No abstract

PurposeThe aim of the article is to examine children's role in family purchase decision making with a particular focus on how much impact children are perceived to have and in what ways children impact family decision making concerning holidays.Design/methodology/approachInformation was gathered from 26 in‐depth interviews with parents and children, telephone interviews with 800 Danish and 1,200 Germans, and questionnaires from 200 Danish and 200 German children.FindingsResults show that parents perceive children to have moderate impact on decision making. Children, on the contrary, think they have quite a high level of impact. Parents perceive themselves to have the decisive vote, but in this “decisive vote” parents take children's manifestations and prior experiences with the children into account. Children do have significant impact in various ways through a broad array of techniques, directly and indirectly, consciously and unconsciously. Children vocalise their wishes, and parents are often attentive and co‐operative.Research limitations/implcationsOther cultural settings than northern European would have been interesting to add to the analysis.Practical implicationsThe significant influence of children not just in the buying situation, but also as a strong indirect factor is of interest when considering marketing actions.Originality/valueThe contribution of the article is insight into the discussions going on in families with viewpoints from both parents and children by the use of both qualitative and quantitative data. No previous works have integrated data of parents and children combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

No abstract

Most studies on decision‐making in relation to consumption are based on self‐reported behaviour. This approach assumes that consumers can account for their decision‐making processes. However, several studies show that consumers are not always aware of what happens when they purchase goods because of the role of habit and routines, or a lack of willingness to account accurately for their purchases. A clear example of this is family decision‐making about food shopping. It is well documented that parents know that their children influence what they buy in supermarkets but it is also found that parents and children do not agree on just how much influence children have. Thus, a gap exists in the knowledge about what is actually happening in this grey zone of grocery shopping which seemingly cannot be solved through retrospective data collection. Family shopping is neither a completely rational nor conscious process, which makes the use of self‐reported behaviour problematic. This study discusses the limits of survey and interview approaches to parents' and children's shopping decisions in comparison with observations. An observational study of parent/child supermarket shopping in Denmark is used to exemplify the strengths of observation. Findings show that both parents and children are juggling a number of roles and apply a range of negotiation strategies which can explain why it is hard to account for who decided what afterwards. The article concludes that mapping certain types of consumer actions calls for other methods than self‐reported behaviour.

Children play a part in family food shopping, but their roles are often underestimated. In contrast to earlier studies focusing on “who wins” in parent/child negotiations, in this study I focus on emotional and cooperative ways of negotiating food in the supermarket. Through unobtrusive observation of Danish and American parent/child groups, I found that children—even from a very young age—also appear interested in and knowledgeable about healthy eating. Just as importantly, I observed parents not only being sensible and focused on healthy eating but also immersed in habits and desire, at times bending their own rules and using their notion of health arbitrarily. The concepts of “healthy” and “unhealthy” were used to decipher food in collaborative ways, and health was a core concept that parents tended to use negatively and children positively. Both children and parents must be considered as competent and incompetent consumers to understand family food negotiations.