Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: An individual

differences' perspective☆
Minas N. Kastanakis a,⁎, George Balabanis b
a
ESCP Europe, 527 Finchley Road, London NW3 7BG, United Kingdom
b
Cass Business School, City University London, 106 Bunhill Row, London EC1 8TZ, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article examines the impact of various individual differences on consumers' propensity to engage in two
Received 1 March 2014 distinct forms of conspicuous (publicly observable) luxury consumption behavior. Status seeking is an
Received in revised form 1 April 2014 established driver, but other managerially relevant drivers can also explain conspicuous consumption of luxuries.
Accepted 30 April 2014
The study develops and empirically confirms a conceptual model that shows that bandwagon and snobbish
Available online 15 May 2014
buying patterns underlie the more generic conspicuous consumption of luxuries. In addition to status seeking,
Keywords:
the self-concept orientation regulates which of these two patterns is more prominent. Both susceptibility to
Conspicuous consumption normative influence and need for uniqueness mediate the influence of self-concept. The modeled psychological
Luxury constructs explain a large part of the variance in conspicuous luxury consumption patterns and can be used as
Self-concept input in the development of marketing strategies.
Status © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Bandwagon and snob effects

1. Introduction business lies in the mass market demand” (Reddy, 2008, p. 67), creating
new segments of luxuries and consumers.
Acquiring and conspicuously displaying luxuries is an important Consequently, luxury markets are more heterogeneous than the
part of many modern lifestyles in both affluent Western societies and status-driven literature suggests. This notion has important repercus-
the developing world (Bian & Forsythe, 2010; Ko & Megehee, 2010; Li, sions for scholars and practitioners. Indeed, research on conspicuous
Li, & Kambele, 2010; Zhan & Yanqun, 2010). Luxury consumers include consumption calls for deeper examination of the characteristics of
a new base of younger, well-paid, and spendthrift people claiming their luxury consumers (Wilcox, Kim, & Sen, 2009). Focusing exclusively on
stake in the high life (Silverstein & Fiske, 2003). Luxury brands' evolu- status as a motivation for conspicuous luxury consumption leaves out
tionary trajectory in the marketplace mirrors these changes. The once a substantial amount of status-conferring capacity luxury products,
elitist luxury consumption is now available to the masses, adding com- including both highly exclusive luxuries (Van Gorp, Hoffmann, &
plexity to its public aspects (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). Such complexity Coste-Maniere, 2012; Woodside, 2012) and widely available, popular
challenges not only the adequacy of the status-seeking motive (Han, luxuries. These are reflective of the variation in buyers' motives and
Nunes, & Drèze, 2010; Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Rucker & Galinsky, consumption patterns. Therefore, examining the conspicuous consump-
2008) in explaining luxury consumption but also the perpetuated tion of luxuries more holistically is imperative.
view that luxury consumption is a homogeneous behavior. The purpose of this research is to empirically identify and test two
Empirical observations from practitioner-oriented research confirm types of conspicuous luxury consumption—namely, bandwagon and
these developments by suggesting that consumers of luxury pursue a snob—and the antecedents underlying consumers' engagement in the
diversity of goals. For example, some consumers “rather than signal bandwagon or snobbery type of luxury buying behavior. In particular,
[ing] their wealth with the latest Rolex or Prada bag, … seek a one-off, the focus is on luxury consumption not as homogeneous behavior but
custom-made product that no one else will ever own” (Reddy, 2008, as multi-dimensional heterogeneous behavior. This study also identifies
p. 64). However, for the majority of luxury brands, “the bulk of their the individual-level characteristics that encourage these consumption
behavior variants. From this standpoint, the study conceptualizes and
tests a model of conspicuous luxury consumption on survey data.
☆ The authors thank Russell Belk and Mario Pandelaere for their comments on a
The findings reveal that consumption of luxury is a multi-faceted
previous draft. The authors are responsible for all limitations and errors.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 77 8959 7031.
behavior, driven by a wide variety of factors, in addition to the long-
E-mail addresses: mkastanakis@escpeurope.eu (M.N. Kastanakis), established motivation of status attainment. This research makes
g.balabanis@city.ac.uk (G. Balabanis). several contributions. First, by jointly testing two ostensibly antithetical

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.024
0148-2963/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2148 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

facets of conspicuous luxury consumption and their shared antecedents, by 2017 (King, 2013), up from a mere $20 billion in 1985 (Barry,
this study extends the evolving literature on luxury and conspicuous 2010). Including new luxury products from contemporary firms in
consumption by moving away from a monolithic conception of luxury various premium categories raises the value of the global luxury market
to include sub-variants. Second, it helps managers develop elaborate to $1 trillion (Truong, 2010). Reflective of this variation is the
strategies to suit each of the snobbish and bandwagon consumption emergence of conglomerate groups (LVMH, Richemont, PPR, Gucci)
patterns. with stretched portfolios of different brands in both scarcer and mass-
luxury markets. For example, the LVMH group owns exclusive brands,
2. Theoretical background such as Berluti (founded in 1895), and popular ones, such as Mark
Jacobs (founded in 1984).
Research in economics conceptualizes distinct conspicuous con- This variation between traditional and new luxuries leads scholars to
sumption patterns depending on a good's quantity in a market. Extend- disagree on a precise typology of luxury brands (Dion & Arnould, 2011).
ing Veblen's (1899) invidious comparison and pecuniary emulation, In view of the difficulty in concretely classifying luxuries, the focus here
Leibenstein (1950) develops a mathematical explanation for external is on how and why people buy and consume different types of luxuries.
effects on utility of any general product. Leibenstein (1950, p. 189) In addition to their utility in conferring status (Nelissen & Meijers,
defines the bandwagon effect as “the extent to which the demand for 2011), some luxury brands are valued for their scarcity, while others
a commodity is increased due to the fact that others are also consuming are preferred because of their popularity (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008).
the same commodity” and describes the snob effect as “the extent to Going beyond mathematical or product-centered marketing studies,
which the demand for a consumer's good is decreased owing to the this study analyzes the influence of the self and other antecedent traits
fact that others are also consuming the same commodity.” Not explicitly on luxury consumption. The main focus is on luxury brands' capability
mentioned in this definition is that the demand decreases among snobs of creating assimilation to (i.e., bandwagon consumption) or contrast
but not among overall consumers. Leibenstein mentions associative and with (i.e., snob consumption) other consumers (Mussweiler, Rüter, &
dissociative motives but does not propose specific antecedents and his Epstude, 2004). In addition, the study moves from a monolithic concep-
analysis does not move beyond the mathematics. tion of luxury to include sub-variants, such as snobbish and conformist
Recent work consists of mostly conceptual or mathematical model- consumption patterns. Owing to their highly symbolic properties
ing and focuses on snobbish and conformist patterns in the demand (Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2009), luxuries can create a sense of
for luxuries (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008; Corneo & Jeanne, 1997; Ireland, affiliation to or differentiation from other consumers. Consumers use
1994). However, none of these studies examine individual consumers the vast assortment of luxury brands on the market in relational
and their proclivity toward conspicuous consumption. Thus, although patterns, creating assimilation to the kinds of people who display
economic models are useful in modeling such phenomena, they offer them. A minority uses scarce, new, or unknown luxuries in contrast-
limited guidance for managers because they do not identify specific, creating patterns, creating distance from other consumers.
controllable variables related to individual consumers. Individual differences play a major role in determining consumer
Conversely, the consumer behavior literature generally views luxury preferences for relational versus contrast-creating brands. Relational
consumption as a homogeneous behavior where the key driver is the traits, such as an inter-dependent self-concept and susceptibility to
status symbolism. Accordingly, research defines luxuries as goods such normative influence, drive bandwagon luxury consumption and pro-
that their mere use or display confers prestige or status to the owner mote an assimilation goal. Conversely, dissociative traits, such as an
apart from any functional utility (Grossman & Shapiro, 1988; Han independent self-concept and need for uniqueness, drive snob luxury
et al., 2010) and provides insightful analyses of the relationship consumption and promote a contrast goal. As more people gain access
between status and luxury under several different conditions (Han to luxury, understanding the subtle individual differences that differen-
et al., 2010; Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Nunes, Drèze, & Han, 2011; tiate consumers is imperative. Such insights can inform the existing
Rucker & Galinsky, 2008). Nevertheless, extant research tends both to socio-economic analyses (leaders vs. followers, snobs vs. conformists)
overemphasize the status antecedent and to assume homogeneity in revolving around status. Table 1 summarizes these ideas that contribute
consumption behavior, thus overlooking theoretical work in economics to the literature by integrating several previously unconnected streams
and empirically oriented market reports that suggest a more complex of research and by adding new elements. The ensuing analysis adds
phenomenon. Enhancing this perspective, the next section presents depth by shedding new light on the complexity of previous research.
arguments for re-conceptualizing luxury consumption as a broader
behavior. 4. Model development

3. Re-conceptualizing luxury consumption A two-step iterative process served to identify the most relevant
antecedents of conspicuous luxury consumption. First, a synthesis of
The traditional luxury sector's value (i.e., European firms with a long the pertinent literature helped determine a set of antecedents to
heritage) is $302 billion worldwide and expected to reach $376 billion bandwagon and snob consumption. Second, in-depth interviews with

Table 1
Two conspicuous luxury consumption behaviors.

Form of conspicuous Goal Utility source Antecedent individual differences

luxury consumption

Bandwagon (1) Association with the majority of luxury consumers Popularity (e.g., majority groups, celebrities, Inter-dependent self-concept, CSNI,
(majority's “affluent lifestyle”). This also creates dissociation fashions, conformity) SS, CNFU (negative)
from the less affluent. Status from assimilation
(2) Acquire status (membership status from being part of the
“affluent lifestyle”)
Snob (1) Dissociation from the majority of luxury consumers to Uniqueness (e.g., supply scarcity, novelty, Independent self-concept, CNFU,
establish uniqueness differentness) Status from contrast SS, CSNI (negative)
(2) Acquire status (dissociative status by being different from
the majority of luxury consumers)

Note: CSNI = consumer susceptibility to normative influence, CNFU = consumer need for uniqueness, SS = status seeking.
 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154 2149

six senior marketing managers of luxury brands were conducted to goals, emphasizing their unique personal traits and attributes and
(1) gain a spontaneous, freely elicited perspective on the bandwagon/ deemphasizing other people (independent self); dissociation from
snobbish luxury consumer and (2) provide practical insights into the others, non-conformity, and expression of personal taste take prece-
antecedents identified. The findings enabled a further literature search dence over relational motives. In contrast, others focus on the interper-
for relevant concepts, while screening out others. The resultant model sonal domain and the opinions or reactions of others, concerned about
was presented to the interviewees for additional refinement. From how their external persona appears to society (inter-dependent self);
this process, the consumer self-concept orientation, need for status, they emphasize association with similar others and conformity to
and two mediating traits (consumer susceptibility to normative influ- in-groups or aspirational groups. Thus, consumers with an independent
ence [CSNI] and consumer need for uniqueness [CNFU]) emerged as self demonstrate a personal orientation in luxury consumption,
most relevant to the conspicuous consumption of luxuries. focusing on self-expressive goals. Conversely, consumers with an
Fig. 1 illustrates the three-level model proposed: (1) self-concept inter-dependent self care more about the social function of luxury con-
and status seeking as the original antecedents, (2) CNFU and CSNI as sumption (Ackerman & Chung, 2012).
mediators, and (3) snob and bandwagon luxury consumption as depen-
dent variables. The (independent/interdependent) self-concept refers 4.2. Level 2: the narrower traits
to a person's propensity to focus (or not) on social connections and
act in relevant ways. The mediators filter and explain self-concept's This study's preliminary tests identified several narrower personality
influence on these behaviors. Finally, the outcome variables include traits linked to the self-concept that mediate the self-concept–
the two conspicuous luxury consumption behaviors. consumption relationship. These traits act as the focal mechanisms
that reduce self-concept's influence to the two forms of conspicuous
4.1. Level 1: the (independent/interdependent) self-concept luxury consumption. Actually, each of the two self-concept orientations
has its collection of subordinate, peripheral traits that can be classified
Wong and Ahuvia (1998) distinguish between personally and as individualistically or collectivistically oriented (Hornsey & Jetten,
socially oriented luxury consumers and trace the origins of these orien- 2004). The independent self emphasizes freedom of expression
tations to one's self-concept as either independent or inter-dependent (Dutta-Bergman & Wells, 2002) and uniqueness (Markus & Kitayama,
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991)—a general individual difference (Aaker, 1991) and thus is related positively to the individualist trait of CNFU.
1999; Oyserman, 2001) particularly relevant in understanding snob and Conversely, the inter-dependent self emphasizes social relationships
bandwagon luxury consumption because it centers on people's (Dutta-Bergman & Wells, 2002), self–other affiliation, and social com-
propensity to focus (or not) on social connections. Specifically, some parisons (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and thus is related positively to
people tend to focus on their internal domain and self-related the socially oriented trait of CSNI. Status seeking is modeled as an

Note: The three sub-constructs of CCC (creative choice counter-conformity), UCC

(unpopular choice counter-conformity), and AOS (avoidance of similarity) are modeled as
separate factors with their own paths (sub-hypotheses H3b & H3c). For clarity reasons, in the
figure arrows to and from them are subsumed into the overall construct of CNFU.

Fig. 1. A model of conspicuous luxury consumption behaviors and their psychological antecedents. Note: The three sub-constructs of CCC (creative choice counter-conformity), UCC
(unpopular choice counter-conformity), and AOS (avoidance of similarity) are modeled as separate factors with their own paths (sub-hypotheses H3b & H3c). For clarity reasons, in
the figure arrows to and from them are subsumed into the overall construct of CNFU.
2150 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

exogenous variable, pertaining to all forms of luxury consumption, and significant others.” Luxuries confer status (Han et al., 2010), and thus
not as a trait focal to the self. consumers acquire, own, use, and display them both to present an
image of what they are like or want to be like (Sirgy, 1985) and to bring
4.3. Level 3: the outcome variables about the kinds of social relationships they desire. Status seekers—
“people who are continually straining to surround themselves with
4.3.1. Bandwagon consumption visible evidence of the superior rank they are claiming” (Packard,
Bandwagon consumption occurs when consumers buy certain 1959, p. 5)—use luxuries to support such rank claims (Grossman &
categories of luxuries because of their popularity. Popularity serves as Shapiro, 1988).
a heuristic (e.g., popularity = correctness, social approval) because With the proliferation of luxuries, however, the ability of heteroge-
the majority's numerical dominance conveys the correctness of its neous luxury brands to confer status and the amount or audience
position and is difficult to ignore (Parker & Lehmann, 2011). Bandwagon of that status changes. Although status drives luxury consumption,
behavior, with its macro-level origins in majority consumer groups, bandwagon consumers have different status needs than snobs. For
celebrities, and fashions (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008; Ko, Chun, Song, & bandwagoners, the good's popularity delivers status, through associa-
Kim, 2013; Leibenstein, 1950; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999), centers on tion with or membership in the right status groups (Lascu & Zinkhan,
goods that carry social approval because these signify success, and 1999). Brands that are not popular with or unknown to the general,
membership in relevant status groups (Belk, 1988). The popularity of aspirational public cannot function as effective associative signals of
these status groups and the goods they consume serve as signals to affluent lifestyles (neither as dissociative signals with less affluent life-
the general public (Han et al., 2010) and trigger further demand for styles). Conversely, well-known and popular luxuries satisfy the
these luxuries. The behavior of other buyers is especially important in majority's appetite to identify with the rich. Thus, for bandwagoners,
the case of bandwagon consumption because luxury value is reinforced explicit signals of recognition (Berger & Ward, 2010), such as popular
and co-created from the complex interactions between the various luxury goods, confer status of being associated with the right status
social groups, including customers and brand communities (Tynan, groups (and dissociated from non-status groups).
McKechnie, & Chhuon, 2010). In the proposed model, the inter-
dependent self-concept and CSNI capture the influence of others' H1a. Status seeking relates positively to the propensity to engage in
behavior on bandwagon consumers (Table 1). Inter-dependent and bandwagon consumption of luxury products.
norm-obedient consumers observe the luxury consumption by the
majority and jump on the bandwagon. Conversely, snobs have different target audiences and qualitatively
different needs for status because of their independent self. The more
4.3.2. Snob consumption people use a good to claim status, the less status that particular good
In sharp contrast, snob consumption occurs when certain consumers confers to snobs. Because uniqueness, non-conformity, and scarcity
cease buying a luxury good when many other people begin owning it. matter the most to snobs, popular goods become undesirable and are
Popularity destroys utility for this group, and demand declines. Such viewed as destroying status value. In contrast with the bandwagon
relative scarcity serves as a heuristic (e.g., scarcity = demonstration of mass, snobs prefer new, exclusive, uncommon, or less-known, unpopu-
uniqueness, assertion of independence) that reinforces a luxury good's lar luxuries. These goods deliver status to snobs through dissociation and
desirability to this segment (Parker & Lehmann, 2011). Snobbish behav- by reestablishing the positional nature of status in the form of scarce and
ior (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008; Leibenstein, 1950) favors a luxury's natural, unique choices appreciated by similar like-minded significant others.
production, or supply-born scarcity—that is, products that are uncom-
mon, new, exclusive, or not well-known and thus not adopted by the H1b. Status seeking relates positively to the propensity to engage in
majority—or connoisseurship requirements beyond the tastes of the snob consumption of luxury products.
general public (Berger & Ward, 2010). The behavior of other luxury
consumers is important in the context of snob consumption because
others destroy luxury value by increasing a good's consumption; 5.2. CSNI
conversely, value is enhanced when the majority does not prefer
the good. In the present model, the anti-conformist nature of the ante- This study posits that CSNI is attributable to an inter-dependent self-
cedent traits (i.e., the independent self-concept and CNFU) captures concept and reinforces bandwagon luxury consumption. CSNI reflects
the importance of others' behavior for snobs (Table 1). Although “the need to identify or enhance one's image with significant others
snobs also care about status, they express this preference alongside a through the acquisition and use of products and brands, [and] the
preference for non-conformity to dissociate themselves from the willingness to conform to the expectations of others regarding purchase
mainstream. decisions” (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989, p. 474). Normative influ-
ences are particularly important for symbolic products such as luxuries,
5. Hypotheses especially for public consumption (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). Consumers
with greater-than-average susceptibility to norms are prone to using
The framework in Fig. 1 depicts the hypothesized links among luxury brands that make a good impression because of value-
the key constructs. To avoid redundancies, the focus is on mediating expressive and utilitarian normative influence (Park & Lessig, 1977).
traits and centers the hypotheses on their relationships to the self Conforming to norms enhances their inter-dependent self in two
(antecedent) and the two consumption behaviors (consequences). ways: value-expressive influence operates through their desire to
enhance their inter-dependent self-image by associating with their
5.1. Status seeking aspirational reference groups; utilitarian influence operates by
complying with expectations of significant others to achieve rewards
Many consumers of luxury goods are status seekers (Han et al., or avoid punishments. Consumption of popular luxuries satisfies these
2010). Although luxury consumption comprises two variant behaviors two routes (Lascu & Zinkhan, 1999) because they are recognizable by
rooted in different antecedents, status seeking is the common denomi- the majority, serving as explicit signals of association with the wealthy
nator. According to Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn (1999, p. 42), status (Han et al., 2010). The self is extended (Belk, 1988) to include
seeking defines people who “strive to improve their social standing these symbolic markers of group membership, and thus the (inter-
through the conspicuous consumption of consumer products that con- dependent) self is enhanced through relational bandwagon luxury con-
fer and symbolize status both for the individual and surrounding sumption; CSNI mediates this process. In addition, CSNI inhibits people
 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154 2151

from consuming the types of luxuries that are less popular, scarce, or not multi-stage cluster sampling design with respondents from areas
recognizable (i.e., snob luxury consumption). representing average and higher-than-average income areas was
used. Respondents were qualified by screening questions that ensured
H2a. The inter-dependent self-concept relates positively to CSNI. that they were consumers of luxuries. Of the respondents, 47.3% were
H2b. CSNI relates positively to the propensity to engage in bandwagon men and 53.7% women, ranging from 18 to 82 years (M = 36.5),
luxury consumption. mostly university educated with yearly income from £41,000 to
£60,000.
H2c. CSNI relates negatively to the propensity to engage in snob luxury Respondents completed the questionnaire starting from the
consumption. dependent variables that appeared before the trait sections in the
survey. Specifically, they rated how likely they were to purchase/
use these products, assuming that money is no object. In line
5.3. CNFU
with prior research (Dubois & Paternault, 1995), this assumption
intended to create a free-choice environment based on individual
This study suggests that CNFU is attributable to an independent
variable effects only by eliminating possible financial bias. Then,
self-concept and reinforces consumption of less popular luxuries.
respondents completed the trait sections and demographic/control
CNFU represents “the trait of pursuing differentness relative to
measures.
others through the acquisition, utilization, and disposition of consumer
Drop-and-collect surveys produce response rates up to 90% (Lovelock,
goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing one's self-image and
Stiff, Cullwick, & Kaufman, 1976). 625 questionnaires were distributed at
social image” (Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001, p. 52). CNFU has three
various days of the week to obtain a broad representation. On week-
dimensions: (1) creative choice counter-conformity (CCC)—consumers
days, distribution occurred in the evening to reduce non-response
seek social differentness but still make selections that others consider
error (when most people are home), and on weekends, distribution
good choices; (2) unpopular choice counter-conformity (UCC) —the
took place during the entire day. In total, 431 usable surveys were
consumption of products and brands that deviate from group norms
returned (69% response).
and may risk social disapproval; and (3) avoidance of similarity (AOS)—
consumers lose interest in or discontinue use of possessions that
become commonplace to reestablish differentness. Consumers seek
6.2. Measures
distinctive luxury products to dissociate themselves from the herd
and enhance their (independent) self-concept through dissociation
Self-concept orientation was measured with Singelis's (1994) scale
from majority groups (Leibenstein, 1950). Their independent self-
(example items include “I am comfortable with being singled out for
concept discourages the relational type of bandwagon luxury consump-
praise or rewards” and “If someone who is close to me fails, I feel
tion while encouraging the consumption of less popular, new, or
responsible”), status seeking with Eastman et al.'s (1999) status con-
unknown luxury brands to establish their differentness; CNFU
sumption scale (“I would buy a product just because it has status”),
mediates and reinforces this process. In addition, CNFU inhibits
CSNI with Bearden et al.'s (1989) scale (“I rarely buy the latest fashion
people from consuming popular luxuries (bandwagon luxury con-
until I am sure my friends approve of them”), and CNFU with Ruvio,
sumption) because these cannot fulfill the desired non-conformist
Shoham, and Brencic (2008) (“I dislike products or brands that are cus-
signaling role.
tomarily bought by everyone”). CNFU was modeled as three factors
H3a. The independent self-concept relates positively to CNFU. (CCC, UCC, and AOS) to better capture how each dimension contributes
to the results.
H3b. CNFU (all three facets) relates positively to the propensity to Because no measures exist for snob/bandwagon consumption, a
engage in snob luxury consumption. scale was developed for the purpose of the study, with concrete descrip-
H3c. CNFU (all three facets) relates negatively to the propensity to tions of popular/scarce luxury products (contingent on the behavior of
engage in bandwagon luxury consumption. other luxury consumers). Following (1) theoretical considerations on
snob and bandwagon consumption (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008; Corneo
& Jeanne, 1997; Leibenstein, 1950; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999) and
5.4. CSNI and status (2) discussions with expert judges (senior managers with lengthy expe-
rience in various luxury industries), a scale with indicators describing
Status seeking has a direct relationship to CSNI. Status is a complex scarce/unpopular watches was developed for the snob effect, and one
construct whose sources of value can be traced to several personally with indicators describing popular watches was created for the band-
and socially meaningful elements, including recognition and esteem wagon effect (descriptions of luxury watches were used following
from like-minded groups (Mason, 1984). Research acknowledges the established research practices—De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002; Hudders &
relationship between status and susceptibility to norms; Phillips and Pandelaere, 2011—and experts' advice). Specifically, according to extant
Zuckerman (2001) demonstrate that status seeking leads to increased literature and calibration by experts, the criteria for inclusion of the
conformity to norms for actors who feel status-insecure and aspire to products in the scale were various factors related to both the supply
secure their position in high-valued groups. Thus, susceptibility to and demand side (i.e., limited supply/production or limited consumer
normative influence is partly rooted in a status attainment goal from preference for the snob effect, such as a luxury watch “that only a few
status-prone consumers. To gain status, they must demonstrate people own,” “is of limited production,” or “is recognized by a small
conformity to the norms defining membership in their target group: circle of people”; higher production volume or larger/widespread con-
sumer preference for the bandwagon effect, such as “a very popular
H4. Status seeking relates positively to CSNI.
and fashionable luxury watch,” “worn by many celebrities,” and “chosen
by most people”).
6. Method An extensive pretesting procedure was followed: three marketing
academics and six managers of luxuries qualitatively evaluated the
6.1. Design and procedure initial pool of items. Several focus groups and interviews further refined
the scales, using behavior coding and cognitive pretesting. Finally,
A drop-and-collect survey was used to collect data from a probability the questionnaire was pilot-tested on a convenience sample of 103
sample of 431 actual consumers of luxury goods in London. A respondents.
2152 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

6.3. Measurement model assessment Table 3

Measurement model.

A two-step approach was used to analyze the data. Table 2 provides Variable Cronbach's α Composite AVE
descriptive statistics and correlations of the constructs used. First, reliability
standard steps of psychometric assessment were followed to validate Independent self-concept .77 .77 .56
the measurement model. After careful inspection of item content for Inter-dependent self-concept .71 .70 .49
domain representation, items with item-to-total correlations below .40 Status seeking .89 .89 .67
AOS (avoidance of similarity) .94 .94 .80
were removed from further analyses. Second, a series of confirmatory
CCC (creative choice counter-conformity) .85 .84 .64
analyses were conducted. Fit statistics indicated good overall model fit UCC (unpopular choice counter-conformity) .89 .89 .67
for all scales. The factor loadings were highly significant, and Cronbach's CSNI (consumer susceptibility to .90 .91 .66
alphas and composite reliabilities were above .70 (N.80 for the normative influence)
majority), in support of internal consistency and convergent validity. Snob effect .84 .84 .64
Bandwagon effect .85 .85 .65
Variance extracted exceeded the .50 threshold. Table 3 reports the
results of a confirmatory factor analysis.
During the questionnaire construction and pretesting stage, proce-
dures that reduce common method variance (CMV) were followed by everyone nor completely understood at the macro level. In addition,
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Furthermore, Harman's macro outcomes such as snob or bandwagon consumption also depend
single-factor test was used to test for CMV, as Podsakoff et al. (2003) on micro-level individual consumer characteristics. Consequently,
suggest. In a conducted exploratory factor analyses, 11 factors with when trying to understand collective outcomes, research must consider
eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged, with the larger one accounting the underlying individual-level personality factors that drive them.
for as low as 20% of the variance in the data. The test suggests the lack
of CMV bias in the data.
8.1. Theoretical implications

7. Results
This study is important to theory in several ways. First, the study
2 examines how people consume luxury conspicuously and explains
The results (Table 4) show that the model fits the data well: χ (df
that it is not a homogeneous type of consumption. The study further
611) = 1216.283, p = .000; χ2/df = 1.991; CFI = .927; IFI = .927;
explicates the nature of two forms of conspicuous luxury consumption
TLI = .920; PRATIO = .917; RMSEA = .051. The model has good
behaviors—snob and bandwagon—and uncovers their psychological
explanatory power, accounting for 58% and 66% of the variance in
antecedents. This study is the first to empirically examine snob and
snob and bandwagon consumption behavior, respectively, as indicated
bandwagon consumption from a real luxury consumer perspective.
by their R2.
Prior research in economics (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008; Corneo & Jeanne,
The results support all but one hypothesis (H3c), which was partially
1997) advances mathematical models that examine, at the aggregate
supported (surprisingly, CCC has a positive and significant relationship to
level, the conditions under which such behaviors occur. However,
bandwagon behavior). Optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991)
none of the available studies focus on individual consumers and their
suggests that CCC, albeit in principle resulting in counter-conformist
proclivity toward these forms of conspicuous consumption. Rather,
behavior, may be compatible with this (seemingly opposite) type of
existing studies treat luxury consumption restrictively as the outcome
consumption because the aim of bandwagon luxury consumption is
of people's search for status (Berger & Ward, 2010; Han et al., 2010;
social approval, which CCC also favors. This can be contrasted with the
Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Rucker & Galinsky, 2008). This research
mainstream manifestation of CNFU (AOS), where the goal is to be
complements these studies by showing that luxury consumption
completely counter-conformist by avoiding similarity.
should not be treated uni-dimensionally, but rather disaggregated to
snob and bandwagon consumption patterns. In addition to satisfying
8. Discussion the core goal for status, luxury consumption serves to satisfy
assimilation/contrast goals that are not entirely status driven or to
Public, conspicuous luxury consumption is a phenomenon of both complement in different ways the search for status. Thus, the study
immense managerial relevance and theoretical importance. Existing makes a conceptual contribution to the evolving literature on luxury
approaches treat this consumption as homogeneous behavior and and signaling by jointly testing two ostensibly antithetical facets of con-
focus on the status antecedent or build mathematical models of aggre- spicuous luxury consumption with their shared antecedents, shedding
gate demand. However, luxury is neither consumed in the same way more light on the dual face of conspicuous luxury consumption.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.

Construct Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Independent self 5.35 .88

2. Inter-dependent self 4.41 .98 −.20⁎⁎
3. Status seeking 3.01 1.53 −.16⁎⁎ .10
4. AOS 4.11 1.57 .27⁎⁎ −.10 .12⁎
5. UCC 3.95 1.34 .22⁎⁎ .00 .00 .41⁎⁎
6. CCC 4.09 1.47 .32⁎⁎ −.04 .23⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎
7. CSNI 2.65 1.34 −.29⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .62⁎⁎ −.07 −.08 −.00
8. Snob effect 3.86 1.53 .26⁎⁎ −.05 .38⁎⁎ .57⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ .60⁎⁎ .06
9. Bandwagon effect 3.01 1.54 −.22⁎⁎ .16⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎ −.11⁎ −.14⁎⁎ .07 .61⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎

Note: AOS = avoidance of similarity, UCC = unpopular choice counter-conformity, CCC = creative choice counter-conformity, CSNI = consumer susceptibility to normative influence.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154 2153

Table 4 Bandwagon-prone consumers want approval; their utility is driven by

Structural model. the actions of similar majority aspirationalists. Since, in addition to
Relationship Standardized Sig. Hypothesis status, the original antecedent trait is relational, reinforced by CSNI
ML estimate supported and CCC, managers targeting bandwagoners should focus on enhancing
Independent self-concept → AOS .419 *** Yes (1) status derived from popularity; (2) the normative function; and
Independent self-concept → CCC .501 *** Yes (3) approved counter-conformity. In contrast, snob-driven consumers
Independent self-concept → UCC .334 *** Yes seek dissociative value. Their utility is also consumer related, in that
Inter-dependent self-concept → CSNI .215 *** Yes
they avoid acting like the majority. Because, in addition to status, the
Status seeking → CSNI .652 *** Yes
AOS → snob effect .381 *** Yes original antecedent trait is dissociative, reinforced by CNFU, managers
CCC → snob effect .421 *** Yes targeting snobs should focus on enhancing (1) status derived from
UCC → snob effect .107 .022 Yes uniqueness, and (2) uniqueness-signaling, dissociative, or even norm-
Status seeking → snob effect .537 *** Yes breaking functions.
CSNI → snob effect −.201 .002 Yes
These different traits and resulting value perceptions are influential
AOS → bandwagon effect −.156 *** Yes
CCC → bandwagon effect .145 *** No on important customer outcomes; consequently, managers must distin-
UCC → bandwagon effect −.113 .006 Yes guish and better serve each of the major segments by carefully choosing
Status seeking → bandwagon effect .558 *** Yes those points of contact with customers that are best suited for discrim-
C.S. normative influence → bandwagon effect .282 *** Yes
inating between the two groups. First, retailers must develop training
Fit statistics schemes aiding frontline employees in recognizing core relational or
individualist traits and managing subsequent interactions with each
χ2 1216.283
Degrees of freedom (d.f.) 611 type of customers. Second, managers should categorize their luxury
χ2/d.f. 1.991 products in popularity ranges and accordingly adjust elements of the
CFI .927 marketing mix. Bandwagon demand requires different store locations,
IFI .927
design, advertising, and types of consumers inhabiting a retail location
TLI .920
PRATIO .917
than snob demand. Communication for the latter must be below the
RMSEA .051 line, such as by WOM rather than by mass media; products should be
R2 (snob effect) .578 (58%) promoted through pull-type exclusive, small-circle events. In a bricks-
R2 (bandwagon effect) .658 (66%) and-mortar retailing setting, products could be hidden, requiring that
customers ask for them. In contrast, for bandwagon luxury demand,
retailers can use overt displays or encourage customers to shop with
friends to increase the normative and relational effect (Hiller Connell
Second, it contributes by investigating why people consume luxury & Kozar, 2012). In online environments, including social networks
conspicuously. The study advances understanding of the two variants (Chu, Kamal, & Kim, 2013; Park, Song, & Ko, 2011), retailers could
of luxury consumption by (1) locating specific psychological antecedents, classify their merchandise along with popularity-level dimensions
(2) identifying their role and complex relationships, (3) highlighting (e.g., best-selling, highly rated) or other normative-enhancing techniques.
the relative importance and tensions among them. Not everyone Finally, the development of databases and CRM structures to record,
responds similarly to snob- and bandwagon-triggering stimuli. track, and assess customer purchasing patterns would allow managers
Response differences are rooted in different traits: in addition to status- to analyze and match the type of demand to specific customer
seeking predispositions, consumers' (independent/inter-dependent) segments. Behavioral variants such as snob and bandwagon patterns
self-concept underlies (snob/bandwagon) luxury consumption. The can form the basis for new, sophisticated segmentation schemes and
level of a consumer's susceptibility to normative influences or need can feed into product design, marketing procedures, and redesigned
for uniqueness mediates this relationship. Someone with a stronger servicing and channel systems.
independent self is likely to dissociate from other consumers, and this
relationship is reinforced by CNFU, leading to the non-relational, snob
form of luxury consumption. Conversely, a person with a stronger 8.3. Limitations and further research
inter-dependent self prefers associating with other consumers, and
this relationship is reinforced by CSNI, leading to the relational type of This study is the first to advance and test a model on the individual-
bandwagon luxury consumption. level antecedents of two distinct forms of conspicuous luxury consump-
tion and may be bound by limitations. Since it was conducted in a
8.2. Managerial implications European context, research could replicate the study in extreme indi-
vidualist or collectivist cultures to test whether cultural forces moderate
These findings also have important implications for practitioners in the identified relationships. Also, the study focused on principal link-
several strategic (Choi, 2010) and tactical aspects of luxury marketing. ages but these factors may not constitute an exhaustive list. Research
Overall, they provide insights into consumers' tendencies that lead could identify additional traits and variants of the two effects and
to distinct variants of luxury consumption behavior. The direct and extend understanding of the dynamics between the new factors. Fur-
indirect links from personality traits to snob and bandwagon luxury ther research could also examine the interplay of individual differences
consumption suggest that marketers should include these variables in with external factors to understand whether and how such factors
current segmentation structures, communications, pricing, and retail influence the relationships identified herein. Despite these limitations,
space design; and in more strategic aspects such as company policies, this study advances marketing knowledge and contributes to practice
training schemes, and CRM. by extending contemporary understanding of snob and bandwagon
Luxury consumers are not a homogeneous, status-driven group. effects from a consumer perspective, thus, offering a novel perspective
Managers must recognize and incorporate into contemporary segmen- in conceptualizing luxury consumption.
tation structures the multiple antecedent individual variables of
divergent target groups. Although status is a common requirement,
different consumers depart from this base to opposite directions to References
achieve (1) assimilation to the majority consuming the popular luxury Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of
lifestyle or (2) dissociation from this majority. Marketing Research, 36(1), 45–57.
2154 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

Ackerman, D., & Chung, C. (2012). “We” or “Me” consumer goods: A cross-national look at Lovelock, C. H., Stiff, R., Cullwick, D., & Kaufman, I. M. (1976). An evaluation of the effec-
self-construal and gender in product choice. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing tiveness of the drop-off questionnaire delivery. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(4),
Science, 22(1), 70–82. 358–364.
Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2008). Trading up: A strategic analysis of reference group effects. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
Marketing Science, 27(5), 932–942. emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Barry, C. (2010). Luxury sales rebound to pre-crisis levels. http://www.businessweek. Mason, R. (1984). Conspicuous consumption: A literature review. European Journal of
com/ap/financialnews/D9ITN8R80.htm (accessed 18/11/10) Marketing, 18, 26–39.
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., & Epstude, K. (2004). The ups and downs of social comparison:
purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183–194. Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer suscep- 87, 832–844.
tibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481. Nelissen, R. M.A., & Meijers, M. H. C. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343–355.
139–168. Nunes, J. C., Drèze, X., & Han, Y. J. (2011). Conspicuous consumption in a recession: Toning
Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of it down or turning it up? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 199–205.
Consumer Research, 37, 555–569. Oyserman, D. (2001). Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The
Bian, Q., & Forsythe, S. (2010). Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural Blackwell handbook of social psychology (pp. 499–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1443–1451. Packard, V. (1959). The status seekers. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Park, W. C., & Lessig, P. V. (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in susceptibility
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. to reference group influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 102–110.
Choi, Y. K. (2010). Toward developing marketing strategies in turbulent environment. Park, J., Song, H., & Ko, E. (2011). The effect of the lifestyles of social networking service
Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science, 20(4), 279–280. users on luxury brand loyalty. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 21(4),
Chu, S. -C., Kamal, S., & Kim, Y. (2013). Understanding consumers' responses toward social 182–192.
media advertising and purchase intention toward luxury products. Journal of Global Parker, J. R., & Lehmann, D. R. (2011). When shelf-based scarcity impacts consumer
Fashion Marketing, 4(3), 158–174. preferences. Journal of Retailing, 87(2), 142–155.
Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (1997). Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism. Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical
Journal of Public Economics, 66, 55–71. restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer behavior: Sociology, 107(2), 379–429.
Implications for international retailing. Journal of Retailing, 78, 61–69. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method
Dion, D., & Arnould, E. (2011). Retail luxury strategy: Assembling charisma through art biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
and magic. Journal of Retailing, 87(4), 502–520. biases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Dubois, B., & Paternault, C. (1995). Observations: Understanding the world of international Reddy, S. (2008, May/Junee). There's nothing else like it in the world. Newsweek,
luxury brands: The “dream formula”. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4), 69–76. 64–69.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J., & Wells, W. D. (2002). The values and lifestyles of idiocentrics and Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory
allocentrics in an individualist culture: A descriptive approach. Journal of Consumer consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 257–267.
Psychology, 12(3), 231–242. Ruvio, A., Shoham, A., & Brencic, M. M. (2008). Consumers' need for uniqueness:
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., & Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in consumer Short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation. International Marketing
behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Review, 25, 33–53.
7, 41–51. Silverstein, M. J., & Fiske, N. (2003). Luxury for the masses. Harvard Business Review, 81,
Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. Quarterly 48–57.
Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.
brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30. Sirgy, J. M. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase
Hiller Connell, K. Y., & Kozar, J. M. (2012). Social normative influence: An exploratory motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13(3), 195–206.
study investigating its effectiveness in increasing engagement in sustainable Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale
apparel-purchasing behaviors. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 3(4), 172–179. development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50–66.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to Truong, Y. (2010). Personal aspirations and the consumption of luxury goods.
belong and the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), International Journal of Market Research, 52(5), 653–672.
248–264. Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Chhuon, C. (2010). Co-creating value for luxury brands. Journal
Hudders, L., & Pandelaere, M. (2011). The silver lining of materialism: The impact of luxury of Business Research, 63(11), 1156–1163.
consumption on subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(3), 1–27. Van Gorp, T., Hoffmann, J., & Coste-Maniere, I. (2012). Brand building: Luxury leather
Ireland, N. (1994). On limiting the market for status signals. Journal of Public Economics, goods brands anatomized. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 3(3), 127–134.
53(1), 91–110. Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Macmillan.
King, M. (2013). Global luxury goods market to be worth $376 billion by 2017. http:// Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-
www.companiesandmarkets.com/News/Consumer-Goods/Global-luxury-goods- seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review (available at:
market-to-be-worth-376-billion-by-2017/NI7310 (accessed 14/09/13) http://www.amsreview.org/articles/vigneron01-1999.pdf).
Ko, E., Chun, E., Song, S., & Kim, K. H. (2013). Which content types increase participation in Wiedmann, K. -P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2009). Value-based segmentation of luxury
fashion social platforms? Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 23(3), 297–313. consumption behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 26(7), 625–651.
Ko, E., & Megehee, C. M. (2010). Fashion marketing of luxury brands: Recent research Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury
issues and contributions. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1395–1398. brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 247–259.
Lascu, D. -N., & Zinkhan, G. (1999). Consumer conformity: Review and applications for Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A.C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in
marketing theory and practice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 1–12. Confucian and western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 423–441.
Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, snob, and veblen effects in the theory of consumers' Woodside, A. G. (2012). Economic psychology and fashion marketing theory appraising
demand. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64, 183–207. Veblen's theory of conspicuous consumption. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing,
Li, G., Li, G., & Kambele, Z. (2010). Luxury fashion brand consumers in China: Perceived 3(2), 55–60.
value, fashion lifestyle, and willingness to pay. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), Zhan, L., & Yanqun, H. (2010). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer
1516–1522. perceptions of best-known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1452–1460.