The following literature review discusses the notion of childrens influence in family decision making.

The focus has been laid on childrens influence in single family households The concept of influence refers to childrens active and passive attempts to achieve their parents permission to participate in family decision making thereby achieving specific results Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007, p. 198) . The changing family will be described in the first part of the literature review. Since 1968 various studies have researched childrens influence in family decision making However, dramatic changes in the family type, size and communication style have occurred in the last 50 years. The childrens role in the decision making process will be assessed It has been acknowledged that children have a great influence in the decision making process, even though their parents often do not realize how much influence their children actually have. It will be suggested that the level of childrens influence depends on the product type and the level of risk involved in the purchase of a product. The difference between the two parent household and the single parent household structure in relation to childrens influence in family decision making will be researched The single parent family is the fastest growing family type in the West and thus deserves adequate academic acknowledgement. The fulfilment of new roles is studied. As single parents often have to fulfil multiple roles, they are susceptible to role strain, which has various connotations. Single parents often have low salaries and little free time, mostly because the lack of help of a partner. This fact leads to the conclusion that time constraints and a low economic profile have affects on purchase decision making. In the last part of this literature, practical marketing implications will be discussed. (Norgaard,

The changing family Family types have changed dramatically in the last 50 years. The typical family type of the 60ies was the traditional family consisting of the father, mother and children whereas the parents (husband and wife) made all purchase decisions for the whole family (Davis, 1976). Marketing research on family decision making was still in its early stages, so very little was known about different roles and influences within the household. The influence of children in household decision making was not considered. Berey & Pollay (1968) stated that advertising for childrens products should be directed at the mother and not the child,

for the mother is the purchasing agent and thus has the power to superimpose her preferences. So it was ultimately assumed that the children had no influence at all in family decision making (Berey & Pollay, 1968) (Davis, 1976). Single parent households were completely ignored in research, simply because they were not common (Berey & Pollay, 1968): In 1970 only 3.4 million families in the USA were single-parent households, compared to 17.3 million in 2000 (Flurry, 2007). Not only the family type has changed in the last 50 years, but family size has changed as well (Flurry, 2007). Thanks to the incredible shift in family size and women entering the workforce, family size has dwindled while mothers enjoy having jobs outside the family and contributing to the family income. Additionally, communication within the family has evolved. Family communication has become more open and democratic, meaning that parents nowadays pay more attention to their children. This open dialog and children's uninhibited savvy in expressing their desires exhibits the possibility for children to have an influence in family decision making or at least express their opinions (Norgaard, Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007).

Childrens role in the decision making process The decision making process for the following section has been identified as a three-step process consisting of the pre-purchase stage, the purchase and the post-purchase stage.

Children nowadays have a significant influence in family decision making, even though most parents do not admit the level of importance they give to their childrens opinions in purchase decisions. Children perceive their influence to be greater than what their parents believe; Children overestimate their influence in family decision making while parents underestimate it (Norgaard, Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007). Gram (2010) even noted that data collection on family decision making should take into account that parents want to be seen as responsible and politically correct and thus often fail to mention certain aspects of the decision making process such as children nagging for sweets. This could create bias when using retrospective data collection (Gram, 2010). Almost all studies on children decision making conclude that children have a noteworthy influence in the early stages of the decision making process (Tinson, Nancarrow, & Brace, 2008) (Ahuja, 1993) (Norgaard, Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007), so the pre-purchase stage, but not necessarily the purchase itself (Ahuja, 1993). This may be because the parent is the actual

purchasing agent (considering children have no disposable income) and consequently has the ultimate buying power (Ahuja & Stinson, 1993). Nevertheless, some studies have observed that children have an influence in all three stages in the decision making process (Lee & Beatty, 2002).

It has to be recognised that family decision making is a highly complex issue and can not be seen as linear (Gram, 2010). This has to do with the fact that relationships between family members and not between individuals are being analysed. When discussing relationships beween family members it is often difficult to assess the influence of the individual. It is not always clear who has the power to superimpose their purchasing desires onto other family members and where ones influe nce starts and where the other stops (Gram, 2010).

The product specific influence It has been suggested that the level of childrens influence correlates with the product type (Flurry, 2007) (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009) (Tinson, Nancarrow, & Brace, 2008). This means that children generally have a greater influence if the product is designed for their personal consumption than if it is a family product. Ahuja et al. (1993) stated that the level of influence does not just depend on the product type but also on the marketing. If the product is marketed to the mother (for instance laundry detergent or housecleaning products), the children only have a minimal influence. If however the product is marketed to the child (for instance sweets, soft drinks or candy), children have the power to superimpose their preferences (Tinson, Nancarrow, & Brace, 2008). Consumable products such as groceries are seen as low risk involvement products, because they generally do not inspire high or complex levels of external search (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009) and are usually inexpensive. The purchase of consumable products is usually not very time-consuming. The nature of low risk involvement products allows the level of childrens influence to be greater than with high risk involv ement products (Ahuja , 1993) such as technical goods (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009). Even though children hav e a greater influence when the product is designed for their personal consumption, some research has concluded that for some family products such as family holidays (Tinson, Nancarrow, & Brace, 2008) or automobiles, children, especially those living in a single parent household, have an influence in the decision making process (Tinson, Nancarrow, & Brace, 2008). This has to do with the fact that children have an elevated, almost equal status and will often be consulted in family product decision making (Flurry, 2007).

The comparison of the two parent household with the single parent household structure in relation to childrens influence in family decision making Family structures have changed remarkably over the past five decades. The traditional family is declining and the number of single parent families is rising: Only 24.1% of all households in the USA are married with children (Flurry, 2007). The single parent family, in specific 88 percent of all single parent families are headed by a woman (Ahuja, Capella, & Taylor, 1998), is the fastest growing family type in the West (Tinson, Nancarrow, & Brace, 2008) and therefore deserves adequate academic research. Unfortunatley, very little is known about the consumption patterns of the single parent household (Ahuja, 1993). Marketing research on family decision making processes has focused predominantly on the traditional family, and the research that does concentrate on single parent families is still in its early stages (Ahuja, Capella, & Taylor, 1998). Even though some comparisons of the two parent household and the single parent household can be drawn, it has to be mentioned that the classification of family types is very difficult, as different families describe their relationships in their own way (e.g.: patchwork families or unmarried cohabitation) (Tinson, Nancarrow, & Brace, 2008). The comparison of the two parent household with the single parent household structure in relation to childrens influence in family decision making surprisingly shows that children in traditional families do not necessarily have less influence than single parent children (Ahuja, 1993). For example pestering children wanting sweets can be equally successful in either family constellation. It is the perception of the parent that constitutes the main difference: Single parents perceive their children to have a much greater influence than traditional parents (Ahuja, 1993). Another difference can be found in the childrens status within the family: Children in single parent families may be treated more like equals, almost like adults or peers, which rarely is the case in two parent families (Flurry, 2007): Children of single parents are informed about family expenditures and limitations of resources (Kourilsky & Murray, 1981) to help them with family purchase decisions.

The fulfilment of new roles Goode (1960) hypothesized that social structures are made up of role relationships. The felt difficulty of fulfilling those role obligations is defined as role strain (Goode, 1960). Role strain occurs when various demands are built into a single position that a person occupies (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009). Thiagarajan et al. (2009) have used the theory of role strain to research family decision making specifically related to single parent families. Single parents have to raise their children by themselves, so role strain is increased as a single parent has to fulfil

multiple roles such as both mother and father roles as well as work roles (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009). The fulfilment of multiple roles is very stressful. This is why single parents often transfer influence to their children (Ahuja & Stinson, 1993); On the one hand, children take over more chores that normally the other parent would perform (food buying, cooking, cleaning, etc.), but they take over more responsibilities as well (Ahuja, Capella, & Taylor, 1998).They tend to care more about boring household purchases such as housecleaning or food products, because they are directly involved in the consumption of those products. They are being held accountable for their work performance (Ahuja & Stinson, 1993) and thus influence their parents to get the products best suitable for their needs. However, families roughly practice the same ritualised household tasks on a regular basis. It therefore can be concluded that everyday routines work as a frame of the family purchase process and defines how influence is distributed among family members (Norgaard, Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007).

Time constraints and low economic profile Even though salaries have increased immensely in the last 5 years, single parents still generally have a low economic profile: median income of a single parent is less than $30,000 per year (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009), which indicates that 41 percent of all single parent households live below the poverty line (Eckel, 1999). Because single parents typically raise their children without the help of a partner, they are often exposed to more stress than their traditional counterparts (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009). Long working hours away from home present less time for household tasks such as cooking or cleaning (Norgaard, Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007). Shopping trips have to be coordinated around work schedules (Eckel, 1999) and therefore can barely be planned in advance (Ahuja, Capella, & Taylor, 1998). Due to time constraints, quick meal solutions such as fast-food restaurants or ready-to-eat food are extemely popular with single parents (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009), as the single parent can enjoy quality time with their children without waisting time preparing a meal (Eckel, 1999). Since single parents have little time and capacity to shop, they do not hav e the time to look out for deals such as in-store promotions or coupons, even though they have low incomes and must economise wherever possible (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009). Norgaard et al. (2007) found that not just the parents spend most of their day away from home; the children equally have an immense amount of obligations to fulfil. Next to being at school for most of

the day, various after-school activities such as sports or music lessons keep children busy. Because children are primarily required to fulfil their daily obligations and leisure time activities, their convenience to purchasing as well as the willingness to prepare food is small (Norgaard, Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007). Ahuja (1998) noticed that there is a scarcity of childcare in the USA. This is essential as single parents full time work combined with this scarcity of childcare results in single parents often taking their children with them on shopping trips. This means that children are now actively participating in family purchases: For instance shopping for groceries now becomes a family activity (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009) where each family member may express their opinions on products and thus influences the decision making.

Marketing Implications Based on the results of the above mentioned research, the following practical marketing implications are suggested: Children are an important target market, not only for products for their own use but for products intended for the whole familys consumption (Flurry, 2007). Database marketing campaigns should be created to target certain groups of children (Tinson, Nancarrow, & Brace, 2008) as well as the new family type: Market segmentation must involve single parent families (Flurry, 2007). Marketing strategies for consumer goods must target single parent families, as they account for a large portion of the population in the West as well as a large fraction of the expenditure (Ahuja, Capella, & Taylor, 1998) (Norgaard, Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007). Because the single parent and their children are very busy, they will only go shopping when absolutely necessary (Ahuja, 1993). Retailers must rethink their communication strategy to incorporate the busy family (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009). Online grocery shopping may be developed or sales material could be created (Norgaard, Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007) so that parents and their children could plan their shopping trips in advance. Healthy but still fast and efficient food solutions should be promoted, such as the 5 a day signage for fruits and vegetables (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009) (Norgaard, Bruns, Haudrup Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007) or packaged-goods companies having a toll-free number that parents can call for the recipe of the day (Eckel, 1999). Retailers should be aware of the fact that food shopping could be combined with other leisure activities (Thiagarajan, Ponder, Lueg, Lokken Worthy, & Taylor, 2009), so stores could offer in-store entertainment or child care centres (Ahuja, Capella, & Taylor, 1998). To make grocery shopping

more child-friendly, Ahuja (1993) suggests the development of shopping carts with improved safety features for children.

This literature review dealt with the topic children as consumers It discussed childrens influence in family decision making relating especially to the single parent family. It has been discovered that the family type, size and communication in the West has changed significantly in the last 50 years. Children nowadays have an influence in household decision making. However, it is not possible to generalise the degree of influence, as it depends on certain factors: The type of product (for individual use or for family use), the stage in the decision making process (pre-purchase, purchase or post-purchase stage) and the family type (dual parent household or single parent household). Characteristics of single parents (role strain, time constraints and a low economic profile) make it easier for children to experience a greater influence in household decision making. It has been found that little contemporary research exists on single parent family household decision making. Too much marketing research focuses on the traditional family, but if retailers want to target single parent families, they will have to rethink their marketing strategies. Research should include parents as well as children; food marketing should not only be directed at parents but also at their children. Future research on single parent family households is therefore suggested. It could include an analysis of a greater number of product categories such as childrens influence in their personal leisure activities. This literature review is limited to the West, so Western Europe and North America. Future research could therefore include cross-cultural assessments to examine the cultural aspect of childrens influence in household decision making.

Bibliography
Ahuja, R. (1993). Mother-Only Single Parent Family Decision Making: Comparisons to the Two Parent Family Structure with Respect to Children's Influence. 79. Journal of Food Products Marketing 1 (2) , 57-

Ahuja, R., & Stinson, K. M. (1993). Female-Headed Single Parent Families: An Exploratory Study of Children's Influence in Family Decision Making. Advances in Consumer Research 20 , 469-474. Ahuja, R., Capella, L., & Taylor, R. (1998). Child Influences, Attitudinal and Behavioral Comparisons Between Single Parent And Dual Parent Households In Grocery Shopping Decisions. Marketing Theory and Practice Winter , 48-62. Journal of

Berey, L., & Pollay, R. (1968). The Influencing Role of the Child in Family Decision Making. Journal of Marketing Research 5 , 70-72. Davis, H. (1976). Decision Making within the Household. Journal of Consumer Research 2 , 241-260. Eckel, S. (1999). Single Mothers. American Demographics 5 , 63-66. Flurry, L. (2007). Children's influence in family decision-making: Examining the impact of the changing American family. Journal of Business Research 60 , 322-330. Goode, W. (1960). A Theory of Role Strain. American Sociological Review 25 (4) , 483-496. Gram, M. (2010). Self-reporting vs. observation: some cautionary examples from parent/child food shopping behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies 34 , 394-399. Kourilsky, M., & Murray, T. (1981). The Use of Economic Reasoning to Increase Satisfaction with Family Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Research 8 , 183-188. Lee, C., & Beatty, S. (2002). Family structure and influence in family decision making. Consumer Marketing , 24-39. Journal of

Norgaard, M., Bruns, K., Haudrup Christensen, P., & Mikkelsen, M. (2007). Children's influence on and participation in the family decision process during food buying. Young Consumers 8(3) , 197-216. Thiagarajan, P., Ponder, N., Lueg, J. E., Lokken Worthy, S., & Taylor, R. D. (2009). The effects of role strain on the consumer decision process for groceries in single-parent households. Retailing and Consumer Services 16 , 207-215. Journal of

Tinson, J., Nancarrow, C., & Brace, I. (2008). Purchase decision making and the increasing significance of family types. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25 (1) , 45-56.