Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of family communication patterns (FCP) on adolescents’ choice of influence strategies and parents’ choice of response strategies in situations of parent–child purchase decision disagreement. Design/methodology/approach This study uses family triadic (mother–father–child) survey data collected from 294 Korean families. The study develops classifications of adolescent influence strategies and parental response strategies in the initial stage and subsequently investigates the impact of FCP on the adolescent child’s use of influence strategies and each parent’s use of response strategies. The final stage of the study involved an exploratory investigation aimed at discovering the adolescent influence strategies and parental response strategies that are likely used in conjunction. Findings Results show an overall significant impact of FCP on both adolescents’ use of influence strategies and parents’ use of response strategies. They further reveal that Korean mothers tended to encounter their children’s persistent influence attempts with unyielding, strict response strategies. The types of response strategies used by Korean fathers were not linked to particular types of influence strategies used by their children but linked to their level of education attained and household income. Practical implications Findings of this study may help marketers formulate an appropriate marketing communication strategy that can be effective in resolving parent–child purchase disagreement. Originality/value With its focus on the adolescent influence strategies, parental response strategies, and FCP as a factor influencing the strategy choice by adolescents and parents, this study provides new insights into the parent–child interaction taking place in situations of parent–child disagreement about a purchase decision.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".