Country–Company Interaction Effects and Supplier Preferences among Industrial Buyers

Bradley, Frank

doi:10.1016/s0019-8501(99)00116-9

Cited by 33 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, our findings uncover a positive effect of product-related CI on REO with foreign partners (H 2b is supported). This novel result echoes and extends prior research on the role of CI in supplier evaluations (Bradley 2001;Knight, Holdsworth, and Mather 2007;Vinhas da Silva, Davies, and Naudé 2001). Although the hypothesized positive effect of people-related CI on REO is invalidated (H 2a is not supported), this does not mean that people-related CI is of no importance.…”

Section: Discussion and Implications Contrary Direct Effects Of Pd Ansupporting

confidence: 84%

Psychic Distance and Country Image in Exporter–Importer Relationships

Durand

Turkina

Robson

2016

Journal of International Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflicting evidence on the issue of psychic distance (PD) in international business relationships has suggested the existence of misunderstood boundary conditions to its effect. This article argues that country image (CI) is a contingent factor to the effect of PD. Expectancy-value theory provides the theoretical foundations, and structural equation modeling analyses for a sample of 358 exporter-importer relationships in the global wine industry provide empirical support for this argument. Product-related CI mitigates the negative impact of PD on the relational exchange orientation (REO) between firms. Specifically, a high level of PD dampens REO when product-related CI is poor, whereas a strong product-related CI helps firms facing such PD conditions to build REO. People-related CI has an indirect effect on REO through product-related CI. This study helps explain the "paradox of distance" and offers a fresh perspective on how to handle the issue of PD when relevant.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Implications Contrary Direct Effects Of Pd Ansupporting

confidence: 84%

Psychic Distance and Country Image in Exporter–Importer Relationships

Durand

Turkina

Robson

2016

Journal of International Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past research has shown that, when known to consumers, COI influences the evaluation of products in general (e.g., Heslop et al 2004, Laroche et al 2005, classes of products (e.g., Nagashima 1970, Ittersum/ Candel/Meulenberg 2003, specific types or brands of products (e.g., Parameswaran/Pisharodi 1994, Häubl 1996, Lampert/Jaffe 1998, consumer and industrial products (e.g., Heslop/Papadopoulos 1993, Bradley 2001) as well as services (e.g., Javalgi/Cutler/ Winans 2001). This effect is especially strong for consumers' home country perceptions (Shimp/Sharma 1987, Han 1988.…”

Section: Country Imagementioning

confidence: 99%

Home Country Image, Country Brand Equity and Consumers’ Product Preferences: An Empirical Study

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and Key Results 0This study applies the construct of brand equity in a country context, and measures the value-added with which the name of a country endows a product or a brand as perceived by the individual consumer. 0 Specifically, based on Yoo and Donthu's (2001) brand equity scale, a country brand equity (CBE) scale is developed and empirically tested for its psychometric properties; subsequently a model linking (home) country image (COI) and product preferences with country brand equity as an intervening variable is estimated.0 Results indicate (a) that country brand equity is influenced by country image perceptions, (b) that country brand equity positively impacts on product preferences, and (c) that the latter are not directly influenced by country image perceptions.

show abstract

“…Extant research has identified the country of design as the major component of the COO in its ability to affect a customer's qualitative perception (Li, Murray, & Scott, 2000;Bradley, 2001). However, Quester, Dzever, and Chetty (2000) have suggested that consumers mostly value the COO in regards to product components rather than a product's country of design or assembly.…”

Section: Literature and Proposition Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further distinctions proposed by the studies, such as those pertaining to the country of parts and the country of assembly (Queter, Dzever, & Chetty, 2000;Chao, 2001;Insch & McBride, 1998;2004), have never been quoted, confirming the increasing importance of the perception of the country in terms of brand origin over the productive dimension. The country of design, recognized by previous studies as a COO component able to influence the consumer's qualitative perception (Li, Murray, & Scott, 2000;Bradley, 2001), has been considered by the interviewed companies as an antecedent to the country of brand, which represents the influential image of the country where a brand has originated from. In other words, the analysis of the COO from the company's perspective usually simplifies deconstruction strategy theories significantly by focusing more on consumers and their associations (Andehn & Berg, 2011).…”

Section: Diccussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%