a comparison of consumer decision making behavior of married and cohabiting couples

A comparison of consumer decision-makingbehavior of married and cohabiting couples

Nabil Razzouk, Victoria Seitz and Karen Prodigalidad Capo

California State University, San Bernardino, San Bernardino, California, USA

AbstractPurpose The purpose of this article is to compare the consumer decision-making behavior between married and cohabiting couples.Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 40 cohabiting couples and 53 married couples in a western state via a self-administeredquestionnaire. The structure and the instrument used replicated the Gadis et al. study in exploring consumer decision-making processes of marriedcouples.Findings Married couples tended to be more syncratic than cohabiting couples in their decision to purchase forms of savings in this phase, but moreautonomic when purchasing alcoholic beverages. Cohabiting couples were found to be more syncratic in their decision making for these products at thisphase than married couples. The results, when compared to those of 18 years ago found that men and women of married couples make purchasingdecisions separately, while men and women of cohabiting couples made most of theirs together. Implications of the findings were then discussed.Practical implications Marketers, when attempting to reach married couples today, should focus media and advertising communication efforts ontwo audiences rather than one since either the husband or wife may be making the decision. The communication strategy used should focus on the jointnature of both processes since cohabiters showed a propensity toward syncratic strategies in all three phases. Advertising and message strategiesshould focus on how single people of the opposite sex decide on product purchases together since cohabiters are more like single people in theirdecision-making behavior.Originality/value This study compares consumer decision making among married and cohabiting couples.

Keywords Consumer behaviour, Decision making, Marriage, Dual-career couples, Advertising effectiveness

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

Most of the literature currently available on household

consumer decision-making behavior focuses on the traditional

family. Today, they are seen as married, dual-income couples

with children or married, single-income couples (usually, with

the father working) with children. However in the 1970s a

dramatic increase in cohabitation occurred, a trend that had

been increasing for over 25 years (Waters and Ressler, 1999).

Bumpass and Sweet found that almost half of the US

population had been in a cohabiting relationship sometime in

their lives by their early 30s (Bumpass and Sweet as cited in

Waters and Ressler, 1999).Regardless of whether cohabiters eventually marry or not

(as single or divorced people), a distinct difference exists

between cohabiters and married people. Cohabiters tend to

embrace individualism, as well as ideals of personal autonomy

and equity when it comes to each partners contribution to

the household (Brines and Joyner, 1999). The emphasis on

equality for both partners in a cohabiting relationship is

contrary to the emphasis on collectivism among married

couples. Married couples, for example, are more likely to have

joint banking accounts and joint ownership of homes than

cohabiting couples (Brines and Joyner, 1999).While studies exist that compare the different dynamics

between cohabitation and marriage, few studies focus on

comparing the consumer decision-making process of both

types of unions. One of a few recent studies to focus on the

purchasing behavior of both cohabiting and married couples

in the last two decades was Gaidis et al. (1986). However, the

structure of the family in America has changed since the time

of the Gaidis et al. (1986) study. In families today, more

negotiation between husbands and wives occurs in consumer

decision making (Clulow, as cited in Belch and Willis, 2002,

p. 112). The increased presence of dual-income families has

also increased the influence women have on consumer

decision making. It has also generated uncertainty about

gender roles and responsibilities (Clulow, as cited by Belch

and Willis, 2002, p. 112). Belch and Willis (2002) found that

wives gained more influence overall in every area of consumer

decision making since the 1980s. Hence, the purpose of the

study was to replicate Gaidis et al.s (1986) study and

compare consumer decision making among married and

cohabiting couples. In addition, the results of the present

study will be compared to those of Gaidis et al. (1986) to

determine differences in decision making then and now.This study is essential given that traditional families have

the highest average expenditures and ownership of most

major appliances, houses, and many other durable goods

(Schnaninger et al., as cited in Schaninger and Lee, 2002,

p. 26). Moreover, the number of cohabiting couples has

increased since 1960 from 439,000 couples to 4.57 million

couples today, and it is believed that it will increase in the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm

Journal of Consumer Marketing

24/5 (2007) 264274

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]

[DOI 10.1108/07363760710773085]

264

future as well (Gardyn, 2002, p. 58). This trend makes

cohabiting couples also a viable subject for the present study.

Relevant literature

The dynamics of consumer decision-making behavior

for married and cohabiting couples

In consumer decision-making research, traditional couples,

specifically married couples, role specialize in their decisionmaking. In contrast, nontraditional couples such as cohabiters

make decisions jointly. McConocha et al. (1993), as in thestudy done by Granbois and Rosen (1983), found that womenmade most of the money management decisions among

married couples. Also, men in these couples usually made thefinancing decisions. McConocha et al. (1993) found thatcohabiters, unlike married couples, tended to hold individualaccounts and make household money management decisions

jointly. The tenuous nature of these relationships made jointdecisions necessary to reduce perceived risks in managingassets and liabilities (McConocha et al., 1993). Since bothmen and women in cohabiting relationships held separateaccounts, joint decision making was also necessary since

money is coming from two separate sources of income insteadof a common one.

Sociological research findings state that role specializationin marriage results from the pairing of people withcomplementary skills. Traditionally, this role specialization

has been seen as men focusing on market work and women onhome production (Light, 2004). This same type of

specialization can also be seen in the consumer decision-making behavior of married couples. Davis and Rigaux (1974)

and Belch et al. (1985) found wives to be dominant during theproblem recognition and information search stage fortraditional female products (household furnishings,

appliances, breakfast cereals etc.). Husbands were found tobe more dominant in the information search stage for

products such as automobiles and television sets.Though role specialization has been a trend in the

consumer decision making of married couples in the past,this trend is starting to change. Married couples are becomingmore like cohabiting couples in the sense that more joint

decisions are being made. Belch and Willis (2002) reportedthat household purchasing decisions for items such as

automobiles, televisions, and financial planning are movingfrom being primarily male-dominated decisions to joint

decisions. Household decision-making areas that were oncedominated by one gender were also becoming moreinfluenced by the opposite gender. For instance, Zinn found

that of 80 percent of men purchased 25 percent of householdgroceries, while women were taking a larger part in the

purchase of insurance, automobiles, and financial services(Zinn as cited by Belch and Willis, 2002).

Though the ways men and women make householdpurchases in married and cohabiting couples are moresimilar today, both couples still differ in certain ways. For

instance, Smock (2000) did not consider cohabitation assomething similar to marriage but as something that is an

alternative to being single. If looking at homeownership, only33 percent of single and cohabiting men own homes versus 80percent of married men. The planning of the purchase of

homes takes great monetary resources and planning. Thetemporary nature of cohabitation makes it more impractical

for these couples to purchase something permanent like a

home. This of course, does not consider those who cohabit

for life and have qualities more in common with married

couples (Smock, 2000).

The family life cycle and alternative household

consumption behavior

Marketers have used and still make use of family life cycle

models to explain the consumption behavior of households.

These models operate on the premise that the consumer

decisions people make are affected by certain stages they have

reached in life. The family life cycle model developed by Wells

and Gubar is used most often and is believed to work because

it demonstrates couples consumer behavior as children age

and leave the household (Schaninger and Lee, 2002). Using

Wells and Gubars model, Schaninger and Lee (2002) defined

different consumption stages as the traditional young

newlywed, full nest, empty nest, and solitary survivor stages.However, the model has been criticized for not

concentrating enough on other types of households outside

of traditional ones. It did not take into account the decline of

the average family size, delayed first marriages, the increase of

divorce, lifetime bachelors, and childless families. Both the

Murphy, Staples, Gilly and Enis models, as mentioned by

Schaninger and Lee (2002), were created to take into account

the different consumption habits of nontraditional families

(Schaninger and Lee, 2002). For instance, Murphy and

Staples (1979) showed that the pattern of consumption for

divorced families with children were similar to single parents

(Schaninger and Lee, 2002). Both were found not to be heavy

patrons of restaurants and consumers of alcohol, but heavy

consumers of convenience and junk food.Murphy, Staples, Gilly, Enis, as mentioned by Schaninger

and Lee (2002), also gave interesting insight into the

consumption behavior of childless couples. Both showed

that childless couples deferred ownership of homes and

related durable consumer products (Schaninger and Lee,

2002). These couples spent most of their discretionary

income on secondary vehicles and durable products

associated with their lifestyle.One of the most notable exceptions from both the Wells-

Gubar and Murphy-Staples models was the classification of

cohabiting couples by Gilly and Enis (1982) (Schaninger and

Lee, 2002). Cohabiters are more similar to single people in

terms of consumption patterns due to the more individualistic

nature of their relationships. The only similarities that exist

are non-consumption related between married couples and

cohabiters who eventually plan to marry. Both show

similarities in several areas of relationship quality (Smock,

2000).The presence of stepfamilies is a topic of interest in

cohabitation. Though most women in the US do not give

birth in cohabiting relationships, an estimated 40 percent of

children will live in a cohabiting household sometime in their

childhood (Bumpass and Lu, as cited by Smock, 2000). An

estimated 13 percent of children that claimed to live in single

parent families actually lived with cohabiting parents (Smock,

2000). Given the transient nature of cohabiting couples, such

relationships with stepchildren are assumed to be more similar

to single parent households rather than married couple

households in terms of consumer decision making.

A comparison of consumer decision-making behavior of couples



Volume 24 Number 5 2007 264274

265

Methodology

Sample and data collection

Data were gathered from a convenience sample of 40

cohabiting couples and 53 married couples in a western

state. Self-selection bias is the limitation of this method of

data collection. In the interest of time and convenience, this

method was the most appropriate to use. Several

advertisements were posted on the internet through

craigslist.org, soliciting the participation of married

and unmarried couples in this study. Couples were

instructed to e-mail their marital status and home addresses

to the researchers if interested in participating. Associates of

the researchers were also solicited for help in the search for

participants for this study. These associates found participants

in different cities in both northern and southern parts of this

western state.Two surveys were mailed to each participating heterosexual

married and cohabiting couple, along with a self-addressed

stamped envelope and a cover letter with instructions. The

questionnaires were color-coded for male/female (cohabiting

couples) and husband/wife (married couples). The male and

husband questionnaires were colored blue while the female

and wife questionnaires were colored yellow. The cover letter

instructed all couples to fill out their individual surveys

without consulting their partners.

Instrument

The structure and the instrument used replicated the Gaidis

et al. (1986) study in exploring consumer decision-makingprocesses of married couples. A total of 24 household

products were presented to participants in two two-way tables

and one four-way table. The tables asked for the nature of

acquisition for a product, the condition of a product, and

where the product was acquired. Questions for 26 product

categories (forms of savings and savings objectives were

added) were used to measure the amount of relative influence

of men and women in all couples for the three decision

process stages (need recognition, information search, and

final acquisition). These were measured using a modified

Likert scale. For each of the 26 items in each of the three

decision stages, participants indicated who in the household

(male/female partner) had the major influence (male 1,joint 3, and female 5).

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using measures of central tendency

regarding the nature of acquisition, condition, and,

where acquired categories for each product. Moreover,

statements were analyzed along two dimensions: where a

couple was on the relative influence scale and proportion of all

couples who indicated some degree of shared responsibility in

all three decision-making stages. The questions were

measured on a modified Likert scale ranging from one to

five to be more discriminating (Gaidis et al., 1986).The scores of each married and cohabiting couples were

calculated by computing the mean. Next, the proportion of

couples that agreed on shared responsibility was calculated.

This was done by finding couples within the married and

cohabiting groups whose partners both marked a value of 2, 3,

or 4 for each of the questions. Finally, t-tests and Chi-Squareanalysis were used to determine differences between the

groups regarding the decision-making process.

Results and discussion

Demographic characteristics of respondents

The largest age group for the 53 married couples was 40 years

and above, accounting for 43.5 percent of the sample. No

respondents were 18 and under among the married couples,

and the mean age was between 31 and 35 years old.The largest age group for the 40 cohabiting couples was

between 19 and 25, which accounted for 37.5 percent of

respondents in this group. The average age was 26-30 years

old for males and females. Like the married couples, none of

the respondents were 18 years or under. Cohabitation begins

at a young age. In fact, one of the most recent estimates on

cohabitation by Bumpass and Sweet (1989) showed that

about half of Americans cohabited before their early 30s

(Ressler and Waters, 1999).Of 52 married couples, a majority had no children at home

(53.8 percent of females and 60.3 percent of males,

respectively). Most (65 percent) cohabiting couples did not

have children. Married couples without children at home were

mostly in the empty nest stage, and not necessarily childless.

The difference between the number of children between men

and women among married couples was most likely due to

remarriage and the formation of blended families. Most men

and women in married couples each reported an income of

$100,000 and above. Most cohabiting men reported their

income to be $100,000 and above. The income of the

majority of cohabiting women was either between $25,000-

$39,999 or $100,000 and above ranges. Average income for

married couples was $85,000 for men and women.Cohabiting men and women showed different mean

incomes, with women close to $59,000 and men $47,000.

The mean for estimated household contribution for married

males was 61 percent, and for married females was 56

percent. The mean for cohabiting males was 66 percent and

cohabiting females 55 percent.A majority of the 53 married couples lived together for

more than five years, while a majority of the 40 cohabiting

couples lived together for one to two years. Moreover, most

males of married couples had some college education and/or a

college degree as their highest educational attainment.

Married females mostly had college degrees. Males and

females of cohabiting couples both had some college

education. The lower education attainment of cohabiting

couples compared to married couples may be due to the age

of the majority of the sample, which fell in the 19-25 age

range.Brines and Joyner (1999) found that women in cohabiting

unions are more likely to have higher incomes than their male

partners. The results of this study support this finding since

cohabiting women earn on average about $55,000 versus

cohabiting men who earn an average income of $49,000.

Mean relative influence and proportion of agreement

on shared responsibility among married and cohabiting

couples

Table I shows the mean relative influence of the 40 cohabiting

and 53 married couples in the sample of 26 products in each

of the three decision phases. A mean value from 1 to 1.99

indicated male dominance, 2 to 3.99 indicated autonomic

activity, and 4 to 5 indicated female dominance. Table II

reveals the proportions of agreement on shared responsibility

among both married and cohabiting couples for 26 products





266

across three decision phases. Proportions that exceed 0.50 are

seen as syncratic decision making. Proportions under 0.50 are

seen as autonomic, male-dominated, or female-dominated

decision making. Examining the mean values of Table I

against Table II can be used to determine what kind of

decision-making strategy is used in these cases.T-tests were conducted to determine significant differences

among mean relative influence of married and cohabiting

couples among selected product categories. Significant

differences were found regarding problem recognition and

internet access (t 23:25, p , 0.01), and the search phase ofcosmetics and toiletries (t 22:31, p , 0.05). Moreover,significant differences were found for all three decision phases

for other household furnishings; problem recognition

(t 22:10, p , 0.05), search (t 23.30, p , 0.01), anddecision (t 22:24, p , 0.05).

Chi Square analyses was also conducted to determine

significant differences in proportion of shared responsibility of

influence between married and cohabiting couples for the

selected 26 product categories and the three decision phases

( p , 0.05). Significant differences in the problem recognitionphase regarding forms of saving (x2 5:33, p , 0.05) andalcoholic beverages (x2 4:90, p , 0.05). In the search phasea significant difference was found also for alcoholic beverages

(x2 9:84, p , 0:01).Married couples tended to be more syncratic than

cohabiting couples in their decision to purchase forms of

savings in this phase, but more autonomic when purchasing

alcoholic beverages. In the search phase, significant chi-square

values were found for alcoholic beverages, cosmetics and

toiletries, gardening tools, and kitchenware. Cohabiting

couples were found to be more syncratic in their decision

making for these products at this phase than married couples.

Patterns of influence among married and cohabiting

couples

There was a greater tendency towards autonomic decision

making among married couples and more syncratic decision

making among cohabiting couples (Tables III and IV). This

finding was directly opposite of those found by Gaidis et al.(1986). Female influence across all decision stages for both

married and cohabiting couples was small, while male

influence was non-existent for both couples across all

decision phases.Accordingly, the decision-making strategy that married

people tend to adopt is autonomic through all three stages,

with slightly more syncratic behavior in the final decision

phases. Female dominance was present only for female

partners clothes (Clothes (Hers)), as shown in Figures 1, 2,

and 3 for all decision phases. Other insurance showed the

greatest shift between all three phases for married couples.

Couples are syncratic in their recognition of need for it, and

then autonomic in the information search phase. This may

have to do with the husband and wife determining their

individual needs in terms of insurance. It then returns to

syncratic activity as both make the final decision to purchase.Cohabiting couples differ in the sense that the problem

recognition and search phases tend to be both autonomic and

Table I Mean relative influence between married and cohabiting couples

Married couples Cohabiting couples

Product Problem recognition Search Decision Problem recognition Search Decision

Life insurance 2.97 2.88 2.92 3.09 3.16 2.94

Concerts, movies, theatre, and entertainment 2.91 2.88 2.93 2.89 2.86 2.96

Internet access 2.63 2.51 2.58 3.11 2.85 2.79

Housing 2.97 2.85 2.90 3.00 2.98 2.89

Forms of saving 2.98 2.70 2.85 3.16 2.76 2.95

Other insurance 2.90 2.76 2.80 2.94 2.88 2.73

Savings objectives 3.12 3.05 3.00 3.14 3.17 3.20

Housing upkeep 2.82 2.85 2.86 2.88 2.64 2.73

Food and non-alcoholic beverages 3.07 3.13 3.08 3.16 3.23 3.09

Alcoholic beverages 2.60 2.66 2.77 2.48 2.59 2.78

Cosmetics and toiletries 3.75 3.70 3.62 3.71 4.07 3.64

Non-prescription drugs and first aid items 3.35 3.40 3.35 3.49 3.66 3.32

Living room furniture 3.23 3.24 3.04 3.19 3.25 3.10

Computers 2.65 2.52 2.69 2.64 2.50 2.68

Household appliances 2.91 2.91 2.97 2.97 3.00 3.04

TV, stereo, CD player, DVD player 2.52 2.39 2.65 2.52 2.47 2.70

Other household furnishings 3.33 3.29 3.30 3.61 3.77 3.62

Female partners clothes 4.00 4.21 4.07 4.15 4.35 4.23

Child(ren)s clothes 3.60 3.78 3.67 3.79 3.73 3.57

Gardening tools 2.60 2.57 2.57 2.84 3.01 2.60

Male partners clothes 2.48 2.57 2.47 2.20 2.31 2.14

Household cleaning products 3.54 3.47 3.39 3.46 3.45 3.36

Kitchenware 3.48 3.41 3.52 3.49 3.53 3.49

Child(ren)s toys 3.38 3.40 3.34 3.38 3.49 3.37

Video games 2.46 2.47 2.44 2.10 2.06 2.29

Motor vehicle(s) 2.78 2.59 2.78 2.73 2.44 2.60





267

syncratic in nature, with decision-making strategy leaning

slightly to the syncratic side. The final decision phase for these

couples is characterized by a strong syncratic decision-making

strategy. Just as with married couples, the only female

dominant product was female partners clothes (see Figures 4,

5, and 6). The one product that showed the greatest change

through the phases was forms of saving.

Figures 4 and 5 show cohabiting couples as autonomic in

their problem recognition and search phases for this product,

but highly syncratic in the final decision phase. As was

mentioned, a majority of cohabiting couples hold individual

accounts, mostly regular checking and savings. The syncratic

activity demonstrated for this product in the final decision

phase supports past research on cohabiters emphasis on

Table II Proportion of agreement on shared responsibility among married and cohabiting couples

Married couples Cohabiting couples

Product Problem recognition Search Decision Problem recognition Search Decision

Life insurance 0.40 0.53 0.68 0.28 0.35 0.45

Concerts, movies, theatre, and entertainment 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.58 0.39 0.59

Internet access 0.54 0.49 0.45 0.71 0.43 0.46

Housing 0.61 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.64

Forms of saving 0.57 0.50 0.46 0.30 0.38 0.69

Other insurance 0.51 0.37 0.48 0.48 0.53 0.58

Savings objectives 0.53 0.33 0.55 0.47 0.47 0.61

Housing upkeep 0.35 0.43 0.58 0.43 0.33 0.44

Food, non-alcoholic beverages 0.47 0.41 0.46 0.41 0.49 0.62

Alcoholic beverages 0.43 0.28 0.38 0.69 0.65 0.56

Cosmetics and toiletries 0.38 0.25 0.45 0.53 0.46 0.49

Non-prescription drugs and first aid items 0.47 0.41 0.43 0.54 0.46 0.50

Living room furniture 0.48 0.45 0.50 0.68 0.59 0.59

Computers 0.46 0.36 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.53

Household appliances 0.59 0.52 0.58 0.56 0.54 0.57

TV, stereo, CD player, DVD player 0.43 0.45 0.52 0.57 0.46 0.57

Other household furnishings 0.43 0.44 0.54 0.46 0.62 0.55

Female partners clothes 0.36 0.48 0.48 0.38 0.65 0.59

Child(rens) clothes 0.32 0.45 0.47 0.43 0.67 0.36

Gardening tools 0.32 0.33 0.41 0.45 0.61 0.48

Male partners clothes 0.30 0.31 0.44 0.47 0.48 0.54

Household cleaning products 0.38 0.33 0.37 0.54 0.55 0.56

Kitchenware 0.48 0.31 0.41 0.46 0.60 0.54

Child(ren)s toys 0.24 0.43 0.39 0.50 0.31 0.39

Video games 0.38 0.49 0.38 0.53 0.52 0.52

Motor vehicle(s) 0.51 0.50 0.70 0.55 0.61 0.71

Table III Patterns of influence among married couples

Pattern of influence Problem recognition Information search Decision Average

Male dominant 0 0 0 0

Autonomic 17 19 15 17

Syncratic 8 6 10 8

Female dominant 1 1 1 1

Table IV Patterns of influence among cohabiting couples

Pattern of influence Problem recognition Information search Decision Average

Male dominant 0 0 0 0

Autonomic 12 12 7 10

Syncratic 13 13 19 15

Female dominant 1 1 0 1





268

Figure 1 Problem recognition stage: married couples

Figure 2 Search stage: married couples





269

Figure 3 Decision stage: married couples

Figure 4 Problem recognition stage: cohabiting couples





270

Figure 5 Search stage: cohabiting couples

Figure 6 Decision stage: cohabiting couples





271

equality in the household. This extends to equality in deciding

the amount of money each should save.

Conclusions and implications

The results of this study differed greatly from those of the

previous study done by Gaidis et al. (1986). In the presentstudy, married couples showed a greater tendency towardsautonomic decision making while cohabiting couples were

slightly more syncratic in their decision making. This change

in decision-making strategies of couples from Gaidis et al.s(1986) study to the current findings may have to do with

changing gender roles for men and women.The stronger presence of women in the workforce today, as

opposed to 20 years ago, may have given way to more

autonomic decision-making strategies for married couples

and contributed to the lack of traditional role specialization inmarriage as compared to the past. Today, women are no

longer seen as just homemakers and men as just

breadwinners. When it comes to decision making forparticular products, it becomes necessary to take an either-

or strategy in purchasing products.The autonomic strategy adopted by married couples may be

out of convenience since males and females reported equally

high incomes and being in the workforce. Husband and wivesmay not have time to convene to make decisions regarding

which product to buy so they may leave it up to either spouse

to go through the three phases of decision making. A move

towards more syncratic behavior for cohabiting couples in theproblem recognition, search, and final decision phases may be

due to their focus on equality in their relationships.Marketers, when attempting to reach married couples

today, may want to employ the advertising and message

strategies that Davis and Rigaux (1974) recommended forthose that use an autonomic strategy in purchase decisions.

Media and advertising should focus communication efforts on

two audiences rather than one since either the husband orwife may be making the decision.

The communication strategy used should focus on the joint

nature of both processes since cohabiters showed a propensitytowards syncratic strategies in all three phases. Hence,

advertising and message strategies should focus on how single

people of the opposite sex decide on product purchasestogether since cohabiters are more like single people in their

decision-making behavior. Moreover, findings also showed a

slight trend towards autonomic decision making during theproblem recognition and search phases. Marketers must also

use the same strategies for autonomic decision making in

these phases as suggested for married couples.Predominant male or female influences were lacking in

most product categories except for one, female partners

clothes. Among married couples, this was primarily female-dominated. Marketers should continue to appeal to women in

these couples for all three search phases.Cohabiting relationships are normally tenuous in nature.

The average duration of such relationships is 1.3 years

(Waters and Ressler, 1999). Brines and Joyner (1999) found

cohabiting relationships to be based on egalitarianism whilefinding marriage to be collectivist in nature, where both

husband and wife pool together complementary resources (in

terms of skills and/or income). According to these researchers,cohabiting relationships are three times more likely to

terminate their relationship than marriages when inequality

existed between the incomes of men and women. Brines and

Joyner (1999) found this to be especially true for couples

where the woman earned more than the man.Female dominance was also found in this same category

among cohabiters, but only in the problem recognition phase.

The search and final decision phases were syncratic in nature.

Hence, marketers should continue to appeal to women in this

group and communicate to them the need or desire for

particular apparel. Moreover, message strategies should focus

on joint decision making between male and female cohabiters

during the information search regarding female partners

clothes and the final decision to purchase them.Women in cohabiting relationships that reported higher

incomes than their male counterparts were found to have a

higher chance of dissolution of it compared to married

couples (Brines and Joyner, 1999). Marriages where wives

earn twice as much as their husbands had only a 1.26 times

more chance to divorce compared to traditional marriages

(where the husband is the primary breadwinner, and the wife

is the primary homemaker) (Brines and Joyner, 1999).The original hypothesis stated that more egalitarian

decision-making strategies would be evident among married

and cohabiting couples. It was also suggested that womens

greater presence in the workforce compared to 20 years ago

would influence this. Ironically, womens presence in the

workforce has had an effect on married couples product

decision making, but not towards egalitarianism. Instead, a

trend towards autonomic decision making was evident in the

present study.Cohabiters, unlike married couples, developed a more

syncratic strategy for product decision making compared to

the Gaidis et al. (1986) study. This move towards syncratic

behavior may be due to their greater propensity towards

equality than their predecessors in the previous study.

Cohabiters are eight percent of the number of married

couples in the US (which is estimated to be approximately

60.7 million) (US Census Bureau, 2000). Marketers may

want to consider if they are a viable market, especially for

companies whose customer base is made mostly of more

common-type households. Cohabiters may also be good for

companies looking into smaller, untapped segments of the

population.

References

Belch, M.A. and Willis, L.A. (2002), Family decision at the

turn of the century: has the changing structure of

households impacted the family decision-making

process?, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 2 No. 2,

pp. 111-24.Belch, G.E., Belch, M.A. and Ceresino, G. (1985), Parental

and teenage child influences in family decision making,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13, pp. 163-76.Brines, J. and Joyner, K. (1999), The ties that bind:

principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage,

American Sociological Review, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 333-55.Davis, H.L. and Rigaux, B.P. (1974), Perception of marital

roles in decision processes, Journal of Consumer Research,

Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-62.Gaidis, W.C., Gaulden, C.F., Razzouk, N.Y. and Schlater,

J.L. (1986), Decision making in the household: a

comparison between married and cohabitating couples,





272

Akron Business and Economic Review, Vol. 17 No. 3,pp. 73-84.

Gardyn, R. (2002), Unmarried bliss, AmericanDemographics, Vol. 22 No. 12, pp. 56-61.

Granbois, D.H. and Rosen, D.L. (1983), Determinants ofrole structure in family financial management, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 253-8.

Light, A. (2004), Gender differences in the marriage andcohabitation income premium, Demography, Vol. 41 No. 2,pp. 263-84.

McConocha, D.M., Tully, S.A. and Walter, C.H. (1993),Household money management: recognizingnontraditional coup, The Journal of Consumer Affairs,Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 258-86.

Schaninger, C.M. and Lee, D.H. (2002), A new full-nestclassification approach, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 19No. 1, pp. 25-58.

Smock, P.J. (2000), Cohabitation in the United States: anappraisal of research themes, findings, and implications,Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 1-20.

US Census Bureau (2000), available at: http://www.census.gov/

Waters, M.S. and Ressler, R.W. (1999), An economic modelof cohabitation and divorce, Journal of Economic Behaviorand Organization, Vol. 40, pp. 195-206.

Corresponding author

Nabil Razzouk can be contacted at: [email protected]

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executive readers

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executivesa rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with aparticular interest in the topic covered may read the article in tototo take advantage of the more comprehensive description of theresearch undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of thematerial present.

Research into household consumer decision-making hasusually focused on the traditional family consisting ofmarried single or dual income parents with children. Manystudies have used life cycle models to explain consumptionbehavior during different life phases within these householdssuch as the arrival of children into the family and the stagewhen grown-up children leave home.

The growth of non-traditional households

However, critics point out that such models do not accountfor less conventional family structures influenced by factorslike late first marriage, divorce and couples who remainchildless. Couples who cohabit have also been largely ignored,despite the fact that the number of cohabiting relationships inthe US has increased massively from the 439,000 recorded in1960. There are now several million cohabiting couples andresearch has indicated that around half the US population haslived with someone by the time they reach their 30s.

Although few studies have compared decision makingbetween married couples and cohabiters, some evidence ofdistinctions between the two union types has previouslyemerged. Married people indicated themselves to be morecollectivist and inclined to make joint decisions, while those

involved in a cohabiting relationship tended to be more

individualistic. This is reflected in the fact that married

couples and cohabiters tend to respectively hold joint and

separate bank accounts.But earlier research also highlighted the role specialization

common within marriages that stemmed from the tradition of

the husband going out to work and his wife looking after the

home. This led to norms such as women being responsible for

money management and men making decisions about

finance.Analysts recognize three stages in the consumer making

decision process: problem recognition; information search;

and final decision. Past studies into married couples point to

evidence of role specialization within the first two phases.

Domination by husbands was evident in relation to products

like cars and TVs, while wives controlled household

furnishings, appliances and other areas conventionally

regarded as female territory.Razzouk et al. note, however, that gender roles have evolved

resulting in both husband and wife exerting greater influence

in many areas once regarded as exclusive property of the

opposite sex. That joint negotiation is now more common

within these areas has served to blur gender distinctions.Statistics show that most cohabiting relationships will last

not much above one year. This transitory nature of such

unions has led to the claim that cohabiters behave more like

single people in respect of consumer decision making. Unlike

married people, they will therefore be unlikely to commit to

major purchases such as buying a home. Having separate

accounts helps both partners protect their interests but it is

pointed out that shared decisions have to be taken because of

the need to pool finances.The authors replicate earlier research by studying consumer

decision making behavior of 53 married couples and 40

cohabiting couples from different cities within a western US

state. Participating couples responded to an internet appeal

and were sent surveys to complete independently of each

other. Almost half the married couples were aged over 40 and

the largest cohabiting group was between 19 and 25. More

than half the married respondents did not have children living

at home, while 65 percent of cohabiters were childless. The

majority of married couples had lived together for five years

and the majority of cohabiters for between one and two.Respondents provided information relating to 26 product

categories. The information revealed how and where products

are purchased and the circumstances of their acquisition. In

relation to each category, the survey also assessed the relative

influence of men and women during the three decision-

making stages and the amount of shared responsibility.

Key findings

Some of the revelations include:. married people make decisions together about savings but

act individually when purchasing alcohol; and. during the information search stage, cohabiters act jointly

in relation to alcohol, gardening tools, kitchenware, and

cosmetics and toiletries.

Married couples tend to act separately during all three stages,

though there is evidence of more joint decision making within

the final stage. The greatest fluctuation in this pattern was

noted in the other insurance category, where consultation

during the initial stage was again evident when the final





273

decision was taken. In between, couples acted separately and

the authors believe this may be down to a need to determine

their own individual requirements.The pattern was different with cohabiters, who showed an

inclination to both act alone and together during the first two

stages with final decisions arriving through increased joint

input. The main exception was in relation to forms of

saving, where partners reached final decisions together after

acting individually prior to that stage. Razzouk et al. relate this

to the need for equality to surround household expenditure

and that this extends to decisions about how much each

partner can save.With both married couples and cohabiters, there was little

evidence of decision making being dominated by either men

or women except for the female partners clothes category,

where female domination existed in both cases.Overall, the study indicated a propensity towards

individualistic behavior among married couples, while

cohabiters were more inclined to make decisions together.

These conclusions contradict findings from two decades ago

and may reflect the changing gender roles that have emerged

because of the increase in the number of wives who go out to

work compared to then. The authors speculate that

employment commitments place heavy demands on both

marriage partners to the extent that they struggle to find time

for consulting about household purchase decisions. While it

arguably becomes unavoidable that one or the other often has

to take sole responsibility, the move towards syncratic

behavior in the final stage may be a reflection of thecommitment to equality in the relationship.

Marketing suggestions

Because of this prevailing situation, Razzouk et al. advisemarketers to focus their attention on two audiences ratherthan one in their attempts to effectively reach marriedcouples. That cohabiters seem to behave similarly during thefirst two phases provides some scope to use these tactics,although it is recommended that advertisers regard cohabitersmore like single people and use strategies appropriate to thatmarket segment.

Marketers should continue to target married women inrelation to female partners clothes category. There should,however, be some adjustment made to the strategy forcohabiting females because their dominance was mainlyevident during the problem recognition stage. Consequently,the message should concentrate on the need or desire for theclothing in question.

The authors believe that marketers might ultimately decidethat cohabiters may prove a viable segment that exists outsidemore traditional household types. They also suggest thatstudy findings could prove useful to small organizationsinterested in exploiting potential opportunities within smallerunexploited sections of the population.

(A precis of the article A comparison of consumer decision-makingbehavior of married and cohabitating couples. Supplied byMarketing Consultants for Emerald.)





274

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

a comparison of consumer decision making behavior of married and cohabiting couples

Documents

women of married couples

women of cohabiting

married people

singleincome couples

decision making

dualcareer couples

single people

divorced people