MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416190264 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v17n2p18

Shopping as Self-Determination: The Interconnected Nature of Consumer Time Use and Life Planning

2025· article· W4416190264 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jack A. Lesser, Minjung Park

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Pharmacy, University of MichiganUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsStructural equation modelingRecessionConsumer behaviourSurvey data collectionGrocery shoppingFactor (programming language)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines relationships among shopping behaviors and other time-use activities using American Time Use Survey data (2006–2023). Through factor analyses, structural equation modeling, and multiple regressions, the research investigates how grocery shopping and non-grocery shopping relate to other daily activities. The analyses reveal a robust factor that links both shopping behaviors with personal organization and planning activities, even across diverse economic conditions, including recession and pandemic periods. These relationships are considered within the framework of Self-Determination Theory to understand broader motivational aspects of consumer time allocation. The research demonstrates that shopping behaviors serve broader psychological functions beyond simple acquisition, representing expressions of autonomy, competence, and life planning processes. The findings provide insights for understanding consumer behavior and developing retail strategies within broader life management contexts.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207