Abstract

Scholarly literature provides sufficient evidence on children’s participation in parents’ purchase decision depending on product type, decision-making stages, demographic profiles of parents and children, but a few studies have been carried out in terms of the influence of parental psychological characteristics. Current research fulfils the gap by providing evidence on how parents’ technology readiness and their susceptibility to interpersonal influence predict adolescents’ participation in parental purchase decision making with regard to technological products: products for family use and products for child’s use. A survey of 345 parents with children aged from 12 to 18 years old was performed by a research company using the internet panel. The findings provide evidence that parental technology readiness is a strong predictor of child’s participation into the family purchase decision making process. Parental susceptibility to interpersonal influence is a predictor of child’s participation depending on the decision stage and type of product. Findings open the room for contributions about effects of other parental psychographics, on children’s psychographics, and even on interaction among both for the better understanding of purchase decision in the family.

Keywords: child, purchase decision, consumer behaviour, technology readiness, susceptibility to interpersonal influence

JEL Classification: M30, M39.

Cite as: Dikcius, V., Pikturniene, I., Pakalniskiene, V., Seimiene, E., Kavaliauske M. & Reardon, J. (2017). The impact of parents’ technology readiness and their susceptibility to interpersonal influence on adolescents’ participation in parental decision making to purchase technological products. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 126-134. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2017.3-12

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Bao, Y., Fern, E.F., & Sheng, S. (2007). Parental style and adolescent influence in family consumption decisions. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 672-680.
2. Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer R.G., & Teel, J.E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473-481.
3. Beatty, S.E., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent influence in family decision making: a replication with extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 332-341.
4. Belch, M.A., Krentler, K.A., & Flurry, L.A. (2005). Teen internet mavens: influence in family decision making. Journal of Business Research, 58, 569-575.
5. Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. 
6. Blood Jr, R.O., & Wolfe, D.M. (1960). Husbands and wives: the dynamics of family living. New York: Free Press.
7. Bentler, P.M., & Bonnett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
8. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K.A. Bollen, & J.S. Long (eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). London: Sage. 
9. Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2008). Observing Purchase‐Related Parent–Child Communication in Retail Environments: A Developmental and Socialization Perspective. Human Communication Research, 34(1), 50-69.
10. Chavda, H., Haley, M., & Dunn, C. (2005). Adolescents’ influence on family decision-making. Young Consumers, 6(3), 68-78. 
11. Clark, R.A., & Goldsmith, R.E. (2006). Global innovativeness and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(4), 275-285.
12. Claudy, M.C., Garcia, R. & O’Driscoll, A. (2015) Consumer resistance to innovation—a behavioural reasoning perspective. Journal of the Academy Marking Science, 43(4), 528–544
13. Dauphin, A., Lahga, E., Fortin, B., & Lacroix, G. (2011). Are children decision‐makers within the household? The Economic Journal, 121(553), 871-903.
14. Dikcius, V., Armenakyan, A., Urbonavicius, S., Jonyniene, G., & Gineikiene, J. (2014). The influence of children on family purchasing in Lithuania and Azerbaijan. Organizations & Markets in Emerging Economies, 5, 79-96.
15. Dikcius, V., Armenakyan, A., Pikturniene, I., Seimiene, E., Pakalniskiene, V., Kavaliauske, M., Katkuvienė, K., & Reardon, J. (2016). Children’s influence on their parents’ purchase decision: systematic analysis of researches between 1985-2014. In I. Simberova, O. Zizlavsky, & F. Milichovsky (ed.), Proceedings of International Scientific Conference Economics and Management (pp.182-189), May 19-20, Brno, Czech Republic. 
16. Ekstrom, K.M. (2007). Parental consumer learning or ‘keeping up with the children’. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(4), 203-217.
17. El Aoud, N.H., & Neeley, S.M. (2008). Teenager-peer interaction and its contribution to a family purchase decision: the mediating role of enduring product involvement. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(3), 242-252.
18. Elliott, K., Meng, G., & Hall, M. (2012). The influence of technology readiness on the evaluation of self-service technology attributes and resulting attitude toward technology usage. Services Marketing Quarterly, 33, 311–329. 
19. Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S., & Ekstrom, K.M. (1989a). Family members’ perceptions of adolescents’ influence in family decision. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 482-491.
20. Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S., & Ekstrom, K.M. (1989b). Adolescents’ influence in family purchase decisions: a socialization perspective. Journal of Business Research, 18, 159-172.
21. Flurry, L.A., & Burns, A.C. (2005). Children’s influence in purchase decisions: a social power theory approach. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 593-601. 
22. Goldsmith, R.E., Freiden, J.B., & Eastman, J.K. (1995). The generality/specificity issue in consumer innovativeness research. Technovation, 15(10), 601-612.
23. Grossbart, S., Carlson, L., & Walsh, A. (1991). Consumer socialization and frequency of shopping with children. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 155-163.
24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modelling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 424– 453.
25. Lee, C.K.C., & Beatty, S.E. (2002). Family structure and influence in family decision making. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(1), 24-41. 
26. Lin, C.-H., Shih, H.-Y., & Sher, P. J. (2007). Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance: the TRAM model. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 641-657. 
27. Lin, J.S.C., & Chang, H. C. (2011). The role of technology readiness in self-service technology acceptance. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 21(4), 424-444. 
28. Mangleburg, T.F., Grewal, D., & Bristol, T. (1999). Family type, family authority relations, and adolescents’ purchase influence. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 379-384.
29. Marshall, R., & Reday, P.A. (2007). Internet‐enabled youth and power in family decisions. Young Consumers, 8, 177-183.
30. Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2006). Mplus users guide. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.
31. Padilla-Meléndez, A., del Aguila-Obra, A.R., & Garrido-Moreno, A. (2013) Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education, 63, 306–317.
32. Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI): a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technology. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. 
33. Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C.L. (2015). An updated and streamlined technology readiness index TRI 2.0. Journal of service research, 18(1), 59-74.
34. Rogers, E. (1963). What are innovators like? Theory Into Practice, 2(5), 252-256. 
35. Shoham, A., & Dalakas, V. (2005). He said, she said … they said: parents’ and children’s assessment of children’s influence on family consumption decisions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, 152-160
36. Tinson, J., & Nancarrow, C. (2007). ‘GROw’ing up: tweenagers’ involvement in family decision making. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(3), 160-170.
37. Roehrich G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness Concepts and Measurements. Journal of business research 57, 671-677
38. Tucker, L.R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficients for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrica, 3, 1-10.
39. Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & education, 51(3), 1392-1404.
40. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M.G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139.