Advancing the country image construct — A commentary essay Saeed Samiee The University of Tulsa, 800 S. Tucker Dr., Tulsa, OK 74104, United States abstract article info Article history: Received 1 July 2008 Received in revised form 1 August 2008 Accepted 1 December 2008 Keywords: Country-of-origin research Globalization Country image Brand origin This article provides a review of the study by Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009), “Advancing the country image construct,” with a view towards highlighting the gaps in the broader country-of-origin literature. The literature mostly ignores pivotal points that should influence both the direction and the design of country- related research in international marketing. At least six key considerations in country-of-origin research deserve concurrent attention in future studies. They include: (1) the globalization of markets, (2) ecologically appropriate designs, (3) country-of-origin knowledge, saliency, and use, (4) labeling practices and requirements, (5) a focus on appropriate segments, and (6) the role of country of origin in foreign direct investment process. This commentary essay explores these issues with a view towards enhancing the relevance, ecological validity, and the quality of future research efforts. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The insatiable interest in the country-of-origin inquiry for nearly half of a century provides a large body of literature consisting of hundreds of articles published in a variety of academic journals. As a testament to the ongoing interest in country-of-origin research, recently the International Marketing Review (vol. 25, no. 4, 2008) dedicated an entire issue to the topic. This literature examines a long list of country-related issues (including country image) with the overwhelming conclusion that consumers and industrial buyers are indeed sensitive to country-of-origin cues and that country image may influence choice. Judging the growing body of knowledge by face value, the five-decade long fascination of international marketing researchers with the influence of “foreignness” of products or customer perceptions of various countries upon assessment and purchase decisions is not surprising. Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009) leverage off attitude theory and propose the need to conduct even more research that explicitly accounts for the cognitive, conative, affective, and country-related components of country of origin, with a focus on country image (cf., Laroche et al., 2005; Papadopoulos et al., 1988). As Roth and Diamantopoulos correctly note “…emphasis on the perceived images of the countries involved enables scholars to analyze why this is the case (e.g., because of the technological superiority or economic strength of a particular country).” The reality is that people hold differing views of countries, shaped by a variety of influences over time, and they are affected by these perceptions. The key question, however, is whether such country images, under ecologically valid research designs, actually influence product evaluations and pur- chase. To their credit, Roth and Diamantopoulos are well-versed in the literature and their latest contribution should serve as a useful guide which complements the “made-in” research efforts. This study undoubtedly benefits from the scholarly wisdom of the authors; however, they overlook some important CO research considerations. Future investigations will benefit from a closer scrutiny of these considerations. The acronyms CO are used in this article to denote the country-related research domain including its variants such as country image, country-product image, and country of origin, manu- facture, assembly, or design. The appropriateness of decoupling country-related components of CO from attitude in general or its components in particular, multiple views regarding how CO works (see Fig. 1 in Roth and Diamantopoulos, 2009), or the study's tentative tone regarding a proper way of measuring the CO effect are open to question. Country image alone cannot be a surrogate for product evaluation and purchase, and whether or not under ecologically correct conditions buyers actually incorporate such images in their evaluations is not known. Therefore, every CO investigation should pay closer attention to a number of critical research issues. As such, the focus in this commentary is more so on the appropriateness of CO as has been traditionally conceptualized, operationalized, and treated by researchers, including the article by Roth and Diamantopoulos, than the specifics of the contribution per se. Despite assertions by the authors' introductory remarks, research- ers do not really lack guidelines for exploring the CO phenomenon. The title and the stated objectives of the article give the impression that Roth and Diamantopoulos propose a new scale for measuring country image. A new scale may have been consistent with previous recommendations for the use of “country equity” as a holistic measure in place of country of origin (e.g., Shimp et al., 1993). A number of scholars have introduced country image measures which are detailed by Roth and Diamantopoulos. Given the range and the scope of Journal of Business Research 63 (2010) 442–445 E-mail address: samiee@utulsa.edu. 0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.12.012 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Business Research