Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Bridging the gap between country and destination image: Assessing

common facets and their predictive validity☆
Katharina Petra Zeugner-Roth a,⁎, Vesna Žabkar b,1
a
IESEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS), Université Catholique de Lille, Department of Marketing, 3 Rue de la Digue, F-59000 Lille, France
b
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pl. 17, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 20 February 2015 People form gestalt country perceptions encompassing production, investment, and tourism perspectives.
Surprisingly, country image research exists in two parallel research streams—country of origin and destination—
Keywords: with almost no cross-references between them. This study develops a holistic model of country-of-origin image
Country image (COI) and destination image (DI) that unites both research streams and tests the relative importance of cognitive,
Destination image affective, and symbolic country connotations to predict three consumer behavior outcome intentions (1) purchasing
Country cognitions
products and services, (2) traveling abroad, and (3) conducting business with foreign companies. Results reveal that
Country affect
Country personality
overall, affective, and symbolic image dimensions complement and outperform cognitive dimensions. The article
concludes with a discussion of the implications and guidelines for further research.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction consumer markets” (Mossberg & Kleppe, 2005, p. 493). Integrating

Increasing globalization and frequent travel increase people's
exposure to products and services outside their daily environment.
People are thus likely to dispose of pre-determined images when
thinking about a certain country (Arnett, 2002). Despite considerable
criticism about country image research's relevance (c.f. Samiee, 2010;
Zeugner-Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2010) “all nations have images,
whether deliberately cultivated or not” (Rojas-Méndez, Murphy, &
Papadopoulos, 2013, p. 1028). Understanding these images is funda-
mental to managing the country as a brand, accounting for competitive
strengths and weaknesses in the global marketplace (Anholt, 2002).
Similar to corporations, countries are brands that encompass multiple
roles, such as producers, exporters, investment locations, and migration
or destinations (Kotler & Gertner, 2002). Country image research rarely
considers all these roles (viz., Elliot, Papadopoulos, & Kim, 2011; Lee &
Lockshin, 2012; Martínez & Alvarez, 2010; Nadeau, Heslop, O'Reilly, &
Luk, 2008), focusing either on countries as product and service origin
or a potential travel destination. Both concepts “refer to nearly the
same area of applied marketing, namely export products to international
☆ This paper is part of a research project financed by the Jubiläumsfonds of the
Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB), project number 12288. We are particularly thank-
ful to the special issue editors, in particular Drew Martin, the anonymous reviewers, and
Adamantios Diamantopoulos for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this
manuscript.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 320 54 58 92.
E-mail addresses: k.zeugner-roth@ieseg.fr (K.P. Zeugner-Roth),
vesna.zabkar@ef.uni-lj.si (V. Žabkar).
1
Tel.: +386 1 5892 545.
findings from both streams advances country image theory.
Country-of-origin (COO) and destination research offer similar
conceptualizations for country-of-origin image (COI) and destination
image (DI). The tourism literature overwhelmingly acknowledges that
“destination image is a multidimensional construct comprising of two
primary dimensions: cognitive and affective” (Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal,
2006, p. 638). Similarly, a recent review of extant COI scales confirms
that COI includes both cognitive and affective components (Roth &
Diamantopoulos, 2009). Surprisingly, especially in COO research, extant
literature focuses primarily on cognitive and neglects affective compo-
nents (Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009). Integrating both research
streams helps to understand cognitive versus affective image dimension
roles of countries as producers and travel destinations.
Apart from cognitive and affective image, both COI and DI research
acknowledge a third component—country or destination personality.
Like brand personality, country or destination personality captures a
country's symbolic and self-expressive function by describing countries
based on human personality traits (Hirschmann, 1994; Plummer,
1985). Fournier (1998) concludes that personality positioning helps
legitimize the brand- (or country-) as-partner concept. People have
little difficulty in assigning personality characteristics to inanimate
objects (Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998). D'Astous and Boujbel (2007)
develop a country personality scale that characterizes a particular coun-
try according to six personality dimensions. However, no known study
explores the relationship and relative importance of a country's person-
ality to (conventional) country image perceptions (i.e., beliefs and
affect). Can a country portrayed as “aggressive” overcome this negative
influence through economic development?

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.012
0148-2963/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 K.P. Zeugner-Roth, V. Žabkar / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853
This article uncovers multiple facets of consumers' COI and DI per-
ceptions. The article's purpose is threefold. First, an inter-disciplinary lit-
erature review delineates the conceptual domain of cognitive, affective,
and symbolic country and destination image dimensions, and develops
a general model applicable to both the COI and DI contexts. Country and
destination images “refer to the same object and are based in the same
theory (beliefs, attitudes), […] a review that compared constructs, mea-
surement and findings across the two fields is much needed” (Mossberg
& Kleppe, 2005, pp. 500–1).
Second, the study contrasts the predictive validity of cognitive, affec-
tive, and symbolic country connotations by employing three different
outcomes frequently used in both research streams (e.g., Oberecker &
Diamantopoulos, 2011; Rojas-Méndez et al., 2013): intentions to
(1) purchase products/services from that country, (2) travel to that
country, and (3) do business with companies from that country or
invest in that country. These outcomes are important because the
notion of country image includes “the country as exporter, importer,
and potential tourism, investment, or immigration destination, making
its image a matter of vital importance to anyone living or otherwise
interested in it” (Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2003, p. 427).
Third, variations exist in consumers' home country or destination
perceptions (i.e., how consumers conceptualize their own country)
and foreign country contexts (i.e., how consumers conceptualize foreign
countries). This study explores these issues in the context of Europe due
to the region's diversity of development levels (e.g., East vs. West) and
cultural influence.
2. Conceptual background
2.1. Cognitive component
Country image's cognitive component is the model's most generic
construct. The extant literature generally agrees that country and desti-
nation images represent consumers' attitudes toward a country or desti-
nation (Mossberg & Kleppe, 2005; Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009), and
these attitudes' cognitive component summarizes their beliefs about
that country or destination. For example, Martin and Eroglu (1993,
p. 93) define country image as “the total of all descriptive, inferential,
and informational beliefs about a particular country.” This definition is
not materially different from destination image, which Crompton
(1979, p. 18) defines as “the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions
that a person has of a destination.”
At a foundation level, both COI and DI are generic constructs not
linked to a specific context (Mossberg & Kleppe, 2005). However, both
COI and DI can occur at different levels (see Fig. 1). Depending on the
country's focal image, country persona occurs at product class and/or
specific product level (Hsieh, Pan, & Setiono, 2004; Papadopoulos &
Heslop, 2003). Country image's definition excludes products (Martin &
Regions
General/
Abstract Country Image
Cities
Destination
Level (Beliefs) Image
Attrac-
tions
Products Category
Specific
in Brands Specific
Products Level
General
COO Image
Fig. 1. Conceptualization of country beliefs (adapted from Mossberg & Kleppe, 2005).
1845
Eroglu, 1993), but the persona can pertain to specific products
(e.g., COO refers to the place where certain products are made). In the
latter case, researchers typically refer to the concept of product-country
image (PCI) (Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2003), or the image products of a
particular country have in the consumer's eyes (Roth & Romeo, 1992).
Similarly, destination research examines destination image at a country,
region, city, and tourist attraction level (Mossberg & Kleppe, 2005).
At the country level, the focus is usually on the general place attributes
(e.g., climate, social customs and characteristics, scenery), geographical
notions, or categorization of attractions (Lew, 1987). The former
especially is comparable to attributes typically present in COO research
that characterize (general) country image (Roth & Diamantopoulos,
2009).
This study refers to the cognitive component of COI and DI as country
cognitions. Country cognitions conceptualize at a general country level,
focusing on attributes describing countries from both production
and tourism perspectives (e.g., high standards, good education, high
technical capabilities) (Coshall, 2000; Crompton, 1979; Nadeau et al.,
2008; Parameswaran & Pisharodi, 1994).
2.2. Affective component
In contrast to the cognitive component, both COI and DI research
largely neglect or wrongly conceptualize the affective component (Roth
& Diamantopoulos, 2009). The destination image literature primarily
focuses on the affective (e.g., Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Walmsley &
Young, 1998) or the cognitive component of DI (e.g., Oppermann, 1996;
Schroeder, 1996), a paucity of studies focuses on both facets simulta-
neously (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Elliot et al., 2011; Hosany et al., 2006;
Martin & Cervino, 2011).
Images capture consumers' attitudes toward a country or destina-
tion, and attitudes commonly include both affective and cognitive
components (Ajzen, 2001; Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993). Following
this common definition of attitudes as “a learned predisposition to re-
spond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to
a given object” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 6, emphasis added), attitude's
affective part usually comprises evaluative judgments (e.g., like/dislike,
pleasant/unpleasant, and positive/negative) (Ajzen, 2001; Bagozzi,
Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999).
Country affect refers to the affective component of COI and DI.
Branding research uses evaluative judgments to conceptualize (affective)
attitudes toward a brand (e.g., Schmitt, Pan, & Tavassoli, 1994). This
study follows branding research and views country affect as the overall
country or destination evaluation on a global dimension (e.g., favorable/
unfavorable; positive/negative) (Bagozzi et al., 1999; Esses et al., 1993).
This view follows previous research using evaluative judgments such as
like/dislike (Heslop, Papadopoulos, Dowdles, Wall, & Compeau, 2004)
and pleasant/unpleasant (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Elliot et al., 2011;
Hosany et al., 2006; Walmsley & Young, 1998) to capture the affective
part of COI and DI.
2.3. Symbolic component
Symbolic (country) connotations “reveal how product use and/or
ownership associates the consumer with a group, role or self-image”
(Lefkoff-Hagius & Mason, 1993, p. 101). The branding literature indi-
cates that to capture objects' symbolic value for consumers, firms
should animate, humanize, or somehow personalize brands. Anthropo-
morphism refers to people's tendency to attribute “humanlike charac-
teristics to animals and nonhuman entities” (Kiesler, 2006, p. 149) and
explains this phenomenon. Fournier (1998) contends that humans
feel the need to anthropomorphize objects to facilitate interactions
with the non-material world. Guthrie (1997) offers two complementary
theories to explain this phenomenon. First, humans use their self-concept,
or their extensive knowledge of themselves (familiarity theory), as a
reference point to interpret the outside world. Second, humans feel
1846 K.P. Zeugner-Roth, V. Žabkar / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853
uncomfortable with what is non-human. People tend to reassure
themselves by projecting human characteristics onto inanimate objects
(comfort theory).
Both COO and DI research explore the concept of country personali-
ty. COO research conceptually defines country personality as “the men-
tal representation of a country on dimensions that typically capture an
individual's personality” (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007, p. 233). Country
personality shares commonalities with destination personality's defini-
tion in DI research: “human characteristics associated with a destination
as perceived from a tourist rather than local resident viewpoint” (Ekinci
& Hosany, 2006, p. 128). Both definitions emphasize human character-
istics associating with a particular country.
To operationalize country personality, several destination studies
employ Aaker's (1997) brand personality scale (e.g., Ekinci & Hosany,
2006; Gertner, 2010; Hosany et al., 2006; Murphy, Moscardo, &
Benckendorff, 2007). However, none of these studies fully replicates
the scale's original five-dimensional structure, and the scales' dimen-
sions and items differ from study to study. Furthermore, research often
criticizes Aaker's (1997) personality scale because not all the scale
items capture personality traits (e.g., feminine, upper class, young), or
have any similarities with the Big Five personality dimensions (Geuens,
Weijters, & DeWulf, 2009). In response to this inconsistency, d'Astous
and Boujbel (2007) develop a new country personality measuring six
dimensions that specifically characterize a country: agreeableness, wick-
edness, snobbism, assiduousness, conformity, and unobtrusiveness.
This present study adopts d'Astous and Boujbel's (2007) conceptual-
ization to represent country and destination personality. Similar to the
Big Five personality dimensions (see DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Steel,
Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008), some dimensions of d'Astous and Boujbel's
(2007) scale capture favorable personality traits, whereas others cap-
ture unfavorable traits. In this context, country personality serves as a
profile construct (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998) that cannot be aggregat-
ed to obtain an “overall” country personality score; instead, the individ-
ual dimension scores create a gestalt country personality profile.
2.4. Behavioral intentions
COO research usually investigates country image's impact on product-
related outcome variables, such as product preferences (e.g., Ittersum,
Candel, & Meulenberg, 2003) and purchase likelihood (e.g., Hsieh et al.,
2004; Okechuku & Onyemah, 1999). Destination research examines a
specific site's attractiveness (e.g., Echtner & Ritchie, 1993), consumers'
travel intentions (e.g., Murphy et al., 2007), or intentions to recommend
the site to friends (e.g., Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). Papadopoulos and Heslop
(2003, p. 424) urge researchers “to broaden the perspective of [product
country image] research beyond the traditional notion of ‘product’ in
the sense of tangible goods…. This incorporates, among others, services,
tourism, [foreign direct investment], and even the need to attract a qual-
ified workforce to particular countries or places within them.”
This study aims to assess the explanatory power of cognitive, affec-
tive, and symbolic country connotations regarding three key outcome
variables. These variables include consumers' intentions to purchase
products/services from a particular country (e.g., Putrevu & Lord, 1994;
Roth & Romeo, 1992), to visit the focal country (e.g., Um & Crompton,
1990), and to conduct business with companies from a country or to
invest in that country (e.g., Heslop et al., 2004).
3. Conceptual model and hypothesis
3.1. The relative importance of country affect versus country cognitions
Attitude theory predicts that both country cognitions and country
affect factors influence consumer behavior (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999;
Zajonc, 1980). However, the relative importance of both factors differs.
Following Zajonc's (1980) separate systems perspective, this study
tests both affect and cognition as independent predictors of behavior
(see Muncy, 1986). Few studies examine the impact of both cognitive
and affective image on behavioral outcomes. Ekinci and Hosany
(2006) examine both affective and cognitive DI and find that country
affect associates with a non-significant relationship between country
cognitions and consumers' intent to recommend a travel destination.
Attempting to link cognitive and affective country and destination
image, Elliot et al. (2011) conclude that cognitive images impact (prod-
uct) beliefs, whereas affective images influence consumers' intentions
to buy products from and travel to a country.
Travelers planning their vacations likely evaluate countries in their
consideration set according to factors such as technological develop-
ment, available attractions, or accommodation standards. However, in-
dependent of those factors, potential visitors simply might like or dislike
a country for personal reasons. The decision whether or not to visit the
country comes from affective connotations overriding cognitive consid-
erations. Erevelles (1998) reports that behavior's motivation primarily
comes from affect and cognition often inadequately explains behavioral
intentions. Similarly, decision theory posits that consumers often cogni-
tively violate axioms that they should follow when making decisions
(Derbaix, 1995). Country affect should have a stronger effect than coun-
try cognitions on the outcomes. H1: Country affect more strongly im-
pacts consumers' intentions than country cognitions for (a) purchasing
products from, (b) traveling to, and (c) investing in a particular country.
3.2. Country personality's relative importance
Country personality captures a symbolic and self-expressive function
for a consumer and forms the basis for customer–brand relationships
(Fournier, 1998). Little research examines whether or not symbolic
connotations override cognitive or affective factors.
The branding literature often presents brand personality as a key
component of an effective brand (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993). Specifical-
ly, competing brands with similar product attributes may differentiate
by brand personality, among others. A strong personality should lead
to higher product evaluations than the product's features and benefits
(Haigood, 1999; Kapferer, 2008). Every country has attractions and pro-
duces products, but a distinct personality makes the country unique and
influences consumers' behavioral intentions. Personality traits exist in
people's minds because they use such traits to classify other people
and objects in their day-to-day environment and to predict their behav-
ior (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007). A tourist's country trait perception
potentially drives behavioral intentions. These perceptions are more ac-
cessible than general beliefs and feelings toward the place.
Alternatively, research also suggests that personality traits are
abstract and indirectly predict consumer behavior through higher-
order factors (Baumgartner, 2002; Mowen, 2000). Most brand per-
sonality research focuses on scale development (e.g., Geuens et al.,
2009; Milas & Mlacic, 2007), but approaches linking brand personal-
ity directly to behavioral intentions are rare. D'Astous and Boujbel
(2007) examine personality dimensions of consumers' attitudes to-
ward the country and find that some dimensions affect attitudes direct-
ly; however, the dimensions vary by context and certain dimensions
show no significant relationship to outcomes (see also Ekinci &
Hosany, 2006; Rojas-Méndez et al., 2013). Because attitude theory as-
sumes that beliefs and affect directly predict behavioral intentions
(Ajzen, 2001), country cognitions and country affect may be more rele-
vant to consumers than rather abstract personality traits when they
form their behavioral intentions.
Because both explanations derive from the literature, this study for-
wards opposing hypotheses regarding the relative importance of coun-
try personality, country cognitions, and country affect on behavioral
intentions. H2a: Country personality impacts consumers' intentions
more strongly than country cognitions for (i) purchasing products
from, (ii) traveling to, and (iii) investing in a particular country. H2b:
Country cognitions impact consumers' intentions more strongly than
country personality for (i) purchasing products from, (ii) traveling to,
 K.P. Zeugner-Roth, V. Žabkar / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853
and (iii) investing in a particular country. H3a: Country personality
impacts consumers' intentions more strongly than country affect for
(i) purchasing products from, (ii) traveling to, and (iii) investing in a
particular country. H3b: Country affect impacts consumers' intentions
more strongly than country personality for (i) purchasing products
from, (ii) traveling to, and (iii) investing in a particular country.
4. Method
4.1. Country selection
Given the research hypotheses, three countries serve as the COO
stimuli—one home country and two foreign countries with differ-
ent but compensating profiles. Data come from a central European
country—Austria—a country internationally recognized for both prod-
ucts and tourism attractions. Austria's gross domestic product per capita
and economic development are similar to other countries typically
appearing in COO research (e.g., the United States, United Kingdom,
Canada, Japan, and Germany). At the time of data collection, imports
(goods and services) represented approximately 55% of Austria's gross
domestic product (Eurostat, 2011), demonstrating the country's capac-
ity for high-quality imports and exports.
Italy and Germany serve as the foreign country stimuli. Both coun-
tries are the main export and import partners of the survey country;
Germany represents the most important trading partner (volume share
of approximately 45% of all imports), and Italy is the second most impor-
tant (approximately 7% of all imports) (Eurostat, 2011). As preferred
destinations, Italy ranks first (21% of foreign trips) and Germany second
(13% of foreign trips) (Eurostat, 2011).
4.2. Construct measurement and data collection
Relevant literature was screened extensively and established scales
were selected to measure the constructs.
Country personality was measured with the 24-item scale from
d'Astous and Boujbel (2007). Respondents were told that people some-
times think of countries as if they were persons and associate them with
characteristics typically used to describe human beings. As an example,
they were told that Canada could be described as “somebody” welcom-
ing, calm, and wise (see also d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007). Using seven-
point scales, subjects rated the extent to which these 24 personality
traits describe the stimuli countries (1 = “does not describe this country
at all”; 7 = “describes this country perfectly”).
Country cognitions were measured with 5 items (e.g., “well
educated”, “hard working”) following Parameswaran and Pisharodi
(1994). These measures are used widely in previous research (Roth &
Diamantopoulos, 2009) and they represent the country image's cogni-
tive facet. Items were rated on a seven-point Likert format (1 = strongly
disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
Following Ajzen (2000, p. 28), who states that “there is general
agreement that attitude represents a summary evaluation of a psycho-
logical object captured in such attribute dimensions such as good–bad,
harmful–beneficial, pleasant–unpleasant, likable–dislikable,” country
affect's measure is based on five items (e.g., “like–dislike”, “pleasant/
unpleasant attitude toward [country]”) drawn from previous re-
search (Schmitt et al., 1994). The five items were rated by nine-point
semantic-differential scales.
Consumers' purchase intentions were measured with three items.
Intention to buy products employs Putrevu and Lord's (1994) measure
(e.g., “It is very likely that I will buy products from [country]”).
Consumers' intention to visit a country (e.g., “I would like to visit this
[country]”) and to invest in a country were measured with three and
two items from previous COO and destination research (i.e., Javalgi,
Thomas, & Rao, 1992; Rojas-Méndez et al., 2013; Um & Crompton,
1990). All items were rated on a seven-point Likert format (1 = strongly
disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
1847
All scales originally were developed in English and translated into
the local language. To ensure translation equivalence, one person trans-
lated the questionnaire's English version into the local language, and a
second person back-translated the questionnaire into English; both
people are bilingual. The two expert translators reconciled any differ-
ences (Homburg, Cannon, Krohmer, & Kiedaisch, 2009).
The main survey employed a sampling methodology assuring that
respondents represented the survey country's population in terms of
age and gender. A major international research agency that maintains
global representative probability-based online panels collected the
data. In total, 422 completed questionnaires were returned; after exclu-
sion of invalid responses, the sample used for the analysis comprised
411 consumers. The sample's structure corresponds to the population's
structure (the sample's full description is available on request). Men
make up approximately one-half the sample. Respondents' average
age is 42.5 years, and personal income and education are slightly higher
than the population average (Statistics Austria, 2008). All respondents'
nationalities correspond with their representative survey country.
4.3. Manipulation check
A manipulation check compares country cognitions, country affect,
and country personality for the home and foreign country. Table 1 lists
the means and correlations. A repeated measures analysis of variance
with Bonferroni confidence interval adjustment yields significant differ-
ences (p b 0.001) for all dimensions, confirming assumptions that
consumers perceive all three countries as different. For example, Italy,
a popular vacation destination, scores higher than Germany on country
affect and agreeableness. Germany scores higher on cognitive country
image and assiduousness. This evidence proves the appropriateness of
the countries chosen as stimuli.
5. Results
5.1. Measurement model
Structural equation modeling with LISREL 8.80 evaluates the mea-
surement properties of the operationalization of the focal constructs
and subsequently tests the research hypotheses. For country personali-
ty, both statistical and theoretical reasons suggest the elimination
of “mysterious” from the conformity dimension. This process results
in a significant improvement in fit for the country personality model
(home country: Δχ2 = 101.27, Δdf = 22, p b 0.001; Italy: Δχ2 =
129.77, Δdf = 22, p b 0.001; Germany: Δχ2 = 100.43, Δdf = 22,
p b 0.001). The measurement models for the other constructs show
acceptable fit, requiring no adjustments in their original specification.
Reliability and validity tests followed common procedures (Bagozzi &
Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 1 shows average variances
extracted, shared variances between dimensions, and composite
reliabilities. Inter-construct correlations assessed the constructs' nomo-
logical validity. For both home and foreign country, agreeableness,
assiduousness, and conformity positively correlate with themselves
and with country cognitions and country affect. In contrast, wickedness,
snobbism, and unobtrusiveness positively correlate with them-
selves and negatively correlate with country cognition and affect
(see Table 1). Thus, in line with the Big Five personality dimensions,
some traits capture favorable and other traits capture unfavorable
country characteristics.
Because the data come from a cross-sectional research design and
are self-reported, apart from procedural remedies (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), the potential threat of common
method bias was assessed using the correlational marker technique
(Lindell & Whitney, 2001). An a priori chosen “marker” variable theoret-
ically unrelated to at least one substantive variable is “interest in art of
different cultures.” The chosen marker is a perception and likely shares
characteristics that produce common method variance (Richardson,
1848 K.P. Zeugner-Roth, V. Žabkar / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853

Table 1
Inter-construct correlations and reliability estimates.

Construct Mean AVE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Home country (Austria)

1. Country cognition 5.63 .65 .90 .10 .33 .08 .02 .31 .11 .05 .07 .03 .04
2. Country affect 7.88 .73 .32 .93 .14 .12 .06 .05 .04 .10 .09 .14 .09
3. Agreeableness 5.42 .60 .58 .38 .86 .06 .04 .17 .14 .11 .10 .06 .08
4. Wickedness 2.68 .64 −.28 −.34 −.25 .88 .29 .05 .00 .19 .07 .01 .01
5. Snobbism 3.56 .54 −.13 −.25 −.20 .54 .87 .00 .00 .17 .04 .01 .01
6. Assiduousness 5.47 .70 .56 .23 .41 −.22 −.05 .90 .23 .07 .06 .03 .03
7. Conformity 4.85 .48 .33 .20 .38 .01 .06 .48 .72 .02 .03 .03 .04
8. Unobtrusiveness 3.36 .57 −.22 −.32 −.32 .44 .41 −.27 −.16 .86 .02 .02 .02
9. Purchase intentions 6.66 .65 .27 .30 .32 −.27 −.21 .25 .16 −.15 .85 .08 .06
10. Visit intentions 6.34 .70 .17 .37 .24 −.10 −.09 .17 .17 −.14 .28 .88 .18
11. Investment intentions 5.99 .72 .21 .30 .28 −.11 −.10 .17 .19 −.15 .25 .42 .83

Foreign country (Italy)

1. Country cognition 4.45 .78 .95 .18 .16 .09 .03 .43 .02 .05 .07 .07 .05
2. Country affect 6.66 .71 .42 .93 .13 .15 .14 .11 .00 .06 .16 .35 .14
3. Agreeableness 5.94 .64 .40 .37 .87 .13 .04 .03 .07 .06 .07 .10 .01
4. Wickedness 3.06 .56 −.30 −.39 −.36 .84 .33 .05 .00 .16 .06 .05 .01
5. Snobbism 3.95 .59 −.17 −.38 −.21 .57 .84 .02 .01 .16 .04 .05 .01
6. Assiduousness 3.96 .64 .66 .34 .18 −.22 −.13 .88 .03 .03 .05 .03 .05
7. Conformity 5.39 .48 .15 .05 .27 −.03 .10 .18 .72 .00 .03 .01 .00
8. Unobtrusiveness 2.95 .59 −.23 −.24 −.24 .40 .40 −.17 −.03 .85 .04 .01 .00
9. Purchase intentions 5.16 .76 .26 .40 .27 −.25 −.20 .22 .16 −.21 .90 .25 .15
10. Visit intentions 5.52 .77 .26 .59 .32 −.23 −.22 .19 .10 −.10 .50 .91 .22
11. Investment intentions 3.44 .70 .23 .38 .11 −.10 −.11 .22 .06 .00 .39 .47 .82

Foreign country (Germany)

1. Country cognition 5.50 .66 .91 .12 .19 .11 .01 .33 .06 .07 .05 .06 .04
2. Country affect 6.13 .79 .34 .95 .14 .15 .18 .05 .05 .08 .12 .20 .05
3. Agreeableness 4.54 .59 .44 .37 .85 .03 .02 .08 .17 .04 .05 .07 .01
4. Wickedness 3.22 .63 −.33 −.39 −.18 .87 .25 .04 .01 .14 .01 .01 .00
5. Snobbism 4.59 .65 −.12 −.42 −.14 .50 .88 .00 .00 .09 .02 .02 .00
6. Assiduousness 5.56 .70 .58 .22 .28 −.20 .02 .90 .12 .05 .05 .06 .05
7. Conformity 4.23 .52 .25 .21 .41 −.07 .02 .34 .76 .01 .03 .03 .00
8. Unobtrusiveness 2.95 .57 −.25 −.29 −.21 .38 .31 −.23 −.07 .84 .01 .00 .00
9. Purchase intentions 5.52 .76 .23 .34 .23 −.12 −.12 .22 .16 −.12 .91 .16 .16
10. Visit intentions 4.32 .77 .24 .45 .26 −.12 −.13 .25 .18 −.06 .41 .91 .19
11. Investment intentions 4.54 .68 .19 .22 .08 −.04 .00 .21 .05 −.02 .40 .43 .80

Note: Correlations of .10 and above are significant at p b .05 (two-sided). Correlations are below the diagonal, composite reliabilities on the main diagonal (bold text), and squared multiple
correlations above the diagonal.

Simmering, & Sturman, 2009). The correlations between the marker
variable and purchase and travel intentions (criterion variables) are
non-significant (r ≤ 0.15). After removing the smallest observed correla-
tion between a substantive variable and the marker variable, correlations
among the predictors and outcomes maintain statistical significance.
Overall, the results suggest that common method bias is not a concern.
increases significantly (p b 0.001, F(1, 408) = 11.7 to 176.6), with an
increase in r-square ranging from a minimum of 3% (intentions to invest
in Germany) to a maximum of 27% (intentions to travel to Italy). The
results show that country affect strongly predicts behavioral intentions,
in addition to cognitive beliefs about a country.

5.2. Structural model Conceptualmodels.

A
Consistent with the research hypotheses, three alternative models Purchase
test the relative importance of cognitive, affective, and symbolic factors Country Cognitions Visit
in predicting consumer behavior. Model 1 (see Panel A in Fig. 2) is Invest
Model 1
the basic model and only assesses the impact of country cognitions on
consumers' intentions to purchase products/service from, travel to, B
and invest in a country. Model 2 (see Panel B in Fig. 2) includes country Country Cognitions Purchase
affect, and Model 3 (see Panel C in Fig. 2) assesses cognitive, affective, Visit
and symbolic factors at the same time. All three models are nested. For Country Affect Invest
each model, all constructs were entered into the analyses and paths
Model 2
were added depending on the model specifications. Table 2 summarizes
the results.
C
Country Cognitions Purchase
5.2.1. The relative importance of country cognitions and country affect (H1)
Comparing Models 1–2 in Table 2 helps to assess H1. A chi-square dif- Country Affect Visit
ference test investigates whether Model 1 or Model 2 fits the data better.
The decrease in chi-square is significant (home country: Δχ2 = 73.97, Country Personality Invest
df = 3, p b 0.001; Italy: Δχ2 = 216.32, df = 3, p b 0.001; Germany: Model 3
Δχ2 = 106.50, df = 3, p b .001). This result suggests that Model 2 is
superior to Model 1. Furthermore, the variance explained in all models Fig. 2. Conceptual models.
 K.P. Zeugner-Roth, V. Žabkar / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853 1849

Table 2
Structural model results.

Standardized path coefficients Home country (Austria) Italy Germany

(t-values)

Model 1: cognitions → outcomes

Country cognitions — purchases .34 (3.74) .33 (5.13) .29 (4.54)
Country cognitions — visits .22 (2.75) .32 (6.18) .29 (4.53)
Country cognitions — investments .27 (3.92) .29 (4.56) .26 (4.23)
Model fit χ2 = 1676.65; df = 748, χ2 = 1949.55; df = 748, χ2 = 1607.99; df = 748,
RMSEA = .04, NNFI = .97, CFI = .98 RMSEA = .06, NNFI = .96, CFI = .96 RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .96, CFI = .97
R2 purchase intentions .116 .108 .085
R2 visit intentions .049 .103 .086
R2 investment intentions .073 .083 .065

Model 2: cognitions & affect → outcomes

Country cognitions — purchases .26 (2.91) .13 (1.93) .17 (2.67)
Country cognitions — visits .19 (1.31) .17 (2.67) .12 (1.82)
Country cognitions — investments .17 (2.51) .09 (1.41) .18 (2.84)
Country affect — purchases .23 (3.00) .38 (6.45) .30 (5.25)
Country affect — visits .33 (5.04) .61 (11.53) .44 (7.20)
Country affect — investments .28 (4.16) .38 (6.36) .19 (3.04)
Model fit χ2 = 1602.68; df = 745, χ2 = 1733.23; df = 745, χ2 = 1501.49; df = 745,
RMSEA = .04, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98 RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .97, CFI = .97 RMSEA = .04, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98
R2 purchase intentions .154 .202 .152
R2 visit intentions .140 .374 .240
R2 investment intentions .133 .180 .091

Model 3: cognitions, affect & personality → outcomes

Country cognitions — purchases .03 (.29) .05 (.52) .02 (.17)
Country cognitions — visits .05 (.64) .05 (.59) .04 (.46)
Country cognitions — investments .01 (.13) .10 (.99) .06 (.73)
Country affect — purchases .14 (2.07) .34 (5.31) .30 (4.17)
Country affect — visits .30 (4.06) .61 (10.97) .47 (6.99)
Country affect — investments .23 (3.08) .39 (5.90) .30 (4.22)
Agreeableness — purchases .17 (2.21) .02 (.28) .12 (1.31)
Wickedness — purchases −.16 (−1.47) −.06 (−.79) .06 (.88)
Snobbism — purchases −.13 (−1.90) −.03 (−.29) −.02 (−.26)
Assiduousness — purchases .10 (1.23) .02 (.22) .20 (2.54)
Conformity — purchases .07 (.85) .16 (2.54) −.05 (−.60)
Unobtrusiveness — purchases .14 (1.79) −.08 (−1.27) .03 (.39)
Agreeableness — visits .16 (1.65) .04 (.56) .15 (2.07)
Wickedness — visits .05 (0.61) .04 (.46) .08 (1.14)
Snobbism — visits −.05 (−.87) −.07 (−.82) −.00 (−.05)
Assiduousness — visits .04 (.53) −.07 (−.96) .23 (3.09)
Conformity — visits .07 (.82) .12 (1.98) −.06 (−.93)
Unobtrusiveness — visits .01 (.17) .08 (1.40) .12 (1.78)
Agreeableness — investments .18 (1.70) −.06 (−.73) .03 (.30)
Wickedness — investments .02 (.31) .06 (.68) .10 (1.21)
Snobbism — investments −.04 (−.51) −.07 (−.82) .06 (.81)
Assiduousness — investments .00 (.10) .05 (.62) .27 (3.63)
Conformity — investments .08 (.92) .03 (.44) −.17 (−2.24)
Unobtrusiveness — investments −.02 (−.31) .10 (1.58) .07 (.87)
Model fit χ2 = 1563.91; df = 727, χ2 = 1702.38; df = 727, χ2 = 1455.68; df = 727,
RMSEA = .04, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98 RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .97, CFI = .97 RMSEA = .04, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98
R2 purchase intentions .214 .244 .178
2
R visit intentions .162 .397 .293
R2 investment intentions .159 .199 .157

Notes: λ = standardized loading; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.

Path coefficients confirm previous research that operationalizes
country image solely on cognitive factors (Model 1). Country cognitions
significantly affect consumers' intentions to purchase products from,
travel to, and invest in a country. Model 2's results show that both coun-
try cognitions and country affect influence the outcomes. Compared to
Model 1, Model 2 shows that country cognitions' effect on outcomes
decreases and is sometimes non-significant (e.g., travel intentions).
To formally test H1, the model with free path estimations for country
cognitions and country affect on the three outcomes (see Table 2) was
compared to a model with equality constraints between the paths
from country cognitions and country affect to outcomes. Results show
that significant differences exist in effect size for travel intentions
(home country: Δχ2 = 10.16, df = 1, p b 0.01, Italy: Δχ2 = 9.57,
df = 1, p b 0.01; Germany: Δχ2 = 9.98, df = 1, p b 0.01) and consumers'
intentions to invest in the home country (Δχ2 = 3.80, df = 1, p b 0.05).
All other chi-square difference tests are not statistically significant.
The findings support H1b (travel intentions), partially support H1c
(investment intentions), and appear inconclusive for H1a (purchase
intentions).
5.2.2. Relative importance of country personality, cognitions, and affect
(H2 and H3)
To assess H2 and H3, a model in which all constructs predicted be-
havioral intentions (Model 3) was compared with a model in which
only country cognitions and country affect predicted behavioral inten-
tions (Model 2). The chi-square difference test again is significant
(home country: Δχ2 = 38.78, df = 18, p b 0.01; Italy: Δχ2 = 30.85,
df = 18, p b 0.05; Germany: Δχ2 = 45.82, df = 18, p b 0.001), suggesting
that Model 3 is better than Model 2. However, the variance explained by
all three predictors is low. Depending on the model, r-square ranges
from 1.9% (intentions to invest in Italy; p N 0.05, F(6, 402) = 1.59) to
1850 K.P. Zeugner-Roth, V. Žabkar / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853
6.6% (intentions to invest in Germany; p b 0.001, F(6, 402) = 5.24).
Overall, about one-half of the variance increases are significant.
For the path coefficients, not all six personality dimensions significant-
ly affect behavioral intentions. Depending on the context, one to three
dimensions are relevant across the models (see Table 2). Supporting the
conceptualization of country personality as profile construct (Law et al.,
1998), different dimensions are relevant for each country. For example,
agreeableness significantly affects all three outcomes, but conformity
mainly drives behavioral intentions toward Italy. Assiduousness appears
most relevant for consumers' intentions to purchase products from, travel
to, and do business with companies from Germany.
Comparing the relative importance of country personality versus
country cognitions is problematic because the impact of country cogni-
tions on outcomes turned non-significant when country personality en-
tered the models. H2a receives support, but H2b does not. This finding
suggests that country personality better predicts behavioral intentions
than country cognitions. In contrast, the impact of country affect on
behavioral intentions remains significant in all three contexts. Path co-
efficients for country affect are consistently stronger than for country
personality. To test H3, an unconstrained model (Table 2) is compared
to a model with equality constraints for country affect and country per-
sonality with the most significant effect on outcomes. This test requires
nine comparisons (three countries times three outcome variables), two
results (consumers' intention to travel to and invest in Italy) are signif-
icant (p b 0.05). H3b(ii) (travel intentions) and H3b(iii) (investment
intentions) receive partial support, but the findings do not support the
other hypotheses. These results suggest that country personality serves
as an alternative predictor of behavioral intentions to country affect.
6. Conclusions and implications
During the 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver, Alison, a blogger for
InformedVote.ca, wrote,
One thing that seems to come up when the spotlight shines is the
question of how one wants to be seen…. The pressure of hosting
the Olympics comes from a need to showcase the country's person-
ality and promise. But what is the image that Canada has chosen, and
more importantly who has defined it?
Both governmental officials and companies need to consider the
mental representations consumers have about a place and how these
affect their behavioral intentions. Countries sometimes have only a
short time span to promote themselves internationally, and understand-
ing which factors appeal to people could tip the balance favorably.
This study develops a holistic model of COI and DI to test the relative
importance of cognitive, affective, and symbolic country connotations in
predicting three behavioral outcomes: consumers' intentions to pur-
chase products/services from, travel to, and do business with companies
from a country. Regarding the finding's generalizability, the study coun-
try is a popular destination and has a reputation for quality products. All
measurement scales are from previous research and show acceptable
measurement properties; that is, they are independent of the object
they describe (i.e., a country or a destination) and can be used to predict
a variety of outcomes. Furthermore, this study is the first to provide an
independent validation of d'Astous and Boujbel (2007) country person-
ality scale. Since d'Astous and Boujbel developed the scale in a single
country (Canada), the present study replicates the scale in a different
national context and language as well as assesses the psychometric
properties. The results reveal a smaller version of the scale that is valid
and reliable and behaves as expected in a network of theoretically rele-
vant constructs.
From a managerial perspective, a better understanding of cognitive,
affective, and symbolic country images helps both national policymakers
and brand managers to develop global marketing campaigns. Using real
images or building brand mythologies, marketers can focus on affective
or symbolic imagery to differentiate themselves from competing coun-
tries' offerings. Country personality also serves as a benchmarking tool
for public policy officials when they want to know their country's inter-
national position from the consumer's perspective. In this respect, the
country personality scale creates country profiles and enables compari-
sons of the focal country to important competitors.
The results contribute to both the theoretical foundations and prac-
tical analysis of country and destination image marketing strategies.
Study results reveal that in addition to cognitive beliefs about a country,
country affect represents an important factor for designing effective
image campaigns. Country affect is important for travel destinations
and drives consumers' intentions to travel to a country or to recom-
mend the travel destination to a friend. This study extends research
on cognitive destination beliefs (e.g., Coshall, 2000; Javalgi et al., 1992;
Joppe, Martin, & Waalen, 2001) by suggesting that country beliefs
act as qualifiers. If a country is not developed enough to offer a certain
standard for travel accommodation, people may not include that
country in their evoked set (thus, the positive impact of country beliefs
on all outcomes in Model 1). At the same time, country affect acts as a
satisfier. People choosing between two travel destinations with similar
standards tend to select the destination they like better. However, coun-
try affect also predicts consumers' purchases and intentions to conduct
business with foreign companies. Country affect clearly helps to pro-
mote a country from a COO perspective and to attract foreign direct in-
vestment. Study results imply that omitting either affect or cognition in
models of behavioral outcomes likely results in model misspecification
(e.g., biased parameter estimates).
For country personality, the results confirm that people assign per-
sonality traits to countries and distinguish countries according to person-
ality traits (Murphy et al., 2007). For example, Germany is an assiduous
country, and this trait also significantly affects all three model outcomes.
However, not all personality traits impact the outcomes (Ekinci &
Hosany, 2006; Rojas-Méndez et al., 2013). Because personality is a profile
construct that cannot be aggregated to form a composite index (Law
et al., 1998), researchers have to enter all dimensions into a model to de-
termine which ones are significant in a certain context. Model 2 includes
only country cognitions and country affect; results show that this model
is more parsimonious than the other models. Furthermore, comparing
the increases in r-square achieved by adding country affect to country
cognitions, the increase in r-square by adding six more personality
dimensions is modest (albeit significant in one-half of the situations
analyzed).
Does country personality compensate for country affect or cognitions?
The results show that country personality is a stronger predictor than cog-
nitions and confirm findings in destination personality research (Ekinci &
Hosany, 2006). When country personality enters the model, country
cognition's impact on outcomes is no longer significant, implying a com-
plete substitution by country personality. This outcome is consistent with
country personality's conceptualization as “easily accessed, abstract cogni-
tions that provide an efficient mechanism for making different types of in-
ferences about objects, including countries” (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007,
p. 232, emphasis added). This result also confirms branding research find-
ings that suggest a strong personality leads to relatively greater product
evaluations than the product's features and benefits (Haigood, 1999;
Kapferer, 2008). The present study shows that countries have distinct per-
sonalities. Destination management organizations need to leverage this
country distinctiveness in their destination image campaigns. However,
country personality seems to operate independently from country affect.
Destination management organizations should treat country personality
and affect separately.
7. Limitations and directions for further research
This study pertains to a single country in Europe. Further replication
(e.g., varying cultural distance and/or geographical proximity) is neces-
sary to generalize the findings. Future studies also could test the cross-
 K.P. Zeugner-Roth, V. Žabkar / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853 1851

national invariance of the country personality scale. In line with previ-
ous research (i.e., Klein, Ettenson, & Morris, 1998; Oberecker &
Diamantopoulos, 2011), this paper focuses on overall country percep-
tions with a view to generalize findings across disciplines. However, ex-
tant research suggests that national borders may not be the best unit of
analysis. Both regions/cities and specific product categories/brands offer
compelling alternatives. Such a research design also could consider
other extrinsic cues (e.g., price of a product or tourism resort) to evalu-
ate the relative importance of the different facets of COI and DI to other
cues of behavioral intentions.

Appendix A. Construct measurement

Home country (Austria) Italy Germany

λ t-Value λ t-Value λ t-Value

Country cognitions (Parameswaran & Pisharodi, 1994)

COG1 Well educated .81 – .83 – .79 –
COG2 Hard working .77 16.77 .82 22.17 .80 21.33
COG3 Reaching high standards .88 19.44 .87 24.17 .89 20.26
COG4 High standard of living .77 16.31 .79 19.02 .79 16.40
COG5 High technical capabilities. .81 15.78 .80 20.07 .81 18.23

Country affect (Schmitt et al., 1994)

CA1 I like [country]. .72 – .88 – .92 –
CA2 “Good” attitude toward [country]. .92 8.22 .95 23.68 .95 43.71
CA3 “Pleasant” attitude toward [country]. .94 7.65 .97 23.57 .96 37.70
CA4 “Advantageous” attitude toward [country]. .88 7.34 .86 19.17 .90 28.17
CA5 “Friendly” attitude toward [country]. .79 7.21 .81 13.33 .81 21.96

Country personality (d'Astous & Boujbel, 2007)

Agreeableness
AGR1 Bon-vivant .67 – .89 – .67 –
AGR2 Reveler .74 14.14 .89 24.22 .71 13.54
AGR3 Amusing .90 13.96 .78 21.82 .86 12.83
AGR4 Agreeable .78 12.58 .60 9.01 .77 12.46
Wickedness
WIK1 Immoral .78 – .71 – .80 –
WIK2 Vulgar .87 15.08 .83 15.45 .85 18.41
WIK3 Decadent .76 15.25 .72 14.29 .74 14.61
WIK4 Offender .80 12.95 .73 13.32 .79 16.08
Snobbism
SNO1 Haughty .64 – .62 – .74 –
SNO2 Snobbish .89 15.85 .92 14.37 .92 17.72
SNO3 Mannered .90 14.99 .85 13.29 .82 15.10
SNO4 Chauvinist .72 12.39 .64 11.97 .73 13.98
Assiduousness
ASS1 Organized .88 – .86 – .87 –
ASS2 Rigorous .88 24.54 .89 26.18 .88 24.82
ASS3 Flourishing .81 19.29 .78 17.55 .79 20.28
ASS4 Hard to work .72 18.73 .76 18.84 .80 21.81
Conformity
CON1 Religious .77 – .76 – .83 –
CON2 Spiritual .65 10.24 .51 7.98 .69 12.64
CON3 Traditionalist .62 9.52 .76 8.17 .63 10.40
Unobtrusiveness
UNO1 Cowardly .80 – .81 – .76 –
UNO2 Wimpy .90 21.63 .89 22.86 .87 19.12
UNO3 Dependent .81 19.39 .77 15.99 .79 17.16
UNO4 Indifferent .61 13.71 .57 10.33 .56 10.41

Purchase intentions (Putrevu & Lord, 1994)

PI1 It is very likely that I will buy products from [country]. .85 – .92 – .88
PI2 I will purchase products from [country] the next time I need .83 12.29 .88 22.63 .85 18.04
products.
PI3 I will definitely try products from [country]. .74 11.89 .81 23.59 .89 23.23

Visit intentions (Um & Crompton, 1990)

VI1 I would like to visit this [country]. .85 – .92 – .88 –
VI2 A trip to [country] will be a lot of fun. .89 19.14 .91 27.31 .85 22.31
VI3 I would recommend going to [country] to others. .77 9.39 .90 27.44 .91 27.11

Investment intentions (Oberecker & Diamantopoulos, 2011)

II1 I would like to do business with companies from [country]. .92 – .87 – .90 –
II2 I would like to invest in [country] projects. .76 7.85 .80 9.05 .73 7.13
2 2 2
Model fit χ = 1563.91; df = 727, χ = 1702.38; df = 727, χ = 1455.68; df = 727,
RMSEA = .04, NNFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .04, NNFI = .98,
CFI = .98 CFI = .97 CFI = .98

Notes: λ = standardized loading; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.
1852 K.P. Zeugner-Roth, V. Žabkar / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review, 38, 102–120.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,
347–356.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
27–58.
Anholt, S. (2002). Nation branding: A continuing theme. Journal of Brand Management, 10,
59–60.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57,
774–783.
Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 184–206.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images and tourism destinations. Journal of
Travel Research, 11–15.
Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29, 286–292.
Coshall, J. T. (2000). Measurement of tourists' images: The repertory grid approach.
Journal of Travel Research, 39, 85–89.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination
and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel
Research, 17, 18–23.
d'Astous, A., & Boujbel, L. (2007). Positioning countries on personality dimensions: Scale
development and implications for country marketing. Journal of Business Research, 60,
231–239.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
197–229.
Derbaix, C. M. (1995). The impact of affective reactions on attitudes toward the advertise-
ment and the brand: A step toward ecological validity. Journal of Marketing Research,
32, 470.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An
empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31, 3–13.
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand personal-
ity to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 127–139.
Elliot, S., Papadopoulos, N., & Kim, S. S. (2011). An integrative model of place image:
Exploring relationships between destination, product, and country images. Journal
of Travel Research, 50, 520–534.
Erevelles, S. (1998). The role of affect in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 42(3),
199–215 (1998).
Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as
determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. Mackie, & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect,
cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 137–166).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Eurostat (2011). Europe in figures — Eurostat yearbook. Luxembourg: European Union.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior, an introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.
Gertner, R. K. (2010). Similarities and differences of the effect of country images on tourist
and study destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27, 383–395.
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & DeWulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 97–107.
Guthrie, S. E. (1997). Anthropomorphism: A definition and a theory. In R. Mitchell, N. S.
Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals
(pp. 50–58). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Haigood, T. (1999). The brand personality effect: an empirical investigation. Proceedings
of the American Marketing Association Winter Educators' Conference (pp. 149–150).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Heslop, L. A., Papadopoulos, N., Dowdles, M., Wall, M., & Compeau, D. (2004). Who
controls the purse strings: a study of consumers' and retail buyers' reactions in an
America's FTA environment. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1177–1188.
Hirschmann, E. C. (1994). Consumers and their animal companions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20, 616–632.
Homburg, C., Cannon, J. P., Krohmer, H., & Kiedaisch, I. (2009). Governance of internation-
al business relationships: A cross-cultural study on alternative governance modes.
Journal of International Marketing, 17, 1–20.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination personality:
An application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of Business Research, 59,
638–642.
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, 251–270.
Ittersum, K. V., 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, 215–226.
Javalgi, R. G., Thomas, E. G., & Rao, S. R. (1992). US pleasure travelers' perceptions of
selected european destinations. European Journal of Marketing, 26, 45–64.
Joppe, M., Martin, D. W., & Waalen, J. (2001). Toronto's image as a destination: A compar-
ative importance-satisfaction analysis by origin of visitor. Journal of Travel Research,
39, 252–260.
Kapferer, J. N. (2008). The new strategic brand management. London: Kogan Page.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.
Kiesler, T. (2006). Anthropomorphism and consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer
Research, 33, 149.
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, 89–100.
Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place
marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management,
9, 249–261.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. -S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional
constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23, 741–755.
Lee, R., & Lockshin, L. (2012). Reverse country-of-origin effects of product perceptions on
destination image. Journal of Travel Research, 51, 502–511.
Lefkoff-Hagius, R., & Mason, C. H. (1993). Characteristic, beneficial, and image attributes
in consumer judgments of similarity and preference. Journal of Consumer Research,
20, 100–110.
Lew, A. (1987). A framework of tourist attraction research. Annals of Tourism Research, 14,
533–575.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.
Martin, O. M., & Cervino, J. (2011). Towards and integrative framework of brand
country of origin recognition determinants. International Marketing Review, 28,
530–558.
Martin, I. M., & Eroglu, S. (1993). Measuring a multi-dimensional construct: Country
image. Journal of Business Research, 28, 191–210.
Martínez, S. C., & Alvarez, M. D. (2010). Country versus destination image in a developing
country. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27, 748–764.
Milas, G., & Mlacic, B. (2007). Brand personality and human personality: Findings
from ratings of familiar Croatian brands. Journal of Business Research, 60,
620–626.
Mossberg, L., & Kleppe, I. A. (2005). Country and destination image — Different or similar
image concepts? Service Industries Journal, 25, 493–503.
Mowen, J. C. (2000). The 3 M model of motivation and personality: Theory and empirical
applications to consumer behavior. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Muncy, J. A. (1986). Affect and cognition: A closer look at two competing theories.
Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 226–230.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand personality to differen-
tiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 5–14.
Nadeau, J., Heslop, L. A., O'Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008). Destination in a country image
context. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 84–106.
Oberecker, E. M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Consumers' emotional bonds with foreign
countries: Does consumer affinity affect behavioral intentions? Journal of International
Marketing, 19, 45–72.
Okechuku, C., & Onyemah, V. (1999). Nigerian consumer attitudes toward foreign and
domestic products. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 611–622.
Oppermann, M. (1996). Convention destination images: Analysis of association meeting
planners' perceptions. Tourism Management, 17, 175–182.
Papadopoulos, N., & Heslop, L. A. (2003). Country equity and product-country images:
State-of-the-art in research and implications. In S. C. Jain (Ed.), Handbook of
research in international marketing (pp. 402–433). Cheltenham, Northampton:
Edward Elgar.
Parameswaran, R., & Pisharodi, R. M. (1994). Facets of country of origin image: An empir-
ical assessment. Journal of Advertising, 23, 43–61.
Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research,
24, 27–31.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Putrevu, S., & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and noncomparative advertising: Attitudinal
effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of Advertising,
23, 77–90.
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives:
Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common
method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762–800.
Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Murphy, S. A., & Papadopoulos, N. (2013). The U.S. brand personality:
A sino perspective. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1028–1034.
Roth, K. P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Advancing the country image construct. Journal
of Business Research, 62, 726–740.
Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching product category and country image percep-
tions: A framework for managing country-of-origin effects. Journal of International
Business Studies, 23, 477–497.
Samiee, S. (2010). Advancing the country image construct — A commentary essay. Journal
of Business Research, 63, 442–445.
Schmitt, B. H., Pan, Y., & Tavassoli, N. T. (1994). Language and consumer memory: The
impact of linguistic differences between Chinese and English. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21, 419–431.
Schroeder, T. (1996). The relationship of residents image of their state as a tourist
destination and their support for tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 34, 71–73.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect
and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26,
278–292.
Statistics Austria (2008). Facts & figures. Vienna: Statistics Austria.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and
subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.
 K.P. Zeugner-Roth, V. Žabkar / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1844–1853 1853

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice.
Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432–448.
Walmsley, D. J., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images and tourism: The use of personal
constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of Travel Research,
36, 65–96.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American
Psychologist, 35, 151–175.
Zeugner-Roth, K. P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2010). Advancing the country image
construct: Reply to Samiee's (2009) commentary. Journal of Business Research, 63,
446–449.