Download Understanding the Impact of Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors on Family Decision Making and more Lecture notes Decision Making in PDF only on Docsity!
Objectives Values Personal Values Family Values Reality Check Values Across the Lifespan Value Congruence Across Generations
Attitudes
Behaviors
Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors in the Decision-Making Framework
In the News
Values and Behaviors in Family Purchasing Decisions Brand Preference Quality Preference Price Preference Design Preference The Marketing Profession’s Interest in Family Values Impact of Culture on Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors Worldview Consistency Over Time and Situation
Objectives
- Understand the concepts of values, attitudes, and behaviors and how they impact family decision- making.
- Become familiar with the factors that impact development, maintenance, and changing of personal and family value sets over time.
- Become aware of how external forces impact value expression in the identification of needs and alternatives and in the decision-making process.
- Be able to apply understanding of values, attitudes, and behaviors to the critical analysis of family decisions and behaviors in society.
Values, Attitudes,
and Behaviors
Understanding Family Choices
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
—Albert Einstein
I
ndividuals and families discover, rank, and create evaluative meanings for their needs. Every step of the decision-making process is impacted by one’s values, attitudes, and behaviors. When family members are con- templating or discovering needs, they rely on these subjective measures to rank order or prioritize the multiple needs. For instance, family members need clothing. When that new clothing is required is a function of existing resources and environmental conditions. Beyond that, in American soci- ety, new clothing purchases are motivated primarily by social expectations and how deeply the family unit is persuaded to follow fashion and social pressure. A bride needs a wedding dress, right? Well, actually, legal mar- riage ceremonies do not mandate participants’ dress. If a traditional wed- ding dress is perceived as a real need, it is processed as such. From that point, values and resources are weighed to determine what type of dress is obtained and how it is secured. Will it be borrowed? Purchased? Created? To understand the impact of values, attitudes, and behaviors on family resource management, we must understand the definitions of many terms that are often used loosely.
Values
Value is a term used often in the discussion of human behavior from two unique perspectives. When discussing economics and consumer behavior, the term value is used as a measurement of exchange. If you spend money on goods or services, you expect satisfaction from that exchange of resources. It is determined to be a good value if the person exchanging resources feels that he or she received a fair return. This determination of fairness is sub- jective. A baseball card collector may feel that one single card is worth sev- eral hundred dollars. Someone who is not involved in this hobby may feel that such a purchase would be a waste of monetary resources. A grand- mother’s collection of photographs may be priceless to one grandchild, but of little perceived value to another. Another common use of the term value is perhaps even more subjective and personal in nature. Guiding principles of thought and behavior are often referred to as one’s values. It is believed that these principles develop slowly over time as part of the individual’s social and psychological devel- opment. Researchers have focused on these dispositions in numerous sci- entific studies in an attempt to measure, predict, and understand how values guide thought and action.
100 DISCOVERING FAMILY NEEDS
there are no shades of gray. Adolescents, who are capable of abstract think- ing, will begin to contemplate each situation in terms of context, alterna- tives, and impact of actions on self and others. Some adults, according to Kohlberg’s sequence, will consider universal moral principles even at the risk of breaking their own civil laws. One example frequently used to explain this concept is the husband who would break into a pharmacy to steal a medication that would keep his wife alive, rather than let her die because he couldn’t pay for it. Although this model of moral development assumes a progression through stages, it does not assume that every individual moves through each and every stage. Thus, any group of adults may have individuals func- tioning at different phases of Kohlberg’s model. Obviously, a multigenera- tional family will also have members operating at different levels. Adults in family units are most often the final decision makers, but that does not mean that family decisions will then reflect the higher moral levels. If those adults are functioning at lower levels, decisions will reflect that.
Mr. and Mrs. Jones set aside an entire day each February to prepare their income tax returns. They read the directions carefully and report both their earnings and deductions honestly. Mr. and Mrs. Smith wait until the last day to file taxes. They claim only the income they have received that can be traced through federal reporting forms and exag- gerate many deduction amounts to reduce their final tax payment. The Jones’ are functioning at a moral level that reflects their beliefs in what is right and what is wrong and their sense of obligation to the govern- ment. The Smiths may feel that the government is misusing funds col- lected through taxation or may rationalize their behavior in other ways.
Moral beliefs that are held strongly enough within a group may ultimately become laws with punitive legal consequences. Accurate reporting of infor- mation on tax reports has legal consequences, but only when discovered. When faced with decisions that impact society, but aren’t mandated by law, family members responsible for making decisions regarding resource management must rely on their values, morals, and past experiences to reach decisions that they are comfortable making. One purchase decision faced by many families is the procurement of a vehicle for transportation. This decision has personal, family, and social ramifications. When contemplating the purchase of automobiles in the United States, consumers have many options. The selection includes many sizes, config- urations, materials, and fuel sources. Some vehicles are fuel-efficient, whereas others are gas-guzzlers. Current laws do not impose restrictions on gas mileage of automobiles. A conscientious consumer may forgo some size capacity and styling options because he or she wants to reduce the pollution and consumption of gasoline. Another may be determined to
102 DISCOVERING FAMILY NEEDS
buy larger, less efficient vehicles because he or she needs the size to trans- port others and/or materials. Neither is breaking a law. Both are express- ing their consumer rights. Both may value the need to reduce air pollution and fossil fuel consumption. The second owner, however, is rationalizing his or her purchase by prioritizing existing needs (hauling capacity) above environmental concerns.
FAMILY VALUES
Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors 103
Reality Check
Jeremiah was born and raised in a conservative, Catholic community in the Midwest. He was the oldest of five children in a family that struggled to stay at the poverty line. He is approaching retirement age and reflects on the choices he has made over his adult life that were directly related to his inability to operate within the values and attitudes of his hometown.
At 22, I hitchhiked across four states to the East Coast. I had completed a college degree in journalism, but knew that I wouldn’t be happy in the geographical area I had grown up in for many reasons. One major reason—I was gay. In the sexual revolution of the 1960s, that wasn’t such a radical thing, but in my home community, it was unacceptable. I went to Woodstock and hung out in New York City for a while and really enjoyed the lifestyle there. I met my life partner shortly after arriving. Eventually we moved to a small coastal community between New York and Washington, DC.
Jeremiah physically separated himself from a value set that had discounted him and his sexual orientation, which resulted in a physi- cal and emotional separation from his family of origin.
My younger sister knew why I had moved away. My parents and extended family probably knew, but never acknowledged that, even now, 40 years later. I sent cards and letters home occasion- ally. My siblings, and even my mother, made short visits to Virginia and spent time with me, in my home, where my partner was also living. He was always referred to as my friend and room- mate by family members. I was always up-front about our joint ownership of property and our growing investment portfolio. Eventually, I think they saw him as a “business partner” of sorts.
(Continued)
In North America, between 80 and 90% of Protestants are married to Protestants. The marital homogamous rate among Jews is 90% and Catholics between 64 and 85% (Eshleman, 1994). These figures imply a purposeful search for a partner with similar religious morals and values. Educational levels may be even more important in mate selection than religious affilia- tion. Blackwell and Lichter (2000) reported that married and cohabiting cou- ples are highly homogamous with respect to education. Another possibly confounding variable is the strong interrelationship between religion and race. American Mormons are overwhelmingly White, and African Americans are predominantly Protestant. Determining which factor—race or religion— guides mate selection becomes problematic. Homogamy, in terms of social class affiliation, has been a factor in mate selection in all known societies. Although there is probably more mixed- class marriage in the United States than in many other countries, intraclass pairings are the norm. A pattern of finding mates whose parents have simi- lar occupations to one’s own parents is also firmly entrenched in U.S. courtship and marriage. Even geographical location impacts this type of homogamy. Neighborhoods are often delineated by income level and social class. Although transportation and career mobility have changed the oppor- tunities for mate selection across geographical distances, most couples still find each other in relatively narrow geographical areas—community or state of origin.
Peggy was born and raised in an affluent suburb of Washington, DC. Her family was White, upper middle class, and Catholic. She attended pri- vate religious schools from K-12 and then attended an Ivy League col- lege. Rarely was Peggy in a social situation where there were children or adults from minority groups. Her pool of dating partners reflected little diversity. Jolie grew up in Harlem, New York City. Her mother was African American, and her father was of Cuban descent. Her neighborhood, schools, and church were culturally and racially mixed, with the excep- tion of Whites. Few White children attended her schools, and even fewer participated in her religious and social activities. Although her pool of dating partners was more diverse than Peggy’s, it still reflects a segre- gated sample.
Odds are that both of these females will select mates that are similar to them in terms of socioeconomic class and race. This is not necessarily purposeful homogamy, but more likely experiential in nature. When diverse families live and interact together, the rate of interracial relation- ships should be higher. Statistics in such cases, however, still indicate that purposeful selection of mates is impacted by race and ethnic preferences. According to the data and theory on homogamy, it appears that couples forming new households and family units bring similar backgrounds with
Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors 105
them in terms of race, religion, and social class factors, which would sug- gest that they have similar value and moral bases. Although probably true in the majority of cases, it is still essential that compromise and negotia- tion take place initially in newly formed families, thus resulting in a unique blending of values and approaches to decision-making. These sets of family values will guide family resource management over time. As with all social memberships, family members may deviate from estab- lished family values, but there will be consequences for them in doing so.
Patrick and Katria are both college students in the central region of the United States. Although they have both grown to adulthood in differ- ent states, their educational, religious, and social experiences have been quite similar. When they decide to marry, there are minor differ- ences between the families in terms of wedding details and living arrangements, but nothing extremely out of the ordinary. Derrick and Charlene are both Hispanic. Derrick has been raised in the Midwest in a foster home with a Euro-American family and middle-class social and educational experiences. He moved to the Southwest for employment and met Charlene. Charlene has grown up in a border town with language and economic challenges. Although, by all outward appearances, the marriage of these two young people would appear homogamous, they have many more obstacles and much more intense negotiation to work through as a new family unit.
Changing immigration patterns in recent decades have had a major influence on family and household behaviors in the United States (Taylor, 2002). As previously presented in chapter 1, worldviews shape the values and behaviors of newly immigrated families and individuals. Over time, these families may assimilate to the value system of the majority, or they may create a unique blending of the two. Since early in the 1900s, the largest wave of immigrants has been from Latin America, Asia, and other Third World countries. Although studies have varied greatly in reporting structural differences in the family unit that are culturally derived, it is important to remember that the family unit is essential within all minor- ity communities. Differences among these groups in family practices and living arrangements are the result of “unique demographic and ancestral backgrounds, cultural histories, ecological processes, and economic ori- gins and statuses” (Wilkinson, 1987, p. 204). Food consumption choices are deeply embedded in values—personal and cultural. Choosing to be a vegetarian is a conscious decision of many Americans. This choice is often in opposition to that of other family mem- bers. The main reasons for choosing a vegetarian diet today are health, animal ethics, and environmental issues (Bryant, De Walt, Courtney, & Schwartz, 2003). All of these reasons reflect certain values held by individ- uals and their social groups.
106 DISCOVERING FAMILY NEEDS
offers a simple definition of this concept—love, obligation, and reciprocity. Members of a family care about other members’ welfare and happiness.. They devote a certain amount of mental, physical, and spiritual resources to those other individuals to maintain both the group and the members. In turn, it is expected that other family members will do the same. Within the family, values are expressed through behaviors toward one another. Folbre (2001) warns that the “work” within the family is unpaid and, thus, devalued by society. She notes a trend toward transferring eco- nomic activities from family and kin-based systems to the larger, less per- sonal institutional levels, such as government and service industries. The movement away from family-based care for aging adults and toward the institutionalization of frail elderly family members would be a reflection of this concept. The same could be said for the reliance of working parents on day care and educational facilities for child care. Politicians often expound on the negative changes they perceive within families as declining family values. Although touted as important parts of a candidate’s platform, family values are not always clearly defined. Often the phrase is used in the discussion of the “breakdown” of the family unit, which is then illustrated through a series of examples highlighting the diversity of family structures operating in contemporary society. Correla- ions are then made between these diverse structures and the success or fail- ure of family members. The general consensus from all major political parties is that the United States needs to “get back” to family structures and behaviors that had more positive effects on society in better times. The phrase family values also is used to express an external concept. The value and expectations that the larger social system places on the fam- ily seem to have shifted through recent history. In recent years, tax deduc- tion discrepancies for single and married citizens suggest that the federal government has a bias for one or the other. Availability and quality of child care have been identified as important national issues. The impor- tance of, or the value placed on, families in the United States continues to reflect the level of attention devoted by the media.
VALUES ACROSS THE LIFESPAN
Do our values change over time and across the lifespan? When psycho- logical constructs are developed slowly and over long periods of time, as are values, they become deeply ingrained in individuals and family units. Experiences, cognitive development, and moral maturity can force one to reconsider current values and, with enough justification, can move one to actually change previously held convictions and beliefs. When microwaves were first introduced for household use, many families were reluctant to use a new technology that they did not understand. Over time, the per- ceived value of time spent preparing food became more important than perceived risks or fears, and now the majority of households in the United
108 DISCOVERING FAMILY NEEDS
States own at least one microwave. New inventions and discoveries force us to revisit our values and behaviors and bring both into alignment or balance. Through shared experiences, cohorts or generations develop. People born within a few years of one another are likely to experience similar eco- nomic, political, historical, and technological changes through the life course. Baby boomers, born between 1947 and 1964, have experienced the rise of computerization, the fall of major world powers, and the increas- ing influence of media on consumption. They can remember how things were before September 11th, 2001, and before the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr. They experienced hours standing in line to register for college courses or to change college schedules. They can remember when gasoline was less than 25 cents per gallon. These shared memories have an impact on how those between the ages of 40 and 60 process and evaluate new products, situations, and pro- posed changes. They may value security differently because they can reflect on how it was. Those born after 2001 will not have a memory of when airline travel did not require extensive security checks, so they will not be as disturbed or as grateful (depending on the individual’s disposi- tion) for this process as their grandparents might be. Travel, domestic and international, is another example of how values may change over the life course. Less than a century ago, traveling 100 miles was a day-long event for most families. With the increasing availability and affordability of airline travel, people are developing an expectation of distant travel in their lifetimes. College students are encouraged to take advantage of international study opportunities. Newly married couples are expected to travel to exotic places for a honeymoon if they can afford it. Retired adults have come to expect and plan for travel opportunities once they have time to devote to such activities. The value of travel, as an entire concept, has changed during the last decades. Personally, individuals value travel experiences differently as they age and participate in the workforce.
VALUE CONGRUENCE ACROSS GENERATIONS
Is there a generation gap in terms of values? A great deal of research has been devoted to the study of adolescent values and the impact of peers on values and behaviors. From that research emerged insights on how parental value systems impact adolescent decision-making. Chilman (1983) reported that a number of previous studies showed that parents were less approving of cohabitation than were their children, creating intergenera- tional conflict. She proposed that later studies showed a positive shift of parental attitudes toward that behavior, aligning it more closely with the attitudes of their young adult children. Thus, values change more slowly among older individuals, but eventually an alignment between genera- tions may be achieved.
Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors 109
proposed that an attitude is a state of readiness that will impact an indi- vidual’s response to any situation. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) studied the formation and expression of atti- tudes and proposed that attitudes are learned, and therefore are dynamic (see Fig. 5.1). They can and do change with experience and education. These predispositions are assumed to also predispose one to certain actions and behaviors. If one believes that human life begins at conception and is to be protected, he or she may purchase prolife t-shirts and bumper stickers. The attitude is expressed or communicated to others in this way. Statements could also be made to express this attitude. Attitudes are values couched within context. If this person were consistent in hisor her attitudes, abortion would be wrong in any case. Humans aren’t always consistent, however. Under cer- tain circumstances, such as rape or severe malformations, people may believe that abortion is an option. Theorists have long held the belief that attitudes are created and main- tained through interactions over time with parents, family members, and other socially significant individuals in a child’s realm. The field of behav- ioral genetics has begun to address a possible genetic component within attitude formation. Arvey, Segal, Bouchard, and Abraham (1989) reported that approximately 30% of the observed variance in job satisfaction in a twin study conducted by that research group was attributable to genetic factors. Other studies (Eaves, Eysenck, & Martin, 1989; Tesser, 1992) support the idea that some attitudes are more resistant to change perhaps because they have psychological protection mechanisms around them exhibited by
Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors 111
Beliefs About the Behavior
Evaluation of the Behavior
Opinions of Referent Others
Motivation to Comply
Attitude About the Behavior
Intention Behavior
Subjective Norm
Figure 5.1 Fishbein-Ajzen Theory of Reasoned Action
Source: SRI Consulting Business Intelligence (SRIC-BI); www.sric-bi.com/VAL Source: From Moore, T. J. (1995). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
biological discomfort when faced with change. For example, when an atti- tude is an expression of a core value, such as a religious belief, and evidence is presented that questions that belief, a religious person is faced with high levels of stress. Because the existing belief, and attitude attached, is strongly connected to many other dimensions of ones life, even a small change would have an enormous ripple effect in that individual’s life. Attitudes have an important impact on one’s judgment of the world around him or her. These value judgments can impact every part of the decision-making process, especially when information must be gathered and processed. Selective interpretation is illustrated in the efforts of ciga- rette smokers who rationalize their addictive behavior, claiming that research reporting negative health findings are biased and unfounded. Selective memory is one of the oldest ideas in attitude research. People find information supporting their attitudes easier to accept than informa- tion that contradicts their existing attitudes (Olson & Zanna, 1993).
Martha has been following a popular, restrictive diet and has success- fully lost 20 pounds in a short time. When information is presented from a recent large-scale study that this particular diet presents the possibility of future serious physical complications, she quickly dis- misses that information as sensational and unfounded. When asked by a concerned family member if these new findings frighten her, Martha insists that the data are flawed or the researchers are misleading the general public. If she were to seriously consider this new information, she may experience psychological discomfort. Dismissing it eliminates that unpleasant state, at least for a time.
Behaviors
Choices made and actions taken by individuals and families are the behav- iors that become important in the family decision-making process. After a century of research on attitude and behavior, predicting behavior based on attitudes assessed is still problematic. There are several reasons that the two are not perfectly matched. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) propose that the connection between attitude and behavior is multitiered:
- One’s behavior can be predicted from intention.
- Intentions can be predicted from one’s attitude toward the behavior and one’s perception of what others think one should do.
- Attitude is a function of how one perceives the action’s outcome will be received by others.
112 DISCOVERING FAMILY NEEDS
family members based on their perception of “how it should be done.” The focus often shifts from the deceased to the social expectations of those outside the family circle—friends, neighbors, and community members. At a higher level, membership within a social group and an identified cultural group depends on a person’s acceptance and demonstration of certain values, often referred to as ethics. Ethics consist of a set of moral principles that exist in formal or unwritten modes. Professional organiza- tions often create, publish, and encourage members to follow a set of behaviors based on unwritten values embraced by that profession. Family units rarely have such formal value and behavioral structures in place, but their values and behaviors may be consistent with such structures.
Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors in the
Decision-Making Framework
114 DISCOVERING FAMILY NEEDS
In The News
Media Overplayed “Moral Values” as “Decisive” Election Issue
Exit polls conducted during the November 2 (2004) presidential election showed that more people (22 percent of voters) selected “moral values” as their primary issue of con- cern than any other issue, including terrorism, Iraq, or the economy, and that 80 per- cent of those who picked the “moral values” issue voted for President George W. Bush. Since then, many members of the media have accepted as fact the notion that “moral values” was the decisive issue of the campaign. But those who propound this conven- tional wisdom offer little to explain or define what voters meant by “moral values.” On the November 9 edition of CNN’s Inside Politics, host Judy Woodruff suggested that Democrats fared poorly in the election because of a disadvantage in the “moral values” arena: “How do the Democrats close the gap on this ‘moral values’ question?” Despite the absence of any concrete definition, other media figures have echoed the idea that “moral values” was the pivotal issue of the election. Here are a few examples: Dan Rather (CBS anchor): “Moral values—we’ll give you a look at the surprise issue that trumped the war, terror, and the economy as the decisive issue in the election.” [CBS Evening News, 11/3/04] Anderson Cooper (CNN anchor): “Well, for months, the presidential campaigns and pundits have debated whether the driving issues of this election would be Iraq or the economy. Turns out it was neither. Moral values ruled this election, with 22 percent of voters citing moral issues as their No. 1 concern.” [CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, 11/3/04]
Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors 115
Paula Zahn (CNN anchor): “Tonight, it is the decisive issue, the one pollsters did- n’t see coming—millions of people voting their moral values.... The exit polls are quite stunning, at least to some folks looking at these numbers for the first time, when it appears that moral issues trumped just about every other issue on the map here.” [CNN, Paula Zahn Now, 11/3/04] Pat Buchanan (MSNBC analyst and former presidential candidate): “It wasn’t the economy or the war in Iraq or even the war on terror. Exit polls tell us moral values were most important in choosing a president.” [MSNBC, Scarborough Country, 11/3/04] Bill Plante (CBS White House correspondent): “In the end, it was not the Iraq war or the economy, the two issues most often mentioned as voters’ biggest concerns, but moral values, which were the biggest factor in motivating people to go to the polls.” [CBS, The Early Show, 11/4/04]
In fact, the meaning of the “moral values” polling and its merit as an indicator of voter sentiment remains widely contested. Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, contended in a November 6 article in The New York Times that the exit polls were, in fact, “misleading” because “moral values... was an ambiguous, appealing and catchall phrase.” “If you put moral values on a list,” Kohut noted on the November 3 edition of PBS’s The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, “it’s hard for many people to say they weren’t thinking of moral values when they were making their decision.” On MSNBC’s Deborah Norville Tonight, Kohut called the “moral values” option a “hor- ribly flawed question on the exit poll”; host Deborah Norville added: “I mean, who isn’t going to say they’re for moral values?” Although 80 percent of those who selected “moral values” as their primary issue of concern in exit polls voted for Bush, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the issue favors Republicans. Norville debunked this assumption on the November 8 edition of Deborah Norville Tonight, noting that on three of the issues generally grouped under the “moral values” category—abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research— Democrats are actually more aligned with the American public than Republicans are: I want to just throw up some statistics where you look at what the numbers say, first starting off with abortion. And 55 percent of voters, and this is from the National Election Poll, say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That’s not that different from what a Washington Post survey found eight years ago, in ’96. Going on now to gay marriages—when you add it all together, 60 percent of voters say they support either gay marriage or civil unions. And then stem cell research: two-thirds, 68 percent of voters sup- port federal funding of stem cell research. It doesn’t seem like there’s a great divide... on these “life issues.” On the November 7 edition of NBC’s Sunday Today, co-host Campbell Brown asked: “What do you think they were talking about in terms of moral values? Was this driven by opposition to gay marriage?” But the notion that support for same-sex marriage
(Continued)
Mr. and Mrs. McCallister were both college athletes. During training they were encouraged to eat high-protein, low-fat foods. Breakfast, for them, consisted of skim milk, juice, and cereal or a bagel. Years later, their daughter has a friend spend the night. At breakfast, this friend is distraught because the McCallisters do not have bacon, sausage, or eggs, which she is used to having at her house. For the first time, these parents have to explain their dietary choices to their daughter.
Values and Behaviors in Family Purchasing Decisions
Marketing and advertising specialists have devoted a great deal of time and energy studying family buying patterns and motivations. Manning and Reece (2001) describe product buying motives as reasons consumers purchase one product in preference to another. They propose that con- sumers operate on one of four possible sets of motives: brand preference, quality preference, price preference, or design preference.
BRAND PREFERENCE
Long-standing, well-established manufacturing companies have the opportunity to develop positive product images of quality and perfor- mance in the minds of prospective buyers. Brandweek, a weekly publication serving media and marketing professionals, is actively involved in survey- ing consumer brand loyalty utilizing the Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Index. This research is conducted through phone interviews with 16, active brand users twice a year. Participants rate brands that they use regu- larly based on categories of products. The results of these surveys are pub- lished in both this publication and a multitude of other media sources interested in consumer behavior. Recent survey results indicate that con- sumers are less loyal to brand names than they have been in the past. Companies providing products and services for families continue to spend a great deal of money to convince these buyers that name-branded products have benefits beyond the obvious. Consumers are encouraged to consider the benefits of established company guarantees and histories of cus- tomer satisfaction when weighing the choices available in the marketplace. When comparing similar products, these intangible attributes may convince buyers to pay more for the peace of mind that well-known brands give them. Another aspect of brand loyalty stems from the desire for families to present themselves in specific ways to the larger social groups in which they function. Identifying logos, obvious or subtle, visually presented, imply a level of discrimination in one’s purchasing decisions. This behav- ior may also be a reflection of perceived quality preference.
Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors 117
QUALITY PREFERENCE
Manning and Reece (2001) suggest that the contemporary consumer exhibits higher levels of quality standards than past generations of buyers. When product and service competition is high, quality is one of the factors that differentiate one from the other. Quality can be the result of better materials, workmanship, or quality control, or quality can be a perception of higher standards. Consumers may believe that products with higher price tags indicate higher quality, they may equate name brands with higher quality because they have had positive experiences in the past with those brands, or they may have been exposed to promotional information aimed at setting that brand apart from competitors. Large-ticket purchases, such as automobiles and appliances, include an expectation of performance for multiple years. Quality may be perceived as an indicator of such performance. Although the competition among and the number of models within automobile manufacturing firms have increased over time, the selection available to consumers could be considered some- what limited when other types of products are considered. Factors cited as obstacles to new producers include development and production expenses, but another important hurdle to entering the automobile industry is the perception of quality and the sense of security buyers perceive when dealing with the same number of well-established companies.
PRICE PREFERENCE
Family resources are used in exchange for goods and services. Even when a family is resource-rich, product selection usually factors in price differences into the decision-making process. For many products, espe- cially electronics, technological advancements and creative product devel- opment has created a “wait for the price to come down” expectation among consumers. Table-top calculators sold for as much as $1,000 in
- Smaller calculators with several more features are now available in hand-held versions for under $50. When two products that both meet the criteria set by a family have noticeable price differences, price increases in importance in the selection process. Price can also be used in the initial phases of decision-making if an acceptable price range is established before exploring all available options. That range may screen out several options, thus making the decision less time-consuming. Generic prescription drugs are a good example of how price can become the primary discriminating factor among competitive products. Generic equivalencies of certain drugs have been identified by insurance companies and physicians. FDA requirements imply that all approved drugs are safe and effective. Because generics use the same active ingredients and are shown to work the same way in the body, they should have the same risks and benefits as their brand-name counterparts. Once
118 DISCOVERING FAMILY NEEDS
