Parental Influence on Consumer and Purchase Behaviour of Generation Y

ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016

PARENTAL INFLUENCE ON CONSUMER AND PURCHASE BEHAVIOUR OF GENERATION Y

Melanie Wiese* & Liezl-Marié Kruger

OPSOMMING Sosiale Kognitiewe Teorie omdat ouers as rolmodelle Generation Y se verbruikersgedrag Die vaardighede, kennis en houdings om beïnvloed het en verbruikersgedrag het weer verbruikersbesluitneming te verwesenlik word aankoopgedrag beïnvloed. Die bekom deur, onder andere, sosialisering. verbruikdergedrag en aankoopgedrag van Sosialisering van verbruikers om te besluit oor Generasie Y weerspieël dus hul ouers se die aankoop, verbruik en wegdoen van goedere opinies, omdat hul nog steeds hul ouers as geskied deur verskeie partye, onder andere rolmodelle beskou. Alhoewel vorige studies rolmodelle. Verskeie studies het bevind dat getoon het dat Generasie Y geneig mag wees rolmodelle ’n invloed het op verbruikersgedrag, om nie hul ouers as rolmodelle te beskou of wil waarvan die uitkoms behels dat verbruikers erken nie, is hierdie bevindinge ŉ aanduiding soortgelyke besluite neem as hul rolmodelle. dat die invloed van ouers as rolmodelle tog die Die familie is een van die belangrikste eenhede gedrag van Generasie Y in terme van hul waarbinne sosialisering geskied en bied ŉ gulde verbruikersgedrag asook hul aankoopgedrag geleentheid vir rolmodelle om die gedrag van beïnvloed. Hierdie bevindinge plaas nie net ’n jong verbruikers te beïnvloed. Binne ŉ familie onus op ouers nie maar bied ook verskeie sal verskeie partye wat as kennisbron geag voordele vir beleidmakers en word optree as rolmodelle. Binne die familie bemarkingsbestuurders. Veldtogte om sekere vervul ouers dikwels die rol van beide verbruikersgedrag of aankoopgedrag aan te sosialiseringsagente en rolmodelle, en hierdie moedig of om negatiewe gedrag te ontmoedig rolle mag oorvleuel. Die vertroue wat tussen kan van ouers gebruik maak om die aanbevole ouer en kind gebou word te midde van die noue gedrag te versterk en aan te moedig binne die saamleefverhouding binne die familie skep ŉ volgende generasie jong volwassenes wat nog veilige omgewing om rolmodelle (ouers) se gesosialiseer word deur hul rolmodelle. gedrag na te boots. Indien die invloed van ouers Kwessies soos materialisme sal dus binne die as rolmodelle die verbruiksgedrag en familie deur die invloed van ouers as rolmodelle aankoopgedrag van Generasie Y bepaal, word vir hul kinders aangespreek moet word. Die strategieë om jong volwassenes se gedrag te familie is hierom ŉ belangrike eenheid vir beïnvloed grotendeels toegeskryf aan analise in toekomstige navorsing wat waardes sosialisering. Hierom sou die poging om en beleidsisteme oorweeg. Generasie Y verbruikers te behou as klante of om nuwe klante vanuit Generasie Y te bekom dus deur ouers beïnvloed kon word. Die doel — Prof M Wiese van die studie was om die Sosiale Kognitiewe Department of Marketing Management Toerie te gebruik as ’n riglyn om te verstaan University of Pretoria hoe direkte rolmodelle soos ouers die Tel: +27 (0)12 420 4153 aankoopgedrag van Generasie Y beïnvloed. Bo Fax: + 27 (0) 2 420 3349 en behalwe die persepsie dat ouers as Email: [email protected] rolmodelle beskou word, kan ouers as *corresponding author rolmodelle die verbruikersgedrag van Generasie Y beïnvloed, hetsy met betrekking tot positiewe — Dr L Kruger gedrag (byvoorbeeld om die produkte of Department of Marketing Management handelsmerk aan te beveel) of negatiewe University of Pretoria gedrag, soos om te kla by ander klante. Nie- Tel: +27 (0)12 420 4153 waarskynlike, geriefssteekproeftrekking is Fax: + 27 (0) 2 420 3349 gebruik om data onder Generasie Y Email: [email protected] respondente in te samel en drie honderd nege- en-sestig bruikbare vraelyste is ontvang. Data is ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ontleed deur strukturele vergelyking modellering toe te pas nadat die betroubaarheid en We hereby acknowledge Mr A. Koekemoer for geldigheid van die meetinstrumente bepaal is. assisting with the data collection. Die resultate van die studie ondersteun die

Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y 21 ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016

INTRODUCTION intent (Morales-Alonso et al, 2016).

“Listen to your mother, she knows best…” the University students as adolescents currently colloquial saying goes, highlighting parents’ form part of the younger Generation Y cohort, influence as role models. This influence can be which is recognised worldwide as an extended to consumer and purchase behaviour increasingly significant group in terms of their as well. Consumer behaviour can broadly be consumer and purchasing behaviours, attitudes explained as the consumer’s attempt to satisfy and their impact on the national economy (Clark needs and wants through the purchasing of et al, 2001). This study specifically investigates products or services (Gunay & Baker, this younger group of the Generation Y cohort 2011:325). The decision, however, in making by including respondents aged between 18-25 the purchase to satisfy the consumer’s needs years. Reasons for the consideration of and wants is influenced by numerous variables, Generation Y as an important market segment of which a prominent variable is the influence of include significant current spending power, with role models (Ruvio et al, 2010:61). Dix et al potentially high future spending power (Bevan- (2010:37) agree by stating that young Dye, 2015:10; Lazarevic, 2012:45), earning consumers base their behaviour and attitudes money much earlier in their lives than previous on role models, like those of celebrities and generations (Miller & Mills, 2012:1474), the parents – playing an integral part in the ability to be trendsetters, receptivity to new development of product and service choices of products, as well as the potential to become life- young adults. time customers (Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001). Generation Y thus represents a great These product and service choices are the opportunity for marketers and as a result are result of consumer socialisation. Consumer often targeted in advertising and promotional socialisation can be defined as the process strategies. whereby young people acquire the needed skills, knowledge and attitudes relevant to their Generation Y consumers are also the functioning as consumers in the marketplace generation that is the most marketing-aware (Ward, 1974:2). Neetu (2016) posits that (Van den Bergh, 2013). However, some socialisation agents such as parents, peers or researchers have reported that Generation Y is marketing communication such as advertising often sceptical of advertising (Bevan-Dye et al, assist children in this consumer socialisation 2009:177) and resistant to advertising efforts process. However, there are “significant gaps in (Lazarevic, 2012; Wolburg & Pokrywcsynski, our conceptualisation and understanding of 2001). Reasons for this scepticism and exactly what role social environment and resistance could be Generation Y’s belief that expertise play in socialization” (John, 1999:205) marketing communications attempt to mislead especially focusing on consumer socialisation in consumers (Kinley et al, 2010:566) and possibly students (Roberti, 2014:65). The social being overexposed to advertising messages. In environment in which consumers are raised thus fact, and, therefore, traditional advertising influences their socialisation, and socialisation methods have been unsuccessful in gaining this occurs throughout a consumer’s life, irrespective market’s attention (Schawbel, 2015). It has also of age. been shown that loyal buying patterns are developed during adolescence and these To classify consumers, according to their age patterns tend to continue throughout adults’ lives based on the time context in which they are (Martin & Bush, 2000; Moschins, 1985). raised, generational cohorts are used. Although the importance, relevance and value of the Furthermore, limited research is available to influence of role models on consumer’s provide insight into the possible changes, if any, purchasing intent and behaviour has been in the consumer behaviour and purchase intent, established amongst teenagers (Makgosa, which may occur as young adults leave home – 2010; North & Kotzé; Ruvio et al, 2010; Martin & especially in an emerging market, such as South Bush, 2000), the evidence of such role model Africa. Therefore, this study will address the influences on the younger Generation Y are very need to focus on university students, in order to scarce. Furthermore, such research is often only shed light on this very unpredictable – but yet conducted in developed countries (for example, valuable market segment – and also to add to Roberti, 2014) or focussed on general parental the limited current research available on role role model research such as work involvement model influence on consumer and purchase (Wiese & Freund, 2011) and entrepreneurial behaviour.

22 Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016

The objectives of this study are therefore to fulfil this role. An argument can thus be made determine whether a father and a mother could that parents’ opinion and advice on products indeed be seen as good role models to follow and services can have a strong influence on (parental role model influence) and their children’s consumption attitudes. Feltham subsequently to find whether these role models (1998:372) as well as Minahan and Huddleston could significantly influence the consumer and (2013) confirm that much of the information and purchasing behaviour of Generation Y, as attitude development concerning product and reflected by students. services is based on family influences since most consumer behaviour is learned as a child. A quantitative structural equation modelling Families are not only a primary source of (SEM) approach was used to test the information of products and brands, but also of conceptual framework, based on the Social the transmission of values and behaviours Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1986). This (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). Children learn and study’s contribution lies in the specific focus on understand consumer behaviour by observing parental role model influence on Generation Y in their parents’ consumption practices in the an emerging market context. family environment (Ruvio et al, 2010:44). Therefore, children would be likely to replicate The article will firstly provide a discussion of the parents’ consumption patterns of product and theoretical foundations of the conceptual services. framework, based on the extant literature on role model influence and consumer behaviour. Next, Consumer socialisation encompasses the the research methodology and the results will be process whereby young people acquire abilities, presented. The article concludes with the information, skills and attitudes relevant to their implications and recommendations, limitations consumer behaviour in the marketplace and some recommendations for future research. (Sharma & Sonwaney, 2015). This process is influenced by individuals who have regular LITERATURE REVIEW contact with, are important to, or control the rewards and consent given to child consumers Consumer behaviour is the process of how (Lachance et al, 2003). Silén and Uhlin (2008) consumers select, use and dispose of products, report that especially students are likely to adopt services, brands or ideas, in order to satisfy their and cultivate new behaviours more readily if needs and wants (Solomon et al, 2012:3). they see someone they can relate to These behaviours are an outcome of the successfully apply behavioural strategies. This socialisation process, amongst others, and they process is closely related to the definition of role are of great importance to marketers because models, where these individuals are the parents they are related to positive (favourable) and of the child consumers, who act as the negative (unfavourable) behaviours exhibited influencers (Alexitch et al, 2004). towards a product or brand (Bush et al, 2004). Positive behaviour, for example, could include Parents as role models could thus influence the spreading positive word-of-mouth or paying child’s consumer behaviour. Fan and Yixuan premium prices while negative intention can (2010:171) argue that socialisation agents, such lead to switching brands. Therefore, it is as parents, peers, the mass media, retail stores, important to understand a consumer group’s brands, and even celebrities are viewed as the behaviour to stimulate or attempt to create primary influence on consumers’ individual positive consumer behaviour such as positive perceptions, values and norms. White et al word-of-mouth to reference groups. (2009:324-325) maintain that an individual’s perception and beliefs about a significant other Family is an important reference group that are formed during childhood and that the influences consumer attitudes (Schiffman & process of forming the specific perception of the Kanuk, 2014; Peter & Olson, 199;), resulting in significant other during this time will be family members also establishing values (Engel replicated in situations, as the individual grows et al, 1993:79). Du Plessis et al (2007:261-262) older. Dix et al (2010:7) agree, by stating that identify the family as one of the environmental young consumers base their behaviour and influences that could affect consumers’ attitudes on role models’ behaviour, such as purchase behaviour. Family influence is parents. Parents, therefore, play an integral part regarded as a member of the household being in the development and choices of young adults considered as an expert and one whose Direct role models, like parents, could knowledge is trusted, and parents frequently therefore .influence consumers’ purchasing

Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y 23 ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016 behaviour (Martin & Bush, 2000: 444). use of celebrities for brand endorsements is Consumer socialisation suggests that the common. Such brand endorsements are learning process is core to the concept of positively related to brand equity in terms of consumer behaviour and that it consists of a few brand awareness, brand association, perceived stages, which child consumers will go through, quality and brand loyalty (Dwivedi et al, in order to develop into adult consumers. 2015:457). It is thus possible that parents as direct role models should also make an impact Parental influence is a critical stage in this on consumer behaviour and purchase learning process (Ironico, 2012:31). Fan and Li behaviour. (2010:171) agree and they state that parents are the primary socialisation agents, and are the The focus of this study is specifically on direct most influential educators of the child’s role models in terms of fathers and mothers consumer behaviour – stretching their (parents). While mothers were found to be the influencing power well into adulthood. The child most influential role model for daughters would, in time, be able to act as an independent (Minahan & Huddleston, 2010:174-175), making consumer – due to the transfer of knowledge recommendations regarding price and quality, and skills observed in the parents’ consuming often accompanying their mothers in the behaviour. Shopping habits, as well as product purchasing process (Ogle et al, 2014:72), the and store preferences, are passed on from influence of both parents as roles models is also generation to generation by the parents, and supported (McNeil & Turner, 2013; Martin & therefore, they influence the child’s consumer Bush, 2000:445; Moschis, 1985). behaviour (Minahan & Huddleston, 2010:171). The positive influence of parents, when Since the quality of interaction between the socialising their children (Basu & Sondhi, parent and the child drives socialisation (Drever 2014:803) and the possible negative outcomes et al, 2015:25-26), parents may not necessarily thereof relating to conspicuous consumption, be regarded as good role models to imitate. Sen materialism, and irrational impulse consumption Das (2016) noted that parents are vulnerable to (John, 1999:201), in the context of both loss of power as socialisation agents. Previous developed and emerging markets (Yang et al, research found that children aged 11 to 16, did 2014:231) has received attention. However, not want their parents to recommend products evident from recent special issues on (Norh & Kotzé, 2001:98). The research question contemporary issues in family consumption examined in the present study is thus not an (Kerrane et al, 2014) and on women and what is obvious consequence of the parental termed ‘producing family’ (Cappellini & socialisation processes, especially with regard Holloway, 2014), socialisation remain topical to Generation Y. Although some may argue that issues. Hence, previous researchers recognise with the transformation of personal relationships that people learn though observation and between parents and children in late adolescent, imitation of others (Bandura, 1986) and as such, the influence of parents may lessen these individuals are often considered as role (Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993), several studies models (King & Multon, 1996). It is argued that found that this does not always hold true role models would influence the behaviour of the (McNeil & Turner, 2013; Fry et al, 1973; Koolat younger Generation Y cohort through et al, 1970). Although Feltham (1998) found that socialisation; through observing role models, the parental influence declined, it did not Generation Y would learn how to behave as disappear altogether. Peter and Olson (1996) consumers. This type of learning is best and Feltham (1998) found substantial explained by the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). correspondence between parental-brand choice and student-brand choices. Thus, we argue, The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) entails based on the Social Cognitive Theory and the learning directly correlated to the observation of literature review presented here, that parental role models (Bandura, 1986), where such role role model influence should not only affect models can be directly observed, such as purchase behaviour, but also consumer parents, family members and lecturers (Merino behaviour (be it positive or negative). It is & Aucock, 2015) or removed others, such as therefore hypothesised that: celebrities, media sources and retailers (Lenka, 2015). Therefore, the parental role model Ha1: Parental role model influence positively influence on consumer behaviour is supported effects purchase behaviour. and explained by the SCT. Because celebrities are viewed as role models to be imitated, the Ha2: There is a positive relationship between

24 Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016

FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF PARENTAL ROLE MODEL INFLUENCE parental role model influence and parental demographics of the respondent, as well as the consumer behaviour influence. measurement scales. Participation was voluntary and no incentives were offered to the Furthermore, according to the very definition of respondents to participate in the survey. The consumer behaviour, entailing the selection, use measurement scales were adapted from Martin and disposition to satisfy needs (Solomon et al, and Bush (2000) to reflect direct role models 2012:3), there would be a positive relationship with a Likert-type scale anchored by seven- between consumer behaviour and purchase points, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to behaviour, and it may be argued that parental strongly agree (7). consumer behaviour influence should affect purchase behaviour accordingly. It is, therefore, The general parental role model influence scale, hypothesised that: hereafter referred to as parental influence, consisted of five items and included items such Ha3: Parental consumer behaviour influence as: My (mother/father) provides a good model positively effects purchase behaviour. for me to follow’ and ‘My (mother/father) leads by example’. The parental consumer behaviour Figure 1 presents a graphical illustration of the influence scale, hereafter referred to as conceptual framework of parental role model consumer behaviour, consisted of 11 items (e.g. influence in this study. ‘The opinions of my (father/mother) influence me to say positive things about products or brands RESEARCH METHODOLOGY to other people’ and ‘The opinions of my (father/ mother) influence me to continue to do business The target population of the study comprised with certain companies – even if it increases its university students representing the younger prices). Purchase behaviour was measured by a Generation Y cohort (aged 18-25). In addition to single item. The respondents had to complete all previous studies adopting such a sample, the items for both parents. The questionnaire university students – as compared to non- was pretested with 20 respondents and no university students – have been exposed to a adjustments were required. broader diversity of media sources (Fugate & Phillips, 2010) and, they were deemed Internal consistency reliability was considered, appropriate since their age profile reflects the where a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.7 and typical younger Generation Y cohort. In addition, higher was considered sufficient evidence of university students are associated with potential internal consistency, as recommended by higher future earnings (Bevan-Dye et al, Bagozzi (1988:80). This study measured all 2009:174), providing them with more spending items separately for respondents’ fathers and power. Non-probability convenience sampling mothers. As the aim of this study is to consider was used since it was not practically possible to parents as role models, the per item difference reach students randomly selected from a was calculated for each item accounting for complete sample frame list. possible response bias in answering the same statement twice, albeit for a different role model. After ethical clearance was obtained, the data Owing to this adaptation of the scales from were collected by means of a self-administered previous studies, the underlying dimensions of questionnaire on a University campus over a the scales used in this study were considered three week period. The questionnaire included a through an exploratory factor analysis, followed cover letter explaining the objectives of the by the investigation of convergent and study, obtained informed consent from discriminant validity through a confirmatory respondents, and included a section on the factor analysis. An average variance extracted

Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y 25 ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016

(AVE) above 0.5 not only indicates that an measures used in this study. acceptable amount of variance is explained by each factor (Fornell & Larcker, 1981:46), but The data were found to be suitable for factor also convergence in measurement (Bagozzi, analysis as Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 1981:375-376). Discriminant validity was significant (p < 0.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer- considered by comparing the square root of the Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy AVE of two factors to the correlation between (MSA) was above 0.5 (MSA = 0.917). Maximum the two factors, and this square root of the AVE likelihood factor analysis with the direct Oblimin should be higher than the correlation to claim rotation method was used, as parental influence discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, and consumer behaviour have been found to be 1981:46). correlated. Coefficients below 0.4 were suppressed. RESULTS From the exploratory factor analysis, three Sample profile factors were clearly identifiable based on the Eigenvalues, which explained 61.87% of the A total of 369 respondents participated in the variance. The five items used to measure study, comprising more respondents than similar parental influence loaded onto one factor, while studies conducted by Martin and Bush (2000) the 11 items used to measure consumer and Makgosa (2010), which used only 228 and behaviour loaded onto two factors. By 200 respondents, respectively. The majority of examining the wording of the items to measure the respondents were females (73.4%), with consumer behaviour, it became evident that the only 26.6% being males. The mean age of the first seven items, which loaded onto one factor, respondents was 20.28 years, with the majority referred to specific positive consumer behaviour (97%) of the respondents representing a typical choices which would not tarnish the reputation younger Generation Y profile, between the ages of the company, product or brand, while the last of 18-25 years old. Furthermore, the majority of four items, which loaded onto another factor, the respondents were either White (52.6%) or referred to negative consumer behaviour Black (38.8%), with a minority (8.6%) of the choices reflecting complaint behaviour. The participants being from other ethnic groups such factors were labelled accordingly. Table 1 as Indian or Coloured (11%). presents the labelled factors with the number of items, which loaded on each factor and the Reliability and validity Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values (α) for the factors uncovered in this study, based on the All the items were measured separately with per item difference between the scores for the regard to respondents’ fathers and mothers. To father and those for the mother. account for possible response bias, and to obtain a score for parents – and not fathers or Table 1 indicates that the three factors mothers separately – the per item difference uncovered in this data, based on the per item was calculated for each item. Measures relating difference scores, all had Cronbach’s alpha to the father preceded the measures relating to coefficient values above 0.7, indicating that each the mother in the questionnaire. Therefore, the construct exhibits internal consistency score per item that respondents gave for their (reliability), as recommended by Şimşek and mothers was subtracted from the score per item Tekeli (2014:436). respondents gave to their fathers for all items. In order to investigate convergence in The per item difference calculation necessitated measurement and discriminant validity of the the consideration of the validity and reliability of scales, as used in this study, a confirmatory the scales used in this manner. An exploratory factor analysis was done. The average variance factor analysis was done to examine the extracted for negative complaint behaviour was underlying dimensions of all the multiple item 0.498. Therefore, item 10, the item with the

TABLE 1: FACTORS UNCOVERED IN THIS STUDY, NUMBER OF ITEMS LOADING ONTO EACH FACTOR AND THE CRONBACH’S ALPHA COEFFICIENT VALUES

Factor Label n items α 1 Parental influence Five 0.954 2 Positive consumer behaviour Seven 0.883 3 Negative complaint behaviour Four 0.796 26 Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016

TABLE 2: STANDARDISED WEIGHTS, AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED (AVE) AND CON- STRUCT RELIABILITY (C.R.) OF THE FACTORS

Standardised Factor Item AVE C.R. weight Item 1 - Good model for me to follow 0.925 Item 2 - Leads by example 0.902 Parental influence Item 3 - Sets a positive example for others 0.899 0.811 0.955 Item 4 - Exhibits the kind of behaviour that I try to imitate 0.846 Item 5 - Acts as a role model for me 0.929 Consumer Positive consumer behaviour 0.914 0.789 0.882 behaviour Negative complaint behaviour 0.862 Item 1 - Say positive things about a company 0.795 Item 2 - Recommend products or brands 0.839 Positive consumer Item 3 - Encourage my friends or relatives to buy 0.802 behaviour Item 4 - Buy fewer products 0.721 0.534 0.888 (not tarnishing Item 5 - Buy some products elsewhere reputation) 0.743 Item 6 - Willing to pay more 0.616 Item 7 - Keep supporting a company 0.557 Item 8 - Switch to a competitor 0.699 Negative complaint Item 9 - Complain to other customers 0.744 0.519 0.764 behaviour Item 11 - Complain to company’s employees 0.718

TABLE 3: INVESTIGATING DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Factor Parental influence Consumer behaviour Purchase behaviour Parental influence 0.901* Consumer behaviour 0.729 0.888* Purchase behaviour 0.567 0.760 1.00 *Square root of the AVE.

lowest standardised weight, was eliminated from The results to investigate discriminant validity any further analyses. Consumer behaviour was are presented in a correlation matrix in Table 3. regarded as a reflective second order factor with positive consumption behaviour and negative From Table 3, it can be deduced that large complaint behaviour as indicators, based on the positive correlations (Cohen, 1988:79-81) exist proposed scale of Martin and Bush (2000:448), between parental influence and consumer while purchase behaviour was included as an behaviour (r=0.729), between parental influence exogenous variable. The Bollen-Stine Bootstrap and purchase behaviour (r=0.567), and between was used to estimate the chi-square. The results consumer behaviour and purchase behaviour of the confirmatory factor analysis, without item (r=0.760). Furthermore, discriminant validity is 10, are presented in Table 2. evident.

From Table 2, it is evident that the AVE for all The model fit indices considered for this study three factors was above 0.5, an acceptable included the normed chi-square, with guidelines amount of variance explained (Fornell & ranging between a 2:1 and 3:1 ratio (Kline, Larcker, 1981:46), indicating convergence in 2011:204), the comparative fit index (CFI) and measurement (Bagozzi, 1981: 375-376). the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), where a value Furthermore, all the values for construct 0.90 or higher is considered to be satisfactory reliability were above 0.7, indicating reliability (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988:82), and the root mean- (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988:80). To investigate square error of approximation (RMSEA) with discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE values ranging up to 0.08 is considered as being of two factors should be higher than the appropriate (Van de Schoot et al, 2012:488). correlation between the two factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981:46). The measurement model was found to fit the data acceptably. The relative chi-square (CMIN/

Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y 27 ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016

TABLE 4: STRUCTURAL PATHS IN THE MODEL

BBCI BBCI Ha Path Estimate p-value* Lower Upper Ha1 Parental influence → Purchase behaviour 0.033 -0.129 0.194 0.380 Ha2 Parental influence → Consumer behaviour 0.503 0.410 0.614 0.002 Ha3 Consumer behaviour → Purchase behaviour 1.210 0.939 1.540 0.002 *One-tailed p-value. df = 270.707/100 = 2.707) was below 3. The CFI behaviour of Generation Y. The results concur (0.960), TLI (0.952) and RMSEA (0.068, [LO90 with the use of cognitive theories to investigate = 0.058; HI90 = 0.078]) indicated good model fit. role model influence and contribute to the limited Structural paths were then added to the model. research available on parents as socialisation The fit of the structural model was also agents for students’ marketplace behaviour. adequate (CMIN/df = 270.707/100 = 2.707; CFI = 0.960; TLI = 0.952; RMSEA = 0.068 [LO90 = The findings suggest several interesting 0.058; HI90 = 0.078]). implications – by shedding light on the influence of parents as role models on the consumer Hypotheses testing behaviour of this important and growing target market. Based on the results from this study, the Table 4 presents the structural paths, in terms of general perception of parents as role models the hypothesis (Ha), the standardised regression (influence of parents) does not affect the weight (Estimate), the bias-corrected confidence purchase behaviour. However, the general interval (BBCI) and the statistical significance at perception of parents as role models (influence the 0.05 level (p-value). of parents) does affect consumer behaviour; and this, in turn, affects purchase behaviour. Firms From the results summarised in Table 4, Ha1 can successfully make use of brand extensions stating that parental role model influence as students (Generation Y) is receptive to new positively effects purchase behaviour is rejected products (Wolburg & Pokrywnezynski, 2001) (p=0.380). Furthermore, Ha2, stating that there and have significant spending power (Lazarevic, is a positive relationship between parental role 2012). The brand choice and shopping model influence and parental consumer behaviour that students learn from their parents behaviour influence is accepted (p=0.002) and could be used as the bases for brand Ha3 stating that parental consumer behaviour extentions. influence positively effects purchase behaviour is accepted (p=0.002). It is therefore evident that The findings are in agreement with those of parents as role models influence consumption previous research (Makgosa, 2010; Ruvio et al, behaviour of respondents in this study, 2010; Martin & Bush, 2000). The results thus confirming the assumption of the social cognitive support the consumer socialisation through theory that learning how to behave is based on parents, which is evident in the literature. The observed behaviour (Bandura, 1986) and in-line consumer (measured in terms of positive and with Roberti’s (2014) findings that the negative consumer choice behaviours) and the consumption patterns of students correspond purchase behaviour of Generation Y with those that students learned in their families. respondents was influenced by their perceptions of their parents, as role models. Even though IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS previous findings found some resistance to the parental role model influence (North & Kotzé, Simpson et al (2008:200) contend that “cognitive 2001:98), these findings suggest that the and social theories provide the bases for parental role model influence is an important understanding the consumer tendency to variable in Generation Y consumer and observe others when making consumption purchase behaviours. Evidently, each choices” as these suggest that consumers are generation influences the next with regard to inclined to conform to others' behaviours and consumer and purchasing behaviour. If policy that the tendency to observe is likely to affect makers thus wish to change negative consumer consumer behaviour in all consumer choice behaviour, such as an extreme focus on situations. The Social Cognitive Theory was materialism to achieve personal happiness, used to investigate parental influence on the success and self-fulfilment (John, 1999:202) or consumer behaviour and the purchase consumerism - parents should be the first point

28 Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016 of entrance to influence the following counselors and teachers tell them?” Guidance generation’s behaviour (Lenka, 2015). Thus, by and Counselling 19(4):142-150. encouraging parents to spread positive word-of- BAGOZZI, RP. 1981. Evaluating structural mouth about a cause or brand using equation models with unobservable variables competitions, loyalty programmes or referral- and measurement error: A comment. Journal of rebates, could be an example of ensuring that Marketing Research 18(3):375-381. their children follow suit. The results also place a BAGOZZI, RP & YI, Y. 1988. On the evaluation huge responsibility on fathers and mothers as it of structural equation models. Journal of the is evident that the learning transferred from Academy of Marketing Science 16(1):74-94. parents throughout childhood are carried BAGOZZI, RP, YI, Y & PHILLIPS, LW. 1991. through even after young adults leave the home. Assessing construct validity in organizational Embedding materialism, compulsive buying and/ research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36 or over-spending could be carried over from one (3):421-458. generation to the next. However, the reverse is BANDURA, A. 1986. Social foundations of also true, if parents set good examples of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. behaving as responsible consumers by Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. comparing prices, complain about poor services BANDURA, A. 2001. Social Cognitive Theory of and considering the carbon footprint of products, Mass Communication. Media Psychology 3 this influence would also be evident in the (3):265-299. consumer and purchasing behaviour of their BASU, R & SONDHI, N. 2014. Child children. socialization practices: Implications for retailers in emerging markets. Journal of Retailing and It is expected that the longer Generation Y Consumer Services 21:797-803. consumers are removed from their parental role BEARDEN, WO & ETZEL, MJ. 1982 Reference model influence, the more opportunity there group influence on product and brand purchase would be to experience several different brands. decisions. Journal of Consumer Research 9 Although students are likely to model their (September):183-194. consumer and purchase behaviour on their BEVAN-DYE, AL. 2015. African Generation Y parental behaviour when they leave home, this students’ propensity to engage in word-ofmouth loyalty could thus be short-lived when other communication on Facebook. Paper presented influences on consumer behaviour and brand at the International Conference on Economics choice intervene. and Business Management, Phuket, Thailand, July. [Online] Available from: http://erpub.org/ The research has several limitations. Firstly, the siteadmin/upload/8231ER715203.pdf sample group is limited in geographical scope [Downloaded: 2016-06-20]. as the students from only one university was BEVAN-DYE, AL, DHURUP, M & SURUJLAL, J. used and due to non-probability sampling, the 2009. Black Generation Y students’ perceptions generalizability of the findings is limited. Future of national sport celebrity endorsers as role research could focus on a broader geographical models. African Journal for Physical Health range of students. Additionally, intergenerational Education, Recreation and Dance:172-188. influence (the transmission of cognitions, beliefs, BUSH, A, MARTIN, C & BUSH, V. 2004. Sports perceptions, attitudes and behaviours from one celebrity influence on the behavioural intentions generation to another during socialisation) is of generation Y. Journal of Advertising Research culture- and dyad-specific (Kulkarni, 2014:326). March:108-118. Future research could specifically examine CAPPELLINI, B. & HOLLOWAY, R. (eds.) 2014. possible cultural differences on the parental role Women, emotion work and producing ‘family’: model influence, consumer behaviour and The role of food and fun. Advances in Consumer purchase behaviour. Research 42:130-135. CLARK, PW, MARTIN, CA & BUSH, AJ. 2001. Finally, the purchase behaviour of the students The effect of role model influence on was captured by means of a single-item rating adolescents’ materialism and marketplace scale and a multiple-item rating scale could yield knowledge. Journal of Marketing Theory and different results for purchasing behaviour. Practice 9(4):27-36. COHEN, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for REFERENCES the behavioural sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ALEXITCH, L, KOBUSSEN, GP & STOOKEY, DIX, S, PHAU, I & POUGNET, S. 2010. “Bend it S. 2004. High School students’ decisions to like Beckham”: The influence of sports pursue university: What Do (Should) guidance celebrities on young adult consumers. Young

Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y 29 ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016

Consumers 11(1):36-46. KINLEY, TR, JOSIAM, BM & LOCKETT, F. DREVER, AI, ODDER-WHITE, E, KALISH, CW, 2010. Shopping behaviour and the involvement ELSE-QUEST, NM, HOAGLAND, EM & construct. Journal of Fashion Marketing and NELMS, EN. 2015. Foundations of financial well Management 14(4):562-575. -being: Insights into the role of executive KLINE, RB. 2011. Principles and practice of function, financial socialization, and experience- structural equation modelling. 3rd edition. New based learning in childhood and youth. The York: The Guilford Press. Journal of Consumer Affairs 49(1):13-38. KOLLAT, DT, BLACKWELL, RD & ENGEL, JF. DU PLESSIS, PJ, ROUSSEAU, GG, 1970. Research in Consumer behaviour. New BOSHOFF, C, EHLERS, L, ENGELBRECHT, M, York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. JOUBERT, R & SANDERS, S. 2007. Buyer KULKARNI, SA. 2014. The effect of reverse behaviour, understanding consumer psychology intergenerational influence on purchase and and marketing. 4th Edition. Cape Town: Oxford brand equity of durable goods. International University Press. Journal of Management Excellence 3(1):326- DWIVEDI, A, JOHNSON, LW & MCDONALD, 335. RE. 2015. Celebrity endorsement, self-brand LACHANCE, MJ, BEAUDOIN, P & connection and consumer-based brand equity. ROBITAILLE, J. 2003. Adolescents’ brand Journal of Product and Brand Management 24 sensitivity in apparel: influence of three (5):449-461. socialization agents. International Journal of ENGEL JF, BLACKWELL, RD & MINIARD, PW. Consumer Studies 27(1):47-57. 1993. Consumer Behaviour. 7th edition. New LAZAREVIC, V. 2012. Encouraging brand York: Dryder. loyalty in fickle generation Y consumers. Young FAN, Y & YIXUAN, L. 2010. Children’s buying Consumers 13(1):45-61. behaviour in China. A study of their information LENKA, U. 2015. A review on impact of sources. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 28 socialization agents in breeding consumerism (2):170-187. among children. Global Business Review 16 FELTHAM, TS. 1999. Leaving home: brand (5):867-878. purchase influences on young adults. Journal of MAFINI, C, DHURUP, M & MANDHLAZI, L. Consumer Marketing, 15(4):372-385. 2014. Shopper typologies amongst a Generation FORNELL, C & LARCKER, DF. 1981. Y consumer cohort and variations in terms of Evaluating structural equation models with age in the fashion apparel market. Acta unobservable variables and measurement error. Commercii 14(1):1-11. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):39-50. MAKGOSA, R. 2010. The influence of vicarious FRY, JN, SHAW, DC, VON LANZENAUER, CH role models on purchase intentions of Botswana & DIPCHAND CR. 1973. Customer loyalty to teenagers. Young Consumers 11(4):307-309. banks: a longitudinal study. Journal of Business MARTIN, CA & BUSH, AJ. 2000. Do role 46(October):517‐525. models influence teenagers’ purchase intentions FUGATE, DL & PHILLIPS, J. 2010. Product and behaviour. Journal of Consumer Marketing gender perceptions and antecedents of product 17(5):441-454. gender congruence. Journal of Consumer MASCARENHAS, OA & HIGBY, MA. 1993. Marketing 27(3):251-261. Peer, parent, and media influences in teen GUNAY, GN & BAKER, MJ. 2011. The factors apparel shopping. Journal of the Academy of influencing consumers’ behaviour on wine Marketing Science 21(1):53-58. consumption in the Turkish wine market. MCNEILL, LS & TURNER, L. 2013. Parental EuroMed Journal of Business 6(3):324-341. financial role modelling and fiscal behaviour of IRONICO, S. 2012. The active role of children young home leavers. Young Consumers 14 as consumers. Young Consumers 13(1):30-44. (2):122-138. JOHN, DR. 1999. Consumer socialization of MERINO, A & AUCOCK, M. 2015. The human children. A retrospective look at twenty-five element: Self-regulated learning skills and years of research. Journal of Consumer strategies through role-modelling and guided Research 26:183-213. mastery. South African Journal of Higher KERRANE, B, BETTANY, SM & HOGG, MK. Education 29(2):163-180. (eds.) 2014. Revisiting contemporary issues in MILLER, NE & DOLLARD, J. 1941. Social family consumption. Journal of Marketing learning and imitation. [Online] Available from Management 30(15-16):1527-1532. http://0-psycnet.apa.org.innopac.up.ac.za/ KING, MM & MULTON, KD. 1996. The effects of psycinfo/1942-00109-000 television role models on the career aspirations MILLER, KW & MILLS, MK. 2012. Contributing of African American junior high school students. clarity by examining brand luxury in the fashion Journal of Career Development 23(2):111-125. market. Journal of Business Research 65

30 Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y ISSN 0378-5254 Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 44, 2016

(10):1471-1479. perceptions of parents’ socialization messages. MINAHAN, S & HUDDLESTON, P. 2010. Journal of Family Studies 22:1-24. Shopping with mum – mother and daughter SHARMA, A & SONWANEY, V. 2015. Exploring consumer socialization. Young Consumers 11 the role of family communication and brand (3):170-177. awareness in understanding the influence of MINAHAN, S & HUDDLESTON, P. 2013. child on purchase decisions: scale development Shopping with my mother: Reminiscences of and validation. International Journal of Business adult daughters. International Journal of Excellence 8(6):748-766. Consumer Studies (37):373-378. SILÉN, C & UHLIN, L. 2008. Self-directed MORALES-ALONSO, G, PABLO-LERCHUNDI, learning – a learning issue for students and I & VARGAS-PEREZ, AM. 2016. An empirical faculty. Teaching in Higher Education 13(4):461- study on the antecedents of knowledge 475. intensive entrepreneurship. International Journal SIMPSON, PM, SIGUAW, JA & CADOGAN, of Innovation and Technology Management JW. 2008. Understanding the consumer (2016):1640011. propensity to observe. European Journal of MOSCHIS, GP. 1985. The role of family Marketing 42(1/2):196-221. communication in consumer socialization of ŞIMŞEK, GG & TEKELI, FN. 2014. children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Understanding the antecedents of customer Research 11(March):898‐913. loyalty by applying structural equation modelling. NEETU, J. 2016. Childhood consumer Published in Akkucuk, U. (ed.) Handbook of socialization agents and process: A review. research on developing sustainable value in International Journal of Research in Social economics, finance, and marketing. Hershey, Sciences 6(3):275-287. PA: IGI Global:420-445. NORTH, EJ & KOTZÉ, T. 2001. Parents and SOLOMON, M, RUSSELL-BENNETT, R & television advertisements as consumer PREVITE, J. 2012. Consumer behaviour. 3rd socialisation agents for adolescents: An edition. Australia: Pearson. exploratory study. Journal of Family Ecology VAN DE SCHOOT, R, LUGTIG, P & HOX, J. and Consumer Sciences 29:91-99. 2012. A checklist for testing measurement OGLE, JP, HYLLEGARD, KH & YAN, R. 2014. invariance. European Journal of Developmental An investigation of mothers’ and teen daughters’ Psychology 9(4):486-492. clothing preferences and purchase intentions VAN DEN BERGH, J. 2013. Millennials and toward a prosocial clothing company. Journal of social media: The what, where and why Fashion Marketing and Management 18(1):70- [infographic]. [Online] Available from: http:// 84. www.insites-consulting.com/infographic- PALLANT, J. 2011. SPSS survival manual – A millennials-social-media [Downloaded: 2016-06- step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS. 16]. 4th Edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University WARD, S. 1974. Consumer socialization. Press. Journal of Consumer Research 1(2):1-14. PETER, JP & OLSON, JC. 1996. Consumer WIESE, BS & FREUND, AM. 2011. Parents as Behaviour and Marketing Strategy, 4th Edition. role models: Parental behaviour affects Chicago: Irwin. adolescents’ plans for work involvement. ROBERTI, G. 2014. The influence of family International Journal of Behavioural socialization on consumer choices of young Development 35(3):218-224. people. A case study of female university WHITE, DW, GODDARD, L & WILBUR, N. students. Italian Journal of Sociology of 2009. The effects of negative information Education 6(3):41-69. transference in the celebrity-endorsement RUVIO, A, GAVISH, Y & SHOHAM, A. 2010. A relationship. International Journal of Retail & qualitative study of mother-adolescent daughter- Distribution Management 37(4):322-335. vicarious role model consumption interactions. WOLBURG, J & POKRYWCZYNSKI, J. 2001. A Journal of Consumer Marketing 27(1):43-56. psychographic analysis of Generation Y college SAUNDERS, SR & ROUSSEAU, D. 1986. The students. Journal of Advertising Research 41 consumer socialization of black adolescents. (5):33-53. South African Journal of Sociology 17(2):62-65. YANG, Z, KIM, C, LAROCHE, M & LEE, H. SCHIFFMAN, L & KANUK, L. 2014. Consumer 2014. Parental style and consumer socialization behaviour: Global and Southern African among adolescents: A cross-cultural perspectives. Pearson: Cape Town. investigation. Journal of Business Research SEN DAS, S. 2016. This is our culture or is it? 67:228-236. Second generation Asian Indian individuals’

Parental influence on consumer and purchase behaviour of Generation Y 31