Intergenerational Communication and Influence on Consumption Scale (IGEN)

1. Abstract

The Intergenerational Communication and Influence on Consumption Scale (IGEN), developed by Madhubalan Viswanathan, Terry L. Childers, and Elizabeth S. Moore (2000), is a psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate the mechanisms of consumer socialization within familial units. Comprising 24 items systematically divided across a dual-domain matrix (12 content items evaluated across two distinct structural domains: Communication and Influence), the scale quantifies the bidirectional and intergenerational transmission of marketplace capabilities, stylistic preferences, and institutional attitudes. The instrument delineates consumption socialization into three primary content dimensions: (1) Consumer Skills, tapping into rational marketplace proficiencies such as budgeting, price comparison, and information search; (2) Consumption-Related Preferences, measuring alignment across brand loyalties, retail establishment selections, and product aesthetics; and (3) Consumer Attitudes, capturing affective and cognitive orientations toward marketing stimuli, advertising veracity, pricing integrity, and sales personnel.

Administered via 7-point Likert-type response formats with distinct behavioral anchors across its communication and influence operationalizations, the IGEN exhibits robust psychometric integrity across diverse populations, including young adults, parent-offspring dyads, and cross-cultural cohorts from the United States and Thailand. Subscale internal consistency estimates range from Cronbach’s α = 0.64 to 0.85, with composite indices for overall communication and influence achieving reliability coefficients between α = 0.84 and 0.92. Confirmatory factor analyses support both the three-factor content hierarchy and the two-domain systemic division, confirming metric invariance across distinct cultural contexts while establishing convergent and discriminant validity against constructs such as interpersonal influence susceptibility and family cohesion.

2. Keywords

consumer socialization, intergenerational influence, family communication patterns, consumer skills, brand preferences, consumer attitudes, dyadic analysis, psychometrics, marketplace literacy, cross-cultural consumer behavior

3. Authors

The IGEN scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by a collaborative team of distinguished scholars in consumer behavior and marketing science:

• Madhubalan Viswanathan, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Professor at Loyola Marymount University. Dr. Viswanathan is internationally recognized for his pioneering scholarship on measurement methodology, basic marketplace literacy, and subsistence marketplaces.
• Terry L. Childers, Ph.D. — Emeritus Professor of Marketing at the Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, and formerly of the University of Minnesota and Iowa State University. His research focuses on information processing, visual cognition, consumer vulnerability, and interpersonal/intergenerational communication dynamics.
• Elizabeth S. Moore, Ph.D. — Associate Professor Emerita of Marketing at the Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame. Dr. Moore’s research program centers on children’s consumer behavior, family decision-making, intergenerational brand transfer, and the public policy dimensions of food and media marketing targeting youth.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Intergenerational Communication and Influence on Consumption Scale (IGEN) is to provide empirical researchers, developmental psychologists, family scientists, and marketing scholars with a standardized, psychometrically validated tool capable of dissecting the transmission of economic knowledge, habits, and ideologies between generations. Historically, consumer socialization literature suffered from fragmented operationalizations, often relying on idiosyncratic, single-item questions or disparate ad-hoc inventories that conflated interpersonal interaction (what family members say to one another) with actual psychological impact (how much one family member alters the cognitive schemas or choices of another). The IGEN addresses this methodological gap by establishing a dual-construct operationalization that measures both communication (the frequency and salience of verbal interactions surrounding consumption) and influence (the subjective attribution of behavioral, stylistic, and ideological shifts to the parent or offspring).

In academic research, the IGEN serves as an empirical lens into the intergenerational transmission of cultural capital and socio-economic competencies. Scholars employ the instrument to investigate how consumer competencies are nurtured within disparate family structures, assessing the differential trajectory of consumer autonomy across varying parenting styles (e.g., authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful). Furthermore, the scale facilitates dyadic research methodologies—such as the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM)—allowing researchers to capture perceptual congruence and discrepancies between parents and children regarding who is communicating and who is exerting influence across economic decision points.

In public policy and financial literacy domains, the IGEN fulfills an evaluative function. By disaggregating marketplace knowledge into distinct components such as rational consumer skills and consumer attitudes, public health professionals, consumer advocates, and financial educators can identify critical points of breakdown in the familial transmission of economic competence. For instance, the scale can pinpoint whether vulnerable consumer groups, low-literacy households, or marginalized demographics suffer from an absence of marketplace communication or from low influence, thereby guiding the design of targeted financial literacy interventions, youth consumer education curricula, and regulatory safeguards against predatory advertising targeting young populations.

From an applied marketing perspective, the scale offers strategic insights into brand heritage, intergenerational brand equity, and multi-generational customer lifetime value. Organizations frequently observe that brand choices within categories such as automotive purchases, household appliances, insurance products, and grocery shopping exhibit generational inertia. The IGEN enables brand managers to discern whether this brand continuity is sustained by active parental instruction, passive observational modeling, or shared ideological skepticism toward competitive brand promotions.

5. Psychological Construct

The IGEN scale captures consumer socialization through a matrix paradigm crossing two distinct behavioral domains (Communication and Influence) with three functional content dimensions (Consumer Skills, Consumption-Related Preferences, and Consumer Attitudes), yielding six specialized subscales of four items each (24 items total).

The Dual Domains: Communication versus Influence

A foundational theoretical insight of the IGEN scale is the formal separation of dialogue from socialization outcome:

• Intergenerational Communication: Defined as the communicative frequency, openness, and topical focus of familial dialogue regarding marketplace exchanges. It assesses how actively parents and offspring converse about purchasing choices, retail mechanics, advertising realism, and budgeting parameters. This domain captures the overt expressive behavior within the family system.
• Intergenerational Influence: Defined as the psychological assimilation, behavioral adherence, and normative internalization of the other generation’s consumption standards, product tastes, and marketplace belief systems. While communication represents an overt interactional process, influence represents a psychological outcome characterized by cognitive alignment, imitation, and social learning.

The Three Content Dimensions

Across both the Communication and Influence domains, the IGEN evaluates three distinct consumer socialization dimensions:

1. Consumer Skills (4 Items per Domain; 8 Items Total)

Consumer skills encompass the cognitive, technical, and rational capabilities required to optimize resource allocation, engage in deliberate economic decision-making, and navigate the mechanics of transactional environments. This dimension assesses competencies such as:

• Systematic price-quality comparisons across competing merchandise.
• Budget management, personal financial management, and delayed gratification.
• Effective information search procedures, including product label analysis and warranty scrutiny.
• Negotiation tactics, awareness of consumer rights, and complaint resolution procedures.

In the communication domain, this dimension measures how frequently parents talk to their children about smart shopping strategies and fiscal discipline. In the influence domain, it evaluates the extent to which offspring actually adopt and enact these rational analytical methods as a direct consequence of parental guidance.

2. Consumption-Related Preferences (4 Items per Domain; 8 Items Total)

Consumption-related preferences encompass the affective, stylistic, and brand-specific choices that dictate day-to-day purchasing routines. Rather than measuring procedural or functional competencies, this dimension focuses on taste formation, aesthetic alignment, and institutional loyalties, including:

• Specific brand loyalties within consumer packaged goods, apparel, and durable goods.
• Retail store selection criteria, such as patronizing specialty boutiques versus mass discount retailers.
• Stylistic preferences, design aesthetics, and perceived symbolic prestige of consumer possessions.

Within the communication domain, it captures the extent to which family members explicitly discuss specific brands, preferred department stores, or aesthetic tastes. In the influence domain, it quantifies the degree to which an offspring’s current brand basket and retail itinerary replicate those of their parents.

3. Consumer Attitudes (4 Items per Domain; 8 Items Total)

Consumer attitudes reflect higher-order cognitive schemas, institutional orientations, and ideological philosophies regarding the socioeconomic environment and marketing apparatus. This dimension measures:

• Attitudes toward promotional stimuli, including skepticism or credulity regarding advertising claims.
• General trust, cynicism, or suspicion directed toward sales personnel and commercial service providers.
• Orientation toward price mechanisms, discounts, credit reliance, and institutional marketplace fairness.

Within communication, this evaluates discussions concerning whether commercials tell the truth or whether salespeople can be trusted. Within influence, it measures how deeply a young adult has internalized their parents’ cynicism, trust, or ideological viewpoints concerning the commercial environment.

6. Theoretical Framework

The IGEN scale is anchored at the convergence of three foundational paradigms within developmental psychology and behavioral sociology: Social Learning Theory, Consumer Socialization Theory, and Family Communication Patterns Theory.

Social Learning Theory and Observational Modeling

Albert Bandura’s (1977) social learning framework posits that behavior is acquired through vicarious observation, cognitive modeling, and reinforcement contingencies. In the context of the family unit, parents serve as primary exemplars of social and economic roles. Offspring observe parental bargaining behaviors, budgetary discipline, retail navigation, and emotional reactions to advertising messages. However, Bandura noted that simple exposure to a model does not guarantee behavioral reproduction; reproduction depends on attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivational reinforcements. The IGEN operationalizes this distinction by decoupling communicative exposure (attention and verbal modeling) from direct influence (retention and motivational adoption).

Consumer Socialization Theory

Formulated by Scott Ward (1974) and expanded by George P. Moschis and Gilbert A. Churchill Jr. (1978), consumer socialization is defined as “processes by which young people acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their functioning as consumers in the marketplace.” Early consumer socialization paradigms posited that socialization occurs through interaction with multiple socialization agents, including peers, mass media, educational institutions, and parents.

Moschis (1985) demonstrated that among these agents, the family remains the primary socialization agent for enduring cognitive orientations, whereas peers typically govern immediate, transient, and expressive style decisions. The IGEN builds directly upon Moschis and Churchill’s structural taxonomy, formalizing their theoretical distinction between instrumental marketplace competencies (skills), cognitive orientations toward institutions (attitudes), and specific purchase outputs (preferences).

Family Communication Patterns (FCP) Theory

Developed by Jack M. McLeod and Steven H. Chaffee (1972) and later refined within family dynamics research by David Ritchie and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick (1990), Family Communication Patterns Theory identifies two primary dimensions of family communicative environments:

• Concept-Orientation: Characterized by open, reciprocal dialogue where offspring are encouraged to challenge ideas, develop autonomous viewpoints, evaluate logical arguments, and participate in family decisions.
• Socio-Orientation: Characterized by hierarchical communication patterns emphasizing conformity, obedience, avoidance of conflict, and uncritical deference to parental authority.

Viswanathan, Childers, and Moore (2000) incorporated FCP principles by designing an instrument capable of showing how concept-oriented environments foster robust intergenerational communication across skills, preferences, and attitudes, whereas socio-oriented environments may yield compliance or unilateral influence without active, bidirectional communicative exchange.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, nomological, and cross-cultural validity of the IGEN scale has been rigorously demonstrated across multiple structural equation modeling (SEM) investigations, dyadic designs, and cross-national studies.

Content and Face Validity

Content generation for the IGEN involved an extensive synthesis of prior qualitative and quantitative socialization literature, accompanied by expert panel evaluations. Scholars evaluated the initial item pool for syntactic clarity, conceptual independence between communication and influence domains, and clear representation across skills, preferences, and attitudes. Low-performing, ambiguous, or redundant items were removed through iterative pretesting.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was established by assessing the correspondence between offspring self-reports and parental proxy reports within matched parent-child dyads. If the IGEN accurately measures intergenerational influence and communication, there should be significant, positive inter-dyadic correlations. Empirically, the correlation between parent and offspring reports across matching subscales demonstrated statistically significant correspondence (typically ranging from r = 0.35 to r = 0.62, p < 0.001), indicating that both family members held shared perceptions of their communicative dynamics.

Additionally, convergent validity within structural equation models was confirmed via high, statistically significant factor loadings (λ > 0.60, with the majority exceeding 0.70) on their respective latent constructs, accompanied by Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values consistently surpassing the recommended 0.50 benchmark for the composite dimensions.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity between the Communication and Influence domains—and among the three content subscales (Skills, Preferences, Attitudes)—was confirmed using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion. Across all pairwise latent constructs, the square root of the AVE for each dimension was greater than the inter-construct correlations (which ranged from r = 0.44 to 0.88). While communication and influence are moderately to highly correlated, nested confirmatory factor analysis model comparisons demonstrated that a two-domain model (separating communication from influence) yielded a significantly superior fit over a unifactorial model collapsing communication and influence into a single latent dimension (Δχ² test, p < 0.001).

Nomological and Criterion Validity

Nomological validity was verified by examining the relationship between the IGEN subscales and established external constructs:

• Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence (CSII): As measured by Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel (1989), both informational and normative susceptibility correlated positively with the IGEN Influence dimensions, confirming that individuals broadly sensitive to social cues are also more receptive to parental consumer influence.
• Parent-Child Affection and Cohesion: Positive affective relationship quality, mutual trust, and frequent interaction positively predicted intergenerational communication across all three content dimensions.
• Socio-Oriented vs. Concept-Oriented Family Types: Concept-oriented family structures correlated more strongly with high scores on Consumer Skills communication, whereas socio-oriented structures displayed unilateral influence on Consumer Attitudes without corresponding high communication frequencies.

Cross-Cultural Invariance

The scale was subjected to cross-cultural validation comparing American samples (representing an individualistic, low-power-distance Western context) with Thai samples (representing a collectivistic, high-power-distance Southeast Asian context). Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) supported configural and metric invariance, demonstrating that the conceptual framework of the scale functions similarly across cultures. Observed mean differences aligned with theoretical expectations: American participants reported significantly higher communication and overt consumer skills socialization, whereas Thai participants exhibited distinct patterns reflecting cultural norms of filial respect and indirect socialization.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the IGEN scale has been confirmed across student, parent, dyadic, and cross-cultural samples. The original validation studies conducted by Viswanathan, Childers, and Moore (2000) demonstrated strong internal consistency across both domain composites and individual content subscales.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Across validation studies, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the individual four-item subscales demonstrated solid consistency, while the overall composite indices demonstrated strong reliability:

• Overall Domain Composites:
  • Intergenerational Communication Composite (12 Items): α = 0.84 to 0.91 across student, parent, and cross-cultural cohorts.
  • Intergenerational Influence Composite (12 Items): α = 0.86 to 0.92 across cohorts.
• Communication Subscales (4 Items Each):
  • Communication – Consumer Skills: α = 0.72 to 0.81.
  • Communication – Preferences: α = 0.68 to 0.79.
  • Communication – Consumer Attitudes: α = 0.64 to 0.76.
• Influence Subscales (4 Items Each):
  • Influence – Consumer Skills: α = 0.76 to 0.85.
  • Influence – Preferences: α = 0.73 to 0.82.
  • Influence – Consumer Attitudes: α = 0.70 to 0.81.

While the Consumer Attitudes communication subscale occasionally borders the 0.65 threshold in specific international subgroups—reflecting the multifaceted nature of market attitudes (e.g., pricing vs. advertising vs. salespeople)—composite reliability (CR) metrics consistently exceed 0.70 across all subscales in structural modeling evaluations.

Test-Retest Reliability and Stability

Longitudinal assessments of the IGEN across two- to four-week test-retest intervals with young adult cohorts yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from r = 0.78 to 0.87, indicating that the instrument captures stable, internalized socialization patterns rather than transient mood states or temporary purchase interactions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the IGEN scale was evaluated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), utilizing maximum likelihood estimation techniques within LISREL and AMOS modeling environments.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During preliminary scale development, the 12 item stems evaluated under communication instructions and the identical 12 item stems evaluated under influence instructions were subjected to principal axis factoring with oblique (promax) rotation. The exploratory analyses confirmed the presence of distinct factors mirroring the theoretical specifications:

• Items designed to measure skills loaded cleanly onto their intended factor without cross-loadings > 0.30 on preferences or attitudes.
• A clear separation emerged between communication items (anchored to discussion frequency) and influence items (anchored to perceived impact/adoption).
• The three content factors accounted for more than 60% of the total shared variance within each domain.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

To confirm the structural validity of the 24-item, 6-subscale instrument, first-order and hierarchical second-order CFA models were estimated. The theoretical model posited two higher-order latent domains (Communication and Influence), each defined by three correlated first-order latent variables (Skills, Preferences, and Attitudes), with each first-order factor measured by four continuous indicator variables.

Across samples, standardized factor loadings (λ) for the items on their designated latent constructs ranged from 0.58 to 0.88, with all loadings reaching statistical significance (t > 8.50, p < 0.001). Nested model comparisons confirmed that treating the six subscales as distinct correlated factors yielded a superior fit compared to single-factor or undifferentiated two-factor models.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The IGEN scale is structured around a parallel design in which 12 core consumption statements are completed twice by the respondent under different operational frames: first assessing Communication, and second assessing Influence.

• Total Item Count: 24 survey items (12 content statements evaluated under the Communication frame; the identical 12 content statements evaluated under the Influence frame).
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted questionnaire; applicable to individual young adults, parents, or matched dyadic pairs.
• Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Response Scale and Anchors:
  • Communication Domain (12 items): 7-point Likert-type frequency scale typically anchored by:
    1 = Never / Rarely discuss &longleftrightarrow; 7 = Very frequently discuss (or 1 = Strongly Disagree &longleftrightarrow; 7 = Strongly Agree regarding statements about discussion frequency).
  • Influence Domain (12 items): 7-point Likert-type impact scale typically anchored by:
    1 = No influence at all / Strongly Disagree &longleftrightarrow; 7 = A great deal of influence / Strongly Agree regarding parental impact on one’s habits.
• Structural Subscales (6 subscales of 4 items each):
  1. Communication – Consumer Skills (Items C1–C4): Rational consumer strategies, price comparison, budgeting, product evaluation.
  2. Communication – Preferences (Items C5–C8): Specific brand names, retail store selections, product styles.
  3. Communication – Consumer Attitudes (Items C9–C12): Advertising skepticism, salesperson trust, pricing ethics.
  4. Influence – Consumer Skills (Items I1–I4): Perceived adoption of parental shopping skills and financial habits.
  5. Influence – Preferences (Items I5–I8): Shared brand loyalties, store preferences, and stylistic conformity.
  6. Influence – Consumer Attitudes (Items I9–I12): Internalization of parental market cynicism, advertising beliefs, and retail outlooks.
• Scoring and Index Calculation:
  • Individual subscale scores are computed by summing or averaging the four items within each dimension (scores range from 4 to 28 for sums, or 1.0 to 7.0 for means).
  • Composite domain scores for Total Intergenerational Communication and Total Intergenerational Influence are derived by averaging the respective 12 items (scores range from 1.0 to 7.0).
  • Higher scores indicate greater communicative frequency or stronger intergenerational influence. Reverse-coded items (if utilized in specific sub-versions) must be inverted prior to score compilation.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 2000.
• Original Journal Publication: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 28, Issue 3, pages 406–424.
• Copyright Holder: Copyright © 2000 by the Academy of Marketing Science. Published by SAGE Publications (formerly Springer).
• Licensing and Fair Use: The scale was developed for academic, scientific, and non-commercial research purposes. Qualified scholars and researchers may typically utilize the scale items for non-commercial academic research under standard academic fair-use guidelines, provided full bibliographic citation is given to Viswanathan, Childers, and Moore (2000). Commercial utilization, inclusion in commercial assessment batteries, or digital redistribution requires formal permission and licensing from SAGE Publications and the original authors.

12. References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1086/209186

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence processes (pp. 50–99). Aldine-Atherton.

Moore, E. S., Wilkie, W. L., & Lutz, R. J. (2002). Passing the torch: Intergenerational influences as a source of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.2.17.18470

Moschis, G. P. (1985). The role of family communication in consumer socialization of children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 898–913. https://doi.org/10.1086/209025

Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377801500409

Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365090017004007

Viswanathan, M., Childers, T. L., & Moore, E. S. (2000). The measurement of intergenerational communication and influence on consumption: Development, validation, and cross-cultural comparison of the IGEN scale. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3), 406–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300283008

Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1086/208584

13. Items of the Scale