


































UAFS Advances in Business Research 2012 LOWREZ (2).pdf


Henley and Cotter                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 90-98 

90 

 

The German Automobile Paradox 
 

James Henley, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga 

Michael Cotter, Grand Valley State University 
 

 

This study compares the performance and reliability of German vehicles sold in the US to those from the rest of the 

world. The examination uses Consumer Reports’ vehicle road-test performance and predicted reliability from 1994 

through 2012. Statistical analysis reveals a contradiction in the two automobile dimensions. The German 

automobiles had better road-test performance than automobiles from the rest of the world, but the German vehicles’ 
predicted reliability was much worse. 
 

 

Products emanating from a particular country often take on the general image of that country’s products. In the 

marketing discipline literature, this is known as the country-of-origin (Pharr, 2005). Products from German 

companies generally have a positive quality reputation and German automobiles share in Germany’s good reputation 

(Sohail, 2005). When people are asked to describe German automobiles, comments of reliable automobiles, better 

performance, excellent engineering, and prestigious are common (Lawrence & Prendergast, 1992). The German 

automobile manufacturers stress this image with their product positioning. Affordable German engineering is 

Volkswagen’s position while Audi, Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes stress performance, excellent engineering as well 

as luxury. 

 This combination of engineering, performance, and luxury is a powerful marketing position on the world 

automobile market. For premium vehicles, BMW is the world’s number one automobile manufacturer in sales 

volume followed by Audi and then Mercedes (Castonguay, 2012). In a close sales volume race in the United States, 

BMW beat out Mercedes for the top position in 2011. Both German brands exceeded the sales of the Japanese 

automobile Lexus, which was the number one premium brand for the previous decade (Dolan, Rauwald, & Schmidt, 

2012). Although Volkswagen is not a premium brand, it does stress German engineering.  Volkswagen has 

ambitions to increase its U.S. sales to 800,000 units by 2018 (Findlay, 2009). This would be an almost four-fold 

increase from 2009 when it had sales of 213,454 (Kurylko, 2010). 

 Automobile quality is also a strong marketing position for automobiles. Automobile quality was the most 

important consideration for 86 percent of U.S. automobile consumers responding to a survey (Cole & Flynn, 2009). 

Also, there is evidence that a quality product strategy leads to higher profits (Jacobson & Aaker, 1987).    

 Since German automobiles have an excellent reputation (Lawrence & Prendergast, 1992; Sohail, 2005), this 

study examined how German vehicles compared to the rest of the world on two dimensions: automobile road-test 

performance and automobile reliability. The source for data on vehicle performance and reliability was Consumer 

Reports. Every year, Consumer Reports surveys its readers and road tests purchased automobiles sold in the United 

States. They publish the results of their survey, road-test results, and make predictions on future performance 

quality. We used Consumer Reports’ data from 1994 to 2012 to examine road-test performance and predicted 

reliability of German automobiles compared to automobiles from other countries.  
 

Literature Review 

  

 Historically, automobile researchers have extensively researched many areas of the industry. These areas include 

market share (Train & Winston, 2007), reliability and age effects on used car prices (Betts & Taran, 2004), 

price/quality relationships (Hogarty, 1975), product differentiation and price discrimination (Mertens & Ginsburgh, 

1985), brand name influence (Sullivan, 1998), and recall consequences (Crafton, Hoffer, & Reilly, 1981; Bates, 

Holweg, Lewis, & Oliver, 2007).   

 A product’s country-of-origin influences consumers’ product quality assessments and is another major area of 

analysis. Since this study is focused on Germany, the country-of-origin literature can be particularly useful.  

Fortunately, country-of-origin pertaining to automobiles is extensively researched and the literature is reviewed in 

the next two sections. 
 

What Constitutes a German Vehicle? 

 

 The first step of this study was to define what automobile manufacturers were German. At first blush, this seems 

a simple task. Certainly, a German automobile is an automobile made in Germany by a German automobile 

manufacturer. When the facts of modern manufacturing and company ownership are reviewed, however, the 

situation becomes far more complex. Most people consider German manufacturers to be Audi, BMW, Mercedes, 



Henley and Cotter                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 90-98 
 

 

 

 

91 

 

Porsche, and Volkswagen. However, are the vehicles these manufacturers produce considered German even if they 

are made in another country? For example, BMW, Mercedes, and Volkswagen have vehicle assembly plants in the 

United States (Global Game, 2007; Young, 2011). Are these vehicles German or U.S.? In addition, Chrysler was 

owned by Daimler-Benz (Mercedes) from 1998 to 2007 (Rutberg, 2007; White, 2009). During this period was 

Chrysler a German or American automobile? The Mini is historically considered British but is now owned by BMW 

(White, 2012). The country-of-origin literature offers a response to these questions. 

 Country-of-origin is the collective beliefs consumers have about a particular country. Researchers found 

country-of-origin beliefs affect the evaluation of a product associated with a country (Hong & Wyer, 1989; Pharr, 

2005). Pappu, Quester, and Cooksey (2007) found country-of-origin could influence brand equity.  Research on 

country-of-origin is extensive (Nagashima, 1970; Hong & Wyer, 1990; Al-Sulaiti & Baker, 1998; Verlegh & 

Steenkamp, 1999; Gurhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000; Beverland & Lindgreen, 2002; Dinnie, 2002; Liefeld, 2004; 

Liu & Johnson, 2005; Pharr, 2005; Yasin, Noor, & Mohamad, 2007). Country-of-origin is composed of several 

concepts such as brand origin (Thakor, 1996), country-of-assembly (Tse & Lee, 1993; Inch & McBride, 1998; Chao, 

2001), country-of-manufacture (Ulgado, 2002; Thakor & Lavack, 2003), country-of-parts (Inch & McBride, 1998; 

Chao, 2001), and country-of-design (Sauer, Young, & Unnava, 1991; Chao, 1993; Ahmed & d’Astous, 1995; Inch 

& McBride, 1998; Chao, 2001). 

 Many researchers found country-of-origin influences consumers’ evaluations of automobiles (Han & Terpstra, 

1988; Chao & Gupta, 1995; Haubl, 1996). Loeffler (2002) discovered complex products, including automobiles, are 

influenced more by country-of-origin beliefs. Since automobile evaluations are heavily swayed by their country-of-

origin, this study uses country-of-origin as the means to classify a vehicle as German. Since there are many country-

of-origin concepts, the appropriate concept for this study was determined next. 

 Brand origin is a brand’s initial country of development, irrespective of where a product obtains parts, is 

designed, or is manufactured (Thakor, 1996). It is also known as country-of-corporate-ownership (Thakor & 

Lavack, 2003), country-of-brand-origin, and country-of-brand-ownership (Ulgado, 2002; Chen, 2004). Researchers 

found brand origin influences consumers’ brand perceptions (Harris, Garner-Earl, Sprick, & Carroll, 1994; Leclerc, 

Schmitt, & Dube, 1994; Samiee, 1994; Chao, 2001; Thakor & Lavack, 2003). It is also more influential than 

country-of-manufacture (Ulgado, 2002; Chen, 2004) and country-of-parts or country-of-assembly (Thakor & 

Lavack, 2003). 

 Since many studies results indicate brand origin was more influential than other country-of-origin concepts, 

brand origin was used to classify automobiles as German. Consequently, the location of manufacturing, location of 

parts suppliers, and current brand ownership were not considered.  For this study, the German automobile brands are 

Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, and Volkswagen. 
 

German Country-of-Origin Reputation 
 

 In general, producers from Germany enjoy an excellent country-of-origin image.  Many studies document the 

quality reputation and customer preference of German products (Darling & Kraft, 1977; Cattin, Jolibert, & Lohnes, 

1982; Leonidou, Hadilmarcou, Kaleka, & Stamenova, 1999).  Hanzaee (2008) found Iranian consumers perceived 

German product technology as advanced. Sohail (2005) found German product quality highly rated among 

Malaysian consumers. 

 For vehicles in particular, Germany has an excellent country-of-origin reputation. In the study of Iranian 

consumers, Hanzaee (2008) found German automobiles were their first preference. Lawrence, Marr, and Prendergast 

(1992) researched New Zealander consumers and found they perceived German cars to be high on performance, 

engineering, and service. New Zealanders preferred country of origin for automobiles was Germany.  In another 

study, German automobile components ranked higher in quality than Japanese automobile components 

(Karunaratna, Quester, & Johnson, 2004). In addition to finding German product quality was rated highly by 

Malaysian consumers, Sohail (2005) also found German automobiles had the highest rating among German 

products. 

 The excellent country-of-origin image for German vehicles has benefited German automobile manufacturers in 

their pricing. Thanasuta, Patoomsuwan, Chaimahawong, and Chiaravutthi (2009) studied price premiums Thai 

consumers were willing to pay for automobiles from different countries, and German automobiles ranked first. Roth 

and Romeo (1992) studied American, Irish, and Mexican students and found they would pay more for German 

automobiles. In a study of the German automobile market, Fetscherin and Toncar (2009) found a significant positive 

correlation between engine quality and price. 

 Given the literature evidence, German products have an excellent country-of-origin reputation. German 



Henley and Cotter                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 90-98 
 

 

 

 

92 

 

automobiles, in particular, have an outstanding reputation for performance and quality. With knowledge of the 

German automobile reputation, the next step was the data and methodology for examining the performance and 

quality of German vehicles. 
 

Data Source Considerations 
 

 For the data on vehicle performance and quality, the study used the publication Consumer Reports. The 

Consumer Union annually surveys automobile owners about their experiences with their vehicles and publishes this 

information in Consumer Reports. In 2012, for example, the Consumer Union received about 1,300,000 automobile 

evaluations. Consumer Reports does not accept advertising funding from companies; consequently, there is no 

perception of bias in the ratings. Because of the size of the survey and unbiased nature of the publication, Consumer 

Reports has proved to be a popular source of information for marketers researching many products (Riesz, 1978, 

1979; Gerstner, 1985; Bodell, Kerton, & Schuster, 1986; Steenkamp, 1998; Montgomery & Wernerfelt, 1992; 

Faulds, Grunewald, & Johnson, 1995). Automobile industry researchers have also used Consumer Reports (Uri, 

1986; Friedman, 1987; Arguea, Hsiao, & Taylor, 1994; Gupta & Lord, 1995; Yerger, 1996; Nichols, 1998; Sullivan, 

1998; Apelbaum, Gerstner, & Naik, 2003). 
  

Table 1: Consumer Reports Vehicle Road-Test Scores (RTS) 

 

year Non-German PR Number of Non-German German PR Number of German p-value signifinace 

1994 3.57 112 3.25 4 0.562 

1995 3.84 108 4.38 8 0.131 

1996 3.69 131 4.29 7 0.132 

1997 3.71 108 4.44 9 0.026 

1998 3.70 109 4.71 7 0.006 

1999 3.77 107 4.75 12 <.001 

2000 3.88 115 4.79 14 <.001 
2001 3.87 136 4.71 21 <.001 
2002 3.85 134 4.79 19 <.001 
2003 3.74 133 4.52 21 <.001 
2004 3.91 160 4.75 28 <.001 
2005 3.57 164 4.44 25 <.001 
2006 3.57 191 4.42 19 <.001 

2007 65.16 199 79.58 33 0.002 

2008 66.08 222 80.09 34 <.001 

2009 66.65 250 78.10 40 <.001 
2010 69.25 241 77.35 46 <.001 
2011 71.06 232 77.27 41 0.004 

2012 72.31 230 78.40 43 <.001 

 

Table 2: Consumer Reports Vehicle Predicted-Reliability Scores (PR) 
 

year Non-German PR Number of Non-German German PR Number of German p-value signifinace 

1994 3.24 132 3.75 4 0.429 

1995 3.26 96 4.00 5 <.001 

1996 2.51 146 2.57 7 0.852 

1997 2.55 135 2.40 10 0.628 

1998 2.36 130 2.56 9 0.549 

1999 3.13 117 3.10 10 0.927 

2000 3.07 117 3.31 13 0.385 

2001 3.03 138 2.74 23 0.203 

2002 3.02 152 2.56 25 0.114 

2003 3.00 157 1.94 17 0.001 

2004 3.08 159 1.86 21 <.001 

2005 3.23 163 1.81 27 <.001 

2006 3.16 177 1.95 20 <.001 

2007 3.24 154 2.08 13 0.002 

2008 3.32 168 2.14 21 <.001 

2009 3.31 200 2.58 33 0.002 

2010 3.33 208 2.81 36 0.017 

2011 3.43 185 2.64 33 <.001 

2012 3,34 190 2.59 32 <.001 



Henley and Cotter                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 90-98 
 

 

 

 

93 

 

Data for the study was gathered from Consumer Reports’ issues from 1994 through 2012. For the data on 

German car performance, the study used the Consumer Reports’ road-test results. The Consumer Reports’ scale was 

1 to 5 with 1 being the worst rating and 5 being the best. In 2007, they changed the five point scale to a 100 point 

scale with a 1 being the worst rating and 100 being the best. Consumer Reports does not accept cars from 

manufacturers to test, and it buys the automobiles from dealerships just as a consumer would.  It does this to prevent 

any perception of bias in their road test evaluations. For a measure of reliability, the study used Consumer Reports’ 

predicted reliability assessments which also used the 1 to 5 scale. The predictions are made on past reliability 

reported by the owners of the automobile brand in the Consumer Union survey. 
 

German and World Automobile Road Test and Predicted Reliability Comparisons 
 

 To test for significant differences between non-German and German automobiles, a two-tailed t-test was used. 

The tested non-German and German automobile populations were much greater than 30 and normally distributed 

(Pagano, 1990). The significant difference criterion was set at .05 for the p-value. Table 1 above compares non-

German automobiles’ road-test results to German vehicles road-test results. Table 2 above compares non-German 

vehicles’ predicted reliability results to German automobile predicted reliability results. 
 

Discussion 
 

 Mindful of the German product and automobile positive country-of-origin reputation, the comparison of non-

German automobile road test and predicted reliability to German automobiles resulted in an unanticipated paradox. 

Table 1 above reveals that for each year from 1997 through 2012 the German automobiles outperformed their non-

German counterparts on the road-test results at a significant level. Given the engineering and performance country-

of-origin automobile reputations and positions of the German companies, this result was expected. The paradox 

comes when the predicted reliability results are analyzed. For each year from 2003 through 2012, non-German 

automobiles had a significantly better predicted reliability than the German automobiles. Given the positive country-

of-origin view of German automobiles, this lower predicted reliability was not expected. The German automobiles 

did have a better predicted reliability in 1995; however, they have not been able to repeat that performance. 

Consequently, the paradox is that German automobiles have better road-test performance but worse predicted 

reliability than non-German automobiles. 
 

Management Implications 
 

 The study results show German vehicle manufacturers produce products that demonstrate a paradox of higher 

performance and lower reliability than the competition. The high performance is a valued asset for German 

automobiles and part of the marketing strategy for many of the German automobile brands. However, the lower 

German vehicle quality is a severe flaw for German automobile manufacturers and a major risk for their future 

success. The question facing the German automobile manufacturer is: Does the performance/reliability incongruity 

matter to the consumers of German automobiles? 

 An explanation for the performance/reliability inconsistency to consumers of German automobiles could be in 

the specific target markets for each German automobile manufacturer. There are different implications for each 

manufacturer depending on the manufacturer’s marketing strategy. The bigger mass-market consumers of 

automobiles may be more concerned with reliability than performance. As stated in the introduction, quality is the 

most important consideration for 86 percent of U.S. automobile buyers (Cole & Flynn, 2009). Volkswagen wants to 

become a major company in the U.S. automobile mass market and has stated that it wants to increase sales in the 

U.S. to 800,000 units by 2018 (Findlay, 2009). To accomplish this goal, Volkswagen must appeal to the mass 

market’s desire for reliable automobiles. Consequently, it needs to focus on producing quality automobiles.  

Volkswagen is aware of their vehicles’ quality problems and is working on improving quality (Dolan, Rauwald, & 

Schmidt, 2012). 

 Given the recent market share success of German premium/performance automobiles (Dolan, Rauwald, & 

Schmidt, 2012), perhaps the performance/reliability paradox does not matter for their target segments. Ramsey 

(2011) reported sales of premium brands that followed BMW and Mercedes in technology, such as Acura and 

Infiniti, had fallen. Buyers of German vehicles such as Mercedes, BMW, Audi, and Porsche may be primarily 

motivated by the performance of the vehicle. These consumers may tolerate a temperamental automobile with 

periodic reliability problems to get a vehicle that performs at a high level. If this market segment wants performance 

first, for example, a technological innovation that improves the vehicle’s performance would be welcome. Often an 



Henley and Cotter                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 90-98 
 

 

 

 

94 

 

innovation may show some problems after it is introduced that can be worked out over time to provide reliability. 

However, it could be the consumers motivated by superior performance would rather have the innovation 

immediately in spite of the problems that it may produce. For these manufacturers, a continued emphasis on the 

performance of their vehicles over reliability may be the key to their success. 

 Given the importance of vehicle quality, the overriding implication for management of German vehicle 

companies must be to bolster the reliability of their products. In the face of worldwide pursuit of quality vehicle 

manufacturing, the German vehicle manufacturers must capture higher reliability ratings while maintaining their 

lead in vehicle performance to expunge the paradox. 
 

Study Limitations 
 

 One study limitation could be with the reliability predictions of Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports makes 

these recommendations based on the results of the automobile owner survey sent to subscribers of the magazine.  

Consumer Reports main focus is to evaluate and rate all types of products. This focus could lead to a heightened 

emphasis on automobile problem areas by the subscribers. The Consumer Reports’ subscribers may have a more 

critical focus on product flaws than the general population. 

 Another limitation is the time of the study.  It covered the years of 1994 through 2012. Although this period 

gives a current picture of reliability and performance, a longer period could give a deeper understanding of 

reliability and performance of German automobiles. 

 Although our study was concerned with the collective results of German automobile road-test performance and 

predicted reliability, it could be the individual German manufacturer’s results could vary from the collective German 

automobile results. Consequently, a closer examination the road tests and predicted reliability of each of the German 

automobile brands could add a greater understanding of the German automobile market. 
 

Future Research 
 

 One area of future investigation could be to research the reliability and performance of German vehicles based 

on specific variables included in reliability measures and performance instead of the merged data and interpretation 

based on the Consumer Reports editor perspective. Some variables might be considered more important than others 

based on the reader’s viewpoint. 

 Another research possibility could be the use of another vehicle measurement from other organizations besides 

Consumer Reports. There are a number of organizations who show great interest in assessing vehicles in a variety of 

modes for their target markets. This data might offer further insights into the differences between German 

manufacturers products and the rest of the world‘s. 

 Another investigation would be to compare the individual German automobile manufacturer’s reliability and 

performance compared to the world’s auto makers. This isolation could reveal how firms may differentiate resource 

use and goals based on their individual target markets. 
 

REFERENCES 
 

Ahmed, S., & d'Astous, A. 1995. Comparison of country-of-origin effect on household and organizational buyers' 

product perceptions.  European Journal of Marketing, 29(3), 35-51. 
 

Al-Sulaiti, K., & Baker, M. 1998. Country of origin effects: A literature review. Marketing Intelligence & 

Planning, 16(3), 150-199. 
 

Apelbaum, E., Gerstner, E., & Naik, P. 2003. The effects of expert quality evaluations versus brand name on price 

premiums. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(3), 154-165. 
 

Arguea, N., Hsiao, C., & Taylor, G. 1994. Estimating consumer preferences using market data - An application to 

US automobile demand. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 9(1), 1-18. 
 

Bates, H., Holweg, M., Lewis, M., & Oliver, N. 2007. Motor vehicle recalls: Trends, patterns and emerging issues. 

Omega, 35(2), 202-210. 
 

Betts, S., & Taran, Z. 2004. The “Brand halo” effect on durable goods prices: Brand reliability and the used car 

market. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 8(1), 7-18. 



Henley and Cotter                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 90-98 
 

 

 

 

95 

 

Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. 2002. Using country of origin in strategy: The importance of contest and strategic 

action. Journal of Brand Management, 10(2), 147-167. 
 

Bodell, R., Kerton, R., & Schuster, R. 1986. Price as a signal of quality: Canada in the international context. 

Journal of Consumer Policy, 9(4), 431-444. 
 

Castonguay, G. 2012. Audi becomes no. 2 premium auto brand. Wall Street Journal, (Jan. 9), retrieved from 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577150613407107038.html?KEYWORDS=audi. 
 

Cattin, P., Jolibert, A., & Lohnes, C. 1982. A cross-cultural study of “Made-In” concepts. Journal of International 

Business Studies, 13(3), 131-141. 
 

Chao, P. 1993. Partitioning country-of-origin effects: Consumer evaluation of a hybrid product. Journal of 

International Business Studies, 24(2), 291-306. 
 

Chao, P. 2001. The moderating effects of country of assembly, country of parts, and country of design on hybrid 

product evaluations. Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 67-81. 
 

Chao, P., & Gupta, P. 1995. Information search and efficiency of consumer choices of new cars: Country-of-origin 

effects. International Marketing Review, 12(6), 47-59. 
 

Chen, H. 2004. Testing the role of country of origin in consumer adoption of new products. International 

Advances in Economic Research, 10(3), 245-256. 
 

Cole, R., & Flynn, M. 2009. Automotive quality reputation: Hard to achieve, hard to lose, still harder to win back. 

California Management Review, 52(1), 67. 
 

Conlon, E., Kevaraj, S., & Matta, K. 2001. The relationship between initial quality perceptions and maintenance 

behavior: The case of the automotive industry. Management Science, 47(9), 1191-1202. 
 

Crafton, S., Hoffer, G., & Reilly, R. 1981 Testing the impact of recalls on the demand for automobiles. Economic 

Inquiry, 19(4), 694-703. 
 

Darling, R., & Kraft, F. 1977. A competitive profile of products and associated marketing practices of selected 

European and non-European countries. European Journal of Marketing, 11(7), 519-530. 
 

Dinnie, K. 2002. National image and competitive advantage: The theory and practice of country-of-origin effect. 

Journal of Brand Management, 9, 396-398. 
 

Dolan, M., Rauwald, C., & Schmidt, N. 2012. BMW, Audi hope to build on gains. Wall Street Journal, (Jan. 10), 

retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577151051298916444.html? KEYW 

ORDS=BMW+Audi. 
 

Faulds, D., Grunewald, O., & Johnson, D. 1995. A cross-national investigation of the relationship between the price 

and quality of consumer products: 1970-1990. Journal of Global Marketing, 8(1), 7-25. 
 

Fetscherin, M. & Toncar, M. 2009. Valuating brand equity and product-related attributes in the context of the 

German automobile market. Journal of Brand Management, 17(2), 134-145. 
 

Finlay, S. 2009. VW sticks with sales goal. Ward’s Dealer Business, 43(5), 29. 
 

Friedman, M. 1987. Survey data on owner-reported car problems: How useful to prospective purchasers of used 

cars? Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 434-439. 
 

Gerstner, E. 1985. Do higher prices signal higher quality? Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 209-215. 
 

Global game, What is an American Car? 2007. Consumer Reports, April, p. 19. 
 



Henley and Cotter                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 90-98 
 

 

 

 

96 

 

Gupta, P., & Lord, K. 1995. Identification of determinant attributes of automobiles: Objective analogues of 

perceptual constructs. Journal of Marketing Management, 5, 21-29. 
 

Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. 2000. Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations. Journal of Consumer 

Research, 27(6), 96-108. 
 

Han, C., & Terpstra, V. 1988. Country of origin effects for uni-national and bi-national products. Journal of 

International Business Studies, 19, 235-255. 
 

Hanzaee, K. 2008. The effect of country of origin (COO) on Iranian consumers’ evaluation of foreign products in an 

Islamic country. Business Review, 11(2), 218-225. 
 

Harris, R., Garner-Earl, B., Sprick S., & Carroll, C. 1994. Effects of foreign product names and country-of-origin 

attributions on advertisement evaluations. Psychology and Marketing, 11(2), 129-144. 
 

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, 13(5), 76-97. 
 

Hogarty, T. 1975. Price-quality relations for automobiles: A new approach. Applied Economics, 7(1), 41-51. 
 

Hong, S., & Wyer, R. 1989. Effects of country-of-origin and product-attribute information on product evaluation: 

An information processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 175-187. 
 

Hong, S., & Wyer, R. 1990. Determinants of product evaluation: Effects of the time interval between knowledge of 

a product's country of origin and information about its specific attributes. Journal of Consumer Research, 

17(3), 277-288. 
 

Insch, G., & McBride, J. 1998. Decomposing the country-of-origin construct: An empirical test of country of design, 

country of parts, and country of assembly. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 10(4), 69-91. 
 

Jacobson, R., & Aaker, D. 1987. The strategic role of product quality. Journal of Marketing, 51(4), 31-44. 
 

Karunaratna, A., Quester, P., & Johnson, L. 2004. Do product components and their country-of-origin influence 

product evaluations? Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 5(2), 33-57. 
 

Kurylko, D. 2010. VW restates goal: Double U.S. sales by 2012. Automotive News, 84(6400), 28. 
 

Lawrence, C., Marr, N., & Prendergast, G. 1992. Country-of-origin stereotyping: A case study in the New Zealand 

motor vehicle industry. European Journal of Marketing, 26(3), 37-51. 
 

Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B., & Dube, L. 1994. Foreign branding and its effects on product perceptions and attitudes. 

Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 263-270. 
 

Leonidou, L., Hadilmarcou, J., Kaleka, A., & Stamenova, G. 1999. Bulgarian consumers’ perceptions of products 

made in Asia Pacific. International Marketing Review, 16(2), 126-142. 
 

Liefeld, J. 2004. Consumer knowledge and use of country-of-origin information at the point of purchase. Journal of 

Consumer Research, 4(2), 85-97. 
 

Liu, S., & Johnson, K. 2005. The automatic country-of-origin effect on brand judgments. Journal of Advertising, 

34(1), 87-98. 
 

Loeffler, M. 2002. A multinational examination of the “(non-) domestic product” effect. International Marketing 

Review, 19(4/5), 482-498. 
 

Mertens, Y., & Ginsburgh, V. 1985. Product differentiation and price discrimination in the European community:  

the case of automobiles. Journal of Industrial Economics, 34(2), 151-166. 
 



Henley and Cotter                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 90-98 
 

 

 

 

97 

 

Montgomery, C, & Wernerfelt, B. 1992. Risk reduction and umbrella branding. Journal of Business, 65(1), 31-50. 
 

Nagashima, A. 1970. A comparison of Japanese and US attitudes toward foreign products. Journal of Marketing, 

34(1), 68-74. 
 

Nichols, M. 1998. Advertising and quality in the U.S. market for automobiles. Southern Economic Journal, 64(4), 

922-939. 
 

Pappu, R., Quester, P., & Cooksey, R. 2007. Country image and consumer-based brand equity: Relationships and 

implications for international marketing. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 726-745. 
 

Pagano, R. 1990. Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences. St. Paul, MN:  West Publishing Company. 
 

Pharr, J. 2005. Synthesizing country-of-origin research from the last decade: Is the concept still salient in an era of 

global brands? Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13(4), 34-45. 
 

Ramsey, M. 2011. BMW, Mercedes duel in U.S. Wall Street Journal, (Dec. 23), retrieved from http://online.wsj. 

com/article/SB10001424052970204464404577113143523911540.html?KEYWORDS=BMW+Mercedes. 
 

Riesz, P. 1978. Price versus quality in the market place. Journal of Retailing, 54(4), 15-28. 
 

Riesz, P. 1979. Price-quality correlations for packaged food products. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 13(2), 236-

247. 
 

Roth, M., Romeo, J. 1992. Matching product category and country image perceptions: A framework for managing 

country-of-origin effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(3), 477-497. 
 

Rutberg, S. 2007. “Sale” of Chrysler Group to Cerberus or take my auto company, please. Secured Lender, 63(4), 

64-66. 
 

Samiee, S. 1994. Customer evaluation of products in a global market. Journal of International Business Studies, 

25(3), 579-604. 
 

Sauer, P., Young, M., & Unnava, H. 1991. An experimental investigation of the processes behind the country-of-

origin effects. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 3(2), 29-59. 
 

Sohail, M. 2005.  Malaysian consumers’ evaluation of products made in Germany: The country of origin effect.  

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 17(1), 89-105. 
 

Steenkamp, J. 1998. The relationship between price and quality in the market place. Economist, 136(4), 491-507. 
 

Sullivan, M. 1998. How brand names affect the demand for twin automobiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 

154-165. 
 

Thakor, M. 1996. Brand origin: conceptualization and review. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 27-42. 
 

Thakor, M., & Lavack, A. 2003. Effect of perceived brand origin associations on consumer perceptions of quality.  

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(6), 394-408. 
 

Thanasuta, K., Patoomsuwan, T., Chaimahawong, V., & Chiaravutthi, Y. 2009. Brand and country of origin 

valuations of automobiles. Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(3), 355-375. 
 

Train, K., & Winston, C. 2007. Vehicle choice behavior and the declining market share of U. S. automakers.  

International Economic Review, 48(4), 1469-1496. 
 

Tse, D., & Lee, W. 1993. Removing negative country images: Effects of decomposition, branding and product 

experience. Journal of International Marketing, 1(4), 25-48. 
 



Henley and Cotter                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 90-98 
 

 

 

 

98 

 

Ulgado, F. 2002. Country-of-origin effects on e-commerce. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2(1), 250-

253. 
 

Uri, N. 1986. Forecasting relative quality. Journal of Forecasting, 5(2), 105-115. 
 

Verlegh, P., & Steenkamp, J. 1999. A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research. Journal of Economic 

Psychology, 20(5), 521-546. 
 

Yasin, N., Noor, M., & Mohamad, O. 2007. Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity? Journal of 

Product and Brand Management, 16(1), 38-48. 
 

Yerger, D. 1996. Used car markets: Reliability does matter, but do consumer reports? Applied Economics Letters, 

3(2), 67-70. 
 

Young, L. 2011. Das auto delivers. Chattanooga Times Free Press, May 25, A1, A8. 
 

White, J. 2009. What is an American car? Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26, D6. 
 

White, J. 2012. Luxury car makers think small. Wall Street Journal, (Jan. 12), retrieved from http://online.wsj. 

com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577154973108312272.html?KEYWORDS=Luxury+Car. 
 

 

James Henley is the Henry Hart professor of marketing at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He received his 

D.B.A. in marketing from Mississippi State University. His current research interests include country-of-origin 

effects, product quality, and negotiation. He has published in the Journal of Business to Business Marketing, Journal 

of Marketing Theory and Practice, and Marketing Management Journal. 
 

Michael Cotter is an associate professor of marketing at Grand Valley State University. He received his D.B.A. in 

marketing from Mississippi State University. His current research interests include automobile industry advertising 

changes, country-of-origin effects, product quality, and negotiation. He has published in the Journal of Business to 

Business Marketing, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, and Marketing Management Journal. 


