Impact of online buying behavioral tendencies of Generation Z on their parents’ consumption behavior: Insight from Indonesia
-
Author(s)Adnane DerbaniLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2795-570X
,
Wiwiek Rabiatul AdawiyahLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8201-1947
,
Siti Zulaikha Wulandari
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.18(2).2022.04
-
Article InfoVolume 18 2022, Issue #2, pp. 39-48
- Cited by
- 1604 Views
-
560 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The generation gap has been present since the beginning of humanity and has symbolized one of the challenges of decision-making in families. It affects family members’ consumption behavior, namely buying decisions, and creates an interrelated impact on consumption behavior among family members. The aim of this study is to examine factors related to the parents’ perceptions of how the new online purchase behavior of their Generation Z children affected their consumption behavior. To meet the research objective, the paper has shed light on Generation Z’s new online purchase behavior. A survey was sent to 384 Indonesian parents of Generation Z children to collect their perceptions of consumption behavior. The data were then computed and processed using factor analysis, reliability analysis, regression analysis, as well as correlation and a t-test. The research results indicate that the new online purchase behavior of Generation Z children significantly affected their parents’ consumption behavior through different factors, such as online purchase illiteracy and self-control of consumption behavior. The findings also asserted that family consumption behavior is easily influenced by factors associated with parents’ perceptions. Moreover, this study also discussed the implications of the findings and identified the areas for future research.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)D11, D15, D16, D91, M31
-
References59
-
Tables5
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics
- Table 2. Validity test of smartphone addiction variable with the correlation test
- Table 3. Reliability test
- Table 4. Regression analysis
- Table 5. Hypotheses testing
-
- Ali, A., Ravichandran, N., & Batra, D. K. (2013). Children’s Choice of Influence Strategies in Family Purchase Decisions and the Impact of Demographics. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 17(1), 27-40.
- Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018, May 31). Teens, social media and technology 2018. Pew Research Center.
- Anger, S., & Heineck, G. (2010). Do smart parents raise smart children? The intergenerational transmission of cognitive abilities. Journal of Population Economics, 23(3), 1105-1132.
- Balcarová, T., Pokorná, J., & Pilar, L. (2014). The influence of children on the parents buying behaviour: Food purchase in the Czech Republic. AGRIS on-Line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 6(2), 11-19.
- Bandyopadhyay, S., Kindra, G., & Sharp, L. (2001). Is television advertising good for children? Areas of concern and policy implications. International Journal of Advertising, 20(1), 89-116.
- Batounis-Ronner, C., Hunt, J. B., & Mallalieu, L. (2007). Sibling effects on preteen children’s perceived influence in purchase decisions. Young Consumers, 8(4), 231-243.
- Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to Temptation: Self-Control Failure, Impulsive Purchasing, and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670-676.
- Beatty, S. E., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent Influence in Family Decision Making: A Replication with Extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 332-341.
- Belch, G., Belch, M. A., & Ceresino, G. (1985). Parental and teenage influences in family decision making. Journal of business research, 13(2), 163-176.
- Bertol, K. E., Broilo, P. L., Espartel, L. B., & Basso, K. (2017). Young children’s influence on family consumer behavior. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 20(4), 452-468.
- Bandyopadhyay, D., Curry, J. L., Lin, Q., Richards, H. W., Chen, D., Hornsby, P. J., Timchenko, N., & Medrano, E. E. (2007). Dynamic assembly of chromatin complexes during cellular senescence: implications for the growth arrest of human melanocytic nevi. Aging Cell, 6(4), 577-591.
- Broniarczyk, S. M., & Griffin, J. G. (2014). Decision Difficulty in the Age of Consumer Empowerment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 608-625.
- Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment (17th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Chaudhary, M., & Gupta, A. (2012). Children’s influence in family buying process in India. Young Consumers, 13(2), 161-175.
- Chaudhury, S. R., Hyman, M., & Wright, L. T. (rev.ed.). (2019). Children’s influence on consumption-related decisions in single-mother families: Research review and Agenda. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1622178.
- Commenges, D., & Letenneur, L. (1992). Comparison of the proportions of affected relatives of cases and controls: Analysis and minimum sample size formula. Statistics in Medicine, 11(13), 1767-1776.
- D’Astous, A., Maltais, J., & Roberge, C. (1990). Compulsive buying tendencies of adolescent consumers. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 17 (pp. 306-313). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
- Dahiya, R., & Gayatri. (2018). A Research Paper on Digital Marketing Communication and Consumer Buying Decision Process: An Empirical Study in the Indian Passenger Car Market. Journal of Global Marketing, 31(2), 73-95.
- Daniel, W. W. (1999). Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences (7th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
- Dapretto, M. (2016). The power of the like in adolescence: effects of peer influence on neural and behavioral responses to social media. Psychological Science, 2(7), 27-35.
- Darmadi, H. (2011). Educational Research Methods. Bandung, Indonesia: Alphabeta.
- Dibb, S., Rushmer, A., & Stern, P. (2001). New survey medium: Collecting marketing data with e-mail and the World Wide Web. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 10(1), 17-25.
- Dikcius, V., Urbonavicius, S., Pakalniskiene, V., & Pikturniene, I. (2020). Children’s influence on parental purchase decisions: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Market Research, 62(4), 449-467.
- Ekström, K. M. (2007). Parental consumer learning or ‘keeping up with the children’. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(4), 203-217.
- Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications Inc.
- Flurry, L. A., & Burns, A. C. (2005). Children’s influence in purchase decisions: a social power theory approach. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 593-601.
- Ghauri, P. N., & Grønhaug, K. (2005). Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide. London: Pearson Education.
- Gram, M. (2015). Buying Food for the Family: Negotiations in Parent/Child Supermarket Shopping: An Observational Study from Denmark and the United States. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 44(2), 169-195.
- Hawkins, D. I., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2010). Consumer behavior: Building marketing strategy. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
- Hanadian, N. W. (2021a). Number of online transactions in Indonesia 2011–2020. Statista.
- Hanadian, N. W. (2021b). Online purchase behaviour during COVID-19 pandemic. Indonesia-Rakuten Insight. Statista.
- Hulin, C., Netemeyer, R., & Cudeck, R. (2001). Can a Reliability Coefficient Be Too High? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1), 55-58.
- Kotler, P., & Keller K. L. (2009). Marketing Management (13th ed.). Pearson Education.
- Maisarah, A., Sidin, S. M., & Omar, N. A. (2011). A preliminary investigation of adolescents’ perception of the role of internet in parent consumer socialization. IUP Journal of Marketing Management, 10(3).
- McDonald, M., & Dunbar, I. (1998). Who Buys (Step 2). In Market Segmentation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Nicholls, A., & Lee, N. (2006). Purchase decision-making in fair trade and the ethical purchase ‘gap’: ‘is there a fair trade twix?’ Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(4), 369-386.
- Nielsen, A.C. (2007). Survey of Consumer Behavior and Perception Toward. Modern Retail and Traditional Trade Channels. Department of Commerce, Jakarta, Indonesia.
- Noble, S. M., & Schewe, C. D. (2003). Cohort segmentation. Journal of Business Research, 56(12), 979-987.
- Palley, W. (2012). Gen Z: Digital in their DNA. New York, NY: Thompson.
- Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational Differences in Work Values: A Review of Theory and Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79-96.
- Pettigrew, S., Jongenelis, M., Quester, P., Chapman, K., & Miller, C. (2016). Factors associated with parents’ attitudes to unhealthy foods and beverages: Parents’ attitudes to unhealthy foods. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 52(4), 449-454.
- Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim’s Sociology of Generations: An Undervalued Legacy. The British Journal of Sociology, 45(3), 481-495.
- Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
- Priya, P., Kanti Baisya, R., & Sharma, S. (2010). Television advertisements and children’s buying behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(2), 151-169.
- Rideout, V., Foehr, U., & Roberts, D. (2010). Generation M2. Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. Kaiser Family Foundation.
- Şener, A. (2011). Influences of Adolescents on Family Purchasing Behavior: Perceptions of Adolescents and Parents. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(6), 747-754.
- Sheth, J. (1974). A theory of family buying decisions. Models of buyer behaviour, 17-33.
- Shoham, A., & Dalakas, V. (2005). He said, she said … they said: parents’ and children’s assessment of children’s influence on family consumption decisions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 152-160.
- Singh, V., & Kumar, S. (2014). Impact of Socio-economic Variables on Teenagers’ Influence in Family Buying Decisions. Management and Labour Studies, 39(3), 349-364.
- Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13(5), 389-408.
- Sugiyono. (2010). Educational Research Methods Approach Quantitative, Qualitative, and R&D. Bandung, Indonesia: Alphabeta.
- Tamara, D. (1991). Leading figure of Gestalt therapy in this century. The Boston Globe.
- Toronto, E. (2009). Time out of mind: Dissociation in the virtual world. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 26(2), 117-133.
- Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and Social Interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103-113.
- Undheim, A. M., & Drugli, M. B. (2012). Perspective of parents and caregivers on the influence of full-time day-care attendance on young children. Early Child Development and Care, 182(2), 233-247.
- Wallis, C. (2010). The impacts of media multi-tasking on children and learning development. Report from a research seminar. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
- Wang, S., Holloway, B. B., Beatty, S. E., & Hill, W. W. (2007). Adolescent influence in family purchase decisions: An update and cross-national extension. Journal of Business Research, 60(11), 1117-1124.
- Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. M. (2017). Smartphones and Cognition: A Review of Research Exploring the Links between Mobile Technology Habits and Cognitive Functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
- Wilkins, L. T., & Moser, C. A. (1959). Survey Methods in Social Investigation. Applied Statistics, 8(2), 137-139.
-
The processing of advertising: does a consumer’s level of materialism make a difference?
Materialism has been given great attention in the consumer behavior literature. How materialistic tendencies are shaped by advertising has also been documented. Yet, the impact of consumers’ materialism on their perceptions of ads is not clearly understood. The goal of this research is to examine the relationship between an individual’s materialism and his/her perceptions of various kinds of advertising. Using four specific advertising appeals (i.e., interpersonal, prestige/status, achievement, and appearance-related), attitudes toward the ad, and thoughts elicited by the advertisement were measured and compared across high and low materialism groups. Significant differences were found between respondents from the two groups with respect to the evaluation of each type of appeal. When prestige/status, achievement, and appearance-related appeals were used in advertising, they were evaluated more favorably by consumers with high levels of materialism than by consumers with low levels of materialism. In contrast, advertising that used an interpersonal appeal was viewed more favorably by consumers with low levels of materialism. The results of this research provide implications for marketers on three perspectives: the furthering of our conceptualization of the materialism construct, the design of promotional communication for specific target markets, and the public policy dimension of targeting consumers more vulnerable to certain appeals.
-
A review on household energy consumption behavior: how about migrated consumers?
Ebru Acuner ,
M. Özgür Kayalica 
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.09(4).2018.02
Environmental Economics Volume 9, 2018 Issue #4 pp. 8-21 Views: 2449 Downloads: 826 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis paper reviews the literature on energy consumption behavior for both domestic and migrated/displaced population and aims to recommend crucial policy measures for creating awareness on the energy efficiency. Consumers’ adoption to the efficient usage of energy varies depending on demographic, behavioral and situational dynamics in their households and societies. The regional or national strategies to implement efficient technologies for the consumer engagement are crucial to change their behaviors. Migrants affect the energy usage patterns in the host country due to their different usage behaviors. Any type of measures for migrated population should include available, acceptable, accessible and affordable energy efficiency applications to engage them with the domestic population.
-
Discovering the values of generation X and millennial consumers in Indonesia
Arief Helmi ,
Vita Sarasi ,
Umi Kaltum ,
Yogi Suherman
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.17(2).2021.01
Millennials and Generation X (Gen-X) are the fastest-growing market segment in Indonesia. The study aims to discover the salient values of those generations and to investigate their value differences. Data were obtained via questionnaires from 200 respondents of each generation. The questionnaires measure the importance of the values of each generation, consisting of nine values from the List of Values established by Kahle (1986), namely Sense of belonging, Excitement, Being well respected, Fun and enjoyment, Security, Self-fulfillment, Self-respect, Warm relationships with others, and Sense of accomplishment. This study employed factor analysis to identify sets of values representing their underlying values. This method resulted in three inherent values of Gen X and two of Millenials. Gen X shows the importance of Achievement, Family enjoyment, and Social relationship. Meanwhile, the Millennials are conspicuous by the values of Social recognition and Self-pleasing. Companies that choose Gen X as their target market can use their above-mentioned values to be expressed in their marketing strategies. Meanwhile, those who choose Millennials may use the two inherent values of this generation. This study fills a research gap on the characters of the emerging young generation segments in the country that can be adopted to generate market segment characters in the country.
Acknowledgment
This work was funded by a research grant from the Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia.
