A Binational Investigation of the Effects of Country of Origin Cues on Consumer Purchase Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The key goal of the study is to determine how different country of origin information affect consumer purchase intentions in two different countries using beer as a product, as well as to identify factors that influence the relationship between country of origin information and consumer behavior. \n \n In order to meet this goal, a survey of Russian and Canadian consumers was conducted, and results of the survey were analyzed by constructing a full-factorial ANOVA, as well as testing for simple main effects using other ANOVAs. The results of the research demonstrate that two country of origin cues – country of brand origin and country of manufacture – have individual as well as joint effects on consumer purchase intentions. While country of manufacture is found to exert a stronger influence on consumers than country of brand, combined effects of country of manufacture and country of brand origin indicate that certain combinations are more favourable than others (e.g. German beer made in Germany). Evidence is also provided for a difference in impact of country of origin information on Russian and on Canadian consumers. Moreover, ethnocentrism and nationality together are shown to significantly influence the way country of origin information impacts consumers’ purchase intentions, with ethnocentric consumers from either Canada or Russia preferring beer that is produced in their home countries to foreign-made beer or home counry-branded beer produced abroad. Based on these findings, recommendations for companies regarding national branding strategies, foreign branding, and targeting ethnocentric consumers, are developed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".