfast foods division. Ms. Lohnes received her MBAin marketing and international business from the WhartonSchool in 1982. Her experience includes marketing research for the General Electric Company and Gino's, Inc. Journal of International Business Studies, Winter 1982 131

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

further the importance of the made in concept in the area of industrial marketing. Second, all but 2 studies have used data collected in the U.S. or within one culture.16 Nevertheless, cross-cultural studies are of interest because of their managerial implications for multinational firms. This article reports the results of a cross-cultural study concerning the stereotypes that exist in the mind of American and French industrial buyers as they consider industrial products manufactured in selected developed nations. As indicated by White, knowledge of the purchasing managers' perceptions is of prime interest in understanding their influence upon purchasing behavior. This study can be considered as a replication and extension of the studies done by Nagashima and White in a different cross-cultural context.17

METHODOLOGY The study reported in this article makes use of the questionnaire developed by AND DATA Nagashima.18 Using data collected in 1965 from 70 Minnesota businessmen, NaANALYSIS gashima compared the American and Japanese perceptions of products that The Data were made in and the U.S. Data were colFrance, West

Germany,Japan, England, lected again in 1975 by Nagashima on a sample of 120 Tokyo businessmen to assess the changes in the Japanese perceptions about foreign products from 1967 to 1975. The respondents selected for this study were the Directors of Purchasing of the 350 largest American industrial firms (the first 350 firms in the Fortune 500 list of Industrial Corporations) and the 425 firms cited in Europe's Largest Companies [see Noyes Data Corporation 1972] from which only the responses of industrial firms were kept (95 percent of them). Hence, this study used a narrowly defined population: Directors of Purchasing of Industrial Firms, a limitation which ensures that the samples were comparable across cultures. This population is similar to the population selected by White Who also used many of the dimensions used by Nagashima and by the authors of this study. The questionnaire consists of 20 bipolar dimensions, as did Nagashima's questionnaire, including pricing, reliability, workmanship, technicality, and performance. (For the remaining dimensions, see Tables 2 and 4.) The respondent is asked to evaluate the "made in" England, France, West Germany,Japan, and the U.S. concepts on a 7-point semantic differential scale for each of the 20 dimensions. The order of presentation of the 20 dimensions was random, and the positive end of each scale was rotated from left to right from one dimension to the next so that respondent grooving would not occur. The English questionnaire was translated carefully into French, using the process of back translation to minimize the translation bias. In addition, the respondent was asked for his most, second, and least preferred country of origin, given that each of the 5 countries had an item equal in price, quality, and styling. The English questionnaire was mailed in the U.S. with an American return envelope, while the French questionnaire was mailed in France with a French return envelope. On the American side, 123 questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 35 percent, while 97 French questionnaires were received for a response rate of 23 percent. The analysis and results concerning the respondents' preference for a country of origin are reported first followed by the analysis and results of the semantic differential data. Table 1 shows the percentage of respondents selecting each country as their first, second, and last choice among the 5 countries of interest (assuming each country had an item equal in other respects). The results show that both American and French respondents prefer local products and then select West German products as their second choice. This preference confirms the findings of Hakansson and

Countryof Manufacture Influences the Purchasing Decision

132 Journal of International Business Studies, Winter 1982

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 1 QUESTION:Supposing that England, France, West Germany, Japan, and the USA had an item equal in price, quality, and styling. Which country's product would you select 1st, 2nd, and last? American Sample(%) MadeIn Concept U.S. France West Germany England Japan 1st 92 0 6 1 1 2nd 6 1 48 18 27 Last 1 62 8 17 12 1st 1 93 6 0 0 FrenchSample(%) 2nd 1 4 73 9 3 Last 21 0 12 41 26

Woots and of Nagashima obtained with Scandinavian and Japanese respondents, respectively.19

Before analyzing the semantic differential data (and especially before comparing the results obtained with the American and French respondents), we must check the data to find out whether there is any response bias--that is, any systematic difference in the use of the scales by the American and French respondents-and then adjust the data if such bias is found. To this end, the authors computed first the mean rating across the 5 made in concepts for each respondent and on each scale (after assigning a 1 to one end and a 7 to the other end of each scale). The mean of these mean ratings was then computed across respondents for each scale within each sample of (American and French) respondents. The t-value corresponding to the difference between these means was also computed. Twelve of the 20 t-values were significant at the 5 percent level, and 10 at the 1 percent level. This is much more than expected by chance. The significant differences are shown in Table 2. The 4.73 and 4.18 values obtained for the American and French respondents, respectively, on the inexpensive-expensive dimension (row 1 of Table 2) indicates that the American respondents did use the "expensive" end of the scale more than the French respondents. Hence, there is a response bias even though care was taken in selecting the samples and in the translation. It is likely to have resulted from some other biases that were not eliminated (nonresponse or cultural differences). American and French respondents, even though they are comparable, may have used different evoked sets of products or of made in concepts. In addition, it is noteworthy that the American respondents perceive the 5 made in concepts as a whole as more expensive, unreasonably priced, and luxurious than did the French respondents. Consequently, it seems appropriate to adjust the raw data before comparing the American and French data. The mean rating across the 5 made in concepts was computed for each scale and each respondent. It was then subtracted from the raw ratings, and the resulting (corrected) ratings are the ratings used in the remainder of this paper. The data were not corrected for differences in standard deviation (if any). Because of the fact that the more differences a respondent perceives across made in concepts on a dimension, the more likely she/he is to spread the concepts on a scale, the differences on standard deviations can, and are likely, to be real, and it seems appropriate to keep these differences in the data base.20

ResponseBias and Adjustment of the Semantic Data Differential

Journal of International Business Studies, Winter 1982 133

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

?-. 03 SD

2) 0 t

TABLE 2
_. CD 0c,

Mean Raw Ratings of American and French Respondents Dimension American Sample 4.73 4.17 3.16 3.45 2.55 2.88 3.24 3.43 3.19 4.37 3.42 3.98 French Sample 4.18 3.76 3.41 4.31 2.81 2.43 2.77 3.23 3.62 4.65 3.75 3.55

Across All Made T-Valueof Difference 5.92b 4.52b 2.12C 8.92b 2.75b 3.96b 4.50b 2.29C 3.48b 2.86b 3.10b 4.40b

cn

U) 0. D CL

CD

(0 rO

Inexpensive Reasonably priced Reliable Luxuryitems Technically advanced Mass produced World-widedistribution Inventive Pride of ownership Moreconcerned with outward appearance Clever use of color More for young people

aA one was assigned to the end of each scale shown on the left side of the table and a 7 to the end show bSignificantat the 1% level. CSignificantat the 5% level.

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The semantic differential data can be analyzed in different ways to determine the Analysisof the perception of the "made in" concepts. Rather than do a profile analysis like Na- Semantic Data gashima's,21 the authors selected 5 dimensions (out of the 20) that seem a priori Differential and have been found to be important factors in industrial purchasing decisions.22 These dimensions are pricing, reliability, workmanship, technicality, and performance. It should be noted that the addition of other dimensions does not change substantially the results. The purpose was to show the strengths and weaknesses of each made in on these 5 dimensions and to obtain an aggregate score indicating the degree of "favorableness" toward each made in; thus, the favorable end of each scale was assigned the positive end (and the unfavorable end the negative end). The mean ratings obtained for each made in on each scale are shown in Table 3 along with the aggregate mean ratings across the 5 scales. The aggregate results indicate that made in Germany, although not considered as "reasonably priced," is perceived as the best concept by both American and French respondents. This is consistent with both Nagashima's and White's results. In addition, the made in France and made in England concepts are not perceived favorably. Table 3 also shows that there are differences between American and French perceptions. T-tests could be done to determine the significant differences; however, 5 two-group (American vs. French) discriminant analyses (one for each made in) can be performed also where the predictor variables are the 20 dimensions. Table 4 shows the discriminant analysis results rather than the t-tests. The purposes were to find the strength and significance (if any) of the difference between the American and French stereotypes of the 5 made in concepts (based on the 20 dimensions at once) and to determine the dimensions that discriminate the most and significantly between American and French stereotypes. Whereas univariate t-tests give the significance of each dimension (separately), a discriminant analysis shows not only the significance of each dimension, but also the contribution of each dimension to the discrimination and the overall strength and significance of all dimensions at once. If there is no multicollinearity at all, a discriminant analysis and univariate t-tests produce the same significant dimensions. In the data collected for this study, there is not much multicollinearity. Most correlations between pairs of dimensions are low. As a supplementary check, 5 principal component analyses were performed, one for each of the 5 countries. The largest eigen value is between 2.5 and 4.0 (and the smallest between .2 and .5), so that the first principal component explains only between 12.5 and 20.0 percent of the total variance.23 Hence, there is no major set of factors that explains the 20 dimensions. As a result, the dimensions that discriminate significantly between American and French perceptions are similar to those obtained by t-tests. Across all 5 discriminant analyses there are only 5 variables that do not have significant t-values (at the .05 level) and that are significant in the discriminant analyses (based on the .05 level partial F-value). Moreover, the partial F-values corresponding to these variables are not highly significant. These results differ from the results obtained by White who found 3 major factors explaining 70.7 percent of the variance in 12 dimensions (using data obtained from American purchasing managers).24(These factors were labelled product quality, marketing characteristics, and price.) A major reason for this discrepancy is in the difference in the dimensions. Among the 12 dimensions used by White, 9 are identical or very similar to 9 of the 20 dimensions used in this study (expensive, reasonably priced, technically advanced, good workmanship, inventive, large choice of size and model, highly advertised and promoted, high reliability, and recognized brand names). The other 3 are different (quality, service, and durability), and it turns out that many of White's high correlations (4 of the 5 correlations above .7) were obtained between these 3 dimensions or between these 3 and the other 9. Hence, without these 3 additional dimensions, the first 3 factors would Journal of International Business Studies, Winter 1982 135

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

cD

0)

O C_=.

C
:3

0
:3 D

0)

TABLE 3
co

3 c

Mean Corrected Ratings of American and French Respondents Made in U.S.

+ .161 + .544 + .346 + .301 - .248 - .100 +1.058 +1.011 - .861 + .283 + .456

on 5 Dimensions Concept Made in West Germany

- .481 - .700 +1.305 + .880 +1.326 + .932 + .943 + .508 +1.635 +1.106 + 4.728

an

Cri cn
CD ()
r-.

0) _3.

Dimension
Reasonably priced Reliable

Sample
American French American French American French American French American French American

Made in France
- .764 - .523 -1.093 + .196 - .903 - .158 -1.511 - .276 - .732 - .373 - 5.003

Co

Careful and meticulous workmanship Technically advanced More concerned with performance Summated scoreb

French

+ .951

-1.134

+2.726

aThemore negative the rating the more the corresponding concept is perceived as possessing the dimen bEachsummated score is obtained by adding up the 5 scores above.

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 4 Discriminant Analysis Results Showing the Dimensions that Discriminate Between American and French Perceptionsa Made in Inexpensive Reliable Luxuryitems Exclusive Heavy industry product
0

U.S. .326 (5.52) .614 (25.30)

-.468

France

W. Germany .346 (6.20)

England

Japan - .339 (4.07) .373 (4.54)

- .287
-

(6.43)
.334

.706 -.414

(18.14) Technically advanced Inventive Pride of ownership Recognizable brand names Large choice of size and model Moreconcerned with outward appearance Clever use of color Morefor men Upperclass
&d2b

(8.71) .385 (13.47)

(21.81) -.399 (7.73) .322 (4.46)

-

(6.54)
.474 (9.21)
.390

c :3 0

- .252

(5.05) .284 (6.75) .339 (9.45) .225 (4.10) .250 (5.35)

.385 (6.81)

(6.77)

03
2.=.

0)

.426 - .334

:3 CD

(16.72)
-

.324 (4.21)

O 03 o.
0 (1 C (A

(4.69)
.239 - .297

(5.03) -.389 (6.07)

(4.29)

co Cb

Significance Level
:3
(D 00 Ico

.628 <.001

.652 <.001

.405 <.001

.370 <.001

.353 <.001

Co
-0

aEach entry in the table is a standardized discriminant function coefficient significant at the 5% level, b between parentheses below each coefficient. (For a definition of the partial F-value see footnote 27). A p French respondents feel that the corresponding "made in" concept possesses more of the right ex Americans more of the left extreme (and vice-versa for a negative coefficient). The greater the coeffic dimension contributes to the discrimination between American and French respondents. Moreover, th more significant the contribution to the discrimination. bFora definition of Co2see footnote 5.

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

have explained much less than 70.7 percent of the variance, and our results would have been more in line with White's.25 All 5 discriminant analyses are significant at the 0.001 level (Table 4), which indicates that the American and French perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of each made in differ significantly. Moreover,the a2 (a measure of discriminating power) obtained for the "made in U.S.A."and for the "made in France" concepts are (.638 and .652 respectively) substantially greater than for the other "made in" concepts.26 Hence, the American and French perceptions of the made in U.S. and of the made in France concepts differ more than for the other concepts and so reflect nationalist biases. The standardized discriminant function coefficients that are significant at the 5 percent level based on their partial F-value (presented between parentheses below each coefficient) are included in Table 4.27 A positive coefficient indicates that the French respondents feel that the corresponding concept possesses more of the right extreme of the dimension, and that the American respondents feel that the concept possesses more the left extreme (and vice versa for a negative coefficient). If we take the made in Japan concept as an illustration, French and American respondents differ in their perception along 5 dimensions. The (-.339) coefficient indicates that the French respondents perceive the Japanese products as being more inexpensive than the American respondents. The (.373) coefficient shows that the French respondents perceive these products as more unreliable than the American respondents. The (-.414) coefficient indicates that the French respondents perceive the Japanese products as more exclusive than the American respondents. The (.474) and (.324) coefficients reveal that made in Japan is perceived as more technically backward and as having a more limited choice of size and model more often by the French respondents than by the American respondents. Moreover,the greater a coefficient relative to others, the more the dimension contributes to the overall discrimination; for instance, with regard to the made in England designation, the difference between American and French respondents originates mostly from the "luxury-necessary items" dimension. The (-.706) coefficient is by far the highest of the discriminant function and shows that the French respondents perceive British products as a greater luxury than do the American respondents.28 Discussionof the First, as indicated earlier, the made in West Germany concept is most favorably Results and the made in France and England concepts least favorably perceived by both American and French respondents; however, there are differences between the perceptions of the American and French respondents. Japanese products appear to have a less favorable stereotype among the French purchasing managers than among the U.S. purchasing managers. They are perceived, for example, as more unreliable and more technically backward by the French than by the American purchasing managers. Made in England appears to be more favorably perceived by the French purchasing managers than by the American. It is perceived as more luxurious and more inventive among the French purchasing managers. Made in Germany does not appear as valuable among the French purchasing managers as among the American because it is perceived by the former as more expensive, more heavy industry-oriented,less technically advanced, and subject to less pride of ownership. The French and American "made in" concepts appear the most contrasted stereotypes. The type of items (luxuryvs. necessary), the product exclusiveness, its availability, the use of color (clever or not), are attributes that are significant in both discriminant analyses. Most of these findings are simply "national biases"for example, American products are less exclusive in the U.S. and French prod138 Journal of International Business Studies, Winter 1982

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ucts less exclusive in France. From the point of view of specific differences, it appears that American products are perceived as more expensive, as having more unrecognizable brand names, and as more concerned with performance by the French purchasing managers than by the American ones. On the other hand, French products are perceived as less reliable and more imitative by the American purchasing managers than by the French.

A "cross-cultural" response bias was found in the semantic differential data col- CONCLUSIONS lected for this study even though care was taken in the translation-a reminder AND that it is indeed important that cross-cultural data be checked and adjusted if IMPLICATIONS systematic differences are found. Many of the authors' empirical findings are consistent with those of Nagashima and White. In particular,West German products are enjoying a very favorable perception among American and French respondents. As far as differences between the perceptions of the American and French Directors of Purchasing, it appears that the Japanese and West German made in concepts are perceived more favorably by the American than by the French, while the made in England concept is more favorably perceived by the French respondents. Because the made in concept plays an important role in the perception process of purchasing managers, in particularin the assessment of the quality of the product,29 and because it is also an important criterion in the decision process of these managers,30 the preceding findings have practical implications for multinational corporations, at least those that market industrial goods. Such corporations should be cautious in their use of made in. If a made in designation is not favorably perceived, two main strategies can be used. The first one relies upon a communication campaign oriented toward the improvementof the national image; however, such a strategy cannot be undertaken by one company alone because of the cost involved. It can only be a concerted action by several firms with support from the national authorities. The second strategy involves the association of the corporation with local institutions (and little or no promotion about the country of origin).This may be achieved by using well-known local distributors,31 or by the "domestication" of the firm through subsidiaries or joint ventures. The findings raise also two theoretical questions. One is related to the variables which explain how directors of purchasing acquire an image of product made in a foreign country. Several variables may be influential, such as, cultural, organization, personality, social, environmental. Some of these variables have been investigated in the context of consumer purchasing (for example: personality variables by Anderson and Cunningham32),providing explanations of the perception process. More research of this type needs to be performedin the context of industrial purchasing. The second question relates to the made in concept itself. It appears as a multidimensional concept whose dimensions can vary depending upon the context and, therefore, needs to be clarified.

nal of MarketingResearch, November 1970, pp. 525-532. 2. See K. E. Runyon, Consumer Behavior (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. MerrillPublishing, 1977), pp. 303; or J. F. Engel, D. T. Kollat,and R. D. Blackwell,Consumer Behavior(New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston, 1968), p. 433. 3. P. D. White and W. E. Cundiff, "Assessing the Quality of IndustrialProducts," Journal of Marketing,January 1978, pp. 80-86; P. D. White, "Attitudes of U.S. Purchasing Managers Toward IndustrialProducts Manufacturedin Selected Western European Nations," Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, Spring-Summer 1979, pp. 81-90. 4. R. Schooler, "Product Bias in the Central American Common Market,"Journal of Marketing Research, November 1965, pp. 394-397.

Jour- FOOTNOTES 1. R. A. Peterson,"ThePrice-Perceived Evidence," Experimental Quality Relationship:

Journal of International Business Studies, Winter 1982

139

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

5. C. Reierson, "Attitude Change Toward Foreign Products," Journal of Marketing Research, November 1967, pp. 385-387. 6. W. Anderson and W. Cunningham, "Gauging Foreign Product Promotion," Journal of Advertising Research, February1972, pp. 29-34. 7. M. Etzel and B. Walker,"AdvertisingStrategy for Foreign Products," Journal of Advertising Research, June 1974, pp. 41-44. 8. R. A. Peterson and A. Jolibert, "A Cross-National Investigation of Price and Brand as Determinants of Perceived Product Quality," Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (1976), pp. 533-536. 9. G. Baumgartner and A. Jolibert, "The Perception of Foreign Products in France," in H. K. Hunt, ed., Advances in Consumer Research 5 (1978), pp. 603-605. 10. R. Gaedeke, "Consumer Attitudes Towards Products 'Made In' Developing Countries," Journal of Retailing, Summer 1973, pp. 13-24. 11. A. Nagashima, "A Comparison of Japanese and U.S. Attitudes Towards Foreign Products," Journal of Marketing, January 1970, pp. 68-74; A. Nagashima, "A Comparison of 'Made In' Product Image: Survey Among Japanese Businessmen," Journal of Marketing, July 1977, pp. 95-100. 12. White, "Attitudes of U.S. Purchasing Managers Toward Industrial Products Manufactured in Selected Western European Nations." 13. White and Cundiff, "Assessing the Quality of IndustrialProducts." 14. H. Hakansson and B. Woots, "SupplierSelection in an InternationalEnvironment-An ExperimentalStudy," Journal of MarketingResearch, February1975, pp. 46-54. 15. Ibid. 16. The only two cross-cultural studies are those of Nagashima (U.S. and Japan) and of Peterson and Jolibert (U.S. and France). 17. Nagashima, "A Comparisonof Japanese and U.S. Attitudes Towards Foreign Products," and "A Comparison of 'Made In' Product Image: Survey Among Japanese Businessmen"; White, "Attitudes of U.S. Purchasing Managers Toward Industrial Products Manufactured in Selected Western European Nations." 18. Nagashima, "A Comparisonof Japanese and U.S. Attitudes Towards Foreign Products." 19. Hakansson and Woots, "Supplier Selection in an International Environment-An Experimental Study." 20. I. Cunningham,W. Cunningham,and R. T. Green, "The Ipsative Process to Reduce Response Set Bias," Public Opinion Quarterly,Fall 1977, suggest that data in cross-cultural studies be ipsatized, that is, adjusted for differences not only in means, but also in standard deviations. The authors just argued, on the one hand, that differences in means are likely to be due to some response biases, and on the other, that differences in standard deviations are likely to be real. Hence, it is appropriate'toadjust the data for differences in means, but not for differences in standard deviations. 21. Nagashima, "A Comparison of Japanese and U.S. Attitudes Towards Foreign Products," Figures 1 and 2. 22. See G. W. Dickson, "AnAnalysis of VendorSelection Systems and Decisions," Journal of Purchasing, February1966, pp. 5-17. 23. For instance, the largest eigen value obtained with the made in Japan data was 3.38, and the lowest .36. The first 3 components explained 34.8 percent of the variance. Similar results were obtained (a) with the data from each of the 4 other made in concepts, or (b) by pooling the data from the 5 "made in" concepts into one data base, or (c) after separating the American data from the French data. For instance, pooling the American data obtained on all 5 "made in" concepts produced a high eigen value of 3.30 and a low of .40. 24. White, "Attitudes of U.S. Purchasing Managers Toward Industrial Products Manufactured in Selected Western European Nations," pp. 85 and 86. 25. In our questionnaire, the positive end of each scale was rotated from left to right from one dimension to the next (as indicated earlier). If this is not done, respondent grooving can occur, which would increase the correlations obtained between dimensions. 26. The total variabilityof a discriminant function attributable to group differences can be estimated with w2.In the 2-groupcase it can be defined as follows: C~2 = 1N
(N - K)(1 + X)+ 1

where N is the total sample size; k is the number of groups; and X is the eigen value found in computing the discriminant function. 140 Journal of International Business Studies, Winter 1982

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

See M. Tatsuoka, Selected Topics in Advanced Statistics, An ElementaryApproach (Champaign, IL:Institute for Personality and AbilityTesting, 1970), p. 48. formula (6.50). 27. A partial F-value measures the discrimination introduced by a variable after taking into account the discriminationachieved by all the other (19)variables. This method is also called the conditional deletion method. See R. A. Eisenbeis, "Pitfalls in the Application of Discriminant Analysis in Business, Finance, and Economics," Journal of Finance, June 1977, pp. 882-885. 28. It is worth mentioning that the discriminant analysis results obtained without correcting the data for response bias are quite different from the results in Table 4. The a2 are .672, .526, .474, .310, and .425 for the made in U.S., France, West Germany, England, and Japan, respectively. Moreover, the dimensions that have a significant coefficient are different from those in Table 4. For instance, there are 7 significant coefficients for the made in England concept including only one of the 4 in Table 4. 29. White and Cundiff, "Assessing the Quality of IndustrialProducts." 30. Hakansson and Woots, "Supplier Selection in an International Environment-An Experimental Study." 31. Reierson, "AttitudeChange Toward Foreign Products." 32. Anderson and Cunningham,"Gauging Foreign Product Promotion."

Journal of International Business Studies, Winter 1982

141

This content downloaded from 130.208.247.2 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:39:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions