Forster

27
Article
Vision

Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies

17(1) 27–40
© 2013 MDI
SAGE Publications
in Family Purchase Decisions and Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,

the Impact of Demographics Washington DC

DOI: 10.1177/0972262912469561
http://vision.sagepub.com

Akhter Ali
N. Ravichandran
D.K. Batra

Abstract
The existing literature has shown that children have an influence in family purchase decisions and recognized different influence strat-
egies children use to influence their parents. The present study is based on survey approach and intends to understand children’s
choice of influence strategies and the impact of various demographic factors. A sample of 180 children in Delhi was studied by using
structured questionnaire from June 2011 to March 2012. The findings of the study reveal that children basically use four major types
of influence strategies in family purchases and the choice of a particular influence strategy depends on children, parent and family
characteristics.

Key Words
Children, Delhi, Influence Strategies, Demographics

Introduction cultural differences from the West. Hence, there is a need

Traditionally, both marketers and consumer researchers
have overlooked children as a consumer segment because
of lack of disposable income (Kaur and Singh, 2006). It
took quite a long time for consumer decision-making to
recognize children as chief actors in family purchase
decisions. This important recognition of children in family
purchase decisions caught the attention of marketers
because, besides being customers for their own products;
toys, cereals, snacks and children wear (Calvert, 2008),
they also have an important influence over family products;
vacations, family eating out and movies (Cooper, 1999;
Gaumer and Arnone, 2010; Vassalo and Caruana, 2003).
Today children are more vocal and autonomous and exert
more influence than the previous generations and have
emerged as a potential consumer market (Gupta and Verma,
2000). The reasons why there is a need to investigate to
update and to structure the research with respect to children’s
influence in family purchase decisions are as under.
A large number of studies available on children’s influ­
ence in family purchase decisions have been conducted in
developed countries like Europe, America and a few in
India. Although, many aspects could be generalized terms of children’s influence strategies and the impact of
to India, still it is questionable whether children from Indian
families actually function in a similar way accounting to its
for further research in order to understand children’s role in
family purchase decisions in India too (Jain and Bhatt,
2004; Kaur and Singh, 2006).
Recognizing the importance of influence, researchers
have contributed significantly to our knowledge about the
various influence strategies children use to influence
parent, but much remains to be investigated. The choice of
different influence strategies with respect to demographic
factors always remained doubtful as what and how they
impact children’s choice preference behaviour. Only a few
studies are available in this regard, indicating how
children’s age and gender affect children’s choice of
influence strategies (Cowan and Avants, 1988; Manchanda
and Moore-Shay, 1996). Hence, an effort is greatly required
to explore and study all those factors (children, parent and
family characteristics) affecting children’s choice of
influence strategies in family purchase decisions.
Literature Review
The literature for this study has been structured below in
demographic factors like children, parent and family
characteristics.
28 Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies in Family Purchase Decisions
Children’s Influence Strategies
The definition of ‘influence’ varies from person to person.
Some recognize it as an active dimension, while others
perceive it as both active and passive dimensions. Gronhoj
(2002) defines influence as ‘a family member’s competence
to achieve specific results by influencing the partner’s
behaviour, attitudes and feelings’. Flurry and Burns (2005)
stated that ‘a child’s influence attempts are intended to
achieve control over the decision outcome’. Researchers
have found that children use a variety of influence strategies
to approach their parents.
Cowan and Avants (1984) identified 15 influence
strategies children use to influence their parents and
categorized them on the basis of three dimensions (e.g.,
directness, bilaterality and strength). Directness shows the
level the influence behaviour is indirect (e.g., evasion, use
of an advocate) or more overt and direct (e.g., asking,
demanding). Bilaterality refers to the extent that the
strategy involves dual interaction (e.g., bargaining) or only
one person’s independent action (e.g., stating importance).
Strength is linked to the agreement the strategy user expects
from the other side. If he/she expects high, then it is a
strong strategy (e.g., demanding). In reverse, if he/she
expects low, then it is a weak strategy (e.g., begging).
Based on the 1984 study, Cowan and Avants (1988) picked
10 strategies from 15 influence strategies and added 2 more
(cry and get angry) to form a 12 influencing strategies.
Children were asked to assess the frequency and
effectiveness of using these 12 strategies towards their
mothers. Factor analysis identified three general categories
as: Anticipating non-compliance, egalitarian and
autonomous strategies. Anticipating non-compliance
strategies comprise those that imply high resistance on the
part of parents (e.g., beg and plead, cry). Egalitarian
strategies include those that suggest a give and take
between children and parents (e.g., bargain, reason).
Finally, autonomous strategies involve those that anticipate
low resistance from parents (e.g., tell, laissez-faire).
Manchanda and Moore-Shay (1996) used Cowan and
Avants (1988) typology which classified influence
strategies into three main types as high, low and moderate
power strategies. High power strategies reflect a more
equitable interchange between parents and children. Low
power strategies imply that parental resistance is
anticipated. And moderate power strategies indicate that
children are ‘willing to delay action until a more opportune
time, perhaps in the service of minimizing confrontation’.
Recently Palan and Wilkes (1997) conducted in-depth
interviews on children and identified four influence
strategies often used by children as bargaining, persuasion,
emotional and reasoning. In bargaining strategy, children’s
intention is to form agreement with parents based on
common gain and mutually satisfactory outcomes such as
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40
money deals and negotiations. In persuasion strategy,
children try to persuade the parent(s) to resolve decision
conflict in their favour, probably via certain manipulation.
Emotional strategy reflects children’s ‘intentional use of
emotion, either directly or indirectly’ when trying to
influence parents in the purchase decision-making process,
such as, anger and sweet talk. In reasoning strategy,
children ask parents to purchase a particular item by stating
any reason like others have it.
Demographic Variables
Demographic variables, such as children, parent and family
characteristics, are likely to have an impact on children’s
choice of influence strategies. Hence it becomes necessary
to study the impact of each variable so as to get a deep
understanding about this phenomenon.
Children Characteristics
The children characteristics have been measured using
gender, age and order of the child as under:
Gender of Child: Gender of the child has a substantial
influence in family purchase decisions. There are prominent
differences regarding gender in dominating the family
purchase decisions. Boys are seen to be more influential
for products like video games, entertainment and fun items
(McNeal and Yeh, 2003) whereas girls influence high in
household items like cloths, bakery items and writing
papers (Atkin, 1978; Lee and Collins, 1999; McNeal and
Yeh, 2003). Gender differences were also studied by
Cowan and Avants (1988) and Maccoby (1990) and they
pointed out that boys and girls do not vary in their number
of influence efforts, but do vary in their influence style.
Girls use more diverse influential styles like reasoning,
asking and persuading than boys and persuade their parents
to purchase and thus tend to be more influential than boys
(Lee and Collins, 1999; Moschis and Mitchell, 1986).
Gender of child has been found to relate to children’s
choice of influence strategy, with girls using low power or
weak strategies more frequently than boys do towards their
parents (Cowan and Avants, 1988; Manchanda and Moore-
Shay, 1996). This may be due to the power structure of the
relationship. Girls might perceive parents as having more
power than boys do and thus use low power strategies
towards powerful target (Cowan et al., 1984).
Age of Child: Age is considered as an important variable
explaining difference in interaction regarding consumption
(Ward et al., 1986). There exists a very close relationship
between age of child and the influence in family purchase
decisions. McNeal (2007) revealed that as the child grows
the participation in the family purchases also grows; this
Akhter Ali, N. Ravichandran and D.K. Batra 29
occurs because the child becomes more familiar with the
marketing process. Moschis and Mitchell (1986) supported
the considerations of McNeal (2007) and indicated that
with increasing age, adolescents showed a higher parti­
cipation in the process of making purchase decisions.
This is due to the development in cognitive abilities of
the children who tend to become sophisticated consumers
as they proceed to more developmental stages.
Age of children has been found to affect their choice of
influence strategy (Cowan and Avants, 1988; Cowan et al.,
1984; Manchanda and Moore-Shay, 1996). Older children
develop greater cognitive ability (John, 1999) and thus
might anticipate more cooperation with others. In accord
with this, old children may use more bargaining and
persuasion than young children do (Cowan et al., 1984).
Order of Child: Order of child has also an impact on
children’s influence in family purchase decisions. Kagan
(1977) revealed that first born child has more influence in
family purchase decisions than later born child. Moschis
and Churchill (1979) also found a positive but not
significant relationship between birth order and family
purchase decisions. Cotte and Wood (2004) stated that
order of the child was an important covariate and reduced
the error covariance helping to explain part of the variance
on innovation. Thus, the necessity that the first born needs
to be congruent with parents will result in higher level of
influence in family purchase decisions.
Parent Characteristics
The parent characteristics have been measured using age,
profession and parental style as under:
Age of Parent: Parental age has an impact on children’s
influence in family decision-making. Jenkins (1979)
found a direct relation between parent’s married life and
children’s influence and revealed that longer the couple
has been married, more will be the involvement of
children in family purchase decisions. The results were
further supported by the studies of Foxman, Tansuhaj and
Ekstron ( 1989) who established that children’s influence
will be more in families having older parents. McNeal
(1992) discovered that families dedicated to their career
postpone having children in early married life, but have a
great expectation for the arrival of new one at later stage,
hence give them more importance and have a great respect
for their opinions (McNeal, 2007).
Profession of Parent: McNeal (1992) and Beatty and
Talpade (1994) discovered that families enthusiastic about
the progression of their careers delegate authority to
children because of the professional involvement which
was later named by McNeal (1992) as ‘household
participation’. Impact of professional involvement was
further studied by Jenkins (1979), who identified that
guilt factor (due to parent’s while leaving home) influenced
more where both parents were working, principally for
traditional mothers (Lee and Beatty, 2002).
Parental Style: Carlson and Grossbart (1988) revealed
that the parental style has an important role to play on
children’s influence in family purchase decisions.
Baumrind (1971) classified parents into four different
styles; indulgent, authoritarian, authoritative and
neglecting. Maccoby and Martin (1983) revealed that
different parents vary along demandingness (i.e., parental
control of children’s behaviour) in rearing children.
Authoritative and authoritarian parents are high in
demandingness while indulgent and neglecting parents
are low in demandingness. Parents with high demanding
attitude usually put and enforce clear behavioural
standards, keenly watch and supervise children’s conduct
and maintain a high control over their children
(Baumrind, 1989; Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Under
very demanding parents, children’s rational and mature
behaviours are praised and irrational and emotional
behaviours are controlled. Strategies, such as, begging
and pleading, negative affect and Laissez-faire, are likely
not favoured by these parents because such behaviours
are often irrational and emotional. However, strategies
such as bargaining and reasoning appear more rational,
thus are more welcomed. On the other hand, parents with
low demandingness either do not have specific
behavioural rules for children (e.g., neglecting parents)
or they do not impose these rules (e.g., indulgent parents).
These parents are easy to please their children’s requests
either because they do not want to dishearten children
(e.g., indulgent parents) or they simply want to avoid
children’s annoyance (e.g., neglecting parents). Under
less demanding parents, children are likely to get
approval from these parents if they use any type of
influence strategy, such as, begging and pleading or
reasoning.
Family Characteristics
The family characteristics have been measured using
income, number of children and family structure as under:
Income of Family: Family income is an important variable
that determine the degree of influence children have in
the process of family purchase decision. Some studies have
found that children influence higher in high-income
families (Jenkins, 1979) or economically sound families
(Moschis and Mitchell, 1986). This is because of the reason
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40
30 Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies in Family Purchase Decisions
that parents in such families have enough money to
accommodate their preferences (Williams and Veeck,
1998). There are evidences that children from low-income
families too have influence in family purchase decisions.
Prahalad and Lieberthal (2003) revealed in their study that
parents in low-income families take their children to
several buying trips, because they do not have any one to
take care of them; hence they spend more time in shopping
environment. Gunter and Furnham (1998) and Young
(1999) found that children in low-income families make
more purchase requests because they are more frequently
exposed to advertising than children of high-income
families, hence tend to have more influence in the family
purchase decisions.
Number of Children: Number of children in a family also
plays a significant role in influencing the family purchase
decisions. Studies of Jenkins (1979); Ward and Wackman
(1972) and Maggie and Mast (2002) revealed that lesser
the number of children in family, the more money will
be spent on each child, resulting in the increase of purchase
power of each. However, the findings of Ward et al. (1977)
and Shen and Yuan (1999) points that all research Only a few variables like child’s age, gender and parental
results are unclear on this matter. Mehrotra and Torges
(1977) and Dunne (1999) displayed that children’s
influence in the purchase decisions of cereals, chips and
Figure 1.
Income
Family Children
xHigh Characteristics Influence
xLow
Structure
xDual Earning Parental
xDivorces Characteristics
xFall in Birth
Number of
Children per
Family
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40
holidays increases with increase in the number of children
in each family.
Family Structure: Family structure has a significant effect
on children’s influence in the family purchase decisions.
Over the past two decades, family structure has changed
dramatically in most of the European countries (Clarke and
Joshi, 2005; Koerner and Fitzpatrick, 2002). India too
has witnessed changes in family structure, but still
traditional joint household remained the primary social
force in the lives of most Indians. The change in family
structure has elevated the role of children as influencers in
family purchase decisions (Flurry and Burns, 2007), but
the influence children have in family purchase decisions
varies across different types of families (Alam and Khalifa,
2009).
The literature discussed with respect to children’s
influence in family decisions gives a brief understanding of
the influence, influence strategies and the demographic
variables as shown in Figure 1. Although it addresses the
impact of demographic variables on children’s influence,
but lacks to discuss its impact on the influence strategies.
styles have been addressed properly but not all, hence there
is immediate need to conduct an empirical research on this
issue so to bridge this gap in literature.
Age
Children
Charateristics x Young
xOld
Profession Gender
x Girl
x Boy
Age
Order
Communication
Pattern
Akhter Ali, N. Ravichandran and D.K. Batra 31
Table 1. Scale for Both Children’s Influence and Parent’s Response Strategies
Children’s Influence Strategies
  1. I indicated to my father mother the fact that my other
friends have it.
  2. I repeatedly reminded him/her of what I wanted.
  3. I nagged until he/she got irritated.
  4. I told him/her that I’d do some special things if he/she
a grees with me.
  5. I became especially affectionate to him/her in hopes to get
my way.
  6. I reasoned with my father/mother, trying to argue my
request logically.
  7. I made jokes trying to get my way.
  8. I asked repetitively for the product yet trying not to irritate
him/her.
  9. I asked for the product in a way that sounded reasonable to
him/her.
10. I explained the reasons for my choice.
11. I made him/her feel guilty in hopes to have him/her agree
with me.
12. I pleaded or begged him/her to agree with me.
13. I simply asked my father/mother to agree with me.
14. I appealed to his/her love and affection for me.
15. I told my father/mother what I wanted. I just stated my
needs.
16. I tried to negotiate something agreeable to both of us.
Research Methodology
The major input contribution to the present research is the
primary data. The data was collected using structured
questionnaires administered on children from both rural
and urban localities of Delhi (India). Each questionnaire
was divided into two parts, Part A and Part B and contained
questions in a chronological order. Part A covered
demographic data in terms of children characteristics: age,
gender and order; parent characteristics: age, profession
and parental style and family characteristics: income,
structure and number of children in a family. Part B of the
questionnaire contained data on children’s influence and
parent’s response strategies. These influence and response
strategies were developed from the studies of Cowan and
Avants (1988), Cowan, Drinkard and MacGavin (1984),
Manchanda and Moore-Shay (1996) and Palan and Wilkes
(1997). Table 1 lists the scales for both children’s influence
and parent’s response strategies. The responses were
mostly recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
extremely important (5) to somewhat important (4), neither
important nor unimportant (3), somewhat unimportant (2)
and extremely unimportant (1).
Each questionnaire was printed in a language which was
understandable to children and included some graphical
Parent’s Response Strategies
1. My father/mother asked my opinion towards each product.
2. He/she discussed each product with me.
3. He/she simply gave in to me.
4. He/she taught me how to select the best alternative.
5. He/she reasoned with me, trying to argue his/her choice
logically.
6. My father/mother expressed his/her opinion towards each
product.
7. My father/mother promised to reward me if I agree with him/
her.
8. My father/mother tried to negotiate something agreeable to
both of us.
9. He/she indicated his/her choices without giving reasons.
representation. The reason for this was that visual facilities,
such as pictures, stimulate the children’s motivation and
concentration towards the questions (Melzer-Lena and
Middelmann-Motz, 1998). The questions were personally
administered and any clarifications on the research topic or
difficulty in understanding the questions were attended on
site that ensured 100 per cent response rate. The study
employed non-probabilistic judgemental sampling and was
carried on 180 children in Delhi from November 2011 to
March 2012. Children from the age group 6–16 years were
included in the study.
Findings and Discussion
Demographic Profile
The overall profile of the sample population is given in
Table 2. A sample of 200 participants was subjected to
questionnaire, out of which 20 questionnaires were dropped
because the children were out of the selected age range
(6 years to 16 years). Of the remaining 180 subjects, 46 per
cent were male children and 54 per cent were female
children, all from different families. All the children were
under 16 years old.
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40
32 Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies in Family Purchase Decisions

Table 2. Demographic Profiles of the Children

Gender No. % Age No. % Expenditure/Income No. % Order No. %

Boys 83 46 <10 16 8.9 <10 ` 42 23.3 Oldest 98 54.4
Girls 97 54 10 10 5.6 10 – 19 ` 31 17.2 2nd oldest 57 31.7
11 45 25.0 20 – 29 ` 29 16.1 3rd oldest 15 8.3
12 31 17.2 30 – 39 ` 17 9.4 4th oldest 4 2.2
13 25 13.9 40 – 49 ` 16 8.9 5th oldest 6 3.3
14 36 20.0 50 – 59 ` 18 10.0
15 14 7.8 >60 ` 27 15.0
16 3 1.7
Total 180 100 180 100.0 180 100

Children’s Influence Strategies
The data collected on children’s influence strategies in
family purchase decisions contained 18 items indicating
the various ways used by children in getting their way done
during the discussion with their parents as shown in 1999). The value of KMO obtained from the analysis was
Table 1. With such diverse responses, it was thought that a
factor analysis of all these responses using principal
component analysis method might lead to grouping of all
such ways of purchase discussion with parents. To make
sure that factor analysis was suitable or not, for this kind of
data we performed Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and
Bartlett’s tests. The value of KMO measures the unique
variance among the variables. If the variance among the
variables is existing, factor analysis will yield distinct and
reliable factors. Kaiser (1974) recommended values greater
than 0.5 as acceptable (values below this requires the
collection of more data or to rethink which variable to
include), which indicates that sample size is adequate for
principal component analysis (Hutecheson and Sofroniou,
0.604, which reveals that sample size was quite adequate
for this test. Similarly, the value of Bartlett’s test of
sphericity was 432.57, p < 0.01, which indicates that
the variables are correlated, so factor analysis can be
applied here. Tables 3 and 4 contain the output data from
factor analysis. The results of factor analysis gave four
different influence strategies as: pestering, reasoning,
enticing and negotiating used by children in family
purchase decisions.

Tables 3. Factor Analysis of Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies

Initial Eigen Values Extraction Sums of Squared Loading Rotational Sum of Squared Loading
Percentage Cumulative Percentage Cumulative Percentage Cumulative
Component Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
 I 2.758 17.237 17.237 2.758 l7.237 l7.237 2.412 15.076 15.076
 2 1.831 11.445 28.682 1.831 11.445 28.682 1.852 11.572 26.648
 3 1.483 9.269 37.951 1.483 9.269 37.95l 1.576 9.850 36.498
 4 1.329 8.308 46.259 1.329 8.308 46.259 1.562 9.761 46.259
 5 1.194 7.466 53.725
 6 1.109 6.933 60.657
 7 0.945 5.907 66.565
 8 0.864 5.399 71.964
 9 0.818 5.113 77.077
10 0.680 4.249 81.327
11 0.642 4.010 85.336
12 0.554 3.460 88.796
13 0.546 3.415 92.211
14 0.479 2.994 95.205
15 0.397 2.482 97.687
16 0.370 2.313 100.000

Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40

Akhter Ali, N. Ravichandran and D.K. Batra 33

Table 4. Component Matrix in the Factor Analysis on Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies

Components
Variables 1 2 3 4
Reactions to the statement
I indicated to my father mother the fact that my other friend have it. 0.619 –0.142 –0.244 –0.122
I repeatedly reminded him/her of what I wanted. 0.538 –0.499 0.112
I nagged until he/she got irritated. 0.537 –0.337 –0.171 –0.177
I told him/her that I’d do some special things if he/she agrees with me. 0.476 –0.166
I became especially affectionate to him/her in hopes to get my way. 0.473 0.304 0.291
I reasoned with my father/mother, trying to argue my request logically. 0.472 0.235 –0.323
I made jokes trying to get my way. 0.441 0.312 –0.234 0.157
I asked repetitively for the product yet trying not to irritate him/her. 0.398 0.291 –0.384 –0.118
I asked for the product in a way that sounded reasonable to him/her. 0.340 0.231 0.174 0.234
I explained the reasons for my choice. 0.285 0.655 0.296
I made him/her feel guilty in hopes to have him/her agree with me. 0.331 –0.452 0.421
I pleaded or begged him/her to agree with me. 0.142 –0.692 –0.178
I simply asked my father/mother to agree with me. 0.348 0.520 –0.213
I appealed to his/her love and affection for me. 0.435 –0.327 0.569
I told my father/mother what I wanted. I just stated my needs. 0.229 0.383 0.170 0.531
I tried to negotiate something agreeable to both of us. 0.286 0.472 0.146 –0.522

Impact of Children Characteristics Impact of age on children’s choice of influence strategy:

The findings for impact of age of children on the choice of
Impact of gender on children’s choice of influence of choice influence strategy in family purchase decisions are shown
strategy: The findings for impact of gender of children on in correlation Table 6. Age is found to be correlated with
their choice of influence strategies are shown in Table 5. It enticing (r = −0.350, p < 0.001) and negotiating (r = 0.105,
is seen that there is a significant difference between male p < 0.05). This reveals that children in their earlier stages
and female children in the choice of influence strategies. of development influence their parents by showing love
Boys are seen to have more impact through pestering and affection. As they proceed to later developmental
(t = 1.296, p < 0.05) and negotiating (t = 3.518, p < 0.001) stages they start negotiating with parents during purchase
as an influence strategies in the family purchases than girls discussions.
who tend to influence their parents through enticing (t = Kruskal Wallis test also showed that mean rank for
−7.83, p < 0.001) and negotiating (t = −3.518, p < 0.001). negotiation strategy increased with age (χ2 = 13.640,
p < 0.05) and mean rank for enticing strategy decreased
Table 5. Impact of Gender on Children’s Choice of Influence with age (χ2 = 50.934, p < 0.001) as shown in Table 7. Thus,
of Choice Strategy children in their analytical stage of development make
their parents purchase through affection, but as they
Children’s choice of
influence strategy Gender t-test Significance proceed to more advanced stage, they make their parents
Pestering M/F 1.296 0.050*
purchase through negotiations as they tend to be more
Reasoning M/F –1.683 0.051* mature and sophisticated customers.
Enticing M/F –7.839 0.000**
Negotiating M/F 3.518 0.001** Impact of order on children’s choice of influence strategy:
Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The findings for impact of order of children on the choice
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). of influence strategy in family purchase decisions are

Table 6. Impact of Age, Order and Parent’s Income on Children’s Choice of Influence Strategy

Age Order Pestering Reasoning Enticing Negotiating

Age 1 0.086 0.069 0.006 –0.550** 0.105*
Order 1 –0.010 0.010 0.143* –0.806**
Pestering 1 0.000 0.000 0.000
Reasoning 1 0.000 0.000
Enticing 1 0.000
Negotiating 1
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2- tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40

34 Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies in Family Purchase Decisions

Table 7. Kruskal Wallis Test for Age

Age Pestering Mean Ranks Reasoning Mean Ranks Enticing Mean Ranks Negotiating Mean Ranks
< 10 yrs 84.38 97.19 125.56 66.75
10 yrs 118.30 99.80 133.90 125.20
11 yrs 78.02 80.87 109.13 87.13
12 yrs 91.32 94.42 94.42 94.29
13 yrs 100.60 91.96 93.04 99.76
14 yrs 97.67 102.61 59.08 80.81
15 yrs 78.29 69.21 42. 86 91.64
16 yrs 96.00 69.67 17.00 146.67
Test Statistics
Pestering Reasoning Enticing Negotiating
Chi-Square 8.079 7.076 50.934 13.640
Asymp. Sig. 0.326 0.421 0.000** 0.050*
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

shown in correlation Table 6. Order is found to be correlated Impact of Parent Characteristics

with negotiation (r = −0.806, p < 0.001) and enticing (r =
0.143, p < 0.05). This reveals that children’s choice of
enticing strategy increases with the order and negotiation
decreases with the order of children in a family. Kruskal
Wallis test also showed that mean rank for enticing strategy
increased with order of children (χ2 = 9.107, p < 0.05) and
mean rank for negotiating strategy decreased with the order
(χ2 = 82.487, p <0.01) as shown in Table 8. Thus, it can be
inferred that children later in order in a family tend to make
their parents purchase by showing affection towards them,
while the children much earlier in order make their parents
purchase through negotiations as they tend to be more
mature and well aware about the marketing environment
than latter born children in a family.
The impact of children characteristics on children’s
choice of influence strategies can be drawn into a model as
shown in Figure 2.
Impact of age of parent on children’s choice of influence
strategy: The findings for impact of age of parent on
children’s choice of influence strategies are shown in
Table 9.
Age of the parent is found to be correlated with
children’s choice of influence strategies like reasoning (r =
0.371, p < 0.05), enticing (r = −0.680, p < 0.05) and
negotiating (r = 0.732, p < 0.05). This reveals that children
from younger parent(s) make them purchase through
enticing and as they grow older, the tendency to use other
strategies like reasoning and negotiating increases. Thus, it
can be inferred that parents in their early married life have
a strong control over their children, but as they proceed to
more advanced ages, the children also proceed to more
developmental stages and turn to become mature. Hence,
children from such parents make them purchase through
reasoning and negotiating rather than younger children

Table 8. Kruskal Wallis Test for Order

Order Pestering Mean Ranks Reasoning Mean Ranks Enticing Mean Ranks Negotiating Mean Ranks
Oldest 87.05 88.40 30.50 175.33
2nd Oldest 97.93 90.93 87.98 168.75
3rd Oldest 76.67 86.73 93.20 143.93
4th Oldest 52.25 139.25 77.00 107.40
5th Oldest 105.50 67.33 98.53 60.92
Test Statistics
Pestering Reasoning Enticing Negotiating
Chi-Square 5.342 4.970 9.107 82.487
Asymp. Sig. 0.254 0.290 0.058 0.000
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40

Akhter Ali, N. Ravichandran and D.K. Batra 35

Figure 2.

Pestering

Male

Gender Reasoning

Female

Enticing

Age

Negotiating

Order

who use enticing as a strategy to make their way during
purchase discussions with their parents.
Impact of profession on children’s choice of influence
strategy: The findings for impact of profession of parent
on children’s choice of influence strategies in family
purchase decisions is shown in correlation Table 9.
Profession is found to be correlated with children’s choice
of influence strategies like reasoning (r = 0.153, p < 0.05),
enticing (r = −0.494, p < 0.05) and negotiating (r = 0.497,
p < 0.05). This reveals that children’s choice of influence
strategies varies with respect to parent’s professional
involvement. The study reveals that children from
professionally involved parents choose reasoning and
negotiating as influence strategies than children who
belong to less professionally involved parents, who use
enticing as an influence strategy. This is because of the
reason that children from professionally involved parents
have high parental disposable income and hence the
tendency to use reasoning and negotiating increases rather
than children from low professionally involved parents
who use love, sympathy and emotional bonding to
influence family purchase decisions.
Impact of parent’s income on children’s choice of influence
strategy: The findings for impact of parent’s income on the
choice of influence strategies by children in the family
purchase decisions are shown in correlation Table 9.
Income is found to be correlated with pestering (r = 0.448,
p < 0.001), reasoning (r = 0.153, p < 0.05) and enticing
(r = −0.350, p < 0.001). This means that children’s choice
of pestering and reasoning increases with increase in
parent’s income. At the same time the choice of enticing
increases with decrease in income. Thus, it can be inferred
that children belonging to high-income families make their
parents purchase through pestering and reasoning, while

Table 9. Impact of Age Profession of Parent Income on Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies

Age Profession Income Pestering Reasoning Enticing Negotiating

Age 1 –0.121 0.137 0.276 0.371* –0.680* 0.732*
Profession 1 0.566 0.207 0.153* –0.494* 0.496*
Income 1 0.448** 0.153* –0.307** –0.006
Pestering 1 0.000 0.000 0.0000
Reasoning 1 0.000 0.000
Enticing 1 0.000
Negotiating 1
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40

36 Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies in Family Purchase Decisions

children belonging to low-income families make their
parents purchase by showing love/affection during
purchase decision. This is because of the reason that in
high-income families, due to availability of disposable
income, children can easily make their choices and give
reasons for their purchases than low-income families who
tend to show attraction towards their parents in getting
their way during the purchase discussions.
Impact of parental style on children’s choice of influence
strategy: The data collected on parental style contained
questions on how parents respond to children’s purchase
requests during purchase discussions. With such diverse
responses, it was thought a factor analysis of all these
responses using principal component analysis method
might lead to grouping of all such ways of parent responses
to children’s purchase requests. To make sure that factor
analysis is suitable or not for this kind of data, we
performed KMO and Bartlett’s tests. The value of KMO
measure of sampling adequacy obtained from the analysis
was 0.656 indicating that sample size was adequate for
principal component analysis. Similarly, the value of
Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 87.2, p < 0.01, which
indicates that the variables are correlated, so factor
analysis can be applied here. Tables 10 and 11 contain the
output data from factor analysis. The results of the
factor analysis classified parents into four major types
on the basis of communication pattern into indulgent,
authoritative, authoritarian and neglecting (Darling and
Steinberg, 1993).
The findings for impact of parental style on children’s
choice of influence strategies in family purchase decisions
are shown in correlation Table 12.
Numerous differences were noted for the choice of
influence strategy by children in different families.
Children who belonged to indulgent parents choose
negotiation (r = −0.192, p < 0.001), reasoning (r = 0.149,
p < 0.05) and pestering (r = 0.95, p < 0.001) as influence
strategies in family purchase decisions. This is because of
the reason that in such type of families parents are more
open to children and hence children make their parents
purchase through these strategies.
Children who belonged to authoritative parents choose
negotiation (r = 0.662, p < 0.001), reasoning (r = 0.733, p <
0.001) and enticing (r = 0.179, p < 0.05) as influence
strategies in family purchase decisions. This is because of the
reason that in such type of families parents are more involved
in attending to children’s emotional and developmental
needs, i.e., responsiveness (Maccoby and Martin, 1983).

Tables 10. Factor Analysis of Parenting Types

Initial Eigen Values Extraction Sums of Squared Loading Rotational Sum of Squared Loading
Percentage Cumulative Percentage Cumulative Percentage Cumulative
Component Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 2.218 24.644 24.644 2.218 24.644 24.644 1.991 22.124 22.124
2 1.341 14.903 39.547 1.341 14.903 39.547 1.308 14.534 36.65
3 1.042 11.581 51.128 1.042 11.581 51.128 1.301 14.450 51.107
4 1.020 11.335 62.463 1.020 11.335 62.463 1.022 11.356 62.463
5 0.846 9.398 71.861
6 0.793 8.806 80.668
7 0.696 7.737 88.405
8 0.606 6.734 95.139
9 0.437 4.861 100.000

Table 11. Component Matrix in the Factor Analysis on Parenting Types

Components
Variables 1 2 3 4
Reactions to the statement
My father/mother asked my opinion towards each product. 0.773 –0.251
He/she discussed each product with me. 0.724 –0.326
He/she simply gave into me. 0.534 –0.206 0.439 0.141
He/she taught me how to select the best alternative. 0.512 0.424 0.217 –0.150
He/she reasoned with me, trying to argue his/her choice logically. 0.277 0.702 –0.325
My father/mother expressed his/her opinion towards each product –0.266 0.657 0.246
My father/mother promised to reward me if I agree with him/her. 0.245 0.336 0.710 –0.162
My father/mother tried to negotiate something agreeable to both of us. 0.450 –0.168 0.673
He/she indicated his/her choices without giving reasons. –0.374 0.208 0.119 0.656

Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40

Akhter Ali, N. Ravichandran and D.K. Batra 37

Table 12. Impact Parental Style on Children’s Choice of Influence Strategy

Indulgent Authoritative Authoritarian Neglecting Pestering Reasoning Enticing Negotiating

Indulgent 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.945” 0.149” 0.085 –0.192”
Authoritative 1 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.733” 0.179” 0.622”
Authoritarian 1 0.000 –0.086 –0.010 0.739” 0.254”
Neglecting 1 0.041 –0.095 0.301” 0.000
Pestering 1 0.000 0.000 0.000
Reasoning 1 0.000 0.000
Enticing 1 0.000
Negotiating 1
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Children who belonged to authoritarian parents choose impact on the choice of negotiating (t = 2.037, p < 0.05) as
negotiation (r = 0.254, p < 0.001) and enticing (r = 0.739, an influence strategy rather than children who belong to
p < 0.001) as influencing strategies in family purchase nuclear families, who use reasoning (t = −1.34, p < 0.05) as
decisions. This is because of the reason that in such type of an influence strategy in family purchase decisions.
families parents have high control of children’s behaviour. Impact of number of children in a family on children’s
They strictly enforce rules, favour children’s unquestionable choice of influence strategy: The findings for impact of
obedience and punish wilful behaviour (Carlson and number of children in a family on children’s choice of
Grossbart, 1988). influence strategies are shown in Table 14.
Children who belonged to neglecting parents choose Number of children is found to be correlated with
enticing (r = 0.301, p < 0.001) as an influence strategy in negotiating (r = 0.890, p < 0.001). This reveals that more
family purchase decisions. This is because of the reason the number of children in a family, more will be the
that in such type of family parents have least concern for tendency to negotiate in the families. Thus, children from
children’s purchase requests, hence children in such type of bigger families having more children will have more
families show emotional attachment to make their parents influence in family purchase decisions.
purchase their products. The impact of family characteristics on children’s
The impact of parent characteristics on children’s choice choice of influence strategy can be drawn into a model as
of influence strategy can be drawn into a model as shown shown in Figure 4.
in Figure 3.
Table 13. Impact of Family Type on Children’s Choice of
Influence of Choice Strategy
Impact of Family Characteristics
Children’s Choice of
Impact of family type on children’s choice of influence Influence Strategy Gender t-test Significance
strategy: The findings for impact of family type on
Pestering J/N –1.40 0.889
children’s choice of influence strategies are shown in Reasoning J/N –1.34 0.051*
Table 13. It is seen that there is a significant difference Enticing J/N 173 0.243
between joint and nuclear family in the choice of influence Negotiating J/N 2.037 0.04*
strategies used by children in family purchase decisions. Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Children belonging to joint families are seen to have more * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 leval (2-tailed).

Figure 3.

Pestering
Profession
Age
Indulgent Reasoning

Authoritative
Neglecting Enticing

Authoritarian
Negotiating

Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40

38 Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies in Family Purchase Decisions
Table 14. Impact of Number of Children in a Family on Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies
No. of Children Pestering
No. of children .1 0.100
Pestering 1 0.000
Reasoning
Enticing
Negotiating
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 leval (2-tailed).
Figure 4.
Pestering
Income Reasoning
Enticing
No. of Children Negotiating
Conclusion and Recommendations
Previous research has reported that children have consider-
able influence in family purchase decisions (Foxman and
Tansuhaj, 1988; Foxman, Tansuhaj and Ekstrom, 1989).
Based on such findings an empirical study was conducted
in Delhi (India) to validate such findings with respect to
Indian scenario. Results of the study showed that children
choose four major types of influencing strategies, namely
pestering, reasoning, enticing and negotiating in order to
make their parents to purchase the products.
It is seen that gender of the child has an important role
on the choice of influencing strategy. The study reveals
that male children influence their parent’s through pestering
than female children who used reasoning, enticing and
negotiating as an influencing strategy in family purchases.
Expenditure by children (parent’s income) also plays a
vital role in the choice of influence strategies by children.
The study reveals that children from high-income families
influence their parent’s through pestering and reasoning
than children from low-income families who influence
through enticing.
Age of the child also plays an important role in the
choice of influencing strategy. Older children are seen to
influence their parents through negotiating than younger
children who use enticing as an influencing strategy in
family purchase decisions.
Order of the children in a family also contributes a lot in
the choice of influence strategy in the family purchases.
Early born child tend to influence their parent’s through
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40
Reasoning Enticing Negotiating
–0.049 0.079 0.890**
0.000 0.000
1 0.000 0.000
1 0.000
1
Nuclear
Family type
Joint
negotiation than later born child who uses enticing as an
influencing strategy.
Parent characteristics like parental age, profession and
parental style have an important role to play in the choice of
influence strategy used by children in family purchase
decisions. Children from older parents influence their
parent’s through negotiation as compared to younger parents
whose children use enticing as an influence strategy.
Children belonging to professionally involved parents
used reasoning as an influence strategy than children from
less professionally involved parents who use enticing as an
influence strategy in family purchase decisions.
Parental style is also found to be extremely related to
the children’s choice of influencing strategies. The study
reveals that children from indulgent parents used pestering
and reasoning as the influencing strategies. As the
indulgence in the families increases, children in such type
of families hardly have to make negotiation with their
parents in family purchase decisions. Authoritative parents
demand mature behaviour as well as provide parental
affection, thus leading to satisfactory behaviour in children
such as self-reliance, high self-esteem and pro-social
behaviour (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Hence children of
such type of parents use reasoning, enticing and negotiating
strategies in getting their way during the discussion with
their parents. Children from authoritarian parents show
love and affection towards their parents while making
purchase decisions because such type of parents are highly
resistant to children’s requests and thus the tendency to
Akhter Ali, N. Ravichandran and D.K. Batra 39
negotiate with such type of parents is least. Children, who
belong to neglecting parents, use enticement as a source of
influencing their parents during purchase decisions,
because such type of parents are highly indifferent to
children’s development.
Family characteristics like income of the family also
have a significant impact on the choice of influencing
strategy by children. The study reveals that children from
high-income families influence their parents through
pestering and reasoning than children from low-income
families who influence through enticing. Family structure
also plays a role on the choice of influence strategies.
Children from nuclear families use reasoning as an
influence strategy than children from joint families who
use negotiating as an influence strategy in family purchase
decisions.
The numbers of children in a family also contribute a lot
in the choice of influence strategy. The study reveals that
more the number of children in a family, more will be the
tendency to use negotiation as an as an influence strategy
in family purchase decisions.
Although the present study validates the findings devel-
oped on the basis of literature and gives a deep understand-
ing of the problem, but still an exploratory research needs
to be done so as to strengthen the understanding of chil-
dren’s influence in family purchase decision process and to
critically evaluate all the factors that have influence on
children’s influence in family decision-making in India
which has always preserved its cultural values but still its
culture has undergone metamorphosis resulting into change
in family structure, increase in number of working couples,
delegation of authority, etc.
References
Alam, G.M., & Khalifa, M.T.B. (2009). The impact of introduc-
ing a business marketing approach to education: A study on
private HE in Bangladesh. Afr. J. Bus. Management, 3(9),
463–474.
Atkin, C. (1978). Observation of parent–child interaction in
supermarket decision-making. Journal of Marketing, 42(4),
41–45.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority.
Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4(1), 1–103.
———. (1989). Rearing competent children, in child develop-
ment today and tomorrow, Ed. W. Damon. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, pp. 349–378.
Beatty, S.E., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent influence in fam-
ily decision making: A replication with extension. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21(9), 332–341.
Calvert, S.L. (2008). Children as consumers: Advertising and
marketing. Future Child, 18(1), 205–234.
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and consumer
socialization of children. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(June), 77–94.
Clarke, L., & Joshi, H. (2005). Children’s changing families
and family resources. In A.M. Jenson & L. McKee (Eds),
Children and the changing family: Between transformation
and negotiation (pp. 15–26). RoutledgeFalmer.
Cooper, J. (1999). Parents: Kids know best. Media Week, 9(6),
14–15.
Cotte, J., & Wood, S. (2004). Families and innovative behavior:
A triad study of influence. Journal of Consumer Research,
31(June), 78–86.
Cowan, G., & Avants, S.K.. (1988). Children’s influence strat-
egies: Structure, sex differences, and bilateral mother-child
influence. Child Development, 59(2), 1303–1313.
Cowan, Gloria, Avants, S.K., Drinkard, J., & MacGavin, L.
(1984). The effects of target, age, and gender on use of power
strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47(6), 1391–1398.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An
integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496.
Dunne, M. (1999). The role and influence of children in family
holiday decision making. International Journal of Advertising
and Marketing to Children, 1(3), 181–191.
Flurry, L.A., & Burns, A.C. (2005). Children’s influence in pur-
chase decisions: A social power theory approach. Journal of
Business Research, 58(5), 593–601.
———. (2007). Children’s influence in family decision-making:
Examining the impact of the changing American family.
Journal of Business Research, 60(4), 322–330.
Foxman, E., & Tansuhaj, P. (1988). Adolescents and mothers per-
ceptions of relative influence in family purchase decisions:
Patterns of agreement and disagreement. In M. Houston (Ed),
Advances in consumer research (pp. 449–453). Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S., & Ekstrom, K.M. (1989). Family
members’ perception of adolescents influence in family
decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4),
482–491.
Gaumer, C.J., & Arnone, C. (2010). Grocery store observation:
Parent-child interaction in family purchases. J. Food Prod.
Mark., 16(1), 1–18.
Gronhoj, A. (2002). Miljovenlig adfærd i familien: Et studie af
familiemedlemmers involvering og sociale interaktion. Ph.D.
thesis, Institute of Marketing, Aarhus School of Business,
Denmark.
Gunter, B., & Furnham, A. (1998). Children as consumers:
A psychological analysis of the young people’s market.
London: Routledge.
Gupta, S., & Verma, D.P.S. (2000). We, not me: Who will buy?
Indian Management, 39(5), 61–65.
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social
scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear
models. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jain, P.C., & Bhatt, M. (2004). Consumer behaviour in Indian
context. New Delhi: S. Chand.
Jenkins, R.L. (1979). The influence of children in family deci-
sion-making: Parents perceptions. Advances in Consumer
Research, 6(01), 413–418.
John, D.R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A ret-
rospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 26(3), 183–213.
Kagan, J. (1977). The child in the family. Daedalus: Journal of
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,, 106(Spring),
33–56.
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40
40 Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies in Family Purchase Decisions
Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity.
Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
Koerner, A.F., & Fitzpatrick, A.M. (2002). Toward a theory
of family communication. International Communication
Association, 12(1), 70–91.
Kaur, P., & Singh, R. (2006). Children in family purchase deci-
sion making in India and the West: A review. Academy of
Marketing Science Review, 10(8), 1–30.
Lee, C.K.C., & Beatty, S.E. (2002). Family structure and influ-
ence in family decision making. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 19(1), 24–41.
Lee, C.K.C., & Collins, B.A. (1999). Family decision making and
coalition patterns. Department of Marketing, University of
Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from www.alliedacadem-
ics.org-pdf-mb98-pams3-1
Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmen-
tal account. American Psychologist, 45(4), 513–520.
Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the
context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. Mavis
Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, personality, and social
development (4th edn) (pp. 1–102). New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Maggie, G., & Mast, G. (2002). Children’s influence on fam-
ily purchase behaviour: The role of family structure, In
Ramizwick and Tu Ping (Eds), Asia Pacific advances in
consumer research Volume 5 (pp. 130–135). Association for
Consumer Research.
Manchanda, Rajesh V., & Moore-Shay, Elizabeth S. (1996).
Mom, I want that! The effects of parental style, gender and
materialism on children’s choice of influence strategy. In
Peter J. Gordo & Bert J. Kellerman (Eds), Marketing theory
and applications (7th edn) (pp. 81–90) Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
McNeal. (1992). Kids as customers behaviour (4th edn). USA:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
McNeal. (2007). On becoming a consumer: Development of
consumer behaviour patterns in childhood. Woburn, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
McNeal, J.U., & Yeh, C.H. (2003). Born to shop. American
Demographics, 15(6), 34–39.
Mehrotra, S., & Torges, S. (1977). Determinants of children‘s
influence on mothers’ buying behaviour. In William D.
Perreault, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp.
56–60). Association for Consumer Research.
Melzer-Lena, & Middelmann-Motz. (1998). The ESOMAR
Handbook of market and opinion research (pp. 957–973).
Netherlands: ESOMAR.
Moschis, G.P., & Churchill, G.A., Jr. (1979). An analysis of
the adolescent consumer. Journal of Marketing, 43(3),
40–48.
Moschis, G.P., & Mitchell, L.G. (1986). Television advertis-
ing and interpersonal influences on teenagers participation
in family consumption decisions. Advances in Consumer
Research, 13(4), 181–186.
Palan, Kay M., & Wilkes, Robert E. (1997). Adolescent-parent
interaction in family decision making. Journal of Consumer
Research, 24(September), 159–169.
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 27–40
Prahalad, C.K., & Lieberthal, K. (2003). The end of corporate
imperialism. Harvard Business Review, 81(8), 10–117.
Shen, Jianping, & Yuan, Bao-Jane. (1999). Moral values of
only and sibling children in Mainland China. Journal of
Psychology, 133(2), 115–124.
Vassalo, R., & Caruona, A. (2003). Children perception of their
Influence over purchase; The role of parental communication
patterns. Journal of Consumer Market, 20(1), 55–66.
Ward, S., Robertson, T.S., Klees, D.M., & Gatignon, H. (1986).
Children’s purchase requests and parental yielding: A cross-
national study. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(01),
629–632.
Ward, S., & Wackman, D.B. (1972). Children’s purchase influ-
ence attempts and parental influence attempts and parental
yielding. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(3), 316–319.
Williams, L.A., & Veeck, A. (1998). An exploratory study of
children’s purchase influence in urban China. Asia Pacific
Advances in Consumer Research, 3, 13–19.
Young, B.M. (1999). Television advertising and children.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Akhter Ali (akhterali15@gmail.com) is a full-time research
scholar at Faculty of Management FMIT, Jamia Hamdard, New
Delhi, India. He is currently researching on the roles and
responsibilities of children in family decisions in India. He has
published extensively in national and international research
journals. Most of the research papers on children’s influence are
available at major research sites.
N.  Ravichandran  (ravi@jamiahamdard.ac.in)  is a Professor at
Faculty of Management, FMIT at Hamdard University, New
Delhi, India. He teaches Business Research Methodologies and
Strategic Management.  He is currently  researching on many
issues like customer satisfaction in Indian retail banking, children
evolving as a major market in India,  SIX XIGMA (Gaining
Competitive Advantage) and service engineering.  Moreover, he
has been a keen observer and major contributor of policy
planning in health sector in India. To establish his credential, he
has published a number of research papers at national and
international level and written books, which have been distributed
widely. His textbook Ecology, Acculturation and Psychological
Adaptation and Sustainability of Small Holder Agriculture in
India are now available at major libraries in India.
D.K. Batra (dkbatra@gmail.com) is Professor at Asia Pacific
School of Business Management in New Delhi, India. He teaches
marketing and international business. He is currently researching
on the emergence of children as a growing market in India and
advertising standards and its policy regulation towards children
in India. He has authored many research papers on textile
industry and children’s role in major Indian families. To establish
his credentials, he has written books on Indian textiles. Many of
his research papers on children’s influence in major family
decisions are available at major research sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.