MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176111233 · doi:10.1177/14707853211023036

Predicting m-shopping in the two largest m-commerce markets: The United States and China

2021· article· en· W3176111233 on OpenAlexaff
Myriam Ertz, Myung‐Soo Jo, Ying Kong, Emine Sarigöllü

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Market Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersLi Ka Shing Foundation
KeywordsChinaContext (archaeology)Control (management)AdvertisingPerceived controlPsychologyTheory of planned behaviorMarketingChinese marketBusinessSocial psychologyEconomicsPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the factors affecting consumers’ mobile shopping (m-shopping) intentions in China and the United States. Drawing on the hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM), it is proposed that perceived ease of use affects m-shopping intentions; furthermore, this relationship is mediated by perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, and control. A survey-based cross-sectional analysis involving a total of 720 respondents constitutes the methodology of this study. In the United States, 409 responses from American citizens or residents were obtained from surveys administered online by MTurk. In China, 311 responses from Chinese consumers were obtained from surveys administered online by Sojump. Perceived usefulness, an extrinsic motive, directly affects behavioral intentions, especially for Chinese consumers, and this effect is also much stronger and complemented by an indirect effect for the Chinese (relative to American) consumers. In contrast, intrinsic motives of joy and control, which are strongly affected by perceived ease of use, do not influence intentions in either market. However, joy exerts an indirect influence on m-shopping intentions, but only for Chinese consumers. These results pertain to the specific context of m-shopping and establish further the importance of distinguishing between utilitarian and hedonic factors, especially across different markets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Market ResearchSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207