Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Status consumptionin cross-national context
Socio-psychological, brand and situationalantecedents
Paurav ShuklaBrighton Business School, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Limited attention has been paid to the issue of status consumption in cross-nationalcontext. The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of status consumption among British andIndian consumers, using the industry context of alcoholic beverages, focusing on three antecedentsnamely, the socio-psychological, brand and situational antecedents.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper employed a cross-sectional, survey-basedmethodology. The British sample included 271 respondents residing in the Southeast of the UK.The Indian sample included 273 respondents residing in the North and Northwest regions of India.
Findings – The findings reveal that socio-psychological, brand and situational antecedentssignificantly influence status consumption.
Practical implications – The findings support the notion that some key status consumptioncharacteristics may be common among all cultures and countries however, their degree of influencemay differ dramatically. Furthermore, others key variables may be single culture or country specificand therefore must be adjusted for national or regional variations. The results will help managersdealing with status consumption to better understand and manage their marketing strategy in across-national context.
Originality/value – The paper is first of its kind to investigate the impact of socio-psychological,brand and situational antecedents in a cross-national context for status consumption products. Thefindings of the paper are likely to enhance our grasp of the status consumption process in aindividualistic and mature developed market (the UK) in comparison to collectivist and rapidlygrowing emerging market (India) by shedding light on the issues affecting status consumption andhow that relates to country-specific marketing strategies.
Keywords Consumer psychology, Brands, Alcoholic drinks, Buying behaviour, United Kingdom, India
Paper type Research paper
1. IntroductionStatus consumption relates to the consumers’ behaviour of seeking to purchase goodsand services for the status they confer, regardless of that consumer’s objective income orsocial class (Eastman et al., 1999; Bourdieu, 1989). It is observed that status consumptioninvolves expensive products (O’Cass and Frost, 2002) and they are not used by mostconsumers as regular products rather than used on special occasions or events ofimportance (Belk, 1974, 1988) such as celebrating achievement and success; birthdaysand anniversary of a significant person, etc. Many consumers engage in events of suchnature with a motive of seeking status as the products involved not just satisfy material
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm
The author would like to thank the three anonymous International Marketing Review reviewersfor their thoughtful and tireless support throughout the review process.
IMR27,1
108
Received June 2008Revised October 2008,January 2009, March 2009Accepted May 2009
International Marketing ReviewVol. 27 No. 1, 2010pp. 108-129q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0265-1335DOI 10.1108/02651331011020429
needs but also the social needs (Belk, 1988; Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967). According toPackard (1959), status seekers are people who continuously strive to surroundthemselves with visible evidence of the superior rank they are claiming. For this reason,consumers buy products associated with status in order to make themselves morevisible in the eyes of significant others. If managers marketing status brands can embedan engaging and appropriate status image the consumers demand for the specificoccasion, their brand recognition may increase, as well as subsequent value of the brandwithin the markets.
Status consumption has been studied previously from the context of psychologicalfactors (Marcoux et al., 1997); brand associated factors (O’Cass and Frost, 2002;Shukla, 2008); high-perceived quality, luxury and prestige (Duesenberry, 1949); wealthassociation (Trigg, 2001; Solomon et al., 2002); consumer and firm behaviour (Amaldossand Jain, 2005) and self-concept (Holman, 1981; Belk, 1988; Solomon, 1983). Belk (1975)suggests that explicit recognition of situational variables can substantially enhance theability to explain and understand consumer behavioural acts. Growing recognition oflimitations in the ability of individual consumer characteristics to explain variation inbuyer behaviour has prompted a number of appeals to examine situational influences onbehaviour (Belk, 1975; Miller and Ginter, 1979; Park et al., 1986). Moreover, Marcoux et al.(1997) as well as Amaldoss and Jain (2005) suggest that status products or brands are notpurchased and consumed regularly by consumers; instead they are predominantly usedfor specific events and occasions. However, this situation dependent consumption hasnot been taken into account in earlier studies relating to status consumption. Thus, thepurpose of this paper is to describe and empirically test a more comprehensive modelfocusing on socio-psychological, brand and situational antecedents (SA) to statusconsumption in a cross-national context.
As observed by Mason (1984) the classical “rational” theories of consumerbehaviour do not accommodate status consumption due to the atypical nature of suchconsumption. Earlier studies in the domain of status consumption have looked intoa single nation and industry context such as clothing in Australia (O’Cass and Frost,2002), woman’s cosmetics in the USA (Chao and Schor, 1998), automobiles in the USA(Amaldoss and Jain, 2005) and in the UK (Shukla, 2008). These studies draw conclusionsbased on a single country or region and therefore their generalisability needs testing in across-national context. Furthermore, due to advances in technology and logistics,consumers are being exposed to global status brands across markets simultaneously forthe first time and earlier studies in this area do not provide external validity with regardto a cross-national context.
Redding (1990) found that attempts to elucidate social behaviour of Easternconsumers from a Western model would be inadequate due to differences in psychologyof consumption. Furthermore, Wong and Ahuvia (1998) noted that while Easternconsumers consume the same kind of status goods, the behaviour needs to be understoodin light of the specific cultural context (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998) in whichit takes place. However, researchers in this area have not studied the phenomenon of statusconsumption in the context of Western and Eastern markets; individualist and collectivistcultures; nor in a developing and emerging economies context.
The research to date in the field of status consumption has mostly dealt withautomobiles, mobiles phones and designer label apparel categories (Wong, 1997;Eastman et al., 1999; O’Cass and Frost, 2002; Amaldoss and Jain, 2005). However, less
Statusconsumption
109
attention has been paid to perishable goods or occasion specific products, such asalcoholic beverages. For example, alcoholic beverages such as single malt Scotchwhisky, Dom Perignon champagne, Moet & Chandon Brut Imperial, etc. are associatedas status products and consumed by consumers at special events and/or occasions.From being a very simple product at the time of production the alcoholic beverageshave expanded into a versatile commodity. After being packaged and branded ittakes on increased level of significance and complexity (Keown and Casey, 1995) andcan be used as an aphrodisiac, a deal clincher, a social presence builder or at least athirst quencher. Edwards and Mort (1991) stress that there is much more to alcoholicbeverages than the “simple tangible qualities”. In this context, studying alcoholicbeverages will add unique value to our understanding as the consumer has less time(due to perishable nature of the product) and therefore may require additional effort tobuild a social presence using the product.
The discussion so far highlights the gaps in our understanding of statusconsumption from the perspective of:
. situation (e.g. event or occasion) dependent consumption and its impact;
. cross-national context (including Western and Eastern market context;individualist and collectivist cultures context; as well as developed andemerging market contexts); and
. perishable status products market context.
To address these gaps in the literature, this paper, reports the results of an empiricalresearch on status consumption in the UK and India. The paper attempts to gauge theextent to which findings relating to status consumption generated in the individualistWestern developed nations such as the UK and the USA can be extended to a collectivistEastern emerging nation, India. The paper pursues the following research questions:
RQ1. How important are the socio-psychological, brand and SA in influencingstatus consumption in a cross-national context?
RQ2. What are the similarities and differences between the status consumptionbehaviour among British and Indian consumers?
2. Status consumption versus regular consumptionStatus consumption relates to the consumers’ behaviour of seeking to purchase goodsand services for the status they confer, regardless of that consumer’s objective incomeor social class (Eastman et al., 1999). However, status-directed consumption has beenneglected chiefly in developing a general theory of consumption behaviour becauseof the necessity to accept two essential assumptions. First, the “rational” element whichis based more on economics rather than the “irrational” (psychological) element hasbeen considered central to consumer decision making (Mason, 2002). Second, a product’sfunctional utility has been considered central to product assessment and final purchase(Shukla, 2008). These assumptions are obligatory for developing a general theory ofconsumption. However, the resultant frameworks tend to misapprehend or evendisregard “irrational” element of consumer behaviour (Bourdieu, 1989). Statusconsumption is principally “irrational” (psychological) in its expression and motivationand therefore a separate construct is required which focuses on these elements
IMR27,1
110
of consumer decision making (O’Cass and Frost, 2002; Shukla, 2008). Moreover, it hasbeen observed that consumers use status related products on special occasions or atevents of importance (Belk, 1988; Bourdieu, 1989). Many consumers engage in events ofsuch nature with a motive of seeking status as the products involved satisfy not justmaterial needs but also help build social presence (Belk, 1988; Grubb and Grathwohl,1967; Fitzmaurice and Comegys, 2006). Researchers in the domain of consumer researchhave called for an exploration of the broad gamut of social, cultural and manageriallyrelevant questions relating to consumption and to develop a distinctive body ofknowledge about consumers and consumption factors in an international context(Richins, 2001; Sheth, 1985). However, in today’s globalized world, existing literature inthe area of status consumption fails to address this gap. Thus, this paper is an attempttowards answering the existing gap by focusing on socio-psychological, brand andSA and their impact on status consumption in a cross-national context.
2.1 Socio-psychological antecedentsConsumers are often motivated to acquire products according to what they meanto them and to members of their social reference groups (Leigh and Gabel, 1992).Their behaviour is subject to the pressures of social norms and the expectations ofsocialization institutions rules such as those arising from family and other referencegroups (Engel et al., 1993). Considering status consumption as a social phenomenon,Dubois and Duquesne (1993) argue that difference in social values among consumers’acts as an influential factor. In other words, if consuming status products is consideredsocially apposite, consumers may have to undertake such behaviour to fit the socialstandards. This in turn, will help gain social advantage in the eyes of the significantothers. Marcoux et al. (1997) highlighted the importance of status consumption ingaining social presence. In their study of Polish consumers they found that statusproducts were consumed to get noticed by others, to gain popularity and respect and todemonstrate an elevated social position. However, researchers have highlighted theneed for further empirical evidence on the link between derived social gains (SGs) andstatus consumption (Fitzmaurice and Comegys, 2006; Marcoux et al., 1997). Therefore,it is proposed that:
H1. Status consumption across nations is significantly influenced by consumers’tendency to achieve social gains.
Tian et al. (2001) propose that an individual’s need for uniqueness plays a fundamentalrole in consumption of status products. Similarly, Nagel and Holden (2002) argue thatas a product’s perceived uniqueness increases the value of the product increases too,leading to improving an individual’s standing in the societal hierarchy (Trigg, 2001;Fitzmaurice and Comegys, 2006). This elevation in societal hierarchy is associated withthe overall affective evaluation of an individual’s worth, value and importance whichis defined as esteem indication (EI) by Blascovich and Tomaka (1991). Thus, statusconsumption and the social esteem consequences provide an individual with asocio-psychological advantage within a social network. Acquisition of status goods isone of the strongest measures of social success (O’Cass and Frost, 2002) suggesting thatthose consumers interested in indicating esteem will resort to status consumption. Thissegment of consumers, often find pricing as a medium for signalling wealth and status(Amaldoss and Jain, 2005) and therefore prefer expensive items for consumption which
Statusconsumption
111
reflects their ostentatious behaviour. These consumers attach great importance to priceas a surrogate indicator of power and status (Bagwell and Bernheim, 1996), becausetheir primary objective is to impress others. Solomon et al. (2002) theorized the role ofintangible values of the status products associating it with an individual’s yearning toindicate wealth. Several other researchers including Wong and Ahuvia (1998), Heathand Scott (1998) and O’Cass and Frost (2002) have suggested factors such as prestigeand success symbolism, wealth and achievement indication, image and statusenhancement as intangible factors affecting status consumption. These factors relatemostly to social EI and ostentation behaviour. However, Clark et al. (2007) and Mason(2002) suggest that little is known about which of these factors significantly affectstatus consumption. This is mostly due to the theoretical nature of the debate in the areaof status consumption with little stress on empirical testing (Mason, 2002). Furthermore,there is a gap in our understanding of how consumers living in different cultural(individualistic versus collectivist) and economic (developed versus emerging) domainsget affected by such socio-psychological pressures. Therefore, it is proposed that:
H2. Status consumption across nations is significantly influenced by consumers’tendency to indicate esteem.
H3. Status consumption across nations is significantly influenced by consumers’ostentation behaviour.
2.2 Brand antecedentsLanger (1997) proposes that brands create value for consumers through potentialbenefits of recognition and positive feelings among significant others as well as facilitateself-expression. For managers, on the other hand, status brands provide an opportunityto charge premium prices (Eastman et al., 1999). If managers can endow their brand withthe right status image, they can generate high value for their organizations andconsumers. Therefore, branding in the case of status consumption should be viewedfrom two perspectives, namely:
(1) management controlled brand features; and
(2) market controlled brand features (Erdem and Swait, 1998).
Management controlled brand features can be described as those within the control ofmanagement and can be developed and managed through effective packaging anddistribution together with fine-tuned promotion (Flynn and Goldsmith, 1999; O’Cassand Frost, 2002). On the other hand, market controlled features can be defined as thosebeyond the control of management (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982).
For regularly consumed brands, plentiful literature is available with examples ofboth management and market controlled brand features in cross-national context.Researchers have suggested various management controlled brand features as brandfamiliarity (Flynn and Goldsmith, 1999; Lee and Ganesh, 1999); brand symbolism(Eastman et al., 1999; Wong and Ahuvia, 1998) and brand awareness (Hoyer andBrown, 1990; Aaker, 1999). Market controlled features based research has included,impact of affective response (Gardner, 1985; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Agrawaland Malhotra, 2005); self-concept and congruity (O’Cass and Frost, 2002; Onkvisitand Shaw, 1987; Sirgy, 1982) and country of origin effects (Roth and Romeo, 1992;Ahmed et al., 2002).
IMR27,1
112
O’Cass and Frost (2002) and Park et al. (1986) suggest that brands mirrorpsychological associations which are reflected in a wide array of feelings associated withconsumer evaluation and purchase. This has been supported by Elliott (1997) and Elliottand Wattanasuwan (1998) who found that brands help in constructing a symbolicmeaning and assist in developing an unconscious expression of self-identity in a socialsetup. The aforementioned body of research infers significant effects of branding relatedconcepts on overall consumption experiences for regularly consumed brands.Furthermore, branding is an integral part of status brands as most consumers paypremium to acquire and consume them. However, there is little empirical evidencerelating to the impact of branding related features on status consumption (O’Cass andFrost, 2002; Shukla, 2008). Therefore, it will be interesting to observe the effects of bothmanagement and market controlled branding features on status consumption in across-national context. Hence, it is proposed that:
H4. Status consumption across nations is significantly influenced by managementcontrolled brand features.
H5. Status consumption across nations is significantly influenced by marketcontrolled brand features.
2.3 Situational antecedentsBarker (1968) pointed out that a behavioural setting is not only bound in time andspace (Belk, 1975), but also by a complete sequence of behaviour or an action patternincluding situations. Consumers seldom operate in a social vacuum, rather theycontinuously compare themselves with significant others when consuming statusbrands (Clark et al., 2007) and situations such as social occasions provide a perfectvenue to elevate an individual’s status. According to Solomon et al. (2002, p. 271)situations associated with consumption can be defined as “factors over and abovecharacteristics of the person and of the product”. Situational effects can be behaviouraland perceptual. Most studies measuring impact of situations have used imaginedsituations (Quester and Smart, 1998). It allows for greater manipulation of stimuli andis simpler to empirically perform. Lai (1991) suggests that information obtained fromhypothetical usage situations provides consistently better predictions of buyerbehaviour than traditional measures of consumer attitudes. Various studies havefound that consumers’ intention to purchase depends on the degree to which theyassociate the product characteristics with their anticipated consumption situation(Belk, 1974; Chow et al., 1990; Lai, 1991). Hence, people prefer different products orbrands for different occasions. The effect of situational factors has been explored in thefield of marketing, in relation to its effects on brand choice (Miller and Ginter, 1979;Umesh and Cote, 1988), information processing and decision-making (Park et al., 1986),consumption and habit of consumption (Harrell et al., 1980; Yang et al., 2002) anddifferences between intention and behaviour (Cote et al., 1985). In addition, previousstudies suggested segmenting markets by situations (Auty, 1992) and productpositions by usage situations (Fennell, 1978; Yang et al., 2002). However, more researchis required to establish the impact of the perceived situation on consumers’ evaluationas the results from earlier studies have produced variable results (Quester and Smart,1998). Moreover, consumer researchers have not directly examined the role situations
Statusconsumption
113
play in influencing status consumption (Graeff, 1997). Consequently, the followingthird hypothesis is proposed:
H6. Status consumption across nations is significantly influenced by SA.
On the basis of the above-stated hypotheses the proposed model is developed (Figure 1).
3. The rationale for industry and nation choiceThe choice of the industry and nations for this paper was influenced by the historicalassociation of the product category with status consumption, the commonalities of thebrands available and the product category being under-researched. India was a Britishcolony for over three centuries until independence in 1947. There have been manymacro and micro influences these nations have had on each other in terms of culture,language and consumption. India is known to have the world’s largest English speakingpopulation and Indians are one of the largest ethnic minorities in the UK. While bothcountries share strong cultural and business ties they are hugely different on mostmacro and micro parameters.
Historically, seeking happiness via consumption as a major organizing norm forsociety first emerged in the west (Campbell, 1987). However, in India, alcohol has alwaysbeen an integral part of the elite circles of the society in the form of Madira (alcoholicbeverage). It held such a position that anybody consuming it was most likely to be aeither a noblemen or someone belonging to their circles. Furthermore, Basmann et al.(1988) suggest that consumers do exhibit their self-image and status using the socialcontext, including the use of alcoholic beverages. It was also observed by Jackson et al.(2000) that alcoholic beverage brands convey social status and aspirations amongconsumers across the world.
Figure 1.Model overview
Brand antecedents
Socio-psychological antecedents
Social gains
Esteem indication
Ostentation behaviour
Management controlledbrand features
Market controlled brandfeatures
Situational antecedents
Statusconsumption
H1H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
IMR27,1
114
Datamonitor (2007a, 2000a) reports state that both the UK and India share a larger chunkof their regional alcoholic drinks markets (UK being 22.3 per cent of EU market andIndian 14.5 per cent of Asia-Pacific market). However, there are many differencesbetween both markets (Ball and Bellman, 2007). For example, in growth terms, the UKseems a mature and saturated developed market (growth rate predicted 1.8 per cent)in comparison to the fast growing emerging Indian market (growth rate predicted11.7 per cent), however, it was observed that the brands associated with statusconsumption were almost the same (Datamonitor, 2000b, 2007a, b). Furthermore, themarket share of local players in the premium alcohol beverages market in the UK isaround 25 per cent while in India it is 51 per cent. Moreover, the UK premium alcoholicmarket has a spread of various alcoholic beverages types however the Indian market ispredominantly whisky focused (Reuters, 2007).
Despite being such a large as well as growing industry, little is known about thestatus consumption of premium alcoholic drinks. Furthermore, there are no studies thatprovide a direct comparison of status consumption between the UK and India. Insummary, the consumption behaviour of the British and the Indian consumers mayuncover both similarities and differences and thus provide an appealing context for theinter-country comparison of status consumption behaviour. This comparison also offersan examination of whether status consumption as a phenomenon can be generalisedacross countries.
4. MethodologyTo test the hypotheses, a structured questionnaire was designed focusing on thesocio-psychological, brand and SA. In developing the research instrument the procedureproposed by Douglas and Craig (1983) for conducting international marketing researchwas followed. The first set of items for socio-psychological and brand antecedentsscales was derived from the existing measurement scales developed by Marcoux et al.(1997) and O’Cass and Frost (2002). The socio-psychological scale focused on followingdimensions:
. status consumption and SGs (which includes gaining respect, popularity, beingnoticed by others and showing who I am);
. EI (which includes prestige, success, wealth and achievement); and
. ostentation (which relies on importance associated with status, imageenhancement, new product trials and value for money).
The brand antecedents scale focused on the dimensions of:. management controlled brand features (i.e. brand familiarity, brand symbolism
and brand awareness); and. market controlled brand features (i.e. image congruence, positive feelings
towards the brand and country of origin).
The situation antecedents scale involved projective techniques and various socialsituations as recommended by Quester and Smart (1998). Short paragraphs have beenfound to be better measurement tools in comparison to one sentence descriptions withregard to projective techniques as they allow analysis of more scenarios (Bonner, 1983).Therefore, a short paragraph describing each situation was prepared which focused
Statusconsumption
115
on both extrinsic (price, packaging, labelling and brand name) and intrinsic cues(alcohol content) relating to alcoholic beverages consumption. The ability of alcoholicbeverages as a product category in providing normal distribution relating to varioussituations and involvement levels (Zaichkowsky, 1985), many tangible and intangibleproduct attributes and association with variety of consumption situations (Quester andSmart, 1998) added to the overall fit of the study. Adapting the measurements used byGoldsmith et al. (1996) and Chao and Schor (1998), the survey measured respondents’overall status consumption tendencies.
These scales were evaluated by a panel of expert judges for content and face validityas suggested by Zaichkowsky (1985). To assess the content and face validity, thequestionnaire was sent to two marketing professionals associated with status brandsin the UK and India asking them to refine the questionnaire to reflect the market reality.The refinements were suggested in the socio-psychological antecedents scale to look forthe explicit association via “status is important to me” and several items were removedfrom SA such as “sporting event” and “failure in love”. The professionals were alsoasked to suggest brands which reflected status consumption in both markets and onthe basis of their suggestion Dom Perignon, Moet & Chandon Brut Imperial and SingleMalt Scotch Whisky were chosen. The questionnaire was then submitted to fouracademics in both countries who were asked to assess each item for representativeness,specificity and clarity. The final questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first partcontained questions regarding respondents’ demographics. The second part focused onrespondents’ attitudes regarding the effect of socio-psychological, brand and SA onstatus consumption. All variables in the second part of the questionnaire wereclose-ended five-point scale with “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” as anchors.
Younger consumers tend to spend more on branded products as well as are readyto try newer products including status products (Chao and Schor, 1998). Furthermore,in the case of India, traditional values significantly influence the purchasing habitsof middle-aged and older consumers in comparison to younger consumers, who arefound to be attuned with the global consumption trends (Ramachandran, 2000).Therefore, younger consumers within the age group 21-35 were considered as idealrespondents for the study. Using a matched sample (Hofstede, 1991), the studyattempted to draw on a well defined and homogeneous sample which differ innationality however was alike in as many respects as possible. The respondents werechosen for the study if they fulfilled the age criteria as well as if they had consumedone of the identified status alcoholic drinks in the last three months. Furthermore, usingthe UK and Indian census the respondents were chosen on the basis of socio-economicclassification (i.e. for the UK according to the new socio-economic classification of2001 sections 1 and 2 and for India Class A1, A2 and B1). The questionnaire waspre-tested among the suggested socio-economic groups (n ¼ 24). This ensured that thefinal sample chosen was comparable across the two countries. The final questionnairewas distributed to respondents in the Southeast UK and the North and Northwestregion of India. More than 500 consumers were contacted in each country with a finalusable sample of 271 (response rate 54.20 per cent) in the UK and 273 (response rate54.60 per cent) in India. Owing to the budgetary constraints the respondents werecontacted largely at places where alcoholic beverages were served including five starhotels and restaurants. This in turn, created the right atmosphere and put therespondents in the right frame of mind increasing the validity of measurement.
IMR27,1
116
5. ResultsThe data were first checked for normality, outliers and multicollinearity, however nodiscrepancies were observed. Confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL wasemployed to assess the unidimentionality and discriminant validity of the constructsfor both the UK and Indian samples. To examine the construct equivalence among bothsamples two-group confirmatory factor analysis was performed as suggested byDurvasula et al. (1993).
As seen in Table I, the coefficient a for socio-psychological, brand and SA scalesexceeded the threshold value of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978) in the case of all constructs implyingreliability of the constructs. The average variance extracted (AVE) for the measures wasfound to be 0.50 and above for all constructs, which is greater than the recommendedlevel by Dillon and Goldstein (1984). Discriminant validity was assessed using the testsuggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). This test suggests that a scale possessesdiscriminant validity if the AVE by the underlying latent variable is greater than theshared variance (i.e. the squared correlation) of a latent variable with other latentvariable. As shown in Table II, this criterion was met by all of the variables in the studyas no correlation exceeds the square root of the AVE (Singh et al., 2006). The compositereliability was found to be above 0.7 across the constructs, exceeding the recommendedthreshold value, which also provides strong evidence of discriminant validity.
The cross-national invariance of the scales (configural, matric and factor variance)was assessed using procedures outlined by Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998).Configural invariance means that the factor loadings specified are significant acrossboth samples. Metric invariance implies that the factor loadings are equal in bothsamples. Finally, factor variance invariance occurs when the variance of the latentvariable is equal in both samples. The scales were assessed for invariance individuallyusing confirmatory factor analysis. The results across the two samples indicated thatthe factor loadings are invariant, providing empirical evidence of construct equivalence.
In order to simultaneously test the hypothesized relationships in both samples,Singh’s (1995) strategy for testing model equivalence across national samples wasemployed. The modelling itself was undertaken using maximum likelihood estimationprocedure. As recommended by Singh (1995) a fully unrestricted model, where thefactor loadings were constrained equal across the samples but the path coefficientswere allowed to vary, was then estimated. Thereafter, a fully restricted modelwas estimated with each path coefficient constrained invariant across the countrysamples. Comparing the fully unrestricted and the fully restricted models providedinformation concerning the invariance of the model relationships. The fullyunrestricted model yielded the following multivariate goodness-of-fit statistics:x 2 ¼ 2304.79, df ¼ 348, RMSEA ¼ 0.051, CAIC ¼ 3134.54, NNFI ¼ 0.90, CFI ¼ 0.95and GFI ¼ 0.93. The fully restricted model has comparable statistics as follows:x 2 ¼ 2445.75, df ¼ 363, RMSEA ¼ 0.059, CAIC ¼ 3126.32, NNFI ¼ 0.88, CFI ¼ 0.92and GFI ¼ 0.89. The x 2 difference statistic is 140.96 with 15 degrees of freedombetween the two models. This difference statistic is not significant ( p , 0.001).Moreover, all other fit values decreased, in the fully restricted model indicating that therelationships specified are invariant across the UK and India.
Additional analysis was conducted to establish whether an improvement in overallmodel fit could be obtained by relaxing some of the path invariance constraints. A seriesof “partially restricted” models that restrict path coefficients one-at-a-time to be equal
Statusconsumption
117
Mea
sure
Item
sE
stim
ates
Com
pos
ite
reli
abil
ity
AV
EC
oeffi
cien
ta
Soc
io-p
sych
olog
icalante
ceden
tsS
ocia
lg
ain
Gai
nre
spec
tU
K(0
.44-
0.72
)U
K(0
.70)
)U
K(0
.51)
UK
(0.8
1)P
opu
lari
tyIn
dia
(0.2
4-0.
84)
Ind
ia(0
.70
Ind
ia(0
.52)
Ind
ia(0
.77)
Not
iced
by
oth
ers
Com
bin
ed(0
.29-
0.82
)C
omb
ined
(0.8
5)C
omb
ined
(0.7
7)C
omb
ined
(0.7
9)S
how
wh
oI
amE
stee
min
dic
atio
nS
ym
bol
ofp
rest
ige
UK
(0.5
5-0.
78)
UK
(0.7
8)U
K(0
.64)
UK
(0.8
6)S
ym
bol
ofsu
cces
sIn
dia
(0.5
0-0.
67)
Ind
ia(0
.72)
Ind
ia(0
.50)
Ind
ia(0
.71)
Ind
icat
esw
ealt
hC
omb
ined
(0.5
3-0.
77)
Com
bin
ed(0
.75)
Com
bin
ed(0
.57)
Com
bin
ed(0
.82)
Ind
icat
esac
hie
vem
ent
Ost
enta
tion
Sta
tus
isim
por
tan
tto
me
UK
(0.4
7-0.
75)
UK
(0.7
3)U
K(0
.50)
UK
(0.8
3)Im
age
enh
ance
men
tIn
dia
(0.1
5-0.
72)
Ind
ia(0
.73)
Ind
ia(0
.51)
Ind
ia(0
.77)
Try
new
pro
du
cts
Com
bin
ed(0
.14-
0.75
)C
omb
ined
(0.7
3)C
omb
ined
(0.5
1)C
omb
ined
(0.7
9)P
aym
ore
for
goo
dth
ing
sV
alu
efo
rm
oney
Att
ract
iven
ess
Bra
nd
ante
ceden
tsM
anag
emen
tco
ntr
olle
dfe
atu
res
Bra
nd
fam
ilia
rity
UK
(0.5
5-0.
81)
UK
(0.7
4)U
K(0
.57)
UK
(0.7
7)B
ran
dsy
mb
olis
mIn
dia
(0.4
4-0.
75)
Ind
ia(0
.74)
Ind
ia(0
.53)
Ind
ia(0
.81)
Bra
nd
awar
enes
sC
omb
ined
(0.4
1-0.
81)
Com
bin
ed(0
.75)
Com
bin
ed(0
.58)
Com
bin
ed(0
.81)
Mar
ket
con
trol
led
feat
ure
sIm
age
con
gru
ence
UK
(0.3
5-0.
81)
UK
(0.7
4)U
K(0
.60)
UK
(0.7
4)P
osit
ive
feel
ing
sto
war
dth
eb
ran
dIn
dia
(0.2
4-0.
75)
Ind
ia(0
.71)
Ind
ia(0
.50)
Ind
ia(0
.79)
Cou
ntr
yof
orig
inC
omb
ined
(0.3
8-0.
75)
Com
bin
ed(0
.70)
Com
bin
ed(0
.52)
Com
bin
ed(0
.77)
SA
Sit
uat
ion
sC
eleb
rati
ng
bir
thd
ayU
K(0
.46-
0.81
)U
K(0
.75)
UK
(0.5
2)U
K(0
.75)
New
yea
rce
leb
rati
ons
Ind
ia(0
.44-
0.96
)In
dia
(0.8
9)In
dia
(0.8
4)In
dia
(0.8
8)D
atin
gC
omb
ined
(0.5
6-0.
84)
Com
bin
ed(0
.86)
Com
bin
ed(0
.77)
Com
bin
ed(0
.81)
Wed
din
gA
nn
iver
sary
Bab
yb
irth
Ch
rist
mas
Table I.Measure validation – UK,India and combineddataset
IMR27,1
118
across the two samples were estimated as suggested by Singh (1995). Each partiallyrestricted model test statistic and fit indexes were examined relative to the fullyunrestricted model. The results of this process identified one path which, when allowedto vary across the samples, improved the model fit. The fit measures for fullyunrestricted and partially restricted models are provided in Table III.
The final model was then compared with the fully unrestricted and the fullyrestricted models. The increase in x 2 when moving from the fully unrestricted model tothe final model was found to be significant at a ¼ 0.001 (Dx 2(4) ¼ 43.88) and the otherfit measures including RMSEA, CAIC, NNFI and CFI all improved. Thus, the finalmodel represents an improvement on the fully unrestricted model. The increase in x 2
when moving from the final model to the fully restricted model was significant ata ¼ 0.001 (Dx 2(11) ¼ 97.08) and the other fit measures showed deteriorationdemonstrating the superiority of final model over the fully restricted model also.The fit measures for the final model in comparison to the fully unrestricted and fullyrestricted models are provided in Table IV.
The path coefficient analysis (Table V) clearly shows the structure of relationshipshypothesized in this paper. The hypothesized antecedents to status consumption are
UK IndiaSG EI OS MG MR SA SG EI OS MG MR SA
SG 0.71a 0.72a
EI 0.39 0.80a 0.11 0.71a
OS 0.63 0.37 0.71a 0.16 0.25 0.71a
MG 0.52 0.22 0.49 0.75a 0.26 0.41 0.60 0.73a
MR 0.57 0.24 0.54 0.32 0.77a 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.21 0.71a
SA 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.72a 0.20 0.31 0.46 0.60 0.16 0.92a
Notes: aSquare root of AVE of the latent variable; SG, social gain; EI, esteem indication; OS,ostentaion; MG, management controlled features; MR, market controlled features; SA, situationalantecedents
Table II.Correlations between
latent variables
Partially restrictedmodelsa Model x 2 (df) Dx 2 (D df) RMSEA CAIC NNFI CFI GFI
Invariancesupported
None-fullyunrestricted 2304.79 (348) * – 0.051 3134.54 0.90 0.95 0.93 –SG 2311.88 (351) * 7.09 (3) * * 0.049 3082.12 0.90 0.95 0.93 YesEI 2307.63 (351) * 2.84 (3) 0.050 3037.38 0.90 0.95 0.93 YesOstentationbehaviour 2306.91 (353) * 2.12 (5) 0.050 3064.30 0.90 0.95 0.93 YesManagementcontrolled features 2305.43 (350) * 0.64 (2) 0.049 2956.26 0.90 0.95 0.94 YesMarket controlledfeatures 2308.33 (349) * 3.54 (1) * * 0.049 3193.71 0.89 0.94 0.93 NoSituations 2304.90 (349) * 0.11 (1) 0.049 3049.80 0.90 0.95 0.93 Yes
Notes: Significant at *p , 0.001 and * *p , 0.05, respectively; aonly one path held invariant at a time
Table III.Fit measures for the fully
unrestricted and thepartially restricted
models
Statusconsumption
119
good predictors of the dependent variable in most cases. Following the individualhypothesis, H1 concerning the impact of SGs on status consumption shows asignificant relationship with overall sample (path coefficient: 0.48; p , 0.01). Theimpact is also visible in the case of the UK sample with path coefficient 0.67 ( p , 0.01),however, in the case of the Indian sample the path coefficient was found to benon-significant. Thus, H1 is partially supported. Significant impact of EI on statusconsumption is also observed in the overall sample (path coefficient: 0.39; p , 0.01)and the UK sample (path coefficient 0.41; p , 0.01). However, in the case of the Indiansample the impact is found to be non-significant leading to partial acceptance of H2.The findings relating to H1 and H2 reinforce the notion put forward by Redding (1990)and Wong and Ahuvia (1998) regarding the differences in consumption motivesbetween the Western and Eastern consumers. Significant impact of the ostentationbehaviour on status consumption is observed in the UK sample (path coefficient: 0.63;p , 0.01); in the Indian sample (path coefficient: 0.60; p , 0.01) and in the overallsample (path coefficient: 0.61; p , 0.01). Thus, H3 is supported.
The results relating to management controlled features and its impact on statusconsumption shows a significant impact overall (path coefficient: 0.40; p , 0.01) as wellas in the UK (path coefficient: 0.54; p , 0.01) and the Indian samples (path coefficient:0.28; p , 0.01) lending credence to H4. Similarly, significant impact of market controlledfeatures is observed across the samples with UK sample path coefficient (0.59; p , 0.01);Indian sample path coefficient (0.14; p , 0.01) and the overall sample path coefficient(0.38; p , 0.01). Thus, H5 is also supported. Finally, the results show the impact of SAon status consumption. The impact of SA is found to be significant in the case ofIndian sample (path coefficient: 0.73; p , 0.01) and the overall sample (path coefficient:0.28; p , 0.01) however non-significant in case of the UK sample leading to partialsupport for H6.
Model x 2 (df) RMSEA CAIC NNFI CFI GFI
Fully unrestricted 2304.79 (348) 0.051 3134.54 0.90 0.95 0.93Fully restricted 2445.75 (363) 0.059 3126.32 0.88 0.92 0.89Final model 2348.67 (352) 0.049 3149.31 0.91 0.96 0.94
Table IV.Fit measures for the fullyunrestricted, fullyrestricted and finalmodels
Standardized estimates (t-value)Path Hypothesis UK India Combined
SG ! status consumption H1 0.67 (9.65) * 0.26 (1.07) 0.48 (2.24) *
EI ! status consumption H2 0.41 (6.18) * 0.21 (1.02) 0.39 (5.32) *
Ostentation behaviour ! status consumption H3 0.63 (7.94) * 0.60 (4.07) * 0.61 (4.20) *
Management controlled features ! statusconsumption H4 0.54 (4.26) * 0.28 (6.86) * 0.40 (3.30) *
Market controlled features ! statusconsumption H5 0.59 (5.89) * 0.14 (2.22) * 0.38 (3.98) *
SA ! status consumption H6 0.03 (0.43) 0.73 (6.01) * 0.28 (3.65) *
Note: *p , 0.01Table V.Summary of results
IMR27,1
120
Overall, the findings support the view that socio-psychological, brand and SA play akey role in consumers’ status consumption behaviour across the countries. However,the importance of variables within those antecedents differs across the two countries.Consequently, the current study provides evidence to suggest that, analogous to theinitial expectations, certain antecedents to consumption behaviour may be culture ornation specific.
6. Discussion and implicationsFaced with moderate growth in local mature markets many firms operating in thedomain of status products are expanding their businesses internationally (Datamonitor,2006a, b, c). However, one key strategic theme that has not been researched in theliterature is looking at status consumption in a cross-national context (Mason, 2002;Shukla, 2008). To fill this research gap this paper empirically investigated the statusconsumption behaviour focusing on the socio-psychological, brand and SA among theBritish and the Indian consumers. Overall, the findings support the central argumentpresented in the study that socio-psychological, brand and SA are of crucial importancein influencing status consumption. However, considerable cross-national variationsexist with regard to status consumption and managers should consider them whiledeveloping a strategy across countries. The findings also suggest that currenttheoretical models tested in developed markets need considerable modifications whenapplied in emerging markets context. Therefore, further research is required fordeveloping a congruent framework in both these market contexts.
Theoretical implicationsThe findings build upon previous research in the area of status consumption. Theresults provide interesting consumption similarities and contrasts between consumersin cross-national context (including Western and Eastern market context;individualistic and collectivist market context as well as developed and emergingmarket contexts). It was observed that consumers’ means of achieving social status inboth countries varied significantly.
As stated earlier, the socio-psychological scale measured three dimensions namely:
(1) status consumption and SGs;
(2) EI; and
(3) ostentation.
All three dimensions were found to be significant in the overall sample. Furthermore,enlarging the profile of British consumers it was observed that these consumers utilizestatus products to achieve SGs; indicate esteem and ostentatious behaviour. However,in the Indian context status products are consumed with mostly ostentation in mind. Thefindings provide empirical support to the conceptual views offered by Redding (1990)and Wong and Ahuvia (1998) that while consuming similar products consumptionmotives may differ significantly between Eastern consumers and Western consumers.The finding partially corroborates with the theorized relationship between SGs andstatus consumption by Dubois and Duquesne (1993) as it was observed that Britishconsumers focused on SGs while consuming status products however Indian consumersdid not. EI provides another interesting difference between status consumption acrossboth countries. The finding partially corroborates with theorized relationship between
Statusconsumption
121
wealth, achievement and status consumption by Duesenberry (1949) and Solomon et al.(2002) as British consumers signal esteem using status consumption however this is notthe case with Indian consumers. The results relating to EI and ostentatious behaviouralso demonstrate the cultural aspects regarding individualistic and collectivist cultures.The British consumers, who belong to individualistic culture, focus on their actualself-concept (how the consumer views him/herself). However, in comparison with theIndian consumers, from a collectivist culture, focus on others self-concept (how aconsumer thinks others see him/her) as they wish to signal ostentatious behaviour viastatus consumption.
Significant relationships were discovered between brand antecedents and statusconsumption. It was observed that both, management controlled and market controlledbrand features have a significant impact on status consumption. However, a strongerimpact of brand antecedents was observed among the British consumers in comparison tothe Indian consumers. This can be attributed to the nature of the market and competition.The UK is a developed and mature market which has been exposed to the process ofglobalization for longer in comparison to India which opened its economy in the late 1980s.The longer exposure to global products, availability of more brands and highercompetition makes the consumer increasingly aware of brands and their symbolicassociation. Therefore, to differentiate themselves, the British consumers use strong brandcues in building social presence which can be observed from the results of the study.
The paper also provides interesting results relating to situations and their impact onstatus consumption. It was observed that status consumption among British consumersis independent of occasions however, is highly dependent in the case of Indianconsumers. This difference again demonstrates the cultural disparity betweenindividualistic and collectivist cultures (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998) aswell as social and cultural identity (Yuki, 2003). The findings corroborate with the studyfrom Bloch et al. (2004) who find a strong influence of situations on status consumptionin India. Similar results have also been observed by Rao (2001) who comments thathouseholds which spend money on festivities generate many tangible rewards in theIndian marketplace including higher social status. However, no such strong socialadvantage was observed in the British marketplace relating to festivities (McKechnieand Tynan, 2006). Therefore, in a collectivist society like India, consuming ostentatiousproducts at special occasions can alleviate an individual’s intra-group and inter-groupsocial identity (Yuki, 2003). Thus, the Indian consumers focus more on ostentatiousbehaviour in which case situations such as birthdays, weddings and other celebrationsprovide a perfect venue to exhibit status consumption and build social presence.
Managerial implicationsIn the case of status consumption, consumers buy and use products to help themachieve a particular goal and project a message about their identity (Fitzmaurice andComegys, 2006). The results demonstrate how and why consumers engage with statusproducts in different countries and cultures. While the study successfully identifiedseveral factors as key antecedents to status consumption, it was observed that somefactors which were significant predictors of status consumption in the UK were notsignificant predictors in India and vice versa. These findings have major implicationsfor managers in building a relevant strategic action plan to engage consumers withtheir brands in developing as well as developed markets. The study provides empirical
IMR27,1
122
evidence that developing a completely standardized marketing strategy for statusproducts will prove unsuccessful due to the significant differences among consumerswith regard to status consumption. There is an opportunity to standardize somefeatures of the marketing strategy across countries for status products. However, thedifferences in consumption engagement between both countries suggest the need foradaptation also. For example, the opportunity for standardization exists with regard toportraying ostentation behaviour. However, adaptation is required when associatingSGs, EI, brand related features and the choice of situation for the strategic action plan.
Managers vying for their status brand to get accepted in the British market shouldfocus on developing a campaign which highlights the brand as a way to gain popularityand be noticed by others. At the same time, the brand should associate itself with peoplewho are seen as successful, high achievers and vocal about it. The brand should also focusstrongly on developing a symbolism which is familiar and positively in congruence withthe consumers. The British consumers have been exposed to status brands for longer andthey are more knowledgeable about the brands. Therefore, managers will have to developcreative communication avenues to generate positive feelings towards the brand. Countryof origin can play a substantial role in this regard. As observed in reality many statusbrands employ occasion specific consumption in their communication to consumers in theBritish market. However, the findings of this paper suggest that such association will havelittle effect in the British market and therefore managers should look for aforementionedsuggestions to improve their standing in the market.
On the other hand, to engage Indian consumers, managers should position theirbrand on ostentation. The marketing strategy should also focus on situation specificity.If managers can develop a brand message around occasions and ostentatious behaviour,they will have a higher chance of success in the Indian market. Furthermore, brandingefforts will not yield as effective a response in the Indian market in comparison to the UKmarket. Therefore, managers will have to use ingenious ways to engage the Indiancustomers. For example, major international players in the alcoholic beverage marketsuch as, Diageo and United Breweries are focusing on the upwardly mobile population inthe metros and mini metros of India by opening lounges, while Absolut andBrown-Forman are associating with art and music scene. Diageo plans to open JohnnieWalker Club & Lounge and Smirnoff Cafes in metros such as Mumbai, Delhi andBangalore and wishes to expand to ten other cities in near future (Sharma, 2007).
Thus, challenge for managers lies in creating a glocalized strategic action planwhich incorporates a balanced mix of standardized as well as customized response tothe market reality. This paper provides actionable results for managers involved inmarketing status products in developing the strategic action plan.
The study overall makes several important contributions. First, while earlier studiesin the domain of status consumption have focused on the samples from a single country,this paper represents the first effort to empirically investigate the similarities anddifferences relating to status consumption in a cross-national context. Second, while fearof recession looms large on Western developed markets it has been suggested that statusconsumption will be the hardest hit (The Economist, 2007). This paper provides insightson how to minimise the effects of this foreseen slowdown by developing meaningfulengagement with consumers, as well as exploit the growth opportunities offered byemerging markets such as India. Third, India is becoming an ever important market forstatus related products (Datamonitor, 2006b, c, d). Thus, findings of this paper may be of
Statusconsumption
123
considerable interest to managers in Western markets faced with the daunting task ofmarketing status brands in an emerging market, such as India. Fourth, the study used aperishable status product category in comparison to consumer durables or technologyproducts used in earlier studies. As stated above, several contrasting results wereobserved due to this choice. Fifth, the constructs and measurements developed for thispaper can help serve as a base for further such cross-national research relating to statusconsumption. Finally, the findings of this research may have implications forcross-national status consumption theory and practice, corroborating to the belief thatseveral key constructs may be common among all cultures and countries while othersmust be adjusted for the unique national distinctions (Hofstede, 1991; Redding, 1990;Wong and Ahuvia, 1998). This paper further affirms the need for understandingcross-national idiosyncrasies and differences for managers managing status brands.
7. Limitations and future research directionsThe results of this paper must be approached with caution due to following limitations.First, the paper is limited to two countries namely: India and the UK. However, it isencouraging to see that consumers in these two nations have unique perceptionsassociated with status consumption. This suggests a need for further comparativestudies involving other nations and cultures. Second, although the Southeast of the UKand the North and Northwest regions of India represent some of the most populousregions in both countries, they may not reflect the behaviour of the wider population.Furthermore, due to budgetary constraints respondents were contacted at the placeswhere alcoholic beverages are served and this could have increased the stage effect.However, every attempt was made to avoid such an effect by contacting respondentsprior to their consumption of alcohol in the setting. Third, the paper has been conductedusing a single industry example and therefore, its generalizability might be limited.Further empirical evidence involving other industries is required to establish thetransferability of the results of this paper. An interesting area of further research will beto compare consumer behaviour with regard to perishable and non-perishable statusproducts. Fourth, while this paper considered only a limited number of factors:socio-psychological, brand and SA, future research should investigate constructs suchas influence of conspicuous gift giving as well as socio-demographics in cross-nationalcontext. Fifth, complex linkages between antecedents in this model may need tobe considered further in efforts to build a coherent theory of cross-cultural statusconsumption. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the interaction effects between thevarious antecedents and the impact of contextual factors as an antecedent or moderatorvariable. Sixth, the very fact that Indian consumers are status seeking challenges theidea of collectivism among the Indian consumers and therefore the notion needs furtherempirical evidence as to the changing nature of Indian society. Seventh, the data beingcross-sectional in nature a longitudinal paper exploring the phenomenon of statusconsumption is much desirable.
References
Aaker, J. (1999), “The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion”, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 36, pp. 45-57.
Agarwal, J. and Malhotra, N. (2005), “An integrated model of attitude and affect: theoreticalfoundation and an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4,pp. 483-93.
IMR27,1
124
Ahmed, Z., Johnson, J., Ling, C.P., Fang, T.W. and Hui, A.K. (2002), “Country-of-origin and brandeffects on consumers’ evaluations of cruise lines”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 19No. 3, pp. 279-302.
Amaldoss, W. and Jain, S. (2005), “Pricing of conspicuous goods: a competitive analysis of socialeffects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Auty, S. (1992), “Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry”, The ServiceIndustries Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 324-39.
Bagwell, L.S. and Bernheim, B.D. (1996), “Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuousconsumption”, American Economic Review, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 349-73.
Ball, D. and Bellman, E. (2007), “Western liquor makers eye rich Indian market”, Wall StreetJournal – Eastern Edition, Vol. 249 No. 133, pp. A1-A13.
Barker, R.G. (1968), Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environmentof Human Behavior, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Basmann, R.L., Molina, D.J. and Slottje, D.J. (1988), “A note on measuring Veblen’s theoryof conspicuous consumption”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 531-5.
Belk, R.W. (1974), “An exploratory assessment of situational effects in buyer behavior”, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 156-63.
Belk, R.W. (1975), “Situational variables and consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 157-64.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15No. 2, pp. 139-68.
Blascovich, J. and Tomaka, J. (1991), “Measures of self-esteem”, in Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R.and Wrightsman, L.S. (Eds), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes,Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 115-60.
Bloch, F., Rao, V. and Desai, S. (2004), “Wedding celebrations as conspicuous consumption:signaling social status in rural India”, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 675-95.
Bonner, P. (1983), “Considerations for situational research”, Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 10, pp. 368-73.
Bourdieu, P. (1989), “Social space and symbolic power”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-25.
Campbell, C. (1987), The Consumer Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Hedonism, Basil Blackwell,London.
Chao, A. and Schor, J.B. (1998), “Empirical tests of status consumption: evidence from woman’scosmetics”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 107-31.
Chow, S., Celsi, R. and Abel, R. (1990), “The effects of situational and intrinsic sources of personalrelevance on brand choice decisions”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 755-9.
Clark, R.A., Zboja, J.J. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2007), “Status consumption and role-relaxedconsumption: a tale of two retail consumers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Cote, J.A., McCullough, J. and Reilly, M. (1985), “Effects of unexpected situations onbehavior-intention differences: a garbology analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 188-94.
Datamonitor (2000a), Alcoholic Drinks Industry Profile: Global, Datamonitor, New York, NY.
Datamonitor (2000b), Alcoholic Drinks Industry Profile: UK, Datamonitor, New York, NY.
Datamonitor (2006a), Alcoholic Drinks Industry Profile: Global, Datamonitor, New York, NY.
Datamonitor (2006b), Alcoholic Drinks in Europe: Industry Profile, Datamonitor, New York, NY.
Statusconsumption
125
Datamonitor (2006c), Alcoholic Drinks in the UK: Industry Profile, Datamonitor, New York, NY.
Datamonitor (2006d), “Alcoholic drinks in India: industry profile”, Book Alcoholic Drinks in India:Industry Profile, Datamonitor, New York, NY, p. 21.
Datamonitor (2007a), Alcoholic Drinks Industry Profile: Global, Datamonitor, New York, NY.
Datamonitor (2007b), Alcoholic Drinks Industry Profile: India, Datamonitor, New York, NY.
Dillon, W.R. and Goldstein, M. (1984), Multivariate Analysis: Methods and Applications, Wiley,New York, NY.
Douglas, S. and Craig, C.S. (1983), International Marketing Research, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.
Dubois, B. and Duquesne, P. (1993), “The market for luxury goods: income versus culture”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 35-44.
Duesenberry, J.S. (1949), Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Durvasula, S., Andrews, J.C., Lysonski, S. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1993), “Assessing thecross-national applicability of consumer behavior models: a model of attitude towardadvertising in general”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 626-36.
Eastman, J.K., Goldsmith, R.E. and Flynn, L.R. (1999), “Status consumption in consumerbehaviour: scale development and validation”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 41-51.
(The) Economist (2007), “Luxury goods: less exuberant”, in Book Luxury goods: less exuberant,The Economist.
Edwards, F. and Mort, G. (1991), “The expert wine taster”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 8No. 4, pp. 8-12.
Elliott, R. (1997), “Existential consumption and irrational desire”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 285-96.
Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998), “Brands as symbolic resources for the construction ofidentity”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 131-44.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1993), Consumer Behaviour, 7th ed., Dryden,Fort Worth, TX.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon”, Journal of ConsumerPsychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-57.
Fennell, G. (1978), “Consumers’ perceptions of the product-use situation”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 38-47.
Fitzmaurice, J. and Comegys, C. (2006), “Materialism and social consumption”, Journalof Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 287-99.
Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), “A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gardner, M.P. (1985), “Mood states and consumer behaviour: a critical review”, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 281-300.
Goldsmith, R., Flynn, L. and Eastman, J. (1996), “Status consumption and fashion behaviour:an exploratory study”, Association of Marketing Theory and Practice Proceedings,Hilton Head, SC, pp. 309-16.
IMR27,1
126
Graeff, T.R. (1997), “Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on consumers’ brandevaluations”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 49-70.
Grubb, E.L. and Grathwohl, H.L. (1967), “Consumer self-concept, symbolism, and marketbehaviour: a theoretical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 22-7.
Harrell, G.D., Hutt, M.D. and Anderson, J.C. (1980), “Path analysis of buyer behavior underconditions of crowding”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-51.
Heath, A.P. and Scott, D. (1998), “The self-concept and image congruence hypothesis: anempirical evaluation in the motor vehicle market”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32No. 11, pp. 1110-23.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methodsand propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Holman, R. (1981), “Product use as communication: a fresh look at a venerable topic”,in Enis, B.M. and Roering, K.J. (Eds), Review of Marketing, American MarketingAssociation, Chicago, IL, pp. 106-19.
Hoyer, W.D. and Brown, S.P. (1990), “Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common,repeat-purchase product”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, p. 141.
Jackson, M.C., Hastings, G., Wheeler, C., Eadie, D. and MacKintosh, A.M. (2000), “Marketingalcohol to young people: implications for industry regulation and research policy”,Addiction, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 597-608.
Keown, C. and Casey, M. (1995), “Purchasing behaviour in the Northern Ireland wine market”,British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 17-20.
Lai, A.W. (1991), “Consumption situation and product knowledge in the adoption of a newproduct”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 55-67.
Langer, J. (1997), “What consumers wish brand managers knew”, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 60-8.
Lee, D. and Ganesh, G. (1999), “Effects of partitioned country image in the context of brand imageand familiarity”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-39.
Leigh, J.H. and Gabel, T.G. (1992), “Symbolic interactionism: its effects on consumer behaviorand implications for marketing strategy”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3,pp. 5-16.
McKechnie, S. and Tynan, C. (2006), “Social meanings in Christmas consumption: an exploratorystudy of UK celebrants’ consumption rituals”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 2,pp. 130-44.
Marcoux, J.-S., Filiatrault, F. and Cheron, E.J. (1997), “The attitudes underlying preferences ofyoung urban educated Polish consumers towards products made in Western countries”,Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 5-29.
Mason, R. (1984), “Conspicuous consumption: a literature review”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 26-39.
Mason, R. (2002), “Conspicuous consumption in economic theory and thought”, inFullbrook, E. (Ed.), Intersubjectivity in Economics: Agents and Structures, Routledge,London, pp. 85-104.
Miller, K.E. and Ginter, J.L. (1979), “An investigation of situational variation in brand choicebehavior and attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 111-23.
Nagel, T.T. and Holdon, R.K. (2002), The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing, Prentice-Hall, UpperSaddle River, NJ.
Statusconsumption
127
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Cass, A. and Frost, H. (2002), “Status brands: examining the effects of non-product-relatedbrand associations on status and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Product & BrandManagement, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 67-88.
Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J. (1987), “Self-concept and image congruence: some research andmanagerial implications”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Packard, V.O. (1959), The Status Seekers: An Exploration of Class Behavior in America andthe Hidden Barriers that Affect You, Your Community, Your Future, D. McKay,New York, NY.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986), “Strategic brand concept imagemanagement”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 135-45.
Quester, P.G. and Smart, J. (1998), “The influence of consumption situation and productinvolvement over consumers’ use of product attribute”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 220-38.
Ramachandran, R. (2000), “Understanding the market environment of India”, Business Horizons,Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 44-52.
Rao, V. (2001), “Celebrations as social investments: festival expenditures, unit price variation andsocial status in rural India”, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 71-97.
Redding, S.G. (1990), The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism, Walter de Gruyter, New York, NY.
Reuters (2007), “Brown-Forman sees India sales share doubling in 5 years”, available at: http://in.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idINDEL10913920070919 (accessed 20 November 2007).
Richins, M.L. (2001), “ACR presidential address: consumer behavior as a social science”, inMitchall, A.A. (Ed.), Book ACR Presidential Address: Consumer Behavior as a SocialScience, Association for Consumer Research, Duluth, MN, pp. 1-5.
Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992), “Matching product category and country image perceptions: aframework for managing country-of-origin effects”, Journal of International BusinessStudies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97.
Sharma, N. (2007), “Surrogate liquor ads under lens”, available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Surrogate_liquor_ads_under_lens/articleshow/2302174.cms (accessed 23 August2007).
Sheth, J. (1985), “Presidential address: broadening the horizons of ACR and consumer research”,in Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (Eds), Book Presidential Address: Broadeningthe Horizons of ACR and Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research,Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 1-2.
Shukla, P. (2008), “Conspicuous consumption among middle age consumers: psychological andbrand antecedents”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
Singh, J. (1995), “Measurement issues in cross-national research”, Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 597-619.
Singh, N., Fassott, G., Chao, M.C.H. and Hoffmann, J.A. (2006), “Understanding international website usage”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review”, The Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-300.
Solomon, M.R. (1983), “The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionismperspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 319-29.
Solomon, M.R., Bamossy, G. and Askegaard, S. (2002), Consumer Behaviour: A EuropeanPerspective, 2nd ed., Pearson, Harlow.
IMR27,1
128
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing measurement invariance incross-national consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-107.
Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O. and Hunter, G.L. (2001), “Consumers’ need for uniqueness: scaledevelopment and validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 50-66.
Trigg, A. (2001), “Veblen, Bourdieu, and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Economic Issues,Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 99-115.
Trompenaars, A. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1998), Riding the Waves of Culture: UnderstandingDiversity in Global Business, McGraw-Hill, London.
Umesh, U. and Cote, J. (1988), “Influence of situational variables on brand choice models”, Journalof Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 91-9.
Wong, N.Y. (1997), “Suppose you own the world and no one knows? Conspicuous consumption,materialism, and self”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 197-203.
Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A.C. (1998), “Personal taste and family face: luxury consumption inConfucian and Western societies”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 423-41.
Yang, S., Allenby, G.M. and Fennel, G. (2002), “Modeling variation in brand preference: the rolesof objective environment and motivating conditions”, Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 14-31.
Yuki, M. (2003), “Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: a cross-culturalexamination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian culturalcontexts”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 166-83.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement construct”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-52.
Further reading
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2002), “Self-esteem and socioeconomic status: a meta-analyticreview”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 59-71.
Veblen, T. (1979 (1899)), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Viking-Penguin, New York: NY.
About the authorPaurav Shukla is a Senior Lecturer at the Brighton Business School, University of Brighton, UK.He possesses wide range of industry and academic experience from middle to senior level acrossvarious industries. He has been involved with various European Union (EU) funded researchprojects involving several nations from EU and Asia. He has been delivering corporate trainingand consulting assignments for various organizations in India, UK as well as other EU andAfrican countries. He is a Guest Editor for the special issue on “Emerging paradigms in Indianmarketplace” for Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. He has written widely in thearea of customer expectations management and SME management in international as well asnational level journals. Paurav Shukla can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Statusconsumption
129
