Young Consumers

Children's influence in family buying process in India

Monica Chaudhary, Aayushi Gupta,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Monica Chaudhary, Aayushi Gupta, (2012) "Children's influence in family buying process in India", Young Consumers, Vol. 13 Issue: 2,
pp.161-175, https://doi.org/10.1108/17473611211233512
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/17473611211233512
Downloaded on: 17 September 2017, At: 10:19 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 62 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1671 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2007),"Children's influence on and participation in the family decision process during food buying", Young Consumers, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp.
197-216 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/17473610710780945">https://doi.org/10.1108/17473610710780945</a>
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

(2011),"Influence of children on purchasing decisions of well-to-do families", Young Consumers, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp. 39-52 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/17473611111114777">https://doi.org/10.1108/17473611111114777</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:493111 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Children’s influence in family buying
process in India
Monica Chaudhary and Aayushi Gupta

Monica Chaudhary is a Abstract

Senior Lecturer and Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold: to categorize and rank products based on children’s
Aayushi Gupta is an influence and to compare their influence on the different stages of the family buying process.
Associate Professor, in the Design/methodology/approach – The study was based on an extensive literature review and focus
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

Department of Humanities group discussions. Using a structured questionnaire, a survey was conducted with children aged 8-12
and Social Science, Jaypee years. The sample size was 175.
Institute of Information Findings – Factor analysis revealed three distinct product clusters: ‘‘loud’’, ‘‘noisy’’ and ‘‘quiet’’ goods.
Technology, Noida, India. Children’s influence was found to be highest for noisy goods, lesser for loud goods and lowest for quiet
goods. One-way MANOVA analysis found that for loud and noisy goods children’s influence was highest
in the initiation stage, and lowest in the search stage. For quiet goods, the highest influence was in the
final decision stage followed by initiation and choice stage.
Practical implications – The identified product clusters and children’s relative influence across the
buying stages for these clusters are expected to enhance marketer’s understanding of children’s role in
family decision making. Marketers should take these observations into consideration while designing
and implementing their marketing strategies.
Originality/value – The results are important because previous studies have dealt with children’s
influence for various products at a broad level. In this paper, an innovative segmentation for products
based on children’s influence level has been identified and the influence measured across these
clusters.
Keywords India, Children (age groups), Influence, Family, Family buying process, Product clusters
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The consumer movement in India is as old as trade and commerce and in the last two
decades consumerism has grown multifold. According to one study, if the Indian economy
continues on its current high growth path, incomes will almost triple over the next 15 years,
and the country will climb from its position as the twelfth-largest consumer market today to
become the world’s fifth-largest consumer market by 2025 (McKinsey Global Institute,
2007). Over the years, as a result of the increasing literacy levels, exposure to the global
economy and increase in media penetration, there is a significant increase of consumer
awareness in India. Indian consumers are now more aware and discerning, and are
knowledgeable about technology, products and the market.
Children in India constitute 19 percent of world’s children population. The market for kid’s
products in India is estimated at more than Rs. 5,000 crore ($1,110mn) and is rapidly
growing (Kaur and Singh, 2006). With growing incomes, an increasing number of nuclear
families, and fewer children in the family, the role of children is getting stronger. With such a
huge amount of money at stake, there is a need to study children’s shopping behavior and
the way they influence their parents’ buying and shopping process. Children are a very
important target market for marketers worldwide. Everyone from advertiser to direct seller to

DOI 10.1108/17473611211233512 VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012, pp. 161-175, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 161
 marketer is communicating directly with children or through children to their parents. During
the 1940-1950s, kids were not considered consumers in their own right but only an extension
of their parents’ purchasing power. But with the dawn of extensive media especially the TV
and internet, children have become full-fledged consumers. Research shows that children
have influencing power for almost all product categories. Whether the product is for child’s
own use or the product is for family use, a child has very strong influencing power (Belch
et al., 1985).
Marketers in emerging economies are just beginning to experience the influence of children
in family purchases. India has seen notable shifts in the marketplace triggered by sharp
changes in lifestyle patterns and a dramatic media revolution. Marketing concepts on
branding are not as effective as they once used to be as they fail to determine the behavior of
the young generation. Marketers need to move beyond the traditional predictable
techniques that worked for generations (Wimalasiri, 2004). Yet, there is hardly any empirical
exploration into the course and effects of the child’s role in the family buying process in India.
Most of the empirical studies have been conducted in developed countries (Ward and
Wackman, 1972; Atkin, 1978) and the available literature has failed to identify any
comparable studies in India.
Therefore, the current study aims to identify distinct product clusters based on children’s
influence levels and compare children’s influence for the identified product clusters and
across different stages of the family buying process.
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

Literature review
Consumer behavior represents a significant challenge for marketers as rising competition,
increasing consumer’s purchasing power and new technological opportunities are making a
very complex environment for consumer decision-making. Marketing and sales managers
must differentiate consumer groups, consumer products and the corresponding
preferences (Dergisi, 2008). In marketing literature, there are a number of studies on
consumer purchasing behavior, family members’ influence on consumer purchasing
decisions. ‘‘Family as a consuming and decision making unit is a central phenomenon in
marketing and consumer behaviour’’ (Commuri and Gentry, 2000). There are many shared
decisions, made by the consumers with the family members, which in turn have an effect on
other family members’ wish and attitude (Foxall, 1977; Desai, 2008).

Approaches and models related to the family buying process

The studies related to the family buying process can be categorized in three different
approaches (Sheth, 1974). There is a macro approach where the households are the primary
research object and not the individual family members. In the micro approach, interaction
among the family members is observed and studied. Another approach is the descriptive
approach in which the process of family decision making is described but its
factors/parameters are not explained. Determinants of family decision making process
like personality, family orientation, and upbringing are studied in the determinative
approach. The attitudinal approach studies the responses from family members to examine
the factors of family decision making. And lastly, there is the behavioral approach, which
examines the actual behavior of individual family members. Family decision making is
different from individual decision making and is more complex because of the likelihood of
joint decisions and different role specifications for members (Assael, 1987).

Children’s influence on family purchase decision

Berey and Pollay (1968) first tried to understand children’s role in marketing, where children
formed a significant, separate market segment for marketers. According to Shoham and
Dalakas (2005), the amount that children spend in family purchase decisions has risen over
the last 40 years. Indian children have recently attracted considerable attention from
marketers because the market for children’s products offers tremendous potential
($1,110mn) and is rapidly growing (Kaur and Singh, 2006). According to available
industry data, the chocolate and confectionary market is estimated at $290mn, the apparel

j j
PAGE 162 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012
 market at $110mn and kids’ footwear at $220mn (Bhushan, 2002). ‘‘Children in India may not
have the purchasing power comparable to their Western counterparts, but they are still the
center of the universe in the Indian family system, and they not only influence markets in
terms of the parental decision-making to buy certain kinds of products, they are also future
consumers’’ (Kaur and Singh, 2006). The research on family decision-making was initially
directed to spouses, however, the role of children on decision making and negotiation
strategies has become an important issue of study (Kaur and Singh, 2006). Previous
researchers have identified that as children mature from childhood to adolescence, their
knowledge of consumer behavior, values and skills increases (John, 1999). The role that
children play in buying decisions has prompted researchers to direct attention to their study.
Caruana and Vassallo (2003) identified that, ever since the early 1990s, the marketers have
targeted children as they are not only the consumers but they also influence on family
purchasing. Children influence family buying decisions in four different ways (Wut and Chou,
2009). First, children influence their parents to buy products for their own use according to
their personal preferences. Second, older children generally get pocket money and buy the
products of their choice directly. Third, children influence their parents’ choice for products
for joint consumption by the family. Lastly, children influence their parents’ own preferences
(McNeal, 1992).

Children’s influence in different product categories

For almost all product categories, children have an important role (Martensen and
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

Gronholdt, 2008). Whether the product is for the child’s own use like toys, snacks, clothes,
etc or the product is for family use like family vacation or the product is for joint consumption
of the household like rice, food, tea/coffee, children have a very strong power to influence
(Belch et al., 1985). But the child’s influence in the family buying process differs by product
category. According to Mangleburg (1990), children seem to have a significant influence in
product decisions for which they will be the primary consumer, like breakfast cereals, snack
foods, toys, children’s clothes and school supplies. Children also influence decisions about
family leisure time activities (such as vacations, movie attendance, eating out and cable TV
subscriptions), although their influence is less in these decisions than in decisions for
products for their own use. In Western countries, children’s influence is maximal in purchase
decisions like toys (Burns and Harrison, 1985); children’s wear (Foxman and Tansuhaj,
1988); cereals (Belch et al., 1985; Berey and Pollay, 1968). Children also exert influence on
family decision making for vacations (Ahuja and Stinson, 1993; Belch et al., 1985); families
decisions to eat out (Williams and Veeck, 1998) and movies (Darley and Lim, 1986). Foxman
et al. (1989) concluded that children tend to have greater authority if the products are for
their personal consumption and are less expensive. On the other hand, due to children’s
limited financial resources, children have less influence on the products related to financial
terms (Mangleburg, 1990), or entire family usage (television, refrigerator, car etc).

Children’s involvement across decision stages

The child’s influence in the family buying process not only differs by product category but
also by the stage of the family buying process. Davis and Rigaux (1974) were the first
authors to differentiate stages within the decision-making process. Specifically, they divided
the process into just three stages: problem recognition, search for internal and external
information and final decision. Woodside and Motes (1979) considered a total of nine stages
including decisions like style, size, brand, etc. in each stage; Putman and Davidson (1987)
considered the final decision as having two stages, namely where to buy and what brand to
buy; Webster (1994) included the evaluation of alternatives stage and one final stage, that of
post-purchase, aimed at reflecting the valuation of the purchasers with respect to the
decision made. By and large most of the researchers used a three step model of purchase
decision making: problem recognition, information search and evaluation of alternatives and
final decision stage (Foxman and Tansuhaj, 1988; Martı́nez and Polo, 1999). For certain
products, children actively participate in initiating the purchase, seeking information about
the product, while for others they are the final decision takers. The studies of Moschis and
Mitchell (1986) and Beatty and Talpade (1994) showed that children dominate influence in
the first two stages of decision making i.e. problem recognition and information search, but

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 163
 this influence decreases at the last stage (choice) of the purchase decision stages. Children
are to a greater extent initiators than influencers in their family’s purchase decisions,
independent of the sub-decision stage (Wimalasiri, 2004; Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008).
Children consistently exerted the most influence in item selection and the least influence in
how much to spend (Flurry and Veeck, 2009). Wut and Chou (2009) found that children have
more influence in the choice-making stage of decision making and parents still control the
final decision, which is consistent with previous research findings (Belch et al., 1985;
Moschis and Mitchell, 1986).

Demographic variables
Other than the buying stages, children’s influence also varies by demographic factors; as
the child grows, his/her influence in the buying process also increases (Atkin, 1978). Older
children have significantly more influence on the family decision making process than
younger children (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008; Flurry and Veeck, 2009). The later-born
or only child has more influence on certain purchases than firstborns (Ronner et al., 2007).
Similarly gender, social class, number of siblings and family income also impact the child’s
influence on the family buying process. Media exposure is also a very important element in
this area. Children’s influence has been largely moderated by the role of media (Wimalasiri,
2004; Fan and Li, 2009).
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

Research on Indian children

One of the major conclusions that can be drawn from the literature review is that most of the
studies are based in the Western context and there are very few studies focusing on Asia,
and particularly India. Family structures are undergoing a transformation and Indian society
is also witnessing a major economic and societal change. Per capita income is increasing,
nuclear families are on the rise, and there is an increase in the number of single parent and
dual career families. Since Indian society differs vastly from the Western society in terms of
family composition, family type, structure, norms, values, and behavior; it is important to
understand children’s influence in the purchase decision making in families in the Indian
context (Jain and Bhatt, 2004). In Western developed countries, there exists a remarkable
body of research in this field. But, studies specific to the Indian environment are necessary
given the size of market for children’s products.
With these points in mind, the present study focussed on two objectives: to identify and rank
the distinct product clusters based on children’s influence levels in India and to compare
children’s influence for the distinct product clusters across different stages of the family
buying process. Based on these objectives, two hypotheses have been framed and they are
presented below:
H1. Different product clusters exist based on the children’s influence level in the buying
process.
H2. Children’s influence varies across the different buying stages for each of the
product clusters.

Methodology
The first step was to establish the objectives of the study based on in-depth discussions and
a literature review. Then, on the basis of the literature review, a questionnaire was prepared.
The questionnaire was tested in a pilot study: problems were identified and the
questionnaire revised to ensure that all questions would be comprehensible to the
respondents. The questionnaire was designed to tap information about:
B the personal characteristics of the respondents namely, age, gender, etc;
B the child’s influence in the family buying process for different products and services; and
B the child’s influence for different products with respect to different stages of the family
buying process.

j j
PAGE 164 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012
 The questionnaire consisted of 40 questions in three parts. The first part collected
demographic data like age, gender, number of siblings, birth order, grade, etc. The second
part asked questions measuring the child’s influence in the family buying process for
different products and services. A list containing fifteen products and services, namely
stationery, food & beverages, clothes, shampoo, toothpaste, grocery, movie tickets,
vacation, dining out, computer, video game, mobile phone, car, television and washing
machine was made. These products and services were established after thorough
interviews and a comprehensive literature review, thus the list represents all major products
for a family. The respondents had to report their influence level on the purchase of these
different products and services. A five point Likert response scale ranging from no influence
to very high influence was used. The third part of the questionnaire was designed to tap
information about the child’s influence for different products across the different stages of the
family buying process, from initiation through search & evaluation to final decision and a
three point Likert response scale (from low influence through medium influence to high
influence was used. The reason for choosing Likert scaling was that children preferred this
response and considered this scale easiest to fill out (Laerhoven et al., 2004; Royeen, 1985).
Purposive sampling was used to collect data as it ensures that certain groups are
adequately represented in the study. The study was directed at children aged from eight to
12 years. The reasons of choosing that age band were that children at that age were
expected to be mature enough and have been found to be active and independent
shoppers (McNeal, 1992), highly cognitive in consumption choices (Belk et al., 1982) and
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

knowledgeable about products and brands (Ward et al., 1977). Children less than seven
years of age have limited cognitive abilities (Caruana and Vassallo, 2003).
The empirical study was conducted in the National Capital Region (NCR) of India. The
National Capital Region comprises an area of 33,578 square kilometers covering the states
of Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It is the
world’s second largest urban agglomeration. For the data collection ten schools were
selected randomly from NCR (Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida and Ghaziabad), through random
sampling. A total of 200 questionnaires were sent to these ten schools and appointment took
to get these filled from children studying in grades III to VIII. Given that the target children
respondents would have difficulties understanding questions, children were asked to
complete the questionnaire in their class itself in the presence of the researchers but with the
absence of the teacher. The data collection period lasted five-six months. Only those families
in which husband, wife and at least one child were living together during the data-gathering
period were to be included in the target sample. Out of the 187 responses received, only 175
questionnaires were found to be fully filled fulfilling the above criterion, the rest 12 were
discarded due to incomplete information. The collected data was analyzed using Statistical
Package for Social Sciences 16.0 (SPSS).

Data analysis and findings

The data obtained from the field survey was analyzed in several steps. First, to test the
validity of the instrument, Cronbach alpha and KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Adequacy) tests were computed. Cronbach alpha was calculated to measure the internal
consistency and reliability of the instrument. For the second part of the questionnaire the
Cronbach alpha was 0.863 as shown in Table I, thus this part of the instrument was
considered reliable for the study. For the third part of the instrument, three values of
Cronbach alpha were measured, for three different stages of the family buying process. The
alphas were 0.798, 0.835 and 0.842 for the initiation stage, search & evaluation stage and
final decision stage, respectively. Thus, this part was also considered reliable for the study.
As shown in Table I, the KMO value for the instrument was 0.840, which is acceptable (Rubin
and Babbie, 2005). Similarly, Bartlett’s test of sphericity tests the hypothesis that the
correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate that the variables are unrelated
and therefore unsuitable for structure detection. Small values (less than 0.05) of the
significance level indicate that a factor analysis may be useful with the data. The Bartlett’s
test showed a significant level and hence the instrument was accepted for further study.

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 165
 Table I Reliability analysis and factor analysis of the product categorization
Factor Item Factor loading Factor name Percentage of variance Total variance

1 Vacation 0.55 Loud Goods 35.097 35.097

Computer 0.54
Mobile phone 0.79
Car 0.74
Television 0.80
Washing machine 0.59
2 Stationery & books 0.67 Noisy Goods 25.164 60.261
Food & beverages 0.63
Clothes & shoes 0.48
Movie ticket 0.49
Dining out 0.67
Video game 0.55
3 Shampoo 0.80 Quiet Goods 10.170 70.431
Toothpaste 0.74
Grocery 0.66

Notes: Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.863; No. of items ¼ 15; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy ¼ 0.840; Bartlett’s test of
Sphericity: Approx. Chi-Square ¼ 881.157; Degree of freedom ¼ 105.000; Significance ¼ 0.000

The analysis below presents the demographic profile of the respondents, followed by
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

identification of product clusters using factor analysis and finally ending with the
comparisons of children’s influence for the distinct product clusters and across different
stages of the family buying process using one-way MANOVA.

Demographic profile of the respondents

As shown in Table II, the mean age of the sample population was 10.37 years. Almost 53
percent of the children surveyed were in the age-group of eight-to-ten years, while 47
percent were in the age-group of 11-12 years. Around 66 percent of the children were male
and 33 percent were female respondents. Out of all the children surveyed, 79.4 percent had

Table II Demographic profile of respondents

Characteristics n (frequency) Percentage

Age-group
8-10 92 52.57
11-12 83 47.42

Gender
Male 116 66.28
Female 59 33.71

No. of siblings
Single child 36 20.57
With siblings 139 79.40

Birth order
Youngest 61 34.86
Eldest 66 37.71
Middle-one 12 06.85
Single child 36 20.57

Grade
III 12 06.85
IV 34 19.42
V 39 22.29
VI 35 20.00
VII 29 16.57
VIII 26 14.86

j j
PAGE 166 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012
 one or more siblings while 20.57 percent were single children. Amongst the children with
siblings, 61 children were the youngest in their family, 66 were the eldest ones and 12 were
the middle ones in their family.

Identification of product clusters

Factor analysis was performed to identify distinct product clusters on the basis of children’s
influence levels in the family buying process. Principal component analysis with varimax
rotation was used and only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were retained (Kaiser,
1960). Three factors accounted for almost 70 percent of the variance and this can be
regarded as well beyond sufficient. After the number of extracted factors was decided upon,
the next step was to interpret the factors by identifying which factors were associated with
the original products. The three factors extracted for further study are shown in Table I and
have been referred to as the ‘‘product clusters’’ in further analysis. Table I is followed by the
explanation of all these three product clusters.
1. Loud Goods: Loud Goods is the name given to the first product cluster identified through
factor analysis. As shown in Table I, this factor comprises six products/items: vacation,
computer, mobile phone, car, television and washing machine. All these items have a
factor loading of more than 0.5. All the products in this cluster have three commonalities.
They are all expensive products. Secondly, the decision of buying them requires more
time and effort of the family members. Finally, these are the products for which the buying
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

frequency is very less (may be once in five-to-ten years).

2. Noisy Goods: Noisy Goods is the name given to the second cluster identified through
factor analysis. As can be seen from Table I, this factor includes six products: stationery,
books, food & beverages, clothes, movie tickets, dining out and video games. These
products have the following similarities: they are not very expensive and their buying
frequency is moderate; as these products are directly used by children, they have high
involvement in these products; for these products, children make the maximum effort and
noise to influence their parents, hence the name ‘‘Noisy Goods’’.
3. Quiet Goods: This is the name give to the third product cluster identified through factor
analysis. All the items falling under this category have a factor loading of more than 0.5.
This cluster includes three products: shampoo, toothpaste and grocery items. The items
falling under this cluster have the following characteristics. All these products are regular
household products in which child have the least interest. They are necessities and hence
not very expensive. Their buying frequency is also very high (weekly or monthly).
On the basis of the product clusters identified, the H1 hypothesis was accepted; the initial
H2 hypothesis was further subdivided into three different hypotheses, which are as follows:
H2a. Children’s influence varies across the different buying stages for loud goods.
H2b. Children’s influence varies across the different buying stages for noisy goods.
H2c. Children’s influence varies across the different buying stages for quiet goods.

The next step involved calculating means and conducting a MANOVA analysis to examine
the above hypotheses.

Comparisons of child’s influence for three product clusters and in different stages of family
buying process
Mean values of the children’s influence levels were calculated to compare the children’s
influence across the three product clusters. The findings of the study revealed that the
children’s influence on family buying is not limited to any product cluster though it varies
according to the product cluster. According to the analysis, children have maximum
influence in the purchase of noisy goods, less influence for loud goods and the least
influence in the purchase of quiet goods.
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied along with post-hoc tests in order to
compare the child’s influence level across the three buying stages for each of the three

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 167
 product clusters. One of the assumptions of MANOVA is homogeneity of covariances, which
is tested by calculating Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices. If the significance
value is less than 0.001 ( p , 0.001) then the assumption of homogeneity of covariances is
violated. However, Table III shows that the assumption is satisfied, the covariances are
homogeneous ( p ¼ 0.479).
The three family buying stages as shown in Table IV are Initiation Stage (S1), Search
& Evaluation Stage (S2) and Final Decision Stage (S3). As shown in Table IV, significant
differences were found in the mean values of all the three product clusters across the
different buying stages. The children’s influence levels for the three product clusters and
across the different buying stages are discussed below.

Children’s influence on Loud Goods

As can be seen from Table IV, children have comparatively less influence (mean ¼ 1.68) in
case of loud goods. Loud goods are used by the whole family and their purchase involves all
the family members.
Mangleburg (1990) stated that as children have limited financial resources, children have
less influence on the products related to financial terms, or entire family usage (television,
refrigerator, car etc). Parents are considered as reliable sources for information as they have
more knowledge and experience (Jain and Bhatt, 2004). According to Jain and Bhatt (2004),
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

younger children lack the ability to make decisions for family or household purchases like a
refrigerator or a microwave, due to which parents take decisions without their consultation.
Children have not been observed to have a large impact on instrumental decisions such as
how much to spend (Verma, 1982), but rather play a role making expressive decisions such
as color, model, brand, shape, and time of purchase (Sen Gupta and Verma, 2000;
Synovate, 2004) as validated in the West as well (Kaur and Singh, 2006).
As most of the children in India get limited pocket money to spend for their outings with
friends, cousins and others, they are not able to pay for expensive products like a mobile
phone or any other gadget. Most of the children do not work when they are in school and
hence, they rely on their parents for pocket money. Desai (2008) observed that Indian
children were able to purchase food items, clothes on their own as they were inexpensive but
for any electronic gadget or an expensive product category, they would take their parents

Table III Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices

Box’s M 11.683

F 0.966
df1 12.000
df2 1320499.385
Sig. 0.479

Table IV Comparisons of children’s influence across various product clusters and in different stages of family buying
process
S1 (n ¼ 175) S2 (n ¼ 175) S3 (n ¼ 175)
Mean diff. Mean diff. Mean diff. Mean score of
Product clusters Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD S1 v/s S2 S1 v/s S3 S2 v/s S3 F-value product clusters

Loud Goods 1.76 0.41 1.62 0.49 1.65 0.50 0.147* 0.117* 0.03 NS 4.852** 1.68
Noisy Goods 2.20 0.46 2.02 0.49 2.12 0.48 0.180* 0.079 0.101* 6.253** 2.11
Quiet Goods 1.50 0.54 1.49 0.51 1.63 0.58 0.013 0.128* 0.141* 3.598* 1.54
Mean score of
family buying
stages 1.82 – 1.71 – 1.80 – – – – –

Notes: *significant at 0.05 level; **significant at 0.01 level; NS= not significant

j j
PAGE 168 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012
 along with them, due to their parent’s financial power. Children living in Western countries are
more independent compared to Indian children. Most of the children living in the West work
part-time to earn their pocket money. The pocket money thus earned allows them to
purchase products they desire. But for expensive products they also have to rely on their
parents, especially children who are under ten years (Desai, 2008).
With respect to the child’s influence across different stages of the buying process, findings
show that there is a significantly high difference at 0.01 levels in mean and standard
deviation values, with F value of 4.852. As can be seen from Table IV, there are significant
differences between S1 vs S2 and S1 vs S3, but no significant difference has been found
between S2 vs S3. Children have the highest influence in the initiation stage (S1) for loud
goods (mean ¼ 1.76), followed by the final decision stage (S3) with a mean of 1.65 and the
least influence is in the search and evaluation stage (S2). Thus, hypothesis H2a is accepted.
Shoham and Dalakas (2005) found that children in the US and Israel showed similar
influence with the highest influence for suggesting the products and for giving importance to
the new products whereas they had the least influence with respect to price suggestion and
learning the best buy. According to Gotze et al. (2009), most children spent more time than
grown-ups discussing innovations like digital cameras, mobile phones, and sports
equipment. Along with their friends, they compared what they had and reflected on what was
new in the market, and they dedicated more interest to what it would be like if they had a
specific product, e.g. faster internet. A plausible explanation might be that being
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

knowledgeable about new products is important to impress peer-groups (Gotze et al. 2009).
Kapoor (2001) conducted research in Delhi where the children (initiator) first expressed the
need for personal computers and television but the final purchase was made after
consultation with other family members, mainly the husband. Children do not know how
much to spend (Belch et al., 1985; Jenkins, 1979), but they can make communicative
decisions such as model, colour, brand, shape and time of purchase (Belch et al., 1985;
Darley and Lim, 1986). Beatty and Talpade (1994) stated that children would make the
decision based on the pre-determined boundaries established by the parents like the parent
deciding on the model of the car and the child choosing the color.
Due to financial constraints children in India would always ask their parents before making
the final choice for loud goods. Children discussed various aspects of the product with their
parents and if they were able to persuade them to buy then the children would take them
along to buy the product. Generally in Indian families, the final decision for expensive
products like cars, mobile phones or any other electronics is made by the primary earning
member of the family, which is usually the husband together with consultation with his wife.

Children’s influence on Noisy Goods

The mean scores as shown in Table IV indicate that children have the highest influence in
purchase of noisy goods (mean ¼ 2.11). These are the products, which are directly used by
children and hence they are high involvement products. This is consistent with the findings of
other researchers. According to Mangleburg (1990), Jensen (1995) and Levy and Lee
(2004), children seem to have significant influence in product decisions for which they will be
the primary consumer, like breakfast cereals, snack foods, toys, children’s clothes and
school supplies. According to Desai (2008) children are mostly influenced by products,
which are used for their direct consumption. Clothes, food items, games (particularly
video-games) and mobile phones are the main categories. In the Western countries also,
children’s influence is maximal in purchase decisions like toys (Burns and Harrison, 1985);
children’s wear (Foxman and Tansuhaj, 1988); and cereals (Belch et al., 1985; Berey and
Pollay, 1968). Children also exert influence on the family’s decisions to eat out (Williams and
Veeck, 1998) and go to movies (Darley and Lim, 1986). Foxman et al. (1989) concluded that
children tend to have greater authority if the products are for their personal consumption and
are less expensive.
Regarding children’s influence across different stages of the buying process, findings show
significant differences at 0.01 levels in mean and standard deviation values, with F value of
6.253 as shown in Table IV. There are significant differences between S1 vs S2 and S2 vs S3,

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 169
 but not such a significant difference between S1 vs S3. Children have the highest influence
in the initiation stage for noisy goods (mean ¼ 2.20), moderate influence in the final decision
stage (mean ¼ 2.12) and least influence in the search and evaluation stage (mean ¼ 2.02).
Thus we can accept hypothesis H2b.
As the child is extremely interested in the purchase of noisy goods, he or she imparts the
maximum influence in initiating the purchase. Further, as noisy goods are inexpensive,
children are generally able to afford the same through their pocket money without even
consulting the parents and thus have high influence in the final decision stage. The least
influence of children in the search and evaluation stage can be attributed to the fact that
parents being protective and considerate about the child’s well-being, generally try to
evaluate the different alternatives before making the final purchase as in the case of eating
out, and consuming food and beverages. Indian parents being more value-conscious and
conservative as well, assess the different options available mainly for products like clothes
and movies.

Children’s influence on Quiet Goods

As can be seen from Table IV, quiet goods are least influenced by children (mean ¼ 1.54).
These goods are routine products and not very appealing to kids. Mangleburg (1990) stated
that the reason could possibly be the lack of children’s interest due to their low relevance and
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

hence they would not be interested in influencing such purchase decisions.

Regarding the child’s influence across different stages of the buying process, findings
shows significant differences at 0.01 levels in mean and standard deviation values, with
F value of 3.598. There are significant differences between; S2 vs S3 and S1 vs S3, but no
significant difference between S1 vs S2. Thus, the last hypothesis H2c is also accepted.
Children have the highest influence in the final decision stage for quiet goods (mean ¼ 1.63)
and low influence in the initiation stage (mean ¼ 1.50) and the search & evaluation stage
(mean ¼ 1.49). The results contradict previous research findings (Belch et al., 1985;
Moschis and Mitchell, 1986) where children’s influence is strong during problem recognition
and information search but declines during the decision stage for all the products. Children’s
low influence in the initiation stage could be attributed to the fact that quiet goods like
toothpaste, shampoo, grocery etc, are basic necessities and hence, will be purchased by
the family. Due to TV advertisements, peer-communication etc children may be inclined to
buy a particular brand of toothpaste or shampoo and hence the highest influence is shown in
the final decision stage for such products.

Overall children’s influence across various stages for all the products
As can be seen from Table IV, children exert the highest influence in the initiation stage,
followed by the final decision stage and the least influence is exerted in the search and
evaluation stage. The results contradict previous research findings (Belch et al., 1985;
Moschis and Mitchell, 1986; Chan and McNeal, 2003) where children’s influence is strong
during problem recognition and information search but declines during the decision stage
for all the products. This could be explained as Indian parents are more conservative and
thus keep a close eye on the products their children use and consume. Furthermore, being
protective and concerned for their children, they may not give in that easily to their requests
without checking all the options available. Although children persuade them to buy the
things that they want they try to evaluate the different options available in the market before
giving in to their children’s demands. For example, they will not say no to a new dress for their
12-year old daughter but they will be skeptical about buying a short mini skirt or low neck
tops. Similarly, they will not be against going out for a movie but will certainly not allow them
to watch movies containing adult content or vulgar language. This is also crucial from a
consumer welfare perspective, as many parents in a developing country like India cannot
afford to yield to all the requests of the child and hence try to figure out the best buy in terms
of money and value.

j j
PAGE 170 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012
 Conclusion
This research aimed to identify the different product clusters based on children’s influence
levels and to find the relative influence of the child on each product cluster. Furthermore, the
research also intended to find out the influence levels of children across the three buying
stages for each product cluster and test the proposed hypotheses. Three product clusters,
loud goods, noisy goods and quiet goods were identified according to the child’s influence
on different products. The findings of the study also revealed that children’s influence on
family buying is not limited to any product cluster though it varies for the different product
clusters. Children have a very strong influence in the purchase of noisy goods i.e. products
that they are highly involved in like clothes, shoes, beverages, etc. This is consistent with the
findings of most of the previous studies; Jenkins (1979), Belch et al. (1985), Foxman et al.
(1989), McNeal (1992), John (1999), Lee and Beatty (2002), Hansen et al. (2002), Guneri
et al. (2009), Flurry and Veeck (2009). It was also found that the children exerted less
influence on loud goods as compared to noisy goods. For products that involved significant
financial expenditure such as cars, TV, mobile phones, washing machines, computers and
vacations etc., parents would like to take major decisions and limit their child’s involvement
due to the financial risk associated with these decisions. This is in accordance with the
results seen in Jenkins (1979) and Martensen and Gronholdt (2008). Children exerted the
least influence on quiet goods.
As far as the findings related to the children’s influence across the three product clusters is
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

concerned, the results showed that the child’s influence in various stages vary according to
the product clusters. It is not the same for all the products contradicting some of the earlier
studies where they found that the child’s influence dominated in the first two stages of
decision making i.e. problem recognition and information search, but that this influence
decreased in the last stage (choice) of the purchase decision stages for all the products
(Belch et al., 1985; Moschis and Mitchell, 1986; Chan and McNeal, 2003; Wut and Chou,
2009, Beatty and Talpade, 1994). The findings of this study revealed that for loud goods and
noisy goods, children’s influence is highest in the initiation stage, diminishes significantly in
the search & evaluation stage and increases slightly in the decision making stage. The quiet
goods have a different analysis; children have highest influence in the final decision stage
and subsequently low influence in the initiation and search & evaluation stage. For all the
products, children’s influence is highest in the initiation phase with a mean of 1.82, which is in
line with the findings of other studies in different countries: Israel (Shoham and Dalakas,
2003), Hong Kong (Wut and Chou, 2009), Denmark (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008).

Managerial implications
For planning marketing strategies targeting tweens, it is vital to judge whether the product
category is one in which children might have influence (Bridges and Briesch, 2006). The
extent and nature of children’s influence in turn depends on who is the user, what is the
perceived importance of the product to the user (Beatty and Talpade, 1994; Foxman and
Tansuhaj, 1988) and what is the extent of children’s involvement in the purchase decision
(Sharma and Dasgupta, 2009).
The findings of this study confirm the observations of earlier studies done in the area of
children’s role in family decision making. According to the findings of the study, as the
children exert the maximum influence on the purchase of noisy goods, marketers should
focus more on advertisements and promotions centered on children for these goods. When
communication is aimed at young children, children are likely to be more influenced by
promotional activities than adults (Young, 2003) and hence marketers should focus on more
such activities. Marketers can design special promotion packages, such as combo offers on
meals like McDonald’s free toy on a happy meal offer, movie merchandise like T-shirts, caps,
lunch boxes and pencil boxes etc, and famous characters promoting a line of clothing.
Importance should be placed on associating the product with fun and joy, rather than on
providing factual product-related information (Seiter, 1993; Sharma and Dasgupta, 2009).
For loud goods, marketers should engage in promotion policies, which are going to make
the children aware and informed about the products, so that they can act as the initiators for

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 171
 these products. Loud goods like consumer durables are attractive for both parents as well
as children so the outlets for loud goods should be attractively located in shopping malls and
trendy commercial areas. This would allow all family members to actively participate in the
buying process. The marketers could show advertisements on cartoon and child-oriented
channels. For quiet goods, the marketers could engage in activities, which are going to
make their brand famous. For example, promotional activities in schools and through
dentists have made the toothpaste brand Colgate a hit amongst Indian kids.
Further, according to the findings of the study children have the least influence in the search
and evaluation stage for all the product clusters, making it clear that children and their
parents both work together in the family buying process. Therefore, marketers should target
both children and parents. They must address the needs of both parties and work to help to
resolve any conflict that may arise (Kaur and Singh, 2006). Marketers should also keep
parents at their focal point. They should advertise the products on different media,
particularly on television between the soap operas, which Indian mothers and housewives
watch avidly in the afternoon. Indian parents, like the Hong Kong parents studied by Wut and
Chou (2009) look around for value products. Marketers could have bulk packs with lower
pricing as a pricing strategy for family products like shampoo, wheat flour, etc. and food
items like Maggi noodles, potato chips, and carbonated drinks.
The current study could also be generalized to other economies, which are developing and
emerging like India. Academics and marketers would then both understand there may be
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

similar implications for countries with similar cultural perspectives to India’s. For example,
according to Hofstede’s (2001) study on cultural dimensions of different countries, ‘‘Power
distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions
(like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.’’ Cultures that
endorse low power distance expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or
democratic. India’s score on power distance is extremely high (77) as compared to the USA
(40), UK (35), Germany (35), Switzerland (34) and other European nations (Hofstede, 2001).
As Hofstede (2001) noted, parents treat their children as equals in low power-distance
cultures (USA) but expect obedience in high power-distance cultures like India (77),
Indonesia (78), Singapore (74), and Malaysia (104). Such differences affect the child’s
influence, which should be higher in the former compared to the latter. India is also highly
characterized by collectivism when compared to USA. In such a cultural setting, children are
expected to obey their parents more and praise their advice and directives. The evidence
from the findings that for all goods children have less influence in the search and the
evaluation stage would be consonant with that analysis. Though further studies are needed,
we can say that global marketers can use this information to plan and implement their
marketing strategies.

Limitations and future research

The study is limited on a few grounds. First, the sample of the study consists only from ten
schools in the NCR region in India and is limited to a sample size of 175. Therefore, the scope
of the study is limited to the sample size and the metropolitan cities. Future research could
include a broad range of factors that determine family decision making, including the effect
of demographic factors.

References
Ahuja, R.D. and Stinson, K.M. (1993), ‘‘Female headed single parent families: an exploratory study of
children’s influence in family decision making’’, in McAlister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 20, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 469-74.
Assael, H. (1987), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, Thomas Nelson, Melbourne.

Atkin, C.K. (1978), ‘‘Observation of parent-child interaction in supermarket decision-making’’, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 41-5.

j j
PAGE 172 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012
 Beatty, S.E. and Talpade, S. (1994), ‘‘Adolescent influence in family decision-making: a replication with
extension’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 332-41.
Belch, G.E., Belch, M.A. and Ceresino, G. (1985), ‘‘Parental and teenage child influences in family
decision making’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 163-76.
Belk, R.W., Bahn, K.D. and Mayer, R.N. (1982), ‘‘Developmental recognition of consumption
symbolism’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Berey, L.A. and Pollay, R. (1968), ‘‘The influencing role of child in family decision-making’’, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 70-2.
Bhushan, R. (2002), ‘‘When tots call the shots’’, available at: www.blonnet.com/catalyst/2002/05/09/
stories/2002050900050100.htm (accessed 2 November 2011).
Bridges, E. and Briesch, R. (2006), ‘‘The ‘nag factor’ and children’s product categories’’, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 157-87.
Burns, A.C. and Harrison, M.C. (1985), ‘‘Children’s self-perceptions of their participation in retail store
patronage decisions’’, in Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 12, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 79-91.
Caruana, A. and Vassallo, R. (2003), ‘‘Children’s perception of their influence over purchases: the role of
parental communication patterns’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Chan, K. and McNeal, J.U. (2003), ‘‘Parent-child communication about consumption and advertising in
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

China’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 317-34.

Commuri, S. and Gentry, J.W. (2000), ‘‘Opportunities for family research in marketing’’, Academy of
Marketing Science Review, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 1-26.
Darley, W.F. and Lim, J.S. (1986), ‘‘Family decision making in leisure time activities: an exploratory
investigation of the impact of locus of control, child age influence factor and parental type on perceived
child influence’’, in Lutz, R.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, UT, pp. 370-4.

Davis, H.L. and Rigaux, B.P. (1974), ‘‘Perception of marital roles in decision processes’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Dergisi, S.B. (2008), ‘‘Family influence on consumer home appliances purchasing behavior: an empirical
study in Kyrgyzstan’’, available at: http://yordam.manas.kg/ekitap/pdf/Manasdergi/sbd/sbd19/sbd-19-
05.pdf (assessed 26 November 2011).
Desai, T. (2008), ‘‘Children’s influence on family purchase decision in India’’, unpublished dissertation,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
Fan, Y. and Li, Y. (2009), ‘‘Children’s buying behavior in China’’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 170-87.
Flurry, L.A. and Veeck, A. (2009), ‘‘Children’s relative influence in family decision making in urban
China’’, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 145-259.

Foxall, G.R. (1977), Consumer Behaviour: A Practical Guide, RPA (Books), Corbridge.
Foxman, E.R. and Tansuhaj, P.S. (1988), ‘‘Adolescents’ and mothers’ perceptions of relative influence in
family decisions: patterns of agreement and disagreement’’, in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 15, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 449-53.

Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S. and Ekstrom, K.M. (1989), ‘‘Adolescents’ influence in family purchase
decisions: a socialization perspective’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-72.
Gotze, E., Prange, C. and Uhrovska, I. (2009), ‘‘Children’s impact on innovation decision making: a diary
study’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 1/2, pp. 264-95.

Guneri, B., Yurt, O., Kaplan, M.D. and Delen, M. (2009), ‘‘The influence of children on family purchasing
decisions in Turkey’’, Asian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 20-32.
Hansen, F., Halling, J. and Nielsen, J.C. (2002) in Hansen, F., Rasmussen, J., Martensen, A. and
Tufte, B. (Eds), Children: Consumption, Advertising and Media, Copenhagen Business School Press,
Copenhagen, p. 115.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 173
 Jain, P.C. and Bhatt, M. (2004), Consumer Behaviour in Indian Context, S. Chand, New Delhi.

Jenkins, R.L. (1979), ‘‘The influence of children in family decision making: parents’ perceptions’’,
in Wilkie, W.L. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, Association for Consumer Research,
Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 413-8.

Jensen, J.M. (1995), ‘‘Children’s purchase requests and parental responses: results from an exploratory
study in Denmark’’, European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp. 54-60.

John, D.R. (1999), ‘‘Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at 25 years of research’’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 183-213.

Kaiser, H.F. (1960), ‘‘The application of electronic computers to factor analysis’’, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 141-51.

Kapoor, S. (2001), ‘‘Family influence on purchase decisions: a study with reference to consumer
durables’’, unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Delhi, Delhi, India.

Kaur, P. and Singh, R. (2006), ‘‘Children in family purchase decision making in India and the West:
a review’’, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 10 No. 8, pp. 1-30.

Laerhoven, H.V., Zaag-Loonen, J.V.D. and Derkx, B.H.F. (2004), ‘‘A comparison of Likert scale and visual
analogue scales as response options in children’s questionnaires’’, Acta Paediatrica, Vol. 93 No. 6,
pp. 830-5.

Lee, C.K.C. and Beatty, S.E. (2002), ‘‘Family structure and influence in family decision-making’’, Journal
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-41.

Levy, D.S. and Lee, C.K.C. (2004), ‘‘The influence of family members on housing purchase decisions’’,
Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 320-38.

McKinsey Global Institute (2007), The Bird of Gold, The Rise of India’s Consumer Market, McKinsey
& Company, available at www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/india_consumer_market/index.asp
(accessed on 10 November 2011).

McNeal, J.U. (1992), Kids as Customers: A Handbook of Marketing to Children, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.

Mangleburg, T. (1990), ‘‘Children’s influence in purchase decisions: a review and critique’’,

in Goldberg, M.E., Gorn, G. and Pollay, R.W. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 813-25.

Martensen, A. and Gronholdt, L. (2008), ‘‘Children’s influence on family decision making’’, Innovative
Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 14-22.

Martı́nez, E. and Polo, Y. (1999), ‘‘Determining factors in family purchasing behaviour: an empirical
investigation’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 461-81.

Moschis, G.P. and Mitchell, L.G. (1986), ‘‘Television advertising and interpersonal influences on
teenagers’ participation in family consumption decisions’’, in Lutz, R.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 13, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 181-6.

Putman, M. and Davidson, W.R. (1987), Family Purchasing Behavior II: Family Roles by Product
Category, Management Horizons, Columbus, OH.

Ronner, B., Hunt, C. and Mallalieu, J.B. (2007), ‘‘Sibling effects on preteen children’s perceived influence
in purchase decisions’’, Young Consumers, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 231-43.

Royeen, C.B. (1985), ‘‘Adaptation of Likert scaling for use with children’’, Occupational Therapy Journal
of Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 59-69.

Rubin, A. and Babbie, E. (2005), Research Methods for Social Work, Thompson, Australia.

Seiter, E. (1993), Children and Parents in Consumer Culture, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
NJ.

Sen Gupta, S. and Verma, D.P.S. (2000), ‘‘We, not me. Who will buy?’’, Indian Management, Vol. 39 No. 5,
pp. 61-5.

Sharma, R.W. and Dasgupta, P. (2009), ‘‘Marketing to children: a planning framework’’, Young
Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 180-7.

j j
PAGE 174 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012
 Sheth, J.N. (1974), ‘‘A theory of family buying decisions’’, in Sheth, J.N. (Ed.), Models Of Buyer
Behaviour: Conceptual, Qualitative and Empirical, Harper & Row Publications, New York, NY.

Shoham, A. and Dalakas, V. (2003), ‘‘Family consumer decision-making in Israel: the role of teens and
parents’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 238-51.

Shoham, A. and Dalakas, V. (2005), ‘‘He said, she said . . . they said: parents’ and children’s assessment
of children’s influence on family consumption decisions’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 152-60.

Synovate (2004), ‘‘Global car purchase survey asks – do kids drive their parents?’’, available at www.
synovate.com/news/article/2004/05/global-car-purchase-survey-asks-do-kids-drive-their-parents.html
(accessed 20 November 2007).

Verma, K.P. (1982), ‘‘Marketing strategies for consumer durables: the case of a domestic refrigerator’’,
The Indian Journal of Commerce, Vol. 35 No. 4.

Ward, S. and Wackman, D.B. (1972), ‘‘Children’s purchasing influence attempts and parental yielding’’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 316-9.

Ward, S., Wackman, D.B. and Wartella, E. (1977), How Children Learn To Buy: The Development of
Consumer Information Processing Skills, Sage, London.

Webster, C. (1994), ‘‘Effects of Hispanic ethnic identification on marital roles in purchase decision
processes’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 319-31.
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

Williams, L.A. and Veeck, A. (1998), ‘‘An exploratory study of children’s purchase influence in urban
China’’, Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, pp. 13-19.

Wimalasiri, J.S. (2004), ‘‘A cross-national study on children’s purchasing behavior and parental
response’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 274-84.

Woodside, A.G. and Motes, W.H. (1979), ‘‘Perceptions of marital roles in consumer decision processes
for six products’’, in Beckwith, N. et al. (Eds), American Marketing Association Proceedings, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 214-9.

Wut, T.M. and Chou, T.J. (2009), ‘‘Children’s influences on family decision making in Hong Kong’’, Young
Consumers, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 146-56.

Young, B. (2003), ‘‘Does food advertising make children obese?’’, International Journal of Advertising
& Marketing to Children, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 19-26.

Corresponding author
Monica Chaudhary can be contacted at: monicarana@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 2 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 175
 This article has been cited by:

1. Carly Nichols. 2017. Millets, milk and maggi: contested processes of the nutrition transition in rural India. Agriculture and
Human Values 108. . [Crossref]
2. AshrafMaria, Maria Ashraf, KhanKaleem Mohammad, Kaleem Mohammad Khan. 2016. Adolescents’ role in family decision-
making for services in India. Young Consumers 17:4, 388-403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Usha Lenka, Vandana. 2016. Direct and Indirect Influence of Interpersonal and Environmental Agents on Materialism in
Children. Psychological Studies 61:1, 55-66. [Crossref]
4. Usha Lenka, Vandana. 2015. A Review on Impact of Socialization Agents in Breeding Consumerism among Children. Global
Business Review 16:5, 867-878. [Crossref]
5. Brigitte de Faultrier, Jacques Boulay, Florence Feenstra, Laurent Muzellec. 2014. Defining a retailer’s channel strategy applied
to young consumers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 42:11/12, 953-973. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
6. Neena Sondhi, Rituparna Basu. 2014. Role of children in family purchase across Indian parental clusters. Young Consumers
15:4, 365-379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Rituparna Basu, Neena Sondhi. 2014. Child socialization practices: Implications for retailers in emerging markets. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services 21:5, 797-803. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Monash University At 10:19 17 September 2017 (PT)

8. Vakil Singh, Sanjeev Kumar. 2014. Impact of Socio-economic Variables on Teenagers? Influence in Family Buying Decisions.
Management and Labour Studies 39:3, 349-364. [Crossref]
9. Adya Sharma. Exploring the Changing Role of Children as Consumers in India: 283-310. [Crossref]