The influence of children and adolescents on the purchase of

their parents'.
Laczniak and Palan (2004) report that children average a purchase-influence
attempt every two minutes when shopping with their parents!
Children have come to constitute a very important consumer group that influences
family purchases of various products in many ways. Thus, recognising children as a
primary market, an influencing market, and a future market, children today are seen
as different from past generations. Theyve grown up faster, are more connected,
more direct and more informed. They have more personal power, more money,
influence and attention than any other generation before them.
Childrens and adolescents roles in family decision-making have begun to increase
for a number of reasons, including the growth in time poor families, which consist
of both parents working, and the large increase in single-parent families who have
allowed their children to exert a greater level of influence in place of the missing
parent. Often families actively encourage their childs participation within the family
decision-making unit.
McNeal (1999) identified several sources of power for child consumers including:
their own purchasing power (primary influence); and their power over parents'
purchasing behaviour (secondary influence) which is believed to have grown
substantially over the last decade.
Cross (2002) claims the overt commercial targeting of children occurred in the
middle of the twentieth century. Simultaneously, consumer culture began to blur
the line between childlike adults and sophisticated children in major markets such
as games, music and fashion. Due to childrens lack of finances or the social ability
to make transactions, they must engage in negotiations with their parents in order
to acquire the desired goods. Typically these desired products include food and toys,
however in this study the focus does not lie with the products requested but the
purchase request process itself.
As stated by Quinn, this notion of pestering is further complicated by the fact that
children are dependent on parents when purchasing most goods and products and
parents interpret their children as pestering particularly at young ages, when
childrens speech is less articulate. Repetitive asking until it is given is often
childrens only way of expressing their desires. McNeal reported that as children
mature their request repertoires increase and they may ask for products by name,
beg, scream or whine to get what they want.
Pilgrim and Lawrence (2001) concur their childrens inability to communicate leads
them to resort to tantrums and screaming as the only options open to them.
Indeed it has been clearly documented that children have a repertoire of request
strategies available to them.
In terms of advertising, children are very susceptible to advertising, for example
McDonalds child menu comes with one of several cartoon films characters which
children are encouraged to collect. Children are targeted directly with messages of
what products to buy, which will influence them to pester their parents when
shopping. Quinn (2002, p. 12) best sums up the debate it involves not merely
protection of children but also the notion of commercial communication and how to
1

control advertisers so that they hit their predetermined target in a fair and
consistent fashion. One must therefore question if the focus of much of the debate,
namely television advertising, is misguided, resulting in what is tantamount to a
pointless debate between the vested interest parties?
According to Bjurstrom (1994, p. 45) answers to this question include categorical
denials that children are influenced by advertising and some doubt. Bjurstrom
(1994, p. 22) also states in many cases both those who defend and criticise
advertising agree that advertising influences us, while disagreeing about the extent
to which this influence is positive or negative. Those in favour of advertising
highlight its positive effects for the economy, while its opponents maintain that it
makes us purchase unnecessary items or conveys and reinforces unacceptable
standards and values. Bjurstrom (1994) concluded that research into advertising
provides only ambiguous answers regarding questions about the influence or effects
of advertising, findings similar to Salmark (2002).
Most research shows that whereas young children influence purchases by simply
asking, adolescents may use different strategies to influence their parents
decision-making. Palan and Wilkes (1997) found that adolescents use strategies like
bargaining, persuasion or emotional strategies in addition to direct requests.
In fact, consumer socialisation is an important aspect in the study of consumer
behaviour and decision-making by children. Cowell (2001) identified four main
socialising agents that directly impact on a childs consumer socialisation process,
these being parents, schools, peers and television. The first two impact upon the
childs educational development and the last two impact through social interaction.
Parental styles have been examined as part of consumer socialisation, most notably
by Carlson and Grossbart (1988) and Neeley and Coffey (2004). Nonetheless, Hill
and Tisdall (1997, p. 78) stated fortunately most parents, regardless of their
parental styles, adopt approaches which combine rules, guidance, flexibility and
negotiation.
Hahlo (1999), as cited in Geuens et al. (2003), stated that children of single parents
frequently have to take over or help with adult tasks. This was supported by Ahuja
(1989), who claimed that adolescents from single-parent families took a greater part
in consumption decisions.
Agac and Harmankaya states that a rapid increase in the number of working
mothers has also significantly influenced the childs personality and the attitude of
mothers to their children. Todays children encourage their mothers to work because
of money, prestige, and status expectations. Studies show that working mothers
think that they are not caring their children enough so as a result of feeling of guilt,
they tend to tolerate their childrens misbehaviours. These mothers have been
compensating their absence at home and have less dialogue with their children. As
it is shown by child market research, 92 percent of 1,000 childrens mothers stated
that they could not say no to their children. Parents who believe that they do not
spend enough time with their children feel guilty and try to compensate for it by
giving and spending more money for their children.
Goldberg and Gorn (1978) concluded that fathers had very little influence in family
decision making, particularly between parent-child purchase interactions, but that
was 30 years ago when parenting was predominantly the mothers domain. Palan
2

and Wilkes (1997) employed a triad of adolescent-mother-father following the

recommendation of Bell (1968) that parent child-relationships be examined bilaterally.
Powell et al. (2011) also considered the inclusion of both parents and children in the
same study as an important facilitator of broadened analysis and deeper
understanding of a topic. However, Powell et al. (2011) do not categorically state if
by parents they too included fathers. Taking into account changes in society and
families, it was deemed imperative that fathers must to be included for the purpose
of this study. Contemporary parenting, dictates a sharing of all parental duties;
fathers are now more actively involved in their childrens upbringing and
communicate with their children more than previous It would be remiss not to tap
into their experiences of parent-child purchase interactions, if one is indeed to
examine this process from a consumer perspective.
Mcleod and OKeefe (1972) found that socio- and concept-orientation were
determinants of family communication patterns. This is further supported by
Caruana and Vassallo (2003), who state that socio and concept-orientation are two
principal parental communication styles that can affect the perceived influence a
child believes it has.
Sheth states that children rely on their parents both for buying and paying for
products they desire so the parents income can be a critical factor when purchasing
a product. There has also been a shift from a one income to a two-income model. In
families where both parents are working, it can be said that parents are time poor,
and therefore have less time to spend with their children. Geuens et al. (2003) state
that overcompensation is often observed within the two-income model; hence the
belief that children have more decision-making influence, therefore higher conceptorientation and lower socio-orientation.
Family demographics such as household income, parents educational levels are
associated with the childrens influence on the family purchasing decisions. Jenkins
(1979) reports that the childrens influence on the family purchasing decisions is
much more intensive in families with high income levels. Similarly, Tansujah et al.
(1991) has shown that the higher the income of the family, the more influential is
the role of children to select the restaurant where they will eat. Beatty and Talpade
(1994) verify that in the case where both parents are working the child exerts
intensive influence on the purchase of durable products.
Once children enter school they are increasingly influenced by peers as supported
by Harper et al. (2003) who state that the concept of affiliation is relevant in that
the affiliation need suggests that behaviour is highly influenced by the desire of
friendship, for acceptance and belonging. Thus, parents are subject to their
childrens excessive demands for the same type of products, which may result in
conflict. In this case, parents either can be influenced and surrender to their
childrens requests for food they prefer or can try to resolve the conflict by
exercising the power they have over their children. Peer interaction can provide the
child with non-rational sources of consumer socialisation. Peers can influence
children in ways that a parent may not be able to; this is due to the desire to be
accepted as a member of their sub-culture. Robinson (1997) states that children
adjust the way that they act and perceive the world around them, in accordance
with their peer group.
3

Television can also educate children to request products, by making them aware of
what products are available. Spungin (2004), states that by advertising to children,
companies are encouraging the child to nag their parents into buying something.
Interaction between parent and child is also important as children, especially
younger children, exert pester power on their parents about which product to buy.
Ekstrom (1995, p. 24) defines the concept of influence in family decision-making as
a change in a persons dispositions, as a result of interaction between parents and
children. In her definition of influence, Gronhoj (2002) talks about a competence
enabling the achievement of specific results. What is interesting in these definitions
is that influence means making a person change his or her decisions via, for
example, interaction or direct confrontation.
Childrens influence depends also on the decision-process stage. They exert the
most influence at the problem recognition stage than on subsequent phases, such
as decision-making. Moreover, influence differs by sub-decision type (purchase
location, amount spent, product selection criteria and purchase timing). Childrens
influence on amounts spent and on purchase location is lower than on other subdecision types and is highest for product attribute decisions. Other factors affecting
childrens influence relate to demographic variables and childrens age.
Previous research on childrens influence in family decision-making has used various
perspectives. The earliest studies focussed on decision dominance and
consequently on who made the final decisions. Later studies recognised the
importance of seeing decision influence as a matter of degree and not an issue of
who has the ultimate say. For instance, Belch et al. (1985) and Lee and Beatty
(2002) measured influence distributed on various decision stages and found
childrens influence to vary across stages. Belch et al. (1985) found that children
gained most influence in the initiation stage. Lee and Beatty (2002) found that
children gained most influence in the choice stage. One explanation of this may be
differences in methodologies and time.
McArthurs (1992) study revealed that, half of the teenagers surveyed helped in the
selection of some brands, and 14 percent contributed to the decision for most
brands, and 13 percent had a say in the choice of every brand.
Sometimes, through packaging, marketers look to market childrens products to
parents. Other times they look to bypass parents and communicate with children
directly, making them the influencers and advocates of their product and thus
influencing their parents purchasing decisions. Kelly et al. (2006) found that
parents found it increasingly difficult to deny their children food products that were
licensed by their favourite characters or celebrities. The marketing of food products
to children is thought to be one of the factors that can activate the pester power.
Nicholls and Cullen (2004) identified three product categories that are of interest to
children where they would try to influence purchase through pester power, namely
clothing, toys and food. They felt that the most stressful environment for a parent
and child to enter is a supermarket because the child is most likely to be there as an
unavoidable companion rather than as a pre-selected choice-maker and all
products are displayed and readily available for the child to see.
Studies have also measured childrens influence distributed on more specific
decision areas such as product type, colour, brand, price and shop. These studies
found that childrens influence varied across decision areas in the decision process.
4

Children have most influence as regards product type, colour and brand. Also,
influence seems to vary across product categories. Findings showed that children
gain most influence when it comes to products for their own consumption. In
general, food is a product category where children seem to exert much influence
and often children prefer sweet food products.
Morales (2000) estimated that 34 percent of sales in the food category are driven
by children nagging. McNeal (1992), cited in Nicholls and Cullen (2004) suggested
that children make an average of 15 purchase requests on a given shopping trip; he
estimated that between 40 percent and 80 percent of these requests were granted.
Foxman et al. (1989a), in their US study, observed adolescent influence factors by
acquiring responses from adolescents and their parents to single-item influence
questions for 14 diverse products. They found that mothers, fathers and children all
rated children as having some level of influence in purchase decisions. It was found
that children tended to have more influence in the purchasing of less expensive
products and those for their own use.
Hence Beatty and Talpade (1994) replicated some of Foxman et al.s (1989a) study
in order to resolve several measurement problems and extend the work by looking
at parental employment status as well as examining gender-based differences. Their
research found that product importance and usage gave the most consistent
reasons as to why adolescents perceived they had influence in family decisionmaking.
Belch et al.(1985), felt that the number of studies previous to theirs that actually
examined the family as a decision-making unit was rather limited; this is supported
by Davis and Rigaux (1974), who noted in their review that studies of family
decision-making have in reality been about husbandwife decision-making.
Therefore they looked not only at the influence of husband and wife, but also the
adolescent, hence allowing the authors to compare the views of each respondent in
assessing family member influence. This study found that the influence of the
adolescent varied by product class and by decision stage. The adolescents
influence was greatest for products they were more involved with and/or directly
affected by, such as holidays and cereal brands.
Miller (1975) asserts that parents and children share continuity in terms of
unfulfilled plans and consumer behaviour. Rusts (1993) study observed parents and
children shopping together to find out how their in-store behaviour varied with the
age of the child. Moore-Shay and Lutzs (1988) study examined the relation between
family communication patterns and mothers marketplace motivations, attitudes
and behaviours.
McNeal and Yeh examined the consumer behaviour of Chinese families in 1995 and
again in 2002. Their studies provided interesting insight regarding childrens
influence on family decisions. Independent of their age, Chinese children had
notable influence on parental purchases of most household products. Another
interesting finding was the increasing influence on family purchases by Chinese
girls, who, as the authors recognize, traditionally have been considered much less
important in the family than boys. Research on childrens influence has focused on
different aspects. For example, some have examined related phenomena, such as
parents socialization styles and their impact on frequency of shopping with kids.
Rose (1999) documented the impact of parental styles and socialization on
5

numerous outcomes, such as developmental timetables and childrens influence on

family decision making.
Lee and Collins (2000) stated that gender of the child has influence on the
purchasing decisions of the family. Yeh and McNeal (1997) investigated the
influence of Chinese children on the purchasing decision of their families and found
that in 21 products the influence of boys and girls was equal. AlsoWang et al. (2007)
found no gender effect in child influence across all stages of family purchasing
decisions. Other research showed that parents socialized their sons and daughters
equally in regard to the amount of time spent with them, as well as in discipline and
communication
According to Guneysu and Bilir, studies show that as the number of children in a
family increases the parents attitudes to their children become more restrictive,
authoritative and punishing because of shared care among children. Children in
families with one or two children gain consumer capabilities earlier and they have
more intensive communication on consumption and purchasing decision making
with their families than do children in families with more children.
Despite the above claims, it is to be noted that children and adolescents may
pester, but parents have the power. According to a survey, some 81% of parents
said they would check out the product before deciding to buy; 48% would look at
the nutritional value and 33% the cost. Only 14% of those questioned said they
agreed to let their children try a new product without vetting it. The parents within
the sample had a good understanding of marketing and promotional packaging and
passed their views on to their children. Those interviewed were not passive
recipients of advertising messages, and were keen to educate their children about
advertising.
Parents do have reservations about advertising to children: 84% in the survey said
advertising manipulates children, but at the same time they accept it as a fact of
life in a consumer society. Parents recognise their own responsibility to educate
their children. In fact, 96% of parents agreed with the statement Its up to parents
to explain that children cant have everything they see advertised. It is a parents
role to explain to a child the difference between want and need. In the words of
one mother, They may want junk food. Its up to me to see they get the good food
they need. Despite all the talk of pester power, it is still parents who are in control
of a familys diet. What parents do want is quality information on helping their
families live a healthy lifestyle and the freedom to make their own choices.
Solomon stated that parents can be influenced and surrender to their childrens
requests for food that they prefer or the parents can try to resolve the conflict by
exercising the power they have of all the socialisation agents, parental influence is
the most pervasive and important. According to Ward et al. (1977) parents can
influence the consumer socialisation process of their children in several ways. First,
children observe the consumption behaviour of their parents; they hear their
parents discuss expenses and see which products are bought and used. Therefore
parents are acting as role models for their children. Second, there is an interaction
between the parent and child, in terms of communicating what products to
purchase. Parents influence the degree to which a child achieves consumer
knowledge through the type, quantity and quality of consumer experiences and
information they share with the child over their children. Role structures appear to
be used to justify the use of power, for example, a mother may use her established
6

role to point out that she is the one who deals with the provision of food; therefore
she will dominate such a decision.
Carlson and Grossbart (1988) identify two strategies that parents use to influence
their children: direct instrumental training and modelling. The former occurs when a
parent specifically and directly attempts to bring about certain responses through
reasoning and reinforcement. The latter occurs when a child learns
appropriate/inappropriate consumption behaviours by observing parents.
Children acknowledge the power and authority of their parents and they learn
through experience or trial and error that certain tactics can and will persuade their
parents to comply with their requests.
Belch et al. (1985) found that as the responsibility for shopping and purchasing of
most household products lay with the parents, this explained why they were the
most dominant. Their findings supported much of the earlier family decision-making
research. As expected, the childs influence was minimal for most of the major
purchase decisions.
A great degree of controversy surrounds the issue on whether children and
adolescents have an influence on their parents' purchase. We believe that parents
seem to be losing control of the act of purchasing to their children, as is supported
by Schor (2006) who states that parents are finding it increasingly difficult to deny
children due to advertising and marketing. We therefore support the facts that
children affect their families for everything which is the part of their lives. This
influence covers a broad spectrum of decisions ranging from which food stuff to buy
in the market to which computer or car to buy, which film to see or which restaurant
to eat.
Regardless, children have some influence, but ultimately rely on parents to make
the final purchase, suggesting parents have ultimate power.

List of articles used as reference:

1. Jayantha S. Wimalasiri, (2004),"A cross#national study on children's purchasing behavior and parental
response", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 274 - 284
2. Maria Kmpel Nrgaard Karen Bruns Pia Haudrup Christensen Miguel Romero Mikkelsen,
(2007),"Children's influence on and participation in the family decision process during food buying",
Young Consumers, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 197 - 216
3. Aviv Shoham Vassilis Dalakas, (2006),"How our adolescent children influence us as parents to yield to
their purchase requests",Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 Iss 6 pp. 344 - 350
4. Ike-Elechi Ogba Rebecca Johnson, (2010),"How packaging affects the product preferences of children
and the buyer behaviour of their parents in the food industry", Young Consumers, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp. 77 - 89
5. F. Bahar Isin Sanem Alkibay, (2011),"Influence of children on purchasing decisions of well#to#do
families", Young Consumers, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp. 39 - 52
6. Pat Spungin, (2004),"Parent power, not pester power", Young Consumers, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 37 - 40

7. Jason J. Turner James Kelly Kirsty McKenna, (2006),"Food for thought: parents' perspectives of child
influence", British Food Journal, Vol. 108 Iss 3 pp. 181 - 191
8. Albert Caruana Rosella Vassallo, (2003),"Childrens perception of their influence over purchases: the
role of parental communication patterns", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 Iss 1 pp. 55 - 66
9. Joseph Z. Wisenblit Randi Priluck Stephen F. Pirog, (2013),"The influence of parental styles on
children's consumption", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 4 pp. 320 - 327
10. Hiral Chavda Martin Haley Chris Dunn, (2005),"Adolescents influence on family decision#making",
Young Consumers, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 68 - 78
11. Joanne Procter Martyn Richards, (2002),"Word#of#mouth marketing : beyond pester power", Young
Consumers, Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 3 - 11
12. Neena Sondhi Rituparna Basu , (2014),"Role of Children in Family Purchase across Indian Parental
Clusters", Young Consumers, Vol. 15 Iss 4 pp. 13. Cathriona Nash Serge Basini, (2012),"Pester power: it's all in the game", Young Consumers, Vol. 13
Iss 3 pp. 267 - 283
14. Daniel Thomas Cook, (2009),"Knowing the child consumer: historical and conceptual insights on
qualitative children's consumer research", Young Consumers, Vol. 10 Iss 4 pp. 269 - 282
15. Maggie Geuens Patrick De Pelsmacker Gitte Mast, (2003),"How family structure affects parent # child
communication about consumption", Young Consumers, Vol. 4 Iss 2 pp. 57 - 62