A THEORY OF FAMILY BUYING DECISIONS [ane tmp wen Becerra Fai, danaing i pr onli dining pr: spect aneng get ae Lofie omed igor dg lose Pegs erate Cael aed en es ed ae eet Boe eae ge oie Sot So ARN, Seth prof Bie Kian wae io send Cis rake log ina exh ‘Ere en tke afer | Sendapelge ss hs Tepe flr tt ‘rotmclie ss fet cnet pen int dio irainnnance and survival of the Feta nin mo estos and consequent behaviors of individual beginning fom the ie i dee cord the family Conssquentys today family "decinsmaking joys long tadison of esearch “orp oft paper resents compevhensive theory ony dei ming incor mer bebaron A theory in general SEeves any ofthese fonction) Gecriptve functon in which te ebay AT Howard CH Tatcny 9) Be Sano etal om eve pen tt re ice ae ¥describes and narrates pheno: sete wih he oe of Be i ‘en ey ie ‘explicitly states the purpose of the ory ad ence spe wha oes not include, (2). generative neion which esentally means thoy srempt te recone vary of Hind td though by anevork of eo Sera, Howard and Sheth 1909, apts 1) Ta view of the fact ‘hae famty, dation aking i Wellescarhed aon the fst aad the thiedfonctont sre aleady Deformed by oces ts coi ie extent. However, the sor nd the fourth Tunccons wana ‘one atendan Berroe i heat ePeoammer belarioe very ele faking and to otegrate exiting thinking, Acondinly, the ceo preseaed beret basally an a fsmpt t0 Specify perimeters of Temily “decthonsnaling in con: Sumer Behavior and to inegiace diverse findings by meanr of oma nor nt, are Si settings er rd Brepared for auch an intepeatve Eton as family decion 1 Review of Family Decision: aking. In the proces of developing the theory of famaly desion-making, 38 coe eck wih asi of Perspectives tha researchers have faken and the variety of Findings that have emerged. This scion frlety reviews fhe curren tink: Ing and lowed, eee bans i mmken tan oie egret esters (0) Meer Mico Approc Ie Gena, expe sel Easier Sete Se ec tpmma tates imeheilrsatePae nts Semel he aot Piney ene rt et Rent” (aitante hs Rae see ae i eae, Hes Foes Sect ed Ene 08 sate PO, Wolpe oer ace ae Fear iy oe oe) Orel tan ea et sme byl i Ee inte anpouck i ahh te eprint See BP ctae oe aeaent Potash ni oe Rosle rel 2 ae Te Guts Foe aad Cae ‘ai Us: Cie srs tate Ringers ao? Reel 1m Sats a Deas inh iss a ll ta aed ate adiogs Ehic are ‘oder Ee12) awrnge er. Deena tice Approach: Some reser have been interned primary hsrting and empiiciiy descib= fag. the rhenomenon of family assision making. (Alderon 1937, Berry and Polley 1968; Boral and Gros 1984; Fereera and. Winter 1905; Glick 1947, Kirkpatrick B63; ORourke ise Sater 1963; Wolpe 1958), Np stempt is made fo examine the deter igan of oferved phenomenon. rs have hyposhented 2 asi: 19 of determina Incladng per beats family oecoatons and thildheed upbtinging and” bask fread Seam the nee Proce lopment of roles fineng family" members (Bld and Welle 1942; Blo 1558, Boe 1957; Foote and Courell 1953; Foote 1961; Heer 1988, Hoffman 1960; fogerll 1998, Rene 196; Keke! and Hoffinan 1956; King 1967; Komacovsky 1946, 19611 Life 1965; Lu 1952; Moty 19801 ‘Geser and Emery” 19347 Parsons and Bales 1988; Soothe 198% ‘Weller 1966, Witkeing sod Bhars i) 1967, Zinman 1947) (@)Atiudal en, Bebaconl COnentation: Moss of the research Sew sttadina fa che verbal ror oF the family embers Eoin the te ores ¢ information. Atsidinal approad has generally produced more fore ration whic hae bon ele to ‘amine cau facoc of Tami Section making. The behavioral scteration an ced e onct Family” decilowrmaking’ which tee pt bao, Sa 4 ch ees Eonar Tomar Sea ec aero Sabepe tals cee Sere eben oat uta pe Pe SE cn, a sre some recent exceptions, how ver notably the General Elecic Pane!"and "the Berkley-lifns fat coll drake on guhered Conan over B.Clasifiction of Findings on fanly Deion Making Reearch findings em faily decisionmaking ae itrally hun ie eer evra ins such an sociology and soc Povcolgy. 1 have Stempted fo Foramarise mest of che findings in terms of the following categories 1. Types of Family Decision: ‘Most ofthe research in dis cea geal wih se into Betws (Sldcron 1987) Converse and amford, 1980; Coulton 1966: Farber 1954 ‘Hows 1969; Life 1964; Nicora. 1966, »Morgan 1961; Shaffer 196; Well 196) eis poinced out thas ou purclary the howse vile) maybe the buyer, bur the Products and services yb sued ier by a ene gE een some other ember Spe fe atenvion hasbeen paid she sole of the fowemiferas a put chasing agent and wictce doc esos ae teal jin amas ‘members of the fay Tn “general, cnsumpcion of foots ta trie are Cniid Ino three ype (1) consomption 2 adsl mba yee see, (2) “conumpton by he hole famy aie and (3) cone Smption by the Routchel? wrk ‘he’ latter mostly ciodes sees scumslaton ‘and ther maine nce such as 2 howe ora best oy howichld “toenthings “(Shahi 2. Process of Family Decision. Ming Te'would appear cha thre di oct Rope ofthe process of scion making "have ccved ‘oniderableetarch tention The Fiat relates vo the role erctre fo esidon making among member ofthe family. Perhaps the sgle foot consistent finding i that oe igbeed pla eer (Gden man} role and the wif pays the expresive (mation sles andy” deciionsmating. (Blood and Wolfe 1960; Burhinal sod Bader 1965; Ferreiva and Winns 1965, Hil" 19847 Kenkel Tot Komarorsky 1946; Life 1968; ta 1982; ‘Parone and Beles 53st 40 Strodteck 1958.) Wolgu (1957, 1958) found chav in theta da sion-making ‘of buying” automo is the and ally ard te thoughe of buying & ne ear and the make of that car whe the wife concentrated onthe inter ip ony ofa se zation browshe shou by eileen: tial foley among family members is cin mgs indeed Sieifcane to minnie coil in ecison making "he second aspect isthe pattern of teraction and. exchange cf information among family net bers (Alderson 1987s errand Polly’ 1966; Bore 19575 Brown 1961; Converse and Crawford 1950, Coulson 19661 Foe 196), Fry ‘967: Gilbert 1957" Ges 1948; Glock and Nios 196H Granbois 1964; Herbie 1982) Fe 1958; ‘Kenkel 1961, Life i964, Morgan 1961; Murphy 1960, Ni ‘osin 1966: Olen 1550-57 Poly 1968, Sharp “and Mout 1956, Surodebeck 1954; Wells 1966, Wi ening 1958; Wolgast 19865 Pros Se on ht ape that of Carer (1954) who segseats od the tise pater callel a idl predominance, grosp goal facliadon and woth "ae ‘panied by smal groupe clad. ing the fantly member las aspect encompases the individeal differences in motives preferences and evan valuer among Kens menters and hr els on the proces of fam dtieane taking (Ble 1957; Clatoos 130) Coulson 1966; Fey 1967, Gilbers 1957; Morgan 196%),3. Determinants of Family Decion Making blo ie rettarch on faily lecion-making tn exploring is ‘zeeminases Thr exploration has also covered a wide tertory rang: ing rom baie neropaly tats Of the members (Alexander 1947; Ball 1958; Bor: 1957; Foore and Couell 1955: Heer 1938, 1963; Tngenoll 1948; Komarovaky 1946, Wet; Lu 1953; Over snd Ere 1954; Parson. and Bales 1955 Zimmerman 1947) Keak (1987) for ample cane eh ri forcing of coanteracting effects 0 dominance, perstence and’ se tonfidence, The Iter hae been ISeuched ferry ie fe Searchers in terms of specif sl fonfidence and gener icon fidence (Howard 1969). Le (1932) constructed 4 scale on which 4 Spouse ean be sated” dominant, huaitarian or obminive tear the other spouse, and investigated fs many "leven. background Factors suchas atachmene oF con- flice with parents and home invol- veent pro to marrage ‘Several studies have, directly of indirecy, examined the sates of the wife inthe family. Both Con ‘ee and” Crawford. (1980) and aber (960) fd gree ast omy of the wife among the upper find lower social clases but bot the midale cas, The ares wich Komaroviky's (1961) “exhautive work in ths aten Perhaps the single determinant which has ‘atacted the Cpe ention bs Fam syle of Be Bell (1958), foe example, present 2 typology’ of families babel on ‘wheter fanilisn, carer or cone Sane ge ae deminer home of living. White (1966) presents Rive ype of fly wales ee” ible Ye igi, nosevaluaiee ye. evaluative, objective we, family Fol emancipated vr. limited, and fppredated re nappreratc, Slted on soateton oh thee alu, 2 family's ifs sele may be guite disince and” different ftom other families Wilkening (86 6h hs rane fan lism ntgeation snd fathercester- of getacons at manieations ‘ in, a nmr of die ave specifically examined factors such at sex (Alexander 1947; Ke: ‘arovaky 1946), soil class (Bel 1958, Bort and” Grow 1934; Gok and Nicos 19647 Koma: rovsky 1961; ory. 1980; Onset nd Emery 1984; Olsen 1956557), Zimmerman 1947) peer groap i Facer (Neiman 1985) ete background (King 1967) and prior Family remains (Us 1952, ‘Wilkening 1988) as determines of varity in Family decison tal: ML. A Theory of Family Decision- Making. Alice “reviewing the exiting sovledge on family” decision raking, { have attempted to ine Bate those ndings and shooghte trhich’ seam intimately rela Buying dcitone of the fil. ue ofthis ingestion has emul sala theory of family buying de aion, ected in in seo. Timur, however, point oo that sista that eb dcie ae Jet only 4 theory untested ia foul, alchough “everal_parts ive sebstantal empiieal evi fr Secon the theory # "nae" 5 he ep cha de oe dea desons over period of ume, Ie down, however rane the Extends over Ene “The theory of family buying echo a sunmarieed In Fire Wit looks ute snilar wo Fioward—Sheth theory of buyer ekavior (1969) fe very Rue wich rpect to the format of the Boo theories and erly pay te ‘Tih respect oo both the ype of Constcuts and thet network of felatonshipe As you can se, the Aheory ra comple st of inerae: tionramong 2 large number of onstuets and also among evra individuals Bot then fam de ‘ion-making sa complex prose, ih a dere mip tit oa wily sandates he compleity Inkerent in_compreheasiveness. fm, indeed, sompted so repeat Sy Mewpoine on bayer "bchavior {Shedy 1967), namely that if we do not remain fasghed to com: prchend the totality of 8 research Eres, we ar ible to reemble the proverbial seven bind men and Be"slephane One ean, on ‘the ‘other hand, somewhat simpli the theory in ae lense two wae Fest or a the construc are ikely fo be active at's point in tine brcause a “nomber ‘of them are 2 temporally elaed eo ne anoser ‘Also several of them can be con: ‘deed ar antecoien: condions foe folding consent some of the diffrence ther song amir for 2 specie ection Sr smoog Accisions ofa family. Second, there ‘several consent, pares {ie cxogmenorconeuces presen ‘Ssoruning she eran box $5 Bigure 1, which can be absrece: fs fetes fe nh aller ne For example, we may be tempted to. Jom social clas, reference roups rolearienaton, et. inca S'promer construct called seal ‘alts Ths would be pardculely {ell in a dvon soto where there are no lage differences 1a the fone of each ofthe specie ‘exegencos constructs A. Brief Semmary ofthe Theory Before Secrbng para of the theory, ey be will eo provide Spat onetnee, Peto We Sater wo ene ith cutoption thssioe of the Family and work Rocward toward buylogdecons wick decent “The toulconompton of 2 family cased ata by () Ge asked enters @) Ge faniy af 2 whole and (3) she Koscld uni Bor erampl, best ‘ay be exclusively consumed by he fabers ba spay Bye mother and cere baby fod ithe cid‘ the orher han, gees and exke at may be otered, afer seal ufo: Suton, by all of them. Fall, thee ew sever ene wach fain, wallpaper, lava mower,Family inciecly inthe proces of Shee eat Aia/Scope, 1968). Even” hileea Seem 10 be heavily engaged in | pavesime work A second factor | elated “othe ever increasing Steven wotvidin tne te time ts considered to Bea ears resource aloag with monetary re sures and any activity dha wes Xp time more than what it con Fetorn tothe family is relegated in imporrance, 4s ee tne gf fie Pi ea oe rte tec wage EES Sarre peaches Bide Mona tan Seine Remar PRET aw ae jie ae "Ha ee RAL der Smee fovren at Re SOLO cai Sa Paka ae se anne ae, ie Sra Seka Sica seer anes orice a ot oo Wey Un a tae me See sorgind s ie yarace Scene *that all the members dare this tu lly opr ar expernein Various aopecs fs ‘pratiedesion: Poe ele ae Father is reputed to couseseane fn technial and economic apace, the ‘mother “on “deworaive aad Srnamental aspects andthe cles Fen on socialyrelatedagpoces 9f the baying decison. Tis however increasingly fle thae ce EESSHRIY she eaged dr, ave become the prary susee information for numero jose deiions inciyding tho ef ant mobiles, applancs, hon ‘vacations (Gilbert 1987), rs ae ctual proces of hopping. a buying the grocery fore, comt tary #0 conmon bell, both the father andthe eilérn shop and buy for te fay ether sae {oxether withthe mother Howrey icseems that cldren are general less involved here Ferthosmer?, ven between parent te mary of shopping ad buying rae wih the mother becaie kes he tea tne that wil not cut nthe Ienire activity of the whole fare ly and she is generally she bags manager in a fay. Beals and obi mo im: poresaty, is "the question a gentlice thie may expe fy pint buying decons, March and Simon”(1959) have’ preseteds conceptual framework of Sater Penson conflce which seers ene Inely relevant eo the family de Son-making ‘The neciay cone ion for teee-perton contigs aMfele nea Tor oun dion 50 staking, To, faily buying. deci- Song the theory labored Ss amber of factors that mandate oie decision-making song Fame IS enbers aad hente hens ¥y condition ix certainly present. ‘The sufficient condone fo iter up conlice ave (1) fferenes 4 goals and. @) ferences St ereptons about relevant aicrns: Eves or goul-aects Both of case ions are considered. to be resent in fanly decson-msking ‘a tha exch member has 1 specie ded cope weet ‘own in buying Behavior We point fous how family membete ste Ihe Se vi ee ir buying motives (goc) a clistve belehy (cenit sox sera ace ome Suuies have expiciy excanecd the confi ar leave beoween huss tannic in jin diac making with reapet to. buying automobiles and ccher “are ket” items (Aldrin 1987, 16 1965; Hill. Recendy, other us Dublithed sudier indicate that ood dea of eo arias berween, Par aad Clem in baying cf Presence of inermember con fic in joint buying decison oe tals atampts eo rtulve ie por {© shooting spate bande Phe atsanpes sre tccaly diese aad parcilar type soe Approprste if conflie hes aracn etmatly “due so. difernces ia fralative bai a opposed vo fn buying motives Resolution af core Flic is presumcd so take anyone of che flowing forms| = Problem-solving If the imermensber conflict the consequence of disagreement On tvaintcive belt ates than boy ing motives, problem slving isthe ‘most common approach, Te othe Tord the family members agree ga the nsed of a product or serve be argue on the type or brand thie sms ose appropriate. For example all he members may Sere chat the family ned new ‘ar but members may difer a5 ‘whether I shoo be fedan, sation ‘wagon oF pewonal cr Ainge ‘umber of anys jae beyias Actisions aces to suffer from te ‘9pe of conic In problem-solving, the immed ste consequence i to actively srk tnoce information “or deliberte fore on, avalabe “information Then it leade t9 seeking support from, credible personal seeet, ouside the family and finaly to seek out newer aleratives pre. viously ot even considered” in Join dectonsmahing peclenta tips fo Se Sane? Pehle neering era eee ergata ate pesalactentig cleat mae ie pone oan il: Sei wales Ts Sees ¢. Bargaining. If che ds sggcement over buying motives i taken a fined by he fanly mone bem the cone reslved by the procs of harping. in rere disrbative osice or tars $s Spite ily wo be evo, and cont Flies explicdy scknowiedged by members exit One common Sey 88 pe coll route Sa "hrough’ bargaining in to dee fenerate the jute dechion into an teria retura'tor some Ever exchange to all eter member For example, the father may be jllowed boy = pew for Agreement to provide ther age ‘Enrable to members ofthe family Bargsining’ ‘would seem 10, be te common”in fay buying eosin In ew of he fae tek ‘economic resources of family are Scarce and some base lacompan ie viewpointr are present song spouses due to diflrential pee, maria background, st4 Politics, When the men bers of family nor omy ‘are dlangreemeat abowt specie bape ing mexive but also, more funds ently, sbous che whole tle of Ite the sonsant confi i Feely tobe relved cher by delat, of the family or by police Tee leer wally cel fn formation of coalition ‘and subgroups or some of the family membersn ot atempe ‘to dolae the menkee Yith whom cere is base cose Althoigh "his type ‘of otis reoliten in buying. decisens 0 key 0 be widspread, tf ‘eter uncommon In pare, children are likely 29 & sad alton members of one parent Asin the other Ale todo oe SE te coal a fae ed children agaist paseo From thecal value ewpoiny, all onfit witha» damp sen elt Hove en thar they out, cones aol by ‘proce of preblee solving and penvasion sre mech les temfl “han the realved By barging and police’ ML To Sum Up, ‘This concludes my presentation of the theory of Tami bapiog decisions. T hope it mouvate, ae searchers 0 Belly wt it a Probably inthe process mol Se Aeterae Aiea ee Rach pe Se i nt ae Ser aa se, et se 82 [ol of Med, Val 12, Ocober ml Site hac, Syl, sh, Subrbn ens” BS Be Pe Nr Cn eget ant WP, The fe ‘nis Rel fe CAA Ply eck Mang fovea of Make fap Renate V3 Elec One D. Wala bad fab Wi The Doman Maret Feat ew ak Fhe Fe gales Te tea te Wis Batt Bloat, Family cat Sexi Ne etl, Doi! aad tome 1. Gran 1 comer 6 Bn ar Bec a Ee Eom eh Foot) Handheld Dion aera epee Shae Cees ras Bates, Te CR on Be CRaeciae ‘i her aewock ow York: ei Pe ot Se eae is See rattanrst ety, sw a Moca. 2 Poe oe Lene eae oe Cathen, Joupe Sy “Buying Decisions am, tay tre Dt Dif Siain HL, Fay Conpoion E34 Copamgtce(Anstee! Nort sed Pa Fella, Stel Copsitoe Consisone a ae Soy “mime fc De {December 1955p. 58 ee cerieise Fegan, Aton, J. 298 Wiiom D. Yoils Pay Shade! Archives of General Pryce, MEL Re eel Se te ieee © ss, Neton Ne and Leoaed Cova Ae Bacar reer Ee Unter of Chegs Bos, tN, Matching of Hosand 30d Wie in Phaser of Dee 7 Errata Sele anette erp Fea Nag ol, Honbold Desi “shine low ea ee Fp Tough Be Peay Bending and Sey Aeanate ers age, Aden ed Mare. cake cE. ahr tee Sr oti Fury, ee ct ig ae GS a3 ce, exe. Hie Ral of Conment- Gooner tee Scie Harktng Chop: rs ny iste el. sane “owe tomes SoS a ee ‘Sociat Souconve end’ Persenity Sa) Seo aeang: 1 ety ns pts ‘the Maas an, apes iene: Coenen tal are eo e ee aoe, Hark dM Sm oid, praca Se Reo Heian, ta Bos oes 8ald a ‘tee wal Fa wae RR Sa aS Migied A tal J. N. shech, The Cn 7 Pacer inthe Fam Mar nly anf Sola omer nl ‘Keaig, Wiliam F, “Decion Making sah tiie Boo tie ction “Chee Journal ef eld Baoie rar oe ‘be Divion of eghet Er AE Rly 1 epee ‘Rix You Apple Cnn Soke wi Te Fry Fc xe “Gao Tee ee ae Mee rn, Fey Pa a] Secon (960 Sesh} Pare Bigs Deshion” (ies Study Pars s va che tog an Se eh a Ss a ig cy anal "Concer igo Gene ara spi, itr ecg Repeat ie ate of aac Ace fore ie plex, Pre Ha eat ope dE ee. Seal Mtn, Cal Ee Of le Bs “el net Ean Gryerin Tro Fst Gti’ ate ah apogy T.aodR Bales Fay, (Glew (oh em, Septet Baia Goon (spp be Sate, Hy aucald CountianBremer Seal en erg ac oe | Retirees | Riererlocger ete fe sileet"s 2. Een ioe oa SAR SOD Ph ese cir Cc ae | Sees Sees ole wi Aon le 5 | wat? ssa te sme suppose | Se ee ‘Wells, Wiliam B, “ids 15 aim hay Son Se \ “Eh oe See are he Fam, Yat", eh, en ot Sire und Ro ames Suen vile Eugene fi Sina in Bae iy Bean Wag aol Pas ae es Bera San are let pe eae Se i ce ia Eee oe wolpae poo Ecoric Dens eaten: tice Se along selina ie Pe Wii he Fam bad for Fe No aka ‘therm, Cel Family ad Ci Siege wes 2 MES Elin none sa ta 3