The Role of Self-Construal in Group-Buying Propensities of Chinese and Canadian Generation Z
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, the use of group-buying platforms is expanding and diversifying, affecting both consumers and businesses. This paper seeks to contribute to the discussion of these platforms' global market segmentation by providing a cross-cultural understanding of the correlations between self-construal level, group-purchasing behaviour, and underlying group-purchase incentives predicted by self-construal theories among Generation Z. Data were collected from current Chinese and Canadian undergraduates at McGill University. The results reveal different relationships between self-construal, group-buying incentives, and group-buying propensity in both participant groups. For group purchases with friends (Study 1), the level of interdependent self-construal is associated with an increased likelihood for Chinese participants to share their purchase list. Nonetheless, in both participant groups, self-construal level is not associated with a propensity to accept purchase invitations from friends, while conversely, the intention to strengthen friendship bonds is a reason for accepting such invitations. For group purchases with strangers (Study 2), the level of interdependent self-construal positively correlates with both participant groups’ pursuit of group savings. Lower levels of self-construal also increase the level of pursuit of popular items among the Chinese participants. The findings shed light on the mentalities behind group-buying propensities in Generation Z, and they reinforce the need for culturally tailored managerial approaches for group-buying platforms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".