Adolescents’ Perceptions

of Family Communication
Patterns and Some Aspects
of Their Consumer
Socialization
Chankon Kim
Saint Mary’s University

Hanjoon Lee
Sejong University, Korea

Marc A. Tomiuk
HEC-Montreal

ABSTRACT

This study examined the effects of family communication patterns

(FCP) on adolescent consumers’ decision-making styles and influence
in family purchase decisions. Two underlying dimensions of FCP
(concept-orientation and socio-orientation) were measured separately
for mother–child communication and father–child communication
and regressed on adolescents’ use of the selected decision-making
styles and influence in purchase decisions involving durable products
and nondurable products for their own use. Results show that only
mother–child communication patterns have significant associations
with adolescents’ decision-making styles and family purchase influ-
ence. Specifically, mothers’ concept-oriented communication was pos-
itively linked to children’s use of utilitarian decision-making styles
(e.g., careful and deliberate decision making) and social/conspicuous
decision-making styles (e.g., recreational and hedonic decision

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26(10): 888–907 (October 2009)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20304
888
making) as well as to children’s influence in family purchase deci-
sions involving both durable and nondurable products for them-
selves. On the other hand, mothers’ socio-oriented communication
was linked positively to children’s use of undesirable decision-making
styles (e.g., confusion by overchoice) and negatively to children’s
influence in family purchase decisions. This study also investigated
the presence (or absence) of a same-gender effect in the relationships
between parent–child communication orientations and children’s
consumer socialization outcome. If present, a same-gender effect
would be indicated by a greater influence from the same-sex parent’s
communication orientations on the adolescent’s decision-making
styles and influence in family decisions relative to that of the opposite-
sex parent’s communication orientations. Comparisons of the two
gender-group regression results revealed no systematic pattern that
suggests the presence of such an effect. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Consumer socialization encompasses various types of learning that affect young

people’s acquisition of consumer skills as well as consumption-related knowledge,
preferences, and attitudes. One aspect of consumer socialization that has
attracted considerable research involves the issues of parent–child interactions
(Carlson & Grossbart, 1988; Carlson, Grossbart, & Stuenkel, 1992; Mandrik,
Fern, & Bao, 2005; Moschis, Moore, & Smith, 1984; Rose, Boush, & Shoham,
2002). Acknowledging the critical role parents play in children’s consumer social-
ization, these studies focus on how parent–child interaction styles and orienta-
tions are linked to parents’ socialization practices and children’s consumer
behavior, including their consumption/purchase autonomy, influence and par-
ticipation in family purchase processes, use of market information, and atti-
tudes toward advertising.
Two aspects of parent–child interactions have emerged prominently in past
research on child development and consumer socialization, namely, parenting
style (Carlson, Grossbart, & Stuenkel, 1992; Carlson & Grossbart, 1988; Darling &
Steinberg, 1993; Rose, 1999; Steinberg et al., 1991) and family communication
patterns (FCP) (Carlson, Grossbart, & Walsh, 1990; Carlson, Grossbart, &
Stuenkel, 1992; Moschis, 1985; Rose, Boush, & Shoham, 2002; Rose, Bush, &
Kahle, 1998). The present study provides a focus on the latter. In its original con-
ception, FCP refers to the frequency, type, and quality of communication among
family members (Carlson, Grossbart, & Stuenkel, 1992; Moore & Moschis, 1981).
In consumer socialization research, however, the concept is more closely
identified as a characterization of parental messages to children. Specifically, pre-
vious research has conceived and measured FCP along the dimensions of concept-
orientation and socio-orientation in parental messages imparted to children
(Carlson et al., 1994; Moschis, 1985; Moschis, Moore, & Smith, 1984). This study
investigates the influence of each of these two dimensions of FCP on children’s
influence in family purchase decisions (Jenkins, 1979; Kim & Lee, 1997; Moschis &
Mitchell, 1986) and consumer decision-making styles (Mallalieu & Palan, 2006;
Shim, 1996; Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Past research has documented
significant mediating effects of parent–child communication on various social-
ization outcomes, including children’s influence in family decisions (Carlson,
Grossbart, & Walsh, 1990; Rose, Boush, & Shoham, 2002). However, the issue of
how parents’ communication orientations may influence children’s consumer

CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION 889

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
decision-making styles has not been investigated. In a departure from the typ-
ical past approaches, which tended to include only mothers’ communication ori-
entations as antecedents to children’s consumer socialization, this study
incorporates the communication orientations of both parents as assessed by
adolescent children. This enables an examination of two issues relating to the
role of FCP in the socialization of children: (1) the relative influence of each
parent’s communication orientations (concept and socio-orientation) on the ado-
lescent’s purchase influence and consumer decision-making styles and (2) the
presence (or absence) of a matched-gender effect, that is, the question of whether
an adolescent’s purchase influence and consumer decision-making styles are
influenced to a greater extent by communication orientations of the parent of
the same gender.

BACKGROUND

Family Communication Patterns

Of the two dimensions along which FCP are posited to vary, socio-orientation
reflects a preference for harmonious parent–child relationships as well as con-
formity on the part of the child to parental control. Concept-orientation, on the
other hand, reflects a preference for an open exchange of ideas and feelings in
parent–child relationships (Baxter & Clark, 1996; Ritchie, 1991). Furthermore,
parent–child communications characterized by socio-orientation promote def-
erence to parents as well as monitoring and control of children’s consumer learn-
ing, whereas concept-oriented parent–child communications encourage children
to develop their own consumer skills and competencies (Carlson, Grossbart, &
Tripp, 1990; Lackman & Lanasa, 1993).
While much of the empirical work within the communication field where the
construct of FCP was originally conceived focuses on correlates of the two under-
lying dimensions (Baxter & Clark, 1996), in the area of consumer socialization
the two dimensions are typically dichotomized into high and low levels and com-
bined into four ideal types for comparisons of socialization outcomes. Laissez-
faire parents (low on both socio-orientation and concept-orientation) engage in
little communication with their children and hence have little influence on their
children’s consumer socialization. Protective parents (high on socio-orientation
and low on concept-orientation) stress obedience and social harmony, and limit
their children’s exposure to marketplace information such as television advertis-
ing. Pluralistic parents (low on socio-orientation and high on concept-orientation)
stress issue-oriented communication and encourage children’s development of
consumer competence and skills. Finally, consensual parents (high on socio-
orientation and high on concept-orientation) promote autonomous viewpoints,
yet simultaneously expect to maintain parental control.
Past empirical work has linked FCP to a wide range of consumer socializa-
tion outcomes, including shopping independence and purchase influence (Moschis,
Prahasto, & Mitchell, 1986; Rose, Boush, & Shoham, 2002), consumer role expec-
tations (Moschis, 1985), attitude toward advertising (Bush, Smith, & Martin,
1999), and ability to filter puffery in advertising (Moschis, Prahasto, & Mitchell,
1986). Past research has also uncovered connections between mother–child com-
munication patterns and mothers’ socialization practices such as mediation of

890 KIM, LEE, AND TOMIUK

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
children’s media use, co-shopping, and yielding to requests as well as granting
purchasing independence and consideration of children’s opinions (Carlson,
Grossbart, & Walsh, 1990; Rose, Bush, & Shoham, 2002).
Much of the research findings accumulated in this area are, however, subject
to criticism because of the heavy reliance on the mother–child dyad and exclu-
sion of the father’s role in depicting the family communication pattern. Ratio-
nales for this maternal emphasis include mothers’ greater familiarity with the
marketplace and their relation to their children and role as key mediator of
the influence of various consumer socialization agents (Carlson, Grossbart, &
Stuenkel, 1992). Although mothers are generally believed to have more frequent
and higher-quality communication with their adolescent children and play a
more important role in children’s consumer socialization than fathers (see Barnes
& Olson, 1985; Noller & Callan, 1990), there is evidence to suggest that fathers
and mothers assume different socialization duties and have different spheres of
influence on their children’s psychological development (Chen, Liu, & Li, 2000;
O’Bryan, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2004). For instance, Allen et al. (1994) showed
that fathers, but not mothers, have a greater impact on the ego development and
self-esteem of adolescent sons and daughters. Moreover, Parke and Buriel (1998)
found that mothers play a greater role in imparting communal and interpersonal
skills to their children, whereas fathers are more instrumental in their devel-
opment of independence and autonomy.
Such differences in the nature and orientation of communication between
adolescent–mother dyads and adolescent–father dyads suggest the importance
of including both the mother–child and the father–child communication orien-
tations when studying FCP (Palan, 1998). Given these past findings suggesting
significantly different roles for fathers and mothers in children’s socialization,
one of the main goals of this study is to examine the influence of each parent’s
communication pattern as captured on the two underlying dimensions of concept-
and socio-orientations on the child’s purchase influence and decision-making
styles.
Another issue of interest in the area of intergenerational communication and
influence is the presence (or absence) of a same-gender effect (i.e., greater social-
ization influence coming from the parent of same sex). The same-gender model,
based on the perspectives contained in Gender Theory (West & Zimmerman,
1987) and Gender Schema Theory (Bem, 1985), asserts that children’s social-
ization is influenced to a greater extent by the same-sex parent than by the
opposite-sex parent. Thus, fathers will act as a main socialization agent for sons,
whereas mothers will do so for daughters. Research examining parent–child
similarities in attitudes, values, and behaviors in other psychological domains
of child development has shown that this phenomenon does indeed frequently
occur (e.g., Anderson, 1983; Eisenberg et al., 1991; Epstein & Lee, 1988; Finke &
Hurley, 1995). Therefore, another goal of this study is to examine whether there
is a same-gender effect in the relationships between parental communication ori-
entations and adolescents’ socialization outcome.

Consumer Decision-Making Styles

Consumer decision-making styles have been conceptualized and measured by
Sproles and Kendall (1986). They defined consumer decision-making style as
a mental orientation characterizing a consumer’s approach to making choices.

CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION 891

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
It is a basic consumer personality, analogous to the concept of personality in
psychology (p. 268). Sproles and Kendall identified the following basic mental
characteristics of consumer decision making, which became the basis for a con-
sumer style inventory (CSI): (1) perfectionism and high quality conscious, (2) price
conscious and value for money, (3) novelty-fashion conscious, (4) recreational
and hedonic, (5) brand conscious and price equals quality, (6) habitual and brand
loyal, (7) impulsive and careless, and (8) confused by overchoice.
Shim (1996) examined adolescent consumer decision-making styles from the
perspective of consumer socialization. She classified the eight styles into three
orientations: utilitarian, social/conspicuous, and undesirable. The utilitarian
orientation is characterized by emphasis on finding the best quality or product
benefits for a price as reflected in the perfectionism and high quality conscious
and price-conscious and value-for-money decision-making styles. The social/
conspicuous orientation has for focus the social meanings or value-expressive
functions of consumption as reflected in the novelty-fashion conscious, recre-
ational and hedonic, brand-conscious and price-equals-quality, and habitual and
brand-loyal decision-making styles. Finally, decision-making styles described
as impulsive and careless and confused by overchoice represent the undesir-
able orientation because they are often associated with poor decision making.
Shim’s subsequent analyses, in which consumer decision-making style variables
were modeled as a function of a series of antecedent variables, yielded notable
findings: Adolescents’ interaction with their parents was related positively to
some aspects of the utilitarian orientation including perfectionism and high
quality consciousness and price and value-for-money consciousness but negatively
to brand consciousness. These results corroborated previous findings that
parental interaction with children facilitates the development of utilitarian con-
sumption behavior among adolescents (Moore & Moschis, 1981; Moschis, Moore, &
Smith, 1984). On the other hand, among the four social/conspicuous decision-
making styles, only the brand-conscious and price-equals-quality style was sig-
nificantly (and negatively) related to children’s interaction with parents. Of the
two undesirable decision-making styles, confusion by overchoice was signifi-
cantly related to children’s interaction with parents. Unexpectedly, however,
interaction with parents contributed positively to the undesirable orientation in
decision-making style.
Therefore, Shim’s study served to establish a significant influence of parent–
child interaction (or parent–child communication) on adolescents’ consumer
decision-making styles, albeit not extensively. However, findings of her study
contain ambiguities because it is unclear as to what aspects or dimensions of
the parent–child interaction are captured in the measure that was used in her
study, whereas, as indicated above, past research which examined the construct
of FCP typically considered two well-defined dimensions of parent–child com-
munication, namely socio- and concept-orientation. By providing a focus on these
two dimensions of both father–child communication and mother–child commu-
nication as antecedent variables of adolescents’ consumer decision-making styles,
the present study aims to develop a more cogent and detailed account of the rela-
tion between parent–child communication and adolescent decision-making styles.
Specifically, the following hypotheses will be tested:

H1: Both mothers’ and fathers’ concept-oriented communication with their chil-
dren will be positively associated with children’s utilitarian decision-making

892 KIM, LEE, AND TOMIUK

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 styles (H1a), positively associated with children’s social/conspicuous
decision-making styles (H1b), and negatively associated with their unde-
sirable decision-making styles (H1c).

Concept-oriented communication encourages children to develop independ-

ent views of the world and self-expression and thereby fosters development of
children’s consumer skills, competences, and independent decision-making abil-
ity (Rose, Bush, & Kahle, 1998; Carlson et al., 1994; Mangleburg & Bristol,
1998). Therefore, parents’ concept-oriented communication is expected to pro-
mote utilitarian decision-making styles whose focus is on finding the choice that
offers most value for the money (H1a). It is also envisaged that children of
concept-oriented parents are more likely to use purchase and consumption sit-
uations to express their values and self-concept. Such a tendency may often
lead to the use of decision-making styles that are socially motivated (H1b).
Finally, concept-oriented communication, which is expected to foster consumer
skills and an independent decision-making ability, should lessen the likelihood
of teenagers’ feeling confused by overchoice or employing an impulsive purchase
decision-making style (H1c).

H2: Both mothers’ and fathers’ socio-oriented communication with their chil-
dren will be negatively associated with children’s utilitarian decision-making
styles (H2a), negatively associated with children’s social/conspicuous deci-
sion-making styles (H2b), and positively associated with their undesir-
able decision-making styles (H2c).

Socio-oriented communication practices stress child conformity to parents’

authority and serve “as tools to assist in the maintenance of parental control”
(Carlson, Grossbart, & Stuenkel, 1992). In essence, socio-oriented parents
control and monitor their children’s consumption activities. Therefore, socio-
oriented communication is likely to hinder children’s acquisition of consumer
skills and competence and their subsequent development as autonomous deci-
sion makers. Accordingly, past research shows that socio-oriented communica-
tion is negatively related to adolescent influence in family purchase decisions
(Foxman, Tansuhaj, & Ekstrom, 1989; Moschis & Moore, 1978) and to purchase
decision making (Moschis & Mitchell, 1986). In a similar vein, socio-oriented
communication is expected to be negatively associated with children’s use of
utilitarian decision-making styles which require consumer skills and compe-
tence (H2a). Children of socio-oriented parents are also less likely to exhibit
social/conspicuous decision-making styles, largely because of the emphasis their
parents put on child conformity to parental control (H2b). In other words, socio-
oriented communication is likely to suppress expressions of self-concept and
values through consumption. Because of their lack of consumer competence,
these children are more likely to experience confusion in decision-making situ-
ations and are also more likely to be impulsive purchasers (H2c).

Children’s Influence in Family Decisions

Previous research, although scanty, has shown a linkage between FCP and chil-
dren’s influence in family purchase decisions (Carlson, Grossbart, & Tripp, 1990;
Rose, Boush, & Shoham, 2002). Concept-oriented communication is generally

CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION 893

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
envisaged as a reciprocal, two-way form of parent–child communication that
promotes independent evaluations of issues by children (Rose, Bush, & Kahle,
1998). Therefore, concept-oriented parents are more likely to encourage and
incorporate children’s opinions into family decisions (Rose, Boush, & Shoham,
2002). Previous research has produced some evidence that concept-oriented
communication is in fact related to increased children’s influence in family deci-
sions and decreased consumption dependence (Carlson, Grossbart, & Tripp,
1990; Rose, Boush, & Shoham, 2002).
On the other hand, socio-oriented communication is associated with moni-
toring and controlling of children’s consumption activities. As such, socio-
orientation is expected to be negatively related to children’s influence in
family decisions. The cross-national study by Rose, Boush, and Shoham (2002)
is the only one (to our knowledge) that has investigated this association, and it
has provided partial support for it. However, it should be noted that the sam-
ples used in this study involved children between the ages of 3 and 8 years, much
younger than the children studied in most past research on children’s socializa-
tion. Therefore, a further investigation of the linkage between parent–child com-
munication patterns and children’s decision influence is called for.

H3: Children’s influence in family purchase decisions will be positively related

with mothers’ and fathers’ concept-oriented communication with their
children (H3a) but negatively related with mothers’ and fathers’ socio-
oriented communication with their children (H3b).

Subsequent to the testing of these hypotheses, the focus of this study shifts
to the investigation of the same-gender effect in the relationships between
parent–child communication orientations and the children’s consumer social-
ization outcome variables under investigation in this study—consumer decision-
making styles and influence in family purchase decisions. In this investigation,
the sample is split into male and female groups, and for each gender group, com-
parisons are made between the influence of mothers’ communication orientations
and that of fathers’ communication orientations on children’s consumer
decision-making styles and their influence in family decisions. A same-gender
effect will be indicated by stronger influence by the same-sex parent’s commu-
nication orientations on the adolescent’s decision-making styles and influence
in family decisions relative to the influence stemming from the opposite-sex
parent’s communication orientations.

METHOD

Data
Data for this study come from an in-class questionnaire survey of students
enrolled in a high school situated in an eastern Canadian city. Respondents
were informed that the purpose of the research was to provide insights into the
role teenagers play in family product purchase and consumption decisions.
Approximately 600 questionnaires were handed out and 307 usable question-
naires were subsequently returned, for a response rate of 51%. The average age
of respondents was 16.4 years.

894 KIM, LEE, AND TOMIUK

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Teenagers assessed the degree of concept-orientation and socio-orientation
in both their mother’s and father’s communication with them on 8-item and
5-item measures, respectively (see the Appendix for the items in each measure).
Identical measures were used in several past studies (e.g., Moschis, Moore, &
Smith, 1984; Rose, Boush, & Shoham, 2002; Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977).
Both measures used a 5-point scale ranging from never to very often; they showed
acceptable levels of reliability in capturing mothers’ and fathers’ communication
orientations (a
0.88 for fathers’ socio-orientation, a
0.84 for fathers’ concept-
orientation, a
0.87 for mothers’ socio-orientation, a
0.83 for mothers’
concept-orientation).
The assessment of adolescents’ consumer decision-making styles involved a
total of 32 items, 19 of which covered six of the eight decision-making styles
originally proposed by Sproles and Kendall (1986) (Perfectionism and high qual-
ity conscious; Price conscious and value for money; Brand conscious and price
equals value; Recreational and hedonistic; Impulsive and careless; and Confused
by overchoice) and 13 of which were drawn from past studies of consumer social-
ization and adolescents’ consumer behavior (see Mangleburg, Grewal, & Bristol,
1997; Palan, 1998) for their relevance to adolescents’ decision-making styles.
Factor analysis (principal component analysis with varimax rotation) of the
32 items yielded seven factors that explained 66.6% of the total variance. Table 1
shows the seven groups of items along with their factor loadings. These results show
that the items captured five of the eight consumer decision-making styles pro-
posed by Sproles and Kendall (1986). It should be noted that the original decision-
making style labeled “brand conscious and price equals quality” was renamed
“brand conscious” to better reflect the contents of the three items that loaded on
the same factor. Two items which were designed to measure the sixth factor, “price
conscious and value for money” (“I look carefully to find . . .” and “I compare the
prices to find . . .”) in Sproles and Kendall’s consumer decision-making inventory
loaded on the same factor, along with several items brought in from other sources.
Based on its item content, this factor was labeled the “careful and deliberate”
decision making style. Five of the 13 items drawn from past studies of consumer
socialization loaded on the same factor. All of these items characterized a con-
sumer or consumer decision making imbued with a high level of market knowl-
edge. This factor was therefore labeled the “well-informed” decision-making style.
Reliability estimates (see Table 1) ranged from moderate to high levels, with a
minimum of 0.67 for the impulsive and careless factor and a maximum of 0.91 for
the careful and deliberate and recreational and hedonistic factors. The mean scale
values ranged between 2.48 for the confused by overchoice factor and 3.63 for the
perfectionism and high quality conscious factor (also see Table 1).
Of these seven consumer decision-making styles, careful and deliberate, well-
informed, and perfectionism and high quality conscious most strongly exhibit a
utilitarian orientation, whereas recreational and hedonistic and brand conscious
reflect a social/conspicuous orientation. The impulsive and careless and con-
fused by overchoice styles represent an undesirable orientation.
Finally, children’s influence in family purchase decisions was measured based
on two types of product purchase decisions—one involving six durable children’s
products (music CDs or DVDs, a bicycle, athletic shoes or sneakers, clothes,
books, and an MP3 player for the child) and the other involving five nondurable
children’s products (toothpaste, breakfast cereal, snacks, shampoo, and soft
drink for the child). For each one of these products, children were asked “Between

CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION 895

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 1. Results of Factor Analysis: Consumer Decision-Making Style Items.

Factor
Factor Statement Loading

Careful and I carefully study the choices available before I buy 0.80
deliberate something that costs me a lot of money.
(␣
0.91; I shop around before buying something that costs 0.77
M
3.22) a lot of money.
I plan how to spend my money. 0.73
I compare prices to find lower-priced products. 0.72
I compare prices and brands before buying something 0.71
that costs a lot of money.
I keep track of the money I spend and save. 0.69
I sometimes read product labels before deciding which 0.63
brand to buy.
I look carefully to find the best values for money. 0.62
I learn about brands by reading product labels. 0.61
I carefully read most of the things they write on 0.56
packages or labels
Well- I know a lot about different types of stores. 0.77
informed I know a lot about different brands of the products I buy. 0.76
(␣
0.86; I know a lot about choices available for things I buy. 0.73
M
3.36) I am usually well informed about what is a reasonable 0.71
price to pay for something.
I am a knowledgeable consumer. 0.59
Perfectionism In general, I usually try to buy the very best overall 0.87
and high quality products.
quality When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the 0.83
conscious very best or the perfect choice.
(␣
0.87; I make a special effort to choose the very best quality 0.79
M
3.63) products.
Getting very good quality is very important to me. 0.55
Confused by All the information I get on different products confuses me. 0.80
overchoice The more I learn about products, the harder it seems 0.80
(␣
0.81; to choose the best.
M
2.48) Sometimes it’s hard to choose which store to shop. 0.74
There are so many brands to choose from that I often feel 0.72
confused.
Recreational Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities of my life. 0.91
and hedonistic Shopping is a pleasant activity to me. 0.90
(␣
0.91; I enjoy shopping just for fun of it. 0.89
M
3.44)
Brand The more expensive brands are usually my choices. 0.76
conscious Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best 0.72
(␣
0.80; products.
M
2.99) The well-known national brands are best for me. 0.61
Impulsive I don’t spend much time shopping for best buys. 0.74
and careless I am impulsive when purchasing. 0.71
(␣
0.67; Often I make careless purchases I later wish I had not. 0.64
M
2.76)

896 KIM, LEE, AND TOMIUK

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 2. Results of Factor Analysis: Children’s Influence in Purchase Decisions.

Factor
Factor Purchase Decision Loading

Durable products Music CDs or DVDs for this child 0.80

(␣
0.78; M
3.92) Clothes for the child 0.75
Athletic shoes or sneakers for the child 0.74
A bicycle for the child 0.69
Books for this child 0.68
An MP3 player for the child 0.50
Nondurable products Snacks for the child 0.83
(␣
0.86; M
3.16) Soft drinks for the child 0.82
Breakfast cereal for the child 0.80
Toothpaste for the child 0.70
Shampoo for the child 0.58

you and your parents, who decides what to buy?” (1
Your parents entirely;
2
Mostly your parents; 3
Your parents and you jointly; 4
Mostly yourself;
5
Yourself entirely). Factor analysis (principal component analysis with vari-
max rotation) of these 11 items produced a two-factor solution that accounted
for 60.2% of the total variance. Specifically, the six durable product purchase deci-
sions loaded on the first factor (a
0.78, mean
3.92), and all five durable
product purchase decisions loaded on the second factor (a
0.86, mean
3.16).
The two groups of purchase decisions with their factor loadings are shown in
Table 2.

RESULTS

Parental Communication Orientations and Adolescents’

Consumer Decision-Making Styles
A series of regression analyses were run with the seven consumer decision-making
styles as criterion variables and each parent’s socio-orientation and concept-
orientation (as assessed by the child) as well as the child’s monthly part-time
employment income as predictor variables. Children’s income was incorporated
in the regression model as a covariate of the criterion variables based on the sus-
picion that teenagers’ decision-making styles are likely to change as they earn
varying levels of their own income. The R-squared values obtained for the seven
estimated regression equations (see Table 3, All respondents) were not high,
ranging from 0.03 for the equation involving the brand-conscious style to 0.15
for the equation involving the well-informed style as the criterion variable.
Nonetheless, parent–child communication orientations emerged as significant
influencers of various children’s decision-making styles.
The correlation matrix for the predictor variables showed three coefficients
above 0.4: 0.47 between fathers’ concept-orientation and mothers’ concept-
orientation, 0.44 between fathers’ socio-orientation and mothers’ socio-orientation,
and 0.40 between fathers’ concept-orientation and fathers’ socio-orientation.
The rest were all below 0.2. These values (along with the tolerance values greater

CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION 897

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 3. Results of Regression Analyses for the Total Sample and Each Gender Group (143 Males and 164 Females): Consumer
Decision-Making Styles as Criterion Variables and Parents’ Communication Orientations, Children’s Age and Income as
Predictor Variables.
Predictor Variable

Mother’s Mother’s Father’s Father’s

Criterion Concept- Socio- Concept- Socio- Child’s Adjusted
Variable Orientation Orientation Orientation Orientation Income R-Sq. R-Sq.

Careful and deliberate

All respondents 0.27a (4.29)b 0.19 (3.21) 0.00 (0.05) 0.00 (0.03) 0.20 (3.65) 0.14 0.13
Males 0.37 (3.90) 0.17 (1.86) 0.13(1.17) 0.00 (0.04) 0.26 (3.25) 0.19 0.16
Females 0.21 (2.37) 0.21 (2.61) 0.10 (1.14) 0.01 (0.14) 0.12 (1.54) 0.12 0.09
Well-informed
All respondents 0.14 (2.26) 0.09 (1.54) 0.18 (2.71) 0.00 (0.05) 0.26 (4.84) 0.15 0.13
Males 0.24 (2.55) 0.07 (.74) 0.13 (1.14) 0.05 (0.47) 0.29 (3.72) 0.18 0.15
Females 0.09 (0.99) 0.11 (1.30) 0.23 (2.59) 0.04 (0.43) 0.21 (2.75) 0.13 0.10
Perfectionism and high quality conscious
All respondents 0.21 (3.24) 0.07 (1.04) 0.04 (0.60) 0.04 (0.51) 0.13 (2.31) 0.08 0.06
Males 0.16 (1.62) 0.05 (0.55) 0.04 (0.34) 0.09 (0.81) 0.19 (2.34) 0.10 0.07
Females 0.28 (3.13) 0.06 (0.70) 0.01 (0.05) 0.02 (0.23) 0.01 (0.18) 0.08 0.05
Recreational or hedonistic
All respondents 0.32 (5.05) 0.04 (0.66) 0.04 (0.63) 0.05 (0.80) 0.11 (1.90) 0.10 0.09
Males 0.22 (2.25) 0.04 (0.38) 0.05 (0.45) 0.05 (0.43) 0.27 (3.26) 0.12 0.09
Females 0.04 (0.40) 0.02 (0.23) 0.09 (0.96) 0.15 (1.66) 0.09(1.11) 0.04 0.00
Brand conscious
All respondents 0.12 (1.80) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.93) 0.01 (0.10) 0.07 (1.28) 0.03 0.01
Males 0.23 (2.29) 0.06 (0.62) 0.06 (0.54) 0.06 (0.51) 0.17 (ⴚ.06) 0.10 0.07
Females 0.14 (1.59) 0.00 (0.01) 0.01 (0.11) 0.06 (0.66) 0.10 (1.29) 0.04 0.01
Confused by overchoice
All respondents 0.02 (0.37) 0.22 (3.53) 0.01 (0.09) 0.13 (1.87) 0.08 (1.39) 0.09 0.08
Males 0.02 (0.20) 0.21 (2.16) 0.05 (0.48) 0.17 (1.54) 0.18 (2.25) 0.12 0.09
Females 0.16 (0.18) 0.24 (2.95) 0.08 (0.88) 0.09 (1.05) 0.05 (0.71) 0.10 0.07
Impulsive and careless
All respondents 0.01 (0.11) 0.13 (2.00) 0.12 (1.72) 0.01 (0.11) 0.08 (1.40) 0.04 0.03
Males 0.01 (0.11) 0.20 (2.04) 0.13 (1.08) 0.04 (0.32) 0.21 (2.56) 0.09 0.06
Females 0.02 (0.16) 0.07 (0.76) 0.14 (1.53) 0.02 (0.24) 0.08 (1.05) 0.04 0.00
Note: Bold regression coefficients are significant at p  0.10.
a b
Standardized regression coefficients; t-values.
than 0.60 estimated in the regression solutions) suggest that multicollinearity
was an unlikely problem in the regression analyses. Substantively, they sug-
gest that there was substantial congruence between mothers’ and fathers’ com-
munication orientations. Another notable observation involves the positive
correlation between fathers’ concept-orientation and fathers’ socio-orientation,
which suggests that fathers tended to be simultaneously high (or low) in both
concept-orientation and socio-orientation (the correlation between mothers’ concept-
orientation and socio-orientation was much lower, 0.13). Results of the regres-
sion analyses for all respondents as well as each gender group are summarized
in Table 3.
It was hypothesized earlier that both mothers’ and fathers’ concept-oriented
communication with their children would be positively associated with chil-
dren’s utilitarian (H1a) and social/conspicuous decision-making styles (H1b),
but negatively associated with undesirable decision-making styles (H1c). Regres-
sion results (for all respondents) show that mothers’ concept-oriented commu-
nication was indeed significantly related to all three utilitarian decision-making
styles—careful and deliberate (b
0.27, p  0.01), well-informed (b
0.14,
p  0.05), and perfectionism and high quality conscious (b
0.21, p  0.01).
Mothers’ concept-orientation was also significantly related to the two social/
conspicuous decision-making styles—recreational and hedonistic (b
0.32, p  0.01)
and brand conscious (b
0.12, p  0.10). However, none of the undesirable deci-
sion-making styles—confused by overchoice and impulsive and careless—showed
a significant relationship with mothers’ concept-oriented communication.
Regression results reveal much weaker associations between fathers’
concept-oriented communication and children’s consumer decision-making styles.
Fathers’ concept-oriented communication was significantly associated with one of
the three utilitarian decision-making styles—well-informed (b
0.18, p  0.01)—
and none of the social/conspicuous decision-making styles. It showed a signifi-
cant relationship with one of the two undesirable decision-making styles—
impulsive and careless—but in the direction opposite to that hypothesized
(b
0.12, p  0.10). Overall, results show partial support for H1: H1a and H1b
are supported only for mother–child dyads, and no support was found for H1c.
H2 maintained that both mothers’ and fathers’ socio-oriented communica-
tion with their children would be negatively associated with children’s of utili-
tarian (H2a) and social/conspicuous decision-making styles (H2b), and positively
associated with undesirable decision-making styles (H2c). As indicated in Table 3,
regression results offer no support for H2a and H2b. Although mothers’ socio-
orientation did show a significant relationship with children’s careful and delib-
erate decision-making style, the direction of the relationship was in fact positive
(b
0.19, p  0.01), suggesting that children of socio-oriented mothers are more
likely to perceive themselves as careful and deliberate purchasers. Support for
H2c was found in mother–child dyads. Specifically, mothers’ socio-orientation
showed a significant positive association with both of the undesirable decision-
making styles—confused by overchoice (b
0.22, p  0.01) and impulsive and
careless (b
0.13, p  0.05). Fathers’ socio-orientation also showed a significant
positive relationship with one of the two undesirable decision-making styles—
confused by overchoice (b
0.13, p  0.10), adding further support for H2c.
Therefore, these results provide evidence that socio-oriented communication by
both parents is connected to undesirable decision-making styles among chil-
dren. Parents’ socio-oriented communication, on the other hand, does not seem

CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION 899

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
to diminish children’s tendency to use the utilitarian or social/conspicuous
decision-making styles.

Parental Communication Orientations and Adolescents’

Influence in Family Purchase
H3 predicted that children’s influence in family purchase decisions would be
positively related to parents’ concept-oriented communication (H3a) and nega-
tively to parents’ socio-oriented communication with their children (H3b). Results
of the regression analyses testing H3a and H3b for two groups of family purchase
decisions (those involving durable products for children and nondurable prod-
ucts for children) are contained in Table 4 (see the results for all respondents).
The most notable finding revealed by these results concerns the lack of rela-
tionship between fathers’ communication orientation and the level of influence
children had in purchase decisions involving products for their own use. In con-
trast, mothers’ communication orientation showed significant relationships with
children’s purchase decision influence for both product groups in the hypothe-
sized directions. Specifically, children with more concept-oriented mothers tended
to have greater influence in purchase decisions involving both durable and non-
durable products for their own use (H3a), whereas children with more socio-
oriented mothers tended to have less influence in these purchase decisions
(H3b). The general absence of significant relationship between fathers’ com-
munication orientation and children’s decision-making styles was noted in the
previous section. Results in this section provide further evidence that father–child
interactions may not play as important a role as mother–child interactions in
many aspects of children’s consumer socialization.
In the subsequent stage of analysis, the focus shifted to testing a same-gender
effect in the relationships between parental communication orientations and
the two sets of socialization outcome variables—adolescents’ consumer decision-
making styles and influence in family purchase decisions. The key question
examined here was whether children’s consumer decision-making styles and
purchase decision influence are affected to a greater extent by the communica-
tion orientations of the same-sex parent relative to those of the opposite-sex
parent. To answer this question, the sample was split into male (n
143) and
female (n
164) groups, and for each group, the same two sets of regression
analyses as those previously performed on the entire sample were run (see
Tables 3 and 4 for summaries of regression results involving consumer deci-
sion-making styles and purchase decision influence as criterion variables).
For each pair of regression results (e.g., regression results for male adoles-
cents and female adolescents for the criterion variable of well-informed decision-
making), the influence of the same-sex parent’s communication orientation on
children’s consumer decision-making style was compared to that of the opposite-
sex parent’s communication orientation. In the event of a same-gender effect,
stronger influence by the same-sex parent’s communication orientations on the
adolescent’s decision-making styles would be apparent relative to that of
the opposite-sex parent’s communication orientations.
A look at the first pair of regression results involving the criterion variable
of careful and deliberate decision-making presented in Table 3 reveals that
mothers’ concept-oriented communication and socio-oriented communication
showed significant relationships with both male and female children’s careful
and deliberate decision-making style. On the other hand, neither of the two

900 KIM, LEE, AND TOMIUK

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 4. Results of Regression Analyses for the Total Sample and Each Gender Group (143 Males and 164 Females): Children’s
Influence in Purchase Decisions as Criterion Variables and Parents’ Communication Orientations, Children’s Age and Income as
Predictor Variables.

Predictor Variable

Criterion Mother’s Mother’s Father’s Father’s

Adjusted Concept- Socio- Concept- Socio- Child’s Adjusted
Variable Orientation Orientation Orientation Orientation Income R-Sq. R-Sq.

Durable products
All respondents 0.13a (1.98b) 0.16 (2.56) 0.00 (0.05) 0.01 (0.21) 0.09 (1.63) 0.05 0.04
Males 0.20 (1.95) 0.18 (1.80) 0.06 (0.47) 0.01 (0.11) 0.08 (0.92) 0.06 0.02
Females 0.07 (.76) 0.15 (1.81) 0.04 (0.43) 0.01 (0.11) 0.11 (1.41) 0.05 0.02
Nondurable products
All respondents 0.22 (3.51) 0.16 (2.63) 0.06 (0.82) 0.08 (1.22) 0.04 (0.65) 0.09 0.08
Males 0.17 (1.64) 0.10 (1.02) 0.02 (0.15) 0.09 (0.82) 0.01 (0.16) 0.04 0.01
Females 0.18 (2.11) 0.19 (2.40) 0.11 (1.26) 0.06 (0.67) 0.09 (1.15) 0.12 0.09
Note: Bold regression coefficients are significant at p  0.10.
a
Standardized regression coefficients; b t-values.
fathers’ communication orientations showed a significant relationship with
either male or female children’s careful and deliberate decision-making style.
These particular results indicate the absence of a same-gender effect.
The next pair of regression results, involving the criterion variable of the
well-informed decision-making style, show that mothers’ concept-orientation
significantly influenced only male children’s decision-making style, whereas
fathers’ concept-orientation significantly influenced only female children’s decision-
making style. While such findings would point toward an opposite-sex effect
rather than a same-sex effect, a visual scan of the rest of the male–female regres-
sion results in Table 3 indicates no clear pattern suggesting either a same
sex-effect or an opposite-sex effect.
An examination of male–female regression results for children’s influence in
family purchase decisions (in Table 4) provides a more definitive finding. Nei-
ther fathers’ concept-orientation nor fathers’ socio-orientation showed a signif-
icant relationship with children’s purchase influence, regardless of their gender
and the type of product involved in the purchase decision. The influence of moth-
ers’ communication orientations, on the other hand, is fairly pervasive. How-
ever, there is no discernable pattern in the results that might suggest that
mothers’ communication orientations have greater impact on the level of pur-
chase influence of female children than on that of male children. As can be seen,
mothers’ concept-orientation was significantly related only to their sons’ purchase
influence for durable products (b
0.20, p  0.10). However, in the case of non-
durable products, mothers’ concept-orientation was significantly related only
to their daughters’ purchase influence (b
0.18, p  0.05). Moreover, mothers’
socio-orientation was significantly related to both their sons’ and daughters’
purchase influence for durable products (b
0.18, p  0.10 and b
0.15,
p  0.10, respectively) but only to their daughters’ purchase influence for non-
durable products (b
0.19, p  0.05).
What emerges as most evident in the above results is the disparity in the level
of influence coming from each parent in shaping the direction and outcome of chil-
dren’s socialization process. Quite evidently, mother–child communication plays
a significant role in determining children’s consumer decision-making styles
and their influence in family purchase decisions. The role of fathers, on the other
hand, appears to be much less significant.

DISCUSSION

The present study extends past research on family communication patterns in

a few respects. First, it deals with an area of children’s consumer socialization
(i.e., adolescents’ consumer decision-making styles) which appears neglected
in research on FCP. Children not only have substantial spending power (Arnould,
Price, & Zinkhan, 2004) but also exercise significant purchase influence for a wide
variety of products for their own consumption, from sneakers and clothes to
computer games and MP3 players, making them attractive targets for marketing
communication effort (Beatty & Talpade, 1994; Foxman, Tansuhaj, & Ekstrom,
1989; McNeal, 1992; Kim & Lee, 1997). In this regard, insights into adolescents’
consumer decision-making styles and the ways to influence them are impor-
tant not only for marketers but also for consumer educators and parents, whose
task is to help young consumers make competent evaluations of marketing com-
munication claims and purchase decisions. This study shows that parent–child

902 KIM, LEE, AND TOMIUK

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
communication plays a significant role in shaping adolescents’ decision-making
styles and in their acquisition of consumption/purchase independence.
Second, by including both mothers’ and fathers’ communication orientations
in the analyses, this study was able to ascertain the relative influence of each
parent’s communication orientation on the child’s consumer decision-making
styles and family purchase influence. Findings showed that only mothers’ com-
munication orientations were significantly associated with adolescents’ decision-
making styles and family purchase influence. More specifically, mothers’
concept-oriented communication appears to promote children’s utilitarian and
social/conspicuous decision-making styles, and mothers’ socio-oriented commu-
nication appears to promote undesirable decision-making styles marked by con-
fusion by overchoice and impulsive and careless decision making. It was also
shown that mothers’ concept-orientation was positively linked to children’s influ-
ence in family purchase decisions involving both durable and nondurable prod-
ucts for their own use, whereas mothers’ socio-orientation was negatively linked
to children’s influence in these purchase decisions. These findings corroborate
those previously reported by Carlson, Grossbart, and Tripp (1990) and Rose,
Boush, and Shoham (2002). On the other hand, fathers’ communication orien-
tations had negligible influence on children’s consumer decision-making styles
and their family purchase influence. The reason behind this lack of association
between fathers’ communication orientations and children’s decision-making
styles warrants probing in future studies. One possible explanation may be the
low level of involvement fathers have in their children’s consumer socialization
process (Carlson et al., 1994). The less frequent and less overt nature of the
father–child consumption interaction, compared to the mother–child consump-
tion interaction, may provide fathers with limited opportunity to influence their
children’s consumer skills and competences.
Yet another way by which the present study extends past research on FCP
involved an investigation of the presence (or absence) of the same-gender effect
in the relationship between parental communication orientation and two sets
of children’s socialization outcome variables—decision-making styles and influ-
ence in family purchase decisions. Results of this study ascertained no such
effect. For the several significant relationships we found between mothers’ com-
munication orientation and children’s socialization outcome variables, there
was no systematic pattern indicating that mothers’ influence was greater on
daughters than on sons.
A notable feature of this study in investigating the effects of FCP on social-
ization outcome variables is the direct examination of the influence of each of the
two dimensions. Most of the previous research on the role of family communica-
tion in consumer socialization dichotomized each dimension into high and low lev-
els and made comparisons between concept-oriented and non–concept-oriented
patterns, socio-oriented and non–socio-oriented patterns, and also between the
four emergent ideal types (laissez faire, protective, pluralistic, and consensual)
on selected outcome variables. While this approach allows a simultaneous assess-
ment of the influence of both socio- and concept-oriented communication (e.g., the
effect of high socio- and high concept-oriented communication), a major reason
for its wide use has been theoretical in that most marketing literature in this
area examines this four-group typology, and new findings are better integrated
with the existing ones (Bakir, Rose, & Shoham, 2006). There are exceptions,
however; a small group of marketing studies (Foxman, Tansuhaj, & Ekstrom,
1989; Rose, Boush, & Shoham, 2002; Rose, Dalaka, & Kropp, 2002) have focused

CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION 903

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
on correlates of the underlying dimensions of FCP. Rose, Boush, and Shoham
(2002) have noted that the use of the family communication typology results in
a loss of statistical power, which stems from collapsing the two underlying
dimensions into discrete categories; the direct examination of the influence of
each dimension should better isolate their effects on the outcome variables.
As with most studies, this research has limitations making further investi-
gations of the issues examined in this study necessary to develop more defini-
tive conclusions. One of these involves the use of only children’s responses in
studying a family process. In fact, some researchers of family communication find
the assumption of agreement across family members in estimating family process
problematic. Past studies incorporating family triads, albeit very few in num-
ber, have shown that parent–child correlations for socio- and concept-orientations
are low (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990; Tims & Masland, 1985), implying a need
to question both parents and children about family communication (Ritchie,
1991). Some researchers believe that discrepancies between family members
should be seen as a useful source of information rather than as an inherent
problem (Moos & Moos, 1981; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990). For instance, accord-
ing to Ritchie and Fitzpatrick (1990), “A family in which the members give dif-
ferent responses is no less interesting than a family in which all members give
identical responses” (p. 528). In view of such an opinion, it is advisable that
future studies of family communication be based on data from parents as well
as from children and focus not only on the level of response discrepancy but
also on the intrafamilial relationship factors that may act as significant deter-
minants of response discrepancy. Future research should also examine the fea-
sibility of using methods that incorporate multiple-informant measures when
investigating the influence of parental communication on children’s consumer
socialization process or outcome.

REFERENCES

Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Bell, K. L., & O’Connor, T. G. (1994). Longitudinal assessment
of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of ado-
lescent ego development. Child Development, 65, 179–194.
Anderson, K. L. (1983). Educational goals of male and female adolescents: The effects of
potential characteristics and attitudes. Youth and Society, 12, 173–188.
Arnould, E. J., Price, L. L., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2004). Consumers, 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/
Irwin.
Bakir, A., Rose, G. M., & Shoham, A. (2006). Family communication patterns: Mothers’
and fathers’ communication style and children’s perceived influence in family decision
making. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 19, 73–95.
Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circum-
plex model. Child Development, 56, 438–447.
Baxter, L. A., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Perceptions of family communication patterns and
the enactment of family rituals. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 254–258.
Beaty, S. E., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent influence in family decision making: A repli-
cation with extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 332–341.
Bem, S. L. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical inte-
gration. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, psychology
and gender, Vol. 32 (pp. 179–226). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Bush, A. J., Smith, R., & Martin, C. (1999). The influence of consumer socialization
variables on attitude toward advertising: A comparison of African-Americans and
Caucasians. Journal of Advertising, 28, 13–24.

904 KIM, LEE, AND TOMIUK

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and consumer socialization of chil-
dren. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 77–94.
Carlson, L., Grossbart, S., & Stuenkel, K. J. (1992). The role of parental socialization
types on different family communication patterns regarding consumption. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 1, 31–52.
Carlson, L., Grossbart, S., & Tripp, C. (1990). An investigation of mothers’ communication
orientations and patterns. In M. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in
consumer research, Vol. 17 (pp. 804–812). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Carlson, L., Grossbart, S., & Walsh, A. (1990). Mothers’ communication orientation and
consumer socialization tendencies. Journal of Advertising, 19, 27–38.
Carlson, L., Walsh, A., Laczniak, R. N., & Grossbart, S. (1994). Family communication
patterns and marketplace motivations, attitudes, and behaviors of children and moth-
ers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 28, 25–53.
Chen, X., Liu, M., & Li, D. (2000). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence and their rela-
tions to adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family
Psychology, 14, 401–419.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., Carlo, G., & Miller, P. A. (1991). The relations of
parental characteristics and practices to children’s vicarious emotional responding.
Child Development, 62, 1393–1408.
Epstein, S., & Lee, M. (1988). The relation between college students’ and parents’ con-
structive thinking. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Finke, H. L., & Hurley, J. R. (1995). Everyday thinking of college students and their parents
and students’ simulations of each parent’s thinking. Psychological Reports, 76, 247–257.
Foxman, E., Tansuhaj, P., & Ekstrom, K. M. (1989). Family members’ perceptions of ado-
lescents’ influence in family decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
482–491.
Jenkins, R. L. (1979). The influence of children in family decision making: Parents’ per-
ceptions. In W. L. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in consumer research, Vol. 6 (pp. 413–418).
Ann Arber, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Kim, C., & Lee, H. (1997). Development of family triadic measures for children’s pur-
chase influence. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 307–321.
Lackman, C., & Lanasa, J. M. (1993). Family decision-making theory: An overview and
assessment. Psychology & Marketing, 10, 81–93.
Mallalieu, L., & Palan, K. M. (2006). How good a shopper am I? Conceptualizing teenage
girls’ perceived shopping competence. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 5. Avail-
able at http://www.amsreview.org/article/mallalieu05-20006.pdf.
Mandrik, C. A., Fern, E. F., & Bao, Y. (2005). Intergenerational influence: Roles of con-
formity to peers and communication effectiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 22,
813–832.
Mangleburg, T. F., & Bristol, T. (1998). Socialization and adolescents’ skepticism toward
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 27, 11–21.
Mangleburg, T. F., Grewal, D., & Bristol, T. (1997). Socialization, gender, and adolescents’
self-reports of their generalized use of product labels. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31,
255–279.
McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. T. Tedeschi
(Ed.), The social influence process (pp. 50–59). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
McNeal, J. U. (1992). Kids as consumers. New York: Lexington Books.
Moore, R. L., & Moschis, G. P. (1981). The role of family communication in consumer
learning. Journal of Communication, 31, 42–51.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Environmental Scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists.
Moschis, G. P. (1985). The role of family communication in consumer learning. Journal
of Consumer Research, 11, 898–913.

CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION 905

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Moschis, G. P., & Mitchell, L. G. (1986). Television advertising and interpersonal influ-
ences on teenagers’ participation in family consumer decisions. In R. J. Lutz (Ed.),
Advances in consumer research, Vol.13 (pp. 181–186). Provo, UT: Association for Con-
sumer Research.
Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. L. (1978), Family communication and consumer socializa-
tion. In W. L. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in consumer research, Vol. 6 (pp. 359–363). Ann
Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Moschis, G. P., Moore, R. L., & Smith, R B. (1984). The impact of family communication
on adolescent consumer socialization. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer
research, Vol. 11 (pp. 314–319). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Moschis, G. P., Prahasto, A. E., & Mitchell, L. G. (1986). Family communication influ-
ences on the development of consumer behavior: Some additional findings. In R. J.
Lutz (Ed.), Advances in consumer research, Vol. 13 (pp. 365–369). Provo, UT: Associ-
ation for Consumer Research.
Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1990). Adolescents’ perceptions of the nature of their commu-
nication with parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 349–362.
O’Bryan, M., Fishbein, H. D., & Ritchey, P. N. (2004). Intergenerational transmission of
prejudice, sex role stereotyping, and intolerance. Adolescence, 39, 407–426.
Palan, K. M. (1998). Relationships between family communication and consumer activ-
ities of adolescents: An exploratory study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
26, 338–349.
Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1998). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological per-
spectives. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and
personality development, Vol. 3 (pp. 463–552). New York: Wiley.
Ritchie, L. D. (1991). Family communication patterns: An epistemic analysis and con-
ceptual interpretation. Communication Research, 18, 548–565.
Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intra-
personal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523–544.
Rose, G. M. (1999). Consumer socialization, parental style, and development timetables
in the United States and Japan. Journal of Marketing, 63, 105–119.
Rose, G. M., Boush, D., & Shoham, A. (2002). Family communication and children’s pur-
chasing influence: A cross-national examination. Journal of Business Research, 55,
867–873.
Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Kahle, L. (1998). The influence of family communication pat-
terns on parental reactions toward advertising: A cross-national examination. Journal
of Advertising, 27, 71–85.
Rose, G. M., Dalakas, V., & Kropp, F. (2003). Consumer socialization and parental style
across cultures: Findings from Australia, Greece, and India. Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology, 13, 366–376.
Shim, S. (1996). Adolescent consumer decision-making styles: The consumer socialization
perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 13, 547–569.
Sproles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-
making styles, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20, 267–279.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative par-
enting and adolescent adjustment across various ecological niches. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 1, 19–36.
Ward, S., Wackman, D. B., & Wartella, E. (1977). How children learn to buy. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.

This research was supported by a grant to Chankon Kim from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Chankon Kim, Department of Mar-
keting, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 3C3 (chankon.kim@smu.ca).

906 KIM, LEE, AND TOMIUK

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
APPENDIX

Measures of Concept-Orientation and Socio-Orientation in

Parent–Child Communication

Concept-Orientation
My mother (father) asks me to help her buy things for the family.
She (He) asks me for advice about buying things.
She (He) asks me about things that she (he) buys for herself.
She (He) lets me decide which things I should or shouldn’t buy.
She (He) asks me what I think about things that I buy for myself.
My mother (father) and I talk about buying things.
She (He) asks me my preference when she buys something for me.
She (He) talks to me about where different products can be bought.

Socio-Orientation
My mother (father) tells me what things I should or shouldn’t buy.
She (He) wants to know what I do with my money.
She (He) complains when she (he) does not like something that I bought for
myself.
She (He) tells me that I am not allowed to buy certain things.
She (He) tells me not to buy certain things.

CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION 907

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar