Master’s Thesis for MSc International Business & Management

Faculty of Economics and Business

2019-2020

The influence of Individualism-Collectivism and gender on the

relationships between luxury goods values and

purchase intentions

Student Name: Giuseppe Alfano

Student Number: S4027353

Supervisor: Ms. J.R. de Wit

Co-assessor: Dr. H.U. Haq

Word count: 16,405

Date of Submission: June 29th, 2020

2

ABSTRACT

In the past years, the luxury industry has shown no signs of slowing down, despite economic

crises and negative periods for worldwide economies. Its continuous growth is nourished especially

by the rise of Asian consumers, always more willing to consume luxury products. Furthermore, these

goods are not anymore women’s prerogative, as men are starting to purchase them more and more

frequently. While the main drivers and the general values underlying luxury goods consumption have

been identified, not much is known about how they differently affect consumers coming from various

cultural backgrounds and, especially, if men and women put equal emphasis on the same values. This

thesis aims at analysing if and how consumers coming from individualist and collectivist countries

differ in the values they prioritize when purchasing luxury goods; moreover, the thesis goes into more

detail by assessing if gender equally influences value preferences among individualist and collectivist

consumers. Unique survey data collected on Chinese, Dutch, Saudi, and US students confirm the

importance of some values underlying luxury goods consumption. The results also reveal some dif-

ferences between collectivist and individualist consumers on the importance given to the value at-

tached to luxury goods. However, no major differences are found between males and females, neither

among collectivist nor among individualist consumers.

Keywords: Luxury goods; Luxury values; Purchase intentions; Individualism and Collectivism;

Gender differences

3

Table of contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 5

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development ................................ 9

2.1 Values associated with luxury goods and purchase intentions ..................................... 9

2.1.1 Social value ..................................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 Individual value .............................................................................................. 12

2.1.3 Functional value ............................................................................................. 14

2.1.4 Financial value................................................................................................ 16

2.2 Individualism vs Collectivism .................................................................................... 16

2.2.1 The influence of Individualism and Collectivism on the Social value ........... 18

2.2.2 The influence of Individualism and Collectivism on the Individual value .... 18

2.2.3 The influence of Individualism and Collectivism on the Functional and

Financial values.............................................................................................. 19

2.3 The influence of gender.............................................................................................. 20

2.3.1 The influence of gender on the Social and Individual values ........................ 20

2.3.1 The influence of gender on the Functional and Financial values ................... 21

3. Data and methods......................................................................................... 23

3.1 Survey and sample description ................................................................................... 23

3.2 Study variables ........................................................................................................... 25

3.3 Data and sample screening ......................................................................................... 27

3.4 Descriptive statistics for the study variables .............................................................. 27

3.5 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 28

3.5.1 Methods for model validation ......................................................................... 28

3.5.2 Methods for hypotheses testing ...................................................................... 30

4. Results ........................................................................................................... 32

4.1 Validation of the luxury values model (without Price value)..................................... 32

4.1.1 Exploratory factor analysis of the luxury values model ................................ 32

4.1.2 Confirmatory factor analysis of the luxury values model .............................. 34

4.2 Direct effect of the luxury values on Purchase Intentions and moderating role of

Individualism/Collectivism ........................................................................................ 35

4.3 Moderating role of gender on the relations between luxury values and

Purchase Intentions ..................................................................................................... 39

4

5. Robustness analysis ...................................................................................... 42

5.1 Validation of the luxury values model (including Price value) .................................. 42

5.1.1 Exploratory factor analysis of the luxury values model ................................ 42

5.1.2 Confirmatory factor analysis of the luxury values model .............................. 43

5.2 Hypotheses testing on the Dutch and Chinese subsample with multiple regression .. 44

5.3 Hypotheses testing with structural equation modelling.............................................. 44

6. Discussion of the findings and conclusion ................................................... 46

6.1 Theoretical implications ............................................................................................. 49

6.2 Managerial implications ............................................................................................. 49

6.3 Limitations of the study and future research directions ............................................. 50

References .......................................................................................................... 52

Appendices ......................................................................................................... 64

Appendix A. Survey ........................................................................................................... 64

Appendix B. Response bias ................................................................................................ 69

Appendix C. Description of the sample ............................................................................. 71

Appendix D. Descriptive statistics of the study variables, divided by nationality ............ 72

Appendix E. Exploratory factor analysis on the items of Purchase Intentions ................. 74

Appendix F. Correlation coefficients for the study variables ........................................... 76

Appendix G. Confirmatory factor analysis model fit indices ............................................ 77

Appendix H. Exploratory factor analysis of the luxury values model (excluding

Price value) ................................................................................................... 78

Appendix I. Confirmatory factor analysis on the luxury values model (excluding

Price value ..................................................................................................... 79

Appendix J. Exploratory factor analysis of the luxury values model (including

Price value ...................................................................................................... 82

Appendix K. Multiple regression analyses on the Dutch and Chinese subsample ........... 83

Appendix L. Hypotheses testing with structural equation modelling and multigroup

path analysis ................................................................................................. 86

5

1. INTRODUCTION

Thanks to its particular characteristics and consumer base, the luxury industry does not follow

the economic trends like most of the other sectors. Considering the last 20 years, the worldwide luxury

industry has experienced continuous growth, regardless of economic crises (Bain & Company, 2019).

In 2018, it accounted for nearly 1.2 trillion dollars, with a 5% year-over-year growth, showing no

signs of slowing down. The personal luxury goods sector, which includes apparel, accessories, jewels,

and beauty products increased by 6% on the previous year and accounted for 260 billion dollars (Bain

& Company, 2019). In particular, far Eastern countries are mainly contributing to this trend.

However, the worldwide Covid-19 pandemic happening in 2020 is affecting also this industry,

mainly because of the forced closure of brick&mortar locations spread throughout the world. After

many years of increasing growth, a 20-35% drop in sales is expected in 2020 (Bain & Company,

2020). Nonetheless, the hunger for luxury never stops. Recent news brought to the attention of the

‘revenge shopping’ phenomenon happening around the world, especially in China. The lockdown

regulations enforced in the country caused mental distress to many people, as they were not allowed

to conduct their usual daily life. This led to a particular situation when the regulations were lifted,

since people wanted to make up for the time ‘lost’ and reward themselves. In fact, the news kept

showing scenes of people waiting in line outside their preferred luxury stores as soon as they were

cleared for reopening, not only in China but also in other countries who experienced the same situa-

tion (Singh, 2020).

This example reflects one of the particular characteristics of consumer behaviour, which con-

sider shopping as a ‘therapeutic’ activity. Indeed, people attach particular values to products, whose

consumption can also provoke positive feelings and satisfaction. When it comes to luxury goods, this

aspect is even more accentuated, because of what they represent and how they are perceived by con-

sumers. Different scholars emphasize luxury products’ perceived values, going beyond their practical

utility. In particular, Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebel (2007) deeply investigated the values attached by

consumers to these products, developing a ‘luxury values’ framework. Their findings revealed that

perceptions about these products and the drivers of luxury consumption are tied to multiple aspects,

ranging from personal and interpersonal motives to functional and financial reasons. Displaying sta-

tus and wealth often represents a strong consumption driver, but purchasing these products can also

be linked to personal satisfaction feelings. Therefore, this thesis examines first the relations existing

among the luxury values defined by Wiedmann et al. (2007), and then it focuses on their consumption

driving role by testing how they influence consumers’ intentions to purchase luxury goods.

6

A further aim of this thesis is to evaluate eventual inter-cultural differences on the luxury

goods value perceptions and their role as consumption drivers. Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s framework

is considered to be valid on a global scale (Wiedmann et al., 2009); however, it is worth reflecting on

the fact that, as also pointed out by the works of Hofstede (Hofstede, 1991) and Schwartz (Schwartz,

2006), the different cultures across the globe are far from being homogeneous. People belonging to

each culture attach different importance to the variety of values composing societies. These societies’

characteristics are reflected in all the spheres of human behaviour, and cultural differences affect

product consumption too (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2004; Wong & Ahuvia, 1998). Because of the in-

creasing interest in luxury goods coming from Middle and Far Eastern countries, it is worth studying

how the relative importance given to the different values of those products differs across the world

and how this, therefore, affects the purchasing intentions.

The main discriminant used in this thesis to compare countries is represented by the societies’

relative emphasis on Individualism versus Collectivism (Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, 1988). People be-

longing to more individualist or collectivist cultures are respectively less or more embedded in the

society and this, in turn, reflects on their product purchase intentions and decisions (Shukla, 2012).

As mentioned above, luxury goods consumption covers both personal and interpersonal aspects;

therefore the individualist or collectivist cultural background is probably an aspect that heavily affects

the relative emphasis on the different values connected with the purchase intentions of these prod-

ucts. Hence, we compare in this thesis cultures which are characterized for being either collectivist

or individualist, to assess if and how these cultural backgrounds affect the relative importance given

to the values underlying luxury goods and their influence on purchase intentions. The collectivist or

individualist characterization of societies is a concept that has been defined at the country-level. How-

ever, it is wrong to assume that all the people belonging to a collectivist (or individualist) country are

the same, as intra-country differences exist (Lenartowicz & Roth, 2001). Previous studies on inter-

cultural differences regarding luxury values perception focused on the country-level analysis. This

thesis differs from past research analysing differences between collectivist and individualist consum-

ers also at the individual-level. Consumers are first compared based on their nationality. Subse-

quently, we use Individualism and Collectivism measures collected for each respondent of our sample

to assess differences between consumers at the individual-level, focusing on their inclination towards

collectivism and individualism regardless of their nationality.

Moreover, it is interesting to notice that the continuous growth of the luxury goods sector is

surprisingly nourished by the increasing interest of men towards it. While luxury has always been a

mostly female prerogative (Altintas & Heischmidt, 2018; Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013), in

recent years the sector has experienced a shift in the consumer trends and, although women still

7

purchase more than men (Parisi, 2017), the gender gap is getting smaller (Roux, Tafani & Vigneron,

2017). Researches show that the trend is moving to young male adult consumers, that are starting to

approach this sector always more frequently (Altintas & Heischmidt, 2018). For this reason, luxury

companies need to understand if the values associated with luxury goods purchase are the same across

the genders. Despite sales data show these changes in the luxury consumption patterns, academic

research has not dedicated much attention to gender differences. As also pointed out by Roux, Tafani

& Vigneron (2017), indeed, the effects of different demographic aspects such as age or social class

have been widely analysed concerning luxury consumption, while the effect of gender is still not

clearly defined even if some findings suggest that gender affects luxury values distribution. Moreo-

ver, most of the studies on the gender effect on luxury goods consumption focus on Western countries

(Roux et al., 2017; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2013;), while the Middle and Far Eastern countries, typi-

cally characterised by a higher level of collectivism, have not been covered by the researchers. Con-

sidering the growth of male consumers purchases and the increasing interest coming from Middle

and Far Eastern countries towards the luxury world (Bain & Company, 2019), more research on this

topic is required to understand the effect of gender on this consumption and how this differs across

different cultures, to allow luxury companies to capture more value from their activities. Hence, a

further scope of this thesis is to assess if the consumption driving role of the luxury values differs

across the genders. This is analysed separately for individualist and collectivist consumers (both at

the country and individual-level), as cultural background might affect the distribution of the values

among genders.

The analyses conducted in the thesis are based on unique survey data, measuring the intentions

to purchase luxury goods for 524 Chinese, Dutch, Saudi, and US university students, as well as the

importance given by them to a range of luxury values. As abovementioned, cross-cultural compari-

sons are conducted both at the country and the individual-level. Hence, survey data also includes

individualism and collectivism measures for each respondent. The relations existing between the lux-

ury values are tested using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate regression is

used to assess which and how luxury values influence purchase intentions, as well as the moderating

role of gender and Individualism/Collectivism on these relations. Moreover, structural equation mod-

elling with multigroup path analysis is also used to further compare collectivist and individualist

consumers, as well as males and females.

This thesis contributes to the field in multiple ways. First, it opens new possibilities regarding

the underlying relations between the luxury values, since the findings did not match Wiedmann et al.

(2007)’s framework perfectly. Secondly, it brings support to the importance of the Social Status,

Conspicuousness and Uniqueness values of luxury, since the willingness to achieve social status,

8

show wealth and the desire to feel unique and distinguish from the others were found to be strong

predictors of intentions to purchase luxury goods. Moreover, it also contributes to the existing litera-

ture showing that intercultural differences regarding the luxury values’ consumption driving role vary

when the unit of analysis is the country or the individual. Indeed, the country and individual-level

analysis of the moderating role of Individualism and Collectivism revealed different outcomes. The

desire to show status was found to be a stronger predictor of luxury purchase intentions for the con-

sumers belonging to collectivist countries in the sample. This was not confirmed at the individual-

level analysis, which on the other hand proved that, for consumers identifying themselves as collec-

tivists, the desire to feel unique and different from the others predicts stronger luxury purchase inten-

tions compared to those identifying themselves as individualists. Finally, the thesis shows that, at this

stage, male and female consumers do not significantly differ regarding the values attached to luxury

goods and how they influence their intentions to purchase these products, both among collectivist and

individualist consumers.

9

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

2.1. Values associated with luxury goods and purchase intentions

Luxury goods are generally defined, in the literature, as goods that carry values going beyond

their merely functional utility and provide pride and esteem to the owner just by using and displaying

them (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). In particular, Grossman and Shapiro (1988) define luxury goods

as goods that individuals use to show prestige and status that bring little to none difference in func-

tional utility over other products. They are generally expensive both in absolute and relative terms,

identified as ‘trivial’ because of the lack of any explicit functional advantage over their ‘non-luxury’

counterparts (Dubois & Duquesne, 1993). Luxury companies, in turn, are defined as the highest level

of prestigious brands encompassing several physical and psychological values (Wiedmann et al.,

2007).

All the companies who produce or develop goods and services have to consider how willing

the final customers will be to acquire what they create. It is fundamental for them to assess not only

what the customers like, but also if they would like it enough to sacrifice money to have certain goods.

Purchase intentions describe and determine the consumer response to purchase the offering (Sari &

Kusuma, 2014). Purchase intentions represent individuals’ attitudes toward buying specific products

instead of attitudes towards the product itself (Solomon, 2011). It is directly connected to the willing-

ness of buying a good: the higher is the intention, the higher is the likelihood that the purchase will

be completed (Dodds, Monroe & Grewal, 1991; Schiffman & Kanuk, 2009). Assessing the drivers of

consumption is important also for luxury companies, producing goods which possess particular char-

acteristics that clearly distinguish them from non-luxury ones. It is crucial to understand what values

people attach to them and which are the reasons increasing consumers’ purchase intentions. Values

can be described as beliefs guiding the selection or evaluation of desirable behaviour or end states

(Schwartz, 2006). In particular, consumption values can directly explain consumers’ purchasing de-

cisions, why they prefer to acquire or avoid a particular product. It is important to notice that values

are strictly personal, therefore each individual can develop different beliefs regarding the same prod-

uct and attach different importance to the connected values.

Dubois, Laurent & Czellar (2001) tried to understand how people perceive luxury goods and

what values they generally associate with them. Their study revealed the existence of six main facets

related to these products, namely excellent quality, very high price (considered as a consequence of

the qualitative level), scarcity and uniqueness, aesthetics and polysensuality, ancestral heritage and

personal history, superfluousness (Dubois et al., 2001). Grossman and Shapiro (1998) argued that

10

what mainly attracts people to luxury goods are the status and prestige value perceptions they confer

to the owner, which can increment his social acceptance. Vigneron and Johnson (2004), however,

considered the idea of luxury goods being only connected to social aspects not to be exhaustive;

therefore, they created a framework including what they called the ‘individual’ and the ‘social’ value.

Subsequently to this study, Wiedmann, Hennigs & Siebels (2007) developed another framework

(Figure 1) describing the reasons and the values pushing individuals to purchase goods luxury goods.

As mentioned in the introduction, the framework defines four dimensions connected to the values

underlying the purchase of luxury goods. They agreed with Vigneron and Johnson (2004) regarding

the individual and social value of luxury goods; however, they were convinced of luxury values to be

also lying in other aspects. Indeed, they argued that luxury value perceptions and the reasons to pur-

chase luxury brand products are not only tied to the desire to impress others and to personal values

but also depend on functional and financial values. Therefore, they extended Vigneron & Johnson’s

framework (2004) with the inclusion of these two additional dimensions (Wiedmann et al., 2007), as

shown in Figure 1. At the moment this framework is one of the most complete and accepted in the

field, as Wiedmann et al. (2007) managed to develop a more complete overview of the motives push-

ing people to acquire luxury goods. Later in the thesis, we will evaluate the relations among the luxury

values described by Wiedmann et al. (2007) and the existence of the four luxury value dimensions,

in order to assess the validity of this model. We discuss now more in detail each dimension and the

eight luxury values they consist of.

Figure 1. Wiedmann et al. (2007) luxury goods values framework

11

2.1.1. Social value

The social dimension refers to the perceived utility individuals acquire through the consump-

tion of products or services considered as conspicuous and prestigious by their reference group

(Wiedmann et al., 2007). The reference group is defined as the collective of people that highly influ-

ence an individual’s behaviour (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). Status is argued to be possibly acquired

through achievement, assignment (i.e. being part of a noble family) or consumption (Eastman, Gold-

smith & Flynn, 1999). Therefore, individuals might tend to pursue the third strategy to achieve it, and

consumer behaviour is often influenced by the aspiration to gain status and/or social prestige con-

suming goods (Shukla, 2010). Past research suggests that luxury goods purchase and consumption is

a social consumption phenomenon, with consumers purchasing and using these products as means to

impress significant others (Dubois et al., 1993; Kapferer & Bastien, 2009; Tsai, 2005). Luxury brands,

in particular, are purchased and used to show and communicate prestige and social status inde-

pendently of their functional utility (Zhan & He, 2011); this is even more true for products that clearly

show the logo of the brand on the surface (Shukla, 2011). How a product is perceived and evaluated

by the reference groups affects the purchasing decisions of an individual, because consumer behav-

iour is subject to the pressures of social norms and to pressure coming from the group to communicate

prestige and social status (Zhan et al., 2011). Not everybody might feel the need to acquire status: the

higher is the level of influence coming from the reference group, the more public luxury goods tend

to be consumed (Bearden et al., 1982). Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s framework indeed includes those

aspects, represented by the conspicuousness and prestige values (following Shukla (2012) and

Abalkhail (2015), in this thesis the prestige value will be referred to as ‘Social Status value’).

Conspicuousness value

The concept of conspicuous consumption has already been studied a long time ago by Veblen

(1899). He described it as an expensive consumption used to provide evidence of richness and status,

showing a signal to the reference group. Perceived conspicuousness determines how the brand and

the products are associated with the notion of high price and status (Vigneron et al. 2004). Bearden

et al. (1982) determined that, among all the luxury goods, the ones consumed in public were more

likely to be conspicuous than the ones consumed privately. Still nowadays, luxury goods are used by

individuals to signal and show off their wealth; therefore conspicuous consumption plays a significant

part in shaping consumer preferences regarding those products purchased or consumed in the public

context (Vigneron et al., 2004; Wiedmann et al., 2009).

12

H1a: The importance given by consumers to the Conspicuousness value of luxury goods will posi-

tively predict their intentions to purchase these products.

Social Status value

This other component of the social dimension is represented by the Social Status value. Status

and conspicuousness values are often considered as a single construct. However, different researchers

support the distinction between them (O'Cass & McEwen, 2004; Truong, Simmons, McColl &

Kitchen, 2008; Wiedmann et al., 2007;), since each of them is unique and has particular characteris-

tics. In particular, O’Cass et al. (2004) suggest that status value is associated with the acquisition of

status-laden products moved by the desire to gain prestige. Luxury companies recognize this and even

often promote their products as status goods (Mason, 1984). Luxury goods consumptions represent a

means for individuals to display their social status and impress the reference group, trying to show

off their superiority (Richins, 1999); through this message, they can assess themselves a certain social

status (Bezzaouia & Joanta, 2016). Mason (1981) also argued that the satisfaction coming from using

a conspicuous product is more connected to the positive public reaction to the wealth displayed by

the individual, that attach status to the user, rather than from the intrinsic characteristics and functional

qualities of the products.

H1b: The importance given by consumers to the Social Status value of luxury goods will positively

predict their intentions to purchase these products.

2.1.2. Individual value

This dimension addresses individuals’ orientation towards luxury consumption and is related

to self and personal issues (Abalkhail, 2015; Wiedmann et al., 2007). While in the past the idea of

consuming luxury goods was only connected to the intent to impress others (the ‘Social value’), the

last decades presented a rise of the perspective that considers people buying these kinds of products

also for personal motives and self-esteem (Tsai, 2005). Personal orientation regarding luxury goods

consumption is based on different main psychological mechanisms, namely self-gift giving (Tsai,

2005), self-directed pleasure (also defined as ‘hedonism’ by Wiedmann et al. (2007)), congruity with

internal self-quality assurance (Tsai, 2005), self-esteem (Truong & McColl, 2011), self-identity, and

materialism (Wiedmann et al., 2007). All these mechanisms compose the base on which the individ-

ual value is constructed and suggest that the value of purchasing these products lies not only in

13

sociality but also in individuality. Following Abalkhail (2015) and Wiedmann et al. (2007), this thesis

will focus on the values underlying three of the abovementioned mechanisms: Self-Directed Pleasure,

Self-Identity, and Self-Esteem, which was argued to be strongly connected to materialistic behaviour

(Chang & Arkin, 2002; Kasser, 2001, Truong & McColl, 2011).

Self-Directed Pleasure value (Hedonic value)

Certain products and services, regardless of their functional utility, carry an emotional value

and can provoke intrinsic enjoyment (Sheth, Newman & Gross, 1991; Westbrook & Oliver, 1991).

Hirschman & Holbrock (1982) connected hedonic consumption to those features of consumer behav-

iour related to multisensory and emotive aspects of product usage experience. Focusing on luxury

goods, Dubois and Laurent (1994) proved that luxury products are likely to carry these particular

subjective intangible benefits and that many consumers value these characteristics when consuming

luxuries. Some luxury products might not be purchased to improve the social image, rather to expe-

rience positive emotions (Abelkhail, 2015). This is especially true for individuals with a stronger

personal orientation, who neglect others’ opinions and mainly focus on achieving hedonic gratifica-

tion and self-awareness (Tsai, 2005). The ‘revenge-shopping’ discussed in the introduction phenom-

enon perfectly embodies this value. Buying products becomes a means to feel better and to reward

themselves, a way to go back to normality after a negative period.

H1d: The importance given by consumers to the Self-Directed Pleasure value of luxury goods will

positively predict their intentions to purchase these products.

Self-Identity value

Self-identity represents the combination of characteristics that people attribute to themselves

(Sparks & Guthrie, 1998). It does not consider the individuals’ self-perception concerning what others

think about them but only focuses on individuals’ opinions of themselves. It has a direct effect on

individual behaviour (Wylie, 1979), which in turn becomes part of one’s self-identity when repeated

multiple times (Chang & Mahmassani, 1988). This mechanism also has an impact on purchasing

behaviour, since products’ perceived image should ideally reflect individuals’ self-identity (Sirgy,

1982); luxury goods, in particular, may be purchased and used to integrate their symbolic meaning

into individuals’ identities (Vigneron et al, 2004) and to enhance their perceived value (Dittmar,

1994). This can be connected to the behaviour of purchasing specific goods when particular events

14

happen, such as weddings, graduations, career successes, and milestones. In essence, it represents the

idea of buying something ‘valuable’ to celebrate the event, something that can also bring the memory

of this throughout the time.

H1e: The importance given by consumers to the Self-Identity value of luxury goods will positively

predict their intentions to purchase these products.

Self-Esteem value

This concept refers to the extent to which individuals like, respect, value and accept them-

selves (Brown, 1993; Rosenberg, 1965). It encloses the overall evaluation of one’s self-concept

(Leonard, Beauvais & Scholl, 1995). People can have high or low self-esteem; in general, the goal

shared by all individuals is to reach a high level of it (Truong et al., 2011). Researchers in consumer

behaviour found that purchasing luxury goods is something that allows to maintain or enhance self-

esteem (Truong et al., 2011). In particular, people showing high self-esteem will purchase luxury

brands because they think they deserve it (Abdelkhail, 2015); on the other hand, people with low self-

esteem engage in materialistic behaviour to increase it and avoid rejection (Arndt, Solomon, Kasser

& Sheldon, 2004; Mandel & Smeesters, 2008; Truong et al., 2011).

H1f: The importance given by consumers to the Self-Esteem value of luxury goods will positively

predict their intentions to purchase these products.

2.1.3. Functional value

Wiedmann et. al (2007) included this dimension to extend the frameworks previously devel-

oped by Vigneron et al. (2004). It covers the perceived utility of products’ characteristics and refers

to the core benefits driving consumer-based luxury values, such as usability, quality, uniqueness,

reliability, and durability (Sheth et al., 1991). For their framework, Wiedmann et al. (2007) decided

to focus only on the first three aspects and to evaluate their importance for luxury goods perceptions.

Subsequent studies found that the usability value is not widely significant (Hennigs at al., 2012; Roux,

et al., 2017); hence, this thesis will only focus on the Quality and Uniqueness values.

15

Quality value

Luxury goods are generally associated with the idea of high-quality (Dubois et al., 2001;

O'Cass & Frost, 2002), brand quality, reassurance and, because of this, consumers perceive them to

be more valuable than the non-luxury counterpart (Shukla, 2012). Indeed, even if luxury goods might

be primarily consumed for their social value, the functional component will be rarely overlooked by

the purchaser (Veblen, 1899; Allison, 2008). On the other hand, some individuals might purchase

them just because they evaluate them as being functionally better than the non-luxury ones, regardless

of the attached prestigious value they have. Luxury brands’ products are expected to exhibit higher

quality compared to similar products produced by less prestigious companies (Roux, 1995). Quality

can be related to the materials used, the craftsmanship techniques, and the longevity and durability of

the products (De Barnier, Rodina, & Valette-Florence, 2006). It is one of the main indicators that, in

general, distinguish luxury brand products from the one produced by non-luxury ones (Abalkhail,

2015).

H1f: The importance given by consumers to the Quality value of luxury goods will positively pre-

dict their intentions to purchase these products.

Uniqueness value

Luxury goods are considered as something exclusive, not open to everybody, and scarce. Scar-

city, in turn, affects the value individuals give to products, increasing their desirability. Individuals

see these products as a means to differentiate themselves from the other and to feel, indeed, unique.

The inclusion of this value by Wiedmann et al. (2007) is based on past research demonstrating that

the perceived exclusivity and rareness of a limited product enhances the consumer‘s desire or prefer-

ence for a brand (Lynn 1991; Pantzalis 1995). It is an indicator of the exclusivity of a product (Wied-

mann et al., 2007) and it is one of the values attracting people who desire to feel unique, distinguish

themselves from others and avoid similarity (Lee & Leizerovici, 2011).

H1g: The importance given by consumers to the Uniqueness value of luxury goods will positively

predict their intentions to purchase these products.

16

2.1.4. Financial value

This is the second new value dimension introduced in Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s framework.

It includes direct monetary aspects such as purchasing and resale price, discount, investment, and

overall it refers to what has to be sacrificed to obtain a product (Wiedmann et al, 2007). It is composed

of a single antecedent, namely Price value, which includes all the monetary aspects just mentioned.

Price value

Products commercialized by luxury brands are generally expensive, both in absolute terms

and compared to the equivalent product produced by non-luxury brands (Dubois et al., 1993). Price

is often used by consumers as an indicator of the perceived quality of a product and its prestige, since

they tend to consider something expensive as high in quality and prestigious (Wiedmann et al., 2007).

A product with a high price reinsure the consumer of purchasing something worth the expense and

qualitative; moreover, price is also connected to the exclusivity and desirability of a product, because

it is not something accessible by everybody (Wiedmann et al., 2007). Therefore high-priced luxury

items should be perceived as unique (Alyiev & Wagner, 2018). This aspect is also linked to the re-

search for social acceptance, as consuming a product recognized as expensive can increase the status

of the consumer.

H1h: The importance given by consumers to the Price value of luxury goods will positively predict

their intentions to purchase these products.

2.2. Individualism versus Collectivism

Wiedmann et al. (2009) wanted to understand if the dimensions explained in their framework

are valid on a global scale and could, therefore, be used in cross-cultural analysis. The results of the

study revealed that the main dimensions and values attached to luxury goods consumption are valid

across different countries. This means that all the consumers’ purchases are driven by the values just

depicted. However, these values don’t have the same exact importance everywhere; the importance

given to the values was found to be more or less strong in the different countries analysed. A possible

explanation for these findings is that each culture has different features and characteristics, that dif-

ferentiate each culture from the others. One of the main differences is related to a dimension defined

as ‘Individualism-Collectivism’ (Hofstede, 1980); we believe that this characteristic of culture might

17

have an impact on which luxury values are prioritized in different cultures, hence we decided to in-

clude it in this thesis.

The distinction between individualist and collectivist countries was firstly introduced by Hof-

stede (Hofstede, 1980). The Individualism-Collectivism dimension, in particular, defines how strong

are the ties among peoples in a society (Hofstede, 1980). In individualist societies relationships are

looser and people take care only of their immediate family, personal objectives are prioritized and

individuals tend to develop relations of independence (Hofstede, 2001); on the other hand, in collec-

tivist societies, people are more integrated into strong in-groups (Hofstede, 2001) and tend to be more

interdependent with the others belonging to the group (Faculty & Joanta, 2016). In individualist so-

cieties, I-identity and personal self-esteem enhancement are prioritized, while in collectivist societies

the focus is more on the ‘We-identity’ and on the social group esteem maintenance1 (Hofstede, 1991;

Li & Su, 2007; Triandis, 1998).

The Individualism-Collectivism dimension is widely used in cross-cultural consumer research

(Allison, 2008); different scholars verified its importance in this topic when contrasting consumer

behaviour in different cultures (Andersen, Tufte, Rasmussen & Chan, 2007; De Mooij, 1998; Malai,

2008) and found different consumption behaviours between consumers coming from individualist

and collectivist countries. As discussed in Section 2.1.1, luxury goods consumption is a social phe-

nomenon. Marcoux, Filiatrault and Cheron (1997) emphasized the importance of luxury goods con-

sumption in gaining social presence, with products purchased to get noticed by others, demonstrate

social position, and gain popularity and respect. Hence, considering the distinction between individ-

ualist and collectivist societies, we expect to find differences regarding which luxury values are more

emphasized in different cultures. An important aspect to consider is that Hofstede’s research consid-

ers values as properties of cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Fischer & Schwartz, 2011); hence, the unit of

analysis in his work is the country, and comparisons between cultures are at the country-level. There

is, however, evidence of within-country variability, as individuals belonging to the same country are

not all equal to each other in the values they prioritize. A study conducted by Fischer et al. (2011)

showed larger differences between individuals rather than between countries on the importance given

to different values. Ralston et al. (2014) conducted a study to assess the influence of values on ethical

behaviour, both at the societal and individual-level of Individualism and Collectivism; the results

proved that the individual-level analysis had much greater explanatory power than the societal-level

one. Hence, we decided to analyse the differences between individualists and collectivists on the

relations between the luxury values and purchase intentions both at the country and individual-level.

1 Social groups are defined as two or more people sharing common identification of themselves and unity (Turner,

1992).

18

This allows us to have a more complete overview of the impact of Individualism and Collectivism on

these relations. More details on how we distinguish between country and individual-level effects in

the analysis are explained in Section 3.2. We now discuss the influence of Individualism and Collec-

tivism on the relations between each of the luxury values and intentions to purchase luxury goods.

2.2.1. The influence of Individualism and Collectivism on the Social value

As argued above, not all cultures give the same importance to social group recognition. In a

conceptual paper, Wong et al. (1998) argue that whilst similar luxury products are consumed in West-

ern and South-East Asian Confucian cultures, reasons for consumption may vary as a result of differ-

ent cultural characteristics of those societies. A study found that consumers belonging to individualist

countries are not as much susceptible to normative interpersonal influences as the one belonging to

collectivist countries, where the importance of the social group recognition is relevant (Mourali,

Laroche & Pons, 2005). Indeed, it is believed that individuals in collectivist cultures are more influ-

enced by social norms than by internally motivated concerns, and therefore tend to focus on how to

identify and express their image with the social group (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). In-

dividuals with more interdependent selves tend to emphasize visible possession because they are in-

terested in acquiring or maintaining their public image, also defined as ‘face’ (Ho, 1976). Among

those cultures, face is largely connected to economic power and demonstration of wealth (Miller &

Volker, 1985). This can lead to the idea that, because of their major interest in enhancing their image

with others, collectivist consumers will consider the role of luxury purchase as means to impress the

others more than individualist consumers. Therefore, the hypothesis resulting from these arguments

is the following:

H2a: The positive relations between Conspicuousness and Purchase Intentions, and between Social

Status and Purchase intentions, will be stronger for the collectivist compared to the individualist

consumers.

2.2.2. The influence of Individualism and Collectivism on the Individual value

As mentioned in the explanation of the Individual value of luxury (Section 2.1.2), the value

of purchasing these products also lies in aspects connected to personal motivations. The main aspect

distinguishing individualist societies from collectivist ones is what they consider as the main identity,

19

that is the person, and not the social network in which they are embedded (De Mooji & Hofstede,

2002). Therefore, reversing the perspective analysed for the components of the Social value, individ-

ualist consumers are expected to focus more on themselves and to connect the purchase and posses-

sion of a luxury product with internal and individual perceptions, to enhance their self-perception. In

particular, they might buy luxury goods also to extend and strengthen themselves (Belk 1988; Kap-

ferer et al., 2009). For these reasons:

H2b: The positive relations between Self-Identity and Purchase Intentions, Self-Directed Pleasure

and Purchase Intentions, Self-Esteem and Purchase Intentions will be stronger for the individ-

ualist compared to the collectivist consumers.

2.2.3. The influence of Individualism and Collectivism on the Functional and Financial values

As explained in Section 2.1.4, the Price value is connected to Quality and Uniqueness value,

as expensive products are generally recognized as qualitative and not accessible to everybody (Wied-

mann et al., 2007). Therefore, the influences of Individualism and Collectivism on these values will

be discussed together.

Luxury goods are generally associated with the idea of high quality (Dubois et.al, 2001;

O'Cass et al., 2002), which is in turn connected with the requested price of these products. Superior

quality in part justifies the relatively high price requested to buy luxury products, and this, in turn,

can be seen as a good indicator of the qualitative level of the goods. According to Lalwani & Shavitt

(2013), in societies where people are more interdependent, quality and price-related aspects are more

positively considered compared to societies where individuals are more independent. It has also been

argued that collectivist societies tend to value the importance of the public possession of luxury prod-

ucts (Wong et al., 1998), Hence, we can expect that quality and price value might lead to stronger

positive intentions in collectivist countries rather than in individualist ones.

For what concerns Uniqueness, the literature has not reached an agreement regarding which

kind of culture attaches more importance to this value. The problem is represented by the fact that

people want to be socially accepted, but at the same time different (Abdelkhail, 2015). People coming

from collectivist countries, being more embedded in the society, might be expected to prefer purchas-

ing products that allow them to conform to the societal standards (Bian & Forsythe, 2012), while

individualist might prefer to possess something that distinguishes themselves from the others and

increase their self-perception (Burns and Brady, 1992). Moreover, Yamaguchi (1994) found that a

sample of individuals high in collectivism negatively correlated with the need for uniqueness. On the

20

other hand, one of the main studies conducted on this topic (Bian et al., 2012) found an opposite

relation, showing that the sample of Chinese consumers of the study valued uniqueness more than the

American counterpart. Moreover, social recognition can be achieved not just conforming to the oth-

ers, but also standing out from them. For these reasons:

H2c: The positive relations between Quality and Purchase Intentions, and between Uniqueness and

Purchase Intentions will be stronger for the collectivist compared to the individualist consum-

ers.

H2d: The positive relations between Price and Purchase Intentions will be stronger for the collectiv-

ist compared to the individualist consumers.

2.3. The influence of gender

Retailers often use gender to segment consumers and understand better how to satisfy their

needs (Papadopoulos & Martin, 2011). This is important to target consumers better and increase the

efficiency of commercials and marketing campaigns. Moreover, it is also important to understand

how shopping behaviour differs between genders. For women, shopping was found to carry great

emotional value and is often seen as a pleasure activity; on the other hand, men tend to approach these

activities with less pleasure, trying to complete it with the least amount of effort (Dittmar & Drury,

2000). These findings, however, refer to consumer behaviour in general. We already mentioned that

individuals attach particular values to luxury goods, that distinguish them from their non-luxury coun-

terparts. Because of the differences in consumer behaviour between men and women, we expect to

find differences regarding which values are considered to be most important between the two genders.

Moreover, these differences might also be impacted by the cultural background, as gender differences

concerning luxury values might not be equal in individualist and collectivist societies. This is some-

thing that has not been analysed in research and that it is worth being addressed.

2.3.1. The influence of gender on Social and Individual values

Research has generally proposed differences in decision making and judgment between men

and women, with a special focus on interdependence versus independence (Meyers-Levy, 1988).

Women generally identify themselves with the environment where they live in and through interac-

tion with other individuals, while men tend to be more autonomous and independent (Cross &

21

Madson, 1997; Deaux & Major, 1987; Prakash, 1992; Workman & Lee, 2011). Women are, in gen-

eral, more concerned with self-appearance (Buss, 1989; Heflick, Goldenberg, Cooper & Puvia, 2011)

and are therefore more subject to interpersonal values, while men tend to divide the depiction of

others from the self (Cross et al., 1997). This, in turn, is reflected in consumption behaviour: men

mostly purchase luxury products for personal values, as symbols of power and achievement (O'Cass

et al., 2004), while women tend to value more social values (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2013). However,

these findings are mostly based on individualist Western societies, but the situation might be different

in collectivist Eastern countries. Indeed, men are viewed as more independent in the first cultural

setting, while in the second one the pattern is reversed, with men being considered as more interde-

pendent than women (Cuddy et al., 2015). For these reasons, the influence of gender might lead to

different distributions of luxury goods value among collectivist countries: men there might not be

concerned just with personal-satisfaction coming from luxury goods consumption, but they might

consider the interpersonal values more than women, reversing the situation existing in the individu-

alist countries. For this reason, the following hypotheses will be:

H3a: The positive relation between Conspicuousness and Purchase Intentions, and between Social

Status and Purchase Intentions will be stronger for women among individualist consumers

and for men among collectivist consumers.

H3b: The positive relation between Self-Identity and Purchase Intentions, Self-Directed Pleasure

and Purchase Intentions, and Self-Esteem and Purchase Intentions will be stronger for men

among individualist consumers and for women among collectivist consumers.

2.3.2. The influence of gender on the Functional and Financial values

Regarding the financial and functional values, little is known related to gender differences.

Wiedmann et al. (2009) found that women, in general, care about quality and uniqueness of a luxury

good more than men; Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2013) also found that women are more sensitive to the

uniqueness value of the products compared to men. As argued above (Section 2.2.3), the price aspect

is generally connected to the perceived quality of a product: luxury brands are associated with pre-

mium prices (Keller, 2009), and the more a product costs, the more it is perceived as qualitative

(Keller, 2009). Generally, the prices requested by luxury brands for female goods are higher than the

male counterparts (Stokeburger-Sauer et al., 2013). This could lead to the idea that this strategy is

used to convince women about the quality of the product. Also these studies, however, are based on

22

individuals coming from Western countries. Similarly to what we argued above regarding the mod-

erating role of gender on the Social and Individual values, these findings might be connected to the

higher interdependence women have compared to men in individualist countries. They perceive a

higher need to be appreciated and accepted because they are more susceptible to the opinion of others;

therefore, they might consume luxury goods, which are generally perceived as qualitative, unique,

and expensive as means to reach this goal. In collectivist countries, however, men are considered to

be more interdependent than women. For these reasons, they are expected to value the quality, unique-

ness, and price of products more than women.

H3c: The positive relation between Quality and Purchase Intentions, and between Uniqueness and

Purchase Intentions will be stronger for women among individualist consumers and for men

among individualist consumers.

H3d: The positive relation between Price and Purchase Intentions will be stronger for women among

individualist consumers and for men among collectivist consumers.

In this section, we explained the theoretical foundations of this thesis and we introduced the

hypotheses we will test in this thesis. Figure 2 offers a visual depiction of the conceptual model. In

the next section, the data and methodology will be presented.

Figure 2. Conceptual model with hypotheses

23

3. DATA AND METHODS

The first part of this chapter provides information regarding the instrument used to collect the

data and the sample description. Then, data screening and information about the variables used in this

study are presented. The second part explains the methods used in the analyses. Firstly, we present

an explanation of the techniques used to validate the luxury values model depicted in the theoretical

framework. Secondly, we provide an overview of the techniques used to test the hypotheses.

3.1. Survey and sample description

Survey

The instrument used to measure all the variables is a questionnaire (Appendix A) based on

the survey developed by Abalkhail (2015). In order to measure each construct, the scholar com-

bined different validated measurement scales developed and used by other researchers in cross-cul-

tural studies on this topic (Bian et al., 2012; Li & Aksoy, 2007; Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer &

Nyffenegger, 2011; Shukla & Purani, 2012; Truong et al., 2011; Wiedmann et al., 2009; Yong Eng,

2012;) This original survey did not include measures for the Price value; hence, we included the

measurement scale for this value developed by Hennigs et al. (2012).

Among all the luxury goods categories, we decided to focus this thesis on the values associated with

luxury fashion goods. The decision to focus on this specific luxury segment was taken for two rea-

sons. First of all, despite being much more expensive than their non-luxury counterparts, luxury

clothes and accessories are in general accessible to many more people compared to, for example, a

supercar or a yacht. Furthermore, the analysis also aimed at studying the differences across the gen-

ders; clothes and accessories have been tested not to be part of a gender-specific category of goods

(Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2013), therefore represented a suitable setting for this study.

In total, the final questionnaire consisted of 58 questions and was divided into four main parts.

The first part investigated the respondents’ luxury brand preferences and willingness to buy luxury

goods. 2The second part included items used to measure the purchase intentions and the constructs

representing the eight luxury values. The third part was composed of items measuring the partici-

pants’ level of Individualism and Collectivism; finally, the fourth part included questions regarding

2 This worked as a sample screening, as respondents not interested in buying these products were not allowed to go on

with the survey. This was done to make sure the data only belonged to people actively interested in luxury shopping.

24

demographic data of the participants (gender, age, ethnicity, household income level). The constructs

included in the second and third parts were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree,

5 = strongly agree). The questionnaire was originally developed in English; to avoid language bias,

it was also translated and back-translated in Arab, Dutch, and Chinese and then shared through the

respondents in their native language. Since we were gathering data through a survey on people be-

longing to different nationalities, we also evaluated eventual response bias. In particular, we assessed

extreme responses and acquiescence biases. The differences among the respondents belonging to dif-

ferent nationalities were minimal; Appendix B provides a detailed explanation about the results.

Sample

The final sample consisted of men and women coming both from individualist and collectivist

countries. In particular, the sample consisted of US, Dutch, Saudi and Chinese respondents. The

United States and the Netherlands are suitable examples of individualist countries, since they respec-

tively score 91 and 80 on the Hofstede Individualism scale (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). On the other

hand, Saudi Arabia and China score respectively 25 and 20 on this scale (Hofstede Insights, n.d.),

therefore they are defined as collectivist countries. We collected responses only from students. By

contemplating only students, the comparability of the subsamples across the different cultures should

be ensured and lead to a quite homogeneous total sample (Schwartz, 2006; Allison, 2008). They can

also be considered as surrogates for other groups in culturally-related studies (Li & Su, 2007) and are

widely used in consumer research (Peterson, 2001). Relatively to the luxury topic, it is important to

study their perceptions because young cohorts have an increasing demand for luxury brands (Park et

al., 2008), they have knowledge about this sector and represent the consumers on which the brands

base their future profits, by creating loyalty relationship and long-term buying patterns.

For the study, we combined survey responses collected in two different moments. In 2015,

the survey was shared by Abalkhail (2015) for her study through the students of King Saud bin Ab-

dulaziz University in Saudia Arabia and Louisiana University in the United States. For the current

study, we also used this same dataset after the researchers accepted to share it with us. Then, to add

insights about different nationalities, the questionnaire was shared in March 2020 through Dutch and

Chinese students of two universities in Groningen, namely Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and Hanze

University. The sample distribution in terms of nationality, gender, age, nationality, ethnicity, and

household income is shown in Appendix C. The total sample was composed of 524 respondents,

divided in 281 Saudi, 173 US, 43 Dutch, and 27 Chinese. Half of the sample (52.7%) consisted of

Arab respondents, 28.1% of Caucasians, and 9.7% of Asian respondents. The remaining 9,6% was

25

split between American Indian, Alaskan Native, Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino respond-

ents. Around a quarter of the sample consisted of men (24.8%), while women represented 75.2% of

it. The majority of the respondents were between 18 and 24 years old (58.8%), 31.3% of them were

between 25 and 34 years old and 9.9% represented students older than 34 years old. Data regarding

income for Saudi and US respondents were expressed in US Dollars ($). In the survey shared through

the Dutch and Chinese students, we presented the income values in Euro (€). The conversion between

the currencies was based on the exchange rate on March 10th, 2020. The data regarding income for

US and Saudi students were converted in € with the same criterion. Overall, 55.3% of the sample

presented an annual household income below 45.000€, while 24% of the respondents had an annual

household income above 89.999€. The other respondents had an annual household income ranging

between 45.000 and 89.999€.

3.2. Study variables

Independent variables

The independent variables of the study were represented by the eight luxury values (Price,

Quality, Uniqueness, Social Status, Conspicuousness, Self-Identity, Self-Directed Pleasure, Self-Es-

teem). After collecting all the responses, we assessed the reliability of the measurement instruments

through the Cronbach alpha, both for the whole sample (Table 1) and for each separate national sub-

sample (Appendix D). Cronbach alpha scores were found to be always above the 0.5 suggested thresh-

old for acceptance (George & Mallery, 2003; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Hence, we created the

variables regarding the luxury values calculating the average value on the questionnaire responses for

each subscale (questions presented in the survey in Appendix A).

Dependent variable

The dependent variable was Purchase Intentions. Five survey questions, part of a validated

scale (Schukla et al., 2012), referred to this variable. Instead of calculating the average score for each

respondent on these questions, as we did for the luxury values, we decided to treat the dependent

variable as a factor. When using an average score, each item has the same weight as the others. In a

factor, instead, the relative importance of each item reflects its factor loading. This allowed us to

better estimate the coefficients for Purchase Intentions. To create the variable, we performed an Ex-

ploratory Factor analysis, whose process is explained in Appendix E. The five items related to this

26

variable all loaded on a single factor, which was then named ‘Purchase Intentions’ and used as the

dependent variable of our hypotheses testing.

Moderating variables

In Section 2.2, we introduced our intention to assess the moderating role of Individualism and

Collectivism both at the country and individual-level. Therefore, we created two dummy variables,

which were used separately to classify the respondents as collectivist or individualist. Regarding the

country-level effect, we created the dummy variable ‘Individualism-Country’; the variable was coded

0 for respondents belonging to China and Saudi Arabia, considered to be collectivist countries

(Hosfstede Insights, n.d.), and 1 for US and Dutch respondents, belonging to countries considered to

be individualist ones (Hosfstede Insights, n.d.). Regarding the individual-level analysis, we used the

responses on the Individualism and Collectivism scales included in our survey. We first assessed the

reliability of the scales through Cronbach alpha, on the whole sample (Table 1) and separately for

each country (Appendix D). As the results confirmed the reliability of the scales, we calculated the

average score on the Individualism and Collectivism scale for each respondent. We then created the

dummy variable ‘Individualism-Survey’ which was coded 0 for respondents scoring higher on the

Collectivism scale and 1 for those scoring higher on the Individualism scale3.

Our second moderator is represented by gender. We created a dummy variable, called ‘Fe-

male’, which was coded 0 for male respondents and 1 for females.

Control variables

Multiple control variables were included in the multiple regression analyses to increase the

reliability of the study. In particular, we created two dummy variables for age (base group: 18-24

years old), six for ethnicity (base group: Arab), and three for income (base group: annual income

below €45k). The dummy variable ‘Female’, used as a moderating variable, was also used as a control

for gender (base group: male) in the analyses not related to the moderating role of gender.

3 A total of 45 respondents was excluded from the individual-level analysis as their score on Individualism and Collec-

tivism were equal. Hence, it was not possible to assign them to a group or the other.

Among the 308 respondents belonging to the collectivist countries (China and Saudi Arabia), 230 scored higher on Col-

lectivist and 50 on Individualism (27 scored equal); among the 216 respondents belonging to the individualist countries

(United States and the Netherlands), 87 scored higher on Individualism and 117 on Collectivism (18 scored equal).

27

3.3. Data and sample screening

First, we examined the presence of outliers in our sample, as they could affect the reliability

of the analyses included in this thesis. We checked for univariate and multivariate outliers. Univariate

outliers were evaluated based on the dependent and independent variables’ standardized scores, ac-

cording to Tabachnick & Fidell (2007). The presence of multivariate outliers was checked according

to Leys et al. (2019) process, calculating the Mahalanobis distance (Mahalanobis, 1936) among the

variables. We did not detect any univariate or multivariate outliers.

Secondly, we checked eventual multicollinearity issues, which would indicate overlap issues

between variables. Correlations between the eight luxury values, the controls, and the moderating

variables were assessed. Bivariate Pearson correlation tests were performed and the results are shown

in Appendix F. As can be seen, none of the analysed variables was highly and significantly correlated

with any of the others. The highest correlation was between Social Status and Conspicuousness

(0.628). Since the value was lower than 0.7, the pairwise correlation was considered to be “moderate”

and thus not problematic (Dormann et. al, 2013).

3.4. Descriptive Statistics for the study variables

In Table 1, descriptive statistics on the whole sample (N = 524) for the study variables are

presented (variables descriptive statistics for each separate nationality can be found in Appendix D).

The average score for all the variables was represented by the average value on the responses for each

subscale (as explained in Section 3.2). For each variable, values could possibly range from 1 to 5.

The closer the value was to 5, the more the respondent agreed with the statements each variable

consisted of. To exemplify, a score of 4.3 on Quality means that the individual gives more importance

to this luxury value compared to an individual scoring 3.7 on that same variable.

Individualism and Collectivism: According to Hofstede studies, China and Saudi Arabia are

defined as collectivist countries, while the United States and the Netherlands are considered to be

individualist countries (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). We then supposed that Saudi and Chinese respond-

ents would have scored higher on Collectivism, compared to the US and Dutch respondents. Regard-

ing Individualism, we expected the opposite. The average score on Collectivism for the whole sample

was 3.93; looking at the single countries (Appendix D), the results followed the expectations. The

Saudi sample (4.09) and Chinese (3.78) were the ones with the highest average score on this variable;

the US respondents score was the same as the Chinese, while Dutch scored the lowest at 3.55. For

28

individualism, the results were quite surprising: the highest average score was the Chinese one (3.76),

Saudi and US scored alike at 3.63 and Dutch were at the bottom with an average score of 3.59. While

the ranking for the Collectivism scale was somewhat as predicted, Individualism ranking was the

opposite of what we expected. This was a further reason to test the moderating role of Individual-

ism/Collectivism also at the individual-level.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach Alpha for the study variables (N = 524; Price, N = 70)

Variable Mean

Std.

Deviation Minimum Maximum Cronbach Alpha

Collectivism 3.93 .55 1.63 5.00 .76

Individualism 3.64 .53 1.00 5.00 .69

Price 3.77 .76 2.00 5.00 .65

Quality 3.88 .70 1.00 5.00 .58

Uniqueness 3.00 .66 1.14 4.57 .73

Social Status 3.18 .86 1.00 5.00 .75

Cospicuousness 2.93 .93 1.00 5.00 .74

Self Identity 3.89 .79 1.00 5.00 .76

Self Directed Pleasure 3.93 .79 1.33 5.00 .77

Self Esteem 4.17 .63 1.50 5.00 .74

3.5. Methodology

3.5.1. Methods for model validation

Before testing the hypotheses, we evaluated the validity of Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s luxury

values model on our sample through Exploratory (EFA) and Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In

the main analysis, we did not include the Price value (financial dimension) as we had data on that

variable only for the Chinese and Dutch respondents4. EFA is used in research to examine the possi-

ble existence of a latent structure underlying some study variables. Under some circumstances, study

variables correlating with each other can be combined and meaningfully substituted by a smaller

number of factor constructs (Comrey & Lee, 1992). We used it to assess relations among our study

variables, without posing any a priori constraint to the resulting structure. CFA is instead performed

to confirm the existence of a hypothesized latent structure behind some variables (Randall & Joo

Jung, 2018). In this case, relations between variables are imposed. We first used CFA to confirm the

4 The test on the validity of the model including also the Price value is discussed in the robustness section.

29

validity of the luxury values structure proposed by Wiedmann et al. (2007), and then to validate the

factor structure resulting from our EFA.

EFA was performed through Principal Component Analysis (PCA). To decide the right type

of rotation for the test, we followed Tabachnick et al. (2007) who suggests to prefer an orthogonal

rotation when all the correlations between the extracted factors are lower than an absolute value of

0.32, and an oblique rotation when higher. In our case, all the correlations between the factors were

below the suggested threshold. Among the orthogonal rotations, we decided to use the Varimax type.

Following Hair et al. (2010) and Tabachnick et al. (2007), we assessed if the sample was suitable for

factor analysis through the KMO measure and Barlett’s test5.

After confirming the suitability of the sample, we proceeded with the interpretation of the

EFA results. We considered items with factor loadings larger than an absolute value of .45 (Comrey

et al., 1992) and evaluated discriminant and convergent validity. We then used three different criteria

to assess the appropriate number of factors for the model. The first one was Kaiser-criterion, which

suggests to retain all the factors with an eigenvalue above 1 (Kaiser, 1960). The second criterion used

was Cattell’s scree-test, based on a screeplot comparing the number of factors with their eigenvalues

(Cattell, 1966). According to this criterion, all the factors before the ‘elbow’ of the curve should be

retained. As a third criterion, we considered the cumulative variance explained by the extracted fac-

tors. The theory suggests to include the minimum amount of extracted factors that, combined, can

explain around 60% of the variance (Field, 2000; Hair et al., 2010).

Differently from EFA, in CFA, there are some restrictions on the matrix of the factor loadings,

as the distribution of the variables among the different latent factors is fixed by the researcher. To

determine if the models fit the data well, multiple fit indices were evaluated. In particular, we evalu-

ated two relative fit indices, namely CFI and CMIN/DF. The comparative fit index (CFI) is an indi-

cator of improvement over the baseline model in fit. CMIN/DF index is based on the Chi-square and

the degree of freedom of the model. We also evaluated absolute fit indices, such as Goodness-of-fit

index (GFI), Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), Standardized root mean square residual

(SRMR) and the Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), all indices indicating the fit

between the model and the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Lei & Wu, 2007). A list of these indices, with

the respective suggested thresholds, is depicted in Appendix G.

5 KMO addresses the proportion of variance among variables that might be common variance. The lower is the propor-

tion, the better the data are suitable for factor analysis. KMO scores below 0.5 indicate that the sample might not be ad-

equate (Kaiser, 1974; Hair et al., 2010). Barlett’s test is used to test the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an iden-

tity matrix (which would implicate that the variables are not related and, in turn, that the sample is not suitable for factor

analysis). P-values for this test below 0.05 indicate that the sample could be good for factor analysis (Hair et al., 2010;

Tabachnick et al., 2007).

30

3.5.2. Methods for hypotheses testing

To test our hypotheses, we used linear multiple regression analyses. Multiple models were

created to test the different hypotheses on the whole sample (apart from the hypotheses related to the

Price value, discussed in the robustness section). The variables analysed in each model were always

included all together; for every model, the dependent variable was Purchase Intentions. We first cre-

ated a base model (Model 1) with only the control variables (relating to gender, age, income, ethnic-

ity) described in Section 3.2; subsequently, we created Model 2 adding the luxury values all at once6,

to test Hypotheses H1a-H1g. Then, we evaluated the moderating effects of Individualism/Collectiv-

ism (Hypotheses H2a-H2c). As argued above (Section 2.2), we assessed this moderating effect at the

country and individual-level. For the country-level analysis, we created Model 3 adding the moder-

ating variable Individualism-Country and the interaction terms between this variable and the luxury

values. For the individual-level analysis (Model 4), we added instead the moderating variable Indi-

vidualism-Survey and its interaction terms with the luxury values.

To assess the moderating role of gender among individualists and collectivists, we first created

the interaction terms multiplying the variable Female (described in Section 3.2) by each of the luxury

values score for all the respondents. Then, we included these interaction terms in a multiple regression

model, together with the controls and the luxury values variables. This model had five specifications,

one for each (sub)sample considered. Model 5A was our base model and was used to assess the mod-

erating role of gender on the whole sample. Model 5B and Model 5C tested this effect at the country-

level: the subsample in Model 5B was represented by Chinese and Saudi respondents, while in model

5C the subsample consisted of Dutch and US respondents. Finally, model 5D and 5E tested the mod-

erating role of gender at the individual-level: the respondents scoring higher on Collectivism repre-

sented the subsample for Model 5D, while those scoring higher on Individualism constituted the sam-

ple for Model 5E.

We assessed the fit and the significance of all our regression models using several criteria.

First, we evaluated the Adjusted-R2, which measures how much variance in the predicted variable is

explained by the input variables. It can range from 0 to 1; the closer it is to 1, the more variance in

the dependent variable is explained by the model (Hair et al., 2010). Secondly, we checked the F-test

to assess if the linear regression models were overall significant and fit the data well. In this case, a

p-value below .05 indicates that the models are significant (Hair et al., 2010).

Before checking the estimates, we also evaluated for each model if some assumptions of linear

regression were violated. In particular, the linearity and normality of the residuals, multicollinearity

6 The variables regarding the luxury values were included in the models all together, and not one by one, because we

argue that consumers are influenced by all of them together when purchasing luxury goods.

31

among the independent variables and homoscedasticity (equal variance of errors across all the inde-

pendent variables) were checked (Hair et al., 2010; James, Witten, Hastie & Tibshirani. 2013).

32

4. RESULTS

In this chapter, we provide the results of our analyses. First, we try to assess the validity of

Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s luxury values model through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

Subsequently, we test the hypotheses developed and presented in the literature review.

4.1. Validation of the luxury values model (without Price value)

4.1.1. Exploratory factor analysis of the luxury values model

An exploratory factor analysis including all the luxury values, except for Price, was performed

on the full sample (N=524). Price was not included here since we had no data regarding this variable

for the Saudi and US respondents. We expect the analysis to yield three factors (Wiedmann et al.,

2007); one with Quality and Uniqueness (Functional value), a second one with Social Status and

Conspicuousness (Social value), a final one with Self-Identity, Self-Directed Pleasure and Self-Es-

teem (Individual value).

As mentioned in Section 3.5.1, we used a PCA with Varimax rotation, as the correlation

among the factors was below an absolute value of 0.32 (Tabachnick et al., 2007). Before evaluating

the factor analysis results, we used the KMO and Barlett’s test to assess if the sample was suitable

for factor analysis. KMO was 0.6, hence above the suggested threshold; Barlett’s test was significant

at 626.818, with a p-value < .001. Therefore, the sample was adequate for the analysis.

We then analysed the EFA results, depicted in Appendix H, according to the three criteria

mentioned in Section 3.5. According to Kaiser-criterion, factors with an eigenvalue above 1 should

be retained. In this case, two factors were above this threshold. The Cattell’s screeplot criterion, how-

ever, suggested a three-factor solution. Finally, we checked the variance explained by each extracted

factor. Field (2000) and Hair et al. (2010) suggest to retain the minimum amount of factor that, com-

bined, explain at least 60% of the variance. According to this criterion, hence, a three-factor solution

was supported since the first two factors explained 53.2% of the total variance, while the inclusion of

the third one increased the variance explained to 67.3%. Because of this disagreement among the

criteria, we decided to analyse both the two and three-factor structures.

Two-factor structure. All the factor loadings were larger than the absolute value of .45 (Com-

rey et al., 1992). The analysis of the factor loadings on the two-factor structure (Table 2) revealed

that, as expected, Self-Identity, Self-Directed Pleasure, and Self-Esteem loaded together; also Social

Status and Conspicuousness followed the expectations, loading together on the second factor. Quality

33

and Uniqueness respectively loaded on the first and second factors. These results do not confirm

Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s framework, where Quality and Uniqueness load together on a third factor.

Hence, we also checked the three-factors structure resulting from our EFA to assess if it matched

Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s framework.

Table 2

Varimax Rotated two-factor solution for the full sample (N = 524)a

Items

Factor

1 2

Self-Identity .769

Self-Directed Pleasure .764

Quality .645

Self-Esteem .492

Conspicuousness .848

Social Status .800

Uniqueness .609

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a

Three-factors structure. We constrained the number of extracted factors to three and consid-

ered again the items with factor loadings larger than the absolute value of .45. Factor loadings are

shown in Table 3. Conspicuousness and Social Status loaded together as expected. However, the other

items did not reflect the theorized model. Quality and Uniqueness did not load together but on two

separate factors. Indeed, Quality loaded with Self-Directed Pleasure and Self-Identity, while Unique-

ness loaded with Self-Esteem. This factor model, as mentioned before, explains a bit more variance

than the two-factor one. However, the distribution of the items among the factors is quite different

from what was theorized. The underlying meanings of the items loading on Factor 1 are different,

and the same applies to Factor 3. We found a lack of internal consistency among those two factors,

as the items refer to clearly distinct values of luxury. Moreover, the two-factor model also agreed

with Kline (2011) who argued that, for purpose of stability, each factor should have at least three

indicator variables. Therefore, we decided to keep the two-factors solution as the preferred model and

use it for the following confirmatory factor analysis.

34

Table 3

Varimax Rotated Solution for the full sample, with number of extracted

factors fixed at three (N = 524)a

Items

Factor

1 2 3

Self Identity .784

Self Directed Pleasure .771

Quality .615

Social Status .894

Conspicuousness .856

Self Esteem .762

Uniqueness -.685

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a

4.1.2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the luxury values model

Confirmatory factor analysis was firstly performed on Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s luxury values

model, without the inclusion of the Price value (Appendix I-Figure I1). This model resulted in a non-

positive definite matrix; for this reason, it was concluded that this model did not fit the data well.

Subsequently, CFA was performed on the two-factor model resulting from our EFA, in this

analysis referred to as ‘Revised model’(Appendix I-Figure I2). The values and fit indexes for this

model were evaluated (Appendix I-Table I1) and compared with the suggested thresholds (Appendix

G). The only index that perfectly met its acceptance threshold was the SRMR. The RMSEA was still

barely acceptable at .098. CMIN/DFI was above the threshold, while both CFI and IFI were slightly

below 0.90. Therefore, the model did not fit the data well yet and further adjustments were necessary.

Two indicators with low factor loadings, namely Uniqueness and Self Esteem, were identified. The

second one was removed from the model, while Uniqueness was kept in the model for purpose of

stability despite its low loading (Kline, 2011). The best-fitting model is depicted in Appendix I (Fig-

ure I3). The values and the fit indices of the new model (Appendix I-Table I1) were evaluated. CFI

and IFI were now above .90, while the other indices kept showing a decent fit. Only CMIN/DF was

still above the threshold. Hence, this model presented an overall good fit. Standardized coefficients

for the best-fitting model can be seen in Appendix I (Table I2). Overall, this analysis did not fully

confirm Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s luxury values model. The analysis, however, proved the possible

existence of a model with two latent variables (referred to as ‘Social value revised’ and ‘Individual

35

value revised’) including the Quality, Uniqueness, Social Status, Conspicuousness, Self-Identity,

Self-Directed Pleasure values.

4.2. Direct effect of the luxury values on Purchase Intentions and moderating role of

Individualism/Collectivism

This section presents the result of the analyses conducted to test Hypotheses H1a-H1g and

H2a-H2c7. To test them, multiple regression analyses were performed. In all the models, the depend-

ent variable was represented by Purchase Intentions. Before analysing the results, four assumptions

for multiple regression were evaluated (Hair et al., 2010; James et al., 2013) for each model. First,

residuals were found to be normally distributed. Secondly, the linearity of the residuals was assessed

and confirmed. Multicollinearity issues were also excluded. Finally, the error term was constant,

hence homoscedasticity was met. These results applied to all the models we tested. Table 4 includes

the regression coefficients for the four models.

First, we discuss the effect of the control variables on Purchase Intentions. In Model 1, we

tested the control variables related to age, income, ethnicity, and gender. This model was significant,

Adj-R2 = .083, F = 4.520, p-value = .000. The results revealed that the Asian (B=-.138), Hispanic/La-

tino (B=.-182), and White/Caucasian (B=-.136) respondents had a lower propensity to purchase lux-

ury goods compared to the Arab respondents in the sample. Also, female respondents had a lower

propensity to purchase luxury goods (B=-.115), compared to men. Control variables related to age

and income were not significant.

In Model 2, we tested the direct effect of the luxury values (Hypotheses H1a-H1g) on Purchase

Intentions. The model was significant, Adj-R2 = 0.613, F = 44.594, p-value = .000. According to the

theoretical model, all the luxury values should have positively predicted the intention to purchase

luxury goods. Conspicuousness was found to positively and strongly predict Purchase Intentions

(B=.454): an increase of one standard deviation on this variable increases the intentions to purchase

luxury goods by .454 standard deviations. This supports hypothesis H1a. The effect of Social Status

(B=.246) and Uniqueness (B=.159) was smaller, but both still positively predicted Purchase Inten-

tions bringing support to hypotheses H1b and H1g. This means that the more important people con-

sider these values, the stronger their intentions to purchase luxury products are. On the other hand,

Quality (B=-.092), and Self-Directed Pleasure (B=-.067) did not follow the expectations and nega-

tively predicted Purchase Intentions. Hence, the importance given to these values reduces the

7 Hypotheses related to the Price value (H1h, H2d) were not tested here as we did not have data for the whole sample on

this variable.

36

intentions to purchase luxury goods. Self-Identity and Self-Esteem coefficients were not statistically

significant.

Subsequently, we tested the moderating role of cultural background on the relations between

the luxury values and Purchase Intentions (Hypotheses H2a-H2c). In Model 3, the moderating role

of the cultural background was assessed at the country-level. In addition to the variables included in

Model 2, we added the dummy variable Individualism-Country and the interaction terms between

this variable and the luxury values. The model was significant, Adj-R2 = 0.616, F = 33.088, p-value

= .000. The moderating variable Individualism-Country was not significant; hence, intentions to pur-

chase luxury goods were not significantly different between collectivist and individualist countries.

Only one of the interaction terms was statistically significant. In particular, the coefficient for Social

Status x Individualism was negative (B = -.087). This means that, all else equal, the positive effect

on Purchase Intentions of an increase in the Social Status value is stronger among respondents be-

longing to collectivist countries. Hence, hypothesis H2a was partially supported. The other interac-

tion terms were not significant.

In Model 4, the moderating role of the cultural background was assessed at the individual-

level. In addition to the variables included in Model 2, we added the dummy variable Individualism-

Survey and the interaction terms between this variable and the luxury values. The model was signif-

icant, Adj-R2 = 0.622, F = 30.075, p-value = .000. Individualism-Survey was not significant, hence

Purchase Intentions between consumers scoring higher on Individualism or Collectivism were not

overall different. Only one of the interaction terms was statistically significant. In particular, the co-

efficient Uniqueness x Individualism was negative (B = -.108). This means that, as expected, the

positive relation between the Uniqueness value and Purchase intentions was stronger for the respond-

ents scoring higher on Collectivism. This brings partial support to hypothesis H2c. The country-level

(Model 3) and individual-level (Model 4) analyses revealed different results regarding the cultural

background’s moderating role on the relation between luxury values and Purchase Intentions. This

will be discussed more in detail in Section 6.

37

Table 4

Results of multiple regression analyses for Model 1 to 4

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Constant -.043 -.148 -.132 -.134

(.146) (.096) (.098) (.102)

Age 25-34 .052 .049 .040 .058

(.099) (.065) (.066) (.068)

Age > 34 -0.24 .045 ,043 .042

(.146) (.096) (.097) (.099)

Income €45k-89.9k .078 .067* -.075* .070*

(.109) (.072) (.072) (.075)

Income €90k-€134.9k -.008 .011 .017 .015

(.129) (.085) (.085) (.089)

Income above €134.9k -.014 -.048 -.044 -.053

(.144) (.095) (.097) (.101)

Asian/Pacific Islander -.138** -.077* -.050 .085*

(.156) (.102) (.120) (.107)

Black/African American -.061 .015 -.025 -.002

(.207) (.136) (.201) (.145)

Hispanic/Latino -.182** .099** -.070 .077*

(.269) (.177) (.230) (.188)

White/Caucasian -.136** .184*** .100 .162***

(.118) (.081) (.169) (.087)

Native American/Alaskan .093 .032 .014 .027

(.571) (.372) (.401) (.639)

Other ethnicity .019 .018 .008 .008

(.397) (.260) (.264) (.285)

Female -.115* -.054 -.054 -.074*

(.119) (.078) (.079) (.082)

Main effects

Quality -.092** -.116** -.124**

(.031) (.038) (.039)

Uniqueness .159*** .161*** .205***

(.030) (.040) (.039)

Social Status .246*** .300*** .262***

(.037) (.049) (.045)

Conspicuousness .454*** .383*** .390***

(.038) (.050) (.046)

38

Self-Identity -.018 -.011 -.018

(.032) (.043) (.039)

Self-Directed Pleasure -.067* -.115* -.097*

(.033) (.045) (.040)

Self-Esteem -.047 -.063 -.004

(.030) (.042) (.037)

Moderator

Individualism-Country .097

(.153)

Individualism-Survey .046

(.070)

Interaction effect

Quality x Individualism .056 .060

(.067) (.072)

Uniqueness x Individualism -.019 -.108**

(.061) (.066)

Social Status x Individualism -.087* -.017

(.074) (.085)

Conspicuousness x Individualism .106 .103

(.079) (.090)

Self-Identity x Individualism -.010 .046

(.066) (.075)

Self-Directed Pleasure x Individualism .068 .023

(.066) (.073)

Self-Esteem x Individualism .022 -.064

(.060) (.066)

Sample size 524 524 524 479

F 4.520 44.594 33.088 30.075

R2 .104 .627 .636 .643

Adjusted R2 .083 .613 .616 .622

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001

39

4.3. Moderating role of gender on the relations between luxury values and Purchase Intentions

In this section, we present the results of the analyses we conducted to test the moderating role

of gender (Hypotheses H3a-H3c). We present a multiple regression model, with five different speci-

fications based on different samples (Full sample; Chinese and Saudi respondents; US and Dutch

respondents; respondents scoring higher on Collectivism; respondents scoring higher on Individual-

ism). Each model includes our control variables, the luxury values (Except for the Price value), the

moderating variable Female and the interaction terms. The dependent variable was always repre-

sented by Purchase Intentions. Also here, before analysing the results, we assessed that multiple re-

gression assumptions were not violated.

We expected the relation between Social Status, Conspicuousness, Quality, Uniqueness, and

Purchase Intentions to be stronger for women among the individualist respondents and for men among

the collectivist. For the relation between Self-Identity, Self-Esteem, Self-Directed Pleasure, and Pur-

chase Intentions we expected it to be stronger for men in the individualist group and for women in

collectivist one. Table 5 shows the results for each model.

In Model 5A, we assessed the effects of our explanatory variables on Purchase Intentions on

the whole sample. This represented the base model of our analysis. The model was significant, Adj-

R2=.613, F = 32.839, p-value = .000. Coefficients for Uniqueness (B=.198), Social Status (B=.255),

and Conspicuousness (B=.476) were positive and statistically significant. None of the relationships

between luxury values and Purchase Intentions was significantly moderated by gender.

In Model 5B and 5C, the moderating role of gender was tested at the country-level. In Model

5B, the hypotheses were tested on respondents coming from the collectivist countries, i.e. China and

Saudi Arabia. In Model 5C the hypotheses were tested on the respondents coming from the United

States and the Netherlands, representing individualist countries. Both models were significant (Model

5B: Adj-R2 = .587, F = 20.827, p-value = .000; Model 5C: Adj-R2 = .603, F = 13.564, p-value =

.000). Coefficients for Uniqueness, Social Status, and Uniqueness were positive and significant. The

analysis of the interaction terms, however, revealed that none of the relationships between the luxury

values and Purchase Intentions was significantly moderated by the gender of the respondents in any

fo the two models.

In Model 5D and 5E, the moderating role of gender was assessed at the individual-level. In

Model 5D, the hypotheses were tested on respondents scoring higher on Collectivism. In Model 5E

the hypotheses were tested on the respondents scoring higher on Individualism. Both models were

significant (Model 5D: Adj-R2 = 0.603, F = 21.187, p-value = .000; Model 5E: Adj-R2 = 0.645, F =

10.508, p-value = .000). Conspicuousness was positive and significant in both models; in Model 5D,

40

also Social Status was positive and significant. However, also in these two models, the analysis of

the interaction terms revealed that gender did not moderate any of the relationships between the lux-

ury values and Purchase Intentions. In conclusion, we did not find any support for hypotheses H3a-

H3c. This will be discussed in Section 6.

Table 5

Results of multiple regression analyses for Model 5A-5E

Independent variables

Model

5A

Model

5B

Model

5C

Model

5D

Model

5E

Constant -.115 3.061 .060 -.143 2.706

(.102) (.368) (.450) (.137) (.168)

Age 25-34 .047 .001 .078 .034 .043

(.066) (.075) (.123) (.081) (.130)

Age > 34 .036 .008 .064 -.009 .110

(.098) (.115) (.184) (.118) (.182)

Income €45k-89.9k .065* .096* .016 -.101 .011

(.073) (.084) (.128) (.088) (.137)

Income €90k-134.9kk .013 .040 -.022 .016 .035

(.085) (.101) (.141) (.101) (.185)

Income > €134.9k -.045 .005 -.082 -,048 -.023

(.096) (.137) (.130) (126) (.166)

Asian/Pacific Islander .070* -.014 .018 .114* .050

(.103) (.143) (.469) (.138) (.172)

Black/African American .016 -.059 .040 -.039

(.137) (.461) (.200) (.210)

Hispanic/Latino .100*** .102 -.014 .189**

(.180) (.470) (.309) (.231)

White/Caucasian .179* .101 .111 .236**

(.083) (.450) (.107) (.148)

Native American/Alaskan .031 -.039 -.031

(.381) (.572) (.693)

Other ethnicity .022 -.006 .009 .017 -.004

(.260) (.297) (.618) (.319) (.603)

Main effects

Quality -.003 -.128 .021 -.081 .044

(.072) (.217) (.075) (.095) (.116)

Uniqueness .198** .310** .240** .168 .103

(.065) (.304) (.066) (.095) (.099)

41

Social Status .255** .519*** .240* .280* .282

(.089) (.396) (.088) (.125) (.129)

Conspicuousness .476*** .227*** .517*** .398** .551**

(.092) (.336) (.097) (.126) (.142)

Self-Identity .027 -.183 .010 .067 .076

(.066) (.246) (.066) (.089) (.099)

Self-Directed Pleasure -.052 .224 -.055 -.109 -.028

(.066) (.381) (.066) (.095) (.090)

Self-Esteem -.032 -.086 -.045 .018 -.207

(.062) (.301) (.063) (.078) (.102)

Moderator

Female -.063 -.141 -.005 -.042 -.116

(.062) (.364) (.092) (.115) (.126)

Interaction effect

Quality x Female -.096 .008 -.089 -.036 -.085

(.080) (.221) (.109) (.133) (.072)

Uniqueness x Female .046 -.167 -.102 .007 -.088

(.073) (.307) (.093) (.114) (.066)

Social Status x Female -.008 -.220 -.056 -006 -.078

(.098) (.399) (.112) (.150) (.085)

Conspicuousness x Female -.030 .123 .065 -.013 .017

(.101) (.339) (.125) (.166) (.090)

Self-Identity x Female -.052 .162 -.043 -.097 .001

(.076) (.249) (.098) (.129) (.075)

Self-Directed Pleasure x Female -.021 -.328 .050 -.001 -.018

(.076) (.383) (.093) (.118) (.073)

Self-Esteem x Female -.016 .021 .032 -.030 .088

(.070) (.304) (.082) (.117) (.066)

Sample size 524 308 216 347 132

F 32.839 20.827 13.564 21.187 10.508

R2 .632 .617 .651 .633 .713

Adjusted R2 .613 .587 .603 .603 .645

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001

42

5. ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

Our robustness analysis is divided into three main parts. In the first one, we test again the

validity of Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s framework, this time including also the Price value. We have

data for this variable only for the Dutch and Chinese respondents; hence, we tested the validity of this

model only on this subsample (N=70). To do this, we followed the same EFA and CFA steps and

criteria used in Section 4.1.

Subsequently, we present two alternative ways to test our hypotheses, performed to assess if

the findings depicted in Section 4.2 and 4.3 are confirmed using a different subsample or a different

estimation method. First, hypotheses regarding the effect of the luxury values on Purchase Intentions

and the moderating role of Individualism/Collectivism were tested again on a subsample consisting

of Dutch and Chinese respondents only (N=70), through multiple regression analysis. In this case, we

also included the Price value. We followed the same structure we used in Section 4.2 and created four

different models8. Secondly, we tested again all the hypotheses (excluding those related to Price) on

the whole sample changing estimation method. In particular, we used structural equation modelling

with multigroup path analysis. The analyses were performed through Amos software (Version 23).

5.1. Validation of the luxury values model (including Price value)

5.1.1. Exploratory factor analysis of the luxury values model

In Section 4.1, we assessed the validity of the luxury value model without the inclusion of the

Price value. Here, the model with all the eight luxury values proposed in the theoretical background

was tested for validity on the subsample consisting of Dutch and Chinese respondents. First, an ex-

ploratory factor analysis including all the luxury values was performed. In line with our theoretical

model, we expected the analysis to yield four factors; one with Quality and Uniqueness (Functional

value), a second one with Social Status and Conspicuousness (Social value), a third one with Self-

Identity, Self-Directed Pleasure and Self-Esteem (Individual value), and a final one with Price (Fi-

nancial value).

PCA was performed with Varimax rotation. KMO was 0.52 and Barlett’s test was significant

at 81.677, p-value < .001. The results are depicted in Appendix J. Four factors with eigenvalues above

8 Hypotheses related to the moderating effect of gender were not tested here, for two reasons. First, we did not find any

support for them in the main analysis (Section 4.3). Secondly, the sample consisted of only 70 respondents, hence the

collectivist and individualist subsamples (both at the country and individual-level) would have been too small to

properly compare males and females. Also, for these reasons, the moderating role of gender on the relation between

Price and Purchase Intentions (H3d) was not anymore tested in this thesis.

43

1 were found. Cattell’s screeplot criterion also suggested a four-factor solution, since the curve

started to level off after the fourth factor. The interpretability criterion also supported a four-factor

solution, as the four extracted factors explained 70.15% of the variance.

The analysis of the factor loadings on the four-component structure (Table 6) shows that So-

cial Status and Conspicuousness loaded together, as expected. Price, instead of loading by itself on

another factor, also loaded on this first factor. Self-Esteem and Self-Directed Pleasure loaded together

on a second factor. Self-Identity did not load on the second factor, but instead it loaded with Unique-

ness on a third one. Finally, Quality loaded by itself on a fourth factor. Overall, these results did not

resemble much the structure suggested by Wiedmann et al. (2007). This might be a consequence of

the small sample size used for the EFA (N = 70). Based on these results, we cannot confirm the

validity of Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s model on our sample.

Table 6

Varimax Rotated Solution for the Dutch and Chinese sample (N = 70)

Items

Factor

1 2 3 4

Conspicuousness .921

Social Status .842

Price .557

Self-Esteem .886

Self-Directed Pleasure .464

Uniqueness .737

Self-Identity .659

Quality .889

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a

5.1.2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the luxury values model

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s luxury values

model. The analysis of this model resulted in an unidentified solution. Therefore, we could not con-

firm the validity of the model in this thesis. However, these findings were based on a subsample

consisting of only 70 students, hence they have to be evaluated carefully. Analyses on a larger sample

are warranted to provide a more reliable evaluation of Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s luxury value model.

We also performed a CFA on the model resulting from our EFA (Section 5.1.1), but this solution was

unidentified too. Hence, we could not confirm the validity of this model.

44

5.2. Hypotheses testing on Dutch and Chinese subsample with multiple regression

In this section we tested again the Hypotheses relating to the effect of the luxury values on

Purchase Intentions (H1a-H1h) and the moderating role of the cultural background, both at the coun-

try and individual level (H2a-H2d). Here, we also tested the hypotheses related to the Price value, as

we had data on this variable for the Dutch and Chinese respondents. Purchase Intentions was the

dependent variable for every model. Also here, before analysing the results of every model, four

assumptions for multiple regression were evaluated (Hair et al., 2010; James et al., 2013). Detailed

results for each of the models we tested are depicted in Appendix K.

First of all, the hypotheses regarding the positive effect of the Price value and the moderating

role of Individualism/Collectivism on this variable were not supported in this analysis. Regarding the

hypotheses we already tested on the whole sample (Section 4.2), the analysis conducted here partially

confirmed the findings of Section 4.2. In particular, the coefficients for Conspicuousness (B=.665)

and Social Status (B=.223) were positive and significant, respectively bringing further support to

Hypotheses H1a and H1b. However, the positive effect of Uniqueness (H1g) found in the main anal-

ysis was not supported in this robustness analysis, as the coefficient was not statistically significant.

Regarding the moderating role of cultural background, the analysis confirmed that, at the country-

level, the relation between Social Status and Purchase Intentions is stronger for the collectivist con-

sumers (H2c). On the other hand, the moderating role we found in the main analysis of the cultural

background, at the individual-level, on the relation between Uniqueness and Purchase Intentions was

not found here. The complete results for the four models, with a description for all of them, can be

found in Appendix K.

5.3. Hypotheses testing with structural equation modelling

In this section, we present the results of the hypotheses testing we conducted through struc-

tural equation modelling and path analysis. We tested relations between seven luxury values (Price

was excluded as there were no data for US and Saudi respondents on that variable) and Purchase

Intentions, which was our dependent variable9. Figure 3 shows the path model used to test the hy-

potheses. We first tested the direct effect of each luxury value on Purchase Intentions for the whole

9 We tested the model regarding the direct relations between the luxury values and Purchase Intentions also including

the control variables related to gender, age, ethnicity and household income. The impact of their inclusion on the luxury

values’ path coefficients size and significance was negligible; hence, we decide not to include the control variables in

the models tested through structural equation modelling. This was also a way to check if the results we found in the

main analyses kept being supported using not just a different estimation methods, but also excluding the controls.

45

sample (Hypotheses H1a-H1g). Subsequently, we performed different multigroup analyses to assess

differences between collectivist and individualist respondents (H2a-H2c). Then, we analysed differ-

ences between males and females, both among collectivist and individualist respondents (H3a-H3c).

The analyses fully confirmed the results of Section 4.2 and 4.3. Detailed explanations of the methods

and the results are presented in Appendix L.

Figure 3. Path analysis model with seven luxury values

46

6. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

This thesis had multiple goals. First, we wanted to validate Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s luxury

values model. Then, we aimed at further proving the existence of positive relations between the values

associated with luxury goods and the intentions to purchase these products. Subsequently, we were

interested in evaluating the impact of a collectivist or individualist cultural background in these rela-

tionships, both at the country and individual-level. Finally, we wanted to assess the role of gender in

these relations, focusing separately on individualist and collectivist consumers both at the country

and individual-level.

Regarding the relations between the luxury values defined by Wiedmann et al. (2007), our

findings contrasted with their framework. In the model without the Price value, we found that the

Quality value was related to the components of the Individual value of luxury. This suggests that

consumers do not consider the high quality of luxury goods as an indicator of superior functionality,

but rather instills personal satisfaction motives. The Uniqueness value was found to be connected to

the components of the Social value. Hence, it is possible that consumers buy luxury goods, often

regarded as exclusive and unique, to enhance their social image and increase their status. When testing

the model also including the Price value, we found this luxury value to be related to the components

of the Social Value. Therefore, we can argue that the high price of luxury goods is seen as a means

to signal wealth by consuming them, enhancing again individuals’ social image.

We then tested the relations between the eight luxury goods and Purchase Intentions, as well

as the moderating role of cultural background. Conspicuousness and Social Status positively pre-

dicted Purchase Intentions. This brings further support to the idea that luxury goods are considered

as a means to impress others and to achieve status (Shukla, 2010). Pressures coming from the social

group influence consumer behaviour and people often feel the need to communicate their status (Zhan

& He, 2011). No significant differences were found on the relation between Conspicuousness and

Purchase Intentions when comparing collectivist and individualist consumers. Hence, the consump-

tion of expensive goods to show off wealth (Wiedmann et al., 2009) happens independently from the

attitude towards the social group. On the other hand, the results revealed that the impact of the Social

Status value on intentions to purchase was stronger among consumers coming from collectivist coun-

tries. This is consistent with the findings of Mourali et al. (2005), where consumers belonging to

collectivist countries were found to be more susceptible to interpersonal influence and more willing

to display status than those belonging to individualist countries. However, we did not find support for

the moderating role of cultural background on the relation between Social Status and Purchase

47

Intentions at the individual-level These contrasting findings could lead to the idea that the Social

Status value is something connected to the actual national setting consumers belong to, regardless of

their personal inclination towards Individualism and Collectivism. People belonging to collectivist

countries might feel the need to prove and impress with their status the others in any case; on the

other hand, even people showing a higher tendency towards collectivist behaviours might not feel the

same need to impress the others if they belong to countries with lower ‘group pressure’.

We did not find any support for all the hypotheses related to Self-Identity, Self-Directed Pleas-

ure, and Self-Esteem. The results contrast with the theory, which considers these values to be among

the main reasons for consumers to purchase luxury goods (Vigneron et al., 2004). A possible expla-

nation is that these values are not important enough to motivate consumer purchases, which are more

driven by social motives. This actually confirms the idea brought by Wiedmann et al. (2007); they

acknowledged the importance of the individual values in the luxury goods consumption while arguing

they were not enough to fully explain what drives consumers to buy these products. It is also possible

that the increased availability and accessibility of luxury fashion goods have a negative impact on the

positive emotions people feel when purchasing them (Shukla et. al, 2012), or that they tend not to

identify much with these products anymore. More research could be conducted on this aspect, also

on a sample not consisting of students, to further assess if and how purchasing luxury goods has a

direct impact on people’s inner selves.

Surprisingly, no support was found for the hypotheses connected to Quality. Luxury goods

are globally recognized as products crafted following high standards in terms of materials and pro-

duction techniques (De Barnier et al., 2006), and superior quality has been often found to be one of

the main drivers of luxury goods consumption (Aliyev et. al, 2018; Shukla et al., 2012). This unusual

finding might depend on the sample used for this study, mostly consisting of young consumers. It is

possible that younger generations do not care much about the materials and the durability of the prod-

ucts they buy, but they rather focus on their look and status symbol meaning. Therefore, quality might

not be a major discriminant for them in their purchasing decisions. Uniqueness, on the other hand,

was found to positively predict Purchase Intentions. Despite being now more widely distributed, lux-

ury goods are still considered as something rare, not common, that can be used by individuals to

distinguish themselves from the others (Lee et al., 2011); this, in turn, becomes one of the main rea-

sons pushing consumers to buy luxury products. We found contrasting results regarding the differ-

ences between collectivist and individualist consumers. When we compared them at the country-

level, no significant differences were found. This actually reflects the disagreement in the theory

around this topic; in some cases, the importance of Uniqueness was found to be stronger in individu-

alist countries (Yamaguchi, 1994), while others found it was stronger in collectivist countries (Bian

48

et al. 2012). On the other hand, we found support for the hypothesis when we compared individualist

and collectivist consumers at the individual-level. In particular, the impact of Uniqueness on Purchase

Intentions was stronger for the collectivist group. As explained, the previous studies did not reach an

agreement regarding which consumers value Uniqueness the most. These studies mostly focused on

the nationality of the consumers, without investigating if their attitude was more individualistic or

collectivistic. The findings of this thesis might indicate that the importance given to this value de-

pends more on personal attitude towards the reference group, rather than on the nationality, and that

national culture and individual values are not always aligned. It is important to mention, however,

that we did not find support for these group differences when we tested the hypothesis on the Chinese

and Dutch subsample (Section 5.2). Hence, these results are not widely generalizable.

Concerning the financial dimension, we did not find any support for the hypotheses related to

the Price value. Hennings et al. (2012) already found that US consumers did not associate luxury

goods with financial matters. The result of our study revealed that this also applies to Chinese and

Dutch consumers. This implicates that consumers coming from these countries might not give much

importance to aspects such as the price and the resale value of luxury goods.

Finally, we wanted to investigate possible differences in consumer behaviour between men

and women. In particular, we theorized these discrepancies to also depend on the consumers’ indi-

vidualist or collectivist cultural background. However, the study revealed no significant differences

across the genders, neither at the individual nor at the country-level analysis. The fact that the study

did not support our hypotheses opens to the possibility that, when it comes to luxury goods, men and

women purchase them for similar reasons. Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2013) showed that women have

a more positive attitude towards luxury products than men; however, in recent years, men’s expenses

on luxury goods have rapidly increased (Parisi, 2017). Past research found that, for men, conspicuous

consumption is mostly a way to show wealth and economic achievement (O’Cass & McEwen, 2004),

while women tend to consider other aspects. Altintas et. al (2018) found that there were essentially

no differences between men and women on self-identity motives when engaging in luxury consump-

tion. These studies, however, focus on Western countries. Our study showed that, both among col-

lectivist and individualist countries, no major differences exist between men and women on the rea-

sons for purchasing luxury goods. The fact that men are now buying luxury goods as much as women

might reflect a homogenization of the drivers of luxury consumption. Men might not focus anymore

only on displaying power and wealth, but they might also consider other aspects of these products.

At the same time, it is possible that women are starting to buy luxury goods to show off economic

achievement and power too. However, our results are based on a sample mostly consisting of young

consumers; among older cohorts, gender differences might actually exist.

49

6.1. Theoretical implications

The study has multiple theoretical implications. First of all, it brings more support to the idea

that consumers are attracted to luxury goods for multiple reasons (Wiedmann et al., 2007). In partic-

ular, these products are mostly associated with a status-seeking behaviour. Luxury goods are consid-

ered as conspicuous and as a means to show prestige, wealth, and status to the others. Moreover, they

are still associated with the idea of being something unique and not achievable by everybody, increas-

ing their desirability. Furthermore, the study also proved the existence of some differences between

collectivist and individualist consumers when it comes to the driver of luxury purchase intentions. In

particular, differences were found on the Social Status and Uniqueness values. It is important to notice

that the results on the moderating role of cultural background also depended on how collectivist and

individualist consumers were identified. In particular, the relation between Social Status and Purchase

Intentions was moderated by cultural background at the country-level analysis; on the other hand, no

moderating effect was found when collectivist and individualist consumers at the individual level.

The exact opposite situation happened for the relation between Uniqueness and Purchase intentions.

These findings suggest that the willingness to display and achieve social status is highly affected by

the national setting where consumers belong to. On the other hand, the need for uniqueness depends

more on consumers’ attitudes towards the reference group, regardless of their nationality. This indi-

rectly brings support to some theories on cultural differences, which stress the importance of avoiding

‘ecological fallacy’ by thinking that all individuals coming from a specific country behave the same

(Berry, Guillèn & Zhou, 2010; Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). Finally, this study revealed that no

major differences exist between males and females regarding the drivers of luxury goods purchase

intentions. Contrary to the expectations, no differences were found neither among collectivist nor

among individualist consumers. To our knowledge, this was the first study to assess eventual gender

differences on the luxury values included in Wiedmann et al. (2007)’s model both among collectivist

and individualist people.

6.2. Managerial implications

This study provides possible suggestions for luxury brand managers. First of all, the analyses

emphasized even more how the Social value really affects consumers’ purchase decisions. The intent

to show off and achieve status is still one of the main, if not the main, driver of luxury purchase

intentions. Moreover, the need for uniqueness was found to be an important aspect for the consumers,

which should be taken into consideration. Managers should try to communicate these values through

50

different channels. Commercials and marketing campaigns can spread the word and attract consumers

to the stores. Subsequently, it is the role of the salespeople to properly emphasize the Conspicuous-

ness, Uniqueness, and Social Status values when selling the products. Managers should invest in

training employees, to make sure everybody knows what the consumers look for in a luxury product.

Companies should keep shifting from a product-centric to a customer-centric approach. This means

marketing products not focusing only on their intrinsic functional characteristics, but leveraging how

they can satisfy consumer’s needs and desires.

Secondly, the study revealed that not all the customers are alike; indeed, the emphasis on

Social Status and Uniqueness can differ between collectivist and individualist consumers. Marketing

campaigns and sales approaches can be differentiated according to the local customer base. However,

managers need to be aware that differences in consumers behaviour exist even among the same coun-

tries; belonging to a collectivist or individualist country does not directly implicate having the same

needs and interests of the other co-nationals. Finally, the study revealed that differentiating men and

women, when it comes to luxury goods, might be superfluous. Hence, managers could think of com-

mon approaches to target both consumer segments, reducing time and costs required to develop these

strategies.

6.3. Limitations of the study and future research directions

Despite its strengths and its solid theoretical base, this study presents some limitations.

First of all, due to time and resource limitations, the data we collected on the Dutch and Chinese

respondents had to be integrated with data previously collected by another researcher among US and

Saudi respondents. On one side, this allowed us to have a bigger sample to test the hypotheses; on the

other hand, data have been collected in two different years (2015 and 2020). While culture changes

quite slowly (Inglehart & Baker, 2000), fashion trends are something change quite quickly. The per-

ception of luxury clothing depends a lot on marketing campaigns and on the trend of the moment;

therefore, using data not coming from the same period might lead to potential bias. Moreover, the

study focused on luxury fashion goods. Further studies could focus on different luxury categories, as

the luxury sector is broad and it also includes products that are economically accessible to fewer

people compared to fashion goods.

A second limitation refers to the gender distribution across the sample. Overall, roughly 3/4

of the sample was represented by female respondents. However, for the Saudi sample, this percentage

was 97%, since only 8 respondents were male. The number of Chinese male respondents was low as

well. The comparison between males and females in the collectivist sample might then be biased,

51

since the size of the two subsamples were quite different. Future research could collect further insights

on the differences between males and females using a bigger and more balanced sample.

Furthermore, the sample consisted of students, which are often used as representatives for a

population (Schwartz, 1992). However, data have been collected on students only belonging to four

universities (one in the US, one in Saudia Arabia, two in the Netherlands). Therefore, they might not

be fully representative of each nationality. Future studies could collect data on different cohorts within

each country, in order to test conduct analysis on samples that better represent the consumers for each

nationality.

Finally, future research could look into actual purchasing activities conducted by people. This

study focuses on the willingness to buy luxury products; however, intentions not always translate into

actual purchase and consumption. The motivations attracting people towards these products might be

different from those leading to buy them. Therefore, the research could be extended measuring if

differences exist between consumers with different cultural backgrounds and genders measuring ac-

tual purchases decision; this could lead to differentiating what are the main values attracting the con-

sumers and which are the ones that actually lead them to complete the purchase.

52

REFERENCES

Abalkhail, T. S. (2015). An assessment of values concerning luxury brand purchase intention: A

cross-culture comparison. Louisiana State University, USA. Retrieved from https://digitalcom-

mons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2851

Aliyev, F., & Wagner, R. (2018). Cultural influence on luxury value perceptions: Collectivist vs.

individualist luxury perceptions. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 30(3), 158–172.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2017.1381872

Allison, G. M. (2008). Cross-cultural study of motivation for consuming luxuries. Lincoln Univer-

sity, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/bitstream/han-

dle/10182/1236/allison_phd.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Altintas, M., & Heischmidt, K. A. (2018). Gender differences in self-identity motives for luxury con-

sumption. Journal of Behavioural Studies in Business, 10, 1–26.

Andersen, L. P., Tufte, B., Rasmussen, J., & Chan, K. (2007). Tweens and new media in Denmark

and Hong Kong. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(6), 340-350.

Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., Sheldon, K.M. (2004). The urge to splurge: a terror management

account of materialism and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 198–

212.

Bain & Company (2019). Luxury goods worldwide market study, Fall–Winter 2018: The future of

luxury. A look into tomorrow to understand today. Retrieved from https://www.bain.com/in-

sights/luxury-goods-worldwide-market-study-fall-winter-2018/

Bain & Company (2020). Bain & Company Luxury Study 2020 Spring Update. Retrieved from

https://www.bain.com/about/media-center/press-releases/2020/spring-luxury-report/

Bearden, W. O. & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase

decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183–194

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(2), 139–

168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154

53

Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. (2010). An institutional approach to cross-national distance.

Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9), 1460-1480.

https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.28

Bezzaouia, M. & Joanta, A. R. (2016). The relationships between cultural values and consumer mo-

tivations for purchasing luxury brands. Ecoforum, 5(1), 150–161.

Bian, Q. & Forsythe, S. (2012). Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural comparison.

Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1443–151.

Brown, J.D. (1993). Self-esteem and self-evaluation: Feeling is believing. In: Suls, J. (Ed.), Psycho-

logical Perspectives on the Self. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 27–58.

Burns D.J. & Brady, J. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of the need for uniqueness in Malaysia

and the United States. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(4), 487–495.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in

37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14

Cattell, R.B. (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1, 245–276.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.

Chang, L.C., & Arkin, R. (2002). Materialism as an attempt to cope with uncertainty. Psychology

and Marketing 19, 389–406.

Chang, G., & Mahmassani, H. S. (1988). Travel time prediction and departure time adjustment be-

havior dynamics in a congested traffic system. Transportation Research, 22B(3), 217.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum As-

sociates.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological

Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37

Cuddy, A. J., Wolf, E. B., Glick, P., Crotty, S., Chong, J., & Norton, M. I. (2015). Men as cultural

ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 109(4), 622–635.

Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related

behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369–389

54

De Barnier, V., Rodina, I., & Valette-Florence, P. (2006). Which luxury perceptions affect most

consumer purchase behavior ? A cross cultural exploratory study in france , the united kingdom

and russia. Proceedings Des Congrés Paris-Venise Des Tendences Marketing, 1–27.

De Mooij, M. (1998). Masculinity / femininity and consumer behavior. In Hofstede, G. and associates

(1998). Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications

De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer behavior: Implica-

tions for international retailing. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 61–69.

Dittmar, H. (1994). Material possessions as stereotypes: Material images of different socio-economic

groups.‖ Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(4), 561–585.

Dittmar, H. & Drury, J. (2000). Self-image - is it in the bag? A qualitative comparison between "or-

dinary" and "excessive" consumers, Journal of Economic Psychology, 21(2), 109–142.

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effect of Price, Brand and Store Information on

Buyers’ Product Evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 28(3), 307–319

Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., Lautenbach, S. (2013).

Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their per-

formance. Ecography, 36(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x

Dubois, B., & Duquesne, P. (1993). The Market for Luxury Goods: Income versus Culture. European

Journal of Marketing, 27(1), 34–44

Dubois, B. & Laurent, G. (1994). Attitudes toward the concept of luxury: An exploratory analysis. In

Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research. Eds. Siew Meng Leong and Joseph A. Cote, 1,

2, 273–278.

Dubois, B., Laurent G., & Czellar, S. (2001). Consumer rapport to luxury: Analyzing complex and

ambivalent attitudes. Consumer Research Working Paper, No. 736, HEC, Jouyen-Josas: FR.

Earley, C. & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Research edge : Toward culture intelligence: Turning cultural

differences into a workplace advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 151–157.

55

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, 41–52.

Faculty, M. B., & Joanta, A. R. (2016). The relationships between cultural values and consumer

motivations for purchasing luxury brands. Ecoforum, 5(1), 150–161.

Floh, A., & Treiblmaier, H. (2006). What keeps the e-banking customer loyal? A multigroup analy-

sis of the moderating role of consumer characteristics on e-loyalty in the financial service in-

dustry. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 7(2), 97–110

Field, A. (2000). Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

publications

Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. (2011). Whence differences in value priorities?: Individual, cultural, or

artifactual sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(7), 1127–1144.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381429

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference.

11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. The Quarterly Jour-

nal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100.

Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educational International.

Harzing, A.W.K. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study, In-

ternational. Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(2), 243–266.

Heflick, N. A., Goldenberg, J. L., Cooper, D. P., & Puvia, E. (2011). From women to objects: Ap-

pearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 572–581.

Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K.P., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., Neulinger, A.,

Dave, K., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Taro, K., Taborecka-Petrovicova, J., Santos, C.R., Jung, J. &

Oh, H. (2012). What is the value of luxury? A cross-cultural consumer perspective. Psychology

& Marketing, 29(6), 1018–1034.

56

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods

and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92–101.

Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81(4), 867–884.

doi:10.1086/226145

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organi-

zations across nations (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2004). Cultures and organizations: Software for the mind. London,

UK: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede Insights, (n.d.). Country comparison. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-in-

sights.com/country-comparison/

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Con-

ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Inglehart, R. & Baker, W. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional

values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.

James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning: with

applications in R. Corrected edition. New York, NY: Springer.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36

Kapferer, J. N., & Bastien, V. (2009). The specificity of luxury management: Turning marketing

upside down. Journal of Brand Management 16(5), 311–322.

Kasser, T. (2001). The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

57

Keller, K.L. (2009). Managing the growth tradeoff: challenges and opportunities in luxury branding.

Journal of Brand Management, 16(5–6), 290–301.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation

modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press

Lalwani, A. K., & Shavit, S. (2013). You get what you pay for? Self-construal influences price-quality

judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 255–267. doi:10.1086/670034.

Lee, S., & Leizerovici, G. (2011). A longitudinal study of consumers need for uniqueness on devel-

opment of networks. Advances in Consumer Research, 39, 279–286.

Lei, P. W., & Wu, Q. (2007). An NCME instructional module on: Introduction to structural equa-

tion modeling: Issues and practical considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Prac-

tice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00099.x

Lenartowicz, T., Roth, K. (2001). Does subculture within a country matter? A cross-cultural study

of motivational domains and business performance in Brazil. Journal of International Business

Studies, 32, 305–325.

Leonard, N. H., Beauvais, L. L., & Scholl, R. W. (1995). A self concept-based model of work moti-

vation. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1995(1), 322–326.

https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1995.17536607

Leys, C., Delacre, M., Mora, Y. L., Lakens, D., & Ley, C. (2019). How to classify, detect, and manage

univariate and multivariate outliers, with emphasis on pre-registration. International Review of

Social Psychology, 32(1), 5. http://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.289

Li, F., & Aksoy, L. (2007). Dimensionality of individualism–collectivism and measurement equiva-

lence of Triandis and Gelfand’s scale. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3, 313–329

Li, J. J., & Su, C. (2007). How face influences consumption A comparative study of American and

Chinese consumers. International Journal of Market Research, 49(2), 237–256.

Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature.‖

Psychology and Marketing, 8(1), 45–57.

58

Mahalanobis, P.C. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National In-

stitute of Sciences of India, 2(1), 49–55

Malai, V. (2007). The use of collectivist and individualist culture as an indicator for finding patterns

of international tourists. The Business Review, Cambridge, 7(2), 323–326.

Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment and

brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self, Journal of Marketing,

75(4), 35–52.

Mandel, N., & Smeesters, D. (2008). The sweet escape: Effects of mortality salience on consumption

quantities for high and low self-esteem consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 309–

323.

Marcoux, J.-S., Filiatrault, F. & Cheron, E.J. (1997). The attitudes underlying preferences of young

urban educated Polish consumers towards products made in Western countries, Journal of Inter-

national Consumer Marketing, 9(4), 5–29.

Mason, R. S. (1981). Conspicuous consumption. New York, NY: Gower Press, Farnborough and

St.Martins Press.

Mason, R. (1984). Buyer behaviour and the market for status goods. Marketing Intelligence and Plan-

ning, 2(2), 29–39.

Meyers-Levy J. (1988). The influence of sex roles on judgment. Journal of Consumer Research ,

14(4), 522–30

Miller, P. W. & Volker, P.A. (1985). Economic progress in Australia: An analysis of occupational

mobility. Economic Record, 61(1), 463–475. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4932.1985.tb01998.x.

Mourali, M., Laroche, M., & Pons, F. (2005). Individualistic orientation and consumer susceptibility

to interpersonal influence. Journal of Services Marketing, 19, 164–173.

Nunnally, J.C, & Bernstein, I.H. (1994) The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248–

292.

59

O'Cass, A. & Frost, H. (2002) Status brands: examining the effects of non-product brand associations

on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11(2), 67–

88.

O'Cass A, McEwen H. (2004). Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of

Consumer Behavior, 4(1), 25–39.

Pantzalis, I. (1995). Exclusivity strategies in pricing and brand extension, unpublished doctoral dis-

sertation. University of Arizona: Tucson, AZ.

Papadopoulos, N., & Martín, O. (2011). International market selection and segmentation: Perspec-

tives and challenges. International Marketing Review, 28(2), 132–149.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331111122632

Parisi, D. (2017). Men spend more on luxury, but shop the same amount as women: report. Retrieved

from https://www.luxurydaily.com/men-spend-more-on-luxury-but-shop-the-same-amount-as-

women-report/

Park, H., Rabolt, N., & Jeon, K. (2008). Purchasing global luxury brand among young Korean con-

sumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 12(2), 244–259.

Peterson, R.A. (2001) On the use of college students in social science research: insights from a sec-

ond-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450–461.

Prakash, V. (1992). Sex roles and advertising preferences. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(3),

43–52.

Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Furrer, O., Kuo, M. H., Li, Y., Wangenheim, F., … Weber, M. (2014).

Societal-level versus individual-level predictions of ethical behavior: A 48-society study of Col-

lectivism and Individualism. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2), 283–306.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1744-9

Randall, J. & Joo Jung, H. (2018). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In Frey, B.B., The SAGE Encyclo-

pedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation, 365–370, Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications

Richins, M. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research. USA: Routledge Inter-

pretive Market Research Series

60

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press

Roux, E. (1995). Consumer evaluation of luxury brand extensions. EMAC Conference, May, ESSEC,

Paris, FR.

Roux, E., Tafani, E. & Vigneron, F. (2017). Values associated with luxury brand consumption and

the role of gender. Journal of Business Research, 71, 102–113.

Sari, D., & Kusuma, B. (2014). Does luxury brand perception matter in purchase intention? A com-

parison between a Japanese brand and a German brand. ASEAN Marketing Journal, 6(1), 50–

63. https://doi.org/10.21002/amj.v6i1.3654

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical

tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (25,

1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

Schwartz, S. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Compara-

tive Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.

Sheth, J.N, Newman, B.I. & Gross, B.I. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption

values, Journal of Business Research 22(1), 159–170.

Shiffman, L., Kanuk, L. (2009). Consumer behavior (10th Edition). London: Pearson International.

Shukla, P. (2010). Status consumption in cross-national context: Socio-psychological, brand and sit-

uational antecedents, International Marketing Review 27(1), 108–129.

Shukla, P. (2011). Impact of interpersonal influences, brand origin and brand image on luxury pur-

chase intentions: Measuring interfunctional interactions and a cross-national comparison. Jour-

nal of World Business, 46(2), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.11.002

Shukla, P. (2012). The influence of value perceptions on luxury purchase intentions in developed and

emerging markets. International Marketing Review, 29(6), 574–596.

Shukla, P., & Purani, K. (2012). Comparing the importance of luxury value perceptions in cross-

national contexts. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1417–1424.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.007

61

Singh, S. (2020). The curious phenomenon of revenge shopping in China after lockdown. The Eco-

nomic Times. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/re-

tail/the-curious-phenomenon-of-revenge-shopping-in-china-after-lockdown/arti-

cleshow/75509099.cms?from=mdr

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer Behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Re-

search 9 (3), 287–300.

Smith, P.B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(1), 50–61.

Solomon, M. R. (2011). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Sparks, P., & Guthrie, C.A. (1998). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: A useful addi-

tion or an unhelpful artifice?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1393–410.

Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-na-

tional consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107.

Stokburger-Sauer, N. E., & Teichmann, K. (2013). Is luxury just a female thing? The role of gender

in luxury brand consumption. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 889–896.

Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson

Triandis, H. (1988). Collectivism v. individualism: A reconceptualisation of a basic concept in cross-

cultural social psychology. In Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes and cognition, ed.

C. Bagley and G. Verma, 60–95. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

Trompenaars A, Hampden-Turner C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: understanding diversity in

global business. London, UK: McGraw-Hill; .

Truong, Y., & McColl, R. (2011). Intrinsic motivations, self-esteem, and luxury goods consump-

tion. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(6), 555–561.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.08.004

62

Truong, Y., Simmons, G., McColl, R. & Kitchen, P.J. (2008). Status and conspicuousness - are they

related? Strategic marketing implications for luxury brands. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16

(3), 189–203

Tsai, S. P. (2005). Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value. International Jour-

nal of Market Research, 47, 177–206

Turner, J. C. (1981). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Cahiers de Psychologie

Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 1(2), 93–118.

Veblen, T. (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of Brand

Management, 11(6), 484–506.

Westbrook, R.A & Oliver, R.L. (1991). The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and

consumer satisfaction.‖ Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 84–91.

Wiedmann, K.P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2007). Measuring consumers’ luxury value perception:

A cross-cultural framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 7, 1–21.

Wiedmann, K.P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A.(2009). Value-based segmentation of luxury consump-

tion behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 26(7), 625–651. doi:10.1002/ mar.20292.

Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in Con-

fucian and Western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 423–441

Workman, J. E., & Lee, S. H. (2011). Vanity and public self-consciousness: A comparison of fashion

consumer groups and gender. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(3), 307–315.

Wylie, R. (1979). The self-concept: Theory and research on selected topics. Lincoln, NE: University

of Nebraska Press.

Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Empirical evidence on collectivism among the Japanese. In U. Kim, H. Tri-

andis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory,

method, and applications, 175–188. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yong Eng, T. (2012). Psychological and cultural insight into consumption of luxury western brand

in India. Journal of Customer Behavior, 9(1), 55–75

63

Zhan, L. & He, Y. (2012). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer perceptions of

best-known brands. Journal of Business Research. 65, 1452–1460.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.011

64

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Survey

Part 1 – Introduction to the questionnaire and initial screening

Luxury brands are brands that represent the highest level of prestigious products, and are

associated with exclusivity and a high price.

1. Given the above definition, would you consider purchasing a luxury brand for personal us-

age, family usage, or for gifts to family/friends? (Those who answer “no” will not qualify to

move forward with the survey)

• Yes

• No

2. Which of the following brands would you consider purchasing (Check all that

apply)?

• Gucci

• Chanel

• Dior

• Louis Vuitton

• Giorgio Armani

• Prada

• Burberry

• Tiffany & Co

• Cartier

• Hermes

• Ralph Lauren

• Dolce & Gabbana

• Salvatore Ferragamo

• Calvin Klein

• Fendi

• Chloe’

• Moschino

• Christian Louboutin

• Jimmy Choo

• Michael Kors

• Manolo Blahnik

65

Part 2 – Luxury Value Dimensions and Purchase intention

• Part 2.1 – Functional value dimension

Thinking about your luxury purchase intention, please indicate your agreement or disagreement

with the statements below.

1. Product quality superiority is my major reason for buying a luxury brand

2. I place emphasis on quality assurance over prestige when considering the purchase

of a luxury brand

3. A luxury brand preferred by many people that does not meet my quality standards

will never enter into my purchasing considerations

4. I'm often on the lookout for new products or brands that will add to my personal

uniqueness

5. Having an eye for products that are interesting and unusual assists me in

establishing a distinctive image

6. I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products because I

enjoy being original

7. I often dress unconventionally even when it's likely to offend others

8. If someone hinted that I had been dressing inappropriately for a social situation, I

would continue dressing in the same manner

9. I dislike brands or products that are customarily purchased by everyone

10. I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general population

• Part 2.2 - Financial value dimension

11. Luxury products are inevitably very expensive.

12. Few people own a true luxury product.

13. Truly luxury products cannot be mass-produced

14. A luxury product cannot be sold in supermarkets.

66

• Part 2.3 – Social value dimension

Still thinking about your luxury purchase intention, please indicate your agreement or disagree-

ment with the statements below.

15. Luxury brands symbolize one’s social status

16. Luxury brands represent the latest lifestyles

17. Luxury brands signify one’s trendy image

18. Luxury brands are associated with the symbol of prestige

19. Product prestige is my major reason for buying a luxury brand

20. It is important for me that the luxury brand I buy improves my image

21. The luxury brand I purchase must be a status symbol

• Part 2.4 - Individual value dimension

Still thinking about your luxury purchase intention, please indicate your agreement or disagree-

ment with the statements below.

22. I never buy a luxury brand inconsistent with the characteristics with which I describe my-

self

23. The luxury brands I buy must match what and who I really am

24. My choice of luxury brands depends on whether they reflect how I see myself but not how

others see me

25. I buy a luxury brand only because it pleases me, so I do not care about whether it pleases

others

26. I tend to concentrate consumption on my own pleasure rather than others', so I consider only

my own pleasure

27. I can enjoy luxury brands entirely on my own terms, no matter what others may feel about

them

Based on your overall opinion of yourself, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with

the statements below.

28. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself

29. I feel that I am a person of worth

30. All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure. (Reversed)

67

31. I take a positive attitude toward myself

• Part 2.5 - Luxury Purchase Intention

Thinking about your luxury purchase intention, please indicate your agreement or disagreement

with the statements below.

32. I purchase luxury brands to show who I am

33. I would buy a luxury brand just because it has status

34. Owning luxury brands indicate a symbol of wealth

35. I would pay more for a luxury brand if it has status

36. Luxury brands are important to me because they make me feel more acceptable in my work

circle

Part 3 - Collectivism and Individualism

Thinking about your personal values and general way of life, please indicate your

agreement or disagreement with the statements below.

• Part 3.1 – Collectivism

1. Parents and children must stay together as much as possible

2. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want

3. Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required

4. It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my groups

5. If a coworker gets a prize, I would feel proud

6. The well-being of my coworkers is important to me

7. To me, pleasure is spending time with others

8. I feel good when I cooperate with others

• Part 3.2 – Individualism

9. It is important that I do my job better than others

10. Winning is everything

11. Competition is the law of nature

12. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused

68

13. I’d rather depend on myself than others

14. I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others

15. I often do my own thing

16. My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me

Part 4 - Demographic information

1. What is your gender?

• Female

• Male

2. What is your age?

• 18 to 24

• 25 to 34

• 35 to 44

• 45 to 54

• 55 or older

3. What is your ethnicity?

• American Indian or Alaskan Native

• Asian or Pacific Islander

• Black or African American

• Hispanic or Latino

• White / Caucasian

• Arab

• Other

4. What is your approximate average household income?

• $0-$24,999 → (0 - €22,499)

• $25,000-$49,999 → (€22,500 - €44,999)

• $50,000-$74,999 → (€45,000 - €67,499)

• $75,000-$99,999 → (€67,500 - €89,999)

• $100,000-$124,999 → (€90,000 - €112,499)

• $125,000-$149,999 → (€112,500 - €134,999)

• $150,000-$174,999 → (€135,000 - €152,499)

• $175,000-$199,999 → (€152,500 - €174,999)

• $200,000 and up → (€152,500 - €174,999)

69

Appendix B. Response bias

When measuring variables through a questionnaire, it is important to take into account that

response styles differ between individuals. Taking this aspect into consideration is necessary to assess

the comparability of the responses when different groups are compared, like in the case of respondents

coming from different nationalities. Studies found differences in the response styles on Likert-scale

questionnaires across nationalities (Harzing, 2006). In particular, we evaluated two eventual bias of-

ten discussed, namely ‘extreme response bias’ and ‘acquiescence/disacquiescence bias’.

Extreme responses bias. First of all, the tendency to prefer extreme or middle responses is

often analysed. In particular, it has been found that collectivist respondents tend to give more middle

answers than individualists, which on the other hand prefer a higher rate of extreme responses (Har-

zing, 2006; Smith, 2004). In this study, we then expected US and Dutch respondents to give more

extreme answers than Chinese and Saudi. Table B1 shows that, in contrast with previous findings,

Chinese and Saudi individuals gave a higher proportion of extreme answers (1 or 5) compared to

respondents belonging to the other two countries. US and Dutch respondents, on the other hand, pre-

sented a higher middle response ratio. This unexpected result can be explained by the composition of

the sample; indeed, despite coming from a collectivist country, Chinese respondents were the ones

scoring higher on Individualism on the questionnaire. Dutch individuals, contrary to the expectations,

scored the lowest (Appendix D); therefore, the results from the extreme response bias analysis can

actually be affected by the surprising composition of the sample. However, differences between the

nationalities were not too extreme and therefore did not represent a problem for the analysis.

Table B1

Distribution of extreme and middle responses

Country % Extreme

responses (1 and 5)

% Middle

responses (2-3-4)

% Neutral

responses (3)

Saudi Arabia 26.89% 73.11% 18.41%

United States 22.54% 77.46% 21.39%

China 30.09% 69.91% 20.45%

Netherlands 26.53% 73.47% 20.88%

70

Acquiescence bias. The second bias that is often analysed is defined as ‘acquies-

cence/disacquiescence bias’. This represents the tendency to agree or disagree with an item, regard-

less of the content (Harzing, 2006). On a 5 point Likert-scale, this can be represented by the tendency

to answer most of the questions either with 4-5 or 1-2. Also for this bias, previous studies suggest

that collectivist countries present a higher acquiescence bias, for their tendency to aim at in-group

harmony; on the other hand, individualist countries show in general more acceptance for confronta-

tion and discussions, therefore present a higher disacquiescence bias. Table B2 shows that, as ex-

pected, for the Chinese and Saudi respondents the percentage of acquiescent responses was higher

than in the other two groups. Dutch respondents were the ones with the highest percentage of

disacquiescent answers; however, Saudi and not US respondents had the second highest % of

disacquiescent respondes. Overall, however, the differences were again not too extreme to compro-

mise the analysis.

Table B2

Distribution of acquiescent and disacquiescent responses

Country

Acquiescence

(% of responses

with 4 or 5)

Disacquiescence

(% of responses

with 1 or 2)

Acquiescence balance

(% Acquiescence - %

Disacquiescence)

Saudi Arabia 58.89% 23% 35.89%

United States 58.53% 20.08% 38.45%

China 59.34% 20.21% 39.13%

Netherlands 54.24% 24.88% 28.36%

71

Appendix C. Description of the sample

Table C1

Sample description in terms of nationality, gender, age, ethnicity, and household income (N = 524)

Whole sample

Saudi Arabia USA

China

Netherlands

Sample Size

524

281 (53.6%)

173 (33%)

27 (5.2%)

43 (8.2%)

Gender

Male 130 (24.8%) 8 (2.8%) 90 (52%) 10 (37%) 22 (51.2%)

Female 394 (75.2%) 273 (93.2%) 83 (48%) 17 (63%) 21 (48.8%) Age group

18-24 308 (58.8%) 134 (47.7%) 129 (74.6%) 14 (51.9%) 31 (72.1%)

25-34 164 (31.3%) 110 (39.1%) 30 (17.3%) 12 (44.4%) 12 (27.9%) > 34 52 (9.9%) 37 (13.2%) 14 (8.1%) 1 (3.7%) /

Ethnicity

American Indian/ Alaskan Native

3 (0.5%) /

3 (1.7%) / /

Asian / Pacific Islander

51 (9.7%) 1 (0.4%) 22 (12.7%) 27 (100%) 1 (2.3%)

Black / African American

26 (5.2%) / 26 (15%) / /

Hispanic/ Latino 15 (2.9%) / 14 (8.1%) / 1 (2.3%)

Caucasian

147 (28%) 2 (0.7%) 104 (60.1%) / 41 (95.4%)

Arab 276 (52.8%) 274 (97.5%) 2 (1.2%) / /

Other 6 (1.1%) 4 (1.4%) 2 (1.2%) / /

Household Income

€ 0-44.999 290 (55.3%) 153 (54.4%) 97 (56.1%) 7 (25.9%) 33 (76.7%)

€ 45.000-89.999 108 (20.6%) 69 (24.6%) 25 (14.4%) 8 (29.7%) 6 (14%)

> € 89.999 126 (24%) 59 (21%) 51 (29.5%) 12 (44.4%) 4 (9.3%)

72

Appendix D. Descriptive statistics of the study variables, divided by nationality

Table D1

Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach Alpha for the study variables for the Saudi Sample (N = 281)

Variable Mean

Std.

Deviation Minimum Maximum Cronbach Alpha

Collectivism 4.09 .42 1.88 500 .62

Individualism 3.63 .49 1.88 5.00 .65

Quality 3.89 .72 1.00 5.00 .62

Uniqueness 2.97 .62 1.29 4.57 .67

Social Status 3.03 .83 1.00 5.00 .72

Cospicuousness 2.91 .91 1.00 5.00 .71

Self-Identity 4.07 .74 1.00 5.00 .77

Self-Directed Pleasure 4.08 .77 1.33 5.00 .83

Self-Esteem 4.20 .54 2.50 5.00 .66

Purchase Intentions 2.52 .88 1.00 5.00 .85

Table D2

Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach Alpha for the study variables for the US sample (N =173)

Variable Mean

Std.

Deviation Minimum Maximum Cronbach Alpha

Collectivism 3.78 .61 1.88 5.00 .82

Individualism 3.65 .58 1.00 5.00 .74

Quality 3.85 .68 1.67 5.00 .56

Uniqueness 3.08 .71 1.14 4.57 .71

Social Status 3.46 .82 1.00 5.00 .77

Cospicuousness 3.05 .91 1.00 5.00 .77

Self-Identity 3.61 .81 1.00 5.00 .75

Self-Directed Pleasure 3.76 81 1.67 5.00 .71

Self-Esteem 4.08 .74 1.50 5.00 .79

Purchase Intentions 3.05 .83 1.00 4.80 .80

73

Table D3

Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach Alpha for the study variables for the Chinese sample (N = 27)

Variable Mean

Std.

Deviation Minimum Maximum Cronbach Alpha

Collectivism 3.78 .76 1.63 4.63 .71

Individualism 3.76 .49 2.50 4.63 .79

Price 4.12 .61 3.00 5.00 .63

Quality 3.62 .87 1.67 5.00 .67

Uniqueness 3.05 .57 2.00 4.57 .70

Social Status 3.36 1.03 1.00 4.75 .82

Cospicuousness 3.07 .97 1.67 4.67 .68

Self-Identity 3.73 .71 2.67 5.00 .64

Self-Directed Pleasure 3.84 .74 2.33 5.00 .81

Self-Esteem 4.17 .69 1.75 5.00 .86

Purchase Intentions 2.96 1.09 1.00 4.60 .89

Table D4

Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach Alpha for the study variables for the Dutch sample (N = 43)

Variable Mean

Std.

Deviation Minimum Maximum Cronbach Alpha

Collectivism 3.55 .54 2.38 4.75 .71

Individualism 3.59 .62 2.00 4.75 .79

Price 3.55 .76 2.00 5.00 .63

Quality 4.16 .46 3.00 5.00 .62

Uniqueness 2.87 .73 1.14 4.29 .77

Social Status 2.92 .87 1.50 4.75 .78

Cospicuousness 2.42 1.02 1.00 4.33 .86

Self-Identity 3.91 .74 1.67 5.00 .72

Self-Directed Pleasure 3.67 .71 2.33 5.00 .56

Self-Esteem 4.28 .62 2.00 5.00 .80

Purchase Intentions 3.55 .54 1.20 5.00 .84

74

Appendix E. Exploratory factor analysis on the items of Purchase Intentions

As mentioned in Section 3.2, we used an EFA to create the dependent variable Purchase In-

tentions. The five survey items related to this variable were analysed by means of a Principal Com-

ponent Analysis. KMO was at 0.86, therefore above the suggested threshold of 0.5 for sampling ad-

equacy (Kaiser, 1974). Barlett’s test was also significant at 941.09, p-value < 0.0001. The analysis

led to, as expected, one factor with an eigenvalue above one (3.06), explaining 61,24% of the variance

(Table E1). Cattell’s screeplot criterion supported a single factor solution too (Figure E1). Factor

loadings are quite high and similar to each other (Table E2) No rotation was performed since the

analysis yielded just one component. Hence, the dependent variable Purchase Intentions was created

based on this factor score.

Table E1

Factor extraction table for the items of Purchase Intentions (N = 524)

Factor

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 3.062 61.243 61.243 3.062 61.243 61.243

2 .575 11.505 72.748

3 .496 9.920 82.668

4 .442 8.835 91.503

5 .425 8.497 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

75

Table E2

Factor loadings for Purchase Intentionsa

Items

Factor 1

Purchase Intentions Q1 .783

Purchase Intentions Q2 .786

Purchase Intentions Q3 .730

Purchase Intentions Q4 .809

Purchase Intentions Q5 .803

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 1 components extracted.

Figure E1. Screeplot of extracted factors from

PCA on the five Purchase Intentions

survey questions

76

Appendix F. Correlation coefficients for the study variables

Table F1

Correlation coefficients for the study variables (N = 524; for Price, N = 70)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 - Age 25-34 1

2 - Age >34 .224 1

3 - Income €45-89,9k .012 -.043 1

4 - Income €90-134,9k -.075 .092* -.202** 1

5 - Income > €134.9k -.124** .032 -.174** -.136** 1

6 - Asian/Pacific islander .167** -.087* .024 .002 .035 1

7 - Black/African American -.078 .042 -.030 -.013 .008 -.075 1

8 - Hispanic/Latino -.042 -.057 -.059 -.068 .016 -.056 -.039 1

9 - Caucasian -.257** -.037 -.087* -.011 .146** -.205** -.143** -.107* 1

10 - Alaskan/Native American -.051 -.025 -.039 -.044 -.026 -.025 -.017 -.013 -.047 1

11 - Other etnicity -.034 .024 -.010 -.043 .022 -.035 -.025 -.018 -.067 -.008 1

12 - Price .050 .157 .141 .074 .260* .356** / -.084 -.334** / / 1

13 - Quality -.014 .116** -.036 .003 -.061 -.061 -.020 -.123** .107* -.035 .061 -.058 1

14 - Uniqueness -.074 -.070 -.016 -.070 -.001 .089* .081 .107* -.098* .006 .074 .216 .002 1

15 - Social Status .028 -.055 .024 .003 .073 .079 .064 .054 .080 0.05 .014 .233 -.076 .202** 1

16 - Conspicuousness .047 -.088* -.009 -.037 .022 .069 .034 .112* -.130** .105* -.011 .444** -.244** .277** .628** 1

17 - Self-Identity -.017 .067 -.024 .008 -.021 -.045 -.079 -.028 -.195** .021 .092* .157 .291** .142** -.066 -.048 1

18 - Self-Directed Pleasure -.021 .040 -.049 .023 -.046 -.053 -.028 .010 -.187** -.025 .100* .122 .323** .092* -.156** -.138** .441** 1

19 - Self-Esteem -.079 .116** .068 .067 .096* -.080 -.004 -.091* .040 -.030 .029 .080 .203** -.120** -.017 -.152** .243** .208** 1

20 - Individualism-Country -.214** -.096* -.130** -.060 .105* .026 .273** .205** .568** .091 -.017 -.369** .034 .045 .169** -.002 -.230** -.197** -.064 1

21 - Individualism-Survey -.081 -.012 .002 -.084 .054 .116* .102* .143** .144** .034 -.017 .094 .027 .156** .084 .091* -.072 -.017 -.059 .258** 1

22 - Female .083 .102* .085 -.044 -.092* -.154** -.133** -.166** -.369** .132 .062 .074 .017 -.016 -.149** -.058 .212** .212** .077 -.524** -.215** 1

**, Correlation is significant at the .01 level

*, Correlation is significant at the .05 level

77

Appendix G. Confirmatory factor analysis model fit indices

Table G1

Model fit indices and threshold values (Hu & Bentler, 1999)

Index Threshold

Chi-Square/df (CMIN/DF) < 3 good; < 5 sometimes permissible

p-value > .05

CFI > .90

GFI > .95

AGFI > .80

SRMR < .09

RMSEA < .05 good; .05 < x < .10 acceptable

78

Appendix H. Exploratory factor analysis of the luxury values model (excluding Price value)

Table H1

Factor extraction table for the luxury values, excluding Price (N = 524)

Factor

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of

Variance Cumulative % Total Total

% of

Variance Cumulative %

1 2.114 30.195 30.195 2.114 1.943 27.750 27.750

2 1.607 22.958 53.153 1.607 1.778 25.403 53.153

3 .991 14.151 67.304

4 .753 10.754 78.058

5 .663 9.475 87.533

6 .547 7.808 95.341

7 .326 4.659 100.000

Figure H1. Screeplot of extracted factors from PCA on the

luxury values (excluding Price value)

79

Appendix I. Confirmatory factor analysis on the luxury values model (excluding Price value)

Figure I1: Luxury values model theorized in theoretical

background, without the Price value

Figure I2. Revised luxury values model based on the EFA results

80

Table I1

Fit indices for the revised and best-fitting models (N = 524)

Index Revised Best-fitting

Chi-Square 77.72 53.776

Degrees of Freedom 13 8

CMIN/DF 5.98 6.72

Probability level .000 .000

IFI .895 .917

CFI .894 .916

GFI .959 .967

AGFI .913 .914

RMSEA .098 .097

p-close .000 .000

SRMR .060 .063

Figure I3. Luxury values best-fitting model

81

Table I2

Standardized coefficients for the best-fitting model (N = 524)

Factors Standardized

Social Value Revised

Uniqueness .29

Conspicuousness .95

Social Status .66

Individual Value Revised

Quality .49

Self Identity .61

Self Directed Pleasure .71

82

Appendix J. Exploratory factor analysis of the luxury values model (including Price value)

Table J1

Factor extraction table for the luxury values, including Price (N=70)

Factor

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of

Variance Cumulative % Total Total

% of

Variance Cumulative %

1 2.007 25.091 25.091 2.114 1.943 27.750 27.750

2 1.497 18.710 43.802 1.607 1.778 25.403 53.153

3 1.074 13.420 57.222 1.990 24.876 24.876 1.990

4 1.065 13.309 70.530 1.440 18.003 42.879 1.440

5 .793 9.908 80.439

6 .718 8.979 89.418

7 .603 7.535 96.953

8 .244 3.047 100.000

Figure J1. Screeplot of extracted factors from PCA on

the luxury values

83

Appendix K. Multiple regression analyses on the Dutch and Chinese subsample

In Model 1a, we tested the control variables related to age, income, and ethnicity. This model

was significant, Adj-R2 = .139, F = 2.587, p-value = .022. None of the control variables included in

the model was significant.

In Model 2a, we included the eight luxury values in the analysis. We expected all of them to

positively predict Purchase intentions. The model was significant, Adj-R2 = .703 F = 11.878, p-value

= .000. The coefficients revealed that Conspicuousness (B = .665) and Social Status (B = .223) posi-

tively predicted Purchase Intentions. This supports H1a and H1b and confirms the results of the test

on the whole sample (Section 4.2, Model 2). In this Dutch and Chinese subsample, the effect of

Conspicuousness is stronger than on the whole sample (Section 4.2, Model 2); on the other hand, the

effect of Social Status is slightly lower. The newly introduced variable, Price, was not significant.

All the other coefficients were also not statistically significant. The analysis confirmed the positive

effects of Conspicuousness and Social Status on Purchase Intentions. However, the positive relation

between Uniqueness and Purchase Intentions we found when testing the hypothesis on the whole

sample (Section 4.2, Model 2) was not supported here.

Model 3a and 4a present the results for the moderating effect of the respondents’ cultural

background. In Model 3a, respondents were considered to be individualist or collectivist based on

their nationality. Hence, Chinese respondents represented the collectivist group, while Dutch students

the individualist one. The model was significant, Adj-R2 = .726, F = 8.955, p-value = .000. The only

significant interaction term was Social Status x Individualism. The coefficient for this variable was

negative (B = -.361). This means that, as expected, the positive relation between the Social Status

value and Purchase intentions was stronger for collectivist people and that, hence, the relation was

moderated by the cultural background. This partially supports hypothesis H2a and confirms the re-

sults of the same analysis conducted on the main sample (Section 4.2, Model 3). No other interaction

term was significant.

In Model 4a, the distinction between individualist and collectivist respondents was based on

their Individualism and Collectivism survey scores Two respondents scored the same on Individual-

ism and Collectivism, hence they were not included in the analysis. The model was significant, Adj-

R2 = .661, F = 6.455, p-value = .000. In this case, no interaction term was statistically significant.

Hence, on this sample, any of the relations between the luxury values and Purchase Intentions was

moderated by the cultural background. This contrasts with the results of the analysis conducted in

Section 4.2, where the effect of Uniqueness on Purchase intentions resulted to be moderated by the

cultural background of the respondents at the individual-level. Hence, we cannot fully confirm the

84

moderating effect of cultural background on the relation between Uniqueness and Purchase Inten-

tions.

Table K1

Results of multiple regression analyses for Model 1a to 4a

Independent variables Model 1a Model 2a

Model 3a

Model 4a

Constant .064 .362 .060 .277

(.365) (.224) (.275) (.268)

Age 25-34 .149 -.029 -.019 -.031

(.258) (.173) (.188) (.196)

Age > 34 .065 .073 .012 .077

(.1.068) (.742) (.854) (.989)

Income €45k-89.9k .224 .007 .038 -.027

(.341) (.222) (.218) (.278)

Income €90k-134.9k .246 .096 .122 .107

(.410) (.254) (.276) (.285)

Income > €134.9kk .018 -.068 -.066 -.055

(.471) (.298) (.298) (.393)

White/Caucasian .293 -.124 -.108

(.293) (.186) (.240)

Female -.212 -.188

-.128 .198

(.258) (.161) (.180) (.180)

Main effects

Price .003 .101 .023

(.089) (.180) (.144)

Quality -.037 -.157 -.064

(.083) (.106) (.126)

Uniqueness .039 .193 -.039

(.078) (.161) (.163)

Social Status .223* .552** .201

(.107) (.178) (.173)

Conspicuousness .665*** .335 .589**

(.108) (.221) (.177)

Self-Identity .010 .080 -.054

(.086) (.164) (.162)

Self-Directed Pleasure .011 -.210 -.071

85

(.087) (.195) (.151)

Self-Esteem .068 .016 .179

(.075) (.118) (.136)

Moderator

Individualism-Country .214*

(.202)

Individualism-Survey .115

(.210)

Interaction effect

Price x Individualism -.095 -.072

(.216) (.239)

Quality x Individualism .173 .070

(.214) (.206)

Uniqueness x Individualism -.179 .002

(.181) (.210)

Social Status x Individualism -.319* .027

(.211) (.247)

Conspicuousness x Individualism .366 .122

(.259) (.245)

Self-Identity x Individualism -.098 .184

(.199) (.236)

Self-Directed Pleasure x Individualism -.216 .104

(.224) (.229)

Self-Esteem x Individualism .056 -.099

(.155) (.179 )

Sample size 70 70 70 68

F 2.587 11.878 8.955 6.455

R2 .226 .767 .817 .783

Adjusted R2 .139 .703 .726 .661

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001

86

Appendix L. Hypothesis testing with structural equation modelling and multigroup path

analysis

We present here the results of the hypotheses testing we conducted through structural equation

modelling. First, we tested the direct effect of the luxury values on Purchase Intentions. The path

coefficients can are shown in Table L1. Uniqueness (B=.181), Social Status B=.309) and Conspicu-

ousness (B=.465) path coefficients were positive and significant. This brings further support for H1a,

H1b for H1g. Quality (B=-.073) and Self-Directed Pleasure (B=-.111) were also significant but, con-

trary to the expectations, they were negative. Self-Esteem and Self-Identity were not significant. This

analysis fully confirms the results of the multiple regression analysis conducted in Section 4.2 (Model

2).

Table L1

Standardized Path coefficients for the whole sample

Independent variables Whole sample

Quality -.073**

(.028)

Uniqueness .181***

(.035)

Social Status .309***

(.038)

Conspicuousness .465***

(.029)

Self-Identity -.070

(.030)

Self-Directed Pleasure -.111**

(.027)

Self-Esteem -.054

(.027)

Sample size 524

Chi-square 98.2

Degrees of freedom 33

P-value .000

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001

87

Subsequently, we proceeded comparing collectivist and individualist respondents (both at the

country and individual-level) through multigroup analysis. Each multigroup path analysis was con-

ducted as follows. In the first step, simultaneous group analysis was performed with all the paths free

to vary (baseline model). Then, the same analysis was performed constraining to be equal across

groups. The chi-square difference between this and the baseline model was then compared to check

differences at the model level. Finally, the analysis was performed again leaving all the paths free to

vary except for one at a time (e.g. Quality → Purchase Intentions). The chi-square statistic of this last

model was compared to the baseline model. In particular, the difference in the chi-square distribution

between this model and the baseline one was analysed; a difference above 3.84 (the critical chi-square

ratio for 1 degree of freedom), indicated that the difference in the fixed path was significant between

the groups (Floh & Treiblmaier, 2006; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). This last step was repeated

for each of the paths between the luxury values and Purchase Intentions to assess the differences

between the analysed groups. To test the moderating effects of the cultural background, we conducted

two multigroup analyses. In the first one, we split the sample between collectivist and individualist

based on their nationality; in the second one, we did it based on the respondents’ survey scores on

Individualism and Collectivism. These criteria reflected the ones used in the multiple regression anal-

ysis we conducted in Section 4.2.

Detailed results regarding the path coefficients and the chi-square differences are shown in

Table L2 and L3. Overall, the findings confirmed the results of the multiple regression with modera-

tion of Section 4.2. When the sample was split according to the nationality of the respondents, only

the relation between Social Value and Purchase Intentions was significantly different between the

groups (Chi-square difference = 6.6). As we theorized, the relation was stronger for the collectivist

group. This again brought partial support to H2a.

When the sample was split according to the respondents’ Individualism and Collectivism sur-

vey scores, only the path between Uniqueness and Purchase Intentions was significantly different

between the groups (Chi-square difference = 5.0). Indeed, the relation between Uniqueness and Pur-

chase Intentions was, as expected, significantly stronger for the Collectivist group. This reflected the

results of the multiple regression with moderation of Section 4.2 and, once again, partially supported

to H2c.

88

Table L2

Standardized path coefficients when groups division based on nationality

Independent variables

Chinese-Saudi

(Collectivist)

US-Dutch

(Individualist)

Chi-square

difference

Quality -.128** -.019 2.6

(.036) (.042)

Uniqueness .160*** .150** 0.8

(.038) (.036)

Social Status .330*** .158** 6.6*

(.047) (.044)

Conspicuousness .410*** .676*** 1.7

(.050) (.060)

Self-Identity .037 .031 0

(.041) (.038)

Self-Directed Pleasure .128** -.023 2.3

(.043) (.037)

Self-Esteem .054 -.060 0.1

(.040) (.042)

Sample size 308 216

Chi-square 144 144

Degrees of freedom 66 66

P-value .000 .000

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001

89

Table L3

Standardized path coefficients when groups division based on survey scores

Independent variables Collectivist Individualist

Chi-square

difference

Quality -.106** -.005 2.5

(.036) (.047)

Uniqueness .182*** .069** 5*

(.036) (.042)

Social Status .348*** .224** 2.9

(.043) (.059)

Conspicuousness .409*** .626*** 0.8

(.045) (.078)

Self-Identity -.064 -.009 0.9

(.036) (.050)

Self-Directed Pleasure -.143** -.068 1.4

(.037) (.048)

Self-Esteem -.013 -.136 1.8

(.034) (.044 )

Sample size 347 132

Chi-square 134.4 134.4

Degrees of freedom 66 66

P-value .000 .000

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001

90

Finally, we also compared differences between genders through multigroup analysis. Four

different multigroup analyses were conducted (males vs females among Chinese and Saudi respond-

ents, males vs females among US and Dutch respondents, males vs females among respondents scor-

ing higher on Collectivism, males vs females among respondents scoring higher on Individualism).

The coefficients are shown in the four tables below. The findings showed that none of the relations

between the luxury values and Purchase Intentions was significantly different between the groups.

These results reflected the results of the multiple regression with moderation conducted in Section

4.3, where we did not find support for any of the hypotheses related to the moderating effect of gender.

Table L4

Standardized path coefficients for males and females groups within the Chinese and Saudi

sample (Collectivist)

Independent variables Male Female

Chi-square

difference

Quality .181 -.151** 3.2

(.138) (.036)

Uniqueness .400** .176*** 3.4

(.199) (.038)

Social Status -.187 .299*** 2.7

(.242) (.048)

Conspicuousness .477** .406*** 3.2

(.220) (.050)

Self-Identity -.273 -.025 2.0

(157) (.041)

Self-Directed Pleasure .269 -.135*** 2.1

(.241) (.043)

Self-Esteem .094 -.066 0.9

(.188) (.041)

Sample size 18 290

Chi-square 136.7 136.7

Degrees of freedom 66 66

P-value .000 .000

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001

91

Table L5

Standardized path coefficients for males and females groups within the US and Dutch sample

(Individualist)

Independent variables Male Female

Chi-square

difference

Quality .024 -.044 0.3

(.060) (.056)

Uniqueness .250** .085 2.7

(.054) (.047)

Social Status .176* .156 0.4

(.072) (.052)

Conspicuousness .592*** .713*** 0

(.085) (.089)

Self-Identity .065 -.162 3.6

(.053) (.052)

Self-Directed Pleasure -.047 -.034** 0.1

(.054) (.046)

Self-Esteem .062 -.024 0.3

(.051) (.038)

Sample size 112 104

Chi-square 129.3 129.3

Degrees of freedom 66 66

P-value .000 .000

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001

92

Table L6

Standardized path coefficients for males and females, in the sample of respondents scoring

higher on Collectivism

Independent variables Male Female

Chi-square

difference

Quality -.026 -.129** 1.0

(.075) (.040)

Uniqueness .174* .195*** 0.1

(.075) (.042)

Social Status -.257* .338*** 0.3

(.100) (.047)

Conspicuousness .604*** .385*** 1.1

(.103) (.050)

Self-Identity .044 -.072 1.4

(.071) (.041)

Self-Directed Pleasure -.092 -.140** 0.1

(.079) (.042)

Self-Esteem .022 -.025 0.3

(.062) (.040)

Sample size 67 280

Chi-square 95.4 95.4

Degrees of freedom 66 66

P-value .000 .000

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001

93

Table L7

Standardized path coefficients for males and females, in the sample of respondent scoring

higher on Individualism

Independent variables Male Female

Chi-square

difference

Quality .150 -.028 1.7

(.075) (.054)

Uniqueness .081 -.032 0.6

(.065) (.050)

Social Status .173 .193 0.1

(.086) (.070)

Conspicuousness .173*** .701*** 0.1

(.119) (.108)

Self-Identity .077 -.008 0.4

(.064) (.063)

Self-Directed Pleasure -.028 .024 0.2

(.060) (.060)

Self-Esteem .261* -.058 2.8

(.073) (.051)

Sample size 53 79

Chi-square 96 96

Degrees of freedom 66 66

P-value .000 .000

Note. * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001