Leaving home: brand purchase influences on young adults - See more at:

http://119.97.196.52:8000/rewriter/CNKI/http/vvv9dldq-
kchmrhfgs9bnl/journals.htm?articleid=856295&show=html&ini=CNKI#sthash.w5eICb4A.dpuf

Abstract
A widely held assumption is that brands purchased by the family will continue to be purchased by the
children when they become adults. However, little consumer research actually exists on continued
parental influence on young adults purchasing decisions. Using data from two surveys of over 500
students in a four-year undergraduate business program, two studies examined parental influence
(the degree to which brands purchased by students corresponded to brands purchased by parents),
roommate influence, and additional factors such as price perceptions, brand differences, and brand
comparisons. Discrete choice regression analyses (ordered probit) in both surveys revealed that
correspondence with parental brand choice decreased significantly with year in university. As parental
influence lessened, brand choice correspondence with roommates increased. The reduction in
parental influence may indicate an important marketing opportunity. When a student leaves home,
their brand loyalties shift significantly from that of the family unit.
Article Type:

Research paper
Keyword(s):

Brands; Consumer behaviour; Decision making; Marketing opportunity; Purchasing; Young people.
Journal:

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING
Volume:

15
Number:

4
Year:

1998
pp:

372-385
Copyright

MCB UP Ltd
ISSN:

0736-3761
Conceptual overview
Reference groups provide standards and values that can influence individual consumption behaviour.
The greatest influence is exerted by primary groups (Peter and Olson, 1996). The family is one of the
most important, if not the most important, primary groups in terms of its role in attitude formation, and
in structuring and conditioning behavior. Temporally, it is the first group to which a person belongs
and maintains the longest affiliation (Markin, 1969). Consequently, the family is viewed as a dominant
transfusive agent of values in most cultures (Engel et al., 1993, p. 79).
Reference group influence can take several forms. Influence has been categorized as informational,
value expressive, and utilitarian in several studies (Bearden and Etzel, 1982; Bearden et al., 1989).
This categorization can usefully be applied to the family. Parents have the opportunity to provide
informational influence as children perceive parents as knowledgeable and observe parental
consumption behavior (Park and Lessig, 1977). A childs desire to enhance self-concept through
identification with the family referent (Kelman, 1961) and to be rewarded for compliance as a member
of the family (Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975) provides the opportunity for value expressive and
utilitarian influence.
The influence of the family is important from a consumer socialization perspective, since most
consumer behaviour is learned as a child. Therefore, much information and attitude development
concerning products and services is based on the influence of the family. The family has a major
influence on the availability of information and subsequent development of attitudes during the
consumers early years through continued exposure to or use of a product. A child learns by seeking
information from respected sources (Kollat et al., 1970). Exposure to information is the first step to
brand awareness. Families are a primary source of product and usage information for children. This
process is facilitated through communication and observed behaviour which are key to the
transmission of values, behaviours and product information to children (Bearden and Etzel, 1982, p.
184).
The family provides a low risk environment for exposure and affects the degree of perceived risk
associated with various products and their usage (Engel et al., 1993). Prior product use in a family
setting can reduce perceived risk. Perceived risk can be functional, physical, financial, social and
psychological. Physical risk is minimized because children become aware of the proper use of a
product. Functional and financial risk diminish because the attributes and qualities of the product
become known to the child (Sirgy, 1983).
With the transformation of personal relationships between parent and child in late adolescence, the
influence of parents may be reduced. Informal groups have a definite influence on brands preferred
by young adults. This is especially true for publicly consumed goods, but young adult consumers
continue to be influenced by the norms and attitudes they have developed which have been directly
influenced by their parents (Kollat et al., 1970). A longitudinal study of 1,346 college students found
that a students choice of bank was highly correlated with parental choice of bank (Fry et al., 1973).
However, a study which interviewed 600 parents and their college-aged offspring found a significant
difference in response to an attitude statement about the use of sex in advertisements, demonstrating
divergence from parental attitude for a marketing variable (Wise et al., 1974).
Although it is uncertain whether buying habits passed from parent to child will continue into young
adulthood, two recent consumer behavior textbooks relate the common assumption that brands
purchased by a family will continue to be purchased by the children when they are adults. Peter and
Olson (1996) state that [s]ome adults still use the same brands of products their parents purchased
for them as children (p. 461). Berkman et al. (1997) state that [i]f Tide laundry detergent is the family
favorite, this preference is easily passed on to the next generation. The same can be said for brands
of toothpaste, running shoes, golf clubs, preferred restaurants, and favorite stores (pp. 422-3). The
purpose of this article is to investigate this common assumption by modelling parental, peer, and
market influences in the brand purchase decisions of first-through fourth-year university students.
Study 1
It was hypothesized that parental influence, measured as parent/student brand choice
correspondence, would decline with the amount of time in university. In other words, first year
students would report a higher incidence of purchasing a parental brand than would fourth year
students.
Method
To test this hypothesis, ten grocery, household, and personal care products commonly purchased by
families and by young adults away from home (i.e. at university) were selected for study one[1]. The
ten products selected for inclusion in the survey were: toothpaste, shampoo, cold medicine, pain
relievers, facial tissue, laundry detergent, bar soap, butter/margarine, pop, and breakfast cereal. A
questionnaire was developed which asked questions about the ten products, including which brand
was purchased most often by the individual, and whether the individuals parents purchased the same
brand. These questions were embedded with additional questions so as to disguise the nature of the
research hypothesis under investigation. The order in which the brands were listed was rotated to
avoid order effects. Demographic information including academic year in program and gender of
respondent was collected. The questionnaire was administered to 40 volunteers in each of the four
years of an undergraduate business program. The final sample contained 152 usable questionnaires.
Results
Descriptive analysis. Examination of the data in Table I revealed that average parental
correspondence across the ten products was 54 percent among first year students and 41 percent
among fourth-year students. This represents a decline in parental correspondence of 24 percent.
For individual products, brand correspondence with parental choice across the four years ranged from
a low of 27 percent for pop and shampoo to a high of 63 percent for pain relievers. Given that pop and
shampoo are products with potential social significance (risk) to young adults (use of a particular
brand may be perceived to affect ones image), it is plausible to expect less reliance on parents for
brand information. Conversely, pain relievers would have little social significance and hence little
social risk, but relatively greater negative consequences should an inferior brand be chosen
(performance risk) than would pop or shampoo. This type of risk would likely result in more influence
from referents perceived as expert, i.e. parents brand choices would be followed more extensively.
Differences in parental influence were seen by gender of respondent. Males reported less brand
correspondence with parental choice than did females (41.2 percent for males, 51.1 percent for
females). This finding is consistent with Moschis et al. (1983) who found that males are less likely to
communicate overtly with parents about consumption and are less likely to receive positive
reinforcement. When females leave home, they may possess a more developed sense of brand
preferences than males and therefore, their brand choices would correspond more with those of their
parents.
Discrete choice analysis. To test the hypothesis that parental influence declines with the amount of
time in university, a probit model was utilized. [M]ethods like regression were designed for analyzing
variables that can assume any value within a range, that is, for continuous variables[i]t is often
found that the outcome of the behavior is not continuous and standard regression procedures are
inappropriate (Train, 1986, p. 3). The year in university is discrete, therefore, a discrete choice
regression model was used to test the hypothesis empirically. Formally, what is tested is that first year
students would show more brand choice correspondence with parental brand choice than second
year students, second year students would show more brand choice correspondence than third year
students, and third year students would show more brand choice correspondence than fourth year
students. The hypothesis was tested using an ordered probit technique[2]. This statistical method
does not restrict the interval distance between each year to be equal. That is, the difference in
parental influence between first and second year students was not restricted to be the same as
between third and fourth year students[3]. As it was not hypothesized that parental influence
decreased at a constant rate in year in university, but only that it decreased monotonically, this is the
appropriate method. The equation estimated using ordered probit was: YEAR
i
= a
1
+ b
1
Ppop
+ b
2
Ptooth + b
3
Psham + b
4
Pcold + b
5
Ppain + b
6
Pcere + b
7
Pdetg + b
8
Psoap + b
9
Ptiss
+ b
10
Pbutr +
i
[4]. The results are presented in Table II.
The coefficients of parental influence on nine of the ten variables included in the model show the
hypothesized negative sign. That is, as the number of years in academic program increased,
correspondence with parental brand choice decreased. While the coefficient for pop was not negative,
this is not surprising given that it had the lowest initial parental brand choice correspondence
proportion among respondents. Of the ten variables, half were significant, i.e. shampoo, pain relievers,
breakfast cereal, laundry detergent, and butter/margarine.
The overall model is significant (
2
= 19.27, 10 d.f., N = 152, p = 0.0369). That is, the hypothesized
ordering that the proportion of students purchasing the same brands as their parents declined
significantly with number of years in university cannot be rejected. Given the differences in responses
by gender in Table I, the model was also run stratifying the sample on gender. Although the fit
improved, as the degrees of freedom increased, the significance level of the model actually
decreased (
2
= 20.84, 12 d.f., N = 152, p = 0.0528). The ordered probit model was tested for how
well it would predict year in university from the responses given to the ten products; that is, how well it
would predict individual subjects year in university. The model correctly predicted category
membership at the 37 percent prediction level (in 57 of the 152 cases for the stratified sample, and in
56 of the 152 cases for the non-stratified sample). The expected percentage of correctly predicted
cases given a random draw would be 25 percent (38 cases). Note that the percentage of correctly
predicted cases increases to 81 percent in distinguishing between first and fourth year membership
alone. The expected level of correctly predicted category membership would be 50 percent given a
random draw.
Discussion of study 1
The purpose of study 1 was to begin to address the question of what happens to parental influence as
young adults leave home. In support of Peter and Olson (1996) and Berkman et al. (1997), substantial
correspondence with parental brand choice was found for the ten products surveyed. Parental
influence varied among the different products with the lowest level of influence reported for pop and
shampoo. Even for these products, the level of reported brand correspondence with parental choice
was 27 percent. Detergent had a parental influence factor of over 80 percent for first year students
(Table I). This is further evidence of the extent of parental influence on young adults consumer
behaviour.
Nonetheless, for second, third, and fourth year students, parental influence averaged only 60 percent
of the first year level. This decline was substantiated by the results of an ordered probit model which
looked at deviations between actual and predicted category membership. The ordering of the
category data (highest proportion of brand correspondence in first year, through to lowest brand
correspondence in fourth year) could not be rejected, i.e. the relationship between categories (year in
university) and brand correspondence was significant for the overall model as well as for five of the
individual products surveyed.
Study 1 thus demonstrated that parental influence declined in year in university. A natural question
followed from these results. As parental influence declines, what other influences play a role in
determining brand choice? The purpose of study 2 was to replicate and broaden the scope of study 1
by incorporating additional influence variables.
Study 2
The second study investigated more fully the potential alternative influences on young adult
purchasing. In addition to measuring correspondence with parental brand choice, study 2 measured
the influence of roommates and marketing influences on brand decisions. Marketing influences
included the perceived price of chosen brand relative to other brands and the influence on brand
choice due to comparing brands. The intent was to explore the impact of alternative influences on
young adults as they moved from parent household to independent household and became
independent consumers. In other words, when faced with brand choice decisions, what sources are
relied on for information and influence? It was hypothesized that:
H1:Parental influence, measured as parent/student brand choice correspondence, would
decline with the amount of time in university.
H2:Roommate influence, measured as roommate/student brand choice correspondence,
would increase with the amount of time in university.
Financial resources might be an additional influence factor, i.e. as time passes, young adults may
have fewer resources (first year university versus fourth year) and thus not purchase a parents brand
because of an increasing budget constraint. The older students would view their brand as the same or
lower in price than other brands if financial resources were an issue. If price was not a constraint on
the brand decision, there would be no correlation with length of time away from home.
H3:The perceived price level of the chosen brand would decrease with the amount of time in
university.
The longer you are away from home, the more opportunity you would have to experience several
brands and do some brand comparison. If you are involved in the choice of the brand, then you
should perceive some brand differences. Mittal and Lees (1988) variables were used for perceived
brand differences and the level of brand comparison undertaken. According to Moschis (1985), the
perceived risk involved in a purchase may result in more brand comparisons and more reliance on a
family referent. Accordingly, it was hypothesized that:
H4:The perceived level of brand differences would increase with the amount of time in
university.
H5:The extent of brand comparison would increase with the amount of time in university.
First year students would have less independent consumer experience than fourth year students,
therefore, one would expect that younger students would take more care in choosing a brand than
would older students. As young adults gain experience, their search and comparison activities would
decline as they simplified their brand decision rules and became brand loyal or bought a brand
repeatedly out of habit. This could result in the self perception that they did not make careful brand
choices.
H6:Care taken in choosing a brand would decrease with the amount of time in university.
Method
Two personal care products (shampoo and pain relievers), and one household product (laundry
detergent) used in study 1 were chosen for study 2 on the basis of potential differences in perceived
risk and past performance results. A questionnaire was developed which asked respondents to think
about the most recent purchase of the product in question (shampoo, pain reliever, or laundry
detergent) and to indicate whether this was the brand the individual purchased most often, whether
the brand was purchased by parents or roommates, whether the brand was on sale or a coupon was
used as suggested by Beatty and Talpade (1994), and how they would rate the price of this brand
compared to other brands.
Demographic information including year in academic program, gender, and living accommodations (to
control for having left home) was collected (see Appendix for questionnaire). The questionnaire was
administered to volunteers in each of the four years of an undergraduate business program. The final
sample contained 436 usable questionnaires (approximately 25 percent in each year, 45 percent
female).
Results
Descriptive analysis. It is worthwhile before conducting statistical tests to examine some descriptive
results on parental and roommate influence. The descriptive results for parental influence generally
mirror study 1. Examination of the data in Table III reveal that average parental correspondence
across the three products was 71 percent for first year students and 60 percent among fourth year
students; a decline of approximately 16 percent. Shampoo showed the least correspondence to
parental choice and pain relievers the most. Of interest was the higher overall level of
correspondence for pain relievers and laundry detergent than in study 1. For example, first year
students reported almost 90 percent correspondence with parental brand choice of pain reliever
(falling to 66 percent by year four). For shampoo and detergent, the directional effect for gender was
the same as in study 1. While there may be support for females having more developed brand
preferences due to parental communication effects (Moschis et al., 1983), it varied by product in the
two studies reported here (in support of Moschis et al., 1977).
The second panel in Table III shows the level of brand choice correspondence with roommate brand
choice. Consistent with H2, the level of roommate correspondence across the three products
increased in year in university, i.e. from 39 percent in first year to 55 percent in fourth year; an
increase of 41 percent. These comparative results thus show a shift across the three products from
parental to roommate brand choice influence.
Discrete choice analysis. To test the hypotheses, discrete choice regression models, using ordered
probit, were used. A model incorporating the three products in one regression was estimated. This
model was specified as:
YEAR
i
= a
1
+ b
1
Sparent + b
2
Pparent + b
3
Dparent + b
4
Sroommate + b
5
Proommate
+ b
6
Droommate + b
7
Sprice + b
8
Dprice + b
9
Pprice + b
10
Sdifferent + b
11
Ddifferent
+ b
12
Pdifferent + b
13
Scomparison + b
14
Dcomparison + b
15
Pcomparison + b
16
Scareful
+ b
17
Dcareful + b
18
Pcareful +
i
[5].
The model was highly significant (
2
= 60.94, 18 d.f., N = 355, p = 0.0000014), thus lending strong
support to a more comprehensive model of influence. In predicting categorical membership (year in
university), the model explained 38 percent of the cases (133 out of 355 cases). If first and fourth year
predictive power alone is examined, the model predicts 79 percent of the cases correctly.
Three single product models were also estimated (one for each of the three products: shampoo,
detergent, and pain relievers). These models were specified as: Year
i
= a
1
+ b
1
parent + b
2
roommate
+ b
3
price + b
4
different + b
5
comparison + b
6
careful +
i
[6]. These results are reported in Table IV; the
coefficients and significance levels are only reported for the single product models as they are
consistent with the three product model. Each of the single product models incorporated parental and
roommate brand correspondence as well as: the perception of price as higher relative to other brands;
the perception that brands are all very different; having done extensive brand comparisons; and
disagreement with the statement: I choose my brand very carefully. Gender, brand purchased on sale,
and brand purchased with a coupon were not significant variables and did not enter into the final
models. The models were highly significant (shampoo:
2
= 24.43, 6 d.f., N = 386, p = 0.00043;
detergent:
2
= 22.45, 6 d.f., N = 387, p = 0.001; pain reliever:
2
= 30.56, 6 d.f., N = 363, p =
0.000031).
As in the first study, there was a significant negative relationship between year in university and
correspondence with parental brand choice for detergent and pain relievers. While not significant, the
coefficient was also in the predicted direction (negative) for choice of shampoo. The first hypothesis is
therefore supported, that is, the results of the second study are consistent with, and lend further
support to, the finding that correspondence with parental brand choice is negatively related to year in
university.
As hypothesized in H2, a positive significant relationship between year in university and
correspondence with roommate brand choice for shampoo and pain relievers was found. The
coefficient for detergent was positive, but did not reach conventional levels of significance.
The relationship of price to year in university was unexpected. All three products had a positive
coefficient, not negative as predicted (the coefficient for detergent reached the standard p < 0.05 level
of significance). That is, the longer one is in university, the higher the perceived price of the brands
purchased. It would seem that students did not perceive that there were increasing financial
constraints with more time spent in university. This is contrary to H3.
The results are consistent with H4 and H5. As young adults gained experience as consumers, they
perceived more brand differences (positive coefficients, significant for pain reliever) and reported
having performed more brand comparisons (positive coefficients, significant for shampoo and
detergent), thus providing support for these hypotheses.
In support of H6, students were less careful in the choice of a brand over time (negative coefficients,
significant for shampoo), perhaps due to the effects of increasing experience. It is interesting to note
that older students reported that pain reliever brands were all very different, but this did not
correspond to extensive brand comparison or careful choice. There was, however, a strong decline in
correspondence with parental brand choice and a strong increase in correspondence with roommate
brand of pain reliever.
Before examining the main effects of the parental and roommate variables, a model was run testing
for an interaction between the two variables by adding a multiplicative interaction term to the full
model. There were three interaction terms, one for each product; none were significant[7].
Two further models were run to isolate the effects of parental and roommate correspondence. The
first, isolating the effect of parental influence was specified as: YEAR
i
= a
1
+ b
1
Sparent + b
2
Pparent
+ b
3
Dparent +
i
[8]. This model was highly significant (
2
= 11.79, 3 d.f., N = 371, p = 0.00815).
That is, parental correspondence alone has significant explanatory power. In predicting categorical
membership (year in university), parental correspondence explained 32 percent of the cases (118 out
of 371). This simple model, in distinguishing only between first and fourth year, correctly predicted 64
percent of the cases. Note that the overall level of significance and predictive ability of this model is
less than that in study 1. This was expected as the additional products in study 1 (ten versus three)
provide some additional explanatory power.
The second, restricted model isolated the effect of roommate influence: YEAR
i
= a
1
+ b
1
Sroommate
+ b
2
Proommate + b
3
Droommate +
i
[9]. This model was highly significant (
2
= 19.72, 3 d.f., N =
365, p = 0.00019), thus providing further support for H2. That is, roommate correspondence alone has
significant explanatory power. In predicting categorical membership (year in university), roommate
correspondence explained 38 percent of the cases (120 out of 365). In examining the distinguishing
power between first and fourth year, roommate correspondence correctly predicted 72 percent of the
cases.
Discussion of study 2
Study 2 successfully replicated the first study finding that parental brand correspondence declined
with year in university. Two competing sources of influence were also examined, namely, the
influence of roommates and budget or income constraints represented by price perceptions.
Additional potential explanatory variables were included in the discrete choice regression models.
However, very few of these covariates showed a significant difference over the four years of a
university program.
The finding of declining parental influence and increasing roommate influence on the brand choices of
young adults contributes knowledge and additional insight into a generally unresearched group:
young adults who have recently left home.
General discussion
As seen in the literature review, there is very little research which provides insight into the changes in
purchasing patterns which may occur as young adults leave home and become independent
consumers. The literature on children and teenagers has focused primarily on how parents socialize
their offspring in buying and consumption matters or how children influence parental or family buying
decisions. The two studies reported here begin the process of examining changing influences on
young adults as they leave home. Through surveying university students in four years of an
undergraduate business program, insight into whether the influence that parents provide into brand
choices remains into adulthood or declines with time away from home was obtained. Indeed, it
appears that for a variety of commonly purchased household and personal care items, the level of
parental influence declines, but does not disappear. It also appears that new referents, such as
roommates, replace some of the influence provided by parents. From first to fourth year, the young
adults surveyed purchased brands increasingly like their roommates.
Managerial implications
The change in consumer lifestyle from child to independent consumer would appear to provide a
marketing opportunity. This window provides an important opportunity for affecting brand choice.
Although individuals are likely to purchase the parental brand when they first leave home, this loyalty
may be short-lived when new influences on brand choice intervene. This stage in the consumer
lifecycle may therefore provide an opportunity for brand switching. That is, marketing to this
demographic may be an effective way to encourage switching. Conversely, to retain customers whose
families used these products, reinforcing campaigns may prove valuable. Those young adults in a
post-secondary situation could be reached via campus frosh kits and other promotional campaigns
on campus. Those not in school may not be as readily identifiable.
Future research
As with most research, this article is subject to limitations. It is limited in scope, due to the use of
young adults in a post-secondary educational setting only. The inclusion of young adults in other
settings would add to the ability to generalize to adults aged 18-24. In addition, the decline in
influence over time can only be inferred as both studies used a cross-sectional survey technique
which did not follow the same individuals over time. Ideally, a group of individuals should be followed
for a significant period of time to see how brand choices change. A large drop in parental influence
and a large increase in roommate influence occurs between year one and year two. A longitudinal
study following freshman students throughout their first year may provide further insight into the
dynamics involved.
Notes
1. The results of this preliminary study were presented at an Administrative Sciences Association of
Canada conference and included in the proceedings (Feltham et al., 1994).
2. Discrete choice probit and logit models differ in assumptions about the distribution of residuals. The
results in this study were invariant to the selection of an ordered probit model (with the underlying
assumption of normally distributed residuals) or an ordered logit model (with logistically distributed
residuals). To preserve space, only the ordered probit results are presented.
3. For a straightforward discussion of ordered multiple choice models, see Altman et al., 1981.
4. Definition of variables: YEAR
i
= year in academic program, coded 1, 2, 3, or 4; a
1
= intercept
term;
i
= error term; b
i
= 0 if did not purchase same brand as parent, 1 if did purchase same brand
as parent; b
1
Ppop = pop, b
2
Ptooth = toothpaste, b
3
Psham = shampoo, b
4
Pcold = cold
medication, b
5
Ppain = pain reliever, b
6
Pcere = breakfast cereal, b
7
Pdetg = laundry
detergent, b
8
Psoap = bar soap, b
9
Ptiss = facial tissue, b
10
Pbutr = butter/margarine.
5. Definition of variables: YEAR
i
= year in academic program, coded 1, 2, 3, or 4; a
1
= intercept
term;
i
= error term; b
1-6
= 0 if did not purchase same brand as parent/roommate, 1 if did purchase
same brand as parent/roommate; b
1
Sparent = parental shampoo, b
2
Pparent = parental pain
reliever, b
3
Dparent = parental laundry detergent, b
4
Sroommate = roommate
shampoo, b
5
Proommate = roommate pain reliever, b
6
Droommate = roommate laundry
detergent, b
7
Sprice = perceived shampoo price, b
8
Dprice = perceived laundry detergent
price, b
9
Pprice = perceived pain reliever price, b
10
Sdifferent = shampoo brands are all very similar
(different), b
11
Ddifferent = laundry detergent brands are all very similar (different), b
12
Pdifferent =
pain reliever brands are all very similar (different), b
13
Scomparison = extent of shampoo brand
comparisons, b
14
Dcomparison = extent of laundry detergent brand comparisons, b
15
Pcomparison =
extent of pain reliever brand comparisons, b
16
Scareful = I choose my shampoo very
carefully, b
17
Dcareful = I choose my laundry detergent very carefully, b
18
Pcareful = I choose my
pain reliever very carefully.
6. Definition of variables: YEAR
i
= year in academic program, coded 1, 2, 3, or 4; a
1
= intercept
term;
i
= error term; b
1
,b
2
= 0 if did not purchase same brand as parent/roommate, 1 if did purchase
same brand as parent/roommate; b
1
parent = parental shampoo, parental pain reliever, or parental
laundry detergent, b
2
roommate = roommate shampoo, roommate pain reliever, or roommate laundry
detergent, b
3
price = perceived shampoo price, perceived laundry detergent price, or perceived pain
reliever price, b
4
different = shampoo, laundry detergent, or pain reliever brands are all very similar
(different), b
5
comparison = extent of shampoo, laundry detergent, or pain reliever brand
comparisons, b
6
careful = I choose my shampoo laundry detergent, or pain reliever very carefully.
7. parent/roommate shampoo parameter estimate = 0.4834, t = 1.37, d.f. = 21, N = 355, p > 0.05;
parent/roommate laundry detergent parameter estimate = 0.0126, t = 0.04, d.f. = 21, N = 355, p >
0.05; parent/roommate pain reliever parameter estimate = 0.2598, t = 0.92, d.f. = 21, N = 355, p >
0.05.
8. Definition of variables: YEAR
i
= year in academic program, coded 1, 2, 3, or 4; a
1
= intercept
term;
i
= error term; b
i
= 0 if did not purchase same brand as parent, 1 if did purchase same brand
as parent; b
1
Sparent = shampoo, b
2
Pparent = pain reliever, b
3
Dparent = laundry detergent.
9. Definition of variables: YEAR
i
= year in academic program, coded 1, 2, 3, or 4; a
1
= intercept
term;
i
= error term; b
i
= 0 if did not purchase same brand as roommate, 1 if did purchase same
brand as roommate; b
1
Sroommate = shampoo, b
2
Proommate = pain reliever, b
3
Droommate =
laundry detergent.
Executive summary and implications for managers and executives
Brand preference - do young people follow their parents, mates or the market?
Since perhaps the major influence on the brand behaviour of children is their parents brand
preferences it seems reasonable to presume that, when children leave home there will be a residue of
the brand preferences that remains into adulthood. At the same time we know that adult brand
choices are affected by more than just the historical legacy of parental choice.
Feltham examines the extent to which the legacy effect of parental choices remains or erodes during
a students period at university. In making this study Feltham raises important issues about the
establishment of brand loyalty in young adults. Certainly, if the evidence is right that brand loyalty
strengthens with age, then these first years away from the family home could prove a crucial area for
brand owners to influence future sales.
Felthams findings can be summarized as follows:
The influence of parental choice of brand on their childrens choice diminishes during the four
years away at university.
Despite this diminution of influence, the parental choice remains important in many product
categories and especially those entailing performance risk with little or no social risk.
Other influences bear on young people while away at university especially that of close peers
such as roommates.
Parental choice is more significant for female students compared to male students reflecting
the brand socialization of girls by their mothers.
These findings suggest that brand owners need to assess how they market to young people during
their first few years away from the family home. While the vision of two young clubbers discussing the
merits of one or other soap powder brand seems rather bizarre, it does seem to be the case that,
during the four years at university, the students became more like their roommates than like their
parents in their choice of brand.
For consumer goods purchased regularly (such as soap powder and shampoo) the value of brand
loyalty is considerable yet most consumer goods marketers do not design specific programmes
targeted at young people leaving home for the first time. Perhaps Felthams findings will suggest this
course for some marketers.
Taking advantage of the ease with which students can be reached. Most students live and
work within a defined area. There are student-oriented clubs and bars, facilities on the
campus itself, specialised media and formal opportunities run by the university or college. All
these avenues present useful media for the innovative consumer goods marketer.
With between one-third and a half of young people attending university or college the chance
to influence future buying behaviour and brand loyalty is considerable. In the past students
represented a very small proportion of the total age group. And, as Feltham notes, young
people not attending university or college are far more difficult to target.
Attention to product distribution could also pay dividends for brand owners targeting young
people. We know that students are more likely to use small, convenience stores in urban
areas rather than large out-of-town shopping centres. Getting brand prominence in such
stores perhaps linked to promotions targeting younger, transient populations could provide
long-term benefits despite the costs involved.
Identifying brand preference at the point of leaving home could also represent a useful
marketing ploy. Carefully targeted promotions - a student survival pack for example - could
be advantageous, especially since the mundane aspects of living away from the family home
(soap, washing-up liquid, laundry detergent etc.) often get looked over in the excitement of
going away. I am sure plenty of new students arrive with their designer jeans but no means of
washing them!
Developing contacts with people running bedsits and apartments for young people could also
provide a useful avenue since many of these landlords are a source of information to their
tenants. Again some kind of welcome pack for new tenants might help secure a brand
relationship.
Feltham is right when she suggests that the time when young people leave home is a crucial period in
their lives - both for important things like relationships and for the more mundane issues such as
which brand. Researchers - used to the broad mass market - have overlooked this period of change
and marketers have seen people who buy small quantities of the product at infrequent intervals as
somewhat of a marketing pain in the neck.
However, if brand loyalty and relationships are the issues of the moment, researchers and brand
managers need to think carefully about how to reach young people either to reinforce adherence to
parental brand preference or achieve a brand switch. Here we have a first look at an important area -
the first of many such studies I hope.
Youth is (as Im sure too many poets have opined) a time of change when people break away from
the norms of their childhood and set out their own lives and individuality. Marketers - with careful
promotions - can exploit this time of transition and create a cadre of brand loyal customers for the
future.
(A prcis of the article Leaving home: brand purchase influences on young adults. Supplied by
Marketing Consultants for MCB University Press.)

Table I Study 1 summary statistics

Table II Study 1 ordered probit results

Table III Study 2 summary statistics

Table IV Study 2 ordered probit results
References
Altman, E.I., Avery, R.B., Eisenbeis, R.A., Sinkey, J.F. (1981), Application of Classification
Techniques in Business, Banking and Finance, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT., .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Bearden, W.O., Etzel, M.J. (1982), "Reference group influence on product and brand purchase
decisions", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 pp.183-94.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G., Teel, J.E. (1989), "Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 pp.473-81.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Beatty, S.E., Talpade, S. (1994), "Adolescent influence in family decision making: a replication with
extension", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 pp.332-41.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Berkman, H.W., Lindquist, J.D., Sirgy, M.J. (1997), Consumer Behavior, NTC Publishing Group,
Chicago, IL., .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Burnkrant, R.E., Cousineau, A. (1975), "Informational and normative social influence in buyer
behavior", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 pp.206-15.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W. (1993), Consumer Behavior, 7th ed., Dryden Press, Fort
Worth, TX, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Feltham, T.S., Bowen, K., Honey, K., Ransome, B., Ribaric, R., Woolley, A. (1994), "Just like mom
and dad?: Parental influence on brand purchase decisions of young adults", in Smith, B.
(Eds),Marketing, Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, York University, North York, Ontario,
Vol. 15 No.3, pp.52-8.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Fry, J.N., Shaw, D.C., von Lanzenauer, C.H., Dipchand C.R. (1973), "Customer loyalty to banks: a
longitudinal study", Journal of Business, Vol. 46 pp.517-25.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Kelman, H.C. (1961), "Processes of opinion change", Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 25 pp.57-78.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Kollat, D.T., Blackwell, R.D., Engel, J.F. (Eds.) (1970), Research in Consumer Behavior, Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Markin, R.J. (1969), The Psychology of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Mittal, B., Lee, M. (1988), "Separating brand-choice involvement from product involvement via
consumer involvement profiles", in Houston, M.J. (Eds),Advances in Consumer Research,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, Vol. 15 pp.43-9.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Moschis, G.P. (1985), "The role of family communication in consumer socialization of children and
adolescents", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 pp.898-913.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Moschis, G.P., Moore, R.L., Smith, R.B. (1983), "The impact of family communication on adolescent
consumer socialization", in Kinnear, T.C. (Eds),Advances in Consumer Research, Association for
Consumer Research, Chicago, IL, Vol. 11 pp.314-19.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Moschis, G.P., Moore, R.L., Stephens, L.F. (1977), "Purchasing patterns of adolescent
consumers", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53 pp.17-26; 92.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Park, C.W., Lessig, P.V. (1977), "Students and housewives: differences in susceptibility to reference
group influence", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 pp.102-10.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C. (1996), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 4th Ed., Irwin, Chicago,
IL, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Sirgy, M.J. (1983), Social Cognition & Consumer Behavior, Praeger, New York, NY., .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Train, K. (1986), Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile
Demand, MIT Press Series in Transportation Studies, Cambridge, MA, No.10, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Wise, G.L, King, A.L., Merenski, J.P. (1974), "Reactions to sexy ads vary with age", Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 14 pp.11-16.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
- See more at: http://119.97.196.52:8000/rewriter/CNKI/http/vvv9dldq-
kchmrhfgs9bnl/journals.htm?articleid=856295&show=html&ini=CNKI#sthash.w5eICb4A.dpuf