Cultural differences in consumer socialization: A comparison of Chinese–Canadian and Caucasian–Canadian children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the extant literature on the cultural/subcultural differences in socialization goals and parental practices in the childrearing process, this study compares Chinese–Canadian and Caucasian–Canadian families with respect to three issues central to consumer socialization – family communication patterns, children's consumer decision-making styles, and children's influence in family purchase decisions. Some significant results include: (1) Chinese–Canadian children perceived both of their parents as more socio-oriented than Caucasian–Canadian children perceived theirs whereas no significant between-group difference was found on the perceived level of concept-orientation for either parent; (2) Chinese–Canadian children, relative to their Caucasian–Canadian counterparts, exhibited more utilitarian and confused-by-overchoice consumer decision-making orientations but less social/conspicuous and impulsive orientations; and (3) Chinese–Canadian children exercised greater purchase influence than their Caucasian–Canadian counterparts for the adolescent ‘convenience’ product category but no difference was found for the adolescent ‘durable’ product category.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".