Product‐country images in the arts: a multi‐country study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The country‐of‐origin literature has focused mainly on tangible products and has neglected largely intangible services and products such as the arts. The objective of this study is to examine the impact that country of origin may have on consumer perceptions of artistic and cultural products and to explore the variables that explain how consumers form their perceptions of countries as producers of cultural products. Design/methodology/approach A survey was conducted among adult consumers in Australia, Canada, Italy, Switzerland, and the USA that assessed participants' perceptions of 16 countries with respect to their reputation for nine cultural products. Findings The results indicate that product‐country images in the arts are affected by country and product familiarity as well as consumers' openness to foreign cultures and home country bias. Countries more proximate to the participants' home country were also better evaluated, especially when the proximity factor played a significant role in the consumption of cultural products. Research limitations/implications While almost all of the hypotheses were supported, additional research is needed to examine the cultural products of non‐Western and emerging markets as well as product‐country perceptions in these markets. Originality/value This study extends our understanding of country‐of‐origin effects in the context of aesthetic, intangible, and complex products that elicit both cognitive and affective responses. It demonstrates that familiarity with a country of origin has a stronger association with positive perceptions of product‐country reputation than does product familiarity, and that openness to foreign cultures, home country bias, and proximity have a positive effect on product‐country evaluations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".