In response to the dominance of hybrid and multinational products in the U.S. textile and apparel marketplace, and the increasing consumer demand for product origin information, the study examined the relationship among multi-level COO displays, consumer purchase preferences, and perceived price. The results of 76 responses through a 2 × 2 randomized block, repeated measures research, using the United States and China as country of parts (COP) and country of manufacturing (COM), showed that the two-level COO impacted consumers’ purchase preferences and perceived prices, based on their perceived value of sustainability. However, consumers' purchase preferences significantly decreased as a result of unusually high perceived prices. These findings have important implications for textile and apparel businesses and policy makers as adding COP along with COM to declare the product’s COO would increase consumer purchase preferences and perceived values, if applied along with careful pricing strategies.
BhaduriG.Ha-BrookshireJ. (2011). Do transparent business practices pay? Exploration of transparency and consumer purchase intention. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27, 135–149.
6.
BilkeyW.NesE. (1982). Country of origin effects on product evaluation. Journal of International Business Studies, 1, 89–99.
7.
ChaoP. (2001). The moderating effects of country of assembly, country of parts, and country of design on hybrid product evaluations. Journal of Advertising, 30, 67–81.
DickenP. (2007). . In Global shift: Reshaping the global economic map in the 21st century5th ed.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
10.
DimaraE.SkurasD. (2005). Consumer demand for informative labeling of quality food and drink products: A European case study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, 90–100.
11.
ElkingtonJ. (1998). . In Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century businessGabriola Island, Canada: New Society.
12.
EssoussiL.MerunkaD. (2007). Consumers' product evaluations in emerging markets: Does country of design, country of manufacture, or brand image matter?. International Marketing Review, 24, 409–426.
Ha-BrookshireJ.DyerB. (2008). Apparel import intermediaries: The impact of a hyper-dynamic environment on U.S. apparel firms. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 26, 66–90.
15.
Ha-BrookshireJ.NorumP. (2011). Willingness to pay for socially responsible products: Case of cotton apparel. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28, 344–353.
16.
Ha-BrookshireJ. E.HodgesN. N. (2009). Socially responsible consumer behavior? Exploring used clothing donation behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27, 179–196.
17.
HairJ. J.BlackW.BabinB.AndersonR.TathamR. (2006). . In Multivariate data analysis6th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
HanC.TerpstraV. (1988). Country of origin effects for uni-national and bi-national products. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 235–255.
19.
InschG.McBrideJ. (1998). Decomposing the country-of-origin construct: An empirical test of county-of-design, country-of-parts, and country-of-assembly. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 10, 69–91.
20.
IyerG. R.KalitaJ. K. (1998). The impact of country-of-origin and country-of-manufacture cues on consumer perceptions of quality and value. Journal of Global Marketing, 11, 7–28.
21.
KadolphS. (2011). . In Textiles11th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22.
LangA. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46–70.
23.
LeeM.LouC.-C. (1996). Consumer reliance on intrinsic and extrinsic cues in product evaluations: A conjoint approach. Journal of Applied Business Research, 12, 21–30.
24.
LeeW.-N.HongJ.-Y.LeeS.-J. (2003). Communicating with American consumers in the post 9/11 climate: An empirical investigation of consumer ethnocentrism in the United States. International Journal of Advertising, 22, 487–510.
25.
MorelloG. (1984). The ‘made-in’ issue: A comparative research on the image. European Research, 12, 5–21.
26.
PayneJ. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 382–402.
27.
RamseyF.SchaferD. (2002). . In The statistical sleuth: A course in methods of data analysis2nd ed.
Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
28.
SamieeS. (1994). Customer evaluation of products in global markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 25, 579–604.
29.
SchoolerR. (1965). Product bias in the Central American common market. Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 394–397.
30.
TseD.LeeW. (1993). Removing negative country images: Effects of decomposition, branding and product experience. Journal of International Marketing, 1, 25–48.
31.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2003). . In Importing into the United States: A guide for commercial importersWashington, DC: CBP Publication.
VealeR.QuesterP. (2009). Do consumer expectations match experience? Predicting the influence of price and country of origin on perceptions of product quality. International Business Review, 18, 134–144.
35.
ZeithamlV. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22.
