Alternative Questionnaire Formats for Country Image Studies

Abstract

Two different questionnaire formats based on the semantic differential scale have been used in comparative image studies of countries. The authors test the reliability and validity of each format and find that though the two formats have nearly equal reliability, they are not equivalent. Country image studies that have different questionnaire formats may not be comparable, even if the scale items are the same.

Matching Product Catgeory and Country Image Perceptions: A Framework for Managing Country-of-Origin Effects

“…This fornat has been shown to yield high stability over time [Jaffe and Nebenzahl 1984], and is consistent with the format of previous country image studies. Order of stimuli and dimensions was randomized throughout the questionnaire.…”

“…Each study measured the country image construct using scaled items that were either grouped according to mean scores [Nagashima 1970[Nagashima , 1977, or through factor analytic techniques [Cattin et al 1982;Han and Terpstra 1988;Jaffe and Nebenzahl 1984;Johansson and Nebenzahl 1986;Narayana 1981;White 1979]. Thus, means and standard deviations of the scaled items, or the zero-order correlations of the items, would be required to conduct a meta-analysis [Hunter, Schmidt and Jackson 1982;Hunter and Schmidt 1990].…”

“…In fact, country image may be the more appropriate summary construct, of which perceived quality may be just one dimension. The little research conducted to date indicates country image is really a multidimensional construct [Cattin, Jolibert and Lohnes 1982;Jaffe and Nebenzahl 1984;Han and Terpstra 1988;Johansson and Nebenzahl 1986;Nagashima 1970Nagashima , 1977Narayana 1981;White 1979]. …”

Investigation on perceived country image of imported food

“…Workmanship indicates the durability, production quality, and reliability of products. To make the measurement exhaustive, two other general product attributes, value and safety, which are strongly related to country image, were also considered (Bernués, Olaizola, & Corcoran, 2003;Jaffe & Nebenzahl, 1984;Loureiro & Umberger, 2007;Nagashima, 1970). Value reflects the price-quality ratio of products (Schnettler et al, 2008), whereas safety refers to consumers confidence in products and/or whether the products are officially certified (Verbeke & Viaene, 1999).…”

“…Items such as ''new products," ''advanced transportation and storage techniques," and ''abundant R&D resource" were measured for innovativeness; ''elegant package (fruit)/bottle (beer) design" and ''appropriate grading system (fruit)/volume (beer)" were for design; ''positive evaluation," ''excellent reputation," and ''idiosyncratic advertisements" were for prestige; ''stable quality," ''product reliability," and ''good taste" were for workmanship; ''reasonable price" and ''high pricequality ratio" were for value; and ''safe to eat" and ''official certification" were for safety. Moreover, the scale was formatted in entity-based (country-based) type, which has better measurement reliability as compared to attribute-based type (Jaffe & Nebenzahl, 1984). 1 All the items were randomly arranged rather than ordered by dimensions, and were measured on a four-point Likert scales (1 strongly disagree-4 strongly agree).…”