Value-Based Segmentation

of Luxury Consumption
Behavior
Klaus-Peter Wiedmann, Nadine Hennigs, and Astrid Siebels
Leibniz University of Hanover

ABSTRACT
Following a broader perspective in exploring customer perceptions
of and motives for purchasing luxury brands, it is not sufficient to
explain the whole picture of luxury consumption in terms of socially
oriented consumer motives and the desire to impress others. The
main contribution here is to explore a multidimensional framework
of luxury value as a general basis for identifying value-based consumer segments. The empirical results can be seen as a first step
toward a better understanding of consumers luxury value perceptions as based on social, individual, functional, and financial aspects.
2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Although the marketing literature has recently seen a great deal of interest in
the study of luxury brands, little is yet known about how best to market and monitor them (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999, 2004). Against a background of dynamic
growth in the global luxury market, it is critical for luxury researchers and marketers to understand the reasons why consumers buy luxury, what they believe
luxury is, and how their perception of luxury value affects their buying behavior. In this context, a major objective of luxury marketing strategies is to identify and profile consumer segments, such as the cosmopolitan luxury consumers
who travel frequently, speak more than one language, shop in international
department stores, and, as opinion leaders, often influence the purchasing behavior of other consumers (Anderson & He, 1998). Regarded as a common denominator that can be used to define consumption across cultures (Bourdieu, 1984;
Dubois & Paternault, 1997), luxury is a key factor in differentiating a brand in
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26(7): 625651 (July 2009)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20292
625

a product category (Allrs, 1991; Kapferer, 1997), as well as a central driver of

consumer preference and usage (Dubois & Duquesne, 1993).
Past research efforts in the luxury product market have analyzed the consumption behaviors of affluent consumers (e.g., Veblen, 1899; Stanley, 1988;
Hirschman, 1988), luxury brand types (e.g., Dubois & Duquesne, 1993; Andrus,
Silver, & Johnson, 1986), the determinants of the acquisition of luxury products (e.g., Mason, 1992; Dubois & Laurent, 1993; Dubois & Duquesne, 1993),
cross-cultural comparisons of attitudes toward the luxury concept (Dubois &
Laurent, 1996; Dubois & Paternault, 1997), and comparisons of motivations
between Asian and Western societies (Wong & Ahuvia, 1998; Wang & Waller,
2006). However, there is currently little agreement about the dimensions of luxury product value as perceived by customers. With regard to consumer buying
motives, the notion of to impress others still more or less serves as a strategic
principle for the marketing management of luxury brands (Berry, 1994; Dittmar,
1994; Corneo & Jeanne, 1997; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999, 2004; OCass & Frost,
2002). According to the theory of impression management, consumers are highly
affected by the internal drive to create a favorable social image from their purchase behavior outcomes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Mandrik, 1996; Sallot, 2002).
However, from a broader perspective in exploring customer perceptions of and
motives for purchasing luxury, socially oriented motives are not sufficient to
explain the whole picture of luxury market consumption (e.g., Hansen, 1998;
Wong & Ahuvia, 1998; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999, 2004; Wong, Chung, &
Zaichkowsky, 1999; Gentry et al., 2001; Puntoni, 2001; Roth, 2001; Miquel,
Caplliurer, & Aldas-Manzano, 2002; Coulter, Price, & Feick, 2003). A personally
oriented type of consumption as well as functional and financial aspects should
also be considered in the marketing management of luxury brands.
Incorporating relevant theoretical and empirical findings, this study focuses
on understanding what is really meant by luxury from the consumers perspective. By developing a multidimensional concept encompassing financial,
functional, individual, and social components, it aims to identify different types
of luxury consumers according to the dimensions that influence their perceptions
of value and consumption. The empirical results are discussed with reference to
managerial implications and further research steps.

CONSTRUCT DEFINITION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Defining the Luxury Concept
Although routinely used in our everyday life to refer to products, services, or a
certain lifestyle, the term luxury elicits no clear understanding. It takes different forms for many different people and is dependent on the mood and experience of the consumer. Luxury is particularly slippery to define, notes Cornell
(2002, p. 47). A strong element of human involvement, very limited supply and
the recognition of value by others are key components. According to Kapferer
(1997), the word luxury defines beauty; it is art applied to functional items.
Like light, luxury is enlightening. Luxury items provide extra pleasure and flatter all senses at once (p. 253). Whereas necessities are utilitarian objects
that relieve an unpleasant state of discomfort, luxuries are defined in Websters
(2002) as non-essential items or services that contribute to luxurious living;

626

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

an indulgence or convenience beyond the indispensable minimum. Berry (1994)

characterizes them as objects of desire that provide pleasure.
Seen as goods for which the simple use or display of a particular branded
product brings esteem for its owner, luxury goods enable consumers to satisfy
psychological and functional needs. The psychological benefits are considered the
main factor distinguishing luxury from non-luxury products (Nia & Zaichkowsky,
2000). In the literature, a concept of exclusivity or rarity is well documented
(Pantzalis, 1995). Luxury brands are those whose price and quality ratios are
the highest in the market (McKinsey, 1990), and even though the ratio of functionality to price might be low with regard to certain luxury goods, the ratio of
intangible and situational utility to price is comparatively high (Nueno & Quelch,
1998). Therefore, luxury brands compete based on the ability to evoke exclusivity, brand identity, brand awareness, and perceived quality from the consumers perspective (Phau & Prendergast, 2000). Because luxury is a subjective
and multidimensional construct, a definition of the concept should follow an
integrative understanding. This paper uses the luxury brand definition of
Vigneron and Johnson (1999) as the highest level of prestigious brands encompassing several physical and psychological values.

Dimensions of Luxury Value

With regard to motives for luxury consumption, existing research has demonstrated that behavior varies between different people depending on their susceptibility to interpersonal influence (Bourne, 1957; Mason, 1981; Bearden &
Etzel, 1982; Horiuchi, 1984; Bushman, 1993; Pantzalis, 1995). To explain consumer behavior in relation to luxury brands, apart from interpersonal aspects
like snobbery and conspicuousness (Leibenstein, 1950; Mason, 1992), personal
aspects such as hedonism and perfectionism (Dubois & Laurent, 1994) and situational conditions (e.g., economic, societal, and political factors) must be considered (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999, 2004). While the consumption of prestige or
status brands involves purchasing a higher-priced product to boost ones ego
(Eastman, Goldsmith, & Flynn, 1999), the consumption of luxury goods involves
buying a product that represents value to both the individual and significant others. Therefore, in addition to the socially oriented luxury brand consumption
and the human desire to impress others, a personally oriented type of consumption should be considered in managing luxury brand marketing. In regard
to personal and interpersonal perceptions of luxury, it is expected that different
sets of consumers will have different perceptions of the luxury value for the
same brands, and that the overall value would integrate these perceptions from
different perspectives.
Generally, values can be regarded as beliefs that guide the selection or evaluation of desirable behaviors or end states (Schultz & Zelezny, 1999). With
regard to consumption values that directly explain why consumers choose to
buy or avoid particular products (Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991), different
types influence consumers purchase choices. A customers luxury value perception and motives for luxury brand consumption are not simply tied to a set
of social factors that include displaying status, success, distinction, and
the human desire to impress other people; they also depend on the nature of the
financial, functional, and individual utilities of the brand. Pointing to the fact
that luxury value lies in social/individual as well as functional/financial aspects,

LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

627

it is important to synthesize all relevant cognitive and emotional value dimensions in a multidimensional model.
Inspired by the work of Dubois and Laurent (1994), Leibenstein (1950), Mason
(1992), Kapferer (1998), Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn (1999), Phau and
Prendergast (2000), and Dubois, Laurent, and Czellar (2001) on the evaluation
of luxury brands, Vigneron and Johnson (2004) reviewed the latent structure of
the luxury concept and developed a framework for a brand luxury index. They
proposed that the luxury-seeking consumers decision-making process can
be explained by five main factors that form a semantic network, including
personal perceptions (perceived extended self, perceived hedonism) and the
more usual non-personal perceptions (perceived conspicuousness, perceived
uniqueness, perceived quality). The model presented here draws on existing
luxury research literature as well as Bourdieus capital theory (1984) and
extends Vigneron and Johnsons five-dimensional framework in order to
enhance the understanding of consumer motives and value perceptions in luxury consumption. The question of what really adds luxury value in the consumers perception is defined in this paper through the existence of four latent
dimensions: financial, functional, individual, and social (Wiedmann, Hennigs, &
Siebels, 2007).
The financial dimension of luxury value addresses direct monetary aspects
such as price, resale cost, discount, and investment, and refers to the value of the
product as expressed, for example, in dollars, euros, or yen, as well as to what is
given up or sacrificed to obtain it (e.g., Ahtola, 1984; Chapman, 1986; Mazumdar, 1986; Monroe & Krishnan, 1985). The functional dimension of luxury value
refers to such core product benefits and basic utilities as quality, uniqueness,
usability, reliability, and durability (Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991). The individual dimension of luxury value focuses on a customers personal orientation
toward luxury consumption and addresses personal matters such as materialism (e.g., Richins & Dawson, 1992), hedonism, and self-identity (e.g., Vigneron &
Johnson, 2004; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Finally, the social dimension of luxury value refers to the perceived utility individuals acquire with products or
services recognized within their own social group(s), such as conspicuousness
and prestige value, that may significantly affect the evaluation and propensity
to purchase or consume luxury brands (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999; Bearden &
Etzel, 1982; Brinberg & Plimpton, 1986; Kim, 1998). Although these value dimensions operate independently, they interact with each other and have various
influences on individual luxury value perceptions and behaviors that can be
used to further identify and segment different types of luxury consumers.

Conceptual Model: Determinants of Consumers Luxury

Value Perceptions
Starting from an integral luxury value concept, Figure 1 shows the proposed conceptual model for investigating the strongly correlated but not identical luxury
value dimensions. As sketched in the framework presented here, several influencing variables and value drivers may be related to the four key dimensions
of luxury value perception, such as price, quality, and conspicuousness. This
study analyzes the selected variables for possible links to those dimensions as
well as associated influences on individuals overall perceptions. These selected
variables (the antecedent constructs such as price value, quality value, prestige
628

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Price Value
Financial Value
Usability Value
Quality Value
Uniqueness Value

Functional Value

Luxury Value

Self-Identity Value
Hedonic Value
Individual Value
Materialistic Value

Conspicuousness
Value
Social Value
Prestige Value
Antecedent
Constructs

First Order
Latent Variables

Second Order
Latent Variable

Figure 1. The conceptual model.

value) have to be understood as individual value judgments. They do not represent an objective valuation, but rather individual consumers perceptions of
a certain luxury brand or product, comprising their personal weighing of the
different antecedent constructs that can be aggregated to the four key luxury
value dimensions. For example, the objective and perceived price of a product
constitutes the financial value dimension, but may also act as a moderating
variable with regard to the perceived prestige value of a certain luxury item.
Therefore, the linkages shown in our model can only represent the key relations between the antecedent constructs and the key luxury value dimensions.

Price Value. Many authors have demonstrated that the price of a good may
have a positive role in determining the perception of its quality (Erickson &
Johansson, 1995; Lichtenstein, Bloch, & Black, 1988; Tellis & Gaeth, 1990).
Status-conscious consumers also tend to use a price cue as a surrogate indicator of prestige (e.g., Berkowitz et al., 1992; Groth & McDaniel, 1993). Thus, prestige pricingsetting a rather high price to suggest high quality or status
(McCarthy & Perreault, 1987)may make certain products or services more
desirable (Groth & McDaniel, 1993). Nevertheless, it is important to realize that
a product or service does not have to be expensive to be a luxury good, nor is it
luxurious just because of its price. Luxury consumers demand more value along
with their luxury. Some items may, for example, be regarded as luxury goods not
in terms of a price tag or label, but in terms of their sentimental value (e.g., a
wedding ring as part of personal history or as ancestral heirloom) or investment value (paintings, classic cars). Thus, consumers can and do distinguish

LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

629

between objective price (the actual price of a product) and perceived price (the
cost as judged by the consumer) (Jacoby & Olson, 1977). This leads to the following proposition:
H1:

Price as an indicator of outstanding quality or exclusivity of a luxury product or service is an appropriate criterion for value-based segmentation of
luxury consumption behavior.

Usability Value. In general, a product or service is designed to perform a

particular function; the core benefit can be seen in its usability for satisfying consumer needs. The concept of usability has been examined and understood in
terms of ease of use and can be defined by the physical/chemical/technical, concrete, or abstract product/service dimensions (e.g., Park, Jaworski, & McInnis,
1986). Usability is based on both the products properties and the consumers
needs. Hence, one must differentiate between an objective and a subjective judgment of usability, which depends on individual evaluation and the specific purpose of use. With regard to basic usage, consumers expect the item they buy to
work right, look good, last a long time, and perform as expected and as promised (e.g., Fennel, 1978). Such expectations increase even more in regard to luxury items. Thus:
H2:

The consumers perceived level of excellent usability in terms of superior

functional value of a luxury product or service is an appropriate criterion
for value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior.

Quality Value. Gentry et al. (2001) found that one reason consumers buy
luxury brands is because of the superior quality reflected in the brand name. This
is congruent with the assumption in the field of perceived quality that luxury
brands offer greater product quality and performance than non-luxury brands
(e.g., Garfein, 1989; Roux, 1995; Quelch, 1987; Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000; OCass
& Frost, 2002; Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). Consumers may associate luxury
products with a superior brand quality and reassurance so that they perceive
more value from them (Aaker, 1991). The literature on luxury consumption often
emphasizes this importance of quality to ensure the perceptions, and therefore
the value, of luxury (Quelch, 1987; Rao & Monroe, 1989; Garfein, 1989; Groth &
McDaniel, 1993; Roux, 1995). In addition, high quality is seen as a fundamental character of a luxury product in terms of a sine qua non (Quelch, 1987;
Garfein, 1989; Roux, 1995). Therefore, it is proposed here that:
H3:

The consumers perceived level of first-class quality in terms of superior

performance of a luxury product or service is an appropriate criterion for
value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior.

Uniqueness Value. Uniqueness is based on the assumption, demonstrated

in research, that the perceived exclusivity and rareness of the product enhances
a consumers desire or preference for it (Verhallen, 1982; Lynn, 1991; Pantzalis,
1995). Furthermore, this desire even increases when the brand is also perceived
as expensive (Groth & McDaniel, 1993; Verhallen & Robben, 1994). Therefore,
the more unique a brand is deemed, and the more expensive it is compared
to normal standards, the more valuable it becomes (Verhallen & Robben, 1994).
630

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

In addition, the functional value of uniqueness also strengthens individuals

need for uniqueness (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977) and their wish for differentiation and exclusivity, which can only be fulfilled when the consumption and use
of a certain brand is given only to an exclusive clientele (Leibenstein, 1950;
Vigneron & Johnson, 1999, 2004). A luxury product or service is, by definition,
not affordable by or owned by everybody; otherwise it would not be regarded as
a luxury item. Consequently:
H4:

The consumers perceived level of uniqueness as an indicator of the exceptional exclusivity and scarcity of a luxury product or service is an appropriate criterion for value-based segmentation of luxury consumption
behavior.

Self-Identity Value. In contrast to the external (social) facet of ones self,

the self-identity value refers to ones internal (private) aspect in terms of selfperception (Mehta, 1999; Sirgy & Johar, 1999; Jamal & Goode, 2003). It is widely
accepted within consumer behavior theory that the self-image congruity moderates the relationship between ones self-image and ones image of a product or
service (Belk, 1988; Mick, 1986), and that a consumers self-concept affects purchasing behavior in a self-image or product-image congruity model (Sirgy, 1982).
Puntoni (2001) confirmed the significant impact of self-congruity on luxury
brand purchases. From this point of view, consumers may use luxury items to
integrate symbolic meaning into their own identity (Holt, 1995; Vigneron &
Johnson, 2004), or they may use the brands to support and develop that identity (Douglas & Isherwood, 1979; Hirschman, 1988; Dittmar, 1994). This leads
us to:
H5:

Consumers perceived level of perfect congruity of a luxury product or

service with their self-image or intended self-image is an appropriate criterion for value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior.

Hedonic Value. Certain products and services carry an emotional value in

addition to their functional utility (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Sheth,
Newman, & Gross, 1991, Westbrook & Oliver, 1991). Studies in the field of luxury consumption have shown that luxury products are likely to provide such
subjective intangible benefits (Dubois & Laurent, 1994). And research concerning the concept of luxury has repeatedly identified the emotional responses
associated with luxury consumption, such as sensory pleasure, aesthetic beauty,
and excitement (Benarrosh-Dahan, 1991; Fauchois & Krieg, 1991; Roux & Floch,
1996; Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). Hence, hedonism describes the perceived subjective utility and intrinsically attractive properties acquired from the purchase
and consumption of a luxury brand as arousing feelings and affective states
received from personal rewards and fulfillment (Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991;
Westbrook & Oliver, 1991). In sum, then:
H6:

The consumers perceived level of hedonism toward a luxury product or

service and its property of satisfying as well as possible an emotional
desire for sensory gratification is an appropriate criterion for value-based
segmentation of luxury consumption behavior.

LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

631

Materialistic Value. In the area of consumer behavior, the topic of materialism has been widely researched since the late 1950s. But with researchers
interpreting materialism from different perspectives, theorists have not yet
agreed on a single definition (Richins & Dawson, 1992). Nevertheless, possession and acquisition play a central role in the definition of materialism (Daun,
1983; Bredemeier & Toby, 1960; Wackman, Reale, & Ward, 1972; Heilbroner, 1956;
Rassuli & Hollander, 1986; Du Bois, 1955). More specifically, materialism can be
described as the degree to which individuals principally find that possessions
play a central role in their lives (Chang & Arkin, 2002). The more materialistic
consumers are, the more likely they are to have positive attitudes related to
acquisition and to assign a high priority to material possessions. Highly materialistic individuals may, in a general sense, find possessions to be desirable and
tend to devote more time and energy to product-related activities (Belk, 1985).
Research has also found that materialistic-oriented consumers rely heavily on
external cues, favoring those possessions that are worn or consumed in public
places (Richins & Dawson, 1992; OCass & Muller, 1999). This can be associated
with the understanding of materialists that possessions serve as a signal or
source of communicating and portraying impressions of who they are and what
their status or position is (Douglas & Isherwood, 1979; Belk, 1985). Thus:
H7:

The consumers level of materialism and extraordinary devotion to material needs and desires is an appropriate criterion for value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior.

Conspicuousness Value. In the early 1980s, a number of researchers carried out studies, based on the original work of Bourne (1957), focusing on the
influence of reference groups on luxury brand consumption (Mason, 1981, 1992;
Bearden & Etzel, 1982). Findings revealed that the conspicuousness of a product was positively related to its susceptibility to the reference group. For example, Bearden and Etzel (1982) concluded that luxury goods consumed in public
were more likely to be conspicuous goods than privately consumed luxury goods
and that conspicuous consumption still plays a significant part in shaping preferences for many products that are purchased or consumed in public contexts
(Braun & Wicklund, 1989; Hong & Zinkhan, 1995; Bagwell & Bernheim, 1996;
Corneo & Jeanne, 1997; Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). Thus, luxury brands may
be important to individuals in search of social status and representation, which
means in particular that the societal ranking associated with a brand plays an
important factor in conspicuous consumption. Consequently:
H8:

The consumers perceived supreme conspicuousness of a purchased luxury product or service as an indicator of elitism and wealth is an appropriate
criterion for value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior.

Prestige Value in Social Networks. Much of the existing research has

emphasized the role of status that takes place in communicating information
about the possessors of goods and social relationships (Hyman, 1942; Barkow,
1975; Douglas & Isherwood, 1979; Dittmar, 1994). This goes along with research
that originally demonstrated how people tended to conform to the majority opinion of their membership groups when forming attitudes (Festinger, 1954). Hence,
one may use a prestige brand during the week to conform with ones professional
632

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

position, then use a modest brand during the weekend to match the social standards of ones neighborhood. Thus, as luxury brands and products often enclose
prestigious values, social referencing and the construction of ones self appear to
be determinants of luxury consumption. Peoples desire to possess luxury brands
will serve as a symbolic sign of group membership. This bandwagon effect influences individuals to conform to affluent lifestyles and/or to distinguish themselves from nonaffluent lifestyles (French & Raven, 1959; Sirgy, 1982; Midgley,
1983; Solomon, 1983; Mick, 1986; McCracken, 1986; Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1994).
In conclusion, the contribution of reference theory in the analysis of luxury consumer behavior appears to be important for the motivation underlying luxury
consumption. This reasoning leads us to the final proposition:
H9:

The level of perceived superior prestige of a luxury product or service as

a symbolic sign of membership to a reference group is an appropriate criterion for value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior.

METHODOLOGY
To measure the underlying dimensions of consumers luxury value perceptions
against the background of the multidimensional model, this study used already
existing and tested measures (i.e., Dubois & Laurent, 1994; Richins & Dawson,
1992; Tsai, 2005) and generated further items resulting from exploratory interviews. Specifically, the qualitative part of the study encompassed the tasks of a
written definition of the concept of luxury and components of luxury value as
well as a collection and ranking of adjectives that illustrated the value concept
of luxury with reference to different product categories and luxury brands.
Eight marketing researchers and 50 marketing students were asked what benefits they associated with certain luxury goods. The questionnaire items were
rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree). The
first version of the questionnaire, consisting of 150 items, was face-validated
twice, using exploratory and expert interviews, and pretested with 80 respondents to identify the most important items and to reduce the total number. The
study sample was defined as male or female respondents, aged 18 years and
older. A total of 750 interviews were conducted in winter 200607. (A description of the sample can be found in Table 4 later in the paper.)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data were analyzed in three stages. First, the various dimensions underlying
the luxury value perception were uncovered by a factor analysis using the principal component method with varimax rotation. The analysis produced a tenfactor structure, as shown in Table 1, with a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
0.906 that summarized 48 items with medium ( 0.5) to high ( 0.8) factor loadings. Given that a Cronbachs alpha of 0.600 or better is desired for any measurement scale (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991), all factors were stable,
with alphas of 0.604 to 0.923.
The research was motivated by the need for a clearer conceptualization and
measurement of consumers luxury value perceptions. As a multifactor solution
LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

633

3.71

3.63

0.714

0.704

Factor 4: Self-Identity Value

I never buy a luxury brand inconsistent with the
characteristics with which I describe myself.

3.35
3.34

3.61
3.48

a 0.676
0.781

Factor 3: Quality Value

Im inclined to evaluate the substantive attributes and
performance of a luxury brand myself rather than listen
to others opinions.
The luxury brand preferred by many people but that does
not meet my quality standards will never enter into my
purchase consideration.
I buy a luxury brand for satisfying my personal needs without
any attempt to make an impression on other people.
a 0.747
0.843

3.46
3.46
3.90
3.11
3.37

a 0.604
0.737
0.732
0.589
0.558

Factor 2: Uniqueness Value

A luxury product cannot be sold in supermarkets.
True luxury products cannot be mass-produced.
Few people own a true luxury product.
People who buy luxury products try to differentiate themselves
from the others.

Individual Value Dimension

3.62
3.75
3.26
3.81
4.00
3.52
3.51
3.47

Cluster 1
Means

0.826
0.725
0.698
0.691
0.690
0.637
0.531
0.528

Factor
Loadings

Factor 1: Usability Value

In my opinion, luxury is really useless.R
In my opinion, luxury is just swanky.R
In my opinion, luxury is pleasant.
In my opinion, luxury is old-fashioned.R
In my opinion, luxury is good.
Luxury products make life more beautiful.
I am not interested in luxury.R

Functional Value Dimension

Items

Table 1. Luxury Value Factors and Cluster Means.

3.70
3.70

4.25

4.44

4.30
4.21

3.78
3.95
4.13
3.15
3.89

3.15
3.38
2.89
3.49
3.74
2.88
3.08
2.63

Cluster 2
Means

3.31
3.18

3.53

3.66

3.54
3.43

3.17
3.10
3.47
2.92
3.18

3.67
3.81
3.49
3.82
4.01
3.49
3.44
3.62

Cluster 3
Means

3.14
2.95

4.26

4.15

4.20
4.18

3.80
3.79
4.11
3.53
3.78

2.80
2.78
2.40
3.05
3.29
2.53
2.78
2.74

Cluster 4
Means

8.091
12.597

29.911

28.709

35.510
47.910

16.326
18.436
18.877
7.632
20.360

27.333
31.997
33.191
22.086
21.689
35.202
13.689
33.475

0.001
0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Sig.

3.31
3.31
3.30
3.54
3.10
2.78
2.82
2.79
2.24
3.50
2.54
3.04
2.60
3.03
3.50
3.57
3.32
3.83

a 0.793
0.769
0.758
0.721
0.671
a 0.809
0.777
0.772
0.695
0.581
0.568
a 0.659
0.721
0.697
0.627
a 0.682
0.858
0.759

Factor 5: Materialistic Value

My life would be better if I owned certain things I dont have.
Id be happier if I could afford to buy more things.
It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I cant afford to buy
all the things Id like.
I have all the things I really need to enjoy life.R

Factor 7: Hedonic Value bExtravagance

I enjoy spending money on things that arent practical.
I usually buy only the things I need.R
Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure.

Factor 8: Hedonic Value cSelf-Directed Pleasure

Luxury brands are one of the sources for my own pleasure
without regard to the feelings of others.
I can enjoy luxury brands entirely on my own terms no matter
what others may feel about them.

Factor 6: Hedonic Value aSelfGift Giving

Purchasing luxury brands can be seen as giving me gifts to
celebrate an occasion that I believe significant to me.
On the whole, I may regard luxury brands as gifts I buy for
treating myself.
When in a bad mood, I may buy luxury brands as self-given
gifts for alleviating the emotional burden.
Reward for hard work or that I feel I have earned or am entitled
to is an important motivator for my luxury consumption.
To me, luxury consumption is a way to reduce stress.

3.43
3.29

0.840
0.660

The luxury brands I buy must match what and who I really am.
My choice of luxury brands depends on whether they reflect
how I see myself but not how others see me.

3.19

2.79
2.39

2.67
2.17
2.77
3.07

2.20

3.37

1.93

2.73

2.53
2.43

2.04

2.37
2.35
2.30
2.78

3.69
3.70

3.46

3.27
3.07

3.32
2.93
3.27
3.76

2.78

3.68

2.60

2.99

3.01
2.99

2.35

2.77
2.63
2.82
3.27

3.37
3.38

3.98

3.81
3.63

2.22
1.89
2.09
2.68

2.41

3.52

1.84

2.54

2.52
2.29

2.17

2.66
2.60
2.76
3.09

3.11
3.36

0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000

0.054

0.000

0.011

0.013
0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.003

(Continued )

20.042

28.180
36.318

27.212
27.202
29.339
25.095

7.477

2.556

14.760

3.758

7.824
10.570

32.716

20.627
18.782
19.122
11.887

7.068
4.607

Reverse coded items.

Factor 10: Prestige Value in Social Networks

I like to know what brands and products make good impressions
on others.
I usually keep up with style changes by watching what
others buy.
Before purchasing a product it is important to know what
brands or products to buy to make good impressions on others.
Before purchasing a product it is important to know what
kinds of people buy certain brands or products.
Before purchasing a product it is important to know what
others think of people who use certain brands or products.
I tend to pay attention to what others are buying.
Before purchasing a product it is important to know what
my friends think of different brands or products.
I actively avoid using products that are not in style.
If I were to buy something expensive, I would worry about
what others would think of me.
Social standing is an important motivator for my luxury
consumption.
For me as a luxury consumer, sharing with friends is an
important motivator.
I often consult my friends to help choose the best alternative
available from a product category.
My friends and I tend to buy the same brands.

Social Value Dimension

Factor 9: Hedonic Value dLife Enrichment

For me as a luxury consumer, cultural development is an
important motivator.
Purchasing luxury brands provides deeper meaning in my life.
Self-actualization is an important motivator for my luxury
consumption.
Luxury consumption enhances the quality of my life.

Items

Table 1. (Continued)

1.59
1.49
1.54
1.51
1.58
1.46
1.67
1.72
2.31
1.92
2.00
1.96

0.782
0.767
0.762
0.758
0.721
0.667
0.655
0.586
0.572
0.540
0.536

3.76

0.542

0.786

2.28
3.14

0.708
0.670

1.71
1.52

3.01
2.84

a 0.759
0.742

a 0.923
0.789

Cluster 1
Means

Factor
Loadings

2.33

2.26

1.74

1.96

1.64
2.28

1.96
1.76

1.61

1.75

1.51

1.87

1.88
1.74

3.34

1.63
2.42

2.44
2.37

Cluster 2
Means

3.03

3.10

2.65

3.01

2.40
2.76

2.89
2.59

2.57

2.59

2.46

2.89

2.74
2.70

3.80

2.46
3.28

3.16
3.08

Cluster 3
Means

2.20

2.77

2.13

2.55

2.24
2.11

2.09
2.10

1.95

1.98

1.88

2.28

2.17
1.97

3.64

2.68
3.12

3.15
3.16

Cluster 4
Means

32.941

31.264

28.287

29.052

26.742
25.006

52.157
44.448

52.375

38.750

50.668

52.611

39.471
48.827

6.498

28.337
18.104

17.59
17.408

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000

Sig.

that could largely confirm the proposed luxury value structure, our results
revealed an interesting view on the underlying set of luxury value dimensions.
Consumers perceptions of luxury value appear to be determined mainly by
functional, individual, and social aspects, with the financial dimension in terms
of the price acting as a moderating variable. A brief description of the identified
factors is given below.

Factor 1: Usability Value. This factor measures an orientation toward the

basic use and core benefits of luxury and luxury products. The item that best
describes it is In my opinion, luxury is really useless; it has a negative loading (0.725). Linked to this aspect is a positive attitude toward luxury in general. Thus, luxury is not regarded as a snobbish accessory without any basic
utility, but as a valuable and pleasant part of life.

Factor 2: Uniqueness Value. Referring to the perceived exclusivity and

rareness of luxury products, this factor is best described by two items: A luxury product cannot be sold in supermarkets (0.737) and True luxury products
cannot be mass-produced (0.732). Linked to the aspect that luxury has a certain differentiation quality and that such items are only accessible to a few people, this factor emphasizes the uniqueness and exclusivity of products as
supportive of the consumers luxury value perception.

Factor 3: Quality Value. This factor represents the assumption of the superior quality and performance of luxury products. The highest-loading item was
Im inclined to evaluate the substantive attributes and performance of a luxury brand myself rather than listen to others opinions (0.781). Linked to this
aspect is the fact that individual quality standards are evaluated as more important than the drive for prestige.

Factor 4: Self-Identity Value. Measuring the congruity of a consumers selfconcept with the image of a product or service, this factor assesses the symbolic
meaning of luxury products for the consumers identity. The factor is best
described by the items I never buy a luxury brand inconsistent with the characteristics with which I describe myself (0.843) and The luxury brands I buy
must match what and who I really am (0.840).

Factor 5: Materialistic Value. This factor represents a consumers general

materialistic orientation and the desire to use possessions as a status signal. It
is best described by the item My life would be better if I owned certain things
I dont have (0.769), combined with the wish to be able to afford to buy more
things to enjoy life.

Factors 69: Hedonic Value. Referring to sensory pleasure, aesthetic beauty,

or the excitement that luxury goods and experiences provide to a consumer,
these factors measure in a very differentiated way the emotional value of luxury. While Factor 6 emphasizes the aspect of selfgift giving with the highestloaded item, Purchasing luxury brands can be seen as giving myself gifts to
celebrate an occasion that I believe significant to me (0.777), Factor 7 stresses
the fact that luxury is always a little expansive to normal standards, best
described by I enjoy spending money on things that arent practical (0.721). In
view of the enjoyment and pleasure of luxury, Factor 8 refers to self-directed
LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

637

pleasure, with the highest loading on Luxury brands are one of the sources for
my own pleasure without regard to the feelings of others (0.858). Finally, Factor 9 embodies the wish for life enrichment, measuring the value of luxury
brands and products for the consumers meaning and quality of life: Purchasing luxury brands provides deeper meaning in my life (0.708).

Factor 10: Prestige Value in Social Networks. Measuring the quality

of luxury brands and products as a symbol of membership to relevant others,
this factor is best described by the item I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others (0.789); it is linked to the wish to impress
and meet the expectations and style of the consumers reference group.
To identify different groups of luxury consumers, the factor scores for each
respondent were saved and subsequently used in stage 2 for clustering them into
market segments. The focus of cluster analysis in this study was on the comparison of cases according to the natural relationships between the hypothesized luxury value dimensions and the factors. An initial hierarchical clustering
procedure was employed to obtain a possible number of clusters and seed points
for a k-means cluster analysis. To identify the right number of clusters, the
respondents were partitioned by a hierarchical procedure. Wards method of
minimum variance was chosen to check the cluster differences in each stage
of combination and to maximize homogeneity and heterogeneity within and
between clusters. The results strongly suggested the presence of four clusters,
which was validated using nonhierarchical k-means clustering. The k-means
cluster membership was identical to Wards membership for 86.3 percent of the
cases. Overall, following the typical criteria for effective segments of consumers
with homogeneous needs, attitudes, and responses to marketing variables, the
four clusters were distinct from one another, were large enough to be managerially useful, and provided operational data that were practical, usable, and
readily translatable into strategy (McCarthy, 1982; Weinstein, 1987). Thus, this
four-cluster solution, shown in Table 2, most favorably produced the most interpretable and stable results.
The results point out that the perceived luxury value variables appeared to
make considerable contributions in characterizing clusters. In particular, Prestige
Value (F 110.844), Quality Value (F 69.379), Hedonic Value cSelf-Directed
Pleasure (F 54.019), and Usability Value (F 50.494) had sizeable differences, whereas Hedonic Value aSelfGift Giving did not contribute greatly to
differences between the clusters (F 1.825).
Once the clusters were identified, a discriminant analysis was used to check
the cluster groupings (Churchill, 1999; Hair et al., 1998), which revealed significant differences between the group characteristics, as shown in Table 3.
These results were used to determine how successfully the discriminant function could work. Overall, 99.7 percent of the cases were assigned to their correct
groups, validating the results of cluster analysis for useful classification of luxury consumer subgroups based on their luxury value perceptions.
For market segmentation purposes, profiling the cluster solutions should lead
toward a classification scheme through a description of the characteristics of
each cluster to explain how they might differ on relevant dimensions. To develop
a profile of each market segment, more detailed information comes from looking at the questionnaire variables cross-tabulated by cluster segment. Comparisons among the four clusters were conducted on a variety of descriptive
638

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

0.84399

0.22336

0.35499
0.28956
0.06068
0.00550
0.62185
0.56240

0.01323
0.35276
0.56079

Cluster 2
(n 178)

All reported F values are significant at 0.000 (exception: Hedonic Value a is significant at 0.141).

Social Value Dimension

Prestige Value in Social Networks

0.01803
0.69732
0.02820
0.13515
0.20739
0.14762

0.37944
0.07326
0.60415

Functional Value Dimension

Usability Value
Uniqueness Value
Quality Value

Individual Value Dimension

Self-Identity Value
Materialistic Value
Hedonic Value aSelfGift Giving
Hedonic Value bExtravagance
Hedonic Value cSelf-Directed Pleasure
Hedonic Value dLife Enrichment

Cluster 1
(n 145)

Luxury Value Dimension

Table 2. Luxury Value Segments: k-Means Cluster Results.

0.73478

0.05923
0.27500
0.11705
0.29056
0.01815
0.07218

0.27487
0.56776
0.35276

Cluster 3
(n 195)

0.14617

0.42056
0.03144
0.12491
0.59872
0.65239
0.50099

0.82373
0.28913
0.43851

Cluster 4
(n 129)

110.844

16.424
39.397
1.825
24.126
54.019
35.980

50.494
37.672
69.379

Fa

Table 3. Discriminant Analysis of Luxury Value Factors.

Discriminant
Function
1
2
3

Eigenvalue

Canonical
Correlation

Wilks
Lambda

Sig.

1.265
1.141
1.063

.747
.730
.718

0.100
0.226
0.485

1471.598
949.041
462.687

0.000
0.000
0.000

Function 1

Function 2

Function 3

Centroids (group means)

Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 4

0.560
0.430
1.210
1.867

0.584
1.679
0.374
1.096

1.754
0.034
1.043
0.441

Significant variable (structure matrix)

Usability Value
Uniqueness Value
Quality Value
Self-Identity Value
Materialistic Value
Hedonic Value aSelfGift Giving
Hedonic Value bExtravagance
Hedonic Value cSelf-Directed Pleasure
Hedonic Value dLife Enrichment
Prestige Value in Social Networks

0.402
0.299
0.396
0.078
0.008
0.080
0.289
0.133
0.064
0.131

0.0091
0.147
0.285
0.238
0.192
0.016
0.077
0.448
0.377
0.117

0.142
0.190
0.174
0.065
0.365
0.014
0.014
0.025
0.014
0.672

Note: Classification matrix revealed that 99.7% of the cases were classified correctly.

variables, including demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Table 4 provides a thumbnail sketch of the characteristics that differentiated each cluster
from the others. Based on the variables from which they derived, the four clusters can be described as follows:

Cluster 1: The Materialists

This cluster comprised 22.4% of the sample and consisted of 54.5% female respondents with a mean age of 34.4 years. Compared to all the clusters, members of
this group showed the highest ratings for the materialistic and usability value
of luxury goods, whereas the quality and self-identity value aspects were rather
unimportant; its ratings for quality and prestige value were the lowest among
all the groups. Slightly more than members of clusters 2 and 3, materialists
stated that for them the hedonic value of luxury goods is important. Significantly more than the other clusters, they wish to have a lot of luxury in their
lives and think that their lives would be better if they owned certain things
they dont have. And they had the most positive attitude toward luxury objects,
as evidenced by the highest ratings for the items In my opinion, luxury is good
and Luxury products make life more beautiful. In contrast, they did not strongly
perceive the social dimension of luxury consumption as being important for
their perception of luxury value, which can be seen in the lowest ratings for I
like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others and
640

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

641

n
295
351
245
301
198
421
175
11
38
42
109
51
233
206
4

Variable

Gender
Male
Female

Age
1624
2539
40 and older

Marital status
Single
Married
Widowed
Divorced

Education
Not graduated from high school
Lower secondary school
Intermediate secondary school
A-levels
University degree
No answer

Summary Statistic

6.5
16.9
7.9
36.1
31.9
0.6

65.3
27.1
1.7
5.9

32.9
40.5
26.6

45.7
54.3

Table 4. Segmentation of Luxury Consumers by Clusters.

9.7%
20.0%
6.9%
32.4%
31.0%
0.0%

62.1%
29.7%
2.1%
6.2%

28.5%
43.1%
28.5%

45.5%
54.5%

Cluster 1

6.2%
9.0%
6.2%
46.1%
30.9%
1.7%

66.3%
25.3%
1.7%
6.7%

36.2%
35.0%
28.8%

43.5%
56.5%

Cluster 2

3.1%
19.2%
8.3%
37.3%
31.6%
0.5%

68.4%
24.9%
2.1%
4.7%

39.7%
42.3%
18.0%

43.6%
56.4%

Cluster 3

8.5%
20.9%
10.9%
24.8%
34.9%
0.0%

62.8%
30.2%
0.8%
6.2%

27.9%
43.4%
28.7%

51.9%
48.1%

Cluster 4

Segmentation by Luxury Consumer Subgroup

0.004

33.540

(Continued )

0.928

3.730

0.047

0.437

2.719

12.770

Sig.

39
10
210
31
38
30
267

54
137
137
98
67
28
29
95

Household income
500 EUR
500 1000 EUR
1000 2000EUR
2000 3000 EUR
3000 4000 EUR
4000 5000 EUR
5000 EUR
No answer

Occupation
Self-employed
Freelance
Employee
Executive employee
Civil servant
Worker
Not employed

Variable

Summary Statistic

Table 4. (Continued)

8.4
21.2
21.2
15.2
10.4
4.3
4.5
14.7

6.29
1.6
33.6
5.0
6.1
4.8
40.0

6.9%
22.9%
22.9%
9.0%
9.0%
2.8%
3.5%
22.9%

7.9%
0.7%
35.7%
2.9%
5.0%
7.9%
40.0%

Cluster 1

10.1%
24.2%
17.4%
16.3%
9.6%
5.1%
3.9%
13.5%

6.4%
0.0%
31.2%
4.0%
7.5%
2.3%
48.6%

Cluster 2

7.2%
23.2%
18.6%
14.4%
13.4%
4.1%
7.2%
11.9%

6.5%
2.7%
28.5%
7.5%
4.3%
6.5%
44.1%

Cluster 3

9.3%
12.4%
28.7%
21.7%
8.5%
5.4%
2.3%
11.6%

4.0%
3.2%
42.1%
4.8%
7.9%
2.4%
35.7%

Cluster 4

Segmentation by Luxury Consumer Subgroup

0.013

0.035

30.294

37.862

Sig.

If I were to buy something expensive, I would worry about what others would
think of me. In sum, materialists satisfy their personal needs and superior
quality standards with luxury goods but do not try to impress others with their
possessions or belong to a special group of individuals.

Cluster 2: The Rational Functionalists

The second cluster made up 23.7% of the sample, was 56.5% female, and had a
mean age of 33 years. Its members showed the highest mean ratings of all groups
for quality value, followed by uniqueness and self-identity value. Their mean
scores for hedonic luxury value factors, taken as a whole, were lower than those
recorded by other groups. Luxury consumers in this cluster are closely attached
to functional value items and show high ratings for statements such as Im
inclined to evaluate the substantive attributes and performance of a luxury brand
myself rather than listen to others opinions and Product quality superiority is
my major reason for buying a luxury brand. Overall, the rational functionalists
do not seem to be greatly excited about the emotional dimensions of luxury consumption. Unlike other clusters, they consider the hedonic value aspects as being
unimportant, which can be seen in the lowest mean ratings for Buying things
gives me a lot of pleasure. In general, consumers in this cluster have superior
quality standards and differentiate themselves from others with the purchase of
exclusive luxury products. Like cluster 1, they perceive their individual needs to
be more important than the desire to make a good impression on others.

Cluster 3: The Extravagant Prestige-Seekers

Comprising 26% of the sample, this was the largest of all the clusters. It consisted
of 56.4% female respondents with a mean age of 30.8 years. Its members are more
likely than those of other groups to take social value aspects of luxury consumption into account, as evidenced by the highest ratings for prestige value followed by extravagance (Hedonic Value b) and usability value. The other functional
aspects show lower mean scores compared to those recorded by other groups; ratings for the uniqueness value represent the smallest percentage of all groups.
Extravagant prestige-seekers do strongly perceive social aspects as being most
important for their perception of luxury value. They had the most positive perception of all prestige items, for example, Before purchasing a product it is
important to know what brands or products to buy to make good impressions
on others and I tend to pay attention to what others are buying. When considering the purchase of a luxury brand, they place much emphasis on prestige
over quality assurance and state that they buy a certain luxury brand mainly
for impressing others rather than just for themselves. To sum up, extravagant
prestige-seekers perceive the quality of life and pleasure aspects of luxury consumption to be uppermost in importance; however, in this group, more individuals are concerned about other peoples opinions than in the other three clusters.

Cluster 4: The Introvert Hedonists

The smallest cluster represented 17.2% of the sample and consisted of 51.9% male
respondents with a mean age of 35 years. Members of this group perceived the

LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

643

hedonic value aspects of self-directed pleasure and life enrichment to be most

important for their perception of luxury value. In their opinion, luxury brands
are sources of pleasure; such consumption enhances their quality of life. Their
definition of luxury refers to exclusivity and products that are not for mass consumption. More than others, they stated that I can enjoy luxury brands entirely
on my own terms no matter what others may feel about them and Luxury brands
are a source for my own pleasure without regard to the feelings of others. In contrast to this, the mean ratings for usability, extravagance, self-identity, and selfgift
giving were lowest for this group. In sum, the introvert hedonists are less likely
than consumers in other groups to be enthusiastic about luxuries, as can be seen
in the lowest scores for Luxury products make life more beautiful.

NEXT RESEARCH STEPS AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The study presented here has made a first step toward conceptualizing luxury
value in the context of identifying market segments along the dimensions of
consumers perception of luxury brands. However, the integrative framework
and exploratory results make it worth focusing on further research as well as
on implications for managerial practice.

Next Research Steps

The primary goal of this paper was to establish and explore a multidimensional
luxury value framework as a basis for identifying and segmenting different
types of luxury consumers. Of course, the exploratory results are only the first
empirical hints and should be further developed in different ways. In particular, the interplay between the proposed structural solution and the overall model
fit must be examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine
whether the factors identified by the exploratory analysis are substantially
related to the value dimensions indicated by the structural model. This will
lead to a proper causal modeling of effects between the luxury value dimensions and their impact on luxury perception as well as the consumption of luxury goods.
Further empirical steps must, of course, meet the state of the art in using
sophisticated multivariate methods. For example, it might be useful to compare
different approaches of formative and reflexive construct development and testing (Diamantopoulos & Winklhoffer, 2001; Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff,
2003). Moreover, due to the fact that one cannot assume linear relationships
among the different variables, research should also draw on nonlinear causal
modeling and neural networks.
To identify luxury consumer segments on a global level, the next research step
is a cross-cultural study to identify discriminating drivers of different consumer
segments in collaboration with American, European, and Asian researchers. Even
if the overall luxury value level of a certain product or brand may be perceived
equally across national borders, a differentiated measurement may reveal that
the overall luxury value perception is a combination of different evaluations with
regard to the subdimensions. More specifically, consumers in different parts of
the world buy, or wish to buy, luxury products for apparently varied reasons;
644

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

however, they possess similar values and, regardless of their country of origin,
their basic motivational drivers are expected to be the sameamong the financial, functional, personal, and social dimensions of luxury value perception, only the
relative importance of the different dimensions may vary (Wiedmann, Hennigs, &
Siebels, 2007). In consideration of the variety of cultures across the world, the luxury value model will, of course, not be able to capture all effects of culture and
ethnicity. Thus, it has to be stated that these suggestions mainly refer to the
global segment of cosmopolitan luxury consumers.
Despite these limitations and necessary steps in future research, the primary contribution of this framework lies in developing a comprehensive model
of consumers perception of luxury by integrating the dimensions of financial,
functional, individual, and social value to identify relevant behavioral patterns
across different value-based segments.

Managerial Implications
Knowledge of all relevant aspects of consumer perceptions of luxury and more
robust measures of luxury value in different market segments are, of course, key
to managerial practice. Based on a deeper understanding of why different consumer segments buy luxury brands, marketing managers may elicit more sales
from their target consumers by adequately addressing their perceptions of and
attitudes toward those products.
In the strategic planning of the utilitarian, affective, and symbolic product categories, luxury brand marketers should avoid narrowly confining their perspective to the consumers desire to impress others. A comprehensive marketing
strategy for luxury brands rests not only on social aspects but also on the benefits of the dimensions proposed in the model presented here. Moreover, it is
highly advisable to conduct luxury brand marketing management with multiple brand-positioning strategies, such as enhancing consumers social status by
providing them with an impression management function, or enhancing their
individual status for meeting personally oriented consumption goals.
With regard to financial, functional, individual, and social value dimensions,
marketers might be able to base strategies on this model to improve purchase
value for different segments of luxury consumers, who may differ in their value
orientations and prefer that a certain brand satisfy either their cognitive or
their emotional needs. This is useful from both a market segmentation point of
view and a market positioning point of view, and will, of course, enhance the
efficiency of marketing efforts for luxuries.
From a market segmentation point of view, clustering groups according to
their primary perceived luxury brand values may indicate distinct market segments to which different sets of luxury products appeal or for which advertising
strategies could be implemented. As the study results show, to some the social
value dimensions such as brand conspicuousness, popularity, or exclusivity are
particularly important in that they are signals of wealth, power, and status,
and strengthen the membership of peer groups. To others, luxury goods serve
as a financial investment, or must meet their individual standards of superior
quality. Another segments luxury brand consumption stems from hedonistic or
materialistic motives for expressing the individual self. Overall, this research
synthesizes cognitive and emotional value dimensions and could already lead
to a better understanding of the conditions and drivers of luxury product

LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

645

perception, as well as a broadened view of luxury value as it lies in social, individualistic, functional, and, as a moderator, financial aspects.
From the point of view of market positioning, if monitoring a luxury brand
indicates a declining level of luxury, researchers could identify and concentrate
on the specific value dimension that is weakening. Accordingly, the advertising
message may be changed, stressing the perceived values and emphasizing the
benefits of the luxury brand over competing brands. In contrast to existing studies exploring customer perceptions of and motives for purchasing luxury products, at least theoretically, this research enables the identification of a broader
variety of potential luxury value drivers. Thus, marketers should first explore
the values expressed by their brands, products, and market communications, then
compare them to their customers luxury value systems. If necessary, they should
revise their marketing strategy and product positioning accordingly.
In sum, luxury brands have to encompass consumer values if their purchase
is to be justified. Because the luxury market is not homogeneous, product category and situational characteristics play an important role. From a consumer
perspective, each product can provide a certain set of values and may be more
appropriate in certain situations than in others. Thus, marketers have to consider individual differences in associating luxury values with certain situations.
Knowing these differences can be an important starting point in designing
appropriate marketing campaigns.

REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
New York: Free Press.
Ahtola, O. T. (1984). Price as a give component in an exchange theoretic multicomponent model. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 623636.
Allrs, D. (1991). Spcificits et strategies marketing des differents univers du luxe.
Revue Franaise du Marketing, 133, 7197.
Anderson, P. M. & He, X. (1998). Price influence and age segments of Beijing consumers.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15, 152169.
Andrus, D. M., Silver, E., & Johnson, D. E. (1986). Status brand management and gift purchase: A discriminant analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3, 513.
Bagwell, L. S., & Bernheim, B. D. (1996). Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous consumption. American Economic Review, 86, 349373.
Barkow, J. H. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology, 16, 553572.
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand
purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183194.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Traits aspects of living in the material world. Journal
of Consumer Research, 12, 265280.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15, 139168.
Benarrosh-Dahan, E. (1991). Le contexte lexicologique du luxe. Revue Franaise du Marketing, 132/133: 4554.
Berkowitz, E. N., Kerin, R. A., Hartley, S. W., & Rudelius, W. (1992). Marketing, 3rd ed.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Berry, C. J. (1994). The idea of luxury: A conceptual and historical investigation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social judgment of taste. Trans. R. Nice. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
646

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Bourne, F. S. (1957). Group influence in marketing and public relations. In R. Likert &
S. P. Hayes (Eds.), Some applications of behavioral research (pp. 207257). Basel,
Switzerland: UNESCO.
Braun, O. L., & Wicklund, R. A. (1989). Psychological antecedents of conspicuous consumption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 161186.
Bredemeier, H. C., & Toby, J. (1960). Social problems in America: Costs and casualties in
an acquisitive society. New York: Wiley.
Brinberg, D., & Plimpton, L. (1986). Self-monitoring and product conspicuousness on reference group influence. In R. J. Lutz (Ed.), Advances in consumer research, Vol. 13
(pp. 297300). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Bushman, B. J. (1993). What is in a name? The moderating role of public self-consciousness
on the relation between brand label and brand preference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 857861.
Chang, L., & Arkin, R. (2002). Materialism and an attempt to cope with uncertainty. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 389406.
Chapman, J. (1986). The impact of discounts on subjective product evaluations. Working
paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Churchill, G. A. (1999). Marketing research: Methodological foundations, 2nd ed. Fort
Worth, TX: Dryden.
Cornell, A. (2002). Cult of luxury: The new opiate of the masses. Australian Financial
Review, 47.
Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (1997). Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism.
Journal of Public Economics, 66, 5571.
Coulter, R. A., Price, L. L., & Feick, L. (2003). Rethinking the origins of involvement and
brand commitment. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 151182.
Daun, A. (1983). The materialistic life-style: Some socio-psychological aspects. In L. Uusitalo
(Ed.), Consumer behavior and environmental quality (pp. 616). New York: St. Martins.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38,
269277.
Dittmar, H. (1994). Material possessions as stereotypes: Material images of different
socio-economic groups. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15, 561585.
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1979). The world of goods. New York: Basic Books.
Dubois, B., & Duquesne, P. (1993). The market for luxury goods: Income versus culture.
European Journal of Marketing, 27, 3544.
Dubois, B., & Laurent, G. (1993). Is there a Euro-consumer for luxury goods? In F. Van
Raaij & G. Bamosy, G. (Eds.), European advances in consumer research, Vol. 1 (pp.
5869). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Dubois, B., & Laurent, G. (1994). Attitudes toward the concept of luxury: An exploratory
analysis. In S. Leong & J. Cote (Eds.), Asia Pacific advances in consumer research,
Vol. 1 (pp. 273278). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Dubois, B., & Laurent, G. (1996). Le luxe par-del les frontires: Une etude exploratoire
dans douze pays. Dcisions Marketing 9, 3543.
Dubois, B., Laurent, G., & Czellar, S. (2001). Consumer rapport to luxury: Analyzing
complex and ambivalent attitudes. Working Paper 736, HEC School of Management,
Jouy-en-Josas.
Dubois, B., & Paternault, C. (1997). Does luxury have a home country? An investigation
of country images in Europe. Marketing and Research Today, 25, 7985.
Du Bois, C. (1955). The dominant value profile of American culture. American Anthropologist, 57, 12321239.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Eastman, J., Goldsmith, R. I., & Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in consumer
behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7, 4151.
LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

647

Erickson, G., & Johansson, J. K. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 195199.
Fauchois, A., & Krieg. A. (1991). Le discours du luxe. Revue Franaise du Marketing,
132/133, 2339.
Fennell, G. G. (1978). Perceptions of the product-in-use situation. Journal of Marketing,
42, 3947.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relations, 7, 117140.
French, J. R., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). Bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Garfein, R. T. (1989). Cross-cultural perspectives on the dynamics of prestige. Journal of
Services Marketing, 3, 1724.
Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., Shultz, C., & Commuri, S. (2001). How now Ralph Lauren?
The separation of brand and product in a counterfeit culture. Advances in Consumer
Research, 28, 258265.
Groth, J., & McDaniel, S. W. (1993). The exclusive value principle: The basis for prestige
pricing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10, 1016.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hansen, F. (1998). From lifestyle to value systems to simplicity. In J. Alba & J. Hutchinson
(Eds.), Advances in consumer research, Vol. 25 (pp. 181195). Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research.
Heilbroner, R. L. (1956). The quest for wealth: A study of acquisitive man. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Hirschman, E. C. (1988). Upper class WASPs as consumers: A humanistic inquiry. In
E. Hirschman (Ed.), Research in consumer behavior, Vol. 3 (pp. 115148). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46, 92101.
Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 116.
Hong, J. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1995). Self-concept and advertising effectiveness: The
influence of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode. Psychology & Marketing,
12, 5377.
Horiuchi, Y. (1984). A systems anomaly: Consumer decision-making process for luxury
goods. Unpublished dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Hyman, H. H. (1942). Psychology of status. Archives of Psychology, 269, 528.
Jacoby, J., & Olson, J. C. (1977). Consumer response to price: An attitudinal information
processing perspective. In Y. Wind & M. Greenberg (Eds.), Moving ahead in attitude
research (pp. 7386). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Jamal, A., & Goode, M. (2003). A study of the impact of self-image congruence on brand
preference and satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19, 482492.
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecification. Journal of Consumer Research,
30, 199218.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1997). Managing luxury brands. Journal of Brand Management, 4,
251260.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1998).Why are we seduced by luxury brands? Journal of Brand Management, 6, 4449.
Kim, J. S. (1998). Assessing the causal relationships among materialism, reference group,
and conspicuous consumption of Korean adolescents. Consumer Interests Annual,
44, 155.
Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers
demand. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64, 183207.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Bloch, P. H., & Black, W. C. (1988). Correlates of price acceptability.
Journal of Consumer Research 15, 243252.
648

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8, 4557.
Mandrik, C. A. (1996). Consumer heuristics: The tradeoff between processing effort and
brand value choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 301307.
Mason, R. S. (1981). Conspicuous consumption: A study of exceptional consumer behaviour. Farnborough, UK: Gower Publishing.
Mason, R. S. (1992). Modeling the demand for status goods. Working paper, Department of Business and Management Studies, University of Salford, U.K. New York:
St Martins.
Mazumdar, T. (1986). Experimental investigation of the psychological determinants of buyers price awareness and a comparative assessment of methodologies for retrieving price
information from memory. Working paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
McCarthy, E. (1982). Essentials of marketing. Chicago: Irwin.
McCarthy, E. J., & Perreault, W. D., Jr. (1987). Basic marketing: A managerial approach,
9th ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure
and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer
Research, 13, 7184.
McKinsey (1990). The luxury industry: An asset for France. Paris: McKinsey.
Mehta, A. (1999). Using self-concept to assess advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 8189.
Mick, D. G. (1986). Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the morphology of signs,
symbols, and significance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 196213.
Midgley, D. F. (1983). Patterns of interpersonal information seeking for the purchase of
a symbolic product. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 7483.
Miquel, S., Caplliurer, E. M., & Aldas-Manzano, J. (2002). The effect of personal
involvement to buy store brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
11, 618.
Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1985). The effect of price on subjective product evaluations.
In J. Jacoby & J. Olsen (Eds.), Perceived quality (pp. 209232). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Nia, A., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury
brands? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9, 485497.
Nueno, J. L., & Quelch, J. A. (1998). The mass marketing of luxury. Business Horizons,
41, 6168.
OCass, A., & Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non-product brand
associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 11, 788.
OCass, A., & Muller, T. E. (1999). A study of Australian materialistic values, product
involvement and self-image/product-image congruency relationships for fashion clothing. Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial World Marketing Congress, Academy of
Marketing Science.
Pantzalis, I. (1995). Exclusivity strategies in pricing and brand extension. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & McInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50, 135145.
Phau, I., & Prendergast, G. (2000). Consuming luxury brands: The relevance of the rarity principle. Journal of Brand Management, 8, 122138.
Puntoni, S. (2001). Self-identity and purchase intention: An extension of the theory of
planned behavior. European Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 130134.
Quelch, J. A. (1987). Marketing the premium product. Business Horizons, 30, 3845.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on
buyers perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing
Research, 26, 351357.
LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

649

Rassuli, K. M., & Hollander, S. C. (1986). Desireinduced, innate, insatiable? Journal of

Macro Marketing, 6, 424.
Richins, M., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research 19,
303316.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and
evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Roth, W. E. (2001). Consuming to achieve affective goals: A framework for analysis with
application. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 217226.
Roux, E. (1995). Consumer evaluation of luxury brand extensions. EMAC Conference, May,
ESSEC, Paris, France.
Roux, E., & Floch, J.-M. (1996). Grer lingrable: La contradiction interne de toute maison de luxe. Dcisions Marketing, 9, 1523.
Sallot, L. M. (2002). What the public thinks about public relations: An impression management experiment. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 150172.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes:
Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19,
255265.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of
consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22, 159170.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287300.
Sirgy, M. J., & Johar, J. S. (1999). Toward an integrated model of self-congruity and functional congruity. European Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 252256.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The
development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518527.
Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 319329.
Stanley, T. J. (1988). Marketing to the affluent. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
Tellis, G. J., & Gaeth, G. J. (1990). Best value, price-seeking, and price aversion: The
impact of information and learning on consumer choices. Journal of Marketing, 54,
3445.
Tsai, S. (2005). Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 429454.
Veblen, T. B. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Verhallen, T. M. (1982). Scarcity and consumer choice behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2, 299321.
Verhallen, T. M., & Robben, H. S. (1994). Scarcity and preference: An experiment on
unavailability and product evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15, 315331.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L.W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestigeseeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 115.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L.W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of
Brand Management, 11, 484506.
Wackman, D. B., Reale G., & Ward, S. (1972). Racial differences in responses to advertising
among adolescents. In A. Comstock, & J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television in day-to-day life:
Patterns of use (pp. 543551). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education
& Welfare.
Wang, P. Z., & Waller, D. S. (2006). Measuring consumer vanity: A cross-cultural validation. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 665687.
Websters Third New International Dictionary. (2002). New York: Merriam-Webster.
Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 481500.
650

WIEDMANN, HENNIGS, AND SIEBELS

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 8491.
Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2007). Measuring consumers luxury value
perception: A cross-cultural framework. Academy of Marketing Science, 11, 121.
Wong, A., Chung, Y., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1999). Understanding luxury brands in Hong
Kong. European Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 310316.
Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption
in Confucian and Western societies. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 423432.
The authors would like to express their gratitude for the thorough, helpful, and encouraging
comments of the special issue editor, Prof. Eunju Ko, and the anonymous reviewers.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Prof. Dr. Klaus-Peter Wiedmann,
Institute of Marketing and Management, Leibniz University of Hanover, Koenigsworther
Platz 1, 30167 Hanover, Germany, (wiedmann@m2.uni-hannover.de).

LUXURY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

651