East Asian college consumer decision-making styles for sport products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Purchasing behaviors have been studied in various countries. Previous studies involving consumer decision-making styles for sport products have only been seen in one country in order to either identify factors of Purchase Style Inventory for Sport Products (PSISP) or classify consumer shopping behaviors. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to identify consumers’ decision-making styles (shopping styles) for sport products from Japanese, Singaporean, and Taiwanese college-aged consumers. Design/methodology/approach – The scale of PSISP was adapted to measure consumer decision-making styles (shopping styles) for sport products. This instrument is composed of 35 items under nine dimensions. CFA, 3 (Nationality) × 2 (Gender) MANOVA and ANOVA were employed. Findings – According to the results of this study, there were significant different decision-making styles among three different countries in East Asia. Overall, Japanese male and female college-aged students exhibited higher brand consciousness than Singaporean and Taiwanese males and females. Research limitations/implications – As consumers from different countries show different lifestyle, education, economic, religion, and culture, they might have their unique shopping styles. Therefore, the dimensions related to decision-making styles need to be explored, and the scale needs to be validated using a substantial sport industry sample in the future study. Practical implications – This study helps East Asian advertisers or markets to rethink and develop appropriate marketing strategies as well as to understand the different decision-making styles of local consumers and better approach new and existing consumer markets. Originality/value – This paper is important for international sports marketers to predict consumer shopping patterns and maintain proper inventory levels, particularly when marketing in global markets.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".