Description
This paper aims to uncover the relationships between marital power and influence strategies
used during couples’ vacation decision processes. Marital power includes two dimensions: the first
dimension is objective and composed of actual economic resources; the second is subjective and
composed of feelings such as spousal love or self-esteem
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Marital power bases as predictors of spousal influence strategies in a vacation purchase decision
Ya'arit Bokek-Cohen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ya'arit Bokek-Cohen, (2011),"Marital power bases as predictors of spousal influence strategies in a vacation purchase decision",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 144 - 157
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139564
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 49 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 827 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kenneth F. Hyde, Alain Decrop, (2011),"New perspectives on vacation decision making", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 103-111http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139537
Gerard Dunne, Sheila Flanagan, J oan Buckley, (2011),"Towards a decision making model for city break travel", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 158-172http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139573
Metin Kozak, Levent Karadag, (2012),"Who influences aspects of family decision making?", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 8-20http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211206216
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Marital power bases as predictors of
spousal in?uence strategies in a vacation
purchase decision
Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to uncover the relationships between marital power and in?uence strategies
used during couples’ vacation decision processes. Marital power includes two dimensions: the ?rst
dimension is objective and composed of actual economic resources; the second is subjective and
composed of feelings such as spousal love or self-esteem.
Design/methodology/approach – 192 couples completed a questionnaire that included statements
describing different in?uence strategies utilized during the vacation purchase-decision process;
respondents indicated the frequency with which they employed each strategy.
Findings – Subjective marital power is associated with the use of spousal in?uence strategies.
Objective marital power does not predict the use of these strategies.
Research limitaions/implications – These ?ndings highlight a hitherto understudied aspect of marital
power – subjective power.
Practical implications – Consumer researchers and vacation marketers should take into account the
subjective marital power balance and its impact on in?uence strategies during couples’ vacation
decision processes.
Originality/value – This study shows that during a vacation decision process, the marital power
balance between partners impacts on the choice of spousal in?uence strategies. Secondly, economic
power is not the dominant factor that affects the choice of in?uence strategy; rather, interpersonal power
is in?uential in the use of spousal in?uence strategies during the vacation decision process.
Keywords In?uence, Family life, Decision making, Gender, Consumer behavior, Leave
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Most people prefer the family social group to spend their vacations with (Nichols and
Snepenger, 2005). Family decision making is not only an interesting subject of examination
by consumer behavior researchers but also serves as a valuable source in shaping
strategies that tourism practitioners employ (Nanda et al., 2004). Tourism researchers tend
to categorize family purchase decisions into three types: husband-dominant, wife-dominant,
or a joint decision by both partners (Litvin et al., 2004; Ndubisy and Koo, 2006; Stafford,
1996). Recent studies consider the in?uence of teenagers and children (Belch et al., 2005;
Flurry, 2007; Shoham and Dalakas, 2003). Most of the studies report that wives are slightly
more dominant than their husbands in decisions relating to vacations (Foxman et al., 1989;
Rice, 2001; Shoham and Dalakas, 2003). In Stafford’s (1996) study, vacation choices tend to
be joint decisions. Decrop (2005) reports vacation decisions involve all family members,
though women and children play more passive roles during the decision making process.
Researchers ?nd strong gender specialization and differentiation concerning different
aspects and phases of vacation preparation (Decrop, 2005). Vacation researchers examine
the relationship between family life cycle and various aspects of vacation consumption
behavior, such as expenditures, duration of vacation, level of activity and organization
during the vacation (Lawson, 1991), the changing roles of family members during the
PAGE 144
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 144-157, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181111139564
Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen is
based at the R&DCenter for
Samaria and Jordan Rift,
Department of Economics
and Business
Administration, Ariel
University Center of
Samaria, Ariel, Israel.
Received: January 2008
Revised: May 2008
Accepted: October 2008
The author is grateful to Israel
Nebentzal, Yochanan Peres,
Sabina Lissitsa, Tali Lev, and
Svetlana Bolotin for their
valuable suggestions and
comments. The author thanks
the guest editors of this issue
and the referees for their critical
and stimulating comments on
an earlier version of this article.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
vacation decision process (Fodness, 1992), and type of vacation and experiences sought
(Blichfeldt, 2007).
Building fromMaslow’s (1970) needs-hierarchy theory of motivation, Pearce (1988) identi?es
?ve different motivations for vacationing: relaxation needs, safety/security needs,
relationship needs, self-esteem, and development needs. Blichfeldt (2007) claims that the
family is more often the relevant unit of analysis of vacation motivations; he argues that the
focus of Pearce’s (1988) model should be on expanding from the individual to the family life
cycle.
Before purchasing a product for their common use, most couples tend to engage in joint
discussion. Each partner will often try to persuade the other in various ways, employing a
range of in?uence tactics, communication styles, and behaviors designed to help them
secure their desired outcome (Mallalieu and Faure, 1998). Since power is broadly de?ned in
terms of who is able to in?uence others to get their own way (Bachrach and Lawler, 1981,
Cromwell and Olson, 1975, Scanzoni, 1979), the partner who manages to get their way is
seen by family researchers as more powerful than their partner. The purpose of this study is
to investigate the relationship between marital power bases and the use of various spousal
in?uence strategies during the vacation purchase-decision process. Speci?cally, the study
focuses on the question as to whether the choice of a speci?c strategy in a vacation decision
process can be accounted by the marital power bases of each partner. In contrast to the
‘‘classic’’ view of marital power, which deals with the objective power balance, the present
research analyzes power as a two-dimensional construct: one dimension is the objective
resources of each partner (such as income and educational level), and the second is
subjective power (such as love, dependence, or marital satisfaction). The next section
introduces a variety of spousal in?uence strategies; the following section includes a short
reviewof the marital power literature and a conceptualization of subjective marital power; the
article then presents four hypotheses in order to examine the relationship between spousal
in?uence strategies and marital power.
Spousal in?uence strategies
When partners consider various alternatives as part of the vacation decision process, each
partner will often attempt to in?uence the other toward his or her preferred vacation package.
A partner can use a variety of in?uence techniques, depending on his or her own
characteristics, the characteristics of the individual he or she is trying to in?uence, the nature
of the purchase and its importance to the individual, and other situational factors. The other
partner may respond using yet another technique (Kang, 2002).
Raven et al. (1975) described six in?uence strategies used in marital relationships:
expert, legitimate, reward, identi?cation, coercion, and information management. A
partner’s access to speci?c information on choice alternatives is an indication of expert
in?uence. Legitimate in?uence deals with one partner’s attempts to draw on the other’s
feelings of shared values concerning role expectations. Rewards that one partner can
offer to the other illustrate reward in?uence. Identi?cation refers to a partner’s feeling of
oneness with the other partner. Coercion is the punishment or unpleasant results and
behavior that one partner can employ. Information management includes the content of
the persuasive attempts and careful and successful explanations or arguments,
sometimes by attributing the in?uence attempt to external pressures beyond the
in?uencer’s control. Spiro (1983) suggested also the use of an emotional strategy based
on the use of a given emotion-based reaction. Bokek-Cohen (2008) has highlighted the
‘‘triangulation’’ strategy – the use of a third person enlisted by one partner in order to
persuade the other.
This study adopts the assumption that the marital power balance between the partners can
affect the use of in?uence strategies; we turn now to a brief review of the concept of marital
power.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 145
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Marital power
Family power is an important concept for understanding how families make purchase
decisions regarding various products, such as furnishing, educational institutions for the
children, or vacations. Promising perspectives on power in marital relationships have
emerged from the work of social exchange theorists. The basic premise of exchange
theories of marriage is that marital relationships are maintained by a balanced exchange of
resources controlled by each partner and needed by the other (Foa and Foa, 1980;
Grossbard-Shechtman, 1984; Grossbard-Shechtman, 1985; Grossbard-Shechtman and
Clague, 2002).
A key perspective on marital power was introduced in 1960 by Blood and Wolfe. They
presented their resource theory of family power, arguing that power is apportioned between
husbands and wives based on the relative resources that each contributes to the family.
Such resources include education, income, occupational prestige, knowledge, skills, or
rewards. It can be argued that the general viewpoint of current resource theories is that each
partner gains power from outside the family nucleus. In other words, the value of each
partner’s resources in external society affects the marital power balance. The balance of
power rests with the partner who contributes most resources to the marriage (Ferree, 1990).
Studies have examined marital power based their power measurements on ‘‘objective’’
variables such as personal income and educational level (Warner et al., 1986; Sexton and
Perlman, 1989; Pushkar and Ranjan, 2005; Cheek, 1987). Moreover, early research on family
power was often based on the assumption that power dynamics within the family are similar
to the power processes in small groups.
In contrast to the above ‘‘classic’’ view of family power, it is reasonable to assume that an
individual behaves differently when he or she interacts with different groups of people (Park
et al., 1991). Subsequently, important differences were found between family interactions
and power relationships between unrelated individuals (Gray-Little and Burks, 1983).
Rational or utilitarian factors are more important in the group decision-making process than
for the family. Even the original Blood and Wolfe (1960) data do not consistently showthat the
greater the husband’s resources, the greater his say in the family decision process.
Furthermore, Greek, Yugoslavian, Ghanaian, Danish, and Swedish data indicate that there
are no signi?cant differences between the degree of decision-making power of educated
and uneducated husbands, or high occupational status versus low occupational status
husbands (Jenkins, 1980).
In order to advance the knowledge of family decision making in general, and vacation
decisions in particular, emotional aspects should also be considered as components of the
interpersonal dynamics. Family relationships are distinguished from other interpersonal
relationships; family members have feelings for each other such as love, dependence, and
identi?cation that are different from feelings between ‘‘strangers’’. These unique affections
have led Park et al. (1995) to propose a model that incorporates the emotions experienced
by the partners as explaining factors of con?ict resolution modes. In some cases,
unbalanced marital power relationships and a wish to maintain marital stability may lead
partners to avoid discussing controversial issues (Benjamin, 1998).
Although most family researchers do not pay attention to the emotional bases of marital
power, an exception is the study by Foa and Foa (1971). They integrate emotions and love in
the analysis of family power by viewing love as a resource that is exchanged in intimate
relationships (Foa and Foa, 1971; Foa, 1993). Foa and Foa (1971) consider love as one out of
six types of interpersonal resources: love, status, information, money, goods, and services.
They de?ne ‘‘love’’ as the expression of affectionate regard, warmth, or comfort.
A similar attempt to expand the concept of ‘‘resource’’ beyond the economic realm was
undertaken by Levinger and Huesmann (1980), who differentiate between behavioral and
relational rewards. Behavioral rewards refer to the immediate rewards that result directly
from the behavior choices of each other, while relational rewards do not depend on speci?c
behaviors but are pegged to the actors’ level of relational involvement (Levinger and
Huesmann, 1980). They argue that one may feel rewarded merely from being rather than
PAGE 146
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
behaving; one can be rewarded merely by being accepted or considered worthwhile by the
other (Levinger and Huesmann, 1980).
The studies reviewed above have incorporated emotions into the studying of family relations
and con?ict resolution, but did not conceptualize themas bases for marital power. The focus of
this paper is to show that emotions in families not only affect con?ict resolution dynamics, but
also serve a basis for forming subjective marital power. The basic assumptions for
conceptualizing subjective power originate from Foa and Foa’s (1971) model (elaborated by
Foa (1993)), which integrate interpersonal and economic resources. According to their model,
subjective power can be held along with objective resources such as income or educational
level. Subjective power can either additively strengthen partners who are economically
dominant, or counter-balance with objective power and even lead to a reversal in the power
balance. Furthermore, relying on the concept of ‘‘relational power’’ Levinger and Huesmann
(1980) contribute to the conceptualization of subjective marital power including factors into the
equation such rewards as ‘‘being loved’’ or ‘‘being maritally satis?ed’’.
We can assume that when there is an asymmetry between partners in the degree to which
each loves and admires the other, the less loving partner is more powerful than the other; in
the terminology of Levinger and Huesmann (1980), his ‘‘relational resources’’ are greater
than his partner’s. Similarly, according to the model developed in Foa and Foa (1971) and
Foa (1993), the less loving partner is more powerful than the other because he or she has
enhanced control over an important resource: love. The more admiring partner is in a weak
position in the relationship. Similarly, the more maritally satis?ed partner has less power in
the relationship than the less satis?ed partner. Another kind of subjective power source
stems from one’s marriage alternatives. According to the ‘‘least interested partner
hypothesis’’ (Heer, 1963), the partner who could most easily ?nd another partner as
desirable as his or her current partner has another source of power, in that s/he has
potentially acceptable alternatives. Thus, if one partner considers themselves more
physically attractive than their partner, they may feel they can easily ?nd an alternative
partner and thus be more powerful.
Marital power and in?uence strategies
Little research has been undertaken regarding the relationship between marital power and
in?uence strategies. Falbo and Peplau (1980) developed a model regarding the relationship
between the balance of power and the use of power strategies in (non-marital) interpersonal
relationships. According to their model, people who see themselves as having equal power
in interpersonal relationships tend to use fewer power strategies in trying to get their way. In
contrast, greater use of power strategies may be associated with being in an imbalanced
power relationship. Aida and Falbo (1991) examined this model among married couples.
Their ?ndings validated the model and showed that marital partners who saw their marital
relationship as imbalanced tended to use power strategies more intensively than people
who saw themselves as equal partners.
Howard et al. (1986) have also shown that spousal in?uence techniques are affected by
economic factors as well as emotional dependency of the partners. Howard et al. (1986)
found that the use of spousal in?uence strategies is dependent on structural power and
interpersonal dependence. They used subjects’ responses concerning their partner’s
in?uence attempts. Interpersonal dependence was conceptualized in this study as
micro-level interpersonal resources that stem from the needs and dependencies of the
individual partners in a relationship, and relate to daily maintenance needs and level of
commitment for the relationship. Positions of interpersonal weakness were found to increase
the use of a manipulation strategy and reduce the use of a bullying strategy. Positions of
interpersonal strength increase the use of supplication tactics. Subjects who have relatively
less income than their partners are perceived as more likely to use both manipulation and
supplication strategies.
This study broadens the existing knowledge regarding the relationship between marital
power bases (objective versus subjective) and the tendency to prefer one in?uence strategy
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 147
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
over the other. It is reasonable to assume that individuals who earn a high income will ?nd it
easier to persuade their mates to get their way by using their superior resources. Similarly,
individuals who are less emotionally dependent on their partner, and/or less satis?ed with
their marriage and hence less interested in the relationship than their mate, and/or more
physically attractive than their partner, may ?nd an emotional strategy more useful and
effective. Thus, it would be expected that objective power would increase the use of
strategies that require the control of resources, whereas subjective power would be
positively correlated with the use of strategies that are based on emotions that arise during
interpersonal or intimate interactions. Hence, it may be hypothesized that objective power
can affect the use of a reward strategy (e.g. Buy my husband/wife a present, Offer to take my
husband/wife out, Give my husband/wife money for his/her personal needs).
Likewise, it may be hypothesized that subjective power may affect the use of an emotional
strategy (e.g. I cry, I get angry, I am insulted/hurt, I deliver implicit threats that I will leave my
husband/wife, I refuse to talk to my husband/wife a few hours/days, Sleep outside of home,
Shout at my husband/wife, Insult my husband/wife). Since the coercion strategy is
comprised of tactics of both material and psychological behavior, both objective and
subjective marital power may have an effect on the frequency of use of a coercive strategy
(e.g. Revenge if my husband/wife does not act as I want, Criticize negative criticism, Refuse
to give my husband/wife things he asks, Make my husband/ wife hard life, Enforce my
wishes physically).
Research hypotheses
H1. The more objective power a partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
material reward in?uence strategy
H2. The more objective power a partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
coercive in?uence strategy
H3. The more subjective power a partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
coercive in?uence strategy
H4. The more subjective power a partner holds, the greater their tendency to use an
emotional in?uence strategy
Method
Measures
Dependent variable: spousal in?uence strategy. A pilot study was undertaken to formulate
items for the research questionnaire. A total of 64 married or cohabiting subjects (34 female,
32 male) answered four open-ended questions regarding the tactics they employ in order to
convince their partner to get their way. Content analysis of their answers yielded behavioral
patterns that served as a basis for the Likert-scale questions presented to the subjects of the
main study: ‘‘When you and your partner disagree regarding a vacation decision, how often
do you do each of the following?’’ Research questionnaire included items for the reward,
coercion and emotional in?uence strategies. Reliability of the items to be included in the
questionnaire was examined in a pilot study that included 88 married or cohabiting subjects
(47 female, 41 male). Internal consistency of each strategy was examined by calculating
Cronbach’s alpha (see Table I). Subjects were asked to state their own frequency of use of
the strategies, on a ?ve-point Likert scale, in which 1 means ‘‘never’’ and 5 means ‘‘always’’.
Independent variables. Objective marital power (OMP). The OMP of each subject is the
average of differences between each subject and his partner on two variables: level of
education, and personal income. Measures of the difference between the partners’ scores
on these items were calculated.
Subjective marital power (SMP). The above-mentioned pilot study included two additional
open-ended questions regarding factors affecting the individual’s power within a marital
relationship. Subjects were instructed to ignore economic, educational, and occupational
PAGE 148
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
variables and to think of ‘‘other’’ variables that play a role in forming a marital power balance.
The answers to these questions were content analyzed and three main factors identi?ed:
physical attractiveness, identi?cation with partner, and marital satisfaction.
The SMP of each subject is the average of differences between three variables:
1. Physical attractiveness – each subject was asked to rate their own and their partner’s
physical attractiveness. A greater difference means that the subject believes they are
more attractive than their partner is, i.e. the subject is more powerful than their partner is.
2. Nine items aimed to measure identi?cation with partner (see Table II). Differences were
calculated between the level of identi?cation that the partner of each subject rated and
the level of identi?cation the subject believes their partner feels for them. A greater
difference means that the subject’s partner appreciates and loves them more, i.e. the
subject is more powerful than their partner is.
3. Two additional questions related to marital happiness. The difference between the
subject’s partner and his or her own marital satisfaction was calculated. A greater
difference means that the partner is more satis?ed with the marriage, i.e. the subject is
more powerful than their partner is.
Sample
Participants included 192 heterosexual Jewish couples (either married or cohabiting),
recruited from all areas of Israel using random sampling. Research assistants offered
participants a gift of a $20 coupon from a national supermarket chain.
Table I Internal consistency of in?uence strategies, by gender – Cronbach’s alpha
Strategy Items Men Women
Reward Buy my husband/wife a present
Offer my husband/wife to go out 0.82 0.84
Give my husband/wife money for his/her personal needs
Coercion Revenge if my husband/wife does not act as I want
Criticize negative criticism
Refuse to give my husband/wife things he asks 0.85 0.77
Make my husband/ wife hard life
Enforce my wishes physically
Emotional I cry
I get angry
I am insulted/hurt
I deliver implicit threats that I will leave my husband/wife
I refuse to talk to my husband/wife a few hours/days 0.90 0.90
Sleep outside of home
Shout at my husband/wife
Insult my husband/wife
Table II Internal consistency of identi?cation with partner, by gender – Cronbach alpha
Items Men Women
I love my husband/wife
I consider my husband/wife as ideal
I admire my husband/wife and I want to behave in a way that she/he will appreciate me
It is important for me to have assurance and acceptance from my husband/wife
My husband/wife and I share the same values and point of view 0.87 0.91
I appreciate my husband’s/wife’s personality attributes
I identify with my husband/wife as a human being
I think my husband/wife has a good character
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 149
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Although there is a slight over-representation of religious subjects, statistical analysis was
undertaken after weighting the sample according to the Israeli population. First, research
assistants contacted the subjects on the telephone in order to coordinate a meeting, at
which both the husband and the wife were present. The couples did not have to meet any
speci?c conditions in order to qualify for the study.
Table III presents the main socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.
Procedure
In order to avoid possible biases or disturbances, partners completed the questionnaire at
the same time and a research assistant was present during this time. The research assistant
asked the partners not to talk to each other while completing the questionnaire. Simultaneity
of answers by both partners limited the potential for changes in answers, because partners
were instructed not to ask each other what they wrote, or discuss the topic at all during the
time they answered the questionnaire.
Results
Table IV presents descriptive statistics for OMP and SMP.
Analysis
In order to explore the relationship between the use of each of the in?uence strategies and
the marital power bases, the research conducted multiple regression analysis for each of the
Table III Demographic characteristics of sample
Husband Percent Wife Percent
Age
18-24 26 13.5 38 19.6
25-34 56 29.0 70 36.7
35-44 45 23.5 31 16.3
45-54 36 18.9 43 22.6
55 and above 29 15.1 9 4.7
Total 192 100 192 100
Education
Elementary 7 3.6 0 0
High school 89 47.4 73 38.6
Tertiary non academic 25 13.2 32 16.7
Academic 67 35.7 85 44.7
Total 189 100 190 100
Personal income (monthly)
Not employed 7 3.9 22 12.1
Up to 750$ 18 10.1 25 13.7
751-1250$ 57 31.8 85 46.7
1251-2000$ 43 24.0 41 22.5
2001-2750$ 31 17.3 5 2.7
2751$ and above 23 12.8 4 2.2
Total 179 100 183 100
Ethnic origin
European/American 72 38.2 85 44.5
Asian/African 92 48.9 81 42.3
Mixed 24 12.9 25 13.2
Total 189 100 192 100
Religious orientation
Secular 80 43.8 71 37.1
Traditional 39 21.4 54 28.6
Religious 44 24.1 43 22.8
Orthodox 20 10.6 22 11.5
Total 184 95.83 191 99.48
Notes: Duration of marriage: Mean: 12.36; Std deviation: 9.76; Minimum: 0.20; Maximum: 40.00
PAGE 150
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
strategies separately. The enter method was utilized in order to test the effects of objective
power and subjective power. All the analyses were conducted separately for men and
women. The responses of all the couples were included in the analysis. In addition to the
main independent variables, two control variables were included in each of these regression
analyses. Duration of marriage was included to control for the differences in duration of the
marital relationship. Level of religiosity was included to control for the ethical and mental
differences between secular and religious respondents. These control variables played a
minor role in the results of the regression analysis.
Frequencies of in?uence strategies use
Table V presents the average reported usage of each of the in?uence strategies. The
average frequency of use of a reward strategy is substantially higher than the average of the
other two strategies, by both men and women. As to gender differences, women report a
signi?cantly higher use of an emotional strategy.
Effect of marital power bases on in?uence strategies use
The ?rst research hypothesis is:
H1 The more objective power the partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
material reward in?uence strategy.
Male and female respondents who have more objective marital power do not report a higher
frequency of material reward strategy use (male, beta ¼ 0:03, n.s., female, beta ¼ 0:04, n.s.,
see Table VI).
Multiple regression analysis included both objective and subjective power. Although not a
priori hypothesized, male respondents who have more subjective marital power report a
higher frequency of reward strategy use (beta ¼ 0:29, p , 0:05). Subjective marital power
accounts for 8.6 percent of the variance of reward strategy use among male respondents
(see Table VI). There are no signi?cant variables related to the use of reward strategy among
female respondents.
The second research hypothesis is:
H2. The more objective power the partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
coercive in?uence strategy.
Table IV Marital power bases: means, by gender
Men Women
Objective power 0.29 (1.02) 20.29 (1.02)
minimum (22.0) minimum (24.00)
maximum 4.0 maximum 2.00
Subjective power 20.19 (0.59) 0.11 (0.56)
minimum (21.69) minimum (21.61)
maximum 1.41 maximum 1.53
Table V Strategy use: means, by gender
Strategy Men Women T test
Reward 2.24 (1.14) 2.07 (1.20) 1.69
Coercion 1.49 (0.71) 1.61 (0.68) 21.90*
Emotional 1.57 (0.74) 1.72 (0.77) 22.06**
Notes: * p , 0.058; **p , 0.05
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 151
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Among male respondents, a coercive strategy correlates positively with both objective and
subjective marital power (see Table VII). Stepwise regression analysis differentiates between
the two power bases and helps to evaluate how much of the variance objective power alone
explains (see Table VIII). The stepwise method failed to enter objective power as a
signi?cant independent variable in the regression; this variable did not add signi?cantly to
explained variance. The other two signi?cant predictors of coercive strategy (subjective
power, duration of marriage) account for 19 percent of the variance (see Table VIII).
Among female respondents, the only signi?cant regression coef?cient is the level of
religiosity, accounting for 5.7 percent of the variance in coercive strategy (beta ¼ 0:16,
p , 0.05).
The third research hypothesis is:
H3. The more subjective power the partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
coercive in?uence strategy.
Table VI Results of regression analysis (enter method) – Dependent variable: reward in?uence strategy
Men Women T-statistics
Regression variables
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Intercept 2.374 2.292
Objective marital power 0.047 0.028 0.075 0.044
Subjective marital power 0.551 0.285* 0.085 0.041
Duration of marriage 20.032 20.031 0.035 0.033
Level of religiosity 20.001 20.001 20.137 20.116
F 4.049** 0.761
R-square 0.086 0.017
Notes: * p , 0:001, ** p , 0:01
Table VII Results of regression analysis (enter method) – Dependent variable: coercive in?uence strategy
Men Women T-statistics
Regression variables
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Intercept 1.880 1.480
Objective marital power 0.149 0.147* 20.067 20.068
Subjective marital power 0.437 0.376** 0.150 0.124
Duration of Marriage 20.147 20.236 20.038 20.062
Level of religiosity 0.007 0.011 0.112 0.163*
F 11.432** 2.683*
R-square 0.210 0.057
Notes: * p , 0:05; ** p , 0:001
Table VIII Results of regression analysis (step-wise method, men only) – Dependent
variable: coercive in?uence strategy
T-statistics
Regression variables
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Adjusted
R-square F
Intercept 1.895
Subjective marital power 0.415 0.357* 0.148 30.206*
Duration of marriage 20.129 20.208* 0.190 20.335*
R-square 0.190
Note: * p , 0:001
PAGE 152
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Findings for H2 showamong male respondents there is a positive correlation between use of a
coercive strategy and both objective and subjective marital power. The stepwise regression
analysis selected subjective power as the ?rst-entered independent variable, explaining 14.8
percent of the variance in use of a coercive strategy (see Table VIII). Male respondents who
have more subjective marital power report a higher frequency of coercive strategy use
(beta ¼ 0:36, p , 0:05). Regarding the female respondents, we have seen in the ?ndings for
H2 that the only signi?cant regression coef?cient is the level of religiosity, accounting for 5.7
percent of the variance in use of a coercive strategy (beta ¼ 0:16, p , 0:05).
The fourth research hypothesis is:
H4. The more subjective power the partner holds, the greater their tendency to use an
emotional in?uence strategy.
Male respondents who have more subjective marital power report a higher frequency of
emotional strategy use (beta ¼ 0:287, p , 0:05). Male subjective marital power explains
25.9 percent of the variance in use of an emotional strategy (see Table IX).
Female respondents who have more subjective marital power report also a higher frequency
of emotional strategy use (beta ¼ 0:236, p , 0:05). Female subjective marital power
explains 7.6 percent of the variance in use of an emotional strategy (see Table IX).
Discussion
Unlike other service products (such as schooling, insurance and healthcare), a vacation is a
product which couples can decide whether or not to consume together. A vacation is an
emotional experience, and emotions thus play an important role in the decision dynamics.
Good vacation marketing requires an understanding of the needs and motivations of the
vacationer. With regard to family vacationers, good vacation marketing means
understanding the dynamics of a dyadic decision. Vacation marketers should be aware
that a vacation purchase decision is a process that involves con?icting and competing
interests and needs of the two partners. Similarly, to other kinds of decisions, each partner
tends to use in?uence tactics based on his or her power bases.
Objective marital power was expected to have a positive impact on the tendency to use
material reward strategy. The ?ndings not only fail to support this hypothesis, but also
indicate that the subjective power of men is surprisingly in?uential in the use of this strategy.
The research predicted that objective marital power would have a positive impact on the
tendency to use a coercive strategy. The ?ndings also fail to support this hypothesis. Female
respondents who have more objective marital power do not report a higher frequency of
coercive strategy use. A vacation is a joint activity for the fun of both partners during
holidays. A vacation is a product that they opt to consume together. Since spending a
vacation is an emotional experience, emotions play a more important role in the decision
dynamics than actual resources.
Table IX Results of regression analysis (Enter method) – Dependent variable: emotional in?uence strategy
Men Women T-statistics
Regression variables
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Intercept 1.476 1.558
Objective marital power 20.128 20.122 0.066 0.060
Subjective marital power 0.350 0.287** 0.321 0.236**
Duration of marriage 0.204 0.313 20.017 20.025
Level of religiosity 20.182 20.267 0.097 0.125
F 14.816** 3.710*
R-square 0.259 0.076
Notes: * p , 0:01; ** p , 0:001
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 153
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Subjective marital power was expected to have a positive impact on the tendency to use an
emotional strategy. Respondents of both genders who have more subjective marital power
report a higher frequency of emotional strategy use. Emotional tactics such as anger,
insulting or implicit separation threats have a stronger impact on the ‘‘weak’’ partner (who
has less SMP). If this strategy is more ‘‘effective’’ in convincing a ‘‘weak’’ partner, then the
‘‘powerful’’ partner tends to use it more often.
Subjective marital power was expected to have a positive impact on the tendency to use a
coercive strategy. The ?ndings corroborate this hypothesis only with regard to men. The
coercive strategy is composed of behaviors that may worsen the con?ict and/ or the
relationship between the couple. The more male partners feel con?dent in their intimate
relationships, the less they fear damaging their marital relationship.
Considering that macro-level factors may help to understand the gender differences in
relationships between marital power and in?uence strategy; cultural de-legitimating for
women’s dominance in family decision making as well as de-legitimating women’s use of
in?uence attempts are important factors in this respect (Benjamin, 1998). Findings show that
during a vacation decision process, women tend to use coercive and emotional spousal
in?uence strategies less frequently than men, but use reward strategy more frequently than
men (see Table V). This cultural ethos increases social desirability biases that affect women’s
responses. The same sociological phenomena may also lead to a statistical range restriction
that can also explain these gender differences. Women’s lower overall use of in?uence
strategies compared to the men is a manifestation of their lower level of negotiability. A
statistical range restriction on the use of in?uence strategies diminishes the covariance of
marital power and in?uence strategy use among women.
The ?ndings concerning subjective power are similar to Howard et al.’s (1986) conclusion
regarding interpersonal strength: subjective power correlates differently with different
in?uence strategies. As for objective power, subjects in Howard et al.’s study who have less
income than their partners are perceived by their mates as more likely to use both
manipulation and supplication strategies.
This research does not support Howard’s conclusion regarding the relationship between
resources and in?uence strategies. The ?ndings show that in?uence strategies are not
dependent on this type of power; only interpersonal power affects the choice of strategy.
Comparability with Howard’s study is limited because the studies have examined different
strategies. Another consideration is the data for analysis: in the present study the data are
the subject’s self-reports about their own behavior, and in Howard’s study they analyzed the
subject responses concerning their mate’s behavior.
Consumer researchers should take into account the subjective marital power balance and
its impact on in?uence strategies during couples’ vacation decision processes. The
integrating of emotional and psychological variables in the analysis augments knowledge on
the process of con?ict resolution during a family vacation decision.
These ?ndings contribute to a better understanding of the process of couple purchase
decision making for vacations. Relying solely on tourism marketing research that is con?ned
to objective marital power is inadequate since subjective marital power actually has a
greater impact on vacation decision dynamics. The research ?ndings have various practical
implications for vacation marketers. Travel agents must not make assumptions about the
relative dominance of the partners, based on traditional objective power bases such as their
occupations; they should remember that this is not necessarily the crucial factor that forms
the marital power balance. Hence, personal interaction between the vacation agent and his
clients may help him to identify the more ‘‘powerful’’ partner and to act accordingly.
Furthermore, advertising campaigns through various media channels should incorporate
implicit or explicit messages regarding the marital power of the vacationer and/or his partner.
Vacation marketers should segment the market according to a new variable: subjective
marital power. Promotion should appeal differently to consumers who are more powerful
within their intimate relationship and to the less powerful consumers. For example, an
effective advertisement targeted at ‘‘weak’’ consumers (who have less SMP) may show the
PAGE 154
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
vacation package as a means to ful?ll the image of the ideal romantic mate, or to improve
marital satisfaction of the other partner, thus empowering the ‘‘weak’’ partner. Similarly,
‘‘powerful’’ consumers (those who have more SMP) may be willing to maintain their power,
and react positively to these kinds of advertising messages.
Vacation marketing practitioners should bear in mind that improving and maintaining marital
relationships is a key motivation of family vacationers. Thus, promotional information for both
partners should emphasize that the vacation is a good opportunity to improve the couple’s
relationship. Personal selling may also bene?t fromthese ?ndings, as travel agents can try to
identify who is the ‘‘powerful’’ mate between the two, and target their messages accordingly.
The more ‘‘powerful’’ mate should be attracted by special and unique offers included with no
charge in the vacation package, such as a visit to a spa for a woman, or a ticket for a football
game for a man. These offers can even serve as a reward in?uence strategy to be used by
the partner who is more interested in the vacation.
One should be cautious when translating the implications of these ?ndings into practical
actions. Situational and circumstantial in?uences may be at work during a vacation decision;
these situational in?uences can include unanticipated events such as a need to pay a large
payment for buying a new car after a breakdown (Van Raaij and Francken, 1984). Another
example of circumstances that change the household routine is a long period of sickness for
one of the partners; these kinds of circumstantial factors have a potential for changing the
spousal in?uence tactics used, as well as the marital power balance. Another factor that the
researcher did not examine in this study is the value that each partner attaches to the
vacation. A vacation may be differentially valued within the family and marital partners may
have different motivations to choose a particular type of vacation (Van Raaij and Francken,
1984), thus individuals that value the vacation more highly may use spousal in?uence tactics
more intensively than their less-interested mates. The scope of the study is limited because it
did not control for the involvement with the vacation, and did not examine spousal in?uence
tactics during the ?ve different phases of a decision process of Engel and Blackwell (1982):
problem recognition, information acquisition, evaluation of alternatives, selection of an
alternative, and post-choice experiences.
An obvious limitation of the generalizability of this research relates to the sampling. Couples
were enrolled for the study after they were promised a $20 coupon; this may impair the
representative nature of the sample.
Future research should focus on the perceived effectiveness of each strategy. Furthermore, if
multiple strategies are in use in each purchase decision process, it would be of interest to reveal
a chronological order of use, i.e. which is used ?rst, second, and so forth – and by whom.
In conclusion, this study has shown that during the vacation decision process, spousal
in?uence strategies are impacted by the marital power balance between the partners.
Secondly, economic power is not the dominant factor that affects the choice of in?uence
strategy; rather, it is interpersonal power that is in?uential in the use of spousal in?uence
strategies during the vacation decision process.
References
Aida, Y. and Falbo, T. (1991), ‘‘Relationships between marital satisfaction, resources and power
strategies’’, Sex Roles, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 43-56.
Bachrach, S.B. and Lawler, E.J. (1981), Bargaining: Power, Tactics, Outcomes, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Belch, M.A., Krentler, K.A. and Willis-Flurry, L.A. (2005), ‘‘Teen internet mavens: in?uence in family
decision making’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 569-75.
Benjamin, O. (1998), ‘‘Therapeutic discourse, power and change: emotion and negotiation in marital
conversations’’, Sociology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 771-93.
Blichfeldt, B.S. (2007), ‘‘A nice vacation: variations in experience aspirations and travel careers’’,
Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 149-64.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 155
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Blood, R.O. and Wolfe, D.M. (1960), Husbands and Wives, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bokek-Cohen, Y. (2008), ‘‘Tell her she’s wrong! Triangulation as a spousal in?uence strategy’’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 Nos 4, Spring-Summer.
Cheek, G.F. (1987), ‘‘Power and ideology in marriage :a reexamination of resource and normative theory
using multiple measures of power’’, Doctoral Dissertation submitted to Minnesota University.
Cromwell, R.E. and Olson, D.H. (1975), Power in Families, Wiley, New York, NY.
Decrop, A. (2005), ‘‘Group processes in vacation decision making’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 23-36.
Engel, J.F. and Blackwell, R.D. (1982), Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., The Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL.
Falbo, T. and Peplau, L.A. (1980), ‘‘Power strategies in intimate relationships’’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 618-28.
Ferree, M.M. (1990), ‘‘Beyond separate spheres’’, The Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 52,
pp. 886-94.
Foa, U.G. (1993), ‘‘Interpersonal and economic resources’’, in Converse, J. Jr, Tornblom, K.Y. and Foa,
E.B. (Eds), Resource Theory: Explorations and Applications, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Foa, E.B. and Foa, U.G. (1971), ‘‘Resource exchange: toward a structural theory of interpersonal
communication’’, in Siegman, A.W. and Pope, B. (Eds), Studies in Dyadic Communication, Pergamon,
Elmsford, pp. 293-327.
Foa, E.B. and Foa, U.G. (1980), ‘‘Resource theory: interpersonal behavior as exchange’’, in Gergen, J.,
Greenberg, M.J. and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum
Press, New York, NY.
Fodness, D. (1992), ‘‘The impact of family life cycle on the vacation decision making process’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 31, pp. 8-13.
Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S. and Ekstrom, K.M. (1989), ‘‘Family members’ perceptions of adolescents’
in?uence in family decision making’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 482-91.
Gray-Little, B. and Burks, N. (1983), ‘‘Power and satisfaction in marriage: a review and critique’’,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 3, pp. 513-38.
Grossbard-Shechtman, S. (1984), ‘‘A theory of allocation of time in markets for labor and marriage’’,
Economic Journal, Vol. 94, pp. 863-82.
Grossbard-Shechtman, S.A. (1985), ‘‘Marriage squeeze and the marriage market’’, in Davis, K. (Ed.),
Contemporary Marriage, Russell-Sage, New York, NY.
Grossbard-Shechtman, S. and Clague, C. (Eds) (2002), The Expansion of Economics: Toward a More
Inclusive Social Science, M.E. Sharpe, New York, NY.
Heer, D.M. (1963), ‘‘The measurement and bases of family power: an overview’’, Marriage and Family
Living, Vol. 25, pp. 133-9.
Howard, J.A., Blumstein, P. and Schwartz, P. (1986), ‘‘Sex, power and in?uence tactics in intimate
relationships’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 102-9.
Jenkins, R.L. (1980), ‘‘Contributions of theory to the study of family decision making’’, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 207-11.
Kang, S.K. (2002), ‘‘Vacation destination selection: spousal con?ict arousal and con?ict resolution in the
family decision-making process’’, dissertation submitted in partial ful?llment of the requirements for the
PhD degree, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Lawson, R. (1991), ‘‘Patterns of tourist expenditure and types of vacation across the family life cycle’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 29, pp. 12-18.
Levinger, G. and Huesmann, R.L. (1980), ‘‘An incremental exchange perspective on the pair
relationship: interpersonal reward and the level of involvement’’, in Gergen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S. and
Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Litvin, S.W., Xu, G. and Kang, S.K. (2004), ‘‘Spousal vacation-buying decision making revisited across
time and place’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 193-8.
PAGE 156
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Mallalieu, L. and Faure, C. (1998), ‘‘Toward an understanding of the choice in?uence tactics: the impact
of power’’, Advances of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, pp. 407-14.
Maslow, A. (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Nanda, D., Hu, C. and Bai, B. (2004), ‘‘Exploring family roles in purchasing decisions during vacation
planning: reviewand discussions for future research’’, Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, Vol. 20 Nos
3-4, pp. 107-25.
Ndubisy, N.O. and Koo, J. (2006), ‘‘Family structure and joint purchase decisions: two products
analysis’’, Management Research News, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 53-64.
Nichols, C.M. and Snepenger, D.J. (2005), ‘‘Family decision making and tourism behaviors and
attitudes’’, in Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y. (Eds), Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, The Haworth
Hospitality Press, New York, NY.
Park, J.H., Tansuhaj, P.S. and Kolbe, R.H. (1991), ‘‘The role of love, affection and intimacy in family
decision research’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 651-6.
Park, J.H., Tansuhaj, P.S., Spengenberg, E.R. and McCullough, J. (1995), ‘‘Emotion-based perspective
of family purchase decisions’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 723-8.
Pearce, P. (1988), The Ulysses Factor, Springer, New York, NY.
Pushkar, M. and Ranjan, R. (2005), ‘‘The impact of intra household balance of power on expenditure
pattern: the Australian evidence’’, Australian Economic Papers, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Raven, B.H., Centers, R. and Rodrigues, A. (1975), ‘‘The bases of conjugal power’’, in Cromwell, R.E.
and Olson, D.H. (Eds), Power in Families, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Rice, F. (2001), ‘‘Superstars of spending: marketers clamor for kids’’, Advertising Age, pp. s1-s10.
Scanzoni, J. (1979), ‘‘Social processes and power in families’’, in Burr, W.R., Hill, R., Nye, F.I. and Reiss,
I.L. (Eds), Contemporary Theories about the Family, Free Press, New York, NY.
Sexton, C.S. and Perlman, D.S. (1989), ‘‘Couples’ career orientation, gender role orientation and
perceived equity as determinants of marital power’’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 51 No. 4,
pp. 933-41.
Shoham, A. and Dalakas, V. (2003), ‘‘Family consumer decision making in Israel: the role of teens and
parents’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 238-51.
Spiro, R. (1983), ‘‘Persuasion in family decision making’’, Journal Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 393-402.
Stafford, M.R. (1996), ‘‘Marital in?uence in the decision-making process for services’’, The Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 6-21.
Van Raaij, W.F. and Francken, D.A. (1984), ‘‘Vacation decisions, activities and satisfactions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 11, pp. 101-12.
Warner, R.L., Lee, G.R. and Lee, J. (1986), ‘‘Social organization, spousal resources and marital power: a
cross-cultural study’’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 121-8.
Further reading
Kerr, M. and Bowen, M. (1988), Family Evaluation, Norton, New York, NY.
Sheth, J. and Cosmas, S. (1975), ‘‘Tactics of con?ict resolution in family buying behavior’’, paper
presented at American Psychological Meetings.
Corresponding author
Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 157
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_957989870.pdf
This paper aims to uncover the relationships between marital power and influence strategies
used during couples’ vacation decision processes. Marital power includes two dimensions: the first
dimension is objective and composed of actual economic resources; the second is subjective and
composed of feelings such as spousal love or self-esteem
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Marital power bases as predictors of spousal influence strategies in a vacation purchase decision
Ya'arit Bokek-Cohen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ya'arit Bokek-Cohen, (2011),"Marital power bases as predictors of spousal influence strategies in a vacation purchase decision",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 144 - 157
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139564
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 49 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 827 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kenneth F. Hyde, Alain Decrop, (2011),"New perspectives on vacation decision making", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 103-111http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139537
Gerard Dunne, Sheila Flanagan, J oan Buckley, (2011),"Towards a decision making model for city break travel", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 158-172http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139573
Metin Kozak, Levent Karadag, (2012),"Who influences aspects of family decision making?", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 8-20http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211206216
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Marital power bases as predictors of
spousal in?uence strategies in a vacation
purchase decision
Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to uncover the relationships between marital power and in?uence strategies
used during couples’ vacation decision processes. Marital power includes two dimensions: the ?rst
dimension is objective and composed of actual economic resources; the second is subjective and
composed of feelings such as spousal love or self-esteem.
Design/methodology/approach – 192 couples completed a questionnaire that included statements
describing different in?uence strategies utilized during the vacation purchase-decision process;
respondents indicated the frequency with which they employed each strategy.
Findings – Subjective marital power is associated with the use of spousal in?uence strategies.
Objective marital power does not predict the use of these strategies.
Research limitaions/implications – These ?ndings highlight a hitherto understudied aspect of marital
power – subjective power.
Practical implications – Consumer researchers and vacation marketers should take into account the
subjective marital power balance and its impact on in?uence strategies during couples’ vacation
decision processes.
Originality/value – This study shows that during a vacation decision process, the marital power
balance between partners impacts on the choice of spousal in?uence strategies. Secondly, economic
power is not the dominant factor that affects the choice of in?uence strategy; rather, interpersonal power
is in?uential in the use of spousal in?uence strategies during the vacation decision process.
Keywords In?uence, Family life, Decision making, Gender, Consumer behavior, Leave
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Most people prefer the family social group to spend their vacations with (Nichols and
Snepenger, 2005). Family decision making is not only an interesting subject of examination
by consumer behavior researchers but also serves as a valuable source in shaping
strategies that tourism practitioners employ (Nanda et al., 2004). Tourism researchers tend
to categorize family purchase decisions into three types: husband-dominant, wife-dominant,
or a joint decision by both partners (Litvin et al., 2004; Ndubisy and Koo, 2006; Stafford,
1996). Recent studies consider the in?uence of teenagers and children (Belch et al., 2005;
Flurry, 2007; Shoham and Dalakas, 2003). Most of the studies report that wives are slightly
more dominant than their husbands in decisions relating to vacations (Foxman et al., 1989;
Rice, 2001; Shoham and Dalakas, 2003). In Stafford’s (1996) study, vacation choices tend to
be joint decisions. Decrop (2005) reports vacation decisions involve all family members,
though women and children play more passive roles during the decision making process.
Researchers ?nd strong gender specialization and differentiation concerning different
aspects and phases of vacation preparation (Decrop, 2005). Vacation researchers examine
the relationship between family life cycle and various aspects of vacation consumption
behavior, such as expenditures, duration of vacation, level of activity and organization
during the vacation (Lawson, 1991), the changing roles of family members during the
PAGE 144
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 144-157, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181111139564
Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen is
based at the R&DCenter for
Samaria and Jordan Rift,
Department of Economics
and Business
Administration, Ariel
University Center of
Samaria, Ariel, Israel.
Received: January 2008
Revised: May 2008
Accepted: October 2008
The author is grateful to Israel
Nebentzal, Yochanan Peres,
Sabina Lissitsa, Tali Lev, and
Svetlana Bolotin for their
valuable suggestions and
comments. The author thanks
the guest editors of this issue
and the referees for their critical
and stimulating comments on
an earlier version of this article.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
vacation decision process (Fodness, 1992), and type of vacation and experiences sought
(Blichfeldt, 2007).
Building fromMaslow’s (1970) needs-hierarchy theory of motivation, Pearce (1988) identi?es
?ve different motivations for vacationing: relaxation needs, safety/security needs,
relationship needs, self-esteem, and development needs. Blichfeldt (2007) claims that the
family is more often the relevant unit of analysis of vacation motivations; he argues that the
focus of Pearce’s (1988) model should be on expanding from the individual to the family life
cycle.
Before purchasing a product for their common use, most couples tend to engage in joint
discussion. Each partner will often try to persuade the other in various ways, employing a
range of in?uence tactics, communication styles, and behaviors designed to help them
secure their desired outcome (Mallalieu and Faure, 1998). Since power is broadly de?ned in
terms of who is able to in?uence others to get their own way (Bachrach and Lawler, 1981,
Cromwell and Olson, 1975, Scanzoni, 1979), the partner who manages to get their way is
seen by family researchers as more powerful than their partner. The purpose of this study is
to investigate the relationship between marital power bases and the use of various spousal
in?uence strategies during the vacation purchase-decision process. Speci?cally, the study
focuses on the question as to whether the choice of a speci?c strategy in a vacation decision
process can be accounted by the marital power bases of each partner. In contrast to the
‘‘classic’’ view of marital power, which deals with the objective power balance, the present
research analyzes power as a two-dimensional construct: one dimension is the objective
resources of each partner (such as income and educational level), and the second is
subjective power (such as love, dependence, or marital satisfaction). The next section
introduces a variety of spousal in?uence strategies; the following section includes a short
reviewof the marital power literature and a conceptualization of subjective marital power; the
article then presents four hypotheses in order to examine the relationship between spousal
in?uence strategies and marital power.
Spousal in?uence strategies
When partners consider various alternatives as part of the vacation decision process, each
partner will often attempt to in?uence the other toward his or her preferred vacation package.
A partner can use a variety of in?uence techniques, depending on his or her own
characteristics, the characteristics of the individual he or she is trying to in?uence, the nature
of the purchase and its importance to the individual, and other situational factors. The other
partner may respond using yet another technique (Kang, 2002).
Raven et al. (1975) described six in?uence strategies used in marital relationships:
expert, legitimate, reward, identi?cation, coercion, and information management. A
partner’s access to speci?c information on choice alternatives is an indication of expert
in?uence. Legitimate in?uence deals with one partner’s attempts to draw on the other’s
feelings of shared values concerning role expectations. Rewards that one partner can
offer to the other illustrate reward in?uence. Identi?cation refers to a partner’s feeling of
oneness with the other partner. Coercion is the punishment or unpleasant results and
behavior that one partner can employ. Information management includes the content of
the persuasive attempts and careful and successful explanations or arguments,
sometimes by attributing the in?uence attempt to external pressures beyond the
in?uencer’s control. Spiro (1983) suggested also the use of an emotional strategy based
on the use of a given emotion-based reaction. Bokek-Cohen (2008) has highlighted the
‘‘triangulation’’ strategy – the use of a third person enlisted by one partner in order to
persuade the other.
This study adopts the assumption that the marital power balance between the partners can
affect the use of in?uence strategies; we turn now to a brief review of the concept of marital
power.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 145
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Marital power
Family power is an important concept for understanding how families make purchase
decisions regarding various products, such as furnishing, educational institutions for the
children, or vacations. Promising perspectives on power in marital relationships have
emerged from the work of social exchange theorists. The basic premise of exchange
theories of marriage is that marital relationships are maintained by a balanced exchange of
resources controlled by each partner and needed by the other (Foa and Foa, 1980;
Grossbard-Shechtman, 1984; Grossbard-Shechtman, 1985; Grossbard-Shechtman and
Clague, 2002).
A key perspective on marital power was introduced in 1960 by Blood and Wolfe. They
presented their resource theory of family power, arguing that power is apportioned between
husbands and wives based on the relative resources that each contributes to the family.
Such resources include education, income, occupational prestige, knowledge, skills, or
rewards. It can be argued that the general viewpoint of current resource theories is that each
partner gains power from outside the family nucleus. In other words, the value of each
partner’s resources in external society affects the marital power balance. The balance of
power rests with the partner who contributes most resources to the marriage (Ferree, 1990).
Studies have examined marital power based their power measurements on ‘‘objective’’
variables such as personal income and educational level (Warner et al., 1986; Sexton and
Perlman, 1989; Pushkar and Ranjan, 2005; Cheek, 1987). Moreover, early research on family
power was often based on the assumption that power dynamics within the family are similar
to the power processes in small groups.
In contrast to the above ‘‘classic’’ view of family power, it is reasonable to assume that an
individual behaves differently when he or she interacts with different groups of people (Park
et al., 1991). Subsequently, important differences were found between family interactions
and power relationships between unrelated individuals (Gray-Little and Burks, 1983).
Rational or utilitarian factors are more important in the group decision-making process than
for the family. Even the original Blood and Wolfe (1960) data do not consistently showthat the
greater the husband’s resources, the greater his say in the family decision process.
Furthermore, Greek, Yugoslavian, Ghanaian, Danish, and Swedish data indicate that there
are no signi?cant differences between the degree of decision-making power of educated
and uneducated husbands, or high occupational status versus low occupational status
husbands (Jenkins, 1980).
In order to advance the knowledge of family decision making in general, and vacation
decisions in particular, emotional aspects should also be considered as components of the
interpersonal dynamics. Family relationships are distinguished from other interpersonal
relationships; family members have feelings for each other such as love, dependence, and
identi?cation that are different from feelings between ‘‘strangers’’. These unique affections
have led Park et al. (1995) to propose a model that incorporates the emotions experienced
by the partners as explaining factors of con?ict resolution modes. In some cases,
unbalanced marital power relationships and a wish to maintain marital stability may lead
partners to avoid discussing controversial issues (Benjamin, 1998).
Although most family researchers do not pay attention to the emotional bases of marital
power, an exception is the study by Foa and Foa (1971). They integrate emotions and love in
the analysis of family power by viewing love as a resource that is exchanged in intimate
relationships (Foa and Foa, 1971; Foa, 1993). Foa and Foa (1971) consider love as one out of
six types of interpersonal resources: love, status, information, money, goods, and services.
They de?ne ‘‘love’’ as the expression of affectionate regard, warmth, or comfort.
A similar attempt to expand the concept of ‘‘resource’’ beyond the economic realm was
undertaken by Levinger and Huesmann (1980), who differentiate between behavioral and
relational rewards. Behavioral rewards refer to the immediate rewards that result directly
from the behavior choices of each other, while relational rewards do not depend on speci?c
behaviors but are pegged to the actors’ level of relational involvement (Levinger and
Huesmann, 1980). They argue that one may feel rewarded merely from being rather than
PAGE 146
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
behaving; one can be rewarded merely by being accepted or considered worthwhile by the
other (Levinger and Huesmann, 1980).
The studies reviewed above have incorporated emotions into the studying of family relations
and con?ict resolution, but did not conceptualize themas bases for marital power. The focus of
this paper is to show that emotions in families not only affect con?ict resolution dynamics, but
also serve a basis for forming subjective marital power. The basic assumptions for
conceptualizing subjective power originate from Foa and Foa’s (1971) model (elaborated by
Foa (1993)), which integrate interpersonal and economic resources. According to their model,
subjective power can be held along with objective resources such as income or educational
level. Subjective power can either additively strengthen partners who are economically
dominant, or counter-balance with objective power and even lead to a reversal in the power
balance. Furthermore, relying on the concept of ‘‘relational power’’ Levinger and Huesmann
(1980) contribute to the conceptualization of subjective marital power including factors into the
equation such rewards as ‘‘being loved’’ or ‘‘being maritally satis?ed’’.
We can assume that when there is an asymmetry between partners in the degree to which
each loves and admires the other, the less loving partner is more powerful than the other; in
the terminology of Levinger and Huesmann (1980), his ‘‘relational resources’’ are greater
than his partner’s. Similarly, according to the model developed in Foa and Foa (1971) and
Foa (1993), the less loving partner is more powerful than the other because he or she has
enhanced control over an important resource: love. The more admiring partner is in a weak
position in the relationship. Similarly, the more maritally satis?ed partner has less power in
the relationship than the less satis?ed partner. Another kind of subjective power source
stems from one’s marriage alternatives. According to the ‘‘least interested partner
hypothesis’’ (Heer, 1963), the partner who could most easily ?nd another partner as
desirable as his or her current partner has another source of power, in that s/he has
potentially acceptable alternatives. Thus, if one partner considers themselves more
physically attractive than their partner, they may feel they can easily ?nd an alternative
partner and thus be more powerful.
Marital power and in?uence strategies
Little research has been undertaken regarding the relationship between marital power and
in?uence strategies. Falbo and Peplau (1980) developed a model regarding the relationship
between the balance of power and the use of power strategies in (non-marital) interpersonal
relationships. According to their model, people who see themselves as having equal power
in interpersonal relationships tend to use fewer power strategies in trying to get their way. In
contrast, greater use of power strategies may be associated with being in an imbalanced
power relationship. Aida and Falbo (1991) examined this model among married couples.
Their ?ndings validated the model and showed that marital partners who saw their marital
relationship as imbalanced tended to use power strategies more intensively than people
who saw themselves as equal partners.
Howard et al. (1986) have also shown that spousal in?uence techniques are affected by
economic factors as well as emotional dependency of the partners. Howard et al. (1986)
found that the use of spousal in?uence strategies is dependent on structural power and
interpersonal dependence. They used subjects’ responses concerning their partner’s
in?uence attempts. Interpersonal dependence was conceptualized in this study as
micro-level interpersonal resources that stem from the needs and dependencies of the
individual partners in a relationship, and relate to daily maintenance needs and level of
commitment for the relationship. Positions of interpersonal weakness were found to increase
the use of a manipulation strategy and reduce the use of a bullying strategy. Positions of
interpersonal strength increase the use of supplication tactics. Subjects who have relatively
less income than their partners are perceived as more likely to use both manipulation and
supplication strategies.
This study broadens the existing knowledge regarding the relationship between marital
power bases (objective versus subjective) and the tendency to prefer one in?uence strategy
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 147
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
over the other. It is reasonable to assume that individuals who earn a high income will ?nd it
easier to persuade their mates to get their way by using their superior resources. Similarly,
individuals who are less emotionally dependent on their partner, and/or less satis?ed with
their marriage and hence less interested in the relationship than their mate, and/or more
physically attractive than their partner, may ?nd an emotional strategy more useful and
effective. Thus, it would be expected that objective power would increase the use of
strategies that require the control of resources, whereas subjective power would be
positively correlated with the use of strategies that are based on emotions that arise during
interpersonal or intimate interactions. Hence, it may be hypothesized that objective power
can affect the use of a reward strategy (e.g. Buy my husband/wife a present, Offer to take my
husband/wife out, Give my husband/wife money for his/her personal needs).
Likewise, it may be hypothesized that subjective power may affect the use of an emotional
strategy (e.g. I cry, I get angry, I am insulted/hurt, I deliver implicit threats that I will leave my
husband/wife, I refuse to talk to my husband/wife a few hours/days, Sleep outside of home,
Shout at my husband/wife, Insult my husband/wife). Since the coercion strategy is
comprised of tactics of both material and psychological behavior, both objective and
subjective marital power may have an effect on the frequency of use of a coercive strategy
(e.g. Revenge if my husband/wife does not act as I want, Criticize negative criticism, Refuse
to give my husband/wife things he asks, Make my husband/ wife hard life, Enforce my
wishes physically).
Research hypotheses
H1. The more objective power a partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
material reward in?uence strategy
H2. The more objective power a partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
coercive in?uence strategy
H3. The more subjective power a partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
coercive in?uence strategy
H4. The more subjective power a partner holds, the greater their tendency to use an
emotional in?uence strategy
Method
Measures
Dependent variable: spousal in?uence strategy. A pilot study was undertaken to formulate
items for the research questionnaire. A total of 64 married or cohabiting subjects (34 female,
32 male) answered four open-ended questions regarding the tactics they employ in order to
convince their partner to get their way. Content analysis of their answers yielded behavioral
patterns that served as a basis for the Likert-scale questions presented to the subjects of the
main study: ‘‘When you and your partner disagree regarding a vacation decision, how often
do you do each of the following?’’ Research questionnaire included items for the reward,
coercion and emotional in?uence strategies. Reliability of the items to be included in the
questionnaire was examined in a pilot study that included 88 married or cohabiting subjects
(47 female, 41 male). Internal consistency of each strategy was examined by calculating
Cronbach’s alpha (see Table I). Subjects were asked to state their own frequency of use of
the strategies, on a ?ve-point Likert scale, in which 1 means ‘‘never’’ and 5 means ‘‘always’’.
Independent variables. Objective marital power (OMP). The OMP of each subject is the
average of differences between each subject and his partner on two variables: level of
education, and personal income. Measures of the difference between the partners’ scores
on these items were calculated.
Subjective marital power (SMP). The above-mentioned pilot study included two additional
open-ended questions regarding factors affecting the individual’s power within a marital
relationship. Subjects were instructed to ignore economic, educational, and occupational
PAGE 148
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
variables and to think of ‘‘other’’ variables that play a role in forming a marital power balance.
The answers to these questions were content analyzed and three main factors identi?ed:
physical attractiveness, identi?cation with partner, and marital satisfaction.
The SMP of each subject is the average of differences between three variables:
1. Physical attractiveness – each subject was asked to rate their own and their partner’s
physical attractiveness. A greater difference means that the subject believes they are
more attractive than their partner is, i.e. the subject is more powerful than their partner is.
2. Nine items aimed to measure identi?cation with partner (see Table II). Differences were
calculated between the level of identi?cation that the partner of each subject rated and
the level of identi?cation the subject believes their partner feels for them. A greater
difference means that the subject’s partner appreciates and loves them more, i.e. the
subject is more powerful than their partner is.
3. Two additional questions related to marital happiness. The difference between the
subject’s partner and his or her own marital satisfaction was calculated. A greater
difference means that the partner is more satis?ed with the marriage, i.e. the subject is
more powerful than their partner is.
Sample
Participants included 192 heterosexual Jewish couples (either married or cohabiting),
recruited from all areas of Israel using random sampling. Research assistants offered
participants a gift of a $20 coupon from a national supermarket chain.
Table I Internal consistency of in?uence strategies, by gender – Cronbach’s alpha
Strategy Items Men Women
Reward Buy my husband/wife a present
Offer my husband/wife to go out 0.82 0.84
Give my husband/wife money for his/her personal needs
Coercion Revenge if my husband/wife does not act as I want
Criticize negative criticism
Refuse to give my husband/wife things he asks 0.85 0.77
Make my husband/ wife hard life
Enforce my wishes physically
Emotional I cry
I get angry
I am insulted/hurt
I deliver implicit threats that I will leave my husband/wife
I refuse to talk to my husband/wife a few hours/days 0.90 0.90
Sleep outside of home
Shout at my husband/wife
Insult my husband/wife
Table II Internal consistency of identi?cation with partner, by gender – Cronbach alpha
Items Men Women
I love my husband/wife
I consider my husband/wife as ideal
I admire my husband/wife and I want to behave in a way that she/he will appreciate me
It is important for me to have assurance and acceptance from my husband/wife
My husband/wife and I share the same values and point of view 0.87 0.91
I appreciate my husband’s/wife’s personality attributes
I identify with my husband/wife as a human being
I think my husband/wife has a good character
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 149
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Although there is a slight over-representation of religious subjects, statistical analysis was
undertaken after weighting the sample according to the Israeli population. First, research
assistants contacted the subjects on the telephone in order to coordinate a meeting, at
which both the husband and the wife were present. The couples did not have to meet any
speci?c conditions in order to qualify for the study.
Table III presents the main socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.
Procedure
In order to avoid possible biases or disturbances, partners completed the questionnaire at
the same time and a research assistant was present during this time. The research assistant
asked the partners not to talk to each other while completing the questionnaire. Simultaneity
of answers by both partners limited the potential for changes in answers, because partners
were instructed not to ask each other what they wrote, or discuss the topic at all during the
time they answered the questionnaire.
Results
Table IV presents descriptive statistics for OMP and SMP.
Analysis
In order to explore the relationship between the use of each of the in?uence strategies and
the marital power bases, the research conducted multiple regression analysis for each of the
Table III Demographic characteristics of sample
Husband Percent Wife Percent
Age
18-24 26 13.5 38 19.6
25-34 56 29.0 70 36.7
35-44 45 23.5 31 16.3
45-54 36 18.9 43 22.6
55 and above 29 15.1 9 4.7
Total 192 100 192 100
Education
Elementary 7 3.6 0 0
High school 89 47.4 73 38.6
Tertiary non academic 25 13.2 32 16.7
Academic 67 35.7 85 44.7
Total 189 100 190 100
Personal income (monthly)
Not employed 7 3.9 22 12.1
Up to 750$ 18 10.1 25 13.7
751-1250$ 57 31.8 85 46.7
1251-2000$ 43 24.0 41 22.5
2001-2750$ 31 17.3 5 2.7
2751$ and above 23 12.8 4 2.2
Total 179 100 183 100
Ethnic origin
European/American 72 38.2 85 44.5
Asian/African 92 48.9 81 42.3
Mixed 24 12.9 25 13.2
Total 189 100 192 100
Religious orientation
Secular 80 43.8 71 37.1
Traditional 39 21.4 54 28.6
Religious 44 24.1 43 22.8
Orthodox 20 10.6 22 11.5
Total 184 95.83 191 99.48
Notes: Duration of marriage: Mean: 12.36; Std deviation: 9.76; Minimum: 0.20; Maximum: 40.00
PAGE 150
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
strategies separately. The enter method was utilized in order to test the effects of objective
power and subjective power. All the analyses were conducted separately for men and
women. The responses of all the couples were included in the analysis. In addition to the
main independent variables, two control variables were included in each of these regression
analyses. Duration of marriage was included to control for the differences in duration of the
marital relationship. Level of religiosity was included to control for the ethical and mental
differences between secular and religious respondents. These control variables played a
minor role in the results of the regression analysis.
Frequencies of in?uence strategies use
Table V presents the average reported usage of each of the in?uence strategies. The
average frequency of use of a reward strategy is substantially higher than the average of the
other two strategies, by both men and women. As to gender differences, women report a
signi?cantly higher use of an emotional strategy.
Effect of marital power bases on in?uence strategies use
The ?rst research hypothesis is:
H1 The more objective power the partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
material reward in?uence strategy.
Male and female respondents who have more objective marital power do not report a higher
frequency of material reward strategy use (male, beta ¼ 0:03, n.s., female, beta ¼ 0:04, n.s.,
see Table VI).
Multiple regression analysis included both objective and subjective power. Although not a
priori hypothesized, male respondents who have more subjective marital power report a
higher frequency of reward strategy use (beta ¼ 0:29, p , 0:05). Subjective marital power
accounts for 8.6 percent of the variance of reward strategy use among male respondents
(see Table VI). There are no signi?cant variables related to the use of reward strategy among
female respondents.
The second research hypothesis is:
H2. The more objective power the partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
coercive in?uence strategy.
Table IV Marital power bases: means, by gender
Men Women
Objective power 0.29 (1.02) 20.29 (1.02)
minimum (22.0) minimum (24.00)
maximum 4.0 maximum 2.00
Subjective power 20.19 (0.59) 0.11 (0.56)
minimum (21.69) minimum (21.61)
maximum 1.41 maximum 1.53
Table V Strategy use: means, by gender
Strategy Men Women T test
Reward 2.24 (1.14) 2.07 (1.20) 1.69
Coercion 1.49 (0.71) 1.61 (0.68) 21.90*
Emotional 1.57 (0.74) 1.72 (0.77) 22.06**
Notes: * p , 0.058; **p , 0.05
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 151
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Among male respondents, a coercive strategy correlates positively with both objective and
subjective marital power (see Table VII). Stepwise regression analysis differentiates between
the two power bases and helps to evaluate how much of the variance objective power alone
explains (see Table VIII). The stepwise method failed to enter objective power as a
signi?cant independent variable in the regression; this variable did not add signi?cantly to
explained variance. The other two signi?cant predictors of coercive strategy (subjective
power, duration of marriage) account for 19 percent of the variance (see Table VIII).
Among female respondents, the only signi?cant regression coef?cient is the level of
religiosity, accounting for 5.7 percent of the variance in coercive strategy (beta ¼ 0:16,
p , 0.05).
The third research hypothesis is:
H3. The more subjective power the partner holds, the greater their tendency to use a
coercive in?uence strategy.
Table VI Results of regression analysis (enter method) – Dependent variable: reward in?uence strategy
Men Women T-statistics
Regression variables
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Intercept 2.374 2.292
Objective marital power 0.047 0.028 0.075 0.044
Subjective marital power 0.551 0.285* 0.085 0.041
Duration of marriage 20.032 20.031 0.035 0.033
Level of religiosity 20.001 20.001 20.137 20.116
F 4.049** 0.761
R-square 0.086 0.017
Notes: * p , 0:001, ** p , 0:01
Table VII Results of regression analysis (enter method) – Dependent variable: coercive in?uence strategy
Men Women T-statistics
Regression variables
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Intercept 1.880 1.480
Objective marital power 0.149 0.147* 20.067 20.068
Subjective marital power 0.437 0.376** 0.150 0.124
Duration of Marriage 20.147 20.236 20.038 20.062
Level of religiosity 0.007 0.011 0.112 0.163*
F 11.432** 2.683*
R-square 0.210 0.057
Notes: * p , 0:05; ** p , 0:001
Table VIII Results of regression analysis (step-wise method, men only) – Dependent
variable: coercive in?uence strategy
T-statistics
Regression variables
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Adjusted
R-square F
Intercept 1.895
Subjective marital power 0.415 0.357* 0.148 30.206*
Duration of marriage 20.129 20.208* 0.190 20.335*
R-square 0.190
Note: * p , 0:001
PAGE 152
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Findings for H2 showamong male respondents there is a positive correlation between use of a
coercive strategy and both objective and subjective marital power. The stepwise regression
analysis selected subjective power as the ?rst-entered independent variable, explaining 14.8
percent of the variance in use of a coercive strategy (see Table VIII). Male respondents who
have more subjective marital power report a higher frequency of coercive strategy use
(beta ¼ 0:36, p , 0:05). Regarding the female respondents, we have seen in the ?ndings for
H2 that the only signi?cant regression coef?cient is the level of religiosity, accounting for 5.7
percent of the variance in use of a coercive strategy (beta ¼ 0:16, p , 0:05).
The fourth research hypothesis is:
H4. The more subjective power the partner holds, the greater their tendency to use an
emotional in?uence strategy.
Male respondents who have more subjective marital power report a higher frequency of
emotional strategy use (beta ¼ 0:287, p , 0:05). Male subjective marital power explains
25.9 percent of the variance in use of an emotional strategy (see Table IX).
Female respondents who have more subjective marital power report also a higher frequency
of emotional strategy use (beta ¼ 0:236, p , 0:05). Female subjective marital power
explains 7.6 percent of the variance in use of an emotional strategy (see Table IX).
Discussion
Unlike other service products (such as schooling, insurance and healthcare), a vacation is a
product which couples can decide whether or not to consume together. A vacation is an
emotional experience, and emotions thus play an important role in the decision dynamics.
Good vacation marketing requires an understanding of the needs and motivations of the
vacationer. With regard to family vacationers, good vacation marketing means
understanding the dynamics of a dyadic decision. Vacation marketers should be aware
that a vacation purchase decision is a process that involves con?icting and competing
interests and needs of the two partners. Similarly, to other kinds of decisions, each partner
tends to use in?uence tactics based on his or her power bases.
Objective marital power was expected to have a positive impact on the tendency to use
material reward strategy. The ?ndings not only fail to support this hypothesis, but also
indicate that the subjective power of men is surprisingly in?uential in the use of this strategy.
The research predicted that objective marital power would have a positive impact on the
tendency to use a coercive strategy. The ?ndings also fail to support this hypothesis. Female
respondents who have more objective marital power do not report a higher frequency of
coercive strategy use. A vacation is a joint activity for the fun of both partners during
holidays. A vacation is a product that they opt to consume together. Since spending a
vacation is an emotional experience, emotions play a more important role in the decision
dynamics than actual resources.
Table IX Results of regression analysis (Enter method) – Dependent variable: emotional in?uence strategy
Men Women T-statistics
Regression variables
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Unstandardized
coef?cients
Standardized
coef?cients
Intercept 1.476 1.558
Objective marital power 20.128 20.122 0.066 0.060
Subjective marital power 0.350 0.287** 0.321 0.236**
Duration of marriage 0.204 0.313 20.017 20.025
Level of religiosity 20.182 20.267 0.097 0.125
F 14.816** 3.710*
R-square 0.259 0.076
Notes: * p , 0:01; ** p , 0:001
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 153
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Subjective marital power was expected to have a positive impact on the tendency to use an
emotional strategy. Respondents of both genders who have more subjective marital power
report a higher frequency of emotional strategy use. Emotional tactics such as anger,
insulting or implicit separation threats have a stronger impact on the ‘‘weak’’ partner (who
has less SMP). If this strategy is more ‘‘effective’’ in convincing a ‘‘weak’’ partner, then the
‘‘powerful’’ partner tends to use it more often.
Subjective marital power was expected to have a positive impact on the tendency to use a
coercive strategy. The ?ndings corroborate this hypothesis only with regard to men. The
coercive strategy is composed of behaviors that may worsen the con?ict and/ or the
relationship between the couple. The more male partners feel con?dent in their intimate
relationships, the less they fear damaging their marital relationship.
Considering that macro-level factors may help to understand the gender differences in
relationships between marital power and in?uence strategy; cultural de-legitimating for
women’s dominance in family decision making as well as de-legitimating women’s use of
in?uence attempts are important factors in this respect (Benjamin, 1998). Findings show that
during a vacation decision process, women tend to use coercive and emotional spousal
in?uence strategies less frequently than men, but use reward strategy more frequently than
men (see Table V). This cultural ethos increases social desirability biases that affect women’s
responses. The same sociological phenomena may also lead to a statistical range restriction
that can also explain these gender differences. Women’s lower overall use of in?uence
strategies compared to the men is a manifestation of their lower level of negotiability. A
statistical range restriction on the use of in?uence strategies diminishes the covariance of
marital power and in?uence strategy use among women.
The ?ndings concerning subjective power are similar to Howard et al.’s (1986) conclusion
regarding interpersonal strength: subjective power correlates differently with different
in?uence strategies. As for objective power, subjects in Howard et al.’s study who have less
income than their partners are perceived by their mates as more likely to use both
manipulation and supplication strategies.
This research does not support Howard’s conclusion regarding the relationship between
resources and in?uence strategies. The ?ndings show that in?uence strategies are not
dependent on this type of power; only interpersonal power affects the choice of strategy.
Comparability with Howard’s study is limited because the studies have examined different
strategies. Another consideration is the data for analysis: in the present study the data are
the subject’s self-reports about their own behavior, and in Howard’s study they analyzed the
subject responses concerning their mate’s behavior.
Consumer researchers should take into account the subjective marital power balance and
its impact on in?uence strategies during couples’ vacation decision processes. The
integrating of emotional and psychological variables in the analysis augments knowledge on
the process of con?ict resolution during a family vacation decision.
These ?ndings contribute to a better understanding of the process of couple purchase
decision making for vacations. Relying solely on tourism marketing research that is con?ned
to objective marital power is inadequate since subjective marital power actually has a
greater impact on vacation decision dynamics. The research ?ndings have various practical
implications for vacation marketers. Travel agents must not make assumptions about the
relative dominance of the partners, based on traditional objective power bases such as their
occupations; they should remember that this is not necessarily the crucial factor that forms
the marital power balance. Hence, personal interaction between the vacation agent and his
clients may help him to identify the more ‘‘powerful’’ partner and to act accordingly.
Furthermore, advertising campaigns through various media channels should incorporate
implicit or explicit messages regarding the marital power of the vacationer and/or his partner.
Vacation marketers should segment the market according to a new variable: subjective
marital power. Promotion should appeal differently to consumers who are more powerful
within their intimate relationship and to the less powerful consumers. For example, an
effective advertisement targeted at ‘‘weak’’ consumers (who have less SMP) may show the
PAGE 154
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
vacation package as a means to ful?ll the image of the ideal romantic mate, or to improve
marital satisfaction of the other partner, thus empowering the ‘‘weak’’ partner. Similarly,
‘‘powerful’’ consumers (those who have more SMP) may be willing to maintain their power,
and react positively to these kinds of advertising messages.
Vacation marketing practitioners should bear in mind that improving and maintaining marital
relationships is a key motivation of family vacationers. Thus, promotional information for both
partners should emphasize that the vacation is a good opportunity to improve the couple’s
relationship. Personal selling may also bene?t fromthese ?ndings, as travel agents can try to
identify who is the ‘‘powerful’’ mate between the two, and target their messages accordingly.
The more ‘‘powerful’’ mate should be attracted by special and unique offers included with no
charge in the vacation package, such as a visit to a spa for a woman, or a ticket for a football
game for a man. These offers can even serve as a reward in?uence strategy to be used by
the partner who is more interested in the vacation.
One should be cautious when translating the implications of these ?ndings into practical
actions. Situational and circumstantial in?uences may be at work during a vacation decision;
these situational in?uences can include unanticipated events such as a need to pay a large
payment for buying a new car after a breakdown (Van Raaij and Francken, 1984). Another
example of circumstances that change the household routine is a long period of sickness for
one of the partners; these kinds of circumstantial factors have a potential for changing the
spousal in?uence tactics used, as well as the marital power balance. Another factor that the
researcher did not examine in this study is the value that each partner attaches to the
vacation. A vacation may be differentially valued within the family and marital partners may
have different motivations to choose a particular type of vacation (Van Raaij and Francken,
1984), thus individuals that value the vacation more highly may use spousal in?uence tactics
more intensively than their less-interested mates. The scope of the study is limited because it
did not control for the involvement with the vacation, and did not examine spousal in?uence
tactics during the ?ve different phases of a decision process of Engel and Blackwell (1982):
problem recognition, information acquisition, evaluation of alternatives, selection of an
alternative, and post-choice experiences.
An obvious limitation of the generalizability of this research relates to the sampling. Couples
were enrolled for the study after they were promised a $20 coupon; this may impair the
representative nature of the sample.
Future research should focus on the perceived effectiveness of each strategy. Furthermore, if
multiple strategies are in use in each purchase decision process, it would be of interest to reveal
a chronological order of use, i.e. which is used ?rst, second, and so forth – and by whom.
In conclusion, this study has shown that during the vacation decision process, spousal
in?uence strategies are impacted by the marital power balance between the partners.
Secondly, economic power is not the dominant factor that affects the choice of in?uence
strategy; rather, it is interpersonal power that is in?uential in the use of spousal in?uence
strategies during the vacation decision process.
References
Aida, Y. and Falbo, T. (1991), ‘‘Relationships between marital satisfaction, resources and power
strategies’’, Sex Roles, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 43-56.
Bachrach, S.B. and Lawler, E.J. (1981), Bargaining: Power, Tactics, Outcomes, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Belch, M.A., Krentler, K.A. and Willis-Flurry, L.A. (2005), ‘‘Teen internet mavens: in?uence in family
decision making’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 569-75.
Benjamin, O. (1998), ‘‘Therapeutic discourse, power and change: emotion and negotiation in marital
conversations’’, Sociology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 771-93.
Blichfeldt, B.S. (2007), ‘‘A nice vacation: variations in experience aspirations and travel careers’’,
Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 149-64.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 155
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Blood, R.O. and Wolfe, D.M. (1960), Husbands and Wives, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bokek-Cohen, Y. (2008), ‘‘Tell her she’s wrong! Triangulation as a spousal in?uence strategy’’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 Nos 4, Spring-Summer.
Cheek, G.F. (1987), ‘‘Power and ideology in marriage :a reexamination of resource and normative theory
using multiple measures of power’’, Doctoral Dissertation submitted to Minnesota University.
Cromwell, R.E. and Olson, D.H. (1975), Power in Families, Wiley, New York, NY.
Decrop, A. (2005), ‘‘Group processes in vacation decision making’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 23-36.
Engel, J.F. and Blackwell, R.D. (1982), Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., The Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL.
Falbo, T. and Peplau, L.A. (1980), ‘‘Power strategies in intimate relationships’’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 618-28.
Ferree, M.M. (1990), ‘‘Beyond separate spheres’’, The Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 52,
pp. 886-94.
Foa, U.G. (1993), ‘‘Interpersonal and economic resources’’, in Converse, J. Jr, Tornblom, K.Y. and Foa,
E.B. (Eds), Resource Theory: Explorations and Applications, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Foa, E.B. and Foa, U.G. (1971), ‘‘Resource exchange: toward a structural theory of interpersonal
communication’’, in Siegman, A.W. and Pope, B. (Eds), Studies in Dyadic Communication, Pergamon,
Elmsford, pp. 293-327.
Foa, E.B. and Foa, U.G. (1980), ‘‘Resource theory: interpersonal behavior as exchange’’, in Gergen, J.,
Greenberg, M.J. and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum
Press, New York, NY.
Fodness, D. (1992), ‘‘The impact of family life cycle on the vacation decision making process’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 31, pp. 8-13.
Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S. and Ekstrom, K.M. (1989), ‘‘Family members’ perceptions of adolescents’
in?uence in family decision making’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 482-91.
Gray-Little, B. and Burks, N. (1983), ‘‘Power and satisfaction in marriage: a review and critique’’,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 3, pp. 513-38.
Grossbard-Shechtman, S. (1984), ‘‘A theory of allocation of time in markets for labor and marriage’’,
Economic Journal, Vol. 94, pp. 863-82.
Grossbard-Shechtman, S.A. (1985), ‘‘Marriage squeeze and the marriage market’’, in Davis, K. (Ed.),
Contemporary Marriage, Russell-Sage, New York, NY.
Grossbard-Shechtman, S. and Clague, C. (Eds) (2002), The Expansion of Economics: Toward a More
Inclusive Social Science, M.E. Sharpe, New York, NY.
Heer, D.M. (1963), ‘‘The measurement and bases of family power: an overview’’, Marriage and Family
Living, Vol. 25, pp. 133-9.
Howard, J.A., Blumstein, P. and Schwartz, P. (1986), ‘‘Sex, power and in?uence tactics in intimate
relationships’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 102-9.
Jenkins, R.L. (1980), ‘‘Contributions of theory to the study of family decision making’’, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 207-11.
Kang, S.K. (2002), ‘‘Vacation destination selection: spousal con?ict arousal and con?ict resolution in the
family decision-making process’’, dissertation submitted in partial ful?llment of the requirements for the
PhD degree, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Lawson, R. (1991), ‘‘Patterns of tourist expenditure and types of vacation across the family life cycle’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 29, pp. 12-18.
Levinger, G. and Huesmann, R.L. (1980), ‘‘An incremental exchange perspective on the pair
relationship: interpersonal reward and the level of involvement’’, in Gergen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S. and
Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Litvin, S.W., Xu, G. and Kang, S.K. (2004), ‘‘Spousal vacation-buying decision making revisited across
time and place’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 193-8.
PAGE 156
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Mallalieu, L. and Faure, C. (1998), ‘‘Toward an understanding of the choice in?uence tactics: the impact
of power’’, Advances of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, pp. 407-14.
Maslow, A. (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Nanda, D., Hu, C. and Bai, B. (2004), ‘‘Exploring family roles in purchasing decisions during vacation
planning: reviewand discussions for future research’’, Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, Vol. 20 Nos
3-4, pp. 107-25.
Ndubisy, N.O. and Koo, J. (2006), ‘‘Family structure and joint purchase decisions: two products
analysis’’, Management Research News, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 53-64.
Nichols, C.M. and Snepenger, D.J. (2005), ‘‘Family decision making and tourism behaviors and
attitudes’’, in Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y. (Eds), Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, The Haworth
Hospitality Press, New York, NY.
Park, J.H., Tansuhaj, P.S. and Kolbe, R.H. (1991), ‘‘The role of love, affection and intimacy in family
decision research’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 651-6.
Park, J.H., Tansuhaj, P.S., Spengenberg, E.R. and McCullough, J. (1995), ‘‘Emotion-based perspective
of family purchase decisions’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 723-8.
Pearce, P. (1988), The Ulysses Factor, Springer, New York, NY.
Pushkar, M. and Ranjan, R. (2005), ‘‘The impact of intra household balance of power on expenditure
pattern: the Australian evidence’’, Australian Economic Papers, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Raven, B.H., Centers, R. and Rodrigues, A. (1975), ‘‘The bases of conjugal power’’, in Cromwell, R.E.
and Olson, D.H. (Eds), Power in Families, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Rice, F. (2001), ‘‘Superstars of spending: marketers clamor for kids’’, Advertising Age, pp. s1-s10.
Scanzoni, J. (1979), ‘‘Social processes and power in families’’, in Burr, W.R., Hill, R., Nye, F.I. and Reiss,
I.L. (Eds), Contemporary Theories about the Family, Free Press, New York, NY.
Sexton, C.S. and Perlman, D.S. (1989), ‘‘Couples’ career orientation, gender role orientation and
perceived equity as determinants of marital power’’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 51 No. 4,
pp. 933-41.
Shoham, A. and Dalakas, V. (2003), ‘‘Family consumer decision making in Israel: the role of teens and
parents’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 238-51.
Spiro, R. (1983), ‘‘Persuasion in family decision making’’, Journal Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 393-402.
Stafford, M.R. (1996), ‘‘Marital in?uence in the decision-making process for services’’, The Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 6-21.
Van Raaij, W.F. and Francken, D.A. (1984), ‘‘Vacation decisions, activities and satisfactions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 11, pp. 101-12.
Warner, R.L., Lee, G.R. and Lee, J. (1986), ‘‘Social organization, spousal resources and marital power: a
cross-cultural study’’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 121-8.
Further reading
Kerr, M. and Bowen, M. (1988), Family Evaluation, Norton, New York, NY.
Sheth, J. and Cosmas, S. (1975), ‘‘Tactics of con?ict resolution in family buying behavior’’, paper
presented at American Psychological Meetings.
Corresponding author
Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 157
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_957989870.pdf