MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414879208 · doi:10.17358/ijbe.11.3.556

Perceived Value and Purchase Intention Among Young Adults Perfume Consumers: A Mixed-Method Exploration

2025· article· en· W4414879208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cicilia Larasati Rembulan, Ersa Lanang Sanjaya

Bibliographic record

VenueIndonesian Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Context (archaeology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Product (mathematics)PraiseQuality (philosophy)InterviewPerceived qualityConsumer behaviour

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The cosmetics industry including perfume was one of the industries that contributed to the economy in Indonesia (3.83% in the first quarter of 2023). This made the perfume industry a worthy field to discuss. Purpose: The objective of this study is to see the influence of dimensions of perceived value on the intention to purchase perfume X in young adults. Design/methodology/approach: The research design used was a mixed method. The online survey was conducted with 217 early adulthood (18-25 years). Quantitative data analysis used PLS SEM. Qualitative data was obtained by interviewing 24 respondentsFinding/Result: In study 1, it was found that social and emotional perceived value have an influence on the intention to buy product X. Based on study 2, it was found that the emergence of certain memories or nostalgia and the influence of friends and praise from people closest to them were important. Conclusion: In the context of teenagers and non-luxury perfumes, emotional and social perceived value are important because they will be related to purchase intentions. Originality/value (State of the art): In this study, it was found that social and emotional perceived value are important things related to purchase intention, while quality and price have no influence. Keywords: perceived value, intention to purchase, perfume industry, early adulthood, mixed method

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndonesian Journal of Business and EntrepreneurshipSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207