Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Consumer socialization in childhood and adolescence: Impact of T

psychological development and family structure
Monali Hotaa,b,1, , Fabian Bartscha,b,1
⁎

a
IESEG School of Management, 3 Rue de la Digue, Lille 59000, France
b
LEM-CNRS 9221, 3 rue de la Digue, 59000 Lille, France

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Consumer socialization theory suggests that as children grow up and become consumers, their processing of
Consumer socialization cognitive and social stimuli depends on their age and family structure. Parents, peers, and mass media function
Age groups as socialization agents and constitute the social environment in which children learn to become consumers. This
Cognitive development research accordingly predicts several differences in socialization practices according to children's age-related
Family structure
stages of development and socio-cultural contexts (i.e., family structures) and tests these hypotheses in an
emerging market context. Findings obtained from Indian children confirm that consumer socialization processes
vary with children's ages (early childhood versus adolescence) and family structures (nuclear vs. stem vs. ex-
tended). These findings add further insights and nuance to extant considerations of consumer socialization in
developed markets.

1. Introduction developmental stages (Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993).

Consumer socialization, or “the process by which young people
acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their functioning as
consumers in the marketplace” (Ward, 1974, p. 2), provides important
insights into how consumers learn, develop, and change over time. As
socialization agents, parents, peers, and mass media form unique social
environments in which children learn to become consumers (Gunter &
Furnham, 1998; John, 2008); in this evolution, children vary in the
ways they process cognitive, emotional, and social stimuli, depending
on their age and family structure (Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Wang,
Yu, & Wei, 2012). Insights into these differences have important im-
plications for the theoretical understanding of child development stages
and managerial efforts to appeal to these important consumer seg-
ments. Yet three key research gaps limit these implications.
First, in studying children's exposure to mass media and advertising,
extant literature largely focuses on interactions between children and
their parents (e.g., Dickerson, 2000; Fujioka & Austin, 2002; Reid,
1979), rather than accounting for peer group influences as well (e.g.,
Wang et al., 2012). Extant literature provides evidence that peer group
influence constitutes an important aspect of children's development
from early childhood to adolescence and hence is a necessary compo-
nent to study aspects of consumer socialization agent between
Second, consumer socialization literature suggests that the primary
socialization agents change as children age (Ward, Wackman, &
Wartella, 1977). Most empirical investigations focus on adolescents
(e.g., Moschis & Mitchell, 1986; Moschis & Moore, 1979); only a few
studies provide some initial evidence about relative differences among
young children (e.g., Chan & McNeal, 2006). In studying differences,
also among early and middle childhood, this study provides nuanced
insights that allow to disentangle the differential impact of age-related
development on consumer socialization agent, which adds to the un-
derstanding of how children become consumers in primary (i.e., today's)
and future markets (Valkenburg & Cantor, 2001).
Third, most literature describes consumer socialization in developed
markets (e.g., Rose, 1999), with only selective insights into emerging
market consumer cultures, despite their growing relevance for mar-
keting theory and practice. India an emerging market with the 2nd
largest population in the world, of which approximately 30% of con-
sumers are children,1 is of considerable interest to marketing practi-
tioners as they seek to better understand consumer segments that are of
growing importance today and in the future (Sheth, 2011; Valkenburg &
Cantor, 2001).
Against this background, the present study uses a multi-theoretical
perspective on psychological development of children to investigate

⁎
Corresponding author at: IESEG School of Management, 3 Rue de la Digue, Lille 59000, France.
E-mail addresses: m.hota@ieseg.fr (M. Hota), f.bartsch@ieseg.fr (F. Bartsch).
1
The authors thank the JBR review team for comments on previous versions of this article
1
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.035
Received 23 November 2018; Received in revised form 23 July 2019; Accepted 24 July 2019
Available online 06 August 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Hota and F. Bartsch
differences in age-related child development and family structures and
their effects on consumer socialization processes for children and ado-
lescents in India. No single socialization theory can accurately depict
complex consumer behavior development (Moschis & Smith, 1985), so
this study draws on Piaget's (1976) theory of cognitive development,
Erikson's (1968) theory of emotional development, and Selman's (1980)
theory of social development to predict differences in socialization
practices at various stages of development and for distinct family
structures. In turn, we make several contributions to extant literature.
First, our findings challenge some existing studies. Prior literature
often cites developmental differences in cognitive, social, and emo-
tional development among children in early and middle childhood (e.g.,
Achenreiner & John, 2003; John, 2008), whereas the evidence obtained
from this study indicates few differences between these age groups and
instead emphasizes the critical differences between young children and
adolescents. These findings suggest a unique relationship between fa-
mily socialization and age-related development in India.
Second, this study represents the first empirical consumer research
to compare nuclear and extended family structures. Parents in these
different family structures inculcate different consumer values in their
children, such that those in extended families tend to value conformity
and obedience in their children, achieved by restricting their con-
sumption, whereas parents in nuclear families emphasize autonomy
and self-reliance and encourage consumption independence. This result
aligns with sociology research that investigates extended family struc-
tures and the resulting prioritization of socialization values (Olsen,
1975, 1976).
Third, this study adds to development and socialization literature,
by demonstrating that family structure in an emerging market setting
relates to consumer socialization in an extended family context. This
finding is congruent with descriptions of delayed developmental time-
tables preferred by mothers who prepare their children for inter-
dependence in adulthood, to ensure that male children reside with their
parents even after attaining adulthood and marriage (Joshi & MacLean,
1997). Such practices represent common phenomena in emerging
markets.
In the next section, we review literature on the stages of children's
internal development and research into family structures as they relate
to consumer socialization processes. The subsequent section outlines
the study methods and results. Finally, we present the findings and
discuss their implications for theory and practice, along with some
study limitations and directions for further research.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development
2.1. Consumer socialization practices
Consumer socialization continues to be of focal interest to policy
makers, marketers, and psychologists. As children interact with various
socialization agents, they grow into independent consumers who in turn
shape the marketplace of the future. Extant literature describes con-
sumer socialization among children as a complex, multifaceted process
that involves four main components, influenced by the surrounding
social structures, which include parents as primary agents. These agents
promote or provide opportunities for (1) communicating about con-
sumption, (2) gaining autonomy in consumption, (3) participation in
purchase decisions, and (4) restriction of consumption or media ex-
posure (Carlson & Grossbart, 1988; Rose, 1999). Communication about
consumption might be verbal or non-verbal and involves both sides,
parents and children, such as when parents discuss purchase decisions
with children or take them along while shopping. Children's autonomy
may result from parents allowing children to make their own shopping
decisions or spend their money on small purchases. A child's partici-
pation in the purchase decision reflects the influence the child has over
family-related purchases (Caudill & Schooler, 1973), whether in the
form of joint activities or when parents agree to a child's consumption
12
Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20
request. Finally, the restriction of consumption arises when parents
exercise control, by refusing purchase requests or restricting con-
sumption (Becker, 1964; Carlson & Grossbart, 1988). As children be-
come consumers, their consumption propensity and socialization pre-
ferences differ, depending on parental style (e.g., authoritative vs.
permissive parents; Rose, 1999), family structures, and cultural influ-
ences (e.g., Japanese parents hold relatively late developmental time-
tables; U.S. parents promote early independence). Furthermore, devel-
opmental timetables likely are “associated with differences in consumer
socialization” (Rose, 1999, p. 107).
2.2. Stages of internal development
John (1999, 2008), studying the consumer socialization of children,
argues that cognitive and social development from birth to adolescence
paves the way for a child's evolution into a consumer. As children age,
their cognitive and social abilities improve, leading to more nuanced
knowledge processing and decision-making skills. These different cog-
nitive and social capabilities correlate with three age-related stages
(Inhelder & Piaget, 1958): early childhood (2–7 years of age), middle
childhood (7–12 years of age), and adolescence (12–18 years of age).
Distinct consumer socialization agents also exhibit varying levels of
influence on consumer socialization processes, depending on the child's
stage of internal development. In particular, early childhood, which
corresponds to Piaget's (1976) preoperational stage, entails poor com-
prehension of advertising. Most children rely on personal or in-store
experiences as a primary source of new product information, rather
than mass media (Ward et al., 1977). Parents start to initiate consumer
behavior among their children at supermarkets or retail stores
(Blackwell, Miniard, & Engel, 2001; McNeal, 1987), revealing their
primary role in providing children with new product information. In
accordance with the psychosocial need to assert independence in this
stage (children are in the initiative vs. guilt stage of development),
parents and family are the primary social agents during early childhood
(Bachmann, John, & Rao, 1993). Then middle childhood corresponds to
Piaget's (1976) concrete operational stage, characterized by enhanced
cognitive abilities and more complex, multidimensional interactions
with advertising (Rubin, 1972). They recognize advertising as an in-
formation source, though they still likely seek information from per-
sonal and in-store experiences (Ward et al., 1977). Finally, adolescence
corresponds to Piaget's (1976) formal operational stage; cognitive de-
velopment is significantly advanced, and parental influences on con-
sumption decisions decline. The more developed cognitive and social
skills of these older youths open them to more external sources of in-
fluence (Moschis, 1987).
The limited cognitive capabilities of children in early childhood
enable them to learn only from the gross, consumption-related inter-
actions they have with their parents; the growing cognitive capabilities
of middle childhood imply that more subtle aspects of parent-child
interaction begin to have an impact on socialization (Carlson &
Grossbart, 1988; Ward et al., 1977). This process culminates in ado-
lescence, as a socializing impact of subtle socialization interactions,
such as family communication patterns (e.g. Moschis & Mitchell, 1986;
Moschis, Moore, & Smith, 1984), in line with sophisticated cognitive
skills. Consequently, parent-child communication about consumption
should be more pronounced during early childhood than in later stages
of age-related internal development.
H1. Parent-child communication about consumption is greater in early
childhood than in middle childhood or adolescence.
Parents also allow their children to act as autonomous consumers,
with or without guidance (e.g., Carlson & Grossbart, 1988; Rose, 1999;
Ward et al., 1977). Due to the limited cognitive capabilities of children
in early childhood, parents must provide guidance to facilitate auton-
omous consumption practices, as a form of cognitive stimulation. As
children grow older, their (still) inadequate cognitive development
M. Hota and F. Bartsch
initiates trial-and-error processes, and the likelihood of benefiting from
autonomous consumption opportunities is minimal, because they ex-
perience restrictions (Ward et al., 1977). These restrictions lift as
children grow older and enter adolescence, which provides new op-
portunities for autonomous consumption practices. Thus, children
likely benefit more from and are afforded opportunities for more au-
tonomous consumption practices in early childhood and adolescence,
compared with middle childhood.
H2. Opportunities for autonomous consumption are greater in early
childhood and adolescence than in middle childhood.
As noted, early childhood corresponds to Piaget's preoperational
cognition stage, characterized by perceptual boundedness. Children can
only evaluate and attend to the visual and peripheral attributes of ad-
vertising (John, 1999, 2008; Moore & Moschis, 1983; Wartella &
Ettema, 1974). Then in middle childhood, their growing concrete-op-
erational cognitive abilities overcome such limitations, so children's
interactions with advertising become increasingly complex, multi-
dimensional, and complete (Oswald, Mascarenhas, & Higby, 1993;
Rubin, 1972; Ward et al., 1977), leaving them more open to these in-
fluences and better able to attribute persuasive intentions to advertising
(Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2000; Rossiter & Robertson, 1974). The so-
phistication that marks adolescent cognition likely helps them build
cognitive defenses against advertising, though existing research is not
conclusive (e.g., Linn, Benedictis, & Delucchi, 1982; Roedder, Sternthal,
& Calder, 1983). Still, it appears likely that children in middle child-
hood might possess the necessary cognitive abilities to process adver-
tising but lack sufficient socialization to be able to evaluate advertising
information as persuasive content, so they dismiss such content. Fur-
thermore, as children move into adolescence, their interactions with
peers become increasingly important, so they shift focus from media
consumption to peer relationships. The social use of television adver-
tising, therefore, may be more pronounced in middle childhood than in
early childhood or adolescence.
H3. Social use of television advertising is greater in middle childhood,
compared with early childhood and adolescence.
Regarding children's interactions with peer groups and social role-
taking skills, those in early childhood adopt egocentric roles and are
least susceptible to referent group influences. They likely assume that
others' preferences are similar to their own, leaving little room for ex-
ternal influences (Bachmann et al., 1993). Then they pass through three
levels of increasing social perspective-taking skills (Selman, 1980),
marked by growing levels of sophistication. In middle childhood, this
variation leads to different levels of peer group influence. Notably, at
the start of this period, children tend to be more influenced by their
peers than younger children, but they still lack the discriminatory
power to decide whether to accept or reject this influence. Thus, they
may dismiss peer influence altogether or simply believe that their
friends' opinions are important, regardless of the type of product being
considered (Bachmann et al., 1993). At latter points in this stage
(9–11 years), children appear more susceptible to peer influence but
react differently to this influence, depending on factors such as product
conspicuousness (Bachmann et al., 1993). Because of the psychosocial
importance of attending school for adolescents, interactions with peers
at school take on a very important influence on child development
during middle childhood (Erikson, 1968). In this social and conven-
tional role-taking stage of social development (Selman, 1980), adoles-
cents likely are influenced strongly by reference groups; their highly
developed social role-taking abilities make them aware of how con-
sumption choices can lead to psychological impressions (Bachmann
et al., 1993). Advanced psychosocial development, such that they
struggle with identity versus role confusion, also leads to a stronger
need for peer relationships (Erikson, 1968). Furthermore, adolescents
develop the ability to distinguish product types, in terms of how much
they should consider peer influence, so they may factor peer opinions
13
Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20
into some product decisions (e.g., publicly consumed items) but not
others (e.g., privately consumed items) (Bachmann et al., 1993). Con-
sequently, the extent of peer group communication should be greatest
among adolescents, compared with middle and early childhood.
H4. Peer group communication is greater in adolescence compared
with middle childhood and early childhood.
2.3. Family structure
Beyond the stages of internal development, consumer socialization
of children likely depends on their family structure. A child's sociali-
zation is intrinsically linked to social structures in her or his daily life
(John, 1999, 2008). In the early stages of development, such social
structures primarily reflect the immediate home environment, so the
family structure, which influences parental socialization goals and
practices, also affects children's consumer development. Research
shows that general patterns of parent-child interactions relate to spe-
cific consumer socialization practices and ideologies, including family
communication (Moschis et al., 1984; Moschis & Moore, 1979; Moschis
& Smith, 1985), parental styles (Carlson & Grossbart, 1988), and de-
velopmental timetables (Rose, 1999), even across cultural contexts
(Rose, Boush, & Shoham, 2002; Rose, Dalakas, & Kropp, 2002; Rose,
Dalakas, & Kropp, 2003).
Family structure often is classified into three forms: nuclear, stem,
and extended (Lee, 1982). A nuclear family is a basic and universal fa-
mily unit (Murdock, 1949), highly prevalent in developed economies in
the West, consisting of two parents and their children. A stem family
comprises three subtypes. First, parents, their unmarried children, and
one married child with spouse and children might live together.
Second, one parent (widowed or divorced) can live with one married
child and that child's spouse and children. Third, parents and a young
married couple with no children might live together. These dominant
family structures characterize many Eastern collectivist cultures
(D'Cruz & Bharat, 2001; Tsui, 1989). Finally, extended families include
parents and kin beyond the nuclear family, often with multiple gen-
erations living under the same roof. This family structure appears most
common in Asia, the Middle East, South America, and sub-Saharan
Africa, where 40% of children live with extended families (World Family
Map, 2013). These three family structures have appeared in societies
since the beginning of organized family life; two newer family struc-
tures also have gained prominence in the recent past, largely due to
rising divorce rates. Notably, single-parent families consist of children
living with one biological parent of either sex after the divorce of their
parents (Sanson & Lewis, 2001). Then stepfamilies form after the re-
marriage of a parent with whom the child is living (Lansford, Ceballo,
Abbey, & Stewart, 2001), also known as a blended family, and it may
consist of repartnered parents, each with children of their own (Sanson
& Lewis, 2001). Due to their rising prevalence, a plethora of consumer
socialization research addresses non-nuclear family structures
(Mangleburg, 1990), especially complex forms. Although some research
notes a relationship between newer family structures and children's
participation in household purchases in developed market settings (e.g.,
Ahuja, Capella, & Taylor, 1998; Ahuja & Walker, 1994; Geuens, Mast, &
De Pelsmacker, 2002; Habenstein & Olson, 2001; Mangleburg, Grewal,
& Bristol, 1999), no studies consider the impact of family structure on
the consumer socialization of children and adolescents, especially in
emerging market contexts that continue to remain largely characterized
by the three traditional family structures (i.e., nuclear, stem, extended
type families).
Nuclear family values tend to focus on individualism and competi-
tion, prompting a democratic, accepting family environment (Ojha &
Sinha, 1982), which implies loving and permissive socialization prac-
tices (D'Cruz & Bharat, 2001; Ojha & Sinha, 1982). Stem families are
similar. In contrast, extended families emphasize interpersonal adjust-
ment and cooperation; the very existence of this family structure would
M. Hota and F. Bartsch
be endangered in the absence of these values (Ojha & Sinha, 1982).
Extended families, therefore, tend to feature authoritarian styles
(D'Cruz & Bharat, 2001; Ojha & Sinha, 1982) and hostile or controlling
socialization practices. Consequently, children raised in extended fa-
mily structures likely experience a higher degree of restriction on their
consumption, relative to those raised in nuclear or stem families; in
these smaller immediate social structures, the need for cooperation
diminishes, so consumption may be less restricted.
H5. Restricted consumption is more intense in extended families
compared with stem and nuclear families.
The democratic style of parenting in nuclear families also en-
courages substantial independence training (Olsen, 1975; Whiting,
Chasdi, Antonovsky, & Ayres, 1966), entailing greater freedom and
emphasis on autonomy and separation (D'Cruz & Bharat, 2001). For
extended families, the presence of numerous, alternative caretakers
obviates the need for high levels of independence training (Olsen,
1976). Furthermore, prior literature suggests some differences between
stem and fully extended families. That is, “self-reliance training is least
emphasized when mother and grandmother share responsibility for
childcare” (Olsen, 1976, p. 371), whereas mothers in extended families
that comprise more than one mother of young children likely value
independence, because they must share the services of the grandmother
(Olsen, 1975). Combining this evidence, we anticipate that in nuclear
families, parents support opportunities for autonomous consumption to
foster early independence, but in extended family structures, these
opportunities may be reduced, due to the shared supervision of children
among extended members of the family.
H6. Opportunities for autonomous consumption are greater in nuclear
families, compared with extended families and stem families.
Extended families also are characterized by high degrees of ma-
ternal protection and indulgence of children (Minturn & Lambert, 1964;
Ojha & Sinha, 1982). The limited resources of the family must be shared
by children of different parents, so each young mother in the family
unit seeks to safeguard the interests of her own children (Ojha & Sinha,
1982), which may include susceptibility to purchase requests from
those children, to ensure perceived balance and division of resources
among the many members of the family. Parents also are likely to favor
and listen to their own children rather than the children of other family
members living together. In contrast, nuclear families exhibit less child
indulgence; there is less competition for resources, so children's influ-
ence on purchase decisions decreases, because the resources already are
shared. This small entity also promotes a stronger hierarchy between
parents and children, without fear of losing out on potentially limited
resources, as happens in extended families.
H7. Children's purchase influence is lower in nuclear families compared
with stem families and extended families.
Multiple caregivers and socialization agents influence the sociali-
zation of children in extended families (D'Cruz & Bharat, 2001; Sharma,
2000). Often, they feature two maternal socialization agents: the mo-
ther and the grandmother (Olsen, 1975; Sonuga-Barke & Mistry, 2000).
The father's role in childrearing tends to be limited in such families
(D'Cruz & Bharat, 2001). The grandmother functions as an alternative
caretaker (Olsen, 1975), and some research suggests that the benefits of
an extended family relate specifically to grandparental (particularly
grand-maternal) involvement (Al Awad & Sonuga-Barke, 1992; Chase-
Lansdale, Brooks-Gunn, & Zamsky, 1994). Because of their proximity,
extended family members living under the same roof exert greater in-
fluence on children than is true in nuclear and stem families, in which
even close relatives do not share the same home. Therefore,
H8. The influence of extended family members is greater in extended
families compared with stem and nuclear families.
Finally, nuclear families place greater stress on freedom, autonomy,
14
Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20
and separation, whereas extended families emphasize cooperation and
interdependency. The former contains at most two adult role models;
extended families include multiple caregivers and socialization agents
(D'Cruz & Bharat, 2001; Sharma, 2000). For children, social networks in
extended family structures consist of immediate members of the family,
including peers of a similar age. The influence of external peers on
consumer socialization processes thus may be weaker in extended fa-
milies but stronger in nuclear or stem family settings.
H9. The consumer socializing influence of peers groups is greater in
nuclear families compared with stem families and extended families.
3. Empirical study
3.1. Sample
To test our hypotheses, we collected data from 292 Indian children,
between 6 and 16 years of age (45.9% female), representing different
socioeconomic classes (Table 1). The respondents' ages correspond to the
widely assigned ranges of Piaget's (1976) three later stages of cognitive
development: preoperational at 2–7 years, concrete operational at
8–12 years, and formal operational at 13–18 years. The differences thus
should be relatively pronounced, providing clear findings with respect to
the stages of internal development. For the children in the two younger
age groups, we conducted personal interviews, in recognition of their
limited reading and writing capabilities. Adolescents completed ques-
tionnaires. To reduce the potential for interviewer bias, the data collec-
tion was performed by a native speaker who shared the same cultural
background as the respondents. All respondents also were assured that
there were no right or wrong answers. The classification of the family
structures reflected the number of family members living in the house-
hold and the respondents' designations of their roles (e.g., mother, father,
uncle, cousin) (Lee, 1982; Tsui, 1989). Prior to the survey administra-
tion, the necessary approval from the respective ethic boards was ob-
tained, and children could only participate in the interview with consent
from a parent. Most interviews were conducted in Hindi (89%), though
11% of interviewees requested an English questionnaire.
India represents an important study context that can extend findings
from prior research that has largely focused on consumer socialization
in the developed world (e.g., United States, Japan; Rose, 1999).
Emerging markets in the East are characterized by larger family
structures and tend to adopt collective values, distinct from in-
dividualistic societies in the West. These differences in underlying value
systems have consequences for parental and family guidance of chil-
dren. As emerging markets continue to develop, their large populations
inevitably will influence consumption markets and thus should be a key
focus of marketers and policymakers, who need to understand the de-
velopment of consumer socialization in these markets.
Table 1
Sample characteristics.
Percentage of total sample (n = 292)
Socioeconomic class
Upper middle 57.0
Lower middle 43.0
Gender
Boy 54.1
Girl 45.9
Respondent's age
Early childhood 27.5
Middle childhood 41.2
Adolescence 28.9
Family structure
Nuclear 54.9
Stem 30.3
Extended 14.8
M. Hota and F. Bartsch
3.2. Questionnaire
Following Rose (1999), we employed 19 consumer socialization
scales (16 related to parental consumer socialization, 3 related to non-
parental socialization) to capture its multifaceted nature. Specifically,
multi-item scales adapted from Rose (1999) and Moschis and Churchill
(1978) capture children's concept of and social orientation toward
consumption (e.g., “I help my parents buy things for the family,” “My
parents tell me what things I should buy”); the extent of family com-
munication (e.g., “My parents and I talk about buying things”); parental
consumer behavior (e.g., “My parents tell me what they do with their
money”); child income (e.g., pocket money); parental control (e.g., “My
parents place restrictions on when I can watch TV”); discussions of
television-related activities (“My parents and I talk about things we see
and hear advertised on television”), parental co-viewing (e.g., “My
parents watch TV with me”) and co-shopping (e.g., “My parents take me
along when the go grocery shopping”); parental responses to purchase
requests (i.e., yielding, self-payment, refusal with explanation, plain
refusal); the influence of extended family members (e.g., “I ask family
members other than my parents to buy me things”); the social use of
television advertising (e.g., “I watch TV to learn about the ‘in’ things to
buy”); and the extent of peer group communication (e.g., “I ask my
friends for advice about buying things”). All consumer socialization
scales used four-point scales, anchored with “never” and “often,” cor-
responding to the level of discrimination that children can make (Hota,
Chumpitaz, & Cousin, 2010). Back-translation procedures translated
measures from English into Hindi and back (Behling & Law, 2000).
Prior to the data collection, the questionnaire was pretested with mo-
ther-child dyads, to check for culture-specific issues. The results con-
firmed appropriate comprehension of all questions.
Scales for all the consumer socialization variables reflect Nunally's
(1967) recommendations for sufficient reliabilities at the early stages of
basic research (0.50–0.60), and most scales exceeded the common
threshold value of 0.70. The scales appear valid, especially considering
that the Indian children and adolescents were functioning as research
respondents for the first time.
3.3. Results
3.3.1. Exploratory factor analysis
To reduce the 16 parental consumer socialization scales to a set of
manageable and meaningful dimensions, we first conducted a principal
component analysis with Varimax rotation (e.g., Rose, 1999). It re-
vealed five factors or parental consumer socialization processes (ei-
genvalues > 1) that account for 64% of the total variance in the data
(see Appendix A). This factor structure replicates findings by Rose
(1999), which also served as a foundation for deriving the hypotheses
for the current study.
The first factor, parent-child communication about consumption
(Carlson & Grossbart, 1988), relates primarily to two-way parent-child
interactions, such as the extent of family communication, concept or-
ientation, discussions about television advertising, parental consumer
behavior, and the inclusion of children in purchase decisions. The
second factor, restriction of consumption, reflects one-way communica-
tion from parents to children, to restrict media exposure and con-
sumption (e.g., control over TV viewing, refusal of purchase requests,
socio-orientation). The children's consumption autonomy factor involves
parental tendencies to refuse purchase requests or yield if the children
offer to pay themselves, as well as consumption independence. As prior
research suggests, children's influence on household purchases likely is
encouraged in societies in which children are encouraged to be other-
wise dependent on their parents (Rose, 1999). Parental yielding to
purchase requests appears to be a sign of promoting consumer de-
pendency, such that parents who refuse requests actually might en-
courage independence. Similarly, parents who allow children to pay for
part of their purchase requests may be encouraging them to transform
15
Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20
into independent consumers. The fourth factor, children's influence, in-
cludes parental tendencies to promote consumption independence and
co-shopping behavior. Finally, the television viewing factor reflects the
amount of television viewing and parent-child co-viewing of television.
Surprisingly, a child's total income, which emerged as a key com-
ponent of parental socialization in past research (e.g., Rose, 1999), did
not exhibit any strong, positive loading on the revealed five-factor
structure (i.e., < 30% of variance explained). Its highest loading was
negative, affecting children's influence on parental shopping (i.e., ten-
dency to participate in shopping and parental efforts to involve children
in parental consumer behaviors). Furthermore, the factor analysis re-
vealed several cross-loadings of consumer socialization scales across the
five extracted factors. Socio-orientation cross-loads on the first and
second factors, as well as the first and fifth; the children's influence
cross-loads on the first, third, and fourth factors; and consumption in-
dependence cross-loads on the third and fourth factors. To account for
these cross-loadings, we use factor scores and compare these dimen-
sions across the different stages of internal development and distinct
family structures.
The three remaining consumer socialization scales relate to non-
parental socialization, so they were operationalized as independent
dimensions. Each represents a distinct facet, such as the influence of the
extended family, social use of television advertising, and the extent of
peer group communication.
3.3.2. Common method bias
Various procedures help reduce and test for potential common
method bias in the data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). Prior to the interviews, children received assurances that their
answers were anonymous and confidential and that there were no right
or wrong answers. We applied Harman's single-factor test to the 19
consumer socialization scales, and the unrotated factor solutions re-
vealed a multi-factor structure in which no single dimension accounted
for > 24% of the variance explained. Furthermore, by employing a
marker variable approach (Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Malhotra, Kim, &
Patil, 2006), we partialled out the second smallest positive correlation
among all indicators (r < 0.001) as a proxy for common method bias.
Comparing the zero-order correlations with the partialled out correla-
tion raises no concerned regarding common method bias. Both ex ante
and ex post control procedures raise confidence that our data are not
subject to common method bias.
3.3.3. Differences between stages of internal development
The first set of hypotheses outline expected differences across stages
of internal development (i.e., early childhood, middle childhood, and
adolescence) with regard to (H1) parent-child communication about
consumption, (H2) autonomous consumption opportunities, (H3) the
social use of television advertising, and (H4) the extent of peer group
communication (Table 2). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) uses a
standardized mean comparison and stages of age-related internal de-
velopment as independent variables, with the factor scores derived
from the factor analysis and the three non-parental socialization scales
as dependent variables (Table 2). The pairwise comparisons are based
on least significant difference (LSD) post hoc comparisons (Levin,
Serlin, & Seaman, 1994). Subscripts in Table 2 indicate significant/non-
significant differences in pairwise comparisons.2
With regard to H1, the results indicate significant differences in
parent-child communication about consumption (F = 6.999, p < .01),
yet contrary to our prediction post hoc analyses using the LSD post hoc
criterion for significance indicate that it is highest for adolescents
(Mstd = 0.28), followed by middle childhood (Mstd = 0.00) and then
2
Pairwise comparison using independent sample t-tests confirm group dif-
ferences. For brevity reasons, we report ANOVA tests with post-hoc comparison
using the LSD post-hoc criterion to indicate group differences.
M. Hota and F. Bartsch Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20

Table 2
Comparisons of standardized means for consumer socialization across age groups.
Consumer socialization process Early Middle Adolescence F-test

(n = 90) (n = 121) (n = 81)

m,a e
Parent–child communication about consumption −0.28 0.00 0.28e F = (2, 289) = 6.999, p < .01
Restricting consumption 0.27m,a 0.00e,a −0.30e,m F = (2, 289) = 7.295, p < .01
Child's consumption autonomy −0.05 −.10a 0.20m F = (2, 289) = 2.429, p = .09
Child's influence −0.44m,a 0.01e,a 0.48e,m F = (2, 289) = 20.825, p < .01
TV viewing 0.19a 0.20a −0.51e,m F = (2, 289) = 16.044, p < .01
Influence of extended family −0.27m,a −0.03e,a 0.35e,m F = (2, 289) = 11.553, p < .01
Social uses of television advertising −0.09 0.11 −0.06 F = (2, 289) = 0.158, p = .854
Extent of peer group communication −0.21m,a −0.02e,a, 0.26e,m F = (2, 289) = 11.594, p < .01

Notes: These results come from a least significance difference test (p < .05). The superscripts indicate significant differences between pairwise comparisons between
types of families age groups, where e = early childhood, m = middle childhood, and a = adolescence.

early childhood (Mstd = −0.28). These differences are significant be-
tween early childhood and both middle childhood and adolescence
(p < .05), but not between middle childhood and adolescence
(p = .060)
Thus, we find differences in parent-child communication about
consumption, but the differences do not match our predictions about
the different stages of internal development, so we cannot confirm H1.
For H2, the results indicate some differences in the mean compar-
isons of stages of age-related internal development (F = 2.429,
p = .09), and as predicted, a child's consumption autonomy is highest in
adolescence (Mstd = 0.20) compared to early (Mstd = −0.05) and
middle childhood (Mstd = −0.10). Yet post-hoc comparisons only in-
dicate significant differences between adolescence and middle child-
hood (p < .05), but not between adolescence and early childhood
(p = .097), so we find only partial support for H2.
In H3, we predicted that social use of television would be the
highest in middle childhood, but despite directional support for the
hypothesized differences (i.e., middle childhood > early childhood and
adolescence), the ANOVA indicates these differences are not significant
(F = 0.158, p = .854). Thus, we cannot confirm H3.
Finally, with H4 we predicted that the extent of peer group com-
munication would be more pronounced in adolescence. The results
indicate significant differences across the three stages (F = 11.594,
p < .01), such that adolescence (Mstd = 0.26) produces significantly
higher levels of peer group communication than early (Mstd = −0.21,
p < .01) or middle (Mstd = −0.02, p < .01) childhood. These differ-
ences fully support H4.
3.3.4. Differences across family structures
Hypotheses H5–H9 predict differences among children growing up
in different family structures (i.e., nuclear, stem, and extended families)
with regard to (H5) the restriction of consumption, (H6) opportunities
for autonomous consumption, (H7) children's purchase influence, (H8)
the influence of the extended family on consumer behavior, and (H9)
the extent of peer group communication. The data comparison was si-
milar to the previously described procedure for testing H1–H4, and
again, we find partial support for the hypothesized differences
(Table 3).
With regard to H5, the results indicated differences in the restriction
of consumption across the three family structures (F = 2.503,
p = .084). As hypothesized, children living in extended family struc-
tures experience greater consumption restriction (Mstd = 0.28) than
those in nuclear (Mstd = −0.09) or stem (Mstd = 0.08) family struc-
tures. The post hoc pairwise comparisons based on the LSD criterion
reveal significant differences between nuclear and extended families
(p < .05) but not between the stem and extended family structures
(p = .213), in partial support of H5.
For H6, predicting that a child's consumption autonomy is highest in
nuclear family structures, the results indicate significant differences
across family structures (F = 5.56, p < .01). Children in nuclear fa-
milies indicate higher levels of consumption autonomy (Mstd = 0.18)
than children in stem (Mstd = −0.19) and extended (Mstd = −0.26)
family structures. Pairwise post-hoc comparison based on the LSD cri-
terion indicates significant differences between nuclear families and
both stem and extended family structures (p < .05). This supports H6.
Whereas H7 posited that children's influence on purchase decisions
would be lowest in nuclear family structures, the results reveal no
significant differences across family structures (F = 0.509, p = .602).
Thus, we cannot confirm H7. Nor do we find support for H8, the ex-
pected difference in the influence of extended family structures on
consumption (F = 0.389, p = .678). Thus, we must also reject H8.
Finally, regarding H9, the extent of peer group communication
differs significantly across family structures (F = 3.203, p = .042), such
that the extent of peer group communication is highest in nuclear

Table 3
Comparisons of standardized means for consumer socialization across family types.
Consumer socialization process Nuclear Stem Extended F-test

(n = 156) (n = 86) (n = 42)

e
Parent–child communication about consumption 0.05 0.02 −0.34n F = (2, 281) = 2.629, p = .074
Restricting consumption −0.09e 0.08 0.28n F = (2, 281) = 2.503, p = .084
Child's consumption autonomy 0.18s, e −0.19n −0.26n F = (2, 281) = 5.56, p < .01
Child's influence 0.05 −0.08 −0.04 F = (2, 281) = 0.509, p = .602
TV viewing −0.03 0.09 0.04 F = (2, 281) = 0.450, p = .638
Influence of extended family 0.00 0.01 −0.13 F = (2, 281) = 0.389, p = .678
Social uses of television advertising 0.12 −0.21 −0.56 F = (2, 281) = 1.082, p = .340
Extent of peer group communication 0.09s −0.11n 0.00 F = (2, 281) = 3.203, p = .042

Notes: These results come from a least significance difference test (p < .05). The superscripts indicate significant differences across groups between types of families,
where n = nuclear, s = stem, and e = extended.

16
M. Hota and F. Bartsch
families (Mstd = 0.09) compared with stem (Mstd = −0.11) and ex-
tended (Mstd = 0.00) structures. The post hoc comparison based on the
LSD criterion reveals that the extent of peer group communication in
nuclear families is significantly different (p < .05) from that in stem
families but not from the level in extended families (p = .059), offering
partial support for H9.
3.3.5. Additional analyses
Additional ANOVAs reveal some further differences in children's
socialization processes. Regarding the stages of age-related internal
development, we uncover differences in parental restriction of con-
sumption (F = 7.295, p < .01), children's participation in and influ-
ence over purchase decisions (F = 20.825, p > .01), television viewing
habits (F = 16.044, p < .01), and the influence of extended families on
consumption (F = 11.553, p < .01). Specifically, in early childhood,
children face more restrictions on their consumption opportunities
(Mstd = 0.27), have less influence on purchase decisions
(Mstd = −0.44), and are less likely to interact with extended family
members (Mstd = −0.27), significantly different from (p < .05) those
in middle childhood (Mstd = 0.00, Mstd = 0.01, and Mstd = −0.03, re-
spectively) or adolescence (Mstd = −0.30, Mstd = 0.48, Mstd = 0.35,
respectively). This result is not surprising; as children grow, parents
promote more independent consumption and exert less control over
them. They contribute their opinion to family decision making more
and likely engage in expanded contact with the extended family, in-
dependent of parental guidance. As noted in H4, peer group commu-
nication appears greater in adolescence compared with early or middle
childhood, a pattern also reflected in television viewing habits (both
amount and parental co-viewing). As children grow older, they replace
traditional media consumption with more socialization among peers.
Regarding the family structure, the additional results indicate dif-
ferences related to the extent of parent-child communication about
consumption (F = 2.629, p = .074), which are significantly different
(p < .05) and greater in nuclear families (Mstd = 0.05) compared with
to extended (Mstd = −0.34) family structures. Here again, this finding
is unsurprising; nuclear families are characterized by close connections
between parents and children, with fewer external influences from
outside the family, compared with stem or extended family structures
that featured varied influences by definition.
4. Discussion and implications
This study sought to demonstrate how the stages of children's psy-
chological development and different family structures influence con-
sumer socialization through various socialization agents, in an Indian
consumption context. The results confirm that these differences have
important implications for the impact of different socialization agents
(e.g., parents, interaction with peers and extended families, media
consumption and restriction, autonomous consumption practices), as
well as for consumption theory and practice.
4.1. Theoretical implications
From a theoretical standpoint, this research makes three primary
contributions. First, it empirically highlights differences in consumer
socialization agents (parents, peers, and mass media) at different stages
of internal development and for distinct family structures. In the
emerging market context of India, consumer socialization agents exert
greater or lesser influence on children of different ages, especially when
we compare early childhood to adolescence. Among adolescents, the
parent-child relationship is characterized by socialization processes
who emphasize communication about consumption, involvement in
purchase-related decisions, and consumption autonomy. In early
childhood, they instead exert consumption restrictions and encourage
17
Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20
joint consumption of mass media; this latter element represents a key
socialization process in middle childhood, before it becomes less fre-
quent in adolescence.
For non-parental socialization agents, the results show that as
children become older, socialization is characterized by more frequent
contacts with extended members of the family and a more dominant
role of peer group communication. The minor differences between early
and middle childhood may be explained by Indian mothers' generally
late developmental expectations of their children, both in general and
in consumption contexts (Joshi & MacLean, 1997; Rose, Dalakas, &
Kropp, 2002). Therefore, they use non-restrictive, encouraging con-
sumer socialization processes with younger children, whom they regard
as unable to process such influences. The similar treatments of children
in early and middle childhood suggest that parent believe they have
similar developmental capabilities. Only once their children reach
adolescence do these parents begin to worry about their cognitive de-
velopment. This finding is notable, because it implies that Indian par-
ents may be inadequately socializing children into consumption prac-
tices in middle childhood, limiting their ability to take fully responsible
roles as consumers.
Second, this study identifies the socio-cultural context as an im-
portant determinant of consumer socialization processes. By con-
sidering the family structure, it empirically demonstrates differences in
the use of socialization agents for the most common family structures in
the emerging market of India. The comparison of nuclear, stem, and
extended families reveals that children raised in different family
structures are exposed to different socialization processes. In nuclear
families, the process is characterized by higher consumption in-
dependence and autonomy for children, few restrictions on consump-
tion, and more cognitive stimulation, through more intensive parent-
child interactions about consumption in the family, along with higher
levels of peer group communication to aid the socialization process.
In contrast, extended families impose more restrictions on con-
sumption (possibly emphasizing sharing among family members of the
family) and exhibit lower levels of parent-child interactions related to
consumption, less use of mass media, and reduced peer group com-
munication. This pattern might arise because social interactions already
take place among the higher numbers of children living under the same
roof. Furthermore, parents in different family structures prefer to in-
culcate varied consumer values in their children; mothers in extended
families value conformity and obedience and thus restrict consumption,
whereas mothers in nuclear families emphasize autonomy and self-re-
liance, achieved through higher consumption independence. This
finding confirms earlier sociological research (Olsen, 1975, 1976) in the
consumer context in India, which highlights the role of senior family
members in inculcating consumer values that determine consumer at-
titudes and behavior.
Third, this study provides empirical evidence that children's stages
of internal development are associated with the cultural context and the
associated family structures in India. According to Joshi and MacLean
(1997), the late developmental timetables of Indian mothers are con-
gruent with the notion of preparing children for interdependence in
adulthood, in that India generally embraces an extended family system,
in which male children reside with their parents even after attaining
adulthood and marriage. These findings likely apply to other emerging
markets characterized by similar family structures and value systems
(e.g., South East Asia, Latin America) that are marked by clear hier-
archies and interdependence.
4.2. Managerial implications
This study offers important insights that marketing managers can
leverage to ensure they engage in responsible marketing and protect
child consumers. First, the limited frequency of parent-child
M. Hota and F. Bartsch
communication about consumption with younger children, as well as
the lack of significant differences in parental consumer socialization
between early and middle childhood, indicates that Indian parents may
not be doing enough to ensure that young children are aware and in-
formed consumers. Marketing managers might develop consumer
education campaigns for these children. Considering the tendency of
Indian mothers to have late developmental expectations, consumer
education efforts, through channels including advertising, legislation,
and school curricula, appear necessary to supplement parental efforts.
The relatively high levels of mass media consumption in early and
middle childhood implies that marketing managers could concentrate
on these channels to reach children as early consumers.
Second, this study helps clarify the different family and cultural
contexts in which Indian children are reared, such as the extended fa-
mily context, and their relationship with childhood and adolescent
consumer socialization. With this enhanced understanding, marketing
managers can use such contexts to advance the process of turning
Indian children into discerning consumers. In an emerging market
setting such as India, with diverse family structures in which parents
and extended family members favor different socialization agents,
marketing managers should determine how future consumers are de-
veloping and changing over time, by including the socio-cultural con-
text of their upbringing into marketing decision making. Children in
extended families likely experience a stricter family environment, em-
phasizing restricted consumption and sharing among family members,
in a relatively hierarchical member. The related challenges to reaching
these potential future consumers suggests that marketers should con-
sider developing programs to reach children outside the family context.
For example, as children grow older, peer groups take on a more im-
portant role, which provides a pathway for additional consumer so-
cialization. In nuclear family structures, family life seems less strict,
with more frequent interactions of parents and children, so they pro-
vide more opportunity to socialize children through parental education.
Marketers thus could communicate explicitly with nuclear families to
shape the socialization of their children.
Third, the results point to inadequate parental socialization prac-
tices in this emerging market context, especially in middle childhood
and for children living in extended families. For marketing managers,
engaging in supplemental consumer socialization efforts may represent
a promising, generalizable strategy for emerging markets. Marketing
efforts to reach out to schools to assist in the socialization of children
might also indirectly educate parents about the benefits of consump-
tion-related interactions, autonomy in consumption opportunities, and
the inherent value of peer group communication. Such measures likely
would improve socialization practices.
5. Future research directions
The findings suggest several promising avenues for research. First,
this study considers dominant family structures in India; extant re-
search also provides insights into other family structures that might
differ in their preferred socialization practices. For example, the Israeli
kibbutz, the Nair community of India, and the visiting and common-law
unions of the African-Caribbean (see Lee, 1982; Roopnarine, Clawson,
Benetti, & Lewis, 2000) represent notable settings in which consumer
socialization might take different paths, and studying them would
further advance understanding of how family structure affects sociali-
zation practices.
Second, this study uses a multi-theoretical approach, drawing from
Piaget's (1976) theory of cognitive development, Erikson's (1968)
theory of emotional development, and Selman's (1980) theory of social
development, to predict differences in socialization practices across
various stages of age-related development and family structures. Other
theories also might establish a relevant conceptual framework for
studying consumer socialization practices. For instance, extant litera-
ture on the life course approach (Elder, 1994, 1998) empirically points
18
Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20
toward changes in socializing-agent influence depending on prior
childhood experience. These changes may depend on changes in family
structure, access to education, or work possibilities, which in turn may
influence subsequent interaction with socialization-agent, thus altering
life course trajectories (Elder, 1998). The cross-sectional nature of our
studies does not allow to make inferences about the impact of in-
dividual childhood experiences on socializing-agent influence, as sug-
gested by the life-course approach. Consequently, these questions are
best addressed either with retrospective measures of early childhood
experiences or longitudinal study designs that allow to study the impact
of socio-cultural changes during childhood on consumer socialization
practices (Elder, 1994). Such a study design would allow a more
nuanced description of consumer socialization agents in relation to age
groups and family structure, thus making it a key avenue for future
research.3
Third, the sample design led to the inclusion mainly of families from
middle-class neighborhoods in India, so the results are not fully re-
presentative of India as a whole. The diverse family structures as a
cultural characteristic, even in higher socio-economic strata, indicates
that the sample is adequate for the purposes of an initial attempt to
understand socialization practices among Indian children. Additional
research could examine Indian children across all socio-economic
classes to differentiate the preferences of socialization agents further, in
relation to stages of internal development and family structures.
Fourth, though the Indian, emerging market context is appropriate
for this study, we can only predict that our findings translate to similar
markets. Additional investigations in other emerging markets could
provide more generalizable insights; in particular, markets in South-
East Asia and Latin America would offer interesting comparisons, due to
their considerable overlap in underlying value systems and the pro-
nounced role of the family. Thus we might expect similarities in par-
ental and societal consumer socialization efforts, reflecting similar
preferences of the socialization agents.
Fifth, the scales for this study were developed to test consumer
socialization in the United States. We undertook systematic efforts to
check the applicability of the scale to Indian children, conducted a
thorough literature review, performed translation–back translation, and
conducted two rounds of pretesting with Indian children. Although
these efforts and the results indicate the validity of these scales, ongoing
research might develop scales specific to the Indian context to improve
the measures of consumer socialization processes. Consumer socializa-
tion processes could have different meanings in various cultural con-
texts. For example, the prevalence of extended families in India implies
that grandparents likely are involved in many interactions about con-
sumption or discussions about television advertising, not just purchase
requests and co-shopping, so it may be more appropriate to review
family consumer socialization processes rather than just parental con-
sumer socialization.
Sixth, this research required a mixed-method data collection design,
which may be subject to interviewer bias. We employed all necessary
steps to reduce such bias, yet we call for further research to attempt to
replicate the findings while employing a single collection method. This
step would enhance confidence in the reliability of the results.
Seventh, in line with the patriarchal composition of Indian society,
it would be interesting to determine if male and female adolescents
experience the relative influence of consumer socialization agents dif-
ferently. Parenting in India remains primarily the mother's responsi-
bility, while fathers generally maintain an authoritative, distant role,
rather than an affective one (Kakar, 2012). As the traditional bread-
winner and disciplinarian, historically the father would have actively
limited his interaction with children, to avoid giving precedence to
them over his parents, brothers, or sisters (Kakar, 1981). A norm that
encouraged women to deliver children in their parents' home and
3
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
M. Hota and F. Bartsch Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20

remain there until the child was at least a month old also limited fa- family context, men and women might have vastly different roles in
thers' involvement. For many traditional Indian families, men's parti- socializing their children, which suggests a promising avenue for fur-
cipation in childcare is shameful, both for fathers and for woman's ef- ther research.
ficiency or capacity to be a “good wife” (Derné, 1995). Thus, within the

Appendix A. Principal component analysis of parental consumer socialization measures

Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5 Communalities

Parent–child communication Restriction of Children's consumption Children's Television viewing

about consumption consumption autonomy influence

Extent of family communication 0.79 0.17 −0.06 0.04 −0.06 0.66

Concept orientation 0.76 0.33 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.71
Discuss television advertising 0.65 −0.14 0.21 −0.07 0.09 0.50
Child's inclusion 0.68 0.05 0.28 0.31 0.07 0.65
Discussions about parental consumer behavior 0.68 −0.02 0.51 0.04 0.07 0.73
Socio-orientation 0.44 0.66 −0.09 −0.03 −0.08 0.64
Control TV viewing −0.07 0.84 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.72
Refusing with explanation 0.09 0.73 0.11 −0.10 0.28 0.64
Child's payment 0.02 0.00 0.83 0.06 0.13 0.71
Refusing requests 0.24 0.11 0.73 0.02 −0.08 0.61
Consumption independence 0.13 −0.01 0.43 0.57 −0.06 0.53
Co-shopping 0.30 0.28 0.12 0.50 −0.10 0.44
Amount of child's TV viewing 0.11 0.35 0.02 −0.41 0.39 0.59
Co-viewing 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.81 0.70
Yielding 0.47 0.09 −0.16 0.25 0.50 0.57
Total child income 0.12 0.24 0.11 −0.71 −0.10 0.28
Eigenvalues 4.201 1.954 1.366 1.11 1.035 –

References
Achenreiner, G. B., & John, D. R. (2003). The meaning of brand names to children: A
developmental investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 205–219.
Ahuja, R. B. D., & Walker, M. (1994). Female-headed single parent families: Comparisons
with dual parent households on restaurant and convenience food usage. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 41–54.
Ahuja, R. D., Capella, L. M., & Taylor, R. D. (1998). Child influences, attitudinal and
behavioral comparisons between single parent and dual parent households in grocery
shopping decisions. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(1), 48–62.
Al Awad, A., & Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (1992). Childhood problems in a Sudanese city: A
comparison of extended and nuclear families. Child Development, 63(4), 907–914.
Bachmann, G. R., John, D. R., & Rao, A. R. (1993). Children’s susceptibility to peer group
purchase influence: An exploratory investigation. Advances in Consumer Research, 20,
463–468.
Becker, W. C. (1964). Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. Review of
Child Development Research, 1(4), 169–208.
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments:
Problems and solutions. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences, no. 133.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Blackwell, R., Miniard, P., & Engel, J. (2001). Consumer behavior (9th ed.). New York:
Harcourt.
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and
peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64(2), 467–482.
Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). The impact of television advertising on chil-
dren’s Christmas wishes. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(3), 456–470.
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and consumer socialization of children.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 77–94.
Caudill, W. A., & Schooler, C. (1973). Child behavior and child rearing in Japan and the
United States: An interim report. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 157(5),
323–338.
Chan, K., & McNeal, J. U. (2006). Chinese children’s understanding of commercial
communications: A comparison of cognitive development and social learning models.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(1), 36–56.
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Zamsky, E. S. (1994). Young African-American
multigenerational families in poverty: Quality of mothering and grandmothering.
Child Development, 65(2), 373–393.
D'Cruz, P., & Bharat, S. (2001). Beyond joint and nuclear: The Indian family revisited.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(2), 167–194.
Derné, S. (1995). Cultures in action: Family life, emotion, and male dominance in Banaras.
India. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dickerson, E. B. (2000). The impact of mother-child interactions and narrative style on a
child’s recall, recognition. unpublished dissertationMississippi: University of
Mississippi.
Elder, G. H. J. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life
course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.
Elder, G. H. J. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1),
1–12.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Fujioka, Y., & Austin, E. W. (2002). The relationship of family communication patterns to
parental mediation styles. Communications Research, 29(6), 642–665.
Geuens, M., Mast, G., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2002). Children's influence on family purchase
behavior: The role of family structure. Asia Pacific advances in consumer research, 5,
130–135.
Gunter, B., & Furnham, A. (1998). Children as consumers, a psychological analysis of the
young people's market. London: Routledge.
Habenstein, R., & Olson, R. A. (2001). Families and children in history. In C. E. Walker, &
M. C. Roberts (Eds.). Handbook of clinical psychology (pp. 1200). (3rd ed.). Jossey-
Bass.
Hota, M., Chumpitaz, R., & Cousin, A. (2010). Can public-service advertising change
children's nutrition habits? The impact of relevance and familiarity. Journal of
Advertising Research, 50(4), 460–477.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adoles-
cence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic
Books.
John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-
five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183–213.
John, D. R. (2008). Stages of consumer socialization: The development of consumer
knowledge, skills, and values from childhood to adolescence. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P.
M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.). Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 221–246). New
York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor Francis Group.
Joshi, M. S., & MacLean, M. (1997). Maternal expectations of child development in India,
Japan and England. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 28(2), 219–234.
Kakar, S. (1981). The ties that bind: Family relationships in the mythology of Hindi ci-
nema. India International Centre Quarterly, 8(1), 11–21.
Kakar, S. (2012). The inner world: A psycho-analytic study of childhood and society in India.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Lansford, J. E., Ceballo, R., Abbey, A., & Stewart, A. J. (2001). Does family structure
matter? A comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother, stepfather,
and stepmother households. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(3), 840–852.
Lee, G. R. (1982). Family structure and interaction: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Levin, J. R., Serlin, R. C., & Seaman, M. A. (1994). A controlled, powerful multiple-
comparison strategy for several situations. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 153–159.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Linn, M. C., Benedictis, T., & Delucchi, K. (1982). Adolescent’s reasonings about adver-
tisements: Prelimnary investigations. Child Development, 53(6), 1599–1613.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in is research: A
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management
Science, 52(12), 1865–1883.
Mangleburg, T. F. (1990). Children’s influence in purchase decisions: A review and cri-
tique. Advances in consumer research. Vol. 17. Advances in consumer research (pp. 813–
825).
Mangleburg, T. F., Grewal, D., & Bristol, T. (1999). Family type, family authority rela-
tions, and adolescents’ purchase influence. Advances in consumer research. Vol. 26.
Advances in consumer research (pp. 379–384).

19
M. Hota and F. Bartsch
McNeal, J. (1987). Children as consumers: Insights and implications. Lexington: Lexington
Books.
Minturn, L., & Lambert, W. W. (1964). Mothers of six cultures: Antecedents of child rearing.
New York: Wiley.
Moore, R. L., & Moschis, G. P. (1983). Role of mass media and the family in the devel-
opment of consumption norms. Journalism Quarterly, 80(1), 67–73.
Moschis, G. (1987). Consumer socialization: A life-cycle perspective. Lexington: Lexington
Books.
Moschis, G., & Churchill, G. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical
analysis. Journal of Maketing Research, 15(5), 599–609.
Moschis, G., & Mitchell, L. G. (1986). Television advertising and interpersonal influences
on teenagers participation in family consumer decisions. Advances in consumer re-
search. Vol. 13. Advances in consumer research (pp. 181–186).
Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. L. (1979). Family communication and consumer socialization.
Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 359–363.
Moschis, G. P., Moore, R. L., & Smith, R. B. (1984). The impact of family communication
on adolescent consumer socialization. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 314–319.
Moschis, G. P., & Smith, R. B. (1985). Consumer socialization: Origins, trends and di-
rections for future research. In J. N. Sheth, & C. T. Tan (Eds.). SV - historical perspective
in consumer research: National and international perspectives (pp. 275–281). Singapore:
Association for Consumer Research.
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure. New York: Macmillan Co.
Nunally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
Ojha, H., & Sinha, M. (1982). Family structure and parental behavior. Psychologia, 25(2),
107–114.
Olsen, N. J. (1975). Social class and rural-urban patterns of socialization in Taiwan.
Journal of Asian Studies, 34(3), 659–674.
Olsen, N. J. (1976). The role of grandmothers in Taiwanese family socialization. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 38(2), 363–372.
Oswald, A., Mascarenhas, J., & Higby, M. A. (1993). Peer, parent, and media influences in
teen apparel shopping. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 53–58.
Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. Piaget and his school (pp. 11–23). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Reid, L. N. (1979). The impact of family group interaction on children’s understanding of
television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 8(3), 13–19.
Roedder, D. L., Sternthal, B., & Calder, B. J. (1983). Attitude behaviour consistency in
children’s responses to television advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(4),
337–349.
Roopnarine, J. L., Clawson, M. A., Benetti, S., & Lewis, T. Y. (2000). Family structure,
parent-child socialization and involvement among Caribbean families. In A. L.
Communian, & U. P. Gielen (Eds.). International perspectives on human development.
Eichengrund: Pabst Science Publishers.
Rose, G. M. (1999). Consumer socialization, parental style, and developmental timetables
in the United States and Japan. Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 105–118.
Rose, G. M., Boush, D., & Shoham, A. (2002). Family communication and children’s
purchasing influence: A cross-national examination. Journal of Business Research,
55(11), 867–873.
Rose, G. M., Dalakas, V., & Kropp, F. (2002). A five nation study of developmental
timetables, reciprocal communication and consumer socialization. Journal of Business
Research, 55(11), 943–949.
Rose, G. M., Dalakas, V., & Kropp, F. (2003). Consumer socialization and parental style
20
Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 11–20
across cultures: Findings from Australia, Greece and India. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13(4), 366–376.
Rossiter, J. R., & Robertson, T. S. (1974). Children’s TV commercials: Testing the de-
fenses. Journal of Communication, 24(4), 137–145.
Rubin, R. S. (1972). An exploratory investigation of children’s responses to commercial content
of television advertising in relation to their stages of cognitive development. Unpublished
Doctoral DissertationUniversity of Massachusetts.
Sanson, A., & Lewis, V. (2001). Children and their family context. Family Matters, 59, 4–9.
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical
analyses. Orlando: Academic Press.
Sharma, D. (2000). Children’s sociocultural and familial worlds: Pathways and risks
through the demographic transition. In A. L. Communian, & U. P. Gielen (Eds.).
International perspectives on human development. Eichengrund: Pabst Science
Publishers.
Sheth, J. N. (2011). Impact of emerging markets on marketing: Rethinking existing per-
spectives and practices. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 166–182.
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., & Mistry, M. (2000). The effect of extended family living on the
mental health of three generations within two Asian communities. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 129–141.
Tsui, M. (1989). Changes in Chinese urban family structure. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 51(3), 737–747.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Cantor, J. (2001). The development of a child into a consumer.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 61–72.
Wang, X., Yu, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Social media peer communication and impacts on
purchase intentions: A consumer socialization framework. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26(4), 198–208.
Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 1–14.
Ward, S., Wackman, D., & Wartella, E. (1977). How children learn to buy: The development
of consumer information processing skills. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing, Inc.
Wartella, E., & Ettema, J. S. (1974). A cognitive developmental study of children’s at-
tention to television commercials. Communications Research, 1(1), 44–69.
Whiting, J. W. M., Chasdi, E. H., Antonovsky, H. F., & Ayres, B. C. (1966). The learning of
values. In E. Z. Vogt, & E. M. Albert (Eds.). Peoples of Rimrock. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
World Family Map (2013). Mapping family change and child well-being outcomes.
Retrieved on 30/03/2019 from http://worldfamilymap.org/2013/.
Monali Hota is Assistant Professor of Marketing at IESEG School of Management. She
spent eight years in the Indian marketing and advertising industries, before doctoral
studies in Australia. She conducts research on child consumers, in consumer socialization
and public policy areas, with emphasis on cultural issues and theory building. She has
published in Journal of Advertising Research, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, European Advances in Consumer Research, Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer
Research, as well as conference proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, the
European Marketing Academy, the Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy, the
International Colloquium on Kids and Retailing, GIKA and CERR. She has also written
research proposals and policy notes for Australian and Indian government agencies such
as the NSW Department of Education and Training and the Indian Ministry of Consumer
Affairs.
Fabian Bartsch is Assistant Professor of Marketing at IESEG School of Management,
France. He has published in the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of International
Marketing, and in the International Marketing Review.