Linking Product Evaluations and Purchase Intention for Country-of-Origin Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports an experimental study concerned with the observed inconsistency between evaluative and behavioral data for country-of-origin (COO) effects. This issue is addressed by specifying conceptual relationships among three criterion variables-consumer evaluations of product quality, perceived product value, and purchase intention in the context of COO effects. The results showed that COO information had a direct effect on overall product evaluation and an indirect effect (through product evaluation) on perceived product value, which in turn determined purchase intention. In addition, purchase intention was also directly affected by brand name and price factors, but not by COO. Moreover, it was also revealed that COO and brand name had a similar impact on overall product evaluation. On the whole, this study suggests that it may be premature to claim less significant importance and role of COO information in influencing purchase intentions or behaviors. Rather, the exact nature of COO effects for behavioral consequences might be much more complex than what has been assumed in most previous studies. The present investigation represents an initial effort in providing empirical evidence of how COO information may impact evaluative and behavioral variables differently in the consumer decision process. Managerial implications of this study are discussed. Key Words: Country-of-origin effectsbrandpriceproduct evaluationspurchase intention
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".