Consumers' Attitudes toward Marketing: A Cross-cultural Study of China and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has attributed the differences in consumer attitudes toward marketing between countries to either the lifecycle of consumerism development or cultural values such as individualism. We conduct a cross-cultural study of China and Canada to test the two competing hypotheses. The survey results suggest that Chinese consumers are more positive about marketing and have a higher level of satisfaction than their Canadian counterparts. But the Chinese report more problems with marketing and less positive attitudes toward consumerism than the Canadians. While Chinese consumers are less likely to complain or engage in negative word-of-mouth, they are more supportive of government actions and public resolution. Consumerism and individualism have significant negative correlations with consumer attitudes toward marketing for the Canadians, but not for the Chinese. The cross-cultural variations may reflect the cultural values (i.e., individualism) and the role of government institutions, which are different between the two countries. These findings have significant implications for managing customer relationships in different countries and for interpreting the differences in consumer attitudes in cross-cultural studies.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".