The Coalescence Effect: How a Combination of Foreign and Local Appeals Enhances Customer Engagement Through Perceived Brand Globalness

Foreign Versus Local Appeals

Earlier research on country-of-origin effects shows that consumers often prefer foreign to local brands (Han 1989; Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993). This preference is particularly pronounced in developing markets versus developed markets (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006) as consumers in developing markets tended to associate a brand's Western or foreign origin with high product quality (see also Han 1989; Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993). Related, but conceptually different from country-of-origin effects, constructs of “nonlocalness” or “foreignness” (i.e., a consumer's perception that a brand is of foreign or nonlocal origin; see Batra et al. [2000] and Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden [2003]) capture consumers’ general perceptions of a brand's foreign appeal instead of country-specific impressions (Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010). Prior research also indicates that global and foreign brands can benefit from this perception when consumers believe that using these brands will enhance their status (Batra et al. 2000). However, as more local brands also start to use “foreignness” appeals, consumers respond with increased skepticism (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2008; Samiee, Shimp, and Sharma 2005), which may ultimately lead to a backlash against foreign brands, especially in the world's fastest-growing emerging markets (Crocker and Tay 2004; Ewing et al. 2002). According to Boston Consulting Group (2008), some consumers no longer found foreign brand elements distinguishable or diagnostic in their decisions regarding important CE outcomes even though foreign brands tend to have higher overall perceived value than local brands (Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010).

Despite earlier country-of-origin literature documenting that consumers in emerging markets may regard local brands as unattractive and inferior in quality compared with foreign brands (Ger 1999; Strizhakova and Coulter 2015), other studies reveal that many consumers express preferences for domestic versus foreign brands (Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993; Shimp and Sharma 1987). Such preference is largely due to the effect of consumer ethnocentrism (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Ethnocentrism, defined as “the view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Sumner 1906, p. 13), refers to the tendency of an individual to reject others who are culturally dissimilar and favor those who are culturally similar (LeVine and Campbell 1972). From these premises, consumer ethnocentrism captures beliefs held by consumers regarding the appropriateness or morality of refraining from purchasing foreign-made products (Shimp and Sharma 1987). Consumers high in ethnocentrism will intentionally avoid buying foreign products and display a moral obligation to prefer/purchase domestic products, even when the quality of the domestic products is below that of imports (Sharma, Shimp, and Shin 1994).

Furthermore, given economic developments in emerging markets, more recent research offers other rationales that help explain why many consumers prefer local brands. For example, studies contend that globalization has helped fuel localization (Akaka and Alden 2010) and that local brands have become ever more competitive. The localness of the brand is found, in some studies, to signal originality, local cultural connections, pride, and even prestige (Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008; Özsomer 2012). These findings therefore suggest the possibility that focusing on local appeals may also lead to superior brand preferences, compared with a focus on foreign appeals in branding efforts.

From Global Brand to Perceived Brand Globalness

Adding to the debate of foreign versus local brand appeal is the inception of the global brand concept and its rising popularity (e.g., Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Prior studies have presented multiple formal and informal operationalizations of this concept. For example, Dimofte, Johansson, and Bagozzi (2010, p. 81) describe “brands that are widely available across international markets and enjoy high levels of recognition across the world” as global brands, whereas Johansson and Ronkainen (2005) employ the number of countries each brand appears in out of the top 150, using a large cross-country database from Young & Rubicam. As consumers may or may not be aware of the brand's presence and operations in national markets beyond their own (Fastoso and González-Jiménez 2018; Sichtmann, Davvetas, and Diamantopoulos 2019), such objective, supply-side (Liu et al. 2021) measures may not be ideal in measuring how globalness leads to CE. In contrast, the construct of perceived brand globalness (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003) may be more suitable as it offers a more subjective, demand-side perspective (Liu et al. 2021; Özsomer and Altaras 2008). This construct reflects consumers’ perceptions that a brand is “global” when it is “recognized as a global player with a global reach” (Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012, p. 72).

Furthermore, prior research uses the concepts of foreign brand and global brand interchangeably (Zhang and Khare 2009). For example, studies report that the use of English brand names and Western models enhances a brand's perceived globalness in developing countries because “a Western look is synonymous with a global look” and “English names also signal the global quality of a brand” (Chang 2008, p. 200). Thus, these studies link foreignness, specifically Western foreignness, directly with perceived brand globalness. Few studies, in contrast, investigate whether the same globalness linkage remains when Eastern foreignness is used. Other research, however, posits that perceived brand globalness is distinct from foreignness (Batra et al. 2000; Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010).

To date, scholars have generally agreed that perception of a brand as global enhances its equity (Shocker, Srivastava, and Ruekert 1994). Previous studies find that “perceived globalness” of a brand (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015) impacts behavioral intention via brand prestige, trust, and affect, whereas localness operates through identity expressiveness (Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015). These studies also find that while both globalness and localness can enhance consumers’ response to a brand, globalness exerts greater total effects than localness when tested in an emerging market (Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015). Other research suggests that while separating globalness and localness works better in developed countries, a hybrid strategy may be superior in emerging markets because of their uniqueness (Özsomer 2012; Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015).

The research discussed thus far uses an integration-responsiveness framework to show the effectiveness of an overlap between global and local positioning (Swoboda, Elsner, and Morschett 2014) For example, retailers that score high on both perceived brand globalness and localness are considered hybrid retail brands and are thus favored by consumers (Swoboda, Elsner, and Morschett 2014). Although some researchers question whether such combined brand positions are beneficial (Heinberg, Ozkaya, and Taube 2017; Hollis 2008; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012; Zhou and Belk 2004), others point out the possibility of embracing elements of global culture and indigenizing these to local culture (Appadurai 1990) in a process many scholars refer to as “glocalization,” defined as “the interpenetration of the global and the local, resulting in unique outcomes in different geographic areas” (Ritzer 2003, p. 193). Studies finding positive effects from glocalization have focused primarily on emerging markets (Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019). Thus, whether similar marketing hybridization/glocalization strategies are effective in developed markets is largely unknown.

In a recent systematic review, Liu et al. (2021) organize and synthesize the literature on perceived brand globalness and perceived brand localness by analyzing 95 articles published over 17 years. The authors note a growing interest in the topic of perceived brand globalness but point out the literature's overreliance on cross-sectional survey designs, which render establishment of causal effects infeasible in terms of both antecedents and consequences of perceived brand globalness (Liu et al. 2021). Addressing the theoretical and methodological gaps in the literature, we propose a “coalescence” framework to test whether a combination of local appeal and foreign appeal will enhance a brand's perceived brand globalness and, in turn, improve brand-related CE outcomes.

Pansari and Kumar (2017) define CE as “the mechanics of a customer's value addition to the firm, either through direct or/and indirect contribution” (p. 295) and state that “when a relationship is satisfied and has emotional bonding, it then progresses to the stage of engagement” (p. 295). Thus, CE is an outcome construct that gauges the strength of the transactional and emotional relationship between a firm and a customer because of the firm's strategic market orientation and tactical marketing programs (Brodie et al. 2011; Kumar et al. 2019; Vivek et al. 2012), and therefore it aligns with our proposed coalescence effect's “inside-out” perspective. In addition, other scholars advance the important concept of consumer brand engagement (CBE) to capture a consumer's brand-related cognition, affection, and activation (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014, p. 149), with consumers’ brand usage intent as well as self–brand connection as important CBE consequences.

These conceptualizations of engagement converge in their emphasis on the customer–brand interactions and therefore provide a viable framework for examining the effectiveness of the coalescence effect. Following this framework, we first conduct an exploratory market observation study. Then, in Studies 1–4, we focus on brand evaluation, which consists of both satisfaction and emotion to set the stage for CE (see Pansari and Kumar [2017] on theorizing satisfaction and emotion as key CE antecedents). Next, in Study 5 we measure direct CE contribution, as reflected in purchase intention (Pansari and Kumar 2017), and CBE dimensions and consequences, such as affection and self–brand connection (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014). Finally, Study 6 analyzes indirect CE contributions, namely customer referral, influence, and knowledge/feedback (Pansari and Kumar 2017).

Defining the Coalescence Effect

We propose an overarching framework that provides guidance on ways to increase a brand's perceived globalness in both emerging and developed markets with the goal of enhancing CE. Our review of the literature and current events leads us to conclude that the globalization landscape has changed over the past decade and that such changes give rise to new approaches to brand positioning on the global–local continuum (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). While prior research documents the effectiveness of combining local and foreign appeals in emerging markets and among relatively well-known brands (see Özsomer 2012; Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015), we propose that combining local and foreign branding appeals can lead to heightened globalness compared with either all local appeals or all foreign appeals in both developed and emerging markets, especially for new brands. Furthermore, we hypothesize that this framework for enhancing perceived brand globalness will hold when brands are promoted either in their home markets (e.g., a U.S. brand promoted in the U.S. market) or outside of their home markets (e.g., a U.S. brand promoted outside the U.S. market). While past findings suggest that country-market level characteristics moderate the effectiveness of marketing-mix elements in developed versus emerging markets (Bahadir, Bharadwaj, and Srivastava 2015), we propose the coalescence effect to demonstrate that combining local and foreign brand appeals can enhance brand globalness in both emerging and developed markets as well as inside and outside of home markets. To coalesce means to blend or come together, and the coalescence effect can be formally defined as strategically integrating both foreign and local brand elements together into one brand positioning. To this end, our research draws from signaling theory (Caminal and Vives 1996; Spence 1973), and the brands-as-signals literature (Erdem and Swait 1998) to provide support for our hypothesis that the coalescence effect increases the likelihood of perceived brand globalness and, subsequently, CE outcomes.

Signaling theory (Caminal and Vives 1996; Spence 1973) is fundamentally designed to reduce information asymmetry between two parties (Spence 2002), such as between brands and consumers. Information asymmetry describes a situation in which one party in a relationship has more or better information than the other party (Akerlof 1970; Bergh et al. 2019). A signal is defined as “a marketer-controlled, easy-to-acquire information cue, extrinsic to the product itself, that consumers use to form inferences about the quality or value of that product” (Bloom and Reve 1990, p. 59). We argue that since consumers often experience an information deficit when evaluating a brand, particularly a novel brand, they are more likely to rely on signals that are meaningful to them (Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014). In addition, previous research finds that the signals consumers regard as both useful and credible are effective (Boulding and Kirmani 1993) and can be successfully utilized in marketing strategies (Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014), such as in the form of brand positioning using message elements including brand name, logo, ad visuals, and ad themes (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999).

To help reduce information asymmetry, two broad types of essential information should be introduced: information about quality and information about intent (Stiglitz 2000). Brand positioning, especially for new brands or new international markets, needs to signal both quality and intent-based information as “brands differ in how well (or ill) intentioned brands seem to be, as well as on how able they are perceived to be” (Brands as Intentional Agents Framework; Kervyn, Fiske, and Malone 2012, p. 171). Prior research shows that brand globalness (foreignness is often used as a proxy for globalness, as mentioned previously) usually induces the judgment of brand competence and quality, whereas brand localness often signals positive intent or warmth, and these judgments account for significant variance in brand outcomes (Kolbl et al. 2020). In addition, brand foreignness appears to enhance the ability/competence signal only in developed markets, whereas it may also signal intent and warmth in emerging markets (Kolbl et al. 2020).

Furthermore, information about quality or intent alone as a brand signal may act as a double-edged sword (Kolbl et al. 2020). For example, consumers can regard brands that merely signal quality/competence as antagonistic in that these brands are considered less well-intentioned and more likely to engage in unfair marketplace practices, thus generating negative affect, such as disgust, contempt, and anger, among consumers (Davvetas and Halkias 2019). These findings are in line with the innuendo effect (Kervyn, Fiske, and Malone 2012), which suggests that explicit focus on the positive dimension of a target may backfire as it is likely to elicit negative inferences about the other dimension. Combining information about quality using a foreignness appeal and information about intent using a localness appeal to signal both simultaneously therefore seems to be a viable brand positioning strategy that brand managers can adopt.

Although prior research investigates this combination, the conclusions are somewhat ambiguous. First, whereas some studies support use of nonhybrid positioning strategies in developed markets (Özsomer 2012), other researchers conclude that brands will benefit from hybrid positioning strategies in emerging markets (e.g., Özsomer 2012; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012; Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015). Research on the adverse effects of hybrid brand positioning suggests that the bicultural exposure effect—exposure to two cultural symbols simultaneously that brings the cultural aspect into sharp focus and emphasizes distinctions between these cultures (Chiu et al. 2009)—will likely lead to feelings of one’s culture being tainted by facets of other cultures, making it more difficult to identify the culture's central “ethnic” core, a phenomenon known as cultural contamination (Torelli et al. 2011). However, in many of these studies, researchers use the same global brand appeal to measure perceived brand globalness and localness and then model their interaction to examine possible hybrid positioning effects (Heinberg, Ozkaya, and Taube 2017), rather than employing different combinations of local and foreign appeals and testing for potential causal effects of each combination. We argue that the former operationalization alone could contribute to precarious assumptions about the effectiveness of hybrid positioning strategies. We further propose that these observations, while possibly valid when there was a large economic gap between most Western and Eastern countries, are becoming increasingly obsolete as the economic gap closes and global consumer culture becomes a more potent force in multiple markets around the world (Akaka and Alden 2010; Ibarra-Cantu and Cheetham 2021).

Further, our proposed coalescence effect conceptually differs from the process of hybridization (Boli 2005; Canclini 2000; Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019; Hannerz 1990), which involves development of positive attitudes toward a mix of home cultural and global cultural consumption choices (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006). According to Pieterse (1995, p. 49, citing Rowe and Schelling 1991, p. 231), hybridization occurs when “forms become separated from existing practices and recombine with new forms in new practices.” Prior research points out the possibility of consumers embracing elements of global consumer culture and localizing them to varying degrees (Appadurai 1990) in a process called “glocalization,” described previously as the “interpenetration of the global and the local,” to generate distinct outcomes in each international market (Ritzer 2003, p. 193). We argue that the coalescence effect is distinct from hybridization in that it specifies brand managers’ (as opposed to consumers’) efforts to integrate foreign and local brand appeals, whereas hybridization is a “transformative cultural processes” (Gould and Grein 2005, p. 237) that may or may not be brand specific. In other words, given that the burgeoning literature on hybridization often takes an “outside-in” perspective in studying brand identity formation as perceived by consumers, our coalescence effect adopts an “inside-out” perspective to capture the brand positioning intended to be communicated by the company (Schroeder 2009). Therefore, regardless of consumers’ individual differences in attitude toward local or foreign branding appeals, the coalescence effect predicts that, when a brand presents a combination of local and foreign brand appeals rather than a focused strategy of local or foreign appeals alone, it signals both its positive intentions (i.e., information about intent) and its ability to meet those intentions (i.e., information about quality). Thus, the coalescence effect can help brand managers lower consumer uncertainty induced by an asymmetric or imperfect information state, given that companies are almost always better informed about their own products than consumers are (Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela 2006). In addition, the coalescence effect conceptually relates to and complements other branding strategies such as brand alliances, in which two or more brands jointly produce composite offerings (Kupfer et al. 2018). The general brand management literature indicates that, in brand alliances, partner brands often function as quality signals (e.g., Rao and Ruekert 1994). However, in today's vibrant global brandscape, such brand alliances could result in one partner brand signaling quality due to perceived foreignness, while the other partner brand signals warmth/comfort/intent due to perceived localness, producing the coalescence effect.

Finally, our coalescence effect also differs from the culturally mixed symbolic products (CMSP) concept, which is defined as “a product that blends culturally rooted local symbols with a foreign brand's global symbols” (Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019, pp. 79–80). CMSPs are designed to be richly grounded in the local context and thus exclude blends void of symbolic local elements. Although CMSP research applies to products as opposed to global brands (Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019), it nevertheless provides additional insights on how foreign brands could enhance CE outcomes by increasing perceived brand localness (Sichtmann, Davvetas, and Diamantopoulos 2019). We further conjecture that these prior findings on global–local mix may only apply to strong existing global brands adapting to local cultures, whereas for new brands entering either their home market or other international markets, strategically combining both foreign and local brand elements in brand positioning will induce a coalescence effect, leading to heightened CE. We therefore formally hypothesize:

H₁: A combination of local and foreign brand appeals leads to higher CE outcomes compared with either local brand appeals or foreign brand appeals. This coalescence effect holds for both home and overseas markets and in both developed and emerging markets.

Rather than studying only local brands’ globalizing or global brands’ localizing, we investigate the two phenomena simultaneously and hypothesize that the coalescence effect will emerge in both contexts to positively enhance CE outcomes through heightened perceived brand globalness. The overarching coalescence framework proposed herein captures not only the “localness advantage of foreign brand” but also “the foreignness advantage of local brand” (Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010, p. 216). That is, coalescence effect benefits are expected to apply to both local-origin and foreign-origin brands, that is, either incorporating foreign appeals for a local brand or incorporating local appeals for a foreign brand (see Figure 1 for conceptual framework). Consequently, we formally hypothesize:

H₂: Perceived brand globalness mediates the relationship between brand appeals and brand evaluation such that a combination of local and foreign appeals leads to higher perceived brand globalness and subsequently more favorable CE outcomes compared with either all local appeals or all foreign appeals alone.

To enhance the generalizability and applicability of our conceptual framework, we examine the coalescence effect using one market observation study and six experiments with participants from both Western and Eastern markets and with brands across different product categories. Table 1 provides definitions and key findings for the main constructs featured in this research. In the following subsection, we begin by presenting the results of an exploratory market observation study of the proposed coalescence effect.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Conceptual Framework.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Definitions and Key Findings of Related Constructs.

Construct	Definition	Key Findings	Main Empirical Method Used
Coalescence effect (current study)	Integrating both foreign and local brand elements together into one brand positioning	Regardless of consumers’ individual differences in their attitudes toward local or foreign branding appeals, the coalescence effect predicts that when a brand presents a combination of local and foreign brand appeals rather than a focused strategy of local or foreign appeals alone, it signals both its positive intentions (i.e., information about intent) and its ability to meet those intentions (i.e., information about quality). The coalescence effect applies to both local-origin and foreign-origin brands, specifies brand managers’ efforts to integrate foreign and local brand appeals, and is brand specific. The coalescence effect adopts an “inside-out” perspective to capture the brand positioning intended to be communicated by the company (Schroeder 2009). The overarching coalescence framework captures not only the localness advantage of the foreign brand but also the foreignness advantage of the local brand (Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010).	Experiments Observational study
Hybridization	Development of positive attitudes toward a mix of home cultural and global cultural consumption choices (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Boli 2005; Canclini 2000; Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019; Hannerz 1990)	According to Pieterse (1995, p. 49, citing Rowe and Schelling 1991, p. 231), hybridization occurs when “forms become separated from existing practices and recombine with new forms in new practices.” Hybridization refers to “transformative cultural processes” (Gould and Grein 2005, p. 237) that may or may not be brand specific. Research on the adverse effects of hybrid brand positioning argue that the bicultural exposure effect (Chiu et al. 2009) will likely lead to feelings of cultural contamination (Torelli et al. 2011). Other research suggests that, while separating globalness and localness works better in developed countries, a hybrid strategy may be superior in emerging markets because of their uniqueness (Özsomer 2012; Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015). Overall, existing literature on hybridization takes an “outside-in” perspective in studying brand identity formation as perceived by consumers.	Surveys
Glocalization	A process of embracing and localizing elements of global consumer culture and indigenizing them to varying degrees (Appadurai 1990; Ritzer 2003)	Glocalization is an “interpenetration of the global and the local” that could generate distinct outcomes in each international market (Ritzer 2003, p. 193). Studies finding positive effects from glocalization have taken place primarily in emerging markets (Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019).	Surveys
Culturally mixed symbolic products (CMSPs)	“A product that blends culturally rooted local symbols with a foreign brand's global symbols” (Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019, pp. 79–80)	CMSPs are designed to be richly grounded in the local context and thus exclude blends void of symbolic local elements. CMSP research applies to products as opposed to global brands (Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019).	Surveys
Perceived brand globalness	Consumers’ perception that a brand is “global” when it is “recognized as a global player with a global reach” (Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012, p. 72; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003)	Perceived brand globalness is a subjective, demand-side perspective (Liu et al. 2021; Özsomer and Altaras 2008). To date, scholars have generally agreed that perception of a brand as global enhances its equity (Shocker, Srivastava, and Ruekert 1994). Previous studies show that “perceived globalness” of a brand (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015) impacts behavioral intention via brand prestige, trust, and affect. Existing research also shows that perceived brand globalness elevates a brand's local icon status in emerging markets, but not in developed markets, as consumers in mature markets tend to have less appreciation of such associations (Özsomer 2012). Other studies indicate that, in emerging markets, perceived brand globalness may limit brands’ potential to become local icons (Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019).	Surveys
Perceived brand foreignness	Consumers' perception that a brand is of foreign or nonlocal origin (see Batra et al. 2000; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003), which captures consumers’ general perceptions of a brand's foreign appeal instead of country-specific impressions (Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010)	Earlier research on country-of-origin effects shows that consumers often prefer foreign to local brands (Han 1989; Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993). This preference was found to be particularly pronounced in developing markets versus developed markets (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006) as consumers in developing markets tended to associate a brand's Western or foreign origin with high product quality (see also Han 1989; Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993). Foreignness often is used interchangeably with perceived globalness (Chang 2008; Zhang and Khare 2009), whereas other researchers posit that perceived brand globalness is distinct from foreignness (Batra et al. 2000; Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010).	Surveys
Perceived brand localness	Consumers' perception that a brand is of domestic or local origin (see Batra et al. 2000)	Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) introduced the term “brand local icon value,” aka perceived brand localness, which shows how well a brand is connected with the local culture. Earlier country-of-origin literature documents that local brands may be regarded as unattractive and inferior in quality by consumers in emerging markets compared with foreign brands (Ger 1999; Strizhakova and Coulter 2015). Other studies reveal that many consumers express preferences for domestic versus foreign brands (Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993; Shimp and Sharma 1987). Such preference is largely due to the effect of consumer ethnocentrism (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Consumers high in ethnocentrism will intentionally avoid buying foreign products and display a moral obligation to prefer/purchase domestic products, even when the quality of the domestic products is below that of imports (Sharma, Shimp, and Shin 1994). More recent studies (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003) posit that perceived brand localness could be a promising way for local brands to compete with global brands as localness could induce positive behavior intention through identity expressiveness (Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015).	Surveys

Exploratory Study: Marketplace Evidence

As an exploratory study of H₁, we analyzed a large-scale data set with 16 years of real-world observations from the “big four” fashion weeks, during which top global fashion brands debut new fashion collections. Target brands were chosen on the basis of rankings of top influential brands in fashion (Schept 2015) and narrowed down to well-known brands that consistently hold biannual fashion shows (Louis Vuitton, Hermès, Gucci, Chanel, Prada, and Burberry). As all six brands are of European country origin, we used European origin as a proxy for local appeals as consumers are likely to be familiar with these well-known brands’ countries of origin. In contrast, we chose the use of fashion models who may appear to be of non-European origin as a proxy for usage of foreign brand appeal. Specifically, we coded the use of models who appear non-Caucasian as a foreign appeal. Therefore, fashion shows with a higher ratio of models with a non-Caucasian appearance were considered to employ a combination of local and foreign brand appeals, as the presumed model origin (e.g., Asia, Africa, Latin America) differed from the brand country origin (i.e., western Europe).

A total of 9,389 photos were collected from 178 fashion show collections in a 16-year span (2000–2016) with each photo featuring one model wearing one fashion outfit. Two independent coders coded each model's presumed ethnicity. Focusing on female models and taking out repeated models for consistency, we analyzed 6,536 remaining photos, with an average of 37.57 photos per fashion show. Results confirmed a significant positive correlation between year and the ratio of models presumed to be non-European across the six brands (β = .003, p = .00) such that brands increasingly used presumed non-European models in their shows over the years. Turning to results for individual brands, five of the six brands showed a significant positive correlation (ps ≤ .001), with the exception of Gucci (p = .21). This analysis suggests that most of the brands increasingly used a combination of local (presumed European models) and foreign (presumed non-European models) branding elements over time. This clear longitudinal finding is consistent with our hypothesis that combining local and foreign appeals in the current global marketplace may be more beneficial to brands, compared with using local or foreign appeals alone.

Equipped with these insights from the field, we proceeded with five experimental studies, conducted with both emerging and developed market samples, to systematically test our hypotheses regarding the coalescence effect. In Studies 1 and 2, we employed field stimuli in an emerging market to test whether a combination of local and foreign appeals leads to higher brand evaluation than either a local or foreign appeal alone (H₁). Study 3 demonstrated the generalizability of our results by using brands from a different industry and a participant sample from a developed market. In so doing, we adopted an etic–emic approach (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Poortinga and Malpass 1986): etic in that we explored the theoretical generalizability of the coalescence across multiple cultural contexts and emic inasmuch as specific foreign and local appeals can be executed according to the specific culture to which the coalescence effect is applied. Study 4 tested the mediating role of perceived brand globalness with a participant sample from a developed market.

Experimental Design and Procedure

The design of Study 1 was a 2 (brand country origin: local versus foreign) × 2 (perceived model origin: local versus foreign) between-subjects design. This design tests two types of combined appeals (local country origin and perceived foreign model origin, foreign country origin and perceived local model origin) against an all-foreign-appeal condition (foreign country origin and perceived foreign model origin) and an all-local-appeal condition (local country origin and perceived local model origin). One hundred nineteen participants recruited from a large Chinese university (68 female; M_age = 21.97 years, SD = 2.15) completed the study in exchange for monetary payment.

Participants were informed at the start of the study that their task was to evaluate outfits from a fashion brand. They were then shown descriptions of a fictitious fashion brand named Fenila. Local versus foreign brand appeals were manipulated via both brand country origin and perceived model origin. To manipulate brand country origin, in the local country origin conditions, the brand was described as based in Beijing with a Beijing-born designer. In the foreign country origin conditions, the brand was described as based in France with a Milan-born designer to showcase the brand's European origin. After reading the descriptions, participants viewed three fashion outfits from Fenila. To manipulate perceived model origin, in the local model origin conditions, all three outfits were worn by three different Asian models, whereas in the foreign model origin conditions, three comparable outfits were worn by three different Caucasian models.

To select comparable outfits with different perceived model origin, we utilized photographs from the actual Fashion Week runways. We matched 24 pairs of outfits, with each pair wearing similar outfits in the same show, but with one worn by a Caucasian model and the other worn by an Asian model. We then conducted a pretest (N = 98) in which we asked participants to indicate their preference for each outfit individually on seven-point scales (1 = “I dislike this outfit,” and 7 = “I like this outfit”). Three pairs of outfits were chosen that showed no difference in consumers’ preference ratings (ps = .265, .585, .788), thus controlling for favorability ratings of the outfits.

After viewing each outfit, participants answered brand evaluation questions, which measured customer satisfaction and emotion, both of which are crucial factors that set the stage for CE. Specifically, participants answered four seven-point items about each outfit: “How much do you like this design?” (1 = “Not at all,” and 7 = “Very much”), “What do you think of the design?” (1 = “Very bad,” and 7 = “Very good”), “How happy does this Fenila design make you feel?” (1 = “Not at all,” and 7 = “Very happy”), and “How favorably do you feel toward this design?” (1 = “Not at all,” and 7 = “Very much”).

As a pretest designed to rule out the possibility of novelty as a confounding variable, 219 different participants were recruited to rate the perceived novelty of the brand Fenila and the outfits shown in the main study. After reading the brand description and viewing the outfits in each condition, participants rated the novelty of the brand with measures adopted from Winterich, Nenkov, and Gonzales (2019). Analysis found no difference in perceived novelty across the experimental conditions (p = .492).

Results

The four brand evaluation items were averaged to form a composite score for each of three outfits (αs ≥ .951). We submitted participants’ evaluations to a 2 (brand country origin: local vs. foreign) × 2 (model origin: local vs. foreign) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with different outfits as the within-subject factor. Results revealed a significant country origin × model origin interaction on brand evaluations (F(1, 115) = 9.67, p = .002, η p 2  = .08). Breaking down the interaction, for the local country origin conditions, outfits worn by perceived foreign-origin models were evaluated more favorably than those worn by perceived local-origin models (M_{local–local} = 4.72, 4.18, 4.90, SD = 1.36, 1.49, 1.34 for each outfit; M_{local–foreign} = 5.57, 4.71, 5.69, SD = 1.09, 1.23, .92 for each outfit; F(1, 115) = 8.79, p = .004, η p 2  = .07). For the foreign country origin conditions, outfits worn by perceived local-origin models were received more favorably than those worn by perceived foreign-origin models, although this difference was not significant (M_{foreign–local} = 5.28, 4.87, 5.34, SD = 1.29, 1.24, 1.36 for each outfit; M_{foreign–foreign} = 5.16, 4.24, 5.02, SD = 1.32, 1.13, 1.06 for each outfit; F(1, 115) = 2.11, p = .15, η p 2  = .02; see Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Study 1: CE Outcomes Based on Local and Foreign Branding Appeals (Country Origin and Presumed Model Origin).

Analyzing the interaction another way, when the outfits were worn by perceived local-origin models, participants judged foreign brand outfits more favorably than local brand outfits (F(1, 115) = 5.31, p = .02, η p 2  = .04). In contrast, when the outfits were worn by perceived foreign-origin models, participants judged local brand offerings more favorably than foreign brand offerings (F(1, 115) = 4.39, p = .04, η p 2  = .04). No other effects were significant (ps ≥ .43). Thus, H₁ was supported.

Discussion

The results of Study 1 supported the proposed coalescence effect as the combination of local and foreign appeals led to higher brand and product evaluations, compared with either local or foreign appeals alone. Importantly, this effect was consistent for both foreign- and local-origin brands. Specifically, pairing either perceived foreign models with local brands or perceived local models with foreign brands resulted in more positive evaluations than pairing perceived foreign models with foreign brands or perceived local models with local brands.

Experimental Design and Procedure

Similar to Study 1, this study employed a 2 (brand country origin: local vs. foreign) × 2 (perceived model origin: local vs. foreign) between-subjects design. One hundred twenty Chinese participants from a large Chinese university (79 female; M_age = 21.18 years, SD = 2.85) completed the study in exchange for monetary payment.

As in the first study, participants were asked to evaluate male and female fashion brand outfits. They were shown brand descriptions of a fictitious brand named Winisa. The manipulations for brand country origin were similar to Study 1. After reading the descriptions, participants viewed three Winisa outfits. Unlike Study 1, to control for product differences and model attractiveness, the outfits in all conditions remained constant, while an Asian model was photo-edited to appear in the perceived local-origin model conditions and a Caucasian model was photo-edited to appear in the perceived foreign-origin model conditions. Both models were pretested and found not to differ in terms of perceived attractiveness. After viewing each outfit, participants evaluated their satisfaction and emotions about the brand using four seven-point items similar to Study 1.

As in Study 1, a separate sample (191 participants) was first exposed to varying brand descriptions and outfits in each condition and then rated the perceived novelty of the Winisa brand and the outfits from the main study, using measures adopted from Winterich, Nenkov, and Gonzales (2019). Results showed that there was no perceived difference in novelty across experimental conditions (p = .579).

Results

The four items of brand evaluation were averaged to form a composite score (αs ≥ .934). We submitted participant evaluations to a 2 (brand country origin: local vs. foreign) × 2 (perceived model origin: local vs. foreign) repeated-measures ANOVA with different outfits as a within-subjects factor. Consistent with our hypothesis, results revealed a significant brand country origin × model origin interaction on brand evaluation (F(1, 116) = 18.30, p < .001, η p 2  = .14). Dissecting the interaction for the local brand origin conditions, participants in the perceived foreign-origin model condition rated the outfits more favorably compared with participants in the perceived local-origin model condition (M_{local–local} = 4.68, 4.71, 4.23, SD = 1.10, 1.23, 1.40 for each outfit; M_{local–foreign} = 4.93, 5.24, 5.02, SD = 1.02, 1.00, .67 for each outfit; F(1, 116) = 8.34, p = .005, η p 2  = .07). In contrast, for the foreign brand origin conditions, participants in the perceived local-origin model condition rated the brands more favorably compared with participants in the perceived foreign-origin model condition (M_{foreign–local} = 5.40, 5.28, 5.02, SD = 1.07, .74, 1.27 for each outfit; M_{foreign–foreign} = 4.73, 4.54, 4.68, SD = 1.13, 1.11, 1.15 for each outfit; F(1, 116) = 10.00, p = .002, η p 2  = .08); see Figure 3). These results support H₁ in that pairing of local brand origin/perceived foreign model or foreign brand origin/perceived local model leads to more favorable brand evaluations compared with all-local or all-foreign combinations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Study 2: CE Outcomes Based on Local and Foreign Branding Appeals (Country Origin and Presumed Model Origin).

Examining the interaction another way, when the brand was worn by the perceived local model, participants evaluated the brand in the foreign brand origin condition more favorably compared with the local brand origin condition (F(1, 116) = 14.44, p < .001, η p 2  = .11). In contrast, when the brand was worn by the perceived foreign model, participants evaluated the brand in the local brand origin condition more favorably compared with the foreign brand origin condition (F(1, 116) = 5.06, p = .03, η p 2  = .04). Additional analyses, including gender (p = .43), age (p = .13), and income (p = .70) as control variables, did not alter any of the reported effects. Further examination revealed no difference on the within-subject factor (p = .18), no main effect of brand country of origin (p = .28), and no main effect of perceived model origin (p = .85).

Experimental Design and Procedure

The study used a 2 (brand country origin: local versus foreign) × 2 (logo design origin: local vs. foreign) between-subjects design. One hundred fifty-three U.S. participants (82 female; M_age = 36.52 years, SD = 12.53) were recruited online via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) in exchange for monetary payment.

Participants were introduced to a fictitious electric car brand, Spectar, and were informed that the brand had launched a new model called Model 3. In the local brand country origin conditions, Spectar was introduced as a U.S.-based company specializing in electric cars. In the foreign brand country origin conditions, participants read the same introduction, except that the company producing Spectar was described as Japan-based. Following the introduction, participants viewed the new Model 3, along with its logo design. In the local logo design condition, participants learned that the part of the logo representing the number 3 was artistic shorthand for the letter E from the brand name Spectar. In the foreign logo design condition, participants read that the shape representing the number 3 in the logo was artistic shorthand for the kanji 三, which means the number 3 in Japanese. In essence, as the participants were U.S.-based, the local appeal was operationalized as having a U.S. origin and an English-inspired logo. In contrast, the foreign appeal was operationalized as having a Japanese origin and a Japanese-inspired logo. After viewing the description of Spectar’s Model 3, participants evaluated the brand using four seven-point items similar to those used in Studies 1 and 2 (α = .88).

Results

As in Study 2, the main effects of brand country origin and logo design origin were not significant, p ≥ .71. Central to our hypothesis, a two-way ANOVA revealed a significant brand country origin × logo design origin interaction on brand evaluation (F(1, 149) = 12.91, p < .001, η p 2  = .08). Breaking down the interaction, in the local brand origin condition, participants rated the brand more favorably when they perceived the logo design to be foreign inspired, compared with locally inspired (M_{local–foreign} = 5.85, SD = .99; M_{local–local} = 5.28, SD = 1.23; F(1, 149) = 5.69, p = .018, η p 2  = .04). In contrast, for the foreign brand origin condition, participants rated the brand more favorably when they perceived the logo design to be locally inspired compared with foreign inspired (M_{foreign–local} = 5.87, SD = .84; M_{foreign–foreign} = 5.16, SD = 1.28; F(1, 149) = 7.23, p = .008, η p 2  = .05; see Figure 4). Additional analyses, including gender (p = .43), age (p = .13), and income (p = .70) as control variables, did not alter any of the reported effects.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Study 3: CE Outcomes Based on Local and Foreign Branding Appeals (Country Origin and Logo Origin).

Discussion

Study 3 validated, as well as extended, the findings in Studies 1 and 2 in several respects. First, it extended the generalizability of the coalescence effect to a different product category (i.e., automobiles). Second, the study successfully replicated the coalescence effect in a developed market sample (i.e., U.S. participants). Last, it employed different operationalizations of the brand appeals. In the next study, we investigate the underlying process that drives this robust effect.

Experimental Design and Procedure

The design of the study was a 2 (brand country origin: local vs. foreign) × 2 (logo design origin: local vs. foreign) between-subjects design. Two hundred thirty-nine U.S. participants (131 female; M_age = 38.86 years, SD = 12.62) were recruited online from a Qualtrics panel in exchange for monetary payment.

As with Study 3, participants were introduced to a fictitious electric car brand, Spectar, and were then informed that the brand had launched a new model called Model 3. The manipulations of brand country origin and logo origin were adapted from Study 3. Participants then evaluated the brand using three seven-point items similar to previous experiments (α = .93). Participants next completed two seven-point items about the perceived brand globalness of the brand (r = .89). Following recommendations in Liu et al. (2021), we used the following items adapted from Mandler, Bartsch, and Han (2020), Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003), and Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube (2012) to measure perceived brand globalness: “SPECTAR is a global brand” and “SPECTAR's new model is a global product.” Participants also answered seven-point items about perceived brand foreignness and localness.

Results

CE outcomes

Consistent with previous experiments, a two-way ANOVA revealed a significant brand country origin × logo design origin interaction on brand evaluation (F(1, 235) = 8.31, p = .004, η p 2  = .03). Specifically, for the local country origin conditions, participants evaluated the focal brand more favorably when they perceived the logo design to be foreign-inspired than local-inspired (M_{local–foreign} = 5.91, SD = .86; M_{local–local} = 5.41, SD = 1.57; F(1, 235) = 4.44, p = .04, η p 2  = .04). In contrast, for the foreign country origin conditions, participants evaluated the focal brand more favorably when they perceived the logo design to be local-inspired than when they perceived it to be foreign-inspired (M_{foreign–local} = 6.02, SD = 1.16; M_{foreign–foreign} = 5.58, SD = 1.28; F(1, 235) = 3.87, p = .05, η p 2  = .02; see Figure 5).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Study 4: CE Outcomes Based on Local and Foreign Branding Appeals (Country Origin and Logo Origin).

Discussion

Study 4 supported H₂ by showing that the coalescence effect is mediated by perceived brand globalness. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the coalescence effect operates through a different process than country of origin and consumer ethnocentrism as we found no support for perceived brand foreignness or localness as mediators.

Experimental Design and Procedure

The design of the study was a 2 (brand country origin: local vs. foreign) × 2 (logo design origin: local vs. foreign) between-subjects design. Three hundred sixteen U.S. participants (171 female; M_age = 40.97 years, SD = 13.87) were recruited online from MTurk in exchange for monetary payment.

As with Studies 3 and 4, participants were introduced to a fictitious electric car brand, Spectar, and were then informed that the brand had launched a new model called Model 3. The manipulations of brand country origin and logo origin were adapted from Study 3. Participants then rated CE consequences with three seven-point items measuring brand evaluation (α = .81), three seven-point items measuring the affection dimension (α = .94), and four seven-point items measuring the activation dimension (α = .89). In addition, four seven-point items gauged self–brand connections (α = .96). Participants then completed five seven-point items about perceived product novelty (α = .88) and two seven-point items regarding perceived brand globalness (r = .81).

Results

Discussion

Study 5 demonstrates that the coalescence effect predicts additional CE outcomes, CBE, and its consequences. In addition, our results demonstrate no difference in perceived novelty in our experimental conditions, supporting the conclusion that the coalescence effect replicated across several experiments was not the result of differences in novelty.

Experimental Design and Procedure

The design of the study was a 2 (brand technological attributes: local vs. foreign) × 2 (brand experiential attributes: local vs. foreign) between-subjects design. Nine hundred thirteen U.S. participants (587 female; M_age = 39.62 years, SD = 12.44) were recruited online from MTurk in exchange for monetary payment.

As with Studies 3–5, participants were introduced to a fictitious electric car brand, Spectar, and were then informed that the brand had launched a new model called Model 3. However, in this study, drawing from industry and academic sources, local and foreign brand elements were manipulated with automobile-related attributes that consumers consider most important when purchasing a car (Armstrong 2018; Grüntges et al. 2021; Kukova et al. 2016). For the brand attributes manipulation, we grouped these factors into two groups: technological attributes (i.e., safety, reliability, fuel efficiency, environmental friendliness) and experiential attributes (i.e., warranty program/customer service, driving comfort, interior design, and exterior design).

Participants first randomly viewed four U.S.-based or four Japan-based technology attributes that characterized Spectar, as noted in the previous paragraph. They then randomly read about four U.S.-based or four Japan-based experiential attributes. Thereafter, participants rated indirect CE outcomes with three seven-point items measuring customer referral, customer influence, and customer knowledge/feedback. Participants then completed two seven-point items regarding perceived brand globalness (r = .75).

Results

Discussion

Study 6 validates the generalizability of the coalescence effect in that it consistently predicts indirect CE outcomes and extends beyond brand appeals to key product attributes. In addition, the study results once again provide consistent support for the proposed framework featuring perceived brand globalness as a robust mediator of various CE outcomes even when the coalescence effect is a result of product attributes as opposed to brand appeals.

Theoretical Contributions and Managerial Implications

The current research applies signaling theory (Caminal and Vives 1996; Spence 1973) to conceptualize the coalescence effect as a novel theoretical perspective on whether and how combining local and foreign brand appeals impacts CE outcomes. Previous research on country-of-origin effects suggests that consumers prefer foreign brands and products that signal global availability (Han 1989; Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993). In contrast, the consumer ethnocentrism literature states that consumer preference for local over foreign brands is due to a need for consistency with self-identity (Shimp and Sharma 1987). With respect to the country-of-origin and consumer ethnocentrism literatures, we provide a different perspective, namely, that a combination of local and foreign appeals leads to higher brand evaluations compared with either a local appeal or a foreign appeal. Therefore, the current research bridges the country-of-origin and consumer ethnocentrism literatures by demonstrating that local and foreign appeals can be combined to have an additive contribution to brand evaluation by signaling information about quality and intent (Stiglitz 2000). The current work differs from previous research in that the coalescence effect is empirically tested and validated in both emerging and developed market samples and thus provides useful managerial insights into how to cultivate an image of globalness to enhance brand value in markets with varying development levels.

Furthermore, the current research addresses an important empirical gap noted in a systematic review of the perceived brand globalness literature by Liu et al. (2021), which showed that an overreliance on cross-sectional survey design limits confidence in the causality of antecedents and the consequences of perceived brand globalness. Results from six experiments presented herein contribute to the literature by offering empirical evidence documenting the causal relationship of the coalescence effect leading to important CE outcomes in both emerging and developed markets.

An additional contribution of the current research is to empirically differentiate between foreignness and globalness. Although prior studies tend to use the two concepts interchangeably (Zhang and Khare 2009) and rarely test them simultaneously, our research shows that they are distinct constructs. Such empirical distinction through experimental results is timely, particularly when local brands in emerging or non-Western markets are becoming increasingly more competitive and higher in quality. In addition, this work theorizes and empirically demonstrates perceived brand globalness as the mediating mechanism underlying the coalescence effect. Specifically, a combination of local and foreign brand appeals leads to heightened perceived brand globalness of the brand, which in turn increases brand evaluation. As mentioned previously, although the perceived brand globalness outcomes have been regularly examined in the branding literature, scant empirical effort has been devoted to identifying antecedents for this construct (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999). The current research therefore advances our understanding of one of the most important constructs in international marketing literature, perceived brand globalness, by identifying novel antecedents.

Finally, in the last two decades, propelled by advancing digital technology (Gupta, Pansari, and Kumar 2018) and strong brand competition (Tuan et al. 2020), consumers’ brand preferences have become increasingly heterogeneous (Zhang 2021). Thus, examining the efficiency and effectiveness of traditional branding strategies in today's changing international markets has never been more important. The current research bridges the literatures on local and foreign branding by testing whether combining local and foreign branding appeals in brand presentations can be beneficial in both developed and emerging markets. Although brand positioning has been studied in either developed or emerging markets, relatively limited research provides converging evidence across developed and emerging markets simultaneously (Liu et al. 2021). Findings from our framework in multiple marketplaces with varying developmental levels therefore enhance theoretical generalizability.

The current research also offers important managerial implications on how to cultivate a successful brand image and enhanced brand globalness in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. As previous research demonstrates (Heinberg, Ozkaya, and Taube 2017), brand positioning is a strategic decision, and companies may choose to change elements of brand presentation to achieve desired outcomes. The current research serves to add to managers’ toolboxes by presenting the coalescence effect as an overarching strategy to build favorable brand impressions through perceived brand globalness. Furthermore, the framework appears promising for application in a major emerging country market (China) and a major developed country market (the United States), enhancing global firms’ likelihood of success by increasing their ability to manage promotional strategy in diverse international markets (Hewett and Bearden 2001). Marketers engaged in global brand management should aim for and design branding strategies with a combination of local and foreign brand elements for their target markets in these countries and possibly others with similar characteristics, rather than focusing solely on either local or foreign brand elements. By employing the coalescence effect in marketing communications or in brand alliances, marketers may stimulate perceived brand globalness and thereby cultivate favorable brand evaluations. Moreover, results show that the coalescence effect applies to local brands and foreign brands alike. Prior studies often regard foreign brands as a synonym for global brands, whereas local brands are considered competitors of global brands. Our research resolves these limitations and empirically demonstrates the effectiveness of using the coalescence effect framework as a guide for managerial decisions.

In today’s increasingly vibrant global brandscape, efficient and effective brand positioning becomes challenging even for the most sophisticated global brands (Guo, Heinberg, and Zou 2019), let alone new brands. The coalescence effect proposed in our research therefore might point to an avenue for brand managers to simultaneously position a new brand in both the home market and other international markets. Unlike hybridization, where consumers’ appreciation of hybrid cultural elements might take time to cultivate, our coalescence effect shows that brand managers can combine foreign and local elements to signal their brands’ competence as well as benevolence, enabling consumers to reduce information asymmetry and uncertainty associated with the brand. Given the stimuli used in our experiments, this branding strategy may work particularly well for new brands or new international markets. Thus, using our coalescence effect's “inside-out” perspective as opposed to the hybridization process’s “outside-in” perspective in considering their brand's identity formation, marketing managers should be able to more effectively communicate the brand positioning as intended and strategically planned (Schroeder 2009).

Limitations and Future Research

The present research incorporates a combination of correlational real-world data and studies with hypothetical and field stimuli to increase the external validity of the findings. However, one limitation of the current research is that we did not demonstrate the effect of the coalescence effect in a field experiment. Future research should explore the causal relationship between brand appeals, brand evaluations, and other CE outcomes with field studies and additional brand categories, such as those that focus on services.

The present research tested the coalescence effect and its underlying mechanism of perceived brand globalness. Furthermore, we tested and ruled out alternative accounts of perceived brand localness and foreignness as potential mediators, thus demonstrating theoretical distinctiveness from predictions based on the country-of-origin and consumer ethnocentrism literatures. However, although we theoretically teased apart the difference between the coalescence effect and the process of hybridization, future research should aim to offer empirical support for the difference between the two theorizations. In addition, although our study used the Western/Eastern juxtaposition, we conjecture that the coalescence effect should apply to any local and foreign element combinations, such as the Chinese/Japanese contrast, and any level of local and foreign elements, such as a foreign/local brand combination (e.g., Hermès/Shang Xia). Future studies should test the range and depth of such coalescence effects. Further, because of the limitations of experimental design, only some aspects of CE were examined. Future research should expand to include experimental tests of other important CE outcomes in international markets (Roy et al. 2018).

In addition, this study employed two countries as representatives of emerging (China) and developed (U.S.) markets. Although the two are highly diverse in terms of culture, political-economic systems, and language—differences that increase confidence in the external validity of the results presented—future research should extend tests of the coalescence effect to other national markets with varying cultures and levels of development to determine whether there are boundary conditions to the coalescence effects identified herein (e.g., Madden, Hewett, and Roth 2000). However, there are limitations in terms of external validity in our experiments (e.g., Study 3) given the desired level of control in experimental settings along with the goal to test for new brand contexts. Specifically, we recognize the need for future research to focus on further establishing external validity of the coalescence effect through additional experimental designs along with other research methodologies.

Furthermore, our studies used two different product categories: fashion and cars. Given the differences between the two, this aspect further enhances confidence in the external validity of the findings. However, only one of the two product categories was featured in each country (fashion in China and cars in the United States). Nonetheless, nothing suggests that fashion and cars are viewed substantially differently by consumers in the two countries. Whereas fashion is generally seen as a hedonic good around the world, cars are typically viewed as having both hedonic and utilitarian attributes. Thus, it is unlikely that the similar results obtained for the different categories in each setting were due to some unidentified interaction of the country and product category. Even so, future research should test for similar effects by reversing the categories used in these national markets and by including additional product categories. Furthermore, future research expanding on the coalescence effect should examine if and when having foreign and local brand appeals may have detrimental effects on CE outcomes.