This note reports a quantitative analysis of the country-oforigin (COO) effect. Based on fifty-two articles or papers containing sixty-nine independent studies and 1,520 effect sizes, an analysis of fifteen study characteristics revealed that country-of-origin effects are only somewhat generalizable. Using omega-squared as the measure of effect size, verbal product descriptions produced larger COO effect sizes than did the presence of an actual product. Likewise, single-cue studies produced larger COO effect sizes than did multiple-cue studies, and larger samples produced effect sizes that on average were greater than those produced by smaller samples. The size of an observed COO effect was a function of whether the dependent variable was a quality/reliability perception or a purchase intention; the average effect size for quality/ reliability perceptions was .30, whereas the average effect size for purchase intentions was .19. Purchase intentions were more susceptible to methodological artifacts than were quality/reliability perceptions. Study findings selectively confirm and refute common beliefs regarding the impact of a country-of-origin cue on product perceptions and purchase intentions.

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing. Kingdom, and the United States The determinants of marketing negotiations in four cultures are investigated in a laboratory simulation. One hundred thirty-eight businesspeople from the United States, 48 from France, 44 from West Germany, and 44 from the United Kingdom participated in two-person, buyer-seller negotiation simulations. The American process of negotiation is found to be different from that of the Europeans in several respects. What the U.S. does best is understand itself. What it does worst is understand others. -Carlos Fuentes (1986) RANCE, West Germany, and the United Kingdom are America's most important European trading partners. During 1986, U.S. exports to the three countries amounted to $29.2 billion and imports were $52.7 billion (merchandise only). This trade comprises thousands of marketing transactions such as capital equipment sales, licensing agreements, distribution agreements for both industrial and consumer goods, and negotiation of service contracts. An integral part of all such commercial activities is face-to-face negotiations between American businesspeople and executives from each of the three countries. Despite the long history and large volume of trade, little has been written about marketing negotiations in the three countries. Moreover, Hall The study was supported in part by the USC Faculty Research and Innovation Fund. The suggestions of the anonymous JM reviewers were most helpful and much appreciated. The Germans, the English, the Americans, and the French share significant portions of each other's cultures, but at many points their cultures clash. Consequently, the misunderstandings that arise are all the more serious because sophisticated Americans and Europeans take pride in correctly interpreting each other's behavior. Cultural differences which are out of awareness are, as a consequence, usually chalked up to ineptness, boorishness, or lack of interest on the part of the other person. The problem of marketing negotiations with European trading partners is both important and understudied. Hundreds of studies of negotiation behaviors have been conducted in the United States over the years (cf. Rubin and Brown 1975). Increasingly, buyer-seller negotiations are the subject of marketing studies (e.g., Clopton 1984; Dwyer and Walker 1981; McAlister, Bazerman, and Fader 1986; Schurr and Ozanne 1985). The associated theories are not yet well formed and seldom have been tested with subjects other than American college students. A few researchers have considered differences in negotiation behaviors across cultures (e.g., ...

BackgroundPrevious research has addressed the relationship between customer satisfaction, perceived quality and customer loyalty intentions in consumer markets. In this study, we test and compare three theoretical models of the quality–satisfaction–loyalty relationship in the Chinese healthcare system.MethodsThis research focuses on hospital patients as participants in the process of healthcare procurement. Empirical data were obtained from six Chinese public hospitals in Shanghai. A total of 630 questionnaires were collected in two studies. Study 1 tested the research instruments, and Study 2 tested the three models. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the scales’ construct validity by testing convergent and discriminant validity. A structural equation model (SEM) specified the distinctions between each construct. A comparison of the three theoretical models was conducted via AMOS analysis.ResultsThe results of the SEM demonstrate that quality and satisfaction are distinct concepts and that the first model (satisfaction mediates quality and loyalty) is the most appropriate one in the context of the Chinese healthcare environment.ConclusionsIn this study, we test and compare three theoretical models of the quality–satisfaction–loyalty relationship in the Chinese healthcare system. Findings show that perceived quality improvement does not lead directly to customer loyalty. The strategy of using quality improvement to maintain patient loyalty depends on the level of patient satisfaction. This implies that the measurement of patient experiences should include topics of importance for patients’ satisfaction with health care services.