Revisiting the Age Construct: Implications for Service Research

Abstract

People in the older consumer segment spend more money on services than those in other segments, making them a desired target for service providers. This universal trend has led researchers to start discussing this trend’s implications for service research and marketing practice. These discussions’ results are ambiguous because service researchers and managers face the problem of having to choose between three main age constructs: chronological age, cognitive age, and future time perspective (FTP). Unfortunately, current age-related research lacks an understanding of their real value, as only a few studies have combined them to discuss their specific impact. Recognizing this gap in the literature, this article compares the three age constructs in behavioral and perceptional settings. We highlight each age construct’s merits and weaknesses as well as exploring which construct delivers the best results in which service context. Bayesian analyses of our data reveal that chronological age has its merits as a control variable but does not sufficiently discriminate between age groups’ behavior and perceptions. Cognitive age is useful if customers’ own age perceptions are included but only identifies age differences in specific service settings. FTP consistently detects age-related differences in customers’ perceptions and in their behavior in all contexts.

Guest editorial: age is a construct, not a characteristic

“…Age is a weird variable. We count chronological age from the moment we are born until the current date (Kuppelwieser and Klaus, 2020a). Chronological age accumulates linearly every year, month, day and second and does not induce individuals' behaviorand yet, managers and researchers adopt this characteristic to identify customers' motivations and behavior.…”

“…Related research fields emphasize the older individuals' change in self-perspective and time perspectives (Carstensen, 2006;Drolet et al, 2010;Hicks et al, 2012). Kuppelwieser and Klaus (2020a) compared the three major age constructs and found that chronological age overly simplifies ageing and the age construct. Their findings support a differentiated view on age and its measurement.…”

“…We elaborate on the three main age concepts and discuss their theoretical suitability for measuring age in service marketing. The articles in this special issue offer insights into different understandings of ageing, the age concepts and their dynamic nature (Kuppelwieser and Klaus, 2020a). This issue presents discussions on individuals' perception of ageing, as well as its effects and outcomes, and how we currently deal with ageing in marketing and management.…”

“…Cognitive age, therefore, functions as a simple surrogate measure of chronological age and the changes that occur in the aging process (Moschis, 2012). Cognitive age, while being a more advanced concept than chronological age, might still not be able to explore how consumers perceive age and its influence on their behavior (Kuppelwieser, 2016;Kuppelwieser and Klaus, 2020a). This leads researchers to investigate other age constructs capable of exploring and measuring consumers' motivations.…”

“…Consequently, changes in individuals' motivations and behaviors are primarily owing to changes in their future time perspectives (FTP). As an integral part of the SST, the FTP determines individuals' perspective of time, which, in turn, explains a set of social motives (Fung et al, 2005), their motivations and their behavior (Kuppelwieser and Klaus, 2020a). The FTP thus focuses on the time individuals believe they have left in their life cycle (Cate and John, 2007) and embraces individual and subjective time experiences (Lang and Carstensen, 2002).…”