DECISION-MAKING

Adolescents' influence on
family decision-making
In this article Hiral Chavda, Martin Haley and Chris Dunn, Coventry Business
School, seek to gain a better understanding of the extent to which UK adolescents
feel they have influence within the family decision-making unit compared to the
perceptions of their parents

R
ECENT CHANGES IN demographic in order to allow cross-sectional representation.
and household structures have increased The study seeks to understand to what extent
children’s impact both on parents’ male and female adolescents feel they have
purchasing decisions and the wider family deci- influence within the family decision-making
sion-making process. Considerable research has unit; and to what extent adolescents and parents
been carried out on young children’s influence agree or disagree with the adolescent’s perceived
(Berey & Pollay 1968; Atkin 1978; Jenkins 1979; influence when purchasing products. A number
Nelson 1979; Darley & Lim 1986; Swinyard & of hypotheses are tested using questionnaires
Sim 1987; Ahuja et al. 1998). However, as chil- across a range of product categories and prod-
dren become adolescents they gain more ucts, thereby allowing perceived and actual
product knowledge, display more cognitive influence to be measured. Results are then
development (Piaget 1970), demonstrate more analysed and statistically tested to understand
understanding of economic concepts (Strauss the relationship between variables and the
1952), develop consumer skills related to infor- resulting implications for organisations market-
mation processing (Wackman & Wartella 1977; ing to the family.
Roedder 1981) and are more likely to model
their consumer behaviour on that of adults
Introduction
(Lerner & Shea 1982).
It is somewhat surprising, then, that only a Children’s and adolescents’ roles in family deci-
limited number of studies have focused on ado- sion-making have begun to increase for a
lescents (Belch et al. 1985; Foxman & Tasuhaj number of reasons, including the growth in
1988; Foxman et al. 1989a, 1989b; Beatty & ‘time poor’ families, which consist of both par-
Talpade 1994). These studies compared adoles- ents working, and the large increase in
cents’ perceptions of influence with that of single-parent families who have allowed their
parents, predominantly based in central Europe children to exert a greater level of influence in
and the US. place of the missing parent. Often families
This research draws on previous studies in actively encourage their child’s participation
America by Foxman et al. (1988, 1989a) but in within the family decision-making unit
current time and within a UK setting. A non- (Ekstrom et al. 1987).
probability, convenience method of sampling is Children themselves have also become a
employed, consisting of secondary school pupils major consumer market (Corfman 1997); hence
and their parents drawn from various geograph- there has been an ever increasing amount of lit-
ical areas, socio-economic groups and cultures erature pertaining to the influence a child has on

68 YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005 © World Advertising Research Center 2005

 DECISION-MAKING

its parents. Considerable research has been car- (1982) also state that adolescents are expected
ried out on young children’s influence (Berey & to model their behaviour on that of adults.
Pollay 1968; Ward & Wackman 1972; Szybillo et Similar studies have been done (e.g. Belch et al.
al. 1977; Szybillo & Sosanie 1977; Atkin 1978; 1985; Foxman & Tasuhaj 1988; Foxman et al.
Jenkins 1979; Nelson 1979; Darley & Lim 1986; 1989a, 1989b; Beatty & Talpade 1994).
Swinyard & Sim 1987; Ahuja et al. 1998;
Caruana & Vassallo 2003; Tufte 2003).
Consumer socialisation
To date most research has focused on young
children not adolescents. Whereas young chil- The decision-making process occurring in the
dren (i.e. ages 3–11) influence purchases by parent–child dyad has been studied under the
‘simply asking’ (Isler et al. 1987), adolescents heading ‘consumer socialisation’ (Ekstrom et al.
may use different strategies to influence their 1987).The majority of family studies during the
parents’ decision-making. Palan and Wilkes 1970s and after have focused on children and
(1997) found that adolescents use strategies like the consumer socialisation process, examining
bargaining, persuasion or emotional strategies how children’s purchase decisions are influ-
(e.g. pouting, sweet talking or guilt trips) in enced by parents through consumer learning
addition to direct requests. However only a few (McNeal 1987; Moschis & Churchill 1978;
studies have focused on the perceived level of Szybillo et al. 1977). It is important to under-
influence that adolescents have (Belch et al. stand how an adolescent learns to buy and
1985; Foxman & Tasuhaj 1988; Foxman et al. influence what products are purchased within
1989a, 1989b; Beatty & Talpade 1994). the family. Consumer socialisation may be
Most empirical studies on family decision- defined as: ‘the process by which young people
making and adolescents as consumers were acquire skills, knowledge and attitudes relevant
conducted in the US. Hence, there is a need for to their functioning as consumers in the market-
further research on this topic in other countries place’ (Ward 1980).
(Shoham & Dalakas 2003). This paper makes a Consumer socialisation is therefore an impor-
contribution to this area by examining the per- tant aspect in the study of consumer behaviour
ceived influence of UK adolescents on family and decision-making by children (Caruana &
decisions. Vassallo 2003). Cowell (2001) identified four
The study seeks to understand to what extent main socialising agents that directly impact on a
male and female adolescents feel they have child’s consumer socialisation process, these
influence within the family decision-making unit being parents, schools, peers and television. The
and to what extent adolescents and parents first two impact upon the child’s educational
agree or disagree with the adolescent’s perceived development and the last two impact through
influence when purchasing products. Parents’ social interaction. Other socialising agents
and adolescents’ perceptions of influence will be include members of the extended family, reli-
compared graphically (tables) and statistically, gious groups and other media.
and the relationship of importance perceptions Of all the socialisation agents, parental influ-
to decision influence ratings will be examined. ence is the most pervasive and important
The authors have chosen to look at adoles- (Caruana & Vassallo 2003; Geuens et al. 2003).
cents as they are at an age where they have full According to Ward et al. (1977) parents can
cognitive development (Piaget 1970), under- influence the consumer socialisation process of
stand economic concepts (Strauss 1952) and their children in several ways. First, children
possess consumer skills related to information observe the consumption behaviour of their par-
processing (Roedder 1981). Lerner and Shea ents; they hear their parents discuss expenses

YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005 69

 DECISION-MAKING

and see which products are bought and used. than the middle class, owing to them not being
Therefore parents are acting as role models for able to afford these expensive (advertised) prod-
their children. Second, there is an interaction ucts (Spungin 2004).
between the parent and child, in terms of com-
municating what products to purchase (Ward et
Family communication
al. 1977). Parents influence the degree to which
a child achieves consumer knowledge through Family communication is a very important
the type, quantity and quality of consumer expe- aspect of the consumer socialisation process
riences and information they share with the (Peterson & Rollins 1987, cited in Palan 1998;
child (Roedder 1999). Caruana & Vassallo 2003). It is generally
Peer interaction can provide the child with believed that the family context of interpersonal
non-rational sources of consumer socialisation communication has a greater impact on the
(Dholakia 1984). Peers can influence children in acquisition of consumer skills, knowledge and
ways that a parent may not be able to; this is due attitudes than mass-media advertising (Peterson
to the desire to be accepted as a member of their & Rollins 1987. cited in Palan 1998).
sub-culture. Robinson (1997) states that chil- Mcleod and O’Keefe (1972) found that
dren adjust the way that they act and perceive socio- and concept-orientation were determi-
the world around them, in accordance with their nants of family communication patterns. This is
peer group. further supported by Caruana and Vassallo
Television can also educate children to (2003), who state that socio and concept-orien-
request products, by making them aware of what tation are two principal parental communication
products are available. Spungin (2004), states styles that can affect the perceived influence a
that by advertising to children, companies are child believes it has.
encouraging the child to nag their parents into The socio-oriented communication element
buying something. is intended to produce obedience from the child
It has been seen that parents can influence and to cultivate agreeable and pleasant relation-
their child, however very little attention has been ships at home. Children are encouraged to make
paid to the concept of reverse socialisation purchase decisions that are similar to and
whereby parents can learn from their children accepted by others, therefore repressing their
(Cowell 2001). This is what is known as ‘pester feelings and avoiding controversy in order not to
power’. Children have been shown to exert offend others. Parents who adopt this style of
influence and ‘re-socialise’ their parents in terms communication are said to be controlling
of personal appearance, daily activities, decorat- towards what their child learns as a consumer,
ing and purchasing a car (Baranowski 1978). and they do not discuss consumption-related
Children can play a dominant role in family activities with the child (Moschis & Moore
decision-making as they are a major source of 1979; Caruana & Vassallo 2003).
product information (Dholakia 1984). It can be Concept-oriented communication, in con-
said that children have so much power in the trast, allows the child to develop its own views
family that their families are becoming child-led and encourages the child to look at alternatives
(Cowell 2001). The increase in advertising to in order to weigh up the differences. This may
children, and peer influence, encourage this open the child to controversy, by showing differ-
‘pester power’, whereby children pester their ent views, and can cause friction. This style of
parents to buy the latest products, in order to parental communication supports children, by
keep up with the latest trends. Pester power is allowing them to develop their own consumer
also thought to influence poorer parents more skills. They are encouraged to make decisions

70 YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005

 DECISION-MAKING

and purchases even though these may be differ- be spent on each child, creating a higher level of
ent from others’ opinions (Caruana & Vassallo purchasing power exerted by the child.
2003).
Caruana and Vassallo (2003) based their
Previous studies
study on these parental communication styles
and their results showed that children of con- Due to its spending power, the family is seen as
cept-oriented parents have an influence on the most important consumer-buying unit in
purchase decisions, while those with socio- society (Thomson 2003). In the past, studies
oriented parents do not. have classified family purchases into four deci-
Therefore, the lower the socio-orientation and sion influence categories: husband dominant;
the higher the concept-orientation the more wife dominant; autonomic (separate); and syn-
influence the child exerts on its family’s decision- cretism (joint) (Davis & Rigaux 1974).
making (Geuens et al. 2003). As such, the way in Much family purchasing research has often
which a parent communicates with a child can confined its attention to the roles of the husband
affect the level of influence the child perceives and wife, overlooking the important role chil-
they have in terms of family purchases. dren can play in purchase decisions (Lackman
& Lanasa 1993), and therefore misrepresenting
the reality of family purchasing behaviour,
Changing family structures
where products are purchased and consumed
The changes in demographic and household together and children exert direct and indirect
structure may also have substantially increased influence over the purchase decisions (Blackwell
children’s impact on parental decisions and gen- et al. 2001).
eral involvement in family decision-making. In Various authors have looked at the role of
the past decade several shifts in family structure children (Berey & Pollay 1968; Ward &
have been witnessed, for example, the increase Wackman 1972; Mehrotra & Torges 1977; Atkin
in one-parent households (Geuens et al. 2003). 1978). They established that there were a num-
Hahlo (1999), as cited in Geuens et al. (2003), ber of factors that brought about the differences
stated that children of single parents frequently in a child’s influence during the decision-mak-
have to take over or help with adult tasks. This ing. These factors comprise the age of the child,
was supported by Ahuja (1989), who claimed product knowledge and experience, personal
that adolescents from single-parent families took resources, the purchase in question, and the
a greater part in consumption decisions. stage in the decision-making process.
There has also been a shift from a one- One of the earlier studies, by Berey and Pollay
income to a two-income model (Van Wichelean (1968), looked at mothers, children (8–11
2000). In families where both parents are work- years) and teachers.The mother’s child-centred-
ing, it can be said that parents are ‘time poor’, ness explained the child’s influence. The extent
and therefore have less time to spend with their of the influence a child may have on the parent’s
children. Geuens et al. (2003) state that over- purchasing decision is dependent on at least two
compensation is often observed within the primary factors: the child’s assertiveness and the
two-income model; hence the belief that chil- parent’s child-centredness. Examination of the
dren have more decision-making influence, flow of influence from the child to the parent
therefore higher concept-orientation and lower shows that the child’s assertiveness is clearly
socio-orientation. related to the amount of input initiated at the
There has also been a decrease in the number child’s end of this communication.The receiving
of children per family, whereby more money can end of the communications channel is the par-

YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005 71

 DECISION-MAKING

ent, and the level of influence the child has differences. Their research found that product
depends on how well the parent is ‘tuned in’ to importance and usage gave the most consistent
the child. reasons as to why adolescents perceived they
However, relatively few studies have looked at had influence in family decision-making.
the levels of influence adolescents perceive they As Foxman et al.’s (1989a) study found only a
have. Belch et al. (1985), in their northern marginally significant correlation of importance
European study, looked at fathers, mothers and with product, Beatty and Talpade’s study was the
adolescents. They found that parents clearly first to show there was a clear connection
dominated the decision-making process; how- between product importance and the adoles-
ever, adolescents had some influence during the cent’s perceived influence towards that product.
first stages. Adolescents perceived they had Other key authors, Belch et al.(1985), felt that
more influence than their parents perceived the number of studies previous to theirs that
them to have. actually examined the family as a decision-mak-
Foxman et al. (1989a), in their US study, ing unit was rather limited; this is supported by
observed adolescent influence factors by acquir- Davis and Rigaux (1974), who noted in their
ing responses from adolescents and their parents review that studies of family decision-making
to single-item influence questions for 14 diverse have in reality been about husband–wife deci-
products. They found that mothers, fathers and sion-making. Therefore they looked not only at
children all rated children as having some level the influence of husband and wife, but also the
of influence in purchase decisions. It was found adolescent, hence allowing the authors to com-
that children tended to have more influence in pare the views of each respondent in assessing
the purchasing of less expensive products and family member influence. This study found that
those for their own use. (This is also supported the influence of the adolescent varied by prod-
by Beatty and Talpade’s US study.) When com- uct class and by decision stage. The adolescents’
paring the children’s results with the parents’, it influence was greatest for products they were
was revealed that children overstated their levels more involved with and/or directly affected by,
of influence. This was due to the fact that par- such as holidays and cereal brands.
ents were the ones who had a source of income Belch et al. (1985) also looked at the amount
and purchasing power – therefore they per- of agreement among family members in their
ceived themselves to have a greater level of perceptions of influence on the family decision-
influence. Their research also showed that the making process. The children attributed more
levels of perceived influence parents had when influence to themselves than did either parent.
purchasing a range of products were in closer The results in their study indicated that family
agreement between mother and father than member influence varied by product, by stages
those between parents and children. Beatty and of the decision-making process, and by various
Talpade (1994), however, found that this decision areas. Belch et al. (1985) found that as
approach has several problems: (1) products the responsibility for shopping and purchasing
may not have ever been purchased, (2) product of most household products lay with the par-
differences were ignored, and (3) each product ents, this explained why they were the most
decision received equal weighting. dominant.Their findings supported much of the
Hence Beatty and Talpade (1994) replicated earlier family decision-making research. As
some of Foxman et al.’s (1989a) study in order expected, the child’s influence was minimal for
to resolve several measurement problems and most of the major purchase decisions.
extend the work by looking at parental employ- Overall, previous research has shown that
ment status as well as examining gender-based adolescents tend to believe they have more

72 YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005

 DECISION-MAKING

influence in purchase decisions than parents able representation of different socio-economic

attribute to them (Belch et al. 1985). They per- groups and cultures, therefore obtaining a cross-
ceive they exert more influence over products sectional representation. Questionnaires were
due to the fact that individuals who are more delivered to teachers and distributed during
involved with the product, or are the primary class time; the researcher was not present, as it
user of the product, and where the product is was so late in the academic year and the schools
relevant to them, will be more active in the prod- did not want too many class disruptions.
uct’s decision-making process (Krishnamurthy However, all schools were given clear instruc-
1981; Beatty & Talpade 1994; Kim & Lee 1997; tions on how to select participating students on
Lee & Beatty 2002; Shoham & Dalakas 2003). a stratified random basis and administer the
questionnaire. Each student that completed the
questionnaire was asked to take a maximum of
Hypotheses
two questionnaires home for their parents to
From the array of literature discussed the fol- complete, with an accompanying letter explain-
lowing hypotheses have been formulated: ing what the research was in relation to and
requesting that, if there were two parents, they
H1: Parents and adolescents disagree in their fill out the questionnaires independently. These
perceived ratings of adolescents’ product cat- questionnaires were returned to the school
egory decision influence. within one week.
Five schools agreed to participate in the
H2: There is a difference between male ado- research project, allowing us access to an aver-
lescents’ perceived influence and female age of 100 students and a maximum of 200
adolescents’ perceived influence across a parents per school.
range of product categories.
Questionnaires
The aim of the questionnaire was to identify the
Methodology
differences in views between adolescents and
The research aims to get an understanding of parents when asked about the perceived influ-
the levels of influence adolescents perceive they ence an adolescent had when purchasing a range
have compared to the view of their parents. For of product categories. The questionnaire was
the purpose of this study, adolescents are split into a number of products, which fell under
defined as those of secondary school age (i.e. the following product categories: household
11–16). Generally the research falls under a pos- products, toiletries, entertainment, adolescent’s
itivistic paradigm with emphasis on a deductive clothes, parents’ clothes, large purchases, food
approach as adopted through surveys. A cross- products and technology.
sectional representation was taken whereby the
data was collected once and over a short period Influence measures
of time, allowing a snap-shot view. This study focused on levels of influence in
product category decision measures. The
Recruitment of respondents questionnaires made reference to a number of
Recruitment of respondents took place through products in a broad price range, for family use,
secondary schools in the West Midlands, within parent’s own use and adolescent’s own use.
the UK. Letters were sent out to 50 schools For each product, adolescents were asked to
within the areas of Birmingham, Warwickshire, rate what level of perceived influence they had
Coventry and Solihull. This allowed a reason- when purchasing that product within the

YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005 73

 DECISION-MAKING

Table 1 Mean value of perceived influence Table 2 Fisher’s exact P test and Pearson’s
ratings by adolescents and parents values for each product category
for each product category
Product category Fisher’s Pearson’s Pearson
Product category Adolescents Parents Difference exact P value value P value
in means
Toiletries 0.000 0.834** 0.000
Toiletries 1.36 1.63 0.27 Food 0.000 0.525** 0.000
Food 1.42 1.68 0.26 Technology 0.009 0.296** 0.006
Technology 1.49 1.81 0.32 Household products 0.005 0.562** 0.000
Household products 1.92 1.91 0.01 Entertaintment 0.000 0.745** 0.000
Entertainment 1.18 1.42 0.24 Adolescents’ clothes 0.000 1.000** –
Adolescents’ clothes 1.00 1.20 0.20 Parents’ clothes 0.000 0.696** 0.000
Parents’ clothes 1.94 1.94 0.00 Large purchases 0.000 0.546** 0.000
Large purchases 1.96 1.93 0.03
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Note: 1 = child’s decision, 2 = parent’s decision

family, using a five-point Likert scale: 1 indi- Table 1 shows that there is very little differ-
cating it was the adolescent’s decision fully; 2 ence between adolescents’ perception of their
indicating it was mainly the adolescent’s deci- influence and parents’ perception of adolescent
sion; 3 indicating it was a joint decision influence, with regard to large purchases, par-
between adolescents and parents; 4 indicating ent’s clothes and household products.
it was mainly their parents’ decision; and 5 Adolescents and parents perceive, when pur-
indicating it was fully their parents’ decision. A chasing these product categories within the
five-point Likert scale was used, as it enabled family, that there is a level of agreement.
the authors to aggregate the responses to facil- Nevertheless it would be reasonable to test this
itate the statistical tests. statistically and confirm whether there is a rela-
tionship between the two. A 2 × 2 contingency
table was employed, using Fisher’s exact test
Results
(results shown in Table 2). The Fisher’s P values
Similar to Foxman et al. (1989a) and Shoham were less than the 5% (0.05) level of signifi-
and Dalakas (2003), responses were analysed cance, hence showing that there is a level of
separately for parents and adolescents for per- agreement between the mean values of adoles-
ceived levels of influence for different product cents’ and parents’ ratings of adolescent
categories. The data was first examined by using influence when purchasing products within
simple aggregate statistics (means). these product categories.
As the figures show there is a relationship
H1: Parents and adolescents disagree in their between adolescents and parents’ perceived rat-
ratings of adolescents’ product category deci- ings the authors wanted to test the strength of
sion influence. this relationship; with a Pearson’s correlation
coefficient test. These are shown in Table 2. The
Table 1 reports the means for adolescents’ closer the values for Pearson’s test are to 1, the
perceived levels of influence in comparison to stronger the relationship between adolescents’
parents’ perceived levels of their adolescent’s perceived ratings and parents’ perceived ratings
influence for each product category. of adolescent influence. As these figures are pos-

74 YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005

 DECISION-MAKING

Table 3 Mean value of perceived influence Table 4 ANOVA test values, comparing
ratings by male adolescents and female adolescent male ratings and adolescent
adolescents for each product category female ratings for each product category

Product category Males Females Product category ANOVA

Technology 1.44 1.55 Large purchases 0.025
Adolescents’ clothes 1.00 1.00 Food 0.029
Entertainment 1.18 1.19 Adolescent’s clothes 0.015
Toiletries 1.37 1.34 Parent’s clothes 0.249
Food 1.39 1.44 Entertainment 0.447
Household products 1.89 1.94 Toiletries 0.486
Large purchases 1.93 1.99 Technology 0.494
Parents’ clothes 1.96 1.92 Household products 0.628

Note: 1 = child’s decision, 2 = parent’s decision Note: 1 = child’s decision, 2 = parent’s decision

itive, it shows as one variable increases so does for technology; this can be even clearer when
the other. As shown in the Table 2 Pearson’s figures are rounded off to zero decimal places.
value (which is the strength of the association) To test this statistically the authors implemented
with adolescents’ clothes show a perfect correla- a one-way ANOVA test. The results are shown
tion between both sets of respondents. in Table 4. In conclusion to hypothesis 2, it can
To conclude hypothesis 1, it can be said that be said that there is no significant difference
when looking at whether adolescents and par- between the mean values of male adolescents’
ents disagree in their ratings of adolescent perceived ratings and female adolescents’ per-
influence on product categories, there is no dif- ceived ratings, except for large purchases and
ference and, statistically, this study has proven food categories, showing that males and females
that parents and adolescents in fact agree in differ in their perceived influence levels when
their perceived ratings of adolescent influence purchasing products within these categories.
on product category decisions.
Discussion
H2: There is a difference between male ado-
lescents’ perceived influence and female This study has worked out to be similar to the
adolescents’ perceived influence across a findings of Belch et al. (1985), who in their
range of product categories. exploratory study found general agreement
among respondents. Our study has shown statis-
As there was no difference between adoles- tically that there has been no conflict in
cents and parents, the authors wanted to see if purchasing within the eight product categories.
there were any differences among adolescents, These findings, like the Belch et al. (1985) study,
comparing male and female perceived rating of have been at odds with previous studies, which
influence. Table 3 shows the means for adoles- have described a fair amount of conflict in fam-
cent males’ perceived influence in comparison ily purchase decisions (e.g. Davis & Rigaux
to adolescent females’ perceived influence for 1974; Spiro 1983). This study, as theirs, may
each product category. have fallen victim to the ‘socially desirable
As highlighted in Table 3, males’ and females’ response factor’, as described by Olson and
mean values of perceived influence differ most Rabunsky (1972).

YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005 75

 DECISION-MAKING

Belch et al. (1985) found that adolescents scale be used, as it then compels the respondent
perceived themselves as exerting greater levels to take a particular side, rather than choose the
of influence than their parents perceived them to middle ground, which may have been the cause
have. Our study has shown that, at first glance, of some of the distorted statistics and hence the
adolescents perceived themselves as having conclusions.
greater influence than their parents perceived
them to have, when purchasing products within
Further research
a range of categories. However, when this was
tested statistically, it showed that there was a The authors feel that further research should
clear agreement among adolescents’ perceived be conducted into this area of study within the
ratings and parents’ perceived ratings of adoles- UK. Most studies have been done in the US,
cent influence. As a result it can be said that and very little research within the UK. If such
parents and adolescents in general agree in their research is completed successfully, it could
perceived ratings of adolescents’ influence. provide very useful insights into consumer
However, these positive relationships differ in buyer behaviour of children, adolescents and
strength. parents within the UK, which could benefit
This study also aimed to discover whether small and medium-sized companies as well as
there was a difference between the perceived multi-national organisations wishing to
influence ratings of male adolescents compared expand into or already active within the
to female adolescents. This also, at first glance, UK.
showed that there was a difference in means It has to be noted that there are cultural dif-
between male and female adolescents’ percep- ferences between the US and the UK, and to
tions. However, this was proved wrong in the understand how these impact on buyer behav-
majority of categories, with the exception of iour would also be insightful, as the assumption
large purchases and food, hence showing that that US studies would show the same results as
males and females did disagree to some extent UK stuides could be misleading. This is an
on their perceptions of influence. example of a self-reference criterion (Lee
1966).
Limitations
References
There have been many limitations, which is
maybe why the authors have not been able to Ahuja, R. (1989) Mother-only single parent
validate previous studies. However, the reader families decision-making. Comparisons of the
two-parent family structure with respect to
must appreciate that this is a UK-based study children’s influence and family life styles.
and cultural differences may exist. Dissertation-Abstracts-International, 50 (1-A),
The authors encountered a non-response p. 201.
error, which may have created some distortions Ahuja, R., Capella L. and Taylor, R. (1998) Child
in the randomness of the sample. influences, attitudinal and behavioural
comparisons between single parent and dual
Some of the statistical vehicles the authors
parent households in grocery shopping. Journal
wanted to use were not possible, due to the lack of Marketing Theory and Practice, Winter, pp.
of data. For this reason the authors had to use a 48–63.
Fisher’s exact test instead of the more traditional Atkin, C. (1978) Observation of parent–child
Chi-test. interaction in supermarket decision-making.
If this study were to be done again, the Journal of Marketing, October, pp. 41-45.
Beatty, S. and Talpade, S. (1994) Adolescent
authors would recommend that a six-bar Likert influence in family decision making: a

76 YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005

 DECISION MAKING

replication with extension. Journal of Consumer communication about consumption. Advertising

Research, September, pp. 332-341. and Marketing to Children, January-March, pp.
Belch, G., Belch, M. and Ceresino, G. (1985) 57–62.
Parental and teenage influences in family Hahlo, G. (1999) Millennium kids and the post
decision making. Journal of Business Research, modern family. International Journal of
April, pp. 163-176. Advertising and Marketing to Children,
Berey, L. and Pollay, R. (1968) The influencing September-October, pp. 229–237.
role of the child in family decision making. Isler, L., Popper, E. and Ward, S. (1987)
Journal of Marketing Research, February, pp. Children’s purchase requests and parental
70–72. responses: results from a diary study. Journal of
Caruana, A. and Vassallo, R. (2003) Children’s Advertising Research, October-November, pp.
perception of their influence over purchases: 28–39.
the role of parental communication patterns. Jenkins, R. (1979) The influence of children in
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20, 1. family decision-making: parents’ perceptions.
Corfman, K. (1997) Children as decision makers. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, pp. 413–418.
Advances in Consumer Research, 24, pp. Kim, C. and Lee, H. (1997) Development of
125–127. family triadic measures for children’s purchase
Cowell, P. (2001) Marketing to children: a guide influence. Journal of Marketing Research,
for students and practitioners - part 2. The August, pp.301–321.
Marketing Review, 2, pp. 71–87. Lee, C. and Beatty, S. (2002) Family structure
Darley, W. and Lim, J. (1986) Family decision and influence in family decision making,
making in leisure-time activities: an explanatory Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19, 1, pp.
investigation of the impact of locus of control, 24–41.
child age influence factor and parental type on Lee, J. (1966), Cultural analysis in overseas
perceived child influence. Advances in operations. Harvard Business Review,
Consumer Research, 13, pp. 370–374. March/April.
Davis, H. and Rigaux, B. (1974) Perception of Lerner, R. and Shea, J. (1982) Social behaviour in
marital roles in decision processes. Journal of adolescence. In Benjamin Wolman (ed.)
Consumer Research, June, pp. 51–61. Handbook of Development Psychology.
Dholakia, R. (1984) Intergeneration differences Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp.
in consumer behaviour: some evidence from a 503–525.
developing country. Journal of Business Lackman, C. and Lanasa, J. (1993) Family
Research, 12, pp.19–34. decision making theory, an overview
Ekstrom, K., Tansuhaj, P. and Foxman, E. (1987) assessment. Psychology and Marketing, 10, 2,
Children’s influence in family decisions and pp. 81–93.
consumer socialization: a reciprocal review. Mcleod, J. and O’Keefe, G. (1972) The
Advances in Consumer Research, 14, pp. socialisation perspective and communication
283–287. behaviour. In F. Kline and P. Tichenor (eds.)
Foxman, E. and Tanshuaj, P. (1988) Adolescents’ Current Perspectives in Mass Communications
and mothers’ perceptions of relative influence Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 121–168.
in family purchase decisions: patterns of McNeal, J. (1987) Children as Consumers: Insights
agreement and disagreement. Advances in and Implications. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Consumer Research, 15, pp. 449–453. Books.
Foxman, E., Tasuhaj, P. and Ekstrom, K. (1989a) Mehrotra, S. and Torges, S. (1977) Determinants
Family member’s perceptions of adolescents’ of children’s influence on mothers’ buying
influence in family decision making. Journal of behaviour. In William D. Perreault Jr. (ed.)
Consumer Research, 15, pp. 482–491. Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 4.
Foxman, E., Tasuhaj, P. and Ekstrom, K. (1989b) Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer
Adolescents’ influence in family purchase Research, pp. 56–60.
decisions: a socialization perspective. Journal of Moschis, G. and Churchill, G. (1978) Consumer
Business Research, 18, pp. 159–172. socialization: a theoretical and empirical
Geuens, M., Pelsmacker, P. and Mast, G. (2003) analysis. Journal of Marketing Research,
How family structure affects parent-child November, pp. 599–609.

YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005 77

 DECISION-MAKING

Moschis, G. and Moore, R. (1979) Decision Association for Consumer Research, pp.
making among the young: a socialization 46–49.
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, Szybillo, G., Sosanie, A. and Tenenbein, A. (1977)
September, pp. 101–112. Should children be seen but not heard. Journal
Nelson, J. (1979) Children as information sources of Advertising Research, December, pp. 7–13.
in the family decision to eat out. In William L. Thomson, E. (2003) Look who’s talking: family
Wilkie (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, communication during purchase decisions.
Volume 6. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Advertising and Marketing to Children, October-
Consumer Research, pp. 419–423. December, pp. 23–33.
Palan, K. (1998) Relationships between family Tufte, B. (2003) Children, media and
communication and consumer activities of consumption. Advertising and Marketing to
adolescents, an exploratory study. Journal of the Children, October-December, pp. 69–76.
Academy of Marketing Science, 26, pp. 338–349. Van Wichelean, L. (2000) Ouderen terug aan het
Palan, K. and Wilkes, R. (1997) Adolescent- werk? [Older persons back to work?].
parent interaction in family decision making. Steunpunt WAV, Nieuwsbrief, February,
Journal of Consumer Research, September, pp. pp.9–19.
159–169. Wackman, D. and Wartella, E. (1977) A review of
Peterson, G. and Rollins, B. (1987) Parent-child cognitive development theory and research and
socialization. In M. Sussman and S. Steinmetz the implication for research on children’s
(eds.) Handbook of marriage and family. New responses to television. Communication
York, NY: Plenum, pp. 471–507. Research, 4, pp.203–204.
Piaget, J. (1970) The stages of intellectual Ward, S. (1980) Consumer socialization. In H.H.
development of the child and Piaget’s theory. Kassarjin and T.S. Robertson Perspective in
In P. Mussen, J. Conger and J. Kagan (eds.) Consumer Behaviour. Glennville, IL: Scott,
Readings of child development and personality. Foresman and Co, pp. 380–396.
New York: Harper and Row. Ward, S. and Wackman, D. (1972) Children’s
Roedder, D. (1981) Age differences in children’s purchase influence attempts and parental
responses to television advertising: an yielding. Journal of Marketing Research,
information processing approach. Journal of November, pp. 316–319.
Consumer Research, June, pp. 144–153. Ward, S., Wackman, D. and Wartella, E. (1977)
Roedder, D. (1999) Consumer socialization of The development of consumer information-
children: a retrospective look at twenty-five processing skills: integrative cognitive
years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, development and family interaction theories.
26, pp. 183–213. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, pp. 166–171.
Shoham, A. and Dalakas, V. (2003) Family
consumer decision making in Israel: the role of
teens and parents. Journal of Consumer Hiral Chavda is a visiting lecturer in Marketing at
Marketing, 20, 3, pp. 238–251. Coventry Business School. She teaches marketing
principles and buyer behaviour and has a keen
Spungin, P. (2004) Parent power, not pester interest in marketing to children.
power. Advertising and Marketing to Children, Martin Haley is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at
April-June, pp. 37–40. Coventry Business School. Martin came to Coventry
Strauss, A. (1952) The development and University following an extensive financial services
transformation of monetary meanings in the career in marketing and general management.
child. American Sociological Review, June, Martin's main research interests lie within services
275–286. marketing and marketing information systems.
Swinyard, W. and Sim, C. (1987) Perception of Chris Dunn is a Principal Lecturer in Marketing
children’s influence on family decision making within Coventry Business School. He teaches in
process. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Winter, services marketing, consumer behaviour and
marketing management. His main academic
pp. 25–37. interests are concerned with the intangible
Szybillo, G. and Sosanie, A. (1977) Family dimensions of marketing, branding and marketing
decision making: husband, wife and children. to children. Chris previously spent 12 years in a
In William D. Perrault Jr. (ed.) Advances in number of sales and marketing positions in both
Consumer Research, Volume 4. Atlanta, GA: the financial and IT service sectors.

78 YOUNG CONSUMERS Quarter 2 2005