MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082140991 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.8.005

Money attitude, materialism and compulsive buying among Malaysian young adults

2020· article· en· W3082140991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhi Ying Ong, Jasmine Leby Lau, Norzalina Zainudin

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterialismPsychologySocial psychologyMarketingAdvertisingBusinessEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to investigate the compulsive buying behavior among Malaysian youths. Specifically, this study aims to examine the indirect effects of money attitude on compulsive buying through materialism. The intercept method was used where respondents were systematically selected based on every fifth student who entered the university library. A structured closeended self-administered questionnaire was used to collect primary data. Structural equation modelling using SMART PLS 3.0 was employed in this study to analyze the indirect effects of money attitude on compulsive buying through the mediation of materialism. The results indicated that power prestige and anxiety dimensions of money attitude had significant effects on compulsive buying via materialism. Although understanding money attitude, materialism and compulsive buying may help marketers gain greater market share, ethical and socially responsible marketing strategies must also be taken into account. In addition, parents and higher learning institutions need to take initiatives to prevent the forming of maladaptive behaviors among youths. Implications and suggestions for future research are also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207