Examining Family Decision-Making Processes

ABSTRACT - Family decision-making research appears in recent years to have shifted emphasis from the study of the roles played by different family members in various family decisions to a focus on the decision-making process itself, and the strategies used by families to arrive at decisions. The two papers discussed here both reflect this trend, and suggest some interesting direct ions for future research.

Citation:

Susan P. Douglas (1983) ,"Examining Family Decision-Making Processes", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 10, eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Abor, MI : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 451-453.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 10, 1983      Pages 451-453

EXAMINING FAMILY DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

Susan P. Douglas, New York University

ABSTRACT -

Family decision-making research appears in recent years to have shifted emphasis from the study of the roles played by different family members in various family decisions to a focus on the decision-making process itself, and the strategies used by families to arrive at decisions. The two papers discussed here both reflect this trend, and suggest some interesting direct ions for future research.

INTRODUCTION

The importance of understanding the process by which decisions are reached in families was recognized by Davis (1976) in his seminal review of research in household decision-making. He pointed out that much previous research in consumer behavior had been focused on examining the outcomes of decision-making rather than how families actually reached decisions. Borrowing an analogy from Sprey (1971), he noted that this was like trying to understand the game of chess by looking at outcomes of the game while ignoring the strategies used by each player.

Following this, a number of studies have been conducted, which focus more specifically on the actual decision-making process. Studies have, for example, been conducted looking at the impact of involvement, empathy and authority in conflict resolving behavior (Burns 1976, Burns and Granbois 19773. Differences in perceptions of family conflict and modes of conflict resolution among family members have also been examined for a number of products and decision areas (Belch, Belch and Scilimpaglia 1980). The impact of information processing behavior on household decision-making has also been examined (Curry and Menasco 1979). Similarity of the decision net plans of husband and wives in purchasing a home have also been compared (C. Whan Park 1982).

The two papers discussed here follow essentially this approach: one provides a conceptual framework linking sex-roles to decision-making strategies, the other suggests a novel methodological approach to studying these decision-processes. Each is next discussed in more detail.

SEX-ROLES AND FAMILY DECISION PROCESSES

Buss and Schaninger (1983) present an interesting conceptual structure for examining family decision-processes, linking sex-role norms and their antecedents to conflict management strategies and their outcomes. The stated purpose is not to provide a comprehensive model of family decision-making, but rather a structure to identify key research issues in studying the impact of sex-roles on decision-processes and their outcomes.

With this objective in mind, a number of issues arise with regard to the proposed conceptual framework and its components, and also, its implementation.

In the first place, the limitation of the model to the husband-wife dyad and hence, the omission of children is disappointing. This in particularly the case in view of the growing body of research (Atkin 1978, Filiatrault and Ritchie 1980, Szybillo and Sosanie 1977, Ward and Wackman 1977 which reveal the involvement of children in many family purchase decisions, and their influence on the outcome of these decisions. Furthermore, support of children may be evoked in bargaining and negotiating strategies.

Secondly, greater attention to the role of the scenario or constraints under which a decision is being made, would appear desirable. The strategies which are employed to avoid or resolve potential conflict, may depend not only perceptions of desirable ends and means, and individual attitudes of either spouse, but also the time available for making the decision, distraction factors such as interruptions by children, phone calls, pressure to leave for work etc. (Davis 1976). Whether discussion is taking place and a decision being made in the house, in a retail outlet, and whether or not others are present, may also influence what tactics are used (Burns and Devere 1977).

Thirdly, in applying this conceptual framework, a key issue is that of the linkages between the various blocks of the model. The authors cite a number of these in their paper. In addition, questions arise as, for example, whether conflict management can be separated from decision behavior. If both spouses shop together, potential choice conflicts may be resolved on the spot, by multiple brand purchases or "trade-offs" between different purchases, etc. It has, for example, be questioned as to whether purchases actual] v involve decision-making (Olshavsky and Granbois 1979).

Finally, the development of appropriate operational definitions and measures of the constructs contained in the model appears an important priority in further research. While work has been done in the development of measures of sex-role norms and lifestyle factors, that in relation to conflict management strategies is considerably more sparse. (For some exceptions see Blood 1960 Davis 1960 Sheth & Cosmas 1975). Here, appropriate methodological procedures pose a major difficulty, since many of the procedures commonly used in family decision-making research such as verbal self-report measures or laboratory experiments are likely to be subject to bias. Doubts have been expressed as to whether respondent are aware of, or able to articulate clearly decision-making processes (Nisbett and Wilson 1977) Verbal responses, or behavior in a laboratory situation may also tend to disguise conflict management procedures and reflect what is perceived as socially desirable, rather than actual behavior patterns. (For a review of methodological issues in family decision-making see Dunsing & Hafstrom 1975, Olson and Gromwell 1975.)

A GAME THEORETIC APPROACH TO FAMILY DECISION-MAKING

Gupta, Hagerty and Myers (1983) suggest a novel methodological approach, applying a game-theoretic perspective in developing an experimental procedure for studying family decision-making. This is in marked contrast to the survey approach typical of much consumer-related family decision-making research.

This approach appears particularly appropriate where attention is focused on examining the decision-making process and the negotiating and bargaining strategies used by families in arriving at decisions. Precedent for an experimental approach is also to be found in the family sociology literature (Kenkel 1963, Straus and Tallman 1971), though to the author's knowledge only one application has been made in consumer research (Arndt and Crane 1975).

As in the case of the Buss and Schaninger Model, the approach might also be strengthened, if it were extended beyond the dyad bargaining situation to multiple person negotiations. The role of children in family decision-making might then be examined. Inclusion of outside influences on the negotiation process, as for example, sales-persons, might also be an interesting avenue for investigation.

Secondly, as with any experiment conducted in a laboratory setting, the issue of external validity arises. While the power construct can be explicitly manipulated, the extent to which the task captures the highly complex and dynamic character of family decision-making is open to some question (Zelditch 1970) In particular, the environment in which the experiment is conducted, may differ significantly -from that typical of much family decision-making. Decision-making is likely to take place early in the morning before leaving for work or in the evening. As noted previously, it may be subject to interruptions and distractions by children and others, and may cake place under conditions of time-pressure or when one or both spouses are tired. All of these factors may affect ability or willingness to concentrate on the task at hand, and tactics used in negotiating.

Furthermore, the dynamics of family life may affect decision-making strategies. Decisions may have to be made concurrently, requiring the establishment of priorities. Spouses may not perceive or define problems in the same way (Aldous 1971) Consequently, negotiation may center on what decision to make or what aspects are relevant, rather than the decision itself. This is in contrast to the clearly defined task of the laboratory situation. In addition, since families generally intend to stay together, a major objective in decision-making may be to reduce or minimize tension in family life and to satisfice, rather than rigorously analyzing and negotiating each decision.

CONCLUSION

Attention to the study of the decision-making process thus makes an important contribution to furthering our understanding of family decision outcomes. In this regard, a number of suggestions may be made with regard to aspects which may prove fruitful avenues in further research.

1. In the first place, the highly complex, dynamic and interrelated character of many family decisions, suggests that decision-making processes should be studied across decisions, rather than in relation to a given decision independently. While this gives rise to issues with regard to the appropriate decisions to be studied, it seems, nonetheless, more likely to capture the essence of family decision-making.

2. Secondly, the role of third party influences on decision-making strategies and -negotiations, suggests the need for a broader view of the relevant unit of analysis. This might include not only the husband-wife dyad, but also children, sales people and any relevant others.

3. Thirdly, increased attention to the impact of the environment and conditions in which decision-making takes place would appear desirable. In an in-home environment, examination of the effects of distraction factors, time pressures, mood and fatigue of participants might prove enlightening. In an in-store environment, the role of sales people, in-store promotions, and displays, time available for shopping, accompanying family members, and the degree of planned vs. unplanning shopping might, for example, be investigated.

4. Finally, the significance of environmental factors as well as the limitations of self-report measures and potential reactivity of laboratory techniques suggest t he need for increased use of in situ techniques such as observation or collection of in-store protocols. In the home. decision-making might, for example, be monitored (O'Rourke 1963, Wright 1978) using tape-recording equipment. Although difficult to analyze and open to criticism of reactivity and subjectivity, such data are often rich in insights into the decision-making process.

REFERENCES

Aldous, Joan "A Framework for the Analysis of Family Problem Solving," in J. Aldous. T. Condon. R. Hill, M. Straus, and I. Tallman, eds., Family Problem Solving: A Symposium on Theoretical, Methodological, and Substantive Concerns. Hinsdale. Ill: Dryden Press. 265-81.

Arndt, Johan and Edgar Crane (1975), "Observing Stages in Consumer Decision Processes," Mary Jane Schlinger (ed. ), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, 63-70.

Atkin, Charles K. (1978), "Observation of Parent-Child Interaction in Supermarket Decision-?laking," Journal of Marketing, 42, 41-45.

Belch, M., G. Belch, and D. Sciglimpaglia (1980) "Conflict in Family Decision Making: An Exploratory Investigation," in J. Olson (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, VII, 475-479.

Blood, R. (1960) "Resolving Family Conflicts," Journal or Conflict Resolution, 4, (June) 209-219.

Burns, Alvin (1976), "Spousal Involvement and Empathy in Jointly-Resolved and Authoritatively-Resolved Purchase Subdecisions," Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. III, 199-207.

Burns, Alvin (1977) "Four Situations and the Perceived Effects on Husband and Wife Purchase Decision Making", in Kent Monroe (et) Advances in Consumer Research Vol VIII, 736-741.

Burns, Alvin C. and Donald H. Granbois (1977), "Factors Moderating the Resolution of Preference Conflict in Family Automobile Purchasing," Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 77-86.

Buss, W. Christian and Charles M. Schaninger (1983) "The Influence of Sex Roles on Family Decision Processes and Outcomes" in Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout (ed ;), Advances in Consumer Research Vol. X.

Curry, David J. and Michael B. Menasco (1979) "Some Effects of Differing Information-Processing Strategies on Husband-Wife Joint Decisions," Journal of consumer Research, 6.2 (September). 199-203.

Davis, Harry L. (1976), "Decision Making Within the Household," Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 941-260.

Dunsing, Marilyn M. and Jeanne L. Hafstrom (1975), "Methodological Considerations in Family Decision-making Studies," Advances in Consumer Research, Vol, 2, Mary Jane Schlinger (Ed.), 103-111.

Filiatrault, P. and J. Ritchie, (1980), "Joint Purchasing Decisions: A Comparison of Influence Structure in Family and Couple Decision-making Unit " Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 131-140.

Gupta, Sunil, Michael Magerty and John C. Myers (1983), "New Directions in Family Decision making Research", in Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, (eds) Advances in consumer Research Vol X.

Kenkel, William F, (1963) "Observational Studies of Husband-Wife Interaction in Family Decision Making," in M. Sussman, ed., Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. (2nd ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 144-56.

Nisbett, Richard and Timothy Wilson, "Telling More than we know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes," Psychological Review 84-3 (1977) 231-259.

Olshavsky, Richard W. and Granbois, Donald (1979) Consumer Decision-Making-Fact or Fiction?" Journal of Consumer Research 93-100.

Olson, David M, and Ronald E. Cromwell, (1975) "Methodological Issues in Family Power", Ronald E. Gromwell and David M. Olson (eds) in Power in Families.

O'Rourke, JF (1963), "Field and Laboratory: The Decision-making Behavior of Family Groups in two Experimental Conditions", Sociometry, 26, 422-534.

Park, C. Whan, (1982), "Joint Decisions in Home Purchasing: A Muddling-through Process", Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 151-169

Sheth, J. and S. Cosmas (1975) "Tactics Of Conflict Resolution in Family Buying Behavior," paper presented at American Psychological Meetings.

Sprey, Jesse, (1971) "On the Management of Conflict in Families." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 722-31.

Straus, Murray and I Tallman (1971), "SIMFAM: a Technique for Observational Measurement and Experimental Study of Families", in J. Aldous, T. Condon, R. Hill, M. Straus and I Tallman, (eds), Family Problem-Solving Behavior Hinsdale: Dryden Press, 379-438.

Szybillo, George J. & Arlene Sosanie (1977), "Family Decision Making: Husbands, Wives and Children," Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. IV, 46-49.

Ward, Scott and Daniel B. Wackman (1972), "Children's Purchase Influence Attempts and Parental Yielding," Journal of Marketing Research, 9. 316-319.

Webb, Peter H. (1978), "A New Method for Studying Family Decision-Making", Journal of Marketing, 42, 12, 126.

Zelditch, M., Jr. (1971) "Experimental Family Sociology," in J. Aldous, T. Condon, R. Hill M. Strauss, and I. Tallman, (eds.,) Family Problem Solving: Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden Press, 55-72.

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