Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value: The
moderating role of COO label effectConnie Chang
Researcher, Musashino University Creating Happiness Incubation
Associate Professor, Faculty of Global Studies, Musashino University

Abstract
This study compares how the conditional effect of the Country-of-Origin (COO,
thereafter) label moderates the relationship between price, quality, risk and customerperceived value between Japan and Taiwan. The conceptual model is proposed andtested by SPSS PROCESS Macro V4.3. This study distributed a self-administeredquestionnaire that employed the convenient sampling method and obtained a total numberof 125 cases. The results suggest that, in the Taiwanese sample, the COO label
moderates the relationship between price and customer-perceived value. The COO label
is positively related to quality and risk in purchasing a high-tech hybrid mobile device inboth countries. In addition, this study finds out the COO label effects are significant on
different groups in both countries which, in turn, influence customer-perceived value.
1. Introduction
Smartphones have become a necessity in today’s world. Smartphones have
gradually entered people’s lives and have successfully transformed from luxury goods(Dubey, Sharma & Sheth, 2023) to economic necessities (Chan, 2018). A smartphone
is not just a device for making a phone call or sending a text message. It provides several
functional values to consumers, including communication, entertainment, shopping,wallet, learning and education, sharing information, transferring data and images, camera,internet access and so on. It seems that smartphones have revolutionized the wholeworld; from youths to the elderly, everyone has been impacted.
The average selling price for a 5G smartphone was $643 in the U.S. in 2021 (Hamblen,2021). Some premium smartphones even reached $1,000 and above in 2022 (Mishra,2022), indicating that consumers will spend more money acquiring a smartphone. For
example, the average price of a smartphone made by Apple, Samsung or Huawei has
increased by 52% since 2016. Although the purchase costs have become a heavy
financial burden for some of consumers in different regions, smartphones have18

Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectnonetheless become one of humanity’s basic needs in the contemporary world. In
particular, consumers rely on their smartphone daily to deal with both work and personalmatters. Regardless the brand, a smartphone’s life cycle has been extended from 22.7
to 24.7 months in the U.S. and from 23.4 to 27.7 months in Great Britain (Ng, 2019). It
indicates that the advancements in information technology and the price of a smartphone
make consumers delay their desire to upgrade their devices. The purchase decision of asmartphone seems to be highly involved and consumers have to carefully evaluate all thebenefits and drawbacks. Therefore, this paper considers how consumers price, quality
and risk create customer-perceived value and compares how COO label effect impacts
consumers’ purchase decision in Japan and Taiwan. The main research objectives are(1) to understand and identify the major factors that are likely to influence customerperceived value in Japan and Taiwan and (2) to compare the similarities and differencesin terms of their choices and provide an appropriate explanation of the phenomenon.
2. Background, theoretical development, and research hypotheses
2.1 Culture and background
Historically, Taiwan was a colony of the Dutch from 1624 to 1668 (Andrade, 2006),
Spain in 1626 (Andrade, 2005), and Japan from 1895 to 1945 (Reuters, 2015). Eachcountry influenced the developments of Taiwan in the field of culture, economics,
environment and so on. These developments were gradually integrated into local
societies and people’s everyday lives, whereas others faded. To be specific, thesecolonial effects remain influential and recognizable. For example, public education (e.g.
compulsory education), reservoirs, military service and transportation systems (e.g.
railways and highways) are a legacy of the period of under Japanese rule (Reuters, 2015).
Both countries are alike in various ways.
The first phase deals with the similarities between two countries. Both Japan andTaiwan are island nations with limited natural resources (Yang, Panjaitan, Ujiie, Wann &Chen, 2021) and lands and they occasionally suffer natural disasters (e.g. typhoon,
earthquake and flooding).
These similarities are evident in Hofstede’s culturaldimension for uncertainty avoidance which expresses the degree to which the membersof a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainties and ambiguity (Hofstede, 1980). For
example, both countries dispatched search and rescue teams to aid Turkey after theTurkey-Syria quake in February (The Asahi Shimbun, 2023; Wu & Shih, 2023).
Specific social and economic characteristics between the two countries are shared.
People in both societies experience very strong and close group affiliations and ties andare likely to maintain long-term relationships with each other. Both societies have19

Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectrelatively large, densely populated urban areas and place a heavy weight on in-group
harmony, namely, avoid letting someone lose their face in public. Thus, people tend to
express their opinions indirectly or vaguely.
The second phase addresses the differences between the two countries. Both Japanand Taiwan seem to be similar; however, they are also different. The noticeable
differences lie in economics (see Table 2.1), social structure, the environment and cultural
factors. For example, Japan is considerably more economically advanced than Taiwan,
and Japan’s population is five times as large as Taiwan’s. This results in a difference inmarket size. This inequality, combined with differences in per capita GDP, indicatesthat GDP and expenditure in Japan are many times larger than in Taiwan.
Table 2.1 Country characteristics, 2023
Japan

TaiwanPopulation (millions)124.62123.932GDP (in $U.S. trillions)

4.94

1.277

39,312.7

32,811.0

Agriculture

1.04

1.4

Industry

29.2

37.8

Services

69.47

60.8

GDP/capita ($U.S.)
GDP origination (%)(Sources: IMF, n.d.; World Bank, n.d.; Statistics Bureau, n.d.)
According to Hofstede (1980), Japan and Taiwan show differences in theindividualism and masculinity dimensions. Firstly, Taiwan scores significantly lower(17 points) than Japan (46 points). Both societies consider loyalty to their companies orextended family members necessary; however, it seems more influential in Taiwan.
People actively take responsibility for following members of their family orneighborhood. For example, the Taiwanese government asked all passengers arriving at
the airport to use “epidemic-prevention taxis” to their quarantine hotels (Sui, 2020) andstay there for 15 days. People who failed to comply with this new rule and were fined
up to one million NTD, and felt shame or loss of face. Everyone does their part to avoid
being the black goat in the group, and the country and people’s daily life suffers the mostnegligible economic impact.
Next, people in highly masculine societies such as Japan (95 points) pursue excellent
quality in manufacturing products and providing services and packaging (Hofstede
20Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectInsights, n.d.) rather than emphasizing assertiveness, strength or independence. On theother hand, some consider Taiwan as a slightly Feminine society (45 points). People in
Taiwan highly value equality, supportiveness, warmth and quality in their working lives.
For example, regardless age, nationality, gender, occupation or income, people in Taiwan
had an equal opportunity to buy face masks once a week during pandemic by showing
their national health card (Yuan, Hsu, Lee, Chen, Chou & Hwang, 2020). Moreover,male health officials launched a pink mask campaign challenging gender stereotypes in
response to the bullying of male students (see Tu, 2020). After this campaign, various
colors and designs of face masks emerged. Face masks are now viewed not only as
personal protective equipment but also for fashion or marketing purposes. For example,
people choose different face masks to match their outfits or support their favorable team.
2.2 Theory and model
The proposed causal framework (see Figure 2.2) describes the relationship between
price, quality, risk, customer-perceived value and COO label effect. This framework is
grounded in several bodies of knowledge, including Brady & Cronin (2001), Brady &Robertson, (1999), Chen & Dubinsky, (2003), Oliver, (1999), Roselius, (1971), andZeithaml, (1988). Scholars have tested in different settings and countries. Moreover,Wang and Yang (2008) identify that the COO will likely moderate customers’ attitude
toward a product evaluation and purchase intention. It can be further assumed that the
COO will probably influence other marketing variables such as price, quality, risk, andbrand image when customers make their purchase decisions.
Although COO seems to be the most studied topic in management and marketing
literature (Peterson & Jolibert, 1995; Pharr, 2005; Tan & Farley, 1987), Damanpour(1993) suggests the concept of COO may change over time in many cases. Multiple
marketing variables and their interactions may cause it, so a consumer’s idea may varyacross time, situations and purposes. In addition, Amine, Chao & Arnold (2005, page118) point out that “the point in history at which perceptions are measured” is critical,
leading to occasional attitude changes. In addition, country familiarity and consumer
adaptation to social media may accelerate customers’ perception of a product or brand.
Finally, customers may be misled when making a purchase decision due to the lack of
COO information and misuse of the COO label on the package. These indicate that
more extensive research is needed and that one will likely encountered significant
challenges in COO research.

21

Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectFigure 2.2 The proposed framework
COO Label
Price
Quality

Customer-perceived
value

Risk

2.3 Hypotheses
Several studies examine the relationships between quality, risk and customerperceived value (Cronin et al, 2000; Oliver, 1999), indicating that quality and customerperceived value are highly correlated. In addition, Cronin et al. (2000) suggest that risk
affects customer-perceived value. In this study, the risk construct refers to performance,
psychological, and social risk, whereas financial and time risks are excluded andsubsequently being categorized in the price construct. This description of risk is in linewith Monroe (2003), who proposes the price-quality-value relationship. In his research,
the price construct contains both monetary and non-monetary costs.
Furthermore, Dodds et al. (1991) observed that increasing price negatively affects
product value for money and perceived product quality. Price seems to have a dual rolein customers’ decision-making process. In the same study, Dodds et al. (1991) alsosuggest perceived quality significantly affects customer-perceived value. Therefore, thehypotheses are:
H1: The effect of price on customer-perceived value depends on COO label does notexist.
H2: The effect of quality on customer-perceived value depends on COO label does notexist.
H3: The effect of risk on customer-perceived value depends on COO label does notexist.
3. Research methods
3.1 Sampling and data collection
The sample was collected through a convenient sampling method. Respondents who
were 18 years old, and above, of Taiwanese nationality, had purchased a smartphone atleast once were invited. A questionnaire link and a short message were distributed
22Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectthrough companies’ internal mail lists and received 125 responses within approximately
three weeks. There was no missing data, as all the questions were required to be filled
out. After data screening and cleaning, a total 125 cases were ready for data analysis.
The Cronbach’s Alpha value is .923 (N=35) which exceeded the threshold of 0.7 (Hair,
Black, Babin & Anderson, 2019), indicating a good internal consistency of the variablesin the scale. The results of descriptive statistics is shown in Table 3.1. There were 72
male and 50 female respondents, and three respondents chose not to reveal their gender
identity, indicating more options are needed to express their gender identity. The results
reflect the specific characteristics of feminine society in the Hofstede study.
Table 3.1 Descriptive statistics of demographic variables (n=125).
Demographic variable

Percentage (n)GenderMale

FemalePrefer not to say

57.6% (72)

40% (50)

2.4% (3)30-39 years

40-49 years

50-59 years

36.8% (46)44% (55)

15.2% (19)

Education

Junior high school or less

Undergraduate

Post-graduate

attainment

4% (5)

70.4% (88)25.6% (32)AgeMonthly

20k-40k

40k-60k

60k-80k

80k-100k

100k-200k

200k+

income9.6% (12)24.8% (31)

8% (10)18.4% (23)

17.6% (22)12.8% (16)3.2 Analysis
The hypothesized relationships were estimated using SPSS PROCESS V4.3. SPSSPROCESS has become a popular analytical software to test mediation and moderation
effects in the field of psychology and management (Hayes, 2018). The preprogrammed
moderation model (Model 1) tests the effect of focal antecedents on customer-perceived
value moderated by the COO label effect.
3.3 Study 1-Japanese sample
The Japanese data were conducted in 2021 (n=121), and the results were reported in
Chang (2021). The same measurement scale was applied. The only difference was themodels of the mobile device - the iPhone 13 (launched in 2021) versus the iPhone 14(launched in 2022). The iPhone 13 series, including iPhone 13, iPhone 13 mini, iPhone
13 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro max were all assembled in China. In contrast, the iPhone 14
and iPhone 14 Plus have been assembled in India since 2022, while the iPhone 14 Pro
and iPhone 14 Pro max have remained in China (Cheng, 2022). This study cannot
control the country-of-assembling (COA) effect. In this section, the results are23

Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectsummarized in short. The study found that effect of price on customer-perceived value
depends on COO label does not exist. However, the effect of quality and risk on
customer-perceived value depends on COO label exists. Firstly, the COO label ispositively related to quality among those relatively low, relatively moderate and relatively
high in COO label. By employing the Johnson-Neyman technique, it is about 5.8th
percentile of the distribution of the COO label and above is significant (p-value < .05).
Next, the COO label effect is positively related to risk among relatively moderate andrelatively high COO label. About the 37th percentile of the distribution of the COO label
and above is significant. Therefore, the effect of risk on customer-perceived value
depends on the COO label exists.
3.4 Study 2-Taiwanese sample
The Taiwan data was conducted from December 31st, 2022 to January 13th, 2023
through an online questionnaire. A total number of 125 cases were received.
3.4.1 H1: The effect of price on customer-perceived value depends on COO label does notexist.
Table 3.4.1 summarizes the results of using PROCESS.
R

R-sq

MSE

F

df1

df2

p

.7723

.5965

.6677

35.18145.0000119.0000

.0000

coeff

se

t

p

LLCI

ULCI

Constant-4.17042.6802-1.5560.1224-9.4774

1.1367

Price

.8263

.3372

2.4504

.0157

.1586

1.4940

COO

.6803

.3517

1.9343.0554-.01611.3767Int_1-.0694.0439-1.5801.1165-.1562.0175

Quality

.1998

.0756

2.6443

.0093

.0502

.3494

Risk

.4154

.0731

5.6813

.0000

.2706

.5602

Table 3.4.1.1 Model

The model can be written as ŷ=-4.1704+0.8263X+0.6803W-0.0694XW, where
X=Price, W=COO, XW=the effect of price on customer-perceived value
depends on COO label.

24Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effect

Table 3.4.1.2 Test of highest order unconditional interaction
X*W

R2-chng

F

df1

df2

p

.0085

2.49971.0000119.0000.1165

According to Table 3.4.1.2, the p-value (p=.1165, LLCI=-.1562, ULCI=.0175) isgreater than 0.05 and the confidence interval contains zero, indicating it is not significant.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, the effect of price on customerperceived value depends on COO label does not exist.
Figure 3.4. Moderation Chart
98.84158.69588.67868.5

8.55

8.43218.40938.18568

7.9963

7.583

7.5

7

6

6.5

7

7.83

8

8.64

9

To further probe the moderation effect, a pick-a-point statistical test approach was
employed to investigate the interaction (Hayes, 2018). The program selected threevalues of the moderator to estimate the conditional effect, and they are the 16th
(value=5.4), 50th (value=7.2) and 84th (value=9.0) percentiles of the distribution of the
COO label. Price is related to customer-perceived value among relatively low in the
COO label (θx→ylw=5.4=.4517, p=.0002), relatively moderate in the COO label(θx→ylw=7.2=.3268, p=.0000) and relatively high in COO label (θx→ylw=9.0=.2020, p=.0482).
There is statistically significant association between price and customer-perceived value.
Moreover, the Johnson-Neyman significance region is between 13.6th (value=2.78) to
86.4th (value=9.0129) percentile of the distribution of COO label (see Table 3.4.1.3).

25

Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effect

Table 3.4.1.3 Conditional effect of focal predictor at values of the moderator
COO

effect

se

t

p

LLCI

ULCI

2.400

.6598

.2358

2.7977

.0060

.1928

1.1268

2.780

.6334

.2201

2.8776

.0048

.1976

1.0693

3.160

.6071

.2046

2.9675

.0036

.2020

1.0122

3.540

.5807

.1892

3.0692

.0027

.2061

.9554

3.920

.5544

.1741

3.1845

.0019

.2097

.8991

8.8600

.2117

.0973

2.1766

.0315

.0191

.4043

9.0129

.2011

.1016

1.9801

.0500

.0000

.4022

3.4.2 H2: The effect of quality on customer-perceived value depends on COO label does
not exist.
Table 3.4.2 summarizes the results of using PROCESS.
R

R-sq

MSE

F

df1

df2

p

.7689

.5912

.6764

34.4252

5.0000119.0000

.0000

coeff

se

t

p

LLCI

ULCI

Constant

2.61892.9102

.8999

.3700

-3.1436

8.3815

Quality-.1079.3086-.3498.7271-.7190.5031

COO-.2627.4076-.6445.5205-1.0699

.5445

Int_1

.0419

.0432

.9705

.3338

-.0436

.1275

Price

.2960

.0776

3.8129

.0002

.1423

.4498

Risk

.4441

.0730

6.0813

.0000

.2995

.5886

Table 3.4.2.1 Model

The model can be shown as ŷ=2.6189-.1079X-.2627W+.0419XW, where
X=Quality, W=COO, XW=the effect of quality on customer-perceived value
depends on COO label.
Table 3.4.2.2 Test of highest order unconditional interaction
X*W

R2-chng

F

df1

df2

p

.0032

.9419

1.0000119.0000.1275

According to Table 3.4.2.2, the p-value (p=.3338, LLCI=-.0436, ULCI=0.1880) is
greater than 0.05, and the confidence interval contains zero, indicating it is not significant.

26

Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effect

When further probing the interaction effect, the results show quality is related tocustomer-perceived value only among relatively moderate in COO label(θx→ylw=7.2=.1940, p=.0121) and relatively high in COO label (θx→ylw=9.0=.2695, p=.0230).
Among relatively low in COO label (θx→ylw=5.4=.1185, p=.2385), there is no statisticallysignificant association between quality and customer-perceived value. Moreover, theJohnson-Neyman significance region is below 32nd (value=6.264) and above 68th
(value=8.0) percentile of the distribution of COO label (see Table 3.4.2.3).
Figure 3.4.2 Moderation Chart
98.63328.5

8.38898.22898.09797.966988.14478.76798.48598.2039

7.5

7

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

Table 3.4.2.3 Conditional effect of focal predictor at values of the moderator
COO

effect

se

t

p

LLCI

ULCI

6.2000

.1521

.0815

1.8655.0646-.0093.3135

6.3292

.1575

.0795

1.9801

.0500

.0000

.3150

6.5800

.1680

.0767

2.1901

.0305

.0161

.3199

6.9600

.1839

.0753

2.4441

.0160

.0349

.3330

7.3400

.1999

.0773

2.5842

.0110

.0467

.3530

7.7200

.2158

.0827

2.6094

.0102

.0520

.3796

8.1000

.2318

.0908

2.5534

.0119

.0520

.4115

3.4.3 H3: The effect of risk on customer-perceived value depends on COO label does notexist.

27

Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effect

Table 3.4.3 summarizes the results of using PROCESS.
R

R-sq

MSE

F

df1

df2

p

.7773

.6043

.6549

36.34105.0000119.0000

.0000

coeff

se

t

p

LLCI

ULCI

Constant-4.64542.1863-2.1248.0357-8.9745-.3163

Risk

.9379

.2382

3.9376

.0001

.4662

1.4095

COO

.7980

.3062

2.6026

.0103

.1917

1.4042

Int_1-.0821.0371-2.2109.0290-.1556-.0086

Price

.3492

.0780

4.4796

.0000

.1949

.5036

Quality

.2052

.0747

2.7447

.0070

.0571

.3532

Table 3.4.3.1 Model

The model can be explained as ŷ=-4.6454+.9379X+.7980W-.0821XW, where
X=Risk, W=COO, XW=the effect of risk on customer-perceived value
depends on COO label.
According to Table 3.4.3.2, the p-value (p=.0290,
LLCI=-.1556, ULCI=-.0086) is less than 0.05, and the confidence interval does notcontain zero, indicating it is significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. Moreover,risk is related to customer-perceived value only among relatively low in COO label(θx→ylw=5.4=.4947, p=.0000) and relatively moderate in COO label (θx→ylw=7.2=.3469,
p=.0000), among relatively high in COO label (θx→ylw=9.0=.1992, p=.1236), there is no
statistically significant association between risk and customer-perceived value. In
addition, Table 3.4.3.3 shows that the Johnson-Neyman significance regions are between
23.2nd (value=5.8) to 76.8th (value=8.7536) percentile of the distribution of COO label.
Table 3.4.3.2 Test of highest order unconditional interaction
X*W

R2-chng

F

df1

df2

p

.0163

4.88831.0000119.0000

.0290

28

Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectFigure 3.4.3 Moderation Chart
98.88118.7992
8.71728.68838.5

87.5

8.46338.37598.23847.91937.4628

7

6.632

7

7.5

8.2

8.5

9.16

9.5

Table 3.4.3.3 Conditional effect of focal predictor at values of the moderator

COO

effect

se

t

p

LLCI

ULCI

6.9600

.3666

.0778

4.7124

.0000

.2126

.5207

7.3400

.3354

.0844

3.9726

.0001

.1682

.5026

7.7200

.3043

.0928

3.2800

.0014

.1206

.4879

8.1000

.2731

.1024

2.6678

.0087

.0704

.4757

8.4800

.2419

.1129

2.1423

.0342

.0183

.4654

8.6111

.2311

.1167

1.9801

.0500

.0000

.4622

8.8600

.2107

.1242

1.6969.0923-.0352.4565

4. Discussion
The results of study 2 (Taiwanese data) support H1, H2 and H3. Firstly, the moderation
analysis with the SPSS PROCESS Macro reveals the effect of price on customerperceived value depends on the COO label exists. The results suggest that the COO
label moderates the relationship between price and customer-perceived value. Since themarket price of an iPhone 14 model has increased by 3,000 NTD (approximately 12,000
JPY), it seems to be additional financial burden for consumers, especially since someworkers were vulnerable during the pandemic. Moreover, the average lifespan for an
iPhone mobile has been extended from 4 year and three months (Dediu, 2018) to 6 years
and more (Chouffani, 2023; Cohen, 2022). Technological advancement not only makes
consumers rely on a mobile device more, but also makes consumers want to get theirmoney’s worth in terms of lifespan when they purchase a new device. In addition, this29

Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectstudy found out that price is related to customer-perceived value among relatively low in
the COO label and relatively moderate in the COO label. When a lower or moderateamount of information displays on the COO label, it influences price the most.
Customers become price sensitive when purchasing a new smartphone as they may nothave adequate information to determine whether it is value for money or it is worth
200,000 JYP or 49,400 NTD for an identical iPhone 14 Pro Max in Japan or Taiwan.
Those consumers must make the right decision and hope the gadget they chose will last
longer.
There are slight differences between Japanese and Taiwanese consumers regarding theirprice perception. To begin with, it takes the Taiwanese 17.2 working days of theiraverage monthly income to get an iPhone 14 Pro, whereas it takes the Japanese only 11.9
to afford one, according to the iPhone Index 2022 (Picodi, 2022). Taiwanese consumers
must work an additional 5.3 working days compared to their counterparts, indicating thehigh price cost. Thus, consumers are likely to get more information to determine thevalue for money.
The second findings of this study are the effect of quality on customer-perceived value
depends on the COO label exists in both the Japanese and Taiwanese samples. In bothcountries, consumers are influenced by the COO label when determining product andservice quality. One reason is that in both nations, local companies are leading suppliers
to Apple, including Sony, TSMC, Fujikura, Hitachi, Japan Display Inc., Kinsus, etc.
Customers are more familiar with these companies, strengthening their perception of
product quality. In addition, Apple publishes its global supplier list on its website andemphasizes the latest innovation technology in its products. Disclosing this kind of
information enhances customer-perceived value. The only discrepancy between two
nations is that quality is related to customer-perceived value only among relatively
moderate and relatively high in COO label in Taiwan. It seems that the stronger the
COO label effect, the higher value consumers hold.
Most importantly, this study suggests the effect of risk on customer-perceived value
depends on COO label exists in the Taiwanese sample. In contrast, this effect only exists
among relatively moderate and relatively high in COO label in the Japanese sample.
Both countries score high in the uncertainty avoidance dimension (Hofstede, 1980),
suggesting consumers are likely to minimize any risks that may occur in their decisionmaking process. They may search for more information (e.g. expert reviews), try the
product at an Apple store or consult friends or family members. Moreover, consumers
30Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectdo not want to lose face among friends or colleagues if they make a terrible choice. For
example, consumers would feel regret if (1) their new phone malfunctioned quickly or(2) they did not choose to increase the storage capacity, which may shorten their phone’s
lifespan. Therefore, presenting more COO information would minimize customers’ risk
perception and increase customer-perceived value.
5. Conclusions
This study compares how consumers price, quality and risk create customer-perceived
value and how the COO label affects consumers’ purchase decision between Japanese andTaiwanese consumers. Since both countries have similar traits, this study identifies
differences between Japan and Taiwan. The COO label effect significantly moderates
the relationship between price and customer-perceived value only in Taiwan. It suggeststhat consumers utilize the information displayed on the label/packaging to determine its
value for money. However, the iPhone price is identical in each country. It is not only
on the purchase price but also on the maximum efficiency and effectiveness of thepurchase. Next, the COO label is positive relative to quality and risk in both countries.
This study finds that the COO label effects are significant for different groups in bothcountries. For example, the COO label effects on the relationship between quality andcustomer-perceived value are significant among Taiwan’s relatively moderate and high
COO label groups.
The first theoretical contribution of this study is to compare behavioral differences
between Japan and Taiwan. Due to globalization, culture, and social media effects,
Taiwan and Japan are similar; however, this study identified some different aspects. For
example, both Japan and Taiwan are categorized in the collectivism dimension.
However, consumers in both societies behave differently on specific occasions. It
suggests that more comparative studies are needed to probe convergence and divergencein both societies. Next, this study further improves the pricing and COO literature bysupporting the COO label effect moderates the relationship between price and customerperceived value. Although Wang and Yang (2008) identify that the COO is likely to bea moderator, this study takes things a step further by investigating how the COO
influences price, quality and risk on customer-perceived value. Finally, this study crossvalidates the model in a different cultural and economically developed environment.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Creating Happiness Incubation Research Fund 2022
(Research theme: A comparative study of how country-of-origin labelling influences
31Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectcustomer-perceived value)
References
1. Amine, L. S., Chao, M. C. H., & Arnold, Exploring the practical effects of country oforigin, animosity, and price-quality issues: Two case studies of Taiwan and Acer in
China, Journal of International Marketing, 13(2), 114-150.
2. Andrade, T, (2005). How Taiwan became Chinese: Dutch, Spanish and Hancolonization in the seventeenth century. Columbia University Press,
3. Andrade, T. (2006). The rise and fall of Dutch Taiwan, 1624-1662: Cooperativecolonization and the statist model of European expansion. Journal of World History,
17(4), 429-450.
4. Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. Jr. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing
perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65 (3), 3450.
5. Brady, M. K., & Robertson, C. J. (1999). An exploratory study of service value in the
USA and Ecuador. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10 (5),469-486.
6. Chan, M. (2018). Mobile-mediated multimodal communications, relationship quality
and subjective well-being: An analysis of smartphone use from a life course
perspective. Computer Human Behavior, 87(1), 254–262.
7. Chang, C. (2021). Does the coo label effect matter? How Japanese consumers respondto the effect on a mobile device? Journal of Musashino University Creating
Happiness Incubation, 5(1), 18-48.
8. Chen, Z. & Dubinsky, A. J. (2003). A Conceptual Model of Perceived Customer Valuein e-Commerce: A Preliminary Investigation. Psychology & Marketing, 20 (4), 323346.
9. Cheng, T. (2022, September 26). Apple already building latest iPhone 14 in India
moving a sign south Asian country is gaining importance in supply chain. Nikkei Asia.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Supply-Chain/Apple-already-building-latestiPhone-14-in-India
10. Chouffani, R. (2023, January 31st). Understanding how long iPhones can last in theenterprise.TechTarget.
https://www.techtarget.com/searchmobilecomputing/tip/Understanding-how-longiPhones-can-last-in-the-enterprise
11. Cohen, B. (2022, December 4th). How long does an iPhone last? Devicetests.
https://devicetests.com/how-long-does-an-iphone-last
12. Damanpour, F. (1993). Temporal shifts of developed country images: A 20-year view.
32Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effect

In N. Papadopoulos & L. A. Heslop (Eds), Product-country images: Impact and rolein international marketing (pp. 357-378). International Business Press.
13. Dediu, H. (2018, March 1st). Determining the average Apple device lifespan. Asymco.
http://www.asymco.com/2018/03/01/determining-the-average-apple-device-lifespan/
14. Dubey, T., Sharma, S. & Sheth, A. (2023). A study to understand the usage of premium
smartphones in India with special reference to Samsung v/s oneplus. International
Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, 5(2),1620-1624.
15. Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data
Analysis. (8th ed.). Cengage International.
16. Hamblen, M. (2021, December 3). Smartphone tally up 5% for year despite supply
chain woes. https://www.fierceelectronics.com/electronics/smartphone-tally-up-5for-year-despite-supply-chain-woes
17. Hofstede, G. (1908). Culture’s consequence. Sage.
18. Hofstede Insights. (n.d.). Country comparison. Retrieved March 15, 2023, fromhttps://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/japan,taiwan/
19. IMF. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2023, from https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/JPN
20. IMF. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2023, fromhttps://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/TWN
21. Mishra, V. (2022, September 1). Premium smartphone average selling price reaches
record Q2 high. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/premium-smartphone-aspreaches-record-q2-high/
22. Ng, A. (2019, May 16). Smartphone users are waiting longer before upgrading-here’s
why. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/smartphone-users-are-waitinglonger-before-upgrading-heres-why.html
23. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Value as excellence in the consumption experience. In M. B.
Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer behavior: A framework for analysis and research (pp. 4362). Routledge.
24. Peterson, R. A., & Jolibert, A. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects.
Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), 883-900.
25. Pharr, J. M. (2005). Synthesizing country-of-origin research from the last decade: Is
the concept still salient in an ear of global brands? Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice, 13(4), 34-45.
26. Picodi (2022, September 8). iPhone index 2022: How many days do we need toafford Apple’s newest flagship? Picodi. https://www.picodi.com/my/bargainhunting/iphone-index-2022
27. Reuters (2015, October 25). Taiwan president says should remember good things
33Original Empirical Research
Original Empirical Research

How price, quality and risk create customer-perceived value:
The moderating role of COO label effectJapan did. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-chinaidUSKCN0SJ03Y20151025
28. Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal ofMarketing, 35 (1), 56-61.
29. Sui, C. (2020, April 24). In Taiwan, the coronavirus pandemic is playing out very
differently. What does life without a lockdown look like? NBC News.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/taiwanese-authorities-stay-vigilant-viruscrisis-eases-n1188781
30. Tan, C. T., & Farley, J. U. (1987). The impact of cultural patterns on cognition andintention. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 540-544.
31. The Asahi Shimbun. (2023, February 8). Japan, charities sending rescuers, aid toquake-hit Turkey, Syria. The Asahi Shimbun.
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14834800
32. Tu, J. (2020, April 16). Taiwan challenges gender stereotypes with pink mask
campaign. Women’s Agenda. https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/taiwanchallenges-gender-stereotype-with-pink-mask-campaign/
33. Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2008). Does country-of-origin matter in the relationshipbetween brand personality and purchase intention in emerging economies? Evidence
from China’s auto industry. International Marketing Review, 25(4), 458-474.
34. World Bank. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2023, fromhttps://data.worldbank.org/country/japan?view=chart
35. Wu, J. & Shih, H. (2023, February 7). 2nd Taiwan search and rescue team Turkey
bound following earthquake. Focus Taiwan.
https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202302070028
36. Yang, S., Panjaitan, B. P., Ujiie, K., Wann, J. and Chen, D. (2021). Comparing offood values for consumers’ preferences on imported fruits and vegetables within
Japan, Taiwan and Indonesia. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 1-10.
37. Yuan, E. J., Hsu, C., Lee, W., Chen, T., Chou, L. & Hwang, S. (2020). Where to buy
face masks? Survey of applications using Taiwan’s open data in the time ofcoronavirus disease 2019, Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 83(6), 557560.
38. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A meansend model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 2-22.

34