Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 38 – 46

ICTMS-2013

Theoretical modeling of influence of children on family purchase

decision making
Adya Sharmaa*, Vandana Sonwaneyb
*a
Symbiosis Institute of international Business (SIIB) & bSymbiosis Institute of Operations Management (SIOM), Nasik
Symbiosis International University (SIU), Pune, India

Abstract

Children traditionally were not considered important consumer segment. However, with changing economic, social and
demographic scenario, the situation has undergone a change. Substantial research has found that children have influence in
family purchase decisions. McNeal (1987) categorized children as three markets in one: they are current market that spends
money on their desires, they are a future market for most goods and services and they are markets of influential that cause
billions of dollars of purchase among their parents. A study by Nickelodeon (2013) states that power of kids influence over
purchasing decisions has increased significantly over the years and decision making among families is collaborative. McNeal
(1998) reported that children’s indirect purchase through influencing parents decisions soared from USD 5 billion in 1960s to
USD 188 billion in 1997. Today children are not passive users but influential buyers and are socialized in this role from an early
age. The topic gains special relevance from Indian context due to various reasons. The influence of children in decision making is
still an unexplored topic in India. The study specially gains relevance as India has witnessed huge cultural, social and economic
changes in the past decade. With compounded annual growth rate of 5.36% predicted for average household disposable income
between 2005-2025 (McKinsey Global Institute, 2007) the financial position of families is much stronger. As per Census 2010 of
India, demographically India is a young nation with 30% of the population below the age group of 15 years. According to
consumer socialization theory family, peers, media are important socialization agents. Also according to research, child’s
influence is effected by product category, age of child, family communication pattern (Ahuja and Stinson, 1993, Caruana and
Vassallo, 2003, Haynes et al, 1993; Ozgen, 2003). The model integrates these two different areas of research to develop a
conceptual model to explore the relation of influence of children with respect to different factors. The model introduces the
concept of “parent’s re-socialization”.
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and/or
Selection and peer-review
peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of theofOrganizing
the Organizing Committee
Committee of ICTMS-2013
of ICTMS-2013.
Keywords: Influence of children; India; Consumer socialization; Family; Parents re-socialization

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-20-22934314

E-mail address: adya.sharma@siib.ac.in

1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of ICTMS-2013.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.167
 Adya Sharma and Vandana Sonwaney / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 38 – 46 39

1. Introduction

Some may say that children are just children- laughing, crying, playing, juggling between home, school, classes,
tuition etc. They are now viewed as three markets in one: they are current market that spends money on their desires,
they are a future market for most goods and services, they are also a market of influential who cause many billions
of dollars of purchases among their parents (Mc Neal, 1987)
India has witnessed social, cultural and economic changes in the last decade. The personal disposable income
has risen by 6.57% between 1993-94 and 2003-04 (Annualized growth rate between 1993-94 and 2003-04) (Laveesh
Bhandari, 2009). Compound annual growth rate of 5.3% is predicted for average Household disposable income
between 2005-2025 (McKinsey Global Institute, 2007). As per Census of India, 2010, children under 15 years of
age constitute 30% of our population. Not only that the large base of its age pyramid shows that for many years
Indian population will continue to have a large number of young population. Children are influential buyers who are
socialized into this role from an early age. Though research has been done in the West on socialization of children,
the research in India is still lacking on the topic (Kaur and Singh, 2006).
McKinsey Global Institute (2007) has predicted that India will become the World’s 5 th largest Consumer Market
by 2025 .This study intends to investigate how the Indian child influences the purchase decision making of the
family and its relation specifically to family communication and family demographics. The structure of the paper is
as follows: first we discuss the theoretical background for our premise, next we define and discuss how family
communication and family demographics affect the influence of child in purchase decision making. We then
propose a model integrating the factors that result in re-socialisation of parents. Finally practical implications of the
proposed model in marketing and areas for further research in this field will be discussed. We think that a systematic
exploration of this field has tremendous implications for marketers for value creation and value delivery to
consumers.

2. Consumer Socialization

Research on children as consumers had started way back in 1960s but it was only in 1970s that it gained
visibility in the marketing world. Ward (1974) gave one of the first definitions of Consumer Socialization of
children as “processes by which young people acquire skills, knowledge and attitudes relevant to their functioning
as consumers in the market place”. Over the years two major classes of influence have been identified for
socialization process: cognitive factors and environmental factors (Haynes et al, 1993). The cognitive factors are
usually age related and environmental factors include agents like family, mass media and peers.
Many models have attempted to explain the changes in children from the dimension of age. Children were
found to be extremely self centered in Pre operational stage (2-7 years) but were found to use symbols in a logical
way in Concrete operational stage (7-11 years)(Ginsburg et al, 1988) Children who are 12 years and above have
been defined as Strategic processors who can employ storage and retrieval strategies ( Deborah, 1981).
Ward et al (1977) identified that family directly influences the general cognitive skills, indirectly impacts the
development of consumer skills and motivates children to apply general cognitive abilities in areas of Consumer
Behaviour. Family was reinforced as a major influence for consumer socialization in many studies ( Dotson and
Hyatt, 2005; Ghazali, 2011; Coley, 1988; Carlson, Grossbart and Tripp, 1990).
Another socialization agent identified was media, more specifically television (Ward 1974, Butter et al, 1981,
Uusitalo and Takala, 1993) Children are being exposed to adult oriented information and appear adept at
processing that information though parents may think that they are sieving all the information reaching the
children. (Hyatt, 2000) Onslaught of internet in the last two decades has redefined the word media and made
information more accessible to parents and children. Again role of family was important to the extent of
controlling the exposure of children to media. ( Bakir, Rose and Shoham, 2005).
Peer group influence, another socialization agent was found to have sensitivity highest by older age group.
Also peer group influence was directly related to conspicuousness of the product ( Bachmann and John, 1993;
Mandrik et al, 2005) Peer group influence may be dominating in the early stages of consumer decisions but was
found to decline towards actual purchase suggesting that parents may mediate the effect of peer influence
(Moschis and Mitchell, 1986).
Most of the research in the past has focused on the role of age and influence of family, media and peer in
consumer socialization of children. Importance of adopting a reciprocal view of how parents and children may
40 Adya Sharma and Vandana Sonwaney / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 38 – 46

learn from each other in the socialization process has been highlighted in recent research.(Ekstrom et al, 1987) It
was proposed that preadolescent children are not only in a learner role vis a vis their parents and may have a
stronger influence in household decision making at an earlier stage ( Dotson and Hyatt, 2000) Social power theory
has also highlighted that children are well aware of their influence. Need for development of children’s model of
influence has been highlighted (Easterling, Miller and Weinberg, 1995).
With the world becoming a global village the results of consumer socialization of children have also been tried
in other cultures (Ward et al, 1977; Rose, 1999; Brusdal, 2007). Much of the research on consumer socialization
has been done in North America and Europe but it is the universality of research findings that should be examined
(Cram, 1999). According to Burgess and Steenkamp (2006) there is a need for a marketing renaissance, the
existing body of research suffers from the limitation of having been conducted in high income countries. So it is
urgent to research emerging markets in order to advance marketing science and practice. They also call attention to
the possibility that success in emergent markets may be crucial to the future of many global companies.

3. Conceptual model for influence of child on family purchase decision and its relation to family variables

Children have so much power that their families are becoming child led (Cowell,2001) Children are deeply in
family purchases be it groceries or new cars (Neuborne, 1999) Child consumers in Turkey were found to purchase
by themselves, make price comparisons, gave importance to brand and considered television advertising when
making purchase decisions (Ozgen, 2003) Ekstrom et al proposed that children who are more involved in family
decisions will experience greater satisfaction with decision outcome (Ekstrom et al, 1987). Marketing research is
increasingly feeling the need to understand the influence of children on various family decisions. The focus of the
proposed model is how children influence family purchase decisions and how the end result is also re-socialization
of parents. The model conceptualizes the influence of children only in relation to family variables and then
integrates it with traditional consumer socialization model to explain both socialization and re-socialization.

3.1. Parents demographics

a) Type of family

Role of family as one of the most important socialization agents for children has been emphasized time and
again. Parents were found to rely on their children as an agent of socialization in terms of family purchase when a
parent does not have a spouse to share experiences with (Watne, Lobo and Brennan, 2011). A study conducted in
India found that parents who resort to co viewing, explaining and teaching children about television
advertisements could help them to regulate their buying response within family norms (Kapoor and Verma, 2005)
Another research shows that children who spend less time with parents experience less rational social influence
and more commercial and irrational influence in the consumer socialization process. (Dotson and Hyatt, 2005)
Family culturally and traditionally has always played an important role in the life of individuals in India. Joint
families are more prevalent in Indian Sub-continent. No study yet has ascertained the effect of nuclear/joint
families on socialization. Joint families are defined as families where along with parents and children, other family
members also stay together. Nuclear families in the past decade have increased in India and joint families have
decreased. However at the same time, extended families or family where parents/ parent in-laws also stay with the
members (parents and children) have increased.

Table 1: Number of households across family types (Urban)

Sector 1999-00 2004-05 2007-08

Nuclear 35155526 38364613 40429014
Joint 4000029 2048223 1370773
Extended 12197465 16540995 19858062
Total 51353019 56953830 61657850
(Source: The Indicus Consumer Handbook, Laveesh Bhandari, Pearson Education)
 Adya Sharma and Vandana Sonwaney / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 38 – 46 41

For our study purposes extended families are being labelled as joint families as they are a smaller version of
traditional joint family. In a nuclear family a child experiences socialization earlier than a child in a joint family.
This is because in a nuclear family possibility of parents to leave the child at home alone is less while in a joint
family possibility of leaving the child at home with grandparents is more. This increases the exposure of child in
nuclear family to consumerism much earlier than a child in a joint family. Also in a nuclear family as number of
family members is less, the interaction between the members is more. It is assumed that this allows the children a
greater share in decision making.

Proposition 1(a) The type of family (nuclear /joint) affects the socialization of children and also affects the influence
of children in family purchase making.

3.2. Mothers employment status

Prominent role of mother in Consumer Socialization of children has been central in many studies. The
influence of mothers interaction on Consumer Socialization of children was highlighted and mothers classified as
per common traits (Carlson and Grossbart, 1988; Neeley and Coffey, 2007) Fathers role appeared to be very less
than mother in family communication pattern. Mothers concept oriented communication was positively linked to
children’s use of utilitarian, social, conspicuous decision making styles while mothers socio oriented
communication was positively linked to children’s use of undesirable decision making style and negatively to
children’s influence in family purchase decisions (Lim, Lee and Tomuik, 2009). Another study reported that
mother’s materialism level and communication style alone could reliably predict child’s level of materialism and
intergenerational influence was mainly from mothers to daughters (Flouri, 1999, Mandrik et al, 2005).
Mother’s employment status was also defined as an important factor for socialization of children. Children of
full time employed mothers shopped for their clothing more often than children of mothers with part time/ no
employment (Haynes et al, 1993). At the same time studies show that working mothers have a feeling of guilt of
not been able to spend enough time with children. They try to compensate for it by giving and spending money on
them. Also mother’s absence has increased the number of decisions taken by children. This has increased the
influence of children on purchase making decisions.
The Indian woman too in the last two decades has become economically more independent and more aware of
her individuality. Women are doing paid work at younger age than previously. The peak work participation rate
for urban Indian women has shifted from 40-44 years in 1993-94 to 35-39 years in 2004-05. There also has been
an overall decline in casual employment and general increase in regular work and self-employment
(Chandrashekhar and Ghosh, 2007) Household responsibilities have shifted as the number of households where
both partners are working is rising. Mothers are spending less time with children. Overridden by guilt over
protracted absence, fatigue and work pressure, the parent centered family has changed its orbit and has become
child centered (Sud, 2007). Parents who believe that they do not spend enough time with their children feel guilty
and try to compensate for it by giving and spending more money for their children (Isin and Alkibay, 2011). Thus
we feel that children of working mothers will have more influence in the purchase decision making.

Proposition 1b: Mothers employment status affects the socialization of children and simultaneously also affects the
influence of children on purchase making decisions

3.3. Socio Economic Status

Socio economic status of a family affects the influence of family on children. Thus adolescents from higher
socio economic status were found to socialize faster ( Moschis and Churchill, 1978) As these children socialize
faster, their knowledge about market increases and this in turn allows them to influence their parents. The influence
of children on family purchase decisions from higher socio economic families has been found to be more intensive
than the influence of children from lower socio economic family (Haynes et al, 1993, Tansijah et al, 1991).

Proposition 1c: Socio economic status of family affects the socialization of children. At the same time socio
economic status of the family also affects the influence of children on family.
42 Adya Sharma and Vandana Sonwaney / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 38 – 46

3.4) Family Communication

Moschis (1985) conceptualized the family communication process and confirmed that family communication
plays an important role in socialization. Using socio oriented and concept oriented as two dimensions of family
communication four types of families were defined: Laissez faire( low socio orientation, low concept orientation),
Protective ( high socio orientation, low concept orientation), Plurastic ( high concept orientation, low socio
orientation) and Consensual ( high socio orientation, high concept orientation) ( Mc leod and Chaffee, 1972) This
has been the basis of many studies which have identified the role of family communication on socialization of
children. Further studies on the effect of family communication on consumer socialization have shown that children
from Plurastic families seem to be the most competent consumers and those from Laissez faire appear to be the least
competent ( Moschis et al, 1986) The difference between different family patterns was reiterated in another study
which highlighted that Plurastic encourage Consumer learning without emphasizing monitoring and control of
consumption behavior and Protectives and Laissez faire deemphasize concept message ( Carlson et al, 1990)
Parental communication has been successful in predicting child’s socialization. However effect of parental
communication in Childs perceived influence is still unexplored. Children also employ various strategies to
influence the decision making. Thus when they feel they deserve to have their way they utilize negative influence
attempts and use positive influence attempts when they feel parent has a right to tell them. (Williams and Burns,
2000;Marshall et al, 2007) Study also showed that Childs perceived influence was generally highest for Plurastic
and Consensual parents ( Bakir et al, 2006)
It is felt that influence of children is also conditioned by this communication matrix. Children with parents that
have higher level of concept orientation will exert greater influence than children of parents with higher level of
socio orientation. Parents with concept oriented communication consult their children and value their opinion
(Carlson et al, 1990) Further children from Plurastic families will have highest level of perceived influence of
children and children from Protective family will have least level of influence of children on purchase decision
making.

Proposition 2: Family communication pattern affects the socialization of children and simultaneously affects the
influence of children on family purchase decision making.

3.5. Childs demographics

3.5.1. Age of the child

Various models have emphasized the effect of age on consumer socialization of children .Heightened
awareness of others perspectives ,ability to analyze , do abstract thinking and apply to the world are some
characteristics of children above 11/12 years. (Roedder,1981,1999)Also with increase in age , influence of
children has been found to increase in family purchase ( Ahuja and Stinson, 1993) Older children preferred to
select more of their clothing for purchase (Haynes et al, 1995) Older children were found to influence family
decisions about purchasing furniture and cars (Ozgen, 2003) and older children were more brand and price
conscious than younger childfen for clothes ( Shim and Snyder, 1995) While older children were found to make
more request for clothes and records, the younger children made more request for food products and were also
more likely to specify brands ( Scott, 1974; Ozgen, 2003) We propose that older children will have more influence
on purchase decisions.

3.5.2. Number of children

Studies show that as number of children in a family increases, attitude of parents becomes more restrictive (
Guneysu and Bilir, 1988) On the other hand, children in smaller families gain consumer capabilities earlier ( Shim et
al, 1993) This factor will also affect the influence of children on family decisions as children in smaller families
would have more communication about consumption and purchase with their parents than do children in families
with more children. Also money education at home was linked to the number of children, the more the children, less
money education happened ( Shim and Snyder, 1995) Families with less number of children will spend more time
 Adya Sharma and Vandana Sonwaney / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 38 – 46 43

with children and involvement of childen in family decisions will be more as compared to families with more
children. It is proposed that influence of a child in purchase decisions will be more if he/she belongs to a family with
less number of children.

3.5.3. Gender

Gender differences and its effect on influence of children on family purchase decisions have been reported in
some studies (Lee and Collins, 2000, Moschis and Churchill, 1978) At the same time some other studies have found
no correlation with gender ( Wang et al, 2007, Chavda et al, 2005) Three females within a family were found to be
more influential than three males acting together. Female children had more influence in family decisions than male
children. (Lee and Collins, 2000) Gender difference was also highlighted in another study which said that female
adolescents are more likely to perform socially desirable consumer behavior than male adolescents. However male
adolescents appeared to know more about consumer matters (Moschis and Churchill, 1978).
Girls and boys being treated as equal , we propose that the influence of children would not be effected by gender.
Girls and boys in urban India are treated equally now. The opinion of girls is as valued as that of boys and hence we
think that gender would not affect the influence. It might only affect the areas of influence.

Proposition 3: Age of the child and number of children in a family affects the socialization of children and will also
affect the influence of children on purchase decisions.

3.5.4. Type of product

Studies have reported that child’s influence on family purchase decisions varies by product characteristics. The
importance of the product for the child and knowledge of the child about the product has a effect on his/her
influence (Watne et al, 2011). Robert et al (1981) claimed that children have relatively lower influence on
purchasing decisions when same are related to finance. Their influence was highest for products that related directly
to the child (Foxman et al, 1989; Mangleburg, 1990; Beatty and Talpade, 1994; John, 1999; Watne et al, 2011;
Shoham and Dalakas, 2005) Children’s influence was more for snack products (Ahuja and Stinson, 1993) and toys
(Bjorklund, 1979). While one study on Indian children suggested that children had more impact on selection of
children specific products than products for family use, another contrasted it by highlighting that Indian children
have influence in various product categories used not just by children but by family and household (Desai, 2008; Ali
and Batra, 2011)

Proposition 4: Type of product and purchase decision stage would have a moderating effect on the influence of
children on family purchase decisions.

3.6. Family Re-socialization process and children socialization process

Socialization has been defined as the process by which people acquire skills, knowledge and attitudes relevant to
their functioning as consumers in market place. Family has been found to play a pivotal role in socialization of
children. However, the model also traces that now children are influencing the family purchase decisions and in the
process parents are once again learning, acquiring skills knowledge and attitudes, only this time from children. The
result is re-socialization of parents (Sharma and Sonwaney, 2013). The model proposes children as one of the
socialization agents for parents/ family.

Proposition 5: Children are one of the socialization agents for re-socialization of parents.

3.7. Practical Implications

The importance of child as a consumer has been proved in literature. What also has been highlighted by
various researches is the importance to understand influence of children on decisions. This is important for
researcher who wants to understand the process and the various factors affecting it, for the marketer who sees a
consumer segment in this group and thus needs to understand the factors that influence them and also the policy
44 Adya Sharma and Vandana Sonwaney / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 38 – 46

makers who need to make sure that learning happens in the correct manner. The model proposes that learning
between children and parents is a two way process. Children learn from parents how to become a consumer but the
process is two way because children too are teaching the parents how to make/ change their opinions about
different products. The research attempts to define re-socialization of parents and children as important
socialization agents for parents .The model proposed only looks at the effect of family variables on influence of
child on purchase decision making.. Future research may also explore the effect of media (internet) and peers on
child’s influence in decision making. Access to information now for children is much advanced than before.
Information gives them the power to make decisions and influence the decisions. Further the model has been
developed based on past research. The model needs to be tested empirically.

Influence of child on family purchase decision and its relation to family variables

Parents demographics
Mothers
Employment status
Socio Economic
Classification
Type of family Family re-
(joint/nuclear) socialization
Nuclear/joint family
process
Family

Learning
Family Product type properties
Communication Influence Decision stage
Socio oriented
Concept oriented

Child
Child socialization
process
Child
demographics
Age
Number of
siblings

References

Ahuja Roshan Bob D. and Stinson Kandi M..( 1993). Female headed single parent families: An exploratory study of Children’s
influence in Family Decision making, Advances in Consumer research, Vol 20, 469-474
Bachmann, G., & John, D. (1993). Children's Susceptibility to Peer Group Purchase Influence: An Exploratory Investigation.
Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 463-468. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Bakir, A., Rose, G. M., & Shoham, A. (2006). Family Communication Patterns: Mothers' and Fathers' Communication Style
and Children's Perceived Influence in Family Decision Making. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 19(2), 75-
95. doi:10.1 300/J046v19n02.05
Beyda Tania Tisser, (2010).who teaches them to consume: a study of Brazilian youngsters. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 34, 298-305
Bjorklund Gail and Bjorklund Richard.(1979). An exploratory study of Toddlers’ satisfaction with their toy environment,
Advances in Consumer Research; Vol. 6 Issue 1, p400-406
 Adya Sharma and Vandana Sonwaney / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 38 – 46 45

Brusdal, R. (2007). If it is good for the child’s development then I say yes almost every time: how parents relate to their
children’s consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 391-396. doi:10.1111/j.1470-
6431.2006.00570.x
Butter, E. J., Popovich, P. M., Stackhouse, R. H., & Garner, R. K. (1981). Discrimination of Television Programs and
Commercials by Preschool Children. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(2), 53-56. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental Style and Consumer Socialization of Children. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(1), 77-94. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Carlson, L., Grossbart, S., & Tripp, C. (1990). An Investigation of Mothers' Communication Orientations and Patterns.
Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 804-812. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Cram,Fiona.(1999). Consumer Socialisation, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(3), 297-312
Donohoe Marshall, D., O', S., & Kline, S. (2007). Families, food, and pester power: Beyond the blame game?. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 6(4), 164-181. doi:10.1002/cb.217
Dotson and Hyatt.(2005), Major Influence factors in children’s consumer socialization, Journal of consumer Marketing, Vol
22(1), 35-42
Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2000). A comparison of parents' and children's knowledge of brands and advertising slogans in
the United States: implications for consumer socialization. Journal of Marketing Communications, 6(4), 219-230.
doi:10.1080/135272600750036346
Ekstrom Karin M. Tansuhaj Patriya S., Foxman Ellen R. (1987). "Children’s Influence in Family Decisions and Consumer
Socialization: A Reciprocal View". Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul
Anderson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 283-287.
Fiates,Ambone and Teixeira. ( 2008). Consumer Behaviour of Brazilian primary school students: findings from focus group
interviews, International Journal of Consumer studies, 32, 157-162
Flouri,Eirini.(1999). An integrated model of consumer materialism: Can economic socialization and maternal values predict
materialistic attitudes in adolescents?, Journal of Socio-Economics 28 , 707-724
Halcomb,Gholizadeh, Digiacomo, Phillips and Davidoon.(2007). Literature review: Considerations in undertaking focus group
research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups, journal of Clinical Nursing,16(6), 1000-1011
Haynes, Janice L.; Burts, Diane C.; Dukes, Alice; Cloud, Rinn.( 1993). Consumer Socialisation of Preschoolers and
Kindergartners as related to clothing consumption, Psychology and Marketing, Vol 10(2), March/ April,151-166
Hiral Chavda, Martin Haly and Chris Dunn (2005). Adolescents influence on family decision making, Young Consumers,
Quarter 2, 68-78
Hota Monali and McGuiggan Robyn.( 2006). The relative Influence of Consumer Socialisation agents on Children and
Adolescents: Examining the Past and Modeling the Future, European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 7, 119-124
Isin and Alkibay.(2011). Influence of children on purchasing decisions of well to do families, Young consumers: Insight and
Ideas for Responsible Marketers, Vol 12(1), 39-52
Kapoor, N., & Verma, D. S. (2005). Children’s Understanding of TV Advertisements: Influence of Age, Sex and Parents.
Vision (09722629), 9(1), 21-36. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Kaur and Singh.(2006). Children in family purchase decision making in India and the West: A Review. Academy of Marketing
Science Review, No 8, 1-30
Kim Chankon , Lee Hanjoon and Tomiuk Marc A.(2009). Adolescents perceptions of family communication patterns and
some aspects of their consumer socialization, Psychology and Marketing, Vl 26(10), October , 888-907
Lee, Christina Kwai-Choi; Collins, Brett A.(2000). Family decision making and coalition patterns, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol 34, No 9/10, 1181-1198
Mandrik, Carter A.; Fern, Edward F.; Yeqing Bao.( 2005). Intergenerational Influence: Roles of Conformity to peers and
communication effectiveness, Psychology and Marketing, Vol 22(10), October , 813-832
Moschis, G. P., & Mitchell, L. G. (1986). Television advertising and interpersonal influences on teenagers' participation in
family consumer decision. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 181-186. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.)
Moschis, G. P., Prahato, A. E., & Mitchell, L. G. (1986). Family Communication Influences on the Development of Consumer
Behavior: Some Additional Findings. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 365-369. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.)
Moschis,George P. and Churchill,Gilbert A. Jr.(1978). Consumer Socialisation: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, Journal
of Marketing Research, VolXV, November, 599-609
Moschis,George P.( 1985). The Role of Family Communication in Consumer socialization of children and adolescents, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol 11, March , 898-913
Neeley, S. M., & Coffey, T. (2007). Understanding the "Four-Eyed, Four-Legged" Consumer: A Segmentation Analysis of
U.S. Moms. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 15(3), 251-261. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679150305
Özgen, Ö. (2003). An analysis of child consumers in Turkey. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(5), 366-380.
doi:10.1046/j.1470-6431.2003.00306.x
Robertson, T. S., & Rossiter, J. R. (1974). Children and Commercial Persuasion: An Attribution Theory Analysis. Journal of
Consumer Research, 1(1), 13-20. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.)
46 Adya Sharma and Vandana Sonwaney / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014) 38 – 46

Roedder John,Deborah .( 1999). Consumer Socialisation of children: A Retrospective look at twenty five years of research,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 26, Dec, 183-213
Roedder, D. L. (1981). Age Differences in Children's Responses to Television Advertising: An Information-Processing
Approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 144-153. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.)
Rose,Gregory M.( 1999). Consumer Socialisation, Parental Style and Developmental Time Tables in the United States and
Japan, Journal of Marketing, Vol 63, July , 105-119
Sharma,A.(2009). Role and influence of children in buying children’s apparel, Indian Journal of Marketing, Vol XXXIX, No
7, July
Sharma,A and Sonwaney,V.(2013).Influence of children on Family purchase Decisions in Urban India: An Exploratory study,
International Journal of Marketing and Business communication, Vol2, Issue2, 32-43.
Shim, S., & Snyder, L. (1995). Parents' Perception Regarding Children's Use of Clothing Evaluative Criteria: An Exploratory
Study From the Consumer Socialization Process Perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 22(1), 628-632. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost
Torgeir Watne, Antonio Lobo, Linda Brenne (2011). Children as agents of secondary socialization for their parents, Young
Consumers: Insights and ideas for Responsible Marketers, Vol 12, 4, 285-294
Uusitalo Liisa and Takala Virpi (1993), Developmental Stage and Children’s reaction to T.V advertising, in European
Advances in Consumer Research Volume 1, Pages: 360-365.)
Ward Scott.(1974). Consumer Socialisation: Initial Study results , Advances in Consumer Research Volume I, 120-125
Ward, S., Wackman, D., & Wartella, E. (1977). The Development of Consumer Information- Processing Skills: Integrating
Cognitive Development and Family Interaction Theoris. Advances in Consumer Research, 4(1), 166-171. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Williams,Laura A and Burns,Alvin C .( 2000). Exploring the Dimensionality of Childrens Direct Influence Attemps, Advances
in consumer research, vol 27, 64-71

Web pages
1. Haub Carl and Sharma O.P (2006) , “India’s population Reality: Reconciling Change and Tradition”, Population Bulletin
Vol 61, No 3, sept 2006, 6-8, http://www.prb.org/pdf06/61.3IndiasPopulationReality_Eng.pdf( accessed on 25th Dec
2010)
2. http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/savers-spenders-how-children-became-consumer-market ( Accessed on 12th Jan
2010)
3. India's consumer market http://www.spencerstuart.com/research/consumer/1279/ ( Accessed on Feb 12,2011)
4. Jean Piaget and Child Development, www.indepthinfo.com/artcles/piaget-developmental-psychology.shtmal, accessed on
26/11/2008
5. Sud Rajesh (2007), “ Changing Societal financial behaviour, Impact of emerging social and economic trends”,
www.hindu.com/2007/07/02/stories/2007070255311600.htm ( accessed on 2nd Feb2011)
6. V. T. Bharadwaj, Gautam M. Swaroop, and Ireena Vittal ,2005,Winning the Indian Consumer, McKinsey Quarterly,
SEPTEMBER 2005 (http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Marketing/Sectors_Regions/Winning_the_Indian_consumer
_1659) (Accessed on Feb 12, 2011)
7. www.euromonitor.com/factfile.aspx?country=IN ( accessed on 20th Dec2010)
8. www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html ( accessed on 10th Jan 2011)
9. http://www.nationalconsumerhelpline.in/SEC_Feb2012.pdf ( accessed on 23rd April 2012)
10. http://www.macroscan.org/fet/feb07/print/prnt060207Women_Workers.htm ( accessed on 23rd April 2012)