Country-of-Origin Relationship (CoOR): A Relational Approach to Understanding the Association Between a Multinational Company in Crisis and Its Country of Origin

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothesized model to be tested.

Table 1. Factor loadings, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean and reliability for each survey item (α = Cronbach’s alpha, KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-olkin, M = mean, SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, α = cronbach alpha).

Variable	Survey items	Loading	M	SD	SE
CoOR (interactional bilateralism) α = .726 KMO = .68 Variance explained = 64.60%	South Korea has a mutually beneficial relationship with Australia.	.683	3.61	.807	.036
	(2) South Korea seeks symmetrical pay-gain relationship with Australia.	.64	3.39	.766	.034
	(3) South Korea maintains interactions with Australia for mutually beneficial purposes.	.732	3.62	.855	.038
CoOR (power mutuality) α = 781 KMO = .69 Variance explained = 69.60%	(1) South Korea listens to what Australia says.	.738	3.07	.948	.042
	(2) South Korea considers the interests of Australia when making decisions.	.823	2.88	.949	.042
	(3) South Korea considers the opinions of Australia to be legitimate.	.654	3.28	.925	.041
CoOR (relational trust) α = .796 KMO = .701 Variance explained = 71.70%	(1) South Korea treats Australia fairly and justly.	.733	3.5	.872	.038
	(2) South Korea could be relied on to keep its promises to Australia.	.828	3.44	.907	.04
	(3) South Korea has the ability to accomplish what it says it would do for Australia.	.698	3.45	.904	.04
CoOR (relational satisfaction) α = .772 KMO = .700 Variance explained = 69.84%	(1) South Korea is happy with its relationship with Australia.	.705	3.6	.799	.035
	(2) South Korea prefers maintaining its relationship with Australia than not.	.727	3.82	.819	.036
	(3) South Korea enjoys dealing with Australia.	.754	3.69	.796	.035
CoOR (relational commitment) α = .808 KMO = .687 Variance explained = 72.26%	(1) South Korea invests resources into continuing its relationship with Australia.	.654	3.49	.805	.036
	(2) South Korea maintains a long-term commitment to Australia.	.883	3.6	.86	.038
	(3) South Korea is committed to its relationship with Australia.	.761	3.58	.873	.039
MPRQ (trust) α = .837 KMO = .719 Variance explained = 75.42%	(1) South Korean companies are truthful to people.	.808	3.24	.869	.038
	(2) South Korean companies treat people fairly and justly.	.843	3.2	.9	.04
	(3) South Korean companies keep their promises to people.	.734	3.22	.83	.037
MPRQ (control mutuality) α = .791 KMO = .68 Variance explained = 70.61%	(1) South Korean companies are attentive to what people say.	.673	3.21	.885	.039
	(2) South Korean companies consider opinions of people as legitimate.	.887	3.26	.87	.038
	(3) South Korean companies listen to what people say.	.69	3.2	.869	.038
MPRQ (relational commitment) α = .829 KMO = .802 Variance explained = 66.14%	(1) South Korean companies maintain long-term commitment to people.	.74	3.3	.864	.038
	(2) South Korean companies want to maintain relationship with people.	.834	3.49	.868	.038
	(3) There is a long-lasting bond between South Korean companies and people.	.741	3.35	.853	.038
	(4) It is worthwhile to value our relationships with South Korean companies.	.647	3.62	.856	.038
MPRQ (relational satisfaction) α = .805 KMO = .795 Variance explained =63.06%	(1) South Korean companies meet the needs of people.	.702	3.43	.872	.038
	(2) People are satisfied with South Korean companies.	.722	3.4	.844	.037
	(3) People benefit from our relationships with South Korean companies.	.735	3.57	.883	.039
	(4) People are pleased with our relationships with South Korean companies.	.691	3.41	.843	.037
Conspiracy attribution α = .809 KMO = .712 Variance explained =72.50%	(1) The South Korean company’s top management must have plotted actions secretly behind the scenes to conceal their problem.	.747	3.06	1.025	.045
	(2) This is not the first time for this South Korean company. These data breaches must have happened repeatedly but were not caught.	.737	3.18	.926	.041
	(3) The South Korean company intentionally conspired to use its customers’ data in ways it was not permitted to for business gains.	.816	3.09	.995	.044
Attribution of responsibility α = .753 KMO = .651 Variance explained =66.98%	(1) The issue was caused by an intentional act by the South Korean company.	.783	3.16	.906	.04
	(2) A deliberate act by someone in the South Korean company caused the issue.	.826	3.29	.888	.039
	(3) The issue was caused by a problem inside the South Korean company.	.532	3.47	.819	.036
Negative megaphoning α = .799 KMO = .658 Variance explained =71.39%	(1) As a result of this issue, I am likely to speak negatively about the South Korean retailer.	.583	3.09	1.001	.044
	(2) As a result of this issue, I am likely to speak negatively about all companies from South Korea.	.917	2.68	1.106	.049
	(3) As a result of this issue, I am likely to speak negatively about South Korea.	.778	2.61	1.085	.048
Nationalism α = .694 KMO = .66 Variance explained =62.06%	(1) Australian people are among the finest in the world.	.563	3.62	.992	.044
	(2) Australia should have the biggest say in deciding the future of the Asia Pacific region.	.739	3.2	1.048	.046
	(3) Other countries should try to make their government as much like ours as possible.	.67	3.19	1.055	.047

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Individual-level variables	N	Percent
Age	514
18–20	39	7.6%
21–30	92	17.9%
31–40	96	18.7%
41–50	80	15,6%
51–60	80	15.6%
60 and above	127	24.7%
Gender
Male	253	49.2%
Female Prefer not to answer	259 2	5.4% .4%
Education
Less than high school	27	5.3%
High school graduate	169	32.9%
Some university	85	16.5%
Bachelor’s	136	26.5%
Master’s	48	9.3%
Doctorate	8	1.6%
Other	41	8%
Annual pre-tax income
Less than AUD$30,000	265	51.6%
AUD$30,001–$60,000	97	18.9%
AUD$60,001–$90,000	43	8.4%
AUD$90,001–$120,000	42	8.2%
More than AUD$120,000	32	6.2%
Prefer not to answer	35	6.8%
Political affiliation
Labor	187	36.4%
Liberal	165	32.1%
Greens	53	1.3%
Other	53	1.3%
Prefer not to answer	56	1.9%

Figure 2. Results of the model tested.