The country-of-origin (COO) concept has obtained considerable attention by marketing researchers and managers since its introduction by Schooler in 1965. The relevance of this construct has been underlined by various studies indicating that a product’s COO serves as a signal for product quality, thus driving consumers’ product evaluations (Han & Terpstra, 1988), and consequently coloring their decision-making processes (Herz & Diamantopoulos, 2013). However, “despite a large body of research, country-of-origin effects are still poorly understood” (Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999, p. 521). This view is reiterated by Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006) and Knight and Calantone (2001) who argue that academicians have so far not been able to provide an integrative theoretical framework capable of explaining the country-of-origin concept and the effects it has on behavioral intentions.
The lacking consensus on a formalized and theory-based framework has resulted in various and often inconsistent views on the conceptualization of the COO concept (Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop & Mourali, 2005; Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009). More specifically, several researchers view COO as a cognitive mental construct, consisting of associations, attributes and beliefs which consumers link to a particular manufacturing country (e.g. Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000). However, other researchers propose to include not only cognitive but also affective components in the COO concept (e.g. Häubl, 1996). Further, studies also differ on the question whether COO should be viewed as a host of various beliefs (e.g. Martin & Eroglu, 1993) or rather as an overall evaluative attitudinal construct (e.g. Kotler, Haider & Rein, 1993). To complicate things further, existing studies also only loosely define whether COO should be conceptualized as a mental construct or rather as an effect that stems from a mental construct (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). As a consequence, this conceptual ambiguity within the COO literature has yielded different operationalization for the measurement of the COO construct. As a consequence, and perhaps not surprisingly, the empirical work on COO has often resulted in conflicting findings (e.g. Pappu, Queste & Cooksey, 2006), limiting the advancement of the whole research area and making it harder for managers to apply it.
Existing research (Josiassen, Lukas, Whitwell & Assaf, 2013) has addressed the conceptual ambiguity of COO by providing a framework for the macro-structure, explaining how different units of analysis relate to each other. However, researchers’
1) fk.marktg@cbs.dkIntroduction
The country-of-origin (COO) concept has obtained considerable attention by marketing researchers and managers since its introduction by Schooler in 1965. The relevance of this construct has been underlined by various studies indicating that a product’s COO serves as a signal for product quality, thus driving consumers’ product evaluations (Han & Terpstra, 1988), and consequently coloring their decision-making processes (Herz & Diamantopoulos, 2013). However, “despite a large body of research, country-of-origin effects are still poorly understood” (Verlegh & Steenkamp 1999, p. 521). This view is reiterated by Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006) and Knight and Calantone (2001) who argue that academicians have so far not been able to provide an integrative theoretical framework capable of explaining the country-of-origin concept and the effects it has on behavioral intentions.
The lacking consensus on a formalized and theory-based framework has resulted in various and often inconsistent views on the conceptualization of the COO concept (Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop & Mourali, 2005; Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009). More specifically, several researchers view COO as a cognitive mental construct, consisting of associations, attributes and beliefs which consumers link to a particular manufacturing country (e.g. Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000). However, other researchers propose to include not only cognitive but also affective components in the COO concept (e.g. Häubl, 1996). Further, studies also differ on the question whether COO should be viewed as a host of various beliefs (e.g. Martin & Eroglu, 1993) or rather as an overall evaluative attitudinal construct (e.g. Kotler, Haider & Rein, 1993). To complicate things further, existing studies also only loosely define whether COO should be conceptualized as a mental construct or rather as an effect that stems from a mental construct (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). As a consequence, this conceptual ambiguity within the COO literature has yielded different operationalization for the measurement of the COO construct. As a consequence, and perhaps not surprisingly, the empirical work on COO has often resulted in conflicting findings (e.g. Pappu, Queste & Cooksey, 2006), limiting the advancement of the whole research area and making it harder for managers to apply it.
Existing research (Josiassen, Lukas, Whitwell & Assaf, 2013) has addressed the conceptual ambiguity of COO by providing a framework for the macro-structure, explaining how different units of analysis relate to each other. However, researchers’Information about a COO is not only hold at the aggregated level, as reflected by CI, but may also be manifested through various, potentially unrelated beliefs, that individuals link with a particular country-of-origin. Attitude researchers widely agree on the notionInformation about a COO is not only hold at the aggregated level, as reflected by CI, but may also be manifested through various, potentially unrelated beliefs, that individuals link with a particular country-of-origin. Attitude researchers widely agree on the notionIn conclusion, we propose that the myriad of conceptual views on the COO concept can be theoretically integrated in a formalized model (Figure 1). Thus, instead of viewing the different conceptualizations on COO as conflicting, we show that they are indeed complementary, and can be understood by applying seminal psychology literature. The model also provides conceptual structure to the interactions between the three35
components, as well as enhancing our understanding how mental representations form behavioural intentions (Ajzen, 2001; Eagly et al., 1994).

• Alexander Josiassen(Copenhagen Business School, Denmark)
• Florian Kock(Copenhagen Business School, Denmark)
• Stefanie Meß(Copenhagen Business School, Denmark)