NUDGE APPLICATIONS IN CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION OF … · 54 Parikalpana -uKIIT Journal of Management NUDGE APPLICATIONS IN CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION OF CHILDREN Vivek Mishra Assistant

Parikalpana - KIIT Journal of Management54

NUDGE APPLICATIONS IN CONSUMERSOCIALIZATION OF CHILDREN

Vivek MishraAssistant Professor (Marketing), CV Raman Group of Institutions, Bhubaneswar, India,

[email protected]

Biswajit DasProfessor (Marketing), KIIT School of Management, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India,

[email protected]

DOI: 10.23862/kiit-parikalpana/2018/v14/i1/173251

ABSTRACTA child’s thought process is sculptured by the factors that are found typically inthe environment; where he/she grows up. Hence the efforts of marketers aredirectionally focused on creating an environment in order to facilitate the consumersocialization of children. Recently nudge strategies have also attracted theattention of researchers and policymakers because of their potential in influencingthe behavior of individuals. By adopting and utilizing review of existing literature,this perusal attempts to analyze the socialization process through facets ofbehavioral economics, to “nudge” children towards a consumer-specific behavior.The study also intends to facilitate marketers in framing the right strategy, whiledeciding on the content of their promotions. It facilitates advertisers to have abetter understanding of a child’s cognitive abilities, the perception ofadvertisements and their progression as consumers.

Keywords: Nudge, Perception, Consumer Socialization, Advertising, Cognition, Attitude

INTRODUCTION

Child customers are heavily influenced bythe various commercial messages that lureand excite through the various mediapromotions. Evidently, children are a vitaltarget segment for advertisers around theworld. They are thought to be capable ofinfluencing their parent’s purchasedecisions. Hence promoting to them isviewed as an exceptionally effectiveapproach in order to create a pool ofprospective customers. In order to make

an alluring picture in the brains of thechildren, advertisers wish to secure alifetime shopping experience in their mindsand heart. They are being focused on childconsumers with enormous proportions anddoses. There are numerous ways thatorganizations promote to children andcontextually television has turned out to bea vital impact in the child’s life.

Research based on advertisements havereliably attempted to distinguish and delivervital issues relating to kids’ demeanors

Parikalpana - KIIT Journal of Management, Vol.14(I), 2018

55Nudge applications in consumer socialization of children

towards television commercials. It iscrucial for marketers to recognize whetherchildren understand the intent ofadvertising. For marketers, the major areaof concern is whether children are able todifferentiate between advertisements andprograms while watching television. Threecategories of specific impact of televisioncommercials have been identified byRossiter (1979), namely: cognitiveeffects, concentrating on child’s potentialto comprehend promotions, attitudinaleffects, focusing on children’s feelingstowards television advertising andbehavioral effects, uniting on the level towhich kids are induced to want andrequest the brands being promoted.

Interest in the area of consumersocialization of children is growing rapidlyamong public policy makers, marketers,consumer educators, and researchers.According to Schiffman and Kanuk(2007), consumer socialization can bedefined as “the process by which childrenacquire the skills, knowledge, attitudes,and experiences necessary to function asconsumers”. The socialization processrevolves around, the socialization agent andthe type of learning actually operating. Anumber of studies have concentrated onhow youngsters form skills related toconsumption. Researchers have alsoadditionally revealed that children primarilyrespond to advertisements emphatically.For their choice of products, they try toutilize the celebrity/ representative in theendorsement, who appears to satisfy aparental part.

The concept of nudging was firstintroduced by American authors RichardH. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (2008) intheir book “Nudge: improving decisionsabout health, richness, and happiness”. Ina general sense, nudging refers to adifferent aspect of choosing thearchitecture which alters the behavior ofindividuals in a prognostic manner, withoutexcluding other options (Thaler, Sunstein,2008). The nudge theory aims atimproving, changing and administrating theprocess of heuristic influences on thehuman behavior, which is targeted atchanging people. These days, expandingconsideration is being paid to nudging asa sort of mediation to make little,recognizable or unnoticeable changes in theenvironment to make the alternatives moreideal. As indicated by Thaler and Sunstein“it is conceivable to nudge people into aspecific behaviour by utilization of theheuristics, emotions, habits and biases wehave”. Nudging intercessions intend toencourage buyer’s choice by altering theenvironment in which such choices aremade. In that capacity, nudging alludes to“any aspect of the choice architecture thatadjusts individuals’ conduct in a predictableway without forbidding any options orsignificantly changing their economicincentives” (Marteau, Ogilvie, Roland,Suhrcke, & Kelly, 2011).

Theoretical BackgroundAccording to John (1999), there are threestages of consumer socialization inchildren, classified by their ages. First isthe perceptual stage which is related to


three to seven years of age, wherein kidscan differentiate advertisements from aprogram based on perceptual features,holding positive attitudes towardscommercials and believe that they aretruthful, funny and interesting. The secondstage, known as the analytical stage,related to seven to eleven years of age,kids can differentiate commercials fromprogrammes through a persuasive intent,

holding negative attitudes and understandthat advertisements may contain bias anddeception. In the last stage, the reflectivestage, including kid’s between eleven tosixteen years of age, kids understand thepersuasive intent, tactics, and appealsinvolved in the advertisement. Anillustration of the same has been given inthe below figure (Figure 1).

Perceptual Stage: This stage (ages 3–7)is described by a general introductiontowards the prompt and readily noticeableperceptual components of the market-place. The consumer knowledge ofchildren is portrayed by perceptualelements and refinements, regularlycentered on a single element or feature,and meant by real subtle elements fromtheir own perceptions.

Figure 1 – Stages of Consumer Socialization. Source: John (1999)

Analytical Stage: Huge changes happen,both socially and psychologically, aschildren progress into this stage (ages 7–11). This phase includes the most essentialadvancements as far as consumerinformation and aptitudes are concerned.Cognition takes place at a more dynamiclevel, creating a ground for learningorganizations that incorporate statisticsregarding unique ideas, e.g. advertiser’s

57

create an environment where children learnto behave as consumers (John, 1999).According to Moschis and Churchill(1978) taking a closer look at the relativeinfluence of these agents of socializationwill enable policymakers to evaluatecommercial stimuli. Although there hasbeen extensive research on the agents ofconsumer socialization and their relativeimpact, no previous studies haveattempted to apply nudge principles to theprocess of socialization. This conceptualarticle aims at addressing that gap bybuilding a hybrid frameworkencompassing both traditional and nudgestools for the socialization to occur. Thispaper argues that the two agents ofsocialization namely television and siblingsactually aim at shaping the consumer skillsof a child through nudging.

Review of Literature

Children as Potential Consumers

The study by McNeal (1998) featured thatchildren comprise three distinctiveconsumer markets: “primary, influence andfuture”. Significance of children as anessential target market for items like toys,snacks, garments and so forth, has for quitesome time been recognized and tended toby advertisers. Anyway the power andsize of this market has now gone upsignificantly. According to Gram (2007),advertisers of adult product-classes arelikewise escalating endeavors to charmchildren for their part as key influencersand future shoppers. The explorations byHoward and Madrigal (1990) & Gram and

thought processes and also the thought ofpossibilities.

Reflective Stage: This phase (age 11–16yrs.) is portrayed by further improvementin various proportions of reasoning andsocietal advancement. Gaining insights intothe ideas related the marketplace likebranding and pricing turns out to be muchmore mind-boggling as kids cultivateabilities related to the processing ofinformation and socialization.

Objectives of the study

1. To examine and compare the influenceof television commercials and siblingson the child’s product-specificconsumption preferences

2. To correlate the nudge principles ofpriming and framing with the consumersocialization process

3. To help marketers modify theirstrategies in order to create maximumimpact in the children’s consumptionpatterns through an understanding oftheir cognitive abilities.

Research Gap

Over the last few years, research in thearea of behavioral economics and nudginghas attempted to provide insights into howpeople actually make decisions based ontheir judgment of the stimulus they areexposed to. From the consumersocialization perspective, children oftenacquire social skills by modeling parents,peers, siblings and mass media (Bandura,2002). These agents of socialization also

Nudge applications in consumer socialization of children


Therkelsen (2003) reveal that childrenhave a strong impact in family decisionmaking and they may initiate the buy,gather data about available alternatives,propose retail outlets, and have a say inthe final product choice. Bridges andBriesch (2006), suggest that while devisingmarketing strategies focusing on children,it is critical to consider whether the productcategory is one in which children may haveimpact. As per Beatty and Talpade(1994), the extent and nature of children’simpact is dependent on, who uses theproduct and the apparent significance ofthe product to the user.

Consumer SocializationIn the words of Ward & Wackman(1972), consumer socialization can bedefined as “the process by which youngpeople acquire skills, knowledge andattitudes relevant to their functioning in themarket place”. The most commonsocialization agents for children are family,siblings, television, in which parental styleand media communication patterns arepivotal in children’s purchase behavior.According to McNeal and Yeh (2003), theconsumer socialization process of childrenbegins when they start accompanying theirparents to various stores for purchases.Children initially make purchase requestsfor the products they prefer, but as theygrow they start visiting the stores and makepurchases of their choice. A number ofstudies have been carried out in order tounderstand how children developconsumption habits and act as consumers.According to John (1999), children

develop their consumer behavior norms byobserving their parents and siblings, whooften act as role models and potentialsources for consumption related cues. Astudy by Rummel et al. (2000), shows thatchildren react positively to commercialsinvolving a spokesperson, who fulfills therole of a parent.

Agents of Consumer socializationIn his study John (1999), combined thefindings from Piaget’s (1970) theory ofintellectual development and Selman’s(1980) theory of social development andproposed a consumer socialization modelwhere children transform into consumersby passing through a series ofdevelopmental processes. In their researchWard et al. (1977) have put the learningtheory into practice, in order to elaborateon the concept of consumer socializationand assumed that: understanding ofproduct-related information is a primaryelement of children’s learning of themarketplace. According to McLeod andO’Keefe (1972), agents of socializationare those persuasive sources that expressnorms, attitudes, motivations, and behaviorto the learner. Further research conductedby Ward (1974), has provided withsubstantial evidence to prove that brands,products, packaging, parents, peers, massmedia, and retail outlets are considered tobe sources of information and have beenidentified as agents of socialization. Thesources of influence upon the socializationof children are personal and situationalfactors, namely: attitude towards theproduct, brand and store experiences,

59

advice in the marketplace and the buyingculture adopted from parents, peers andmass-media (Mascarenhas and Higby,1993).

Television as an Agent of Socialization

In the words of Moschis (1987), ascompared with other agents, mass mediahas received the most attention, as an agentof consumer socialization. Specifically,television among all forms of media playsthe role of a pervasive agent of socializationfor children. According to O’Guinn andShrum (1997), the two primary dimensionsof media, namely – advertising and content,are the key influencers and have maximumimpact on children. A study by Moschisand Churchill (1978), reveals that in thecontext of consumer socialization, higherexposure and interaction with mass medialeads to increased learning of consumerbehavior among children. The researchconducted by McNeal and Ji (1999),revealed that on an average, children areexposed to around four hours of televisionevery day, which is considered to be a vitalsource of information for learning aboutnew products.

Distinguishing Advertisements fromTelevision ProgramsChildren’s ability to distinguish a televisionprogram from a commercial is an area thathas been subject to a lot of disagreement.In the study of children aged between twoto seven years by Rubin (1974) and aperusal of children less than five years ofage by Kunkel and Robert’s (1991), it wasevident that children were incapable of

distinguishing between televisionadvertisements and programmes. On theother hand, a study of children under fiveyears of age by Gaines and Esserman(1981), followed by Petros and Petrella(1982), advocated that children are verymuch capable of distinguishing betweenboth. These contradicting views can besubstantiated by taking into account therelevant age-group under scrutiny and themethod of research adopted, namely;verbal, non-verbal or observational. Intheir respective studies, Preston (2000),Young (1990) and Dorr (1986) argue thatfive years is the defining moment whenchildren cultivate the ability for theadvertisement/programme differentiationbu the help of cues. As examined byGoldberg (1990), in a study of four andfive-year-olds, it was evident that childrenwere able to point out how anadvertisement is different from aprogramme but could not explain why theywere different.

Childs Understanding of AdvertisingIntentAccording to Martin (1997), advertisingintent can be defined with regard to thechild’s comprehension of an advertisementand additionally their understanding of theadvertiser’s primary motive behind thesame. In this regard, children’sunderstanding of the advertising intent isconsidered to be either assistive/informative or persuasive/selling. In thewords of Preston (2000), deliveringproduct related information to the intendedtarget audience is facilitated by the



informative role, whereas the persuasiverole denotes the motive of anadvertisement aiming at the developmentof a purchase intention. Blosser andRoberts (1985) are of the view that,advertising intent in a broader scopeincludes – information, teaching,entertainment, selling, and persuasion.Further study by Lawlor and Prothero(2000), suggests that the schema of theadvertiser can be represented by twoprimary intentions, namely; persuasive andinformational.

Effects of Advertising on Children

As the essential goal of promoting is toimpact the consumer perceptions about abrand (Romaniuk and Nicholls, 2006)which are ultimately related to the finalpurchase (Nedungadi 1990; Keller, 2003;Tipps, Berger, and Weinberg 2006), it isnormal that many studies in advertisinghave attempted to think of more effectiveapproaches to persuade buyers(Romaniuk and Nicholls, 2006). As of late,discourses of advertising impacts from thepoint of view of purchasers have gottenmore consideration (Gould and Gupta,2006). Research concentrating on theconceivable negative effect of advertisingon particular groups of consumers, forexample, children, has expanded(Livingstone and Helsper, 2006). Notquite the same as the discourses abouthow advertising can persuade targetgroups all the more proficiently, the realreasons for the examinations managingconceivable negative impacts of advertising

talk about stricter directions on the contentof commercials (Henderson et. al., 2004).

Siblings as Agents of Socialization

Siblings are considered to have a profoundimpact on the emotional, cognitive andsocial development of children (Dunn,2002; Karos et al., 2007; Pike et al.,2005), and for some people, the siblingrelationship is their most perseveringassociation. Relationship among siblings isa crucial aspect of children’s socialuniverses and is implanted in a progressionof pro-social and negative interactions(Karos et al., 2007), with it portrayed asa fluctuating relationship (Edwards et al.,2005; Punch, 2008) that regularly includesboth co-operation and strife (Punch,2008). In accordance with fundamentalways to deal with family life, the nature ofparent-child relationship can also affectsibling relations (Minuchin, 1988; Pike etal., 2005), with parental differentialtreatment (PDT) of kids offering to ascendto sibling contention (Suitor et al., 2008;Tucker et al., 2005).

Nudging and its effectiveness

The effectiveness of nudging in altering thebehavior and value structure of individualsis considered to be of high practicalsignificance. The critics of nudging seekan explanation to whether designing choicearchitecture facilitates sustainable changesin the behavior of individuals (Goodwin,2012). They claim that considerablebehavioral effect prompting long-termsustainable practices requires consumer’sacknowledgment of the criticalness to

61

change ways of life and consequentbehavioral modifications. Additionally, intheir effort to increase revenues, marketerscan neutralize uninformed behavior whichas a resultant of nudges. Therefore, thesecontradicting forces could prompt aframework in which huge investments inthe form of public finance can be utilizedto nudge behaviors. These nudges canbenefit the individuals and the society atlarge, simultaneously being counteractedby marketing strategies (Wilkinson, 2013).

Nudging as a behavioral mediationNudging is derived from conceptsdeveloped in the field of behavioraleconomics, which is the science ofbehavior choice or “choice architecture”(Desai 2011; Hargreaves Heap 2013).Nudges have been also widely applied inconsumer and competition policies,especially when it comes to providingdefault options in situations with complexinformation or simplifying complexinformation for users. In the words ofThaler and Sunstein (2008), there existsan automatic mental system, which theyrefer to as “mindless choosing”. The nudgetactics are aimed at influencing this aspectof “mindless choosing”. They are of theview that consumers know about thedecisions they make and the results in spiteof the fact that the choices may not be totheir best advantage. Nudging can beviewed as the ‘libertarian paternalism’,development, where “libertarian” alludesto an opportunity of a decision. Whereas,“paternalism”, suggests a methodologywhere it is authentic to impact the settings

to build one specific decision (Bonell,McKee, Fletcher, Wilkinson, and Haines,2011; Thaler and Sunstein, 2008).

Nudging and Consumer decisionmaking

The varied choices made by consumersmake are grounded on direct gratificationand receiving an immediate favorableoutcome which is widely preferred (Ainslie,2001). Individuals tend to favor delightsof a shorter duration and get over the long-term impact of a buying decision. Incontrast, they will agree to take a phaseof non-pleasantness if the culmination isworthy (Kahneman, 2012). Individualpractices are primarily decisions that aretaken in a subconscious way and theyrepresent non-reflective repetitive behavior(Verplanken & Wood, 2006). In the wordsof Wood & Neal, (2007) people acquirehabits by those series of actions which havebeen repeated earlier through gratifyingoutcomes and the environment acts as atrigger to produce that behavior. Accordingto (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, (2000), as afunctional tool habits are aimed atobtaining specific goals and they tend tostrengthen over time through repetitivebehavior.

Developing Conceptual Frameworksutilizing Framing and PrimingFraming and Consumer SocializationNudging expands on the knowledge thatavailability of information to individualmatters but also the way it is presented isequally crucial. Simplifying information anda proper understanding of its context of



the presentation, often leads a change inan individual’s choice of products.According to John et al (2013), nudgingis all about providing information andmeaningful gestures in order to enableindividuals to make positive choices forthemselves. The framing of an issue is alsoadditionally imperative, it can be explainedas the phrasing of information in a mannerthat essentially facilitates and initiatescertain values and attitudes of people.Framing basically includes choice andprominence. It involves choosing someaspects of a perceived reality and makingthem more noteworthy in the context ofcommunication. As explored by Entman(1993), framing facilitates the promotionand definition of specific issues, causalunderstanding, moral assessment and

treatment suggestions for the object beingportrayed. A conceptual frameworkportraying the concept of framing is givenas below (Figure 2).

As depicted in the above model (Figure2) primarily comprises of four sections,namely- antecedents, framing, mentaloutcomes and behavioural outcomes.Section one of the model represents thoseelements that pre-exist the framing process.The second part of the framework includesthe typical roles played by siblings in thepassing on and framing the information fortheir younger brother/sister. They play therole of simplifying the information throughregular interactions, further facilitated bysharing of products. The penultimatesegment portrays the child’s understanding

Figure 2: A Conceptual Model of Sibling Relationship, Framing andConsumer Socialization of Children.

Source: Adapted from Daniel B. Wackman & Scott Ward (1976) and Danny N. Bellenger &George P. Moschis (1982).

63

of the information thereby leading tolearning. The child pays attention to theinformation received based on his/her levelof cognitive development. Then thesequence of the structuring of informationdirectionally leads to brand perception.The final phase of the figure denotes thebehavioural outcomes of framing in theform of purchase requests by the child.

Consumer Socialization throughPriming

Having already discussed on the children’sattention and thought to the behavior oftheir siblings, this framework focuses onthe power of priming. Research in socialsciences has uncovered that individualscan be primed into specific behavior byoffering straightforward and evidently

irrelevant cues (Thaler and Sunstein,2008). William J. Cusick (2009), in hisbook, elaborates on the concept ofpriming. According to him, primingdescribes a phenomenon wherein a personis subconsciously reacting to a stimulus thatis inherently positive/negative. Priming heremight be seen as an idea that portrays howexternal forces influence our emotions,decision and action in a random manner.In the words of David Halpern (2015),priming sometimes is with the intent, suchas through the thousands ofadvertisements we are exposed to.

A conceptual model on priming is depictedbelow (Figure 3). The frameworkillustrates the four core phases of stimuli,priming, processing of information and the


Figure 3: Television Commercials, Priming, and Consumer Socialization.

Source: Adapted from Scott Ward, Donna M. Klees and Thomas S. Robertson (1987).


outcomes. It is an elaboration of the S-O-R (Stimuli Organism Response) model ofconsumer behavior. The initial phase of themodel represents the various aspects ofthe stimuli (television advertisements),which include elements like advertisingcontent, the intent of the advertiser, theappeal created through advertisementsand the degree of the child’s exposure tothe medium, often regulated by the parents.A crucial element of this phase being, theability of the child to differentiate betweentelevision programs and adverts.

The second section of the model highlightsthe priming concept, which includes thefollowing celebrity endorser/commercialcontent elements: Direct/Indirectinstructions – where the child viewer istold what to do and what not to. TheModeling element approaches the childviewer by depicting good things happeningto children because of something they do.Overvoice, a cultural way of addingauthority to the commercial message,normally by using a male voice, ultimatelyappealing to the anxieties of the child. Thelast two sections of the model include theInformation Processing phase and theOutcomes of the same.

Limitations and Scope for FutureResearch

This conceptual article is not devoid oflimitations. The perusal and the conceptualmodels have been developed using reviewof existing literature only, research in futurecan aim at validating the same throughempirical evidence. This study has taken

into consideration only two agents ofsocialization, namely – television andsiblings. Future explorations can make anexhaustive comparison of all the otherforms of socialization agents in children.The concept of nudging incorporates manyother strategies, this paper has utilized onlytwo of them i.e. priming and framing. Theother nudges can also be delved into inthe future.

Implications

This study raises interesting implications asto how companies would want to designthe child consumers experience in orderto encourage purchase. If companiescould really understand the impact ofpriming and framing on their childcustomers, it would encourageintrospection regarding their overallcustomer experience. This paper focuseson the lessons that can be drawn frombehavioral economics and the nudgeapproach in overcoming global marketingchallenges which shall help global practicesin marketing.

Conclusion and Discussions

This study was designed to have a deeperunderstanding of the role of televisionadvertisements and the siblings’psychology, leading to the shaping ofchildren psyche as consumers. Designinga schematic plan to nudge the childcustomer and effectively impacting theirconsumption preferences requires athorough understanding of their cognitiveabilities. The conceptual modelsdeveloped in the study shall facilitate a

65

better understanding of nudging andapplication of the same in the field of globalmarketing practices. The effect of parentaldifferential treatment, coupled with thenature of sibling realtionships, can act aspotential cues for marketers in creatingbetter nudges in the form of their marketingcommunications.

The conceptual foundations developed inthis paper can be of specific significancein the context of current scholarly debateson the relevance of nudging. Apart fromthat, this study revealed a lackingacquaintance with the idea of nudging andperhaps inadequate significant impressionsof these strategies on child consumers.Considering the possible theoreticalimplications and relevance of this article inimbibing nudge aspects in the area ofconsumer behavior, it should not beconsidered as a ground for deciding foror against the implementation of nudges.Rather, this paper argues that the cognitiveand behavioral aspects of the child shouldbe considered as a basis for strategy designand implementation. At the same time, theethical need of involving consumers intothe judging of nudge elements requiresenhanced information levels and consumerinvolvement. For the meantime, no directrationalization can be identified to rejectnudging, yet this conclusion cannot bedrawn across all purviews of behavior.

ReferencesAarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000).Habits as knowledge structures:automaticity in goal-directed behavior.

Journal of personality and socialpsychology, 78(1).

Ainslie, G. (2001). Breakdown of will:Cambridge University Press.

Blosser, B.J. and Roberts, D.F. (1985),“Age Differences in Children’s Perceptionsof Message Intent – Responses to TVNews, Commercials, Educational Spotsand Public Service Announcements”,Communication Research, 12(4).

C.Bonell, McKee, M., Fletcher, A.,Wilkinson, P., & Haines, A. (2011). Onenudge forward, two steps back. BMJ.Daniel B. Wackman and Scott Ward(1976) ,”The Development of ConsumerInformation-Processing Skills:Contributions From CognitiveDevelopment Theory”, in NA - Advancesin Consumer Research Volume 03, eds.Beverlee B. Anderson, Cincinnati, OH :Association for Consumer Research,Pages: 531-535

Danny N. Bellenger and George P.Moschis (1982) ,”A Socialization Modelof Retail Patronage”, in NA - Advances inConsumer Research Volume 09, eds.Andrew Mitchell, Ann Abor, MI :Association for Consumer Research,Pages: 373-378.

David Halpern, Inside the Nudge Unit:How small changes can make a bigdifference (London, Ebury Publishing2015).

Desai, A. C. (2011). LibertarianPaternalism, Externalities, and the ‘Spiritof Liberty’: How Thaler and Sunstein are



Nudging Us toward an ‘OverlappingConsensus.’ Law and Social Inquiry,36(1).

Dorr, A. (1986), Television and Children:A Special Medium for a Special Audience,California, Sage

Dunn, J. (2002), “Sibling relationships”,in Smith, P. and Hart, C. (Eds), BlackwellHandbook of Childhood and SocialDevelopment, Blackwell, Oxford.

Gaines, L. and Esserman, J.F. (1981), “AQuantitative Study of Young Children’sComprehension of Television Programmesand Commercials”, In: Esserman, J.F.(Ed.), Television Advertising andChildren, New York, Child ResearchService

Goldberg, M.E. (1990), “A Quasi-Experiment Assessing the Effectiveness ofTV Advertising Directed to Children”,Journal of Marketing Research,27(November).

Goodwin, T. (2012). Why We shouldreject ‘Nudge’. Politics, 32(2), 85–92.

Gould, S. J., Gupta, P. B. (2006). Comeon down: How consumers view gameshows and the products placed in them.Journal of Advertising, 35.

Hargreaves Heap, S. P. (2013). What isthe Meaning of Behavioural Economics?Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37.

Henderson, P. W., J. L. Geise, J. A. Cote.(2004). Impression management usingtypeface design. J. Marketing, 68(4).

Hinde, R. and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (Eds),

Relationships Within Families: MutualInfluences, Clarendon, Oxford.

John, D. R. (1999). ConsumerSocialization of Children: A RetrospectiveLook At Twenty Five Years of Research.Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3).

John, Peter, Sarah Cotterill, LizRichardson, Alice Moseley, Gerry Stoker,Corinne Wales, Graham Smith, HanhuaLiu and Hisako Nomura (2013), Nudge,Nudge, Think, Think: Experimenting withWays to Change Civic Behaviour,London, Bloomsbury Academic.

Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking Fastand Slow.

Karos, L.K., Howe, N. and Aquan-Assee, J. (2007), “Reciprocal andcomplementary sibling interactions,relationship quality and socio-emotionalproblem solving”, Infant and ChildDevelopment, 16(6).

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic BrandManagement: Building, Measuring, andManaging Brand Equity, 2d ed. PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kerrane, B., Bettany, S.M. & Kerrane,K. (2015),” Siblings as socialization agentsExploring the role of ‘sibship’ in theconsumer socialization of children “,European Journal of Marketing, 49(5/6).

Kunkel, D. and Roberts, D. (1991),“Young Minds and Marketplace Values:Issues in Children’s TelevisionAdvertising”, Journal of Social Issues,47(1).

67

Lawlor, M.A. and Prothero, A. (2002),“The Established and Potential MediatingVariables in the Child’s Understanding ofAdvertising Intent: Towards a ResearchAgenda”, Journal of MarketingManagement, 18(5/6).Levin, S., Petros, T. and Petrella, F.(1982), “Pre-Schoolers’ Awareness ofTelevision Advertising”, ChildDevelopment, 53(4).Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. J. (2006),Does Advertising Literacy Mediate theEffects of Advertising on Children? ACritical Examination of Two LinkedResearch Literatures in Relation to Obesityand Food Choice. Journal ofCommunication, 56.Marteau, T. M., Ogilvie, D., Roland, M.,Suhrcke, M., & Kelly, M. P. (2011).Judging nudging: can nudging improvepopulation health? BMJ.Mascarenhas, O.A.J. and Higby, M.A.(1993), “Peer, parent, and mediainfluences in teen apparel shopping”,Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 21(1).McLeod, J.M. and G.J. O’Keefe (1972),“The Socialization Perspective andCommunication Behavior,” in F.G. Kline& P.J. Tichenor (eds.), CurrentPersPectives in Mass CommunicationResearch, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.McNeal, J.U. and Ji, M.F. (1999),“Chinese children as consumers: ananalysis of their new product informationsources”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,16(4).

Minuchin, P. (1988). Relationships withinthe family: A systems perspective ondevelopment. In R. A. Hinde & J.Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationshipswithin families: Mutual influences (pp. 7–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moschis, G.P. (1987), ConsumerSocialization: A Life Style Perspective,Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Moschis, G.P. and Churchill, G.A. (1978),“Consumer socialization: a theoretical andempirical analysis”, Journal of MarketingResearch.

Nedungadi, P.(1990). Recall andConsumer Consideration Sets: Influencingchoice without altering brand evaluations.Journal of Consumer Psychology. 17 (1).

Piaget, J. (1970). Science of Educationand the Psychology of the Child. NewYork: Orion Press.

Pike, A., Coldwell, J. and Dunn, J.F.(2005), “Sibling relationships in early/middle childhood: links with individualadjustment”, Journal of FamilyPsychology, 19(4).

Preston, C. (2000), “Are Children SeeingThrough ITC Advertising Regulations?”,International Journal of Advertising 19(1).

Punch, S. (2008), “‘You can do nastythings to your brothers and sisters withouta reason’: siblings’ backstage behaviour”,Children and Society, 22(5).

Romaniuk, J., & Nicholls, E. (2006).Evaluating advertising effects on brandperceptions: incorporating prior



knowledge. International Journal ofMarket Research, 48 (2).

Rossiter, J. R. (1979). Does televisionadvertising affect children? Journal ofAdvertising Research, 19.

Rubin, R.S. (1974), “The Effects ofCognitive Development on Children’sResponses to Television Advertising”,Journal of Business Research, 2(4),October.

Schiffman, L. G. and Kanuk, L. L. (2007).Consumer Socialization. In ConsumerBehavior (Vol. 9, pp. 333-335), Delhi,India: Prentice-Hall of India.

Scott Ward, Donna M. Klees, andThomas S. Robertson (1987) ,”ConsumerSocialization in Different Settings: anInternational Perspective”, in NA -Advances in Consumer Research Volume14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and PaulAnderson, Provo, UT : Association forConsumer Research, Pages: 468-472.

Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth ofinterpersonal understanding. New York:Academic Press.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008).Nudge: Improving decisions about health,

wealth, and happiness: Yale UniversityPress.

Tipps, S., Berger, P.D. and Weinberg,B.D. (2006), “The Effect of MediaInvolvement on Print AdvertisingEffectiveness,” Journal of PromotionManagement, 12(2).

Verplanken, B., & Wood, W. (2006).Interventions to break and createconsumer habits. Journal of PublicPolicy & Marketing,

Ward, S. (1974). Consumer Socialization,Journal of Consumer Research.

Ward, S., Wackman, D. and Wartella, E.(1977). How Children Learn to Buy,Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Wilkinson, T.M., (2013). Nudging andmanipulation. Political Studies, 61, 341–355.

William J. Cusick, All customers areIrrational: Understanding What TheyThink, What They Feel & What KeepsThem Coming Back (New York,AMACOM 2009)

Young, B. (1990), Television Advertisingand Children, Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress.

qqq

Documents

NUDGE APPLICATIONS IN CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION OF … · 54 Parikalpana -uKIIT Journal of Management NUDGE APPLICATIONS IN CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION OF CHILDREN Vivek Mishra Assistant