The Effects of Strength of Family Relationship on Intergenerational Influence

Cynthia Webster, Mississippi State University
Linda Berns Wright, Mississippi State University
ABSTRACT - This paper investigates the effects of strength of family relationship (SFR) on intergenerational influence (IGI) and examines the extent to which two family-related variables, perceived similarity and expertise, moderate the SFR-IGI relationship. Further, this research determines the extent to which the parameters of the SFR-IGI relationship vary across various product typologies. In general, the findings reveal that SFR is a significant predictor of IGI and that perceived similarity, perceived epertise, and product classification moderate the relationship between SFR and IGI.
[ to cite ]:
Cynthia Webster and Linda Berns Wright (1999) ,"The Effects of Strength of Family Relationship on Intergenerational Influence", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26, eds. Eric J. Arnould and Linda M. Scott, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 373-378.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26, 1999      Pages 373-378

THE EFFECTS OF STRENGTH OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIP ON INTERGENERATIONAL INFLUENCE

Cynthia Webster, Mississippi State University

Linda Berns Wright, Mississippi State University

ABSTRACT -

This paper investigates the effects of strength of family relationship (SFR) on intergenerational influence (IGI) and examines the extent to which two family-related variables, perceived similarity and expertise, moderate the SFR-IGI relationship. Further, this research determines the extent to which the parameters of the SFR-IGI relationship vary across various product typologies. In general, the findings reveal that SFR is a significant predictor of IGI and that perceived similarity, perceived epertise, and product classification moderate the relationship between SFR and IGI.

The influence of family in our lives is powerful. Yet, its influence is difficult to explain because of its complexity both in structure and in the nature of its consequences. When trying to understand the role of family within a specific context, such as consumer behavior, additional challenges are presented. The way in which this influence contributes to consumer decision making is complicated and not clearly understood. In an effort to offer some insight into family dynamics within a consumer behavior context, ideas from family studies research and cultural anthropology are examined for their contribution.

As we move into the 21st Century, the role of family is changing even faster than in the past. According to Dreman (1997), changes in family structure, lifestyle, and family life cycle have caused the family values of community and belonging to be replaced by individualism and autonomy. These changes in family roles and structure are generally acknowledged. However, the impact of these changes is less certain. There is no consensus about the meaning of this transformation in family life (Skolnick 1997). Family researchers are questioning whether the family is disintegrating or merely changing. Central to this change is the question of whether individuals are becoming more self-centered and less willing to make commitments to or invest in family ties. One naturally wonders what impact these changes in family structure will have on consumers and their decision making and behaviors.

Cultural anthropology offers an approach to understanding cultural systems, such as families, by viewing them as social organizations. Social organizations provide a basis for the development of individual identity and for the socialization of others within the group. This perspective offers an approach to help explain consumer behavior (Costa 1995) that is especially useful given the changes in family structure. Rather than addressing family membership as a static influence on behavior and product choice, this research seeks to understand more about the underlying relationship that an individual might have within the family structure. In response to changes in family structure and in an individual’s identification within that family, consumption behavior can provide a way to express individual identity and/or to define membership within that family group. As individual identity is strengthened, one wonders if family influence on consumers’ behavior will remain strong.

The individual’s position within the social organization of family, as it balances individual identity with group membership, needs to be understood. To capture this relationship, perceived strength of the family relationship (SFR) will be used to assess the individual’s beliefs about family identification. SFR refers to the harmony of relations and communication between parents and their children in all areas of life (Spiro 1983; Moschis 1988).

Intergenerational influence (IGI) refers to the transmission of attitudes, skills, values, and behaviors from parents to children (Heckler, Childers, and Arunachalam 1989; Moschis 1988). The investigation of the intergenerational transmission of attitudes, abilities, and behaviors is in its infancy in consumer behavior research. In one of the earlier studies focusing on IGI, parents’ skill in financial management was found to be transmitted to their children (Hill 1970). More recently, consumer researchers have focused on those consumption elements which tend to have stronger implications for marketing strategy such as brand and store preferences and brand loyalty (e.g., Childers and Rao 1992; Moore-Shay and Lutz 198). This research provided evidence for IGI in a consumer context; that is, consumer preferences and behaviors are transmitted generationally.

Although we know that consumption-related attitudes and behaviors are transmitted from parents to their children, reasons for IGI remain vague. In perhaps the first study focusing on understanding the adoption or rejection of family brand usage patterns, Olsen (1993) found that when families are characterized by affection and respect, parents and children tend to have similar brand loyalties. On the other hand, one’s rejection of a parent’s brand and product preferences tends to serve as a reinforcer of the lack of familial bonds. These findings, based on a qualitative study of intergenerational transfer, indicate the need for further investigation of the family-related factors that affect the transmission of consumption-related attitudes, competencies, and behaviors.

In an effort to understand more about the role of family, one purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the relationship between SFR and IGI. To understand better the issue of causality, a second purpose of the current research is to investigate the extent to which perceived similarity and expertise moderate the relationship between SFR and IGI. A third and final purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which the parameters of the SFR-IGI relationship are moderated by various product classifications (e.g., purchase risk, product type, etc.). Although changes in IGI according to product classification have been proposed (Shah and Mittal 1997), these relationships have not as yet been empirically investigated.

HYPOTHESES

The strength of the family relationship is affected by a number of factors including communication orientation, family cohesion, structure, and the adaptability of the family unit to major positive and negative occurrences to one or more family members (e.g., major promotion, job loss, etc.) (Heckler et al. 1989; Hogan, Eggebeen and Clogg 1993; Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Denton 1997). Relationship strength can also be defined as how well parents and children want to get along with each other and their mutual desire for a lasting relationship. IGI should be facilitated when a harmonious and mutually respectful relationship exists in the family. Olsen (1993) found that product identification between generations acts as a bridge that reinforces a bond of affection and respect. Independence is asserted when products are rejected in favor of individual loyalties. These behaviors are seen as acts of rebellion, representing a fence between generations. Consumption behavior is influenced by family relations. Thus,

H1:  Perceived SFR will be positively related to IGI.

Perceived Similarity and Expertise

There are two processes of interpersonal influence that have particular relevance to the current study: identification and information (Deutsch and Gerard 1955). Identificational influence occurs when the one subject to influence identifies with the influencer. The one being influenced considers the other as a role model and imitates his or her behavior. Informational influence occurs when the influencing source provides useful information that guides, facilitates, or alters the choices the influence recipient makes (Park and Lessig 1977; Shah and Mittal 1997). Corresponding to these two general influence processes, Shah and Mittal (1997) propose that influence sources must possess perceived similarity and expertise characteristics to affect influence processes.

Perceived similarity, the first characteristic, refers to the lifestyle similarity between parents and their adult children due to identification. Lifestyle similarity can surface in actual or perceived attitude, preference, and behavior congruence (Shah and Mittal 1997). Perceived similarity of lifestyle may provide the impetus for interpersonal influence to occur via the identificational mechanism, resulting in a form of value-expressive influence (Park and Lessig 1977). Thus, the more similar adult children perceive themselves to their parents, the more likely they will seek and receive IGI.

H2:  Similarity will moderate the relationship between SFR and IGI for goods purchased. The relationship will be stronger for those with a high degree of perceived similarity.

The second characteristic, expertise, refers to product information and knowledge about relevant evaluative criteria, product usage, etc. Consumers’ level of perceived brand or product expertise is positively related to their degree of experience, knowledge and familiarity with a particular item (Bettman and Park 1980; Brucks 1985). The perception of possessing accurate and up-to-date information about specific products, brands, stores, etc., helps to alleviate consumer risk (Shah and Mittal 1997). Thus, expertise operates through the informational influence mechanism. While IGI can be an automatic or unconscious process (Olsen 1995), there are also times when children may be more aware of and attracted to its influence. It follows, then, that if adult children perceive their parent(s) as possessing expertise relating to the product category, a specific brand, or other marketplace phenomena, they are likely to make a conscious effort to seek and receive IGI.

H3:  Expertise will moderate the relationship between SFR and IGI for goods purchased. The relationship will be stronger when perceptions of expertise exist.

Product Classifications

Certain product categories are more likely to be influenced by IGI than are others (Olsen 1993). In an effort to understand more about why certain product choices are transferred between generations, various product typologies are examined.

Purchase risk. Purchase risk refers to the consumer’s perception of the overall negativity of a course of action (such as making a specific purchase) based upon an assessment of the possible negative outcomes and of the likelihood that those outcomes will occur (Bettman 1975). Several types of risk impact consumers: financial, performance, physical, psychological, social, time, and opportunity loss. Consumers will tend to seek more advice for products that are associated with risk than those that are not. Thus,

H4:  The relationship between SFR and IGI will be stronger for high risk than for low risk purchases.

Product type. One product typology is that of convenience, shopping, and specialty goods (Murphy and Ennis 1986). The first two types of goods, convenience and shopping, are of particular relevance in the current study. Convenience goods are purchased by habit and are typically low-priced, often-purchased goods, ranging from staples (e.g., toothpaste and bread) to products bought on impulse (e.g., magazines) or in an emergency (e.g., umbrellas and antifreeze). Parental influence on convenience goods has been found in previous studies (Olsen 1995). Parental influence can act as a time-saving heuristic for products that are lower in involvement, such as consumer goods. On the other hand, shopping goods are perceived to be risk entailing; therefore, consumers are willing to spend considerable time shopping for them to lower perceived risk. When consumers perceive all the product alternatives as similar, they are likely to inquire for prie-related information. For other shopping products, consumers might perceive alternatives as differing in important ways and seek information regarding the one that best meets their needs. Parents are one possible source of information for shopping goods. While magazines or salespeople may provide additional information to the shopper, the role of parents as influencer for shopping goods is likely to be evident. Due to the increased risk factor, this influence on shopping goods will be greater than for convenience goods. Thus,

H5:  The relationship between SFR and IGI will be stronger for shopping than for convenience goods.

Product change. A noteworthy characteristic of products is whether or not they have changed considerably during the past few years (one to two decades). Generally, products that entail high levels of technology (e.g., computers) change rapidly, while those that entail low levels of technology remain virtually unchanged. It is logical to suspect that adult children will perceive themselves as possessing more knowledge than their parents regarding products categories that have changed considerably over time. Consequently, they are not likely to seek IGI from their parents for high-change products.

H6:  The relationship between SFR and IGI will be stronger for low-change than for high-change goods.

Product evaluation mode. Products have also been classified on the basis of the extent to which they can be evaluated before purchase: search, experience, and credence goods (Nelson 1970; Darby and Karni 1973). The first two types are of particular relevance in the current study. Search goods possess attributes that can be evaluated prior to purchase (e.g, a computer), and experience goods generally must be sampled or used before they can be evaluated (e.g., shampoo). Search products require and allow pre-trial appraisal based on the product’s inherent features. Consequently, the propensity to seek marketer-provided information regarding product performance will be higher for search goods. Evaluations of experience goods can be based on the experience of others. When SFR is high, family members’ experiences can act as surrogates for personal evaluations of product experiences. Under social learning theory, children model and learn from the observed experiences of others. Family members’ evaluations can be used to evaluate experience goods pre-purchase. Thus, IGI is more likely to exist for experience goods.

H7:  The relationship between SFR and IGI will be stronger for experience than for search goods.

METHOD

A survey was conducted to examine the effects of SFR on IGI among young adults ranging in age from 23 to 27. Thus, this study focuses on adult childrens’ perceptions of the extent to which their purchase behavior is influenced by their parents’ purchase behavior.

Product categories. During the product selection process, care was taken to ensure that products in each category varied in purchasing involvement, cost, and technological level. Past research was used to develop a listing of several types of high- and low-risk goods (e.g., Jacoby and Kaplan 1972; Peter and Ryan 1976), shopping and convenience goods (Bearden, Ingram, and LaForge 1997), and experience and search goods (Iacobucci 1992), with an emphasis on a minimum of product overlap. For the low- and high-change products, three marketing specialists first developed a listing of several products for each the two categories; a pilot test was then conducted with 28 individuals to determine the extent to which each product was appropriate for its high- or low-change category. The final list was comprised of eight product types for each of the eight categories (e.g., batteries and shampoo as low-risk goods, tires and wrist watches as high-risk goods, VCRs and automobiles as shopping goods, toothpaste and antifreeze as convenience goods, televisions and microwaves as low-change goods, computers and stereo equipment as high-change goods, automobiles and frozen dinners as experience goods, and wrist watches and jeans as search goods).

Sample. One hundred and eight graduate students completed the survey. The students were enrolled in two colleges at a large U.S. university. Before survey participation, the potential respondents were first screened to ensure that both they and their parents had previously purchased the products on which this study focused.

The sample was ethnically diverse with 64% Anglo, 19% African-American, 12% Asian, and 5% Hispanic respondents. With respect to the household in which they were raised, 25% of the respondents reported household incomes below $40,000, 55% reported household incomes of between $40,000 and $75,000, and 20% reported incomes over $75,000. Most of the respondents came from intact families in that 78% reported that they were raised in households with both biological mother and father in residence.

Measures. The questionnaire was comprised of items measuring the following constructs: IGI for eight types of goods, SFR, perceived similarity and expertise. Intergenerational influence was assessed by asking respondents to indicate on a five-point scale the extent to which they purchase the same product brand that their parents purchase. As Olsen (1993) noted, similar purchase behavior may emerge as an expression of affection and respect, functioning at a fundamental level as a reinforcer of familial bonds. Thus, it is logical to suspect that the tendency of adult children toexhibit similar consumption behaviors to their parents will be positively related to greater levels of parental influence. Past research (e.g., Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers 1976; Moschis and Churchill 1978) was used to develop a 27-item measure of SFR (alpha=.91). The SFR items pertained to communication, parent-child relationship, family adaptability, and cohesiveness. Examples of SFR items are "My parents and I have openly discussed problems and concerns," "There has always been a very high level of emotional closeness between my parents and myself," "My family adapted very well to older children leaving home," and "When growing up, our family ate our meals together." Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a five-point scale. The scale items loaded on one factor, thus suggesting unidimensionality.

The other two measures were specifically constructed for this study. Perceived similarity was measured on a five-point scale (alpha=.82) based on five items that assessed lifestyle parallelism (e.g., "My parents and I engage in the same types of leisure activities"). The results of a factor analysis of the items resulted in unidimensionality. Perceived expertise was measured by asking the respondents to indicate on a five-point scale the extent to which they thought their parents (one or both) have expertise on each of the products on which this study focused.

FINDINGS

The analysis begins with regression to determine the extent to which SFR explains IGI for each product type. The regression results are presented in the first part (1) of each of the eight subsections of Table 1. The R2 values show that SFR is a significant predictor of IGI for 6 of the 8 product types. In the significant cases, the variance explained by SFR ranges from 6 to 22%. Although H1 receives support, SFR is not a significant predictor of IGI for high-change and search goods.

The analysis then focuses on a series of hierarchical regressions to determine if similarity and expertise moderate the relationship between SFR and IGI. The second and third parts of each of the eight subsections of Table 1 present the hierarchical regression results. Consistent with Cohen and Cohen (1983), the interaction variables were entered in the regression model after their constituent elements to partial out the main effects from the interaction terms. Thus, SFR and either similarity or expertise are first entered simultaneously as a set of main effects. [When testing for a similarity interaction, expertise is not one of the main effects; the same holds true for the testing of an expertise interaction.] After controlling for these main effects, the interaction term is then tested. With respect to Hypotheses 2 and 3, we are primarily interested in the extent to which the entry of the interaction increases the R2 value (bold type in table).

Examination of the incremental R2 values for the SFR-Similarity interactions shows that perceived lifestyle similarity is a significant moderator of the relationships between SFR and IGI for all product types except convenience goods. Thus, H2 receives support. Similarly, H3 also receives general support as 6 of the 8 incremental R2 values for the SFR-expertise interactionsare significant. Perceived parental expertise is a significant moderator of the relationships between SFR and IGI for all product types except low-risk and convenience goods. To understand the nature of the interactions, the simple main effect of SFR was examined at different levels of the moderator variable (e.g., similarity). Following Jaccard, Turrisi, and Wan (1990), each moderator variable was defined at two levels: a high level was defined as one and one-half standard deviations above the mean and a low level as one and one-half standard deviations below the mean. In general, the relationship between SFR and IGI is stronger when relatively high levels of perceived lifestyle similarity (mean=4.25) and expertise (mean=3.98) exist.

Lastly, the analysis ends with r to z transformations to determine if there is a significant difference between the parameters of the relationships between SFR and IGI for low- and high-risk goods, shopping and convenience goods, etc. The results of testing H4-7 are given in the last column of Table 1. The first comparison result (1.99) indicates that the relationship between SFR and IGI is significantly (p-.05) stronger for high-risk than low-risk goods, thus supporting H4. Even the interaction effects for the high-risk goods are significantly stronger than they are for the low-risk goods. Hypothesis 5 states that the relationship between SFR and IGI will be stronger for shopping than for convenience goods. However, the comparison result of 0.54 indicates a lack of support; hence, H5 is rejected. The last two comparison results (3.27 and 2.35) indicate that the relationship between SFR and IGI is significantly stronger for low-change than for high-change goods and significantly stronger for experience than for search goods. Thus, both H6 and H7 receive support.

TABLE

HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION RESULTS

DISCUSSION

This study was guided by three major objectives. The first objective was to investigate the effects of strength of family relationship (SFR) on intergenerational influence (IGI). Second, this study sought to determine the extent to which two family-related variables, perceived similarity and expertise, moderate the SFR-IGI relationship. Lastly, the research reported here determined the extent to which the parameters of the SFR-IGI relationship are moderated by various product typologies. In general, the findings reveal that SFR is a good predictor of IGI, that perceived similarity and expertise moderate the relationship between SFR and IGI, and that the strength of the SFR-IGI relationship depends on product classification.

There were, however, some exceptions to these general findings. Contrary to hypothesis 1, SFR was not a uniform predictor of IGI. Specifically, a nonsignificant relationship was found to exist between SFR and IGI for high-change and search goods. This can be explained by the likely strength of parental influence for these product types. In a recent study, strength of influence was identified as a moderator for the intergenerational transfer process (Heckler et al. 1989). High-change goods represent a evel of technological change that is more important than SFR. Product decisions in this category will be made independently of SFR due to the nature of information required to make a decision. The consideration of parental values and attitudes toward products that are technologically advanced is not likely to be based on the strength of family relationshipCother factors are more likely to be considered. For example, when choosing a new processor for a computer, the trade-offs between speed, reliability, and cost are likely to be more important to the decision than are familial relations. In addition, for search goods, SFR is not likely to be related to IGI. By definition, search goods are those for which a person will search for information until the marginal expected cost of search becomes greater than its marginal expected return. Information is acquired by search rather than by experience. Thus, the search for information is an activity outside of, or supplemental to, family relations. The search for information is likely to extend beyond the family. The lack of significance for search goods, is consistent with this product classification definition.

As mentioned previously, this study examined the moderating effects of similarity and expertise on the SFR-IGI relationship. Contrary to what was hypothesized, neither similarity nor expertise were significant moderators of the SFR-IGI relationship for convenience goods. This result can be explained by the strength of the SFR-IGI relationship for convenience goods. By definition, consumers do not spend much money or time when purchasing convenience goods. These types of decisions are not as likely to be influenced by the characteristics of the influence source; the strength of the relationship alone is sufficient to influence convenience product decisions. Further, expertise was found to be a weak moderator for low-risk goods. Again, the nature of the product provides the explanation for these results. When the decision is low risk or involves convenience goods, parental expertise is not relevant.

Lastly, the relationship between SFR and IGI is not stronger for shopping than for convenience goods. By definition, buyers are willing to spend a significant amount of time and money in searching for and evaluating shopping products. The finding that the SFR-IGI relationship does not vary significantly across shopping and convenience goods could be the result of the products chosen. For example, VCRs may have become such a commodity in the market place that they no longer represent a true example of a shopping product.

This research examines the influence of family on consumer behavior, specifically on product choice behavior. The findings reveal that SFR is a good predictor of IGI. In addition, various product classifications, as well as perceived similarity and perceived expertise were found to moderate this relationship. Although the current study offers some insight into the nature of intergenerational influence in a consumer behavior context, there are other fruitful avenues for future research. First, to understand the role of family influence on brand and product choices, additional research should examine different product categories, such as food products, cleaning products, and personal care products. Second, store choice, considering store type and specific store name, needs to be understood for its role in this selection process. Third, additional reseach might examine the direct effect of expertise on IGI (it was used as a moderator in the current study). Then, some other variables (such as perceived risk) might be used a moderators. In fact, SFR may moderate the relationship between expertise and IGI. For instance, individuals may only allow the expertise of their parents to influence their buying behavior when they are emotionally close to them. In sum, there may be a more complex interaction with the variable of expertise than currently proposed. Fourth, it would be informative to investigate more specific inflences, such as those from mother, father, sister, brother, grandparents, etc. Since the current study focuses only on the mid-20s, a fifth idea for future research is to determine the age at which IGI takes place. Additional studies might consider the teenage years, 30s, etc. In other words, the questions are: Does age moderate the effect of IGI? And, if so, how? Further, an examination of cohort effects will help us understand the relationship between SFR and IGI across generations. A sixth future research idea stems from Olsen’s (1995) suggestion that "distance" from home may have a strong impact on IGI. Research might focus on determining if consumers use brands as a source of comfort in a strange or different environment, thus making IGI stronger.

REFERENCES

Bearden, William, Thomas N. Ingram, and Raymond W. LaForge (1997), Marketing Principles and Perspectives, 2nd ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Bettman, James R. (1975), "Information Integration in Consumer Risk Perception: A Comparison of Two Models of Component Conceptualization," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 381-385.

Bettman, James R. and C.W. Park (1980), "Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December), 234-248.

Brucks, Merrie (1985), "The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 1-16.

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, and Willard L. Rodgers (1976), The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions, New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Childers, Terry L. and Akshay R. Rao (1992), "The Influence of Familial and Peer-Based Reference Groups on Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2), 198-211.

Costa, Janeen Arnold (1995), "The Social Organization of Consumer Behavior," in Contemporary Marketing and Consumer Behavior: An Anthropological Sourcebook, John F. Sherry, Jr., ed., 213-244, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Darby, M.R. and E. Karni (1973), "Informational Social Influence and Product Evaluations," Journal of Law and Economics, 16 (April), 67-88.

Deutch, M. and H.B. Gerard (1955), "A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences Upon Individual Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 624-636.

Dreman, Solly (1997), "On the Threshold of a New Era: An Overview," in The Family on the Threshold of the 21st Century: Trends and Implications, 3-13, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hill, Reuben (1970), Family Development in Three Generations, Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

Heckler, S.E., T.E. Childers, and R. Arunachalam (1989), "Intergenerational Influences in Adult Buying Behaviors: An Examination of Moderating Factors," Advances in Consumer Research, 16, ed. T. Srul, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 276-284.

Hogan, D.P., D.J. Eggebeen, and C.C. Clogg (1993), "The Structure of Intergenerational Exchange in American Families," American Journal of Sociology, 98 (May), 1428-1458.

Iacobucci, Dawn (1992), "An Empirical Examination of Some Basic Tenets in Services: Goods-Services Continua," in Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 1, Teresa Swartz, David E. Bowen, and Stephen W. Brown, eds., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 23-52.

Jaccard, James, Robert Turrisi, and Choi K. Wan (1990), "Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression," Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-072. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Jacoby, Jacob and Leon Kaplan (1972), "The Components of Perceived Risk," in Advances in Consumer Research, 3, M. Venkatesan, ed., Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 382-383.

Moore-Shay, Elizabeth S. and Richard J. Lutz (1988), "Intergenerational Influences in the Formation of Consumer Attitudes and Beliefs About the Marketplace: Mothers and Daughters," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, M.J. Houston (ed.), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 461-467.

Moschis, George P. (1988), "Methodological Issues in Studying Intergenerational Influences on Consumer Behavior," in Advances in Consumer Research, ed. M. Houston, 15, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 461-467.

Moschis, George P. and Gilbert A. Churchill (1978), "Consumer Socialization: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 599-609.

Murphy, Patrick E. and Ben M. Enis (1986), "Classifying Products Strategically," Journal of Marketing, 50 (July), 24-42.

Nelson, P. (1970), "Information and Consumer Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, 78 (March/April), 311-329.

Olsen, Barbara (1995), "Brand Loyalty and Consumption Patterns: The Lineage Factor," in Contemporary Marketing and Consumer Behavior: An Anthropological Sourcebook, Kohn F. Sherry, Jr., ed., 245-281, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Olsen, Barbara (1993), "Brand Loyalty and Lineage: Exploring New Dimensions for Research," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, L. McAlister and M.L. Rothschild (eds.), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 575-579.

Park, C.W. and P. Lessig (1977), "Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (September), 102-110.

Peter, J. Paul and Michael Ryan (1976), "An Investigation of Perceived Risk at the Brand Level," Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (May), 184-188.

Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Frank Denton (1997), "Family Structure, Materialism, and Compulsive Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March), 312-325.

Shah, R.H. and B. Mittal (1997), "Toward a Theory of Intergenerational Influence in Consumer Behavior: An Exploratory Essay," in Advances in Consumer Research, eds. M. Brucks and D. MacInnis, 24, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 55-60.

Skolnick, Arlene (1997), "The Triple Revolution: Social Sources of Family Change," in The Family on the Threshold of the 21st Century: Trends and Implications, 167-180, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Spiro, R.L. (1983), "Persuasion in Family Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (March), 393-402.

----------------------------------------