J Appl Environ Biol Sci 3124451

J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 3(12)44-51, 2013

ISSN: 2090-4274

© 2013, TextRoad Publication

Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences www.textroad.com Children’s Influence in Family Consumption Decisions in Iran
Zohreh Dehdashti Shahrokh (Ph.D)1., Mohammad Ebrahim Khosravi (M.A)2
1

2

Associate Professor of Allameh Tabatabaee University
Business Management student at Allameh Tabatabaee University
Received: October 1 2013
Accepted: November 2 2013

ABSTRACT
This article examines the influence of children on family purchasing decision making in Iran. Primary data were collected from a sample of 385 children aged 8-11 using questionnaire survey. Various statistical methods such as
Univariate ANOVA and t-tests were used to analyses the data. Findings indicate that children exert strong influence on the family decision making, for products that are consumed by them. Older children influence more compared to younger children, but gender does not significantly influence on family purchasing decision making. Thus, marketers should explicitly acknowledge children’s role in the family decision making.
KEYWORDS: children, consumer decision making process, influence, Purchasing, Iran
1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of children in purchase decision making has increased over the recent years, mainly because children not only make purchasing decisions for their own personal consumption but also because they influence family purchase decisions [1]. Academic findings support applied market research, indicate that children have substantial influence relative to their parents in family purchase decisions [2,3]. Today children are seen as different from past generations; especially among the 8-11 year-olds. ‘‘They’ve grown up faster, are more connected, more direct and more informed. They have more personal power, more money, influence and attention than any other generation before them’’ [4]. Family structures have changed, which influence family decision-making [5], and, as some authors argue, family communication has become more open and democratic, therefore, today parents pay more attention to their children and their opinions. These changes in family communication have made it possible for children to exert influence on family decision-making [6,7,8].
Studies commissioned by cable television networks in the USA, found that an average of 43 percent of total purchases made by parents were influenced by children [9]. Leibeck (1994) reports that “mothers who shop with their kids wind up spending 30 percent more than they originally intended and fathers spend 70 percent more” [10].
Also McNeal (1998) estimated that children 4 to 12 years of age influence approximately US$188 billion annually in family-related purchases [3]. Other researchers reported that children 's influence on parents spending has increased 54% since 1997 [11], with children influencing 80% of family food spending. Finally, Cooper (1999) reports that in 43% of their purchases, parents requested input from their children [9].
Marketing research on children’s influence on their parents’ weekly purchases showed socializing agents such as demographics, parents, peers, media, and communication within the family all played a part [12,13]. Kaur and
Singh (2006) explored what motivated parents to make purchases of various types of goods [1]. Previous research yielded various findings based on the effect of demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, social class, and race of the children) on children’s influences on the family decision making [14,15].
This study try to direct one major research question, that is, to examine the attitude of the mother about children’s effect on family purchasing decisions in relation to product type and family communication pattern and demographic variables such as child’s age and gender, number of children in family, parent’s income and education and whether the mother is working or not.
1.1 Age
In most of the studies, the child’s age was found to be the main factor of effect on family decision-making.
Previous research concluded that older children have higher influence on family purchase decisions compared to the younger ones [2,16,17,18,19,20]. These results are among other things due to older children’s greater perceptive ability [21], as compared to younger children. This effect is greatly because of the development of perceptive

* Corresponding Author: Zohreh Dehdashti Shahrokh, Associate Professor of Allameh Tabatabaee University
44

Shahrokh and Khosravi, 2013

capabilities and gathering of information about the products and markets in older children. Based on the above discussion, it is hypothesized that:
H1: Older children have significantly more influence on the family decision making process than younger children.
1.2 Number of children
In previous studies, a child 's status in the family has been evaluated by the number of children in family.
Churchill and Moschis (1979) first mentioned that number of children could be related to a child 's involvement in decision-making, with first-born children exerting greater purchase decision influence [22]. Sociological trends of the 1990 's lend doubt to the concept that number of children should moderate children 's influence. Reducing birth rates indicate more households with fewer children and many households with single children. Due to that, number of children may have less importance in current family structures. To further examine the impact of number of children, the following hypothesis is suggested,
H2. No difference in purchase decision influence will be found due to children 's birth order.
1.3 Socio-economic status
Family demographics such as household income, parent’s educational levels are joined with the children’s influence on the family purchasing decisions [23]. Research on the effects of socio-economic status, containing household income and parents ' education levels, on children 's influence has been combined. Jenkins (1979) shown that children influence on the family purchasing decisions is much more intensive in families with high income levels [18]. Correspondingly, Tansujah et al.(1991) have reported that the higher the income of the family, the more influential is the role of children to select the restaurant where they will eat [24]. Similarly, research mentioned that the higher the parents ' educational achievement, the more that children influenced purchase decisions [25]. Thus, the following hypotheses will be tested;
H3a. Children whose parents have reached higher educational levels will have more influence in purchase decisions than children whose parents have reached lower educational levels.
H3b. Children in households with higher incomes will have more influence in purchase decisions than children in households with lower incomes.
1.4 Gender
Past research show that female children were more powerful than male children across all stages of the decision-making process [16,25]. Changes in the current family, such as delayed child-bearing, reducing household size and united relationships suggest that the mediating effect of gender may no longer be in effect. In fact, gender role socialization in many aspects is egalitarian. Parents socialize their sons and daughters equally in regard to the amount of time spent with them, training, and communication [26]. Based on the above discussion, it is hypothesized that:
H2. No difference in purchase decision influence will be found between male and female children.
1.5 Occupational status of the mothers
A quick growth in the number of working mothers has meaningfully influenced the child’s identity and the treatment of mothers to their children. Today’s children encourage their mothers to work because of money, prestige, and status expectations. Studies show that working mothers think that they are not caring their children enough so due to feeling of guilt, they tend to endure their children’s misbehaviors. These mothers have been reimbursing their absence at home and have less conversation with their children. As it is shown by child market research, 92 percent of 1,000 children’s mothers stated that they could not say ‘‘no’’ to their children [27]. Parents who believe that they do not spend enough time with their children feel guilty and try to pay back for it by giving and spending more money for their children:
H3. Children of working mothers have more influence on the family purchasing decisions than those of mothers not working.
1.6. Product type
While children have the greatest effect on buying a fruit flavor junk food they have the lowest effect on buying a car. Frideres (1973) interviewed the mothers buying toys for their children and asked them the reason behind their choice selection [28]. The most regularly stated reason was the demand of the child for that toy. This is followed by the fact they like the toy when they see the toy on the display and the toy will serve well for the education of the child. The first reason especially prevails in the purchase of the parents during ‘‘special’’ days such as Christmas and the study also disclose a direct relation between the price of the product and the selection of the parents:

45

J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 3(12)44-51, 2013

H6. Children exert more influence on the family purchasing decision for products more specific to their own use than for those common to the family.
1.7 Family communication patterns
Family communication patterns are instrumental in the amount of influence that children exert on family decision in the present, and the way children will behave as consumers in the future. The socio-and conceptorientations are two patterns of family communication between parent and child. Socio orientation reflects a desire for harmonious interpersonal relationships in the family, and the measures may reflect the parent’s efforts to achieve harmony through the emphasis of conformity and control. Accordingly, socio-oriented parents report an interest in telling their children to avoid controversy and arguments. In contrast, concept-oriented parents tend to consider communication a tool to convey and share views. Conflict, controversy, and resolution all can occur through candid discussion. They consult their children and value their opinions in purchase decisions even for products that are not for their consumption [29,30]. In view of this and the above it is expected that:
H7a. There is a positive relationship between a child’s perceived influence on consumption choice decisions and the level of concept-orientation held by the parent.
H7b. There is a no relationship between a child’s perceived influence on consumption choice decisions and the level of socio-orientation held by the parent.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research design:
Family decision-making studies that focus on family roles require the collection of data from both the parent and the child [17,31]. Consequently, the field research in this study was based on one questionnaire directed at the parent-child dyad, consisting of a young child and a parent.
The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first section included six demographic questions, which is proposed to have a significant impact on children’s influence. In the second part, questions measuring the perceived influence of children on family purchasing decision-making and measuring both the socio-and concept-orientation.
A Likert-scale ranging from ‘’ very seldom’’ to ‘’ very often’’ was used. The final questionnaire consisted of 21 items (13 items for the children and eight in that for adults). Besides these items, demographic data were collected from the questionnaire. A total of 385 questionnaires were collected over a period of a month.
2.2 Data collection and sample:
The research was conducted in 2013. The data was collected from 385 families, both from parent and children in 2 schools in north and center of Shiraz, Iran, to allow a comparison of perception in influence. The family is the sampling unit of this study. In this context, children aged between 8 and 11 were included in sample. The reliability analysis for the items included in the questionnaires generated Cronbach Coefficient Alpha scores of 0.717 for the questionnaire, which are higher than the adequate levels of internal consistency, as the minimum is stated to be 0.70.
Data is analyzed using the SPSS software package. Chi-square, T-test and univariate ANOVA in addition to the descriptive statistics are used for the analysis.
3. RESULTS
Several characteristics were found to moderate children 's influence on the purchase of a product for the child 's personal consumption. Similar to past researches, the child’s age and gender, number of children, parent’s income and education, whether the mother is working or not, product type and Family communication patterns had a moderating effect. The ages of mothers who participated in the study ranged between 33 and 57 years and the age of the children ranged between eight to eleven years. Of children respondents, 63.1 percent were girls while 36.9 percent of children were boys. 64.2 percent of mother participate in this study, were university graduates, 23 percent housewives and 73 percent working at the time of the study. Other demographic characteristic of the sample are shown in Table 1.
Univariate ANOVAs, Chi-square and t-test were computed to determine statistical significance of each hypothesis at p< .05, and these findings are summarized in table 2,3 and 4.
To test the hypothesis, we consider three types of products to evaluate the children’s influence on family purchasing decisions, suggesting buying the product category is studied by Isin and Alkibay (2011). The first type consisted of products and services that children closely relate to and were consulted about, products such as toys.
The title of this type of product is ‘‘the products consumed by the child’’ which are cheap and involve low

46

Shahrokh and Khosravi, 2013

purchasing risks. The second type is about the products that were consumed by whole family but with low risk, product such as dairy product. The third type is about the products that were consumed by whole family but with high risk, product such as holiday decision. The titles of these types of products are ‘‘high and low risk product used by the whole family’’ which consumers compare based on the price, quality, color and fashion. These three types of products evaluate the children’s influence on the family purchasing decisions.
Consistent with anticipated, child’s age was found to dominate the extent of child’s influence on decision purchasing over first types of products, (p< 0.05). The results suggest that the influence of the child has a relationship with age, for the first product classes analyzed in the research. But by contrast, the child’s age was not found to dominate the extent of child’s influence on decision purchasing over second and third types of product, (p>
0.05). The Chi-square results reveals that the age of children is a determining factor on the decisions of the family to purchase first types of products but is not a determining factor on the decisions of the family to purchase second and third types of products (see table 2)
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the sample
Demographic characteristics of the sample
Age of children:
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Education:
High school
University degree
Graduate or PhD degree
Household income:
$400-$600
$600-$1000
More than $1000
Working or non-working:
Working
Non-working
Number of children:
1
2
3
4
Gender:
Boy
Girl

N

%

100
89
84
112

26
23.1
21.8
29.1

98
247
40

25.5
64.2
10.3

3
224
130

8.1
58.2
33.8

280
105

72.7
27.3

191
149
31
14

49.6
38.7
8.1
3.6

143
242

36.9
63.1

Table2: The Chi-square results regarding the influence if demographics on children’s influence
Product used by the child
Candy
Ice cream
Toy
Shoe
Alpha = .868
Low risk product used by whole family
Fruit
Bread
Dairy product
Alpha = .805
High risk product used by whole family
Furniture
Stove
Holiday decision
Alpha = .96

Significant at α = 0.01

47

Age

Number

Education

Income

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

.539
.85
.932
.724

.102
.619
.788
.577

.124
.523
.517
.667

.132
.056
.075

.791
.916
.728

.781
.496
.321

.445
.138
.345

.238
.262
.223

.641
.473
.555

.099
.414
.167

.511
.495
.605

J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 3(12)44-51, 2013

The Chi-square tests were run to investigate the effect demographics on children’s influence. Income level was measured as being placed in three socioeconomic status groups (see table 2).
The Chi-square analysis of the first types of products with the inclusion of the number of children in the family is not statistically significant (p>0.05). The number of children in the family does not reveal statistically significant difference [e.g., p= .539>0.05]. The Chi-square analysis of the second and third types of products with the inclusion of the number of children in the family is not statistically significant (P>0.05). The number of children in the family does not reveal statistically significant difference (e.g., p=0.791>0.05). The analysis reveals that the number of children is not a determining factor on the decisions of the family to purchase any of the products classified here. So,
H2 is accepted.
In order to test the H3 hypothesis, Chi-square results showed that no moderating effects were found for child 's socio-economic status over three type of product, as evidenced by their household income and parents ' educational levels. The results of the present study are not congruent with the literature. So H3 is rejected.
Table 3a. t-test, determine statistical significance of each hypothesis at p< .05. (Product used by child)
Variables
Gender

Working or nonworking

index

N

mean

Boy
Girl

143
242

7.802
7.809

working
Nonworking

280
105

7.753
7.971

standard deviation 2.34
2.514
2.474
2.379

Std. Error
Difference
.259

Mean difference -0.007

df

T-value

sig

382

-0.027

0.16

.24

.28

383

-0.777

.275

Table 3b. t-test, determine statistical significance of each hypothesis at p< .05. (Low risk product used by family)
Variables
Gender

Working or nonworking

index

N

mean

Std. Error
Difference
.232

Mean difference .084

df

T-value

sig

8.51
8.43

Std. deviation 2.21
8.43

Boy
Girl

142
242

382

.364

.75

working
Nonworking

280
105

8.4
8.65

2.123
2.377

.251

-.257

383

-1.024

.135

Table 3c. t-test, determine statistical significance of each hypothesis at p< .05. (High risk product used by family)
Variables
Gender

Working or nonworking

index

N

mean

Std. Error
Difference
0.152

Mean difference 0.0136

df

4.18
4.16

Std. deviation 1.44
1.43

Boy
Girl

142
242

working
Nonworking

280
105

4.12
4.29

1.42
1.46

0.164

-0.17

383

382

T-value

sig

0.09

0.903

-1.036

.104

In order to test the H4 hypothesis, independent t-test results showed that the values of t-test were [t(385) =0.0.027, p>0.05] which does not reveal statistically significant difference between girls and boys regarding the first group of products. For the second type of products, the t-test value [t(385) =0.364, p>0.05], and for the third type of products, the t-test value [t(385) =0.09, p>0.05] does not indicate a statistically significant difference for these two types of products by the gender of the children. The evaluation of the results indicates that the gender of children is not a determining factor in the purchase of any of the product groups. H4 is accepted.
In order to test H5 hypothesis, the results of the t-test [t(385) =0.77, p>0.05] did not reveal statistically significant difference for the first type of products as regards to the occupational status of the mothers. For the second and third type of products the outcome [for the second type, t(385) = -1.024, p>0.05 and for the third type, t(385) = -1.036, p>0.05] did not show a significant difference between the working and non-working mothers as regards to family type of products. The data revealed that the occupational status of the mothers is not a determining factor on the influence of the children on the decisions of the mothers regarding the purchase of all types of products. H5 is rejected (see table 3a,b,c).

48

Shahrokh and Khosravi, 2013

Table 4. Univariate ANOVAs determine statistical significance of each hypothesis at p< .05.
Variables
Product used by the child
Error
Total

SSB
2323.766
1283.392
3607.158

df
14
370
384

MSE
165.983
3.469

F-value
47.853

Significance
0.00

Low risk product used by whole family
Error
Total

506.774
3100.385
3607.158

5
379
384

101.355
8.18

12.39

0.00

How risk product used by whole family
Error
Total

776.587
2830.571
3607.158

2
382
384

388.294
7.410

52.402

0.00

Dependent variable: Group = children’s influence on the family purchasing of first group product +children’s influence on the family purchasing of second group product +children’s influence on the family purchasing of third group product.
The fact that the values are P<0.05, reveal statistically significance differences between the related products as regards to the children’s influence on the family purchasing decisions (see table 4). The average scores are quoted in order to define the difference created by the independent variables (three product categories) on the dependent variable.
Average scores show that average score of the first group (X= 7.81) is higher than that of the second group (X= 4.58), and also is higher than the third group (X= 4.17). Average differences show the significance differences between the second and third groups, first and third groups and first and second groups (p< 0.05). So, H6 is accepted.
In order to test the last hypothesis of the study, the regression analysis was undertaken. The criterion variable consisted of the sum of the consisted of the sum of the cores for the concept- and socio-orientation. The correlation test in Table 5, show that the concept- and socio-orientation variables are not correlated. The regression provides a statistically significant R2 of 73.5 percent (F= 5.30; p<0.05). Examination of the coefficients table shows that only the independent variable for the concept-orientation construct is statistically significant (std β= .853 , p< 0.01).
These results provide support for H7a and H7b. Perception of influence by children, are related to a conceptorientation of parents but not to a socio-orientation.
Table 5. Pearson correlation
1.Influence of children
2.Concept-orientation
3.Socio-orientation

1
1
0.853**
0.088

2

3

1
-0.03

1

4. DISCUSSION
The analyses reveal the fact that the children’s influence on the family purchasing decisions varies by the group of products involved. The children have a maximum influence on the purchase of the products related to the children. The literature suggests that the extent of children’s influence varies among product classes [18,19,31,32].
In this study a total of ten product classes were used, four aimed at children’s use and six aimed at family use. The products were selected to represent high involvement-low involvement, as well as high risk- low risk situations. The findings of the research reveal that children’s influence is statically higher for product classes targeted at child’s use.
This finding is also parallel to the literature. It is suggested that products which the child exerts greatest influence on the purchasing decision of the family are those which carry low purchasing risk and used by the child. Further, the paper provides insight for the marketers about which product advertising is effective on children.
Demographic characteristic are one of the most prominent factors on children’s influence, frequently mentioned in the literature. Within these, the child’s age [20,33], socioeconomic status [2,34], child’s gender
[25,35], number of children [36], and occupational status of the mothers [27] often proposed to have effect on the extent of child’s influence. In this study six demographic variables were entered into the model.
Isin and Alkibay (2011) found no relationship between number of children and influence of children over family purchase decision [27]. Carlson et al (1990) who looked at number of children in the family, also report no relationship [31]. Like Isin and Carlson, we found no relationship between number of children and influence of children over family purchase decision.

49

J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 3(12)44-51, 2013

The previous studies reveal that the children of working mothers have a bigger role on the purchasing decisions of the family [37]. The results of the present study are not congruent with the literature. In contrast to past research, no moderating effects were found for child 's socio-economic status, as evidenced by their household income and parents ' educational levels and occupational status of the mothers. The fact that occupational status of the mothers has no effect on children’s influence is that most of Iranian women are employed in part-time jobs hence they can go to work whenever their children go to school, so they felt less guilty of not being with their children.
Results show that there is no relationship between gender of children and influence of children over family purchase decision. This is congruent with the results in the literature [38, 16]. Only Collins and Lee (2000) reported that the girls have more influence in the purchasing decisions of the family than boys do [35]. The fact that child’s gender has no effect on children’s influence is suggested to be due to cultural context as well as sample characteristics. Iran shows little difference in terms of masculinity/femininity in Hofstede’s studies (1984), which imply that the influence of children are not expected to vary with regard to child’s gender, which is also reflected in finding [39].
Also another purpose of this study has been to investigate whether parental communication style effect children’s perceived influence on purchases. Results show that children of concept-orientated parents have an influence on purchase decisions, while those with socio-orientation parents do not. Since concept-oriented parents encourage children to develop their own skills and competence as consumers it is likely to result in higher yielding to demands by children. These finding have implication for the marketing strategy. The characteristics that make up the two categories of parents can be used for market segmentation purposes.
One implication of this research is that children are receptive to external socialization agents and can be shaped as future consumers. Children are assimilating marketplace knowledge at earlier ages than ever before, putting them in the unique position of developing brand loyalties at much younger ages. Estimates are that children are requesting products by brand as early as age 2 and making independent purchases as early as age 8. Marketing strategies must be developed to reach this segment. Some recommended strategies include premiums, attractive packaging. These types of studies should be repeated in order to obtain more comprehensive data and should also be extended to children with different age groups. The factors such as loyalty to a certain brand, educational level, social and economical status of the parents should be appropriately addressed. The mothers might have been biased because of social pressures. That is why the children should be included in similar studies in future.
5. Acknowledgment
I would like to take the time to thank the many people who have helped me to do this article. First, to my parents, thank you for giving me the opportunity to excel in my career, standing by me, and helping me. Both of you should share in this as well, because you are an enormous part of my life.
I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Dehdashti, for helping me get through this and always having time to answer any questions. Thank you for your guidance and support.

REFERENCES
1.

Kaur, P., and R. Singh, 2006. Children in family purchase decision making in India and the West: A review.
Academy of Marketing Science Review., 8 (1): 1-30.
2. Beatty, S.E., and S. Talpade, 1994. Adolescent influence in family decision making: A replication with extension. Journal of Consumer Research., 21(2): 332-341.
3. McNeal., J, 1998. Tapping the three kids markets. American Demographics., 20 (4): 39-41.
4. Lindstrom, M., and P.B., Seybold, 2000. Brand child. Kogan Page, London, pp:1
5. Belch, M.A., and L.A. Willis, 2001. Family decision at the turn of the century: has the changing structure of households impacted the family decision-making process?. Journal of Consumer Behaviour., 2 (2): 111-124.
6. Caruana, A., and R. Vassallo, 2003. Children’s perception of their influence over purchases: the role of parental communication patterns. Journal of Consumer Marketing., 20 (1): 55-66.
7. Chan, K., and J.U. McNeal, 2003. Parent-child communications about consumption and advertising in China.
Journal of Consumer Marketing., 20 (4): 317-334.
8. Rose, G., D. Boush and A. Shoham, 2002. Family communication and children’s purchasing influence: a crossnational examination. Journal of Business Research., 55, 867-873.
9. Cooper., J. 1999.Parents: kids know best. Mediaweek., 9 (6):14-15
10. Liebeck, L, 1994. Billions at stake in growing kids market. Retailing Today., 33 (3): 41-43.
11. Hunter, BT, 2002. Marketing foods to kids: using fun to sell. Consumer Research., (3):16–19.

50

Shahrokh and Khosravi, 2013

12. Hughner, R., and J. K. Maher, 2006. Factors that influence parental food purchases for children: Implications for dietary health. Journal of Marketing Management., 22 (9/10): 929-954.
13. Kaur, A., and Y. Y. Medury, 2011. Impact of the internet on teenagers’ influence on family purchases. Young
Consumers., 12 (1): 27-38.
14. Thomson, E.S., A.W. Laing, and L. McKee, 2007. Family purchase decision making: exploring child influence behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour., 6 (4): 182–202.
15. Tinson, J., and C. Nancarrow, 2005. The influence of children on purchases: The development of measures for gender role orientation and shopping savvy. International Journal of Market Research., 47 (1): 5-28.
16. Atkin, K. 1978. Observation of Parent-Child Interaction in Supermarket Decision-Making. Journal of
Marketing., 42 (4): 41-45.
17. Darley, William K., and Lim, Jeen-Su, 1986. Family decision making in leisure-time activities: An exploratory investigation of the impact of locus of control, child age influence factor and parental type of perceived child influence. Advances in Consumer Research, 13: 370-374
18. Jenkins, R. 1979. The influence of children in family decision making: parents perception. Advances in
Consumer Research., 6: 413-418.
19. Swinyard, W., and CH. Sim, 1987. Perception of Children 's Influence on Family Decision Processes. Journal of
Consumer Marketing., 4 (1): 25-38.
20. Ward, S., and B. Wackman, 1972. Children 's Purchase Influence Attempts and Parental Yielding. Journal of
Marketing Research., 9 (11): 316-319.
21. John, R.D. 1999. Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research.
Journal of Consumer Research., 26 (3): 183-213.
22. Churchill, GA., and GP. Moschis, 1979. Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research., 6 (1): 23–25.
23. Haynes, J., D. Burts, A. Dukes, and R. Cloud, 1993. Consumer socialization of preschoolers and kindergartners as related to clothing consumption. Psychology and Marketing., 10 (2): 151-166.
24. Tansujah, P., K. Ekstrom, and E. Foxman, 1991. Adolescent influence in family purchase decisions: a socialization perspective. Journal of Business Research., 18: 159-172.
25. Moschis, P., and L. Mitchell, 1986. Television Advertising and Interpersonal Influences on Teenagers '
Participation in Family Consumer Decisions. Advances in Consumer Research., 13 (2): 181-186.
26. Demo, DH., and MJ. Cox, 2000. Families with young children: a review of research in the 1990s. Journal of
Marriage and Family., 62 (11): 876–895.
27. Isin, B., S. Alkibay, 2011. Influence of children on purchasing decision of well-to-do families. Young
Consumers: Insight and ideas for responsible marketers., 12 (1): 39-52.
28. Frideres, J. 1973. Advertising buying patterns and children. Journal of Advertising Research., 13: 134-136.
29. Carlson, L., S. Grossbart, and C. Tripp, 1990a. An investigation of mothers’ communication orientations and patterns. Advances in Consumer Research., 17 (6): 804-816.
30. Moschis, P., and R. Moore, 1979a. Decision Making Among the Young: A Socialization Perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research., 6 (2): 101-112.
31. Kim, Ch., and H. Lee, 1997. Development of Family Triadic Measures for Children 's Purchase Influence.
Journal of Marketing Research., 34 (8): 307-321.
32. Foxman, Ellen R., S. Tansuhaj ,and M. Ekstrom 1989a. Family Members ' Perceptions of Adolescents ' Influence in Family Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Research., 15 (4): 482-491.
33. Isler, L., E. Popper, and S. Ward, 1987. Children 's Purchase Requests and Parental Responses: Results from a
Diary Study. Journal of Advertising Research., 27 (5): 28-39.
34. Page, C., and N. Ridgway, 2001. The impact of consumer environments on consumption patterns of children for disparate socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of Consumer Marketing., 18 (1): 21–40.
35. Collins, B., and C. Lee, 2000. Family decision making and coalition patterns. European Journal of Marketing.,
34 (9/10): 1181-98.
36. Shim, S., L. Sydner, and K. Gehrt, 1995. Parents’ perception regarding children’s use of clothing evaluative criteria: an exploratory study from the consumer socialization. Advances in Consumer Research., 22: 628-632.
37. Wyness, M. 1997. Parental responsibilities, social policy and the maintenance of boundaries. The Editorial
Board of The Sociological Review., 45 (2): 305-23.
38. Yeh, C.H., and J. McNeal, 1997. Development of consumer behavior patterns among Chinese children. Journal of Consumer Marketing., 14 (1): 45-59.
39. Hofstede, G. 1984. The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. The Academy of Management Review.,
9 (3): 389-398.

51

References: Kaur, P., and R. Singh, 2006. Children in family purchase decision making in India and the West: A review. 2. Beatty, S.E., and S. Talpade, 1994. Adolescent influence in family decision making: A replication with extension 3. McNeal., J, 1998. Tapping the three kids markets. American Demographics., 20 (4): 39-41. 4. Lindstrom, M., and P.B., Seybold, 2000. Brand child. Kogan Page, London, pp:1 5 6. Caruana, A., and R. Vassallo, 2003. Children’s perception of their influence over purchases: the role of parental communication patterns 7. Chan, K., and J.U. McNeal, 2003. Parent-child communications about consumption and advertising in China. 8. Rose, G., D. Boush and A. Shoham, 2002. Family communication and children’s purchasing influence: a crossnational examination. Journal of Business Research., 55, 867-873. 9. Cooper., J. 1999.Parents: kids know best. Mediaweek., 9 (6):14-15 10 11. Hunter, BT, 2002. Marketing foods to kids: using fun to sell. Consumer Research., (3):16–19. 50 Shahrokh and Khosravi, 2013 12. Hughner, R., and J. K. Maher, 2006. Factors that influence parental food purchases for children: Implications for dietary health 13. Kaur, A., and Y. Y. Medury, 2011. Impact of the internet on teenagers’ influence on family purchases. Young Consumers., 12 (1): 27-38. 14. Thomson, E.S., A.W. Laing, and L. McKee, 2007. Family purchase decision making: exploring child influence behavior 15. Tinson, J., and C. Nancarrow, 2005. The influence of children on purchases: The development of measures for gender role orientation and shopping savvy 16. Atkin, K. 1978. Observation of Parent-Child Interaction in Supermarket Decision-Making. Journal of Marketing., 42 (4): 41-45. 17. Darley, William K., and Lim, Jeen-Su, 1986. Family decision making in leisure-time activities: An exploratory investigation of the impact of locus of control, child age influence factor and parental type of perceived child 19. Swinyard, W., and CH. Sim, 1987. Perception of Children 's Influence on Family Decision Processes. Journal of Consumer Marketing., 4 (1): 25-38. 20. Ward, S., and B. Wackman, 1972. Children 's Purchase Influence Attempts and Parental Yielding. Journal of Marketing Research., 9 (11): 316-319. 21. John, R.D. 1999. Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. 22. Churchill, GA., and GP. Moschis, 1979. Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning 23. Haynes, J., D. Burts, A. Dukes, and R. Cloud, 1993. Consumer socialization of preschoolers and kindergartners as related to clothing consumption 24. Tansujah, P., K. Ekstrom, and E. Foxman, 1991. Adolescent influence in family purchase decisions: a socialization perspective 25. Moschis, P., and L. Mitchell, 1986. Television Advertising and Interpersonal Influences on Teenagers ' Participation in Family Consumer Decisions 26. Demo, DH., and MJ. Cox, 2000. Families with young children: a review of research in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family., 62 (11): 876–895. 27. Isin, B., S. Alkibay, 2011. Influence of children on purchasing decision of well-to-do families. Young Consumers: Insight and ideas for responsible marketers., 12 (1): 39-52. 28. Frideres, J. 1973. Advertising buying patterns and children. Journal of Advertising Research., 13: 134-136. 29. Carlson, L., S. Grossbart, and C. Tripp, 1990a. An investigation of mothers’ communication orientations and patterns 30. Moschis, P., and R. Moore, 1979a. Decision Making Among the Young: A Socialization Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research., 6 (2): 101-112. 31. Kim, Ch., and H. Lee, 1997. Development of Family Triadic Measures for Children 's Purchase Influence. 33. Isler, L., E. Popper, and S. Ward, 1987. Children 's Purchase Requests and Parental Responses: Results from a Diary Study 34. Page, C., and N. Ridgway, 2001. The impact of consumer environments on consumption patterns of children for disparate socioeconomic backgrounds 35. Collins, B., and C. Lee, 2000. Family decision making and coalition patterns. European Journal of Marketing., 34 (9/10): 1181-98. 36. Shim, S., L. Sydner, and K. Gehrt, 1995. Parents’ perception regarding children’s use of clothing evaluative criteria: an exploratory study from the consumer socialization 37. Wyness, M. 1997. Parental responsibilities, social policy and the maintenance of boundaries. The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review., 45 (2): 305-23. 38. Yeh, C.H., and J. McNeal, 1997. Development of consumer behavior patterns among Chinese children. Journal of Consumer Marketing., 14 (1): 45-59. 39. Hofstede, G. 1984. The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. The Academy of Management Review., 9 (3): 389-398.