Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous Consumption

Keywords:

Status

consumption,

conspicuous

consumption

Professor AronO’CassNewcastle Graduate

School of Business,

University House,

The University of

Newcastle,

Callaghan NSW 2308,

Australia

Tel: 02 4921 7729

Fax: 02 4921 7398

e-mail: aron.ocass@

newcastle.edu.au

Exploring consumer status andconspicuous consumptionReceived in revised form.

Aron O’Cassis Chair of Marketing at the Newcastle Graduate School of Business (NGSB), the

University of Newcastle, Australia. He holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Master of

Business, majoring in marketing, and a PhD in consumer behaviour. He has published

on brand perceptions, consumer behaviour, political marketing, voter behaviour,

export marketing, fashion and numerous other issues, appearing in journals such as

the European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Economic Psychology, Journal of Product &

Brand Management, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Journal of Advertising, Journal of

Consumer Behaviour and others.

Hmily McEwen(previously Frost) currently works for Suncorp as an Analyst for the Group Customer

Value division. This role drives revenues synergies and cross sell initiatives. Prior to

Suncorp, Hmily worked for ENERGEX Retail as Business Sales Market Analyst

working closely with the Business Sales team in developing acquisition and retention

initiatives, identifying profitable market segments and assessing interstate

opportunities. Hmily also spent time working for a multinational research firm on

quantitative and qualitative projects, working for clients such as Telstra, Queensland

Rail, Griffith University and Brisbane Markets. Hmily achieved an Honours degree in

a Bachelor of Business, majoring in marketing, at Griffith University.

AbstractIn seeking to expand an understanding of consumption, this study assesses the relationshipbetween status consumption and conspicuous consumption. Theoretically, the relationshipbetween status consumption and conspicuous consumption is problematic and, therefore,the main focus of this paper examines the theoretical and empirical separation ofconsumers’ status consumption and conspicuous consumption. Data were gathered via asurvey of individuals aged between 18 and 25. The findings indicate that statusconsumption and conspicuous consumption are distinct constructs. Differences in statusconsumption tendencies between males and females were not found; however, in relation toconspicuous consumption gender differences were found. Status consumption was affectedby self-monitoring and interpersonal influences, but conspicuous consumption wasaffected only by interpersonal influences. The brands examined also clearly differed interms of status and conspicuous consumption perceptions.

INTRODUCTION

In the context of growing globalisation,

heightened competition and increasing

differentiation, there is a growing

emphasis on brands and their

characteristics (Lim and O’Cass, 2001).

Increasingly, brands are seen as

important in creating an identity, a

sense of achievement and identification

for consumers. It is also evident that

certain brand dimensions and

associations lead to increased

marketplace recognition and economic

success as a result of the value

consumers place on them. A company’s

economic superiority is frequently

implied by the strength of its brand

name, giving it the ability to differentiate

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 25

itself, yielding status or greater

conspicuousness of consumption. This

implies that the status and conspicuous

consumption tendencies of consumers

are important in creating relationships

between consumers who possess such

characteristics and specific types of

products and brands that yield status.

This study seeks to contribute to the

status literature by examining status

consumption and conspicuous

consumption tendencies and the

influence that consumers’ self-

monitoring and susceptibility to

interpersonal influence have on status

and conspicuous consumption. This

study also focuses on specific brands,

their perceived status and usage for

conspicuous consumption purposes.

STATUS AND CONSPICUOUS

CONSUMPTION: UNDERSTANDING

CONSUMERS’ PSYCHE

In social and cultural terms there is

perhaps no single issue that dominates

the modern psyche as much as fashion

and consumption. It not only forms an

important part of everyday

consumption decisions, but is also a

central component of almost all daily

events, influencing what and where

people eat, the clothing they wear, the

furnishing they decorate their homes

with, how they communicate and

inherently the very nature of their

thinking. In relation to fashion, status

brands are generally those that have

high-perceived quality, luxury, prestige

and/or high class attached to them

(Shermach, 1997). The contention is

raised that such brands are often

consumed to indicate status and as such

displayed conspicuously to provide a

visual representation of status. Contrary

to this view, however, there are those

who argue that since Veblen’s time

(1934) the conscious, overt display of

wealth (position) has ceased (Trigg,

2001) and status is conveyed in more

subtle ways (Mason, 1992). Such views

seem to counter the marketplace

behaviour of both consumers and

producers, however, who seek to denote

image and status through brands. For

example, Goldsmith et al. (1996b: 309)

assert that ‘one important motivating

force that influences a wide range of

consumer behaviour is the desire to gain

status or social prestige from the

acquisition and consumption of goods.’

Inherently, ‘the more a consumer seeks

status, the more he/she will engage in

behaviours, such as the consumption of

status symbols, that increase their

status’ (Eastman et al., 1999: 3).

It appears that status and

conspicuous consumption are often

identified in the literature as if they are

inherently the same phenomena. For

example, Kilsheimer (1993: 341) defines

status consumption as ‘the motivational

process by which individuals strive to

improve their social standing through

the conspicuous consumption of

consumer products that confer and

symbolise status both for the individual

and surrounding significant others’.

Such a conceptualisation in effect

defines one construct in terms of the

other. While previous work has been

valuable in building knowledge in this

area, little effort has focused on the

relationships between status tendencies

and conspicuous consumption by

consumers. While research has been

conducted to investigate the links

between conspicuous consumption and

status goods (Bernheim, 1994; Echikson,

1994; Ferstman and Weiss, 1992; Ireland,

1992; Bourdieu, 1984), the literature

inherently treats the two constructs

(status and conspicuous consumption)

as if they have significant overlap, to the

point where they are often used

interchangeably. When definitions of

constructs contain significant overlap

with one another, or when one construct

is defined in terms of another, this

presents significant theoretical and

empirical problems. It appears that the

status and conspicuous consumption

theory may be fundamentally flawed, as

each construct’s domain is not

thoroughly delineated.

26 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817

Aron O’Cass and Hmily McEwen

It has been argued that ownership of

specific products or brands, as well as

their particular mode of consumption,

may denote status (McCraken, 1988;

O’Shaughnessy, 1992; Packard, 1959;

Bell et al., 1991). The acquisition of

material goods is one of the strongest

measures of social success and

achievement. While the notion of status

possessions resides in consumption, it is

not clear if such consumption must be

conspicuous. It is argued here that this

process is analogous to the acquisition

of cultural capital which Bourdieu

(1984) described as being inscribed as an

objective demand, in membership, and

as such the taste of the consumer with

high cultural capital is used to secure

positions of status.

Despite the importance of the

concept of conspicuous consumption,

empirical research and theoretical

models on the nature and influences of

conspicuous consumption are scarce. It

is often said of conspicuous

consumption that it is pursued in order

to enhance one’s prestige in society,

which can be achieved through public

demonstration signalling wealth and

communicating affluence to others.

Conspicuous consumption also

includes expenditures made for the

purpose of inflating the ego (Veblen,

1934) coupled with the ostentatious

display of wealth (Mason, 1981). It has

been argued that Veblen’s theory of

conspicuous consumption is based on

the premise that those who put wealth

in evidence are rewarded with

preferential treatment by social

contacts, and that such effects depend

upon a comparison of the desirability

of signalling through price, quantity or

quality (Bagwell and Bernheim, 1996).

Furthermore, it has been argued that

status consumption implies or leads to

conspicuousness of such consumption.

The argument presented by Eastman et

al. (1999) implies conspicuousness

when they say that heightened status-

seeking behaviour will lead to an

increase in the consumption of status

goods, thereby augmenting one’s level

of perceived status. Status consumption

tendencies will lead individuals to be

more conscious of displaying their

consumption of status and possessions.

It appears that status consumption is

more a matter of consumers’ desires to

gain prestige from the acquisition of

status-laden products and brands;

however, conspicuous consumption

focuses on the visual display or overt

usage of products in the presence of

others. For instance, a consumer may

wear Calvin Klein underwear because

they see the brand as symbolising

luxury and their own wealth in being

able to afford expensive lingerie. This

does not imply that they will flaunt their

undergarments to people of high status

as a means of advancing their social

standing, which is in contrast to

wearing a labelled Calvin Klein shirt or

jeans. At this stage the difference seems

to lie in the view that status

consumption tendencies emphasise the

personal nature of owning status-laden

possessions, which may or may not be

publicly demonstrated, whereas

conspicuous consumption focuses more

towards putting wealth or position in

evidence, whereby possessions are

overtly displayed. The theoretical

importance of this difference, over and

above the fact that different scales may

measure status consumption and

conspicuous consumption, appears to

be camouflaged by an array of cognate

definitions.

Contrary to the fact that research

initially focusing on status consumption

can and has used terms indicative of

conspicuous consumption and vice-

versa, the authors argue that they are

conceptually and empirically separate

constructs. Given the theoretical belief

that status and conspicuous

consumption are separate but related

constructs, the authors hypothesise that

there will be significant differences

between the constructs of status


consumption and that:


Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption

H1a: A two-factor model of status and

conspicuous consumption will fit the

data better than a single-factor model.

H1b: Status consumption will have a

significant positive effect on

conspicuous consumption.

ANTECEDENTS OF STATUS

CONSUMPTION

Importantly, while the potential

antecedents of status consumption and

conspicuous consumption are

numerous, the focus here is on gender

and traits that cause or engender in

individuals a social awareness. A

growing body of work on fashion has

identified that consumers undertake

and engage in different behaviour

depending on their gender. For

example, Goldsmith et al. (1996) found

that female fashion innovators often

consider themselves more excitable,

indulgent, contemporary and vain than

followers. O’Cass (2001) found that, in

the context of fashion clothing, females

were significantly more involved than

males, which implies that females use

clothing and apparel more than males

do to tell others who they are and how

much status they have (Auty and Elliot,

1998; Eastman et al., 1997; Tse et al.,

1989). This implication is important as

Lurie (1981) has indicated that social

display is a prime function of fashion

clothing. As males and females appear

to use products for different reasons

and possess differing attitudes towards

products and brands it is hypothesised

that:

H2a: Gender will have a significant effect on

status consumption, with females

being more status conscious than

males.

H2b: Gender will have a significant effect on

conspicuous consumption, with

females being more prone to

conspicuous consumption tendencies

than males.

Reference group influence appears to be

particularly important to the

relationship between status


consumption, as both appear to be

impacted by an individual’s proneness

to interpersonal influence (Marcoux et

al., 1997). Beyond Veblen’s early work

(1934) on conspicuous consumption,

Marcoux et al. (1997) have stated that

social status demonstration is a

dimension of conspicuous consumption,

arguing that interpersonal influence and

social status demonstration were the

two main variables in the context of the

conspicuous consumption scale.

Importantly, products and brands have

the ability to communicate messages to

others, in that product styles determine

how consumers who own them are

perceived by others (Holman, 1981;

Belk, 1978; Solomon, 1983). The role that

interpersonal influence plays is

important in defining status and, more

recently, Eastman et al. (1999: 2)

argued that status, among other things,

is ‘a form of power that consists of

respect, consideration and envy from

others’.

Individuals often gain recognition

and distinction by spending their

income on products that display status

and success to significant others. The

consumption of those who set standards

of taste and quality influences an

individual’s demand for socially

conspicuous products (O’Cass, 2001;

Pigou, 1903). Today, consumers’ desire

for conspicuous goods is still largely

determined by their social networks. In

effect many consumers are no longer

acting autonomously, but as

representatives of a larger group (Wong

and Ahuvia, 1998). Status-conscious

consumers are more socially aware and

more interested in social relationships

(Kilsheimer, 1993). Prominent

characteristics of status-conscious

consumers focus on social relationship

formation, and revolve around

interpersonal influence and self-

monitoring of status.

Such a notion rests on the view that

status consumption involves purchase

and use of products (and brands) in



order to increase a person’s status,

perceived or otherwise (Goldsmith et al.,

1996), and sees a significant influencing

role of others and an ability to monitor

one’s social environment and adjust

one’s behaviour to fit via appropriate

product selection to gain the desired

status. Reference groups typically

portray an image for group members to

refer to, which can be in the form of

common identity or interests. Brands

that have certain characteristics can

provide entry into groups and allow

consumers to fit in by portraying a

particular image, as such it is

hypothesised that:

H3a: Interpersonal influence will have a

significant positive effect on status

consumption tendencies.

H3b: Interpersonal influence will have a

significant positive effect on

conspicuous consumption tendencies.

Self-monitoring is the degree to which

an individual observes and controls

their expressive behaviour and either

maintains or adapts self-presentation

depending on certain social cues,

triggering situationally appropriate

behaviour (Gould, 1993). It ‘is associated

with the degree of interest in

maintaining a front, through products

(such as fashion clothing) that are used

as props because they convey an image

of the self to other people’ (O’Cass, 2000:

399). High self-monitors are concerned

with maintaining their appearance and

overall image, hence they are more

sensitive to interpersonal influence.

High self-monitors place more

importance on the overt self and modify

roles according to the situations

encountered, as opposed to being true

to their inner self (the low self-monitor)

(Snyder, 1979). Conspicuousness is

essential if consumers want to gain

recognition, approval, or acceptance

from their reference groups. The

conspicuousness of a product allows

reference group members to see the

product or brand and provide their

approval or disapproval.

High self-monitors may place more

emphasis on conspicuously consuming

status brands to fit into social situations,

as they are acutely aware of their

appearance and status, and understand

that products can communicate

(Sullivan and Harnish, 1990). The

literature indicates that self-monitors

have tendencies to use products as

props and a strong concern for their

image and maintenance of that image;

therefore the authors hypothesise that:

H4a: Self-monitoring will have a significant

positive effect on status consumption

tendencies.

H4b: Self-monitoring will have a significant

positive effect on conspicuous


BRAND-RELATED ISSUES OF STATUS

AND CONSPICUOUSNESS

Specific brands can be positioned to

maintain exclusivity, to communicate

prestige and the social position of the

brand user (Zinkhan and Prenshaw,

1994). The desire for status is not

exclusive to the wealthy (Mason, 1992;

Ram, 1994; Underwood, 1994) and it

may be that outward symbols of status

are meaningful to both the wealthy and

those of modest means (Bansanko,

1995). It has also been argued by Belk

(1988) that, even in third-world

(developing) countries people are often

attracted to and indulge in aspects of

conspicuous consumption before they

have adequate food, clothing and

shelter. While clearly labelling this as

conspicuous, the implication is that

consumers at every class level have the

desire to consume for social status.

Similarly, some have argued that ‘many

. . . people (kids from the ghettos and

typical poverty areas) would rather

have a Rolex than a home’ (Levine,

1997: 144). In saying this, it must be

recognised that status symbols vary

depending on social class, age and

gender, and each may have different

ideas of status symbols. Given the value

of brands in creating individual



identity, a sense of achievement and

identification for consumers, it is

hypothesised that:

H5: Respondents will clearly attribute high

status and low status to specific brands

in the same product class.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The study was based on the

development and administration of a

self-completion survey. Established

scales were drawn from the literature to

generate representative items that,

collectively, tapped the domain and

meaning of each construct. The survey

measured respondents’ status

consumption tendencies (Eastman et al.,

1999), conspicuous consumption desires

(Marcoux et al., 1997), self-monitoring

tendencies (O’Cass, 2000), reference

group influence (normative) (Bearden et

al., 1989) and evaluation of the brand’s

status and desire to consume the brand

conspicuously (Eastman et al., 1999 and

Marcoux et al., 1997), focusing on

specific brand stimuli. These scales were

evaluated on content and face validity

by a panel of expert judges as

recommended by Converse and Presser

(1986), followed by a pre-test via focus

groups.

Fashion clothing and sunglasses were

chosen as the two product categories as

both can be used in a visible way to

signal status (Goldsmith et al., 1996) and

both have the ability to be used for

higher-level needs, such as conveying

self-image (Goldsmith et al., 1999;

Kairser, 1990). Owning the latest styles

of clothing is one of the most common

ways consumers have of gaining

prestige among their peers (Goldsmith

et al., 1996; Gould and Barak, 1988).

Data collection took place via a non-

probabilistic sample of 18–25-year-old

students, and in total 315 surveys were

obtained. The sample consisted of 15.2

per cent aged 19, 21.6 per cent aged 20,

15.2 per cent aged 21, 12.7 per cent aged

22, 11.4 per cent aged 23, 8.3 per cent

aged 24 and 10.5 per cent aged 25. The

respondents included 61.3 per cent of

females and 38.4 per cent of males. This

result is similar to Flynn and Goldsmith

(1999) with a 70:30 ratio of females to

males. Therefore, given the acceptable

sample size and grouping sizes there

were no problems with the unequal

ratio of females to males.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Preliminary data analysis was

undertaken to examine the psychometric

properties of the scales via measures of

central tendency, dispersion, bivariate

Pearson correlations and principle

components analysis with oblique

rotation, followed by reliability

estimates and confirmatory factor

analysis. The factor structures indicated

that items loaded onto their respective

constructs and reliabilities were all well

above accepted levels. Gaski (1984)

suggests that if the correlation between

two composite constructs is not higher

than their respective reliability estimate,

then discriminant validity exists. The

results indicated that using this criterion

all reliability estimates (Cronbach’s

alphas) were greater than their

correlation, with all correlations ranging

between 0.21 to 0.60 and all Cronbach’s

alphas being above 0.87. Following this

analysis all items within each construct

were then computed into composite

variables to test the models.

To evaluateH1a, confirmatory factor

analysis was undertaken using several

goodness-of-fit indicators, including �2

statistics, goodness-of-fit index (GFI),

adjusted-goodness-of-fit index (AGFI),

root mean square residual (RMSR) and

root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) (O’Cass, 2000). Following the

preliminary analysis, the hypotheses

were tested via confirmatory factor

analysis forH1a, partial least squares

analysis forH1b toH4 and t-tests forH5.

H1a tests of differences between


H1a focused on differences between

status consumption and conspicuous



consumption. Table 1 presents the factor

analysis of status consumption and

conspicuous consumption at the trait

level, showing all items loaded onto

their respective constructs and

reliabilities.

Confirmatory test of H1a

Status consumption construct: The status

consumption scale contains items that

represent the degree to which the

consumer is predisposed to consume for

status (see Table 1). The exploratory

factor analysis results indicate that the

confirmatory factor loadings range from

0.53 to 0.77, explaining 66 per cent of the

variance. The fit indices achieved from

the confirmatory factor analysis indicate

that the model of status consumption

had an acceptable fit on the key indices

with �2 ¼ 11.6, p ¼ 0.071, a GFI of 0.978

and an RMSEA of 0.055.

Conspicuous consumption construct: The

conspicuous consumption scale contains

items that represent the degree to which

the consumer is predisposed to

consume conspicuously (see Table 1).

The results indicate that the


0.67 to 0.82, explaining 73 per cent of the

variance. The fit indices achieved from

the confirmatory factor analysis indicate

that the model of conspicuous

consumption also had an acceptable fit

on the key indices with �2 ¼ 10.31,

p ¼ 0.326, a GFI of 0.986 and an RMSEA

of 0.022.

Single and two factor models of


Amodel of status and conspicuous

consumption as a single factor was then

tested. The results indicate that the


0.56 to 0.86, significant at , 0.05,

explaining 73 per cent of the variance.

The fit indices achieved from the

confirmatory factor analysis indicate

that the single-factor model of status

and conspicuous consumption had a

poor fit on the key indices with

�2 ¼ 251.10, p ¼ 0.001, a GFI of 0.823 and

an RMSEA of 0.108. While the factor

loadings and reliability are acceptable,

the fit indices indicate that the single-

factor model does not fit the data well.

Table 1 Factor structure of status consumption and conspicuous consumption tendencies

Exploratory factor loadings

MeanStandarddeviation

Conspicuousconsumption

Status consumption

Conspicuous consumptionNoticed by others 3.12 1.30 0.82Presence of others 3.38 1.22 0.80Gain respect 2.80 1.15 0.76Popularity 2.70 1.14 0.75Show who I am 3.40 1.29 0.72Seen using it 3.31 1.30 0.67Variance explained: 33.2%Reliability: 0.87

Status consumptionSymbol of success 4.97 0.94 0.77Symbol of prestige 5.16 0.81 0.71Indicate wealth 4.56 1.01 0.73Indicate achievement 4.12 1.18 0.72Interested in status 4.22 1.16 0.66Status is important to me 3.85 1.22 0.62Status enhances my image 3.92 1.28 0.53Variance explained: 26.2%Reliability: 0.85

Total variance explained: 59.4%Total reliability of scale: 0.89



The results of the two-factor model

indicate that the confirmatory factor

loadings range from 0.43 to 0.90,

significant at , 0.05 (t . 1.96),

explaining 72 per cent of the variance in


tendencies. The fit indices achieved

from the confirmatory factor analysis

indicate that the single-factor model of


had a poor fit on the key indices with

�2 ¼ 107.3, p ¼ 0.001, a GFI of 0.924 and

an RMSEA of 0.068.

While the factor loadings and

reliability are acceptable, the fit indices

indicate that the single-factor model

does not fit the data as well as the two

factor model. The confirmatory factor

analysis, along with the exploratory

analysis, indicate that status and

conspicuous consumption are separate

constructs. Largely, the results support

H1a in that the two-factor model fits the

data better than the single-factor model.

Results for the fitted model: H1b to H4

Given the formulation of the proposed

relationships and the sample size, it was

decided to use partial least squares

(PLS) to analyse the data (Fornell and

Cha, 1994; Wold, 1981). PLS analysis is a

general technique for estimating path

models involving latent constructs

indirectly observed by multiple

indicators such as those used in this

study. Evaluation of the model was

made on the basis of indices assessing

criteria such as their quality, sufficiency

to explain the data, congruence with

hypotheses and precision. A systematic

examination of fit of the indices,

including R2, average variance

accounted (AVA), regression weights

and loadings was undertaken (O’Cass,

2001).

The results of the inner model are

shown in Table 2, and indicate that all

the paths exceed this criterion and the

bootstrap critical ratios are of the

appropriate size (. 1.96), except for

gender–status consumption and self–

monitoring-conspicuous consumption.

The results support H1b, H2b, H3a, H3b

and H4a, but not H2a and H4b. This data,

therefore, suggest that the status

consumption tendencies of individuals

are associated with the extent to which

they are influenced by their reference

group(s) and are self-monitors,


are influenced also by reference

group(s), gender and status


The test of the structural model

included estimating the path

coefficients, which are interpreted as

standardised beta weights in a

regression analysis, and R2, which is

used to assess the proportion of variance

in the endogenous constructs accounted

for by the exogenous constructs. The

path coefficient of an exogenous

construct represents the direct effect of

that variable on the endogenous

variable, an indirect effect represents the

effect of a particular variable on the

Table 2 Partial least squares: results for H1b and H2 to H4

Model

Predicted variables Predictor variables Hyp. PathVariancedue to path R2

Criticalratio

Status consumption trait Reference group influence H3a 0.406 0.18 8.15Self-monitoring H4a 0.179 0.05 3.26Gender H2a 0.013 0.00 0.222 ns

Conspicuous Reference group influence H3b 0.482 0.30 9.44consumption trait Self-monitoring H4b �0.028 0.00 ns

Gender H2b �0.090 0.013 �2.02Status consumption trait H1b 0.301 0.15 0.457 5.00

AVA 0.339



second variable through its effects on a

thirdmediating variable. It is the

product of the path coefficients along an

indirect route from cause to effect via

tracing arrows in the headed direction

only.Whenmore than one indirect path

exists, the total indirect effect is their

sum. Table 3 provides direct and indirect

effects for proposed relationships as

depicted in the hypotheses (H1b toH4b).

Results for differences between

brands: H5

H5 focused on perceptions of brands,

status and conspicuousness by

examining if individuals identify a high-

status brand and a low-status brand for

both the clothing brands and the

sunglasses brand categories. Brands

were a priori classified as either high or

low status via the focus groups. The two

high-status brands identified were

Calvin Klein clothing and Oakley

sunglasses and the lower-status brands

were Polaroid sunglasses and Target

clothing. The tests of differences

between a high- and low-status brand

for the clothing apparel and sunglasses

brands were conducted via t-tests. The

results of these tests are presented in

Table 4, which include the means, t

values and p values for H5. As was

predicted, respondents saw a clear

distinction between brand names that

were a priori perceived to be of high

status and those that were considered

low status.

The results indicate significant

differences (p , 0.01) between the high-

and low-status brands. Consequently,

H5 has been supported as respondents

identified that Calvin Klein was a high-

status brand in the clothing category,

while Oakley was considered also to be

of high status for the sunglasses

category. Similarly, Target and Polaroid

brands were perceived to be of low

status and were unlikely to be

consumed conspicuously.

DISCUSSION

The findings indicate initially that status


consumption are indeed related but

separate constructs related to

dimensions of consumers’ motivational

behaviour towards products. The

findings also indicate good

Table 3 Direct and indirect effects

Independent variable + mediatingvariable Dependent variable Direct Indirect Total

Reference group influence — Statusconsumption

Conspicuous consumption 0.482 0.122 0.604

Self-monitoring — Status consumption Conspicuous consumption 0.028 0.054 0.082Gender — Status consumption Conspicuous consumption 0.089 0.004 0.093

Table 4 Differences between status consumption and conspicuous consumption for high- and low-status brands

t-test for equality ofmeans

Status level Brands Mean t Sig. (2-tailed)

Status consumption High Calvin Klein 3.40 8.50 0.001Low Target 2.06High Oakley 2.97 4.81 0.001Low Polaroid 2.17

Conspicuous consumption HIgh Calvin Klein 2.99 8.50 0.001Low Target 2.26High Oakley 2.69 4.82 0.001Low Polaroid 2.24



psychometric properties of the two

scales. The results indicate that status


consumption are empirically separate

yet related. This means that each

construct is unique, yet somewhat

related in the context that both ascribe

similar characteristics and tendencies to

the consumer, yet one who desires

status is distinctive to the person

seeking conspicuous consumption. The

extant literature has treated them as

though they can be used

interchangeably. The value of treating


consumption as separate yet related

constructs lies in the fact that each

descriptor carries a unique set of

consumer behaviour and consumption

motives. Should each construct continue

to be used interchangeably, without

recognising that each is different, then

results may be fundamentally flawed,

carrying the potential for

misinterpretation. The authors propose

to add clarity to the body of literature

and demarcate each construct by

defining status consumption as:

The behavioural tendency to value status

and acquire and consume products that

provide status to the individual.

In the same vein, conspicuous

consumption can be defined as:

The tendency for individuals to enhance

their image, through overt consumption of

possessions, which communicates status to

others.

These (similar) definitions are an

attempt to articulate what previously

was an under-researched yet promising

area of enquiry for consumer behaviour,

but, combined with these results, they

attest to the value of pursuing this

avenue of research. It should be noted,

however, that status is not only seen as

high status, it is used here to imply or

signify a sought-after social position.

Such a sought-after position implies that

varying degrees of privilege or esteem

are attached to the individual through

the position. As such, status implies not

just a high or low binary but a

continuum (and that it may stand out or

fit).

As was discussed in the literature

review, many products, particularly

fashion clothing and apparel, are

oriented towards individuals displaying

their image to others, where in effect

they are a code to communicate one’s

personal status. The results indicate that

the influence of significant others is

important in the process. In the context

of antecedents of status consumption

and conspicuous consumption, the

results indicate that reference group

influence, self-monitoring and gender

did influence status consumption and

conspicuous consumption tendencies.

The results also indicate that status

consumption did affect conspicuous

consumption. Intuitively, it is known

that consumers do not always buy

products and brands, particularly

fashion apparel, to consume for its

functional benefits. Similarly, when

consumers wear sunglasses, many do

not wear them just to protect their eyes,

but to fit in, or display an image. In the

context of fashion apparel, sunglasses

and other product categories, the

conspicuousness of products and

brands is affected by their degree of

status. Status consumption influences

the desire to consume conspicuously,

therefore the more status a brand

carries, the more likely it will be used in

a conspicuous manner.

Susceptibility to reference group

influence (normative) directly relates to

an individual’s status consumption

and conspicuous consumption

tendencies. Conceptually this means

that certain status products and brands

are used for image portrayal to

provide entry into certain groups. It

would appear that the need to identify

with, or enhance, one’s image in the

opinion of significant others operates

closely with both status consumption

and conspicuous consumption. This

finding is important as both status and



conspicuous consumption require the

impact of interpersonal influence.

Consuming conspicuously cannot be

achieved without the presence of

‘others’, for instance, signalling wealth,

public demonstration and

communicating affluence to others

(Veblen, 1934) imply that ‘others’ must

observe. Shermach’s (1997) notion that

people use brands for social acceptance

is consistent with this study, showing

how group affiliation can be promoted

or identified through the use of a

particular product via susceptibility to

interpersonal influence. Similarly, the

extant literature and the results here

indicate that consumers’ desire for

conspicuous goods is determined by

their social networks and reference

group influence (Wong and Ahuvia,

1998).

The results also indicate that self-

monitoring influences the desire for

status consumption but not that for

conspicuous consumption, where a

weak direct and indirect influence on


was found. The effect of self-monitoring

on status consumption means that

status-laden products and brands are

used by self-monitors to fit into different

situations, requiring the user to display

prestige, success and status. In saying

this, however, consumers may not wish

to ostentatiously portray the products

chosen, inflate their own ego or improve

their social standing in preference to the

need to adapt and fit in to different

situations. In other words, people who

have different self-monitoring or


use products for different reasons. For

instance, the self-monitor may use

products as props to fit in (O’Cass,

2000); however, they may not want to

use products in the same way that an

individual who is interested in

conspicuously consuming that same

product may. Their motivation for using

and displaying products comes from

different desires to ‘fit in’ (self-monitor)

or inflate the ego and ostentatiously

display wealth (conspicuous

consumption consumer).

Significant gender differences were

found in the study for respondents’

tendencies to conspicuously consume,

but not in the context of status

consumption tendencies. Young males

(18–25) placed more importance on the

conspicuousness of product use. The

existence of this difference between

males and females is also consistent

with Eastman et al. (1997) and Tse et al.

(1989), who indicated that males may be

more materialistic and have a stronger

orientation towards external validation

through visually portraying prestige

and accomplishment. Males also may be

more active in processing advertising

cues, which emphasise the

conspicuousness of brands.

Alternatively, females may be rejecting

messages to ‘be noticed’ or ‘stand out’

and/or they may not be accurately

processing these cues as males do. The

authors did not find gender differences

in terms of status, however, which

highlights that males and females are

similar in their status consumption

tendencies.

Implications

As was mentioned earlier, there is a

theoretical concern over the similar

definitions provided to specify the

domain of each construct of status


consumption. After comparisons were

made, it was not unrealistic that each

theoretical definition could be applied

to both labels (status and

conspicuousness). Based on the

evidence that respondents perceive

each separately, it would be advisable

that the constructs cease being used

interchangeably, as this creates

confusion in the literature. Based on the

findings and discussion of the literature

on conspicuous consumption, it is

reasonable to infer that young males

(18–25) may place more importance on

the conspicuousness of product use.

This implies that young males (18–25)



have stronger conspicuous

consumption tendencies, also

suggesting that marketers may benefit

from emphasising the conspicuous use

of status products by males rather than

females in their promotional

campaigns.

Knowing susceptibility to

interpersonal influence is a strong

predictor of status consumption and

conspicuous consumption could lead

marketers to utilise spokespersons and

reference groups in advertising and

promotional campaigns directed at

status-conscious consumers. The groups

selected should be chosen to reflect the

salient dimensions of reference group

influence for status-seeking consumers

and those interested in conspicuously

consuming brands. It was found that the

level of perceived status significantly

influences the likelihood of a brand

being chosen by consumers for status


consumption. Therefore, if marketers

are targeting segments via appeals to

either inflate the ego, display wealth or

portray status (all tendencies of status


consumption), then it is advised that the

brand be articulated as being heavily

status-laden, ie carrying the superior

qualities and distinguishing

characteristics that make it a status

symbol. These attributes would include:

symbolic characteristics; standards of

excellence in their field; positive brand

image and identity; superior quality;

‘snob’ appeal; luxurious features;

exclusivity; being associated with the

wealthy, successful or elite; or high

priced.

When a brand gains the title of ‘status

symbol’ or even is labelled as an

aspirational, pinnacle or premium

brand, its appeal can be broad ranging

and extremely profitable for companies.

With the status market valued in

billions of dollars it could be beneficial

for companies to build brands that are

consistent with the aforementioned

benefits, qualities and image, as the

long-term benefits will exceed any

initial time and cost outlays by far.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Although use of student samples and

‘young consumers’ is limited in

representing the broader population, it

has been heavily debated that student

samples are appropriate for theory

testing (Bearden et al., 1989; Eastman et

al., 1997; O’Cass, 2000; Verlegh and

Steenkamp, 1999). In addition, a student

sample is adequate for this study, as its

objective was not to provide point and

interval estimates of population

parameters (Calder et al., 1981; Ferber,

1977). Hence, generalisation of the

specific results of this study is neither

intended nor implied, beyond those

fitting the sample’s profile. Although

limitations exist with student samples,

students have been argued to be more

fashion conscious and image orientated.

They are also prone to keeping or being

up with the latest ‘fad’ in status brands

(Beaudoin et al., 1998). While it is

evident that students are interested in

consuming and displaying status

products and brands, additional

research is recommended to compare

students against other (non-student)

segments in the population.

Another limitation was the use of four

brands from two product categories. It

is recognised that a plethora of other

product categories exist and should be

considered for future research in this

area. Just as product and brand studies

are unable to address all possible

product categories, this study is no

exception to this limitation and, in light

of this study’s findings and limitations,

future studies may consider the

expansion of the variables covered.

It is hoped that this study provides

some imputes to further research

examining the role of status


consumption in explaining consumer

behaviour. With increasing globalisation

there is a pressing need for exploration

of research across different countries, as



the same brand can be perceived to

have different meanings and values for

different nationalities. Not only do

countries differ by culture, history,

geography and language but also in the

way in which consumers perceive

products and brands (Domzal and

Unger, 1987; Quelch, 1999; Verlegh and

Steenkamp, 1999).

A parallel study to that conducted

here, might show significant differences

in perceptions and tendencies for the


consumption of different age and social

groups. Future research should also test

a different set of brand associations or

variables associated with status


consumption to examine plausible

differences and relationships. For

example, country of origin, media use,

lifestyles, values, brand personalities

and alternative consumption-relevant

concepts could all realistically be tested

to yield further insights into status


consumption. Marketing practitioners

and academics would benefit from

understanding the plethora of brand

associations that may be discovered to

be the strongest predictors of status


consumption tendencies. This may also

extend to how status drives not only

someone to seek higher position, but

also their strong desire to fit in and not

stand out.

The theoretical links between status

consumption, conspicuous consumption

and brand associations across other

products need to be investigated to

ascertain if other products and brands

are perceived to have higher status.

Lifestyle variables could also be used to

compare with individuals’ status


consumption tendencies. Kelly (1987)

suggested that experience-based status

symbols, such as cultural activities, have

replaced materially-based ones for

people aspiring to be members of the

socially elite. This services-based

comparison would be valuable future

research as services have unique

qualities that products and brands

cannot offer, such as service interaction,

experience qualities and credence

qualities (Comm and LaBay, 1996;

Proctor and Wright, 1998).

Even given the potential areas of

research outlined above, however, a

primary area relates to some deep-

rooted issues yet to be resolved in

consumer behaviour work on status and

conspicuous consumption. This relates

largely to the work of Veblen (1934) and

Bourdieu (1984) and the differing views

of the role of status, its social class versus

lifestyle aspects, its unconscious versus

conscious pursuit and how consumers

display with a conscious versus an

unconscious plan in mind. These issues

are in need of serious work, particularly

as they relate to young consumers’ use of

brands to create and confer identities,

which do not necessarily fit the high–

low status binary.

CONCLUSION

This study has provided insights into

the underlying characteristics of

consumers who seek status and

conspicuously consume brands.

Consequently, it has been revealed that

young status-conscious consumers are

more likely to be affected by

interpersonal influences. There were

indications that males are more likely

than females to engage in conspicuous

consumption, however, no differences

existed in status consumption

tendencies. This insight broadens the

theorist’s discernment of these

consumers and their behaviour towards

status brands. Young consumers are a

prime target for a plethora of products

and brands so long as they are

inherently laden with the ability to

communicate status and prestige to

others.

What this study engenders is the view

that what clothes individuals wear and

how they wear them tells much about

their status and group dynamics and it



tells even more about the role of specific

product types and brands that allow

and aid this to happen. This is

potentially the same for many other

products, such as cars, houses and

jewellery, which can be used to display

one’s status or social group

membership. The very nature of status

and conspicuous consumption appears

to be related to the benefit obtained by

an individual’s relationship with their

possessions. Thus, individuals appear to

define themselves and even others in

terms of their possessions. Possessions

serve as key symbols for personal

qualities, attachments and interests and,

as Dittmar has said: ‘. . . an individual’s

identity is influenced by the symbolic

meanings of his or her own material

possessions, and the way in which s/he

relates to those possessions‘ (1992: 205).

REFERENCESAuty, S. and Elliot, R. (1998) ‘Fashion involvement, self-

monitoring and the meaning of brands’, Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 7 (2), 109–123.

Bagwell, L. S. and Bernheim, B. D. (1996) ‘Veblen effects

in a theory of conspicuous consumption’, The American

Economic Review, 86 (3), June, 349.

Bansanko, D. (1995) ’The kinder, gentler, richer

American’, American Demographics, 17 (1), 46.

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G. and Teel, J. E. (1989)

‘Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence’,

Journal of Consumer Research, 15, March, 473–481.

Beaudoin, P., Moore, M. and Goldsmith, R. (1998) ‘Young

fashion leaders’ and followers’ attitudes toward

american and imported apparel’, Journal of Product and

Brand Management, 7 (3), 193–207.

Belk, R. W. (1978) ‘Assessing the effects of visible

consumption patterns on impression formation’,

Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 39–47.

Belk, R.W. (1988) ‘Possessions and the extended self’,

Journal of Consumer Research, 2, September, 139–168.

Bell, S. S., Holbrook, M. B. and Solomon, M. R. (1991)

‘Combining esthetic and social value to explain

preferences for product styles with incorporation of

personality and ensemble effects’, in ‘To Have

Possessions: A Handbook on Ownership and Property’,

Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6 (6), 243–247.

Bernheim, B. D. (1994) ’A theory of conformity’, Journal of

Political Economy, 102 (5), 841–877.

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the

Judgement of Taste, Routledge, London, UK.

Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W. and Tybout, A. (1981)

‘Designing research for application’, Journal of

Consumer Research, 8 (2), 197–208.

Comm, C. L. and LaBay, D. G. (1996) ‘Repositioning

colleagues using changing student quality perceptions:

An exploratory analysis’, Journal of Marketing for Higher

Education, 7 (4), 21–34.

Converse, J. and Presser, S. (1986) ‘Survey questions:

Handcrafting the standardised questionnaire’, Sage

University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in

the Social Sciences, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Dittmar, H. (1992) The Social Psychology of Material

Possessions. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead,

UK.

Domzal, T. and Unger, L. (1987) ‘Emerging positioning

strategies in global marketing’, The Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 4 (4), Fall, 23–40.

Eastman, J. K., Fredenberger, B., Campbell, D. and Calvert,

S. (1997) ‘The relationship between status consumption

andmaterialism: A cross-cultural comparison of

Chinese, Mexican and American students’, Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, 5 (1), 52–66.

Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E. and Flynn, L. R. (1999)

‘Status consumption in consumer behaviour: Scale

development and validation’, Journal of Marketing

Theory and Practice, 7 (3), 41–51.

Echikson, W. (1994) ‘The return of luxury’, Fortune, 130

(8), 17th October.

Ferber, R. (1977) ‘Research by convenience’, Journal of

Consumer Research, 4, June, 57–58.

Ferstman, C. and Weiss, Y. (1992) ‘Social status, culture

and economic performance’, Mimeo, Tel-Aviv

University, Israel.

Flynn, L. R. and Goldsmith, R. E. (1999) ‘A short, reliable

measure of subjective knowledge’, Journal of Business

Research, 46 (1), 57–66.

Fornell, C. and Cha, J. (1994) ‘Partial least squares’, in

Bagozzi, R. P. (ed.) Advanced Methods of Marketing

Research, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, UK, 58–72.

Gaski, J. (1984) ‘The theory of power and conflict in

channels of distribution’, Journal of Marketing, 48,

Summer, 9–29.

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, 309–316.

Goldsmith, R., Moore, M. and Beaudoin, P. (1999)

‘Fashion innovativeness and self-concept: A

replication’, Journal of Product and Brand Management,

8 (1), 7–18.

Gould, S. (1993) ‘Assessing self-concept discrepancy in

consumer behavior: The joint effect of private self-

consciousness and self-monitoring’, Advances in

Consumer Research, 20 (1), 419–424.

Gould, S. and Barak, B. (1988) ‘Public self-consciousness

and consumption behaviour’, Journal of Social

Psychology, 128 (3), 393–400.

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

Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 106–119.

Ireland, N. (1992) ‘On limiting the market for status

signals’, Mimeo, University of Warwick, UK, February.

Kairser, S. B. (1990) The Social Psychology of Apparel, 2nd

edn., Macmillan, New York, NY.



Kelly, R. F. (1987) ‘Museums as status symbols: Attaining

a state of having been’, in Belk, R. W. (ed.) Advances in

Nonprofit Marketing, 2nd edn, JAI Press, 1–38.

Kilsheimer, J. (1993) Status Consumption: The Development

and Implications of a Scale Measuring the Motivation to

Consume for Status, a dissertation submitted to the

Marketing Faculty at Florida State University, FL.

Levine, J. (1997) ‘Badass sells’, Forbes, 21st April.

Lim, K. and O’Cass, A. (2001) ‘Consumer brand

classifications: An assessment of culture-of-origin

versus country-of-origin’, Journal of Product and Brand

Management, 10 (2), 120–136.

Lurie, A. (1981) The Language of Clothes, Random House,

New York, NY.

Marcoux, J., Filiatrault, P. and Cheron, E. (1997) ‘The

attitudes underlying preferences of young urban

educated Polish consumers towards products made in

western countries’, Journal of International Consumer

Marketing, 9 (4), 5–29.

Mason, R. (1981) Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of

Exceptional Consumer Behaviour, St. Martin’s Press, New

York, NY.

Mason, R. (1992) Modeling the Demand for Status Goods,

Working Paper, Department of Business and

Management Studies, University of Salford,

UK.

McCraken, G. (1988) Culture and Consumption, Indiana

University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN.

O’Cass, A. (2000) ‘A psychometric evaluation of a revised

version of the Lennox and Wolfe revised self-

monitoring scale’, Psychology and Marketing, 17 (5),

397–419.

O’Cass, A. (2001) ‘Consumer self-monitoring, materialism

and involvement in fashion clothing’, Australasian

Marketing Journal, 9 (1), 46–60.

O’Shaughnessy, J. (1992) Explaining Buyer Behaviour,

Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Packard, V. (1959) The Status Seekers, David McKay, New

York, NY.

Pigou, A. (1903) ‘Some remarks on utility’, Economic

Journal, 13, March, 58–68.

Proctor, S. and Wright, G. (1998) ‘Mission impossible?

Making sense of the key debates in the services

literature’, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector

Marketing, 6 (1), 3–29.

Quelch, J. (1999) ‘Global brands: Taking stock’, Business

Strategy Review, 10 (1), 1–14.

Ram, J. (1994) ‘Luxury goods firms find a haven in Asia’,

Asian Business, 30, July, 52–53.

Shermach, K. (1997) ‘What consumers wish brand

managers knew’,Marketing News, 9th June, 31 (12).

Snyder, M. (1979) ’Self-monitoring process’, Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 86–128.

Solomon, M. (1983) ‘The role of products as social stimuli:

A symbolic interactionism perspective’, Journal of

Consumer Research, 10, 319–329.

Sullivan, L. and Harnish, R. (1990) ‘Body image:

Differences in high and low self-monitoring males

and females’, Journal of Research in Personality, 24 (3),

291–302.

Trigg, A. (2001) ‘Veblen, Bourdieu, and conspicuous

consumption’, Journal of Economic Issues, XXXV (1),

March, 99–115.

Tse, D., Belk, R. and Zhou, N. (1989) ‘Becoming a

consumer society’, Journal of Consumer Research, 15,

March, 457–472.

Underwood, E. (1994) ‘Luxury’s tide turns’, Brandweek,

7th March, 35, 18–22

Veblen, T. (1934) The Theory of the Leisure Class, Random

House, Inc., New York, NY.

Verlegh, P. and Steenkamp, J. (1999) ‘A review and meta-

analysis of country-of-origin research’, Journal of

Economic Psychology, 20 (5), 521–546.

Wold, H. (1981) ‘Model construction and evaluation

when theoretical knowledge is scarce: Theory and

application of partial least squares’, in Kmenta, J. and

Ramsey, J. (eds) Evaluation of Econometric Models,

Academic Press, New York, NY.

Wong, N. and Ahuvia, A. (1998) ‘Personal taste and

family face: Luxury consumption in confucian and

western societies’, Journal of Psychology and Marketing,

15 (5), 423–441.

Zinkhan, G. and Prenshaw, P. (1994) ‘Good life images

and brand name associations: Evidence from Asia,

America and Europe’, Advances in Consumer Research,

21 (1), 496–500.



Documents

Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous Consumption