Influence of Family communication Patterns in family purchase decision

making

Prof.Vijita Singh Aggarwal

USMS,Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,New Delhi

Email id: aggarwalvijitas@gmail.com

Phone no.9718503820

Shefali

Research Scholar

USMS,Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,New Delhi

Email id:ankushefali@gmail.com

Phone no.8800522898

Prof. Vijita Singh Aggarwal is a Professor at the University School of Management studies

,GGS Indraprastha University,Delhi.She has pursued the European Masters in Lifelong

learning-Policy and Management from the Institute of Education, University of London and

University of Deusto Bilbao Spain.

Shefali is a research scholar at the University School of Management studies, GGS

Indraprastha University,Delhi under the guidance of Prof. .Vijita.S.Aggarwal.

Abstract

The purpose of the paper was to find out the influence of Indian children in family purchase
decisions across product categories as per parental perception with special consideration to
family communication patterns. The research was conducted on 320 parents of Delhi NCR.
Various statistical tools such as exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis,
MANOVA, Multiple linear regression and Independent sample t test were used to conduct the
research. The findings concluded that Protective and laissez faire type of parents has no
significant influence on the purchase of product categories. The result also reported the
influence of concept orientation type of communication on children‘s influence in family
purchase decisions across product categories, especially on child related products and services.

Key words: Consumer Behaviour, Family purchase decision making, Parental styles, Family
communication patterns
Introduction

The rapidly growing Indian market has tremendous potential as it comprises of consumers of
all age groups ranging from young consumers to the old consumers. With the change in lifestyle
and emergence of nuclear families young consumers are gaining more interest of researchers.
Children constitute a large consumer market in the global arena (Cook, 2009; Ironico, 2012).
They as consumers nowadays participates in the purchase of both family related as well as
child related goods and services. Family plays an important role in socialising children as
consumers (Flurry,2007).

Consumer socialisation is the process by which young people acquire skills, knowledge,
attitudes relevant to the functioning in the market place (Ward, 1980). The concept of consumer
socialisation states that child undergo various types of changes from birth to adolescence
.Different types of abilities and skills are learned by children from their surroundings which
varies from abstract thinking skills to information processing skills to interpersonal skills(
(Ville & Tartas, 2010).

Children’s influence in family purchase decisions has increased due to change in family
communication patterns (Tripathi & Sengupta, 2011). Family communication patterns are the
means to measure the interaction levels between parents and children and their consumption
patterns. It consists of two types of orientation: Socio-oriented and Concept oriented (McLeod
& Chaffee, 1972). Socio-orientation is based on obedience to authority, respect for elders, love
for younger’s and to make pleasant shared relationships. On the other hand concept orientation
promote development and expression of ideas and participation in decision making process of
the family.

The purpose of the study is to find out how Indian children communicate about the
consumption with their parents. The influence of culture on family communication patterns has
also been studied with the help of Hofstede index. The research paper also focuses on the effect
of demographic variables of both parents and children on family communication patterns.

Conceptual Framework of the study

Consumer socialisation is a process of incorporating consumer related properties with the help
of agent and learning processes. It comprises of two types of learning processes: Social and
cognitive learning about the marketplace. With an increase in age, cognitive development and
social learning helps the children to develop consumption related skills and abilities along with
decision making skills (John,1999) . Parents interact and discuss with their children about
purchase related activities which lead to the development of consumption related skills and
abilities in them (Hayta,2008). Parents educate their children about utilisation of money,
buying of good quality products and relationship between price and quality which impacts on
children brand choice .They also tell their children about adverse effects of junk food
consumption which leads to various serious health issues in children (V.Jayanthi & Reddy,
2017).

Family communication

Communication is essential so that family members respect each other needs and wants. Family
communication about consumption is defined as overt interaction between parents and
adolescent concerning goods and services(Ward& Wackman,1971)

Family communication patterns are the means to measure the interaction levels between
parents and children and their consumption patterns. It consists of two types of orientation:
Socio-oriented and Concept oriented (Mcleod &Chafee,1972). Family communication was
then further segregated into four fold typology: Laissez Faire, Protective, pluralistic and
consensual(Moschis,2005 )as shown in fig 1 . Laissez faire parents are neither concept oriented
nor socio oriented .They believe in little communication with their children and therefore
children have no influence on their purchase decision making.Protective parents are having
high socio orientation and low concept orientation .These types of parents restrict their children
to take any decision and maintain control over them .These parents expects respect, obedience,
social harmony etc from their children. Pluralistic parents are those having low socio
orientation and high concept orientation. They allow their children the full expression of their
ideas and views openly to the world (Sener, 2011; Shim,Serido &Barber., 2011).In the last
consensual parents have both high level of socio orientation and concept orientation .It is blend
of giving the freedom of expression to the children along with maintaining the control on them.
Kerrane &Hogg,(2013 )studied on consumer microenvironments prevailing within the family
that also have influence in family purchase decisions.
 Socio-Orientation

Low High

Low Laissez Faire Protective

Little communication with Stress Vertical relationships

children
Obedience and Social Harmony
Little parental Impact on
Concept consumption Children exposure to outside
environment is limited
Orientation
Pluralistic Consensual

Stress Horizontal relationships Maintain control over children

behaviour
Issue oriented communication
Stress both issue oriented
Children are encouraged to communication and the
High explore ideas and express consideration of others
opinions

Fig.1: Fourfold typology of family communication patterns (Adapted

from Chan and McNeal,2003)

Family communication patterns are culturally specific

Family communication’ is process of cognitive communication and interaction between parent
and the child (Flurry, 2007;Koerner & Schrodt, 2014). (Wut &Chou, 2009) concluded that
more parental indulgence leads to more influence of child in purchase decisions. Indian
children were found to be more influential than American children as parental indulgence is
more in India than America. (Ramzy,Ogden, Ogen&Zakaria,2012) examined US and Egyptian
families and explores the perceptions of parents towards children influence on durable, on
durable and child related products on purchase decisions. (Aggarwal & Khurana , 2016)
Children’s influence was found to be higher in the case of Non durable goods followed by
Durable and child related goods and services. Various cross cultural studies related to family
communication and parent child interactions in family purchase decisions were conducted by
different authors (Kim, Yang &Lee., 2009;Rivers & Uboegbulam, 2015;Aggarwal & Khurana,
2016;Chaudhary, 2016;Kim, Lee, & Han, 2018).

Therefore, after in depth literature review , the conceptual framework of family communication
patterns and children influence in family purchase decisions was developed as shown in fig 2.

Culture
Children influence in
Family communication family purchase decision
patterns making

Demographic
variables of
parents and
children

Conceptual framework predicting family communication Patterns and children influence in

family purchase decision making (Figure 2)

Effect of culture on family communication patterns

Individualism refers to the degree to which nations interdependent on each other. Power
distance refers to the extent to which less powerful members of the institutions and
organisations within the country expect and accept that power is distributed
unequally(Hofstede,2011).Uncertainty avoidance culture is in which people in culture avoid
risk taking/uncertain situations. While Masculinity stands for stress assertiveness, competition
and material success whereas femininity refers to the quality of life, interpersonal relationships
and concern for the weak (Mooij & Hofstede, 2010; Hofstede ,2011;Hofstede insights, 2018)
India scores 77 on power distance scale of Hofstede which is higher than the world average
56.5.It is clear from the score that India is high power distant country where power is in the
hands of wealthy and high status people. The caste system in India has created a hierarchy
between the members of the society such as priest,merchant,warrior and worker (LeFebvre,
2011).Similarly in the family system , children are dependent on their parents for purchase of
goods and services. Children are expected to show obedience to their elders and not allowed to
question their authority. They have less purchasing power than low power distant countries
(Sharma, 2016). Similarly in Socio oriented communication parents are having full autonomy
of decision making along with it they expects obedience and respect from their children.
Therefore we hypothesise:

H1 :Indian parents will engage in high level of socio oriented communication

The research was done on single country i.e. India and hence no comparison with other foreign
nations. Therefore, we presume the average point on five point scale to be the mean value of
null hypothesis i.e. more than 3.

Individualism/collectivism

Individualism is degree to which people of nation interdependent upon each other. It also refers
to the involvement and interdependence of family members in decision making process
(Hofstede, 2011). In individualistic nations ,the concept of family communication patterns is
different from collectivistic nations .In Individualistic nations parents encourage their child
to give their opinions and participate in the purchase decision making process of family
whereas collectivistic nations culture largely depends on group and social
harmony(Roland,1991;Chan &McNeal,2003) .In this type of culture group family interest or
group interest comes first than child or individual interest .Indian culture scores 48 on Hofstede
Individualism collectivism index (Chaudhary, 2015;Hofstede insights, 2018;Shefali
&Aggarwal,2018). Indian people lies in the middle of the scale and are blessed with both types
of traits. As scores indicates they are little more individualistic than collectivistic. This ranking
has several implications. Indian society is collectivistic in nature because of traditional form of
family system(Roland,1991).

With the socio-economic changes, disintegration of joint families etc nuclear families are
emerging and with the rise in nuclear families, India is moving towards individualism
(Futrel,2007;Sinha, 2014;Shefali&Aggarwal 2018).The implication of this is that parents treat
their children as individuals and involve them in family purchase decision making which is a
major feature of concept orientation. As Indians put more emphasis on collectivistic values
also(Migliore, 2011) .Therefore by taking into account Hofstede score of collectivism and
changing family dynamics, we hypothesise:

H2:Indian parents will engage in a low level of concept orientation

The combination of high level of socio orientation and low level of concept orientation of
Indian parents resulted into the following hypothesis

H3:Indian parents will likely to be classified as protective parents

Effect of Demographic variables on family purchase decision making

This change in consumption behaviour in the behaviour of the children depends on their child
related demographics such as age, gender etc. A study on gender reported that girls are more
inclined towards choice of products than males (Rahman,Rashid,Othman &Bakar, 2008).
(Martensen & Grønholdt, 2008)showed contradictory results and concluded that gender
doesnot affect children influence in family decision making and further, this influence varies
with subdecision stages.Older children have more influence than younger one. (Dotson &
Hyatt, 2010) concluded that the child related factors such as age, gender, number of children
in family, type of product and mother employment status had a considerable effect on family
decision making. (Antonio & Brennan, 2011) depicted that in case of high technology and
computer related products consumer socialisation of parents by child depends upon the gender
of parent as well as of child. (Beneke,Silverstone,Woods &Schnieder, 2011) concluded that
girls are more socialised about purchase related matters than boys and hence more influential.
Older children has more significant influence in family purchase decisions child (Ramzy et
al,2012). (Ali, Mustafa, Batra, Ravichandran, & Rehman, 2012) concluded that age and gender
of child plays an important role in family purchase decision process. Boys influence more
than girls in family purchase decisions. (Tiago &Tiago, 2013) Teenager of highly educated
parents has low significant influence on purchase decisions than the Teenager parents of lower
educational levels. (Chaudhary, 2015; Chaudhary, , 2016 ;Thorson & Horstman, 2017;
Chaudhary ,Ghouse, & Durrah, 2018)concluded the significant influence of demographic
variables of parents and children in family purchase decision making.
Therefore, we hypothesise

H4:There is a significant influence of demographics of parents such as gender ,age,

educational qualification on family communication patterns in family purchase decision
making.

H5:There is a significant influence of demographics of child such as gender of child ,age

of child on family communication patterns in family purchase decision making.

Children influence in family purchase decision making

When one person acts in such a way as to change the behaviour of another person in some
intended manner, influence has occurred (Cartwright 1959). This definition is applicable when
the child affects the purchase decisions of their family that is also referred as an influence. Kaur
&Singh, (2006) compared Indian with the western society to reach at the result that sometimes
child acts as an initiator and at other times as an influencer. Norgaard, Christensen, &
Mikkelsen, (2007) found that children exerts more influence on all stages of decision making
especially on initiation and choice for easy prepared meals, unhealthy foods(sweets) than
healthy foods (Fruits& Vegetables) The results revealed that the child related products exerts
more influence than non durables and durables. Nondurables come at second and durables at
the last.(Chaudhary &Gupta, 2012) (Ramzy et al, 2012). Sharma & Sonwaney, (2014) found
the moderating effect of type of product and stage of purchase decision making in family
decision making. Children also exert influence in family decision making about holidays
(Watne, Brennan, & Winchester, 2014). Sharma & sonwaney, (2015) explored the influence
off family communication patterns on children’s influence in family purchase decisions.
Therefore we hypothesise that

H6: There is a significant influence of family communication patterns on children

influence in family purchase decision making across product categories.

Research method

An extensive literature review was done on family communication patterns, Hofstede cultural
dimensions, buying process of families and involvement of children across buying stages and
sub decisions. Further identification of variables was done from the literature review which
affects the children in family purchase decision making process. Different scales such as
(Moschis, 1987;Carlson&Grossbart,1988) etc were referred to design a questionnaire and five
point scale was used to measure these dimensions. Inter item reliability was checked and it
came out to be reliable. Impact of family communication patterns on children’s influence in
family purchase decision making was measured by using three point scales on the basis of three
buying stages (Initiation, search and final) across different product categories. The final
questionnaire was distributed to the parents of 6-12 years old living in Delhi NCR. Purposive
sampling was done to collect the data as it contains specific set of respondents. A total of 320
questionnaires were collected from the parents of Indian children aged 6-12 years in Delhi
NCR. Statistical tools such as Exploratory factor analysis; Confirmatory factor analysis
MANOVA, Multiple linear regression and Independent sample t test were used to conduct the
research.

Results

Indian parents’ family communication patterns showed a high level of socio oriented
communication with a mean of 3.179 which is significantly higher than hypothesised mean of
3.0.Therefore H1 is supported. The items with higher means are “I decide what things should
buy or not to buy for the family”, “I don’t allow my child to buy certain things”, “I tell my
child that you will know better when you grow up”. These items implied the controlled and
dominant behaviour of parents towards their children and restricted parental style of the parents
towards their children regarding the purchase of goods and services. Parents think child is not
capable to participate in family purchase decision making. Besides this the statement “I allow
my child to learn from his/her own experiences” (with highest mean of 3.89) concludes that
parents wants children to become independent by facing purchase related situations and learn
from their experiences. Parents also tell their children to consider advantages and disadvantages
of products and brands prior to purchase so as to be careful to avoid any uncertainty. They want
that every member of family including children participate in purchase related decisions of
family .Along with this the level of concept orientation in Indian parents is less than the
hypothesised mean of 3.The mean value for concept orientation is 2.910.It means H2 is
supported that Indian parents engage in low level of concept orientation. Our results indicate
besides of low level of concept orientation Indian parents reported higher means of 3.89, 3.33,
3.55 which concludes the level of concept orientation in them. Indian parents ask for the
preference of his/her child when they buys something for them. They actively engage their
children in buying related situations and also tell them how to spend their money carefully.
Family communication patterns are classified into four parental types by applying exploratory
factor analysis on 27statements taken from different scales of (Moschis,1987)(Carlson and
Grossbart,1988)on 139 respondents.The KMO came out to be 0.910(Table 1) which means
sample is adequate and Bartlett’s test of sphericity is also significant. Inter item reliability has
been checked and items are reliable with Cronbach alpha of 0.640.Factor analysis resulted into
four factors (Table 2).

Factor 1 showing high concept orientation and high socio orientation and we named them as
consensual as evident from previous studies of (Carlson & Grossbart,1988)( McNeal,
2003).Factor 2 having high socio orientation and low concept orientation and we named them
as protective . Factor 3 having low socio orientation and high concept orientation and termed
as Pluralistic. Factor 4 having both low socio and concept orientation and we termed them as
laissez fairer. As our hypothesis H1 and H2 concluded that Indian parents have high level of
socio orientation and low level of concept orientation. Therefore H3 is accepted that Indian
parents are protective in nature with both high socio and low level of concept orientation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to refine the scale (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). It
was applied on remaining 15 items using Maximum likelihood extraction method with oblimin
rotation to confirm the dimensions of derived scale. The recursive model was used in CFA.
The assumptions of CFA were met before moving further. Various indices such as overall chi-
square, F- value, Absolute fit measure, GFI,RMSEA(Root mean square error of approximation
),SRMR(Standardised root mean residual, and CFI(Comparative factor indices )were
calculated to find the validity of measurement model. It shows good fit of data with
GFI=0.901,RMSEA=0.069,NFI=0.914,AGFI=0.847.The four factors which were extracted
from exploratory factor analysis were confirmed and named as Consensual, Protective,
Pluralistic, and Laissez faire. Split half reliability was used to check whether data is reliable or
not. Data was found to be reliable and closer when split into two different data of responses.
Content validity, composite reliability and Discriminant validity was measured and results are
shown in Table 1 &2
Table 1showing convergent validity and Average variance extracted values
Family communication Patterns Convergent validity AVE

Protective 0.839 0.635

Consensual 0.882 0.565

Laissez fairer 0.777 0.541

Pluralistic 0.788 0.556

Table 2 showing Discriminant validity

Family communication Patterns Protective Consensual Laissez faire Pluralistic

Protective 0.079

Consensual 0.106 0.751

Laissez fairer 0.297 0.002 0.735

Pluralistic 0.371 0.0092 0.267 0.746

Discriminant Validity as represented by the square root of AVE values

Multivariate analysis of variance was used to test the significant influence of parents and
children demographics on family communication patterns. MANOVA was used here because
dependent variables are correlated (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2016) and it was also
explained in exploratory by factor analysis. Demographic variables of parents such as age of
parent, gender of parent, qualification of parent etc were taken as independent variables
whereas four types of family communication patterns i.e.pluralistic, protective, consensual and
laissez faire were considered as dependent variables.Box test of equality of variance was done
and reported the p value greater than 0.005 which concluded that there is no difference in their
covariance matrices i.e. equality of covariance matrices which satisfies the homogeneity of
variance assumption of MANOVA. Similar results were seen in Levene’s test and reported
homogeneity of variances. Prior to the application of test all the assumptions were satisfied.
Influence of age of parent on family communication patterns was also tested by MANOVA.
Box test of equality of variances value came out to be 0.006 which was more than 0.005
which satisfies homogeneity of variance assumption. The Table 4 of multivariate tests shows
the significance value of Wilk’s lambda =0.022 which was less than 0.05 and concluded there
is a significant influence of age of parent on family communication

Table3 showing Descriptive Statistics

Qualification Mean Std. Deviation N

Protective higher secondary 3.65 .735 37

Graduation 3.160 .687 61

post graduation 2.850 .563 40

PhD 3.40 . 1

Total 3.20 .726 139

Laissez fairer higher secondary 2.58 .459 37

Graduation 2.92 .455 61

post graduation 3.030 .563 40

PhD 2.70 . 1

Total 2.86 .515 139

Pluralistic higher secondary 3.02 .775 37

Graduation 3.08 .827 61

post graduation 3.14 .802 40

PhD 3.33 . 1

Total 3.08 .799 139

Consensual higher secondary 3.55 .474 37

Graduation 3.65 .454 61

post graduation 3.68 .486 40

PhD 3.16 . 1
 Total 3.63 .468 139
patterns.

Seperate ANOVA tests were applied on consensual, pluralistic, laissez faire and protective type
of patterns. Consensual and pluralistic type of family communication patterns significant value
was less than .05 but we if we consider the value to be 0.025 consensual parents value is 0.10
and pluralistic was 0.030 which is acceptable .It implied the significant influence of age of
parent on family communication patterns especially on consensual an pluralistic but not on
protective and laissez faire. The results in Table 5 concluded that parents lie in the age group
of 50+ are very less protective in nature whereas parents of age group 30-39 yrs are more
protective. Although laissez faire parents do not vary with the age group. Pluralistic parents
mostly lies in the age group of 30-39 yrs whereas 20-29 yr age group are more consensual than
any other communication pattern.

Consensual type of parents has higher means for education followed by protective parents to
pluralistic and in the last to laissez faire parents as shown in Table 3.It implies consensual
parents were highly educated .Box test of equality of variances value came out to be 0.455
which was more than 0.005 which satisfies homogeneity of variance assumption. Wilks
lambda was 0.000 which is less than p value of.05 reported the significant influence of
qualification on family communication patterns especially on protective and laissez faire as
shown in Table 4 &5 .

Table 4showing Multivariate Tests

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

Age of Parent Pillai's Trace .168 1.992 12.000 402.000 .024

Wilks' Lambda .838 2.012 12.000 349.531 .022

Hotelling's Trace .186 2.023 12.000 392.000 .021

Roy's Largest Root .129 4.329b 4.000 134.000 .003

Qualification of
.330 4.137 12.000 402.000 .000
Parent

Wilks' Lambda .675 4.671 12.000 349.531 .000

Hotelling's Trace .476 5.179 12.000 392.000 .000

Roy's Largest Root .462 15.462b 4.000 134.000 .000

 Table 5 showing Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Age of Parent consensual 2.449 3 .816 3.953 .010

pluralistic 5.619 3 1.873 3.064 .030

Laissez faire 1.601 3 .534 2.054 .109

protective 1.216 3 .405 .763 .517

protective 12.660 3 4.220 9.454 .000

Qualification of
Parent Laissez faire 4.240 3 1.413 5.883 .001

pluralistic .313 3 .104 .160 .923

consensual .601 3 .200 .910 .438

Independent sample t test was applied which concluded no significant influence of gender of
parent on the family communication patterns when considered jointly on the variables of family
communication patterns as shown in Table 6. There was no significant influence of gender of
parent on any of the family communication patterns Therefore,H4 is partially accepted for age
and not for gender of parent (Martensen& Gronholdt,2008).

Table 6 showing Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

for Equality

of Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

(2- Difference Difference of the Difference

tailed) Lower Upper

Laissezfairre Equal 1.563 .213 .812 137 .418 .0723149 .0890102 - .2483264

variances .1036966

assumed

Equal .838 132.028 .403 .0723149 .0862821 - .2429892

variances .0983593

not

assumed

Pluralistic Equal .224 .637 .012 137 .990 .0017116 .1383118 - .2752137

variances .2717905
assumed

Equal .013 125.147 .990 .0017116 .1367900 - .2724328

variances .2690096

not

assumed
 Protective Equal .147 .702 - 137 .066 - 1.2425884E- - 1.5118531E-

variances 1.856 2.3059478E- 1 .4763081 2

assumed 1

Equal - 125.065 .063 - 1.2291741E- - 1.2672795E-

variances 1.876 2.3059478E- 1 .4738624 2

not 1

assumed

Consensual Equal .832 .363 - 137 .254 - 8.0745908E- - 6.7171975E-

variances 1.146 9.2497504E- 2 .2521670 2

assumed 2

Equal - 109.895 .266 - 8.2720106E- - 7.1436065E-

variances 1.118 9.2497504E- 2 .2564311 2

not 2

assumed

The results of MANOVA were reported in Table7, 8,9,10 i.e. to check the Influence of child
demographics on family communication patterns. Post hoc tests were also applied to check the
significant influence of child demographics on family communication patterns. Independent
sample t test was applied for both gender of child on family communication patterns and no
significant influence was reported for gender of child on family communication patterns. In the
case of age of child influence on family communication patterns,6-8 yrs old children and 10-
12 years old children’s influence differs in case of protective type of communication with
significant value of 0.002 in LSD test(post hoc).Therefore H5 is partially supported.

Table 7 showing Descriptive Statistics

Age of child Mean Std. Deviation N

Laissez faire 6-8 yrs 2.85 .4417 63

8-10yrs 2.838 .5172 36

10-12yrs 2.910 .6219 40

Total 2.86 .5155 139

Protective 6-8 yrs 3.022 .7345 63

8-10yrs 3.233 .6803 36

10-12yrs 3.465 .6874 40

Total 3.20 .7269 139

Pluralistic 6-8 yrs 3.031 .6037 63

8-10yrs 3.03 .8936 36

10-12yrs 3.22 .9678 40

 Total 3.088 .7991 139

Consensual 6-8 yrs 3.69 .4468 63

8-10yrs 3.504 .5304 36

10-12yrs 3.66 .4311 40

Total 3.63 .4687 139

Table 8 showing Multivariate Tests

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

Age of child Pillai's Trace .103 1.811 8.000 268.000 .075

Wilks' Lambda .899 1.810 8.000 266.000 .075

Hotelling's Trace .110 1.808 8.000 264.000 .076

Roy's Largest Root .082 2.754 4.000 134.000 .031

Table 9 showing Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Dependent Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Variable Squares

Age of child laissezfairre .127 2 .064 .237 .789

Protective 4.838 2 2.419 4.832 .009

Pluralistic 1.044 2 .522 .815 .445

Consensual .846 2 .423 1.951 .146

Table 10 showing Independent Samples Test

 Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of

Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

(2- Difference Difference Interval of the

tailed) Difference

Lower Upper

Laissez Equal variances .909 .342 - 137 .281 -.0950919 .0877806 - .0784882

faire assumed 1.083 .2686720

Equal variances - 121.751 .288 -.0950919 .0891806 - .0814536

not assumed 1.066 .2716374

Pluralistic Equal variances 3.458 .065 -.087 137 .931 -.0119048 .1366516 - .2583144

assumed .2821239

Equal variances -.086 120.117 .932 -.0119048 .1391168 - .2635342

not assumed .2873437

Protective Equal variances .001 .979 - 137 .105 -.2011278 .1231107 - .0423152

assumed 1.634 .4445708

Equal variances - 131.231 .105 -.2011278 .1233489 - .0428818

not assumed 1.631 .4451374

Consensual Equal variances .259 .612 - 137 .283 -.0860485 .0798222 - .0717945
assumed 1.078 .2438914

Equal variances - 136.786 .276 -.0860485 .0787147 - .0696067

not assumed 1.093 .2417036

Multiple linear regression was used to test the influence of four types of family communication
patterns on children influence in family purchase decision making. Children influence in family
purchase decision making was measured by checking the influence of children on buying of
25products as per the parental perception .Median split was used to categorise these 25 products
which resulted into three types of medians 0, 1&2 .Those products which comes under 0 value
were removed such as washing machine, house,refrigerator, furniture etc .These products were
showing no or very less influence of children in family purchase decisions. Those products
having median 1 named as family related goods and services and products with median 2
named as child related products and services as shown in Table 11. Family related goods and
services includes cereals,easy to prepare meals,shampoo,toothpaste,laptops ,cars ,movie out
,family entertainment and education. Child related goods and services includes soft
drinks,snack foods,candies and sweets,fast food,Bicycles,mobile phones,clothing,vacations
and dining out.Multiple linear regression was applied to test the influence of family
communication patterns such as laissez faire,consensual,pluralistic and protective on children
influence on both family related goods and services and child related goods and services which
measures the children influence in family purchase decision making.

Table 11 shows median values of three different Product categories

Median -2(child related Median 1(Family related Median 0

goods and services) goods and services
Soft drinks Cereals TV
Snack foods Easy to prepare meals Furniture
Candies &sweets Shampoo House
Mobile phones Toothpaste Washing machine
Clothing Laptops refrigerator
Vacation Cars
Dining out Movie out
Books Family entertainment
Play stations Education

The assumptions of multiple regression were checked before proceeding to the test.
Multicollinearity was tested by using Durbin –Watson method with value of 1.828 and 1.529
for child related goods and services and family related goods and services respectively. The
maximum value of Mahalanobis distance ids less than chi square value and cook’s distance
value is 0.64which is lesser than 1 clearly indicates the absence of outliers .Normal PP plots
were drawn to check the assumption of normality and the data came out to be
normal.Correlation table was showing the positive correlation of variable with each other
except the pluralistic type of pattern which was showing the negative correlation with child
related goods and services.The table also stated the negative relationship between protective
and consensual type of communication pattern. Adjusted R2 which indicates 40% of variance
explained by independent variables on dependent variable i.e. child related goods and services
.
There is a significant influence of four types of family communication patterns on children’s
influence on child related goods and services with F=2.436,beta coefficient =0.251which was
highest for consensual type of parents with child related goods and services. Pluralistic type of
pattern was having a significant value of 0.040 which is less than the p value indicates the
significant influence of pluralistic parents on child related goods and services as shown in given
Table

Table 12 showing
Correlation Coefficients
Model(child related Beta T Sig
goods&services)
(Constant) 1.237 .218
Pluralistic -.189 -2.077 .040
Consensual .251 2.723 .007
Protective .112 1.317 .190
Laissez faire .004 .045 .964
Model(Family related Beta T Sig
goods&services)
Consensual parents also
(Constant) .361 .718
have Pluralistic -.118 -1.278 .204 significant
influence on Consensual .056 .599 .550 children
influence on Protective .121 1.409 .161 purchase of
Laissez faire .147 1.689 .094
child related goods and
services. Protective and laissez faire type of parents has significance value more than 0.05
reported no significant influence on child related goods and services. The same type of test was
applied on family related goods and services .Correlation table was presented in Table 13 which
was similar as child related goods and services because independent variables were same.
Adjusted R2 was showing 18% total variability. The Table 13 of ANOVA clearly stated no
significant influence of family communication patterns on family related goods and services.
Hence H6 is partially accepted as influence was only on child related goods and services
 Table13 showing ANOVA Table

. Model F(Family Sig F(Child Sig.

related related
goods) goods)
1 Regression 1.623 .172a 2.436 .050

a. Predictors: (Constant), lf, pr, pl, cn

Conclusion

The findings showed the significant influence of age of parent on family communication
patterns especially on consensual and pluralistic parents. Parents lie in the age group of 20-29
yrs and 30-39 yrs are more consensual in nature which clearly explains the youthful, open and
independent behaviour of parents towards their children. Young Parents are more open with
their children on technology related products than older parents. They talk more openly about
the risks involved in technology and how to deal with their risks. Parents lie in the age of
50+yrs shows more of laissez faire type of communication because they are not much tech
savvy than their counterparts and facing many health issues hence, it is very challenging for
these parents to educate their technology savvy children and to monitor their activities.
Gender of parent has no significant influence on family communication patterns These
results are in line with some previous studies((North&Silliman,2007) (Biblarz & Stacey,
2010) but contrary to some studies (Yang, Kim, Laroche, & Lee, 2014) because of cultural
differences .Highly educated parents are following consensual type of communication
followed by protective parents because they are very much aware and informed about the
products and services which are beneficial for their children such as healthy and organic food
than less educated parents .They can easily monitor the activities of their children and inform
them to stay away from misleading advertisements done by marketers nowadays to sell their
product and services.

Protective type of parents has different type of family communication pattern for 6-8 yrs and
10-12 yrs age groups .These type of parents believe children are too young to understand the
rules and regulations and the therefore they engage in more parental concern and proper
normative behaviour towards their children (Rose, Bush &Kahle,2013).They don’t permit their
children to participate in family purchase decisions at this younger age because they found it
risky an taught their children to be sensitive towards the views of others and not to discuss their
view points on any activities especially on purchase related activities(North,&Silliman, 2007).
Gender of child showed no significant influence on family communication patterns .India is
much more advanced nation and no differential treatment of sons and daughters is generally
seen especially in purchase related matters but this differs in other family matters
(Caruana&Vasallo,2003).The result reported the influence of concept orientation type of
communication on children ‘s influence in family purchase decisions across product categories
especially on child related products and services. No influence was reported for family related
gods and services because this category has products important for the family not for the
children such as cereals, easy to prepare meals, shampoo, toothpaste etc. Children found to
have very low interest in purchasing these products therefore they are not showing their
involvement in purchase decisions of family related goods and services. But the products under
the category child related goods and services were highly influenced by children of pluralistic
and consensual type of parents. Pluralistic type of parents encourages their children to actively
participate in family purchase decision making and as per our research especially in child
related goods and services such as soft drinks,snacks,candies and sweets
etc(Caruana&vassallo,2003).They allow their children to purchase child related goods and
services which helps in developing child consumption skills and competencies. Protective and
laissez faire type of communication has no significant influence on purchase of product
categories because these kind of parents think their children are not mature enough to take right
decisions parents and children both are disagree to each other decisions as parents want
children to follow them without any questions and arguments .Laissez fairer parents has no or
very less influence on family purchase related decisions as these parents are very less socially
competent and not open towards any types of discussions(Yang&kim Lee,2014).
Managerial implications and limitations

Marketers can frame the strategies to attract and persuade children as per the family
communication pattern followed in the family. The type of communication pattern followed in
the family also help in drawing conclusions regarding the marketing communication to be
followed by marketers towards parents and children. Different type of national culture has
different impact on family communication patterns. Therefore marketers should consider all
these factors before designing any marketing strategy towards children and their parents
especially for Indian culture (Barthwal & Gupta, 2011). The products influenced by the
children also has an added advantage for the marketers so that they would not waste their
money on the products and services which are not really relevant to the children. Marketers are
now able to understand how children interpret, evaluate and influence the parents’ purchase
decisions. It helps them to recognize the needs and distinct characteristics of a young Indian
consumer.

The research was done only on Indian children lying in the age group of 6-12 yrs and was
limited to Delhi NCR. Sample size and sampling area is very limited. The perception of
children was not taken into consideration while conducting the study. Multimember and
multistage studies can be done to arrive at better results. Different national cultures and cross
cultural comparisons should be considered to fully explores the influence of children on family
purchase decisions and family communication patterns. The online behavioural patterns of
children regarding purchase especially in family communication perspective need to be
explored.

References

Aggarwal, V. S., & Khurana, S. (2016). Influence of children in family buying process. BVIMSR
Journal of Management Research, 8(2), 146-156.

Ali, A., Mustafa, Z., Batra, D., Ravichandran, N., & Rehman, S. U. (2012). Examining the Children’s
Influencein Family Decision making in Delhi (India). International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research,3 (2), 1-6.

Antonio, T. W., & Brennan, L. L. (2011). Children as agents of secondary socialisation for their
parents. Young Consumers, 12(4),285-294. doi:10.1108/17473611111185841

Barthwal, S., & Gupta, N. L. (2011). Cultural Values as Advertisement themes in International and
Indian Advertising. Indian Journal of Marketing, 42(11),16-21.

Beneke, J., Silverstone, G., Woods, A., & Schneider, G. (2011). The influence of the youth on their
parents’ purchasing decisions of high-technology products. African Journal of Business
Management,5(10), 3807-3812.

Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? Journal of marriage and
family,72(1),3-22.

Carlson, & Grossbart. (1988). Parental of Style and Consumer Socialization Children. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(1),77-94.

Caruana, A., & Vassallo, R. (2003). Children’s perception of their influence over purchases: the role of
parental communication patterns. Journal of Consumer Marketing,20(1),55—
66,doi:doi/10.1108/07363760310456955
Chan, K., & McNeal, J. (2003). Parent-child communications about consumption and advertising in
China. Journal of Consumer Marketing,20(4), 317 - 334.

Chaudhary, M. (2015). Family decision–making in emerging economies. International Journal of

Business and Globalisation , 14(3),310-320.

Chaudhary, M. (2016). Structural equation modelling of child's role in family buying. International
Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 9(5),568-582.

Chaudhary, M., Ghouse, S. M., & Durrah, O. (2018). Young Arab consumers: an analysis of family
buying process in Oman. Young Consumers, 19(1),1-18.

Cook, D. T. (2009). Knowing the child consumer: historical and conceptual insights on qualitative
children’s consumer research. Young Consumers, 10(4),269-282.

Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2010). A comparison of parents' andchildren's knowledge of brands
andadvertising slogans in the UnitedStates: implications for consumersocialization. Journal
of Marketing communications, 6(4),219-230.

Flurry, L. A. (2007). Children's influence in family decision-making: Examining theimpact of the

changing American family. Journal of Business Research, 60,322-330.

Futrel, M. U. (2007). Children.s Consumer behaviour in the age of globalisation:Examples from India
and Mexico. Intercultural communication studies,2, 253-259.

Hair, J. F., Black, J. W., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2016). Multivariate Data Analysis . Pearson.

Hayta, A. B. (2008). Socialization of the Child as a Consumer. Family and Consumer sciences research
Journal, 37(2),167-184.

Hofstede insights. (2018). Country comparison. Retrieved from www.hofstedeinsights.com:

https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/india,japan,the-uk/

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, 3-26. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Ironico, S. (2012). The active role of children as consumers. YOUNG CONSUMERS, 3(1),30-44.

John, D. (1999). Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at Twenty-Five Years of

Research. Journal of Consumer Research , 26(3),183–213.

Kaur, P., & Singh, R. (2006). Children family decision making in India and West:A review. Academy of
Marketing Science Review,2006(8),1-30.

Kerrane, B., & Hogg, M. K. (2013). Shared or non-shared?: Children's different consumer socialisation
experiences within the family environment",. European Journal of Marketing,47(3/4), 506-
524.
Kim, C., Lee, H., & Han, S.-L. (2018). A study of parent–adolescent interaction: The impact of family
communication patterns on adolescents’ influence strategies and parents’ response
strategies. European Journal of Marketing, 52(7/8),1651-1678.

Kim, C., Yang, Z., & Lee, H. (2009). Cultural differences in consumer socialization: A comparison of
Chinese–Canadian and Caucasian–Canadian children. Journal of Business Research, 62,955-
962.

Koerner, & Schrodt. (2014). An introduction to the special issue on Family Communication. Journal of
Family Communication,14(1),1-15.

LeFebvre, R. (2011). Cross-Cultural Comparison ofbusiness ethics in US and India:A study of Business
codes of Conduct. Journal of Emerging Knowledge on Emerging Markets, Vol 3.

Martensen, A., & Grønholdt, L. (2008). Children’s influence on family decision making. Innovative
Marketing, 4(4).

McLeod, & Chaffee. (1972). The Construction of Social Reality in . In The Social Influence Process (pp.
50-99). ed. J. T. Tiedeschi, Chicago: AldineAtherton.

Migliore, L. A. (2011). Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede's cultural
dimensions: Samples from the USA and India. Cross Cultural Management: An International
Journal, 18(1),38 - 54.

Mooij, M. d., & Hofstede, G. (2010). The Hofstede model. International Journal of Advertising,29, 85-
110.

Moschis, G. P. (1985). The Role of Family Communication in Consumer Socialization of Children and
Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 11,898-913.

Norgaard, Bruns, Christensen, & Mikkelsen. (2007). Children’ s Influence on and Participation in the
Family Decision Process during Food Buying. Journal of Young Consumers,8(3),197-216.

North, E., Birkenbach, T., & Slimmon, K. (2007). The role of parent–child communication styles and
gender on family buying decisions:an exploratory study. South African Business review
,11(2),1-18.

Rahman, S. M., Rashid, M. Z., Othman, M. N., & Bakar, A. Z. (2008). Effects of social variables on
urban children’s consumption attitude and behavioural intentions. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 25(1),7-15.

Ramzy, O., Ogden, D. T., Ogden, J. R., & Zakaria, M. Y. (2012). Perceptions of Children’s Influence on
Purchase Decisions;Empirical Investigation for the U.S. and Egyptian Families. World Journal
of Management, 4(1),30-50.

Opara , B. C., & Uboegbulam, G. C. (2015). EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FAMILY PURCHASE DECISION FOR
DURABLE GOODS: THE NIGERIA EXPERIENCE. International journal of Arts and sciences, 219-
228.
Roland, A. (1991). In search of self in India and Japan:Toward a crosscultural psychology. Princeton
University Press.

Sener. (2011). “Influences of adolescents on family purchasing behavior: perceptions ofadolescents

and parents”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(6),747-754.

Sharma, A. (2016). Exploring the Changing Role of Children as Consumers in India :Are They Learning
from Us orAre They Teaching Us? .Handbook of Research on Consumerism and buying
behaviour in Developing nations.IGI Global.London.

Sharma, A., & Sonwaney, V. (2015). Exploring the role of family communication and brand
awareness understanding the influence of child on purchase decisions: scale development
and validation. International Journal of Business Excellence, 748-766.

Shefali, & Aggarwal, V. S. (2018). A conceptual model of children's influence in family purchase
decisions. Research review:International journal of multidisciplinary, 3(7),282-289.

Shim, Serido, & Barber. (2011). A consumer way of thinking: linking consumer socialization and
consumption motivation perspectives to adolescent development. Journal of research on
Adolscence, 21(1),290-99.

Sinha, J. B. (2014). Concepts of Collectivism and Individualism. In Psycho-Social Analysis of the Indian
Mindset. Springer India .

Thorson, A. R., & Horstman, H. K. (2017). FamilyCommunication Patterns and Emerging Adult
Consumer Outcomes: Revisiting the Consumer Socialization Model. Western Journal of
Communication,81(4), 483-506.

Tiago, M., & Tiago, F. (2013). The influence of teenagers on a family’s vacation choices. Tourism &
Management Studies, 9(1),28-34.

V.Jayanthi, B., & Reddy, Y. H. (2017). Consumer socialisation process andAdolescent Junk food
Consumption in Chennai and Hyderabad. Indian Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 43-61.

Ville, V.-I. d., & Tartas, V. (2010). Developing as Consumers. In D. M. (ed.), Understanding Children as
Consumers (pp. 23-40). London: Sage.

Ward. (1980). Consumer socialization. In H.H. Kassarjin and T.S. Robertson Perspective in Consumer
Behaviour.

Ward, S., & Wackman, D. (1972). Children’s purchase influence attempts and parental yielding.
Joural of marketing reasearch, 9,316-319.

Watne, T. A., Brennan, L., & Winchester, T. (2014). Consumer Socialization Agency: Implications for
Family Decision-Making About Holidays. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12(4),284-
294

Wut, & Chou. (2009). Children influences on family decision making in Hong Kong. Young
Consumers,10(2),146-156.
Yang, Z., Kim, C., Laroche, M., & Lee, H. (2014). Parental style and consumer socialization among
adolescents : A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Business Research,67, 228-236.