Adolescent-Parent Interaction

in Family Decision Making

KAY M. PALAN
ROBERT E. WILKES*

This article presents a classification of both adolescent influence strategies and

parental response strategies, developed from in-depth interviews with adoles-
cents, mothers, and fathers. In addition, the perceived effectiveness of adolescent
influence strategies is examined, revealing that adolescents are most successful
in their influence attempts when they emulate adult strategies. Implications of
these findings for future research are discussed.

A lthough the bulk of research on family purchasing

behavior has focused on spouses, documentation of
the significant role of children in this activity is steadily
accumulating (Mangleburg 1990). The major emphasis in
much of the work that does incorporate children (see,
e.g., Jenkins 1979; Szybillo and Sosanie 1977; Ward and
Wackman 1972) has been the relative infiuence of chil-
dren on various aspects of family decisions, although
some studies have examined other aspects, such as the
effects of parents' general socialization styles (Carlson
and Grossbart 1988) and the relationship between con-
sumer socialization and frequency of shopping with chil-
dren (Grossbart, Carlson, and Walsh 1991). More often
than not, younger children—usually age 12 or less—
have been the subjects in these studies. Recognizing that
older (and therefore more cognitively complex) children
may not be well represented by extant work, researchers
have begun to target adolescents in the context of family
purchase decisions (see, e.g., Beatty and Talpade 1994;
Foxman, Tansuhaj, and Ekstrom 1989). This article ex-
pands this knowledge base on adolescents and family
purchasing behavior by shifting the focus away from rela-
tive influence to the adolescent-parent interaction itself.
Specifically, the article explores (1) the strategies used
by adolescents to infiuence decision outcomes, (2) the
responses by parents to these infiuence attempts, and (3)
the perceived effectiveness of these infiuence attempts.
We provide a classification scheme of infiuence strategies
to guide future research in this area.
*Kay Palan is assistant professor in marketing in the College of
Business, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-2063. Robert Wilkes
is a professor in marketing in the College of Business Administration,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-42101. The authors thank
the reviewers, the associate editor, and the editor for their helpful com-
ments. All correspondence regarding this research should be sent to the
first author.
159
© 1997 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH. Inc. • Vol. 24 • September 1997
ADOLESCENTS AND EAMILY
DECISIONS
Whereas younger children (i.e., 3-11 years old) are
more likely to simply ask for products (Isler, Popper, and
Ward 1987), adolescents are more likely to use a variety
of influence strategies (Kim, Lee, and Hall 1991). It is
through this interaction with parents that adolescents at-
tempt to infiuence decision outcomes. According to
Moschis (1985, p. 898), however, little attention has been
given to the content of family communications: "One
finds relatively little theoretical and empirical work re-
garding the role of interpersonal communication in the
development of consumer behavior of young people."
That adolescents do infiuence family decisions and that
this infiuence may vary across different factors have been
established by previous work. For example, adolescents
have greater Influence in family purchasing decisions in
a concept-oriented communication environment (in which
children are encouraged to develop their own ideas) and
when their personal resources are greater (e.g., they earn
higher grades; Foxman et al. 1989). Other work reports
that motivational aspects (including product importance
and usage) provide "the strongest and most consistent
explanations of teenagers' perceived relative infiuence
across stages and purchase situations" (Beatty and Tal-
pade 1994, p. 332). Yet a more detailed consideration
of the nature of the interaction between adolescents and
parents as part of decision activity is lacking. The need
for such an investigation was noted earlier by Kim et al.
(1991, p. 43): "adolescents' use of infiuence strategies
has been a largely unexplored area to date." Manchanda
and Moore-Shay (1996) echo this need and also urge
examination of how parents respond to children's infiu-
ence attempts. Moschis (1985, p. 910) has also called
attention to "the need for better understanding of the
nature of family infiuence."
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/98/2402-OO03$O3.0O
 160
We are aware of three prior investigations of influence
strategies used by adolescents. In two studies of power
strategies in intimate relationships (Cowan and Avants
1988; Cowan, Drinkard, and MacGavin 1984), adoles-
cents were asked in group-administered sessions to pro-
vide written essays on "How I get my way with my
mother . . . father . . . best friend" when the other
person does not accede to the request or desire. Teenagers
in a study by Kim et al. (1991) were provided 19 strategy
statements and asked to indicate how often they acted in
the manner described when their parents did not either
buy or permit the purchase of certain things the students
wanted. These studies do provide useful information on
social influence and even some consumer-specific influ-
ence strategies used by adolescents. Eor example. Cowan
and Avants (1988) identified social influence strategies
ranging from "doing as I please" to "giving reasons"
when an adolescent wanted to go somewhere. Kim et al.
(1991) determined five dimensions of infiuence strategies
used by adolescents when they wanted something bought,
including persuasion, not eating, acting stubbornly, ap-
proaching the other parent, and playing on emotion. How-
ever, the development of a complete set of either adoles-
cent or parental strategies was not the primary intent of
these studies. Moreover, methods used in the studies raise
questions about their findings. First, since teenagers were
asked, to assume a negative response to a request, the
results obtained likely exclude strategies that do not antic-
ipate denial. Second, the inability to probe and follow up
on subjects' responses may have restricted the depth of
understanding of these influence strategies.
Our objective here is to document the infiuence strate-
gies that adolescents employ in the context of family
purchasing behavior and to detail how parents respond to
these influence attempts. Through an exploratory study
of the triad of adolescent-mother-father (following the
recommendation of Bell [1968] that parent-child relation-
ships be examined bilaterally), we provide evidence of
the nature of the adolescent-parent interaction process
that may significantly affect or actually determine the
outcomes of family purchasing behavior. Understanding
the nature of this interaction is a necessary step in under-
standing the basis for the relative infiuence of adolescents
detailed in previous research.
METHOD
Sample
Potential study families were located with the use of
junior high school directories provided by a school district
in a large southwestem city. A convenience sample of
100 families was selected by calling families at random
and qualifying the family (i.e., a qualified household in-
cluded mother, father, and adolescent between 12 and 15
years of age). Approximately 70 percent of those families
contacted agreed to participate; there was no apparent
difference between those families who chose to partici-
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
pate and those who did not. The sample includes 15 step-
parents who felt they had sufficient interaction with the
adolescent; a comparison of stepfamily interviews with
those of famihes without stepparents revealed no substan-
tial response differences. Families were predominantly
white and middle-class, with both parents employed; all
families had at least one child in addition to the participat-
ing adolescent. The adolescent sample consisted of 46
males and 54 females.
Interview Process
A stmctured depth interview consisting of 10 questions
provided a framework for the interview process. Given
the discovery-oriented nature of this research, eight of the
10 questions (see the Appendix) were not context-spe-
cific. Each informant was interviewed privately, by the
first author, so that conversation would not be overheard
by other family members. Informants were promised
complete confidentiality; all interviews were recorded on
audiotape with informants' permission. Informants ex-
pressed themselves freely and, in fact, often shared infor-
mation beyond the scope of the interview.
Content Analysis
Developing and refining categories of analysis was ini-
tially performed by the first author. Subsequently, two
individuals who were unfamiliar with the study reviewed
category definitions and coding guidelines by coding sev-
eral family transcripts; their feedback indicated that the
categorizations were complete and understandable.
After the categorization process was completed, three
independent coders (two males and one female) coded
the transcripts. Intercoder reliability was established by
having each individual code a subsample consisting of
10 family transcripts. Following Kassarjian's (1977) rec-
ommendations, intercoder reliability was calculated as a
percentage of agreement between each pair of coders.
Rehabihties (based on 2,550 judgments) were .93, .89,
and .90 for the three coder pairs, exceeding the threshold
of .85 for content analyses (Kassarjian 1977). Individual
category reliabilities ranged from .57 to 1.00, with the
most serious disagreements reviewed and resolved during
a coder debriefing session. Then, all 100 family transcripts
were divided equally among the three coders for coding.
Results of this coding formed the basis for the remainder
of the analysis.
Interpretive Analysis
Categories of adolescent influence strategies and paren-
tal response strategies identified through content analysis
formed the basis for interpretive analysis. Classification
of both adolescent and parental strategies into groups with
shared commonalities was accomplished with extant re-
search on spousal infiuence strategies (Davis 1976; Falbo
and Peplau 1980; Scanzoni and Szinovacz 1980; Spiro
ADOLESCENT-PARENT INTERACTION IN DECISION MAKING
1983), children's influence attempts (Atkin 1978; Cowan
and Avants 1988; Cowan et al. 1984; Isler et al. 1987;
Ward and Wackman 1972), and parental responses
(Cowan and Avants 1988; Cowan et al. 1984).
CLASSIFICATION OF ADOLESCENT
AND PARENTAL STRATEGIES
As can be seen in Table 1, the adolescent and parental
strategies identified through content analysis have been
organized into seven different strategy categories through
the use of interpretive analysis. Consistent with the ex-
ploratory intent of this study, all strategies are reported
and categorized; however, discussion is hmited to only
those strategies reported by a minimum combined average
of 5 percent of adolescents and parents.
Bargaining Strategies
As defined by Davis (1976) and Falbo and Peplau
(1980), bargaining strategies are used with the intention
of creating agreement between family members based on
mutual gain and mutually satisfactory outcomes. Spiro
(1983) described bargaining strategies as taking the form
of "If you do this, I'll do that" (p. 394). Four prominent
bargaining strategies emerged in this study. Two of these
strategies, money deals and other deals, are nearly identi-
cal to Spiro's (1983) description Of bargaining. Money
deals followed the form, "if you do this, I'll do that";
adolescents offered to pay for part of a purchase if their
parents would pay for the other part:
When I'm shopping for jeans, if I like the more expensive
pair, then I say, "here, you pay for half of it and I'll pay
the other half." I do that a lot. (Female, age 14)
Some adolescents, not wanting to be deprived of a
purchase for lack of money, offered to pay the entire
purchase price to their parents at some later date in return
for parental assumption of the entire cost at the time of
purchase.
When I got my Super Nintendo, at first it was really kind
of hopeless. I said, "Dad, can I get a Super Nintendo?"
even though I already had a Nintendo and a computer.
He said it would depend on how I paid him back, so we
have a bargain going on paying him back about $20 a
month. . . . Things that are pretty expensive that you can.
pay back over a period of time, those are things I negotiate
deals for. (Male, age 13)
Parents used money deals similar in format to adoles-
cent money deals. Typifying parental money deals was
parental awareness that the purchase was personally im-
portant to the adolescent tempered with concern about
the acceptability of the purchase to the parent:
We'd say things like "you're going to be left wearing that
ugly shirt or weird looking tennis shoes." Sometimes I tell
him that it's going to come out of his allowance if he wants
that particular thing. If he wants it he is going to have to
161
pay for it. . . . I will offer him some sort of deal because
the purchase is unacceptable to me. (Father with son, age
12)
If he wants to wear a brand name type of jeans, we pay
for them up to what it costs to buy.Levi's, and he has to
pay the difference. That's just how we handle it, because
I can get a good buy on Levi's. (Mother with son, age 15)
As with money deals, adolescents used other deals
when a purchase was personally important to them. In
fact, adolescents were sometimes willing to sacrifice sig-
nificant time and effort to obtain something they really
wanted:
I'll work for things I want. I told them I'd mow the lawn
for the whole summer for my drum set. It was a lot of
work, but my drum set is great. (Male, age 13)
Other adolescents offered other deals, fully realizing that
they would probably never follow through and keep their
end of the deal:
I will say, "if you will buy me this I will do this or that,"
and yet I never do it. I kind of forget. Sometimes I will
do it. (Female, age 13)
If I want something, I would say, "if you get it for me, 1
will keep my room clean for a week," or something like
that, bo I keep it clean for a week? That's another story.
(Female, age 13)
For parents, the offer of other deals was an indication
that the adolescent's purchase request was not only ac-
ceptable to them, but also an opportunity for the adoles-
cent to earn the purchase through some sort of household
chores. Moreover, when parents initiated other deals, they
were more likely to monitor compliance than when ado-
lescents offered other deals.
He liked a CD player, and we talked about it . . . and 1
told him he could work in the garage with me, we made
a deal, that he could earn so much and then we'd go put
the CD on layaway so he wouldn't be tempted to spend
the money. (Father with son, age 12)
A third bargaining strategy used by both adolescents
and parents was reasoning. Reasoning, while definitely
not of the same form as "if you do this for me, I'll do this
for you," does involve discussion focused on reaching a
mutually satisfying outcome for parents and adolescents
in purchase decisions. For both adolescents and parents,
reasoning involved using logical arguments intended to
reach a purchase agreement with the other party so that
both sides would be satisfied. For example, adolescents
who desired a certain purchase used logical arguments
that they knew would be received well by their parents
and thus were likely to be successful:
When I'm discussing a purchase with them, I'll bring up
the quality of the thing, like if you're going to pay $50
more for something very expensive and it's going to last
four years or longer, well then it makes good sense. And
usually my parents are pretty good about that because my
dad likes to buy top-quality things. (Female, age 15)
 TABLE 1
CLASSIFICATION OF ADOLESCENT INFLUENCE STRATEGIES AND PARENTAL RESPONSE StRATEGIES

Report frequency

Adolescent

Category and strategy/definition Male Female Mother Father

Bargaining:
Adolescent:
Money deals (offer to pay for all or part of purchase) 38 33
27 27
Other deals (offer to do certain behaviors in exchange for purchase) 22 23 43 36
Reasoning (use logical, practical arguments) 22 23 37 25
Negotiation (compromise on purchase options with parents) 1 1 4 7
Parental:
Money deals (offer to pay for part of purchase if adolescent helps pay) 5

CJ)
12 8
Other deals (offer purchase in return for certain behaviors) 3 6 14 11
Reasoning (use logical practical arguments) 13 15 35 39
Alternative (suggest other product choices or shopping locations) 10 11 32 21
Negotiation (compromise on purchase options with adolescent) 1 2 4
Discussion (discuss purchase with adolescent)
2
1 2 1 1
Persuasion:
Adolescent:
Opinionates (express opinions, likes, and dislikes about purchase) 27 28 49 52
Persistence (ask repetitively without irritation) 10 13 34 33
Begging (pleading) 20 25 24 16
Whining (use plaintive tone of voice) 9 12 14 13
Everyone else (base purchase need on fact that other friends have "it") 12 12 30 15
Manipulation (use context or people to indirectly influence purchase) 1 3 8 10
Nagging (ask repetitively in manner that irritates parents) 3 1 1 6
Reasonable request (request purchase that parent considers reasonable) 1 2 5 5
Parental:
Opinionates (express opinions, likes, and dislikes about purchase) 20 29 37 29
Manipulation (use context or people to indirectly influence purchase) 0 0 0 1
Emotional:
Adolescent: i
Anger (show temper, yell) 6 5 7 6
Pouting (cry, withdraw, give "silent treatment") 6 8 18 14
Sweet talk (be unnaturally nice or affectionate to parents) 1
Guilt trip (make parents feel guilty)
2 9 7
3 3 6 3
Humor (use of humor, joking around)
1 0 2 0
Parental:
Ignore (refuse to pay attention to adolescent) 0 0 0 1
Shame (shame or embarrass adolescent purposely) 0 0 0 1
Request:
Adolescent:
Direct ask (request purchase simply without emotion) 20 14 28 22
Express need (state a purchase need without reasons) 5 18 20 14
Express want (state a purchase want without reasons) 12 21 29 29
Demand (insist on having something) 1 0 1 0
Expert
Parental:
Teach skills (teach consumer-related skills purposefully) 12 25 29
Legitimate:
Parental:
Can't afford (deny purchase based on inability to afford item) 3 6 19 17
Delay (postpone purchase decision for some period of time) 2 5 15 3
Simple answer (give yes/no answer to purchase request without reasons) 9 7 16 19
Need only (limit purchases to only things that adolescent needs) 1 3 6 3
Reward (make purchases to reward good behavior) 0 1 5 2
Directive:
Parental:
Ask opinions (invite adolescent likes/dislikes about purchases) 8 8 9 17
Need vs. want (decide if adolescent really needs or merely wants item) 4 5 15 14
Parameters (establish price/product boundaries to guide purchases) 4 7 27 6
Go ask (tell adolescent to go ask other parent for purchase) 0 2 1 2
NOTE.—Reports are frequency of response with n = 46 (males), n = 54 (females), n = 100 (mothers and fathers).
ADOLESCENT-PARENT INTERACTION IN DECISION MAKING
Parents, for their part, used reasoning as a bargaining
tool to convince their adolescents about the wisdom of
certain purchases. The reasoning was usually related to
the practicality or economic consequences of a purchase,
as seen in the following example:
When we're purchasing things for him, shirts, pants, shoes,
whatever it is, "Son, look at this. This is just going to
wash nicer, it will come through the laundry nicer, and
you do a lot of laundry yourself, and I just would rather
that it's something that would wash easy, that doesn't have
to he ironed, that isn't 100 percent cotton." (Mother with
son, age 13)
A bargaining strategy used only by parents was the
suggestion of alternative purchase choices or shopping
locations. Containing elements of both reasoning and
deals, suggesting alternative items was used when parents
believed that the adolescent purchase request was unrea-
sonably priced. Rather than expecting the adolescent to
share the costs of the purchase (i.e., money deals and
other deals), parents reason with their adolescents to shop
for the same item at a lower cost or a similar but lower-
priced item.
All the shirts that kids wear look just alike. You can go to
Dillard's and buy a shirt that costs $50-$55 and you can
go to Sam's and buy the very same shirt for $16. That's
what I try to show him. (Mother with son, age 12)
Well, I usually do try to get her to shop a little bit more
and see if she can't find the same item for a little less, so
I always suggest, "Look around, just because you found
this one, maybe you can find another one that's a better
buy." Or I get her to try to think about sales, maybe it's
not exactly what she wanted, but I try to get her to go that
route. (Mother with daughter j age 14)
Persuasion Strategies
Persuasion in family decision making is described as
convincing an opposing family member to resolve deci-
sion conflict in the persuader's favor (Davis 1976; Falbo
and Peplau 1980). Thus, persuasion, like bargaining, is
concerned with mutual agreement between family mem-
bers. However, persuasion strategies differ from bar-
gaining strategies in that the focus is on unilateral gain
for the persuader rather than mutual gain for both the
opposer and the persuader. Thus, persuasion strategies
may involve some level of manipulation or maneuvering
intended to exploit a situation to the persuader's advan-
tage. In addition, persuasion strategies are characterized
by an absence of emotion.
Only one persuasion strategy—"opinionates"—was
frequently used by both parents and adolescents. Opin-
ionates is simply the expression of likes or dislikes related
to a purchase consideration. A subtle form of persuasion,
opinionates was rarely manipulative; in addition, even
though the outcome of unilateral gain was obtained, it
was not always the persuader who gained materially. The
163
following excerpt eloquently depicts the use of opinionat-
ing by an adolescent for her parents' gain:
I'll tell them that whatever it is that they are trying on
looks good on them. (Female, age 14)
While the adolescent did not gain materially from this
form of opinionating, it may be that the adolescent gained
some other intangible reward through reinforcement of
her parents' product choices. Of course, more typical was
the use of opinionating for adolescent gain:
If I'm shopping for clothes, I tell them that I like it and
that I'd look really cool in it and "the girls would like it."
(Male, age 13)
When we got carpet for the basement, I sort of went around
and tried to get everyone to get the color I liked. . . . I
always try to persuade them to get what I want, usually by
telling them what I like. (Female, age 15)
Parents, in contrast, reported using opinionating for the
purpose of persuading the adolescent to select the pur-
chase choice most acceptable to the parent, even though
adolescents rarely heeded their parents' advice.
I try to say what I think is good. I usually just try to say
what I think is nice, but that doesn't work because her
tastes and my tastes are different. (Mother with daughter,
. age 12)
When she was smaller, we could dress her and buy what-
ever we wanted to dress her in. A while back we were
shopping and I told her she needed to get this Western
shirt. . . . She said "Dad, when I was little you could
dress me. Now that I'm big, I can make my own decision."
I respect that. She's right. But I still tell her. (Father with
daughter, age 14)
Three persuasion strategies used by adolescents—per-
sistence, begging, and whining—are similar in meaning,
yet distinct enough to be identified separately with content
analysis. Persistence was present when adolescents repeti-
tively made purchase influence attempts, usually over a
long time period.
With my parents, if I just keep at it, I usually get it. Like
with this computer . . . I dreamed up the idea and got
my parents to agree to get the computer for a family Christ-
mas gift. I've been at it for four months now, and it's
come to the point where my dad is about to pick one out.
Persistence. You have to keep at it. (Male, age 15)
Sometimes for clothes and stuff that my mom doesn't really
like . . . I just keep telling her, "I want it, 1 want it" and
how much I like it until I finally get it, until she breaks
down. Sometimes I have to do that over a long period of
time. (Female, age 13)
Begging was present when adolescents pleaded for a
purchase, typically by saying "please" over and over
again. Consider the following excerpt from one mother:
Well, if it's something that she really, really, really wants
for her, like some kind of nail polish or some kind of a
thing, she will beg, ' 'Please, please, please, please, please.
164
Please, please, please, please, please." It just drives me
crazy. But she's a beggar and she wants everything she
sees. And she's that way in the grocery store, too. I mean,
if she does happen to come down the grocery aisle with
me, she'll pick out the wildest, craziest cereal or something
that we never buy, Ramen noodles or something, ' 'Please,
please, please, please, let's try these." (Mother with daugh-
ter, age 13)
One adolescent even went so far as to get down on his
knees when he begged:
I beg for things that I want more than things that I need.
I get on my hands and knees and say "please." (Male,
age 13)
Whining refers to the use of a distinct tone of voice
different from the usual tone of voice used by adolescents
and frequently was reported concurrently with both nag-
ging and begging. When parents reported the use of whin-
ing to the interviewer, they often imitated whining by
using a plaintive, high-pitched voice:
If she wants it bad enough, her tone of voice is pretty
noticeable, she'll get real whiny and pushy and whining
for it. (Father with daughter, age 13)
A popular persuasion strategy used by adolescents was
"everyone else." A persuasion argument, everyone else
tries to convince parents to buy an object desired by the
adolescent solely because the adolescent's peers, that is,
everyone else, already has it. Thus, everyone else was
related to peer pressure.
Usually I say I need it and if I don't get it my friends will
make fun of me or laugh at me. (Male, age 14)
Recently, I've been wanting a new pair of basketball shoes,
and I've been trying to persuade them by telling them that
the pair I have now is not as good as the shoes that have
come out now; these are out because I have the old Jordans,
not the new Jordans, and I'm trying to persuade them that
the new Jordans are in, and the old ones are out. But they
just won't listen to me. I've been telling them over and
over. I try to tell them that people don't really make fun
of me, but I try to tell them that kids have mentioned that
these shoes are out and the others are in, so I try to tell them
that all my friends are talking about my shoes. (Female, age
12)
Manipulation involves indirect and underhanded meth-
ods, even subterfuge, to influence purchase decisions.
Consider the following excerpts describing manipulation
tactics.
When she wants something, she won't ask me. Instead,
she'll call my mother and my aunt and get them to tell me
that she should get to go to a concert or shopping. (Mother
with daughter, age 14)
If we are grocery shopping, I just go and get what I want
and put it in the basket. . . . I just sneak it in and hope
they won't say anything. (Female, age 13)
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Emotional Strategies
Emotional strategies entailed the intentional use of
emotion, either directly or indirectly, when trying to in-
fluence other family members in the purchase decision-
making process. Several researchers have identifled the
use of emotion-laden tactics in decision making, including
crying, pouting, withdrawing, or giving the silent treat-
ment (Falbo and Peplau 1980; Scanzoni and Szinovacz
1980; Spiro 1983); anger (Spiro 1983); and having a posi-
tive affect, such as "I smile a lot. . . . I am especially
affectionate" (Falbo and Peplau 1980, p. 621).
Anger was typically used by adolescents after a pur-
chase request had been refused and with the full knowl-
edge that it would probably not change the outcome of a
purchase decision.
I usually get mad when I don't get what I want and some-
times I do that to try to get them to change their minds.
(Female, age 14)
I get mad sometimes . . . but that hardly ever works.
(Male, age 12)
Frequently accompanying the use of anger was pouting,
which consisted of behaviors such as crying or withdraw-
ing. Like anger, pouting was used with a sense of fatality:
I go to my room and shut the door and ignore my parents,
but they ignore me back. (Male, age 12)
Unlike anger and pouting, a third emotional strategy
used by adolescents involved the use of positive affect and
was labeled sweet talk. Sweet talk involves adolescent use
of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey more than
usual affection for parents. For instance, in the following
passage, an adolescent used nonverbal sweet talk:
To persuade them . . . I. put on a puppy dog face, and
sometimes that works with my mom. (Male, age 13)
Verbal sweet talk, on the other hand, is aptly represented
in the following excerpt:
He takes on a more childlike disposition and calls me
"mommy" and puts his arms around my shoulders.
(Mother with son, age 13)
Adolescents used guilt trips in an attempt to create guilt
in their parents based on family relationships. Typically
this guilt focused on the argument that since the adoles-
cent's parents had been spending money on other siblings,
the parents should feel guilty about not spending an equal
amount of money on the adolescent.
You've bought- • [brother] the last two pairs of tennis
shoes, and I'm due a pair of shoes. (Female, age 12)
If my sister gets something that they bought for her, then
I'll usually tell them that if they bought something for her
they really should get something for me. (Male, age 13)
ADOLESCENT-PARENT INTERACTION IN DECISION MAKING
Request Strategies
Adolescents used strategies that revolve around asking
for a particular item to be purchased. In past studies, these
tactics have ranged from a fairly direct request, such as
"Can I have this?" (Atkin 1978; Cowan et al. 1984; Isler
et al. 1987), to a more demanding request, such as "Get
this for me when you go to the store" (Atkin 1978; Cowan
et al. 1984). "Direct ask" was present when adolescents
requested purchases simply and unemotionally, as in the
following passages:
I would Just say, "Mom, can I have this please?" (Female,
age 13)
If I want something, I will just ask and my dad will say
"yes" or "no." (Male, age 13)
Two other types of request strategies involved express-
ing either a need or a want for a particular item. Purchase
requests were formulated by using the word "need" or
"want" and were unaccompanied by reasons. More so-
phisticated than direct ask, "express need" and "express
want'' assume that parents will infer a purchase request
from simple statements.
I guess I use the old "I need this very badly." (Female,
age 15)
I tell them I want it, and then they'll look at it. (Male, age
12)
Expert Strategies
Expert power, according to French and Raven (1959),
rests on the extent of the knowledge or perception that
one individual attributes to another individual within a
given area. This definition was expanded to the use of
expert influence between spouses by Spiro (1983). In this
study, one expert strategy emerged, "teach skills," which
involves the deliberate sharing of parental consumer
knowledge with adolescents for the express purpose of
teaching children how to be effective consumers. Teach
skills included instruction related to the price-value rela-
tionship, branded products versus generic products, prod-
uct quality, budgeting, money-saving skills, and purchas-
ing skills. The following passages poignantly illustrate
the purpose with which parents used teach skills:
He gets money every day, so I tell him that he needs to
save his money so that he can purchase the video games
he wants. I'll tell him that he needs to learn to save his
money. (Mother with son, age 12)
One thing that we always talk about when we're looking
at something is the price of it. "For what you're buying,
is the price worth the quality of what you're buying?"
(Mother with son, age 13)
I'm always trying to get her to learn the relative value of
things and particularly the impact of advertising and its
effects on driving purchases and desires. So we try to talk
about that. I point out manipulative or deceptive advertis-
165
ing, and give her a sense of being a critical consumer.
(Father with daughter, age 13) •
Legitimate Strategies
According to French and Raven (1959), legitimate
power is based on the legitimate right of one individual to
influence another individual, who in turn has internalized
values that recognize and acquiesce to this legitimate
right. Inherent in the parent-child relationship is the
shared belief that parents have legitimate authority over
their children; of course, parents realize that as children
get older, legitimate authority decreases. However, in this
study, parents used five different strategies uniquely based
on their roles as legitimate authorities, and the adolescents
generally recognized and respected this authority. Legiti-
mate strategies did not involve making deals or mutual
discussion, as did bargaining strategies; rather, they con-
sisted of unilateral, authoritative declarations by the par-
ent to the adolescent. With few exceptions, legitimate
authority was exerted primarily in circumstances when
parents refused an influence attempt.
One way in which parents rebuffed influence attempts
was to use the can't afford tactic. With this strategy,
parents refused influence attempts on the basis that the
item of interest was too expensive to be considered for
purchase either at the present time or in the future.
It's usually, if we say, "No, we can't afford it," that the
matter is dropped. (Father with son, age 12)
Another effective rebuffing strategy was delay. Delay
is the postponement of a purchase decision until some
later point in time and often was a substitute for saying
" n o " ; that is, the parent had no intention of buying the
item even at a later date.
If he wants something, I usually will say, "We'll see" or
something like that. When I say, "We'll see," it means
no, but it's usually my answer. (Mother with son, age 15)
A third type of legitimate strategy was simple answer,
which took one of two forms; in response to purchase
influence attempts, parents either answered " n o " or
"yes." In either case, parents relied on the authority of
their position to make purchase decisions without further
input from the adolescent or explanations for their deci-
sions.
Now, if I say, "No, you can't have it," and I have no
intention of bargaining with her at all, it's usually some-
thing in my tone that she knows "that's it, I know not to
ask anymore." I don't know if it's in the way I say it to
her or whatever, she can tell the difference. I think she
knows when she can and when she can't. (Mother with
daughter, age 13)
Well, if he asks for something that I think has great utility
and the price is right, then I won't mind paying for it, and
I'll just get it. (Father with son, age 13)
 166
Directive Strategies
Similar to legitimate strategies, directive strategies are
based on parental authority (Cowan and Avants 1988).
However, whereas legitimate strategies are based on the
use of parental authority to make purchase decisions with-
out any additional adolescent involvement, directive strat-
egies involve the use of parental authority to go beyond
simple decisions by guiding the purchase decision-mak-
ing process along a particular path.
"Ask opinions" involved parents inviting their adoles-
cents to express what they either liked or did not like
about a particular purchase. In either situation, parents
were directive by drawing their adolescents further into
the purchase decision process than had been previously
sought by the adolescent. Consider the following passage
from an interview with a father:
Occasionally I will ask her to go along with me when I
need to select a new cologne or a new tie or a new shirt
and get some feedback from her as to her opinion of how
it looks and how it would fit into today's goings-on. I
specifically ask her to come along, or if we are at the mall
and we are going through the mall we discuss what I like
and what she likes and what she likes me to look like, just
some interaction along those lines. Whether we agree on
it or not is two different things; you know, I value her
opinion. (Father with daughter, age 12)
Need versus want is used to discern whether or not an
adolescent's declaration of need or desire for an object
(i.e., express need, express want) truly is a need or rather
is simply a want. Need versus want is directive because
it forces adolescents to go beyond simply stating, "I need
this" or "I want this," to give reasons and explanations
that convince their parents that there is a need or a reason-
able want. Consider the following examples.
We really just want to know why she wants something,
and basically she has to give us some reasons. It just can't
be "because I want them." It has to be pretty well thought
out and if she doesn't do it, then she won't get it. (Father
with daughter, age 13)
But he wants a weight set now. We've been discussing
that. . . . "Do you really need it or is it just a want? Do
you really need it?" (Father with son, age 13)
When parents used parameters, it was for the purpose
of directing adolescents on either price or product limita-
tions, corresponding to a strategy identified by Cowan
and Avants (1988). Consider the following excerpt.
Normally, when we go in to buy, I give them a price range,
if we're iooking for shoes or shirts or whatever. "Whatever
you buy, it must cost between $10 to $30." And it is his
choice within those limits. (Mother with son, age 15)
EFFECTIVENESS OF ADOLESCENT
INFLUENCE STRATEGIES
Perhaps most important, at least from a marketing
standpoint, is understanding how the use of adolescent
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
influence strategies affects parents' purchase decisions;
that is, which adolescent strategies are effective and
which are not? Two of the interview questions collected
informants' perceptions on adolescent strategy effec-
tiveness. Effectiveness is defined in terms of successful
accomplishment of the adolescent's goal, that is, get-
ting what s/he wants, via the use of an influence strat-
egy. The more effective strategies, therefore, are those
reported as being the most successful in getting the
adolescent what s/he wanted, while the least effective
strategies are those reported as not working at all in
getting the adolescent what s/he wanted. Table 2 lists
the three most effective and three least effective adoles-
cent influence strategies as perceived by adolescents,
mothers, and fathers, on the basis of a tabulation of"
responses; it is not surprising that informants had dif-
ferent opinions regardirig effectiveness. However, since
this type of analysis fails to capture an understanding
of what makes these strategies effective or ineffective,
the interview transcripts were reexamined, comparing
parental strategies to perceptions of effective adoles-
cent influence strategies within families. Interpretation
of the texts in this manner revealed that effective ado-
lescent strategies closely corresponded to the types of
parental response strategies reported as being used in a
family in two ways. First, effective adolescent influence
strategies duplicated parental response strategies; for
example, in families where parents reported using rea-
soning strategies, the most effective adolescent influ-
ence strategy was reported as reasoning. Second, effec-
tiveness was related to a logical relationship between
the parental response strategy and the adolescent influ-
ence strategy. For example, in families where parents
used can't afford, adolescents knew that it was effective
to use strategies that decrease cost, such as money
deals, other deals, and reasonable requests.
We found both intrarole and intrafamily correspon-
dence among our informants. Intrarole correspondence,
on the one hand, refers to the agreement between a
single informant's (adolescent, mother, or father) re-
sponses on the most effective adolescent influence
strategy with the types of parental strategies used. For
example, intrarole correspondence was present when an
adolescent reported that the most effective adolescent
influence strategy to use was reasoning and also re-
ported that his or her parents used reasoning as a paren-
tal response strategy. Overall, the percentagis agree-
ment for intrarole correspondence was 40 percent, 35
percent, and 27 percent, for adolescents, mothers, and
fathers, respectively.
Intrafamily correspondence, on the other hand, refers
to the agreement between the adolescent and a parent
on the most effective adolescent influence strategy and
parental strategies used. For example, when an adoles-
cent reported that the most effective adolescent influ-
ence strategy to use was reasoning and his/her mother
(or father) reported that s/he used reasoning as a parent,
then intrafamily correspondence was present. The per-
ADOLESCENT-PARENT INTERACTION IN DECISION MAKING
ADOLESCENT INFLUENCE STRATEGY EFFECTIVENESS
Adolescent
Most effective
strategies Money deals (20%), reasoning
(17%), direct ask (15%)
Least effective
strategies Begging (19%), everyone else (13%),
anger (12%)
NOTE.—Percentages are the ratio of number of reports to sample size: n = 100.
centage agreement, intrafamily, was 30 percent for ado-
lescent-mother pairs and 40 percent for adolescent-
father pairs. Admittedly, this is an initial attempt at
understanding how interaction between adolescents and
parents impacts purchase decisions. Still, the results
suggest that adolescents have keen insight into how
their parents make purchase decisions and how their
parents will respond to adolescent influence attempts.
Moreover, adolescents know that effective influence
attempts are likely when they match their influence
strategies to their parents' decision-making styles.
DISCUSSION
This study provides the first comprehensive identifica-
tion and categorization of influence strategies used by
adolescents to influence the outcome of family purchasing
decisions. In addition, we have documented parental re-
sponses to the influence strategies employed by their ado-
lescent children. Our results contrast sharply with the
dominant "simply ask" strategy of children under age
11 reported by Isler et al. (1987). Although adolescents
in our study did frequently employ direct requests, our
results suggest a more complex pattern of interaction as
teenagers make use of a variety of influence strategies
and anticipate parental responses to their influence at-
tempts. This is consistent with previous research describ-
ing age-related changes in adolescent thinking (Keating
1990) and transitions in decision-making competence dur-
ing adolescence (Mann, Harmoni, and Power 1989). We
show that adolescents are especially likely to use bar-
gaining (money deals, other deals, reasoning) and persua-
sion (opinionates, begging) as strategies to influence deci-
sion outcomes. Kim et al. (1991) also reported high
popularity of a reasoning-based strategy by adolescents.
Cowan et al. (1984) did not report frequency of use but
did report several similar strategies, such as asking, rea-
soning, bargaining.
As adolescents learn which strategies "work" for them
in the context of family purchasing decisions, they are
likely to feel empowered in that process. Measures of
167
TABLE 2
Informant
Mother Father
Reasoning (18%), reasonable Reasoning (13%), other deals (12%),
request (14%), other deals (11%) direct ask (10%)
Whining (19%), everyone else (15%), Begging (18%), anger (17%),
anger (14%) whining (13%), demands (13%)
perceived influence—at least self-ascribed influence by
adolescents—in purchasing decisions should manifest
this effect. Although their study was based on perceptions
from teenagers only, Kim et al. (1991) found some evi-
dence of this, at least for female adolescents and certain
influence strategies. Consequently, future studies examin-
ing influence strategies may benefit by also examining
perceived influence.
Another avenue for future research is to examine the'
underlying motivations of strategy usage. For example,
adolescents' strategy choices might be influenced by
their expectations of parental resistance to influence,
as suggested by Cowan and Avants (1988) and by Man-
chanda and Moore-Shay (1996). Level of involvement
with the purchase decision for adolescents and parents
may also trigger the use of certain influence and re-
sponse strategies.
Future research might also investigate more closely
how family structure and parental rearing practices af-
fect adolescent participation in family decision making.
For example, perceived parental warmth has been re-
lated to greater use of social support and problem-fo-
cused coping and reduced emotion-focused coping by
children and adolescents (Mclntyre and Dusek 1995).
Carlson, Grossbart, and Stuenkel (1992) found that
mothers who generally respect and solicit children's
opinions tend to utilize messages that encourage the
development of consumption decision-making abilities
in children. Although limited by a small sample, Man-
chanda and Moore-Shay (1996) did not find a relation-
ship between the use of high power strategies by ado-
lescents and either authoritative or permissive parents.
A somewhat different perspective comes from Brown
and Mann (1990), who argue that adolescent participa-
tion in family decisions is determined more by exigen-
cies (e.g., single parents) or deliberate policy (as found
in adaptable families) than by parental style or example.
Overall, research suggests that too much or too little
positive parental involvement promotes negative out-
comes for adolescents (Murry and Bell-Scott 1994).
Carlson and Grossbart's (1988) work on consumer so-
 168
cialization and parenting style would be a useful guide
for research in this area.
Certain limitations to our study also serve as sugges-
tions for future work. For example, different age-groups
will likely manifest different types of interaction with
their parents. Although we found little difference in ado-
lescent strategy usage by sex, future studies should exam-
ine the impact of adolescent sex on interactions with par-
ents. Different family structures should also be examined.
Finally, since the self-selected nature of the sample may
have biased the results, efforts to obtain a random sample
should be made.
By going well beyond a descriptive approach, this ex-
ploratory study of adolescent influence attempts and re-
sponses to such attempts by parents has provided useful
information about adolescent-parent interactions and has
provided a rich foundation for future research.
APPENDIX
Interview Format'
1. Tell me how you get involved in purchases that your
mom and dad make—what kinds of things do you
like to go with them to shop for? What wouldn't you
go shopping for?
2. When you think of all the purchases your mom and
dad make, how often do you think you get involved
in their purchase decisions? All of the time, most of
the time, occasionally, rarely, or never?
3. Do you ever try to influence purchase decisions? Do
you try to get what you want?
4. What kinds of things do you say or do in a purchase
situation to try to get what you want?
5. Of all the things you say or do, what works the best?
When are you successful in getting what you want?
6. Of all the things you say or do, what doesn't work
at all? When are your parents most likely to say
"no"?
7. What kinds of things do your parents say or do in a
purchase situation in response to you? How do they
try to influence you?
8. Do you approacii your parents differently in a pur-
chase situation? If so, how do you approach your
mom and how is that different from how you would
approach your dad?
9. Tell me about the last time you went shopping for
clothes for you with your mom and dad. Whose idea
was it to go shopping, what did you go shopping for,
and how did everyone get involved in the shopping
process?
10. Tell me about the last time you all went out to eat
'This is the interview format for adolescents. The questions for moth-
ers and fathers were exactly the same, except the referents changed for
each question. For example, the first question becomes, "Tell me how
your son (daughter) gets involved in purchases that you make—what
kinds of things does s/he like to go shopping for?"
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
together as a family. Whose idea was it to go out to
eat, where did you go, and how was the decision
made about where to go?
[Received November 1995. Revised December 1996.
Brian Sternthal served as editor and Deborah Roedder
John served as associate editor for this article.]
REFERENCES
Atkin, Charles K. (1978), "Observation.of Parent-Child Interac-
tion in Supermarket Decision-Making," Journal of Mar-
keting, 42 (October), 41-45.
Beatty, Sharon E. and Salil Talpade (1994), "Adolescent Influ-
ence' in Family Decision Making: A Replication with Ex-
tension," Joumal of Consumer Research, 21 (September),
332-341.
Bell, R. Q. (1968), "A Reinterpretation of the Direction of Ef-
fects in Studies of Socialization," Psychological Review,
75, 81-95.
Brown, J. E. And L. Mann (1990), "The Relationship between
Family Structure and Process Variables and Adolescent
Decision-Making," Journal of Adolescence, 13 (March),
25-37.
Carlson, Les and Sanford Grossbart (1988), "Parental Style and
Consumer Socialization of Children," Joumal of Con-
sumer Research, 15 (June), 77-94.
, Sanford Grossbart, and J. Kathleen Stuenkel (1992),
"The Role of Parental Socialization Types on Differential
Family Communication Patterns regarding Consumption,"
Joumal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (1), 31-52. .
Cowan, Gloria and S. Kelly Avants (1988), "Children's Influ-
ence Strategies: Structure, Sex Differences, and Bilateral
Mother-Child Influence," Child Development, 59 (Octo-
ber), 1303-1313.
, Joan Drinkard, and Laurie MacGavin (1984), "The
Effects of Target, Age, and Gender on Use of Power Strate-
gies," Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47
(December), 1391-1398.
Davis, Harry L. (1976), "Decision Making within the House-
hold," yowrna/ of Consumer Research, 2 (March), 2 4 1 -
260.
Falbo, Toni and Letitia Anne Peplau (1980), "Power Strategies
in Intimate Relationships," Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 38 (4), 618-628.
Foxman, Ellen R., Patriya S. Tansuhaj, and Kadn M. Eksu-om
(1989), "Adolescents' Influence in Family Purchase Deci-
sions: A Socialization Perspective," Journal of Business
Research, 18 (March), 159-172.
French, John R. P. and Bertram Raven (1959), "The Bases of
Social Power," in Studies in Social Power, ed. Dorwin
Cartwdght, Ann Arbor: Research Center for Group Dy-
namics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michi-
gan, 150-167.
Grossbart, Sanford, Les Carlson, and Ann Walsh (1991), "Con-
sumer Socialization and Frequency of Shopping with Chil-
dren," Joumal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19
(Summer), 155-163.
Isler, Leslie, Edward T. Popper, and Scott Ward (1987), "Chil-
dren's Purchase Requests and Parental Responses," Jour-
nal of Advertising Research, 27 (October-November), 2 8 -
39.
ADOLESCENT-PARENT INTERACTION IN DECISION MAKING
Jenkins, Roger L. (1979), "The Influence of Children in Family
Decision Making: Parents' Perceptions," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 6, ed. W. L. Wilkie, Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 413-418.
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1977), "Content Analysis in Consumer
Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (June), 8 -
18.
Keating, D. P. (1990), "Adolescent Thinking," in At the
Threshold: The Developing Adolescent, ed. S. Feldman and
G. Elliott, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kim, Chankon, Hanjoon Lee, and Katherine Hall (1991), "A
Study of Adolescents' Power, Influence Strategy, and In-
fluence on Family Purchase Decisions,'' in 199J AMA Win-
ter Educators' Proceedings, ed. Terry L. Childers et al.,
Chicago: American Marketing Association, 37-45.
Manchanda, Rajesh V. and Elizabeth S. Moore-Shay (1996),
"Mom, I Want That! The Effects of Parental Style, Gender
and Materialism on Children's Choice of Influence Strat-
egy," in 1996 Winter Marketing Educators' Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 7, ed. Edward A. Blair and Wagner
A. Kamakura, Chicago: American Marketing Association,
81-90.
Mangleburg, Tamara F. (1990), "Children's Influence in Pur-
chase Decisions: A Review and Critique," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 17, ed. Marvin E. Goldberg, Ger-
ald Gom, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research, 813-825.
169
Mann, Leon, Ros Harmoni, and Colin Power (1989), "Adoles-
cent Decision-Making: The Development of Compe-
tence," Journal of Adolescence, 12 (September), 265-278.
Mclntyre, Julie Guay and Jerome B. Dusek (1995), "Perceived
Parental Rearing Practices and Styles of Coping," Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, .24 (August), 499-509.
Moschis, George P. (1985), "The Role of Family Communica-
tion in Consumer Socialization of Children and Adoles-
cents," Journal of Consumer Research, II (March), 8 9 8 -
913.
Murry, Velma McBride and Patricia Bell-Scott (1994), "Deal-
ing with Adolescent Children," in Families and Change:
Coping with Stressful Events, ed. Patrick C. McKenry and
Sharon J. Price, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 88-110.
Scanzoni, John and Maximiliane Szinovacz (1980), Family De-
cision-Making: A Developmental Sex Role Model, Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Spiro, Rosann L. (1983), "Persuasion in Family Decision-Mak-
ing," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (March), 3 9 3 -
402. '
Szybillo, George J. and Arlene K. Sosanie (1977), "Family
Decision Making: Husband, Wife, and Children," in Ad-
vances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed. W. D. Perrault,
Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 4 6 -
49.
Ward, Scott and Daniel B. Wackman (1972), "Children's Pur-
chase Influence Attempts and Parental Yielding," Journal
of Marketing Research, 9 (August), 316-319.