The heterogeneity of Chinese consumer values: a dual structure explanation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to discuss inconsistent and often contradictory consumer values and consumption behaviours in contemporary China. The seemingly paradox is explained by the dual structure theory of consumer value system. Design/methodology/approach This study provides a comprehensive overview and an in‐depth analysis of Chinese cultural values from a theoretical perspective. Findings Although the Chinese value system may appear coherent relative to those of other societies, it contains inconsistent elements that are the seeds of conflict, confusion, and change. Those contradictory values have coexisted and interacted with each other from a historical perspective. Research limitations/implications Although the argument raised in this paper has support from prior literature and anecdotal observations, it should undergo further empirical validation. Practical implications Given that consumption values vary across different consumer segments, different strategies should be developed for each segment. Those Western businesses who capitalize on these inherent contradictory, heterogeneous value elements will have the advantage over those who do not. Originality/value This work challenges the conventional view that the Chinese have preserved homogeneous values, and provides a case in which there is a danger in using the nation‐state as a surrogate for culture and as a unit of analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".