Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Swoboda & Hirschamann 2016 (Brand Globalness)
Swoboda & Hirschamann 2016 (Brand Globalness)
Swoboda & Hirschamann 2016 (Brand Globalness)
Bernhard Swoboda*
Prof. Dr. Prof. h.c.
Trier University
Universitätsring 15
54296 Trier
Germany
Phone: 0049-651-2013050
E-Mail: b.swoboda@uni-trier.de
Johannes Hirschmann
Ph.D. student
Trier University
Universitätsring 15
54296 Trier
Germany
Phone: 0049-651-2012607
E-Mail: j.hirschmann@uni-trier.de
* corresponding author
1
An Analysis of Leading Foreign and Domestic MNCs in India, Japan, and the United States
ABSTRACT
Multinational product and corporate brands are known to have the advantage over local competi-
tors of being global. However, while foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) increasingly
compete against domestic MNCs, particularly in economically strong countries, little is known
about whether foreign MNCs can use their advantage of being global and how the perceptions of
foreign vs. domestic MNCs drive consumer behavior. To examine this issue, an accessibility-di-
agnosticity theory-based framework is proposed and tested using consumer data from important
countries in which leading foreign and domestic MNCs compete. The results show that perceived
brand globalness (PBG) enhances consumers’ intentional loyalty toward MNCs indirectly by af-
fecting the functional and psychological value offered. The value-creation routes change accord-
ing to firms’ origins, i.e., foreign MNCs translate globalness through functional and psychological
value, while domestic MNCs translate globalness through psychological value. However, the ben-
efits of being global and the value-creation routes for foreign (vs. domestic) MNCs differ between
countries. Finally, consumers’ stronger ethnocentrism weakens—but does not completely erase—
the effects of PBG in all countries and additionally interacts with MNCs’ origins.
Keywords: corporate brands; multinational corporations; emerging giants; perceived brand glob-
Leading MNCs, such as The Coca-Cola Company, communicate their globalness to differentiate
themselves from competitors (Cioletti 2013). Globalness is perceived by consumers and stored in
their minds, and it is thus defined as PBG, i.e., the extent to which a product or a corporation is
viewed as a global player (e.g., Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). In this study, MNCs’ corpo-
rate brands are analyzed. PBG acts as a general impression that provides consumers with access
to MNCs’ offered value (e.g., Aaker 2004), thus allowing them to evaluate an MNC without nec-
essarily having had prior personal experience with it. However, especially in economically
strong and attractive countries, foreign MNCs compete against domestic MNCs, e.g., emerging
giants in emerging economies (e.g., Kumar and Steenkamp 2013), and consumers’ ethnocentric
tendencies particularly affect MNCs (e.g., Sharma 2011). For example, the CEO of the Chinese
Haier Electronics Group Co. realized the importance of PBG and promoted a strong global cor-
porate brand (Balmer 2012). Hence, questions about whether and how foreign MNCs and do-
Scholars often study global brands by focusing on consumers’ attitudes or global con-
sumer orientation and—less often but notably—PBG (see Table 1). Scholars of the latter hypothe-
size the direct effects of PBG (e.g., Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Winit et al. 2014), show-
ing mostly affective responses, such as brand esteem, global myth and prestige (e.g., Johansson
and Ronkainen 2005), as well as quality and, thus functional responses as pathways that translate
PBG into purchase intentions or preferences (e.g., Akram, Merunka, and Akram 2011; Holt,
However, the empirical results are restricted to product brands and limit our understanding
of the effects of corporate brands. The latter were analyzed by Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube
(2012), who study PBG’s effects on patronage behavior for retail chains/corporations, and by
Alden et al. (2013), who study the antecedents of global brand attitudes. In contrast, corporate
brands are important because, in contrast to single products, they are a CEO’s task (e.g., Lafley
2009; Mascarenhas 2009) and are of strategic importance to product brands (in various branding
3
strategies, Berens, van Riel, and van Bruggen 2005). CEOs may rely on corporate brand value
when deciding on market entry, product introductions, or value transfers to products (even if a
product perspective addresses direct competition in greater detail). Moreover, only three studies
address PBG pathways to success by jointly comparing foreign global vs. domestic-/local-only
brands (Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012 in China and for products Zhou, Yang, and Hui
2010 in China; Winit et al. 2014 in Thailand), and two studies compare foreign global vs. domestic
As those studies are restricted to one, often emerging, country, we conclude that scant re-
search exists on corporate brands in different environments, and the ways in which MNCs’ value
pathway for PBG can be translated into customer behavior remain unclear. Finally, our
knowledge of the boundaries of corporate brands’ effects is limited. Because PBG is distinct from
foreignness and because origin information evokes functional and psychological value to varying
degrees (e.g., Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010), MNCs’ foreign vs. domestic origins may constitute an
important boundary condition, particularly in a competitive environment for foreign and domestic
MNCs. Because consumer ethnocentrism affects the PBG effects of product brands (for
lower/higher ethnocentric groups on the PBG-value links, Akram, Merunka, and Akram 2011,
and PBG-purchase likelihood, Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003) and scholars find inconclusive
effects of ethnocentrism on brand attitudes and call for clarification (e.g., Guo 2013, among 40
studies), how more (vs. less) ethnocentric consumers react to the PBG of those MNCs’ corporate
brands is unclear.
Table 1
We aim to advance the literature by analyzing the underlying pathways through which MNCs trans-
form PBG into consumer intentional loyalty in different countries (as consumers in emerging vs.
developed countries are likely to respond differently, e.g., Coulter, Price, and Feick 2003). We
also ask whether and how MNCs’ foreign vs. domestic origins change the total effect of PBG and the
value pathways by which PBG translates into loyalty and how consumer ethnocentrism interacts
4
MNCs’ PBG effects, which is important because a strong corporate brand and similar corporate
reputation are internationally advantageous for MNCs (e.g., when attracting local customers or em-
ployees, Swoboda, Puchert, and Morschett 2015). First, an MNC’s corporate brand needs to have
and give its own value proposition because it is otherwise vulnerable, and it works best when
providing functional and emotional value (e.g., Aaker 2004; Balmer 2010, 2012). Therefore, we
focus on PBG’s pathways to consumer loyalty through functional and psychological value. As a
result, we advance the findings of Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube (2012), who have extended our
knowledge on these pathways for foreign vs. local-only retail brands in emerging countries and have
Second, by treating the PBG of foreign vs. domestic manufacturing MNCs as an independ-
ent predictor that explains PBG-loyalty pathways, we account for the competition between MNCs
(i.e., their global corporate brands, which are subsequently used synonymously) with different
origins. Consumer ethnocentrism may be an important boundary condition of MNCs, i.e., for
CEOs, the total and indirect effects of the PBG of an entire MNC brand within lower (vs. higher)
ethnocentric consumer groups should be of paramount interest. We provide new insights into
such comparative pathways as well as insights into the moderating effect of ethnocentrism as a
continuous variable (e.g., Guo 2013) and the three-way interaction because MNCs’ foreign ori-
gins may strengthen PBG effects, which may be further weakened by ethnocentrism.
ing (Feldman and Lynch 1988) in global brand research (e.g., Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010;
Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012) to our main and moderation hypotheses (PBG studies of-
ten combine or do not apply theories; see Table 1). Analyses in India, Japan, and the U.S. and alter-
native tests in China, Italy, and in all countries with differing MNC combinations provide further
5
rigor, stability and generalizability to the results. We chose these countries because they are eco-
nomically strong (belonging to the top ten markets in terms of GDP, United Nations 2014) and
because they are likely to host competing domestic and foreign MNCs.2 From a traditional, Western
MNC perspective, these countries differ with respect to economic strength and culture (Alden et al.
2013). Practically speaking, foreign MNCs may wish to consider the role of PBG in local compe-
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
To address our research aims, we propose a conceptual framework (see Figure 1) in which the PBG
of MNCs determines consumer loyalty through functional and psychological value (referring to and
extending frameworks by Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube
2012). We focus on intentional loyalty toward an MNC (consumers’ intention and readiness to
buy offers and to establish a good relationship with a firm, as it is a core predictor of consumer
spending; Morgeson III et al. 2011; Oliver 1999) and on offered functional value (quality/value
for money) and psychological value (emotional/social) for three reasons: they seem to be the most
universal among the value concepts; they comprise more cognitive and more affective behavioral
elements; and they are diagnostic in that they determine consumer purchase behavior, i.e., the
PBG of MNCs operates through both types of value (e.g., Alden et al. 2013; Swoboda, Penne-
mann, and Taube 2012). Moreover, we argue that the PBG-loyalty relationship is moderated by
MNCs’ objective origins, as consumers’ responses to PBG may differ according to MNCs’ for-
eign vs. domestic origins, and by ethnocentrism, as consumers’ beliefs about the appropriateness
and, indeed, the morality of purchasing foreign-made offers may alter MNCs’ PBG pathways
Figure 1
6
To understand how PBG affects consumers’ loyalty and how this mechanism is affected by bound-
ary conditions, we use Feldman and Lynch’s (1988) accessibility-diagnosticity framework (for
other theories, see Table 1). This theory provides an integrated basis by suggesting that the likeli-
hood that an individual uses information about an object for decision making about that object de-
pends on the information’s accessibility and diagnosticity. Accessibility refers to the ease of retriev-
ing specific information from memory, i.e., the activation potential of available knowledge (Higgins
1996), while diagnosticity refers to the extent to which the inferences based on this information are
adequate to make a decision, i.e., the “degree to which the use of each type of information allows
consumers to accomplish their objectives in the particular decision task at hand” (Lynch,
In our context, the probability that the PBG associations of an MNC can be used as in-
formation to evaluate consumers’ intentional loyalty is a function of PBG’s accessibility and di-
agnosticity. PBG, i.e., the extent to which a corporation is viewed as global (e.g., Steenkamp,
Batra, and Alden 2003), is likely to be a salient attribute in consumers’ memory due to most
global corporate brands’ high availability in international markets and their resulting high visi-
bility. PBG thus represents easily accessible information (e.g., Swoboda, Pennemann, and
Taube 2012). This information becomes diagnostic, i.e., relevant for consumers’ loyalty behav-
ior, when it influences their perceptions of offered value because consumers base their loyalty
behaviors on the value offered by a corporation (e.g., Walker and Olson 1991) and because the
value associated with a global brand makes the globalness information itself useful. Hence, con-
sumers link MNCs’ PBG with functional and psychological value to make PBG a piece of diag-
nostic information regarding loyalty behavior toward an MNC. However, this relationship
might change because of boundary conditions. MNC origin acts as a diagnosticity multiplier,
i.e., an additional piece of accessible information that is used for MNC evaluation, because it
enables the use of specific information that is stored in consumers’ minds. Consumers’ ethno-
7
centrism, i.e., personal beliefs that affect the likelihood of the use of PBG, acts as belief-con-
ened/weakened links of PBG with offered value and value pathways from PBG to loyalty.
brands are used to hypothesize the main effect of PBG and the moderating effects.
PBG directly affects intentional behavior only under certain conditions. Particularly highly affec-
tive associations are accessible and may become directly diagnostic (Verplanken, Hofstee, and
Janssen 1998). Additionally, consumers who appreciate globalness because it grants them mem-
(Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2011, p. 342), which creates added value and may render PBG
diagnostic for loyalty. Based on such rationales, Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) hypothesize
a direct relationship between PBG and the purchase likelihood of global product brands (e.g.,
Winit et al. 2014 show it empirically), while Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube (2012) deny the
existence of such a relationship for global (vs. domestic-only) retailer chains/corporations. We be-
lieve that although MNCs’ PBG is accessible, it is not directly relevant to behavioral intentions
toward MNCs for most consumers because, theoretically, it is not naturally diagnostic information
for loyalty decisions. Foreign or domestic MNCs’ PBG will seldom directly affect loyal behavior,
even if this assumption requires empirical evidence because recent studies show strong direct ef-
fects of MNCs’ reputation on loyalty behavior (e.g., Swoboda, Puchert, and Morschett 2015) and
because MNCs such as Procter & Gamble increasingly craft their global corporate brand with
Theoretically, PBG becomes diagnostic when consumers link this information to a func-
tional and psychological value proposition of MNCs’ corporate brands because the offered value
makes a globalness impression a useful piece of information for decision making and is relevant
8
with regard to loyalty intentions toward an MNC (following the rationale of Lynch, Marmorstein,
and Weigold 1988). Functional value represents the cognitively perceived utility derived from an
offer’s quality, performance, and reduction of perceived costs; psychological value represents the
affectively perceived utility derived from an offer’s feelings, states, and ability to enhance one’s
social self-concept (Sweeney and Soutar 2001). For global product brands, PBG has been shown
to reinforce functional value across nations because globalness stimulates cognitive perceptions of
quality or value for money (e.g., Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004; Schuiling and Kapferer 2004)
(e.g., Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Ger 1999). Similarly, when consumers perceive a foreign
or domestic MNC, they may regard its offers as being of higher quality, which is required for
global acceptance, and, in turn, of having greater credibility and lower risk (Keller 1998). Consum-
ers may also regard these corporate brands as superior because they perceive them to be more
scarce, expensive, sophisticated, or modern, which creates higher aspirational appeal and esteem
(e.g., Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012). As a result, MNCs’ PBG information becomes di-
We propose the following hypothesis for the indirect pathways of PBG to loyalty across
Hypothesis 1: The PBG of MNCs positively affects consumer loyalty (a) through functional
Next, we analyze how the total effect of PBG (the sum of the direct and indirect effects) and the
value pathways (the indirect effects via functional value and psychological value) through which
PBG translates into loyalty differ between foreign and domestic MNCs.
We suggest different total effects of PBG on consumer loyalty depending on the MNC’s
origin. Theoretically, consumers recall information on PBG from memory, and when functional
9
value and psychological value are linked to PBG, such information may serve a diagnostic func-
tion for the creation of consumers’ loyalty intentions toward an MNC (Feldman and Lynch 1988).
Such information may become even more diagnostic depending on the MNC’s origin. Origin infor-
mation helps evaluate an MNC because its origin represents easily accessible information that
consumers can add to a list of salient MNC attributes and then use for MNC evaluation (e.g.,
Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008). A foreign MNC origin may function as a diagnosticity
multiplier for PBG, while a domestic MNC origin—even if a firm is global—may diminish the
diagnosticity of PBG.
Because foreignness is considered exciting and is seen to enhance social status (Eckhardt
2005), because foreignness tends to be perceived as global (e.g., Batra et al. 2000 across nations),
and because foreignness is thus likely to activate both cognitive and affective value mechanisms, a
foreign MNC origin should lead to a higher diagnosticity of PBG. However, a higher diagnosticity
of PBG does not make PBG directly useful in terms of loyalty because, theoretically, this information
alone will hardly convey sufficient direct diagnosticity to justify loyalty toward an MNC. By contrast,
domestic MNCs may be perceived as local because of their closeness to consumers or their cultural
embeddedness (e.g., Ger 1999; Özsomer 2012). Origin information may enhance local consumers’
specific feelings or even their pride (i.e., psychological vs. functional affect), but the diagnosticity
of PBG caused by origin information is likely to be weaker for domestic MNCs than for foreign
MNCs. Thus, domestic MNC origin is likely to increase the diagnosticity of PBG to a lesser extent.
Empirical studies show that the value-creation process of PBG is more relevant for for-
eign vs. local-only retail chains and corporations (Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012). We
expect to find a similar total effect for foreign vs. domestic MNCs because origin information—
which is linked to functional and psychological value—affects the diagnosticity of PBG. Con-
cerning country contexts, the mechanism has been assumed for Western retailers in an emerging
country, such as China, by arguing for a strengthened PBG-value link, that is, reinforced quality
and prestige perceptions (Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012). We might be skeptical if
10
similar effects are also found in developed countries for foreign vs. domestic MNCs. However,
because foreignness is considered prevalent in developed countries and across different nations
and cultures (e.g., Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999), we hypothesize the following across na-
tions:
Hypothesis 2: The total effect of PBG on consumer loyalty is higher for foreign than for domes-
tic MNCs.
We suggest that the value creation process via functional and psychological value depends on the
MNC origin. According to theory (Feldman and Lynch 1988), MNC origin information stimu-
lates and enhances the salience of the functional and psychological evaluation routes that affect
We have theoretically argued that MNCs’ globalness information becomes diagnostic via
functional and psychological value for consumers’ loyalty intentions and that a foreign MNC’s
origin functions as a diagnosticity multiplier for PBG. Because foreign origin affects both cogni-
tive and affective behavior (e.g., Roth and Diamantopoulos 2009; Askegaard and Ger 1998), both
value mechanisms are likely activated and equally render PBG diagnostic information when con-
sumers evaluate foreign (vs. domestic) MNCs and their corporate brands. On the one hand, for-
eignness may be associated with the successful internationalization of those MNCs (e.g., Masca-
renhas 2009), i.e., consumers might perceive their offers to be of superior quality, which makes
accessible PBG information more diagnostic via functional value. On the other hand, while for-
eignness also conveys a fascination with the MNC’s successful internationalization, it may nota-
bly intensify the glamor that consumers experience from their membership in the “global village”
because it is characterized by excitement and enchantment (Zhou and Belk 2004), stimulating
consumers’ feelings of esteem or prestige toward foreign MNCs. Thus, foreignness makes
MNCs’ PBG diagnostic via psychological value. Additionally, MNCs such as Procter & Gamble
increasingly consider their corporate brand across nations, evaluating local consumers’ cognitive
and emotional responses to draw on both value types abroad (Lafley 2009).
11
Studies support this reasoning, as for Western foreign (vs. local-only) retailers, the pathways
through which PBG translates into consumer behavior have been shown to arise equally through
functional and psychological value (Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012). Additionally, con-
sumers have been shown to associate foreign product brands’ origins with quality or value for
money and with esteem or prestige (e.g., Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008 for the U.S.;
Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004 across nations; Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010 for China).
origin increases the diagnosticity of PBG to a lesser extent, both value mechanisms are likely to
be activated. Although consumers may rely on domestic MNCs’ functional value (e.g., Kumar
and Steenkamp 2013) because emerging giants, such as China’s Lenovo or India’s Tata Group,
offer considerable quality as market leaders in their respective industries and home countries
(Banerjee, Prabhu, and Chandy 2015), we believe that consumers link domestic MNCs’ global-
ness impressions more strongly to psychological value. Quality evaluations can depend on a par-
ticular competitive situation with foreign MNCs and may be a valuable mechanism for the in-
creased diagnosticity of the PBG evoked by domestic origins. However, a substantial body of re-
search on global product brands theoretically argues and shows across several nations that con-
sumers feel particularly affectively connected to domestic offers because of their closeness to, for
example, consumers, trust, or cultural embeddedness (e.g., Ger 1999; Schuiling and Kapferer
2004; Winit et al. 2014). Additional origin information might predominantly enhance the psycho-
logical value pathway because of possible social self-enhancement and because specific feelings
or pride in the international success of a domestic MNC’s corporate brand will likely outweigh
functional value benefits (e.g., Verlegh 2007 on Western countries in the product brand context).
These value creation processes are assumed to be relevant across nations; therefore, we
Hypothesis 3a: When MNCs are foreign, PBG equally contributes to consumer loyalty through
Hypothesis 3b: When MNCs are domestic, PBG contributes more to consumer loyalty through
Consumers have higher or lower degrees of ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma 1987); less ethno-
centric consumers are more globally minded, cosmopolitan, and open to global offers, while more
ethnocentric consumers believe that buying foreign-made products damages the domestic econ-
omy. Both groups have feelings of belongingness and positive in-group identities (Brewer 1991).
We now analyze how the total effect of PBG differs between less and more ethnocentric consum-
ers and which value pathway (indirect effect) is dominant in each group.3
Concerning the total effect, we have theoretically argued that PBG linked with functional
and psychological value becomes diagnostic for loyalty intentions (Feldman and Lynch 1988),
while diagnosticity will likely differ depending on consumers’ ethnocentrism. A lower level of eth-
nocentrism may function as a diagnosticity multiplier for PBG, while a higher level of ethnocen-
trism may diminish the diagnosticity of PBG. Consumers prefer belief-consistent information
(e.g., Zhang and Khare 2009) and respond more favorably to information that allows belief con-
For less (vs. more) ethnocentric consumers, accessible PBG information becomes more
diagnostic for loyalty intentions via the value offered by an MNC because less ethnocentric beliefs
and the aspired-to belief consistency allow for the establishment of a mental link between PBG in-
formation and MNCs’ value propositions. Greater belief consistency increases the likelihood of a
favorable response to PBG information. By contrast, for more ethnocentric consumers, MNCs’
PBG is less diagnostic because ethnocentric beliefs and the aspired-to belief consistency hamper
the establishment of such mental links. Hence, the total effect of PBG is likely to be stronger for
consumers with lower (vs. higher) ethnocentrism, as indicated for product brands (e.g., Akram,
Merunka, and Akram 2011 for the PBG-value links; Klein 2002 for global brand attitudes in the
13
U.S.).
Concerning the value paths, we believe that accessible PBG information becomes more
diagnostic via psychological (vs. functional) value for less ethnocentric consumers. The latter’s
beliefs and the aspired-to belief consistency particularly allow for the establishment of a mental
link between globalness information and the psychological benefits of MNCs. Thus, such con-
sumers may link MNCs’ PBG with functional and psychological value (in different contexts e.g.,
Akram, Merunka, and Akram 2011 and Brewer 1991), and both links may increase loyalty inten-
tions. However, within this group, the psychological value pathway is likely to be stronger, i.e.,
particularly belief consistent, because emotions, feelings of belongingness, and the quest for
global identity affect consumers’ emotional attachment to global offers more strongly than their
perceptions of the functional aspects offered by an MNC (similar to product brands, see
For more ethnocentric consumers, we believe that accessible PBG information becomes
more diagnostic via psychological value because of the higher probability that this information
will establish a mental link. More ethnocentric consumers are not motivated to learn about global
brands because their brand-related cognitive processing is superficial (Supphellen and Grønhaug
2003), making PBG less diagnostic with regard to loyalty intentions via functional value. They
also tend to disregard the functional value benefits of global offers and feel animosity because
they do not conform to their beliefs. Hence, the functional value pathway is weak. Although the
psychological value pathway also contradicts the beliefs of more ethnocentric consumers, even
those consumers are psychologically affected by global brands (e.g., product brands, Dimofte, Jo-
hansson, and Ronkainen 2008). Furthermore, they are likely to rely more on affective (vs. cogni-
tive) evaluations in their purchase behavior (e.g., Verplanken, Hofstee, and Janssen 1998 on both
product and corporate brands). Self-concept theory-based reasoning supports our assumption of
stronger effects of psychological value paths for both more and less ethnocentric consumers; for
14
both groups, self-congruence with a brand’s PBG can override cognitive assessments of func-
tional value benefits and instead foster psychological attachment (Malär et al. 2011).
We assume similar total effects and value paths across nations for three reasons: ethnocen-
trism is said to be similarly grounded because of similar belief structures across nations (Papado-
poulos, Heslop, and Bamossy 1990); ethnocentrism is prevalent across different cultures (Sharma
2015); and, for global products and more ethnocentric consumers, scholars have highlighted
weakened globalness-value links in various countries (e.g., Papadopoulos, Heslop, and Bamossy
1990; Akram, Merunka, and Akram 2011). Therefore, we hypothesize the following across na-
tions:
Hypothesis 4: The total effect of PBG on consumer loyalty is stronger for consumers with lower
Hypothesis 5: For consumers with (a) lower and (b) higher ethnocentrism, PBG contributes more
EMPIRICAL STUDY
Sample
To develop our sample, we cooperated with an MNC in the environmentally sensitive chemical
and pharmaceutical industry. In this industry, the likelihood of both leading foreign and domestic
MNCs in a country is high, and individuals are sensitive to the reputation of corporate brands
and less sensitive to product brands, which are likely to be affected by the corporate level
(Leisinger 2005). We identified the ten largest economies in the world (based on GDP; United
Nations 2014) because they are of paramount importance for most western MNCs and because
they have a high probability of having spawned domestic MNCs. Thus, consumers in those
countries are likely to be familiar with both foreign and domestic global MNCs as well as with
global brands in general (e.g., Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2011). The choice of MNCs oc-
curred in two steps: identifying the leading MNCs in terms of sales for each country (e.g.,
15
GlobalData 2010) and then the six strongest competing MNCs in each country based on the ex-
pertise of managers from the subsidiaries and from the headquarters of our cooperation partner.
Those various subjectively chosen corporate brands of MNCs were analyzed, including, e.g.,
non-prescription and prescription drugs, crop and chemical consumer and personal care products,
and nutrition products, the relative importance of which remained unobserved in this study (for
We ensured that all MNCs were global (i.e., all were present in at least 45 countries; their
foreign sales ratios and foreign employee ratios were mostly ≥ 50%; and they had substantial sales
of ≥ 10% of total sales in at least three continents each). India, Japan, and the U.S. were chosen for
this analysis for two reasons: first, they differed in economic strength (emerging vs. developed;
Alden et al. 2013) and culture and hence represented differing positions on an economic develop-
ment and culture continuum (e.g., Özsomer 2012). Studies report distinct differences between con-
sumers from emerging and developed countries and from different cultural contexts (Alden,
Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Batra et al. 2000; Burgess and Steenkamp 2006). Therefore, our selec-
tion allows us to compare the results for each country and to generalize observations (Özsomer
2012). Second, India, Japan, and the U.S. hosted at least two domestic MNCs and two foreign
MNCs among the six competitors chosen, which was a prerequisite for our research design of for-
eign vs. domestic origin comparisons. Perhaps unsurprisingly, emerging MNCs were less global-
ized, though only slightly less so with regard to the mentioned criteria. Additional countries did not
host both foreign and domestic MNCs among the six competitors or were used for control purposes
in alternative models, e.g., China as an emerging country (with one domestic MNC) and Italy as a
developed but economically weaker country than the U.S. The foreign MNCs in each country were
selected from Germany and the German-speaking part of Switzerland to allow us a certain degree of
control over the potential differences in the MNCs’ home countries. The remaining two foreign
MNCs were used for control purposes in alternative models, as discussed in the results section.
After pre-tests, data were collected by a commercial marketing research agency that cross-
16
nationally operates panels (mostly web surveys in those countries) with an average response rate
of 55%. The participants were compensated with cash rewards (Madden, Roth, and Dillon 2012).4
To select the respondents from each country, two screening criteria were used:
First, quota sampling according to gender and age distribution was applied based on in-
formation provided by national registration offices. The sampling was restricted to the urban
population between 18 and 65 years of age in large cities (e.g., due to reasons of familiarity with
the MNCs; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2011). Because we have not controlled for the re-
gional locations of the respondents or further geographic characteristics within the countries,
Second, in order to ensure comparable samples across nations (e.g., Özsomer 2012), the
respondents had to meet one of the following criteria: above-average income or a high level of
education or profession. To ensure panel quality, the agency was briefed on common tests: the
use of individualized survey links to prevent bogus respondents, the use of an instructional ma-
nipulation check, and the control/removal of respondents who needed little time or who applied
McCutcheon, and Billiet 2010). At the beginning of the survey, the respondents indicated their
unprompted and prompted awareness of up to six MNCs, followed by a question about their
knowledge of the MNCs (based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = I do not know
the corporation to 5 = I know the corporation very well). The respondents who were at least
generally familiar (= 2) with three or more MNCs participated in the survey because general
knowledge is a precondition for evaluations (Keller 1993). A mixed design was used, i.e., the
respondents were questioned regarding two randomly assigned MNCs—most often our partner
MNC and another MNC—whose order in the survey was rotated to avoid repetition effects
This procedure led to 2,647 evaluations, which were quite similarly distributed over the
four competing firms in each of the three countries after we randomly reduced the responses to our
17
partner to ensure a balanced design of the data across MNCs. After excluding incomplete cases
and detecting outliers based on the Mahalanobis distance, the sample included 704 responses
from India, 794 from Japan, and 662 from the U.S. (see Table 2). The final sample consisted of
comparison showed. Normality tests showed that the samples deviated from multivariate nor-
mality; therefore, the mean-adjusted maximum likelihood estimator was chosen to test the hy-
potheses, as it provides a robust chi-square test and handles potential threats within the data struc-
ture (Asparouhov 2005). Chi-square difference tests were conducted using scaling corrections
Table 2
Measurement
Regarding the measurements, we considered general aspects (such as the hierarchy of effects in
all panels). We relied on scales from previous studies (using five-point Likert-type scales from
1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; see Table 3) and measured the PBG of the corporate
brands using three items adapted from Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) and intentional loy-
alty toward the MNCs using three items adapted from Oliver (1999; 2015). To measure con-
sumers’ perceptions of value, we adapted the scale developed by Sweeney and Soutar (2001) to
the context of corporate brands (Alden et al. 2013; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012) and
measured functional value and psychological value using four items each. We used MNCs’ ob-
jective origins, i.e., foreign vs. domestic. Consumer ethnocentrism was measured using four
items adapted from Shimp and Sharma (1987). The median split technique was used to group
consumers according to lower vs. higher ethnocentrism (following Akram, Merunka, and
Akram 2011 and Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003 in the PBG context). Additionally, con-
sumer ethnocentrism was used as a continuous variable (e.g., Nijssen and Douglas 2011;
Sharma 2011).
The scales were quantitatively pre-tested in each country (average N = 154 per country).
18
These pre-tests yielded satisfactory values for reliability and validity. All the scales in the main
studies were also tested for reliability and validity (see Tables 3 and 4). To ensure the reliability
of our measurements, we examined factor loadings (all ≥ .737) and Cronbach’s alpha (all values
are >.879) and reached the common thresholds of .700 or .600, respectively (Nunnally 1978;
Bagozzi and Yi 1988). For construct validity, all the CFA factor loadings were ≥ .720 (above
.500, see Hair et al. 2014). All values for Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were between
.767 and .943—thus above the threshold of .500 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988)—providing evidence of
convergent validity. Testing for discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981), we found all
AVE values to exceed the squared correlations, except for one case. Therefore, we verified dis-
criminant validity using a chi-square difference test (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The re-
stricted model fit significantly worse (p < .001) than our proposed model; thus, discriminant va-
lidity can be assumed. The fit of our measurement model was good (CFI between .975 and
.991; TLI between .969 and 991; RMSEA between .030 and .056; SRMR between .031 and
.037).
commercial translation agencies that specialize in market research. These agencies were briefed
about the requirements of appropriate semantic equivalence processes (Hult et al. 2008).
We included covariates in the study. Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and age were con-
trolled for because they are known to influence loyalty. MNCs’ familiarity was controlled for
and measured using a scaled item: “[MNC] is very familiar to me” (Steenkamp, Batra, and
Alden 2003).
Tables 3-4
Method
We tested for measurement equivalence to ensure comparability across the origin groups and
19
the ethnocentric consumer groups (see Table 5; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). No signifi-
cant differences in model fit between all configural and metric models were found, thus sup-
porting full metric invariance for all constructs in all countries (India: origin Δ²(14) = 12.902,
p > .05; ethnocentrism Δ²(14) = 15.788, p > .05; Japan: origin Δ²(14) = 11.739, p > .05; eth-
nocentrism Δ²(14) = 16.591, p > .05; U.S.: origin Δ²(14) = 25.732, p > .05; ethnocentrism
Δ²(14) = 23.104, p > .05). We also tested for the measurement equivalence of the PBG, func-
tional and psychological value, loyalty constructs and the entire measurement model across all
countries (establishing full and partial metric invariance) (see web appendix A, which is availa-
Common method variance (CMV) was addressed in three ways: we used an appropriate
questionnaire design and a single-factor test (which showed significantly worse fit values than
the proposed model, India: Δ²(6) = 1499.429, p < .001; Japan: Δ²(6) = 2407.771, p < .001;
U.S.: Δ²(6) = 3520.472, p < .001), and we applied the marker variable technique using the oc-
cupation variable, which is theoretically uncorrelated with our constructs (Rindfleisch, Bur-
roughs, and Wong 2009). The latter revealed no significant changes in the coefficients and cor-
relations (method variance was less than 8.50% in all countries; Williams, Hartman, and
Cavazotte 2010), which underscored the low probability of CMV in this study (for detailed re-
We tested for endogeneity using the instrumental variable (IV) exposure to the MNCs’
PBG (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). For this purpose, we used one item: “When I have
read magazines or watched TV, I have often seen advertising for offers of [MNC]” (adapted
from Cleveland and Laroche 2007). We checked for the IV’s strength (F-values > 10; Antona-
kis et al. 2014) and calculated an efficient model that did not significantly differ from the con-
sistent model, which indicated that PBG was exogenous (Hausman 1978; z-values all < 1.96).
20
The probability of the endogeneity of PBG seems to be reduced (for details, see web appendix
C).
Table 5
RESULTS
Next, the results of the hypothesis tests and the alternative models are presented (see Table 6).
Model 1 provides support for H1a and H1b in all three countries. PBG positively affects
loyalty through functional value (India: b = .294, p < .001; Japan: b = .065, p < .001; U.S.:
b = .163, p < .001) and psychological value (India: b = .310, p < .001; Japan: b = .100, p < .001;
U.S.: b = .299, p < .001). The direct effects of PBG on consumer loyalty in the rival models
were not significant in all three countries, as supported by a Wald test (Molenberghs and
Verbeke 2007) (India: Δ² = 3.529(1), p > .05; Japan: Δ² = 3.175(1), p > .05; U.S.:
Δ² = 2.396(1), p > .05) and by a bootstrap test (5,000 bootstrap samples, India/Japan/U.S.: b -
.072/-.028/-.088, standard error .028/.015/.049, lower interval limit -.108/-.056/-.183, upper in-
terval limit .001/.001/.008; for details, see web appendix D). The indirect effects of PBG on
consumer loyalty via functional and psychological value were significant in all three countries
(5,000 bootstrap samples, India/Japan/U.S.: via functional value: b .316/.068/.172, standard er-
ror .033/.013/.041, lower interval limit .254/.045/.094, upper interval limit .384/.094/.258; via
.271/.072/.224, upper interval limit .406/.142/.422; for details, see web appendix D). Because
the confidence intervals for the direct effects include zero and those for the indirect effects do
not, i.e., they are significant, indirect-only mediation is established (Zhao, Lynch Jr., and Chen
2010).
The results from Model 2 support H2 for India and Japan. The total effect of PBG on
21
loyalty is stronger for foreign MNCs than for domestic MNCs in India (bforeign = .607, p < .001;
bdomestic = .415, p < .001; Δbforeign vs. domestic = .192, p < .001) and in Japan (bforeign = .311, p <
.001; bdomestic = .217, p < .001; Δbforeign vs. domestic = .094, p < .001). However, H2 is not supported
for the U.S. (bforeign = .469, p < .001; bdomestic = .440, p < .001; Δbforeign vs. domestic = .029, p > .05).
In H3a, we hypothesized that when an MNC is foreign, PBG contributes to loyalty equally
through functional value and psychological value. Our data support this assumption for India
(ΔbFV-PV = .023, p > .05) and Japan (ΔbFV-PV = .024, p > .05), but again not for the U.S., where
functional value shows stronger effects (ΔbFV-PV = .121, p < .001). H3b is supported. For do-
mestic MNCs, PBG contributes to loyalty more through psychological value than through func-
tional value in India (ΔbFV-PV = -.172, p < .001), Japan (ΔbFV-PV = -.077, p < .001), and the U.S.
(ΔbFV-PV = -.241, p < .001). These results will be discussed further below. The direct effects of
PBG on consumer loyalty were not significant (for details on the Wald test and the bootstrap
Finally, the results from Model 3 support H4. The total effect of PBG on loyalty is
stronger for less (vs. more) ethnocentric consumers in all three countries (India: Δblower-higher =
.091, p < .001; Japan: Δblower-higher = .111, p < .001; U.S.: Δblower-higher = .077, p < .001). The re-
sults support H5a in Japan (ΔbFV-PV = -.042, p < .01) and the U.S. (ΔbFV-PV = -.063, p < .001),
as for less ethnocentric consumers, PBG contributes more to consumer loyalty through psycho-
logical than through functional value, though not in India, where both value types are equally
strong (ΔbFV-PV = .023, p > .05). H5b supports our assumptions concerning more ethnocentric
consumers in all countries (India ΔbFV-PV = -.050, p < .01, Japan ΔbFV-PV = -.025, p < .05, and
the U.S. ΔbFV-PV = -.243, p < .001). These results will be discussed further below. Again, a non-
significant direct effect of PBG on consumer loyalty was found (for details, see web appendix E).
Table 6
Alternative models were calculated to strengthen the observations and to reduce individual
22
countries’ possible idiosyncrasies (for details, see web appendix E). First, all the hypotheses
were tested in a second emerging country (China, with one domestic MNC among the six com-
petitors; N = 658) and in a second developed country (Italy; N = 731). In both countries, the hy-
pothesis tests show identical results to those for India and the U.S., which allows for a certain
Second, in all the countries, alternative models were calculated by replacing the Ger-
man-speaking foreign MNCs with the two remaining competitors from the U.S. and France in
India and Japan and from the U.S. and the U.K. in China and Italy (India N = 735, Japan N =
701, China N = 632, and Italy; N = 725). In the U.S., domestic MNCs were replaced because no
other foreign MNCs were available (N = 658). These results supported all hypotheses reported
for the consciously chosen German-speaking MNCs, which allow a certain generalization and
control of, for example, foreign MNCs’ host country image influences.
the residual centering approach, see Little, Bovaird, and Widaman 2006; Steinmetz, Davidov,
and Schmidt 2011). As ethnocentrism affects the value perceptions attributed to global brands,
we tested for moderation in the PBG-value link first. Significant negative effects were found for
India (China) and Japan but not for the U.S. (Italy; see web appendix F, Tables 11a-d). The in-
teraction effects concerning functional and psychological value are approximately equal in
strength (India: bPBG×CE-FV = -.187, p < .001; bPBG×CE-PV = -.198, p < .001; Japan: bPBG×CE-FV = -
.142, p < .01; bPBG×CE-PV = -.161, p < .01). Linearly increasing ethnocentrism reduces both PBG-
value links for MNCs to a similar extent (similar to the group comparisons, see Table 6). The in-
significant results in the U.S. (significant in the group comparison) can be regarded as more rig-
orous evidence. However, studies in Western countries show that attitudes toward global prod-
uct brands are affected by ethnocentrism (e.g., Kwak, Jaju, and Larsen 2006; Verlegh 2007). As
none of the 40 studies on ethnocentrism addresses corporate brands, we may conclude that, for
23
U.S. (Italian) consumers, PBG is not affected by ethnocentrism because of their long participa-
tion in the global marketplace or the large number of MNCs in these countries (Interbrand
2014). However, multi-group models indicate stronger effects for less (vs. more) ethnocentric
consumers for all PBG-value links, total pathways, and for most indirect pathways, while testing
a third middle ethnocentric group led to inconclusive results. Such consumers might be indiffer-
ent regarding preferences/animosities against MNCs. This observation is not stable because of
small sample size, but it might indicate ethnocentrism’s non-linear role in the PBG effects of
MNCs. Therefore, we call for further research on this issue. In summary, the additional results
We also tested consumer ethnocentrism as a continuous moderator for the full indirect
effect model, i.e., PBG-value and value-loyalty (see web appendix F, Tables 11e-h). The model
fits are poor, probably because of the insufficient sample size for stable interaction tests of those
models; therefore, the results need to be interpreted with caution. In India (China), ethnocen-
trism affects both PBG-value links negatively and equally (bPBG×CE-FV = -.163, p < .001;
bPBG×CE-PV = -.164, p < .001), while the value-loyalty links are affected differently (bFV×CE-LOY =
-.291, p < .001; bPV×CE-LOY = .289, p < .001). Similarly, in Japan, increasing ethnocentrism af-
fects both the PBG-value links negatively (slightly stronger functional value, bPBG×CE-FV = -.304,
p < .001; bPBG×CE-PV = -.225, p < .001), and the value-loyalty links differently (bFV×CE-LOY = -
.166, p > .05; bPV×CE-LOY = .148, p > .05). All interaction effects are insignificant in the U.S.
(and Italy), and we draw similar conclusions to those presented above. In summary, in three
countries, ethnocentrism equally reduces the effects of PBG on both value types and, at least ac-
cording to the observed trend, reduces the functional value-loyalty link and increases the psy-
chological value-loyalty link. For MNCs, increasing ethnocentrism weakens the indirect effects
of PBG via functional value twice, while the effects of psychological value are partly reduced
and partly reinforced. PBG information becomes more diagnostic when linked with psychologi-
cal value than when linked with functional value for loyalty intentions towards an MNC.
24
Fourth, a three-way interaction is possible: foreign origin strengthens the positive PBG
effect, but this moderation is weakened by ethnocentrism, with less ethnocentric consumers be-
ing more ready to use the foreign origin information as a multiplier of PBG. Scholars may have
such a relationship in mind (when focusing only on consumer attitudes toward global product
brands depending on ethnocentrism, see Guo 2013; Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008).
Again, ethnocentrism’s effects on the PBG-value links for foreign vs. domestic MNCs are com-
pared first. We found significant negative interaction effects for foreign MNCs in all the models
for India (bPBG×CE-FV = -.152, p < .001; bPBG×CE-PV = -.169, p < .001, similarly, China) and Japan
(bPBG×CE-FV = -.362, p < .001; bPBG×CE-PV = -.426, p < .001), but not for domestic MNCs in these
countries (see web appendix F, Tables 12a-d for details). The effects for both value types are
relatively equal (stronger in Japan). We found insignificant effects in all cases for the U.S. (It-
aly), supporting the results discussed above. In three countries, ethnocentrism has a dampening
effect on foreign MNCs’ PBG-value links, and, because both value types are equally affected,
we refer to our initial models: foreign MNCs’ PBG equally contributes to loyalty through func-
tional and psychological value, while domestic MNCs’ PBG contributes more strongly through
emerging countries, e.g., Guo 2013, vs. verified effects in the U.S., e.g., Dimofte, Johansson,
and Ronkainen 2008) because we found a significant interaction not only for emerging, cultur-
ally distant countries but also for Japan, a developed, culturally distant country. The results are
not fully comparable with our total/indirect effect models, and they will be discussed further be-
low. Second, we could not test a three-way interaction for the PBG-value-loyalty pathways with
using a four-tailed matrix with MNCs’ two origin groups * two ethnocentrism groups) because
of the small sample size in each group and country (N = 158-198 in the matrix fields). We call
This study contributes to our understanding of the underlying pathways through which MNCs’
corporate brands transform PBG into consumers’ loyalty intentions in different country environ-
ments and helps us determine whether and how boundary conditions—MNCs’ foreign vs. do-
mestic origin and consumer ethnocentrism—change the total effect and the value pathways of
PBG into loyalty. As a result, we advance two findings on global corporate brands (Swoboda,
Pennemann, and Taube 2012; Alden et al. 2013) and add to the literature with a novel perspec-
tive, as corporate brands are a CEO’s task and are strategically important for MNCs that rely on
their corporate brands or value in international expansion and that want to consider the role of
PBG in competition with domestic MNCs. As our study consciously builds on extant research
(especially on the studies of Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012 and Steenkamp, Batra, and
Alden 2003, allowing comparisons) and covers only one industry context that is sensitive to
corporate brands in five of the ten largest economies in the world, we carefully provide major
implications for research and suggestions for managers and refer to studies on product brands to
Theoretical implications
First, regarding the initial research question, the results for MNCs’ corporate brands support our
theoretical reasoning and contribute to the literature, which is dominated by studies on global
product brands. The PBG of MNCs does not directly affect behavioral intentions (for direct
effects of product and service brands, see Winit et al. 2014) and constitutes accessible infor-
mation that becomes diagnostic for consumers’ intentional loyalty through pathways of both
functional and psychological value. We believe that this observation is notable because it en-
hances extant studies on corporate brands (Alden et al. 2013 and particularly Swoboda, Penne-
mann, and Taube 2012, who initially show similar results for global vs. local-only retail brands
in China). Analyzing manufacturing and leading local/foreign MNCs, we show that these global
26
corporations do not participate in PBG directly but through offered value, which is attributed to
the whole corporation (H1). Corporate brands are strategically relevant for international expan-
sion (e.g., even for choices of green vs. brownfield investments) and for product brands (e.g.,
within an endorser branding strategy, Berens, van Riel, and van Bruggen 2005). The value asso-
ciated with corporate brands and transferred to product brands and categories is advantageous,
while product brands can, in turn, add meaning themselves (e.g., Aaker 2004). Therefore, we
call for more research on corporate brands and their relationships to product brands (e.g., for
such a reciprocity Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein 2013; for brand extensions Sichtmann
To provide a richer discussion, we also highlight interesting links between variables that
constitute the hypothesized pathways. In doing so, we wish to emphasize that PBG particularly
affects the value of MNCs in emerging countries (India, China) and in developed Western
countries (U.S., Italy). In Japan, PBG-value links are weaker than value-loyalty links, i.e.,
MNCs that provide potentially demanding Japanese consumers with quality, value for money,
and, in particular, emotional and social aspects of value increase loyalty behavior.
Second, reflecting MNCs’ competition in our next research question, for the first time,
we test how MNCs’ foreign vs. domestic origins affect the creation of loyalty intentions through
PBG. PBG does not directly determine loyalty in any case, but MNCs’ origins affect the total
effect and the value mechanisms by which PBG translates into loyalty. The results are not con-
sistent across developed countries, and we discuss two conclusions in greater detail.
(1) According to theory (Feldman and Lynch 1988), MNCs’ objective origins tend to act
as diagnosticity multipliers for PBG by affecting the total effects of PBG. Scholars have found
some benefits of PBG for foreign brands vs. local-only brands (e.g., product and corporate,
Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012) but less for foreign vs. do-
mestic global product and service brands (Riefler 2012: no effects for domestic global brands in
27
Austria; Winit et al. 2014: mixed effects for industries in Thailand). Although we observe
MNCs for which PBG will likely be generally beneficial, overall, foreign MNCs benefit more
than domestic MNCs from PBG. The differences in total effects (H2) between foreign and do-
mestic MNCs are significant in emerging countries, such as India (China), and in Japan. Addi-
tionally, foreign MNCs have mostly strong PBG-value links in these countries, i.e., consumers
are sensitive to the multiplier effects, and foreign (competing with domestic) MNCs can more
The same differences are insignificant in developed Western countries, such as the U.S.
(Italy), a country for which several studies demonstrate globalness advantages for foreign prod-
uct brands (e.g., Papadopoulos, Heslop, and Bamossy 1990; Sharma 2011). Observing similar
total effects and similar PBG-functional value links for both origins, we may conclude that
globalness information pays off for domestic MNCs and that the diagnosticity multiplier effect
is less relevant for foreign MNCs (for whom PBG-psychological value links are stronger). Con-
sumers’ lower sensitivity to foreignness may result from their long participation in and open-
ness to global markets and, in the case of the U.S., from its history of immigration (e.g.,
Guzmán and Paswan 2009) and diverse ethnic consumer groups (with different values, atti-
tudes, and social behaviors, Phinney 1996; Dimofte, Johansson, and Bagozzi 2010). A coun-
try’s economic importance is not the only factor that explains differences in the total effects of
PBG across nations (maybe culture difference or image perceptions of host countries are
relevant as well, Özsomer 2012; Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos 2013). Because we could not
control for this issue and because our models are already complex, we call for further investiga-
tions. However, in doing so, and contrary to the results for H1, a distinction between the acces-
sible information on globalness, i.e., being perceived as an MNC, and on foreignness, i.e., being
a foreign or domestic MNC (e.g., Winit et al. 2014), as well as the perspectives of different
(2) Regarding value pathways that translate PBG into loyalty for domestic MNCs, a sig-
nificantly stronger psychological (vs. functional) value pathway is evident in all the countries
and models (H3b). This result supports the assumption that domestic firms benefit largely from
the emotional and social aspects of value in their home countries (for domestic-only firms see
Alden et al. 2013; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012). This effect may be even stronger
because of consumers’ specific feelings of pride for or social bonds with domestic firms that are
MNCs (e.g., Ger 1999) and because of relatively stronger PBG-psychological value and psy-
chological value-loyalty links in most countries. For domestic MNCs, psychological value has a
Foreign MNCs attract consumers more through functional value in the U.S. (the
functional value was often shown to drive global product brands’ success, e.g., Holt, Quelch,
and Taylor 2004), while consumers are equally attracted through functional and psychological
value in all other countries. Additionally, for foreign (vs. domestic) MNCs, the functional value
pathways of PBG into loyalty are stronger in all countries, and the psychological value path-
ways are often similar (weaker only in the U.S.). These observations may contribute to partly
inconclusive results on product brands (e.g., affect, Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008,
vs. quality, Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004) and to the few results on corporate brands.
Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube (2012) show stronger functional and psychological value for
foreign (vs. local-only) retail chains/corporations in China, while we present gradual differ-
ences, which we may explain with the aforementioned adaptation efforts of foreign MNCs
abroad and their brand-building capabilities. However, because foreign (vs. domestic) MNCs
also have stronger functional value-loyalty links in all countries, future research may focus on
Third, our results on consumer ethnocentrism are novel for corporate brands, but they
can be compared to two moderation studies on PBG for product brands (Steenkamp, Batra, and
29
Alden 2003 in the U.S. and Korea; Akram, Merunka, and Akram 2011 in Pakistan). MNCs’
PBG affects loyalty only through offered value for both less and more ethnocentric consumers,
though it affects the first group more strongly (H4). By contrast, Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden
(2003) only show a total effect of PBG on purchase intentions for less ethnocentric consumers,
and they do not specify the pathways. We may conclude that our specific industry context af-
fects our results and that MNCs do not represent local icons for which we have not controlled
(e.g., Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Özsomer 2012). We can also conclude that providing
functional and (particularly) psychological value to more ethnocentric consumers reduces the
impact of negative consumer beliefs toward MNCs (e.g., Alden et al. 2013). High levels of eth-
nocentrism weaken—but do not completely erase—the total effect of the PBG of those corpo-
rate brands. Moreover, we find consistent results for a strong value pathway through psycholog-
ical (vs. functional) value for more ethnocentric consumers in all countries and for less ethno-
centric consumers (for them, the functional path is also equally strong in India and China, H5).
Observing the pathways is valuable because Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) mention that
stronger quality paths for consumers who are less (vs. more) ethnocentric, while Akram,
Merunka, and Akram (2011) show dominant PBG-quality and PBG-prestige links for consum-
ers who are less (vs. more) ethnocentric. Our results indicate different belief-accessibility mech-
anisms and stronger psychological (vs. functional) value-loyalty links for more ethnocentric
consumers.
We tested ethnocentrism as a continuous moderating variable for the first time in PBG
research (in other contexts, only by Nijssen and Douglas 2011; Winit et al. 2014; Sharma 2011).
The PBG-value link and the PBG-loyalty pathways are moderated in emerging countries and in
Japan, i.e., increasing ethnocentrism reduced PBG effects, but not in the U.S. (Italy). In the
U.S.—where H2 and H3a were not supported—the already mentioned reasons might explain
the insignificant result, e.g., long participation in and openness to global markets and less ethno-
centrism. The differences in multi-group results likely results from the lack of consideration of
30
the gradual linear effects analyzed in continuous interaction models. As a result, the effects
might be overemphasized and may be related to unobserved factors (Irwin and McClelland
2003). We call for tests of nonlinear conceptualizations because of the insignificant results in
continuous models or in middle-ethnocentrism groups and because research has yet to address
this option.
trism in India (China) and Japan, but not in the U.S. (Italy), for the PBG-value links. No interac-
tion in the U.S. indicates no further effects for MNCs with different origins. The interaction im-
plies that the foreign origin strengthens the positive PBG effect in three countries; however, this
use foreign origin information as a multiplier of PBG. For increasing ethnocentrism, the acces-
sible PBG information on foreign MNCs becomes less diagnostic via functional and psycholog-
ical value because ethnocentric beliefs and the aspired-to belief consistency hamper the estab-
lishment of mental links between globalness information and the value proposition of MNCs.
We have appropriately evaluated interactions in SEM, but the results are similar to product
brand research (e.g., negative effects on brand preferences for global and foreign brands, He and
Wang 2015). For domestic MNCs, no effects occur, i.e., theoretically, PBG becomes diagnostic
via value perceptions, irrespective of ethnocentric tendencies because mental links are not ham-
pered by inconsistent beliefs. However, we observe the three-way interaction only for the PBG-
value link, while future research may consider value-loyalty effects and, thus, important total
PBG-loyalty pathways.
Managerial implications
CEOs and other responsible managers may be aware of the role that MNCs’ PBG plays in for-
eign countries, but they may claim that PBG only pays off indirectly when attracting consumers
through functional and psychological value, i.e., globalness perceptions alone do not generate
31
loyalty intentions. Because consumers link PBG and offered value to the entire MNC, the
knowledge on related effects adds to corporate brand management across nations. The results
may even constitute a starting point for internationalization steps, e.g., when entering new coun-
tries and deciding to rely on the advantages in local competition with domestic MNCs or do-
mestic-only firms. Globalness and the strong value offered by an MNC are important when at-
tracting customers (as is corporate reputation, Swoboda, Puchert, and Morschett 2015). A prod-
uct brand perspective draws a more fine-grained picture for decisions in direct competition but
is likely to be affected by a strategically important corporate brand (Balmer 2010; Berens, van
Riel, and van Bruggen 2005). The implications for managers of foreign and domestic MNCs
differ.
(1) For managers of foreign MNCs, this study reveals that PBG can be transformed into
consumer loyalty intentions via functional/psychological value and that PBG serves as a source
alizing, emerging MNCs (Kumar and Steenkamp 2013). PBG pathways are promising for
emerging countries such as India and for developed, culturally different countries such as Japan,
where both the psychological and functional pathways are equal or stronger than those of com-
peting domestic MNCs. Both advantages are equally diminished by increasing consumer ethno-
centrism. PBG does not provide foreign MNCs with a competitive advantage over domestic
MNCs in developed Western countries such as the U.S., where the functional pathways are
promising, while foreign MNCs seem to struggle with forming emotional bonds with local con-
Therefore, foreign MNCs should manage their PBG-loyalty pathways to maintain their
advantages, particularly their perceived functional value across nations, but they should not ne-
glect the psychological value pathway that allows them to succeed with their PBG. Targeting
less ethnocentric consumers enhances success, and thus, the relevance of those consumers, par-
between low levels of ethnocentrism and economic development, Sharma 2011). When target-
ing more ethnocentric consumers, foreign MNCs might want to disguise their foreignness, for
example. They might also run marketing campaigns that inform such consumers about how the
MNC contributes to the local economy by employing local citizens or investing in infrastructure
(2) Domestic MNCs may continue to rely on psychological value advantages in their
home countries. For example, CEOs of domestic global corporate brands should focus on em-
phasizing the cultural connectedness or a sense of belonging that consumers can experience
from the corporate brand, which foreign brands do not offer. However, they especially need to
enhance their functional value perceptions. Here, domestic MNCs might stress qualitative as-
pects, such as the reliability and longevity of their offers, success and commitment, while differ-
entiating themselves by stressing, for example, their greater satisfaction of local customer needs
due to their spatial proximity. They also may wish to place greater emphasis on their globalness
to increase perceptions of functional and psychological value in particular, e.g., with the slogan
“rooted in the country, but at home in the world”. Such positioning does not result in any addi-
tional disadvantages for more or less ethnocentric consumers because increasing ethnocentrism
in the home country does not cause changes in the PBG-value links. Domestic (vs. foreign)
MNCs profit within more ethnocentric consumer groups and should stress their origins when
To better understand the role of the PBG of MNCs’ corporate brands, further analyses are re-
quired, as our study is not without limitations. In addition to the mentioned limitations, two spe-
Although we paid special attention to data collection, broadening the database would mit-
igate some of the limitations and allow for further conclusions. For example, local-only firms,
33
specific MNCs (with different branding strategies; Schuiling and Kapferer 2004), additional in-
dustries (as the relevance of global product brands and categories vary, see Strizhakova and
Coulter 2015 and corporate and product brands may interact differently), and more countries
could be studied to analyze the role of global corporate brands’ PBG in different contexts. We
compare important countries that may be particularly attractive for MNCs, but this selection
likely affects our results. Countries differ in multiple dimensions, and analyzing country-level
predictors is promising (for multilevel approaches see Swoboda, Puchert, and Morschett 2015).
Furthermore, our selection of homogenous samples was aided by familiarity with the MNCs and
by comparisons between countries, but it may affect the results because corporate brand infor-
mation might be particularly diagnostic for urban and well-educated respondents. Broader sam-
ples or alternative interview techniques may extend the generalizability, but they will cause addi-
Alternative measurements of value and of consumers’ loyalty types can extend our con-
clusions because, for example, our single-point-in-time measurement of intentional loyalty tends
to make the predictive influence of antecedents more associative (e.g., Oliver, 1999, 2015). Im-
portant areas for further research would integrate the mentioned antecedents, e.g., culture, and
more detailed origin information about the MNCs’ home countries into the framework because
consumers are known to prefer brands that originate from countries that are considered to have a
particular expertise or image (e.g., Sharma 2011; Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos 2013). We
have consciously used two domestic vs. two foreign MNCs in each model, but the results might
value, i.e., by factors that go beyond consumer awareness and that need to be observed in future
research (e.g., Swoboda, Puchert, and Morschett 2015; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Be-
cause our models are already complex, such possibilities were not investigated in this study.
Furthermore, future studies may test our framework in a reciprocity design that investi-
gates globalness effects of the same foreign (e.g., Western) and domestic (e.g., emerging) MNCs
34
in the respective home countries of both MNCs, switching the foreign vs. domestic roles. How-
ever, selecting several MNCs and countries in which MNCs are leading competitors is challeng-
ing but essential to achieve valid and generalizable results in such a design. Finally, consumers
may not behave exclusively ethnocentrically or geocentrically and may instead combine both
identities (e.g., Steenkamp and de Jong 2010). We treated consumer ethnocentrism in various
ways, but a fine-grained investigation showed inconsistent results for a new middle group, which
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. (2004), "Leveraging the Corporate Brand," California Management Review,
46 (3), 6–18.
Akram, Aneela, Dwight Merunka, and Muhammad Shakaib Akram (2011), "Perceived Brand
Alden, Dana L., James B. Kelley, Petra Riefler, Julie A. Lee, and Geoffrey N. Soutar (2013),
"The Effect of Global Company Animosity on Global Brand Attitudes in Emerging and
(2), 17–38.
Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev Batra (1999), "Brand Positioning
Through Advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), "Structural Equation Modeling in Practice:
A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach," Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–
23.
Antonakis, John, Samuel Bendahan, Philippe Jacquart, and Rafael Lalive (2014), "Causality and
Askegaard, Soren and Guliz Ger (1998), "Product-Country Images: Towards a Contextualized
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), "On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models,"
36
---- (2010), "Explicating Corporate Brands and Their Management: Reflections and Directions
Banerjee, Sourindra, Jaideep C. Prabhu, and Rajesh K. Chandy (2015), "Indirect Learning: How
Ramachander (2000), "Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes
Berens, G., C. B. M. van Riel, and G. H. van Bruggen (2005), "Corporate Associations and
Brewer, M. B. (1991), "The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time,"
Castiglioni, Laura, Klaus Pforr, and Ulrich Krieger (2008), "The Effect of Incentives on
Response Rates and Panel Attrition: Results of a Controlled Experiment," Survey Research
Chang, Sea-Jin, Arjen van Witteloostuijn, and Lorraine Eden (2010), "From The Editors:
Cleveland, Mark and Michel Laroche (2007), "Acculturaton to the Global Consumer Culture:
37
Scale Development and Research Paradigm," Journal of Business Research, 60 (3), 249–59.
Coulter, Robin A., Linda L. Price, and Lawrence Feick (2003), "Rethinking the Origins of
Involvement and Brand Commitment: Insights from Postsocialist Central Europe," Journal
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2010), "Global Brands in
the United States: How Consumer Ethnicity Mediates the Global Brand Effect," Journal of
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Ilkka A. Ronkainen (2008), "Cognitive and
Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch (1988), "Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of
73 (3), 421–35.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Ger, Güliz (1999), "Localizing in the Global Village: Local Firms Competing in Global
Guo, Xiaoling (2013), "Living in a Global World: Influence of Consumer Global Orientation on
Attitudes Toward Global Brands From Developed Versus Emerging Countries," Journal of
Guzmán, Francisco and Audhesh K. Paswan (2009), "Cultural Brands From Emerging Markets:
Brand Image Across Host and Home Countries," Journal of International Marketing, 17 (3),
71–86.
38
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson (2014), Multivariate
He, Jiaxun and Cheng Lu Wang (2015), "Cultural Identity and Consumer Ethnocentrism
Impacts on Preference and Purchase of Domestic Versus Import Brands: An Empirical Study
Heine, Steven J. and Darrin R. Lehman (1995), "Social Desirability Among Canadian and
Social Psychology, E. Tory Higgins and Arie W. Kruglanski, eds. New York: Guilford Press.
Holt, Douglas, John. A. Quelch, and Earl L. Taylor (2004), "How Global Brands Compete,"
Hult, G. T. M., David J. Ketchen, David A. Griffith, Brian R. Chabowski, Mary K. Hamman,
Bernadine J. Dykes, Wesley A. Pollitte, and S. T. Cavusgil (2008), "An Assessment of the
Interbrand (2014), "Best Global Brands," (accessed October 13, 2015), [available at
http://interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2014/ranking/].
Jobber, David, John Saunders, and Vince-Wayne Mitchell (2004), "Prepaid Monetary Incentive
Johansson, Johny K. and Ilkka A. Ronkainen (2005), "The Esteem of Global Brands," Journal
Kaminska, Olena, Allan L. McCutcheon, and Jaak Billiet (2010), "Satisficing Among Reluctant
39
---- (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity.
Klein, Jill Gabrielle (2002), "Us versus Them, or Us versus Everyone? Delineating Consumer
Kumar, Nirmalya and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (2013), Brand Breakout: How Emerging
Kwak, Hyokjin, Anupam Jaju, and Trina Larsen (2006), "Consumer Ethnocentrism Offline and
Online: The Mediating Role of Marketing Efforts and Personality Traits in the United States,
South Korea, and India," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (3), 367.
Lafley, A. G. (2009), "What Only the CEO Can Do," Harvard Business Review, 87 (5), 54–62.
Industry: Idealism Without Illusion and Realism Without Resignation," Business Ethics
Little, Todd D., James A. Bovaird, and Keith F. Widaman (2006), "On The Merits of
(4), 497–519.
Lynch, John G., Jr., Howard Marmorstein, and Michael F. Weigold (1988), "Choices from Sets
Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,"
Madden, Thomas J., Martin S. Roth, and William R. Dillon (2012), "Global Product Quality
Malär, Lucia, Harley Krohmer, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Bettina Nyffenegger (2011), "Emotional
Brand Attachment and Brand Personality: The Relative Importance of the Actual and the
Mercer, Andrew, Andrew Caporaso, David Cantor, and Reanne Townsend (2015), "How Much
Gets You How Much? Monetary Incentives and Response Rates in Household Surveys,"
Molenberghs, Geert and Geert Verbeke (2007), "Likelihood Ratio, Score, and Wald Tests in a
Morgeson III, Forrest V., Sunil Mithas, Timothy L. Keiningham, and Lerzan Aksoy (2011),
Nijssen, Edwin J. and Susan P. Douglas (2011), "Consumer World-Mindedness and Attitudes
Oberecker, Eva M., Petra Riefler, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2008), "The Consumer
Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko (2009), "Instructional
Özsomer, A. (2012), "The Interplay Between Global and Local Brands: A Closer Look at
(2), 72–95.
Pan, Yue and George M. Zinkhan (2006), "Determinants of Retail Patronage: A Meta-
Papadopoulos, Nicolas, Louise A Heslop, and Gary Bamossy (1990), "A Comparative Image
Phinney, Jean S. (1996), "When We Talk About American Ethnic Groups, What Do We
Riefler, Petra (2012), "Why Consumers Do (Not) Like Global Brands: The Role of
Globalization Attitude, GCO and Global Brand Origin," International Journal of Research
Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Nancy Wong (2009), "The Safety of Objects:
36 (1), 1-16.
Satorra, Albert and Peter M. Bentler (2001), "A Scaled Difference Chi-Square Test Statistic For
Schuiling, Isabelle and Jean-Noël Kapferer (2004), "Real Differences Between Local and
---- (2011), "Country of Origin Effects in Developed and Emerging Markets: Exploring the
42
Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash Sharma (1987), "Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and
Sichtmann, Christina and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "The Impact of Perceived Brand
Globalness, Brand Origin Image, and Brand Origin–Extension Fit on Brand Extension
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden (2003), "How Perceived
Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value," Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1),
53–65.
78–90.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. and Martijn G. de Jong (2010), "A Global Investigation Into the
Steinmetz, Holger, Eldad Davidov, and Peter Schmidt (2011), "Three Approaches to Estimate
Latent Interaction Effects: Intention and Perceived Behavioral Control in the Theory of
Strizhakova, Yuliya and Robin A. Coulter (2015), "Drivers of Local Relative to Global Brand
Strizhakova, Yuliya, Robin A. Coulter, and Linda L. Price (2011), "Branding in a Global
Supphellen, Magne and Kjell Grønhaug (2003), "Building Foreign Brand Personalities in
Sweeney, Jillian C. and Geoffrey N. Soutar (2001), "Consumer Perceived Value: The
Swoboda, Bernhard, Bettina Berg, and Hanna Schramm-Klein (2013), "Reciprocal Effects of
the Corporate Reputation and Store Equity of Retailers," Journal of Retailing, 89 (4), 447–
59.
Swoboda, Bernhard and Stefan Elsner (2013), "Transferring the Retail Format Successfully into
Swoboda, Bernhard, Karin Pennemann, and Markus Taube (2012), "The Effects of Perceived
Brand Globalness and Perceived Brand Localness in China: Empirical Evidence on Western,
Swoboda, Bernhard, Cathrin Puchert, and Dirk Morschett (2015), "Explaining the Differing
Tourangeau, Roger (2004), "Experimental Design Considerations for Testing and Evaluating
Presser and Jennifer M. Rothger and Mick P. Couper and Judith T. Lessler and Elizabeth
Martin and Jean Martin and Eleanor Singer, eds. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
United Nations (2014), "GDP and Its Breakdown at Current Prices in US Dollars," (accessed
Walker, Beth A. and Jerry C. Olson (1991), "Means-End Chains: Connecting Products With
Wheeler, S. Christian, Richard E. Petty, and George Y. Bizer (2005), "Self-Schema Matching
Williams, Larry J., Nathan Hartman, and Flavia Cavazotte (2010), "Method Variance and
Winit, Warat, Gary Gregory, Mark Cleveland, and Peeter Verlegh (2014), "Global vs Local
Brands: How Home Country Bias and Price Differences Impact Brand Evaluations,"
Xie, Yi, Rajeev Batra, and Siqing Peng (2015), "An Extended Model of Preference Formation
Between Global and Local Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust, and Affect,"
Zhang, Yinlong and Adwait Khare (2009), "The Impact of Accessible Identities on the
Evaluation of Global versus Local Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 524–37.
Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch Jr., and Qimei Chen (2010), "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny:
Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2), 197–
206.
Zhou, Lianxi, Zhiyong Yang, and Michael K. Hui (2010), "Non-Local or Local Brands? A
Multi-Level Investigation into Confidence in Brand Origin Identification and its Strategic
Zhou, Nan and Russell W. Belk (2004), "Chinese Consumer Readings of Global and Local
NOTES
1. We refer to a few studies, especially that of Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube (2012), and we
refer to the differences between internationalizing retail firms and manufacturing firms (e.g.,
Swoboda and Elsner 2013) and to the differences between PBG effects in both contexts. In
doing so, we seek to address the distinct retail contexts in which corporate brands might be
conceptually similar for retail firms, chains, or stores (not within diversified retailers operating
through different branded channels). In the retailing context, consumer perceptions are known
to be mostly affected by the retail store and the functional and psychological value that it of-
fers (stronger than by corporate issues, e.g., reputation, Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein
2013). Therefore, store patronage is used as an outcome in retail research (e.g., Pan and
Zinkhan 2006; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012; differently to loyalty intentions).
2. We cooperated with an MNC, identified the six strongest competing MNCs in each of the ten
countries and then successively chose the most economically important countries in which
two domestic MNCs and two foreign MNCs were present (U.S., Japan, and India). Two addi-
tional countries were used for control purposes (China, with one domestic MNC, and Italy, as
an economically weaker country; see the sample selection section for details). We
acknowledge that these countries differ in terms of a variety of economic, cultural, and other
context. Two studies examine PBG effects for less/more ethnocentric groups (Steenkamp, Ba-
tra, and Alden 2003; Akram, Merunka, and Akram 2011), and four studies investigate differ-
ent topics (e.g., Nijssen and Douglas 2011; Sharma 2011). In addition, some studies find in-
conclusive direct effects of ethnocentrism on brand attitudes (e.g., Guo 2013; Alden,
Steenkamp, and Batra 2006). We theoretically argue that MNCs’ PBG is not naturally diag-
nostic information for loyalty decisions regarding corporate brands, and the literature on prod-
uct brands does not find any direct effects of PBG on the purchase intentions of consumers
46
who are less (or more) ethnocentric (e.g., Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). By contrast,
studies on corporate brands show mostly insignificant results when analyzing consumer iden-
tity as a moderator (for foreign vs. local-only firms, Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012).
4. Cash rewards are common in panel studies, but they may bias the results because of consumer
materialism, for example, what we could not control across nations and what limits this study
and Billiet 2010). However, they offer paramount advantages in international studies. Cash
rewards are important for quota sampling and comparable samples across nations, i.e., they
are usually utilized in panel surveys to avoid panel attrition and to retain respondents over
time (e.g., Castiglioni, Pforr, and Krieger 2008), and they increase the response rate (com-
pared with lottery prizes or charitable donations; Mercer et al. 2015), which is crucial, espe-
cially in large-scale surveys in leading countries. Cash rewards build a psychological obliga-
tion to return the favor, which is accomplished by completing the questionnaire. Respondent
compliance might also increase because of uncomfortable levels of cognitive dissonance cre-
ated by accepting the incentive without responding seriously (Jobber, Saunders, and Mitchell
2004). Additionally, because of the random selection of the evaluated MNCs by each re-
spondent, we assume that the probability of biases resulting from cash incentives is reduced in
this study.
5. The means of PBG are relatively lower while the variances of PBG are greater (2.9-3.4, 1.1-
1.4) in India and Japan than in the U.S. (4.1, 1.0) (see Table 2). This observation might be re-
lated to the tendency of Asian cultures (e.g., Japanese, Chinese, and possibly Indian) to be
prone to moderacy responses or social desirability biases (e.g., Heine and Lehman 1995;
Steenkamp and de Jong 2010), which lead to more central means. The variance differences
have been captured by measurement invariance. An additional test between foreign vs. do-
mestic MNCs (including alternative MNCs) shows, perhaps unsurprisingly (Batra et al. 2000),
that domestic MNCs’ PBG is lower than that of foreign MNCs in all contexts and that it is
47
lower in Japan and India than in the U.S. The latter may be related to the longstanding partici-
pation of U.S. consumers in the global marketplace and the large number of U.S.-based global
Table 1
Literature Review on Empirical Studies on Perceived Brand Globalness and Similar Con-
structs
Studies on Studies on similar constructs
perceived brand globalness (e.g., global brand attitude, global consumption orientation)
One country -- - Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (2006) d
- developed - Dimofte, Johansson, and Bagozzi (2010) d
- Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen (2008)
- Nijssen and Douglas (2011)
- Riefler (2012) 2, a
- emerging - Akram, Merunka, and Akram (2011) a - Batra et al. (2000)
- Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube (2012) 1, c - Zhou, Yang, and Hui (2010) 1, b, c
- Winit et al. (2014) 1/2, b
- Xie, Batra, and Peng (2015)
Several countries (pooled) - Holt, Quelch, and Taylor (2004) - Schuiling and Kapferer (2004)
- Steenkamp and de Jong (2010) a
Comparing countries - Johansson and Ronkainen (2005) - Papadopoulos, Heslop, and Bamossy (1990)
- only developed - Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003)
- also emerging - Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) b/d - Alden et al. (2013) d
- This study 2, c - Guo (2013) d
- Sharma (2011)
- Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price (2011)
- Strizhakova and Coulter (2015) a, d
Note: Studies in bold analyze corporate or retail brands (further analyze product brands). Studies in italics analyze consumer ethnocentrism as modera-
tor.
1
Studies compare domestic-only vs. foreign global brands or 2 domestic global vs. foreign global brands (further without comparison). Theory: a con-
sumer culture, b signaling, c accessibility-diagnosticity, d e.g., information processing, categorization, acculturation etc. (other studies without explicit
theory).
Table 2
Sample Characteristics
India (N=704) Japan (N=794) U.S. (N=662)
in % Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Age 18-25 15.9 10.0 25.9 5.9 4.4 10.3 7.3 7.7 14.9
Age 26-35 13.1 15.8 28.8 10.3 8.4 18.7 11.3 10.8 22.0
Age 36-45 12.1 9.2 21.4 12.5 11.8 24.3 13.7 12.2 25.9
Age 46-55 7.9 7.2 15.1 12.5 9.7 22.3 10.8 10.4 21.1
Age 56-65 4.3 4.5 8.8 13.0 11.4 24.4 9.1 6.9 16.0
Total 53.3 46.7 100.0 54.3 45.7 100.0 52.1 47.9 100.0
49
Table 3
Reliability and Validity of Measurements
India Japan U.S.
Item MV/Std FL KMO ItTC α CR λ MV/Std FL KMO ItTC α CR λ MV/Std FL KMO ItTC α CR λ
Perceived brand globalness
To me, [MNC] is a global brand. 3.3/1.3 .865 .831 .863 2.9/1.4 .753 .740 .759 4.1/1.0 .906 .881 .908
I do think consumers abroad buy 3.3/1.2 .916 .866 .922 3.2/1.1 .955 .873 .959 4.1/1.0 .948 .911 .948
[MNC’s] products. .759 .930 .931 .701 .911 .913 .771 .953 .953
[MNC] sells its products all over the 3.4/1.3 .935 .879 .931 3.2/1.1 .977 .887 .972 4.1/1.0 .946 .910 .946
world.
Functional value
[MNC] offers high-quality products and 3.7/1.1 .903 .870 .907 3.0/0.5 .844 .799 .855 3.7/0.9 .892 .840 .906
services.
[MNC] develops well-made innovative 3.6/1.1 .921 .885 .919 3.1/0.5 .899 .845 .900 3.6/0.9 .879 .830 .881
products and services. .871 .945 .945 .853 .918 .918 .845 .921 .921
With its products, [MNC] is a leader in 3.6/1.1 .886 .855 .887 3.2/0.6 .838 .796 .839 3.5/1.0 .895 .847 .880
research and technology.
[MNC] offers good value for money. 3.6/1.0 .894 .862 .890 3.1/0.5 .859 .813 .845 3.3/1.0 .800 .767 .797
Psychological value
[MNC] offers products I like and 3.4/1.1 .879 .834 .878 2.9/0.6 .841 .771 .831 3.8/1.0 .767 .727 .760
enjoy.
The appealing image of [MNC’s] prod- 3.2/1.1 .827 .791 .810 2.9/0.7 .737 .686 .720 3.4/1.0 .807 .761 .808
ucts makes me feel good.
[MNC’s] products improve the way I 3.4/1.1 .887 .860 .840 .925 .924 .890 3.1/0.7 .818 .819 .748 .879 .879 .819 3.8/0.9 .912 .823 .846 .905 .905 .900
am perceived.
With [MNC’s] products I make a better 3.5/1.0 .887 .841 .897 3.1/0.7 .828 .759 .847 3.5/0.9 .885 .823 .900
impression on other people than with
those of competitors.
Loyalty
I am a loyal customer of [MNC]. 3.6/1.1 .940 .902 .933 3.2/0.7 .857 .802 .859 2.9/1.2 .962 .929 .963
I have developed a good relationship 3.5/1.1 .930 .894 .925 3.0/0.6 .839 .789 .862 2.9/1.1 .892 .877 .895
.774 .949 .949 .744 .906 .907 .754 .960 .962
with [MNC].
I am certain that I will buy products/of- 3.6/1.1 .915 .884 .927 3.1/0.6 .929 .851 .908 2.8/1.1 .977 .941 .975
fers of [MNC].
Consumer ethnocentrism
Purchasing foreign-made products is un- 2.9/1.3 .886 .826 .887 2.5/0.9 .892 .840 .893 2.5/1.2 .896 .855 .896
[nationality].
[Nationality] should not buy foreign 3.0/1.3 .862 .809 .851 2.5/0.9 .894 .843 .894 2.7/1.2 .890 .850 .886
products because this hurts local busi-
ness/causes unemployment. .829 .907 .909 .856 .920 .920 .851 .934 .934
A real [nationality] should always buy 3.1/1.3 .766 .728 .768 2.6/1.0 .813 .776 .812 2.6/1.2 .873 .835 .874
[nationality]-made products.
It is not right to purchase foreign prod- 2.8/1.3 .859 .801 .866 2.3/0.9 .853 .808 .852 2.4/1.2 .870 .833 .873
ucts.
Model fits CFA: India: CFI .992; TLI .991; RMSEA .030; SRMR .033; ²(125) = 210.072; SCF = 1.2778; Japan: CFI .979; TLI .975; RMSEA .044; SRMR .031; ²(125) = 336.791; SCF = 1.2987; U.S.: CFI .975; TLI .969;
RMSEA .056; SRMR .037; ²(125) = 429.081; SCF = 1.1842.
Note: MV/Std = Mean value/standard deviation; FL = Factor loadings; KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion (≥ .5); ItTC = Item-to-total correlation (≥ .5); α = Cronbach’s alpha (≥ .7); CR = Composite reliability (≥ .6); λ =
Standardized factor loadings (≥ .5).
50
Table 4
Discriminant Validity
Constructs PBG FV PV LOY
PBG .776
FV .445 .825
India
PV .433 .741 .774
LOY .379 .780 .812a .861
PBG .767
FV .100 .943
Japan
PV .104 .643 .870
LOY .062 .615 .723 .910
PBG .899
FV .235 .814
U.S.
PV .252 .766 .805
LOY .087 .382 .434 .872
a
For this case we computed a chi-square difference test (Anderson and Gerbing 1988), which showed satisfactory results and thus discriminant valid-
ity can be assumed.
Note: Values in bold represent the AVE of the construct; values in italics represent squared correlations; AVE = Average variance extracted (≥ .5);
PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
Table 5
Measurement Invariance
² diff. CFI TLI RMSEA
Model ² (d.f.) SCF (p-value) (ΔCFI) (ΔTLI) (ΔRMSEA) SRMR
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 168.369 1.3443 - .997 .996 .022 .019
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 181.271 1.2932 12.902 .997 .997 .021 .040
Metric invariance (156) (.730) (.000) (-.001) (.001)
India
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 179.748 1.3336 - .996 .995 .027 .019
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 195.536 1.2821 15.788 .996 .995 .026 .070
Metric invariance (156) (.416) (.000) (.000) (.001)
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 300.074 1.3502 - .979 .972 .050 .032
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 311.813 1.3455 11.739 .978 .974 .048 .053
Metric invariance (156) (.679) (.001) (-.002) (.002)
Japan
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 317.058 1.3470 - .977 .970 .053 .033
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-)
Model 2: 333.649 1.3393 16.591 .976 .972 .051 .082
Metric invariance (156) (.333) (.001) (-.002) (.002)
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 410.965 1.1726 - .973 .965 .070 .043
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 436.697 1.1530 25.732 .972 .967 .068 .053
Metric invariance (156) (.066) (.001) (-.002) (.002)
U.S.
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 362.149 1.1895 - .977 .971 .063 .038
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 385.253 1.1678 23.104 .976 .972 .062 .062
Metric invariance (156) (.125) (.001) (-.001) (.001)
51
Table 6
Results
India Japan U.S.
1. General model Total sample Rival model (direct path) Total sample Rival model (direct path) Total sample Rival model (direct path)
Effects beta bp beta bp beta bp beta bp beta bp beta bp
PBG→FV .697 .590*** .702 .594*** .314 .128*** .317 .130*** .499 .459*** .500 .460***
PBG→PV .691 .583*** .697 .589*** .313 .164*** .322 .169*** .517 .455*** .520 .458***
FV→LOY .512 .498*** .552 .532*** .430 .508*** .443 .520*** .271 .356*** .287 .374***
PV→LOY .545 .531*** .585 .566*** .662 .610*** .678 .622*** .479 .656*** .511 .696***
Gender -.011 -.020ns -.011 -.020ns .045 .044ns .042 .041ns -.032 -.068ns -.036 -.077ns
Age .036 .026ns .038 .028ns .032 .012ns .040 .016ns .014 .011ns .021 .017ns
Familiarity .004 .002ns .001 .001ns .005 .001ns .002 .000ns .062 .038* .057 .035*
PBG→LOY - - -.088 -.072ns - - -.058 -.028ns - - -.074 -.088ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .733 .604*** .342 .165*** .382 .462***
Indirect effects (H1)
PBG→FV→LOY .357 .294*** .135 .065*** .135 .163***
PBG→PV→LOY .376 .310*** .207 .100*** .247 .299***
2. Moderator: Diff. betw. countries Diff. betw. countries Diff. betw. countries
MNC origin Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic
Effects beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp
PBG→FV .740 .602*** .333 .251*** .351*** .395 .258*** .279 .138*** .120*** .487 .450*** .494 .450*** .000ns
PBG→PV .682 .549*** .648 .536*** .013ns .349 .270*** .331 .234*** .036* .551 .490*** .483 .424*** .066*
FV→LOY .529 .523*** .498 .484*** .039* .577 .649*** .371 .510*** .139*** .482 .655*** .170 .218*** .437***
PV→LOY .533 .532*** .618 .548*** -.016ns .560 .531*** .654 .626*** -.095** .251 .354*** .595 .803*** -.449***
Gender -.001 -.002ns -.027 -.046ns -.008 -.008ns .063 .059ns -.099 -.214* .037 .080ns
Age .009 .006ns .067 .045* .029 .012ns .047 .017ns .068 .056ns -.039 -.033ns
Familiarity .006 .004ns -.004 -.002ns -.009 -.002ns .039 .009ns .040 .024ns .099 .061**
Total effect (H2)
PBG→LOY .755 .607*** .566 .415*** .192*** .423 .311*** .320 .217*** .094*** .373 .469*** .371 .440*** .029ns
Diff. within countries Diff. within countries Diff. within countries
Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
Indirect effects (H3) bp bp bp bp bp bp
PBG→FV→LOY .392 .315*** .166 .122*** .023ns .228 .167*** .104 .070*** .024ns .235 .295*** .084 .099*** .121***
PBG→PV→LOY .363 .292*** .400 .294*** -.172*** .195 .143*** .217 .147*** -.077*** .138 .174*** .287 .340*** -.241***
3. Moderator: Diff. betw. groups Diff. betw. groups Diff. betw. groups
Consumer
Consumerethnocentrism Lower Higher Lower vs. higher Lower Higher Lower vs. higher Lower Higher Lower vs. higher
Effects beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp
PBG→FV .752 .651*** .687 .563*** .088*** .378 .159*** .208 .078** .081*** .521 .510*** .485 .425*** .085***
PBG→PV .750 .632*** .677 .546*** .086*** .378 .210*** .214 .102*** .108*** .559 .518*** .468 .394*** .124***
FV→LOY .528 .527*** .482 .463*** .064*** .446 .535*** .392 .492*** .043ns .350 .427*** .149 .210*** .217***
PV→LOY .494 .506*** .583 .570*** -.064*** .669 .606*** .628 .615*** -.009ns .421 .542*** .576 .844*** -.302***
Gender -.017 -.033ns .000 -.001ns .002 .002ns .062 .055ns .007 .016ns -.080 -.173*
Age .041 .031ns .024 .017ns .055 .023ns .000 .000ns .016 .013ns .007 .006ns
Familiarity .021 .014ns -.008 -.004ns -.004 -.001ns .029 .007ns .002 .002ns .082 .048*
Total effect (H4)
PBG→LOY .767 .663*** .726 .572*** .091*** .422 .212*** .212 .101*** .111*** .418 .499*** .342 .422*** .077***
Diff. within groups Diff. within groups Diff. within groups
Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher
Indirect effects (H5) bp bp bp bp bp bp
PBG→FV→LOY .397 .343*** .331 .261*** .023ns .169 .085*** .082 .038*** .182 .218*** .072 .089***
PBG→PV→LOY .370 .320*** .395 .311*** -.050** .253 .127*** .134 .063*** -.042** -.025* .235 .281*** .270 .332*** -.063*** -.243***
Model fits: General model: India: CFI .961; TLI .952; RMSEA .069; SRMR .109; ²(112) = 488.376; SCF = 1.2206; Japan: CFI .925; TLI .908; RMSEA .081; SRMR .175; ²(112) = 718.672; SCF = 1.2376; U.S.: CFI .915;
TLI .897; RMSEA .102; SRMR .158; ²(112) = 961.718; SCF = 1.1078. MNC origin: India: CFI .955; TLI .948; RMSEA .071; SRMR .172; ²(234) = 659.837; SCF = 1.2010; Japan: CFI .919; TLI .907; RMSEA .079;
SRMR .171; ²(234) = 881.099; SCF = 1.2419; U.S.: CFI .912; TLI .898; RMSEA .102; SRMR .165; ²(234) = 1120.059; SCF = 1.1071. CE: India: CFI .961; TLI .954; RMSEA .067; SRMR .102; ²(234) = 603.278;
SCF = 1.1999; Japan: CFI .925; TLI .913; RMSEA .078; SRMR .174; ²(234) = 826.986; SCF = 1.2417; U.S.: CFI .917; TLI .903; RMSEA .099; SRMR .162; ²(234) = 1060.998; SCF = 1.1176.
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns=not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
52
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
WEB APPENDIX
An Analysis of Leading Foreign and Domestic MNCs in India, Japan, and the United
States
Contents
E. Alternative Models 7
References 36
1
Table A.1
MV and Std. of PBG for Foreign and Domestic MNCs Within Each Country
India Japan U.S.
Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
(altern. MNCs) (altern. MNCs) (altern. MNCs)
MV/Std. MV/Std. MV/Std. MV/Std. MV/Std. MV/Std.
Perceived brand globalness 3.5/1.3* 3.0/1.3 3.2/1.5* 2.7/1.3 4.2/1.0 4.0/0.9*
To me, [MNC] is a global brand. (3.4/1.3)* (2.8/1.4)* (3.5/1.1)*
I do think consumers abroad buy 3.5/1.2* 3.0/1.2 3.5/1.2* 2.9/1.0 4.2/1.0 4.0/1.0*
[MNC’s] products. (3.3/1.2)* (3.5/1.1)* (3.5/1.1)*
[MNC] sells its products all over the 3.6/1.2* 3.1/1.3 3.5/1.2* 2.9/1.0 4.2/1.0 4.0/1.0*
world. (3.4/1.2)* (3.3/1.1)* (3.6/1.1)*
China Italy
Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
(altern. MNCs) (altern. MNCs)
MV/Std. MV/Std. MV/Std. MV/Std.
Perceived brand globalness 4.2/1.1* 3.6/1.2 3.9/1.1* 3.0/1.1
To me, [MNC] is a global brand. (3.7/1.3) (3.8/1.1)*
I do think consumers abroad buy 4.1/1.1* 3.6/1.1 3.9/1.1* 2.9/1.1
[MNC’s] products. (3.7/1.2) (3.8/1.0)*
[MNC] sells its products all over the 4.2/1.1* 3.6/1.1 4.0/1.1* 3.0/1.1
world. (3.7/1.2) (3.9/1.1)*
Note: * p < .05; MV differences (t-tests).
2
Table A.2
Measurement Invariance for PBG Across Countries (India, Japan, and U.S.) (single constructs)
² diff. CFI TLI RMSEA
Model ² (d.f.) SCF (p-value) (ΔCFI) (ΔTLI) (ΔRMSEA) SRMR
Invariance: Perceived brand globalness
Model 1: 43.723 .7494 - .994 .975 .161 .012
Configural invariance (2) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 51.316 .8649 7.593 .994 .991 .097 .038
Metric invariance (6) (.000) (.000) (-.016) (.064)
Invariance: Functional value
Model 1: 165.422 1.6596 - .976 .945 .156 .093
Configural invariance (8) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 285.681 1.3577 120.259 .958 .946 .155 .132
Metric invariance (14) (.000) (.018) (-.001) (.001)
Model 3: 217.629 1.5205 52.207 .962 .942 .161 .121
Partial metric invariancea (10) (.000) (.008) (.003) (-.005)
Invariance: Psychological value
Model 1: 161.505 1.4562 - .971 .935 .154 .068
Configural invariance (8) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 271.445 1.2346 109.940 .951 .937 .151 .138
Metric invariance (14) (.000) (.020) (-.002) (.003)
Model 3: 177.650 1.3523 16.145 .968 .943 .144 .098
Partial metric invarianceb (10) (.067) (.003) (-.008) (.010)
Invariance: Loyalty
Model 1: 82.428 .6668 - .992 .964 .224 .074
Configural invariance (2) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 94.518 .8437 12.090 .991 .987 .135 .079
Metric invariance (6) (.001) (-.023) (.089)
a
Factor loadings were freed for the following items: FV2, FV4.
b
Factor loadings were freed for the following items: FV2, FV3.
Table A.3
Measurement Invariance for PBG Across Countries (India, Japan, and U.S.)
² diff. CFI TLI RMSEA
Model ² (d.f.) SCF (p-value) (ΔCFI) (ΔTLI) (ΔRMSEA) SRMR
Invariance
Model 1: 686.641 1.2214 - .984 .980 .053 .029
Configural invariance (213) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 1085.089 1.1825 398.448 .972 .968 .066 .076
Metric invariance (241) (.000) (.012) (.012) (-.013)
Model 3: 1038.415 1.1886 351.774 .974 .969 .065 .074
Partial metric invariancea (235) (.000) (.010) (.011) (-.012)
a
Factor loadings were freed for the following items: FV2, PV3, LOY2.
3
Table B.1
Single-factor Test
India Japan U.S.
Model χ² ² diff. χ² ² diff. χ² ² diff.
CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value) CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value) CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value)
CFA .997 .996 .022 1.3494 97.335 .977 .971 .053 1.3509 248.414 .975 .968 .067 1.1770 314.098
(71) (71) (71)
*** *** ***
SFT .833 .803 .162 1.3614 1596.764 .668 .607 .194 1.3879 2656.185 .617 .548 .252 1.2057 3834.570
(77) (77) (77)
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns Not significant; CFA = Model fit of the confirmatory factor analysis; SFT = Model fit of the single factor test; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM.
4
Table B.2
Results of Model Comparisons (phase I)
India Japan U.S.
Model ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA
CFA 172.676 85 1.2108 .991 .989 .037 752.280 85 1.3275 .914 .894 .096 435.273 85 1.1511 .964 .956 .074
Baseline 202.362 90 1.2219 .988 .987 .041 769.037 90 1.3074 .913 .898 .094 453.357 90 1.1401 .963 .957 .073
Method-C 195.275 89 1.2252 .989 .987 .040 775.898 89 1.3495 .913 .897 .094 449.333 89 1.1410 .963 .957 .073
Method-U 166.111 76 1.2542 .991 .987 .041 735.097 76 1.3534 .915 .883 .100 403.172 76 1.1671 .967 .954 .076
Method-R 165.065 82 1.2670 .991 .989 .038 726.436 82 1.3777 .917 .894 .096 402.059 82 1.1822 .967 .958 .072
Chi-square differences of model comparison tests
ΔModels Δ² Δdf p Δ² Δdf p Δ² Δdf p
Baseline vs. Method-C 7.087 1 ** 6.861 1 *** 4.024 1 *
Method-C vs. Method-U 29.164 13 ** 40.801 13 *** 46.161 13 ***
Method-U vs. Method-R 1.046 6 ns 8.661 6 ns 1.113 6 ns
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns Not significant; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM.
Table B.3
Results of the Reliability Decomposition (phase II)
India Japan U.S.
Reliability Reliability Reliability
baseline model Decomposed reliability from method-U model baseline model Decomposed reliability from method-U model baseline model Decomposed reliability from method-U model
Total Substantive re- Method % reliability Total Substantive re- Method % reliability Total Substantive re- Method % reliability
Latent variable reliability liability reliability marker reliability liability reliability marker reliability liability reliability marker
PBG .919 .865 .054 5.88 .928 .900 .028 3.02 .964 .886 .078 8.09
FV .951 .920 .031 3.26 .980 .940 .040 4.08 .943 .897 .046 4.88
PV .928 .897 .031 3.34 .959 .918 .041 4.28 .934 .889 .045 4.82
LOY .944 .890 .054 5.72 .968 .900 .068 7.02 .953 .872 .081 8.50
Note: PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
Table B.4
Results of the Sensitivity Analyses (phase III)
India Japan U.S.
CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S
Construct correlations (.05) (.01) (.05) (.01) (.05) (.01)
PBG with FV .666 .666 .668 .665 .665 .474 .474 .475 .484 .486 .578 .578 .585 .580 .581
PBG with PV .637 .637 .638 .635 .634 .479 .479 .481 .479 .481 .594 .594 .603 .596 .596
PBG with LOY .535 .535 .526 .519 .516 .443 .443 .446 .436 .438 .349 .349 .416 .352 .353
PV with FV .891 .891 .891 .892 .892 .942 .942 .942 .930 .930 .907 .907 .906 .907 .907
PV with LOY .820 .820 .825 .825 .825 .952 .952 .952 .939 .939 .647 .647 .681 .648 .648
FV with LOY .715 .715 .723 .720 .720 .935 .935 .935 .951 .951 .614 .614 .653 .615 .616
PBG with marker -.129 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.202 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.250 .000 .000 .000 .000
FV with marker -.092 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.276 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.208 .000 .000 .000 .000
PV with marker -.084 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.259 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.156 .000 .000 .000 .000
LOY with marker -.121 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.248 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.027 .000 .000 .000 .000
Note: PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
5
Table C.1
F-test of Strong Instrument Variables
India Japan U.S.
IV → PBG 259.708 25.723 146.383
Note: IV = Instrumental variable; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; F-value > 10 indicates strong predictor.
Table C.2
Results of the Efficient and Consistent Models
India Japan U.S.
Consistent Proposed / effi- Consistent Proposed / effi- Consistent Proposed / effi-
model cient model model cient model model cient model
Effects beta p beta p beta p beta p beta p beta p
PBG → FV .708 *** .697 *** .311 *** .314 *** .506 *** .499 ***
PBG → PV .705 *** .691 *** .307 *** .313 *** .527 *** .517 ***
FV → LOY .511 *** .512 *** .435 *** .430 *** .271 *** .271 ***
PV → LOY .542 *** .545 *** .652 *** .662 *** .477 *** .479 ***
IV → PBG .833 *** -- .151 *** -- .470 *** --
Gender -.011 ns -.011 ns .029 ns .045 ns -.032 ns -.032 ns
Age .036 * .036 ns .033 ns .032 ns .014 ns .014 ns
Brand familiarity .004 ns .004 ns .009 ns .005 ns .061 * .062 *
Total effect
PBG → LOY .745 *** .733 *** .336 *** .342 *** .388 *** .382 ***
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .362 *** .357 *** .135 *** .135 *** .137 *** .135 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .383 *** .376 *** .200 *** .207 *** .251 *** .247 ***
Model fits:
India: Consistent model: CFI .955; TLI .947; RMSEA .070; SRMR .107; ²(126) = 587.555; SCF = 1.1954; Proposed model: CFI .961;
TLI .952; RMSEA .069; SRMR .109; ²(112) = 488.376; SCF = 1.2206.
Japan: Consistent model: CFI .909; TLI .893; RMSEA .084; SRMR .094; ²(126) = 894.989; SCF = 1.2110; Proposed model: CFI .925;
TLI .908; RMSEA .081; SRMR .115; ²(112) = 718.672; SCF = 1.2376.
U.S.: Consistent model: CFI .901; TLI .885; RMSEA .101; SRMR .115; ²(126) = 1245.687; SCF = 1.0982; Proposed model: CFI .915;
TLI .897; RMSEA .102; SRMR .118; ²(112) = 961.718; SCF = 1.1078.
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psycholog-
ical value; LOY = Loyalty; IV = Instrumental variable ‘Exposure to marketing activities of MNCs’; SCF = Scaling correction factor for
MLM; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
6
Table D.1
Test for Direct Effect Using the Wald Test
India Japan U.S.
1. General model W df p W df p W df p
PBG → LOY 3.529 1 ns 3.175 1 ns 2.396 1 ns
2. Moderator: Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
MNC origin W df p W df p W df p W df p W df p W df p
PBG → LOY 1.980 1 ns .894 1 ns .782 1 ns 3.716 1 ns .295 1 ns 2.755 1 ns
Table D.2
Test for Direct and Indirect Effects using Bootstrapping
India Japan U.S.
1. General model S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .028 -.072 -.108 .001 ns .015 -.028 -.056 .001 ns .049 -.088 -.183 .008 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .033 .316 .254 .384 *** .013 .068 .045 .094 *** .041 .172 .094 .258 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .035 .333 .271 .406 *** .018 .105 .072 .142 *** .050 .318 .224 .422 ***
2. Moderator:
MNC origin Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .037 -.043 -.112 .028 ns .035 -.033 -.097 .038 ns .030 -.021 -.081 .038 ns .026 -.055 -.106 .001 ns .070 -.042 -.184 .092 ns .064 -.089 -.217 .033 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .016 .265 .235 .295 *** .017 .122 .084 .151 *** .026 .168 .118 .219 *** .019 .074 .039 .112 *** .065 .298 .177 .433 *** .009 .100 .081 .118 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .028 .347 .295 .398 *** .044 .303 .214 .396 *** .012 .147 .123 .170 *** .017 .151 .117 .181 *** .071 .186 .053 .333 ** .051 .365 .269 .467 ***
3. Moderator:
Consumer Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher
ethnocentrism S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .042 -.083 -.169 .006 ns .034 -.060 -.136 .001 ns .025 -.042 -.106 .001 ns .024 -.034 -.082 .020 ns .070 -.070 -.214 .063 ns .074 -.043 -.191 .099 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .029 .246 .190 .307 *** .036 .275 .203 .335 *** .013 .089 .065 .110 *** .015 .040 .009 .067 ** .059 .225 .119 .332 *** .049 .095 .006 .193 *
PBG → PV → LOY .044 .317 .228 .395 *** .050 .326 .235 .435 *** .023 .136 .090 .182 *** .022 .068 .030 .106 ** .067 .300 .168 .443 *** .066 .339 .214 .468 ***
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty; S.E. = standard error; b = unstandardized coefficients;
Lower: Lower limit of confidence interval; Upper: Upper limit of confidence interval; 95% confidence interval limits are shown; bootstrap samples = 5,000.
7
First, the hypotheses were tested in a second emerging country (China) and in a second developed country (Italy). The results are stable compared to
those for India and the U.S. (see Table E.7a).
Second, hypotheses were tested replacing the German-speaking foreign MNCs with the remaining foreign competitors in all countries (India, Japan,
China, Italy)—except in the U.S., where only domestic MNCs were present among the major competitors and where the domestic MNCs were
replaced with other domestic MNCs instead. The results are stable compared to those presented in the manuscript (see Tables E.7b-c).
8
Table E.1a
Sample Characteristics of Alternative Models (Further Countries)
China (N=658) Italy (N=731)
in % Male Female Total Male Female Total
Age 18-25 14.4 10.4 24.8 7.5 7.3 14.8
Age 26-35 12.8 11.4 24.2 9.7 10.9 20.5
Age 36-45 13.5 11.3 24.8 12.5 12.7 25.2
Age 46-55 9.0 7.4 16.4 11.6 9.9 21.5
Age 56-65 7.1 2.9 9.9 8.6 9.4 18.0
Total 56.8 43.2 100.0 49.8 50.2 100.0
Table E.1b
Sample Characteristics of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
India (N=735) Japan (N=701) U.S. (N=658)
in % Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Age 18-25 14.7 12.4 27.2 7.1 6.8 13.8 7.8 7.1 14.9
Age 26-35 12.0 14.6 26.7 11.9 9.3 21.2 9.5 9.5 19.1
Age 36-45 11.1 11.1 22.2 12.1 11.6 23.7 11.7 11.4 23.1
Age 46-55 7.6 7.8 15.4 11.7 9.2 20.9 13.2 11.6 24.7
Age 56-65 4.2 4.3 8.5 10.0 10.3 20.3 8.5 9.7 18.2
Total 49.7 50.3 100.0 52.8 47.2 100.0 50.7 49.3 100.0
Table E.1c
Sample Characteristics of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
China (N=632) Italy (N=725)
in % Male Female Total Male Female Total
Age 18-25 12.8 12.7 25.5 7.5 6.7 14.3
Age 26-35 11.2 11.6 22.8 10.3 8.9 19.2
Age 36-45 13.7 11.8 25.5 12.1 13.0 25.1
Age 46-55 8.2 8.3 16.5 11.4 11.9 23.3
Age 56-65 7.7 1.9 9.7 8.4 9.7 18.1
Total 53.7 46.3 100.0 49.7 50.3 100.0
9
Table E.2a
Reliability and Validity of Alternative Models (Further Countries)
China Italy
Item MV/SD FL KMO ItTC α CR λ MV/SD FL KMO ItTC α CR λ
Perceived brand globalness
To me, [MNC] is a global brand. 3.9/1.2 .920 .895 .920 3.4/1.2 .882 .862 .884
I do think consumers abroad buy 3.8/1.1 .944 .912 .944 3.4/1.2 .960 .918 .960
[MNC’s] products. .776 .956 .956 .759 .951 .952
[MNC] sells its products all over 3.9/1.1 .950 .916 .951 3.5/1.2 .952 .913 .952
the world.
Functional value
[MNC] offers high-quality prod- 3.8/0.9 .905 .879 .911 3.5/1.0 .882 .851 .912
ucts and services.
[MNC] develops well-made inno- 3.7/0.9 .918 .890 .924 3.4/0.9 .933 .896 .918
vative products and services.
.876 .954 .957 .865 .945 .948
With its products, [MNC] is a 3.7/0.9 .915 .887 .925 3.4/0.9 .893 .861 .892
leader in research and technology.
[MNC] offers good value for 3.6/0.9 .926 .897 .923 3.4/0.9 .897 .865 .900
money.
Psychological value
[MNC] offers products I like and 3.5/1.0 .895 .852 .894 3.2/1.0 .846 .811 .858
enjoy.
The appealing image of [MNC’s] 3.5/0.9 .844 .809 .844 3.2/1.0 .875 .835 .873
products makes me feel good.
[MNC’s] products improve the 3.7/0.9 .865 .853 .825 .930 .930 .877 3.4/1.0 .886 .864 .844 .931 .931 .886
way I am perceived.
With [MNC’s] products I make a 3.6/0.9 .902 .857 .892 3.2/1.0 .904 .860 .897
better impression on other people
than with those of competitors.
Loyalty
I am a loyal customer of [MNC]. 3.2/1.0 .958 .925 .959 2.7/1.1 .961 .931 .960
I have developed a good relation- 3.1/1.0 .936 .909 .932 2.8/1.0 .924 .903 .927
.777 .960 .960 .776 .962 .963
ship with [MNC].
I am certain that I will buy prod- 3.2/1.0 .934 .908 .936 2.7/1.1 .954 .926 .953
ucts/offers of [MNC].
Consumer ethnocentrism
Purchasing foreign-made products 2.6/1.1 .894 .857 .895 2.6/1.2 .903 .862 .901
is un-[nationality].
[Nationality] should not buy for- 2.6/1.1 .935 .892 .931 2.7/1.2 .897 .858 .895
eign products because this hurts lo-
cal business/causes unemployment. .859 .939 .939 .852 .935 .936
A real [nationality] should always 2.8/1.2 .818 .793 .819 2.7/1.2 .875 .839 .876
buy [nationality]-made products.
It is not right to purchase foreign 2.4/1.2 .919 .877 .921 2.4/1.2 .866 .830 .870
products.
Model fits CFA: China: CFI .984; TLI .980; RMSEA .048; SRMR .029; ²(125) = 316.476; SCF = 1.2426. Italy: CFI .983; TLI .979; RMSEA .049;
SRMR .028; ²(125) = 342.202; SCF = 1.1704.
Note: MV/SD = Mean value/standard deviation; FL = Factor loadings; KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion (≥ .5); ItTC = Item-to-total correlation
(≥ .5); α = Cronbach’s alpha (≥ .7); CR = Composite reliability (≥ .6); λ = Standardized factor loadings (≥ .5).
10
Table E.2b
Reliability and Validity of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
India Japan U.S.
Item MV/SD FL KMO ItTC α CR λ MV/SD FL KMO ItTC α CR λ MV/SD FL KMO ItTC α CR λ
Perceived brand globalness
To me, [MNC] is a global brand. 3.2/1.3 .835 .800 .835 2.7/1.3 .674 .665 .676 3.6/1.1 .825 .802 .824
I do think consumers abroad buy 3.1/1.2 .925 .862 .926 3.1/1.0 .958 .851 .964 3.5/1.1 .949 .891 .947
[MNC’s] products. .750 .921 .921 .666 .887 .889 .740 .932 .933
[MNC] sells its products all over the 3.2/1.2 .919 .858 .918 3.1/1.0 .989 .870 .983 3.7/1.1 .946 .888 .949
world.
Functional value
[MNC] offers high-quality products and 3.6/1.0 .895 .863 .899 3.2/0.6 .808 .776 .878 3.5/0.9 .941 .919 .947
services.
[MNC] develops well-made innovative 3.5/1.1 .907 .874 .910 3.2/0.6 .890 .844 .912 3.4/0.9 .945 .922 .934
products and services. .867 .945 .947 .857 .926 .935 .846 .964 .965
With its products, [MNC] is a leader in 3.5/1.0 .896 .863 .896 3.2/0.6 .895 .848 .874 3.5/0.9 .927 .906 .934
research and technology.
[MNC] offers good value for money. 3.5/1.0 .903 .869 .911 3.2/0.6 .891 .845 .873 3.4/0.9 .922 .901 .919
Psychological value
[MNC] offers products I like and 3.4/1.0 .893 .843 .889 3.0/0.6 .815 .752 .803 3.2/1.0 .948 .917 .948
enjoy.
The appealing image of [MNC’s] prod- 3.1/1.1 .793 .760 .793 3.0/0.7 .758 .707 .738 3.2/0.9 .881 .860 .881
ucts makes me feel good.
[MNC’s] products improve the way I 3.4/1.1 .894 .856 .843 .921 .922 .895 3.1/0.7 .815 .830 .748 .883 .883 .829 3.3/1.0 .913 .871 .888 .956 .957 .921
am perceived.
With [MNC’s] products I make a better 3.3/1.1 .875 .828 .878 3.0/0.6 .861 .789 .872 3.2/0.9 .937 .908 .930
impression on other people than with
those of competitors.
Loyalty
I am a loyal customer of [MNC]. 3.0/1.2 .941 .906 .939 2.3/0.9 .962 .948 .962 2.6/1.2 .985 .971 .986
I have developed a good relationship 3.0/1.1 .934 .901 .933 2.4/0.9 .962 .948 .962 2.6/1.1 .952 .945 .952
.777 .953 .953 .782 .978 .978 .770 .983 .984
with [MNC].
I am certain that I will buy products/of- 3.1/1.2 .924 .894 .927 2.3/0.9 .981 .962 .981 2.6/1.2 .989 .974 .989
fers of [MNC].
Consumer ethnocentrism
Purchasing foreign-made products is un- 2.8/1.3 .889 .830 .891 2.5/0.9 .900 .849 .899 2.5/1.1 .904 .855 .912
[nationality].
[Nationality] should not buy foreign 2.9/1.3 .855 .804 .844 2.5/0.9 .902 .852 .900 2.9/1.1 .845 .809 .834
products because this hurts local busi-
ness/causes unemployment. .836 .909 .910 .857 .922 .923 .841 .928 .927
A real [nationality] should always buy 3.0/1.3 .777 .738 .779 2.6/1.0 .814 .779 .815 2.8/1.2 .856 .818 .844
[nationality]-made products.
It is not right to purchase foreign prod- 2.7/1.3 .862 .807 .869 2.4/0.9 .855 .811 .857 2.4/1.1 .888 .841 .899
ucts.
Model fits CFA: India: CFI .994; TLI .992; RMSEA .027; SRMR .029; ²(125) = 193.634; SCF = 1.2401. Japan: CFI .984; TLI .981; RMSEA .041; SRMR .031; ²(125) = 275.873; SCF = 1.3223. U.S.: CFI .985; TLI .982;
RMSEA .048; SRMR .021; ²(125) = 322.016; SCF = 1.2356.
Note: MV/SD = Mean value/standard deviation; FL = Factor loadings; KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion (≥ .5); ItTC = Item-to-total correlation (≥ .5); α = Cronbach’s alpha (≥ .7); CR = Composite reliability (≥ .6);
λ = Standardized factor loadings (≥ .5).
11
Table E.2c
Reliability and Validity of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
China Italy
Item MV/SD FL KMO ItTC α CR λ MV/SD FL KMO ItTC α CR λ
Perceived brand globalness
To me, [MNC] is a global brand. 3.7/1.3 .921 .896 .921 3.4/1.2 .882 .857 .882
I do think consumers abroad buy 3.6/1.2 .947 .915 .945 3.4/1.2 .952 .909 .951
[MNC’s] products. .776 .956 .957 .761 .947 .948
[MNC] sells its products all over 3.7/1.2 .948 .915 .950 3.5/1.2 .945 .903 .946
the world.
Functional value
[MNC] offers high-quality prod- 3.6/0.9 .902 .873 .907 3.4/0.9 .868 .838 .905
ucts and services.
[MNC] develops well-made inno- 3.6/0.9 .917 .886 .916 3.4/0.9 .916 .879 .920
vative products and services.
.872 .951 .950 .865 .942 .947
With its products, [MNC] is a 3.6/0.9 .919 .888 .914 3.3/0.9 .912 .875 .897
leader in research and technology.
[MNC] offers good value for 3.5/0.9 .904 .874 .898 3.3/0.9 .892 .858 .892
money.
Psychological value
[MNC] offers products I like and 3.4/0.9 .876 .836 .869 3.2/1.0 .891 .849 .893
enjoy.
The appealing image of [MNC’s] 3.4/0.9 .863 .825 .850 3.1/1.0 .853 .817 .849
products makes me feel good.
[MNC’s] products improve the 3.6/0.9 .883 .860 .841 .930 .929 .894 3.3/1.0 .865 .864 .827 .931 .931 .874
way I am perceived.
With [MNC’s] products I make a 3.5/0.9 .884 .842 .891 3.2/0.9 .907 .862 .900
better impression on other people
than with those of competitors.
Loyalty
I am a loyal customer of [MNC]. 3.0/1.0 .954 .918 .951 2.6/1.1 .963 .933 .961
I have developed a good relation- 3.0/1.0 .912 .887 .912 2.7/1.1 .924 .905 .928
.773 .955 .955 .775 .964 .964
ship with [MNC].
I am certain that I will buy prod- 3.0/1.0 .943 .910 .947 2.6/1.1 .956 .929 .955
ucts/offers of [MNC].
Consumer ethnocentrism
Purchasing foreign-made products 2.7/1.1 .880 .841 .875 2.5/1.2 .906 .868 .903
is un-[nationality].
[Nationality] should not buy for- 2.7/1.1 .931 .882 .929 2.7/1.2 .916 .877 .915
eign products because this hurts lo-
cal business/causes unemployment. .848 .931 .931 .852 .939 .940
A real [nationality] should always 2.8/1.2 .816 .785 .815 2.6/1.3 .879 .845 .883
buy [nationality]-made products.
It is not right to purchase foreign 2.5/1.1 .891 .847 .899 2.4/1.2 .867 .834 .868
products.
Model fits CFA: China: CFI .988; TLI .985; RMSEA .040; SRMR .030; ²(125) = 257.886; SCF = 1.2615. Italy: CFI .990; TLI .987; RMSEA .038;
SRMR .025; ²(125) = 253.875; SCF = 1.1954.
Note: MV/SD = Mean value/standard deviation; FL = Factor loadings; KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion (≥ .5); ItTC = Item-to-total correlation
(≥ .5); α = Cronbach’s alpha (≥ .7); CR = Composite reliability (≥ .6); λ = Standardized factor loadings (≥ .5).
12
Table E.3a
Discriminant Validity of Alternative Models (Further Countries)
Constructs PBG FV PV LOY
PBG .860
China FV .503 .885
PV .426 .828a .817
LOY .201 .462 .619 .889
PBG .850
Italy FV .359 .865
PV .309 .757 .824
LOY .142 .425 .557 .884
a
For the case where the criterion of Fornell and Larcker (1981) was slightly failed (squared correlation exceeded the AVE) we computed chi-square
difference tests (Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The comparison of a more restricted model with the proposed model shows satisfactory results, i.e. the
restricted model fitted significantly poorer (p < .001) than our proposed model and thus discriminant validity can be assumed.
Note: Values in bold represent the AVE of the construct; values in italics represent squared correlations; AVE = Average variance extracted (≥ .5);
PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
Table E.3b
Discriminant Validity of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
Constructs PBG FV PV LOY
PBG .766
FV .460 .832
India
PV .416 .773a .766
LOY .278 .496 .696 .844
PBG .782
FV .155 .920
Japan
PV .120 .701 .874
LOY .017 .118 .269 .950
PBG .850
U.S. FV .263 .903
PV .197 .773 .867
LOY .092 .421 .602 .937
PBG .844
FV .504 .877
China
PV .444 .834 .836
LOY .202 .417 .566 .895
PBG .851
FV .287 .876
Italy PV .231 .774 .814
LOY .087 .416 .581 .889
a
For the cases where the criterion of Fornell and Larcker (1981) was slightly failed (squared correlation exceeded the AVE) we computed chi-square
difference tests (Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The comparison of a more restricted model with the proposed model shows satisfactory results, i.e. the
restricted model fitted significantly poorer (p < .001) than our proposed model and thus discriminant validity can be assumed.
Note: Values in bold represent the AVE of the construct; values in italics represent squared correlations; AVE = Average variance extracted (≥ .5);
PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
Table E.4a
Measurement Invariance of Alternative Models (Further Countries)
² diff. CFI TLI RMSEA
Model ² (d.f.) SCF (p-value) (ΔCFI) (ΔTLI) (ΔRMSEA) SRMR
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 292.331 1.2922 - .984 .979 .056 .030
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 310.349 1.2510 18.018 .983 .980 .055 .045
China Metric invariance (156) (.558) (.001) (-.001) (.001)
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 276.919 1.2981 - .985 .981 .053 .027
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 301.558 1.2516 24.639 .984 .981 .053 .066
Metric invariance (156) (.060) (.001) (.000) (.000)
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 279.982 1.1718 - .987 .983 .051 .031
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 301.699 1.1474 21.717 .986 .984 .050 .046
Metric invariance (156) (.127) (.001) (-.001) (.001)
Italy
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 303.550 1.1914 - .984 .980 .056 .033
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 317.305 1.1630 13.755 .984 .981 .053 .048
Metric invariance (156) (.866) (.000) (-.001) (.003)
13
Table E.4b
Measurement Invariance of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
² diff. CFI TLI RMSEA
Model ² (d.f.) SCF (p-value) (ΔCFI) (ΔTLI) (ΔRMSEA) SRMR
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 205.523 1.2321 - .993 .991 .035 .021
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 219.300 1.1932 13.777 .993 .992 .033 .042
Metric invariance (156) (.719) (.000) (-.001) (.002)
India
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 186.301 1.2312 - .995 .994 .029 .020
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 204.813 1.1920 18.512 .995 .994 .029 .054
Metric invariance (156) (.181) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 264.419 1.3301 - .984 .980 .049 .037
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 277.063 1.3002 12.644 .984 .981 .048 .053
Metric invariance (156) (.858) (.000) (-.001) (.001)
Japan
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 273.750 1.3250 - .983 .979 .051 .035
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 288.572 1.3065 14.822 .983 .981 .049 .054
Metric invariance (156) (.544) (.000) (-.002) (.002)
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 240.777 1.3283 - .982 .977 .063 .029
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 262.019 1.2931 21.242 .981 .977 .063 .060
Metric invariance (156) (.121) (.001) (.000) (.000)
U.S.
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 231.340 1.3376 - .983 .979 .060 .024
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 253.487 1.3027 22.147 .982 .979 .060 .062
Metric invariance (156) (.081) (.001) (.000) (.000)
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 237.050 1.2923 - .989 .986 .045 .028
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 256.858 1.2539 19.808 .989 .987 .044 .047
Metric invariance (156) (.198) (.000) (-.001) (.001)
China
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 267.754 1.3041 - .986 .982 .051 .027
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 290.512 1.2655 22.758 .985 .982 .051 .069
Metric invariance (156) (.098) (.001) (.000) (.000)
Invariance: MNC origin
Model 1: 239.217 1.1837 - .991 .988 .043 .028
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 260.679 1.1597 21.462 .990 .989 .043 .047
Metric invariance (156) (.104) (.001) (-.001) (.000)
Italy
Invariance: Consumer ethnocentrism
Model 1: 244.803 1.2013 - .990 .987 .045 .031
Configural invariance (142) (-) (-) (-)
Model 2: 264.590 1.1764 19.787 .990 .988 .044 .085
Metric invariance (156) (.181) (.000) (-.001) (.001)
14
Table E.5a
Single-factor Test of Alternative Models (Further Countries)
China Italy
Model χ² ² diff. χ² ² diff.
CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value) CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value)
CFA .983 .979 .057 1.3056 255.246 .984 .979 .057 1.1849 238.442
(71) (71)
*** ***
SFT .727 .677 .222 1.3205 2614.570 .672 .613 .246 1.2015 3495.067
(77) (77)
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns Not significant; CFA = Model fit of the confirmatory factor analysis; SFT = Model fit of the
single factor test; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM.
Tables E.5b-d
Marker Variable Technique of Alternative Models (Further Countries)
Table E.5b
Results of Model Comparisons (Phase I)
China Italy
Model ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA
CFA 294.679 85 1.2308 .977 .972 .062 317.277 85 1.1497 .978 .973 .062
Baseline 334.582 90 1.2444 .974 .969 .065 337.941 90 1.1430 .976 .972 .062
Method-C 325.265 89 1.2413 .974 .970 .064 336.987 89 1.1449 .976 .972 .062
Method-U 295.528 76 1.2778 .976 .967 .067 304.310 76 1.1596 .978 .970 .065
Method-R 293.457 82 1.2884 .977 .971 .063 302.310 82 1.1710 .979 .973 .061
Chi-square differences of model comparison tests
ΔModels Δ² Δdf p Δ² Δdf p
Baseline vs. Method-C 9.317 1 ** .954 1 ns
Method-C vs. Method-U 29.737 13 * 32.677 13 **
Method-U vs. Method-R 2.071 6 ns 2.000 6 ns
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns Not significant; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM.
Table E.5c
Results of the Reliability Decomposition (Phase II)
China Italy
Reliability Reliability
baseline Decomposed reliability from method-U baseline Decomposed reliability from method-U
model model model model
Total Substantive Method relia- % reliability Total Substantive Method relia- % reliability
Latent variable reliability reliability bility marker reliability reliability bility marker
PBG .951 .896 .055 5.78 .947 .893 .053 5.60
FV .965 .934 .031 3.21 .960 .931 .029 3.02
PV .943 .913 .030 3.18 .945 .916 .029 3.07
LOY .961 .910 .051 5.31 .959 .909 .050 5.21
Note: PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
Table E.5d
Results of the Sensitivity Analyses (Phase III)
China Italy
CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S
Construct correlations (.05) (.01) (.05) (.01)
PBG with FV .714 .714 .712 .710 .710 .622 .622 .628 .630 .631
PBG with PV .669 .669 .674 .672 .671 .589 .589 .608 .623 .625
PBG with LOY .486 .486 .499 .493 .491 .412 .412 .435 .466 .473
PV with FV .926 .926 .924 .923 .923 .895 .895 .896 .898 .898
PV with LOY .806 .806 .807 .806 .806 .752 .752 .751 .754 .755
FV with LOY .716 .716 .720 .717 .716 .670 .670 .677 .691 .695
PBG with marker -.164 .000 .000 .000 .000 .024 .000 .000 .000 .000
FV with marker -.171 .000 .000 .000 .000 .005 .000 .000 .000 .000
PV with marker -.180 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.035 .000 .000 .000 .000
LOY with marker -.230 .000 .000 .000 .000 .020 .000 .000 .000 .000
Note: PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
15
Table E.5e
Single-factor Test of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
India Japan U.S.
Model χ² ² diff. χ² ² diff. χ² ² diff.
CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value) CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value) CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value)
CFA .996 .995 .027 1.2367 108.114 .984 .980 .050 1.3151 195.797 .986 .983 .055 1.3030 220.020
(71) (71) (71)
*** *** ***
SFT .767 .725 .195 1.2469 2251.432 .488 .395 .273 1.3137 4154.244 .636 .570 .274 1.3015 4067.317
(77) (77) (77)
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns Not significant; CFA = Model fit of the confirmatory factor analysis; SFT = Model fit of the single factor test; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM.
Tables E.5f-D.5h
Marker Variable Technique of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
Table E.5f
Results of Model Comparisons (Phase I)
India Japan U.S.
Model ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA
CFA 143.735 85 1.2035 .994 .992 .031 463.120 85 1.2674 .953 .942 .081 310.279 85 1.2378 .979 .975 .063
Baseline 164.203 90 1.2153 .992 .991 .034 490.477 90 1.2500 .950 .942 .081 334.902 90 1.2223 .978 .974 .064
Method-C 160.934 89 1.2170 .992 .991 .033 489.119 89 1.2529 .950 .941 .081 332.059 89 1.2245 .978 .974 .064
Method-U 137.964 76 1.2258 .993 .990 .034 456.083 76 1.2846 .952 .934 .085 291.545 76 1.2409 .980 .973 .065
Method-R 136.681 82 1.2392 .994 .992 .031 455.780 82 1.2861 .953 .940 .082 289.100 82 1.2555 .981 .976 .061
Chi-square differences of model comparison tests
ΔModels Δ² Δdf p Δ² Δdf p Δ² Δdf p
Baseline vs. Method-C 3.269 1 ns 1.358 1 ns 2.843 1 ns
Method-C vs. Method-U 22.970 13 * 33.036 13 * 40.514 13 ***
Method-U vs. Method-R 1.283 6 ns .303 6 ns 2.445 6 ns
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns Not significant; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM.
Table E.5g
Results of the Reliability Decomposition (Phase II)
India Japan U.S.
Reliability Reliability Reliability
baseline model Decomposed reliability from method-U model baseline model Decomposed reliability from method-U model baseline model Decomposed reliability from method-U model
Total Substantive re- Method % reliability Total Substantive re- Method % reliability Total Substantive re- Method % reliability
Latent variable reliability liability reliability marker reliability liability reliability marker reliability liability reliability marker
PBG .913 .859 .054 5.91 .929 .876 .053 5.70 .942 .896 .046 4.88
FV .950 .919 .031 3.26 .976 .947 .029 2.97 .973 .949 .024 2.47
PV .925 .894 .032 3.46 .956 .928 .029 3.03 .962 .937 .025 2.60
LOY .945 .893 .052 5.50 .983 .934 .049 4.99 .978 .934 .045 4.60
Note: PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
16
Table E.5h
Results of the Sensitivity Analyses (Phase III)
India Japan U.S.
CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S
Construct correlations (.05) (.01) (.05) (.01) (.05) (.01)
PBG with FV .676 .676 .676 .672 .672 .581 .581 .578 .576 .575 .583 .583 .574 .568 .566
PBG with PV .644 .644 .647 .644 .644 .551 .551 .550 .550 .549 .519 .519 .520 .514 .512
PBG with LOY .527 .527 .522 .516 .515 .326 .326 .340 .356 .358 .335 .335 .319 .310 .307
PV with FV .887 .887 .889 .888 .888 .939 .939 .938 .937 .937 .898 .898 .899 .899 .899
PV with LOY .823 .823 .825 .824 .824 .663 .663 .669 .677 .679 .736 .736 .740 .740 .740
FV with LOY .700 .700 .702 .698 .697 .565 .565 .572 .584 .587 .622 .622 .618 .616 .616
PBG with marker -.138 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.162 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.137 .000 .000 .000 .000
FV with marker -.089 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.073 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.082 .000 .000 .000 .000
PV with marker -.049 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.086 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.088 .000 .000 .000 .000
LOY with marker -.081 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.028 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.118 .000 .000 .000 .000
Note: PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
17
Table E.5i
Single-factor Test of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
China Italy
Model χ² ² diff. χ² ² diff.
CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value) CFI TLI RMSEA SCF (df) (p-value)
CFA .988 .984 .048 1.2998 180.179 .991 .989 .041 1.1836 157.439
(71) (71)
*** ***
SFT .724 .674 .217 1.3307 2514.483 .668 .607 .245 1.1946 3445.484
(77) (77)
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns Not significant; CFA = Model fit of the confirmatory factor analysis; SFT = Model fit of the
single factor test; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM.
Tables E.5j-D.5l
Marker Variable Technique of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
Table E.5j
Results of Model Comparisons (Phase I)
China Italy
Model ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA ² df SCF CFI TLI RMSEA
CFA 285.100 85 1.2225 .977 .972 .060 239.209 85 1.1469 .985 .981 .051
Baseline 326.454 90 1.2414 .973 .969 .063 280.734 90 1.1437 .981 .978 .055
Method-C 319.465 89 1.2420 .974 .969 .063 278.565 89 1.1446 .981 .978 .055
Method-U 283.421 76 1.2888 .976 .967 .064 244.253 76 1.1501 .983 .976 .057
Method-R 279.589 82 1.3146 .978 .971 .061 243.041 82 1.1578 .984 .979 .053
Table E.5k
Results of the Reliability Decomposition (Phase II)
China Italy
Reliability Reliability
baseline Decomposed reliability from method-U baseline Decomposed reliability from method-U
model model model model
Total Substantive Method relia- % reliability Total Substantive Method relia- % reliability
Latent variable reliability reliability bility marker reliability reliability bility marker
PBG .946 .885 .061 6.45 .947 .896 .051 5.39
FV .963 .930 .033 3.43 .961 .941 .020 2.08
PV .949 .918 .031 3.27 .944 .914 .030 3.18
LOY .962 .910 .052 5.41 .960 .910 .050 5.21
Note: PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
Table E.5l
Results of the Sensitivity Analyses (Phase III)
China Italy
CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S CFA Baseline Method-U Method-S Method-S
Construct correlations (.05) (.01) (.05) (.01)
PBG with FV .706 .706 .715 .714 .713 .573 .573 .586 .585 .586
PBG with PV .672 .672 .701 .711 .710 .531 .531 .540 .550 .551
PBG with LOY .499 .499 .531 .546 .544 .352 .352 .357 .368 .369
PV with FV .934 .934 .935 .935 .934 .905 .905 .901 .903 .902
PV with LOY .800 .800 .801 .802 .802 .772 .772 .772 .771 .771
FV with LOY .715 .715 .720 .724 .723 .671 .671 .667 .670 .669
PBG with marker -.148 .000 .000 .000 .000 .026 .000 .000 .000 .000
FV with marker -.128 .000 .000 .000 .000 .070 .000 .000 .000 .000
PV with marker -.123 .000 .000 .000 .000 .032 .000 .000 .000 .000
LOY with marker -.170 .000 .000 .000 .000 .078 .000 .000 .000 .000
Note: PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty.
18
Table E.6a
F-test of Strong Instrument Variables (Further Countries)
China Italy
IV → PBG 124.201 176.685
Note: IV = Instrumental variable; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; F-value > 10 indicates strong predictor.
Table E.6b
Results of the Efficient and Consistent models (Further Countries)
China Italy
Consistent model Proposed / efficient Consistent model Proposed / efficient
model model
Effects beta p beta p beta p beta p
PBG → FV .726 *** .720 *** .370 *** .362 ***
PBG → PV .679 *** .671 *** .590 *** .579 ***
FV → LOY .328 *** .328 *** .360 *** .360 ***
PV → LOY .715 *** .713 *** .562 *** .562 ***
IV → PBG .489 *** - .586 *** -
Gender -.031 ns -.031 ns -.055 * -.055 *
Age -.003 ns -.003 ns .011 ns .011 ns
Brand familiarity -.036 ns -.036 ns .025 ns .025 ns
Total effect
PBG → LOY .723 *** .714 *** .465 *** .456 ***
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .238 *** .236 *** .133 *** .130 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .485 *** .478 *** .332 *** .326 ***
Model fits:
China: Consistent model: CFI .930; TLI .918; RMSEA .089; SRMR .133; ²(126) = 788.347; SCF = 1.2280; Proposed model: CFI .943;
TLI .930; RMSEA .086; SRMR .106; ²(112) = 628.061; SCF = 1.2650.
Italy: Consistent model: CFI .927; TLI .914; RMSEA .087; SRMR .101; ²(126) = 830.222; SCF = 1.1427; Proposed model: CFI .947;
TLI .935; RMSEA .079; SRMR .103; ²(112) = 597.515; SCF = 1.1559.
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psycholog-
ical value; LOY = Loyalty; IV = Instrumental variable ‘Exposure to marketing activities of MNCs’; SCF = Scaling correction factor for
MLM; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
19
Table E.6c
F-test of Strong Instrument Variables (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
India Japan U.S. China Italy
IV → PBG 219.381 10.389 156.841 158.763 115.442
Note: IV = Instrumental variable; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; F-value > 10 indicates strong predictor.
Table E.6d
Results of the Efficient and Consistent Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
India Japan U.S. China Italy
Consistent Proposed / effi- Consistent Proposed / effi- Consistent Proposed / effi- Consistent Proposed / effi- Consistent Proposed / effi-
model cient model model cient model model cient model model cient model model cient model
Effects beta p beta p beta p beta p beta p beta p beta p beta p beta p beta p
PBG → FV .681 *** .671 *** .382 *** .379 *** .418 *** .404 *** .735 *** .730 *** .553 *** .545 ***
PBG → PV .697 *** .681 *** .333 *** .330 *** .477 *** .462 *** .693 *** .686 *** .501 *** .499 ***
FV → LOY .460 *** .462 *** .306 *** .306 *** .149 *** .150 *** .255 *** .255 *** .323 *** .323 ***
PV → LOY .562 *** .566 *** .728 *** .728 *** .695 *** .696 *** .756 *** .756 *** .530 *** .533 ***
IV → PBG .779 *** - .174 *** - .629 *** - .545 *** - .458 *** -
Gender .000 ns .000 ns .049 ns .049 ns -.006 ns -.006 ns -.006 ns -.006 ns -.029 ns -.029 ns
Age .045 * .045 * .042 ns .042 ns -.074 ** -.074 ** -.016 ns -.016 ns -.037 ns -.037 ns
Brand familiarity .040 ns .041 ns .016 ns .016 ns -.040 ns -.040 ns -.020 ns -.020 ns .028 ns .028 ns
Total effect
PBG → LOY .705 *** .695 *** .360 *** .356 *** .394 *** .382 *** .712 *** .705 *** .444 *** .442 ***
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .314 *** .310 *** .117 *** .116 *** .062 *** .061 *** .187 *** .186 *** .178 *** .176 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .392 *** .385 *** .243 *** .240 *** .331 *** .321 *** .524 *** .519 *** .266 *** .266 ***
Model fits:
India: Consistent model: CFI .945; TLI .935; RMSEA .073; SRMR .110; ²(126) = 620.404; SCF = 1.2188; Proposed model: CFI .951; TLI .940; RMSEA .072; SRMR .114; ²(112) = 525.333; SCF = 1.2456.
Japan: Consistent model: CFI .926; TLI .914; RMSEA .071; SRMR .094; ²(126) = 636.565; SCF = 1.2894; Proposed model: CFI .931; TLI .916; RMSEA .074; SRMR .092; ²(112) = 513.843; SCF = 1.3471.
U.S.: Consistent model: CFI .935; TLI .923; RMSEA .087; SRMR .102; ²(126) = 784.329; SCF = 1.2650; Proposed model: CFI .950; TLI .939; RMSEA .081; SRMR .109; ²(112) = 586.119; SCF = 1.2968.
China: Consistent model: CFI .939; TLI .928; RMSEA .083; SRMR .122; ²(126) = 709.187; SCF = 1.2081; Proposed model: CFI .948; TLI .937; RMSEA .081; SRMR .100; ²(112) = 581.879; SCF = 1.2408.
Italy: Consistent model: CFI .917; TLI .904; RMSEA .093; SRMR .107; ²(126) = 1030.307; SCF = 1.1314; Proposed model: CFI .939; TLI .926; RMSEA .088; SRMR .105; ²(112) = 707.659; SCF = 1.1497.
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty; IV = Instrumental variable ‘Exposure to market-
ing activities of MNCs’; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
20
Table E.7a
Results of Alternative Models (Further Countries)
China Italy
1. General model Total sample Rival model (direct path) Total sample Rival model (direct path)
Effects beta bp beta bp beta bp beta bp
PBG→FV .720 .546*** .721 .547*** .362 .273*** .364 .274***
PBG→PV .671 .533*** .675 .536*** .579 .469*** .584 .473***
FV→LOY .328 .327*** .351 .349*** .360 .440*** .357 .435***
PV→LOY .713 .679*** .727 .689*** .562 .641*** .610 .691***
Gender -.031 -.052ns -.032 -.053ns -.055 -.109* -.060 -.118*
Age -.003 -.002ns -.003 -.002ns .011 .008ns .015 .011ns
Familiarity -.036 -.019ns -.037 -.020ns .025 .015ns .027 .016ns
PBG→LOY - - -.041 -.031ns - - -.067 -.061ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .714 .541*** .456 .421***
Indirect effects (H1)
PBG→FV→LOY .236 .179*** .130 .120***
PBG→PV→LOY .478 .362*** .326 .301***
2. Moderator: Diff. betw. countries Diff. betw. countries
MNC origin Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic
Effects beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp
PBG→FV .695 .533*** .516 .327*** .206*** .486 .365*** .417 .332*** .033ns
PBG→PV .628 .532*** .686 .529*** .003ns .658 .532*** .508 .417*** .115***
FV→LOY .528 .559*** .261 .289*** .270*** .625 .676*** .450 .481*** .195***
PV→LOY .539 .516*** .789 .718*** -.202*** .301 .302*** .570 .590*** -.288***
Gender -.038 -.063ns -.019 -.029ns -.017 -.027ns .057 .097ns
Age .018 .012ns -.021 -.012ns .119 .072*** .071 .047*
Familiarity -.032 -.017ns -.048 -.024ns .006 .003ns -.007 -.004ns
Total effect (H2)
PBG→LOY .705 .573*** .676 .474*** .099*** .502 .407*** .477 .406*** .001ns
Diff. within countries Diff. within countries
Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
Indirect effects (H3) bp bp bp bp
PBG→FV→LOY .367 .298*** .135 .095*** .023ns .304 .247*** .187 .159*** .086***
PBG→PV→LOY .338 .275*** .541 .380*** -.285*** .198 .161*** .290 .246*** -.087***
3. Moderator Diff. betw. groups Diff. betw. groups
Consumer
Consumer ethnocentrism Lower Higher Lower vs. higher Lower Higher Lower vs. higher
Effects beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp
PBG→FV .752 .581*** .670 .490*** .091*** .418 .327*** .325 .252*** .075*
PBG→PV .723 .582*** .601 .489*** .093*** .642 .499*** .566 .388*** .111***
FV→LOY .503 .513*** .413 .409*** .104*** .522 .543*** .338 .361*** .182***
PV→LOY .504 .493*** .692 .616*** -.123*** .587 .614*** .659 .798*** -.184***
Gender -.022 -.040ns -.040 -.059ns .017 .032ns .016 .028ns
Age .018 .012ns -.013 -.008ns .075 .052* .056 .036ns
Familiarity -.055 -.032* -.019 -.009ns -.041 -.022ns .060 .029*
Total effect (H4)
PBG→LOY .742 .585*** .694 .502*** .083*** .595 .484*** .483 .401*** .083*
Diff. within groups Diff. within groups
Lower Higher Lower Higher
Indirect effects (H5) bp bp bp bp
PBG→FV→LOY .378 .298*** .277 .200*** .011ns .218 .178*** .110 .091***
PBG→PV→LOY .364 .287*** .416 .301*** -.101*** .377 .307*** .373 .310*** -.129*** -.219***
Model fits: General model: China: CFI .943; TLI .930; RMSEA .086; SRMR .106; ²(112) = 628.061; SCF = 1.2650. Italy: CFI .947; TLI .935;
RMSEA .079; SRMR .103; ²(112) = 597.515; SCF = 1.1559. MNC origin: China: CFI .934; TLI .924; RMSEA .089; SRMR .106;
²(234) = 818.085; SCF = 1.2421. Italy: CFI .950; TLI .942; RMSEA .073; SRMR .100; ²(234) = 674.058; SCF = 1.2022. CE: China: CFI .942;
TLI .933; RMSEA .084; SRMR .092; ²(234) = 759.345; SCF = 1.2394. Italy: CFI .947; TLI .939; RMSEA .076; SRMR .095; ²(234) = 708.840;
SCF = 1.2086.
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = stand-
ardized coefficients.
21
Table E.7b
Results of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
India Japan U.S.
1. General model Total sample Rival model (direct path) Total sample Rival model (direct path) Total sample Rival model (direct path)
Effects beta bp beta bp beta bp beta bp beta bp beta bp
PBG→FV .671 .561*** .674 .564*** .379 .189*** .382 .191*** .404 .312*** .405 .313***
PBG→PV .681 .555*** .685 .558*** .330 .202*** .339 .208*** .462 .437*** .466 .441***
FV→LOY .462 .472*** .485 .494*** .306 .380*** .326 .401*** .150 .238*** .155 .246***
PV→LOY .566 .594*** .597 .623*** .728 .734*** .742 .744*** .696 .900*** .724 .932***
Gender .000 .000ns .001 .002ns .049 .053ns .047 .050ns -.006 -.013ns -.012 -.026ns
Age .045 .033* .048 .035* .042 .017ns .047 .020ns -.074 -.062** -.070 -.059**
Familiarity .041 .024ns .038 .022ns .016 .005ns .014 .004ns -.040 -.022ns -.043 -.024ns
**
PBG→LOY - - -.061 -.052ns - - -.058 -.036ns - - -.059 -.072ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .695 .595*** .356 .221*** .382 .468***
Indirect effects (H1)
PBG→FV→LOY .310 .265*** .116 .072*** .061 .074***
PBG→PV→LOY .385 .330*** .240 .149*** .321 .394***
2. Moderator: Diff. betw. countries Diff. betw. countries Diff. betw. countries
MNC origin Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic
Effects beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp
PBG→FV .723 .566*** .365 .268*** .298*** .426 .264*** .375 .195*** .069*** .462 .385*** .463 .359*** .026ns
PBG→PV .709 .555*** .658 .539*** .016ns .359 .270*** .341 .234*** .036* .542 .600*** .470 .488*** .112**
FV→LOY .514 .547*** .453 .485*** .062*** .490 .649*** .344 .444*** .205*** .751 .930*** .433 .527*** .403***
PV→LOY .499 .531*** .630 .605*** -.074*** .530 .577*** .723 .708*** -.131*** .260 .242*** .649 .589*** -.347***
Gender .021 .038ns -.028 -.050ns .025 .032ns .052 .049ns .027 .045ns .043 .073ns
Age .030 .021ns .042 .029ns .024 .011ns .059 .021ns -.031 -.020ns .025 .015ns
Familiarity .054 .032ns -.009 -.005ns .028 .009ns .023 .005ns -.008 -.004ns -.020 -.008ns
Total effect (H2)
PBG→LOY .726 .604*** .579 .456*** .148*** .399 .327*** .375 .252*** .075*** .488 .503*** .505 .477*** .026ns
Diff. within countries Diff. within countries Diff. within countries
Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
Indirect effects (H3) bp bp bp bp bp bp
PBG→FV→LOY .372 .310*** .165 .130*** .015ns .209 .171*** .129 .087*** .015ns .347 .358*** .201 .189*** .213***
PBG→PV→LOY .354 .295*** .414 .326*** -.196*** .190 .156*** .246 .166*** -.079*** .141 .145*** .305 .288*** -.099***
3. Moderator Diff. betw. groups Diff. betw. groups Diff. betw. groups
Consumer
Consumer ethnocentrism Lower Higher Lower vs. higher Lower Higher Lower vs. higher Lower Higher Lower vs. higher
Effects beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp
PBG→FV .762 .686*** .706 .595*** .091*** .433 .214*** .283 .129*** .085*** .474 .377*** .392 .287*** .090***
PBG→PV .744 .607*** .678 .532*** .075*** .363 .212*** .187 .112*** .100*** .488 .523*** .406 .365*** .158***
FV→LOY .499 .504*** .394 .391*** .113*** .327 .405*** .291 .367*** .038ns .399 .626*** .176 .261*** .365***
PV→LOY .487 .542*** .616 .656*** -.114*** .683 .715*** .759 .728*** -.013ns .501 .583*** .652 .791*** -.208***
Gender -.023 -.045ns .012 .021ns -.004 -.005ns .074 .072* -.052 -.106ns .007 .015ns
Age .059 .043* -.003 -.002ns .053 .022ns .040 .015ns -.107 -.082* -.112 -.086*
Familiarity .021 .014ns .034 .018ns .104 .032* -.001 .000ns -.027 -.014ns -.038 -.020ns
Total effect (H4)
PBG→LOY .742 .675*** .696 .582*** .093*** .390 .238*** .224 .129*** .109** .434 .541*** .334 .364*** .177***
Diff. within groups Diff. within groups Diff. within groups
Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher
Indirect effects (H5) bp bp bp bp bp bp
PBG→FV→LOY .380 .346*** .278 .233*** .017ns .142 .086*** .082 .047*** .189 .236*** .069 .075***
PBG→PV→LOY .362 .329*** .418 .349*** -.116*** .248 .152*** .142 .082*** -.066** -.035*** .245 .305*** .265 .289*** -.069* -.214***
Model fits: General model: India: CFI .951; TLI .940; RMSEA .072; SRMR .114; ²(112) = 525.333; SCF = 1.2456. Japan: CFI .931; TLI .916; RMSEA .074; SRMR .092; ²(112) = 513.843; SCF = 1.3471. U.S.: CFI .950; TLI .939;
RMSEA .081; SRMR .109; ²(112) = 586.119; SCF = 1.2968. MNC origin: India: CFI .949; TLI .941; RMSEA .072; SRMR .103; ²(234) = 667.876; SCF = 1.2342. Japan: CFI .923; TLI .911; RMSEA .076; SRMR .081; ²(234) =
706.273; SCF = 1.3494. U.S.: CFI .911; TLI .897; RMSEA .107; SRMR .101; ²(234) = 670.119; SCF = 1.2814. CE: India: CFI .954; TLI .947; RMSEA .070; SRMR .097; ²(234) = 630.192; SCF = 1.2121. Japan: CFI .931; TLI
.920; RMSEA .073; SRMR .091; ²(234) = 652.836; SCF = 1.3456. U.S.: CFI .947; TLI .939; RMSEA .082; SRMR .108; ²(234) = 488.269; SCF = 1.2654.
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
22
Table E.7c
Results of Alternative Models (Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
China Italy
1. General model Total sample Rival model (direct path) Total sample Rival model (direct path)
Effects beta bp beta bp beta bp beta bp
PBG→FV .730 .521*** .731 .522*** .545 .446*** .545 .446***
PBG→PV .686 .473*** .691 .476*** .499 .492*** .499 .492***
FV→LOY .255 .252*** .282 .276*** .323 .416*** .326 .419***
PV→LOY .756 .473*** .775 .787*** .533 .568*** .532 .568***
Gender -.006 -.010ns -.008 -.013ns -.029 -.059ns -.029 -.059ns
Age -.016 -.010ns -.018 -.011ns -.037 -.029ns -.037 -.029ns
Familiarity -.020 -.012ns -.022 -.013ns .028 .018ns .028 .018ns
PBG→LOY - - -.048 -.034ns - - -.003 -.003ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .705 .496*** .442 .467***
Indirect effects (H1)
PBG→FV→LOY .186 .131*** .176 .186***
PBG→PV→LOY .519 .365*** .266 .281***
2. Moderator: Diff. betw. countries Diff. betw. countries
MNC origin Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign vs. domestic
Effects beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp
PBG→FV .699 .495*** .668 .429*** .066* .665 .508*** .593 .486*** .022ns
PBG→PV .677 .502*** .685 .447*** .055ns .649 .569*** .531 .492*** .077*
FV→LOY .537 .569*** .228 .244*** .325*** .517 .581*** .231 .265*** .316***
PV→LOY .534 .540*** .775 .816*** -.276*** .395 .388*** .742 .755*** -.367***
Gender .000 -.001ns -.006 -.010ns .024 .039ns .046 .087ns
Age .009 .005ns -.018 -.012ns .127 .079*** .077 .059*
Familiarity -.018 -.010ns -.008 -.005ns .024 .011ns -.015 -.009ns
Total effect (H2)
PBG→LOY .737 .553*** .684 .470*** .087*** .600 .516*** .531 .501*** .015ns
Diff. within countries Diff. within countries
Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
Indirect effects (H3) bp bp bp bp
PBG→FV→LOY .375 .281*** .153 .105*** .010ns .343 .295*** .137 .129*** .074**
PBG→PV→LOY .362 .271*** .531 .365*** -.260*** .257 .221*** .394 .372*** -.243***
3. Moderator Diff. betw. groups Diff. betw. groups
Consumer
Consumer ethnocentrism Lower Higher Lower vs. higher Lower Higher Lower vs. higher
Effects beta bp beta bp bp beta bp beta bp bp
PBG→FV .767 .563*** .723 .464*** .099*** .471 .347*** .269 .206*** .141***
PBG→PV .696 .509*** .675 .473*** .036** .614 .476*** .458 .337*** .139***
FV→LOY .468 .504*** .333 .358*** .146*** .450 .474*** .334 .354*** .120***
PV→LOY .510 .551*** .636 .626*** -.075*** .638 .638*** .718 .789*** -.151***
Gender .020 .037ns .000 .000ns .018 .031ns -.003 -.006ns
Age .059 .041* -.009 -.006ns .064 .043* .057 .038ns
Familiarity -.070 -.044** .048 .027ns -.014 -.007ns .039 .020ns
Total effect (H4)
PBG→LOY .714 .565*** .670 .462*** .103*** .604 .468*** .418 .339*** .129***
Diff. within groups Diff. within groups
Lower Higher Lower Higher
Indirect effects (H5) bp bp bp bp
PBG→FV→LOY .359 .284*** .241 .166*** .003ns .212 .165*** .090 .073***
PBG→PV→LOY .355 .281*** .429 .296*** -.130*** .392 .304*** .329 .266*** -.139*** -.193***
Model fits: General model: China: CFI .948; TLI .937; RMSEA .081; SRMR .100; ²(112) = 581.879; SCF = 1.2408. Italy: CFI .939; TLI .926;
RMSEA .088; SRMR .105; ²(112) = 707.659; SCF = 1.1497. MNC origin: China: CFI .955; TLI .948; RMSEA .072; SRMR .109;
²(234) = 624.332; SCF = 1.2434. Italy: CFI .950; TLI .943; RMSEA .075; SRMR .093; ²(234) = 693.784; SCF = 1.1974. CE: China: CFI .940;
TLI .931; RMSEA .084; SRMR .105; ²(234) = 770.028; SCF = 1.2443. Italy: CFI .941; TLI .931; RMSEA .082; SRMR .107; ²(234) = 840.350;
SCF = 1.1762.
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
23
Table E.8a
Test for Direct Effect using the Wald Test (Alternative Models; Further Countries)
China Italy
I. General model W df p W df p
PBG → LOY .732 1 ns 2.612 1 ns
II. Moderator: Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
MNC origin W df p W df p W df p W df p
PBG → LOY 2.781 1 ns .275 1 ns .636 1 ns 3.777 1 ns
Table E.8b
Test for Direct Effect using the Wald Test (Alternative Models; Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
India Japan U.S.
I. General model W df p W df p W df p
PBG → LOY 1.401 1 ns 2.017 1 ns 1.767 1 ns
II. Moderator: Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
MNC origin W df p W df p W df p W df p W df p W df p
PBG → LOY 2.116 1 ns .774 1 ns .925 1 ns 3.685 1 ns .056 1 ns .000 1 ns
Table E.8c
Test for Direct Effect using the Wald Test (Alternative Models; Alternative MNCs in the
Countries)
China Italy
I. General model W df p W df p
PBG → LOY .903 1 ns .003 1 ns
II. Moderator: Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
MNC origin W df p W df p W df p W df p
PBG → LOY 3.612 1 ns .218 1 ns .038 1 ns 3.100 1 ns
Table E.9a
Test for Direct and Indirect Effects using Bootstrapping (Alternative Models; Further Coun-
tries)
China Italy
I. General model S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p
r per r per
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .025 -.031 -.081 .018 ns .038 -.061 -.136 .010 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .030 .191 .133 .249 *** .020 .119 .083 .160 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .034 .370 .307 .439 *** .035 .327 .261 .400 ***
II. Moderator:
MNC origin Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p
r per r per r per r per
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .031 -.042 -.107 .033 ns .041 -.020 -.073 .101 ns .043 .025 -.053 .106 ns .037 -.063 -.137 .011 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .025 .298 .244 .344 *** .026 .098 .047 .163 *** .018 .222 .186 .254 *** .011 .086 .064 .107 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .037 .287 .231 .388 *** .043 .387 .316 .471 *** .013 .169 .145 .196 *** .039 .330 .260 .410 ***
III. Moderator:
Consumer Lower Higher Lower Higher
ethnocentrism S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p
r per r per r per r per
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .035 -.018 -.082 .051 ns .031 -.054 -.120 .003 ns .038 -.069 -.140 .007 ns .036 -.038 -.100 .033 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .018 .298 .259 .334 *** .030 .288 .229 .348 *** .027 .254 .205 .305 *** .029 .134 .074 .186 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .032 .295 .226 .356 *** .024 .238 .186 .279 *** .020 .203 .163 .241 *** .019 .189 .148 .225 ***
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychologi-
cal value; LOY = Loyalty; S.E. = standard error; b = unstandardized coefficients; Lower: Lower limit of confidence interval; Upper: Upper
limit of confidence interval; 95% confidence interval limits are shown; bootstrap samples = 5,000.
26
Table E.9b
Test for Direct and Indirect Effects using Bootstrapping (Alternative Models; Alternative MNCs in the Countries)
India Japan U.S.
I. General model S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .031 -.052 -.112 .010 ns .023 -.036 -.080 .013 ns .047 -.072 -.169 .011 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .037 .278 .207 .354 *** .015 .077 .044 .105 *** .024 .077 .034 .135 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .037 .348 .279 .424 *** .027 .155 .105 .210 *** .055 .411 .307 .525 ***
II. Moderator:
MNC origin Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .048 -.088 -.190 .002 ns .039 -.037 -.114 .039 ns .051 -.042 -.139 .049 ns .031 -.058 -.122 .003 ns .067 .013 -.115 .139 ns .064 .000 -.136 .123 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .052 .339 .244 .448 *** .020 .132 .092 .172 *** .033 .172 .108 .237 *** .024 .094 .052 .148 *** .061 .351 .236 .491 *** .050 .187 .099 .302 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .052 .323 .222 .432 *** .050 .342 .250 .448 *** .018 .162 .126 .199 *** .019 .169 .135 .209 *** .024 .150 .100 .200 *** .055 .289 .178 .384 ***
III. Moderator:
Consumer Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher
ethnocentrism S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p S.E. b Lower Upper p
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .081 -.209 -.577 .048 ns .073 -.083 -.417 .021 ns .033 .020 -.051 .080 ns .056 -.095 -.222 .030 ns .075 .009 -.169 .134 ns .093 -.074 -.240 .112 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .171 .494 .306 .599 *** .168 .291 .238 .470 *** .017 .092 .060 .124 *** .025 .097 .044 .152 *** .049 .227 .154 .332 *** .045 .073 .021 .165 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .145 .631 .335 .974 *** .113 .397 .288 .862 *** .035 .159 .089 .228 *** .018 .159 .121 .195 *** .049 .306 .201 .374 *** .052 .288 .210 .420 ***
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value; LOY = Loyalty; S.E. = standard error; b = unstandardized coefficients;
Lower: Lower limit of confidence interval; Upper: Upper limit of confidence interval; 95% confidence interval limits are shown; bootstrap samples = 5,000.
27
Table E.9c
Test for Direct and Indirect Effects using Bootstrapping (Alternative Models; Alternative
MNCs in the Countries)
China Italy
I. General model S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p
r per r per
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .026 -.034 -.083 .016 ns .044 -.003 -.089 .082 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .027 .144 .090 .196 *** .033 .187 .123 .252 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .035 .374 .308 .445 *** .028 .281 .226 .337 ***
II. Moderator:
MNC origin Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p
r per r per r per r per
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .027 -.048 -.100 .005 ns .033 -.020 -.086 .043 ns .051 .008 -.100 .111 ns .044 -.076 -.163 .010 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .024 .286 .238 .334 *** .027 .109 .056 .163 *** .042 .291 .206 .368 *** .027 .355 .302 .408 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .025 .282 .232 .331 *** .041 .372 .295 .455 *** .017 .212 .179 .249 *** .010 .082 .062 .101 ***
III. Moderator:
Consumer Lower Higher Lower Higher
ethnocentrism S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p S.E. b Lowe Up- p
r per r per r per r per
Direct effect
PBG → LOY .058 .005 -.107 .112 ns .038 .007 -.074 .082 ns .037 -.063 -.141 .004 ns .037 -.044 -.128 .019 ns
Indirect effects
PBG → FV → LOY .063 .282 .146 .403 *** .031 .162 .104 .226 *** .030 .158 .101 .219 *** .025 .092 .044 .141 ***
PBG → PV → LOY .072 .280 .117 .400 *** .025 .296 .252 .352 *** .012 .122 .099 .148 *** .033 .234 .161 .301 ***
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychologi-
cal value; LOY = Loyalty; S.E. = standard error; b = unstandardized coefficients; Lower: Lower limit of confidence interval; Upper: Upper
limit of confidence interval; 95% confidence interval limits are shown; bootstrap samples = 5,000.
28
Table F.1b
Results of Latent Interaction (Moderated PBG-value Links; Alternative MNCs in the Coun-
tries)
India Japan U.S.
beta bp beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism
PBG→FV .632 .870 *** .382 .403 *** .411 .456 ***
PBG→PV .626 .904 *** .328 .343 *** .469 .540 ***
FV→LOY .496 .758 *** .304 .517 *** .147 .199 ***
PV→LOY .477 .696 *** .742 1.275 *** .698 .911 ***
CE → FV .198 .273 *** .074 .078 ns .144 .160 ***
CE → PV .270 .390 *** .077 .080 ns .176 .203 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.117 -.162 *** -.236 -.249 *** .061 .068 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.130 -.187 *** -.142 -.148 * .045 .052 ns
Gender .001 .006 ns .038 .135 ns -.006 -.018 ns
Age .049 .082 * .045 .061 ns -.074 -.084 **
Familiarity .037 .049 ns .047 .047 ns -.040 -.030 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .612 1.289 *** .359 .646 *** .388 .583 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .313 .660 *** .116 .209 *** .060 .091 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .299 .629 *** .243 .437 *** .327 .492 ***
Model fits: India: CFI 0.981; TLI 0.978; RMSEA 0.030; SRMR 0.060; ²(450) = 752.576; SCF = 1.3826; Japan: CFI 0.979; TLI 0.976; RMSEA
0.030; SRMR 0.099; ²(450) = 723.181; SCF = 1.6041; U.S.: CFI 0.979; TLI 0.975; RMSEA 0.034; SRMR 0.100; ²(450) = 800.677; SCF = 1.5035.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
29
Table F.1c
Results of Latent Interaction (Moderated PBG-value Links; Further Countries)
China Italy
beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism
PBG→FV .724 1.021 *** .361 .396 ***
PBG→PV .680 .897 *** .578 .732 ***
FV→LOY .332 .614 *** .356 .482 ***
PV→LOY .717 1.414 *** .561 .659 ***
CE → FV .122 .172 *** .188 .206 ***
CE → PV .191 .251 *** .197 .249 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.129 -.181 *** -.041 -.045 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.148 -.196 *** -.036 -.045 ns
Gender -.032 -.166 ns -.054 -.159 *
Age -.002 -.004 ns .012 .013 ns
Familiarity -.035 -.060 ns .026 .022 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .728 1.894 *** .453 .673 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .241 .627 *** .128 .191 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .487 1.268 *** .324 .482 ***
Model fits: China: CFI 0.977; TLI 0.973; RMSEA 0.036; SRMR 0.075; ²(450) = 827.285; SCF = 1.4551; Italy: CFI 0.981; TLI 0.977; RMSEA
0.033; SRMR 0.074; ²(450) = 804.944; SCF = 1.4108.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
Table F.1d
Results of Latent Interaction (Moderated PBG-value Links; Alternative MNCs in the Coun-
tries)
China Italy
beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism
PBG→FV .744 1.073 *** .555 .669 ***
PBG→PV .701 .962 *** .403 .447 ***
FV→LOY .261 .444 *** .339 .377 ***
PV→LOY .755 1.351 *** .501 .606 ***
CE → FV .108 .156 ** .095 .114 ***
CE → PV .122 .168 *** .183 .203 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.110 -.159 ** -.041 -.049 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.182 -.249 *** -.030 -.034 ns
Gender -.006 -.032 ns -.029 -.079 ns
Age -.016 -.030 ns -.038 -.039 ns
Familiarity -.020 -.035 ns .029 .024 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .723 1.777 *** .390 .523 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .194 .477 *** .188 .252 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .529 1.300 *** .202 .271 ***
Model fits: China: CFI 0.977; TLI 0.973; RMSEA 0.036; SRMR 0.075; ²(450) = 827.285; SCF = 1.4551; Italy: CFI 0.979; TLI 0.976; RMSEA
0.034; SRMR 0.086; ²(450) = 816.498; SCF = 1.4622.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
30
Table F.1e
Results of Latent Interaction (Moderated PBG-value-loyalty Pathways)
India Japan U.S.
beta bp beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism
PBG→FV .543 .586 *** .345 .326 *** .287 .314 ***
PBG→PV .744 .695 *** .883 .406 *** .567 .259 ***
FV→LOY .429 1.049 *** .291 .616 *** .150 .192 *
PV→LOY .540 1.524 *** .608 2.642 *** .521 1.595 ***
CE → FV .703 .758 *** .418 .394 *** .421 .461 ***
CE → PV -.526 -.492 *** -1.747 -.803 *** -1.942 -.887 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.151 -.163 *** -.322 -.304 *** .001 .001 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.175 -.164 *** -.490 -.225 *** -.012 -.006 ns
CE → LOY -.031 -.081 ns -.031 -.061 ns .148 .207 ***
FV × CE → LOY -.110 -.291 * -.083 -.166 ns -.050 -.071 ns
PV × CE → LOY .109 .289 * .074 .148 ns .072 .100 ns
Gender -.007 -.036 ns .027 .108 ns -.032 -.090 ns
Age .032 .066 * .020 .031 ns .010 .011 ns
Familiarity .004 .008 ns .008 .009 ns .042 .034 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .634 1.674 *** .637 1.272 *** .339 .473 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .233 .614 *** .101 .201 *** .043 .060 *
PBG→PV→LOY .402 1.060 *** .536 1.072 *** .295 .413 ***
Model fits: India: CFI 0.866; TLI 0.853; RMSEA 0.060; SRMR 0.057; ²(450) = 6880.144; SCF = 1.7626; Japan: CFI 0.873; TLI 0.861; RMSEA
0.054; SRMR 0.053; ²(450) = 6734.889; SCF = 1.9565; U.S.: CFI 0.845; TLI 0.831; RMSEA 0.066; SRMR 0.048; ²(450) = 8174.487; SCF =
1.8599.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
Table F.1f
Results of Latent Interaction (Moderated PBG-value-loyalty Pathways; Alternative MNCs)
India Japan U.S.
beta bp beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism
PBG→FV .490 .519 *** .408 .343 *** .349 .314 ***
PBG→PV .752 .674 *** .281 .198 *** .373 .259 ***
FV→LOY .378 .804 *** .130 .316 * .166 .297 ***
PV→LOY .556 1.399 *** .753 2.186 ** .566 1.314 ***
CE → FV .740 .784 *** .793 .666 *** .733 .659 ***
CE → PV -.584 -.524 *** -.969 -.681 *** -.968 -.672 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.136 -.144 *** -.226 -.190 *** .055 .049 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.147 -.131 *** -.191 -.134 *** .034 .024 ns
CE → LOY -.021 -.047 ns -.005 -.009 ns .144 .233 ***
FV × CE → LOY -.152 -.342 ** -.103 -.211 ns .038 .061 ns
PV × CE → LOY .152 .344 ** .079 .160 ns .025 .040 ns
Gender .002 .008 ns .038 .154 ns -.008 -.027 ns
Age .043 .077 * .045 .069 ns -.066 -.081 **
Familiarity .037 .053 ns .037 .042 ns -.044 -.036 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .603 1.360 *** .265 .541 *** .269 .433 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .185 .417 *** .053 .108 * .058 .093 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .418 .943 *** .212 .433 *** .211 .340 ***
Model fits: India: CFI 0.877; TLI 0.866; RMSEA 0.056; SRMR 0.053; ²(450) = 6314.994; SCF = 1.7495; Japan: CFI 0.858; TLI 0.845; RMSEA
0.055; SRMR 0.063; ²(450) = 5824.988; SCF = 2.1022; U.S.: CFI 0.833; TLI 0.818; RMSEA 0.075; SRMR 0.044; ²(450) = 9084.574; SCF =
1.7752.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
31
Table F.1g
Results of Latent Interaction (Moderated PBG-value-loyalty Pathways; Further Countries)
China Italy
beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism
PBG→FV .744 .763 *** .300 .318 ***
PBG→PV .600 .564 *** .420 .262 ***
FV→LOY .163 .447 ** .283 .438 ***
PV→LOY .782 2.341 *** .538 1.416 ***
CE → FV .684 .702 *** .498 .529 ***
CE → PV -.670 -.630 *** -1.228 -.766 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.126 -.130 *** -.036 -.038 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.118 -.111 *** -.032 -.020 ns
CE → LOY .017 .047 ns .072 .118 **
FV × CE → LOY -.086 -.242 * -.008 -.013 ns
PV × CE → LOY .095 .268 ** .033 .055 ns
Gender -.032 -.181 * -.047 -.154 ns
Age .002 .004 ns .017 .021 ns
Familiarity -.037 -.068 * .026 .025 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .591 1.661 *** .311 .510 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .121 .341 ** .085 .139 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .470 1.320 *** .226 .371 ***
Model fits: China: CFI 0.861; TLI 0.848; RMSEA 0.065; SRMR 0.068; ²(450) = 7102.444; SCF = 1.8297; Italy: CFI 0.836; TLI 0.821; RMSEA
0.069; SRMR 0.054; ²(450) = 8372.568; SCF = 1.8811.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
Table F.1h
Results of Latent Interaction (Moderated PBG-value-loyalty Pathways; Alternative MNCs in
the Countries)
China Italy
beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism
PBG→FV .840 .756 *** .406 .301 ***
PBG→PV .579 .609 *** .254 .239 ***
FV→LOY .237 .682 *** .327 .648 ***
PV→LOY .700 1.724 *** .425 .663 ***
CE → FV .883 .794 *** 1.145 .848 ***
CE → PV -.464 -.488 *** -.381 -.359 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.161 -.145 *** -.037 -.027 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.168 -.177 *** -.025 -.023 ns
CE → LOY .007 .018 ns .109 .160 ***
FV × CE → LOY -.105 -.273 * -.023 -.033 ns
PV × CE → LOY .128 .332 *** .041 .061 ns
Gender -.009 -.047 ns -.021 -.062 ns
Age -.013 -.025 ns -.027 -.030 ns
Familiarity -.021 -.040 ns .027 .024 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .604 1.567 *** .241 .353 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .199 .516 *** .133 .195 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .405 1.051 *** .108 .158 ***
Model fits: China: CFI 0.835; TLI 0.820; RMSEA 0.069; SRMR 0.069; ²(450) = 7917.185; SCF = 1.8489; Italy: CFI 0.858; TLI 0.845; RMSEA
0.065; SRMR 0.051; ²(450) = 7485.939; SCF = 1.8645.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
32
Table F.2a
Results of Latent Three-Way Interaction (Moderated PBG-value Links)
India Japan U.S.
beta bp beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism Foreign Foreign Foreign
PBG→FV .726 1.086 *** .360 .410 *** .474 .567 ***
PBG→PV .677 .999 *** .362 .422 *** .541 .650 ***
FV→LOY .522 .918 *** .470 .828 *** .429 .461 ***
PV→LOY .530 .944 *** .620 1.065 *** .327 .350 ***
CE → FV .128 .192 ** .099 .112 ns .256 .306 ***
CE → PV .222 .328 *** .126 .147 * .104 .125 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.102 -.152 * -.318 -.362 *** .059 .070 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.114 -.169 * -.365 -.426 *** -.020 -.024 ns
Gender -.002 -.013 ns .000 -.002 ns -.098 -.252 **
Age .011 .024 ns .017 .027 ns .069 .068 ns
Familiarity .005 .009 ns -.036 -.038 ns .037 .027 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .738 1.941 *** .394 .790 *** .381 .489 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .379 .997 *** .169 .340 *** .203 .261 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .359 .944 *** .224 .450 *** .177 .228 ***
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism Domestic Domestic Domestic
PBG→FV .604 .824 *** .278 .295 *** .496 .572 ***
PBG→PV .589 .875 *** .248 .265 *** .488 .558 ***
FV→LOY .501 .855 *** .387 .599 *** .038 .046 ns
PV→LOY .536 .839 *** .642 .986 *** .684 .826 ***
CE → FV .201 .274 *** .156 .165 ** .000 .000 ns
CE → PV .330 .491 *** .238 .255 *** .035 .040 ns
PBG × CE → FV .002 .002 ns .121 .128 ns -.024 -.028 ns
PBG × CE → PV .013 .020 ns .074 .079 ns -.012 -.014 ns
Gender -.025 -.118 ns .053 .173 ns .034 .096 ns
Age .061 .113 * .055 .069 ns -.028 -.030 ns
Familiarity -.006 -.009 ns .051 .047 ns .093 .075 **
Total effect
PBG→LOY .619 1.438 *** .267 .438 *** .352 .487 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .303 .704 *** .107 .176 *** .019 .026 ns
PBG→PV→LOY .316 .734 *** .159 .261 *** .333 .461 ***
Model fits: Foreign: India: CFI 0.966; TLI 0.961; RMSEA 0.045; SRMR 0.081; ²(450) = 785.809; SCF = 1.3122; Japan: CFI 0.887; TLI 0.869;
RMSEA 0.084; SRMR 0.108; ²(450) = 1647.892; SCF = 1.3616; U.S.: CFI 0.959; TLI 0.952; RMSEA 0.050; SRMR 0.093; ²(450) = 865.345; SCF
= 1.2857; Domestic: India: CFI 0.966; TLI 0.961; RMSEA 0.043; SRMR 0.087; ²(450) = 760.806; SCF = 1.3013; Japan: CFI 0.924; TLI 0.911;
RMSEA 0.058; SRMR 0.059; ²(450) = 1181.575; SCF = 1.4818; U.S.: CFI 0.964; TLI 0.958; RMSEA 0.045; SRMR 0.107; ²(450) = 799.084; SCF
= 1.4016.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
33
Table F.2b
Results of Latent Three-Way Interaction (Moderated PBG-value Links; Alternative MNCs in
the Countries)
India Japan U.S.
beta bp beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism Foreign Foreign Foreign
PBG→FV .691 .993 *** .406 .442 *** .431 .481 ***
PBG→PV .669 .965 *** .377 .406 *** .518 .618 ***
FV→LOY .442 .647 *** .227 .374 *** .135 .184 ***
PV→LOY .559 .815 *** .766 1.274 *** .709 .908 ***
CE → FV .136 .195 ** .119 .130 * .106 .118 *
CE → PV .185 .266 *** .099 .107 ns .182 .217 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.095 -.137 * -.328 -.357 *** .073 .081 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.093 -.134 * .-228 -.245 ** .037 .045 ns
Gender .035 .146 ns .033 .120 ns .030 .091 ns
Age .042 .070 ns .013 .017 ns -.027 -.032 ns
Familiarity .070 .095 ns .075 .076 ns -.047 -.037 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .680 1.429 *** .381 .683 *** .425 .650 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .306 .643 *** .092 .165 *** .058 .089 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .374 .786 *** .288 .517 *** .367 .561 ***
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism Domestic Domestic Domestic
PBG→FV .589 .805 *** .366 .399 *** .363 .397 ***
PBG→PV .600 .900 *** .279 .297 *** .399 .442 ***
FV→LOY .472 .748 *** .352 .605 *** .165 .225 ***
PV→LOY .545 .785 *** .715 1.263 *** .687 .927 ***
CE → FV .229 .312 *** .141 .153 * .181 .197 **
CE → PV .324 .486 *** .156 .166 * .172 .191 **
PBG × CE → FV .013 .018 ns .104 .114 ns .065 .071 ns
PBG × CE → PV .014 .021 ns .096 .102 ns .047 .052 ns
Gender -.038 -.165 ns .045 .170 ns -.053 -.159 ns
Age .054 .092 ns .066 .094 * -.124 -.137 ***
Familiarity .007 .010 ns .025 .026 ns -.045 -.033 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .605 1.309 *** .328 .616 *** .334 .499 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .278 .602 *** .129 .242 *** .060 .089 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .327 .707 *** .199 .375 *** .274 .409 ***
Model fits: Foreign: India: CFI 0.976; TLI 0.972; RMSEA 0.035; SRMR 0.081; ²(450) = 645.686; SCF = 1.4127; Japan: CFI 0.918; TLI 0.904;
RMSEA 0.068; SRMR 0.101; ²(450) = 1033.728; SCF = 1.6087; U.S.: CFI 0.971; TLI 0.966; RMSEA 0.042; SRMR 0.102; ²(450) = 715.194; SCF
= 1.4239; Domestic: India: CFI 0.964; TLI 0.958; RMSEA 0.044; SRMR 0.085; ²(450) = 778.130; SCF = 1.2976; Japan: CFI 0.953; TLI 0.946;
RMSEA 0.045; SRMR 0.106; ²(450) = 824.987; SCF = 1.4838; U.S.: CFI 0.959; TLI 0.952; RMSEA 0.050; SRMR 0.124; ²(450) = 819.455; SCF =
1.4097.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
34
Table F.2c
Results of Latent Three-Way Interaction (Moderated PBG-value Links; Further Countries)
China Italy
beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism Foreign Foreign
PBG→FV .700 .969 *** .543 .664 ***
PBG→PV .636 .814 *** .654 .901 ***
FV→LOY .371 .668 *** .254 .333 ***
PV→LOY .686 1.336 *** .640 .746 ***
CE → FV .058 .081 ns .165 .202 ***
CE → PV .079 .101 ns .178 .245 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.128 -.177 ** .010 .012 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.126 -.162 * .000 .000 ns
Gender -.042 -.210 ns -.066 -.211 *
Age .015 .030 ns -.054 -.064 ns
Familiarity -.030 -.049 ns .047 .042 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .696 1.735 *** .556 .893 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .260 .647 *** .138 .221 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .436 1.088 *** .419 .672 ***
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism Domestic Domestic
PBG→FV .719 1.034 *** .270 .295 ***
PBG→PV .719 1.040 *** .509 .628 ***
FV→LOY .403 .648 *** .451 .599 ***
PV→LOY .621 .994 *** .457 .538 ***
CE → FV .034 .048 ns .259 .283 ***
CE → PV .085 .123 ns .258 .318 ***
PBG × CE → FV -.001 -.002 ns -.090 -.098 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.038 -.056 ns -.097 -.120 ns
Gender -.019 -.091 ns -.033 -.097 ns
Age -.023 -.041 ns .090 .102 *
Familiarity -.044 -.066 ns -.012 -.011 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .736 1.704 *** .355 .515 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .289 .670 *** .122 .177 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .446 1.034 *** .233 .338 ***
Model fits: Foreign: China: CFI 0.962; TLI 0.955; RMSEA 0.047; SRMR 0.095; ²(450) = 816.848; SCF = 1.4652; Italy: CFI 0.966; TLI 0.960;
RMSEA 0.046; SRMR 0.104; ²(450) = 780.794; SCF = 1.3672; Domestic: China: CFI 0.969; TLI 0.964; RMSEA 0.044; SRMR 0.092; ²(450) =
699.937; SCF = 1.3541; Italy: CFI 0.941; TLI 0.931; RMSEA 0.060; SRMR 0.107; ²(450) = 1051.120; SCF = 1.3527.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
35
Table F.2d
Results of Latent Three-Way Interaction (Moderated PBG-value Links; Alternative MNCs in
the Countries)
China Italy
beta bp beta bp
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism Foreign Foreign
PBG→FV .761 1.142 *** .688 .954 ***
PBG→PV .728 1.043 *** .558 .687 ***
FV→LOY .210 .327 *** .392 .385 ***
PV→LOY .773 1.258 *** .418 .463 ***
CE → FV .073 .110 ns .013 .019 ns
CE → PV .153 .220 ** .151 .186 **
PBG × CE → FV -.093 -.139 * -.077 -.106 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.095 -.136 * -.015 -.018 ns
Gender -.006 -.028 ns -.038 -.103 ns
Age -.011 -.020 ns -.074 -.075 *
Familiarity -.011 -.019 ns .047 .036 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .723 1.685 *** .503 .686 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .160 .373 *** .269 .368 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .562 1.312 *** .233 .318 ***
Moderator:
Consumer ethnocentrism Domestic Domestic
PBG→FV .719 1.034 *** .456 .519 ***
PBG→PV .706 1.000 *** .201 .210 ***
FV→LOY .468 .742 *** .300 .350 ***
PV→LOY .561 .903 *** .549 .698 ***
CE → FV .016 .023 ns .161 .183 **
CE → PV .084 .119 ns .213 .222 ***
PBG × CE → FV .002 .003 ns -.121 -.137 ns
PBG × CE → PV -.008 -.011 ns -.048 -.050 ns
Gender -.010 -.045 ns -.017 -.045 ns
Age -.025 -.044 ns .005 .005 ns
Familiarity -.039 -.059 ns -.002 -.002 ns
Total effect
PBG→LOY .733 1.669 *** .247 .328 ***
Indirect effects
PBG→FV→LOY .336 .766 *** .137 .182 ***
PBG→PV→LOY .396 .903 *** .110 .146 ***
Model fits: Foreign: China: CFI 0.976; TLI 0.972; RMSEA 0.036; SRMR 0.082; ²(450) = 671.043; SCF = 1.5038; Italy: CFI 0.966; TLI 0.960;
RMSEA 0.046; SRMR 0.104; ²(450) = 780.794; SCF = 1.3672; Domestic: China: CFI 0.977; TLI 0.973; RMSEA 0.038; SRMR 0.084; ²(450) =
639.610; SCF = 1.3392; Italy: CFI 0.958; TLI 0.951; RMSEA 0.052; SRMR 0.105; ²(450) = 879.592; SCF = 1.3281.
Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; ns = Not significant; PBG = Perceived brand globalness; FV = Functional value; PV = Psychological value;
LOY = Loyalty; b = unstandardized coefficients; beta = standardized coefficients.
36
REFERENCES
Antonakis, John, Samuel Bendahan, Philippe Jacquart, and Rafael Lalive (2014), "Causality
and Endogeneity: Problems and Solutions," in The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and
Organizations, David D. Day (Ed.). New York: USA: Oxford University Press.
---- (2010), "On Making Causal Claims: A Review and Recommendations," The Leadership
Quarterly, 21 (6), 1086–120.
Chen, Fang Fang (2007), "Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement
Invariance," Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14 (3), 464–504.
Cleveland, Mark and Michel Laroche (2007), "Acculturaton to the Global Consumer Culture:
Scale Development and Research Paradigm," Journal of Business Research, 60 (3), 249–59.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 39–50.
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson (2014),
Multivariate Data Analysis (7 ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Lindell, Michael K and David J Whitney (2001), "Accounting for Common Method Variance
in Cross-Sectional Research Designs," Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114.
Little, Todd D., James A. Bovaird, and Keith F. Widaman (2006), "On The Merits of
Orthogonalizing Powered and Product Terms: Implications for Modeling Interactions Among
Latent Variables," Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13 (4), 497–
519.
Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Nancy Wong (2009), "The Safety of Objects:
Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection," Journal of Consumer Research,
36 (1), 1-16.
37
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden (2003), "How Perceived
Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value," Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1),
53–65.
Steinmetz, Holger, Eldad Davidov, and Peter Schmidt (2011), "Three Approaches to Estimate
Latent Interaction Effects: Intention and Perceived Behavioral Control in the Theory of
Planned Behavior," Methodological Innovations Online, 6 (1), 95–110.
Williams, Larry J., Nathan Hartman, and Flavia Cavazotte (2010), "Method Variance and
Marker Variables: A Review and Comprehensive CFA Marker Technique," Organizational
Research Methods, 13 (3), 477–514.