A Comparative Study of the U.S. and Ghana College Students’ Perceptions of Advertising-in-General and Impact on Purchase Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article responds to calls for more cross-cultural research on advertising that tests the applicability of Pollay and Mittal’s (1993) attitude toward advertising-in-general framework in multiple cultures. It investigates U.S. and Ghanaian college students’ perceptions of advertising-in-general and their purchase intentions. It uses survey data from 248 U.S. and 242 Ghanaian college students and employs exploratory factor analysis and regression analyses in its empirical approach. Findings reveal that there are differences and similarities among the student cohorts studied. While four factors informed U.S.-college students’ attitudes toward advertising only three of these factors were relevant for Ghanaian College students. Furthermore, U.S.-college students make use of a more complex and wider range of information sources than their Ghanaian counterparts. Moreover, consumers’ perceptions about advertisements have significant associations with purchase intentions. The findings provide evidence of the generalizability of Pollay and Mittal’s (1993) framework and contribute to the Global Consumer Culture Theory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".