• Order
  • GBR
  • Offers
  • Support
    • Due to unforeseen circumstances, our phone line will be unavailable from 5pm to 9pm GMT on Thursday, 28th March. Please be assured that orders will continue to be processed as usual during this period. For any queries, you can still contact us through your customer portal, where our team will be ready to assist you.

      March 28, 2024

  • Sign In

Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay.
Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

Parental Buying Decisions: Childrens Influence

Paper Type: Free Essay Subject: Marketing
Wordcount: 4643 words Published: 8th May 2017

Reference this

The effects of parent’s characteristics on their acceptance of child influence on purchasing decision: a study of the correlation between parental buying decision and children’s influence.

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on the concept of ‘pester power’ and the degree to which parents feel they are affected by it. The paper does not restrict itself to determining the degree of parents’ acceptance of child influence on purchasing decision, rather it seeks to locate a relationship between this phenomenon and dynamics such as parental age group, children’s age group, average household income, education level of parents and their gender. The research was conducted considering all sorts of purchases, regardless of product type or price range. A short and simple questionnaire developed particularly in the light of the given agenda was filled out by a total of 300 respondents. The results of the research were produced after an indepth analysis of the collected data. They contain implications that may be notable to parents, advertisers, psychologists and are certainly a source to creating interest in further, more in-depth research.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Essay Writing Service

Introduction

Over time, with consumers being offered differentiated variety in even the most generic purchasing options, the buying-decision has become a rather exerting process. Dozens of options are provided to customers, there is aggressive advertising, various unique selling points and countless other complications, each making it more difficult for customers to come to a decision. For parents, there is additional pressure presented in the form of a phenomenon known as “pester power”. A consumer who is confused may often refer to another person (in this case his/her children) involving them in the purchase decision (Mitchell and Papalassiliou, 2005). In layman terms, Pester power refers to the ability held by a child to get their parents to make a purchase or do something by consistent insistence. According to studies such as Caruana and Vassallo (2003), children have an influence on family food buying when they shop with their parents. After the initial consumer socialization process many children develop their own opinions and tastes about food they wish to eat. This concept applies to far more than just food items. Rather, in today’s world, a child’s opinion extends to most product purchases made by parents, those which may solely be for the child’s usage, those to be put to use by the whole family, and surprisingly, often even those which are for the personal use of parents alone. With easy access and the availibility of multiple sources of information, children get to gain in depth knowledge on the products available in the markets that surround them. They get to see what others are using, and are often drawn towards commercials that may or may not be meant for them.

Marketing to children is all about creating pester power, because advertisers clearly understand how powerful the child’s influence may be, and how profitable their interest in the advertised products may turn out to be. Children learn about consumption by watching their parents’ behaviour and imitating it (Solomon, 1996). Parents also provide children with money to spend and teach them how to spend it while in the supermarket (McNeal and Yeh, 2003). McNeal (1998) notes that parent’s today worry that their children should have it as good as other children, and are therefore providing them more money, more things, and far greater opportunities to better compete within their social settings. Children today are not only influencers, but also information seekers and in many a case, even buyers.

It is reported by Lieback(1994) that “mothers who take their children shopping with the end up spending over 30 per cent of what was actually intended by them, whereas fathers tend to spend upto 70 per cent more”. The response from parents to pester power is criticial. The more parents show a tendency to succumb to it, the more reinforcement children feel towards choosing to becoming persistent. As a result, parents who allow children to actively indulge in purchase decision making, encourage them to keep their eyes open to commercials and further purchasing options.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The product preferences of children would appear to be motivated by a range of influential factors. Social factors influence food choice and eating habits (Warwick et al., 1999) and parents appear to be the most instrumental in teaching their children consumer behaviour through direct communication (Feltham, 1998; McNeal et al., 1998; Caruana and Vassallo, 2003). Parents have the opportunity to provide informational influence, as children perceive their parents to be knowledgeable and observe their consumer behaviour. However, parents seem to be losing control of the buying situation to their children, a fact supported by Schor (2006) who states that parents are finding it increasingly difficult to deny children due to advertising and marketing. This is due to the fact that they try to involve their children in most of the family decisions including food purchases (Gelperowic and Beharrell, 1998). Liebeck (1994) reports that “mothers who shop with their kids wind up spending 30 percent more then they originally intend and fathers spend 70 percent more”. Today children have more autonomy and decision-making power within the family than in previous generations. The degree of influence a child may exert varies by product type and phase of the course of decision making. For some (32 Seoul Journal of Business products), they are active initiators, information seekers, and buyers; whereas for other product categories, they influence purchases made by the parents. This influence is termed as “Pester power” which refers to children’s’ ability to nag their parents into purchasing items they may not otherwise buy (Mintel 2002). Marketing to children is all about creating pester power as it is a powerful marketing tool. Modern researchers state that children compromise a large consumer market, with direct purchasing power in the purchase of low-priced everyday items, and indirect purchase influence during shopping for expensive items (Halan 2002; Singh 1998). Children exert this power on their parents as to what food will be purchased for the household (Darian 1998). McNeal and Ji (1999) point out that children learn their consumer-related skills, knowledge, and attitudes through interaction with various social agents in specific social settings, a process that is usually termed consumer socialization (Ward 1974) or consumer development (McNeal 1964). McNeal (1998) notes that parent’s today worry that their children should have it as good as other children, and therefore are giving them more money, more things, and more opportunities to better compete. There is considerable evidence to suggest that family communication processes modify the effects of other socialization agents, in particular television (McLeod et al. 1982), and this parental mediation is often the result of a child’s requests for advertised products (Atkin 1982) The purchasing act is governed by how the children have been socialized to act as consumers (Kaur and Singh 2006).

ECONOMIC FACTORS

Several factors will influence family purchase behavior of healthy foods. Sheth et al. (1999) explain that children rely on their parents both to buy and to pay for products they desire so the parents income can be a critical factor when purchasing healthier food products. Healthy food may be considered more expensive to purchase than junk food, a factor identified as a barrier to healthy eating in research conducted by the Canadian Diabetes Association (2002). There is evidence to suggest that people in low income groups spend proportionally more of their income on food than those in higher income groups (Ralph et al., 1996). Shepherd et al. (1996) suggest this may have a negative impact on healthy eating practices. Walker et al. (1995) report that families on low incomes appreciate the importance of healthy eating, however they are more concerned with avoiding waste and spending within a budget. Changing to a healthy low cost diet would require more than a minimal change to their current diet. To do so requires trial and error and low income families have no margin for error. Kortzinger et al. (1994) add that children are inevitably caught up in the same socio-economic group of their parents and this has an impact on their dietary awareness and food choice during the early childhood years. However McKenzie (1974) recognises that BFJ 108,3 182 prosperity also creates problems in terms of diet and food choice basically due to the dangers of developing unhealthy eating habits. Wanless (2004) adds that most people that have the money and the access to fresh fruit and vegetables, could choose to eat them three times a day if they so desired, but they do not.

INVASIVE MARKETING AND CHILDREN

There is a deluge of information about products and services, bewildering range of options and alternatives, endless promotions and “special offers”. Mitchell and Papavassiliou (2005) points out that confused consumers are more vulnerable to deceptive marketing practices and are not able to process information logically. Advertising is instrumental in extending consumer confusion through information overload brought about with too many complex and even conflicting messages. These weaken the effect and decrease the recall rate of individual messages thereby leading to more problems of decision making. There is much worrying to do about kids as viewers of commercials mainly since young kids are exposed to 1000’s of commercials each year in India (George 2003) and also in the West (Kunkel et al. 2004).Marketing and advertising are accentuating customer confusions to levels where passive delegation of decision making has already been initiated. More so quest for more disposable incomes and better life style has left the customer with very little time to be devoted to cognitive activity for decision making. Confused consumers can often involve another person (i.e. spouse, family member, and friend) in the purchasing decision or even delegate the task to them completely (Mitchell and Papalassiliou 2005). Increasing customer confusion and decreasing disposable time has thus lead to a state where in parents have started involving children in the purchase decision making process and have started passively delegating purchase decision responsibilities to their children. Approximately, 80% of all advertising targeted to children falls within four product categories: toys, cereals, candies, and fast-food restaurants (Kunkel and Gantz 1992) According to Turner et al (2006), children are influenced by a number of socialization agents, which influence their purchase decisions. The cognitive-psychological model and the social learning model explain and predict how consumers make consumption-related decisions (Moschis and Churchill 1978). In communication and advertising research, the social learning model has often been a popular choice for explaining consumer behavior (Moschis and Smith 1985). Children try to emulate and develop general behaviors and attitudes by modeling the behavior of others (Bandura 1977). These models often become “role” models for the individual, influencing the career aspirations, educational objectives, and self-views of young people (Mitchell et al. 1979). Halan (2002) states that “marketing to children is no longer child’s play”. This study reflected that parents considered the knowledge of children in terms of brands, models and latest trends was much higher then their own and hence sought their opinion in purchase decision of products. Children are very susceptible to advertising, for example, McDonalds’ Happy Meals came with a free “Smurf” character in July 2002, one of nine characters which children were encouraged to collect (Parents’ Jury 2002). Solomon (1996) argues that children are targeted directly with messages of what food products to buy, which will influence them to pester their parents when shopping. Parents often find it difficult to deny their children food that features their favorite cartoon characters or celebrities that they have seen on television (Keane and Willetts 1994). 

Relationship between Parental Overindulgence and Buying Behavior

in ~ 35 by children are strongly stimulated by commercials or by friends who have purchased the product The Indian context is replete with practical examples of success of commercials targeting children. The Asian paints kid’s creative advertisement, Esteem’s “my daddy’s big car”, Mc Donald’s happy meal, surf excel ‘Daag Achchey hain” advertisement, and ‘my Daddy strongest’, Dhara cooking oil are examples of such commercials popular in India Though critics have strongly condemned merchandising of teletoys via food chains like McDonald and Burger king, but this has not prevented the cross promotion. Kaur and Singh feel that advertising to children barely focuses on the rational, stating instead that commercials are for leisure and “enjoyable for their own sake” rather than being a source of any real consumer information. The most common convincing tactics chosen in advertising to kids is to relate the product with fun and happiness, as opposed to being a source of information pertaining to the specifications etc of the product. Therefore, children in the age group 8-10 years have a highly positive attitude towards commercials (Seater 1993).Commercials have added to the changes in cultures to a significant degree. Cultures today are losing their ethnicity and identity and becoming more ‘popular’ cultures wherein the style of living is perpetrated by the commercials (Schlosser 2001). Aggressive marketing of food products via children has lead to a nation of obese younger generation both in U.S.A (Schlosser 2001) and India (India Today, March 2004). Hastings et al. (2003) points out that children receive advertising messages which have more to do with fantasy and fun than health and nutrition. According to the Canadian Pediatric Society, most food advertising on children’s TV shows is for fast foods, soft drinks, candy and pre-sweetened cereals?while commercials for healthy food make up only four per cent of those shown.

PESTER POWER VERSUS PARENTAL INFLUENCE

The impressionistic minds of children try to force their parents to buy the promoted products (Moschis and Churchill 1978; Moschis and Moore 1982; O’Guinn and Shrum 1997). McNeal and Yeh (1997) demonstrate that children have great influence on their parents’ spending. In India, there is not much research done on the Indian sample investigating the role of children in family decision. Singh (1992) observed the role played by family members during purchase of a sound system through five employment categories: educators, pharmacists, managers, judges, and mechanics. Perry and Poppy (1968) observed mother and child combinations buying ready-toeat breakfast cereals. The amount of power a child may have on a parent’s buying decision relies on a total of at least two factors: the kids’ persistence and the degree of the parent’s child-centeredness. (Kaur and Singh 2006).This influence can be at different stages of the decision making process of families ranging from the stage of creating awareness to the stage of actual buying behaviour. St.Elmo Lewis proposed a selling model in the 19th century (Strong 1925) which was related to the decision making process for product purchase. The stages, Attention, Interest, Desire, and Action, form a linear hierarchy. Simply put, in order to be motivated to actually make a purchase, Lewis believed that the fourth stage, Action, would come as a natural result of movement through the first three stages; i.e., desire leads to action.

Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

View our services

Children passively generate awareness, interest and the desire towards products. For family behavior, such as selection of holiday spots and dining places and consumer goods, it has been indicated that the influence exerted by children is more in the Relationship between Parental Overindulgence and Buying Behavior in ~ 37 problem recognition stage and search stages and decreases considerably in final decision making (Belch et al 1985; Filiatrault and Ritchie 1980; Hempel 1974). However a study conducted by, Zepher and Benz (1997) indicated that children’s influence was greater at the time of alternative analysis, selection, and purchase, for four purchases (vacations, grown-up and kids clothing, and sandwich filling). The buying intentions may be mediated by parents. Thus parental authority holds significance in the purchase decisions. Parents of young children have an important role to play in protecting their kids from invasive marketing, and in educating them about advertising from an early age. Chan and McNeal (2003), in a study on Chinese parents, also reported that parents indulged in considerable gate keeping for children’s products. They allowed some freedom to their children to choose brands but only for products that they wanted their children to buy thereby keeping strict control on what kind of products were bought by or for the child. Belch et al. (2005) suggested that as most teenagers are frequent internet users, they have far broader reach to market knowledge which could affect their role in family decision making. They found that teens who perceive themselves to be ‘internet mavens’ (individuals who are relied upon more for providing information from the virtual marketplace), as well as their parents, believed that teens were more influential in all stages-initiation and information search, and alternative evaluation and final decision stages. Researchers have tried to study the influence of children across product categories and parental responses. Ward and Wackman (1972) investigated children’s purchase influence attempts and parental yielding. Jensen (1995) studied purchase influence attempts by children in Denmark; the location and cause of requests and parental responses to the same. Atkin (1978) observed parent child interaction in the supermarket for purchase of cereals and snacks Williams and Burns (2000) explored the dimensionality of Children’s direct influence attempts. The question under consideration is if the children are able to lure parents to the extent of buying products or if the parental atmosphere is able to buffer the impact of these invasive marketing campaigns. Research has pointed out that there are primarily four types of parenting styles that differ in the amount 38 Seoul Journal of Business of responsiveness and control exercised by the parents. This typology categorizes them into indulgent, authoritarian, authoritative, and uninvolved parenting styles (Baumrind 1971, 1983, 1991a, 1991b, 1996). Each of these parenting styles reflects different naturally occurring patterns of parental values, practices, and behaviors (Baumrind 1991) and a distinct balance of responsiveness and demandingness. The socialization models of child development point at the impact of these socialization agencies. Belsky’s (1984) process model points out that optimal need gratification is necessary for child development, and at the same time exonerates the child’s role in his poor outcomes and places thrust on the parental role. Thus these models of child socialization and development lay emphasis on the role of parental influence. Not only are the children impacted upon by the socialization agents, the families are also impacted upon by these agencies. According to sociologist Brofenbrenner (1977) individuals are like a “set of nested structures, each inside the next, like a set of Russian dolls”. In studying human development, one has to see within, beyond, and “across” how the several systems interact (family, workplace, and economy). Bronfenbrenner’s framework points out the four systems of influence on the child and his family which are- the micro-system-which is related to the interpersonal interactions with the child, the micro-system which consists of the interrelationships among settings (i.e. the home, a day-care centre, and the schools), the eco-system-which includes agencies outside the home like parental workplace, school boards, social service agencies, and planning commissions. The impact of invasive marketing on the children, parents, families and the nation becomes a prerogative of the eco-system, wherein the social agencies attempt to intervene and Relationship between Parental Overindulgence and Buying Behavior in ~ 39 initiate the required moves to prevent this potentially negative impact.

PARENTS ARE UNDER THE EFFECT OF THEIR CHILDREN

In the 1950s, researchers in sociology started considering the importance of children as consumers. In the 1960s, they expanded their study on children to include their understanding of marketing and retail functions, their influencing role in parent’s purchase decisions and the effect of parents and peers on their consumption patterns (Richard in Panwar and Agnihotri; 2006). Children are an important social group, whose commercial importance continues to grow. Advertising creators and marketing sales persons therefore try to find the right formula that will address this group and will also not come into conflict with ethics and the law (Zenkner, 2007). Parents who satisfy children’s requests encourage children to be attentive to 22 advertising and to ask for things more frequently, while parents, who discuss children‟s requests, encourage them to develop skills in selecting and interpreting product information (Ward in Caruana, and Vassallo, 2003). Children`s want to possess products they have seen on television. This is called “pester power,” which means that children pester their parents or other adults to buy things for them (Proctor and Richards in Gunter, 2005). Parker (2001) stated U.K. parents spend approximately £7 more when supermarket shopping with children than without them. If children wage a campaign of requests and demands in advance of birthdays and Christmas, pester power shows its effect in long term. For example, Crouch (1999) pointed out three quarters of children had started asking for Christmases presents before October. On the other side children‟s pestering can lead to family conflicts when parents refuse to buy products because of they cannot afford to buy them or because of they think that they are inappropriate for their children such as snack foods. Thus this situation may cause to anger, frustration, and disappointment (Atkin, 1978). Children try to get from their parents what they want by force and they nag their families to buy food they have seen advertised. In order to obtain their wishes, they can effectively play on parents tender spots. In the UK one in five families are described they have battles over food nearly every mealtime. On the other hand pester power is not only fostered through the media. The dynamics arise in the family and it is a part of the culture. For instance children appear to pester more in Sweden where the advertising aimed at children is banned compare to Spain where it is relieved (Wilkinson, 2003). Children‟s pestering their parents for a product they have just seen advertised on TV is often taken as evidence of immediate effects (Jarlbo, 2000). Goldstein in Jarlbo (2000) denies any such connection, arguing that playmates are the principal influence on children‟s wants and desires.

Children have not got strong buying power but they do have “pester power.” Generally, busy parents choice the easy way and they give in to children`s constant pestering. Children are very demanding consumers from the marketing aspect (Zenkner, 2007). Because advertisers consider that brand loyalty begins early in life and childhood experiences continue throughout a lifetime. Advertisement may easily address children, but to be able to truly aim the marketing message well is highly difficult (Zenkner, 2007). Because of effectiveness of 23 advertising to children, most countries which including Sweden, have banned commercials on television and radio programmes targeted children under 12. Belgium has forbidden commercial`s during children`s programs and Australia has forbidden commercials during television programming targeted at preschoolers (Smith, 2001). As children become more independent viewers with access to their own televisions and videos, parents have less control over what children watch and less opportunity to discuss commercials that might have been seen during familly viewing (Gunter, Oates, Blades; 2005).

METHODOLOGY

The method used to gather parents’ views on their children’s influence on buying decision was the distribution of a Likert style questionnaire. A Likert scale indicates the level of agreement with each statement. It allows respondents a certain degree of freedom in expressing their views in comparison to a group interview where the respondents may feel pressured into giving what is perceived as being the correct answer. It also allows the author to identify the strength of one respondent’s view in relation to another. Cohen and Manion (1980, p. 76) described the ideal questionnaire as being “brief, attractive, asks unambiguous questions, is interesting and easy to complete, can be analyzed with little effort and interpreted without difficulty to provide clear and concise information on which to base decisions”. The main focus of this project is concerned with parents who have the impact of children influence while making a common household purchase or buying a luxury item. This may vary from parents having different income or different education levels. Therefore 300 questionnaire, rather than being mailed out to the parent, it was given to the parent in-person at shopping malls like Makro and official & residential buildings in Karachi. Questionnaires have become commonplace research tools for business and research projects. In a questionnaire survey, the main objective is to get standardized information by presenting everyone with the same stimulus: the questions presented in an identical way, so any diversity in the answers is a true reflection of the variety of views and circumstances among the respondents (Collis and Hussey, 2003).

In comparison to other research methods, for example the group interview, it is believed that a mailed questionnaire is a less efficient method of data gathering, as many of the questionnaires that are sent out will not be returned (Kumar, 1996). This is the main reason for choosing to distribute the questionnaires in supermarket, residential and official buildings, as there is a larger audience to target, which is relevant to the study, and might therefore receive a larger response rate. There is also anonymity which can be promised to the respondent.

NOTE

1. Pester power is the term used to define a child’s influence over a parent in the buying process

(Mintel, 2002).

 

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please: