ACADEMIC PAPERS

Family decision at the turn of the

century: Has the changing structure
of households impacted the family
decision-making process?
Received (in revised form): 7 December, 2001

Michael A. Belch
is a Professor of Marketing at San Diego State University. He received his PhD at the
University of Pittsburgh. Michael is the co-author of Introduction to Advertising and
Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. He has published in a
number of academic journals, including the Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising
Research, Advances in Consumer Research, Research in Marketing.

Laura A. Willis
is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Louisiana Tech University. She received her
PhD from Louisiana State University and has published in a number of media
including the Journal of Applied Business Research, Qualitative Marketing Research: An
International Journal, and Advances in Consumer Research.

Abstract
Evaluation of husbands’ and wives’ influence in family decision making is heavily reliant
on studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. Since that time, profound changes have
occurred in the American family. These changes may have affected the nature of decision
making in the household. To examine the degree to which earlier findings are still
generalisable today, hypotheses are developed and tested with a contemporary sample of
Keywords:
458 men and women. Results suggest that there have been significant changes in the roles
Family decision assumed in the family decision-making process, with the wife gaining more influence in all
making, changing decision areas. The results indicate that marketers must re-examine their marketing
family structure, strategies for some products and/or services. Possible theoretical explanations are
decision roles suggested to explain why these changes may have occurred.

Michael A. Belch INTRODUCTION allocated to family decision making

Professor of
Marketing,
Following the publication of the often- research, particularly the roles of
Department of cited study of family decision making husbands and wives. As a result, the
Marketing,
by Davis and Rigaux (1974), a number literature may not be reflective of
College of Business
Administration, of researchers began to focus their current family decision-making
San Diego State attention on multiple facets of family situations. (A view supported by
University,
5500 Campanile decision making within the household. Lackman and Lanasa, 1993).
Drive, In fact, scores of articles were published Thus, a need exists to examine the
San Diego, CA 92182,
USA in the 1970s and 1980s, examining the effect that changes that have occurred
Tel: þ1(619) 594-5319 decision-making processes of adults, within the traditional US household
Fax: þ1(619) 594-3272
E-mail: mbelch@mail.
adolescents and children. In the 1990s, may have had on husbands’ and wives’
sdsu.edu however, less attention has been decision-making processes in the year

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 111
Michael A. Belch and Laura A. Willis
2000 — over a decade since this topic
has been examined in depth.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
In order to address the question of
whether changes in the American
family over the last two decades have
significantly affected husband and wife
decision making, it is necessary to
review literature in two areas. First, the
extant literature on the changing
American household is reviewed to
provide justification for hypothesising
that the nature of decision making in the
household may have also changed.
Secondly, the literature on family
decision making and the role of
husbands and wives is reviewed to
provide a comparative base of
evaluation and prediction.
The Changing American Household
A number of studies have concluded
that the traditional family structure
prevalent in the 1970s is no longer
representative of all American families.
A study by the Population Reference
Bureau concludes that the family
structure has changed significantly in
the past few decades, and that these
changes have taken place at a ‘frantic
pace’ (Ahlburg and DeVita, 1992). The
study indicates that as many as one in
three Americans is now a member of a
blended family (step family), and that
blended families will continue to be a
dominant force in the lives of children
for the future. Noting that marriage
rates are falling, divorce rates are rising
and that 25 per cent of babies are now
born to unmarried mothers (compared
with 10 per cent in 1970), the article
concludes that responsibilities of family
members will become more complex,
more ambiguous and more open to
dispute.
Similarly, Clulow (1993) contends that
the organisation of families in industrial
countries (eg, Australia, USA and most
Western European countries) has
changed dramatically in the past
112 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
quarter of a century as a result of
increases in divorce rates, falling
marriage rates, co-habitation without
marriage, single parenting and
increased women in the workforce. He
notes that the organisation of the family
has been affected by (1) a shift from the
command to the negotiation method for
family decision making and (2) the
presence of two income families, which
has increased the status and options for
women and has generated uncertainty
about gender roles and responsibilities.
Clulow suggests that ‘new’ families
incorporate non-traditional family
structures as well as ‘traditional’ ones
operating under changed circumstances
in their decision-making processes.
Reports by Jacques (1998) and
Hamburg (1993), citing many of the
same reasons, also demonstrate that the
family has changed. In the former
study, Jacques notes that many
relationships are now fluid and
uncertain. Citing Stacey (1996), he notes
that many families lament the passing of
the ‘traditional’ family. Hamburg also
provides evidence that the family of the
1990s is quite different from the father-
dominated structure of the 1960s.
Numerous other studies (Ellwood, 1993;
Pearl, 1995; Powers, 1994), suggest that
families — and the ways these families
make decisions regarding the household
unit — are significantly different than
they were in the past.
Family Decision Making: Husbands
and Wives
Research on the roles of husbands and
wives in family decision making dates
back at least to the 1960s, when Davis
(1970) first conducted a study on the
relative influence of husbands and
wives. Since that time, several studies
have examined aspects of marital roles
and family decision making. While
highly prevalent in the 1970s and the
1980s, see Mangleburg (1989); Foxman,
Tansuhaj and Ekstrom (1989); Belch,
Belch and Ceresino (1985); Foxman and
Tansuhaj (1988); Corfman and Lehmann

(1987); Davis (1971); Davis and Rigaux
(1974); Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980);
Park (1982); Qualls (1987); Rosen and
Granbois (1983); Spiro (1983) and
Wilkes (1975), among others, much less
attention has been given to this topic in
the decade of the 1990s, see Talpade
(1990), Beatty and Talpade (1994),
Corfman (1990).
In a landmark study, Davis and
Rigaux (1974) concluded that husbands
and wives had different role
specialisations and varying degrees of
relative influence for various products
and at various stages in the purchase-
decision process. Wives were found to
be more dominant during the problem
recognition and information search
stages for household furnishings and, to
a lesser degree, appliances; whereas
husbands were more dominant at the
information search stage for autos and
to a lesser degree, at the problem
recognition and final decision stages.
Much less role specialisation was shown
for housing decisions, which tended to
be more syncratic in nature.
In a similar study, but extended to
include the role of adolescents, Belch et
al. (1985) concluded that family
members’ influence varied by product,
by stages of the decision-making
process, and by various decision areas,
with the husband and wives clearly
dominating the decision process. The
husband’s influence was strongest for
automobiles and television sets,
whereas the wife was more dominant in
decisions for household appliances,
furniture and breakfast cereal.
More recent studies reflect some
changes in the decision-making process,
suggesting a movement toward more
joint decision making. Putnam and
Davidson (1987) replicated the Davis
and Rigaux (1974) study and found
significant changes occurring in the
household. Household decisions to
purchase automobiles, televisions, and
financial planning shifted from
husband-dominated product decisions
to joint decisions. Final decisions to
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Family decision at the turn of the century
purchase stereos, financial planning,
automobiles, carpet, and living room
furniture were all jointly made. Further,
it was shown that couples demonstrated
increasing role specialisation (or more
joint decision making) as the couple
moved from information search to a
final decision for all product categories.
Additional support for the changing
roles of husbands and wives was
reported by Qualls (1982). Qualls
studied product contexts in which few
joint decisions were traditionally made
and found a profound shift toward joint
decision making for children’s
education and housing. Other studies
support the notion that husbands are
exerting greater influence in decisions in
which the wife was historically
dominant and wives are exerting
greater influence in areas that were
traditionally the husband’s domain. For
example, husbands were found to be
making greater than half of the
household decisions to purchase soaps,
cereals, soft drinks, and snack foods
(Anonymous, 1980). In addition, in
1992, men were purchasing a quarter of
household groceries, an increase of 17
per cent from 1987 (Zinn, 1992). In
addition, 80 per cent of men were found
to do some major food shopping every
month (Zinn, 1992). Women, on the
other hand, were shown to be taking a
larger role in decisions to purchase
insurance, automobiles, and financial
services (Candler, 1981).
In addition to these American studies,
two other international studies offer
insight into the decision-making
process. Mohan (1995) examined the
influence of marital roles in family
decision making in the UK and found
that husbands had greater influence in
the purchases of automobiles,
televisions and lawn mowers. In
contrast, wives were more influential in
the selection of clothing and major
appliances (ie, the washing machine).
Joint decision making was present only
for the selection of a mortgage. Ford,
LaTour and Henthorne (1995)
113
Michael A. Belch and Laura A. Willis
conducted a cross-cultural comparison
of marital roles in the USA and the
People’s Republic of China and found
that husbands were dominant in
patriarchal societies. Very little wife role
specialisation or joint decision making
was supported in the Chinese sample.
In summary, studies suggest that the
roles of husbands and wives in the
family decision-making process are
changing. However, none of these more
recent studies have examined the
process as the earlier studies of Davis,
Belch et al. Thus, there remains a need to
examine how these changes have
affected the decision-making process in
the year 2000. Given that there have
been changing family values and roles,
it would benefit marketers to have a
more current understanding of the
family decision-making process. This
research will update well-cited previous
studies (eg, Davis and Rigaux (1974)
and Belch et al. (1985)) to examine
current practices in family decision
making. These earlier studies will also
serve as a basis for comparison for these
changes (if they do, in fact, exist).
Theory
The literature on family decision
making is extensive, as the area has
received attention in such diverse areas
as consumer behaviour, sociology,
economics, cultural anthropology, and
rural sociology. In addition, both macro
(the observation and investigation of
households) and micro (observation of
individual members of the household)
approaches have been taken.
From a theoretical perspective, fewer
theories seem to be relied upon. The
most common of these are resource
theory (Blood and Wolf, 1960) and social
power theory (French and Raven, 1959)
which assumes a micro perspective.
According to resource theory, the
individual’s personal resources relative
to others are the basis for power.
Relative income, education, available
time, and social status are examples of
factors that contribute to power. Thus,
114 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
male dominant families of the pre
Second World War and earlier years,
were a result of the fact that the
husband was more likely to be the sole
worker outside of the home, and was
also more likely to have higher status
within the household as a result of his
social status, relative income and (most
often) higher education. The wife’s
power, to the limited degree of its
existence, resulted from more time
availability. As noted by Blood and
Wolf, two of the primary factors leading
to an increase in family influence of
women commencing in the 1950s, were
the fact that they were now being
employed outside of the home as well
as furthering their education (Blood and
Wolf, 1960: 18). As women became more
educated and provided more income to
the family on a relative basis, the more
egalitarian the decision-making process
became. Since the turn of the century
the number of women in the workforce
increased from 20 per cent to over 60
per cent, in 1999. The percentage of
women making more than US$20,000/
year has risen from 14 per cent in 1968
to over 43 per cent by the end of the
20th century, and the labour market
participation rate for women 25–44 has
increased to over 75 per cent (Cohn,
2000). Following the theory of Blood
and Wolf, there should be an even more
egalitarian relationship among
household decision making as the wife’s
level of education and income increase.
Raven, Centers and Rodrigues (1975)
examined the bases of conjugal power
from the perspective of social power
theory. Six bases for power were
considered responsible for relative
influence levels. One of these, expert
power — the belief that one family
member has superior knowledge or
ability which will result in the best
possible outcome — was shown to be
particularly relevant to family decision
making. In turn, the attribution of
expert power was shown to increase
with education and social class, with
more syncratic decision making

occurring in more ‘egalitarian’
households.
THE CHANGING AMERICAN FAMILY
In examining these theoretical
explanations in light of the changing
American family, one might expect that
as more women work outside the home,
and improve their education and social
class standings, the family decision
making structure would change as well.
Simply put, we are hypothesising that
given that the American family has
changed, and based on the theories of
Blood and Wolf and French and Raven,
we would expect a corresponding
change in the family decision-making
process as well, with women gaining an
increased say in previously male-
dominated product decisions.
Purpose and Hypotheses
Given that over 10 years have passed
since the publication of the last articles
that specifically examined the variation
of husbands’ and wives’ influence
across stages in the family decision-
making process and across product
categories (Putnam and Davidson 1987;
Belch et al. 1985) and the fact that
numerous changes have been
documented within the household, it is
imperative to re-examine the dynamics
of the family decision-making process.
More specifically, this study will
attempt to examine today’s family
decision-making process to determine
how family decisions are made in 2002
and to provide currency to our
understanding of the process.
Three specific hypotheses were
examined. The first two of these were
identical to those in the Belch et al.
(1985) study, while the third
hypothesises changes as a result of the
changing family structure.
H1 : Family members’ influence will vary as
a function of the product category and
the stage of the decision-making
process, with women gaining more
input into previously male-dominated
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Family decision at the turn of the century
products (eg, automobiles).
H2 : Family members’ influence in the
decision-making process will vary as a
function of specific decision areas for
each product category, with women
gaining more input into all decision
stages.
H3 : The degree of influence of each family
member at each stage of the decision-
making process and for specific decision
areas will have changed since the 1970s
and 1980s, reflecting changes in the
structure and roles of the modern
family. Men will have relinquished
control over previously dominated
decisions, and women will have
increased input into all decision areas.
Women will also have gained input
into previously male dominated
product decisions.
METHODOLOGY
Research design
The research employed a self-
administered survey with convenience
sampling in the Southwestern
geographic of the USA. A field survey
questionnaire designed to very closely
match that employed in an earlier
published study (Belch et al. 1985), but
focusing only on the adults (as in Davis
and Rigaux, 1974) gathered information
on family members’ influence across
three stages of the decision-making
process, as well as within specific
decisions for seven products and
services. Respondents were asked to
complete the surveys separately (with
no input from the other spouse) and to
indicate the amount of influence both
adults had in each of the three stages of
the decision process (initiation, search
and evaluation, and the final decision),
using a six-point scale ranging from ‘no
influence at all’ to ‘all of the influence’.
A similar scale was used to measure the
amount of influence each had in specific
decision areas. Questions regarding
when and where to purchase, how
much money to spend, style, make and
model decisions, etc. constituted this
segment of the survey.
115
Michael A. Belch and Laura A. Willis

Similar to previous studies, the unmarried adults has increased, we

products included an automobile,
television, household appliances,
household furniture and family
vacation. Two additional products, food
and insurance, were added, as the more
recent literature indicates that there
have been changes in the decision-
making process for both, with each
reflecting moderate or high levels of
individual involvement and syncratic
decision-making properties.
Sample and Data Collection
In an attempt to replicate the Belch et al.
(1985) study as closely as possible, the
same data collection method was
employed. Self-administered surveys
were distributed to approximately 242
households in southwestern USA.
Quotas were established to ensure
adequate representation of families. In
order to qualify to participate, each
couple was required to have been living
together and functioning as a family for
a minimum of 1 year. (Again, a slight
modification to the previous studies,
which only included husbands and
wives. As the rate of co-habiting,
found it necessary to include this
category to reflect currency). Each adult
was provided with a questionnaire with
instructions to complete it separately
from the other adult in order to avoid
any possible collaboration.
After elimination of those surveys
that did not meet the established
criteria or that were not accurately
completed, 229 couples (458
individuals) constituted the final
sample. Sample statistics are
summarised in Appendix A.
RESULTS
Family Member Influence Across
Decision Stages
The first hypothesis suggests that family
members’ influence should vary across
the stages of the decision-making
process and across product categories.
To test this hypothesis, the relative
influence scores of husbands and wives
across the stages of the decision-making
process for each product category were
examined. These mean scores represent
the average of husbands’ and wives’
perceptions (see Table 1).

Table 1 Mean influence by stages in the decision process

Stages

Initiation Search and evaluation Final decision

Television
Husband 4.31 (1.17) 4.34 (1.23) 4.60 (1.03)
Wife 3.35 (1.17) 3.02 (1.22) 3.56 (1.16)
Automobile
Husband 4.37 (1.01) 4.60 (1.05) 4.62 (1.03)
Wife 3.79 (1.08) 3.27 (1.20) 3.82 (1.13)
Vacation
Husband 3.87 (0.97) 3.76 (1.23) 4.06 (1.02)
Wife 4.19 (0.96) 4.22 (1.15) 4.30 (1.03)
Household appliances
Husband 3.35 (1.12) 3.45 (1.27) 3.54 (1.17)
Wife 4.43 (1.02) 4.20 (1.12) 4.49 (0.96)
Household furniture
Husband 3.47 (1.40) 3.26 (1.21) 3.57 (1.14)
Wife 4.51 (0.96) 4.34 (1.11) 4.59 (0.88)
Insurance
Husband 4.37 (1.29) 4.35 (1.41) 4.53 (1.28)
Wife 3.53 (1.44) 3.45 (1.51) 3.55 (1.48)
Food
Husband 3.44 (1.14) 3.22 (1.25) 3.38 (1.19)
Wife 4.60 (0.95) 4.54 (1.07) 4.66 (0.93)

Scale: 1 no input; 6 all of input. Each score represents the average of husband’s and wives’
perception of family influence. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

116 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
 Family decision at the turn of the century

As with previous studies, results
indicate that husbands’ and wives’
influence varies by product and
decision-making stage. The husband
tends to have more influence in all
phases of the decision-making process
for televisions, automobiles and
insurance. In contrast, wives have more
influence across all stages of the
decisions to purchase household
appliances, household furniture, and
food. Husbands and wives share more
equal influence in decisions regarding
vacations; however, the wives’ influence
in the initiation and evaluation stages
for vacations is less than it is in the final
decision. All differences are significant
at p , 0:01. (A comparison with earlier
studies will be provided later in this
section.)
Family Member Influence by Decision
Area
The second hypothesis suggests that the
influence of family members in specific
decision areas will vary across product
categories. As indicated by Table 2,
results for the specific decision areas
strongly support the findings for
influence by decision-making stages.

Table 2 Mean influence for specific decision areas

Product Husband Wife

Automobile
When to purchase 4.30 (1.08) 3.56 (1.11)
How much money 4.36 (1.03) 3.69 (1.16)
Make 4.26 (1.11) 3.67 (1.15)
Model 4.23 (1.12) 3.70 (1.17)
Colour 3.67 (1.21) 4.11 (1.17)
Where to purchase 4.32 (1.19) 3.24 (1.19)
Television
When to purchase 4.17 (1.10) 3.47 (1.12)
How much money 4.23 (1.02) 3.70 (1.12)
Brand 4.33 (1.07) 3.30 (1.12)
Model 4.31 (1.09) 3.31 (1.12)
Colour versus black/white 4.37 (1.08) 3.29 (1.12)
Where to purchase 4.26 (1.13) 3.32 (1.19)
Vacation
Where to go 3.81 (0.91) 4.24 (0.95)
How much money 3.99 (0.93) 4.00 (0.97)
How much time 3.97 (0.86) 3.99 (0.97)
Where to stay 3.82 (0.97) 4.14 (1.03)
When to go 3.98 (0.94) 4.00 (1.04)
Household appliances
What appliance 3.28 (1.06) 4.41 (0.87)
How much money 3.46 (1.07) 4.23 (0.94)
Where to purchase 3.30 (1.19) 4.17 (1.11)
Style 2.99 (1.11) 4.47 (0.98)
Colour 2.87 (1.07) 4.56 (0.98)
Brand 3.12 (1.18) 4.36 (1.05)
Household furniture
What furniture 3.37 (0.96) 4.41 (0.89)
How much money 3.63 (1.00) 4.19 (0.95)
Where to purchase 3.30 (1.12) 4.26 (1.04)
Style 3.20 (1.05) 4.46 (0.93)
Colour 3.15 (1.06) 4.52 (0.90)
Fabric 3.15 (1.10) 4.51 (0.93)
Insurance
How much to spend 4.32 (1.29) 3.42 (1.33)
Where to purchase 4.27 (1.34) 3.37 (1.39)
When to purchase 4.25 (1.30) 3.42 (1.36)
Type of coverage 4.35 (1.28) 3.44 (1.37)
Coverage amount 4.37 (1.29) 3.47 (1.39)
Food
How much to spend 3.14 (1.20) 4.55 (0.99)
Where to purchase 2.90 (1.24) 4.69 (1.02)
When to purchase 2.92 (1.21) 4.70 (0.98)
What to purchase 3.16 (1.13) 4.64 (0.93)
Brands to purchase 2.89 (1.23) 4.70 (0.99)

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 117
Michael A. Belch and Laura A. Willis

First, findings suggest that the differences exist in the decision to

husband’s influence is greater for all
aspects of the automobile purchase,
except colour, where the wife is more
influential. (All significant at p , 0:01).
In addition, husbands were more
influential across all aspects of both
television and insurance purchases. (All
significant at p , 0:01). In contrast,
wives were more influential in all
decisions regarding household
appliances, household furnishings, and
food. (All significant at p , 0:01).
Finally, results for vacation decisions
demonstrated more joint decision
making. Husbands and wives had
approximately equal input into deciding
how much money, how much time, and
when to go on vacations; however, the
wife was more influential in deciding
where to go and where to stay for a
vacation. The only significant difference
( p , 0:01) was for the decision on where
to go, with the wife demonstrating the
most influence.
Family Member Influence Changes
Comparisons of the means from the
Belch et al. (1985) study and the current
study reveal several notable changes
(see Table 3). A number of significant
purchase an automobile, reflecting
changes since the 1985 study. While the
husband still has more influence in the
initiation of the decision to buy an
automobile, the relative degree of
influence has significantly decreased,
and the wife’s influence has
significantly increased. In addition, in
comparison to 1985, husbands have
significantly less influence in the search
and evaluation and final decision stages
of the automobile purchase. Specifically,
as shown in Table 4, husbands have less
influence in the decisions of when to
purchase and how much money to pay
for automobiles. In addition, wives have
more influence in the decisions
regarding make, model, colour and
where to purchase automobiles.
Significant differences also exist for
decisions regarding vacations. Overall,
husbands have less influence than they
did in 1985, with significantly less
influence in the initiation and search
and evaluation stages (Table 3). In
addition, husbands have less influence
in the decisions of where to go, how
much money to spend, how much time
to spend, where to stay, and when to go
on a vacation. Wives have significantly

Table 3 Mean influence by stages in the decision process

Stages

Initiation Initiation Search and Search and Final (1985) Final (1999)
(1985) (1999) evaluation evaluation
(1985) (1999)

Television
Husband 4.14 (1.34) 4.31 (1.17) 4.34 (1.41) 4.34 (1.23) 4.53 (1.32) 4.60 (1.03)
Wife 3.60 (1.22) 3.35 (1.17) 3.12 (1.38) 3.02 (1.22) 3.63 (1.40) 3.56 (1.16)
Automobile
Husband 4.70 (1.19)1 4.37 (1.01)1 4.88 (1.23)2 4.60 (1.05)2 4.91 (1.16)1 4.62 (1.03)1
Wife 3.52 (1.32)1 3.79 (1.08)2 2.98 (1.38) 3.27 (1.20) 3.53 (1.41) 3.82 (1.13)
Vacation
Husband 4.16 (1.20)1 3.87 (0.97)1 4.07 (1.32)2 3.76 (1.23)2 4.29 (1.25) 4.06 (1.02)
Wife 4.04 (1.18) 4.19 (0.96) 3.99 (1.33) 4.22 (1.15) 4.12 (1.29) 4.30 (1.03)
Household appliances
Husband 3.48 (1.28) 3.35 (1.12) 3.49 (1.38) 3.45 (1.27) 3.73 (1.33) 3.54 (1.17)
Wife 4.58 (1.17) 4.43 (1.02) 4.34 (1.37) 4.20 (1.12) 4.60 (1.22) 4.49 (0.96)
Household furniture
Husband 3.63 (1.26) 3.47 (1.40) 3.53 (1.36) 3.26 (1.21) 3.84 (1.29)2 3.57 (1.14)2
Wife 4.58 (1.15) 4.51 (0.96) 4.43 (1.28) 4.34 (1.11) 4.58 (1.16) 4.59 (0.88)
1
p , 0:01; 2 p , 0:05. Scale: 1 ¼ no input at all, 6 ¼ all of the input. Each score represents average of
husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of influence.

118 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
 Family decision at the turn of the century

Table 4 Mean influence for specific decision areas

Product Husband (1985) Husband (1999) Wife (1985) Wife (1999)

Automobile
When to purchase 4.62 (1.30)2 4.30 (1.08)2 3.41 (1.29) 3.56 (1.11)
How much money 4.66 (1.25)2 4.36 (1.03)2 3.43 (1.32) 3.69 (1.16)
Make 4.52 (1.31) 4.26 (1.11) 3.31 (1.35)2 3.67 (1.15)2
Model 4.42 (1.35) 4.23 (1.12) 3.40 (1.38)2 3.70 (1.17)2
Colour 3.80 (1.45) 3.67 (1.21) 3.73 (1.47)2 4.11 (1.17)2
Where to purchase 4.62 (1.38) 4.32 (1.19) 2.86 (1.38)2 3.24 (1.19)2
Television
When to purchase 4.27 (1.34) 4.17 (1.10) 3.67 (1.31) 3.47 (1.12)
How much money 4.43 (1.31) 4.23 (1.02) 3.59 (1.34) 3.70 (1.12)
Brand 4.30 (1.33) 4.33 (1.07) 3.41 (1.32) 3.30 (1.12)
Model 4.18 (1.35) 4.31 (1.09) 3.47 (1.35) 3.31 (1.12)
Colour versus black/white 4.30 (1.37) 4.37 (1.08) 3.83 (1.36)1 3.29 (1.12)1
Where to purchase 4.20 (1.46) 4.26 (1.13) 3.31 (1.46) 3.32 (1.19)
Vacation
Where to go 4.04 (1.22)2 3.81 (0.91)2 4.04 (1.18) 4.24 (0.95)
How much money 4.28 (1.28)2 3.99 (0.93)2 3.83 (1.26) 4.00 (0.97)
How much time 4.35 (1.27)1 3.97 (0.86)1 3.89 (1.23) 3.99 (0.97)
Where to stay 4.08 (1.24)2 3.82 (0.97)2 3.94 (1.23) 4.14 (1.03)
When to go 4.31 (1.31)1 3.98 (0.94)1 3.72 (1.31)2 4.00 (1.04)2
Household appliances
What appliance 3.39 (1.20) 3.28 (1.06) 4.50 (1.13) 4.41 (0.87)
How much money 3.79 (1.27)1 3.46 (1.07)1 4.15 (1.19) 4.23 (0.94)
Where to purchase 3.46 (1.31) 3.30 (1.19) 4.17 (1.24) 4.17 (1.11)
Style 3.06 (1.23) 2.99 (1.11) 4.58 (1.14) 4.47 (0.98)
Colour 2.89 (1.23) 2.87 (1.07) 4.66 (1.13) 4.56 (0.98)
Brand 3.30 (1.35) 3.12 (1.18) 4.47 (1.26) 4.36 (1.05)
Household furniture
What furniture 3.51 (1.17) 3.37 (0.96) 4.46 (1.13) 4.41 (0.89)
How much money 3.98 (1.24)1 3.63 (1.00)1 4.11 (1.17) 4.19 (0.95)
Where to purchase 3.50 (1.25) 3.30 (1.12) 4.25 (1.20) 4.26 (1.04)
Style 3.24 (1.19) 3.20 (1.05) 4.63 (1.11) 4.46 (0.93)
Colour 3.14 (1.21) 3.15 (1.06) 4.67 (1.12) 4.52 (0.90)
Fabric 3.09 (1.26) 3.15 (1.10) 4.66 (1.17) 4.51 (0.93)
1
p , 0:01; 2 p , 0:05. Scale: 1 ¼ no input at all, 6 ¼ all of the input. Each score represents average of
husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of influence.

more influence in the decision of when DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

to go than in the 1985 study (Table 4).
With respect to decisions regarding
household furniture, husbands were
found to have less influence in the final
decision for household furnishings and
less influence in the decision of much to
spend on both household furnishings and
household appliances than they did 15
years ago (Tables 3 and 4, respectively).
No significant changes were shown
between the two studies in regard to
household appliances and television
purchases by stages. Interestingly, the
husband has seemingly lost influence
regarding how much money to spend on
household appliances. Comparative
values for food and insurance purchases
were not available, as information on
these items was not acquired in the Belch
et al. (1985) study.
In summary, these results bear out what
might be expected intuitively. While one
might argue that practitioners have
known this for some time, the fact
remains that this research is the first to
document these effects empirically. The
changes that have occurred in the
American family as a result of dual
working relationships have also been
reflected in changes in the family
decision-making process. Overall,
women have gained more influence in
most of the decision-making areas,
gaining significantly more influence in
the initiation stage, and increased
influence regarding search and
evaluation and the final decision for
automobile purchases — a previously
husband-dominated product. The
husband’s influence in all decision areas

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 119
Michael A. Belch and Laura A. Willis
regarding this purchase has
significantly decreased since the 1985
study. The husband has also lost
influence in all stages of decisions
regarding vacations, while the wife has
gained substantial influence in all of
these decision-making stages.
Interestingly, the only product area in
which the husband has gained influence
over the past 15 years is in regard to the
purchase of a television. In all stages
from initiation to final decision, the level
of influence exerted by the husband has
increased, while that of the wife has
decreased. Closer examination of
specific decision areas, however, shows
that women have increased their
influence in regard to how much money
to spend, while the husband’s influence
has increased in all other areas.
Similarly, the only area in which
significant differences are reflected for
household appliances and household
furniture is in regard to this same
decision (how much to spend) — in
each case, the husband losing influence.
In all other decision areas, changes are
mixed, indicating that it may be that the
decisions are being deferred to the
spouse thought to have more
involvement and/or expertise with the
product.
The findings of this research have
important strategic implications. As
practitioners have suspected, the
woman has gained independence and
importance in almost every area of the
family decision-making process. As
contributors to the household income,
and as a result of changing cultural
values, women are taking on more roles
in the household. Companies wishing to
compete successfully must now target
this segment, appealing to their specific
needs and wants. Most automobile
companies have instituted programmes
targeted specifically at women,
including educational programmes,
sales training programmes for
salespersons, and the hiring of female
sales people in an attempt to better
satisfy the needs of this segment.
120 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Numerous Internet sites like
iVillage.com and Woman.com have
achieved success by appealing
specifically to this segment.
Another important implication is the
changing role structure of the husband.
Men are increasingly taking on roles
once classified as feminine (Zinn, 1992).
As a result of this change in the
American family, marketing efforts
must also change. For example,
Campbell’s soup, in recognition of the
influence of husbands in grocery
purchasing, has begun purchasing
advertising space in male-oriented
magazines, such as Sports Illustrated,
Field and Stream, and Rolling Stone.
Similarly, Proctor and Gamble now
portrays the husband in advertisements
in roles that were traditionally more
feminine, including childcare and
grocery selection. These are just a few
examples of how the market is
responding to the shift toward joint
decision making in the household.
Finally, work and leisure activities
have resulted in extreme time changes
in the availability of time for either
spouse. Between work, leisure activities
of either spouse and/or their children,
etc., families seem to be increasingly
‘time poor’. One method of coping with
these time constraints may be the
allocations of family decisions —
particularly those of relatively less
importance. The decision as to which
television or household appliance to
purchase may now be relegated to the
party more involved or more expert,
while more critical decisions —
automobile and vacation decisions, how
much money the family can afford, etc.
— has increasingly become a decision of
interest and concern to both parties.
From a theoretical perspective, two
possible explanations as to these
changes might be offered. Blood and
Wolf (1960) argued that the spouse
with the greater amount of resources
would have the most power in the
decision-making process. At that time,
men generally had more power due to

their greater resource contribution to
the household. By the end of the
decade, however, studies found that
wives gained power when they were
working wives, as their occupational
status relative to the husband’s
increased, and as their contribution to
household income increased (Lupri,
1969). Thus, these findings may be the
result of the fact that women are
contributing more, and thus have
gained power. For what might be
considered major expenditure
decisions, as well for how much to
spend for appliances and televisions,
the female now has more influence,
likely reflecting her increased resource
contribution. The same would certainly
seem to hold true for decisions
regarding vacations, as the woman has
gained ‘the right’ to decide based on
her increased resource contribution.
A second perspective is that decision
making might be influenced by the
relative expertise of individuals (French
and Raven, 1959). It is possible that as
more women join the workforce and
engage in other activities outside of the
home, their expertise into different areas
may have increased. Whereas in the
past, the husband may have been
considered the ‘expert’ in many of the
decision areas considered here, the
modern woman may have now gained
experience as well as confidence in these
areas, due, at least in part, to increased
involvement. For example, the majority
of dual working families in the USA
now own two automobiles —
sometimes considered his and hers, or
one for work and one for the family.
These results may reflect women’s
knowledge and preferences regarding
specific products and/or brands.
Likewise, more experiences outside of
the home may lead to increased
expertise in other product areas as well.
Women may be as, or more,
knowledgeable in many of these areas
as their spouse. This increased expertise
would then contribute to her increased
role in the decision process.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Family decision at the turn of the century
Limitations
As noted, this research was designed to
approximately replicate the Belch et al.
study of 1985 to determine if changes in
the American family have resulted in
changes in the family decision-making
process as well. While the hypothesis
that such changes have occurred was
supported, there were limitations that
should be noted. Like the previous
study, the sample for this research was
based on a specific geographical area of
families. The study, therefore, is limited
in the extent that this sample can be
projected to the entire USA or foreign
countries. Research employing a
national sample would be of great
interest and offer validations for many
of the conclusions made herein. Finally,
the 1985 study also examined the role of
children in the family decision-making
process, which this study did not. Thus,
comparisons can be made only in
regard to the roles of adults living in the
household, rendering this study less
than a replication of household decision
making. Nevertheless, these limitations
not withstanding, the research provided
here has validated the belief that the
family decision-making process has
changed since 1985. Thus, it makes a
contribution to the academic literature
by providing more updated insights
into the family decision-making process
— insights that reflect the changing
structures in US households.
Future Studies
The results of this research clearly
indicate that the role of family members
in the consumer decision-making
process is changing. A number of
factors have been cited to explain why
some of these changes may be
occurring. As both internal and external
factors surrounding the family continue
to change, there exists a need to
continue to conduct research in this
area. For example, the study reported
here took place approximately 15 years
after the Belch et al. study — much too
long a period of time. The establishment
121
Michael A. Belch and Laura A. Willis
of a panel to track family decision-
making studies on an annual or
biannual basis would allow for a greater
capability to ascribe reasons for
changes. Secondly, unlike the Belch et al.
study, the changing role of adolescents
was not examined. Future studies may
wish to explore the changing roles, if
any, that have been assumed by these
family members. Finally, it would be
interesting to examine cross-cultural
issues that are taking place in the family
decision-making process. Are families
in other countries experiencing change
in decision-making roles as well? As the
world changes, the family decision-
making process will also change. Future
studies should attempt to track and
report on these changes.
REFERENCES
Ahlburg, D. A. and DeVita, C. J. (1992) ‘New
Realities of the American Family’,
Population Bulletin, Population Reference
Bureau, Washington, DC.
Anonymous. (1980) ‘Large Numbers of
Husbands Buy Household Products, Do
Housework’, Marketing News, 14(7), 1.
Beatty, S. E. and Talpade, S. (1994)
‘Adolescent Influence in Family Decision
Making: A Replication with Extension’,
Journal of Consumer Research, 21
(September), 332–41.
Belch, G., Belch, M. A. and Ceresino, G.
(1985) ‘Parental and Teenage Influences in
Family Decision Making’, Journal of
Business Research, 13 (April), 163–76.
Blood, R. O. Jr. and Wolfe, D. M. (1960)
Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of
Married Living Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Candler, J. (1981) ‘A Long Drive for
Recognition’, Advertising Age, 52(26), 2.
Clulow, C. (1993) ‘New Families? Changes in
Societies and Family Relationships’, Sexual
and Marital Therapy, 8(3), 269–73.
Cohn, L. (2000) ‘Women in the Workforce:
They Have Come a Long Way’, Business
Week, February 2000.
Corfman, K. P. (1990) ‘Methodological
Problems in Survey and Experimental
Research on Family Choice Processes’,
Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 520–23.
122 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Corfman, K. P. and Lehmann, D. R. (1987)
‘Models of Cooperative Group Decision
making and Relative Influence: An
Experimental Investigation of Family
Purchase Decisions’, Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (June), 1–13.
Davis, H. L. (1970) ‘Dimensions of Marital
Roles in Consumer Decision Making’,
Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (May), 168–
77.
Davis, H. L. (1971) ‘Measurement of
Husband-Wife Influence in Consumer
Purchase Decisions’, Journal of Marketing
Research, 8 (August), 305–12.
Davis, H. L. and Rigaux, B. P. (1974)
‘Perception of Marital Roles in Decision
Processes’, Journal of Consumer Research, 1
(June), 51–62.
Ellwood, D. T. (1993) ‘The Changing
Structure of American Families: The
Bigger Family Planning Issue’, Journal of
the American Planning Association, 59 (1),
3–8.
Ferber, R. and Lee, L. (1974) ‘Husband-wife
Influence in Family Purchasing Behavior’,
Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 43–50.
Filiatrault, P. and Ritchie, J. R. Brent (1980)
‘Joint Purchasing Decisions: A
Comparison of Influence Structure in
Family and Couple Decision making
Units’, Journal of Consumer Research, 7
(September), 131–40.
Ford, J. B., LaTour, M. S. and Henthorne, A.
(1995) ‘Perception of Marital Roles in
Purchase Decision Processes: A Cross-
cultural Study’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 23(2), 120–32.
Foxman, E. R., Tansuhaj, P. S. and Ekstrom,
K. M. (1989) ‘Family Members’
Perceptions of Adolescents’ Influence in
Family Decision Making’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 15 (March), 482–91.
Foxman, E. R., Tansuhaj, P. S. and Ekstrom,
K. M. (1989) ‘Adolescents’ Influence in
Family Purchase Decisions: A
Socialization Perspective’, Journal of
Business Research, 18, 159–72.
Foxman, E. R. and Tansuhaj, P. S. (1988)
‘Adolescents’ and Mothers’ Perceptions of
Relative Influence in Family Purchase
Decisions: Patterns of Agreement and
Disagreement’, Advances in Consumer

Research, 15, 449–53.
French, J., Jr. and Raven, B. (1959) ‘The Bases
of Social Power’, in Studies in Social Power.:
Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor,
MI, 150–65.
Hamburg, D. A. (1993) ‘The American
Family Transformed: Changes in Social
Structure Since the 1960’s’, Society, 30(2),
70–9.
Jacques, J. M. (1998) ‘Changing Marital and
Family Patterns: A Test of the Post-
Modern Perspectives’, Sociological
Perspectives, 41(2), 381–413.
Lackman, C. and Lanasa, J. M. (1993) ‘Family
Decision making Theory, An Overview
and Assessment’, Psychology and
Marketing, 10(2), 81–93.
Lavin, M. (1993) ‘Husband-Dominant, Wife-
Dominant, Joint: A Shopping Typology for
Baby Boom Couples?’ Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 10, 33–42.
Lupri, E. (1969) ‘Contemporary Authority
Patterns in the West German: A Study in
Cross-National Validation’, Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 31, 134–44.
Mangleburg, T. F. (1990) ‘Children’s
Influence in Purchase Decisions: A Review
and Critique’, Advances in Consumer
Research, 17, 813–25.
Mohan, M. (1995) ‘The Influence of Marital
Roles in Consumer Decision making’, Irish
Marketing Review, 8, 97–107.
Park, C. W. (1982) ‘Joint Decisions in Home
Purchasing: A Muddling-Through
Process’, Journal of Consumer Research, 9
(September), 151–62.
Pearl, K. N. (1995) ‘Portrait of the Changing
Family’, Scholastic Update, 127(11), 4–6.
Powers, M. (1994) ‘Families, They Are A-
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Family decision at the turn of the century
changing’’, Human Ecology Forum, Winter,
22(1), 20–3.
Putnam, M. and Davidson, W. R. (1987)
Family Purchasing Behavior: II Family Roles
by Product Category, Management
Horizons, Inc., Columbus, OH.
Qualls, W. J. (1982) ‘Changing Sex Roles: Its
Impact Upon Family Decision Making’,
Advances in Consumer Research, 9, 267–70.
Qualls, W. J. (1987) ‘Household Decision
Behavior: The Impact of Husbands’ and
Wives’ Sex Role Orientation’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 14 (September),
264–79.
Raven, B. H., Centers, R. and Rodrigues, A.
(1975) ‘The Bases of Conjugal Power’ in
Power in Families, 217–32, ed. Cromwell, R.
E. and Olson, D. H., John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Rosen, D. L. and Granbois, D. H. (1983)
‘Determinants of Role Structure in Family
Financial Management’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 10 (September), 253–58.
Stacey (1996) cited in text.
Spiro, R. L. (1983) ‘Persuasion in Family
Decision making’, Journal of Consumer
Research, 9 (March), 393–402.
Talpade, S. (1990) ‘Teenager Influence in
Family Decision-Making: Theoretical
Foundations, Scale Development, and
Empirical Analysis’, Dissertation,
Department of Marketing, University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Wilkes, R. E. (1975) ‘Husband-Wife Influence
in Purchase Decisions–A Confirmation
and Extension’, Journal of Marketing
Research, 12 (May), 224–7.
Zinn, L. (1992) ‘Real Men Buy Paper Towels,
Too’, Business Week, November 9, 75–7.
123
Michael A. Belch and Laura A. Willis

APPENDIX A

Sample demographics (n ¼ 458)

Descriptor (%)

Respondents’ age
20–29 28.4
30–39 15.8
40–49 26.1
50–59 23.8
60+ 5.9
Highest level of education completed
High school graduate 8.0
College 32.6
Associate, vocational or 15.6
occupational degree
Bachelor’s Degree 22.5
Some post-graduate 7.6
Post-graduate degree 13.6
Marital status
Not married 20.2
Married less than 5 years 17.2
Married 6–10 years 12.4
Married 11–15 years 8.0
Married 16–20 years 4.1
Married 21–25 years 13.6
Married 26–30 years 14.0
Married 31–35 years 5.3
Married 36+ years 5.1
Years living in same household
Less than 5 years 37.7
6–10 years 16.1
11–15 years 9.9
16–20 years 5.3
21–25 years 12.4
26–30 years 9.2
31–35 years 5.3
36+ years 4.1
Income
Under US$15,000 16.6
US$15,000–US$24,999 15.4
US$25,000–US$34,999 15.7
US$35,000–US$44,999 17.3
US$45,000–US$54,999 10.5
US$55,000–US$64,999 5.9
US$65,000 and above 18.5
Employment status
Full-time employed 69.0
Part-time employed 17.7
Retired 4.8
Homemaker 5.7
Unemployed 2.8
Occupation status
Not employed outside the home 8.7
Semi-skilled or labour 8.4
Skilled trade or vocation 13.6
Technical or clerical 23.7
Professional 45.7

124 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 2, 111–124 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817