2012
DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2012.682037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Developing and Validating AFFINITY: A New Scale to Measure Consumer Affinity toward Foreign Countries

Abstract: Consumers do not look at attitudinal objects (products, nations) in terms of black and white. Because conflicting attitudes exist, it is important to understand how these translate into consumer buying behavior. Our objective is to build a parsimonious affinity scale (AFFINITY) by collecting data from Thai consumers concerning their affinity and animosity toward the U.S. and Singapore. We find that affinity and animosity form different constructs and relate to different stages in the purchase decision process.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
81
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(87 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
5
81
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The positive effect of affinity on purchase intention is consistent with the literature (Baillargeon, 2004), and the negative effect of ethnocentrism on purchase intention is consistent with the literature (Klein et al, 1998). Wongtada et al (2012) argue that consumer affinity is more influential in product judgment when compared to consumer animosity. Thus, the most important point to highlight in this research is that consumer affinity has stronger explanatory value than animosity in understating consumers' behavioral intention towards foreign products.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The positive effect of affinity on purchase intention is consistent with the literature (Baillargeon, 2004), and the negative effect of ethnocentrism on purchase intention is consistent with the literature (Klein et al, 1998). Wongtada et al (2012) argue that consumer affinity is more influential in product judgment when compared to consumer animosity. Thus, the most important point to highlight in this research is that consumer affinity has stronger explanatory value than animosity in understating consumers' behavioral intention towards foreign products.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The first group measures animosity, ethnocentrism, affinity, brand image, and the purchasing behavior of foreign-made products, while the second group reports descriptive and demographic characteristics. The scales used in this study are as follows: affinity (Wongtada et al, 2012), animosity (Chan et al, 2010), ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma, 1987;Nijssen and Douglas, 2004), brand image (Low and Lamb, 2000), the purchase intention of foreign products (Abzari et al, 2014), and the lack of CONSUMERS' EMOTIONAL BONDS WITH FOREIGN BRANDS: ANIMOSITY, AFFINITY, AND ETHNOCENTRISM alternatives (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004). The data were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 and AMOS20 statistics software.…”
Section: Sampling and Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data were collected through a survey questionnaire adopted from previous studies by Ang and Inkpen (), Wongtada, Rice, and Bandyopadhyay (), and Morgan and Hunt (). Each variable is made up of a number of items (manifest variables) that took the form of statements about managerial values, perceptions, and actions in the context of foreign entry mode.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These items utilize a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). When building each construct, we adapted the items used in previous literature and surveys to our context (Ang & Inkpen, ; Morgan & Hunt, ; Wongtada et al, ). We tested the reliability and internal consistency of each construct using Cronbach's alpha test (Cronbach, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conversely, products made in developing countries typically suffer from a negative COO effect (Ettenson & Klein, ). The extant literature on COO effects clearly shows an influence of COO on product evaluation (see Bandyopadhyay & Banerjee, ; Bandyopadhyay, Wongtoda, & Rice, ; Wongtoda, Rice, & Bandyopadhyay, ). This influence is stronger in single‐cue studies as compared to multiple‐cue studies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%