Ģ������Ƶ

Memories of family economic conditions during childhood can have a significant influence on purchasing behaviors later in life, including whether adult consumers are likely to prefer private labels or generic products over popular big-name brands.

That’s among the findings of a recent study conducted by Brian Whelan, assistant professor of marketing in the College of Business at Ģ������Ƶ. Results of the study were published in the August 2025 issue of the Journal of Marketing Analytics in a paper titled "The Impact of Childhood Socioeconomic Status on Consumer Preferences for Private Label Brands.”

Whelan’s research builds upon two previous theoretical perspectives – resource scarcity theory (RST) and economic socialization theory (EST) – to examine how economic conditions during the formative years can influence consumer preferences in adulthood.

RST suggests that individuals who come from childhoods in which economic resources were limited tend to develop behaviors that promote efficiency, short-term gain and heightened awareness of value – behaviors that often persist into the adult years, Whelan said.

EST emphasizes the role of childhood experiences in shaping long-term financial values, attitudes and competencies. Through observation, modeling and early financial interactions, children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often learn to be more cautious with spending and to be more aware of obtaining the maximum benefit from spending their money; in other words, getting more bang for their bucks, he said.

“Together, these theories provide a robust framework for understanding how childhood socioeconomic status influences key consumer dispositions such as price sensitivity and value consciousness, which in turn shape preferences for low-cost alternatives like private label brands,” Whelan said.

For the study, Whelan conducted a quantitative survey of 350 individuals selected from a representative sample of U.S.-based consumers. A total of 29 responses were discarded after they failed data robustness checks, resulting in 321 participants – 57.6% of them female and 42.4% male. Respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 65, with the majority falling between 25 and 44.

The survey included questions about childhood socioeconomic conditions, responsiveness to price sensitivity, consumer focus on obtaining the best value for the money and preference for private label brands versus national brands.

Whelan used partial-least squares structural equation modeling, a popular method for analysis and research, to assess the received responses.

After examining results of the analysis, Whelan found that people who grew up in lower-income or resource-scarce environments tended to be more price-sensitive and value-conscious as adults, preferring private-label brands to national brands. On the other side of the equation, consumers who grew up in financially stable conditions were less likely to switch to private labels, regardless of their current income, he said.

“That result indicates that the impact of the childhood socioeconomic status environment persists in adulthood,  leaving a lifelong fingerprint on the way consumers evaluate brands,” Whelan said. “It also reframes private-label brand purchasing as a psychological choice, not just an economic one.”

Previous research on private-label brand preferences highlights the role that socioeconomic status may have on individual consumers’ price sensitivity and value consciousness, but little research has been conducted on how these factors in childhood directly influence adult preferences for private label brands.

“These findings contribute to resource scarcity theory and economic socialization theory, emphasizing the lasting impact of childhood economic conditions on adult purchasing behavior,” he said.

“The big takeaway is that current income matters less than expected with respect to private label brands. The intuitive assumption is that if someone earns more, they’ll be less price-sensitive, and if they earn less, they’ll be more price-sensitive, preferring private labels over big-name brands because of the value the consumer receives. This study flips that expectation: childhood socioeconomic status, not current socioeconomic status, is the stronger predictor according to the data. As a counterintuitive finding, it's interesting,” Whelan said.

In addition, the study indicates that a consumer’s price sensitivity can move in an unexpected direction relative to current circumstances, he said.

“In other words, the data showed that people don’t necessarily adjust their behavior when their financial situation changes in adulthood. For example, someone from a low-socioeconomic childhood background may stay cautious and price-sensitive even after achieving financial comfort, while someone from a high-socioeconomic childhood background may continue to show lower price sensitivity even if they experience current income decline,” Whelan said. “This reinforces the theories that early-life patterns can ‘override’ present-day reality.”

In addition to its value in the academic world, the research has potential implications for marketing professionals, including targeting and positioning, he said.

“Rather than relying solely on current income or demographics, marketers can segment customers based on behavioral cues tied to value consciousness and price sensitivity. For example, consumers from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may respond more positively to value-focused messaging, private-label promotions and loyalty programs emphasizing savings and reliability, while those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds may be more receptive to messages highlighting quality, innovation and emotional assurance,” Whelan said.

“Retailers can also use these insights to refine pricing and promotion strategies and private-label brand positioning to better align with the psychological motivations of different consumer segments,” he said.

The study also contributes to a growing body of research connecting behavioral economics, marketing and early life psychology.