JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY
Hsieh
10.1177/0092070304264262
et al.
OF/ BRAND
MARKETING
IMAGESCIENCE ARTICLE SUMMER 2004
Product-, Corporate-, and Country-Image
Dimensions and Purchase Behavior:
A Multicountry Analysis
Ming-Huei Hsieh
Yuan Ze University
Shan-Ling Pan
Rudy Setiono
National University of Singapore
This research focuses on consumer perceptions that are
developed on the basis of a firm’s advertising appeals as
well as other factors. In conceptualizing brand-image per-
ceptions, the authors extend the frequent use of product-
related images to include corporate and country images
attached to brands. The authors report findings based on
secondary economic and cultural data at the macro level
and the results of a global brand-image survey conducted
in the top 20 international automobile markets at the indi-
vidual level. The findings suggest that while consumers’
attitudes toward corporate image and country image exert
main effects on their brand purchase behavior, the effects
of certain product-image appeals are moderated by
sociodemographics and national cultural characteristics.
The empirical results are broadly supportive of the pro-
posed hypotheses and provide a consumer-based exten-
sion of Roth’s work on global brand image.
Keywords: brand image; cross-national study; automo-
tive; multilevel analysis
The emergence of global brands gives rise to the issue
of whether brand-image appeals affect consumer re-
sponses differently in different countries. A firm involved
in multiple markets should identify the national character-
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Volume 32, No. 3, pages 251-270.
DOI: 10.1177/0092070304264262
Copyright © 2004 by Academy of Marketing Science.
istics that could affect the success of its brand-image strat-
egies. In so doing, a firm can thus determine whether it
should apply the same brand-image appeal across markets
(Motameni and Shahrokhi 1998). To explore this issue,
Roth (1995) conducted a survey from the firm’s perspec-
tive, which supported his hypotheses that factors at the
national level, such as socioeconomic development and
cultural characteristics, affect the identified brand
image–brand performance linkage. In his work, brand-
image measures represent managers’ assessments based
on factual information.
However, in line with Keller (2000), we believe that
“ultimately, the power of a brand lies in the minds of con-
sumers or customers” (p. 157) and that the meaning that
consumers attach to a brand may be different from that
which the firm intends. To address this issue of validity, we
examine the effects of contextual factors from the con-
sumer’s perspective, using consumers’ responses from an
extensive cross-national empirical study of automobile
purchasers. In addition to verifying Roth’s (1995) work,
we also seek to complement his framework by extending
our study in two ways. First, we conceptualize a rather
comprehensive brand-image perception that extends the
traditional definition of product image to include corpo-
rate and country image, and we perceive these images as
branding at both the corporate and the country level. Sec-
ond, we propose a framework that distinguishes individ-
ual- and national-level moderating variables and brand-
level covariates in the relationship between brand-image
perceptions and brand-purchase behavior.
252 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
Furthermore, we outline the procedures necessary to
obtain an aggregate value from multiple indicators of
brand associations underlying consumers’ perceptions.
Specifically, these procedures include the following: (1)
identification of the structural nature of brand image, by
which we represent each image dimension as a member of
the higher-order category, such that brand associations are
building blocks; (2) development and modification of the
measurement models of brand image and fitting each
model to the national sample; and (3) generation of the
aggregate value for each image dimension on the basis of
the measurement models specified in a confirmatory fac-
tor analysis. The aggregate values of the multiple brand-
image dimensions are then used as the predictors of pur-
chase behavior in a multilevel regression model. Whereas
the aggregate values of the dimensions of a brand’s prod-
uct, corporate, and country images are specified as in-
dependent variables, the dependent variable is opera-
tionalized as brand-purchase behavior (i.e., whether
consumers purchased the brand under investigation). The
moderators include national-level factors, such as a coun-
try’s level of economic development and its cultural char-
acteristics, and individual-level factors, such as socio-
demographic variables including annual household
income, sex, age, and marital status. Finally, the level of
brand awareness, market share, and the product origin
(i.e., local or foreign) are incorporated into the model as
covariates.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Brand-Image Perceptions
A successful brand image enables consumers to iden-
tify the needs that the brand satisfies and to differentiate
the brand from its competitors, and it consequently
increases the likelihood that consumers will purchase the
brand. Brand-image research has long been recognized as
central to marketing and advertising research, not only
because it serves as a foundation for tactical marketing-
mix issues but also because it plays an integral role in
building long-term brand equity (Aaker 1996; Keller
1993; Park and Srinivasan 1994; Srivastava and Shocker
1991). However, a consensus and immutable definition of
brand image has not been established (Stern, Zinkhan, and
Holbrook 2002). It is thus necessary for us to review the
brand-image literature in some detail.
Rooted in psychology, brand image can be considered a
new variety of “old” psychological variables that aim to
explain consumer behavior. Since the early 1950s, image
has been an important concept in consumer behavior
research (Gardner and Levy 1955), and the term brand
image quickly gained currency. In the early stage of brand-
SUMMER 2004
image research and development, Gardner and Levy
(1955) were credited with the concept that products have a
social and psychological nature as well as a physical one.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, brand image was defined
as “an attitude about a given brand” (Bird, Channon, and
Ehrenberg 1970). Drawing on the cognitive and psycho-
logical perspective of brand image, Gensch (1978) linked
brand image with brand preference by asserting that brand
preference is a function of the perception space associated
with other brands. Since the 1980s, attitude-based image
research has come to dominate image research, and there
has emerged an interest in linking psychological concepts
to strategic research in brand management (Zinkhan and
Hirschheim 1992). Researchers have continued on this
path into the 1990s, and brand image is considered the key
component of brand equity (Keller 1993).
The definitions and operationalizations of brand image
have been fairly irregular, although they are not without
some patterns and commonalities. In their summary of the
definitions and conceptualizations of brand image from 28
studies on the history of marketing literature, Dobni and
Zinkhan (1990) provide a centralized collection of defini-
tions based on authors’ principle emphasis. They further
group the definitions on the basis of their focus into five
categories: (1) blanket, (2) symbolism, (3) meanings or
messages, (4) personification, and (5) cognition or psy-
chology. Across groups, image is defined in terms of gen-
eral characteristics, evoked feelings or impressions,
perceptions of products, and beliefs and/or attitudes.
More recently, following cognitive and psychological
principles, brand equity researchers (Keller 1993) have
defined brand image as a set of perceptions about a brand
as reflected by the brand associations held in consumers’
memory. Brand associations are classified into three major
categories with respect to their level of abstraction (i.e.,
attribute, benefit, and overall brand attitude). Here, attrib-
ute refers to descriptive features that characterize a prod-
uct or service, benefit is the personal value that consumers
attach to the product or service, and brand attitude is
consumers’ overall evaluation of the brand (Wilkie 1986).
Ideally, in consumers’ memory, brand-image perception
should encompass all three types of brand associations.
However, given the entailed complexity, it is difficult to
design a specific study to incorporate all types of associa-
tions when a parsimonious model is required. As such, we
incorporate only benefit association as the key element.
Benefit is a kind of “perceived” information that is self-
relevant and corresponds to the notion that brand-image
perception is a largely subjective and perceptual phenom-
enon formed through consumer interpretation (Dobni and
Zinkhan 1990).
In addition, unlike attributes, benefit associations are
closely related to consumers’ needs. To reflect the diverse
needs of consumers, Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (1986)

proposed three brand concepts in their normative frame-
work: (1) functional benefits, (2) symbolic benefits, and
(3) experiential benefits. Brand concepts are defined as
brand-unique abstract meanings that typically originate
from a particular configuration of product features and
from a firm’s effort to create meaning from the arrange-
ments (Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991). A brand with
functional benefits is one designed to satisfy consumers’
needs to solve consumption-related problems. A brand
with symbolic (or social) benefits is one designed to fulfill
consumers’ desires for self-enhancement, role position,
group membership, or ego identification. Finally, a brand
with experiential benefits is one designed to fulfill con-
sumers’ desires for sensory pleasure, variety, or cognitive
stimulation. As they have for the relationship between
functional needs and consumption, researchers have
proved that the relationship between symbolic needs and
consumption and that between experiential needs and con-
sumption are significant (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982).
The current study follows Keller’s (1993) definition of
brand image and adopts the three previously mentioned
brand concepts as product-related brand-image dimen-
sions. In addition, this study considers umbrella-brand
images (e.g., country image and corporate image) that can
be attached to the product to form an overall brand-image
perception. To some extent, umbrella-brand image has
been described as part of branding strategy at the country
and corporate levels (Meenaghan 1995). This is because,
as with product-related brand image, corporate image and
country image can provide consumers with meaningful
associations to create a desirable, appealing image; thus,
they can affect consumer behavior (Al-Sulaiti and Baker
1998; Saunders and Fu 1997). In addition, because of the
strong link between product brand and umbrella brand,
the presence of product brand might evoke corporate and
country information (e.g., Johansson 1993; Leclerc,
Schmitt, and Dube 1994). For example, consumers asso-
ciate the Mercedes-Benz brand with German origin even
though the location does not appear explicitly in the brand
name. Given this, consumers’ perceptions may not be
purely product specific; they may combine both corporate
and country images (Erickson, Johansson, and Jacobson
1992).
Similar to the problem of many definitions of brand
image, there are many definitions of country image, which
can be classified into three groups: (1) overall country
image, (2) aggregate product country image, and (3) spe-
cific product country image. Overall country image is the
total of all descriptive, inferential, and informational
beliefs that a consumer has about a particular country (e.g.,
Martin and Eroglu 1993). Aggregate product country
image is the entire cognitive “feel” associated with a par-
ticular country’s products or with the perceived overall
quality of the products from that particular country
Hsieh et al. / BRAND IMAGE 253
(Narayana 1981; Shimp, Samiee, and Madden 1993). For
example, in general, research shows that products origi-
nating in developed countries receive favorable attitudes
from consumers in developing countries. Specific product
country image is the overall perception consumers form of
specific product categories from a particular country
(Roth and Romeo 1992). According to research in this
stream, the effect of country image varies considerably,
depending on the product group under consideration
(Hugstad and Durr 1986). In general, durable goods such
as automobiles are more sensitive to country image than
are nondurable goods. We use this definition of specific
product country image because most researchers have
used it since the 1990s (e.g., Cordell 1991; Niss 1996;
Roth and Romeo 1992; Tse and Gorn 1992; Zhang 1996).
Han (1989) attempted to explain country-image effect
on product evaluation through the halo and summary mod-
els, in which country-image perception influences overall
evaluations indirectly through beliefs (halo effect) and/or
directly (summary effect). On one hand, consumers tend
to use halo images of a country to judge quality and to gen-
erate inferential brand beliefs when other brand-specific
information is not available. On the other hand, as con-
sumers become more familiar with a country’s products,
they summarize product information and form product
evaluations directly. Consequently, we anticipate that con-
sumers’ positive impression of a brand’s country of origin
results in a positive attitude toward the brand itself and
toward subsequent behavior. In contrast, consumers who
have a negative image or attitude toward a particular coun-
try may not consider purchasing a brand that originates
from that country, regardless of its specific associations
(Hong and Wyer 1989).
Corporate image, like country image, works as a sum-
mary or inference information in the consumer decision-
making process (Erickson, Johansson, and Chao 1984).
Corporate image is often interchangeable with corporate
identity and may be defined as “the impressions of a par-
ticular company or [corporation] held by some segment of
the public” (Johnson and Zinkhan 1990:347). Perceived
corporate information can influence brand-image percep-
tion by transferring consumers’ attitude toward the corpo-
ration to their attitude toward the product (Homer 1990)
or by influencing them to create new beliefs (Simmons
and Lynch 1991), which subsequently affects their prefer-
ences and product choice. For instance, when General
Motor positions itself as concerned with quality, consum-
ers’ associations of General Motors quality might transfer
to their knowledge of a particular General Motors models.
As such, we anticipate that a positive impression of the
corporation that is affiliated with the brand results in a pos-
itive attitude toward the brand itself and a positive change
in consumers’ subsequent behavior. Conversely, a nega-
tive corporate image might result in spillover effects on a
254 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE SUMMER 2004

FIGURE 1
The Relationship Between Brand Image Perception and Purchase Behavior

Nation-Level Moderator
• Cultural dimensions
Brand-Image Perception • Level of economic development
and media penetration

Product-image dimensions
Individual Level Moderator
• Age Brand Purchase
• Income
• Sex Behavior
Corporate-image dimensions • Marital Status

Country-image dimensions
Brand/Nation Interaction
• Brand awareness
• Market share
• Local versus foreign origin
Covariates

particular brand. In summary, like country image, cor-
porate image not only adds value but also creates a halo
effect for all of a company’s products.
The preceding literature review clarifies the definitions
of the key concepts in our study. In addition, it rationalizes
our attempt to conceptualize brand image with the multi-
ple dimensions of product, corporate, and country image.
Moderating Effects of
National- and Individual-Level Variables
We now examine the linkages between brand-image
perceptions and purchase behavior in a cross-national
context (Figure 1). In the early 1990s, some scholars and
practitioners advocated that firms exploit the global mar-
ket using a standardized strategy (e.g., Jain 1989; Levitt
1983). Arguments for this strategy included efficient
worldwide brand positioning and the enhancement of cus-
tomer preferences as a result of global availability, ser-
viceability, and recognition (Yip 1995), as well as global
credibility (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Kapferer
1992). In line with this, proponents of the strategy (Hassan
and Katsanis 1994) were interested in attaining global
consumer segments that associate similar meanings with a
certain brand across national boundaries. However, some
scholars have expressed skepticism about the value of a
standardization strategy because important national dif-
ferences (e.g., economic, political, ethnic, or geographic
variation) are often overlooked (Whitelock and Chung
1989). Accordingly, skeptics advocated country segmen-
tation (e.g., Helsen, Jedidi, and DeSarbo 1993; Jain 1993)
over consumer segmentation.
Advocates of country segmentation attempt to explore
the underlying national factors that are attributable to the
differences between segments. In contrast, advocates of
consumer segmentation focus on identifying segments
with similar consumer characteristics. Consequently, as
units of analysis, the former emphasize macro variables,
and the latter focus on micro variables. This dichotomy
suggests that there is a need to establish a linkage between
the two research streams. The use of a multiple-tier struc-
ture in our research design enables us to evaluate the feasi-
bility of a standardization strategy from both the country
and the consumer perspective.
Level of economic development. From the perspective
of international consumer research, Clark (1990) pro-
posed that consumer behavior in the marketplace reflects
consumers’ varying cultural and personality traits, which
can be described by macro-level national characteristics
such as level of economic development. A country’s level
of economic development and its effect on brand-image
perception can be understood from the process of a soci-
ety’s “consumerization.” Developing countries are ex-
pected to fall mostly within the early stages, whereas
developed countries are more likely to be in the later stages
of the consumerization process. In low-consumerized
markets, a brand’s role is centered on product difference
(i.e., utilitarian). The brand’s role changes when the mar-
ket moves toward high consumerization, at which point
the brand not only is used for reference but also is imbued

with personality and/or symbolic meanings as the market
becomes more competitive and as consumers become
more discriminating (Goodyear 1996). As such, whereas
consumers in developing countries might value utilitarian
appeals, nonutilitarian appeals are more likely to be effec-
tive for consumers in developed countries.
A country’s level of economic development is also
closely related to product affordability and media penetra-
tion, which in turn shape consumers’ attitudes toward con-
sumption. Here, “affordability” indicates the amount of
resources consumers are able to spend on goods and ser-
vices. When resources are limited, only the most basic and
utilitarian needs will be satisfied. Therefore, utilitarian
appeals, which attempt to solve basic consumption prob-
lems, should have a stronger effect on consumer behavior
in countries where the level of economic development is
low. Media penetration dictates the amount of information
that influences consumers’ perceptions of specific prod-
ucts. A lack of media exposure might confine consumers’
perceptions of a product to fundamental utilitarian capa-
bilities and prevent them from learning about other non-
utilitarian values of the product.
Cultural dimensions. National culture has long been
identified as an important characteristic that determines
consumer behavior in different countries. Hofstede’s
(1983, 1991) influential work on cross-cultural value sys-
tems identifies five aspects of culture dimensions: (1)
power distance, (2) uncertainty avoidance, (3) individual-
ism, (4) masculinity, and (5) long-term orientation. Al-
though Hofstede’s cultural scores were based on work-
related values, the results were validated with numerous
cross-cultural studies from various disciplines, including
the consumer research areas of tipping behavior (Lynn,
Zinkhan, and Harris 1993), product usage (de Mooij
2000), consumer innovativeness (Steenkamp, Hofstede,
and Wedel 1999), perceived good-life image (Zinkhan and
Prenshaw 1994), and brand image (e.g., Kale 1995; Roth
1995). Specifically, Kale and Roth associate three of
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (i.e., power distance, un-
certainty avoidance, and individualism) with the three
brand concepts discussed previously.
According to Kale (1995), high individualism is related
to a strong hedonistic motive in consumption; this sug-
gests that products positioned to emphasize distinct senses
can enhance the purchase behavior of consumers from
countries with a higher degree of individualism (e.g., the
“Anglo Cluster”), but not necessarily of consumers from
other countries. A high degree of uncertainty avoidance
implies a higher reluctance to accept risk, which suggests
that, to attract consumers, marketers should reduce the
perceived risk of buyers from countries that show high
uncertainty avoidance (e.g., the “Roman/Latin Cluster”)
by ensuring utilitarian satisfaction (i.e., focusing on prob-
lem solving and reducing perceived risk). Finally, high
Hsieh et al. / BRAND IMAGE 255
power distance implies a higher tendency toward privi-
leged positions, suggesting that buyers from high-power-
distance cultural groups (e.g., the “Chinese Cluster”) in
which social and economic class differences are more
emphasized are more likely to prefer symbolic appeals
(Lowe and Corindale 1998).
It is empirically evident in Roth’s (1995) work that cul-
tural dimensions, similar to economic factors, exert a
moderating effect on the relationship between brand-
image strategy and brand performance. In summary,
the previous discussion leads us to form the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The effect of utilitarian image on brand-
purchase behavior is greater in countries where the
economic development level is low.
Hypothesis 2: The effect of symbolic image on brand-
purchase behavior is greater in countries where the
economic development level is high.
Hypothesis 3: The effects of sensory image on brand-
purchase behavior are greater for consumers in coun-
tries that are characterized by high individualism.
Hypothesis 4: The effects of symbolic image on brand-
purchase behavior are greater for consumers in coun-
tries that are characterized by high power distance.
Hypothesis 5: The effects of utilitarian image on brand-
purchase behavior are greater for consumers in coun-
tries that are characterized by high uncertainty
avoidance.
Sociodemographics. Key segmentation variables in-
clude sociodemographic variables, psychographic vari-
ables (e.g., value system, lifestyle), and behavioral vari-
ables (e.g., brand choice or usage data collected at point of
sales). Much segmentation involves combinations of these
bases, yet little research exists that examines how con-
sumer characteristics moderate the effects of certain
image perceptions on brand-purchase behavior. In other
words, what kind of image appeal might be more effective
in a certain consumer segment? In the limited literature,
there are findings that older people are less likely to ask for
“relaxation” benefits and more likely to care about practi-
cal benefits; that women tend to value goods for symbolic
and emotional reasons, while men value goods for func-
tional and activity-related reasons (Dittmar, Beattie, and
Friese 1995; Gitelson and Kerstetter 1990); and that high-
income groups are more sensitive to perceived differences
in quality (Wheatley and Chiu 1977). We examine these
possible relationships, which we formulate as follows:
Hypothesis 6: The effect of utilitarian image appeal on
brand-purchase behavior is greater among male re-
spondents.
Hypothesis 7: The effect of symbolic image on brand-
purchase behavior is greater among female respon-
dents.
256 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE SUMMER 2004

TABLE 1
Countries/Metropolitan Areas Surveyed
Country Metropolitan Areas Passenger Car Sample
Australia Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane 143
Belgium Brussels, Liege, Charleroi, Antwerp, Gent 181
Brazil Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte 124
United Kingdom London, Birmingham, Manchester 178
Canada Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver 94
China Beijing, Shanghai 44
France Paris, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles 171
Germany Nurnberg, Leipzig, Bochum, Hamburg 189
India Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta, Madras, Bangalore 125
Italy Rome, Milan, Bari 158
Japan Fukuoka, Tokyo, Osaka, Sapporo 156
Mexico Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterey 136
the Netherlands Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague 172
Russia Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhni-Novgorod 124
South Korea Seoul, Kyunggi 142
Spain Madrid, Barcelona, Seville, Bilbao 165
Taiwan Taipei, Kaohsiung 143
Thailand Bangkok, Chiangmai, Haad Yai 57
Turkey Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir 150
United States Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Atlanta, St. Louis 176
Total 2,828

Hypothesis 8: The effect of utilitarian image on brand-
purchase behavior is greater among older respon-
dents.
Hypothesis 9: The effect of symbolic image on brand-
purchase behavior is greater among high-income
respondents.
Covariates. Previous research suggests that character-
istics such as brand awareness, market share, and local
versus foreign origin affect consumer choices. Therefore,
we include related variables in our framework as co-
variates. Controlling for these variables allows for stron-
ger tests of our hypotheses. Various authors have sug-
gested that awareness reflects the salience of a brand in
consumers’ minds (Motameni and Shahrokhi 1998),
which in turn affects brand perceptions and attitudes and
thus drives brand choice and loyalty (Aaker 1996). Other
than brand awareness, market share has been used as a sig-
nal for brand quality. All else being equal, consumers tend
to reduce their levels of uncertainty by choosing better-
selling brands. Finally, because ethnocentric tendency
affects consumers’ product evaluation, we include brand
origin (i.e., local or foreign) as a covariate.
METHOD
Description of the Existing Data Set
The data set used, which is owned by MORPACE Inter-
national, covers the top 20 automobile markets (Table 1)
and consists of 4,320 new car buyers. We limit our scope
to passenger car owners only (leaving out truck owners,
which the data set also covers), for a total sample size of
2,828. Respondents were asked to evaluate a set of brands1
in a survey conducted from September 1997 to October
1997. In view of heterogeneity within a country, the data
set covers only metropolitan areas, of which 70 are identi-
fied. A multistage sampling procedure was adopted. The
sample size of each country was determined arbitrarily by
MORPACE at the initial stage. Initial samples of 200 were
chosen for each country, with the exception of Japan (300)
and the United States (370) because of the large sales vol-
umes in these two countries. Subsequently, the sample in
each country was divided into mutually exclusive and col-
lectively exhaustive subgroups on the basis of the propor-
tion of total population in each metropolitan area. In each
area, local agents then determined the quota of each brand
according to the proportion of automobile sales volumes
in terms of makes and segments. Finally, trained inter-
viewers were recruited. They interviewed respondents at
major commercial centers using the intercept method.
Before the main survey was conducted, exploratory
research employing focus group discussions was con-
ducted in each market to offset the limitations of the free-
elicitation method, which usually generates low quantities
of elicited thoughts. Participants indicated the desirability
and importance of several associations, in which benefit-
oriented associations that most participants mentioned
(i.e., ones that had the same attitudinal meaning for most
respondents at this stage) were selected as salient beliefs

about automobiles. In total, 17 benefit associations that
were commonly elicited across the surveyed nations were
included for analysis. The associations reflect product
image (i.e., durability, reliability, safety in accidents, lux-
ury features, prestige, latest technology, fun to drive, ex-
citing, stylish, good acceleration, and sporty), corporate
image (i.e., “does a lot of advertising,” “in the news a lot,”
“good for this country,” “good for the world economy,”
“shows concern for the environment,” “the company that
makes the best vehicle,” and “the most successful automo-
bile manufacturer”), and country image (i.e., “the country
that makes the best vehicle” and “the country that makes
vehicles I accept”). A questionnaire was then developed
on the basis of the findings from the focus group discus-
sions. During the interviews, respondents were asked to
connect each recognized brand to the applicable benefit
associations that are contained in the show cards.
An extensive cross-national pretest in each surveyed
metropolitan area was conducted before fieldwork was
carried out. The questionnaires were then fine-tuned
according to the feedback from each country after the pilot
study and assigned scale items. To establish calibration
equivalence, a few measures, such as income, were con-
verted before analysis so that they were comparable across
countries. Moreover, to establish translation equivalence,
questionnaires were initially constructed in English. Par-
ticipants in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Brit-
ain, where English is the official language, received an
English version of the questionnaire. Bilingual personnel
who were fluent in English translated the questionnaires
for the remaining countries into the local languages. The
questionnaires were then back-translated into English to
ensure accuracy and to enhance translation equivalence
(Douglas and Craig 1983).
Measures. A dichotomous measure was applied to
associations in the data set; that is, a person believes either
that the brand under investigation is associated with a ben-
efit (1) or that the brand is not associated with that benefit
(0). Similarly, in terms of the measure of brand-purchase
behavior, a person either has purchased (1) or has not (0)
purchased the specific brand. The use of a nominal scale,
to some extent, can facilitate scalar equivalence by pre-
venting the midpoint or extreme responses associated with
a multiple-point scale (Mullen 1995). The use of a dichot-
omous measure also has practical implications. Often,
researchers find that their respondents are not knowledge-
able enough to make detailed judgments or to respond in
terms of a continuous scale for a long list of stimuli. In
view of this difficulty, the use of binary or dichotomous
scales has been proposed to measure consumer percep-
tions and preferences in developing countries (Malhotra
1988). While the use of a dichotomous measure could ease
the difficult or time-consuming task of judging that is
imposed on respondents, we note that reducing the scale of
Hsieh et al. / BRAND IMAGE 257
associations to presence/absence decreases analytic sensi-
tivity and limits analytic options.
Sociodemographic measures include marital status,
age, annual household income, and sex. Marital status,
sex, and education were measured dichotomously. Age
range was measured using an ordinal scale. Household
income was also measured using an ordinal scale, and
pretax total household income was measured in the local
currency and subsequently converted into U.S. dollars.
Collection of secondary data. National economic data
were drawn from publicly available statistical data
sources. Because no agreement has been reached as to
what constitutes “economic development,” multiple indi-
cators pertaining to consumer purchase behaviors (gross
national product per capita), product usage (penetration of
vehicles), and information diffusion (penetration of mass
media, including television, newspapers, telephones, per-
sonal computers, and the Internet) were compiled for the
20 surveyed countries. In line with other analyses of multi-
item socioeconomic data, confirmatory factor analysis
was used to develop a single-dimension scale and the cor-
responding aggregate value. With respect to culture
dimensions, given the quantitative rigor and the intuitive
appeal of Hofstede’s study (1983, 1991), three dimensions
of his five-dimensional cultural framework (power dis-
tance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance) were
used to develop the cultural profile of each country in our
research.
DATA ANALYSIS
Prior to applying multilevel regression modeling to
examine how consumers from different countries weigh
image appeal in relation to brand-purchase behavior, three
questions related to brand image need to be addressed: (1)
What are the image dimensions that underlie related, sub-
ordinate brand associations, which comprise brand-image
perception? (2) Is the factor structure of each image
dimension identified in each individual country similar
across the globe? (3) How may aggregate scales be gener-
ated for measuring brand-image dimensions based on the
well-fitted measurement models across nations and for
use as predictors in the subsequent hypotheses testing?
Exploring Brand-Image
Dimensions Using Global Data
We first explore the dimensionality of brand image per-
ceptions by using principal components analysis (PCA) of
the global data. We extracted the first four components
that had eigenvalues greater than one. (The findings given
here are brief, but the detailed results of the PCA are avail-
able from the authors on request.) The first three benefit-
258 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
based image dimensions that correspond to the three brand
concepts (Park et al. 1986) are (1) the symbolic-economic
dimension, which includes positive prestigious and luxury
features and negative fuel economy and dealer service; (2)
the sensory dimension, which includes “exciting,” “good
acceleration and speed,” “fun to drive,” and “sporty; and
(3) the utilitarian dimension, which includes “reliable,”
“made to last,” and “safe in accidents.” The findings imply
that the brand associations in each dimension are interde-
pendent as related measures of the converged image
dimension at a higher level of abstraction. The fourth
dimension consists mainly of “stylish” and “latest technol-
ogy,” which are the two important automobile associations
that are not related to general brand concepts.
In the same vein, we employ PCA to explore the dimen-
sionality of associations related to a brand’s corporate
image and country image. The first dimension highlights
corporate associations: “does a lot of advertising,” “in the
news a lot,” “good for this country,” “good for the world
economy,” and “shows concern for the environment.” The
first two associations involve corporate publicity, while
the other three associations involve corporate responsibil-
ity. The other dimension (which comprises “the company
that makes the best vehicle,” “the most successful automo-
bile manufacturer,” “the country that makes the best vehi-
cle” and “the country that makes vehicles I accept”) repre-
sents overall attitudes toward a brand’s corporate image
and country image.
Developing Measurement Models That
Reflect Multiple Dimensional Brand Image
We examine the extracted dimensionality using struc-
tural equation modeling on a country-by-country basis.
Although the PCA identifies the symbolic-economic fac-
tor as a single dimension, in practice, marketing appeals
are used independently to target different audiences. We
therefore split the symbolic-economic dimension into two
individual image dimensions: economic and symbolic.
The idea of treating the economic dimension as distinct is
also supported by Doyle (1989), who suggested that one of
consumers’ needs is for products to be economic or func-
tional (rather than emotional and psychological). We fur-
ther propose an alternative model in which the economic
dimension is omitted so that the dimensions correspond
with these three image dimensions used in Roth’s (1995)
study. Model comparison strategy is then adopted, in that
the proposed four-factor model is compared with the alter-
native three-factor model in terms of chi-square statistics
and goodness-of-fit indexes (Byrne 1998; Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, and Black 1995).
Because of the nominal nature of the variables, we esti-
mate these two measurement models with the correlation
SUMMER 2004
matrix as input and weighted least squares as the fitting
function using LISREL VIII. Of the different types of cor-
relation matrix, the performance of the tetrachoric correla-
tions coefficient is superior to that of other correlation
coefficients when the observed variables in the model are
all dichotomous. This is because the tetrachoric correla-
tion coefficient produces essentially unbiased parameter
estimates.
Model Comparison and
Modification Using National Data
The results of the chi-square test for the alternative
models are summarized in Table 2. As Table 2 shows, the
three-factor model with a smaller chi-square value is a sig-
nificantly better fit than the four-factor model, indicating
no evidence of discriminant validity of the fourth factor
(i.e., economic dimension). However, when we use the
three-factor model on some national samples (e.g., Brazil,
Canada, Mexico, China), we face the problem of non-
convergence, indicating an identification problem proba-
bly caused by the data characteristics. We thus respecified
the model in an exploratory manner according to model
development strategy (Byrne 1998). Although heavily
used in practice, model development strategy has often
been criticized for being data driven. Nonetheless, in many
applications, theory can only provide a starting point for
the development of a model that is both substantively
meaningful and statistically a good fit.
Therefore, we institute a series of appropriate modifi-
cations based on the results derived from the confirmatory
factor analysis and PCA of each country, so as to attain a
closer fit between the model and market data in each
national sample. As a result, the chi-square statistics for
the revised three-factor model for each nation become in-
significant. The resulting goodness-of-fit indexes, includ-
ing the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Goodness-of-Fit
Index (GFI), and the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index
(AGFI), also indicate well-fitting models in general. In
summary, the overall fit statistics for the three-factor mea-
surement models support measurement quality, suggest-
ing that the indictors specified in the models acceptably
converge to the corresponding construct (Steenkamp and
van Trijp 1991) in each country.
Item-factor loadings, which are estimates of the validity
of the observed variables (i.e., brand associations), are also
summarized in Table 2. The larger the factor loadings or
coefficients, the stronger is the evidence that the measured
items represent the underlying constructs (Bollen 1989).
In most countries surveyed, each loading (λx) is signifi-
cantly related to its underlying factor (on the basis of t-val-
ues). However, the validity of the scales is less than desir-
able for India, Russia, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, and
(text continues on p. 262)
 TABLE 2
Properties of Measurement Models
Australia Belgium Brazil Britain Canada Germany India Italy Japan Russia
(n = 3,395) (n = 3,894) (n = 2,548) (n = 3,698) (n = 1,879) (n = 4,174) (n = 1,792) (n = 2,961) (n = 2,983) (n = 2,246)
Product image
Chi-square four-factor model (df = 38) 220.21 127.7 NC 86.73 NC 124.08 NC 184.99 137.59 126.77
Chi-square three-factor model (df = 24) 180.65 116.74 NC 92.17 NC 187.03 65.77 NC NC 74.31
Chi-square revised three-factor model 6.5 22.24 19.33 7.04 16.11 17.71 5.24 21.83 16.36 13.5
df for the revised three-factor model 6 11 11 6 11 11 6 11 6 6
Fit indexes for the revised three-factor model
GFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AGFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
CFI 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.88
RMR 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05
Factor loading
Utilitarian
Durable 0.39 0.48 0.51 0.42 0.56 0.38 0.59 0.35
Reliable 0.76 0.60 0.73 0.38 0.65 0.55 0.39
Safe in accidents 0.39 0.50 0.68 0.09 0.52 0.47 0.27
Symbolic
Luxury features 0.46 0.77 0.98 0.54 0.70 0.55 0.13 0.57 0.38 0.50
Prestigious 0.96 0.56 0.23 0.67 0.80 0.93 0.15 0.59 0.84 0.55
a
Safe in accidents
a
Latest technology
a
Stylish
Sensory
Exciting 0.53 0.67 0.69 0.58 0.55 0.66 0.38 0.44
Fun to drive 0.33 0.70 0.70 0.67 0.34 0.34 0.22
Good acceleration and speed 0.61 0.46 0.80 0.25
Sporty 0.70 0.72 0.54 0.53
Corporate image
Chi-square two-factor model (df = 3) 5.34 10.47 14.37 0.96 1.15 7.79 57.86 11.25 7.45 10.09
Fit indexes for the two-factor model
GFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
AGFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00
CFI 0.97 0.93 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.61 0.63 0.87 0.89
Factor loading
Publicity
Does a lot of advertising 0.59 0.89 0.20 0.30 0.52 0.37 0.12 0.22 0.11 0.13
Is in the news a lot 0.50 0.31 0.99 0.45 0.74 0.55 0.74 0.07 0.31 0.78
Social responsibility
Good for the world economy 0.50 0.56 0.98 0.08 0.34 0.45 0.86 0.30
Shows concern for the environment 0.45 0.55 0.39 0.50 0.71 0.55 0.37 0.38 0.17 0.71
a

259
Good for this country 0.37 0.22

(continued)
260
TABLE 2 (continued)
Australia Belgium Brazil Britain Canada Germany India Italy Japan Russia
(n = 3,395) (n = 3,894) (n = 2,548) (n = 3,698) (n = 1,879) (n = 4,174) (n = 1,792) (n = 2,961) (n = 2,983) (n = 2,246)

Overall attitude toward corporation and country

Chi-square two-factor model (df = 3) 7.48 8.65 3.28 8.77 5.09 4.84 1.84 5.91 9.86 11.1
Fit indexes for the two-factor model
GFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AGFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
CFI 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Factor loading
Overall attitude toward brand’s corporate
This corporation makes the best vehicle 0.50 0.78 0.70 0.65 0.74 0.76 0.74 0.56 0.76 0.77
This is the most successful auto manufacturer 0.97 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.77 0.78 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.89
Overall attitude toward brand’s country
This country makes the best vehicle 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.97 0.85 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.98
This country makes the vehicle I accept 0.55 0.83 0.71 0.74 0.84 0.89 0.96 0.78 0.67 0.89

United The South

Taiwan Turkey States China France Mexico Netherlands Korea Spain Thailand
(n = 2,970) (n = 3,156) (n = 3,872) (n = 851) (n = 3,225) (n = 2,216) (n = 3,963) (n = 2,820) (n = 3,017) (n = 1,323)
Product image
Chi-square four-factor model (df = 38) NC 70.29 NC NC 183.67 NC 141.73 132.5 NC 321.77
Chi-square three-factor model (df = 24) 158.76 58.94 230.04 NC 189.05 NC NC 73.29 NC 650.72
Chi-square revised three-factor model 9.18 22.34 9.79 1.38 23.29 14.75 14.15 18.59 14.17 10.29
df for the revised three-factor model 6 11 6 6 11 6 6 11 6 6
Fit indexes for the revised three-factor model
GFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AGFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
CFI 0.99 0.92 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.84 0.97 0.95 0.92 1.00
RMR 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07
Factor loading
Utilitarian
Durable 0.75 0.50 0.45 0.81 0.77 0.30 0.79 0.62 0.65 0.08
Reliable 0.43 0.34 0.16 0.55 0.42 0.46 0.38 0.22
Safe in accidents 0.51 0.45 0.48 0.22
Symbolic
Luxury features 0.84 0.33 0.97 0.88 0.32 0.27 0.42
Prestigious 0.74 0.54 0.61 0.17 0.39 0.63
a
Safe in accidents 0.26 0.69
a
Latest technology 0.27 0.83
a
Stylish 0.72 0.40 0.26
 Sensory
Exciting 0.57 0.66 0.69 0.69 0.57 0.85
Fun to drive 0.65 0.68 0.75 0.50 0.18
Good acceleration and speed 0.34 0.59 0.33 0.48
Sporty 0.38 0.40 0.58 0.61 0.32 0.13
Corporate image
Chi-square two-factor model (df = 3) 9.71 9.87 5.2 5.75 7.68 3.84 9.82 9.31 6.32 4.08
Fit indexes for the two-factor model
GFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AGFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
CFI 0.64 0.91 0.99 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.82
Factor loading
Publicity
Does a lot of advertising 0.51 0.34 0.73 0.35 0.48 0.73 0.56 0.73 0.54 0.20
Is in the news a lot 0.26 0.15 0.55 0.19 0.50 0.71 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.31
Social responsibility
Good for the world economy 0.56 0.23 0.50 0.35 0.36 0.20 0.13 0.59 0.31 0.47
Shows concern for the environment 0.41 0.30 0.45 0.43 0.22 0.71 0.67 0.44 0.55 0.38
a
Good for this country
Overall attitude toward corporation and country
Chi-square two-factor model (df = 3) 3.89 0.22 5.24 2.12 5.56 5.62 3.99 27.88 9.38 3.25
Fit indexes for the two-factor model
GFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AGFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
CFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Factor loading
Overall attitude toward brand’s corporation
This corporation makes best vehicle 0.72 0.72 0.82 0.71 0.67 0.58 0.53 0.78 0.59 0.32
This is the most successful auto manufacturer 0.71 0.77 0.89 0.77 0.78 0.84 0.84 1.00 0.96 0.95
Overall attitude toward brand’s country
This country makes the best vehicle 0.90 0.83 0.97 0.84 0.95 0.99 0.98 0.90 1.00 0.93
This country makes the vehicle I accept 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.84 0.84 0.71 0.71 0.53 0.80 0.71

NOTE: NC = not convergent; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMR = root mean square residual.
a. Additional measures.

261
262 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
Thailand, which are considered less-developed countries.
In summary, the results of item-factor loadings in most
countries indicate a modestly satisfactory validity of con-
vergence, suggesting that the revised three-factor model is
a possible and plausible way of relating brand associations
to second-order image dimensions (i.e., sensory, symbolic,
and utilitarian) across most countries. Nevertheless,
unlike product-related brand-image dimensionality, the
umbrella brand consists of the same pattern of factor struc-
tures and has higher loadings (λx > .50) across nations,
suggesting a satisfactory reliability and validity level.
However, it is notable that national differences are
found in terms of the combination of brand associations
corresponding to each image dimension. For example, the
sensory dimension is formed with the inclusion of three of
the four measures extracted from the global sample (i.e.,
“exciting,” “fun to drive,” and “good acceleration and
speed”) for Belgium and Brazil, but only two measures
(i.e., “exciting” and “fun to drive”) for Canada and India.
The various combinations of measures applied to each
national sample suggest that factor constructs of brand-
image perceptions are similar but not statistically equiva-
lent across nations (Hsieh and Lindridge forthcoming).
Nonetheless, development of psychometrically rigorous
cross-cultural scales is not the main purpose of our analy-
sis. Rather, it is our intention to identify image dimen-
sions in each country and to aggregate multiple indicators
underlying each image dimension in order to represent
unidimensionality.
Calculating Image Scores
Instead of incorporating a large number of brand asso-
ciations, we aggregate multiple indicators into a single
composite of latent variables for multilevel analysis. The
estimated latent variable scores can be analyzed as if they
were observed, given that the correlation matrix of the
constructs was used as the input matrix in generating latent
variable scores. As such, any problem with scale reliability
merely renders conservative the strength of the direct
and moderating effects in the subsequent analysis. The
summed latent variable scores reduce model complexity
and avoid the limitations of multilevel application with
categorical data.
In summary, seven latent scores, including three prod-
uct-image dimensions (i.e., utilitarian, sensory, and sym-
bolic appeals) and four corporate and country image
dimensions (i.e., corporate publicity, corporate social re-
sponsibility, overall attitude toward a brand’s corporate
image, and overall attitude toward a brand’s country
image) have been generated from related multiple indica-
tors.2 Table 3 reports Pearson correlations and descriptive
statistics for the variables used to examine the research
hypotheses. Because of scale differences across measures
and to reduce any possible multicollinearity, some contin-
SUMMER 2004
uous variables have been normalized (i.e., put in
deviation-score form with means of zero) to help ensure
unbiased parameter estimates in regression analysis
(Aiken and West 1991).
RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES TESTING
In this section, we specify a three-level multilevel re-
gression model: the country is Level 3 (between coun-
tries), the respondent is Level 2 (between individuals), and
the brand clustered within individuals is Level 1. In the
fixed part of the model, brand-image perceptions, includ-
ing the seven latent scores derived from product, corpo-
rate, and country-image dimensions, are specified as pre-
dictors. National characteristics (e.g., level of economic
development, cultural dimension) and sociodemographic
factors (e.g., age, household income, sex, marital status)
are moderators, and brand characteristics are covariates.
Moderating Effects of National Factors
Although the hypotheses did not address main effects,
the main effects of all predictors, moderators, covariates,
and dummy variables are included in the analysis to esti-
mate moderating effects more precisely. Consistent with
Roth’s (1995) results, the main effects of brand image are
not significant (Table 4).3 Nonetheless, the corporation’s
social responsibility image (β = .022), overall attitude
toward a brand’s corporate image (β = .153), and overall
attitude toward a brand’s country image (β = .023) show
their significant main effects on purchase behavior in the
positive direction, as we proposed, indicating that individ-
ual brands benefit from consumers’ positive attitude
toward umbrella-brand tiers.
Our framework posits cross-level interactions between
indvidual differences and national economic and cultural
dimensions. Table 4 shows that four interactive terms (i.e.,
Symbolic Image × Economic Development, Symbolic
Image × Power Distance, Sensory Image × Power Dis-
tance, and Sensory Image × Individualism) are positive
and statistically significant (β = .026, β = .038, β = .026,
β = .030), which provides evidence to validate Roth’s
(1995) findings. Symbolic image has a greater effect on
purchase behavior in countries with higher levels of
economic development (Hypothesis 1) and countries that
are characterized by higher power distance (Hypothesis
4). The effect of sensory image on purchase behavior is
greater in countries that are characterized by higher
individualism (Hypothesis 3). However, contrary to our
expectations, Hypotheses 1 and 5, which state that the
effect of utilitarian image on purchase behavior is greater
in countries characterized by higher uncertainty avoidance
and lower levels of economic development, respectively,
are not supported. The formal hypothesis (Hypothesis 5)
 TABLE 3
Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Dependent, Independent, Moderator, and Covariate Variables
Dependent Independent Moderators Covariates

Normalized Normalized
Brand Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Local Brand Market
Variable Purchased Utilitarian Symbolic Sensory Publicity NSR NOAM NOAC NPDI NUA NINDI ED Marital Age Gender Income Origin Awareness Share

Brand purchased 1.000

Normalized utilitarian .066 1.000
Normalized symbolic (.003) (.012) 1.000
Normalized sensory (.004) (.395) .017 1.000
Normalized publicity .093 .073 .037 .001 1.000
NSR .049 .067 .034 .017 (.049) 1.000
NOAM .202 .077 .116 .040 .075 .057 1.000
NOAC .088 .045 .118 .106 .048 .048 .403 1.000
NPDI .010 (.001) (.000) (.001) .000 .002 .000 .000 1.000
NUA .008 (.001) .000 (.001) .001 (.004) .000 .000 .613 1.000
NINDI (.007) .001 (.000) .000 (.001) .000 .001 (.000) (.697) (.480) 1.000
ED (.002) .001 (.000) .001 .000 (.008) .001 (.000) (.749) (.217) .716 1.000
Marital status .000 .011 (.005) (.019) .021 .020 (.009) (.017) .027 (.033) (.002) (.005) 1.000
Age .003 .019 (.012) (.031) .006 .020 (.003) (.018) (.160) (.148) .239 .181 .443 1.000
Sex (.014) .006 (.011) .001 .002 .013 (.012) (.010) .118 .053 (.170) (.186) .071 .021 1.000
Income (.005) .011 .008 (.009) (.015) (.011) (.003) (.005) (.136) (.088) (.086) .070 .172 .036 (.003) 1.000
Local origin .141 .006 (.001) .029 .109 .030 .112 .147 (.071) .124 (.029) .185 .030 .032 (.027) .038 1.000
Normalized brand awareness .109 .101 .106 .036 .164 .072 .161 .187 (.194) (.063) .139 .184 .004 .061 (.104) .030 .168 1.000
Normalized market share .367 .102 (.045) (.059) .229 .053 .153 .082 .017 .036 (.010) .011 .002 .006 (.038) (.023) .401 .301 1.000

Normalized Normalized
Brand Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Local Brand Market
Purchased Utilitarian Symbolic Sensory Publicity NSR NOAM NOAC NPDI NUA NINDI ED Marital Age Gender Income Origin Awareness Share

High 0.00 –3.81 –1.92 –3.13 –2.16 –1.62 –2.21 –0.97 –1.30 –1.78 –1.64 –1.74 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 -5.00 –0.55
Low 1.00 4.72 5.33 5.98 4.31 5.58 5.91 2.56 1.82 1.32 1.27 1.57 1.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 0.65 7.29
M 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.63 2.42 0.68 3.57 0.07 0.00 0.00
SD 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.48 1.21 0.47 1.57 0.25 1.00 1.00
N 56,983 56,983 56,983 56,983 56,982 56,982 56,983 56,983 56,983 56,983 56,983 56,983 56,871 56,933 56,983 44,281 56,983 56,983 56,983

NOTE: NSR = normalized social responsibility; NOAM = normalized overall attitude toward brand’s corporate; NOAC = normalized overall attitude toward brand’s country image; NPDI = Normalized Power Dis-
tance Index; NUA = normalized uncertainty avoidance; NINDI = normalized individualism; ED: economic development.

263
264 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE SUMMER 2004

TABLE 4 TABLE 4
Standardized Multilevel Coefficients (Continued)
Fixed Part of Model β p > |Z| Fixed Part of Model β p > |Z|

Constant –.065 .019** Sensory × Individualism .030 .000***

Sensory image –.005 .768 Symbolic × Individualism .003 .701
Symbolic image –.011 .470 Utilitarian × Individualism –.009 .288
Utilitarian image –.006 .726 Market share .346 .000***
Corporate publicity .003 .498 Brand awareness –.003 .656
Corporate social responsibility .022 .000*** Local origin –.106 .000***
Overall attitude toward brand’s corporate .153 .000***
Overall attitude toward brand’s country .023 .000*** BMW –.053 .066*
Marital status .002 .842 Chrysler .075 .015**
Age .001 .733 Daewoo .161 .000***
Gender .000 .992 Daihatsu .091 .011***
Income .002 .507 Fiat .110 .000***
Sensory × Marital –.017 .130 Ford .019 .545
Symbolic × Marital .001 .957 GM .057 .075*
Utilitarian × Marital –.018 .127 Honda .124 .000***
Sensory × Age .001 .885 Hyundai .162 .000***
Symbolic × Age .004 .410 Isuzu .038 .289
Kia .112 .004***
Utilitarian × Age .011 .020**
Mazda .101 .001***
Sensory × Sex .009 .421
Mercedes Benz –.168 .000***
Symbolic × Sex .007 .495
Mitsubishi .044 .150
Utilitarian × Sex .005 .615 Nissan .072 .018**
Sensory × Income .010 .003*** Peugeot .106 .001***
Symbolic × Income .001 .807 Renault .095 .002***
Utilitarian × Income .005 .097* Saab .077 .017**
Level of economic development .017 .238 Samsung .132 .003***
Power distance .018 .198 Subaru .091 .008***
Uncertainty avoidance –.012 .205 Suzuki .120 .000***
Individualism –.009 .382 Toyota .025 .415
Sensory × Economic Development .007 .564 Volkswagen –.054 .074*
Symbolic × Economic Development .026 .010*** Volvo .038 .221
Utilitarian × Economic Development .010 .389
Sensory × Power Distance .026 .012** Random Part of Model tauhat p > |Z|
Symbolic × Power Distance .038 .000*** Nation level .000 .093***
Utilitarian × Power Distance –.014 .167 Individual level –.031 .000***
Sensory × Uncertainty Avoidance .004 .543 Brand level .828 .000***
Symbolic × Uncertainty Avoidance –.024 .000***
NOTE: –2 log-likelihood: decreased from 122815 in 1 iteration to 115457
Utilitarian × Uncertainty Avoidance –.003 .622
in 4 iterations.
(continued) *p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

was also rejected in Roth’s study. The rejection of Hypoth-
esis 1 might be due to the relatively low scale reliability of
the measurement model, which might moderate the strength
of the effects reported for less-developed countries.
Moderating Effects of
Sociodemographic Factors
Findings were mixed for the moderating effects of
sociodemographics. In line with our expectation (Hypoth-
esis 8), the findings show that older respondents are more
attracted to the utilitarian image (β = .011). Although the
interaction of sensory image and income is not addressed
by a formal hypothesis, note that it has a significant effect
(β = .010), which suggests that high-income groups value
a sensory image. However, the hypotheses regarding the
difference between female and male respondents, in
which women put more emphasis on symbolic appeals
(Hypothesis 7), while men focus more on utilitarian image
appeals (Hypothesis 6), are not supported. Also, Hypothe-
sis 8, which states that people with higher incomes are
more likely to value the symbolic image appeal, is not
supported.
To demonstrate the generalizability of the previously
discussed findings, we conduct further diagnosis on statis-
tically significant effects using the individual country data
(see Table 5). Logit regressions are performed using the
same set of variables, but excluding macro-level inde-

pendent and moderating variables (i.e., Macro-Level Vari-
ables × Image Dimensions). Chi-square tests are used to
assess whether the effect (i.e., coefficient) differs from
zero. Overall, the results from the individual countries
support the aggregate results. In general, the effects of
overall attitude toward corporate and country image on
brand-purchase behavior are confirmed for most of the
countries with an alpha of .10.4
As far as the moderating effect is concerned, some indi-
cations were found to support the results of aggregate anal-
ysis. For instance, symbolic image is more effective in
France, which has a relatively higher degree of power dis-
tance, and in the Netherlands, which has a relatively lower
degree of uncertainty avoidance. In contrast, symbolic
image is less effective in Belgium, which has the highest
degree of uncertainty avoidance, and Germany, which has
the lowest degree of power distance among surveyed
countries. On the contrary, sensory image enhances pur-
chase behavior in Belgium and Canada, both of which
have higher degrees of individualism. Sensory image is
less effective in Taiwan, which has the lowest degree of
individualism among surveyed countries, and Germany,
which has the lowest degree of power distance. In line with
the aggregate analysis, the moderating effect of utilitarian
image on purchase behavior was not found. With respect
to the moderating effect of sociodemographics, the inter-
active term of sensory image with income was found in
Germany, Taiwan, and the United States. However, other
interactions of sociodemographics and product-image
dimensions that are significant in aggregate analysis are
found to be insignificant across countries. The insignifi-
cance of the interactions might be due to the small sample
sizes used in the individual countries.
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
In this study, we have examined how macro-level and
micro-level factors moderate the effect of brand-image
perception on consumer brand-purchase behavior. Our
framework incorporates product-image dimensions and
umbrella-brand-image dimensions (i.e., corporate image
and country image) and considers individual- and
national-level factors that moderate the relationship
between brand-image perception and brand-purchase
behavior relationship. Incorporation of product, corpo-
rate, and country image into brand-image perception
enhances the validity and practical utility of perceptions. It
is evident that, like product image, corporate and country
images can provide consumers with meaningful associa-
tions to create an appealing image and thus can affect con-
sumer behavior. However, not much research has consid-
ered various image sources in a single framework. Also,
there is a need to bring both consumer and country seg-
mentation strategies together to consider both individual-
Hsieh et al. / BRAND IMAGE 265
and national-level factors in a single study to enhance the
validity of international market segmentation research. It
is this gap that we have sought to bridge.
We have tested our hypotheses across 20 countries and
have used large samples of consumers, which allows for a
strong test of the empirical generalizability of our find-
ings. As the globalization process quickens and several
less-developed countries join the global market, there is a
need to investigate emerging markets. In general, the find-
ings suggest the following: (1) benefit-based multidimen-
sional brand-image perception corroborates brand con-
cepts (i.e., functional, sensory, and social concepts) in
corresponding to consumers’ diverse needs (Park et al.
1986) across economically and culturally diverse nations,
(2) the perceptions of and attitude toward umbrella brands
have main effects on brand-purchase behavior, and (3)
national characteristics as well as sociodemographics play
significant moderating roles in the relationship between
brand-image perceptions and brand-purchase behavior.
With respect to the effects of umbrella-brand image,
our findings indicate that brand-purchase behavior is posi-
tively affected by consumers’ feelings toward the corpo-
rate image and country image of an individual brand. An
interesting point emerging from this study is that the
effects of umbrella-brand images in consumers’ purchase
behavior is evident not only in developed countries but
also in emerging markets, including former Socialist
countries where related research is scarce. Accordingly,
we suggest that firms continue to engage in activities that
build country and corporate equity, given that both equi-
ties are likely to benefit brand performance. Also, sup-
ported by categorization theory, basic information (e.g.,
information about umbrella-brand tiers) is more predomi-
nant and primary than is more complex information (e.g.,
information about specific brand associations) and there-
fore is easier to retrieve, which also supports the impor-
tance of consumers having a positive image of umbrella
brands.
In terms of moderating effects, our findings extend
Roth’s (1995) work, which suggests that brand-image
strategies and their effects on firm performance should
generalize across national markets that are similar eco-
nomically and culturally to consumer-based brand-image
perceptions and their effects. The findings highlight the
important role of national characteristics and consumers’
sociodemographic variables in moderating the effects of
product-related brand-image dimensions on brand-pur-
chase behavior. As the findings illustrate, an emphasis on
symbolic increases the brand-purchase behavior of con-
sumers from countries with higher levels of economic
development and higher degrees of power distance, and
sensory appeals enhance the purchase behavior of con-
sumers from countries characterized by higher degrees of
individualism and power distance. With respect to socio-
demographics, we find that older respondents tend to be
266
TABLE 5
Significant Effects on a Country-by-Country Basis
The South United
Australia Belgium Brazil Britain Canada China France Germany India Italy Japan Mexico Netherlands Russia Korea Spain Taiwan Thailand Turkey States

Symbolic image – + – +
Sensory image + + – –
Utilitarian image
Publicity + +
Social responsibility + + + +
Overall attitude toward brand’s corporation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Overall attitude toward brand’s country + + + + + + + + + +
Utilitarian Image × Age – +
Utilitarian × Income + –
Sensory × Income – + + +

2
R .302 .333 .536 .325 .416 .305 .432 .348 .718 .350 .383 .421 .323 .390 .638 .347 .381 .381 .503 .300
2
χ 242 221 467 236 165 61 368 240 412 191 350 316 211 42 619 238 305 151 358 285
df = 43, significance = .000

NOTE: + denotes a significant positive effect at the .10 level; – denotes a significant negative effect at the .10 level.

attracted by utilitarian image appeal, and the effect of sen-
sory image on purchase behavior is greater among high-
income respondents. These findings are important from
a theoretical perspective, because they aid in the under-
standing of why certain image appeals are not effective in
some countries and among some consumer segments; they
show that the macro environment or micro characteristics
of consumers might not be conducive.
In terms of methodological implications, the current
study illustrates necessary steps to measure association-
based brand-image perception by developing measure-
ment models and by aggregating multiple indicators of
brand associations that underlie each image dimension.
The proposed approach has implications for data mining,
particularly when multiple indicators are measured by
nominal scales.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
Our findings also generate insights directly applicable
for marketing managers. First, brand image building helps
consumers understand what a brand can do for them in
terms of either product-, corporate- or country-related
benefits. This finding contributes to the understanding of
the underlying image dimensions of benefit-based brand
associations and provides a conceptual basis for linking
brand-purchase behavior and consumer needs (Gutman
1992). The different image dimensions can be related to
different actions by brand managers. In addition, because
much more information (higher level of abstraction) is
summarized in benefit-oriented brand association than in
product attributes, the benefit-oriented image dimensions
provide guidelines at the strategic marketing level. Thus,
the findings facilitate effective communication strategies.
For example, an advertising message containing an appeal
of reliability can support a utilitarian brand image. Simi-
larly, corporate image can be enhanced by delivering a
social responsibility message to the target audience.
Second, our study evaluates the feasibility of region-
alization strategies based on country segments and that of
globalization strategies based on consumer segments
(Hassan and Katsanis 1994). Because the findings suggest
that both national and sociodemographic variables moder-
ate the effects of image dimension on purchase behavior,
we assume that regionalization based only on macro-level
variables might not be sufficient to maximize the effect of
image appeals; supplementary segmentation based on
micro-level variables (i.e., sociodemographics) might pro-
vide additional value. The empirical findings enable mar-
keting managers to work on a strategy premise that may be
applied across borders while it is still being tailored, where
necessary, to the characteristics of the local market and
specific sociodemographic segments.
Hsieh et al. / BRAND IMAGE 267
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
As does any empirical study, this research has several
limitations that present opportunities for further research,
including (1) the examination of the moderating effect on
the relationship between umbrella-brand images and pur-
chase behavior, (2) extensions of the present framework to
other product categories, (3) extensions of contextual fac-
tors and an examination of those factors’ antecedents and
indicators, (4) extensions of the image construct, and (5)
measurement improvement. First of all, given that this
study is a consumer-based extension of Roth’s (1995)
work, only the moderating effects on product-image
dimensions have been examined. However, potential
moderating effects on the corporate- and country-image
dimensions might exist. For instance, more educated con-
sumers might put more weight on social responsibility, or
younger consumers might pay more attention to publicity.
Future research can explore such possibilities. Second,
although to some extent the findings can be generalized to
consumer goods that have a variety of appeals, additional
work is needed to explore the generalizability of the
results in other product categories. For example, brand-
image research pertaining to industrial rather than con-
sumer goods and services would be an interesting area for
investigation.
Third, additional research could investigate other
typologies of national cultural dimensions, such as the one
developed by Schwartz (1994), or it could extend the cur-
rent framework by including the Confucian dynamic
dimension that Hofstede identified in his later work
(1991). This later work distinguishes a dynamic, future-
oriented mentality from a static mentality that is focused
on the past and the present. However, this cultural dimen-
sion has attracted relatively little attention, probably
because of its small coverage of country groups. Nonethe-
less, the potential of this cultural dimension in marketing
research applications is anticipated. Apart from cultural
dimensions, there are other variables from the national,
brand, and individual levels that could be investigated. For
example, national-level factors include automobile import
regulations and the tendency of consumer ethnocentrism
(Shimp and Sharma 1987). Brand-level factors include the
length of time the brand has been in the market, brand dis-
tribution aspects, and advertising and marketing expen-
diture variables. Individual-level variables other than
sociodemographic variables could also be considered. A
potentially interesting construct is consumer innovation,
which could be operationalized through well-developed
scales, such as the exploratory acquisition of a product
scale (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 1996). Consumer
innovation may moderate the effect of brand image on
purchase behavior for a product introduced in a new for-
eign market. Broadening the scope of information used to
assess national and individual differences would afford
268 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
better insights into key cross-market differences, therefore
ensuring the selection of the most appropriate market-
entry strategy.
Fourth, the brand associations underlying image per-
ceptions could be expanded. User imagery that also has
distinct meanings for consumers could be included in the
association set. This might be a more effective strategy
than the attempt that associates brand with benefit-based
images only. Also, the interdimensional correlation of
these distinctive image dimensions could shed some light
on the complexity of the brand-image perception struc-
ture. For example, according to means-end chain theory,
the representation of cognitive structures in memory is
based on the notion that the product and the consumer may
be hierarchically linked through an interconnected set of
cognitive elements with different levels of abstraction
(Olson and Reynolds 1983). The hierarchical linkages
among these image dimensions provide a possible
structure of brand-image preconceptions.
Finally, measurement improvements are possible and
may be important for further research. Given that we have
used an existing data set in this study, the potential mea-
surement problem arising from questionnaire design and
international survey implementation is beyond our con-
trol. Although the measurement model has proved accept-
able at a pool level, the result of our national-level analy-
sis, which seeks invariant factor patterns across countries
in a more rigorous way, is unsatisfactory. Also, although
the use of integrated latent variable scores to represent
multi-item measures is practically justifiable in the estima-
tion of coefficients in the multilevel model, this approach
might reduce the full structural equation model to the level
of a path model. Regarding the use of self-reporting to
measure key concepts, the variance explained may be
biased upwardly because of the self-reported nature of the
individual behavior response. To address this validity
issue, future replications might use multiple methods to
eliminate the rival explanation of shared method dissent.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the contribution of
MORPACE International Inc. in providing the data set for
analysis. The authors also are grateful for the reviewers’
and the editor’s comments. This study was partially
funded by the National Science Council under the research
project NSC 92-2416-H-155-035.
NOTES
1. Only the evaluations for the top 25 brands were included in this
study. These brands were BMW, Chrysler, Daewoo, Daihatsu, Fiat, Ford,
General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Izuzu, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes Benz,
SUMMER 2004
Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot, Porsche, Renault, Saab, Samsung, Subaru,
Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo, Acura, Alfa Romeo, Buick, Cadil-
lac, Chevrolet, Citroen, Dodge, Eagle, GMC, Holden, Infiniti, Jaguar,
Jeep, Lancia, Land Rover, Lexus, Lincoln, Mercury, Oldsmobile, Opel,
Plymouth, Pontiac, Rover, Seat, Saturn, Talbot, and Vauxhall.
2. It has been suggested that single-indicator constructs are unattrac-
tive because they ignore the unreliability of measurement (Bollen 1989).
3. The standard output of multilevel analysis provided by LISREL
2
application does not include statistics such as the R , F test, and z-scores.
We therefore perform the model using binary logistic regression provided
2
by the SPSS application. The results indicate a moderate R of .342 and a
significant F test with 62 degrees of freedom. Although the coefficients
obtained from SPSS are not identical for the results derived from
LISREL, the same significant main and moderator effects are identified.
However, it is noted that logistic regression does not take the multilevel
nature of the data into consideration.
4. When setting the alpha level, we were concerned with the power of
the statistical tests. In addition to avoiding Type I error by setting a con-
servative value for alpha, we also need to be able to identify the significant
contribution of the variables if they do indeed contribute to the prediction
model. If alpha was set too small when we used the individual country
data—where the sample size is smaller—the power could be too low to
identify the significant variables in the model. As such, we increase alpha
to the .10 level.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. 1996. “Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and
Markets.” California Management Review 38 (Spring): 102-120.
Aiken, Leona and Stephen West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and
Interpreting Interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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 Culture.” Journal of Mar-
keting 63 (1): 75-87.
Al-Sulaiti, Khalid I. and Michael J. Baker. 1998. “Country of Origin
Effects: A Literature Review.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 16
(3): 150-199.
Baumgartner, Hans and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp. 1996. “Explor-
atory Consumer Buying Behaviour: Conceptualization and Measure-
ment.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 13:121-137.
Bird, M., C. Channon, and A. S. C. Ehrenberg. 1970. “Brand Image and
Brand Usage.” Journal of Marketing Research 7 (August): 307-314.
Bollen, Kenneth. 1989. Structural Equations With Latent Variables. New
York: John Wiley.
Byrne, Barbara M. 1998. Structural Equation Modeling With LISREL,
PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Program-
ming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clark, Terry. 1990. “International Marketing and National Character: A
Review and Proposal for an Integrative Theory.” Journal of Market-
ing 54 (October): 66-79.
Cordell, V. 1991. “Competitive Context and Price as Moderators of
Country of Origin Preference.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 19 (Spring): 123-128.
de Mooij, Marieke. 2000. “The Future Is Predictable for International
Marketers Converging Income Lead to Diverging Consumer Behav-
ior.” International Marketing Review17 (2): 103-113.
Dittmar, Helga, Jane Beattie, and Susanne Friese. 1995. “Gender Identity
and Material Symbols: Objects and Decision Considerations in
Impulse Purchase.” Journal of Economic Psychology 16:491-511.
Dobni, Dawn and George M. Zinkhan. 1990. “In Search of Brand Image:
A Foundation Analysis.” In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17.
Eds. Marvin Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard Pollay. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 110-119.
Douglas, Susan P. and Samuel Craig. 1983. International Marketing
Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Doyle, P. 1989. “Building Successful Brands: The Strategic Options.”
Journal of Marketing Management 5 (Summer): 77-95.
Erickson, Gary M., Johnny K. Johansson, and Paul Chao. 1984. “Image
Variables in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations: Country of Origin
Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research 11 (September): 694-699.
, , and R. Jacobson. 1992. “Competition for Market Share
in the Presence of Strategic Invisible Assets: The US Automobile
Market, 1971-1981.” International Journal of Research in Marketing
9:23-37.
Gardner, Burleigh and Sidney J. Levy. 1955. “The Product and the
Brand.” Harvard Business Review 33 (March-April): 33-39.
Gensch, Dennis H. 1978. “Image-Measurement Segmentation.” Journal
of Marketing Research 15 (August): 384-394.
Gitelson, Richard J. and Deborah L. Kerstetter. 1990. “The Relationship
Between Sociodemographic Variables, Benefits Sought and Subse-
quent Vacation Behaviour: A Case Study.” Journal of Travel
Research 28 (Winter): 24-29.
Goodyear, Mary. 1996. “Divided by a Common Language: Diversity and
Deception in the World of Global Marketing.” Journal of the Market
Research Society 38 (2): 105-122.
Gutman, Jonathan. 1992. “Exploring the Nature of Linkages Between
Consequences and Values.” Journal of Business Research 22 (2): 143-
148.
Hair, Joseph F., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, and W. Black. 1995.
Multivariate Data Analysis With Readings. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Han, C. Min. 1989. “Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct?” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research 26 (May): 222-229.
Hassan, Salah S. and Lea Prevel Katsanis. 1994. “Global Market Seg-
mentation Strategies and Trends.” In Globalization of Consumer
Markets: Structure and Strategies. Eds. Salah S. Hassan and Erdener
Kaynak. New York: International Business Press, 47-62.
Helsen, Kristiaan, Kamel Jedidi, and Wayne S. DeSarbo. 1993. “A New
Approach to Country Segmentation Utilizing Multinational Diffu-
sion Patterns.” Journal of Marketing 57 (October): 60-71.
Hofstede, Geert H. 1983. “National Cultural in Four Dimensions: A
Research-Based Theory of Cultural Differences Among Nations.”
International Studies of Management and Organization 13 (1-2): 46-74.
 (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Lon-
don: McGraw-Hill.
Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. 1982. “The Experi-
ential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and
Fun.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2): 132-140.
Homer, Pamela M. 1990. “The Mediating Role of Attitude Toward the
Ad: Some Additional Evidence.” Journal of Marketing Research 27
(February): 78-86.
Hong, Sung-Tai and Robert S. Wyer Jr. 1989. “Effects of Country-of-
Origin and Product Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An
Information Processing Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research
16:175-187.
Hsieh, M. H. and A. Lindridge. Forthcoming. “Universal Appeals With
Local Specifications.” Journal of Product & Brand Management 13.
Hugstad, P. and M. Durr. 1986. “A Study of Country of Manufacturer
Impact on Consumer Perceptions.” In Development in Marketing Sci-
ence, Vol. 9. Eds. J. Hawes and N. K. Malhotra. Coral Gables, FL:
Academy of Marketing Science, 115-119.
Jain, Subhash. 1989. “Standardization of International Marketing Strat-
egy: Some Research Hypotheses.” Journal of Marketing 53 (Janu-
ary): 70-79.
. 1993. International Marketing Management. 4th ed. Boston:
PWS-KENT.
Johansson, Johny K. 1993. “Missing a Strategic Opportunity: Managers’
Denial of Country-of-Origin Effect.” In Product-Country Image:
Impact and Role in International Marketing. Eds. N. Heslop and L. A.
Papadopoulos. New York: International Business Press, 77-86.
Johnson, Madeline and George M. Zinkhan. 1990. “Defining and Mea-
suring Company Image.” In Developments in Marketing Science, Vol.
13. Ed. B. J. Dunlap. Provo, UT: Academy of Marketing Science,
346-350.
Kale, Sudhir H. 1995. “Grouping Euroconsumers: A Culture-Based
Clustering Approach.” Journal of International Marketing 3 (3): 35-
48.
Hsieh et al. / BRAND IMAGE 269
Kapferer, Jean-Noël. 1992. “How Global Are Global Brands?” In The
Challenge of Branding Today and in the Future, proceedings of the
conference of the European Society for Opinion and Marketing
Research (ESOMAR), October 28-30, Brussels, Belgium. Brussels,
Belgium: ESOMAR, 199-215.
Keller, Kevin Lane. 1993. “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing
Customer-Based Brand Equity.” Journal of Marketing 57 (January):
1-22.
. 2000. “The Brand Report Card.” Harvard Business Review 78
(January-February): 147-157.
Leclerc, France, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Laurette Dube. 1994. “Foreign
Branding and Its Effects on Product Perceptions and Attitudes.” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research 31 (May): 263-270.
Levitt, Theodore. 1983. “The Globalization of Markets.” Harvard Busi-
ness Review 61 (May-June): 92-102.
Lowe, Anthony Chun-Tung and David R. Corindale. 1998. “Differences
in ‘Cultural Values’ and Their Effects on Responses to Marketing
Stimuli: A Cross-Cultural Study Between Australians and Chinese
From the People’s Republic of China.” European Journal of Market-
ing 32 (9/10): 843-867.
Lynn, Michael, George M. Zinkhan, and Judy Harris. 1993. “Consumer
Tipping: A Cross-Country Study.” Journal of Consumer Research 19
(December): 478-888.
Malhotra, Naresh K. 1988. “A Methodology for Measuring Consumer
Preference in Developing Countries.” International Marketing
Review 5 (3): 52-66.
Martin, Ingrid M. and Sevgin Eroglu. 1993. “Measuring a Multi-Dimen-
sional Construct: Country Image.” Journal of Business Research 28
(November): 191-210.
Meenaghan, Tony. 1995. “The Role of Advertising in Brand Image De-
velopment.” Journal of Product and Brand Management 4 (4): 23-34.
Motameni, Reza and Manuchehr Shahrokhi. 1998. “Brand Equity Valua-
tion: A Global Perspective.” Journal of Product and Brand Manage-
ment 7 (4): 275-290.
Mullen, Michael R. 1995. “Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in
Cross-National Research.” Journal of International Business Studies
26 (3): 573-596.
Narayana, Chem L. 1981. “Aggregate Images of American and Japanese
Product: Implications on International Marketing.” Columbia Jour-
nal of World Business 16 (Summer): 31-35.
Niss, H. 1996. “Country of Origin Marketing Over the Products Life
Cycle: A Danish Case Study.” European Journal of Marketing 30 (3):
6-22.
Olson, J. and R. Reynolds. 1983. “Understanding Consumers’ Cognitive
Structures: Implications for Advertising Strategy.” In Advertising
and Consumer Psychology, Vol. 1. Eds. L. Percey and A. Woodside.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 77-91.
Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah J. MacInnis. 1986.
“Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management.” Journal of Market-
ing 50 (October): 135-145.
, Sandra Milberg, and Robert Lawson. 1991. “Evaluation of
Brand Extension: The Role of Product Level Similarity and Brand
Concept Consistency.” Journal of Consumer Research 18 (Septem-
ber): 185-193.
Park, Chan Su and V. Srinivasan. 1994. “A Survey-Based Method for
Measuring and Understanding Brand Equity and Its Extendibility.”
Journal of Marketing Research 58 (May): 271-288.
Roth, Martin S. 1995. “The Effects of Culture and Socioeconomics on the
Performance of Global Brand Image Strategies.” Journal of Market-
ing Research 32 (May): 163-175.
 and Jean B. Romeo. 1992. “Matching Product Category and
Country Image Perceptions: A Framework for Managing Country-of-
Origin Effects.” Journal of International Business Studies l (3): 477-
497.
Saunders, John and Guoqun Fu. 1997. “Dual Branding: How Corporate
Names Add Value.” Journal of Product and Brand Management 6 (1):
40-48.
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1994. “Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New
Cultural Dimensions of Values.” In Individualism and Collectivism:
Theory, Method, and Application. Eds. U. Kim et al. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 85-119.
270 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
Shimp, Terence A., Saeed Samiee, and Thomas J. Madden. 1993. “Coun-
tries and Their Products: A Cognitive Structure Perspective.” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 21 (4): 323-330.
 and Subhash Sharma. 1987. “Consumer Ethnocentrism: Con-
struction and Validation of the CETSCALE.” Journal of Marketing
Research 24 (August): 280-289.
Simmons, Carolyn J. and John G. Lynch. 1991. “Inference Effects With-
out Inference Making? Effects of Missing Information on Discount-
ing and Use of Presented Information.” Journal of Consumer
Research 17 (March): 477-491.
Srivastava, Rajendra K. and Allan D. Shocker. 1991. “Brand Equity: A
Prospective on Its Meaning and Measurement.” Working Paper No.
91-124. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Frenkel ter Hofstede, and Michel Wedel.
1999. “A Cross-National Investigation Into the Individual and
National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness.” Jour-
nal of Marketing 63 (April): 55-69.
 and Hans C. M. van Trijp. 1991. “The Use of LISREL in Validat-
ing Marketing Constructs.” International Journal of Research in
Marketing 8:283-299.
Stern, Barbara B., George M. Zinkhan, and Morris B. Holbrook. 2002.
“The Netvertising Image: Image Communication Model (NICM) and
Construct Definition.” Journal of Advertising 11 (3): 15-28.
Tse, David K. and Gerald J. Gorn. 1992. “An Experiment on the Salience
of Country-of-Origin in the Era of Global Brands.” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing 1 (1): 57-76.
Wheatley, John J. and John S. A. Chiu. 1977. “The Effects of Price, Store
Image, and Product and Respondent Characteristics on Perceptions
of Quality.” Journal of Marketing Research 14 (May): 181-186.
Whitelock, J. and D. Chung.1989. “Cross-Cultural Advertising: An
Empirical Study.” International Journal of Advertising 8 (3): 291-
310.
Wilkie, William. 1986. Consumer Behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Yip, George S. 1995. Total Global Strategy: Managing for Worldwide
Competitive Advantage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zhang, Y. 1996. “Chinese Consumers’ Evaluation of Foreign Products:
The Influence of Culture, Product Types and Product Presentation
Format.” European Journal of Marketing 30 (12): 50-68.
Zinkhan, George M. and Rudy Hirschheim. 1992. “Truth in Marketing
Theory and Research: An Alternative Perspective.” Journal of Mar-
keting 56 (April): 80-88.
 and Penelope J. Prenshaw. 1994. “Good Life Images and Brand
Name Associations: Evidence From Asia, America, and Europe.” In
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21. Eds. Chris Allen and
Deborah Roedder John. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 496-500.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ming-Huei Hsieh (hmh@saturn.yzu.edu.tw), Ph.D., is an assis-
tant professor in the Department of International Business, Yuan
Ze University, Taiwan. She has obtained her Ph.D. degree (2002)
from Warwick Business School of the University of Warwick,
United Kingdom. Prior to her Ph.D. study, she conducted several
market research projects for major multinationals, including
General Motors, Procter & Gamble, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson,
SUMMER 2004
and Prudential in Taiwan. She is currently studying a variety of
topics in cross-national consumer research. Specifically, she is
exploring topics in brand management. She is also interested in
the areas of Internet marketing and customer relationship man-
agement (CRM). She has articles published in the Journal of
International Marketing, the Journal of Product and Brand Man-
agement, and the Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce.
Shan-Ling Pan (pansl@comp.nus.edu.sg), Ph.D., is an assistant
professor and the coordinator of the Knowledge Management
Laboratory (http://kmlab.comp.nus.edu.sg) in the Department of
Information Systems of the School of Computing at the National
University of Singapore. He received his MBA degree (1993)
from the University of Texas at San Antonio, his MA degree
(1996) from the University of London School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS), and his Ph.D. degree (2000) from the
University of Warwick, United Kingdom. His primary research
focuses on the recursive interaction of organizations and infor-
mation technology (enterprise systems), with particular empha-
sis on organizational issues such as work practices, cultures,
structures, decision making, change, and strategy implemen-
tation. His research work has been published in Institute of Elec-
trical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Transaction on
Engineering Management, the Journal of the American Society
for Information Systems and Technology, Communications of the
Association for Computing Machinery, Information and Organi-
zation, the Journal of Strategic Information Systems, the Euro-
pean Journal of Information Systems, and Decision Support
Systems.
Rudy Setiono (rudys@comp.nus.edu.sg) received his Bachelor
of Science degree from Eastern Michigan University and M.Sc.
and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in
1984, 1986, and 1990, respectively. He has been with the
National University of Singapore since 1990 and he is currently
an associate professor in the School of Computing. His research
interests include linear programming, nonlinear optimization,
and neural networks. He is a senior member of IEEE and serves
as an associate editor of IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks.
His publications have appeared in the SIAM Journal on Control
and Optimization, the European Journal of Operational
Research, the Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications,
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on
Data and Knowledge Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Sys-
tems Man and Cybernetics, Neural Computation, Neurocomput-
ing, Connection Science, Management Science, and many other
reputable journals.