China and the Olympics- Views of Insiders and Outsiders

5/14/2018 China and the Olympics- Views of Insiders and Outsiders - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/china-and-the-olympics-views-of-insiders-and-outsiders 1/30

China and the Olympics: viewsof insiders and outsiders

Louise A. HeslopSprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

John NadeauSchool of Business and Economics, Nipissing University,

North Bay, Canada, and

Norm O’ReillyCollege of Human Ecology, David Falk Center for Sports Management,

Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the views of residents and foreigners of theOlympics and the host country before and after the mega-event within the context of marketing theoryon country image effects and psychology theories attribution.

Design/methodology/approach – This is achieved by studying the views of American andChinese respondents of China and the Olympics before and after the Beijing Olympics. Samples of Chinese and Americans were surveyed before and after the Beijing Summer Olympics concerning theirimages of the Olympics, China and its people, and China as a vacation destination. Cross-national andpre-post comparisons are made and interaction effects are noted using MANOVA.

Findings – Significant cross-national and time differences and several interaction effects are foundacross all three focal objects of image measurements. Large country differences are found. Despite howtechnically successful the Games might have looked, post-event assessments are overwhelmingly

lower. Additional differences in views and interaction effects are discussed in terms of the intendedand unintended impacts of the event on local and foreign respondents.

Research limitations/implications – Only one location in China and one foreign country aresurveyed.

Practical implications – The paper has important implications for both the effects of mega-eventson country images and the effects of the host country on the event brand image. These issues haverelevance for countries seeking to host mega-events and those who manage these events and makedecision about where they will be held.

Originality/value – This is the first cross-national study of the Olympics and their effects usingbefore-and-after event measures. It also combines analyses of both the event and the place images fromthe perspectives of both those who live in the country and residents of other countries. Attributiontheory is a useful reference theory for mega-event assessments.

Keywords Country of origin, Sporting events, Olympic games, China

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

This research is funded in part by a research grant from the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada. The authors acknowledge the Capital Institute of PhysicalEducation in Beijing, China for providing support that enabled some of the data collection andthe research assistants who collected the data – Junzhe Xu, Don Lord, Mitchell Crown,Derek Clouatre, Tyler Aird, Chris Pirie, Mike Conroy, and Jeremy Rod.

IMR27,4

404

Received May 2009Revised December 2009,February 2010Accepted February 2010

International Marketing ReviewVol. 27 No. 4, 2010pp. 404-433q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0265-1335DOI 10.1108/02651331011058581



IntroductionThe Olympic Games (the Games) are a mega-event that draws the attention of theworld to the host country. Besides the athletic competitions, the host country holdsparallel cultural events to showcase the culture and accomplishments of the country.

Countries vie enthusiastically for the rights to hold the event for the tourism revenuesand the enhancement of national and international prestige that are expected to flowfrom successfully hosting the event. The 2008 Summer Olympic Games were hosted byChina with athletes competing throughout the country’s capital city, Beijing and inother locations, including Hong Kong. The Olympic Games are most frequently held indeveloped countries because of the infrastructural requirements (venues andaccommodations) for hosting such a large-scale event. Although the Olympic Gameshave rarely been hosted by developing countries, some recent examples of developingcountry hosts include Mexico in 1968, Yugoslavia in 1984, and South Korea in 1988.Despite its massive manufacturing base, China is arguably still regarded by many as anot fully developed country in many respects but one which nevertheless has a huge

economic and manufactured exporting base. China is also noteworthy politicallybecause it is the largest single-party, socialist country in the world and hence can beseen as a showcase of socialist ideology. Therefore, the 2008 Beijing Olympic Gamesrepresent a unique opportunity to assess the image of the mega-event within thecontext of a rapidly developing, non-democratic country host image.

Place images are used by people to understand the complex reality of locations, suchas countries, cities, towns, etc. These images are used in the tourism or destinationcontext to help people make decisions about where to travel (Baloglu and McCleary,1999; Goodrich, 1978; Hunt, 1975; Pike and Ryan, 2004; Tapachai and Waryszak, 2000).These destination images include the beliefs, feelings, and impressions associated with aplace (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). Although place can refer to a city, region or country,or even to smaller locations, such as resorts, or events, this paper reports on the image of

the Olympic Games, as an event and the host at the country level, which is an appropriatelevel of analysis because the country is usually referred to as the host of this mega-event.

The objective of this research, in its simplest form, is to compare the images of the2008 Olympic Games and its host country from an internal and external perspectivebefore and after the Games. This comparison will contribute to assessing the effects forChina of hosting the mega-event and for the Olympics of location in an emergingregion with a non-democratic political system. The image of the Games is critical to theInternational Olympic Committee (IOC) and to other potential host nations.International perceptions of the host country are important in terms of internationalrelations, tourism, product purchasing, and investing decisions. However, the views of the host country’s citizens are also of interest. There are both positives and negativesfor the citizens of the country that hosts the Games. Some benefits may arise frominternal pride in successful hosting, from jobs created in constructing venues, duringthe Games in tourism-related industries, and after the Games if international buyersare more willing to buy products from the country. However, hosting the Games oftencreates controversy internally as neighborhoods or natural sites are bulldozed forvenue creation, resources are diverted from social programs, and massive debts areincurred by governments to fund the hosting tasks.

Since the Olympic Games are a mega-event, hosting it takes years of planning, hugeexpenditures of money, and vast numbers of both paid and unpaid workers. It involves

China and tOlympi

40



major disruptions in the locations where it is staged. For those in the host country,there is substantial hype, national pride, and anticipation in putting on “the show.”For spectators around the world, it is also a focus of interest for months before andespecially during the several weeks in which the Games are held. Media coverage is

intense and overwhelms most other programming. And then it is all over. All thateffort is expected to have some impacts of value to the host country and the Olympics.Therefore, this study examines whether differences exist in the image of China(the country, its people, and as a destination) and the Olympics Games as a mega-eventdestination before and after the Beijing Games took place. This comparison is madefrom the perspectives of both the internal views of the Chinese and the external viewsof Americans. This study will try to answer questions about effects in the context of relevant research and theory about place images, mega-event spillover effects, andattribution theory.

Literature review and hypotheses

Several streams of research underpin this study of the impacts of the Olympic Gameson the host country and the event. Three widely different areas of research wereaccessed in developing the study and exploring results. The first includes the area of place images research, including general research on and theoretical underpinnings of place images, images for developing/emerging nations, images held by residents vsforeigners, specific place images of China, how place images are impacted bymega-events, and the linkages through attribution theory. The second involves themuch more limited area of research on the Olympic Games and their images. All of this research has a contextual framework of China’s motives and goals for hosting theOlympic Games. Most of these two areas of research reside in the business literature.The third area, derived from psychology, is attribution theory and provides the basisfor the bridge between the event and those who host it. Attribution theory explains

how conclusions are drawn about actors from beliefs about their character andperceptions surrounding their actions. It can be used to understand how the hostcountry perceptions can impact perceptions of the mega-event hosted and also howhosting the event can affect perceptions of the host country.

Place imagesImages summarize, standardize, and generalize information from many sources andabout many aspects of the image object, which in the case of this research is a place andan event. Place image research has two major, disparate themes – destination imageand place-product image. The former is interested in the images of places primarilyfrom the perspective of their ability to attract tourist travelers. The second examinesplaces as seen from the perspectives of business and consumer buyers and of businessinvestors. This paper will narrow the view of place images to those of travelers andconsumers, both of which have very large bodies of research with relatively littleoverlap (Nadeau et al., 2008). However, both draw on the theoretical foundations of attitude theory, which is a useful connecting link. Attitudes offer an appropriatetheoretical explanation as to how images influence consumer behavior in that theyare conceptualized to include interconnected sets of three components – cognitions,affects, and conations (Ajzen, 2001). The cognition component is representedthrough the beliefs held about an object; the affect component refers to the emotions

IMR27,4

406



or evaluations concerning the object; and the conation component refers to thebehavioral intentions toward the object (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).

In exploring the tourism context, destination image research often utilizes theattitudinal research framework that has been found to be successful in understanding

destination selection and responses (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). As applied todestination image research, the tri-component attitude approach conceptualizesbeliefs about the natural and built environments, evaluations of the destination, andintentions to visit it. Natural environment beliefs construct has been studied usingmeasures mainly about the scenery and climate (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993). Measuresabout the built environment have included beliefs about quality of shopping, nightlife,and sport facilities (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993). Theevaluation measure has most commonly been an overall assessment of the destination(Reilly, 1990). Travel intention measures have included the destination selection decision(Chon, 1990; Foster and Jones, 2000) and the willingness to recommend the place toothers (Chon, 1991).

Research with consumers and business managers on place images examines theimages of countries/regions/cities beyond the destination decision and most oftenexplores the relationship of place images to decisions about buying products orimporting from the country (designed, branded, manufactured there) or about direct orindirect investing in the country. While early marketing researchers conceptualizedcountry image in a unidimensional manner (Erickson et al., 1984) with an emphasis onbeliefs about products from the country (Han, 1988), more recent studies haveencouraged a multidimensional approach that encompasses a context broader thanfocusing solely on products (Heslop et al., 2004, Laroche et al., 2005). The attitudinalframework is also reflected in research about country/place images (Heslop et al., 2004;Orbaiz and Papadopoulos, 2003). Conceptually, the beliefs about a country and itspeople represent an example of the cognitive component in country image research.

The belief dimensions have been found to involve people character (e.g. likeability,friendliness), country character (e.g. wealth, role in world politics), people competencies(e.g. work ethic, industriousness), and country competencies (e.g. technology level, skilllevel of workers) (Heslop et al., 2004). The evaluation of the people and the place(e.g. enjoy being with, overall rating of the country), and the intentions to purchaseproducts from the place have also been measured (Heslop et al., 2004) and reflectthe affect and conative components of attitudes, respectively. As with destinationimage research, this attitude theory-based approach has been more widely acceptedwith an increasing inclusion of country and people beliefs as foundational to othercountry-related evaluations and responses and successful modeling of country imageuse (Papadopoulos et al., 1988; Knight and Calantone, 2000; Orbiz and Papadopoulos,2003; Laroche et al., 2005).

International variance in country imagesThere is a significant body of evidence from country image research confirming thatdifferences in country images are typical when comparing views from differentcountries because these views are based on experience with the country and its products,historical ties or conflicts, economic ties, cultural associations, geographical proximity,and familiarity. Papadopoulos and Heslop directed the largest cross-national countryimage studies, including an eight-country study of the views of four target countries and

China and tOlympi

40



their products plus the home country and ten years later, repeated the study in15 countries (Laroche et al., 2005; Papadopoulos et al., 2000). The findings from thestudies noted significant differences in how consumers from different countries viewedeven the most well-known countries with the highest levels of exports.

Another dominant theme concerns the differences in views of countries based ontheir level of development. Many studies have explored the negative bias amongconsumers towards developing countries and their products (Gaedeke, 1973; Wang andLamb, 1983; Crawford and Lumpkin, 1993; Kaynak et al., 2000; Jaffe and Nebenzahl,2001; Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002; Wang and Chen, 2004; Heslop et al., 2004;Hamzaoui and Merunka, 2006). It is not hard to understand that the lower levels of technology, manufacturing capacity, and work-related skills in many developingcountries would be the basis of consumers’ more negative views of the countries andtheir products. However, research also indicates not only are people less willing to buyfrom developing countries, but they also report less willingness even to associatewith them. Johansson (1989) posited the reason respondents have biases against

developing countries and hold negative stereotypes is because consumer awareness of the progress lags actual progress of developing countries. There certainly are examplesto show the stereotypes that surround countries can change over time (Papadopouloset al., 1987; Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 2001). This finding has particular relevance in the caseof rapidly industrialized or so-called “emerging” nations, like China.

One of the largest differences in views of a country arises from foreign vs domesticperspectives, which also has many points of intersection with developing countrybiases. Schooler’s (1965) research established over 40 years ago that consumers oftenhold negative biases towards foreign countries, and this bias is related to generalnegative attitudes towards foreign peoples (out-groups vs in-groups). Many othershave confirmed this finding and related it to various causes (Ahmed and d’Astous,1993; Chao, 1993; Cordell, 1992; Heslop et al., 2004; Kaynak et al., 2000; Mohamad et al.,

2000; Tse and Gorn, 1992). The existence of ethnocentrism and associated domesticbias has been suggested by some researchers as a dominant force in country-relatedevaluations accounting for why people rate their own countries and its products overother countries. In fact, if this were the case, even developing countries would rate theircountries more highly than other countries and prefer their own products over those of others. However, previous research indicates that an overwhelming domestic bias doesnot exist. Instead, countries vary in the extent of their domestic bias. In particular, as itrelates specifically to the most developing countries their citizen/consumers often rateother highly developed countries and their products more favorably than their owncountry and what it produces (Krishnakumar, 1974; Heslop and Papadopoulos, 1993;Agbonifoh and Elimimian, 1999; Batra et al., 2000; Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 2001).

A relatively recent stream of research in country images has involved animositybetween countries. Political, military, or economic interactions between countriessometimes are of a negative nature and can lead to correspondingly negative reactionsof the citizens of one country directed toward the offending country, its people, andits products. Klein et al. (1998, p. 90) have defined animosity as “the remnants of antipathy related to previous or ongoing military, political, or economic events” thatare perceived as “grievous and difficult to forgive.” Several researchers (Klein et al.,1998; Shin, 2001; Nijssen and Douglas, 2004; Amine et al., 2005; Ettenson and Klein,2005, Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007; Heslop et al., 2008) have studied the effects

IMR27,4

408



of animosity toward several countries (including, e.g. Germany, Japan, the USA, andFrance) by consumers in a range of countries (including, e.g. the USA, several countriesin Europe and Asia) and the impact of animosity on beliefs about and interest ininteracting with the country. For example, Ettenson and Klein (2005) noted the ongoing

animosity of Australians towards France and reluctance to buy French products due toFrench nuclear testing in the South Pacific in the mid-1990s. Animosity has beenconceptualized as being transient or enduring and arising from a range of causes,especially wars, economic dominance, religious and political differences. Animosity ismanifest by persistent negative biases which are mainly seen in negative attitudes tothe peoples and countries and also to products associated with the country. Woodsideand Chebat (2001) discuss the aversion of Jewish couple to buying a Volkswagen due toongoing animosity towards German treatment of Jews in the Second World War. Suchnegative biases can affect the interpretation of any actions of the disliked country. Thisresearch has relevance in this study because it can assist in interpreting reactions of Americans to China and their hosting of the Olympics.

Views of ChinaThis current study examines the Olympic Games host country image within thecontext of a emerging country host. From an external perspective, China’s status as adeveloping or emerging country suggests that its image would be similar to otherdeveloping countries where a poor image is associated with the country, its people, andits products, as noted above. Specific to China’s image, several studies have confirmedthis general trend indicating that consumers in developed countries do hold a poorimage of products from China (Brunner et al., 1993). Further, there has been a great dealof recent negative publicity for China with regards to its product quality and safety(Rennie, 2008). China has also been criticized in the Western media because of itsCommunist political ideology and over China’s human rights record. This coverage,particularly concerning Chinese occupation of Tibet, intensified as the Olympic Games

approached (Human Rights Watch, 2007).This study also deals with the views of China by one foreign country, the USA. The

USA was China’s biggest customer in 2008, accounting for over 19 percent of Chinaexports in that year (US Department of State, 2009). However, there is an extendedhistory of rising and falling political tensions between the two countries. Relationsbetween China and the USA have varied considerably over the last 35 years. War-relatedanimosity between the USA and China has endured for many decades over Taiwan andKorea. The Korean War and ongoing heated political relations between Chinese-backedNorth Korea and Western-backed South Korea have led to prolonged political tensionsbetween the USA and China. The USA was closely aligned with other Westerncountries in refusing to recognize the People’s Republic of China before 1970 followingChina’s political split with the Soviet Union, its Communist ally. While China-USArelationships have improved, they have frequently been strained over the US armsshipments to Taiwan, Chinese support of the Viet Cong during the war in Vietnam, andnuclear weapons development by China. However, more recently, the AmericanPresident at the time of the Games, George W. Bush, attended the opening ceremonies inBeijing while some other national leaders chose not to be present in the face of international negative reactions to China’s treatment of Tibet (Chase and Laghi, 2008).

This study is also concerned with how the Chinese view their own country and itspeople. As noted above, domestic views of a country may or may not favor home

China and tOlympi

40



country over more developed countries. One factor that likely impacts domestic bias isdifferences in values. China has the world’s highest levels of collectivism values asmeasured by Hofstede (ITIM, 2009). This value would be reflected in high esteem forone’s own nation, sometimes measured as ethnocentrism. Research has indicated

extremely high levels of ethnocentrism in Korea, a close neighbor and ethnically linkedcountry (Diamontopoulos et al., 2001). Therefore, it is not clear whether or not thecitizens of a developing country like China would necessarily rate their country lower,higher, or similar to more developed countries primarily in the Western world.

Research on the internal views of the Chinese towards China’s country image islimited. However, from a tourism perspective, Nyiri (2006) portrays China as acultural destination that includes patriotic education sites, significant celebrity spots(i.e. birthplaces of Confucius and Mao), neighborhoods, views and geographicalformations, buildings, and festivals. In terms of domestic tourism, Nyiri reports thattourism statistics measure only the attendance at state-sanctioned “bounded andcontrolled zones” that provide Chinese cultural education (p. 7). The limited leisureexperience in China is focused on building pride in nation and the accomplishments of the state. Themed cultural centers are carefully scripted as to their messaging so as tosupport the goals of the government to feature the successes of the China nation-state.Built structures are monuments to the greatness and historical unity of the nation.(Nyiri, 2006) Therefore, the role of the Chinese Government is to plan carefully andcontrol tourism experiences in China for both the Chinese and for visitors for thepurposes of Nationalist and Communist government self-promotion.

Country images and mega-events – exposure and attribution theoryWhile the Olympic Games are identified with a major host city, the use of country asthe unit of analysis for place images in the context of the Olympic Games is mostappropriate given the nature of the event. Hosting the Olympic Games means the hostcountry stages a series of sporting, cultural, and hospitality events for the world

through media outlets and through in-person tourist visits. Further, Olympic athletescompete as representatives of their country. Medals are awarded to top performerswith ongoing calculations of country totals and with the broadcasting of nationalanthems for gold medal winners. Therefore, it is clear that country images, for the hostcountry and participants’ countries, represent a salient dimension of this mega-event.

A mega-event, like the Olympic Games, provides the host country with manyopportunities, some involving direct economic impacts (Kasmati, 2003) but other relateddirectly to raising awareness of the host country and positively reinforcing or changingthe attitudes held by the rest of the world about the country, i.e. building and/orenhancing a country brand image (Dolles and Soderman, 2008). The first effect, raisingawareness occurs through the international exposure given the country throughmedia coverage during the bidding and awarding process, in the years leading up to theevent and during the event. Ritchie and Smith (1991) noted the importance of sportmega-events to raise awareness of regions outside their local areas and to increasetourism, although this effect might drop away rather quickly. Wang and Wang (2007)used a content analysis of American media to track the amount and un/favorableness of media coverage South Korea, Spain, Australia, and Greece before and during the yearthey hosted the Olympic Games. Their results generally indicated that media coverageincreased over time and the degree of positivity varied with political, economic, andcultural connection of the country with the USA.

IMR27,4

410



The second effect noted above from hosting an event involves attitude formation,reinforcement, or change in the host country. Attribution theory can be applied tounderstand the process that would predict the impact of hosting an event on the hoststhrough causal inferences. Attribution theory proposes that people draw inferences

from observed behaviors about the characteristics of the actor and the circumstancesthey face. The causes of the actions are perceived to lie within and are attributed to theactor or the conditions in which they acted. The extent to which attribution is made toeach depends on a number of factors including, the consistency of the behaviors withprevious behaviors, the saliency of the cause, the strengths of the beliefs about thecharacteristics of the actor, and the particular motivations of the perceiver (Kelley andMichela, 1980). Therefore, strongly held and highly salient beliefs about the characterof the actor (e.g. stereotypes) that are strongly reinforced by previously observed,patterned behaviors will lead to attribution of the causes of the behaviors to thecharacter of actor, rather than to the circumstances surrounding the behavior. Heineand Buchtel (2009, p. 369) note that:

[. . .

] the tendency to ignore situational information in favor of character-based informationwhen explaining the behaviors of others is so commonly observed that it has been termed the“fundamental attribution error”.

However, when faced with unexpected behaviors that deviate from the normal patternof behavior, rather than alter expectations of character, the deviance will be judged astransient and attributed to the circumstances. Kelley and Michaela (1980) note thatattribution processes are not highly complex:

Given a certain effect, there are suppositions about its causes; given a certain cause, there areexpectations about its effects. As a consequence, explanations can often be given for eventswithout analyzing information in the more complex ways (p. 468).

Therefore, they arise with little conscious thought and are usually not subjected tosignificant consideration or counter-arguing because they are not highly accessiblemental processes. Further, Heider’s (1958) “naive analysis of action” model proposesthat attributions of causality are influenced by the motivations of the perceiver, i.e. theirsubjective needs and wishes. As a result, perceivers attribute their own successes tocharacteristics within themselves but attribute failures to external causes. They alsowill attribute actions of others that could negatively impact themselves to the characterof the actor, rather than the circumstances (Zuckerman, 1979).

Attribution theory has been applied extensively in marketing and of particularinterest here, to studies of country image effects in product assessments (e.g. Shimpet al., 1993 for a particularly insightful approach). More specifically to this study,attribution theory can provide a foundation for understanding the mechanisms at work

in how hosting the Olympic Games can affect images of the nation. Dolles andSoderman (2008) noted that sporting mega-events, like the Olympics, “provide hostnations with a universally legitimate way to present and promote their nationalidentities and cultures on a global scale” (p. 147). General image effects of the sportingevent might have even great longevity through their more fundamental effect onattitudes to the location. Countries and cities invest millions in bidding for the OlympicGames and vie to out-promise each other on the construction of exceptional facilitiesfor housing the athletes and venues for the events. Events like the Olympics can have

China and tOlympi

41



significant impact on places through urban development, facilities that remain after theevent, economic growth, tourism, and even human systems development.

Many developing countries have embraced the hosting of mega-events as a possibleroute to world recognition and reputation enhancement. This is particularly true in the

global scramble to attract the tourist dollar (Lee et al., 2005). For instance, the bid of Cape Town, South Africa for the 2004 Olympics was seen to boost a former apartheidvillain nation onto the world stage as a newly emerging center of economic renewaland betterment (Hiller, 2003). Previous marketing research has shown that the image of the host country can be altered through hosting the Olympic Games. In a study of Israeli opinions after the 1988 South Korean Olympic Games, Jaffe and Nebenzehl(1993) found that hosting the mega-event positively influenced the beliefs of South Korea and willingness to buy their products. This effect was found particularlyfor those who had high exposure to the Olympics. The positive difference in productbeliefs was found in respondents’ knowledge of Korean products, beliefs about productreliability, performance, quality, variety, and pride in ownership (Jaffe and Nebenzahl,1993). However, the study’s conceptualization of country image was limited to theimage of products from the country and did not account for the effects of hosting themega-event on the images of the country and its people. Kang and Perdue (1994)concluded that the Korea experienced long-term tourism gains, especially in the yearfollowing the 1988 Seoul Olympics but estimated as extending possibly as long as adecade after the event. International media coverage is a key factor to capitalize onthese events. What journalists write can have a major impact on how foreigners willview the country (Custodio and Gouveia, 2007). As Wang and Wang (2007) notedAmerican media coverage of the Olympics is more negative when political linkages of America with the host country are characterized by more animosity.

The same processes of attribution theory noted above can account for the process atwork in creating value of the mega-event hosting to raising national pride within the

host country itself. Successful hosting of the event and attracting the eyes of the worldsignals to the host country’s people that their country is worthy of international praise.As will be discussed later, many commentators have suggested that China is as much if not more interested in the value of the Olympics to supporting pride in self (Preuss, 2008).

In conclusion, mega-events, including the Olympics, are widely recognized as beinguseful vehicles for building national pride inside the country and for country’sself-promotion to audiences outside the country (Rivenburgh, 2004). The goal is metthrough media exposure of the country in the lead-up to and during the mega-eventand also through image transfer from a strong mega-event brand to the country imageand brand.

Images of the OlympicsAlthough the image of the host country is of high importance for the Olympic Games,the image of the event itself cannot be ignored. The image of the Olympic Games canbe a powerful one. Indeed, the IOC has acknowledged the importance of the Olympicbrand and has recently attempted to better protect the brand and maximize benefits forcorporate partners (IOC, 1999). Although image-based Olympic research is limited,Olympic organizers have established a resilient image that includes the Olympic rings,National Olympic Committee logos, and other related symbols that are recognizedaround the world (Seguin and O’Reilly, 2008). In addition, there is a self-awareness by

IMR27,4

412



the organization about its image. The IOC has reported that consumers associate theOlympic brand with the desired Olympic values, including peace, festivity, culturalexchange, fair play, equality, tradition, honor, and excellence (IOC, 2001, 2002).

Internal vs external views of China and the OlympicsA primary motivator for China to host the Olympic Games is thought to be theenhancement of its international image (Goodspeed, 2008; Preuss, 2008). The IOC facedmixed responses to the announcement that the 2008 Olympics would be in Beijing.Critics said that China’s human rights abuses and environmental degradation did notentitle it to such an honor, while the more optimistic declared that the Games wouldcreate a new openness and a blossoming of citizen rights in China. On August 8, 2007,

Jacques Rogge, IOC president, proclaimed during the celebrations of the one-yearcountdown to the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, in Tiananmen Square, that the worldwould be watching China and Beijing with great expectations:

China will greet the world with an entirely new image when the Olympics open in August

(2008). Beijing and China will not only host a successful Games for the world’s premierathletes but will also provide an excellent opportunity to discover China, its history, itsculture and its people, with China opening itself to the world in new ways (Gov.cn, 2007).

However, China’s image among its own citizens was also an important consideration forChinese authorities. Some argue the main aim of the Chinese Communist Governmentwas to reinforce its power among its own citizens. Towards both this end and also toenhance its international image, it is reported China acted to control media stories aboutthe country, restrict citizen protests, falsify aspects of the opening ceremonies, placeextreme pressure on its athletes, “stack” the stands with state-organized “cheerers”, andrestrict visas to limit the number of visitors to the Games (Bodeen, 2008; Goodspeed,2008; Foss and Walkosz, 2008; Fram, 2008; Thompson, 2008). The last of these tacticsprovides strong evidence of the country’s preference that foreigners experience the

Olympic Games through their television and other media where images can be bettercontrolled rather than attend the Games in person. Certainly China was interested in thevalue of the Games to increase the image of China as a mature economic player withstrong capabilities in quality production and, as Preuss (2008) put it, change theassociations surrounding “Made in China.”

As noted, hopes were high that the Olympic Games being hosted in China wouldusher in a newera of openness and internationalaccountability on the part of the ChineseGovernment. Some argued since they had sought the world’s focus of attention byhosting the Games, surely this would mean that China wanted to be seen as a fullyrespectable world citizen. There was a general feeling of optimism that the Olympicswould bring greater freedoms for the Chinese people, the media in China, and maybeeven Tibet. China would be putting on its “best face” for visitors; the Games would bespectacular and perfectly executed; pollution in Beijing would be brought under control.It seemed that all things were possible. Given the loftiness of these expectations, it isentirely possible that even a very tightly run, perfectly executed Olympic Games wouldnot provide full satisfaction of the promise. The promise had less to do with the Gamesthemselves but with broader issues around China and its government.

As noted earlier, the purpose of this study is to compare the images of the 2008Olympic Games and its host country from an internal (domestic citizens) and external(foreigner, in this case, Americans) perspective before and after the Games is held

China and tOlympi

41



in order to assess possible effects for China of holding of the event. This is achieved bystudying the views of American and Chinese of China and the Olympics before andafter the Beijing Olympics. Therefore, it is important to note the differences in countryimages in a cross-national context as well as the internal vs external differences.

The preceding discussion has identified the research framework for the current study.The theoretical foundations of attitude and attribution theory are utilized within theconfluence of destination image research, country image research, and cross-nationalstudies of country-based attitudes. These areas will shed light on this unique study of internal and external country images before and after the hosting of a mega-event, the2008 Olympic Games in China.

The research on country image generally supports a domestic bias, although it is notuniversal and not as strong for developing regions. However, the Chinese have a strongcollectivist culture supportive of positive self-perceptions. Therefore, it is expectedthat China will be viewed more positively by the Chinese than by Americans. Since boththe pre- and post-surveys measured perceptions of the Olympic Games in closestproximity to the Beijing Games, it is likely that the China Games will be the most salientreference point for views of “the Olympic Games.” Consequently, we predict the hostcountry respondents will assess the Games more favorably prior to the event because of the great effort they have put into the hosting the Games and cultural pride willpositively affect assessments of the event in post-event measures. Therefore, we makethe following hypothesis:

H1. Views of the Chinese will be more positive than Americans about:

H1a. The Olympic Games.

H1b. The country and people of China.

H1c. China as a destination.

The overall goal of hosting the Olympics is both country and Olympic brand imageimprovement, suggesting that post-event ratings would be higher than pre-eventratings. However, the actual events, incidents, or happenings that occur during theBeijing Olympic Games, both directly involving the execution of the Games and alsomore generally in the country and city hosting the mega-event and attributions of causation of those happenings will provide additional information that may affectassessments of the Games and the host nation in a positive or negative direction.Therefore, the direction of changes cannot be assumed. This will be true for both the hostand foreigners. Therefore, for this study comparing pre- and post-event views wehypothesize:

H2. There will be differences in American views from before to after the Olympic

Games concerning:




H3. There will be differences in Chinese views from before to after the OlympicGames about:

IMR27,4

414






Because of the differential effects of nationalism and possible international animosity,attribution theory suggests there were different interpretations of the outcomes of theOlympic Games hosting. The Chinese can be expected to respond more positively tothe Olympics experience based on their interpretation of their own efforts, motives, andthe level of and the causes of their success than the Americans leading to the finding of an interaction effect of country and time period. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H4. There will be country and period interaction effects for:




MethodologyWe collected data to test the study’s hypotheses using image measures based on aprevious study of country and destination images (Nadeau et al., 2008) and withmeasures from the literature reviewed above. The questionnaire contained sections tomeasure all three components of attitudes towards China as a destination (27 measures),the country and people of China (27 measures), and the Olympic Games as a destination(26 measures). (Exact scale measure names can be seen in the tables in the presentationand discussion of results section.) All image measures responses were made on afive-point scale (1 – low/poor/unknown, 5 – high/good/well known). Demographic

questions were also included to garner information about the respondent’s gender, ageand level of education.

Major cities in the USA and China were selected for sampling. The Chinese samplewas not from Beijing but from a major city in China’s North-Eastern region of thecountry. This approach was used because the study is not focusing on the views of the host city residents and the actually staging of the event in a city has been shown tohave major effects on residents’ views of the Games (Ritchie and Smith, 1990). TheAmerican sample was gathered two months prior to the initiation of the 2008 OlympicGames and two months after the Olympic Games had concluded. Due to timeconstraints, the Chinese sample was collected two weeks prior to the Olympic Gamesand two weeks after the event.

Street- and mall-intercept techniques were employed and consumers were randomlyapproached in busy malls and public parks. These public areas were selected becausethey provide an opportunity to access a broad sample of the population. In exchangefor their time, respondents received a small token of appreciation. University studentswho were fluent in the language of the country (e.g. Chinese students in China) weretrained extensively in the data collection techniques. Also, several members of theresearch team were in the field for supervision. No major problems were encountered indata collection using this technique and the research team has used this approach forother research in many countries. The Chinese sample contained 300 respondents

China and tOlympi

41



in both periods. The American sample included 291 respondents before the Olympicsand 303 after.

In terms of representativeness, samples were generally somewhat younger and morehighly educated than the national average in China because of their urbanicity.

Statistics on Chinese education levels are generally available only on a national level andfor a few major urban centers. They indicate that urban populations and more recentgenerations are much more highly educated than the general population and therefore,an urban sample will be above national education levels. The American sample was alsoslightly higher than national distributions in terms of education level. The use of more upscale populations is common in questionnaire-based studies on country image(Laroche et al., 2003), and it would be expected from street-based intercept that morehighly educated respondents would be willing to complete questionnaires. Samples of pre-post education levels for each country were not significantly different at thea , 0.05 level in China and at the a , 0.07 level in the US education has been found tobe one of the most consistent demographic differentiators in country images (Al-Sulaitiand Baker, 1998; Festervand et al., 1985). Therefore, samples were judged as appropriatefor comparison purposes across time periods. Although matched samples wouldhave been ideal for tracking changes over time, they are generally not used in countryimage research on consumer samples, nor in research on mega-events.

To test the hypotheses, multivariate analysis was performed for scale item setswith model main effects of country of respondent and time period and an interactionterm (country £ period). Given the large number of scale items in each domain area,exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblim rotation was used to determineunderlying constructs. This approach to factor analysis was used because of the belief that factors would not be orthogonal due to their common attitude object and based onprevious country image research models. The resulting factor-based summaryvariables were also analyzed in separate MANOVA analyses to confirm findings of

individual item-based analyses.

Presentation and discussion of resultsThe study contained data from respondents in two countries (China and the USA) attwo different periods (before and after the Olympics) on three distinct attitude objectsmeasured with multiple items to assess different attitude components of:

(1) the Olympics as a destination event;

(2) the country and people of China; and

(3) China as a destination for travelers and tourists.

All three multivariate models examining time period, country, and time-countryinteractions had very high overall F -tests that were significant ata , 0.000. All countrymain effects were also significant ata , 0.000. The results supported previous researchof developing country devaluation by respondents in developed countries (Americanviews of China) and also supported research on domestic biases in images held (Chineseviews of China). Therefore, clear and consistent cross-national differences were seenconfirming H1. The results are suggestive of support of the dominance of home countrybias, but this bias is often not seen in developing and emerging countries. It is seen in thecase of China and supports the notion of cultural value-orientation of collectivism andresulting ethnocentrism of the Chinese. China is somewhat of an anomaly as a country

IMR27,4

416



in terms of development level. It is still considered by some as an emerging nationbecause of its modest per capita income. However, it is a highly industrialized nationwith a rapidly expanding economy. It also has a tradition of national pride and an EastAsian culture characterized by the importance of “face.” Since one of the main purposes

of the Olympics was to raise national pride based on a “show the world” attitude, thisstrong pro-China bias among the Chinese is not surprising.

Country differences were significant not only for views of the people and country of China but also for the Olympics. The USA has hosted the Olympics more frequentlythan any other nation. However, American views of the Olympics as a destinationmega-event held in China were much lower than those of the Chinese. This findingwould be supported by attribution theory and suggests the vulnerability of the eventamong Western viewers (at least those in the USA, the prime media audience for theOlympics) to location effects.

Period effects were also significant overall in all three models, supporting H2 and H3. Most, but not all, individual measure period effects were also significant ata , 0.000. One of the strongest discoveries in the findings was that the main effects of time were consistently negative, i.e. ratings were lower following the event than priorto the event. Despite planned and expected positive image enhancements arising fromstaging of the Olympics and despite the logistical success of the events, both Americanand Chinese responses were more negative after the Olympics in almost all measures.

Finally, all models revealed several country £ period interaction effects providinginitial support for H4. However, interactions at the individual measure level were limitedand will be examined in the construct sections. The next three sections present theresults for each of the construct areas – the Olympic Games, the country and people of China, and China as a destination.

The Olympics as a destination

Table I presents the mean values for all the measures of the Olympics event as adestination. In this table and all following, the second column presents the name of therating scale, the third to sixth columns give the mean ratings pre- and post-event forthe two countries, the seventh column indicates those scales having significantcountry £ time interaction effects and the last column indicates the nature of theinteraction. As noted above, the multivariate model was highly significant and all maineffects of country and time period were significant. These results confirm H1a, H2a,and H3a. Ratings of Chinese respondents were consistently much higher than those of Americans. The greatest differences were on the issues of safety and peacefulness of the Games and also ease of attending.

Measures with the lowest levels of divergence between respondents in the twocountries were the entertainment, memorability, and originality of the Games, and alsotheir worthiness and the overall event ratings. Large inter-country differences persistedafter the event and actually increased for almost all measures. The only gap whichnarrowed following the Games was for the measure of culturally interesting. Thesefindings provide an initial indication of the failure of the Chinese games as executed tomeet the fundamental interests of the IOC in maintaining and increasing the value of theOlympics brand image. Despite general acknowledgement that the Games were runsmoothly and that significant athletic achievements occurred there, the responses of both citizens of the country in which they were held and of those in the most desirable

China and tOlympi

41



T h e U S A

C h i n a

N o .

I n d i v i d u a l m e a s u r e s o

f t h e O l y m p i c s e v e n t *

P r e n ¼

2 9 1

P o s t n ¼

3 0 3

P r e n ¼

3 0 0

P o s t n ¼ 3

0 0

I n t e r a c t i o n ( c o u n t r y * t i m e )

I n t e r a

c t i o n d i r e c t i o n

1

V a l u e f o r m o n e y

3 . 6 5

3 . 2 8

4 . 6 7

4 . 5 2

0 . 0 5 4

U S g r

e a t e r d e c l i n e

2

E a s e o f g e t t i n g a r o u n d

3 . 4 7

3 . 1 1

4 . 6 5

4 . 5 1

0 . 0 3 6

U S g r


3

P e a c e f u l

3 . 3 6

2 . 9 2

4 . 7 6

4 . 6 1

0 . 0 0 9

U S g r


4

F o r t h e w h o l e f a m i l y

3 . 8 0

3 . 3 7

4 . 7 5

4 . 6 1

0 . 0 1 2

U S g r


5

S a f e t y

3 . 4 7

2 . 9 7

4 . 7 7

4 . 5 6

0 . 0 0 9

U S g r


6

E a s e o f a t t e n d i n g

3 . 0 6

2 . 7 0

4 . 6 6

4 . 4 9

n s

7

Q u a l i t y o f s e r v i c e

3 . 7 3

3 . 5 0

4 . 7 6

4 . 5 7

n s

8

A t t r a c t i v e f a c i l i t i e s

3 . 9 6

3 . 8 8

4 . 7 4

4 . 5 4

n s

9

V a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s

4 . 0 3

3 . 8 9

4 . 7 2

4 . 5 7

n s

1 0

O r i g i n a l i t y o f e x p e r i e n c e

4 . 1 5

3 . 9 6

4 . 6 7

4 . 5 5

n s

1 1

C u l t u r a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g

4 . 1 3

4 . 0 3

4 . 8 3

4 . 6 5

n s

1 2

E n t e r t a i n m e n t

4 . 1 9

4 . 0 1

4 . 6 6

4 . 4 8

n s

1 3

M e m o r a b i l i t y o f e x p e r i e n c e

4 . 2 6

4 . 0 3

4 . 6 9

4 . 5 1

n s

1 4

E a s e o f fi n d i n g s o m e t

h i n g o f i n t e r e s t

3 . 8 9

3 . 7 4

4 . 6 8

4 . 5 7

n s

1 5

O v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n

3 . 8 7

3 . 6 8

4 . 7 7

4 . 5 6

n s

1 6

L i k e a b i l i t y

4 . 1 0

3 . 9 5

4 . 7 7

4 . 6 2

n s

1 7

A t t r a c t i v e

4 . 1 5

3 . 9 9

4 . 7 6

4 . 6 6

n s

1 8

W o r t h y

4 . 1 3

3 . 8 4

4 . 7 7

4 . 6 5

n s

1 9

O v e r a l l r a t i n g

4 . 2 1

4 . 0 1

4 . 8 0

4 . 6 9

n s

2 0

R a t i n g c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r e v e n t s

4 . 1 5

3 . 8 7

4 . 7 9

4 . 6 9

n s

2 1

W i l l i n g n e s s t o t r a v e l

3 . 6 5

3 . 2 1

4 . 8 0

4 . 7 2

0 . 0 2 7

U S g r


2 2

W i l l i n g n e s s t o w a t c h

o n T V

3 . 9 6

3 . 9

9

4 . 5 7

4 . 5 6

n s

2 3

W i l l i n g n e s s t o r e a d a b o u t

3 . 6 0

3 . 6

3

4 . 7 1

4 . 6 8

n s

2 4

W i l l i n g n e s s t o r e c o m m

e n d t o f r i e n d s

3 . 8 3

3 . 7 6

4 . 7 5

4 . 7 6

n s

2 5

K n o w l e d g e o f t h e O l y

m p i c s

3 . 8 3

3 . 5 6

4 . 7 0

4 . 6 1

n s

2 6

P r o u d t o v i s i t

3 . 9 8

3 . 5 3

4 . 8 1

4 . 7 2

0 . 0 0 2

U S g r


S u m m a r y f a c t o r s ( i n c l u d e d i n

d i v i d u a l m e a s u r e s b a s e d o n E F A o b l i m ) *

O l y m p i c s e v e n t p e r f o r m a n c e

( 1 - 6 )

3 . 4 5

3 . 0 5

4 . 7 0

4 . 5 4

0 . 0 0 6

U S g r


O l y m p i c s e v e n t e x c i t e m e n t ( 7 - 1 4 )

4 . 0 3

3 . 8 9

4 . 7 1

4 . 5 5

n s

O l y m p i c s e v e n t e v a l u a t i v e r e s p o n s e ( 1 5 - 2 4 )

3 . 9 4

3 . 7 8

4 . 7 5

4 . 6 5

n s

N o t e s : S i g n i fi c a n t a t : * p ,

0 . 0 5 ; s c a l e e n d p o i n t s w e r e l o w - h i g h , e x c e p

t f o r i t e m s 4 , 1 2 , 1 9 , a n d 2 0 , w h i c h w e r e p o

o r - g o o d . O v e r a l l M A N O V A F ¼

1 9 7 4 . 1 2 ( a

,

0 . 0 0 0 ) . A l l

m a i n e f f e c t s o f c o u n t r y w e r e s i g n i fi c a n t a t a

¼

0 . 0 0 0 f o r i n d i v i d u a l a n d s

u m m a r y m e a s u r e s . A l l p r e - p o s t e f f e c t s f o r i n d i v i d u a l a n d s u m m a r y m e a s u r e s w e r e s i g n i fi c a n t e x c e p t

f o r i t e m s 2 2 - 2 4 . K n o w l e d g e o

f t h e O l y m p i c s a n d p r o u d t o v i s i t d i d n o t

l o a d w i t h a n y f a c t o r a n d w e r e o m i t t e d f r o m s u m m a r y f a c t o r s

Table I.Comparison of measuresof Olympic Games asa destination pre- andpost- Olympics in theUSA and China

IMR27,4

418



audience nation were negative. Post-event ratings of the Games were significantly lowerthan pre-event ratings.

Country-time interaction differences were observed for seven scale items (value formoney, ease of getting around, peaceful, for the whole family, safety and willingness to

travel to the Olympics), providing partial support for H4a. In all cases, the declinefollowing the Games was greater for American respondents. Despite the massiveefforts of the Chinese military to ensure there were no terrorism incidents to marthe Games, and despite there being none, Americans did not see the environment assafe and their concerns were higher after the Games. It may be that the omnipresenceof the military, as opposed to non-military security common in North America, mayhave heightened the concern for personal safety and for the appropriateness of thepresence of children and families in such an environment.

EFA with oblique rotation was used to determine the initial underlying factors in theset of scales. This analysis revealed three factors. Summary factor measures werecreated through equal-weighted combining of the component item measures as listed in

the last three rows of Table I. The component items in each summary factor areindicated by a number following the factor name. The first factor was named Olympicevent performance and included items dealing with the overall safety, appropriatenessfor families, ease of attending and getting around, and value for money. This factor wasthe only one to have a significant interaction effect in that ratings suffered a greaterdecline between pre- and post-event measures for respondents in the USA than in China.This would be expected, since almost all the component items had similar interactioneffects. The second summary factor was labeled Olympic event excitement, because thecomponent items dealt with memorability, originality, interesting things to do, etc. Thethird was Olympics event evaluative response, which included overall evaluativemeasures (satisfaction, worthy), as well as pride and willingness to engage in variousways with the Olympics. All three had significant time and respondent country effects

but only the first had interaction effects.Overall, China’s hosting of the Games does not appear to have been an unmitigated

success in terms of the Olympic Games brand image enhancement. The event was by allappearances flawlessly executed; the opening ceremonies were spectacular; the eventvenues were engineering and design wonders; the stands were usually filled withcheering people; there were no incidents of terrorism; the events were held withoutdelays, confusions, or significant mistakes; and even the weather was manipulated tocreate optimal conditions. However, the military were very present in Beijing and at thesites; the opening ceremonies were deceptive in several ways (e.g. with regards to thechild who sang a song, the fireworks display that was televised); the stands were oftenheavily populated by Chinese fans who were trained in cheering by the government;many foreigners were unable to get access to the country; hotels were underbooked;Chinese who applied to protest in a designated venue were jailed; and the torch relay wasinterrupted in many countries by activists for Tibet liberation. So, while all controllableswere controlled, the overall feeling was hardly positive, both for the Chinese themselvesand for foreigners, such as those in America. Flawlessness and achieving it have adownside. In fact, the flawless execution could be interpreted by some outsiders as moreindicative of and attributed to the control exercised by the government over its citizens.

Although we have no direct measures of views of athletic performances, it ispossible for Americans that considerable disappointment in the event could also

China and tOlympi

41



have arisen from the overwhelming success of Chinese athletes. Some controversysurrounded some female gymnasts and whether they were actually underage withgovernment-manipulated birth certificates. Also, the murder of an American volleyballcoach by a Chinese man may have left considerable underlying animosity towards the

Chinese organizers and government. Attribution theory would support thetransference of the negative feelings to the event itself, resulting in lower ratings of the Olympic Games, particularly if Olympic officials were blamed for not enforcing therules properly. Even more interesting is the finding that the Chinese did not respondmore positively, despite the top place finish of China’s athletes. Apparently, it was abitter-sweet victory. Promises of new openness and freedoms were not realized and thisfailure to deliver on the expectations of the IOC and others, both within and outsideChina, may have been responsible for lower post-event assessments of the Olympicswith spillover effects to the other related attitude objects, particularly China itself, butnot its people.

The Country and people of ChinaIf the Games did not gain from their execution in China, did China and its peopleenhance their image in their own eyes and in the eyes of the rest of the world as theresult of hosting the Olympics? Table II presents the results of the 27 items used to ratethe country and its people before and after the event. The overall MANOVA resultsand main effects were highly significant supporting H1b, H2b, and H3b. As with theOlympic Games themselves, the country-people scale items showed large negativedifferences between the USA and Chinese respondents and negative changes from pre-to post-Olympics measures. Before the event, American respondents’ ratings showedthe largest negative differences from Chinese ratings on the country characteristics of individual rights and freedoms, political stability, alignment of China with the USAand the Chinese characteristics of trustworthiness, as well as knowledge of and the

overall rating of China. After the event, the largest gaps still included the country onesand in addition, environment pollution controls and quality of life. However, the gapson personal characteristics of the Chinese declined. In fact, the views of Americans of the industriousness and courteousness of the Chinese, as well as attraction with theirculture and enjoyment being with them actually rose following the event. Therefore,hosting the event seems to have left positive impressions of the Chinese peoplethemselves on Americans. However, all of the views of the Chinese about themselvesand their country showed declining mean ratings. Interaction effects were numerous,as indicated in Table II in the final column. In all cases, the declines between thetwo measurement times were greater for the Chinese. As noted above, in some cases,the American views did actually rise or remained unchanged (honesty), butthose of the Chinese declined. Although H4b predicted interaction effects, those foundwere contrary to what could have been expected, i.e. more positive increases by theChinese in views of themselves than the Americans. The Americans attributed Chinesebehaviors in a positive light and attributed these behaviors to the Chinese themselves,rather than to the circumstances, as would be expected from attribution theory.

EFA indicated three underlying factors. The first was termed people characterbecause it includes the items that describe the characteristics of the people themselves(e.g. trustworthiness, friendliness). The second has been labeled as country-peoplecompetence involves scale items of both the people and the country that indicate ability

IMR27,4

420



T h e U S A

C h i n a

N o . I n d i v i d u a l m e a s u r e s o f t h e p e o p l e a n d c o u n t r y o f C h i n a *

P r e n ¼

2 9 1

P o s t n ¼

3 0 3

P r e n ¼

3 0 0

P o s t n ¼

3 0 0

I n t e r a c t i o n ( c o u n t r y * t i m e ) I n t e r a c t i o n d i r e c t i o n

1

L i k e a b i l i t y o f p e o p l e

3 . 1 5

3 . 2

8

4 . 6 2

4 . 4

4

0 . 0 0 9

U S "

v s C h i n a #

2

F r i e n d l i n e s s

3 . 0 9

3 . 1

4

4 . 7 3

4 . 5

7

3

T r u s t w o r t h i n e s s

3 . 0 4

3 . 0 1

4 . 7 0

4 . 5

3

0 . 0 4 3

C h i n a g r e a t e r d e c l i n e

4

H e l p f u l n e s s

3 . 1 0

3 . 1

1

4 . 7 3

4 . 5

8

5

C o u r t e o u s

3 . 1 0

3 . 2

6

4 . 6 7

4 . 5

6

6

H o n e s t

3 . 1 9

3 . 1 9

4 . 6 6

4 . 5

2

0 . 0 1 5

U S $

v s C h i n a #

7

F a s c i n a t i n g

3 . 4 8

3 . 6

3

4 . 6 3

4 . 5

3

0 . 0 3 3

U S "

v s C h i n a #

8

A p p e a l i n g c u l t u r e

3 . 5 9

3 . 5 8

4 . 6 6

4 . 5

0

9

E n j o y i n g b e i n g w i t h p e

o p l e

3 . 0 8

3 . 1

8

4 . 5 7

4 . 3

9

0 . 0 2 0

U S "

v s C h i n a #

1 0

K n o w l e d g e o f c o u n t r y

2 . 8 8

2 . 9

1

4 . 6 0

4 . 4

2

1 1

I n d i v i d u a l i t y * *

3 . 0 2

2 . 6 0

3 . 0 2

2 . 9

9

1 2

I n d u s t r i o u s n e s s

3 . 6 3

3 . 8

2

4 . 2 5

4 . 0

4

0 . 0 0 1

U S "

v s C h i n a #

1 3

E d u c a t i o n l e v e l

3 . 7 4

3 . 5 9

4 . 2 4

4 . 1

3

1 4

W e a l t h

3 . 2 1

2 . 9 7

3 . 9 2

3 . 8

6

1 5

W o r k e t h i c

3 . 8 7

3 . 9

5

4 . 5 0

4 . 4

1

1 6

S k i l l l e v e l o f w o r k e r s

3 . 3 5

3 . 3

8

4 . 4 4

4 . 2

5

1 7

T e c h n o l o g y l e v e l

3 . 8 2

3 . 7 8

4 . 4 2

4 . 3

1

1 8

S t a b i l i t y o f e c o n o m y

3 . 3 0

3 . 2 1

4 . 4 3

4 . 2

8

1 9

A v a i l a b i l i t y o f s k i l l e d w

o r k e r s

3 . 4 4

3 . 4 2

4 . 4 6

4 . 2

7

2 0

P o l i t i c a l s t a b i l i t y

2 . 7 7

2 . 5 9

4 . 5 1

4 . 3

7

0 . 0 1 8

U S g r e

a t e r d e c l i n e

2 1

Q u a l i t y o f l i f e

2 . 9 8

2 . 6 8

4 . 3 5

4 . 2

6

2 2

R o l e i n w o r l d p o l i t i c s

3 . 2 0

3 . 1 5

4 . 5 3

4 . 3

4

2 3

E n v i r o n m e n t a l p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l s

2 . 7 8

2 . 0 8

4 . 3 8

4 . 2

2

0 . 0 0 0

U S g r e


2 4

I n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s a n d f r e e d o m s

2 . 5 1

1 . 9 7

4 . 4 8

4 . 3

5

0 . 0 0 1

U S g r e


2 5

A l i g n m e n t w i t h o w n c o

u n t r y

2 . 7 0

2 . 3 0

–

–

–

2 6

O v e r a l l r a t i n g o f c o u n t r y

3 . 1 9

3 . 0 5

4 . 6 3

4 . 4

6

2 7

O v e r a l l r a t i n g c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r s

2 . 9 9

2 . 7 5

4 . 6 2

4 . 4

7



P e o p l e c h a r a c t e r ( 1 - 1 0 )

3 . 1 6

3 . 2 3

4 . 6 6

4 . 5

0

0 . 0 1 1

U S "

v s C h i n a #

C o u n t r y - p e o p l e c o m p e t e n c e (

1 2 - 1 9 )

3 . 5 4

3 . 4 9

4 . 3 4

4 . 1

9

0 . 2 8 9

C o u n t r y p o l i c i e s ( 2 0 - 2 5 )

2 . 8 0

2 . 4 7

4 . 4 5

4 . 3

2

0 . 0 2 5

U S g r e


N o t e s : S i g n i fi c a n t a t : * p , 0 . 0 5 ; * * a #

0 . 1 0 ; s c a l e e n d p o i n t s w e r e l o w - h i g h , e x c e p t f o r i t e m s 1 4 , 2 2 , 2 6 , a n d 2 7 , w h i c h w

e r e p o o r - g o o d a n d 2 3 a n d 2 4 , w h i c h w e r e f e w

- m a n y . O v e r a l l

M A N O V A F ¼

1 , 5 0 4 . 3 5 ( a ,

0 . 0 0 0 ) . A l l m a i n e f f e c t s o f c o u n t r y a n d p r e - p o s t w e r e s i g n i fi c a n t a t a

¼

0 . 0 0 0 . I t a l i c v a l u e s i n d i c a t e a n i n c r e a s e f r o m p r e - e v e n t m e a s u r e s , b u t n o n e i s

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i fi c a n t l y h i g h

e r . I n d i v i d u a l i t y d i d n o t l o a d o n a n y f a c t o r a n d w a s o m i t t e d f r o m s u m m a r y f a c t o r s . T h e a l i g n m e n t i t e m i s n o t r e l e v a n t f o r C h i n e s e

r e s p o n d e n t s

TableComparison of measuof people and country

China pre- and pOlympics in the USA

Ch

China and tOlympi

42



to work effectively, such as skills and abilities of the people (education, work ethic) andof the country (stable economy, wealth, technology level). The final factor is calledcountry policies and includes measures of the political orientations, freedoms andrights of the people, environment laws, role in world politics, and alignment with the

respondent’s home country (the USA). This factor also includes the quality of lifemeasure, suggesting that Americans evaluation of this foundational assessment of acountry rests, in the case of China, in its political policies and processes.

The results suggest a rather disastrous outcome if, as stated by many commentators,the main purpose of the hosting the Games was to convince the Chinese peoplethemselves of their government’s greatness through the accomplishments of theircountry (Buckley, 2008). If this was indeed a goal, then it does not appear to have beenrealized. Furthermore, the key objective for most countries in attracting the Olympics,especially developing and emerging nations, is to enhance the views of foreigners of their country. Apparently, this did not happen for China, at least in the case of Americans for whom it was the most-watched event in US television history and whoformed the largest foreign viewing audience of the Games (Herbert, 2008).

China as a vacation destinationMost Olympic bid teams convince their own governments to support the bid by claimsof dramatic tourist incomes associated not only with visitors to the Games but alsowith long-term spillovers to increases in tourism before and following the event itself.The idea is that the increased publicity of being associated with the Olympics makesthe country an “It” country for tourists to visit. In contrast to policies to encouragetourism in other Olympics Games hosting countries, there were reports that foreignvisitors were either not encouraged to come or actively discouraged from coming toensure the security of the Games. However, in the longer term attracting tourists toChina, as a country as opposed to the Olympics in Beijing, would still be a positive

outcome for China.Table III presents the results of pre- and post-event measures in the two countries

concerning the beliefs and responses to China as a vacation destination. MANOVArevealed main effect, country effect, and pre-post effect significance with high F -testsproviding support at the general level for H1c, H2c, and H3c. However, individual itemtime-based differences were not significant for 11 of the 27 measures, suggesting lessmovement in this area and only limited support for H2c and H3c, i.e. the holding theOlympic Games seems to have had less impact in this area than in views of the Gamesor the country and its people. Again, ratings by Americans were well below those of the Chinese, in support of H1c. In fact, the gaps were larger in this area than in theothers. This is probably the result of proximity and familiarity of residents of thecountry vs foreigners who have never visited or even considered visiting it. However,international media coverage of the Olympic Games was wide ranging and frequentlyincluded significant coverage of many of the major destination highlights of China.

What is somewhat encouraging is revealed in the interaction effects. There werefive scales for which views of Americans actually rose following the Olympics(originality, culturally interesting, memorability, ease of finding places of interest, andoverall rating as a destination). These scales are underlined in the table, and the firstthree noted are statistically significant and are bolded in support of H3c. China’sforeign visitor destination image strengths, as evidenced by the highest pre-event

IMR27,4

422



T h e U S A

C h i n a

N o . I n d i v i d u a l M e a s u r e s o f

C h i n a a s a v a c a t i o n d e s t i n a t i o n *

P r e n ¼

2 9 1

P o s t n ¼

3 0 3

P r e n ¼

3 0 0

P o s t n ¼

3 0 0

I n t e r a c t i o n ( c o u n t r y £

t i m e ) I n t e r a

c t i o n d i r e c t i o n

1

Q u a l i t y o f s e r v i c e * *

3 . 3 4

3 . 1 8

4 . 4 8

4 . 2

3

2

V a l u e * *

3 . 4 7

3 . 2 5

4 . 4 1

4 . 2

4

3

A m o u n t o f w i l d e r n e s s

3 . 2 6

3 . 1 8

4 . 2 8

4 . 2

9

4

S p o r t s f a c i l i t i e s

3 . 2 6

3 . 1 9

4 . 3 2

4 . 1

7

5

E a s e o f g e t t i n g a r o u n d

3 . 0 6

2 . 9 5

4 . 3 5

4 . 1

8

6

E a s e o f fi n d i n g p l a c e s o f i n t e r e s t

3 . 2 5

3 . 3

2

4 . 4 5

4 . 2

8

7

A c c o m m o d a t i o n

3 . 2 9

3 . 2 3

4 . 3 8

4 . 2

2

8

R e s t a u r a n t s

3 . 2 4

3 . 2 4

4 . 3 7

4 . 2

1

9

C l i m a t e

3 . 3 8

3 . 2 1

4 . 3 0

4 . 2

1

1 0

P e a c e f u l * *

3 . 0 4

2 . 8 9

4 . 6 0

4 . 4

1

1 1

F o r t h e w h o l e f a m i l y

2 . 9 7

2 . 8 3

4 . 5 7

4 . 4

1

1 2

S a f e t y * *

2 . 8 3

2 . 6 3

4 . 5 9

4 . 4

3

1 3

Y o u r k n o w l e d g e o f C h i n a

2 . 7 6

2 . 7 6

4 . 5 6

4 . 3

7

1 4

S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h * *

3 . 3 5

3 . 2 0

4 . 5 7

4 . 3

8

1 5

A t t r a c t i v e s c e n e r y

3 . 8 3

3 . 8 3

4 . 5 2

4 . 4

1

1 6

V a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s

3 . 6 1

3 . 6 0

4 . 4 4

4 . 2

5

1 7

O r i g i n a l i t y o f e x p e r i e n c

e

3 . 9 1

3 . 9 7

4 . 4 3

4 . 1

9

0 . 0 1 5

U S "

v s C h i n a #

1 8

C u l t u r a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g

3 . 9 6

4 . 1 5

4 . 6 3

4 . 4

1

0 . 0 0 0

U S "

v s C h i n a #

1 9

E n t e r t a i n m e n t

3 . 7 5

3 . 7 2

4 . 3 4

4 . 2

8

2 0

S h o p p i n g f a c i l i t i e s

3 . 5 9

3 . 4 2

4 . 3 6

4 . 2

8

2 1

M e m o r a b i l i t y o f e x p e r i e n c e

3 . 9 1

4 . 0 2

4 . 4 6

4 . 3

0

0 . 0 3 1

U S "

v s C h i n a #

2 2

P r o u d t o v i s i t

3 . 4 9

3 . 3 6

4 . 5 9

4 . 4

4

2 3

W i l l i n g n e s s t o t r a v e l t o

3 . 1 9

3 . 1 6

4 . 6 2

4 . 4

3

2 4

W i l l i n g n e s s t o r e c o m m e n d

3 . 1 4

3 . 0 9

4 . 6 9

4 . 4

7

2 5

O v e r a l l r a t i n g

3 . 2 5

3 . 3

1

4 . 6 9

4 . 5

7

2 6

O v e r a l l r a t i n g c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r c o u n t r i e s

2 . 9 5

2 . 8 5

4 . 7 1

4 . 6

5

2 7

T o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n s

3 . 3 1

3 . 1 9

4 . 3 9

4 . 2

8



D e s t i n a t i o n p e r f o r m a n c e ( 1 - 1

4 )

3 . 1 9

3 . 0 7

4 . 4 2

4 . 2

9

n s

D e s t i n a t i o n e x c i t e m e n t ( 1 5 - 2 1 )

3 . 8 3

3 . 8 3

4 . 4 3

4 . 3

1

n s

D e s t i n a t i o n e v a l u a t i v e r e s p o n s e ( 2 2 - 2 6 )

3 . 2 3

3 . 1 2

4 . 6 5

4 . 1

5

n s

N o t e s : S i g n i fi c a n t a t : * p ,

0 . 0 5 ; s c a l e e n d p o i n t s w e r e l o w - h i g h , e x c e p t f o r i t e m s 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 1 , 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 5 a n d 2 6 ,

w h i c h w e r e p o o r - g o o d a n d 2 7 , w h i c h w a s

u n k n o w n - w e l l

k n o w n . O v e r a l l M A N O V A F

¼

1 , 3 5 1 . 3 7 ( a ,

0 . 0 0 0 ) . A l l m a i n e f f e c t s o

f c o u n t r y w e r e s i g n i fi c a n t a t a

¼

0 . 0 0 0 , b u t o n l y i t e m s i n d i c a t e d w i t h * * h a d s i g n i fi c a n t p r e - p o s t

e f f e c t s . O v e r a l l i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s a r e s i g n i fi c a n t a t a

¼

0 . 0 0 2 . V a l u e s i n i t a l i c s i n d i c a t e a n i n c r e a s e f r o m p r e - e v e n t m e a s u r e s a n d b o l d e d o n e s a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i fi c a n t l y

h i g h e r . T o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n s d i d n o t l o a d o n a n y f a c t o r a n d w a s o m i t t e d

f r o m t h e s u m m a r y f a c t o r s

Table Comparison of measu

of China as a vacatdestination pre- and pOlympics in the USA

Ch

China and tOlympi

42



measures, are in the same areas of originality, memorability, and culturally interesting.The Olympics did enhance these characteristics but did not grow China’s destinationimage in any new dimensions.

EFA produced three factors as noted in Table III. The first is destination

performance and parallels in composition the same performance-based factor in theOlympics event measures set. This factor also includes aspects of both the built andnatural environments that help make the vacation run smoothly, e.g. accommodations,restaurants, climate, and service quality. The second has been termed destinationexcitement and includes three of the items for which interaction effect were found.Despite the higher level of three of the seven component measures for Americans afterthe event than before, the interaction effect was not significant for this summary factor.The final factor, destination evaluative response, includes four items that trackwillingness to engage with the destination and overall evaluations of it.

Conclusions

This study is unique in measuring and comparing country and event images beforeand after the event is held in domestic and foreign countries. Although the study didnot use matched-sample methods that would have allowed a greater ability to controlfor individual-based variance, it would not have provided complete insight as to theexact causes of event-induced changes. There is always the need to extrapolate andspeculate about what specific aspects of such a highly complex event would be thebasis of the findings. This is the reality with what is essentially a field experimentwhere not all aspects are controllable and amenable to manipulation by the researcher.In this section, we suggest some possible reasons for the results observed in the dataand draw on multiple sources for support for the proposals we make as to possiblecircumstances that might explain these results. However, of course, there is room foralternate explanations that may, in some cases, be addressable in future research.

Hosting the Olympics Games is a highly desired mega-event “plum.” Countriesspend millions of dollars and create huge marketing programs to convince theOlympics Committee that they are the one to pick. The intent is to attract the “eyeballs”of millions of media viewers to their country in order to raise national profile throughsuccessful delivery of the Games and to garner huge tourist revenues in the year whenthe event is held with a “tail” of spillover flowing out into future years (Jaffe andNebenzahl, 1993; Kang and Perdue, 1994; Rivenburgh, 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Dolles andSoderman, 2008). For some countries, particularly developing ones, there is alsointerest in enhancing international views of the country as a rising industrializednation and a source of desirable products for importation. Being able to host an eventthat is very complex logistically and requires massive building and engineeringprojects be completed within a tight time schedule, communicates to the world classtechnological expertise. Rivenburgh (2004) notes that the aim of Tokyo, Mexico Cityand Seoul in hosting the Olympics was to “be recognized as ‘advanced’ nations in theglobal community” (p. 5). Spain also worked very hard to project an image of amodernized country in creating a huge country image campaign which involvedpromotions around the Olympics (Quelch, 2007).

Successful hosting of the event can also create a tremendous sense of pride amongresidents of the host country. In addition, working together to create the sporting andcultural venues and activities can develop nationalistic cohesion, as well as a sense

IMR27,4

424



of purpose and coalescence around meeting the collective goals. National governmentscan garner tremendous positive image enhancement just from being associated withsuch success and national “boosterism.”

China expended a massive effort to create the “biggest show” of all time for the Games.

Venues for competition were brilliantly designed and engineered for performance andbeauty. No money was spared to create a well-functioning event, tightly secured againstprotests and terrorism; the opening ceremonies were spectacular for their showmanship;most events were filled to capacity. However, there were problems all along the way thatseemed to emerge mostly from what might be termed “hyper-success.” The Chineseteams were the most successful but with some scandal concerning Chinese athletequalifications; the audiences were stacked with trained Chinese supporters whowere required to be there by their government; the military police presence wasoppressive; some aspects of the opening ceremonies were deceptively manipulated.

It may be that being too successful is, in fact, a fault. Being “too perfect” may havecarried with it a perception of issues about Chinathat are of concern from the perspective

of those in democratic countries of conformity resulting from a lack of human freedoms.The rigidity, precision, and scale of coordinated human activity may be judged by theWest more as an indicatorof oppression, rather than as a triumph of national pride. Suchan interpretation would be in line with predictions of attribution theory aboutdifferences in perceptions of actors and perceivers and further, that actions which couldbe perceived as negatively impacting the perceiver will be attributed to the character of the actor. With regards to American views, Thompson (2008) raised questions before theevent of the possibility that the ultra-perfection sought by the Chinese in delivering theOlympics would be seen as evidence of a controlling society that is more of a threat toAmerica who would ask how it achieved this end. Such a conclusion would be in linewith the finding of a significant decline in the ratings on human rights scale in this study

seen after the Olympics and possibly also the scales dealing with political stability of thecountry. Secondary spillovers to the event itself may be observed in greater declines inAmerican views of willingness to attend, pride in attending, and safety of the event.There was a significant media coverage on the failure of the Olympic Games hosting inBeijing to make good on the promise and hopes of human rights advocates. HumanRights Watch (2008) monitored human rights abuses involved in preparing and hostingthe Olympics and concluded that the event “put an end – once and for all – to the notionthat these Olympics are a ‘force for good,’” citing massive evictions of citizens of Beijing,arrests, detentions, and harassment of critics, limitations of media freedoms, andincreased political repression. Indeed, it was widely reported that those who had madeapplication to protest in the limited venue promised for such activity were actuallyarrested and detained until after the event ended. An article in the Washington Post

online service also slammed the decline in freedoms seen in China before and during theGames with such statements as:

[. . .] the Olympics showcased how willing China is to use its authoritarian hand to hide itsproblems and intimidate, detain, and punish those who might have spoiled their postcardperfect Beijing they hoped to show the world (Cha, 2008).

The China Digital Times web site reported on a story that appearing in the JapanTimes concluding that:

China and tOlympi

42



[. . .] while the Chinese authorities (wanted) to showcase a China that is industrializing, modernand prosperous, it unwittingly put on a display the recalled the Mao-era mass parades [. . .] albeitwith much advanced technology and pyrotechnics ( China Digital Times, 2009).

Many outside China also had high hopes forreduction of pollution. Before the event therewere fears that air pollution would be so bad as to prevent athletes from performing. Infact, weather conditions were excellent and the air quality was reasonably good with afew exceptions. However, the Western-media stories of general pollution conditions inChina likely reinforced negative views, and would be supportive of our findings thatAmericans’ assessments of environmental pollution in China declined (Cha, 2008). All inall, the post-event media coverage outside of China was hardly flattering to China.

In the USA, post-event feelings may also have been heavily influenced by theuber-success of Chinese athletes on the podium. While the USA had placed first amongnations in the previous three Olympics, in 2008 China overwhelmed all nations withthe highest number of medals ever won by a host country. However, there wasconsiderable controversy over the qualifications of some of the Chinese gymnasts.

While these problems clearly provide support for the declines in Americans views of China as a destination, the country, and the Olympics, the events were successful to theextent of providing good publicity for the nature of the people, possibly in spite of theirgovernment. In attributing causes, the Americans may have separated their views of theChinese from those of the China Government as the result of observing very positivebehaviors of ordinary Chinese citizens during the Olympics.

Within China,the explanation of post-event declines mayalsoreflectdisappointment of the hopes for new freedoms. However, there may be another broaderexplanation based onthe general malaise which can follow the culmination of anymajor project, regardless of itssuccess and is sometimes seen as a “now what” feeling. Media in China noted that manyChinese were “feeling lost” after the extravaganza and the intensity of the Olympics.Psychologists were citedwhoreported on the proclivity of sports fans to “undergo a period

of depression in the wakeof major international sports events” (Macfie, 2008). The Chinesewho spent many hours viewing events on television found adjusting to normal lifedifficult. There was also the unpleasant reality of facing several major failures of theChinese production system both before and immediately after the Olympics, including amajor mine waste dump disaster and a massive national and international tainted foodcrisis involving melamine which sickened and killed many Chinese babies. But probablythe worst realization for many Chinese and human rights activists was that hopes forsignificant change in the political freedoms in China were not only not realized, butprobably even set back significantly. With this understanding, the decline in Chineseviews of almost all aspects measured in this study – their country, themselves and theOlympics – is perfectly reasonable. International visitors get to go home; internationalviewers have other things to watch; but the Chinese continue to live their lives in a China

where the status quo was reinforced, rather than transformed by the Olympic experience.On the other hand, the Olympic Games themselves fared badly from what might beperceived as a foray into effecting political change and social reform.

Future researchThis study was the first to measure the attitudes of the domestic population and amajor foreign country before and after the Olympics on a wide range of aspects of the country hosting the Olympics (country, people, and destination image) and the

IMR27,4

426



Olympic Games. The measures were developed within the framework of attitudetheory and building on the several streams of country image research and resultshave been interpreted within the theoretical framework of attribution theory. Thesefoundations have provided rich bases for interpretation of the findings. However, this

study has limitations due to its reliance on one occurrence of the Olympic Games in onecountry and measurement in only two countries. Further research is needed at futureOlympics and with additional audiences.

Also, we would suggest more work is needed particularly to understand the reasonsfor declines in post-event measures. They were somewhat surprising. Some assistanceto understand the possible negative pressure on post-event measures might be drawnfrom an emerging area of psychology dealing with responses to major events, bothnegative and positive. In terms of positive events with uncertain outcomes,psychologists noted that there is considerable pleasure in the arousal associatedwith anticipating a party or receiving an award even though the event itself involves anovel experience that cannot be totally knowable. Once the event has occurred, the

arousal of the uncertainty is gone, leading to a reduction in pleasure. This has beentermed the “pleasure paradox.” Wilson et al. (2005) note that people seek to understandevents, including pleasurable ones, that is, they develop explanations in order to makesense of and explain their world so as to reduce uncertainty and also so as to make thepleasurable experience more predictable and repeatable. Explanations are sought andapplied for why the outcomes were to be expected and not really unusual orextraordinary. In doing so, however, they also reduce the pleasure of the unknown. Theprocess of demystifying the pleasure has been termed, ordinization. The psychologistssuggest the fall-out of all this ordinization is to rob the positive event of its positiveemotional impact, that is, its ability to induce pleasure and happiness. People mayunderstand that pleasure fades over time but they usually do not anticipate howquickly emotional elation will actually decline. In fact, people discover they are not as

happy as they thought they would be and certainly do not stay happy as long as theythought they would. This discovery may result in some dissatisfaction, especially if considerable energies were expended and sacrifices made to achieve the goal. Throughthe process of emotional transference, the decline is attributed to the event and itscauses. In this situation, this emotional decline would reduce assessments of the eventand those who hosted it. This decline would be in proportion to the emotional drop-off and in this case would be higher overall for the Chinese than the Americans. In orderto assess whether ordinization processes might be affecting post-event measures and toaccount for them in future pre-post study designs of mega-events will take some newapproaches to measurement of views of the phenomena and surrounding attitudeobjects, such as event hosts and sponsors.

References

Agbonifoh, B.A. and Elimimian, J.U. (1999), “Attitudes of developing countries towards‘country-of-origin’ products in an era of multiple brands”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing , Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 97-116.

Ahmed, S. and d’Astous, A. (1993), “Evaluation of country-of-design and country-of-assembly ina multi-cue/multi-national context”, European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1,pp. 214-21.

China and tOlympi

42



Ajzen, I. (2001), “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52,pp. 27-58.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior ,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Al-Sulaiti, K.I. and Baker, M.J. (1998), “Country of origin effects: a literature review”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning , Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 150-99.

Amine, L.S., Chao, M.C.H. and Arnold, M.J. (2005), “Exploring the practical effects of country of origin, animosity, and price-quality issues: two case studies of Taiwan and Acer in China”,

Journal of International Marketing , Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 114-50.

Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K. (1999), “A model of destination image formation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 868-97.

Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Ramachander, S. (2000),“Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries”,

Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 83-95.

Bodeen, C. (2008), “Wary China tells local leaders to manage unrest”, available at: www.abcnews.

go.com (accessed August 17).Brunner, J., Flaschner, A. and Lou, X. (1993), “Images and events: China before and after

Tiananmen Square”, in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (Eds), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing , International Business Press, Binghamton,NY, pp. 379-400.

Buckley, C. (2008), “Games bring China’s rulers political gold”, available at: www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Olympics/idUSPEK22171420080824 (accessed August 24).

Cha, A.E. (2008), “Olympics report card: success or failure?”, available at: www.voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/08/2008_olympics_report_card_succ.html(accessed January 20, 2009).

Chao, P. (1993), “Partitioning country of origin effects: consumer evaluations of a hybridproduct”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 291-307.

Chase, S. and Laghi, B. (2008), “PM won’t attend Beijing Olympics curtain raiser”, globeandmail.com, April 3 (August 26, 2008).

China Digital Times (2009), “China showed the world it’s out of sync”, China Digital Times,available at: www.chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/shina-showed-the-world-that-its-out-of-sync/ (accessed January 20).

Chon, K.S. (1990), “The role of destination image in tourism: a review and discussion”,The Tourist Review, Vol. 2, pp. 2-9.

Chon, K.S. (1991), “Tourism destination image modification process”, Tourism Management ,Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 68-72.

Cordell, V. (1992), “Effects of consumer preferences for foreign sourced products”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 251-69.

Crawford, J.C. and Lumpkin, J.R. (1993), “Environmental influences on country-of-origin bias”,in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (Eds), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing , International Business Press, New York, NY, pp. 341-56.

Custodio, M. and Gouveia, P. (2007), “Evaluation of the cognitive image of a country/destinationby thte media during the coverage of mega-events: the case of UEFA EURO 2004 inPortugal”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 285-96.

Diamontopoulos, A., Mueller, R.D. and Melewar, T.C. (2001), “The impact of nationalism,patriotism, and internationalism on consumer ethnocentric tendencies”, Journal of

International Business Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 157-75.

IMR27,4

428



Dolles, H. and Soderman, S. (2008), “Mega-sporting events in Asia – impacts on society, businessand management: an introduction”, Asian Business and Management , Vol. 7, pp. 147-62.

Echtner, C. and Ritchie, J.R. (1993), “The measurement of destination image: an empiricalassessment”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 3-13.

Erickson, G.M., Johansson, J.K. and Chao, P. (1984), “Image variables in multi-attribute productevaluations: country-of-origin effects”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 694-700.

Ettenson, R. and Klein, J. (2005), “The fallout from French nuclear testing in the South Pacific:a longitudinal study of consumer boycotts”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 2,pp. 199-224.

Festervand, T., Lumpkin, J. and Lundstrom, W. (1985), “Consumers’ perceptions of imports:an update and extension”, Akron Business & Economic Review, Vol. 16, pp. 31-6.

Foss, S.K. and Walkosz, B.J. (2008), “Definition, equivocation, accumulation, and anticipation:American media’s ideological reading of China’s Olympic Games”, in Price, M.E. andDayan, D. (Eds), Owning the Olympics: Narratives of the New China, University of

Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 346-74.Foster, N. and Jones, E. (2000), “Image versus identity: representing and comparing destination

images across a tourist system – the case of Wales”, in Robinson, M., Evans, N., Long, P.,Sharpley, R. and Swarbrooke, J. (Eds), Management, Marketing and the Political Economyof Travel and Tourism, Business Education Publishers, Houghton-le-Spring, pp. 137-59.

Fram, A. (2008), Poll: Most in China expect Olympics to help image, Associated Press,New York, NY, available at: www.news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/07-22-2008/20080722132009_11.html (accessed August 18).

Gaedeke, R. (1973), “Consumer attitudes toward products ‘made in’ developing countries”, Journal of Retailing , Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 13-24.

Goodrich, J.N. (1978), “The relationship between preferences for and perceptions of vacationdestinations: application of a choice model”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 17 No. 2,

pp. 8-13.

Goodspeed, P. (2008), “China leaves nothing to chance as Olympics nears”, National Post , July 11,available at: www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id¼648855 (accessedAugust 18).

Gov.cn (2007), “Beijing celebrates one-year countdown to 2008 Olympics”, available at: www.english.gov.cn/2007-08/08/content_710677.htm (accessed January 26, 2009).

Hamzaoui, L. and Merunka, D. (2006), “The impact of country of design and country of manufacture on consumer perceptions of bi-national products’ quality: an empirical modelbased on the concept of fit”, Journal of Consumer Marketing , Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 145-55.

Han, M. (1988), “The role of consumer patriotism in the choice of domestic versus foreignproducts”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 25-33.

Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relation, Wiley, New York, NY.Heine, S.J. and Buchtel, E.E. (2009), “Personality: the universal and the culturally specific”,

Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 369-94.

Herbert, S. (2008), “Beijing games finish with highest primetime summer olympics viewershipsince 1996”, LexisNexis, available at: www.allbusiness.com/sports-recreation/amateur-sports-olympics-summer/12203891-1.html (accessed August 30, 2009).

Heslop, L.A. and Papadopoulos, N. (1993), “But who knows where or when? Reflections on theimages of countries and their products”, in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (Eds),

China and tOlympi

42



Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing , InternationalBusiness Press, New York, NY, pp. 39-75.

Heslop, L.A., Lu, I.R.R. and Cray, D. (2008), “Modeling country image effects through aninternational crisis”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 354-78.

Heslop, L.A., Papadopoulos, N., Dowdles, M., Wall, M. and Compeau, D. (2004), “Who controls thepurse strings: a study of consumers’ and retail buyers’ reactions in an America’s FTAenvironment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 10, pp. 1177-88.

Hiller, H.H. (2003), “Mega-events, urban boosterism and growth strategies: an analysis of theobjectives and legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic bid”, International Journal of

Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 449-58.

Human Rights Watch (2007), “China: pre-congress clampdown intensifies: repression campaignescalates with abduction and violence”, available at: www.hrw.org (accessed October 12).

Human Rights Watch (2008), “China: hosting Olympics a catalyst for human rights abuses”,available at: www.china.hrw.org/news_release/ (accessed January 23, 2009).

Hunt, J. (1975), “Image as a factor in tourism development”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 13,pp. 1-7.

International Olympic Committee (1999), Olympic Marks and Imagery Usage Handbook,International Olympic Committee, Lausanne.

International Olympic Committee (2001), Marketing Matters, Vol. 18, International OlympicCommittee, Lausanne, pp. 1-12.

International Olympic Committee (2002), “Working with Olympic brand”, Sponsor workshop, June, Athens.

ITIM (2009), “Gerte Hofstede cultural dimensions”, available at: www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_china.shtml (accessed January 20).

Jaffe, E. and Nebenzahl, I. (1993), “Global promotion of country image: do the Olympics count?”,

in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (Eds), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing , International Business Press, Binghamton, NY, pp. 433-52.

Jaffe, E.D. and Nebenzahl, I.D. (2001), National Image & Competitive Advantage: The Theory and

Practice of Country-of-origin Effect , Copenhagen Business School Press, Frederiksberg.

Johansson, J.K. (1989), “Determinants and effects of the use of ‘made-in’ labels”, International

Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 47-58.

Kang, Y-S. and Perdue, R. (1994), “Long-term impact of a mega-event on international tourism tothe host country: a conceptual model and the case of the 1988 Seoul Olympics”, Journal of

International Consumer Marketing , Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 205-25.

Kasmati, E. (2003), “Economic aspects and the summer olympics: a review of related research”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 433-44.

Kaynak, E., Kucukemiroglu, O. and Hyder, A. (2000), “Consumer’s country-of-origin (COO)perceptions of imported products in a homogenous less-developed country”, European

Journal of Marketing , Vol. 34 Nos 9/10, pp. 1221-42.

Kelley, H.H. and Michela, J.L. (1980), “Attribution theory and research”, Annual Review of

Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 457-501.

Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R. and Morris, M.D. (1998), “The animosity model of foreign productpurchase: an empirical test in the People’s Republic of China”, Journal of Marketing ,Vol. 62, pp. 89-100.

IMR27,4

430



Knight, G.A. and Calantone, R.J. (2000), “A flexible model of consumer country-of-originperceptions: a cross-cultural investigation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 No. 2,pp. 127-45.

Krishnakumar, P. (1974), “An exploratory study of the influence of country of origin images of

persons from selected countries”, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,Gainesville, FL.

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. and Bergeron, J. (2003), “Effects of subculturaldifferences on country and product evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour , Vol. 2No. 3, pp. 232-47.

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. and Mourali, M. (2005), “The influence of countryimage structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products”, International Marketing

Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 96-115.

Lee, C-K., Taylor, T., Lee, Y-K. and Lee, B. (2005), “Impact of sport mega-event on destinationimage: the case of the 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan”, International Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 27-45.

Macfie, N. (2008), “Used to winning, post-Olympics Chinese opt for whining”, Reuters, available at:www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Olympics/idUSPEK36737220080831 (accessed January 20).

Mohamad, O., Honeycutt, Z. and Tyebkhan, T. (2000), “Does ‘made-in . . .’ matter to consumers?A Malaysian study of country of origin effects”, Multinational Business Review, Vol. 8No. 2, pp. 69-74.

Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O’Reilly, N. and Luk, P. (2008), “Destination image in a country context”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 84-106.

Nijssen, E. and Douglas, S. (2004), “Examining the animosity model in a country with a high levelof foreign trade”, International Journal of Research in Marketing , Vol. 21, pp. 23-38.

Nyiri, P. (2006), Scenic Spots: Chinese Tourism, the State, and Cultural Authority , University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

Orbaiz, L.V. and Papadopoulos, N. (2003), “Toward a model of consumer receptivity of foreignand domestic products”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing , Vol. 15 No. 3,pp. 101-26.

Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (2002), “Country equity and country branding: problems andprospects”, Journal of Brand Management , Vol. 9 Nos 4/5, pp. 294-314.

Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A. and The IKON Research Group (2000), “‘Made in Canada, eh?’A cross-national and longitudinal study of consumer views on the competitiveness of Canadian products”, in Graves, R. (Ed.), Marketing , Administrative Sciences Associationof Canada-IFSAM Conference, Marketing Division, St John, NB, pp. 29-39, July, 21, 3.

Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A., Graby, F. and Avlonitis, G. (1987), Does Country of Origin Matter? Some Findings from a Cross-cultural Study of Consumer Views about Foreign Products, Report no 87-104, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Papadopoulos, N., Marshall, J., Heslop, L.A., Avlonitis, G., Bliemel, F. and Graby, F. (1988),“Strategic implications of country and product image: a modeling approach”, Proceedingsof the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research Annual Conference, Lisbon,pp. 69-89.

Pike, S. and Ryan, C. (2004), “Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of cognitive,affective, and conative perceptions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, pp. 333-42.

Preuss, H. (2008), “Signaling growth: China’s major benefit from staging the 2008 Olympics inBeijing”, Harvard Asia Pacific Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 45-9.

China and tOlympi

43



Quelch, J. (2007), “How brand China can succeed”, Harvard Business School Working Knowledge: Research and Ideas, September 18, available at: www.hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5777.html(accessed December 1, 2009).

Reilly, M. (1990), “Free elicitation of descriptive adjectives for tourism image assessment”,

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 21-6.Rennie, S. (2008), “Product safety bill includes penalties up to $5M: Harper announces harsh

penalties for selling dangerous goods; product recalls”, available at: www.TheStar.com(accessed August 1).

Riefler, P. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2007), “Consumer animosity: a literature review and areconsideration of its measurement”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 1,pp. 87-119.

Ritchie, J.R.B. and Smith, B.H. (1990), “The impact of a mega-event on host region awareness:a longitudinal study”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30, pp. 3-10.

Ritchie, J.R.B. and Smith, B. (1991), “The impact of a mega-event on host region awareness:a longitudinal Study”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 3-10.

Rivenburgh, N.K. (2004), “The olympic games, media, and the challenges of global imagemaking”, University Lectures on the Olympics, Centre d’estudis Olimpics. InternationalChair in Olympism (IOC-UAB), available at: www.olympicsstudies.uab.es/lectures/web/pdf/rivengurgh.pdf (accessed May 12, 2009).

Schooler, R.D. (1965), “Product bias in the Central American common market”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 394-7.

Seguin, B. and O’Reilly, N. (2008), “The Olympic brand, ambush marketing, and clutter”, International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing , Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 62-84.

Shimp, T., Saimee, S. and Madden, T.J. (1993), “Countries and their products: a cognitivestructure perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 21 No. 4,pp. 323-30.

Shin, M. (2001), “The animosity model of foreign product purchase revisited: does it work in

Korea?”, Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, Vol. 6, pp. 6-14.Tapachai, N. and Waryszak, R. (2000), “An examination of the role of beneficial image in tourist

destination selection”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39, pp. 37-44.

Thompson, D. (2008), “Beijing Olympics: more at stake than gold medals”, US-China BusinessCouncil, available at: www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0801/thompson.html(accessed August 18).

Tse, D. and Gorn, G. (1992), “An experiment on the salience of country-of-origin in the era of global brands”, Journal of International Marketing , Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 57-76.

US Department of State (2009), “Background note on China”, Economy, October, available at:www.state.govr/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm (accessed December 7).

Wang, C.K. and Lamb, C.W. (1983), “The impact of selected environmental forces upon

consumers’ willingness to buy foreign products”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 11, pp. 71-84.

Wang, C.L. and Chen, Z.X. (2004), “Consumer ethnocentrism and willingness to buy domesticproducts in a developing country setting: testing moderating effects”, Journal of Consumer

Marketing , Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 391-400.

Wang, K.M. and Wang, X. (2007), “National image and Olympic coverage”, paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and MassCommunication, Washington, DC, August 2008, available at: www.allacademic.com/meta/p203497_index.html (accessed May 1, 2009).

IMR27,4

432



Wilson, T.D., Gilber, D.T. and Centerbar, D.B. (2005), “Making sense: the causes of emotionalevanescence”, in Carrillo, J. and Brocas, I. (Eds), Economics and Psychology, OxfordUniversity Press, New York, NY, pp. 209-32.

Woodside, A.G. and Chebat, J.-C. (2001), “Updating Heider’s balance theory in consumer

behavior: a Jewish couple buys a German car and additional buying- consumingtransformation stories”, Psychology and Marketing , Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 475-85.

Zuckerman, M. (1979), “Attribution of success and failure revisited or the motivational bias isalive and well in attribution theory”, Journal or Personality, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 246-87.

About the authorsLouise A. Heslop is a Professor of Marketing in the Sprott School of Business, CarletonUniversity. She has been conducting research in country image effects for over 25 years and isone of the most published authors in the area. Louise A. Heslop is the corresponding author andcan be contacted at: [email protected]

John Nadeau is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the School of Business and Economics,Nipissing University. He has conducted three major studies of country image and consumer

response in several contexts including tourism and promotion effects.Norm O’Reilly is an Associate Professor at the David Falk Center for Sport Management atSyracuse University. He is an expert on sports marketing and sponsorship. He was a SeniorPolicy Officer at Sport Canada, Director of the Canadian Olympic Committee, Event Manager forthe 2008 Toronto Olympic Bid, and an administrator on Canada’s Mission Staff to the 2004 and2008 Olympic Games.

China and tOlympi

43

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

China and the Olympics- Views of Insiders and Outsiders