Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:25:24.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distinguishing the Spending Preferences of Seniors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

Zachary Zimmer  and
Neena L. Chappell
Zachary Zimmer
Affiliation:
University of Victoria*
Neena L. Chappell
Affiliation:
University of Victoria*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One thousand, four hundred and six seniors were asked about their consumer spending preferences. While some could name a product spending preference, others could not. This study examines the characteristics that best distinguish those elders who are uninterested in spending on consumer products from those who choose product specific preferences. Discriminant function analyses show that age best distinguishes the non-interested group from the others, supporting a previous report by Walker and Schwenk (1991). Income and health status most reliably separate those whose most important spending priority is a recreational product from those most interested in basic needs or housing products. Those whose spending priority is a housing item tend to be home-owners who have lived in their residences for long periods of time. The results confirm that the heterogeneity among seniors documented in other areas (such as health and social characteristics) extends to their consumption preferences. The diversity in spending preferences can be understood in terms of a desire to enhance quality of life.

Résumé

Mille quatre cent six aînés furent interrogés sur leurs préférences en tant que consommateurs. Alors que certains pouvaient nommer des produits qu'ils préféraient, d'autres ne le pouvaient pas. La présente étude examine les caractéristiques qui définissent le mieux les aînés qui ne s'intéressent pas à l'achat de produits de consommation par rapport à ceux qui expriment leurs préférences particulières. À l'aide de discriminants, les analyses montrent que l'âge est ce qui distingue le mieux les personnes non-intéressées des autres; cela va à l'appui d'une étude antérieure de Walker et Schwenk (1991). Le revenu et la santé sont ce qui distingue de la façon la plus fiable les personnes, pour qui l'achat de produits de loisir constitue la dépense la plus importante, des personnes qui s'intéressent principalement à des besoins fondamentaux ou aux produits domestiques. Les personnes, qui dépensent principalement pour des articles domestiques, sont souvent propriétaires d'une maison qu'ils habitent depuis longtemps. Les résultats confirment que chez les aînés, l'hétérogénéité dans d'autres domaines (comme la santé et les habitudes sociales) s'étend à leurs préférences en tant que consommateurs. La diversité qui s'exprime dans le choix des produits de consommation s'explique par le désir d'une meilleure qualité de vie.

Keywords

SeniorsHeterogeneityConsumer IssuesSpending PreferencesDiscriminant Analysis.Aînéshétérogénéitéenjeux de consommationproduits préférésanalyse discriminante.
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Spring/printemps 1996 , pp. 65 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bass, S.A., Torres-Gil, F., & Kutza, E.A. (1990). On the Relationship Between the Diversity of the Aging Population and Public Policy. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 2(3/4), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckham, B.L., & Kart, C.S. (1977). Heterogeneity of the Elderly in Large Metropolitan Areas. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 13(2), 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, J.E. (1974). The Aged Consumer and the Market Place: A Critical Review. Marquette Business Review, 18(2), 73–81.Google Scholar
Breakwell, G.M., & Fife-Schaw, C. (1988). Ageing and the Impact of New Technology. Social Behaviour, 3, 119–130.Google Scholar
Carlsson-Agren, M., Berg, S., & Wenestam, C.G. (1992). Daily Life of the Oldest Old. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 19(2), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell Neena, L. (1990). About Canada: The Aging of the Canadian Population. Canadian Studies Directorate, Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Cat. # S2–184/6–1990.Google Scholar
Chappell, N.L. (1991). In-Group Differences Among Elders Living with Friends and Family Other than Spouses. Journal of Aging Studies, 5(1), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, N.L. (1992). Social Support and Aging. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Chappell, N.L. (1993). Technology and Aging. The Journal of Canadian Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S., & Syme, S.L. (1985). Issues in the Study and Application of Social Support. In Cohen, S. (Ed.), Social Support and Health (pp. 3–22). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, P.D., & Marshall, G. (1984). Exploring Senior Life Satisfaction Via Market Segmentation Development and Value Exchange: An Initial Study. In Smith, S.M. & Venkatesan, M. (Eds.), Advances in Health Care Research (pp. 54–60). Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
Davis, B. (1985). An Empirical Investigation of Elderly Consumer Market Segments Based on Information Usage and Advertising Attitudes. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
Day, E., Davis, B., Dove, R., & French, W. (1988). Reaching the Senior Citizen Market(s). Journal of Advertising Research, 27(6), 23–30.Google Scholar
Duff, R.W., & Hong, L.K. (1982). Quality and Quantity of Social Interactions in the Life Satisfaction of Older Americans. Sociology and Social Research, 66(4), 418–434.Google Scholar
Festervand, T.A., & Wylde, M.A. (1988). The Marketing of Technology to Older Adults. International Journal of Aging and Technology, 1(2), 156–162.Google Scholar
Fletcher, S. (1990). Seniors in the Marketplace. Canadian Business Review, 17(4), 36–39.Google Scholar
Gelb, B.D. (1978). Exploring the Gray Market Segment. MSU Business Topics, Spring, 41–46.Google Scholar
Harris, A.J., & Feinberg, J.F. (1977). Television and Aging. Is What You See What You Get? The Gerontologist, 17, 464–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, B. (1986). Spending Patterns of Older Persons Revealed in Expenditure Survey. Monthly Labor Review, 109(10), 15–17.Google Scholar
Heslop, Louise A. (1985a). An Analysis of Expenditure Patterns of the Elderly: Cohorts — Going Through Life Together. Statistics Canada Research Paper No. 13a.Google Scholar
Heslop, Louise A. (1985b). An Analysis of Expenditure Patterns of the Elderly: Expenditure Patterns of Elderly Women. Statistics Canada Research Paper No. 19.Google Scholar
Kerschner, P.A. & Chelsvig Hart, K. (1984). The Aged User and Technology. In Dunkle, R.E., Haug, M.R., & Rosenberg, M. (Eds.), Communications Technology and the Elderly (pp. 135–144). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Klecka, W.R. (1980). Discriminant Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Z.V. (1979). An Investigation of Older Consumers' Unmet Needs and Wants at the Retail Level. Journal of Retailing, 5, 35–57.Google Scholar
Lees, D. (1987). Golden Opportunities. Canadian Business, 60(5), 62–64, 112–122.Google Scholar
Martin, M. (1992). Gray Power Makes Business See Green. Canadian Business Life, 12(2), 23–25, 36.Google Scholar
Minkler, M. (1989). Gold in Gray: Reflections on Business' Discovery of the Elderly Market. The Gerontologist, 29(1), 17–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moehrle, T. (1990). Expenditure Patterns of the Elderly: Workers and Nonworkers. Monthly Labor Review, 113(5), 34–41.Google Scholar
National Advisory Council on Aging. (1991). The Economic Situation of Canada's Seniors. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Cat # H71–3/14–1991E.Google Scholar
Phillips, L.W., & Sternthal, B. (1977). Age Difference in Information Processing: A Perspective on the Aged Consumer. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 444–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, J.H. (1985). The Economics of Aging. Dover, MA: Auburn House.Google Scholar
Sorce, P., Tyler, P.R., & Loomis, L.M. (1989). Lifestyles of Older Americans. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(3), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada. (1984). The Elderly in Canada, Cat # 99–932.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (1990). Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories, Cat # 91–520.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (1991). Market Research Handbook, Cat # 63–224.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada (1993). Population Ageing and the Elderly, Cat # 91–533E.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Torrey, B.B., & Taeuber, C.M. (1986). The Importance of Asset Income Among the Elderly. Review of Income and Wealth, 32(4), 443–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towle, J.G., & Martin, C.R. (1976). The Elderly Consumer: One Segment or Many? In Anderson, B. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 463–468). Urbana, IL: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
Tynan, A.C., & Daryton, J.L. (1985). The Methuselah Market. Journal of Marketing Management, 1, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tynan, A.C., & Daryton, J.L. (1988). The Neglect of the Older Consumer. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 12, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1989). Projections of the Population of the United States, by Age, Sex and Race: 1988 to 2080. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 1018, by Gregory Spencer, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Walker, R.S., & Schwenk, F.N. (1991). Income and Expenditure Patterns of Consumer Units with Reference Person Age 70 to 79 and 80 or Older. Family Economics Review, 4(1), 8–13.Google Scholar
Yelaja, S.A. (1989). Gray Power: Agenda for Future Research. Canadian Journal on Aging, 8(2), 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Z., & Segall, A. (1992). Needs Assessment Survey Methodology. Technical report written for the Canadian Aging Research Network. Centre on Aging, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.Google Scholar