attitudinal and consumption - group -5

8/4/2019 Attitudinal and Consumption - Group -5

1/22

Keywords:

changing values,

childless couples,

modernized

lifecycle, sex role

norms, attitudinal

and consumption

patterns

Dong Hwan Lee

Associate Professor of

Marketing,

School of Business,

Manhattan College,

Riverdale,

New York 10471, USA

E-mail: dhlee@

manhattan.edu

Charles M.

Schaninger

Professor of

Marketing,

School of Business,

University of Albany,

Albany,

New York 12222, USA

Tel: +1 518 442 4943

E-mail: c.schaninger@

albany.edu

Attitudinal and consumptiondifferences among traditionaland nontraditional childlesscouple householdsReceived (in revised form): 14th November, 2002

Dong Hwan Leeis Associate Professor of Marketing at the School of Business, Manhattan College. His

research areas include consumer information processing and choice behaviour,

family/household consumption behaviour, consumer satisfaction, country image

effects, and cross-cultural managerial issues. He is a recipient of the American

Marketing Associations doctoral dissertation award, and has extensive industry and

consulting experience in international business and marketing.

Charles M. Schaningeris Professor of Marketing at the School of Business, The University at Albany, State

University of New York. His research has focused on changing values and

demographics, sociological influences on consumption, applied segmentation issues,

and more recently on interactive database marketing. The order of authorship is

strictly alphabetical, both authors are equal co-authors.

AbstractThis study develops a classification scheme that effectively separates delayed marriage andtrue childless couples from delayed empty nest couples, newlywed and traditional emptynest couples. Unlike extant traditional and modernised life cycle models, this approach

separates true childless and delayed marriage childless couple households from theirtraditional counterparts using the couples length of marriage and wifes age. It also usescouples ages at marriage to separate delayed from the traditional empty nest households.The findings clearly indicate that nontraditional childless couples differ from theirtraditional counterparts in underlying values, sex role norms, and attitudes, as well as in

food and beverage consumption and major durable acquisition patterns. Implications ofthis classification scheme for comprehensive life cycle models and future research andmanagerial applications of these findings are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Marriedcoupleswith no children

represent the fastest growinghousehold

type in the1990sand 2000s (Ambry,

1992),withaprojectedrateof

childlessness of between20 percent and

25percentforbabyboomerwomen

(Morganand Chen,1992). Thosehighly

educated career-oriented womenwho

intendtohavetheirfirstchildatlaterages

arealsomorelikelytoremain

permanentlychildless (Heaton etal.,

1999).Thesetrends, combined with the

upscale socio-economic profileof

childlesscouples,makethem an

increasinglyimportant marketsegment.

Although demographershave

documented suchfundamentalchanges

as delayed marriage, delayed

childbearingand childlessness,

particularly amongmore modern,

educated workingwomen (eg,Riche,

1991), empirical research on their

consumption-relatedbehaviouris scant.

248 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 3, 248268 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/22

The literature suggests that

nontraditionalchildlesscouple

households shouldevidenceunique

demographic, attitudinaland

expenditureprofiles (Scanzoni, 1975;

Schaninger and Danko,1993;

Yankelovich, 1981).However,theevidenceinsupportofthisviewislargely

observational or basedon indirect

comparisonsof combined younger

newlyweds/childless couples to full nest

families (eg,BloomandBennett,1986).

Most modernised life cyclemodels,

includingthe GillyandEnis model (1981)

and demography schemes (American

Demographics, 1992, 1993) aggregate

nontraditionalchildlesscouples with

theirtraditionalcounterpartsbased on

current household compositionand

standard agecutoffs, in spite of previous

criticisms (Wagner and Hanna, 1983).

Thus,young newlyweds are combined

withdelayed marriages and younger

childless couples, as are middle-aged

childlessand empty nest couples. The

amalgamation of similarly constituted

yet distinctively unalike traditionaland

nontraditional childless couple

households is inconsistentwith modern

sociologicaltheory, whichholds that

nontraditionalvalues and attitudes lead

to individualistic lifestyles andconsumptionpatterns and to delayed

lifestyle progression.

To date, no studies have presented

conceptual underpinnings or developed

operational definitions that effectively

separate delayed marriage/childbearing

couples from newlyweds, or separate

true childless middle aged from empty

nest and older couples. The only

research evidence suggestive of

distinctive value and consumption

profiles is indirect ie, based on

examining those with strong self-

fulfilment motivation, or on comparing

coupleswho have not yet had children to

those who have had them shortly after

an early marriage (eg, Bloom and

Bennett, 1986). The main purpose of this

paper is to develop conceptually driven

operational definitions that effectively

separate various nontraditional childless

couple types from their traditional

counterparts, and empirically determine

whether they indeed capture meaningful

and significant attitudinal and

consumption differences.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The demography and traditional

consumer economics perspective

Demographers have examined the

growth of delayed childbearing and

childless couple households from the

traditional consumer economics

perspective summarised by Wells and

Gubars (1966) life cycle article, which

focuses on changes in family roles (eg,

parent, homemaker, breadwinner) and

thus household expenditure patterns

which occur as a result of changes in

household composition (eg, children).

They have shown that traditional

homemaker-wife families tend to be of

lower educational and occupational

status, marry early with fewer economic

advantages, have children earlier, and

have more children than couples who

delay marriage and delay or forego

having children (Ambry, 1993; Riche,

1991). Childlessness, however, is higher

among women who complete college,

delay marriage and pursue careers(Ambry, 1992). Bloom (1984) found that

women of higher educational,

occupational and income status tend to

be older when they have their first child,

leading to greater income and

discretionary income, due to both

spouses employment at high-paying

jobs, the wifes continuing to work

longer, and the absence of increased

child-related costs for food, clothing,

childcare and education. These greater

financial resources lead delayed

childbearing couples to accumulate

assets at a faster rate and spend a larger

share of their income on luxuries,

compared with their more traditional

full-nest counterparts.

Bloom and Bennett (1986) extended

this focus to childless couples in the

broader sense by including those who

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 3, 248268#Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 249

Attitudinal and consumption differences
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/22


4/22

home. Various studies have shown that

childless couples spend more of their

high discretionary income on cars,

home entertainment devices,

recreational goods, and on imported

wines and various forms of distilled

alcohol (Ambry, 1992; 1993; Bloom,1984; Bloom and Bennett, 1986;

Blossfeld and Huinink, 1991; Riche,

1991; Schaninger and Danko, 1993).

The modern sociological perspective:

Changing values and sex role norms

Sociologists have attributed the growth

of modern sex role norms and womens

career orientation as leading to a

pronounced shift towards

individualistic values and self-

fulfilment aspirations and to a decline in

traditional familial and religious values

including the Protestant ethic (Scanzoni,

1979; Yankelovich, 1981). Yankelovich

(1981), a marketer sharing that

perspective, showed that individuals

who hold nontraditional values and

norms tend to be younger and of higher

socioeconomic, educational and

occupational status, and that their

alternative values lead them to forego

or delay marriage and parenthood, and

to pursue individualistic (non-familial)

lifestyles. They tend to engage in moresocial, cultural and physical leisure

activities, and have more health-

conscious eating patterns, as evidenced

by increased consumption of natural

and nutritious foods, and avoidance of

fatty and junk foods. They are also more

involved in gourmet cooking, wine and

candlelit meals, new restaurants and

new ethnic foods. Rather than acquiring

traditional kitchen and laundry

appliances associated with home-

ownership and having children, these

self-fulfilers tend to purchase durables

reflecting their individualistic

recreational and leisure activity pursuits

products such as foreign sports cars

and camera or stereo equipment and

also spend more on entertainment,

recreation and social activities, holidays

and recreational travel. It is important to

note that the focus of that research has

been on characterising individuals with

modern values and norms, and not on

individuals or couples who delay or

forego marriage and childbearing.

While similarities in values, lifestyles

and, hence, consumption patterns areintuitive, they have not yet been

empirically tested, but are anticipated

for the nontraditional childless couple

classifications developed in this study.

Although sex role norms are likely to

influence consumption patterns and

expenditures, few empirical studies

have directly examined such influences.

Buss and Schaninger (1987) proposed

that sex role modern couples should

evidence healthier, more gourmet-

oriented eating habits, and use services

and restaurants more than traditional

couples. Sex role modern couples are

those in which both spouses hold

nontraditional sex role norms regarding

the appropriateness of work and career

versus family, motherhood, and

homemaker roles; as well as gender

based role specialisation. Sex role norms

influence a wifes work and career

involvement as well as childbearing,

and the subsequent wifes career

involvement. Thus, they influence the

likelihood of work and time-relatedstresses, as well as how the family

might cope with those pressures. Sex

role modern couples should be more

likely to respond to such pressures by

nontraditional division of labour, by

decreasing effort put into the traditional

wifes tasks, and by buying outside

products or services to save time. Sex

role norms interact with social class to

influence what behaviour is regarded as

appropriate for dealing with work and

time pressures. Thus, sex role modern

career couples should be more likely to

hire a maid or landscaping service, to

eat meals prepared away from home,

consume cocktails before dinner or wine

with dinner to reduce stresses, but

spend less effort on shopping, meal

planning and preparation, household

cleaning, etc. Such behaviour, however,


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/22

would be inconsistent with a traditional

blue-collar familys norms and roles.

The underlying theory and limited

findings converge with those of

Yankelovich (1981), and indirectly

support the expectation of similar

characteristics for nontraditionalchildless couples. The converse is that

traditional families, who marry and

have children at a young age, should

emphasise the wifes shopper role, own

more kitchen and laundry appliances,

prepare more meals from scratch, but

consume fewer take-away, or restaurant

foods than delayed marriage or

childless couple households. While

these propositions are intuitively

appealing, they are based on indirect

research evidence and, while theory

driven, are speculative and lack

empirical validation. It is the authors

intent to rectify this situation by

developing conceptually sound

operational definitions and empirically

documenting whether unique

attitudinal and consumption profiles

distinguish delayed marriage, delayed

childbearing and childless couples from

their traditional counterparts of similar

household composition.

Operational definitions of childlesscouple households

While demographers (Ambry, 1992;

Bloom, 1984; Bloom and Bennett, 1986)

have identified delayed marriage,

delayed childbearing and foregone

childbearing as important demographic

trends, they have not attempted to

formally develop conceptual or

operational definitions to classify

individual households into such

categories. Rather, they have looked at

how age at marriage, age at birth offirst

child, or childlessness, vary with other

demographic variables such as

educational and occupational status and

income (eg, Ambry, 1992; Bloom, 1984).

The authors could find no studies that

developed definitions of delayed

marriage couples at the conceptual

level, or that attempted to systematically

separate delayed marriages from

newlyweds or childless couples at the

operational level. Although Bloom

(1984) described the characteristics of

women who delay childbearing, no

actual data were presented, and the

basis of his descriptions was not clear.While his descriptions imply that age at

birth offirst child was examined to

separate couples which delayed having

children from those having them shortly

after a young marriage, no operational

definitions were presented. Bloom and

Bennett (1986) clearly combined

newlyweds with couples who either

delayed or chose to forego childbearing

and may have included younger empty

nest couples in their examination of

young couples without children. Their

age cutoff for younger is not specified,

and it is not clear whether they used

wives aged 45, or a younger age cutoff.

The resulting operational definition is

ambiguous, and results in a

heterogeneous category, lumping

traditional early marriage newlyweds

and younger empty nest households

with their delayed marriage and truly

childless counterparts. Given the

current status of childless couple

research, the authors believe the

development of unambiguousoperational definitions is a crucial

stepping-stone in determining whether

different attitudinal, value and

consumption patterns exist among such

household types.

A careful review of previous family

life cycle studies provides a solid base on

which to develop operational definitions

of nontraditional delayed marriage or

childless couple households. Family

studies often employed very clear

operational definitions of traditional

newlywed and empty nest categories

explicitly designed to exclude delayed

marriage and childless couples. Two

studies excluded childless couples

classed as those married more than five

years without children (Spanier et al.,

1975; Spanier et al, 1979), and another

excludedthem if the wife was age 40or


Dong Hwan Lee and Charles M. Schaninger
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/22

less and did not expect children or if the

wife was over 40 (Rexroat and Shehan,

1987). The authors couldfindno

published attempt to separate delayed

marriage or delayed childbearing

couples from childless couples. Most

previous operational definitions ofchildless couple households did not

delineate childless, delayed marriage, or

delayed childbearing couples; or they

aggregated them with traditional

newlyweds or empty nest households. In

this paper, the authors attempt to

develop an improved childless couple

classification scheme that explicitly

separates nontraditional childless couple

types from their traditional counterparts.

METHOD

The data set used by this research was

from a larger-scale study examining

various aspects of household

consumption, reported in Schaninger

and Danko (1993). Systematic random

sampling, with three callbacks, was

used to recruit a sample from a recently

issued telephone directory of a top 50

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

This MSA is widely used as a test

market, with nearly 95 per cent of the

households having telephones, and the

unlisted rate was the 93rd lowest of thetop 100 markets. Of 2,790 households

attempted to be reached, 508 were

unreachable after three attempts and

111 had telephones not in service. Of the

2,171 households reached, 1,160 agreed

to participate and were sent the survey.

Of this mailing, 307 usable, 19 address

unknown and 10 unusable surveys were

returned. Three additional mailings of

500 households each were conducted on

nonrespondent subsamples: first-wave

nonrespondents, resulting in 54 usable

responses and 10 undeliverables; those

who declined to participate, resulting in

34 usable returns and 37 undeliverables;

and those initially unreachable after

three telephone attempts, resulting in 49

usable responses and 27 undeliverables.

No significant differences were found

between the three latter samples and the

original sample for percentages of

singles, married couples with or

without children, home ownership,

working or nonworking wife families,

or combined family income, or for Gilly-

Enis life cycle stages. Thus, the four

subsamples were combined to yield atotal of 444 households. The final

sample of 444 households represents a

response rate of 17.2 per cent of the

initial telephone book sample with

working telephones that were reachable

by mail. The combined sample did not

significantly differ from MSA census

figures or nationwide census estimates

on the percentage of owner-occupied

housing, age, marital status, presence of

children, or mens and womens labour

force participation. A comparison of the

cross-classification of abridged family

life cycle stages (husband under 45,

no children under 18; husbands of any

age, children under 6; husbands of any

age, children 617 only; husband 45 or

older, no children under 18) and wifes

work status (working/nonworking)

between this sample and the 1986 US

census estimates was also not significant

(X2 7:41, df 7, ns). Average atmarriage and at birth offirst child for

both men and women were nearly

identical to 1990 census estimates. Thus,the sample appears to be reasonably

free of frame and non-response errors,

and to be demographically

representative of both the MSA and the

US census distributions of households.

Household classification (never

married, divorced, separated, widowed,

married couple, or unmarried

cohabiting couple), years married

(living together for unmarried couples),

previous marital status for both (of

married or cohabiting couples), ages

and retirement status of male and

female adult household heads (and

other adult members), and the number

of children both at home and away, in

four childrens age categories (under 6,

612, 1318, 19+) were collected to

operationalise life cycle categories and

to generate a priori comparisons.


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/22

Consumption frequencies for 46 food

and beverage items were originally

measured. A subset of 26 items was

selected for analysis here, which

directly bear on the general

propositions of expected differences

between traditional and nontraditionalchildless categories. Excluded were

items intended to capture consumption

differences between full nest and

various bachelor categories. The 26

items were grouped into four areas:

healthy food and beverages (eg,

unsweetened cereal, fresh fruit, rice,

bottled juice, homemade soup),

restaurant-prepared meals (eg, dinner

out, take-away Chinese), less healthy

quick foods (eg, hamburger, hotdog,

potato/corn chips) and alcoholic

beverages (eg, beer, light beer, various

wine, distilled spirits). Each household

was also asked to estimate the current

value of major possessions, including

primary and second home, first, second

and third car, truck/van, camper/RV,

boat/motor/trailer and motorcycle/

ATV. For stereos, first, second and

third TVs, personal computers, VCRs,

satellite dishes, and living room, dining

room and bedroom furniture,

ownership checklists and interval

purchase price-range scales were used,with median interval dollar values used

for analysis. Measures of attitudes and

values related to consumption

consisted of 35 Likert items: sex role

norms (nine items), work and time

pressures (seven items), self-fulfilment

aspirations (nine items) and traditional

family and moral values (ten items),

from sources described in Schaninger

and Danko (1993).

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

As stated previously, the purpose here

was to develop optimal operational

definitions that separate nontraditional

delayed marriage and childless couple

households from their traditional

newlywed and empty nest

counterparts, and empirically assess

whether the combined classification

scheme captures proposed attitudinal

and consumption differences. This

approach is also extended to determine

whether nontraditional delayed empty

nest households differ from their

traditional counterparts who marry

and have children at an earlier age. Inthe authors view, an optimal

classification scheme should result in

categories:

of roughly equal sample sizes,

avoiding sparseness,

near the median ages for birth of

first child for cutoffs,

producing the strongest significance

in consumption and attitudinal

contrasts, hence maximising

between-group variation while

minimising that within, the probleminherent in aggregating

nontraditional with traditional

childless couples in most

modernised life cycle models.

The basic approach is to iteratively

develop a modernised childless couple

classification scheme through a priori

MANOVA and t-test comparisons

among alternative categories. A series of

one-tailed t-tests were used for

univariate tests (p , 0.05), augmented

by multivariate tests. Before developingoperational definitions, it was

determined whether remarried childless

couple households should be

aggregated with their first marriage

counterparts, or maintained as separate

categories. The starting point was the

modified Gilly-Enis model suggested by

Schaninger and Danko (1993), using

husbands retirement rather than age 65

to separate older from childless

couples. First, alternative ways were

examined to optimally classify delayed

marriages, true childless couple

households and newlyweds, and then

the authors proceeded to determine

whether delayed empty nest households

differ from traditional empty nest

households and older couples. After

sequentially developing the optimal

treatment of various childless couple




8/22

categories, the performance of the

resultant overall childless couple

classification scheme was empirically

evaluated.

Treatment of remarriages

The issue of how to treat remarriedcouples with no children vis-a-vis their

first marriage counterparts has not

been empirically ascertained in the

interdisciplinary literature. Both

Murphy and Staples (1979) and Gilly

and Enis (1982) stipulated that

remarriages be combined with their

first marriage counterparts. This

treatment is theoretically consistent

with the notion that positions within

the current household, rather than

previous life cycle history, determine

household consumption patterns, as

suggested by Hill and Rodgers (1964).

It is probably justified, based on the

findings of a few significant attitudinal,

expenditure or demographic

differences between remarriages and

first marriages (Macklin, 1980; Price-

Bonham and Balswick, 1980).

However, it is surprising to note that it

has not been empirically validated in

the demography, consumer economics

or consumer behaviour literatures and

this study attempts to rectify thatoversight. A series of a priori

comparisons between remarriages and

their first marriage counterparts

revealed no significant attitudinal,

durable value or food and beverage

consumption differences for modified

Gilly-Enis model newlyweds or

childless couples, or for true empty

nest couples, supporting their

aggregation. Modest increases in the

significance of attitudinal and

consumption differences resulted when

remarriages were aggregated with their

first marriage counterparts, due to

increased sample sizes and smaller

standard errors. This finding

represents the first empirical support

for the aggregation approach proposed

by Gilly and Enis (1981) and Murphy

and Staples (1979).

Delayed marriage and childless

couples

Next, it was investigated whether

households that delay or forego

progression through traditional life

stages differ from traditional ones.

Schaninger and Danko (1993)recommended optimal categories be

determined by specific a priori

comparisons interactively with flexible,

empirically determined age cutoffs to

separate delayed marriages, delayed

full nest and true childless couples from

their traditional counterparts. They

advocated using age at marriage to

identify delayed marriages and age at

birth offirst child for delayed full nests,

rather than using the current age of the

head of the household. The authors first

separated delayed (childless) marriages

(based on wifes age at marriage) from

true childless couples (married more

than five years, no children regardless

of age of marriage) and from

newlyweds. However, this resulted in

small sample sizes (n, 15) for both

delayed marriages and childless

couples. Furthermore, attitudinal and

consumption profile comparisons of the

two were substantively equivalent and

did not even approach statistical

significance. Therefore, they werecombined to enhance parsimony and to

permit comparisons of delayed

marriage/childless couples to

newlyweds and empty nest households,

in accordance with the approach

recommended by Schaninger and

Danko (1993).

Several alternative operational

definitions separating newlyweds from

delayed marriage/childless couples

were initially examined, based on age

at marriage to identify delayed

marriages, length of marriage to identify

childless couples, as well as a simple

wives age split. To identify delayed

marriages, the starting point was the

median wifes age at marriage. Cutoffs

were tentatively examined both just

above and just below the median age at

marriage, and it was chosen to further


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/22

examine those that yielded nearly equal

sample sizes for delayed marriage/

childless couples versus newlyweds. To

identify childless couples, the starting

point was that used previously in the

family literature more than five years

length of marriage, with cutoffs of fourand six years also examined empirically.

For the simple wives age split, cutoffs

were examined just below the median

wifes age, below and including it, and

one year above it. All of these

operational definitions produced

significant consumption differences for

food and beverage consumption and

dollar values of major durable

acquisitions. That which resulted in the

strongest pattern of consumption

contrasts and the most nearly equal

sample sizes (n. 20) was based on

length of marriage and wifes current

age. If a couple had been married for

five years or less without children and

the wife was 32 years old or less, they

were classified as newlyweds (NW). If

married more than five years with no

children, or the wifes age was 33 or

over, couples were classified as delayed

marriage/childless couples (DM/CC).

This approach is conceptually similar to

measures employed by previously cited

family researchers, and resulted incomparable (n. 20) sample sizes.

Empty nest couples (EN) consisted of

those with no children at home, but

children 18 or over living away from

home, in which the male head of the

household was still actively

participating in the labour force. The

interested reader is referred to

Appendix Table A1 for attitudinal

profiles of these groups.

The above operationalisations

resulted in significant multivariate and

univariate differences between NW and

DM/CC couples for food and beverage

consumption and dollar values of major

assets and of home entertainment

devices and furniture. Attitudinally,

DM/CC couples were equivalent (not

significantly different from) to younger

NWs, yet contrasted strongly and

sharply from their EN counterparts, as

expected. Modern sex role norms, self-

fulfilment aspirations and

nontraditional values were shown by

Schaninger and Danko (1993) to be

strongly associated with younger age

and to be highest for young bachelorsand NWs. Despite being older, DM/

CCs were, in effect, tied with younger

NWs in holding the most modern sex

role norms, nontraditional family and

religious values, and experiencing work

and time pressures. The more detailed

patterns offindings for substantive

attitudinal and consumption differences

are discussed later. At this stage, the

principal objective was to develop an

optimal operational definition of DM/

CC couples that yielded significant

attitudinal and consumption contrasts

to NW and to EN couples overall. It was

necessary to first develop workable

operational definitions separating NW,

DM/CC and EN couples prior to the

next stage, in which it was examined

whether it was worthwhile to separate

traditional (early marriage) from

delayed EN households.

Attitudinal comparisons of DM/CC

to EN couples were highly significant.

The former were more sex role modern,

and wives felt greater work and timepressures and held less traditional

values than EN spouses. Seven of the

nine husbands sex role norm items

were significant at p , 0.05, and the

remaining two attained marginal

significance (p , 0:10). Multivariate

significance was observed for wives

attitudes, and over two-thirds of the sex

role norm, work and time pressure and

traditional value items attained

univariate significance. One-third of the

univariate food and beverage contrasts

attained significance (p , 0.05) in the

direction expected. DM/CC couples

consumed more yogurt, herbal tea, take-

away Chinese food and premium

domestic wine, while EN couples

consumed more frozen entrees, hot

dogs, hamburgers, homemade soup and

distilled spirits. DM/CC couples also




10/22

had significantly higher dollar values

for stereos, second TVs, VCRs, second

and third cars and boats compared to

EN couples, consistent with higher

discretionary income and with the

authors expectations.

Traditional and delayed empty nest

couples

Next, it was examined whether


exist between traditional empty nest

households (TEN) and their

nontraditional counterparts who

married and had children at a later age.

TENs were defined as those (with adult

children living away from home)

married before the husband was 27

years old and before the wife reached

age 25. If couples married after the

husband was 27 or the wife was 25 they

were classified as delayed empty nest

(DEN). These cutoffs are consistent with

Bloom (1984) examination of delayed

childbearing and with the general

patterns of statistics reported by Lazar

(1994) and Riche (1991) and are quite

close to the 1990 census estimates for

median age at marriage for men and

women reported in American

Demographics (1992, 1993). As discussed

previously, couples who delay marriageand childbearing should be higher in

educational and occupational status,

more likely to pursue dual careers and

have higher discretionary income. Thus,

DEN couples should evidence food and

beverage consumption and durable

goods acquisition patterns characteristic

of the upper middle class, similar to the

patterns identified by Bloom (1984) and

Bloom and Bennett (1986). Significant

differences in food and beverage

consumption patterns and in dollar

values of home entertainment devices

and furniture, as well as primary cars

and trucks/vans were observed

between DEN and TEN couples. As

expected, DEN couples consumed

yogurt, frozen juice, rice, homemade

soup and imported wine more

frequently; they also consumed hot

dogs, regular sodas and dinners out at

restaurants less frequently than TEN

couples. They also evidenced higher

mean values for personal computers

and campers/RVs (as expected), but,

unexpectedly, had lower mean values

for stereos, living and dining roomfurniture and principal cars and trucks/

vans.

While previous research suggests that

couples who delay marriage and

childbearing tend to be more sex role

modern, attitudinal contrasts were

expected to be weak between middle-

aged DEN and TEN couples because of

their comparable age and structural

equivalence (no children living at home,

but adult children away). Consistent

with this expectation, attitudinal

contrasts between the two middle-aged

EN groups, particularly for wives, were

generally weak. Four of nine items in

the sex role norms and traditional

family value sets (only one at the 0.05

level in both sets) were significant for

husbands. It was thus decided it would

be more appropriate to examine not

only their direct contrasts, but to also

examine the contrasts of both groups

with their most contiguous life cycle

counterparts. Accordingly, contrasts

were examined of both to older couples(OC no children living at home, male

head of household retired) and to DM/

CC couples. The expectation was that

DEN couples would evidence stronger

(directional) contrasts to OC couples

than would TEN couples to OC couples,

and that contrasts of TEN couples

should evidence stronger contrasts to

DM/CC couples than would those of

DEN to DM/CC couples.

Contrasts of DEN to OC were

consistently significant at both the

multivariate and univariate levels for

both spouses across all four attitudinal

subsets, while those of TEN to OC

couples were notably weaker, in line

with the authors expectations.

Contrasts of TEN to DM/CC couples

also produced very strong results in

the direction expected. For example,


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


11/22

both TEN spouses were significantly

less sex role modern and held more

traditional values than DM/CC

couples, with over two-thirds of both

sets of items significant as anticipated.

Few significant attitudinal differences

were observed between DM/CC andDEN couples, in spite of likely age

cohort effects, which were observed to

a limited degree for sex role norms

(four of nine items for both spouses)

and for wives (but not husbands)

work-related time pressures (three of

seven items). The overall pattern of

contrasts of DM/CC and DEN couples

to adjacent categories was consistent

with the authors expectations and

general proposition. Additional food

and beverage and dollar values of

major acquisition contrasts of DEN and

TEN couples to OC and DM/CC

couples are discussed in the next

section.

Evaluation of the proposed childless

couple classification scheme

The proposed scheme, unlike the extant

life cycle models, separates

nontraditional childless couple types

from their traditional counterparts. It

consists offive categories: newlyweds

(NW), delayed marriage/childlesscouples (DM/CC), traditional (TEN)

and delayed (DEN) empty nest couples,

and older (retired) couples (OC).

Detailed MANOVA results and a priori

comparisons of food and beverages and

for dollar values of durable goods are

presented in Tables 1 and 2. A separate

table for husbands and wives values

and attitudes is not presented in order

to conserve space, and because the

principal focus is on consumption

differences. Interested parties can obtain

that table from the authors. The overall

univariate F-tests are conservative tests

of the general propositions, in that they

test for differences across all five

childless couple categories, while the

general proposition is that differences

will exist between specific pairs of

categories, but not between others. For

example, it is proposed that TENs

should differ from DM/CCs and from

DENs, but should be similar to OCs;

and that DM/CCs should differ from

TENs, but not DENs. Thus, the between

group mean s-square estimates, which

are based on bi-directional tests acrossall five groups, would be overly

conservative. Marginal significance

levels (p, 0.10) are thus footnoted in

the tables for the benefit of interested

readers who wish to minimise the type

II errors likely to occur for the modest

sample sizes involved in these overly

conservative overall model tests and

related a priori comparisons.

The proposed CC classification

scheme produced significant

multivariate F-values for all criteria sets,

and all reached the 0.005 level of

multivariate significance. Based on

values of (1 Wilks L), the proposed

scheme accounts for over 80 per cent of

the multivariate variation of both

husbands and wives attitudes, as well

as of food and beverage consumption;

for nearly 60 per cent of that of

monetary values of home entertainment

devices and furniture; and for nearly 50

per cent of that for major durable assets.

The large number of marginal

significance counts for food andbeverage consumption appears to be

due to small category sample sizes

(hence larger standard errors), and to

absorbing a relatively large degree of

freedom for the between-group variance

estimates for these conservative five-

group F-tests, as discussed previously.

Consistent with expectations, NW

couples consumed more less healthy

quick foods (eg, hamburger, soda and

canned spaghetti/ravioli) than DM/CC

couples, whereas DM/CC couples

consumed more wine than NW couples.

NW couples consumed takeaway and

fast foods (but not dinners out) more

frequently than DM/CC couples. This

finding appears to reflect a NW dietary

pattern still in transition from young

single lifestyles, and also probably

represents the greater gourmet


http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/22

orientation and quality/flavour

emphasis of DM/CC couples. DM/CC

couples had significantly higher values

for primary homes, boats, third cars,

campers/RVs, personal computers,

second TVs, and dining room and

bedroom furniture than NW couples.

This can be attributed to the longer

employment of DM/CC couples at

higher occupation jobs than NW

couples, resulting in greater

discretionary income and savings,

which allowed them to be able to

purchase durable goods that conform to

their individualistic leisure-oriented

lifestyles, as anticipated.

As shown in Table 1, DM/CC and

DEN couples tended to consume more

healthy foods and beverages, fewer less

healthy quick foods, but more light beer,

imported and domestic wines, than NW

couples or their TEN counterparts.

These nontraditional DM/CC and DEN

couples were heavier users, while TEN

couples were lighter users of yogurt,

most forms of juice, herbal teas and rice;

and of imported, regular and premium

domestic wines. An opposite pattern of

heavier usage of less healthy quick

foods and beverages emerged for TEN

couples (hot dogs, hamburgers and

hard spirits). The general pattern of

these contrasts of DM/CC and DEN

couples to their traditional counterparts

supports the authors general

proposition, and is consistent with

Table 1 Childless couple category food and beverage consumption patterns

Items/Categories NW DM/CC TEN DEN OC Fcc(Cell size/df) (n 24) (n 21) (n 27) (n 20) (n 38) (4,125)

Healthy foods and beveragesUnsweetened cereal 4.08abc 4.71d 5.15a 5.30b 5.71cd 2.60x

Fresh fruit 5.79a 5.76 5.96 6.30 6.29a 0.92Yogurt 3.46a 4.00a 2.74aab 3.85b 3.13 1.53v

Fresh vegetables 5.13a 5.43 5.41a 5.70 5.90aa 1.11Frozen vegetables 4.54aa 4.81 5.26a 4.90b 5.58ab 1.96w

Rice 4.13a 4.38ab 3.82ab 4.85abc 3.74bc 2.40w

Homemade soup 2.79ab 2.76cd 3.04a 3.60aac 3.84bd 3.69y

Frozen juice 4.08a 4.33b 4.00c 5.55aabc 4.61a 1.69v

Bottled juice 4.75aa 4.14 3.78a 4.35b 3.53ab 1.40Herbal teas 2.17a 3.71ab 2.00b 2.60 2.58 2.76x

Less healthy quick foodsHamburgers 4.96aabc 3.86abc 4.41bb 4.30ccd 4.63ad 4.22y

Hot dogs 2.83aa 2.76bc 3.56abd 3.00d 3.67ac 2.30w

Potato/corn chips 4.29a 3.76a 4.11b 3.90c 3.13aabc 2.27w

Regular sodas 4.42aab 3.29ac 4.41bcd 3.20bd 3.53ab 2.06w

Canned spaghetti/ravioli 2.00aa 1.43a 1.70 1.35a 1.66 1.00Canned vegetables 3.21a 3.19b 3.85 3.20c 4.34abc 2.18w

Restaurant prepared mealsDinner out 4.17a 4.48ab 4.56bc 3.80bb 3.68aac 2.31w

Take-away Chinese 2.50aabc 2.25ade 1.63df 1.75bg 1.34cefg 8.17z

Take-away pizza 3.75abcd 2.86ae 2.67bf 2.40cg 1.84defg 13.97z

Fast food items 4.00abc 3.19a 3.48a 3.00b 2.95aac 2.12wAlcoholic beveragesBeer 4.46aa 3.71b 3.67ac 4.30b 2.97abbc 2.24w

Light beer 2.75a 2.38 2.41 2.00a 2.37 0.61Imported wine 2.71a 2.62a 2.37b 3.15bc 2.05aac 2.40w

Premium domes tic wine 2.25aa 3.14abc 2.37b 2.80a 2.29c 2.02w

Ordinary domestic wine 2.79aa 3.52ab 3.22 3.80ab 2.82bb 1.46Distilled spirits 2.46a 2.71a 3.59aab 3.00 2.71b 1.46

vp , 0:20, wp , 0:10, xp , 0:05, yp , 0:01, zp , 0:001 for F-test values.Labels: NW Newlywed couples; DM/CC Delayed marriage/true childless couples; TEN Traditional

empty nest; DEN Delayed empty nest; OC Older couples.A prioricomparisons: pairs with same superscript are significantly different at p 0:05 level; Pairs with

same superscript with + (eg, a+) are significantly different at p 0:10 level.

MANOVA Multivariate Tests of Significance (S 4, M 10 1/2, N 49)Test Name Value Approx. F Hypoth. DF Error DF P(F)

Hotellings CC 2.21872 2.10138 104.00 394.00 0.000Wilks CC 0.19837 1.93274 104.00 399.27 0.000


http://-/?-http://-/?-


13/22

Yankelovichs (1981) consumption

profile of those pursuing the search for

self-fulfilment. NW couples were the

heaviest users of bottled juice, takeaway

Chinese food and pizza, fast foods,

canned spaghetti, hamburgers, potato/

corn chips, beer and imported wine, but

the lightest users of frozen juice and

distilled spirits. NW couples were also

the lightest users, while OCs were the

heaviest users, of such healthy foods as

unsweetened cereal, fresh fruit, fresh

and frozen vegetables and homemade

soup. In addition, OCs were the

heaviest users of canned vegetables and

hot dogs, but the lightest users of

bottled juice, restaurant foods, potato

corn chips and beer. This pattern reflects

OCs greater preparation of generally

healthy food choices, while avoiding

restaurants, and age/health-related

reduced intake of sugary/fatty foods

and most forms of alcohol.

As shown in Table 2, DM/CC couples

had the highest mean values for second

and third cars, trucks/vans, boats and

motorcycles/ATVs, second TVs and

VCRs, and had higher values for all 19

items (except stereos) than newlyweds.

The F-test values for MANOVAs of

durable goods expenditures were based

on the transformation [p

(x)p(x 1)],as recommended by Kirk (1968) to

reduce the problem of heterogeneity of

variances, where group means are

correlated with standard deviations,

and many individuals have values of

zero. This pattern of contrasts between

Table 2 Dollar values of major durable acquisitions for childless couple categories

Items/Categories NW DM/CC TEN DEN OC Fcc(Cell size/df) (n 24) (n 21) (n 27) (n 20) (n 38) (4,125)

Major durables: homes, cars, and other vehiclesPrimary home 48083abcd 103540ae 106033bf 93568c 79547def 7.67z

Second home 3000ab 8333 16122ac 18800bd 1578cd 2.25w

Primary car 8393 8940 9494a 7512a 8625 0.27Second car 4129aa 5430bc 4199d 2687ab 1940acd 4.10yThird car 135a 1000abc 153b 325d 39cd 3.04x

Truck/van 583a 1080 371b 30ab 507aa 0.42Camper/RV 0abc 1114a 351b 4619 921c 0.92Boat 150ab 4371aac 1136abd 1275b 121bcd 3.38x

Motorcycle/ATV 70a 361a 148 5b 0aab 1.20Home entertainment equipment and furnitureStereo 635abc 529de 393afg 193bdf 247ceg 8.44z

Primary TV set 425 462 472 433 465 0.12Second TV set 234aa 319ab 305ac 210bbc 286b 1.93v

Third TV set 57abc 101d 199aabd 127ab 128bc 2.12w

Pers onal Ccomput er 109aa 273abb 129bc 337acd 72bd 2.73x

Video cassette recorder 348abc 359def 189aad 209beg 105acfg 5.13z

Satellite dish 0 0 37 0 26 0.65Living room furniture 757a 859abc 935aabc 725bb 739cc 2.37w

Dining room furniture 485aabb 730ac 810bcd 649ad 585bcc 2.72x

Master bedroom furniture 583aa 741ab 842abb 736 708b 3.11x

vp , 0:

20, wp , 0:

10, xp , 0:

05, yp , 0:

01, zp , 0:

001 for F-test values.Category Labels: NW Newlywed couples; DM/CC Delayed marriages/true childless couples; TEN

Traditional empty nest; DEN Delayed empty nest; OC Older couples.A prioricomparisons: Pairs with same superscript are significantly different at p 0:05 level;Pairs with the same superscript with + (eg, a+) are significantly different at p 0:10 level.Statistical tests and values of (1 L) for both sets of monetary values are based on the transformation(p

xp(x 1)), to adjust for heterogeneity and skewness with many values of zero present.

Major Durables MANOVA Multivariate Tests (S 4, M 2, N 5712)

Test Name Value Approx. Fcc Hypoth. DF Error DF Pcc

Hotellings 0.73055 2.34386 36.00 462.00 0.000Wilks 0.52158 2.31935 36.00 440.19 0.000

Minor Durables MANOVA Multivariate Tests (S 4, M 2 12, N 57)

Hotellings 1.02379 2.93060 40.00 458.00 0.000Wilks 0.43025 2.75072 40.00 441.71 0.000




14/22

DM/CC and NW couples is consistent

with expectations. NWs had the lowest

mean values for primary homes,

campers/RVs, third TVs and dining

room furniture, while OCs had the

lowest mean values for second homes,

second and third cars, boats,motorcycles/ATVs, personal computers

and VCRs. Although it seems logical to

expect those greater discretionary

durable expenditures among DM/CC

families to carry over to DEN couples,

this is not the case. TEN couples had the

highest mean values for primary homes,

primary cars and for living room,

dining room and bedroom furniture,

whereas DEN couples owned the least

expensive primary cars, stereos, second

TVs and living room furniture, and had

the next to lowest mean values for

second cars. These findings might be

explained by a strong early commitment

to invest in family-specific marital

capital among TEN couples; or may also

reflect a better current financial situation

due to children leaving the nest earlier,

and/or less or no recent investment in

childrens education compared to DEN

couples. It is noted, however, that DEN

couples had the highest mean values for

personal computers, campers/RVs

(followed by DM/CC couples) andsecond homes (followed by TEN

couples). This latter finding is in line

with the general proposition that

nontraditional CCs spend more on

durable goods related to their

individualistic lifestyles and leisure

pursuits and spend less on home

ownership.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Sweeping social and cultural changes

during the past several decades have

resulted in fundamental changes in the

traditional household unit and created

various nontraditional household types.

Since the 1980s, delayed marriage and

childless couple households have

emerged as the fastest growing

nontraditional household type. The

fundamentally new lifestyles associated

with various forms of modernised

childless couple households have

stimulated researchers interest because

their distinctive lifestyles, value and

consumption profiles are not adequately

captured by existing household life

cycle models. Although researchershave developed modernised household

life cycle models that technically

incorporate such households, they do so

by aggregating them with their

traditional counterparts based on

similarity of current household

composition. (An exception was

Murphy and Staples (1979) stipulation

of a middle-aged true childless couple

category.) Those few studies which have

attempted to characterise childless

household consumption patterns have

largely done so by comparing

heterogeneous aggregates of

newlyweds, delayed marriages and

childless couples to full nest couples of

comparable age. Thus, while implicitly

appealing profiles have resulted, no

previous studies have directly

compared traditional newlyweds or

empty nest households with their

nontraditional counterparts who delay

marriage and delay or eschew

childbearing.

The present study developed anoperationally effective method of

classifying nontraditional childless

couple households (delayed marriage

and true childless couples, as well as

delayed empty nest couples) from their

traditional counterparts (newlyweds

and traditional empty nest couples) and

from older couples. The operational

definitions developed separate

newlywed and empty nest households

from delayed marriages and true

childless couples rather than aggregate

them with their more traditional

counterparts as did most previous

studies. Moreover, this study directly

examined differences between

traditional newlyweds and empty nest

couples from modern childless couples

rather than comparing their

heterogeneous aggregates (labelled


http://-/?-http://-/?-


15/22

childless couples) to full nest

households. This approach not only

incorporates delayed marriages, true

childless couples and delayed empty

nest households, but classifies them into

reasonably homogeneous separate

categories. The empirical evaluation ofthis classification scheme generated

strong results that are indicative of an

improved treatment of couples without

dependent children, and the resultant

scheme can be readily incorporated into

extant household life cycle models.

From a conceptual point of view, this

childless household classification

approach captures underlying role

theory influences those related not

just to underlying values, but also to sex

role norms, to current household

composition, and also to anticipated

future roles (anticipatory socialisation).

It also indirectly captures the impact of

socio-economic variables such as social

class, occupational and educational

status and discretionary income, which

interact with values as well as work and

time-related stresses to further influence

consumption patterns. The authors

believe these roles interact with values

and norms to drive consumption

behaviour, and that the focus on values

only (as in VALS 2) will fail to uncoverconsumption differences driven by

those interactions.

The results demonstrate that

nontraditional childless couple

households do exhibit significantly

different consumption and attitudinal

patterns from their traditional

counterparts, and that it is

inappropriate to aggregate them with

traditional households of similar

composition and head of household

ages. This finding is important in that it

suggests that extant modernised life

cycle models must be modified to

separate delayed marriages and true

childless couples from newlyweds and

empty nest couples. Another important

outcome of this research is that it is the

first study to provide direct empirical

support that it is appropriate to

aggregate childless remarriages with

their first marriage counterparts as

advocated by Gilly and Enis (1981) and

Hill and Rodgers (1964). This outcome

supports the notion that current

household composition determines

household consumption, rather thanprevious life cycle history. This study

was not designed to investigate the

increasingly complex issue of

developing a typology of remarriages,

however, it is recommended that this

topic be systematically developed and

examined by future research.

The proposed childless couple

classification scheme explains over 80

per cent of the multivariate variance in

food and beverage consumption, and

nearly 85 per cent of that for husbands

and wives attitudes and values. It also

explains nearly 60 per cent of that for

dollar values of major durable

acquisitions, and nearly half that for

value of home entertainment devices

and furniture. It captures unique


between nontraditional and traditional

childless couple households that are

obscured by previous models

aggregation approaches. Couples who

delay marriage and those who delay or

forego having children exhibit moremodern sex role norms and less

traditional religious, sexual and family

values, and report greater time

pressures and work-related stresses

than their traditional counterparts.

These attitudinal and value tendencies

influence household food and beverage

consumption patterns as well as major

durable acquisitions. Such households

evidence more health-conscious food,

beverage and alcoholic consumption

patterns.

Delayed marriages and true childless

couples also tend to evidence different

and greater discretionary dollar

expenditures for selected major durable

assets and home entertainment

equipment and furniture. They reported

the highest average dollar values for

second and third cars, trucks/vans,




16/22

boats and motorcycles/ATVs, VCRs,

second TVs, and had higher values than

newlyweds for primary homes, boats,

campers/RVs, personal computers, and

dining room and bedroom furniture.

Consistent with expectations, delayed

empty nest couples had the highestmean values for personal computers,

campers/RVs and second homes,

findings which are attributable to their

more individualistic values and leisure-

oriented lifestyles than their traditional

counterparts backed by their higher

discretionary income. Contrary to

expectations, other aspects of the

delayed marriage/childless couples

durable acquisitions patterns did not

directly carry over to delayed empty

nest households. Such couples had the

lowest mean values for primary cars,

truck/vans, stereos and living room

furniture. This finding is probably due

to greater and more recent college

expenses preempting household

refurbishing, compared to traditional

empty nest or delayed marriage/

childless couples. It should also be

noted that delayed empty nest couples

in this study were of the pre-baby

boomer generation, and reached age 18

prior to the sweeping cultural value

changes which occurred from the late1960s through the 1970s. The age cohort

of those who grew up during the latter

era and delayed childbearing is only

now beginning to enter the delayed

empty nest stage. This segment, largely

representing affluent dual career

households, when it fully develops, is

likely to evidence stronger attitudinal

and consumption contrasts consistent

with those conceptualised, than those

observed in the present study, and may

show a marked increase in the value of

discretionary durable purchases.

Limitations and future research

implications

While the proposed childless couple

household classification scheme is

theoretically sound and empirically

strong, there are some limitations of this

study. First, the data set is not current

and this limits a clear interpretation of

some of the results and may have led to

weaker and less distinctive attitudinal

and consumption patterns than

expected. A more recent data set in

which delayed empty nest householdsare of the baby boomer generation

would help to clarify some of the issues

and possible interpretations developed

here. A more current data set would

also be likely to yield stronger

attitudinal contrasts of delayed empty

nest and childless couple households to

newlyweds and traditional empty nest

couples than those observed in the

present study. The authors regard their

methodological approach as exploratory

because the data set used to develop

operational definitions of childless

couple categories was also used to

assess the empirical performance of the

resultant classification scheme. The

validity of the proposed classification

and generalisability of major findings

need to be established with larger

samples in future research. The sample

sizes for these comparisons, while

clearly representative of the population,

are small, and led to weaker significance

levels than would be likely to be

observed if a larger sample had beenused. The pattern offindings,

particularly for delayed marriage/

childless couples versus traditional

newlyweds and traditional empty nest

couples, was strong, internally

consistent and consistent with prior

theory. Many of the marginal findings

would have been highly significant if

based on larger samples.

The above limitations should not

diminish the importance of the

theoretical underpinnings and empirical

findings of this study, which the authors

believe make an incremental

contribution to the life cycle literature.

No previous extant studies have

synthesised interdisciplinary theoretical

underpinnings and empirical findings

by developing operational definitions

separating delayed marriage/childless




17/22

couples or delayed empty nest couples

from traditional newlywed or empty

nest couples. This study is the first to

empirically document that traditional

and nontraditional childless couple

households exhibit unique and

distinctive attitudinal and consumptionpatterns, with multi-disciplinary

theoretical underpinnings, and hence

should not be combined.

For future research, the authors

advocate examining usage of particular

food, beverage and restaurant offerings

rather than aggregated expenditures,

and recommend that expenditures for

particular durable goods (eg, major

kitchen appliances, major laundry

appliances, living room furniture, etc)

be examined over at least several years.

Generational changes, age cohort effects

and transitions of childless couples to

subsequent life cycle stages should also

be considered in future research. Post-

baby boomer generation households are

increasingly joining the ranks of

delayed marriage and true childless

couples. The operational definitions and

methodological approach proposed

offers a solid basis for future research in

this area. The authors recommend using

age at birth offirst child, rather than age

at first marriage (or estimates of it forsecond marriages) to separate delayed

and traditional empty nest couples.

They also suggest that applied market

researchers need to determine whether

the full childless couple scheme, or

some reduced form of it, is most

effective for particular consumption

areas. They advise that it be utilised as a

starting point, and that similar

categories be aggregated as needed,

based on empirical a priori comparisons,

to produce an effective classification

scheme suited to the problem at hand.

Managerial implications

Childless married couples are both the

fastest-growing household type, and the

largest category of American families.

Families with no children are projected

to be well over 28 million in 2010,

representing 38.6 per cent of families

and 26.3 per cent of all households

(American Demographics, 1993). This

powerful trend and the upscale socio-

economic profile of nontraditional

childless couples combines to make

them increasingly important marketingtargets. Recent product offerings

suggest that marketers have recognised

evolving opportunities related to

changing attitudes and values and

nontraditional life cycle progressions.

Nontraditional childless couple

households appear to be willing to pay

more for good-tasting, high-quality,

healthy, frozen dinner entrees (Business

Week, 1992). Through the 1990s there

have been a number of market entries

for frozen dinner entrees touting low

calories (eg, Lean Cuisine, Le Menu,

Weight Watchers) or healthy low fat/

cholesterol content combined with high

quality (eg, Healthy Choice, Tysons).

Con-Agras Healthy Choice line seems

to have targeted both spouses among

delayed marriage and childless couples,

and has emphasised evening, late night

and weekend TV advertising, as well as

news and nontraditional womens

magazines.

The line ofspace-saver kitchen

appliances introduced in the 1990s byGE and Black and Decker was custom

designed for the smaller kitchens of

upscale, delayed childbearing, baby-

boomer couples who continued to live

in apartments near the urban areas in

which both pursued careers prior to

having children. Delayed marriage/

childless couples clearly represent a

major market for car, SUV, truck, van,

motorcycle/ATV and boat marketers, as

well as VCRs, personal computers and

dining room and bedroom furniture.

Both they and delayed empty nest

couples represent major markets for

healthy food and beverages as well as

premium imported and domestic wines,

but should not be targeted for junk

foods, sugary beverages or desserts,

high-fat dairy products or high-fat

snack foods. Traditional empty nest


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


18/22

couples, on the other hand, represent a

major target market for these latter

products, as well as hard spirits, and

probably can be reached effectively

through daytime and prime time

television, as well as traditional

womens magazines.

REFERENCES

Ambry, M. (1992) Childless chances,

American Demographics, 14 , April, 55.

Ambry, M. K. (1993) Receipts from a

marriage, American Demographics, 15,

February, 307.

American Demographics (1992) The

Changing American Household, American

Demographics, 14, July, 222.

American Demographics (1993) The Future

of Households, American Demographics,

15, December, 2740.

Becker, G. S. (1974) A theory of marriage, in

Economics of the Family, Schultz, T. W. (Ed.)

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,

USA, 299344.

Bloom, D. E. (1984) Putting off children,

American Demographics, 6, September, 45,

303.

Bloom, D. E. and Bennett, N. G. (1986)

Childless couples, American

Demographics, 8, August, 235, 545.

Blossfeld, H. P. and Huinink, J. (1991)

Human capital investments or norms ofrole transition? How womens schooling

and career affect the process of family

formation, American Journal of Sociology,

97, July, 14368.

Business Week (1992) Call this the year of

the picky consumer, Whats for dinner?

Humble pie, Business Week, 13th January,

76, 78.

Buss, W. C. and Schaninger, C. M. (1987) An

overview of dyadic family behavior

research: A summary offindings, and an

agenda for future research, Review of

Marketing, 293324.

Gilly, M. C. and Enis, B. M. (1982) Recycling

the family life cycle: A proposal for

redefinition, Advances in Consumer

Research, 9, Mitchell, A. A. (Ed.)

Association for Consumer Research, Ann

Arbor, 27176.

Heaton, T. B., Jacobson, C. K. and Holland,

K. (1999) Persistence and change in

decisions to remain childless, Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 61, May, 53139.

Hill, R. L. and Rodgers, R. H. (1964) The

developmental approach, in Handbook of

Marriage and the Family, Christensen, H. T.

(Ed.), Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, USA,171211.

Kirk, R. E. (1968) Experimental Design:

Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences,

Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, USA, 617.

Lazar, W. (1994) Handbook of Demographics for

Marketing and Advertising: New Trends in

the American Marketplace, Lexington Books,

New York, USA.

Macklin, E. D. (1980) Nontraditional forms:

A decade of research, Journal of Marriage

and the Family, 42, November, 90522.

Morgan, S. P. and Chen, R. (1992) Predicting

childlessness for recent cohorts of

American women, International Journal of

Forecasting, 8, 47793.

Murphy, P. and Staples, W. (1979) A

modernized family life cycle, Journal of

Consumer Research, 6, June, 1222.

PriceBonham, S. and Balswick, J. O. (1980)

The noninstitutions: Divorce, desertion,

and remarriage, Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 49, November, 95972.

Rexroat, C. and Shehan, C. (1987) The

family life cycle and spouses time in

housework, Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 49, November, 73750.

Riche, M. F. (1991) The future of the family,

American Demographics, 13, March, 446.

Scanzoni, J. H. (1975) Sex Roles, Lifestyle, and

Childbearing: Changing Patterns in Marriage

and Family, Free Press, New York, USA.

Scanzoni, J. H. (1979), Social processes and

power in families, in Contemporary

Theories About the Family, Burr W. R. et al.,

(Eds), Free Press, New York, USA, 295316.

Schaninger, C. M. and Danko, W. D. (1993)

A conceptual and empirical comparison

of alternative household life cycle models,

Journal of Consumer Research, 19, March,

58094.

Somers, M. D. (1993) A comparison of

voluntarily childfree adults and parents,

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,

August, 64350.

Spanier, G. B., Sauer, W. and Larzelere, R.




19/22

(1979) An empirical evaluation of the

family life cycle, Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 41, February, 2738.

Spanier, G. B., Lewis, R. A. and Cole, C.

(1975) Marital adjustment over the family

life cycle: The issue of curvilinearity,

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, May,26375.

Wagner, J. and Hanna, S. (1983) The

effectiveness of family life cycle variables

in consumer expenditure research, Journal

of Consumer Research, 10, September,

28191.

Wells, W. and Gubar, G. (1966) Life cycle

concept in marketing research, Journal of

Marketing Research, 3, November, 35563.

Yankelovich, D. (1981) New Rules in AmericanLife: Searching for Self- fulfilment in a World

Turned Upside Down, Random House, New

York, USA.




20/22


21/22


22/22

attitudinal and consumption - group -5

Documents