Peer Interaction and Its Influence on Family Purchase Decision: A Study among Indian Teenagers

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.

Keywords

Teen–peer Interaction Enduring Product Involvement Family Decision-making Pleasure Structural Equation Modelling Adolescence

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 increasing 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 on parent’s individual preference (McNeal, 1992). Belch et al. (1985) have examined the need recognition, assessment (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 promotional 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, teenagers 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 socialization 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 factor analysis (CFA) followed by structural equation modelling (SEM) have been used.

Literature Review

It has been widely addressed by the researchers that adolescent (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 consumption 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 different aspects such as socialization agents (parents, peer, etc.), teen’s demographic (age, gender, etc.), family characteristics (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 information search) and their influences get declined through the final phases (Wimalasiri, 2004). Hence, if the teen has considerable 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 teenager 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, 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’ connections 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 consumption 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’ components 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 interaction 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 attitudes 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 different product categories (Panda, 2005). The literature reveals that product enduring involvement has an impact on consumer 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 they receive advertising communication. Gills Laurent and Jean-Noel Kapferer (1985) had developed a consumer involvement profile scale. As per this scale, the antecedents 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.

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)

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.

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’

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 secondary schools and the degree colleges. Before the survey questionnaires were given to the students, principals and teachers were contacted for approval. We informed the 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 sampling 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).

Figure 1.

Proposed Model

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 questionnaire. 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 appropriate 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).

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)
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.

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).

Table 4.

Reliability Test Outcomes for Each Factor

Items	Variable	λi	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: λi = ‘factor loading’, CR = ‘composite reliability’, AVE = ‘average variance extracted’.

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 validity; and (c) fitness indices of measurement model (Nayak et al., 2011). The model fit indices used are: chi square, 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 involvement), 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 measurement model, it was found that the value of squared multiple 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 consistency of a measure’. AVE estimates ‘measures the amount of variance captured by a construct’. The values for composite reliability and AVE significantly go above the minimum standard (appropriate) values of 0.7 and 0.5, respectively (Holmes-Smith, 2001). The factor for the convergent 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 correlation for the same pair, represents each construct was distinct. The results for the whole model were as follows: chi-square (χ²)/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.

Table 5.

Table for Testing Discriminant Validity

	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

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 (χ²)/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).

Table 6.

Table of Critical Ratio and p Value

Relationship	Critical Ratio	p Value	Outcome
Teen–peer interaction"initiation	5.455	0.00	Accept
Teen–peer interaction"assessment	1.9	0.056	Reject
Pleasure"final decision	2.76	0.006	Accept
Sign/symbol"final decision	Failed to test
Initiation"IS/assessment	2.53	0.01	Accept
IS/assessment"final decision	4.36	0.01	Accept

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 conceptual 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 significance in the field of consumer purchase activities. Here, the family purchase process is divided into three parts: initiation, information search/assessment and final decision. 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 relationship 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 enduring involvement (measured in terms of pleasure) constructs have a considerable influence on the final decision-making, that is, it substantially elucidates teen’s involvement with the family purchases strengthen the associations 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 influence 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

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

Gerbing

(1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two stage approach. Psychological Bulletin, 27(1), 5–24.

Bao

Fern

E. F.

Sheng

(2007). Parental style and adolescent influence in family consumption decisions: An integrative 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

(2006). Investigating the relationship between product involvement and consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(4), 342–354.

Beatty

S. E.

Talpade

(1994). Adolescent influence in family 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 impacted the family decision-making process. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(2), 111–124.

Belch

G. E.

Belch

M. A.

Ceresin

(1985). Parental and teenage child influences in family decision making. Journal of Business Research, 13(2), 163–176.

10.

Berkman

L. F.

(2000). Social support, social networks, social cohesion and health. Social Work in Health Care, 31(2), 3–14, NIH Pubic Access.

11.

Bloch

P. H.

(1981). An exploration into the scaling of consumer’s involvement with a product class. In Monroe

K. B.

(ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 8, pp. 61–65). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

12.

Bloch

P. H.

(1986). The product enthusiasm: Implications for marketing strategy. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3, 51–62.

13.

Brey

E. T.

Lehto

(2008). Changing family dynamics: A force of change for the family-resort industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 241–248.

14.

Byrne

(2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Caruana

Vassallo

(2003). Children’s perception of their influence over purchases: The role of parental communication patterns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(1), 55–56.

16.

Chan

(2001). Children’s perceived truthfulness of television advertising and parental influence: A Hong Kong Study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), 317–334.

17.

Charters

Pettigrew

(2006). Product involvement and the evaluation of wine quality. Qualitative Market Research, 9(2), 181–194.

18.

Chavda

Haley

Duun

(2005). Adolescents’ influence on family decision-making. Young Consumers Quarter, 6(2), 68–78.

19.

Churchill

G. A.

(1979). Paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

20.

Dholakia

U. M.

(2001). A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1340–1360.

21.

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.

22.

Epp

A. M.

Price

L. L.

(2008). Family identity: A framework of identity interplay in consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 50–70.

23.

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.

24.

Evrard

Aurier

(1996). Identification and validation of the components of the person-object relationship. Journal of Business Research, 37(2), 127–134.

25.

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.

26.

Foxman

E. R.

Tansuhaj

P. S.

(1988). Adolescents’ and mothers’ perceptions of relative influence in family purchase decisions: Patterns of agreement and disagreement. In Houston

M. J.

(ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 15, pp. 449–453). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

27.

Foxman

Ellen

Tansuhaj

Patriya S.

Ekstrom

K. M.

(1989). Family members’ perception of adolescents influence in family decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 482–491.

28.

Frisco

M. L.

Williams

(2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24(1), 51–73.

29.

Geuens

M. G.

Mast

Pelsmacker

P. D.

(2002). Children’s influence on family purchase behavior: The role of family structure. In Ramizwick and Ping

(Eds), Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 130–135). Valdosta, GA: Association for consumer Research.

30.

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.

31.

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.

32.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

33.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(2013). Multivariate data analysis, Seventh Edition. Prentice-Hall.

34.

Hofstede

(2001). Cultural consequences: Comparing values, behaviour, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

35.

Holdert

Antonides

(1997). Family type effects on household members’ decision making. Advances in Consumer Research, 24(1), 48–54.

36.

Holmes-Smith

(2001). Introduction to structural equation modelling using LISREL. Perth, Australia: ACSPRI Winter Training Program.

37.

Houston

M. J.

Rothschild

M. L.

(1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on involvement. In Jain

S. C.

(ed.), Research Frontier in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions (pp. 184–187). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

38.

Jain

Sanjay K.

Sharma

Kavita

(2002). Relevance of personal factors as antecedents of consumer involvement: An exploration. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 6(1), 13–24.

39.

Jenkins

R. L.

(1979). The influence of children in family decision-making: Parents’ perceptions. In Wilkie

W. L.

(ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 6, pp. 413–418). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

40.

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.

41.

Kaur

Singh

(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

42.

Laaksonen

(1994). Consumer involvement: Concepts and research. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR). 33(1), 115–117.

43.

Lackman

Lanasa

J. M.

(1993). Family decision making theory: An overview and assessment. Psychology and Marketing, 10(2), 81–93.

44.

Laurent

Kapferer

J. N.

(1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(1), 41–53.

45.

Laurent

Kapferer

J. N.

(1986). Consumer involvement profiles: A new practical approach to consumer involvement. Journal Advertising Research, 25(6), 48–56.

46.

Lee

Christina K.C.

Beatty

Sharon E.

(2002). Family structure and influence in family decision making. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(1), 24–41.

47.

Martin

C. A.

Bush

A. J.

(2000). Do role models influence teenagers’ purchase indentations and behaviour. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 441–454.

48.

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.

49.

Mayfield

(2006). The benefits of leader communication 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.

50.

McNeal

J. U.

(1992). Kids as consumers. New York: Lexington Books.

51.

Moschis

George P.

(March 1985). The role of family communication in consumer socialization of children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 898–913.

52.

Moschis

G. P.

Churchill

G. A., Jr.

(1978). An analysis of the adolescent consumer. Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 40–48.

53.

Moschis

G. P.

Mitchell

L. G.

(1986). Television advertising and interpersonal influences on teenagers’ participation in family consumption decisions. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 181–186.

54.

Moschis

G. P.

Moore

R. L.

Stephens

L. F.

(1977). Purchasing patterns of adolescent consumers. Journal of Retailing, 53(1), 17–26.

55.

Mourali

Laroche

Pons

(2005). Antecedents of consumer relative preference for interpersonal information sources in pre purchase search. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(5), 307–318.

56.

Nayak

J. K.

Sinha

Gautam,

Guin

K. K.

(2011). Impact of supplier management on a firm’s performance. Decision, 38(1), 77–90.

57.

Panda

Tapan K.

(2005). Sex-oriented advertising and its impact on attitude of teenagers: Application of behavioural intention model across product categories. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 9(4), 15–26.

58.

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.

59.

Ray

M. L.

(1982). Advertising and communication management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

60.

Rothschild

M. L.

(1984). Perspectives on involvement: Current problems and future directions. In Kinnear

T. C.

(ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11, pp. 216–217). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

61.

Shoham

Dalakas

(2003). Family consumer decision making in Israel: The role of teens and parents. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(3), 238–251.

62.

Shoham

Dalakas

(2005). He said, she said … they said: Parents’ and children’s assessment of children’s influence on family consumption decisions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 152–160.

63.

Shoham

Dalakas

(2006). How our adolescent children influence us as parents to yield to their purchase requests. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 344–350.

64.

Sorbom

Joreskog

K. G.

(1982). Recent developments in structural equation modelling. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 404–416.

65.

Szybillo

G. J.

Sosanie

(1977). Family decision-making: Husband, wife and children. In Perreault Jr.

William D.

(Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 46–49). Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.

66.

Thomson

(2003). Look who’s talking: Family communication during purchase decisions. International Journal of Advertising & Marketing to Children, 5(1), 23–33.

67.

Treas

DeRuijter

(2008). Earnings and expenditures on household services in married and cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage Family, 70(3), 796–805.

68.

Wang

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.

69.

Ward

Wackman

(1972). Children’s purchase influence attempts and parental yielding. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(3), 316–319.

70.

Warrington

Shim

(2000). An empirical investigation of the relationship between product involvement and brand commitment. Psychology and Marketing, 17(9), 761–782.

71.

Williams

L. A.

Burns

A. C.

(2000). Exploring the dimensionality of children’s direct influence attempts. Advances in Consumer Research, 27(1), 64–71.

72.

Wimalasiri

J. S.

(2004). A cross-national study on children’s purchasing behaviour and parental response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(4), 274.

73.

Zaichkowsky

J. L.

(1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–351.