CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH RESULTS

4.1

DEMOGRAPHIC PFOFILE OF RESPONDENTS

Out of the 116 respondents surveyed, males constituted 40.5% and females constituted 59.5%. The majority of the respondents belong to the 30-39 years age group (43.9%) and 20-29 years age group (39.7%), followed by 12.9% from the 40-49 years age group. Only a minority of the total respondents was from the 50-59 years age group (2.6%) and the group with respondents age 60 and above only constituted to 0.9% of the total respondents.

Majority of the respondents had at least finished degree or professional certificate. 29.3% of the total respondents are degree or professional certificate holders whereas 55.2% are post graduates. This could be due to the fact that the data were collected from mainly universities, colleges and employees from multinational companies in Malaysia. Students formed the biggest respondents group with a percentage of 42.2% followed by managers with a percentage of 24.2% and self-employed or own business 17.2%. The rest of respondents consisted of executives (5.2%), professionals (4.3%), not working or retired (4.3%), and non-executives (2.6%).

49

4.2

RELIABILITY TEST RESULT

To check the reliability of the scale and to track the internal consistency of scale used in this study, Cronbachs alpha test is employed. According to Pallant (2001), a coefficient of scale above 0.7 is a construct with valid measurement.

From the statistical data analysis, the Cronbachs alpha value is 0.857 which is more than 0.7. Thus, this shows that the survey instruments (country branding items) used in this study is valid.

The reliability test result of survey instruments is shown in Table 4.1 and the interitem correlation matrix is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.1: Reliability test result of survey instruments

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha .852

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .857

N of Items 8

50

Table 4.2: Inter-Item Correlation Matrix Cultural and Physical Physical People Export Investment Cultural and Heritage Social Political Tourism 1.000 .515 .459 .472 .209 .586 .433 .335 People .515 1.000 .491 .331 .258 .464 .437 .041 Export .459 .491 1.000 .462 .407 .662 .533 .027 Investment Heritage .472 .331 .462 1.000 .587 .593 .439 .443 .209 .258 .407 .587 1.000 .526 .583 .571 Social .586 .464 .662 .593 .526 1.000 .499 .437 Political Tourism .433 .437 .533 .439 .583 .499 1.000 .176 .335 .041 .027 .443 .571 .437 .176 1.000

4.3

FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULT

According to Coakes and Steed (2007), factor analysis is a data reduction technique employed to reduce the number of variables to a smaller set of underlying factors that summarize the essential information contained in the variables. The minimum value for a good factor loading analysis is 0.3 (Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). The results of the factor analysis test for country branding variables are shown in the following tables.

Table 4.3: Factor Analysis Results

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square df Sig. .732 455.152 28.000 .000

51

According to the statistical test results shown in Table 4.3 above, Bartletts test of sphericity is significant and that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is 0.732 which is greater than 0.6 (Coakes and Steed, 2007).

Correlation matrix and measures of sampling adequacy (MSA) are shown in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 respectively. An examination of the correlation matrix indicates that a considerable number of correlations exceed 0.3. Thus, it could be concluded that the matrix is suitable for factoring.

Inspection of the anti-image correlation matrix reveals that all measures of sampling adequacy exceed the acceptable level of 0.5 (Coakes and Steed, 2007).

Table 4.4: Factor Analysis Results -Correlation Matrix

Cultural and Physical Correlation Physical People Export Investment Cultural and Heritage Social Political Tourism .586 .433 .335 .464 .437 .041 .662 .533 .027 .593 .439 .443 .526 .583 .571 1.000 .499 .437 .499 1.000 .176 .437 .176 1.000 .209 .258 .407 .587 1.000 .526 .583 .571 1.000 .515 .459 .472 People .515 1.000 .491 .331 Export .459 .491 1.000 .462 Investment .472 .331 .462 1.000 Heritage .209 .258 .407 .587 Social .586 .464 .662 .593 Political .433 .437 .533 .439 Tourism .335 .041 .027 .443

52

Table 4.5: Factor Analysis Results - Anti-image Matrices

Cultural and Physical Anti-image Covariance Physical People Export Investment Cultural and Heritage Social Political Tourism Anti-image Correlation Physical People Export Investment Cultural and Heritage Social Political Tourism a. Measures of Sampling adequacy (MSA) .426 -.168 -.059 -.104 .167 -.068 -.134 -.158 .674a -.330 -.145 -.226 .465 -.180 -.300 -.387 People -.168 .606 -.042 .006 -.045 -.052 -.044 .102 -.330 .850a -.087 .012 -.106 -.116 -.084 .208 Export -.059 -.042 .388 -.039 -.072 -.177 -.039 .172 -.145 -.087 .747a -.089 -.211 -.591 -.091 .442 Investment -.104 .006 -.039 .497 -.120 -.059 .021 -.025 -.226 .012 -.089 .901a -.308 -.144 .043 -.057 Heritage Social Political Tourism -.134 -.044 -.039 .021 -.191 -.012 .464 .115 -.300 -.084 -.091 .043 -.509 -.031 .770a .269 -.158 .102 .172 -.025 -.198 -.115 .115 .393 -.387 .208 .442 -.057 -.573 -.316 .269 .591a

.167 -.068 -.045 -.052 -.072 -.177 -.120 -.059 .303 -.010 -.010 .336

-.191 -.012 -.198 -.115 .465 -.180 -.106 -.116 -.211 -.491 -.308 -.144 .621
a

-.031

-.031 .835a -.509 -.031 -.573 -.316

4.4

TESTING OF PROPOSITIONS

The bivariate correlation statistical technique and multiple regression are used to test the correlations between the variable in Proposition 1 (the relationship between country branding and emotion) and Proposition 2 (the relationship between country branding and country competitive advantages). To test Proposition 3 (the relationship between emotion and residency choice) and Proposition 4 (the relationship between

53

country competitive advantage and residency choice), bivariate correlation was used. The results are shown and discussed in the followings.

From the statistical analysis done to test the relationship between all the country branding variables (physical, people, export, investment, cultural and heritage, social, political, tourism) with emotion of the visitors to Malaysia, the results of the Pearson correlation are compiled in Table 4.6 and results from multiple regression are shown in Table 4.7 (a) and (b).

Table 4.6: Relationship between country branding variables and emotion

Country Branding Variables Pearson Correlation Emotion Tourism Cultural Social Investment Political Physical Export People 0.785** 0.680** 0.605** 0.486** 0.437** 0.430** 0.417** 0.345**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Tables 4.7: Multiple regression between country branding and emotion

Table 4.7 (a): Model Summary Adjusted R Model 1 R .899
a b

Std. Error of the Estimate

R Square .809

Square .794

.81897

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tourism, Export, People, Political, Investment, Physical, Social, Cultural and Heritage b. Dependent Variable: Emotional Appeal

54

Table 4.7 (b): ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 300.852 71.096 371.948 df 8 106 114

Mean Square 37.606 .671

F 56.069

Sig. .000
a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tourism, Export, People, Political, Investment, Physical, Social, Cultural and Heritage b. Dependent Variable: Emotional Appeal

From the results shown in Table 4.6 and Tables 4.7 (a),(b), Proposition 1 (P1: There is a positive relationship between country branding and emotion of residents) is supported. This is based on the results of the Pearson Correlation test that shows the correlation between each country branding item (physical, people, export, investment, cultural and heritage, social, political, tourism) and emotion is significant at the 0.01 level and also based on results shown by the multiple regression test, Table 4.7 (a) as the R value is more than 0.3.

Based on the value of the Pearson Correlation that could range from -1 to 1 and with the sign (+ or -) that indicates the direction, the strength of the correlation of each of the country branding items and emotion is determined (Coakes and Steed, 2007). The result of the ranking of strength of correlation is also shown in Table 4.6 where the country branding items are arranged in order from the strongest to the weakest effect on emotion of visitors. We can see that tourism plays the most important role in affecting the emotion of visitors followed by cultural, social, investment, political, physical, export and people.

From the statistical analysis done to test the relationship between all the country branding variables (physical, people, export, investment, cultural and heritage, social, 55

political, tourism) with country competitive advantages, the results of the Pearson correlation are compiled in Table 4.8. Results from multiple regression test are shown in Tables 4.9 (a) and (b).

Table 4.8: Relationship between country branding variables and country competitive advantages
Country Branding Variables Pearson Correlation Country Competitive Advantages Social Cultural Export Investment Political People Tourism Physical 0.650** 0.643** 0.620** 0.587** 0.580** 0.369** 0.299** 0.233**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Table 4.9: Multiple regression between country branding and country competitive advantages
Table 4.9(a): Model Summary Adjusted R Model 1 R .819a R Square .671 Square .647
b

Std. Error of the Estimate 2.70192

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tourism, Export, People, Political, Investment, Physical, Social, Cultural and Heritage b. Dependent Variable: Competitive Advantages Perception

Table 4.9(b): ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 1580.894 773.837 2354.730 df 8 106 114

Mean Square 197.612 7.300

F 27.069

Sig. .000
a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tourism, Export, People, Political, Investment, Physical, Social, Cultural and Heritage

56

Table 4.9(b): ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 1580.894 773.837 2354.730 df 8 106 114

Mean Square 197.612 7.300

F 27.069

Sig. .000
a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tourism, Export, People, Political, Investment, Physical, Social, Cultural and Heritage b. Dependent Variable: Competitive Advantages Perception

From the results shown in Table 4.8 and Tables 4.9 (a), (b), Proposition 2 (P2: There is a positive relationship between country branding and the countrys competitive advantages) is also supported due to the fact that the Pearson Correlation test for all the items for country branding has a significant relationship with countrys competitive advantages at Pearson Correlation value that was significant at the level of 0.01 and also based on results shown in Table 4.9 (a) as the R value is more than 0.3.

The ranking of the strength of correlation between the country branding items and country competitive advantages is shown in Table 4.8 as the results are arranged in order from the strongest to the weakest score; from the range between +1 to 0.

From Table 4.8, it could be seen that unlike the results of the correlation between country branding items with emotion, tourism does not much contributes to the country competitive advantages. In fact, the country competitive advantages is affected more by social, cultural and export followed by others like investment, political, people, tourism and physical.

57

The following Table 4.10 shows the results from bivariate correlation done to test the relationship between emotion and residency choice (Proposition 3).

The statistical results also supported Proposition 3 (P3: There is a positive relationship between emotion and residency choice.)

Table 4.10: Relationship between emotion and residency choice

Correlations Emotional Appeal Residency Choice

Emotional Appeal

Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N

1.000

.435

**

.000 116.000 116

Residency Choice

Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N

.435

**

1.000

.000 116 116.000

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

The following Table 4.11 shows the results from bivariate correlation done to test the relationship between country competitive advantages and residency choice (Proposition 4). The statistical results also supported Proposition 4 (P4: There is a positive relationship between a countrys competitive advantage and residency choice).

58

Table 4.11: Relationship between country competitive advantages and residency choice
Correlations Competitive Advantages Perception 1.000 Residency Choice

Competitive Advantages Perception

Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N

.445

**

.000 116.000 116

Residency Choice

Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N

.445

**

1.000

.000 116 116.000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Table 4.10 above shows that there is a relationship between emotion and residency choice at a correlation that is significant at the 0.01 level. Table 4.11 above also reports that there is a relationship between country competitive advantages and residency choice with a correlation that is significant at the 0.01 level.

59