Development of a Scale to Measure Teenager Influence on Family Purchase Decisions

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mmtp20

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

ISSN: 1069-6679 (Print) 1944-7175 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmtp20

Development of a Multi-Item Scale to Measure Teenager Influence on Family Purchase Decisions:

An Exploratory Study

Salil Talpade & Medha Trilokekar-Talpade

To cite this article: Salil Talpade & Medha Trilokekar-Talpade (1995) Development of a Multi- Item Scale to Measure Teenager Influence on Family Purchase Decisions: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3:4, 41-57, DOI: 10.1080/10696679.1995.11501705 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1995.11501705

Published online: 21 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

(2)

DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTI-ITEM SCALE TO MEASURE TEENAGER INFLUENCE ON

FAMILY PURCHASE DECISIONS: AN

EXPLORATORY STUDY

Salil Talpade West Georgia College

Medha Trilokekar-Talpade Dalton College

The purpose of this study was to resolve two major conceptual and methodological problems in the literature on teenager influence in family purchase decisions by: (I) fully conceptualizing teenager influence on family purchases; and (2) developing a valid and reliable multi-item scale to measure such influence. Systematic scale development procedures were conducted, based on responses from two samples, 383 teenagers, and 120 mothers of these teenagers. Incoming freshmen students at a major university were the sampling frame for the teenagers, ninety-six percent of these respondents were therefore between 17 -18 years of age. The data gathering instrument was a written questionnaire. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (LISREL) were used in developing the scale and in investigating the respondents' perceptual dimensions. The final scale consists of nine items measuring two perceived decision stages 'initiation' (5-items) and 'search/decision' (4-items), rather than the three stages of 'initiation','search/evaluation', and 'fmal decision', mentioned in the literature and included in most previous studies. This finding, which needs to be further investigated, would seem to indicate that either the respondents do not conceptually differentiate between the search/evaluation stage and the fmal decision stage, or that these stages occur simultaneously for many of these product decisions. The implications of this finding on family purchase decision making research and on marketing strategies are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The increase in the amount of teenager influence on family decision making, in recent years, has been documented by several market research agencies (e.g., Teenage Research Unlimited--in Marketing News 1987; and Lester Ran~

Inc.--in Sellers 1989). Marketers too are designing promotional campaigns and products aimed at teenagers (e.g., Polaroid has developed the 'Cool Cam' with teenagers in mind, and Seven-up and Heinz have specific commercials aimed at teenagers).

In contrast, there has been very little academic research focusing on the role of children and teenagers in family purchase decisions. Most studies have been extensions of earlier studies on the relative influence of husbands and wives (Davis 1976; Davis and Rigaux 1974), with the child included as an additional influence (e.g., Darley and Lim 1986; Filiatrault and Ritchie 1980; Nelson 1979; Szybillo and Sosanie 1977). A few recent studies have focused more on teenagers (Belch, Belch and Cere sino 1985; Foxman, Tansuhaj, and Ekstrom 1989a and 1989b).

Fall 1995 41

(3)

Several conceptual and methodological problems have been identified in this area, including a lack of conceptualization of 'influence' in the purchase decision, and the use of single-item scales to measure such influence with little or no assessment of their reliability or validity (Rossiter 1978;

Mangleburg 1989).

This study addresses these two issues by first fully conceptualizing relative influence in family purchase decisions, and then systematically developing a multi-item scale to measure the perceived relative influence of the teenager at different stages of the decision process.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A majority of the studies in this area have examined relative influence of husband, wives, and children on several product categories, in terms of decision stages and subdecisions (e.g., Berey and Pollay 1968; Szybillo and Sosanie 1977; Atkin 1978; Nelson 1979; Filiatrault and Ritchie 1980; Roberts, Wortzel, and Berkeley 1981; Belch, Belch, and Ceresino 1985).

Relative influence has generally been measured in terms of responses to questions (single-items) on decision stages (typically - initiation, search/evaluation, and final decision), and subdecisions (e.g., price, brand, size, color etc.).

Respondents were asked to indicate relative influence either on a constant sum scale (e.g., Jenkins 1979) or an ordinal scale with each number representing a specific combination of influence (e.g., Belch, Belch, and Ceresino 1985;

Szybillo and Sosanie 1977; Nelson 1979). Only one study Foxman, Tansuhaj, and Ekstrom (1989) used a 7-item general influence scale (no products were specified) to measure the child's influence. None of these studies (except Foxman, Tanshuhaj, and Ekstrom, 1989) report the reliability or validity (in any form) of the single-item scales used. Primary respondents in most studies were one or both parents, although some recent studies have included children (e.g., Belch, Belch, and Ceresino 1985; Foxman, Tansuhaj, and Ekstrom 1989a and 1989b).

The unreliability and questionable validity of using single- item scales to measure any kind of latent construct has been widely acknowledged in the marketing literature (e.g., Jacoby 1978; Churchill 1979). Multi-item scales on the other hand, tend to vastly increase the reliability and validity of responses. They tend to decrease measurement error (with an increase in reliability), allow for fine distinctions between people, and tend to average out the specificity of the- items when they are combined. The development of a multi-item scale therefore is essential to the advancement of this area of family decision-making research.

42 Journal of Marketing -THEORY AND PRACTICE

CONCEPTUALIZATION

The family decision making process for the purchase of a durable product (e.g., a T.V. or a Stereo), theoretically (and as measured in most previous studies) has three basic stages - problem recognition (initiation), search for information and an evaluation of such information (search/evaluation), and the selection and purchase of the product (final decision). These stages are similar to that of an individual making a purchase decision. The major difference, in family decision making, is that at each of these stages more than one individual might have some influence (Hawkins, Best, and Coney 1992). Logically, such influence is most likely to be manifested in terms of certain acts or activities engaged in by the family member (e.g., gathering information about alternatives, or evaluating the alternatives).

The influence of a family member on a family purchase decision is therefore conceptualized in this paper as the extent to which he/she has engaged in various acts or activities which have contributed to each of the three stages (initiation, search/evaluation, and fmal decision) of the decision making process for a particular purchase.

SCALE DEVELOPMENT Pilot Study

Scale development procedures were conducted based on the stages outlined in Churchill (1979). First, a twenty-six item scale was generated based on our conceptualization, a review of items used in previous studies, and suggestions from two experts in this area. Each of the items specified certain acts and activities involved at each decision stage (initiation, search and evaluation, and final decision). Of the 26 items generated, seven items were specified for the idea generation stage, eleven items for search and evaluation, and eight items for the fmal decision stage.

A questionnaire including these items was then administered to 10 college students to test the comprehension and flow of the questionnaire. Influence was assessed by their responses to the amount of relative contribution they felt they made to the activities as compared to other family members on seven-point response scales, ranging from 'I did not contribute at all' to 'the entire contribution was mine'. After improving question wording, a pilot study was conducted on the 26 item scale. A sample of 46 college freshmen at a major southeastern university was used. For both samples, influence perceptions were measured for two kinds of durable items, one purchased for general family use and the other purchased specifically for the teenager.

(4)

Initiation Stage:

*

1.

*

2.

3.

*

4.

*

5.

6.

7.

TABLE 1

ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE PILOT STUDY

Bringing up the idea to buy the product.

Getting people to realize that this product was needed.

Initiating the purchase of the product.

Realizing that the product would be useful to have.

Getting others to start thinking about buying the product.

Thinking about all the different ways in which the product could be used.

Realizing all the different problems that the product would resolve.

Search and Evaluation Stage:

*

* *

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

II.

Deciding on which brands/models should be considered

Finding how the different brands/models performed on important features.

Deciding on which stores. to visit to look at different brands/models of this product.

Deciding on how much money should be spent on the product.

Visiting the stores. to look for different brands/models of the product.

Finding out the prices of different brands/models.

Comparing different brands/models.

Talking to friends and others about different brands/models of the product.

Figuring out which features were important for this product.

Gathering information from the stores. about different brands or models of the product.

Reading or listening to information about different brands/models of the product.

Final Decision Stage:

*

^1.

2.

Examining different brands/models of the product at the stores ..

Making the payment for the product at the store.

*

^3. Picking up the product from the store.

* *

*

4.

5.

6.

Deciding on the brand/model that was [mally purchased.

Deciding on which store to actually buy the product from.

Deciding on the size that was [mally purchased.

*

^7.

8.

Deciding on the price that was paid for the brand/model purchased.

Deciding on when to actually buy the product.

*

These items were retained for the main study.

Unlike most previous studies, we decided to focus here on durable products which· had been purchased recently, in order to ensure a high probability of accurate recall.

Towards this end, a list of durable products was first developed, based on previous studies (perrault and Russ 1971; Foxman, Tanshuhaj, and Ekstrom 1989a; Darley and Lim 1986; Marketing News 1987; Sellers 1989).

Before answering the questions on influence, the respondents indicated those products, from this list, which

had been purchased for family use and for their own use in the past school year. Next, they selected one product of each kind which was most recently purchased, and responded to two sets of influence questions based on these two purchase decisions.

The products selected most frequently both for family and teenager use were: television set, video cassette recorder, stereo system/component, telephone, answering machine, and furniture.

Fall 1995 43

(5)

Coefficient alphas were first calculated for each of the three dimensions (initiation, search, and final decision) for the family purchase - .95, .98, and .96; and for the teenager purchase - .93, .96, and .91. In both cases the indication was that the sample of items performed very well in capturing the construct.

Exploratory factor analysis, using principal axis with varimax rotation, was then conducted on the responses to the influence scales. This procedure produced two factors, rather than the expected three (initiation, search/evaluation, and final decision), for both types of purchase decisions.

The first factor was clearly influence at the initiation stage (the fIrst seven items from Table 1) while the second factor was a combination of influence at the search/evaluation stage and the fInal decision stage (including almost all of the items listed under search/evaluation and final decision stages in Table 1). The first factor (combination of items at the search/evaluation and fInal decision stages) accounted for 68.2% of the variance extracted for the family purchase and 54.1 % of the variance extracted for the teenager purchase; while the second factor (items for the initiation stage) accounted for 11.1 % of the variance extracted for the fmrily purchase and 12.1 % of the variance extracted for the teenager purchase. The indication, therefore, was that either the respondents did not conceptually differentiate between the search/evaluation stage and the final decision stage, or that these stages occurred simultaneously for many decisions. However, given that this was a pilot study with a small sample size, this initial finding was further investigated in the final analysis.

Several items, whose factor loadings were relatively low or which were loading equally well on the two factors, were dropped in order to provide increased parsimony. Deleted items either had factor loadings lower than .65 or had loadings of .45 or above on both the factors in either the family purchase or teenager purchase situations. The retained items are indicated with an asterix in Table 1. The resulting scales therefore were composed of 16 items, four items for initiation, six for search, and six for fInal decision.

These reduced scales yielded reliability coefficients of .94, .97, and .95 for each of the three stages of the decision process for the family purchase, and .94, .93, and .88 for the teenager purchase. Thus these preliminary scales had content and face validity, and reliability.

Main Study

A descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the frequency of products purchased in the past year. A shorter list of products was then developed, first by eliminating products which had a low frequency of selection (i.e., less

44 Journal a/Marketing -THEORY AND PRACTICE.

than four respondents had purchased these in the past year), and second by eliminating products which although purchased in the past year were just one of at least three other products purchased in the past year (i.e., the respondents would still be able to answer the questionnaire in terms of the other products purchased). Two of the product categories, stereo system and C.D. player, were collapsed into one category of stereo system/component.

The following products were included in the list for the final questionnaire: a television set, a video cassette recorder, a stereo system/component, a telephone, an answering machine, and furniture.

The main study was conducted on a random sample of 383 teenagers. Incoming freshmen students at a major southeastern university were the sampling frame. They were approached during the summer, at two orientation sessions, before their entry into college. Ninety-six percent of the respondents were 17-18 years of age.

The questionnaire asked respondents to fIrst indicate whether any of the products listed (television set, video cassette recorder, stereo system/component, telephone, answering machine, and furniture) were purchased in the past year. They were then asked to indicate which of these products was purchased most recently and to answer the influence questions in terms of this most recently purchased product If none of the products listed was purchased in the past year the respondents were asked to indicate whether any other major product had been purchased and then to answer the influence questions in terms of that product.

Respondents were required to go through this procedure for two purchase decisions -- once for a durable-family purchase and again for a durable-teenager purchase.

Teenager influence on these two types of purchase decisions was measured by asking respondents about their contribution, on each of the 16 items, as compared to other family members (Table 2). A 7-point response scale, similar to the one used in the pilot study, was used with scale values ranging from '0' - 'I did not contribute at all' to '7' - 'the entire contribution was mine'.

The teenagers were also requested to provide the names and addresses of their mothers so that similar questionnaires could be mailed to them. Two-hundred and forty-two students provided their mother's name and address. One- hundred and twenty mothers responded to the original or reminder mailings (a response rate of approximately 50%).

Mothers were asked to indicate the extent of their sons'/daughters' influence in the decision making for the two products selected by the teenagers.

(6)

The influence measures for the two purchase decisions, the family purchase and the teenager purchase, were first assessed for reliability with exploratory factor analysis (principal axis with a varimax rotation) and by the

calculation of coefficient alphas for each of the stages. The results of the factor analyses, for the teenager responses, are presented in Table 2 for each of the two purchase decisions.

TABLE 2

• .

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FOR THE FAMILY AND TEENAGER PURCHASES (MAIN STUDY-TEENAGER RESPONSES-16 ITEM SCALE)

Items Famil~ Purchase Teenager Purchase

Factor Loadings' Factor Loadings'

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2

Initiation Stage

Bringing up the idea. .31 .85 .88

Realize product need. .32 .89 .84

Product useful to have. .82 .84

Thinking about buying. .35 .84 .76

SearchlEvaluation Stage

Brand/models performance.

*

^.72 ^.42 ^.70 ^.41

Store(s) to visit.

*

.81 .35 .80 .32

Visiting the store(s). .84 .88

Finding out the prices.

*

.80 .36 .86

Information (stores).

*

.80 .35 .85

Information (reading \listening).

*

^.76 ^.40 ^.77 ^.31

Final Decision Stage

Examining at the store(s). .84 .83

Picking it up from the store. .77 .80

Deciding on final brand/model. .85 .86

Deciding on which store. .82 .88

Deciding on the size.

*

^.82 ^.73 ^.35

Deciding on the price.

*

^.75 ^.32 ^.83

Eigenvalue 10.6 1.57 10.07· 1.87

Percentage of Variance Extracted 66.3 9.8 62.9 11.7

- factor loadings below .30 do not appear in this table . - items deleted in the final score.

Fall 1995 45

(7)

Similar to the pilot study results, these results also indicate that a two-factor structure fits the data better than a three-factor structure for both purchase situations. The first factor is clearly initiation and the second factor is a combination of the search and [mal decision stages. As shown, the eigenvalues for both factors, for each of the two purchase situations, are greater than 1.00 with high explained variances. Both these figures lend support for the two-factor solution. The coefficient alphas for the two factors were high--.95 and .97 for the family purchase and .92 and .92 for the teenager purchase.

On the other hand, a similar principal axis analysis with varimax rotation and a specification of three factors generated factor loadings that were unclear on the second and third factors. The analysis indicated eigenvalues of 10.68, 1.61, and .56 for the family purchase and 10.09, 1.88, and .59 for the teenager purchase and explained variances of 66.7, 10.1, and 3.5 for the family purchase and 63.1, 11.8, and 3.7 for the teenager purchase. These results . indicated that the third factor contributed a negligible

amount to explaining the underlying factor structure.

Exploratory factor analyses conducted on the responses from the mothers, also generated very similar results, including a two-factor structure. The eigenvalues for both factors, for each of the two purchase situations, were greater than 1.00 with high explained variances, and the coefficient alphas for the two factors were high--.95 and .97 for the family purchase and .92 and .92 for the teenager purchase (Appendix A & B). These results therefore provided additional support for the two-factor structure and the reliability and validity of the scale.

In order to purify these scales and to provide a more parsimonious scale for future studies, several items were deleted. These items were those which loaded on both factors at .30 or above (in either of the factor analyses on the teenager responses) and whose deletion did not significantly lower the coefficient alpha. Deleted items belonged to the second factor (search and final decision combined). Items with an

'*'

in Table 2 were those deleted from the scales. The resulting scales for initiation and for the decision stage, which is a combination of the search and [mal decision stages, were composed of four items and five items respectively. These scales are shown in Table 3.

These reduced scales produced reliability coefficients of .95 and .94 for the family purchase and .92 and .95 for the teenager purchase, on the teenager responses, and .97 and .96 for the family purchase and .95 and .96 for the teenager purchase, on the mothers' responses. Factor analysis results, on the teenager responses, for the two products are presented in Table 4. These results, with eigenvalues for 46 Journal of Marketing -THEORY AND PRACTICE

TABLE 3

ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE FINAL SCALES Initiation Stage:

1. Bringing up the idea to buy the product.

2. Getting people to realize that this product was needed.

3. Realizing that the product would be useful to have.

4. Getting others to start thinking about buying the product.

Decision Stage:

1. Visiting the stores. to look for different brands/models of the product.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Examining different brands/models of the product at the stores ..

Picking up the product from the store.

Deciding on the brand/model that was finally purchased.

Deciding on which store to actually buy the product from.

both factors, for each of the two purchase situations, greater than 1.00 and high explained variances, confirm that the integrity of the scales was not compromised in any manner by the deletion of the seven items. Similar results were also generated by the factor analysis on the mother's responses (Appendix C & D).

Analysis of the responses indicated that teenagers had significantly greater influence on the teenager purchase (mean=3.33) than on the family purchase (mean=2.41).

They also had greater influence on the initiation stage rather than the search/decision stage on both teenager and family purchases. The greatest amount of influence was at the initiation stage of the teenager purchase (mean=3.83), with lower influences at the search/decision stage of the teenager purchase (mean=2.82), and the initiation (mean=2.92) and search/decision (mean 1.92) stages of the family purchase.

Mothers tended to attribute lesser influence to the teenagers

(8)

TABLE 4

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FOR THE FAMILY AND TEENAGER PURCHASES (TEENAGER RESPONSES-9 ITEM SCALE)

Items Family Purchase

Factor Loadings' Factor 1 Initiation Stage:

Bringing up the idea.

Realize product is needed. .30

Product useful to have.

Thinking about buying. .32

SearchlDecision Stage:

Visiting the store(s). .84

Examining at the store(s). .85

Picking up item from the store. .84 Deciding on final brand/model. .89

Deciding oli. which store. .85

Eigenvalue 5.92

Percentage of Variance Extracted 65.9

• - factor loadings below .30 do not appear in this table.

than they attributed to themselves for both family purchases (mean=1.71) and teenager purchases (mean=2.99).

Next, in order to further develop the scale and to examine the reliability and validity of the two-factor model, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the LISREL (linear structural relationships) methodology (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1981), on the teenager responses.

As shown in Table 5, an analysis for the family purchase, with the two-factor (9 item) model, yielded a chi-square value of 87.17 (p < .000) which indicated a poor fit. How ever in view of a greater than 200 sample size, the overall poor fit indicated by the Chi square was disregarded, particularly when the other indicators pointed to an overall good fit. The AGFI was .91, indicating a fairly good fit of

Teenager Purchase Factor Loadings'

Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2

.89 .90

.90 .86

.88 .88

.88 .82

.84

.31 .85

.87

.30 .91

.92

1.57 5.52 1.84

17.4 61.4 20.4

the specified two factor model with the data, and the maximum likelihood LISREL estimates were all above .80, indicating that the items loaded well onto the designated factors. The squared multiple correlations were all high (above .65), showing a large amount of shared variance between each item and the latent construct which it was supposed to measure (indicating a high degree of reliability and convergent validity). The highest modification index was 5.66, showing that there was a fairly low probability of improving the model with any modifications. And finally, the correlations for the error terms (theta delta matrix) were also low (the highest was .34), indicating very low systematic error variance, and discriminant validity from a third, independent construct. All these statistics, therefore, indicated a fairly good fit of the model with the data.

Fall 1995 47

(9)

TABLES

TWO FACTOR LISREL MEASUREMENT MODEL FOR THE FAMILY PURCHASE (TEENAGER RESPONSES)

Lisrel Estimates Factor Factor Item

Initiation Stage Bringing up the idea Realize product needed Product useful to have Thinking about buying

Decision Stage Visiting the store(s) Examining at the store (s) Picking up from the store Deciding on fmal brand/model Deciding on which store

Chi-Square = 87.17 (df = 26, P < .001) Adjusted Goodness of Fit-Index = .91

1 2

.91 .95 .87 .90

.84 .89 .81 .93 .87

As indicated in Table 6, the results for the analysis on the teenager purchase also had a chi-square value of 172.16, and a p-value of < .000 (indicating a poor fit). However, similar to the previous analysis, all the other indicators pointed to an overall good fit, a high adjusted goodness-of-fit statistic, high squared multiple correlations (above .65), and low modification indices (the highest was 12.40). Finally, the correlations in the matrix of the error terms (theta delta matrix) were also low (the highest was .35). Therefore, this analysis too indicated a good fit of the two-stage model (four items for initiation and five items for decision) with the data.

(Maximum Likelihood) Modification Indices Squared Multiple

Correlations 2

.83 0.00

.91 1.05

.75 1.65

.81 5.66

.71 0.23

.80 1.15

.66 1.54

.87 0.19

.76 0.00

On the other hand when similar analysis (LISREL) was conducted with a three-stage (16-item) model (for both purchase situations) the results indicated a poorer fit of the model with the data as compared to the two-stage model.

For the family purchase, the model yielded a higher chi-square value and a lower adjusted goodness-of-fit statistic. Further, there were a number of modification indices above five, the highest one being 55.66. Similarly, for the teenager purchase, this model (three factors) yielded a higher chi-square value and a lower adjusted goodness-of fit statistic. There were a number of modification indices above five, the highest one being 45.92 (Appendix E and F).

(10)

TABLE 6

TWO FACTOR LISREL MEASUREMENT MODEL FOR THE TEENAGER PURCHASE:

(TEENAGER RESPONSES)

Lisrel Estimates Item

Initiation Stage Bringing up the idea Realize product needed Product useful to have Thinking about buying

Decision Stage Visiting the store(s) Examining at the store (s) Picking up from the store Deciding on fmal brand/model Deciding on which store

Factor 1

.88 .88 .87 .81

Chi-Square = 172.16 (df = 26, P < .001) Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index

=

.85

Factor 2

.84 .87 .83 .94 .94

All the LISREL analyses, therefore, indicated that the two-stage model (with 9-items) was better than the three-stage model. Consequently, based on the results of all of the analyses conducted in this study, the two-stage 9-item scale was accepted as a more appropriate measure of teenager influence in family purchase decisions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The scale development process followed in this study was largely based on the method for developing better measures of marketing constructs specified by Churchill (1979). The scales were therefore subjected to several validity and reliability checks during the development process. Data was collected from two different samples (teenagers and their mothers), on two different kinds of purchases (family

(Maximum Likelihood) Squared Multiple

Correlations

.77 .77 .76 .65

.70 .76 .69 .88 .88

Modification Indices

3.90 12.40

5.68 0.00 5.69

2

7.03 6.69 1.71 2.75

product and teenager product), and the analyses and conclusions are based on findings from both sets of data.

Thus, the resulting scales possess a high degree of reliability and validity.

Based on the results of both the exploratory and the confirmatory factor analyses, the two-stage structure (initiation and decision stages) was shown to be more applicable than the three-stage structure (initiation, search and fmal decision), at least with this data set.

As mentioned previously, the fact that only two factors (stages) are evident, instead of the theoretically conceptualized three, indicates that either the respondents do not conceptually differentiate between the search/evaluation stage and the fmal decision stage, or that these stages occur Fall 1995 49

(11)

simultaneously for many of these product decisions.

Further, the items for the second factor (decision stage) seem to support the notion that the search/evaluation and the final decision occur simultaneously, possibly at the store where the product is purchased.

These conclusions also find some support in previous literature on purchase decision making. For example, Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) and Robertson (1971) both provide evidence that (when unstructured questionnaires are used) respondents do not conceptually differentiate between purchase decision stages. Granbois (1977), found evidence showing that, for many major purchases, consumers might not go through a great deal of search but might tend to visit one store, analyze one or two brands, and make the purchase. Olshavsky and Granbois (1979), go even further in suggesting that a substantial proportion of purchases might not involve any decision making.

Therefore, the fmdings of this study, including development of a multi-item scale as well as the possibility of a two stage decision structure, would have significant implications in terms of consumer behavior research and marketing strategy development. As a growing number of decisions are made by the household unit rather than by individuals (Hawkins, Best, and Coney 1992), and as the influence of teenagers (and children in general) increases, marketers need a reliable

and valid instrument which allows them to gain specific information on the amount and nature of relative influence.

Further, if in fact a large amount of the search/evaluation and the final decision is taking place simultaneously at the store (for these types of products), this would have to be taken into consideration in· developing any kind of promotional strategies. In addition to media advertising to develop brand awareness, positioning etc., a lot of emphasis would also have to be placed on in-store promotions like brochures, point-of-purchase displays, sales promotions, and shelf-space, as well as on training and incentive programs targeted at retail sales personnel. Retail distribution strategies would also require additional emphasis.

However, the scale and two factor model would have to be further investigated, in terms of younger teenagers, and teenagers living in different parts of the country (our sample only included entering freshmen at a southeastern university), different products/situations (especially higher involvement products like a car), and in terms of the perceived influence of other family members. The scales developed here, however, make a significant contribution to the field of research on family purchasing decisions.

Researchers now have a multi-item instrument, that initially appears to be both valid and reliable, which can be developed further and utilized in future studies.

REFERENCES

Atkin, Charles K. (1978), "ObseIVation of Parent-Child Interaction in Supennarket Decision-Making," Journal of Marketing, 42 (October), 41-45.

Belch, George, Micheal A. Belch, and Gayle Ceresino (1985), "Parental and Teenage Child Influences in Family Decision Making,"

Journal of Business Research, 13 (April), 163-176.

Berey,Lewis A. and Richard W. Pollay (1968), ''The Influencing Role of the Child in Family Decision Making," Journal of Marketing Research,5 (February), 70-72.

Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.

Darley, WilliamF. and Jeen-Su Lim (1986), "Family Decision Making in Leisure-Tune Activities: An Exploratory Investigation of the Impact of Locus of Control, Child Age Influence Factor and Parental Type on Perceived Child Influence," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, ed. Richard J. Lutz, Provo, UT:

Association for Consumer Research, 370-374.

Davis, Harry L. (1976), "Decision Making Within the Household,"

Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (March), 241-259.

50 Journal of Marketing -THEORY AND PRACTICE.

Davis, Harry L. and Benny P. Rigaux (1974), "Perceptions of Marital Roles in Decision Processes," Journal of Consumer Research,

I (June), 51-62.

Filiatrault, Pierre, and J.R. Brent Ritchie (1980), "Joint Purchasing Decisions: A Comparison of Influence Structure in Family and Couple Decision-Making Units," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (September), 131-140.

Foxman, E.R., Patriya S. Tansuhaj, and Karin M. Ekstrom (1989b),

"Family Members' Perceptions of adolescents' Influence in Family Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 482-491.

Foxman, E.R., Patriya

s.

Tansuhaj, and Karin M. Ekstrom (1989a),

"Adolescents' Influence in Family Purchase Decisions: A Socialization Perspective," Journal of Business Research, 18 (March), 159-172.

Granbois, Donald H. (1977), "Shopping Behavior and Preferences," in SeiectedAspects of Consumer Behavior-A Summary from the Perspective of Different Disciplines, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Govt. Printing Office, pp.259-98.

(12)

Hawkins, Del l., Roger J. Best, and Kenneth A. Coney (1992), Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing Strategies. Irwin, Boston, MA.

Jacoby, Jacob (1978), "Consumer Research: A State of the Art Review,"

Journal of Marketing, 42 (April), 87-96.

Jenkins, Roger L. (1979), "The Influence of Children in Family Decision-Making: Parents' Perceptions," In Advances In Consumer Research, Vol.6, ed. William L. Wilkie, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 413-418.

Joreskog, K., and Sorbom, D. (1981), LISREL V: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood and Least Squares Methods. Chicago: National Educational Resources.

Joreskog, K., and Sorbom, D. (1984), LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood. Uppsala: University ofUppsala.

Mangleburg, Tamara F. (1989), "Children's Influence in Purchase Decisions: A Review and Critique," In Advances In Consumer Research, Vol. 17, eds. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gom, and Richard W. Pollay, New Orleans, LA: Association for Consumer Research, 813-825.

Marketing News (1987), "If Both Parents Are Breadwinners, Teenagers Often Are the Bread Buyers," 21 (February 13),5.

Nelson, James E. (1979), "Children as Information Sources in the Family Decision to Eat Out," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, ed. William L. Wilkie, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 419-423.

Perrault, William D., Jr. and Frederick A. Russ (1971), "Student Influence on Family Purchase Decisions," in Summer Educators Conference Proceedings, Vol. 33, ed. Fred C. Allvine, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 386-389.

Olshavsky, Richard W., and Granbois, Donald (1979), "Consumer Decision Making-Fact or Fiction?" Journal of Consumer Research, 6,93-100.

Roberts, Mary Lou, Lawrence H. Wortzel, and Robert L. Berkeley (1981), "Mothers Attitudes and Perceptions of Children's Influence and Their Effect on Family Consumption," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, ed. Jerry C. Olson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 730-735.

Robertson, Thomas S. (1971), Innovative Behavior and Communication, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Rogers, Everett M., and Shoemaker, F. Floyd (1971), Communication of Innovations, New York: The Free Press.

Rossiter, J.R. (1978), "Children's Consumer Research: A Call for Rigor,"

in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, ed. W.L. Wilkie, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 730-735.

Sellers, Patricia (1989), "The ABC's of Marketing to Kids," Fortune, (May 8),114-120.

SzybiIlo, George J. and Arlene Sosanie (1977), "Family Decision Making: Husband, Wife, and Children," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed. William D. Perreault, Jr., Atlanta Georgia: Association for Consumer Research, 46-49.

Fall 1995 51

(13)

APPENDIX A

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FOR THE FAMILY PURCHASE (MOTHERS' RESPONSES - 16 ITEM SCALE)

Items

Initiation Stage:

Realize product needed.

Thinking about buying.

SearchlEvaluation Stage:

Brands/models performance. * Store(s) to visit. *

Visiting the store(s).

Finding out the prices. * Information (stores). *

Information (Readingllistening)*

Examining at the store(s).

Picking up from the store.

Deciding on final brand/model.

Deciding on which store.

Deciding on the size. * Deciding on the price. *

Eigenvalue Percentage of Variance Extracted

a _ factor loadings below .30 do not appear in this table.

* - items deleted in the final scale.

Factor Loadings' Factor 1 Factor 2

.30 .33

.86 .85 .90 .90 .92 .86

.86 .86 .84 .91 .77 .79 11.55 72.2

.91 .91 .88 .92

.32

.31 .35 .39

2.03 12.7

(14)

APPENDIXB

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FOR THE TEENAGER PURCHASE (MOTHERS' RESPONSES -16 ITEM SCALE)

Items

Initiation Stage:

Brands/models performance. * Store(s) to visit. *

Finding out the prices. * Information (stores).*

Information (Readingllistening)*

Deciding on fmal brand/model.

Deciding on the size. * Deciding on the price. *

* - items deleted in the final scale.

.30 .33

.88 .84 .92 .91 .91 .86

.86 .82 .86 .87 .87 .87

11.3 74.2

.88 .87 .87 .86

.32

.33

.31 .35 .39

1.81 11.9

Fall 1995 53

(15)

APPENDIXC

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FOR THE FAMILY PURCHASE (MOTHERS' RESPONSES - 9 ITEM SCALE)

Items

Initiation Stage:

Decision Stage:

APPENDIXD

Factor Loadingsa Factor 1 Factor 2

.93 .93

.34 .90

.93

.89

.90 .31

.89

.88 .35

.92

6.40 1.76

71.1 19.6

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FOR THE TEENAGER PURCHASE (MOTHERS' RESPONSES - 9 ITEM SCALE)

Items

Initiation Stage:

Decision Stage:

6.36 70.6

1.58 17.5

a _ factor loadings below .30 do not appear in this table.

.31 .30

.90 .89 .88 .89 .88

.90 .89 .90 .89

.30 .34 .31

(16)

APPENDIX E

THREE FACTOR LISREL MEASUREMENT MODEL FOR THE FAMILY PURCHASE (TEENAGER RESPONSES)

Item Initiation Stage:

Brining up the idea Realize product needed Product useful to have Thinking about buying

Brands/models performance Store (s) to visit

Visiting the store (s) Finding out the prices Information (stores)

Information (Reading/listening)

Examining at the store (s) Picking up from the store Deciding on final brand/model Deciding on which store Deciding on the size Deciding on the price

Chi-Square = ^387.34(df = 101, P < .001) Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index = .84

Lisrel Estimates (Maximum Likelihood)

.91 .95 .87 .90

Factors Squared Multiple

2 3

.87 .88 .89 .92 .91 .89

.88 .82 .92 .90 .89 .84

Correlations

.93 .91 .75 .81

.76 .78 .78 .84 .83 .79

.77 .67 .84 .81 .80 .71

Modification Indicies

9.68 0.81 12.51 0.43 1.55 3.48

1.95 2.62 0.01 2.09 0.00 3.34

2

0.32 1.32 3.19 5.54

55.66 0.94 9.20 7.32 0.43 0.37

3

0.01 1.96 1.69 7.60

2.96 11.41 16.94 8.02 3.86 0.21

Fall 1995 55

(17)

APPENDIXF

THREE FACTOR LISREL MEASUREMENT MODEL FOR THE TEENAGER PURCHASE (TEENAGER RESPONSES)

Lisrel Estimates (Maximum Likelihood) Modification Indicies Factors Squared Multiple

Item 2 3 Correlations 2 3

Initiation Stage:

Brining up the idea .88 .77 4.72 5.91

Realize product needed .88 .77 4.56 5.93

Product useful to have .87 .76 4.15 1.68

Thinking about buying .81 .65 6.18 2.39

SearchlEvaluation Stage:

Brands/models performance .81 .67 24.48 9.05

Store (s) to visit .89 .79 2.24 1.50

Visiting the store (s) .92 .86 2.75 3.00

Finding out the prices .89 .79 2.85 9.53

Information (stores) .91 .83 7.47 4.18

Information (Readingllistening) .83 .69 3.22 0.68

Final Decision Stage:

Examining at the store (s) .87 .75 13.13 45.92

Picking up from the store .84 .70 6.70 0.06

Deciding on final brand/model .94 .88 0.01 2.53

Deciding on which store .94 .89 7.17 15.52

Deciding on the size .83 .69 26.16 1.42

Deciding on the pric~ .87 .75 4.17 2.41

Chi-Square = 483.16 (df = 101, P < .001) Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index = .82

56 Journal of Marketing . THEORY AND PRACTICE

(18)

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Salil Talpade (ph.D., University of Alabama) is an assistant professor of marketing at West Georgia College. His research interests include consumer decision making and multicultural marketing. He has presented and published in the proceedings of various conferences and in the Journal of Consumer Research.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Medha Talpade (Ph.D., University of Alabama) is an assistant professor of psychology at Dalton College. Her research interests include decision making, influence tactics, and persOllality. She has presented and published in the proceedings of various psychology and marketing conferences.

Fall 1995 57