17100597

8/12/2019 17100597

1/13

To purchase or not to purchase US products:role of religiosity, animosity, and

ethno-centrism among Malaysian consumersZafar Ahmed

School of Business, Lebanese American University, Chouran, Lebanon

Rosdin Anang

Faculty of Business, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Nor Othman

Department of Marketing and Information Systems, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and

Murali Sambasivan

Graduate School of Management, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Serdang, Malaysia

AbstractPurpose The main purpose of this research is to empirically test how animosity, religiosity, and ethnocentrism interact to affect judgment about US

products and purchase action of consumers in a progressive Islamic country like Malaysia. There are many studies that have been conducted inconservative Islamic countries such as Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.Design/methodology/approach The product chosen for this research is US fast food restaurants. A questionnaire was constructed and responses wereobtained from 410 Malaysian consumers from different ethnic backgrounds. The authors tested the framework using structural equation modeling (SEM).Findings Based on the test results, the authors conclude the following significant relationships: animosity on purchase action of consumers,ethnocentric tendencies on animosity of consumers, religiosity on ethnocentric tendencies of consumers, religiosity on animosity of consumers,ethnocentric tendencies of consumers on judgment of foreign product, foreign product judgment of consumers on purchase action, and animosity andethnocentrism play mediating roles.Originality/value The current study adds significantly to the body of knowledge on consumer behavior, especially the roles of animosity, religiosity,and ethnocentrism. The findings can help marketing managers to formulate appropriate strategies when consumers decide to boycott US products.

Keywords Religiosity, Malaysia, Animosity, Ethnocentrism, US products

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

Favorable or unfavorable disposition of consumers towards acountry results in acceptance or rejection of products orservices offered by that country (Maheswaran, 2006).

Consumers may have a feeling of hostility or animositytowards certain countries resulting in boycotting theirproducts and services (Klein et al., 1998; Smith and Li,2010). According to AlShebil et al. (2011), consumerboycotts are increasingly being used by various activist and

religious groups to punish targeted countries. The policies ofthe US (US) across the Middle-East and Afghanistan havebeen the subject of criticism in many countries dominated by

Muslims and religious groups in these countries have urged

the consumers not to patronize US products and services.

According to Charney and Yakatan (2005, p. 8), The image

of the US has deteriorated significantly since 2001

particularly across the Muslim world. The spread of

anti-US feeling in the Islamic world is a serious problem for

the US. The growth of hostility to America in Muslim

countries increases recruitment and support for extremism

and terror. The anti-US sentiments worldwide is one of the

reasons contributing to US recession (Ross, 2009). According

to Chiozza (2008), a global study conducted by Pew

Foundation reveal that 70 percent of Iranians, 62 percent of

Jorda nians, 51 percent of Moroccans, 68 percent of

Pakistanis, and 64 percent of Saudi Arabians are in favor of

boycotting US products and services. Recent studies havehighlighted the hostility of consumers across Muslim

countries toward US and European products (Bahaee and

Pisani, 2009; Benterki, 2009; Leong, 2008; Maher and Mady,

2010; Roseet al., 2008). It is a common belief that consumers

make rational choices about products by comparing and

contrasting the various attributes of the products. But,

emotions play a major role in consumer purchase of foreign

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm

Journal of Services Marketing

27/7 (2013) 551563

qEmerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]

[DOI 10.1108/JSM-01-2012-0023]

Received 28 January 2012Revised 4 June 2012Accepted 20 August 2012

551

8/12/2019 17100597

2/13

products and the recent studies support this contention(Maheswaran, 2006).

The role of religiosity in consumer behavior is wellestablished (Bailey and Sood, 1993; Essoo and Dibb, 2004;McDaniel and Burnett, 1990; Mokhlis, 2006; Sood andNasu, 1995; Wilkes et al., 1986). Scholars have argued thatreligiosity is very personal and its influence on consumer

behavior is dependent upon an individuals level of religiouscommitment. In predominantly Muslim countries likeMalaysia, the level of religious commitment amongindividuals in high and therefore, it is plausible to observethe impact of religiosity on the purchase behavior ofconsumers (Kamaruddin, 2009).

Another factor that plays a significant role in the purchaseof foreign products is the ethnocentric behavior of theconsumers (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). There are severalstudies that have established the link between the ethnocentrictendencies, product judgment and purchase behavior ofconsumers (Erdener and Ali, 2002; Lu and Zhen, 2004; Saffuet al., 2010; Taewon and Ik-Whan, 2002). Scholars haveshown that in a society where the members have strongethnocentric tendencies, the consumers tend to have negative

views about foreign products and therefore, do not favorbuying foreign products.A research question that is addressed in this study is how

these three important constructs (animosity, religiosity, andethnocentrism) interact to affect product judgment andpurchase action of consumers in a progressive Islamiccountry such as Malaysia. According to Hashim andMahpuz (2011), the blend of tolerance, compromisebetween multi-religious ethnic groups and advancements inscience and technology has made Malaysia a model nation forIslamic countries. As indicated earlier, there are many studiesthat study the impact of each of these constructs on purchasebehavior of consumers (Kamaruddin, 2009; Maheswaran,2006; Shimp and Sharma, 1987). However, there is a dearthof empirical studies that study the combined effect of these

constructs. Another factor that motivated this research is thelocation of the study. Malaysia is one of the fastest developingand progressive countries in South-East Asia. It is amulti-cultural country with three major ethnic groups:Malays, Chinese and Indians. About 60 percent of thecitizens in Malaysia are Muslims, 30 percent Chinese, and10 percent Indians and others and Islam is the official religionof the country. This diversity is unique to Malaysia whencompared to other Islamic countries (Hashim and Mahpuz,2011). Earlier studies in conservative Islamic countries likeIran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Jordan haveshown significant animosity towards US products and services(Bahaee and Pisani, 2009; Benterki, 2009; Chiozza, 2008;Leong, 2008; Maher and Mady, 2010; Rose et al., 2008). AreUS products boycotted by certain consumers in a progressive

Islamic country like Malaysia? How do animosity, religiosity,and ethnocentrism interact with each other and influenceMalaysian consumers product judgment and purchasebehavior?

Our study falls under the category of country of origin(COO) research in services with a focus on US. In this study,we have chosen US fast-food restaurants operating acrossMalaysia as the service product category. There is a significantpresence of these restaurants in Malaysia such as KFC,McDonald, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Starbucks and A&W.Javalgi et al. (2001) have argued that future research oncountry of origin (COO) effects in service industry shouldexamine the areas in which greatest service export/import

growth occurs, and what service is currently the largest tradedinternationally. They have recommended US fast foodrestaurants as an important area of study because of theirsignificant international presence.

Literature review

An initial study by Schooler (1965), triggered a plethora ofstudies documenting the influence of COO on the productevaluation and purchase behavior of consumers (e.g. Ahmedand dAstous, 2001; Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Bruning, 1997;Han and Terpstra, 1988; Lee et al., 1992; Papadopouloset al.,1998; Samiee, 1994). However, there is a dearth of studiesrelated to service products (Javalgi et al., 2001).

According to Papadopoulos et al. (1998), the consumerper ceptions of a products COO is based on thr eecomponents of attitude (cognition, affection and conation).Cognition refers to the knowledge about the products orservices; affection refers to the favorable or unfavorableattitude towards the COO; and conation refers to the actualbuying behavior. The affection or the emotional componentcan play a dominant role in the purchase of foreign products

or services (Kinra, 2006). The constructs animosity,ethnocentric tendencies, and religiosity used in this researchare important emotional components influencing consumerbehavior (Klein et al. 1998; Shimp and Sharma, 1987; Soodand Nasu, 1995).

Many researchers have used dual process models as atheoretical basis for understanding COO effects and the dualprocess of persuasion is: systematic processing and heuristicprocessing (Chaiken, 1980; Eagly and Chaiken, 1984; Pettyand Cacioppo, 1986; Maheswaranet al., 1992). These modelssuggest that COO perceptions influence subsequentevaluations of products or services associated with thatcountry and perceptions of the country are associated withemotional components. According to Tiedens and Linton(2001), emotional components influence persuasion. Many

scholars have shown that the positive or negative valence ofthe mood state influences subsequent evaluations of a target(Maheswaran, 2006, p. 4). It is well known that thegeneralized mood significantly influences persuasion andspecific emotions in that mood have differential effects onpersuasion (Bodenhausen et al., 1994; DeStono et al., 2000;Johnson and Tversky, 1983; Lerner and Keltner, 2000). Theconstruct animosity, used in this study falls under thiscategory and this emotion induces heuristic processing ofpersuasion (Bodenhausen et al., 1994). There are manydefinitions for animosity but in this research, we use thefollowing definition proposed by Klein et al. (1998, p. 90):animosity is remnants of antipathy related to previous orongoing military, political, or economic events.

The ethnocentric behavior of consumers can be explained

through the social identity theory (SIT) (Turner, 1987).According to this theory, ethnocentrism occurs whenconsumers see themselves as members of a distinct grouprather than unique individuals. This process leads them toadopt a social identity where their beliefs, ideas, attitudes,values and behaviors tend to reflect norms of their group andthey see their group as superior, positive and distinct ascompared to others (Turner, 1987). If based in developed(western) countries, the members of this distinctive groupview foreign products as inferior and threatening to theircountry and consequently do not favor them. This attitude ofconsumers has a direct effect on the purchase of foreignproducts (Erdener and Ali, 2002; Saffu et al., 2010; Lu and

To purchase or not to purchase US products

Zafar Ahmed, Rosdin Anang, Nor Othman and Murali Sambasivan


Volume 27 Number 7 2013 551563

552

8/12/2019 17100597

3/13

Zhen, 2004; Taewon and Ik-Whan, 2002). The construct,

ethnocentrism, used in this study comes from SIT and is

defined as the view of things in which ones own group is the

center of everything, and all others are scaled with reference

to it [. . .] each group nourishes its own pride and vanity,

boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with

contempt on outsiders (Sumner, 1906, p. 18).

Religion provides an individual with personal as well associal identity within the context of a cosmic or metaphysical

background (Marty and Appleby, 1991). Religiosity is the

religious commitment of individuals towards their faith(s)

(Johnson et al., 2001). The concept of religiosity, like

ethnocentrism, emanates from the SIT. Many scholars have

studied the impact of religiosity on purchase behavior and

have argued that religiosity should be considered as a possible

determinant of purchase behavior (Bailey and Sood, 1993;

Jianfeng et al., 2009; Mokhlis, 2006; Sood and Nasu, 1995).

Religiositys frontiers consist of six dimensions: belief,

experience, religious practice, religious knowledge,

individual moral consequences, and social consequences

(De Jong et al., 1976).Scholarly literature on ethnocentrism and animosity argues

both concepts as antecedents of purchase intention of foreign

and domestic products (Javalgi et al., 2005; Maher and Mady,

2010). Where does religiosity fit in? According to Altintas and

Tokol (2007), religiosity is one of the antecedents of

ethnocentrism. According to Maher and Mady (2010),

effects of animosity, social norms, and anticipated emotions

as antecedents to animosity might differ based on individuals

level of religiosity. Therefore, we argue that understanding the

interactions between religiosity, ethnocentrism and animosity

and their combined effect(s) are critical to understanding the

purchase behavior of consumers towards foreign products in a

progressive Islamic country like Malaysia. In this study, we

consider the influence of five constructs on Malaysian

consumers: animosity, ethnocentrism, religiosity, product

judgment, and purchase action. The framework used in thisresearch is given in Figure 1 and the service category studied in

this research is US fast food restaurants located across Klang

Valley of Malaysia.

Hypotheses development

Relationship between animosity and purchase behavior

Our arguments are based on the studies that have establishedthe role of emotions in influencing the use of COO onproduct/service evaluations (Lerner and Keltner, 2000;Maheswaran, 2006; Tiedens and Linton, 2001). Based onthe theory of dual process of persuasion (Maheswaran, 2006),

consumers with a high level of animosity towards a particularcountry are prone to impulsive and quick response toproducts/services because of the past or future actions of thecountry that may be in the form of military aggression,economic sanctions and political blackmail. Many scholarshave established a strong link between animosity andpurchase behavior of consumers towards the productsproduced by countries that have conflicts (Ang et al., 2004;Bahaee and Pisani, 2009; Klein et al., 1998; Nijssen andDouglas, 2004; Roseet al., 2008). Based on above arguments,we hypothesize that:

H1. There is a negative relationship between feeling ofanimosity towards a country and purchase behavior ofconsumers towards products made by that country.

Relationship between ethnocentric tendencies of

consumers and their purchase behavior

Ever since Shimp and Sharma (1987) developed theCETSCALE to measure ethnocentrism, many studies thatlink ethnocentrism and purchase behavior of consumers havebeen reported (Lu and Zhen, 2004; Erdener and Ali, 2002;Herche, 1994; Javalgi et al., 2005; Kaynak and Kara, 2002;Rose et al., 2008; Saffu et al., 2010; Sharma et al., 1995;Witkowski, 2000) and have shown a significant relationshipbetween ethnocentrism and purchase behavior of consumers.When consumers are strongly ethnocentric, they shun foreignproducts. Animosity coupled with ethnocentrism can have atelling effect on the purchase behavior of consumers towardsforeign products (Shankarmahesh, 2006). A study by Herche(1994) indicates that ethnocentric tendencies of consumershave greater explanatory power in terms of variations inpurchase behavior of consumers than marketing mixvariables. Based on these arguments, we hypothesize that:

Figure 1Research framework





553

8/12/2019 17100597

4/13

H2. The higher the level of ethnocentric tendencies ofconsumers, the lower their intention to purchaseforeign products.

Relationship between religiosity and purchase behavior

of consumers

One of the earlier scholarly works linking religiosity and

purchase behavior is by Sood and Nasu (1995), who throughtheir study in Japan and US have established the relationshipbetween religiosity and purchase behavior. Delener (1994) bystudying the relationship between religiosity of consumers andautomobile purchase decision-making has argued thatreligiosity should be used as an important construct inunderstanding purchase patterns of consumers. Jianfeng et al.(2009) in their study in China have concluded that religiosityis strongly linked with behavior and purchase decisions ofconsumers. According to Samli (1995) and Choi (2009),religiosity has a strong influence not only on consumptionpatterns but also on purchase behavior and productpreferences of consumers. A study by Srivastava (2010)shows that religion and religiosity of consumers in emergingmarkets like India affect buying intention of consumerstowards foreign and domestic products. Based on theseevidences, we hypothesize that:

H3. The stronger the religiosity of consumers, the lower theintention to purchase foreign products.

Relationship between ethnocentrism and animosity

towards foreign products

Lwin et al. (2010) have studied four countries based onvarying levels of ethnocentrism and US-focused animosityand have concluded that there is a strong link betweenanimosity and ethnocentrism. According to Jimenez and SanMartin (2010), socio-psychological variables (ethnocentrismand animosity) are interrelated. A study by Crnjak-Karanovice t al . (2005) on the interaction between animosity,ethnocentrism and product judgment in Croatia has found astrong positive relationship between ethnocentrism andanimosity. Kea and Phau (2006) in their study havecontended that ethnocentrism and animosity are positivelycorrelated. Based on these arguments, we hypothesize that:

H4. Ethnocentric tendencies of consumers have a positiverelationship with animosity towards foreign products.

Relationship between religiosity and ethnocentric

tendencies of consumers

It is the early US literature that has examined religiosity andethnocentrism in great length (Brown, 2005). For instance,an empirical-theological study by Capucao (1965) is one of

the earliest empirical studies that established the link betweenreligiosity and ethnocentrism. Many studies have establishedthe link between religiosity and ethnocentrism (Billiet, 1995;Eisinga et al., 1990; Katz, 1992). However a recent study byHooghe (2008) has found that there is no consensus on theimpact of religion (religiosity) on ethnocentrism. He furthercontends that the relationship may be curvilinear with thehighest ethnocentrism levels among believers that are onlymarginally connected to organized religion (p. 3). It isinteresting to study the relationship between religiosity andethnocentrism in a country like Malaysia which besides beingan Islamic country has a confluence of three cultures, Malay,Chinese and Indian. We hypothesize that:

H5. There is a positive relationship between religiosity andethnocentric tendencies of consumers.

Relationship between religiosity and animosity of

consumers

Ever since Klein et al. (1998) wrote about the concept ofanimosity, many studies have featured this construct while

studying purchase intentions and behavior (Ang et al., 2004;Bahaee and Pisani, 2009; Nijssen and Douglas, 2004). Forinstance, a study by Sood and Nasu (1995) propose the effectof religiosity on animosity. Yemelianova (2005), in her studyon kinship, ethnicity and religion in post-communist societies,reveals how Tsarist ideologists channeled Cossacks deepreligiosity into animosity towards Muslim neighbors. Kasoma(2010) has alluded to a strong link between religiosity andanimosity based on the case studies across Africa. Based onthese arguments, we hypothesize that:

H6. There is a positive relationship between religiosity andanimosity towards foreign products from countries ofconflict.

Relationship between religiosity, ethnocentrism,

animosity and product judgment

Kea and Phau (2006), based on their study in China, haveargued that ethnocentrism and consumer animosity have astrong negative relationship with foreign product judgment.According to Nijssen et al. (1999), ethnocentrism andanimosity are negatively correlated to foreign productjudgment as evidenced in a study carried out in a town inThe Netherlands bordering Germany. During the period ofless or no conflict between two neighboring countries(Netherlands and Germany), they found the effect ofethnocentrism and animosity to be less significant. A similarresult has been observed by Rose et al. (2008) during theirstudy with Muslim Arabs and Jewish Israelis on their attitudetoward foreign products. In a recent study, Josiassen (n.d.)has introduced a new construct called consumerdisidentification that in his opinion has a better explanatorypower than ethnocentrism when it comes to productjudgment. However, in this study we are not using this newconstruct. There is a dearth of studies linking religiosity andproduct judgment. Based on the above arguments, wepropose the following relationships:

H7. Animosity of consumers toward a foreign country willmake them have a negative judgment about theproduct from that country.

H8. Ethnocentric tendencies of consumers will make themhave a negative judgment about the products from theforeign country that has conflicts.

Relationship between foreign product judgment and

purchase behavior of consumers

According to traditional COO cues; there is a directrelationship between consumers product judgments andtheir buying behavior(s) (Cheah and Phau, 2006).Consumers often judge foreign products based on theirperceptions that are influenced by several factors external tothe products (Nguyen et al., 2008; Shin, 2001). COO couldbe one of such factors. Taewon and Ik-Whan (2002) haveshown that product judgment plays an important role ininfluencing purchase behavior of foreign products in certaincultural context as evidenced by their study comparing US





554

8/12/2019 17100597

5/13

and Korean consumers. A study by Ettenson and Klein(2005) indicate that product judgment is predictive of priorpurchase behavior(s). However, a recent study by Smith andLi (2010) on the boycott of Japanese products by Chineseconsumers has shown that product judgment is linked towillingness to participate in product boycotts (purchasebehavior). Based on these arguments, we hypothesize that:

H9. Product judgment of consumers has a positiverelationship with purchase behavior of consumers;the more favorable the product judgment, the morefavorable is the intention to buy foreign products.

Methodology

This study uses questionnaire-based survey method to collectdata and test the hypotheses. The foreign product that hasbeen chosen for this research is US-based fast foodrestaurants such as KFC, McDonald, Burger King, PizzaHut, Starbucks and A&W located across Malaysia. Accordingto Javalgi et al. (2001), service industry such as fast-foodrestaurants has a significant international presence and is also

one of the fastest growing industries across the world. Therespondents were selected from the Klang Valley, a regionhousing all major international fast-food restaurants. Thesampling method employed was convenience sampling, anon-probabilistic method. Only the respondents who wereaware of the US fast food restaurants were requested to fill upthe questionnaire. The samples were contacted mainlythrough referrals and random calls. The instrument wasdistr ibuted to 6 00 consumers a nd 4 10 completedquestionnaires were returned (a response rate of 68per cent). Out of 4 10 r esponses, seven wer e f oundincomplete and dropped from further consideration. Ananalysis was done based on 403 responses.

Measure religiosity

This study has adapted the items developed by Wilkes et al.(1986) to measure the construct, religiosity. This constructhas four items and is measured using a seven-point Likertscale with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 7indicating strongly agree. The items are given in theAppendix.

Measure consumer animosity

The items for this construct have been adapted from the studyby Nijssen and Douglas (2004). This construct has 11 itemsand is measured using a seven-point Likert scale with 1indicating strongly disagree and 7 indicating stronglyagree. The items are given in Appendix.

Measure consumer ethnocentrism

The items for this construct have been adapted based on thestudy by Shimp and Sharma (1987). They have developed aCETSCALE with 17 items and this scale has been tested inmany studies. CETSCALE is measured using a seven-pointLikert scale with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 7indicating strongly agree. The items are given in theAppendix.

Measure product judgment

The items for this construct have been adapted from the studyby Darling and Arnold (1988). This construct has 13 itemsand is measured using a seven-point Likert scale with 1indicating strongly disagree and 7 indicating strongly

agree. Many scholars such as Shin (2001), Nijssen andDouglas (2004), Ettenson and Klien (2005) have used thisscale to study the effect of animosity on product judgment.The items are given in the Appendix.

Measure purchase behavior

The items for this construct have been adapted from the study

by Pullman et al. (1997). This construct has five items and ismeasured using a seven-point Likert scale with 1 indicatingstrongly disagree and 7 indicating strongly agree. Theitems are given in the Appendix.

Results

The demographic profile of the respondents is given in Table I.The Malaysian population is composed of three main ethnicgroups; Malays, Chinese, and Indians. All the ethnic groupsare represented adequately in the sample. The religiousaffiliations of the respondents are also adequately representedwith majority (46.4 percent) being affiliated to Islam. TheMalaysian population consists of: 60 percent Muslims, 19percent Buddhists, 9 percent Christians, 6 percent Hindus

and 6 percent others. When compared to other Islamiccountries, Malaysia is unique as it has people from all theethnic groups living in peace and harmony. The samplerespondents are from different backgrounds with differentqualifications and different professions.

The mean values of various constructs are given in Table IIand some values deserve mention. The highest mean values arefor religiosity and animosity. This result is not surprising giventhe fact that majority of the population in Malaysia areMuslims. The sentiments of the Muslims in Malaysia reflectthe sentiments of the Muslims in other parts of the world.However, the levels of animosity and religiosity are not too high(mean of animosity 4.58 on a seven-scale; mean ofreligiosity 4.60 on a seven-scale). The level of ethnocentrictendencies are moderate (mean value 4.08 on a seven-scale).

These results are not surprising since Malaysia is considered tobe a progressive Islamic country. An ethnocentric tendenciesscore of 4.08 on a seven-scale indicate the Malaysianconsumers are moderately ethnocentric. The mean score onpurchase behavior is 3.78 on a seven-scale. Despite beingreligious and having significant levels of animosity towards USbecause of its foreign policies and aggressive actions acrossMuslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan,Malaysian consumers are not overtly averse to patronizingthe US fast food restaurants. The correlation values betweendifferent constructs are given in Table II. The table shows thatall correlation values are significant.

Reliability and validity of constructs

Reliability of the instrument was tested using Cronbachs

Alpha. The Alpha scores for each construct are given inTable III. Based on the results, it can be seen that Alphascores lie between 0.721 and 0.960. According to Nunnally(1978), a Cronbachs Alpha scores of 0.70 and above areconsidered adequate for the reliability of the instrument. Wetested validity of the constructs using confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA). We ran the CFA model for each constructusing LISREL 8.52 and the results are given in Table III.Based on the results of CFA, all constructs satisfy the criteriarecommended for CFA ,0.08 for RMSEA and RMR;.0.9 for GFI, CFI and NFI; ,3.0 for Chi-square/df (Hairet al., 2006). Composite reliabilities (CR) and averagevariance extracted (AVE) were calculated for each construct





555

8/12/2019 17100597

6/13

to test convergent and discriminant validities. According toPodsakoff et al. (2003), for convergent and discriminantvalidities the following conditions must be met for eachconstruct: CR must be greater than 0.7, AVE must be greaterthan 0.5, and AVE must be greater than the squaredc or re la ti on s. B as ed o n t he in fo rm at io n g ive n i nTables II and III, it can be seen that all the conditions are met.

Hypotheses testing

Hypotheses testing was performed using structural equationmodeling (SEM), that enables the estimation of a series ofseparate, but interdependent, multiple regression equationssimultaneously by specifying the structural model used by thestatistical program (Hair et al., 2006). SEM providesinformation about the hypothesized impact both, directlyfrom one variable to another and via other variables positionedbetween the other two. For the purpose of conducting SEM,the covariance matrix has been used as an input to empiricallyestimate the strength of each relationship (path) (Hair et al.,2006). We ran the SEM model using LISREL 8.52. Theresults of the SEM model are given in Table IV. The model fitstatistics based on the SEM output are: RMSEA 0.00051,

RMR 0.00031, Chi-square/df

0.01, p-value for test ofclose fit 0.94, GFI 0.99, CFI 0.99. These values arewithin the threshold limits prescribed by Hair et al. (2006).The following inferences can be made from the outputs: H1establishes the link between the feeling of animosity andpurchase action of the consumers of Malaysia and is stronglysupported (r20.25, t-value 23.24, p 0.041) implyingthat if the level of animosity increases, the purchase behaviorfavors boycott of foreign product(s); H2 tests the relationshipbetween ethnocentric tendencies and purchase behavior andthe hypothesis is not supported (r20.037, t-value 20.47,

p-value 0.34); H3 specifies the link between religiosity andpurchase behavior of consumers. Based on the results, thisrelationship is not supported (r20.01, t-value 20.2,

p-value 0.43); H4 establishes the link between ethnocentric

tendencies and animosity of consumers and is supported(r 0.74, t-value 18.30, p-value 0.001). This implies thatethnocentric tendencies of the consumers fuel the feeling ofanimosity towards a foreign product that originates from acountry that attracts hatred and criticisms because of itsactions; H5 tests the relationship between religiosity andethnocentric tendencies and the relationship is supported(r 0.75, t-value 22.64, p-value 0.000). This implies thatthe higher the religiosity of consumers; the higher theethnocentric tendencies of consumers; H6 establishes the linkbetween religiosity and animosity of consumers towardsproducts of certain foreign countries. Based on the results ofthe test, there is a positive relationship between religiosity andanimosity (r 0.13, t-value 3.1, p-value 0.045); H7specifies the link between animosity of consumers and their

judgment of foreign products and the link is not supported(r20.065, t-value 20.3, p-value 0.4); H8 establishesthe relationship between ethnocentric tendencies of consumersand their judgment of foreign products and the hypothesis issupported (r20.44, t-value 24.87, p-value 0.02). Thisimplies that judgment of foreign products is clouded by theethnocentric tendencies of the consumers; H9 establishes thelink between foreign product judgment of consumers and theirpurchase behavior. Based on the tests, this hypothesis issupported (r 0.38, t-value 8.05, p-value 0.008).

We did not explicitly hypothesize the mediating roles ofanimosity and ethnocentrism but we tested for the mediationeffects. Specifically, we tested the mediating roles of animosity

Table I Demographic profiles of respondents

Demographic profile Frequency %

GenderMale 171 42.4Female 232 57.6

Age

Below 19 years 27 6.720 to 29 years 198 49.130 to 39 years 107 26.640 to 49 years 62 15.4Above 50 years 9 2.2

Ethnic backgroundMalay 183 45.4Chinese 170 42.2Indian 38 9.4Bumiputra Sabah and Sarawak 6 1.5Others 6 1.5

Marital statusSingle 214 53.1Married without children 33 8.2

Married with children 151 37.5Divorce, widow, separated 5 1.2

Education levelHigh school 101 23.8College diploma 67 16.6Bachelor degree/professional degree 240 59.6

Monthly household incomeBelow RM1,000 86 21.3RM1,000 to RM2,999 91 22.6RM3,000 to RM4,999 79 19.6RM5,000 to RM6,999 66 16.4RM7,000 to RM8,999 31 7.7RM9,000 to RM10,999 27 6.7RM11,000 and above 23 5.7

Number of members in the householdOne to two persons 44 10.9Three to four persons 148 36.7Five to six persons 150 37.2Seven persons and above 61 15.1

OccupationManagement 18 4.5Executive 73 18.1Professional (engineer/lawyer etc.) 35 8.7Government servant (professional) 16 4.0Government servant (support staff) 18 4.5School teacher 32 7.9Self-employed/businessman 22 5.5Clerical 13 3.2

Student 144 35.7Housewife 7.0 1.7Others 25 6.2

ReligionIslam 187 46.4Christianity 47 11.7Buddhism/Taoism 122 30.3Hinduism 27 6.7No religion 17 4.2Others 3 0.7

Note: n=403





556

8/12/2019 17100597

7/13

between religiosity and purchase action and ethnocentrismbetween religiosity and product judgment using Sobels test.

Based on the results of the test, following can be inferred:

animosity mediates the relationship between religiosity and

purchase action (Sobels test t-value 2.24, p-value 0.025)

and ethnocentrism mediates the relationship between

religiosity and product judgment (Sobels test t-value 4.76,p-value 0.000). There are many studies that report direct

effects of religiosity, animosity and ethnocentrism on product

judgment and purchase action (Ang et al., 2004; Bahaee andPisani, 2009; Herche, 1994; Kea and Phau, 2006; Rose et al.,

2008; Sood and Nasu, 1995). Our results are interesting since

the earlier studies have not looked at the mediating roles of

animosity and ethnocentrism.

Discussion and marketing implications

At this point it is useful to recap the mean scores of each

construct (animosity 4.58, ethnocentrism 4.08,religiosity 4.60, product judgment 4.32, purchase

behavior 3.78), indicating that Malaysian consumers are

moderate (scores are on a scale of 7). This result is not

completely surprising since Malaysia is a country that is a

confluence of three cultures (Malay, Chinese and Indian). Of

the five constructs used in this study, three constructs

(animosity, religiosity and ethnocentric tendencies) are

generic and is not linked to any specific product. However,

the two constructs (product judgment and purchase behavior)

are specific to a specific product, US fast food restaurants.This research was set to answer two main questions: Are

US products boycotted by certain consumers in a progressiveIslamic country like Malaysia? How do animosity, religiosity,

and ethnocentrism interact with each other and influence

Malaysian consumers product judgment and purchase

behavior? Our study reveals that Malaysian consumers are

moderate in their emotions, attitudes and behavior and

therefore, they do not favor complete boycott of US products

and this is evident from the mean scores of various constructs.

The product, we have chosen in this study, US fast food

restaurants, falls under low-involvement product category.Few studies have found strong leveraging COO effects on

global branding image (Ahmed et al., 2003). They have also

Table IV Results of the SEM model

SNo Relationship Standardized coefficient,r t-value/p-value

1 Animosity and purchase action 20.26 23.24/0.041 *

2 Ethnocentrism and purchase action 20.037 20.47/0.34

3 Religiosity and purchase action 20.01 20.2/0.43

4 Ethnocentrism and animosity 0.74 18.30/0.001 *

5 Religiosity and ethnocentrism 0.75 22.64/0/0.000 *

6 Religiosity and animosity 0.13 3.1/0.045 *

7 Animosity and product judgment 20.065 20.3/0.4

8 Ethnocentrism and product judgment 20.44 24.87/0.02*

9 Product judgment and purchase action 0.38 8.05/0.008 *

Notes: *Significant at 0.05 level; RMSEA 0.00051; RMR 0.00031; Chi-square/df 0.01;p-value for test of close fit 0.94; GFI 0.99; CFI 0.99

Table III Reliability and validity tests

Validity test

Variables Reliability/CR/AVE GFI RMSEA RMR ChiSQ/df p-value

Consumer religiosity 0.72/0.73/0.61 Saturated fit Saturated fit Saturated fit Saturated fit Saturated fit

Consumer animosity 0.92/0.924/0.75 0.96 0.056 0.038 1.16 0.23

Consumer ethnocentrism 0.96/0.956/0.78 0.98 0.064 0.047 1.09 0.36

Product judgment 0.64/0.66/0.52 0.92 0.078 0.067 1.86 0.15

Purchase action 0.66/0.79/0.54 0.94 0.072 0.070 1.75 0.22

Notes:CR composite reliability; AVE average variance extracted

Table II Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variables Mean SD Religiosity Consumer animosity Consumer ethnocentrism Product judgment Purchase action

Consumer religiosity 4.6 1.3 1 0.47 0.56 0.1024 0.26

Consumer animosity 4.6 1.3 0.683 * 1 0.70 0.17 0.19

Consumer ethnocentrism 4.1 1.5 0.749 * 0.838 * 1 0.22 0.18

Product judgment 4.3 0.75 20.333 * 20.406 * 20.464 * 1 0.25

Purchase action 3.8 1.06 20.320 * 20.431 * 20.419 * 0.495 * 1

Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (numbers above the diagonal are squared correlations)





557

8/12/2019 17100597

8/13

found that COO effect on consumer purchase decisions is

weak for low involvement products; but is strong for cruise

lines across Singapore. Zbib et al. (2010) have found a strong

impact of COO on Lebanese consumers attitude towards

global snacks. Ahmed et al.(2010) have found a strong impact

of COO on Lebanese consumers purchase behavior. An

earlier study by Chiozza (2008) reveals that Iranians,

Jordanians, Moroccans, Pakistanis and Saudi Arabians favorcomplete boycott of US products. Zbib et al. (2011) found a

strong relationship between COO and global shampoo brands

across Lebanon.The second question can be answered by reconstructing the

framework based on the significant relationships that is given

in Figure 2. This study has revealed three paths that greatly

influence the purchase of US products by Malaysian

consumers:1 Religiosity animosity purchase behavior.2 Religiosity ethnocentrism animosity purchase

behavior.3 Religiosity ethnocentrism product judgment

purchase behavior.

An analysis of the three paths indicates the following roles:. religiosity plays a significant role in influencing animosity

levels and ethnocentric tendencies of consumers (Katz,

1992; Kea and Phau, 2006; Klein et al., 1998) and

between the two, religiosity influences ethnocentric

tendencies more;. ethnocentric tendencies plays a significant role in

influencing animosity and product judgment (Lwin et al.,

2010; Nijssen et al., 1999) and between the two,

ethnocentric tendencies influence animosity more;. ethnocentric tendencies and religiosity play a significant

role in influencing animosity (Billiet, 1995; Karanovic

et al., 2005) and between the two, ethnocentric tendencies

influence more; and. animosity and product judgment play a significant role in

influencing purchase behavior (Nijssen et al., 1999; Smithand Li, 2010) and between the two, product judgment

influences more.

Further analyses have revealed the mediating roles of

animosity and ethnocentrism. Specifically, the results have

shown that animosity mediates the relationship between

religiosity and purchase action and ethnocentrism mediates

the relationship between religiosity and product judgment.

What are the implications? A research that studies the

purchase behavior of consumers toward foreign products

especially, under conditions of animosity, must include thethree constructs: animosity, religiosity and ethnocentric

tendencies. The combined effects of these constructs can be

vital in explaining the purchase behavior of consumers. This

research has shown that increase in animosity levels is

compounded by the influences of religiosity and ethnocentric

tendencies. Therefore, even an incident like the attack of

Israeli commandos aboard the Turkish vessel, Mavi

Marmara; can whip up the feelings of animosity in

countries dominated by Muslims.Negative reactions to the US policies across Asia and Middle

East may not affect US products in short term but over long

term the animosity of consumers may graduate to become

stable animosity. It may be worse if the consuming nations have

better alternatives to the US products. Animosity levels and

hostilities will lower the judgment of US products and

therefore, reduce the purchase actions of consumers. Any

provocation and hostilities towards other nations should be

handled with more care and sensitivity, to avoid reinforcing

consumer resentment and inviting a possible backlash in

future. Earlier research has shown that a technically superior

product cannot compensate for strong emotions like animosity

(Ang et al., 2004; Bahaee and Pisani, 2009; Klein et al., 1998;

Nijssen and Douglas, 2004; Rose et al., 2008). Major US

fast-food restaurants with global brands have been able to

ignore their home countrys political actions and this may be

less true in future especially, when levels of animosity towards

US increases. The marketing managers of these restaurant

chains must constantly monitor the mood of the consumers

across Malaysia. If there is an indication of heightenedanimosity levels, these US companies must take steps to

alleviate the levels and ameliorate the worsening situation.

Figure 2Final framework based on significant relationships





558

8/12/2019 17100597

9/13

Conclusions, limitations and directions for futureresearch

This study has examined the role of animosity, religiosity and

ethnocentric tendencies of Malaysian consumers in

influencing the purchase of US products. Our findings

reveal that:.

Malaysian consumers are moderate and do not have highlevels of animosity towards US products;. religiosity and ethnocentric tendencies of consumers

positively influence animosity;. ethnocentric tendencies of consumers affect product

judgment;. animosity and ethnocentric tendencies influence purchase

behavior of consumers;. eligiosity affects purchase action through animosity; and. religiosity influences product judgment of consumers

through their ethnocentric tendencies.

Even though, Malaysia is a progressive country, marketing

managers of US fast food restaurants must be cognizant of

changing moods of Malaysian consumers because of US

policies and actions across Asia and Middle-East.This study is not without limitations. First, the study

addressed only a low involvement product, fast-food

restaurants. Future studies can accommodate high

involvement products such as US cars to see the combined

effect of religiosity, animosity and ethnocentric tendencies on

purchase behavior. Second, this research is based on a cross-

sectional study. A longitudinal study can better establish cause

and effect relationships between the constructs. Third,

additional sample size to include consumers from different

regions of Malaysia can give a better understanding of

Malaysian society as a whole; and future studies can expand

the scope of the research by including sample elements from

various parts of Malaysia.

References

Ahmed, S.A. and dAstous, A. (2001), Canadian consumers

perceptions of products made in newly industrializing East

Asian countries, International Journal of Commerce

& Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 54-81.

Ahmed, Z.U., Zbib, I.J., Sikander, A. and Farhat, K.T.

(2010), Predicting consumer behavior based on country of

origin (COO): a case study of Lebanese consumers, Euro

Med Journal of Business, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 37-56.

Ahmed, Z.U., Yang, X., Stone, S., Koon, L.L., Kheng, N.H.

and Yee, T.P. (2003), Strategic modeling for leveraging

country of origin effect and global branding image, Journal

of International Marketing and Exporting, Vol. 8 No. 1,

pp. 37-49.AlShebil, S., Rasheed, A.A. and AlShammari, H. (2011),

Coping with boycotts: an analysis and framework, Journal

of Management & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 383-397.

Altintas, M.H. and Tokol, T. (2007), Cultural openness and

consumer ethnocentrism: an empirical analysis of Turkish

consumers, Journal of Marketing Intelligence & Planning,

Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 308-325.

A ng, S.H ., J ung, K., Kau, A .K., Leong, S.M. a nd

Pornpitakpan, C. (2004), Animosity towards economic

giants: what little guys think, Journal of Consumer

Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 190-207.

Bahaee, M. and Pisani, M.J. (2009), Iranian consumer

animosity and U.S. products: a witchs brew or elixir?,

International Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 199-210.

Bailey, J.M. and Sood, J. (1993), The effects of religious

a ffiliation on consumer behav ior: a prelimina ry

investigation, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 5 No. 3,

pp. 328-352.

Benterki, M. (2009), Investigation into the Algerianconsumers attitudes towards European dairy products,

unpublished MSc thesis, London South Bank University,

London.

Bilkey, W. and Nes, E. (1982), Country-of-origin effects on

product evaluation?, Journal of International Business

Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-99.

Billiet, J.B. (1995), Church involvement, individualism, and

ethnic prejudice among Flemish Roman Catholics: new

evidence of a moderating effect, Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 224-233.

Bodenhausen, G.V., Sheppard, L.A. and Kramer, G.P.

(1994), Negative affect and social judgment: the

differential impact of anger and sadness, European

Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 45-62.

Brown, R. (2005), Religiosity, ethnocentrism and destiny in

early US literature, available at: http://jansj.org/home/

writings/religiosityethnocentrism.htm

Bruning, E.R. (1997), Country-of-origin, national loyalty

and product choice: the case of international air travel,

International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-74.

Capucao, D.D. (1965), Religion and ethnocentrism: an

empirical-theological study of the effects of religious

attitudes on the attitudes towards minorities among

Catholics in the Netherlands, unpublished PhD

dissertation, Catholic University Louvain, Belgium.

Chaiken, S. (1980), Heuristic versus systematic information

processing and the use of source versus message cues in

persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Vol. 39, pp. 752-766.Charney, C. and Yakatan, N. (2005), A new beginning:

strategies for a more fruitful dialogue with the Muslim

world, CRS No. 7, New York, NY, Council of Foreign

Relations.

Cheah, I. and Phau, I. (2006), Influence of economic

nationalism and consumer ethnocentrism on product

judgement and willingness to buy Australian brands,

in Drennan, J. ( Ed.) , ANZMAC 2006 Conference,

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Chiozza, G. (2008), A crisis like no other? Anti-USism at the

time of the Iraq war, European Journal of International

Relations, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 257-289.

Choi, Y. (2009), Religion, religiosity, and South Korean

consumers switching behaviors, Journal of Consumer

Behavior: An International Research Review, Vol. 9 No. 3,

pp. 157-171.

Crnjak-Karanovic, B., Pecotich, A. and Renko, N. (2005),

Relationship marketing and its impact on the competitive

structure: the case of Croatia, Journal of Contemporary

Management Issues, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-21.

De Jong, G.F., Faulkner, J.E. and Warland, R.H. (1976),

Dimensions of religiosity reconsidered: evidence from a

cross-cultural study, Social Forces, Vol . 54 No. 4 ,

pp. 866-889.

Delener, N. (1994), Religious contrasts in consumer

decision behaviour patterns: their dimensions and





559

8/12/2019 17100597

10/13

marketing implications, European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 36-53.

Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1984), Cognitive theories of

persuasion, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 17, Academic Press,

New York, NY, pp. 267-296.

Eisinga, R., Felling, R. and Peters, J. (1990), Church

involvement, prejudice and nationalism: a research note onthe curvilinear relationship between church involvement

and ethnocentrism in The Netherlands, Review of Religious

Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 417-433.

Erdener, K. and Ali, K. (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.

Essoo, N. and Dibb, S. (2004), Religious influences on

shopping behaviour: an exploratory study, Journal of

Marketing Management, Vol. 20 Nos 7/8, pp. 683-712.

Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham,

R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pear son

International, New York, NY.

Han, M. and Terpstra, V. (1988), Country-of-origin effects

for uni-national and bi-national, Journal of International

Business Studies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 235-256.

Hashim, M.A. and Mahpuz, M. (2011), Tackling

multiculturalism via human communication: a public

relations campaign for 1Malaysia, International Journal of

Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 114-127.

Herche, J. (1994), Ethnocentric tendencies, marketing

strategy and import purchase behaviour, International

Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 4-16.

Hooghe, M. (2008), Ethnocentrism, International

Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Macmillan Reference,

Philadelphia, PA.

Javalgi, R.G.R., Cutler, B.D. and Winans, W.A. (2001), At

your service! Does country of origin research apply to

services?, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7,pp. 565-582.

Javalgi, R.G., Khare, V.P., Gross, A.C. and Scherer, R.F.

(2005), An application of the consumer ethnocentrism

model to French consumers, International Business Review,

Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 325-344.

Jianfeng, L., Hongping, L. and Lanying, D. (2009), The

effect of religiosity on shopping behavior: an exploratory

study during the transitional period in China, 2009

International Conference on Information Management,

Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 2,

pp. 31-34.

Jimenez, N.H. and San Martin, S. (2010), The role of

country-of-origin, ethnocentrism and animosity in

promoting consumer trust: the moderating role of

familiarity, International Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 1,

pp. 34-45.

Johnson, B.R., Jang, S.J., Larson, D. and Li, S.D. (2001),

Does adolescent religious commitment matter?

A r e-examination of the eff ects of r el igiosity on

delinquency, Journal of Research on Crime & Delinquency,

Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 22-43.

Josiassen, A. (n.d.), Consumer disidentification and its

effects on domestic product purchases: an empirical test in

The Netherlands, Journal of Marketing.

Kamaruddin, A.R. (2009), Religiosity and cross-cultural

analysis of shopping behavior among Malaysian and Thai

consumers, 2nd International Conference on Marketing

& Retailing, UiTM Malacca, 8-10 July.

Katz, Y.J. (1992), Conservatism of Israeli Jews and Arabs in

the aftermath of the Gulf war, Personality and Individual

Differences, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 335-336.

Kaynak, E. and Kara, A. (2002), Consumer perceptions of

foreign products: an analysis of product-country images and

ethnocentrism, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36Nos 7/8, pp. 928-949.

Kea, G. and Phau, I. (2006), A conceptual framework

examining the effects of consumer animosity on willingness

to purchase foreign and hybrid products, in Drennan, J.

(Ed.),ANZMAC 2006 Conference, Queensland University of

Technology, Brisbane.

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. (1998), The

animosity model of foreign product purchase: an empirical

test in the Peoples Republic of China, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 89-100.

Lee, H., Kim, C. and Miller, J. (1992), The relative effects

of price, warranty and country of origin on consumer

product evaluations, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 6

Nos 1/2, pp. 55-80.

Leong, S.M. (2008), Understanding consumer animosity in

an international crisis: nature, antecedents, and

consequences, Journal of International Business Studies,

Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 996-1009.

Lerner, J.S. and Keltner, D. (2000), Beyond valence: toward

a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and

choice, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 373-393.

Lu, W.C. and Zhen, C.X. (2004), Consumer ethnocentrism

and willingness to buy domestic products in a developing

country setting: testing moderating effects, The Journal of

Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 391-400.

Lwin, M.O., Stanaland, A.J.S. and Wiiliams, J.D. (2010),US symbolism in intercultural communication: an

animosity/ethnocentrism perspective on intergroup

r elations a nd consumer a ttitudes, J ou rn al of

Communication, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 491-514.

McDaniel, S.W. and Burnett, J.J. (1990), Consumer

religiosity and retail store evaluative criteria, Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18, pp. 101-112.

Maher, A.A. and Mady, S. (2010), Animosity, subjective

norms and anticipated emotions during an international

crisis, International Marketing Review, Vol. 27 No. 6,

pp. 630-651.

Maheswaran, D. (2006), Country of origin effects: consumer

perceptions of Japan in South East Asia, working paper

N-006, Working Paper Series, Center for Japan-US

Business and Economic Studies, L.N. Stern School of

Business, New York University, New York, NY.

Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D.M. and Chaiken, S. (1992),

Brand name as a heuristic cue: the effects of task

performance and expectancy confirmation on consumer

judgments, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 4,

pp. 317-336.

Marty, M. and Appleby, S. (1991), Fundamentalisms

Observed, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Mokhlis, S. (2006), The effect of religiosity on shopping

orientation: an exploratory study in Malaysia, Journal of

US Academy of Business, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-74.





560

8/12/2019 17100597

11/13

Nguyen, D.T., Nguyen, T.T. and Barrett, N.J. (2008),

Consumer ethnocentrism, cultural sensitivity, and

intention to purchase local products evidence from

Vietnam, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 7 No. 1,

pp. 88-100.

Nijssen, E.J. and Douglas, S.P. (2004), Examining the

animosity model in a country with a high level of foreign

trade,International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21No. 1, pp. 23-38.

Nijssen, E.J., Douglas, S.P., Bressers, P. and Nobel, A.

(1999), Attitudes towards the purchase of foreign

products: extending the model, paper presented at

AM-AMA Global Marketing SIG Conference, Stirling,

Scotland, 6 July.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2 nd e d. ,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A. and Bamossy, J.G. (1998),

A comparative image analysis of domestic versus imported

products, International Journal of Research in Marketing,

Vol. 7, pp. 283-294.

Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), Communication and

Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change,

Springer, New York, NY.Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff,

N.P. (2003), Common method biases in behavioral

r esea rch: a critica l r ev iew of the l iter atur e a nd

recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.

Pullman, M.E., Granzin, K.L. and Olsen, J.E. (1997), The

efficacy of cognition- and emotion-based buy domestic

appeals: conceptualization, empirical test, and managerial

implications, International Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 3,

pp. 209-231.

Rose, M., Shoham, A. and Rose, G.M. (2008), Consumer

animosity: a within nation study of Arab and Jewish Israelis

attitudes towards foreign goods, Latin US Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp. 168-169.Ross, D. (2009), Recession and revolution, The New York

Times, June 15.

Saffu, K., Walker, J.H. and Mazurek, M. (2010), The role of

consumer ethnocentrism in a buy national campaign in a

transitioning country: some evidence from Slovakia,

International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 5 No. 2,

pp. 203-226.

Samiee, S. (1994), Customer evaluation of products in

a global market, Journal of International Business Studies,

Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.

Samli, A.C. (1995), International Consumer Behavior: Its

Impact on Marketing Strategy Development, Quorum Books,

Westport, CT.

Schooler, R.D. (1965), Product bias in the Central US

common market, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 2No. 4, pp. 394-397.

Shankarmahesh, M.N. (2006), Consumer ethnocentrism:

an integrative review of its antecedents and consequences,

International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 146-158.

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.A. a nd Sha rma, S. ( 19 87 ), Consumer

ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the

CETSCALE, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24

No. 3, pp. 280-289.

Shin, M. (2001), The animosity model of foreign product

purchase: does it work in Korea?, Journal of Empirical

Generalizations in Marketing Science, Vol. 6, pp. 1-14.

Smith, M. and Li, Q. (2010), The boycott model of foreignproduct purchase: an empirical test in China, Asian Review

of Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 106-130.

Sood, J. and Nasu, Y. (1995), Religiosity and nationality:

an exploratory study of their effect on consumer behavior in

Japan and the United States, Journal of Business Research,

Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Srivastava, S. (2010), The five-factor model describes the

structure of social perceptions, Psychological Inquiry,

Vol. 21, pp. 69-75.

Sumner, W.G. (1906), Folkways, Ginn, Boston, MA.

Taewon, S. and Ik-Whan, G.K. (2002), Globalization and

reluctant buyers, International Marketing Review, Vol. 19

No. 6, pp. 663-680.

Tiedens, L.Z. and Linton, S. (2001), Judgment under

emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific

emotions on information processing, Journal of Personality

& Social Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 973-988.

Turner, J.C. (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-

Categorization Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Wilkes, R.E., Burnett, J.J. and Howell, R.D. (1986), On the

meaning and measurement of religiosity in consumer

research, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol. 14

No. 1, pp. 47-56.

Witkowski, T. (2000), Effect of animosity towards china on

willingness to buy Chinese products, in McClean, G.,

Kaynak, E. and Aliaga, O. (Eds), Managing in a Turbulent

International Business Environment, The International

Management Development Association, Hummelstown,

PA, pp. 407-470.Yemelianova, G. (2005), Kinship, ethnicity and religion in

post-communist societies, Ethnicities, Vol. 5 No. 1,

pp. 51-82.

Zbib, I.J., Wooldridge, B.R. and Ahmed, Z.U. (2011),

Purchase of global shampoo brands and the impact of

country of origin on Lebanese consumers, Journal of

Product & Brand Management., Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 261-275.

Zbib, I.J., Wooldridge, B.R., Ahmed, Z.U. and Benlian, S.

(2010), Selection criteria of Lebanese consumers in the

global snack food industry: country of origin perceptions,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 139-156.

Further Reading

Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Yang, X. and Fatt, C.K. (2004),

Does country of origin matter for low-involvement

products?, International Marketing Review, Vol. 21 No. 1,

pp. 102-120.

Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Lin, C.P., Fang, T.W. and Hui,

A.K. (2002), Country of origin and brand effects on

consumers evaluations of cruiselines, International

Marketing Review, Vol. 19 Nos 2/3, pp. 279-302.





561

8/12/2019 17100597

12/13

Appendix

Table AI Items in the questionnaire

No. Items Source

Religiosity1 I go to mosque/church/temple/place of worship regularly (Wilkeset al., 1986)

2 Spiritual values are more important than material things (Wilkeset al., 1986)3 If Malaysia were more religious, this would be a better country (Wilkeset al., 1986)4 I consider myself to be very religious (Wilkeset al., 1986)

Animosity1 I feel angry towards US involvement in the war against other countries (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)2 I can still get angry over the US role in the other countries (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)3 I wil l never forgive the US for occupying and kil ling the civilians in other countries (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)4 US are liable for the damage caused by the bombardment of other countries (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)5 I will never forgive the US for bombing of other countries (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)6 When doing business with the US one should be careful (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)7 US companies are not a reliable trading partners (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)8 US wants to gain economic power over Malaysia (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)9 US companies often outsmart Malaysian companies in business deals (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)

10 US have too much influence on the Malaysians and their countries economy (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)

11 US companies are treating Malaysian consumers unfairly (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)Ethnocentrism

1 Malaysian consumers should always buy Malaysian made products instead of imports (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)2 Only those products that are unavailable in Malaysia should be imported (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)3 Buy Malaysian-made products. Keep Malaysians working (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)4 Malaysian products, first, last and foremost (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)5 Purchasing foreign-made products is un-Malaysians (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)6 I t is not right to purchase foreign products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)7 A real Malaysian should always buy Malaysian-made products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)8 We should purchase products produced in Malaysia instead of letting other countries get rich off us (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)9 It is always best to purchase Malaysian products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)

10 There should be very little trading or purchasing of goods from other countries unless out of necessity (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)11 Malaysians should not buy foreign products, because this hurts Malaysian business and causes unemployment (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)12 Curbs should be put on all products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)13 It may cost me in the long run but I prefer to support Malaysian products. (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)

14 Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products on our markets (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)15 Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce their entry to the Malaysian market (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)16 We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot obtain within our own country (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)17 Malaysian consumers who purchase products made in other countries are responsible for putting their fellow

Malaysians out of work(Shimp and Sharma, 1987)

Product judgment1 Products made by US fast-food restaurants are generally very well suited to needs of Malaysian consumers (Darling and Arnold, 1988)2 The suitability of products made by US fast-food restaurants to the Malaysian consumers seems to have improved

over the past several years(Darling and Arnold, 1988)

3 Products made by US fast-food restaurants occupy very strong competitive position in comparison to the productsof other countries

(Darling and Arnold, 1988)

4 Products made by US fast-food restaurants are carefully produced and have a fine taste (Darling and Arnold, 1988)5 Product made by US fast-food restaurants are generally of a lower quality than similar products available from

other countries(Darling and Arnold, 1988)

6 Over the past several years, the quality of most products made by US fast-food restaurants seem to haveimproved

(Darling and Arnold, 1988)

7 Products made by US fast-food restaurants show very high degree of food technological advancement (Darling and Arnold, 1988)8 Products made by US fast-food restaurants are produced by firms that are more concerned with the outward

appearance of the products than with the food quality(Darling and Arnold, 1988)

9 Products made by US fast-food restaurants seem to be more in the nature of luxury items than necessary items (Darling and Arnold, 1988)

Purchase action1 I chose US fast-food restaurants when similar foreign restaurants were available (Pullman et al., 1997)2 I bought from US fast-food restaurant when a better quality foreign restaurant were available (Pullmanet al., 1997)3 I bought from US fast-food restaurants even though cheaper foreign fast-food restaurants were available (Pullmanet al., 1997)4 I explicitly recommended to someone else that he/she purchases only from US fast-food restaurants (Pullmanet al., 1997)5 I criticized someone I know for buying from foreign fast-food restaurant (Pullman et al., 1997)





562

8/12/2019 17100597

13/13

About the authors

Zafar U. Ahmed is a Professor of Marketing at GraduateSchool of Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia. He has aPhD in Marketing from Utah State University. He haspublished in many journals of international repute.

Rosdin Anang has an MBA from Universiti Malaya.Professor Nor Othman is based at the Department of

Marketing and Information Systems,University of Malaya,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Murali Sambasivan is a Professor of Management Scienceat Graduate School of Management, Universiti PutraMalaysia. He has a PhD in Management Science fromUniversity of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA. He has publishedwidely in many international journals. Murali Sambasivan isthe corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives

a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a

particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article intototo take advantage of the more comprehensive description of theresearch undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the

material present.

In the late 1990s, in a row over what was considered an illegalban on British meat by the French, British consumers retaliatedby boycotting French goods. Years later some British people willstill choose a bottle of Australian Merlot over a French offering,or a Honda, Toyota or Ford rather than a Citroen or Peugeot.Such unofficial trade wars might not worry manufacturersand suppliers on either side of the English Channel that much,but there are more serious and far-reaching threats tobusinesses stemming from peoples strongly-held (yetsometimes misinformed or misguided) beliefs.

The policies of the US across the Middle-East andAfghanistan have been the subject of criticism in manypredominantly-Muslim countries and religious groups inthese countries have urged consumers not to patronize USproducts and services. According to some research the spreadof anti-US feeling in the Islamic world is not just a precursorof terrorism but of business boycotts. Consumers tend tomake rational choices about products by comparing andcontrasting various attributes not least quality and price but emotions can also play a major role in the decisionwhether or not to purchase foreign products.

While a persons religious beliefs and feelings of animositycan affect a persons purchase decisions, so too can theirethnocentricity in other words, people with strongethnocentric tendencies tend to have negative views about

foreign products and therefore do not favor buying them.In To purchase or not to purchase US products: role of

religiosity, animosity, and ethno-centrism among Malaysianconsumers Professor Zafar Ahmed et al. focus on US-basedfast-food restaurants (such as KFC, McDonald, Burger King,Pizza Hut and Starbucks) which have a significant presence inMalaysia, one of the fastest-developing and progressivecountries in South-East Asia. It is a multi-cultural countrywith three major ethnic groups: Malays, Chinese and Indians.About 60 percent of the citizens are Muslims, 30 percentChinese and 10 percent Indians and others and Islam is theofficial religion. This diversity is unique to Malaysia whencompared with other Islamic countries. Earlier studies in

conservative Islamic countries like Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,Morocco, and Jordan have shown significant animosity towardsUS products and services.

So are US products boycotted by certain consumers in aprogressive Islamic country like Malaysia? How do animosity,religiosity, and ethnocentrism interact with each other andinfluence Malaysian consumers product judgment and

purchase behavior? In fact Malaysian consumers are moderatein their emotions, attitudes and behavior and therefore they donot favor a complete boycott of US products.

This study has revealed three paths that greatly influencethe purchase of US products by Malaysian consumers:1 Religiosity animosity purchase behavior.2 Religiosity ethnocentrism animosity purchase

behavior.3 Religiosity ethnocentrism product judgment

purchase behavior.

An analysis of the three paths indicates the following roles:. religiosity plays a significant role in influencing animosity

levels and ethnocentric tendencies of consumers andbetween the two, religiosity influences ethnocentric

tendencies more;. ethnocentric tendencies plays a significant role in

influencing animosity and product judgment and betweenthe two, ethnocentric tendencies influence animosity more;

. ethnocentric tendencies and religiosity play a significantrole in influencing animosity and between the two,ethnocentric tendencies influence more; and

. animosity and product judgment play a significant role in

influencing purchase behavior and between the two,product judgment influences more.

The results show that animosity mediates the relationshipbetween religiosity and purchase action and ethnocentrismmediates the relationship between religiosity and productjudgment. What are the implications? Research that studies thepurchase behavior of consumers toward foreign products

especially, under conditions of animosity, must include thethree constructs: animosity, religiosity and ethnocentrictendencies. The combined effects can be vital in explainingconsumers purchase behavior. This research has shown that anincrease in animosity levels is compounded by the influences ofreligiosity and ethnocentric tendencies.

Negative reactions to US policies across Asia and Middle Eastmay not affect US products in the short term but over the longterm consumer animosity of consumers may become stableanimosity. It may be worse if the consuming nations have betteralternatives to the US products. Animosity levels and hostilitieswill lower the judgment of US products and, therefore, reduceconsumers purchase actions. Any provocation and hostilitiestowards other nations should be handled with care and sensitivityto avoid reinforcing consumer resentment and inviting a possible

backlash. Earlier research has shown that a technically superiorproduct cannot compensate for strong emotions like animosity.

Major US fast-food restaurants with global brands have beenable to ignore their home countrys political actions but thismay be less true in the future. Marketing managers of theserestaurant chains must constantly monitor the mood of theconsumers across Malaysia. If there is an indication ofheightened animosity levels, the companies must take stepsameliorate the worsening situation.

(A precis of the article To purchase or not to purchase US products:

role of religiosity, animosity, and ethno-centrism among Malaysian

consumers, Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)





17100597

Documents

Transcript of 17100597