@article{2017:dinkevych:what_do_yo,
title = {What do You Think, Darling? Revisiting Knowledge on Purchase Decisions of Couples within Households},
year = {2017},
note = {Purchase decisions and consumption often take place within family
households and/or relationships. Thus, many purchase decisions (e. g.
the purchase of cars, houses, furniture, or insurances) should be
studied in the field of family decision making. Researchers in this
field deal with the question of who makes the ultimate decision, to
identify which product categories are male- resp. female-dominant. A
second stream investigates the underlying decision processes, to
tackle the question of why one specific partner dominates the
decision; this research has generated several antecedents of
‘decision dominance’ (or, equivalently, the influence
distribution). Numerous studies have been guided by Resource Theory
which postulates that one partner’s relative influence in joint
decision is a function of several power-related resources to the
relationship (e. g., income, education, status, and their respective
[in]equality among partners). However, in modern days, we observe
societal changes that pertain to gender roles. Women exert more
influence in domains that were traditionally male-dominated and vice
versa. Consequently, answers to the combined “who decides” and
“why him or her” questions are potentially outdated. Moreover, the
context in which decisions are made (i. e. what is purchased?) has
been merely subordinate to the investigation of antecedents. Hence, we
review whether established antecedents still apply to contemporary
couples. Moreover, we systematically select product categories
associated to either one or no specific gender. Therefore, in an
online study, we investigate (1) product category-unrelated (education
and income), (2) product category-related (knowledge and preference
intensity), and (3) contextual (product category, gender) antecedents
of relative influence in joint decisions regarding vacations,
television sets, groceries, and dining out. Regarding (1), we find
evidence for the decreasing importance of education as an antecedent
of relative influence in joint decisions. In contrast, income seems to
still play a role. Although it is assumed that women contribute to the
household more than they did in the past, in our study men earned more
than their female partners. Thus, we observe that the partner who
contributes more to the household income also has more decision power
in the purchase of products. Consequently, the unequal distribution of
income still serves as a source of power and supports the position of
the partner with higher income. However, as levels of education have
become quite similar, its role declines. This finding further suggests
that, as the gender pay gap decreases, income also should less and
less impact the dominance of one partner in joint decisions in the
near future. Regarding (2), we also observe both knowledge and
preference intensity to be powerful antecedents of influence. Partners
who are more involved with the product category also have more power
in the decision process. Additionally, and related to (3), we
demonstrate that beyond its role as relevant antecedents, knowledge
and preference intensity are associated with gender and vary across
product categories. We find women to be more knowledgeable and having
more intense preferences for grocery shopping, whereas the same
applies to men and the purchase of TV sets. This finding indicates
that at least some purchase responsibilities are still divided by
gender and further implies that antecedents of influence must be
investigated by product category, because they have different
associations and meanings.},
journal = {Marketing ZFP},
pages = {47--58},
author = {Dinkevych, Elena and Wilken, Robert},
volume = {39},
number = {4}
}