MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604596482 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v9n2p53

Predicting Intentions to Purchase Sustainable Apparel in China: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

2017· article· en· W2604596482 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Han

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of planned behaviorClothingStructural equation modelingBeijingChinaContext (archaeology)BusinessPurchasingMarketingSustainable consumptionSustainable developmentPsychologyConsumption (sociology)Green consumptionSample (material)SustainabilityAdvertisingControl (management)EconomicsSociologyPolitical scienceProduction (economics)MicroeconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aims at exploring psychological determinants of intention to purchase sustainable apparel within the framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). A convenience sample of 784 university students studying in three major cities (Beijing, Shanghai, and Dalian) of China completed the anonymous surveys. All antecedents included in this study were significantly related to intention of sustainable apparel purchasing. Among them, the most important predictor of Intention to purchase sustainable apparel was individuals’ Attitude towards buying sustainable apparel, followed by Perceived Behaviour Control and Subjective Norm. The TPB was proved to be a reliable predictive model of intention to purchase sustainable apparel in the Chinese context. Findings from this study give readers an understanding of the magnitude and significance of relationships between antecedents and intention in the sustainable apparel consumption domain. These results lead to suggestions for policy makers, marketers and stakeholders involved in the sustainable apparel market.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessFrench-language works237,207