Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 672 – 680

Parental style and adolescent influence in family consumption

decisions: An integrative approach
Yeqing Bao a,⁎, Edward F. Fern b,1 , Shibin Sheng c,2
a
University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, United States
b
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States
c
Adelphi University, Garden City, NY 11530, United States
Received 23 August 2005; accepted 29 January 2007

Abstract

This study takes an integrative approach to examining the effect of parental style on adolescent children's influence in family consumption
decisions. The empirical results support that parental style affects both children's choice of influence strategy and their degree of influence
indirectly through children's perceptions of parental power. Furthermore, both the influence strategy and the degree of influence affect children's
resultant satisfaction with the decision. This suggests the lack of mediating variables in prior research may have led to the inconsistencies in the
relationship between parental style and children's influence. Power relational theory appears to complement consumer socialization theory in
explaining children's gains of consumer knowledge and skills from their parents.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Parental style; Consumer socialization; Parental power; Influence strategy

Since the 1980s, growing interest has focused on children's
consumption behavior, especially their influence in family
decisions. Academic findings support applied market research,
indicating that children have substantial influence relative to
their parents in family purchase decisions (e.g., Beatty and
Talpade, 1994; McNeal, 1998). Several researchers use con-
sumer socialization theory to explain the impact of parental
style on children's influence in family consumption decisions,
but the findings regarding a direct impact remain mixed and
inconsistent. For example, Carlson and Grossbart (1988) exam-
ine the relationship between parental style and a mother's so-
cialization of her children and find no difference in children's
consumption autonomy across mothers with different parental
styles. Mangleburg (1992) investigates the effect of family type,
family hierarchy, and parental style on children's influence in
family consumption decisions and again finds no relationship
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 256 824 6165; fax: +1 256 824 6328.
E-mail addresses: baoy@email.uah.edu (Y. Bao), efern@vt.edu (E.F. Fern),
sheng@adelphi.edu (S. Sheng).
1
Tel.: +1 540 231 5093; fax: +1 540 231 3076.
2
Tel.: +1 516 877 4608; fax: +1 516 877 4607.
0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.027
between parental style and children's influence. Finally, Rose
(1999) inspects the relationships among consumer socialization,
parental style, and parental age expectations in the United States
and Japan and derives only limited support for hypotheses about
the effects of parental style on children's influence. These
mixed findings highlight the need for research that explores and
clarifies the relationship between parental style and children's
influence.
Still other researchers study children's influence in family
consumption decisions using power relational theory (Flurry
and Burns, 2005; Kim, Lee, and Hall, 1991). According to this
theoretical perspective, parents and children are partners in a
social relationship in which each can influence the other by
using various strategies. For example, Flurry and Burns (2005)
show that children's self-perceived social power affects the
influence strategies they use to sway parents. Furthermore,
different influence strategies have different effects on children's
influence in family purchase decisions. Although applications
of the power relational theory to children's influence remain in
the early stages, the theory's vitality seems evident even in these
few studies. Therefore, an integration of power relational theory
and consumer socialization theory might shed light on the
 Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 672–680
Fig. 1. Indirect impact of parental style on children's influence.
inconsistent findings in the literature regarding the relationship
between parental style and children's influence.
This article begins by explicating related literature in
consumer socialization theory and power relational theory,
then develops a conceptual framework for formulating a set of
research hypotheses. To test the proposal that parental style
affects children's influence indirectly through children's per-
ceptions of parental power and choice of influence strategy, a
field experimental interaction study investigates the conceptual
model. The results generally support an integrative approach
that combines consumer socialization theory and power
relational theory.
1. Conceptual development
1.1. An integrative approach
Consumer socialization theory asserts that children learn
information, attitudes, and consumption-related skills through
their interactions with socialization agents (e.g., parents, peers,
schools, mass media) in various settings (Ward, 1974). In this
context, learning includes three processes: modeling, reinforce-
ment, and social interaction (Moschis and Churchill, 1978;
Moschis and Moore, 1979).
In contrast, power relational theory specifies that in an in-
terdependent relationship that involves conflict, a person's power
determines his choice of influence strategy, ability to manage the
conflict, and ability to extend influence over the decision outcome
(e.g., Corfman, 1991; Falbo and Peplau, 1980; French and Raven,
1959; Kipnis et al., 1980). These notions from power relational
theory dominate research into dyadic conflict management in
social psychology, family sociology, and organization behavior.
Both theories acknowledge that the parent–child relationship
is a special one. On the one hand, parents play distinctive roles
in their children's development. Specifically, parents transfer
their consumption knowledge and skills to their children, which
aids in the children's development as consumers. They also tend
to mediate the acquisition of consumption knowledge and skills
from others, such as mass media, teachers, and peers (Moschis,
1985; Moschis and Churchill, 1978). In short, children get so-
cialized into the consumption process, which accounts for their
attempts to influence family consumption decisions.
673
On the other hand, the family represents a system that con-
sists of various dyadic, triadic, and larger subunits (Olson et al.,
1975). A parent and child therefore provide a special dyadic
relationship compared with other frequently studied relation-
ships, such as husband and wife or superior and subordinate.
Children depend fully on their parents at birth, then gradually
obtain knowledge and skills from their parents and others,
become independent, and gain power over their parents. Thus,
children's growth processes also involve changing roles, from
fully dependent to mature partner. Consequently, power
relational theory seems appropriate for explaining a child's
relative influence as a partner in this relationship.
When children are motivated by their personal consumption
needs, they actively use consumption knowledge and skills they
have learned from parents to solve conflicts within as well as
outside the family context. In such a process, socialization
theory and power relational theory complement each other to
explain children's behaviors. Consumer socialization theory
emphasizes how children learn consumption knowledge and
skills, whereas power relational theory focuses on children's use
of such knowledge and skills. Thus, integrating these two
theories should provide greater power for explaining children's
choices of influence strategies and their relative influence in
family consumption decisions than either one alone.
The equivocal support in prior research of a direct rela-
tionship between parental style and children's influence
suggests that previously unknown factors might mediate this
relationship. Specifically, and as reflected in the integration of
consumer socialization and power relational theories, parental
power and children's choice of influence strategy may mediate
the relationship between parental style and children's influence.
Fig. 1 depicts a model based on this integrative perspective,
designed to reexamine the impact of parental style on children's
influence. To extend the literature further, this framework also
includes children's resultant satisfaction with the consumption
decision.
1.2. Parental style and perceived parental power
Parental style reflects a family socialization context in which
parents direct parenting practices toward their children so that
they eventually can reach their parental goals (Darling and
674 Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 672–680
Steinberg 1993). Although the literature describes parental style
in a vast variety of ways, the growing consensus in family soci-
ology and developmental psychology regards parental style as a
function of two dimensions: demandingness and responsiveness
(e.g., Baumrind, 1991a,b; Maccoby and Martin, 1983). The de-
mandingness dimension reflects the extent to which parents direct
their children's development through maturity expectations, close
supervision, discipline, and confrontation when a child disobeys.
The responsiveness dimension is the extent to which parents
encourage their children's individuality and autonomy by staying
attuned to and supporting their children's needs.
In power relational theory terms, perceived parental power
represents the perception of a parent's ability to influence
children to do or believe something they would not have done or
believed spontaneously (e.g., Blood and Wolfe, 1960; McDo-
nald, 1977, 1982; Smith, 1970). Perceived parental power
consists of four dimensions: outcome-control, referent, legiti-
mate, and expert power. Outcome-control power refers to a
parent's potential to control his children's positive and negative
reinforcement, including economic resources, and influence
their perceptions of decision making and the strength of parental
rewards and punishments. Referent power indicates a parent's
potential to serve as a comparative referent that provides the
child with guidance and advice. Legitimate power reflects a
child's perception that the parent has the right or authority to
control his behavior or opinions. Finally, expert power means a
parent's potential to supply superior knowledge and skills to
children.
This conceptual development leads to the research hypoth-
eses. Parents with high demandingness enforce clear conduct
rules and punish children for self-willed behavior. Through
family socialization processes, children sense these behavioral
boundaries and attribute the controlling power to the rule
enforcer (i.e., the parents). Thus, children should perceive that
their parents have great power over them. In contrast, children
with parents who exhibit low demandingness likely feel little
pressure from their parents about their conduct and instead
perceive them as posing little potential to reward and/or punish
them; consequently, they attribute little controlling power to
their parents. Other things being equal, parents who exhibit high
demandingness possess higher perceived levels of parental
power than those with low demandingness, because of the
children's greater perceptions of their parents' outcome-control
and legitimate power.
H1. Higher demandingness in parental style leads to higher
perceptions of parental power by children.
Parents who are highly responsive support their children's
development, respect give-and-take discussions with children,
and value individuality and autonomy. Conversely, parents who
score low on the responsiveness dimension often distance
themselves from their children, do not encourage or show
concern about their children's opinions, and seldom engage in
children's activities. Therefore, the interaction between highly
responsive parents and their children should be more frequent
than that between less responsive parents and their children.
Children with highly responsive parents in turn probably are
more willing to talk to, compare themselves to, and learn from
their parents. The resulting perceptions should indicate the
greater referent power of responsive parents. Moreover, because
of their more frequent interactions with responsive parents, their
children pick up parents' knowledge and skills more readily
than do children with less responsive parents. Thus, increased
interactions should lead to perceptions of greater expert power
in responsive parents.
H2. Higher responsiveness in parental style leads to higher
perceptions of parental power by children.
1.3. Perceived parental power and children's influence strategy
In a social relationship, a person's power influences his choice
of influence strategy (e.g., Falbo and Peplau, 1980; Kipnis et al.,
1980). However, empirical results regarding how power affects
the choice of an influence strategy are inconsistent. For example,
in organizational settings, supervisors use less negotiation and
more unilateral strategies (e.g., demanding) than employees do
(Offerman and Schrier, 1985). In an intimate relationship context,
Falbo and Peplau (1980) find that people with greater power than
their partners are more likely to use bilateral influence strategies
(e.g., reasoning).
The difference in these research findings might reflect the
difference between competitive and cooperative relationships.
In competitive relationships (e.g., Offerman and Schrier's
supervisor–employee relationship), a partner's goal is to gain a
desired outcome. Those with more power feel less dependent on
the partner and thus less compelled to negotiate or even yield to
the partner. In turn, they may feel freer to take unilateral actions
rather than use bilateral strategies (Offerman and Schrier, 1985).
In cooperative relationships (e.g., Falbo and Peplau's intimate
relationship), partners also pursue desired goals by trying to
influence others, but they might try to avoid disputes or serious
negative behaviors to maintain a good relationship, so even
people with relatively high power may use more bilateral
influence strategies. In partial support of this reasoning,
Tjosvold et al. (1984) show that in unequal power relationships,
the person with more power applies more negotiation and less
coercion toward the partner with less power when the rela-
tionship is cooperative rather than competitive.
The nature of the relationship seems to help explain a high-
power partner's choice of influence strategy, but it does not
predict the low-power partner's behavior. In both competitive
and cooperative relationships, the low-power partner depends
on the high-power partner and therefore may have little choice
but to anticipate the cooperation and responsiveness of the high-
power person. Thus, bilateral strategies, regardless of the con-
text, probably appear more frequently than unilateral strategies.
In corroboration, Tjosvold et al. (1984) show that no matter if
the relationship is cooperative or competitive, the low-power
person always employs more negotiation than coercion toward
the high-power person.
Generally, children likely use unilateral strategies spontane-
ously when they want something. However, in the parent–child
relationship, children normally have less power than the parents.
 Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 672–680
As they become socialized, they learn that parents are in control
in most cases and that they cannot get everything they want. In
such conditions, children also learn that a change of strategy
(i.e., bilateral) may work better than a simple request. Thus,
children who perceive higher parental power are more likely to
use bilateral strategies instead of unilateral strategies. Children
who perceive that their parents have relatively low power may
use bilateral strategies as well but less often. This trend seems
partially evident in the study of Cowan et al. (1984), who find
that children tend to use negative affect (a form of unilateral
strategy) more toward mothers than toward fathers.
H3. Children who perceive higher parental power tend to use
more bilateral influence strategies than those who perceive
lower parental power.
1.4. Perceived parental power and children's influence
Power is the ability to influence others to do things they
would not have done spontaneously (Blood and Wolfe, 1960).
In the parent–child relationship, when children and parents hold
different views about consumption decisions, parents with
greater power can influence their children more than those with
less power. These parents are more likely to change their
children's views and thus possess a higher degree of influence
in the decision process. In other words, when perceived parental
power is high (or conversely, children's power is low), chil-
dren's relative influence will be low.
Smith (1970) investigates the impact of adolescents'
perceptions of parental power on parental influence in the
educational and heterosexual areas of life. His findings show
that each of the four parental power dimensions, independent of
the others, correlates positively with parental influence.
Although the focal issue of that study does not relate to family
consumption decisions, the results lend some confidence to the
speculation that perceived parental power might relate nega-
tively to children's relative influence in family consumption
decisions.
H4. Children who perceive higher parental power have less
influence in family consumption decisions.
1.5. Influence strategy and children's influence
In family consumption decisions, children find that some
strategies may work in swaying their parents and some might
not. When they learn which strategies work for them, they likely
feel empowered in that process (Palan and Wilkes, 1997). When
this trial-and-error process leads to the discovery of strategies
that work, the child's confidence in his own self-perceived
relative influence increases. Kim et al. (1991) find that teenagers
who frequently use persuasion and play on emotions and rarely
use stubborn acts in their influence attempts report greater
influence in purchase decisions involving items for family use.
In a relational situation in which people associate because of
their common interests, bilateral strategies such as bargaining
and reasoning require the target person's cooperation and
675
responsiveness, whereas unilateral strategies such as evasion,
begging, and pleading do not (Cowan et al., 1984). Therefore,
when children use bilateral strategies, the interaction might
make equality more salient in the parent's mind, which would
enhance his perception of the child's influence in the decision
process. The increased saliency of equality might account for
the perception that children who use bilateral strategies possess
more relative influence than those who use unilateral strategies.
In addition, as Kim et al. (1991) contend, children who often
use bilateral influence strategies, such as bargaining and
reasoning, tend to appear more mature and competent to their
parents. As a result, their suggestions during family decision-
making situations may be more acceptable. In contrast, children
who rely on unilateral influence strategies, such as nagging and
temper tantrums, seem immature and irritating, and parents
likely disregard their consumption requests and suggestions.
H5. Children who apply bilateral strategies possess greater in-
fluence than those who apply unilateral strategies in family con-
sumption decisions.
1.6. Children's influence and satisfaction
Children may be satisfied or dissatisfied with a family con-
sumption decision. According to expectancy theory (Anderson,
1973), consumers' satisfaction with a product results from their
expectations and the real performance of the product. In the
context of this study, satisfaction refers not to children's
satisfaction with the product per se but rather their satisfaction
with the decision. Expectancy theory still applies. When
children participate in family consumption decisions, they
believe their parents may adopt their requests or suggestions
(e.g., going to a fast food restaurant for dinner), and all or part of
the child's suggestion may be accepted. The more parents
accept children's requests and suggestions, the smaller is the
gap between children's expectations and reality; accordingly,
the more satisfied the child will be.
H6. The greater influence children gain in family consumption
decisions, the more satisfied they are with the decision.
1.7. Influence strategy and children's satisfaction
Different influence strategies also reflect differences in
children's expectations about the likelihood that their parents
will comply with their requests (Cowan and Avants, 1988; Cowan
et al., 1984). Children tend to use bilateral strategies when they
have low expectations that their parents will comply with their
request. Conversely, when their expectations that their parents
will comply are higher, they tend to use unilateral strategies.
Therefore, bilateral strategies should result in smaller gaps
between children's expectations and the decision outcomes than
do unilateral strategies, assuming these two types of strategies
reach the same decision outcomes. According to expectancy
theory (Anderson, 1973), this gap should cause those children
who use bilateral strategies to feel greater satisfaction than those
who use unilateral strategies.
676 Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 672–680
H7. Children who use bilateral strategies in family consump-
tion decisions are more satisfied than those who apply unilateral
strategies.
2. Methodology
2.1. Research design
The field experimental interaction procedure conducted to
collect data from parents and children (e.g., Corfman and
Lehmann, 1987; Su et al., 2003) involves two product purchase
decisions: a major and a minor decision. Major products in-
cluded a CD player, an electronic game station, an elegant
family dinner, and a family music event. Minor products in-
cluded gift certificates ($30 retail value) for CDs, movie tickets,
and purchases from Sears and Home Depot. Previous research
and a pilot study with 36 parents provide the basis for the
selection of these products.
Both children and parents participated in the study and
responded to parallel questionnaires with slight differences in
wording. Each participant responded to three parts in the
questionnaire. In part A, participants independently rated their
choices for the two decision scenarios. Specifically, the
instructions told participants that as a family, they would be
entered in a lottery for both a major product and a minor
product. Supposing they won the lottery, the participants in-
dicated their likelihood of choosing each product. After
finishing part A, parents and children continued to part B, for
which they jointly rated the product choices for each scenario.
Participants had to agree on one product for each scenario,
because that would be the product they as a family would
receive should they win the lottery. Finally in part C, par-
ticipants again independently reported their responses to items
regarding their relative influence, choice of influence strategy, a
realism check, parental style, perceived parental power, and
demographic information. Two forms of the questionnaire with
alternating decision scenario orders help reduce the potential for
carry-over effect and order bias.
2.2. Data collection procedure
Electronic mail solicitations recruited participants from
among university faculty and staff members. Only people with
children between 11 and 16 years of age could join the study,
because previous research indicates that children of this age tend
to have greater influence and apply a wider variety of influence
strategies than those who are younger (John, 1999; Kim et al.,
1991; Palan and Wilkes, 1997). Permission from potential
participants prompted the mailing of a package that included the
questionnaires, consent forms, and a prestamped envelope. Two
weeks later, an e-mail message reminded those who had not
returned the questionnaires. Participants completed the study at
home and then mailed the completed questionnaires and consent
forms back. Detailed instructions accompanied the task, which
took approximately 40 min to complete. This procedure is less
obtrusive than a lab setting and therefore should provide high
external validity, even though it sacrifices experimenter control.
From the faculty and staff contacted, 192 dyads agreed to
participate, and 151 returned completed questionnaires, for a
response rate of 78.6%. None of the parent–child dyads exhibit
consensus in their product ratings, so all respondents appear in
the data analysis.
2.3. Measures
A thorough review of the consumer socialization and power
relation literature provides the basis for the measure develop-
ment. Some measures come from previous studies, whereas
others are newly developed for this study. A sample of 36 parents
pretested the questionnaire items. Prior research reports
discrepancies between parents' and children's responses to the
same inquiry regarding family decision participation (e.g., Kim
and Lee, 1997), and this study indicates that children's responses
generally yield higher measurement reliabilities than parents'.
Hence, only the children's responses supply the input for the
measurement and further analysis, to maintain consistency.
Parental style consists of two dimensions, demandingness
and responsiveness, measured with the instrument developed by
Steinberg et al. (1989, 1991, 1994). The estimated two-factor
confirmatory measurement model, after the removal of items
that possess relatively low item-to-total correlations, provides a
satisfactory fit to the data (χ2 (13) = 24.22, p = .03; goodness-of-
fit index [GFI] = .96; confirmatory fit index [CFI] = .97; normed
fit index [NFI] = .93; nonnormed fit index [NNFI] = .95). All
factor loadings are statistically significant (p b 0.01). The
composite reliabilities of responsiveness (.68) and demanding-
ness (.86) exceed the .60 benchmark (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
Perceived parental power consists of four dimensions: out-
come-control, referent, legitimate, and expert power. Measure-
ment instrument adapted from McDonald (1977, 1982) was
used to form a second-order factor in the LISREL measurement
model. However, the initial results indicate this model fits
poorly with the data and that the factor loading for outcome-
control power on the second-order factor is low and
insignificant (Lx = .13, t = 1.56). To maintain the empirical
integrity of the conceptual model, further analysis omits this
dimension. After the removal, the model yields a well-
supported second-order factor (χ 2 (51) = 100.35, p = .00;
GFI = .90; CFI = .92; NFI = .85; NNFI = .89). All factor loadings
are significant (p b .01). The composite reliability of the second-
order factor is .91, and the composite reliabilities of the first-
order factors are .75 (referent), .75 (legitimate), and .77 (expert).
Therefore, the three-dimensional second-order factor is reliable
and valid. The final structural equation model creates a com-
posite parental power factor, given the relatively small sample
size (n = 151). In line with previous research, each of the three
power dimensions represents an indicator of parental power,
and its score is the average of its observed items.
Children's influence strategy refers to children's strategic use
of their power to influence decision outcomes in family con-
sumption situations. Prior research in this area provides a com-
plete set of influence strategies that children use (Cowan and
Avants, 1988; Cowan et al., 1984; Palan and Wilkes, 1997).
Based on this research as well as the results of a pilot study, an
 Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 672–680 677

instrument that includes 16 items emerges to measure children's Table 1

use of bilateral or unilateral influence strategies. Specifically, Construct validity assessment
bilateral strategies are measured by 7 items, a sample being “I Construct Factor loading Composite reliability
reasoned with my mom, trying to argue my request logically.” Responsiveness .68
Unilateral strategies are measured by 9 items, a sample being “I RES1 .71
simply asked my mom to agree with me.” All items are des- RES2 .80
RES3 .84
cribed on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 =
RES4 1.00 a
strongly agree). The difference between children's bilateral Demandingness .86
strategy score and their unilateral strategy score reflects the DEM1 .87
children's tendency to use a bilateral influence strategy; greater DEM2 .79
scores indicate children are more likely to use bilateral rather DEM3 1.00 a
Influence .85 b
than unilateral strategies in family decisions.
INF1 1.00 a
Children's influence refers to the degree to which children Power .80
engage in activities that contribute to the decision-making Referent .90
process, relative to the contributions of their parents, in family Legitimate .95
consumption decisions (Beatty and Talpade, 1994). Children Expert 1.00 a
Satisfaction .77
stated their influence in each decision scenario compared with
SAT1 1.00
their parent's influence on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = parent SAT2 .91
entirely, 7 = child entirely) (Kim and Lee, 1997). Strategy .85 b
a
Children's satisfaction with the decision uses a two-item, STR1 1.00
seven-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 7 = very
Φ matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6
satisfied). The first item asked about the children's satisfaction
with the ultimate product choice, and the second item asked 1. Power 1.00
2. Responsiveness .80 1.00
about their satisfaction with the discussion they had with their
3. Demandingness .58 .53 1.00
parent about selecting the product. The reliability of this two- 4. Strategy .22 .23 .10 1.00
item construct is acceptable (Cronbach's α = .79). 5. Influence − .20 − .23 − .12 −.09 1.00
6. Satisfaction .34 .31 .15 .26 .42 1.00
2.4. Analysis
Goodness-of-fit statistics of the major product

LISREL 8.51 serves to test the measurement and path χ2 (64) 142.52 RMSEA .09
GFI .88 NNFI .83
models. Because the research procedure involves both major
CFI .88 NFI .82
and minor purchase decisions, the major decision provides the
main test of the proposed model, and the minor one serves to Goodness-of-fit statistics of the minor product
validate it. Although parents are involved in both purchase χ2 (64) 124.16 RMSEA .08
decisions, their involvement probably is greater in the major GFI .89 NNFI .85
product decision because of the relatively higher financial costs CFI .90 NFI .83
of these products (e.g., Roberts et al., 1981). In other words, the a
Fixed parameter.
impact of parental style and parental power should be greater on b
Assumed to be .85, with an error term fixed as the product of the indicator
the major product purchase decision than on the minor product variance times 1 minus an assumed reliability of .85 (Jőreskog and Sőrbom, 1984).
decision. Because this study does not examine the potential
impact of product type on children's influence, testing the suggest that the study's measures possess adequate reliability
model with the major product decision and validating it with the and validity. The complete results appear in Table 1.
minor product decision should be sufficient. Prior to testing the structural relationships in the conceptual
model, the measurement model was validated in the minor
3. Results product decision situation. The model fits the data adequately
(χ 2 (64) = 124.16, p = .00; GFI = .89, CFI = .90, NFI = .85,
3.1. Construct validity NNFI = .83). This validation further attests to the good mea-
surement validity in this study.
An overall confirmatory measurement model further assesses
the construct reliability and validity, in which the items load only 3.2. Hypotheses tests
on their respective latent constructs, and all constructs correlate
with one another. The model fits the data adequately (χ2 (64) = The path model demonstrates an acceptable fit (χ2 (71) =
142.52, p = .00; GFI = .88, CFI = .88, NFI = .83, NNFI = .82). All 160.69, p = .00; GFI = .87; CFI = .87; NFI = .80; NNFI = .83). The
factor loadings are large and statistically significant ( p b .01), first two hypotheses state that the two parental style dimensions
and the composite reliability for each construct exceeds the .60 relate positively to parental power, and as predicted, both paths are
threshold (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). All cross-construct correla- positive and significant (demandingness β = .22, t = 2.04, p = .04;
tions are significantly less than 1.0 ( p b .01). These results responsiveness β = .97, t = 4.96; p = .00), in support of H1 and H2.
678 Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 672–680

Table 2 Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), the model reestimation uses the minor
Results of structural model estimation product decision for validation. Overall, the hypothesized
Path Major t- p- Minor t- p- model fits the validation data adequately, as Table 2 shows
product value value product a value value (χ2 (71) = 149.96, p = .00; GFI = .88; CFI = .86; NFI = .83;
Demandingness → .22 2.04 .041 .23 2.08 .038 NNFI = .82). The parameter estimates in the validation data
power ( H1) also demonstrate a similar pattern to that derived from the major
Responsiveness → .97 4.96 .000 .97 4.96 .000
product decision situation, except that the path from parental
power ( H2)
Power → .18 2.44 .015 .21 3.02 .003 power to children's influence and the path from children's
strategy ( H3) influence strategy to their satisfaction are significant in the
Power → − .20 − 1.91 .056 −.08 − .84 .401 major product decision but not in the minor decision context.
influence ( H4) This finding is plausible, because in a minor product decision
Strategy → − .08 − .58 .562 .13 .94 .347
situation, parents' involvement may be low, and the impact of
influence ( H5)
Influence → .61 6.26 .000 .35 3.87 .000 parental power may not be fully manifest. The satisfaction
satisfaction ( H6) children derive from using an influence strategy may diminish,
Strategy → .34 2.53 .011 .12 .98 .327 because they probably will get their way, regardless of the type
satisfaction ( H7) of influence strategy they use. Therefore, the validation test
provides further support for the validity of the conceptual
Model fit
χ2 160.69 49.96 model.
Df 71 71
GFI .87 .88 4. Discussion
CFI .87 .86
NFI .80 .79
This study takes an integrative approach to examining the
NNFI .83 .82
PNFI .62 .61 effect of parental style on adolescent children's influence in
RMSEA .09 .09 family consumption decisions and thereby addresses the
a
Minor product results reported as a validation test. inconsistency in results pertaining to this relationship in the
literature. By integrating consumer socialization theory and
power relational theory, this study proposes a conceptual model
Hypothesis 3 deals with the impact of perceived parental in which parental style exerts an indirect rather than direct effect
power on children's use of influence strategy. As predicted, on children's influence in family decisions. The empirical
when they perceive higher parental power, children tend to use a analysis provides support for all but one of the hypothesized
bilateral strategy to influence family decisions (β = .18, t = 2.44, relationships, and the proposed model evinces robustness across
p = .02), in support of H3. two different product decisions. This suggests that the lack of
Hypothesis 4 predicts a negative relationship between pa- mediating variables in prior research may have led to the
rental power and children's influence. In other words, parental inconsistencies in the relationship between parental style and
power inhibits children's influence in family decisions. The children's influence. Power relational theory appears to
path moves in the expected direction and is marginally sig- complement the consumer socialization theory in explaining
nificant (β = − .20, t = − 1.91, p = .06). In examining the impact children's gains of consumer knowledge and skills from their
of children's influence strategy on their influence in family parents.
decisions, H5 predicts a positive relationship between a bilateral
strategy and children's influence. However, this path is negative 4.1. Parental power, influence strategy, and children's influence
and insignificant (β = − .08, t = − .58, p = .56) and therefore fails
to support H5. On the basis of power relational theory, H3 posits that
Hypothesis 6 proposes that the more influence children have, children who perceive high parental power tend to use more
the more satisfied they are with the decision. This path is bilateral influence strategies than those who perceive low
positive and significant (β = .61, t = 6.26, p = .00), in full support parental power. Empirical evidence of this relationship emerges
of H6. Finally, H7 predicts that children's use of a bilateral in both major and minor product decisions, which conflicts with
strategy leads to their higher satisfaction with the decision, and Falbo and Peplau's (1980) finding that in intimate relationships,
again, the path is positive and significant (β = .34, t = 2.53, persons with greater power perceive that their partners have less
p = .01), in support of H7. power and therefore use bilateral influence strategies. However,
Overall, the conceptual model receives strong support from this finding mirrors Tjosvold et al's (1984) research, which
the empirical results. Table 2 contains detailed information suggests that a person with little power tends to employ
about these results. negotiation rather than coercion when his opposition has much
power. In intimate relationships, the high-power person and the
3.3. Model validation low-power person both appear to choose similar influence
strategies but for different reasons. High-power people choose
In response to researchers' calls for validity generalizations bilateral influence strategies because they want to show concern
and cross-validations in structural equation modeling (e.g., toward their partners and avoid harming the relationship,
 Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 672–680
whereas the low-power person selects the bilateral influence
strategy because he or she must, given the inferior power
position. In families, parents normally hold much more power
than children, so children's use of bilateral strategies probably
reflects their attempt to gain influence rather than their concern
about the parent–child relationship.
Although Kim et al. (1991) and Flurry and Burns (2005) find
that children's influence strategies significantly affect their
relative influence in family consumption decisions, this study
finds no such effect (H5). The impact of influence strategy on
the level of influence may not emerge from a single incident, as
measured in the current study. Because influence strategy is a
learned consumer skill and children continue in the learning
process, a more powerful relationship might exist between
children's influence strategies and their influence over a series
of consumption decisions. Further research should incorporate
more decision incidents to explore this issue. Alternatively,
parent–children decision processes may involve various
explanations and negotiations along the way, which the current
study does not record. Observations of the give-and-take
process might capture the relationship between influence
strategy and children's influence better than can the self-
reported responses used in this study.
4.2. Children's satisfaction with decisions
This study further advances the literature by examining
children's satisfaction with family consumption decisions. Both
the level of children's influence and their choice of strategy
matter, in that children exhibit greater satisfaction when they
gain greater influence over the decision (H6) and when they use
more bilateral strategies to sway their parents (H7). Furthermore,
this finding unfolds irrespective of whether children succeed in
persuading their parents. Because satisfaction with family de-
cisions aids the psychological development of children, these
results reinforce findings from psychology and sociology that
point to the benefits of frequent parent–child interactions. Such
benefits exist even if parents are strict, because the interaction
fosters greater self-reliance, self-esteem, and prosocial behavior
in children (e.g., Maccoby and Martin, 1983).
4.3. Limitations and future research
Conceptually, the model examines only static relationships
between children's choice of influence strategy and their rel-
ative influence over the decision outcomes, not more dynamic
parent–child interactions or the give-and-take that commonly
occurs during family decision making. Additional research that
explores these aspects of interactions might yield additional
insights into the relationship between children's choice of in-
fluence strategy and their relative influence on family con-
sumption decisions.
The data collection employs a new method, but response rate
and cost concerns limited the sample to only one parent and one
child per dyad. Further research might include both parents as
well as siblings in the study, if conditions allow. Kim and Lee
(1997) show that a composite measure developed from multiple
679
respondents exhibits desirable levels of convergent and
discriminant validity. Thus, larger family groups may provide
more insights into children's relative influence. Furthermore, the
sample population consists of faculty and staff members from
four universities and their children. Because of their training and
experience, especially among those involved in research, these
faculty members may have introduced some level of response
bias in the data. Additional research could test the validity of the
proposed model using a more diverse set of respondents.
References
Anderson RE. Consumer dissatisfaction: the effect of disconfirmed expectancy
on perceived product performance. J Mark Res 1973;11(1):38–44.
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark
Sci 1988;16:74–94 [Spring].
Baumrind D. Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1991a.
Baumrind D. The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. J Early Adolesc 1991b;11(1):56–95.
Beatty SE, Talpade S. Adolescent Influence in family decision making: a
replication with extension. J Consum Res 1994;21:332–341 [September].
Blood RP, Wolfe DM. Husbands and wives: the dynamics of married living.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press; 1960.
Carlson L, Grossbart S. Parental style and consumer socialization of children.
J Consum Res 1988;15:77–94 [June].
Corfman KP. Perception of relative influence: formation and measurement.
J Mark Res 1991;28:125–36 [May].
Corfman KP, Lehmann DR. Models of cooperative group decision-making and
relative influence: an experimental investigation of family purchase
decisions. J Consum Res 1987;14:1–13 [June].
Cowan G, Avants SK. Children's influence strategies: structure, sex differen-
ces, and bilateral mother–child influence. Child Dev 1988;59:1303–13
[October].
Cowan G, Drinkard J, MacGavin L. The effects of target, age, and gender on use
of power strategies. J Pers Soc Psychol 1984;47(6):1391–8.
Darling N, Steinberg L. Parental style as context: an integrative model. Psychol
Bull 1993;113(3):487–96.
Falbo T, Peplau LA. Power strategies in intimate relationships. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1980;38(4):618–28.
Flurry LA, Burns AC. Children's influence in purchase decisions: a social power
theory approach. J Bus Res 2005;58(5):593–601.
French JR, Raven BH. The bases of social power. In: Cartwright D, editor.
Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1959.
p. 150–67.
John DR. Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-five
years of research. J Consum Res 1999;26(3):183–212.
Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL VI: analysis of linear structural relationships
by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National Education
Resources, Inc, 1984.
Kim C, Lee H. Development of family triadic measures for children's purchase
influence. J Mark Res 1997;34:307–21 [August].
Kim C, Lee H, Hall K. A study of adolescents' power, influence strategy, and
influence on family purchase decisions. In: Childers TL, et al, editor. Marketing
theory applications, vol. 2. Chicago: American Marketing Association; 1991.
p. 37–45.
Kipnis D, Schmidt SM, Wilkinson I. Intraorganizational influence tactics:
explorations in getting one's way. J Appl Psychol 1980;65(4):440–52.
Maccoby EE, Martin JA. Socialization in the context of the family: parent–child
interaction. In: Hetherington EM, editor. Socialization, personality, and
social development (4/e). New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1983. p. 1–102.
Mangleburg TF. A socialization model of children's perceived purchase
influence: family type, hierarchy, and parenting practice, Dissertation.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1992.
McDonald GW. Parental identification by the adolescent: a social power
approach. J Marriage Fam 1977;39:705–19 [November].
680 Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 672–680
McDonald GW. Parental power perceptions in the family: the influence of
adolescent characteristic. Youth and Society 1982;14(1):3–31.
McNeal JU. Tapping the three kids' markets. Am Demogr 1998;20:37–41 [April].
Moschis GP. The role of family communication in consumer socialization of
children and adolescents. J Consum Res 1985;11:898–913 [March].
Moschis GP, Churchill Jr GA. Consumer socialization: a theoretical and
empirical analysis. J Mark Res 1978;15:599–609 [November].
Moschis GP, Moore RL. Decision making among the young: a socialization
perspective. J Consum Res 1979;6:101–12 [September].
Offerman LR, Schrier PE. Social influence strategies: the impact of sex, role,
and attitude toward power. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1985;11(3):286–300.
Olson DH, Cromwell RE, Klein DM. Beyond family power. In: Cromwell RE,
Olson DH, editors. Power in family. NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1975. p. 235–42.
Palan KM, Wilkes RE. Adolescent–parent interaction in family decision
making. J Consum Res 1997;24:159–69 [September].
Roberts ML, Wortzel LH, Berkeley RL. Mothers' attitudes and perceptions of
children's influence and their effect on family consumption. In: Monroe K,
Provo UT, editors. Advances in consumer research, vol. 8. Associations for
Consumer Research; 1981. p. 730–5.
Rose GM. Consumer socialization, parental style, and developmental timetables
in the United States and Japan. J Mark 1999;63:105–19 [July].
Smith TE. Foundations of parental influence upon adolescents: an application of
social power theory. Am Sociol Rev 1970;35:860–72 [October].
Steinberg L, Elmen JD, Mounts NS. Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity,
and academic success among adolescents. Child Dev 1989;60(5):1424–36.
Steinberg L, Mounts NS, Lamborn SD, Dornbush SM. Authoritative parenting
and adolescents adjustment across varied ecological niches. J Res Adolesc
1991;1(1):19–36.
Steinberg L, Lamborn SD, Darling N, Mounts NS, Dornbush SM. Over-time
changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative,
authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Dev 1994;65(3):754–70.
Su C, Fern EF, Ye K. A temporal dynamic model of spousal family purchase-
decision behavior. J Mark Res 2003;40:268–81 [August].
Tjosvold D, Johnson DW, Johnson R. Influence strategy, perspective-taking,
and relationships between high- and low-power individuals in cooperative
and competitive contexts. J Psychol 1984;116(2):187–202.
Ward S. Consumer socialization. J Consum Res 1974;1:1–14 [September].