Knowledge structure in product- and brand origin–related research

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Scholarly research regarding origins of products and brands is deep-rooted within international marketing, with an extraordinary following as evidenced by the large body of literature that is continuing to evolve. Our goal in this research is to examine this domain, generically referred to as the country-of-origin (CO) literature, and identify the most influential contributions and their corresponding topics that form the intellectual foundations of this knowledge domain. Using citation and co-citation analyses, we develop a spatial representation of the CO literature via multidimensional scaling with two concurrent goals of unfolding the literature’s knowledge structure as the basis for proposing a conceptual framework and identifying new research directions in the field. Our database consists of 482 articles, extracted from the Web of Science, that contain 33,194 citations through 2019. We develop a managerially relevant conceptual approach based on the results of our co-citations–based CO knowledge structure to unfold new research directions and expand the boundaries of the CO literature in fruitful directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    We define origin-related scholarly research as projects in which location plays a central role. Country of origin is the common term associated with this stream of research. The term was originally associated with country of manufacture (i.e., source country), however, as the literature matured, numerous derivative aspects of location such as country of assembly, country of design, country of brand (i.e., brand origin), and country image were also investigated. In all cases, CO is the common identifier (keyword) used in published works.

  2. 2.

    Common definitions associated with this literature include: CO (the source country for a product), country of manufacture (where a product is substantially manufactured), country of assembly (country in which components are assembled into a final product), country of design (nation in which a product is designed), BO (location of the headquarters of the firm owning a brand), CI and its variations including destination and place image (perceptions and beliefs held by customers regarding a nation or location). As would be expected in a large body of knowledge, there are minor variations in definitions across publications. For example, Lu et al. (2016) define CI as an alternative to CO encompassing general CI and CO of a product, as well as place and destination image. In contrast, Han (1989) and Bilkey and Nes (1982) define CI as “consumers’ general perceptions of quality for products made in a given country,” that is, CO.

  3. 3.

    Two domain-related patterns of CO studies are worth noting as they have a potential impact in the development of the field and the corresponding knowledge areas that have influenced projects. First, the vast majority of CO studies (about 80% of those appearing in leading journals) consist of single-country samples of informants, with the remainder focused on comparative and cross-cultural investigations (Samiee and Leonidou 2013). Second, in terms of regions referenced in these investigations, initially attention was largely turned to countries situated in North America and Europe (24% and 28%, respectively). However, Asian countries have been more frequently used during the 1990s and since 2000 (32%), which collectively makes Asia the most-studied region.

  4. 4.

    Though other approaches besides co-citation analysis have been proposed and deemed relevant in portraying knowledge structure (cf. citation proximity analysis), access to available data of sufficient scale to implement such methods in the IM literature makes the task impractical to accomplish (Gipp and Beel 2009; Liu and Chen 2011). Rather, this study, by maintaining its focus on the article as the level of investigation, uses established bibliometric principles to analyze the knowledge structure and retain the data most closely to traditional co-citation networks.

  5. 5.

    WOS is a comprehensive source with wide coverage and inclusiveness of the vast proportion of electronically available published works (over 26,352 journals) which enables researchers to access large amounts of data (Clarivate Analytics 2020). The WOS database is commonly used in a range of bibliometric studies in business (e.g., Cornelius et al. 2006; Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro 2004; Schildt et al. 2006).

  6. 6.

    Exact syntax is available from the authors upon request.

  7. 7.

    The marketing and IB journals with bibliometric data for this study were: Advances in Consumer Research, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, (Columbia) Journal of World Business, European Journal of Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, International Business Review, International Journal of Advertising, International Journal of Research in Marketing, International Marketing Review, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of International Management, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of Macromarketing, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Management International Review, Marketing Letters, Marketing Science, and Psychology & Marketing.

  8. 8.

    It should be noted that many other network-related approaches to examining knowledge structure provide an overwhelming level of data without sufficient analysis and relation to established theoretical bases. In fact, there are some bibliometrics researchers who claim a network analysis tool such as VOS is superior to MDS with very large datasets (van Eck et al. 2010). However, as MDS is acknowledged as better for smaller datasets such as the one for the present study (Zupic and Čater 2015), others are more pragmatic and state that different approaches are appropriate for specific circumstances (Hook 2017). In the end, the main driver of using MDS as employed in this study is that it provides a balance between data analysis and linkages to established research concepts. And, as one of the main purposes of this study is to conduct a detailed research-focused study, MDS was chosen as the most apt to complete the task.

  9. 9.

    Several other proximity metrics might be applied in this line of inquiry. However, these approaches are independent of our MDS results and their use would result in considerably different and unrelated conclusions. As a result, the standardized Euclidean distance measures are directly related to the co-citation data analyzed as pivotal to this study. Thus, we selected standardized Euclidean distances for grouping specific publications.

  10. 10.

    Other network analysis–based approaches have been used in the literature to accomplish similar tasks. However, such tools do not provide for the exclusion of data deemed unnecessary to the study. As such, since our analysis does not include book reviews, editorial content, method-related articles, as well as other content not specific to the knowledge structure of the CO literature, these applications were deemed inappropriate.

  11. 11.

    Web Appendix 1a, which runs through 2018, was the original basis for analysis in this study. However, as a result of the review process, data through 2019, appearing in Web Appendix 1b, for this part of the study was requested for comparison.

  12. 12.

    It is worth noting that our proposed integrative framework incorporated recent concepts from the knowledge structure as mentioned in the Results section, regardless of whether they were a part of a research group or a research clique. Nevertheless, membership in groups and cliques demonstrate closer proximity of topics by virtue of researchers’ joint reliance on these works as influential knowledge nodes.

  13. 13.

    Burrell (2002, 2003) demonstrates that works cited early after their publication will continue to be referenced (i.e., “success-breeds-success”) and infrequently cited articles are unlikely to be among the discipline’s thought leaders. Keeping with precedence, we thus examined citation frequencies and the distribution of CO publication during the past decade. Leveraging Chabowski et al. (2013), we determined a minimum average citation cut-off point of 1.75 per year for inclusion of influential recent CO works.

  14. 14.

    A possible starting point for resolving tensions in the CO literature is to conduct a comprehensive review study of CO-related hypotheses examined, including links between studies’ variables used. We acknowledge the recommendation of the associate editor and the contribution of an anonymous reviewer aimed at addressing this issue.

  15. 15.

    For example, some CO studies have proposed that firms manage or even change country perceptions by reinforcing positive CO stereotypes or, in general, improve negative ones (e.g., Micevski et al. 2020; Knight and Calantone 2000). Analogous to product repositioning, changing an image or CO stereotype requires reinforcement over long periods, which is not a luxury most managers can afford, in addition to requiring a substantial communications budget. Other research recognizes that, on the one hand, bias is likely to vary from region to region while, on the other hand, proposing firms to take into account negative bias/animosity in selecting overseas suppliers, potentially leading to a chaotic supplier selection for firms operating in dozens of nations with varying CO biases (e.g., Klein et al. 1998).

References

  1. Aeppel, T. (2017). Americans want U.S. goods, but not willing to pay more: Reuters/Ipsos Poll, Reuters, July 18. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-buyamerican-poll-idUSKBN1A3210?mod=article_inline. Accessed 27 Oct 2020.

  2. Agrawal, J., & Kamakura, W. A. (1999). Country of origin: a competitive advantage? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(4), 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmed, S. A., & d'Astous, A. (2008). Antecedents, moderators and dimensions of country-of-origin evaluations. International Marketing Review, 25(1), 75–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahmed, Z. U., Johnson, J. P., Yang, X., Fatt, C. K., Teng, H. S., & Boon, L. C. (2004). Does country of origin matter for low-involvement products? International Marketing Review, 21(1), 102–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahmed, Z., Anang, R., Othman, N., & Sambasivan, M. (2013). To purchase or not to purchase US products: role of religiosity, animosity, and ethno-centrism among Malaysian consumers. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(7), 551–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alden, D. L., Hoyer, W. D., & Crowley, A. E. (1993). Country-of-origin, perceived risk and evaluation strategy. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 678–683.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Sulaiti, K. I., & Baker, M. J. (1998). Country of origin effects: a literature review. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 16(3), 150–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive identity: the new brand management for nations, cities and regions. Journal of Brand Management, 14(6), 474–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Archambault, É., & Gagné, É.V. (2004). The use of bibliometrics in the social sciences and humanities. Montreal, Canada: Science-Metrix. http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_2004_008_SSHRC_Bibliometrics_Social_Science.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2019.

  10. Asseraf, Y., & Shoham, A. (2016). The “tug of war” model of foreign product purchases. European Journal of Marketing, 50(3/4), 550–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). Brand origin identification by consumers: a classification perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 16(1), 39–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Gains and losses from misperception of brand origin: the role of brand strength and country-of-origin image. Journal of International Marketing, 19(2), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2016). Consumer xenocentrism as determinant of foreign product preference: a system justification perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 24(3), 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Balabanis, G., & Siamagka, N.-T. (2017). Inconsistencies in the behavioural effects of consumer ethnocentrism. International Marketing Review, 34(2), 166–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Balabanis, G., Mueller, R., & Melewar, T. C. (2002). The human values’ lenses of country of origin images. International Marketing Review, 19(6), 582–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bannister, J. P., & Saunders, J. A. (1978). UK consumers’ attitudes towards imports: the measurement of national stereotype image. European Journal of Marketing, 12(8), 562–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Barbarossa, C., De Pelsmacker, P., & Moons, I. (2016). Effects of country-of-origin stereotypes on consumer responses to product-harm crises. International Marketing Review, 35(3), 362–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bartsch, F., Riefler, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2016). A taxonomy and review of positive consumer dispositions toward foreign countries and globalization. Journal of International Marketing, 24(1), 82–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Ramachander, S. (2000). Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bilkey, W. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies, 13(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bloemer, J., Brijs, K., & Kasper, H. (2009). The CoO-ELM model: a theoretical framework for the cognitive processes underlying country of origin-effects. European Journal of Marketing, 43(1/2), 62–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bluemelhuber, C., Carter, L. L., & Lambe, C. J. (2007). Extending the view of brand alliance effects: an integrative examination of the role of country of origin. International Marketing Review, 24(4), 427–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bolton, R. N. (2004). Linking marketing to financial performance and firm value. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 73–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brecić, R., Filipović, J., Gorton, M., Ognjanov, G., Stojanović, Ž., & White, J. (2013). A qualitative approach to understanding brand image in an international context: insight from Croatia and Serbia. International Marketing Review, 30(4), 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bulik, B. S. (2007). Ditch the flags; kids don’t care where you come from internet-oriented youth don’t know, or bother, about country of origin. Advertising Age, 78(23), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Burrell, Q. L. (2002). Will this paper ever be cited? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(3), 232–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Burrell, Q. L. (2003). Predicting future citation behavior. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 372–378.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Burt, R. S. (1983). Network data from archival data. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis (pp. 158–174). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cauchi, M. & Cimilluca, D. (2008). Labelux, a new luxury firm, to acquire Bally from TPG. Wall Street Journal, April 23.

  30. Chabowski, B. R., Mena, J. A., & Gonzalez-Padron, T. L. (2011). The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958-2008: a basis for future research opportunities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chabowski, B. R., Samiee, S., & Hult, G. T. M. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of the global branding literature and a research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(6), 622–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chabowski, B. R., Kekec, P., Morgan, N. A., Hult, G. T. M., Walkowiak, T., & Runnalls, B. (2018). An assessment of the exporting literature: using theory and data to identify future research directions. Journal of International Marketing, 26(1), 118–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chao, P. (1998). Impact of country-of-origin dimensions on product quality and design quality perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 42(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chen, Y.-M., & Su, Y.-F. (2012). Do country-of-manufacture and country-of-design matter to industrial brand equity? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27(1), 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chiou, J.-S. (2003). The impact of country of origin on pretrial and posttrial product evaluations: the moderating effect of consumer expertise. Psychology & Marketing, 20(10), 935–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Choi, J., Chang, Y. K., Li, Y. J., & Jang, M. G. (2016). Doing good in another neighborhood: attributions of CSR motives depend on corporate nationality and cultural orientation. Journal of International Marketing, 24(4), 82–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chryssochoidis, G. M., Kystallis, A., & Perreas, P. (2007). Ethnocentric beliefs and country-of-origin (COO) effect: impact of country, product and product attributes on Greek consumers' evaluation of food products. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1518–1544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chu, J. (2010). Quantifying nation equity with sales data: a structural approach. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Clarivate Analytics (2020). Web of science platform: summary of coverage. Available at https://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/coverage. Accessed 27 Oct 2020.

  40. Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2009). Cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism, and materialism: an eight-country study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of International Marketing, 17(1), 116–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cornelius, B., Landström, H., & Persson, O. (2006). Entrepreneurial studies: the dynamic research front of developing social science. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(3), 375–398.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Costa, C., Carneiro, J., & Goldszmidt, R. (2016). A contingent approach to country-of-origin effects on foreign products evaluation: interaction of facets of country image with product classes. International Business Review, 25(5), 1066–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Culnan, M. J., O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1990). Intellectual structure of research in organizational behavior, 1972–1984: a cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. d'Astous, A., Voss, Z. G., Colbert, F., Carù, A., Caldwell, M., & Courvoisier, F. (2008). Product-country images in the arts: a multi-country study. International Marketing Review, 25(4), 379–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B., & Palihawadana, D. (2011). The relationship between country-of-origin image and brand image as drivers of purchase intentions: a test of alternative perspectives. International Marketing Review, 28(5), 508–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Dinnie, K. (2004). Country-of-origin 1965-2004: a literature review. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 3(2), 165–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dmitrovic, T., Vida, I., & Reardon, J. (2009). Purchase behavior in favor of domestic products in the West Balkans. International Business Review, 18(5), 523–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dzever, S., & Quester, P. (1999). Country-of-origin effects on purchasing agents’ product perceptions: an Australian perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(2), 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Edwards, R., Gut, A.-M., & Mavondo, F. (2007). Buyer animosity in business to business markets: evidence from the French nuclear tests. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(4), 483–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Eng, T.-Y., Ozdemir, S., & Michelson, G. (2016). Brand origin and country of production congruity: evidence from the UK and China. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5703–5711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Essoussi, L. H., & Merunka, D. (2007). Consumers' product evaluations in emerging markets: does country of design, country of manufacture, or brand image matter? International Marketing Review, 24(4), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ettenson, R., & Klein, J. G. (2005). The fallout from French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. International Marketing Review, 22(2), 199–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Fang, X., & Wang, X. (2018). Examining consumer responses to cross-border brand acquisitions. European Journal of Marketing, 52(7/8), 1727–1749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Fetscherin, M., & Toncar, M. (2010). The effects of the country of brand and the country of manufacturing of automobiles: an experimental study of consumers' brand personality perceptions. International Marketing Review, 27(2), 164–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Fischer, P. M., & Zeugner-Roth, K. P. (2017). Disentangling country-of-origin effects: the interplay of product ethnicity, national identity, and consumer ethnocentrism. Marketing Letters, 28(2), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Fong, C.-M., Lee, C.-L., & Du, Y. (2014). Consumer animosity, country of origin, and foreign entry-mode choice: a cross-country investigation. Journal of International Marketing, 22(1), 62–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Forsman, M. (2005). Development of research networks: The case of social capital. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Garcia-Gallego, J. M., & Mera, A. C. (2017). COO vs ROO: importance of the origin in customer preferences towards financial entities. International Marketing Review, 34(2), 206–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Garrett, T. C., Lee, S., & Chu, K. (2017). A store brand’s country-of-origin or store image: what matters to consumers? International Marketing Review, 34(2), 272–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Gineikiene, J., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2017). I hate where it comes from but I still buy it: countervailing influences of animosity and nostalgia. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(8), 992–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Gipp, B., & Beel, J. (2009). Citation proximity analysis (CPA): a new approach for identifying related work based on co-citation analysis. In B. Larsen & J. Leta (eds), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 2009, vol. 2, pp. 571–575.

  63. Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., Aello, G., Donvito, R., Chan, P., Oh, H., Singh, R., Skorobogatykh, I. I., Tsuchiya, J., & Weitz, B. (2012). Brand and country-of-origin effect on consumers’ decision to purchase luxury products. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1461–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Guo, X. (2013). Living in a global world: Influence of consumer global orientation on attitudes toward global brands from developed versus emerging countries. Journal of International Marketing, 21(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Cultural variations in country of origin effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Han, C. M. (1989). Country image: halo or summary construct? Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 222–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Han, C. M., & Terpstra, V. (1988). Country-of-origin effects for uni-national and bi-national products. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2), 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hanbury, M. (2020). This is what the average Walmart shopper looks like. Business Insider, January 19. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-shopper-demographics-average-is-white-woman-2020-1. Accessed 27 Oct 2020.

  70. Harmeling, C. M., Magnusson, P., & Singh, N. (2015). Beyond anger: a deeper look at consumer animosity. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(6), 676–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Harzing, A.-W. (2015). Journal quality list. London, UK: Middlesex University. http://www.harzing.com/jql.htm. Accessed 15 June 2015.

  72. Herz, M. F., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2013). Country-specific associations made by consumers: A dual-coding theory perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 21(3), 95–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Herz, M. F., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2017). I use it but will tell you that I don’t: consumers’ country-of-origin cue usage denial. Journal of International Marketing, 25(2), 52–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Heslop, L. A., Lu, I. R. R., & Cray, D. (2008). Modeling country image effects through an international crisis. International Marketing Review, 25(4), 354–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ho, M. H.-C., Liu, J. S., & Chang, K. C.-T. (2017). To include or not: the role of review papers in citation-based analysis. Scientometrics, 110(1), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Hoffman, D. L., & Holbrook, M. B. (1993). The intellectual structure of consumer research: a bibliometric study of author cocitations in the first 15 years of the Journal of Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 505–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Hook, P. A. (2017). Using course-subject co-occurrence (CSCO) to reveal the structure of an academic discipline: a framework to evaluate different inputs of a domain map. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 182–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Hsieh, M.-H., Pan, S.-L., & Setiono, R. (2004). Product-, corporate-, and country-image dimensions and purchase behavior: a multicountry analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Hu, Y., & Wang, X. (2010). Country-of-origin premiums for retailers in international trades: evidence from eBay’s international markets. Journal of Retailing, 86(2), 200–207.

  80. Huang, Y.-A., Phau, I., & Lin, C. (2010). Consumer animosity, economic hardship, and normative influence: how do they affect consumers’ purchase intention? European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 909–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Jaffe, E. D., & Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984). Alternative questionnaire formats for country image studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 463–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Jo, M.-S., Nakamoto, K., & Nelson, J. E. (2003). The shielding effects of brand image against lower quality countries-of-origin in global manufacturing. Journal of Business Research, 56(8), 637–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Johansson, J. K., Douglas, S. P., & Nonaka, I. (1985). Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a new methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(4), 388–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Josiassen, A. (2011). Consumer disidentification and its effects on domestic product purchases: an empirical investigation in the Netherlands. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 124–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Josiassen, A., & Harzing, A. W. (2008). Comment: descending from the ivory tower: Reflections on the relevance and future of country-of-origin research. European Management Review, 5(4), 264–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Josiassen, A., Lukas, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2008). Country-of-origin contingencies: competing perspectives on product familiarity and product involvement. International Marketing Review, 25(4), 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Katsikeas, C. S., Morgan, N. A., Leonidou, L. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). Assessing performance outcomes in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (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 

  89. Knight, G. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin perceptions. International Marketing Review, 17(2), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Knight, J. G., Holdsworth, D. K., & Mather, D. W. (2007). Country-of-origin and choice of food imports: an in-depth study of European distribution channel gatekeepers. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(1), 107–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A., & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). Are consumers really willing to pay more for favorable country image? A study of country-of-origin effects on willingness to pay. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 19–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kumar, A., & Paul, J. (2018). Mass prestige value and competition between American versus Asian laptop brands in an emerging market: theory and evidence. International Business Review, 27(5), 969–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M. (2005). The influence of country image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. International Marketing Review, 22(1), 96–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Lee, D., & Bae, S.-W. (1999). Effects of partitioned country of origin information on buyer assessment of binational products. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 344–351.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Lee, R., Lockshin, L., & Greenacre, L. (2016). A memory-theory perspective of country-image formation. Journal of International Marketing, 24(2), 62–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Leonidou, L. C., Hadjimarcou, J., Kaleka, A., & Stamenova, G. T. (1999). Bulgarian consumers’ perceptions of products made in Asia Pacific. International Marketing Review, 16(2), 126–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Liefeld, J. P. (2004). Consumer knowledge and use of country-of-origin information at the point of purchase. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(2), 85–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Liu, S., & Chen, C. (2011). The effects of co-citation proximity on co-citation analysis. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), July 4–7, Durban, South Africa, pp. 474–484.

  101. Liu, Y., Öberg, C., Tarba, S. Y., & Xing, Y. (2018). Brand management in mergers and acquisitions: emerging market multinationals venturing into advanced economies. International Marketing Review, 35(5), 710–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Lopez, C., Gotsi, M., & Andriopoulos, C. (2011). Conceptualising the influence of corporate image on country image. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1601–1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Lu, I. R. R., Heslop, L. A., Thomas, D. R., & Kwan, E. (2016). An examination of the status and evolution of country image research. International Marketing Review, 33(6), 825–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. MacRoberts, M., & MacRoberts, B. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Magnusson, P., Westjohn, S. A., & Zdravkovic, S. (2011). What? I thought Samsung was Japanese: accurate or not, perceived country of origin matters. International Marketing Review, 28(5), 454–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Magnusson, P., Krishnan, V., Westjohn, S. A., & Zdravkovic, S. (2014). The spillover effects of prototype brand transgressions on country image and related brands. Journal of International Marketing, 22(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Maher, A. A., & Singhapakdi, A. (2017). The effect of the moral failure of a foreign brand on competing brands. European Journal of Marketing, 51(5/6), 903–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Mandler, T., Won, S., & Kim, K. (2017). Consumers’ cognitive and affective responses to brand origin misclassifications: does confidence in brand origin identification matter? Journal of Business Research, 80, 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. McCain, K. W. (1986). Cocited author mapping as a valid representation of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(3), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Micevski, M., Diamantopoulos, A., & Erdbrügger, J. (2020). From country stereotypes to country emotions to intentions to visit a country: implications for a country as a destination brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, forthcoming., ahead-of-print

  112. Moeller, M., Harvey, M., Griffith, D., & Richey, G. (2013). The impact of country-of-origin on the acceptance of foreign subsidiaries in host countries: an examination of the 'liability-of-foreignness'. International Business Review, 22(1), 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Moon, B.-J., & Oh, H. M. (2017). Country of origin effects in international marketing channels: how overseas distributors account for the origins of products and brands. International Marketing Review, 34(2), 224–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Nes, E. B., Yelkur, R., & Silkoset, R. (2014). Consumer affinity for foreign countries: construct development, buying behavior consequences and animosity contrasts. International Business Review, 23(4), 774–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Newman, G. E., & Dhar, R. (2014). Authenticity is contagious: brand essence and the original source of production. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Nijssen, E. J., & Douglas, S. P. (2004). Examining the animosity model in a country with a high level of foreign trade. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1), 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Niss, H. (1996). Country of origin marketing over the product life cycle: a Danish case study. European Journal of Marketing, 30(3), 6–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Oberecker, E. M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Consumers emotional bonds with foreign countries: does consumer affinity affect behavioral intentions? Journal of International Marketing, 19(2), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Oberecker, E. M., Riefler, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). The consumer affinity construct: conceptualization, qualitative investigation, and research agenda. Journal of International Marketing, 16(3), 23–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Ouellet, J.-F. (2007). Consumer racism and its effects on domestic cross-ethnic product purchase: an empirical test in the United States, Canada, and France. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Özsomer, A. (2012). The interplay between global and local brands: a closer look at perceived brand globalness and local iconness. Journal of International Marketing, 20(2), 72–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Papadopoulos, N., & Heslop, L. A. (1993). Product-country images: Impact and role in international marketing. Binghamton: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Papadopoulos, N., Banna, A. E., & Murphy, S. A. (2017). Old country passions: an international examination of country image, animosity, and affinity among ethnic consumers. Journal of International Marketing, 25(3), 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Pappu, R., & Quester, P. (2010). Country equity: conceptualization and empirical evidence. International Business Review, 19(3), 276–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2006). Consumer-based brand equity and country-of-origin relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 696–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2007). Country image and consumer-based brand equity: relationships and implications for international marketing. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 726–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Peterson, R. A., & Jolibert, A. J. P. (1995). A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), 883–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Petrovici, D., Shan, Y., Gorton, M., & Ford, J. (2015). Patriot games? Determinants of responses to Chinese and foreign sponsors of the Beijing Olympics. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1324–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., Vermunt, J., & Bijmolt, T. (1999). Importance and similarity in the evolving citation network of the International Journal of Research in Marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(2), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Bachrach, D., & Podsakoff, N. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Price, D. J. D. S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Prince, M., Davies, M. A. P., Cleveland, M., & Palihawadana, D. (2016). Here, there and everywhere: a study of consumer centrism. International Marketing Review, 33(5), 715–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Ramos-Rodríguez, A. R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Reardon, J., Vianelli, D., & Miller, C. (2017). The effect of COO on retail buyers’ propensity to trial new products. International Marketing Review, 34(2), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Riefler, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2007). Consumer animosity: a literature review and a reconsideration of its measurement. International Marketing Review, 24(1), 87–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching product category and country image perceptions: a framework for managing country-of-origin effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(3), 477–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Russell, C., & Russell, D. (2010). Guilty by stereotypic association: country animosity and brand prejudice and discrimination. Marketing Letters, 21(4), 413–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Samiee, S. (1994). Customer evaluation of products in a global market. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(3), 579–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Samiee, S. (2010). Advancing the country image construct – A commentary essay. Journal of Business Research, 63(4), 442–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Samiee, S. (2011). Resolving the impasse regarding research on the origins of products and brands. International Marketing Review, 28(5), 473–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Samiee, S., & Leonidou, L. C. (2013). Relevance and rigor in international marketing research: Developments in product and brand origin line of inquiry. In S. C. Jain & D. A. Griffith (Eds.), International marketing theory (pp. 68–87). London, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Samiee, S., Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (2005). Brand origin recognition accuracy: its antecedents and consumers' cognitive limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 379–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Sapsford, J. & Shirouzu, N. (2006). Mom, apple pie and…Toyota? Ford says it’s patriotic to buy a mustang, but Sienna is made in Indiana with more U.S. parts. The Wall Street Journal, May 11, B1.

  144. Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: a co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(3), 399–415.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Schneider, J. W., & Borlund, P. (2004). Introduction to bibliometrics for construction and maintenance of thesauri. Journal of Documentation, 60(5), 524–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Schuiling, I., & Kapferer, J.-N. (2004). Real differences between local and international brands: strategic implications for international marketers. Journal of International Marketing, 12(4), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Sharma, P. (2011). Country of origin effects in developed and emerging markets: exploring the contrasting roles of materialism and value consciousness. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(2), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Sharma, P. (2015). Consumer ethnocentrism: reconceptualization and cross-cultural validation. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 381–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Shimp, T. A., Dunn, T. H., & Klein, J. G. (2004). Remnants of the U.S. civil war and modern consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21(2), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Shoham, A., Davidow, M., Klein, J. G., & Ruvio, A. (2006). Animosity on the home front: the intifada in Israel and its impact on consumer behavior. Journal of International Marketing, 14(3), 92–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Siamagka, N.-T., & Balabanis, G. (2015). Revisiting consumer ethnocentrism: review, reconceptualization, and empirical testing. Journal of International Marketing, 23(3), 66–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Sichtmann, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2013). The impact of perceived brand globalness, brand origin image, and brand origin-extension fit on brand extension success. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 567–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83–106.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Stallkamp, M., Pinkham, B. C., Schotter, A. P. J., & Buchel, O. (2017). Core or periphery? The effects of country-of-origin agglomerations on the within-country expansion of MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(8), 942–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Sumner, W. G. (1907). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston: Ginn and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Suter, M. B., Giraldi, J. D. M. E., Borini, F. M., MacLennan, M. L. F., Crescitelli, E., & Polo, E. F. (2018). In search of tools for the use of country image (CI) in the brand. Journal of Brand Management, 25(2), 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007). “My” brand or “our” brand: the effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 248–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Swoboda, B., Pennemann, K., & Taube, M. (2012). The effects of perceived brand globalness and perceived brand localness in China: empirical evidence on Western, Asian, and domestic retailers. Journal of International Marketing, 20(4), 72–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. J. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Thakor, M. V. (1996). Brand origin: conceptualization and review. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Tsai, W., & Wu, C.-H. (2010). Knowledge combination: a cocitation analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Ulgado, F. M. (2002). Country-of-origin effects on e-commerce. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 2(1), 250–253.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Usunier, J.-C. (2006). Relevance in business research: the case of country-of-origin research in marketing. European Management Review, 3(1), 60–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Usunier, J.-C. (2011). The shift from manufacturing to brand origin: suggestions for improving COO relevance. International Marketing Review, 28(5), 486–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & van den Berg, J. (2010). A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2405–2416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. van Ittersum, K., Candel, M. J. J. M., & Meulenberg, M. T. G. (2003). The influence of the image of a product’s region of origin on product evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 56(3), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Verlegh, P. W. J. (2007). Home country bias in product evaluation: the complementary roles of economic and socio-psychological motives. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3), 361–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Verlegh, P. W. J., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1999). A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5), 521–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Vogt, H. (2018). U.S. manufacturers push FTC to crack down on false ‘made in America’ labels companies see opportunity in Washington-Beijing trade dispute. The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 20.

  173. Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2008). Does country-of-origin matter in the relationship between brand personality and purchase intention in emerging economies? International Marketing Review, 25(4), 458–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  175. White, C. L. (2012). Brands and national image: an exploration of inverse country-of-origin effect. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 8(2), 110–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Winit, W., Gregory, G., Cleveland, M., & Verlegh, P. (2014). Global vs. local brands: how home country bias and price differences impact brand evaluations. International Marketing Review, 31(2), 102–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Zeugner-Roth, K. P., Diamantopoulos, A., & Montesinos, M. A. (2008). Home country image, country brand equity and consumers' product preferences: an empirical study. Management International Review, 48(5), 577–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. Zhou, L., & Hui, M. K. (2003). Symbolic value of foreign products in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of International Marketing, 11(2), 36–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Zhou, L., Yang, Z., & Hui, M. K. (2010). Non-local or local brands? A multi-level investigation into confidence in brand origin identification and its strategic implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 202–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The constructive guidance of the Editor and the Associate Editor, as well as the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers, are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Collins College of Business, The University of Tulsa, 800 S. Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA

    Saeed Samiee

  2. Marketing, Collins College of Business, The University of Tulsa, 800 S. Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA

    Brian R. Chabowski

Authors
  1. Saeed Samiee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian R. Chabowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saeed Samiee.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Constantine Katsikeas served as Area Editor for this article.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOC 199 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Samiee, S., Chabowski, B.R. Knowledge structure in product- and brand origin–related research. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00767-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Country of origin
  • Brand origin
  • Co-citation analysis
  • Multidimensional scaling
  • Knowledge structure
  • CO