Barbara Jenes

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ISSUES

IN MEASURING COUNTRY IMAGE

DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENT MODEL OF

COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND
Department of Marketing Research
and Consumer Behaviour

Supervisor: Simon Judit Ph.D.

© Barbara Jenes
Budapest, 2012
 Corvinus University of Budapest
Doctoral School of Business Administration

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ISSUES

IN MEASURING COUNTRY IMAGE

DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENT MODEL OF

COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

Ph.D. Dissertation

Barbara Jenes
Budapest, 2012
This dissertation was made with the help of TÁMOP 4.2.1.B-09/1/KMR-
2010-0005 CUB research project.
Acknowledgements

The author would first like to thank her thesis advisor, Dr. Judit SIMON for the
professional and personal assistance provided throughout the elaboration of the
present thesis.
The author is grateful to her colleagues – Irma AGÁRDI, József BERÁCS, Tamás
CSORDÁS, Tamás GYULAVÁRI, Ágnes HOFMEISTER-TÓTH, Erzsébet MALOTA, Ariel
MITEV, Gábor NAGY, Ágnes NEULINGER, Edit NEUMANN-BÓDI, Nóra NYIR , Károly
ÖTVÖS and József TASNÁDI – for their constructive and orientating remarks and
professional aid that contributed to shaping this thesis.
The author would like to thank Prof. Dr. Martin KLARMANN for providing a
consultation opportunity in the topic of the present thesis.
The author is grateful to Rita RUSCHEL and Patrícia ALADZSITS for their help in the
physical materialization of the present work.
The author owes a debt of gratitude to her family and friends, for their patience,
encouragement and persevering support that provided the author time and energy to
make the present scientific work happen.
CONTENTS

I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1
1. The theory of country image –
A literature review of hungarian and international literature
on country image 1
1.1. A general presentation of the concept of country image 1
1.2. Defining country image 4
1.2.1. Categorizing the definitions of country image 4
1.2.2. Partitioning the definitions of country image 8
1.2.2.1. Perception-based definitions of country image 9
1.2.2.2. Country image definitions based on beliefs (faith) 9
1.2.2.3. Country image definitions based on opinions and insights
(mental images) 10
1.2.2.4. Association-based definitions of country image 10
1.2.2.5. Country image definitions based on stereotypes, schemes 11
1.2.2.6. Attitude-based country image definitions 12
1.2.3. Separating the concept of country image from other relating concepts13
1.2.3.1. National identity 13
1.2.3.2. National stereotypes 14
1.3. Summary and critical analysis of country image literature 15

2. Country as a brand theory: A literature review of hungarian

and international literature on countries as brands 17
2.1. Building country image through marketing 18
2.1.1. Academic approach to place marketing 20
2.1.2. Approaches to country marketing in the literature 23
2.2. Branding approaches in country image literature – Place branding 24
2.2.1. The approaches on “country branding” and “nation branding” 27
2.3. Country image as a country brand –
Branding approaches in the literature of country image 30
2.4. Country image as Competitive Identity – A brief overview 34
2.5. A summarizing and critical review of branding approaches related to
country image theory 35

3. The dimensions and the mulidimensional nature of

country image and country brand 39
3.1. Dimensions of country image 39
3.2. The evaluation of country image structure 45
3.2.1. The structure of country image dimensions 45
3.2.2. Factors influencing the perception of country image 47
3.2.3. The effect of country image on behavior 49
3.3. The dimensions of country brand (nation brand) 50
3.3.1. Gudjonsson’s nation’s brand portfolio 51
 3.3.2. Place brand dimensions by Hanna and Rowley 52
3. 4. Further dimensions of country (nation) brand perception 53
3. 5. A critical analysis of the literature on the dimensions of country image
and country brands 55

4. Theory of Country Equity –

Measuring country image and country brand, methodological
considerations 57
4.1. The measurability of country image: measurement procedures,
marketing approaches 58
4. 2. Known country image studies and scales 61
4. 3. Country brand equity measurement approaches –
The concept of ’country equity’ 63
4.3.1. Measuring place brand 63
4.3.2. The concept of Country Equity 64
4.3.3. Consumer-oriented brand equity in place brand theories 68
4.3.4. Measuring country equity 73
4. 4. Methodological considerations: summary and critical analysis 76

5. The theory of destination evaluation –

Country image in the context of destinations 80
5. 1. Destination image 81
5. 2. The relationship between country image and destination image 84
5. 3. The effect of country image on destination evaluation 85
5. 4. Critical analysis of destination approaches to country image 88

II. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 91

6. The methodology of empirical research 91
6.1. The research concept – Background to the empirical research 91
6.1.1. Presenting the constructs of the theoretical explanatory model 94
6.2. Research questions 95
6.3. Process of the empirical research 96
6.3.1. Research phases 98
6.3.2. The initial theoretical model 99

7. First quantitative research phase 101

7.1. Exploratory study – Unveiling the dimensions of country image and the
related casual relationships; test of country image scales 101
7.2. Methodology of the first quantitative research phase 102
7.3. Main results of the Hungarian study 102
7.3.1. Sample proprieties 103
7.3.2. Open-ended questions 103
7.3.3. Testing the Papadopoulos-scale 104
7.3.4. Test of the Gallup country image scale 108
 7.3.5. The Country Image Dimensions Model –
Methodology and results of the structural analysis 112
7.4. Main results of the English-language study 114
7.4.1. Sample proprieties 114
7.4.2. Open-ended questions 115
7.4.3. Testing the Papadopoulos-scale 116
7.4.4. Test of the Gallup country image scale 119
7.5. Conclusions and limitations of the first quantitative research phase 122
7.5.1. Scale evaluation 122
7.5.2. Unveiling the potential moderating factors 124
7.5.3. General evaluation of the structural model 125
7.6. Including the results of the first quantitative research phase into the model 126

8. Second qualitative and quantitative phases 128

8.1. Exploratory study – Examining country brand and country equity concepts
and test of the country brand scale 128
8.2. The qualitative part of the second research phase 129
8.2.1. Focus groups: methodology and sample attributes 129
8.2.2. Results of the focus groups 131
8.2.2.1. Exploring and studying the dimensions of country image 131
8.2.2.2. Mapping of associations, perceptions 134
8.2.2.3. Exploring general vs. situation-specific factors 135
8.2.2.4. Mapping the behavioral output, factors affecting decisions 136
8.2.2.5. Destination choice, product purchase, choice of
place of residence 136
8.2.2.6. Testing the country brand construct and
unveiling its dimensions 136
8.2.3. Conclusions of the focus-group interviews 137
8.3. Quantitative part of the second research phase 139
8.3.1. Methodology of scale test and sample proprieties 139
8.3.2. Results of the scale test 142
8.3.3. Results of the pilot questionnaire 147
8.3.3. Conclusions and limitations of the scale test and pilot questionnaire 150
8.4. Conclusions and limitations of the second research phase 151
8.4.1. Applying the conclusions of the second research phase
in the final doctoral research model 151

9. The third qualitative and quantitative research phase 153

9.1. Exploratory research – expert interviews 153
9.1.1. Subjects and course of the interviews 153
9.1.2. Results of the interviews 154
9.1.3. Conclusions of the interviews 159
9.2. Preparation of the confirmatory research phase, developing the final
research model 160
 9.2.1. Narrowing of the theoretical framework; delimitation of the research
model 160
9.2.2. The doctoral research model 163
9.2.3. Hypotheses of doctoral research 164
9.2.3.1. Hypotheses: country image dimensions and
their measurement 164
9.2.3.2. Hypotheses: value and measurement of country image /
country equity 168
9.2.3.3. Hypotheses: Effects of country image and country equity on
behavior 171
9.2.4. Attributes of the model variables 173
9.3. Confirmatory research: the test of Country Equity Model (CEM) 176
9.3.1. Questionnaire of the research 176
9.3.2. Sample 177
9.3.3. Query methodology 178
9.3.4. Data analysis and evaluation of the results 178
9.3.5. Analysis of the structural model 179
9.3.5.1. Tests of reliability 180
9.3.5.2. Tests of validity 181
9.3.6. Tests of validity and reliability of the structural model 182
9.3.7. Results of the test of structural model 185
9.3.8. Results of the hypothesis and model tests 187
9.3.9. Further results related to the hypotheses 192
9.3.10. Test of the country equity contsruct 197
9.3.11. Summary of the results 198
9.3.12. Further results of the study 200
9.4. Conclusion of the third quantitative research phase 201

III. CONCLUSIONS 204

10. Results of the doctoral dissertation, conclusions 204
10.1. Results and conclusions of the research phases 206
10.1.1. Conclusions on the main research question 207
10.1.2. Conclusions on the sub-questions 210
10.2. Theoretical and practical significance of the doctoral research 214
10.2.1. Theoretical significance 214
10.2.2. Methodological significance 216
10.2.3. Practical significance 216
10.3. Limitations of the research and of the results 217
10.4. Future research directions 218
APPENDIX 221
APPENDIX 1/A. – The first quantitative research phase
(Hungarian questionnaire) 221
APPENDIX 1/B. – The first quantitative research phase
(English language questionnaire) 224
APPENDIX 2/A. – The second research phase – discussion guide for focus group
interviews (Hungarian) 227
APPENDIX 2/B. – The second research phase, focus group interviews’
participants 228
APPENDIX 3. – The second research phase, questionnaire for the scale test 229
Appendix 4. – Guide for expert interviews of third research phase 232
Appendix 5. – Final research phase – questionnaire 233

REFERENCES 238

Publications related to the topic of the dissertation 267

List of Tables

Table 1. Overall country image definitions in the literature 5

Table 2. Product-country-image definitions 7
Table 3. Country-related product image definitions 8
Table 4. The fields of country and nation branding 27
Table 5. Differences between corporate brand and place brand 32
Table 6. A comparison of country as a brand and product brands 32
Table 7. Conceptualization of country image 40
Table 8. Dimension of country image 41
Table 9. Used approaches and measurement methodology in
country image studies 60
Table 10. Use of alternative survey types within country image analyses 61
Table 11. Known country image scales and their sources 62
Table 12. Key literature dealing with country equity 67
Table 13. Selected definitions of destination image 82
Table 14. Phases of the empirical research 97
Table 15. Free associations related to Hungary 104
Table 16. The evaluation of Hungary and its inhabitants among Hungarian
respondents, measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale 105
Table 17. Factors unveiled in the Hungarian sample, based on the
Papadopoulos scale 107
Table 18. The evaluation of Hungary and its inhabitants among Hungarian
respondents, measured on a 4-point scale 109
Table 19. Factors unveiled in the Hungarian sample, based on
the Gallup scale 111
Table 20. Country of origin of respondents to the English-language
questionnaire 115
Table 21. Free associations of foreign respondents related to Hungary 115
Table 22. The evaluation of Hungary and its inhabitants among foreign
respondents, measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale 116
Table 23. Factors unveiled in the English-language sample, based on the
Papadopoulos scale 118
Table 24. The evaluation of Hungary and its inhabitants among foreign
respondents, measured on a 4-point scale 119
Table 25. Factors unveiled in the English-language sample, based on the
Gallup scale 121
Table 26. Test of reliability of the used scales
(Cronbach’s alpha indicators) 122
Table 27. Country image dimensions unveiled using open-ended questions 123
Table 28. Latent variables unveiled by the exploratory factor analysis 123
Table 29. Moderating effects unveiled during the research 124
Table 30. Main proprieties of the focus groups 131
Table 31. Characteristics and sources of the Pappu-Quester (2010) scale
variables 139
Table 32. Characteristics and sources of the variables used during
the test of scales 141
Table 33. Factors unveiled for Germany using the Pappu-Quester-scale 143
Table 34. Factors unveiled for China using the Pappu-Quester-scale 145
Table 35. Cronbach’s alpha scores of the scale test 146
Table 36. Results of the scale test 147
Table 37. Presence of a demographic effect in the evaluation of countries 150
Table 38. Characteristics and sources of the variables used in the
questionnaire of the third research phase 176
Table 39. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis and the tests of
reliability and validity 184
Table 40. Indicators of fit of the model 185
Table 41. Method(s) used for hypothesis testing 187
Table 42. Varying factor loadings between country image and its dimensions
according to the SEM model 188
Table 43. Correlation between indicators in the formative
country image model 189
Table 44. Total, direct and indirect effects between variables
in both samples 191
Table 45. Factor analysis of the dimensions of country image –
German sample (N=600) 193
Table 46. Factor analysis of the dimensions of country image –
control sample (N=600) ) 194
Table 47. Summary of the result of hypothesis test 199
Table 48. Results of the Pappu-Quester scale (N=600)
(on a 7-point Likert scale) 200
Table 49. Results of the Nadeau et.al. scale (N=600)
(on a 7-point Likert scale) 201
Table 50. Results of the test of hypotheses 203
Table 51. Research questions and the related research phases 205
Table 52. Results and conclusions of the dissertation’s research phases 206
List of Figures

Figure 1. A model of strategic place marketing 22

Figure 2. Anholt’s Nation Brand Hexagone 34
Figure 3. The evolution in time of country image theory 37
Figure 4. The evolution of country image theory with regards to its
conceptual framework and the impact of related fields of study 37
Figure 5. Dimensions of country image according to the literature 44
Figure 6. Nation Branding Influential Map by Gudjonsson 52
Figure 7. Place brand dimensions by Hanna and Rowley 53
Figure 8. The ’Place Brand Experience’ Model 54
Figure 9. Country image, country equity and product-country image 66
Figure 10. A model for country equity 66
Figure 11. Model for country image dimensions –
Theoretical explanatory model 93
Figure 12. Multidimensionality of country image –Initial theoretical model 100
Figure 13. Areas addressed by the first quantitative research phase 101
Figure 14. Structural model of the Hungarian country image dimensions 113
Figure 15. The enhanced theoretical model after the first quantitative
research phase 127
Figure 16. Areas studied in the second research phase 129
Figure 17. The items of the Pappu – Quester (2010) country equity construct 140
Figure 18. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis for Germany and China 146
Figure 19. The revised model according to the second research phase 152
Figure 20. The revised model according to the findings of all exploratory
research phases 160
Figure 21. Delimiting the parts of the theoretical model as a base for the final
empirical research 161
Figure 22. Areas to be studied in the doctoral research
(A narrowed theoretical framework) 162
Figure 23. Final research (measurement) model and measurement scales 163
Figure 24. The model by Nadeau et.al. (2008) 174
Figure 25. Confirmatory factor analysis of the variables and indicators
(Germany) 183
Figure 26. Confirmatory factor analysis of the variables and indicators
(Croatia) 183
Figure 27. Structural research model (German sample) 186
Figure 28. Structural research model (Croatian sample) 186
Figure 29. Final country equity factor structure and standardized factor
loadings, based on the confirmatory factor analyses
(German and Croatian [control] samples) 198
 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and relevance of the research

The notion of country image is among today’s most important and focal marketing
topics. Country image, according to the most common view in the literature, includes
the evaluation by people of the culture, economy, political life, production, population,
etc. of a country. According to a possible definition, country image is “the sum of
beliefs and impressions people hold about places” (Kotler et.al., 1993, p. 141.). In
practice, this country image can be as much spontaneously formed as it can be
consciously malleable. Several examples of conscious image building can be traced
back to many years, that continuously shaped both the internal and external images of
the related countries.

A scientific approach to country image originates from the 1960’s with the study of
people’s choice and purchase of foreign products and that of the related influencing
factors, with the so-called country-of-origin effects. At the same time, several other
sources focus on overall country image. Most publications in the topic can be related to
the field of marketing, even though not all of them can be found in the specific literature
thereof. Thus, studies on the differences between the evaluation of countries can be
found in the respective literature of the fields of international relations (e.g. van Ham,
2002a; Plavsak, 2002, 2003), sociology, social psychology (e.g. Peabody, 1985; Phalet –
Poppe, 1997; Hopkins – Murdoch, 1999; Csepeli – Örkény – Székelyi, 2001; Georgescu
– Botescu, 2004), political philosophy, politology (e.g. Todorow, 1993; Wendt, 1994;
Brysk – Parsons – Sandholtz, 2002), cultural studies (e.g. Bittner 2004; Heidrich, 2001;
Hofstede, 2003), social evolution theory (e.g. Dessewffy, 2006; Hankiss, 1996, 2006) or
cultural history (e.g. Berger – Pozsgai, 1993; Hankiss, 1999; Olins, 2002a; Peth ,
2003).
Most recent publications on country image in the marketing literature address country
image, as a brand equity and are written along a country branding approach, novel to
the field. The literature, following the results of the most recent works, considers a
nation’s image as something that can be positioned or evaluated – just like products or
brands. The possibility of evaluation of a country’s name as a brand name as well as the
well-foundedness of this approach, however are subject to scientific debate and discord,
and at the time, constitute the subject of numerous topical research projects.

The main purpose of the present doctoral thesis is to unveil and analyze the dimensions
and other influencing factors of country image and to address the practical, scientific
and methodological issues related to the measurement of country image and country
equity. An indirect objective of the dissertation is to set up a country equity model
(CEM) that combines the dimensions of country image and country equity, and
addresses the dimensions and relationships related to evaluation of countries (with
i
INTRODUCTION

special regard to the destination context) in a complex manner, based on the literature
and the results of the research conducted within the framework of the present
dissertation.
Our goal with the empirical research is to analyze in the framework of a complex model
all the relationships and hypotheses unveiled in our literature review and refined during
preceding exploratory research phases. Beyond unveiling the dimensions of country
image and influencing factors of country equity, our aim is to characterize brand equity
value into categories along a consumer-oriented approach and to identify the effect of
country image and brand equity on destination evaluation.

The main research question of the dissertation is as follows:

What factors influence the rating and measuring of country image and country brand,
with special regard to the field of destination evaluation?

Sub-questions related to the main research question:

i. What are the relevant components of country image in the evaluation of a

country?
ii. How can these components be organized and ranked based on their effect on the
evaluation of a country?
iii. How can the notion of brand equity (country equity) be interpreted in relation to
a country and what value does it carry for stakeholders?
iv. What measurable effects does the image-building activity of a country have in
the target audience’s behavior? What are the fields where country image has a
quantifiable effect?
v. By what means can the image-building activity of a country and the effects
thereof can be measured and quantified?
vi. How can the value of country image be quantified and what are its constituting
elements?

Scientific and practical significance of the dissertation

The research field of general country image had been at its peak in the 1990’s, even
though it remains one of the most researched topics in the area. Researchers of the field
today focus on matters of measurability and the quantifiable effects of country image
building rather than on the methods of country image building as was the case formerly.
They are therefore interested in unveiling the dimensions that affect the image and
evaluation of a country and to address the importance and effect of these on the
formation of views and opinion about a country.
The literature agrees on the fact that in today’s globalized world, a conscious image
building can be one of the most effective tools in the competition between countries to
ii
 INTRODUCTION

foster a strong, positive internal and external country image (see e.g. Kotler et.al., 1993;
Friedman, 1999; van Ham, 2002a; Anholt, 2002; Plavsak, 2003; deVicente, 2004; Jaffe
– Nebenzahl, 2006). A successful image can be obtained in various ways and the quality
of the resulting country image is fit for being measured and tested using scales. The aim
of our research is to unveil all those factors relevant in the evaluation of a country
through the modification of which one can reach a desired state of their country image.
Beyond this practical significance, the present work’s scientific contribution must not
be ignored either. The brand equity approach account among the most recent advances
in the field, and it is, for that matter, still relatively underdeveloped and is not, in some
cases, devoid of contradictions. The relevance of a research topic in this field is
therefore utterly justified as it can contribute to lifting a number of the aforementioned
contradictions and to addressing a number of scientific issues and questions related to
the field and therefore to developing the field as a whole.

The scientific importance of the present work lies in the fact that it combines traditional
measurement methods with novel techniques (i.e. structural equation modeling and path
analysis). That not only has methodological implications, but also contributes to theory
building. The structural equation modeling methodology is first justified by the complex
nature of the research context, and second by a will to reach a maximum of validity for
our theoretical model. The present research is aimed to contribute to the literature in
more complex country image studies by unveiling in a complex causal model the
relationship between the dimensions of country image, country brand attributes and
country equity.

Structure of the dissertation

The research topic encompasses and provides a joint study of three fields: country
image, country equity and destination evaluation. The dissertation is built upon three
pillars: a theoretical overview (chapters 1 to 5), the empirical research (chapters 6 to 9)
and the conclusions of the doctoral study (chapter 10). Chapters 1 to 3 reflect upon the
literature and particularly on the dimensions of country image and country brands.
Chapter 4 markedly deals with country equity theory and the methodological
considerations related to measuring country image and country brands, while chapter 5
gives an introduction to the approaches on destination evaluation. The three main stages
of the doctoral research are included in chapters 6 to 9 that are built up in a sequential
logic to form the empirical core of the dissertation. Chapter 10 gives an overview of the
most importance conclusions of the dissertation, it establishes its limitations and lays
down further research directions in the research area.
According to the above, a clear conceptual delimitation of the notion of country image
and its differentiation from country-of-origin effects introduce our theoretical review. In
this first part, we equally give an overview of the related fields of science and establish

iii
INTRODUCTION

potential points of connection with them, in order to emphasize the interdisciplinary

nature of the research topic.
In our second chapter we introduce the notion of “country brand” and undertake an
analysis of its relevance and raison d’être. A historical outline of the field is presented
and the literature of place / country marketing, place / country branding is equally
reviewed.
Chapter 3 presents the main approaches related to country branding and the dimensions
of country brands. First, the area related to the factors affecting country image is
reviewed, then the so-called consumer-focused brand equity attributes are presented and
lastly, further approaches related to the relevant affecting factors are exhibited.
Chapter 4 deals with the possibilities of definition, measurement and other
methodological considerations related to the value of country image – i.e. country
equity. The most notorious research results and measurement techniques are also cited
as a part of this chapter.
In Chapter 5 we present the possibilities to link country image theory to the field of
destination management, with special attention to the area of destination evaluation.
Following our review and critical analysis of the related literature, Chapter 6 gives an
overview of the dissertation’s research concept. Our initial theoretical model is
presented as well as our research process. These latter are used to give an outline on the
exact context for our research while our literature review and the results of our
exploratory studies are used to determine our final research questions. This chapter
equally includes a presentation of the assumed relationships between certain constructs
in our explanatory model.
Chapters 7, 8 and 9 are a sequentially built presentation of our 3 subsequent research
phases, all of which comprised of both qualitative and quantitative parts. In Chapter 9 a
distinguished attention is given to the presentation of our hypotheses and to the analysis
of the results of our doctoral research and model testing.
Chapter 10 revisits the results of the doctoral research, as well as its practical and
theoretical implications. It reviews the limitations of the dissertation and provides
further research topics.

Remarks on the structure of the dissertation

At the end of each chapter, where relevant, a critical analysis of the preceding topic is
presented and the pool of definitions of notions that are accepted and to be used in the
remainder of the dissertation is delineated. Starting from Chapter 2, in each chapter we
give a separate analysis (but at the same time along a parallel logic) of first the
connection of the topic with country image and in the subsequent sub-chapters, its
connection with country brands.

iv
 INTRODUCTION

Remarks on the pool of literature reviewed

Even though many authors discuss the notions of public diplomacy (e.g. Szondi, 2007,
2008) and destination image, destination marketing or destination branding in
connection with country image (see e.g. the tourism-based approaches, e.g. Echtner –
Richie, 2003; Mossberg – Kleppe, 2005; Tasci – Gartner – Cavusgil, 2007; Tasci –
Gartner, 2009; Tasci – Kozak, 2009; Marzano – Scott, 2009), the present dissertation
will disregard these fields because of their specificity, lower relevance for the present
topic and space limitations. In the author’s view, diplomacy and destination
management both go beyond the scope of the present dissertation.
Likewise, only the relevant parts for the present dissertation of the areas of branding
and brand equity will be mentioned, even though further sources for a deeper
understanding of the given area are always cited using footnotes. Once again, the reason
for this simplification is that the two fields have an extensive body of knowledge which
goes beyond the framework of the present dissertation. At the same time, every relevant
and essential part thereof will be (among certain limits) mentioned, presented and – in
an aim for a holistic view on the topic – interpreted.
International (English-language) literature is overrepresented in the dissertation
compared to Hungarian sources. This is caused by the fact that beyond a few exceptions
(e.g. the works by Piskóti et al., Malota, Hofmeister Tóth, Totth, Tör csik, Papp-Váry),
few relevant works have been published in Hungarian in the fields of country image or
country marketing, and those published mainly focus on the field of country-of-origin
image. At the same time, the author of the present dissertation seeks to include all
relevant works from Hungary and to specifically highlight the specialties and results
thereof.

It is equally important to note that the dissertation is heavily theoretically focused, and
provides a processing, adaptation and bringing into new light of former scientific
results. At the same time, an important attribute of the relevant literature – being a
relatively young field of science is in question –is that it contains several empirically
untested statements and approaches. In order to overcome a potentially hazardous use of
dubious sources, only peer-reviewed literature (journals and other publications) and
peer-recognized and acclaimed books on the topic are reviewed.
The significance of the thesis is that by answering its research questions, the related
field of science would be significantly improved, and by covering a yet unstudied area
it might contribute to provide ground for further research subjects and research
questions.

v
INTRODUCTION

Remarks on the word use within the dissertation

The area of the dissertation holds a number of difficulties related to its uses and
practices in terms of terminology. First, the delimitation of the taxonomy, related to the
concepts of “nation” vs. “country” vs. “state” (e.g. in a sociological, political, legal, etc.
sense). This issue will hereafter be recalled several times, as even though in most cases
these terms can be used as synonyms, substantive deviations do exist and give, in some
cases, ground to misunderstandings. Therefore, unless expressly noted otherwise, the
terms “nation” and “country” are handled as synonyms throughout the dissertation.
Similarly, the term “identity” can be a source for misunderstanding, bearing a double
meaning of (1) two identical entities and that of (2) the image of something. This can
cause difficulties during the analysis of the country branding approaches in identifying
whether “country identity” refers to a country’s image, similarly to a corporate identity
or rather to a national identity, i.e. uniqueness. When relevant, the related taxonomical
issues will be noted and addressed in the dissertation.

vi
 1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1. THE THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE –

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF HUNGARIAN AND
INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE ON COUNTRY IMAGE

Country image is at the core of the present dissertation for which it is worthwhile to
give an overview of the literature thereof. It must be noted that country image does not
have one common ground as a field of research (see e.g. Roth – Diamantopoulos, 2009;
Giraldi et.al., 2011). Apart from the conceptual disagreement on the concept of country
image, the subject is often studied along with country-of-origin effect, and it can be
stated that further concepts are also often mixed up within country image studies.
In the following we present the known definitions of country image and the conceptual
differences among them. After that we delimit those concepts which are judged suitable
and relevant to be part of the framework of the present study.

1.1. A general presentation of the concept of country image

Studies on the evaluation of countries can be traced back to as far as the 1930’s (see e.g.
Katz – Braly, 1933; Klingberg, 1941) although the field of study came into the
foreground only later, in the 1960’s with the apparition of the concept of country-of-
origin image. Studies estimate the total number of works on the topic to 1000 of which
at least 400 were published in referred academic journals (Usunier, 2006). The majority
of these publications relate to the study of country-of-origin image and only a small
proportion addresses the general image of a given country (see e.g.: Papadopoulos –
Heslop, 2002; Anholt, 2002; Srikatanyoo – Gnoth, 2002; Paswan – Kulkarni – Ganesh,
2003; Malota, 2004).
This fact is supported by Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002, p. 297.) who in their analysis
found that while country-of-origin is the most studied field within international
consumer behavior research, “the number of studies who have in fact included country
image measures is extremely small”. Tan and Farley (1987, p. 540.) equally state that „
a product’s ‘country of origin’, or its product-country image (PCI), and its potential
effects the ‘most-researched’ issue in international buyer behaviour.”
Papadopoulos (2004, p. 38) underlines that “research on PCIs has been going on for
about 40 years” and several literature reviews and meta-analyses have seen the day.1
1
In our dissertation we endeavor to consciously differentiate the terms country image and country-of-
origin image, therefore we only address issues of country-of-origin image which we judge relevant for the
present study. At the same time, a number of thorough studies are already available on the latter: see e.g.
the works by Baughn – Yaprak, 1993; Liefeld, 1993; Papadopoulos, 1993; Peterson – Jolibert, 1993; Al-
Sulaiti – Baker, 1998; Verlegh – Steenkamp, 1999.

1
1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

This also has an effect on the evolution of the related concepts. The definitions of
country image are often mixed up with the concept of country-of-origin image due to the
properties of the respective studies.

At the same time it can be seen from the literature since the 2000’s the fields of country
image and country-of-origin image have been gradually distanced from each other and
the concept of country image has been increasingly developing since then, The majority
of the literature is from the 1990’s which can be considered a golden age of country
image research. The 2000’s can be characterized by a relative fallback within the study
of the field, while a new wave of dynamics can be observed nowadays (see e.g. Brijs
et.al., 2011).

The literature agrees on the basic fact that each country has an image (based on
Ashworth - Voogd, 1997; O’Shaughnessy - O’Shaughnessy, 2000; Gilmore, 2002;
Papadopoulos - Heslop, 2002; Jaffe - Nebenzahl, 2006) although the approaches and
definitions thereof are not standardized. In any case country image can be characterized
as a multidimensional construct (based on Cattin – Jolibert – Lohnes, 1982; Jaffe –
Nebenzahl, 1984; Han – Terpstra, 1988; Roth – Romeo, 1992; Smith, 1993). The
concept of country image is not static, it is subject to constant evolution (Kotler –
Gertner, 2002; Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2002; Kleppe – Iversen – Stensaker, 2002; Jaffe
– Nebenzahl, 2006).
Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002) highlight that all countries have an image but, like
product and corporate image, this is not under total control of market actors. According
to the authors, country image is based, among others, on stereotypes and
preconceptions, although (just like a brand) it also envelopes factual and emotional
elements. It affects behavior in the case of every target market, although the effects of
image are always case-specific. At the same time image only changes slowly and
several exogenous events can also influence it.

According to the literature the categorization of general image concepts are also valid
for the context of country image. Therefore (based on Sándor, 2003) country image can
also appear spontaneously as well as in a directed way (see e.g. Kotler et.al. 1993;
Anholt, 2002; Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2006). Considering the direction of country image, it
can be characterized as either internal (i.e. self-image) or external (i.e mirror image)
(based on Sándor, 2003; see also: Jeszenszky, 1986; Szeles, 1998; Barát, 1997; Kozma,
2000). Country image can also be categorized according to its time horizon, with the
existence of prior (i.e. current) and future (i.e. wish) image (see e.g. Eitel –
Spiekermann, 2007).

According to Szeles (1998, p. 96.) country image is “an internal and external framework
of the opinions and beliefs on a people, nation and country and the simultaneously
objective and subjective psychological contents of heterogeneous and generalized value
2
 1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

judgment thereof”. In this context, internal image can be defined as all that the
inhabitants of a country think about themselves (self-image) and exterior image as all
that foreigners think about a given country (mirror image). This approach can play a
determining role in the design of a measurement tool of country image with regards to
determining the directions of the research and the choice of the methodology to follow.

Country image has two antagonistic definitions which in consequence are subject to
academic debate (Szeles, 1998).
i) According to the first approach, the concept of country image has to be used as
an “umbrella term” for the array of actual products, brands and institutions related to
the given country. (Country image therefore is a summary of the views and value
judgments about a country, influenced by every activity and appearance related to the
given country). The views and value judgments on a country are heterogeneous (see
also Therkelsen – Halkier, 2004; Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2006)
ii) According to the other point of view, a country itself is a complex, multi-level
product and can be subdivided into several constituting items. (According to this second
view country image is a generic product image, although with more complex attributes
than other products).

3
1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

1.2. Defining country image

As can be seen from the general presentation, country image is an interdisciplinary field
of study which be definition is complex and conceptually diversified. In the following
we present the most important country image definitions categorized into three groups
according to their conceptual field.

1.2.1. Categorizing the definitions of country image

If we analyze the definitions of country image by different authors we can perceive a

certain mixture of different country image concepts. Studies on country image operate
on three relatively distinct conceptual grounds: (1) product image (PI) (2) country
image (CI) and (3) country of origin image (COO or CoI), The three constructs (or
image types) are closely related to each other, substantially overlap and (directly or
indirectly) influence each other (based on Malota, 2001; Roth – Diamantopoulos, 2009).

Therefore adopting the aforementioned three country image concepts one can
differentiate three main types of country image definitions according to their content:
(1) overall country image definitions, (2) product-country-image definitions and (3)
definitions of product image related to countries.
Research on country image has differentiated from product CI research since the
1980’s. This new approach considers that country image has a considerable influence on
products’ country image (Papadopoulos et.al. 1988; Han, 1990; Heslop et.al. 2004;
Eliott et.al., 2011).

The first category of country image definitions is that of overall country image
definitions. To define country image, these consider the factors leading to the formation
of country image, that is, they view the evaluation of a nation as the overall effect of a
country’s economic and political development, cultural and historical heritage and other
factors (see also Bannister – Saunders, 1978; Desborde, 1990; Allred et.al., 1999).

The different definitions are presented in Table 1.

4
 1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

Table 1:
Overall country image definitions in the literature

AUTHOR DEFINITION
Bannister – Saunders Country image is an overall image that is constituted by variables like
(1978, p. 562) peculiar products, economic and political development, historical
events and relationships, traditions, level of industrialization and of
technological development.
Desborde Country of origin image is an overall image of a country in consumers’
(1990, p. 44.) minds. It reflects a country’s culture, political system and its level of
economic and technological development.
Martin – Eroglu Country image is the set of normative inferred and informational
(1993, p. 193.) beliefs of individuals on a country.
Kotler et.al. Country image is the sum of people’s beliefs, ideas and impressions
(1993, p. 141.) about a certain country.
Szeles Country image is an internal and external framework of the opinions
(1998, p. 96.) and beliefs on a people, nation and country and the simultaneously
objective and subjective psychological contents of heterogeneous and
generalized value judgment thereof.
Allred et.al. Perceptions and impressions that institutions and consumers have of a
(1999, p. 36.) country. This prior impression is based upon the economic state of the
country, its political structure, culture, its potential conflicts with other
countries, its labor market conditions and other environmental factors.
Verlegh – Steenkamp A mental interpretation of a country’s inhabitants, products, culture
(1999, p. 525.) and national symbols.
Avraham – Ketter Country image is constituted of several elements, among others of the
(2006. p. 116.) country’s location, political structure, economic situation, the stability
of its government, etc. Even though this image seems dynamic, it is
based upon stereotypes.
Brijs et.al. Country image represents all that a consumer attaches to a country and
(2011, p. 1260.) its inhabitants (and not to its products).
Source: own elaboration, 2012

The second and third groups of definitions are actually a subdivision of country-of-
origin effect (COO) (also referred to as made-in effect) into two distinct categories,
according to whether the country or the product is in the focal point of the study. There
is no common ground in the literature for this division and there are no common
notations for the concepts involved either. Papadopoulos and Heslop (1993) in their
study note that the use of the “product-country-image” construct is more appropriate as
it has a wider scope and therefore renders a more precise meaning to the notion than the
“country-of-origin” or the “made-in” references (Papadopoulos – Heslop, 1993, p. 8.).

5
1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006, pp. 28-31.) use the following notations for these: MC=
Made-in Country, OC= Country of Origin, OCI= Origin-Country Image, CIE= Country
Image Effect.

The literature uses a wide array of notations: Country of Origin Effect= COO, COE,
COOE, CoOE; Country of Origin Image= COI, COOI, CoOI, CoI; although this latter
may also stand for Country Image (see e.g. Knight – Calantone, 2000; Malota, 2004;
Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2006; Roth – Diamantopoulos, 2009). The inconsistent use of the
notations might lead to a great deal of misunderstanding and might cause difficulties on
the conceptual level for the researchers of the field.

The second group therefore in the literature is that of product-country-image (PCI)

definitions. These include, beyond the country’s proper image, the image of the
country’s typical products. All this leads to an approach according to which country
image and product image are to be considered as two different although related
concepts. Country image influences the image of a product originating from that
country. There is evidence in the literature on the existing relationship between
consumer preference towards s given product and consumers’ perceptions of CI (see
also: Papadopoulos – Heslop – Berács, 1990; Roth – Romeo, 1993; Kim, 1995;
Balabanis et.al., 1996, 1997, 2001; Berács – Gyulavári, 1999; Berács – Malota, 2000;
Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2003, Malota; 2004; Pappu et.al., 2007; Giraldi et.al., 2011). In
this approach a special attention is paid to the effect of CI rather than to the formation of
the product image evaluation.

Table 2 shows the related definitions.

6
 1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

Table 2:
Product-country-image definitions

AUTHOR DEFINITION
Papadopoulos – Heslop The image of countries, in the respect that they provide the place of
(1993, p. 8.) origin for a product can become an exogenous factor of products’
overall image.
Balabanis et.al. Country-of-origin image is the marketing concept that encompasses
(1996, p. 1398.) consumer attitudes towards different nations.
Li et.al. The image of consumers on different countries and the products
(1997, p. 116.) thereof:
Knight - Calantone Country-of-origin image reflects the consumer perceptions on the
(2000, p. 127.) quality of products made in a given country and the nature of the
inhabitants of the given country.
Nebenzahl et.al. Consumer perceptions on attributes of products originating from a
(2003, p. 388.) given country; social desire to possess a product made in the given
country.
Papadopoluos – Heslop Product-country-image, i.e. the image that can be related to given
(2003, p. 404.) places which consumers and sellers associate a product to.
Jaffe - Nebenzahl Overall image of a country that one evaluates in relation to brands
(2006, p. 30.) and products.
Source: own elaboration, 2012

The third category of definitions solely focuses on the image of products originating
from a given country (product image, PI). A first definition was given by Nagashima
(1970). Although in his definition the author refers to the concept of “country” when
defining the attributes of image, he actually only describes the image of given products
originating from that country. In this case the aforementioned image concept can rather
be referred to as a product image instead of a country image (see also: Han, 1989; Roth
– Romeo, 1992; Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Strutton et.al., 1995; Papadopoulos – Heslop,
2003) Papadopoulos and Heslop (2003, p. 425.) highlight that „the vast majority of
extant CoO studies focuses on product images”.

Table 3 shows the main product image-focused definitions.

7
1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

Table 3:
Country-related product image definitions

AUTHOR DEFINITION
Nagashima The meaning of image: ideas, emotional background and associations
(1970, p. 68.) related to a concept. In this sense, “made-in” image is an array of
images, evaluations and stereotypes that businessmen and consumers
render to a country’s products.
Narayana It is the complex image that is composed of the associations related to
(1981, p. 32.) the added value to consumers of a product being made in a given
country.
Bilkey – Nes Overall consumer perceptions about the quality of products made in a
(1982, p. 89.) given country. Country-of-origin image has an unquestionable
influence on the evaluation of product quality.
Han General consumer perceptions about the quality of products originating
(1990, p. 24.) from a given country.
Roth – Romeo The overall perception about products originating from a given
(1992, p. 480.) country, based on the anterior perceptions about a country’s strengths
and weaknesses in productivity and marketing.
Bilkey Consumer opinion on the relative quality of products and services
(1993, p. xix.) made in a given country.
Strutton, et.al. “Made-in” image is a complex concept constituted by the evaluation,
(1995, p. 79.) stereotypes and associations about products made in a country within
an individual’s scope of interest.
Pickton – Broderick Country-of-origin image is the combination of impressions, beliefs and
(2001, p. 123.) ideas in the mind of people about the products of a given country.
Malota Country-of-origin image is a part of the complex product image
(2003, p. 66.) construct that encompasses the effect of the product originating from a
given country.
Forrás: saját szerkesztés, 2011

1.2.2. Partitioning the definitions of country image

There seems to be no agreement in the literature on which of the aforementioned groups

lead to the most precise interpretation of country image. According to Kotler and
Gertner (2002, p. 251.), „most country images are in fact stereotypes, extreme
simplifications of the reality that are not necessarily accurate. They might be dated,
based on exceptions rather than on patterns, on impressions rather than on facts, but are
nonetheless pervasive”.
Several further definitions refer to stereotypes, beliefs, perceptions, insightsm schemes,
associations or attitudes. In the following we proceed to the conceptual analysis and
partition of the different definitions of country image.
8
 1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

1.2.2.1. Perception-based definitions of country image

Perception is the complex process during which individuals select, order and interpret
sensory stimuli in order to make up a coherent, meaningful picture of the world (see e.g.
Hofmeister – Tör csik, 1996; Solomon et.al., 2006). The recognition, categorization
and adding of sense to stimuli from the environment is hardly an objective process, it is
equally a function of the individuals’ prior experiences, culture and learning
(Helmholtz, 1866 in: Gregory, 1997; Helmholtz, 1878).

A number of authors publishing in the field of country image define country image
using the perception construct (see e.g. Bilkey – Nes, 1982; Han, 1990; Roth – Romeo,
1992; Allred et.al., 1999, Nebenzahl et.al., 2003). Other authors, e.g. Moeller (1997 in:
Roth – Diamantopoulos, 2009) or Brijs (2006) take perception into consideration as an
exogenous stimulus in the evaluation of the country-of-origin effect. the majority of
authors agree on the fact that perception theory alone is insufficient to fully cover the
area of country image. Using it only brings about a theoretical approach on the
evaluation of country image but it leaves the content of country image (i.e. what
attributes [e.g. feelings or pieces of information] does the process of perception order
into a whole picture) out of scope. This gap is at the origin of the existence of a number
of different country image approaches.

1.2.2.2. Country image definitions based on beliefs (faith)

According to the most widely accepted view within the literature, a belief is an
unfounded misconception or opinion. Vernacular often identifies it with religious
conceptions that do not belong to the doctrine of officially recognized churches or
religions conventions. Beliefs have a strong relationship with attitudes, stereotypes and
a number of authors identify them as a component of attitudes (see e.g. Zanna –
Rempel, 1988; Esses et.al., 1993; Bar – Tal, 1997).

Country image theory includes a few sources that define country image by using the
concept of beliefs (see e.g. Kotler et.al., 1993; Martin-Eroglu, 1993). Most authors note
though that the image of a country in consumers’ mind is also (like in attitude theory)
determined, beyond cognitive attributes, by emotional and behavioral elements. Thus,
beliefs alone are unable to address the entire scope of the country image concept, they
only make out a part of the conceptual approaches. The inclusion of opinions and
insights into country image enables us to further refine the concept.

9
1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

1.2.2.3. Country image definitions based on opinions and insights (mental

images)

Insight (as a psychological concept) expresses the effect of external stimuli on peoples
senses (Fiske – Neuberg, 1990). Insights enable the formation (following the process of
perception) of opinions (about object, people, events, etc.) (Bartlett, 1932; Higgins
et.al., 1977). We usually refer to knowledge and personal manifestations as opinions
when the foundedness thereof is weak or unknown (based on Pallas Nagylexikon,
2002). All these proprieties are in accordance with the approaches like that of beliefs
and stereotypes already presented (and to be presented later). Thus, as with many
things, people might have opinions on country image that are not adequately founded or
that contain substantial simplifications.

In the literature on country image many works define the concept through those of
opinion and insight (see e.g. Desborde, 1990; Kotler et.al., 1993; Szeles, 1998; Allred
et.al., 1999). The same limitation appears here though as before, i.e. that the concept of
country image is wider than the field covered by these two concepts. Even though
opinions and insights seem the most appropriate components for conceptualizing
country image they omit several fields that could contribute to further refine the
interpretation (e.g. a number of emotional factors).

1.2.2.4. Association-based definitions of country image

Learning theories devote special attention to the role of associations (see e.g. Katona,
1963; Hill, 1970). Associations can be considered as the activity of linking ideas, of
establishing mental connections. During this process (as a result of preceding learning
and regular repetition) factors having appeared at the same time and space or factors
having some similar or opposite attributes mutually evoke one another (see e.g.
Hofmeister-Tör csik, 1996; Lappints, 2002).

Many authors publishing in the field of country image define country image as an
association or association of ideas (see e.g. Nagashima, 1970; Narayana, 1981; Strutton
et.al., 1995; Ittersum et al., 2003). Nevertheless, the scope of these once again does not
cover all the ground that is unveiled by country image studies and omit, among others,
affirmation as a factor emphasizing the formation of associations. A further ground for
research in the area are the concepts of stereotypes and schemes, which can further
refine the conceptual approach on CI theory.

10
 1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

1.2.2.5. Country image definitions based on stereotypes, schemes

Stereotypes are a cognitive structure of more or less consistent mental schemes on the
world in people’s heads, which is a combination of people’s own experience and the
knowledge, beliefs and expectations about a group of individuals (see e.g. Lippmann,
1922; Hamilton, 1981; Hamilton – Trolier, 1986). Other researchers interpret
stereotypes on a collective level, that is, in their opinion, stereotypes are set of
collective, unfounded beliefs on individual attributes of members of a community (see
e.g. Katz – Braly, 1933; Reierson, 1966; Brigham, 1971; Gardner, 1972; Hunyady,
1996).
This field also sees the amalgamation of several other concepts into the interpretation of
stereotypes, e.g. those of perceptions, beliefs or attitudes (see e.g. Brigham, 1971;
Dovidio – Gaertner, 1986; Smith – Bond, 1994; Hofmeister – Tör csik, 1996; Malota,
2003). Almost all authors agree that stereotypes are (often rough) simplifications,
schemes of a group of people that are brought to life following a very limited contact
with these (see e.g. Bartlett, 1932; Fiske et. al. 1980; Hofmeister – Tör csik, 1996).

Literature on country image has several examples of the usage of stereotypes. The
following authors, among others, use the concept of stereotypes to define that of country
image: Hooley et.al. (1988), Ger (1991), Strutton et.al. (1995), Askegaard and Ger
(1998), Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999), Avraham and Ketter (2006) and Hernandez
(1996, in: Malota, 2001) also refers to country image as a stereotyped image. According
to Móricz (1999) the relationship between stereotypes and image is opaque, as the two
concepts are close to each other and are used as synonyms in psychology. In the
author’s opinion, image (because of its inherently subjective nature) is farther from
reality than stereotypes.
According to Elliott and Cameron (1994) stereotypes towards nations can be both
negative, positive and neutral and can influence individuals’ decisions and evaluation of
products (Papadopoulos – Heslop – Berács, 1990; Elliott – Cameron, 1994).

Other authors also contest the perception, that country image would be exclusively
constituted of stereotypes and estimate that (factual) information (free of generalization)
on and emotional attachment to a given country are equally crucial when studying the
image thereof in consumers’ minds. Maheswaran (1994) for example states that
stereotypes are rather guesses while image is constituted through perception. According
to Malota (2003) image is rather a portrait while stereotypes are generalizations and
guesses.

However several authors highlight (as mentioned beforehand) that concepts included
into a study often (partially or completely) overlap. Thus is the case of stereotypes: a
number of authors consider perceptions and beliefs as part of stereotypes, others include

11
1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

stereotypes as a component of attitudes (see e.g. Fiske et.al., 1980; Esses et.al., 1993;
Hofmeister – Tör csik, 1996).

According to Reierson (1996) and O’Shaughnessy – O’Shaughnessy (2000) attitudes

towards nations can be traced back to stereotypes and these „stereotypes play a role in
the overall image of a nation.” (O’Shaughnessy – O’Shaughnessy, 2000, p. 57.). In
others’ view, stereotypes are the cognitive component of attitudes: a negative stereotype
determines a prejudiced attitude. This is reinforced by the negative feeling, as the
affective component of attitude (Duckitt, 1992; in: Malota, 2003). Hofmeister and
Tör csik (1996) highlight that attitudes can easily lead to generalizations as the attitude
of an individual towards an object or a person can transform into a stereotype on related
groups of objects or people. Therefore a limited experience can lead to a general,
simplified opinion. The process is thus bidirectional, i.e. stereotypes affect attitudes and
attitudes also affect stereotypes.
This equally explains why country image definitions often include attitude components.

1.2.2.6. Attitude-based country image definitions

Attitude has a long and various list of definitions within the literature and there are
several schools of attitude definitions. According to Allport (1954; in: Fishbein- Ajzen,
1980) attitude is a mental and neural state of readiness that exerts a directive or dynamic
effect on individuals reactions towards objects and situations to which it is related.
According to Móricz (1992; in: Hofmeister – Tör csik, 1996), authors agree that
attitudes can be defined as approaches, feelings, judgments towards objects or a group
of people with variable intensity that can be both positive or negative. Hofmeister and
Tör csik (1996) also highlight that attitudes are learnt and relatively permanent and that
they can have an effect on individuals’ information processing. Most authors agree on
the fact that attitudes have three main components, namely (1) cognitive, (2) conative
and (3) affective (based on Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein – Ajzen, 1975).

In studies on country image several authors highlight that attitude-based approaches

among the conceptual approaches of country image can be regarded as the least limited
in scope (based on Heslop – Papadopoulos, 1993; Parameswaran – Pisharodi, 1994;
Laroche et.al., 2005; Roth – Diamantopoulos, 2009; Brijs et.al., 2011). This type of
definition allows researchers to fully comprehend the concept of individuals’ image
towards different countries.

All three components can be found in different country image definitions. For example,
according to Kaynak and Cavusgil (1983) the cognitive element of country image is
composed of assumed (even stereotypical) attributes of other peoples, while the
affective component determines whether the individual is fond (or not) of the given
people, country which in turn influences their actions.
12
 1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009), and Brijs et.al. (2011) consider that the attitude-based
approach enables the possibility to measure country image.

According to Brijs et.al. (2011) only as many as two articles (Haubl [1996] and Heslop
et.al. [2004]) focused on the study of the relationship between the three components of
attitudes. According to these pieces of research, the cognitive factor influences the
affective component which in turn has an effect on the conative component – similarly
to the generic process well-recognized in consumer behavior approaches. According to
the authors however, this very area can be considered under-researched, especially
when considering theories based upon other sequences (e.g. conative – cognitive –
affective).

As a consequence one can elaborate that, unlike other approaches, this former definition
covers the entirety of country image concepts. However, because of the presence of a
behavioral component (since the existence of a country image in the mind of people is a
somewhat static state and often exists without any call to action), several authors contest
this point of view.

1.2.3. Separating the concept of country image from other relating concepts

Beyond the aforementioned concepts one can find several other normative concepts in
the literature of country image. A frequent approach is to define country image through
the notions of national identity and national stereotypes. The following chapter presents
a critical and conceptual discussion on the relevance and usability of these for the
framework of the present study.

1.2.3.1. National identity

Literature on country image often refers to the concept of national identity. In his
definition of country image, Graby (1993) mentions that In Graby’s (1993) wording, the
‘identity prism’ of the country (like the concept of corporate identity) consists of
physical (geography, natural sources, demography), cultural (history, culture), personal
(name, flag, celebrities), relational (with governments, international organizations) and
controlled (conscious formation of country image) elements. (Here we must note that
the concept of identity [because of the uses and misuses of the term within the
literature] is a somewhat problematic field of country image studies. Indeed identity can
refer a sense of self [a sense which can add to the conceptualization of country image]
as well as to an image [which in turn can be employed as a determining element of
country-as-a-brand studies]. The present dissertation focuses on the former meaning of
the concept)

13
1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

National identity can be described as a complex array of opinions, conceptions,

perceptions, attitudes and behavioral patterns acquired through a process of
socialization by the members of the given nation (based on Kolakowski, 1995; Hall,
1996; Wodak et.al., 2003). National identity is in fact a nations’ self-consciousness, the
totality of the nations’ characteristics and habits (Bourdieu, 1990; Kuzmics, 1993
alapján; mind in: Wodak et.al., 2003). According to De Vicente (2004, p. 4.) „ country
identity is what a country believes it is.”

In accordance with this, the literature often identifies the “internal country image” with
the concept of national identity. National identity is also expressed in the way the
inhabitants of a country see themselves. Numerous works in the literature address the
issue of internal image (see also: Jeszenszky, 1986; Szeles, 1996; Barát, 1997; Piskóti
et.al., 1997; Kozma, 2000; Georgescu – Botescu, 2004; Anholt, 2007).
In his doctoral thesis, Papp-Váry (2002, in: Papp-Váry, 2007) illustrates the role of
national identity through a diagram. According to the author, the inhabitants of a given
country possess a far more complex image of their own country than foreigners (and
even more than foreigners, who have never actually visited the country) (see also Olins,
2004). According to Papp-Váry, this internal image is actually equivalent to national
identity.

Moreover, Georgescu and Botescu (2004) state that national identity, beyond
contributing to shaping a nation’s image, is actually the core of a country as a brand.
The authors pinpoint that national identity (like the concept of national image) is a
multidimensional construct, with historical, cultural, etc. factors. Similarly, de Vicente
(2004, p. 4) states that „ country identity is what a country believes it is. A strong
country brand should be rooted in reality and connect with people, both within and
outside the country.”

Considering the multidisciplinary nature of country image, literature agrees that it is not
unfounded to rely the concept of national identity to that of country image, even though
it does not cover the whole context of the latter and therefore cannot be a substitute by
full right of country image.

1.2.3.2. National stereotypes

As seen in the previous chapters, literature often uses the concept of stereotypes in
relation with that of country image. Beyond the approaches seen above, several authors
do not consider stereotypes as one element of country image, but consider a country’s
image as one national or country stereotype (see e.g. Bannister – Saunders, 1978;
Papadopoulos – Heslop – Berács, 1990; Papadopoulos, 1993; Hernandez, 1996;
Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2002; Kotler – Gertner, 2004; Deffner – Metaxas, 2005).

14
 1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

Stereotypes pertain to the external evaluation of a given country based on the principle
that people form a simplified mental image on other nations out of a limited quantity of
information (based on Olins, 2004 and Anholt, 2007).

Literature agrees on the fact that national stereotypes are not equivalent to country
image, nor to its whole external segment. Stereotypes are but a part of a given nations
(external) evaluation. According to Kaynak and Cavusgil (1983), the cognitive element
of country image is composed of presumed (even stereotyped) attributes of other
peoples and the affective part influences whether the individual appreciates the given
people or not, which in turn has an effect on their actions. Malota (2003) states that
image is a wider category in the sense that it can bear a part that is shaped by
stereotypes, a part which one can refer to as a stereotyped image. Stereotypes are also
present in the country image conceptualization by Papp-Váry (2007) as part of the
external image of countries.

1.3. Summary and critical analysis of country image literature

Literature agrees on the fact that country image is a multidimensional construct and
its field of study an interdisciplinary approach. Beyond this, considering the
conceptual studies, one can state that the construct is more or less mixed up with several
other related concepts.
In the following we present a partition and critical analysis of concepts that will serve as
a basis for our further research.

In the understanding of the author of the present dissertation, country image is a set of
all knowledge, opinions and simplifications that people think of a country and
which affect their behavior. This encompasses an attitudinal approach that expands
to cognitive elements, affections and the subsequent behavioral effects.

According to its direction we distinguish (and study separately) internal and external
image. External image, in our understanding, encompasses all that people think of
another country while internal image is that people carry on their own country. The
relating concepts in this approach have a distinct effect for each type of image, with
stereotypes, beliefs, opinions, associations influencing external image while cognitive
elements rather influencing internal image.
Above all this, we believe that a country’s image, according to its time horizon, is based
upon existing (current) elements and the future (i.e. wish) image concepts are only valid
when studying processes that lead to the constitution of a country image.

The author believes that it is problematic that the concepts of country image and
product image be mixed up. Although it is a fact that product purchases represent the
15
1. THEORY OF COUNTRY IMAGE

easiest way to measure country image, the author argues that the evaluation of a country
is not only visible through its effect on purchase decision. We agree with the approaches
of literature that country image exists independently of any conscious intention and
other factors and its effect also spreads more over the simple product choice (e.g.
destination choice, choice of place of residence, intention of investment, etc.).
Therefore in our understanding, country image is a standalone construct,
independent of product image and in the following we identify it as a separate
image type, along “pure” country image concepts.

We disagree with the approaches that, in a simplified manner, clearly identify country
image as national identity and/or national stereotypes. During the conceptual
foundation of the present thesis we presented that country image can indeed often be
related to stereotypes, perceptions and beliefs. These often evolve from a number of
critical attributes, e.g. the kindness, snobbery, etc. of the inhabitants of a country.
However, after a thorough analysis of the literature, we believe that these attributes
might lead to stereotypes and stereotypes can in turn affect the evaluation of a country.
The relationship is thus more complex and cannot be treated in an oversimplified
manner. We refer to the concept of identity in the context of national singularity, self-
esteem and thus rather relate it to the concept of internal image. Because of this latter,
we deem that the simplified identification of this concept with country image is an
erroneous approach.

16
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY: A LITERATURE

REVIEW OF HUNGARIAN AND INTERNATIONAL
LITERATURE ON COUNTRIES AS BRANDS

A main question for the present dissertation is how one can measure, quantify a
country’s image developing process and the effects thereof. In order to determine this,
one ought to be acquainted with the different possibilities for shaping a country’s image
as well as with the stakeholders and areas involved.
The central construct of the dissertation, i.e. that of country as a brand, is a new
approach to the related field of research. In order to be able to fully comprehend the
construct it is necessary to present the theoretical background and the dimensions of the
concept in the literature.

According to the majority of the literature (as presented beforehand), all countries have
an image, this image however is not static and changes with time and can be influenced
either directly or indirectly (based on Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2002; Papadopoulos,
2004; Fan, 2006). Until the 1990’s, the research on country image had mainly been a
research on consumer evaluation of products related to countries (country-of-origin
effect, country-of-origin image), The past two decades have seen a growing number of
studies on the overall evaluations of countries per se2.
Therefore it can be stated that more an more sources study the possibilities for shaping
and directing country image as such. While in the past mainstream research had
disapproved publications on the marketing and branding of countries or nations (based
on Olins, 2000a,b, 2004; Anholt, 2002), today it has evolved to an internationally
recognized field of research (Kotler et. al., 1999; Papadopoulos, 2004). This also
invokes that the shaping and the effect of country image have become measurable. The
apparition of measurement tools throws a new light upon the literature on country
image (see e.g.: Ashworth – Voogd, 1990; Papadopoulos, 2004; Zenker 2011).

At the same time country image as a concept might get new labels (e.g. place image,
country as brand, etc.) according to the type of image building process it was subject to.
With the apparition of the concept of country as a brand, the concept of country image
might be applied in a new, broader and more complex scope.
The study of the intentions to shape country image (relating to the ‘wish’ image notion
of country image) is therefore a relevant area, with regards to the apparition of the
aforementioned efforts to quantify it and design appropriate measurement tools, the
studies on the factors and dimensions that affect the obtained image and the
introduction of and the growing literature on the concept of country brand (nation
brand).

2
Although, as seen beforehand, literature agrees on the fact that the field of country image is still
under.researched and under-developed as compared with that of country-of-origin image.
17
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

We must add that even though a thorough literature review would require it, we
excluded from the presentation the approaches and results of several related fields of
study (e.g. that of destination management or diplomacy). This omission is justified by
the limited space available and the limited relevance for the main topic of the
dissertation. We should though point out that there are numerous studies in the literature
on the study of the relationship between country image and destination image (see e.g.
Echtner – Richie, 2003; Papadopoulos, 2004; Mossberg – Kleppe, 2005; Tasci – Kozak,
2006; Park – Petrick, 2006; Tasci – Gartner – Cavusgil, 2007; Nadeau – Heslop –
O’Reilly – Luk, 2008; Marzano – Scott, 2009; Tasci – Gartner, 2009) and between
country branding and diplomatic efforts (see e.g. Papadopoulos, 2004; Gudjonsson,
2005; Szondi, 2008).

In the following chapter we present, without striving for completeness, the relevant
elements for our following study. Our main aim with the following chapter is (1) to put
this field of research into context with the purpose to justify the usage and study of the
country brand concept in the following research, and (2) to present the growing
dynamics and evolution of the field of study. In this chapter we often refer to the meta-
analyses in the field and give directions for further research.

We open this presentation of the research field and of its literature with the study of the
approaches on marketing places and towns. After that we introduce and analyze the
strategic approach on branding context, with a special attention to its different sub-
fields. The aim of the latter is to define the concept of country as a brand through
presenting the logical foundations of the field of study.

2.1. Building country image through marketing

As seen previously, along with the concept of country image one has to evoke those of
place marketing and country marketing.

Authors agree on the fact that place marketing, country marketing was introduced by
Kotler and Levy’s (1969) article entitled „Broadening the Concept of Marketing” by
extending the marketing concept of “product” (see also Ashworth – Voogd, 1990;
Holbrook, 1996; Barke, 1999). In their view, a place or a country can also be products
and therefore their respective images can be shaped and managed through marketing
strategies.
However, several authors (e.g. Hankinson, 2004; Hanna-Rowley, 2008) highlight that
the actual dynamics of the field of research were introduced by Hunt’s (1975) work on
the role of image in developing tourism.

18
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

Many authors point out that the marketing (promotion) of towns, countries, places is
hardly a novelty and examples can be found from decades preceding the first studies in
the field (and even from the Antiquity) (see e.g. Gold – Ward, 1994; Ward, 1998;
Langer, 2001; Piskóti et.al., 2002; Papadopoulos, 2004; Kavaratzis, 2005; Boo et.al.,
2009; Zenker, 2011) although these activities were never referred to as “marketing” or
“branding” as such (Papadopoulos, 2004).This also implies that the initiatives to market
places had appeared long before in practice though the place of the area as a separate
field of study is still a matter of debate in academia (except for several early examples,
e.g. Burgess, 1975; Anderson, 1983), even though “the marketing of places is one of the
major growth markets in marketing communication”. (Langer, 2001, p. 1.)
Likewise, Piskóti – Dankó – Schupler (2002, p. 17.) state that “Regional and town
marketing as sub-categories of marketing geographical areas are relatively new
although dynamically evolving fields of marketing science […] At the same time many
people are still indisposed to if not frightened of the growing application of marketing
tools in their town’s life.”

On the other hand, Papadopoulos (2004, p. 38.) argues that place marketing / place
promotion has become academically accepted and there have been examples in practice
as well as in the literature for the past twenty years. The author highlights that the
nature, the effects and the relationship with other fields of the activity of governments
and trade organizations have been the subject to numerous studies in the last decades
(see also: McDougall – Rawlings, 1979; Ettenson et.al., 1988; Fischer – Byron, 1997;
Cameron – Elliott, 1998; Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2001; Gilmore, 2002; Villanueva-
Papadopoulos, 2003).
Kotler et al. (1999) point out that fierce competition for resources, for business
relocation, for foreign investment, for visitors, even residents is evident in today’s
world, and a more focused, integrated and strategic oriented implementation of place
marketing was evident largely in the last some decades. (see also: Ashworth – Voogd,
1990; Matson, 1994; Williams, 1994; Anholt, 2002; Kavaratzis, 2005).

Gertner (2011, p. 112.) in his meta-analysis of the literature on place marketing and
place branding identified 259 related publications. 211 of these publications, dating
between 1990 and 2009 were analyzed. The author states that today the field of research
has become widespread and recognized; researchers of the field have managed to
identify and characterize the related concepts. At the same time further study is
necessary to conceptually and theoretically consolidate the area. An important element
of this might be the defining of country brand, nation brand which until now has only
been attempted by one or two authors. At the same time measurement tools are also to
be improved and models designed and tested. Therefore the field of research, according
to the author, ought to move from a positive towards a normative approach.

19
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

2.1.1. Academic approach to place marketing

Although the international literature commonly uses the terms “place marketing” or
“country marketing”, Hungarian authors often make a distinction between “country
marketing”, “region marketing”, “destination marketing”, “city marketing” or
“marketing efforts by municipalities and towns” – with the main difference lying in the
scope (i.e. geographical type and extent) of the place marketing activity involved, which
suggests that in each of these categories the target markets, the available assets,
strategies and actual tools will differ (see e.g. Kozma, 1995; Piskóti et.al., 1997, 2002;
Pickton – Broderick, 2001; Kotler- Gertner, 2002; Anholt, 2002; Kandikó, 2003; Jaffe-
Nebenzahl, 2006). In the international literature, one encounters a somewhat narrower
scope of the studied geographical categories (e.g. there are examples on the study of
“country marketing” while none of “nation marketing” can be found), but these also
differ from each other on the adopted geographical scope of study.

Several authors consider “place marketing” and “place promotion” as synonyms (see
Ashworth – Voogd, 1997). The following definition by Gold – Ward (1994. p. 1.) is a
good example of the mix-up of the related constructs: place promotion is “the conscious
use of publicity and marketing to communicate selective images of specific
geographical localities or areas to a target audience”.
Other authors argue that “place promotion” is a preceding term and state of “place
marketing” that includes uncoordinated and unsystematic marketing activities
(Kavaratzis, 2005, p. 330.). Short et al. (2000, p. 318.) in their definition that
summarizes several notions related to place promotion, state that “place promotion
involves the re-evaluation and re-presentation of place to create and market a new
image for localities to enhance their competitive position in attracting or retaining
resources”. Ashworth and Voogd (1990) point out that the promotion of towns and
other places can be considered a natural consequence of globalization and the
subsequent evolution of consumers as well as that of marketing approaches (see e.g.
Harvey, 1989; Goodwin, 1993; Hubbard – Hall, 1998; Hannigan, 2003).

Hubbard and Hall (1998) categorize place promotion tools as follows:

i. Advertising and promotion,
ii. Wide-range physical development,
iii. Community arts and civil architecture
iv. Events,
v. Cultural revival,
vi. Community-individual co-operation.

According to other authors, place marketing includes a more strategic approach and
goes beyond mere promotion tools. A number of authors thus consider that these are

20
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

corporate marketing practices that infiltrate the practice of place marketing (Kotler
et.al., 1999; Kavaratzis, 2004, Andersson-Ekman, 2009).

According to Papadopoulos (2004, p. 41-42.) “some multifaceted developments on

place marketing were noted early on by, among others, the first articles and books that
attempted to capture the full scope of image-related market effects and/or of possible
place marketing activities from 1990. These were followed by more recent
elaborations.” (see also: Papadopoulos – Heslop, 1993; Kotler et.al., 1993; Gold –
Ward, 1994)
According to Kotler et.al. (1999), place marketing serves as a tool for building a
positive image of a place, but the original image of the place also influences the
marketing of the given place. The authors state that places must try to manage their
images strategically by SIM. (SIM: Strategic Image Management) (Kotler et.al., 1999,
p. 161.).

According to Avraham and Ketter (2006) place marketing pursues to improve the image
and perception of certain places.
On the other hand place marketing aspires to maximize the social and economical
functionality of a society. (Ashworth – Voogd 1990)
According to Zenker (2011), place marketing always includes an economic and a social
aspect.

According to Kotler – Haider – Rein (1993, p.18.) place marketing includes the
following four activities:
i. designing the right mix of community tangible offerings and services
ii. developing appealing benefits for potential and current users/buyers
iii. delivering the place’s experience in both efficient and effective ways
iv. communicating the place’s image to create awareness of the place’s distinctive
advantage

Figure 1 shows the model of strategic place marketing tools and factors.

21
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

Figure 1.
A model of strategic place marketing

Source: Kotler et.al., 1993. p. 19

According to Dreyer (2000, in: Langer, 2001, p. 8.) “general place marketing is based
on traditional marketing tools including internal and external (SWOT-) analysis of
suppliers, competitors, consumers and other stakeholders, segmentation and targeting,
planning process, product development, pricing, distribution and promotion /
communication.” Piskóti et al. (2002) share this view when they refer to a “overall
marketing concept”, i.e. to a complex view to adopt.
The special case of place marketing involves that every stakeholder that has a
connection whatsoever to the given place becomes the target group thereof.

Literature usually makes the distinction between five consumer segments (based on
Kotler et.al., 1993; Papadopoulos, 1993, 2004; Piskóti et.al., 2002; Papp-Váry, 2007):
i. inhabitants,
ii. local entrepreneurs,
iii. investors,
iv. tourists, visitors,
v. public administration, political parties, national and international NGO’s.

Targeting consumer segments involves the use of group-specific tools and a diversified
marketing activity. This also implicates that each group ought to be targeted through
different messages. Place marketing is equally special with regards to its extent and
contents (Langer, 2001). According to Kotler et.al. (1999, pp. 51-66.), one can choose
22
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

among four broad strategies: i) image marketing (focus on overly positive image); ii)
attraction marketing (focus on natural attractions and sights); iii) infrastructure
marketing (focus on infrastructural advantages); iv) people marketing (focus on famous
residents and institutions).

2.1.2. Approaches to country marketing in the literature

Within the literature of place marketing, several works are dedicated to the topic of
country marketing. Country marketing can be considered a specific type of place
marketing with regards to its range as it specifically focuses on the marketing tools used
during the image building process of countries.
We must note that theory has rapidly surpassed the areas of place marketing and
country marketing and their more specific area related to branding are those that arouse
more animated academic discourse. Beyond that, the term “nation marketing” have
never been adapted within the literature, in the studies related to this very topic, authors
rather use the term “country marketing” or in a wider sense, that of “place marketing”.

According to the most general definition, country marketing is the process of creating a
positive image and reputation for a country or a nation (based on Olins, 2000a; Mahle,
1995). This endeavor has nothing new in it (Anderson, 1983; Christensen – Cheney,
2000), geographical entities have resorted for decades, centuries to large scale events,
mass media, diplomacy and cultural institutions to forge a positive image (based on
Langer, 2001).
According to Dreyer (2000) similarly to traditional tourism marketing, country
marketing (an in a wider scope, marketing) employ conventional marketing tools like
internal or external SWOT analyses, segmentation and targeting, planning processes,
product development, pricing, distribution planning and communication. According to
the general view, country marketing is no other than a traditional place marketing
activity executed on the level of a country. This implies that the processes and tools of
place marketing presented beforehand are equally valid for country marketing.

According to Piskóti et.al. (2002, p. 28.) the sub-categories of country marketing are as
follows: (1) regional marketing, (2) county marketing, (3) district marketing, (4)
local/municipality marketing.
In another categorization, Langer (2001) refers to a “supranational” level of place-
related marketing communications. On this level the marketing communications are
executed in order to create a positive common image and reputation of a larger
geographical and/or cultural entity (e.g. EU).

23
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

2.2. Branding approaches in country image literature – Place

branding

Parallel to country and place marketing several further approaches also make their
apparition within the literature. Building on the aforementioned “country as a complex
product, brand” approach, the end of the 1990’s and the beginning of the 2000’s had
seen the emergence of country branding / place branding. This approach stems from the
literature of branding and provides a new, managerial approach for bulding country
image (see e.g.: Curtis, 1997; Anholt 2002; Frank, 1999; Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2001;
Kotler – Gertner, 2002; Hauben et.al., 2002; Rainisto, 2003; Trueman et.al., 2004)

Kavaratzis (2004, in Kavaratzis, 2005. p. 332.) and Langer (2005, p. 17.) consider
place branding as a practical manifestation of place marketing, while other authors
(among others: van Ham, 2001; Gilmore, 2002; Anholt, 2002) refer to it as a new stage
in the development of marketing. Most authors consider place branding not only a
necessity but also a phenomenon which is heightened by globalization.

Authors generally agree on the fact that branding is an effective tool for differentiation
and this differentiation is necessary in a competitive market environment (Kotler, 1996;
Kapferer, 1997; Keller, 2003; Pappu – Quester – Cooksey, 2005; Tasci – Gartner –
Cavusgil, 2007a,b; Boo – Busser – Baloglu, 2009) Boo – Busser – Baloglu (2009) state
that the extension of branding theory from products to services had already appeared as
well in the academic literature as in practice, and thus was the case with tourism and
destination management as well. This is confirmed by the following definition by
deChernatony and McDonald, 2001.) who state that brand can be each recognizable
product, service, person or place, by which the consumers’ needs can meet values
offering of it.

In the literature one can find studies on several other dimensions and approaches of
country branding. These can be categorized as follows (based on Hanna – Rowley,
2008):
i. the use of branding concepts in relation with different geographical entities
(Trueman et.al., 2004) (e.g. corporate identity methodology, study of the
dissonance of appearance)
ii. remarks on place branding and repositioning (Gilmore, 2002)
iii. comparing image building with image reconstruction (Curtis, 2001; Hall, 2004)
iv. comparing unique identity with the use of branding tools (Cai, 2002)
v. the importance of affective elements in relation to consumers’ reactions
(Gilmore, 2002; Hall, 2004)
vi. study of collaborative destination branding in connection with destination
characteristics and industry structure (Wang – Fesenmaier, 2006)
vii. study on the stakeholders of place branding (Morgan, 2004)
24
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

viii. case studies on successful place branding activities (Rainisto, 2003; Gnoth,
2004)
ix. study of the relationship between culture and branding (in relation to cultural
differences) (Morgan, 2003; Hankinson, 2005)
x. evaluation of consecutive images to be found in place brands (Cai, 2002)

In the present dissertation does not address the preceding points in consequence of the
limited space available and their limited relevance for the very subject of the study.
However, the emergence of specialization in the field of study is a proof that the field is
evolving and has begun to gain common theoretical framework while the interests of
researchers of the topic is becoming more and more targeted.

The ’place branding’ concept was first used by Kotler et al. (1993). The stakeholders of
place branding are towns, countries or tourist destinations. The concept also
encompasses the competition that is in place for tourists, visitors and/or investors.
Within ’place branding’ aprroaches,’place’ refers to a nation, a region or a state, a place
with cultural connections, cities with big population, market with special attributes, or
relations among people. (Kotler et.al., 2002.)

Place branding bears several known concepts, among others, nation branding, country
branding, city branding, destination branding, place-of-origin branding, etc. According
to Hanna - Rowley (2007) “place” can encompass the following concepts: location,
country, nation, city and region. The diverse and not uniform use of the concept has
already been pointed out by Lodge (2004, 2006). The author equally proposed the
development of a common glossary for place branding.

According to Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002) “place branding” (or destination

branding, place promotion) is a relatively recent umbrella approach of country
branding, region branding and town branding.
The field is considered alongside a macro perspective within the literature where the
main goal is to promote and build the image of places. Yet other publications analyze
how a number of business-focused activities (e.g. cultural events, sports events,
tourism) determine the field as a result of the multidimensional state of places (see e.g.
Hankinson, 2003).

According to Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2005) one can discern at least three different
types of place branding which although are often mixed up by authors differ in the
identity of their producer and in their contents. According to the authors, the first group
is the use of geographical nomenclature, the second is the co-branding of product and
place while the third, branding as place management. Geographical nomenclature is
merely for naming a product, it does not add any additional attribute to the product.
While co-branding, additional attributes are associated to the product beyond a
25
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

geographical nomenclature. Branding as place management is expected to provide a

unique and recognizable identity to a place and to subsequently manage that identity to
further other desirable processes. The authors argue that this goes beyond mere place
promotion or place management (i.e. place image building) and therefore can bring
about a more elaborate approach of the concept of place branding.

According to Kavaratzis (2005, p. 332.) “[t]he subject of place branding is indeed a

complex subject and those trends represent the various aspects that bring about this
complexity”. Other authors (e.g. Langer, 2001; Fan, 2006) also state that while the use
of the branding concept is widely and accepted for places like towns or cities, the same
for countries or nations is subject to academic debate.
Papadopoulos (2004, p. 37.) states that place marketing “depends heavily on the images
of places, […] and both are interested in how place images can be used in marketing the
places themselves and/or the products that are associated with them.”
According to Eitel and Spiekermann (2007, p. 1.) “Place Branding does not merely stick
on new labels, but […] it sets social processes in motion, which can nuance, strengthen
or correct foreign perceptions”.
According to Allen (2007, p. 62.) one can conceptualize place branding as “a complex
amalgam of strategic and tactical initiatives involving the management of multiple
layers of stakeholder groups and multiple channels of communication” that are able to
stimulate prospective consumers’ predispositions and intentions to purchase. The author
argues that a place brand is similar in its conceptual framework to a traditional product
brand with an added geographical context.
According to Avraham and Kettner (2006) the strategic approach to place branding can
be related to public relations. Moreover the evolution of image is an extensive,
continual and interactive process and handling it entails more than a quick change of
slogan or logo.
According to Andersson amd Ekman (2009) place marketing is similar to a firm’s
marketing practice. In this sense it might be useful to consider resorting to brand
ambassadors.
A recent, though frequently cited definition states that place branding is “the
coordinated use of marketing tools supported by a shared customer-oriented philosophy,
for creating […] value for the city’s customers and the city’s community at large”
(Braun, 2008 in: Zenker, 2011, p. 41).

Recently, Anholt (2007) disputed the conceptual definition of place branding.

According to the author, the concept of place branding has more to do with a political
background and international relations than with marketing processes. In his
understanding, the use of the term “brand” is erroneous as in this case “place branding”
is not conducted through communications channels, it rather evolves through political
events and changes. Because of this, the author suggest the use of the term “competitive
identity” to describe the process.
26
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

Even though several authors consider the aforementioned fields as separate fields of
study, the author of the present dissertation argues that the geographical extent of the
study does not justify a separate framework and therefore the different fields presented
beforehand are but sub-categories of place branding with the geographical entity serving
as categorizing variable. In the following we present the specific areas of place branding
according to their geographical extent.

2.2.1. The approaches on “country branding” and “nation branding”

According to O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy (2000) authors of the field generally

accept that it is appropriate to examine nations as brands. They acknowledge that the
image of nations is an important factor in the purchase decision. At the same time they
contest that a nation (as a brand) cannot be treated as a proper product because, in their
view, the image of nations is more closely related to the social and sociological concept
of a nation.
Reflecting to the vivid academic debate on the topic, Fan (2006, p. 18.) highlights that
one has to distinguish between country branding and nation branding. A lively debate
aroused between Olins and Girard on whether it is possible to rebrand the country of
France (based on Olins, 2002a). According to Fan, this debate was caused by a different
understanding of the related field of study. Girard, in a cultural and historical
perspective, regarded France as a nation while Olins, in a marketing approach, referred
to rebranding France as a country. Similarly to the previous recommendations, Widler
(2007) analyzes the conceptual framework of branding and brings attention to several
theoretical contradictions within the literature, i.e. to the fact that the concept of a
“nation” has a two-fold interpretations: on one hand, it can be interpreted as a country
(in a cultural, geopolitical approach) and on the other as a group of people (in a social
approach). In her opinion, mixing up the two approaches may lead to contradictions and
ambiguities in the field.
Based on the above, Fan (2006) classifies the different branding approaches as follows:

Table 4.
The fields of country and nation branding
FIELD WHAT IS BEING BRANDED
A part of the product brand
COO effect
A quality mark to promote exports
Country Destination: place marketing
Nation People, culture: nation branding
State Regime: political marketing
Region A term used in the 1980s to refer to the newly industrialized countries
Source: Fan, 2006, p. 6.

27
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

In the followings, according to several authors of literature, firstly the domain of nation
branding, then the field of country branding is being separately interpreted. There is no
common view within the literature on the definition of ’nation branding’. According to
Kotler et.al. (2002), some authors associate the term with country-of-origin effect or
consider it as a synonym for place marketing. Fan (2006, p. 3.) defines nation branding
as applying branding and marketing communications techniques to promote a nation’s
image.”. According to Anholt (2002) nation branding is an extensive branding strategy
that reinforces the connections between the given country and the rest of the world in a
clearly defined set of goals.
Similarly, according to De Vicente (2004) nation branding refers to the use of
marketing strategies in order to promote a country, its products and image. “This consist
of developing an image based on a country’s positive core values and communicating it
both internally and externally.” (Domeisen, 2003, in: Jaffe- Nebenzahl, 2006, p. 138.)
According to Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2001, in: Fan, 2006, p. 3.) “the aim is to create a
clear, simple, differentiating idea built around emotional qualities which can be
symbolised both verbally and visually and understood by diverse audiences in a variety
of situations. To work effectively, nation branding must embrace political, cultural,
business and sport activities” In Gudjonsson’s (2005, p. 286.) view, “[t]here are three
main goals achieved by using the tools of branding. The first goal is to protect
businesses and brands from undesirable and negative effects of government, politics or
other related domestic or international actions; the second is to support businesses and
their brands in global competition. A third goal is to build prosperity and raise standards
of living within the nation”.

Based on Fan’s (2006) literature review, authors have different concepts of nation
branding: (1) It can be used by an institution to increase its export activity as a mere
country-of-origin effect. (2) It can be interpreted as place marketing during which a
country promotes itself. (3) It can be interpreted as regional marketing in which case it
refers to the marketing processes of a given geographical region. In the author’s
opinion, nation branding ought not to be related to product branding and product-
country-image as it refers to the nation itself. O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy
(2000) consider nation branding as an umbrella branding, the goal of which is to
differentiate a country’s products from those of international competition.
According to Olins (1999) politicians ought to become their own nation’s brand
managers for nation branding to be successful.

Beyond Fan’s (2006) review, several other sources imply the inconsistence at the level
of nation branding’s concept and its mixing up with that of country branding and other
notions (see e.g.. Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2002; Gudjonsson, 2005). At the same time
the taxonomical diversity is a sign of the direction and the dynamics of this field of
research. In the following we proceed to the presentation of country branding concepts.

28
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

According to various (and even contradictory) sources country branding envelopes

several fields and tools with the intention of creating a strong image with the synergetic
use thereof. Most authors consider a good country brand a competitive advantage (see
also: Deffner – Liouris, 2005; Kotler - Gertner, 2002; Warren, 2002).
Country branding covers the fields of tourist attractions, events, infrastructure, price,
quality, safety, beauty and tourism development through both the development of the
business environment and educational background. Tourism is part of country branding
in every part of the world and country branding itself often resorts to the marketing
toolbox of tourism.
Country branding goes well beyond logo and slogan design and consists of a coherent,
thorough process that utilizes, among others, the tools of positioning and
communications in order to fulfill its goals (see e.g.: Lindsay, 2000; Gardella, 2002;
Kotler- Gertner, 2002; Olins, 2004; Piskóti, 2004; Anholt, 2005).
Gudjonsson (2005, pp. 283-298.) further refines the conceptualization of the field when
stating that “nation branding occurs when a government or a private company uses its
power to persuade whoever has the ability to change a nation’s image. Nation branding
uses the tools of branding to alter, confirm or change the behaviour, attitudes, identity or
image of a nation in a positive way”.

Plavsak (2002), DeVicente (2004) and Anholt (2005) refers to branded countries as ’soft
power’. Szeles (2001) on the other hand identifies country branding with the existing set
of symbols and with a process of identity building.

Authors seem to agree on the fact that the primary goal of country branding is economic
in nature (based on Kotler et. al., 2002; Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2002; van Ham, 2002a;
Olins, 2004; Papadopoulos, 2004; Anholt, 2005; Papp-Váry, 2007; Allen, 2007).
The goals are as follows:
i. Tourism development, attracting tourists into the country
ii. Incenting investments into the country
iii. Export development and expansion
iv. Protecting the local marketing against international competition

The target audiences and stakeholders of country branding (based on Gilmore, 2002, p.
288.) are the following:
i. present and future inhabitants
ii. domestic and foreign investors
iii. qualified workforce
iv. students
v. pensioners
vi. domestic and foreign tourists
vii. media and opinion leaders
viii. travel agencies, air, airlines, transport companies
29
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

ix. services sector

x. foreign governments and investors
xi. export companies/consumers

Beyond that, the majority of authors agree on the fact that country branding in order to
be effective, ought to be in accordance with national identity, i.e. when the inhabitants
of the given country are able to identify themselves with and are willing to participate in
improving it (see e.g. Bennett, 1999; Hankiss, 1999; Baker, 2002; Kotler – Gertner,
2002; Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2002; Anholt, 2005; Kleppe – Mossberg, 2005)

2.3. Country image as a country brand – Branding approaches in the

literature of country image

As a result of country marketing and country branding, according to the latest academic
approaches, country image can be considered a country brand image (nation brand or a
special case of place brand). Various authors prefer the term “country brand” instead of
“country image” (based on Olins, 2004, Anholt, 2005). Following their reasoning, the
former notion (1) implies a voluntary image building process, (2) can be more easily
connected to equity measurement and (3) it better expresses a long-term strategic
approach.

The foundedness of studying countries (places) as brands is further confirmed by Kotler

et.al., 1997; Hankinson, 2001; Trueman et.al., 2001; Kotler – Gertner, 2002; Kavaratzis,
2004; Kavaratzis – Ashworth, 2005; Gudjonsson; 2005; Fan, 2006; Boo et.al., 2009;
Zenker, 2011; Gertner, 2011.
One can state that the notion of country as a brand is accepted and recognized within the
research community. However no accurate definition of the concept has been brought
forward yet (Gertner, 2011).

Zenker and Braun in their 2010 article endeavor to bridge this gap by establishing the
notion of “place brand” which is suitable to designate the brand of towns, regions or
countries at will. In their understanding, ‘ a network of associations in the consumers ’
mind based on the visual, verbal,and behavioural expression of a place, which
isembodied through the aims, communication, values, and the general culture of the
place ’ s stakeholders and the overall place design ’ (Zenker – Braun, 2010, p. 3).
According to Hankinson (2003) most authors consider place brand as entities or images
in relation with places, which, in the author’s opinion hinders the evolution of the field
of place branding. He states that, following the classic literature on brand management,
a brand can act as (1) a communicator, (2) a perceptual image, (3) a value enhancer or
(4) a relationship (Hankinson, 2003, p. 109.). In the author’s opinion, the adaptation of

30
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

these roles into place marketing approaches would contribute to developing the field,
both in theory and in practice.
As for differentiating the image concept, there are three different core concepts within
the body of literature on the field: (1) product brand, (2) corporate brand and (3)
country as brand. Coming from their inherent connection within country of origin
image and the prevailing approach of countries as complex products, the two concepts
that are most often studied jointly are those of product brand and country brand (nation
brand), although one can find examples in the literature on the comparison of place
brands with corporate brands.

According to Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002, p. 308.) “a country is a ‘corporation’ that

produces many products, not a unitary ‘product’. As such, it needs a corporate
positioning strategy based on its core competencies”.
Conversely, De Vicente (2004, p. 34.) asserts that it is more useful “to think of ‘country
as a corporate brand’, more like a holding company which manages a group of
interrelated sub-brands”.
Allen (2003, in: Allen, 2007, p. 61) defines corporate brand as ”brand as applied to
products & services within a corporate organizational framework. Place Brand is
defined as brand as applied to products and services within a political/geographic
framework. While the principles of corporate branding may apply in the place branding
arena, the implementation of a place brand may differ in important respects.”
In his opinion, it is worthwhile to consider places as products for the research area. Still,
the factors influencing places as brands differ fundamentally from each other. These
factors are as follows: (1) the difficulty to delimit the entity at stake for place branding
(town, region or country); (2) the difficulty to enumerate all stakeholders (inhabitants,
shop owners, employees); (3) the difficulty to retain brand consistency in time and with
changing conditions of competition; (4) the degree and effect of government
involvement.
According to the above criteria, the differences between corporate brands and place
brands are summarized in Table 5.

31
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

Table 5.
Differences between corporate brand and place brand
CORPORATE BRAND PLACE BRAND
Single component product/service Multiple component product/service
Cohesive stakeholder relationships Fragmented stakeholder relationships
Lower organizational complexity Higher organizational complexity
Functional Experiential/hedonic
Individual orientation Collective orientation
Sub-brand coherence Sub-brand inequality & rivalry
Private enterprise Public/private partnerships
Lack of overt government role Overt government role
Product attributes consistent Product attributes subject to seasonality
Flexibility of product offering Inflexibility of product offering
Source: Allen, 2003 in: Allen, 2007, p. 61.

There equally are several works on the parallel with products. Florek et.al. (2006) state
that places are not mere locations but complex, i.e. “mega products”.
According to Fan (2006) traditional brands and country brands are much alike but there
are also notable differences (see Table 6). In his understanding, countries cannot be
considered as conventional products are therefore ought to be managed in a special way.

Table 6.
A comparison of country as a brand and product brands

NATION BRAND PRODUCT BRAND

Offer Nothing on offer A product or service on offer
Attributes Difficult to define Well defined
Benefits Purely emotional Functional and emotional
Image Complicated, various, vague Simple, clear
Primary and secondary, relatively
Associations Secondary, numerous and diverse
fewer and more specific
To help sales and develop
Purpose To promote national image
relationships
Ownership Unclear, multiple stakeholders Sole owner
Audience Diverse, hard to define Targeted segment
Source: Fan, 2006, p. 7.

According to Fan (2006, p. 8-9.) the major differences lie in the following: (1) country
brand is emotional rather than functional, (2) a country does not have a sole owner of
the brand, (3) the name of a country cannot be altered, (4) a country may possess more

32
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

than one “nation brand”, (5) country brand is not owned by the country itself rather it is
managed by one ore more institutions, and (6) as there is no official owner of the
country brand it can hardly be protected from misuse on the market.

According to Papp-Váry (2007, p. 67.) several other differences between country brands
and product brands equally have to be taken into account. “Country brand, just like a
product brand, has a brand name, a logo and other tools which enable its recognition.
Beyond this, however, the source of a country brand name is idiosyncratic and
identifying the ownership of the brand is equally problematic. Moreover, it is also
inconceivable that one transfer or acquire the usage rights of a country brand.”. Hence
the evaluation of brand equity for a country brand becomes problematic. This
entanglement lies at the core of the debate between authors on well-foundedness and
academic legitimacy of country brand theory.

The literature on place marketing also examines in connection with nations as brands
the following aspects (based on: Hanna – Rowley, 2008):
i. the comparison of branding approaches of products, services, destinations and
towns (see e.g. Cai, 2002; Gnoth, 2002; Kavaratzis – Ashworth, 2005; Parkerson
– Saunders, 2005)
ii. comparing corporate brands and towns as brands (Trueman et.al., 2004;
Kavaratzis, 2004; Kavaratzis – Ashworth, 2005)
iii. study of the similarities with corporate “umbrella branding” (Papadopoulos-
Heslop, 2002; Gnoth, 2002; Rainisto, 2003)

By way of the limited space and relevance of the topics, we will not further examine
these sub-topics. At the same time, the relevant results of several of these studies have
already been mentioned beforehand.
According to Kotler et.al. (1997, p. 5.) „less focus has been on other factors that
influence nation brands or the nations’ brand portfolio.” Gudjonsson (2005, p. 287.)
also highlights that “the reason for this is probably that some of the elements cannot be
seen as brands, such as people or culture, but are clearly very influential features in
nation brands’ performance in global markets.

33
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

2.4. Country image as Competitive Identity –

A brief overview

The past years have seen country image theory and practice overcome the approaches of
country branding and country marketing. Along with the vivid academic debate on
country branding theories has appeared a new managerial approach that rejects a brand-
based approach and brings in a new focal point to the field of research, that of identity.

The latest theory often referred to by the literature is the Anholt’s (2000) Nation Brand
Hexagone (see Figure 2), despite the fact that the author has only a few academically
refereed publications and rather represents a practical, managerial approach. However
we consider it worthwhile to give a brief presentation of the approach.

In Anholt’s concept, country image as a brand image consists of the following factors:
(1) to what extent the export products of the country are known, (2) how do foreigners
perceive a country’s government, (3) how do they perceive the level of investments and
immigration into the country, (4) the country's cultural heritage, (5) the mentality of its
people, (6) the country's tourism. country image can therefore be analyzed as along
these six factors: products, government, culture and heritage, people, tourism and
investment in human capital and migration. The received index value will show what
people think of a given country. Anholt suggests that tourism is one of the most
important elements of country image as tourism is often the most visible and most often
exhibited aspect of a country, and the image elements employed during tourism
promotions directly affect a country’s overall image. The study also points out that,
independently of the other dimensions involved, personal experience remains the most
influential factor in shaping a country’s image.

Figure 2.
Anholt’s Nation Brand Hexagone

Source: Anholt, 2000, p. 13.

34
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

Anholt (2007, p. 25.) proposes that the competitive identity of countries can be
communicated to the world through six main channels. These are the following: (1)
tourism, (2) export brands, (3) government policies, (4) foreign investment
development, (5) cultural activity and the export thereof, (6) behavior of its people (as
well in foreign countries as with foreigners within the home country). In his
understanding, artifacts like a well-designed logo or webpage, or an overall graphic
expression hardly have any effect on a country’s image in people’s mind. According to
the author, a country can only manage to change its image in case its inhabitants and its
organizations change their behavior (or their beliefs). Therefore he argues that this type
of communication cannot be referred to as “branding”. For this reason he proposes the
use of the term “competitive identity” instead.
Competitive identity is a possible answer to the academic debate on country branding
(i.e. can we consider a nation/country/state as a brand and are related branding
approaches suitable in this perspective). Further research is needed to confirm this
approach.

2.5. A summarizing and critical review of branding approaches

related to country image theory

Country marketing and country branding can still not be considered a thoroughly
researched and standardized field within marketing science. As one can see from the
literature review of the previous chapter, researchers’ opinions on the subject collide on
various grounds (even though few articles published following the finalization of the
present dissertation lead to believe that there has been an improvement in several :areas)
i. The main discussion today is not about whether one can consider a country as a
brand (and its image as a brand image).
ii. There is no debate on whether the field should be recognized academically or
whether it is still merely a practical, managerial approach. The first two points
seem today determined by the growing number of refereed publications and the
approach of countries as a brands has established itself as a recognized field
of research. (see Zenker, 2011)
iii. Regardless of the advances of the first two points, there are still too few
publications within refereed journals on the subject and the majority of these are
country case studies.
iv. The taxonomical framework of the field is equally problematic (e.g. delimiting
nation vs. country vs. state). There is no common glossary, word use within
the area of research.
v. The theoretical foundation of the research methodology to be used within the
field (measurement tools, targeting) is still in progress. Literature still focuses on
delimiting the relevant approaches.

35
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

vi. There is a growing display of intent to measurement (e.g. using methodology

acquired from related fields of study).
vii. A growing emphasis is put on the study of the factors and dimensions of
country brand equity and the possibilities of adaptation of consumer brand
equity theory.

Even with the above problems, we argue that of the study of the related fields is well-
founded and worthwhile. Indeed, the development of the field of research stems in large
part from the widened approaches of country image. Therefore including the most
important milestones into our research framework might add to a study which
would be more comprehensive and more fitting to the international research
trends in the field. Altogether, this would bring about the main novelty and added
value of the present study.
Other relating topics (that we will not study in detail in the present dissertation) in the
literature include3:
i. studies on the fields of country marketing/country branding (export-promotion,
tourism, agriculture, international politics) (Papadopoulos, 1993, 2004; Kotler
et.al., 1993; Gold – Ward, 1994; Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2001)
ii. the actors of country marketing/country branding (local and national
governments, commercial organizations, trade organizations, etc.) (Kotler et.al.,
1993; Papadopoulos, 2004; Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2006)
iii. methods and tools of country marketing/country branding (e.g. [1] systematics
methods: tourism and export-promotion; [2] inertia effects within agriculture;
[3] political toolbox: diplomacy, international-, foreign policy, international
cooperations) (Kotler et.al., 1993; Papadopoulos, 2004; Anholt, 2007; Szondi,
2008)
iv. The relationship between country marketing/country branding and other fields of
science (e.g. sociology, psychology, international relations, political science)
(see e.g.. Tajfel, 1981 and Stangor – Lange, 1994 both in: Papadopoulos, 2004)

One can observe that unlike in other fields of science, in the field of country image,
practice is ahead of theory and this latter gradually reaches (though sometimes
surpasses) practical approaches (e.g. the growing display of intent to measurement).

The following figures illustrate the evolution of the research topic and the relationship
between the country image and other related fields.

3
For each sub-topic, see the related references for thorough analyses. For a summary of publications in
the field of country branding, see Hanna - Rowley, 2008.

36
 2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

Figure 3.
The evolution in time of country image theory

Source: own elaboration, 2009

Figure 4.
The evolution of country image theory with regards to its conceptual framework and the impact of related
fields of study

Source: own elaboration, 2009

The field clearly seems to evolve towards the study of branding solutions and towards a
more accentuated quantitative measurement methodology 4 . “Countries as brands”
account for the relevant approach for our main study.
In our understanding a country branding is the theoretical approach of a
geographic entity, a country as a brand and the application of this in practice.
For the present dissertation, by the lack of a single, universal definition, we define
“country brand” as the array of symbols that serve as differentiating elements for
a country and that add value for consumers through associations, awareness,
loyalty and image.

We argue (based on the aforementioned issues related to brand ownership, name

variability, etc.) that country brands show more similarities to corporate brands and
appears only in its designation as an actual brand. However in our view, country image
shows idiosyncratic attributes both with the brand-focused and identity-focused
approaches although it is more closely related to the identity-focused approach.

4
On the evolution of this field of study, see also: Kavaratzis – Ashworth, 2005.
37
2. COUNTRY AS A BRAND THEORY

We therefore disagree with the application of a merely brand-focused approach, which

can be considered as over-simplified. However we believe that the term “country brand”
is more telling on the focus of the study, as (1) the notion indirectly implies an
intentional image building activity, (2) it can be more directly related to equity
measurement and to tests of effectiveness and (3) it better expresses a long-term
strategic approach. Hence, on a practical side, country branding might be a valid
approach of the field while it remains problematic in a theoretical context for the
reasons mentioned above. Considering that country branding accounts for a new
direction within country image theory, it is still worthwhile to conduct studies in the
field as it can constitute an added value for the present dissertation. Taking into
account the present state of the literature in the field of science it can be stated that the
concept of country brand has been accepted more and more widely. Authors in the
field have even started to use the notions of “country image” and “country brand” as
synonyms, for they coincide in several dimensions and are similar in conceptualization.

Our opinion on the usability of identity-focused approaches is based on the following

points: (1) In our view, image is more a portrait in people’s minds and therefore is a
subjective concept while identity is an external picture, an objective construct, (2)
identity (just like image) exists on its own and can directly be influenced, (3) it
therefore contains both internal and external, i.e. identity and image features. This
complex approach gives to the identity-focused approach its raison d'être and enables its
use within country image theory. However (as mentioned beforehand), the use of the
term “identity” is problematic and might be at the basis of conceptual misinterpretation.

Therefore, given this conceptual lacuna and the broader acceptance of branding
approaches, in the following we will have recourse to the brand-focused approach
and will endeavor to identify and interpret the factors of brands and brand equity
related to countries.

38
 3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

3. THE DIMENSIONS AND THE MULIDIMENSIONAL

NATURE OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

A main aim of the present thesis is to define and determine the dimensions of country
image and country as a brand, and to study the interaction effects of country image and
country as a brand.
According to the literature of country image, country image is widely acknowledged to
be a multidimensional construct, a multidimensional image (Nagashima, 1970, 1977;
Johansson – Moinpour, 1977; White, 1979; Narayana, 1981; Cattin et.al. 1982; Jaffe –
Nebenzahl, 1984, 1988, 2006; Johansson – Nebenzahl, 1986; Han – Terpstra, 1988;
Han, 1989; Roth – Romeo, 1992; Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Smith, 1993; Parameswaran -
Pisharodi, 1994).
Opinions vary though on the quantity and content of these dimensions.

In the following chapter we present the most notable country image and country brand
dimensions found in the literature and delineate them with respect to their relevance for
the main study of the thesis.
Following that, in order to support the subsequent research model of the dissertation we
proceed to a review of the pre-existent models and researched mechanisms, among
others of the underlying factors of the perception of country image and the influence of
country image and country brand on consumer behavior.

3.1. Dimensions of country image

Several dimensions of country image were already referred to in our literature review of
the definitions of country image.

According to Nagashima (1970, p. 68.) country image “is created by such variables as
representative products, national characteristics, economic and political background,
history, and traditions.”
Wish – Deutsch – Biener (1970) state that the image of a country can be studied along
its geographical attributes as well as economic, political and cultural dimensions.
Kotler et al. (1993) assert that country image is determined by geographical properties,
history, arts, music, citizens and the set of images and beliefs one has about a given
country.
Martin and Eroglu (1993) define country image as a combination of a country’s
economic and technological development, its political system, the attributes of its
inhabitants, its natural resources, etc. In their test of scale, they discern three distinct
dimensions (1) political, (2) economic and (3) technological dimensions (Martin –
Eroglu, 1993, p. 198.).
39
3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

According to Kaynak et.al. (2000) the concept of country image covers everything that
derives from general environmental factors that is beyond the control of the companies
of the given country.
Denig (2004) states that the dimensions of country image are the following: culture,
history, language and values.
Brijs et.al. (2011, p. 1260.) assert that “country-image represents everything a person
associates with the country itself and its inhabitants (not its products) […] referring to
nine aspects: (1) cultural identity, (2) political climate, (3) language, (4) history, (5)
climate, (6) landscape, (7) economic and technological development, (8) religion, and
(9) people.”

The above sources confirm the existing disagreement on both number and the structure
of the dimensions involved. However, the above sources all include both tangible and
intangible dimensions (Fan, 2006). According to other authors, one can distinguish
between image forming dimensions (e.g. tourist attractions, or peculiar services) and
actual image elements (e.g. the entirety, identity of a town).

Lala, Allred and Chakraborty (2009) propose an overall study of the literature (based on
Han, 1989) and state that three different conceptualizations exist for country image: (1)
studies on country characteristics, (2) those on product characteristics and (3) those on
both product and country characteristics (Table 7).

Table 7.
Conceptualization of country image
SOURCES STUDYING
SOURCES STUDYING SOURCES STUDYING
PRODUCT AND COUNTRY
COUNTRY PRODUCT
CHARACTERISTICS (HALO
CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
AND SUMMARY
(HALO APPROACH) (SUMMARY CONSTRUCT)
CONSTRUCT)
Martin - Eroglu, 1993 Nagashima, 1970, 1977 Parameswaran – Yaprak, 1987
Cattin – Jolibert – Lohnes,
Haubl, 1996 Heslop – Papadopoulos, 1993
1982
Parameswaran – Pisharodi,
Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 1984
1994
Han – Terpstra, 1988 Lee – Ganesh, 1999
Roth – Romeo, 1992 Knight – Calantone, 2000
Parameswaran – Pisharodi,
Agarwal – Sikri, 1996
2002
Pereira – Hsu – Kundu, 2005
Source: Lala-Allred-Chakraborty, 2009, p. 52.

The above table illustrates well that country image concepts often come up during the
study of country-of-origin effects and appear most often merged into studies on the
dimensions of products’ perception. Table 8 summarizes the dimensions unveiled by the
most influential studies on the subject. As can be seen from the table, most country
image dimensions stem from studies on country-of-origin image, therefore the majority
40
 3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

of the following dimensions is rather a dimension of product image (in rare cases,
related to a country) than a dimension of country image. The lines in grey correspond to
those studies that unveiled dimensions that can be considered as purely a country
dimension.

Table 8.
Dimension of country image
AUTHOR DIMENSION
representative products, economic and political
Nagashima (1970, 1977)
background, history, and traditions
also: price and value, service, advertising, reputation,
design and style
Wish – Deutsch – Biener geographical attributes, economic and political
(1970) background, culture
price, technology, innovation, quality, design, service,
White (1979)
reliability, advertising, durability, brand recognition
effect of external environment, economic, political,
Wang – Lamb (1980, 1983)
cultural environment
recognition, prestige, production, innovation, popularity,
Narayana (1981)
price, functionality
Cattin – Jolibert – Lohnes culture, organizazion, personality, society, economy,
(1982) prices, reliability, design, technology
Jaffe – Nebenzahl (1984) product-technology, price-value
Johansson – Nebenzahl (1986) economy, status
attitudes towards a country, towards people, the nature
Parameswaran – Yaprak
of people, workforce, economy, political relations,
(1987)
product and brand trust
technological development, prestige, services,
Han – Terpstra (1988)
workforce, economy
Papadopoulos – Heslop – industrial development, affective attachment, industry
Berács (1990) orientation
cultural and political distance, resemblance, economic
Desborde (1990)
development, technological and product superiority
perceptions on resemblance, thoughts of and attitudes
Ger (1991)
towards a country
political environment, external appearance, culture,
Weber – Grundhofer (1991)
people, economy
Pisharodi – Parameswaran overall country image and general product attributes,
(1992) special product attributes
Roth – Romeo (1992) innovativeness, design, prestige, layout
Martin – Eroglu (1993) political, economic, technological environment
geographical attributes, history, arts, music, citizens,
Kotler et. al. (1993)
opinions
physical (geography, natural resources, demography),
cultural (history, culture), identity (name, flag,
Graby (1993) celebrities), relational (governments, international
organizations) and controlled (intentional image
shaping)

41
3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

country-people dimensions: beliefs, influence,

Heslop – Papadopoulos (1993)
relationships)
also: product, price-value, market presence, response
„Live-in” dimensions: people, culture/society, economic
Chao – Rajendran (1993)
policy/political environment, economic environment
also: product dimensions
attitudes towards countries, attitudes towards products,
Parameswaran – Pisharodi
purchase intention (cognitive, affective, conative
(1994, 2002)
elements)
Agarwal – Sikri (1996) technology, prestige, price
affective country evaluation, cognitive country
Haubl (1996)
evaluation
also: evaluation of the country’s car industry
knowledge about a country, affective dimensions,
Lebrenz (1996)
cognitive dimensions
overall country image, overall image of a country’s
Lee – Ganesh, 1999
inhabitants, overall country and population image
environment, workforce, economy, conflicts, policy,
Allred et.al. (1999)
workforce skills, work culture
three country constructs: national level of economic
Papadopoulos – Heslop –
development, perception of people, relationship with the
IKON Group (2000)
country
four product constructs: general evaluation of products,
price, market presence, consumer satisfaction
attitudes towards and beliefs of the country, attitudes and
Knight – Calantone, 2000
beliefs of people (i.e. flexible model)
cognitive evaluation, affective evaluation, country
Berács – Malota (2000)
knowledge (experience), relationships
natural attributes, climate, competence, creativity,
Verlegh (2001)
positive emotions, negative emotions
geography, history, statements, arts and music, famous
Kotler – Gertner (2002)
citizens, other dimensions
people, negative product offerings, positive product
Knight – Spreng – Yaprak
offerings, advertising, distribution, price, political
(2003)
environment, culture, technological development
attitudes towards the region, human factor, quality,
Ittersum – Candel –
product preference, naturalness, health dimension (beer
Muelenberg (2003)
industry)
culture, economic environment, media penetration
Hsieh et.al. (2004)
also: product image attributes, corporate image attributes
Denig (2004) culture, history, language, values
country attributes, human attributes, country
Heslop et. al. (2004)
competence, human competence, country evaluation
general differences, economy, policy, culture,
Mittelstaedt et.al. (2004)
technology, language, history, geography
similar political views, economically similar, culturally
Pereira – Hsu – Kundu (2005)
similar
also: product attributes
42
 3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

cognitive country image elements, geographical-cultural

Brijs (2006) elements, social-economic elements, positive feelings,
conative component
identity dimensions: agreeableness, wickedness,
d’Astous – Boujbel (2007) snobbism, assiduousness, conformity, unobtrusiveness
(as a destination)
Pappu – Quester – Cooksey macro-country-image dimensions: economic, political,
(2007) technological
also: micro-country-image dimensions: innovation,
prestige, design
affective, physical, financial, managerial, cultural,
Yang et.al. (2008)
global, political dimensions
Lala – Allred – Chakraborty economic conditions, conflicts, political structure,
(2009) vocational training, work culture, environment, labor
“Quality and Satisfaction Seekers”, “Economic Value
Giraldi et.al. (2011)
Seekers”, “Underdogs” (respondent profiles on image
(Nebenzahl et.al, 2003 alapján)
dimension)
cultural identity, political climate, language, history,
Brijs etal. (2011, p. 1260.) climate, landscape, economic and technological
development, religion, people

Source: own elaboration, 2012

The highlighted sources were content analyzed5. Results show that several dimensions
appear as consistent elements within the various studies. These are the following:
1. Level of economic development, economic structure
2. Labor market, skill level of workforce
3. Political environment, structure
4. International relations (role within international politics, conflicts)
5. Cultural attributes
6. Historical attributes (traditions)
7. Geographical attributes (natural beauty, climate)
8. Environment (cleanness, protection of the environment)
9. People
10. Feelings, emotions (positive or negative)
11. Similarities, resemblance
The relationships between the above dimensions are presented in Figure 5.

5
Content analysis was carried out using open, axial then selective coding, based on the literature. For
methodological background, see e.g.: Glaser-Strauss, 1967; Strauss-Corbin, 1990; Babbie, 2001;
Marshall, 2002; Feischmidt, 2005, 2006.
43
3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

Figure 5.
Dimensions of country image according to the literature

Source: own elaboration, 2009

According to the literature, the main elements of country image are the following (see
Figure 4., in grey): (1) economy, (2) politics, (3) history, (4) culture, (5) geography, (6)
people, (7) similarity, (8) feelings.
One can consider the following as sub-dimensions (in light grey): (1) labor market, (2)
international relations, conflicts (in relationship with political structure), (3)
environment (in relationship with geographical attributes).
The first six elements (economy, politics, history, culture, geographical attributes,
people) can be classified, based on the general attitude-based approach as cognitive
dimensions.
One can categorize as affective the following dimensions: (1) feelings, (2) resemblance,
similarities to the country.

The study of the dimensions and its comparison with attitude-focused approaches offers
a field for further study (see Roth – Diamantopoulos, 2009).

44
 3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

3.2. The evaluation of country image structure

Most country image studies consider the image in the minds of people as the
consequence of numerous other factors which factors build up a hierarchical structure
that subsequently leads to that image (Nejad-Winsler, 2000; Elliot et.al., 2011). This in
turn leads to several different definitions within the literature regarding the effect of
country image on other fields (e.g. on the product-country-image concept or on
destination image concepts).
According to the literature, there are 3 different structural levels of the evaluation of
country image: (1) general understanding of country image and its factors and
dimensions; (2) influencing factors of country image; (3) the effect of country image on
consumer behaviour.
According to the literature, there is not only a hierarchical structure of elements, or
dimensions of country image but there are different eliminated levels of meaning as
well. One can state that beyond the dimensions of country image there exist influencing
factors and also attributes having impact on consumers’ behaviour.
According to the above mentioned one can eliminate three different levels of
understanding: (1) the general menaing of country image (the image of a country and its
dimensions) (2) influencing factors of country image (but not elements of it) and (3)
impacts on consumer behaviour.

3.2.1. The structure of country image dimensions

According to Papadopoulos (1993) and Pappu, Quester and Cooksey (2007) country
image can be defined on both a micro and macro level. The macro level stands for
countries’ overall evaluation whereas the micro level corresponds to the product-image
level i.e. to the country-of-origin effect.
According to Heslop et.al. (2004) one can distinguish between “competences” and
“characteristics” when evaluating a country or its inhabitants.
Country characteristics on one hand, refer, among others, to the role of the given
country within international politics (Lee-Ganesh, 1999; Knight-Calantone, 2000;
Heslop et.al. 2004;); to the similarities between the given country and the home country
(Lee-Ganesh 1999), the state and quality of the protection of the environment (Heslop
et.al., 2004); the existence and state of individual rights (Heslop et.al., 2004); the quality
of life (Heslop et.al., 2004); political stability (Heslop et.al., 2004; Orbaiz-
Papadopoulos, 2003) or standards of living (Orbaiz-Papadopoulos, 2003;
Parameswaran-Pisharodi, 2002; Nadeau et.al., 2008).
Country competences, on the other hand, include factors related to the production and
evaluation of products originating from a country, as well as factors enabling an overall
evaluation of the given country. The components of country competences are the
following: technological development (Lee-Ganesh, 1999; Knight-Calantone 2000;
Orbaiz-Papadopoulos, 2003; Heslop et.al., 2004; Laroche et.al., 2005; Nadeau et.al.,
45
3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

2008); economic stability (Heslop et.al., 2004), level of economic development (Lee-
Ganesh, 1999) and welfare (Orbaiz-Papadopoulos, 2003; Heslop et.al., 2004; Laroche
et.al., 2005; Nadeau et.al., 2008).

Recent studies often make an articulated distinction between the image of the given
country and that of its inhabitants.
The studies on the evaluation of a country can refer to the separate study on the
dimensions of country image, to the study of the country along the aforementioned
characteristics and to the study of relationships with products (i.e. country-of-origin
effect, product-country-image studies).
The studies on the evaluation of a country’s inhabitants can include analyses on the
evaluation of friendliness (Lee-Ganesh, 1999; Knight-Calantone 2000; Parameswaran-
Pisharodi, 2002; Heslop et.al., 2004; Nadeau et.al., 2008), honesty (Heslop et.al., 2004),
trustworthiness (Heslop et.al., 2004), creativity (Lee – Ganesh, 1999; Knight-Calantone
2000; Parameswaran – Pisharodi, 2002; Nadeau et.al., 2008), education (Lee-Ganesh,
1999; Knight – Calantone 2000; Parameswaran – Pisharodi, 2002; Orbaiz-
Papadopoulos, 2003; Heslop et.al., 2004; Laroche et.al., 2005; Nadeau et.al., 2008) or
work ethics (Lee-Ganesh, 1999; Knight-Calantone 2000; Parameswaran-Pisharodi,
2002; Heslop et.al., 2004; Laroche et.al., 2005; Nadeau et.al., 2008) of a people.
Nadeau et.al. (2008) combine the separate study of a country as such and its people with
the study of competences and characteristics. In their article, the authors’ design
includes four different constructs: (1) country character, (2) country competence, (3)
people character and (4) people competence.

Gartner (1993), Haubl (1996), Orbaiz and Papadopoulos (2003), Nadeau et.al. (2008)
and Elliot et.al. (2011) also distinguish between affective and cognitive country image.
These two contructs are in a hierarchical relationship with each other in the evaluation
process of a country. Similarly, according to Baloglu – McCleary (1999), and Beerli –
Martin (2004a, 2004b) places’ images generally tend to have a separate affective and
cognitive level of evaluation.

In Echtner and Ritchie’s (1991) approach, the evaluation of a country is possible though
a framework of three continuums of interpretation: (1) attribute vs. holistic, (2)
functional vs. psychological and (3) common vs. unique. Through the measurement
along these continuums several individual characteristics of a country’s evaluation
might stand out (e.g. climate, friendliness, accommodation, etc.) while a more general
image might equally emerge (e.g. the overall evaluation of a country or of a people).

As shown beforehand, one can clearly distinguish a number of dimensions of country

image that are strongly enrooted while having to evaluate a country, as well as other
influencing factors that refine, along the personality of the respondent, their image of
the given country. Beyond these influencing factors can be impacts on behavior by the
46
 3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

image of a country as well. One can state that this three dimensional eliminating of
theories can be somehow mixed up therefore it is worthwile to distuingish them clearly.

3.2.2. Factors influencing the perception of country image

The perception and evaluation of country image and its effect on consumer behavior
depends, beyond those presented above, on several dimensions. Authors in the field
equally study the attributes of the target audience, their knowledge and experience and
whether they personally have already travelled to or lived in the given country. The
perception of country image is therefore also influenced by individual attributes as well
as the attributes of the target country.

The image of a country may vary in function of the considered target audience (i.e. of
the group of people that need to evaluate a given country) and in function of the factors
and dimensions the given audiences consider when evaluating the country (see e.g.
Kotler et.al., 1993; Agarwal – Sikri, 1996; Ger – Askegaard – Christensen, 1999; Kotler
– Gertner, 2002; Hankinson, 2003; Fan, 2006).

Kar and Litvin (2000), and Papp-Váry (2005) also outline the determining role of the
evaluator’s gender. Beyond the effect of gender, Malota (2001) considers the effects of
the individual’s self-confidence and their level of income. According to Hsieh
et.al.(2004) along with the effect of gender, one also has to study respondents’ age,
income and marital status.
According to Gudjonsson (2005, p. 285.) individuals’ “views vary between individuals
depending on race, education, status, gender, geography, etc.” Moreover, Fan (2006, p.
11.) states that the following individual factors equally affect the evaluation of a nation:
(1) personal experience (e.g. visiting the country); (2) education or knowledge; (3) prior
use or ownership of a product made in that country; (4) the depiction of the country
through media channels; (5) stereotypes.
According to Giraldi et.al. (2011) country image affects the information on country of
origin while the country of origin in turn affects the evaluation of a product and
consumer behavior. This latter is influenced by the following: consumers’ level of
education, gender, age, fluency in the language of the county, degree of involvement
and familiarity with the brand and culture.
Urbonavicius et.al. (2011. p. 214.) stress that “[p]ersonal experience with a country
influences one's perception about a country as well as its products.” The authors also
distinguish between conative and cognitive dimensions. Conative factors are determined
by individuals’ psychic closeness to the country while cognitive factors include the
intellectual understanding of the characteristics of a country. The notion of “psychic
distance” is often used synonymously with “cultural distance” (see e.g. Swift, 1999, in:
Urbonavicius et.al., 2011). According to the authors, personal experience of a country

47
3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

influences the perceived psychic distance that in turn can affect country image and
product image of products made in the given country.
According to Urbonavicius et.al. (2011) personal experience and psychic distance
influence a country’s evaluation. Personal experience can stem from (1) physical
presence within the country, (2) using product that are originated from the country and
(3) the transmitting mechanisms of mass media (Bar-Tal, 1997; Urbonavicius et.al.,
2011)
Yuksel (2004) equally considers personal experience as a determining factor of country
image.
Several authors, mainly in connection with country-of-origin image studies, highlight
that country knowledge and more precisely, experience can influence the evaluation of a
country and indirectly the products thereof (see e.g. Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Kleppe –
Iversen – Stensaker, 2002, Fan, 2006). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) categorize these
effects as descriptive, inferential or informational. The descriptive nature of country
image is influenced by direct, personal experiences while the informational element
relies on external sources (e.g. opinion leaders, mass media, friends). Inferential beliefs
are derived through a process of perceiving the connectedness of a past event with a
current stimulus (see e.g. Johansson et.al., 1985; Cordell, 1992; Brunner et.al., 1993;
Maheswaran, 1994; Berács et.al., 2000; Malota, 2001).
Along with experiences, information on a country can therefore equally influence its
evaluation (Martin – Eroglu, 1993).
Other authors distinguish between “professional” and “laic” consumers as for the
quantity and depth of their knowledge about a country (see e.g. Nagashima 1970, 1977;
Cattin et.al., 1982; Erickson et.al., 1984; Johansson et.al., 1985; Chasin et.al., 1988; Yu
– Chen, 1993; Maheswaran, 1994; Gilmore, 2002).
Along with awareness and knowledge, individuals’ interest in the given country might
also influence its evaluation (Kleppe and Mossberg, 2004). According to Kotler et.al.
(1997, p. 362.) „consumers form their preference based on their personal background,
experience, and national stereotypes about different nations’ quality, reliability, and
service”. Kotler and Gertner (2002) also highlight the role of individual motivation.
Yang et.al. (2008) study the relationship between individuals’ experience and
knowledge. In the authors’ opinion, the reputation of a country can be examined in
terms of its diplomacy, country image, country-of-origin image and country branding.
They establish that the evaluation of a country has (1) affective, (2) physical, (3)
financial, (4) managerial, (5) cultural, (6) global and (7) political aspects. In this context
the relationship between personal experience and the evaluation of the country can be
influenced by the familiarity with a country and the individuals level of knowledge.

As mentioned beforehand, country characteristics along with personal characteristics

can equally influence country image:

48
 3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

According to Bennett (1999) the geographical proximity of the individual to the

destination country (i.e. the country of origin of the evaluator) also has an influence on
the evaluation of a country.
Marshalls (2007) highlights that the size of the country equally affects its image.
Other country attributes might also play the role of influence factor when evaluating
country image, e.g. the cultural, social and political characteristics of the country
(Kleppe – Iversen – Stensaker, 2002; Fan, 2006).
Mittelstaedt et.al. (2004) also consider the role of perceived similarities and differences
as relevant country attributes.
According to Hsieh (2004) the state of a country’s economy might influence its image
as well.

3.2.3. The effect of country image on behavior

In a different approach than those presented beforehand, Han (1989) in his article
presents two models on the evaluation of certain products by consumers according to
whether the products of the country they are originated from are known to them or not.
Even though this publication is often cited within the field of country-of-origin image, it
also had a major influence on country image literature by including the two approaches
on country image’s effect mechanisms.

i) The “halo effect” of country image operates when no prior information is

available on a product. In this case consumers rely on their general knowledge of a
country to discover and comprehend the product. That is, they rely on country image as
a source of information before purchasing a product. In this case, the country of origin
has a direct effect on product beliefs along the following mechanism:
country image product beliefs product attitude
ii) country image’s “summary effects” act as heuristics to simplify decisions. Its
mechanisms is similar to brand image, that is, if a consumer already knows about
products from the foreign country, country image serves as a summary of the
consumer’s knowledge about the product. This has a direct effect on their attitudes
along the following mechanism:
product beliefs (information) country image product attitude

In connection with Han’s work, Li et al. (1995) formulate the following criticism:
literature does not take into account the intermediary effect of country image. In their
view, country of origin has only an indirect effect on the evaluation of products and of
their quality, but it first activates country image. The authors assert that consumers
develop their opinion about a country based on their prior experience. This experience
is recalled when having to evaluate a given product (or its quality).

49
3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

Three mechanisms of country image effects are highlighted within the literature: (1)
cognitive, (2) affective and (3) normative (Johansson, 1989; Sauer et.al., 1991; Verlegh-
Steenkamp, 1999; Brijs et.al., 2011). country image in these cases is a carrier of
information in the product purchase process.
The cognitive evaluation can occur (1) along a halo effect (Erickson et.al., 1984;
Johansson et.al. 1985), (2) a heuristic effect (Manrai et.al., 1998) or (3) through a
cognitive elaboration (Hong-Wyer, 1989, 1990). During the affective stage a transfer of
evaluation takes place, that is, the consumer evaluates a product originating from a
given country relying on non-rational factors (e.g. feelings, symbols, etc.) (Brijs et.al.,
2011). Normative effects are based on social identity, i.e. the consumer evaluates a
product according to how that product’s country of origin relates to their own norms
and values (Brijs et.al., 2011). According to Brijs et.al. (2011) these effects work
simultaneously (and in connection with each other) rather than separately (Li-Wyer,
1994).

3. 3. The dimensions of country brand (nation brand)

Recent studies on country branding (nation branding), similarly to the multidimensional

approaches of country image, include an effort to determine the dimension thereof.
Country brands can be studied along similar dimensions than country image.

According to Fan (2006, p. 7.), “[a] nation brand offers no tangible product or service;
instead, it represents and encompasses a wide variety of factors and associations.” The
dimensions referred to by the author are the following:
i. place – geography, tourist attractions;
ii. natural resources, local products;
iii. people – race, ethnic groups;
iv. history;
v. culture;
vi. language;
vii. political and economic systems;
viii. social institutions;
ix. infrastructure;
x. famous persons (the face);
xi. picture or image.

According to De Vicente (2004, p. 2.) there is a “need for countries to brand themselves
on four different dimensions (public diplomacy, tourism, exports, foreign direct
investment) and in an integrated manner”.

50
 3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

According to Anholt (2000, p. 13.) the dimensions of a nation barnd are as it follows:
(1) tourism, (2) export, (3) politics, (4) investments and immigration into the country,
(5) culture and heritage, (6) people.
The following sub-chapters present several conceptually more complex approaches.

3.3.1. Gudjonsson’s nation’s brand portfolio

Gudjonsson (2005, p. 287.) in his study completes the traditional country image
dimensions with further factors. The article is based upon Porter’s (1998) often cited
study on the competitive advantages of nations. Porter (1998, p. 71) states that the
competitiveness of a country is a function of four factors:
i. Factor conditions (production, infrastructure, human resources, competition
within the industry)
ii. Demand conditions (home market demand to the products and services of the
given industry)
iii. Related and supporting industries (existence or non-existence of related or
supporting domestic industries)
iv. Firm strategy, structure and rivalry (creation, development and management
settings of domestic firms, nature of domestic competition)

Gudjonsson, based on a firm literature background, completes the above list of

economic factors by further (among others) political, cultural and geographical (and
indirectly, communication) aspects.
The “nation brand portfolio” can be divided into four main categories: (1) people and
culture, (2) politics, structure, government and policies, (3) economy, industries,
companies and brands, and (4) geographical attributes (Gudjonsson, 2005, p. 288). In
the author’s opinion, all of these categories affect and add to the perceptions of other
nations of a given country. Therefore they can also indirectly, by building country
image, affect the perceptions of brands originating from the country.

Figure 6 shows the Nation Branding Influential Map designed by Gudjonsson.

51
3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

Figure 6.:
Nation Branding Influential Map by Gudjonsson

Source: Gudjonsson, 2005, p. 289.

One can formulate as a criticism to the above model that the relationships between the
dimensions are not sufficiently clarified. The map alone can be confusing in
determining which factors are connected and how they affect the evaluation of country
image. Furthermore, the author also fails to give a thorough description of the
relationship between the four main categories.

3.3.2. Place brand dimensions by Hanna and Rowley

Hanna and Rowley (2008) conceptualize the dimensions of nation as a brand as a notion
related to place branding. Their study (a content analytical literature review) gives an
overview of the fields and geographical areas related to place branding. As a result they
distinguish between the following four country brand dimensions: (1) culture, (2)
industry, (3) agriculture, (4) heritage, (5) tourism. The relationships are shown in Figure
7.

52
 3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

Figure 7.
Place brand dimensions by Hanna and Rowley

Source: Hanna – Rowley, 2008, p. 65.

One can formulate as a criticism to the above model – similarly to Gudjonsson’s model
– that the relationships between the dimensions are not sufficiently clarified. One can
hardly deduce from the figure how the identified dimensions affect country image
evaluation. At the same time the model gives a fair overview of the different levels
(national vs. regional) of approaches used within the studies in the field.

3. 4. Further dimensions of country (nation) brand perception

As seen in the case of country image, the evaluation of a country is influenced by many
other dimensions than those already unveiled. A similar mechanism can be observed in
the case of country (nation) brand concepts.
Kotler et al (1997) and Gudjonsson (2005) point out that the perception of nation brands
equally depends on consumers’ personal background, experience and stereotypes about
a given nation’s brand and about the services and reliability thereof.
In addition, Anholt (2000) incorporated into his Nation Brand Hexagone the potential
investor approach and also that of personal experience which may have implications for
the assessment of a country brand.

In Allen’s (2007) interpretation the role of stakeholders equally arises. In his approach
stakeholders might include the following groups: (1) event organizers, (2) transport
companies, (3) hotel owners, (4) government organizations, (5) population, (6) media,
(7) specialized service providers outside of the tourism industry, (8) everyone that might
come into contact with a visitor. In addition, Allen highlights the role of personal
experience as a particularly determining factor. The author posits that the experience
related to a place brand develops well before actually travelling to the given country,
53
3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

through a “pre-place experience”. This is followed by the actual experience (i.e. “place
experience”) which is in turn ensued by subsequent memories and “post-place
experience”. Each step strengthens the following one. Gilmore (2002) among others
studies this self-reinforcing process referring to it as a “dynamic cycle”. According to
the latter approach, physical experiences make up the concept of “place experience.
Moreover, the expectations towards a place can be categorized into two main groups:
past experience (memories and loyalty) and communication (acquired through word-of-
mouth and brand communications).

Figure 8 illustrates the related relationships.

Figure 8.
The ’Place Brand Experience’ Model

Source: Allen, 2003, in: Allen, 2007, p. 63.

In another approach, Eitel és Spiekermann (2007, p. 2.) posit that “[t]he existing
associations […] consolidate themselves into the brand core, which bundles them
together and maps out the central characteristics”. This goes beyond a mere process of
brand and logo design and equally comprises a set of social processes. The design of a
place brand starts with the creation of an internal image (realized self-image) and an
external image (realized self-perception) and it is followed by a goal (i.e. wish) image.
In this sense, one can address a place brand along two dimension pairs: (1) present vs.
past and (2) planning vs. effect. That is, the evaluation of a place brand is greatly
influenced by the inhabitants’ self-image as well as by the external image of the
country.

54
 3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

3. 5. A critical analysis of the literature on the dimensions of country

image and country brands

As attested by the literature, country image can be treated as a multidimensional image

construct. At the same time, authors are not unanimous on the nature and number of the
dimensions thereof and are often mixed with product dimensions.

According to our content analysis of the literature, the main dimensions of country
image are as follows: (1) economy, (2) politics, (3) geography, (4) history, (5)
culture, (6) people. Additional dimensions might be linked to these dimensions, e.g.
the feeling of similarity, attitudes towards people, etc.
One can draw up a similar dimensional map in the case of country brands, where the
most often cited dimensions are: (1) tourism, (2) culture, heritage, (3) economy,
industry, (4) politics, (5) investment, (6) people.
In addition one can often meet product dimensions in the different interpretations. We
however do not agree with the approaches in the literature that treat product image
attributes (e.g. design, quality, price) as dimensions of country image. In our opinion,
the perception of products, services can not be traced back in every case to the
evaluation of a given country. On the other hand, treating these elements (e.g. price,
design) as country image dimensions might lead to conceptual difficulties and
contradictions. Therefore, a simplified identification of product dimensions as
country image dimensions in our opinion is not a viable approach to the subject.

At the same time even the well-known and tested dimensions are often mixed
conceptually within the literature. Many authors confuse the antecedents of country
image (influencing factors) with the consequences thereof (impact factors). In addition,
here too, one can observe that country image-related concepts are mixed up: the
concepts of stereotypes, attitudes and associations often come up within different
interpretations.
In our opinion, one can distinctly identify a set of dimensions (see the 11 dimensions
cited beforehand) that are idiosyncratic (i.e. are genuine determining factors and not
antecedents nor consequences) and can be characterized into the three groups appearing
in attitude theory (i.e. affective, cognitive, conative) (for a logical framework).

According to the literature we can eliminate 3 different domains of country image: i)

general level of country image (elements and dimensions of it) ii) influencing factors of
country image iii) impact of country image on consumers’ behaviour. All of these areas
are examined relations in our doctoral research.

Based on the analysis beforehand, one can distinguish six main categories (among the
eleven identified) that define clearly the components and influencing factors of a
country’s image (see e.g. Chapter 3.1.)
55
3. DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND

The literature review shows that country brand dimensions are almost identical to
country image dimensions. This leads to believe that country image can be
considered a country brand image, without compromising content validity. In this
respect the lack of elements adapted from brand theory (e.g. in the case of country brand
dimensions) can be considered a conceptual flaw of this field of study. In our opinion
the specificity of brand-focused approaches does not emerge in the studied approaches
that consider country image as a country brand, specifically because of the hardly
differing set of dimensions under consideration. Therefore (at least at its current state of
development) the two approaches need not to be differentiated. At the same time we
believe that the current dynamics of the field of research point to the conclusion that the
flaw will shortly be addressed.

It has equally been seen that the evaluation of a country is influenced by several other
dimensions than those presented beforehand. Additional factors other than country
dimensions (country characteristics) also influence the perception of country
image and that of a country brand (e.g. country size, distance from target country).
Individual characteristics (education, gender, self-confidence) equally have a
determining role. We do not agree with the approach, however, that these elements
only surface during the evaluation of products (see for instance the results of country-
of-origin effect studies presented beforehand). We believe that these factors may also
impact on the overall evaluation of a country – this is confirmed by our literature
review. The study of these relationships is a further relevant approach to the subject and
we therefore deem it relevant to include the various factors into our theoretical model.
Furthermore, given that the literature is not consistent in the use of various terms and
acronyms, we fall into line with several authors in the field in advancing the necessity to
develop a common glossary for this area of research.

56
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY –

MEASURING COUNTRY IMAGE AND COUNTRY BRAND,
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

A following important methodological issue is to study the available measurement tools

for country image and country brands.

Country image, according to the latest approaches, can be measured in several ways.
The most obvious solution is to measure it to borrow indicators from the tourism
industry (number of nights spent, inbound tourism, etc.) These tools allow us to monitor
the evaluation of a country and the effectiveness and profitability of targeted country
image (touristic image) building actions and campaigns. This method, however, is
bounded by presenting one-sided results by ignoring other important country image
dimensions other than tourism (e.g. economy, culture). This method is deemed
acceptable for measuring country (destination) image mainly by authors and
practitioners in the fields of destination image, destination marketing and destination
management.

Another common method used in practice is that of financial evaluation. In this case,
the country’s performance and its evaluation is measured by relevant economic and
financial indicators (e.g. GDP growth, investment trends, financial risk analysis of the
country, various country reports, etc.). This method of evaluation, however, ignores
additional, relevant, factors such as the evaluation of a country’s culture or that of its
tourism, etc.
One of the most commonly used economic approach (and most closely related to
assessing country image) is the evaluation based on FDI (foreign direct investments).
Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002) highlight that FDI-based research often ignores or
undervalues “soft powers” such as the destination country’s image, while these clearly
affect invertors’ country choices. However, it is still possible to elaborate relevant
financial analyses based on the level of FDI.

Another more and more frequently used method is that of accounting evaluation. This
approach, based on brand equity measures (related to the advent of country brand
theory) assesses the evaluation of a country as a brand. Its most basic principle stems
from the so-called „royalty relief” approach. This latter gives a quantitative evaluation
of a brand’s goodwill in case it were “sold or leased” (i.e. of the genuine value of a
brand, without the equity stemming from the related respective tangible assets). To a
certain degree this approach converges to a genuine fair value evaluation methodology,
even though its approach remains somewhat abstract and subject to professional debate.
(In accounting, brand equity evaluation is a topical subject of debate – several

57
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

recommendations exist for dealing with the problem [for further information on the
topic, see Juhász, 2004])

Finally, a fairly common practice within academic research (considering the nature of
the subject) remains a marketing-focused approach.
In the field of marketing the use of country image scales in the most common practice
to measure country image. Several scales are available in the literature (e.g. the scales
by Nagashima, 1970; Martin-Eroglu, 1993; Papadopoulos et al., 1990; Gallup, 2000
etc.). Although all of these scales possess a fair amount of drawbacks (coming from
their lack of sophistication) they bear undisputable advantages, such as a comprehensive
range of measured dimensions, a possibility to draw an overall country image, etc. Due
to these advantages, the latter approach will be adopted for the research of the present
dissertation.

Another, increasingly popular approach can be related to country branding. The

evaluation of country brand equity is still a subject of debate. However, it can be stated
that there is a growing interest in country equity measurement which can be considered
a potential future direction for the related field of research. Based on the above and on
the fact that determining country equity lies in the focal point of the present thesis, the
country equity approach will also be presented in the following chapters.

In our presentation of the methodological considerations, we first present the literature

and practice of country image measures. Following this we give an overview of the
relevant place brand evaluation methods, followed by a presentation of the so-called
brand equity measurement methodology. During this chapter we will adopt a theory of
science approach although we will also present a number of practical implications for
the subject. The chapter is concluded by a critical analysis of the concepts.

4.1. The measurability of country image: measurement procedures,

marketing approaches

According to the literature, the study of national stereotypes, and country perceptions
can be dated back to the 1930s, while the research on country-of-origin effects gained
ground in the 1960s.
Usunier (2006) in his literature review identified more than 1000 publications that are
somehow related to the topic. However - as described earlier - the focus has shifted in
recent decades from the measurement of country-of-origin effects to the study and
evaluation of country image as a complex construct. According to Roth and
Diamantopoulos (2009) the traditional country-of-origin effect studies merely allowed
researchers to assess whether consumers prefer given products according to their
country of origin compared to products from other countries. In their view, more recent
58
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

studies allow them to address the causality effects of these situations, i.e. to measure a
country’s image, leaving aside other factors.

Despite the fact that there seems to be a general agreement in the literature about the
importance and usefulness of measuring country image, there seems to be no common
ground on the conceptualization and operationalization thereof (Laroche et al., 2005).
The differences in opinion are based on three factors: (1) conceptual differences, (2)
structural approaches and (3) differences in sample sizes (Lala - Allred - Chakraborty,
2009).
On the conceptual level, a main difference between researchers is whether they consider
country image as a “halo” or a “summary” construct (see Han, 1989). Country image
can appear within measurement methodology as follows: (1) a dummy variable, (2) as a
holistic network (see Niss, 1996; Askegaard-Ger, 1997), (3) a set of opinions and
beliefs, (4) as an attitude construct and (5) as a three-component attitude contruct (Brijs
et.al, 2011).
Structural differences lie in the quantity and structure of dimensions involved, while the
differences in the sample size are due to methodological differences in the different
studies.

In the following we present the various analytical methods used in country image
literature. The used methodologies show a wide variety, as can be seen in Table 9. For
space constraint reasons, we summarize the methodologies in a table, and refer to their
key aspects during the following presentation of the presentation of our own research
design.

59
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

Table 9.
Used approaches and measurement methodology in country image studies
APPROACH/MEASUREMENT
AUTHOR(S)
METHODOLOGY
Wang – Lamb, 1980, 1983; Papadopoulos, 1986;
Literature review Yaprak et al., 1986; Moeller, 1997; Allred et al., 1999;
(scale development) Verlegh, 2001; Brijs, 2006; Lala – Allred –
Chakraborty, 2007
Papadopoulos, 1986; Papadopoulos et al., 1990;
Heslop – Papadopoulos, 1993; Parameswaran –
Yaprak, 1987; Pisharodi – Parameswaran, 1992;
Parameswaran – Pisharodi, 1994; Haubl, 1996; Li et
Use of existing scales al., 1997; Lee – Ganesh, 1999; Knight – Calantone,
2000; Papadopoulos et al., 2000; Parameswaran –
Pisharodi, 2002; Knight et al., 2003; Nebenzahl et al.,
2003; Heslop et al., 2004; Laroche et al., 2005; Pereira
et al., 2005; d’Astous – Boujbel, 2007; Pappu –
Quester – Cooksey, 2007
Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Li et al., 1997; Allred et al.,
Qualitative study –
1999; Verlegh, 2001; Ittersum et al., 2003; Lala –
focus group interviews
Allred – Chakraborty, 2007
Qualitative study – Desborde, 1990; Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Li et al., 1997;
expert interviews/deduction Ittersum et al., 2003; Lala- Allred – Chakraborty, 2007
Qualitative study – Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2002; Kleppe-Mossberg,
content analysis 2005; Hanna – Rowley, 2008 (country branding)
Qualitative study – Ittersum et al., 2003; Puaschunder et al., 2004 (in: Roth
in-depth interviews – Diamantopoulos, 2009)
Schweiger, 1988, 1990, 1992; Schewiger – Kurz,
1997, Weber – Grundhöfer, 1991; Kühn, 1993; (all of
Other, exploratory methods –
the above in: Roth – Diamantopoulos, 2009); Chao –
tests, interviews, image
Rajendran, 1993; Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Verlegh,
associations
2001; Mittelstaedt et al., 2004; Brijs, 2006; d’Astous –
Boujbel, 2007;
Souce: own elaboration, 2012

It is obvious from the above that the most commonly used methodology in the literature
is the use of existing (and relevant) scales to measure country image, although
interviews and focus groups are equally wide-spread. Concerning country branding,
Eitel and Spiekermann (2007, p. 3.) also highlight the importance of methodologies
deriving from practical approaches (e.g. controlling systems [tests of efficiency] or
image tests). In their opinion, the tests of awareness (spontaneous and aided) and
evoked set analyses are equally valid measurement tools.

Several questions arise for which scales to use and how to use them. Most country
image analyses (similarly to traditional image analyses) use (7 or 11-point) semantic
differential scales or (5, 6, 7 or 9-point) Likert scales (Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 1984;

60
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

Nebenzahl – Jaffe – Usunier, 2000). There are also differences in the ordering and
formatting of the scales: (1) in the first type, the parameters to be examined appear
clearly assigned to the given country (Q1 format), while (2) in the second type, one can
evaluate more than one country for each attribute (Q2 format) (see Table 10). While
comparing the two formats, Jaffe and Nebenzahl (1984) find that the first questionnaire
type (more close to the traditional semantic differential scale format) usually performs
better in measuring country image.

Table 10.
Use of alternative survey types within country image analyses
Q1 FORMAT Q2 FORMAT
Bon – Ollivier, 1979 Bannister – Saunders, 1978
Chasin – Jaffe, 1979 Nagashima, 1970, 1977
Darling – Kraft, 1977 Niffenberger – White – Marmet, 1980
Halfhill, 1980 Rierson, 1966, 1967
Source: Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 1984, p. 463.

The following methods are available to explore the construct of country image:
computing averages (e.g. Nagashima, 1970, 1977), factor analysis (e.g. Cattin et al.
1982; Han – Terpstra, 1988; Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 1984; Johansson – Nebenzahl, 1986;
Parameswaran – Pisharodi, 2002; Lala – Allred – Chakraborty, 2009) or meta analysis
(e.g. Hunter – Schmidt – Jackson 1982; Hunter – Schmidt, 1990).

4. 2. Known country image studies and scales

In the following we present the most significant country image studies, with special
regards to the employed scales and measurement methodology. During their
presentation we endeavor to indicate the origin and all known subsequent uses for each
scale.
The literature review shows that only a total of 30 studies assess the measurement of
country image as such. Moreover, 40 further studies also deal with product image
(Roth-Diamantopoulos, 2009). As seen earlier, during the conceptual delimitation of
country image definitions, most country image studies are at the same time country-of-
origin studies, i.e. their measurement models include both product-specific and country-
specific dimensions (for a literature review on country-of-origin studies, see Verlegh –
Steenkamp, 1999; Nebenzahl – Jaffe – Usunier, 2000; Roth - Diamantopoulos, 2009).
Many studies resort to using existing scales without bringing any significant
modifications to them (e.g. Parameswaran – Yaprak, 1987; Knight – Calantone, 2000)
Still others use existing scales but get different results (e.g. Lee – Ganesh, 1999; Pereira
et al. 2005) (Roth – Diamantopoulos, 2009)

61
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

Table 11 gives an overview of the known country image scales., and as it shows, most
country image or country-of-origin studies use existing and already tested measurement
methods. It should also be noted that there are only a few commonly used scales: there
are only 4 or 5 widely cited and used original scales. This fact will play an important
role in our own research design: in our opinion, there are too few properly validated
measurement methods within the field of research. The same question is addressed by
several authors in the literature (see e.g. Shimp et al., 1993; Pappu et al., 2007; Roth –
Diamantopoulos, 2009; Samiee, 2009) and it is subject to one of the current debates in
the area.

Table 11.
Known country image scales and their sources
SUBJECT OF
AUTHOR(S) STUDY SCALE OF ORIGIN
(+SUBSEQUENT USE) (COUNTRY,
PRODUCT)
Papadopoulos, 1986 country and Nagashima, 1970, 1977;
(Papadopoulos et al., 1990; product Darling – Kraft, 1977; Kelman, 1965
Heslop – Papadopoulos,
1993)
Yaprak - Parameswaran., country and literature review
1986 product
(Parameswaran – Yaprak,
1987; Knight – Calantone,
2000)
Pisharodi – Parameswaran, country and Yaprak – Parameswaran, 1986;
1992 product Parameswaran – Yaprak, 1987
(Parameswaran – Pisharodi,
1994, 2002)
Martin – Eroglu, 1993 country own design
(Li et al., 1997)
Haubl, 1996 country and Parameswaran – Yaprak, 1987; McGee –
product Spiro, 1991; Pisharodi – Parameswaran,
1992; Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Jaffe –
Nebenzahl, 1993
Lee – Ganesh, 1999 country and Parameswaran – Yaprak, 1987
product
Papadopoulos et al., 2000 country and Papadopoulos et al., 1990; Heslop –
product Papadopoulos, 1993
Verlegh, 2001 country and own design
product
Laroche et al., 2005 country and Nagashima, 1977; Papadopoulos, 1986; Li et
product al. 1997; Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2000)
Pereira et al., 2005 country and Parameswaran – Pisharodi, 1994
product
d’Astous – Boujbel, 2007 country and own design
product
Pappu – Quester – Cooksey, country and Nagashima, 1970, 1977; Martin – Eroglu,
2007 product 1993
Lala – Allred – country literature review
Chakraborty, 2007
Source: own elaboration, based on Roth – Diamantopoulos, 2009

62
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

4. 3. Country brand equity measurement approaches

– The concept of ’country equity’

A focal point of the present dissertation’s research concept is the incorporation of

country brand approaches into country image measurement tools. Below, we give an
introduction to the related and relevant elements of brand equity theory. Later we
present the different possibilities to adapt brand equity theory to the field of place
branding. To end this chapter, we present the rising concept of country equity.

4.3.1. Measuring place brand

Although there are examples of town promotion from as early as the 1850s (Ward,
1998), place marketing can still be considered a new field within academic research
(Kotler et al., 1993, Zenker – Martin, 2011) Early sources mainly deal with promotional
aspects of given places, towns. According to the literature, Ashworth and Voogd (1990)
seem to be the first authors to endeavor bringing a strategic approach to the area. In the
following years, the research focus gradually shifted from place marketing to place
branding, especially during the early 2000s (see e.g. Kavaratzis, 2008; Zenker-Martin,
2011). However, the literature often denounces the lack of general agreement among
researchers, and even of recommendations on a standard definition of place brand and
on a standard measurement methodology (Jacobsen, 2009; Zenker-Martin, 2011)
According to Zenker (2011) academic research ought to bridge this gap by setting up at
least a theoretical and conceptual framework.

Pike (2005) acknowledges that destinations, places bear far more dimensions than
consumer goods or other services. As a result, their measurement and evaluation are
equally more complex. Cai (2002) and Boo et al. (2009) share this point of view by
highlighting that the complexity of destinations pose a challenge for branding activities.
At the same time they deem that the literature equally lacks of guidelines as for the
evaluation of branding activities (see e.g. Blain – Levy – Ritchie, 2005). However they
propose a consumer-oriented approach in the case of destination brands. According to
Zenker and Martin (2011) it is necessary to measure the effectiveness of place marketing
activities. This latter, however, have not gone beyond the mere measure of tourist nights
and media appearances so far. At the same time the authors believe that an another flaw
of the practical applications of country branding is that they ignore the characteristics of
the various target groups as well as the complexity of places as products. To make up
for this problem, they propose a complex methodology, that includes a both consumer
and brand focus (dual value creation) and expresses brand equity in the eyes of the
population and that in connection with the brand itself.

Thus, the literature often deplores the lack of consensus on the measurement
methodology for place brands. Most place brands are aimed to define the identity of a
63
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

place and its attributes. Related studies most often use case studies and secondary data
for analysis (Lee – Jaim, 2009; Vanolo, 2008; Zenker, 2011) This approach, however,
only provides descriptive results without exploring place brands’ dimensions and the
casual relationships between them.
However, according to the literature the perceived attributes of places by consumers
could have a strong influence on their behavior. The descriptive attributes often ignore
the cognitive mapping by consumers of the attributes i.e. in what ways consumers
perceive the expressions, appearance of a given place (see e.g. Zenker et al., 2009;
Zenker, 2011).
Only a negligible part of our sources use more than one method in order to provide a
complex and comprehensive study. The majority of works on the subject use qualitative
techniques to study associations related to place brands and quantitative methods
(questionnaires) to study the different attributes and dimensions of place brands.

According to Zenker (2011, p. 43.), in order to overcome the aforementioned problems,

the measure of place brands ought to integrate the three following approaches: (1) brand
associations of consumers about the given place (using qualitative methods), (2)
uncovering brand attributes (based on Aaker [1997], using quantitative methods, e.g.
standardized questionnaires), (3) putting all previous results into context, comparing
with other brands (mixed methods, projective techniques).
According to the approach developed by Sinclair (2004) the complex evaluation
methodology of nation brands might include the following components: (1) financial
evaluation (taking into account a country’s GDP and other financial indicators), (2) the
brand’s contribution to profits, (3) category expected life, (4) brand knowledge
structure.
Most of the authors agree on that the common use of qualitative and quantitaive
methods as complex, mixed research methods are the most appropriate for country
brand evaluations. (Sinclair, 2004; Zenker, 2011)

4.3.2. The concept of Country Equity

There is a consensus in the literature that brand equity theory can be extended to other
concepts, e.g. to countries. In order to the overcome the flaws demonstrated in the
previous chapters, the concept of country equity has been developed. Country equity
theory is based on brand equity theory and takes into account the growing importance
of country branding approaches.

According to Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006, p. 66.) „Johansson and Nebenzahl (1986)
made the first attempt to monetize the country image effect by measuring the relative
consumer-based value of the images of different countries.” In addition, they also
believe that „country image leads directly to country equity.” (p. 63.), similarly to the
brand equity approach.
64
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

However, according to Kleppe, Iversen and Stensaker (2002, p. 2.) “[t]he term ‘country
equity’ was introduced by Shimp et al. to describe ‘that portion of consumer affect
toward a brand or product that is derived purely from the product’s associations with a
particular country’. These associations, also termed ‘country-related intangible assets’
by Kim and Chung, could be technical advancement, prestige, workmanship,
innovativeness, design, economy and service.”

As seen previously, the conceptualization of country image as a country brand is

spreading in acceptance within academic circles. At the same time there are few
(though a constantly growing number of) examples of a joint study of brand equity and
country image (Roth – Diamantopoulos – Montesinos, 2008). Moreover, most of these
study country equity in connection with the perception of products, i.e., similarly to
countr-of-origin effects, they consider country equity as an added value to the overall
value of products (see e.g. Shimp – Samiee – Madden, 1993; Shocker – Srivastava –
Ruekert, 1994; Pappu – Quester – Cooksey, 2006, 2007). In this approach, “country
equity” is the added value of a country’s name to a product or brand originated from the
country (based on Pappu – Quester – Cooksey, 2006, 2007). Kotler and Gertner (2002,
p. 249.) define country equity as the emotional value resulting from consumers’
associtation of a brand with a country.

According to Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002) a country, similarly to a firm, produces

many products and possesses therefore several country equities respective to each
product category and each market. In the authors’ interpretation, country brands can
constitute of a multi-level country brand structure. In this structure brand equity has a
separate country and product level (see e.g. Douglas – Craig – Nijssen, 2001), though
all levels and applications ought to preserve the essence of country brand (see e.g.
deChernaton – Halliburton – Bernath, 1995; Papadopoulos, 2004; Pappu – Quester,
2010).
Parallel with the development of the research area, the context of research became
broader. According to Papadopoulos and Heslop (2003, p. 427.) country equity is “a set
of country assets and liabilities linked to a country”. Developing the idea, Papadopoulos
(2004) states that these assets and liabilities can be both perceived and real.

Kleppe, Iversen and Stensaker (2002, p. 63.) state that country equity can be considered
a part of country image, along the relationship depicted in Figure 9. The model equally
includes the study of Han’s (1989) “halo” and “summary” effects in relation with their
effects to products’ and brands’ evaluation.

65
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

Figure 9.
Country image, country equity and product-country image

Country
image
Country
* equity

halo summar
effe y

Bran Bran PCI PCI

d d

Source: Kleppe et al., 2002, p. 3.

According to Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006, p. 63.) szerint country equity is made up of
the following dimensions: country awareness and country image (itself originating from
country-of-origin effects and country associations) (Figure 10). In their understanding,
country equity is not part of country image, rather its effect which originates from
consumers’ evaluation (especially of products).

Figure 10.
A model for country equity
Country Awareness

Country Equity Country Equity (financial value)

Country Image

Source: Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2006, pp. 63-66.

According to the aforementioned approaches, the concept of country equity is no less

than consumers’ evaluation of a given country along country image and other
dimensions It means, that there is only a few attempt in the literature to evaluate the real
value of a country brand. (Pappu – Quester, 2010)
Table 12 gives an overview of additional definitions of country equity found in the
literature.

66
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

Table 12.
Key literature dealing with country equity
AUTHOR(S) DEFINITION LEVEL OF FIELD OF
CONCEPTU- STUDY
ALIZATION
Shimp – Samiee – “Country equity serves to disentangle the consumer country-of-
Madden (1993, p. equity contained in a brand […] from that origin effects
328.) contained in the country with which the (COO)
brand is associated”
Kim (1995) n.a. consumer COO and brand
equity
Thakor – Katsanis n.a. (product category-specific concept) consumer COO and brand
(1997) equity
Pappu – Quester “The value endowed by the name of the consumer COO and place
(2001, p. 2.) country on to a product” branding
Iversen – Hem “Commercial value that a country possess consumer COO
(2001, p. 141.) due to positive or negative product related
associations and affect in a given target
market”
Kotler – Gertner n.a. country place branding
(2002)
Papadopoulos – “The value that may be embedded in country COO and place
Heslop (2002, p. perceptions by various target markets about branding
295.) the country, and the ways in which these
perceptions may be used to advance its
interest and those of its constituents”
Papadopoulos – “A set of country assets and liabilities country COO and place
Heslop (2003, p. linked to a country, its name and symbols, branding
427. that add to or subtract from the value
provided by the country’s outputs to its
various internal and external publics”
Papadopoulos “The real and/or perceived assets and country place branding
(2004, p. 43.) liabilities that are associated with a place
(country) and distinguish it from others”
Viosca – Bergiel – n.a. country place branding
Balsmeier (2005)
Jaffe – Nebenzahl n.a. consumer COO and place
(2006) branding
Pappu – Quester – “Brands from the same country share consumer COO and brand
Cooksey (2007, p. images or associations, which is referred to equity
728.) as country equity”
Source: based on Roth – Diamantopoulos – Montesinos, 2008, p. 582.

Researchers in the field generally agree on the fact that country equity is the value
consumers associate to when hearing the country’s name. However few sources attempt
to measure the exact value thereof (Pappu – Quester, 2010). Most authors consider
country equity as a country brand dimension appearing within product or brand equity
(see e.g. Shimp et al., 1993; Pappu – Quester, 2001; Kleppe et al., 2002). Others
67
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

consider it as a country brand equity (a separate construct) that also affects product
evaluation (see e.g. Thakor – Katsanis, 1997; Papadopoulos – Heslop, 2002;
Maheswaran – Chen, 2006; Roth et.al., 2008).
The extension of classical brand equity theory to countries was first attempted by
Shimp, Samiee and Madden (1993), soon followed by several other authors (among
others: Pappu – Quester, 2001, 2010; Yoo – Donthu, 2001; Papadopoulos – Heslop,
2002; Pappu – Quester – Cooksey, 2005). However Roth et al. (2008) were the first to
empirically verify theory.

There are many examples of brand equity dimensions surfacing in country equity
approaches. Several dimensions of classical brand equity theory (e.g. brand personality,
brand loyalty) were very soon adapted to country equity theory (leading to the
respective concepts of country personality [d’Astous – Boujbel, 2007] and country
loyalty [Paswan – Kulkarni – Ganesh, 2003]). Papadopoulos (1993), and Jaffe and
Nebenzahl (2001) also note that consumers hold associations related to countries
(country associations). Pappu and Quester (2001, p. 2.) highlight, among others, the
dimensions of country equity, which are as follows: (1) country awareness, (2) country
associations, (3) country loyalty, (4) perceived quality. Similarly to brand equity
attributes, these dimensions can be identified and measured. In their subsequent work,
they develop these above dimensions as follows: brand equity encompasses five distinct
dimensions, namely: (1) country awareness, (2) macro country image, (3) micro country
image, (4) perceived quality, (5) country loyalty (Pappu-Quester, 2010). As the
dimensions clearly show (e.g. the presence of a micro country image or a perceived
quality dimension), this approach assesses the effect of country equity on the evaluation
of products originated from a particular country, based on the approaches by Aaker
(1991) Keller (1993) applied to countries (Yoo – Donthu, 2001; Pappu – Quester,
2010).

4.3.3. Consumer-oriented brand equity in place brand theories

As seen previously, several authors deal with the conceptualization of country equity as
the equity of a country brand, using the consumer-oriented brand equity theory.
According to the recent theories the country equity equals with the equity of country
equity, as an individual construct, based on the so-called consumer –oriented approach
of brand equity.
A consumer-oriented approach is commonplace in the place, country and destination
branding literature. To measure brand equity, this approach integrates the models on
one hand by Aaker (1996) and on the other by Keller (1993). Yoo and Donthu’s (2001)
concept is equally of common usage. In the following we give an overview of the
above-mentioned consumer-oriented brand equity approaches and their adaptations to
the literature of place branding.

68
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

It is generally accepted in the field that the measurement of country equity can be most
effectively carried out along the dimension of classical brand equity, adapted to
countries. To support this, researchers have recourse to the associative network memory
model, which views semantic memory and mental images of consumers as consisting of
a set of nodes and links (Anderson, 1990, 1993, in: Pappu – Quester, 2010, p. 277.). The
associative network memory model stems from the field of cognitive psychology and
was already used by Keller (1993) to develop the original brand equity model.
According to Anderson (1996, in: Pappu – Quester, 2010, p. 277.) cosumers’ memories
store information hierarchically in a node-link structure, where, in some cases, to a
given piece of information given associations would be joined. Accordingly,
information about a country will lead to associations which will be stored in a
hierarchical order in consumers’ minds, i.e. in a network. Each of these associations can
have direction and strength and can therefore affect each other in several ways (e.g.
having a bi-directional, back and forth effect between pieces of information and
associations).
The associative memory model serves as an adequate base in understanding and
defining the dimensions of country equity.
In the followings the theory of consumer-based brand equtiy and its adaptation in place
branding theories are interpreted.

The interest towards brand equity (originally based on financial approaches) can be
traced back to the 1990s (Barwise, 1993). According to Keller (2003) that along the
growing importance of brand equity approaches, marketing strategy also came to the
center of interest by giving a focus to both managers and researchers. A number of
approaches to brand equity exist in the field of brand management (Aaker, 1991, 1996;
Keller, 1993, 2003; Lassar – Mittal – Sharma, 1995; Yoo – Donthu, 2001). In addition,
an intense debate is in progress on defining the concept and measurement tools of brand
equity (Yoo – Donthu, 2001). However, the literature generally considers utility as the
base unit when a consumer comes to compare a brand with its competitors
(deChernatony – McDonald, 2003).
According to the classical approach, brand equity is intended to express the economic
value of brands (Aaker, 1991, 1996a; Keller, 1993). The value of a brand for a
consumer is essentially based on four factors (Dish, 1996, p. 306.): (1) long-term,
reliable supply, (2) risk-free repurchase, (3) fast purchasing, (4) importance of trust in
the manufacturer. All in all, for its owner, brand equity represents the possibility of
comparative advantage (Totth, 1996).
According to Kotler (1996, p. 660.) „the basic function of brand is to deliver the
messages of best quality guarantee of a product and to provide a set of congruence of
product attributes, benefits, and services”.
Researchers find that a positive brand equity brings about, among others, a positive
future profit and cash flow and has an effect on consumers’ willingness to pay a

69
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

premium, on their decision making and therefore on the brand owners market success
(Yoo – Donthu, 2001).

In Aaker’s (1991) view, brand equity is synonymous with value to the consumer. This
value stems from the brand facilitating the processing of information and their decision
making. It also ensure them a certain security and certainty in their purchasing. Finally,
it results in consumer satisfaction.
According to Keller (1993) brand equity enables greater revenue opportunities for the
firm. At the same time it reduces consumers’ need for information search. It also
contributes to the efficiency of marketing communications and brand extensions.
In Yoo – Donthu’s (2001) interpretation (referring to the general view in the field of
consumer behavior) brand equity can be seen as the difference in the consumer response
when facing an unbranded product or a traditional brand (marketing incentives and
product attributes being equal).
According to Ford (2005), brand equity is the way a consumer evaluates a brand.
Bauer and Berács (2006, p. 170.) state that „brand equity is the set of brand attributes
that enable a surplus of value for both the consumers and owners of a brand”. In the
authors’ opinion brand equity is a multidimensional construct and it can be attributed
with a financial value.

According to Aaker (1996b, p. 9.) brand equity is composed of the following elements:
(1) brand loyalty, (2) brand awareness, (3) perceived quality, (4) brand associations, (5)
benefits related to brand ownership6
Keller’s (1993, p. 7.) model contains two elements: (1) brand awareness and (2) image.
Summarizing the classical models of brand equity, the literature generally accepts four
distinct dimensions, often completed by several authors, with a fifth component. These
are (in the followings we summarize both of the general brand equity, then the place
branding approaches of each elements)

1) Awareness
According to Aaker (1996b) brand awareness shows in what ways and to what extent a
brand is present in the heads of its target audience (consumers) in a given continuum. In
his definition, he states that brand awareness represents the consumer’s ability to recall
or recognize a given brand in a given product category. In his interpretation, brand
awareness can be compared to a three-level pyramid where the top level corresponds to
the top-of-mind awareness, where a given brand outstrips every other brand in a
consumer’s head. Most place brand studies concentrate on this latter level (Boo et al.,
2009).

6
For space constraint reasons, we cannot present brand equity theory in its entirety. At the same time,
several literature reviews and meta analyses are available on the subject (see e.g. Aaker, 1991; Keller,
1993).
70
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

Brand awareness is equally a sub-dimension in Keller’s (1993) brand equity approach

and it is present as a main attribute in deCharnatony and McDonald’s (2001) work. In
addition, Keller (1993) specifies that brand awareness includes the concepts of brand
recall (spontaneous) and recognition (aided).
Several authors state that brand awareness accounts for the most determining factor of
consumer decision-making (see e.g. Webster, 2000; Boo et al., 2009). Brand awareness
is equally an important antecedent to the perceived value of brands (Webster, 2000).

Place and destination marketing research studies awareness in connection with

consumer decision-making (Woodside – Lysonsky, 1988; Goodall, 1993). Studies on
consumer behavior find that awareness is no other than the first and necessary step of a
purchase and repurchase decision. In addition, Baloglu (2001) asserts a positive
relationship between awareness and image.

2) Image (associations)
Image is the sum of different consumer perceptions (which may be related to previous
personal experience or emotions) related to brands (Keller, 1993, 2003). In addition
image is an important dimension of brand equity (Lassar et al. 1995; Keller, 1993,
2003; Cai, 2002).
Aaker’s (1991) model refers to image as “associations”. In the authors’ interpretation,
brand association is “anything linked in memory to a brand” and brand image is “a set
of associations, usually in some meaningful way” (Aaker, 1991, p. 109.).
Authors generally accept that there is a positive relationship between image and
perceived value (Tsai, 2005; Boo et al., 2009), and that image equally affects consumer
loyalty (Cretu – Brodie, 2007, in: Boo et al., 2009).
The field of place and destination marketing (as well as several place marketing
approaches) accepts image as an integral part of brand equity (Konecnik – Gartner,
2007; Boo et al., 2009). In addition, image can also often be considered as part of brand
personality (Boo et al., 2009)
However it can be stated that the positions on the measurement of brand equity and
image are often mixed up. Image is generally accepted as a multidimensional construct.
There is no common ground however as to its measurement (Boo. et al., 2009).

3) Perceived quality
Perceived quality is one of the key dimensions of brand equity approaches (see e.g.
Lassar et al., 1995; Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003). It is worth noting that the literature
refers to brand quality and perceived quality as synonymous concepts (Zeithaml, 1988;
Aaker, 1996). According to Aaker (1991, p. 85.) perceived quality is a “customer's
perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service with respect to its
intended purpose, relative to alternatives”. Similarly, Zeithaml (1988, p. 3.) defines
perceived quality as a “the consumer's judgment about a product's overall excellence or
superiority”.
71
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

In Yoo and Donthu’s (2001, p. 3.) definition, perceived quality is “based on consumers'
or users' [...] subjective evaluations of product quality”. Keller (2003) identifies seven
dimensions (performance, features, conformation quality, reliability, durability,
serviceability, style and design) that define perceived quality. These dimension can
mostly be employed in the case of products. In destination and place marketing studies,
these dimensions are mostly employed in connection with country-of-origin effects and
the evaluation of products and related (touristic) services (Boo et al., 2009).

Perceived quality is generally viewed as a direct antecedent of perceived value in the

literature (see e.g.: Low – Lamb, 2000; Boo et al., 2009). The same relationship has
been verified in the field of destination marketing (see e.g. Murphy et al., 2000;
Konecnik – Gartner, 2007).

According to Boo et.al. (2009) the concept of customer-based brand equity and its
measurement have emerged in tourism and hospitality settings and in discussing
destination brands, elements including environment and service infrastructure should be
considered in measuring destination brand performance.

4) Loyalty
Aaker (1991, p. 39) defines brand loyalty as “the attachment that a customer has to a
brand”. In the authors’ model on brand equity (Aaker, 1991, 1996b) loyalty accounts for
a key element. According to Lassar et al. (1995) perceived value induces consumer
safety and certainty which then manifests itself in consumer loyalty and their
willingness to pay a premium for the product. In Oliver’s (1997) view, brand loyalty is
the propensity of a consumer to consider a brand as their first choice in a purchase
situation. Keller’s (2003) model equally considers loyalty as a key factor for brand
equity.
Loyalty is generally defined as an attitude or behavior in the literature, even though its
conceptualization is not exempt of flaws (Boo. etal. 2009).
It can also be concluded that loyalty equally accounts for an important dimension for
the fields of place and destination marketing and it is often included as a dimension (see
e.g. Oppermann, 2000; Bloglu, 2001, 2002, Konecnik-Gartner, 2007; Boo et.al, 2009).

v) Perceived value
There is no widely accepted definition for perceived value (Parasuraman, 1997). The
most wide-spread approach originates perceived value from price (Tsai, 2005).
According to Lassar et al. (1995) consumer brand choice is the effect of the perceived
balance between a product’s price and its utility. Studies show that perceived value is a
multidimensional construct (Hall et al., 2001). In Aaker’s (1995) famous model it is
related to the perceived price to value ratio.

72
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

Literature equally shows that perceived value has a positive effect on prospective
consumer behavior, among others, on repurchase intentions (Tsai, 2005) and loyalty
(Zeithaml, 1988; Boo et.al, 2009).
According to the literature one can state that perceived value is less examined in place
marketing studies, it is more relevant in destination image theories.

As a conclusion, one can summarize the essence of the above dimensions as follows
(based on Bauer-Berács, 2006):
i. brand loyalty: when in a given period of time, a consumer while rotating the
purchase of different brands of a same product category, one same brand
accounts for a decisive part of the purchases
ii. brand awareness: degree to which consumers are aware of the existence of a
brand
iii. perceived quality: objective quality as perceived by consumers
iv. brand associations: consumers’ emotions and ideas related to a brand
v. brand advantages: advantages related to brand ownership

In Keller’s view (2003, p. 477.) brand equity is a multidimensional concept, that is so

complex, that it requires various measurement methods. According to Pappu et al.
(2005) the measurement of brand equity is still a challenging topic for researchers as
there is no consensus in the field. (see e.g. Yoo – Donthu, 2001; de Chernatony –
McDonald, 2003)
In addition, Law and Lamb (2000) state that even though brand equity can be
considered a multidimensional construct, most dimensions are almost identical in each
work on the topic.

4.3.4. Measuring country equity

Although the area of country equity measurement received an increased attention during
the last decade, few empirical results and methodological approaches have contributed
to developing the area (Pappu – Quester, 2010), despite the fact that, similarly to
classical brand equity theory, the necessity to control, measure the methods and
effectiveness of branding activities is obvious (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Pappu –
Quester, 2010). The term “country equity” gained recognition with the introduction of
the concept of country brand, as most scholars define country equity as the value of a
country brand (Roth et al., 2008). Authors agree that country equity is a
multidimensional construct best studied along a consumer-focused approach (Yoo –
Donthu, 2001; Pappu – Quester, 2010).

Country equity measures have been scarce and as of today, they are limited to a
practical application and therefore still subject to academic debate (based on Jaffe –
Nebenzahl, 2006). Accordingly, brand equity measures can mostly be related to the
73
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

field of accounting, as the evaluation of brand equity (as an intangible asset) is

commonplace (although not entirely unequivocal) in this area. Similarly to classical
brand equity measurement and management, the concept of “country equity” has
several advantages: among others, it can contribute to raise the efficiency of the
positioning and communications of a country. Another advantage is the fact that the
more positive is country equity, consumers the more consumers are inclined to be loyal,
brand extensions are inclined to be more effective and a country can gain in bargaining
power (Aaker, 1991; Pappu – Quester, 2010).

On the theoretical side one can also come across a marketing-focused approach, based
on the concept of consumer-focused brand equity (see above). General approaches of
branding distinguish between several factors: e.g. associations, perceived quality, brand
loyalty, awareness (based on Bennett, 1995; Aaker, 1996a,b; Keller, 1998).
Country equity therefore is a construct that is based on an association-based evaluation
by consumers, even though there is no generally accepted view as to the dimensions it is
composed of.
There is no consensus, however, on the relationship between country image and brand
equity approaches. Classical brand equity approaches by Aaker (1991) and Keller
(1993), that are often used to validate country equity theory, consider image as a part of
brand equity. While, according to the above, some authors consider country image as a
building block, a dimension of country brand (e.g. Roth et al., 2008; Pappu – Quester,
2010), others study country image as an influencing factor of brand equity, or consider
country equity as a building block of country image (Kleppe et al., 2002).

The above mentioned associative memory model (Anderson, 1990, 1993, in: Pappu –
Quester, 2010, p. 277.) serves as an adequate base in understanding and defining the
dimensions of country equity.
Pappu-Quester (2001) define the factors of country equity as follows: (1) country
awareness, (2) country associations, (3) country loyalty and (4) perceived
quality.According to Roth et al. (2008) country equity is composed of (1) country
awareness and associations, (2) perceived quality of country brand, and (3) country
loyalty. Conversely, Pappu et al. (2005), and Pappu and Quester (2006) suggest that
association and awareness are two distinct concepts and therefore should appear as two
separate dimensions of country equity. Pappu and Quester (2010) developing on their
prior position, (in addition to the four dimensions already mentioned: country
awareness, country associations, perceived quality, country loyalty) propose the
introduction of a fifth dimension, namely country image.

Below, we give a summary of the general conceptual contents of the above dimensions
according to the literature.

74
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

1) Country awareness
Similarly to Aaker’s (1991) brand awareness dimension, “[c]ountry awareness does not
involve merely knowing of the country, but requires from consumers the ability to recall
the name of the country when the product category is mentioned” (Pappu – Quester,
2010, p. 280.). Several authors, however, believe that this relationship may be
bidirectional, that is, recalling a country name can entail product category associations
as well.

2) Country image, country associations

Building on Keller’s (1993) concept of brand association, country association refers to
the mental images which consumers hold in their minds about a country and which act
in the making ofcertain decisions. Country associations can be interpreted on a country
and a product level. Stemming from country-of-origin image theory, the product level
refers to the fact that associations about products related to the country of origin equally
affect country image. For that reason, several authors refer to the concept as country-of-
origin associations (e.g. Kleppe et al., 2002). Similarly to the micro and macro levels of
country image, a number of authors distinguish between micro and macro country
associations (Han – Terpstra, 1988; Pappu et al., 2007; Pappu – Quester, 2010).

3) Perceived quality
In Aaker’s (1991) interpretation, perceived quality is not identical to real quality, it
rather reflects a mental image in the mind of the consumer about quality. Zeithaml
(1988) adapts this view to countries, stating that perceived quality reflects the quality
realized by consumers of a product originated from a particular country. Therefore this
approach is not a metaphorical “perceived quality dimension” of country brand, rather a
product-level effect stemming from the country-of-origin effect. (Pappu – Quester,
2010)

4) Country loyalty
According to Paswan et al. (2003) country loyalty (similarly to classical brands) is the
manifestation of consumers’ commitment to countries. According to the lizterature,
loyalty can be interpreted as an association as well as a behavior (Aaker, 1991; Oliver,
1997, in: Pappu-Quester, 2010, p. 280.). and Donthu (2001, p.3.) state that “[country]
loyalty refers to the tendency to be loyal to a focal [country], which is demonstrated by
the intention to buy the brand [originated from the given country] as a primary choice”.
Pappu and Quester (2010) in the model equally consider purchase intention and primary
choice as crucial points in determining country loyalty.

According to the literature, it can be stated that only a few valid scales can be used for
country equity measurements. The following country equity scales are available in the
literature for the measure of the above dimensions: Yoo-Donthu (2001), Washburn-
Plank (2002), Pappu et al. (2005)
75
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

4. 4. Methodological considerations: summary and critical analysis

The measurement methods unveiled during our literature review have a wide scope of
interpretation on how to assess the quality and value of country image. The most
practical approaches (touristic and economic approaches) allow a narrowly focused,
specialized evaluation of country image and therefore cannot be considered as entirely
valid (especially in terms of content validity) methods.
The marketing approach, deemed relevant for the present study, give ground to assess
country image and country brand concepts in a holistic way. It can therefore be said that
the related measurement methods allow, under certain conditions, for a thorough and
comprehensive assessment of country image/country brand dimensions.
At the same time, the literature reviews of the previous chapters clearly showed that
there are no common methodological grounds among researchers as for the most
suitable measurement methodology of country image and therefore it can be noted
that the related methodology is very diverse and complex.

The most commonly used methodology in the literature is that of measurement scales.
Jaffe and Nebenzahl (1984) in their study on the alternative questionnaire formats in
connection with country image scales state that the choice of the most appropriate
measurement scales can be crucial. This view has been confirmed by numerous,
thorough studies from different fields of the marketing science (see e.g. Albaum – Best
– Hawkins, 1977; Churchill, 1979; Menezes – Elbert, 1979; all in: Jaffe – Nebenzahl,
1984, p. 463.) The authors also draw attention to the fact that very few works address
the validity and reliability issues of the measures.

Most country image analyses use semantic differential scales or Likert scales. In
our opinion, considering the nature of the present topic, these scales are suitable and
widely accepted measurement tools. At the same time, several other methods are known
to explore the country image construct that contribute to refine and expand research
results. The known scales from the literature equally have the benefit of containing
consistent items (for often being developed from one another). This creates the
possibility, under certain conditions, to compare and match and jointly apply the
obtained results.
It is a trait of the field of theory that researchers develop and test new scales and
measurements by combining of existing scale items and measurement tools. According
to the above mentioned it is appropriate to apply this method in our doctoral research
by adopting existing measurement scales and fitting them into a new model. At the
same time, by the development of measurements this can lead to developing of the field
of theory

Above all, however (taking into account Jaffe and Nebenzahl’s [1984] still valid
remarks), we believe that the systematic lack of the tests of validity and reliability
76
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

within the literature can be considered a serious criticism towards the field of research.
Very few works address and publish the validity and reliability issues of the measures.
In numerous cases, these issues were addressed by a subsequent user or the given scale.
The lack of validity may stem from the following factors:
i. While comparing research results, one has to take into account the conformity of
the used scale formats. In case the used scales are not identical, results cannot be
compared.
ii. Several measures and scales have only been tested on one sample / country,
which reduces its validity. In addition, one has to note that samples from the
USA prevail in the field, and cross-national studies are absent (Roth and
Diamantopoulos 2009).
iii. The comparison of research results is also not valid in case used samples are
different in nature (e.g. a sample of student vs. a sample of households).
iv. Content validity issues, in case a scale was originally developed to assess the
country-of-origin effect i.e. the effect of country image on product evaluation
rather than unveiling the dimensions and quality of country image itself.

The above might raise the questions whether (1) the measurement methods used so far
in the field were adequate, (2) can country image, as a general construct be studied
independently of product evaluation (i.e. not as a country-of-origin effect), as a general
influencing factor that has a far wider working mechanism (than merely in connection
with product evaluation), and (3) it is necessary to introduce a new validated
measurement scale, which is validated and independent of product image evaluation.
The reliability and validity issues will be under test at every stages of our doctoral
research, and in some cases the items go through under pre-test and development
process.

Kleppe and Mossberg (2005) highlight that the „Handbook of Marketing Scales” (eds:
Bearden – Netemeyer, 2000) contains as few as two scales which are suitable for
assessing country image (i.e. those by Martin-Eroglu, 1993; and Parameswaran –
Pisharodi, 1994). At the same time as many as 1000 publications related to the country-
of-origin effect were identified, but only around 40 address the measurement of country
image and only as few as 10 scales are more widely used within the different studies.
According to this we believe that the development of a general measurement scale
might be justified and in no way does it make the field over-researched7. We base our
assumption on the fact that along the development of the field, country marketing and
country branding approaches came to the front bringing about the growing need for a
standalone measurement tool for country evaluation and country image. Previous scales
(considering that these were principally aimed to assess and quantify product evaluation
and country-of-origin effects) cannot fully fulfill this requirement.

7
A scientific debate is underway on the necessity of developing a new scale (see the discussion between
Diamantopoulos [2009] and Samiee [2009])
77
4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

It is a visible aim in the literature to develop approaches that are, as much as possible,
multi-faceted and multi-method (Zenker, 2011). The planned methodology of doctoral
research equally reflects the above efforts. The dissertation will use a hybrid, multi-
method research design, which is built on consecutive and subsequent quantitative
and qualitative, online and offline phases of data collection. All phases are aimed to
support the subsequent research phase while all phase is to complete the results of the
preceding phase in order to gather a deeper and more complex understanding of the
topic.

However one might also consider to include the new approaches (branding, brand
equity) into scale development. Brand equity theory and the related methodology is
available from the related fields of marketing science. The adaptation thereof, in
our opinion, is a pertinent approach which would contribute to developing the
research area. In addition, several brand equity factors known from the literature (and
their contribution to consumers and brand owners) can equally be relevant to consider
within a “country equity” approach. Recent works in the literature already include a
similar approach. Country equity and its dimensions is a new field of theory and one
also can state that it has only a few validated measures related to the topic. Therefore
the field’s international trends justified the adaptation of the study of country equity
into the present doctoral dissertation, as the literature equally seems to lean towards the
measurement of country brands and country equity.
The testing of the country equity construct and the study and validation of its
components mark can be an important added value of the present work in theory
building. Our developed model can be suitable to specifically measure country image
and country brands, without any allusion to country-of-origin effects.

In present doctoral dissertation country equity means the equity of a country barnd,
according to the well known consumer-oriented brand equity approaches. The model
does not adopt the product level examination and only handles the factors on a macro
level of attributes. The validated dimensions of the country equity construct in the
dissertation are as follows: country image country awareness, country associations,
country loyalty. Given that previous studies of country image and country equity have
not studied in a complex manner the relationships between these dimensions, our results
account for an important indication as to the future potential use of these. For this
measurement purpose there is a need for developing, improving and adopting the
measurement scale and model of both the existing country equity and consumer-
based brand equity theories.

According to the sistematic review of the literature we can stat that the third area of
study in the present dissertation, destination evaluation, stemming from the field of
destination management is a relevant anchor point to the subject in both a scientific and

78
 4. THEORY OF COUNTRY EQUITY

a practical point of view and can be properly connected to the concept of country
equity.
The main aim of doctoral research is to develop a joint study of the aforementioned
three fields (country image, country equity and destination evaluation) by the
recognition of the lack of the related theoretical background and an aim to explore this
unstudied area. The ultimate goal of the present doctoral dissertation is to design a
model suitable to be used in a wide context that is able to empirically test the
theoretically validated elements from the literature. The doctoral research therefore
acts as a first elaboration and test of a Country Equity Model (CEM) in the
context of destinations.

79
5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

5. THE THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION –

COUNTRY IMAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF DESTINATIONS

A main aim of the present thesis is, beyond studying the evaluation of countries and
their inhabitants and defining country equity, to unveil the effects thereof on consumer
behavior. There is a consensus in the literature that image affects individual decisions in
many ways. It has an influence, among others, on consumers’ product choice and
destination evaluation behavior, as well as on their investment decisions or residence
choice. In the following we present the working mechanism and influencing factors of
destination evaluation.

The systematic study of the related literature revealed on more grounds that the joint
study of country image, country branding and destination image and destination
management is as of today an almost entirely unresearched and missing area within the
field of research which, apart from a few examples, it is restricted to the study of the
relationship between destination image and destination choice. The joint study of the
above fields with the destination-focused modeling of country image and country
branding is therefore a novelty and added value of the present dissertation to theory
building. The joint study of the working mechanisms between country image,
destination choice and destination evaluation is all the more relevant that a strategic
approach has prevailed in both areas. Connecting the two areas might enable the design
of an elaborate evaluation and measurement methodology and further research.
Destination choice and evaluation are relevant areas in both theory building and practice
given that beyond the field of product evaluation (c.f. country-of-origin effects) these
are well-researched areas with keen scientific interest. In addition, the practical interest
of the subject is equally undisputable, as gaining a positive country evaluation accounts
for an important tool for positioning and differentiation in the field of tourism
management in many countries.

The chapter, after a general presentation of the topic, first gives an overview of the
concept of destination image as a core concept, with special regards to the further
possibilities in developing the subject. Following this, we present the relationship
between country image and destination image, followed by an overview of the focal
subject for the present dissertation, i.e. the working mechanisms and further
relationships of destination choice and evaluation.

80
 5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

5.1. Destination image

Even though destination image is not part of the core focus of the present dissertation, a
brief overview of the subject is necessary in order to provide context for the following
parts 8 . The concepts of destination image and country image are often used jointly
within the literature. This usage can be tolerated and/or justified as the respective fields
of study largely overlap.

The concept of destination image – often used in connection with place image – is often
used by practitioners in the field of destination management.
It must be noted that country image is itself a destination image in the sense that in the
stakeholders’ point of view, a country can be a destination. The image of this
destination is managed by specialized organizations and professionals or is shaped
indirectly and which consumers evaluate in various manners. The literature contains
several definitions which use the concepts of country image and destination image as
synonymous. Conversely, other sources put an emphasis on differentiation the two
notions.
We must highlight the fact that country image is an overall image of a country in each
person’s mind while destination image is the image of a geographical location in this
latter it is evaluated as a (touristic) destination. The concept of destination refers to
locations visited by tourist that are either (1) towns (Dadgostar – Isotalo, 1995;
Opermann, 1996), (2) regions (Ahmed, 1991; Fackeye – Crompton, 1991) or (3)
countries (Chon, 1991; Echtner – Ritchie, 1993; Nadeau et.al., 2008)

Researchers seem to generally agree on the fact that “destination image has a strong
influence on consumer behavior” (Tasci – Gartner – Cavusgil, 2007, p. 194.). Therefore
it is necessary for researchers in the field to address the subject, for, among others, the
interpretation, planning and development of the process or for positioning destinations.
According to an early definition, destination image is “[a]n attitudinal concept
consisting of the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a tourist holds of a
destination” (Crompton, 1979, p. 18.). According to Kotler, Haider and Rein (1993)
destination image is the sum of mental pictures, imppressions in consumers’mind
related to touristic destinations. Baloglu and McClearly (1999, p. 870.) define
destination image as “an attitudinal construct consisting of an individual's mental

8
For space constraint reasons and the partial relevance of the subject for the present dissertation, we will
not give a comprehensive review of destination image literature. More thorough analyses can be found
within the cited sources. For a comprehensive review of publications in the subject of destination image,
see Pike, 2002; Gallarza et.al., 2002; Echtner – Richie, 2003; Tasci – Gartner – Cavusgil, 2007, (and in
Hungarian: Sulyok, 2006). For destination branding see Cai, 2002; Pike, 2005; Konecnik – Gartner, 2007;
Boo et.al., 2009.

81
 5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

representation of knowledge (beliefs), feelings, and global impression about an object or

destination”
Touristic image, according to Sulyok’s (2006, p. 55.) summarizing work, is “a
constantly evolving complex and multidimensional (both in its processes and
components) image that evolves in space and time. It is the sum of beliefs, ideas,
impressions related to a destination”.

As can be seen from the latter examples, the definitions in the field are more or less
similar to those of country image – further similar definitions are reported in Table 13.
Beyond the similarities of the definitions, destination image (similary to country image)
is composed of a number of dimensions and therefore is a multidimensional construct
(see e.g. Gallarza – Gil – Calderón, 2002; Pike, 2002; Nadeau et.al., 2008; Elliot et.al.,
2011)

Table 13.
Selected definitions of destination image9
AUTHOR(S) DEFINITION
Hunt (1971, 1975) „Perceptions held by potential visitors about an area”
Crompton (1977) „Organized representations of a destination in a cognitive system”
Crompton (1979) “An attitudinal concept consisting of the sum of beliefs, ideas, and
impressions that a tourist holds of a destination”
Phelps (1986) “Perceptions and impressions of a place”
Gartner – Hunt (1987) “Impressions that a person […] holds about a state in which they do
not reside”
Calantone et.al. (1989) “Perceptions of potential tourist destinations”
Fakeye – Crompton “The mental construct developed by a potential tourist on the basis of a
(1991) few selected impressions among the flood of total impressions”
Baloglu – McCleary “An attitudinal construct consisting of an individual's mental
(1999) representation of knowledge (beliefs), feelings, and global impression
about an object or destination”
Tapachai – Waryszak “Perceptions or impressions of a destination held by tourists with
(2000) respect to the expected benefit or consumption values including
functional, social, emotional, epistemic, and conditional benefits of a
destination.”
Beerli – Martin (2004) “The perceived image will be formed through the image projected by
the destination and the individual’s own needs, motivations, prior
knowledge, preferences, and other personal characteristics. In this way,
individuals build their own mental picture of the place, which in turn
produces their own, personal perceived images”

9
In our literature review we encountered significantly more definitions from the field of destination
image than from those of country image and country-of-origin image. For this reason only the most often
cited definitions deemed most determining were included into the above table. For more definitions, see
the sources referred to beforehand.
82
 5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

Mossberg – Kleppe “Destination image can be seen as an umbrella concept for different
(2005) geographical units, which can be organised in a vertical framework.
(...) can also be seen as an umbrella construct for different products and
services.”
Sulyok (2006) “A constantly evolving complex and multidimensional (both in its
processes and components) image that evolves in space and time. It is
the sum of beliefs, ideas, impressions related to a destination”
Source: own elaboration, 2012

The literature also shows similarities to country image in the defined components of
destination image, i.e. (1) cognitive, (2) affective, (3) conative (see e.g. Chon, 1990;
Gartner, 1993; Foster – Jones, 2000, in: Nadeau. et.al., 2008; Cai, 2002; Kim – Yoon,
2003; Eliott et.al., 2011).
Baloglu – McCleary (1999) and Beerli – Martin (2004a,b) equally categorize the
dimensions along these three groups. In the author’s interpretation, personal (psychic
and socio-demographic) and incentive (source of information, experience) factors affect
the final evaluation and image of destinations, itself constructed of cognitive, affective
and conative parts.

The cognitive aspect includes opinions about a given destination, the affective
component reflects an overall evaluation of a destination while the conative component
reflects behavior and decision-making factors.
The summarizing study by Gallarza, Gil and Calderón (2002) shows that destination
image has several further sub-dimensions, that appear in one or more study on the topic.
The cognitive elements are as follows: opinions, knowledge about the environment,
which include natural attractions, climate and the opinions about man-made structures
(Echtner – Ritchie, 1993; Nadeau et.al., 2008), culture (Baloglu – McCleary, 1999);
contemporary society (Tapachai – Waryszak, 2000) and friendliness (Trauer – Ryan,
2005; Nadeau et.al., 2008). The affective component includes sub-dimensions that add
up to an overall evaluation of a destination: the destination’s interesting, exciting or
relaxing nature (Baloglu – McCleary, 1999); satisfaction (Chon, 1990); service quality
(Echtner – Ritchie, 1993), or an overall evaluation (Reilly, 1990). The conative
component integrates the so-called behavioral elements: the decision to visit the
destination (Chon, 1990; Foster – Jones, 2000), or recommend it to others (Chon, 1991).

Destination image affects consumer perception, satisfaction, decision and choice (see
e.g. Hunt, 1975; Goodrich, 1978; Pearce, 1982; Woodside – Lysonski, 1989; Echtner –
Ritchie, 1991; Chon, 1992; Milman – Pizam, 1995; Baloglu – McCleary, 1999; Chi –
Qu, 2007; Tasci – Gartner, 2007). Several authors examined the aspects related to
consumer behavior both before, during and after the given travel occurred. They note
that destination evaluation has a significant influence on consumer choice in all three
cases (see e.g. Ross, 1993b; Schroeder, 1996; Chen – Hsu, 2000; Tasci – Gertner, 2007)
83
5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

Moreover, destination image is also characterized by two types of information flow and
therefore two target audiences: (1) the destination itself, and (2) the consumer (Tasci –
Gartner, 2007) This mainly has a decisive role within touristic destination management.

5. 2. The relationship between country image and destination image

According to the literature, tourism heavily depends on the impressions and beliefs
people have in their minds, i.e. on image. The 1970s have seen the apparition of theory
stating that the image of a given place affects travelling behavior (Hunt, 1975), and
until now, more that 200 refereed works have been published in the subject (Elliot et.al.,
2011, p. 521. ).
However most authors also recognize that the majority of these works have a mostly
theoretical approach on the subject (Beerli – Martin, 2004a) and few efforts for
methodological operationalization have been made in the area (Tasci – Gartner –
Cavusgil, 2007).

One can state that more numerous are those studies that address the relationships
between product-country-image, country-of-origin effects, tourism and destination
image than those dealing with the relationships between the overall image of countries
and their touristic image (Elliot et.al., 2011). The study of country-of-origin effects is
equally more researched and advanced in this field of research than general country
image approaches. However, a few authors equally address the relationships between
country image and destination image, e.g. Holmefjord (2000, in: Elliot et.al., 2011),
Kleppe és Mossberg (2001), or Mossberg és Kleppe (2005). These study the potential
tourism vs. product image and country image vs. touristic image relationships, although
in a purely theoretical manner, without any empirical evidence. There is even less
empirical evidence of the blending of the two aforementioned fields, among them:
Zhou et.al. (2001), Nadeau et.al. (2008), and Elliot et.al. (2011). These studies confirm
the earlier statement, that the overall evaluation and image of a country has a
significant effect on its touristic evaluation and on tourism-related consumer behavior
(see e.g. Hunt, 1975; Goodrich, 1978; Baloglu – McCleary, 1999; Tapachai –
Waryszak, 2000; Pike – Ryan, 2004; Nadeau et.al., 2008; Elliot et.al. 2011)

This relationship can materialize in several ways: according to a pool of authors, the
evaluation of countries is affected by consumer behavior (Baloglu – McCleary 1999;
Beerli – Martin 2004a, 2004b), while, according to other approaches, country image is
an independent variable that affects individuals’ behavior – –
– Sanchez – Sanchez, 2001; Nadeau et.al., 2008). Pearce (1982) and
Woodside – Lysonski (1989) emphasize, that this effect emerged mainly on the field of
destination evaluation. Again, other authors ignore the conative factors in their
respective studies (Tasci – Gartner – Cavusgil, 2007).
84
 5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

The joint study of country image and touristic image can be based on the approach
followed by Nejad and Winsler (2000) who define image as a hierarchically built
mental representation. Following this reasoning, Elliot et al. (2011, p. 523.) state that
this can effect that “a country’s overall image [...] might influence its image as a
destination”. According to Barich and Kotler (1991, p. 95.) image is the “sum of beliefs,
attitudes, and impressions that a person or group has of an object. The object may be a
company, product, brand, place, or person. The impressions may be true or false, real or
imagined. Right or wrong, images guide and shape behavior”.
Nadeau et al. (2008, p. 102.) state that “country context is important to the image of the
destination and touristic outcome” as it is partly on it that people base their judgments,
therefore “[c]ompetencies about the country appear to directly impact the assessment or
beliefs about the destination’s ability to deliver on its promotional promises, especially
in the built environment aspects of the touristic experience”.

As can be seen from the above, the 2000s have seen the gradual transformation of the
field. While beforehand the fields of country image and product-country-image and
touristic destination image developed independently leading to a distinct and
idiosyncratic literature and pool of authors, the marked connection led to the growing
demand in recent years to merge the two fields of research (Mossberg – Kleppe, 2005;
Nadeau. et.al., 2008).
Recent research on the topic shows that the attitude-based approach might offer a
common ground in the joint study of the two research fields (Nadeau et.al., 2008).
White (2004) points out that attitudes are a fair representation of places for research
aiming to understand their effect on destination choice.
A potential direction for the field might therefore be the shifting focus from the study of
the country image vs. destination image relationships to a strategic approach with the
structural analysis and modeling of country image vs. destination evaluation and
choice.

5. 3. The effect of country image on destination evaluation

The previous literature review shows that place image has a strong influence on
consumer behavior (Elliot et.al., 2011), and more precisely, among others, on
destination evaluation and destination choice (Pearce, 1982; Woodside – Lysonski
1989). However, few works study this relationship in a complex model or using
structural equation analysis.

Researchers agree that it is necessary as much for academic research in the field as for
practice to assess the complex mechanisms of destination choice (Grouch, 1994). The
growing number of related publications clearly indicates an increased interest in the
field of destination evaluation and destination image (see e.g. Echtner – Ritchie, 1993;
85
5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

Cai, 2002; Hankinson, 2004, 2005; Beerli – Martin, 2004a,b; Konecnik – Gartner, 2007;
Beerli – Meneses – Gil, 2007; Tasci et.al., 2007; Boo et.al., 2009). Tasci – Gartner –
Cavusgil (2007) also highlight that this interest can be traced back to the past 30 years
although the most notable publications were born in the 1990s that can be considered
the theoretical core of the field of destination image (see e.g. Echtner – Ritchie, 1991)

In a theoretical point of view, Kotler and Gertner (2002) state that image is a decisive
factor in information processing, leading to the creation of knowledge structures and
can indirectly influence decision making. As a result, most authors in the field of
touristic decision-making consider country image and a dimension for information
processing, which might affect destination choice (Nadeau et.al., 2008).
In a practical point of view, Ross (1993a), Weber (1997), Kozak (2001), Yuksel (2001),
and Weaver, Weber and McCleary (2007), among others, studied the importance of
destination evaluation, while a number of other authors were interested in the effect
thereof on the intention to return and loyalty. Destination image, according to certain
points of view within the literature, is a key component of destination loyalty (Hosany
et.al., 2006)
In addition, the decision mechanism of destination choice as well as its dimensions were
researched, among others, by Goodall (1988), Gartner (1989), or Echtner – Ritchie
(1991). According to Weaver, Weber and McCleary (2007) the practical implication of
the subject is its contribution to elaborating a more efficient marketing activity in the
tourism industry once professionals comprehend the complex process of destination
evaluation. Several authors go as far as stating that the positive evaluation of
destinations might have on the overall touristic success of the given destination (see e.g.
Hunt, 1975; Crompton, 1979; Dadgostar – Isatolo, 1992), while according to others, it
has an effect, by stimulating the demand, on touristic consumer behavior and decision
making (Tasci – Gartner, 2007).

After a thorough analysis of the related theoretical approaches, one can state on one
hand that destination evaluations precede travel decisions and on the other that the
former can vary following the travel decision, during the travel itself and following the
journey. Accordingly, one can distinguish between a pre-travel (pre-consumption)
evaluation and a post-travel evaluation – with a direct or indirect effect on destination
evaluation and destination choice. Most studies deal with post-travel evaluation and
handle the influencing factors of the evaluation and the decision making mechanism
separately. In addition, one can state that, similarly to overall country evaluation,
destination evaluation is affected by individual factors as well as by the characteristics
and attributes of the given destination.
According to the most widely accepted approach in the literature and based on the
general models of consumer decision making, consumer decision making related to a
touristic product or service can be conceptualized as a funnel-like process with the
following stages: (1) recognition of the need for a decision, (2) formulation of goals, (3)
86
 5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

generation of a set of alternatives to choose from, (4) search for information about the
properties of the alternatives under consideration, (5) choice among the alternatives, (6)
acting upon the decision, (7) evaluation (preparation for the next decision) (Sirakaya –
Woodside, 2005, p. 815.) Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) further state that touristic
decisions are ill-defined choice situations because of the intangible and experiential
nature of the outcome and therefore can be considered to be complex and risky
decisions. According to Weaver, Weber and McCleary (2007) touristic destinations are
complex products, destination evaluation is most influenced by previous travel
experience and travel attributes. According to the authors, destination evaluation can be
studied along the following aspects: (1) satisfaction, (2) service quality, (3) perceived
value, (4) willingness to return. Boo et.al. (2009, p. 220.) equally state that “tourists
perceive a destination as a product”. Similarly to destination image, consumers tend to
evaluate the aforementioned attributes and destination products along both affective and
cognitive dimensions (Gartner, 1993; Baloglu – McCleary, 1999; Beerli – Martin,
2004a,b; Hosany et.al., 2007; Boo et.al., 2009; Qu – Kim – Im, 2011). In connection
with post-travel and travel evaluation, Tribe and Snaith (1998) state that destination
evaluation is the result of a complex process and might be influenced by factors like the
first experience at arrival or the quality of the various tourist service providers. Other
authors deem other factors important that influence destination evaluation, e.g. the
information available to individuals, or the role of organizations participating in shaping
the image of a destination (see e.g. Gartner, 1993; Alhemoud – Armstrong, 1996; Tasci
– Gartner, 2007). Individual information is made up of past personal experience,
advertising and other market information (e.g. about related services available) (see e.g.
Alhemoud – Armstrong, 1996). In addition, Fakeye and Crompton (1991) note that the
visitors and non-visitors of a destination bear a different set of knowledge about the
destination and therefore there evaluation of the destination will differ. Sirgy and Su
(2000, p. 341.) believe that the following environmental factors affect destination
evaluation: (1) atmosphere, (2) service quality, (3) price, (4) location and (5) promotion.
Crompton (1979) in his study points out that the distance of destinations equally affects
the evaluation thereof. In addition, Fakeye and Crompton (1991) state that travel time
also affects destination image.
Destination evaluation therefore depends both on touristic attributes and destination
features (Tasci et.al., 2007b; Konecnik – Gartner, 2007; Boo et.al., 2009).

In connection with post-travel evaluation, Chi and Qu (2007) state that destination
evaluation has a direct influence on consumer satisfaction while this satisfaction in turn
has a positive effect on consumers’ destination loyalty. The literature agrees that past
travel experience has a positive effect on the willingness to return (see e.g. Perdue,
1985; Juaneda, 1996). According to Um and Crompton (1990) consumers who do not
have a past personal experience of a country, generally know less about the given
country. Woodside and Lysonski (1989), and Crompton (1992) state that past
experience and familiarity with the destination might account for the acceptance or
87
5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

denial to return to a destination in case of a set of decisions. Oppermann (1995) refers to

consumers’ cumulative travel experience, that not only shapes travelers’ motivations but
also their destination evaluation. According to Kotler, Bowen and Makens (1996) image
affects perceived quality which in turn affects consumer satisfaction.
Other authors mention that past destination experience affect the evaluation thereof and
might alter destination image (Chon, 1991; Echtner-Ritchie, 1991). According to
Gallarza et.al. (2002) destination evaluation equally affects consumers’ selection
process. Moreover, destination evaluation affects travel decisions related to reaching the
given destination as well as their willingness to return (Tasci – Gartner, 2007).

A number of authors study the effect of various demographic attributes on destination

evaluation. Ross (1993a) shows that gender and education have a significant effect on
the overall evaluation of a destination as well as on consumer satisfaction. Qu and Li
(1997) equally find that gender has a significant effect on destination evaluation.
According to Beerli – Meneses – Gil (2007) consumers’ self-image and destination
image are connected and self-image influences destination choice (see e.g. Moore –
Cushman – Simmons, 1995; Waitt, 1996; Beerli – Meneses – Gil, 2007). Sirgy and Su
(2000) confirm this. In their view, destination choice and travel decisions are influenced
by consumers’ self-image and the identicalness or compatibility thereof with their
destination image might equally affect these decisions.

5. 4. Critical analysis of destination approaches to country image

The destination approaches to country image are almost entirely based on the
assumption that country image can affect individual behavior and, indirectly,
destination evaluation and travel habits.

The overview on the related theoretical approaches shows that country image has a
siginificant effect (beyond those mentioned beforehand) in two further areas:
destination evaluation and destination choice. The related relationships, however, are
under-researched in the literature. At the same time the past few years have seen a
growing academic attention in the field, and several authors have formulated
recommendations and calls for research in the area (see e.g. Mossberg – Kleppe, 2005;
Nadeau et.al., 2008). The merging of the two fields of research is supported by the fact
that their recent evolution has seen the introduction of a strategic approach. The
application of a strategic approach implies that a joint modeling and a
measurement-based research would contribute to further theory building.
Another reason could be that the effect of destination image on destination evaluation
and destination choice has already been studied by a number of authors and their
respective works might be employed for further extending theory. Given the fact that
destination image and country image are overlapping concepts on more than one
88
 5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

ground, a relevant substitution of one with the other within studies might unveil
new dimensions adding to the theoretical foundation of modeling. Considering that
country image is a more wide concept in the literature than that of destination image,
the introduction of country image concept to analyses previously involving destination
image might extend the scope of the known relationships.
At the same time, the field of country image is mostly theoretically sound and lacks of
empirical testing and unveiling further relationships, which can be considered a
limitation to the above. It should also be noted that most research to date has omitted
modeling and structural analysis methodology which would enable the joint study of
several dimensions. Conversely, structural modeling accounts for a commonly used
practice in certain areas of destination management. The current dynamics of the field
can therefore be defined by the spreading use in recent publications of complex
analytical methods and the merging of existing and previously validated models of the
different sub-areas in order to unveil new relationships and new structural models.

According to the literature, the development of theory can be enhanced by the

application of mixed method measurents and the common examination of different
models and areas of theory. It can be said that the merging of models and the
inclusion of variables with indicators into new models is an accepted procedure
(see e.g. Pappu – Quester, 2007; Nadeau et.al., 2008; Pappu – Quester – Cooksey, 2010;
Elliot et.al. 2011). Therefore merging the relationships of country image and
destination evaluation into a common model can be deemed a relevant practice
promising of new results.

After reviewing the theoretical approaches of destination evaluation and destination

choice one can affirm that the relationships involve in both cases the fields of image,
loyalty and attitude, as well as the presence of cognitive, affective and conative
dimensions. Attitude-based approaches already exist in the literature, stating that
information and experience belong to the cognitive, impressions about destinations to
the affective, and loyalty or willingness to return to the conative components of country
image. Therefore it is a logical conclusion that a new step of theory building would
be to employ and include attitude-based approaches as well as brand equity
theory. As consumers perceive a destination as a product, a brand and brand equity
approach would equally account for a relevant extension to the theoretical
background of the field.

According to the review of literature there no exist study examining country brand or
country equity in destination context therefore the doctoral research can improve the
theory of field by merging the country equity theory and the topic of destination
evaluation in one common Country Equity Model (CEM).
At this level of developmnet the theory argues loyalty, awareness, associations as the
elements of brand equity. On the other hand there is no evidence on studying the
89
5. THEORY OF DESTINATION EVALUATION

connections and casual relationshios among the factors of brand equity. Similarly to
country image theory, one can eliminate country characteristics and individual attributes
influencin destination image therefore the merging of the two fields of theory can be
relevant aspect and appropriate application of modelling.

It can be stated to be a lack of the field that most studies in the field address post-travel
evaluation relating it directly to loyalty and willingness to return. A more consistent
approach would be to first study country image and the effect thereof, i.e. the effect of
country image as an overall image on pre-travel destination evaluation and destination
choice. This latter area is under-researched and its application in the present thesis
accounts for a scientific novelty. Moreover, time dimensions studies on destination
evaluation are often mixed up, i.e. pre-travel, travel and post-travel image and
evaluation are not handled consistently.
It is important to note that the studied time dimensions must coincide, otherwise
further dimensions are to be incorporated into the model taking into account all the
factors that would affect, along the different time scale, the studied relationships. In
other words, it is more worthwhile to study post-travel image and destination evaluation
together on one hand, and pre-travel image and its effect on destination choice on the
other. The relevant practical implications of the above for the present doctoral research
will be addressed in the following chapters.

90
 6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

II. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

In the following chapter we present the interactions between theory building and
methodology, that is, we present our research concept (research questions, hypotheses)
and methodological issues in a consequential manner.

First, we give a brief overview of the research context: the study’s main premises and
the main conclusions of the theoretical background. This is followed by the description
of our initial theoretical model, a presentation of the formulated research problem and
research questions and an overview of the exploratory research phases, with their
respective goals, methodology and results.
Then, based on the above, we present our modified research model with the related
potential operationalization and research hypotheses.
Finally, we give an over of the subsequent research phases and present the process and
results of our final empirical research. Based on the above we conclude with a
discussion of the hypotheses.

6.1. The research concept – Background to the empirical research

Based on our literature review, it can be concluded that country image is a conceptually
complex, multidimensional construct. As can be seen from the various conceptual
articles, numerous approaches exist which illustrate the multidisciplinary nature of the
research field. However this equally makes it difficult to define and measure country
image.
It is problematic to determine which concept to consider prevailing when defining
country image, and which dimensions to adopt and measure. It is not clear along which
dimensions a country’s image ought to be measured: should it be considered an identity,
an image or rather an attitude? Another important issue is to determine the dimensions
that play a role in determining a country’s image: the state of the economy, the political
scene or touristic appeal – or all of these factors, in a complex manner.

The latest efforts clearly attempt to assess country image all the more that the practice
of strategic country image building is in development and has an academically
legitimate field of science. This also raises the necessity for suitable measurement
methods and a well-designed measurement model. This new direction, however,
combines branding techniques with the theory on image building. Therefore, it is
necessary to incorporate brand equity measures and methodology. Another issue is to
determine whether the above approach is scientifically solid and whether it is relevant to
be used as a component of the image measurement toolbox.
91
6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

The literature offers recommendations as to which principles to follow during

measurement and modeling.
Most publications study a country’s image in relation to its effect on products. This,
however, raises further issues. As seen beforehand, country image exists independently
of deliberate image building activities and affects not only product choice but, among
others, destination choice and investment decisions as well.
Stakeholders’ differing criteria which equally affect the evaluation of a country’s image.
The question arises therefore whether it is possible to design a comprehensive research
model that can demonstrate the dimensions and effect mechanisms enabling the quality
assessment of an overall country image (not limited to product choice)
In the following we endeavor to successfully incorporate branding approaches into a
relevant country-image-equity model as well as the different roles of stakeholders
(consumers and brand owners) while keeping a conceptually relevant framework for the
dimensions already unveiled in the past.
There exists no existing, empirically validated model for country equity. The design of a
conceptual framework therefore contributes to theory building as well.

As a starting point we resorted to a complex theoretical model containing the different

relationships unveiled in our literature review in order to contextualize the relevant
mechanisms referred to in the literature and therefore to be researched.
The systematic review of the related literature allowed us to unveil the possible contact
points between each area. Figure 11 gives an overview of the relationships based on our
theoretical research, separating the most decisive fields and the dimensions thereof. In
the following chapter we give a detailed presentation of these.10

10
We must note that the below model gives a somewhat complex interpretation to the subject. At the
same time, it serves as a theoretical rather than a measurement model and it is destined to give a
framework for the unveiled relationships. At the same time we believe that all related dimensions (and
dimension groups) of the construct can be measured. However it is unlikely that the same structure will
come up during structural modeling. In view of the special characteristics of structural analysis, the model
will adopt a pyramidal i.e. an ever narrowing shape, and the relationships between dimensions are likely
to be organized in a different logical structure. This however does not affect the content of the described
relationship and still allows for an adequate measurement.

92
6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

93
6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

6.1.1. Presenting the constructs of the theoretical explanatory model

The dimensions and the relationships thereof with the present thesis’s central concept
(country image) can be seen on the left side. Some of the dimensions unveiled in the
literature review can be identified as cognitive components while other pertain to the
affective dimensions. One related assumption is (based on several works in the
literature) that a casual linkage exists between the attributes which can be uncovered,
and the relative effects can be quantified using path coefficient. Each dimension can be
measured by indicators stemming from the relevant scale items.

Country attributes and individual attributes make up a further dimension of the

theoretical explanatory model. Country evaluation is influenced by the size and distance
of the destination country. This relationship is discussed in several references in the
literature although few studies give an empirical validation. In addition, the relative
effect of individual attributes can also be studied. Gender, education, personal
experience, etc. are reported by the literature as relevant dimension as well, and several
publications report significant relationships.
In addition, some known and potential interactions between attributes are also included
in the model.

Country brand theory and the manifestation of brand equity theory in country image
studies is another main focal topic of the present dissertation. The next element within
the model’s structure includes all the elements that allow the measurement of country
equity. Country awareness, country associations, country attitudes and country loyalty
are relevant and measurable dimensions of the field.

A further extension of the model is provided by the taking into account of the effect of
country image on individual behavior and the study of the size thereof. The conative
dimension is a suitable starting point for a further attitude-based approach. However in
the present stage of research, we will not thoroughly study the relationships between
affective, cognitive and conative elements, the model rather serves as an indication to
their presence.

The structural analysis requires the existence of a so-called output variable, which, in
the current context, would be one of the conative factors. Beyond the effect on product
choice shown by studies on country-of-origin effect further consequences of country
evaluation appear in the model as well: the effect on destination choice, residence
choice or on investment decisions.
Given the previously described context, the over-researched or conversely, under-
researched states of each field and the potential practical implications, a relevant and
novel approach would be to unveil the behavioral effects related to destinations.

94
 6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

In the following we present the main research problem that arose during our research
process with the related research questions. Following this, we give an overview of our
exploratory research phases, their subsequence, results and implications on the final
empirical research.

6.2. Research questions

The main research question of the present dissertation is the following:

What factors influence the rating and measuring of country image and country brand,
with special regard to the field of destination evaluation?

Sub-questions related to the main research question:

i. What are the relevant components of country image in the evaluation of a
country?
ii. How can these components be organized and ranked based on their effect on the
evaluation of a country?
iii. How can brand equity be interpreted in relation to a country and what value does
it carry for stakeholders?
iv. What measurable effects does the image-building activity of a country have in
the target audience’s behavior? What additional fields can be subject to the
effect thereof?
v. By what means can the image-building activity of a country and the effects
thereof can be measured and quantified?
vi. How the value of country image can be quantified?

The goal of our empirical research is to explore, within a complex model all the
relationships and assumptions discovered in the literature that were further refined by
the preliminary exploratory research phases.
Beyond unveiling the dimensions of country image and the influencing factors of
country equity, we aim to divide the equity of a country into factors of the cosumer-
oriented approach as well as to identify the effects of country equity on destination
choice.
The main aim of the doctoral dissertation is to develop and test an extended Country
Equity Model (CEM) which incorporates country image, elements of (country) brand
equity and the effects of them on destination evaluation in one common, complex model.

The results related to the above questions might significantly contribute to extend the
research field by laying the foundational stone on a so far unresearched area and
offering a ground for new research and further research questions, which is the principal
scientific contribution of the present research.
95
6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

6.3. Process of the empirical research

As presented beforehand, in the chapters dealing with the measurement and research
methodology of place brands, most empirical studies on places as brands are short of
complex study methodology. Zenker (2011) points out in his literature review that
complex and multi-faceted, i.e. mixed methods are required in the research on places as
brands. In addition, in the chapter on the measurement possibilities of country image,
ne noted that the combined or subsequent use of various methods is a well-established
and frequently used solution within the field of research. Thanks to this process, one is
able (among others) to reach a better founded response and a better overall assessment
to their research questions.

Mixed method (multi-method) research design is not new within social sciences.
Literature on research methodology in social sciences agrees on the fact that the design
of a study is determined above all by its goals and the research questions involved
(Crotty, 1998; Malhotra, 2002; Babbie, 2003).
Teddlie and Tashakkori (2006, p. 12 consider that a study is based on a mixed-method
study when it includes both qualitative and quantitative methods for data acquisition
and analysis in either parallel or sequential phases.
The combined use of different research methodologies in the research process holds a
number of advantages. It can help in better responding to the research questions and in
drawing conclusions. One is able to draw better and stronger conclusions in case the
chosen methods for the research complete and reinforce each other through overcoming
potential weaknesses and limitations of each individual method (Tashakkori – Teddlie,
2003).
Considering the prospects and directions and the underdeveloped state of the subject,
the use of a mixed-method research design in the present dissertation turned out to be
justified and instrumental. Moreover the mixed-method research design enabled the
better understanding of each research question and the better determining, in every
stage, of an appropriate subsequent research phase. Therefore each research phase is
presented as complementary to one another, instead of being handled as separate
research entities.

A number of authors dealt with the application possibilities and validity issues of mixed
method research, as well as with the typology and classification possibilities thereof.
Thus, several possible research procedures were identified (see e.g. Cresswell et.al.,
2003; Tashakkori – Teddlie, 2003; Teddlie – Tashakkori, 2006; Leech – Onwuegbuzie,
2009; Denzin, 2009)

The principles of classification gathered from the literature distinguish between (1)
“pure” mixed methods (containing both qualitative and quantitative methods), (2)
consecutive data collection methods, (3) quantitative-dominant mixed methods
96
 6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

research. One can equally note that data collection in each phase equally serves the
foundation of the subsequent research phase.

The mixed-method research has been carried out as follows. In a first phase we
proceeded to exploratory quantitative studies followed by another exploratory phase,
this time, qualitative. This qualitative phase enabled us to better comprehend the results
of the preceding phase and to prepare a subsequent quantitative phase. The second
quantitative research phase served as a direct theoretical and empirical preparation of
and pre-study for the final model. This phase was once again followed by a supporting
qualitative phase. The sequential built-up of the research process which thus included
both qualitative and quantitative phases (carried out gradually) led to prepare and
support the final stage of our research, i.e. the test of the research model.

Table 14 gives an overview of our empirical consecutive mixed method research

process. We will review each phase in detail in the following sub.chapters.

Table 14.
Phases of the empirical research

PHASE MODE GOAL OF STUDY METHODOLOGY DATE SAMPLE

Preparing the model,
Analysis of
1. Qualitative unveiling dimensions Content analysis Feb. 2008.
35 studies
of country image
n=399
Testing dimensional Self-administered
March (CUB,
1. Quantitative model of country questionnaire (in
2008. Hungarian
image Hungarian)
students)
n=106
Testing dimensional Self-administered
March (CUB,
1. Quantitative model of country questionnaire (in
2009. foreign
image English)
students)
Study of country n=5, 5, and 6
3 focus group Sep.– Oct.
2. Qualitative brand and interaction (CUB
interviews 2009.
effects students)
Oct. 2010. n=390
2. Quantitative Test of scale Online query – Jan. (CUB
2011. students)
n=8
(researchers
Expert validation of Semi-structured in fields of
Sep.-Dec.
3. Qualitative results and expert in-depth country
2011.
assumptions interviews image and
country
brand)
Test of hypotheses
Online query
and of model (country
3. Quantitative (representative for Dec. 2011. n=600
equity, destination
pop. aged 18-69)
evaluation)
Source: own elaboration, 2012

97
6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

6.3.1. Research phases

In the following we present each research phase, with special attention to the goal,
methodology and sample characteristics of each phase.

Following academic best practice, a thorough and systematic literature review served as
the foundation for the doctoral research. This literature review corresponds equally to
the first research phase as such, during which 35 relevant studies on country image
dimensions were content analyzed (see chapter 3.1). The objective of this phase was to
study the country image dimensions found in the literature, the relationships between
them, with a special attention to studying and delimiting all attitude-based approaches.
Content analysis was carried out in February 2008 using an open, axial then selective
coding methodology based on the literature. Results showed 11 dimensions that appear
as consistent elements within the various studies. These can be categorized into main
and sub-dimensions, and as affective and cognitive, along an attitude-based approach.

The results of this research phase were used to prepare the new phase which took place
in March 2008. During this first exploratory quantitative research phase we proceeded
to the test of known international measurement scales and analyzed the dimension of
country image and relationships thereof with other attributes.The research sample was
composed of Hungarian, full-time students of the Corvinus University of Budapest
(CUB) (N=339). As a second part of this research phase, in March 2009 the same
questionnaire was used in English on a sample of CUB’s foreign students (N=105). The
goal of this second study was to compare the results of the two culturally different
samples in order to extract and test the most important relationships.

The first quantitative stage was followed by a qualitative phase. The aim of this was to
elaborate on the understanding of the results gathered in the first phase and to further
refine the preliminary hypotheses and supposed system of relationships. In this phase
we proceeded to a focus group study (3 focus groups of respectively 5, 5 and 6
Hungarian, full-time students of CUB) in September-October 2009. Durint this stage,
the relevant constructs were selected from the dimensions of the original model, several
relationships were more closely observed and the overall effect mechanism refined. In
addition, we proceeded to the development of additional scale items.

After translating and back-translating the relevant scales from the literature and
adaptating them, taking into account, among others, the results from our qualitative
research phase, we proceeded to a pre-test of the questionnaire and of the research
model. The online questionnaire was filled out by a sample of Hungarian, full-time
students of CUB between October 2010 and January 2011. This second quantitative
research phase was aimed to contribute to improving scale items and to studying the
potential dimensions of country brand and the concept of country equity.
98
 6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

After this phase and following a validation of its results we proceeded, between
September and December 2011, to a series of expert interviews with the aim of refining
the hypotheses and expert validating methodology. We carried out semi-structured
expert in-depth interviews with eight expert researchers in the fields of country image
and country brands.

The final test of the research model was carried out in December 2011 on a sample of
the Hungarian population aged 18-69 representative to the five standard demographic
variables of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH) (N=600).

6.3.2. The initial theoretical model

Our initial theoretical model, as an overall approach to country image, includes the
related fundamental dimensions and their interactions.

A first set of field reseach was conducted as early as 2002 (as part of the author’s entry
to the Hungarian Students' Research Conference [TDK, Tudományos Diákköri
Konferencia]) and 2004 (as part of the author’s MA thesis). The Hungarian-language
questionnaire was filled out by 183 students of the Budapest University of Economic
Sciences and Public Administration (former name of the Corvinus University of
Budapest). Moreover, as a research assistant the author of the present dissertation had
the opportunity to participate in a study for the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund
(OTKA) conducted by the Marketing Department of the the Budapest University of
Economic Sciences and Public Administration (head of research Dr. József Berács). The
research was conducted in English among foreign university students studying in
Hungary between December 2003 and March 2004. The aim of the research was to
evaluate the opinions and attitudes of foreign students about Hungary, Hungarian
products and their respective receiving institutions. The study was conducted on a
research sample of 457 students of the Budapest University of Technology,
Semmelweis Medical University and the Budapest University of Economic Sciences
and Public Administration, using the Papadopoulos scale (the result were published in
Jenes, 2005)

As a result of the above, a model framework had already been in place at the beginning
of the present research process, which summarized the then-researched concepts and
relationships of country image. The framework, elaborated in 2005, includes the
dimensions available in the literature and based on the author’s research so far. It is
conceptually close to the image-focused approaches, and does not yet consider the
relationships to other factors (e.g. product evaluation). The model was designed
following a basic principle according to which a country’s image in people’s mind does

99
6. THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

exist (as an identity, idea or stereotype) even when not confronted to the choice of a
given product and having to evaluate the identity of the related nation.

The initial model includes the dimensions known from the literature with the related
indicators. The main dimensions are as follows: (1) culture, (2) people, (3) geography,
(4) economy, (5) politics. Culture and people constitute a common dimension that can
be referred to as social factors. The model equally includes the representation of other
dimensions’ effect.

Figure 12.
Multidimensionality of country image –Initial theoretical model

Source: own elaboration, 2005

100
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

7. FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

7.1. Exploratory study – Unveiling the dimensions of country image and the
related casual relationships; test of country image scales

The first quantitative phase served as a first exploratory research phase. Its objective
was (1) to unveil the dimensions of and differences between internal and external
image, (2) to proceed to a first test of international and Hungarian scales, in terms of
reliability and validity, (3) to unveil latent dimensions of country image using structural
equation modeling and path analysis, (4) to fine-tune the research hypotheses and
methodology to be used in the final research and (5) to improve the pre-established
models and to design a relevant research model based on the results of this research
phase.
A first self-administered query took place in March 2008 among 399 Hungarian, full-
time students of CUB (results were published in Jenes – Malota – Simon, 2008; Jenes –
Simon, 2009). The study was repeated in March 2009 among 106 foreign students of
CUB (in English).
The exploratory study slightly modifies the initial theoretical model and brings about a
number of results that are worthwhile to be incorporated into the final research model,
into other metholological considerations and into the research hypotheses.

Figure 13.
Areas addressed by the first quantitative research phase

Source: own elaboration, 2012

101
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

7.2. Methodology of the first quantitative research phase

The same, self-administered, paper-based questionnaire was used during the two phase
of the first quantitative research phase, with the difference of one being in Hungarian
language while the other in English (Exhibit X). Using a questionnaire ensured that we
obtain results suitable for reflecting on the proprieties of a large population for,
according to the literature, this method is adequate for measuring the attitudes and
orientation of a larger population (Babbie, 2003; Gyulavári et.al. 2012).

The structure of the questionnaire was as follows: similar to international studies, the
first set of questions dealt with country image in general, employing open-ended
questions. Positive and negative views (spontaneous associations) on both the country
and its people were collected. The second set of questions tested an internationally well-
known and frequently applied scale – Papadopoulos et al. (1990, 1993) – which was
also employed in a number of Hungarian country image related surveys. The third set of
questions was also aimed at country image in general, using a country image scale
developed by the Hungarian Gallup Institute. Demographic information was covered in
the fourth set of questions.

As the Papadopoulos scale is an internationally validated measurement tool and it was

also tested in Hungary several times beforehand (see e. g. Berács – Gyulavári, 1999
and Malota, 2004), there was no need for conducting a new test for ensuring the
reliabiltiy and validity of the scales. The Gallup scale was equally already tested in
several countries in English several times – the use of original scales provided the
validity and reliability for the research.
After the initial questionnaire design we proceeded to a pilot test of the questionnaire
among 15 university students, using a self-administered paper-based questionnaire.
After dealing with the arisen problems in filling the questionnaire, it proved to be
suitable for data collection.
Statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS 14.0 suite and SmartPLS 2.0
structural equation modeling methodology and software.

7.3. Main results of the Hungarian study

The following research cannot be generalized as the research sample was not
representative. Therefore, the results can only serve to unveil processes and
relationships and illustration purposes.
At the same time the pre-testing of hypotheses and preliminary scale analysis and
development on easily accessible, non-random samples (e.g. student samples) are
generally accepted in the literature (see e.g. Osgood et.al., 1957; Malhotra, 1981;
Zaichkowsky, 1985; mind in: Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Brijs et al, 2011).
102
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

According to the above, we will omit mentioning numerical findings related to actual
country image and will only report whether the relevant approaches, considerations and
relationships already known from the literature surfaced in the study.

7.3.1. Sample proprieties

The Hungarian questionnaire was filled out by 399 third-year students of CUB studying
Marketing. The mean age in the sample was 21.3 years, the youngest respondent being
aged 20, the oldest 26, with a mode of 21 years. Gender distribution was as follows:
42.9 percent male and 57.1 percent female. 86.5 percent of respondents had not lived
abroad for a longer period of time (i.e. for 3 months or more), while 13.5 percent did so.

In order to examine the relationships found in the literature, respondents could evaluate
the financial status of their respective families on a 5-point scale, i.e. whether, in their
opinion, their family revenue is well below average, below average, average, above
average or well above average. 13.3 percent of respondents reported being in financial
categories above average, 41.9 percent around the average and 44.8 percent above.
Declared self-confidence was equally measured on a 5-point scale: well below average,
below average, average, above average and well above average. 23.8 percent of
respondents declared having a below-average self-confidence, 31.8 percent an average
and 44.4 percent above-average

7.3.2. Open-ended questions

The open-ended questions of the first set attempted to survey people's views on
Hungary and Hungarians. Open-ended questions are equally an often employed
methodology within country image studies (based on Dohrenwend, 1965 in: Nebenzahl
– Jaffe – Usunier, 2000; Papadopoulos et.al., 1993; Piskóti et.al., 1997; Berács –
Malota, 2000; Nebenzahl – Jaffe – Usunier, 2000) to unveil consumers’ spontaneous
associations with countries.
As it was seen beforehand in the literature review, the associative network memory
model by Anderson (1990, 1993) states that images and associations of a country relate
to each other and create a network in people’s mind. According to this, a question about
the associations connected to a country can reveal other elements of repuation, and also
the dimensions of country image.
The first question aimed at exploring respondents' first thoughts on Hungary. Even
though only one answer was expected from respondents, they most often filled in two or
three. The question was aimed at mapping free associations and emerging country
image dimensions. Table 15. shows the frequency of first mentions in the case of each
category of descriptives.

103
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Table 15.
Free associations related to Hungary
DESCRIPTIVES FREQ. DISTR. (%)
Homeland, home 201 51
Natural endowments 50 12,7
Budapest 20 5,1
Gastronomy, Hungaricums 17 4,3
Society-related feelings 15 3,8
Ibolya Oláh: Magyarország (song) 15 3,8
Country symbols 14 3,6
Political condition 12 3,0
Sights 12 3,0
Economy 6 1,5
Celebrities 4 1,0
Sports 2 0,5
Corruption, Crime 2 0,5
Public sanitation 2 0,5
Science, education 1 0,3
Other 21 5,3
Total 394 100
Source: own elaboration, 2009

The majority of respondents (n=394) (51%) associate Hungary with concepts like home
in the first place. Responses related to natural endowments were also very popular (e.g.
“country with a lot of beautiful sights”, “beautiful natural environment“). Budapest,
gastronomy, Hungaricums and society-related feelings were also relatively frequent.
The above validates well the theoretical concept of internal image and provides a good
example of the apparition of dimension that differ from those suggested by the
literature. Also can be seen that a part of the revealed dimensions (e.g. culture, politics,
people) by the content analysis (see chapter 3.1.) is explored by the question, but other,
new special elements (e.g. education, celebrities) and with different importance thereof
can eliminated as well. On the other hand we can examine answers on people and
country separetely, and we can distinguish positive and negative statements at the same
time.

7.3.3. Testing the Papadopoulos-scale

The following scale is widely used internationally to evaluate countries and their
peoples. The original scale was employed in numerous international researches,
originates from Nagashima’s (1970, 1977) scale and also has some similarities with the
well known Martin – Eroglu (1993) scale. The original model (Papadopoulos et.al.
[1990], and later Papadopoulos – Heslop [1993]) includes more questions, as it also
serves as a tool for evaluating foreign countries and the relationships between countries.
Therefore we only included the relevant parts and questions of the latter scale
concerning internal image into our study (9 statements). At the same time our goal with

104
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

this study remained the test of the scale, the study of the relationships with the various
demographic variables as well as to explore the related dimensions.

Table 16 shows the averages in the sample for each scale item (measured on a 7-point
semantic differential scale).

Table 16.
The evaluation of Hungary and its inhabitants among Hungarian respondents,
measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale
SCALE ITEM AVG (STDEV) (N=399)
Politically stable country 2.51 (1.43)
Outstanding role within international politics 2.03 (1.30)
Trustworthy people 3.49 (1.28)
Rich country 2.72 (1.18)
Technologically advanced country 3.97 (1.28)
Very diligent and hard-working people 3.83 (1.40)
Highly skilled people 4.46 (1.33)
Very lovable people in general 4.25 (1.20)
An ideal country 3.73 (1.38)
Source: own elaboration, 2009

The above table shows that as few as two of the nine statements (“highly skilled people”
and “very lovable people in general”) received a positive evaluation (i.e. above the
mean score).
Moreover, we proceeded to an analysis of the demographic differences using an
analysis of variance. “The analysis of variance belongs to the confirmatory methods, by
which one can evaluate the effect of one (or more) independent variable(s) on one (or
more) dependent variable(s)” (Sajtos – Mitev, 2007, p. 164.). The use of ANOVA was
justified by both the sample size and the level of measurement. The method requires a
normal distribution of the dependent variables and homogeneity of variance. (Malhotra
– Simon (km), 2008) The present data does not fulfill the requirements of normality,
although in most cases the homogeneity of variance stands, wherefore we will not reject
the results of the measure as our F-test result is fairly robust, and, according to the
literature, “not meeting one or the other condition does not have a significant influence
on the probability of a type I or type II error and therefore does not impair the validity
of a conclusion.” (Sajtos – Mitev, 2007, p. 167.).
The results are as follows (p=0,05):
Men evaluate the country significantly better than women (3.56 vs. 3.23). This supports
the hypothesis stemming from the literature that gender does have an influence on the
evaluation of a country.

We found no significant difference between the scores of those having already lived
abroad for a longer period of time and those that haven’t. This result does not seem to

105
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

support the hypothesis based on the literature that time spent adbroad/in the given
country influences the evaluation of a country.

Statistically siginificant differences were shown in several questions related to

participants’ income situation. Students participating in the research were asked to
mark, on a 5-point scale the perceived level of income of their families (far below
average, somewhat below average, average, somewhat above average, far above
average). Students having responded “somewhat above average” and “far above
average” had a significantly better evaluation of the country’s economic situation (2.86
and 3.2 respectively) than those with a lover perceived level of income (2.54, 2.56 and
2.57 respectively).
In addition, the better financial situation a respondent declared to be, the less they felt
that Hungarians were diligent and hard-working people. While respondents in the worst
financial situation gave an average of 4.86 to this variable, those with the highest level
of income a 3.52 average. The averages for this question gradually decrease with the
growing level of perceived financial situation (4.86 – 4.2 – 3.83 – 3.76 – 3.52).
Declared income therefore, in accordance with the literature, does have, in a given
context, an influence on the evaluation of a country.

The level of self-confidence was measured on a 5-point scale (far below average,
somewhat below average, average, somewhat above average, far above average). The
responses to this question resulted in a significant relationship with the “diligent and
hard-working people” variable. Respondents with above average self-confidence (far
and somewhat above categories) agree less with the statement (3.6 and 3.61
respectively) than those with a below average self-confidence (4.05 and 4.15). This
result only partially supports the hypothesis taken from the literature, and it means, that
self-confidence only among certain circumstances has an effect on the evaluation of a
country and this relationship needs further tests in the final doctoral research.
In the following, the reliability, internal consistency were addressed and the existence of
latent factors was studied using exploratory factor analysis11.
Factor analysis is a method for exploring underlying structure, which is “particularly
suitable for unveiling connections between variables and unveiling principal
components with a population having numerous homogeneous attributes” (Sajtos –
Mitev, 2007, p. 247.) Principal component analysis and VARIMAX rotation were
chosen for the present study and correlations between the studied variables were studied
using Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO test).
Principal component analysis was justified because it contributes to reduce the number
of variables with a minimal loss of information. VARIMAX rotation was used for it
enables a “more stable rotation and a better separation of factors compared to other
methods, which supports the understanding of the underlying content in each factor”

11
For the scale test we had no preliminary known factor structure, therefore we were not able to conduct
a confirmatory factor analysis.
106
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

(Sajtos – Mitev, 2007, p. 267.) The “eigenvalue greater than 1” criterion was chosen for
factor formation, that is, there were no a priori criteria available as for the number of
factors to reach. The KMO (Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin criterion) test is one of the most
important measures for determining whether the variables are suitable for a factor
analysis. The adequacy value of KMO recommended by the literature is 0.7.
The sample reached a moderately adequate result for KMO (0.68) and the total variance
explained by the factors is 54,8%, which is equally only moderately adequate (with a
recommended value of 60% or more).
MSA (measure of sampling adequacy) values in the anti-image matrix show how the
given variable fits the factor structure. The related adequacy value recommended by the
literature is 0.5, below which one ought to exclude the given variable from the analysis.
MSA values within the sample were between 0.59 and 0.83, therefore all variables were
included into the analysis.
As shown in Table 17. results support a 3-factor solution.
The first factor can be dubbed “description of people” (total variance explained:
25.6%). It is interesting to note that the “ideal country” variable equally belongs to this
factor describing the people of a country instead of belonging to the factor defining the
country itself. This would imply that for respondens, a country is ideal if people living
in the given country are likeable, trustworthy, diligent and highly qualified and not
when the country itself is rich or politically stable or technologically advanced.
The second factor was dubbed “description of the country” (total variance explained:
24%). This factor itself can be divided into two sub-factors. On one hand (“general
reputation of the country”), the variables related to political stability and the economy
of a country (variance explained: 18%) and on the other (“success of country”),
technological development and role in international politics (with a negative sign)
(variance explained: 13%). This could indicate that according to respondents, a
country’s minor role in international politics can stem from its relatively low level of
technological development.

Table 17.
Factors unveiled in the Hungarian sample, based on the Papadopoulos scale
Item factor 1 factor 2 factor 3
Very lovable people in general - .761
Trustworthy people .710
An ideal country .628
Very diligent and hard-working people - .577
Rich country .784
Politically stable country .783
Technologically advanced country .670
Outstanding role within international politics .641
Highly skilled people .563
Source: own elaboration, 2009

107
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

To test the reliability of the scale and its usablilty in the final research phase the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was computed. The related adequacy value recommended
by the literature is 0.6 (Malhotra, 2002) 0.7 (Nunally, 1978; Hair et.al., 2010). The
scale’s Cronbach's alpha index was 0.61 within the sample, and it can therefore be
considered moderately reliable.

The reliabilities of each individual factor were:

Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 1: 0.613
Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 2: 0.535
Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 3: 0.123

According to the above results, reliability in the case of the first two factors is merely
moderate while in the case of the last factor, it is unacceptable. The results also reflects
the necessity of development of the scales or creating new scale items.

7.3.4. Test of the Gallup country image scale

The next tested scale was used by the Hungarian Gallup Institute in 2000 during the
“County Image 2000 – or what does the Hungarian nation think” study. Tha scale was
later used in several other Hungarian studies. The scale measures the evaluation of a
given country (internal image) with a 24-item 4-point scale (“strongly disagree”,
“disagree”, “agree”, “strongly agree”). The choice of this scale was justified by the
efforts of comparability between the dimensions and relationships of internal and
external image (the result were published in Jenes – Malota – Simon, 2008) and also by
the future usage of items in the structural modeling process.

Table 18 presents the evaluation by respondents of each item related to Hungary.

108
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Table 18.
The evaluation of Hungary and its inhabitants among Hungarian respondents, measured on a 4-point scale
ITEM N AVG (STDEV) N=399
Successful country 398 1.91 (.531)
Talented country 398 2.97 (.677)
Country of decent and honest people 399 2.10 (.663)
Educated, civilized country 397 2.63 (.586)
The country of social justice 397 1.90 (.611)
The country of personal freedom 398 2.82 (.630)
A country with a bright past and great history 399 3.21 (.674)
A country that suffered a lot 397 3.48 (.646)
Law-abiding country 399 2.40 (.649)
The country of entrepreneur people 398 2.66 (.712)
Grumpy, pessimistic country 398 3.16 (.685)
Diligent country 399 2.41 (.635)
The country of solidary people caring for each other 398 1.99 (.627)
The country of great sports performances 398 3.16 (.677)
The country of great scientific achievements 398 3.20 (.709)
A country with an important culture 398 3.09 (.645)
The country of notable economic performances 399 1.80 (.592)
Decmocratic country 399 2.82 (.605)
An orderly, clean country 399 2.10 (.601)
A country with many natural endowments 399 3.47 (.579)
Happy, cheerful country 398 2.14 (.649)
A developed country 399 2.36 (.610)
Rapidly developing country 399 2.01 (.580)
Country with a bright future 398 2.34 (.733)
Source: own elaboration, 2009

Table 22 shows that respondents rather agree wit the following statements (in grey in
the table): “a country with a bright past and great history”, “a country that suffered a
lot”, “grumpy, pessimistic country”, “the country of great sports performances”, “the
country of great scientific achievements”, “a country with an important culture” and “a
country with many natural endowments”. These statements entirely confirm the results
of the previously presented open-ended questions. The remaining statements were
judged “not typical” or “entirely not typical” for Hungary by the respondents.

Similarly to the test of the Papadopoulos scale, we proceeded to a study of the

relationships related to demographic attributes using analysis of variance.
In certain contexts, the country once again is evaluated in a more positive way by men
than women. These are the following: “successful country” (1.98 vs. 1.86), “orderly,
clean country” (2.17 vs. 2.05), “happy, cheerful country” (2.22 vs. 2.08), “country with
a bright future” (2.43 vs. 2.27). This difference might stem from women being more
sensitive in nature and having a stronger demand for order and security. The influence
of gender on the evaluation of country image was again verified.

109
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

No sifinificant relationship could be shown for any of the statements between the
responses of those having lived abroad for a longer period of time and those that hadn’t.

We found a significant relationship between income situation and an item in three cases.
Respondents’ agreeing with the statement “the country of personal freedom” gradually
rises with their declared income situation (2.71 – 2.78 – 2.78 – 2.80 – 3.15 respectively)
while their agreeing with “a country with many natural endowments” gradually drops
(2.57 – 2.09 – 2.02 – 2.14 – 2.27). People with the lowest level of income agree most
with the statement “an orderly, clean country”. The level of agreement first gradually
decreases along with improving financial situations then conversely, starts to rise again
(3.57 – 3.67 – 3.45 – 3.46 – 3.27). This result might be explained by the growing
freedom of choice and possibility to succeed with the growing welfare. This equally
confirms that declared income can have an influence on the evaluation of a country.

Self-confidence was once again measured on a 5-point scale and four significant
relationships have been found. In the case of three items, the level of agreement rises
parallelly with self-confidence: “successful country” (1.52 – 1.95 – 1.95 – 1.88 – 2.05),
“a country with an important culture” (3.04 – 3.07 – 3.01 – 3.08 – 3.37), “orderly, clean
country” (1.76 – 2.03 – 2.15 – 2.09 – 2.27), while it fluctuates along the level of self-
esteem for one variable: “country of decent and honest people” (2.10 – 2. 09 – 2.25 –
2.00 – 1.90). This confirms the hypothesis according to which declared self-esteem
influences the evaluation of a country.

After studying data suitability, and in consistence with our previous analyses, we
proceeded to structural analyses. In the exploratory factor analysis phase, we used a
principal component method with VARIMAX rotation and a KMO-test to measure the
correlation of included variables. The “eigenvalue greater than 1” criterion was chosen
for factor formation.
During a first factor analysis, 7 factors were generated with a KMO score of 0.801 and a
total variance explained of 56% (24 variables). In the anti-image matrix all MSA values
were greater that 0.5, even though individual factor scores did not in every case reach
the adequacy value of 0.5. For this reason, after excluding two variables that showed
invalid or outlier values, a 6-factor solution was reached with a total variance explained
of 53.6% (KMO: 0.787; 22 variables). After excluding three further variables, a 5-factor
solution was retained, with a KMO score of 0.799 and a total explained variance of
52.7% (19 variables). The KMO value can be considered adequate while the total
variance explained (being below 60 percent) low.
Factor distribution is shown in Table 19.

110
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Table 19.
Factors unveiled in the Hungarian sample, based on the Gallup scale
Item factor 1 factor 2 factor 3 factor 4 factor 5
Country of good economic achievements ,771
Succesful country ,666
An orderly, clean country ,625
Rapidly developing country ,582
Country with great scientific achievements ,756
Country with great sport performances ,742
Country with an important culture ,592
Rich in nice landscapes ,557
Talented country ,538
The country of personal freedom ,772
Democratic country ,728
Law-abiding country ,625
The country of social justice ,548
Grumpy, pessimistic country -,722
The country of solidary people caring for each ,680
other
Happy, cheerful country ,649
Country of decent and honest people ,573
A country that suffered a lot ,762
A country with a bright past and great history ,716
Source: own elaboration, 2009

The first factor, “describing success” includes variables related to economic

performance, development and success. It is interesting to note that the “orderly, clean
country” variable is included in this factor as well. The factor accounts for 21% of the
total variance.
The second factor dubbed “describing performance” contains the variables related to
achievements in sciences and sports (variance explained: 12%).
The third factor, “describing democracy” includes variables related to personal freedom,
democratic country, legal order, social justice. The factor accounts for 9% of the total
variance.
The fourth factor, dubbed “describing human relations and feelings” includes scale
variables related to pessimism, solidarity, honesty and cheerfulness and sadness. The
factor accounts for 6.4% of the total variance.
In the following, we proceeded to the examining of the reliability of the scale: the
scale’s Cronbach's alpha index was 0.791 and it can therefore be considered reliable.

The reliabilities of each individual factor were:

Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 1: 0.647
Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 2: 0.645
Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 3: 0.682
Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 4: 0.654
Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 5: 0.640
111
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

According to the above results, the reliability for the factors unveiled is moderate, and
the results also reflect the necessity of the development of scales.

7.3.5. The Country Image Dimensions Model –

Methodology and Results of the structural analysis

A Papadopoulos (1990, 1993)-skála, valamint a Gallup (2000)-skála eredményeinek

The factors revealed during a first exploratory tests of the Papadopoulos (1990, 1993)
scale and the Gallup (2000) country image scale were put to a further analysis in order
to examine whether the factors could be considered as latent variables for a
dimensional model of country image.
The 11-item Papadopoulos scale turned out to be inadequate for further structural
analysis. Indeed, the factors (as a result of the limited number of variables and the low
explanatory power of the unveiled relationships) were not suitable for being included
into a common dimensional model. Therefore the following study was conducted using
the 24-item country image scale. The five factors revealed by the exploratory factor
analysis were further analyzed using SmartPLS software.

Recently, SmartPLS has become a more and more widely used analysis method for
testing relationships between certain latent variables and for measuring the strengths of
those relationships (Chin – Newsted, 1999). The usual conditions for distributions are
not required for this method to be applied, and the same procedure is suitable for
analyzing complex models on small samples, as well. The recommended sample size is
ten times the maximal number of indicators related to the latent variables in question
(Barclay et. al., 1995). According to these criteria, the sample proved out to be suitable
for the purposes of this kind of analysis.
The choice of Smart PLS can be justified by its advantages, among many others the
ability of handling small sample size and executing formative constructs as well.
(Henseler, 2009)

Based on the principles of Jarvis – MacKenzie – Podsakoff (2003) concerning Type III
models and using both the results of the factor analysis and the assumptions were
formulated on the basis of relationships already published in relevant literature, the
model to be tested was the following (see Figure 14):

Az általam tesztelni kívánt modell a faktorelemzés eredményeit, valamint a

szakirodalomból is ismert összefüggések alapján felállított feltételezéseimet is
felhasználva, Jarvis – MacKenzie – Podsakoff (2003) 3. típusú modellezési elvét
követve a következ képpen alakult (ld. 14. sz. ábra):
Country image, as a latent variable, and its dimensions and the indicators thereof make
up a so-called formative model, that is the direction of the relationship points from the
indicators towards the latent variable (Diamantopolous – Winklhofer, 2001). The
112
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

multicollinearity of manifest variables was tested by the VIF-method. The dimensions’

contribution to the score of country image is measured by the path coefficients, the
majority of which can be considered rather strong (evaluation of path coefficients:
>0.33: strong effect, ~0.2: moderate effect; also see: Wilson et. al., 2007).
Significance was measured using the so-called bootstrapping procedure. Bootstrapping
is the practice of estimating properties of an estimator (such as its variance) by
measuring those properties when sampling from an approximating distribution. When
observations can be assumed to be from an independent and identically distributed
population, we can use bootstrapping by constructing a number of resamples of the
observed dataset (and of equal size to the observed dataset), each of which is obtained
by random sampling with replacement from the original dataset. (Henseler, 2009)
Four of the indicators (see the model: development, „democraticness”, suffering, nice
landscapes) demonstrated a less than significant impact.
The dimensions of the model based on the results are:
i. people
ii. success
iii. democracy
iv. performance
v. culture.

Figure 14.
Structural model of the Hungarian country image dimensions

Source: own elaboration, 2009

113
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Thus the dimension „People’s characteristics” is affected by the perceived righteousness

and diligence of people, social cohesion, the degree of solidarity and how cheerful
people appear to be, while the dimension’s effect on the latent variable is 0.273.
The dimension „Country’s success” is influenced by the degree of success, economic
performance and the country’s degree of development. The measure of the dimension’s
impact on the latent variable is 0.339.
The elements of the dimension „Country’s democraticness” are related to social justice,
human freedom and the rule of law; the dimension has an effect on the latent variable of
0.309.
The dimension „Country’s performance” is related to sport and scientific achievements;
the measure of its influence on the latent variable is 0.206.
The dimension „Culture” is affected by the talent and the literacy of people, historical
background and people’s perceptions of the country’s culture. The dimension’s effect
on the latent variable is 0.360.

Analyzing and concluding on the above results one can affirm, that the above
dimensions and relationships support the prior assumptions and findings based on our
literature review. As it can be seen, country image and its dimensions are in a causal
relationship with each other, and the dimensions have different impact on the whole
construct. On the other hand one can reveal, that not all the known dimensions can be
revealed in the results, and also declare that the country image and the dimensions of it
can be evaluated by structural research methods as a formative construct.

7.4. Main results of the English-language study

7.4.1. Sample proprieties

The English-language questionnaire was filled out by foreign student of CUB

(participating in either CEMS or Erasmus exchange programs). The mean age in the
sample was 21.7 years (N=106), and 40.6 percent of respondents were male and 59.4
percent female.
Countries of origin of respondents are shown in Table 20.

114
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Table 20.
Country of origin of respondents to the English-language questionnaire
COUNTRY FREQ. %
USA 17 16
China 16 15,1
Mexico 15 14,2
Belgium 9 8,5
Germany 8 7,5
Netherlands 6 5,7
Vietnam 5 4,7
France 4 3,8
Sweden 3 2,8
Austria 3 2,8
Greece 3 2,8
Other 17 16
TOTAL 106 100
Source: own elaboration, 2010

7.4.2. Open-ended questions

In the first part of the questionnaire, a set of open-ended questions attempted to survey
respondents’ views on Hungary and Hungarians.
The first question aimed at exploring respondents' first thoughts on Hungary. Even
though only one answer was expected from respondents, they most often filled in two or
three. The question was aimed at mapping free associations and emerging country
image dimensions. Table 21. shows the frequency of first mentions in the case of each
category of descriptives.

Table 21.
Free associations of foreign respondents related to Hungary
ASSOCIATIONS FREQ. %
Nice landscapes, nice country 31 29,2
Budapest, capital 14 13,2
Economic situation 11 10,4
Eastern Europe 11 10,4
Gastronomy, Hungaricums 6 5,7
Feelings 6 5,7
Culture 6 5,7
Friendly people, beautiful women 3 2,8
Unfriendly people 3 2,8
Other 15 14,1
SUM 394 100
Source: own elaboration, 2010

One third of respondents (31%; N=106) when asked to think of Hungary, the thought of
beauty, and of a beautiful country comes first in their minds. Budapest also received a

115
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

significant amount of mentions (13.2%), as well as the economic state of the country,
gastronomy, Hungaricums, and Hungary’s belonging to Eastern Europe.
This confirms the concept of external image known from the literature. The above table
also shows considerable differences with those dimensions thereof mentioned in the
literature (see Chapter 3.1.) Among the associations one can explore factors in relation
with touristic type evaluation. On the other hand, free associations related to the country
equally include expressions of feelings, emotions, and observations related to people.

7.4.3. Testing the Papadopoulos-scale

As well as in the Hungarian questionnaire, the image-related parts of the

aforementioned Papadopoulos (1990, 1993) scale were used for the present international
query. At the same time our goal with this study remained the test of the scale, the study
of the relationships with the various demographic variables as well as to explore the
related dimensions.
Table 22 shows the averages in the sample for each scale item (measured on a 7-point
semantic differential scale).

Table 22.
The evaluation of Hungary and its inhabitants among foreign respondents,
measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale
SKÁLA-TÉTELEK AVG (STDEV) N=106
Rich country 4,83 (1,38)
Politically stable country 4,77 (1,69)
Admirable role in the world of politics 4,69 (1,64)
Technologically advanced country 4,46 (1,34)
Ideal country 4,45 (1,45)
Aligned with my own country 4,43 (1,52)
Hard working people 4,22 (1,37)
Likeable people 4,04 (1,48)
Highly educated people 3,93 (1,39)
I know a lot about the country 3,91 (1,36)
People have a refined taste for the beautiful things in life 3,89 (1,41)
Trustworthy people 3,78 (1,54)
I would welcome more investments from the country 3,66 (1,52)
My country should have closer ties with the country 3,54 (1,60)
I would welcome more imports from the country 3,42 (1,45)
Source: own elaboration, 2010

The above table shows that the evaluation of the country is positive for approximately
half of the statements (8 out of 15). Even at a first glance, it is conspicuous that this
image is far more positive than in the preceding study (where only 2 statements were
evaluated positively). This reinforces the point of view according to which it is
worthwhile to treat internal and external image separately when studying a country’s
image.

116
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Moreover, we conducted an analysis of variance to explore potential demographic

differences.12 The results are as follows (p=0.05):
There are no significant differences in the evaluation of a country along the
respondent’s gender. This contradicts both the earlier findings and assumption based on
the literature that the perception of a country is affected by gender.

Level of income turned out to be a significant moderator in the case of one question.
Students participating in the research were asked to mark, on a 5-point scale the
perceived level of income of their families (far below average, somewhat below
average, average, somewhat above average, far above average). Unlike the Hungarian
survey, respondents here had to evaluate their income situation along both the domestic
and Hungarian average level of income. In the Hungarian context, no significant effect
was found, however, the domestic income situation turned out to have a significant
effect on whether the respondent believed Hungary was a rich country.
Results show that those with an above or far above average level of income evaluated
Hungary as a poorer country (5.13 and 4.33 respectively) than those with an average or
above average income (4.6 – 2.56 – 2.5).
The declared level of income – in accordance with the literature – can, in some
contexts, influence the evaluation of countries, even though this influence cannot be
established in most cases and needs further tests in the final doctoral research.

The level of self-confidence was measured on a 5-point scale (far below average,
somewhat below average, average, somewhat above average, far above average).
In this case, two significant relationships were found. In the case of “trustworthy
people”, those with an above or far above average declared level of self-confidence
agreed significantly less with the statement (3.0 – 4.38) than those with a below average
self-confidence (4.3 – 4.58). In the case of “technologically developed country” above
and far above average self-confidence led to a more negative view (4.46 – 3.79) than
below average self-confidence (4.59 – 5.00).
This result only partially, only in some contexts confirms our assumption based on the
literature.

In the following, the reliability, internal consistency were addressed and the existence of
latent factors was studied using exploratory factor analysis. As it was seen beforehand,
the validity and reliability of applied scales haven’t been realized adequately, so there
was a need for repeating the test on a new sample again.

12
The method requires a normal distribution of the dependent variables and homogeneity of variance. As
beforehand, the present data does not fulfill the requirements of normality either, although in most cases
the homogeneity of variance stands, wherefore we will not reject the results of the measure as our F-test
result is fairly robust, and, according to the literature, “not meeting one or the other condition does not
have a significant influence on the probability of a type I or type II error and therefore does not impair the
validity of a conclusion.” (Sajtos – Mitev, 2007, p. 167.)
117
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

As it was similarly conducted before, principal component analysis and VARIMAX

rotation were chosen for the present study and correlations between the studied
variables were studied using KMO test. The “eigenvalue greater than 1” criterion was
chosen for factor formation.
MSA values in the anti-image matrix were between 0.52 and 0.789 (save one item
[0.404], that we subsequently excluded from the analysis). KMO was acceptable (0.708)
and the total variance explained by factors was 62.4%.

Results support a 4-factor solution (Table 23).13

The first factor “description of the country” (total variance explained: 28%) mainly
contains statements related to performance and international notoriety.
The second factor, “description of people” has a total variance explained of 12%. It is
interesting to note that the “ideal country” variable equally belongs to this factor
describing the people of a country instead of belonging to the factor defining the
country itself. This would imply that for respondents, a country is ideal if people living
in the given country are likeable, trustworthy, diligent and highly qualified and not
when the country itself is rich or politically stable or technologically advanced.
The third factor “relationship with the country” (total variance explained: 9.6%)
includes statements concerning the country’s receptiveness of imports and foreign
investments.
The last factor was dubbed “similarity with the country” as it also contains the
statements “similar to my homeland” and “close relations”. This factor has a total
variance explained of 8%.

Table 23.
Factors unveiled in the English-language sample, based on the Papadopoulos scale
Item factor 1 factor 2 factor 3 factor 4
Rich country ,847
Politically stable country ,759
Admirable role in the world of politics ,684
Technologically advanced country ,654
Trustworthy people - ,748
Likeable people - ,674
Hard working people - ,568
Highly educated people ,533
Ideal country * ,486
I would welcome more imports from the country ,774
I would welcome more investments from the country ,761
Aligned with my own country ,789
People have a refined taste for the beautiful things in life ,505
My country should have closer ties with the country *,493
Source: own elaboration, 2010

13
Although values marked with a „*” did not reach the minimal 0.5 factor loading, as they are very close
to it and considering the potential loss of information if excluded, we considered it worthwhile to keep
them within the analysis.
118
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Based on the arrangement and content of the above factors one can state that the
statements sharply outline the different topics of country evaluation, the evaluation of a
country’s inhabitants and the perceived similarity with a country, that equally are
accepted and emphasized fields of study within the literature of country image (see
Chapter 3.1.)

To test the reliability of the scale and its usablilty in the final research phase the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was computed. ). The scale’s Cronbach's alpha index was
0.516, and therefore turned out to be unreliable in the case of our sample of foreign
students.

In conclusion, it can be stated that the second enquiry, in English, did confirm in many
points the results of the first, Hungarian-language test of the Papadopoulos (1990,
1993) scale. In some cases, however, it indicates the necessity for further inclusion of
elements, relationships and further testing.

7.4.4. Test of the Gallup country image scale

The following test of the so-called Gallup (2000) scale was conducted in a way identical
to the preceding Hungarian query. The scale measures the evaluation of a given country
(internal image) with a 24-item 4-point scale (“strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “agree”,
“strongly agree”). Table 24 presents the evaluation by respondents of each item related
to Hungary.

Table 24.
The evaluation of Hungary and its inhabitants among foreign respondents,
measured on a 4-point scale
ITEM N AVG (STDEV)
Succesful country 105 2,10 (0,63)
Talented country 106 2,63 (0,71)
Country of decent and honest people 104 2,56 (0,72)
Civilized country 105 2,63 (0,68)
The country of social justice 105 2,37 (0,69)
The country of personal freedom 103 2,89 (0,70)
A country with a bright past and great history 104 3,04 (0,83)
A country that suffered a lot 100 3,12 (0,71)
Law-abiding country 103 2,33 (0,67)
The country of open-minded people 102 2,30 (0,56)
Grumpy, pessimistic country 102 2,84 (0,86)
Diligent country 103 2,44 (0,79)
The country of solidary people caring for each other 104 2,56 (0,71)
Country with great sport performances 104 2,27 (0,75)
Country with great scientific achievements 103 2,54 (0,72)
Country with an important culture 104 3,19 (0,67)
Country of good economic achievements 104 2,07 (0,66)
Democratic country 104 2,70 (0,65)

119
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

An orderly, clean country 105 2,47 (0,86)

Rich in nice landscapes 103 3,22 (0,76)
Happy, cheerful country 103 2,35 (0,80)
Developed country 105 2,41 (0,60)
Rapidly developing country 105 2,32 (0,67)
The country with bright future 105 2,61 (0,70)
Source: own elaboration, 2010

Table 24 shows that respondents rather agree wit the following statements (in grey in
the table): “a country with a bright past and great history”, “a country that suffered a
lot”, “a country with an important culture”, “a country with many natural endowments”.
These statements entirely confirm the results of the previously presented open-ended
questions. The remaining statements were judged “not typical” or “entirely not typical”
for Hungary by the respondents. One can also observe that foreign respondents
estimated far fewer statements as being characteristic of Hungary than Hungarian
respondents.

Once again, we proceeded to a study of the relationships related to demographic

attributes using analysis of variance the results of which are as follows:
Male respondents gave a significantly more positive evaluation to the following items:
“Rapidly developing country” (2.53 – 2.18); “Orderly, clean country” (2.7 – 2.3). The
influence of gender on the evaluation of country image was again verified.

No significant differences were found in relation to respondents’ level of income when

compared to their domestic average. On the contrary, when comparing it to the
Hungarian average, a significant relationship was found with two statements.
Respondents’ agreement with the statement “the country of social justice” decreases
with their growing perceived level of income (3.0 – 2.8 – 2.45 – 2.37 – 1.81).
Their agreement with “country of solidary people” fluctuates with the declared level of
income (4.0 – 2.5 – 2.45 – 2.63 – 2.63). These results confirm that, under certain
conditions, declared income does have an influence on the evaluation of a country.

Self-confidence was once again measured on a 5-point scale 14 and three significant
relationships have been found. In the case of two statements, agreement with the
statement grows (almost constantly) parallel with self-esteem: “Decmocratic country”
(2.08 – 2.73 – 2.83 – 2.91); “Country with a bright future” (2.33 – 2.49 – 2.76 – 3.09).
In one case it fluctuates with the declared level of self-esteem: “Depressed, pessimistic
country” (2.75 – 2:92 – 2.55 – 3.36). This confirms the hypothesis according to which
declared self-esteem influences the evaluation of a country.

After studying data suitability, we proceeded to structural analyses.

14
No respondent declared being in the lowest category of self-esteem. This item therefore only provides 4
answers.
120
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

During a first factor analysis, 9 factors were generated with a KMO score of 0.566 and a
total variance explained of 67.4% (24 variables). After excluding two variables (those
with MSA values lower than 0.5), a 6-factor solution was reached with a total variance
explained of 62.3% (KMO: 0.666; 17 variables). After excluding two further variables
(those with factor loadings inferior to 0.5), a 5-factor solution was retained, with a
KMO score of 0.676 and a total explained variance of 62.1% (15 variables). After
excluding two further variables, we reached a 4-factor solution (KMO: 0.695; 13
variables, variance explained: 57.9%). (see table 25)

The first factor, dubbed “describing people” includes variables related to sincerity,
honesty, talent, diligence and hard work (total variance explained: 24.75%).
The second factor, “describing the country” includes variables related to education,
promising future, success and development level (total variance explained: 14.4%).
The third factor, “describing democracy” includes variables related to personal freedom
and social justice. The factor accounts for 10% of the total variance.
The last factor dubbed “describing performance” contains the variables related to
economic performance, solidarity and sports achievements (variance explained: 8.7%).

Table 25.
Factors unveiled in the English-language sample, based on the Gallup scale
ITEM factor 1 factor 2 factor 3 factor 4
Country of decent and honest people ,775
Diligent country ,760
Talented country ,682
Civilized country ,716
The country with a bright future ,618
Succesful country ,541
Developed country ,502
The country of personal freedom ,840
The country of social justice ,724
Country with great sport performances ,727
The country of solidary people caring for each other ,654
Country of good economic achievements ,549
Source: own elaboration, 2010

The total variance explained by the factors is 52.6%. Each factor can be put in parallel
with the country image dimensions known from the literature: among others, the
separate evaluation of people and the country equally appears in this case.

In the following, we proceeded to the examining of the reliability of the scale: the
scale’s Cronbach's alpha index was 0.699 and it can therefore be considered only just
reliable.
The reliabilities of each individual factor were:
Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 1: 0.537

121
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 2: 0.619

Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 3: 0.632
Cronbach-alpha coefficient of Factor 4: 0.453

According to the above results, the reliability for the factors unveiled is moderate and
for the 4th factor is unacceptable. The results also reflect the necessity of the
development of scales.

7.5. Conclusions and limitations of the first quantitative research

phase

The tests of scales and the subsequent structural analyses provided a number of
interesting and informative results that contributed to further refining our earlier
hypotheses. At the same time, this piece of research also has several limitations which
are to be presented in the following section.

7.5.1. Scale evaluation

Based on the fact that our results confirm the main findings in the literature, the used
scales can be considered to be reliable and stable (for comparison with previous
research, see e.g. Malota, 2001). However several properties have to be considered as
limitations of the given measurement tools.
To test the reliability and usability of the scale in the final research, we used a test of
internal consistency based on Chronbach’s alpha indicator (the recommended minimal
value of the indicator is either 0.6 [Malhotra, 2002] or 0.7 [Nunally, 1978; Hair et.al.,
2010]).
The test of the scales led to the following results (Table 26):

Table 26.
Test of reliability of the used scales (Cronbach’s alpha indicators)
Scale Hungarian sample (N=399) Foreign sample (N=106)
Papadopoulos-scale 0.61 0.516
Gallup-scale 0.791 0.699
Source: own elaboration, 2011

Results show that the scales are not completely reliable in the two samples and their
use would therefore compromise the validity of the final study. It means that in
order to ensure good results of research there is necessity for developing the existing
scales and models for the final doctoral research.
The first limitation is that of a certain lack of validity: neither the Papadopoulos, nor the
Gallup scales were able to measure the complete range of dimensions generally
available in the literature. This might lead to diminishing content validity.
122
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

In addition in can be stated that the Papadopoulos scale contains too few items to be
able to provide ground for further structural analysis. Scales generally accepted as
suitable for structural analysis contain 20 to 30 items (see e.g. Martin – Eroglu, 1993;
Lala – Allred – Chakraborty, 2007).
Our goal with open-ended question was to unveil respondents’ free associations. (see
Table 27) The categorization of these elements led to identifying to main building
blocks, dimensions of country image. Results verify that the dimensions identified in the
literature are relevant and identifiable (and spontaneously present among the answers by
respondents) and therefore their use and inclusion within a scale can be justified for
the final study.

Table 27.
Country image dimensions unveiled using open-ended questions
Hungarian sample (N=399) Foreign sample (N=106)
Natural endowments Natural endowments; natural beauty
Feelings, emotions Capital city
Culture Economy
Economy Geographical attributes
Politics Culture
Public safety People
Feelings, emotions
Source: own elaboration, 2011

We proceeded to a validation of international scales in order to include and render

dimensions and indicators to latent variables in our planned structural model from a
suitable scale. Known and tested scales do not, however, study all the dimensions that
occur with free associations and that may be mentioned in the literature on the subject.
Table 28 gives a summary of the latent factors unveiled during our research.

Table 28
Latent variables unveiled by the exploratory factor analysis
Scale Hungarian sample (N=399) Foreign sample (N=106)
Papadopoulos-scale Description of people Description of the country
Description of the country Description of people
Describing success Relationships wih the country
Similarity with the country
Gallup-scale Success Description of people
Performance Description of the country
Democracy Democracy
Human relations Performance
History
Source: own elaboration, 2011

As it was seen beforehand, both the Papadopoulos (1990, 1993) and the Gallup (2000)
have limitations according to validity approaches. For this might lead to compromising
overall content validity, their usability within the structural model is questionable.

123
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

According to the above mentioned one can state, that the mental picture of consumers
built up by individual dimensions and nodes of dimensions at the same time. It means,
that dimensions can connect to each other building and influencing the reputation of an
object togehter. It can bring a new perspective to the future development of researches.

As a conclusion we can declare that the scales need to be developed and commonly
applied in the final research according to their lack of proper validity and
reliability.
Another important limitation of the research stems from the sample characteristics. In
particular, the scales were tested on a highly homogeneous sample of students and
therefore they remain to be tested, after further refinements, on a representative sample.
Demographic disparities showed significant differences even in the case of the student
sample – a representative national sample would likely prove the related hypotheses.
An additional constraint is given by the purely Hungarian sample in the first case: the
special nature of the topic would require to use international comparison to design an
internationally valied measurement model and scale. This leads to additional content
limitations and this is equally a line for further research.
The sample of international students in the second research can also account for a
limitation as the country image scale was originally designed to evaluate the internal
image of countries (even though, the original Gallup study equally included foreigners
as respondents). Therefore the results obtained can only be interpreted under certain
limitations.
The aim of using corresponding scales on both samples was to ensure the possibility of
relevant comparison and generalization of results.

7.5.2. Unveiling the potential moderating factors

There is ample mention in the literature as to the effect of certain demographic variables
on the evaluation of countries. The study of these potential moderating factors was
equally carried out during the second quantitative research. The results are shown
below, in Table 29.

Table 29.
Moderating effects unveiled during the research
Scale Variable Moderating effect Moderating effect
(Hungarian sample, (Foreign sample,
N=399) N=106)
Gender yes yes
Have lived abroad no -
Papadopoulos-scale
Income situation yes partly
Self-confidence yes yes
Gender yes yes
Have lived abroad no -
Gallup-scale
Income situation yes partly
Self-confidence yes yes
Source: own elaboration, 2011

124
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Results show that gender and self-confidence in every case, and income situation partly,
in given contexts do influence the evaluation of countries. According to the results, the
fact whether a respondent had already lived abroad for a longer period of time does not
significantly affect country image.
As a result, it might be worthwhile to test the effect of gender, self-confidence and
income situation in the doctoral research.

7.5.3. General evaluation of the structural model

The structural pre-test of data equally brought useful results in many aspects.
Concerning its reliability and validity, the model proved out to be appropriate, and its
contents demonstrate close similarities to the approaches already known from literature.
Significance was measured using the bootstrapping procedure, while the
multicollinearity of manifest variables was tested by the VIF-method.
A typical characteristic of so-called formative models is that non-significant elements
must not be removed from the model, not even after having tested the significance of
the indicators. The reason is that their abandonment might threaten the balance of the
entire model (Diamantopolous – Winklhofer, 2001). Thus it can be only noted that even
though the aforementioned indicators seemed to fit the model during the primary
analysis, they turned out to be inappropriate during the final, general testing of the
model.

The model – besides its limited appropriateness – also demonstrated a number of

weaknesses. The first and most important weakness originates in the characteristics of
the scale employed in data collection. The so-called „Gallup-scale” (Country image
scale developed by Gallup Institute), has primarily been used in internal country image
surveys before, and as a consequence it lacks several items and topics which might be
of importance to general country image surveys (and especially external country image
surveys). Such an item or dimension might be e.g. „tourism”, considered to be a
determining factor of country image in literature. Similarly, factors related to
investments and political atmosphere might be important. The need for the inclusion
of these factors in the analysis and for the development of a scale appropriate for
general image measurement might provide a solid foundation for future research
lines.

The sensitivity of the model (i.e. that poorly fitting items cannot be omitted from the
model) coming from its formative nature can be considered as a further weakness. This
greatly makes it difficult to interpret the structure and does compromise, to some extent,
its validity as well. This weakness can be eliminated in the future by a pre-test of the
final model and by including suitable variables. In addition, the reflective testing (i.e.
designing the model with variables enabling the measurement of reflective relationships

125
7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

and that are only partly based on formative relationships) of formative structures is a
common position adopted by the literature.
All this, however, led to a number of several useful conclusions, which were the
following:
i. the number and contents of scale items affect the existence and effect of
underlying dimensions, for this the appropriate choice and the development
of scale is crucial
ii. dimensions in most cases fit the model, their effect, however, is not always
significant, which implies that a comprehensive model can be formulated
from the wider array of available dimensions which would be perfectly
adaptable to different countries, while the various dimensions would vary
in weight and relevance among the influencing factors,
iii. dimensions do not arrange into the previously hypothesized structure and some
factors are assigned to a different latent variable – to test these connections the
structural modeling methods can be appropriate in the doctoral research.

7.6. Including the results of the first quantitative research phase

into the model

The exploratory research in some cases modified our prior assumptions and drew our
attention to a number of new relationships.
i. We gained a new vision as for the dimensions of country image. Country
image – according to our prior assumption – was made up of a given number
and structure of dimensions. Our research however shows that these factors do
not equally and unilaterally affect the evaluation of a nation, while their
structural ordering is equally incidental and in no way constant.
ii. Research equally showed that beyond dimensions other factors (e.g. gender,
self-confidence, socioeconomic status) also do have a statistically significant
influence of people’s evaluation of a country. These factors can be divided into
2 groups: individual attributes and country attributes. Of these, individual
attributes were examined more in detail. The study of country-specific factors
can further be tested using a procedure during which a respondent has to
evaluate two countries simultaneously. This enables the researcher to infer on
the effects of perceived distance and perceived size of countries. This is a widely
accepted approach in the literature for studying such relationships
iii. The validity and reliability of country image scales has a considerable influence
on the possibility of exploring the underlying dimensions and measuring country
image equity. In the doctoral research different validated scales have to be
combined, and commonly applied for ensuring the reliability and validity of the
constructs and measurements.

126
 7. THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

iv. A so-called formative model is suitable for exploring the relationship

between country image and its components and their impact on each other.
This model also provides an opportunity to form a so-called “country equity”
attribute and to the related relationships to be studied.

Based on the above and the review of the latest literature on the topic the initial
theoretical model underwent a considerable modification procedure. The resulting
enhanced model is shown below.

Figure 15.
The enhanced theoretical model after the first quantitative research phase

Dimension 1

Dimension 2
Country Image
Dimension 3

Dimension ...

Country Individual
attributes attributes

Source: own elaboration, 2011

127
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

8.1. Exploratory study – Examining country brand and country

equity concepts and test of the country brand scale

Following the first exploratory research phase which focused on the dimensions and
influencing factors of country image and before the final research phase we included an
intermediary qualitative then another quantitative phase. These were aimed to better
understand the related mechanisms of action and to include a study focused mainly on
the concept of country brand, based on the prior literature review (among others, on the
country equity models by Pappu – Quester – Cooksey 2006, 2007 and Roth –
Diamatopoulos – Montesinos, 2008). The study of the conative element of the attitude-
based approach seemed particularly important in our research process, for instance, to
indentify a potential output variable, that is, to understand the behavioral influence of
country image.

We based our designing and conducting the qualitative research phases on Patton’s
(1990) approach, according to which qualitative research methodology allows for a
flexible research design and for a gathering of in-depth personal views, insights. A
further advantage of qualitative methods is offering a holistic perspective, that is, they
contribute to the understanding of a complex phenomenon as a whole, treating it as a
complex system. This latter is particularly valuable in a mixed-method research design.
(Zenker, 2011)

The quantitative phase following the qualitative one was introduced into our global
research design to quantitatively test the concept of brand equity, reveal its structure
and to select, adapt and test a suitable measurement scale. In connection with the
concept of brand equity, this research phase equally examined the dimensions of
country brand equity and the relationship thereof along which they can be studied. The
main aim of this phase was to explore the elements of a potential Country Equity Model
(CEM).

This second research phase brought up several results to be included in the final
research model and affected the choice and implementation of the final research
methodology as well as the hypotheses. The areas involved in this research phases are
shown in Figure 16.

128
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

Figure 16.
Areas studied in the second research phase
Qualitative research
Quantitative research

Source: own elaboration, 2012

8.2. The qualitative part of the second research phase

8.2.1. Focus groups: methodology and sample attributes

There are many examples of focus group studies among papers on country image (see
previous chapters). Many of these are about better understanding consumer behavior
related to countries, destinations and products thereof and about unveiling the
relationship between country evaluation and the related decision making. This is
justified by the general view in the literature that the advantage of focus groups is to
make participants encourage other participants to express themselves through the
manifestation of their own views. At the same time, several points of view can be
displayed and conflicted during a discussion. A better understanding on the topic can be
reached and the dynamics of the discussion can be initiated by the personal experience
or feelings of a participant, encouraging others to share their own experience or point of
view (Babbie, 2003; Malhotra – Simon, 2008; Gyulavári et.al., 2012).
In the present case, the focus group interviews were aimed to study the potentially
unrevealed dimensions and influencing factors of country image. At the same time, we
endeavored to consider and include consumer evaluation methods of given countries
revealed during the discussions. Another, indirect goal was to test and further refine
our prior assumptions and subsequent research hypotheses.
During the interviews we made an attempt to address the issue of evaluation situations a
consumer might face and therefore to markedly put an emphasis (following the attitude-
based approach) on studying the conative elements of the unveiled relationships.
The topics explored were as follows (for the filter questionnaire and a detailed
discussion guide, see Appendix 2):
129
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

i. Studying the dimensions of country image: In what manners is a country evaluated:

mainly through stereotypes, along information taught in school, or maybe following
the latest news or information coming from friends? That is: what a country image
is constituted of, what is the evaluation of a country constituted of: knowledge,
feelings, etc.? How can one group these elements? Are there any decisive factors?
ii. Mapping associations, perceptions: What other factors influence the evaluation of a
given country? E.g.: how far it is, how important is its role in international politics,
how big it is, etc.
iii. Unveiling overall vs situation-specific factors: When, in what kinds of situations
one has to evaluate a given country?
iv. Mapping behavioral output, factors influencing decisions: How does the weighting
of evaluation criteria change along different decision situations? To what extend
does this influence the behavior, how much influence does this have on decisions?
v. The aspects of destination choice, product purchase, choice of place of residence:
To what extend does a country’s image provide value for consumers? How does
this value manifest itself in travel destination choice, product purchases, investment
decisions, etc.?
vi. Testing the construct of country brand, unveiling its dimensions: Can a country be
considered a brand? Are country awareness, country loyalty, country associations,
etc. part of a relevant approach? Does a country brand provide value for
consumers?

Participants were full-time, Hungarian students of CUB (see Appendix 2 for the main
proprieties of the focus groups).
Having a sample of students in an exploratory study of country image is not an unusual
procedure (see e.g. Osgood et.al., 1975; Malhotra, 1981; Martin – Eroglu, 1993). The
student interviews seemed to be practical both in terms of the purpose and topic of the
research, therefore we recruited three groups of students to participate in focus group
interviews.
The three focus group interviews were conducted in September and October 2009
within the CUB, in the meeting room of the Institute of Marketing and Media.
Participants were divided into three groups of different composition along their
responses to the filter questionnaire. The first group included those that had been
abroad in the past year although had never lived abroad for an extended period of time
(more than 3 months). The second group included those that neither had been abroad
the preceding year nor ever lived abroad. The last group included those respondents
who had already lived abroad for an extended period of time. Because of the
exploratory nature of the research, no further demographic filter was used for the
present study.
The interviews were moderated by the author of the present dissertation, and notes were
taken to complete the recorded interviews. Interviews lasted between 65 and 80
minutes.
130
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

The main proprieties of the focus groups are summarized in Table 30 below.

Table 30.
Main proprieties of the focus groups
No. Date Location Sample Participants Filter 1 (has Filter 2 (has
size been abroad) lived abroad)
1 Sep. 28. 2009 CUB, room E311 5 4 female, 1 male yes no

2 Oct. 05. 2009 CUB, room E311 6 4 female, 2 male no no

3 Oct. 05. 2009 CUB, room E311 5 3 female, 2 male yes yes
Source: own elaboration, 2012

8.2.2. Results of the focus groups

The interviews are presented along the main blocs of questions and theoretical phases
addressed. Other potentially surfaced topics are equally presented in a structured
manner. The potentially differing opinions on a question within the different groups are
emphasized. Those topics where there was no significant difference between the groups
are presented as a summary. A citation is always followed by the participant’s first
name and the number of the focus group interview they participated in (i.e. 1 – has been
abroad / has not lived abroad; 2 – has neither been nor lived abroad; 3 – has lived
abroad)

8.2.2.1. Exploring and studying the dimensions of country image

The discussions on the influencing factors, dimensions of country image led to different
results in the different groups, even though there are a few common points.
The political state of the country, its culture (and mostly gastronomy), its climate, and
economic conditions all turned out to be influencing factors when evaluating a country.
That is, the dimensions from the literature and the previous exploratory studies are once
again confirmed to be building blocks of the evaluation of a country. Climate and public
safety seem to have an influence during destination choice, while the overall
political/economic situation of a country seem to play a significant role during the
evaluation of news from the media.
“ I love eating good food when abroad.” (Edina,1)
“WhenI passed 6 months abroad on an Erasmus program, it did matter how much the sun shines
there.”(Éva,3)
“Wherever I travel, I’d rather not visit in the rain.” (Ildikó,1)
“After some time I started to think something else about that country, because I kept hearing from
the media that their economy is going bankrupt” (Péter,2)

131
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

All three discussions pointed out that a several dimensions largely influence the
evaluation of countries. The weight and relevance thereof is, however, different and
differences between groups emerge.
“I don’t care about the economy of a country. I only go there for the sunshine.” (Áron,3)
“Usually I only look up the weather forecast or the climate prior to going there.” (Tímea,1)
“When travelling, it is always a plus if the country has an interesting culture – to have many
things to see.” (Péter,2)
“When applying for my Erasmus, I did not care for the history of the country, the level of the
education I’d receive there was more important.” (Éva,3)

In all three groups the evaluation of people, of the inhabitants of the country turned out
to be a crucial factor. This can also be put in parallel with literature stating that the
evaluation of people and countries are two aspects of the topic that can be separately
evaluated.
“I’d never move to a country where people are not nice.” (Sára,2)
“My problem with France was that people are not nice to foreigners.” (Tímea,1)
“It was important during my stay there that people were accommodating… I even got some friends
there. ” (Éva,3)
“It does count for everyone how they are received at a place… people are indeed an important
element.” (Peti,1)
“I might have liked the country, but if people are not nice, I won’t go back there.” (Áron,3)

We must point out that those having lived abroad did not believe that the general factors
affecting the evaluation of a country were that important. This group, however, deemed
the standards of living, the level of education, climate and distance from the home
country more important.
“I did choose it because it’s closer, you have to travel less to get there. If I only went there once,
this wouldn’t have counted.” (Karcsi,3)
“To tell the truth, the cost of my semester abroad, the standards of living of the country were
indeed decisive factors within our family.” (Áron,3)
“I deliberately chose another English-speaking country because I didn’t want to spend half a year
in a cold country.” (Éva,3)

Stereotypes for most countries are strongly present when forming opinions about a
country, this, however, does not seem to influence considerably the overall evaluation
of the country, neither the choice to travel there. We already found references to
stereotypes when designing our theoretical model.
“Yes, French people are just as much snobs as people say. But you just have to watch Paris – I so
much longed to go there.” (Éva,3)
“People said that Arabs like blondes and that I take care in the streets (…) We had a nice time
and I’d be happy to go back, just as my girlfriends.” (Kati,1)

132
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

“Italians are a loud people, that’s true. (…) No, it never came to my mind not to go there because
of this.” (Edina,1)
“French people are extremely snobbish, everyone tells you that – they don’t answer you if you talk
to them in English. But I really like the country, and their culture… and a bit even that they are
snobs.” (Bogi,3)

In all cases, prior knowledge and experience played an important role when evaluating a
country, but an emotional factor was present in many cases in the formation of their
image. This is another sign of the possible validity of the attitude-focused aspect.
“I knew what the rules in the Arabic countries were, I read a lot about them – and because of
that, I enjoyed my stay there.” (Kati,1)
“I knew it might be dangerous, but I was so eager to go – I’m in love with that place.” (Edina,1)
“For example, we learned that punctuality was important (…)I tried to comply with this.
Otherwise, it’s true that’s a punctual country, I like that.” (Peti,1)
“Excuse me, but I don’t like French people – neither the country. But I’d still probably go to
Paris.” (Péter,2)

The interviews progressively revealed that even though participants had an overall
country image in their minds, which was made up of and shaped by a variety of factors,
these hardly have an important role in their everyday life. In most cases these appear
during destination choice or the purchase of a product. Therefore, all participants,
almost without exception, and in all three groups, mentioned examples related to these
to cases and followed this scheme in their reasoning. Country image, therefore, seems
indeed (in accordance with the literature) to have conative (i.e. output) attribute.
“It is true, that if I were rich, I’d only buy German cars, they are trustworthy. (…) Germany also
has a good economy.” (Péter,2)
“That’s the same with Japanese IT stuff, I hardly hear any negative things about them. (…) I’d
love to travel to Japan. I don’t know much about it, but they have good products.” (Dani,2)
“After all, it does not matter what I think of the US – I’d still be happy to go there, even to live or
to work.” (Karcsi,3)
“But this doesn’t matter after all. I mean, I don’t care what the French are like. If I need to buy a
French product, that’s something else… some things come to my mind, but they don’t really count,
I guess.” (Csilla,2)

The conversations show that overall country image and country image during
destination choice are evaluated in different ways by participants.
“Wait, that’s a thing that Romanians are thieves, and that they do their laundry on the side of the
road, still Transylvania is a beautiful place, and we love to travel there every summer.” (Peti,1)
“I’m very interested in Egypt, I read a lot about it, because I like to read about the pharaohs. But I
don’t go there because I’m afraid of the possible infections. That’s more important.” (Ági,2)

133
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

“The USA is a great and rich country, it also has a large political influence, but that doesn’t count
when travelling there, rather all the things you need to see – it’s interesting because it’s
multicultural, the food is good, and everything’s just in place there.” (Bogi,3)

8.2.2.2. Mapping of associations, perceptions

Associations of countries are very pronounced, they often melt with stereotypes, and are
also closely linked to knowledge, learned material from school.
This is a good example of the interwoven concepts in the theoretical background.
“People somehow learn all this in school, for example, the Turkish-Hungarian relations, and here
you are thinking differently about Turkey.” (Sára,2)
“In today’s world everyone knows many things about countries, and today you can travel cheap,
you can go to many places and can gather experiences.” (Kati,1)
“I don’t even know whether I first knew that French people were snobs, or that I experienced it the
first time I was there, with my first taxi and its driver.” (Éva,3)
“If they say ‘French’, I think elegant, sophisticated. The same for France.” (Csilla,2)

The second category that emerges markedly during perception and opinion sharing is
that of emotions. Emotions are as much related to the overall country image as to
destination choice, even though there is a difference among emotions: overall country
image are shaped (often for historical reasons) by general feelings, beliefs, stereotypes,
while in the case of destination choice, own experience with the destination, a personal
and emotional connection to it, or friends’ recommendations stand out. The importance
of emotions is another sign of the validity of the attitude-based aspect.
“For some reason, we somewhat like Polish people – because, see, the Polish-Hungarian
Friendship, but actually, I don’t know anything more about them. (…) Polish country image is
positive.” (Sára,2)
“Germans will always remain somewhat negative in our eyes. But there’s no problem with
Germany. I enjoyed being in Berlin, it was nice. Oh, and my friends also kept telling me to go
there.” (Peti,1)
“It’s always good to go back to Greece. I really like it, people are nice, the sun is shining, (…)
Generally, Greece is different: people are lazy and corrupt.” (Tímea,1)
“I had been there before, and it’s always as good. But it is interesting that I have a fairly different
view of the country itself – and not always positive.” (Ildikó,1)

There seemed to be a slighter difference between those having lived abroad and those
that haven’t in the case of perceptions and associations, and this supports the earlier
assumption, based on the literature. Those having lived abroad, evaluated a country’s
image along different factors, and these factors had different weights. These groups
were less strict and coherent in their opinions, and these factors reappeared when
examining the influence thereof on their decisions. In this group, the most decisive
factor turned out to be knowledge, and second, personal experience. In addition (though
134
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

this was not the subject of the research), these people also evaluated their own country
more positively than those not having lived abroad.
“People that have already been abroad know that a country is very much different from what they
imagined beforehand.” (Erika,3)
“The things you know before help you and give you a feeling of security. Although everything’s so
new. And in the end, nothing is as you’ve imagined. Well, it is, but is a lot more complex.” (Éva,3)
“Everyone says that Americans are superficial and dumb. I’ve been there, but I never had time to
get to know them, so I wouldn’t give an opinion here.” (Karcsi,3)
“Since I’ve lived abroad, I also see Hungary from a different perspective.” (Bogi,3)
“I wouldn’t formulate a prior opinion, I’d rather try it out. For example, the fact that someone
didn’t like it, or the media say something, I’d still like to travel there.” (Áron,3)
“Even one trip is enough to change everything you think of your own country. I, for example, have
seen such a poverty, now I don’t complain about anything. It was good to come back home,
Hungary is good.” (Éva,3)

8.2.2.3. Exploring general vs. situation-specific factors

As mentioned briefly before, the evaluation of a country comes into scope mainly
during destination choice. Country image might also have a role during the
interpretation of pieces of news from the media, choice of residence, or the choice of the
future place of education.
“Newer pieces of news tend to influence my opinion, let’s say some war or political news.”
(Peti,1)
“If I were to go to work abroad and I had to live there, I’d like to go to a place with a positive
image. If it’s negative, I’d rather not even accept the job.” (Kata,2)
“The important is that I have a positive image of the country, I base my decision on this. I chose
the school accordingly.” (Bogi,3)
“Australia is appealing to everyone, many people go settle there. If I’m right, its country image is
one of the best.” (Csilla,2)

Another area surfaced during the focus groups where country image might have an
effect: the evaluation of people coming from a different culture or country. In this case,
the effect is mainly that of a reinforcement: respondents seem to use the country image
in their heads to legitimize or interpret unknown elements. This reinforces the assumed
possibility of contextual evaluation of the effect mechanisms of country image, in
accordance with the literature.
“For example, if I met some French people, I won’t be surprised about their behavior. I knew in
advance what the French are like.” (Kata,2)
“I met a Swiss person who was reclusive. Somehow, in my mind Switzerland is also a pretty
isolated country.” (Kati,1)
“People in Italy can live. My Italian friends are like this, I learned a lot from them.” (Dani,2)

135
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

8.2.2.4. Mapping the behavioral output, factors affecting decisions

The interviews indicate that country image also plays a decisive role in several decision
making situations, even though this influence is not always conscious. The factors
shaping country image (as it has already been demonstrated) have a different impact on
decisions, depending on the situation.
“Now that we speak of it, it’s true, I chose that shoe the other time because it was Italian.”
(Sára,2)
“When choosing the university, it was important what language they speak there and how far it is
located, and finally, whether I fancy that country. Yes, it was decided in the end because of the
country image.” (Erika,3)
“France has a positive image, because it’s romantic. (…) I also like the French-type cafés,
because they make me think of the country.” (Tímea,1)

8.2.2.5. Destination choice, product purchase, choice of place of residence

Decision-making situations where country image could play a role included in the
literature were addressed in detail during the conversations. A special emphasis was put
on destination choice, product choice and the choice of the place of residence.
Responses show that country image bears a value to respondents for it helps them
processing information and making decisions.
“Of course it helped me decide. If I knew nothing of the country, I’d have gone to read about it.
But I already had a picture in my head before.” (Bogi,3)
“We can say that this is a value for the consumer, yes, because of image you are surer in your
decision.” (Edina,1)
“When I think about it, I had presumptions on which I based my decision. For example, I think a
German car is already better than a Japanese one. This is because my image of the country – but
not just because of it.” (Karcsi,3)
“It’s like when rebuying a product or a brand: if you enjoyed yourself in a country, you go back,
don’t you? Even if you hear some things about it in the meantime, say some bad news, you still
evaluate it differently.” (Kati,1)

8.2.2.6. Testing the country brand construct and unveiling its dimensions

At the end of each focus group discussion, respondents were asked about country brand
approaches. All but one person agreed that country branding is a relevant methodology
and countries can be treated as brands. Most participants compared a country brand to a
corporate brand. They agreed on the fact that one can develop a loyalty towards a
country and they equally deemed relevant the concepts of country associations and
country awareness.

136
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

This area brought up a marked difference between the groups, with those having lived
abroad being able to identify more with the idea that a country could be a brand, than
the other two focus groups.
All three groups agreed on the fact that if a country’s evaluation is positive then country
brand could provide an added value to consumers. In case of a negative country image,
the relationship is more complex.
Examples of the reactions from the third group:
“Yes, I agree, after all it’s like branding. When we were out there, it turned out pretty fast which
country is sexy and which one is not. As if they bore a brand.” (Éva,3)
“When presenting myself,, I said that I was Hungarian, and there were people for whom this was
a positive thing, mostly those coming from smaller places, and there were those for whom this was
a negative thing. This was the same when I offered them something typically Hungarian, (…) I
think this was exactly like a brand.” (Bogi,3)
“I couldn’t tell if the Hungary brand is positive or negative. It’s rather negative, because they
believe that we are an underdeveloped country.” (Karcsi,3)

Those not having lived abroad could less identify with country branding and found the
concept more vague:
“Like Nike? I say to something that it’s Hungarian? Like the name? And I brand with that? A
product or the country itself? I don’t get it.” (Kati,1)
“O.K., I understand country loyalty. But for example, Aaker has several other dimensions. We can
all apply them to this? (…) If yes, then it surely can be a brand.” (Ági,2)
“I think it’s a bit far-fetched. For example how do you make a logo or a brand mark? (…) Oh,
right, you have the one with the heart shape… Well, it’s a brand than.” (Csilla,2)
“In practice, sure. They brand everything these days. And there will be theory for it in no long.
But at first, it seems a little strange. But after all, why not.” (Dani,2)

However, as can be seen from the above quotes, participants had no problem
conceptualizing the dimensions of country brands separately.

8.2.3. Conclusions of the focus-group interviews

As a conclusion to the focus group interviews, we can conclude that nearly all prior
assumptions from the literature were supported concerning the dimensions of
country image and the relationships between them. Thanks to the filter questions
used before the focus groups, markedly different opinions were brought up in some
cases.
The interviews clearly showed that the known and identifiable country image
dimensions seem to have a primordial effect on country evaluation, even though the
weighting and relevance of these can change along the different evaluation situation.
In addition, the factors that were revealed in the focus groups can be categorized, in
accordance with the literature, as affective or cognitive dimensions.
137
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

This also means that in view of the behavioral output, the attitude-based approach
seems a relevant one.
We could also see that feelings and emotions play a decisive role in the evaluation of
certain events or countries, again in accordance with the literature. Prior knowledge
seems also to influence country evaluation and it was also shown to be an important
factor of posterior evaluation.
The behavioral impact proved to be true in several areas. Beyond product choice, its
effect on destination evaluation was equally shown to be substantial. Destination choice
can cover both travel and educational purposes – the aforementioned effects were
shown to take place in both cases.
Country associations were shown to be largely constituted by stereotypes and prior
experience. This also supports the findings of prior studies. In addition, their role in the
decisions seem also to be apparent.

The study of country equity and country branding showed diversified results.
Those respondents having already lived abroad were more likely to accept and interpret
the concept while those not having lived abroad did have reservations as for the
relevance of the approach. However in all three groups the individual dimensions of
country brands (i.e. country awareness, country loyalty, etc.) were deemed acceptable.
This result can serve as a positive feedback on the subsequent applicability of the
concept.

According to our respondents, destination choice and destination evaluation as an

output factor are a field that affects country evaluation, although this effect (in its
direction and weight) did change with each focus group and discussed situation.
However, we can conclude that country size and distance can equally be influencing
factors of destination decisions.
The effect of individual characteristics on the above dimensions is another researched
area in the literature. Even though our filter questions when selecting focus group
participants did not include all the demographic variables mentioned in the literature
(e.g. declared level of self-confidence, level of income), the filter criterion used in the
present study (experience of living abroad) did seem to significantly influence the
responses. That is, it indirectly influenced the evaluation of countries and that of the
related areas within this study.
Overall, we can say that a number of constructs included in our previously
established theoretical model proved to be identifiable and practical elements of
consumer manifestations on country image. This can further reinforce the validity of
their integration into the final research model.

138
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

8.3. Quantitative part of the second research phase

8.3.1. Methodology of scale test and sample proprieties

Pappu, Quester and Cooksey’s study on the country-level (macro country image) and
product-level (micro country image) appearance of country image, and the connections
between the two was published in 2007. The following publication in 2010 by Pappu
and Quester, as an improvement of the latter, was on the topic of country equity. In this
study, the authors – recognizing a gap in the literature – dealt with designing and testing
a scale for country equity. In their understanding, country image is an element of
country equity, and the goal is “to adapt the concept of consumer-based brand equity to
develop a measure for the equity associated with a country” (Pappu – Quester, 2010, p.
282.). In their approach, country equity is a five-dimension construct, composed of the
following elements: (1) country awareness, (2) macro country image, (3) micro country
image, (4) perceived quality and (5) country loyalty (Pappu – Quester, 2010, p. 276.).
To design the scale, the authors adapted into their measurement tool a number of scales
from previous works, that already had been tested and validated.
Table 31 shows the characteristics of the scale.

Table 31.
Characteristics and sources of the Pappu-Quester (2010) scale variables
Variable Source No. of items, scale type
Nagashima (1970, 1977) Aaker (1991) Yoo – 4 item, 7-point Likert
Country awareness
Donthu (2001) Pappu – Quester (2006)
Martin – Eroglu (1993) 11 item, 7-point Likert
Macro country image /originally 7-point
semantic differential/
Nagashima (1970, 1977) Aaker (1991) Roth – 11 item, 7-point Likert
Micro country image Romeo (1992) Pappu et.al. (2007) /originally 7-point
semantic differential/
Perceived quality Aaker (1991) 5 item, 7-point Likert
Country loyalty Aaker (1991) Yoo – Donthu (2001) 4 item, 7-point Likert
Source: Pappu – Quester, 2010, p. 282.

To measure country awareness, four items stem from brand equity approaches (Aaker,
1991; Pappu – Quester, 2006; Yoo – Donthu, 2001) and the area of country-of-origin
image (Nagashima, 1970, 1977).
The 11-item macro country image construct is an adaptation of a scale originally
developed by Martin and Eroglu (1993).
Mircro country image is measured by 11 items, an adaptation of item by the following
authors: Roth – Romeo, 1992; Nagashima, 1970, 1977; Pappu et.al., 2007; Aaker, 1991.
The 5 items of perceived quality correspond to the corresponding items in Aaker’s
(1991) scale.
The four items of country loyalty are derived from Aaker- (1991) and Yoo – Donthu
(2001).

139
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

In their design of the country equity scale, all original scales were adapted as 7-point
Likert-scales. The scale altogether has 35 items. It was tested by the authors on an
Australian sample of 714 shopping mall visitors. The query included two different
product categories (television, automobile) and three countries (Japan, South Korea,
USA).
As mentioned beforehand, considering the lack of benchmarks in the literature, the
development of a new scale is an important milestone in the field of research. However,
the scale has not yet been tested on a Hungarian sample. It was assumed advisable to
first proceed to this step prior to the use of the scale as such in our final research. On the
other hand, the relations between the items are not clear – the authors haven’t published
the construct structure yet – therefore there was a need for a first test of them. (see
Figure 17)

Figure 17.
The items of the Pappu – Quester (2010) country equity construct

Source: Pappu – Quester (2010. p. 284.)

The scale test was conducted between Oct. 2010 and Jan. 2011 using a self-
administered, Hungarian-language query on an arbitrary sample involving full-time
students of CUB (N=390).15 (the questionnaire is available in Appendix 3)

The original scale was validated in a process of translation and back-translation.

Content validity was provided by testing the original items and supplementing them and
completing them with new items according to the literature. The specificity of the topic
and the ultimate research goal required the inclusion of a further variable into the
model, which would allow measuring country brand’s overall value. The variable was

15
Results published in Jenes, 2011.
140
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

measured by 4 items (general loyalty towards the country, popularity of the country
brand, its quality and perceived risk). The new variable was designed using the results
of the preceding research phases followed by a pilot query of 15 students of CUB in
their 3rd year of BA studies using a self-administered questionnaire and them
feedbacking on their responding experience. The questionnaire proved to be appropriate
to be filled out by a larger sample.

Taking into account on one hand the limitations of the query and the research objectives
(the study of country-of-origin effects not being at the focal point of the study) on the
other, the scale was simplified by excluding its elements on the automobile vs.
television product categories and replaced by a general evaluation of products.
Considering the particularities of Hungarian respondents, and based on prior studies, the
countries included in the study (Japan, South Korea, USA) were adapted to include the
more relevant Germany and China. The scales were extended to 11 points to be able to
map respondents’ differences of opinion more in detail and therefore offering an even
larger validity to the study. The choice of the aforementioned two countries was
justified by the “country size” criterion and the evaluation of the “attributes of the
touristic destination country”, following the possible moderating effects unveiled in the
previous research phases, leading to include two countries that are known to
respondents, even though relatively different from each other. According to literature
the common examination of 2 or more countries is an appropriate methodology for
country image researches. (Lala – Allred – Chakraborty, 2009)
Table 32. shows the final composition of the questionnaire.

Table 32.
Characteristics and sources of the variables used during the test of scales
Variable Source No. of items, scale type
Country awareness Pappu – Quester (2010) 3 item, 11-point Likert
Macro country Pappu – Quester (2010) 11 item, 11-point Likert
image
Micro country Pappu – Quester (2010) 11 item, 11-point Likert
image /modified for general product evaluation/
Pappu – Quester (2010) 5 item, 11-point Likert
Perceived quality
/modified for general product evaluation/
Pappu – Quester (2010) 4 item, 11-point Likert
Country loyalty
/modified for general product evaluation/
Country equity own elaboration (2010) 4 item, 11-point Likert
Source: own elaboration, 2011

We excluded from the country awareness variable the product focused items (see
above). Macro country image was included without modification, as it provides a
measure for overall country image and its dimensions.
141
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

While all the related items of the original scales were kept, the product-specific items of
micro country image, perceived quality and country loyalty were adapted to represent a
general evaluation of products.
We excluded from the perceived quality variable the product focused items (see above).
We also excluded from the country loyalty variable the product focused items (see
above). All of these element were adapted on a general product level.
Another, complex variable related to country equity was equally added to the
questionnaire. This variable is justified by the specificity of the research and the results
of the prior phases, according to which it was considered relevant to include a
consumer-oriented brand equity approach of country image theory (see our summary
on the results of the focus group interviews). Four items measure the variable (country
loyalty, popularity of country brand, its perceived quality and perceived risk).

The demographic panel of questions was adapted from the literature and, based on our
prior results and the literature, further moderating elements were included (e.g. the
study of the perceived level of income and self-confidence, beyond the basic variables
of gender or age). Participants were asked to estimate whether they were in an income
category well below, below, at, above or well above average. The perceived level of
self-confidence was equally measured on the same 5-point scale.
According to the above, the distribution by gender of the sample was: 60.5% female and
39.5% male, with an average age of 21.5 (most common value: 21). The average level
of the perceived standard of living (on a scale of 1 to 5) was 3.92 and the average level
of perceived self-confidence 3.29.
Data analysis was performed using SPSS 18.0 and Amos 18.0 software.

8.3.2. Results of the scale test

To test the reliability of the final scale of 38 items we used a test of internal consistency
based on Chronbach’s alpha indicator (the recommended minimal value of the indicator
is either 0.6 [Malhotra, 2002] or 0.7 [Nunally, 1978; Hair et.al., 2010]).
For both Germany and China, the value thereof was 0.919, which is a sign of a very
strong internal consistency.
In the following we proceeded to the study of the presence of possible latent factors and
a structural pre-test of the results using an exploratory factor analysis.
During the factor analyses (according to the methodology used in our previous research
phases and to assure a valid comparability of the results) we used a principal component
analysis with VARIMAX rotation. The correlations between the variables was tested
with the measure of the model’s KMO score. The “eigenvalue greater than 1” criterion
was chosen for factor formation,
Two separate factor analyses were conducted for Germany and for China.
The first analysis (Germany) returned a five-factor solution with a 0.925 KMO value
and an explained variance of 59.2% (38 variables).
142
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

After excluding three variables not complying with the different statistical requirements,
a five-factor solution was confirmed with an explained variance of 61.2% (35 variables)
and a KMO score of 0.922.
Following the factor analysis, the reliability of the scale was once again tested: the
Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.912 (35 variables) which is still sign of a very strong
internal consistency. Table 33 shows the compositions of the factors.
The 1st factor was dubbed “Perceived quality” and it is composed of items measuring
the evaluation of products originating from the given country. The 2nd factor, “Country
loyalty” includes the items from its original sources, as well as the newly included
country equity items. The 3rd factor “Macro country image” regroups statements related
to the overall evaluation of the country. The 4th factor, “Country awareness” includes
scale variables related to the knowledge of a country. The 5th factor, sticking out of the
line, was dubbed “Other attributes”

Table 33.
Factors unveiled for Germany using the Pappu-Quester-scale
factor factor factor factor factor
Item
1 2 3 4 5
Products made in Germany are reliable. .844
Products made in Germany are of very good quality. .806
Products made in Germany are of very consistent quality. .795
Products made in Germany are durable. .788
I trust Germany as a producer. .730
Products made in Germany have excellent features. .707
Products made in Germany are upmarket. .681
Products made in Germany are technically advanced. .676
Products made in Germany offer value for money .637
Germany is a producer of high quality products. .507
If Germany were a brand name, it would offer good
.504
quality.
If Germany were a brand name, it would be my favourite. .852
If Germany were a brand name, I would be loyal to it. .839
I consider myself loyal to buying products from Germany. .813
Germany as a producer would be my first choice. .735
If Germany were a brand name, I would pay more for it. .726
Germany as a producer would be my preferred choice. .672
Germany has high level of technological research. .701
Germany is a democratic country. .689
Germany has a free-market system. .683
Germany has a civilian non-military government. .658
Germany has a highly developed economy. .656
Germany has a welfare system. .521
Germany has a high level of industrialization. .509
I can recognize brand names from Germany. .808
Some characteristics of Germany come to mind quickly. .796
I have heard of Germany. .762
I will not buy products made in other countries, if I can buy
.692
the same product made in Germany.
Labor costs are high in Germany. .518
Source: own elaboration, 2011

143
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

The 1st factor was dubbed “Perceived quality” and it is composed of items measuring
the evaluation of products originating from the given country. The 2nd factor, “Country
loyalty” includes the items from its original sources, as well as the newly included
country equity items. The 3rd factor “Macro country image” regroups statements related
to the overall evaluation of the country. The 4th factor, “Country awareness” includes
scale variables related to the knowledge of a country. The 5th factor, sticking out of the
line, was dubbed “Other attributes”

A 7-factor solution was reached for the data concerning China, with a KMO score of
0.934 and a total variance explained of 64% (38 variables).
After excluding two outlier variables, a 6-factor solution was reached (36 variables;
KMO: 0.935; total variance explained: 62.6%).
Following the factor analysis, the reliability of the scale was once again tested: the
Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.92 (36 variables) which is still sign of a very strong
internal consistency. Table 34 shows the compositions of the factors.

The 1st factor was dubbed “Micro country image” with items on the evaluation of
products originating from the given country. The 2nd factor, “Country loyalty” once
again includes its original items and the new, country equity items. The 3rd, “Macro
country image” includes statements on the general evaluation of the country. The 4th
factor is actually an extension of “Macro country image”, that can be dubbed
“Performace”, with items on the country’s economic performance. The 5th factor once
again sticks out of line (“Other attributes”). The 6th factor, “Country awareness”
includes scale variables related to the knowledge of the country.

144
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

Table 34.
Factors unveiled for China using the Pappu-Quester-scale
factor factor factor factor factor factor
Item
1 2 3 4 5 6
Products made in China are of very good quality. .833
Products made in China are reliable. .818
Products made in China have quality workmanship. .814
Products made in China are dependable. .808
Products made in China are durable. .807
Products made in China are upmarket. .801
Products made in China have excellent features. .763
I trust China as a producer. .758
Products made in China are of very consistent quality. .746
Products made in China are high status .722
Products made in China expensive. .663
China is a producer of high quality products. .661
I would be proud to own products made in China. .654
If China were a brand name, it would offer good quality. .590
Products made in China are technically advanced. .556
Products made in China are innovative. .520
If China were a brand name, it would be my favourite. .850
If China were a brand name, I would be loyal to it. .843
China as a producer would be my first choice. .778
If China were a brand name, I would pay more for it. .690
I consider myself loyal to buying products from China. .653
China is a democratic country. .741
China has a welfare system. .699
China has a free-market system. .650
China offers its people high standard of living. .648
China has a civilian non-military government. .603
Labor costs are high in China. .595
People of China are highly literate. .591
China has a highly developed economy. .757
China has high level of technological research. .714
China has a high level of industrialization. .674
Products made in China offer value for money .738
I like China. .642
I can recognize brand names from China. .818
Some characteristics of China come to mind quickly. .722
Source: own elaboration, 2011

The presence of the original factor structure and the factor structure revealed during the
exploratory factor analysis were tested with a confirmatory factor analysis, using Amos
18.0 software. During our confirmatory factor analysis, all indicators of fit were
acceptable with all indicators included. At the same time, according to the modification
indices a certain number of changes were to be made to the model. Moreover, based on
factor loadings, the following changed ought to be made for a potentially better fit of
the model:
For Germany, the standardized factor loading of one variable did not reach the critical
value of 0.4 (Churchill, 1979) (country loyalty; factor loading: -.13).

145
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

For China, the standardized factor loading of four variables did not reach the critical
value of 0.4 (Churchill, 1979) (macro country image’s first [factor loading: .1], second
[.24], sixth [.3] and country loyalty’s first [-.13] indicators).
According to the above results, the data provided for China led to a less stable factor
structure and therefore the relevance of this country’s evaluation poses a number of
additional questions.
Figure 18. shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis.

Figure 18.
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis for Germany and China

Source: own elaboration, 2012

The reliabilities of the tested variables are shown in Table 35.

Table 35.
Cronbach’s alpha scores of the scale test
Country Original scale Final scale
Germany 0.919 /38 items/ 0.912 /35 items/
China 0.919 /38 items/ 0.92 /36 items/
Source: own elaboration, 2011

146
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

8.3.3. Results of the pilot questionnaire

Given that the main goal of this research phase was to test the usability of the
questionnaire, no further and deeper analysis is presented hereby of the pilot query and
the results presented here only focus on issues of adaptability. At the same time, in the
following chapter a number of fundamental results of the scale are equally to be
presented.
Table 36 gives a summary of the scale test’s results. Averages for each item show that
there is a considerable difference between the evaluation of the two countries. It can
also be seen that the parallel evaluation of two countries by respondents is an adequate
tool for comparing countries.
The standard deviation values also draw attention to the fact that respondents tend to
respond in extremes for each country, which reflects on the difficulty in a questionnaire
for the respondent to use an 11-point scale.
It can generally be deduced however that Germany bears a better evaluation by our
respondents than China.

Table 36.
Results of the scale test
Germany China
Item N
Avg. Stdev. Avg. Stdev.
I have heard of Country X. 10.77 1.103 10.76 1.012 387
I can recognize brand names from Country X. 10.38 1.565 7.82 3.478 390
Some characteristics of Country X come to mind quickly. 10.22 1.422 9.82 1.792 390
Country X has a high level of industrialization. 9.80 1.449 9.19 1.886 390
Country X has a highly developed economy. 10.14 1.206 8.76 2.108 390
People of Country X are highly literate. 8.94 1.752 6.17 2.347 390
Country X has a free-market system. 9.49 1.669 5.85 2.711 390
Country X is a democratic country. 9.90 1.438 3.51 2.687 390
Country X has high level of technological research. 9.61 1.497 8.46 2.415 390
Country X is a producer of high quality products. 9.92 1.322 5.04 2.44 390
Country X offers its people high standard of living. 9.63 1.444 4.04 2.208 387
Labor costs are high in country X. 8.53 1.871 4.08 2.363 390
Country X has a welfare system. 9.21 1.814 4.37 2.37 390
Country X has a civilian non-military government. 9.73 1.833 4.33 2.753 390
Products made in Country X have quality workmanship. 9.56 1.441 4.76 2.328 390
Products made in Country X are innovative. 8.85 1.708 7.01 2.725 390
Products made in Country X are reliable. 9.66 1.350 4.82 2.281 390
I would be proud to own products made in Country X. 8.05 2.525 4.04 2.383 390
Products made in Country X are high status 9.19 1.685 3.72 2.308 390
Products made in Country X expensive. 8.79 1.712 3.79 2.186 390
Products made in Country X are upmarket. 8.72 1.667 4.15 2.145 387
Products made in Country X are technically advanced 9.27 1.403 6.88 2.483 390
I trust Country X as a producer. 9.43 1.635 4.83 2.38 390
I like Country X. 8.32 2.460 5.81 2.673 390
Products made in Country X offer value for money. 8.20 1.753 6.73 2.417 390
Products made in Country X are of very good quality. 9.15 1.446 4.86 2.158 390
Products made in Country X have excellent features. 8.40 1.611 5.02 2.095 390
Products made in Country X are of very consistent quality. 8.82 1.523 4.23 2.144 390
Products made in Country X are dependable. 8.96 1.475 4.53 2.152 390
Source: own elaboration, 2011
147
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

Student's t-test was used to test the relevance of the comparison of these two countries.
Student's t-test was elaborated to compare two statistical populations. A Paired-Sample
t-test can be considered a special type of Student's t-test, during which only one
statistical population is tested along a same attribute (Sajtos – Mitev, 2007). The t-test
does not require the knowledge of the population’s standard deviation, but it requires a
normal distribution of the population. Also, it can only be used for small sample sizes
(n<30) (Sajtos – Mitev, 2007, pp. 165-166.). In this case, the greater sample size does
not meet this latter condition. At the same time, the use of the test can be justified by its
propriety to avoid comparing each average for each item as one can perform the test for
several items at once.
According to the results, all pairs of items are significantly different from each other (at
a 5% confidence level), i.e. in the two samples, the averages of the random variables are
significantly different from each other.
This result equally confirms that the choice of the two countries and the parallel
evaluation thereof (following the recommendations of the literature) are relevant and
provide valid results.
In addition to the test of items, the moderating effect were equally studied. Similarly to
the previous research phases, an analysis of variance was conducted to unveil (at a 5%
confidence level) the relationships between the demographic variables and the macro
country image and country equity variables.

The first relationship that we addressed was the study of gender on country image and
on country equity.
In the case of Germany, gender was found to have no significant effect to any item of
macro country image. In the case of country equity, two items proved to be influenced
by the respondent’s gender (“If Germany were a brand name, it would be my favorite
brand”[male: 4.90 vs. female: 4.14], “If Germany were a brand name, I would be loyal
to that brand” [male: 5.89 vs. female: 4.84]), with male respondents giving significantly
more positive answers.
In the case of China, several items of macro country image were found significantly
influenced by gender (“China has a strongly developed economy” [male: 8.47 vs.
female: 8.94], “The inhabitants of China are literate people” [male: 5.58 vs. female:
6.53], “China has a free market” [male: 5.17 vs. female: 6.25], “China is a democratic
country” [male: 2.99 vs. female: 3.81], “China has high labor costs” [male: 3.62 vs.
female: 4.33]). Results show that female respondents tended to give a higher mark in
the case of China, than male respondents. In the case of the country equity variable,
male respondents gave significantly more positive answers to one item (“If China were
a brand name, it would be my favorite brand” [male: 2.51 vs. female: 2.05])

The second relationship to be observed was the effect of income on country image and
country equity.

148
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

In accordance with the methodology used in our previous research phases, students
were asked to evaluate the financial status of their families on a 5-point scale, i.e.
whether, in their opinion, their family revenue is well below average, below average,
average, above average or well above average.
For Germany, three items of macro country image were found to be significantly related
to this condition (“German products are of high quality” [10.50 – 8.91 – 9.75 – 9.93 –
10.23]; “Germany provides a high standard of living for its inhabitants” [11.00 – 8.73 –
9.44 – 9.65 – 9.90]; “Germany has a welfare system” [9.50 – 9.00 – 8.76 – 9.22 –
9.65]). These results show that with a growing income status, the evaluation of the
country becomes significantly more positive.
In the case of country equity, no significant relationship was found.
For China, once again, several items of macro country image were found to be
significantly affected by respondents’ income situation (“China is a democratic
country”[ 5.00 – 5.00 – 4.01 – 3.55 – 2.58]; “China provides a high standard of living
for its inhabitants” [1.50 – 5.09 – 4.30 – 4.07 – 3.53]; “China has high labor costs”
[1.50 – 4.64 – 4.92 – 3.88 – 3.52]). According to these results, one can state that with a
growing level of income, respondents are less and less likely to agree with the related
statements, i.e. they have a more and more negative evaluation of the country.
In the case of country equity, no significant relationship was found.

The third relationship that we addressed was the study of perceived self-confidence on
country image and on country equity.
Perceived self-confidence was equally measured on a 5-point scale: well below average,
below average, average, above average and well above average.
We found no significant relationship of self-confidence with neither macro country
image nor country equity for either Germany of China. Therefore there seems to be no
manifest effect of self-confidence on the evaluation of countries.

The fourth relationship to be observed was the effect whether the respondent has lived
abroad for a longer period of time (based on the recommendations by the literature,
three months were indicated) on country image and country equity.
We found no significant relationship of this criterion with neither macro country image
nor country equity for Germany
In the case of China, while there was again no significant effect on macro country
image, two items of country equity turned out to be significantly related to the
respondent’s experience abroad (“If China were a brand name, it would be my favorite
brand” [lived abroad: 2.83; have not lived abroad: 2.37]; “If China were a brand name, I
would be keen to pay more for a product with this brand” [lived abroad: 3.21; have not
lived abroad: 2.67]). In accordance with these results one can say that those that have
lived abroad for a longer period of time do evaluate China’s country equity in a
significantly more positive way than those that haven’t.
Results are summarized in Table 37.
149
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

Table 37.
Presence of a demographic effect in the evaluation of countries
Germany China
Demographic variable
CI CE CI CE
Gender no yes yes yes
Income yes no yes no
Self-confidence no no no no
Lived abroad no no no no
Source: own elaboration, 2011

One can conclude from the above research the following: the evaluation of country
image is primarily and significantly affected by gender and the level of income, while
country equity is significantly affected by gender. The further analysis of these factors in
the present doctoral research is therefore advisable.

8.3.4. Conclusions and limitations of the scale test and pilot questionnaire

The main goal of the pilot query and data collection was to test our questionnaire and
the related scales and to unveil the possibilities for analysis of the gathered data. Data
analysis so far shows that the scale is reliable and the above study contributed to
choose the most reliable scale for each variable. The pilot query shows that the scale
items (following a thorough process of translation and verification) are easily
understood by respondents and shows high Cronbach’s alpha values and a relatively
low number of missing values.

The country equity scale and list of items does not, however cover the entirety of the
previously unveiled dimensions of country image and therefore, in the final research
phase another suitable scale will have to be introduced for the results to reflect all
the preferences of respondents and therefore to meet the requirements for content
validity recommended by the literature. On the other hand, there is a need for further
development of scales as at this stage the items are not perfectly appropriate for
measuring country image as a brand image and also country brand equity.

One can equally conclude that the 11-point Likert scales did not live up to our
expectations to provide an added value as for a more in-depth analysis of participants’
responses. At the same time, based on feedback by respondents, these scales made it
somewhat difficult for respondents to provide consistent answers. Therefore in the
final research phase, we will include seven-point Likert scales, more appropriate
for the given sample and equally preferred in scientific research.
The parallel evaluation of countries by respondents shows that significant comparisons
between countries can be made. This also supports the view from the literature that
sharp differences in the evaluation of countries can be revealed with suitable scales. At
the same time, results show that in case of several items, respondents have little or no
150
 8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

information on the countries in question and therefore the selection of the countries to
study is crucial for the doctoral research and requires a prior validation.

8.4. Conclusions and limitations of the second research phase

The results of this research phase’s qualitative part show that several conceptual areas
of our initial theoretical model provide a relevant approach to the subject as is the
attitude-based approach of the area, which covers the cognitive, affective and conative
dimensions
The qualitative phase equally showed that respondents find the so-called consumer-
focused brand equity a relevant extension to the area and therefore this will be
adaptable to the further stages of the present doctoral research.
The quantitative results show that the Pappu – Quester (2010) scale can be
considered both valid and reliable on a Hungarian sample and its use would likely
return relevant and adequate results in a research conducted in Hungary. The
measurement tool is suitable for measuring the country image and country equity
constructs and adequately covers the respective areas. The factor structure unveiled by
the factor analysis does resemble that of the original scale test – this is equally
confirmed by the confirmatory factor analysis.
Among the moderating effects, gender and income proved primarily to have significant
effects on country image. This justifies the inclusion of these elements into our
hypotheses and our final research model.
The previous research however bears a number of limitations, of which a majority will
be eliminated through repeating the research. One limitation is that the scale was not
queried in its original form. Considering the specialty of a Hungarian sample and the
specificity of the present research, the scale underwent a number of modifications (e.g.
simplifications, inclusion of new items). However, these modifications were justified by
either our prior results or the recommendations by the literature, and were also
subsequently validated.

8.4.1. Applying the conclusions of the second research phase in the final doctoral
research model

The most important conclusion stemming from our second research phase is that
moderating factors more likely affect country image than country equity. Based on this
finding, the revised model is shown in the below figure.

The main conclusion according to the second phase of research is that the elements of
country equity are the country associations, country awareness, country loyalty and
country image. On the other hand the question still exists whether country image is an
element or an antecedent of the construct of country equity. For this purpose the final
151
8. SECOND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PHASES

research can provide answers. Also arises a question according to the relationship of the
country equity dimensions. In our understanding and also according to the review of
literature country image has an influence on country associations, country awareness
has an impact on country associations and country loyalty and the country associations
are in connection with country loyalty. In this meaning the country image is an element
of the construct of country equity and it can be justified by confirmatory factor analysis
in the final doctoral research. The detailed findings of literature relating to the
relationships among the country equity dimensions can be found in Chapter 9.2.3.
among the hypotheses of the doctoral research.

Figure 19.
The revised model according to the second research phase

Source: own elaboration, 2011

152
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

9. THE THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

RESEARCH PHASE

9.1. Exploratory research – expert interviews

In the qualitative part of the third research phase we proceeded to expert in-depth
interviews. The goal of this phase was to elaborate on the dimensions and influencing
factors of country image and country brand as well as to review our measurement and
methodological issues. All the interviewed experts are in some manner involved in the
process of building or measuring country image and can therefore through their
opinions shape and influence our prior assumptions and hypotheses to be tested in the
final research.

They were also conducted in order to integrate into our research the view, experience
and opinion of experts with a firm scientific, theoretical background as well as a wide
knowledge on the current state of the market as the present dissertation, beyond its
theoretical significance, has a relevant practical aspect in the topic of country image
building, country branding and measuring country equity.
Expert interviews, as a qualitative data collection method, contributed to a better
understanding of the above, as a preparation for the quantitative query on a
representative sample.

9.1.1. Subjects and course of the interviews

The following experts were interviewed:

László ACZÉL (CEO, Young&Rubicam) – member of The Board of Country Image
(Országmárka Tanács), research on Hungary’s country image
Péter BÍRÓ (BP International Business Promotion) – consultant, instructor, several
publications in measuring brand equity
Róbert BRAUN (CEO, Braun&Partners) – Brand Israel Project, consultant
Em ke HALASSY (Director of Research, Hungarian Tourism Plc.) – research projects
in the field of touristic image
Ákos KOZÁK (GfK Hungária, CEO) – researcher, several publications on measuring
country image
Erzsébet MALOTA (Corvinus University of Budapest) – instructor, researcher, several
publications on country image and country-of-origin image
Árpád PAPP-VÁRY (director, Institute of Marketing, Budapest College of
Communication) – instructor, researcher, several publications on country branding,
member of The Board of Country Image

The interviews were conducted in the Fall of 2011. The interviews took place in almost
every case in the interviewees working environment and lasted between 50 and 60
153
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

minutes, following a pre-existent interview guideline (see Appendix 4). The interviews
were semi-structured, leaving ground for a free transmission of additional and valuable
information from the interviewees. The interviews began with a general presentation of
the interviewer (the author of the present dissertation) and that of the research subject
and the goals of the interview. Following that we proceeded to the questions contained
in the interview guideline. All interviewees (except for Mr. Aczél, who was only
interviewed on methodological matters) were sent, prior to the interview, the above list
of questions – and were therefore prepared to the main questions of the interviews
which considerably shortened the duration of the interviews while keeping its
information richness. After expressly agreeing to it, the interviews were tape-recorded,
and all interviewees agreed for their interview transcripts to be used for the sake of the
present dissertation.

During the analysis of the interview data, we endeavored to analyze the interviewees’
reflections to the results so far in order to validate them and equally to gather an
aggregated overview of experts, in terms of methodology, theory and practice.

9.1.2. Results of the interviews

The expert interviews included several areas of the literature and the relationship
between them. In the following we summarize the main results and put an emphasis on
elements of opinion that were accentuated during the interviews.

Interviewees agree on the fact that the unveiled dimensions of country image are all
relevant and essential elements of the evaluation of a country. They also agree on the
fact that the weight of these vary along the country and depend also on the target
groups’ attributes.
The most important elements experts mentioned were culture, people (and personal
experience), places of interest and politics.
Mr. Braun equally attributed a major role to diplomacy while Mr. Papp-Váry insisted on
the distinguished role of brands made in the given country and that the importance of
each dimension differs in the case of every country.
Ms. Malota underlined the importance of cultural differences and the marked presence
of stereotypes.
According to Mr. Kozák, the evaluation of people, i.e. “how comfortable I feel myself
in their presence”, as well as climate and the impression of security are equally crucial
factors in the evaluation of a country. Ms. Halassy agreed with this latter opinion and
beyond security and infrastructure, she stressed that all six elements of Anholt’s Nation
Brand Hexagon do play an important role in the shaping of a country’s image. She
affirmed that sights, the environment, hospitality and security play an accentuated role
in tourism. According to her, “the evaluation of the economy, though, plays a lesser
role”.
154
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

When discussing the dimensions of country image, Mr. Kozák made a methodological
remark, stating that “a conjoint analysis might be recommended and helpful for
designing the so-called archetype of country image and its factors”.

Beyond the dimensions of country image, other moderating factors were also
mentioned. Interviewees agree on the fact that country image is determined on one hand
by country size and its distance from the country of origin, and on the other by the
different target group elements mentioned beforehand.
Mr. Bíró emphasized that “rank and relativity factors play an important role in
determining the evaluation of a country”. In his view, country size is a crucial factor,
“not only because we know more of the country, but also because it’s more impressive”.
Moreover, he stressed the further role of self-confidence and noted that a person’s world
view might have been an important factor decades ago, but now it has a less important
role”.
Ms. Halassy detailed the mechanisms of action of all the above for the tourism industry.
According to her, distance and historical-cultural links to the country of origin are the
most important factors, while people’s personality and world view are equally important
when evaluating a country. Moreover, “awareness and prior experience also affect the
touristic success of a country”. She equally highlighted the possibility, within a study, to
handle tourists and investors separately. In accordance with this, Mr. Kozák equally put
an emphasis on the separate targets groups and the role of people’s awareness of the
given places. Mr. Braun called for a segmentation based on the identity of stakeholders.
Mr. Papp-Váry underlined the existence (in a number of cases) of an inverse
relationship between the target country’s distance and people’s knowledge thereof, i.e.
“we might not know anything about a distant country, but it can be exotic”.
Ms. Malota confirmed that one ought to differentiate between target groups along their
level of foreign experience.

During the interviews the influencing factors of country image were discussed in a
complex way and the effect mechanisms of the shaping of a country’s image as well as
the overall evaluation of country image were mentioned. All participants agree that
country image is constantly evolving, a number of factors continuously shape it and the
effects of these factors differ in time and space. Image can be divided into several layers
and different manifestations can be identified, e.g. touristical image, investor image,
cultural image, etc.
In relation to the overall evaluation, Mr. Kozák highlighted that “there is not one
country image, but there also exist a so-called ‘abstract country image’, a separate
‘nation character’, a separate ‘culture image’ and the image of a nation and of people.”
Ms. Halassy called the attention on the fact that touristic image may differ from overall
country image, stating that “tourism is a carrier of country image, they act back and
forth, the relationship is strong between touristic image and country image.”

155
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Mr. Braun considers the role of perceptions crucial for overall country image, “that
manifests itself in expected and realized consumer action”.
Ms. Malota emphasized that “in academic literature, overall country image and product
image approaches often melt with each other.”

During the interviews the relevance, components and influencing factors of the concept
of country brand were equally discussed. All participants confirmed the legitimacy of
this approach and its novelty and interest in the development of the field of science. In
addition, the practical usefulness and utility of the topic was addressed. Interviewees all
agreed that a deliberate country image building activity is mainly relevant to practice,
even though this indirectly affects the academic approach on the topic.
According to Mr. Bíró, “managers can build a brand from image, which, in case of
countries, needs to be constant. What is particularly important is that one has to build a
brand personality.”.
Ms. Halassy stated that country brands can most easily be built using specific offers,
“although image building is a slow process in tourism, and one must take good care, as
touristic image, brand is very fragile”.
Mr. Braun highlighted that “country brand theories are not trivial at first, because they
depend on how consumption is defined in case of a country brand”. In his
understanding, the concept of reputation can be opposed to that of brand theories. He
highlighted that beyond Aaker’s consumer-focused approach, one also ought to consider
resorting to indentity-based brand equity theory.
In Mr. Papp-Váry’s view, “country image and country brand do not are not two clearly
distinct concepts, and in the case of products, the most evident relationship can be
noticed when we say a country’s name and what people associate it to”.
Mr. Aczél highlighter that one always ought to consider the dynamics of change when
studying country brands.

Measurement and methodological issues were equally discussed and theoretically

validated. All interviewees agree that country image needs a continuous, long-term and
systematic measurement. One also has to take into account all the factors that can affect
the output of this measurement. All interviewees estimated that the quantitative
approach was acceptable and the most recommended in several points of view, although
each of them mentioned different further fitting methodologies that they would
recommend. It can also be said that most experts interviewed had a different
interpretation as to the subjects of the measurement.
Mr. Bíró would recommend placing the emphasis on the accurate expression of brand
equity using a relevant ranking and taking into account the weighing of the different
influencing factors of country image. He also drew the attention to the importance of
pricing, where “a positive image or country brand might serve as an added value”, and
to the importance of touristic indicators.

156
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Mr. Kozák, in a practical approach, highlighted in relation to measurement, that “these

is no such thing as a long-term image”. Image does constantly change and therefore a
longitudinal study is needed – although one has to consider the fact that “a more
intensive appearance or piece of news in the media can temporarily overwrite a nation
character that has existed for a longer period of time”. In his view, the appearance of the
new approach brings about a methodological renewal, and therefore advises for “putting
qualitative-dominant approaches into the foreground” instead of quantitative
approaches. In his interpretation, simplified quantitative measures are needed, but
conducted in a “semi-quantitative, semi-qualitative manner, that make international
comparison possible”. According to him, “one ought to open up towards anthropology
and ethnography in the future”, in order to unveil genuine decision-making situations.
Ms. Halassy equally stressed the importance of a systematic data collection and
described the tourism-based measurement approaches used in practice. These were the
following: focus groups, in international studies, while mapping knowledge and image,
“including domestic studies preceding a tourism thematic year”. In addition, a so-called
controlling system is in place as part of which measurement takes into account the
number of guest nights, as well as the performance of study tours and private lettings.
Questionnaire interviews often include both open and closed-ended questions to reveal
associations and attitudes. In addition, “beyond general question, demographic profiles
are also established”.
Mr. Braun highlighted that he does not believe “in explicit, cognitive methodology
based on opinion research”. In his view, opinion research is not a suitable method as
results often include expected attitudes and post-rationalization. In addition, according
to him, it does not support qualitative research either, as it seems to reveal similar
problems. He suggests that “the use of implicit research methodology might be suitable,
e.g. mental mapping, that unveils respondents’ unconscious processes”.
Mr. Papp-Váry added that Anholt’s hexagon is a valid approach in terms of
measurement, even though it can be used principally on regional and continental levels,
and one equally has “to be aware of its limitations”. He also pointed out that one can
best measure the effect (and therefore that of evolving country image) on targeted
campaigns.

Mr. Aczél provided answers in mainly methodological issues and in the topic of the
measurement possibilities of country brand. As CEO of Young and Rubicam Hungary,
he stated that there has only been one country brand survey in Hungary so far, which
followed the methodology of Brandasset Valuator (hereafter referred to as: BAV)16 .
BAV considers four elements as pillars of country brands: (1) uniqueness (how
differentiated the brand is), (2) relevance (how suitable it is to fulfill consumers’ needs),
(3) recognition (how appreciated the brand is by the consumer – image equally belongs
in this category), (4) awareness (the experience of users about the brand).

16
For more information about the methodology, see http://www.yrbav.com/
157
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

The main focus of the research was the study of Hungary, as a nation brand – with a
special emphasis on the state of development of the brand (current state) and its vitality
(growth potential). Country image was measured in a quantitative way, along 47
statements with a particular emphasis on perceptions and their hierarchy. These
included, among others, the distance between the country of origin and the destination
country or the mapping of user experience.
Mr. Aczél confirmed that a complex quantitative measurement would be a suitable tool
for the sake of the present research in a methodological point of view and that the
consumer-based evaluation of country brand would be a novel and relevant addition to
the area. He equally noted that there are numerous measurement possibilities for
country equity and that each institution dealing with brand equity has its own
measurement methodology. He suggested, for the present doctoral study, the use of a
methodology that would fit other methods used during prior academic research. He also
noted that destination choice is a useful and relevant output variable for the present
study, considering its practical implications and that the two areas have not been studied
jointly so far.

All interviewees confirmed the relevance for the field of research of destination
evaluation and expressly recommended the study of the area as the output variable for
the present research. They equally agreed that another strongly present area is the study
of the effect on product choice, i.e. the study of country-of-origin effects – even though
it can be considered an overstudied area.
Ms. Halassy highlighted that beyond the overall evaluation, the study of the role of
satisfaction and recommendation are also have a pronounced role within their studies on
tourism. The measurability and importance of recommendation was also highlighted by
Mr. Kozák. He also recommended using projection techniques for the study of
destination evaluation.
Mr. Papp- Váry confirmed that country image has a strong influence on destination
choice which is most manifest if a consumer is willing to travel into a country, and
therefore “it is worthwhile to include destination choice and willingness to visit a
country into the measurement. (…) There are also cases where we have impressions on
a country even though we have never been to it – here, it is clearly the image of the
country that plays an essential role”.

In conclusion, it can be said that all interviewees estimated that the present study was
relevant, likely to fit the international development structure of the research area that
included novelty. They all equally stated that our research model was a suitable tool for
unveiling the relationships present in the area.

158
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

9.1.3. Conclusions of the interviews

Overall, the interviewees’ suggestions and insights influenced, but also confirmed and
validated in many cases the relationships and effect mechanisms unveiled
beforehand within the topic, as well as the related assumptions. The interviews’
main conclusions can be summarized as follows:
i) There is a circle of country image dimensions that can shape a country’s
image in a relevant way – it is worthwhile to study the force of the influence
thereof.
ii) In addition, country size and distance from the country of origin is a relevant
approach to the topic. This can have a practical implication during targeting.
iii) The concept of country brand is relevant and reflects a strategic and practice.
Its measurement accounts for a novelty in academic research.
iv) Country brand dimensions can be measured in a quantitative way.
v) Destination evaluation is a suitable and relevant output for practice of the
topic. Based on a strategic approach of both, joining the study of destination
evaluation with country branding is a relevant extension of the research
field.

Based on the interviews the following main guidelines can be ascertained:

The three main statements based on the literature, i.e. (1) there exist constituting
dimensions to country image, (2) there exist factors that influence perception and (3)
overall, image has a noticeable impact on behavior were expert validated, and can be
referred to as relevant and distinct approaches of the field. Integrating these into a
research model might bring about a novel context to the area.

In a practical consideration, the apparition of country branding accounts for a

novelty in the field. Its joining with touristic destination management might bring
about a genuine practical utility and added value.
The measurement of country branding (considering the diverse and wide array of
available methodologies) ought to be aligned with already used, tested and
validated methodologies already within the stream of international research in the
area.

Joining the two areas of country branding and destination evaluation can be
justified and supported by the fact that a strategic approach seems to prevail in both
fields of country brand building and destination management and therefore the joint
study of the two areas is all the more logical and justified.
In addition, while including the output variable (destination evaluation) into the
model, one ought to adapt and apply a scale that includes both the relationships
relevant in a touristic approach and the factors thereof.

159
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

In conclusion, the interviewees confirmed and validated our research topic choice
both in terms of practical relevance and utility.

Summarizing the findings of exploratory research phases, the following model could be
revised. (see Figure 20.)

Figure 20.
The revised model according to the findings of all exploratory research phases

Source: own elaboration, 2011

9.2. Preparation of the confirmatory research phase, developing the

final research model

9.2.1. Narrowing of the theoretical framework; delimitation of the research

model

The previous qualitative and quantitative research phases provided a number of results
that delimit the final research of the present dissertation, its theoretical framework and
the relationships it is intended to study. In the following we give a narrowed summary
of our research so far in order to present a foundation to the third quantitative research
phase.

The main conclusions of the research so far and therefore the starting points of the
final empirical research are as follows:
There exists a consistent set of dimensions for country image that enables its
measurement for various countries. The determining of this however varies depending
on the modeling procedure used in the various research so far and neither the used
dimensions are comprehensive.
The dimensions of country image build up a formative model with the country image
variable. Each dimension weighs differently depending on the country being studied.
Only a part of the dimensions of country image is based on cognitive dimensions.
Another part is related to emotional aspects.

160
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

The evaluation of the population of a given country equally has an effect on the related
country image. According to certain authors, the effect is bidirectional.
It means that the image of people has an influence on country image, and also there is
an influence, a so-called image transfer on people’s reputation by country image.
Therefore country image and people’s image can be evaluated separately in researches
of the field.
Along with country image, country brand can equally be measured, similarly to the
classic brand equity construct.
The evaluation of country image affects brand equity: the more a country has a
favorable image, the higher its country equity is rated. According to certain approaches
country image is a constituent part of country equity.
The other elements of the brand equity construct are: country loyalty, country
awareness, country associations that both relate to and influence each other.
Country image and country equity influence individual behavior: they affect product
choice, destination evaluation, investment decisions, etc.
The variables and dimensions of country image, country brand and the output variable
(destination evaluation) together form a reflective model.
Country image can be influenced by individual factors as well (e.g. gender, income or
self-confidence).
Country image can be influenced by country attributes as well (e.g. country size, its
perceived distance).

The theoretical model presented beforehand reflects a theoretical framework of the

research. However, for the actual research a number of further delimitations and further
narrowing are required. Thus, in the following figure, those elements of the theoretical
model are highlighted that delimit the scope of the final research model. (see Figure 21.)

Figure 21.
Delimiting the parts of the theoretical model as a base for the final empirical research

Source: own elaboration, 2011

161
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

The scientific objectives of the empirical research is to unveil and analyze the
dimensions of country image and country brand, develop the concept of country brand
and to study measurement and methodological considerations as well as to provide a
study integrated to the international mainstream of research in the area. The indirect aim
of the doctoral research is to develop a Country Equity Model (CEM), wich can examine
the theory of country image, country equity aspects and the destination context in one
common model, exploring the relationships among the factors.

The scientific and practical significance of the study is provided by the fact during our
research we proceed to the development of the theoretical background by unveiling
dimensions and affecting factors and relate and jointly study various theoretical models.
A methodological advance of the present dissertation is provided by a combination of
the measurement methods by path analysis and structural analysis methods. Another
advancement provided by linking touristic destination approaches with country
evaluation.
Figure 22 presents a framework for the joint study of the three related fields.

Figure 22.
Areas to be studied in the doctoral research
(A narrowed theoretical framework)

Source: own elaboration, 2011

To study the relationships depicted in the model, one can formulate a final research
model and hypotheses to be presented in the following chapter.

162
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

9.2.2. The doctoral research model

The problem examined by the present dissertation is the determination of the

dimensions of country image together with the definition of country brand in the context
of destination evaluation. The literature of country image spans over decades, however
no model has yet been designed to incorporate a consumer-focused approach of country
equity (Country Equity Model, CEM) and the study thereof on consumer behavior.
The main aim – based on the study of the relationships between the variables of the
research model, their direction and strength – is to determine which factors determine
country image, country equity and the effects of these on destination evaluation.
The following figure illustrates the relationships between the research hypotheses and
the research model.

Figure 23.
Final research (measurement) model and measurement scales

Source: own elaboration, 2011

In the following we give a more detailed presentation of the related hypotheses. The
hypotheses are tested during the test of the research model as well as during various
additional, complementary analyses studying the relationships between individual
variables. The mechanism of action and the entirety of the relationships described in the
model are studied in the test of the model as a whole.

During the design of the final research model and of the hypotheses – beyond the
models of country image and country equity, presented in the theoretical chapters of the
present dissertation –destination evaluation and the influencing factors thereof were
equally taken into account, with the related research and measurement methodology. In

163
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

the process of designing the final research model we resorted to a mixed-emthods

research design in multiple subsequent phases and therefore all phases of the pilot study
contributed to the design of the final empirical research.
Factors influencing the relationship were also included into the analysis with a goal to
design a generally applicable model for country equity (Country Equity Model, CEM) –
of which the present doctoral study is a first test.

9.2.3. Hypotheses of doctoral research

9.2.3.1. Hypotheses: country image dimensions and their measurement

Hypotheses H1 to H4 belong to the joint study of country image dimensions and its
influencing factors. The test of hypotheses is aimed to reveal in what ways and to what
extent the elements of country image influence the evaluation of countries and in what
ways other potential, specific influencing factors can influence this latter.

H1 The role and weight of each dimension of country image varies according
to the given country.

Based on our literature review and the results of the preceding research phases, one can
assume that there exists a consistent pool of dimensions and sub-dimensions of country
image that is assumed to shape the image of a country in a formative way, i.e. through a
casual relationship from the indicators in the direction of the variables. Moreover, one
can assume that the dimensions of country image characteristically (but not exclusively)
determine the evaluation of a country, i.e. contrarily to what can be found in the
literature, not all country image dimensions appear in a measurable way in the
formation of a given country’s image.
There is no general agreement in the literature on the pool of determining dimensions of
the country image construct. There seems to be, however, an agreement on the fact that
country image is a multidimensional construct (Johansson – Moinpour, 1977; White,
1979; Narayana, 1981; Cattin et.al. 1982; Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 1984, 1988, 2006;
Johansson – Nebenzahl, 1986; Han-Terpstra, 1988; Han, 1989; Smith, 1991; Roth-
Romeo, 1992; Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Parameswaran – Pisharodi, 1994). Opinions
differ in both the number and composition of the dimensions and this is equally
supported by the results of previous research phases.

In the case of formative models, a general criterion is that indicators cover the entirety
of the contruct’s context in order for the model to be stable. In the case of the present
study, a full content validity is guaranteed by a comprehensive literature review and the
confirmatory results of the preceding research phases. Based on the literature review,
six main dimensions (and a total of 11 dimensions) seem to stand out. These are as
follows: (1) state and structure of the economy; (2) labor market, worker skills; (3)
164
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

political situation/structure; (4) international relations (international roles, conflicts); (5)

cultural attributes; (6) historical attributes (traditions); (7) geographical factors (natural
endowments, climate); (8) environment (sanitation, protection of the environment); (9)
people; (10) feelings (positive/negative), (11) similarity, relatedness. The possible role
and respective weight of these dimensions will be addressed in the present study.
Dimension weight is an under-research area in the literature, the field of country-of-
origin effects provides the most examples where this issue is addressed. However some
authors do address the issue and point out that the weight of each dimension might vary
along the studied country. Our pilot studies equally confirm this view and therefore
justify a further study of the question whether the coefficients of each country image
dimension vary depending on the factors.
Our exploratory research confirmed our assumption that structural modeling is an
adequate tool for studying the direction of the contribution of dimensions to the
construct as a whole, and whether their effect is negative or positive. There is no known
example in the literature of a similar, comprehensive study which includes all
dimension – this fact equally justifies to formulate and subsequently test a related
hypothesis.

H1a There exists a formative casual relationship between country image and its
dimensions.

A few references to the casual relationship between country image and its dimensions
can be found in the literature even though only a few known sources explicitly assessed
and measured these relationships and the extent of the influence of each dimension. Our
exploratory study revealed that casual modeling (by the design of a formative construct)
is adequate to study the structure of the related factors.
Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009) recommend the use of formative modeling (referring
to the models found in the literature which are mostly formative) while other
researchers resorted to reflective models (e.g. Lala – Allred – Chakraborty, 2009)
Edwards (2001) states that the choices concerning the specifications of the model ought
to be adjusted to the goals of the given study. Chosing between formative vs. reflective
modeling is therefore a relevant issue and requires further investigation. The present
dissertation is in line with one of the directions the literature suggests, namely that it
tests the relationship between country image and its dimensions in a formative way.

H2 The evaluation of the inhabitants of a given country has a positive influence

on the evaluation of the country.

A few articles in the literature study the relationship between the evaluation of countries
and that of their citizens. Both descriptive and structural studies of the question handle
people image as a separate variable, different from the dimensions of country image.
People image is evaluated along several dimensions (e.g. friendliness, reliability, skill,
165
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

etc.). Most studies in the area equally find that the evaluation of people impacts the
evaluation of the given country (e.g. Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Papadopoulos et.al., 1990,
1993; Anholt, 2003), while other studies state that it is country image that influences
people image.
The study of the ability of people image and the relationship with people on the
evaluation of countries (and especially its affective factors) is an topical research
problem and a subject for many ongoing research projects (see e.g. Nadeau – Heslop,
2008; Elliot et.al., 2011)
The results of both our qualitative and quantitative exploratory research phases show
that the separate study of the evaluation of people is a relevant approach to the
research area, wherefore people image and country image are in a manifest interaction.
Including the separate study of the area into the model increases the validity of this
latter.

H2a Country associations have a positive effect on the evaluation (image) of

people.

According to the literature, country image has a siginificant effect on product evaluation
(see e.g. Nagashima, 1970, 1977; Han, 1989; Papadopoulos et.al., 1990, 1993; Giraldi
et.al., 2011). Li et al.(1995) and Han (1989) hypothesize that consumers formulate their
opinion about a country based on previous experience. This experience is stored in their
long-term memory and the information is then recalled when evaluating a given product
(or its quality). This is supported by Anderson’s (1996) associative network memory
model, according to which images stored in cosumers’ memories can be recalled in a
node-link structure, with related elements mutually activating each other. In Brijs
et.al.’s (2011) words, a so-called transfer of images takes place between the country and
the object concerned.
According to the above, one can hypothesize that this transfer of images not only stands
for the evaluation of products but equally for that of individuals and can therefore be
assessed and investigated. The result of the exploratory qualitative research phase
equally support this assumption: according to our results, not only people’s image affect
that of a country, but the relationship seems true vice versa, i.e. that a pool of
information about a country has an effect on the evaluation of its inhabitants. By
adapting the associative network memory model, one can therefore assume that country
associations also affect the evaluation of people. This relationship has not yet been
formally tested by any previous study and can thus be identified as a so far unresearched
gap in the literature. The above hypothesis concerning the relationship might therefore
contribute to clarifying the positions adopted in the literature.

166
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

H3 Country image is influenced, beyond the uncovered dimensions, by

additional factors, peculiar to the given country.

Country image – beyond its dimensions – is influenced by additional factors. One can
distinguish between two main groups of these influencing factors: personal
characteristics and country attributes. As seen in the literature review, a few studies
examined the effect of influencing factors other than country image and country brand
dimensions, e.g. that of country competences, country size, perceived similarity and
distance (see e.g. Bennett, 1999; Kleppe et.al., 2002; Marshalls, 2007; Nadeau –
Heslop, 2008). However one can affirm that these factors have not been handled and
tested within one common model so far.

H3a Country size has a positive effect on country image.

H3b The relative distance of the destination country from the home country
has a negative effect of the country image of the former.

Country size, but also its international political, economic and military power can
impact its evaluation and therefore its image. In addition, its distance can also affect the
amount of available information about the country for the evaluator and – indirectly –
the quality of the opinion of these people about the country. According to Bennett
(1999) the geographic proximity of the individual to the destination country i.e. the
country-of-origin of the evaluator can influence the evaluation of the country. Marshalls
(2007) equally points out that country size impacts its image.
In addition, Mittelstaedt et.al. (2004) study the role of perceived similarity or difference
in relation to the destination country.
The above hypotheses are aimed to test these assumed relationships.

H4 Country image is influenced, beyond the uncovered dimensions, by

additional individual factors.

Raters’ characteristics can equally affect the evaluation of country image. Several
studies show that gender, self-evaluation and personal experience all have an influence
on the evaluation of a country’s image. These factors have not been handled. Egy
ország imázsa más és más lehet annak kapcsán, hogy kiket tekinthetünk célcsoportként,
vagyis kik az ország imázsának megítél i, illetve ezek a személyek milyen tényez ket,
szempontokat vesznek figyelembe egy ország értékelése kapcsán. (ld. err l még: Kotler
et.al., 1993; Agarwal – Sikri, 1996; Ger – Askegaard – Christensen, 1999; Kotler –
Gertner, 2002; Hankinson, 2003; Fan, 2006)
Kar and Litvin (2000) outline the determining role of the evaluator’s gender, Papp-Váry
(2005) also emphasizes the role of having lived abroad for a long period of time.
Beyond the effect of gender, Malota (2001) considers the effects of the individual’s
self-confidence and their level of income.
167
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

According to Hsieh et.al.(2004) along with the effect of gender, one also has to study
respondents’ age, income and marital status.
Accordingt to their results, men seem to be have significantly more positive views on a
country, than women. (Malota, 2001), our research revealed the relation in an opposite
way. People with high perceived sel-confidence seem to have significantly more
positive views on a country, while those with higher income can have less positive
views on the certain country (Malota, 2011)
These factors have not been handled and tested within one common model so far. The
influence of individual factors (personal characteristics) is equally confirmed by the
results of our pilot studies and therefore justify the formulation of the following
hypotheses:

H4a Gender influences the evaluation of a country: female have more positive
views on country image.
H4b Declared income positively influences the evaluation of a country (country
image).
H4c Declared self-esteem positively influences the evaluation of a country
(country image)
H4d Individuals’ having lived abroad positively influences the evaluation of a
country. (country image)

Beyond the results of our pilot studies, the above sub-hypotheses are validated by the
results presented in Malota (2003), Hsieh et.al. (2004), Gudjonsson (2005). The topic is
further examined in the literature, even though the approaches followed in these works
relate more to the area of country-of-origin effects (e.g. Nagashima 1970, 1977; Cattin
et.al., 1982; Erickson et.al., 1984; Johansson et.al., 1985; Chasin et.al., 1988; Yu –
Chen, 1993; Maheswaran, 1994; Gilmore, 2002; Papp-Váry, 2007).
Considering that most studies are related to country-of-origin effect studies, the specific,
country image approach of the present study makes it even more justified to address
these elements. Moreover, once again, these factors have not been handled and tested
within one common model so far, adding up to the relevance of the study of the area.

9.2.3.2. Hypotheses: value and measurement of country image / country

equity

As country image progresses as field of science, measurability is becoming a growing

subject of concern. Many approaches to quantify the evaluation of countries are known
from the literature (see the chapter on country image and country brand measurability).
According to the latest approaches, a country name bears for consumers a same type of
value than a brand name does (Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2006) and the value of country image,
country brand – similarly to classic brand equity – is measurable. In addition, a
consumer-oriented brand equity concept has become generally accepted in the
168
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

literature, the theoretical basis of which is given by the associative network memory
model by Anderson (1990, 1993).

Country equity theory is becoming an increasingly studied area with a growing corpus
of literature. At the same time its application as a theory remains low – it is typically
featured in country-of-origin image – and indirectly – product image studies (see e.g.
Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 2006; Pappu – Quester – Cooksey, 2006, 2007; Roth –
Diamantopoulos – Montesinos, 2008).
However we argue that similarly to brand equity, a “country equity” can be expressed
and it is a suitable approach to quantify the value of country image in a way similar to
brand equity. According to this, the hypothesis can validate this concept of country
equity.

H5 Measurable factors of country equity are: country associations, country

image, country awareness, country loyalty.

Several authors resort to adapting elements from brand equity theory to the area of
country image. This equally implies that – similarly to brand equity factors – one can
formulate value-bearing elements, like associations, country attitudes, country
awareness, country loyalty (see e.g. Yoo – Donthu, 2001; Lin – Kao, 2004; Jaffe –
Nebenzahl, 2006; Pappu – Quester – Cooksey, 2007; Pappu – Quester, 2010).
In the validated contruct by Pappu and Quester (2010), the elements of country brand
are: country associations, macro country image, micro country image, country loyalty
and country awareness. Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) in their respective works reveal
further factors. Introducing some of these dimensions into the theory of country equity
and more expressly partitioning interrelated constructs (e.g. image vs. associations)
might be justified.
In addition, it can equally be said that the elements of country equity – similarly to those
of brand equity – can be mutually interrelated. The discipline has not yet addressed this
issue.
Given that the field of country equity can still be considered as immature, all formulated
and tested hypotheses in the area contribute to the development of the theory thereof.
The aforementioned factors have not been handled and tested within one common
model so far.

H5a Country awareness positively influences country associations.

H5b Country image positively influences country associations.
H5c Country awareness positively influences country loyalty.
H5d Country associations positively influence country loyalty.

According to the literature, one can stipulate that the elements of country equity
mutually influence each other. According to Anderson’s (1996, in: Pappu – Quester,
169
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

2010, p. 277.) associative network memory model, cosumers’ memories store

information hierarchically in a node-link structure, where, in some cases, to a given
piece of information given associations would be joined. Accordingly, information
about a country will lead to associations which will be stored in a hierarchical order in
consumers’ minds, i.e. in a network. Each of these associations ca can have direction
and strength and can therefore affect each other in several ways (e.g. having a bi-
directional, back and forth effect between pieces of information and associations).
Therefore – based on the associative network memory model – one can assume that
country awareness impacts country image, image impacts associations and in turn,
associations impact destination evaluation. In addition, country loyalty also has an
impact on destination evaluation.
All the above statements are equally mentioned within the literature, even though these
are, in most cases, not studied together, within one construct that would allow a joint
study of the related relationships.
Pappu and Quester (2010) declare that the country awareness and country associations
are separate dimensions of country equity construct. Roth, Diamantopoulos and
Montesinos (2008) emphasize that country image has an impact on country equity
common elements of wich are country awareness/country associations. As a
consequence of the findings we can state that both country image and country
awareness can influence country associations. It means that the free association (what
comes into their mind hearing the word of Country X) that a consumer has relating to a
certain country are based on the reputation and the awareness of that country in their
mind.
Keller (1993) specifies that brand awareness includes the concepts of brand recall
(spontaneous) and recognition (aided).
Several authors state that brand awareness accounts for the most determining factor of
consumer decision-making (see e.g. Webster, 2000; Boo et al., 2009). Brand awareness
is equally an important antecedent to the perceived value of brands (Webster, 2000).
The field of place and destination marketing (as well as several place marketing
approaches) accepts image as an integral part of brand equity (Konecnik – Gartner,
2007; Boo et al., 2009). Authors generally accept that there is a positive relationship
between image and perceived value (Tsai, 2005; Boo et al., 2009), and that image
equally affects consumer loyalty (Cretu – Brodie, 2007, in: Boo et al., 2009).
As the image can have an influence on associations and loyalty as well, it can be
assumed that the same occurs relating to countries, therefore country associations have
impact on country loyalty. It can be justified by the associative network memory model
of Anderson (1990, 1990) and one can state that according to findings associations can
have a central role in equity constructs.
It can also be said that some authors consider country image to be a moderating factor
of country equity, while others (e.g. Pappu – Quester, 2010) as a dimension of country
equity. Therefore the question whether country image is an independent variable or a
part of country equity is still subject to debate. Kleppe, Iversen and Stensaker (2002, p.
170
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

63.) state that country equity can be considered a part of country image, on the other
hand According to Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006, p. 63.) szerint country equity is made up
of the following dimensions: country awareness and country image (itself originating
from country-of-origin effects and country associations). In their understanding, country
equity is not part of country image, rather its effect which originates from consumers’
evaluation. The hypothesis is equally aimed to test this relationship between country
image and country equity.

9.2.3.3. Hypotheses: Effects of country image and country equity on

behavior

The relationship according to which country evaluation affects consumer behavior has
been proved many times in the literature – even though more in connection with
country-of-origin effects and product choice (see e.g. Hooley et.al, 1988; Heslop et.al.,
1998; Berács – Gyulavári, 1999; Berács – Malota, 2000; Malota, 2003; Jaffe-
Nebenzahl, 2006) and less in connection with country image. According to the common
literature of country image and destination evaluation, the overall evaluation and image
of a country has a significant effect on its touristic evaluation and on tourism-related
consumer behavior. behavior (see e.g. Hunt, 1975; Goodrich, 1978; Baloglu –
McCleary, 1999; Tapachai – Waryszak, 2000; Pike – Ryan, 2004; Nadeau et.al., 2008;
Elliot et.al. 2011)
It is not clear, however, whether the value of country image affects further behavioral
factors or whether this effect manifests itself directly or indirectly in the context of a
given choice. At the same time, there seems to be no study in the literature that would
jointly examine the fields of country equity and destination evaluation.
The extension of these relationships beyond product choice appears in several
approaches. The increasing influence of country image and country brand can be
considered an effect of globalization. At the same time these fields increasingly become
a center of attention along the development of the field of science. The formulation of
the hypotheses is equally justified by the growing importance and the broadening of
country branding approaches.

H6 Elements of country equity have a positive influence on destination

evaluation.

Our literature review showed that country image can have a relevant effect to the area of
destination management in two main fields: first, in connection with destination
evaluation and second, with that of destination choice. However, it can be noted that
these areas so far have only been studied at a theoretical level and only a few studies
provided empirical evidence to test them. For this reason, a part of these relationships
and mechanisms of action are not yet tested or are still unexplored. (Roth –
Diamantopoulos – Montesinos, 2008)
171
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

H6a Country image has a positive influence on destination evaluation.

In a theoretical perspective, Kotler and Gertner (2002) state that image is a key element
to information processing as it leads to a knowledge structure and can equally play an
indirect role in decision making. As a result, most authors studying tourist decision
making consider image as a factor of information processing that might influence
destination evaluation (Nadeau et.al., 2008).
In practice, Ross (1993a), Weber (1997), Kozak (2001), Yuksel (2001), and Weaver,
Weber and McCleary (2007) among others studied the importance of destination
evaluation, and numerous other authors the effects thereof for example on the desire to
return or on loyalty.
Based on the above, on can formulate the assumption that country image positively
impacts destination evaluation, and beyond country image, certain elements of country
equity equally impact the relationship.

H6b Country loyalty has a positive influence on destination evaluation.

Aaker (1991, p. 39) defines brand loyalty as “the attachment that a customer has to a
brand”. In his model, loyalty is considered a key factor in the concept of brand equity
(Aaker, 1991, 1996b).
According to Paswan et.al. (2003), country loyalty is a manifestation of the loyalty of
consumers to a country, with an effect mechanism similar to traditional brands.
According to the literature, loyalty can on one hand be considered as an association or
on the other, as a behavior (Aaker, 1991; Oliver, 1997, in: Pappu – Quester, 2010, p.
280.).
One can equally conclude that loyalty equally has a distinguished role in the fields of
place marketing and destination marketing and it is a commonly studied element in
these fields (see e.g. Oppermann, 2000; Baloglu, 2001, 2002; Konecnik – Gartner,
2007; Boo et.al., 2009) in connection with destination evaluation and destination
choice.
According to the literature, loyalty is, in general, an attitude or behavior, even though,
according to the different studies, the concept and its operationalization still lack of
clarity (Boo. et.al., 2009).
According to this, it can be relevant to explore the connection between country loyalty
and the evaluation of a destination.

H6c Country associations positively affect destination evaluation.

Kotler and Gertner (2002) state that image is a key element to information processing as
it leads to a knowledge structure and can equally play an indirect role in decision
making. As a result, most authors studying tourist decision making consider image as a
factor of information processing that might influence destination evaluation (Nadeau
172
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

et.al., 2008). Several authors state that country image is the sum of associations relating
to a certain country. Aaker’s (1991) model refers to image as “associations”. In the
authors’ interpretation, brand association is “anything linked in memory to a brand” and
brand image is “a set of associations, usually in some meaningful way” (Aaker, 1991, p.
109.).
The present dissertation treats country image and country associations as two separate
concepts (see the related H5 hypothesis). Therefore the assumption that beyond country
image, country associations equally affect destination evaluation might be a reasonable
theoretical extension. Hence one can hypothesize that the general image of people about
a country affects the spontaneous associations that emerge, and that these associations
(similarly to country image) affect destination evaluation. There is no thorough analysis
of this area in the literature, the result of the test of this hypothesis might however be a
logical conclusion and improvement of theory related to the field of study.

9.2.4. Attributes of the model variables

The following chapter presents the attributes and sources of the variables to be included
in our research model.
As seen in our literature review, the present research area is hardly characterized by a
usage of proven and tested structural models. Apart from a few examples, there is still
room for improvement as for the area’s methodological foundations. Moreover, the
current dynamics of the research field can be characterized by the joint study and
inclusion into common models of various variables and of their indicators. Following
this latter principle, the present research model combines in a model the dimensions of
country image, country equity and destination evaluation, thus creating a concept that
is unique and combines the contexts of the three research areas in a hitherto
unprecedented way.

Measurement of the dimensions of country image was carried out using the variables of
the Papadopoulos (1990, 1993) scale presented beforehand. Additional scale items were
equally developed. 5 main country image dimensions were included into the model with
1 further sub-dimension that were tested in the same time with the test of the research
model.
The application of the ’environment’ sub-dimension is justified by the speciality of the
research topic (destintaion context) and also the destination evaluation model has some
items on environmental topics. It is importatnt to note that in the present model country
image and people image are separate, individual elements of the construct.
The variables and dimensions of country equity based on Pappu and Quester’s (2010)
model, equally presented beforehand. Variables developed and tested during our scale
test were equally included. It is important to emphasize that the results of the Pappu –
Quester (2010) scale test have been applied in an overall image level of meaning (not
relating to poduct evaluations and attributes) and therefore the ’image’ element refers to
173
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

a general country image, not to a product-country image domain. In the present model
country equity is the equity of the country brand and country image is an element and
not an antecedent of the country equity construct.
The destination rating variable was not tested in the preceding research phases. It was
therefore adopted from a model that first linked destination rating theory with the area
of country image, and therefore served as a relevant approach for the present research.
Nadeau et al. (2008) led by the recognition that destination evaluation was not
independent from the general evaluation of countries examined the two areas in a
complex model. (see Figure 24) The benefit of the application of this model is the
possibility of referring those factors that were explored by open-ended question and
expert interviews beforehand (e.g. pollution, public safety). The items of the scale
designed by the authors heavily rely on the scales by Papadopoulos (1990, 1993) and
Martin-Eroglu (1993), already tested in the present dissertation and therefore it will not
be necessary to validate them once again in the present research phase.

Figure 24.
The model by Nadeau et.al. (2008)

Source: Nadeau et.al., 2008, p. 92.

According to the above, the variables used in the model are as follows:
Country image within country equity models is described as “the total of all descriptive,
inferential, and informational beliefs about a particular country”.(Martin – Eroglu,
1993, p. 193.) Pappu and Quester (2010) in their model use the same approach.
“Publications generally embrace [country image’s] multidimensional nature [...]. The
cognitive, affective/evaluative, and conative phases of attitude formation are
represented through the beliefs about a country and its products (cognitive), the feelings
towards it and its products (affective), and behavioral intentions to purchase its products
[…] (conative)” (Nadeau et.al., 2008, p. 87.). Studies on country image found a direct
relationship between country evaluation and the evaluation of its inhabitants several
times. Therefore Nadeau et.al. (2008) in their study examine country character and
people character as two separate entities.
“[P]eople-beliefs may be best represented using two groups: character and competency
beliefs” (Nadeau et.al., 2008, p. 88.)

174
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

According to Pappu and Quester (2010, p. 278.), “country awareness, country

associations, perceived quality and country loyalty are the four dimensions of country
equity”. In our research the perceived quality item has been eliminated according to its
product-level focus as the research model was developed on general level of attributes.
Country awareness not only means that consumers are merely aware of a country, but
their “ability to recognize or recall that the country is a producer of certain product
category” (Pappu – Quester, 2010, p. 280.)
In connection with country loyalty, Paswan et al. (2003) state that similarly to brand
loyalty, one can formulate a loyalty towards countries. In their study, Pappu and
Quester (2010, p. 280.) based on the definition by Yoo and Donthu (2001, p. 3.) define
country loyalty as “the tendency to be loyal to a focal country as demonstrated by the
intention to buy products from the country as a primary choice”. In our research we
transformed the item to a general meaning of country brand loyalty, instead of loyalty in
connection with products. developed item in the scale, based on the original one by
Pappu – Quester, 2010)
According to Keller (1993), a relevant approach to country associations is the general
view that consumers’ brand associations contribute to a brand’s equity. In their
adaptation of this view, Pappu and Quester (2010, p. 280.) state that “country equity
benefits from consumers’ country-of-origin related associations” and define “country-
of-origin associations’ as descriptive, inferential and informational beliefs one holds in
memory about a particular country” In our understanding the country associations are in
connection with countries instead of products or brand (developed item in the scale,
based on the original one by Pappu – Quester, 2010)
In connection with destination evaluation, Nadeau et.al. (2008, p. 86.) state that “the
image of a place influences touristic decisions” (see also: Hunt, 1975; Baloglu –
McCleary, 1999; Tapachai – Waryszak, 2000). In their view, destination evaluation
comprises destination attributes as well as evaluations of personal experience or
satisfaction. (Nadeau et.al., 2008)

Moderating effects include individual and country-specific elements.

Individual elements include the attributes tested in the previous chapters, like income
situation, gender or self-confidence.
The country-related elements include country size and its perceived distance

We assumed positive relations among the items of the model, whith one exception of
perceived distance of country.

175
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

9.3. Confirmatory research: the test of Country Equity Model

(CEM)

9.3.1. Questionnaire of the research

The questionnaire structure featured the well-known blocks from the literature during
the quantitative part of the third research phase.

1st block: open-ended questions on the evaluation of countries and their inhabitants,
exploring spontaneous associations on countries and their inhabitants
2nd block: measurement scales to study the dimensions of country image; country equity
and influencing factors and unveil further relationships between them. The theoretical
model included both unidimensional and multidimensional constructs and therefore it
became necessary to use various scales (Papadopoulos, 1990,1993; Nadeau et.al., 2008;
Pappu-Quester, 2010) in the questionnaire. Moreover, the exploration and identification
of the dimensions was not possible with only one scale, therefore emerged the necessity
for the scales’ joint use.
3rd block: moderating effects’ scales, indicators; for the study to study further
influencing (individual and country) factors.
4th block: respondents’ demographic attributes.
Table 38 shows the characteristics and sources of the variables used in the questionnaire
of the third research phase.

Table 38.
Characteristics and sources of the variables used in the questionnaire of the third research phase

Variable Source No. of items, scale type

Nadeau et.al. (2008) 10 items, 7-point Likert

Country image / originally: Papadopoluos (1990, 1993) and
Martin – Eroglu (1993)/
Nadeau et.al. (2008) 10 items, 7-point Likert
People image /originally: Papadopoluos (1990, 1993) and
Martin – Eroglu (1993)/
Own scale 6 items, 7-point Likert
Country awareness / based on Papadopoulos (1990, 1993) and
Pappu – Quester (2010)/
Country Pappu – Quester (2010) 3 items, 7-point Likert
associations
Country loyalty Pappu – Quester (2010) 4 items, 7-point Likert
Destination Nadeau et.al. (2008) 6 items, 7-point Likert
evaluation
Own scale 6+5 items, 7-point Likert
Country image
/based on Papadopoulos (1990, 1993) and
dimensions
Martin – Eroglu (1993)/
Source: own elaboration, 2011

176
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

According to the recommendations of literature it is appropriate to test and validate a

model on sub-samples of a research sample or in parallel on two or more different
samples. (Diamantopoulos, 2010) Based on our observations in the earlier stages of our
research on responding behavior, the questionnaire included an identical pool of
questions for two countries: beyond Germany, that had been proved to be adequately
measurable, the control group responses were about Croatia. (We use the name of
“control smaple” for the second sample, during the further analysis)
Our final country choice was preceded by an expert validation. Germany already proved
to be a country with adequate attributes to be measured in the present research. A
preliminary task was to find another country –, for the parallel evaluation by
respondents –, that shows marked differences in terms of touristic attributes and holds
out a promise to high response rates as well. Based on KSH’s (Hungarian Central
Statistical Office) Annual Travelling Habits Report, Croatia was chosen (Croatia
belonged in 2010 to the 10 most visited countries by Hungarian tourists). The choice
was expert validated by Ms. Em ke Halassy, Director of Research at Magyar Turizmus Zrt.
(Hungarian Tourism PLC.).
The questionnaire was subject to a pilot test in order to reveal potential problems
preventing the filling out of the questionnaire or of comprehension. The pilot query was
conducted in October-November 2011. among third-year students of the Corvinus
University of Budapest. (Appendix 5 includes the final questionnaire)

9.3.2. Sample

The research model was tested on the 18-69 year old Hungarian internet-user population
who declared going abroad at least once a year and self-declared having effectively
been abroad in the previous year.
Sampling was carried out using a quota sampling method using a distribution list. The
study is representative to the population along five design weight criteria (age, gender,
income, place of residence, education). The sample size was 600. Data collection was
carried out by NRC between December 9 and 19. 2011. For sampling matters, NRC had
recourse to its own online access panel containing more than 140,000 members
recruited either online or offline.
For methodological considerations (i.e. differences in sample sizes might considerably
distort the robustness of the statistical tests used during the comparison of results), the
control group size matched the test size.
In addition, it can be stated that the sample size of 600 respondents fulfills the sample
size requirements for the use of a structural modeling method (Klarmann, 2011).

49,1 percent of respondents are male, 50,9 percent are female in the sample. The mean
age is 42,3 years, (16,2 percent – under age 29; 28 percent – age 30-39; 24,1 percent –
age 40-49; 31,7 percent – above age 50).

177
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

24,4 percent of respondents are from Budapest, 52,8 percent are from towns in the
country-side, 22,8 percent are from villages.
According to education: 30,3 percent of respondents took elementary level, 37,2 percent
graduated at secondary level and 32,5 percent have Ba/Ma/PhD level.
In order to examine the relationships found in the literature, respondents could evaluate
the financial status of their respective families and the level of their self-confidence on a
5-point scale, i.e. whether, in their opinion, their family revenue is well below average,
below average, average, above average or well above average, evaluating to the mean of
2,92 by income and 3,11 by self-confidence. 55,7 percent of respondents speak at least
one foreign language, 44,3 percent of them can’t speak any of languages.
Respondents travel abroad orderly 2,26 times per a year, 49 percent of the sample do it
1-2 times a year, 34,5 percent of respondents don’t travel at all.
78,7 percent of respondenst have never been living abroad for a longer period of time
(at least 3 months), while 21,3 percent of them did so. 58,2 percent of the latter have
been living abroad one times in their life, 16,4 percent of them did so twice in their life.
(mean: 2,59, mean of period of time: 34,49 months).

9.3.3. Query methodology

There are a number of recommendations in the recent literature on the applicability and
adequacy of online queries. In the present case, an online query can be justified by the
specificity of the topic (and its international character), the necessity of sample
availability while time and cost factors had equally to be taken into account.
Moreover, the simultaneous evaluation of the countries was made necessary by the
nature of the study, i.e. for the evaluation not to be related to a specific country (which
would distort content validity) but for it to be general, without any country specificity.
However this criterion was only possible using a computer-aided query – of which only
an online query was conceivable considering the given constraints.
Another advantage of online surveys is the possibility to make given fields of the
questionnaire necessary to be answered and therefore avoid the possibility of missing
values, which often tends to complicate structural analysis.

9.3.4. Data analysis and evaluation of the results

Data collection, input and data purification were followed by the statistical analysis of
the questionnaire, using SPSS 18.0 software. The main purpose of data analysis was to
analyze the relationships of the theoretical model. For this latter an algorithm providing
causal analytic possibilities was required. A structural analysis methodology was used
in AMOS 18.0 software
Most authors recommend the use of PLS for exploratory model testing studies such as
the present one. An advantage of PLS is that it does not require a large sample size and
thus provides good results in studies with relatively limited sample sizes (Klarmann,
178
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

2011). A flaw of PLS however is the fact that one is unable to generate a model fit value
with it, which would give an evaluation of the overall goodness and fit of the model. In
contrast, Amos is an excellent solution for confirmatory analyses and characterization
studies of well-known and tested models, even though it has more considerable
requirements in terms of sample size (Klarmann, 2011). Weighing the above mentioned
flaws and advantages and considering the fact that our model contains both already
confirmed and not yet validates constructs, we opted for the use of Amos software, for
its attribute to provide indexes for the testing of the goodness of fit and usability of the
model. Moreover, the final sample size (N=600) plays equally in favor of using Amos
software. The final analysis was preceded by an expert validation, methodological
issues concerning the final research model were consulted with Prof. Marting Klarman
(University of Passau, Germany).
During the analysis, models were first tested separately (on both base and control
groups), followed by a parallel comparison of the results.

Before formulating the conclusions, we proceeded to validity and reliability analyses

(where the specific indicators depend on the used algorithm). Given that the reliability
and validity criteria were fulfilled, the obtained results may be generalized.

9.3.5. Analysis of the structural model

The doctoral research was based on test of a structural model. According to Gefen et.al.
(2000, p. 6.) „structural equation modelling (SEM) has become de rigueur in validating
instruments and testing linkages between constructs”.
The literature distinguishes two types of structural equation modeling (SEM): methods
based on covariance (e.g. LISREL) on one hand, and methods based on variance, on the
other (e.g. Partial Least Squares, PLS, that was employed in the earlier stages of the
research). Path analysis is equally a determining element of SEM methods. In addition,
according to the direction of a relationship (i.e. the orientation of a casual relationship
between indicators, variables and latent variables) one can distinguish between
formative and reflective models. In the case of reflective models, the casual relationship
derives from the latent variable towards the different indicators (measured variables),
i.e. the measured variables reflect the changes that occur at the level of the latent
variable (Henseler et al., 2009).

The present doctoral research presents and analyzes a model where variables form a
reflective model, while country image dimensions append to the structure as a formative
construct. In case of the formative construct, a correlation of the indicators in not
required, even though they ought to cover the entirety of the relevant aspects of the
construct (Diamantopoulos – Winklhofer, 2001) in order for the measurement error to
manifest itself at the level of the construct as a whole and that the variance not be
explained by the indicators but by elements exogenous to the construct
179
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

(Diamantopoulos, 2001)
Formative models can append to a reflective construct in two basic ways in structural
analyses based on covariance: (1) based on the so-called MIMIC-model, or (2) based on
the MacCallum – Browne (1993) – model (Klarmann, 2011, pp. 117-118.). In the
present study, formative constructs are linked through the MIMIC-model, i.e. as a
formative dimension to each reflective latent variable.
Hereinafter we proceed to a presentation of the results of reflective model used in our
doctoral research. The main aim of the research was to test a primarily theoretical
model, i.e. to test a new model (Country Equity Model, CEM) and unveil new
relationships while using latent variables and measurement scales adapted from the
literature and previous studies.
According to the literature, it is necessary to equally address reliability and validity for
reflective measurement models, while in the case of formative models, there do not
exist any generally applicable indicators.

9.3.5.1. Tests of reliability

Reliability is generally assessed through an analysis of internal consistency for which

Cronbach’s alpha index is a widely accepted indicator. The indicator offers reliability
estimates as the average value of the correlation coefficitents computed from all
possible two-way split of each scale item (Cronbach, 1951; Sajtos – Mitev, 2008). This
shows to what extent the items forming the scale are consistent with the construct they
supposed to measure. At the same time, Cronbach’s alpha sensitively shows higher
values at larger number of scale items (Malhotra, 2006). A further weakness of the
indicator is to often under- or overestimate the degree of consistency of the latent
variable (Graham, 2006). For this reason, the literature – in order to eliminate the
weaknesses – recommends the use of the CR (composite reliability) indicator (see e.g.
Graham, 2006; Hair et.al., 2010) CR is the calculated value of the standardized factor
loadings of the indicators related to each latent variable and of the measurement error
(Nyir , 2011).
CR takes into account the different weights of indicators in the model. At the same time,
its interpretation is similar to that of Chronbach’s alpha index, i.e. it is acceptable above
a 0.7 score (though a several sources put this threshold value at 0.6 [see e.g. Malhotra,
2006]. In the present doctoral research, a 0.7 value is considered adequate, following
Hair et.al. (2010).
According to literature, in the case of structural models, a separate analysis of reliability
for each indicator is also required. In this case, the value of the factor loading between
the latent variable and the manifest variables, indicators should be at least 0.7 (Henseler
et.al., 2009). In addition, there exists a minimum factor weight (0.4). In case this
criterion value is not met, the given indicator ought to be excluded from the model
(Klarmann, 2011). At the same time, Henseler et.al. (2009) draw attention to the fact
that the exclusion of indicators from a model might also throw off the models’ entire
180
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

balance and therefore only recommends it when the measured variable has a low
reliability and CR value significantly improves after the removal. (see e.g. Klarmann,
2011)

9.3.5.2. Tests of validity

Beyond reliability, one also has to test the validity of the designed scale. Validity can be
of three sorts: content validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity. In the case
of a SEM methodology, it is necessary to address convergent and discriminant validity
(Henseler et.al., 2009; Klarmann, 2011), However, a test of content validity will also be
presented in the following subsections.
Content validity is a subjective but systhematic evaluation reflecting how much the
content of scale items is able to represent the measurement object. (Malhotra, 2008).
For this reason, content validity greatly relies on the researcher’s competence and is
therefore also often referred to as expert validity. In the present study, all the
preliminary research phases and the content analysis of the literature were intended to
cover all segments of the topic the inclusion of which to the model is essential.
In addition the expert validation, the scale test and the pilot query, and the subsequent
modifications and model development all were aimed to increase the scale’s content
validty.
Convergent validity is the extent of positive correlation among the measurement results
of the scale on the topic and other types of measurement results of the given topic.
(Malhotra, 2008) This is partly represented by Chronbach’s alpha index, and in case of
SEM models, the AVE (average variance extracted) index. Fornell and Larcker (1981)
recommend a threshold value of 0.5 as a minimum convergent validity, which shows
whether the latent variable is adequate to explain half of the indicators’ variance.
Discriminant validity signifies that provides a proof that the scale is not correlating with
other latent variables from which it would be different (Malhotra, 2008) Given that the
measure of discriminant validity is a complementary approach to convergent validity, in
the case of SEM models it is recommended to use, beyond the Fornell – Larcker index.
The crossloadings criterium is “if an indicator has a higher correlation with another
latent variable than with its respective latent variable, the appropriateness of the model
should be reconsidered” (Henseler et al., 2009, p. 300). Although the Fornell– Larcker
criterion assesses discriminant validity on the construct level, the cross-loadings allow
this kind of evaluation on the indicator level.
Among the above indexes, the first four (Cronbach’s alpha, CR, factor loading, AVE)
are the most common in the case of SEM studies(Hair et.al., 2010). However we will
address all aforementioned criteria in the present doctoral study.

181
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

9.3.6. Tests of validity and reliability of the structural model

In order to test the model and its reliability and validity, a confirmatory factor analysis
was first conducted in AMOS 18.0 software. Indicators with factor loadings under 0.5
(following the recommendations from the literature) were excluded from the model in
order to gain higher validity.

The consistent exclusion of these variables was made more difficult by the fact that a
control group was present, i.e. beyond the original model built up from data concerning
Germany, another model on Croatia was equally studied. In order for the results to be
comparable thereafter, the aim was to design an identical model for the two groups.
While the exclusion of the same pool of indicators was necessary for those under the 0.5
threshold index value in both models, a different set of indicators above 0.5 seemed
justified to be excluded for the two models. This, however, would have led to differing
models and limited comparability. For this reason, all indicators with factor loadings
exceeding 0.5 were kept in the models leading to models with a similar composition,
even though with somewhat differing factor loadings.According to Klarmann’s (2011)
approach, the above procedure does not impair the models’ validity as during the
assessment of the models, a minimum factor loading value of 0.4 is in order. If this
value is not met, the indicator ought to be excluded from the model while above this
value it can be kept in the model. At the same time, Henseler et.al. (2009) note that by
excluding indicators, the balance of the models is affected. Therefore, they recommend
doing so in case the CR index is considerably improved. In light of these considerations,
models with an identical structure were kept, although in some cases containing
indicators with factor loadings that do not reach the 0.7 threshold value recommended
by Henseler et.al. (2009).

Figures 25-26 shows the initial and final confirmatory factor analyses of the variables
and their indicators. 27 indicators of 6 latent variables are present in the model.
Appendix X. gives a detailed overview of the latent variables and indicators that were
removed from the model and the correlation matrixes of the indicators which show that
latent factors with a larger number of indicators have an adequate discriminant validity
as indicators pertaining to the same latent variable do correlate more with each other
than with the indicator of any other latent variable.

182
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Figure 25.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the variables and indicators (Germany)

Source: own elaboration, 2011

Figure 26.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the variables and indicators (Croatia)

Source: own elaboration, 2011

The different indicators of fit of the confirmatory factor model for the German sample
are as follows: CMIN=810.471; df=309; p<0.000; CMIN/df=2.623; GFI=0.861;
TLI=0.971; CFI=0.930; PCFI=0.819; NFI=0.899; RMSEA=0.060; PCLOSE=0.000;
HOELTER0.5=178; HOELTER0.1=188. For the control sample (Croatian sample):
CMIN=871.897; df=309; p<0.000; CMIN/df=2.822; GFI=0.880; TLI=0.937;
CFI=0.946; PCFI=0.817; NFI=0.915; RMSEA=0.061; PCLOSE=0.001;
HOELTER0.5=186; HOELTER0.1=197.

183
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Table 39. shows the results of the reliability and validity tests.

Table 39.
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis and the tests of reliability and validity
GERMANY CROATIA

Factor Cronbach Factor Cronbach

CR AVE CR AVE
loading alpha loading alpha
Variable/indicator
>0,5 >0,5
>0,7 >0,5 >0,7 >0,7 >0,5 >0,7
(min. 0,4) (min. 0,4)
Country image 0,99 0,94 0,882 0,95 0,74 0,843
Co1 0,63 0,66
Co3 0,87 0,76
Co6 0,88 0,78
Co7 0,69 0,80
Co8 0,85 0,75
Co9 0,53 0,57
Co10 0,73 0,48
People image 0,98 0,91 0,902 0,98 0,90 0,899
Pe1 0,91 0,93
Pe2 0,91 0,94
Pe3 0,85 0,87
Pe4 0,81 0,90
Pe6 0,54 0,51
Pe10 0,50 0,58
Country assoc. 0,96 0,93 0,831 0,97 0,94 0,862
CA2 0,91 0,91
CA3 0,79 0,84
Country awareness 0,98 0,92 0,884 0,96 0,88 0,865
Awar2 0,77 0,84
Awar3 0,90 0,72
Awar4 0,83 0,85
Awar5 0,77 0,70
Country loyalty 0,89 0,81 0,764 0,93 0,87 0,808
CL1 0,80 0,84
CL2 0,75 0,82
Dest. eval. 0,98 0,92 0,904 0,99 0,94 0,928
DestEval1 0,69 0,88
DestEval2 0,71 0,79
DestEval3 0,84 0,82
DestEval4 0,89 0,93
DestEval5 0,82 0,87
DestEval6 0,68 0,79
Source: own elaboration, 2011

After data analysis, one can affirm that all indicators fit the given requirements. Factor
loadings exceed 0.7 in all cases, and both CR and AVE indicators of each latent variable
fulfil their respective threshold values. In case of each variable and indicators, all four
determining indicators meet the required values. All measured variables comply with
the crossloading criterion and the expected Fornell-Larcker criterion is met. At the same
184
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

time, as – according to the crossloadings – the correlation of each indicator is in every

case superior towards their own latent variable, and all variables meet every further
criteria, all variables and indicators were accepted.

9.3.7. Results of the test of structural model

The literature recommends the joint study of several indicators of fi beyond the chi-
square test and the degrees of freedom to establish the goodness of structural models:
(1) an absolute index of fit (GFI, RMSEA or SRMR), (2) an incremental index of fit
(CFI, TLI), (3) a goodness of fit index (CFI, TLI, GFI) and (4) a badness of fit index
(RMSEA, SRMR). (Klarmann, 2011) There is, however, not one, general index that
clearly distinguishes a bad model from a good model. At the same time, one has to
consider that model attributes greatly affect its goodness of fit (e.g. sample site, the
model’s complexity [number of indicators, variables] (Klarmann, 2011). Various
sources note that a threshold value of 0.95 is not reasonable for complex models and
greater sample sizes (see e.g. Hair et al., 2010; Klarmann, 2011). There are special
threshold values for models with sample sizes exceeding 250 and working with 12 to 30
measurement variables as recommended by Hair et al. (2010). The present research
model is using 27 variables with a sample size of 600, thus Hair et.al.’s (2010)
recommendations will be taken into account when establishing the goodness of fit of the
model.
After a normality test, we accepted the wide-spread assumption in social sciences, that
in case of an adequately large sample (in our case, N=600), data is sufficiently robust
and a normal distribution thereof can be assumed. According to Diamantopoulus (2010)
in the case of big sample sizes it is appropriate to ensure quasi normality. Moreover,
because of the specificity of the query, no missing data was found in the database.
The indicators of fit of the model are presented in the following table.

Table 40.
Indicators of fit of the model

MUTATÓ NÉMETORSZÁG HORVÁTORSZÁG

CMIN/df
2,466 2,497
( 3)
NFI
0,910 0,905
( 0,90)
CFI
0,919 0,913
( 0,90)
RMSEA
0,059 0,060
( 0,06)
Source: own elaboration, 2012 /based on Klarmann, 2011 /

Based on the analyses, one can affirm that the indicators and variables meet all prior
expectations. Factor loadings in each case are higher than 0.5. All latent variables meet

185
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

the expected requirement according to the CR and AVE indexes. The four fundamental
indicators of the general fit of the model are equally adequate.
In summary, in can be stated that the goodness of fit of the model is adequate and
therefore the model is accepted.
Figures 27-28. give a detailed overview of the structural model for both samples,
including the standardized regression coefficients, the levels of significance, and t-
values.

Figure 27.
Structural research model (German sample)

Figure 28.
Structural research model (Croatian sample)

Source: own elaboration, 2012

Bold lines are indicating significant pathes (p<0.05), the dashed line is indicating the insignificant path
*** p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05, t values in parantheses
186
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

9.3.8. Results of the hypothesis and model tests

The hypotheses presented beforehand were tested, beyond the test of the research
model, with various statistical methods. Table 41 gives an overview of the methods
used during the tests of hypotheses.

Table 41.
Method(s) used for hypothesis testing
METHOD(S) USED FOR
HYPOTHESIS
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
The role and weight of each dimension of country image varies SEM modeling, exploratory
H1
according to the given country. factor analysis
There exists a formative casual relationship between country image SEM model (MIMIC model)
H1a and its dimensions. covariance analysis
(ANCOVA)
The evaluation of the inhabitants of a given country has a positive SEM model
H2
influence on the evaluation of the country.
Country associations have a positive effect on the evaluation (image) SEM model
H2a
of people.
Country image is influenced, beyond the uncovered dimensions, by SEM model
H3
additional factors, peculiar to the given country. ANOVA
Country size has a positive effect on country image. SEM model
H3a
ANOVA
The relative distance of the destination country from the home SEM model
H3b
country has a negative effect of the country image of the former. ANOVA
Country image is influenced, beyond the uncovered dimensions, by SEM model
H4
additional individual factors. ANOVA
Gender influences the evaluation of a country: female have more SEM model
H4a
positive views on country image. ANOVA
Declared income positively influences the evaluation of a country SEM model
H4b
(country image). ANOVA
Declared self-esteem positively influences the evaluation of a country SEM model
H4c
(country image) ANOVA
Individuals’ having lived abroad positively influences the evaluation SEM model
H4d
of a country. (country image) ANOVA
Measurable factors of country equity are: country associations, SEM model,
H5
country image, country awareness, country loyalty. confirmatory factor analysis
H5a Country awareness positively influences country associations. SEM model
H5b Country image positively influences country associations. SEM model
H5c Country awareness positively influences country loyalty. SEM model
H5d Country associations positively influence country loyalty. SEM model
Elements of country equity have a positive influence on destination SEM model
H6
evaluation.
H6a Country image has a positive influence on destination evaluation. SEM model
H6b Country loyalty has a positive influence on destination evaluation SEM model
H6c Country associations positively affect destination evaluation. SEM model
Source: own elaboration, 2012

187
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Figures 21-22. present the results of the SEM analysis. According to this latter, all
hypotheses were accepted along statistically significant relationships, except the
hypotheses related to the distance of the destination country (H3b) among country
attributes, and to the level of self-confidence (H4c) and prior foreign experience (H4d)
among personal attributes.
One can equally state that another 2 hypotheses related to personal attributes (H4a,
H4b) were only partly confirmed, as the 2 samples returned opposite results. For these
sub-hypotheses therefore, further analysis is required.
The joining of country image, country equity and destination evaluation models turned
out to be a relevant approach and was proven. The test of the model on the control
group returned almost perfectly matching results further reinforcing the validity of the
research model.

In light of the results, we can state that the role and weight of the dimensions of country
image in the evaluation thereof varies with the studied country (H1). Moreover, the
indicators make up a formative construct in relation with the variables of country image
(H1a) and therefore our SEM model (MIMIC model) confirmed both hypotheses.
During the preliminary test of the model, we proceeded to a reflective integration of the
indicators. This however weakened both the fit and identification of the model. Further
dimensions from the literature were also included and pre-tested, these, however, did
not significantly fit into the construct. At the end, only the main dimensions mentioned
beforehand were included in the final structural model. During the test of this latter, the
dimensions’ varying level of influence was proved.
The different factor loadings are presented in the following table.

Table 42.
Varying factor loadings between country image and its dimensions according to the SEM model
DIMENSION GERMANY CROATIA
Economy 0,31 0,25
Politics 0,12 0,08
Environment 0,09 0,13
Geography 0,34 0,27
History 0,14 -0,03
Culture 0,09 0,24
Source: own elaboration, 2012

The listed indicators and the latent variables of country image assemble into a formative
model where the indicators equally correlate with each other. All but two pairs of
dimensions are significant at the p<0.001 level.
The strengths of the relationship between each dimension are included in Table 43.

188
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Table 43.
Correlation between indicators in the formative country image model

German sample Croatian sample

Economy Politics 0,655 0,533

Politics Environment 0,434 0,561
Geography Environment 0,282 0,203
Geography History 0,506 0,136
History Culture 0,669 0,614
Geography Culture 0,540 0,262
Culture Environment 0,247 0,192
Politics Culture 0,344 0,232
Economy Culture 0,361 0,162
History Environment 0,237 0,204
Politics History 0,382 0,225
Economy History 0,392 0,171
Politics Geography 0,430 0,237
Economy Geography 0,465 0,195
Economy Environment 0,440 0,374
Source: own elaboration, 2012

Data shows that, during the evaluation of a country, the economic and politic dimension
have a strong correlation with each other, as well as the historical and cultural
dimensions. The correlations between the remaining dimensions are country-specific.
The strength of correlations illustrates well the complex effect of dimensions on the
latent variables of country image.
A number of authors perceive the evaluation of people as one dimension of country
evaluation (and therefore that of country image) while others suggest a separate study of
the two notions, with special attention to the effect of the interaction between the
evaluation of people and of countries. In the present structural model, both approaches
were pre-tested. According to the results, one can state that treating the evaluation of
people as a a separate entity resulted in higher stability and better fit indexes in the
model.
Moreover, one can state that the evaluation of countries is positively affected by the
evaluation of its inhabitants (H2: 0.18, t=3:432; control sample: 0.25, t=4.980).
Moreover, country associations also positively affect the evaluation of people (people
image). (H2a: 0.55, t=7.726; control sample: 0.60, t=9.460)

The results of the SEM model only partly confirmed the hypothesis according to which
other, country-specific dimensions can equally affect country image (H3).
Country size had a significant positive effect on country evaluation (H3a: 0.23, t=6.004;
control sample: 0.16, t=3.721 ).

189
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

The distance of the target country has a significant negative effect on country
evaluation, although in a varying degree (H3b: 0.02, t=0.706 control sample: 0,14,
t=3,321).

It can be declared that country image is also affected by other, specific individual
attributes, beyond those unveiled, however the relationships only partly confirm the
related hypotheses (H4).
The structural model partly confirmed the hypothesis according to which gender has an
effect on country evaluation (H4a: 0.00, t=0.997; control sample: 0.17, t=3.996), that is,
the two samples return different results.
Results are also contradictory with regards to the supposed effect of individuals’ level
of income: the base sample showed a significant relationship (H4b: 0.14, t= 3.885),
while in the control sample, the relationship was negative (H4b: -0.08, t=-1.833).
The level of self-confidence turned out to have no effect on country evaluation in
neither sample (H4c: -0.01, t=-0.194 ; control sample -0.01, t=-0.201)
At the same time, the hypothesis according to which a potential experience from having
lived abroad could have a positive influence on country evaluation could not be
unequivocally confirmed (H4d: 0.01 t=0.367; control sample: -0.08, t=-1.754).

Hypotheses related to country equity were mostly confirmed, each element had a good
fit in the model. Therefore, based on the fit of the model and its validity, it can be stated
that the measurable elements of country equity are country association, country image,
country awareness and country loyalty (H5).
It was also confirmed that country awareness has a positive effect on country
associations (H5a: 0.30. t=5.749; control sample: 0.25. t=4.643).
Country image also positively affects country associations (H5b: 0.39. t=7.015; control
sample: 0.33, t=5.828).
Country awareness equally has a positive effect on country loyalty (H5c: 0.27. t=4.906;
control sample: 0.20. t=4.404).
Country associations equally have a significant positive effect on country loyalty (H5d:
0.62. t= 9.878; control sample: 0.77. t= 14.905)

The model equally tested whether the elements of country equity (with special regards
to country image) have a demonstrable effect on destination evaluation. Results show
that the dimensions of country equity positively affect destination evaluation (H6).
It can be concluded that country image has a significant positive effect on destination
evaluation (H6a: 0.19. t= 4.369; control sample: 0.10 t= 2.687).
Country associations equally have a positive effect on destination evaluation (H6b:
0.60. t= 7.685. control sample: 0.82 t= 8.786).
In addition, country loyalty, often treated in the literature as a behavioral output, turned
out to have a positive effect on destination evaluation. However, this relationship was

190
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

not confirmed to the same extent in the two samples (H6c: 0.20. t=2.933; control
sample: a weak and non-significant effect: 0.04. t=0.454).
The direct and indirect effects between variables related to the model as a whole are
presented in Table 44..
To determine the indirect effects, we used bootstapping and a Sobel test (based on
Klarmann, 2011). According to the literature, this procedure is a valid test of statistical
validity of the direct and indirect effect for sample sizes over 500.

Table 44.
Total, direct and indirect effects between variables in both samples
GERMANY CROATIA
total direct indirect total direct indirect
Dependent variable Independent variable
effect effect effect effect effect effect
Country image People image 0.180 0.180 0.248 0.250 -0.002
Country associations -0.004 -0.004 -0.059 -0.059
Country awareness -0.001 -0.001 -0.015 -0.015
People image Country associations 0.549 0.550 -0.001 0.586 0.604 -0.018
Country image 0.279 0.279 0.297 0.297
Country awareness 0.191 0.191 0.172 0.172
Country associations Country image 0.389 0.390 -0.001 0.316 0.327 -0.011
Country awareness 0.295 0.295 0.241 0.247 -0.006
People image -0.003 -0.003 -0.035 -0.035
Country loyalty Country awareness 0.454 0.273 0.181 0.387 0.201 0.185
Country associations 0.623 0.624 -0.001 0.751 0.770 -0.019
Country image 0.264 0.264 0.320 0.320
People image -0.002 -0.002 -0.027 -0.027
Destination evaluation Country image 0.472 0.182 0.291 0.461 0.099 0.362
Country associations 0.747 0.603 0.144 0.809 0.817 -0.009
Country loyalty 0.198 0.198 0.040 0.040
Country awareness 0.272 0.272 0.214 0.214
People image -0.003 -0.003 -0.034 -0.034
values in bold are significant at the p<0,01 level
Source: own elaboration, 2012

Results show that a determining and significant indirect effect is in place between
country image and people image (R2=0.279, control sample: R2=0.297), and between
country awareness and people image (R2=0.191, control sample: R2=0.172). This
confirms the view in the literature according to which country image also has an effect
on people image and the amount of information an individual possesses of a given
country (country awareness) determines their evaluation of the country’s inhabitants.
Therefore one can state that the effect of the country awareness and the country image
variables on people image is mediated by the country associations variable.
It can also be concluded that country awareness affects country loyalty both directly and
indirectly (R2=0.181, control sample: R2=0.185 with indirect effect), that is, the amount
of knowledge a person possesses of a country does determine to what they associate to
in connection with the county and these associations, in turn, determine their loyalty

191
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

towards the given country. In this relationship, therefore, the country associations
variable acts as a mediator. In the same way (through country associations) does
country image influence country loyalty (R2=0.264, control sample: R2=0.320).
Moreover, destination evaluation is indirectly affected by several dimensions. Beyond
its direct effect, country image, through country associations as a mediating variable,
has an indirect effect on destination evaluation (R2=0,291, control sample: R2=0.362
with indirect effect)
Country awareness affects destination evaluation indirectly through the country loyalty
variable (R2=0,272, control sample: R2=0,214).

Based on the above results one can state that the unveiled relationships confirm the
validity of the associative network memory model in this field of research and support,
at the same time, the previous results of the literature.

9.3.9. Further results related to the hypotheses

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted in connection with hypothesis H1 in order

to unveil the dimensions of country image. A similar approach was used than during the
exploratory research phases (principal component analysis, VARIMAX rotation, study
of the KMO value to determine the correlation of the variables included in the analysis).
The procedures were justified by the aim to reach more stable factors through the
reduction of the quantity of variables with a minimal loss of information.
Both the Pappu – Quester (2010) – scale (11 items), the items in the Nadeau et.al.
(2008) – scale related to country image (10 items) as well as the own scale items (based
on (Papadopoulos 1990, 1993) (12 items) were included in the analysis.
The Pappu – Quester scale alone generated 1 factor (KMO: 0.906; total variance
explained: 51.74%), the Nadeau et.al. scale 2 factors (KMO: 0.881; total variance
explained: 65.43%) on the German sample.
A 7-factor solution was reached with a KMO value of 0.932 and a total variance
explained of 68.4% (33 items). After excluding 3 outlier variables a 6-factor solution
was reached (30 items, KMO: 0.927, total variance explained: 67,4%) (Table 45).

192
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Table 45.
Factor analysis of the dimensions of country image – German sample (N=600)
factor factor factor factor factor factor
Item
1 2 3 4 5 6
Standard of living (high) ,800
Welfare system (good) ,792
Quality of life (good) ,783
Wealth ,765
Technology level (high) ,755
Developed transportation ,689
High quality products ,678
Democratic country ,660
High level of technological research ,632
Culturally inetersting ,611
Role in world politics (great) ,609
History (rich) ,599
Economical stability ,720
Developed economy ,675
Free market system ,662
Politically stable ,646
Conflicts with other countries (few) ,589
Industriousness (high) ,565
Climate (good) ,824
Geographical location (good) ,723
Favourable touristic destination ,700
Attractive natural environment ,666
Level of corruption (low) ,839
Level of bureaucracy (low) ,822
Environment/pollution controls (high) ,580
Rights and freedom ,553
Level of pollution (low) ,677
High labor costs ,567
Intelligent people ,707
Friendly people ,691
Source: own elaboration, 2012

According to the above, the first factor was dubbed “Level of development, quality of
life”, with a total variance explained of 40%. The second factor was named “Economy,
politics”, with a variance explained of 8.8%. The third factor, “Geography and nature”
has a variance explained of 6.6% while the fourth, “Democracy”, of 4.6%, and the last 2
factors, “Environment” and “People” respectively 3.7% and 3.6%.

In the following, the reliability of the scale was examined. The sample’s Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient is 0.931, therefore it can be considered strongly reliable and adequate.
However this result has to be treated with caution as it is known that Cronbach’s alpha
is very sensitive to the number of scale items.

The validity for each factor was as follows:

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 1: 0.939
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 2: 0.860
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 3: 0.775
193
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 4: 0.778

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 5: 0.422
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 6: 0.802

Results show that factor no. 5 is not a stable element of the model, neither in content,
nor regarding its Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

The analysis was carried out, using the same parameters for the control sample
(Croatia). 7 factors were generated with a total variance explained of 63.9% and a KMO
value of 0.915 (33 items). After excluding 5 variables (28 items), a model with a
variance explained of 64.1% and with a KMO value of 0.903 was reached.
The factor structure is shown in Table 46.

Table 46
Factor analysis of the dimensions of country image – control sample (N=600)
factor factor factor factor factor factor
Item
1 2 3 4 5 6
Level of corruption (low) ,781
Workers skill level (high) ,764
Level of bureaucracy (low) ,763
Rights and freedom ,736
Availability of skilled workers ,693
Environment/pollution controls (high) ,614
Technology level (high) ,601
Geographical location (good) ,843
Climate (good) ,778
Favourable touristic destination ,727
Attractive natural environment ,724
Quality of life (good) ,785
Wealth ,750
Standard of living (high) ,725
Economical stability ,727
Politically stable ,665
Developed economy ,586
Free market system ,576
Conflicts with other countries (few) ,567
High level of technological research ,673
Level of pollution (low) ,626
Developed transportation ,612
High labor costs ,605
High quality products ,528
Friendly people ,681
History (rich) ,655
Intelligent people ,627
Culturally inetersting ,607
Source: own elaboration, 2012

The first factor was dubbed “Democracy” with a total variance explained of 33.9%, the
second “Geography, nature”, with 10.8%. The third factor “Quality of life” explains

194
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

6.2% of the total variance, the fourth, “Economy, politics”, 5.1%, the fifth, “Level of
development”, 4.2% and the sixth, dubbed “People, history, culture”, 3.8%.
In the following, the reliability of the scale was examined. The sample’s Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient is 0.931, therefore it can be considered strongly reliable and adequate.
However this result has to be treated with caution as it is known that Cronbach’s alpha
is very sensitive to the number of scale items.

The validity for each factor was as follows:

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 1: 0.896
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 2: 0.829
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 3: 0.846
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 4: 0.779
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 5: 0.786
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of factor 6: 0.772

According to the above results, one can state that factor validity is adequate which
raises the possibility for them to be used as variables in future studies.
Comparing the results of the two samples, one can state that – along a high validity
score – the scale resulted in a factor structure with only small differences but identical
in content. One can observe that “economy” and “politics”, “history” and culture” and
“geography”, “climate” and “natural endowments” are related and are included in
common factors in both samples, which fact also foreshadows the potential interactions
between these variables.

In conclusion, one can state that hypothesis H1 and the results unveiled in our SEM
model were confirmed and strengthened by the results of the factor analysis.

In the following we present an ANOVA study of the demographic differences (i.e. of

the influencing factors) related to hypotheses H2, H3 and H4 and their subhypotheses.
“The analysis of variance pertains to the explanatory models. It is an analytical method
that examines the effect of one (or more) independent variable(s) on one or more
dependent variable(s)” (Sajtos – Mitev, 2007, p. 164.). The use of ANOVA was
justified by the variables’ measurement level and sample size. Even though the
measurement level of a number of variables enabled a higher-level analytical method,
this would have compromised the possibility to apply a consistent data comparison
within the results.
The method calls for a normal distribution of the dependent variables and variance
homogeneity. Assuming a normal distribution resulting from a large sample, we will
proceed to formulating our conclusions (similarly to the general methodology followed
by social sciences) based on F-tests. Homogeneity of variance will be determined using
Levene’s test.

195
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

According to hypothesis H3a, country size affects its evaluation. Country size was
measured in the questionnaire using the “Big country” statement to be evaluated by
respondents. ANOVA performed on the German sample shows that variance is
homogenous and apart from one statement (“The level of bureaucracy is low”), all
relationships are significant: the larger the perceived size of the country, the higher the
responses given, i.e. the more favorable its evaluation. Results confirm the accepted
hypothesis.
The analysis was repeated on the control sample (Croatia) with the same results: apart
from the same statement, the relationship is significant for each item. Hence results
confirm hypothesis H3a for both samples.

H3b related to the perceived distance of a country (from the respondents home country).
Perceived distance was measured in the questionnaire by the statement “The country is
far from my home”.
According to the results of ANOVA conducted on the German sample, one can state
that once again, variance is homogenous and apart from one statement (“The control on
pollution is high”), all relationships are significant. Hence results confirm hypothesis
H3b.
On the Croatian (control) sample, however, a significant relationship was found only in
4 cases. This result therefore does not support accepting hypothesis H3b. However,
considering the fact that Croatia was specifically chosen as a control group for its
difference from Germany, its distance and difference in touristic attributes might
influence our results, that is, in the case of the above hypothesis, Croatia accounted for a
“close” country. Nonetheless, results suggest to reject hypothesis H3b.

Hypothesis H4a poses that gender equally influences the evaluation of a country.
ANOVA on the German sample shows only one significant relationship and the results
therefore do not support the acceptance of hypothesis H4a.
The control analysis on the Croatian sample, however, returned significant relationships
in all but one case (“Inhabitants of the country live in welfare”). In this case therefore
gender did influence respondents’ evaluation of the country, with women giving
significantly more positive responses. This result, contrarily to the previous one, does
play in favor of accepting hypothesis H4a.

Hypothesis H4b related to the influence of respondents’ level of income in their

evaluation of a country. ANOVA on the German sample shows that the relationship
turned out to be significant in the case of only 4 statements and the results therefore do
not support the acceptance of hypothesis H4b.
The analysis of the control group returned significant relationships in all but 3 cases
(“The quality of life is high”, “Inhabitants of the country live in welfare”, “The control
on pollution is high”). The higher level of income respondents self declared, the higher
they concurred with the statements and thus the more favorable their evaluation of
196
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

country image was. These results on the other hand are in favor of accepting the
hypothesis.
According to hypothesis H4c, declared self confidence affects the evaluation of a
country. ANOVA on the German sample returned significant relationships in all but 3
cases (“The level of bureaucracy is low”, “The level of corruption is low”, “The control
on pollution is high”), which supports the acceptance of the hypothesis.
ANOVA on the Croatian sample, however, only returned 2 significant relationships and
therefore results did not support hypothesis H4c.

Hypotheszs H4d states that if the respondent has lived abroad for a longer period of
time (at least 3 months), this would affect their evaluation of countries. The analysis on
the first sample showed only one significant relationship and therefore did not support
hypothesis H4d.
Analysis on the control sample returned 5 significant relationships and 5 relationships
were not significant. Those who had lived abroad, did evaluate country image
significantly more positively. Accordingly, the results suggest that hypothesis H4d
should be rejected.

9.3.10. Test of the country equity contsruct

Following the above analyses we proceeded to a finalization of the country equity

construct by a confirmatory factor analysis, using Amos 18.0 software. During the
confirmatory factor analysis, all indicators showed an adequate fit but the analysis of
the modification indexes led to 2 modifications in order to reach an even higher fit and
stability of the model. Accordingly, a relationship was allowed between two error terms
(among the indicators of country image, between “has a high standard of living” and
“the ”inhabitants of the country live in welfare”, and among the indicators of people
image, between “the inhabitants of the country are nice” and “the inhabitants of the
country are friendly”. This intermediary step considerably enhanced the fit of the model
and led to a balanced factor structure. Results were validated on the control sample and
similar results were reached. (see Figure 29.)
The main indicators of fit of the final confirmatory factor analysis are as follows:
German sample: Chi-square=412.32; df=177; GFI=0.911; NFI=0.925; TLI=0.947;
IFI=0.956; CFI=0.955; RMSEA=0.57; HOELTER0.05=208; HOELTER0.01=223.
Croatian (control) sample: Chi-square=507.91; df=177; GFI=0.897; NFI=0.907;
TLI=0.925; IFI=0.938; CFI=0.937; RMSEA=0.60; HOELTER0.05=172;
HOELTER0.01=184.

Based on these results, it can be concluded that the model has an adequate fit and the
construct is stable. The integration of country image, country associations, country
awareness and country loyalty is therefore an adequate approach to modeling country
equity, and the concepts combined form a stable structure.
197
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Figure 29.
Final country equity factor structure and standardized factor loadings,
based on the confirmatory factor analyses (German and Croatian [control] samples)

Source: own elaboration, 2012

9.3.11. Summary of the results

The results of the various research approaches used during the hypothesis testing are
summarized in Table 47. Considering the results, we can state that the multi-method
and multi-stage validation process brought about mostly consistent results. In a few
cases (e.g. in the cases of sub-hypotheses H3a, H4a,b,c), however, results turned out to
be inconsistent and therefore another, more thorough theoretical post-study was
required to eventually accept or deny these hypotheses. Following this last process, all
hypotheses were accepted or rejected with the most possible certainty.
In the case of hypothesis H3b. the SEM model suggested on both samples that the
hypothesis should be rejected, while the ANOVA study on the base sample indicated
that the hypothesis should be accepted. Regarding the nature of the various
methodologies used and that of the validation process, at the end, hypothesis H3b was
rejected. At the same time, we must note that this was not due to the lack of the
supposed relationship but to the opposite direction thereof within the results, compared
to what was hypothesized prior to the study. This fact involves that the relationship
itself was proved, even though a further validation is still needed, on a greater sample
and involving more countries.
In the case of hypothesis H4a, both the SEM and ANOVA studies conducted on the
base sample suggest that the hypothesis should be rejected while those conducted on the
control sample suggest accepting it. In this case, we proceeded, once again, to a
theoretical post-analysis and expert validation, which led to eventually rejecting the
hypothesis within the present dissertation. At the same time, we must note that a with a
different sample and a study including further relationships, this hypothesis might serve
as a basis for further research topics.

198
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

For hypothesis H4b, once again, both a SEM and ANOVA analyses were conducted.
Here, the results for the base sample verify while those on the control sample refute the
hypothesis. During the post-study, we were led to reject the hypothesis, but a further
validation and extension of the subject might be considered in the future.
Hypothesis H4c was only verified by the SEM modeling conducted on the base sample,
while the ANOVA on the same sample and both studies on the control sample led to
reject it. Considering the above, the hypothesis was eventually rejected but, once again,
a further validation and extension of the subject might be considered in the future.
In the case of hypothesis H6c, the SEM model on the base sample verifies the
hypothesis, while it shows no significant relationship in case of the control sample.
Considering the recommendations from the literature, the hypothesis was accepted, with
the comment that the results need further validation with an analysis involving the study
of at least one other country.

Table 47.
Summary of the result of hypothesis test
Result Result
Used method
(German sample) (Croatian sample)
H1 SEM accepted accepted
exploratory factor analysis accepted accepted
H1a SEM / MIMIC model/ accepted accepted
ANCOVA accepted accepted
confirmatory factor analysis accepted accepted
H2 SEM accepted accepted
H2a SEM accepted accepted
H3 SEM accepted accepted
ANOVA accepted accepted
H3a SEM accepted accepted
ANOVA accepted accepted
H3b SEM rejected rejected
ANOVA accepted rejected
H4 SEM rejected rejected
ANOVA rejected rejected
H4a SEM rejected accepted
ANOVA rejected accepted
H4b SEM accepted rejected
ANOVA accepted rejected
H4c SEM rejected rejected
ANOVA accepted rejected
H4d SEM rejected rejected
ANOVA rejected rejected
H5 SEM accepted accepted
confirmatory factor analysis accepted accepted
H5a SEM model accepted accepted
H5b SEM model accepted accepted
H5c SEM model accepted accepted
H5d SEM model accepted accepted
H6 SEM model accepted accepted
H6a SEM model accepted accepted
H6b SEM model accepted accepted
H6c SEM model accepted partly accepted
Source: own elaboration, 2012
199
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

9.3.12. Further results of the study

In this chapter we present the further results of our query with special attention to the
parts of the Pappu-Quester (2010) and Nadeau et al. (2008) scales related to country
image, country brands and country equity.
As stated beforehand, a somewhat modified version of the Pappu-Quester (2010) scale
was included into the final questionnaire. The modifications mostly involved widening
the scope of the study (a general country-level approach instead of a product-specific
evaluation) and developing the scale (inclusion of new items). The block of questions
on the product equity based context of county equity developed previously was equally
analyzed.
Based on the above, the following variables were analyzed: country awareness
(country-level approach), macro country image, country loyalty (country-level
approach) and overall country equity. Results are summarized in Table 48 below.

Table 48.
Results of the Pappu-Quester scale (N=600)
(on a 7-point Likert scale)
Avg. (stdev.) Avg. (stdev.)
Variable Scale item
German sample control sample
I can recognize brand names from the 6.08 (1.2) 4.03 (2.1)
Country country
awareness Some characteristics of the country come 4.58 (1.5) 4.07 (1.5)
to mind quickly
The country has a high level of 6.37 (0.9) 4.60 (1.5)
industrialization
The country has a highly developed 6.42 (0.9) 4.66 (1.3)
economy.
People of the country are highly literate. 5.57 (1.4) 5.10 (1.4)
The country has a free-market system. 6.19 (1.2) 5.24 (1.4)
The country is a democratic country. 6.21 (1.0) 5.37 (1.4)
The country has high level of 6.35 (1.0) 5.03 (2.2)
Macro country
technological research.
image
Products made in the country are of very 6.27 (0.9) 5.01 (1.8)
good quality.
The country offers its people high standard 6.25 (0.9) 4.43 (1.4)
of living.
Labor costs are high in the country. 6.16 (1.4) 5.77 (2.0)
The country has a welfare system. 6.27 (1.0) 4.58 (1.5)
The country has a civilian non-military 6.42 (1.0) 5.84 (1.4)
government.
I consider myself loyal to the country. 4.38 (2.1) 4.58 (2.0)
Country
The country as a destination would be my 3.63 (1.8) 4.39 (1.8)
loyalty
first choice.
If the country were a brand name, it 4.30 (1.9) 3.98 (1.8)
would be my favourite.
If the country were a brand name, I would 4.62 (1.9) 4.26 (1.9)
General
be loyal to it.
country equity
If the country were a brand name, I would 4.32 (2.0) 3.93 (1.8)
pay more for it.
I like the country. 5.15 (1.6) 5.48 (1.5)
Source:own elaboration, 2012

200
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

The Nadeau et. al. (2008) scale included items on both country image and people image
(the original scale was further categorized into distinguishing competences and
characteristics that altogether determine the image). Table 49 below shows the results
for general country image and people image.

Table 49.
Results of the Nadeau et.al. scale (N=600)
(on a 7-point Likert scale)
Avg. (stdev.) Avg. (stdev.)
Variable Scale item
German sample control sample
Counry image Workers skill level 6.11 (1.2) 5.38 (2.1)
Availability of skilled workers 6.05 (1.3) 5.71 (1.9)
Technology level 6.37 (0.8) 4.75 (2.1)
Level of bureaucracy 5.92 (1.8) 5.52 (2.3)
Level of corruption 6.08 (1.6) 5.25 (2.4)
Qualitiy of life 6.26 (0.9) 4.55 (1.7)
Rights and freedom 6.36 (1.0) 5.64 (1.7)
Wealth 6.14 (0.9) 4.55 (1.7)
Environment/pollution controls 6.00 (1.4) 5.21 (2.1)
Role in world politics 6.26 (1.0) 3.73 (2.2)
People image Likeability 5.45 (1.6) 5.44 (1.5)
Friendliness 5.45 (1.5) 5.49 (1.5)
Helpful 5.67 (1.4) 5.48 (1.5)
Courteous 5.64 (1.4) 5.40 (1.5)
Trustworthiness 5.91 (1.3) 5.47 (1.7)
Honest 5.78 (1.7) 5.56 (1.8)
Work ethic 5.89 (1.3) 5.46 (1.6)
Individualism 5.58 (1.9) 5.52 (2.0)
Education level 5.81 (1.3) 5.16 (1.9)
Language skills 5.80 (1.4) 5.12 (1.7)
Source:own elaboration, 2012

9.4. Conclusion of the third quantitative research phase

The present research phase involved the testing of the final research model and of the
research hypotheses. At the same time, the results obtained in this phase were already
supported by a multi-method and multi-stage validation process and thus by the results
and context of the previous research phases.
This final research phase shows a good fit of the structural model, and with an
explanatory power of 80%, it was accepted. According to the results, we can state that
country image, country equity and destination evaluation handled together form a
relevant and justified research context. Table 50. shows a summary of the hypothesis
testing. According to it, all but one of the hypotheses (with five sub-hypotheses)
showed significant relationships and were therefore accepted.
The constituting factors of the country equity model (CEM) are: country image, country
associations, country loyalty and country awareness. To test the significant
relationships between the factors a Sobel test and a bootstrapping methodology were
used.
201
9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

During the separate study of the direct and indirect effects, a significant, determining
indirect effect was found between the people image and country image, the people
image and country awareness and the country image and country loyalty variables.
Among these, the most important indirect effect was observed between the country
image and people image and between the country awareness, country image and
destination evaluation variables. That is, the effect of country awareness and country
image on destination evaluation is mediated by the country associations variable.
Moreover, country image equally has a significant indirect effect on people evaluation
through country associations. These conclusions have a substantial role both in
developing theory and practice.
The SEM model equally shows a number of other significant relationships that were not
hypothesized beforehand. The study of these might define a number of potential future
directions for research and extension of the field.
Among the attributes affecting the structural relationships, a number of both individual
and country attributes had a significant role on a certain part of the constructs (even
though with a limited interpretability). In this manner, taking into account these
attributes might also serve as a relevant extension to the research area. Moreover, the
effect on image of the dimensions of country image can indeed be shown within the
model and one can conclude that relationships equally exist among the dimensions of
the formative construct.
The existing relationships between variables, influencing factors and other constructs
verify the adaptation of the associative memory network model into this area as they
prove that the various dimensions do build up a structure of relationships by activating
each other. As shown by the above analyses, most variables have their indirect effect
via country associations as a mediating variable on the various variables of the country
equity model (CEM).

Summarizing the results, one can state that the research was a success and managed to
explore and model the relationships between the included variables as well as further
determining mechanisms. The research model gives an interpretation and context to the
destination-based approach of country equity while linking the fields of overall country
image and the destination-based evaluation of countries. The research incorporates the
latest research directions, a measurement approach of country branding and the concept
of country equity.
All hypotheses related to the assumed relationships within the model were accepted and
all but some hypotheses related to the influencing factors were accepted. The results of
the hypothesis testing, whether a hypothesis or sub-hypothesis was accepted or rejected,
are summarized in Table 50.

202
 9. THIRD QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PHASE

Table 50.
Results of the test of hypotheses
HYPOTHESIS ACCEPTED?
The role and weight of each dimension of country image varies
H1 YES
according to the given country.
There exists a formative casual relationship between country image and
H1a YES
its dimensions.
The evaluation of the inhabitants of a given country has a positive
H2 YES
influence on the evaluation of the country.
Country associations have a positive effect on the evaluation (image) of
H2a YES
people.
Country image is influenced, beyond the uncovered dimensions, by
H3 YES
additional factors, peculiar to the given country.
H3a Country size has a positive effect on country image. YES
The relative distance of the destination country from the home country
H3b NO
has a negative effect of the country image of the former.
Country image is influenced, beyond the uncovered dimensions, by
H4 NO
additional individual factors.
Gender influences the evaluation of a country: female have more
H4a NO
positive views on country image.
Declared income positively influences the evaluation of a country
H4b NO
(country image).
Declared self-esteem positively influences the evaluation of a country
H4c NO
(country image)
Individuals’ having lived abroad positively influences the evaluation of a
H4d NO
country. (country image)
Measurable factors of country equity are: country associations, country
H5 YES
image, country awareness, country loyalty.
H5a Country awareness positively influences country associations. YES
H5b Country image positively influences country associations. YES
H5c Country awareness positively influences country loyalty. YES
H5d Country associations positively influence country loyalty. YES
Elements of country equity have a positive influence on destination
H6 YES
evaluation.
H6a Country image has a positive influence on destination evaluation. YES
H6b Country loyalty has a positive influence on destination evaluation YES
H6c Country associations positively affect destination evaluation. YES
Source: own elaboration, 2012

203
10. CONCLUSIONS

III. CONCLUSIONS

10. RESULTS OF THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION,

CONCLUSIONS

The dissertation’s starting point was the study of the dimensions and measurability
of country image. The study’s context was provided by the growing scientific
background of the fields of country marketing and country branding. The field’s
international trends justified the adaptation of the study of country equity into the
present doctoral dissertation, as the literature equally seems to lean towards the
measurement of country brands and country equity. The third area of study in the
present dissertation, destination evaluation, stems from the field of destination
management which is a relevant anchor point to the subject in both a scientific and a
practical point of view.
Overall, each main focal point is justified by the results of the first and second research
phases while the final structure of the dissertation as a whole was expert validated
during the in-depth expert interviews of the third research phase.

It is necessary, in the study of the context of country image, to understand its

influencing factors and the related methodological considerations in connection with
their measurement, that is, to map all the attributes that affect individual behavior in the
context of the evaluation of countries. Moreover, in the study of country equity theory,
one needs to be acquainted with the consumer-focused approaches of brand equity and
the considerations related to the adaptation of the associative network memory model to
the subject.
The strong, theory-oriented core of the dissertation is followed by a multi-method
testing process and a subsequent, thorough and multi-faceted analysis and
concluding remarks.
The doctoral research was led to a joint study of the aforementioned three fields by
the recognition of the lack of the related theoretical background and an aim to explore
this unstudied area. The ultimate goal of the present doctoral dissertation was to design
a model suitable to be used in a wide context that is able to empirically test the
theoretically validated elements from the literature. The doctoral research therefore
acts as a first elaboration and test of a Country Equity Model (CEM) in the
context of destinations.
The model links together factors that encompass all the relevant elements related to the
field of country marketing in order to contribute to both theory development and to
practical applications. This was, the model includes the six main dimensions of country
image, the four dimensions of country equity (i.e. country image, country awareness,
country associations, country loyalty) and examines one potential contextual output of
the above dimensions, the mechanism of destination evaluation. This joint study of the
above elements is complex in both a theoretical and a methodological consideration,
204
 10. CONCLUSIONS

even though it follows a visible aim in the literature to develop approaches that are, as
much as possible, multi-faceted and multi-method (Zenker, 2011).

The used methodology equally reflects the above efforts. The dissertation uses a
hybrid, multi-method research design, which is built on consecutive and
subsequent quantitative and qualitative, online and offline phases of data
collection. All phases are aimed to support the subsequent research phase while all
phase is to complete the results of the preceding phase in order to gather a deeper and
more complex understanding of the topic. Data collection ranges over a three-year
period of time, during which our research questions and sub-questions were answered
and/or refined either or both during a quantitative or/and a qualitative research phase.
Our research questions and the related research phases are shown in the following table:

Table 51
Research questions and the related research phases
Research question Related research phase(s)
1st, 2nd, 3rd qualitative and quantitative
What factors influence the rating and measuring of country
phases; in particular: 3rd quantitative
image and country brand, with special regard to the field
phase
of destination evaluation?
1
What are the relevant components of country image in 1st, 2nd, 3rd qualitative and quantitative
the evaluation of a country? phases
How can these components be organized and ranked 1st qualitative and quantitative phases,
based on their effect on the evaluation of a country? 2nd qualitative phase
How can the notion of brand equity (country equity) be
2nd qualitative and quantitative phases,
interpreted in relation to a country and what value does
3rd qualitative phase
it carry for stakeholders?
What measurable effects does the image-building
activity of a country have in the target audience’s 2nd qualitative and quantitative phases,
behavior? What are the fields where country image has 3rd qualitative and quantitative phases
a quantifiable effect?
By what means can the image-building activity of a
2nd quantitative phase, 3rd qualitative and
country and the effects thereof can be measured and
quantitative phases
quantified?
How can the value of country image be quantified and
3rd qualitative and quantitative phases
what are its constituting elements?
Source: own elaboration, 2012

A further methodological strength of the research is provided by the fact that the
model was tested on two separate samples of 600 respondents each. The database
for the base sample includes the opinions of Hungarian respondents about Germany.
The control sample (conducted for reasons of a subsequent validation and comparability
of the results) includes the opinions of the same subjects on Croatia. The methodology,
thus fitting the recommendations from the literature, provides a double validation
to the results making the subsequent conclusions even more strong, valid and
reliable.

205
10. CONCLUSIONS

10.1. Results and conclusions of the research phases

The multi-method research process was quantitative-dominant and was composed

of three qualitative and four quantitative stages. Following our literature review,
during which the gaps and niches in the theoretical background were revealed, we
designed a research process with three main subsequent stages. These consecutive and
subsequent stages were aimed to contribute to better understand the research problem,
to identify each topic to be analyzed within the research model and to examine the
further influencing factors to be included in the model.
Table 52 gives a summary of the most important results and conclusions of each
research phase.

Table 52
Results and conclusions of the dissertation’s research phases
Research phase Main conclusions
1st Qualitative research
phase country image is a concept that can be interpreted independently of product
Unveiling the dimensions of dimensions
country image 6 main dimensions identified (out of 11)
Content analysis of the relationships between dimensions interpreted
literature
reliability and content validity of existing scales is insufficient and need
1st Quantitative research therefore to be improved
phase the concept of country image can be thoroughly explored through a joint use
Study of the dimensions and of multiple scales
model of country image beyond the dimensions of country image the study of other influencing
Hungarian (N=399) and factors is justified
English-language (N=106) influencing factors: individual and country-specific attributes
questionnaire survey the country image and its dimensions can be analyzed in a formative
structural model
2nd Qualitative research
interviews basically confirmed the results of the literature review
phase
the dimensions of country image do affect the evaluation of countries
Study of the concept and
cognitive and affective factors can be distinguished with country image
effect mechanism of country
country brand is a relevant concept for consumers
brands
country image does affect destination evaluation
Focus group interviews
the Pappu – Quester (2010) scale is suitable for measuring country equity
but requires further development
2nd Quantitative research several items need to be made more general or specific to the topic
phase (development of the concept of county equity)
Test of country brand scale the dimensions of country equity: country image, country associations,
Questionnaire survey country loyalty, country awareness
relationships between the elements of country equity are not known, further
studies are needed to explore them
3rd Qualitative research
the doctoral research was expert validated, the interviews confirmed the
phase
relationships unveiled beforehand
Validation of the doctoral
the theoretical and practical significance as well as the novelty of the subject
study
was confirmed
Expert interviews
3rd Quantitative research
test and validation of the country equity model (CEM) on two samples
phase
the dimensions of country equity: country image, country awareness,
Test of the Country Equity
country associations, country loyalty
Model (CEM)
country equity does affect destination evaluation
Questionnaire survey
Source: own elaboration, 2012

206
 10. CONCLUSIONS

10.1.1. Conclusions on the main research question

In the following we will give an overview of the dissertation’s final research phase,
(i.e. our research model’s test) and compare and contrast these results with the
relationships unveiled during our literature review.
To answer our main research question (What factors influence the rating and measuring
of country image and country brand, with special regard to the field of destination
evaluation?), our research did confirm that the dimensions of country equity do have a
determining effect on destination evaluation. Moreover, individual and country-specific
elements can be identified as further influencing factors. Therefore the extension of the
research model with these elements is justified. The hypothesized structure was
validated on several occasions: first, the multi-method research process and the various
methodologies used within confirmed it in multiple steps and second, the query on a
large sample during the final test of the model equally validated it. Results confirm
that the country equity model (CEM) provides a useful theoretical framework for
the study and interpretation of country image and destination evaluation.
Results equally confirm the well-foundedness of the joint study of country image and its
dimensions with country equity and its dimensions and destination evaluation models.
Given that the literature have not yet produced a mature theoretical model of country
equity, and that only few works (see e.g. Nadeau et.al., 2008; Pappu – Quester, 2010)
have started integrating (parts of) the fields of country equity and destination evaluation,
the improvement and linking of certain parts of the model and the joint study,
testing and validation within one complex model of these fields is an important
result of the present doctoral dissertation.

In accordance with the literature (Roth – Romeo, 1992; Martin – Eroglu, 1993;
Parameswaran – Pisharodi, 1994), our research confirmed the multidimensional
nature of country image and identified its relevant dimensions: economy, politics,
history, culture, geography and environment. These factors fit significantly into the
model, even though the strength of their effect varies along the country in question. Our
results equally prove that these elements influence the country image construct in a
formative way, that is, supposing an effect from the direction of the indicators towards
the variable. This corresponds to the recommendations by the literature (Roth –
Diamantopoulos, 2009).
Our exploratory study, as well as our final study confirmed on several occasions the
premise that a structural modeling procedure is suitable to explore the direction of the
contribution of each dimension to the model as a whole, and whether this effect is
negative or positive. The literature has not yet produced such complex and
comprehensive studies in the field, which equally increases the importance of the
present research. Results show that the formative structure building is indeed a
relevant approach to the topic and the variable and its indicators do fit the model

207
10. CONCLUSIONS

which increases the study’s content validity as a whole, in accordance with the
literature.
Among the influencing factors of country image, a special attention was brought to
people image. The literature, on several occasions, highlights the importance of
encounters with a country’s inhabitants on the general evaluation of countries (Anholt,
2000). Moreover, the evaluation of people accounts, in several works (Parameswaran –
Yaprak, 1987; Heslop – Papadopoulos, 1993) as a dimension of country image, while
other authors consider it as a separate item and evaluate its effect in parallel with the
evaluation of the given country (Lee – Ganesh, 1999; Knight – Calantone, 2000). From
a methodological perspective, our literature review shows that a number of
internationally validated measurement scales contain separate blocs of questions for the
evaluation of people and for that of countries, which equally confirms a need to
separately evaluate the two concepts. In our doctoral research, having tested both
approaches and taking into consideration the potential gains of stability and fit of each
approach, people image was included into the model as a separate entity. Altogether,
results show that the evaluation of people has a positive effect on the general
evaluation of a country.

Following a literature review, the further influencing factors of country image

were regrouped into two categories: individual and country-specific factors.
Results of previous works in the subject confirm that the area is still underresearched, as
these elements have never yet been tested, nor studied in one complex model.
Moreover, all renown studies concerning these influencing factors were published in
connection with country-of-origin effects (see e.g. Nagashima 1970, 1977; Cattin et.al.,
1982; Erickson et.al., 1984; Johansson et.al., 1985; Chasin et.al., 1988; Yu – Chen,
1993; Maheswaran, 1994; Gilmore, 2002). Therefore the country image specific study
of these elements contributes to theory development in the field and accounts for a
strength of the research.
Following a systematic analysis of these influencing factors, one can state that country
size has a significant positive effect and the distance from the destination country a
significant negative effect on country image. These results add to the practical utility of
the research.
Among the individual factors taken into consideration, gender turned out to have a
significant effect on the evaluation of countries, with women being more prone to give a
more positive evaluation of a country than men. Respondents’ income situation equally
showed a significant positive effect on the evaluation of country image: Results show
that respondents’ declared level of self-confidence and a previous, prolonged stay
abroad do not significantly influence countries’ evaluation. These results equally add to
the practical utility of our research.
In conclusion, it can be said that there is no evidence in the literature of the study
of the effect of country image’s influencing factors even though they might have an
effect on the evaluation of countries, independently of the behavioral output.
208
 10. CONCLUSIONS

Therefore our results account for an important achievement in the field as they
confirm the important role of the influencing factors (individual and country
attributes) within the analysis of a complex situation of evaluation.

The testing of the country equity construct and the study and validation of its
components mark an important added value of the present work in theory
building. The inclusion of the variables used by Pappu – Quester (2010) into the model
corresponds to the international trends in the field of scale development. The authors’
construct is present in our model in an adapted form where it is suitable to specifically
measure country image and country brands, without any allusion to country-of-origin
effects. Moreover, following the traditional brand equity theories, a new item (country
associations) was included into the complex model, which, again, is in accordance with
the consumer-centered brand equity approach.
The approach according to which country image is an element and not an antecedent of
country equity was further tested before being accepted. Thus, each dimension of
country equity was included as a separate variable in our model. This step was justified
on one hand by a number of indications from the literature and on the other by an aim to
provide a maximum of stability and fit to our model.
The validated dimensions of the country equity construct are as follows: country
image, country awareness, country associations, country loyalty. Given that
previous studies of country image and country equity have not studied in a
complex manner the relationships between these dimensions, our results account
for an important indication as to the future potential use of these.
Our results show that the dimensions of country equity are strongly linked to each other
and influence each other both in a direct and indirect manner.

Country image has a significant positive effect on country associations, that is, the more
favorable the evaluation of a country is, the more attributes can a respondent recall in
connection with the country. Country image equally affects destination evaluation:
contrarily to our prior assumptions, this effect manifests itself indirectly rather than
directly, that is, country image positively affect country associations that in turn
positively affect destination evaluation. Thus, the more someone knows about a country
and the more positive this knowledge is, the more positive their evaluation of the given
country will be.
Another significant relationship was the effect of country awareness on country image.
According to our results, the more a respondent knows about a country, the more
positive their image will be. This relationship ought to be tested on countries with
negative overall country image in the future.
Country awareness equally showed a significant positive effect on country associations:
the more a respondent knew about the country, the more information, and the more
favorable information they can recall of the country from among both their spontaneous
and aided associations.
209
10. CONCLUSIONS

Country awareness equally has a positive effect on country loyalty: the more a
respondent knew about a country the more loyal they turned out to be to it.
Country loyalty (which, in certain models in the literature, acts itself as a behavioral
output) had a significant positive effect on destination evaluation, that is, the more
someone claims to be loyal to a country, the more positive their evaluation of the given
country will be.

Altogether, the research model included six different variables, all of them turned
out to have a substantial role. Most hypotheses related to the basic principles or
the country equity model were accepted. It was confirmed, in line with the
international literature, that country image organically belongs to the concept of
country equity. This equally has a practical consequence for the field of destination
management. Altogether, three models (and fields of science) were accorded in our
research model. Each of these was adapted, developed and tested one by one and the
three areas were equally put under a joint examination in relation with destination
evaluation in the form of a structural model, which was proved to be a relevant
extension of and a strategic approach to the area.

In conclusion, one can answer the dissertation’s main question (What factors influence
the rating and measuring of country image and country brand, with special regard to
the field of destination evaluation?) as follows: the country equity model (CEM) is a
relevant approach to the evaluation of a country brand and the dimensions of this
model all have a significant effect on country equity and destination evaluation.
Country associations, country loyalty, country awareness and country image are
relevant factors to map the value of a country brand and the effect thereof on destination
management. Beyond the dimensions of country equity, further individual and country
attributes affect the relationship that provide a further extension of theory and a
potential for a more complex evaluation.

10.1.2. Conclusions on the sub-questions

To answer the first sub-question (What are the relevant components of country image in
the evaluation of a country?) we proceeded to a a meta-analysis of the literature and
used the results of our exploratory and first subsequent research phases. Country image
is a multidimensional construct, as reported by the literature (Johansson – Moinpour,
1977; White, 1979; Narayana, 1981; Cattin et.al. 1982; Jaffe – Nebenzahl, 1984, 1988,
2006; Johansson – Nebenzahl, 1986; Han-Terpstra, 1988; Han, 1989; Smith, 1991; Roth
– Romeo, 1992; Martin – Eroglu, 1993; Parameswaran – Pisharodi, 1994), even though
the number of identified dimensions varies across the articles. Moreover, according to a
certain number of authors, country image and its dimensions can be regrouped into a
formative model. A direct consequence of a formative model is that the dimensions
need to cover all information relevant to the context of the main construct. In order to
210
 10. CONCLUSIONS

fulfill this criterion and unveil all relevant dimensions of country image, a thorough
literature review was conducted with special attention to studies on the dimensions of
country image. Based on this analysis, one can distinguish six main categories (among
the eleven identified) that define clearly the components and influencing factors of a
country’s image. The dimensions can be identified as follows: (1) state and structure of
the economy, (2) labor market, professional skills, (3) political state and structure, (4)
international relations (role in international politics and in international conflicts), (5)
cultural attributes, (6) cultural heritage (traditions), (7) geographical attributes (climate,
natural endowments), (8) environment (public sanitation, protection of the
environment), (9) people, (10) feelings (positive or negative), (11) similarity, kinship.
These dimensions were analyzed both in the quantitative and qualitative phases of our
preliminary studies, and all of them turned out to be relevant to the topic. The final
research model therefore included all 11 dimensions. At the same time, following the
pre-tests of the model, 6 of them showed a suitable fit within the model’s structure.
Based on our results, one can therefore state that country image is constituted and
shaped by economic, political, geographical, cultural, environmental and historical
dimensions.
Moreover, the further dimensions found in the literature were equally studied. Factors
that affect a country’s evaluation and were not identified as dimensions were
categorized into two groups, those of individual and country attributes. These factors
were equally analyzed throughout our research process. Our results show that both
individual and country attributes (e.g. a respondent’s gender or income situation or
country size or the distance from the destination country) have a significant effect on
country evaluation.

The second sub-question (How can these components be organized and ranked based
on their effect on the evaluation of a country?) was answered using our meta-analysis of
the literature and the results of our preliminary studies. As shown beforehand, one can
clearly distinguish a number of dimensions of country image that are strongly enrooted
while having to evaluate a country, as well as other influencing factors that refine, along
the personality of the respondent, their image of the given country. These influencing
factors can be, among others, a respondent’s gender, income situation, or the distance of
the evaluated country from the evaluator’s home country.
A further ranking between the dimensions can also be made, it is, however a function of
each evaluated country. As shown beforehand, there exists a consistent pool of country
image dimensions (see the 6 [+5] dimensions listed above) that are present in nearly all
studies in the subject. These dimensions therefore do determine the evaluation of a
country, although with a weight that is peculiar to each evaluated country. While in case
of a country, the geographical and cultural dimensions will count the more, in other
cases, political or economic factors will play a more important role in the evaluation.
The dimensions therefore have a relative weight among each other which equally
determines their relative role.
211
10. CONCLUSIONS

The third sub-question (How can the notion of brand equity (country equity) be
interpreted in relation to a country and what value does it carry for stakeholders?) can
be answered using the results of our literature review and the subsequent research
phase. Country branding appears as a novel approach in the literature, a direct
consequence of which is the apparition the concept of country equity (just like in the
case of traditional brand equity). The apparition of the concept of country equity in the
field is marked by the integration of the consumer-focused brand equity approach into
the area of country image. Thus, a country brand (similarly to a traditional brand) has a
measurable value, which value in turn holds a number of attributes (country
associations, country loyalty, country awareness, country image). All these attributes
have an express value in several considerations.
According to the traditional approach to country brands, one can consider the citizens of
a country as the owners of the country brand while the country’s government as its
“management board”. In this view, positive country associations and a favorable
country image, as well as a high level of country loyalty and awareness all provide a
surplus of value in the sense that the country brand can be more easily and efficiently
positioned and managed on the market. In the light of the above, a surplus of value can
equally be extracted from the related activities: a successful country brand will provide
an increased income from tourism through an augmented competitiveness. In the same
way, consumers also benefit from the situation: following the traditional brand equity
approach, brand equity is useful for consumers as it provides safety, lower risk and a a
lower need for information.

Nearly all phases of the doctoral research contribute to answering the fourth sub-
question (What measurable effects does the image-building activity of a country have in
the target audience’s behavior? What are the fields where country image has a
quantifiable effect?). Our literature review shows that a strong and positive image
affects individual behavior. Country image building activities (currently identified by
the literature as “country branding”) equally affects individual behavior. As seen in the
literature review, this behavior can manifest itself in a loyalty developing over time and
a conscious choice of the given country in a given context. This, however, is contested
by a number of authors, who rather consider country loyalty as a part of country equity
itself. At the same time, among the behavioral effects, many authors put their main
focus on the consequences of country equity, i.e. on destination evaluation and
destination choice, product purchase, and decisions related to settling and investing in a
country. However, it can be stated that both country image and country equity have a
significant effect on individuals’ behavior, which was proven, in the context of
destination evaluation, by the results of our research and structural model.

The fifth sub-question (By what means can the image-building activity of a country and
the effects thereof can be measured and quantified?) can be answered using partly our
literature research and partly the results of the subsequent research phase. A separate
212
 10. CONCLUSIONS

chapter of the present doctoral thesis dealt with the measurability of country image
where relevant measurement procedures and research methods were equally discussed.
In summary, one can state that country image can be evaluated along several aspects
(e.g. tourism, accounting, marketing, etc.). Among the marketing approaches,
qualitative and quantitative research methods are the most used. Current trends seem to
go in the direction of structural analytical methods, which are deduction-based and
provide the possibility to study causal relationships. This was equally the main
methodology used throughout the present study. Structural analyses contribute to
understanding complex mechanisms’ driving forces, the elements of complex
relationships and the links between them. Moreover, country image has a number of
noticeable effects in many areas. Beyond the behavioral effects discussed previously,
country image equally affects certain elements of country equity. This phenomenon is
explained by the literature through the associative network memory model, which states
that consumers’ memories store information hierarchically in a node-link structure
leading to a complex web of associations and pieces of information. This implies that
when a memory is activated in a consumer, it is possible to activate all related elements.
This phenomenon equally manifests itself among the elements of the concept of country
equity: with the activation of country image, country associations, country awareness
and country loyalty equally come to the front. Thus, the results of our structural study
show that country awareness has a positive effect on country image, country image is
has a positive effect on country associations, and it also indirectly affects country
loyalty and destination evaluation. Therefore, country image through an associative
structure can, both in direct and indirect ways, affect the elements of country equity,
leading to the formation of a complex system with them

The last sub-question, that was, as a matter of fact, the initial question of the present
dissertation (How can the value of country image be quantified and what are its
constituting elements?) can be answered through our analysis of the literature, even
though the preliminary and final research phases did further refine it. According to the
latest trends in the literature, the marketing value of country image manifests itself in
the form of country equity approaches. These approaches, however, address country
image in a country-of-origin context as they are closely related to the area of country-
of-origin image of products. Country image, according to this approach, is incorporated
into product image through an image transfer. In contrast, some researchers in the field
believe that country image can be interpreted, addressed and evaluated on its own,
without a context of product evaluation. The present doctoral dissertation shares this
latter view, and argues in favor of the fact that countries have an image on their own,
that manifests itself also independently of product evaluations (e.g. in other, decision-
making situations). As a result, the concept of country equity is equally detached, in this
dissertation, from its country-of-origin effect context, and is addressed along a more
general, consumer-based brand equity approach. Therefore, in our understanding (if we
accept the view of the literature about the existence of a country brand on its own), the
213
10. CONCLUSIONS

value of a country brand can be expressed, similarly to a traditional brand value. This
equally implies that (following the current international research trends in the area), the
value of country image can be expressed along the concept of country (brand) equity.
This view, equally present in the literature, was confirmed again during our qualitative
(focus group interviews and expert in-depth interviews) research phases.

10.2. Theoretical and practical significance of the doctoral research

10.2.1. Theoretical significance

The dissertation and the related research achieves multiple added value as it fits the
newest directions of research, contributes to academic research in the field and to theory
building.
An unconcealed aim of the dissertation was to connect to the most topical international
research efforts, to unveil, provide a synthesis of and to develop, in accordance with the
international trends the country branding and country marketing approaches. As a
consequence, the dissertation has a strong theoretical focus and provides a first
systematic Hungarian-language study of the field; therefore, in addition to
connecting to the international literature, the present work might equally contribute to
the development of the field on a national level.

Another theoretical significance of the dissertation is the development of the concept

of country image by unveiling, aggregating and analyzing the dimensions and
influencing factors thereof. This can represent an added value, both in the
international and the Hungarian literature, in the sense that no work is known to have
been published that goes beyond a literature review and provides and empirical test and
structural modeling of the area.

The development and foundation of an extended approach to the concept of brand

equity marks another significant theoretical contribution. Previous analyses on country
equity mostly considered the concept in a country-of-origin context by expressing the
value of a country brand through products’ brand equity. The present dissertation gets
ahead of this approach and argues that country brands have a raison d’être beyond being
a part of product brand equity, on their own, and that the value of a country as a brand
can be expressed the same way a consumer brand’s value can be. By the adaptation of
the so-called consumer brand equity theory, the approach equally gains a meaning
through the methodological possibility to unveil its composing elements. In our
understanding, a country equity is the value that can be expressed in the consumer-
focused brand equity approach of country brands and that consumers consider as
valuable in the case of countries. The elements of country equity are country image,
country associations, country awareness and country loyalty.
214
 10. CONCLUSIONS

The development of the concept of country equity is in line with the latest trends in
the international literature and therefore the dissertation contributes to its
development. This is also confirmed by that fact that a number of works were
published, in 2011, in the niche topics of the joint study of country image and
destination management (Elliott et.al., 2011) or country branding and country equity
(Zenker, 2011). Moreover, given the necessity for the development of the related
measurement scales – our results equally bear methodological contributions to the
literature.

The results of the doctoral dissertation contributed to extend the assessment model
of the country image and country equity concepts with the context of destination
evaluation. A destination management-focused approach equally holds an important
practical relevance (see next sub-chapter).

A joint study of country image and country equity in the context of destination
evaluation was justified by a strategic approach to the respective fields of study. It can
be observed from the literature that strategic approaches are taking over as a major
context of study both in the fields of country image and the study of its efficiency and
that of destination management and the study of its efficiency. One manifestation of this
phenomenon is the growing use of efficiency measurement and structural models in
both fields. The joint study is therefore a relevant approach as it is a relevant extension
of the area, even though only a few works have been studying country image in a
destination context (see e.g. Nadeau et.al., 2008) so far, and there is no known work on
country branding in a destination approach, either. The inclusion of destination
evaluation into the approaches of country image and country branding is therefore
a relevant and novel approach thus further contributing to theory development
and to tracing the directions to follow in the area.
The present work – to the author’s best knowledge – is the first of its kind in the joint
study of the fields country image, country branding, country equity and destination
evaluation. This theoretical contribution, by its specificity, equally holds an important
practical relevance.
The results of the doctoral research make a great first step into developing a
country equity model (CEM), as the relationships between country equity and country
image have a suitable explanatory power within the model. As the dimensions of
country equity affect the relationships and therefore destination evaluation both directly
and indirectly, one can state that during the general study of the evaluation of countries
the analysis of these aspects might contribute to understanding the implications of the
phenomenon to destination management.
In relation to the additional factors unveiled during the model’s design, further studies
and tests can be conceptualized (see sub-chapter on future research directions).

215
10. CONCLUSIONS

10.2.2. Methodological significance

The hybrid methodological approach followed during the doctoral research

allowed a more complex and multi-faceted analysis of the subject, which makes it
one of its methodological strengths. This procedure is equally in line with the
recommendations from the literature (Zenker, 2011) as there is a growing need for
results based on a systematic approach and analysis. However, few academic works so
far have been produced, in the field of country image and country branding, using a
multi-method approach for such research projects characteristically require a longer
period of research and analysis and therefore financial resources, as opposed to, for
example, simple quantitative queries based on one methodology. One can equally state
that it is rare for works on both country image and country brands to be expert
validated. This latter phase was included in the research process of the present
dissertation which contributes to increasing the model’s overall validity.

Another methodological added value provided by the present dissertation is the

methodological and substantive adaptation to the field of country equity of the
consumer-focused brand equity items. Previous country equity models only address
the context of product evaluation (country-of-origin effect) and they equally fail to
include all relevant consumer brand equity approaches into their country equity models.
To solve the latter issues, the country equity scale was generalized in the present
doctoral work, that is, it is no longer product-specific and is fit to be used to measure
country equity on a country-level. Moreover, items were developed and designed (e.g.
country associations and country awareness) to increase the model’s content validity.
All of the improved or new items were tested during our empirical research phases and
turned out to fit, reliable and valid to be included into the scale. The doctoral research
therefore has a methodological added value in terms of scale development and model
design, as much in the Hungarian as in the international research context.
The structural analysis equally accounts for a methodological significance in the
field of country image and country branding. As stated in previous chapters, causal
studies with structural analytical methods have been relatively rare in the fields of
country image and country branding, compared to those of destination image and
destination choice. Our analytical work therefore can be considered among the first
milestones to methodologically contribute to an area in need of development.

10.2.3. Practical significance

The multi-method research design, the use of both qualitative and quantitative
approaches largely contributed to unveil the mechanisms of action of the
evaluation of countries as well as the effect thereof on destination evaluation.

216
 10. CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirmed that the evaluation of people has a positive influence on the
general evaluation of a country. This information can be used in practice, both in terms
of education and communication. Education would imply preparing all stakeholders in a
country’s tourism economy that tourists’ impressions all add up to the country’s image
and therefore to their future loyalty to the country, which in turn affects their potential
willingness to return. In communications, this result would imply using a country’s
“human face” when communicating the destination which indirectly could lead to a
more favorable general perception of the country and therefore to a better evaluation of
it as a destination.

Moreover, our results show that country loyalty is a major factor within country equity
that affects destination evaluation and thus has an indirect effect on the country’s
popularity as a touristic destination. Taking into account and managing this fact could
contribute to the success of a country when appearing as a touristic destination.

Another practical result provided by the doctoral research is to having unveiled the
central role of country associations. Our results lead to conclude that destination
evaluation and country loyalty can be improved by reinforcing the evaluators’
spontaneous associations about the country. The practical outcome of the latter result
can manifest itself in the management of a country’s competitiveness and touristic
popularity, and it also indirectly affects the evaluation of investments to and products
from the country.

10.3. Limitations of the research and of the results

In line with the literature (Malhotra – Simon, 2008), the adequacy of the results can be
established in terms of validity, reliability and generalizability. The results of validity
and reliability tests can be found at the end of each report on the results of a
research phase. Altogether, it can be stated that each phase, and the study as a
whole, can be considered as suitable along these criteria.

Generalizability accounts for a limitation of the present doctoral research as it only

explored the mechanism of country evaluation in the 18-69 age group, while certain
exploratory phases were conducted only on a convenience sample of university
students. Even though the exploratory methodology was not been aimed to produce
generalizable results, a wider sample might have provided additional influencing factors
(that might not be present within the given age group).

Another limitation of the present study is to focus the framework of study to only one
area, that of destination evaluation. In order to achieve the design of a truly general
country equity model (CEM), it needs to be tested in other areas, too (e.g. product
217
10. CONCLUSIONS

evaluation, investment decisions). The design of a general country equity scale might
equally be worthwhile, as the scale used in our study was specifically adapted from the
field of product evaluation for the sake of the present research. It would therefore be
worthwhile to adapt the original scale in a way for it to be truly general and not to be
specific to a given area of study. At the same time, one can assume that the
measurement items present in our scale might likely provide a valid measurement even
if the destination evaluation context were omitted, given that our adaptation of the scale
hardly affected this particular area.

In a methodological point of view, the question arises to what extent the introduction of
more suitable scales would result in a more accurate measurement. The query in the
present research was conducted by combining three scales – this accounts for a
methodological limitation of the solution. At the same time, it is worthwhile considering
the inclusion and combination of further research methods into the process (e.g. those of
observational studies or a conjoint analysis, which came up as possible methods to
complete the subject during our expert interviews).

Moreover, the quantity and applicability of scale items for structural analysis poses
questions. As mentioned beforehand, the use of scales with multiple items is required
for the study of latent variables and causal models. In the present study, it is worth
reviewing in the case of which variables the number of measurement scales and
indicators should and could be expanded. At the same time it must be noted that all
studied latent variable was measured by at least two measurement variables in the
present study, as to comply with the required minimum in the literature. The model’s
explanatory power is high (R2=0.79), although there might be certain dimensions that
were omitted from the model. These might be a subject for further analysis.

10.4. Future research directions

Both the theoretical and methodological aspects of the topic provide a ground for
further research.

Our theoretical review sheds light on the fact that the area of country image is most in
need of theoretical development and needs to catch up with the solutions that are
increasingly in place in practice by studying and generalizing these practices into a solid
theoretical base for the area. As in other areas in the field of marketing, market-induced
corrections might be at the origin of a long-awaited progress for the area. At the same
times, researchers in the area equally show an increasing demand for clarifying and
delineating the related concepts and constructs in the field (e.g. of country branding).

218
 10. CONCLUSIONS

Taking into account the theoretical background of the area, one can state that both the
literature review of the present dissertation and its exploratory research phases justified,
on several occasions, the existence of an attitude-based approach. Incorporating the
concept of attitude into the framework of analysis might therefore be a potential
extension to the field of research.
Beyond the attitude-based approach, it is also worth studying which other elements can
be incorporated as focal points to further studies. After a thorough analysis of the
literature, one can remark that in a number of models, country image is at the focus of
study while in other cases (as in the present one), associations are at the core of the
study. The relationships between these two elements, and the potential substitutability
of the two concepts might equally be worth studying in future works.
Another attribute that surfaced during the doctoral research is the necessity to
distinguish the physical vs. emotional distance of the evaluator from the evaluated
country. A few sources have already addressed the problem, although it can be stated
that an express and thorough study on the two concepts has not yet been conducted.
The “perceived quality” dimension equally appears several times as an element of
consumer brand equity. For its specificity, this dimension was more or less ignored,
even though the author believes that it is possible to develop a concept, through
conceptual abstraction, that makes the construct interpretable equally in connection with
country brands.
Among the areas with an increased research interest, place branding showed, multiple
times during our research process, a great amount of unexplored sub-areas. After a
systematic analysis of the literature, one can state that few works incorporate touristic
destination management and place branding into one, and therefore this also might be a
relevant further research topic.
The doctoral research unveiled many new connections and relationships between
attributes (e.g. the effect of associations on loyalty) that have not yet been tested in the
literature. A more special interest on these attributes would once again lead to a deeper
understanding of the area. Further analyses allowing the forecasting of a number of
mechanisms of action using the unveiled relationships would also lead to a deeper
understanding and a real practical benefit for the area, especially in a highly practical
area as destination evaluation.

In a theoretical perspective, one can state that for the Pappu – Quester (2010) scale
(also adapted by the present dissertation) to be an internationally validated, studies on
further samples are required. The same stands for the country equity model of the
present dissertation: in order for it to be internationally validated, it needs to be tested
on other focal countries and potentially larger samples.
A restructuration of the model is equally possible. Previously, in Roth –
Diamantopoulos – Montesinos (2008) the country equity variable was expressed
through a second order factor structure that was formed when analyzing country equity
and the other related dimensions. This solution is equally visible in the present study, as
219
10. CONCLUSIONS

country image, country associations, country loyalty and country awareness form the
country equity variable as a second order factor, the effect of which can be interpreted
in a complex way in case of other second order factor variables (e.g. destination
evaluation).

Even though the country equity scale showed an adequate level of reliability and a
significant explanatory power in the model, the numerous scale items and the
methodological considerations based on the results of our exploratory research phases
suggest that the design of a new country equity scale that would allow for a better
measurement in the topic would not be unnecessary.

220
 APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1/A. – The first quantitative research phase (Hungarian

questionnaire)

FELMÉRÉS:
Magyarország és a magyarok imázsa

A Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem Marketingkutatás és Fogyasztói Magatartás Tanszéke

felmérést készít a magyar fiatalok országimázzsal kapcsolatos véleményér l,
attit djeir l. A felmérésben való részvétel anonim és önkéntes. A válaszait csak
összesítve, statisztikai módszerekkel dolgozzuk fel, az egyedi információk azonosítható
formában nem kerülnek nyilvánosságra.
Amennyiben bármilyen kérdése merülne fel a kutatással kapcsolatban, az alábbi
telefonszámon kaphat b vebb felvilágosítást: 06-1-482-5254

I. Magyarország és a magyarok megítélése

1.1. Mi jut el ször eszébe, ha azt hallja, „Magyarország”?

……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………

1.2. Milyen pozitív gondolatok, tulajdonságok jutnak eszébe, ha Magyarországra

mint országra gondol?

……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………

1.3. Milyen pozitív gondolatok, tulajdonságok jutnak eszébe, ha a magyar emberekre

gondol?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………

1.4. Milyen negatív gondolatok, tulajdonságok jutnak eszébe, ha Magyarországra

mint országra gondol?

……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………

1.5. Milyen negatív gondolatok, tulajdonságok jutnak eszébe, ha a magyar

emberekre gondol?

……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………

1.6. Az alábbiakban néhány tulajdonságot lát, melyek kisebb-nagyobb mértékben

jellemz k lehetnek Magyarországra. Kérem, jelölje meg egy X jellel, hogy Ön szerint
az adott tulajdonság mennyire jellemz országunkra.

221
APPENDIX

−− − + ++
egyáltalán nem jellemz nagyon
nem jellemz jellemz
jellemz
1. Sikeres ország
2. Tehetséges ország
3. Tisztességes, becsületes emberek országa
4. M velt, civilizált ország
5. A társadalmi igazságosság országa
6. Az emberi szabadság országa
7. Fényes múltú, nagy történelm ország
8. Sokat szenvedett ország
9. A jogrend országa
10. Vállalkozó szellem emberek országa
11. Rosszkedv , pesszimista ország
12. Szorgalmas ország
13. Egymással tör d , szolidáris emberek
országa
14. Nagy sportteljesítmények országa
15. Nagy tudományos teljesítmények országa
16. Nagy kultúrájú ország
17. Jó gazdasági teljesítmények országa
18. Demokratikus ország
19. Rendes, tiszta ország
20. Szép tájakban gazdag ország
21. Jókedv , der s ország
22. Fejlett ország
23. Gyorsan fejl d ország
24. Nagy jöv el tt álló ország

1.7. Az alábbiakban egy 7-fokozatú skálát lát, melynek két végpontján egymással
ellentétes értelm tulajdonságok helyezkednek el. Kérem, egy X jellel jelölje be, hogy
az Ön Magyarországról alkotott véleménye melyik végponthoz esik közelebb.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Politikailag stabil ország :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: Politikailag instabil ország

Jelent s szerep Jelentéktelen szerep

a világpolitikában :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: a világpolitikában

Kifinomult érzék Nem kifinomult érzék

az élet szép dolgai iránt :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: az élet szép dolgai iránt

222
 APPENDIX

Megbízható emberek :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: Megbízhatatlan emberek

Gazdag ország :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: Szegény ország

Technológiailag :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: Technológiailag

fejletlen ország fejlett ország

Nagyon lusta és Nagyon szorgalmas és

keveset dolgozó nép :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: keményen dolgozó nép

Magasan képzett Alacsonyan képzett

emberek :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: emberek

Általában nem Általában nagyon

szeretetreméltó emberek :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: szeretetreméltó emberek

Ideális ország :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: Nem ideális ország

Gazdaságilag fejletlen Gazdaságilag fejlett

ország :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: ország

Gazdag kultúrájú ország :___:___:___:___:___:___:___: Szegény kultúrájú ország

2. Demográfiai adatok

Kor: …………..

Nem: férfi n

Állampolgárság: …………………………….…………………….

Éltél-e valaha más országban legalább fél évig?

Igen, éspedig: ………………………………………. Nem

Évfolyamod: ……………..
A szakterület, ahol tanulsz: …………………….……………..

223
APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1/B. – The first quantitative research phase (English language

questionnaire)

Questionnaire
Views of Foreign Students on Hungary and the Hungarians

I. Hungary and the Hungarians (A1a1)

1.1. What is your image of Hungary? What comes into your mind when you hear the word
’Hungary’? (please write it down in a few sentences)
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

1.2. What kind of especially good experiences have you had in Hungary
1.2.a. with regards to the country?

___________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

1.2.b. with regards to the people of Hungary?

___________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

1.3. What kind of especially bad experiences have you had in Hungary
1.3.a. with regards to the country?
___________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

1.3.b. with regards to the people of Hungary?

___________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

II. Views on Hungary and the Hungarians

2.1. On the following page you will find a set of 7 point scales which have descriptive statements on
their left and right sides. To answer each scale, simply put an ‘X’ in the middle of he space that is
closest to your opinion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I know very little about Hungary :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: I know a lot about Hungary
Politically stable country :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Politically unstable country
Admirable role in the world :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Not admirable role in the
of politics world of politics
Not trustworthy people :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Trustworthy people
Rich country :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Poor country
Technologically advanced :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Not technologically advanced
country country
Hungarians have a refined taste :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Hungarians do not have a
for the beautiful things in life refined taste for the
beautiful things in life
My home should have closer :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: My country should not have
224
 APPENDIX

ties with Hungary closer ties with Hungary

Hungarians are highly educated :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Hungarians are not highly
people educated people
Hungarian people are not very :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Hungarian people are very
hard working hard working
Hungary is aligned with my :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Hungary is not aligned with
home country my home country
Hungarians not very likeable :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Hungarians are very likeable
people overall people overall
Hungary is an ideal country :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: Hungary is not an ideal
country
I would welcome more investment :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: I would not welcome more
to my home country from Hungary investment to my country
from Hungary
I would welcome more imports :__:__:__:__:__:__:__: I would not welcome more
in my country from Hungary imports in my country from
Hungary

2.2. On the following page you will find a set of 4 point scales which have descriptive words on
their left sides. To answer each scale, simply put an ‘X’ in the middle of he space that is closest to your
opinion.

−− − + ++
Hungary is a…. Not at all Not typical Typical Very typical
typical
1. Succesful country
2. Country with a lot of talent
3. Country of fair and honest people
4. Educated, civilized country
5. Country of social justice
6. Country of human freedom
7. Country with a glorious and rich history
8. Much-suffered country
9. Country of law and order
10. Country of entrepreneurs
11. Depressed, pessimistic country
12. Hard-working country
13. Country with solidarity
14. Country with great sports achievements
15. Country with great scientific achievements
16. Country with great culture
17. Country with great economic achievements
18. Democratic country
19. Decent, clean country
20. Country rich in beautiful landscapes
21. Cheerful country
22. Developed country
23. Fast-developing country
24. Country with a bright future

225
APPENDIX

III. Background information

3.1. Your age: ____________ years old

3.2. Which country are you coming from? _______________________________

To answer this next section of questions, you only need to put a check-mark ‘X’ in the appropriate
boxes.

3.3. Gender

male
female

3.4. How do you evaluate your financial situation compared to other foreign students here?

Much worse than the average

A little worse than the average
Average
A little better than the average
Much better than the average

3.5. How do you evaluate your financial situation compared to other students in your country?

Much worse than the average

A little worse than the average
Average
A little better than the average
Much better than the average

3.6. How do you evaluate your self-confidence compared to other foreign students here?

Much worse than the average

A little worse than the average
Average
A little better than the average
Much better than the average

Thank you for your cooperation!

226
 APPENDIX

APPENDIX 2/A. – The second research phase – discussion guide for focus
group interviews (Hungarian)

Focus group interview guide

Hungarian students’ views on country imge

1. Introduction, details of research topic 10min

2. Warming up 10min

3. Studying the dimensions of country image 15 min

In what manners is a country evaluated: mainly through stereotypes, along information
taught in school, or maybe following the latest news or information coming from
friends? That is: what a country image is constituted of, what is the evaluation of a
country constituted of: knowledge, feelings, etc.? How can one group these elements?
Are there any decisive factors?

4. Mapping associations, perceptions 10 min

What other factors influence the evaluation of a given country? E.g.: how far it is, how
important is its role in international politics, how big it is, etc.

5. Unveiling overall vs situation-specific factors 10 min

When, in what kinds of situations one has to evaluate a given country?

6. Mapping behavioral output, factors influencing decisions 15 min

How does the weighting of evaluation criteria change along different decision
situations? To what extend does this influence the behavior, how much influence does
this have on decisions?

7. The aspects of destination choice, product purchase,

choice of place of residence 15 min
To what extend does a country’s image provide value for consumers? How does this
value manifest itself in travel destination choice, product purchases, investment
decisions, etc.?

8. Testing the construct of country brand, unveiling its dimensions 10 min

Can a country be considered a brand? Are country awareness, country loyalty, country
associations, etc. part of a relevant approach? Does a country brand provide value for
consumers?

9. Closing 10min

227
APPENDIX

APPENDIX 2/B. – The second research phase, focus group interviews’

participants

Date Location Persons Participants Filter 1 Filter 2 (living

(traveling abroad)
abroad)
2010. 09. 28. BCE F vám 5 4 women, 1 igen nem
tér 311. sz man
Edina, Ildikó,
Tímea, Kati,
Peti
2010. 10. 05. BCE F vám 6 4 women, 2 nem nem
tér 311. sz men
Sára, Kata,
Ági, Csilla,
Péter, Dani
2010. 10. 05. BCE F vám 5 3 women, 2 igen igen
tér 311. sz men
Erika, Éva,
Bogi, Áron,
Karcsi

228
 APPENDIX

APPENDIX 3. – The second research phase, questionnaire for the scale test

229
APPENDIX

230
APPENDIX

231
APPENDIX

Appendix 4. – Guide for expert interviews of third research phase

1. What are the relevant components of country image in the evaluation of a

country?
2. What constitutes “country image”? What are the components and dimensions of
interior and exterior country image?
3. How can these components be organized and ranked based on their effect on the
evaluation of a country?
4. Is the construct “country image” equal to the brand equity of a country?
5. How can brand equity be interpreted in relation to a country and what value does
it carry for stakeholders?
6. Can the “country-of-origin image” be treated as a factor of brand equity?
7. What measurable effects does the image-building activity of a country have in
the target audience’s behavior?
8. By what means can the image-building activity of a country and the effects
thereof can be measured and quantified? What quantifiable effects does this
have in the economy (e.g. in the stock of foreign direct investments), in tourism
(e.g. in the number of foreigners visiting a given country), in culture (e.g. in the
“exportability” of a national culture)? What additional fields can be subject to
the effect thereof?
9. How the value of country image be quantified?

232
 APPENDIX

Appendix 5. – Final research phase - questionnaire

Questionnaire

1. What comes to your mind when someone mentions Croatia/Germany to you?

_____________________________________________________________________

2. What might influence your willingness to travel there?

_____________________________________________________________________

3. If you’ve been there before: what kind of experiences have you had during your stay
there?

_____________________________________________________________________

4. Please, evaluate the following statements! To answer them, put an ‘X’ in the box that
is closest to your opinion. (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = neutral; 7 = strongly agree; NA =
I don’t know/ I’m not answering)

About Croatia/Germany 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
I have heard of the country
Some characteristics of the country come to mind quickly
I can recognize brand names from the country
This country has a highly developed economy
This country has a high level of industrialization
This country has a free-market system
People in this country are highly literate
People in this country are likeable
People in this country are highly helpful
This country is a democratic country
This country has a high level of technological research
This country offers its people high standard of living
Labor costs are high in this country
This country has a welfare system
This country has a civilian non-military government
Products from this country are technically advanced
Products from this country have quality workmanship
Products from this country are expensive
I like this country
I consider myself loyal to traveling to this country
This country would be my first choice for traveling
I trust this country as a travel destination
If this country were a brand, it’d be my favorite brand
If this country were a brand, I’d be loyal to it
If this country were a brand, I’d pay more for it
I know a lot about this country
I know a lot about the history of this country
I know a lot about this country’s citizens

233
 APPENDIX

I know a lot about the culture of this country

I know a lot about the economic situation of this country
I know a lot about the political situation of this country
I hear a lot about this country from media
Media can influence my opinion about this country
This country is distant from my country
I feel this country psychologically far from my own country
This country is a big country
This country is one of the biggest countries of the world
This country is not similar to my own country

5. Please, evaluate the following beliefs! To answer them, put an ‘X’ in the box that is
closest to your opinion. (1 = low/poor; 3 = average/neutral; 5 = high/good; NA = I
don’t know/ I’m not answering)

About Croatia/Germany 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
Natural environment beliefs
Attractive natural environment
Wilderness
Climate
Variety of activities
Peaceful/quiet
Built environment beliefs
Culturally interesting
Profile of attractions
Ease of finding interesting places
Accommodation
Quality of service
Selection of restaurants
Ease of getting around
Shopping facilities
Safety
For the whole family
Sport facilities
Nightlife entertainment
Evaluation of destination
Proud to visit
Memorability of experience
Relative to expectations
Overall rating
Originality of experience
Overall satisfaction
Value for money
Knowledge of destination
People character
Likeability
Friendliness
Helpful
Courteous
Trustworthiness
Honest
People competencies
Work ethic
234
 APPENDIX

Industriousness
Individualism
Education level
Language skills
Country competencies
Workers skill level
Availability of skilled workers
Technology level
Stability of economy
Political stability
Level of democracy
Level of bureaucracy
Level of corruption
Country character
Quality of life
Rights and freedom
Wealth
Environment/pollution controls
Role in world politics
Political stability
Evaluation of people and country
Enjoy being with the people
Overall rating of people
Overall rating of country
Knowledge of country
Alignment with own country
Travel intentions
Willingness to travel
Willingness to recommend
Willingness to return
Willingness to extend stay

Demographic information
________________________________________________________________
Gender:
Male
Female
________________________________________________________________

Your age: _______ years

________________________________________________________________
Your residence:
Budapest
Megyeszékhely
Egyéb város
Község, falu
________________________________________________________________

235
APPENDIX

Education:
Alapfokú
Középfok, érettségi
F iskola, BA/Bsc
Egyetem, MA/Msc
PhD, doktori, MBA
________________________________________________________________

How do you evaluate your financial situation compared to other people around
you?

Much worse than the average

A little worse than the average
Average
A little better than the average
Much better than the average
________________________________________________________________

How do you evaluate your self-confidence compared to other people around you?

Much lower than the average

A little lower than the average
Average
A little higher than the average
Much higher than the average

________________________________________________________________

Do you speak foreign languages?

No
Yes language:1. ___________
2. ___________
3. ___________
________________________________________________________________

How many times do you travel abroad a year?

I couldn’ travel abroad during the last year

236
 APPENDIX

1-2 times
3-4 times
more times

________________________________________________________________

Have you ever lived abroad? (at least 3 month period)

No, never
Yes How long? ________________ months
How many times? ________________ times so far

237
REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1991): Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. The
Free Press, New York.
Aaker, D. A. (1996a): Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets. California
Management Review, Vol. 38. No 3. pp.102-120.
Aaker, D. A. (1996b): Building Strong Brands. The Free Press, New York.
Aaker, J. (1997): Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34. pp.
347-356.
Agarwal, S. – Sikri, S. (1996): Country Image: Consumer Evaluation of Product Category
Extensions. International Marketing Review. Vol. 13. No. 4. pp. 23-39.
Ahmed, Z. (1991): The Influence of the Components of a State’s Tourist Image on Product
Positioning Strategy. in: Nadeau, J. – Heslop, L. – O’Reilly, N. – Luk, P. (2008): Destination
in a Country Image Context. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 35. No. 1. pp. 84-106.
Albaum, G. R. B. – Hawkins, D. (1977): The Measurement Properties of Semantic Scale Data.
in: Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984): Alternative Questionnaire Formats for Country
Image Studies. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1984/Nov. pp. 463-471.
Alhemoud, A. – Armstrong, E. (1996): Image of Tourism Attractions in Kuwait. Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 34. pp. 76–80.
Allen, G. (2003): Branding Beauty: Super, Natural British Columbia: A Case Study Analysis of
Place Branding. in: Allen, G. (2007): Place Branding: New Tools for Economic
Development. Design Management Review. Vol. Spring/2007. pp. 61.
Allen, G. (2007): Place Branding: New Tools for Economic Development. Design Management
Review. Vol. Spring/2007. pp. 60-68.
Allred, A. – Chakraborty, G. – Miller, S. J. (1999): Measuring Images of Developing Countries:
A Scale Development Study. Journal of Euro-marketing. Vol. 8. No. 3. pp. 29-49.
Allport, G. W. (1954): The Historical Background of Modern Social Psychology. in: Fishbein,
M. – Ajzen, I. (1980): Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Al-Sulaiti, K. I. – Baker, M. J. (1998): Country of Origin Effects: A Literature Review.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Vol. 16. No. 3. pp. 150-199.
Anderson, B. (1983): Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origins and Spread of
Nationalism. Polity Press, London.
Anderson, J. R. (1976): Language, memory and thought. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. in:
Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. (2010): Country Equity: Conceptualization and Empirical
Evidence. International Business Review, Vol. 19. pp. 276-291.
Anderson, J. R. (1990): Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: WH
Freeman and Company. in: Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. (2010): Country Equity:
Conceptualization and Empirical Evidence. International Business Review, Vol. 19. pp. 276-
291.
Anderson, J. R. (1993): The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. in:
Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. (2010): Country Equity: Conceptualization and Empirical
Evidence. International Business Review, Vol. 19. p. 276-291.

238
 REFERENCES

Andersson, M. – Ekman, P. (2009): Ambassador Networks and Place Branding. Journal of

Place Management and Development, Vol. 2. No. 1. pp. 41-51.
Anholt, S. (2002): Foreword to the Special Issue on Country Branding. Journal of Brand
Management. Vol. 9. No. 4-5. pp. 229-239.
Anholt, S. (2003): Brand New Justice. The Upside of Global Branding. Butterworth –
Heinemann, London.
Anholt, S. (2005): Editorial - Some Important Distinctions in Place Branding. Place Branding,
Vol. 1/2. pp. 116-121.
Anholt, S. (2007): Competitive Identity. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Ashworth, G. J. – Voogd, H. (1990): Selling the City. Belhaven, London.
Ashworth, G. J. – Voogd, H. (1997): A város értékesítése – Marketingszemlélet a közösségi
célú várostervezésben. Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó, Budapest
Askegaard, S. – Ger, G. (1997): Product–Country Images as Stereotypes: a Comparative Study
of Danish Food Products in Germany and Turkey. Denmark: Centre for Market Surveillance,
Research and Strategy for the Food Sector; 1997
Askegaard, S. – Ger, G. (1998): Product-Country Images: Towards a Contextualized Approach.
in: Englis, B. – Olofsson, A. (ed.) (1998): European Advances in Consumer Research.(Vol.
3.) Association for Consumer Research, UT. 1998. pp. 50-58.
Avraham, E. – Ketter, E. (2006): Media Strategies for Improving National Images during
Tourism Crises, in: Kozak, M. – Andreu, L. (ed.) (2006): Progress in Tourism Marketing.
Elsevier, UK. pp. 115-128.
Babbie, E. (2003): A társadalomtudományi kutatás gyakorlata. Balassi Kiadó, Budapest. pp.
352-379., 438-451.
Baker, B. (2002): 15 Common Destination Branding Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them. Total
Destination Management. http://www.destinationbranding.com/articles/15_Pitfalls.pdf,
letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.
Balabanis, G. – Melewar, T. C. – Mueller, R. (1996): Determinants of Consumer Ethnocentrism
and Country of Origin Image, Proceedings, 25th EMAC Conference, Budapest.
Balabanis, G. – Diamantopoulos, A. – Melewar, T. C. – Mueller, R. (1997): The Impact of
Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies, 26th
EMAC Conference, Warwick. Budapest.
Balabanis, G. – Diamantopoulos, A. – Melewar, T. C. – Mueller, R. (2001): The Impact of
Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies. Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 32. No. 1. pp. 157-175.
Baloglu, S. – McCleary, K. W. (1999): A Model of Destination Image Formation. Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26. No. 4. pp. 868-897.
Bannister, J. P. – Saunders, J. A. (1978): UK Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Imports: The
Measurement of National Stereotype Image. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 12. No. 8.
pp. 562-570.
Barát, T. (1997): Hozzászólás a Magyarország 2000 konferencia ország-kép témájához. In:
Papp-Váry, Á. F. (2007): Az országmárkázás szerepe és hatásai: Országimázs a kib vült
Európai Unióban. Doktori értekezés, Nyugat-Magyarországi Egyetem, Sopron, p. 72.

239
REFERENCES

Barclay, D. - Higgins, C. - Thompson, R.: (1995): The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to
Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration (with
commentaries), Technology Studies, Vol. 2. No. 2. pp. 285-324.
Barich, H. – Kotler, P. (1991): A Framework for Marketing Image Management. Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 32. No. 2. pp. 94–104.
Barke, M. (1999): City Marketing as a Planning Tool. in: Pacione, M. (ed.) (1999): Applied
Geography: Principles and Practice. Routledge, London.
Bar-Tal, D. (1997): Formation and Change of Ethnic and National Stereotypes: An Integrative
Model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 21. No. 4. pp. 491-523.
Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.
Cambridge University Press. http://www.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/bartlett/TheoryOfRemembering
.htm, letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.
Barwise, P. (1993): Introduction to the Special Issue of Brand Equity.International Journal of
Research in Marketing. Vol. 10. No. 1. pp. 3-8.
Bauer, A. – Berács, J. (2006): Marketing. Aula Kiadó, Budapest, 2006.
Baughn, C. C. – Yaprak, A. (1993): Mapping the Country-of-Origin Literature: Recent
Developments and Emerging Research Avenues, in: Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. (ed.)
(1993): Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing. International
Businss Press, Binghampton, New York, 1993. pp. 89-116.
Bearden, W. O. – Netemeyer, R. (2000): Handbook of Marketing Scales. in: Kleppe, I. A. –
Mossberg, L. (2005): Country Image: A Reflection of the Significance of the Other.
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32. pp. 295-301.
Beerli, A. – Martin, J. D. (2004a): Factors Influencing Destination Image. Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 31. No. 3. pp. 657-681.
Beerli, A. – Martin, J. D. (2004b): Tourists’ Characteristics and the Perceived Image of Tourist
Destinations. A Quantitative Analysis – A Case Study of Lanzarote, Spain. Tourism
Management, Vol. 25. pp. 623-636.
Beerli, A. – Meneses, G. D. – Gil, S. M. (2007): Self-congruity and Destination Choice. Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 34. No. 3. pp. 571-587.
Bennett, O. (1999): Destination Marketing into the Next Century. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 1/1999. pp. 48-54.
Bennett, P. D. (1995): Dictionary of Marketing Terms. AMA, Chicago.
Berács, J. – Gyulavári, T. (1999): Magyarország és Svédország termékeinek megítélése a
budapesti lakosság körében. Marketing és Menedzsment, 1999/6. sz. pp. 31-38.
Berács, J. – Gyulavári, T. – Heslop, L. A. – Papadopoulos, N. (2000): An Exploratory Study on
the Role of Familiarity in Product Evaluations. Proceedings, 29th EMAC Conference,
Rotterdam.
Berács, J. – Malota, E. (2000): Fogyasztói Etnocentrizmus – Etnocentrizmus és országeredet
imázs kapcsolata a termékválasztásban, Vezetéstudomány, 2000/ 4. sz. pp. 25-38.
Berger, Zs. - Pozsgai, G. (1993): Az országimázs – In honorem T. G. Masaryk. Valóság,
1993/8. szám, pp. 17-33.

240
 REFERENCES

B ! "! – Sanchez, M. I. – Sanchez, J. (2001): Tourism Image, Evaluation Variables and

after Purchase Behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, Vol. 22. pp. 607-616.
Bilkey, W. J. (1993): Foreword. in: Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. (ed.) (1993): Product-
Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing. International Businss Press,
Binghampton, New York, 1993. pp. xix-xx.
Bilkey, W. J. – Nes, E. (1982): Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. Journal of
International Business Studies. Vol. 8. No. 1. pp. 89-91.
Bittner, P. (2004): Az EU-csatlakozás kulturális kihívásai. In: Papp-Váry, Á. F. (2007): Az
országmárkázás szerepe és hatásai: Országimázs a kib vült Európai Unióban. Doktori
értekezés, Nyugat-Magyarországi Egyetem, Sopron, p. 4.
Bon, J. – Ollivier, A. (1979): L'Influence de l'Origine d'un Produit sur Son Image a TEtranger,
Revue Fran^aise du Marketing, Cahier 77, pp. 101-114. in: Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D.
(1984): Alternative Questionnaire Formats for Country Image Studies. Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 1984/Nov. pp. 463-471.
Boo, S. – Busser, J. – Baloglu, S. (2009): A Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity and its
Application to Multiple Destinations. Tourism Management, Vol. 30. pp. 219-231.
Bourdieu, P. (1990): The Logic of Practice. in: Wodak, R. – de Cillia, R. – Reisigl, M. –
Liebhart, K. (ed.) (2003): The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh
University Press. p. 29.
Braun, E. (2008): City Marketing: Towards an Integrated Approach. in: Zenker, S. (2011): How
to Catch a City? The Concept and Measurement of Place Brands.Journal of Place
Management and Development. Vol. 4. No. 1. pp. 40-52.
Brigham, J. C. (1971): Ethnic Stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 76. No. 1. pp. 15-38.
Brijs, K. (2006): Unravelling Country-of- Origin – Semiotics as a Theoretical Basis for a
Meaning-Centred Approach Towards Country-of-Origin Effects. PhD Dissertation, Radboud
University, Nijmegem. http://de.scientificcommons.org/17754802, letöltés ideje: 2009.
augusztus 31.
Brijs, K. – Bloemer, J. – Kasper, H. (2011): Country-Image Discourse Model: Unraveling
Meaning, Structure, and Function of Country Images. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64.
pp. 1259-1269.
Brunner, J. A. – Flaschner, A. B. – Lou, X. (1993): Images and Events, China Before and After
Tiananmen Square. in: Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. A. (1993): Product - Country Images.
Impact and Role in International Marketing. International Business Press, New York. pp.
379-400.
Brysk, A. – Parsons, C. – Sandholtz, W. (2002): After Empire: National Identity and Post-
colonial Families of Nations. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 8. No. 2. pp.
267-305.
Burgess, J. A. (1975): Selling Places. Regional Studies, Vol. 16. No. 1. pp. 1-17.
Cai, L. (2002): Cooperative Branding for Rural Destinations. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol.
29. No. 3. pp. 720-742.

241
REFERENCES

Calantone, R.J. – diBenetto, C.A. – Hakam, A. – Bojanic, D.C. (1989): Multiple Multinational
Tourism Positioning Using Correspondence Analysis. Journal of Travel Research. Vol. 28.
No. 2. pp. 25-32.
Cameron, R. – Elliott, G. (1998): The ’Country-of-Origin Effect’ and Consumer Attitudes to
’Buy Local’ Campaigns: Australian Evidence. Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 6, No.
2, pp. 39–50.
Cattin, P. – Jolibert, A. – Lohnes, C. (1982): A Cross-Cultural Study of ’Made in’ Concepts.
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 13/3. pp. 131-141.
Chao, P. – Rajendran, K. N. (1993): Consumer Profiles and Perceptions: Country-of-Origin
Effects. International Marketing Review, Vol. 10. No. 2. pp. 2-39.
Chasin, J. B. – Holzmuller, H. H. – Jaffe, E. D. (1988): Stereotyping, Buyer Familiarity and
Ethnocentrism: A Cross Cultural Analysis, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 1. No. 2. pp. 9-29.
Chasin, J. – Jaffe, E. D. (1979): Industrial Buyer Attitudes Toward Goods Made in Eastern
Europe, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 14. (Summer), pp. 74-81. in: Jaffe, E. D.
- Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984): Alternative Questionnaire Formats for Country Image Studies.
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1984/Nov. pp. 463-471.
Chen, J. S. – Hsu, C. H. C. (2000): Measurement of Korean Tourists’ Perceived Images of
Overseas Destinations. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38. pp. 411–416.
Chi, C. G. Q. – Qu, H. (2007): Examining the Structural Relationships of Destination Image,
Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach. Tourism
Management, Vol. 29. pp. 624-636.
Chin, W. W. – Newsted, P. R. (1999): Structural Equation Modeling Analysis with Small
Samples Using Partial Least Squares. In: Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research.
Thousand Oaks. California, Sage Publications.
Chon, K. (1990): The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: A Review and Discussion. The
Tourist Review, Vol. 2. pp. 2–9.
Chon, K. (1991): Tourism Destination Image Modification Process. Tourism Management, Vol.
12. pp. 68–72.
Chon, K. S. (1992): The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: An Extension. Revue du
Tourisme, Vol. 1. pp. 2–8.
Christensen, L. Th. – Cheney, G. (2000): Self-Absorption and Self-Seduction in the Corporate
Identity Game. in: Majken, S. – Mary, J. H. – Mogens, H. L. (ed.): The Expressive 30
Organization. Linking Identity, Reputation, and the Corporate Brand. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 247-270.
Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979): A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs. in: Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984): Alternative Questionnaire Formats for
Country Image Studies. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1984/Nov. pp. 463-471.
Cordell, V. V. (1992): Effects on Consumer Preferences for Foreign Sourced Products. Journal
of International Business Studies. 2nd Quarter/1992. pp. 251-271.

242
 REFERENCES

Cresswell, J. – Plano Clark, V. L. – Gutmann, M. L. – Hanson, W. E. (2003): Advanced Mixed

Methods Research Designs. in: Tashakkori, A. – Teddlie, C. (ed.) (2003): Handbook of
Mixed Methods in Social &Behavioral Research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp. 209-240.
Cretu, A. E. – Brodie, R. J. (2007): The Influence of Brand Image and Company Reputation
where Manufacturers Market to Small Firms: A Customer Value Perspective. Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 36. No. 2. pp. 230–240.
Crompton, J. L. (1977): A Systems Model of the Tourist’s Destination Selection Decision
Process with Particular Reference to the Role of Image and Perceived Constraints. in:
Echtner, C. M. – Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003): The Meaning and Measurement of Destination
Image. The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14. No. 1. (May/2003) pp. 37-48.
Crompton, J. L. (1979): An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and
the Influence of Geographical Location Upon That Image. Journal of Travel Research, Vol.
17. No. 1. pp. 18–23.
Crompton, J. L. (1992): Structure of Vacation Destination Choice Sets. Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 19. pp. 420–434.
Crotty, M. (1998): The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process. Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks
Crouch, G. (1994): The Study of International Tourism Demand: A Survey of Practice. Journal
of Travel Research, Vol. 32. No. 4. pp. 41–55.
Curtis, J. (1997): Should Brands Fly the Flag? Marketing, 20th March, 1997, p. 19.
Curtis, J. (2001): Branding a State: The Evolution of Brand Oregon. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 7. No. 1. pp. 75-81 .
Csepeli, Gy. - Örkény, A. - Székelyi, M. (2001): A magyarok a magyarokról. In: Hunyady, Gy.
- Nguyen, L. L. A. (szerk.): Sztereotípiakutatás – Hagyományok és irányok. ELTE Eötvös
Kiadó, Budapest, 2001, pp. 409-416.
Dadgostar, B. – Isotalo, R. M. (1995): Content of City Destination Image for Near-Home
Tourists. in: Nadeau, J. – Heslop, L. – O’Reilly, N. – Luk, P. (2008): Destination in a
Country Image Context. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 35. No. 1. pp. 84-106.
Darling, J. – Kraft, F. (1977): A Competitive Profile of Products and Associated Marketing
Practices of Selected European and Non-European Countries. European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 11. no. 2. pp. 519-531. in: Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984): Alternative
Questionnaire Formats for Country Image Studies. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
1984/Nov. pp. 463-471.
d’Astous, A. – Boujbel, L. (2007): Positioning Countries on Personality Dimensions: Scale
Development and Implications for Country Marketing. Journal of Business Research, Vol.
60/2007. pp. 231-239.
deChernatony, L. – Halliburton, C. – Bernath, R. (1995): International Branding: Demand- or
Supply-Driven Opportunity? International Marketing Review, Vol. 12. No. 2. pp. 9–21.
deChernatony, L. – McDonald, M. (2001): Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and
Industrial Markets. Butterworth – Heinemann, Oxford.

243
REFERENCES

Deffner, A. – Liouris, C. (2005): City Marketing: A Significant Planning Tool for Urban
Development in a Globalised Economy. 45th Congress of the European Regional Science
Association, University of Vrije, Amsterdam
Deffner, A. – Metaxas, T. (2005): Shaping the Vision, the Identity and the Cultural Image of
European Places. 45th Congress of the Regional Science Association, 2005, Vrije
University, Amsterdam.
Denig, E. (2004): A branding Concept for the Netherlands – InterNational Image Research.
Public Diplomacy and Media: International Conference, Zagreb, pp. 69-82.
Denzin, N. (2009): The research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. The
State University of New Jersey, New Jersey
Desborde, R. D. (1990): Development and Testing of a Psychometric Scale to Measure
Country-of-Origin Image. Florida State University (UMI), Michigan.
Dessewffy, T. (2006): Identitás és imázs. „Country Branding – Nemzetközi Identitás és Imázs”
Konferencia, DEMOS Alapítvány, 2006. november 28., http://www.demos.hu/ Tevekenyseg
/Rendezvenyek/identitas, letöltés ideje: 2009. augusztus 31.
deVicente, J. (2004): State Branding in the 21st Century. Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy
Thesis, The Fletcher School, http://fletcher.tufts.edu/research/2004/DeVicente-Jorge.pdf,
letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.
Diamantopoulos, A. (2010): Measurement Theory (handout). EDEN Doctoral Seminar on
Research Methods in Marketing. Brussels, Belgium, April 25-29. 2010.
Diamantopoulos, A. – Winklhofer, H. (2001): Index Construction with Formative Indicators:
An Alternative to Scale Development. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38. No. 2. pp.
269-277.
Dish, W. (1996): Szükség van-e az „új vásárlónak” márkákra? in: Kádár Kata (szerk.): Tallózás
a marketingkommunikáció területér l. Kereskedelmi és Idegenforgalmi Kft. pp. 304-309.
Dohrenwend, B. S. (1965): Some Effects of Open and Closed Questions on Respondents’
Answers. in: Nebenzahl, I. D. – Jaffe, E. D. – Usunier, J-C. (2000): Developing Cross-
Cultural Scales for the Measurement of Country Image. Working Papers, CBS Library.
https://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/6612, letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.
Domeisen, N. (2003): Is There a Case for Nation Branding? in: Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D.
(2006): National Image & Competitive Advantage – The Theory and Practice of Place
Branding. Copenhagen Business School Press, Denmark. p. 138.
Douglas, S. P. – Craig, S. C. – Nijssen, E. J. (2001): Executive Insights: Integrating Branding
Strategy across Markets: Building International Brand Architecture. Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 9. No. 2. pp. 97–114.
Dovidio, J. F. – Gaertner, S. L. (1986): The Aversive Form of Racism. in: Dovidio, J. F. –
Gaertner S. L. (1986): Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism. Historical trends and
contemporary approaches. Academic Press, San Diego. p. 81.
Dreyer, A. (Hrg.) (2000): Kulturtourismus. in: Langer, R. (2001): Place Images and Place
Marketing. Thesis Work. Department of Intercultural Communication and Management,
Copenhagen Business School.

244
 REFERENCES

Duckitt, J. (1992): The Social Psychology of Prejudice. in: Malota, E. (2001): Fogyasztói
Etnocentrizmus - A sztereotípiák, az etnocentrizmus és az országeredet imázs hatása a hazai
vs. külföldi termékválasztásra, Tézisjavaslatok (kézirat). BKÁE, Budapest.
Echtner, C. M. – Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991): The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image.
The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 2. No. 2. pp. 2-12.
Echtner, C. M. – Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993): The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical
Assessment. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31. No. 4. pp. 3–13.
Echtner, C. M. – Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003): The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image.
The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14. No. 1. (May/2003) pp. 37-48.
Eitel, M. – Spiekermann, M. (2007): Building Reputation – Communicating Identity. Identity
and the Place Branding Process. IdentityLab, Berlin, 2007, pp. 1-4.
Elliott, G. R. – Cameron, R. S. (1994): Consumers Perceptions of Product Quality and the
Country-of-Origin Effect. Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 2. No. 2. pp. 49-62.
Elliot, S. – Papadopoulos, N. – Kim, S. S. (2011): An Integrative Model of Place Image:
Exploring Relationships between Destination, Product and Country Imges. Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 50. No. 5. pp. 520-534.
Erickson, G. M. – Johansson, J. K. – Chao, P. (1984): Image Variables in Multi-Attribute
Product Evaluations: Country-of-Origin Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11. pp.
694-699.
Esses, V. M. – Haddock, G. – Zanna, M. P. (1993): Values, Stereotypes and Emotions as
Determinants of Intergroup Attitudes. in: Mackie, D. M. – Hamilton, D. L. (ed.) (1993):
Affect, Cognition and Stereotyping: Interactive Prosesses in Group Perception. Academic
Press, San Diego. pp. 137-166.
Ettenson, R. – Wagner, J. – Gaeth, G. (1988): Evaluating the Effect of Country of Origin and
the ’Made in USA’ Campaign: A Conjoint Approach. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring,
pp. 85–100.
Fackeye, P. C. – Crompton, J. L. (1991): Image Differences Between Prospective, First-Time
and Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. in: Nadeau, J. – Heslop, L. – O’Reilly,
N. – Luk, P. (2008): Destination in a Country Image Context. Annals of Tourism Research.
Vol. 35. No. 1. pp. 84-106.
Fan, Y. (2006): Branding the Nation: What is Being Branded? Journal of Vacation Marketing,
Vol. 12. No. 1. pp. 5-14.
Feischmidt, M. (2005): A megalapozott elmélet: empíria és elmélet viszonya a kvalitatív
kutatásokban. Kvalitatív módszerek az empirikus társadalom- és kultúrakutatásban.
Szabadbölcsészet. http://szabadbolcseszet.elte.hu/index.php?option=com_tanelem&id_
tanelem =848&tip=0, letöltés ideje: 2008. jan. 17.
Feischmidt, M. (2006): Az empirikus társadalomkutatás módszertana. PTE BTK, Oktatási
segédanyag.
Fischer, W. – Byron, P. (1997): Buy Australian Made. Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 20, pp.
89–97.

245
REFERENCES

Fishbein, M. (1967): A Behavior Theory Approach to the Relations between Beliefs about an
Object and the Attitude Toward the Object, in: Fishbein, M. (ed.) (1967): Readings in
Attitude Theory and Measurement. Wiley, New York, p. 394.
Fishbein, M. – Ajzen, I. (1975): Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Reading, Addison-
Wesley.
Fiske, S. T. – Linville, P. W. (1980): What Does the Schema Concept Buy Us? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 6. No. 4. pp. 543-557.
Fiske, S. T. – Neuberg, S. L. (1990): A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-
Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention
and Interpretation. in: Zanna, M. P. (ed.) (1990): Advences in Experimental Social
Psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-7.
Florek, M. – Insch, A. – Gnoth, J. (2006): City Council Websites as a Means of Place Brand
Identity Communication. Place Branding, Vol. 2. No. 4. pp. 276–296.
Ford, K. (2005): Brands Laid Bare: Using Market Research for Evidence-based Brand
Management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK
Fornell, C. – Larcker, D. F. (1981): Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error. in: Klarmann, M. (2011): Construct Measurement and
Structural Equation Modeling. Doctoral Seminar Handbook, Corvinus University of
Budapest, 15/16 September, 2011., p. 62.
Foster, N. – Jones, E. (2000): Image versus Identity: Representing and comparing Destination
Images Across a Tourist System – The case of Wales. in: Nadeau, J. – Heslop, L. – O’Reilly,
N. – Luk, P. (2008): Destination in a Country Image Context. Annals of Tourism Research.
Vol. 35. No. 1. pp. 84-106.
Frank, D. (1999): Buy American: The Untold Story of Economic Nationalism. Beacon Press,
Boston
Friedman, T. (1999): The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Harper Collins, London.
Gallarza, M. G. – Gil, S. I. – Calderón, G. H. (2002): Destination Image. Toward a Conceptual
Framework. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29. No. 1. pp. 56-78.
Gallup Intézet (2000): Országkép 2000. Kutatási háttéranyag, kézirat az Országimázs Központ
engedélyével.
Gardella, J. (2002). Promises to Keep: Making Branding Work for Science Centers.
http://www.astc.org/pubs/dimensions/2002/may-jun/branding.htm, letöltés ideje: 2009.
április. 17.
Gardner, R. C. (1972): Ethnic Stereotypes: The Traditional Approach, A New Look. Canadian
Psychologist/Psychologie Canadienne. Vol. 14. No. 2. (Apr/1973), pp. 133-148.
Gartner, W. C. (1989): Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of State Tourism Products
Using Multidimensional Scaling Techniques. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28. No. 2. pp.
16–20.
Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image Formation Process. in: Ulysal, M. – Fesenmaier, D. R. (ed.):
Communication and Channel Systems in Tourism Marketing. Haworth Press, New York, pp.
191-215.

246
 REFERENCES

Gartner, W. C. – Hunt, J. D. (1987): Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of State Tourism

Products Using Multidimensional Scaling Techniques. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28.
No. 2. pp. 16-20.
Gefen, D. – Straub, D. – Boudreau, M. C. (2000): Structural Equation Modeling and
Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 4. No. 7. pp. 1-78.
Georgescu, A. - Botescu, A. (2004): Branding National Identity. Masters’ Thesis, Lund
University, Department of Sociology, http://theses.lub.lu.se/archive/sob//soc/
soc04020/SOC04020.pdf, letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.
Ger, G. (1991): Country Image: Perceptions, Attitudes, Associations, and Their Relationships to
Context. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference in Marketing and Development.
1991. pp. 390-398.
Ger, G. – Askegaard, S. – Christensen, A. (1999): Experimental Nature of Product-Place
Images: Image as a Narrative. Advanced Consumer Research, Vol. 26. pp. 165-169.
Gertner, D. (2011): A (tentative) Meta-Analysis of the ’Place Marketing’ and ’Place Branding’
Literature. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19. No. 2. pp. 112-131.
Gilmore, F. (2002): A country – Can It Be Repositioned? Spain – The Success Story of Country
Branding. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9. No. 4-5. (April/2002) pp. 281-293.
Giraldi, J. M. E. – Ikeda, A. A. – Campomar, M. C. (2011): Reasons for Country Image
Evaluation: A Study on China Image from a Brazilian Perspective. Journal of Database
Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, Vol. 18. pp. 97-107.
Glaser, B. – Strauss, A. (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative
Research. Chicago, Aldine.
Gnoth, J. (2002): Leveraging Export Brands Through a Tourism Destination Brand. Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 9. No. 4-5. pp. 262-280..
Gnoth, J. (2004): Opinion Pieces: Where is Place Branding Heading. Place Branding, Vol. 1.
No. 1. pp. 12-35.
Gold, J. R. – Ward, S. V. (ed.) (1994): Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing to
Sell Towns and Regions. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester
Goodall, B. (1988): How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Framework. in:
Goodall, B. – Ashworth, G. (eds.): Marketing in the Tourism Industry: The Promotion of
Destination Regions. Routledge, London. pp. 1–17.
Goodall, B. (1993): How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Framework. In:
Goodall, B. – Ashworth, G. (eds): Marketing in the Tourism Industry: The Promotion of
Destination Regions. Routledge, London, 2006
Goodrich, J. (1978): The Relationship between Preferences For and Perceptions of Vacation
Destinations: Application of a Choice Model. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 17. No. 2. pp.
8-13.
Goodwin, M. (1993): The City as Commodity: The Contested Spaces of Urban Development.
in: Kearns, G. – Philo, C. (ed.) (1993): Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and
Present, Pergamon Press, Oxford

247
REFERENCES

Graby, F. (1993): Countries as Corporate Entities in International Markets. in: Papadopoulos, N.

– Heslop, L. A. (ed.) (1993): Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International
Marketing. International Business Press, New York, 1993. pp. 257-283.
Graham, J. M. (2006): Congeneric and (Essentially) Tau-equivalent Estimates of Score
Reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66. No. 6. pp. 930-944.
Gregory, L. R. (1997): Knowledge in Perception and Illusion. Working Paper, University of
Bristol. http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/knowl_illusion/knowledge-in- perception.
pdf, letöltés ideje: 2009. aug. 31.
Gudjonsson, H. (2005): Nation Branding. Place Branding, Vol. 1. No. 3. pp. 283-298.
Gyulavári, T. – Mitev, A. – Neulinger, Á. – Neumann-Bódi, E. – Simon, J. – Sz cs, K. (2012):
A marketingkutatás alapjai. Aula Kiadó, Budapest, 2012.
Hair, J. F. – Black, W. C. – Babin, B. J. – Anderson, R. E. – Tatham, R. L. (2010): Multivariate
Data Analysis (Vol. 5). Pearson Prentice Hall, New York
Halfhill, D. (1980): Multinational Marketing Strategy: Implications of Attitudes Toward
Country of Origin. Management International Review, Vol. 20. No. 4. pp. 26-30. in: Jaffe, E.
D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984): Alternative Questionnaire Formats for Country Image Studies.
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1984/Nov. pp. 463-471.
Hall, S. (1996): Introduction: Wo needs ’Identity’? in: Hall, S. – Du Gay, P. (ed.) (1996):
Questions of Cultural Identity. Sage Publication, London. pp. 1-17.
Hall, J. (2004): Branding Britain. Journal of Vacation Marketing. Vol. 10. No. 2. pp. 171-185.
Hamilton, D. L. (1981): Illusory Correlation as a Basis for Stereotyping. in: Hamilton, D. L.
(ed.) (1981): Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behaviour. Lawrence, New
Jersey. pp. 115-144.
Hamilton, D. L. – Trolier, T. K. (1986): Stereotypes and Stereotyping: an Overview of the
Cognitive Approach. in: Dovidio, J. F. – Gaertner, S. L. (1986): Prejudice, Discrimination
and Racism. Historical trends and contemporary approaches. Academic Press, San Diego.
Han, C. M. (1989): Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct? Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 26. No. 2. (May/1989), pp. 222-229.
Han, C. M. (1990): Testing the Role of Country Image in Consumer Choice Behaviour.
European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 24. No. 6. pp. 24-40.
Han, C. M. – Terpstra, V. (1988): Country-of-Origin Effect for Uni-National and Bi-National
Products. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 1988/Summer pp. 235-255.
Hankinson, G. (2001): Location Branding: A Study of the Branding Practices of 12 English
Cities. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9. No. 2. pp. 127-142.
Hankinson, G. (2004): Relational Network Brands: Towards a Conceptual Model of Place
Brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10/2004. pp. 109-121.
Hankinson, G. (2005): Destination Brand Images: A Business Tourism Perspective. Journal of
Services Marketing. Vol. 19. No. 1. pp. 24-32.
Hankiss, E. (1996): Találjuk ki Magyarországot, avagy: egy tudós földönjáró álmai. Marketing
és Menedzsment, 1996/3. szám, pp. 62-64.

248
 REFERENCES

Hankiss, E. (1999): Farkasok Kánaánban avagy találjuk ki (újra) Magyarországot. In: Hankiss,
E.: Proletár reneszánsz – Tanulmányok az európai civilizációról és a magyar társadalomról,
Helikon, Kiadó, Budapest, 1999. pp. 199-211.
Hankiss, E. (2006): Társadalom- és brand-építés. „Country Branding – Nemzetközi Identitás és
Imázs” Konferencia, DEMOS Alapítvány, 2006. november 28., http://www.demos.hu/
Tevekenyseg /Rendezvenyek/identitas, letöltés ideje: 2009. augusztus 31.
Hanna, S. – Rowley, J. (2008): An Analysis of Terminology Use in Place Branding. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 4. No. 1. pp. 61-75.
Hannigan, J. (2003): Symposium on Branding, the Entertainment Economy and Urban Place
Building: Introduction. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 27. No.
2. pp. 352-360.
Harvey, D. (1989): From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban
Governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, Vol. 71. No. 1. pp. 3-17.
Haubl, G. (1996): A Cross- National Investigation of the Effects of Country of Origin and
Brand Name on the Evaluation of a New Car. International Marketing Review. Vol. 13. No.
5. pp. 76-97.
Hauben, T. – Vermeulen, M. – Patteeuw, V. (2002): City Branding: Image Building and
Building Images. NAI Uitgevers, Rotterdam
Heidrich, B. (2001): Szervezeti kultúra és interkulturális menedzsment. In: Papp-Váry, Á. F.
(2007): Az országmárkázás szerepe és hatásai: Országimázs a kib vült Európai Unióban.
Doktori értekezés, Nyugat-Magyarországi Egyetem, Sopron, p. 4.
Helmholtz, von H. (1878): The Facts of Perception. in: Selected Writings of Hermann
Helmholtz, Wesleyan University Press.
Henseler, J. (2009): Structural Equation Modeling Using PLS Path Modeling. Handbook of
Doctoral Seminar, Budapest, 4-5. June, 2009
Henseler, J. – Ringle, C. M. – Sinkovics, R. R. (2009): The Use of Partial Least Squares Path
Modeling in International Marketing. Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20. (2009)
pp. 277–319.
Hernandez, M. J. G. (1996): Positive and Negative Influences on Origin Image Evaluation: A
Cross-National, Cross-Cultural and Cross-Regional Perspective. in: Malota, E. (2001):
Fogyasztói Etnocentrizmus - A sztereotípiák, az etnocentrizmus és az országeredet imázs
hatása a hazai vs. külföldi termékválasztásra, Tézisjavaslatok (kézirat). BKÁE, Budapest. p.
58.
Heslop, L.A. – Papadopoulos, N. (1993): But Who Knows Where or When? Reflections on the
Images of Countries and their Products. in: Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. A. (ed.) (1993):
Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing. International Business
Press, New York, 1993. pp. 39-75.
Heslop, L. A. – Papadopoulos, N. – Dowdles, M. – Wall, M. – Compeau, D. (2004): Who
Controls the Purse Strings: A Study of Consumers' and Retail Buyers' Reactions in an
America's FTA Environment. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57. No. 10. pp. 1177-1188.
Higgins, E. T. – Rholes, W. S. – Jones, C. R. (1977): Category Accessibility and Impression
Formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 13/1977. pp. 141-154.

249
REFERENCES

Hill, W. (1970): Psychology, Principles and Problems. Lippencott, Philadelphia. p. 62.

Hofmeister Tóth, Á. – Tör csik, M. (1996): Fogyasztói Magatartás. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó,
Budapest.
Hofstede, G. (2003): Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, USA.
Holbrook, M. (1996): On Eschatology, Onanist Scatology or Honest Catology? in: Brown, S. –
Bell, J. – Carson, D. (ed.) (1996): Marketing Apocalypse: Eschatology, Escapology and the
Illusion of the End. Routledge, London.
Holmefjord, K. (2000): Synergies in Linking Products, Indus-tries and Place? Is Cooperation
between Tourism and Food Industries a Local Coping Strategy in Lofoten and Hardanger?
in: Elliot, S. – Papadopoulos, N. – Kim, S. S. (2011): An Integrative Model of Place Image:
Exploring Relationships between Destination, Product and Country Imges. Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 50. No. 5. pp. 520-534.
Hong, S-T. – Wyer, Jr R. S. (1989): Effects of Country-of-origin and Product-attribute
Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 16. pp. 175–187.
Hooley, G. J. – Shipley, D. – Krieger, N. (1988): A Method for Modelling Consumer
Perceptions of Country of Origin. International Marketing Review. Vol. 5. No. 3. pp. 67-76.
Hopkins, N. – Murdoch, N. (1999): The Role of the ’Other’ in National Identity: Exploring the
Context-Dependence of the National Ingroup Stereotype. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology. Vol. 9. No. 5. pp. 321-338.
Hosany, S. – Ekinci, Y. – Uysal, M. (2006): Destination Image and Destination Personality: An
Application of Branding Theories to Tourism Places. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59.
pp. 638–642.
Hosany, S. – Ekinci, Y. – Uysal, M. (2007): Destination Image and Destination Personality.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 62-81.
Hsieh, M. H. – Pan, S. L. – Setiono, R. (2004): Product-, Corporate-, and Country-Image
Dimensions and Purchase Behavior: A Multicountry Analysis. Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol 32. No. 3. pp. 251-270.
Hubbard, P. – Hall, T. (1998): The Entrepreneurial City and the New Urban Politics. in: Hall, T.
– Hubbard, P. (1998): The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and
Representation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
Hunt, J. D. (1971): Image : A Factor in Tourism. in: Gallarza, M. G. – Gil, S. I. – Calderón, G.
H. (2002): Destination Image. Toward a Conceptual Framework. Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29. No. 1. pp. 56-78.
Hunt, J. D. (1975): Image as a Factor in Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research.
Vol. 13. No. 3. pp. 1-7.
Hunter, J. E. – Schmidt, F. L. (1990): Methods of Meta-Analysis. Sage Pubications, California.
Hunter, J. E. – Schmidt, F. L. – Jackson, G. B. (1982): Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research
Findings Across Studies. Sage Series on Studying Organizations: Innovations in
Methodology, 4. Sage Publications, California.
Hunyady, Gy. (1996): Sztereotípiák a változó közgondolkodásban. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

250
 REFERENCES

Ittersum, K. V. – Candel, M. J. J. M. – Muelenberg, M. T. G. (2003): The Influence of the

Image of a Product’s Region of Origin on Product Evaluation. Journal of Business Research.
Vol. 56. No. 3. pp. 215-226.
Iversen, N. M. – Hem, L. E. (2001): Country Image in National Umbrella Branding Effects of
Country Associations on Similarity Judgements. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 4/2001. pp. 140-149.
Jacobsen, B.P. (2009): Investor-based Place Brand Equity: A Theoretical Framework. Journal
of Place Management and Development, Vol. 2. No. 1. pp. 70–84.
Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984): Alternative Questionnaire Formats for Country Image
Studies. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1984/Nov. pp. 463-471.
Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (1988): On the Measurement of Halo Effect in Country of Origin
Studies. in: Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (2006): National Image & Competitive Advantage
– The Theory and Practice of Place Branding. Copenhagen Business School Press, Denmark.
Jaffe, E. D. – Nebenzahl, I. D. (1993): Global Promotion of Country Image: Do the Olympics
Count? in: Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. (ed.) (1993): Product-Country Images: Impact and
Role in International Marketing. International Businss Press, Binghampton, New York,
1993. pp. 433-452.
Jaffe, E. D. – Nebenzahl, I. D. (2001): National Image and Competitive Advantage.
Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, Denmark
Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (2006): National Image & Competitive Advantage – The Theory
and Practice of Place Branding. Copenhagen Business School Press, Denmark.
Jarvis, C. B. – MacKenzie, S. B. – Podsakoff, P. M. (2003): A Critical Review of Construct
Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research.
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30. pp. 199-218.
Jeszenszky, G. (1986): Az elveszett presztízs: Magyarország megítélésének megváltozása
Nagy-Britanniában 1894-1918. Magvet Kiadó, Budapest
Johansson, J. K. (1989): Determinants and Effects of the Use of ‘Made in’ Labels. International
Marketing Review, Vol. 6. pp. 47–58.
Johansson, J. K. – Douglas, P. D. – Nonaka, I. (1985): Assessing the Impact of Country Origin
on Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective. Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 22. pp. 388-396.
Johansson, J. K. – Moinpour, R. (1977): Objective and Perceived Similarity of Pacific Rim
Countries. Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 12. No. 4. pp. 65-76.
Johansson, J. K. – Nebenzahl, I. D. (1986): Multinational Production: Effect on Brand Value.
Journal of International Business Studies. Vol. 17. No. 3. pp. 101-126.
Juaneda, C. (1996): Estimating the Probability of Return Visits Using a Survey of Tourist
Expenditure in the Balearic Islands. Tourism Economics, Vol. 24. pp. 339–352.
Juhász, P. (2004): Az üzleti és könyv szerinti érték eltérésének magyarázata – Vállalatok
mérlegen kívüli tételeinek értékelési problémái. PhD Disszertáció, Budapesti Corvinus
Egyetem, Budapest
Kandikó, J. (2003): Régiómarketing. CEO Magazin, 2003/1. sz. Melléklet, pp. 1-12.

251
REFERENCES

Kapferer, J. N. (1997): Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity
Long Term (2nd ed.). Kogan Page Limited, London
Kar, G. K. – Litvin, S. W. (2000): Destination Image. Eclipse Magazine. http://
www.moonshinetravel.com/eclips/ECLIPSE%201.pdf, letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.
Katona, G. (1963): Psychological Analysis of Economic Behavior. McGraw – Hill, New Yok.
Katz, D. - Braly, K. (1933): Racial Stereotypes of One Hundred College Students. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 1933/28. pp. 280-290.
Kavaratzis, M. (2004): From City Marketing to City Branding: Towards a Theoretical
Frameworks for Developing City Brands. Place Branding, Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 58-73.
Kavaratzis, M. (2005): Place Branding: A Review of Trends and Conceptual Models. The
Marketing Review. Vol. 5/2005, pp. 329-342.
Kavaratzis, M. – Ashworth, G. J. (2005): City Branding: An Effective Assertion of Identity or a
Transitory Marketing Trick? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol. 96.
No. 5. pp. 506-514.
Kavaratzis, M. – Ashworth, G.J. (2008): Place Marketing: How Did We Get Here and Where
Are We Going? Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 1. No. 2., pp. 150-
165.
Kaynak, E – Cavusgil, S. T. (1983): Consumer Attitudes Towards Products of Foreign Origin:
Do They Vary Across Product Classes. International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 2, pp. 147-
157.
Kaynak, E. – Kucukemiroglu, O. – Hyder, A. S. (2000): Consumers' Country-of-Origin (COO)
Perceptions of Imported Products in a Homogeneous Less-developed Country. European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34. pp. 1221–1241.
Keller, K. L. (1993): Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-based Brand Equity.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57. No. 1. pp. 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (1998): Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Keller, K. L. (2003): Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Kelman, H. C. (1965): International Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. in: Roth, K.
P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Kim, C. K. (1995): Brand Popularity and Country Image in Global Competition: Managerial
Implications. Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 4. No. 5. pp. 21-33.
Kim, C. K. – Chung, J. Y. (1997): Brand Popularity, Country Image and Market Share: An
Empirical Study’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 99. (2nd Q.) pp. 361–386.
in: Kleppe, I. A. – Iversen, N. M. – Stensaker, I. G. (2002): Country Images in Marketing
Strategies: Conceptual Issues and an Empirical Asian Illustration. Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 10. No. 1. pp. 61-75.
Kim, S. – Yoon
, Y. (2003): The Hierarchical Effects of Affective and Cognitive Components
on Tourism Destination Image. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 14. No. 2.
pp. 1–22.

252
 REFERENCES

Klarmann, M. (2011): Construct Measurement and Structural Equation Modeling. Doctoral

Seminar Handbook, Corvinus University of Budapest, 15/16 September, 2011.
Kleppe, I. A. – Mossberg, L. (2001): Country and Destination Image – Similar or different
Image Objects. Working Paper No. 64/2001, Foundation for Researching Economics and
Business Administration, Bergen, Norway.
Kleppe, I. A. – Mossberg, L. (2005): Country Image: A Reflection of the Significance of the
Other. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32. pp. 295-301.
Kleppe, I. A. – Iversen, N. M. – Stensaker, I. G. (2002): Country Images in Marketing
Strategies: Conceptual Issues and an Empirical Asian Illustration. Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 10. No. 1. pp. 61-75.
Klingberg F. L. (1941): Studies in Measurement of the Relationship Among Sovereign States.
Psychometrica, Vol. 1941/6. pp. 335-352.
Knight, G. A. – Calantone, R. J. (2000): A Flexible Model of Consumer Country-of-Origin
Perceptions. International Marketing Review, Vol. 17. No. 2. pp. 127-145.
Knight, G. A. – Spreng, R. A. – Yaprak, A. (2003): Cross-national Development and Validation
of an International Business Measurement Scale: the COISCALE. International Business
Review, Vol. 12./2003. pp. 581-599.
Kolakowski, L. (1995): God Owes Us Nothing: A Brief Remark on Pascal’s Religion and on
the Spirit of Jansenism. University of Chicago Press.
Konecnik, M. – Gartner , W. C. (2007): Customer-bsased Brand Equity for a Destination.
Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 34. No. 2. pp. 400-421.
Kotler, P. (1996): Marketing Menedzsment. Elemzés, tervezés, végrehajtás és ellen rzés. KJK –
Kerszöv Jogi és Üzleti Kiadó, Budapest, 2002, p. 660.
Kotler, P. – Asplund, C. – Rein, I. – Haider, D. (1999): Marketing Places Europe. Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.
Kotler, P. – Bowen, J. – Makens, J. (1996): Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism. Prentice-
Hall, New Jersey.
Kotler, P. – Gertner, D. (2002): Country as Brand, Product and Beyond: A Place Marketing and
Brand Management Perspective. Brand Management, Vol. 9. No. 4-5. pp. 249-261.
Kotler, P. – Haider, D. – Rein, I. (1993): Marketing Places: Attracting Investment and Tourism
to Cities, States and Nations. Free Press, 1993
Kotler, P. – Jatusripitak, S. – Maesincee, S. (1997): The Marketing of Nations. A Strategic
Approach to Building National Wealth. Free Press, New York.
Kotler, P. – Levy, S.J. (1969): Broadening the Concept of Marketing, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 33. Jan/1969, pp. 10-15.
Kozak, M. (2001): Comparative Assessment of Tourist Satisfaction with Destinations across
Two Nationalities. Tourism Management, Vol. 22. No. 4. pp. 391–401.
Kozma, B. (2000): Desztináció marketing. Tér és Társadalom, 2000/2-3. szám, pp. 195-202.
http://www.rkk.hu/TET/2000_2-3/TET2000_2-3_02.pdf, letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.
Kozma, G. (1995): Városmarketing mint a helyi gazdaságfejlesztés egyik lehetséges eszköze.
Tér és Társadalom, 1995/2. sz. pp. 37-54.

253
REFERENCES

Kuzmics, H. (1993): Östrerreichischer und Englischer Volkscharakter. in: Wodak, R. – de

Cillia, R. – Reisigl, M. – Liebhart, K. (ed.) (2003): The Discursive Construction of National
Identity. Edinburgh University Press. p. 29.
Kühn, R. (1993): Das “Made-in-Image” Deutschlands im internationalen Vergleich. Marketing
ZFP, Vol.15. No. 2. pp. 119-127. in: Roth, K. P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing
the Country Image Construct. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Lala, V. – Allred, A. T. – Chakraborty, G. (2009): A Multidimensional Scale for Measuring
Country Image. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. Vol. 21. pp. 51-66.
Langer, R. (2001): Place Images and Place Marketing. Thesis Work. Department of
Intercultural Communication and Management, Copenhagen Business School.
Lappints, Á. (2002): Asszociáió. in: Lapoda Kislexikon. Lapoda Multimédia,
http://www.kislexikon.hu/asszociacio3.html, letöltés ideje 2009. április 17.
Laroche, M. – Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L.A. – Mourali, M. (2005): The Influence of
Country Image Structure on Consumer Evaluations of Foreign Products. International
Marketing Review, Vol. 22. No. 1. pp. 96-115.
Lassar, W. – Mittal, B. – Sharma, A. (1995): Measuring Customer-based Brand Equity. Journal
of Consumer Marketing. Vol. 12. No. 4. pp. 11-19.
Lebrenz, S. (1996): Länderimages: Einflußfaktor und Bedeutung für das
Konsumentenverhalten. PhD Disseration, University of Passau. in: Roth, K. P. –
Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Leech, N. L. – Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009): A Typology of Mixed Methods Research Designs.
Quality and Quantity, Vol. 43. No. 2. pp. 265–275.
Lee, D. – Ganesh, G. (1999): Effects of Partitioned Country Image in the Context of Brand
Image and Familiarity. International Marketing Review. Vol. 16. No. 1. pp. 18-39.
Lee, H.J. – Jain, D. (2009): Dubai’s Brand Assessment Success and Failure in Brand
Management – Part 1. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 5. No. 3. pp. 234-246.
Li, W-K. – Wyer, Jr R. S. (1994): The Role of Country of Origin in Product Evaluations:
Informational and Standard-of-Comparison Effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.
3. pp. 187–212.
Li, Z. G. – Dant, R. P. – Wortzel, L. H. (1995): Dimensions of Porduct Quality, Role of Country
Image and Country-of-Origin Effects, American Marketing Association, Summer, pp. 435-
436.
Li, Z. G. – Fu, S. – Murray, W. L. (1997): Country and Product Images: The Perceptions of
Consumers in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 10. No. 1-2. pp. 115-138.
Liefeld, J. (1993): Consumer Use of Country-of-Origin Information in Product Evaluations:
Evidence from Experiments, in: Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. (ed.) (1993): Product-
Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing. International Businss Press,
Binghampton, New York, 1993. pp. 89-116.
Lin, C. H. – Kao, D. T. (2004): The Impacts of Country-of-origin on Brand Equity. Journal of
American Academy of Business, Vol. 5. No. 1-2. pp. 37-40.

254
 REFERENCES

Lindsay, M. (2000): The Brand Called Wisconsin – Can We Make It Relevant and Different for
Competitive Advantage? http://www.wisconsin.edu/summit/archive/2000/papers/pdf/
lindsay.pdf, letöltés ideje: 2009. október 20.
Lippmann, W. (1922): Public Opinion. Free Press, New York, 1965
Lodge, C. (2004): Opinion Pieces: Where is Place Branding Heading. Place Branding, Vol. 1.
No. 1. pp. 12-35.
Lodge, C. (2006): Opinion Pieces: How Has Place Branding Developed During the Year that
Place Branding Has Been in Publication. Place Branding, Vol. 2. No. 1. pp. 6-17.
Low, G. S. – Lamb, C. W. (2000): The Measurement and Dimensionality of Brand
Associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9. No. 6. pp. 350–368.
Maheswaran, D. (1994): Country-of-Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise and
Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24.
Sept/1994. pp. 354-364.
Maheswaran, D. – Chen, C. (2006): Nation Equity: Incidental Emotions in Country-of-Origin
Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33. No. 3. pp. 370–376.
Mahle, W. A. (1995): Deutschland in der internationalen Kommunikation. Konstanz:
Ölschläger.
Malhotra, N. (1981): A Scale to Measure Self-concepts, Person-concepts, and Product-concepts.
in: Martin, I. M. – Eroglu, S. (1993): Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct: Country
Image. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28. pp. 191-210.
Malhotra, N. (2002): Marketingkutatás. KJK Kerszöv Jogi és Üzleti Kiadó, Budapest.
Malhotra, N. – Simon, J. (km.) (2008): Marketingkutatás. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 2008.
Malota, E. (2001): Fogyasztói Etnocentrizmus - A sztereotípiák, az etnocentrizmus és az
országeredet imázs hatása a hazai vs. külföldi termékválasztásra, Tézisjavaslatok (kézirat).
BKÁE, Budapest.
Malota, E. (2003): Fogyasztói Etnocentrizmus - A sztereotípiák, az etnocentrizmus és az
országeredet imázs hatása a hazai vs. külföldi termékválasztásra, Doktori Disszertáció
(kézirat). BKÁE, Budapest.
Malota, E. (2004): Országeredet imázs. Marketing és Menedzsment, 2004/4. szám, valamint
2004/6. - 2005/1. összevont szám, pp. 122-130.
Manrai, L.A. – Lascu, D. N. – Manrai, A. K. (1998): Interactive Effects of Country of Origin
and Product Category on Product Evaluations. International Business Review, Vol. 7. pp.
591–616.
Marshall, H. (2002): What Do We Do When We Code Data? Qualitative Research Journal.
2002. Vol.2. No.1. pp. 56-70.
Marshalls, M. N. (2007): Country Image and Its Effects Promoting a Tourist Destination. Thesis
Work, Blekinge Institute of Technology.
Martin, I. M. – Eroglu, S. (1993): Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct: Country Image.
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28. pp. 191-210.
Marzano, G. – Scott, N. (2009): Power in Destination Branding. Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 36. No. 2. pp. 247-267.

255
REFERENCES

Matson, E. W. (1994): Can Cities Market Themselves Like Coke and Pepsi Do?” International
Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 7. No. 2. pp. 35-40.
McDougall, G. H. G. – Rawlings, B. J. (1979): Canadian Advertising Appeals, or, Will „Oh
Canada” Sell Beer? Business Quarterly, Vol. 39. pp. 39-45.
McGee, L.W. – Spiro, R. L. (1991): Salesperson and Product Country-of-Origin Effects on
Attitudes and Intentions to Purchase. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22. No. 1. pp. 21-
32.
Menezes, D. – Elbert, N. (1979): Alternative Semantic Scaling Formats for Measuring Store
Image: An Evaluation. in: Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984): Alternative Questionnaire
Formats for Country Image Studies. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1984/Nov. pp.
463-471.
Milman, A. – Pizam, A. (1995): The Role of Awareness and Familiarity with a Destination: The
Central Florida Case. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 33. No. 3. pp. 21–27.
Mittelstaedt, J. D. – Hopkins, C. D. – Raymond, M. A. – Duke, C. R. (2004): Perceived
Differences Among Countries: Understanding Relative Perceptions. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing. Vol. 17. No. 1. pp. 7- 31.
Moeller, T. (1997): Landesimage und Kaufentscheidung – Erklarung, Messung und
Marketingimplikationen. in: Roth, K. P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing the
Country Image Construct. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Moore, K. – Cushman, G. – Simmons, D. (1995) Behavioral Conceptualization of Tourism and
Leisure. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 22. pp. 67–85.
Morgan, N. (2003): Destination Branding and Role of Stakeholders. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 9. No. 3. pp. 285-299.
Morgan, N. (2004): Opinion Pieces: Where is Place Branding Heading. Place Branding, Vol. 1.
No. 1. pp. 12-35.
Móricz, É. (1992): Az attit d. in: Hofmeister Tóth, Á. – Tör csik, M. (1996): Fogyasztói
Magatartás. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest. p. 66.
Móricz, É. (1999): Reklámpszichológia. BKÁE, Marketing Tanszék, Budapest
Mossberg, L. – Kleppe, I. A. (2005): Country and Destination Image – Different or Similar
Image Concepts? The Service Industrial Journal. Vol. 25. No. 4. (June/2005) pp. 493-503.
Murphy, P. – Pritchard, M. P. – Smith, B. (2000): The Destination Product and Its Impact on
Traveler Perceptions. Tourism Management, Vol. 21. pp. 43-52.
Nadeau, J. – Heslop, L. – O’Reilly, N. – Luk, P. (2008): Destination in a Country Image
Context. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 35. No. 1. pp. 84-106.
Nagashima, A. (1970): A Comparison of Japanese and US attitudes Toward Foreign Products.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34. No. 1. pp. 68-74.
Nagashima, A. (1977): A Comparative „Made-in” Product Image Survey Among Japanese
Businessmen. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41. No. 3. pp. 95-100.
Narayana, C. L. (1981): Aggregate Images of American and Japanese Products: Implication on
International Marketing. Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 16. No. 2. pp. 31-35.

256
 REFERENCES

Nebenzahl, I. D. – Jaffe, E. D. – Usunier, J-C. (2000): Developing Cross-Cultural Scales for the
Measurement of Country Image. Working Papers, CBS Library.
https://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/6612, letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.
Nebenzahl, I. D. – Jaffe, E. D. – Usunier, J-C. (2003): Personifying Country of Origin Research.
Management International Review. Vol. 43. No. 4. pp. 383-406.
Nejad, A. I. – Winsler, A. (2000): Bartlett’s Schema Theory and Modern Accounts of Learning
and Remembering. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol. 21. No. 1-2. pp. 5-36.
Niffenberger, P. – White, J. – Marmet, G. (1980): How British Retail Managers View French
and American Products. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14. No. 8. pp. 493-498. in:
Jaffe, E. D. - Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984): Alternative Questionnaire Formats for Country Image
Studies. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1984/Nov. pp. 463-471.
Niss, H. (1996): Country of Origin Marketing over the Product Life Cycle: a Danish Case
Study. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30. pp. 6-22.
Nyir , N. (2011): Médiatechnológiai innovációk elfogadása és terjedése. Doktori értekezés.
Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, Gazdálkodástani Doktori Iskola, 2011
Olins, W. (2002a): Branding the Nation – The Historical Context. Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. IX./4-5. pp. 241-248.
Olins, W. (2002b): The Nation as a Brand. http://www.dba.org.uk/pdf/nation.pdf, letöltés ideje:
2008. április 17.
Olins, W. (2004): Branding the Nation: the Historical Context. in: Morgan, N. – Pritchard, A. –
Pride, R. (ed.) (2004): Destination Branding – Creating the Unique Destination Proposition.
Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, London. pp. 17-25.
Oliver, R. L. (1997): A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill. in:
Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. (2010): Country Equity: Conceptualization and Empirical
Evidence. International Business Review, Vol. 19. pp. 276-291.
Oppermann, M. (1995): Travel Life Cycle. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 22. No. 3. pp.
535–552.
Oppermann, M. (1996): Convention Destination Images Analysis of Association Meeting
Planners’ Perceptions. in: Nadeau, J. – Heslop, L. – O’Reilly, N. – Luk, P. (2008):
Destination in a Country Image Context. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 35. No. 1. pp.
84-106.
Orbaiz, M. L. – Papadopoulos, N. (2003): Toward a Model of Consumer Receptivity of Foreign
and Domestic Products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15. No. 3. pp.
101-126.
Osgood, C. E. – Succi, G. J. – Tannenbaum, P. M. (1957): The Measurement of Meaning. in:
Martin, I. M. – Eroglu, S. (1993): Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct: Country
Image. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28. pp. 191-210.
O’Shaughnessy, J. - O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2000): Treating the Nation as a Brand: Some
Neglected Issues. Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 2000/1. pp. 55-64.
Pallas Nagylexikon (2002): Vélemény. Arcanum Adatbázis, http://mek.oszk.hu/00000/
00060/html/ 105/pc010546.html#5, letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.

257
REFERENCES

Papadopoulos, N. (1986): Development and Organization of a Cross-National Study: The

Country-Of-Origin Effect. In: Papadopoulos, N. – Bradley, M.F. (ed.): Proceedings,
Workshop on International Strategy. Brussels: European Institute for Advanced Studies in
Management. pp. 42–56. in: Roth, K. P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing the
Country Image Construct. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Papadopoulos, N. (1990): Measurement Scale for Country Image and Country – of – Origin
Studies. (handout) Budapesti Közgazdaságtudományi Egyetem, Marketing Tanszék, bels
kutatási anyag OTKA kutatáshoz (2004).
Papadopoulos, N. (1993): What Product and Country Images Are and Are Not, in:
Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. (ed.) (1993): Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in
International Marketing. International Businss Press, Binghampton, New York, 1993. pp. 3-
38., 89-116.
Papadopoulos, N. (2004): Place Branding: Evolution, Meaning and Implications. Place
Branding, Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 36-49.
Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. (ed.) (1993): Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in
International Marketing. International Business Press, New York, 1993.
Papadopoulos, N. - Heslop, L. A. (2002): Country Equity and Country Branding – Problems
and Prospects. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9. / 4-5. pp. 294-314.
Papadopoulos, N. - Heslop, L. A. (2003): Country Equity and Product-Country Images: State-
of-the-art in Research and Implications. in: Jain, S. C. (ed.) (2003): Handbook of Research in
International Marketing. Elgar, Cheltenham. pp. 402-433.
Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. A. – Bamossy, G. (1990): A Comparative Image Analysis of
Domestic versus Imported Products. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Vol. 16.
No. 7. pp. 283-294.
Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. A. – Berács, J. (1990): National Stereotypes and Product
Evaluations in a Socialist Country. International Marketing Review, Vol. 7. No. 1. pp. 32-46.
Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. – IKON Research Group (2000): A Cross-national and
Longitudinal Study of Product-Country Images with a Focus on the U.S. and Japan. Report
Summary, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, 2000.
Papp – Váry, Á. F. (2002): Az országimázs szerepe az európai uniós csatlakozásban. In: Papp-
Váry, Á. F. (2007): Az országmárkázás szerepe és hatásai: Országimázs a kib vült Európai
Unióban. Doktori értekezés, Nyugat-Magyarországi Egyetem, Sopron, p. 72.
Papp-Váry, Á. F. (2007): Az országmárkázás szerepe és hatásai: Országimázs a kib vült
Európai Unióban. Doktori értekezés, Nyugat-Magyarországi Egyetem, Sopron
Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. (2001): Conceptualizing Country Equity. in: Roth, K. P. –
Diamantopoulos, A. – Montesinos, M. Á. (2008): Home Country Image, Country Brand
Equity and Consumer’s Product Preferences: An Empirical Study. Management International
Review, Vol. 48. No. 5. pp. 577-602.
Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. (2006): Examining the Dimensionality of Retailer Equity: Improving
the Measurement-Empirical Evidence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13.
No. 5. pp. 317-329.

258
 REFERENCES

Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. (2010): Country Equity: Conceptualization and Empirical Evidence.

International Business Review, Vol. 19. pp. 276-291.
Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. – Cooksey, R. W. (2005): Consumer-based Brand Equity: Improving
the Measurement – Empirical Evidence. Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14.
No. 3. pp. 143-154.
Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. – Cooksey, R. W. (2006): Consumer-based Brand Equity and
Country-of-Origin Relationships. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40. No. 5-6. pp. 696-
717.
Pappu, R. – Quester, P. G. – Cooksey, R. W. (2007): Country Image and Consumer-Based
Brand Equity: Relationships and Implications for International Marketing. Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 38. No. 5. pp. 726-745.
Parameswaran, R. – Pisharodi, R. M. (1994): Facets of Country of Origin Image: An Empirical
Assessment. Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23./ 1. pp. 43-56.
Parameswaran, R. – Pisharodi, R. M. (2002): Assimilation Effects in Country Image Research.
International Marketing Review, Vol. 19. No. 3. pp. 259-278.
Parameswaran, R. – Yaprak, A. (1987): A Cross-National Comparison of Consumer Research
Measures. Journal of International Business Studies. Vol. 18. No. 1. pp. 35-49.
Parasuraman, A. (1997). Reflections on Gaining Competitive Advantage through Customer
Value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 154–161.
Park, S-Y. – Petrick, J. F. (2006): Destinations’ Perspectives of Branding. Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 33. No. 1. pp. 262-265.
Parkerson, B. – Saunders, J. (2005): City Branding: Can Goods and Services Branding Models
Be Used to Brand Cities. Place Branding, Vol. 1. No. 3. pp. 242-264.
Paswan, A. K. - Kulkarni, Sh. - Ganesh, G. (2003): Loyalty Towards the Country, the State and
the Service Brands. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 2003/3. pp. 233-251.
Patton, M. Q. (1990): Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications Ltd.,
London
Peabody, D. (1985): National Characteristics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
Pearce, P. L. (1982). Perceived Changes in Holiday Destinations. Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 9. pp. 145-164.
Perdue, R. R. (1985): Segmenting State Travel Information Inquirers by Timing of the
Destination Decision and Previous Experience. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 23 No. 3.
pp. 6–11.
Pereira, A. – Hsu, C. – Kundu, S. K. (2005): Country-of- Origin Image: Measurement and
Cross-National Testing. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 58. pp. 103-106.
Peterson, R. A. – Jolibert, A. J. P. (1995): A Meta-analysis of Country-of-Origin Effects.
Journal of International Business Studies. Vol. 26. No. 4. pp. 883-900.
Peth , B. (2003): A magyar kivételesség. In: Papp-Váry, Á. F. (2007): Az országmárkázás
szerepe és hatásai: Országimázs a kib vült Európai Unióban. Doktori értekezés, Nyugat-
Magyarországi Egyetem, Sopron, p. 4.

259
REFERENCES

Phalet, K. – Poppe, E. (1997): Competence and Morality Dimensions and Ethnic Stereotypes: A
Study in Six-Eastern European Countries. European Journal of Social Pscychology. Vol.
27/1997. pp. 703-723.
Phelps, A. (1986): Holiday Destination Image – The Problem of Assessment: An Example
Developed in Menorca. Tourism Management, Vol. 1986/Sept. pp. 168-180.
Pickton, D. – Broderick, A. (2001): Integrated Marketing Communications. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, pp. 123.
Pike, S. (2002). Destination Image Analysis – A Review of 142 Papers from 1973 to 2000.
Tourism Management, Vol. 23. No. 5. pp. 541-549.
Pike, S. – Ryan, C. (2004): Destination Positioning Analysis through a Comparison of
Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42. pp.
333–342.
Pisharodi, R. M. – Parameswaran, R. (1992): Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Country-of-
Origin Sscale: Initial Results. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 19. No. 2. pp. 706-714.
Piskóti, I. (2004): Területmarketing a marketingelméleti iskolák fejl désében. in: Berács, J. –
Lehota, J. – Piskóti, I. – Rekettye, G. (ed.) (2004): Marketingelmélet a gyakorlatban. KJK
Kerszöv, Budapest, pp. 87-107.
Piskóti, I. – Dankó, L. – Schupler, H. – Büdy, L. (1997): Régió- és településmarketing – egy
tudatos koncepció a nemzetközi és hazai gyakorlat példáján. Miskolci Egyetem, Miskolc.
Piskóti, I. – Dankó, L. – Schupler, H. (2002): Régió- és településmarketing. KJK Kerszöv,
Budapest
Piskóti, I. – Nagy, Sz. (2008): Identity and Image in the City Marketing. Marketing és
Menedzsment, Vol. 42. No. 5-6. pp. 106 – 116.
Plavsak, K. (2002): Communicative Diplomacy for the 3rd Millenium: Soft Power of Small
Countries like Slovenia? Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 2002/2-3. pp. 109-122.
Plavsak, K. (2003): Slovenia – Branding a Small New EU Nation. Public Diplomacy and
Media: International Conference, Diplomatic Academy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zagreb,
Horvátország, http://www.media-forum.si/slo/izobrazevanje/javna-diplomacija/
clanki/slovenia-branding.pdf, letöltés ideje: 2008. április 17.
Porter, M. E. (1998): The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press, New York.
Puaschunder, J. – Schweiger, G. – Kirchler, E. (2004): Länderimagevergleich Österreich –
Deutschland – Schweiz in Australien. Werbeforsch Prax, Vol. 1/2004. pp. 8-13. in: Roth, K.
P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Qu, H. – Li, I. (1997): The Characteristics and Satisfaction of Mainland Chinese Visitors to
Hong Kong. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35. No. 4. pp. 37–41.
Qu, H. – Kim, L. H. – Im, H. H. (2011): A Model of Destination Branding: Integrating the
Concepts of the Branding and Destination Image. Tourism Management, Vol. 32. pp. 465-
476.
Rainisto, S. K. (2003): Success Factors of Place Marketing: A Study of Place Marketing
Practices in Northern Europe and the United States. PhD Dissertation, Helsinki University of
Technology

260
 REFERENCES

Reierson, C. (1966): Are Foreign Products Seen as National Stereotypes? Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 42./1966. pp. 33-40.
Reierson, C. (1967): Attitude Changes Toward Foreign Products. Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. Nov./1967. pp. 385-387.
Reilly, M. (1990): Free Elicitation of Descriptive Adjectives for Tourism Image Assessment.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28. pp. 21–26.
Ross, G. F. (1993a): Destination Evaluation AND Vacation Preferences. Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 20. No. 3. pp. 477–489.
Ross, G. F. (1993b): Ideal and Actual Images of Backpacker Visitors to Northern Australia.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32. No. 3. pp. 54–57.
Roth, M. S. – Romeo, J. B. (1992): Matching Product Category and Country Image Perceptions:
A Framework for Managing Country-of-Origin Effects, Behavioral Intentions Model.
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 1992/3., p. 480.
Roth, K. P. – Diamantopoulos, A. – Montesinos, M. Á. (2008): Home Country Image, Country
Brand Equity and Consumer’s Product Preferences: An Empirical Study. Management
International Review, Vol. 48. No. 5. pp. 577-602.
Roth, K. P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Sajtos, L. – Mitev, A. (2007): SPSS Kutatási és Adatelemzési Kézikönyv. Alinea Kiadó,
Budapest, 2007
Samiee, S. (2009): Advancing the Country Image Construct – A Commentary Essay. Journal of
Business Research, 2009
Sauer, P. L. – Young, M.A. – Unnava, H. R. (1991): An Experimental Investigation of the
Processes Behind the Country of Origin Effect. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 3. pp. 29–59.
Sándor, I. (2003): A marketingkommunikáció kézikönyve. ANT Stúdió Bt., Budapest
Schroeder, T. (1996): Relationship of Residents’ Image of Their State as a Tourist Destination
and Their Support for Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34. No. 4. pp. 71–73.
Schweiger, G. (1988): Österreichs Image im Ausland. Wien: Norka Verlag; 1988. in: Roth, K.
P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Schweiger, G. (1990): Das Image des Herkunftslandes als Grundlage für den Imagetransfer
zwischen Landes- und Markenimage. Werbeforsch Prax, Vol. 35. No. 3. pp. 57-59. in: Roth,
K. P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Schweiger, G. (1992): Österreichs Image in der Welt — Ein Vergleich mit Deutschland und der
Schweiz. Wien: Service Fachverlag; 1992.in: Roth, K. P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009):
Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-
740.
Schweiger, G – Kurz, H. (1997): Herkunftstypische Positionierung undWerbung: Die Nutzung
des Image Österreichs und österreichische Regionen für die Vermarktung österreichischer
Produkte. Der Markt, Vol. 36. No. 140. pp. 84-92. in: Roth, K. P. – Diamantopoulos, A.

261
REFERENCES

(2009): Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62. pp.
726-740.
Shimp, T. A. – Samiee, S. – Madden, T. J. (1993): Countries and Their Products: A Cognitive
Structure Perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21. No. 4. pp.
323-330.
Shocker, A. D. – Srivastava, R. K. – Ruekert, R. W. (1994): Challenges and Opportunities
Facing Brand Management: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31. No. 2. pp. 149-158.
Short, J. R. – Breitbach, S. – Buckman, S. – Essex, J. (2000): From World Cities to Gateway
Cities. City, Vol. 4/2000. pp. 317–340.
Sinclair, R. (2004): A Brand Valuation Methodology for Nations. Place Brandind, Vol. 1. No. 1.
pp. 74-79.
Sirakaya, E. – Woodside, A. G. (2005): Building and Testing Theories of Decision Making by
Travellers. Tourism Management, Vol. 26. pp. 815-832.
Sirgy, M. J. – Su, C. (2000): Destination Image, Self-Congruity, and Travel Behavior: Toward
an Integrative Model. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38. pp. 340-352.
Smith, A. (1993): National Identity – Ethnonationalism in Comparative Perspective. University
of Nevada Press USA
Smith, P. B. – Bond, M. H. (1994): Social Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis and
Perspectives. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire.
Solomon, M. – Bamossy, G. – Askegaard, G. (2006): Consumer Behaviour: A European
Perspective. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Srikatanyoo, N. - Gnoth, J. (2002): Nation Branding – Country Image and International Tertiary
Education. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 2002./Nov. pp. 139-146.
Stangor, C. – Lange, J. E. (1994): Mental Representations of Social Groups: Advances in
Understanding Stereotypes and Stereotyping. in: Papadopoulos, N. (2004): Place Branding:
Evolution, Meaning and Implications. Place Branding, Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 41.
Strauss, A. – Corbin, J. M. (1990): The Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, CA. pp. 61-95.
Strutton, D. – True, S. L. – Rody, R. C. (1995): Russian Consumer Perceptions of Foreign and
Domestic Consumer Goods. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. Vol. 3. No. 3. pp.
76-87.
Sulyok, J. (2006): A turisztikai imázs. Turizmus Bulletin, Vol. 10. No. 4. pp. 55-62.
Swift, J. S. (1999): Cultural Closeness as a Facet of Cultural Affinity: A Contribution to the
Theory of Psychic Distance. International Marketing Review, Vol. 16. No. 3. pp. 182-201.
Szeles, P. (1998): A hírnév ereje. Image és arculat. Star PR Ügynökség, Budapest, pp. 81, 93,
94, 124, 138.
Szondi, Gy. (2007): The Role and Challenges of Country Branding in Transition Countries: The
Central and Eastern European Experience. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. Vol.
3/2007. pp. 8-20.

262
 REFERENCES

Szondi, Gy. (2008): Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and
Differences. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. Netherlands Institute of International
Relations ’Clingendael’, 2008.
Tajfel, H. (1981): Human Groups and Social Categories. in: Papadopoulos, N. (2004): Place
Branding: Evolution, Meaning and Implications. Place Branding, Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 41.
Tan, Ch. – Farley, J. U. (1987): The Impact of Cultural Patterns on Cognition and Intention in
Singapore. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 13/1987. pp. 540-544.
Tapacchai, N. – Waryszak, R. (2000): An Examination of the Role of Beneficial Image in
Tourist Destination Selection. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39. No. 1. pp. 37-44.
Tasci, A. D. A. – Kozak, M. (2006): Destination Brands vs. Destination Images: Do We Know
What We Mean? Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 12. No. 4. pp. 299-317.
Tasci, A. D. A. – Gartner, W. C. (2007): Destination Image and Its Functional Relationships.
Journal of Travel Research. Vol. 45. No. 4. (May/2007). pp. 413-425.
Tasci, A. D. A. – Gartner, W. C. – Cavusgil, S. T. (2007a): Conceptualization and
Operationalization of Destination Image. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. Vol.
31. No. 2. (May/2007) pp. 194-223.
Tasci, A. D. A. – Gartner, W. C. – Cavusgil, S. T. (2007b): Measurement of Destination Brand
Bias Using a Quasi-Experimental Design. Tourism Management, Vol. 28. No. 6. pp. 1529–
1540.
Tashakkori, A. – Teddlie, C. (ed.) (2003): Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral
Research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp. 3-50.
Teddlie, C. – Tashakkori, A. (2006): A General Typology of Research Designs Featuring Mixed
Methods. Mid-South Educational Research Association, Research in the Schools, Vol. 13.
No. 1, pp. 12-28.
Thakor, M. V. – Katsanis, L. P. (1997): A Model of Brand and Country Effects on Quality
Dimensions: Issues and Implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9.
No. 3. pp. 79-100.
Therkelsen, A. – Halkier, H. (2004 ): Umbrella Place Branding. A Study of Friendly Exoticism
and Exotic Friendliness in Coordinated National Tourism and Investment Promotion.
SPIRIT discussion paper, 26. Aalborg University. http://www2.ihis.aau.dk/~at/
BrandingMarketdev09.htm, letöltés ideje: 2009. április 17.
Todorow, T. (1993): On Human Diversity, Nationalism, Racism and Exoticism in French
Thought. Harvard University Press, Boston, 1993.
Totth, G. (1996): A vállalati image kialakításának és fenntartásának módszertana. Budapesti
Közgazdaságtudományi Egyetem, Marketing Tanszék. p. 7.
Trauer, B. – Ryan, C. (2005): Destination Image, Romance and Place Experience: An
Application of Intimacy Theory in Tourism. Tourism Management, Vol. 26. pp. 481–491.
Tribe, J. – Snaith, T. (1998): From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: Holiday Satisfaction in Varadero,
Cuba. Tourism Management, Vol. 19. No. 1. pp. 25–34.
Trueman, M. M. – Klemm, M. – Giroud, A. – Lindley, T. (2001): Bradford in the Premier
League? A Multidisciplinary Approach to Branding and Re-positioning a City. Working
Paper 01/04, Bradford University School of Management, Bradford

263
REFERENCES

Trueman, M. – Klemm, M. – Giroud, A. (2004): Can a City Communicate? Bradford as a

Corporate Brand. Corporate Communications: An International Journal. Vol. 9. No. 4. pp.
317-330.
Tsai, S. (2005). Utility, Cultural Symbolism & Emotion: A Comprehensive Model of Brand
Purchase Value. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22. pp. 277–291.
Um, S. – Crompton, J. L. (1990): Attitude Determinants in Tourism Destination Choice. Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 17. pp. 432–448.
Urbonavicius, S. – Dikcius, V. – Navickaite, S. (2011): Country Image and Product Evaluation:
Impact of a Personal Contact with a Country. Engineering Economics, Vol. 22. No. 2. pp.
214-221.
Usunier, J. C. (2006): Relevance in Business Research: The Case of Country-of-Origin
Research in Marketing. European Management Review. Vol. 2006/3. pp. 60-73.
Van Ham, P. (2001): The Rise of the Brand State: The Psotmodern Politics of Image and
Reputation. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 80. No. 5. pp. 2-6.
Van Ham, P. (2002a): A márkás állam felemelkedése – Az imázs és a hírnév posztmodern
logikája. Marketing és Menedzsment, 2002/1. szám, pp. 3-7.
Van Ham, P. (2002b): Branding Territory: Inside the Wonderful Worlds of PR and IR Theory.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 2002/2., pp. 249-269.
Vanolo, A. (2008): The Image of the Creative City: Some Reflections on Urban Branding in
Turin. Cities, Vol. 25. pp. 370-382.
Verlegh, P. W. J. (2001): Country-of-Origin Effects on Consumer Product Evaluations.
Unpublished Phd Dissertation, Wageningen University. in: Roth, K. P. – Diamantopoulos,
A. (2009): Advancing the Country Image Construct. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62.
pp. 726-740.
Verlegh, P. W. J. – Steenkamp, J-B. (1999): A Review and Meta-analysis of Country-of-Origin
Research. Journal of Economic Psychology. Vol. 20/1999. pp. 521-546.
Villanueva, L. – Papadopoulos, N. (2003): Toward a Model of Consumer Receptivity of
Foreign and Domestic Products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15. No.
3. pp. 101–126.
Viosca, R. C. – Bergiel, B. J. – Balsmeier, P. (2005): Country Equity: South Africa, a Case in
Point. Journal of Promotion Management. Vol. 12. No. 1. pp. 85-95.
Waitt, G. (1996): Marketing Korea as an International Tourist Destination. Tourism
Management, Vol. 17. No. 2. pp. 113–121.
Wang, Y. – Fesenmaier, D. (2006): Collaborative Destination Marketing: A case Study of
Elkhart County, Indiana. Tourism Management, Vol. 28. No. 3. pp. 863-875.
Wang, C. – Lamb, C. W. (1980): Foreign Environmental Factors Influencing American
Consumers' Predispositions toward European products. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 8. No. 4. pp. 345-356.
Wang, C. – Lamb, C. W. (1983): The Impact of Selected Evironmental Forces upon
Consumers’ Willingness to Buy Foreign Products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science. Vol. 11. No. 2. pp. 71-84.

264
 REFERENCES

Ward, S. V. (1998): Selling Places: The Marketing and Promotion of Towns and Cities. E& FN
Spon, London.
Warren, S. (2002): Branding New Zealand – Competing in the Global Attention Economy.
Locum Destination Magazine, Winter/2002. pp. 54-56.
Weaver, P. A. – Weber, K. – McCleary, K. W. (2007): Destination Evaluation: The role of
Previous Travel Experience and Trip Characteristics. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45.
pp. 333-344.
Weber, K. (1997): The Assessment of Tourist Satisfaction Using the Expectancy
Disconfirmation Theory: A Study of the German Travel Market in Australia. Pacific
Tourism Review, Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 35-45.
Weber, U. – Grundhöfer, H. (1991): Länderimages — ein Qualitätspotential? Absatzwirtschaft
Vol. 34/1991. pp. 204-210. in: Roth, K. P. – Diamantopoulos, A. (2009): Advancing the
Country Image Construct. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62. pp. 726-740.
Webster, F. E., Jr. (2000): Understanding the Relationships Among Brands, Consumers, &
Resellers. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28. No. 1. pp. 17–23.
Wendt, A. (1994): Collective Identity Formation and the the International State. American
Political Science Review, Vol. 88. No. 2. pp. 384-396.
White, C. (2004): Destination Image: To See or Not to See. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16. pp. 309–314.
White, P. (1979): Attitudes of U.S. Purchasing Managers Toward Industrial Products
Manufactured in Selected Western European Nations. Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. Spring-Summer/1979. pp. 81-90.
Widler, J. (2007): Nation Branding: With Pride Against Prejudice. Place Branding and. Public
Diplomacy, Vol. 3. No. 2. pp. 144-150.
Williams, H. (1994): Cities Bid to Make the Marque. Management Today, Vol. August/1994.
pp. 30-33.
Wilson, B. et.al. (2007): Exploring Causal Path Directionality for a Marketing Model Using
Cohen’s path Method. In: PLS’07: 5th International Symposium on PLS and Related
Methods, Oslo (Norway), pp. 57-61.
Wish, M. – Deutsch, M. – Biener, L. (1970): Differences in Conceptual Structures of Nations:
An Exploratory Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psichology, Vol. 1970/3. pp. 361-
373.
Wodak, R. – de Cillia, R. – Reisigl, M. – Liebhart, K. (ed.) (2003): The Discursive Construction
of National Identity. Edinburgh University Press.
Woodside, A. G. – Lysonski, S. (1989): A General Model of Traveler Destination Choice.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28. pp. 8-14.
Yang, S. – Shin, H. – Lee, J. – Wrigley, B. (2008): Country Reputation in Multidimensions:
Predictors, Effects, and Communication Channels. Journal of Public Relations Research,
Vol. 20. No. 4. pp. 421-440.
Yaprak, A. – Parameswaran, R. (1986): Strategy Formulation in Multinational Marketing: A
Deductive, Paradigm-Integrating Approach. Advances in International Marketing, Vol.
1/1986. pp. 21–45.

265
REFERENCES

Yoo, B. – Donthu, N. (2001): Developing and Validating Multidimensional Consumer-based

Brand Equity Scale. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52. No. 1. pp. 1-14.
Yu, C-M. J. – Chen, C-N. (1993): A Research Note on Country of Origin in Industrial Settings.
in: Papadopoulos, N. – Heslop, L. (ed.) (1993): Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in
International Marketing. International Business Press, New York, 1993. pp. 245-254.
Yuksel, A. (2001). Managing Customer Satisfaction and Retention:A Case of Tourist
Destinations, Turkey. Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 7. No. 2. pp. 153–168.
Yuksel, A. (2004): Shopping Experience Evaluation: A Case of Domestic and International
Visitors. Tourism Management, Vol. 25. No. 6. pp. 751-759.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985): Measuring the Involvment Construct. in: Martin, I. M. – Eroglu, S.
(1993): Measuring a Multi-Dimensional Construct: Country Image. Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 28. pp. 191-210.
Zanna, M. P. – Rempel, J. R. (1988): Attitudes: A New Look at an Old Concept. In: Bar-Tal, D.
– Kruglanski, A. (ed.) (1988): The Social Psychology of Knowledge. Cambridge University
Press, New York. pp. 315-334.
Zeithaml, V. (1988): Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model
and Synthesis of the Evidence. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52. No. 3. pp. 2–22.
Zenker, S. (2011): How to Catch a City? The Concept and Measurement of Place Brands.
Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 4. No. 1. pp. 40-52.
Zenker, S. – Braun, E. (2010): Branding a City – A Conceptual Approach for Place Branding
and Place Brand Management. 39th European Marketing Academy Conference; 1–4 June,
2010, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Zenker, S. – Martin, N. (2011): Measuring Success in Place Marketing and Branding. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy. Vol. 7. pp. 32-41.
Zenker, S. – Petersen, S. – Aholt, A. (2009): Development and Implementation of the Citizen
Satisfaction Index (CSI): Four Basic Factors of Citizens’ Satisfaction. Research Papers on
Marketing and Retailing, Vol. 39. pp. 1-19.
Zhou, L. – Murray, I. – Zhang, B. (2001): People’s Perceptions of Foreign Hotel Chains in
China’s Market: An Empirical Study of the Effects of Country-of-Origin and Corporate
Identity. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 11. No. 4. pp. 43-65.

266
 HIVATKOZÁSJEGYZÉK

Publications related to the topic of the dissertation

Book chapter
Malota Erzsébet - Kelemen Kata (szerk.)(2011): Nemzetközi marketing a hazai
gyakorlatban. Pearson Publishing, Harlow, Essex.
pp. 53-57.
Article
Barbara Jenes Az országimázs alakításának lehetőségei.
Marketing és Menedzsment, 2005/2. szám, pp. 18-29.

Barbara Jenes A környezettudatos magatartás és az országimázs kapcsolata.

Marketing és Menedzsment, 2007/6. szám, pp. 34-44.
Barbara Jenes Olimpia és imázsépítés: Peking 2008.
Marketing és Menedzsment, 2008/3. szám, pp. 16-24.
Barbara Jenes Az országimázs mérhetősége elméletben és gyakorlatban.
Erzsébet Malota A magyar országimázs felmérése az egyetemisták körében 2008-ban
Judit Simon Marketing és Menedzsment, 2008/5-6. szám, pp. 137-149.

Barbara Jenes A ’pusztaromantika’ helye a magyar országimázsban

Kilátások az Országmárka Tanács megalakulása kapcsán
Marketing és Menedzsment, 2009/2. szám, pp. 64-72.
International conference
(presentation/proceedings)
Reconsidering the Measurement of Country Image and Country Branding –
Barbara Jenes
Theory and Practice
Erzsébet Malota
„Marketing Theory Challenges in Transitional Societies” Conference, Zagreb
Judit Simon
(HR), 2008. szeptember 26-27. pp. 99-107.
Reconsidering the Measurement of Country Image – Theory and Practice
Barbara Jenes
FIKUSZ, Budapest, 2008. november 7. pp. 65-80.
Measuring Country Image – Theory and Practice
Barbara Jenes 8th International Marketing Trends Congress, Paris (FR), 2009. január 16-17.
Erzsébet Malota pp. 1-20.

Measuring Country Image – A Field Research among University Students.

Barbara Jenes
International Bata Conference, Zlin (CZ), 2009. április 2. pp. 1-11.
New Approaches of Country Image – Literature Review.
Barbara Jenes
„Marketing Theory Challenges in Transitional Societies” Conference, Maribor
Judit Simon
(SLO), 2009. szeptember 24-25. pp. 105-113.
The Nature of Country Image – An Extended Literature Review.
Barbara Jenes 9th International Marketing Trends Congress, Venice (IT), 2010. január 21-23.
pp. 1-23.
Country Image and Country Branding – An Extended Literature Review.
Barbara Jenes
Spring Wind Conference, Pécs, 2010. március 25-27. pp. 188-193.
Measuring Country Image and Country Brand – Theory and Practice. 1st EMAC
Barbara Jenes Regional Conference, Doctoral Seminar, Budapest, 2010. szeptember 23. pp.
1-7.
Dimensions of Country Image – An Exploratory Study on the Dimensions of the
Barbara Jenes Hungarian Country Image. 1st EMAC Regional Conference, Budapest, 2010.
szeptember 24-25. pp. 1-8.
What Makes up a Country Image and Country Brand? - Dimensions of Country
Barbara Jenes Images and Country Brands. International Bata Conference, Zlin (CZ), 2011.
április 12. pp. 1-10.

267
REFERENCES

Hungarian conference
(presentation/proceedings)
Barbara Jenes Az országimázs mérésének elméleti és gyakorlati kérdései
Tavaszi Szél Konferencia, Budapest, 2008. május 23-25. pp. 560-570.
Barbara Jenes Az országimázs mérhetősége elméletben és gyakorlatban.
Erzsébet Malota A magyar országimázs felmérése az egyetemisták körében
Judit Simon MOK, Budapest, 2008. augusztus 28-29. pp. 1-15.

Barbara Jenes Az országimázs mérésének elméleti és gyakorlati kérdései

JFEK, Budapest, 2009. március 19-20. pp. 1-17.
Barbara Jenes Az országimázs mérőskálák vizsgálata
Judit Simon MOK, Kaposvár, 2009. augusztus 25-26. pp. 1-11.

Barbara Jenes Nemzeti arculatépítés a globális világban. Az országimázs-alakítás

módszertanával foglalkozó szakirodalom átfogó vizsgálata.
Erdei Ferenc Tudományos Konferencia, Kecskemét, 2009. szeptember 3-4. pp.
942-947.
Barbara Jenes Az országimázs fogalmának szakirodalmi megközelítései.
MOK, Budapest, 2010. augusztus 26-27. pp. 1-15.
Barbara Jenes Az országmárka mérése – Egy országmárka-mérőskála tesztelése.
MOK, Pécs, 2011. augusztus 29-30. pp. 1-10.
Barbara Jenes Hatékonyságmérés az országimázs-építésben – Az országmárka értékének
mérése.
21. Országos Marketing Konferencia, Balatonalmádi, 2011. november 15-16.
pp. 1-20.

268