Family Purchase Decision Making Exploring Child Influence Behavior PDF

Journal of Consumer Behaviour
/ Consumer Behav. 6: 182-202 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.220
.-]; wiLEY
*4&<j.j IfltGrSciGTIC*
'J# oiscov.. .OM...... C...,
Family purchase decision making:

Exploring child influence behaviour
Elizabeth S. Thomson^*, Angus W. Laing^ and Lorna McKee^
'university of Aberdeen Business School, UK
^Glasgow University Business School, UK
Children have long been acknowledged as playing an important role within family
purchase decisions, with their ability to directly and indirectly influence decisions. The
research discussed in this paper arose from an identified opportunity to develop knowledge surrounding the important role that children play within family purchasing by
including them as direct research respondents. The tnethods adopted included an in-depth
interview with parents and children separately, and the completion of a decision
mapping tool followed by a family interview. The findings address a specific and
important aspect of the data, namely the infiuence behaviour adopted by children during
high-involvement family purchase decisions. The children in all of the respondent families
were found to have direct infiuence over the purchases discussed. They demonstrated a
range of sophisticated infiuence behaviours that included justifying and highlighting the
benefits of purchases, forming coalitions, compromising and remaining persistent. These
behaviours were underpinned and enhanced by the use of product-related knowledge and
information, which was viewed positively and encouraged by parents.
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Marketers and consumer researchers consider
the famUy to be the most important decisionmaking and consumption unit (Assael, 1987).
A considerable share of consumption decisions
takes place within the famUy context and is
therefore collective rather than individual in
nature. As family members, children have been
acknowledged as playing an important role
Correspondence to: Elizabeth S. Thomson, University of

Aberdeen Business School, Edward Wright Building,
Dunbar Street, Aberdeen, AB24 3QY,UK.
E-mail: e.thomson@abdn.ac.uk
wîthin purchasing decisions (Foxman and

Tansuhaj, 1988; Mangleburg, 1990; Labrecque
..
. -.^/MN TT
U t-i.
i
and Ricard, 2001). However, much of the early
^^^^^^^j^ ^ ^
^^^.^.^^ ^
^
j ^ ^ ^ .^
j
^^^^ ^^^^. McDonald, 1980; Weinberg and
^ . ^ ^ ^ ^^^^^ Additionally, the majority of this
^^^^^^^j^ j ^ ^ ^ ^^^^ concerned with outcomes
^^^ ^measurement and has been characterised
by a largely quantitative methodological approach
(Belch et al, 1985; Brinberg and Schwenk,
1^85). Although generating valuable insights,
,
. . . .
o- >
the outcome focus and the prescnptive nature
of this research has meant that little is known
Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

DOI: 10.1002/cb
Family purchase decision making
183
about the processes and complexities of family

purchasing, such as how families arrive at
purchase decisions and what influence behaviour and communication dynamics form part
of the decision process. More specifically, a
gap exists in the literature concerning
how^ children influence purchase decisions
(Williams and Bums, 2000).
Although children are increasingly acknowledged as important research subjects, conventional research approaches often prove
inadequate for gathering data on child consumers. This research aims to provide an
in-depth understanding of the family purchase
process through qualitative methods that
included the whole family and emphasised
the role of children as active participants. The
substantive inclusion of children's perspectives requires the adoption of appropriate
methodologies to engage them in the research
process. Banister and Booth (2005) promote a 'child-centric' approach, encouraging
researchers to reflect on their stance towârds
children. This paper argues that children
should be viewed as competent social actors
and therefore central to the research process.
The researchers drew insights from other
disciplines such as sociology to inform the
methodological approach (Sibley, 1991; Christensen and James, 2000; O'Brien et al., 2000;
McKee et al., 2003). The methods adopted
included the collection of biographical data,
in-depth interviews with parents and children
separately and the completion of a decision
mapping tool, followed by a family interview.
The findings discussed address a specific
aspect of the data, namely the influence
behaviour adopted by children during highinvolvement family purchase decisions.
central importance to marketers and consumer

researchers, research has tended to focus on a
narrow set of issues. Quantitative research
exploring who makes purchase decisions
within the family and how^ much influence
family members have has been extensive,
especially with regard to adult partners (Davis
andRigaux, 1974; Hempel, 1974; Quails, 1982,
1984; Brinberg and Schwenk, 1985; Ekstrom
etal., 1987). However, this has meant that little
is known about the processes and complexities of family purchasing.
Purchase influence and influence

strategies
A key focus for researchers exploring the

consumer behaviour of the family has been
purchase influence. Previous research has
concentrated on measuring the relative influence of family members (Belch et al., 1985;
Corfman and Lehman, 1987; Beatty and
Talpade, 1994). However, this provides little
insight into the nature of influence behaviour.
Some researchers (Lee and Collins, 2000; Levy
and Lee, 2004) have focussed on exploring
influence behaviour and the strategies adopted
by family members, although there are limitations to this research and a gap exists in the
literature concerning how^ children influence
purchase decisions (Williams and Bums,
2000).
The literature suggests that family members
adopt various decision or influence strategies
in an attempt to resolve conflict during
purchase decisions (Davis, 1976; Spiro, 1983;
Quails and Jaffe, 1992). It is argued that some
form of conflict is highly likely during family
purchase decisions because decision making
involves integrating various individual preferences. Blood (I960), Sprey (I960), Sheth
Conceptualising family
(1974) and Lee and CoUins (2000) have
purchasing
recognised the potential for disagreement
For this research, a family purchase was among family members in decision making.
defined as one in ^vhich all family members Drawing on previous research (Sheth, 1974;
were involved in the decision-making process Davis, 1976; Spiro, 1983; Quails and Jaffe,
or consumption. Although the family is of 1992), Lee and Collins (2000) summarise the

DOI: 10.1002/cb
184
Elizabeth S. Thomson et al.
oriented family purchases such as holidays and

leisure activities Qenkins, 1979; Darley and
Lim, 1986; Mangleburg, 1990; Hall et al.,
Influence strategies (Lee and Collins, 2000) 1995). Influence levels are lowêr for family
purchases that are classed as adult oriented
Strategy
Behaviour
such as cars, furniture and TV's (Mangleburg,
1990).
strategies used to influence a family purchase

decision.
Experience
Legitimate
Coalition
Emotion
Bargaining
Using experience and knowledge as a

source of information that will influence
the outcome of the decision
Emphasising a role stereotype in order to
obtain influence. For example, a mother
may assume or point out that she is the
one who deals with the provision of
food and therefore should dominate this
decision
Two or more members of the family
decision-making unit collude in order to
obtain a particular outcome
A member of the decision-making unit
tries to persuade others by using
emotive appeals, crying, pouting and
other non-verbal techniques in order to
achieve influence
Giving in on this occasion in return for
getting their way on some other occasion
Children as influencers
Children constitute a huge secondary market
by influencing family purchases (McNeal,
1998), which begin as soon as children have
developed the communication skills to make
requests (Gunter and Fumham, 1998).
Research has concluded that children are
more likely to influence the purchase decisions
that directly affect them (Foxman etal., 1989a;
Hall etal., 1995) and have more influence over
less expensive products and those for their
own use (Foxman et al., 1989a).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, children have been
found to have less influence on decision
making for products that are of high cost
and used by the whole family (Foxman et al.,
1989a, 1989b). It is argued that parents will
take responsibility for these higher-risk decisions (Belch et al., 1985). Although some
research hase found minimal child influence
for larger, family purchases, others have found
higher levels of influence than was anticipated
by earlier research (Foxman and Tansuhaj,
1988; Lee and Beatty, 2002). Some of the
highest levels of influence are seen for childCopyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Researching children's influence

Although children have been acknowledged as
important influencers and decision makers in
family purchases, they have largely been
neglected as direct research participants
(Nelson, 1979; Filiatrault and Ritchie, 1980).
A common approach has been to gather data
from one or more adult family members and
generalise the results to the rest of the family
(Davis, 1971; Douglas and Wind, 1978; Hall
et al., 1995; Labrecque and Ricard, 2001).
Even when children have been included in
research, a central criticism of quantitative
approaches is that although older children may
be able to respond to a questionnaire in a
manner akin to adults, this may not be the most
appropriate method to collect data from
younger children (Scott, 2000). Moreover,
where children have been included in
research, there has been a focus on a limited
set of purchase decisions. High-involvement
product decisions have been neglected in
favour of low-involvement purchases in which
children are predicted to have the most
involvement (Hall et al., 1995; Labrecque
and Ricard, 2001).
The research underpinning this paper aims
to provide an in-depth understanding of the
family purchase process through qualitative
methods which included the whole family, and
emphasised the role of children as active
participants. More specifically, the research
explores the nature of child influence in terms
of children's role within the purchase process,
the influence behaviour adopted by the
children and their role in aspects of the
purchase process such as communication.
This paper wîll concentrate on the data
surrounding child influence behaviour.
Journal of Consutner Behaviour, July-August 2007

DOI: 10.1002/cb
185
Research strategy: engaging with

children
The nature of the research and the need to gain
in-depth insights meant that an interpretive
approach was adopted with an emphasis on
including children and engaging them with the
research process. The focus was on those
purchases considered high involvement rather
than low involvement convenience goods and
individual child purchases. The methods
included; in-depth interviews wîth parents
and children separately, the completion of a
real-time decision mapping tool by family
members, followed by a family interview. All
members of the family were included in data
collection, generating in-depth case studies of
each family which could be used for cross-case
comparison (see Appendix 1 for a visual
representation of the research process).
Initial recruitment of respondents took
place through a secondary school in the North
East of Scotland wîth children aged approximately 13-15 targeted. These children had
both older and younger siblings, meaning that
the flnal sample included pre-teens and a
number of children aged 16 and above. By
recruiting families through the children, it was
felt this would provide them with more control
over their participation and less dependent on
what Harden et al. (2000) class as adult
gatekeepers. Potential respondents were
required to fulfil certain criteria, namely that
they should have home Internet access and
that a 'family related purchase', was expected
to be made within the subsequent 6 months.
The response to the initial contact with
children was disappointing with only two
families agreeing to participate. Further
recruitment took place through tutorial groups
and local youth groups (three families). The
remainder of the families were recruited using
snowball sampling. Although effective, this
bypassed the children, as it was commonly
parents who introduced other potential
participant families. To overcome this, the
researcher explained to the children what was
involved and gained their direct consent as
well as their parents'. These problems raise
Copyright 2007 Jolin Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
questions as to the most appropriate method of

gaining child participants. If children are to be
given increased control over participation,
researchers may have to develop more innovative techniques to capture children's imagination and enthusiasm. Twenty nuclear families,
broadly deflned as 'middle class' took part in
the research with an average of 2.1 children.
The demographic characteristics of the
families reflected the population within the
school catchment area (see Appendix 2 for
family biographies).
Initial interviews
After an introduction session wîth the family,
repeat visits were made to the home to
conduct semi-stmctured, in-depth interviews.
Interviews were conducted with parents and
children separately to ensure the perspective
of each party were captured. This wâs
particularly relevant to the child respondents,
w^ho it wâs felt might either hold back in the
presence of a parent, or might be overshadowed by parents in discussions (Morrow
and Richards, 1996). The sample of 20 families
meant that 40 parents and AA children were
interviewed. The interview aimed to address
key themes; namely the nature of the overall
family purchase process, pattems of family
communication and influence behaviour of
family members, particularly children. A
significant part of the interview discussion
was based on a recent family purchase
allowing the responses to be derived from
lived experience (Denzin, 1989).
Decision mapping tool

The second stage of data collection involved
the completion of a decision mapping tool
developed by the researchers which allowed
the tracking of a real-time family purchase to
avoid the problems associated with recall. By
allowîng the family to track a purchase over
time, the problem of predefined stages and
activities being imposed was avoided. Each
family wâs provided wîth two blank posters

DOI: 10.1002/cb
186
(one for parents and one for children) when a

family purchase was to be made. Each poster
came wîth a set of coloured stickers which
wêre attached to the poster when a purchase-related act occurred. Respondents wêre
required to insert the date and their name on
each sticker they used. Three colours of sticker
were used, each covering core purchasing
themes of influence, sub-decisions and information sources. These themes were derived
from the literature and the interviews. The
family also received blank stickers to add any
themes or issues important to them. Ten of the
twênty participant families completed
decision posters w^hich focused on purchases
including a car, holidays, furniture and decorating, DVD/video players and a cooker. The
other families were contacted regularly
during the research to enquire whether a
purchase was planned. Due to the type of
purchase involved, not all families were
making these decisions over the research
period. The use of this visual method was
successful with the children as it drew on their
specific competencies of expression Games
etal, 1998). The tool allowed children to take
control of the research and operate as
independent participants without direct
researcher contact. Many children took the
opportunity to add drawîngs and pictures to
illustrate their perceptions of the purchasing
process.
Follow-up group interview^

Following the completion of the decision tool,
theflnalstage of the research involved a family
interview in which all members were present.
It was felt a group interview was appropriate at
this stage to bring the decision tools together
so as to explore and discuss the decision as a
whole with all those involved. The poster
acted as a guide for the interview with each
member explaining and elaborating on how
they had been involved in the purchase decision. During these interviews the researcher
took on a less active role than in the initial
interview^. This allowêd a lowêring of the
interviewer/interviewee barrier (Rasmussen

and Smidt, 2003). The family controlled the
discussion and asked each other questions
rather than the researcher taking control.
Data analysis
All interviews were recorded in full with the
consent of respondents and notes were taken
to highlight key themes and to aid the flow of
the interview. The interviews were transcribed
in full by the researcher. This immersion in the
data aided in the identification of themes. A
challenge for the qualitative researcher is making sure the data speaks rather than the
researcher (Mitchell, 1983). The use of full
transcriptions and researcher immersion in the
data aids the objectivity of the research.
Inductive analysis and analytic coding were
adopted to aid in the identification of key
themes. This involved the coding of the data
against the core themes included in the
interview schedule which had been derived
from the literature, and the identification of
emergent themes. Notes on interesting and
important points were taken during an initial
read-through of all transcripts. During subsequent reading, these initial notes wêre
developed and assigned key words in relation
to identified themes (Straus, 1987).
Each family wâs reviewed to generate a
family profile in relation to identified themes.
This analysis wâs then spread across all of the
families to explore connections, relationships
and key trends. When coding interview data,
notes taken during data collection were also
used. Similarly, when analysing decision tool
interviews, notes and tools wêre used to assist
in analysis. During this phase any relationships
with the existing literature were explored. The
generation of family profiles wâs important, as
in addition to themes being discussed across
families, there wâs also the opportunity to link
behaviour back to the family context. Where
inconsistencies had appeared betwêen parents
and children's claims, this wâs addressed
wîthin the interview to aid clarification. The

DOI: 10.1002/cb
187
respondents' names were changed in the

writing up of the study to protect their privacy.
Knowledge and Information
i
Justifying and Highlighting Benefits
Results: influencing family

purchasing decisions
Coalitions
The research highlighted an array of sophisticated, complex and well thought-out influence
behaviours adopted by children in seeking to
influence family purchase decisions. The most
important behaviour was the use of knowledge
and information. This was seen to enhance and
facilitate the adoption of other influence behaviours and is therefore classified as a unifying
theme when considering child purchase
influence. A distinction can be made betwêen
know^ledge and information. Knowledge refers
to expertise or experiences internalised by the
children that they articulated w^hen a purchase
was being made. For example, many of the
children had gained knowledge of computer
technology through using PC's at school and at
friend's homes. In contrast, information was an
external resource that the children accessed
during a purchase decision. For example, for
holiday purchases, some children went on the
Internet to gather information on the alternatives and presented this to their parents. In
some cases, it wâs evident that through accessing information the children became more
knowledgeable about a purchase and could
draw on this source during future purchase
decisions (see Appendix 3 for examples of
knowledge and information sources).
The know^ledge and information theme can
be linked back to the expert and problem
solving strategies suggested by Sheth (1974),
Davis (1976) and Spiro (1983) from whom Lee
and Collins (2000) derived their 'experience'
strategy. These strategies focused on drawing
on expertise and experience from individuals
both wîthin and external to the family and
vising information from various sources.
Knowledge and information supported and
enhanced the adoption of other influence
strategies, forming the backbone of all influence behaviour.
The most significant role knowledge and
information played was allowing children to
Copyright 2007 Jolin Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Figure 1. Child influence behaviour.
justify their purchase requests by highlighting

the beneflts and enabling them to 'sell' their
idea to others. Most of the child influence
behaviour started with this base, and was then
enhanced by the use of other behaviours.
Figure 1 gives a visual representation of child
influence behaviour. Know^ledge and information is the key theme at the top of the
diagram as this has an impact on all of the other
behaviours. A direct link is made between
knowledge and information and justifying and
highlighting benefits, as without knowledge
children wôuld not be able to provide the
reasoning behind their requests. Once the
children could discuss the beneflts of their
ideas, they added strength to their argument by
adopting specific influence behaviours. Therefore, although know^ledge and information
formed the backbone of child influence
behaviour, this resource alone was not sufficient to influence a decision, the resource had
to be utilised effectively through the adoption
of specific influence behaviours. This paper
will explore the use of coalitions as one of the
core specific infiuence behaviours.
Knowledge and information:
the key to child purchase influence
The children used personal knowledge and
information from various sources, the most
significant being personal and peer experiences and the Internet, to infiuence various
stages of the family decision-making process.
In the initial stages of decision making this
resource enabled them to infiuence whether a
purchase decision was initiated and during the
purchase process, children could make an
input into purchase sub-decisions.
Generally, the more knowledge a child had,
the more infiuence they had over a purchase.

DOI: 10.1002/cb
188
Elizabeth S. Thomson et aL
This finding mirrors previous research which

has found a relationship between knowledge
and influence (Quails, 1987; Foxman et al,
1989b; Beatty and Talpade, 1994). The children felt that if they were able to demonstrate
knowledge of a purchase or present information, this was more effective than merely
asking for something, with parents taking their
ideas more seriously. This wâs supported by
the parents.
If they come up with some information,
we're usually a bit more ready to listen
aren't we?
Family 7: Mum.
.. ..or such and such already has that and I
don't like it, it doesn't look good and that
would really affect our decision, if they
have something negative to say about it.
And then similarly, if they said oh that's
really good, some of our friends have that
we'd probably listen to what they have to
say.
Family 4: Mum.
The children had knowledge or accessed

information about a wide range of family
purchases. For technology and home entertainment products this knowledge was often
perceived to be superior to that of the parents.
Dad: 'with the changes in digital TV, Steven
and Barry are quite up to speed with that
you know and want us to catch up with the
technology'.
Mum: 7 suppose the computer'.
Dad: "The same with the computer, the
computer we had before that was so old we
couldn't get Internet access'.
Mum: 'Well I didn't know anything about
the computer so I suppose'.
Dad: 'No you knew nothing about it at all
and I wasn't much better. I mean Steven
the oldest boy, I think he basically put it
together, that's Just what he does, he likes
things like that'.
Family 10: parents.
Many parents promoted the use of knowledge and information, preferring their children
to make a contribution in this way rather than
making unsubstantiated suggestions. It
became an expected characteristic of some
family decision making.
The children tried to justify purchase

requests in a number of ways, ranging from
stating why they themselves wânted something to 'selling' and tailoring their argument to
the family or particular individuals. Critically,
rather than selling an idea individually, many
children identified a common need for a
A lot of the time you've got to make sure purchase between more than one family
what you're talking about before you even member and subsequently formed a coalition
bring it up with them. You've got to have with other individuals to add strength to their
researched it, you know looked about and knowledge and information based argument.
then you'll say, oh I was on the Internet the
Coalition behaviour has been discussed in
other day and I was in town and I saw this, previous research wîth often conflicting conwhat do you think?
clusions. The focus of this strategy is on the
Family 12: Child 1, male 14. importance of two or more members of the
unit colluding to influence the outcome of a
This can be seen as a method of consumer decision either by strength of numbers or by
socialisation as the parents wêre not only isolating members with whom there is conflict.
encouraging participation in purchase de- The process is often termed 'majority rule'
cisions but wêre also teaching their children (Pearson, 1989). Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980)
how^ to make an effective input (Moschis and suggested that children may form a coalition
with a sibling or a parent in an attempt to
Moore, 1979; Caruana and Vassallo, 2003).
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

DOI: 10.1002/cb
189
influence a purchase decision. However, there

has been disagreement in the literature concerning the popularity of this behaviour. Sheth
(1974) and Belch et al (1980) felt that the
strategy would be rare however, Vuchinich
et al. (1988) found that over 50 per cent of the
families involved in their research adopted this
strategy. Additionally, conflict exists concerning with whom individuals in the family
collude. Scanzoni and Szinovacz (1980) found
that parents tend to use children to form a
coalition against the other parent, whereas
Vuchinich et al (1988) found that the parents
wêre more likely to work together. The
conflicting results may be explained to some
extent by the product decision under investigation. Scanzoni and Szinovacz (1980) used
family holidays as the focus of their research,
whereas Vuchinich et al. (1988) observed a
lower involvement, routine discussion over a
place to eat. A reason suggested for the low
incidence of reported coalition behaviour is
the socially desirable response factor as
respondents may be reluctant to report
conflict behaviour (Olson and Rabunsky,
1972). This research has confirmed the use
of coalitions to influence purchase decisions
both betwêen siblings and across generations.
Coalitions: sibling coalitions
Rather than acting individually, many of the
children worked as a unit and formed
coalitions with other siblings to exert influence. The common theme across all family
cases was that the success of a coalition
depended on being able to justify and 'sell' a
purchase request, reinforcing the key role of
knowledge and information. These coalitions
usually began Nvith a discussion between two
or more siblings, due to an identified common
interest or need for a product. The discussion
sometimes occurred in private, away from the
parents and ideas were put to the parents after
it was decided what to suggest.
Mum: 7 think they do work together
sometimes the pair of them now. I'd have
said a couple of years ago no, but they're
far closer and I think they may not be fully

aware of it but they're kind of pulling rank
to get a couple of things their way so I think
they would probably more now than they
would have done maybe a few years ago'.
Dad: 7 think they're getting cleverer as well,
I think they're very good at talking together
to say right what's the best way to...'
Mum: 'Get round them'.
Dad: 'Exert some pressure on them'.
Family 12: Parents.
The parents in family 6 reinforced the views
of their children by discussing how the three
siblings frequently engaged in purchase-related discussion as a unit. Both the parents
and children explained that this was generally
not done in a secretive or scheming way. If
their parents had not been part of the
discussion, the sibling w^ho had the most
interest in the purchase tended to communicate the group ideas to their parents. In
contrast, the parents in family 12 referred to
rather tactical behaviour on the part of their
children when working as a unit. However,
when the children were asked about this they
spoke about common interest in a purchase
being the reason for a group a discussion,
rather than a conscious effort to persuade.
As well as discussing what they wanted
before putting a suggestion to their parents, a
minority of the children agreed on an influence
strategy. They planned how the idea ^vould be
presented to their parents (and to which one)
and ^vhat they wôuld say and do to convince
them that the purchase was needed. The twin
girls in family 4 often worked together to
influence a purchase decision. Their parents
felt that they were the most likely among the
siblings to wôrk together. They discussed
purchase ideas for the family between themselves and then put these ideas to the rest of
the family and backed each other up in
supporting the suggestion. They had very
similar ideas and were quite often considered
in terms of the input they made as a unit rather

DOI: 10.1002/cb
190
than individually. Through working together, occurring between the siblings than their
the girls had quite a large influence on family parents realised.
purchases and they acknowledged that they
often presented a joint opinion rather than
And mum and dad say well the way you
acting individually.
two have been acting, stuff like if we've
been fighting a lot, like the way you two
been acting, like you're not getting that or
/ think the girls, I suppose the girls as a
something. Then we get together and say
unit, you know because they're twins they
we have to be really nice to each other and
have quite a powerful say you know in
we'll say like you know that thing in
what's, where we're going to go because
whatever shop, we'll try and hint about it
Paul (brother) just tends to Jit in a bit more
because we both really want it.
round the family.
Family 2: Child 2, female 12.
Family 4: Mum.
Like for Sky, we both wanted it so we kind
The children felt they were taken more
of like helped persuade together. We do seriously when more than one sibling was
that for things that we both want.
putting forward an idea and subsequently,
Family 4: Child 2, female 12. some children claimed this was one of the best
ways to influence their parents. Rather than
In the majority of occasions an influence strategy this strategy being consciously pre-determined
wâs never explicitly discussed, children by the children, they merely seemed to react to
seemed to know^ from experience w^hat wôuld situations and had learned from previous
wôrk best. The discussion did not always occur purchases that supporting each other ^vas
away from the parents and the behaviour wâs effective. Knowledge and information was being
not always pre-planned. The children merely presented to the parents and the children were
reacted to a situation or opportunity and able to support each other's arguments.
supported each other. Discussion could be
open and the parents wêre present \vhen it
Child 2: 'Yeh, because we can back each
occurred. In this case, the children may not
other up'.
have already discussed the purchase and so the
Child 1: 'Yeh, if there's a couple of you they
behaviour was not seen as manipulative or
take it a bit more seriously'.
scheming. The siblings would support each
Family 6: Child 1, male 18 and
other in putting forward suggestions, rather
Child 2, female 14
than independently suggesting different ideas.
Parents may not have been convinced by the
Dad: 'we don't have a DVD so they think argument of only one child but when they
worked together their input was seen as more
we must have to have one, which....'
powerful. For example, when family 1 was
Mum: 7 doubt they speak about things like purchasing a PC, the children worked together
to convince their parents that the purchase
that between themselves'.
wâs needed. As they were both making the
Dad: 'well that's what I mean but if Claire suggestion and justifying their request, the
says yeh, we have to have a DVD player parents accepted their suggestion as they saw
then Jennifer will pipe up, yeh we have to the need stretched to more than one person.
have'.
Yes, em, they're like, they don't have a clue
Family 2: Parents.
about the computer, so yeh the old one was
sort of knackered so it took the two of us to
Howêver, from what the girls said it seemed
tell them that. Basically we just demonthat there wâs more active influence behaviour

DOI: 10.1002/cb
191
strated how we lost project work and that.

Showed them why it kept on crashing and
wouldn't work.
Family 1: Child 1, male 17.
purposely target one parent rather than

presenting a case to both parents at once.
Usually this was because one parent was
perceived to be more interested in the
purchase, and it was felt that they would be
Although coalitions wêre apparent, this more understanding and supportive of the idea
behaviour was not always seen positively, espe- as they would also get something from it.
cially if it was done in secret, away from the Another consideration was the personality and
parents. Consequently, some parents tried to attitude of the parent. The children sometimes
discourage the use of this behaviour and instead saw one parent as being easier to persuade or
promoted inclusive and open discussion.
more understanding of their requests. They
often targeted this parent in the hope that they
/ think there will be some coalitions in any wôuld discuss the request with their spouse on
decision whether it's covert. I think we're behalf of the children. When family 20 were
trying to make them open and say what do buying a new PC, child two initially
you want? And try and have a, well it will approached his Mum to put forward the idea.
never be democratic decisions but some- She was perceived to be more understanding,
thing that feels that way, that they've had and from experience he felt she was a lot easier
their say.
to persuade than his Dad. He also felt that his
Family 20: Dad. Mum wôuld have an interest in the purchase as
a new PC would benefit her. Once the idea had
Although some parents viewed coalitions
been put to his Mum, chUd two waited for his
negatively, others openly joined coalitions
Mum to introduce the idea to his Dad, as he felt
wîthin the family and worked wîth their
his Dad would be more willing to listen and
children to influence purchase decisions.
agree to the purchase if his Mum had suggested
the idea. Once this was done, the Mum and son
Coalitions: cross-generational
worked as a pair in persuading the Dad that the
coalitions
purchase should be made and what specificaThere were situations where the parents and tions and features they would like.
children would form a coalition across the
generations. This finding reinforces the findShe's (Mum) like easier to talk to and
ings of Bonacich et al. (1985) and Vuchinich
easier to persuade than Dad, that's kind of
et al (1988) who contradicted thinking at the
the main barrier.
time with their finding that alliances were not
Family 20: Child 2, male 16
necessarily formed within the same age
generation. As with the sibling coalitions, the
Mum: 'I'm the soft touch you see, they come
cross-generational coalitions ranged from
to me first and...'
being tactical and consciously planned away
from other family members to unplanned. For
Dad: 'yeh, but there's also times that they
some of the coalitions, it wâs clear they were
know that they've got your view and I
working together to persuade and influence a
might be ambivalent to it so I would get
purchase, but, the majority of the behaviour
hounded'.
was a lot less explicit, and often the individuals
did not fully realise the impact of their
Mum: 'It's definitely divide and conquer!'
behaviours. The coalitions ranged from being
Family 20: Parents.
child initiated to parent driven.
Particularly for child initiated coalitions, it
wâs apparent that when making purchase
suggestions, some of the children chose to
Another child initiated coalition occurred in

family 13. Child 2 initiated the idea of visiting
Discovery Cove w^hen they wêre on holiday.

DOI: 10.1002/cb
192
and then he got his Mum on-board in order to

persuade Dad. The Dad was the one who made
most of the final purchase decisions for the
family and he had a more conservative attitude
towards money. Child two was aware of his
Dad's attitude towârds money and this influenced who he went to wîth his purchase idea.
He also felt that his Mum would be supportive
of his idea as it was the kind of thing she would
like. Once he convinced his Mum it was a good
idea, both of them put the idea to Dad. Child
two felt that there was more chance of his Dad
agreeing to the idea if his Mum was supporting
it as well, rather than him trying to persuade
his Dad himself. In this situation, the child
acknowledged the benefits of having a parent
on-board when suggesting an idea.
Child 2: 'Well Mum wants to go to
Discovery Cove which is like a water park
where you get to swim with dolphins. I
want to go there because I suggested it to
Mum and she agreed she wanted to go
there too'.
In addition to the children identifying the
benefits of having a parent supporting their
idea, there were examples where the parent
saw^ advantages in having the support of a
child. The Mum and child one in family 14 had
similar tastes in terms of decoration. Together
they had a lot of influence over the decor for
the study. Mum purposely chose to wôrk wîth
her child when making decorating decisions as
she valued her daughter's input. The two of
them tended to agree on ideas and so having
her daughter in support seemed to add
strength to the pvirchase suggestion. It was
evident that by working together, this often
allowed them to out-vote other members of the
family and get their way.
Mum: 'Yeh, I mean if was buying a lamp I
might say to Melanie do you like this and
she'll give you her opinion, well they both
would. I would show both of them and it
depends what they are doing whether they
show any interest or not. Melanie's usually
quite good at giving an honest opinion'.

Family 14: Mum
For parent initiated coalitions, the way in
w^hich they were formed was less clear than
those initiated by the children. It was seldom
that an explicit coalition approach was made.
The parent did not wânt to be seen as 'ganging
up' against their spouse or taking advantage of
the children. Rather it seemed that the parent
either subtly discussed the benefits of the
purchase over time and the children began to
agree, or the children had supported the idea
from the start. There was not an explicit move
made by the parent to get the children to
support them. When family 7 wâs buying a
new^ TV, all the children in the family formed a
coalition with their Dad to persuade their Mum
that the purchase wâs required. The Dad wâs
seen as the dominant party and the children
backed up what he was saying in the presence
of their Mum. The Dad had placed the most
importance on the purchase as it seemed to
affect him the most and the children
empathised with him. Howêver, it was never
discussed that the Dad and children would
actively work together. The Dad had initiated
the decision and the children reacted to the
situation and supported him in his arguments,
but he had not asked them to become
involved.
A similar situation occurred w^hen family 11
wêre buying a dog. The Dad and child two
wêre seen to wôrk together. Howêver, the Dad
did not make a conscious decision to involve
the child. The Dad seemed to initiate the
purchase decision and when he became more
vocal in suggesting the idea, child twô became
involved by supporting his suggestion. In this
situation it seemed that child two was
mirroring her Dad's behaviour. The Dad did
not wânt to wôrk tactically with the child as he
did not see this as an appropriate wây of
behaving. He saw himself as acting individually. The child saw the behaviour as more
tactical and felt she ^vas wôrking with her Dad
to influence her Mvim. The child felt that it wâs
due to the coalition that her Mum decided to
get a new^ dog.

DOI: 10.1002/cb
193
She (Mum) didn't want another dog

room me and my Dad would have the
because she ended up doing a heap of
same opinion whereas my Mum and sister
the walking didn 't she. But me and Dad we
would have a different one to us. Yeh, its
were arguing with her saying we wanted
like me and my Dad we need to persuade
another dog. Me and my Dad, we were
my Mum to buy stuff. Muin's always
nagging Mum. We've always wanted a
considering price and everything but my
new puppy me and my Dad, we've always
dad usually just wants to buy it'.
wanted two dogs and Andrew and Mum
when they saw her, they just go for them
when they see them.
The examples discussed so far have mainly
Family 11: Child 2, female 10. involved a parent forming a coalition with one
child in the family. However, this was not
For some purchases, the cross-generational always the case. Some coalitions included a
coalitions occurred wîthin the sexes. This parent and two or more children. In family 20,
seemed to be due to interest in a purchase and the Mum and both children wôrked together to
attitudes towards decision making. Previous persuade Dad that they needed a new family
research has explored gender-related coalition PC.
behaviour (Beatty and Talpade, 1994; Lee and
Collins, 2000). This work suggests that there
Well see the three of me, Shona and Mum
wîll be more similarities between the orienalways get on at Dad because he uses his
tations of mothers and daughters than mothers
laptop which is fairly fast and he has his
and sons with the implication that same-sex
work computer so if he can't do something
patterns will be more likely (Acock and
here he just does it there, but we didn't
Bengston, 1978). In support of this theory,
have as good access.
Beatty and Talpade (1994) found a higher
incidence of coalition behaviour betwêen
mothers and daughters than mothers and sons
The Dad in family 14 got both of his
leading them to suggest that same-sex daughters on-board when he was trying to
coalitions may play a key role in determining convince his wife about a beach holiday. He
the outcome of family purchase decisions. In seemed aware that his wife would not be keen
contrast. Lee and Collins (2000) found that on this type of holiday and so he got support
fathers and daughters worked together, with
from the majority of the family for his idea.
this becoming more likely when considering
elder daughters. They also found that if there
Maybe holidays, it depends what kind of
were two daughters in the family, this
holiday Dad's wanting. If he wants one like
behaviour was undermined as the girls sided
a beach type holiday, he'll maybe like come
wîth their mother against the only male in the
to me more because Mum doesn't like the
household. Surprisingly, this behaviour wâs
beach as much so he'll maybe like say to us
reversed w^hen considering sons.
do you want to go on a beach holiday and
then, so we'll all be like yeh. Mum. will be
Child 2: 'Yeh me and my Dad and my Mum
right mmm, ok three against one.
and my sister I think its usually like that,
Family 14: Child 1, female 16.
yeh'.
The examples of sibling and crossInterviewer: 'What sorts of things.'''
generational coalitions tie in very closely with
the notion of majority win that was evident in
Child 2: 'Well I suppose tnale sorts of things most of the families. The purchase decision
and female sorts of things, we split Say if tended to go with the dominant opinion. This
Mum asks for my opinion on decorating a dominant opinion may have been put forward

DOI: 10.1002/cb
194
by all of the siblings or may have been due to

collaboration between a parent and children.
The collaboration may have been a planned
and tactical agreement or may have been
reached through open discussion. Either way,
allowing the decision to go with the majority
was seen as a quick way of making decisions
and avoiding conflict, as most families seemed
very accepting of decisions being made in this
way. The majority argument seemed to have
more influence if it was backed by a parent.
Siblings acting as the majority did not tend to
have as much influence as a mixed parent and
child group, although the children tried to use
the majority 'rule' as a justification for a
purchase.
Summary and conclusion:

children as key actors
The children in all of the respondent families
had direct influence over the purchases
discussed, highlighting their role as key actors
within family purchase decisions. The research
has added to the body of evidence supporting
the notion that children are active influencers
for high-involvement purchases (Mangleburg,
1990; Hall et al, 1995), and not merely for
low-involvement convenience items for their
ow^n use (Foxman et al, 1989a). Overall, the
research has built on the wôrk of academics
such as Davis (1971), Green and Cunningham
(1975) and Wilkes (1975) who focused mainly
on the outcomes of family decision making,
and has explored the family decision process in
more depth. The findings also extend the work
of Davis (1970), Woodside (1975), Quails
(1982, 1984), Brinberg and Schwenk (1985)
and Ekstrom etal (1987) by providing insights
into the nature of influence behaviour rather
than concentrating only on assigning influence
levels to individuals.
Children were found to play an important
role throughout the purchase process and
rather than their influence being perceived as
negative, parents wêlcomed their input, and
the knowledge and information they added to
purchase decisions was seen as beneficial. The
children demonstrated a range of sophisticated

behaviours underpinned by the use of knowledge and information. Knowledge and information facilitated and enhanced the adoption
of various influence behaviours including the
ability to justify purchase suggestions and form
successful coalitions. Generally, the more
knowledge a child had in relation to a product,
the more influence they had over the purchase
decision. Knowledge and information was a
crucial resource when children were attempting to justify suggestions or back-up what they
wêre saying.
Rather than selling an idea individually,
many children identified a common need for a
purchase betwêen more than one family
member and subsequently formed a coalition.
Although coalitions have been discussed in the
literature in relation to child influence (Scanzoni and Szinovacz, 1980; Bonacich et al,
1985), this research casts more light on the
complexities and dynamics of this influence
behaviour and suggests that the behaviour may
be less explicitly tactical in nature than has
been suggested. Coalitions involved children
either joining with siblings or a parent to
influence a purchase decision. It was thought
that having more than one family member
working on selling an idea would be more
effective than acting alone. This behaviour
depended on being able to justify and 'sell' an
idea, and this links back to the importance of
knowledge. Rather than being secretive or
tactical, coalitions were generally open and
relaxed in nature. Coalitions wêre perceived as
an effective influence mechanism, decisions
tending to go wîth the majority because this
wâs perceived as a fair wây of making
decisions. The coalition had increased influential impact if it included a parent as the
argument was seen to take on greater
credibility.
Although the research generated interesting
data, limitations can be identified. The time
available to complete the research meant that
not all families completed a tool, their
purchasing not coinciding with the research
period. An extended research period may have
allowêd more families to complete the tool. It

DOI: 10.1002/cb
195
may also have been beneficial to distribute an from that of older children. However, methods
individual decision tool to all siblings rather may have to be developed, or current methods
than one being shared as behaviour between adapted, in order to engage very young
siblings could have differed. These additions children in research. Banister and Booth
may have provided more information on the (2005) adopted quasi-ethnographic methods,
behaviour of individuals within the purchase interviews, projective techniques and phodecision and may have prevented responses tography, as part of their 'child-centric'
from being influenced by another sibling. approach vi^hen researching children aged
However, the data generated from the first 4-11. Ongoing research should continue to
round of interviews coupled with the 10 adopt a longitudinal focus rather than capturdecision tool interviews provided an ade- ing snap-shots, and should continually strive to
quately rich data source and the post-tool engage children with the research process.
interview^ captured each individual's input
Overall this research has generated new
wîthin the decision. Time and resource insights into the nature of child influence
constraints also prevented the use of observa- behaviour. Rather than discussing in maniptional methods which may have enhanced ulative and negative terms, this research argues
understanding of real-time decision-making that child influence behaviour is sophisticated
processes in the store and home environment. yet relaxed and generally perceived as positive
The long-term nature of many decisions, by parents. The importance of knowledge and
multiple settings and multiple actors wôuld information is viewêd as crucial in underhave made observation by one researcher standing child influence.
challenging. Although these additional dimensions may have added to the depth of analysis,
their absence in no wây undermines or Biographical notes
challenges the reliability of the findings.
Elizabeth Thomson is a Lecturer in Marketing
As this research focused on nuclear, middle within the University of Aberdeen Business
class families, caution should be exercised in School, \vhere she completed her PhD on
generalising these results. There is an oppor- the influence of children on family purchasing.
tunity to develop this research within alterna- She has published her wôrk in the Journal of
tive contexts and with non-traditional families Marketing Management and the Intersuch as single parent families. AdditionaUy, this national Journal of Advertising and Marketresearch was conducted with families living ing to Children.
approximately seven miles from the nearest
Angus Laing is currently Professor of Mancity in which there wêre numerous opportu- agement in the School of Business and Managenities for consumption in the form of both high ment at the University of Glasgow. He
street and out-of-town retail outlets. In con- previously held the Beneficial Bank Chair of
trast, it would be interesting to explore the Marketing at the Open University Business
nature of family purchasing and child influence School. Research interests centre on the conin remote and rural areas w^here there are less sumption and delivery of professional services
opportunities for consumption, and where in contemporary societies. As part of this
activity he is leading an Economic and Social
lifestyle and consumer needs may vary.
In terms of the children included as Research Council funded study of the impact
respondents, although this research did of the information revolution on service coninclude some children in their pre-teens, the sumption. Previous work has been funded by
average age of the children was 14.6. There is a the Department of Trade and Industry in the
need to include younger children in research UK, the NHS, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
as, due to the factors such as consumer skills and a range of private sector organisations
and attitudes towârds consumption, their including HSBC and Liberty Mutual. He has
involvement and influence patterns may differ published extensively on issues of service conCopyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/cb
196
sumption and management across public and

private sectors in a range of academic and
professional journals in both Europe and the
United States as well as contributing to texts on
services marketing and consumption. This
research activity is complemented by an extensive range of management development and
consultancy work undertaken with a range of
public and private sector organisations.
Lorna McKee is Professor of Management at
the University of Aberdeen and an Associate
Director at the CRFR. Lorna studied social
sciences at Trinity College, Dublin, and undertook her PhD wôrk at the University of York.
She has held research posts at the Universities
of York, Aston, Warwick and Aberdeen and
also spent time as a NHS departmental manager. Lorna is Co-Vice Chair and a member of
the Board of the National Co-ordinating Centre
for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation
R&D. She has also served as an expert panel
and advisory committee member for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the
CFI Regional Hospital Fund Advisory Committee. Her current research interests include
healthcare management, the management of
change and innovation and the sociology of
work and family life.
Belch GE, Belch MA, Ceresino G. 1985. Parental

and teenage child influences in family decision
making. Journal of Business Research 13:
163-176.
Blood RO. I960. Resolving family conflicts. The
Journal of Conflict Resolution 4: 209-219.
Bonacich PF, Grusky O, Peyrot M. 1985. Family
coalitions: a new approach and method. Social
Psychology Quarterly 48: 42-50.
Brinberg D, Schwenk N. 1985. Husband-wife
decision making: an exploratory study of the
interaction process. Advances in Consumer
Research 12: 487-491.
Burns AC. 1977. Husband and wife purchase
decision making roles: agreed, presumed, conceded and disputed. Advances in Consumer
Research 4: 50-55.
Caruana A, Vassallo R. 2003. Children's perception
of their influence over purchases: the role of
parental communication patterns. Journal of
Consumer Marketing 20(1): 55-66.
Christensen P, James A. 2000. Research With Children: Perspectives and Practices. Falmer Press:
London.
Corfman KP, Lehman DR. 1987. Models of
co-operative group decision making and relative
influence: an experimental investigation of
family purchase decisions./oMrw/ of Consumer
Research l4(June): 1-14.
Darley WK, Lim JS. 1986. Family decision making in
leisure-time activities: an exploratory investiReferences
gation of the impact of the locus of control, child
Acock A, Bengston VL. 1978. On the relative influage influence factor and parental type on perence of mothers and fathers; a covariance
ceived child influence. Advances in Consumer
analysis of political and religious socialisation.
Research 13: 370-374.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 40(3): Davis HL. 1970. Dimensions of marital roles in
519-530.
consumer decision making./oMrna/ of MarketAssael Henry. 1987. Consumer Behaviour and
ing Research 7(May): 168-177.
Marketing Action. Thomas Nelson: Melbourne. Davis HL. 1971. Measurement of husband-wife
Banister EN, Booth GJ. 2005. Exploring innovative
influence in consumer purchase decisions./owrmethodologies for child-centric consumer
nal of Marketing Research 8(August): 305-312.
research. Qualitative Market Research: An Davis HL. 1976. Decision making within the houseInternational Journal 8(2): 157-175.
hold. Journal of Consumer Research 2(4):
Beatty SE, Talpade S. 1994. Adolescent influence in
241-260.
family decision making: a replication with exten- Davis HL, Rigaux BP. 1974. Perceptions of marital
sion. Journal of Consumer Research 12(2):
roles in decision processes. Journal of Consu332-341.
mer Research 1: 51-62.
Belch MA, Belch GE, Sciglimpaglia D. 1980. Conflict Denzin NK. 1989. Interpretive Interactionism, vol.
16. Sage: London.
in family decision making: an exploratory investigation. Advances in Consumer Research 7: Douglas S, Wind Y. 1978. Examining family role
475-479.
and authority patterns: two methodological

DOI: 10.1002/cb
197
issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family

40(1): 35-47.
Ekstrom KM, Tansuhaj P, Foxman E. 1987. Children's influence in family decisions and consumer socialisation: a reciprocal view. Advances in
Consumer Research 14: 283-287.
Filiatrault P, Ritchie BJR. 1980. Joint purchase decisions: a comparison of influence structure in
family and couple decision making umts. Journal
of Consumer Research 1\ 131-140.
Foxman ER, Tansuhaj PS. 1988. Adolescents' and
mothers' perceptions of relative influence in
family purchase decisions: pattems of agreement
and disagreement. Advances in Consumer
Research 15: 449-453.
Foxman ER, Tansuhaj PS, Ekstrom KM. 1989a.
Family members' perceptions of adolescent's
influence in family decision making. Joumal of
Consumer Research 15(March): 482-489.
Foxman ER, Tansuhaj PS, Ekstrom KM. 1989b.
Adolescents' influence in family purchase decisions: a socialisation perspective. Joumal of
Business Research 18: 159-172.
Green RT, Cunningham ICM. 1975. Feminine role
perception and family purchasing decisions.
Joumal of Marketing Research 12(August):
325-332.
Gunter B, Furnham A. 1998. Children as Consumers: A Fsychological Analysis of the Young
People's Market. Routledge: London.
Hall J, Shaw M, Johnson M, Oppenheim P. 1995.
Influence of children on family consumer
decision making. European Advances in Consumer Research 2: 45-53.
Harden J, Scott S, Backett-Milburn K, Jackson S.
2000. Can't talk, won't talk?: methodological
issues in researching children. Sociological
Research Online 5(2): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/2/harden.html
Hempel DJ. 1974. Family buying decisions./OM>-W/
of Marketing Research 11: 295-302.
James A, Jenks C, Prout A. 1998. Theorizing Childhood. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Jenkins RL. 1979. The influence of children in
family decision making: parent's perceptions. Advances in Consumer Research 6:
413-418.
Labrecque J, Ricard L. 2001. Children's influence on
family decision making: a restaurant study. Journal of Business Research 54:173-176.
Lee CKC, Beatty SE. 2002. Judgements of relative

influence in family decision making using observations. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer
Research 5: 223.
Lee CKC, Collins BA. 2000. Family decision making
and coalition patterns. European Journal of
Marketing 54(,9/l0y. 1181-1198.
Levy DS, Lee CKC. 2004. The influence of family
members on housing purchase decisions. Journal of Property and Investment Finance 22(4):
320-338.
Mangleburg TF. 1990. Children's influence in purchase decisions: a review and critique. Advances
in Consumer Research 17: 813-825.
McDonald G. 1980. Family power: the assessment
of a decade of theory and research 1970-1979.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 42(4):
November: 841-854.
McKee L, Mauthner N, Galilee J. 2003. Children's
perspectives on middle-class work-family
arrangements. In Children and the Changing
Family, Jensen A, McKee L (eds). Routledge
Falmer: London; 27-45.
McNeal JU. 1998. Tapping the three kids' markets.
American Demographics 20(April): 37-41.
Mitchell JC. 1983. Case and situational analysis.
Sociological Review 31: 187-211.
Morrow V, Richards M. 1996. The ethics of social
research with children: an overview. Children
and Society 10: 90-105.
Moschis GP, Moore RL. 1979. Decision making
among the young: a socialisation perspective.
Journal of Consumer Research 6(4): 101-112.
Nelson JE. 1979. Children as information sources in
the family decision to eat out. Advances in Consumer Research 6: 419-423.
O'Brien M, Jones D, Sloan D. 2000. Children's
independent spatial mobility in the urban public
realm. Childhood 7(3): 257-277.
Olson DH, Rabunsky C. 1972. Validity of four
measures of family power. Journal of Marriage
and the Family 24(May): 224-235.
Pearson JC. 1989. Communication in the Family.
Harper and Row: New York.
Quails WJ- 1982. Changing sex roles: the impact
upon family decision making. Advances in Consumer Research 9: 267-270.
Quails WJ. 1984. Sex roles, husband-wife influence
and family decision behaviour. Advances in Consumer Research 11: 270-275.

DOI: 10.1002/cb
198
Quails WJ. 1987. Household decision behaviour:

the impact of husbands' and wives' sex role
orientation. Journal of Consumer Research 4:
264-279.
Quails WJ, Jaffe F. 1992. Measuring conflict in
household decision behaviour: read my lips
and read my mind. Advances in Consumer
Research 19: 522-531.
Rasmussen K, Smidt S. 2003. Children in the neighbourhood: the neighbourhood in the children. In
Children in the City, Christensen Pia, O'Brien
Margaret (eds). Routledge Falmer: London;
82-100.
Scanzoni J, Szinovacz M. 1980. Family Decision
Making. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Scott J. 2000. Children as respondents: the challenge for quantitative research. In Research with
Children: Perspectives and Practices, Christensen Pia, James Alison (eds). Falmer Press:
London; 98-135.
Sheth JN. 1974. A theory of family buying decisions.
In Models of Buyer Behaviour: Conceptual
Quantitative and Empirical Sheth JN (ed.).
Harper Row: New York; 17-33.
Sibley D. 1991. Children's geographies: some
problems of representation. Area 23(3): 269270.
Spiro RL. 1983. Persuasion in family decision

making. Journal of Consumer Research 9:
393-402.
Sprey J. I960. The family as a system in conflict.
Joumal of Marriage and the Family 31:
699-706.
Straus A. 1987. Qualitative Analysisfor Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Vuchinich S, Emery RE, Cassidy J. 1988. Family
members as third parties in dyadic family conflict: strategies, alliances, and outcomes. Child
Development 59: 1293-1302.
Weinberg CB, Winer RS. 1983. Working wives and
major family expenditures: replication and extension. Joumal of Consumer Research 10:
259-263.
Wilkes RE. 1975. Husband-wife influence in purchase decisions: a confirmation and extension.
Joumal of Marketing Research 12(May):
224-227.
Williams LA, Burns AC. 2000. Exploring the dimensionality of children's direct influence attempts.
Advances in Consumer Research 27: 64-71.
Woodside AG. 1975. Effects of prior decision making, demographics and psychographics in marital
roles for purchasing durables. Advances in Consumer Research 2: 81-91.

DOI: 10.1002/cb
199
Appendix 1
Research process
Conduct Initial
Literature Review
Recruit Respondent
Families
Collect Biographical
Data
Conduct First
Interviews
(Parents and children
separate/20 families
involved)
Reflective
Notes
Taken
Provide Families
with Decision Tool
Material
Analysis
Ongoing
Literature
Review
Transcription
Conduct follow-up
Decision Tool
Interview
(Whole family together/10
families involved)
Final Writing Up

DOI: 10.1002/cb
200
Q 2
(J
a.
3ls
il
H
p ~
> 3
and
ri
1
3
C il S
i>< -o 2
i i S I
11
U a!
a! Ui a H
a. ce: J
^
3
ill
lag
.si
.2..S
<j .2
t/]
II
0.=
5^
E 9.
8.S
Ig
.2 o
o
11
le
&-a
^2
c3
_2 D.
u
c
8 -a
8 ^
c S
All
11 35
Sa
li.
II
00
~* c
ISU
S .2
^2
so X
I 2
UM
00
43,
tine
Oa
. <A
QX
it
11
M 5b
î
o c
si
c o
s|
a <
il

DOI: 10.1002/cb
- I 7.
- .1
I:! i2 .| I i i.^ 6 is
E||;n- J l l ^
.1 o!:' '1' o-g .1
* E . i - -g G
.ssinc
Is
3
i> i? f-
oS
",
3 ,3
li
o r^
Si i > c
-H :l
rtm.s,cin
201
" a
S --:
E o'
B i.
3
.C
3 '^ E I I '^ 2 g Eo =
2 E '^ 2 E
o . 2 , n - = ! 3 . 2 2 ! 3 oo
^ a
3 is
il
.2
ia -6
rH -
'3
J
o
II
"
11
I
O
c on
O =3
11
^ v^' O " ^
Si 3
-a g
S -2
^ rt fcrf G
;3
iH.3 a i^ S
12 f^
Q
u^ .^
il
fE
C
00
15
0\
fn
0\
Mi
c G
a 00
tu
2y
00
G
71
00
u"
Ti
li i
"3 ji
cU
E0
ii
a
C
3
u
teache
si
u
CO
office
s/CSE/
u
u
^'
0"
in
II
S2
JC C
u c
2ii
>
fc:'
s^
a.
a. a.
u
U
eac
ssio nal
&I
II
in
2
13
e
0
charte;red engine
man
ost-graduat
prof essiona
U 3
3 G
f rt
3
E/G
u
C
msurairjce broker
post -graduaIte/professi onal
31J3E3J /
2
3 a.
;e/profe
3
a
jxiliary. gra
rt
C
uT
CO
in
c
0
c

DOI: 10.1002/cb
202
Appendix 3
Knowledge and infomiation sources
Purchase
Knowledge and itiformation sources
Input made
Holiday
Friends who had been, brochures.

past experience, TV adverts/
programmes/channels, books.
Internet
Internet, magazines, friends, use
at school/university, general usage
Friends, brochures
TV programmes
Friends, leaflets, Internet
Friends
Things to do there, costs, new

attractions, flight times and prices.
facilities, accommodation
1, 8
Specifications, prices, special offers
1, 3, 6, 1, 13, 20
PC
TV
Cars
Sky TV
DVD player
Benefits of digital, features, cost

Models
Packages available
Benefits, features
Families
6, 10, 17
2
4,7,8
8
DOI: 10.1002/cb

Family Purchase Decision Making Exploring Child Influence Behavior PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family Purchase Decision Making Exploring Child Influence Behavior PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Consumer Behaviour

/ Consumer Behav. 6: 182-202 (2007)

Family purchase decision making:

Correspondence to: Elizabeth S. Thomson, University of

w^ithin purchasing decisions (Foxman and

Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Family purchase decision making

about the processes and complexities of family

central importance to marketers and consumer

Purchase influence and influence

A key focus for researchers exploring the

Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Elizabeth S. Thomson et al.

oriented family purchases such as holidays and

strategies used to influence a family purchase

Using experience and knowledge as a

Researching children's influence

Journal of Consutner Behaviour, July-August 2007

Family purchase decision making

Research strategy: engaging with

questions as to the most appropriate method of

Decision mapping tool

Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Elizabeth S. Thomson et al.

(one for parents and one for children) when a

Follow-up group interview^

interviewer/interviewee barrier (Rasmussen

Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Family purchase decision making

respondents' names were changed in the

Knowledge and Information

Results: influencing family

Figure 1. Child influence behaviour.

justify their purchase requests by highlighting

Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

This finding mirrors previous research which

The children had knowledge or accessed

The children tried to justify purchase

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Family purchase decision making

influence a purchase decision. However, there

far closer and I think they may not be fully

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Family purchase decision making

strated how we lost project work and that.

purposely target one parent rather than

Another child initiated coalition occurred in

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

and then he got his Mum on-board in order to

quite good at giving an honest opinion'.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Family purchase decision making

She (Mum) didn't want another dog

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

by all of the siblings or may have been due to

Summary and conclusion:

children demonstrated a range of sophisticated

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Family purchase decision making

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July-August 2007

Elizabeth S. Thomson et al.

sumption and management across public and