CONSUMER DECISION MAKING ACROSS FAMILY LIFE CYCLE STAGES
Karen S. Reilly, Michigan State University
Sevgin A. Eroglu, Michigan State University
Karen A. Machleit, Michigan State University
Glenn S. Omura, Michigan State University
Abstract
This study examines the differentiation of the modernized
family life cycle in the context of the consumer decision-
making process. The results failed to support tnc liypotheK-
es that the stages of the family life cycle could be dlffer-
entiated with decision-making process variables.
Introduction
The family life cycle (FLC) notion is an interdisciplinary
concept used in many disciplines, including sociology, psy-
chology, economics, and marketing. It is useful as an ana-
lytical tool in studying the family (Stampfl 1978). The
underlying assumption when using this tool is that indi-
viduals go through distinct evolutionary familial phases
(Murphy and Staples 1979; Stampfl 1978). In marketing,
particularly in the study of consumer behavior, one broad
concern is the variation in consumption behavior across FLC
stages (see especially, Reynolds and Wells 1977).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship
between stages of the FLC and the decision making process
in consumption behavior. Affirmation of this relationship
is important if the FLC concept is to provide substantial
contribution to understanding consumer decision making. The
initial debate on the discriminatory power of the FLC concept
is still not resolved (see, for example. Wells and Gubar
1966; Lansing and Kish 1957; Lansing and Morgan 1955).
Past Literature
A variety of research approaches have been used in appli-
cations of the FLC concept. Some researchers have analyzed
certain consumption behaviors across the FLC. For example,
over the stages of the concept, Clark (1955) and Barton
(1955) investigated the purchase decision of durable and
nondurable goods, respectively, while Miller (19 55) examined
advertising effectiveness. Other researchers concentrated
on individual stages of the FLC, such as "young singles"
(Wortzel 1977), the demographic structure of "newly marr.leds"
(Wattenberg 1977) and the impact of children on family de-
cision making (Ward and Wackman 1972; Berey and Polley 1968).
None of the studies in the FLC literature attempted to de-
termine whether variables framed within a consunier decision-
making (CDM) process structure varied across all FLC stages.
Implied in the FLC literature is the notion that due to
unique family characteristics in each stage, various con-
sumption behaviors will be exhibited (e.g.. Murphy and
Staples 1979; Stampfl 1978). If this assumption is true,
different decision-making characteristics would be expected
at different stages of the FLC.
Since the CDM process is frequently used as a framework in
consumer behavior studies, this process can serve as a useful
taxonomy of behaviors to compare the different FLC stages.
For example, Cranbois (1963) concluded that needs vary
across the FLC stages. Hence, it might be hypothesized tliat
problem recognition would vary at different FLCstage.s, such
as recognition of the need for certain durable goods if the
decision maker is part of a family in the "young, married,
with children" stage versus the "middle aged, married, no
children" stage. It might be expected that the nature of
-400-
Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.
passive and active search would vary as well. For example,
Stampfl (1978) notes that "young, married, no children" and
"young, single" groups have a higher level of s'lopping ener-
gy and time. This implies the hypothesis that certain de-
cision-making characteristics such as intensity of search
and the number of information sources used may vary system-
atically with FLC stages, with the former group hypothesized
to exhibit more search activities than the latter group. It
may be hypothesized also that the "married, wi thout children"
engage in more active search than "married with children"
groups for similar reasons.
Additionally, the size of the evoked set and hence the nature
of the evaluation phase may vary when comparing families at
different FLC stages. For example, the number of considered
brands in the evoked set of the "young, single" group may
be greater than of the "older" group. This is suggested by
the finding that age is inversely related to information
processing speed and learning (Phillips and Sternthal 1977).
Further, preference for a brand may vary systematically with
FLC stages. This may be inferred from varied life experi-
ences associated with each FLC stage, including those ex-
periences related to the product category. The product
usage situation defined by the FLC stage would be expected
to interact with CDM phases. For example, the "young,
married, with children" group may prefer a brand of bicycles
which has a family appeal, whereas the "young, married, wi th
no children" may prefer a brand which appeals to those with
a more flexible lifestyle.
Finally, it may be expected that post-purchase satisfaction
will vary with the stages, perhaps due to the capabilities
(or lack) of a given product to satisfy consumers who have
needs structured differently by the FLC stage in which they
are positioned. For example, it has been suggested that
the elderly have less-formed predispositions prior to
purchase than other age groups (Martin 1976). Thus, it may
be hypothesized that the "older" groups may be less prone
to report dissatisfaction with a purchase product than the
"young" or "middle-aged" groups.
The foregoing hypotheses cover only some of the potential
sets of relationships between all possible FLC stages and
all possible CDM phases. Rather than test only these spe-
cific hypotheses, a broader examination of the FLC/CDM
relationship is desired. If the broad examination confirms
that a general systematic relationship between the FLC and
CDM is present, more specific research can be advised to
provide greater managerial and public policy direction.
Hypotheses
The inferences drawn regarding the relationship between the
FLC concept and the consumer decision-making process will be
tested using the "modernized" FLC proposed by Murphy and
Staples (1979). The modernized FLC conceptualization in-
corporates marital status, age, and children's ages to
classify individuals and their families. As a revised
version of the traditional FLC, it takes into account recent
changes in family composition and life style, especially by
recognizing divorce and remaining childless as modern
options. There is some evidence to suggest that tbe modern-
ized version is superior to the traditional form (Fritzsche
1981). The modernized FLC contains five major stases (young,
single; young, married, without children; other young;
middle aged; and older) with thirteen subcategories.
The following two broad hypotheses are derived:
Hypothesis 1: The five major modernized FLC stages can be
differentiated with decision-making variables.
Hypothesis 2_: The subcategories of the "other young" and
"middle aged" major modernized FLC stages can be differ-
entiated with decision-making variables.
more detailed analysis of these two major groups would be
more informative since a.) this is where the modernized FLC
concept diverges from the more traditional FLC conceptuali-
zations; b.) the great number of subcategories (three and
six, respectively) in each major group could obscure the
analysis of comparing only the major groups; c.) nearly 65%
of the United States population is contained in these two
major groups.
Methodology

The special interest in the "other young" and "middle aged" A major manufacturer of consumer durable goods collected
FLC groups is due to a number of reasons. It was felt that the data for this study.-I- Random digit dialing was used to

TABLE 1

STAGES OF THE MODERNIZED FAMILY LIFE CYCLE*

* OF U.S.
POP. (MURPHY
NO. OF % OF AND STAPLES
AGE MARITAL STATUS CHILDREN CASES SAMPLE 1979)

I. Young, Single Up to 34 Single 409 14 a.2

II. Young, Married, Up to 34 Married ne 241 8 2.9
No children

III. Other Young Up to 34 Divorced, Separated, 561

Widowed, Married with
Children

Ill.A. Young, Divorced, Up to 34 Divorced or Separated None 19

No Children

III.B.I Young, Married, Up to 3 4 Married Under 6 Yr. 243

v/ith Children

iii.n. 2 Young, Married, Up to 34 Married 6 Yr.-17 Yr. 128

with Children

III.B. 3 Young, Married, Up to 34 Married Under 6 Yr. and 125

with Children 6 Yr.-17 Yr.

III.C.I Young, Divorced, Up to 34 Divorced or Separated Under 6 Yr. 13

with children

III.C.2 Young, Divorced, Up to 34 Divorced or Separated 6 Yr.-17 Yr. 21 .7

with Children

III.C. 3 Young, Divorced, Up to 34 Divorced or Separated Under 6 Yr. and 11 .4

with Children 6 Yr.-17 Yr.

IV. Middle-Aged 35 - 64 1492 51 45.4

IV.A. Middle-Aged, Married 35 - 64 21 4.7

without Cliildren Married None 585

IV.B. Middle-Aged, Divorced, 35 - 64

with'-'Ut Children Divorced or Separated None 64

IV.C.I Middle-Aged, Married, 35 - 64 2

with Children Married Under 6 Yr. 51

IV.C.2 Middle-Aged, Married, 35 - 64 17

with Children Married 6 Yr.-17 Yr. 487

IV.C.3 Middle-Aged, Married, 35 - 64 Married Under 6 Yr. and 70

with Children 6 Yr.-17 Yr.
IV.D.I Middle-Aged, Divorced, 35 - 64 Divorced or Separated UndeL 6 Yr. 5 .2
with Children

IV.D.2 Hiddle-Aged, Divorced, 35 - 64 Divorced or Separated 6 Yr.-17 Yr 28 1

with Children

IV.D.3 Middle-Aged, Divorced, 35 - 64 Divorced or Separated Under C Yr. and 2 . 07

with Children 6 Yr.-17 Yr
IV.E. Middle-Aged, Married, 35 - 64 Married None Under 17 Yr. 8 .2
without Dependent Children

IV.F. Middle-Aged, Divorced, 35 - 64 Divorced or Separated None Under 17 Yr.

without Dependent Children

64 and Over

•The following groups were combined in the analysis to insure adequate group size; I with Til.A; III c 1 with III C ? and I n r
IV.D.I with IV.D.2 and IV.D.3 and IV.E.; IV.C.2 with V. . . - . .

-401-

Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.

select the subject sample, with screening to insure that the
respondent was a decision maker of this product category.
The sampling frame was all national area codes. A total of
2915 telephone Interviews conducted by professional inter-
viewers forms the basis for this study. Issues addressed
in the questionnaire included marketing strategy develop-
ment, advertising campaign tracking, promotional strategy
development and consumer decision making.
Stages I through V of the FLC were tested first, in response
to Hypothesis 1. Then, the substages within stage III and
the substages within stage IV were tested corresponding to
Hypothesis 2 to assess the appropriateness of the moderniz:ed
FLC's expansion of these two stages.
Results

The modernized FLC stages were operationalized as noted in As shown in Table 2, six of the twelve decision-making
Table 1. Due to the small number of respondents In some of process variables were significant discriminators among the
the original groups, groups were logically combined to insure five major stages of the modernized FLC. Note that variables
adequate group sizes for analysis. Five purchase decision-
making phases were manipulated in the study: problem recog-
nition, search, evaluation, preference and post-purchase. TABLE 2
These were operationalized as follows:
RESPONSE MEANS AND ADJUSTED MULTIPLE
Problem Recognition: This phase was operationalized by DISCRIMINANT COEFFICIENTS
three statements relating to the respondent's need to buy
in the product class. The statements were concerned with
CROUP I GROUP II GROUP III GROUI' IV GROUP V
whether it was now appropriate For buying into this product
class. A disagree/agree scale xjas used with possible INDIVIDUA
values ranging from 1 to 3. VARIABLES MEANS MEANS MEANS MEANS MEANS F

1. Brand
Search: This phase was operationalized in terms of passive Preference F .01 .07 -.42 -.87 -1.36 40.08
and active search. Twenty-eight passive search variables
were used, encompassing such items as recall of television, 2. Active
Search 2.46 2 .36 1.97 1.70 1.40 13.03
outdoor and print advertising related to the product class.
Each respondent's passive search score was found Iiy summing 3. Brand
Preference B -.30 .09 -.19 - . 06 .09 7.25
the number of positive (yes versus no) re.s-ionses to the
questions. The active search score was computed similarly, Evoked Set
Size 1.77 1 .69 1.64 1.48 1.39 6.71
with such questions as reading product-related specialty
catalogues or brochures. Twelve items were employed for 5. Satisfacti on 4.09 4 .21 4.11 4.33 4.56 6.10
this variable.
6. Brand
Preference -.51 .41 -.51 -.66 -.68 3.68
Evaluation: Evaluation was operationalized in terms of the
number of brands in the respondent's evoked set. Size of
the evoked set was determined by asking respondents to representing four of the five stages of CDM process entered
identify tlie brands that s/he would seriously consider the model, suggesting at this point of the analysis that
buying if s/he were to huy the product today. each of the five major modernized FLC stages is unique with
respect to these four CDM phases.
Preference: A list of five brands within the product cate-
gory was read and the respondent asked to identify which No decision process variables significantly discriminated
s/he would most likely consider purchasing. The four among groups III (A) through (C). On the other hand.
possible scale values ranged from "definitely not consider" Table 3 shows the significant discriminating variables for
(-2) to "definitely consider" (+2). the middle aged groups IV (A) through (D) of the modernized
FLC.
Post-Purchase: Post-purchase feelings were measured on a
five-point scale in terms of dissatisfaction (1) or satis-
faction (5) with the brand currently owned. TABLE 3

The relationship between the foregoing twelve decision- RESPONSE MEANS AND ADJUSTED MULTIPLE
making process variables as discriminators and the ELC DISCRIMINANT COEFFICIENTS
stages as the criterion variables was examined through dis-
criminant analysis. Step-wise analysis was completed with
GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUJ' GROUT
a 0.05 level of statistical significance and the Mahalanobis IV.A. IV.B. IV.C.I IV.C.2 TV.C.3 IV.n.
D'^ criterion for group separation. The hypotheses were
tested by examining the number and (to a much lesser extent) lNOIVIDUAL
VARIABLES MEANS MEANS MEANS MEANS MEANS MPMIS F
the nature of decision-making process variables which
entered the equations with significant individual F sta- 1. Satisfaction 4.51 4.42 4.10 4.24 4.23 3.67
tiptrcs and which provided an overall significant F sta-
2. Brand
tistic for the discriminant models. Finally, classification
Preference E -1.02 -.97 -.51 -.85 -.44 -1.14 •i.6'4
or "prediction" procedures were applied as a partial test
of the discriminatory efficacy of the discriminant models.
It should be noted that the objective of the hypotheses Validation of the discriminant model is given in Table 4
and the analyses is to discriminate among groups and not to through classification procedures. The proportional chance
predict. The decision-making process variables are not criterion, Cpro> computed for each discriminant model
p
used to predict FLC stage membership, rather, to determine d d
and compared to the actual classification results. Cpro
whether discrimination among the a priori FLC stages could
is the probability that an individual may be correctly
be done.
classified by chance (Morrison 1969).
For the discriminant model involving the major FLC stages,
Neither the brands nor the product class is disclosed T - V, ?nd the model Involving the middle aged subgroups,
following the manufacturer's request. Published research IV (A) - (D), the percentages correctly classified failed
which has examined this product class generally agrees that to exceed Cpro- T°^ the discriminant model involving the
it is a highly involved category from the buyer's per- young, divorced or married subgroups. III (A) - (C), there
spective. Hence, extended problem solving was expected. was no significant difference between Cpro and the correct

-402-

Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.

 TABLE 4
MODEL PREDICTION
ACTUAL % DIFFERENCE
MODEL CORRECT Cpro % TEST
Group I-V 24.95 40.70 p < .01
Groups III A-C 29.94 31.60 No Difference
Groups IV A-D 20.60 34.90 p < .01
classification rate.
While some decision-making process variables discriminated
among the major FLC stages (Table 2) and among the middle
aged subgroups (Table 3 ) , the poor classification ability
of the discriminant models diminishes the raeaningfulness of
the variables' "statistical significance." Hence, general
interpretation of the variable means across groups and in
relation to the expectations rioted in the literature review
may be misleading. The relatively large sample sizes may
be the reason that the groups are "statistically" distinct.
The results represent a particularly poor showing since the
sample used to derive the discriminant models was the same
sample employed in the validation procedure. Ordinarily,
use of identical samples should lead to a biased high cor-
rect classification result.
Given the lack of support for the hypotheses, an attempt
was made to refine the analysis, post hoc. It was suspected
that the findings which would lead to the support of the
hypotheses might be obscured by the failure to account for
differences in husband and wife decision making for those
respondents who were married. Studies have shox^i differ-
ences between husband and wife decision making in the
family purchasing context (e.g., Davis 1976; Curry and
Menasco 1979; Filiatrault and Ritchie 1980). Consequently,
an attempt was made to control partially for this.
The data would not allow the direct control of both the
husband and the wife in a given family since only one of
the two in a married household was asked to participate in
the study. However, gender information was collected as a
collateral item during the interviews. Gender was then
used as a surrogate for husband/wife status. FLC groups
composed of married households (58% of the total sample)
were re-analyzed with gender controlled.
Two sets of discriminant analyses were run. In both sets,
gender was forced as the first variable in the step-wise
procedure. The first set used the young, married subgroups
[III (B)] as the criterion variables, while the second set
of analysis used the middle aged, married subgroups [IV (A),
IV (C)]. In the first set, none of the decision-making
process variables was significant as a discriminator, which
was consistent with the original uncontrolled analysis. In
the second set, the same two variables as in the original
analysis shown in Table 3 were significant but with little
improvement in classification accuracy.
Discussion and Implications
Little support was found for the hypotheses. Discrimination
among the major stages of the FLC through consumer decision-
making process variables could not be validated through
classification procedures. Further, the greater specificity
of the modernized FLC does not appear to enhance differ-
entiation among the stages in the context of consumer de-
cision making. These findings are particularly unfortunate
since the use of a high involvement product class would
lead one to expect strong positive findings. Additionally,
-403-
Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.
the attempt to control for a potential husband/wife and FLC
interaction did not provide support for the hypotheses.
There are several reasons why these results may have occurod.
Many researchers (see Stampfl 1978, for a review) have sug-
gested that different types of purchases (focusing on the
purchase decision-making phase) are related to different
stages of the FLC. Perhaps the FLC concept is useful for
that general application, but not for the other phases of
the consumer decision-making process.
Another possible explanation of the negative findings is
related to the questioning context. Each respondent was
asked to recall past behavior or predict future behavior to
measure all phases of the decision-making process. It may
be more suitable to match respondents by CDM phase and FLC
stage prior to examining the relationship between the vari-
ables associated with a given phase and the FLC stages.
The CDM phase the respondent happens to be in when inter-
viewed may systematically bias his or her responses to
questions related to previous or subsequent CDM phases.
The foregoing issue may also be related to recency of
purchase, uncontrolled in this analysis. Although it would
be expected that CDM differences among FLC stages would be
observable regardless of purchase recency, the "true" FLC/
CDM relationship may have been obscured in the present
analysis if purchase recency is positively correlated with
recall ability.
Future Research
Since other studies (e.g., Clark 1955; Barton 1955;
Fritzsche 1981) found the FLC to be useful, it is somewhat
unsettling to conclude that it has no discriminatory power
with respect to consumer decision making phases. Further
research can be suggested to determine whether the relation-
ship between CDM and the FLC does in fact exist.
First, the variables which comprise the index for FLC need
closer scrutiny. Perhaps there are better cut-off points
for age of household heads and numbers and ages cf children.
Perhaps marital status needs to be measured in terms of
length of the marriage as opposed to simply a categorical
variable.
Second, research is needed to determine the scale "value"
for each FLC stage. The optimal combinations of FLC
characteristics (that is, age, marital status, absence or
presence of children within different age ranges, and so
forth) need to be empirically determined for each stage.
Similarly, and third, the CDM variables and their combi-
nations should also be determined to form better measures
of the phases of consumer decision-making. For decades,
consumer researchers have developed and applied scales of
various theoretical concepts designed to measure portions
of the domain of each and every CDM phase. Despite constant
reference to the overall decision-making process as the
basic behavioral paradigm, the discipline has yet to
develop properly designed instruments to measure the phases
of this basic paradigm.
Finally, with these refined measures, the present study can
be replicated over a variety of product categories. The
applicability of the FLC in combination with CDM should be
determined by varying characteristics of the product
categories, such as durable versus non-durable, high versus
low involved, and goods versus services.
References
Berey, L.A. and R.W. Pollay (1968), "The Influencing of the
Child in Family Decision Making," Journal of Marketing
Research, 5, 70-72. Proceedings, ed. R.C. Curhan, Cliicago: AMA, 51-62.

Blalock, H.M. (1979), Social Statistics, New York: McCraw-
Hill, 602.
Clark, L.H. (ed.) (1955), Consumer Behavior, Vol. 2, New
York: New York University Press.
Curry, D.J. and M.B. Menasco (1979), "Some Effects of
Differing Information Processing Strategies on Husband-
Wife Joint Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 6,
192-203.
Wells, W.C. and C. Cubar (1966), "Life Cycle Concept in
Marketing Research," Journal of Marketing Research, 3,
355-363.
Wortzel, L.H. (1977), "Young Adults: Single People and
Single Person Households," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 4, ed. W.D. Perreault, Jr., Atlanta: Association for
Consumer Research, 321-329.

Davis, H.L. (1976), "Decision Making Within the Household,"

Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 241-260.

Duvall, E.M. (1971), Family Development, 4th ed.,

Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 106-132.

Filiatrault, P. and B. Ritchie (1980), "Joint Purchasing

Decisions: A Comparison of Influence Structure in Family
and Couple Decision-Making Units," Journal of Consumer
Research, 7, 131-140.

Fritzsche, D.J. (1981), "An Analysis of Energy Consumption

Patterns by Stage of Family Life Cycle," Journal of
Marketing Research, 18, 227-232.

Granbois, D.H. (1963), "The Role of Communication in the

Family Decision Making Process," in Proceedings, ed. S.
Greyser, Chicago: AMA, 44-57.

Lansing, J.B. and L. Kish (1957), "Family Life Cycle as an

Independent Variable," American Sociological Review, 22,
512-519.

Lansing, J.B. and J.N. Morgan (1955), "Consumer Finances

Over the Life Cycle," in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 2, ed.
L.H. Clark, New York: New York University Press, 36-51.

Martin, C. (1976), "A Transgenerational Comparison: The

Elderly Fashion Consumer," in The Elderly Consumer, ed.
F.E. Waddell, Columbia, MD: The Human Ecology Center,
Antioch College, 251-259.

Miller, D.K. (1955), "The Life Cycle and The Impact of

Advertising," in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 2, ed. Lincoln H.
Clark, New York: New York University Press.

Morrison, D.G. (1969), "On the Interpretation of Dis-

criminant Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 156-
163.

Murphy, P.E. and W.A. Staples (1979), "A Modernized Family

Life Cycle," Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 12-22.

Phillips, L.W. and B. Sternthal (1977)," "Age Differences

in Information Processing: A Perspective on the Aged
Consumer," Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 444-457.

Reynolds, F.D. and W.D. Wells (1977), Consumer Behavior,

New York: McCraw-Hlll.

Rodgers, R.H. (1973), "The Family Life Cycle Concept-Past,

Present and Future," paper presented at 13th International
Family Research Seminar, Committee on Family Research
International Sociological Association, Paris, France.

Stampfl, Ronald W. (1978), "The Consumer Life Cycle,"

Journal of Consumer Affairs, 12, 209-217.

Ward, D. and D.B. Wackman (1972), "Children's Purchase

Influence Attempts and Parental Yielding," Journal of
Marketing Research, 9, 316-319.

Wattenberg, B.J. (1975), "The Forming Families: The

Spark in the Tinder, 1975-1985," in 1974 Combined

-404-

Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.