MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523551766 · doi:10.1509/jim.15.0098

Doing Good in Another Neighborhood: Attributions of CSR Motives Depend on Corporate Nationality and Cultural Orientation

2016· article· en· W2523551766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jungsil Choi, Young Kyun Chang, Yexin Jessica Li, Myoung Gyun Jang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Marketing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollectivismCorporate social responsibilityAttributionGoodwillIndividualismBusinessReputationNationalityMarketingInternationalizationHofstede's cultural dimensions theorySocial psychologyPsychologyPublic relationsEconomicsPolitical scienceMarket economyImmigrationAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past few decades, consumers around the world have placed increasing value on corporate social responsibility (CSR). As a response, companies entering new markets have boosted spending in areas like cause-related marketing to improve their reputation and create goodwill among consumers in the host country. However, these efforts may not be effective for all consumers or in all countries. Drawing upon research on intergroup bias and attribution theory, the present work explores how consumers from individualistic (the United States and Canada) and collectivistic (South Korea and India) cultures form attributions and attitudes about the CSR activities of foreign and domestic firms. Across three studies, we find that collectivistic (but not individualistic) consumers make more altruistic (but not egoistic) attributions about the CSR motives of domestic (vs. foreign) companies, and that altruistic attribution leads to more positive attitudes toward the firm. We also showed that collectivists’ bias against foreign firms is attenuated when level of commitment to the cause (as conveyed by CSR duration) is high.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations98
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International MarketingSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207