| |
Consumer Attitudes toward Luxury and
Interpersonal Influences by Individualism and Collectivism
Purchasing luxury
is often represented as conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1899). Conspicuous
consumptions are affected only by interpersonal influences,
while status consumptions are affected by self-monitoring and
interpersonal influences (O’Cass and McEwen, 2004). Collectivism
has more interpersonal influences on individuals than individualism
does (Triandis, 1995). This study explores how personal
attitudes toward luxury are formed depending on his/her in-group
attitudes toward luxury.
Many
studies partially explain why people buy luxury in some degree. Veblen
described ‘conspicuous consumption’ as a symbolic emulation to lift
a personal social status (1899), and McCracken’s ‘patina theory’ postulated
that ‘fashion’ system today replaces status function, which is that
what a person has becomes a distinction (1988). Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy
of Needs’ model explained that human has an instinct to have self-esteem
which expresses that a self is superior to others (1943).
Luxury has product conspicuousness which is identified mainly by two product
characteristics (Bourne, 1957, p. 218): 1) not owned by everybody and 2) consumed
in public. Brand decisions regarding such products are highly influenced
by peers, because the products become the objects which people can show off (Childers
and Rao, 1992). O’Cass and McEwen found, “status consumption
was affected by self-monitoring and interpersonal influences, but conspicuous
consumption was affected only by interpersonal influences (2004, p.25)”. However,
what if an individual who considers a specific luxury negative belongs to the
in-group which considers the luxury positive? The individual
might be in conflict with the in-group and buy a luxury under
pressure because of the in-group influence.
It is well-known that individualist cultures encourage their
members to be unique and members in the culture are independent;
on contrast, collectivist culture emphasizes the needs of in-groups
and interdependent between oneself (Hofstede, 1980).
This study is to explore consumer behavior related to purchasing
luxuries based on interpersonal influence by cultural typology,
such as individualism and collectivism. This
study consists of three sections: 1) reviewing cultural typology
(individualism and collectivism), 2) in-group attitudes toward
luxury and 3) personal attitudes toward luxury.
If people with
individualism as a cultural typology have more tendency to
be influenced by in-group they belong to than people with
collectivism as a cultural typology do, we will be able to
anticipate their purchase behaviors according to these cultural
typologies. Furthermore,
if we consider the characteristics of luxury that Childers
and Rao mentioned (1980), the expectations related to purchasing
luxury will be clearer. So, this
study aims to reveal the relationships among cultural typology,
in-group attitude and personal attitudes toward luxury.
RQ1) How does cultural typology influence in-group and personal
attitudes toward
luxury?
RQ2) How does the individual attitude toward purchasing luxury work regarding
in-
group’s attitudes toward
luxury?
In this study, four possible cases regarding the attitudes toward purchasing
luxury are extrapolated.
- When in-group and personal attitudes toward
luxury is positive
- When both in-group and personal attitudes toward luxury
is negative
- When in-group attitude toward luxury is positive, but personal
attitude toward luxury is negative
- When in-group attitude toward luxury is
negative, but personal attitude toward luxury is positive
Individualism and Collectivism
To account
for cultural classifications, we often use individualism and
collectivism, because it has a strong potential to explain different cultural
values and finally helps to predict consumer behaviors in different cultures
(Hofstede, 1980; Hui and Triandis, 1986; Schwartz, 1990).
Individualist
cultures consider individual’s uniqueness, freedom, and
self-expression important, so that each member tends to be
independent and autonomous which is distinguished from others
(Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Individualists do
not make sharp distinction between in-groups and out-groups
(Triandis, 1990). In
short, they view themselves as independent of collectives who
are motivated by their own needs and rights (Hui and Villareal,
1989; Triandis, McCusker, and Hui, 1990; Triandis, 1990, 1995).
On contrast,
in collectivist cultures, individuals are interdependent, rather
than independent. Collectivists
pay attention to in-groups, such as the tribe, the work group,
the family, or the nation, and the values of individual members are subordinated
by the ones of in-groups. Conformity, obedience, and cooperation within
in-groups are emphasized, and individuals are motivated by the norms and duties
of in-groups in collectivist culture (Triandis, 1990, 1995; Markus and Kitayama,
1991). In
addition, members of collectivistic culture draw sharper distinctions
between members of in-groups and out-groups (Triandis, 1990).
We usually
thought that the United States is considered as a highly individualistic
culture, Japan is a moderately individualistic culture, and Korea is a highly
collectivistic and low individualistic culture (Gudykunst, Yoon and Nishida,
1987). However,
there are some differences even in the same cultural typology
(i.e. the collectivism in Korea is different from in Japan). Triandis
conceptualized four types of cultures (Triandis, 1995, 2001).
Table 1. Horizontal-Vertical
Distinction (Triandis, 1995, 2001; Kapoor, Konsky, and Blue
1997)
Horizontal Collectivism |
The
individual sees the self as an aspect of an in-group,
all of whose members are extremely similar. In this pattern, the self
is interdependent and the same as the self of others. Equality
is the essence of this pattern. |
Vertical collectivism |
The
individual sees the self as an aspect of an in-group,
but the members of the in-group are different from
each other, some having more status than others. The self is interdependent and different
from the self of others. Inequality is accepted
in this pattern, and people do not see each other as
the same. Serving and sacrificing for the in-group
is an important aspect of this pattern. |
Horizontal individualism |
An
autonomous self is postulated, but the individual is
more or less equal in status with others. The
self is independent and the same as the self of others. |
Vertical individualism |
An
autonomous self is postulated, but individuals see
each other as different. Inequality
is expected. The self is independent and different
from the self of others. Competition is an important
aspect of this pattern. |
Triandis also
identified personality dimensions that account for types
of cultures that focus on individualist and collectivist
values (1985): idiocentrism and allocentrism. Idiocentrism
refers to person-level individualism, whereas allocentrism
refers to person-level collectivism (Triandis, 1985; Dutta-Bergman
and Wells, 2002). In other words, there might be collectivism
in individualist cultures; on contrast, there might be individualism
in collectivist cultures when we consider that each person
might have different cultural tendency even in the same culture
base.
Cultural Typology and Interpersonal
Information Exchange
Dawar and Parker
(1966) measured the relationship between the types of cultures
and information exchange patterns related consumer’s
product information seeking behavior and they compare the results
based on North American countries (i.e. United States and Canada)
and several European countries. They
concluded that the cultural characteristics of power distance
and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980) play a role in conducting
consumers’ product information search activities. However,
the cultural characteristics do not influence the tendency
to share product-related opinions with others. Instead,
the opinion leader from high levels of product category interest
was a strong variable to explain the willingness of some sample
members to share their product-related knowledge (Dawar and
Parker, 1996). They also suggested targeting opinion
leaders from their observed results.
Reference Group and Interpersonal Influence
According
to a theory of social comparison (Festinger, 1954), an individual tend to compare
himself/herself in various ways with other individuals in order to evaluate
his/her behaviors, and the evaluations are facilitated to get along with others. With
this reason, individuals choose reference groups to make such comparisons,
and mostly people at a similar level become a member of his/her reference groups
(Jones and Gerard, 1967).
The reference groups are classified into the two types (Burnkrant
and Cousineau, 1975). One is normative referents who
supplies the individual with norms, attitudes, and values (i.e.
parents, teachers, and peers). Another type of reference
group is comparative referents (i.e. sports heroes and entertainment
figures). They provide standards of achievement of which
individuals dream, but they do not directly interact with individuals.
In terms of consumer behavior,
the reference group influence is interpreted into consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence. Consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence has three types: utilitarian-, value-expressive-,
and informational-influence (McGuire, 1968). Utilitarian-influence
functions when an individual complies with the expectations
of another in order to gain a reward or avoid a punishment. The
second one, which is value-expressive-influence, functions
when an individual accepts influence from another agent with
whom he/she identifies in order to show his/her reciprocal
role relationship. The final type, which is informational-influence,
functions when an individual accepts influence from another
who is perceived to mediate reality for him/her. This
type of influence plays a role to give evaluations on products
and they should be in agreement (Kelley, 1967).
It is known that the group to
which the individual belongs has an impact on consumer’s
purchase decision (Bourne, 1957; Stafford, 1966; Venkatesan,
1966; Witt, 1969, 1970). Witt
and Bruce (1972) found that the power of group cohesiveness
has greater influence on brand choice in products with high
social involvement than in products with low social involvement
and it is also concluded that group brand choice congruence
is partially performed in terms of group structure and the
symbolic involvement of products in the interpersonal situation
in which they are purchases and used.
However, an opinion leader in
the group has the most powerful influence on an individual’s
brand decision. Stafford
(1966) explored the effects of group influence on consumer
brand preferences and he found that the degree of brand loyalty
behavior within a group is more closely related to the behavior
of the informal leader than to the cohesiveness of the group.
The Meaning of Luxury in Interpersonal Situations
In a purchase
situation, the degree of conspicuousness of products influences the degree
to which products are observed and the degree which they are discussed with
referents (Bearden and Etzel, 1982). The conspicuousness of products
is decided by the four dimensions: luxury versus necessity and public versus
private (Bourne, 1957). Thus, products can be classified
by the dimensions into four groups: publicly consumed luxuries,
publicly consumed necessities, privately consumed luxuries,
public consumed necessities.
Of the products,
products perceived as conspicuous; that is, public and luxury products show
more susceptible to group influence (Brinberg and Plimpton, 1986). The
products in this category are observed in use, and to consume them is not common
but exclusive. Purchase and brand decisions in this product category
will be greatly influenced by peers because they are consumed in public.
Table 2. Combing
public-private and luxury-necessity dimensions with product
and brand decisions
for peer influences (Childers and Rao, 1992)
Reference group |
Public |
Private |
Luxury:
Peer |
Strong product influence
Strong brand influence |
Strong product influence
Weak brand influence |
Necessity:
Peer |
Weak product influence
Strong brand influence |
Weak product influence
Weak brand influence |
Consumption
of many products substantially contributes to the consumer’s
structuring of social reality, self-concept, and behavior (Solomon,
1983). When consumers
want to communicate with higher status people, they do conspicuous
consumptions (O’Cass and McEwen, 2004). In this
sense, consuming luxury becomes a channel to show themselves
as a distinction in public.
Based on the
literature review, the perceptional map and the following
hypotheses pertaining purchasing luxury are suggested. The
hypotheses are classified by cultural typology.
Each case in
the perceptional map is made based on the combinations between
the positiveness and negativeness of in-group and personal
attitudes toward luxury.
Table 3. Hypotheses:
The Relationships between In-group Attitude and Personal Attitudes
toward Luxury by Cultural Typology.
|
Case 1 (PN) |
Case 2 (PP) |
Case 3 (NN) |
Case 4 (NP) |
In-group Attitude toward
Luxury |
Positive (+) |
Positive (+) |
Negative (-) |
Negative (-) |
Personal Attitude toward
Luxury |
Negative (-) |
Positive (+) |
Negative (-) |
Positive (+) |
Horizontal Individualism
(HI) |
PN-HI |
PP-HI |
NN-HI |
NP-HI |
Vertical Individualism
(VI) |
PN-VI |
PP-VI |
NN-VI |
NP-VI |
Horizontal
Collectivism (HC) |
PN-HC |
PP-HC |
NN-HC |
NP-HC |
Vertical Collectivism (VC) |
PN-VC |
PP-VC |
NN-VC |
NP-VC |
H1: In the case 1, an individual feels more
pressure as the following order.
PN-VC > PN-HC > PN-VI > PN-HI
H2: In the case 2, an individual has more likelihood to buy
luxury as the following order.
PP-VC > PP-HC > PP-VI > PP-HI
H3: In the case 3, an individual has less likelihood to buy
luxury as the following order.
NN-HI > NN-VI > NN-HC > NN-VC
H4: In the case 4, an individual feels not to buy luxury as
the following order.
NP-VC > NP-HC > NP-VI > NP-HI
The questionnaire
consists of four sections: (1) measuring cultural typology
(7-point-Likert scale; refer to table 4), (2) measuring in-group
attitudes toward luxury (5-point-Likert scale; refer to table
6), (3) measuring personal attitudes toward luxury (5-point-Likert
scale; refer to table 6), and (4) measuring personal reactions
under in-group attitudes. In
addition, measuring susceptibility to interpersonal influence
(7-point-Likert scale; refer to table 5) will be conducted
in order to confirm the relationship between cultural typology
and in-group influence. For measuring the expected reaction
under the condition of in-group and personal attitudes, there
will be added questions asking respondents’ opinions
directly with 7-point-Likert scale (i.e. do you feel any pressure
to buy a luxury?). The sample sizes of each cultural
typology (HI, VI, HC, and VI) should be enough to statistically
satisfy Chi-square.
Discussion
and Limitations
If the
hypotheses constructed based on the literature are confirmed,
the results will be highly useful to use for global marketing. Marketers
who want to boost their sale amount can access in the way of
removing the barriers which makes personal pressure under in-group
influences, or of encouraging the desire to buy luxury by using
the relationship between in-groups and individuals, referring
to the perceptional map suggested.
However,
this study supposed that collectivism
has more in-group influence than individualism
does. Although
we plan to confirm the relationship between cultural typology
and susceptibility of interpersonal influence, we will not
be able to ignore that personal attributes might be different
in spite of the cultural typology. Furthermore, it might
be difficult to say that the relationship between in-group.
References
Bearden, Wiliam O., Richard G. Netemeyer
and Jesse E. Teel (1989), “Measurement
of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 (4), 473-481.
Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel
(1982), “Reference
Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions”, Journal
of Consumer Research, 9, September, 183-194.
Bourne, Francis F. (1957), “Group Influence in Marketing”,
in R. Likert and S. Hayes, eds., Some Applications of Behavioral
Research, Paris: UNESCO, 208-224.
Bourne, Francis S. (1957), “Group Influence in Marketing
and Public Relations,” in Some Applications of Behavioral
Research, ed, R. Likert and S. P. Hayes, Basel: Unesco.
Brinberg, David and Linda Plimpton (1986), “Self-Monitoring
and Product Conspicuousness on Reference Group Influence”, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, 297-300.
Burnkrant, Robert E. and Alain Cousineau
(1975), “Informational
and Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior”, Journal
of Consumer Research, 2, December, 206-215.
Childers, Terry L. and Akshay R. Rao (1992), “The Influence
of Familial and Peer-Based Reference Groups on Consumer Decisions”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 (2), 198-211.
Dawar, Niraj and Philip M. Parker (1996), “A Cross-Cultural
Study of Interpresonal Information Exchange”, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 27 (3), 497-516.
Dubois, Bernard, Sandor Czellar and Gilles
Laurent (2005), “Consumer
Segments Based on Attitudes Toward Luxury: Empirical Evidence
from Twenty Countries”, Marketing Letters, 16
(2), 115-128.
Duta-Bergman, Mohan J. and William D.
Wells (2002), “The
Values and Lifestyles of Idiocentrics and Allocentrics in an
Individualsit Culture: A Descriptive Approach”, Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 12 (3), 231-242.
Festinger, Leon (1954), “A Theory of Social Comparison
Processes”, Human Relations, 7, May, 117-140.
Gudykunst, William B., Young-Chul Yoon
and Tsukasa Nishida (1987), “The
Influence of Individualsim-collectivism on perceptions of Communication
in Ingroup and Outgroup Relationships, Communication Monographs,
Vol. 54, September, 295-306.
Hofstede, G. (1980), “Culture’s consequences: International
differences in work-related values”, Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hui, C. & H. Triandis (1986), “Individualism-collectivism:
A study of cross-cultural researchers”, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296-309.
Hui, Harry C. and Marcelo Villareal (1989), “Individualism-collectivism
and psychological needs: Their relationships in two cultures”, Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 310-323.
Jones, Edward E. and Harold B. Gerard
(1967), “Social
Psychology”, New Tork: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kapoor, Suraj, Catherine Konsky, and Janet
Blue (1997), “American
and Indian Students’ Preference for Horizontal and Vertical
Individualism-Collectivism”, World Communications,
Summer, Vol. 26 (1), 14-29.
Kelley, H. H. (1967), “Attribution Theory in Social Psychology”,
in David Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln,
Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Markus, H. R. and S. Kitayama (1991), “Culture and the
self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation”, Psychological
Review, 98, 224-253.
Maslow, A. H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological
Review, 50, 370-396.
McCracken, Grant (1988), “Culture and Consumption: Ever
Dearer on Our Thoughts: Patina and the Representation of Status
before and after the Eighteenth Century”, 31-43. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
McGuire, W. J. (1968), “Personality and susceptibility
to social influence”, in Borgatta, E. F. and Mabert, W.W.
(eds), Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, Rand McNally,
Chicago, IL, 1130-87.
O’Cass, Aron, Hmily McEwen (2004), “Exploring Consumer
Status and Conspicuous Consumption”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Oct. 4, 1, 25-39.
Schwarz, S. (1990), “Individualism-collectivism critique
and proposed refinements”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 21, 139-157.
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), “The Role of Products as Social
Stimuli: a Symbolic Interactionism Perspective”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, 319-329.
Stafford, James E. (1966), “Effects of Group Influence
on Consumer Brand Choice Preference”, Journal of Marketing
Research, 3, February, 68-75.
Triandis, Harry C. (2001), “Individualism-collectivism
and personality”, Journal of Personality, 69,
907-924.
Triandis, Harry C.,
K. Leung, M. Villareal and F. Clack (1985), “Allocentric
vs. idiocentric tendencies”, Journal of Research in
Personality, 19, 395-415.
Triandis, Harry C. (1990), “Cross-cultural
studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp.41-133), Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Triandis, Harry C. (1995), “Individualism
and collectivism”, Boulder, CO: Westview.
Triandis, Harry C.,
Christopher McCusker and Harry C. Hui (1990), “Multimethod
probes of individualism and collectivism”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.
Veblen, Thorsetin (1899), “The Theory of the Leisure Class”,
New York, MacMillan.
Venkatesan, M. (1966), “Experimental Study of Consumer
Behavior Conformity and Independence”, Journal of Marketing
Research, 3, November, 384-387.
Witt, Robert E. (1969), “Informal Social Group Influence
on Consumer Brand Choice”, Journal of Marketing Research,
6, November, 437-438.
Witt, Robert E. (1970), “Group
Influence on Consumer Brand Choice”, Austin: Bureau of
Business Research, University of Texas at Austin.
Witt, Robert E. (1972), “Group
Influence and Brand Choice Congruence”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 10, Novemebr, 440-443.
Mark Yi-Cheon Yim is
a PhD student at the Department of Advertising at the University
of Texas at Austin. His current research interests are luxury
brands and high-income consumer behavior. He can be reached at
yimyc@mail.utexas.edu.
Table 4. Cultural Dimension Measurement
(Triandis, 1995)
Dimensions |
Statement |
Horizontal
Individualism |
I’d rather depend on myself than
others.
I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others.
I often do my own thing.
My personal identity, independent of others, is very important. |
Vertical
Individualism |
It is important that I do my job better
than others.
Winning is everything.
Competition is the law of nature.
When another person does better than I do, I get tense
and aroused. |
Horizontal
Collectivism |
If a coworker gets a prize, I would feel
proud.
The well-being of my coworkers is important to me.
To me, pleasure is spending time with others.
I feel good when I cooperate with others. |
Vertical
Collectivism |
Parents and children must stay together
as much as possible.
It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have
to sacrifice what I want.
Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices
are required.
It is important to me that I respect the decisions made
by my groups. |
Note: All of the items are measure on a 7-point scale.
* These items were dropped from creating an index score due
to the low factor loading.
Table 5. Susceptibility
to Interpersonal Influence Items(Bearden,
Netemeyer, and Teel, 1989)
Factors |
Statement |
Normative |
I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles
until I am sure my friends approve of them
It is important that others like the products and brands
I buy.
When buying products, I generally purchase those brands
that I think others will approve of.
If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase
the brand they expect me to buy.
I like to know what brands and products make good impressions
on others.
I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products
and brands that others purchase.
If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same
brands that they buy.
I often identify with other people by purchasing the same
products and brands they purchase. |
Informational |
To make sure I buy the right product or
brand, I often observe what others are buying and using.
If I have little experience with a product, I often ask
my friends about the product.
I often consult other people to help choose the best alternative
available from a product class.
I frequently gather information from friends or family
about a product before I buy. |
Note: The response format for each item is a seven-place rating
scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly
disagree (1).
Table 6. Corpus of Attitudinal Items
Toward Luxury (Dubois, Czellar, and Laurent, 2005)
Knowledge-Related Themes |
I don’t know much about the luxury
world
In general, luxury products are better quality products.
A fine replica of a luxury brand is just as good.
Luxury products inevitably are very expensive.
In my opinion, luxury is too expensive for what it is.
Few people own a truly luxury product.
Truly luxury goods cannot be mass produced.
A luxury product cannot be sold in supermarkets.
A real luxury brand does not advertise its products.
In my opinion, luxury is pleasant.
Some education is needed for appreciating luxury products.
In my opinion, luxury is really useless.
A product must be somewhat useless to be a luxury product.
In my opinion, luxury is old fashioned.
In my opinion, luxury is flashy.
In my opinion, luxury is good taste. |
Affect-Related Themes |
All thins considered, I rather like luxury.
I’m not interested in luxury.
Luxury makes me dream.
Luxury products make life more beautiful.
I could talk about luxury for hours.
I would not feel at ease in a luxury shop.
When I wear a luxury item, I feel a bit like I’m
disguising myself. |
Behavior-Related Themes |
I almost never buy luxury products.
One buys luxury goods primarily for one’s pleasure.
For the most part, luxury goods are to be offered as gifts.
One needs to be a bit of a snob to buy luxury products
They luxury products we buy reveal a little bit of who
we are.
Today, everyone should have access to luxury goods.
People who buy those products seek to imitate the rich.
People who buy those products try to differentiate themselves
from others.
Thos who buy luxury products are refined people. |
Added Item |
Luxury items should be taxed more heavily. |
Note: The response format for each item is
a five-place rating scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to
strongly disagree
(1).
|
|
|