Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism and country of origin effects
among immigrant consumers

Mohammadali Zolfagharian and Roberto Saldivar
Department of Marketing, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, Texas, USA, and
Qin Sun
College of Business, Trident University International, Cypress, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how country of origin and consumer ethnocentrism pertain to first-generation immigrants, who
often identify with two or more countries.
Design/methodology/approach After a pretest to validate the modified consumer ethnocentrism scale, the main study used a series of scenariobased experiments and compiled data from 419 members of four distinct first-generation immigrant communities.
Findings Non-ethnocentric immigrants favor the products of economically advanced countries. Ethnocentric immigrants favor the products of their
home and host countries relative to foreign products, regardless of the economic standing of foreign countries. When home and host countries
represent significantly different degrees of economic advancement, both ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric immigrants favor the products of the more
advanced country.
Research limitations/implications Apart from the individual effects of country of origin and consumer ethnocentrism, the interplay between the
two effects can yield important insights. There are other ways to operationalize multicultural identity beyond studying first-generation immigrants.
Researchers should go beyond nationality and incorporate other forces of cultural diversity.
Practical implications For both ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric immigrants, the product that benefits from both effects is the most preferred,
and the product that benefits from neither of the two effects is the least preferred. Where the product benefits from one but not the other effect, the
two effects hold roughly equal power for ethnocentric consumers, but COO dominates CE for non-ethnocentric consumers.
Originality/value The paper presents a critical evaluation and extension of the respective literatures investigating familiar constructs in multicultural
settings.
Keywords Ethnocentrism, Country of origin, Multicultural, Empirical, Immigrant
Paper type Research paper
several researchers have disputed the relevance of existing

knowledge given the multicultural mosaic of contemporary
society (Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000; Miller, 1997;
Yamada and Singelis, 1999). For example, existing CE
scales (Shimp and Sharma, 1987) and COO scales (Martin
and Eroglu, 1993) limit the number of countries the
respondent can choose to only one, and hence are not
germane to most multicultural consumers without major
adjustments. More recently, consumer researchers have found
traditional ethnic categorizations to be poor indicators of
consumer feelings, thoughts and behaviors, and have called
for new studies that heed the competitive yet productive
cultural forces of home, host and other cultures to reveal the
dynamic and multi-faceted nature of ethnic identities
(Askegaard et al., 2005; Davies and Fitchett, 2004; Miller,
stuner and Holt, 2007).
1997; Penaloza, 1994, 1995; U
A key driver of cultural diversity is immigration, which,
according to Borjas (1994), has never been so prominent in
human history as in the twenty-first century. In the USA, for
example, there are over 30 million foreign-born legal and
illegal residents, comprising 10 percent of the population
(Hoefer et al., 2011; UN Statistics Division, 2011). These
first-generation immigrants are the starting point in the
approximation of cultural diversity; one should also consider
subsequent generations of immigrants as well as the impact of
inter-ethnic marriages. The demographic importance of
multicultural populations is aptly presented by the notions
An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
A basic assumption underlying the extant research on
consumer ethnocentrism (CE) and country of origin (COO)
is that each consumer identifies with a single country
(Zolfagharian and Sun, 2010). Consequently, CE is
conceived as the bias toward the meanings and objects of
one country at the expense of all other countries; and COO
literature ignores the possibility of consumer identification
with both the country of origin and the country where the
product is sold. These assumptions are becoming increasingly
problematic as cultural diversity continues to grow
exponentially in more and more countries thanks to
immigration and inter-ethnic marriage as well as other social
and technological transformations that result in and from
globalization (Klein et al., 1998; Mihailovich, 2006). In fact,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing

31/1 (2014) 68 84
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-06-2013-0620]
68
Ethocentrism and country of origin effects among immigrant consumers
Mohammadali Zolfagharian
Volume 31 Number 1 2014 68 84
of multicultural baby boom (Perlmann, 1997) and

multicultural neotribe (Maffesoli, 1996).
Multicultural populations are important from a theoretical
standpoint, too. Today, social scientists in various disciplines
criticize the reductionist theories that view self and identity
through mutually exclusive dichotomies, and appreciate
theories that embrace the orthogonal and co-existing
anchors of human experience (Askegaard et al., 2005;
stuner and Holt, 2007;
Miller, 1997; Penaloza, 1994; U
Yamada and Singelis, 1999). For example, a growing stream
of research on bicultural identity suggests that consumers with
mixed identities maintain two or more equally salient
identities (Rockquemore and Brunsma, 2002).
The foregoing observations point to an important gap in the
literature: how do CE and COO pertain to multicultural
consumers? We address this gap by examining first-generation
immigrants, who possess bicultural or multicultural identities,
often associated with two or more countries. An immigrant
consumer might strongly identify with both home (i.e. place
of birth) and host (place of residence) countries and,
therefore, exhibit ethnocentric bias toward both of these
countries (Zolfagharian and Sun, 2010). Our contribution lies
in the exploratory answers that we offer to three research
questions: How do immigrant consumers evaluate products of
their home country relative to those of their host country?
How do they evaluate products of home and host countries
relative to those of a third, foreign country? How does the
relative level of economic advancement of each country affect
these evaluations?
The fact that immigrants do regard the host nation as an ingroup is also supported by research on the mystery of
missing trade in international economics literature, which
suggests that both local and immigrant residents in a given
country would be positively biased toward the products and
services of that country (Trefler, 1995).
The distinction between in-groups and out-groups
suggested by the social identity theory is commensurate
with the notion of CE (Watson and Wright, 2000). CE is a
social psychological concept that distinguishes the groups
with which an individual identifies (in-groups) from those the
individual is neutral about or even dissociates from (outgroups; Forbes, 1985). CE has a significant influence on
consumer quality evaluation and purchase intention, with the
highly ethnocentric consumers in both developed and underdeveloped countries favoring their own domestic products
(Sharma et al., 1995; Watson and Wright, 2000). The
literature is replete with empirical support for varying degrees
of CE around the world (Acharya and Elliott, 2003; Hamin,
2006; Kinra, 2006). For example, Acharya and Elliott (2003)
contrast highly ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric consumers
and find that the former group exhibits a strong preference for
domestic products while the latter group is more interested in
high-quality products of economically advanced countries.
Moreover, Sharma et al. (1995) identify collectivistic
tendencies and patriotic/conservative attitudes as positive
correlates, and consider cultural openness, education and
income as negative correlates of CE.
Country of origin
Another pattern of consumer preference is known as COO.
The literature contains different definitions for COO such as
the country where the product is made (Nagashima, 1970),
the country of the firms corporate headquarters (Johansson
et al., 1985), the country of manufacture or assembly (Han
and Terpstra, 1988), the country of design, parts, and
assembly (Insch and McBride, 1998), and even the intangible
barriers that hinder new brands entry (Wang and Lamb,
1983). This study uses the country of manufacture that is,
the made in definition.
Although popular stereotypes consider one or more
countries to be the best sources of certain products
(e.g. German cars, Persian rugs, French wine, Japanese
electronics), generally speaking consumers tend to regard the
products of advanced economies as superior to those of less
advanced economies (Wang and Lamb, 1983). A metaanalytic study by Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999) concludes
that consumers do use COO as an important piece of
information, which exerts a significant impact on their
evaluation of product quality, attitude toward the product,
and purchase intention. COO factors into consumer decisionmaking as a surrogate or summary information about the
product. It functions as an explicit cue, much like a national
stereotype, influencing consumers quality evaluations and
behavioral intentions (Thakor and Lavack, 2003). A central
premise in COO research is that consumers generally prefer
the products of economically advanced countries over those of
developing or under-developed countries (Khachaturian and
Morganosky, 1990; Schooler, 1965). The more economically
developed the consumer perceives a country to be, the more
highly he or she will regard the products made in that country
(Han, 1990; Schooler, 1965). In fact, Tse and Gorn (1993)
find COO to be an equally salient and more enduring
Literature review
Consumer ethnocentrism
According to the social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel
and Turner, 1986), consumers identify and align with their
positively valued in-groups and, in so doing, utilize the
meanings and objects associated with in-groups to construct
and negotiate a positive self-identity. Thus, consumers tend to
favor the meanings and objects of in-groups over those of
other groups. In addition, the social identity theory suggests
that consumers have the tendency to view out-groups
unfavorably and distance themselves from the meanings and
objects associated with those groups. The pertinence of social
identity theory to immigrant consumers is curious. Whereas
local consumers belong to a single national in-group
comprising the mainstream populace in the host country,
immigrants face at least two in-groups including their ethnic
roots associated with the home country and the larger
mainstream group in the host country (Penaloza, 1994; Su
et al., 2010; Tai, 2009). For local consumers, cultural heritage
is often situated within one nation, which is also set apart as
the positively valued in-group by these consumers. To them,
other nations and their members constitute out-groups. The
in-group and out-group classification is relatively more
complex for immigrants, who not only bring with them a
preference for the nation in which they were born and raised,
but also gradually grow partiality toward the nation that
accepted them and served as their host (Esses et al., 2001). As
such, immigrants hold both home and host countries as
positively valued in-groups, seek association with both of
these cultures, and favor the meanings and objects associated
with them (Askegaard et al., 2005; Oswald, 1999; Penaloza,
stuner and Holt, 2007; Zolfagharian and Sun, 2010).
1994; U
69
determinant of consumer product evaluation than well-known

global brands.
relative level of economic advancement of each country affect

these evaluations?
The CE and COO literatures are replete with studies that
document how consumers around the world hold and exhibit
biases towards the products of their home countries (Acharya
and Elliott, 2003; Hamin, 2006; Kinra, 2006) and the
products of advanced economies (Pinkaeo and Speece, 2000;
Thakor and Lavack, 2003; Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999).
On the one hand, CE is explained using the social identity
theory, suggesting that consumers, in the process of their
identity construction and negotiation, openly and often
proudly adopt and favor the meanings and objects of their
in-groups over those of out-groups (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and
Turner, 1986). On the other hand, COO factors into
consumer decision-making as surrogate or summary product
information, and functions as an explicit cue influencing their
quality evaluations (Thakor and Lavack, 2003). It would be
interesting to examine how these biases manifest among
immigrant consumers.
Since migration usually marks a rather permanent
abandonment of relatively less desirable life conditions in
pursuit of relatively more desirable conditions (Swinyard et al.,
2001), a majority of immigrants tend to identify with and
exhibit bias for the host country in addition to the home
country (Askegaard et al., 2005; Oswald, 1999; Penaloza,
stuner and Holt, 2007; Zolfagharian and Sun, 2010).
1994; U
Such tendency underlies immigrant consumer ethnocentrism,
favoring home and host countries over other countries. As a
result, immigrants often consider the products made in the
host country to be of higher quality relative to those made in
other countries (or sometimes even relative to their home
country). Zolfagharian and Sun (2010) provide empirical
support for this contention by comparing bicultural Mexican
Americans against mono-cultural Americans and Mexicans.
In that study, the bicultural group, relative to either of the
mono-cultural groups, exhibited greater openness to both
American and Mexican brands.
The above postulates presume that both home and host
countries may serve as cultural in-groups for immigrants.
Therefore, immigrants are likely to be positively disposed,
though to different degrees, toward the meanings and objects
associated with either country. We now consider the case
when the products from a third country, hereafter referred to
as foreign country, come into play. Depending on the relative
economic standing of the three countries (i.e. home, host and
foreign), immigrants are likely to exhibit different patterns of
preference resulting from the combination of CE and COO.
On the one hand, consumers take into consideration COO
information and deliberately seek out the products and brands
of economically advanced countries (Vida et al., 2008). On
the other hand, the stronger a consumers dispositional
ethnocentrism, the more likely he or she is, ceteris paribus, to
favor home and host countries as in-groups, treat foreign
countries as out-groups, and subsequently favor the meanings
and objects associated with home and host countries over
foreign countries (Esses et al., 2001). In summary,
immigrants who compare products from home, host and
foreign countries, may exhibit dissimilar preferences
depending on the degree of their dispositional CE (i.e. low
versus high CE) and the relative economic standing of the
countries involved. When CE and COO move in the same
(opposite) direction, ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric
Immigrant consumers, CE and COO

The CE and COO literatures have traditionally
underestimated the multidimensional, dynamic and
heterogeneous nature of consumer identity and conceived it
as a unidimensional, stable and homogenous variable
(Hofstede, 1980; Markus and Kitayama, 1991).
Accordingly, all consumers have been assumed to have a
mono-cultural disposition, and the mixed identity of the
growing multicultural groups has been treated like error
variance (Lau-Gesk, 2003; Matsumoto, 1999). However,
most immigrants identify with two or more national and/or
ethnic groups and, as such, extant findings and theories might
not reasonably predict and explain the attitudes and behaviors
of such consumers. Zolfagharian and Sun (2010) contend:
The COO literature implicitly assumes that consumers identify with either
the country where the product is originated or the country where it is sold.
This assumption, however, might not hold for ethnic groups who identify
with both countries. Such bicultural consumers might identify with the
products origin country as well as target country and, therefore, be less
amenable to the COO hypothesis (p. 345).
Notwithstanding the conventional conceptions of consumer

identity, immigrants frequently face decision situations that
pose the two or more countries they identify with alongside
each other and/or other countries (Oswald, 1999; Penaloza,
1994). These situations require a more nuanced examination
of CE and COO. For example, residents of most countries
now have numerous options when it comes to purchasing a
vehicle. If a Korean American consumer living in the USA
narrows her list down to Hyundai, Volkswagen and Ford, she
might feel partiality toward Hyundai and Ford due to her
identification with Korea and the USA (i.e. CE), and also
desire Volkswagen if she perceives German cars to be superior
in quality (COO). The present research focuses on situations
of this sort and delves into immigrant consumers
ethnocentric tendencies and responses to COO information.
CE and COO are two distinct, yet related, accounts of
consumer preference. While CE comprises the preference for
the products of ones own country or countries irrespective of
their relative economic standing, the COO effect denotes the
preference for the products of economically advanced
countries irrespective of ones own national and ethnic
roots. Figure 1 shows these two effects side by side in a matrix
and specifies when the product may benefit from each effect,
given consumer identity (local versus immigrant) and
ethnocentrism (ethnocentric versus non-ethnocentric). This
matrix divides countries into advanced and developing
economies, and differentiates between ethnocentric and
non-ethnocentric consumers. The matrix points to several
fruitful and novel contexts to study and understand CE and
COO. While a meager stream of research (e.g. Zolfagharian
and Sun, 2010) has heeded the differences between local and
immigrant consumers in terms of CE and COO, our
understanding of the interplay between these two effects,
especially among immigrant consumers, remains incomplete.
Therefore, we focus on immigrant consumers and ask three
questions: How do immigrant consumers evaluate products of
their home country relative to those of their host country?
How do they evaluate products of home and host countries
relative to those of a third, foreign country? How does the
70
Figure 1 CE and COO matrix for ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric consumers
immigrants are expected to exhibit similar (different) patterns

of preference. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1.
H2.
H3.
various immigrant communities and in an attempt to increase

the generalizability of our empirical findings, we developed
three different survey versions, each using a unique
combination of countries as stimuli (see Table I). To
minimize the confounding effect of the order of appearance
in the survey, we changed the sequence in which home, host
and foreign countries were presented in each survey version
(i.e. home, host and foreign each appeared first in one third of
the questionnaires). As a result, we developed and utilized 18
customized questionnaires (three versions three!). A
microwave oven was selected as the study object because
prior research suggests that:
.
consumers perceive developed and developing countries
as equally capable of manufacturing it; and
.
different sex and age cohorts roughly compare in terms of
involvement with the purchase and use of microwave
ovens (Zolfagharian and Sun, 2010).
Non-ethnocentric immigrants hold significantly more

favorable (a) quality evaluations and (b) purchase
intentions toward the products of economically
advanced countries relative to those of economically
developing countries (i.e. the COO effect).
Ethnocentric immigrants hold significantly more
favorable (a) quality evaluations and (b) purchase
intentions toward the products of their home and host
countries relative to foreign products, regardless of the
economic standing of foreign countries (i.e. the CE
effect).
When home and host countries represent significantly
different degrees of economic advancement, both
ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric immigrants hold
significantly more favorable (a) quality evaluations and
(b) purchase intentions toward the products of the
more advanced country (i.e. the combined CE and
COO effects).
Each respondent was given a booklet that began with an

instruction similar to the following:
Please try your best to imagine and place yourself in the following
hypothetical situation: You have been shopping for a microwave oven, and
have narrowed down to the following three options, which have equal prices.
Mexican brand microwave oven manufactured in Mexico.
American brand microwave oven manufactured in the USA.
Chinese brand microwave oven manufactured in China.
Method and analysis

Due to the heterogeneity across the many immigrant
populations around the world, each including several
generations, we focus on first-generations of four immigrant
populations in the USA and Mexico: German Americans,
Mexican Americans, American Mexicans, and Chinese
Mexicans, and refer to them as GAs, MAs, AMs, and CMs,
respectively, and as immigrants collectively.
The respondents then evaluated the quality of each countrys

microwave oven using Petroshius and Monroes (1987) sixitem scale, and reported on their purchase intentions toward
each alternative using Teng and Laroches (2007) four-item
scale. Next, we exposed the respondents to Martin and
Eroglus (1993) country image scale (14 items, three
dimensions, i.e. political, economic and technological) to
see if they in fact perceived the USA, Germany and Japan as
economically more advanced relative to Mexico and China.
Instrumentation
A scenario-based survey method was used to collect data.
Since specific home, host and foreign countries vary across
71
Table I Study subjects, objects and hypotheses

A priori country
image
Home 5 Host 5
Foreign
Home >
Host 5 Foreign
Host > Home 5
Foreign
Foreign >
Home 5 Host
Home 5 Host >
Foreign
Home 5 Foreign >
Host
Host 5 Foreign >
Home
Who comparesa what products?

German Americans comparing American,
German and Japanese products
American Mexicans comparing American,
Mexican and Chinese products
Mexican Americans comparing American,
Mexican and Chinese products
Chinese Mexicans comparing American,
Mexican and
Chinese products
German Americans comparing American,
Mexican and German products
American Mexicans comparing American,
Mexican Americans comparing American,
H1. Product preference by

non-ethnocentric
consumers
H2. Product preference by

ethnocentric consumers
German American
Japanese
American . Mexican
& Chinese
American . Mexican
& Chinese
American . Chinese
& Mexican
German
& American . Japanese
American
& Mexican . Chinese
Mexican
& American . Chinese
Chinese
& Mexican . American
German
& American . Mexican
American
& German . Mexican
American
& German . Mexican
German
& American . Mexican
American
& Mexican . German
American
& Mexican . German
H3. Product
preference by all
consumers
German American
American . Mexican
American . Mexican
Chinese Mexican
German American
American . Mexican
American . Mexican
Note: aIn the two-word labels that signify respondent groups (i.e. immigrant communities), the first and second words indicate the home and host countries,
respectively
modified consumer ethnocentrism scale and the five items

verifying the respondents first-generation immigrant status.
After completing and returning this survey, the respondents
received another survey, which instructed them to evaluate
the first survey:
.
classify six countries as either foreign or non-foreign (to
check whether our definition was understood);
.
rate the clarity of the instructions using a five-point Likert
scale from not clear at all to extremely clear;
.
rate the clarity of the tasks involved using the same scale;
.
rate the difficulty of completing the survey using a fivepoint Likert scale from not difficult at all to extremely
difficult; and
.
describe in writing any difficulty or issue experienced.
To measure respondents consumer ethnocentrism, we

adapted Shimp and Sharmas (1987) 17-item CETSCALE,
with two modifications:
1 we defined the word foreign to exclude both home and
host countries, and instructed respondents to use this
definition in completing the scale; and
2 we instructed the respondents to indicate their
ethnocentric sentiments separately for home and host
countries.
To address pertinent control variables, we used Mittals
(1995) six-item scale to capture respondents involvement
with the product category and with the purchase of
microwave ovens on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). We also used single-item scales to measure
knowledge about microwave ovens on a scale of 1 (extremely
limited) to 5 (extensive) and history with microwave ovens on
a scale of 1 (never used) to 5 (always used). Four items were
used to verify first-generation immigrant status:
1 country of birth;
2 country of current residence;
3 years lived in home country; and
4 years lived in host country.
Two of the responses were incomplete and were excluded

from the analysis. The other 28 respondents, of whom 15
were female, confirmed Mexico and the USA as countries of
birth and current residence, respectively. The mean age,
household income, and number of years lived in Mexico
versus the USA were 43, $40k-$7k, and 19 versus 23,
respectively. The sample strongly identified with both Mexico
(M 4:87) and the USA (M 4:51). The pretest supported
the effectiveness and clarity of the modified scale. First, every
respondent successfully identified Mexico and the USA as
non-foreign and all other countries as foreign. Second, the
mean clarity ratings were very close to extremely clear
(Minstruction 4:84; Mtasks 4:68), and the mean
difficulty rating was very close to not difficult at all
(Mdifficulty 1:12). Third, the written comments did not
indicate any obscurity or difficulty in the scale reasonably
attributable to the modifications we had made to Shimp and
Sharmas (1987) consumer ethnocentrism scale. These results
increase our confidence in the instrument.
The first-generation immigrant status was further checked with

a single item capturing the strength of identification with each
country. Last, respondents were asked about their sex, age and
annual household income (respondents in Mexico reported
their annual household income in US dollars). The country
image scale items were anchored with very low to very high
(five-point), and all of the other Likert items were anchored with
strongly disagree to strongly agree (five-point).
Pretest
To show its effectiveness and clarity, the modified consumer
ethnocentrism scale was pretested on 30 first-generation MAs
near a US-Mexico border. Each respondent completed two
separate, one-page surveys. The first survey included the
Main study
Data was collected from first-generations of four immigrant
populations, i.e. GAs and MAs living in the USA, and AMs
72
and CMs living in Mexico. We refer to these groups as GAs,

MAs, AMs, and CMs, respectively, and as immigrants
collectively. Prior research identifies immigrants based on
their (parents/ancestors) place of birth and relative number
of years lived in each of home and host countries (Yamada
and Singelis, 1999; Zolfagharian, 2010). Consistent with
prior practice, we define a first-generation immigrant as a
consumer who was born and raised in one country and
migrated to another, with a significant number of years lived
in each of the two countries.
Members of the four immigrant groups were recruited
using a two-stage purposive sampling method to ensure an
acceptable number of usable responses per group (30 per
contrast). GAs and MAs were recruited in South Texas. AMs
and CMs were recruited in Mexico City. In addition to
drawing on our social networks to recruit qualified
respondents, we contacted ethnic/cultural associations that
could potentially provide further access to the target groups.
These associations played a key role, especially in the second
stage, contacting members to identify desired respondents
and urging the recruits to recommend more respondents from
within their ethnic network. In the first stage, we distributed
70 questionnaires among CMs, 100 among GAs, 160 among
MAs, and 160 among AMs. Usable responses ranged from 13
to 26 across the hypotheses in Table I, with a total of 347
completed and returned questionnaires. Twelve of these
responses were unusable due to incompleteness, resulting in
an effective response rate of 70.8 percent ( 355/490). In the
second stage, we used the snowball technique to:
.
reach respondents who did not know about the study; and
.
enhance sample composition in terms of sex and age.
quality scale and Teng and Laroches (2007) purchase

intentions scale each formed a single factor, and Mittals
(1995) involvement scale formed two factors differentiating
product category involvement from purchase involvement.
The total variances explained in these scales were 0.72, 0.71
and 0.78, respectively, with loadings ranging from 0.66 to
0.94 and cross-loadings below 0.34. Martin and Eroglus
(1993) 14-item country image scale returned four factors,
with the fourth drawing on two items (civilian versus military
system and level of labor costs) that were expected to load on
previous factors. Due to their very weak main loadings and
strong cross loadings and lack of theoretical support for
keeping them, we removed those two items and performed a
new factor analysis. As expected, three factors emerged, each
drawing four items that had acceptable main loadings (0.72 to
0.92) and cross loadings (, 0.40). The three factors
accounted for 0.80 of the variance. The modified 17-item
CETSCALE (adapted from Shimp and Sharma, 1987)
initially returned two factors, with several items exhibiting
unacceptable loading patterns. Through a series of problem
identification and item deletion, we found a single-factor, 11item solution highly similar to the ten-item version suggested
by the original developers. The total variance explained was
0.72, with loadings ranging from 0.70 to 0.85 and crossloadings below 0.40. Table III presents the scale items
retained for further analyses.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to verify
EFA results. For the country image scale, the first-order and
the second-order measurement models were each a good fit to
the data, with the latter showing a superior fit (CFI 0:93,
RMSEA 0:069,
PNFI 0:76,
PCFI 0:78)
and
significant standardized path coefficients at .001. For
CETSCALE, the a priori first-order measurement model
was also a good fit to the data (CFI 0:92, RMSEA 0:072,
PNFI 0:77, PCFI 0:78) and returned significant
standardized path coefficients at 0.001. In addition to
assessing the unidimensionality of each of the first-order
constructs, convergent validity and discriminant validity were
assessed to assure construct validity (see Table III). Since
coefficients of items were higher than twice their standard
errors, and significant t-values and standardized factor
loadings were all above 0.70, each of the scales enjoyed
convergent validity. Average variances extracted (AVEs) were
all above the threshold value of 0.50 and the squared interfactor correlation. These indicate that each construct is
distinct, enjoying discriminant validity.
Of the 130 questionnaires distributed to all groups, 84 were

returned, all of which were usable, comprising an effective
response rate of 64.6 percent. Boxs M tests using all of the
variables indicated no significant differences between the two
samples, suggesting that the two could be aggregated. Usable
responses for the overall sample ranged between 30 and 34
across non-ethnocentric groups and between 26 and 30 across
ethnocentric groups, with a total effective sample size of 419.
Table II provides the profiles of the subsamples.
Results
Factor analysis and validation
All of the multi-item scales used in this study were subjected
to exploratory factor analysis (EFA), using the principal
components technique and pooling all of the data, to observe
the underlying structure and identify and remove problematic
items. As expected, Petroshius and Monroes (1987) product
Manipulation checks and control variables

Country of origin was manipulated by contrasting the USA,
Germany and Japan against Mexico and China. The
Table II Sample profile
n
M
Minimum
Maximum
Majority
Age
GAs
Gender
Income
Age
MAs
Gender
Income
Age
AMs
Gender
Income
Age
CMs
Gender
Income
90
40.27
24
57
42
90
1.54
1
2
2
90
2.87
1
5
2.87
150
38.26
19
56
35
150
1.52
1
2
2
150
2.42
2
5
2
150
38
19
57
35
150
1.46
1
2
1
150
2.88
1
5
2
60
37.33
20
56
40
60
1.50
1
2
2
60
3.06
1
5
4
Notes: Gender: 1, female, 2, male; income: 1, below $40k, 2, $40k-$79k, 3, $80k-$119k, 4, $120k-$159k, 5, $160k and above
73
Table III Scale items and factor structure statistics
Country image political (a 5 0:89; composite reliability 5 0:92; AVE 5 0:78)

Democratic versus dictatorial system
Pro-Western versus pro-Communist
Free market versus centrally planned system
Capitalist versus Communist system
Country image economic (a 5 0:87; composite reliability 5 0:91; AVE 5 0:80)
Quality of products
Level of standard of living
Stability of economic environment
Existence of a welfare system
Country image technological (a 5 0:89; composite reliability 5 0:90; AVE 5 0:79)
Level of industrialization
Mass produced versus handcrafted products
Level of technological research
Level of literacy
CETSCALEc (a 5 0:91; composite reliability 5 0:95; AVE 5 0:83)
It is unpatriotic to purchase products made in countries other than . . .
Mexican Americans should always buy products made in . . .
Only buy products made in . . .
It may cost me in the long run, but I prefer to support products made in . . .
A real Mexican American should always buy products made in . . .
Curbs should be put on imports of products made in countries other than . . .
It is not right to purchase products made in countries other than . . .
It is always best to purchase products made in . . .
Except for necessities, there should be no purchasing of goods from countries other than . . .
Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce their entry into . . .
Only those products unobtainable domestically should be brought from countries other than . . .
Product quality (a 5 0:88; composite reliability 5 0:92; AVE 5 0:73)
This microwave oven is durable
This microwave oven is functional
This microwave oven is dependable
This microwave oven is reliable
This microwave oven has good workmanship
The overall quality of this microwave oven is good
Purchase intentions (a 5 0:90; composite reliability 5 0:94; AVE 5 0:81)
I would definitely intend to buy it
I would absolutely consider buying it
I would definitely expect to buy it
I would absolutely plan to buy it
Involvement product category (a 5 0:88; composite reliability 5 0:90; AVE 5 0:74)
Microwave oven is very important to me
Microwave oven matters a lot to me
Microwave oven is an important part of my life
Involvement microwave oven purchase (a 5 0:84; composite reliability 5 0:86; AVE 5 0:73)
I choose microwave ovens very carefully
Which microwave oven I buy matters to me a lot
Choosing microwave oven is an important decision for me
EFAa
CFAb
0.88
0.87
0.83
0.72
0.84
0.87
0.82
0.81
0.78
0.75
0.74
0.70
0.80
0.75
0.78
0.73
0.92
0.88
0.86
0.83
0.87
0.85
0.83
0.80
0.85
0.84
0.82
0.80
0.77
0.75
0.73
0.73
0.71
0.71
0.70
0.84
0.80
0.79
0.78
0.77
0.75
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.69
0.68
0.93
0.91
0.89
0.88
0.85
0.83
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.86
0.83
0.82
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.87
0.87
0.84
0.78
0.75
0.87
0.86
0.85
0.79
0.76
0.66
0.79
0.77
0.71
Notes: aPrincipal components analysis, Varimax rotation; bCFA standardized regression weights of the first-order measurement model, all paths significant at
p , 0:001; ccountries in these items differed across immigrant populations those presented here pertain to the survey completed by a Mexican Americans
group
significantly greater than those of Mexico (MMexico 2:08)

and China (MChina 2:33), the respondents did in fact
perceive the former as economically more advanced than the
latter (all p , 0:001). Interestingly, CMs, regardless of their
effectiveness of this contrast was checked using Martin and

Eroglus (1993) country image scale. Since the mean country
image scores of the USA. (MUSA: 4:37), Germany
(MGermany 4:29) and Japan (MJapan 4:52) were all
74
CE scores, held a superior image of their home country,

i.e. China (MChina 3:37) over their host country,
i.e. Mexico (MMexico 2:24; p , 0:001).
The first-generation immigrant status was operationalized
using respondents country of birth, country of current
residence, years lived in home country, and years lived in host
country. The soundness of this approach was checked by
asking the respondent to indicate how strongly he or she
identified with each country. The results confirm our
approach, as all respondents identified with home and host
countries significantly more strongly than with foreign
countries. Interestingly, although in some immigrant groups
identification was significantly stronger with home country
relative to host country, it was always significantly weaker with
the foreign country relative to home and host countries.
Moreover, CMs mean identification with the USA. was
significantly greater than low (represented with a score of
1.0), pointing to the possibility of a systematic desire for the
American identity.
Since H1-H3 differentiate between consumers based on
CE, we utilized the median-split technique to divide the
respondents into high-CE (i.e. ethnocentric) and low-CE
(non-ethnocentric) groups. The non-ethnocentric groups
turned out as slightly larger subsamples relative to
ethnocentric groups (see Tables IV and V), with mean CE
scores ranging from 2.15 to 2.58 across the non-ethnocentric
groups, and from 3.71 to 3.99 across the ethnocentric groups.
A series of t-tests per control variables (i.e. involvement
with the product category and with the purchase of the
product, and knowledge about and history with the product)
were used to identify possible differences across the seven
contexts or between ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric
groups. There was only one significant contrast: AMs
reported a significantly longer history with microwave ovens
(MAM 3:41) than MAs (MMA 2:72; p 0:002). These
results increase our confidence that differences in quality
evaluations and purchase intentions would be due to the
COO and CE effects.
American (M 4:07; p , 0:001) and German (M 3:38;

p 0:021) products. Finally, non-ethnocentric CMs viewed
the American product (M 3:72) as higher in quality relative
to the Chinese (M 3:12; p 0:028) and Mexican
(M 2:83; p , 0:001) products. These tests lend strong
support to H1a across all of the seven contexts.
H1(b) suggests that non-ethnocentric immigrants hold
significantly stronger purchase intentions toward the products
of economically advanced countries relative to those of
economically developing countries. Non-ethnocentric GAs
had statistically comparable purchase intentions toward the
German (M 3:33), American (M 3:29) and Japanese
(M 3:51) products, but significantly weaker purchase
intentions toward the Mexican product (M 2:17) relative
to the German (M 3:82; p , 0:001) and American
(M 3:53; p , 0:001) products. Non-ethnocentric AMs
showed significantly stronger purchase intentions toward the
American product (M 3:41) than the Mexican (M 2:29;
p , 0:001) and Chinese (M 2:03; p , 0:001) products;
they further held significantly weaker purchase intentions
toward the Mexican product (M 2:06) than the American
(M 3:39; p , 0:001) and German (M 2:85; p 0:018)
products. Non-ethnocentric MAs reported significantly
stronger purchase intentions toward the American product
(M 3:41) than the Mexican (M 2:68; p 0:028) and
Chinese (M 2:12; p , 0:001) products; they further
reported significantly weaker purchase intentions toward the
Mexican product (M 2:41) than the American (M 3:88;
p , 0:001) and German (M 3:37; p 0:033) products.
Lastly, non-ethnocentric CMs had significantly stronger
purchase intentions toward the American product
(M 3:51) relative to the Chinese (M 3:03; p 0:046)
and Mexican (M 2:65; p , 0:001) products. These tests
strongly support H1(b) across all of the seven contexts. In
summary, we found strong support for the existence of the
COO effect among non-ethnocentric consumers in all of the
four immigrant groups.
H2(a) holds that ethnocentric immigrants exhibit
significantly more favorable quality evaluations of the
products of their home and host countries relative to foreign
products, regardless of the economic standing of foreign
countries. Ethnocentric GAs reported significantly lower
quality ratings of the Japanese product (M 2:72) relative to
the German (M 4:03; p , 0:001) and American
(M 3:83; p 0:024) products; they further assigned
significantly lower quality ratings to the Mexican product
(M 2:12) than the German (M 4:54; p , 0:001) and
American (M 4:29; p , 0:001) products. Ethnocentric
AMs gave the Chinese product (M 2:54) significantly
lower quality ratings than the American (M 4:33;
p , 0:001) and Mexican (M 3:62; p , 0:001) products;
and contrary to our prediction, they preferred the German
product (M 3:16) over the Mexican product (M 2:72)
with the difference failing to reach statistical significance
(p 0:354). Nevertheless, they did significantly favor the
American product (M 3:96) over the German product
(M 3:16; p 0:032). Ethnocentric MAs viewed the
Chinese product (M 2:51) as significantly lower in quality
relative to the Mexican (M 3:28; p 0:023) and American
(M 4:28; p , :001) products; and counter to our
expectation, they did not significantly favor the Mexican
product (M 3:03) over the German product (M 2:98;
p 0:980). However, they did regard the American product
Hypothesis testing
All hypotheses were tested using the t statistic. Test results
using product quality and purchase intention ratings appear in
Tables IV and V, respectively. H1(a) posits that nonethnocentric immigrants hold significantly more favorable
quality evaluations of the products of economically advanced
countries relative to those of economically developing
countries. Non-ethnocentric GAs reported comparable
quality ratings of the German (M 3:64), American
(M 3:73) and Japanese (M 3:81) products, but
significantly lower quality ratings of the Mexican product
(M 2:52) relative to the German (M 4:10; p , 0:001)
and American (M 4:00; p , 0:001) products. Nonethnocentric AMs gave the American product (M 3:56)
significantly higher quality ratings than the Mexican
(M 2:94; p 0:046) and Chinese (M 2:51; p , 0:001)
products; they further assigned significantly lower quality
ratings to the Mexican product (M 2:42) than the
American (M 3:76; p , 0:001) and German (M 3:10;
p 0:021) products. Non-ethnocentric MAs felt that the
American product (M 3:58) had significantly higher quality
than the Mexican (M 2:86; p 0:038) and Chinese
(M 2:65; p 0:005) products; they further rated the
Mexican product (M 2:74) significantly lower than the
75
Table IV Hypothesis testing results using product quality ratings

Context and a priori
country image
H1. Predicted product preference by

non-ethnocentric consumers
H2. Predicted product preference

by ethnocentric consumers
H3. Predicted product preference

by all consumers
German Americans
Foreign product: Japanese
Home 5 Host 5 Foreign
n 30
German 3:64 (0.92)
American 3:73 (0.87)
Japanese 3:81 (1.03)
S
No significant contrast
n 29
German 4:03 (0.89)
S
German . Japanese (p , 0:001)
American . Japanese ( p 0.024)
n 59
German 3:83 (0.96)
S
German American (p 0:812)
German Americans
Foreign product: Mexican
Home 5 Host > Foreign
n 30
German 4:10 (0.85)
Mexican 2:52 (0.96)
S
German . Mexican (p , 0:001)
American . Mexican ( p , 0.001)
n 30
German 4:54 (0.90)
Mexican 2:12 (0.88)
S
American . Mexican (p , 0:001)
n 59
German 4:32 (0.98)
S
Mexican Americans
Foreign product: Chinese
Host > Home 5 Foreign
n 33
Mexican 2:86 (1.05)
Chinese 2:65 (1.24)
S
American . Mexican (p 0:038)
American . Chinese ( p 0.005)
n 27
Mexican 3:28 (1.12)
Chinese 2:51 (1.10)
S
Mexican . Chinese (p 0:023)
American . Chinese ( p , 0.001)
n 60
Mexican 3:05 (1.21)
S
Mexican Americans
Foreign product: German
Host 5 Foreign > Home
n 33
Mexican 2:74 (1.01)
German 3:38 (0.88)
S
German . Mexican ( p 0.021)
n 27
Mexican 3:03 (0.97)
German 2:98 (0.98)
PS
Mexican . German (p 0:980)
American . German ( p 0.013)
n 60
Mexican 2:87 (1.09)
S
American Mexicans
Home > Host 5 Foreign
n 34
Mexican 2:94 (1.07)
Chinese 2:51 (1.12)
S
n 26
Mexican 3:62 (1.09)
Chinese 2:54 (1.10)
S
American . Chinese (p , 0:001)
Mexican . Chinese ( p , 0.001)
n 60
Mexican 3:32 (1.13)
NS
American Mexicans
Home 5 Foreign > Host
n 32
Mexican 2:42 (1.07)
German 3:10 (0.91)
S
n 28
Mexican 2:72 (1.18)
German 3:16 (1.24)
PS
American . German (p 0:032)
Mexican . German ( p 0.354)
n 60
Mexican 2:56 (1.07)
S
Chinese Mexicans
Foreign product: American
Foreign > Home 5 Host
n 33
Chinese 3:12 (0.71)
Mexican 2:83 (1.15)
S
American . Chinese (p 0:028)
n 27
Chinese 3:06 (1.12)
Mexican 3:25 (0.92)
NS
Chinese . American (p 0:530)
Mexican . American ( p 0.891)
n 60
Chinese 3:09 (0.99)
Mexican 3:02 (1.18)
S
Chinese Mexican (p 0:816)
Notes: Each cell contains mean (standard deviation) of product ratings as well as the p value of the specified t tests; n, subsample size; S, supported; PS, partially
supported; NS, not supported
76
Table V Hypothesis testing results using purchase intentions ratings

Context and a priori country H1. Predicted purchase intention by
image
non-ethnocentric consumers
H2. Predicted purchase intention by H3. Predicted purchase intention by

ethnocentric consumers
all consumers
German Americans
Foreign product: Japanese
Home 5 Host 5 Foreign
n 30
German 3:33 (0.94)
S
No significant contrast
n 29
German 3:82 (0.96)
S
German . Japanese (p , 0:001)
American . Japanese ( p , 0.001)
n 59
German 3:56 (0.88)
S
German Americans
Foreign product: Mexican
Home 5 Host > Foreign
n 30
German 3:82 (0.91)
Mexican 2:17 (0.87)
S
n 30
German 4:18 (0.95)
Mexican 2:19 (0.79)
S
n 59
German 3:96 (0.96)
S
Mexican Americans
Host > Home 5 Foreign
n 33
Mexican 2:68 (0.96)
Chinese 2:12 (1.04)
S
n 27
Mexican 3:15 (0.93)
Chinese 2:30 (1.04)
S
Mexican . Chinese (p 0:008)
n 60
Mexican 2:82 (0.87)
S
Mexican Americans
Host 5 Foreign > Home
n 33
Mexican 2:41 (0.92)
German 3:37 (0.89)
S
German . Mexican (p 0:033)
n 27
Mexican 2:84 (0.89)
German 2.68 (0.91)
PS
Mexican . German (p 0:733)
American . German ( p 0.009)
n 60
Mexican 2:78 (1.12)
S
American Mexicans
Home > Host 5 Foreign
n 34
Mexican 2:29 (0.87)
Chinese 2:03 (1.04)
S
n 26
Mexican 3:08 (1.01)
Chinese 2:22 (0.97)
S
Mexican . Chinese ( p , 0.001)
n 60
Mexican 2:84 (1.08)
S
American . Mexican
(p 0:039)
American Mexicans
Home 5 Foreign > Host
n 32
Mexican 2:06 (0.92)
German 2:85 (1.09)
S
n 28
Mexican 2:40 (0.86)
German 2:87 (1.01)
PS
American . German
(p 0:038)
Mexican . German ( p 0.370)
n 60
Mexican 2:21 (1.16)
S
Chinese Mexicans
Foreign product: American
Foreign > Home 5 Host
n 33
Chinese 3:03 (0.85)
Mexican 2:65 (1.02)
S
American . Chinese (p 0:046)
n 27
Chinese 2:89 (1.01)
Mexican 3:04 (0.96)
NS
Chinese . American (p 0:618)
Mexican . American ( p 0.905)
n 60
Chinese 2:77 (1.02)
Mexican 2:81 (1.04)
S
Chinese Mexican (p 0:902)
Notes: Each cell contains mean (standard deviation) of product ratings as well as the p value of the specified t-tests; n, subsample size; S, supported; PS,
partially supported; NS, not supported
77
(M 3:72) as a significantly higher quality than the German

product (M 2:98; p 0:013). Finally, ethnocentric CMs
gave statistically comparable quality ratings of the Chinese
(M 3:06), Mexican (M 3:25) and American (M 3:40)
products. Therefore, H2(a) is strongly supported in four, not
supported in one, and partially supported in two contexts.
H2(b) posits that ethnocentric immigrants hold significantly
stronger purchase intentions toward the products of their
home and host countries relative to foreign products,
regardless of the economic standing of foreign countries.
Ethnocentric GAs reported significantly weaker purchase
intentions toward the Japanese product (M 2:02) relative to
the German (M 3:82; p , :001) and American (M 3:55;
p 0:024) products; they further showed significantly weaker
purchase intentions toward the Mexican product (M 2:19)
than the German (M 4:18; p , 0:001) and American
(M 4:01; p , 0:001) products. Ethnocentric AMs held
significantly weaker purchase intentions toward the Chinese
product (M 2:22) than the American (M 3:99;
p , 0:001) and Mexican (M 3:08; p , 0:001) products;
and against our prediction, they showed stronger purchase
intentions toward the German product (M 2:87) relative to
the Mexican product (M 2:40), with the difference failing
to reach statistical significance (p 0:370). Nevertheless, they
did exhibit significantly stronger purchase intentions toward
the American product (M 3:63) than the German product
(M 2:87; p 0:038). Ethnocentric MAs reported
significantly weaker purchase intentions toward the Chinese
product (M 2:30) than the Mexican (M 3:15; p 0:008)
and American (M 3:86; p , 0:001) products; and contrary
to our expectation, they did not significantly favor the
Mexican product (M 2:84) over the German product
(M 2:68; p 0:733). However, they did hold significantly
stronger purchase intentions toward the American product
(M 3:53) than the German product (M 2:68; p 0:009).
Lastly, ethnocentric CMs reported statistically comparable
purchase intentions toward the Chinese (M 2:89), Mexican
(M 3:04) and American (M 3:27) products. Therefore,
H2(b) is strongly supported in four, not supported in one,
and partially supported in two contexts. Overall, we found
support for the most part for the existence of the CE effect
among ethnocentric consumers in all of the four immigrant
groups.
H3(a) suggests that when home and host countries
represent significantly different degrees of economic
advancement, both ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric
immigrants hold significantly more favorable quality
evaluations of the products of the more advanced country.
The two GA groups used in this study did not report a
significant difference between the German (M 3:83;
M 4:32) and the American products (M 3:78;
M 4:15) in terms of quality (p , 0:812; p , 0:528).
Neither did the CMs see a significant quality difference
between the Chinese (M 3:09) and Mexican products
(M 3:02; p 0:816). Of the two MA and two AM groups,
three groups significantly favored the American product
(M 3:82; M 3:90; M 3:91) over the Mexican product
(M 2:56; M 3:05; M 2:87) in terms of quality
(p , 0:001; p 0:011; p , 0:001), but one AM group did
not see a significant different (M 3:79; M 3:32;
p 0:417). These tests support H3(a) across six of the
seven contexts.
H3(b) suggests that when home and host countries

represent significantly different degrees of economic
immigrants hold significantly stronger purchase intentions
toward the products of the more advanced country. The two
GA groups did not report significantly different purchase
intentions toward the German (M 3:56; M 3:96) and the
American products (M 3:61; M 3:84; p , 0:786;
p , 0:498). Neither did the CMs hold significantly stronger
purchase intentions toward either of the Chinese (M 2:77)
and Mexican products (M 2:81; p 0:902). Last, both MA
groups and both AM groups reported significantly stronger
purchase intentions toward the American product (M 3:42;
M 3:46; M 3:81; M 3:70) than the Mexican product
(M 2:84; M 2:21; M 2:82; M 2:78; p 0:039;
p , 0:001; p 0:012; p , 0:001). Therefore, H3(b) is
strongly supported in all of the seven contexts. In summary,
these tests serve as evidence to the combined interplay of the
two effects when they operate in the same direction.
The above results were strongly consistent across the two
dependent variables, with the only exception pertaining to H3
in the context of AMs evaluating American and Mexican
products. Even though AMs did not significantly differentiate
between American and Mexican products in terms of quality,
they did, however, indicate significantly stronger intentions to
purchase the American product relative to the Mexican
product. The results were also consistent across immigrant
groups with three exceptions, all of which pertain to the CE
effect:
1 ethnocentric CMs did not favor the Chinese or Mexican
products over the American product;
2 ethnocentric AMs did not favor the Mexican product over
the German product; and
3 ethnocentric MAs did not favor the Mexican product over
the German product.
As such, the effect of ethnocentrism (H2(a) and H2(b))
seems partially supported, with the unsupported portion
being likely due to the COO effect. Specifically, the fact that
ethnocentric CMs did not favor any of the Chinese, Mexican,
and American products over one another suggests that the CE
and COO effects operated at opposite directions and
neutralized each other. The same conclusion is warranted
with respect to the other two anomalous results.
Notwithstanding the anomalies, this study provides support
for the existence of:
1 the COO effect among non-ethnocentric consumers in all
of the four immigrant groups;
2 the CE effect among ethnocentric consumers in all of the
four immigrant groups; and
3 the combined effects of COO and CE when they operate
in the same direction.
Ancillary analyses
Figure 2 presents several plots containing intriguing contrasts
in terms of product quality evaluations (plots of purchase
intentions ratings were highly similar and are not included
here due to length constraints). Plot 1 shows how immigrants
compare home and host products in the absence of foreign
products. In such situations, COO is key. Specifically,
immigrants favor the products of home country when it is
more advanced than host country (Mhome 3:60;
Mhost 2:69; p , 0:001); prefer the products of host
country when it is more advanced than home country
78
Figure 2 Ancillary analyses: plots of main and interaction effects using product quality
(Mhome 3:03; Mhost 3:66; p , 0:001); and see no

significant difference when home and host countries are
comparable
in
economic
terms
(Mhome 3:08;
Mhost 2:85; p 0:334). Plot 2 adds the products of a
developing foreign country to the picture. Since the foreign
country is not highly advanced, two situations arise. First,
when both home and host countries are economically
advanced (i.e. M S . F), COO and CE effects combine
and immigrants regard home and host products as superior to
the foreign products (Mhome 3:57; Mhost 3:62;
MFor 2:72; p 0:846; p , 0:001; p , 0:001). Second,
when either home or host is also a developing country,
ethnocentric immigrants favor home and host products over
foreign
products
(Mhome 4:34;
Mhost 3:63;
MFor 2:54; p , 0:001; p , 0:001; p , 0:001 and
Mhome 3:28; Mhost 4:28; MFor 2:51; p , 0:001;
p , 0:001; p , :001), but non-ethnocentric immigrants do
not see a significant difference between the products of the
two developing countries (Mhome 3:62; Mhost 2:91;
MFor 2:65; p , 0:001; p , 0:001; p 0:350 and
Mhome 2:87; Mhost 3:58; MFor 2:72; p , :001;
p 0:525; p , 0:001). Plot 3 replaces the developing
foreign country with a developed one. Since the foreign
country is highly advanced, various possibilities arise as the
COO and CE effects interact and influence immigrants

perceptions and evaluations.
Plots 4, 5 and 6 depict additional such contrasts. Plot 4
focuses on scenarios where home and host countries are
comparable in economic terms (i.e. M S) and reveals two
situations. First, when home and host countries are at least as
advanced as the foreign country immigrants will significantly
favor home and host products (Mhome 3:57;
Mhost 3:62; MFor 2:72; p 0:880; p , 0:001; p ,
0:001 and Mhome 4:03; Mhost 3:83; MFor 2:72;
p 0:575; p , 0:001; p , 0:001). Second, when the foreign
country is more advanced than both home and host countries,
non-ethnocentric consumers significantly favor the foreign
product (Mhome 3:12; Mhost 2:84; MFor 3:73;
p 0:306; p , 0:002; p , 0:001), but ethnocentric
consumers do not perceive a difference between the three
products (Mhome 3:07; Mhost 3:26; MFor 3:40;
p 0:540; p , 0:222; p , 0:637). Plots 5 and 6 focus on
scenarios where the foreign country is comparable to either
home or host country, respectively, in economic terms and
shows considerable differences across ethnocentric and nonethnocentric consumers. Specifically, whereas the higher
economic standing of the foreign country is reason enough for
non-ethnocentric consumers to give its product a significantly
higher rating relative to the product of the less advanced home
79
or host country, for ethnocentric consumers the CE effect

neutralizes the COO effect and consequently the product of
the foreign country is not perceived to be of higher quality
relative to the product of the less advanced home or host
country.
Plot 7 depicts product quality perceptions per immigrant
community. To GAs, the Mexican product (M 2:72) means
significantly lower quality than either of German (M 3:56;
p , 0:001) and American products (M 3:43; p , 0:001).
To MAs, the American product (M 3:86) is significantly
higher in quality than the Mexican (M 2:99; p , :001) and
German (M 3.18; p , 0:001) products, which in turn are
significantly higher in quality relative to the Chinese product
(M 2:58; p 0:033; p , 0:001). AMs agree with MAs for
the most part, except that they do not perceive a significant
difference between Mexican (M 2:88) and Chinese
(M 2:60; p 0:315) products. Lastly, CMs find higher
quality in the American product (M 3:56) relative to
Mexican (M 3:05; p :026) and Chinese (M 3:09;
p 0:030) products.
Plot 8 compares ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric
consumers across four scenarios: the combined COO and
CE effects, the COO effect, the CE effect, and absence of
both effects. To construct this plot, we sorted the data set
based on whether the products country of origin was a
developed or developing economy (i.e. presence or absence of
the COO effect) and whether the respondent identified with
that country (i.e. presence or absence of the CE effect). The
two groups agree the product benefits from both or neither of
the COO and CE effects; they diverge when only one of the
two effects is present. The crossing of the lines in the plot
exposes this divergence. Whereas ethnocentric consumers
provide comparable ratings when either the CE effect
(M 3:34) or the COO effect (M 3:37; p 0:910) is
present, under such circumstances non-ethnocentric
consumers are prone to the COO (M 3:87) but not the
CE effect (M 2:61; p , 0:001). This latter result attests to
the importance of appreciating interpersonal differences
among consumers in terms of ethnocentrism.
argument by examining how the interplay of CE and COO

influences immigrant consumers. We offer evidence for the
existence of the COO effect among non-ethnocentric
consumers, the CE effect among ethnocentric consumers,
and the combined effect when COO and CE operate in the
same direction.
The present study suggests that non-ethnocentric
evaluations and purchase intentions toward the products of
economically advanced countries relative to those of
economically developing countries. This finding is
corroborated in all seven empirical contexts, lending
support for the existence of a COO effect among all of our
four immigrant groups. The study also demonstrates that
ethnocentric immigrants hold significantly more favorable
quality evaluations and purchase intentions toward the
products of their home and host countries relative to foreign
products, regardless of the economic standing of foreign
countries. This finding is corroborated in the majority of our
empirical contexts, offering substantial support for the
existence of a CE effect among all of our four immigrant
groups, with the unsupported portion explainable via the
COO effect: the fact that the CE and COO effects operated at
opposite directions, neutralized each other, and consequently
a portion of ethnocentric immigrants did not show a
preference for the products of any of the three countries.
Finally, our research shows that when home and host
countries represent significantly different degrees of economic
evaluations and purchase intentions toward the products of
the more advanced country (i.e. the combined CE and COO
effects). This finding received support in six of the seven
empirical contexts, providing strong support for the combined
effect of COO and CE when they operate in the same
direction.
Where we found no or only partial support, the following
observations are in order:
.
in contrasts where COO and CE synergistically favor one
country (i.e. the USA in this study), the product of that
country is either the most preferred or one of the two most
preferred products; and
.
in contrasts where COO and CE each favors a different
country and the foreign country is perceived as
economically advanced, two situations arise for nonethnocentric immigrants the COO effect dominates, and
for ethnocentric immigrants the COO and CE effects
seem to neutralize each other.
Discussion
The exponential growth in cultural diversity around the world
necessitates a more nuanced understanding of familiar
constructs in marketing and consumer research (Klein et al.,
1998; Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000; Mihailovich, 2006).
For example, consumer researchers have revealed the
shortcomings of traditional ethnic categorizations as poor
indicators and begun to address the competitive yet
productive cultural forces of home, host and other cultures
(Askegaard et al., 2005; Miller, 1997; Penaloza, 1994,
1995).The present study takes a step in that direction by
extending the extant understanding of the CE and COO
effects.
Traditionally, researchers have defined CE as the bias
toward the meanings and objects of only one country, and
ignored the possibility of consumer identification with both
the country of origin and the country where the product is
sold. However, recent research has provided evidence for a
counterargument: when consumers are associate with two or
more countries, their preferences are subject to a more
nuanced interplay between the CE and COO effects
(Zolfagharian and Sun, 2010). Our study extends this
Managerial implications and limitations

This study resulted in several findings that could assist
decision-makers in charge of product and marketing activities
in multinational operations or otherwise multicultural
settings. It invites mangers to strive for more than what the
COO or CE effects can each offer individually, and
underscores the insights that can be gained from examining
the interplay between these effects. Seven conclusions are in
order:
1 In the absence of a foreign country, immigrant consumers
comparing home and host products use country image to
break the tie (i.e. the COO effect).
80
Borjas, G.J. (1994), The economics of immigration, Journal

of Economic Literature, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1667-1717.
Davies, A. and Fitchett, J.A. (2004), Crossing culture:
multi-method enquiry into consumer behaviour and the
experience of cultural transition, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 315-330.
Esses, V.M., Dovidio, J.F., Jackson, L.M. and Armstrong,
T.L. (2001), The immigration dilemma: the role of
perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national
identity, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 389-412.
Forbes, H.D. (1985), Nationalism, Ethnocentrism, and
Personality, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hamin, G.E. (2006), A less-developed country perspective
of consumer ethnocentrism and country of origin effects:
Indonesian evidence, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 79-92.
Han, C.M. (1990), Testing the role of country image in
consumer choice behavior, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 24-39.
Han, C.M. and Terpstra, V. (1988), Country of origin effects
for uni-national and bi-national products, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 235-255.
Hoefer, M., Rytina, N. and Baker, B.C. (2011), Estimates of
the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the
United States: January 2010, Office of Immigration
Statistics, Policy Directorate, US Department of
Homeland Security, available at: www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/
assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2010.pdf.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences, Sage
Publications, Beverley Hills, CA.
Insch, G.S. and McBride, J.B. (1998), Decomposing the
country-of-origin construct: an empirical test of country of
design, country of parts and country of assembly, Journal
of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10, pp. 69-91.
Johansson, J.K., Douglas, S.P. and Nonaka, I. (1985),
Assessing the impact of country of origin on product
evaluations: a new methodological perspective, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 22, pp. 388-396.
Khachaturian, J.L. and Morganosky, M.A. (1990), Quality
perceptions by country of origin, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 21-30.
Kinra, N. (2006), The effect of country-of-origin on foreign
brand names in the Indian market, Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R. and Morris, M.D. (1998), The
animosity model of foreign product purchase: an empirical
test in the Peoples Republic of China, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 89-100.
Lau-Gesk, L.G. (2003), Activating culture through
persuasion appeals: an examination of the bicultural
consumer, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13,
pp. 301-315.
Maffesoli, M. (1996), The Time of Tribes, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Maheswaran, D. and Shavitt, S. (2000), Issues and new
directions in global consumer psychology, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 59-66.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991), Culture and self:
implications for cognition, emotion and motivation,
Psychological Reviews, Vol. 98, pp. 224-253.
Martin, I. and Eroglu, S. (1993), Measuring a multidimensional construct: country image, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 191-210.
When immigrant consumers do not identify with the

products country of origin, the product is destined to be
the least favored unless its country image is strong.
When the foreign country does not represent a highly
advanced economy, immigrant consumers favor the home
and host products (i.e. the COO effect).
When the foreign country represents a highly advanced
economy, immigrant consumers preference will depend
on the interaction between the two effects. This scenario
is the one with the largest number of nuances arising from
the many possibilities in the marketplace.
For both ethnocentric consumers and non-ethnocentric
consumers, the product that benefits from both effects is
the most preferred, and the product that benefits from
neither of the two effects is the least preferred.
Where the product benefits from one but not the other
effect, the two effects hold roughly equal power for
ethnocentric consumers, but COO dominates CE for
non-ethnocentric consumers.
When the product benefits from both or neither of the
COO and CE effects, ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric
consumers converge; the two groups diverge when only
one of the two effects is salient. In the latter case,
ethnocentric consumers appear equally prone to either of
the COO and CE effects, but non-ethnocentric
consumers are prone to the COO, but not the CE
effect, only.
In addition, the findings of this study provide insights to

marketing managers on how to market foreign products to
communities with multicultural heritage. For example, both
ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric Mexican Americans
strongly identify with the USA and favor American
products. When it comes to Mexican products, however,
ethnocentric Mexican Americans differ from nonethnocentric ones. As such, it is beneficial for marketing
managers to differentiate their target markets in terms of their
cultural background and ethnocentric tendencies.
The findings and implications of this study should be
considered in the light of its limitations. First, we
operationalized the multicultural identity of consumers by
using first-generation immigrants. Future studies should also
investigate other drivers of todays multicultural marketplace
such as subsequent generations of immigrants and consumers
involved in inter-ethnic marriages. In addition, we
recommend that future research go beyond nationality and
incorporate other forces of cultural diversity such as ethnicity,
religion and age. Lastly, our findings should be replicated
across different types of market offerings (e.g. goods versus
services, durables versus nondurables, hedonic versus
utilitarian) as well as study contexts (e.g. countries,
immigrant communities).
References
Acharya, C. and Elliott, G. (2003), Consumer
ethnocentrism, perceived product quality and choice: an
empirical investigation, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 87-115.
Askegaard, S., Arnould, E.J. and Kjeldgaard, D. (2005),
Postassimilationist
ethnic
consumer
research:
qualifications and extensions, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 160-170.
81
Matsumoto, D. (1999), Culture and self: an empirical

assessment of Markus and Kitayamas theory of
independent and interdependent self-construal, Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 289-310.
Mihailovich, P. (2006), Kinship branding: a concept of
holism and evolution for the nation brand, Place Branding,
Vol. 2, pp. 229-247.
Miller, J.G. (1997), Theoretical issues in cultural
psychology, in Berry, J.W., Poortings, Y.H. and Pandey,
J. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 1, Allyn
and Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 85-128.
Mittal, B. (1995), A comparative analysis of four scales of
involvement, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 12,
pp. 663-682.
Nagashima, A. (1970), A comparison of Japanese and US
attitudes toward foreign products, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 34, pp. 68-74.
Oswald, L.R. (1999), Cultural swapping: consumption and
the ethnogenesis of middle-class Haitian immigrants,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 303-318.
Penaloza, L. (1994), Atraversando frontieras/border
crossing: a critical ethnographic exploration of the
consumer acculturation of Mexican immigrants, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 32-54.
Penaloza, L. (1995), Immigrant consumers: marketing and
public policy considerations in the global economy,
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 83-94.
Perlmann, J. (2004), Multiracials, racial classification, and
American intermarriage: the publics interest,
Macroeconomics 9712004, Economics Working Paper
Archive, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO.
Petroshius, S.M. and Monroe, K.B. (1987), Effect of
product-line pricing characteristics on product
evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13,
pp. 511-519.
Pinkaeo, K. and Speece, M. (2000), The Thai life insurance
market: effects of country of origin perceptions on
consumer expectations, Journal of Financial Services
Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 99-117.
Rockquemore, K.A. and Brunsma, D.L. (2002), Beyond
Black: Bicultural Identity in America, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA.
Schooler, R.D. (1965), Product bias in the Central
American common market, Journal of Marketing
Research, February, pp. 394-397.
Sharma, S., Shimp, T.A. and Shin, J. (1995), Consumer
ethnocentrism: a test of antecedents and moderators,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 26-37.
Shimp, T. and Sharma, S. (1987), Consumer ethnocentrism:
construction and validation of the CETSCALE, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 280-289.
Su, D., Richardson, C. and Wang, G.Z. (2010), Assessing
cultural assimilation of Mexican Americans: how rapidly do
their gender-role attitudes converge to the US
mainstream?, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 91 No. 3,
pp. 762-776.
Swinyard, W.R., Kau, A.K. and Phua, H.Y. (2001),
Happiness, materialism, and religious experience in the
US and Singapore, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 13-32.
Tai, E. (2009), Between assimilation and transnationalism:

the debate on nationality acquisition among Koreans in
Japan, Social Identities, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 609-629.
Tajfel, H. (1985), Social psychology of intergroup relations,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-39.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), The social identity theory
of intergroup behavior, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G.
(Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
Teng, L. and Laroche, M. (2007), Building and testing
models of consumer purchase intention in competitive and
multicultural environments, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 60, pp. 260-268.
Thakor, M.V. and Lavack, A.M. (2003), Effect of perceived
brand origin associations on consumer perceptions of
quality, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 394-407.
Trefler, D. (1995), The case of the missing trade and other
mysteries, American Economic Review, Vol. 85 No. 5,
pp. 1029-1046.
Tse, D.K. and Gorn, G.K. (1993), An experiment on the
salience of country-of-origin in the era of global brands,
Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 57-76.
UN Statistics Division (2011), International migration:
statistics, available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/
demographic/sconcerns/migration/migr2.htm (accessed
October 30).
stuner, H. and Holt, D.B. (2007), Dominated consumer
U
acculturation: the social construction of poor migrant
womens consumer identity projects in a Turkish squatter,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Verlegh, P.W.J. and Steenkamp, J. (1999), A review and
meta-analysis of country-of-origin research, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-546.
Vida, I., Dmitrovic, T. and Obadia, C. (2008), The role of
ethnic affiliation in consumer ethnocentrism, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 327-343.
Wang, C. and Lamb, C. (1983), The impact of selected
environmental forces upon consumers willingness to buy
foreign products, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 71-84.
Watson, J. and Wright, K. (2000), Consumer ethnocentrism
and attitudes toward domestic and foreign products,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1149-1166.
Yamada, A.M. and Singelis, T. (1999), Biculturalism and
self-construal, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 697-709.
Zolfagharian, M. (2010), Identification, uniqueness and art
consumption among bicultural consumers, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Zolfagharian, M. and Sun, Q. (2010), Country of origin,
ethnocentrism and bicultural consumers: the case of
Mexican Americans, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 345-357.
Further Reading
Brodowsky, G.H. (1998), The effects of country of origin
and country of assembly on evaluative beliefs about
automobiles and attitudes toward buying them: a
comparison between low and high ethnocentric
82
consumers, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,

Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 85-113.
Burke, P. (1980), The self: measurement requirements from
an interactionist perspective, Social Psychology Quarterly,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 18-29.
Han, C.M. (1988), The role of consumer patriotism in the
choice of domestic versus foreign products, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 25-32.
Hult, G.T.M. and Keillor, B.D. (1994), The impact of a
social desirability bias on consumer ethnocentrism research:
a cross-national perspective, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 48-55.
Kaynak, E. and Kara, A. (2002), Consumer perceptions of
foreign products an analysis of product-country images and
ethnocentrism, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36
Nos 7/8, pp. 928-949.
Samiee, S. (1994), Customer evaluation of products in a
global market, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.
Shankarmahesh, M.N. (2006), Consumer ethnocentrism: an
integrative review of its antecedents and consequences,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 146-172.
Supphellen, M. and Rittenburg, T.L. (2001), Consumer
ethnocentrism when foreign products are better,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 907-927.
Turner, J.C. (1985), Social categorization and the selfconcept: a social cognition theory of group behavior, in
Lawler, E.J. (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 77-121.
Zarkada-Fraser, A. and Fraser, C. (2002), Store patronage
prediction for foreign-owned supermarket, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 282-299.
Zolfagharian, M. and Jordan, A.T. (2007), Multicultural
identity and art consumption, in Belk, R. and Sherry, J.F.
(Eds), Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 11: Consumer
Culture Theory, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 343-367.
Qin Sun is an Assistant Professor in the College of Business

Administration at Trident University International. Her
research interests include nation branding and country-oforigin image, cross-cultural marketing, bicultural/
multicultural consumers, teaching innovation, e-commerce,
online keyword search behavior and search advertising. She
has published articles in premium journals such as Marketing
Education Review, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Journal of
Brand Management, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, and Journal of Education for
Business.
Executive summary and implications for

managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
Consumer ethnocentrism (CE) and country of origin (COO)
are constructs widely used by marketers aiming to predict
consumer behavior. The prevailing norm of CE is consumer
attachment to their perceived in-groups to an extent that
group meanings and objects became an integral part of
their self-identity. In contrast, people are inclined to feel
negative towards those outside their groups and what is
important to them. When ascribed to a national or cultural
context, such consumers will typically evaluate domestic
goods more highly than those which are manufactured in
another country. Purchase intention is influenced accordingly.
Evidence shows that this preference is even stronger among
individuals who are more highly ethnocentric. On the other
hand, consumers identified as non-ethnocentric are more
concerned about the quality levels of a product than where it
was made. Research suggests that CE is likelier in collectivist
societies and less common where cultural openness prevails.
Equally valuable as a tool for ascertaining consumer
preferences is COO. However, ambiguity surrounds this
construct because different definitions have been forwarded.
Extant literature has variously associated a products COO
with where it was designed or its place of manufacture or
assembly. The country where an organization has its
corporate headquarters has likewise been defined as an
items place of origin. Where the product is made is the
definition adopted for the present study.
With COO, the general pattern is for consumers to regard
goods produced in more developed economies as superior to
those originating from less advanced nations. In addition to
this, certain countries remain associated with specific areas of
expertise. Examples include Germany for cars, France for
wines and Japan for electronics.
Several studies have established that consumers do use
COO as an explicit cue or summary product information
that serves to influence their evaluation of a product and
subsequent attitude and purchase intention. There is even
evidence to suggest that certain consumers prefer COO over a
global brand name as an indication of quality.
More recently, observers have suggested that CE and COO
have their limitations as frameworks for predicting consumer
attitudes and behaviors. The rationale for this doubt is that the
About the authors

Mohammadali Zolfagharian is Chair and Assistant Professor
of Marketing and Applied Anthropologist at the Department
of Marketing, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg,
Texas. His research interests include consumer (culture)
research, services, and social/macro marketing using both
quantitative and qualitative (i.e. ethnographic) approaches.
His research has been published in several books and journals
such as Decision Sciences Journal, Journal of Services Marketing,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, and Services Marketing Quarterly. He has
collaborated with or provided consulting to several
organizations including Motorola, Hospice, The
Entrepreneur Authority, and City of McAllen.
Mohammadali Zolfagharian is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: Zolfagharian@utpa.edu
Roberto Saldivar is a PhD candidate in the College of
Business Administration at the University of Texas-Pan
American. He has made presentations at the Academy of
Marketing Science as well as the American Marketing
Association Conferences. His research interests include
consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility, crosscultural issues, and sports marketing.
83
constructs do not factor in the likely significance of cultural

diversity. As immigration continues to surge, consumer identity
is becoming increasingly dynamic and heterogeneous in
nature. To consider individuals as mono-cultural would
therefore reflect a flawed logic in many instances.
It has been variously noted that immigrant consumers can
feel strong attachment both towards their country of birth and
the nation where they currently reside. For those who are
ethnocentric, some degree of bias towards both of these
countries is highly probable. Support for this lies in the fact
that migration is invariably motivated by an aspiration to seek
relatively more desirable conditions. Using social identity
theory, immigrants are likely to consider both home and host
countries as their cultural in-groups and view phenomena
linked to either nation favorably.
How such consumers might identify with additional nations
then also becomes a key question to explore. What is
proposed is that preference of immigrant consumers will be
influenced by the joint impact of their CE level and the
comparative economic status of the nations involved.
Several hypotheses were created and investigated in a study
involving different first-generations of immigrant groups
within the USA and Mexico. The respective populations are
German Americans (GAs), Mexican Americans (MAs),
American Mexicans (AMs) and Chinese Mexicans (CMs).
Participants were recruited in South Texas and Mexico City
and had to meet the criteria of living in both home and host
nation for several years. A final sample of 419 was obtained.
Different versions of a survey relating to the purchase of a
microwave oven were used. Microwaves were selected because
of evidence that consumers believe that both developed and
developing countries are capable of manufacturing this
product. In addition, levels of purchase involvement and use
of the product appears to be similar across different age
groups. Subjects were asked to consider a hypothetical
scenario where they had to consider microwave ovens made in
different home, host and foreign nations, evaluate product
quality and indicate their purchase intentions. Further
questions were used to ascertain levels of CE, perceptions of
the relative economic standings of host and home nations of
the participants, and consumer involvement with category
and product purchase. Information pertaining to age, gender
and annual household income was requested too.
Analysis indicated that in respect of quality perceptions and
purchase intentions:
.
Non-ethnocentric immigrants were considerably more
positive towards products from developed countries
relative to those from developing nations.
.
In most examples, ethnocentric immigrants were
significantly more favorable about products from their
home and host nations as opposed to items from other
foreign countries. The economic standing of these other
nations was not relevant.
In situations where home and host nations reflect different

stages of economic development, both immigrant types
generally express greater positivity towards products from
the more advanced nation.
The authors conclude that these results largely corroborate

expectations that COO will influence non-ethnocentric
immigrant consumers, that CE impacts on ethnocentric
immigrant consumers and that COO and CE have a
combined effect if operating in the same direction. Rare
exceptions were attributed to the probability of a neutralizing
effect resulting from CE and COO working against each
other. An example was ethnocentric CMs seemingly not
favoring any of the Chinese, American or Mexican
microwaves over one another.
It has been increasingly claimed that depending solely on
ethnicity to ascertain consumer preferences is not necessarily
a reliable measure. Using competing cultural influences of
home, host and other nations has therefore accrued greater
significance. Evidence here reveals that choices are shaped by
varying degrees of interaction between CE and COO effects.
Among the conclusions offered by the study are:
.
Country image is important to immigrant consumers
comparing home and host nation products.
.
In situations where immigrants do not engage with an
items COO, this product is favored least unless its
country image is powerful.
.
Immigrant consumers favor home and host nation
products as opposed to products from a foreign but less
economically developed country.
.
For both immigrant types, the most favored product is the
one benefitting from both CE and COO effects and the
least preferred the one which benefits from neither.
.
When only one effect benefits the product, nonethnocentric consumers are influenced by the COO
effect. For ethnocentric individuals, the power of both
effects is comparable.
The two groups come together when the product benefits
from neither or both COO and CE effects.
This study provides support for the belief that marketers
should use respective cultural backgrounds and ethnocentric
tendencies to differentiate target markets.
Additional research could examine subsequent immigrant
generations and inter-ethnic marriages. The authors also
propose looking at other factors of cultural difference like
ethnicity, religion and age. Various study contexts and types of
market offerings are likewise worthy of investigation.
(A precis of the article Ethnocentrism and country of origin effects
among immigrant consumers. Supplied by Marketing
Consultants for Emerald.)
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Ethnocentrism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethnocentrism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethnocentrism and country of origin effects

among immigrant consumers

several researchers have disputed the relevance of existing

An executive summary for managers and executive

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Ethocentrism and country of origin effects among immigrant consumers

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 31 Number 1 2014 68 84

of multicultural baby boom (Perlmann, 1997) and

Ethocentrism and country of origin effects among immigrant consumers

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 31 Number 1 2014 68 84

determinant of consumer product evaluation than well-known

relative level of economic advancement of each country affect

Immigrant consumers, CE and COO

Notwithstanding the conventional conceptions of consumer

Ethocentrism and country of origin effects among immigrant consumers

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 31 Number 1 2014 68 84

Figure 1 CE and COO matrix for ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric consumers

immigrants are expected to exhibit similar (different) patterns

various immigrant communities and in an attempt to increase

Non-ethnocentric immigrants hold significantly more

Each respondent was given a booklet that began with an

Method and analysis

The respondents then evaluated the quality of each countrys

Ethocentrism and country of origin effects among immigrant consumers

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 31 Number 1 2014 68 84

Table I Study subjects, objects and hypotheses

Who comparesa what products?

H1. Product preference by

H2. Product preference by

modified consumer ethnocentrism scale and the five items

To measure respondents consumer ethnocentrism, we

Two of the responses were incomplete and were excluded

The first-generation immigrant status was further checked with

Ethocentrism and country of origin effects among immigrant consumers

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 31 Number 1 2014 68 84

and CMs living in Mexico. We refer to these groups as GAs,

quality scale and Teng and Laroches (2007) purchase

Of the 130 questionnaires distributed to all groups, 84 were

Manipulation checks and control variables

Table II Sample profile

Ethocentrism and country of origin effects among immigrant consumers

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 31 Number 1 2014 68 84

Table III Scale items and factor structure statistics

Country image political (a 5 0:89; composite reliability 5 0:92; AVE 5 0:78)

significantly greater than those of Mexico (MMexico 2:08)

effectiveness of this contrast was checked using Martin and

Ethocentrism and country of origin effects among immigrant consumers

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 31 Number 1 2014 68 84

CE scores, held a superior image of their home country,

American (M 4:07; p , 0:001) and German (M 3:38;

Ethocentrism and country of origin effects among immigrant consumers

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 31 Number 1 2014 68 84

Table IV Hypothesis testing results using product quality ratings

H1. Predicted product preference by

H2. Predicted product preference

H3. Predicted product preference