C. MIN HAN*

The author examines the role of country image in consumer evaluations of tele-vision sets and automobiles. Specifically, two alternative causal models are devel-oped and tested: (1) the halo model hypothesizing that country image serves as ahalo in product evaluation and (2) the summary construct model hypothesizing thatcountry image functions as a summary construct. The test results indicate that virhenconsumers are not familior with a country's products, country image may serve asa halo from which consumers infer o brond's product attributes and which affectstheir attitude toward the brand indirectly through product attribute rating. In con-trast, as consumers become familiar with a country's products, country image maybecome a construct that summarizes consumers' beliefs about product attributes and

directly affects their attitude toward the brand.

Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct?

Since the mid-1960s, numerous studies have beenconducted on country image. In general, they have foundthat consumers have significantly different country im-ages or general perceptions about products made in dif-ferent countries. In examining the role of country imagein product evaluation, nearly all previous studies haveexplicitly or implicitly viewed country image as a "halo"that consumers use to infer the quality of an unknownforeign brand (Bilkey and Nes 1982). Recent studies byErickson, Johansson, and Chao (1984) and Johansson,Douglas, and Nonaka (1985) found that country imageaffects consumers' evaluation of product attributes, butnot their overall evaluation of products. These fmdingssupport the role of country image as a halo in productevaluation. Note that country image is defined here asconsumers' general perceptions of quality for productsmade in a given country (Bilkey and Nes 1982). Suchperceptions are typically specific to product categories,as suggested by Etzel and Walker (1974) and Hafhill(1980). For example, the country image for Afghan rugswould be very different from that for Afghan televisionsets.

*C. Min Han is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Wayne StateUniversity.

The author gratefully acknowledges helpful comments by RichardP. Bagozzi, Claes Fomell, Youjai Yi (University ot" Michigan). ChulLee (Hong-Ik University. Korea), and JMR editors Robert A. Peter-son and Michael J. Houston, as well as two anonymous 7M/f review-ers.

Though the halo hypothesis is intuitively appealing, ithas serious limitations. It maintains that consumers usecountry image as a halo in product evaluation when theyare not familiar with a country's products—but what ifconsumers are familiar with the products? Will countryimage have no effect on product evaluations? Or. likebrand image, will it behave as a summary construct, stillaffecting evaluations of familiar products? A study wasdesigned to test two altemative views about the role ofcountry image in product evaluation—the halo and sum-mary construct views.

ROLE OF COUNTRY IMAGE IN PRODUCTEVALUATIONS

Country Image as a Halo

This view maintains that consumers use country imagein product evaluation because they often are unable todetect the true quality of a country's products before pur-chase. As Shapiro (1982, p. 20) noted.

Uncertainty aboul quality is a widespread and im-portant feature of markets for most firms' goods andservices. Virtually all (goods and] services are im-possible to evaluate until they are used. . . . |Even]many products that we buy quite frequently haveunobservable attributes: restaurant meals (taste) andclothing (will it fade or shrink.') are two examples.The rise in the complexity of products . . . has in-creased the importance of these informational prob-lems. • •"

222

Journal of Marketing ResearchVol. XXVI (May 1989). 222-9

COUNTRY IMAGE: HALO OR SUMAWRY CONSTRUCT? 223

Because of consumers' inability lo detect true quality,they may tum to country image to infer the quality ofunknown products (Huber and McCann 1982). This viewis analogous to the role of price in product evaluation.Studies have shown that price serves as a surrogate forother information: consumers are more likely to use pricein prtxiuct evaluation when prtxiuct information is lack-ing (Jacoby. Olsen, and Haddock 1971), when they arenot familiar with a product (Monroe 1976). and wheninformation about the purchase context is lacking (Belk1975). If country image serves as a halo, it will have nosignificant effect on product evaluation when consumersare familiar with products from the country (Johansson,Douglas, and Nonaka 1985).

The halo hypothesis has two theoretical implications.First, consumers make inferences about produet qualityfrom country image. Second, country image affects con-sumer rating of product attributes as evidenced from thefindings by Erickson, Johansson, and Chao (1984) andJohansson, Douglas, and Nonaka (1985). They reportIhat country image as a halo directly affects consumers'beliefs about product attributes and indirectly affectsoverall evaluation of pnxiucts through those beliefs. Thusthe halo hyptJthesis suggests the following structural re-lationships: country image —> beliefs - • brand attitude.

Country Image as a Summary Construct

The summary construct view maintains that eon-sumers recode and abstract individual elements of in-formation into higher order units or "chunks" (Miller 1956;Simon 1974). Consumers benefit because informationchunks are easier to store in and retrieve from long-termmemory (Simon 1974). The notion of informationchunking closely resembles the affect-referral processdiscussed by Wright (1975). In affect referral, a con-sumer does not examine attributes of altemative brandsbut simply recalls from memory a previously formedoverall evaluation for each alternative.

The prtKess of information chunking may evolve aroundbrand name. In other words, brand image can containmuch product information as a summary construct (Ja-coby, Olsen, and Haddock 1971). In characterizing therole of brand name as a summary construct. Jacoby,Szybillo, and Busato-Schach (1977) note. "Being told"this beer is Budweiser' conveys much more meaning tothe typical beer drinker than being told 'this beer costs$1.79 per six pack.'" They further note that the role ofbrand name as a summary construct may explain the rel-ative dominance of brand information over price infor-mation in consumer quality judgement.

Country itnagc, like brand image, can be viewed as asummary construct. Consumers may abstract informa-tion about a country's produets because brands withidentical country of origin have very similar product at-tributes. For instance, Japanese automakers operate innearly identical market segments. In a sense, they areeach other's competitors. Similarly, the biggest com-petitor of Samsung in the low-priced segment of the U.S.

market for television sets may well be another Koreanmanufacturer. Goldstar. Therefore, consumers can con-struct country-specific information by generalizing prod-uct information over brands with the same country oforigin to such an extent that the brands are perceived tohave similar attributes.

The summary construct hypothesis has two implica-tions. First, consumers make abstractions of product in-formation into country image, in contrast to inferencesimplied by the halo hypothesis. Second, country imagedirectly affects consumer attitude toward a brand fromthe country instead of affecting it indirectly throughproduct attribute rating (Wright 1975). Thus, the sum-mary construct hypothesis suggests the following struc-tural relationships: beliefs —• country image —*• brand at-titude.

MODEL SPECIFICATION

Two models are developed to test the two altemativehypotheses. Figure 1 shows causal models representingthe altemative hypotheses. They are not intended to sug-gest that only a single model can represent the role ofcountry image in product evaluation. Rather, the objec-tive is to determine which model has better explanatorypower.

The models do not include product familiarity mea-sures for two reasons. First, we hypothesize that famil-iarity is a moderating variable and hence make no claimabout Its direct effects on brand attitude. In other words,we hypothesize that familiarity affects the causal orderbetween the three constructs, not their value. Second, asdiscussed subsequently, chi square statistics are used toassess the hypothesized models. Inclusion of additionalvariables would inevitably affect the goodness of fit forthe whole model, thus making it difficult to preciselydetermine the relationships between country image, be-liefs, and brand attitude.'

Operationalizations

Subjects' beliefs about product attributes are measuredby five items: technical advancement, prestige, work-manship, price, and serviceability. These items were ob-tained from Han and Terpstra (1988), who factor-ana-lyzed 14 items used in previous studies (Nagashima 1970,1977). Note that the beliefs construct in the halo modelis operationalized with refiective indicators, which canexplicitly model halo effects on product attributes (For-nell 1982). In contrast, the country image construct inthe summary construct model is operationalized withformative indicators because the construct summarizes

'The familiarity variable was included in the models and its effectson brand attilude were moderate. Its causal parameter estimates were.194 (p < .05). .059 ip > .05). and .190 (p < .05) for U.S., Jap-ane.se. and Korean televisions; ,166 ip < .05). .274 ip < .05). and.022 (p > .05) for automobiles. However, the miLxicl fit became worse.Only the halo model for U.S. automobiles had a nonsignificant chisquare value.

224 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AAAY 1989

Figure 1CAUSAL MODELS REPRESENTING ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES"

A. HALO MODEL

k,,.

Cil B, B, B, B, B,i .

QJ5

B. SUMMARY CONSTRUCT MODEL

"Measurements Bl to B5, Cil, and ATTl are defined in the text. Parameters with numeric values are constrained parameters.

COUNTRY IMAGE: HALO OR SUAAMARY CONSTRUCT? 225

beliefs about product attributes/ For the estimation ofmeasurement parameters for formative indicators, eachindicator is treated as a single-indicator construct.

Country image and brand attitude are assessed withsubjects' overall evaluation of products made in thecountry (e.g., Japanese television sets) and brands fromthe country (e.g., Panasonic television sets). Both aremeasured on 7-point semantic differential scales an-chored by "good" and "bad." Note that country imageis measured at the level of specific product categoriesbecause, as discussed previously, country image wasfound to be specific to product categories (Etzel andWalker 1974; Haftiill 1980).

Method of Analysis

The halo and summary construct hypotheses are testedwith products from three countries that have differentdegrees of familiarity to consumers: countries with highproduct familiarity (HF). moderate product familiarity(MF), and low product familiarity (LF). By use of a LIS-RFX program, the halo and summary construct modelsarc estimated for each country. Then chi square statisticsare used to test the goodness of fit for the altemativemodels. Support for a model requires the statistical in-significance of chi square statistics at the .10 level, whichwould indicate that the proposed model does not differsignificantly from the obtained data. In addition, indi-vidual parameter estimates are examined to test for thestatistical significance of the hypothesized causal rela-tionship between country image, beliefs, and brand at-titude.

DATA COLLECTION

Color television sets and compact automobiles wereexamined in the study because they are relatively wellknown to average consumers. Three countries were se-lected from each product category: the United States (HFcountry). Japan (MF country), and Korea (LF country).The U.S. was selected as the HF country because con-sumers are supposedly most familiar with the homecountry's products. The two foreign countries were cho-sen because they actively market television sets and au-tomobiles in the U.S. and they are not equally familiarto consumers. Two brands were selected from each ofthe countries for each product type. The selected tele-vision brands were General Electric and RCA for U.S.brands, Panasonic and Toshiba for Japanese brands, andSamsung and Goldstar for Korean brands. The auto-mobile brands were Ford Escort and Buick Skyhawk forU.S., Honda Accord and Toyota Celica for Japan, and

The summary construct irnxJcl was estimated with reflective in-dicators and only moderate support was found for the summary con-siruct hypothesi.s. Only U.S. automobiles produced a model fit. Asdiscussed in the Results section, formative indicators rendered strongersuppon for the summary construct hypothesis; the model with form-ative indicators produced a go<xl fit for U.S. television sets and U.S.automobiles and a mtxierate fit for Japanese automobiles.

Hyundai Excel for Korea. Only one automobile brandwas selected for Korea because it was the only one beingactively marketed in the U.S.

The data were obtained from a systematic sample of116 respondents in a midwestern city. The 1986 tele-phone directory covering the sample area was the sam-pling frame. By the procedure suggested by Warwickand Lininger (1975), persons listed on the fourth line ofthe second column on every third page of the 536-pagedirectory were selected. They were interviewed by tele-phone. The response rate was 64.8% (116 of 179 callsmade; nonresponse was approximately 10% for nonres-idential telephones, 3% for wrong numbers, 7% for not-at-homes after three calls, and 15% for refusals). Thetelephone interview mode was chosen because personalinterviews would be more likely to produce s(x;ial de-sirability biases in product rating (Warwick and Lininger1975) and because a self-administered mode would beless effective in soliciting subjects' participation. Aver-age respondents were, in median values, 30-39 yearsold, female (58%), married (53%), and Caucasian (90%)with 1-2 years' college education and annual householdincome of $25,000-35.000.

Questionnaire

The final questionnaire began with sections askingsubjects for their images of products from three coun-tries. The images were measured on a 7-point semanticdifferential scale anchored by "good" and "bad." Thequestionnaire then elicited subjects' beliefs about attri-bute levels for three brands that were selected randomlyfrom six, one from each of the three countries for eachproduct type. Caution was exercised to ensure that thesubjects were fully informed about the country of originfor each brand examined. Seven-point semantic differ-ential scales were used for alt rating questions. The sub-jects were asked for their attitude toward each brand ona 7-point scale anchored by "good" and "bad." Thequestionnaire ended with sections asking the subjects abouttheir ownership of each country's products and about theirdemographic characteristics.

PREUMINARY DATA ANALYSIS

Before testing the alternative models, a brief discus-sion on descriptive statistics for the major variables is inorder. Table I reports the variables' means for eachcountry in each product type.

Country-Product FamiliaritySubjects' ownership was measured to assess their fa-

miliarity with a country's products. A subject's owner-ship may be an effective way of leaming attributes ofwell-known automobiles and television sets from differ-ent countries (Monroe 1976; Shapiro 1982). Shapiro (p.20) notes, "Virtually all services are impossible to eval-uate until they arc used." Two measures of a subject'sownership in his or her household were obtained, presentand past ownership. Note that ownership was measuredfor each individual product type (e.g., color television

226 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 1989

Table 1DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR KEY VARIABLES

Country image (CI 1)Tech. advance (Bl)Prestige (B2)Service (B3)Workmanship (B4)Price (B5)Attitude (ATTl)Present ownershipPast ownership

U.S.

5.245.403.905.354.984.745.11

52.3%76.4%

Television sets

Japan

6.015.694.414.955.524.885.61

38.7%42.2%

Korea

3.924.493.554.014.494.774.498.0%

12.5%

U.S.

4.554.713.414.974.515.134.67

32.6%63.7%

Automobiles

Japan

5.755.583.955.135.665.645.68

21.5%38.9%

Korea

3.804,283.493.914.364.924.361.7%

.8%

Scale: i (low) to 7 (high).

sets and compact automobiles). Table 1 clearly indicatesthat subjects are most familiar with U.S. products andleast familiar with Korean products across the two prod-uct types.

Reliability

Congeneric measures of reliability were calculated toassess intemal consistency of five items for beliefs(Joreskog 1971). The composite reliabilities were rea-sonably high across countries and products (.864, .797,and .832 for U.S., Japanese, and Korean automobiles,respectively; .873. .859, and .858 for U.S., Japanese,and Korean television sets, respectively). These valuesare higher than the acceptable level (.6) suggested byBagozzi and Yi (1988).

Discriminant Validity of Country Image

In examining this issue, the procedure suggested byBagozzi (1982) was used; discrimination requires a cor-relation between constructs (^I's) lower than one. Cor-relations between country image and beliefs were .721,.563, and .535 with standard errors of .069. .074, and.077 for U.S., Japanese, and Korean televisions, re-spectively, and were .692, .653, and .654 with standarderrors of .070, .072, and 0.72 for U.S., Japanese, andKorean automobiles, respectively. For discriminationbetween country image and brand attitude, Pearson cor-relations were .346, .286, and .406 for U.S.. Japanese,and Korean televisions, respectively, and were .315, .469,and .312 for U.S., Japanese, and Korean automobiles,respectively. These figures suggest discriminant validityof country image from the beliefs and brand attitude con-structs.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING

The proposed altemative models were estimated byusing LISREL VI (Joreskog and Sorbom 1984). For themodel estimation, matrices of Pearson product-momentcorrelations were used as input to LISREL.' Table 2 re-ports estimation results for goodness-of-fit measures.

-'Because of space constraints, the correlation matrices are not givenhere but are available upon request froni the author.

Tables 3 and 4 give estimates for the halo model's pa-rameters, and Table 5 contains estimates for the sum-mary construct's parameters.

Television Sets

Table 2 indicates that the halo model has a better fitfor Korea than does the summary construct model; chisquare statistics are 15.10 (p = .444, d.f. = 15) for thehalo model and 18.43 ip = .002. d.f. = 5) for the sum-mary construct model; other goodness-of-fit measures alsoindicate a better fit for Korea with the halo modei thanwith the summary construct model. In contrast, the sum-mary construct model has a better fit for U.S. than doesthe halo model. Chi square statistics are 5.46 (p = .363,d.f. = 5) for the summary construct model and 23.05{p = .083, d.f. = 15) for the halo model; however, othergoodness-of-fit measures show a slightly better fit for theformer than for the latter model. Neither model showsa good fit for Japan. Overall, various good nes s-of-filmeasures indicate a good fit of the halo model for Ko-rean television sets and a good fit of the summary con-struct model for U.S. television sets.

Tables 3 and 4 show that all parameter estimates forthe halo model are significant at the .05 level across thecountries for television sets. Similarly, all structural pa-rameter estimates (p, and ili's) for the summary constructmodel are significant across the countries. However, twoweight parameters (w's) are significant at the .05 levelfor the U.S. whereas only one is significant for Japanand Korea. This finding may be attributable to multi-collinearity among attribute items. Though slightly ten-tative, the number of significant weight parameters inTable 5 may suggest that country image does better insummarizing product attributes for the U.S. than for Ja-pan and Korea-

The fmdings for television sets suggest acceptance ofthe halo model for Korea (LF country) and acceptanceof the summary construct model for the U.S. (HF coun-try).

Automobiles

As shown in Table 2, the halo model has a better fitfor Korea than does the summary construct model; all

COUNTRY IMAGE; HALO OR SUMMARY CONSTRUCT? 227

Table 2GOODNESS-OF-FIT MEASURES FOR HALO AND SU^^A^ARY CONSTRUCT MODELS

Model

Television sets

llulo

Summary construct

Accept/reject

Automobiles

Halo

Summary construct

Accept/reject

Measures

X'(I5)GFIAGFIRMSR

x'(5)GFIAGFIRMSR

X^<15)GFIAGFIRMSR

xH5)GnAGFIRMSR

U.S.

23.05(p = .083)

.952

.911

.0435.46

ip = .363).987.927.037

Accept thesummary con-struct model

16.S6(p = .327)

.962

.930

.037

7.67 (;> = .175).982.899.047

Accept bothmodels

Japan

41.14(p = .000)

.911

.834

.05722.36

(p = .000).952.731.100

Reject bothmodels

23.84(p = 068)

.945

.898

.049

11.54 (/) = .042).973.851.059

Reject bothmodels

Korea

15.10^p = .444)

.963

.932

.03918.43

{p = .mi).959.773.095

Accept thehalo model

12.22(p = .662)

.969

.942

.033

20.29 (p = .001).956.753.084

Accept thehalo model

goodness-of-fit measures, including chi square statistics(12.22./7 = .662. d.f. = 15 for the halo model; 26.29,p = .(K)l, d.f. = 15 for the summary construct model),indicate such a pattem. However, both models have areasonably gmxi fit for the U.S.; chi square statistics areinsignificant at the . 10 level for both models (x^ = 7.67.p - . 175. d.f. = 5 for the summary construct model; x̂= 16.86, p = .327, d.f. = 15 for the halo model) andother g(K>dness-of-fit measures indicate a good fit. ForJapan, both models show only marginal fits.

A nolable pattem can be observed in Table 2. Overall.the halo model appears to do better in explaining the roleof country image for automobiles than for television sets.

Table 3STRUCTURAL PARAMETER ESTIMATES FOR HALO MODEL"

Parameters

Televi.fion .sets7 i

P.it'll

Automobiles>.P.4 > . .'i'n

U.S.

.563 (.069)

.482 (.121)

.292 (.062)

.858 ( .115)

.544 (.070)

.444 (.121)

.322 (.069)

.878 (.117)

Japan

.463 (.074)

.578 (.112)

.461 (.090)

.774 (.105)

.551 (.072)

.591 (.108)

.409 (.079)

.751 (.102)

Korea

.459 (.077)

.606 (.105)

.526 (.097)

.730 (.100)

.486 (.070)

.672 (.129)

.315 (.072)

.751 (.102)

'Figures in parentheses are standard

The halo model for automobiles has a good fit for theU.S. and Korea and a marginally good fit for Japan. Onepossible explanation for this finding is that automobilesare more complicated products with more product attri-butes than television sets. Consumers may have greaterdifficulty in leaming product attributes and abstractingthem into country image for automobiles than for tele-vision sets. Thus, country image still may serve as a haloin evaluating automobiles even when consumers are fa-miliar with the country's products.

Tables 3 and 4 show that all parameter estimates forthe halo model are significant at the .05 level across thecountries. In contrast, similar to the parameter estimatesfor television sets, two weight parameter estimates aresignificant at the .05 level for U.S. automobiles and onlyone is significant for Japan and Korea. All stmctural pa-rameter estimates (p, and t|*'s) in the summary constructmodei are significant. Again, the number of significantweight parameters may suggest that country image hasa greater role as a summary construct for U.S. productsthan for Japanese or Korean products.

The findings for automobiles suggest acceptance of thehalo model for Korea (LF country) and acceptance ofboth models for the U.S. (HF country).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide very important theoretical im-plications on the role of country image in product eval-uation. First, when consumers are not familiar with a

228 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 1989

Table 4MEASUREMENT PARAMETER ESTIMATES FOR HALO MODEL

Parameter!^

Television setsX «x't'\ €j j '

AutomobilesXx'e'x'e^x"e!x't.

(7.5.

I.OO(-).69 (.12)

1.09 (.11)1.18 (.11).87 (.12)

1.00 (-).69 (.12)

I.OO(.ll)1 16 ( 11).88 (.11)

.39 (.06)

.71 (.10)

.28 (.05)

.15 (.04)

.54 (.08)

.38 (.06)

.70 (.10)

.39 (.05)

.17 (.04)

.53 (.08)

Japan

1.00 (-).63 (.11).89 (.10)

1.11 (.10).83 (.11)

1.00 (-).55 (.11).96 (.09)

1.06 (.09).68 (.11)

.33 (.06)

.73 (.06)

.47 (.07)

.16 (.04)

.53 (.08)

.29 (.05)

.79 (.11)

.35 (.06)

.20 (.05)

.67 (.09)

Korea

1.00 (~).66 (.10).88 (.09)

1.03 (.09).71 (.10)

1.00 (-).64 (.13)

I.IO (.13)1.24 (.13).70 (.10)

.26 (.05)

.68 (.09)

.43 (.07)

.23 (.05)

.63 (.09)

.45 (.07)

.77 (.11)

.33 (.06)

.16 (.05)

.73 (.10)

'X's and t 's represent unstandardized factor loadings and error variances, respectively. Figures in parentheses are standard errors

country's products, country image may serve as a halofrom which consumers infer product attributes and it mayindirectly affect their brand attitude through their infer-ential beliefs. In contrast, as consumers become familiarwith a country's products, country image may becomea construct that summarizes consumers' beliefs aboutproduct attributes and directly affects their brand atti-tude. These implications suggest structural interrelation-ships between country image, beliefs about product at-tributes, and brand attitude.

The findings also have important practical implica-tions for policy makers and intemational marketers. Thefinding that country image can serve as a summary con-struct may suggest "conflicts of interests" between in-

PARAMETER

Parameters

Television sets(•>!WlW3

to*

PI

AutomobilesU),

015

3l•l l<h2

TableESTIMATES FOR

5SUMMARY CONSTRUCT

MODEL'

U.S.

.171 (.101)'-.061 (.082)

.054 (.118)

.341 (.129)'

.297 (.089)'

.346 (.089)'

.494 (.067)'

.880 (.119)'

-.041 (.109).084 (.085).157 (.107).399 (.127)'.180 (.093)'.315 (.091)'.554 (.075)'.901 (.121)'

Japan

.098 (.131)

.082 (.101)-.010 (.125)

.319 (.148)'

.148 (.110)

.289 (.091)'

.708 (.095)'

.917 (.124)=

.164 (.125)-.061 (.086)

.184 (.117)

.380 (.129)=-.034 (.092)

.469 (.084)'

.617 (.083)'

.780 (.105)'

Korea

.017 (.139)

.094 (.098)

.007 (.119)

.362 (.137)'

.133 (.100)

.406 (.087)=

.735 (.099)=

.835 (.113)'

.176 (.104)'-.025 (.084)

.002 (.118)

.477 (.124)'

.069 (.085)

.312(091)'

.596 (.080)'

.903 (.122)'

'Standard errors are given in parentheses,•significant at the .10 level.'Significant at the .05 level.

dividual companies and their industry. Individual com-panies can benefit from favorable country image by sellinginferior products. However, this practice may tarnish theestablished country image and affect the rest of the in-dustry of the country, because consumers continuouslyabstract product information into country image. Qualitycontrol is therefore necessary at the industry level as wellas at the govemment level. The industry association andthe govemment can establish quality standards and pro-vide incentives to exporters who meet the standards, whilepenalizing those who do not. Incentives could Includetax benefits, subsidies in production and marketing, andassistance from the govemment's and the industry's ex-port promotion agencies; penalties could include impos-ing export taxes and withholding export licenses. Thisissue may also be very important to a country's new ex-port industries. For example, Hyundai may be crusadingfor the Korean automobile industry. Its success in theU.S. may create market extemalities from which the in-dustry will benefit. Conversely, its failure may producean enormous entry barrier for Korean automakers laterentering the U.S. market.

Individual marketers who want to benefit from favor-able country image should perhaps highlight products ofsuperior quality from the same country. This emphasismay help consumers to generalize product informationover the country's products. For example, Mitsubishicould emphasize that its television sets are "as good asSony's." Altematively, marketers may want to disso-ciate their products from unsuccessful products from thecountry. For example, Chrysler may claim that its Coltis "not another American compact." This tactic may pre-vent consumers from using the country's product imagein product evaluation.

CaveatsFirst, the study considers only three countries. Ideally,

more countries at different levels of consumers' country-product familiarity would be needed to test the models.However, only a few countries are actively marketing

COUNTRY IMAGE; HALO OR SUMMARY CONSTRUCT? 229

television sets and automobiles in the U.S. Second, asa related issue, pnxiuct familiarity was assumed to bethe only difference between the countries examined. HenceIhe level of familiarity is only suggested as a possibleexplanation for the results. Third, a halo process mighthave been encouraged by asking for country images firstin the questionnaire design. Ideally, the order of ques-tions should be rotated.

Future studies should examine how consumers formcountry image: what types of exposure affect consumers'formation of country image and how stable their countryimage is (i.e.. to what extent they adjust their countryimage upon acquiring new product infonnation.

REFERENCES

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1982). "A Field Investigation of CausalRelations Among Cognition.s. Affect, Intcntion.s, and Be-havior." Journal of Marketing Research, 19 {November).562-K4.

— and Y. Yi (1988). "On the Evaluation of Structurall-Ljuation Models." Journal of the Academy of MarketingSvivncc, 16 (Spring). 77-94.

Belk. Russell W. (1975). "Situatiotial Variables and Con-sumer Behavior," yoKr/ia/o/Consumer W^jfarcA. 2, 157-64.

Bilkey. Wan-en J. and E. Nes (1982). "Country-of-Origin Ef-fects on Product Evaluations." Journal of InternationalBu.siness Studies. 13 (Spring/Summer). 89-99.

lirickson. Gary M., J. K. Johans.son. ami P. Chao (1984)."Image Variables in Multiattributc Product Evaluations."Journut of Conxttmer Research, 11 (September). 694-9.

l-t/.cl. Michael J. and B. J. Walker (1974), "Advertising Strat-egy tor Foreign Products," Journal of Advertising Research,14 (June). 41-4.

Fornell. Claes (1982), A Second Generation of MultivariateAnalysis in Marketing. Vol I: Method. New York: PraegerPublishers.

Hathill. D. S. (1980). "Multinational Marketing Strategy: Im-plications for Attitudes Toward Country-of-Origin." Man-agement International Review, 20 (4). 26-30.

Han. C. Min and Vem Terpstra (1988). "Country-of-OriginEffects for Uni-National and Bi-National Products," Journal

of International Business Studies, 16 (Sumtner). 235-56.Huber. Joel and John McCann (1982). "The impact of Infer-

ential Beliefs on Product Evaluations." Journal of Market-ing Research, 19 (August). 324-33.

Jacoby. Jacob. J. J. Olsen. and R. A. Haddock (197!). "Price.Brand Name and Product Composition Characteristics asDeterminants of Perceived Quality." Journal of AppliedPsychology, 56 (6). 570-9.

. G. Szybillo. and J. Busato-Schach (1977). "Infor-mation Acquisition Behavior in Brand Choice Situations.**Journal of Cimsumer Research, 3 (March). 209-16.

Johansson, Johny K.. Susan P. Douglas, and Ikujiro Nonaka(1985). "Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin onProduct Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective,*"Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (November), 388-96.

Joreskog. Karl G. (1971). "Statistical Analysis of CongenericTests." Psychometrika, 36. 109-33.

and bag Sorbom (1984), LISREL VI, 3rd ed. Moores-ville. IN: Scientific Software.

Miller. George A. (1956). "The Magical Number Seven. Plusor Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for ProcessingInformation," Psychological Review. 63, 81-97.

Monroe. Kent B. (i976). "The Influence of Price Differencesand Brand Familiarity on Brand Preference,** Journal ofConsumer Research. 3 (June), 42-9.

Nagashima, Akira (1970). "A Comparison of Japanese andU.S. Attitudes Toward Foreign Products." Journal of Mar-keting, 34 (January). 68-74.

(1977). "A Comparative "Made In' Product ImageSurvey Among Japanese Busine.ssmen." Journal of Mar-keting, 41 (July), 95-100.

Shapiro. Carl (1982). "'Consumer Information, Product Qual-ity, and Seller Reputation." Bell Journal of Economics, 13(Spring). 20-35.

Simon, Herbert A. (1974), "How Big is a Chunk?" Science,183 (February). 1-23.

Warwick. D. P. and C. A. Lininger (1975). The Sample Sur-vey: Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill BookCompany.

Wright, Peter L. (1975), "Consumer Choice Strategies: Sim-plifying vs. Optimizing," Journal of Marketing Research.11 (February). 60-7.

Rcpmii Nl. JMR2621O7