Chinese Millenials' happiness and materialism: Explanations from two <scp>life‐course</scp> theories, <scp>self‐esteem</scp>, and <scp>money‐attitudes</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Born in an era of single‐child families and raised in the rapidly growing and globally connected milieu where material wealth is ranked at the top of life's achievements, Chinese millennials are feared to be materialistic. We assessed whether this was the case and whether happiness is gained from materialism. By questioning processes through which materialism develops, we examined how self‐esteem, money attitudes and human capital, and socialization life‐course theories explain materialism. We collected data from 207 millennials and conducted structural equation modeling and mediation analyses. We found that Chinese millennials were moderately materialistic and do obtain some happiness from materialism. Materialism was explained by the human capital and socialization life‐course theory, whereby self‐esteem mediated in how family resources received and peer communication during adolescence impacted materialism at young adulthood. Self‐esteem was a good predictor of five money‐attitude dimensions, which can help and hinder materialism depending on the dimension consumers hold.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".