See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/24099477

Persuasion in Family Decision-Making

ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH · FEBRUARY 1983

Impact Factor: 3.1 · DOI: 10.1086/208933 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

117 54

1 AUTHOR:

Rosann Spiro
Indiana University Bloomington
21 PUBLICATIONS 642 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Rosann Spiro

Retrieved on: 02 October 2015
Persuasion in Family Decision-Making

Rosann L. Spiro

The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Mar., 1983), pp. 393-402.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-5301%28198303%299%3A4%3C393%3APIFD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

The Journal of Consumer Research is currently published by The University of Chicago Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For
more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Fri Apr 20 01:19:42 2007
Persuasion in Family Decision-Making
ROSANN L. SPIRO*

This study evaluates the influence strategies used by husbands and wives in
resolving disagreements concerning purchase decisions. It also identifies those
characteristics of the individuals and of the situation that affect the spouse's use
of influence. The results suggest that there are several socioeconomic and life-
cycle variables that discriminate among groups of individuals who vary not only
in the intensity of influence used, but also in the particular combination or mixes
of influence strategies used. The results also indicate that most partners' percep-
tions of each other's influence attempts do not agree.

F or many consumer purchase decisions, it is the family

rather than the individual that is the critical decision-
making and consumption unit. This idea has been recog-
nized by researchers for some time: joint decision-making
has been reported in the areas of home purchasing (Cun-
ningham and Green 1974; Davis and Rigaux 1974; Mun-
singer, Weber, and Hasen 1975), automobile purchasing,
and home furnishings (Davis 1970;Green and Cunningham
1975).
Davis has identified various stages in the decision-mak-
ing process and the relative amount of influence each of the
family members has in these stages (Davis 1970, 1971;
Davis and Rigaux 1974). Others have also considered the
differences in perceived influence of the husband and wife
(Ferber and Lee 1974; Filatrault and Ritchie 1980). Haley,
Overholser, and Associates (1975) measured both the direct
and indirect (taking the husband'slwife's preference into
consideration) influence of the husband and wife in the
purchase of 87 packaged products. Other studies have be-
gun to consider the determinants of role structure, such as
empathy and involvement (Burns 1977;Bums and Granbois
1977).
These studies have been very important in developing a
basic understanding of family buying patterns. However,
as suggested by Davis (1976), most past studies have fo-
cused only on the outcomes of the decision-making process,
rather than on the process itself. The result is that very little
is known about how families reach decisions. Researchers
must begin to examine the family decision-making process,
rather than just the decision-maker or the outcome.
This family decision-making process is often dynamic
and complicated. Davis (1976) suggests that if it is con-
*Rosann L. Spiro is Associate Professor of Marketing at the Stokely
Management Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37916-
0530. Currently, she is Visiting Associate Professor of Marketing at In-
diana University. The author gratefully acknowledges Fred D. Reynolds
of the University of Georgia, who encouraged the initiation of this project.
393
sensual-i.e., if family members agree on the desired out-
come-the family will rely on predetermined budget guide-
lines, make one person responsible f ~ the r decision, or
engage in problem solving. In a problem solving situation,
family discussions will focus on questions of fact, and a
choice will be made that reflects equal consent or agreement
among the family members. Yet family members will often
disagree about the desirability of the various alternatives.
These differences of opinion can result from differences in
goals and differences in perceptions about the relevant al-
ternatives (Sheth 1974). In these situations, decision-mak-
ing becomes accommodative, rather than consensual.
Disagreement implies that there will probably be attempts
to accommodate and resolve it before a joint purchase
choice is made. During the period when various alternatives
are being considered, each spouse will often attempt to
influence the other toward his or her preferred decision. A
spouse can use a variety of influence techniques, depending
on his or her own characteristics, the characteristics of the
individual slhe is trying to influence, the nature of the pur-
chase and its importance to the individual, and other situ-
ational factors. The other partner may respond using yet
another set of techniques.
The purpose of this article is to examine the strategies
used by individual spouses in making accommodative joint
decisions for major durable purchases. Children's influence
on purchase decisions is not considered in this study. While
children may be particularly influential in categories such
as food and toys, they are not usually influential in the
purchase of major durables. The present research identifies
the combinationsof influence strategies used by individuals
and evaluates the impact of certain socioeconomic and sit-
uational characteristics on the use of such strategies. It also
examines (1) whether or not certain husbandlwife influence
patterns are more prevalent than others, (2) whether or not
spouses' perceptions of each other's influence attempts
agree, and (3) whether or not individuals, using certain
combinationsof strategies, evaluate their influence attempts
as successful.
O JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH Vol. 9 March 1983

BACKGROUND
Influence Strategies
As early as 1951, Strodtbeck (1951) attempted to mea-
sure the relative power or influence of the husband and wife
using a procedure called the "revealed difference tech-
nique." First, he determined the position of each family
member on certain hypothetical questions; when there was
a difference of value, he asked the family to resolve the
difference and observed their interactions. Strodtbeck found
that he could predict the ultimate decision by weighing the
- -
privately predetermined opinion of each participant by the
total time slhe had spoken during their attempt to resolve
the difference. Another experimental investigation was con-
ducted by Kenkel (1963), who asked a sample of married
couples to decide how they would spend a hypothetical
$300 "gift." Using Bales' interaction process categories,
Kenkel found that there were significant differences in the
amount and type of verbal comments made by the husbands
and wives.
In 1966, Hallenbeck suggested that the French and Raven
(1959) paradigm of influence and power could be used as
a conceptual base for influence research in the context of
family decision-making. The French and Raven paradigm
suggests that the use of influence is most effective-whenan
influence strategy is chosen that is consistent with the basis
of social power.
Although French and Raven deal with important aspects
of influence and power, their paradigm is not (intended to
be) comprehensive (Patchen 1974). Other types of influence
strategies that appear to be equally relevant to family de-
cision-making have been proposed and studied. For ex-
ample, Safilios-Rothschild (1969) examined some of the
more emotion-laden persuasion attempts, such as crying
and pouting, and ~ a v i (1976)
s considers another, compro-
mise.
To determine which types of influence strategies are most
commonly used and should warrant primary research atten-
tion, different types of possible influence strategies were
discussed with 20 couples. Based on these interviews and
the influence literature: the focus of this research is directed
to the use of six different influence strategies:
Expert influence is reflected in the spouse's enumeration of
specific information concerning the various alternatives. For
example, one spouse can try to convince the other that s/he
is more knowledgeable concerning the products under con-
sideration by presenting detailed information about various
aspects of these products.
Legitimate influence deals with one spouse's attempts to draw
upon the other's feelings of shared values concerning their
role expectations. Therefore, the spouse's influence is based
on the shared belief that s/he should make the decision be-
cause s/he is the "wife"/"husband." For example, the hus-
band can argue that since he is the "man of the house," he
should make a particular decision.
Bargaining involves attempts by one spouse to turn the joint
decision into an autonomous one in return for some favor
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
granted to the other spouse. For example, in return for au-
tonomy in a particular decision, one spouse may agree to
give the other autonomy in another decision when slhe had
previously refused to do so. "If you do this, I'll do that"
may be the most common type of bargaining attempt.
Rewardlreferent influence is based on a combination of the
reward and referent power/influence typologies presented by
French and Raven (1959). Reward influence is the influence
based on an individual's ability to reward another-i.e., one
spouse may be able to reward the other by doing something
that the other would enjoy. Referent influence is the influence
based on the identification or feeling of oneness (or desire
for such an identity) of one person with another. Hallenbeck
(1966) suggests that referent influence in marriage stems from
the desire of spouses to be like their concepts of the "ideal"
husband or wife. Based on the initial interviews, these two
influence types were combined. It was determined during the
interviews that the things a spouse does to "reward" the
other are usually those things which, in the view of the other,
an "ideal" husband or wife should do. For example, one
spouse can be very "loving" to or buy a gift for the other
in anticipation of trying to influence hirnther.
Emotional influence attempts are influence techniques that
involve displaying some emotion-laden reaction. For exam-
ple, one spouse may get angry at the other. These attempts
are often nonverbal techniques. For example, one spouse may
cry or pout, and another may use the "silent treatment."
Impression management encompasses premeditated persu-
asive attempts to enhance one's influence differential in a
dyadic relationship (Goffman 1959; Miles and Perreault
1978; Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonoma 1973). For exam-
ple, one spouse may claim that the other's preferred brand
was "out-of-stock" when, in fact, it wasn't. The objective
is to convince the spouse to attribute the influence attempt
to external pressures beyond the influencer's control.
Individuals may use different combinations of influence
strategies simultaneously during their attempts to persuade
one another (Miles and Perreault 1978). Therefore, the fo-
cus of this investigation will be on the spouse's use of
an influence strategy mix, as opposed to individual influ-
ence strategies per se.
Strategy Determinants
A greater understanding of the use of influence can be
achieved by considering the characteristics of the individ-
uals involved and of the situation in which the influence
attempt takes place. The marketing and sociology literature
presents a number of variables that are hypothesized to
affect the family decision-making process.
Blood and Wolfe (1960) suggest several personal char-
acteristics in their "resource theory," which assumes that
the comparative resources of the husband and wife deter-
mine the balance of power. These resources consist of ed-
ucation, income, competence, personal attractiveness, the
performance of each partner in the various roles of home-
maker, companion, and sex partner, and so on. For ex-
ample, the greater the relative amount of income that a
spouse contributes to the marriage, the greater his or her
PERSUASION IN FAMILY DECISION-MAKING
decision-making power might be; as another example,
Blood and Wolfe (1960) found that wives lose influence
during the child-rearing stage of the family life cycle. This
is consistent with Sheth's (1974) theory of family buying
decisions, in which he includes a life cycle construct.
Heer's (1963) "exchange theory" is similar to Blood and
Wolfe's "resource theory," except that Heer introduces the
idea of marriage alternatives. he spouse who could most
easily find another spouse as desirable as his or her current
spouse has another source of power, in that slhe has poten-
tially acceptable alternatives. The hypotheses that will be
examined are:
HI: The life cycle variables of age, education, in-
come, number and age of children, whether the
wife is employed, and how much income she
contributes are significant determinants of the use
of an influence strategy mix.
H2: The degree of satisfaction with the marriage is a
significant determinant of the use of an influence
strategy mix.
Several researchers have suggested that a traditional fam-
ily life style and ideology is an important determinant of
the spouse's degree of influence in decision-making. Strodt-
beck (1951) found that cultural differences with respect to
the role o f females were related to differences in decision-
making. Kenkel (1963) found that the degree of influence
in family decision-making is related to traditional life style
in terms of spouses' roles. Davis (1976) also suggests that
a traditional role ideology specifies large authority differ-
ences between husband and wife.
H3: A traditional family ideology and gender are sig-
nificant determinants of the use of an influence
strategy mix.
In addition, Sheth (1974) has suggested that the greater the
importance of the specific buying decision, the more likely
it is to be made jointly by all members of the family:
H4: The importance of the decision is a significant
determinant of the use of an influence mix.
Finally, couples who try to avoid conflict (Blood 1960) will
use more of the subtle strategies, such as rewardlreferent
influence:
H5: The desire to avoid a conflict is a significant de-
terminant of the use of an influence strategy mix.
METHOD
Data Collection
Data for this study were collected from a sample of hus-
bands and wives selected randomly from the telephone di-
rectory of Knoxville, Tennessee. The couples were first
contacted on the telephone to determine whether or not they
"qualified" for this study and whether they were willing
to participate. To qualify, the couple had to have pur-
chased--or thought about purchasing-a piece of furniture
or a major durable in the previous three months. Furniture
and major durables were selected because several studies
have indicated that decisions to purchase these items tend
to be made jointly by husband and wife (Davis and Rigaux
1974). In addition, some disagreement between husband
and wife with regard to their actual (or considered) purchase
was'required. This disagreement might have concerned any
of a number of issues-whether or not to make the pur-
chase, how much to spend, brand, style, and so on-and
it could have been perceived as either a major or a minor
disagreement. The degree of disagreement is not distin-
guished in this study, but the importance of the decision to
each individual is measured. because it was felt that the
latter had a greater impact upon the amount and mix of
influence strategies used. Moreover, the disagreement could
have occurred at any time in the decision process. Although
it would be useful to identify disagreements at various
stages, this was not done because it is more difficult to
remember the stages of a decision-making process that oc-
curred as much as three months in the ~ a s than t it is to
remember the process in general.
Of the 688 couples contacted, 179 couples (26 percent)
had jointly purchased or considered purchasing a major du-
rable in the previous three months, Of those, 88 percent
said that there had been disagreements in their decision-
making. This suggests that joint decisions to purchase major
durables are, in fact, frequently accommodative in nature.
Thus 158 couples "qualified" and were asked to partici-
pate. Sixty-two percent of the couples who qualified were
willing to participate in the study.'
~ ~ p o i n t m e nwere
t s made to visit the subjects in their
homes. During the visit, each person was given a ques-
tionnaire to complete and instructed not to confer with one
another. Ninety-eight couples (N = 196), all of whom
agreed that there had been a disagreement, completed the
questionnaire.
The questionnaire contained four different types of items.
The first was a series of Likert statements for the five in-
fluence scales. These measured the extent to which each
person claimed to have used the various types of influence
in resolving their disagreement. The second was a similar
series of Likert statements that measured the extent to which
one spouse perceived the other to be using each of the
different types of influence. Table 1 provides summary in-
formation and a sample statement for each of the influence
scales. For each scale, all of the items were positively in-
tercorrelated and correlated significantly with the appropri-
ate overall scale (but not with other scales), increasing the
reliability. The composite scores were computed as the av-
'Fourteen percent (26 X 88 x 62) of those originally contacted par-
ticipated. Neither the 23 percent (26 x 88) of those contacted who "qual-
ified" nor the 62 percent who agreed to participate are necessarily a re-
presentative sample of their respective population segments. When gen-
eralizing from the results, this caveat should be kept in mind.
 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 1
INFLUENCE STRATEGY MEASURES

Mean
Mean item reliability
Number of scale coefficient
Influence scale items items Sample Likert item correlation alpha

Expert 6 I related this discussion to other similar decisions in .67 .63

which I had demonstrated my expertise.
Legitimate 6 I tried to convince her (him) to accept my judgment .79 .81
because "men (women) know more about these
things."
Bargaining 5 I offered to do something slhe wanted if slhe would .87 .91
agree to my decision on this.
Rewardlreferent 4 I made a point of pleasing her (him) prior to this .88 .85
decision so that slhe would be more likely to give
in to me.
Emotional 5 I used the silent treatment. .88 .87
Impression management 7 I misrepresented what I knew about the other .83 .90
alternatives in order to convince her (him).

erage of the responses to the statements associated with a
scale.
The third set of items consisted of a series of Likert
scales used to test the hypotheses:
A four-item scale measured the importance of the
purchase to each spouse.
0 A six-item scale, developed by Levinson and Huff-
man (1955), measured the extent to which each
spouse believed in "traditional" family ideology,
e.g., "some equality in marriage is a good thing,
but by and large the husband ought to have the main
say in families."
A three-item scale measured how "good" each
spouse perceived their marriage to be, e.g., "our
marriage is a good one."
Factor analysis confirmed the intended structure on the
scales (the item scale correlations were all above 0.60).
One item measured the extent to which the individual
"gives in" in order to avoid a conflict. Scores consisted of
the mean for each scale.
The fourth set of items consisted of a number of life
cycle items, such as age, education, income, percent of
income contributed by the wife, number of children, and
age of youngest child.
Before completing the questionnaire, each spouse was
instructed to think of the disagreement that had occurred
during the identified purchase; slhe then responded to each
item by indicating level of agreement on a five-point scale
(from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree"). To reduce
acquiescencebias, some statements were worded negatively
and thus were reverse scored for analysis; to reduce order
effect bias, the statements for the different scales were ran-
domly intermingled on the questionnaire.
Statistical Procedures
The objectives of the analysis were to (1) identify the
influence strategy mixes used by husbands and wives, and
(2) test the significance and nature of the relationship be-
tween these influence mixes and the socioeconomic and
attitude determinants. The first stage of the analysis used
Howard and Harris' clustering algorithm (1966) to develop
an empirical taxonomy of the husbandtwife influence
mixes. The objective was to identify taxonomies of indi-
viduals so that those within a group exhibited a similar
pattern of use on the six influence strategies, while the
strategy mix profiles of the groups were distinct. Both hus-
bands and wives could be included in any of the groups,
but a husband and wife married to one another were not
necessarily in the same group. Each spouse was classified
based on individual actiow2
In the second stage of the analysis, the demographic data
and attitude characteristics were viewed as simultaneous
antecedent determinants of each spouse's choice of an in-
fluence strategy mix. Multiple discriminant function anal-
ysis was used, with the spouses' influence mix groups as
the dependent variable and with the demographic data and
attitude characteristics as the independent variable.
=Pastliterature and the above conceptualizationssuggest that husband1
wife influencemight better be studied as a dyadicprocess-i.e., the couple
should be the unit of analysis-but the small sample size prohibited this.
However, individual analysis can offer insights that may be supported by
data bases that permit a more direct analysis of couples as a unit.
PERSUASION IN FAMILY DECISION-MAKING
TABLE 2
INFLUENCE SCALE MEANS BY STRATEGY MIX
Non- Light
Influence scale influencers influencers
Expert
Legitimate
Bargaining
Rewardlreferent
Emotional
Impression management 1.21
(.I11
NOTE: Standard deviations in parentheses.
RESULTS
The cluster analysis uncovered a six-group taxonomy of
influence strategy mixes.3 To provide an overview of the
influence strategy mix similarities and dissimilarities, the
means and standard deviations of each mix are provided in
Table 2. The mean influence profiles are plotted in Figure
A to facilitate comparison. Figure A reveals that, among
the influence strategy mixes, there are not only differences
in the level of influence used, but also distinct patterns in
the relative level of use of the alternative strategies:
Non-Injuencers. This group, which characterizes 22 per-
cent of the individuals in the sample, is substantially low-
est in reported use of all the influence types. When the
people in this group do attempt to influence their spouses,
they are most likely to use the expertise type of influence.
Light Injuencers. This was the largest subgroup in the
sample (35.9 percent). The mean scores on all the influ-
ence types are substantially higher than the scores for Non-
Influencers, but relatively low compared to all the other
groups. Their relative use of the various influence strate-
gies is very similar to (although higher than) the Non-
Influencers, with the exception of their use of impression
management. The Light Influencer individuals are more
likely to use some impression management as well as
"expert" influence.
3The six-group solution was chosen on the basis of several criteria.
First, an examination of the marginal error term from the cluster analysis
(which is the method most frequently used to guide this decision, Johnson
1967) suggested a six-group solution. Second, the influence profile com-
position within these groups appears homogeneous relative to differences
in influence among the groups. While Frank and Green (1968) note that
the criteria for describing each group are rather imprecise, they suggest
that the clusters' centroids---or the average values of the objects contained
in the cluster on each of the variables-be used.
Influence strategy mix
Subtle Emotional Combination Heavy
influencers influencers influencers influencers Total
Subtle Influencers. This mix characterizes 18.8 percent of
the sample. Relative to their use of other strategies, these
people rely heavily on the rewardlreferent strategy and
secondly on the expert strategy. Apparently, they attempt
to put their partners in a favorable "mood" (e.g., by being
very nice, "buttering up") before a decision is made.
Emotional Influencers. This category represents one of the
two smallest groups (6.6 percent of the sample), yet its
profile is quite distinctive. This profile displays the widest
variations in the extent to which the different types of
influence are used. These people report a high use of
emotional influence and almost as high a use of reward1
referent influence, a low use of legitimate and impression
management, and a moderate use of both expert and bar-
gaining strategies.
Combination Injluencers. This mix (9.9 percent of the
sample) is generally characterized by moderate use of all
the influence strategies. In fact, there is less than one half
a scale point difference between the strategy used least-
legitimate-and the strategy used most frequently-
expert.
Heavy Influencers. The final group (6.6 percent of the
sample) uses each of the six types of influence much more
than any of the other groups. The people in this group use
bargaining, rewardlreferent influence, and the emotional
strategy more than they use expert and legitimate influence
and impression management, but all of the mean scale
scores are high, indicating their heavy use of all the influ-
ence strategies.
While these summary labels for the influence mixes ov-
ersimplify the complex nature of the strategy profiles (Fig-
ure A), they facilitate subsequent discussion of the groups
and concisely depict some of the major characteristics of
the mixes.
 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE A
MEAN INFLUENCE STRATEGY SCORE PROFILES BY STRATEGY MIX

MEAN VALUES ON INFLUENCE SCORES

BARGAINING

REW ARDlREFERENT

EXPERT

EMOTIONAL

LEGITIMATE

tMPRESStON MANAGEMENT

NOTE: -- I..*
e..........
NCJN-NFLWER~

LWrrWFUENQRB

Strategy Mix Patterns
If the wife uses one type of strategy mix, is the husband
more likely to use any one of the influence mixes rather
than another, or vice versa? Table 3 provides the frequen-
cies with which the couples display different combinations
of influence strategy mixes. Because of the number of pos-
sible combinations and the low expected frequencies in any
one of the categories, a statistical analysis was not con-
ducted. Yet it is interesting to note that of the three cate-
gories that contained 10 or more couples, two are patterns
where the husband and wife use the same influence strategy
mix: there were 19 couples in which both spouses used the
"Light Influence" mix, 12 in which both were "Non-
Influencers," and 10 in which the wife was a Non-Influen-
cer and the husband a Light-Influencer. It appears that if
one spouse does not make strong attempts to use influence
strategies to resolve disagreements, neither does the other
spouse. It should be noted that similarities in the perceived
importance of the decision for the husband and wife do not
explain their similarities in using the various influence strat-
egies. While most of the couples that used the same influ-
ence strategy agreed as to the importance of the decision,
this was also true for couples that used different influence
strategy mixes.
Awareness of Influence Attempts
One set of scales measured each spouse's perceptions of
his or her partner's influence attempts. The items on these
scales were the same (but stated in the third person-"he
tried," "she tried") as those on the self-report influence
scales. By comparing the individual's perception of his or
her spouse's influence attempts with those reported by the
spouse, it becomes apparent that most subjects did not per-
ceive their spouse's influence attempts to be the same as
those self-reported by the spouses. In fact, of 1,050 per-
ceptions, only 65 were in the same directions. That is, if
a person reported that s/he did not use a particular strategy,
the spouse often reported that s/he did! When the spouse's
perceptions were inaccurate, s/he almost always perceived
stronger attempts at influence than his or her partner self-
reported. This may be due to an "under-reporting" of in-
fluence attempts by the influencer.
PERSUASION IN FAMILY DECISION-MAKING
TABLE 3
NUMBERS OF COUPLES DISPLAYING DIFFERENT STRATEGIES
Wife's influence strategy mix
Husband's influence Non- Light
strategy mix influences influencers
Non-influencers 12 5 0
Light influencers 10 19
Subtle influencers 0 6
Emotional influencers 0 0
Combination influences 1 1
Heavy influences 0 0
Strategy Mix Success
Each individual was asked whether or not slhe thought
his or her influence attempts were successful. Testing the
differences between the mean value on this variable for
each of the influence strategy mixes indicates that there is
no significant difference between the mixes. In fact, ex-
amining the range of mean values (2.58 to 3.81) suggests
that many of the participants were uncertain as to how suc-
cessful their influence attempts had been. The Subtle In-
fluencers were most likely to think that their influence at-
tempts had been successful. Perhaps a more indirect attempt
at influencing (by trying to create a "favorable" mood for
discussion) is more effective than the other types, which
are more obvious in their purpose. It should also be noted
that there were 12 couples in the sample in which both
individuals either agreed or strongly agreed that their influ-
ence attempts were successful.
Demographic and Attitude Characteristics
Each of the six influence strategy mixes can be charac-
terized by an associated vector of means scores for each of
the demographic and attitude characteristics (Table 4). The
diversity of the mean vectors in Table 4 appears to be con-
sistent with the notion that the simultaneous effects of these
variables stimulate the use of different types of influence
attempts by husbands and wives. A multiple discriminant
function analysis of these demographiclattitude scores on
the influence groups provided a rigorous test of this hy-
pothesis.
Two discriminant functions were found to be significant
(a = 0.001). Standardized discriminant coefficients were
used to evaluate which variabIes are important in distin-
guishing among the strategy mix groups. On the first func-
tion, traditional family ideology (0.91), income (0.55),
gender (0.521, age of youngest child ( - 0.42), and edu-
cation (-0.90) are the most important variables. The dis-
tinguishing variables of the second function are no avoid-
ance of conflict (0.72), age (0.49), wife not employed
( - 0.40), percent income contributed by wife ( - 0.38), and
again, gender (0.46) and age of youngest child (0.49). In
terms of the hypotheses presented earlier, marriage satis-
faction and the importance of the decision were not deter-
399
Subtle Emotional Combination Heavy
influencers influencers influencers influences
0 0 0
1 2 1 1
7 0 4 2
0 1 0 1
2 2 2 2
1 4 1 0
minants of the use of an influence strategy mix. A tradi-
tional family ideology, gender, and no avoidance of conflict
were significant determinants, as were the life cycle vari-
ables, with the exceptions of age and number ofchildren.
The first function may be thought of as a continuum, in
which an individual scoring high would have a more tra-
ditional ideology, greater income, less 'education, younger
children, and would be more likely to be female. A tradi-
tional family ideology would certainly increase the chances
that the couple will live--or at least prefer to live-in a
traditional manner. Greater education is sometimes asso-
ciated with more progressive, modern, or even radical life
styles, and less education is sometimes associated with a
more tradition-bound life style. Moreover, a female with
younger children is more likely to be at home, rather than
in the work force. On the second continuum, a person scor-
ing high would be older, female, have school-aged chil-
dren, be employed but contribute a low percentage of the
family income, and would not try to avoid conflict. These
variables seem to reflect a life cycle (as opposed to a life
style) dimension.
Generally, it appears that a spouse will make greater
attempts at being persuasive, using all of the various influ-
ence types, if slhe is trying to avoid a conflict-i.e., some
people prefer to use the more subtle attempts at persuasion
as a means of avoiding direct confrontation. In this study,
the groups in which the percentage of income contributed
by the wife is the highest were the three groups that dis-
played the greatest influence attempts. This is consistent
with Blood and Wolfe's (1960) "resource theory," in that
the wife in particular would be more inclined to exert her
influence when the resources she is contributing are greater.
Finally, there appears to be a tendency to make less use of
these persuasive attempts as one gets older.
These general relationships may be more highly specified
by considering relationships between the individual mixes
and the dernographiclattitude characteristics. Figure B
shows the relative positions of each of the influence mixes
on both the traditional life style continuum and the life
cvcle continuum. The Non-Influencers are next to the low-
eit (nontraditional) on the traditional life style continuum,
and highest (latest) on the life cycle continuum. The people
in this group have the most education (college graduates or
400
TABLE 4
SITUATION SCALE MEANS BY STRATEGY MIX
Non- Light
Situation scale name influencers influencers
Gender
Avoidance of conflict
Wife employed
Income
Percent income contributed
by wife
Age
Number of children
Age of youngest child
Education
Importance of decision
Marriage satisfaction
Traditional family ideology
NOTE: Standard deviations in parentheses.
at least some college), the greatest incomes, and are the
least traditional in terms of their attitudes toward family
and marriage. They are also the next to the oldest; the wife
is employed, but compared to the wives in the other groups,
she contributes a relatively low percentage of the family
income. The people in this group are the least likely to try
to avoid the conflicts caused by disagreements over buying
decisions. It may be that these people prefer to use a prob-
lem-solving approach to reach buying decisions, which is
consistent with the group's occasional use of expert influ-
ence.
The Light Influencers are also low-in fact the lowest-
on the traditional life style continuum, and are in the middle
range on the life cycle continuum. They have a number of
characteristics that are similar to the Non-Influencers, but
there are some notable differences. These people are non-
traditional in their attitudes toward the family, but they are
slightly less educated, have lower incomes, and are older.
The wives of this group-as in the Non-Influencers group-
are more often than not employed, but their incomes
amount to a greater percentage of the family income than
do the incomes of the Non-Influencer wives. The most no-
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Influence strategy mix
Subtle Emotional Combination Heavy
influencers influences influences influencers Total
table difference between the Non-Influencers and the Light
Influencers is that more of the latter are male.
The positioning of the Subtle Influencers is close to the
middle of the traditional life style continuum and relatively
low (earlier) on the life cycle continuum. The people in this
group rank second to the lowest in terms of education. They
have more traditional attitudes toward family ideology and
are more likely to try to avoid family conflicts than people
in the first two groups. Fewer (half) of the wives are em-
ployed, and their average income represents the smallest
percentage contributed to the family income. Perhaps this
group's more traditional view of the "ideal" family and
their corresponding desire to avoid family conflicts causes
them to use greater amounts of persuasive influence, par-
ticularly the more subtle rewardlreferent strategy.
The Emotional Influencers are considerably above (more
traditional) all of the other groups on the traditional life
style continuum, and in the middle of the life cycle contin-
uum. The people in this group are most likely to be female,
to have the most traditional family ideology, and to have
the least education. The wives of this group, whose children
are on the average seven years old, work more often than
PERSUASION IN FAMILY DECISION-MAKING
FIGURE B
INFLUENCE STRATEGY MIXES POSITIONED ON THE
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION CONTINUAa
'TRADITIONAL LIFE STYLE"
FIRST DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION
HEAVY INFLUENCERS
0
SUBTLE WFLUENCERS
COMBINATION INFLUENCERS
1::: 'LIFE CYCLE'
SECOND DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION
- 1.0 - .80 - .80 - .40 - .20 .20 .40 .BO .80 1.0
NON-INFLUENCERS
L I Q M MLUENCERS
?he relative position of the groups on the continua is determined by evaluating the two
canonical discriminant functions at the group means.
'"Traditional Life Style": greater values reflect a more traditional life style.
'"Life Cycle": greater values reflect a later period in the life cycle.
wives of any other group and contribute the largest per-
centage (63 percent) to the family income. Not too sur-
prisingly, the people in this group-in which the wives
contribute as much or more than the husbands to the family
income-are unlikely to avoid conflicts. This may explain
why these people are much more likely to use emotional
tactics such as crying, pouting, and shouting, which suggest
open conflict.
The Combination Influencers are in the middle of the
traditional status continuum and are lowest on the life cycle
continuum. These people are the youngest and have the
lowest incomes; their children are usually of pre-school age,
and it follows that these wives are the least likely to be
employed. As might be expected of a younger generation,
this group has somewhat nontraditional views toward fam-
ily and marriage, although they adhere to the more tradi-
tional life style of the woman staying at home with her
children. These people try very hard to avoid conflict, pos-
sibly because they have been married for fewer years. For
the same reason, they may not be as certain as to the in-
fluence strategy most likely to succeed, so that they use a
wider variety of strategies in trying to influence their
spouses.
The Heavy Influencers are next to the highest on the
traditional status continuum and next to the lowest on the
life cycle continuum. They seem to have a combination of
attitude and demographic characteristics that contribute to
their being heavy influence users. Their attitudes toward
family and marriage are somewhat traditional; still, the
wives of this group are, more often than not, employed,
and their incomes are a very large percentage (55 percent)
of the family income. The spouses in this mix are the most
likely to try to avoid conflict. They are more inclined to
avoid an open conflict than Emotional Influencers and con-
tribute a much greater percentage to the family income than
Combination Influencers. This combination apparently
causes them to be heavy users of influence.
CONCLUSIONS AND RESERVATIONS
This research was based on the widely accepted premise
that it is the couple rather than the individual that is the
critical decision-making unit for many consumer purchase
decisions. The focus was on the different influence strate-
gies used by husbands and wives in attempting to resolve
their inevitable differences of opinion.
In general, people who are more traditional in their life
styles and attitudes are more likely to use persuasive influ-
ence. A notable exception is the young, married individual
with pre-school children. Those who are further along in
the life cycle also tend to use less of the various types of
influence.
This study identifies two major dimensions that affect
influence choice and provides insights concerning the sa-
lience of particular variables. Several of the demographic
and attitude variables were particularly important discrim-
inators among the influence strategy mixes, i.e., traditional
family ideology, avoidance of conflict, income, gender,
age, age of youngest child, education, whether or not the
wife is employed, and the percentage of income contributed
by the wife. Certainly these findings provide support for
Sheth's (1974) theory of family buying decisions, which
included many of these same variables. In particular, it
should be noted that his life style and life cycle components
are empirically supported by this study.
It was determined that, in some cases, neither spouse
makes much use of the influence strategies. It was also
found that husbands' and wives' perceptions of each other's
influence attempts do not agree. Finally, no particular strat-
egy mix was perceived as more successful than any other.
Because younger couples are more frequent purchasers
of household durables, there was a bias in this study toward
younger couples. Thus the ability to generalize from these
results may be limited to couples with similar demographic
characteristics. This study focused only on those aspects of
the purchase decision on which husband and wife dis-
agreed. Thus, the decisions considered in this research were
accommodative in nature, as opposed to consensual. The
study provides an empirical evaluation of how husbands
and wives attempt to resolve conflicts arising in their joint
decision-making by attempting to influence one another.
[Received February 1982. Revised November 1982 .I

REFERENCES
Blood, Robert 0 . (1960), "Resolving Family Conflicts," Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 4 (June), 209-219.
Blood, Robert O., Jr. and Donald M. Wolfe (1960), Husbands,
Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living, Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.
Burns, Alvin C. (1977), "Husband and Wife Purchase Decision-
Making Roles: Agreed, Presumed, Conceded and Disputed,"
in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed. William
Perrault, Jr., Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Re-
search, 50-55.
and Donald H. Granbois (1977), "Factors Moderating the
Resolution of Preference Conflict in Family Automobile Pur-
chasing," Journal of Marketing ~ e s e a r c h ,14 (February),
77-86.
Cunningham, Isabella C. M. and Robert T. Green (1974), "Pur-
chasing Roles in the U.S. Family, 1955 and 1973," Journal
of Marketing, 38 (October), 6 1-64.
Davis, Harry L. (1970), "Dimensions of Marital Roles in Con-
sumer Decision Making," Journal of Marketing Research,
7 (May), 168-177.
(1971), "Measurement of Husband-Wife Influence in
Consumer Purchase Decisions," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 8 (August), 305-3 12.
(1976), Decision Making Within the Household," Journal
of Consumer Research, 2 (March), 241-260.
and Benny P. Rigaux (1974), "Perception of Marital
Roles in Decision Processes," Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 1, 51-62.
Ferber, Robert and Lucy Chao Lee (1974), "Husband-Wife In-
fluence in Family Purchasing Behavior," Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 1 (June), 43-50.
Filiatrault, Pierre and J. R. Brent Ritchie (1980), "Joint Pur-
chasing Decisions: A Comparison of Influences Structure in
Family and Couple," Journal of Consumer Research, 7,
131-140.
Frank, Ronald E. and Paul E. Green (1968), "Numerical Tax-
onomy in Marketing Analysis: A Review Article," Journal
of Marketing Research, 5 (February), 83-94.
French, John R. P. and Bertram Raven (1959), "The Bases of
Social Power," in Studies in Social Power, ed. Donvin Cart-
wright, Ann Arbor, MI: Research Center for Group Dynam-
ics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan,
150-167.
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life, New York: Doubleday.
Haley, Overholser, and Associates, Inc. (1975), Purchase InJlu-
ence: Measures of HusbandlWife Influence on Buying Deci-
sions, New Haven, CT: Haley, Overholser, and Associates.
Hallenbeck, Phyllis N. (1966), "An Analysis of Power Dynamics
in Marriage," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 28,
200-203.
Heer, David M. (1963), "The Measurement and Bases of Family
Power: An Overview," Marriage and Family Living, 25,
133-139.
Howard, N. and Harris B. (1966), "A Hierarchial Grouping Rou-
tine," IBM 360165 Fortran IV Program, Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Computer Center, October.
Johnson, Stephen C. (1967), "Hierarchial Clustering Schemes,"
Psychometrics, 32 (September), 241-254.
Kenkel, William F. (1963), "Observational Studies of Husband-
Wife Interaction in Family Decision Making," in Sourcebook
in Marriage and the Family, ed. Marvin Sussman, Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 144-156.
Levinson, Daniel J. and Phyllis E. Huffman (1955), "Traditional
Family Ideology and Its Relation to Personality ," Journal of
Personality, 23 (March), 251-273.
Munsinger, Gary M., Jean E. Weber, and Richard W. Hasen
(1975), "Joint Home Purchasing Decisions by Husbands and
Wives," Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (March), 60-66.
Patchen, Martin (1974), "The Locus and Basis of Influence on
Organizational Decisions, " Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 11 (April), 195-221.
Perreault, William D., Jr. and Robert H. Miles (1978), "Influence
Strategy Mixes in Complex Organizations," Behavioral Sci-
ence, 23 (March), 86-98.
Safilios-Rothschild, Constantina (1970), "The Study of Family
Power Structure: A Review 1960-1969," Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 32 (November), 539-551.
Sheth, Jagdish N. (1974), "A Theory of Family Buying Deci-
sions," in Models of Buyer Behavior: Conceptual, Quanti-
tative, and Empirical, ed. Jagdish N. Sheth, New York: Har-
per & Row, 17-33.
Strodtbeck, Fred L. (1951), "Husband-Wife Interaction Over
Revealed Differences," American Sociological Review, 16
(August), 468-473.
Tedeschi, James T., Barry R. Schlenker, and Thomas V. Bonoma
(1973), ConJlict, Power, and Games, Chicago: Aldine.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 3 -

You have printed the following article:

Persuasion in Family Decision-Making
Rosann L. Spiro
The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Mar., 1983), pp. 393-402.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-5301%28198303%299%3A4%3C393%3APIFD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]

3
Numerical Taxonomy in Marketing Analysis: A Review Article
Ronald E. Frank; Paul E. Green
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5, No. 1. (Feb., 1968), pp. 83-94.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2437%28196802%295%3A1%3C83%3ANTIMAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

References

Resolving Family Conflicts

Robert O. Blood, Jr.
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 4, No. 2. (Jun., 1960), pp. 209-219.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0027%28196006%294%3A2%3C209%3ARFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

Factors Moderating the Resolution of Preference Conflict in Family Automobile Purchasing

Alvin C. Burns; Donald H. Granbois
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, No. 1. (Feb., 1977), pp. 77-86.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2437%28197702%2914%3A1%3C77%3AFMTROP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 2 of 3 -

Dimensions of Marital Roles in Consumer Decision Making

Harry L. Davis
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7, No. 2. (May, 1970), pp. 168-177.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2437%28197005%297%3A2%3C168%3ADOMRIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

Measurement of Husband-Wife Influence in Consumer Purchase Decisions

Harry L. Davis
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Aug., 1971), pp. 305-312.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2437%28197108%298%3A3%3C305%3AMOHIIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

Decision Making within the Household

Harry L. Davis
The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. 4. (Mar., 1976), pp. 241-260.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-5301%28197603%292%3A4%3C241%3ADMWTH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

Perception of Marital Roles in Decision Processes

Harry L. Davis; Benny P. Rigaux
The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Jun., 1974), pp. 51-62.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-5301%28197406%291%3A1%3C51%3APOMRID%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

Husband-Wife Influence in Family Purchasing Behavior

Robert Ferber; Lucy Chao Lee
The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Jun., 1974), pp. 43-50.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-5301%28197406%291%3A1%3C43%3AHIIFPB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

Joint Purchasing Decisions: A Comparison of Influence Structure in Family and Couple

Decision-Making Units
Pierre Filiatrault; J. R. Brent Ritchie
The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, No. 2. (Sep., 1980), pp. 131-140.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-5301%28198009%297%3A2%3C131%3AJPDACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 3 of 3 -

Numerical Taxonomy in Marketing Analysis: A Review Article

Ronald E. Frank; Paul E. Green
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5, No. 1. (Feb., 1968), pp. 83-94.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2437%28196802%295%3A1%3C83%3ANTIMAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

An Analysis of Power Dynamics in Marriage

Phyllis N. Hallenbeck
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 28, No. 2. (May, 1966), pp. 200-203.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445%28196605%2928%3A2%3C200%3AAAOPDI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

The Measurement and Bases of Family Power: An Overview

David M. Heer
Marriage and Family Living, Vol. 25, No. 2. (May, 1963), pp. 133-139.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0885-7059%28196305%2925%3A2%3C133%3ATMABOF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

Joint Home Purchasing Decisions by Husbands and Wives

Gary M. Munsinger; Jean E. Weber; Richard W. Hansen
The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Mar., 1975), pp. 60-66.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-5301%28197503%291%3A4%3C60%3AJHPDBH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

The Study of Family Power Structure: A Review 1960-1969

Constantina Safilios-Rothschild
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 32, No. 4, Decade Review. Part 1. (Nov., 1970), pp.
539-552.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445%28197011%2932%3A4%3C539%3ATSOFPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Husband-Wife Interaction Over Revealed Differences

Fred L. Strodtbeck
American Sociological Review, Vol. 16, No. 4. (Aug., 1951), pp. 468-473.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28195108%2916%3A4%3C468%3AHIORD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.