10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Reexamination of Consumer Animosity-construct
Toward Multi Opposed Countries
Bayu Sutikno*
PhD Candidate in Business Administration Dept., National Central University
no. 300, Chung-Ta Rd., Chung-Li City, Tao-Yuan County, Taiwan 32001
Lecturer in Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Tel: 62-274-548510; Fax: 62-274-563212
e-mail: bayufeugm@yahoo.com
Julian Ming-Sung Cheng
Associate Professor of Marketing in Business Administration Dept., National Central University
no. 300, Chung-Ta Rd., Chung-Li City, Tao-Yuan County, Taiwan 32001
Tel: 886-3-4227151#66100; Fax: 886-3-4226694
e-mail: mingsungcheng@yahoo.com
*The Corresponding Author
This paper is fully financially supported by Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada Indonesia.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
1
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Reexamination of Consumer Animosity-construct
Toward Multi Opposed Countries
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This study attempts to reexamine the reliability and validity of consumer animosity
construct from the perspective of consumers in a single less developed country of Indonesia toward
multi (eight) opposed countries.
Methodology – The data in the form of self-completion survey are collected in Indonesia, and
1560 data set (from 195 respondents) is used for analysis process. The structural equation
modelling was used to revalidate and re-examine the reliability of consumer animosity construct.
Findings – The findings reveal that consumer animosity construct has valid and reliable measures
across eight opposed countries. This construct showed strong discriminant validity with consumer
ethnocentrism and it was able to predict unwillingness to buy product from opposed country, as an
evidence of predictive validity.
Originality of paper – The existing literature has neglected to re-examine the validity and
reliability of consumer animosity construct in the context of multi opposed countries. This study
reexamined the validity and reliability of consumer animosity scale of Klein et al., (1998) from the
consumers’ perspective of single less developed country toward multi opposed countries context,
which represents a pioneering attempt in investigating the aforementioned issue.
Type of paper: Research paper
Keywords: Animosity, Ethnocentrism, Opposed country, Validity, Reliability.
INTRODUCTION
The globalization of markets and free trade means a better understanding of the factors that
influence consumer attitudes toward foreign products. The studies of the impact of international
disputes such as territory, economic, diplomatic disagreement, religious and armed conflict on
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
2
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
consumers’ behavior towards product of companies from the offending nation has gained high
attention from both scholars and practitioners in recent years (Klein et al., 1998; Ang et al., 2004;
Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007). Klein et al., (1998) was the pioneer scholar who investigated
consumer animosity construct. They had revealed the importance of consumer animosity which
refers to the remnants of antipathy related to previous or ongoing military, political or economic
events. Consumer animosity will influence willingness or unwillingness of consumers to purchase
foreign products from companies based in or associated with an opposed country in the
international market place. It was supported in the contexts of B2C (Ahmed et al., 1994; Dzever
and Quester, 1999); B2B (Edwards et al., 2007), longitudinal study design (Ettenson and Klein,
2005); between countries (Klein and Ettenson, 1999; Amine et al., 2005; Little et al., 2009); within
country or domestic animosity (Cicic et al., 2005; Shoham et al., 2006); regional animosity (Shimp
et al., 2004).
In view of the significance of this subject, the previous studies by academicians and business actors
have been devoted to replicate the Klein et al., (1998) in different contexts (Witkowski, 2000;
Nijssen and Douglas, 2004; Edwards et al., 2007), and a lot of prior researches have been done to
extend the applicability of the consumer animosity construct such as domestic animosity and interethnic animosity (Hinck et al., 2004; Shoham et al., 2006). Nevertheless, the existing literature has
neglected to examine the consumer animosity construct in cross national settings. Only a few
previous studies have explored consumer animosity from multi home countries in South East Asia
to single opposed country of US and Japan (Jung et al., 2002; Ang et al., 2004), an inter-ethnic
animosity from single ethnic toward two opposed ethnics (Kesic et al., 2005; Cicic et al., 2005).
From the best of our knowledge, a few of prior studies intended to examine the reliability and
validity from single home country toward multiple opposed countries (e.g. Leong et al., 2008;
Bahaee and Pisani, 2009). In order to fill the literature gap and to provide more detailed insight into
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
3
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
the current subject, this study intends to fill this gap by reexamining the consumer animosity of
multi opposed countries from single home country setting.
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to reexamine the reliability and validity of consumer
animosity construct from the perspective of consumers in a single less developed country toward
multi opposed countries. In the following section, a brief review of consumer animosity construct
and stages of reexamination of reliability and validity from relevant previous studies are provided.
This is followed by a discussion of the design of the sample and data collection. The results from a
reexamination of reliability and validity testing including internal consistency, exploratory factor
analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), unidimensionality analysis, convergent
validity, discriminant validity, and criterion related validity are presented in the next section.
Finally, the implications of this study, its limitations and future research directions are discussed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Consumer animosity construct
Consumer animosity refers to the strong deep-rooted emotions arising from previous or ongoing
military, political or economic events (Klein et al., 1998; Ang et al., 2004). Consumer animosity
may result in negative attitudes towards products from the aggressor country, and reluctance to buy
products from that country (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004; Nakos and Hajidimitriou, 2007).
Consumer animosity could be described into 4 types of consumer animosity such as national
animosity (based on macro perspective of an opposed country); personal animosity (based on
micro or personal experiences with opposed or opposed country); situational animosity (based on
situation-specific and of a temporary); stable animosity (based on historical perspectives) (Jung et
al., 2002; Ang et al., 2004).
Klein et al., (1998) revealed that consumer animosity consisted of two dimensions such as politic
or war animosity, and economic animosity. In spite of Jung et al., (2002) and Ang et al., (2004)
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
4
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
proposed four types of consumer animosity but most of prior studies adopted two dimensions of
consumer animosity from Klein et al., (1998), since the stable versus situational animosity is still
confusing, relative term and debatable. The politic or war animosity results from acts of aggression
or warlike behavior by a country or nation-state, while economic animosity results from feelings of
economic dominance or aggression. The previous studies tend to give more attention on economic
animosity than war or politic animosity (Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007) since economic issues
may be very frequent reasons than war-based; thus the scholars’ own interests in examining effects
of economic disputes on buying behavior than war or politic disputes on buying behavior; and the
existence of economic rivalries which have very similar reasons across country.
The economic animosity is observed based on trading practice perceived as unfair to the home
country, the unreliability of the trading partner and the economic dominance power of the foreign
country toward home country. The war animosity refers to crimes and cruelty committed during
historic occupations of foreign country toward host country (Klein et al., 1998; Hong and Kang;
2006; Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007). In recent situations, this study proposed that politic
animosity is included war animosity, diplomatic disputes, border conflict and psychological war
conflicts.
The reexamination tests
The reexamination of consumer animosity construct followed the robust stages from prominent
scholars such as Churchill (1979); Anderson and Gerbing, (1988); Netemeyer et al., (1991). This
process involved two main examinations in terms of reliability and validity. First, the consumer
animosity construct have to be defined conceptually clearly. Second, the operational definition
(measurement items or scales) of consumer animosity construct was collected from the initial
seminal study (Klein et al., 1998) and related previous researches. Third, the modification of scales
is employed by consider recent and context situation. Forth, the data collection process to the
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
5
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
respondents and it is followed by data analysis process. Fifth, the purification test through internal
consistency reliability by observes inter-item correlations of each item, and its composite reliability
and cronbach alpha coefficients. Sixth, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is performed to
determine the number of dimensions of consumer animosity construct.
After this study found the number of dimensions of consumer animosity construct, then continuing
to the seventh stage, we tested the unidimensionality, whether all items in a scale measures a single
construct. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in AMOS software is conducted. Eighth, the
convergent validity is employed by observed factor loadings of all items. Ninth, the reexamination
of discriminant validity to determine the relation of consumer animosity construct with similar
construct such as consumer ethnocentrism. Finally, this current study checked the criterion related
or predictive validity, therefore, a structural model by employed consumer animosity as predictor
of unwillingness to buy foreign products from opposed country is tested.
Indonesia and multi opposed countries
Indonesia is the world’ largest archipelagic state with 17,508 islands and also it is situated between
two continents Asia and Australia/Oceania. This strategic location has a significant
influence towards its culture, social, politics and economy. Indonesia is the most populous Muslimmajority and the world’s fourth most populous country with 222 million people in 2006 (Indonesia,
2008).
Indonesia is colonized by Netherlands from 1602 through VOC (Dutch East Indian Company) until
Japan invaded Indonesia from 1942-1945 during World War II. The surrender of Japan on August
14th 1945 caused the vacuum of power, then Indonesia declared Indonesia’ independence on
August 17th 1945. During 1945-1950, Indonesia struggled from the re-invasion of Netherlands
army. Indonesia is an active international diplomatic player as member of Security Council of
United Nations, the founder of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) in 1967,
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
6
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
member of Organization of Islamic Conference, and the founder of Non-aligned movement
countries (Wikipedia, 2008).
The estimated GDP (gross domestic product) for 2007 is 408 billion US$ with nominal percapita is
1,812 US$. The three main sectors are services (45.3% of GDP), industry (40.7% of GDP), and
agriculture (14.0% of GDP). Indonesia’s main export markets in 2005 are Japan (22.3%), US
(13.9%), China (9.1%), and Singapore (8.9%), while the main imports countries are Japan (18.0%),
China (16.1%), and Singapore (18.8%) (IMF, 2007). In May 2008 (five months period), Indonesia
ran a trade surplus with export revenues of 57.57 billion US$ and import expenditure of 53.04
billion US$, while during year of 2007 export revenues of 114.10 billion US$ and import
expenditure of 74.47 billion US$ (Indonesia, 2008).
In international relations both economic and politic aspects, Indonesia is still faced several disputed
with other countries. The several disputes which caused potentially animosity toward eight
countries in this study is showed in Table 1 below.
Take in Table 1
METHOD
This study was conducted in three main cities such as Jakarta, Jogjakarta, and Surabaya in Java as
the main island of Indonesia where served as central of business and political activities, and the
most density island.
Setting and sample
Data was collected through survey to Indonesians consumers; therefore the unit of analysis was
determined to be an individual level. The respondents have to respond to the initial 10-item of
consumer animosity (Klein et al., 1998), and a scale designed to evaluate the determinant and
consequence of consumer animosity such as ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma, 1987), and
unwillingness to buy foreign product (Klein et al., 1998). Each of respondents evaluated their
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
7
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
attitude toward 8 opposed countries (within subject design) such as Netherland, Japan, United State,
Australia, China, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan. A total of 195 respondents were participated
in this study, thus 1560 set of questionnaires were eventually collected and ready for analysis step.
Scale development
In order to achieve the research objectives, this study modified research scales with reference to
previous related literature. As the scales were originally from English literature and the data was
collected in Indonesia, back translation technique (Reynolds et al., 1993) was used to translate all
scale items to Indonesian language to avoid potential mistranslations. Then, the questionnaire was
pre-tested by five customers and academic colleagues. Following their comments and suggestions,
a questionnaire refinement was made in terms of wording, format and sequence.
The questionnaire included two main parts. The first part contained demographic characteristics of
respondents such as age, gender, education level, income per-month, marriage status, expenditure
per-month, occupation, religion, tribe, and city; while the second part asked the main research
variables such as consumer animosity, willingness to buy foreign product, and ethnocentrism. All
initial 32 items were measured on a five-point likert scale from “strongly disagree (1)” to “strongly
agree (5)”.
Based on the 9-item of consumer animosity from Klein et al., (1998), this current study modified
and adapted into 10-item which consisted of two dimensions such as politic or war animosity (item
1 to 5), and economic animosity (item 6-10). The measurement of consumer animosity was
comprised of ten items: “disliking to opposed country”, “never forgive for conflict with opposed
country”, “opposed country should pay compensation”, “opposed country harm our national
interest”, “opposed country was arrogant in diplomatic relation”, “opposed country was not reliable
trading partner”, “opposed country doing business unfairly”, “opposed country taking self
advantage from my country”, “opposed country was dominant or too much economic influence”,
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
8
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
and “opposed country wants to gain economic power over my country”. The ethnocentrism was
measured based on 17-item of CETSCALE (Shimp and Sharma, 1987), while unwillingness to buy
foreign product construct was comprised of 5-item (Klein et al., 1998), such as “guilty feeling to
buy foreign product”, “never buy foreign product”, “avoid buying foreign product”, “don’t like of
owning foreign product”, and “pay premium for domestic product”.
ANALYSIS
Respondents’ profile
The data is collected from 195 respondents in three main cities in Indonesia such as Yogyakarta
(48.7%), Jakarta (37.4%), and Surabaya (13.8%). Respondents’ demographic profiles are presented
in Table 2. The demographic profile consisted of six parts: gender, education, marital status, tribe,
religion, and occupation. As can be seen, males occupied more than half of the total participants
(52.3%), and almost the two-third were in participants educated in bachelor level (72.8%) and
86.9% graduated from university or high education level, it means the majority of respondents had
enough ability for fulfilling the questionnaires. The data also showed that most of respondents are
single (81.5%), 13.8% are married, and 4.6% are divorced. From the perspective of occupation,
most of the respondents are students (50.3%), and private officer (34.9%) they occupied 85.2% of
respondents. The data also represented the profile of Indonesian consumers which was dominated
by Islam as religion (77.9%) and Javanese as tribe (80%). In addition, this study has asked the
respondents by open-ended questions such as age, income and expenditure per months. The data
informed that mean of age is 25.38 years with standard deviation of 6.26 years; mean of income
per month is 3.02 million of rupiah (or 320 US$), while the mean of expenditure per month is 1.93
million of rupiah (or 200 US$). All of respondents’ profiles indicated that the respondents had
enough experiences and information and, therefore the researcher was more confident to analyze
the data in the following step.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
9
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Take in Table 2
Descriptive statistic
The Table 3 informed that Indonesian consumers were dislike with United States (3.43), and then it
is followed by animosity to Malaysia, Australia, Singapore, China, Netherlands, Taiwan, and Japan.
From two dimensions of animosity, animosity of politic showed high score than animosity of
economic in 6 opposed countries such as United States (3.57>3.25), Malaysia (3.62>3.15),
Singapore (3.15>3.12), Netherlands (3.01>2.90), and Japan (2.88>2.85). An interesting results, two
opposed countries such as China and Taiwan were dominated by animosity economic than politic.
Take in Table 3
From the typology of animosity (Ang et al., 2004), Indonesian consumers could be categorized as
situational animosity than stable animosity. The Netherlands and Japan are selected since they had
colonized Indonesia for more than 350 years of Netherlands and 3. 5 years of Japan with a lot of
war and politic conflicts during 1596-1950. The Figure I informed that animosity of these opposed
countries were lower than non colonial opposed countries such as United State, Malaysia, Australia,
and China. The Indonesian consumer animosity was influenced by situational animosity. For
example, United Stated is hated since their dominance and arrogance in global politic intervention
and their terrorism campaign with stereotype the Moslem people country such as Indonesia as
home base of terrorism after September 11th tragedy. Indonesian also has negative sentiment with
Malaysia from Sipadan and Ligitan island dispute, migrant workers problems, and intellectual
property right of several songs and traditional attractions, while Australia is viewed negative since
their great support to independence of East Timor (previously is one of Indonesia province), their
intervention in referendum of East Timor in 1999, and several diplomatic accidents. On the other
hand, the animosity to China and Taiwan are derived from their dominance in economy activities
as perceived by Indonesian consumers.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
10
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Take in Figure 1
Internal consistency of reliability
In this research context, a content validity is assessed by using face validity. For ensuring the face
validity, we adopted the robust instrument from previous literatures (Klein et al., 1998; Ang et al.,
2004; Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007) and checked each item with slight modifications to fit
this research. Since the data was based on multi-item measures, and research constructs were
therefore assessed for measurement accuracy including reliability.
The internal consistency reliability of the adopted measures was tested using an item-to-total
correlation of 0.3, a Cronbach α coefficient of 0.7, and a composite reliability (C.R) index of 0.7.
From the first step reliability testing, three items such as animosity3, animosity9, and animosity10
were excluded from analysis since their item-to-total correlation below than 0.3 and its
inconsistency value among eight opposed countries. Thus the 7 items from the initial 10 items of
consumer animosity will be analyzed in the next step. The coefficient of Cronbach alpha is high
and nearly across eight opposed countries, ranging a value of 0.70 for the China as opposed
country to 0.81 for US as opposed country. In the consistent way, the composite reliability which is
analogous and comparable with cronbach alpha estimated 0.80 to 0.87. The results in Table 4
showed that all values exceeded the recommended levels. Thus, the results provided evidence for
internal consistency reliability and consistent with previous studies such as Klein et al., 1998;
Nijssen and Douglas, 2004; Shoham et al., 2006.
Take in Table 4
Exploratory factor analysis
Since two major dimensions of consumer animosity (politic animosity, and economic animosity)
were expected in the overall consumer animosity scale, the exploratory factor analysis was
performed to verify their presence in the scale (Churchill, 1979; Bricker, 2005; Green Jr. et al.,
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
11
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
2008). The principal component analysis with varimax rotation (Eigen value >1.0) identified two
main dimensions or factors as expected among the 7 items. The two factors were also identified for
the animosity of politic and the animosity of economic. Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 loaded as politic
animosity factor, while items 6 through 8 loaded as a second economic animosity factor. The Table
5 showed that the KMO coefficient is ranging a value of 0.71 to 0.80 and chi square value is
significant (0.000), therefore it exceeded all the recommended cut off (KMO >0.5 and sig. of χ²
<0.05).
Take in Table 5
Confirmatory factor analysis (Unidimensionality)
Unidimensionality required to all items in a scale measure a single construct. The confirmatory
factor analysis was able to examine the test of unidimensionality (Dunn et al., 1994). This step
should be determined prior to assessing overall construct reliability and is a necessary prerequisite
to establishing construct validity (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). The Table 6 informed that all the
factor loadings were significant across multi opposed countries. We provided several indices
designed to evaluate the goodness of fit of confirmatory factor models such as GFI, AGFI, CFI,
and χ²/DF. At the first model, this study determined that consumer animosity was a single factor
model. The GFI value indices range from 0.86 to 0.93 with 0.90 as average of GFI of 8 opposed
countries; the AGFI is ranging from 0.72 to 0.88 with 0.80 as average of 8 opposed countries,
while the CFI values from 0.71 to 0.90, thus the three indicators showed a level of acceptance level
of goodness of fit. The χ²/DF14 is ranging from 3.21 of Malaysia to 6.67 of Australia. Since the
χ²/DF14 value was marginal level of acceptance, this study proposed to the second model which
consumer animosity consisted of two factors model such as politic animosity and economic
animosity. In general the GFI, AGFI and CFI of second model were not different with the first
model. It is also supported by ∆ χ² which are not significant; therefore it could be concluded that
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
12
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
consumer animosity is a single factor model or a double factors model. Based on Table 6, in
general, consumer animosity construct showed unidimensionality as expected through
confirmatory factor analysis across 8 opposed countries.
Take in Table 6
Convergent validity
Churchill (1979) has suggested that convergent validity could be measured by the degree to which
the scale under analysis correlates with other measures of the same construct. Then, the evidence of
convergent validity was assessed by the significant loadings of each scale item to its latent
construct. As can be seen in Table 6 above, in general, all of the 7 items in eight opposed countries
have factor loading above 0.4 (with exception an1 and 2 for China and an7 for Malaysia) with
strong significant at 0.001 level or significant at 0.1% level of significance. All validity indicators
fell within accepted ranges. Thus, based on these results, it was concluded that consumer animosity
scales of 8 opposed countries posed considerable convergent validity.
Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity is the extent to which measure is indeed novel and not simply a reflection of
some other variable (Churchill, 1979). The discriminant validity is examined through two methods.
First, it was determined by the correlation estimate of each pair of any two research dimensions
(politic animosity or AnPol with animosity of economy or AnEco) less than 1.0 (ranging from 0.33
of China to 0.55 of Australia and Singapore) and the AVE value greater than the squared
correlations between each of research constructs (ranging from 0.01 to 0.04). The AVE scores
achieved for the entire model constructs, for each factor being over the criterion threshold of 0.4
with exception of China (ranging from 0.42 of Japan to 0.51 of Netherlands). Table 6 informed that
all validity indicators fell within accepted ranges.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
13
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Second, for each of eight opposed countries, the animosity scale was correlated with the measure
of ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma, 1987), to determine consumer animosity is distinct from
consumer ethnocentrism (Klein and Ettenson, 1999; Witkowski, 2000; Hinck, 2005). The
consumer animosity is comprised of consumer attitudes toward a specific country, while consumer
ethnocentrism related to the beliefs about the purchase of foreign products generally.
It is expected that correlations coefficients between animosity and ethnocentrism was less than
correlations coefficients between animosity and its dimensions such as politic animosity and
economic animosity. Table 7 provided evidences of discriminant validity, the correlation
coefficients of animosity with ethnocentrism are ranging from 0.07 of Australia and Malaysia to
0.20 of China. These was less than correlation coefficients of politic animosity with economic
animosity (ranging from 0.33 of China to 0.55 of Singapore and Australia), animosity with politic
animosity (ranging from 0.81 of Malaysia to 0.93 of Australia), and animosity with economic
animosity (ranging from 0.78 of Japan to 0.84 of Singapore and Malaysia). Thus, based on these
results, it was concluded that these measures pertained considerable discriminant validity.
Take in Table 7
Criterion related or predictive validity
Ahire et al., (1996) suggested the use of structural equation modeling as an appropriate method to
assess criterion related validity. It could be examined through the construct with other construct
that included antecedents and consequences (Churchill, 1979; Bagozzi, 1984). Therefore, the
current study examined consumer animosity construct as predictor of unwillingness to buy foreign
product (from opposed country), the higher consumer animosity with opposed country leads to
higher consumer unwillingness to buy product from opposed country. The Table 8 revealed that
these relations are supported strongly in 8 opposed countries. All of standardized coefficients are
positive and significant at 0.001 level of significance (ranging from 0.55*** of Singapore to
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
14
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
0.71*** of Malaysia). The goodness of fit felt in accepted range with the exception from China
case; a GFI of 0.84-0.90; a AGFI of 0.77-0.85; a CFI of 0.74-0.88; and χ²/DF of 2.41-3.82. Thus,
based on these results, it was concluded that these measures posed considerable criterion related
validity.
Take in Table 8
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
This current study revealed the reliability and validity of consumer animosity construct from single
home country toward multi opposed countries. In general, the findings provided evidences that the
scale of consumer animosity from Klein et al., (1998) is reliable and valid across eight opposed
countries. Consumer animosity construct differed with consumer ethnocentrism construct as
evidence of discriminant validity. The consumer animosity also influenced unwillingness to buy
foreign products from opposed countries, the higher consumer disliked with opposed countries, the
higher unwillingness (lower willingness) to buy foreign product from opposed countries (Rice and
Wongtada 2007; Rose et al., 2009). In the context of Indonesian consumers; Japan, Netherlands
and Taiwan are three opposed countries with low animosity, while United States and Malaysia are
the most disliked countries from the perspective of Indonesian’ consumers. So, the current politic
animosity is more important for consumers than war animosity from historical events during
colonialization era by Japan and Netherlands in Indonesia.
These research findings implied the importance of consumer animosity construct for both
practitioners and academicians. For marketing practitioners, since consumer animosity construct
have strong effect to unwillingness to buy foreign product from opposed countries, therefore
marketers should be more sensitive with this issue (Smith and Li, 2010). They have to identify
potential politic animosity and economic animosity when they enter to international markets by
involving local partners, adaptation with host cultural values, glocal branding in host markets and
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
15
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
providing an integrated corporate social responsibility program. On the other hand, for
academicians, since the growing attention of consumer animosity construct in empirical studies, the
academicians are challenged to provide more robust measurement of consumer animosity construct
with more valid, more reliable across opposed countries, the more comprehensive antecedents and
consequences of consumer animosity construct, and an extended application of consumer
animosity construct such as domestic animosity, ethnic animosity, and regional animosity.
Limitations and future research
In spite of the contributions this research devotes to the consumer animosity construct in this
research context, and these research findings generally supported the reliability and validity of the
scale proposed, there leaves some research deficits which provide directions for future research.
First, all of the measurement items are based on consumers’ perception toward opposed countries
from Klein et al., (1998) with some modification. Therefore, future researchers should try to
measure by using other measures such as four typology of consumer animosity; national versus
personal, and stable versus situational (Jung et al., 2002; Ang et al., 2004; Russell and Russell,
2006). Second, the scale of consumer animosity are tested in the cross sectional study design,
therefore, in the future it should be validated in longitudinal study design as suggested by Ettenson
and Klein, (2005). It will be more confident to test the proposed model rigorously. Third, the scale
of consumer animosity are examined from the consumer side of home country toward opposed
countries, future studies are challenged to examine from the opposed countries side, and both side
(two-way or dyadic relationship). Fourth, the current studies used within subject where consumer
response toward multi opposed countries with repeat measures bias. We avoid this bias by arrange
the sequence of opposed countries in questionnaire. This design was able to provide higher external
validity and more realistic since within consumers evaluated not only one opposed country but
multi opposed countries. Therefore, the conclusions of this study should be interpreted carefully.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
16
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Finally, since our respondents were consumers in single less developed country-Indonesia and they
evaluated toward opposed countries in general, so the generalizability of these findings should be
tested in different industry, cultural and country settings to increase the robustness of results. Then,
the future studies should examine for specific products which is important for both home country
and opposed country.
REFERENCES
1. Ahire, L.S., Golhar, D.Y., and Waller, M.A. (1996). Development and Validation of TQM
Implementation Constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23-56.
2. Ahmed, S.A., D’Astous, A., and El Adraoui, M. (1994). Country of Origin Effects on
Purchasing Managers Product Perceptions. Industrial Marketing Management, 23 ( 4), 323332.
3. Amine, L., Chao, M., and Arnold, M. (2005). Executive Insights: Exploring the Practical
Effects of Country of Origin, Animosity, and Price-Quality Issues-Two Case Studies of
Taiwan and Acer in China. Journal of International Marketing, 13 (2), 114-150.
4. Anderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A
Review and Recommended Two Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-423.
5. Ang, S.H., Jung, K., Kau, A.K., Leong, S.M., Pornpitakpan, S., and Tan, S.J. (2004).
Animosity towards Economic Giants: What the Little Guys Think. The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 21 (2/3), 190-207.
6. Bagozzi, R.P. (1984). A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 48 (1), 11-29.
7. Bahaee, M., and Pisani, M.J. (2009). The Use of the Consumer Ethnocentrism and
Consumer Animosity Scales in Iran: a Research Note. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 51 (2), 143-150.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
17
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
8. Bricker, J.B. (2005). Development and Evaluation of the Air Travel Stress Scale. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52 (4), 615-628.
9. Churchill Jr., G.A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64-73.
10. Cicic, M., Brkic, N., Husic, M., and Agic, E. (2005). The Influence of Animosity,
Xenophilia and Ethnocentric Tendencies on Consumers’ Willingness to Buy Foreign
Products-The Case of Croatia. Proceedings of the 34th European Marketing Conference.
Milan Italy.
11. Dunn, S., Seaker, R.F., and Waller, M.A. (1994). Latent Variables in Business Logistic
Research: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Business Logistics, 15 (2), 145172.
12. Dzever, S., and Quester, P. (1999). Country of Origin Effects on Purchasing Agents’
Product Perceptions: An Australian Perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 28 (2),
165-176.
13. Edwards, R., Gut, A-M., and Mavondo, F. (2007). Buyer Animosity in Business to
Business Markets: Evidence from the French Nuclear Tests. Industrial Marketing
Management, 36 (4), 483-492.
14. Ettenson, R., and Klein, G. (2005). The Fallout from Nuclear Testing in the South Pacific-a
Longitudinal Study of Consumer Boycotts. International Marketing Review, 22 (2), 199224.
15. Gerbing, D.W., and Anderson, J.C. (1988). An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development
Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2),
186-192.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
18
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
16. Green Jr. K.W., Inman, R.A., and Brown, G. (2008). Just-In-Time Selling Construct:
Definition and Measurement. Industrial Marketing Management, 37 (2), 131-142.
17. Hinck, W., Cortes, A., and James, K. (2004). An Empirical Investigation of the Failure of
Eastern German Products in Western German Markets. Journal of International Business
and Entrepreneurship Development, 2 (1), 104-111.
18. Hinck, W. (2005). The Role of Domestic Animosity in Consumer Choice: Empirical
Evidence from Germany. Journal of Euro-Marketing, 14 (1/2), 87-104.
19. Hong, S-T., and Kang, D.K. (2006). Country of Origin Influences on Product Evaluations:
The Impact of Animosity and Perceptions of Industriousness Brutality on Judgments of
Typical and Atypical Products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (3), 232-239.
20. IMF (2007). Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (GDP). World Economic Outlook
Database, April.
21. Indonesia (2008). Indonesia’s Profile, assessed October 16th 2008, [available
at http://www.indonesia.go.id/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=112&Ite
mid=1722#]
22. Jung, K., Ang, S.H., Leong, S.M., Tan, S.J., Pornpitakpan, C., and Kau, A.K. (2002). A
Typology of Animosity and Its Cross-National Validation. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33 (6), 529-539.
23. Kesic, T., Piri Rajh, P., and Vlasic, G. (2005). The Role of Nationalism in Consumer
Ethnocentrism and the Animosity in the Post-war Country. Proceedings of the 34th
European Marketing Conference. Milan Italy.
24. Klein, J., and Ettenson, R. (1999). Consumer Animosity and Consumer Ethnocentrism: an
Analysis of Unique Antecedents. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11 (4), 5-24.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
19
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
25. Klein, J., Ettenson, R., and Morris, M. (1998). The Animosity Model of Foreign Product
Purchase: An Empirical test in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Marketing, 62 (1),
89-100.
26. Leong, S.M., Cote, J.A., Tan, S.J., Jung, K., Kau, A.K., and Pompitakpan, C. (2008).
Understanding Consumer Animosity in an International Crisis: Nature, Antecedents and
Consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (6), 996-1009.
27. Little, J.P., Little, E., and Cox, K.C. (2009). U.S. Consumer Animosity Towards Vietnam:
A Comparison of Generations. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 25 (6), 13-22.
28. Nakos, G.E., and Hajidimitriou, Y.A. (2007). The Impact of National Animosity on
Consumer Purchases: The Modifying Factor of Personal Characteristics. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 19 (3), 53-72.
29. Netemeyer, R.G., Durvasula, S., and Lichtenstein, D.R. (1991). A Cross-National
Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing
Research, 28 (3), 320-327.
30. Nijssen, E., and Douglas, S. (2004). Examining the Animosity Model in a Country with a
High Level of Foreign Trade. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (1), 23-38.
31. Reynolds, N., Diamantopoulos, A., and Schlegelmilcsh, B.B. (1993). Pretesting in
questionnaire design: A review of the literature and suggestions for further research. Journal
of the Market Research Society, 35 (2), 171-182.
32. Rice, G., and Wongtada, N. (2007). Conceptualizing Inter-Attitudinal Conflict in Consumer
Response to Foreign Brands. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 20 (1), 51-65.
33. Riefler, P., and Diamantopoulos, A. (2007). Consumer Animosity: a Literature Review and
a Reconsideration of Its Measurement. International Marketing Review, 24 (1), 87-119.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
20
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
34. Rose, M., Rose, G.M., and Shoham, A. (2009). The Impact of Consumer Animosity on
Attitudes towards Foreign Goods: a Study of Jewish and Arab Israelis. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 26 (5), 330-339.
35. Russell, D.W., and Russell, C.A. (2006). Explicit and Implicit Catalysts of Consumer
Resistance: The Effects of Animosity, Cultural Salience and Country of Origin on
Subsequent Choice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (3), 321-331.
36. Shimp, T., and Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation
of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3), 280-289.
37. Shimp, T.A., Dunn, T.H., and Klein, J.G. (2004). Remnants of the U.S. Civil War and
Modern Consumer Behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21 (2), 75-91.
38. Shoham, A., Davidow, M., Klein, J., and Ruvio, A. (2006). Animosity on the Home Front:
the Intifada in Israel and Its Impact on Consumer Behavior. Journal of International
Marketing, 14 (3), 92-114.
39. Smith, M., and Li, Q. (2010). The Role of Occupation in an Integrated Boycott Model: A
Cross-Regional Study in China. Journal of Global Marketing, 23 (2), 109-126.
40. Wikipedia (2008). Indonesia, assessed October 17th 2008, [available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia]
41. Witkowski, T. (2000). Effects of Animosity toward China on Willingness to Buy Chinese
Products. In McClean, G., Kaynak, E., and Aliaga, O. (Eds), Managing in a Turbulent
International Business Environment. The International Development Association,
Hummelstown, 470-477.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
21
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Table 1: Politic and Economic disputes
No
1
Opposed
country
Netherlands
2
Japan
3
Malaysia
4
Singapore
Border conflict
Military training zone
5
Australia
6
United States
7
China
8
Taiwan
Supporting East Timor
independence
Flight border zone
Supporting non governmental
organization in Papua province
Terrorism issue
Terrorism issue
Military embargo
Human right issues
Border conflict
Communism conflict in 1965
One China policy effects
No formal diplomatic bond
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
Politic disputes
350 years of colonization
3.5 years of colonization
Compensation to romusha and
geisha
Military conflict in 1960
Border conflicts
22
Economic disputes
Inter governmental group on
Indonesia (IGGI) accident in
1997
Economic dominance in foreign
direct investment
Wood smuggling
Migrant workers problems
Acquisition of Indonesia
companies
Acquisition of Indonesia
companies
Oil conflict in sea of Timor
Fishing area conflict
International trade barriers
Effect of economic recession
Economic dominance by low
prices
Dumping and smuggling
Economic dominance in
electronic sectors
Migrant workers problems
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Table 2: Respondents’ Demographic Profiles
Gender
Male
Female
Total
City
Jakarta
Yogyakarta
Surabaya
Total
Occupation
Students
Private officer
State officer
Entrepreneur
Other
Total
Tribe
Java
Sunda
Batak
Betawi
Bali
Others
Total
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
Total
Freq.
%
102
52.3
93
47.7
195
100
Freq.
%
73
37.4
95
48.7
27
13.8
195
100
Freq.
%
98
50.3
68
34.9
8
4.1
8
4.1
13
6.7
195
100
Freq.
%
156
80
8
4.1
9
4.6
1
0.5
3
1.5
18
9.2
195
100
Aspect
Income per month
Expenditure
Age
Marital status
Single
Married
Divorced
Total
Religion
Islam
Christian
Catholic
Hindu
Buddha
Total
Education
Senior high school
Bachelor
Master
Doctorate
Total
23
Total
Mean
SD
3.02m
4.33m
1.93m
2.77m
25.38y
6.26y
Freq.
%
159
81.5
27
13.8
9
4.6
195
100
Freq.
%
152
77.9
26
13.3
13
6.7
3
1.5
1
0.5
195
100
Freq.
%
26
13.1
142
72.8
26
13.3
1
0.5
195
100
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Table 3: Mean of item
Aspect
An1
An2
An4
An5
AnPolitic
An6
An7
An8
AnEcon
Animosity
Nether
lands
2.81
3.12
3.15
2.95
3.01
2.75
2.88
3.06
2.90
2.96
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
Japan
US
2.50
2.99
3.06
2.97
2.88
2.62
2.82
3.10
2.85
2.87
3.07
3.33
3.78
4.09
3.57
2.97
3.16
3.61
3.25
3.43
Aus
tralia
2.87
3.17
3.49
3.74
3.32
2.90
2.92
3.16
2.99
3.18
China
2.95
2.98
3.12
3.09
3.04
3.06
3.29
3.25
3.20
3.11
24
Malay
sia
3.36
3.42
3.81
3.89
3.62
2.45
3.46
3.54
3.15
3.42
Singa
pore
2.88
3.07
3.37
3.27
3.15
2.87
3.05
3.43
3.12
3.13
Taiwan
Mean
2.77
3.00
2.94
2.87
2.90
2.87
2.99
2.99
2.95
2.92
2.90
3.14
3.34
3.36
3.18
2.81
3.07
3.27
3.05
3.13
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Table 4: Reliability analysis of 2nd Running
Aspect
An1
An2
An4
An5
An6
An7
An8
Cronbach α
CR
(Composite
Reliability)
Nether
lands
0.39
0.42
0.47
0.55
0.45
0.54
0.59
0.76
0.87
Japan
US
0.38
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.39
0.40
0.38
0.72
0.83
0.51
0.56
0.63
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.52
0.81
0.84
Aus
tralia
0.47
0.51
0.61
0.55
0.46
0.52
0.57
0.79
0.86
China
0.26*
0.32
0.49
0.47
0.45
0.41
0.50
0.70
0.80
* is excluded from analysis
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
25
Malay
sia
0.52
0.52
0.59
0.57
0.49
0.14*
0.61
0.79
0.83
Singa
pore
0.43
0.46
0.59
0.60
0.53
0.58
0.52
0.80
0.86
Taiwan
Mean
0.41
0.34
0.50
0.45
0.50
0.48
0.51
0.74
0.87
0.41
0.45
0.53
0.52
0.47
0.45
0.52
0.76
0.84
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Table 5: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Aspect
KMO
Chi square
Significance
# of factors
An1
An2
An4
An5
An6*
An7*
An8*
% of
Cumulative
variance
Nether
lands
0.77
341.66
0.000
2
0.58
0.69
0.75
0.65
0.89
0.85
0.56
58.50
Japan
US
0.75
243.29
0.000
2
0.58
0.63
0.83
0.82
0.73
0.79
0.48
53.65
0.80
391.66
0.000
2
0.73
0.68
0.78
0.73
0.83
0.85
0.58
61.04
Austra
lia
0.79
398.56
0.000
2
0.54
0.65
0.89
0.89
0.80
0.77
0.54
61.24
* All items are loaded in second factor or dimension
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
26
China
0.71
269.01
0.000
2
0.63
0.66
0.69
0.72
0.69
0.83
0.83
55.54
Malay
sia
0.80
332.68
0.000
2
0.77
0.71
0.74
0.64
0.54
0.84
0.69
58.69
Singa
pore
0.78
392.01
0.000
2
0.75
0.84
0.66
0.56
0.76
0.78
0.75
60.29
Tai
wan
0.76
278.77
0.000
2
0.81
0.79
0.66
0.74
0.49
0.69
0.78
55.86
Mean
0.77
330.96
0.000
2
0.67
0.71
0.75
0.72
0.72
0.80
6.59
58.10
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Table 6: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Aspect
An1
An2
An4
An5
An6
An7
An8
χ²14
χ²/DF
GFI
AGFI
CFI
χ²15*
χ²/DF
GFI
AGFI
CFI
∆ χ²
Sig. of ∆ χ²
Nether
lands
0.41
0.44
0.53
0.64
0.61
0.67
0.71
72.54
5.18
0.90
0.80
0.82
72.89
4.86
0.90
0.81
0.82
0.35
n.s.
Japan
US
0.41
0.59
0.68
0.69
0.41
0.40
0.46
46.06
3.29
0.93
0.87
0.86
46.89
3.13
0.93
0.87
0.86
0.83
n.s.
0.58
0.63
0.73
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.60
71.77
5.13
0.90
0.81
0.85
72.93
4.86
0.90
0.81
0.85
1.16
n.s.
Aus
tralia
0.49
0.52
0.76
0.73
0.47
0.53
0.65
93.41
6.67
0.86
0.72
0.79
94.76
6.32
0.86
0.73
0.79
1.35
n.s.
China
0.25
0.32
0.56
0.51
0.57
0.59
0.70
86.92
6.21
0.87
0.74
0.71
93.65
6.24
0.87
0.75
0.69
6.73
n.s.
Malay
sia
0.56
0.55
0.68
0.69
0.59
0.16
0.71
44.92
3.21
0.94
0.88
0.90
45.02
3.00
0.94
0.87
0.91
0.1
n.s.
Singa
pore
0.45
0.48
0.69
0.67
0.63
0.67
0.62
81.11
5.79
0.89
0.78
0.82
81.95
5.46
0.89
0.80
0.82
0.84
n.s.
Note: All factor loadings and χ² are significant at 0.001 and χ²1 of 0.005 is 7.88
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
27
Taiwan
Mean
0.41
0.35
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.62
0.67
59.15
4.23
0.92
0.83
0.83
61.50
4.10
0.91
0.84
0.82
2.35
n.s.
0.45
0.49
0.65
0.64
0.55
0.53
0.64
69.49
4.96
0.90
0.80
0.82
62.08
4.14
0.90
0.81
0.82
1.71
n.s.
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Table 7: Discriminant validity
Aspect
Ethno-AnPol
Ethno-AnEco
Ethno-An
AnPol-AnEco
AnPol-An
AnEco-An
AVE of An
Max of Square
correlations
Nether
lands
0.14
0.09
0.13
0.49
0.91
0.82
0.51
0.02
Japan
US
0.13
0.17
0.17
0.45
0.91
0.78
0.42
0.03
0.12
0.09
0.12
0.53
0.92
0.82
0.44
0.01
Aus
tralia
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.55
0.93
0.82
0.48
0.01
China
0.19
0.13
0.20
0.33
0.83
0.80
0.38
0.04
Malay
sia
0.04
0.08
0.07
0.37
0.81
0.84
0.45
0.01
Singa
pore
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.55
0.92
0.84
0.48
0.01
Taiwan
Mean
0.11
0.17
0.16
0.50
0.90
0.83
0.49
0.03
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.47
0.89
0.82
0.46
0.02
Note: Ethno=Ethnocentrism; AnPol=Animosity of politic; AnEco=Animosity of economy; An=Animosity.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
28
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Table 8: Criterion related validity
Aspect
An→Uwb
p value
Critical ratio
χ²53
χ²/DF
GFI
AGFI
CFI
RMSEA
An1
An2
An4
An5
An6
An7
An8
Uwb1
Uwb2
Uwb3
Uwb4
Uwb5
Nether
lands
0.63
0.000
4.53
147.9
2.79
0.88
0.83
0.86
0.09
0.41
0.43
0.51
0.61
0.63
0.68
0.72
0.76
0.74
0.62
0.72
0.14
Japan
US
0.62
0.000
4.63
136.8
2.58
0.90
0.85
0.88
0.09
0.45
0.56
0.62
0.65
0.48
0.46
0.49
0.76
0.81
0.68
0.77
0.52
0.63
0.000
6.00
176.7
3.34
0.86
0.80
0.87
0.11
0.59
0.60
0.68
0.58
0.63
0.62
0.60
0.77
0.84
0.81
0.76
0.58
Aus
tralia
0.64
0.000
5.43
178.6
3.37
0.86
0.79
0.86
0.11
0.50
0.53
0.68
0.65
0.55
0.59
0.71
0.79
0.83
0.77
0.78
0.53
China
0.66
0.000
3.62
202.2
3.82
0.84
0.77
0.74
0.12
0.32
0.34
0.55
0.50
0.57
0.59
0.68
0.75
0.75
0.62
0.20
0.50
Malay
sia
0.71
0.000
6.16
127.5
2.41
0.90
0.86
0.91
0.08
0.55
0.54
0.68
0.68
0.62
0.18
0.71
0.80
0.84
0.78
0.76
0.25
Note: An= Animosity; Uwb= Unwillingness to buy foreign product
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
29
Singa
pore
0.55
0.000
4.72
158.6
2.99
0.88
0.82
0.87
0.10
0.47
0.51
0.65
0.65
0.66
0.68
0.61
0.77
0.82
0.65
0.72
0.49
Taiwan
Mean
0.64
0.000
4.98
134.1
2.53
0.89
0.84
0.88
0.09
0.47
0.41
0.57
0.52
0.61
0.62
0.61
0.76
0.82
0.62
0.75
0.56
0.64
0.000
5.01
157.8
2.98
0.88
0.82
0.86
0.10
0.47
0.49
0.62
0.61
0.59
0.55
0.64
0.77
0.81
0.69
0.68
0.45
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Figure 1: Animosity of 8 opposed countries
4
3,5
3,4
3,3
3,2
3,1
3
2,9
2,8
2,7
2,6
2,5
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
U
Au S
st
ra
lia
Ch
M ina
al
ay
si
Si
ng a
ap
or
e
Ta
iw
an
To
ta
l
Ne
th
er
la
nd
Ja
pa
n
0
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
30
AnPolitic
AnEcon
Animosity