Suchergebnisse

Purpose
This study aims to investigate the responses of young Chinese consumers with different cultural characteristics to negative brand information about electric vehicles.


Design/methodology/approach
The current study is quantitative research with an experimental method. It shows two different levels of severity for negative publicity and asks participants to self-report through questionnaires.


Findings
Chinese young consumers, being collectivist and of high uncertainty avoidance, tend to search for and spread information; consumers with low power distance search and share information more under low information severity. In addition, information search positively affects brand attitude under lower severity; negative word-of-mouth intention negatively affects brand attitudes at both severity levels.


Research limitations/implications
The current study examines the influence of personal cultural values on information searching and negative information dissemination among young consumers, providing insights to complement previous studies. Furthermore, it explores how such exposure influences young consumers' brand attitude and intention to purchase. Limitations include simple sample scopes and single-product stimuli.


Practical implications
This research highlights the importance of cultural dimensions in shaping young consumers' responses to negative publicity. Marketers worldwide should consider cultural influence and develop specific strategies to address negative information about different products. Understanding customers' unique characteristics and preferences can help marketers effectively tailor their approaches to counter negative publicity.


Originality/value
This study originally provides a supplement to prior studies on cultural dimensions and consumer behavior and provides suggestions to marketers on young Chinese consumers.

Abstract
STOFFENMANAGER® and the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) are recommended tools by the European Chemical Agency for regulatory chemical safety assessment. The models are widely used and accepted within the scientific community. STOFFENMANAGER® alone has more than 37 000 users globally and more than 310 000 risk assessment have been carried out by 2020. Regardless of their widespread use, this is the first study evaluating the theoretical backgrounds of each model. STOFFENMANAGER® and ART are based on a modified multiplicative model where an exposure base level (mg m−3) is replaced with a dimensionless intrinsic emission score and the exposure modifying factors are replaced with multipliers that are mainly based on subjective categories that are selected by using exposure taxonomy. The intrinsic emission is a unit of concentration to the substance emission potential that represents the concentration generated in a standardized task without local ventilation. Further information or scientific justification for this selection is not provided. The multipliers have mainly discrete values given in natural logarithm steps (…, 0.3, 1, 3, …) that are allocated by expert judgements. The multipliers scientific reasoning or link to physical quantities is not reported. The models calculate a subjective exposure score, which is then translated to an exposure level (mg m−3) by using a calibration factor. The calibration factor is assigned by comparing the measured personal exposure levels with the exposure score that is calculated for the respective exposure scenarios. A mixed effect regression model was used to calculate correlation factors for four exposure group [e.g. dusts, vapors, mists (low-volatiles), and solid object/abrasion] by using ~1000 measurements for STOFFENMANAGER® and 3000 measurements for ART. The measurement data for calibration are collected from different exposure groups. For example, for dusts the calibration data were pooled from exposure measurements sampled from pharmacies, bakeries, construction industry, and so on, which violates the empirical model basic principles. The calibration databases are not publicly available and thus their quality or subjective selections cannot be evaluated. STOFFENMANAGER® and ART can be classified as subjective categorization tools providing qualitative values as their outputs. By definition, STOFFENMANAGER® and ART cannot be classified as mechanistic models or empirical models. This modeling algorithm does not reflect the physical concept originally presented for the STOFFENMANAGER® and ART. A literature review showed that the models have been validated only at the 'operational analysis' level that describes the model usability. This review revealed that the accuracy of STOFFENMANAGER® is in the range of 100 000 and for ART 100. Calibration and validation studies have shown that typical log-transformed predicted exposure concentration and measured exposure levels often exhibit weak Pearson's correlations (r is <0.6) for both STOFFENMANAGER® and ART. Based on these limitations and performance departure from regulatory criteria for risk assessment models, it is recommended that STOFFENMANAGER® and ART regulatory acceptance for chemical safety decision making should be explicitly qualified as to their current deficiencies.