Family Decision Making Decision Dominance Structure Analysis- An Extension

Robert M. Cosenza San Diego State University

INTRODUCTION

Several scholars have suggested that husband and wife influence in de- cision making can vary by the type of decision being made within a product category. (See Davis 1970, 1971; Hempel 1974, 1975; Munsinger, Weber and Hansen 1975; Ferber and Lee 1974; Shuptrine and Samuelson 1976; Woodside 1972; Burns 1977; Burns and Granbois 1977; Cunningham and Green 1974). Most recently, Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980) examined per- ceived influence structures and indicated that in the vacation decision-mak- ing process there are differences in influence structure across families (two or three member or more).

Currently, the literature dealing with family influence structure suffers from a methodological shortcoming. This shortcoming was identified in the family decision making literature as the use of individual influence meas- ures or perceptions of phenomenon to study family or "group" related outcomes (i.e., Schumm 1982, p. 1001). It was identified by several schol- ars including Rothschild (1969), Davis (1976), Bettman (1977), and Burns and Granbois (1977). This use of individual measures has been found to produce less-than-desirable results in the research setting because numerous discrepancies were found between husbands' and wives' answers to specific questions in a decision making context. Since most of the family decision studies in Marketing use disaggregate methodologies, the conclusions are subject to error. To validate the results of these studies, they must be replicated by an alternative aggregate methodology (Douglas and Wind 1978; Quarm 1981).

�9 1985, Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Winter, 1985, Vol. 13, No. 1.91-103

0092-0703/85/1301-0091 $2.00

91

92 FAMILY DECISION MAKING: DECISION D O M I N A N C E STRUCTURE ANALYSIS - A N EXTENSION

One such alternative aggregate methodology is to view the family as a small-scale social structure (a group), and to use a methodology consistent with this conceptual outlook (Davis 1971; Zaltman and Wallendorf 1983; Silk and Davis 1974; McDonald 1980). An aggregate approach views the dyadic family (husband and wife) as the focus of analysis, and measures "influence" as a characteristic of communication interaction between mar- riage partners. The application of a group methodology provides the re- searcher with greater assurance that the influence structure in the family is accurately represented.

The Study

The present study is designed to provide an in-depth analysis of decision dominance structure in the husband/wife dyad. Generally, this structure represents the attribute set that a marriage partner uses in purchase deci- sions for five product/service categories. This decision dominance structure is based upon classifying the study sample of families into role categories using an aggregate measure of decision dominance.

METHODOLOGY

Measurement Instruments

Decision Dominance

Dyadic decision dominance is defined as the pressure, or appeal, directed by one spouse to another. It includes both formal and informal pressure as well as overt and covert pressure. Decision dominance includes the spouse's response to the original pressure or appeal. Dominance in the decision role structure was measured using a modification of an instrument developed by Miller and Wackman (unpublished), which was subsequently used by Cor- rales (1975). The instrument was modified by the author using a procedure suggested by McDonald (1980). The basis for the measurement of the dominance index consisted of: (1) a task performed independently by both the husband (H) and wife (W) and (2) a communication task performed by the husband and wife together (J). The tasks required the husband and wife to independently select and rank the five most important decision making choice criteria for each product listed in Table 1. Next, the couple took the independently derived lists (H and W) and jointly arrived at a third list (J).

Mathematically, the distribution of dominance was obtained by correlat- ing H with J and W with J. These were converted to Fisher's Z socres. A

COSENZA 93

distribution with boundaries of - 8 to + 8 ws formed by substracting the ZHJ's and ZWJ's. This represents the dominance index. A positive score (greater than + .2) indicated general husband dominance. A negative score (less the - . 2 ) indicated general wife dominance. A syncratic (joint influ- ence) role structure was defined to exist as the scale converged to zero (range specified was - .2 to + .2). A sensitivity analysis on this classifi- cation was performed, and the results of this analysis were essentially invariant to the width of the syncratic interval.

The instrument was developed to assure Nunnally's (1978, p. 93) criteria for content validity. It was pretested on a convenience sample of ten married couples and revised. Reliabililty, estimated using a "test-retest reliability method" (Nunnally, 1978; Davis and Cosenza, 1985), was found to be .70 or above for all ten test-retest correlations (which is more than adequate for exploratory research). The final instrument reflected the aforementioned refinements.

Decision Choice Criteria

Five products were chosen for this study, and a set of decision criteria was established for each product. These were selected due to their use in previous research (e.g., Woodside 1972; Ritchie 1980). The products and the correspondidng choice criteria are shown in Table 1.

SAMPLING PROCEDURE

Study data were obtained from a sample of 252 families, using an optimal stratified sampling procedure (length of marriage was the critical variable) from the Wright State University Consumer Panel in the Dayton SMSA (N = 1000). The optimal allocation procedure was utilized to approximate a representative cross-section of married couples. A follow-up phone call (from the panel administrator) and an incentive (Green Stamps) were given in an attempt to maximize response rate. One hundred and ninety family survey instruments were returned (76%). Thirty-five of the returned instru- ments were incomplete on some critical dimension. This may be attributed to the length of the questionnaire. Therefore, 155 usable family survey instruments were included in this analysis, resulting in a final response rate of 61%.

ANALYSIS

The decision structure development was based upon the joint ranked lists of important decision criteria used to classify dyadic dominance (see Meth-

94 FAMILY DECISION MAKING: DECISION DOMINANCE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS - AN EXTENSION

Decision Criteria

Specific Product \ i 2 3 155

a,

b

C

d

e

f

g

5 5 -

i 4 5

3 2 2

-- -- 3

4 l i

-- -- 4

2 3 -

Figure I. Matrix of Frequencies for Decision Structure

COSENZA 95

odology). The joint lists of ranked decision choice criteria for each family were not necessarily the same. A list could consist of five (products) dif- ferent combinations of the ten to fourteen decision criteria. To assess deci- sion structure, a frequency tabulation was utilized, with no statistical hypothesis testing. In an attempt to obtain clarity, the relationship existing in the decision structures (rank of decision criteria) was analyzed descrip- tively, emphasizing structure similarity or dissimilarity between dyadic de- cision dominance classification.

The decision structure was based upon frequencies of the five most important agreed upon decision criteria (by product) across the dyads. The resulting tabular structure reflects the most frequently appearing decision item within each rank. Among all first-ranked decision criteria, the one with the highest percentage of occurrence appears first in Table 2. The same procedure was done for second, third, fourth, and fifth ranked deci- sion criteria. The only restriction was that a decision criteria could not appear more than once within a cell in Table 2. Table 2 consists of the most frequently appearing decision criteria within rank, as long as it was not the most frequently chosen decision criteria in the previous rank.

DISCUSSION

Table 2 illustrates the general decision structure over products for specific dyadic decision dominance classifications. These decision structures are examined for two purposes:

1. to establish decision differences across dominance groups (refer to Tables 2 and 3).

2. to establish the probable decision maker (dominant family member) and the criteria that are important to the decision (refer to Table 4).

In the purchase of women's casual clothing, price seemed to be the most important decision. Color did not appear important to the husband dominant groups. Method of purchase and media consultation are only important in the husband dominant group. When the husband dominates this purchase, because of the product unfamiliarity, he learns various aspects of style, fashionability, etc. from media sources. He is basically unfamiliar with the product in making the decision, but wants his wife to be fully informed before making the purchase. His major concern is the purchase mechanism (i.e., charge, cash, layaway), not the amount spent, In a joint decision or in a wife dominant decision, there is more familiarity with the product. Thus, mass media consultation is not extremely important.

96 FAMILY DECISION MAKING: DECISION DOMINANCE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS - AN EXTENSION

Table I

The Decision Criteria for Specific Products

Women's/Men's Apparel

- Price Range

- Type of Garment

- Method of Purchase

- Style of Garment

- Color

- Fabric

- Brand Name - S p e c i f i c P l ace of Purchase - Fit

- Amount Spent

- Whether to Consult Friends

- Whether to Consult Mass Media

- Whether to Visit Store

- To Actually Purchase the Item

Vacations

- Should We Go

- Amount to Spend

- Where to Go

- How to Travel

- How Long to Stay

- Whether to Bring Kids

- Whether to Travel With

Relatives

- Whether to Travel With a Tour

Group

- Whether to Take Separate

Vacations

- Time of Year for Vacation

- Accommocations

- Whether to Travel With Friends

Life Insurance

- Company

- Agency

- "Whole Life" Versus Term

- Should Wife Be Insured

- Amount of Coverage

- Family Budget Set Aside for

Insurance

- Whether to Consul[ Friends

Before Purchase

- Whether to Consult Relatives

Before Purchase

- Whether to Have Salesperson

Visit Home

- When to Purchase

- To Actually Purchase the

]nsurance

H o m e o w n e r ' s / R e n t e r ' s Insurance

- Company

- Agencies

- Amount of Deductible

- Amount of Coverage

- Family Budget Set Aside for

Homeowner's/Renter's Insurance

- When to Purchase

- Whether to Have S a l e s p e r s o n Visit Home

- To Consult Relatives

- To Consult Friends

- To Actually Purchase the

Insurance

COSENZA 97

Table 2

General Product Decision Structure of Dominance Classifications

In Order of Set Importance

Product

Women's Casual Clothing

Vacations

Men's

Casual Clothing

Importance Dyadic Dominance Classification Decision

Order Wife Dominant Sy~cratic Husband Dominant

n = 77 n = 26 n = 52

i Price Price Price

2 Style Fit Fit/Type * 3 Fit Fabric/Style* Method of Purchase 4 Fabric/Color* Color Style/Fabric*

5 Amount Spent Amount Spent Consult Mass Media

n = 67 n = 28 n = 60

I Should We Do Should We Oo Should We Co 2 Where to Go Amount Spent Where to Go

3 Amount Spent %fhere to Go Amount Spent 4 Where to Stay Accommodations Acconunodations/

Length of Stay* 5 Accommodations/ Length of Stay Time of Year

Time of Year*

n = 47 n = 31 n - 77

i Type of Garment Type/Price ~ Type of Garment

2 Price/Fit* Style/Fit* Style/Price* 3 Style/Color* Color Pit 4 Fabric Amount Spent Fabric 5 Specific Place of Fabric/Consult Color

Purchase/Consult Mass Media* Friends*

Product

Life Insurance

Importance D~adic Dominallce Classification Decision Order Wife Dominant Syncratic Husband Dominant

n = 52 n = 25 n = 78

I Coverage Company Company 2 Type Coverage Coverage

3 Insurance Agent Family Budget Type 4 Family Budget When Purchase Family Budget 5 Insurance Coverage Actually Purchase (Purchase Criteria)

Homeowner's/

Renter's Insurance

n = 48 n = 32 n = 75

i Coverage Company Coverage

2 Deductions Coverage Company

3 Company Deductions Deductions 4 Faml]y Budget When Purchase Agent 5 When Purchase Consult Friends/ When Purchase

Family Budget*

* i n d i c a t e s tie,

98 FAMILY DECISION MAKING: DECISION DOMINANCE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS - A N EXTENSION

* 0

>

o ~

~ 2 1.

m

�9 g

~ o o u~

F

~ m

o ~

0

> ~ ~

L

�9 ~ E m ~ . ~

L

0 cJ

.u

0 "~ ~J

c " . r

COSENZA 99

Table 4

Dominant Family Members and Their Basic Decision Structure Over Products

Product

Women's Casual Clothing

Vacations

Men's Casual Clothing

Life Insurance

Homeowner's/Renter's Insurance

Dominant

Wife Dominant

Syncratic

Husband Dominant

Husband Dominant

Husband Dominant

Decisions

Price, Style

Should we go, Where to go

Type of Garment, Style, Price

Company, Coverage

Coverage, Company

100 FAMILY DECISION MAKING: DECISION DOMINANCE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS - AN EXTENSION

In the purchase of vacations, the decision structures are somewhat similar across classifications. However, the rank of the decision criteria are some- what dissimilar. The most important decisions are "should we go" and "where to go" . The major differences seems to appear in the wife dominant and syncratic (joint decision) categories. The decision for a vacation pur- chase does not include a "t ime of year" criterion. Timing is not considered as important as the other decision criteria, such as where or when.

In the purchase of men's casual clothing, there are many interesting dissimilarities in decision structure across classifications. When the wife dominates this decision, she includes the importance of place of purchase and consultation with friends. When the decision is syncratic, amount spent is in the set, while it does not appear in either decision set of the other two categories. As expected, the husband dominant category seems to be the most structured category. Across all classifications, type, style, fit, and price seem to be the most important decisions.

In the purchase of life insurance, the decision structures are somewhat dissimilar. Although the husband dominant and syncratic structures include selection of specific company as most important, the wife dominant group emphasizes coverage aspects. The syncratic group is highly emphatic of purchase aspects, and when and where to purchase the insurance. While the wife dominant group includes selection of agent as important, the other groups do not. The wife dominant group generally emphasizes the infor- mational aspects of the decision, while the other two groups do not,

In the purchase of homeowner~renter insurance, coverage is the most important decision in all dominance classifications. The wife dominant and syncratic families are concerned with budget considerations, while the hus- band dominant group is concerned with specific company and agency se- lections. The major differences which emerge from the individual product control dominance decision structures are illustrated in Table 3.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is more than a replication of dyadic decision making studies in Marketing. It is an attempt to use new methodology consistent with the theory-measurement-analysis linkage in the study of family relationships (Thompson and Walker 1982). Prior results of studies in family decision making are substantiated by this new methodology. Previous studies pre- dicted: husband dominance for insurance, wife dominance for women's clothing, and equal influence for vacations. However, the use of the rneas-

COSENZA 101

uring process in this paper provided new and different insights into the influence structures of the dominant types.

Since most studies evaluating decision structure for specific products used the relative influence type measurement, there is no meaningful way to compare these present results. Generally, from a marketing perspective, it is beneficial to the strategist to determine who is the dominant influencer with regard to the specific product purchase decision and, then, to estimate which decision criteria (attributes) of the overall decision are most important.

If we examine the group that generally dominates the decision for each product and analyze their decision structures, we can expect the decision criteria in Table 4 to be critical to the purchase.

REFERENCES

Bettman, James. 1977. "Data Collection and Analysis Approaches for Studying Consumer Information Processing," in William Perreault (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research IV. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research. 342-348.

Bums, Alvin C. 1977. "Husband and Wife Purchase Decision-Making Roles: Agreed, Pre- sumed, Conceded and Disputed," in William Perreault (ed.) Advances in Consumer Re- search IV. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research. 50-5.

Bums, Alvin C. and Granbois, D. H. 1977. "Factors Moderating the Resolution of Preference Conflict in Family Automobile Purchasing." Journal of Marketing Research 14 (February) 77-86.

Corrales, R. G. 1975. "Power and Satisfaction in Early Marriage." Power in Families. Edited by R. Cromwell and D. Olson, New York: John Wiley and Sons. 197-216

Cunningham, I. and Green, R. 1974. "Purchasing Roles in Consumer Decision Making Revisited." Journal of Marketing 38 (October) 61-81.

Davis, D. L. and Robert M. Cosenza, 1985. Business Research for Decision Making. Boston: Kent Publishing Company.

Davis, H. L. 1970. "Dimensions of Material Roles in Consumer Decision Making." Journal of Marketing Research 7 (May) 168-t7%

Davis, H. L. 1971. "Measurement of Husband-Wife Influence in Consumer Purchase Deci- sions." Journal of Marketing Research (August) 305-312.

Davis, H. L. 1976. "Decision Making Within the Household." Journal of Consumer Research 2 (March) 241-260.

Douglas, Susan E and Wind, Y. 1978. "Examining Family Role and Authority Patterns: Two Methodological Issues." Journal of Marriage and the Family (February) 35-47.

Ferber, R. and Lee, L. C. 1974. "Husband-Wife Influence in Family Purchasing Behavior." Journal of Consumer Research 1 (June) 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) 131-142.

Hempel, D. J. 1974. "Family Buying Decisions: A Cross-Cultural Perspective." Journal of Marketing Research 11 (August) 295-302.

102 FAMILY DECISION MAKING: DECISION DOMINANCE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS - AN EXTENSION

Hempel, D. J. 1975. "Family Role Structure and Housing Decisions," in M. S. Schlinger (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research II, Chicago: Association for Consumer Research. 71-80.

McDonald, G. W. 1980. "Family Power: The Assessment of a Decade of Theory and Re- search." Journal af Marriage and the Family 42,841-854.

Miller, S. and Wackman, D. "Work Ranking Instrument." Unpublished instrument. Minne- apolis: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Family Study Center.

Munsinger, Gary M., Weber, Jean, and Hansen, Richard. 1975. "Joint Home Purchasing Decisions by Husbands and Wives." Journal of Consumer Research 1 (March) 60-66.

Nunnaly, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Quarm, Daisy. 1981. "Random Measurement Error as a Source of Discrepancies Between the Reports of Wives and Husbands Concerning Marital Power and Task Allocation." Journal of Marriage and the Family (August) 521-535.

Rothschild, C. S. 1969. "'Patterns of Familial Power and Influence." Sociological Focus 2 (Spring) 7-19.

Schumm, Walter R. 1982. "'Integrating Theory, Measurement and Data Analysis in Family Studies Survey Research." Journal of Marriage and the Family 44 (November) 983-989.

Shuptrine, E K. and Samuelson, G. 1976. "Dimensions of Marital Roles in Consumer Decision Making: Revisited.'" Journal of Marketing Research 13 (February) 87-91.

Silk, A. J. and Davis, H. L. 1974. "Small Group Theory," in R. Ferber (ed.) Handbook of Marketing Research, New York: McGraw-Hill. 159-192.

Thompson, L. and Walker, A. I. 1982. "The Dyad as the Unit of Analysis: Conceptual and Methodological Issues." Journal of Marriage and the Family 44 (November) 88%901.

Woodside, Arch. 1972. "'Dominance and Conflict in Family Purchasing Decisions," in M. Venkatesan (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Assaciation for Consumer Research Conference. 540-659.

Zaltman, G. and Wallendorf, M. 1983. Consumer Behavior: Individuals, Groups, and Or- ganizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ROBERT M. COSENZA is currently at San Diego University. He is also involved in developing marketing education programs for corporate semi- nars and publication. Previously he was an Associate professor of Market- ing at the McLaren College of Business of the University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Dr. Cosenza received is M.B.A. from the Bernard Baruch College of the City University of New York and his D.B.A. from the University of Kentucky. Dr. Cosenza's research interests are in the area of family decision behavtor, distribution models and strategic marketing. He is the co-author of a textbook entitled, Business Research for Decision Making, for Kent Publishing Co.. Dr. Cosenza has also published articles

Ck3SENZA )~)3

in Interfaces, Public Relations Journal, Journal of Travel Research, Journal of Business Communications and the Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, and has presented a number of papers at regional and national conferences.