Analyzing Attitude towards COVID-19 Vaccine in the Context of the Health Industry: The Role of Country of Origin Image

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate individuals’ attitude towards the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, and explain vaccination intention in the framework of the theory of reasoned action. The study extends the theory of reasoned action with country of origin image variable. Material and Methods: The data of the study were collected by survey method. The survey consists of a total of 48 items, including individual innovativeness, subjective norms, attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine, intention to get COVID-19 vaccine, country of origin image, demographic characteristics, and general opinions about the vaccine and COVID-19. 333 participants answered the surveys. Data were analyzed by structural equation modeling using SPSS v.21 and AMOS v.23 package programs. Results: Attitude towards German COVID-19 vaccine (β=0.888, p<0.001) and German’s country of origin (β=0.436, p<0.001) variables have significant and positive relationships with intention to get German vaccine. Subjective norms (β=0.750, p<0.001), China’s country of image (β=0.265, p<0.001), attitude towards Chinese COVID-19 vaccine (β=0.198, p<0.001), variables have significant and positive relationships with intention to get Chinese COVID-19 vaccine. Country of origin image is significantly and positively related to both attitude towards German COVID-19 vaccine (β=0.690, p<0.001) and Chinese COVID-19 vaccine (β=0.461, p<0.001). Conclusion: The most important factor associated with the intention to get German COVID-19 vaccine is the attitude towards the COVID-19 vaccine. The most important factor associated with the intention to get Chinese COVID-19 vaccine is the subjective norm. Country of origin image is a significant variable for both countries.

Keywords

• COVID-19 vaccine
• theory of reasoned action
• country of origin image
• public health

COVID-19 Aşısına Yönelik Tutumların Sağlık Sektörü Açısından Analizi: Menşei Ülke İmajının Rolü

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, bireylerin koronavirüs hastalığı 2019 (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) aşısına yönelik tutumlarını inceleyerek, aşı olma niyetini gerekçeli eylem teorisi çerçevesinde açıklamaktır. Çalışma gerekçeli eylem teorisini menşei ülke imajı değişkeni ile genişletmektedir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmanın verileri anket yöntemiyle toplanmıştır. Anket, bireysel yenilikçilik, subjektif normlar, COVID-19 aşısına yönelik tutum, COVID-19 aşısı olma niyeti, menşe ülke imajı, demografik özellikler ve aşı ve COVID-19 hakkında genel görüşler dahil olmak üzere toplam 48 maddeden oluşmaktadır. 333 katılımcı anketleri cevaplandırmıştır. Veriler SPSS v.21 ve AMOS v.23 paket programları kullanılarak yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Alman COVID-19 aşısına yönelik tutum (β=0,888; p<0,001) ve Almanya’nın menşei ülke imajı (β=0,436; p<0,001) değişkenleri, Alman aşısı olma niyeti ile anlamlı ve pozitif ilişkilidir. Subjektif normlar (β=0,750; p<0,001), Çin’in menşei ülke imajı (β=0,265; p<0,001), ve Çin aşısına yönelik tutum (β=0,198; p<0,001) değişkenleri Çin aşısı olma niyeti ile anlamlı ve pozitif ilişkilidir. Menşei ülke imajı, hem Alman COVID-19 aşısına yönelik tutum ile (β=0,690; p<0,001), hem de Çin COVID-19 aşısına yönelik tutum (β=0,461; p<0,001) ile anlamlı ve pozitif ilişkilidir. Sonuç: Alman COVID-19 aşısı olma niyeti ile ilişkili en önemli faktör Alman COVID-19 aşısına yönelik tutumdur. Çin COVID-19 aşısı olma niyetiyle ilişkili en önemli faktör, subjektif normlardır. Menşei ülke imajı, her iki ülke için de önemli bir değişkendir.

Keywords

• COVID-19 aşısı
• gerekçeli eylem teorisi
• menşei ülke imajı
• halk sağlığı

References

1. Kwok KO, Li KK, Wei WI, Tang A, Wong SYS, Lee SS. Editor's Choice: Influenza vaccine uptake, COVID-19 vaccination intention and vaccine hesitancy among nurses: A survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;114:103854
2. Palm R, Bolsen T, Kingsland JT. The effect of frames on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. MedRxiv. 2021. doi: 10.1101/2021.01.04.21249241
3. Salali GD, Uysal MS. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is associated with beliefs on the origin of the novel coronavirus in the UK and Turkey. Psychol Med. 2020;[Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720004067.
4. Motta M. Can a COVID-19 vaccine live up to Americans’ expectations? A conjoint analysis of how vaccine characteristics influence vaccination intentions. Social Science & Medicine. 2021;272:113642.
5. Sallam M. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide: a concise systematic review of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(2):160.
6. Fishbein M. A behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. In: Fishbein M, editor. Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1967. p.389-400.
7. Madden TJ, Ellen PS, Ajzen I. A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Pers Soc Psychol Bull.1992;18(1):3-9.
8. Atılgan KÖ. Gerekçeli eylem teorisi In: Yağcı Mİ, Çabuk S, editors. Pazarlama teorileri. İstanbul: MediaCat; 2014. p. 297-310,

9. Hale J, Householder BJ, Greene KL. The theory of reasoned action. In: Dillard JP, Pfau M, editors. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2002. p.259-86.
10. Kotler P, Gertner D. Country as brand product and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. J Brand Manag. 2002;9(4):249-61.
11. Aydın K, Say AT, Ustaahmetoglu E, Yamamoto GT. Attitudes of students toward country-of-origin and auto brand images. Serb J Manag. 2007;2(2):205-16.
12. Carneiro J, Faria F. Quest for purposefully designed conceptualization of the country-of-origin image construct. J Bus Res. 2016;69(10):4411-20.
13. Lu IR, Kwan E, Heslop LA, Thomas DR, Cedzynski M. The ivory tower and the street: How researchers defined country image over four decades and what consumers think it means. J Bus Res. 2019;105:80-97.
14. Sentürk T. Ülke imajı araştırmalarında ölçek seçimi ve kullanımı. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi. 2018;21(1):78-91.
15. Nagashima A. A comparison of Japanese and US attitudes toward foreign products. J Mark. 1970;34(1):68-74.
16. Kaynak E, Cavusgil ST. Consumer attitudes towards products of foreign origin: do they vary across product classes? Int J Advert. 1983;2(2):147-57.
17. Nguyen AHM, Alcantara LL. The interplay between country-of-origin image and perceived brand localness: An examination of local consumers’ response to brand acquisitions II emerging market firms. J Mark Commun. 2020;[Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2020.1840422
18. Demirel EÜ. Ülke imajının satın alma istekliliği üzerindeki etkisinde tüketici yakınlığı ürün ülke imajı ve ürün yargılarının aracılık rolü. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2020;12(2):1225-38.
19. Hien N, Phuong N, Tran T, Thang L. The effect of country-of-origin image on purchase intention: The mediating role of brand image and brand evaluation. Manag Sci Lett. 2020;10(6):1205-12.
20. Lee H, Chae MS, Lew YK. The application of categorization and stereotype content theories to country of origin image: Vietnamese perceptions towards Korean wave brands. Asia Pac Bus Rev. 2020;26(3):336-61.
21. Lin LY, Chen CS. The influence of the country‐of‐origin image product knowledge and product involvement on consumer purchase decisions: an empirical study of insurance and catering services in Taiwan. J Consum Mark. 2006;23(5):248-65.
22. Wang X, Yang Z. Does country-of-origin matter in the relationship between brand personality and purchase intention in emerging economies? Evidence from China's auto industry. Int Mark Rev. 2008;25(4):458-74.
23. Crouch RC, Lu VN, Pourazad N, Ke C. Investigating country image influences after a product-harm crisis. Eur J Mark. 2020;55(3):894-924.
24. Sanyal SN, Datta SK. The effect of country of origin on brand equity: an empirical study on generic drugs. J Prod Brand Manag. 2011;20(2):130-40.
25. Smaoui F, Kilani FA, Touzani M. Country-of-origin versus brand: consumers’ dilemma when choosing between generic and branded drugs in emerging countries. J Prod Brand Manag. 2016;25(2):148-59.
26. Habash R, Al-Dmour H. Factors influencing the intention to buy over-the-counter medicines: empirical study. Int J Pharm Healthc Mark. 2020;14(2):305-23.
27. Agarwal R, Prasad J. A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Inf Syst Res. 1998;9(2):204-15.
28. Rogers EM, Shoemaker FF. Communication of innovations; a cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press; 1971.
29. Goldsmith RE. Using the domain specific innovativeness scale to identify innovative internet consumers. Internet Res. 2001;11(2):149-58.
30. Lee Y, Colarelli O'Connor G. The impact of communication strategy on launching new products: The moderating role of product innovativeness. J Prod Innov Manag. 2003;20(1):4-21.
31. Huang TL, Liao S. A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology: the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electron Commer Res. 2015;15(2):269-95.
32. Sadik-Rozsnyai O, Bertrandias L. New technological attributes and willingness to pay: the role of social innovativeness. European Journal of Marketing. 2019;53(6):1099-124.
33. Flynn LR, Goldsmith RE. A validation of the Goldsmith and Hofacker innovativeness scale. Educ Psychol Meas. 1993;53(4):1105-16.
34. Nysveen H, Pedersen PE, Thorbjørnsen H. Intentions to use mobile services: Antecedents and cross-service comparisons. J Acad Mark Sci. 2005;33(3):330-346.
35. Hamari J, Sjöklint M, Ukkonen A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2016;67(9):2047-59.
36. Sherman SM, Smith LE, Sim J, Amlôt R, Cutts M, Dasch H, et al. COVID-19 vaccination intention in the UK: results from the COVID-19 vaccination acceptability study (CoVAccS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020;[Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1846397.
37. Sharma S. Applied multivariate techniques. New York, NY: Wiley; 1996.
38. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson education; 2010.
39. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson education; 2006.
40. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. Pearson new international edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited; 2014.
41. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1)39-50.
42. Henseler J, Ringle CCOI, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43(1):115-35.
43. Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics. London: Pearson; 2012.
44. Yaşlıoğlu MM. Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi. 2017;46(Özel Sayı):74-85.