Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
55 Issue 3
Introduction
Since the 1990s, the market for luxury brands has grown considerably
(Nueno & Quelch 1998; Vickers & Renand 2003). Several factors
encouraged this tremendous growth, such as the rising demand for luxury
Received (in revised form): 14 February 2012
391
from emerging luxury markets (e.g. India and China) and the expansion
of the luxury category (Silverstein & Fiske 2003). An increased spending
capacity also encouraged the middle classes to spend more money on luxury
brands. Consequently, the luxury market is no longer the exclusive domain
of the elite (Yeoman & McMahon-Beattie 2006; Wiedmann etal. 2009).
This process is called the democratisation of the luxury market (Dubois
& Laurent 1995; Truong 2009). Due to this democratisation, the nature
of luxury is changing because the exclusive has become commonplace
(Garland, Cornish & Bean 2008). The traditional definition of luxury as
something that is out of the ordinary in terms of daily living needs is no
longer tenable (Vickers & Renand 2003). The present paper therefore
examines (1) consumers perception of luxury brands in this democratised
luxury world, and (2) how these perceptions are related to both individual
difference variables (i.e. materialism, prestige sensitivity) and individual
well-being (i.e. self-esteem, positive and negative affect, life satisfaction).
There is a lack of consensus regarding the definition of luxury brands
and there is no single, definite meaning (Chevalier & Mazzalovo 2008).
Although there have been numerous attempts to define luxury products
and services (e.g. Phau & Prendergast 2000; Dubois & Czellar 2002;
Catry 2003; Tynan etal. 2010), these definitions remain rather vague and
difficult to manage because the luxury concept is a constantly evolving
and very subjective concept (Kapferer 1998). Its meaning changes
according to person, place or time (Michman & Mazze 2006; Yeoman &
McMahon-Beattie 2006). This paper uses insights from semiotic theory to
construct a definition of luxury brands from a consumer perspective.
Semiotic theory involves the study of signs, sign systems and sign
processes (Chandler, 2007). From a semiotic perspective, a sign is defined
as everything to which an individual ascribes meaning. Correspondingly,
a sign has no meaning in itself. This paper suggests that brands are not
inherently luxurious, but are perceived as luxurious by an individual. In
particular, this paper proposes that the luxury concept can be defined
as a connotation that is ascribed to material (e.g. yachts, private jets,
but also clothes and accessories) and immaterial (e.g. time, experiences,
) products or services and their brands. However, it is unclear why a
consumer ascribes the luxury meaning to a particular product and thus
which attributes generate this luxury meaning. Moreover, the transient
and subjective status of luxury brands gives the impression that not all
consumers ascribe the same characteristics to luxuries (Kapferer 1997).
The current paper aims to enrich the understanding of consumers
perception of luxury brands by identifying segments of consumers
392
Characteristics of luxury
Luxury brands are connected with several characteristics, such as
exclusivity, uniqueness, scarcity, premium price, excellent quality and
aesthetics (Allrs 1995; Kapferer 1998; Nueno & Quelch 1998; Vigneron
& Johnson 2004; Mortelmans 2005; Chevalier & Mazzalovo 2008).
However, not all luxury brands meet all these criteria and sometimes these
criteria are not sufficient to categorise a brand as luxurious. Following the
dual classification of the functions of luxury brands (i.e. expressive and
impressive; Tsai 2005; Kapferer & Bastien 2009; Truong 2010; Truong
etal. 2010; Hudders 2012) and taking the features of new luxury brands
into account (Silverstein & Fiske 2003), the physical and psychosocial
attributes of luxury brands can be grouped into two main categories: first,
characteristics referring to exclusivity; and, second, characteristics referring
to excellent quality and aesthetics.
Exclusivity
The concept of luxury is inherently connected with exclusivity, which
implies a premium price and rarity (Nia & Zaichkowsky 2000; Vigneron &
Johnson 2004; Mortelmans 2005; Chevalier & Mazzalovo 2008). Luxury
brands are perceived as rare brands (Mason 1981; Dubois & Paternault
1995). Formerly, rarity referred to the use of valuable materials that were
naturally scarce and not yet widely available (Catry 2003). However,
next to this objective rarity, luxuries now also need to be subjectively rare
(Mortelmans 2005). This implies that a consumer of luxury brands has to
believe that these brands are exclusive, meaning that others cannot afford
them, while the consumer belongs to the select group that can afford
393
these brands. In line with this idea, consumers who never bought a luxury
brand rate that brand as more luxurious, compared to consumers who
already bought the item (Kemp 1998). Moreover, luxury brands are often
perceived as exclusive brands because they are unique. Luxury brands are
special and stand out. They have unique elements that cannot be found
in other brands, such as the imperfections of a hand-blown crystal vase
(Caniato etal. 2009).
However, it is not obvious to maintain this close connection with rarity
because luxury brands are now attainable for more and more people, and
more and more products are categorised as luxury brands. Therefore,
it is very important that marketers offer consumers the impression of
scarcity, because according to the rarity principle luxury brands
that are widely owned lose their luxury character (Dubois & Paternault
1995). In this respect, luxury brands have become virtually rare, which
implies that luxury manufacturers offer an impression of rarity by limiting
production in order to create temporary shortages or by offering limited
editions to consumers. In addition, many luxury brand companies create
this impression of rarity by distributing their brands selectively (Phau
& Prendergast 2000; Amaldoss & Jain 2005). This implies that luxury
marketers use exclusive distribution channels and avoid the selling of these
products in cheap stores (Catry 2003; Mortelmans 2005). The rarity can
also be induced by setting a very high price, because luxury products that
are not highly priced will lose their luxury character (Dubois & Duquesne
1993; Nia & Zaichkowsky 2000).
394
395
Research aims
To enrich the understanding of luxury brand meaning and investigate its
importance, the current study extends the above-mentioned segmentations
by identifying segments of consumers according to the meaning they ascribe
396
Method
Participants and procedure
This study uses a quota sample (i.e. proportional representation in terms
of gender and age) of Flemish consumers (i.e. Dutch-speaking part of
Belgium) to investigate consumers perception of luxury brands. A total
of 1,308 respondents participated in this study (655 males; Mage = 41.1;
SD = 17.6).
397
Measures
Sixteen physical and psychosocial attributes are selected that are
frequently associated with luxury brands in various conceptual (e.g. in
definitions of the luxury concept; Berry 1994; Kapferer & Bastien 2009;
Wiedmann etal. 2009) and empirical studies (Vigneron & Johnson
2004; Dubois etal. 2005; Tsai 2005; Tynan etal. 2010): rarity, excellent
quality, refinement, craftsmanship, uniqueness, durability, exclusivity,
inaccessibility, expensiveness, conspicuousness, elegance, sophistication,
creativity, innovativeness, comfort and handicraft. For each attribute,
respondents indicated on a seven-point Likert-scale (ranging from
1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much) the extent to which they ascribe this
attribute to luxury brands. As suggested in the Literature section, people
differ in the extent to which they view particular attributes as central
in their definition of luxury brands. The ratings for the 16 attributes
allow segmenting respondents into clusters with similar definitions of
luxury brands.
The current study also measures some additional variables that should
enable us to further characterise the different clusters obtained. First,
several items probed respondents attitudes to and consumption of luxury
products. We measured the frequency of luxury brand consumption on a
six-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). In addition,
respondents had to indicate on a 1 (never) to 6 (always) scale to which
extent they choose for luxury brands in three experiential product
categories (i.e. wine, food and travel; = 0.68) and five material product
categories (i.e. clothes, cars, home decoration, watches and accessories;
= 0.79). We measured respondents attitude towards luxury brands
using a shortened version (i.e. eight items, cf. infra: Table 2) of the scale of
Dubois etal. (2005), on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.
Because luxury consumption is associated with materialism and prestige
sensitivity, we measured these constructs using existing scales (18-item
Richins & Dawson materialism scale (1992), = 0.83; nine-item
Lichtenstein etal. (1993) prestige sensitivity scale, = 0.83). In addition,
we measured various well-being variables that may be affected by luxury
consumption (see Hudders & Pandelaere 2012a, 2012b). In particular,
we measured self-esteem (Rosenberg 1965; = 0.88), satisfaction with
life (five items (Diener etal. 1985), = 0.80) and positive (ten items,
= 0.80) and negative (ten items, = 0.81) affect (PANAS; Watson etal.
1988).
Finally, respondents had to indicate their gender, age, marital status,
income level, place of residence (city or countryside) and education level.
398
Results
Perception of luxury brands
Many respondents perceive luxury brands as refined, elegant, comfortable,
exclusive and premium-priced brands, with an excellent quality and
durability, and that are the result of craftsmanship (see Figure 2). In
the sample, luxury brands are not strongly linked to conspicuousness,
handicraft and inaccessibility.
A PCA factor analysis using Varimax rotation revealed that the 16
attributes can be grouped into three factors, explaining 48.2% of the
variance (see Figure 1). The first factor covers the expressive facet of luxury
brand meaning and refers to the exclusivity of luxury brands. This factor
contains the items uniqueness, exclusivity, expensiveness, inaccessibility,
rarity and conspicuousness ( = 0.72). The second factor covers the
impressive-functional facet of luxury brand meaning and refers to the
premium quality of luxury brands. This factor contains the items excellent
quality, craftsmanship, refinement and durability ( = 0.72). The third
factor covers the impressive-emotional facet of luxury brand meaning
and refers to the aesthetic aspects of luxury brands. This factor contains
the items sophistication, innovativeness, creativity, elegance, comfort and
handicraft ( = 0.69).
A repeated measures ANOVA to investigate the relative importance of
these three facets reveals that luxury brands are more often linked to the
impressive-functional (M = 5.8) and the impressive-emotional (M = 4.8)
Luxury brand
meaning
Physical
attributes
Psychosocial
attributes
Psychosocial
attributes
Premium quality
Aesthetics
Exclusivity
Impressive dimension
Expressive dimension
399
Expressive
Impressive-functional
Impressive-emotional
7
6
4
6.2
5.5
5.4
4.6
4.7
5.4
4.9
Creativity
Comfort
Innovativeness
Sophistication
Elegance
Refinement
Durability
3.5
Craftsmanship
Uniqueness
Expensiveness
Rarity
5.5
Handicraft
3.5
5.8
3.9
Excellent quality
4.9
Inaccessibility
4.4
5.1
Exclusivity
5.2
Conspicuousness
Mean
facets than to the expressive facet (M = 4.4, F(2, 2187) = 831, p < 0.001)
of luxury brand meaning (RQ 1).
400
401
6.5
Expressive segment
Impressive segment
5.5
Mixed segment
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Expressive facet
Impressive-emotional
facet
Impressive-functional
facet
402
Physical and
psychosocial attributes
Expressive
Rarity
Uniqueness
Exclusivity
Inaccessibility
Conspicuousness
Expensiveness
Impressive- Functional
functional Excellent quality
facet
Durability
Refinement
Craftsmanship
Impressive- Emotional
emotional Elegance
facet
Sophisticated
Creativity
Innovativeness
Comfort
Handicraft
Expressive
segment
4.53
4.54a
4.65a
5.02a
3.73a
3.77a
5.46a
4.78
5.38a
4.22a
4.74a
4.79a
3.84
4.11a
3.82a
3.84a
3.75a
4.41a
3.13a
Impressive
Mixed
F-value
segment segment (2,1272) p-value
3.27
5.13
817
0.001
3.09b
5.14c
207
0.001
3.77b
5.72c
229
0.001
4.04b
5.88c
247
0.001
2.21b
4.16c
196
0.001
b
c
2.34
4.14
175
0.001
4.19b
5.74c
174
0.001
6.01
6.16
486
0.001
6.42b
6.49b
172
0.001
b
5.92
5.95b
261
0.001
5.60b
5.94c
136
0.001
6.11b
6.24b
242
0.001
4.87
5.31
438
0.001
5.76b
5.83b
243
0.001
4.39b
5.28c
119
0.001
b
c
5.09
5.36
149
0.001
4.68b
5.21c
124
0.001
5.78b
5.68b
125
0.001
3.55b
4.48c
90
0.001
Note: a, b, c superscripts indicate significant mean differences between clusters; clusters that do not
differ significantly have an identical superscript.
403
Materialism
Success
Centrality
Happiness
Prestige sensitivity
Individual
Self-esteem
well-being
Life satisfaction
Positive affect
Negative affect
Luxury
Purchase
consumption frequency
Experiential luxury
Material luxury
Dubois et al.
Expressive
segment
3.56a
3.12a
4.09a
3.35ab
3.01a
5.14a
4.59a
3.41a
2.22a
Impressive
segment
3.46a
2.93b
4.05a
3.26a
2.78b
5.34b
4.65a
3.45a
2.11b
Mixed
segment
3.74b
3.32c
4.29b
3.47b
3.24c
5.28ab
4.70a
3.44a
2.20ab
F-value
18
18
10
5
32
5
1
0.34
3
p-value
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.007
0.001
0.005
0.311
0.716
0.038
2.91a
3.06ab
3.11b
0.007
2.71
2.37a
3.61a
2.92
2.52a
3.39b
3.01
2.74b
4.05c
10
16
87
0.001
0.001
0.001
Note: a, b, c superscripts indicate significant mean differences between clusters; clusters that do not
differ significantly have an identical superscript.
other two segments, while the mixed segment tends to choose more luxury
brands in material product categories than the other two segments.
The segments significantly differ from each other according to their
age (F(2, 1269) = 7; p < 0.001). The expressive group is slightly younger
(M = 38.1) than the impressive (M = 42.9) and mixed segment (M = 41.2).
Next, the segments differ from each other according to their place of
residence (2(2) = 10, p = 0.006). As such, more respondents in the mixed
segment live in the city (54.2%) compared to respondents living in the
countryside (45.8%), while more respondents in the impressive segment
live in the countryside (56.6%) compared to respondents living in the city
(43.4%). There are no differences in place of residence for the expressive
segment (city = 50.1%, countryside = 49.9%). Finally, the segments do not
significantly differ from each other for their level of income (2(2) = 0.137,
p = 0.934), marital status (2(8) = 12, p = 0.142), education level (2(10) = 8,
p = 0.554) or their gender (2(2) = 4, p = 0.130).
404
405
406
brands must have an excellent quality that renders into both indulgence
and distinction characteristics. Accordingly, this segment attaches a great
deal of importance to all three facets of luxury brand meaning.
Moreover, this study shows that these groups with a different perception
of luxury brands also have a different level of materialism and prestige
sensitivity on the one hand and individual well-being on the other. In
particular, although both expressive and impressive segments attach equal
importance to possessions, the expressive segment sees possessions as an
indicator for success and a road to happiness more than does the impressive
segment. Furthermore, the mixed segment appears to be more materialistic
and more prestige sensitive than the expressive and impressive luxury
segment. This implies that individuals with a different perception of luxury
brands also have a different purchase motive. Future research should
investigate whether other variables are related to these luxury perceptions.
As Rucker and Galinsky (2009) suggest that high-powered individuals have
a stronger preference for quality appeals, while low-powered individuals,
who are generally younger than high-powered individuals, have a stronger
preference for status appeals, it might, for instance, be interesting in future
studies to investigate the relationship between power and perceptions of
luxury brand meaning.
Moreover, the study shows that, although the three groups do not differ
in their level of positive affect and satisfaction with life, they do differ
in their level of self-esteem and negative affect. The impressive luxury
segment, for instance, reported higher self-esteem levels and experienced
less negative feelings in the past month compared to the other segments.
As previous studies show that luxury consumption might have positive
consequences for ones well-being level (e.g. Hudders & Pandelaere
2012a), it might be interesting to investigate in future studies whether
differences in luxury perception moderate the positive effect of luxury
consumption on well-being.
Moreover, the three segments differ from one another for the frequency
they purchase luxury brands and their attitude towards luxuries. The
expressive segment, for instance, purchases luxury brands less frequently
than the other two segments. This may be caused by the fact that they have
a very elitist view of luxuries, and perceive such brands as very expensive
and exclusive. Therefore, it is possible that they are not able to purchase
such expensive brands as the three segments do not differ from each other
for their level of income.
The current paper provides further evidence for individual differences in
perception of luxury brands. However, it also has several limitations. First,
407
the current study did not make a distinction between different product
categories when measuring the attributes of luxuries. It might be interesting
to investigate if, for example, luxury cars are connected with different
attributes compared to luxury food or cosmetics. Next, the survey was
conducted in Belgium, a western European country. Future research should
extend the present research in other countries and continents, such as Asia,
because previous research has shown cultural differences in the motives
for luxury consumption (Wong & Ahuvia 1998). Consequently, cultural
differences might exist in the perception of luxury brands.
Finally, the results of this study also have some practical implications
for luxury companies and marketing practitioners. As such, it is important
to understand how consumers perceive luxuries, and why they perceive a
certain brand as a luxury brand, to be able to successfully posit a brand as a
luxury brand and, accordingly, to develop successful marketing campaigns
(Bain & Company 2011). As many ordinary brands try to take advantage
of the dream value of luxury brands and the high profits in this sector by
associating their brand with luxury (e.g. Nivea, generally perceived as a
non-luxury cosmetics brand, put the Nivea Visage Expert Lift Day and
Night Cream in a white-gold jar, set with 441 diamonds), real luxury
brands have to develop effective strategies to come out on the right side
(Kapferer & Bastien 2009). This specificity of luxury brand management
is emphasised by Patrick Heiniger, CEO of Rolex, thus: Why do I need to
know how the watch market is doing, Im in the business of luxury. Luxury
companies need to take the three facets into account when positioning their
brand as a luxury brand. If a brand scores high on perceived functional
and emotional value, and on perceived exclusivity, it is more likely to be
perceived as a luxury brand by consumers.
The current segmentation might be used to develop effective marketing
strategies for luxuries, because each of these segments has a different
perception of luxury. For expressive luxury consumers, for example, it
is important to emphasise exclusivity, while impressive luxury consumers
prefer aesthetic and high-quality luxuries. This way, impressive luxury
consumers might be convinced to purchase luxuries with large advertising
campaigns that are emphasising the excellent quality or aesthetic value of
the brands, while expressive luxury consumers might be more effectively
reached by using exclusive distribution channels, and by emphasising the
uniqueness and exclusivity of the brands. In future research, it would
be interesting to examine which strategies are preferred by the different
segments identified in the current research.
408
References
Allrs, D. (1995) Luxe: Un management spcifique. Paris: Economica.
Amaldoss, W. & Jain, S. (2005) Pricing of conspicuous brands: a competitive analysis of social
effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 1, pp.3043.
Bain & Company (2011) Spring 2011 update: luxury goods worldwide market study, 5May.
Available online at: http://www.bain.com/publications/index.aspx (accessed 20March 2012).
Berry, C.I. (1994) The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical Investigation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Castelli, C.M. & Golini, R. (2009) A contingency approach for SC
strategy in the Italian luxury industry: do consolidated models fit? International Journal of
Production Economics, 120, 1, pp.176189.
Catry, B. (2003) The great pretenders: the magic of luxury brands. Business Strategy Review,
14, 3, pp.1017.
Chandler, D. (2007) Semiotics: The Basics. New York: Routledge.
Chevalier, M. & Mazzalovo, G. (2008) Luxury Brand Management. Singapore: Wiley.
Corneo, G. & Jeanne, O. (1997) Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism.
Journal of Public Economics, 66, 1, pp.5571.
DeLeire, T. & Kalil, A. (2010) Does consumption buy happiness? Evidence from the United
States. International Review of Economics, 57, 2, pp.163176.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larson, R.J. & Griffin, S. (1985) The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 1, pp.7175.
Dubois, B. & Czellar, S. (2002) Prestige brands or luxury brands? An exploratory inquiry on
consumer perceptions. Paper presented at the 31st EMAC Conference, University of Minho,
Portugal, 2831May.
Dubois, B. & Duquesne, P. (1993) The market for luxury brands: income versus culture.
European Journal of Marketing, 27, 1, pp.3544.
Dubois, B. & Laurent, G. (1995) Luxury possessions and practices: an empirical scale.
European Advances in Consumer Research, 2, pp.6977.
Dubois, B. & Paternault, C. (1995) Observations: understanding the world of international
luxury brands: the dream formula. Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 4, pp.6976.
Dubois, B., Czellar, S. & Laurent, G. (2005) Consumer segments based on attitudes toward
luxury: empirical evidence from twenty countries. Marketing Letters, 16, 2, pp.115128.
Dubois, B., Laurent, G. & Czellar, S. (2001) Consumer rapport to luxury: analyzing complex
and ambivalent attitudes. Les Cahiers de Recherche Groupe HEC, p.736.
Frank, R.H. (1999) Luxury Fever. Money and Happiness in an Era of Excess. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Gardyn, R. (2002) Oh, the brand life. American Demographics. Available online at: http://
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2002_Nov_1/ai_93089467/?tag=mantle_
skin;content (accessed 29April 2011).
Garland, E., Cornish, E. & Bean, L. (2008) The experience economy: the high life of
tomorrow. The Futurist, p.20.
Hader, S. (2008) Wooing luxury customers. Marketing Management, 17, 4, pp.2831.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. & Black, W. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis (5th edn).
Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Heine, K. (2009) A theory-based and consumer-oriented concept of luxury brands. Paper
presented at the In Pursuit of Luxury Conference, 18June, London.
Hudders, L. (2012) Why the devil wears Prada: consumers purchase motives for luxuries.
Journal of Brand Management, 19, 7, pp. 609622.
Hudders, L. & Pandelaere, M. (2012a) The silver lining of materialism: the impact of luxury
consumption on subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 3, pp.411437.
409
Hudders, L. & Pandelaere, M. (2012b) Indulging the self: positive consequences of luxury
consumption. In: K. Wiedman & N. Hennigs (eds) Handbook of Luxury Marketing.
Germany: Springer.
Kapferer, J. (1997) Managing luxury brands. Journal of Brand Management, 4, 4, pp.251260.
Kapferer, J. (1998) Why are we seduced by luxury brands? Journal of Brand Management, 6,
1, pp.4449.
Kapferer, J. & Bastien, V. (2009) The Luxury Strategy: Break the Rules of Marketing to Build
Luxury Brands. London: Kogan Page.
Kemp, S. (1998) Perceiving luxury and necessity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 5,
pp.591606.
Lichtenstein, D., Ridgway, N.M. & Netemeyer, R. (1993) Price perceptions and consumer
shopping behavior: a field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 2, pp.234246.
Mandel, N., Petrova, P.K. & Cialdini, R.B. (2006) Images of success and the preference for
luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 1, pp.5769.
Mason, R. (1981) Conspicuous Consumption. A Study of Exceptional Consumer Behaviour.
Great Britain: William Heinemann.
Michman, R.D. & Mazze, E.M. (2006) The Affluent Consumer: Marketing and Selling the
Luxury Lifestyle. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Miller, E. (1975) Status brands and luxury taxes. American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 34, 2, p.141.
Mortelmans, D. (2005) Sign values in processes of distinction: the concept of luxury.
Semiotica, 157, 1/4, pp.497520.
Nia, A. & Zaichkowsky, J.L. (2000) Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury brands?
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9, 7, pp.485497.
Nueno, J.L. & Quelch, J.A. (1998) The mass marketing of luxury. Business Horizons, 41, 6,
pp.6169.
Phau, I. & Prendergast, G. (2000) Consuming luxury brands: the relevance of the rarity
principle. Journal of Brand Management, 8, 2, pp.122138.
Richins, M.L. & Dawson, S. (1992) A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 3,
pp.303316.
Rindfleisch, A. & Burroughs, J.E. (2004) Terrifying thoughts, terrible materialism?
Contemplations on a terror management account of materialism and consumer behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 3, pp.219224.
Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rucker, D.D. & Galinsky, A.D. (2009) Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals:
how different levels of power shape consumer behavior. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 3, pp.549555.
Silverstein, M.J. & Fiske, N. (2003) Trading Up: The New American Luxury. London:
Penguin Books Ltd.
Sivanathan, N. & Pettit, N.C. (2010) Protecting the self through consumption: status goods
as affirmational commodities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 3,
pp.564570.
Stegeman, N. (2006) Unique brand extension challenges for luxury brands. Journal of Business
and Economics Research, 4, 10, pp.5768.
Thomas, D. (2007) Deluxe: How Luxury Lost its Luster. New York: Penguin Press.
Truong, Y. (2009) New luxury brand positioning and the emergence of masstige brands. Journal
of Brand Management, 16, 5/6, pp.375382.
Truong, Y. (2010) Personal aspirations and the consumption of luxury goods. International
Journal of Market Research, 52, 5, pp.653671.
410
Truong, Y., McColl, R. & Kitchen, P.J. (2010) Uncovering the relations between aspirations and
luxury brand preference. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19, 5, pp.346355.
Tsai, S. (2005) Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value. An
international investigation. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 4, pp.429454.
Tynan, C., McKechnie, S. & Chhuon, C. (2010) Co-creating value for luxury brands. Journal
of Business Research, 63, 11, pp.11561163.
Vickers, J.S. & Renand, F. (2003) The marketing of luxury brands: an exploratory study
three conceptual dimensions. Marketing Review, 3, 4, pp.459479.
Vigneron, F. & Johnson, L.W. (2004) Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of
Brand Management, 11, 6, pp.484506.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A. & Tellegen, A. (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 6, pp.10631070.
Watson, J.J. (2003) The relationship of materialism to spending tendencies, saving, and debt.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 3, pp.723739.
Wiedmann, K., Hennigs, N. & Siebels, A. (2009) Value-based segmentation of luxury
consumption behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 7, pp.625651.
Wong, N.Y. & Ahuvia, A.C. (1998) Personal taste and family face: luxury consumption in
Confucian and western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 5, pp.423441.
Yeoman, I. & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2006) Luxury markets and premium pricing. Journal of
Revenue and Pricing Management, 4, 4, pp.319329.
Zhong, J.Y. & Mitchell, V. (2010) A mechanism model of the effect of hedonic product
consumption on well-being. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 2, pp.152162.
411
412
Copyright of International Journal of Market Research is the property of Warc LTD and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.