Skip to main content

Reprint: Us Versus Them, or Us Versus Everyone? Delineating Consumer Aversion to Foreign Goods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Key Developments in International Marketing

Part of the book series: JIBS Special Collections ((JIBSSC))

  • 45 Accesses

Abstract

This paper presents evidence that international animosity and consumer ethnocentrism are distinct constructs that play different roles depending on the set of products available to consumers. Results show that animosity toward a foreign nation is related to choices between foreign goods, while consumer ethnocentrism is related to choices between domestic and foreign goods. Further, the study finds animosity effects even though anger levels are generally low, thus extending the boundaries of the animosity model of foreign purchase. The study focuses on U.S. consumer views of Japan and Japanese products. Implications for decisions concerning global versus local branding strategies are discussed.

Klein, J. Us Versus Them, or Us Versus Everyone? Delineating Consumer Aversion to Foreign Goods. J Int Bus Stud 33, 345–363 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491020

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The data presented below were collected in the U.S. before the economic crisis in Asia.

  2. 2.

    It is possible that some respondents who harbored animosity toward Japan, or who were highly ethnocentric, nevertheless purchased a Japanese car because they knew their model of car was actually built in a U.S. factory. This would lead, however, to a reduced relationship between attitudes toward buying Japanese and owning a Japanese car.

  3. 3.

    Other negative opinions included: concerns about the stress put on Japanese school children to achieve, observations that cities were overcrowded, and a dislike of Japanese food. No issues that would represent sources of animosity, other than trade and war related issues, were detected in responses.

  4. 4.

    Respondents were also asked to state their agreement with a set of items measuring attitudes toward buying Japanese products, in order to test Klein et al.’s (1998) model.

  5. 5.

    As in Klein et al. (1998), a subset of the CETSCALE items was included in the analyses. The four highest loading items (those with the highest λ’s) were selected as recommended by Batra et al. (2000) and Steenkamp et al. (1999). In this study, the correlation between the four selected items and the full 10-item scale was 0.96.

  6. 6.

    It is difficult to make clear comparisons between consumers in Nanjing and those in the U.S. There are many factors that could produce differences in answers to the animosity items, and the Nanjing sample collected by Klein et al. (1998) was convenience in nature. There is an evident difference, however, in levels of animosity between the two samples.

  7. 7.

    The original Klein et al. (1998) model was replicated using willingness to buy Japanese items instead of the differential preference items. This model achieved a good level of fit: χ2(200) = 327.93, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.053, CFI = 0.95, and NNFI = 0.94.

  8. 8.

    This relationship between animosity and preferences for a Japanese over a South Korean product is linear in that those low in animosity show a preference for the Japanese goods (above the neutral point) while those high in animosity show an aversion (below the neutral point).

  9. 9.

    An alternative approach to looking at the relationship between animosity and product judgments was also taken. Subjects were grouped as being either low (< 4) or high (> 4) on animosity, mean product judgments for each group were compared, and no significant difference was found (t (167) = 1.58, n.s.). An ANCOVA with consumer ethnocentrism as a covariate also showed no difference in product judgments across the two animosity groups (F (2,166) = 0.03, n.s.).

  10. 10.

    The relationship between animosity and product preference is not only due to the attitudes of older consumers: the strength of the relationship between animosity and the preference for a Japanese over a South Korean product does not increase with age.

References

  • Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp & Rajeev Batra. 1999. Brand Positioning Through Advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer Culture. Journal of Marketing, 63 (January): 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, James C., & David W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, Richard P. 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August): 375–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batra, Rajeev, Ramaswamy Venkatram, Dana L. Alden, Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp & S. Ramachander. 2000. Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Developing Countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2): 83–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilkey, Warren J., & Erik Nes. 1982. Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies, 13: 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Iris. 1997. The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czinkota, Michael R. & Likka A. Ronkainen. 1996. Global Marketing. Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling, John R., & Danny R. Arnold. 1988. The Competitive Position Abroad of Products and Marketing Practices of the United States, Japan, and Selected European Countries. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5(Fall): 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling, John R., & Van R. Wood. 1989. A Longitudinal Study Comparing Perceptions of U.S. and Japanese Consumers in a Third/Neutral Country: Finland 1975–1985. Journal of International Business Studies, 19: 427–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling, John R., & Van R. Wood. 1990. A Longitudinal Study Comparing Perceptions of U.S. and Japanese Consumer Products in a Third/Neutral Country: Finland 1975 to 1985. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(3): 427–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Susan P. & Yoram Wind. 1987. The Myth of Globalization. Columbia Journal of World Business, 24(3): 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, Claes & David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluation Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (February): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E. & V. Srinivasan. 1990. Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments With Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(October): 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Anil K. & Vijay Govindarajan. 1999. How to Build a Global Presence. Financial Times: Mastering Global Business, Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, C. Min. 1989. Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct. Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May): 222–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, Joseph F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, & W. C. Black. 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis (4th Edition). Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, Scott. 1995. Apparatchiks Left Won Ton. The Australian, Sept 11, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Sung-Tai, & Robert S. Wyer, Jr. 1989. Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(September): 175–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, Subhash. 1989. Standardization of International Marketing Strategy: Some Research Hypotheses. Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (January): 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, Johny K. 1989. Determinants and Effects of the use of “Made in” Labels. International Marketing Review, 6: 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, Johny K., Susan P. Douglas, & Ikujiro Nonaka. 1985. Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (November): 388–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeClerc, France, Bernd H. Schmitt, & Laurette Dube. 1994. Foreign Branding and its Effects on Product Perceptions and Attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May): 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Jill G., Richard E. Ettenson, & Marlene D. Morris. 1998. The Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Marketing, 62(1): 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, Durauraj. 1994. Country-of-Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise and Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21: 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, Richard, S. Durvasula, & D. R. Lichtenstein. 1991. A Cross-National Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 28: 320–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, Richard, James S. Boles, Darly O. McKee, & Robert McMurrian. 1997. An Investigation into the Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in a Personal Selling Context. Journal of Marketing, 61 (July): 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, Nicolas, & Louise A. Heslop. 1993. Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing. New York: International Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Bill. 1991. A Severe Case of Ja-Panic. Time, June 24th.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, Jacquiline & Colin James. 1995. Chain Reaction. Far East Economic Review, August 17, pp. 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, Martin. 1995. Effects of Global Market Conditions on Brand Image Customization and Brand Performance. Journal of Advertising, 24 (4): 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, Subhash, Terence A. Shimp, & Jeongshin Shin. 1995. Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents and Moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23: 26–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimp, T. & Sharma, S. 1987. Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24: 280–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, Aviv. 1999. Bounded Rationality, Planning, Standardization of International Strategy, and Export Performance: A Structural Model Examination. Journal of International Marketing, 7(2): 24–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Frankel ter Hofstede & Michel Wedel. 1999. A Cross-National Investigation into the Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness. Journal of Marketing Research, 63 (April): 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, William & Edgar Pessemier. 1973. Issues in Marketing’s Use of Multi-Attribute Models. Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November): 428–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Van R., & Darling, John R. 1993. The Marketing Challenges of the Newly Independent Republics: Product Competitiveness in Global Markets. Journal of International Marketing, 1(1): 77–102.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Erin Anderson, Pierre Chandon, Niraj Dawar, Richard Ettenson, Andrew John, Ann Kuo, David Midgley, Richard Netemeyer, Subramanian Rangan, and Brian Sternthal for their helpful comments. The INSEAD Research and Development Department funded this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill Gabrielle Klein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Product Judgments (modified from Darling and Wood 1989; Darling and Arnold 1988; and Wood and Darling 1993).

Products made in Japan are carefully produced and have fine workmanship.

Strongly Disagree

         

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Products made in Japan show a very high degree of technological advancement. Products made in Japan are usually quite reliable and seem to last the desired length of time.

Products made in Japan are usually a good value for the money.

  • Choices Between Products

Now, I would like you to picture the same product manufactured by two different countries. It is important that you are picturing a product where the brands are equal across all aspects of the product, including price, quality and styling. For each statement please indicate the likelihood of buying this product manufactured from the first country compared only to this product manufactured from the second country.

Likelihood of buying the United States product compared to the Japanese product.

Definitely buy the U.S. product

□1

□2

□3

□4

□5

□6

□7

Definitely buy the Japanese product

The same question was asked again for a South Korean versus a Japanese product.

Respondents were reminded again that the products were equal on all dimensions and were asked if they would pay more for the Japanese product, about the same for either product, or more for the U.S./South Korean product.

  • Consumer Ethnocentrism (from Shimp and Sharma’s 1987 CETSCALE)

It is not right to purchase foreign products, because it puts Americans out of jobs.

A real American should always buy American-made products.

We should purchase products manufactured in America instead of letting other countries get rich off of us.

Americans should not buy foreign products, because this hurts American business and causes unemployment.

  • Animosity

I feel angry towards Japan.

I like Japan.

I do not like Japan.

  • War Animosity

I still fell angry towards Japan because of World War II.

We should not forget the atrocities committed by Japan during World War II.

I cannot forgive Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor.

  • Economic Animosity

Japan is taking advantage of the U.S.

I feel angry towards Japan because of the way they have conducted trade with the United States.

The U.S. is more fair in its trade dealings with Japan than Japan is with the U.S.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Klein, J.G. (2024). Reprint: Us Versus Them, or Us Versus Everyone? Delineating Consumer Aversion to Foreign Goods. In: Samiee, S., Katsikeas, C.S., Riefler, P. (eds) Key Developments in International Marketing. JIBS Special Collections. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17366-0_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics