Teen agers influence on family purchase decision

Peer Interaction and Its Influence
on Family Purchase Decision:
A Study among IndianTeenagers
Rashmi Singh
J.K. Nayak
Abstract
The paper aims to clarify the impact of Teenager–peer interaction and Enduring Product involvement (measured in terms of pleasure
and sign associated with the possession of product) in the family purchase decision for the electronic items. It proposes that how the
teenagers interaction with peer have an impact on family decision making process. The study aims to expand the domain of Consumer
(family/Household) decision making by including a broader range of teenagers influence and the product involvement in day to day life.
The study is based on the teenagers influence in the family’s purchase decision making in the purchase of electronic items. The study
was done in India. A sample of 230 students has been taken. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM) has been used for analysis.
The paper provides a significant relationship among Teen-peer interaction and family purchase decision making process. As per the
findings of this paper we conclude that the more the teenagers interact with peer, the more they contribute in the initiation stage of
the family decision-making process. Similarly the teenager’s enduring involvement (measured in terms of pleasure) construct have a
significant influence on the final decision making i.e. it significantly explains teen’s contribution to the purchase decision.
Key Words
Teen–peer Interaction, Enduring Product Involvement, Family Decision-making, Pleasure, Structural Equation Modelling, Adolescence
Vision
18(2) 81–90
© 2014 MDI
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0972262914527873
http://vision.sagepub.com
on parent’s individual preference (McNeal, 1992). Belch
et al. (1985) have examined the need recognition, assess-
ment (information search) and the final choice as a
decision-making step. When any item for consumption
has been selected for the second/information search/
assessment stage, then the item has larger chances to be
purchased. So the advertisers have to change their promo-
tional approach and policies because the teenagers have an
influence on the final choices of the purchase process.
Thus, it will be worthwhile to study about teenagers and
their relative influence on family purchases. Today, teenag-
ers are the most appealing consumers not merely because
they are independent decision-maker but also they have
influence on family purchase process.
In this study, we have found that the peer acts as sociali-
zation agents for the teenagers and has an influence on the
family purchase decisions. Therefore, this topic of research
becomes more important in this present context because
teenagers have got independence in their family for the
purchase of any product. The study was done in India for
the students who are under the age group of 13–18 years.
A sample of 230 students has been taken; confirmatory
Introduction
The efforts made by teenagers in family purchases have
increased in present times. The study about the family
dynamics has increased the interest among researchers in
various disciplines such as marketing and psychology
(Brey and Lehto, 2008; El Aoud and Neeley, 2008; Epp
and Price, 2008; Treas and DeRuijter, 2008). Advanced
consumer socialization of teenagers, higher autonomy/
freedom given to teenagers in families (both the spouses
are working outside) and high divorce rate result in increas-
ing teenagers’influence in family purchases (Lackman and
Lanasa, 1993). An extensive body of research has explored
that teenagers’ exert pressure or have more say in family
decision (Kaur and Singh, 2006). Teenagers influence the
parental decision in four different manners—first, they
exert pressure to their families towards the purchase of
their individual preference. Second, the older teenagers
have their own pocket money and they directly purchase
products for their personal consumption or for the family
consumption. Third, teenagers have more say in products
of shared consumption. At last, teenagers have an effect
Article

82 Peer Interaction and Its Influence on Family Purchase Decision
Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 81–90
factor analysis (CFA) followed by structural equation
modelling (SEM) have been used.
Literature Review
It has been widely addressed by the researchers that ado-
lescent (teenage) family member has an influence in family
purchase decision. Most of the researches have been done
in the USA (Bao et al., 2007), with little exception such as
Belch and Willis (2002), Shoham and Dalakas (2006) and
Wang et al. (2007). A large number of cross-national
studies had been done in this area like Wang et al. (2007)
have studied about the Chinese and American adolescents.
They attribute remarkable differences on approaches
individualism versus collectivism (Hofstede, 2001). An
extensive research in the discipline of human psychology
has assessed the relative importance of husband, wife and
adolescents in several decisions and sub-decision-making
process (e.g., Caruana and Vassallo, 2003; Lee and Beatty,
2002). Traditionally, the women were considered to have
decision-making authority in the family for household
activities. But in the modern era, the situation has
changed as the women are now participating in outside
work which has prompted a shift from female to teenager
decision-making. Even in families where women act as a
homemaker and do not work outside, teenagers seem to
play this role with their mothers. The Indian teenagers have
shifted the attention of marketers towards them. As per the
contemporary researches, teenagers are found to have
potential market with direct purchasing power of items for
their personal consumption and have indirect influence on
items for family use. A family purchasing is defined as,
‘One in which all family members were involved in the
decision-making process or consumption of the purchased
item or service’ (Thomson, 2003). Previous literature in
this field often focused on the joint spousal role or of
the individual (Bartley et al., 2008; Greenstein, 2000;
Grote and Clark, 2001; Fox and Murry, 2000; Frisco and
Williams, 2003). Thomson (2003) explored that the con-
sumption of products is done by all the members in a
family. In the past researches, the influence of teenagers in
the family purchase decision became unnoticed and hence
it hampers the reality of familial purchasing pattern.
The influence of teenagers varies according to different
factors like product type (Foxman and Tansuhaj, 1988),
teenagers exert or have more say (involvement) in family
purchase decisions when they are highly concerned or
when they highly occupied with the product and have very
little involvement with higher risk products like auto
mobiles and room furnishings (Shoham and Dalakas, 2005).
Most of the academicians and scholars have analyzed the
teenagers’ involvement in the family purchase decisions
and they are considered to be an attractive market in future
because they will spend more and have more say in family
decisions (Martin and Bush, 2000). The extent to which a
teen take part in the family purchases influenced by differ-
ent aspects such as socialization agents (parents, peer, etc.),
teen’s demographic (age, gender, etc.), family characteris-
tics (income, family type, etc.) (Lackman and Lanasa,
1993). According to McNeal (1992), teenagers influence
the family purchase decisions in the following manner—
showing an involvement in their familial choices to acquire
(purchased) products of their personal preference; buying
products of their own preference and family product for
shared consumption from their own pocket money, thereby
influencing family purchase decision. The products’ cost
and the anticipated user exerted a force on teens’ influence
(Foxman and Tansuhaj, 1988). The teenagers’ influences
are inversely proportional to the product for family use and
in case of expensive purchases. As per the Belch et al.
(1985), in initiation stage need recognition occurs. Need
recognition is influenced by environmental influences and
individual differences. Second stage is making a choice
(consists of searching for information and the pre-purchase
evaluation of alternatives) and the final stage is the buying
decision process. Teens in the family are considered as the
initiator of a decision process, they are considered to have
more influence in the initial phases (initiation and informa-
tion search) and their influences get declined through the
final phases (Wimalasiri, 2004). Hence, if the teen has con-
siderable involvement in final stage of the decision process,
then the advertiser has to change their promotional
strategy.
Since teenagers play vital role in the family purchase
process, it directs the attention of marketers towards them.
In the recent years, a large number of market research
organizations (e.g., ‘Teenage research unlimited—in
marketing news’ in 1987 and ‘LESTER RAND Inc. in
Sellers’ in 1989) have documented a lot of research in the
same field. The advertising agencies too are planning their
promotional campaigns and other activities by focusing on
teenagers (e.g., Coca-Cola launches global music effort in
order to have a connection with teens, 7-UP and Heinz
commercials aimed at teens, etc.). As per the market
research firms in every 6–8 years, there is a new population
of teens in the world which shows a huge potential for both
the existing companies and the new entrants.
Hypothesis Development
Teenager–Peer Interaction
The word peer means ‘people at same level’. During the
adolescence period, the primary goal of most of the teen-
ager is to be a member of a peer group. Peer pressure is the
influence exerted by peer groups, individuals, observers of
others that encourage the change in their attitudes, values,

Rashmi Singh and J.K. Nayak 83
Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 81–90
etc. In 1950s and 1960s, the major interest of behavioural
researcher was to study the psychology of teen’s behaviour.
The awareness about different items and brand names
happens via word of mouth, reference group and through
other medium. Escalas and Beattman (2003) explored how
the reference group has an effect on consumers’ connec-
tions about brands. A teenager can learn more from the
peers in fashion-related items, in electronic items, etc.
Consumer socialization is one of the major aspects in the
study of teen–peer interaction and its influence in family
purchases (Caruana and Vassallo, 2003). According to
Ward, ‘Consumer Socialization is a process by which
young people acquire knowledge, attitudes and skills
which is relevant to their functioning in the marketplace.’
In the consumer socialization process, people develop
their own identities. Modelling and reinforcement impart
a vital role in the socialization practices. What does the
term influence actually mean? It simply means a change
in one’s behaviour due to pressure from others. Thus, a
peer may be said to influence a teen when we find that peer
pressure resulted to change in teen’s behaviour. Peer
group acts as social agent and they have direct influence
over teen’s attitudes and behaviour. The adolescent is
the stage in which the individuals make their own
identity which is different from their parents, and starts
interacting with peer group. Berkman (2000) has defined
the term social influence as ‘effects others have on
individual or group attitudes and behaviour’. Teenagers
adjusted themselves in a way they made global percep-
tion in compliance with their peer group conducts and
deeds (Chavda et al., 2005). Teenagers generally evaluate
their perceived knowledge about the product or its con-
sumption learned from their families by assessing it
with knowledge from another group of people (like beer)
who have similar value perspective about the product and/
or its consumption (Moschis, 1985). Teenagers and peer
interaction results in non-rational consumption attitudes
as well as teen learn its ‘emotional’ and ‘expressive’ com-
ponents from their colleagues (Moschis and Churchill,
1978). In this research, we are concerned with the teen–
peer interaction and their involvement to the family
purchases. Previous researches have focused on teens
shopping for apparel and for leisure products (Mascarenhas
and Higby, 1993). This study is based on electronic items
i.e. mobile, laptops, CDs, tablets, PC shopping because it
is one of the major products which is being purchased
by teens.
Mourali et al. (2005) have studied about the sources
of information (friends) and their impact on family
decision-making supporting the findings of Moschis and
Mitchell’s (1986). So the association between the teen–
peer communication (interaction) and their influence on
family purchases is tested by the following hypothesis.
H1: There is a direct linkage between teen–peer inter-
action and initiation (initial phase in the decision process)
i.e. the greater the teenagers interact with peers/colleagues
about the product, he initiates the family purchase decision
process.
H2: The greater the teenagers interact with peers, more
contribution they will make in information search/
assessment.
Enduring Product Involvement
Enduring involvement simply means a state of motivation
(Rothschild, 1984) or an individual difference variable.
In terms of motivational context, it is ‘an internal state
variable which indicates the amount of interest, arousal and
desire for a particular product class/category’ (Dholakia,
2001). It acts as a causal variable with consequences on
consumers’ communication and purchase behaviour. In
consumer research, involvement has many meanings, like
it can be either enduring involvement or situational
involvement. Houston and Rothschild (1978) have
also shaped a distinguishing feature between ‘enduring
involvement’and ‘situational involvement’. Enduring invo-
lvement refers to ‘the product’s relation to the self and/or
the pleasure obtained from ownership and use’ (Bloch,
1986). The term ‘situational involvement’ is stemming
from any specific situation such as election or purchase
occasion, while enduring involvement refers to feelings of
excitement, enthusiasm and interest to a particular product
(Laaksonen, 1994). It is a common belief that enduring
product involvement is a vital aspect of consumer research.
Jain and Sharma (2002) revealed that consumers’ level of
involvement with a particular product category is related
with their demographic profile. It shapes the consumer atti-
tudes and a common belief towards any particular product
brand. It has been seen that sex-oriented advertising also
shapes the teenagers attitude towards purchasing of differ-
ent product categories (Panda, 2005). The literature reveals
that product enduring involvement has an impact on con-
sumer behaviour. In other words, it predicts purchase
behaviour of consumer (Evrard and Aurier, 1996), such
as information search and evaluation of alternatives,
consumer risk opinion/experience (Dholakia, 2001), product
attribute/excellence (Charters and Pettigrew, 2006),
brand commitment (Warrington and Shim, 2000), product
awareness/information (Park and Moon, 2003), purchase
choice practice (Bauer et al., 2006). Literature reveals that
involvement influences consumer behaviour (Table 1).
According to Ray (1982), consumer involvement is
considered as one of the major variables to the advertising
strategy. Consumer’s level of involvement is directly
reflected to their decision process and their search for
information. Consumer’s level of involvement defines
whether the consumer is active or passive in nature when

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 81–90
they receive advertising communication. Gills Laurent and
Jean-Noel Kapferer (1985) had developed a consumer
involvement profile scale. As per this scale, the anteced-
ents for this scale are risk importance, product’s pleasure
value, probability of purchase error, symbolic value or
product’s sign and consequences differ on consumer
behaviour. But according to the literature, ‘risk importance
and risk probability’ are relate to situational involvement.
Judith Zaichkowsky (1985) made a 20-item scale called
personal involvement inventory (PII) which measures the
motivational state of the consumer involvement. This
instrument assesses the state of involvement rather than
involvement as a stable trait, so this scale differs from
Laurent and Kapferer (1985). Chavda et al. (2005) explored
that teenagers have greater influence in family purchases
than their parental aspect because they are getting involved
with the purchased items or the main consumer of the
product. On the basis of above observation, we propose the
following:
H3: Enduring product involvement has a direct impact
on the final choices.
H3a: Pleasure has a direct impact on the final choice of
the family purchase process.
H3b: Sign/symbol has a direct impact on the final choice
of the family purchase process.
Teenager’s Involvement in the
Family Purchase Decision
The teenager’s role in the family purchase decisions
depends on the different product sets/classification,
whether it is purchased for their personal usage or for the
family members usage, nature of socialization, gender-role
orientation, demographics (age, gender, etc.) and as on the
stages of the purchasing process. It has been seen that
teenagers use different influence strategies during the
family purchase process (Ali et al., 2013). In family
purchases, all the family members (father, mother and
teenager child) were contributed in the decision phases
(need recognition, information search and final selection)
for the selection of fast food restaurant, and family trip
(Szybillo and Sosanie, 1977). Females were also playing a
positive role in the purchasing of durables both for their
own as well as for family use (Juyal and Singh, 2009).
Parent–teen dyad is very important during initiation and
information search/assessment process. It has been found
that teenagers exert greater influence during need
recognition and search stages but have very little influence
during final choice stage (Belch et al., 1985) for deeds like
choice of restaurants, consumer durables and for vacations.
On the other hand, few researchers such as Holdert and
Antonides (1997) have proposed that teens have more say
during the later stages of the purchase process (evolution
of alternatives, choice, purchase). Teenagers are tech-
savvy, that is, they are the heavy users of the Internet so
they can get into the market information more easily and
could have their influence on family purchases (Belch
et al., 2005). In clothing purchase, peers have influence
on adolescents’ purchase behaviour (El Aoud and Neeley,
2008). Research showing the teen’s involvement to family
purchases is summarized in Table 2.
Initiation is the first stage in the purchase process. This
stage is followed by an information search/assessment
which is further followed by final decision-making.
H4: Initiation process leads to information search/
assessment of the decision-making process.
H5: Information search/assessment has a direct relation
with the final choice of the decision-making process.
Research Methodology
In order to validate conceptual model presented in Figure
1, a survey was done in India for teenagers who are under
the age group of 13–18 years. A sample of 230 students has
been taken which comprised of 49.5 per cent of boys and
50.5 per cent of girls. The data collection was done at sec-
ondary schools and the degree colleges. Before the survey
questionnaires were given to the students, principals and
teachers were contacted for approval. We informed the
Table 1. Enduring Product Involvement
‘Information search evaluation’;
‘Consumer risk opinion/experience’
Dholakia (2001)
‘Interest and tendency to buy new
product’
Bloch (1981)
‘Evaluation of product quality’ Charters and Pettigrew
(2006)
‘Purchase choice practice’ Bauer et al. (2006)
‘Product awareness/information’ Park and Moon (2003)
‘Brand commitment’ Warrington and Shim
(2000)
Table 2. Teen’s Involvement in Family Purchase Decision
Author Objective
Lee and Beatty (2002) ‘Explored the role of family structure
on influence of children in family
decision-making’
Foxman et al. (1989) ‘Explored family members’ perception
of adolescents influence in family
decision-making’
Williams and Burns
(2000)
‘Explored the dimensionality of
children’s direct influence attempts’
Chan (2001) ‘Parent child communication about
consumption and advertising in China’
Geuens et al. (2002) ‘Researched the role of family structure
on children’s influence’

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 81–90
respondents that their participation would be confidential
and it would be maintained for research purpose only. The
data were collected during school hours because few
students feel difficulty in understanding the questions.
The questionnaire was bilingual (i.e. in both Hindi and
English) in order to overcome the students’difficulty level.
Convenience sampling was adopted to collect the data.
Convenience sampling is one of the ‘non-probability sam-
pling techniques where the subjects are selected because
of their convenient accessibility and proximity to the
researcher’ and more than 40 per cent of teenagers belong
to the traditional family household (married couples with
teenagers).
Measures
In order to ascertain (establish) and refine valid and
consistent (reliable) measures for our constructs, we
analyzed and tested many earlier tested scales. Protesting
was done on 30 respondents in order to develop a final
questionnaire. In total, 25 students gave feedback on the
basis of which the minor changes are made in the question-
naire. The scales reliability was checked by Cronbach’s
alpha (Churchill, 1979). For this research, the items used
for the construct teen–peer interaction were taken from
the Moschis et al. (1977) and El Aoud and Neeley (2008).
The alpha value (0.78) is acceptable for the confirmatory
study. The measures of construct enduring product
involvement (i.e. pleasure and symbolic meaning) have
taken from Laurent and Kapferer (1985, 1986). The
Cronbach’s alpha value (0.77) is satisfactory and appropri-
ate for this analysis. The items included in the construct
teenager’s level of involvement to purchase decision
process have taken from Aoud and Neeley (2008) Beatty
and Talpade (1994), Jenkins (1979), Szybillo and Sosanie
(1977). The Cronbach’s alpha value, 0.71, is acceptable for
the study. The respondents were requested to respond to
the (items) questions based on teen–peer interaction,
enduring product involvement dimensions and teenagers
influence on family purchase decision on five-point Likert
scale (1: ‘strongly disagree’, 2: ‘disagree’, 3: ‘neutral’, 4:
‘agree’, 5: ‘strongly agree’) (Table 3).
Figure 1. Proposed Model
Table 3. Measurement Items
Items Variable Author
Teen–peer interaction Moschis et al.
(1977)
TP1 ‘My friend and I talk about buying…’
TP2 ‘My friends and I usually talk about
buying … which we see or hear
advertised’
TP3 ‘My friends and I usually talk about …
that I should or should not buy’
TP4 ‘My friends ask me for advice about
buying…’
Enduring Product Involvement Laurent and
Kapferer (1985)
Pleasure
P1 ‘I cannot say that i particularly like…*’
P2 ‘It is pleasant to possess…’
P3 ‘For me possession of … does not
matter*’
P4 ‘It is pleasure for me to buy….’
Sign/symbolic meaning
S1 ‘The … that we possess tell us what
type of the person we are’
S2 ‘You can really tell me about a person
by the … she picks out’.
S3 ‘We can get an idea about a person by
the … he possess’
Family decision-making
Initiation Beatty and
Talpade (1994)
I1 ‘I usually bring the ideas to buy … in
my family’
I2 ‘I generally realize my parents that I
need …’
I3 ‘I usually get my parents to start
thinking about buying ….’
Information search/assessment Beatty and
Talpade (1994)
A1 ‘When my family is purchasing the …
I usually assess the quality of different
brands/models of …’
A2 ‘I usually assess the price of different
brands/models of…’
A3 ‘I usually assess the colour of different
brands/models of…’
Final decision
D1 ‘I usually decide from which store to
actually buy…’
Beatty and
Talpade (1994)
(Table 3 continued)

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 81–90
Data Analysis
Amos 20 was used in two stages: In the initial phase, we
tested the fitness of the measurement model (done by CFA)
which is followed by the testing of fitness of the proposed
conceptual model as well as hypothesized relationships
between the variables (done by SEM).
In the initial phase, the fitness of measurement model
was done by three different analyses: (a) reliability along
with R2 for each measurement item, average variance
extracted (AVE) and the composite reliability; (b) validity
which includes convergent validity and discriminant valid-
ity; and (c) fitness indices of measurement model (Nayak
et al., 2011). The model fit indices used are: chi square,
Items Variable Author
D2 ‘I usually decide the amount of money
to be spent in buying…’
Szybillo and
Sosanie (1977),
Jenkins (1979)
D3 ‘I usually decide from which store to
finally buy…’
Beatty and
Talpade (1994)
Notes: The sign/symbol factor was deleted as the R2 values of the
three representative items were less than 0.5; All measures
are based on five-point rating scale (1: ‘strongly disagree’,
5:‘strongly agree’).
*Items were reverse coded.
(Table 3 continued) goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit
(AGFI), root mean square residual (RMSR) and RMSEA.
The chi-square test which is manipulated, checks for the
incongruity (divergence) between hypothesized model and
the data model (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2006). GFI and
AGFI are ‘measures of a relative amount of variance
and covariance jointly accounted for by the model’, and
the RMSR and the RMSEA are ‘measures of the average
residuals’ (Sorbom and Joreskog, 1982).
Firstly, in order to determine the reliability, squared
multiple correlation (R2) and the composite reliability and
the AVE for each measurement item in the measurement
model were examined (manipulated) (Hair et al., 2013). In
the initial phase of testing of the measurement model, it
was found that the R2 for the most of the items was greater
than 0.5 except for the construct sign/symbol (which is one
of the construct for measuring enduring product involve-
ment), as the value of R2 was less than 0.5, so it was deleted
from the model. In the second phase of testing of the meas-
urement model, it was found that the value of squared mul-
tiple correlation (R2) was higher than 0.5 or very close
which shows higher level of reliability (Holmes-Smith,
2001) (Table 4). Composite reliability is a ‘statistical
measure of scale reliability that assesses the internal con-
sistency of a measure’. AVE estimates ‘measures the
amount of variance captured by a construct’. The values
for composite reliability and AVE significantly go above
Table 4. Reliability Test Outcomes for Each Factor
Items Variable mi CR AVE
Teen–peer interaction 0.833 0.556
TP1 ‘My friend and I talk about buying…’ 0.73
TP2 ‘My Friends and I usually talk about buying… which we see or
hear advertised’
0.71
TP3 ‘My friends and I usually talk about… that I should or should not buy’ 0.76
TP4 ‘My friends ask me for advice about buying….’ 0.78
Pleasure 0.855 0.597
P1 ‘I cannot say that i particularly like…’ 0.79
P2 ‘It is pleasant to possess….’ 0.8
P3 ‘For me possession of…. does not matter’ 0.797
P4 ‘It is pleasure for me to buy…’ 0.7
Initiation 0.817 0.598
I1 ‘I usually bring the ideas to buy… in my family’ 0.76
I2 ‘I generally realize my parents that I need…’ 0.77
I3 ‘I usually get my parents to start thinking about buying …’ 0.79
Information search/assessment
A1 ‘When my family is purchasing the … I usually assess the quality
of different brands/models of electronic items’
0.71
A2 ‘I usually assess the price of different brands/models of…’ 0.716
A3 ‘I usually assess the colour of different brands/models of…’ 0.71
Final decision 0.805 0.58
D1 ‘I usually decide from which store to actually buy…’ 0.77
D2 ‘I usually decide the amount of money to be spent in buying…’ 0.76
D3 ‘I usually decide from which store to finally buy…’ 0.754
Notes: mi = ‘factor loading’, CR = ‘composite reliability’, AVE = ‘average variance extracted’.

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 81–90
Table 5. Table for Testing DiscriminantValidity
Assessment TP Pleasure Initiation FD
Assessment 0.507
TP 0.238144 0.556
Pleasure 0.000016 0.201 0.597
Initiation 0.254016 0.371 0.096 0.598
FD 0.3481 0.176 0.101 0.174724 0.58
the minimum standard (appropriate) values of 0.7 and 0.5,
respectively (Holmes-Smith, 2001). The factor for the con-
vergent validity is the critical ratio of every item exceeds
the 1.96 value (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In order to
test the discriminant validity (Table 5), the AVE for each
couple of variables was greater than the squared correla-
tion for the same pair, represents each construct was dis-
tinct. The results for the whole model were as follows:
chi-square (|2)/df ratio is 2.33. The value of RMSEA is
0.076, CFI is 0.91, TFI is 0.90, GFI is 0.92, RMR is 0.06.
Structural Model
The results of the measurement provide a convenient
number of reliable and valid measurement items, which
were further used to evaluate the structural model in this
section. The fit indices for the hypothesized structural
model were as follows: The value of RMSEA is 0.076, chi-
square (|2)/df ratio is 2.28, CFI is 0.903, TFI is 0.833, GFI
is 0.90, RMR is 0.07 (Byrne, 2001; Hair et al., 1995). The
above values indicate that the model is fit.
Now after finalizing the SEM, hypothesis testing was
done which were developed for this research. The
hypotheses that were developed are tested by estimating
(assessing) the path coefficients and the significance levels
among the constructs in the model. If the signiﬁcance level
for each relationship was less than or equal to 0.05, then
the hypothesis is accepted; otherwise, it will be rejected. In
this study, six hypotheses were developed.
Discussion and Findings
Hypothesis testing was done with the help of the critical
ratio and p value. Hypothesis 1 which stated that ‘there is a
direct linkage between teen–peer interaction and initiation’
was found to be significant (critical value = 5.455 and
p = 0.00); hence, the hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis 2
which stated that ‘the greater the teenager interacts with
peers, more contribution he will make in information
search/assessment’, was not significant (critical value =
1.9 and p = 0.056) and hence the hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis 3a which stated that ‘pleasure has a direct
impact on the final choice of the family purchase process’,
was also found to be significant (critical value = 2.76 and
p = 0.006), hence the hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis
3b which stated that ‘sign/symbol has a direct impact on
the final choice of the family purchase process’ was failed
to be tested (because the R2 values of the three representative
items were less than 0.5). Hypothesis 4 which stated that
‘initiation process leads to information search/assessment
of the decision-making process’, was found to be significant
(critical value = 2.53 and p = 0.01); hence, the hypothesis
is accepted. Hypothesis 5 which stated that ‘information
search/assessment has a direct relation with the final choice
of the decision-making process’was found to be significant
(critical value = 4.36 and p-value = 0.01); hence, the
hypothesis is accepted (Table 6).
The main focus of this research was to highlight the
impact of peer communication and the involvement with
the product on family purchase decision-making. A con-
ceptual model was presented here that was empirically
justified and confirmed by perceptual data collected from
13–18 years old teenagers in the India. The findings of
the study presented a well-built empirical support for all
the hypothesized associations among the constructs. The
outcome of this study has practical and theoretical signifi-
cance in the field of consumer purchase activities. Here,
the family purchase process is divided into three parts:
initiation, information search/assessment and final deci-
sion. The final result gives a clearer picture about the
impact of peers/colleagues and the product involved
(measured in terms of pleasure) on the different phases of
the family purchase decision process.
In this research paper, we found a significant relation-
ship among teen–peer interaction, product involvement
and family purchase decision process which were explored
in prior researches (e.g., Moschis and Mitchell, 1986;
Mourali et al., 2005). As per the findings of this paper, we
conclude that the more the teenagers interact with peers,
the more he contributes in the initiation stage of the family
decision-making process. Similarly, the teenager’s endur-
ing involvement (measured in terms of pleasure) constructs
have a considerable influence on the final decision-
making, that is, it substantially elucidates teen’s involve-
ment with the family purchases strengthen the associations
Table 6. Table of Critical Ratio and pValue
Relationship Critical Ratio pValue Outcome
Teen–peer
interactioninitiation
5.455 0.00 Accept
Teen–peer
interactionassessment
1.9 0.056 Reject
Pleasurefinal decision 2.76 0.006 Accept
Sign/symbolfinal
decision
Failed to test
InitiationIS/assessment 2.53 0.01 Accept
IS/assessmentfinal
decision
4.36 0.01 Accept

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 81–90
postulated by Chavda et al. (2005) and Shoham and
Dalakas (2003). Thus, pleasure (dimension for measuring
enduring product involvement) has a direct influence on
the final choice.
Marketers must be concerned with the desires and
requirements of all the individuals and trying to resolve the
conflicts that possibly will occur. How many teenagers
have an influence it varies according to product class and
stages in the family purchases. For a few products, they act
as vibrant (active) participant or initiator; information
seekers; buyers while sometimes they act as influencer in
the parent’s decision. In this research paper, teenagers are
found to have more influence at initiation and information
search/assessment of decision process but have less influ-
ence at the final stage, that is, parents still have influence at
the final choice.
Limitations and Future Prospects
Few shortcomings of this study highlight the need for
future research. Here, in this paper, only two determinants
are taken into study: Teen–peer interaction and the enduring
product involvement. Other factors can be taken into
account like teen–parent interaction or interaction of teen
with their siblings (brother and sisters), the gender impact,
etc., or the amount of perceived risk linked with the
product. In the present scenario, the role of women is
changing from homemaker to employed women, which
results in a change in the teenager’s influence of family
purchase process. The convenience sampling is used,
which implies that the data used may not be representing
the whole population.
As per the future prospects are concerned, a study can
be done on the relative teen’s influence in the family dual
earner versus single earner. We can also study the impact of
advertisement on teenagers’ interaction (with parents,
siblings, peers, etc.) and how it influences the teenagers’
decision-making process for the products which is being
purchased for their personal use or for the complete family
unit. Teenagers are one of the most influential sources for
shaping the relationships among the family members. They
are not merely acting as an influencer for the parental
decision but also they are the future consumer. As per the
family decisions are concerned, conflicts may arise during
such process. The researches that were done in the past
were mostly in Western countries although very few have
been done in India; so this area needs further exploration.
Managerial Implications
The results of this empirical investigation have few
consequences which would be very valuable for the
managers. The communication of teenagers with fellow
mates/colleagues has an impact on the initiation and the
information search stages in the family purchase decision
process and consequently information search stage as well
as the enduring product involvement has an impact on the
final decision-making process. So during the teenage years,
the peers act as an influencer and marketing deeds must
consider this stimulating effect. So whatever promotional/
advertising strategies are made for products anticipated to
teenagers use must express the peer influence. The research
on teenagers gives an opportunity to the marketers to make
their strategies and advertisements to attract the teenagers.
In the coming years, the teenagers would constitute the
major markets. Communication between parents/peers or
other agents and the teenagers had an impact on the
consumer socialization of teenagers. So this area under
consumer behaviour needs to be explored fmurther. In this
research paper, teenager is found to have more influence at
initiation and information search/assessment of decision
process but have less influence at the final stage, that is,
parents still have influence at the final choice, that is,
teenagers are acting as an information seeker within the
family, they are providing information to the family
members, and have huge potential for the parents’ final
choice. So the products intended for parents use also must
be targeted to teenagers.
References
Ali, Akhter, Ravichandran, N., Batra, D.K. (2013). Children’s
choice of influence strategies in family purchase decisions
and the impact of demographics. Vision: The Journal of
Business Perspective, 17(1), 27–40.
Anderson, J., Gerbing, W. (1988). Structural equation mod-
elling in practice: A review and recommended two stage
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 27(1), 5–24.
Bao, Y., Fern, E.F., Sheng, S. (2007). Parental style and adoles-
cent influence in family consumption decisions: An integra-
tive approach. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 672–680.
Bartley, Sharon J., Blanton, Priscilla W., Gilliard, Jennifer
L. (2008). Husbands and wives in dual earner marriages:
Decision-making, gender role attitudes, division of household
labour, and equity. Journal of Marriage and Family Review,
37(4), 69–94.
Bauer, H.H., Sauer, E.N., Becker, C. (2006). Investigating
the relationship between product involvement and consumer
decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
5(4), 342–354.
Beatty, S.E., Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent influence in fam-
ily decision making: A replication with extension. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21(2), 332–341.
Belch, Michael, Krentler, Kathleen A., Willis-Flurry, Laura
A. (2005). Teen internet Mavens: Influence in decision-
making. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 569–575.
Belch, M.A., Willis, L.A. (2002). Family decision at the turn
of the century: Has the changing structure of households

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 81–90
impacted the family decision-making process. Journal of
Belch, G.E., Belch, M.A., Ceresin, G. (1985). Parental and
teenage child influences in family decision making. Journal
of Business Research, 13(2), 163–176.
Berkman, L.F. (2000). Social support, social networks, social
cohesion and health. Social Work in Health Care, 31(2),
3–14, NIH Pubic Access.
Bloch, P.H. (1981). An exploration into the scaling of consum-
er’s involvement with a product class. In K.B. Monroe (ed.),
Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 8, pp. 61–65). Ann
Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
———. (1986). The product enthusiasm: Implications for mar-
keting strategy. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3, 51–62.
Brey, E.T., Lehto, X. (2008). Changing family dynamics: A
force of change for the family-resort industry. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 241–248.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caruana, A., Vassallo, R. (2003). Children’s perception of
their influence over purchases: The role of parental com-
munication patterns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(1),
55–56.
Chan, K. (2001). Children’s perceived truthfulness of television
advertising and parental influence: A Hong Kong Study.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), 317–334.
Charters, S., Pettigrew, S. (2006). Product involvement and
the evaluation of wine quality. Qualitative Market Research,
9(2), 181–194.
Chavda, H., Haley, M., Duun, C. (2005). Adolescents’ influ-
ence on family decision-making. Young Consumers Quarter,
6(2), 68–78.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). Paradigm for developing better meas-
ures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,
16(1), 64–73.
Dholakia, U.M. (2001). A motivational process model of prod-
uct involvement and consumer risk perception. European
Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1340–1360.
El Aoud, Nibrass Hajtaieb, Neeley, Sabrina M. (2008).
Teenager-peer interaction and its contribution to a family
purchase decision: The mediating role of enduring product
involvement. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
32(3), 242–252.
Epp, A.M., Price, L.L. (2008). Family identity: A framework
of identity interplay in consumption practices. Journal of
Escalas, J.E., Beattman, J.R. (2003). You are what they eat:
The influence of reference groups on consumers’ connections
to brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348.
Evrard, Y., Aurier, P. (1996). Identification and validation of
the components of the person-object relationship. Journal of
Business Research, 37(2), 127–134.
Fox, G.L., Murry, V.M. (2000). Gender and families: Feminist
perspectives and family research. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 62(4), 1160–1172.
Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S. (1988). Adolescents’ and moth-
ers’ perceptions of relative influence in family purchase
decisions: Patterns of agreement and disagreement. In M.J.
Houston (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 15,
pp. 449–453). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Foxman, Ellen, Tansuhaj, Patriya S., Ekstrom, K.M. (1989).
Family members’ perception of adolescents influence in fam-
ily decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4),
482–491.
Frisco, M.L., Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework
equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner house-
holds. Journal of Family Issues, 24(1), 51–73.
Geuens, M.G., Mast, G., Pelsmacker, P.D. (2002). Children’s
influence on family purchase behavior: The role of fam-
ily structure. In Ramizwick and Tu Ping (Eds), Asia Pacific
Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 130–135). Valdosta,
GA: Association for consumer Research.
Greenstein, T.N. (2000). Economic dependence, gender, and the
division of labor in the home: A replication and extension.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(2), 322–325.
Grote, N.K., Clark, M.S. (2001). Perceiving unfairness in
the family: Cause or consequence of marital distress. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 281–293.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C. (1995).
Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
———. (2013). Multivariate data analysis, Seventh Edition.
Prentice-Hall.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultural consequences: Comparing values,
behaviour, institutions, and organizations across nations
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Holdert, F., Antonides, G. (1997). Family type effects on
household members’ decision making. Advances in Consumer
Research, 24(1), 48–54.
Holmes-Smith, P. (2001). Introduction to structural equation
modelling using LISREL. Perth, Australia: ACSPRI Winter
Training Program.
Houston, M.J., Rothschild, M.L. (1978). Conceptual and
methodological perspectives on involvement. In S.C. Jain
(ed.),ResearchFrontierinMarketing:DialoguesandDirections
(pp.184–187).Chicago,IL:AmericanMarketingAssociation.
Jain, Sanjay K., Sharma, Kavita (2002). Relevance of personal
factors as antecedents of consumer involvement: An explora-
tion. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 6(1), 13–24.
Jenkins, R.L. (1979). The influence of children in family
decision-making: Parents’ perceptions. In W.L. Wilkie (ed.),
Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 6, pp. 413–418). Ann
Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Juyal, Som Aditya, Singh, M.P. (2009). Role of females in
family buying decision-making: A study among females in
Uttrakhand. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective,
13(4), 16–23.
Kaur, P., Singh, R. (2006). Children in family purchase
decision making in India and the West: A review. Academy
of Marketing Science Review, 8, 1–32. Retrieved from
http://www.amsreview.org/article/kaur08-2006.pdf
Laaksonen, P. (1994). Consumer involvement: Concepts and
research. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR). 33(1), 115–117.
Lackman, C., Lanasa, J.M. (1993). Family decision mak-
ing theory: An overview and assessment. Psychology and
Marketing, 10(2), 81–93.

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 81–90
Laurent, G., Kapferer, J.N. (1985). Measuring consumer
involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(1),
41–53.
———. (1986). Consumer involvement profiles: A new practi-
cal approach to consumer involvement. Journal Advertising
Research, 25(6), 48–56.
Lee, Christina K.C., Beatty, Sharon E. (2002). Family struc-
ture and influence in family decision making. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 19(1), 24–41.
Martin, C.A., Bush, A.J. (2000). Do role models influence
teenagers’ purchase indentations and behaviour. Journal of
Mascarenhas, O.J., Higby, M.A. (1993). Peer, parent, and
media influences in teen apparel shopping. Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 53–58.
Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M. (2006). The benefits of leader com-
munication on part-time worker outcomes: A comparison
between part-time and full-time employees using motivating
language. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(2), 131–154.
McNeal, J.U. (1992). Kids as consumers. New York: Lexington
Books.
Moschis, George P. (March 1985). The role of family communi-
cation in consumer socialization of children and adolescents.
Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 898–913.
Moschis, G.P., Churchill, G.A., Jr. (1978). An analysis
of the adolescent consumer. Journal of Marketing, 43(3),
40–48.
Moschis, G.P. Mitchell, L.G. (1986). Television advertis-
ing and interpersonal influences on teenagers’ participation
in family consumption decisions. Advances in Consumer
Research, 13(1), 181–186.
Moschis, G.P., Moore, R.L., Stephens, L.F. (1977). Purchasing
patterns of adolescent consumers. Journal of Retailing, 53(1),
17–26.
Mourali, M., Laroche, M., Pons, F. (2005). Antecedents of
consumer relative preference for interpersonal informa-
tion sources in pre purchase search. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 4(5), 307–318.
Nayak, J.K., Gautam, Sinha, Guin, K.K. (2011). Impact of
supplier management on a firm’s performance. Decision,
38(1), 77–90.
Panda, Tapan K. (2005). Sex-oriented advertising and its impact
on attitude of teenagers: Application of behavioural inten-
tion model across product categories. Vision: The Journal of
Business Perspective, 9(4), 15–26.
Park, C.W., Moon, B.-J. (2003). The relationship between
product involvement and product knowledge: Moderating
roles of product type and product knowledge type. Psychology
and Marketing, 20(11), 977–997.
Ray, M.L. (1982). Advertising and communication management.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Rothschild, M.L. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: Current
problems and future directions. In T.C. Kinnear (ed.),
Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11, pp. 216–217).
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Shoham, A. Dalakas, V. (2003). Family consumer decision
making in Israel: The role of teens and parents. Journal of
———. (2005). He said, she said … they said: Parents’ and
children’s assessment of children’s influence on family con-
sumption decisions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3),
152–160.
———. (2006). How our adolescent children influence us as par-
ents to yield to their purchase requests. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 23(6), 344–350.
Sorbom, D. Joreskog, K.G. (1982). Recent developments
in structural equation modelling. Journal of Marketing
Research, 19(4), 404–416.
Szybillo, G.J., Sosanie, A. (1977). Family decision-making:
Husband, wife and children. In William D. Perreault Jr. (Ed.),
Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 46–49). Atlanta, GA:
Association for Consumer Research.
Thomson, E. (2003). Look who’s talking: Family communica-
tion during purchase decisions. International Journal of
Advertising Marketing to Children, 5(1), 23–33.
Treas, J., DeRuijter, E. (2008). Earnings and expenditures on
household services in married and cohabiting unions. Journal
of Marriage Family, 70(3), 796–805.
Wang, S., Holloway, B.B., Beatty, S.E., Hill, W.W. (2007).
Adolescent influence in family purchase decisions: An update
and cross-national extension. Journal of Business Research,
60(11), 1117–1124.
Ward, S. Wackman, D. (1972). Children’s purchase influ-
ence attempts and parental yielding. Journal of Marketing
Research, 9(3), 316–319.
Warrington, P., Shim, S. (2000). An empirical investigation
of the relationship between product involvement and brand
commitment. Psychology and Marketing, 17(9), 761–782.
Williams, L.A., Burns, A.C. (2000). Exploring the dimen-
sionality of children’s direct influence attempts. Advances in
Wimalasiri, J.S. (2004). A cross-national study on children’s
purchasing behaviour and parental response. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 21(4), 274.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–351.
Rashmi Singh (rashmi.gr.noida@gmail.com) is a Research
Scholar in Department of Management Studies, IIT,
Roorkee. She has started her PhD in Marketing (Consumer
Behaviour) in January 2013.
J.K. Nayak (joginder.nayak@gmail.com) is an Assistant
Professor in the Department of Management Studies,
IIT, Roorkee, where he teaches Marketing Research and
Basic Marketing. He has done his PhD from the Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. He has published
papers in journals of repute with SAGE, Elsevier and
Springer Publications and is a reviewer for JAMS.

Copyright of Vision (09722629) is the property of Sage India and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Teen agers influence on family purchase decision

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Similar to Teen agers influence on family purchase decision

Similar to Teen agers influence on family purchase decision (20)

More from MD SALMAN ANJUM

More from MD SALMAN ANJUM (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Teen agers influence on family purchase decision