Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: An individual differences' perspective

This article examines the impact of various individual differences on consumers' propensity to engage in two distinct forms of conspicuous (publicly observable) luxury consumption behavior. The study develops and empirically confirms a conceptual model that shows that bandwagon and snobbish buying patterns underlie the more generic conspicuous consumption of luxuries. In addition to status seeking, the self-concept orientation regulates which of these two patterns is more prominent. Both susceptibility to normative influence and need for uniqueness mediate the influence of self-concept. The modeled psychological constructs explain a large part of the variance in conspicuous luxury consumption patterns and can be used as input in the development of marketing strategies.

Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: An individual
differences' perspective☆
Minas N. Kastanakisa,
⁎, George Balabanisb
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 b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 March 2014
Received in revised form 1 April 2014
Accepted 30 April 2014
Available online 15 May 2014
Keywords:
Conspicuous consumption
Luxury
Self-concept
Status
Bandwagon and snob effects
This article examines the impact of various individual differences on consumers' propensity to engage in tw
distinct forms of conspicuous (publicly observable) luxury consumption behavior.Status seeking is an
established driver, but other managerially relevant drivers can also explain conspicuous consumption of lux
The study develops and empirically confirms a conceptual model that shows that bandwagon and snobbish
buying patterns underlie the more generic conspicuous consumption of luxuries. In addition to status seekin
the self-concept orientation regulates which of these two patterns is more prominent. Both susceptibility to
normative influence and need for uniqueness mediate the in fluence of self-concept. The modeled psycholog
constructs explain a large part of the variance in conspicuous luxury consumption patterns and can be used
input in the development of marketing strategies.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Acquiring and conspicuously displaying luxuries is an important
part of many modern lifestyles in both affluent Western societies and
the developing world (Bian & Forsythe, 2010; Ko & Megehee, 2010; Li,
Li, & Kambele, 2010; Zhan & Yanqun, 2010). Luxury consumers include
a new base of younger, well-paid, and spendthrift people claiming their
stake in the high life (Silverstein & Fiske, 2003). Luxury brands' evolu-
tionary trajectory in the marketplace mirrors these changes. The once
elitist luxury consumption is now available to the masses, adding com-
plexity to its public aspects (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). Such complexity
challenges not only the adequacy of the status-seeking motive (Han,
Nunes,& Drèze,2010; Nelissen & Meijers,2011; Rucker & Galinsky,
2008) in explaining luxury consumption but also the perpetuated
view that luxury consumption is a homogeneous behavior.
Empirical observations from practitioner-oriented research confirm
these developments by suggesting that consumers of luxury pursue a
diversity of goals.For example,some consumers “rather than signal
[ing] their wealth with the latest Rolex or Prada bag, … seek a one-off,
custom-made product that no one else will ever own” (Reddy, 2008,
p. 64). However, for the majority of luxury brands, “the bulk of their
business lies in the mass market demand” (Reddy, 2008, p. 67), creatin
new segments of luxuries and consumers.
Consequently,luxury markets are more heterogeneous than the
status-driven literature suggests. This notion has important repercus-
sions for scholars and practitioners. Indeed, research on conspicuous
consumption calls for deeper examination of the characteristics of
luxury consumers (Wilcox, Kim, & Sen, 2009). Focusing exclusively on
status as a motivation for conspicuous luxury consumption leaves out
a substantial amount of status-conferring capacity luxury products,
including both highly exclusive luxuries (Van Gorp, Hoffmann, &
Coste-Maniere, 2012; Woodside, 2012) and widely available, popular
luxuries.These are reflective of the variation in buyers' motives and
consumption patterns. Therefore, examining the conspicuous consump-
tion of luxuries more holistically is imperative.
The purpose of this research is to empirically identify and test two
types of conspicuous luxury consumption—namely,bandwagon and
snob—and the antecedents underlying consumers' engagement in the
bandwagon or snobbery type of luxury buying behavior. In particular,
the focus is on luxury consumption not as homogeneous behavior but
as multi-dimensional heterogeneous behavior. This study also identifies
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 findings reveal that consumption of luxury is a multi-faceted
behavior, driven by a wide variety of factors, in addition to the long-
established motivation ofstatus attainment.This research makes
several contributions. First, by jointly testing two ostensibly antithetical
Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154
☆ The authors thank RussellBelk and Mario Pandelaere for their comments on a
previous draft. The authors are responsible for all limitations and errors.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: [phone].
E-mail addresses: [e-mail] (M.N. Kastanakis),
[e-mail] (G. Balabanis).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.024
0148-2963/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research

facets of conspicuous luxury consumption and their shared antecedents,
this study extends the evolving literature on luxury and conspicuous
consumption by moving away from a monolithic conception of luxury
to include sub-variants. Second, it helps managers develop elaborate
strategies to suit each of the snobbish and bandwagon consumption
patterns.
2. Theoretical background
Research in economics conceptualizes distinct conspicuous con-
sumption patterns depending on a good's quantity in a market. Extend-
ing Veblen's (1899) invidious comparison and pecuniary emulation,
Leibenstein (1950) develops a mathematical explanation for external
effects on utility of any generalproduct.Leibenstein (1950,p. 189)
defines the bandwagon effect as “the extent to which the demand for
a commodity is increased due to the fact that others are also consuming
the same commodity” and describes the snob effect as “the extent to
which the demand for a consumer's good is decreased owing to the
fact that others are also consuming the same commodity.” Not explicitly
mentioned in this definition is that the demand decreases among snobs
but not among overall consumers. Leibenstein mentions associative and
dissociative motives but does not propose specific antecedents and his
analysis does not move beyond the mathematics.
Recent work consists of mostly conceptual or mathematical model-
ing and focuses on snobbish and conformist patterns in the demand
for luxuries (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008; Corneo & Jeanne, 1997; Ireland,
1994). However, none of these studies examine individual consumers
and their proclivity toward conspicuous consumption. Thus, although
economic models are useful in modeling such phenomena, they offer
limited guidance for managers because they do not identify specific,
controllable variables related to individual consumers.
Conversely, the consumer behavior literature generally views luxury
consumption as a homogeneous behavior where the key driver is the
status symbolism. Accordingly, research defines luxuries as goods such
that their mere use or display confers prestige or status to the owner
apart from any functionalutility (Grossman & Shapiro,1988; Han
et al., 2010) and provides insightful analyses of the relationship
between status and luxury under several different conditions (Han
et al., 2010; Nelissen & Meijers,2011; Nunes,Drèze,& Han, 2011;
Rucker & Galinsky, 2008). Nevertheless, extant research tends both to
overemphasize the status antecedent and to assume homogeneity in
consumption behavior, thus overlooking theoretical work in economics
and empirically oriented market reports that suggest a more complex
phenomenon.Enhancing this perspective,the next section presents
arguments for re-conceptualizing luxury consumption as a broader
behavior.
3. Re-conceptualizing luxury consumption
The traditional luxury sector's value (i.e., European firms with a long
heritage) is $302 billion worldwide and expected to reach $376 billion
by 2017 (King, 2013), up from a mere $20 billion in 1985 (Barry,
2010). Including new luxury products from contemporary firms in
various premium categories raises the value of the global luxury market
to $1 trillion (Truong, 2010). Reflective of this variation is the
emergence of conglomerate groups (LVMH,Richemont,PPR, Gucci)
with stretched portfolios of different brands in both scarcer and mass-
luxury markets. For example, the LVMH group owns exclusive brands,
such as Berluti (founded in 1895),and popular ones,such as Mark
Jacobs (founded in 1984).
This variation between traditional and new luxuries leads scholars to
disagree on a precise typology of luxury brands (Dion & Arnould, 2011).
In view of the difficulty in concretely classifying luxuries, the focus here
is on how and why people buy and consume different types of luxuries.
In addition to their utility in conferring status (Nelissen & Meijers,
2011), some luxury brands are valued for their scarcity, while others
are preferred because of their popularity (Amaldoss & Jain,2008).
Going beyond mathematical or product-centered marketing studies,
this study analyzes the influence of the self and other antecedent traits
on luxury consumption. The main focus is on luxury brands' capability
of creating assimilation to (i.e., bandwagon consumption) or contrast
with (i.e., snob consumption) other consumers (Mussweiler, Rüter, &
Epstude, 2004). In addition, the study moves from a monolithic concep-
tion of luxury to include sub-variants, such as snobbish and conformist
consumption patterns.Owing to their highly symbolic properties
(Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2009), luxuries can create a sense of
affiliation to or differentiation from other consumers. Consumers use
the vast assortmentof luxury brands on the market in relational
patterns,creating assimilation to the kinds ofpeople who display
them. A minority uses scarce, new, or unknown luxuries in contrast-
creating patterns, creating distance from other consumers.
Individual differences play a major role in determining consumer
preferences for relational versus contrast-creating brands. Relational
traits,such as an inter-dependent self-concept and susceptibility to
normative influence, drive bandwagon luxury consumption and pro-
mote an assimilation goal.Conversely,dissociative traits,such as an
independent self-concept and need for uniqueness, drive snob luxury
consumption and promote a contrast goal. As more people gain access
to luxury, understanding the subtle individual differences that differen-
tiate consumers is imperative.Such insights can inform the existing
socio-economic analyses (leaders vs. followers, snobs vs. conformists)
revolving around status. Table 1 summarizes these ideas that contribute
to the literature by integrating several previously unconnected streams
of research and by adding new elements.The ensuing analysis adds
depth by shedding new light on the complexity of previous research.
4. Model development
A two-step iterative process served to identify the most relevant
antecedents of conspicuous luxury consumption. First, a synthesis of
the pertinent literature helped determine a set ofantecedents to
bandwagon and snob consumption. Second, in-depth interviews with
Table 1
Two conspicuous luxury consumption behaviors.
Form of conspicuous
luxury consumption
Goal Utility source Antecedent individual differences
Bandwagon (1) Association with the majority of luxury consumers
(majority's “affluent lifestyle”). This also creates dissociation
from the less affluent.
Popularity (e.g., majority groups, celebrities,
fashions, conformity)
Status from assimilation
Inter-dependent self-concept, CSNI,
SS, CNFU (negative)
(2) Acquire status (membership status from being part of the
“affluent lifestyle”)
Snob (1) Dissociation from the majority of luxury consumers to
establish uniqueness
Uniqueness (e.g., supply scarcity, novelty,
differentness) Status from contrast
Independent self-concept, CNFU,
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.
2148 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

six senior marketing managers of luxury brands were conducted to
(1) gain a spontaneous, freely elicited perspective on the bandwagon/
snobbish luxury consumer and (2) provide practical insights into the
antecedents identified. The findings enabled a further literature search
for relevant concepts, while screening out others. The resultant model
was presented to the interviewees for additional refinement.From
this process,the consumer self-concept orientation,need for status,
and two mediating traits (consumer susceptibility to normative influ-
ence [CSNI] and consumer need for uniqueness [CNFU]) emerged as
most relevant to the conspicuous consumption of luxuries.
Fig. 1 illustrates the three-level model proposed: (1) self-concept
and status seeking as the original antecedents, (2) CNFU and CSNI as
mediators, and (3) snob and bandwagon luxury consumption as depen-
dent variables. The (independent/interdependent) self-concept refers
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
influence on these behaviors.Finally,the outcome variables include
the two conspicuous luxury consumption behaviors.
4.1. Level 1: the (independent/interdependent) self-concept
Wong and Ahuvia (1998) distinguish between personally and
socially oriented luxury consumers and trace the origins of these orien-
tations to one's self-concept as either independent or inter-dependent
(Markus & Kitayama,1991)—a general individual difference (Aaker,
1999; Oyserman, 2001) particularly relevant in understanding snob and
bandwagon luxury consumption because it centers on people's
propensity to focus (or not) on social connections. Specifically, some
people tend to focus on their internal domain and self-related
goals,emphasizing their unique personaltraits and attributes and
deemphasizing other people (independent self); dissociation from
others, non-conformity, and expression of personal taste take prece-
dence over relational motives. In contrast, others focus on the interper-
sonal domain and the opinions or reactions of others, concerned about
how their external persona appears to society (inter-dependent self);
they emphasize association with similar others and conformity to
in-groups or aspirational groups. Thus, consumers with an independent
self demonstrate a personal orientation in luxury consumption,
focusing on self-expressive goals.Conversely,consumers with an
inter-dependent self care more about the social function of luxury con-
sumption (Ackerman & Chung, 2012).
4.2. Level 2: the narrower traits
This study's preliminary tests identified several narrower personality
traits linked to the self-concept that mediate the self-concept–
consumption relationship.These traits act as the focal mechanisms
that reduce self-concept's influence to the two forms of conspicuous
luxury consumption. Actually, each of the two self-concept orientations
has its collection of subordinate, peripheral traits that can be classified
as individualistically or collectivistically oriented (Hornsey & Jetten,
2004). The independent self emphasizesfreedom of expression
(Dutta-Bergman & Wells, 2002) and uniqueness (Markus & Kitayama,
1991) and thus is related positively to the individualist trait of CNFU.
Conversely, the inter-dependent self emphasizes social relationships
(Dutta-Bergman & Wells, 2002), self–other affiliation, and social com-
parisons (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and thus is related positively to
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-conformit
(unpopular choice counter-conformity), and AOS (avoidance of similarity) are modeled as separate factors with their own paths (sub-hypotheses H3b & H3c). For clarity reas
the figure arrows to and from them are subsumed into the overall construct of CNFU.
2149M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

exogenous variable, pertaining to all forms of luxury consumption, and
not as a trait focal to the self.
4.3. Level 3: the outcome variables
4.3.1. Bandwagon consumption
Bandwagon consumption occurs when consumers buy certain
categories of luxuries because of their popularity. Popularity serves as
a heuristic (e.g.,popularity = correctness,social approval) because
the majority's numericaldominance conveys the correctness of its
position and is difficult to ignore (Parker & Lehmann, 2011). Bandwagon
behavior,with its macro-level origins in majority consumer groups,
celebrities,and fashions (Amaldoss & Jain,2008; Ko,Chun,Song,&
Kim, 2013; Leibenstein, 1950; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999), centers on
goods that carry social approval because these signify success,and
membership in relevant status groups (Belk, 1988). The popularity of
these status groups and the goods they consume serve as signals to
the general public (Han et al.,2010) and trigger further demand for
these luxuries. The behavior of other buyers is especially important in
the case of bandwagon consumption because luxury value is reinforced
and co-created from the complex interactions between the various
social groups,including customers and brand communities (Tynan,
McKechnie, & Chhuon, 2010). In the proposed model, the inter-
dependent self-concept and CSNIcapture the influence ofothers'
behavior on bandwagon consumers (Table 1).Inter-dependent and
norm-obedient consumers observe the luxury consumption by the
majority and jump on the bandwagon.
4.3.2. Snob consumption
In sharp contrast, snob consumption occurs when certain consumers
cease buying a luxury good when many other people begin owning it.
Popularity destroys utility for this group,and demand declines. Such
relative scarcity serves as a heuristic (e.g., scarcity = demonstration of
uniqueness, assertion of independence) that reinforces a luxury good's
desirability to this segment (Parker & Lehmann, 2011). Snobbish behav-
ior (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008; Leibenstein, 1950) favors a luxury's natural,
production, or supply-born scarcity—that is, products that are uncom-
mon, new, exclusive, or not well-known and thus not adopted by the
majority—or connoisseurship requirements beyond the tastes of the
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;
conversely,value is enhanced when the majority does not prefer
the good. In the present model, the anti-conformist nature of the ante-
cedent traits (i.e., the independent self-concept and CNFU) captures
the importance of others' behavior for snobs (Table 1). Although
snobs also care about status, they express this preference alongside a
preference for non-conformity to dissociate themselves from the
mainstream.
5. Hypotheses
The framework in Fig. 1 depicts the hypothesized links among
the key constructs. To avoid redundancies, the focus is on mediating
traits and centers the hypotheses on their relationships to the self
(antecedent) and the two consumption behaviors (consequences).
5.1. Status seeking
Many consumers of luxury goods are status seekers (Han et al.,
2010). Although luxury consumption comprises two variant behaviors
rooted in different antecedents, status seeking is the common denomi-
nator. According to Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn (1999, p. 42), status
seeking defines people who “strive to improve their social standing
through the conspicuous consumption of consumer products that con-
fer and symbolize status both for the individualand surrounding
significant others.”Luxuries confer status (Hanet al., 2010), and thus
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
about the kinds of social relationships they desire.Status seekers—
“people who are continually straining to surround themselves with
visible evidence ofthe superior rank they are claiming” (Packard,
1959,p. 5)—use luxuries to support such rank claims (Grossman &
Shapiro, 1988).
With the proliferation of luxuries, however, the ability of heteroge-
neous luxury brands to confer status and the amount or audience
of that status changes.Although status drives luxury consumption,
bandwagon consumers have different status needs than snobs.For
bandwagoners, the good's popularity delivers status, through associa-
tion with or membership in the right status groups (Lascu & Zinkhan,
1999). Brands that are not popular with or unknown to the general,
aspirational public cannot function as effective associative signals of
affluent lifestyles (neither as dissociative signals with less affluent life-
styles). Conversely,well-known and popular luxuries satisfy the
majority's appetite to identify with the rich. Thus, for bandwagoners,
explicit signals of recognition (Berger & Ward, 2010), such as popular
luxury goods,confer status of being associated with the right status
groups (and dissociated from non-status groups).
H1a. Status seeking relates positively to the propensity to engage in
bandwagon consumption of luxury products.
Conversely, snobs have different target audiences and qualitatively
different needs for status because of their independent self. The more
people use a good to claim status, the less status that particular good
confers to snobs.Because uniqueness,non-conformity,and scarcity
matter the most to snobs, popular goods become undesirable and are
viewed as destroying status value.In contrast with the bandwagon
mass, snobs prefer new, exclusive, uncommon, or less-known, unpopu-
lar luxuries. These goods deliver status to snobs through dissociation and
by reestablishing the positional nature of status in the form of scarce and
unique choices appreciated by similar like-minded significant others.
H1b. Status seeking relates positively to the propensity to engage in
snob consumption of luxury products.
5.2. CSNI
This study posits that CSNI is attributable to an inter-dependent self-
concept and reinforces bandwagon luxury consumption. CSNI reflects
“the need to identify or enhance one's image with significant others
through the acquisition and use of products and brands,[and] the
willingness to conform to the expectations of others regarding purchase
decisions” (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989, p. 474). Normative influ-
ences are particularly important for symbolic products such as luxuries,
especially for public consumption (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). Consumers
with greater-than-average susceptibility to norms are prone to using
luxury brands that make a good impression because of value-
expressive and utilitarian normative influence (Park & Lessig, 1977).
Conforming to norms enhances their inter-dependentself in two
ways: value-expressive influence operates through their desire to
enhance their inter-dependent self-image by associating with their
aspirational reference groups; utilitarian influence operates by
complying with expectations of significant others to achieve rewards
or avoid punishments. Consumption of popular luxuries satisfies these
two routes (Lascu & Zinkhan, 1999) because they are recognizable by
the majority, serving as explicit signals of association with the wealthy
(Han et al., 2010). The self is extended (Belk, 1988) to include
these symbolic markers of group membership,and thus the (inter-
dependent) self is enhanced through relational bandwagon luxury con-
sumption; CSNI mediates this process. In addition, CSNI inhibits people
2150 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

from consuming the types of luxuries that are less popular, scarce, or not
recognizable (i.e., snob luxury consumption).
H2a. The inter-dependent self-concept relates positively to CSNI.
H2b. CSNI relates positively to the propensity to engage in bandwagon
luxury consumption.
H2c. CSNI relates negatively to the propensity to engage in snob luxury
consumption.
5.3. CNFU
This study suggests that CNFU is attributable to an independent
self-conceptand reinforces consumption ofless popular luxuries.
CNFU represents “the trait of pursuing differentness relative to
others through the acquisition, utilization, and disposition of consumer
goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing one's self-image and
social image” (Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001, p. 52). CNFU has three
dimensions: (1) creative choice counter-conformity (CCC)—consumers
seek social differentness but still make selections that others consider
good choices; (2) unpopular choice counter-conformity (UCC) —the
consumption of products and brands that deviate from group norms
and may risk social disapproval; and (3) avoidance of similarity (AOS)—
consumers lose interest in or discontinue use ofpossessions that
become commonplace to reestablish differentness.Consumers seek
distinctive luxury products to dissociate themselves from the herd
and enhance their (independent) self-concept through dissociation
from majority groups (Leibenstein,1950). Their independent self-
concept discourages the relational type of bandwagon luxury consump-
tion while encouraging the consumption ofless popular, new, or
unknown luxury brands to establish their differentness; CNFU
mediates and reinforces this process. In addition, CNFU inhibits
people from consuming popular luxuries (bandwagon luxury con-
sumption) because these cannot fulfillthe desired non-conformist
signaling role.
H3a. The independent self-concept relates positively to CNFU.
H3b. CNFU (all three facets) relates positively to the propensity to
engage in snob luxury consumption.
H3c. CNFU (all three facets) relates negatively to the propensity to
engage in bandwagon luxury consumption.
5.4. CSNI and status
Status seeking has a direct relationship to CSNI. Status is a complex
construct whose sources of value can be traced to several personally
and socially meaningful elements, including recognition and esteem
from like-minded groups (Mason, 1984). Research acknowledges the
relationship between status and susceptibility to norms; Phillips and
Zuckerman (2001) demonstrate that status seeking leads to increased
conformity to norms for actors who feel status-insecure and aspire to
secure their position in high-valued groups.Thus, susceptibility to
normative influence is partly rooted in a status attainment goal from
status-prone consumers.To gain status, they must demonstrate
conformity to the norms defining membership in their target group:
H4. Status seeking relates positively to CSNI.
6. Method
6.1. Design and procedure
A drop-and-collect survey was used to collect data from a probability
sample of 431 actual consumers of luxury goods in London. A
multi-stage cluster sampling design with respondents from areas
representing average and higher-than-average income areas was
used. Respondents were qualified by screening questions that ensured
that they were consumers of luxuries. Of the respondents, 47.3% were
men and 53.7% women,ranging from 18 to 82 years (M = 36.5),
mostly university educated with yearly income from £41,000 to
£60,000.
Respondents completed the questionnaire starting from the
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
with prior research (Dubois & Paternault, 1995), this assumption
intended to create a free-choice environment based on individual
variable effects only by eliminating possible financial bias. Then,
respondents completed the trait sections and demographic/control
measures.
Drop-and-collect surveys produce response rates up to 90% (Loveloc
Stiff, Cullwick, & Kaufman, 1976). 625 questionnaires were distributed a
various days of the week to obtain a broad representation. On week-
days,distribution occurred in the evening to reduce non-response
error (when most people are home),and on weekends, distribution
took place during the entire day.In total, 431 usable surveys were
returned (69% response).
6.2. Measures
Self-concept orientation was measured with Singelis's (1994) scale
(example items include “I am comfortable with being singled out for
praise or rewards” and “If someone who is close to me fails,I feel
responsible”), status seeking with Eastman et al.'s (1999) status con-
sumption scale (“I would buy a product just because it has status”),
CSNI with Bearden et al.'s (1989) scale (“I rarely buy the latest fashion
until I am sure my friends approve of them”),and CNFU with Ruvio,
Shoham, and Brencic (2008) (“I dislike products or brands that are cus-
tomarily bought by everyone”).CNFU was modeled as three factors
(CCC, UCC, and AOS) to better capture how each dimension contributes
to the results.
Because no measures exist for snob/bandwagon consumption,a
scale was developed for the purpose of the study, with concrete descrip
tions of popular/scarce luxury products (contingent on the behavior of
other luxury consumers). Following (1) theoretical considerations on
snob and bandwagon consumption (Amaldoss & Jain,2008; Corneo
& Jeanne,1997; Leibenstein,1950; Vigneron & Johnson,1999) and
(2) discussions with expert judges (senior managers with lengthy expe-
rience in various luxury industries), a scale with indicators describing
scarce/unpopular watches was developed for the snob effect, and one
with indicators describing popular watches was created for the band-
wagon effect (descriptions of luxury watches were used following
established research practices—De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002; Hudders &
Pandelaere, 2011—and experts' advice). Specifically, according to extan
literature and calibration by experts,the criteria for inclusion of the
products in the scale were various factors related to both the supply
and demand side (i.e., limited supply/production or limited consumer
preference for the snob effect, such as a luxury watch “that only a few
people own,” “is of limited production,” or “is recognized by a small
circle of people”; higher production volume or larger/widespread con-
sumer preference for the bandwagon effect,such as “a very popular
and fashionable luxury watch,” “worn by many celebrities,” and “chosen
by most people”).
An extensive pretesting procedure was followed: three marketing
academics and six managers of luxuries qualitatively evaluated the
initial pool of items. Several focus groups and interviews further refined
the scales,using behavior coding and cognitive pretesting.Finally,
the questionnaire was pilot-tested on a convenience sample of 103
respondents.
2151M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

6.3. Measurement model assessment
A two-step approach was used to analyze the data. Table 2 provides
descriptive statistics and correlations ofthe constructs used.First,
standard steps of psychometric assessment were followed to validate
the measurement model. After careful inspection of item content for
domain representation, items with item-to-total correlations below .40
were removed from further analyses. Second, a series of confirmatory
analyses were conducted. Fit statistics indicated good overall model fit
for all scales. The factor loadings were highly significant, and Cronbach's
alphas and composite reliabilities were above .70 (N .80 for the
majority), in support of internal consistency and convergent validity.
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
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Furthermore, Harman's
single-factor test was used to test for CMV, as Podsakoff et al. (2003)
suggest.In a conducted exploratory factor analyses,11 factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged,with the larger one accounting
for as low as 20% of the variance in the data. The test suggests the lack
of CMV bias in the data.
7. Results
The results (Table 4) show that the model fits the data well: χ2(df
611) = 1216.283,p = .000; χ 2/df = 1.991; CFI = .927; IFI = .927;
TLI = .920; PRATIO = .917; RMSEA = .051. The model has good
explanatory power,accounting for 58% and 66% of the variance in
snob and bandwagon consumption behavior, respectively, as indicated
by their R2.
The results support all but one hypothesis (H3c), which was partially
supported (surprisingly, CCC has a positive and significant relationship to
bandwagon behavior). Optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991)
suggests that CCC, albeit in principle resulting in counter-conformist
behavior,may be compatible with this (seemingly opposite) type of
consumption because the aim of bandwagon luxury consumption is
social approval, which CCC also favors. This can be contrasted with the
mainstream manifestation of CNFU (AOS),where the goalis to be
completely counter-conformist by avoiding similarity.
8. Discussion
Public, conspicuous luxury consumption is a phenomenon of both
immense managerial relevance and theoretical importance.Existing
approaches treat this consumption as homogeneous behavior and
focus on the status antecedent or build mathematical models of aggre-
gate demand. However, luxury is neither consumed in the same way
by everyone nor completely understood at the macro level. In addition,
macro outcomes such as snob or bandwagon consumption also depend
on micro-level individual consumer characteristics.Consequently,
when trying to understand collective outcomes, research must consider
the underlying individual-level personality factors that drive them.
8.1. Theoretical implications
This study is important to theory in several ways.First, the study
examines how people consume luxury conspicuously and explains
that it is not a homogeneous type of consumption. The study further
explicates the nature of two forms of conspicuous luxury consumption
behaviors—snob and bandwagon—and uncovers their psychological
antecedents.This study is the first to empirically examine snob and
bandwagon consumption from a real luxury consumer perspective.
Prior research in economics (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008; Corneo & Jeanne,
1997) advances mathematical models that examine, at the aggregate
level, the conditions under which such behaviors occur.However,
none of the available studies focus on individual consumers and their
proclivity toward these forms of conspicuous consumption.Rather,
existing studies treat luxury consumption restrictively as the outcome
of people's search for status (Berger & Ward,2010; Han et al.,2010;
Nelissen & Meijers,2011; Rucker & Galinsky,2008). This research
complements these studies by showing thatluxury consumption
should not be treated uni-dimensionally, but rather disaggregated to
snob and bandwagon consumption patterns. In addition to satisfying
the core goal for status, luxury consumption serves to satisfy
assimilation/contrast goals that are not entirely status driven or to
complement in different ways the search for status.Thus,the study
makes a conceptual contribution to the evolving literature on luxury
and signaling by jointly testing two ostensibly antithetical facets of con-
spicuous luxury consumption with their shared antecedents, shedding
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 influ
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
Table 3
Measurement model.
Variable Cronbach's α Composite
reliability
AVE
Independent self-concept .77 .77 .56
Inter-dependent self-concept .71 .70 .49
Status seeking .89 .89 .67
AOS (avoidance of similarity) .94 .94 .80
CCC (creative choice counter-conformity) .85 .84 .64
UCC (unpopular choice counter-conformity).89 .89 .67
CSNI (consumer susceptibility to
normative influence)
.90 .91 .66
Snob effect .84 .84 .64
Bandwagon effect .85 .85 .65
2152 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154

Second, it contributes by investigating why people consume luxury
conspicuously. The study advances understanding of the two variants
of luxury consumption by (1) locating specific psychological antecedents,
(2) identifying their role and complex relationships, (3) highlighting
the relative importance and tensions among them.Not everyone
responds similarly to snob- and bandwagon-triggering stimuli.
Response differences are rooted in different traits: in addition to status-
seeking predispositions,consumers'(independent/inter-dependent)
self-concept underlies (snob/bandwagon) luxury consumption.The
level of a consumer's susceptibility to normative influences or need
for uniqueness mediates this relationship.Someone with a stronger
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
inter-dependent self prefers associating with other consumers,and
this relationship is reinforced by CSNI, leading to the relational type of
bandwagon luxury consumption.
8.2. Managerial implications
These findings also have important implications for practitioners in
several strategic (Choi, 2010) and tactical aspects of luxury marketing.
Overall,they provide insights into consumers'tendencies that lead
to distinct variants of luxury consumption behavior.The direct and
indirect links from personality traits to snob and bandwagon luxury
consumption suggest that marketers should include these variables in
current segmentation structures, communications, pricing, and retail
space design; and in more strategic aspects such as company policies,
training schemes, and CRM.
Luxury consumers are not a homogeneous,status-driven group.
Managers must recognize and incorporate into contemporary segmen-
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
achieve (1) assimilation to the majority consuming the popular luxury
lifestyle or (2) dissociation from this majority.
Bandwagon-prone consumers want approval; their utility is driven by
the actions of similar majority aspirationalists.Since,in addition to
status,the original antecedent trait is relational,reinforced by CSNI
and CCC, managers targeting bandwagoners should focus on enhancing
(1) status derived from popularity; (2) the normative function; and
(3) approved counter-conformity. In contrast, snob-driven consumers
seek dissociative value. Their utility is also consumer related, in that
they avoid acting like the majority. Because, in addition to status, the
original antecedent trait is dissociative, reinforced by CNFU, managers
targeting snobs should focus on enhancing (1) status derived from
uniqueness, and (2) uniqueness-signaling, dissociative, or even norm-
breaking functions.
These different traits and resulting value perceptions are influential
on important customer outcomes; consequently, managers must distin-
guish and better serve each of the major segments by carefully choosin
those points of contact with customers that are best suited for discrim-
inating between the two groups. First, retailers must develop training
schemes aiding frontline employees in recognizing core relational or
individualist traits and managing subsequent interactions with each
type of customers.Second,managers should categorize their luxury
products in popularity ranges and accordingly adjust elements of the
marketing mix. Bandwagon demand requires different store locations,
design, advertising, and types of consumers inhabiting a retail location
than snob demand. Communication for the latter must be below the
line, such as by WOM rather than by mass media; products should be
promoted through pull-type exclusive, small-circle events. In a bricks-
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
& Kozar, 2012). In online environments,including socialnetworks
(Chu, Kamal, & Kim, 2013; Park,Song,& Ko, 2011), retailers could
classify their merchandise along with popularity-leveldimensions
(e.g., best-selling, highly rated) or other normative-enhancing technique
Finally, the development of databases and CRM structures to record,
track, and assess customer purchasing patterns would allow managers
to analyze and match the type of demand to specific customer
segments. Behavioral variants such as snob and bandwagon patterns
can form the basis for new, sophisticated segmentation schemes and
can feed into product design, marketing procedures,and redesigned
servicing and channel systems.
8.3. Limitations and further research
This study is the first to advance and test a model on the individual-
level antecedents of two distinct forms of conspicuous luxury consump-
tion and may be bound by limitations.Since it was conducted in a
European context, research could replicate the study in extreme indi-
vidualist or collectivist cultures to test whether cultural forces moderate
the identified relationships. Also, the study focused on principal link-
ages but these factors may not constitute an exhaustive list. Research
could identify additionaltraits and variants of the two effects and
extend understanding of the dynamics between the new factors. Fur-
ther research could also examine the interplay of individual differences
with external factors to understand whether and how such factors
influence the relationships identified herein. Despite these limitations,
this study advances marketing knowledge and contributes to practice
by extending contemporary understanding of snob and bandwagon
effects from a consumer perspective, thus, offering a novel perspective
in conceptualizing luxury consumption.
References
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal o
Marketing Research, 36(1), 45–57.
Table 4
Structural model.
Relationship Standardized
ML estimate
Sig. Hypothesis
supported
Independent self-concept → AOS .419 *** Yes
Independent self-concept → CCC .501 *** Yes
Independent self-concept → UCC .334 *** Yes
Inter-dependent self-concept → CSNI .215 *** Yes
Status seeking → CSNI .652 *** Yes
AOS → snob effect .381 *** Yes
CCC → snob effect .421 *** Yes
UCC → snob effect .107 .022 Yes
Status seeking → snob effect .537 *** Yes
CSNI → snob effect −.201 .002 Yes
AOS → bandwagon effect −.156 *** Yes
CCC → bandwagon effect .145 *** No
UCC → bandwagon effect −.113 .006 Yes
Status seeking → bandwagon effect .558 *** Yes
C.S. normative influence → bandwagon effect.282 *** Yes
Fit statistics
χ 2 1216.283
Degrees of freedom (d.f.) 611
χ 2/d.f. 1.991
CFI .927
IFI .927
TLI .920
PRATIO .917
RMSEA .051
R2 (snob effect) .578 (58%)
R2 (bandwagon effect) .658 (66%)
2153M.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
self-construal and gender in product choice. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing
Science, 22(1), 70–82.
Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2008). Trading up: A strategic analysis of reference group effects.
Marketing Science, 27(5), 932–942.
Barry,C. (2010).Luxury sales rebound to pre-crisis levels.http://www.businessweek.
com/ap/financialnews/D9ITN8R80.htm (accessed 18/11/10)
Bearden,W. O.,& Etzel,M. J. (1982).Reference group influence on product and brand
purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183–194.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer suscep-
tibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
139–168.
Berger,J., & Ward,M. (2010).Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption.Journal of
Consumer Research, 37, 555–569.
Bian,Q.,& Forsythe,S. (2010).Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural
comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1443–1451.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
Choi,Y. K. (2010).Toward developing marketing strategies in turbulent environment.
Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science, 20(4), 279–280.
Chu, S. -C., Kamal, S., & Kim, Y. (2013). Understanding consumers' responses toward social
media advertising and purchase intention toward luxury products. Journal of Global
Fashion Marketing, 4(3), 158–174.
Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O.(1997).Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism.
Journal of Public Economics, 66, 55–71.
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer behavior:
Implications for international retailing. Journal of Retailing, 78, 61–69.
Dion, D., & Arnould, E. (2011). Retail luxury strategy: Assembling charisma through art
and magic. Journal of Retailing, 87(4), 502–520.
Dubois, B., & Paternault, C. (1995). Observations: Understanding the world of international
luxury brands: The “dream formula”. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4), 69–76.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J., & Wells, W. D. (2002). The values and lifestyles of idiocentrics and
allocentrics in an individualist culture: A descriptive approach. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 12(3), 231–242.
Eastman,J. K., Goldsmith,R. E.,& Flynn,L. R. (1999).Status consumption in consumer
behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
7, 41–51.
Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of
brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.
Hiller Connell,K. Y., & Kozar,J. M. (2012).Social normative influence: An exploratory
study investigating its effectiveness in increasing engagementin sustainable
apparel-purchasing behaviors. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 3(4), 172–179.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to
belong and the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review,8(3),
248–264.
Hudders, L., & Pandelaere, M. (2011). The silver lining of materialism: The impact of luxury
consumption on subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(3), 1–27.
Ireland, N. (1994). On limiting the market for status signals. Journal of Public Economics,
53(1), 91–110.
King,M. (2013).Global luxury goods market to be worth $376 billion by 2017. http://
www.companiesandmarkets.com/News/Consumer-Goods/Global-luxury-goods-
market-to-be-worth-376-billion-by-2017/NI7310 (accessed 14/09/13)
Ko, E., Chun, E., Song, S., & Kim, K. H. (2013). Which content types increase participation in
fashion social platforms? Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 23(3), 297–313.
Ko, E.,& Megehee,C. M. (2010).Fashion marketing of luxury brands: Recent research
issues and contributions. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1395–1398.
Lascu, D.-N., & Zinkhan, G. (1999).Consumer conformity: Review and applications for
marketing theory and practice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 1–12.
Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, snob, and veblen effects in the theory of consumers'
demand. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64, 183–207.
Li, G., Li, G., & Kambele, Z. (2010). Luxury fashion brand consumers in China: Perceived
value, fashion lifestyle,and willingness to pay. Journal of Business Research, 65(10),
1516–1522.
Lovelock, C. H., Stiff, R., Cullwick, D., & Kaufman, I. M. (1976). An evaluation of the effec-
tiveness of the drop-off questionnaire delivery. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(4),
358–364.
Markus, H., & Kitayama,S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Mason,R. (1984).Conspicuous consumption: A literature review.European Journal of
Marketing, 18, 26–39.
Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., & Epstude, K. (2004). The ups and downs of social comparison:
Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87, 832–844.
Nelissen,R. M.A.,& Meijers,M. H. C. (2011).Social benefits of luxury brands as costly
signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343–355.
Nunes, J. C., Drèze, X., & Han, Y. J. (2011). Conspicuous consumption in a recession: Toning
it down or turning it up? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 199–205.
Oyserman,D. (2001).Self-concept and identity.In A. Tesser,& N. Schwarz (Eds.),The
Blackwell handbook of social psychology (pp. 499–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Packard, V. (1959). The status seekers. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Park, W. C., & Lessig, P. V. (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in susceptibility
to reference group influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 102–110.
Park, J., Song, H., & Ko, E. (2011). The effect of the lifestyles of social networking service
users on luxury brand loyalty. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 21(4),
182–192.
Parker,J. R., & Lehmann,D. R. (2011). When shelf-based scarcity impacts consumer
preferences. Journal of Retailing, 87(2), 142–155.
Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman,E. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical
restatement and empiricaldemonstration in two markets.American Journalof
Sociology, 107(2), 379–429.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie,S.B., Lee,J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003).Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
biases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Reddy, S. (2008, May/Junee). There's nothing else like it in the world.Newsweek,
64–69.
Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 257–267.
Ruvio, A., Shoham,A., & Brencic, M. M. (2008). Consumers'need for uniqueness:
Short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation. International Marketing
Review, 25, 33–53.
Silverstein, M. J., & Fiske, N. (2003). Luxury for the masses. Harvard Business Review, 81,
48–57.
Singelis,T. M. (1994). The measurement ofindependent and interdependent self-
construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.
Sirgy, J. M. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase
motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13(3), 195–206.
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50–66.
Truong, Y. (2010). Personal aspirations and the consumption of luxury goods.
International Journal of Market Research, 52(5), 653–672.
Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Chhuon, C. (2010). Co-creating value for luxury brands. Journal
of Business Research, 63(11), 1156–1163.
Van Gorp,T., Hoffmann,J., & Coste-Maniere,I. (2012).Brand building: Luxury leather
goods brands anatomized. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 3(3), 127–134.
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Macmillan.
Vigneron, F.,& Johnson,L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-
seeking consumer behavior.Academy ofMarketing Science Review (available at:
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/vigneron01-1999.pdf).
Wiedmann, K. -P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2009). Value-based segmentation of luxury
consumption behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 26(7), 625–651.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen,S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury
brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 247–259.
Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A.C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in
Confucian and western societies.Psychology and Marketing, 15, 423–441.
Woodside, A. G. (2012). Economic psychology and fashion marketing theory appraising
Veblen's theory of conspicuous consumption.Journal of Global Fashion Marketing,
3(2), 55–60.
Zhan, L., & Yanqun, H. (2010).Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer
perceptions of best-known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1452–1460.
2154 M.N. Kastanakis, G. Balabanis / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 2147–2154