Consumer Animosity Scale (CAS)

1. Abstract

The Consumer Animosity Scale (CAS), originally conceptualized and psychometrically validated by Jill Gabrielle Klein, Richard Ettenson, and Marlene D. Morris in 1998, is an internationally recognized psychometric instrument designed to measure affective residual hostility held by consumers toward a specific foreign nation as a direct consequence of previous or ongoing military, diplomatic, political, or economic conflicts. Distinct from broader constructs such as consumer ethnocentrism—which captures a generalized normative resistance toward purchasing any foreign products—consumer animosity operates as a target-specific affective orientation that directly dampens willingness to buy goods originating from the denigrated nation without necessarily degrading objective perceptions of product quality.

The foundational version of the instrument comprises two primary empirical dimensions: War Animosity (assessing lingering historical trauma, military aggression, and unredressed wartime atrocities) and Economic Animosity (measuring perceived trade imbalances, unfair economic dominance, predatory commercial practices, and domestic market subversion). Subsequent cross-national adaptations have expanded this structure to include dimensions such as Political Animosity and People-Specific Animosity. The standard instrument typically utilizes an 8- to 14-item inventory calibrated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”).

Extensive structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analyses across diverse geopolitical dyads—including China–Japan, United States–France, South Korea–Japan, Greece–Germany, and Israel–Arab territories—consistently demonstrate robust psychometric properties. Internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) across subscales typically exceed .80, often reaching .88 to .93. The scale demonstrates rigorous construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity, famously establishing the “animosity paradox”: consumers harboring elevated animosity exhibit sharply curtailed purchase intentions while simultaneously rating the offending nation’s product engineering, reliability, and craftsmanship as exceptionally high.

2. Keywords

Consumer Animosity Scale, consumer hostility, war animosity, economic animosity, consumer ethnocentrism, foreign product purchase, country-of-origin effect, boycott behavior, international marketing, social identity theory, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Consumer Animosity Scale was developed and introduced to the international marketing and behavioral psychology literature by:

• Jill Gabrielle Klein, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing at the Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, Australia; formerly affiliated with INSEAD and the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Klein is a leading behavioral scientist whose research investigates consumer ethics, boycott dynamics, decision-making under crisis, and affective responses in geopolitical contexts.
• Richard Ettenson, Ph.D. — Professor of Global Marketing and Brand Strategy at the Thunderbird School of Global Management, Arizona State University. His scholarly contributions focus on global branding, country-of-origin dynamics, consumer trade-offs, and emerging market penetration.
• Marlene D. Morris, Ph.D. — Former faculty member in the School of Business and Management at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) and Georgetown University, specializing in global consumer behavior, retail marketing, and transnational consumer attitudes.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Consumer Animosity Scale is to operationalize, quantify, and empirically test the impact of country-specific historical, military, political, and economic grievances on individual consumer behavior. For decades, international business and consumer behavior research operated under the paradigm of the Country-of-Origin (COO) effect, which posited that consumers evaluate foreign products primarily through cognitive inferences: if a country is perceived as technologically sophisticated and industrious, consumers infer that its products possess superior functional quality, leading to elevated purchase propensity.

However, the COO paradigm repeatedly failed to explain widespread, persistent anomalies in international markets. For instance, why did consumers in Nanjing, China, routinely refuse to purchase Japanese passenger vehicles, consumer electronics, or household appliances, despite acknowledging that Japanese engineering was world-class? Why do consumers in post-crisis regions engage in spontaneous or institutionalized boycotts against specific trading partners while simultaneously purchasing identical imported goods from other foreign nations?

The theoretical rationale of the CAS resolves this puzzle by isolating affective resentment from cognitive quality assessment. The scale measures consumer hostility not as an undifferentiated dislike of the “foreign” (the domain of ethnocentrism), but as an emotionally charged, targeted behavioral barrier rooted in historical grievances. Applied researchers and clinicians in international relations, behavioral economics, and global strategic marketing employ the CAS to:

• Disentangle emotional animosity from perceived product quality evaluations.
• Predict boycott vulnerability, retail resistance, and brand avoidance in politically sensitive export destinations.
• Evaluate the duration and behavioral persistence of bilateral conflicts (e.g., trade wars, territorial disputes, military occupations) on commercial exchange.
• Formulate targeted market-entry and corporate communication strategies, such as hybrid manufacturing, localized branding, neutral distribution channels, or corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives designed to buffer foreign brands against host-nation animosity.
• Model the distinct impacts of “stable animosity” (deeply ingrained historical trauma, such as wartime occupation) versus “situational animosity” (transitory diplomatic spats or temporary trade tariffs).

5. Psychological Construct

The central construct measured by the CAS is consumer animosity, defined formally by Klein, Ettenson, and Morris (1998, p. 90) as “the remnants of antipathy related to previous or ongoing military, political, or economic events.” As an emotional and behavioral disposition, animosity functions as an affective driver of consumption choices, distinct from cognitive knowledge structures. The core multidimensional architecture of the construct comprises two primary domains, which have been expanded in subsequent psychometric research:

1. War Animosity (Military Animosity)

War Animosity reflects an individual’s enduring psychological trauma, moral outrage, and indignation stemming from past or ongoing military aggression, territorial invasion, war crimes, or prolonged occupation perpetrated by a specific foreign country. This dimension is emotionally intense, culturally transmitted across generations, and resistant to short-term promotional remediation.

For example, in the original validation study in Nanjing, China, War Animosity captured collective memory of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre. High scorers on War Animosity display intense moral revulsion at the prospect of transferring economic resources to the historical aggressor, viewing product purchases as an act of treason or a betrayal of fallen ancestors. Key affective manifestations include unresolved grief, demanding historical apologies or financial reparations, and an emotional refusal to “forgive and forget” military atrocities.

2. Economic Animosity

Economic Animosity captures consumer anger and perceived vulnerability related to current or past economic interactions, competitive commercial dominance, and macroeconomic practices. Unlike War Animosity, which is typically rooted in historical armed conflicts, Economic Animosity is fueled by perceptions of predatory trade practices, currency manipulation, dumping, intellectual property theft, economic hegemony, or foreign ownership of vital national infrastructure.

Consumers scoring high on this dimension perceive the foreign nation as an aggressive economic competitor that is actively harming their domestic economy, causing structural unemployment, or exploiting domestic consumers. For example, during trade disputes between the United States and foreign trading partners, or within European debtor nations toward dominant creditor economies, Economic Animosity manifests as acute resentment toward perceived commercial exploitation.

3. Extended Dimensions: Political and People/Social Animosity

Following the seminal work of Klein et al. (1998), psychometricians such as Ang et al. (2004), Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007), and Nes, Yelkur, and Silkoset (2012) identified additional latent facets:

• Political Animosity: Resentment directed specifically toward the political regime, foreign policy doctrine, diplomatic posturing, or ideological stance of a target nation (e.g., opposition to foreign military interventions, human rights records, or environmental policies).
• People / Social Animosity: Negative affective responses, stereotypes, and perceived cultural incompatibility directed toward the citizens and societal values of the foreign nation, representing an interpersonal projection of national prejudice.

Construct Boundaries: Differentiating Animosity from Ethnocentrism

The CAS must be distinguished from the Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies Scale (CETSCALE) developed by Shimp and Sharma (1987). While the CETSCALE measures a broad, universal belief that purchasing any foreign-made product is unpatriotic and economically detrimental to the domestic workforce, the CAS measures a highly focused, target-specific hostility. A consumer may possess near-zero ethnocentrism (happily purchasing German, Italian, or Canadian imports) while simultaneously scoring in the 99th percentile of animosity toward a specific country (e.g., Japan or the United States), categorically refusing to buy products originating from that single nation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Consumer Animosity Scale is anchored in an interdisciplinary synthesis of psychological, sociological, and consumer behavior theories:

Social Identity Theory (SIT)

Pioneered by Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979), Social Identity Theory posits that individuals categorize themselves and others into in-groups (“us”) and out-groups (“them”) to enhance self-esteem and maintain distinct social identities. In-group favoritism is frequently accompanied by out-group derogation, particularly when the out-group is perceived as an existential threat to the in-group’s safety, sovereignty, or economic vitality.

Within the CAS framework, the foreign nation represents an antagonistic out-group whose historical or economic transgressions threaten the collective integrity of the national in-group. Purchasing an out-group’s product is psychologically construed as granting power and capital to a hostile entity, threatening the consumer’s social identity and collective loyalty.

Realistic Conflict Theory

Formulated by Muzafer Sherif, Realistic Conflict Theory asserts that intergroup hostility, prejudice, and discrimination emerge directly from competition over scarce, valuable resources—whether territory, political power, or economic wealth. Economic Animosity operates squarely within this theoretical mechanism: when domestic consumers perceive that foreign firms are extracting capital, displacing local industries, or creating domestic job loss, realistic zero-sum conflict is activated, manifesting as consumer hostility and retaliatory boycotts.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory and the Animosity Model

A central psychological paradox addressed by Klein et al. (1998) involves Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory. When an individual confronts a high-quality, attractively priced product manufactured by a hated nation, a profound psychological conflict emerges between the cognitive recognition of product excellence and the affective revulsion toward the producer. Rather than resolving this dissonance by denigrating the product’s quality (a cognitive distortion), consumers resolve the conflict behaviorally: they explicitly acknowledge product superiority (“Japanese televisions are exceptionally reliable”) while refusing to purchase the product on moral and emotional grounds (“I will never buy one because of what they did to our people”).

Appraisal Theory of Emotion

Under modern cognitive appraisal theories of emotion (e.g., Roseman, Lazarus), emotions result from cognitive appraisals of events regarding their goal relevance, congruence, and agency. When a foreign nation is appraised as deliberately and illegitimately causing harm to one’s nation, the specific affective response generated is anger and contempt. Anger, unlike fear, possesses an active behavioral “action readiness” orientation—it drives retaliatory, aggressive, and punitive actions. In the modern global marketplace, consumer boycotts and the active refusal to purchase goods represent the primary non-violent, punitive mechanisms available to ordinary citizens to sanction a foreign nation.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Consumer Animosity Scale has been confirmed through empirical testing across dozens of international samples over more than two decades.

Construct Validity and Factorial Integrity

In the seminal 1998 investigation conducted by Klein, Ettenson, and Morris across 204 consumers in Nanjing, China, structural equation modeling (SEM) via LISREL established that consumer animosity is empirically distinct from consumer ethnocentrism. Factor analysis demonstrated that items measuring War Animosity and Economic Animosity loaded strongly onto their respective latent constructs without cross-loading onto the CETSCALE items.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is the hallmark of the CAS. Using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, researchers have consistently demonstrated that the average variance extracted (AVE) for both War Animosity and Economic Animosity exceeds the shared variance (squared inter-construct correlations) between animosity, ethnocentrism, and product quality judgments. Most critically, the path coefficient between Consumer Animosity and Product Quality Judgments is consistently non-significant (typically $\gamma \approx .02$ to $.06$, $p > .10$), confirming that animosity does not bias objective product quality evaluations.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Predictive validity has been substantiated in both hypothetical purchase intention paradigms and actual, observable consumer choices. In Klein et al. (1998), while animosity did not predict product quality evaluations, it exerted a direct, statistically significant negative path to willingness to buy (WTB) Japanese products ($\gamma = -.25, p < .001$) and an indirect negative effect on actual product ownership. In subsequent field studies examining French wine and food sales in the United States following France’s opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, CAS scores successfully predicted actual checkout-counter scanner sales declines and retail cancellations (Chavis & Leslie, 2009; Ettenson & Klein, 2005).

Cross-National Generalizability

The scale’s validity has been corroborated in diverse geopolitical settings, including:

• Riefler & Diamantopoulos (2007): Validated the generalizability of the construct across multiple European markets, demonstrating invariance across demographic tiers.
• Ang et al. (2004): Tested the CAS across four Asian nations (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia) in relation to American goods following economic and political tensions, proving convergent validity with consumer nationalism.
• Shin (2001): Confirmed construct and criterion validity in South Korea examining post-colonial hostility toward Japanese imports.
• Maher et al. (2010): Demonstrated the scale’s robustness in the Middle East during acute international crises, highlighting its sensitivity to both acute and historical animosity.

8. Reliability

The Consumer Animosity Scale consistently demonstrates high reliability across diverse linguistic adaptations, sample populations, and cultural contexts.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the original Klein et al. (1998) study, the scale yielded excellent internal consistency coefficients:

• War Animosity Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) = .88
• Economic Animosity Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) = .76
• Total Consumer Animosity Scale: Composite reliability typically exceeds .85

In subsequent replications across varied country dyads, internal consistency estimates have remained consistently high:

• Ettenson & Klein (2005) (US consumers regarding France): War/Political Animosity $lpha = .91$; Economic Animosity $lpha = .84$.
• Nijssen & Douglas (2004) (Dutch consumers regarding Germany): War Animosity $lpha = .89$; Economic Animosity $lpha = .82$.
• Leong et al. (2008) (Six Asian countries regarding Japan): War Animosity $lpha$ ranged from .86 to .93 across national subsamples; Economic Animosity ranged from .78 to .88.
• Huang, Phau, & Lin (2010) (Taiwanese consumers regarding mainland China): War Animosity $lpha = .90$; Economic Animosity $lpha = .85$.

Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

In structural equation modeling, composite reliability (CR) values for the CAS dimensions consistently exceed the standard psychometric threshold of .70, routinely scoring between .82 and .94. Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) routinely surpasses the recommended .50 threshold, establishing that the latent constructs account for more than half of the variance observed in their respective measurement indicators.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal and test-retest assessments demonstrate that War Animosity possesses substantial temporal stability over multi-year intervals, reflecting deeply consolidated collective memory and cultural socialization. Economic Animosity exhibits moderate-to-high test-retest reliability ($r_{tt} \approx .70 – .78$), while demonstrating appropriate sensitivity to dynamic shifts in bilateral trade negotiations, macro-economic conditions, and tariff escalations.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial structure of the Consumer Animosity Scale has been rigorously investigated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, Klein et al. conducted principal axis factoring with oblique (Oblimin/Promax) rotation, anticipating that military and economic grievances would be moderately correlated yet structurally distinct. The empirical data yielded a clean two-factor solution accounting for over 60% of total variance:

• Factor 1 (War Animosity): All designated military and wartime transgression items loaded heavily onto this factor (loadings ranging from .74 to .89) with minimal cross-loadings (< .20) on economic items.
• Factor 2 (Economic Animosity): Commercial dominance and unfair trade practice items loaded robustly onto this factor (loadings ranging from .62 to .81) with minimal cross-loadings on war items.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent CFA investigations utilizing structural equation modeling have rigorously tested the two-factor model against alternative competing models (e.g., single-factor unidimensional animosity model; three-factor models incorporating general hostility). The standard two-factor correlated model consistently displays superior goodness-of-fit indices:

Item Parameter Estimates and Invariance

Standardized factor loadings for all individual indicators routinely exceed the .60 benchmark, with the majority falling between .72 and .88, confirming strong indicator reliability. Multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) across national boundaries, age cohorts, and genders have verified metric (weak) and scalar (strong) measurement invariance, indicating that the CAS measures equivalent underlying psychological constructs across diverse cultural contexts.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Consumer Animosity Scale is a standardized psychometric self-report survey. Its structural, administrative, and scoring parameters are outlined below:

• Test Type: Psychometric rating scale / Self-report behavioral attitudinal inventory.
• Target Population: General consumer populations, adult decision-makers, and cross-national demographic segments.
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or online survey platform.
• Administration Time: Approximately 4 to 8 minutes.
• Structure and Item Breakdown: The standard foundational scale consists of 9 core items (or 8–14 items in expanded international versions):
  • War Animosity Dimension: 4 items focused on lingering historical anger, military aggression, forgiveness, and moral accountability.
  • Economic Animosity Dimension: 5 items evaluating perceived economic exploitation, unfair business practices, disproportionate economic influence, and domestic harm.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type response format:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Mechanics:
  • All items are framed in the direction of animosity (no reverse-scored items in the original standard battery, though researchers must verify local survey phrasing).
  • Subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of items belonging to each dimension: War Animosity Mean Score (Sum of War items / 4) and Economic Animosity Mean Score (Sum of Economic items / 5).
  • A global Consumer Animosity composite score can be derived by averaging all items across both subscales.
• Score Interpretation:
  • Scores 1.00 – 2.99: Low Animosity. Minimal affective resistance; purchase decisions are guided predominantly by quality, brand equity, price, and functional utility.
  • Scores 3.00 – 4.99: Moderate / Latent Animosity. Latent sensitivity; consumers may substitute products if domestic or non-offending foreign alternatives of equal value are readily available.
  • Scores 5.00 – 7.00: Severe / Acute Animosity. High behavioral boycott likelihood; active product rejection, willingness to endure personal economic or functional inconvenience to avoid purchasing from the target nation, and high susceptibility to public protest mobilizations.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Publication Year: The Consumer Animosity Scale was first published in January 1998 in the Journal of Marketing.
• Copyright Holder: The original publication is copyrighted by the American Marketing Association (AMA).
• Licensing and Academic Use: The scale items, theoretical frameworks, and model specifications are widely accessible in the open academic literature for non-commercial scholarly research, educational purposes, and scientific replication studies without royalty fees, provided proper formal bibliographic attribution is given to Klein, Ettenson, and Morris (1998).
• Commercial and Proprietary Application: Commercial market research firms, multinational corporations, or consulting agencies seeking to integrate the CAS into proprietary diagnostic tools or revenue-generating brand-tracking audits should consult the American Marketing Association’s permissions guidelines and rights-licensing clearinghouses (e.g., Copyright Clearance Center).

12. References

• Ang, S. H., Jung, K., Kau, A. K., Kuan, N. Y., Shamdasani, P. N., & Tambyah, S. K. (2004). Animosity towards economic giants: What the consumers say. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(3), 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760410534740
• Chavis, L., & Leslie, P. (2009). Consumer boycotts: The impact of the Iraq war on French wine sales in the US. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 7(1), 37–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-008-9048-7
• Ettenson, R., & Klein, J. G. (2005). The fallout from French nuclear testing in the South Pacific: A longitudinal study of consumer boycotts. International Marketing Review, 22(2), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510593278
• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Huang, Y. A., Phau, I., & Lin, C. (2010). Consumer animosity, consumer ethnocentrism, and product quality: Examining the effects of Taiwanese consumer attitudes toward products from mainland China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(7), 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011086335
• Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The animosity model of foreign product purchase: Does where it was made matter to consumers? Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200108
• Leong, S. M., Cote, J. A., Ang, S. H., Tan, S. J., Jung, K., Kau, A. K., & Pornpitakpan, C. (2008). Understanding consumer animosity in an international context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 496–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0099-0
• Maher, A. A., Clark, P., & Maher, N. C. (2010). International consumer boycott participation: The role of animosity, nationalism, and ethnocentrism. Journal of Global Marketing, 23(3), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2010.487420
• Nes, E. B., Yelkur, R., & Silkoset, R. (2012). Exploring the animosity domain and its effect on consumer buy domestic tendencies. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(4), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211237335
• Nijssen, E. J., & Douglas, S. P. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.05.001
• Riefler, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2007). Consumer animosity: A literature review and a reconsideration of its measurement. International Marketing Review, 24(1), 87–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330710730205
• Sherif, M. (1966). In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Houghton Mifflin.
• Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378702400304
• Shin, M. (2001). The role of ethnocentrism, animosity, and country of origin in consumer evaluation of products: The case of Korean consumers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v13n03_05
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

13. Items of the Scale