Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 889896

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Is luxury just a female thing? The role of gender in luxury

brand consumption
Nicola E. Stokburger-Sauer 1, Karin Teichmann
University of Innsbruck, Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, Universitaetsstr. 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 June 2011
Received in revised form 1 October 2011
Accepted 1 November 2011
Available online 28 December 2011
Keywords:
Luxury brands
Brand response
Gender
Perceived value

a b s t r a c t
Despite the fact that the functional value of luxury brands is usually not signicantly higher than those of
non-luxury brands, luxury brands can achieve signicant price premiums in the market over non-luxury
brands. Additionally, in a majority of markets and product categories, the price for female luxury brands is
signicantly higher compared to their male counterparts. These differences might result from a higher
perceived symbolic and social value of such luxury brands that have traditionally been more important for
women than for men. Two experimental studies and one survey study in three product categories (i.e.,
clothing, perfumes, and wristwatches) in the Western culture show that, overall, women have a more
positive attitude toward and a higher purchase intention of luxury brands versus non-luxury brands than
men. Additionally, for female consumers, luxury brands provide more uniqueness, status and hedonic
value than non-luxury brands. Important implications for marketing theory and practice can be derived.
Marketers should use uniqueness claims in their advertising copy and differentiate in their product designs
between male and female target groups.
2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
While the global market for luxury brands faced a temporary
decline of 8% in sales revenues to 153 billion Euros in 2009 (Bain &
Company, 2009), the recent downturn in economy did not affect the
big names of the luxury brands industry. Brands such as Louis
Vuitton, Herms, and Chanel increased their sales despite the
recession (Forbes, 2009). As compared to the general downturn of
sales of up to 31% in 2009, the sales decline of luxury brands is
comparably low (Handelsblatt, 2010). Analysts base their reasoning
on the growing claim for luxury brands in emerging markets and on
the crisis-proof demand in Western nations. Interestingly, the
demand for prominent logos on products has remained stable or
even increased during the recession (Nunes, Drze, & Han, 2010).
Brand consumption, and specically luxury brand consumption,
allows consumers both to express themselves (i.e., value-expressive
function) and to present themselves (i.e., social-adjustive function)
in front of others (e.g., Dubois & Duquesne, 1993; Wilcox, Kim, &
Sen, 2009). Grossman and Shapiro (1988) dene luxury goods as
goods that people use to show prestige and status while the
difference in functional utility over other goods is largely negligible.
A luxury brand can be thought of as the most selective in its

The authors acknowledge the support in data collection by Carola Graser and Julia
Stein and thank the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments.
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +43 512 507 7085/2845.
E-mail addresses: nicola.stokburger-sauer@uibk.ac.at (N.E. Stokburger-Sauer),
karin.teichmann@uibk.ac.at (K. Teichmann).
1
Tel./fax: + 43 512 507 7081/2845.
0148-2963/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.007

distribution; the most image-driven; and the most expensive

(Kapferer and Bastien, 2009, p. 313). The perceived degree of luxury,
however, varies with product category. A luxury brand may be, for
instance, associated with the higher end of luxury in one product
category, and with the lower end of luxury in another product
category (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). As an example, consumers
might perceive Burberry more as a luxury brand for apparel and
leather goods than for perfumes. Premium pricing strategies as well
as strong quality cues are among the most important dening
characteristics of luxury brands (Keller, 2009). Interestingly, prices
for female luxury brands are in most cases signicantly higher than
for male luxury brands. As Table 1 shows, a Boss Black suit for men
costs around 400 Euros (retail prices in the German market), while
that for women costs around 510 Euros, a difference of more than
25%. Table 1 shows additional examples in the product domains of
perfumes, leather goods, and watches that show a similar pattern.
The market, however, also provides (a few) examples of brands
(e.g., Rolex watches), where the male product is more expensive
than the female product. Nevertheless, the question arises why prices
for female luxury brands usually are signicantly higher than prices
for male luxury brands. Does a gender effect exist?
Research on gender differences in consumption generally states
that the different life orientations of men and women inuence
their consumer behavior. While men strongly follow agentic goals,
that are, life goals directed toward task-oriented thinking and
performance-motivated acting, women more strongly follow communal goals, that are, life goals directed toward social and emotional
relationships with others (e.g., Meyers-Levy, 1988; Prakash, 1992).
Research, however, has also recognized the fact that gender roles

890

N.E. Stokburger-Sauer, K. Teichmann / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 889896

Table 1
Price premiums of luxury brands for female versus male products.
Product category

Brand and product

Price (in Euros) for male product

Price (in Euros) for female product

Clothing

Boss Black suit

Burberry coat
Strenesse Gabriele Strehle suit
Davidoff Cool Water
Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue
Givenchy Very Irresistible
Armani (wallet, leather with logo)
Furla (wallet, veal leather)
Joop (wallet, nappa leather)
Prada
Burberry
Ebel
Longines

399 (standard suit)

595 (peacot)
429599 (standard suit)
45 (size: 75 ml)
55 (size: 75 ml)
50 (size: 50 ml)
143
80
139
230 (1 M0204-UZF)
325 (Check watch)
1640 (Classic Gent)
1490 (Master Collection)

508 (standard suit)

1,495 (peacot)
748928 (standard suit)
45 (size: 50 ml)
59 (size: 50 ml)
63 (size: 50 ml)
190
125
159
295 (1 M0176-UZF)
395 (Check watch)
2160 (Classic Lady)
1990 (Master Collection)

Perfumes

Wallets

Watches

are becoming increasingly blurred. More precisely, research on the

dynamics of sex typing shows that women possess more male traits
and that it is more accepted for men to adopt female traits than vice
versa (for an overview please refer to Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, &
Lueptow, 2001). Twenge (1997), for instance, shows that keeping
the degree of masculinity in Western cultures constant, the degree
of femininity has increased over the years. Still, gender roles are
deeply anchored in society, and one could expect that the price
premiums for female luxury brands compared to male luxury brands
results from the stronger social orientation of women.
While some studies shed light into luxury brand consumption,
they have neglected the role of gender in this context. Traditionally,
marketing research on luxury goods and brands concentrates on
managerial aspects, and thus on drivers of luxury good consumption.
Among these, researchers investigate income and cultural aspects
(e.g., Dubois & Duquesne, 1993), attitudes (e.g., Dubois, Czellar, &
Laurent, 2005), perceived exclusivity (e.g., Catry, 2003), conspicuousness and status (e.g., Han, Nunes, & Drze, 2010), prestige (e.g.,
Vigneron & Johnson, 1999), and values (e.g., Wiedmann, Hennigs, &
Siebels, 2009) as inuencing factors.
So far, little is known about the role of gender for luxury brand
consumption. Given that the market for luxury brands has shown
an extreme growth over the last decades and is quite resistant to
economic downturns, insights into market responses toward luxury
brands as well as the role of gender in this relationship are very
important. A rst objective of this study is thus to investigate
consumers' luxury brand response (i.e., brand attitude and purchase
intention) with a special focus on gender and the consumer's need
for uniqueness. A second goal is to analyze customers' value perceptions associated with luxury brands. Specically, this study investigates the potential of luxury brands to evoke higher perceptions of
uniqueness, status, and hedonic value over non-luxury brands and
the role of gender in this relationship.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next
section presents the theoretical framework and introduces study
hypotheses. The subsequent sections describe the research methods
and results of three studies. The paper concludes with a discussion
of general ndings, management implications as well as limitations
and directions for further research.
2. Theoretical framework
Theory and empirical evidence have traditionally suggested gender
differences in judgment and decision making with a special emphasis
put on issues of interdependence (females) versus independence
(males) (Meyers-Levy, 1988). Social gender role designs reect two opposite basic orientations of women and men. Women often dene their
identity in accordance with their environment and through interaction
with other individuals while men generally show an individualistic
character of autonomy and independence (Prakash, 1992).

Kapferer (2010) believes that mating dominates today's society.

People tend to marry later and thus they have both more funds for
self-pleasure and more time searching for potential partners.
Evolutionary and socio-cultural theories of mate selection posit
gender differences in that men and women use different cues to
select their mates for successful reproduction. These cues differ for
both sexes as historically, the selection criteria for reproductive
investment have been different for females and males (De Block &
Dewitte, 2007). Women typically use earning power and status as
cues to evaluate the reproductive value of a man. Griskevicius et al.
(2007) nd empirical evidence for the relationship between mating
motives and men's conspicuous consumption. Men are more likely
to engage in conspicuous consumption than women to show
economic achievement and eventually attract a potential mate. In
contrast to that, the reproductive success of women is less straightforward. More specically, men evaluate women based on their
physical attractiveness thus relying on indirect cues such as beauty.
Interestingly, research shows that these evaluative cues are not a
phenomenon specic to a certain culture but universal (Buss, 1989).
Research in social psychology documents that women's physical
attractiveness plays an important role in social behavior. Different
studies show that men are more responsive to women's physical
appearance than the other way around (Feingold, 1990). Thus, men
evaluate women based on how good-looking they are. Obviously, a
person's attractiveness mainly depends on individual preferences.
Specic physical criteria (e.g., facial features or waist-to-hip ratio)
exist which serve as general indicators for beauty. Most importantly,
the perception of beauty also involves the overall picture of a person
that includes clothing and fashion (Singh, 1993).
While men predominantly consume conspicuously and thus use
luxury products and brands to visually portray economic achievement and accomplishment (O'Cass & McEwen, 2004), to women
other aspects of luxury brand consumption seem to be more important. Wiedmann et al. (2009) report that women value a multitude
of aspects when purchasing luxury brands. More specically, female
consumers dominate segments that represent quality, uniqueness
and social value as primary drivers for luxury brand consumption.
As women are more responsive to different kinds of values which
luxury brands confer to their owners, they should have a more positive attitude toward luxury brands than men. This proposition should
be especially true with regard to product categories that help to
express the self and present one's identity such as fashion including
accessories, watches, and perfumes (e.g., Amaldoss and Jain, 2005):
H1. Women have a more positive attitude toward luxury brands than
men.
Research nds that some consumers use the price of a product
as an indicator for product quality (Snyder & DeBono, 1985).
Beyond that, price can emphasize a product's or a brand's prestige

N.E. Stokburger-Sauer, K. Teichmann / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 889896

(Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993). While more than a century ago, Veblen (1994, orig. 1899) developed a theory according to
which wealthy people display their wealth using high-priced products, this observation does not seem to be contemporary any longer.
Nowadays, new luxury brands have changed the traditional luxury
market (e.g., Huang & Rust, 2008). More and more middle-class consumers are open to pay a premium price for higher quality and more
prestige (Silverstein and Fiske, 2003). Consumers use high selling
prices as cues for a product's exclusivity (Catry, 2003). Nevertheless,
despite the extant literature on premium pricing of luxury brands, little empirical evidence exists on why prices for female luxury brands
are signicantly higher than prices for male luxury brands. In line
with evolution-based theories discussed above, women address
higher importance to their physical appearance and consequently
should have a higher preference for luxury brands than men:
H2. For women a stronger relationship exists between the perceived
exclusivity of a brand and (a) the attitude toward the brand as well as
(b) the purchase intention of the brand than for men.
The theory of uniqueness (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977) posits that
individuals develop a need to differentiate themselves from others
in situations where they perceive too much similarity in their social
environments. In doing so, individuals feel their self-perceived
uniqueness threatened and reclaim their uniqueness by intended
self-distinguishing behaviors. Snyder and DeBono (1985) suggest
that consumers who nd themselves in such a situation strongly
value material possessions because material possession attachment
implies less social risk than other means of self-expression. Tian,
Bearden, and Hunter (2001) derive the concept of consumer's need
for uniqueness based on the theory of uniqueness. A consumer's
need for uniqueness is the trait of pursuing differentness relative to
others through the acquisition, utilization, and disposition of consumer goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing one's selfimage and social image (p. 52). The need for uniqueness, however,
varies with culture. While Western cultures are more individualistic,
Eastern cultures are more collectivistic (e.g., Hofstede, 2001). This
study investigates consumers in a Western culture, and thus, the following reasoning might not apply for individuals in Eastern cultures.
Traditionally, scarcity relates inversely to preference. More significantly, research asserts that consumers prefer rare and exclusive
brands over brands that are available to the mass of consumers
(Verhallen & Robben, 1994). As luxury brands are both exclusive
and rare in a way that they traditionally involve high nancial efforts,
a consumer's need for uniqueness (CNFU) should have a moderating
effect on the relationship between perceived exclusivity and brand
preference:
H3. The higher a consumer's NFU, the stronger the relationship
between the perceived exclusivity of a brand and (a) the attitude
toward the brand and (b) the purchase intention of the brand.
Luxury brands are usually better in delivering subjective intangible benets to consumers beyond their functional benets than
non-luxury brands (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). Vigneron and
Johnson (2004) propose ve different types of value luxury brands
can provide to consumers: conspicuousness, uniqueness, quality,
hedonic value, and extended self value. Wiedmann et al. (2009)
derive four dimensions of consumer perceived luxury brand values.
Among these are nancial, functional, individual, and social aspects
of luxury value. Drawing on both frameworks, this study investigates
a selection of three non-functional personal value perceptions of
luxury brand consumption that are often associated with luxury
brands. Thus, the study examines whether luxury brands deliver
more uniqueness, status, and hedonic value to consumers than nonluxury brands. Further, following the reasoning provided above, a

891

gender effect is proposed between brand exclusivity and the value

dimensions:
H4. For women a stronger relationship exists between the exclusivity
of a brand and the perceived (a) uniqueness value, (b) status value,
and (c) hedonic value than for men.
Research in consumer behavior has long recognized the fact that
individuals consume certain products in order to enhance and communicate their identities (Belk, 1988). According to Vickers and
Renand (2003), consumers use luxury goods as symbols of individual
and social identity. In doing so, the consumption of luxury goods can
associate the consumer with a desired group or role (Bhat & Reddy,
1998). Individuals particularly use brands and brand consumption
as cues for their identication process (e.g., Stokburger-Sauer,
2010). Thus, research on the driving role of self-enhancement in a
consumer's afnity toward a brand (e.g., Rindeisch, Burroughs, &
Wong, 2009) as well as that on consumer-company identication
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) would suggest a brand's perceived
uniqueness and status value as antecedents to consumer-brand identication. Additionally, research ascribes emotions an important role
in the construction of consumption-based identities (e.g., Laverie,
Kleine, & Schultz Kleine, 2002), and thus, a brand's perceived hedonic
value should foster identication processes. The following hypothesis
is proposed:
H5. The higher the perceived (a) uniqueness value, (b) status value,
and (c) hedonic value, the higher the consumer's identication with
a brand.
Due to its potential as one of the most important drivers of economic company success, extant literature exists on consumer brand
loyalty as well as its antecedents (e.g., Bloemer & Kasper, 1995). The
study by Stokburger-Sauer (2010) provides empirical evidence for a
strong connection between identication and loyalty. Following this,
this study proposes:
H6. The higher a consumer's identication with a brand, the higher
his or her brand loyalty.
3. Study 1
The purpose of study 1 is to test H1 which suggests that women
have a more positive attitude toward luxury brands than men.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Pretest
To select an adequate luxury brand for study 1, a pretest with ftyfour respondents (55.3% female, average age = 25.7) is conducted.
Research suggests that Armani is one of the luxury brands with the
highest unaided awareness (Dubois & Paternault, 1995), and the
results of the pretest show that women as well as men perceive the
brand Giorgio Armani as neutral to both genders. Additionally, results show that fashion as a product category is not gender-specic.
Thus, the main study includes the luxury brand Giorgio Armani as
stimulus in the fashion domain. The pretest further ensures a proper
questionnaire design and proper formulation of questions.
3.1.2. Participants and design
A total of 557 respondents (52.1% females) participated in the
online study. The average age of respondents is 27.4 years and
51.5% are students. German consumers were selected as study participants since Germany's distribution of roles between the genders is
fairly average for a Western culture society. In Hofstede's (2001)
MAS (masculinity)-dimension, Germany has a value of 66, which is

892

N.E. Stokburger-Sauer, K. Teichmann / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 889896

similar to that of the U.S. (MAS = 62) and the U.K. (MAS = 66), but
higher to Denmark (MAS = 16) and lower to Austria (MAS = 79)
(with the latter indicating a greater gap between the values of men
and women). Participants responded to an actual black-and-white
Giorgio Armani advertisement as a stimulus for luxury brands. The
copy with the female model shows a woman's back view with the
woman standing with her hands on her hips leaning against a wall.
She is holding a striped handbag in her right hand and is wearing a
long dress with loose straps on her back. The copy with the male
model shows a man's front view with a man standing on a staircase
having his left leg on the upper step. He is wearing a suit with a
striped jacket, as well as a tie and shirt with dark triangles. Respondents randomly received one of the two different ads (male vs. female
model).
3.1.3. Procedure and measures
First, study participants answered questions with regard to their
product category (fashion) involvement and their attitudes toward
the brand (Giorgio Armani; Abpre). In terms of pre-existing attitudes
(Abpre), research suggests to include these in order to control for
individual differences in brand evaluations (Shine, Park, & Wyer,
2007). Then, they were exposed to the randomly assigned
advertisement for 15 s. After inspecting the ad, they answered
questions concerning attitude toward the ad (Aad) and attitude
toward the brand (Abpost). Finally, participants responded to some
socio-demographic questions.
The work by Stayman and Bartra (1991), as well as Meyers-Levy
and Peracchio (1995) provides the basis for scale items to assess
respondents' attitude toward the brand. A ve-point semantic differential scale with six items measures attitude toward the brand (e.g.,
The brand Giorgio Armani is boring/exciting; M = 3.7, = .86).
Four items measure attitude toward the ad (e.g., The ad is unappealing/appealing; M = 2.8, = .83) using ve-point semantic differential
scale based on Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) as well as Baker
and Churchill (1977). The study by Zaichkowsky (1985) provides the
basis for measuring product category involvement using three items
and a ve-point semantic differential scale. A binary variable serves
to measure gender (0 = male, 1 = female).
3.2. Results and discussion of study 1
The results of a series of ANOVAs using Abpost as the dependent
and gender as independent variable with Aad, Abpre, and product
category involvement as covariates are the following. Gender has a
signicant effect on Abpost (F(1, 531) = 5.26, p b .05) with mean
values for women being higher than those for men (Mwomen = 3.7,
Mmen = 3.5). Not surprisingly, Aad (F(1, 531) = 41.86, p b .01), Abpre
(F(1, 531) = 1,091.29, p b .01), and product category involvement
(F(1, 531) = 5.73, p b .05) all show signicant effects on Abpost.
Results reveal signicant differences in the attitudinal marketing
response of women and men in this study context. In line with H1,
the women in study 1 have a more positive attitude toward the
luxury brand than the men in study 1.
4. Study 2
The purpose of study 2 is to test H2 and H3 that relate to the
difference between brand exclusivity (luxury versus non-luxury
brand) and brand preference in terms of attitude toward the brand
(Abpost) and purchase intention (PI). The analysis uses gender as
interaction term on this relationship as the results of study 1 show
that women have a more positive attitude toward luxury brands
than men. In addition, the analysis includes the consumer's need for
uniqueness as relevant variable. Control variables are pre-existing
attitudes (Abpre), attitude toward the ad (Aad) and product category

involvement. An additional interaction effect tests the relationship

between involvement and brand exclusivity on brand preference.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Pretest
Prior to study 2, two pretests are conducted with each pretest
consisting of forty-one respondents (pretest 1: 48.8% females, average
age = 24.3, pretest 2: 43.9% females, average age = 23.8). The pretests'
objectives are to select adequate stimuli for this study. The rst pretest
involves ten brands in ve different product categories (i.e., one
luxury and one non-luxury brand for each product category). One
item (I know brand X) assesses respondents' brand awareness and
four items measure perceived brand exclusivity. Of the latter four,
two items measure perceived brand exclusivity (From my point of
view, brand X is a luxury brand and In comparison to brand Y,
brand X is a luxury brand). The brand luxury index provides the
basis for the other two items (i.e., conspicuous vs. noticeable and
elitist vs. popular) (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). The results of the
pretest reveal that the product categories of furniture (i.e., Ligne
Ros vs. Ikea), writing utensils (i.e., Cartier vs. Pelikan) and cars (i.e.,
Aston Martin vs. Nissan) need to be dropped due to non-signicant
results concerning brand exclusivity. Thus, study 2 includes the
other two product categories: perfumes (i.e., Dolce & Gabbana vs.
s.Oliver) and wristwatches (i.e., Emporio Armani vs. Esprit). The
second pretest examines the gender of both the product categories
and the brands based on the work by Fugate and Phillips (2010). The
results show that respondents perceive Dolce & Gabbana and s.Oliver,
as well as Emporio Armani and Esprit as androgynous brands in the selected product categories. Additionally, results show that respondents
perceive perfumes as female and wristwatches as male products.
While respondents know both the product categories and the brands
well, signicant differences exist between the rst and the second
brand in each product category with respect to brand exclusivity.
4.1.2. Participants and design
A total of 350 (44.6% females) undergraduate students from a
mid-size German university participated in the online-study. The
average age of the respondents is 21.6 years. This study follows a
mixed-within-and-between subjects design. The experimental stimuli contain two actual ads of Emporio Armani and Dolce & Gabbana
that are used in its original form for the luxury brand treatment and
manipulated when serving as stimuli for non-luxury brands. The
manipulation of the original ads involves the digital replacement of
the logos of Emporio Armani and Dolce & Gabbana with the two
logos of the non-luxury brands Esprit and s.Oliver, respectively.
Specically, the stimuli are two half-page black-and-white advertisements. The stimulus for perfumes shows a man and a woman dressed
in underwear and tightly embraced with the man kissing the
woman's neck. The lower right-hand corner presents the male and
female fragrance bottles. The ad for watches shows two similar
watches (a bigger male and a smaller female one) with dark,
rectangular clock-faces and metal watchbands. In both ad copies the
male and female products are pictured.
4.1.3. Procedure and measures
Each study participant was either treated to the luxury or the nonluxury brand stimulus of the two product domains. The online survey
randomly assigned the order of the product categories to avoid order
effects. Before each ad stimulus, respondents indicated their product
category involvement and attitude toward the brand (Abpre). After
each ad stimulus, participants indicated their attitude toward the ad
(Aad) and attitude toward the brand (Abpost). Study 2 uses the
same scales as study 1 to measure respondents' Abpre, Abpost, Aad,
and product category involvement. Then, respondents indicated
their consumer's need for uniqueness (CNFU) using the scale

N.E. Stokburger-Sauer, K. Teichmann / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 889896

Table 2
Psychometric properties of measures and intercorrelations of study 2.
Perfumes

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

CNFU
Involvement
Aad
Abpre
Abpost
PI

Table 3
Study 2 attitude toward the brand and purchase intention.

Watches

Perfumes

SD

AVE

SD

AVE

2.6
3.9
3.2
3.4
3.4
2.7

.63
.85
.84
.85
.82
1.39

.93
.87
.77
.82
.92
n.s.

.61
.72
.59
.62
.72
n.s.

2.6
3.4
2.6
3.6
3.4
2.6

.63
.90
.83
.76
.80
1.35

.93
.82
.79
.85
.91
n.s.

.61
.65
.61
.62
.69
n.s.

Correlations
Perfumes

Watches
1

1. Brand
exclusivity
2. Gender
3. CNFU
4. Involvement
5. Aad
6. Abpre
7. Abpost
8. PI

.12
.05
.03n.s.
.01
.28
.28
.23

1
.11
.22
.15
.14
.16
.07

.11
1
.02
.03
.06
.08
.01

.07
.04
1
.20
.16
.17
.07

.19
.09
.22
1
.34
.47
.29

.22
.12
.21
.30
1
.86
.53

893

.20
.14
.22
.41
.79
1
.58

.34
.03
.13
.29
.47
.53
1

Note: The lower triangle shows correlations for the product category of perfumes and
the upper shows correlations for the product category of wristwatches; CNFU =
consumer's need for uniqueness, Aad = attitude toward the ad, Abpre = attitude
toward the brand before treatment, Abpost = attitude toward the brand after
treatment, PI = purchase intention; M = mean, SD = standard deviation, =
Cronbach's alpha, AVE = average variance extracted.
Signicant at p b .05 (two-tailed).
Signicant at p b .01 (two-tailed).

developed by Tian et al. (2001) and nally answered some sociodemographic questions. As in study 1, a dichotomous variable
measures gender (0 = male, 1 = female). Finally, participants had to
imagine the scenario that they had won in a lottery with the prize
being a luxury brand of their choice in the relevant product category.
They then indicated how likely they would decide for the specic
luxury brand if they could choose among other luxury brands also.
This lottery task is a proxy to assess brand purchase intention (PI)
considering the fact that the study involves a student sample, and
thus controlling for nancial constraints. Table 2 presents the psychometric properties of the applied scales and their intercorrelations.
4.2. Results and discussion of study 2
In order to validate the ndings from study 1, study 2 also investigates gender differences concerning attitude toward a luxury brand.
As the results show for perfumes, women have more positive
attitudes toward luxury brands (Abpre and Abpost) than men
(Mwomen = 3.9, Mmen = 3.5, p b .01 and Mwomen = 4.0, Mmen = 3.5,
p b .01) as well as a higher PI than men (Mwomen = 3.4, Mmen = 2.7,
p b .01). The results for wristwatches are similar: Women have more
positive attitudes toward luxury brands (Abpre and Abpost) than
men (Mwomen = 3.9, Mmen = 3.5, p b .01 and Mwomen = 3.3, Mmen =
3.6, p b .05) as well as a higher PI than men (Mwomen = 2.2,
Mmen = 3.2, p b .01). Therefore, H1 is supported by study 2 also. The
regression results to test for H2 and H3 reveal different patterns for
the two product categories (i.e., perfumes and watches). The regression analysis includes four regressions for each of the two product
categories (i.e., perfumes and watches) with Abpost and PI as dependent variables (see Table 3).
Regressions I (i.e., the rst columns with Abpost and PI for
perfumes and watches, respectively) integrate Abpre, Aad, and
involvement as control variables. Regressions II (i.e., the second
columns) present alternative models with the eliminated Abpre as
control variable due to its extremely high correlation with the dependent variables. For perfumes, results show a moderate signicant

Abpost
I
Independent variables:
Brand exclusivity
(luxury)
Gender (female)
Brand exclusivity
gender
CNFU
Brand
exclusivity CNFU
Control variables:
Abpre
Aad
Involvement
Adjusted R2

Watches
PI

II

.10 .29

Abpost

II

.12
.00
.08

.03
.05

.11
.09

.04
.06

.10 .00
.15 .11

.74
.22
.02
.79

n.s.
.46
.04
.36

.43
.16
.04
.34

PI
II

II

.23 .01

.07

.04

.01

.05
.11

.15
.04

.23 .31
.03
.05

.00
.06

.04 .04 .10 .04

.15 .01
.11
.09

n.s.
.30
.01
.20

.72
.17
.05
.67

n.s.
.34
.15
.24

.38
.14
.03
.31

.02
.15

n.s.
.24
.08
.21

Note: All numerical values refer to standardized regression coefcients. All

independent and control variables are mean-centered in the regressions; CNFU =
consumer's need for uniqueness, Aad = attitude toward the ad, Abpre = attitude
toward the brand before treatment, Abpost = attitude toward the brand after
treatment, PI = purchase intention.

Signicant at p b .10 (two-tailed).

Signicant at p b .05 (two-tailed).
Signicant at p b .01 (two-tailed).

interaction effect of brand exclusivity and gender ( = .05 for Abpost

and = .08 for PI, both p b .10). This effect becomes stronger if Abpre
is eliminated as control. More specically, as H2 predicts, for women
a slightly stronger relationship exists between the perceived exclusivity of a brand and the brand preference than for men. In the case of
watches, women show only a slightly higher Abpost than men
( = .06, p b .10), but no other signicant effects emerge (H2
rejected).
In terms of the interaction between brand exclusivity and CNFU
(H3), a moderate and signicant effect exists on both Abpost and PI
in the perfumes domain ( = .06 and .15 for Abpost and = .11 and
.15 for PI, all p b .05). The category of watches reveal a similar pattern,
yet with less strong effects ( = .01 n.s. and .11 for Abpost; = .09
and .15 for PI; all other p b .05). To sum up, consistent with H3, moderate, but overall signicant effects exist for both product categories
in the studied research context. Thus, the higher the CNFU, the stronger the relationship between the perceived exclusivity of a brand and
the attitude toward the brand, and the purchase intention of the
brand.
5. Study 3
Studies 1 and 2 reveal that women value luxury brands more than
men. Additionally, study 2 shows that in some product categories
(i.e., perfumes) a stronger relationship exists between brand exclusivity and attitude toward the brand (Ab) for females. Thus, the purpose of study 3 is to explore why consumers have a more positive
Ab toward luxury brands, and if a gender effect exists. Study 3 involves both luxury brand and non-luxury brand purchasers. This
study uses clothing as a product category as the results from study
1 show that clothing is relevant to both males and females. Study 3
applies a cross-sectional survey design.
5.1. Method
5.1.1. Pretest
A pretest with 15 respondents (40% females, average age = 23.2)
ensures proper questionnaire design with minor changes in wording
of the questions.

894

N.E. Stokburger-Sauer, K. Teichmann / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 889896

5.1.2. Participants and design

To achieve high external validity, actual buyers of luxury and nonluxury clothing brands were part of the survey which was conducted
in Germany. A total of 300 (56.0% females) respondents participated
in the study. The average age of respondents is 40.1 years and 42.7%
are employees. The genders are not different with respect to their education (t = .06, p > .95), job position (t = .15, p > .88), and monthly
income (t = .67, p > .51). Again, results of a t-test on product category involvement reveal no signicant differences between females
and males concerning involvement in clothing (Mfemale = 4.1,
Mmale = 3.8, t = 1.40, p > .16). Respondents rst indicated the clothing
brand that they liked to wear most (i.e., their favorite clothing brand).
Then, two independent coders classied these brands into two categories (i.e., luxury brands coded with 1 vs. non-luxury brands
coded with 0). The coding resulted in 99.5% agreement; discussions
among the coders and a third researcher resolved disagreements.
Overall, 82.3% of all respondents select a non-luxury brand as their
favorite brand, while the rest (17.7%) chooses a luxury brand.
Concerning gender differences, 15.5% of the female and 20.5% of the
male respondents name luxury brands as their favorite brands. The
two groups (i.e., luxury vs. non-luxury) are not different with respect
to their age (t = .10, p > .92) and gender (t = 1.12, p > .26) but with
respect to monthly income (t = 2.74, p b .01).

5.1.3. Procedure and measures

The work by Laurent and Kapferer (1985) and Holt (1998)
provides the basis for measuring uniqueness value by three items
(e.g., I pursue individuality through clothing). The measures for
status value (e.g., My fondness for clothing makes me feel independent and self-sufcient.) and hedonic value (e.g., Clothing is an expression of my sensibilities for esthetics and style.) include two
items each which are based on Holt (1998) as well as Schultz
Kleine, Kleine, and Allen (1995). Five items developed by
Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, Sen, and Bauer (2007) measure
consumer-brand identication (e.g., Brand X and I have a lot in common.) and two items adapted from the study by Aaker, Fournier, and
Brasel (2004) measure consumer brand loyalty (e.g., I am loyal to
brand X.). Rating scales serve to measure all latent constructs
(from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) and two dichotomous variables measure gender (0 = male, 1 = female) as well as
brand exclusivity (0 = non-luxury brand, 1 = luxury brand). Table 4
presents the psychometric properties of the applied scales and their
intercorrelations.

5.2. Results and discussion of study 3

To evaluate H4 to H6, the study applies SEM using LISREL 8.7. The
model is established without any restrictions and the global ts are
satisfactory: Satorra Bentler adjusted- 2 = 471.31, degrees of freedom = 106, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .942, Normed Fit Index
(NFI) = .927, Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = .926. Although the value
for Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation is slightly higher
than the acceptable threshold of 0.10 (RMSEA = .107), research suggests to not rely on a t index in isolation, but argues for the interpretation of combinations of indexes (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; McQuitty,
2004). All constructs show discriminant validity using the tests
recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Fig. 1 displays the standardized path coefcients.
The model provides strong support for the inuence of gender on
the perceived value dimensions. While brand exclusivity (i.e., if a
brand is a luxury brand or not) has no direct effect on value, its interaction with gender has a signicant effect on the three value dimensions. More specically, for females a stronger relationship exists
between luxury brands and the perceived uniqueness value
( = .50, p b .01), status value ( = .37, p b .01), and hedonic value
( = .55, p b .01) than for males. Thus, this study supports H4 in the
researched context. Furthermore, results show that uniqueness
value ( = .34, p b .01) and status value ( = .37, p b .01) strongly relate to consumer-brand identication while hedonic value relates
less strongly, but also positively to consumer-brand identication
( = .09, p b .10). Therefore, this study supports H5 in the researched
context. Regarding the inuence of consumer-brand identication
on brand loyalty (H6), results provide strong evidence for this effect
( = .52, p b .001). Overall, the model provides a good explanation
for consumer-brand identication (R = .29) and for brand loyalty
(R = .27), and an acceptable explanation for the three value dimensions (R from .06 to .14).
6. Discussion
6.1. Summary and implications
The need for research in order to better understand the role of
gender on consumer's response toward luxury brands motivated
this paper. As previous literature shows, women are generally
described as more interdependent and more concerned with the
opinion of others than men (Meyers-Levy, 1988). Evolutionary and
socio-cultural theories posit gender differences in conspicuous

Table 4
Psychometric properties of measures and intercorrelations of study 3.

Uniqueness value
Status value
Hedonic value
Consumer-brand identication
Consumer brand loyalty

1. Brand exclusivity
2. Gender
3. Brand exclusivity gender
4. Uniqueness value
5. Status value
6. Hedonic value
7. Consumer-brand identication
8. Consumer brand loyalty

SD

AVE

3.8
2.6
4.2
3.3
3.0

1.57
1.45
1.65
1.71
1.58

.81
.73
.77
.95
.74

.73
.79
.82
.84
.79

1
.07
.07
.16
.14
.26
.19
.16

1
.02
.21
.14
.20
.16
.08

1
.03
.06
.08
.04
.04

1
.62
.73
.52
.33

1
.61
.51
.37

1
.45
.33

1
.49

Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, = Cronbach's alpha, AVE = average variance extracted.
Signicant at p b .05 (two-tailed).
Signicant at p b .01 (two-tailed).

N.E. Stokburger-Sauer, K. Teichmann / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 889896

895

-.21

Brand exclusivity
(luxury )

Uniqueness value
-.23
-.38

.34**

.42*

Sex (female)

Status value

.45*

.37**

Consumer-brand
identification

.52**

Consumer brand
loyalty

.73**
.09

.50**
.37**

Brand exclusivity
x sex

Hedonic value
.55**

NOTE: significant at p<.10, * significant at p<.05, ** significant at p<.01.

Fig. 1. Study 3 structural equation modeling results. Note: signicant at p b .10, * signicant at p b .05, ** signicant at p b .01.

consumption behavior. For instance, in a mating context, men are

more concerned with the visual portrayal of economic achievement
than women (Griskevicius et al., 2007). Women in general, however,
attach more importance to their physical appearance (Buss, 1989). In
doing so, they use clothing and fashion as a means to support their
attractiveness (Singh, 1993). The present research supports these
ndings and shows that women's attitude toward luxury brands is
more positive than men's attitude toward luxury brands.
Aside from the clothing context, the results of this study show that
women also have more positive attitudes toward luxury brands than
men considering the product categories of perfumes and wristwatches. Results, however, are inconsistent when comparing the attitude toward luxury brands and non-luxury brands. While consumers
have a stronger positive attitude toward luxury brands than toward
non-luxury brands when considering perfumes, the difference in attitudes between luxury and non-luxury brands for wristwatches is not
signicant. In addition, this research reveals that consumers respond
differently when considering the role of gender and need for uniqueness as moderating effects for the relationship between brand exclusivity and purchase intention. While attitude toward the ad and the
interaction between brand exclusivity and need for uniqueness
show a consistent pattern in terms of their inuence on purchase intention, the ndings for gender and exclusiveness are less consistent
for the two product categories. One reason for these inconsistent
results may lie in the product category's perceived gender. As the
pretest revealed, respondents perceive perfumes as female and
wristwatches as male products. The stimuli used in study 2 provide
another explanation for this inconsistency. Consumers might only
perceive minor differences in product quality of non-luxury brand
perfumes compared to luxury brand perfumes. For watches, however,
consumers might anticipate a bigger difference in product quality between luxury brands and non-luxury brands. 2 This assumption could
explain the results with regard to why consumers can have positive
attitudes toward both non-luxury and luxury brands while these positive attitudes do not necessarily translate into purchase intention.
Literature shows that consumers associate superior hedonic and
symbolic value with luxury brands (e.g., Vigneron & Johnson, 2004).
This research, however, reveals that luxury brands do not deliver
more value to consumers than non-luxury brands when considering
the luxury aspect alone in a gender-neutral product category (i.e.,
clothing). Only for female consumers, luxury brands provide more
uniqueness, status and hedonic value than non-luxury brands.

We thank one of the reviewers for this invaluable comment.

While extant literature focuses on the drivers of purchasing luxury

goods, this research also includes outcomes of luxury brand
consumption. More specically, the results show that uniqueness
and status value are relevant antecedents of consumer-brand identication. Thus, the perception of specic values which luxury brands
can confer, inuences the degree to which a consumer perceives similarity between the brand and him-or herself. If a consumer identies
with a brand, this identication manifests in his or her loyalty toward
the brand.
To conclude, this research shows that women differ from men in
their response toward luxury brands. Overall, in the three product
categories studied (i.e., clothing, perfumes, wristwatches), women
have more positive attitudes toward luxury brands than men and
are thus a valuable target segment. Marketers of luxury brands should
be aware that women value a multitude of aspects when purchasing
luxury brands as they care more about the quality, uniqueness and
social value of luxury products than men (Wiedmann et al., 2009).
In line with these ndings, the present research reveals that women
are also more responsive to the uniqueness, hedonic, and status
value of luxury brands. Marketers should thus base their strategies
on the values different consumer segments seek from luxury brand
consumption in order to increase purchase value. Brand exclusivity
alone, however, does not automatically turn luxury brands into
more favored ones than non-luxury brands. Therefore, marketers
are well advised to take these results with regard to gender and consumer's need for uniqueness into consideration, and, additionally use
uniqueness, status and hedonic claims in their marketing communications. Finally, marketers need to be aware that the product category
is of paramount importance for a consumer's brand response and, in
the end, for her purchase intention.
6.2. Limitations and further research
Although this research makes important contributions to the
understanding of the role of gender in luxury brand consumption,
the study entails several limitations. First, the study only involves
respondents from Germany. Results might be different taking other
countries and cultures into consideration. Need for uniqueness,
might, for instance, be a typical trait of consumers from Western
countries while consumers from emerging markets or Eastern cultures might seek other values from luxury brand consumption. Future
research should thus explore if the ndings of this paper also apply to
other geographic (e.g., Kempen van, 2004) and cultural contexts.
Second, study 2 uses a pure student sample which causes problems
of external validity of results. Although the use of a lottery task

896

N.E. Stokburger-Sauer, K. Teichmann / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 889896

compensates for nancial constraints to some degree, the use of this

sample might still challenge external validity in the context of luxury
brand consumption. Third, this research focuses on certain product
categories such as clothing, perfumes, and wristwatches as well as
selected brands. Further research should involve additional product
categories such as consumer electronics, or include luxury brand
services. In such a context, the role of gender would be worth
researching. Additionally, future studies could involve stimuli from
product presentations of non-luxury brands and use these as a basis
for tagging luxury brand logos on them. Finally, future research
should also examine if the suggested effects are dependent on the
perceived gender of products.
References
Aaker J, Fournier S, Brasel SA. When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research
2004;31:1-16.
Amaldoss W, Jain S. Pricing of conspicuous goods: a competitive analysis of social effects.
Journal of Marketing Research 2005;42(1):3042.
Bain & Company. Strength by luxury goods shoppers in Asia and online bring glimmers
of hope to beleaguered industry. http://www.bain.com/bainweb/About/press_
release_detail.asp?id=27294&menu_url=for_the_media.asp. 2009. [accessed on
10th November 2010].
Baker MJ, Churchill GA. The impact of physically attractive models in advertising
evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research 1977;14(4):53855.
Belk RW. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 1988;15:
13968. [September].
Bhat S, Reddy SK. Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 1998;15(1):3243.
Bhattacharya CB, Sen S. Consumer-company identication: a framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing
2003;67:7688. [April].
Bloemer JM, Kasper HD. The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and
brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology 1995;16:31129.
Buss DM. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested
in 37 cultures. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1989;12:1-49.
Catry B. The great pretenders: magic of luxury goods. Business Strategy Review
2003;14(3):117.
De Block A, Dewitte S. Mating games: cultural evolution and sexual selection. Biology
and Philosophy 2007;22:47591.
Dubois B, Duquesne P. The market for luxury goods: income versus culture. European
Journal of Marketing 1993;27(1):3544.
Dubois B, Paternault C. Observations: understanding the world of international luxury
brands: the dream formula. Journal of Advertising Research 1995:6976.
[July/August].
Dubois B, Czellar S, Laurent G. Consumer segments based on attitudes towards luxury:
empirical evidence from twenty countries. Marketing Letters 2005;16(2):11528.
Feingold A. Gender differences in effects of attractiveness. Psychological Bulletin
1990;59:98193.
Forbes. World's most powerful luxury brands. http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/01/
powerful-luxury-brands-lifestyle-style-luxury-brands.html. 2009. [accessed on
18th September 2010].
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981;18:3950.
Fugate DL, Phillips J. Product gender perceptions and antecedents of product gender
congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2010;27(3):25161.
Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Sundie JM, Cialdini RB, Miller GF, Kenrick DT. Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: when romantic motives elicit strategic
costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007;93(1):85-102.
Grossman GM, Shapiro C. Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 1988;103(1):79-100.
Han YJ, Nunes JC, Drze X. Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand
prominence. Journal of Marketing 2010;74(4):1530.
Handelsblatt. Luxusmarken erholen sich von Wirtschaftskrise. http://www.handelsblatt.
com/newsticker/unternehmen/luxusmarken-erholen-sich-von-wirtschaftskrise.
2010. [2599184 accessed on 3rd December 2010].
Hofstede G. Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, intentions, and
organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001.
Holt DB. Does cultural capital structure american consumption? Journal of Consumer
Research 1998;25:1-25. [June].
Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation Modeling
1999;6(1):1-55.
Huang MH, Rust RT. Two paths to luxury. Marketing Management 2008:315.
[November].

Kapferer JN. Luxury after the crisis: pro logo or no logo? European Business Review
2010:426. [SeptemberOctober].
Kapferer JN, Bastien V. The specicity of luxury management: turning marketing upside down. Journal of Brand Management 2009;16(56):31122.
Keller KL. Managing the growth tradeoff: challenges and opportunities in luxury
branding. Journal of Brand Management 2009;16(56):290301.
Kempen van L. Are the poor willing to pay a premium for designer labels? A eld
experiment in Bolivia. Oxford Development Studies 2004;32(2):20524.
Laurent G, Kapferer JN. Measuring consumer involvement proles. Journal of
Marketing Research 1985;12(1):4153.
Laverie DA, Kleine III RE, Schultz Kleine S. Reexamination and extension of Kleine,
Kleine, and Kernan's social identity model of mundane consumption: the
mediating role of the appraisal process. Journal of Consumer Research 2002;28:
65969. [March].
Lichtenstein DR, Ridgway NM, Netemeyer RG. Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a eld study. Journal of Marketing Research 1993;30(2):23445.
Lueptow LB, Garovich-Szabo L, Lueptow MB. Social change and the persistence of sex
typing: 19741997. Social Forces 2001;80:1-35. [September].
McQuitty S. Statistical power and structural equation models in business research.
Journal of Business Research 2004;57:17583. [February].
Meyers-Levy J. The inuence of sex roles on judgment. Journal of Consumer Research
1988;14(4):52230.
Meyers-Levy J, Peracchio LA. Understanding the effects of color: how the correspondence between available and required resources affects attitudes. Journal of
Consumer Research 1995;22(2):12138.
Nunes JC, Drze X, Han YJ. Conspicuous consumption in a recession: toning it down or
turning it up? Journal of Consumer Psychology 2010. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.11.002.
O'Cass A, McEwen H. Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption.
Journal of Consumer Behavior 2004;4(1):2539.
Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH. The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: The
University of Illinois Press; 1957.
Prakash V. Sex roles and advertising preferences. Journal of Advertising Research
1992;32(3):4352.
Rindeisch A, Burroughs JE, Wong N. The safety of objects: materialism, existential
insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research 2009;36:1-16.
[June].
Schultz Kleine S, Kleine III RE, Allen CT. How is a possession me or not me?
Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal
of Consumer Research 1995;22:32743. [December].
Shine BC, Park J, Wyer Jr RS. Brand synergy effects in multiple brand extensions. Journal
of Marketing Research 2007;44:66370. [November].
Silverstein MJ, Fiske N. Luxury for the masses. Harvard Business Review 2003;81(4):
4857.
Singh D. Adaptive signicance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip
ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993;65(2):293307.
Snyder M, DeBono KG. Appeals to image and claims about quality: understanding the
psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1985;49(3):58697.
Snyder CR, Fromkin HL. Abnormality as a positive characteristic: the development and
validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 1977;86:51827. [October].
Stayman DM, Bartra R. Encoding and retrieval of ad affect in memory. Journal of
Marketing Research 1991;28(2):2329.
Stokburger-Sauer N. Brand community: drivers and outcomes. Psychology and
Marketing 2010;27(4):34768.
Stokburger-Sauer NE, Ratneshwar S, Sen S, Bauer HH. Exploring the antecedents
and consequences of consumer-brand-identication. Association for Consumer
Research Conference Proceedings. Memphis, USA; 2007.
Tian KT, Bearden WO, Hunter GL. Consumers' need for uniqueness: scale development
and validation. Journal of Consumer Research 2001;28(1):5066.
Twenge JM. Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: a meta-analysis. Sex
Roles 1997;36:30525.
Veblen T. The theory of the leisure class. [Reprint from 1899]New York: Penguin; 1994.
Verhallen TMM, Robben HSJ. Scarcity and preference: an experiment on unavailability
and product evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology 1994;15(2):31531.
Vickers JS, Renand F. The marketing of luxury goods: an exploratory study three
conceptual dimensions. The Marketing Review 2003;3(4):45978.
Vigneron F, Johnson LW. A review and a conceptual framework of prestige seeking
consumer behaviour. Academy of Marketing Science Review 1999;1:1-15.
Vigneron F, Johnson LW. Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Brand Management
2004;11(6):484506.
Wiedmann KP, Hennigs N, Siebels A. Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption
behavior. Psychology and Marketing 2009;26(7):62551.
Wilcox K, Kim HM, Sen S. Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of
Marketing Research 2009;46(2):24759.
Zaichkowsky JL. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research
1985;12(3):34152.