Journal of Product & Brand Management

(62), normed x2 = 2.215, GFI = 0.937, CFI = 0.974, TLI = 0.967, RMSEA = 0.061). On testing the research model, it was found that materialism positively affected purchase intention, thus supporting H1 (b = 0.438, p < 0.001). This means that the higher the materialism, the higher the purchase intention for luxury athleisure products. In addition, the effect of materialism on impression management motivation (b = 0.744, p < 0.001) and the effect of impression management motivation on purchase intention (b = 0.194, p < 0.05) ware both positively significant, so H2 and H3 were supported. H4 was supported as these results show that the impact of materialism on purchase intention is mediated by impression management purchase motivation. As a result of the structural equation model analysis, it was verified that the higher the materialism, the higher the concerns about impression management, and this leads to a higher the purchase intention for luxury athleisure products. Moderating effect of sustainability To identify the moderating effect of sustainability on the two groups (non-sustainable vs sustainable) in the structural model, it was necessary to evaluate whether the measurement models of the two groups show the same results. This is called equivalence check of the measurement model and can be verified through multi-group analysis (Deng et al., 2005). Multi-group analysis is a procedure to check whether each group has the same perception on measurement items before performing path analysis for each group. To carry out multigroup analysis, variance tests (configural and metric invariance) between the groups must be secured (Meade and Lautenschlager, 2004). Configural invariance can be secured if the model shows high fit for each group and the factor loading is significant. Both model fit of the sustainable group (x2 (df) = 104.660 (62), normed x2 = 1.688, GFI = 0.910, CFI = 0.971, TLI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.065) and the non-sustainable group (x2 (df) = 124.288) (62), normed x2 = 2.005, GFI = 0.900, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.079) are acceptable for each research model. Additionally, the factor loading of each research model was found to be statistically significant at the level of 0.1%. Thus, conformational identity was ensured. Metric invariance is supported by comparing the measurement weights model, a model that can only be used when the factor load is the same for each group and the unconstrained model, which does not have any restrictions. If the differences in the x2 of the two models are not significantly different, metric invariance is verified. The unconstrained model fit (x2 (df) = 233.636(124), normed x2 = 1.884, GFI = 0.904, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.953, RMSEA = 0.052) and the measurement weights model fit (x2 (df) = 251.8644(134), normed x2 = 1.880, GFI = 0.896, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.953, RMSEA = 0.052) were not significantly different. In addition, as the x2 between the two groups did not differ significantly, metric invariance was secured (Dx2 = 18.228(10) < x2. 050(10) = 18.307, Ddf = 10). The moderating effect of sustainability can be confirmed by performing the x2 difference test on the unconstrained and constrained model. The constrained model is a model that is constrained that the paths between groups are the same, and the unconstrained model is a model that is not constrained. For each path (materialism ! purchase intention, materialism ! impression management purchase motivation, impression management purchase motivation ! purchase intention), it must be checked whether the x2 between the two models represents a significant difference. First, as for the effect of materialism on purchase intention, contrary to expectations, the purchase intention for non-sustainable products was higher, and H5 was rejected (Figure 3). In the non-sustainable group, materialism showed a positive effect on purchase intention (b = 0.587, p < 0.001), whereas in the sustainable group, materialism had no significant effect on purchase intention (n.s). Next, the effect of materialism on impression management purchase motivation was greater in the sustainable group (b = 0.811, p < 0.001) than in the nonsustainable group (b = 0.674, p < 0.001). To find out whether the difference in influence between the groups was significant, the x2 difference between the unconstrained and the constrained model was identified. The increase in x2 (Dx2 = 18.790) was larger than the standard of Ddf = 10 (Dx2 = 18.307), so the moderating effect was confirmed. Therefore, it was verified that there is a difference in the effect of materialism on impression management purchase motivation according to sustainability, and H6 was supported (Figure 3). Finally, the difference in the impact of impression management purchase motivation on purchase intention according to sustainability was analyzed. It was confirmed that the effect of impression management purchase motivation on purchase intention was not significant in the non-sustainable group, whereas it had a significant effect in the sustainable group (b = 0.409, p < 0.01). Afterward, the x2 difference between the two models was verified to find out whether the difference in influence was significant. As a result, the moderating effect was verified because the x2 increase (Dx2 = 18.382) was larger than 18.307, which is the Figure 2 The result of SEM The moderating effect of sustainability Yunjeong Kim and Kyung Wha Oh Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 8 · 2022 · 1222–1234 1228

standard for Ddf = 10. In other words, the impact of impression management purchase motivation on purchase intention was greater in the sustainable group than in the non-sustainable group, thus supporting H7 (Figure 3). In analyzing the moderating effect of sustainability, it was confirmed that the effect of materialism on impression management purchase motivation, and that of impression management purchase motivation on purchase intention differed depending upon sustainability. In the case of nonsustainable luxury athleisure products, materialism directly affected purchase intention, but impression management purchase motivation had no mediating effect. In the case of sustainable luxury athleisure products, it was confirmed that materialism did not have a direct effect on purchase intention, but affected purchase intention through impression management purchase motivation. In other words, consumers purchase sustainable luxury athleisure products not only because of materialistic values, but because of the impression management purchase motive to create a socially desirable image for themselves. Compared to general luxury products, the consumption of sustainable luxury products can enable materialists to transmit signals of wealth and virtue to others (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Therefore, it is important to understand this consumption in the context of impression management. Hammad et al. (2019) found that the materialistic consumption of sustainable products plays an important role in distinguishing people within a group through the representation of symbols of taste and economic capital. The results of this study can be said to reflect the motivation of consumers in managing their impressions by revealing both their economic capital and tastes through the purchase of sustainable luxury athleisure products. Discussion Materialism has been associated with the consumption of luxury goods as a way to flaunt one’s wealth and status. Previous studies examining the relationship between materialism and sustainability have shown that materialism cannot be linked to eco-friendly purchase intentions (Kilbourne and Pickett, 2008; Richins and Dawson, 1992). However, materialism and sustainability are not necessarily opposites (Strizhakova and Coulter, 2013). Sustainability should be understood as a fundamental cultural idea. As it becomes increasingly important in the fashion industry, sustainable products that respond to consumer needs and changing environments are giving luxury brands a competitive advantage (Becker et al., 2021). As the extension of luxury brands to athleisure products also reflects changes in consumer needs for luxury product consumption (Zlatanova et al., 2017), it is necessary to empirically identify this consumption mechanism. In this study, it was considered that sustainability could induce luxury consumption by stimulating the impression management purchase motivation of materialists. While previous studies have mainly focused on the positive/ negative relationship between materialism and sustainable consumption, this study attempts to contribute to the understanding of the changing luxury consumption by considering the role of materialism, sustainability and impression management purchase motivation in luxury athleisure product consumption. Using structural equation model analysis, we found that materialism positively affected the purchase intention for luxury athleisure products. In addition, impression management purchase motivation was found to mediate the relationship between materialism and the purchase intention of Figure 3 Results of the multi-group analysis The moderating effect of sustainability Yunjeong Kim and Kyung Wha Oh Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 8 · 2022 · 1222–1234 1229

luxury athleisure products. Subsequently, the moderating effect of sustainability was analyzed. It was confirmed that the effect of materialism on impression management motivation and that of impression management purchase motivation on purchase intention depended on sustainability. For nonsustainable luxury athleisure products, materialism directly affected purchase intention, but impression management purchase motivation did not, therefore, the mediating effect of impression management purchase motivation was not evident. However, for sustainable luxury athleisure products, materialism only indirectly affected purchase intention due to the mediating effect of impression management purchase motivation. Implications Theoretical implications This study has the following academic implications. First, it contributes to a broader academic understanding by empirically verifying the results of previous studies that showed a positive correlation between materialism and sustainable consumption (Fitzmaurice, 2008; Lee et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2017) in the context of purchasing luxury athleisure products. Previous studies have consistently shown that materialism increases consumption of general luxury products, but results with regard to the relationship between materialism and sustainable consumption have been inconsistent. One stream of prior research suggests that materialism is negatively related to products with a sustainable image (Dittmar et al., 2014; Hurst et al., 2013; Moldes and Ku, 2020), while another recent research stream found a positive relationship between the two (Griskevicius et al., 2012; Talukdar and Yu, 2020; Wang et al., 2019). The results of the current research are in line with the findings of the study, suggesting the positive effect of materialism on sustainable luxury consumption. However, unlike a recent study that showed a direct effect (Talukdar and Yu, 2020), the current study only finds an indirect effect on luxury consumption through impression management purchase motivation. Although there was no direct effect, these results reflect that luxury products with a sustainable image can induce materialist consumption. Second, based on the impression management theory (Sallot, 2002), this study is meaningful, in that it reveals the role of impression management purchase motivation in the relationship between materialism and luxury consumption. In particular, the results found that impression management purchase motivation mediates the relationship between materialism and purchase intention in the case of sustainable luxury athleisure products. This result supports the theoretical basis that it reflects the purchase motivation of materialists who want to show an impression of not only wealth (Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ib!añez, 2012), but also virtue (Kervyn et al., 2012) through product consumption with a sustainable image. In addition, it is in line with Carfagna et al. (2014) who argued that sustainable product consumption enables materialistic consumers to show that they are consumers with cultural capital. As such, this study establishes an academic foundation for future research by examining the relationship between materialism, impression management purchase motivation and sustainability in luxury athleisure product consumption from a new perspective and empirically verifying it. Third, this study expands the academic scope of luxury consumption to luxury athleisure, reflecting the changes in consumer lifestyles due to the pandemic. Existing studies have dealt with luxury consumption (Jain, 2019; Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau, 2017; Sun et al., 2017) and athleisure consumption (Chi et al., 2021) as separate areas, but this research empirically verifies the change in luxury consumption pattern to athleisure. The current study is meaningful, in that it enables academic understanding by reflecting changes in consumer demand for athleisure products in luxury consumption. Managerial implications The practical significance of this study is as follows. In addition to sustainability, athleisure is attracting attention as an important factor for securing competitiveness as a new default in today’s fashion industry (Becker et al., 2021). In the luxury market, consumer interest in athleisure and the size of the market are also increasing significantly. As if reflecting this trend, this study shows that materialism increases the purchase intention for not only general luxury athleisure products, but also sustainable luxury athleisure products. In fact, a growing number of luxury brands are introducing sustainable athleisure products. For example, Louis Vuitton introduced a vegan shoe made from 90% recycled biomaterials (Sharma, 2021), and Gucci introduced a drop vegan sneaker made from wood pulp (Pellissier, 2021). Reflecting the increase in athleisure products in luxury brands, this study contributed to understanding the consumption mechanism of general and sustainable luxury athleisure products and provided a basis for establishing future marketing strategies. Second, this study laid the foundation for a marketing strategy that can have a positive impact on the fashion industry from a long-term perspective. It confirmed the significant direct/indirect effect of materialism on purchase intention in both cases of general and sustainable luxury athleisure product consumption. Luxury brands can induce materialists’ consumption in other ways by creating diverse and segmented products ranging from general as well as sustainable products. However, the strategically induced increase in the consumption of fashion products does not lead to a positive impact on a sustainable future from a long-term perspective. The reason is that this consumption eventually increases the amount consumed and discarded. Rather, it is important that general luxury products are replaced by sustainable luxury products, ultimately leading to purchases that do not harm the ecological environment. This study identified that materialistic consumers want to purchase sustainable luxury athleisure products in the context of a previous study (Sallot, 2002) that suggested consumers purchase products to create a socially desirable image. In other words, unlike general luxury athleisure products, it was confirmed that impression management purchase motivation plays an important role when purchasing sustainable luxury athleisure products. Therefore, luxury marketers can further stimulate purchase motivation by emphasizing that consumers can manage positive impressions by purchasing sustainable luxury athleisure products. Considering that sustainability is an inevitable future strategy for luxury brands, the results of this The moderating effect of sustainability Yunjeong Kim and Kyung Wha Oh Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 8 · 2022 · 1222–1234 1230

study can be used as a basis for strategies that ultimately have a positive impact on the environment. Limitations and future research directions The following are the limitations and suggestions for future research. First, this study only took into account materialism and impression management purchase motivation as the variables affecting the purchase intention of luxury athleisure products. However, in reality, various other variables are a part of the consumer purchasing decision. Therefore, future studies should work with a more sophisticated research design that considers a variety of variables that affect the purchase of luxury athleisure wear. Second, this study targeted the general and sustainable athleisure products of luxury brands. While sustainable consumption includes purchasing products made from sustainable materials, prior research suggests that it can also be done through other means, such as rental services, second-hand purchases and renovations (McNeill and Venter, 2019). Therefore, future research can proceed by including sustainable consumption in other ways. Third, as sustainability is a long-term issue in the fashion industry, it is necessary to continuously study the changing consumption mechanisms in future research. Fourth, impression management purchase motivation can be considered in terms of overall individual differences or in specific situations (Van Boven et al., 2010). In this study, only impression management purchase motivation in the situation of purchasing luxury athleisure products is considered. Future studies that also consider the overall impression management purchase motivation as a personal variable related to personality or values can enable a deeper understanding of the research topic. References Achabou, M.A. and Dekhili, S. (2013), “Luxury and sustainable development: is there a match?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 1896-1903. Alzubaidi, H., Slade, E.L. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2020), “Examining antecedents of consumers’ pro-environmental behaviours: TPB extended with materialism and innovativeness”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 122, pp. 685-699. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423. Arnett, G. (2020), “The pandemic’s share price winners: Hermes and lining”, available at: www.voguebusiness.com/ companies/the-pandemics-share-price-winners-hermes-andli-ning (accessed 03 April 2021). Ashikali, E.M. and Dittmar, H. (2012), “The effect of priming materialism on women’s responses to thin-ideal media”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 514-533. Ashworth, L., Darke, P.R. and Schaller, M. (2005), “No one wants to look cheap: trade-offs between social disincentives and the economic and psychological incentives to redeem coupons”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 295-306. Becker, S. Berg, A. Kohli, S. and Thiel, A. (2021), “Sporting goods 2021: the next normal for an industry in flux”, available at: www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/sportinggoods-2021-the-next-normal-for-an-industry-in-flux (accessed 12 April 2021). Belk, R.W. (1985), “Materialism: trait aspects of living in the material world”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 265-280. Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Cannon, C. and Rucker, D.D. (2019), “The dark side of luxury: social costs of luxury consumption”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 767-779. Carfagna, L.B., Dubois, E.A., Fitzmaurice, C., Ouimette, M. Y., Schor, J.B., Willis, M. and Laidley, T. (2014), “An emerging eco-habitus: the reconfiguration of high cultural capital practices among ethical consumers”, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 158-178. Chan, W.Y., To, C.K. and Chu, W.C. (2015), “Materialistic consumers who seek unique products: how does their need for status and their affective response facilitate the repurchase intention of luxury goods?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 27, pp. 1-10. Chang, K.C., Hsu, C.L., Hsu, Y.T. and Chen, M.C. (2019), “How green marketing, perceived motives and incentives influence behavioral intentions”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 49, pp. 336-345. Chi, T., Ganak, J., Summers, L., Adesanya, O., McCoy, L., Liu, H. and Tai, Y. (2021), “Understanding perceived value and purchase intention toward eco-friendly athleisure apparel: insights from US millennials”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 14, p. 7946. Cho, Y.N. (2015), “Different shades of green consciousness: the interplay of sustainability labeling and environmental impact on product evaluations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 73-82. Cho, Y.N. and Baskin, E. (2018), “It’s a match when green meets healthy in sustainability labeling”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 86, pp. 119-129. Dastrup, S.R., Zivin, J.G., Costa, D.L. and Kahn, M.E. (2012), “Understanding the solar home price premium: electricity generation and ‘green’ social status”, European Economic Review, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 961-973. Davies, I.A., Lee, Z. and Ahonkhai, I. (2012), “Do consumers care about ethical-luxury?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 37-51. Deng, X., Doll, W.J., Hendrickson, A.R. and Scazzero, J.A. (2005), “A multi-group analysis of structural invariance: an illustration using the technology acceptance model”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 745-759. Dittmar, H. (1994), “Material possessions as stereotypes: material images of different socio-economic groups”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 561-585. Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M. and Kasser, T. (2014), “The relationship between materialism and personal well-being: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 107 No. 5, pp. 879-924. Fennis, B.M. and Pruyn, A.T.H. (2007), “You are what you wear: brand personality influences on consumer impression The moderating effect of sustainability Yunjeong Kim and Kyung Wha Oh Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 8 · 2022 · 1222–1234 1231

formation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 634-639. Fitzmaurice, J. (2008), “Splurge purchases and materialism”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 332-338. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: algebra and Statistics, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA. Fransson, N. and Gärling, T. (1999), “Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods and research findings”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 369-382. F-trend (2021), “How athleisure trend changing designer Brand in 2021”, available at: https://f-trend.com/blog/whyathleisure-trend-will-change-designer-brand-2017-and-2018 (accessed 03 May 2021). Gam, H.J., Cao, H., Farr, C. and Kang, M. (2010), “Quest for the eco-apparel market: a study of mothers’ willingness to purchase organic cotton clothing for their children”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 648-656. Giovannini, S., Xu, Y. and Thomas, J. (2015), “Luxury fashion consumption and generation Y consumers: self, brand consciousness and consumption motivations”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 22-40. Glazer, A. and Konrad, K.A. (1996), “A signaling explanation for charity”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 1019-1028. Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Clark, R.A. (2012), “Materialistic, brand engaged and status consuming consumers and clothing behaviors”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 102-119. Green, T. and Peloza, J. (2014), “Finding the right shade of green: the effect of advertising appeal type on environmentally friendly consumption”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 128-141. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M. and Van den Bergh, B. (2010), “Going green to be seen: status, reputation and conspicuous conservation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 392-404. Griskevicius, V., Cantú, S.M. and Van Vugt, M. (2012), “The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: implications for marketing, policy and social entrepreneurship”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 115-128. Hammad, H., Muster, V., El-Bassiouny, N.M. and Schaefer, M. (2019), “Status and sustainability: can conspicuous motives foster sustainable consumption in newly industrialized countries?”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 537-550. Hartmann, P. and Apaolaza-Ib!añez, V. (2012), “Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: the roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 9, pp. 1254-1263. Hurst, M., Dittmar, H., Bond, R. and Kasser, T. (2013), “The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 257-269. Jain, S. (2019), “Factors affecting sustainable luxury purchase behavior: a conceptual framework”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 130-146. Johar, G.V., Sengupta, J. and Aaker, J.L. (2005), “Two roads to updating brand personality impressions: trait versus evaluative inferencing”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 458-469. Johnson, T. and Attmann, J. (2009), “Compulsive buying in a product specific context: clothing”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 394-405. Joung, H.M. (2013), “Materialism and clothing post-purchase behaviors”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 530-537. Kapferer, J.N. and Michaut-Denizeau, A. (2017), “Is luxury compatible with sustainability? Luxury consumers’ viewpoint”, in Kapferer, J.N., Kernstock, J., Brexendorf, T. O. and Powell, S.M. (Eds), Advances in Luxury Brand Management, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 123-156. Kervyn, N., Fiske, S.T. and Malone, C. (2012), “Brands as intentional agents framework: how perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 166-176. Kilbourne, W. and Pickett, G. (2008), “How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern and environmentally responsible behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 9, pp. 885-893. Kim, C.H. and Yi, Y. (2016), “The effects of impression management on coupon redemption across cultures”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 573-583. Kim, J., Kang, S. and Lee, K.H. (2020), “How social capital impacts the purchase intention of sustainable fashion products”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 596-603. Leary, M.R., Tambor, E.S., Terdal, S.K. and Downs, D.L. (1995), “Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: the socio meter hypothesis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 518-530. Lee, E.M., Edwards, S., Youn, S. and Yun, T. (2018), “Understanding the moderating effect of motivational values on young consumers’ responses to luxury brands: a cross-cultural study of South Korea and the USA”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 103-124. Lee, M., Bae, J. and Koo, D.M. (2020), “The effect of materialism on conspicuous vs inconspicuous luxury consumption: focused on need for uniqueness, selfmonitoring and self-construal”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 869-887. Lundblad, L. and Davies, I.A. (2016), “The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 149-162. McNeill, L. and Venter, B. (2019), “Identity, self-concept and young women’s engagement with collaborative, sustainable fashion consumption models”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 368-378. Meade, A.W. and Lautenschlager, G.J. (2004), “A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic The moderating effect of sustainability Yunjeong Kim and Kyung Wha Oh Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 8 · 2022 · 1222–1234 1232

methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/ invariance”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 361-388. Moldes, O. and Ku, L. (2020), “Materialistic cues make us miserable: a meta-analysis of the experimental evidence for the effects of materialism on individual and societal wellbeing”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1396-1419. Nepomuceno, M.V. and Laroche, M. (2015), “The impact of materialism and anti-consumption lifestyles on personal debt and account balances”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 654-664. O’Cass, A. (2001), “Consumer self-monitoring, materialism and involvement in fashion clothing”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 46-60. O’Cass, A. (2004), “Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing involvement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 869-882. O’Cass, A. and Frost, H. (2002), “Status brands: examining the effects of non-product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 67-88. Pellissier, C. (2021), “Sneakers: Gucci is innovating with a new sustainable, vegan material”, available at: https://sg. news.yahoo.com/sneakers-gucci-innovating-sustainablevegan-120529350.html (accessed 3 May 2021). Podoshen, J.S. and Andrzejewski, S.A. (2012), “An examination of the relationships between materialism, conspicuous consumption, impulse buying and brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 319-334. Polonsky, M., Kilbourne, W. and Vocino, A. (2014), “Relationship between the dominant social paradigm, materialism and environmental behaviours in four Asian economies”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos 3/4, pp. 522-551. Richins, M. (2004), “Special session summary the positive and negative consequences of materialism: what are they and when do they occur?”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 232-235. Richins, M.L. (1994), “Special possessions and the expression of material values”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 522-533. Richins, M.L. and Dawson, S. (1992), “A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: scale development and validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 303-316. Sallot, L.M. (2002), “What the public thinks about public relations: an impression management experiment”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 150-171. Scott, K., Martin, D.M. and Schouten, J.W. (2014), “Marketing and the new materialism”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 282-290. Sexton, S.E. and Sexton, A.L. (2014), “Conspicuous conservation: the Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 303-317. Sharma, N.T. (2021), “Style goes sustainable as Louis Vuitton debuts its first-ever vegan sneaker that are made from corn”, available at: https://luxurylaunches.com/fashion/style-goessustainable-as-louis-vuitton-debuts-its-first-ever-vegan-sneakerthat-are-made-from-corn.php (accessed 3 May 2021). Shin, D.C. and Jin, B.E. (2021), “Do fur coats symbolize status or stigma? Examining the effect of perceived stigma on female consumers’ purchase intentions toward fur coats”, Fashion and Textiles, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-17. Srikant, M. (2013), “Materialism in consumer behavior and marketing: a review”, Management & Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 329-352. Strizhakova, Y. and Coulter, R.A. (2013), “The ‘green’ side of materialism in emerging BRIC and developed markets: the moderating role of global cultural identity”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 69-82. Sun, G., Wang, W., Cheng, Z., Li, J. and Chen, J. (2017), “The intermediate linkage between materialism and luxury consumption: evidence from the emerging market of China”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 475-487. Talukdar, N. and Yu, S. (2020), “Do materialists care about sustainable luxury?”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 465-478. Tilikidou, I. and Delistavrou, A. (2004), “The influence of the materialistic values on consumers’ pro-environmental postpurchase behavior”, in Cron, W.L. and Low, G.S. (Eds), Marketing theory and applications, proceedings of the 2004 American Marketing Association winter educators’ conference, AMA, Chicago, IL, pp. 42-49. Tsai, S. (2005), “Impact of personal orientation on luxurybrand purchase value: an international investigation”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 427-452. Van Boven, L., Campbell, M.C. and Gilovich, T. (2010), “Stigmatizing materialism: on stereotypes and impressions of materialistic and experiential pursuits”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 551-563. Veblen, T. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, Macmillan Publishers, New York, NY. Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (1999), “A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-15. Wang, L., Gu, D., Jiang, J. and Sun, Y. (2019), “The not-sodark side of materialism: can public versus private contexts make materialists less eco-unfriendly?”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 790. Watts, L. and Chi, T. (2019), “Key factors influencing the purchase intention of activewear: an empirical study of US consumers”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 46-55. White, K. and Peloza, J. (2009), “Self-benefit versus otherbenefit marketing appeals: their effectiveness in generating charitable support”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 109-124. Wiedmann, K.P., Hennigs, N. and Siebels, A. (2007), “Measuring consumers’ luxury value perception: a crossThe moderating effect of sustainability Yunjeong Kim and Kyung Wha Oh Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 8 · 2022 · 1222–1234 1233

cultural framework”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2007 No. 7, pp. 1-21. Yan, R.N., Hyllegard, K.H. and Blaesi, L.F. (2012), “Marketing eco-fashion: the influence of brand name and message explicitness”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 151-168. Zhang, Y., Ao, J. and Deng, J. (2019), “The influence of high– low power on green consumption: the moderating effect of impression management motivation”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 16, p. 4287. Zlatanova, M., Manole, M. and Hellfach, T. (2017), “Key success factors for luxury brands stretching into athleisure”, LBMG Strategic Brand Management-Masters Paper Series. Corresponding author Kyung Wha Oh can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] The moderating effect of sustainability Yunjeong Kim and Kyung Wha Oh Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 8 · 2022 · 1222–1234 1234

Instagram fashionistas, luxury visual image strategies and vanity S. Venus Jin Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA; Education City, Doha, Qatar and Sejong University Business School, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and Ehri Ryu Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA Abstract Purpose – Luxury fashion brands harness the power of Instagram and fashionistas for strategic brand management. This study aims to test interaction effects among luxury brand posts’ Instagram source type (brand versus fashionista), visual image type (product-centric versus consumercentric) and consumers’ characteristics (vanity, opinion leadership and fashion consciousness) on brand recognition and trust. Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative 2 (source type: brand versus fashionista) ! 2 (branded visual image type: product-centric luxury versus consumer-centric luxury) between-subjects online experiment (N males = 195 and N females = 182) was conducted by recruiting participants from MTurk. Findings – Logistic regression analyses indicated two-way interaction effects between sources and visual images on brand recognition. Brand recognition was higher for product-centric images when the source was the fashionista, whereas brand recognition was equivalent regardless of the image type when the source was the brand. Logistic regression and multiple regression analyses revealed the moderating effects of sources and visual images on the association between consumer traits and branding outcomes. Practical implications – Meticulously choosing effective methods of showcasing branded content and persuasive luxury visual image strategies via Instagram is more important for fashionistas than for established brands in increasing brand recognition. Instagram fashionistas are more effective in increasing females’ brand trust through delivering product-centric visual images when targeting women with high vanity, opinion leadership and fashion consciousness. Brands as the Instagram profile source are more persuasive in increasing males’ brand trust through delivering productcentric visual images when targeting men with high vanity. Originality/value – This experiment provides theoretical discussions and empirical findings about social media influencer marketing and managerial implications for Instagram-based luxury branding. This research revolves around the overarching theme of the interactive effects of multifaceted branded contents and market segments in social media influencer marketing environments. Keywords Fashion marketing, Brand communication, Trust, Social media, Luxury branding, Instagram, Brand recognition, Brand trust, User-generated content Paper type Research paper Introduction A luxury brand is defined as a branded product or service that has the following characteristics delineated by Tynan et al. (2010, p. 1158): “high quality, expensive and non-essential products and services that appear to be rare, exclusive, prestigious and authentic, and offer high levels of symbolic and emotional/hedonic values through customer experiences.” Thus, with regard to traditional market segmentation, luxury brands are expected to evoke uniqueness and exclusivity through high quality, premium pricing and controlled exclusive distribution. Recently, however, luxury brands and fashionistas (“designers, promoters or followers of the latest fashions,” Merriam-Webster, 2019) increasingly leverage Instagram for strategic marketing communication. Due to the strong impact of its curated visual content and image-filtering interface, Instagram has become a go-to-advertising platform for brands’ integrated marketing communication (Statista, 2017) and a tool for fashionistas’ strategic self-promotion (Adler, 2016). Prominent luxury fashion brands boost their Instagram presence to connect with consumers, create new luxury value, and to ultimately increase brand equity. Fashionistas feel gratification through Instagram followers’ acknowledgment of their fashion sense when sharing pictures of accessorizing themselves with luxury items and posting brand hashtags such as #Chanel. A variety of sources (commercial brands, fashionistas and consumers with opinion leadership) post multifarious types of luxury brand visual images (product images, brand logo images and images of people wearing luxury products) on Instagram. Luxury brands’ and fashionista influencers’ Instagram-based The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm Journal of Product & Brand Management 29/3 (2020) 355–368 © Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] [DOI 10.1108/JPBM-08-2018-1987] Received 15 August 2018 Revised 26 August 2018 28 January 2019 1 June 2019 Accepted 17 July 2019 355

marketing epitomizes visual presentation of vanity (pride and admiration of one’s appearance and achievements), demonstration of opinion leadership (capacity to influence others’ decision-making) and strategic exhibition of fashion consciousness (interest in fashion and trend). Therefore, Instagram source and branded image types may differently affect consumers with differential levels of vanity, opinion leadership and fashion consciousness. This study investigates how branded visual image types (product-centered versus consumer-centered), source types (brand versus fashionista) and consumer characteristics (vanity, opinion leadership and fashion consciousness) interact to affect brand recognition and trust. The need to understand the evolving dynamics of brandconsumer relationship metamorphosed via versatile contents embedded in Instagram is the impetus for conducting this research. Findings will provide brands and fashionistas with valuable insights and managerial implications for designing social media marketing strategies according to the orientation of target consumers and market segments. The fashion industry is a natural fit for the highly visual Instagram platform (Buryan, 2016). More than 685 million Instagram posts are hashtagged with #fashion, as of June 2019 (Websta, 2019a). Instagram is popular amongst luxury brands such that the French high-fashion brand Chanel is the leading brand on Instagram with 34.8 million followers as of June 2019. In light of the inrush of fashionista-related visual images and textual talks posted on Instagram, this study examines the effects of a fashionista (versus brand) as the Instagram profile source on consumers’ brand recognition and trust. Driven by the most recent theory of luxury (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019), this experiment provides novel findings about Instagram/fashionista-based luxury and contributes to research on the impact of social media-based luxury branding in three ways. First, this experiment presents data on the influence of Instagram source and image types on luxury brand recognition. Second, this study provides an integrative literature review about the traditional model of visual imagery versus verbal discursive processing (Childers and Houston, 1984) and the typology of consumer-centric versus product-centric luxury (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019), both of which rationalize the examination of multifaceted Instagram post types. Third, this research links relevant consumers’ traits (vanity, opinion leadership, and fashion consciousness) to Instagram/fashionista-based branding outcomes (recognition and trust). This article is structured and organized in a way to achieve two major research objectives are follows. First, to examine the interaction effects of Instagram brand posts’ sources and images on brand recognition (H1) and (H2) to investigate the moderating effects of branded contents with different source/image types on the relationship between consumer characteristics and brand recognition (H2) and brand trust (H3 and H4). For the first research objective, it is important to explore the interaction between source type and image type given that multiple sources (e.g. corporate brand, human model, celebrity endorser, fashion blogger, ordinary consumers as brand ambassadors, etc.) of branded contents and multiple methods/modalities (e.g. product-centered catalogue-style listing, human model-centered visuals, #hashtagged visuals, textual descriptions, videos, verbal comments/replies, etc.) of showcasing visual contents coexist in social media marketing (Jin, 2018). Elucidating the most effective combinations of image types and source types in increasing brand recognition (H1) would help luxury brand managers to strategically pair their marketing source with the most appealing showcasing method (product-centric versus consumer-centric image), persuasive information processing mode (visual imagery versus verbal discursive processing) and effective modality (visual versus textual). For the second research objective, consumers with certain values and traits exhibit behaviors associated with those characteristics in response to marketing stimuli, which makes exploring the interactive effects between consumer characteristics and branded contents a valuable research endeavor (Randhawa et al., 2015). Among a variety of consumers’ traits associated with the brand-consumer relationship in Instagram/fashionista-based luxury branding, the current study focuses on a vanity, opinion leadership, and fashion consciousness. These consumer traits are relevant to the core nature and technological affordance of Instagram in luxury branding as: " vanity increases consumers’ passionate desire for luxury fashion brands (Loureiro et al., 2017) and motivates consumers to search for new trends (Netemeyer et al., 1995) while Instagram fulfills their vanity need; " opinion leadership is an important trait of fashionistas who serve as market mavens (Goldsmith et al., 1993) and use Instagram as social networking and social commerce tools for engaging with their followers (Loureiro et al., 2018); and " Instagram functions as an arena for fashion leaders with high fashion consciousness to showcase their luxurious lifestyle and fashionable styling (Loureiro et al., 2017). Theoretical frameworks and hypothesis development Luxury brand posts on instagram and brand recognition The core existence of Instagram is built upon the sharing of user-generated images with a snapshot aesthetic in social media (Sheldon and Bryant, 2016). Increasing number of fashion brands are using a more amateur-style snapshot aesthetic when posting their product images (Colliander and Marder, 2018). Snapping photos for the followers is a daily practice for both ordinary consumers and commercial brands (Colliander and Marder, 2018). Illuminating which type of image is most effective when presented by which type of source in increasing indirect measures of customer-based brand equity (i.e. brand recognition and trust) would provide managerial implications. Therefore, this study examines interaction of sources and images on brand recognition (H1). The experiment was theoretically guided by two overarching conceptual frameworks: visual imagery processing versus verbal discursive processing (Childers and Houston, 1984; Debevec and Romeo, 1992) and a typology of brand luxury (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019). The current research examined customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993) rather than brand equity as the financial market value of the firm (“the incremental cash flows which accrue to branded products over unbranded products”) from a financial approach (Simon and Sullivan, 1993, p. 28). Customer-based brand equity is defined as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (Keller, 1993, p. 1). As brand equity Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 356

occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds favorable brand associations in memory, measuring brand awareness is one indirect approach of assessing potential sources of customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993). Brand awareness is a buyer’s ability to recognize or recall that a specific brand name is a member of a certain product category (Keller, 2008). Brand awareness precedes building brand equity (Huang and Sarigollu, 2012; Keller, 1993) and increases the probability of inclusion of the brand in consumers’ consideration set (MacDonald and Sharp, 2000). Consumer brand awareness captures “top-of-mind” accessibility of the brand in memory and potential retrievability of the brand in memory, which ultimately increases customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993). Brand awareness consists of two dimensions, namely, recognition and recall (Keller, 1993). Brand recognition, related to a consumer’s ability to identify a brand when given the brand name as a clue, is defined as “whether consumers are able to recognize the brand” (Huang and Sarigollu, 2012, p. 98). Brand recall, defined as a consumer’s ability to remember a brand when given the product category (Keller, 1993), occurs when “consumers can recall a certain brand during their decision-making process without priming” (Huang and Sarigollu, 2012, p. 98). Brand recognition is a more sensitive measure of memory than brand recall as consistently evidenced by higher levels of recognition than recall in product placement research (Marti-Parreno et al., 2017). These two dimensions are also different in terms of levels of consumer involvement such that brand recall requires the consumers to expend greater effort to retrieve a brand from memory than brand recognition, which only requires the consumers to identify whether the brand was seen or heard previously (Keller, 1993). As this study examined consumers’ response to a brief exposure to brand posts on Instagram prior to actual decision-making and purchasing process, which requires a relatively low level of consumer involvement, brand recognition was the focal construct. Visual imagery processing versus verbal discursive processing and brand recognition A theoretical framework that can be applied to propose interaction effects between Instagram posts and sources on brand recognition is visual versus verbal information processing (Childers and Houston, 1984). One of the marketing objectives of examining differential effects of pictures (visual) versus words (verbal) on consumer memory is to increase “top of the mind” awareness and recall of a brand or company name (Childers and Houston, 1984). Pictorial stimuli are more memorable than verbal ones, verifying the picture superiority effect (Debevec and Romeo, 1992). The pervasive explanation for the stronger presence of pictorial information in consumer memory than verbal counterpart focuses on its superior ability to evoke the use of imagery processing compared to discursive processing (Childers and Houston, 1984). Showcased images correspond to pictorial information delivered through visual imagery processing, whereas textual descriptions of source names correspond to verbal information delivered through discursive processing. Visual image is likened to a “picture in the head” (Wyer et al., 2008). Visual imagery is a rich mnemonic device that enhances retention of material (Childers and Houston, 1984), which partially explains the popularity of visual image-based Instagram among brands and fashionistas. Debevec and Romeo (1992) delineated two types of visual image strategies, namely, products-featured versus usersfeatured visual images, which is theoretically consistent with Seo and Buchanan-Oliver’s (2019) product-centric versus consumer-centric brand luxury typology. Product-centric versus consumer-centric luxury and brand recognition According to Seo and Buchanan-Oliver’s (2019) recent theorizing on a typology of luxury brand consumption practices, there are two perspectives on a conceptualization of brand luxury, namely, product-centric luxury and consumercentric luxury. Product-centric luxury perspective revolves around the functional (Berthon et al., 2009) and utilitarian (Tynan et al., 2010) value of luxury brands and focuses on craftsmanship, heritage, quality and premium price (Dubois et al., 2001). In contrast, consumer-centric luxury perspective revolves around the symbolic/expressive (Tynan et al., 2010) and experiential/hedonic (Berthon et al., 2009) value of luxury brands and focuses on social meaning (Miller and Mills, 2012) and status symbol (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009). These two conceptualizations of luxury were applied to different sources and Instagram images in the current experiment. Brand name (Chanel) as the Instagram profile source corresponds to “product-centric” luxury, whereas fashionista’s name as the source corresponds to “consumercentric” luxury. Brand as the marketing source highlights craftsmanship, heritage, quality and premium price of the “products” (Dubois et al., 2001). In contrast, fashionista as the non-marketing source and peer consumer showcases experiential/hedonic value of brand luxury, symbolic expression of luxurious lifestyle and conspicuous status consumption of luxury brands by “consumers” (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019). Images only showing products correspond to product-centric luxury, whereas images showing a fashionista wearing the products, as a consumer experientially using the product, correspond to consumer-centric luxury. Traditionally, brands were perceived to be a marketingoriented/product-centered source, whereas peer consumers were perceived to be a non-marketing-oriented/consumercentered source. However, a fashionista can serve as a source of product-centered contents when the fashionista posts productcentric images (commercial catalogue-style product listing with a traditional studio aesthetic) on Instagram. Likewise, a brand can also function as a source of consumer-centered contents when the brand posts user-centric images (fashionistas’ photos with an amateur-style snapshot aesthetic). Thus, on Instagram, the same source can post different types of images. Furthermore, source identification is a combination of visual (brand’s visual profile logo and fashionista’s visual profile photo) and verbal (verbal/textual description of the brand’s and fashionista’s profile names) information, which entail both visual imagery processing and verbal discursive processing. The coexistence of multiple sources and multifarious images and each source’s increased degree of freedom in posting versatile branded contents in various modalities rationalize the examination of interaction between source type and image type. Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 357

When photos show a consumer wearing the product (consumer-centric), brand recognition would be higher for the brand as the source than for the fashionista as the source because textual brand name and visual logo in the Instagram profile section as retrieval cues increase consumers’ brand awareness. In contrast, when photos show products only (product-centric), brand recognition would be equivalent regardless of the source. Therefore, it is proposed that there is an interaction between sources and images. Framed differently, it can be hypothesized that when the source is the brand, brand recognition would be equivalent between different image types because the brand name and logo in the profile as retrieval cues will equally affect brand awareness. In contrast, when the source is the fashionista, brand recognition might be lower in consumer-centric than product-centric image conditions, as consumers will pay more attention to the fashionista than to the product itself because of the figure-and-ground perception. Figure-and-ground organization is a process by which the visual system identifies some image regions as foreground and others as background. It is one of the human perception processes, whereby certain aspects stand out as a figure from the ground, thus inducing directed attention toward the focal point of interest (Qiu and von der Heydt, 2005). These theoretical frameworks including the typology of productcentric versus consumer-centric luxury (Seo and BuchananOliver, 2019), verbal discursive versus visual imagery processing model (Childers and Houston, 1984) and figureand-ground perception (Qiu and von der Heydt, 2005), guided the formation of H1. H1. Source types (brand versus fashionista in verbal/visual modality) and image types (product-centric versus consumer-centric images in visual modality) of Instagram luxury brand posts will interact to influence consumers’ brand recognition, such that the brand’s product-centric images will have a boosting effect, whereas the fashionista’s consumer-centric images will have an inhibition effect on brand recognition. Vanity and brand recognition This study further examined the interaction effects of luxury brand posts’ attributes and consumers’ individual differences in values and traits on brand recognition and trust. Previous research provides empirical evidence about the positive influence of social media-based brand community and brand engagement on predictors of brand equity, such that consumerbrand relationship and consumer-product relationship positively influence brand trust (Habibi et al., 2014). The present experiment tests the moderating effects of brand posts’ source/image types on the association between consumer traits and brand recognition (H2) and brand trust (H3 and H4). Vanity refers to inflated pride in oneself and one’s appearance. Vanity consists of four aspects. First, excessive concerns for physical appearance (VAN_CPA).Second, positive and inflated view of one’s physical appearance (VAN_VPA). Third, excessive concerns for personal achievements (VAN_CA). Finally, positive and inflated view of one’s personal achievements (VAN_VA) (Netemeyer et al., 1995). Consumer vanity is relevant to value-expressive and socialadjustive functions (Shavitt, 1990) of luxury brand perception and consumption (Wilcox et al., 2009). A value-expressive function of luxury brands refers to consumers’ motivation to purchase luxury brands to express one’s self-identity to others (self-expression) (Wilcox et al., 2009). For example, a consumer purchases a Chanel bag because the bag reflects the consumer’s identity, central values and beliefs (Jin, 2012). On the other hand, a social-adjustive function refers to consumers’ motivation to purchase luxury brands to convey a particular social image and gain approval in social situations (selfpresentation) (Wilcox et al., 2009). A consumer buys a Chanel bag because it reflects a social status symbol the consumer wishes to present to others (Jin, 2012). Conveying social status is associated with conspicuous consumption (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019). Luxury brands serve both valueexpressive and social-adjustive functions. These multiple functions are positive predictors of luxury branding outcomes and motivations for luxury consumption (Jin, 2012). As one of the primary goals of material, luxury possessions is to impress others, luxury brands fit the purpose of consumers’ vanity (Kaufmann et al., 2016). Luxury brands fulfill consumers’ vanity needs by empowering them to be proud of their fashionable look (physical appearance vanity and selfexpression/value-expressive function) and to exhibit luxurious possessions as a status symbol of success and achievements (achievement vanity and self-presentation/social-adjustive function). The aesthetic and visual aspects of Instagram resonate with consumers’ vanity needs. Instagram provides consumers with a visual image-oriented platform where they strategically filter and flaunt their physical looks and material possessions (value-expressive self-expression), and consequently, receive followers’ social approval and appreciation in the form of “follow,” “like” and “comment” (social-adjustive and self-presentation). Consumers’ vanity traits instigate fashion trend-following and information-seeking behaviors (Netemeyer et al., 1995). There is a positive relationship between vanity and perceived apparel advertising values (Wong and Malone, 2016). Advertisements of benefits from owning particular brand names resonate with vanity, as those claims inflate concerns for and views of physical appearance and achievements (Workman and Lee, 2013). Consumers with high physical appearance vanity are conscious about the way they present themselves to others and feel embarrassed if they are not suitably dressed for occasions, which often leads to the use of luxury brand products (Mamat et al., 2016). Thus, physical appearance vanity is positively associated with luxury consumption (Roux et al., 2017) and presumably, with luxury brand recognition. Achievement vanity is also positively correlated with luxury brand recognition given that luxury brands are symbols of material success and achievements. Achievement vanity is correlated with materialism subscale of success (Belk, 1984). Consumers with high achievement vanity purchase expensive products and luxury brands (Netemeyer et al., 1995). As fashionistas tend to have inflated physical appearance vanity (Workman and Lee, 2013), fashionistas as the source of Instagram images featuring luxury brand products might moderate the influence of consumers’ physical appearance vanity on brand recognition. As brands are symbols of Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 358

achievements, brands as the source of Instagram images showing luxury products might interact with consumers’ achievement vanity. High vanity consumers are more sensitive to luxury brands, conscious of prestigious brand names, and attentive to brand luxury image because of their association with wealth and social status (Workman and Lee, 2013), which also suggests the interactive effects of consumer vanity and luxury brand posts on brand recognition. Consumers with higher vanity may recognize the luxury brand even in the absence of brand name/logo cues. These conceptual foundations, theoretical rationales and logical reasoning guided the formation of H2. H2. Consumers’ vanity will interact with source types and image types of Instagram luxury brand posts to influence brand recognition, such that consumer vanity will have a boosting effect on brand recognition only in the fashionista’s consumer-centric image condition without any brand name/logo cues, whereas consumer vanity will not have any effect on brand recognition in the brand’s conditions with brand name/logo cues and the fashionista’s product-centric image condition with brand logo cues. Vanity and brand trust Brand trust is also an integral aspect of brand equity such that building and maintaining trust is at the core of brand equity as a relational market-based asset (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003). Brand trust refers to “the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function” (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, p. 82). Two dimensions of brand trust are as follows: reliability and intentions (DelgadoBallester et al., 2003). Reliability dimension is based on consumers’ belief that the brand accomplishes its value promise (Doney and Cannon, 1997). Reliable brands satisfy consumers’ needs in consistently positive manners (DelgadoBallester et al., 2003). Intention dimension is concerned with consumers’ belief that the brand’s behavior is motivated by favorable intentions toward consumers’ welfare and interests in the event of problematic situations (Andaleeb, 1992). Consumers with high achievement vanity tend to be more prestige-sensitive and trust a luxury brand based on the brand’s attributes such as symbols of success, social status and social prestige (Wong and Malone, 2016). Consumers with high physical appearance vanity tend to be more fashion-conscious and trust a luxury brand based on the brand’s attractiveness and aestheticism (Roux et al., 2017). Thus, prestige seeking tendency and physical appearance concerns of vanity may interact with luxury brand posts’ sources and images in influencing consumers’ brand trust. Furthermore, regarding the role of gender, women tend to have a more positive disposition toward luxury brand consumption than men (Stokburger-Sauer and Teichmann, 2013). The influence of physical appearance vanity on luxury brand recognition and consumption is also higher for women than men (Lee and Workman, 2014). Women are more concerned about emotionrelated luxury values such as hedonism and pleasure (Stokburger-Sauer and Teichmann, 2013) and have higher self-appearance vanity (Roux et al., 2017). Wearing fashionable clothing and having a desirable body image are means to maintain self-worth and establish social prestige for many women (Workman and Lee, 2013), which suggests that luxury brand trust may interact with consumer gender, physical appearance vanity and achievement vanity. Based on these theoretical rationales, H3 was proposed to test the influence of vanity and gender on luxury brand trust and the moderating effects of Instagram brand posts’ attributes. H3. Consumers’ vanity and gender will interact with source types and image types of Instagram luxury brand posts to influence brand trust, such that vanity will have a boosting effect on brand trust in the fashionista’s product-centric image condition and the brand’s consumer-centric image condition for female consumers and in the brand’s product-centric image condition and the fashionista’s consumer-centric image condition for male consumers. Opinion leadership and fashion consciousness Opinion leaders influence other consumers’ attitudes and behaviors, usually via word-of-mouth (WoM) (Moldovan et al., 2017). Opinion leadership and information seeking’s are critical determinants of WoM communication and interpersonal influences that ultimately affect the diffusion of new products (Reynolds and Darden, 1971). These factors are becoming increasingly relevant to influencer marketing, viral marketing and social media branding in which consumers’ willingness to pass along electronic WoM about brand-related user-generated content (UGC) plays an integral role (Halliday, 2016). Consumers with high opinion leadership serve as social media influencers and market mavens through having earlier awareness of new products and seeking brand-related information from multiple sources (Brannback et al., 2017). Fashion consciousness refers to consumers’ awareness and interest in fashion, (Nam et al., 2006) and propensity to like new and innovative products and gains excitement from seeking out new things (Sproles and Sproles, 1990). Consumers with high fashion consciousness tend to place importance on fashionable and attractive styling and own the latest style. Highly fashion-conscious consumers possess traits such as “brand-conscious” and “innovative” (Casidy, 2012). Many fashion-conscious consumers identify themselves as early adopters or fashion-leaders and make purposeful efforts to invest in the newest trends (Nam et al., 2006). Although fashion opinion leadership is similar to fashion consciousness in that they both involve a desire for the latest fashion styles, the two concepts are essentially different (Lertwannawit and Mandhachitara, 2012). Fashion leaders learn about and purchase the latest fashion items to express their individual identity (Goldsmith et al., 1993). On the other hand, fashion consciousness, equivalent to fashion involvement, refers to the desire for and adoption of up-to-date styles to maintain one’s status in a social network (Walsh et al., 2001). Consumers with high fashion opinion leadership and consciousness may trust the brand more when product-centric images are posted on Instagram by fashionistas than by brands, as: " consumers trust non-marketing sources more than marketing sources (Duhan et al., 1997); and Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 359

" fashion-conscious opinion leaders show higher social identification with the fashionista (Jin, 2018). Furthermore, according to Walther and Parks’ (2002) warranting theory, other-endorsement has higher warranting value and is more persuasive than self-endorsement. Fashionistas’ endorsement of luxury brands (otherendorsement) by posting product-centric images will have stronger persuasive power in increasing trust than brands’ selfpromotion of their own products (self-endorsement). In contrast, the trust may be equivalent in consumer-centric image conditions regardless of the source or higher when consumer-centric images are posted by brands (otherendorsement) than by fashionistas (self-endorsement). In addition, women are more fashion conscious (Wong and Malone, 2016) and indicate higher fashion opinion leadership than men (Goldsmith et al., 1987), which implies gender may play a role in shaping interaction effects of Instagram brand post attributes, consumers’ opinion leadership and fashion consciousness on brand trust. These theoretical foundations guided the formation of H4. H4. Consumers’ opinion leadership, fashion consciousness and gender will interact with source types, and image types of Instagram luxury brand posts to influence brand trust, such that opinion leadership and fashion consciousness will have a boosting effect on brand trust in the fashionista’s product-centric image condition and the brand’s consumer-centric image condition for female consumers and in the brand’s product-centric image condition and the fashionista’s consumer-centric image condition for male consumers. Methodology Sample and procedure Participants were crowd workers (195 men and 182 women, after excluding 13 participants, who failed to pass manipulation checks) recruited from MTurk (mean age 33.65; median age 32; 234 whites, 95 Asians, 24 African Americans, 15 American Indians, 1 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander and 8 Others). MTurk is a crowdsourcing platform that enables individuals (workers) and data collectors (requesters) to coordinate the use of human intelligence and perform tasks such as online surveys and experiments (Rosset al., 2010). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions (2 [Instagram profile sources] ! 2 [branded visual images]): 1 brand’s Instagram profile containing product-centric images (BP); 2 brand’s profile containing consumer-centric images (BC); 3 fashionista’s profile containing product-centric images (FP); and 4 fashionista’s profile containing consumer-centric images (FC). After a pretest on consumer traits, participants were exposed to the manipulation stimuli and took a post-test. Manipulation Two factors were manipulated between-subjects. For the brand as the Instagram source manipulations, Chanel satisfies the theoretical criteria for characteristics of a luxury brand as consumers perceive Chanel to: " be high quality; " offer authentic value; " have a prestigious image; " be worthy of premium price; and " inspire a connection and resonance with the consumer (Ko et al., 2019). Practically, among leading fashion brands ranked by the number of followers at the time of data collection in 2017, the French high-fashion powerhouse Chanel was the first ranked luxury brand on Instagram (Statista, 2017). Chanel bags were selected as the target product based on the results of top hashtag searches related to “luxury brand”: #luxurybrand (2,427,138), #luxurybrands (699,722) and #luxurybrandedbags/ luxurybrandbag (128,850) (Websta, 2019b), which indicates that bags are the most frequently hashtagged product category within luxury brands. For fashionista manipulations, Julie Sarinana (@sincerelyjules) was selected given that Julie Sarinana satisfies criteria for Instagram fashionista as she is active on Instagram on a daily basis by posting photos that showcase her high fashion items and luxurious lifestyle; posts images of brands’ products and snapshot images of herself wearing them as a model; and has millions of Instagram followers. For product-centric images, Chanel bags were presented without any reference to a consumer. For consumercentric images, a fashionista, as a consumer of the product, is wearing the identical products as in product-centric images. Measures Four dimensions of vanity were measured with seven-point Likert scales. First, CPA (e.g. “The way I look is extremely important to me”, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.932). Second, VPA (e.g. “My looks are very appealing to others”, alpha = 0.947). Third, CA (e.g. “Achieving greater success than my peers is important to me”, alpha = 0.918). Fourth, VA (e.g. “I am a good example of professional success”, alpha = 0.949) (Netemeyer et al., 1995). Opinion leadership was measured with Reynolds and Darden’s (1971) scales (e.g. “I sometimes influence the types of clothes my friends buy,” alpha = 0.956). Fashion consciousness was measured with Sproles and Sproles’ (1990) consumer styles inventory (CSI) (e.g. “I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions”, alpha = 0.936). Brand recognition was measured via a two-step process (Herrewijn and Poels, 2015): first using yes/no dichotomous question (“Do you recognize the brand?”: “Yes, I recognize the brand.” versus “No, I do not recognize the brand.”), and then using a close-ended brand name identification question (“What is the brand name of the handbags in the Instagram posts?”: “Chanel” versus “Hermes”). “I recognize the brand” was coded as 1 versus “I do not recognize the brand” as 0. Brand trust was measured with brand trust scale: reliability (e.g. “Chanel gives me confidence and certainty in the consumption of its products”, alpha = 0.938) and intentionality dimensions (e.g. “Chanel would make any effort to make me be satisfied”, 4 items, alpha = 0.940) (Delgado-Ballesteret al., 2003). Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 360

Results Two-way interaction effects on brand recognition (hypothesis1) Overall, women recognized the brand better than men. 74.7 per cent of women and 65.1 per cent of men recognized the brand in the first step (yes/no dichotomous question) (x2 df=1 = 4.120, p = 0.043), whereas the majority of participants (96.7 per cent of women and 91.3 per cent of men) correctly identified the target brand (Chanel) in the second step (closeended brand name recognition question). Figure 1 shows the frequency of the responses to the yes/no dichotomous brand recognition measure. Logistic regression was conducted to test H1 (Table I). To probe the interaction, the logistic regression model was reestimated with a different dummy coding for sources and images. In women, the conditional odds ratio between fashionista and brand was 1.59 (p = 0.54) in product-centric images, and 0.04 (p < 0.01) in consumer-centric images. The odds of brand recognition was not significantly different between sources in product-centric images, but the odds were lower in fashionista than brand for consumer-centric images such that the odds in fashionista was 0.04 times the odds in brand Figure 1(a). When the interaction was probed in terms of image comparison in different sources, conditional odds between consumer-centric and product-centric was 0.95 (p = 0.94) in brand and 0.02 (p < 0.01) in fashionista. The odds were not significantly different between images in brand, and the odds were lower in consumercentric in fashionista such that the odds in consumer-centric was about 1/50 the odds in product-centric Figure 1(b). In men, the conditional odds ratio between fashionista and brand was 0.29 (p = 0.01) in product-centric, and 0.16 (p < 0.01) in consumercentric. The odds were lower in fashionista than in brand for both image types. This effect of the source was not significantly Figure 1 Frequency of brand recognition (“I recognize this brand”) in women (N = 182) and men (N = 195) Table I Estimated logistic regression model to test the effects of source type, image type, and interaction source # image on brand recognition Women Men Regression ^b (SE) e ^b ^b (SE) e ^b Intercept 2.15 (0.47) 8.60 1.79 (0.41)## 6.00 FB 0.46 (0.76) 1.59 $1.25 (0.50)# 0.28 CP $0.48 (0.67)## 0.95 $0.58 (0.53) 0.56 FB#CP $3.66 (0.96)## 0.03 $0.60 (0.68) 0.55 R2 CS 0.322 0.154 R2 N 0.475 0.212 Notes: ^b = coefficient estimate; SE = standard error, e ^b = odds ratio. e ^b for the intercept is the estimated odds in brand source’s product-centric image condition. Statistical significance of coefficients was tested using the Wald test (df = 1). FB is a dummy variable for source type (0 = brand, 1 = fashionista). CP is a dummy variable for image type (0 = product-centric and 1 = consumercentric). The coefficient for FB is the simple effect of source in product-centric condition; the coefficient for CP is the simple effect of the image in brand condition. R2 CS = Cox & Snell R square; R2 N = Nagelkerke R square. N = 182 for women; N = 195 for men. #p < 0.05; and ##p < 0.01 Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 361

different between images Figure 1(c). The odds ratio between consumer-centric and product-centric was 0.56 (p = 0.27) in brand, and 0.31 (p < 0.01) in fashionista. The odds were lower in consumer-centric than in product-centric in fashionista, but not significantly different between images in brand Figure 1(d). All these support H1. Three-way interaction effects on brand recognition (hypothesis 2) Logistic regression analysis was conducted to test H2. A significant three-way interaction was found for VAN_VPA in women. To probe the interaction, simple effects of VAN_VPA were estimated in each condition. VAN_VPA had a significant influence on brand recognition only in fashionista’s consumer-centric images such that the odds of brand recognition increases 2.71 times per 1 score increase in VAN_VPA. A three-way interaction was found for VAN_CPA in men. VAN_CPA had a significant influence on brand recognition only in the fashionista’s consumercentric images such that the odds of brand recognition increases 5.23 times per 1 score increase in VAN_CPA (Table II). Three-way interaction effects on brand trust (hypothesis 3 and hypothesis 4) Reliability dimension Females. Three-way interaction effects are presented in Table III and Figure 2. In Figure 2(a) (top), interaction with VAN_CPA and VAN_CA showed similar patterns. In each figure that shows the conditional two-way interaction effect (source # vanity) in each image type, simple slope for vanity was larger (stronger positive relationship with BT_R) in fashionista than in brand for product-centric (test of difference in simple slope between sources: p = 0.019 for VAN_CPA; p = 0.036 for VAN_CA), supporting H3a. In Figure 2(a) (bottom), interaction with OL and FAC showed similar patterns. In each figure, a simple slope for OL/FAC was larger in fashionista than in brand for productcentric, supporting H4. Males. There were three-way interaction effects with males’ VAN_CPA and VAN_VPA. In Figure 2(b) (left), a simple slope for VAN_CPA showed the exact opposite pattern compared to the interaction in women presented in Figure 2(a). The simple slope for VAN_CPA was larger in brand than in fashionista for product-centric images. For consumer-centric images, the simple slope was larger in fashionista than in brand, supporting H3a and H3b. In Figure 2(b)(right), a simple slope for VAN_VPA showed a similar pattern to VAN_CPA in men presented in Figure 2(b)(left). Intentionality dimension Females. There were three-way interactions with women’ OL and FAC. In Figure 2(c) (left), the interaction (source # image # OL) on BT_I occurred in a similar pattern to the interaction on BT_R in Figure 2(a). OL showed a stronger positive relationship with BT_I in fashionista than in brand for product-centric images, supporting H4a. Figure 2(c) (right) shows the interaction (source # image # FAC) on BT_I, supporting H4b. Males. No three-way interaction effect was found among men, supporting H4c. Discussion Theoretical contributions and managerial implications This study provides the first empirical evidence of interactive effects between Instagram brand posts and consumer traits, by demonstrating brand recognition and brand trust are shaped by Instagram posts’ attributes and consumers’ characteristics. Brand recognition was higher for product-centric images than consumer-centric images when the source was the fashionista, whereas brand recognition was equivalent regardless of image types when the source was the brand (H1). Meticulously choosing more effective modalities of showcasing branded content and more persuasive visual image strategies via Instagram marketing channels is particularly important for fashionistas than for established luxury brands. The higher consumers’ physical appearance vanity, the higher brand recognition, but only for consumer-centric images posted by fashionistas. The positive association between physical appearance vanity and recognition becomes meaningful only when fashionistas post consumer-centric images (H2). This finding is consistent with the theoretical reasoning elaborated above: as fashionistas themselves have inflated physical appearance vanity (Wong and Malone, 2016), fashionistas as the source of branded contents featuring consumer-centric images, which exhibit attractive body image and showcase fashionable styling, moderate the influence of consumers’ appearance vanity on luxury brand recognition. The higher women’ vanity, the higher brand trust when product-centric images are posted by the fashionista than by the brand (H3a). Women with high vanity trust luxury brands more and perceive them to be more reliable when product-centric images are posted by fashionistas than by the brand itself. Women with high vanity trust luxury brands more and perceive them to be more reliable when consumer-centric images are posted by the brand than by fashionistas. These findings can be interpreted from the two related theoretical lenses delineated above are as follows: the literature on marketing versus nonmarketing sources (Duhan et al., 1997); and warranting theory (Walther and Parks, 2002). First, product-centric images posted by non-commercial/non-marketer sources (Instagram fashionista) than by explicit commercial/marketer sources (established luxury brand) might have contributed to higher brand trust as consumers perceive information from marketer sources to be more biased and manipulative (Duhan et al., 1997). Second, consistent with warranting theory (Walther and Parks, 2002), which assumes higher efficacy of other-endorsement (vs self-endorsement) in persuasion, fashionistas’ endorsement of a luxury brand (other-endorsement) might have had stronger persuasive power in increasing brand trust than the brand’s selfpromotion of its own products (self-endorsement). Depending on the source of branded content, product-centric posts can be either self-endorsement by the brand itself or other-endorsement by fashionistas (Jin, 2018). In addition to providing empirical evidence consistent with these two theoretical lenses in the novel context of Instagram/fashionista-based luxury branding, this study newly adds relevant moderators to the existing literature. This novel finding speaks to the power of other-endorsement and misfit between the branded content and the source (commercial product-centric visual images with a studio aesthetic posted by non-traditional, non-marketing sources such as fashionistas; noncommercial consumer-centric images with a snapshot aesthetic Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 362

posted by traditional marketing sources such as established brands) in increasing brand trust among high vanity women. The identical pattern was found for women with high opinion leadership (OL) (H4a) and fashion consciousness (FAC) (H4b). Women with higher OL and FAC trust the luxury brand more and perceive the brand to be more reliable when product-centric images are posted by fashionistas than by the brand itself. The same pattern was also found for the intentionality dimension of brand trust, such that female opinion leaders with greater fashion consciousness trust luxury brands more and perceive them to have a higher level of good intention when product-centric images are posted by fashionistas than by the brand itself. All these findings speak to the power of Instagram fashionistas in increasing women’ brand trust while delivering product-centric visual posts, especially when the target female consumers’ vanity, opinion leadership and fashion consciousness are high. In contrast, the exact opposite pattern was found for men (H3b). Males with high vanity trust luxury brands more and perceive them to be more reliable when product-centric images Table II Estimated logistic regression model to test three-way interaction of source, image, and consumer vanity on Brand recognition (women, N = 182; men, N = 195) Consumer vanity (X) VAN_CPA VAN_VPA VAN_CA VAN_VA Regression ^b (SE) e ^b ^b (SE) e ^b ^b (SE) e ^b ^b (SE) e ^b Women (N = 182) Intercept 2.15 (0.47)## 8.61 2.18 (0.49)## 8.88 2.20 (0.50)## 8.98 2.44 (0.59)## 11.41 FB 0.52 (0.79) 1.68 0.56 (0.83) 1.75 0.45 (0.79) 1.57 0.44 (0.94) 1.55 CP $0.03 (0.67) 0.97 $0.14 (0.69) 0.87 $0.09 (0.69) 0.91 $0.25 (0.78) 0.78 X 0.02 (0.30) 1.02 0.19 (0.32) 1.21 0.10 (0.29) 1.11 0.42 (0.32) 1.52 FB#CP $4.06 (1.02)## 0.02 $3.85 (1.06)## 0.02 $3.69 (1.00)## 0.03 $3.86 (1.16)## 0.02 FB#X $0.25 (0.58) 0.78 0.08 (0.54) 1.08 0.15 (0.50) 1.16 0.03 (0.55) 1.03 CP#X $0.15 (0.48) 0.86 $0.68 (0.49) 0.51 $0.07 (0.47) 0.94 $0.21 (0.43) 0.81 FB#CP#X 1.05 (0.76) 2.84 1.41 (0.75)†a 4.09 0.45 (0.69) 1.57 0.54 (0.69) 1.72 R2 CS 0.342 0.371 0.347 0.369 R2 N 0.506 0.548 0.512 0.545 Males (N = 195) Intercept 1.90 (0.45)## 6.66 1.92 (0.46)## 6.81 1.86 (0.43)## 6.41 1.80 (0.44)## 6.07 FB $1.35 (0.54)# 0.26 $1.37 (0.55)# 0.25 $1.31 (0.53)# 0.27 $1.23 (0.54)# 0.29 CP $0.67 (0.57) 0.51 $0.70 (0.58) 0.50 $0.61 (0.56) 0.54 $0.44 (0.59) 0.65 X $0.36 (0.38) 0.70 $0.28 (0.35) 0.76 $0.27 (0.31) 0.76 $0.02 (0.32) 0.98 FB#CP $1.06 (0.80) 0.35 $0.82 (0.75) 0.44 $1.31 (0.80) 0.27 $0.99 (0.75) 0.37 FB#X 0.28 (0.43) 1.33 0.26 (0.40) 1.30 0.25 (0.39) 1.28 $0.09 (0.40 0.91 CP#X 0.40 (0.44) 1.49 0.35 (0.42) 1.42 0.39 (0.37) 1.47 0.34 (0.38) 1.41 FB#CP#X 1.33 (0.71)†b 3.80 0.33 (0.54) 1.39 0.73 (0.60) 2.08 0.16 (0.52) 1.17 R2 CS 0.242 0.186 0.208 0.177 R2 N 0.333 0.256 0.286 0.244 ^b (SE) p-value e ^b 95% CI for e ^b Estimated simple effect of VAN_VPA in women (N = 182) Brand, product-centric 0.19 (0.32) 0.554 1.21 [0.65, 2.24] Brand, consumer-centric $0.49 (0.37) 0.187 0.61 [0.30, 1.27] Fashionista, product-centric 0.26 (0.44) 0.551 1.30 [0.55, 3.10] Fashionista, consumer-centric 1.00 (0.37) 0.006 2.71 [1.32, 5.53] Estimated simple effect of VAN_CPA in men (N = 195) Brand, product-centric $0.36 (0.38) 0.338 0.70 [0.33, 1.46] Brand, consumer-centric 0.04 (0.22) 0.860 1.04 [0.67, 1.61] Fashionista, product-centric $0.08 (0.21) 0.709 0.92 [0.61, 1.40] Fashionista, consumer-centric 1.65 (0.52) 0.001 5.23 [1.90, 14.36] Notes: ^b = coefficient estimate; SE = standard error, e ^b = odds ratio. e ^b for the intercept is the estimated odds for those whose consumer characteristic is at the mean in brand source’s product-centric image condition. Statistical significance of coefficients was tested using Wald test (df = 1). FB is a dummy variable for source type (0 = Brand, 1 = Fashionista). CP is a dummy variable for image type (0 = Product-centric, 1 = Consumer-centric). All consumer characteristic variables (X) were centered at the means. The coefficient for FB is the simple effect of Source for those whose consumer characteristic (X) is at the mean in Product-centric condition; the coefficient for CP is the simple effect of image type for those whose consumer characteristic (X) is at the mean in brand condition; the coefficient for X is the simple effects of X in brand product-centric condition. The coefficient for FB#CP is the conditional two-way interaction effect for those whose X is at the mean; the coefficient for FB#X is the conditional two-way interaction effect in product-centric condition; the coefficient for CP#X is the conditional two-way interaction effect in brand condition. R2 CS = Cox & Snell R square; R2 N = Nagelkerke R square. For the consumer vanity that showed three-way interaction effects (a = 0.08), the estimated simple effects of consumer vanity in each condition are shown in the bottom. †a p = 0.062; †b p = 0.060; # p < 0.05; ## p < 0.01 Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 363

are posted by the brand than by the fashionista. Contrary to women, self-endorsement and fit between the branded content and the source (commercial product-centric visual images posted by marketing sources) was more effective in increasing brand trust among high vanity men. This finding about the efficacy of perceived fit is theoretically consistent with the role of brand-product-fit in luxury branding (Moon and Sprott, 2016). Brand’s self-promotion of its own products (selfendorsement) is more effective than fashionistas’ endorsement of luxury brands (other-endorsement) in persuading high vanity men to trust the brand. These gender differences demonstrated by the exact opposite patterns can be partially attributed to the different decision-making-roles played by female consumers versus male consumers, when interacting with feminine brands that mainly target female consumers. There is a wide range of decision-making units in consumer psychology including Table III Estimated regression models to test three-way interaction of source, image, and consumer characteristics on Brand trust reliability (BT_R top)/ intention (BT_I bottom) (women, N = 182; men, N = 195) Regression VAN_CPA VAN_VPA VAN_CA VAN_VA OL FAC Intercept 4.80 (0.21)## 4.79 (0.23)## 4.83 (0.23)## 4.85 (0.23)## 4.79 (0.20)## 4.76 (0.20)## FB $0.25 (0.30) $0.08 (0.34) $0.27 (0.33) $0.13 (0.34) $0.19 (0.29) $0.06 (0.29) CP $0.36 (0.30) $0.26 (0.34) $0.37 (0.32) $0.32 (0.33) $0.20 (0.29) $0.13 (0.29) X 0.28 (0.13)# 0.10 (0.16) 0.12 (0.14) 0.18 (0.15) $0.31 (0.10)## 0.36 (0.12)## FB#CP 0.57 (0.43) 0.46 (0.49) 0.76 (0.46) 0.51 (0.48) 0.50 (0.41) 0.35 (0.42) FB#X 0.51 (0.22)# 0.30 (0.23) 0.46 (0.22)# 0.29 (0.23) 0.38 (0.15)# 0.27 (0.16) CP#X 0.50 (0.21)# 0.07 (0.24) 0.38 (0.23) 0.13 (0.21) 0.13 (0.15) 0.15 (0.17) FB#CP#X $0.87 (0.32)## $0.24 (0.33) $0.65 (0.32)# $0.46 (0.30) $0.52 (0.21)# $0.50 (0.23)# RFB*CP*X2 0.032 0.003 0.021 0.012 0.024 0.019 BT_R R2 = 0.246 R2 = 0.055 R2 = 0.130 R2 = 0.085 R2 = 0.312 R2 = 0.285 Women F = 8.11## F = 1.46 F = 3.72## F = 2.32# F = 11.28## F = 9.91## Intercept 4.57 (0.19)## 4.40 (0.20)## 4.62 (0.21)## 4.30 (0.22)## 4.47 (0.19)## 4.45 (0.20)## FB $0.42 (0.27) $0.39 (0.28) $0.52 (0.30)† $0.23 (0.30) $0.36 (0.26) $0.35 (0.28) CP 0.04 (0.27) 0.11 (0.28) $0.04 (0.30) 0.26 (0.30) 0.22 (0.27) 0.21 (0.28) X 0.80 (0.14)## 0.82 (0.15)## 0.55 (0.14)## 0.66 (0.16)## 0.56 (0.11)## 0.48 (0.12)## FB#CP 0.20 (0.38) 0.02 (0.39) 0.10 (0.42) $0.25 (0.43) $0.07 (0.38) $0.10 (0.39) FB#X $0.49 (0.20)# $0.27 (0.20) $0.21 (0.22) $0.25 (0.23) $0.15 (0.15) $0.10 (0.17) CP#X $0.33 (0.19)† $0.48 (0.20)# $0.14 (0.19) $0.33 (0.20) $0.10 (0.15) $0.08 (0.16) FB#CP#X 0.83 (0.27)## 0.56 (0.28)# 0.28 (0.30) 0.48 (0.30) 0.23 (0.20) 0.33 (0.22) RFB*CP*X2 0.034 0.016 0.004 0.011 0.005 0.008 BT_R R2 = 0.328 R2 = 0.294 R2 = 0.181 R2 = 0.204 R2 = 0.350 R2 = 0.301 Males F = 13.02## F = 11.15## F = 5.89## F = 6.83## F = 14.37## F = 11.50## Intercept 4.36 (0.22)## 4.35 (0.24)## 4.43 (0.23)## 4.41 (0.24)## 4.35 (0.20)## 4.32 (0.21)## FB $0.22 (0.32) $0.05 (0.34) $0.29 (0.33) $0.09 (0.34) $0.16 (0.29) $0.05 (0.31) CP $0.02 (0.31) 0.19 (0.35) $0.08 (0.32) $0.01 (0.34) 0.14 (0.29) 0.19 (0.31) X 0.44 (0.14)## 0.14 (0.16) 0.25 (0.14)† 0.21 (0.15) 0.34 (0.10)## 0.31 (0.12)# FB#CP 0.09 (0.45) $0.14 (0.50) 0.39 (0.47) 0.07 (0.49) 0.05 (0.42) $0.09 (0.44) FB#X 0.25 (0.23) 0.25 (0.24) 0.36 (0.22) 0.36 (0.23) 0.31 (0.15)# 0.25 (0.17) CP#X 0.14 (0.22) 0.26 (0.24) 0.17 (0.23) 0.01 (0.21) 0.11 (0.15) 0.20 (0.18) FB#CP#X $0.36 (0.33) $0.52 (0.34) $0.38 (0.32) $0.43 (0.31) $0.40 (0.21)†c $0.44 (0.25)†d RFB*CP*X2 0.005 0.013 0.007 0.010 0.014 0.014 BT_I R2 = 0.201 R2 = 0.065 R2 = 0.145 R2 = 0.084 R2 = 0.304 R2 = 0.235 Women F = 6.26## F = 1.72 F = 4.21## F = 2.29# F = 10.86## F = 7.65## Intercept 4.73 (0.20)## 4.65 (0.20)## 4.76 (0.20)## 4.62 (0.22)## 4.64 (0.18)## 4.60 (0.19)## FB $0.40 (0.28) $0.45 (0.28) $0.49 (0.28) $0.37 (0.30) $0.36 (0.25) $0.32 (0.26) CP $0.24 (0.28) $0.29 (0.28) $0.32 (0.29) $0.19 (0.30 $0.08 (0.26) $0.05 (0.27) X 0.60 (0.15)## 0.43 (0.15)## 0.48 (0.13)## 0.30 (0.16)† 0.47 (0.10)## 0.47 (0.12)## FB#CP 0.25 (0.40) 0.15 (0.39) 0.15 (0.41) $0.06 (0.42) 0.01 (0.36) $0.06 (0.37) FB#X $0.33 (0.20) 0.06 (0.20) $0.15 (0.21) 0.06 (0.23) $0.09 (0.14) $0.14 (0.16) CP#X $0.07 (0.20) $0.00 (0.20) $0.04 (0.18) 0.12 (0.19) 0.04 (0.14) 0.04 (0.15) FB#CP#X 0.29 (0.28) 0.27 (0.28) 0.22 (0.29) 0.20 (0.29) 0.15 (0.19) 0.23 (0.21) RFB*CP*X2 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.004 BT_I R2 = 0.224 R2 = 0.258 R2 = 0.196 R2 = 0.198 R2 = 0.363 R2 = 0.322 Men F = 7.72## F = 9.29## F = 6.50## F = 6.61## F = 15.24## F = 12.69## Notes: †c p = 0.059; †d p = 0.076; # p < 0.05; ## p < 0.01 Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 364

information gatherer, influencer, decider, purchaser and user (Hoyer et al., 2017). Applying the integrative consumer behavior model of multiple decision-making units to a hypothetical scenario, for example, female consumers may play the role of user (who actually consumes and uses the feminine product), male consumers may play the role of purchaser (who buys or pays for gifts for the female consumer), and Instagram influencers may play the role of influencer (who plays various roles in the pre-acquisition information collection, decisionmaking, and actual consumption phases in which they showcase the products they endorse on Instagram). Elucidating gender differences in brand-related information processing and consumer decision-making process is a highly relevant and meaningful effort in luxury brand management on Instagram. Although the use of a single brand (Chanel) significantly limits the contributions as the current findings cannot be Figure 2 Estimated three-way interaction of source type, image type and consumer characteristics on brand trust reliability (BT_R) and on brand trust intention (BT_I) Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 365

generalized beyond this one brand, original theorizing and rich empirical findings about multitudinous interaction effects could make several theoretical contributions to the literature on consumer psychology and luxury branding. These findings implicate the evolving dynamics of versatile branded contents metamorphosed by multiple sources in Instagram-based luxury branding. First, findings about the interaction of sources and images conceptually advance and resonate with Seo and Buchanan-Oliver’s (2019) recent theories on a typology of brand luxury and Debevec and Romeo (1992)’s visual image strategies proposed in the traditional model of visual imagery processing. Applying both traditional and recent theories of visual information processing to Instagram-based luxury branding, this study fills the gap by providing data on the interaction effects real luxury brands’ Instagram sources and images have on brand recognition and trust. Second, this study newly elucidates theoretical underpinnings of consumer values and traits as relevant boundary conditions upon which the moderating effects of brand posts’ source/image types on brand recognition and trust are contingent. Thus, this research advances our theoretical understanding of the link between relevant consumer traits and brand communication outcomes in the novel context of Instagram/fashionista-based luxury branding. This study provides managerial guidelines for brand placement and product placement in Instagram/fashionistabased luxury branding. It also provides managerial insights into designing effective social media marketing strategies to increase brand recognition and brand trust. First, brand awareness is a dominant choice tactic (MacDonald and Sharp, 2000), rendering brand recognition a necessary condition for the inclusion of the brand in consumers’ consideration set. To increase brand recognition, it would be more effective to post product-centric images when a fashionista is used as the source. In contrast, when the branded content is consumer-centric images, it would be more effective to explicitly identify the brand as the source. Brands strive to create strong retrieval cues, such as an iconic brand logo, to achieve the ultimate goal of increasing the likelihood of being included in consumers’ consideration set (Hastak and Mitra, 1996). This study provides empirical evidence about the power of visual brand logo (source identification via visual imagery processing), which facilitates brand recognition and increases brand trust among high vanity men exposed to product-centric images posted by brands. Second, understanding the target consumers’ vanity is important when brands strive to improve trust. Luxury brand managers encounter a dialectical tension between the need to harness the power of UGC and the need to maintain brand integrity and exclusive reputation (Jin, 2012; Kapferer, 2012). This research provides practical guidelines for designing persuasive branded content by modifying various attributes contingent upon the targeted market segments and their orientations. These strategies are integral to leveraging Instagram fashionistas as channels for relationship marketing. Limitations and avenues for further research First, there should have been open-ended brand recognition measuring questions to avoid priming effects of close-ended questions. In this line of future research, an open-ended question to measure real non-suggested recognition would be a more valid measurement as a close-ended question with two answers (one correct and one non-correct) is a suggested brand recognition, which presumably results in higher percentage of correct brand recognition. More valid measure of brand recognition and an additional measure of brand recall will also help to advance brand recall theory in the novel domain of social media marketing. Furthermore, follow-up studies need to further examine brand association rather than brand recognition, which is the most basic form of brand awareness, given that many luxury brands such as Chanel already enjoys a high level of awareness. Refined replication of the current experiment with a brand association like a brand image as the focal dependent variable will be a fruitful addition to this line of research. Second, future research needs to follow methodological triangulation to increase reliability and validity of the results. Focus group interview, content analysis of Instagram photos of brands actually consumed by fashionistas and peer consumers’ comments on their brand posts, and netnographic investigation of branded-UGC would provide deeper insights into influencer marketing. Third, this study focused on only one brand (the most prominent luxury brand with the highest number of followers). The use of a single brand creates generalizability issue. Follow-up studies need to broaden the scope to include masculine brands targeting men, a variety of product categories, and experiential luxury consumption to increase external validity. Whether the current findings can be replicated using non-luxury fashion brands or not is an empirical question. If the identical findings can be reproduced using non-luxury brands, it speaks to the robustness of the visual image strategies (product-versus userfeatured visual image strategy) across brand types. If the current findings cannot be replicated using non-luxury brands, it speaks to the unique moderating roles of consumer characteristics (vanity, opinion leadership and fashion consciousness), which are more relevant to luxury brands than to non-luxury items. Replication of the current experimental design using other kinds of social media such as Facebook, Pinterest and Tumblr would help verify generalizability. Fourth, the current data are missing the nationality and cultural background of the respondents. More systematic analysis of differences among diverse groups of consumers, using big data analytics tools such as Instagram analytics will ultimately contribute to our deeper understanding of theory and practice such that it will advance theories of luxury branding and provide insights and managerial implications for market segmentation and social media marketing planning. References Adler, R. (2016), “The 19 most Sought-after Instagram beauty influencers of 2016”, Fashionista, available at: https:// fashionista.com/2016/12/instagram-beauty-makeup-influencers2016 Andaleeb, S.S. (1992), “The trust concept: research issues for channels of distribution”, in Sheth, J. (Ed.), Research in Marketing, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 11, pp. 1-34. Belk, R.W. (1984), “Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness”, in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 366

Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 291-297. Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Parent, M. and Berthon, J. (2009), “Aesthetics and ephemerality: observing and preserving the luxury brand”, California Management Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 45-66. Brannback, M., Nikou, S. and Bouwman, H. (2017), “Value systems and intentions to interact in social media: the digital natives”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 365-381. Buryan, M. (2016), “Why fashion brands are thriving on Instagram: fashion brands’ key to Instagram success”, available at: www.socialbakers.com/blog/2626-why-fashionbrands-are-thriving-on-instagram Casidy, R. (2012), “An empirical investigation of the relationship between personality traits, prestige sensitivity, and fashion consciousness of generation Y in Australia”, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 242-249. Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93. Childers, T. and Houston, M.J. (1984), “Conditions for a picture-superiority effects in consumer memory”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 643-654. Colliander, J. and Marder, B. (2018), “Snap happy’ brands: increasing publicity effectiveness through a snapshot aesthetic when marketing a brand on Instagram”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 78, pp. 34-43. Debevec, K. and Romeo, J.B. (1992), “Self-referent processing in perceptions of verbal and visual commercial information”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 83-102. Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L. and YagueGuillen, M.J. (2003), “Development and validation of a brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35-53. Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51. Dubois, B., Laurent, G. and Czellar, S. (2001), Consumer Rapport to Luxury: Analyzing Complex and Ambivalent Attitudes (No. 736), HEC, Paris. Duhan, D., Johnson, S., Wilcox, J. and Harrell, G. (1997), “Influences on consumer user of word-of-mouth recommendation sources”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 283-295. Goldsmith, R.E., Freiden, J.B. and Kilsheimer, J.C. (1993), “Social values and female fashion leadership: a cross-cultural study”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 399-412. Goldsmith, R.E., Stith, M.T. and White, J.D. (1987), “Race and sex differences in self-identified innovativeness and opinion leadership”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 411-425. Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M. and Richard, M.-O. (2014), “The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 152-161. Halliday, S.V. (2016), “User-generated content about brands: understanding its creators and consumers”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 137-144. Hastak, M. and Mitra, A. (1996), “Facilitating and inhibiting effects of brand cues on recall, consideration set, and choice”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 121-126. Herrewijn, L. and Poels, K. (2015), “The impact of social setting on the recall and recognition of in-game advertising”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 53, pp. 544-555. Hoyer, W.D., MacInnis, D.J. and Pieters, R. (2017), Consumer Behavior, 7th ed., Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. Huang, R. and Sarigollu, E. (2012), “How Brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand equity, and the marketing mix”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 92-99. Jin, S.A. (2012), “The potential of social media for luxury brand management”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 687-699. Jin, S.V. (2018), “Celebrity 2.0 and beyond!” effects of Facebook profile sources on social networking advertising”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 79, pp. 154-168. Kapferer, J.N. (2012), “Abundant rarity: the key to luxury growth”, Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 453-462. Kapferer, J.N. and Bastien, V. (2009), “The specificity of luxury management: turning marketing upside down”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos. 5/6, pp. 311-322. Kaufmann, H.R., Petrovici, D.A., Filho, C.G. and Ayres, A. (2016), “identifying moderators of brand attachment for driving customer purchase intention of original vs counterfeits of luxury brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5735-5747. Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Branding Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 3rd ed., PrenticeHall, NJ, Upper Saddle River,. Ko, E., Costello, J.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2019), “What is a luxury brand? A new definition and review of the literature”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 99, pp. 405-413. Lee, S.-H. and Workman, J. (2014), “Vanity, fashion leadership, and self-consciousness among South Korean male and female college students”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology, and Education, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 115-124. Lertwannawit, A. and Mandhachitara, R. (2012), “Interpersonal effects on fashion consciousness and status consumption moderated by materialism in metropolitan men”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1408-1416. Loureiro, S.M.C., Costa, I. and Panchapakesan, P. (2017), “A passion for fashion: the impact of social influence, vanity, and exhibitionism on consumer behavior”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 468-484. Loureiro, S.M.C., Maximiano, M. and Panchapakesan, P. (2018), “Engaging fashion consumers in social media: the case of luxury brands”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology, and Education, Vol. 38, pp. 1-12. Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 367

MacDonald, E.K. and Sharp, B.M. (2000), “Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for a common, repeat purchase product: a replication”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 5-15. Mamat, M.N., Noor, N.M. and Noor, N.M. (2016), “Purchase intentions of foreign luxury brand handbags among consumers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 35, pp. 206-215. Marti-Parreno, J., Bermejo-Berros, J. and Aldas-Manzano, J. (2017), “Product placement in video games: the effects of brand familiarity and repetition on consumers’ memory”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 55-63. Merriam-Webster (2019), “Fashionista”, available at: www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fashionista Miller, K. and Mills, M. (2012), “Probing Brand luxury: a multiple lens approach”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 41-51. Moldovan, S., Muller, E., Richter, Y. and Yom-Tov, E. (2017), “Opinion leadership in small groups”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 536-552. Moon, H. and Sprott, D.E. (2016), “Ingredient branding for a luxury brand: the role of brand and product fit”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5768-5774. Nam, J., Hamlin, R., Gam, H.J., Kang, J.H., Kim, J., Kumphai, P., Starr, C. and Richards, L. (2006), “The fashion-conscious behaviors of mature female consumers”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 102-108. Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (1995), “Trait aspects of vanity: measurement and relevance to consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 612-626. Qiu, F.T. and von der Heydt, R. (2005), “Figure and ground in the visual cortex: v 2 combines stereoscopic cues with Gestalt rules”, Neuron, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 155-166. Randhawa, P., Calantone, R.J. and Voorhees, C.M. (2015), “The pursuit of counterfeited luxury: an examination of the negative side effects of close consumer-brand connections”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 2395-2403. Reynolds, F.D. and Darden, W.R. (1971), “Mutually adaptive effects of interpersonal communication”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 449-454. Ross, J., Irani, I., Silberman, M., VI, Zaldivar, A. and Tomlinson, B. (2010), “Who are the crowd workers? Shifting demographics in amazon mechanical Turk”, in: Chi Ea, pp. 2863-2872. Roux, E., Tafani, E. and Vigneron, F. (2017), “Values associated with luxury brand consumption and the role of gender”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 102-113. Seo, Y. and Buchanan-Oliver, M. (2019), “Constructing a typology of luxury brand consumption practices”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 414-421. Shavitt, S. (1990), “The role of attitude objects in attitude functions”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 124-148. Sheldon, P. and Bryant, K. (2016), “Instagram: motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 58, pp. 89-97. Simon, C.J. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The measurement and determinants of brand equity: a financial approach”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 28-52. Sproles, E.K. and Sproles, G.B. (1990), “Consumer decision making styles as a function of individual learning styles”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 134-147. Statista (2017), “Leading luxury brands ranked by number of Instagram followers”, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/ 483753/leading-luxury-brands-instagram-followers/ Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. and Teichmann, K. (2013), “Is luxury a female thing? The role of Gender in luxury brand consumption”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 889-896. Tynan, C., McKechnie, S. and Chhuon, C. (2010), “Cocreating value for luxury brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1156-1163. Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.W. and Hennig-Thurau, T. (2001), “German consumer decision-making styles”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 73-95. Walther, J.B. and Parks, M.R. (2002), “Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-mediated communication and relationships”, in Knapp, M.L. and Daly, J.A. (Eds), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 529-563. Websta (2019a), “Hashtag searches related to “fashion”, available at: https://websta.me/search/fashion Websta (2019b), “Hashtag searches related to “luxury brand”, available at: https://websta.me/search/luxury%20brand Wilcox, K., Kim, H.M. and Sen, S. (2009), “Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 247-259. Wong, W. and Malone, T. (2016), “Contribution of vanity to consumer apparel advertising perception”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 54-71. Workman, J.E. and Lee, S. (2013), “Relationships among consumer vanity, gender, brand sensitivity, Brand consciousness, and private self-consciousness”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 206-213. Wyer, R.S., Hung, I.W. and Jiang, Y. (2008), “Visual and verbal processing strategies in comprehension and judgment”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 244-257. Corresponding author S. Venus Jin can be contacted at: Venus.Jin@northwestern. edu For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Luxury visual image strategies S. Venus Jin and Ehri Ryu Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 355–368 368

Influence of values, brand consciousness and behavioral intentions in predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish Department of Marketing, Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, India Arpita Khare Department of Marketing, Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, Rohtak, India, and Rajesh Sharma Department of Economics, School of Business, Mody University of Science and Technology, Sikar, India Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to examine the relationships among two distinct yet interconnected forms of value orientations, namely, terminal and instrumental values, brand consciousness and behavioral intentions. This study validated the conceptual model for branded fashion apparel consumption in an emerging market, e.g. India. Design/methodology/approach – The research design followed a two-step approach to test the measurement and structural models for partial least squares structural equation modeling with SmartPLS (v.3.0) as recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Findings – The results illustrated that both the instrumental and terminal values influence brand consciousness and, consequently, brand consciousness had an impact on behavioral intentions for fashion apparel consumption. Instrumental values had a greater influence on brand consciousness and behavioral intentions than terminal values. Brand consciousness mediated the relationship between instrumental/terminal values and behavioral intentions. Research limitations/implications – This study defined two value orientations (i.e. instrumental versus terminal) using cross-sectional data from an emerging market. Future studies may examine the research findings’ generalizability using diverse data sets (longitudinal and cross-sectional) and evaluate the value orientation and customers’ favorable behavioral intentions for luxury fashion consumption. Practical implications – This study provides insights into luxury marketers and practitioners to understand the contribution of instrumental and terminal values on brand consciousness and behavioral intentions for luxury fashion apparel. The findings would assist in developing marketing strategies for an emerging market, i.e. India. Social implications – With the rapid proliferation of materialism, the Indian market has witnessed the dawn of a new era of luxury fashion acceptance. The research offers evidence that in emerging markets such as India, consumers exhibit value orientation toward luxury brands while holding a sense of fashion involvement in their consumption behavior. Originality/value – This study is a pioneering attempt to understand the relationships between the value orientation, namely, instrumental and terminal values and their underlying influence on brand consciousness and behavioral intentions toward fashion apparel. Rokeach’s (1973) twodimensional value dichotomy was adapted to understand luxury apparel consumption in an emerging market context, specifically India. Keywords Values, Brand consciousness, Behavioral intentions, Instrumental, Terminal, Fashion apparels Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction The global personal luxury goods market is estimated to reach e320–365bn by 2025 at an annual growth rate of around 3%– 5% (Bain and Company, 2018). The emerging markets (EMs) have become the growth engines of the world (Burgess and Steenkamp, 2013; Sinha and Sheth, 2018), which got two vital characteristics: large and young populations and positive economic growth that outpace the developed markets. In the marketing landscape, these characteristics have created new sizable opportunities in the form of a middle class that fuels the demand for branded products (Kumar et al., 2015). Among the BRIC countries, China and India have emerged as potential markets contributing to the growth in demand for luxury goods (Euromonitor International, 2019). According to McKinsey’s FashionScope report, India’s apparel market will be worth $59.3bn, and the sixth-largest in the world by 2022 (McKinsey, 2019). India has been predicted as the “Star of Asia” registering The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm Journal of Product & Brand Management 30/4 (2020) 513–531 © Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] [DOI 10.1108/JPBM-08-2019-2535] Received 26 August 2019 Revised 13 September 2019 27 January 2020 13 April 2020 Accepted 22 April 2020 513

continuous double-digit growth in the global luxury brands sector (Deloitte, 2018). Economic liberalization in the early 90s has been instrumental in the rapid growth of Indian economy (Paul and Mas, 2016), and values of Indian consumers have evolved and undergone a change because of exposure to global products (Parthasarathy et al., 2015; Rao, 2000; Sanyal et al., 2014) and have impacted consumption decisions. Luxury products have always been popular among Indians and symbolized power and status (Eng and Bogaert, 2010). Indian culture and tradition have given importance to consumption of luxury and display of wealth in social functions. The desire to exhibit affluence, status and wealth has led upper middle class to aspire to buy luxury brands (Jain et al., 2017; Schultz and Jain, 2018). Western countries have exhibited steady growth in branded luxury consumption over time; emerging countries have fallen rapidly and deeply in love with luxury (Chadha and Husband, 2006; Kapferer, 2016) . World over, in the 18th century, luxury was the exclusive prerogative of aristocrats; however, with the end of the aristocracy, the role of luxury has changed, such that whereas once it signaled the social hierarchy, it now creates the hierarchy (Kapferer and Bastien, 2012). Thus, luxury brands can no longer compete on “quality” and need to add latent social hierarchy or symbolic capital (Kapferer, 2016). The difference is not in the product anymore but in the ability of luxury to trigger appropriate certifications that serve as gatekeepers in postmodern societies (Truong et al., 2009). Hence, the high price is not good enough to define a product as a luxury, especially if it is not endowed with blessings of the right brand (Kapfereret al., 2014). In India, nawabs and kings in the past have used luxury products to exhibit their status, prosperity and power. In recent years, luxury brands are purchased by the wealthy upper class as it reflected social class and affluence. Moreover, the affordable luxury segment is growing in India at the rate of over 40% per annum, outpacing the rest of the segments (Mishra and Jain, 2018). The research focused on factors such as growing middle class (Kant et al., 2018), a greater appreciation for a luxurious lifestyle (Sharda and Bhat, 2019), increased awareness about fashion trends (Roy et al., 2018), higher disposable income across middle and upper middle classes (Business Standard, 2018) and aspirations toward Western brands among young Indian consumers (Eng and Bogaert, 2010; Gupta, 2011). This lifestyle-oriented young spendthrift consumer base is progressively driving India to acquire a prominent position in the branded luxury fashion industry (Das, 2015; Gupta, 2019; Roy et al., 2016). What might have been described as superfluous luxury consumption in the past has become a seeming necessity for upper middle-class households (Kapferer, 2016). Additionally, postliberalization global luxury brands such as Mango, Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Calvin Klein have become popular among Indians (Bhardwaj et al., 2010; Mukherjee et al., 2012) and are being used to represent affluence and global lifestyle (Handa and Khare, 2013). Consumer purchase decisions are influenced by personal and social values (Kahle and Xie, 2008; Weidmann et al., 2012). Extant research on consumer value focusses on the relationship between price and quality (Gallarza et al., 2011), benefits encompassing cognitive and affective nature of values (Lloyd and Luk, 2010) and specifying the need for a dynamic and flexible connotation of the consumer value disposition (Gallarza et al., 2011; Kautish and Sharma, 2018). Two of the prominent perspectives are the attribution mediation and the product meaning approach proposed by Allen (2000) and were adapted from the terminal and instrumental value orientation of the seminal work of Rokeach (1973). The attribution mediation approach argued that values do not influence product or brand preference directly, and instead influence the importance of product attributes that, in turn, guide product evaluation and brand purchase (Allen, 2000; Pitts and Woodside, 1983). Marketing researchers have paid little attention to the influence of human value orientation on brand consciousness and behavioral intentions for luxury fashion consumption. The current research is an attempt to integrate and contrast two diverse streams of human value framework proposed by Rokeach (1973) by redefining them in the context of luxury brands. These insights would help in reinterpreting values on its consequent internal (i.e. fashion awareness, attitude and satisfaction) and external responses (e.g. purchase intentions, word-of-mouth and re-patronage). The study attempts to examine the relationship between consumers’ human value orientation, brand consciousness and behavioral intentions for fashion apparel. The objectives of the study are as follows: ! to operationalize terminal and instrumental values relating to luxury fashion apparel and understand their relationship with intention to buy luxury fashion brands in an EM; and ! to examine the relative importance of terminal and instrumental values in predicting brand consciousness and purchase behavior of luxury fashion apparel. 2. Theoretical framework According to the symbolic self-completion theory (Wicklund and Gollwitzer, 1981), the individuals use material possessions and other indicators as socially familiar symbols to communicate their identities to others. Braun and Wicklund (1989) defined a symbol as: any facet of the person that has the potential of representing a unique signal to others (who recognize the symbol as related to the identity) that one possesses the identity in question’ (p. 164). The symbolic self-completion theory endorsed the notion that consumers use branded products as a means to protect their self-identity. Individuals evaluate brands on several attributes such as quality and exclusiveness (Kirmani et al., 1999; Strizhakova et al., 2011), style and self-expression (Vigneron and Johnson, 2004; CasidyMulyanegara and Tsarenko, 2009; C!at!alin and Andreea, 2014). In line with the self-completion theory, brands enable consumers’ social self-construal and exhibiting affiliation to a group (McAlxander et al., 2002; Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006). High brand-conscious consumers may buy expensive brands and remain brand loyal not only because of value perceptions per se but also because other consumers perceive them as socially valued or admired because of the high price (Bao and Mandrik, 2004). The current study examined the influence of consumer values in conceptualizing fashion apparel brands and, consequently, its impact on brand consciousness and intention to buy branded fashion apparel. Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 514

3. Review of literature 3.1 Luxury conceptualization Luxury branding as a concept is debatable and subjective (Kapferer, 2016, p. 475) and should not be confused with a premium or fashion strategy (Kapferer and Bastien, 2012). Hitherto customarily, the luxury brands have attributes such as history, excellence, being handmade, uniqueness, high quality, aesthetics, craftsmanship, rarity, functional utility and emotional appeal, and represent a creatively unique global lifestyle (Brun and Castelli, 2013; Kapferer and ValetteFlorence, 2016). Luxury focuses on catering to everyone, without seemingly catering to everyone (Han et al., 2010; Kapferer, 2012). Luxury brands are more than just the attribution-orientated possessions in terms of integrated constituents, e.g. objective (material), subjective (individual) and collective (social) dispositions (Berthon et al., 2009; Kapferer and Bastien, 2009). Collectivist and individualistic cultures differ in their conceptualization of luxury products. In individualistic cultures, luxury products are purchased to express one’s uniqueness (Clark et al., 2006; Han et al., 2010), whereas in individualistic cultures, luxury consumption is associated with status and communicating social position (Li and Su, 2007; Handa and Khare, 2013; Pino et al., 2019). Kapferer (2015), in research on mature and EMs, posited that out of a list of ten traits, four were more critical for defining luxury (p. 11). Recent research in marketing moves away from identifying the traits that structure consumers’ perceptions of luxury and explores the nature of the value created by luxury. Wiedmann et al. (2012) proposed an integrated, tripartite and multidimensional model distinguishing functional (i.e. utility), individual (i.e. self-identity, materialism) and social (i.e. conspicuousness) values. For new generations and in emerging countries, luxury is what the brands are found on the luxury floors of departmental stores or luxury commercial centers (Kapferer, 2016, p. 480). 3.2 Luxury consumption in emerging market Rising consumerism in India has led to the increased popularity of luxury brands. In developed countries, people care less about others’ opinions and consume luxury products for personal gratification (Cheah et al., 2015) and luxury consumption is defined by group identity and affluence (Heany et al., 2005; Shukla and Purani, 2012; Pino et al., 2019; Siahtiri and Lee, 2019). In EMs such as India, luxury brands are viewed as products that elevate one’s social position and distinguish them from the crowd (Ramchandani and Coste-Manière, 2012). Luxury brands’ market growth comes primarily from the newly rich, especially those in emerging economies who have higher disposable incomes (Kapferer, 2017). Indian consumers prefer luxury brands for value connotations that bestow selfexpressive and status benefits (Ajitha and Sivakumar, 2017). Sinha and Sheth (2018) proposed eight marketing strategies for EMs, i.e. affordability through democratizing and upscaling the offer; accessibility through managing and reinventing reach; acceptability through cultural and functional fusion; and awareness through building brand identity and engaging stakeholders. Pinoet al. (2019) emphasized that consumers with a higher status consumption predisposition are more willing to purchase branded luxury goods than subtly branded ones in the EMs in comparison to mature markets. The value orientation functions as a distinct attribute providing the EM consumers with an opportunity to showcase their aspiration toward premium market offerings as these products play a vital role in shaping consumers’ self-concepts (Chadha and Husband, 2006; Nabi et al., 2019). Roy et al. (2019) argued the influence of ancient Indian spiritual values and religion in predicting purchase decisions. The concept of “karma” legitimizes materialism as it is viewed in the context of one’s past deeds and the outcome of previous lives. Luxury consumption is justified as it is related to “good deeds” (White et al., 2017; Minton et al., 2016). The social norms and cues trigger the need for luxury brands as it symbolizes happiness, security and wellbeing and consumers can enhance their social status through luxury brands (Kautish et al., 2020; Schultz and Jain, 2018). 3.3 Value conceptualization Values have been identified as a prominent force in guiding individual behavior in all walks of life (Rokeach, 1968). Historically, the concept of “value” has evidenced to be a tenacious endeavor for a wide range of researchers in marketing (Clawson and Vinson, 1978; Scott and Lamont, 1973; Vinson et al., 1977). Values are enduring beliefs that one specific mode of behavior for one individual is preferable over an alternative manner of conduct (Rokeach, 1979). Pitts and Woodside (1983) revealed that consumer value structures referred to the prominent choice criteria for product categories and brands. One research area of enduring interest is how the consumers’ choice of brands may get influenced by the human values they support and in cultural congruity milieu (Solomon, 1999; Torelli et al., 2012). Value determination facilitates product acquisition and customer retention, and is crucial in EMs (Pare and Pourazad, 2017; Roberts, 2000; Vriens and Hofstede, 2000). Several scholars have discussed value dimensions of consumption behavior in varied contexts and recognized the potential significance of personal values (Grunert and Scherhorn, 1990; Kautish and Sharma, 2018; Kim et al., 2002; Roy and Goswami, 2007). Zeithaml (1988) advocates that the process of evaluating a product involves a four-level means-end chain approach (Olson and Reynolds, 1983). At the lowest level, the consumer’s focus is on the product characteristics, concrete product attributes or functional benefits. At the second level, the attention is on the quality of the product relative to one’s expectations of it. The third level relates to the consumer’s assessment of the benefits and costs of the product, that is, product value. At the fourth and highest level, the consumer evaluates the extent to which the product reflects or matches the consumer’s values. As such, product offerings that are congruent with a consumer’s personal values are adopted, while those that are not are rejected. In this sense, consumers achieve their personal values through the products they acquire or consume (Kahle and Xie, 2008), and thus, personal values become a powerful mechanism for understanding and reaching consumers (Allen, 2001; Durgee et al., 1996). These interpretations are similar to the general perspectives on the brands’ benefits for consumers in terms of the values and meanings that consumers attach to the brand’s product attributes, i.e. functional, symbolic or experiential consumption values (Ajitha and Sivakumar, 2017; Richins, 1994). Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 515

3.4 Terminal and instrumental values Milton Rokeach (1973, p. 5) conceptualized values as “enduring beliefs that a particular mode of behavior is preferable to opposite modes of behavior or end states.” Values can be understood as enduring constructs that guide behavior (Rokeach, 1973; Corfman et al., 1991) and help individuals to adjust to the environment. Terminal values are an expression of individual views and constitute end-states toward which one strives. Instrumental values are an expression of competence and guide the selection of means to be used to obtain the end states of existence (Rokeach, 1973, pp. 8–9). Rokeach (1973) posited that the functional approach to attitudes was pertinent to human values, which serve value-expressive, instrumental, knowledge and social-adjustive psychological functions. Two primary functions of values can be identified in the psychological literature: values guide actions (Rokeach, 1973) and cognitive expressions of needs (Inglehart, 1977). Feather (1973) investigated the effects of order of presentation of the value sets (terminal/instrumental versus instrumental/ terminal), and results indicated that assessment procedure per se had little effect on the average value system. Feather and Peay (1975) reported that when the intercorrelation matrices involving the entire set of 36 terminal and instrumental values were factor-analyzed, fewer dimensions emerged, and there was little evidence of distinctive clumping of values along a dimension. Hence, it was difficult to isolate representative subgroups of values. Central to Rokeach’s (1973) study of values is the assumption that value systems can be divided into meaningful categories labeled as terminal and instrumental, but Heath (1976) defied the viability of a universal separation of values into these two categories and added that: “how a person separates values into instrumental and terminal reflects his own value structure” (p. 330). Basic to the criticism is the assumption that values are situationally sensitive and that whether they are terminal or instrumental depends upon salient characteristics of the specific situation (Heath, 1976; Heath and Fogel, 1978; Rankin and Grube, 1980). In response to the criticism, Rokeach (1979) reiterated the “conceptual distinctiveness” of the two categories and suggested that each plays a distinct role in individual lives, and he acknowledged that: considerably more research is needed [. . .. . .] to clarify further the relation between the terminal and instrumental values and the various social conditions under which one or the other set will be more important (p. 326). Typically, values are arranged in a hierarchical order and use social norms to adapt to new situations (Rokeach, 1973) and determine consumers’ satisfaction with products and services (Rosen and Surprenant, 1998; Fournier and Mick, 1999; Bloemer and Dekker, 2007). Smith and Schwartz (1997) explained values as beliefs that influence goals and guide individuals in selecting and evaluating appropriate behavior, people and events. Values are consumers’ beliefs concerning desirable behavioral end-states, and get organized around needs, motives and attitudes (Kahle et al., 1986; Easterlin and Crimmins, 1991). Thus, it supports social adaptation theory that states values as social cognition, enabling social adjustment. Rokeach (1979) advocated that personal values are responsible for the selection and maintenance of the ends or goals toward which human beings strive and regulate the means in which this striving takes place. They propose a hierarchical link, starting from global personal values (the highest abstract level), to domain-specific values and, finally, to the specific product attributes (the lowest abstract level). Though values in consumer behavior have been researched (Manchiraju and Sadachar, 2014), nonetheless, in the context of fashion consumption, research on the influence of values has been scanty (Maio, 2017). The study drew from earlier research on values and adapted Rokeach’s (1973) instrumental and terminal value in describing consumers’ brand consciousness for luxury fashion apparel in an EM. The study assumed that values play an integral role in self-construal, social adaptation and conformity as they guide behavior and product evaluations. Thus, brand preferences, evaluations and need to exhibit a greater understanding of brands would be aligned to individuals’ value systems and motives. 3.5 Values, brand consciousness and behavioral intentions Brand consciousness is a customers’ personality trait that denotes the mental orientation to select products that are well known, well established and highly advertised brand names in the market (Nelson and McLeod, 2005; Sproles and Kendall, 1986; Zhang and Kim, 2013). Consumers with high brand consciousness perceive brands as a symbol of prestige and status (Escalas and Bettman, 2005; Liao and Wang, 2009). The brands have several connotations for consumers. Brands enable social identification and strengthen consumers’ group associations and social conformity (Ouwersloot and Odekerken-Schröder, 2008). Thus, brands help individuals gain acceptance in society, enhance their self-image and bestow status as an influential member of the group. The social identity theory suggests that consumers’ purchase, acquisition and use of brands are motivated by the desire to belong to social groups (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; Algesheimer et al., 2005; YiCheonYim et al., 2014). Brands enable individuals to reduce not only the risk accompanying the purchase but also help them to be a part of the social circle by giving them a unique social identity (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Bian and Forsythe (2012), in their study on US and Chinese consumers, found that selfmonitoring function influences social function attitudes. Social function attitudes helped in the affective evaluation of brands. Similarly, Park et al. (2007) found that luxury brands were used by Korean consumers to exhibit success, social status and prosperity. Luxury fashion brand represents self-image enhancement for consumers and motivates toward luxury consumption to impress others through a favorable display of social image and achievements (Phau and Prendergast, 2000; Liu et al., 2012). Past studies have confirmed that consumers with high brand consciousness place significant effort into value changes for fashion brand attributes (Grant and Stephen, 2005). The consumers buy well-known expensive brands because they perceive expensive brands to be of superior quality (Keller, 1993). Functional and symbolic values associated with luxury brands are considered as a prime motivation for purchase behavior (Giovannini et al., 2015; Hassan et al., 2015) owing to diverse explanations in terms of high price, quality, rarity, experience, exclusivity, heritage and history (Esmaeilpour, 2015; Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2016; Parrott et al., 2015). In the Indian market, after economic liberalization, the middle-class and upper middle-class consumers perceived the foreign brands as rare, exotic and superior (Bullis, 1997). Economic, cultural and social changes brought several changes Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 516

in Indian consumers’ preferences for branded products. These changes in value systems have led to the reinterpretation of brands and their role in enhancing value (Parthasarathy et al., 2015; Rao, 2000). Indian consumers have grown brandconscious and purchased brands that helped them in expressing their distinct identity (Lysonski and Durvasula, 2013; Sanyal et al., 2014; Saran et al., 2016). The fashion retailers want to expand in the fast-EMs (Li et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2016), and India presents several opportunities (Kumar et al., 2009; Shukla, 2010). However, there is little research on understanding value-oriented approaches to cater to the luxury brand market (Choo et al., 2012; Jain et al., 2015, 2017; Jain and Khan, 2017; Roy et al., 2018; Tynan et al., 2010). Research has analyzed and validated the relationship among values, branding paradigm and behavioral intentions in retailing contexts including fashion buying, e.g. perceived shopping value, i.e. achievement (Babin and Babin, 2001; Carpenter and Fairhurst, 2005), fashion clothing magnitudes, i.e. happiness (Goldsmith, 2000), values of fashion innovators, i.e. imaginative (Goldsmith and Stith, 1990), the effect of quality, value and customer satisfaction, i.e. logical and accomplishment (Cronin et al., 2000), buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value and behavioral intentions, i.e. comfort, cheerfulness and excitement (Grewal et al., 1998) and the role of perceived risk in the quality–value relationship in the retail environment (Dodds, 1991). Thus, drawing from earlier research on brands and consumer values, it was assumed that redefining terminal and instrumental values in the context of brand consciousness would help in understanding consumers’ brand orientations concerning luxury fashion brands. Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed: H1a: Terminal values (i.e. happiness, sense of accomplishment, an exciting life, pleasure, a comfortable life) related to luxury brands would positively influence brand consciousness for luxury fashion apparel. H1b: Instrumental values (i.e. loving, cheerful, ambitious, logical, imaginative) related to luxury brands would positively influence brand consciousness for luxury fashion apparel. Consumption-based orientation is usually labeled as “materialism.” It suggests the degree of consumer attachment to worldly possessions and its ability to provide satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Handa and Khare, 2013). Research has focused on the shopping value connotations, i.e. the means-end theory of lifestyle (Brunsø et al., 2004), which characterized taskdependent and rational approaches toward consumer behavior (Babin et al., 1994; Roy and Goswami, 2007). Allen (2002) and Allen et al. (2002) posited that the consumers’ behavior and philosophies toward the terminal and instrumental values reflect value–attitude–behavior system. Shukla and Purani (2012) compared the luxury value perceptions among British and Indian consumers concerning collectivist and individualistic cultural orientation. Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012) studied the relationship between interdependent selfconcept and bandwagon consumption mediated by the level of a consumer’s status-seeking predispositions, susceptibility to normative influence, need for uniqueness and consumers’ propensity to engage in the “bandwagon” type of luxury consumption. The findings of the study suggested that consumers relate to the firm offerings in two distinctive manners. First, the products’ intrinsic qualities or features (viz., a means to an end in the form of their capability to normalize functionality to the surroundings), and, second, how the goods reflect selfexpression and/or self-consistency desires (Allen, 2002; Perkins and Reynolds, 1988). Values were interpreted as explaining an individual’s aspirations and motives. Thus, product purchase decisions were guided by one’s view toward life and seeking goals that enable fulfillment. These demarcate the terminal and instrumental characteristics of the values and affect the productmeaning interpretations, intentions to buy, intended value and the consumers’ decision-making style (Allen and Ng, 1999; Kassim et al., 2016). The aspirations or motives could be viewed as excitement, pleasure, happiness, comfort or demonstrating success, happiness and fulfillment. These could connote different desired end-states for consumers and help in guiding behavior. Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed: H2a: Terminal values (i.e. happiness, sense of accomplishment, an exciting life, pleasure, a comfortable life) would positively influence behavioral intentions for branded luxury fashion apparel. H2b: Instrumental values (i.e. loving, cheerful, ambitious, logical, imaginative) would positively influence behavioral intentions for branded luxury fashion apparel. H3: Brand consciousness would positively influence consumers’ behavioral intentions for branded luxury fashion apparel. Thus, consumer value orientation influences brand consciousness, purchase intention and evaluation of brands. The study further proposes the subsequent hypotheses (shown in Figure 1). Drawing from Sharda and Bhat’s recent study (2019), brand consciousness has been categorized as the mediating variable, and the following hypotheses are proposed: H4: Brand consciousness would mediate the relationship between instrumental values (i.e. loving, cheerful, ambitious, logical, imaginative) and behavior intentions for branded luxury fashion apparel. H5: Brand consciousness would mediate the relationship between terminal values (i.e. happiness, sense of accomplishment, an exciting life, pleasure, a comfortable life) and behavior intentions for branded luxury fashion apparel. 4. Methodology The hypothesized research model showing the relationships among the variables is shown in Figure 1. The influence of the terminal/instrumental values on brand consciousness and behavioral intentions was studied using a cross-sectional survey method. The construct operationalization and measures, sampling procedure, sampling design, sample profile, data collection method, data screening and refinement procedure and common method variance are discussed in the succeeding sections. Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 517

4.1 Measures and construct operationalization As a methodological norm to measure the latent constructs, questionnaire items were adapted from past studies (Westland, 2007). The survey instrument was designed in line with the constructs defined and to facilitate a better understanding of luxury fashion apparel. The dimensionality and reliability of the constructs were pretested on a sample of 30 participants chosen from a postgraduate fashion merchandising management class, and on their suggestion, one qualifying question was asked in the beginning of the questionnaire. The data collected for pretesting was not used in the final analyses. Preliminary investigations were undertaken to test the psychometric properties of the scale items, and few modifications were made in the items to establish the construct validity in the subsequent analysis phases. The details about the final scale items are given in Table 2. The constructs were measured with the help of multi-item scale containing terminal and instrumental values (adapted from Allen et al., 2002; Beatty et al., 1985; Kamakura and Mazzon, 1991; Kautish and Sharma, 2018), brand consciousness (Nelson and McLeod, 2005; Spears and Singh, 2004; Sproles and Kendall, 1986) and behavioral intentions (Grewal et al., 1998; Kim and Kim, 2004). Few adaptations were inevitable to ensure the significance and relevance of the items to luxury fashion consumption context, particularly in case of scale items for terminal and instrumental values (Munson and McQuarrie, 1988). The survey questionnaire was reviewed by one fashion merchandizing and two marketing professors. On their recommendations, few minor language modifications were done to clarify the meaning of luxury fashion apparel. The respondents were requested to provide a rating on 19 questions with a seven-point Likert-type scale (7 = extremely agree, 1 = extremely disagree). 4.2 Sample size adequacy The statistical method was used before and after the data collection to ascertain the sample size adequacy for a variancebased or partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) path modeling. Before the data collection, “apriori sample size calculator for structural equation models” was used. The required total number of responses for the model structure is found to be adequate for SEM with 4 latent variables, 19 observed variables and the anticipated effect size (0.30), desired probability (0.05) and statistical power levels (0.80); the result indicates that 137 responses are required as the minimum sample size to detect the effect (Soper, 2018; Westland, 2010). After the data collection, exploratory statistics analysis was considered to perform principal components analysis, and the measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin) revealed a value of 0.890, which is sufficient for advanced data analysis (Hair et al., 2006). Therefore, the statistical results, both before and after data collection, denote adequate data to proceed to run the PLSSEM analysis. 4.3 Sampling procedure and sample profile To examine the measurement and structural model relationship, the hypothesized model was validated by selecting a natural field research approach (Barratt et al., 2015). This research approach has the advantage of explaining sufficient variance across the constructs/variables that are vital to test the conceptual model. Snowball sampling was used for data collection. A total of 680 online questionnaires were administered among the consumers with the help of two multibrand outlets’ databases that operate in three private universities campuses located in the north-western part of the country. Student samples were used because they are among the most active shoppers for fashion apparel (Goldsmith et al., 2012; Kinley et al., 2010; O’Cass and Siahtiri, 2014). Because the research aims to understand the behavioral intents of the young fashion shoppers, the current study used convenience sampling to collect the primary data which is in line with the past research studies conducted on the theme in the context of emerging as well as developed markets (Park and Sullivan, 2009; Srivastava and Balaji, 2018). A total of 475 online questionnaires were received, out of which 24 sets of questionnaires were not filled out completely and another 41 contained technical errors, and they were removed from the data set. Thus, the total sample size of the study was 410 (69.85% response rate). Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the respondents . An above 50% response rate is considered to be valid and acceptable to assess the nonresponse bias in survey-based research (Menachemi, 2010; Nulty, 2008). Subsequently, the two-step statistical procedures were performed (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). In the first step, the nonsignificant difference of the t-test of gender group, age group, educational background, occupation and family denoted that there is no bias among the distribution of groups. In the second step, applying the rules of the continuum of resistance theory, a wave analysis was performed (Lin and Schaeffer, 1995). Hence, it was concluded that responses received were not significantly different from those who did not respond, and nonresponse bias was not a risk in the study. Figure 1 Hypothesized model Brand Consciousness Terminal Value Instrumental Value Behavioral Intentions H3 H2b H2a H1a H1b Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 518

4.4 Data collection method A judicious mix of the online and offline survey was used to collect the data. The offline survey was used for pretest data to receive instant feedback, query resolution and first-hand responses from the participants to improve the quality of the questionnaire. The online survey was administered using a standard template on a surveyenabled website. Besides, the questionnaire contained close-ended questions to avoid ambiguity. The survey questionnaire was distributed in the months of March– June 2019, where 475 respondents contributed and fully completed the responses. In total, 410 responses were deemed fit to be included in the final data analysis. From the data collected, it was observed that women were the principal buyers of luxury fashion brands, which are in line with the data collected from past researches (Hung et al., 2011; Park et al., 2007; Zhan and He, 2012). 4.5 Data screening and refinement Before conducting advanced data analyses, the data set was screened using SPSS (v. 20) with the help of Mahalanobis distance criterion (Mahalanobis’s D (20) > 43.85 on p < 0.001) and five multivariate outliers were detected in the screening process. The hypotheses assessments indicated that a trivial number of variables were negatively skewed. Consequently, in the refinement process, these variables were changed using a square root transformation to reduce the skewness and ensuring normality in the data set (Kenny and McCoach, 2003). Also, to effectively ratify the missing values of the questionnaire (a measurement of latent constructs) and missing data from the online survey template, the expectationmaximization algorithm (EMA) was conducted using SPSS (Little, 1988). Little’s (1988) Missing Completely at Random x2 statistic was executed, and it was found that missing data were entirely at random, and EMA imputed the missing values. 4.6 Common method variance Common method variance (CMV) is a matter of caution in self-report questionnaires and cross-sectional quantitative studies (Lindell, 2001), which may jeopardize the validity of the results in terms of construct relationship findings (Reio, 2010). CMV occurs because of the data collection from “same-source data” or “single survey method” in behavioral researches (Podsakoff et al., 2003). According to MacKinzie and Podsakoff (2012), CMV may add to the co-variation between constructs and the items reliabilities that affect structural relationships (Kline et al., 2000). Reio (2010) presented two techniques to decrease the likelihood of CMV, namely, statistical control and procedural design. On Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) recommendation, first, at the designing phase of the survey instrument, the acquiescence biases, e.g. “yea-saying or nay-saying,” item priming effects, scale length, common rate effects, common scale anchors, common scale formats and item characteristic effects were prohibited (Fuller et al., 2016). Second, at the data analysis phase, CMV was verified using three statistical tests, e.g. Harman’s one-factor test, and in the partial correlation procedures, the marker variable and the structural model techniques were undertaken. For all the extracted measurement items, four factors explained nearly 70% of the total variance, and the first factor explained only 32% of the total variance. Therefore, the statistical results emerging from these techniques reveal that CMV was not a problem in the present study (Podsakoffet al., 2003). 5. Results SEM is used to simultaneously assess the interrelated dependent variable relationships between constructs, which is not possible with other multivariate techniques (Hair et al., 2012). The theorized model was subject to a partial least square (PLS) path modeling, which is called a variance-based and prediction-oriented SEM (Chin, 1998; Hair et al., 2014a). Owing to the robustness and less restraining on data distribution and sample size, PLS was used (Hair et al., 2014b) to analyze the data with SmartPLS (v.3.0). Subsequently, as recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the measurement and structural model were tested for a two-step analytical procedure (Hairet al., 2014b). 5.1 Measurement model Subsequently, the reliability and validity were assessed. The reliability was established based on factor loading and composite reliability (CR; Chin, 2010). The validity of the measurement model was determined based on convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2014a, 2014b). The convergent validity was ascertained by observing the average variance extracted (AVE) and the CR (Ringle et al., 2012). Table 2 presents the scale items in the constructs along with factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, CR and AVE values for the same. In the current study, factor loading for all measures and CR for all constructs exceeded the threshold values, as factor loading >0.50 and CR > 0.70 (Hair et al., 2014b), which fulfills the reliability of the measurement model (Anderson and Table 1 Profile of the respondents (N = 410) Criteria Frequency (%) Gender Female 228 55.6 Male 182 44.4 Age (in years) 16–18 55 13.4 19–21 134 32.7 22–24 221 53.9 Education High school 26 6.34 Diploma 92 22.44 Graduate 244 59.51 Postgraduate 48 11.71 Occupation Students 261 63.7 Service 69 16.8 Business 80 19.5 Family income level (monthly) INR below 50,000 126 30.7 INR above 50,000 284 69.3 Note: INR = Indian national rupee Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 519

Gerbing, 1988). The scale items ensured the internal homogeneity and dimensionality. Table 2 shows the reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s a) values: the terminal value of 0.794; the instrumental value of 0.768; brand consciousness of 0.872; and behavioral intentions of 0.903; because all the Cronbach’s alpha values were above the threshold value of 0.70, it specified the internal consistency of the scale items (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). The convergent validity was confirmed by the AVE value of more than 0.50, and CR value was more than AVE (Ringle et al., 2012). As recommended in other studies, the AVE values, maximum shared squared variance (MSV) and average shared squared variance (ASV) were used to measure the discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2006). Table 2 exhibits that the MSV and ASV values were less than the AVE values. The results indicate that different constructs do not correlate highly with each other and confirm the discriminant validity. The square root of each AVE is shown in Table 3 (shown on the diagonal) is higher than the related inter-construct correlations in the construct correlation matrix, indicating adequate discriminant validity for all the reflective constructs. The discriminant validity was calculated with the Heterotrait– Monotrait (HTMT) ratio that has a higher precision in detecting validity issues in variance-based SEM (Henseler et al., 2015). All values of the HTMT were below the recommended threshold value of 0.90 (see Table 4), signifying a valid relationship between indicators and constructs (Henseler et al., 2015). HTMT exemplifies the ratio of withinconstruct correlations to the between-construct correlations (Henseler et al., 2015). The assessment of discriminant validity using HTMT can be accomplished in two ways: as a criterion and as a statistical test. As a criterion, HTMT values need to be less than 0.85 for constructs that are conceptually different. In addition, a value of 0.90 for constructs that are conceptually similar is required for it (Henseler et al., 2015). The statistical criteria involved testing the null hypothesis (H0: HTMT ⩾ 1) against the Table 2 Descriptive statistics and other measurement estimates S.No. Constructs and scale items Mean SD Loading Terminal value (TV) (a = 0.794; CR = 0.787; AVE = 0.618; MSV = 3.43; ASV = 0.250; rho_A = 0.902) 1. Luxury fashion apparel purchase makes me feel good for my life (TV1) 4.26 1.24 0.751 2. Luxury fashion apparel purchase is easy, comfortable and suits to my style (TV2) 5.42 1.05 0.765 3. For me, luxury fashion apparels are always pleasant and satisfactory (TV3) 4.96 1.14 0.697 4. Luxury fashion apparel purchases makes me happy for myself (TV4) 4.15 1.24 0.672 5. Though the price of luxury fashion apparels are higher still I like to have it for myself (TV5) 5.44 1.27 0.743 Instrumental value (IV) (a = 0.768; CR = 0.756; AVE = 0.548; MSV = 0.465; ASV = 0.272; rho_A = 0.924) 6. For me, luxury fashion apparels are always a pragmatic option to purchase (IV1) 5.23 1.03 0.788 7. For me, luxury fashion apparels are always logical and reasonable (IV2) 4.74 1.13 0.882 8. For me, luxury fashion apparels are not a waste of money (IV3) 2.86 1.35 0.796 9. For me, luxury fashion apparels are convenient to fit and good in appearance (IV4) 5.74 1.07 0.734 10. For me, luxury fashion apparels quality is always very good to wear and style (IV5) 4.92 1.14 0.727 Brand consciousness (BC) (a = 0.872; CR = 0.893; AVE = 0.716; MSV = 0.459; ASV = 0.193; rho_A = 0.905) 11. I pay attention to the brand names of the luxury fashion apparels I buy (BC1) 5.41 1.02 0.862 12. Brand names tell me something about the quality of the luxury fashion apparel (BC2) 5.66 1.07 0.825 13. Brand names tell me something about how “cool” an item of luxury fashion apparel is (BC3) 5.32 1.21 0.817 14. Sometimes I am willing to pay more money for luxury fashion apparels because of its brand name (BC4) 5.27 1.13 0.793 15. Branded luxury fashion apparels that cost a lot of money are good quality (BC5) 5.25 1.11 0.787 16. I pay attention to the brand names of most of the luxury fashion apparels I buy (BC6) 5.18 1.14 0.816 Behavioral intentions (BI) (a = 0.903; CR = 0.931; AVE = 0.784; MSV = 0.480; ASV = 0.275; rho_A = 0.913) 17. I would like to continue purchasing luxury fashion apparels in the future as well (BI1) 5.84 1.17 0.886 18. I would recommend the luxury fashion apparels to my friends and/or others (BI2) 5.85 1.15 0.764 19. I would like to increase purchase/use of luxury fashion apparels for me (BI3) 5.23 1.18 0.818 Notes: SD = standard deviation; a = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum shared squared variance; ASV = average shared squared variance; rho_A = reliability coefficient Table 3 Fornell–Larcker discriminant validity criteria Measure Terminal values Instrumental values Brand consciousness Behavioral intentions Terminal values 0.723 Instrumental values 0.509 0.949 Brand consciousness 0.448 0.591 0.955 Behavioral intentions 0.526 0.735 0.586 0.964 Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 520

alternative hypothesis (H1: HTMT < 1), and to attain the discriminant validity, confidence interval assumes were not to include the value of 1 (Henseler et al., 2015). None of the HTMT values exceeded the cutoff point of HTMT 0.90 and HTMT 0.85 (see Table 4). The highest HTMT value in the whole model was 0.764, and the HTMT inference also indicated that the confidence interval did not show a value of 1 for any of the constructs, which means that there is adequate discriminant validity throughout the model. Accordingly, the measurement model grasped an adequate level in terms of reliability and validity. Henceforth, it is possible to move forward and evaluate the structural model. 5.2 Structural model To evaluate the significance of the path coefficients and the loadings, a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 sample was used to generate the path coefficients and corresponding tvalues to decide the path significance (Hair et al., 2014b; Kautish and Sharma, 2019). Following Henseleret al.’s (2015) recommendations, the approximate model fit criterion, the standardized mean square residual (SRMR), was calculated for the model. SRMR value of 0.05 was much lower than 0.08, specifying an acceptable PLS path model fit. The structural model examines the relationships in terms of weights and magnitudes between endogenous and exogenous latent variables in the model (Hair et al., 2011). Figure 2 offers a graphical representation of the tested model. The primary criteria to appraise the structural model are the values of path coefficient significance level (b ), the coefficient of determination (R2 ), effect size (f 2 ) (Hair et al., 2014a, 2014b) and the Stone–Geisser’s (Q2 ) cross-validated redundancy or predictive relevance (Geisser, 1975; Stone, 1974). Conferring to Falk and Miller (1992), the R2 value should be more than 0.10 to meet the minimum level of explanatory power. A t-statistic was achieved through a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 resamples to evaluate the significance of path coefficients and their corresponding t-values and to estimate the standard error in the model. The R2 values are listed in Table 5. The values of R2 are considered as a weak, medium and substantial for the constructs in the structural model that are 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 (Hair et al., 2014a). The PLS-SEM model showing the relationships among variables is illustrated in Figure 2. The study suggested that the terminal (b = 0.428; p < 0.01) and instrumental (b = 0.543; p < 0.01) values were positively related to brand consciousness and both explained 58.7% of the variance in brand consciousness. The results provided support for H1a and H1b. Subsequently, the predictors of behavioral intentions in terms of terminal value, instrumental value and brand consciousness were analyzed. The terminal value (b = 0.384; p< 0.01), instrumental value (b = 0.470; p < 0.01) and brand consciousness (b = 0.374; p< 0.01) were positively related to behavioral intentions. Three of them explained 66.5% of the variance in behavioral intentions. Consequently, H2a, H2b and H3 were supported (see Table 5). According to Hair et al. (2014a), the effect size (f 2 ) was measured. The effect size refers to the significance of exogenous variables in explaining the variance in the endogenous construct, which is calculated using Cohen’s (1988) equation: f 2 = R2 included " R2 excluded/1 " R2 Table 4 HTMT discriminant validity criterion Constructs Terminal values Instrumental values Brand consciousness Behavioral intentions Terminal values Instrumental values 0.568 CI90 (0.549, 97.5%) Brand consciousness 0.495 CI90 (0.387, 0.975) 0.663 CI90 (0.577, 0.851) Behavioral intentions 0.576 CI90 (0.474, 0.923) 0.764 CI90 (0.639, 0.827) 0.635 CI90 (0.512, 0.813) Figure 2 Estimated structural model Brand Consciousness R2 = 0.587 Terminal Value Instrumental Value Behavioral Intentions R2 = 0.665 β = 0.374** Note: **p < 0.01 Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 521

included. As per Cohen (1988), the effect size values of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 suggest substantial, moderate and weak effects, respectively. In the study, as shown in Table 5, instrumental value has a strong effect (f 2 = 0.428) in explaining the variance in brand consciousness compared to the terminal value (f 2 = 0.215). Additionally, this study found that terminal value (f 2 = 0.242), instrumental value (f 2 = 0.310) and brand consciousness (f 2 = 0.375) exert strong effect on behavioral intentions. The predictive relevance of the model was assessed using the blindfolding procedure suggested by Hair et al. (2014b), which omits every dth data point in the endogenous constructs’ indicators and evaluates the parameters with the residual data points (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). According to Fornell and Cha (1994), the model got robust predictive relevance, because the Q2 values for brand consciousness (Q2 = 0.286) and behavioral intentions (Q2 = 0.268) are greater than 0. 5.3 Mediating effect To test H4 and H5, which specified that brand consciousness would mediate the relationship between instrumental value and behavioral intentions (H4) and between terminal value and behavioral intentions (H5), the Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 resamples was used. The significance of total, direct and indirect effects is confirmed using a bootstrap procedure with 5,000 resamples. Table 6 displays that total, direct and indirect effects between instrumental value and behavioral intentions and between terminal value and behavioral intentions are significant. Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) bootstrapping method was used to analyze the indirect effect. The bootstrapping analysis with 5,000 resamples revealed that the indirect effects of b 1 = 0.349 (0.425# 0.373) and b 2 = 0.258 (0.546# 0.373) were statistically significant with t-values of 3.90 and 3.47, and a 95% confidence interval does not consist of 0 in between CI: [lower control limit (LCL) = 0.34; upper control limit (UCL) = 0.51] and CI: [LCL = 0.26; UCL = 0.35], respectively. Consequently, H4 and H5 are accepted, as brand consciousness acts as a partial mediator between both the relationships. It is in tandem with evidence that increased luxury fashion awareness and blend of Indian values with Western counterparts (Gupta, 2011; Shukla and Purani, 2012) have led to the acceptance of global brands among Indian consumers (Jain et al., 2017; Kautish and Rai, 2018a, 2018b). Also, the results show that the instrumental value effect on behavioral intentions decreases considerably (D = 349) from a significant relationship of 0.510 to a low, but are still significant at a level of 0.182. Simultaneously, a similar relation is found for the terminal value direct effect on behavioral intentions, which decreases considerably (D = 258) from a significant relationship of 0.455 to a significant level of 0.193 (see Table 6). The variance accounted for (VAF) evaluates the strength of the mediation (Hair et al., 2014a). The VAF directs that brand consciousness is a mediator of both instrumental value (0.689) and terminal value (0.576). Moreover, as the direct effect (c0 ) and indirect effect (a # b) point toward the same positive direction, the model confirms the mediation (Zhao et al., 2010). Therefore, it is predicted that brand consciousness mediates the relation between instrumental value and behavioral intentions, and between terminal value and behavioral intentions. 6. Discussion and conclusion The current study provides interesting insights regarding the changing nature of Indian values for the luxury fashion apparel market. It posits the growing consciousness among Indian consumers toward luxury apparel in self-identity construal. Earlier studies have emphasized the relevance of brands in social identity construal, bestowing status and success to the user. The current study attempts to understand the influence of values as connoting desired states of existence and behavior concerning luxury apparel brand purchases. It adds to the existing literature by looking at terminal and instrumental values as forms of desired motives that enable individuals to Table 5 Structural model assessment Hypothesized path Standard b Standard error t-Value BC 95% LCL BC 95% UCL Results R2 f 2 Q2 H1a TV ! BC 0.428 0.04 3.91$$ 0.44 0.62 Accepted 0.587 0.215 H1b IV ! BC 0.543 0.05 3.37$$ 0.24 0.38 Accepted 0.428 0.286 H2a TV ! BI 0.384 0.03 3.94$$ 0.32 0.56 Accepted 0.665 0.242 H2b IV ! BI 0.470 0.04 3.13$$ 0.27 0.43 Accepted 0.310 H3 BC ! BI 0.374 0.06 12.15$$ 0.25 0.34 Accepted 0.375 0.268 H4 IV ! BC ! BI 0.417 0.04 3.86$$ 0.33 0.51 Accepted H5 TV ! BC ! BI 0.326 0.05 3.40$$ 0.28 0.35 Accepted Notes: $$p < 0.01; TV = terminal value; IV = instrumental value; BC = brand consciousness; BI = behavioral intentions Table 6 Mediation results Structural model paths Total effect Direct effect Indirect effect t-Values CI: [LCL–UCL] VAF Mediation(%) IV fi BC fi BI 0.510$$ 0.182$$ 0.349$$ 3.90$$ 0.34–0.51 0.689 68.90 TV fi BC fi BI 0.455$$ 0.193$$ 0.258$$ 3.47$$ 0.26–0.35 0.576 57.60 Notes: $$p < 0.01; TV = terminal value; IV = instrumental value; BC = brand consciousness; BI = behavioral intentions; VAF = variance accounted for Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 522

exhibit a satisfied state of existence. Decisions to purchase luxury brands would be viewed as a need to aspire for a better life and it is essential to understand that individual differences would affect value interpretations and behavior (Allen et al., 2002). The findings reveal that all the hypothesized relationships were positively supported and posit the relevance of Rokeach’s (1973) human values (terminal/instrumental) and psychological constructs – brand consciousness and behavioral intentions in understanding the purchase intention of young luxury fashion consumers in an EM. However, instrumental and terminal values need to be interpreted as specific states or goals in terms of happiness, fulfillment, security, satisfaction and success. A broad view of value taxonomy may not be adequate in understanding how Indian consumers view values in defining luxury brands. The results indicated that brand consciousness mediated the relationship between value orientation and behavioral intentions for luxury branded fashion apparel consumption. The study revealed that a significant relationship existed between terminal value and brand consciousness and instrumental value and brand consciousness (H1a and H1b). The findings are in line with earlier studies that posited that consumers’ value orientation affected the brand consciousness for luxury products (Chattalas and Shukla, 2015; Shukla, 2012; Shukla and Purani, 2012; Tsai, 2005; Tynan et al., 2010; Weidmann et al., 2007, 2009). It suggested that the terminal and instrumental values (H2a and H2b) influenced behavioral intentions (Allen et al., 2002), and the consumers’ brand consciousness of luxury apparel brands influenced behavioral intentions (H3). The results support earlier studies on brand purchase intentions (Husic and Cicic, 2009; Kastanakis and Balabanis, 2012, 2014; Sharda and Bhat, 2018, 2019). The study investigated the role of brand consciousness as a mediator between terminal value and behavioral intentions and instrumental value and behavioral intentions. Mediation was analyzed following the approach recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Results indicated that brand consciousness acts as a mediator in the structural model, confirming H4 and H5. Furthermore, brand consciousness mediated 68.90% of the relationship between instrumental value and behavioral intentions, and 57.60% between terminal value and behavioral intentions. The meaningful mediation effect played by brand consciousness is confirmed by the coefficients of determination for behavioral intentions. The structural model assuming the mediation role of brand consciousness has greater predictive power to the model without mediation. Research has discussed the relationship between value orientation and luxury consumption (Chattalas and Shukla, 2015; Shukla, 2012; Shukla and Purani, 2012; Tsai, 2005; Tynan et al., 2010; Weidmann et al., 2007, 2009) and argued the relationship between brand consciousness and luxury consumption (Sharda and Bhat, 2018, 2019). The current study examined the relationship of brand consciousness with Rokeach’s (1973) value dichotomy. Also, the instrumental values appeared to be more proficient than terminal values in explaining the brand promotion, and value-led marketing practices in varied contexts (Kautish and Sharma, 2018; Martin and Capelli, 2018) because the Indian luxury market echoes a unique assortment of western lifestyles with traditional Indian values (Jain et al., 2015, 2017; Jain and Khan, 2017). 7. Implications of the study The present research has implications for marketing researchers and practitioners. This study has tried to empirically test the impact of value orientation on luxury behavioral intentions in the context of the Indian fashion apparel market. One of the central facets of selecting luxury fashion brands is the symbolism that it represents and the value it communicates to other than consumers. Hitherto, the gross ignorance of human value factors as a construct has had not just been slack in consumer behavior research, and appreciative as a significantly moderate decisive norm, but also missing managerial insight in retail business prospects (Kim and Kim, 2012). Moreover, both value orientations – terminal and instrumental – are coextensive to the social, emotional, economic and utilitarian values (Ko et al., 2010). 7.1 Implications for research The study makes two significant contributions. It redefined the terminal and instrumental values concerning brand consciousness and luxury brand. It examines the consumers’ interpretation of value orientation, perceptions and purchase intention of luxury fashion apparel brands. Theoretically, the research is perhaps among the pioneer attempts that integrate Rokeach’s (1973) human value dichotomy and validate the efficacy of Rokeach’s (1973) value orientations as an antecedent of brand consciousness and behavioral intentions for luxury consumption in an EM. Second, on the theoretical framework, the present study extends and endorses the symbolic self-completion theory regarding luxury fashion apparel consumption among young consumers in an EM context, e.g. India. Indian consumers’ aspirations for global lifestyle reflect their choices of luxury brands. The younger consumer groups perceive luxury brands as a reflection of wellbeing and achievement. The findings are significant as they posit the changing marketing landscape for luxury brands and their interpretation as a reflection of postmodern societies. Indian consumers increasingly reflect a desire to conform to their global counterparts, and consumption of luxury brands suggests the changing value paradigm. Furthermore, the instrumental value is a relatively more critical antecedent for prompting brand consciousness than terminal values. It augments earlier research which focuses on articulated needs on actual and desired behavioral consumption of luxury fashion (Perry and Kyriakaki, 2014; Zhang and Kim, 2013). The present findings lend theoretical sustenance to the adoption of consequence-led consumer value drivers based on a combination of tangible and intangible branding-oriented benefits (Kautish and Sharma, 2018). 7.2 Implications for practitioners The study provides insights for fashion luxury brand managers to use consumer value orientation and brand consciousness in influencing behavioral intentions toward fashion apparel in an EM. It is inevitable for companies to link the human side of personal values with fashion apparel to focus their retail marketing mix strategies according to consumer’s psychographic needs in terms of luxury consumption. Thompson and Troester (2002) argued that the classical perspectives of values are not sufficiently attuned to: Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 523

[...] intra-cultural diversity among consumer value systems, and it arises from the fragmentation of postmodern consumer culture into diverse consumption micro-cultures (p. 552). Thus, instrumental value, as part of the value orientation, emerges as a distinctive feature of the consumers’ psychographic aspirations related to luxury fashion consumption. The diffusion of Western lifestyle in EMs has brought several changes in consumer values for fashion consumption. It becomes imperative for global luxury apparel firms to understand consumers’ value perspectives while marketing brands. It would entail combining the appeal of luxury apparel with status, achievement, success and wellbeing. As luxury apparels help in self-construal and socialidentification, brand attributes should focus on consumers’ aspirations. Marketing efforts should be directed toward highlighting global lifestyle, elegance, achievement and success. While addressing consumers’ value orientations, managers should focus on developing promotional strategies that highlight the relevance of distinctive brand features and benefits offered by the fashion brand (Phau and Leng, 2008; Phau and Prendergast, 2000) that enable self-expression. 8. Future research directions and limitations The classical typologies of human values used to interpret consumers’ behavior toward luxury apparel explored only the influence of values. It does offer an encompassing view regarding the role of cultural dimensions, lifestyle and social influences in understanding interpretations of luxury brands. Given that consumers’ aspirations in EMs are changing, it may be essential to interpret brand connotations for global lifestyles. Nonetheless, this study provides new and significant contributions concerning the role of Rokeach’s (1973) value dichotomy, but it may include cultural values to offer an integrated approach. The conceptualized model is based on a specific luxury product category, i.e. fashion apparel brands. The product-/brand-specific situations are easy to capture, but the generalizability and cross-category applicability of value orientation is beneficial for understanding luxury marketing strategies (Esmaeilpour, 2015). So future research could embrace other attribute-related facets of branded luxury products such as features, price, quality and social attributes to provide greater insights regarding the young consumers’ behavior (Cheah et al., 2015). This research has deliberated values defined as the desired and trans-situational human goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s life (Kim, 2005). However, values have “psychological/ emotional loadings,” and not all of them are perceived as positives (i.e. risk, egoism, ethnocentrism, etc.). Therefore, counter-values could be included in future studies to complete the consumer behavioral picture. The data has been collected from a specific geographical and cultural context (India) and the results cannot be generalized to different contexts. Further, the study has focused on young consumers, which may bias the result as they may have opted for socially desirable responses (Evans, 1989). The data also pertains to branded fashion apparel consumers and may or may not be generalizable to other luxury products and shopping/ consumption contexts. Thus, future studies should examine the replicability across countries and luxury product/consumption contexts . References Ajitha, S. and Sivakumar, V.J. (2017), “Understanding the effect of personal and social value on attitude and usage behaviour of luxury cosmetic brands”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 39, pp. 103-113. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “The social influence of Brand community: evidence from European car clubs”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34. Allen, M.W. (2000), “The attribute-mediation and product meaning approaches to the influences of human values on consumer choices”, in Columbus, F. (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research, Vol. 1, (pp. 31-76), Huntington, New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Allen, M.W. (2001), “A practical method for uncovering the direct and indirect relationships between human values and consumer purchases”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 102-120. Allen, M.W. (2002), “Human values and product symbolism: do consumers form product preference by comparing the human values symbolized by a product to the human values that they endorse?”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 2475-2502. Allen, M.W. and Ng, S.H. (1999), “The direct and indirect influences of human values on product ownership”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 5-39. Allen, M.W., Ng, S.H. and Wilson, M. (2002), “A functional approach to instrumental and terminal values and the valueattitude-behaviour system of consumer choice”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 1/2, pp. 111-135. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423. Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402. Babin, B.J. and Babin, L. (2001), “Seeking something different? A model of schema typicality, consumer affect, purchase intentions, and perceived shopping value”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 89-96. Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/ or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656. Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), “Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group Brand communities”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 45-61. Bao, Y. and Mandrik, C.A. (2004), “Discerning store brand users from value consciousness consumers: the role of prestige sensitivity and need for cognition”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 707-712. Barratt, M.J., Ferris, J.A. and Lenton, S. (2015), “Hidden populations, online purposive sampling, and external validity: taking off the blindfold”, Field Methods, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-21. Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R., Homer, P. and Misra, S. (1985), “Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: the list of values and the Rokeach value survey”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 181-200. Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 524

Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Parent, M. and Berthon, J.-P. (2009), “Aesthetics and ephemerality: observing and preserving the luxury brand”, California Management Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 45-66. Bhardwaj, V., Kumar, A. and Kim, Y.K. (2010), “Brand analyses of US global and local brands in India: the case of levi’s”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 80-94. Bian, Q. and Forsythe, S. (2012), “Purchase intention for luxury brands: a cross-cultural comparison”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1443-1451. Bloemer, J. and Dekker, D. (2007), “Effects of personal values on customer satisfaction: an empirical test of the value percept disparity model and the value disconfirmation model”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 276-291. Braun, O.L. and Wicklund, R.A. (1989), “Psychological antecedents of conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 161-187. Brun, A. and Castelli, C. (2013), “The nature of luxury: a consumer perspective”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 823-847. Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J. and Grunert, K.G. (2004), “Closing the gap between values and behaviour – a means-end theory of lifestyle”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 665-670. Bullis, D. (1997), Selling to India’s Consumer Market, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Burgess, S. and Steenkamp, J.-B. (2013), “Editorial: introduction to the special issue on marketing in emerging markets”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-3. Business Standard (2018), “Indian Middle-class aggregate purchasing power will result in the creation of one of the largest markets in the world-Gold 2048”, available at: www. business-standard.com/article/news-cm/indian-middleclass-aggregate-purchasing-power-will-result-in-the-creationof-one-of-the-largest-markets-in-the-world-gold-2048- 118051700589_1.html (accessed on August 2, 2019). Carpenter, J.M. and Fairhurst, A. (2005), “Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and loyalty for retail apparel brands”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 256-269. CasidyMulyanegara, R. and Tsarenko, Y. (2009), “Predicting brand preferences: an examination of the predictive power of consumer personality and values in the Australian fashion market”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 358-371. C!at!alin, M.C. and Andreea, P. (2014), “Brands as a mean of consumer self-expression and desired personal lifestyle”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 109, pp. 103-107. Chadha, R. and Husband, P. (2006), Cult of Luxury brands: Inside Asia’s Love Affair with Luxury, Boston: Nicholas Brealey International. Chattalas, M. and Shukla, P. (2015), “Impact of value perceptions on luxury purchase intentions: a developed market comparison”, Luxury Research J., Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 40-57. Cheah, I., Phau, I., Chong, C. and Shimul, A.S. (2015), “Antecedents and outcomes of brand prominence on willingness to buy luxury brands”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 402-415. Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling”, in Marcoukides, G.A. (Eds.), Modern Methods for Business Research, (pp. 295-336), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in EspositoVinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods, and Applications, (pp. 655-690), Heidelberg: Springer. Choo, H., Moon, H., Kim, H. and Yoon, N. (2012), “Luxury customer value”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 81-101. Clark, R.A., Zboja, J.J. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2006), “Status consumption and role-relaxed consumption: a tale of two retail consumers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 45-59. Clawson, C.J. and Vinson, D.E. (1978), “Human values – a historical and interdisciplinary analysis”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 396-402. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Corfman, K.P., Lehmann, R.D. and Narayanan, S. (1991), “Values, utility, and ownership: modeling the relationship for consumer durables”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 184-204. Cronin, J.J., Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effect of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intention in-service environment”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218. Das, G. (2015), “Impact of store attributes on consumer-based retailer equity: an exploratory study of department retail stores”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 188-204. Deloitte (2018), “Global powers of luxury goods 2018: shaping the future of the luxury industry”, available at: www2.deloitte.com/ content/dam/Deloitte/at/Documents/consumer-business/deloitteglobal-powers-of-luxury-goods-2018.pdf (accessed on August 2 2019). Dodds, W.B. (1991), “In search of value: how price and store name information influence buyers’ product perceptions”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 15-24. Durgee, J.F., O’Connor, G.C. and Veryzer, R.W. (1996), “Translating values into product wants”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 90-100. Easterlin, R.A. and Crimmins, E.M. (1991), “Private materialism, personal self-fulfillment, family life, and public interest: the nature, effects, and causes of recent changes in the values of American youth”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 499-533. Eng, T.Y. and Bogaert, J. (2010), “Psychological and cultural insights into consumption of luxury brands in India”, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 55-75. Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J. (2005), “Selfconstrual, reference groups and brand meaning”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389. Esmaeilpour, F. (2015), “The role of functional and symbolic brand associations on brand loyalty” a study on luxury Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 525

brands”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 467-484. Euromonitor International (2019), “Luxury goods in India”, available at: www.euromonitor.com/luxury-goods-in-india/ report(accessed on August 1, 2019). Evans, M. (1989), “Consumer behavior towards fashion”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 7-16. Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer Soft Modeling, Akron, OH: University of Akron Press. Feather, N.T. (1973), “The measurement of values: effects of different assessment procedures”, Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 221-231. Feather, N.T. and Peay, E.R. (1975), “The structure of terminal and instrumental values: dimensions and clusters”, Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 151-164. Fornell, C. and Cha, J. (1994), “Partial least squares”, In Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Advanced Methods in Marketing Research, (pp. 52-78), Cambridge: Blackwell. Fournier, S. and Mick, D.G. (1999), “Rediscovering satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 5-23. Fuller, C.M., Simmering, M.J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y. and Babin, B.J. (2016), “Common methods variance detection in business research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3192-3198. Gallarza, M.G., Gil Saura, I. and Holbrook, M.B. (2011), “The value of value: further excursions on the meaning and role of customer value”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 179-191. Geisser, S. (1975), “A predictive approach to the random effect model”, Biometrika, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 101-107. Giovannini, S., Xu, Y. and Thomas, J. (2015), “Luxury fashion consumption and generation Y consumers: self, brand consciousness and consumption motivations”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 102-119. Goldsmith, R.E. (2000), “Characteristics of heavy user of fashionable clothing”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 21-28. Goldsmith, R.E. and Stith, M.T. (1990), “The social values of fashion innovators”, Journal of Applied Business Research (Jabr), Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 10-16. Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Clark, R.A. (2012), “Materialistic, brand engaged and status consuming consumers and clothing behaviours”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 102-119. Grant, I.J. and Stephen, G.R. (2005), “Buying behaviour of ‘tweenage’ girls and key societal communicating factors influencing their purchasing of fashion clothing”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 450-467. Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N. (1998), “The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 331-352. Grunert, S.C. and Scherhorn, G. (1990), “Consumer values in west Germany underlying dimensions and cross-cultural comparison with North America”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 97-108. Gupta, N. (2011), “Globalization does lead to change in consumer behavior: an empirical evidence of impact of globalization on changing materialistic values in Indian consumers and its aftereffects”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 251-269. Gupta, A. (2019), “What’s in store for the Indian fashion industry in 2019”, available at: www.indiaretailing.com/2019/ 04/15/fashion/whats-in-store-for-the-indian-fashion-industryin-2019/(accessed on August 2, 2019). Hair, J.F., Jr., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLSSEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152. Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014a), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hair, J.F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014b), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121. Hair, J.F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433. Hair, J.F., Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th Edition, New Delhi: Pearson Education. Han, Y.J., Nunes, J.C. and Drèze, X. (2010), “Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 15-30. Handa, M. and Khare, A. (2013), “Gender as a moderator of the relationship between materialism and fashion clothing involvement among Indian youth”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 112-120. Hassan, S., Husi"c-Mehmedovi"c, M. and Duverger, P. (2015), “Retaining the allure of luxury brands during economic downturn”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 416-429. Heath, R.L. (1976), “Variability in value system priorities as decision-making adaptation to situational differences”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 325-333. Heath, R.L. and Fogel, D.S. (1978), “Terminal and instrumental? AN inquiry into Rokeach’s value survey”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 42 No. 3_suppl, pp. 1147-1154. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135. Hung, K., Chen, A., Peng, N., Hackley, C., Tiwsakul, R.A. and Chou, C. (2011), “Antecedents of luxury brand purchase intention”, Journal of Product & brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 457-467. Husic, M. and Cicic, M. (2009), “Luxury consumption factors”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 231-245. Inglehart, R. (1977), The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 526

Jain, S. and Khan, M.N. (2017), “Measuring the impact of beliefs on luxury buying behavior in an emerging market: empirical evidence from India”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 341-360. Jain, S., Khan, M.N. and Mishra, S. (2015), “Factors affecting luxury purchase intention: a conceptual framework based on an extension of the theory of planned behavior”, South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 136-163. Jain, S., Khan, M.N. and Mishra, S. (2017), “Understanding consumer behavior regarding luxury fashion goods in India based on the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 4-21. Jain, V., Roy, S. and Ranchhod, A. (2015), “Conceptualizing luxury buying behavior: the Indian perspective”, Journal of Product & brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 211-228. Kahle, L.R. and Xie, G. (2008), “Social values in consumer psychology”, In Haugtvedt, C.P., Herr, P.M. and Kardes, F. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology, pp.575-585), New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kahle, L.R., Beatty, S.E. and Homer, P.M. (1986), “Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: the list of values (LOV) and values and lifestyles (VALS)”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 405-409. Kamakura, W.A. and Mazzon, J.A. (1991), “Value segmentation: a model for the measurement of values and value systems”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 208-218. Kant, A. Kapoor, V. and Nagaich, R. (2018), “India’s burgeoning middle class”, available at: www.livemint.com/ Opinion/TvcFydQcN6KEFkvdW7BprM/Indias-burgeoningmiddle-class.html(accessed on August 25, 2019). Kapferer, J.-N. (2012), “Abundant rarity, the key to luxury growth”, Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 453-462. Kapferer, J.-N. (2015), Kapferer on Luxury: How Luxury brands Can Grow yet Remain Rare, London: Kogan Page. Kapferer, J.-N. (2016), “The challenges of luxury branding”, in Riley, F.D., Singh, J. and Blankson, C. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Brand Management, Routledge, London, pp. 473-491. Kapferer, J.-N. (2017), “The end of luxury as we knew it?”, In Kapferer, J-N., Kernstock, J., Brexendorf, T. and Powell, S. (Eds.), Advances in Luxury brand Management, Journal of brand Management: Advanced Collections, (pp. 25-41), Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Kapferer, J.-N. and Bastien, V. (2009), “The specificity of luxury management: turning marketing upside down”, Journal of brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 311-322. Kapferer, J.-N. and Bastien, V. (2012), The Luxury Strategy: Break the Rules of Marketing to Build Luxury brands, 2nd Edition, London: Kogan Page. Kapferer, J.-N. and Valette-Florence, P. (2016), “Beyond rarity: the paths of luxury desire”, Journal of Product & brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 120-133. Kapferer, J.-N., Klippert, C. and Leproux, C. (2014), “The minimum price of luxury: an exploratory study”, Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 2-11. Kassim, N., Bogari, N., Salamah, N. and Zain, M. (2016), “The relationships between collective-oriented values and materialism, product status signaling and product satisfaction: a two-city study”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 807-826. Kastanakis, M.N. and Balabanis, G. (2012), “Between the mass and the class: antecedents of the ‘bandwagon’ luxury consumption behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1399-1407. Kastanakis, M.N. and Balabanis, G. (2014), “Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: an individual differences’ perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 2147-2154. Kautish, P. and Rai, S.K. (2018a), “Fashion portals and generation Y consumers in India: an exploratory study”, In Soni, S. and Sharma, V. (Eds.), Marketing Magic for Millennials: Rise of Gen YO!, (pp. 125-150), New Delhi: Bloomsbury,. Kautish, P. and Rai, S.K. (2018b), “Fashion portals and Indian consumers: an exploratory study on online apparel retail marketing”, International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 309-331. Kautish, P. and Sharma, R. (2018), “Consumer values, fashion consciousness and behavioural intentions in the online fashion retail sector”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 46 No. 10, pp. 894-914. Kautish, P. and Sharma, R. (2019), “Managing online product assortment and order fulfillment for superior e-tailing service experience: an empirical investigation”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1161-1192. Kautish, P., Sharma, R. and Khare, A. (2020), “Multi-Item scale development for online consumption emotion construct and psychometric evaluation for relationship marketing”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, doi: 10.1080/ 15332667.2020.1717282. Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Kenny, D.A. and McCoach, D.B. (2003), “Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit instructural equation modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 333-351. Kim, H.S. (2005), “Consumer profiles of apparel product involvement and values”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 207-220. Kim, E.Y. and Kim, Y.K. (2004), “Predicting online purchase intentions for clothing products”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 883-897. Kim, J.-E. and Kim, J. (2012), “Human factors in retail environments: a review”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 40 No. 11, pp. 818-841. Kim, J.-O., Forsythe, S., Gu, Q. and Moon, S.J. (2002), “Cross-cultural consumer values, needs and purchase behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 481-502. Kinley, T.R., Josiam, B.M. and Lockett, F. (2010), “Shopping behavior and the involvement construct”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 562-575. Kirmani, A., Sood, S. and Bridges, S. (1999), “The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 88-101. Kline, T.J.B., Sulsky, L.M. and Rever-Moriyama, S.D. (2000), “Common method variance and specification errors: a Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 527

practical approach to detection”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 134 No. 4, pp. 401-421. Ko, S., Norum, P. and Hawley, J.M. (2010), “Consumer value structures reflected in clothing advertisements”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 451-468. Kumar, A., Lee, H.-J. and Kim, Y.-K. (2009), “Indian consumers’ purchase intention toward a United States versus local brand”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 521-527. Kumar, V., Sunder, S. and Sharma, A. (2015), “Leveraging distribution to maximize firm performance in emerging markets”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 627-643. Liao, J. and Wang, L. (2009), “Face as a mediator of the relationship between material value and brand consciousness”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 987-1991. Li, G., Li, G. and Kambele, Z. (2012), “Luxury fashion brand consumers in China: perceived value, fashionlifestyle and willingness to pay”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1516-1522. Lindell, M.K. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121. Lin, I.-F. and Schaeffer, N.C. (1995), “Using survey participants to estimate the impact of nonparticipation”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 236-258. Li, J.J. and Su, C. (2007), “How face influences consumption: a comparative study of American and Chinese consumers”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 237-256. Little, R.J.A. (1988), “Missing-data adjustments in large surveys”, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 287-296. Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D. and Soh, H. (2012), “Selfcongruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: a study on luxury brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 922-993. Liu, S., Perry, P., Moore, C. and Warnaby, G. (2016), “The standardized-localization dilemma of brand communications for luxury fashion retailers internationalization into China”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 357-364. Lloyd, A.E. and Luk, S.T. (2010), “The devils wears Prada or Zara: a revelation into customer perceived value of luxury and mass fashion brands”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 129-141. Lysonski, S. and Durvasula, S. (2013), “Consumer decision making styles in retailing: evolution of mindsets and psychological impacts”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 75-87. McKinsey (2019), “Year 2019 will be India’s ascent in global fashion industry: Mckinsey study”, available at: www. fashionatingworld.com/new1-2/year-2019-will-be-india-sascent-in-global-fashion-industry-mckinsey-study (accessed on August 16, 2019). MacKinzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: causes mechanisms, and procedural remedies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 542-555. Maio, G.R. (2017), The Psychology of Human Values, Psychology Press, New York, NY: Routledge. Manchiraju, S. and Sadachar, A. (2014), “Personal values and ethical fashion consumption”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 357-374. Martin, E. and Capelli, S. (2018), “Place branding communities: from terminal to instrumental values”, Journal of Product & brand Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 793-806. Menachemi, N. (2010), “Assessing response bias in a web survey at a university faculty”, Evaluation & Research in Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-15. Minton, E.A., Kahle, L.R., Jiuan, T.S. and Tambyah, S.K. (2016), “Addressing criticisms of global religion research: a consumption-based exploration of status and materialism, sustainability, and volunteering behavior”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 365-383. Mishra, S. and Jain, S. (2018), “Unfolding India’s luxury market in 2018”, available at www.businesstoday.in/opinion/ columns/unfolding-india-luxury-market-in-2018/story/271418. html(accessed on July 17, 2019). Mukherjee, A., Satija, D., Goyal, T.M., Mantrala, M.K. and Zou, S. (2012), “Are Indian consumers brand conscious? Insights for global retailers”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 482-499. Muniz, A.M. and O’guinn, T.C. (2001), “brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-432. Munson, J.M. and McQuarrie, E. (1988), “Shortening the Rokeach value survey for use in consumer research”, In Houston, M.J., (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, (pp. 381-386), Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research. Nabi, N., O’Cass, A. and Siahtiri, V. (2019), “Status consumption in newly emerging countries: the influence of personality traits and the mediating role of motivation to consume conspicuously”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 46, pp. 173-178. Nelson, M.R. and McLeod, L.E. (2005), “Adolescent brand consciousness and product placements: awareness, liking and perceived effects on self and others”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 515-526. Nulty, D.D. (2008), “The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?”, assessment & evaluation in higher education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 301-314. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd Edition, New York, NY: McGraw Hill. O’Cass, A. and Siahtiri, V. (2014), “Are young adult Chinese status and fashion clothing brand conscious?”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 284-300. Olson, J. and Reynolds, T. (1983), “Understanding consumers’ cognitive structures: Implications for advertising strategy”, In Percy, L. and Woodside, A. (Eds.), Advertising and Consumer Psychology, (pp. 77-90), Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Ouwersloot, H. and Odekerken-Schröder, G. (2008), “Who’s who in brand communities–and why?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 571-585. Pare, V. and Pourazad, N. (2017), “The big bazaar: an examination of Indian shopping mall behaviour and Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 528

demographic differences”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1160-1177. Park, H.H. and Sullivan, P. (2009), “Market segmentation with respect to university students’ clothing benefits sought: shopping orientation, clothing attribute evaluation, and brand repatronage”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 182-201. Park, H.J., Rabolt, N.J. and Jeon, K.S. (2007), “Purchasing global luxury brands among young Korean consumers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 244-259. Parrott, G., Danbury, A. and Kanthavanich, P. (2015), “Online behavior of luxury fashion brand advocates”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 360-383. Parthasarathy, M., Lane, V.R. and Stansifer, M.L. (2015), “A time-based analysis of changing consumer values in India”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 271-291. Paul, J. and Mas, E. (2016), “The emergence of China and India in the global market”, Journal of East-West Business, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 28-50. Perkins, W.S. and Reynolds, T.J. (1988), “The explanatory power of values in preference judgments: validation of the means-end perspective”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 122-126. No. 1. Perry, P. and Kyriakaki, M. (2014), “The decision-making process of luxury fashion retail buyers in Greece”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 85-106. Phau, I. and Leng, Y.S. (2008), “Attitudes toward domestic and foreign luxury brand apparel: a comparison between status and non-status seeking teenagers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 68-89. Phau, I. and Prendergast, G. (2000), “Consuming luxury brands: the relevance of the ‘rarity principle”, Journal of brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 122-138. Pino, G., Amatulli, C., Peluso, A.M., Nataraajan, R. and Guido, G. (2019), “brand prominence and social status in luxury consumption: a comparison of emerging and mature markets”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 46, pp. 163-172. Pitts, R.E. and Woodside, A.G. (1983), “Personal value influences on consumer product class and brand preferences”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 37-53. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891. Ramchandani, M. and Coste-Manière, I. (2012), “Asymmetry in multi-cultural luxury communication: a comparative analysis on luxury brand communication in India and China”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 89-97. Rankin, W.L. and Grube, J.W. (1980), “A comparison of ranking and rating procedures for value system measurement”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 233-246. Rao, S.L. (2000), “India’s rapidly changing consumer markets”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35 No. 40, pp. 3570-3572. Reio, T.G. (2010), “The threat of common method variance bias to theory building”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 405-411. Richins, M.L. (1994), “Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 504-521. Ringle, C.M.C., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-14. Roberts, J.H. (2000), “Developing new rules for new markets”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 31-44. Rokeach, M. (1968), “Beliefs, attitudes and values, San Francisco, CA: jossey-Bass”, Social Work, . Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, New York, NY: Free Press. Rokeach, M. (1979), Understanding Human Values, New York, NY: Free Press. Rosen, D.E. and Surprenant, C. (1998), “Evaluating relationships: are satisfaction and quality enough?”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 103-125. Roy, S. and Goswami, P. (2007), “Structural equation modeling of value-psychographic trait-clothing purchase behaviour: a study on the urban college-goers of India”, Young Consumers, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 269-277. Roy, S., Jain, V. and Matta, N. (2018), “An integrated model of luxury fashion consumption: perspective from a developing nation”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 49-66. Roy, S., Sethuraman, R. and Saran, R. (2016), “The effect of demographic and personality characteristics on fashion shopping proneness”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 426-447. Roy, R., Rabbanee, F.K., Chaudhuri, H.R. and Menon, P. (2019), “The karma of consumption: role of materialism in the pursuit of life satisfaction”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 168-189. Sanyal, S.N., Datta, S.K. and Banerjee, A.K. (2014), “Attitude of Indian consumers towards luxury brand purchase: an application of ‘attitude scale to luxury items”, International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 316-339. Saran, R., Roy, S. and Sethuraman, R. (2016), “Personality and fashion consumption: a conceptual framework in the Indian context”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 157-176. Schultz, D.E. and Jain, V. (2018), “Discovering India’s three levels of luxury consumption: an exploratory research to find a conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 250-269. Scott, J.E. and Lamont, L.H. (1973), “Relating consumer values to consumer behavior: a model and method for investigation”, Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 529

In Green, T.W. (Ed.), Increasing Marketing Productivity and Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of Marketing, Series, 35, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Sharda, N. and Bhat, A. (2018), “Austerity to materialism and brand consciousness: luxury consumption in India”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 223-239. Sharda, N. and Bhat, A. (2019), “Role of consumer vanity and the mediating effect of brand consciousness in luxury consumption”, Journal of Product & brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 800-811. Shukla, P. (2010), “Status consumption in cross-national context: socio-psychological, brand and situational antecedents”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 108-129. Shukla, P. (2012), “The influence of value perceptions on luxury purchase intentions in developed and emerging markets”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 574-596. Shukla, P. and Purani, K. (2012), “Comparing the importance of luxury value perceptions in cross-national contexts”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1417-1424. Siahtiri, V. and Lee, W.J.T. (2019), “How do materialists choose prominent brands in emerging markets?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 46, pp. 133-138. Sinha, M. and Sheth, J.N. (2018), “Growing the pie in emerging markets: marketing strategies for increasing the ratio of non-users to users”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 86, pp. 217-224. Smith, P.B. and Schwartz, S.H. (1997), “Values”, In Berry, J. W., Segall, M.H. and Kagitcibasi, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2nd ed., (pp. 77-118), Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Solomon, M.R. (1999), “The value of status and the status of value”, In Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, (pp. 63-84), New York, NY, Routledge. Soper, D.S. (2018), “A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [software]”, retrieved from www. danielsoper.com/statcalc. Spears, N. and Singh, S.N. (2004), “Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions”, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 53-66. Sproles, G.B. and Kendall, E.L. (1986), “A methodology for profiling consumers decision-making styles”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 267-279. Srivastava, A. and Balaji, M. (2018), “Consumer dispositions toward global brands”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 618-632. Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-147. Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R.A. and Price, L.L. (2011), “Branding in a global marketplace: the mediating effects of quality and self-identity brand signals”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 342-351. Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205. Thompson, C.J. and Troester, M. (2002), “Consumer value systems in the age of postmodern fragmentation: the case of the natural health microculture”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 550-571. Torelli, C.J., Özsomer, A., Carvalho, S.W.K., Hean, T. and Maehle, N. (2012), “brand concepts as representations of human values: do cultural congruity and compatibility between values matter?”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 92-108. Truong, Y., McColl, R. and Kitchen, P.J. (2009), “New luxury brand positioning and the emergence of masstigebrands”, Journal of brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 375-382. Tsai, S.P. (2005), “Impact of personal orientation on luxurybrand purchase value”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 177-206. Tynan, C., McKechnie, S. and Chhuon, C. (2010), “Cocreating value for luxury brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1156-1163. Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (2004), “Measuring perceptions of Brand luxury”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 484-506. Vinson, D.E., Munson, J.M. and Nakanishi, M. (1977), “An investigation of the rokeach value survey for consumer research applications”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 247-252. Vriens, M. and Hofstede, F.T. (2000), “Linking attributes, benefits, and consumer values”, Marketing Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 4-10. Weidmann, K.P., Hennings, N. and Siebels, A. (2007), “Measuring consumers’ luxury value perception: a crosscultural framework”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 1-21. Weidmann, K.P., Hennings, N. and Siebels, A. (2009), “Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 625-651. Weidmann, K.P., Hennings, N. and Siebels, A. (2012), “What is the value of luxury”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1018-1034. Westland, J.C. (2007), Confirmatory Analysis with Partial Least Squares, University of Science & Technology, Clearwater Bay. Westland, J.C. (2010), “Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 476-487. White, C., Baimel, A. and Norenzayan, A. (2017), “What are the causes and consequences of belief in karma?”,religion”, Brain & Behavior, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 339-342. Wicklund, R.A. and Gollwitzer, P.M. (1981), “Symbolic selfcompletion, attempted influence, and self-deprecation”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 89-114. Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N. and Klarmann, C. (2012), “Luxury consumption in the trade-off between genuine and counterfeit goods: what are the consumers’ underlying motives and value-based drivers?”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 544-566. Yi-CheonYim, M.L., Sauer, P., Williams, J., Lee, S.J. and Macrury, I. (2014), “Drivers of attitudes toward luxury brands: a cross-national investigation into the roles of interpersonal influence and Brand consciousness”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 363-389. Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Customer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22. Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 530

Zhan, L. and He, Y. (2012), “Understanding luxury consumption in China: consumer perceptions of best-known brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1452-1460. Zhang, B. and Kim, J.-H. (2013), “Luxury fashion consumption in China: factors affecting attitude and purchase intent”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 68-79. Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Jr. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering baron and kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206. Further reading Bain & Company (2018), “Luxury goods worldwide market study, Fall-Winter 2018, the future of luxury: a look into tomorrow to understand today”, available at: www.bain. com/contentassets/8df501b9f8d6442eba00040246c6b4f9/ bain_digest__luxury_goods_worldwide_market_study_fall _winter_2018.pdf (accessed on July 29, 2019). McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54. Becker, B.W. and Connor, P.E. (1981), “Personal values of the heavy user of mass media”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 37-43. Chadha, R. and Husband, P. (2007), The Cult of the Luxury Brand, London: Nicholas Brealey. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. Heaney, J.G., Goldsmith, R.E. and Jusoh, W.J.W. (2005), “Status consumption among Malaysian consumers: exploring its relationships with materialism and attention-to social-comparison-information”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 83-98. Jayawardhena, C. (2004), “Personal values’ influence on eshopping attitude and behaviour”, Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 127-138. Prakash, V. (1986), “Segmentation of women’s market based on personal values and means-end chain model: a framework for advertising strategy”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 215-220. Wilson, A. and Laskey, N. (2003), “Internet-based marketing research: a serious alternative to traditional research methods?”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 79-84. About the authors Pradeep Kautish is working in Marketing area at the Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. He received MBA and PhD degrees from the Department of Management Studies, Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Rajasthan, India. His academic satchel is brimming with laurels such as National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification for Lectureship in Management conducted by University Grants Commission, New Delhi and prestigious Accredited Management Teacher (AMT) certification in Marketing by All India Management Association, New Delhi. He has published research papers in some reputed international journals such as Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Young Consumers, International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, Journal of Modelling in Management, Journal of Indian Business Research and Journal of Cleaner Production. Pradeep Kautish is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Arpita Khare is an independent researcher and academician with more than 23 years of experience in national level institutions in India. She has an MBA in Marketing and DPhil in International Management from University of Allahabad. She has around 20 years of academic experience and has taught both marketing and operations related courses. She has published research papers in some reputed international journals such as International Journal of Consumer Studies, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Journal of Internet Commerce, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, and International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. She is in the editorial board of International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management (Emerald), Journal of Marketing Analytics (Palgrave) and International Journal of Competition Business and Growth (Inderscience). Rajesh Sharma is working in the School of Business, Mody University, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan. He received MA and MPhil degrees from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, and PhD from Department of Economics, Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan, India. His academic satchel is brimming with laurels such as National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification for Lectureship in Economics conducted by University Grants Commission, New Delhi. He has published research papers in some reputed international journals such as International Journal of Social Economics, The Electricity Journal, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Global Business Review and Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Predicting luxury fashion consumption Pradeep Kautish, Arpita Khare and Rajesh Sharma Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 30 · Number 4 · 2020 · 513–531 531

Is it love or just like? Generation Z’s brand relationship with luxury Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Parker College of Business, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA Abstract Purpose – This study aims to focus on understanding the consumer-luxury brand relationships among Generation Z. Generation Z is an up-andcoming generational cohort that has received limited research attention in the domains of both consumer-brand relationships and luxury branding, despite its growing size and purchasing power. Therefore, this study highlights the distinctive patterns of Generation Z’s relationship with luxury by identifying their choice of a luxury brand, the nature of the brand relationships, what characterizes these relationships and the internal and external influences that shape these relationships. Design/methodology/approach – This study used brand collage construction. A total of 56 Generation Z respondents created brand collages that covered 38 different luxury brands. The data from the collages and their accompanying descriptions were evaluated using content analysis. Findings – This study identifies Generation Z’s unique yet expansive view of luxury that encompasses not only traditional luxury but also masstige and non-traditional luxury brands. Moreover, the findings generally support that Generation Z’s relationships with luxury brands are characterized by “like” rather than “love”; while Generation Z may feel a high level of loyalty toward luxury brands in terms of attitudes and behaviors, they do not necessarily have strong, passionate feelings for them. Originality/value – The findings of this study offer a comprehensive understanding of Generation Z’s brand relationship with luxury. Luxury marketers need to recognize that for Generation Z consumers, luxury is an integral part of their everyday lifestyle more than a display of success, which is clearly different from previous generations. Keywords Luxury, Consumer-brand relationships, Generation Z, Generational cohort, Brand collage, Brand loyalty, Brand love Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction In 2019, sales of luxury goods grew at a rate of 4% to an estimated $1.45tn globally (D’Arpizio et al., 2020). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the consensus was that the luxury market would continue to grow at a rapid rate (Ko et al., 2019; Roux et al., 2017), especially in light of the increasing purchase power and interest in the luxury of younger consumers (Eastman et al., 2018). Post-COVID-19, there may be a significant drop in luxury sales that could take several years to recover (Bain & Company, 2020). In addition to changes in the external environment impacting the demand for luxury, individual consumers’ perceptions of what luxury means to them continue to vary. Recent literature on luxury validates the significant heterogeneity across consumers regarding what represents luxury, which now includes everything from traditional luxury, aspirational luxury and “masstige” or affordable luxury, to day-to-day luxury consumption with everyday objects, experiences and practices (Banister et al., 2020; Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2019). Given the complexity, fluidity and lack of consensus in defining luxury (Ko et al., 2019; von Wallpach et al., 2020), research is needed to better understand the meaning of luxury (Banister et al., 2020; Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2019; Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019) and what influences luxury consumers’ brand commitment (Shukla et al., 2016). Luxury researchers acknowledge that luxury brands that are unsuccessful in meeting the changes in the luxury marketplace and the needs of today’s luxury consumers will collapse postCOVID-19 due to providing insufficient value and/or lack of memorable experiences for the price of luxury, particularly for younger consumers (Langer, 2020). Nevertheless, experiences provided by today’s luxury brands are “still too transactional, too beholden to old industry standards and not nearly personal or memorable enough” (Langer, 2020). According to Fournier (1998), consumers can develop relationships with brands that are similar to interpersonal relationships. Research over the past 20 years has demonstrated the positive impact of consumer-brand relationships on brand loyalty (Fetscherin et al., 2019). For luxury brands, developing the consumer-brand relationship is even more vital (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012; Thakur and Kaur, 2015). Despite this, what types of relationships are formed with luxury brands and what impacts these relationships have rarely been explored. To understand the consumer-luxury brand relationship which is hard to capture in a survey or experiment and due to the complex nature of the personalized meanings of luxury (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019), the qualitative investigation has been adopted in this study. Eastman et al. (2020) used collage, The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm Journal of Product & Brand Management 31/3 (2022) 394–414 © Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] [DOI 10.1108/JPBM-08-2020-3049] Received 19 August 2020 Revised 27 January 2021 25 February 2021 Accepted 22 April 2021 394

an expressive projective technique, to make a comprehensive examination of college students’ views of luxury such as what represents luxury to them and whom they see as luxury consumers. Constructing a collage allows consumers to illustrate their ideas about brands through the use of photos, images and words and is useful to prompt deep-seated thoughts, feelings and desires that are both abstract (Banister et al., 2020) and image-based (Zaltman and Coulter, 1995) while bypassing consumer reluctance and social desirability on sensitive research topics (Belk et al., 2003; Koll et al., 2010). By using a brand collage technique in luxury brand research, the current research not only builds on the study by Eastman et al. (2020), which explored a broad concept of luxury using collage but also extends it by probing the nature of consumers’ relationship with one luxury brand of choice. This study particularly focuses on the consumer-luxury brand relationships among Generation Z, defined as individuals born in the period between the mid-1990s to the late 2000s. According to generational cohort theory, “environmental events experienced during one’s coming-ofage years [...] create values that remain relatively unchanged throughout one’s life” (Schewe and Meredith, 2004, p. 51). These consumers, who grew up in the shadow of 9/11 and the Great Recession, are considered to be a conscientious, hardworking, but anxious generational cohort growing up in the age of smartphones, social media and increased multicultural diversity (Williams, 2015). Given their exposure to financial risks and safety concerns, some suggest that Generation Z may have more in common with the Silent Generation who were shaped by World War II and the Great Depression than with Generation Y (i.e. Millennials), despite sharing their knowledge of technology and emphasis on multiculturalism (Williams, 2015). With Generation Z offering significant promise to luxury marketers, a better understanding of this generational cohort is crucial (Jain et al., 2014; Williams, 2015). As Baby Boomers age out of the workforce, Generation Z has a powerful influence on the luxury market (Bakir et al., 2020) due to their growing access to disposable income (Sanyal et al., 2021). Moreover, as there are differences between Generation Z and earlier generations regarding their perceptions of luxury (Bakir et al., 2020), it is imperative to understand their relationships with luxury brands and how they are influenced by internal and external factors. While the literature has addressed Generation Y’s (De Kerviler and Rodriguez, 2019; Rodrigues and Rodrigues, 2019) and Baby Boomers’ approach to luxury (Eastman and Liu, 2012), Generation Z’s relationship with luxury brands has not been studied. This paper uses brand collage construction to address the following four research questions (RQs): RQ1. What are the brands Generation Z is most likely to have a consumer-brand relationship with? In which product categories do these brands fall and what are the characteristics that comprise these luxury brands of choice? In addition, what are the primary reasons for Generation Z to have a relationship with these luxury brands? RQ2. What are the key themes expressed by Generation Z in discussing their consumer-luxury brand relationship? RQ3. What is the nature of the Generation Z-luxury brand relationship and what characterizes this relationship? What is the level of Generation Z’s luxury brand identification and what are the types of Generation Z’s brand relationship loyalty? Moreover, what are Generation Z’s usage/shopping occasions for these luxury brands? RQ4. What are the internal and external influences that impact Generation Z’s consumer-luxury brand relationship? This research adds to the luxury brand relationship literature by using brand collage construction to examine Generation Z’s relationships with luxury. As positive consumer-brand relationships may not occur as frequently as marketers hope (Alvarez and Fournier, 2016), a better understanding of what kinds of consumer-brand relationships Generation Z has with luxury brands and what influences this generational cohort is an important contribution to the literature. Moreover, by allowing Generation Z consumers to express themselves via pictures and images and through the process of rethinking and rearranging their initial ideas in assembling the collage, the use of collages may help address the complexity of luxury brand consumption acknowledged in the literature (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019). This study is organized as follows. It first examines the theoretical background of studies on consumer-luxury brand relationships, followed by a more detailed look at Generational Cohort Theory and Generation Z. This is followed by a discussion of using the collage method with a Generation Z sample to address each research question outlined above and a description of how the collages were analyzed and the findings. Finally, implications for consumer-luxury brand research and luxury managers, as well as avenues for future research are discussed. 2. Theoretical background 2.1 Consumer-brand relationships Consumers can feel a strong attachment or an intense emotional bond to brands and have a relationship with a brand (Fournier, 1998; Hwang and Kandampully, 2012) similar to a personal relationship (Aaker, 1996; Fournier, 1998). These consumer-brand relationships can evolve into a long-lasting bond (Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009). Khamitov et al. (2019) document in their meta-analysis that love-based and attachment-based consumer-brand relationships have a stronger influence on customer loyalty. Consumers feel greater emotional attachment, brand love and brand loyalty (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012) when they have a stronger selfconcept connection with a brand. A positive brand identification affects consumers’ perceived value, customer satisfaction and brand trust and, in turn, leads to brand loyalty (He et al., 2012). For luxury brands, the emotional aspects are crucial in establishing a strong relationship with consumers. Consumers are more loyal to luxury brands when they feel attached to the brand and experience brand love (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012). Moreover, a luxury brand’s ability to build a strong bond with consumers is a crucial means of differentiating it Generation Z’s brand relationship Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2022 · 394–414 395

from competitors (Pawle and Cooper, 2006) as consumers, in general, feel an emotional bond with few if any brands (Ahuvia et al., 2014). Emotional brand relationships are characterized by a consumer’s preference for the brand for “its symbolic benefits, for the social desirability of the brand and its selfexpressive value” (Fernandes and Moreira, 2019, p. 278). This suggests that luxury brands may be more likely to engender strong emotional connections with consumers. 2.1.1 What is luxury? The luxury industry is like no other industry, so standard economic principles do not hold (Kapferer and ValetteFlorence, 2019). This can be seen in the way what represents luxury has evolved over time (Ko et al., 2019). In addition, perceptions of luxury are changing (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019), particularly among young adult consumers (Eastman et al., 2020). This complexity can be seen in terms of how differently consumers across several countries believe luxury products should be priced (Kapferer and Laurent, 2016). There are also cultural differences in balancing luxury brand awareness and growth with maintaining or increasing a luxury brand’s desirability in the luxury marketplace. For instance, American luxury firms such as Michael Kors, have been successful with significant growth in distribution, while French luxury firms such as Chanel, limit their distribution to keep a more elitist brand image (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018). Although there is not a widely accepted definition of a luxury brand, Ko et al. (2019) in their review of prior definitions proposed that a luxury brand is a branded product or service that consumers perceive to be of high quality; offer authentic value via desired benefits, whether functional or emotional; have a prestigious image within the market built on qualities such as artisanship, craftsmanship or service quality; be worthy of commanding a premium price and be capable of inspiring a deep connection or resonance with the consumer. Heine and Phan (2011, p. 112) similarly defined luxury brands as those that “have more than necessary and ordinary characteristics compared to other products of their category, which include their relatively high level of price, quality, aesthetics, rarity, extraordinariness and symbolic meaning,” while noting that luxury consumers do not require all of these characteristics to be met. Over the years, various luxury brands have attempted to attract younger and lower-income consumers through “masstige” marketing in which brands shift from rarity to combine prestige with reasonable price premiums (Kumar et al., 2020) while offering comparable quality to luxury brands (Mundel et al., 2017). This is consistent with the phenomenon of the democratization of luxury (Truong et al., 2009) or the idea that “luxury, once the ordinary of extraordinary people, has become the extraordinary of ordinary people too” (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018, p. 38). Some argue that existing considerations of luxury primarily take a productcentric approach, so more consumer-centered, subjective interpretations of the meanings of luxury need to be considered (Banister et al., 2020; Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2019). Banister et al. (2020), for example, identified caretaking (e.g. caring, collecting) and escaping (e.g. indulging, relaxing) as core practices of luxury within an everyday context. In particular, the literature notes the need to examine how Generation Z defines luxury (Bakir et al., 2020). This research explores what luxury brands Generation Z has relationships with, what characteristics of the luxury brands exist, what influences the luxury brand choice and what kinds of relationships Generation Z has with luxury brands. 2.1.2 Luxury brand relationships Brands are important in strengthening a person’s identity and image (von Wallpach et al., 2017), especially in the case of luxury brands (Li et al., 2020; Thakur and Kaur, 2015). Luxury brand consumption can take many different forms including: ! investing in brand luxury; ! escaping into/with luxury brands; ! perpetuating an affluent lifestyle; ! conveying social status; and ! engaging in self-transformation (Seo and BuchananOliver, 2019). The need to establish a brand relationship with luxury brands may be more critical than with any other kinds of brands because these brands are not purchased daily. Therefore, establishing a long-term relationship is critical to encourage repeat purchases of luxury brands (Lee and Watkins, 2016). Luxury research has evolved from evaluating a transactionalrelationship model to a more individual-focused model that examines how consumers use luxury brands to indulge themselves, build their self-concepts and present themselves to others in social contexts (Atwal and Williams, 2009; Escalas and Bettman, 2003). Consumers who use luxury as a means of self-transformation to forge a new identity and develop their extended self (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019) may have a stronger relationship with luxury brands, given the importance of possessions in contributing to and reflecting their identities (Belk, 1988). Others explain that consumers may have a passion for luxury due to the benefits and functions that luxury provides them (Wiedmann et al., 2009) such as social recognition, hedonic and performance/investment aspects (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2019). This passion, while an idiosyncratic characteristic, may be more likely for those luxury consumers who have self-made success than inherited wealth, especially in the USA (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2019), where this research is being conducted. While the literature suggests that luxury consumers may have intense consumer-brand relationships with luxury brands, this passion may not be experienced by all luxury consumers, including Generation Z. The literature indicates a multitude of potential relationships consumers may have with luxury brands. While consumer-brand relationships have been discussed over the past 20 years (Fetscherin and Heinrich, 2015), this research examines luxury brand relationships with a vital new cohort, Generation Z. 2.2 Generational cohort theory and the importance of Generation Z According to generational cohort theory, groups of individuals or cohorts who were born during the same time frame and experienced similar distinguishable external events during early adulthood (17–23 years) share similar values, attitudes, preferences and consumption behaviors throughout their lives Generation Z’s brand relationship Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2022 · 394–414 396

(Fern!andez-Dur!an, 2016). For example, generational differences in luxury value perceptions have been found in China, with older generations appreciating the functional and social value of luxury more and younger generations appreciating luxury’s self-identity and hedonic value more (Jiang and Shan, 2018). Accounting for 40% of global consumers in 2020 (Amed et al., 2019), Generation Z is one of the latest generational cohorts in the spotlight due to their rising power in marketing (Bassiouni and Hackley, 2014). In the US alone, Generation Z represents approximately $143bn in purchasing power (McKinsey & Company, 2019) that will continue to increase as more Generation Z young adults enter the workforce. By 2030, Generation Z is expected to represent 30% of the US workforce (Toossi, 2016). Generation Z bears the unique stamp of their time as they are digitally savvy, value safety and saving and feel a strong responsibility for the environment (McKinsey & Company, 2020; Turner, 2015). First, as the first generation born in a digital world, they have wide access to all kinds of digital communications and technology. Therefore, they are always connected with the world, with 45% of them online constantly (Anderson and Jiang, 2018) and are often referred to as Digital Natives, iGeneration or Gen Tech (Bassiouni and Hackley, 2014). As they extensively use digital devices and heavily engage in social media such as YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat (Krol and ! Zdonek, 2020), their purchase decisions are influenced by social media and influencers on online platforms (Jain et al., 2014; Parker and Igielnik, 2020). Research shows that Generation Z follows social influencers not just to buy products but to connect with others who embody their values and are relatable (Cassandra, 2019). Second, Generation Z grew up in the context of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorist attack of 9/11 and the financial crisis of 2008 (Turner, 2015). Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has raised both health concerns and financial burdens with an increased unemployment rate. Based on a March 2020 Pew Research Survey, half of Generation Z reported job losses in their household, significantly higher than those in other generations (Parker and Igielnik, 2020), which may further impact Generation Z’s caution about spending money. These major events may have given them a sense of peril while making them long for security and also more aware of the importance of saving and prudent spending. Third, Generation Z is open-minded, adaptable to change and socially responsible for the environment (Kautish and Sharma, 2019). Compared to their predecessors, Generation Z is more willing to buy green products (Kautish and Sharma, 2019) and pay more for products produced ethically and sustainably (McKinsey & Company, 2020). In terms of racial and ethnic make-up, they are more diverse than previous generations as well (Parker and Igielnik, 2020). The luxury industry has seen Generation Z as the fastestgrowing segment worldwide (Langer, 2019) and aims to attract these young consumers, especially as they may have more disposable funds available than older consumers (Sanyal et al., 2021). Generation Z is mostly adolescents and young adults in search of self-worth and self-identity, which can be facilitated by luxury consumption and connections with luxury brands (Bakir et al., 2020; Gil et al., 2012). In studying young adults, researchers have found that the motivation for status leads to luxury purchase intention (Eastman et al., 2018). Moreover, with the evolution of luxury, masstige has made some higherend products more accessible to young (and middle-income) consumers (Paul, 2018). Despite Generation Z’s growing size and purchasing power, their unique characteristics also pose new marketing challenges because they behave differently from previous generations (Bassiouni and Hackley, 2014) and spend their money differently on luxury products (Petro, 2019). This calls for more research into Generation Z’s relationship with luxury brands. 3. Research methodology 3.1 Brand collage construction This study uses the brand collage construction technique to explore the phenomenon of Generation Z’s relationship with luxury brands. This exploration requires rich data. As a qualitative research approach, a collage method allows respondents to freely express their thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions and associations with a brand using various imagebased objects such as pictures, photos and memes (i.e. images captioned with text) (Koll et al., 2010). Collage, from the French verb coller meaning “to paste” or “to stick,” is a technique of art creation that involves collecting a variety of materials to make a single new composition (Swanson and Wald, 2013). As most thoughts occur through images rather than words (Zaltman and Coulter, 1995), retrieval of thoughts will be best facilitated by data collection techniques that resonate with images. There are three notable advantages of using a collage technique over other forms of qualitative research techniques such as interviews. First, it is often difficult for an individual to elaborate their thoughts, feelings, emotions and fantasies about brands because they are too abstract, vague, complex or even unconscious (Koll et al., 2010). By allowing research subjects to express themselves via pictures or images and through the process of rethinking and rearranging their initial ideas to assemble the collage, collage construction can capture spontaneous or unconscious brand knowledge, as well as unexpected new associations with the brand (Koll et al., 2010). Second, consumers may experience reluctance, social desirability, rationalizations and defense mechanisms that block direct verbal accounts in expressing their deep-seated thoughts about a particular brand (Belk et al., 2003). By shifting focus from the person to the images, collage can uncover needed information indirectly and unobtrusively, while helping respondents overcome the hesitancy they may feel about discussing a potentially sensitive research topic (Belk et al., 2003). Past studies have, therefore, adopted brand collage construction in exploring sensitive research topics such as consumer desires (Belk et al., 2003), heterosexual male consumers’ consumption of grooming and fashion products (Zayer and Neier, 2011) and students’ existing perceptions about marketing before taking principles of marketing course (Swanson and Wald, 2013). The final advantage of collage construction is that it does not require artistic skills, unlike other image-based qualitative techniques in which respondents may be asked to draw a picture (Koll et al., 2010). The idea is not to focus on the Generation Z’s brand relationship Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2022 · 394–414 397

aesthetics of the collage output but to stimulate and help express respondents’ thoughts (Venkatesh et al., 2010). Moreover, collage construction injects fun and excitement into the process of investigation (Belk, 2017) and makes respondents involved in and enthusiastic about selecting images and describing meanings in each image (Chaplin and John, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2010). As a result of its intuitive and engaging characteristics, collage construction has been used with research subjects of all ages, including children and adolescents (Chaplin and John, 2007) and college students/ young adults (Banister et al., 2020; Eastman et al., 2020; Shin and Parker, 2017). The images used in the collages themselves are not selfexplanatory, and therefore the collage construction is often accompanied by written (Eastman et al., 2020; Shin and Parker, 2017) or oral components (Banister et al., 2020). This process is necessary to identify in-depth insights from the collages and to uncover the intentions behind each included image. Thus, following Eastman et al. (2020) and Shin and Parker (2017), the research subjects first created collages with a set of images, then were prompted to supplement them with written narratives of what each image represents and the purpose of including it. 3.2 Research subject and data collection process Given the focus on Generation Z’s personal relationships with luxury brands, a total of 56 college students between 18 years old (born in 2001) and 23 years old (born in, 1996) who fit the age description of Generation Z (i.e. born after the mid-1990s through the late 2010s; Bassiouni and Hackley, 2014) were recruited from a large US public university in 2019. College student samples have been used in the literature as they represent a variety of financial resources, circumstances and lifestyles (Banister et al., 2020; Giovannini et al., 2015) and are viewed as a realistic representation of a luxury market segment (Mundel et al., 2017; Shin et al., 2017). The respondents were instructed to create personal collages that represent the individual’s relationship with one luxury brand of choice. A luxury brand could be chosen from any industry (e.g. fashion, automobile, hotels or restaurants) and it could be something that respondents have consumed in the past, are consuming now or hope to consume in the future. Moreover, a chosen luxury brand could be one the respondent has either a positive or negative relationship with. In selecting their choice of a luxury brand, we did not define luxury or limit what could be considered a luxury as the intent of the research was to examine Generation Z’s perceptions about luxury and their relationship with it. Upon choosing a luxury brand, respondents were asked to create a minimum of three to a maximum of five collages using various images including personal photos on MS PowerPoint that represented their feelings about, memories of, experiences with or relationships with the luxury brand. As Generation Z is digitally savvy, they were able to create collages using picture files or downloaded images without technical help. In addition, respondents were instructed to provide a typed description/summary for each image in the collages that explains what it means. The richness of the collages depends on the availability of resources/images and allocated time for collage construction (Koll et al., 2010). One shortcoming of the collage technique is its time-consuming nature, as it involves selecting and pasting various visual images followed by a discussion of what was chosen, what those images represent and why they were chosen (Boddy, 2007). Therefore, the task of collage construction was done outside of the classroom as an individual assignment to overcome the time constraints of a classroom setting. The average number of collages each respondent created was 3.3 and the average number of total images each respondent included in their collages was approximately 10. 3.3 Analysis process The data from the collages and their accompanying descriptions were evaluated using content analysis. Content analysis allows the objective, systematic and quantitative analysis of unstructured data (Kassarjian, 1977). A code sheet with a codebook was developed after an extensive review of relevant literature and iterative discussion among the authors. For each collage, three coders (the authors) independently performed the content analysis. Using a 2/3 decision rule (Belch and Belch, 2013), any decision agreed upon by at least two of the three coders in the presence or absence of each criterion was counted toward the analysis. To maintain consistency in coding, two rounds of pre-tests were conducted using a random sample of a total of 14 submissions (5 and 9 submissions, respectively). After the pretest, any disagreement in coding was resolved through discussion before proceeding to the main analysis. In the main analysis, one coding sheet was used per each submission composed of three to five collages created by each participant as instructed. The presence (or absence) of each coded aspect was marked 1 (or 0) and subsequently entered into a spreadsheet in MS Excel to calculate descriptive statistics and intercoder reliabilities. Intercoder reliabilities were determined by proportional reduction in loss (PRL) reliability (Rust and Cooil, 1994) and demonstrated an acceptable range of reliabilities for each analysis, from a minimum of 0.69 to a maximum of 1.00. 4. Results 4.1 Luxury brands and their characteristics The first part of the analysis addresses RQ1 and discusses the luxury brands Generation Z illustrated their relationships with in the collages and the product categories the chosen luxury brands fall into. The list of luxury brands organized by frequency of appearance is presented in Table 1. A total of 38 different brands were chosen by the 56 respondents. The most chosen brands were Louis Vuitton (Figure 1 for an example) and Ray-Ban (7.1% each), Apple, Gucci and Michael Kors (5.4% each) and Adidas, Carnival, Land Rover, Mercedes Benz, Nike and Delta Air Lines (3.6% each). It is noteworthy that, in a strict sense, a number of brands chosen by the Generation Z respondents such as Delta Airlines would not be considered a luxury. To better understand the types of brands Generation Z respondents have identified as a luxury, we classified the 38 different brands chosen by Generation Z respondents into three groups: traditional luxury, masstige and non-traditional luxury brands. Non-traditional luxury brands were defined as those brands that do not fit the definitions of traditional luxury or masstige brands. In other words, these are Generation Z’s brand relationship Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2022 · 394–414 398

brands mistaken for luxury brands by the Generation Z respondents. The categorization of the chosen brands was primarily guided by the literature; when the specific brands were not specified in the literature, the three coders came to an agreement. As a result, from the 38 different brands chosen by the 56 respondents, 12 (31.6%) were classified as traditional luxury (e.g. Burberry, Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Porsche and Rolex), 12 (31.6%) as masstige (e.g. Adidas, Apple, Michael Kors and Nike) and 14 (36.8%) as non-traditional luxury brands (e.g. Delta Airlines, Atlanta Braves, Nintendo and Ford) (Table 1). In studying the contemporary consumer’s meaning of luxury, Kauppinen-Räisänen et al. (2019) indicated the emergence of experiential luxury or service-oriented vacations, cruises, airlines and hotel brands in addition to product-oriented brands. Furthermore, masstige brands appeared frequently, as did traditional luxury brands and some non-traditional luxury brands. This demonstrates the subjective nature of the meaning of luxury to consumers (Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2019). Nevertheless, it is surprising that a third of the Generation Z respondents misidentified non-traditional luxury brands as luxury brands; this may reflect current Generation Z’s inaccurate and immature understanding of luxury. Table 1 Luxury brand Theme Coding criteria PRL reliability Codes Categories of brand n (=56) (%) Luxury brands Each respondent’s choice of luxury brand 1.00 Louis Vuitton Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018; Kim et al., 2019; Sung et al., 2015 4 7.1 Ray-Ban Masstige (Hawkins and Rome, 2019) 4 7.1 Apple Masstige (Kumar et al., 2020; Wang and Qiao, 2020) 3 5.4 Gucci Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018; Kim et al., 2019; Sung et al., 2015) 3 5.4 Michael Kors Masstige (Kim et al., 2019; Wang and Qiao, 2020) 3 5.4 Adidas Masstige (Ajitha and Sivakumar, 2019; Wang and Qiao, 2020) 2 3.6 Carnival Masstige (Granot et al., 2013) 2 3.6 Land Rover Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009) 2 3.6 Mercedes Benz Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018; Sung et al., 2015) 2 3.6 Nike Masstige (Ajitha and Sivakumar, 2019; Wang and Qiao, 2020) 2 3.6 Delta Air Lines Non-traditional luxury 2 3.6 Ariat Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Armani Exchange Masstige (Kim et al., 2019) 1 1.8 Atlanta Braves Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Benelli USA Firearms Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Burberry Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018; Sung et al., 2015) 1 1.8 Cadillac Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018; Sung et al., 2015) 1 1.8 Chanel Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018; Kim et al., 2019) 1 1.8 Chicago Bears Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Dodge Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Ferrari Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018; Sung et al., 2015) 1 1.8 Ford Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Granville Equipment Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Green Bay Packers Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Kate Spade Masstige (Wang and Qiao, 2020) 1 1.8 Lamborghini Traditional luxury (Sung et al., 2015) 1 1.8 Lululemon Athletica Masstige 1 1.8 NFL Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Nintendo Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Nobu Restaurants Traditional luxury 1 1.8 Pandora Masstige 1 1.8 Ponte Vedra Inn and Club Masstige 1 1.8 Porsche Traditional luxury (Cervellon and Shammas, 2013; Kapferer and ValetteFlorence, 2018) 1 1.8 Rolex Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018) 1 1.8 Royal Caribbean Masstige 1 1.8 Tesla Traditional luxury (Cervellon and Shammas, 2013) 1 1.8 Tiffany and Co Traditional luxury (Kapferer and Valette-Florence, 2018; Sung et al., 2015) 1 1.8 Wyrmwood Gaming Non-traditional luxury 1 1.8 Generation Z’s brand relationship Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2022 · 394–414 399

The most prominent product category the chosen luxury brands belong to was fashion and accessories (46.4%), followed by vehicles (19.6%), travel and entertainment (12.5%), sports (10.7%), technology (7.1%) and finally health and beauty, as well as other (1.8% each). Table 2 displays the results from the luxury product category analysis. Next, the main characteristics of luxury in the participants’ choices of luxury brands were examined (Table 3) based on Christodoulides et al. (2009), Kapferer and Bastien (2009) and Nueno and Quelch (1998). Hedonic value (e.g. pleasure, fantasy, fun) (55.4%), excellent quality (48.2%), extended self (44.6%), design/recognized style (35.7%), high price (33.9%), beauty in appearance (28.6%), fashionableness (26.8%), the legacy of the brand (25%), social marker (25%), technology (21.4%), upscale services (19.6%) and country of origin (17.9%) were the primary characteristics of the luxury brands Figure 1 Collage illustrating Louis Vuitton as a choice of the luxury brand Table 2 Product category Theme Coding criteria PRL reliability Codes n (=56) (%) Luxury product categories (adapted from Christodoulides et al., 2009; Nueno and Quelch, 1998) A luxury product category to which the luxury brand of choice belongs 0.97 Fashion and accessories 26 46.4 Vehicles 11 19.6 Travel and entertainment 7 12.5 Sports 6 10.7 Technology 4 7.1 Health and beauty 1 1.8 Other (e.g. Farming equipment) 1 1.8 Table 3 Characteristics of the luxury brand of choice Theme Coding criteria PRL reliability Codes n (=56) (%) Characteristics of the luxury brand of choice (adapted from Christodoulides et al., 2009; Nueno and Quelch, 1998) Characteristics of the luxury brand of choice in the write-up and/or clearly shown in collages 0.82 Hedonic value (e.g. pleasure, fantasy and fun) 31 55.4 Excellent quality 27 48.2 Extended self 25 44.6 Design/recognized style 20 35.7 Higher price 19 33.9 Beauty in appearance 16 28.6 Fashionableness 15 26.8 Legacy of the brand 14 25.0 Social marker 14 25.0 Technology 12 21.4 Upscale services 11 19.6 Country of origin 10 17.9 Uniqueness 2 3.6 Rarity 1 1.8 Limited quantity 1 1.8 Craftsmanship 1 1.8 Controlled distribution 1 1.8 Other 0 0.0 Generation Z’s brand relationship Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2022 · 394–414 400

Generation Z chose. Uniqueness (3.6%) and rarity, limited quantity, craftsmanship and controlled distribution (1.8% each) were mentioned by only one or two respondents. These results illustrate that key luxury characteristics for Generation Z consumers may vary from other luxury consumers. For example, Romaniuk and Huang (2020)’s survey with the wealthy US and Chinese luxury consumers showed the top three characteristics of luxury were excellent quality, uniqueness and design/recognized style. The importance of fun (i.e. hedonic value) and extended self as the characteristics of luxury in the luxury brand relationship is illustrated in the following quote: When I was younger [...] I vividly remember being in the car with my parents and friends. I loved looking out the window and seeing the cars that were on the road and looking at the people driving them. I and my siblings would always play a game where we would take turns making up the life stories and current destinations of the drivers and passengers solely based upon the type of vehicle they were driving. I loved these games because I constantly fantasized about what my life would be like if I drove particular cars. From these experiences and sightings, my dream since I was a little girl was to own a shiny black Range Rover. There was something so unrealistic, fabulous and aesthetically pleasing in the way a Range Rover looked and drove to me that I never resisted the urge to imagine myself in one, one day. (Range Rover) In comparing these results to Eastman et al. (2020)’s, it is interesting to note the differences when discussing the perception of luxury in general versus discussing a consumer’s relationship with one luxury brand. While Eastman et al. (2020) saw social marker and legacy as among the five highestranked characteristics, these did not rank nearly as high as hedonic value and extended self in this study, suggesting the importance of enjoyment of one’s self as a characteristic of luxury in the Generation Z consumer-brand relationship. On the other hand, high price, excellent quality and design/ recognized style remained the top-ranked characteristics of the luxury brands in both Eastman et al.(2020) and this study. For the analysis of the primary reason(s) for the choice of the luxury brand in terms of brand luxury perspective (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019), respondents focused on consumercentric personal luxury (i.e. the experiential, hedonic or personal aspect of the brand) (76.8%), followed by consumercentric social luxury (i.e. the symbolic or expressive aspects of the brand) (55.4%) and finally product-centric luxury (i.e. the functional or utilitarian aspects of the brand) (44.6%) (Table 4). These results provide further support for the importance and enjoyment of one’s self in the consumer-luxury brand relationship among Generation Z consumers. 4.2 Luxury themes from the collages The second part of the analysis, addressing RQ2, pertains to the key themes that emerged from the content analysis of the collages (Table 5). The family was central to the participants’ experiences with luxury as it was the most frequent theme that appeared in the collages in establishing luxury brand experiences (32.1%). The family influence is illustrated in the following quotes: Ponte Vedra has always had a special place in my heart. My family has vacationed there every year since I was 1 year old [...] I have always associated Ponte Vedra with spending good quality time with my family, which makes it even more special and wonderful than it already is. (Ponte Vedra Inn and Club) My dad has been a Packer fan all his life. He was the first one to give me some Packer gear and turn me into a Green Bay Packer fan. I will always remember being able to go with my dad to watch the games with him. (Green Bay Packers, Figure 2) The second most popular theme was the use of luxury as a part of everyday lifestyle (26.8%). For many of the Generation Z cohort, luxury brands are no longer objects for special occasions or wealthy elites. Luxury brands are intertwined with the lives of Generation Z as exemplified by the participants’ view of luxury as a part of their daily lifestyle. The quotes below highlight how the participants integrate luxury products into their everyday life: Any time I wore a nice outfit, my watch (from Michael Kors) made it feel more complete. It became a routine to never leave the house without or at least to pack it in my jewelry bag. (Michael Kors) Table 5 Key themes Theme Coding criteria PRL reliability Codes n (=56) (%) Key themes in collages Key theme(s) from the collage that may occur across collages 0.86 Role of family in establishing luxury 18 32.1 Luxury as part of everyday lifestyle 15 26.8 Role of celebrity in establishing luxury 13 23.2 First experiences with luxury 13 23.2 Building a long-term relationship with luxury 12 21.4 Luxury as the symbolism of success 8 14.3 Luxury as an enhancer of quality of life 3 5.4 Creating traditions with luxury 3 5.4 Importance of sensory marketing with luxury 1 1.8 Innovative luxury 1 1.8 A shallow relationship with luxury 1 1.8 Other 0 0.0 Table 4 Brand luxury perspective Theme Coding criteria PRL reliability Codes n (=56) (%) Brand luxury perspective (adapted from Seo and Buchanan-Oliver, 2019) Primary reason(s) for their choice of the luxury brand in the write-up 0.69 Consumer-centric personal luxury 43 76.8 Consumer-centric social luxury 31 55.4 Product-centric luxury 25 44.6 Generation Z’s brand relationship Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2022 · 394–414 401

I love to be outside. I’ve always found peace with being outdoors but I have very sensitive eyes so without my sunglasses I’m unable to enjoy myself. I love that Ray-Ban allows me to enjoy my love for the outdoors while keeping a sleek aesthetic [...] I took my sunglasses with me on every outing. (Ray-Ban) Participants frequently mentioned celebrity (23.2%) as a key theme in discussing their relationships with luxury brands. The influence of celebrities (including influencers in the age of social media) is undeniable as illustrated in the following quote: Seeing a celebrity wearing different Gucci products on a day-to-day basis makes me want to strive to be successful and be able to buy all the things I want as well. To me, wearing Gucci or other luxury brands shows that you are wealthy so that is how society will most likely view you and most people would prefer to be viewed as having wealth. (Gucci) Many respondents also discussed their first experience with luxury brands (23.2%) as the main subject of discussion in their collages. First experiences with brands often become a significant nostalgic memory associated with the brands (Shin and Parker, 2017), which, in turn, positively influences the consumer’s shopping behaviors (Chen et al., 2014). This illustrates the importance of a positive first encounter with luxury brands in developing the consumer-luxury brand relationship with Generation Z as shown in the following quote: I know since the first day I saw the brand, it would be a reoccurring theme within my life, what I mean by that is, it would have a bigger meaning for me than just a simple purchase. It soon became a part of my lifestyle and my principles when it came to swagger and style. (Armani Exchange) Although it is a traditional view of luxury, few of the participants discussed luxury as a symbol of success (14.3%), which suggests differences in how Generation Z sees luxury in terms of consumer-brand relationships. Other themes discussed by more than three respondents (5.4% each) include luxury as enhancing the quality of life and creating traditions with luxury. 4.3 Luxury brand relationships RQ3 focused on the various aspects of the consumer-luxury brand relationship characteristics of Generation Z. First, the level of luxury brand identification was examined (Table 6). Escalas and Bettman (2003) developed a six-item self-brand connection scale that captured the level of brand identification (i.e. “Brand reflects who I am”; “I can identify with the brand”; “I have a personal connection with the brand”; “The brand helps me communicate who I am to others”; “The brand helps me be the type of person I want to be” and “The brand reflects how I want to present myself to others”). Based on this scale, the level of luxury brand identification was categorized into either a high or low level of self-brand connection based on the collage analysis. We found that Generation Z consumers identify with luxury to varying degrees as the results were fairly mixed, with slightly more respondents (55.4%) identifying with luxury brands at a low level than a high level (44.6%). This suggests that not all of the respondents view the consumerluxury brand relationship in terms of a strong self-brand connection. Aside from the level of luxury brand identification, the participants’ types of relationship loyalty were assessed in terms of attitudinal loyalty (i.e. positive evaluation of brand) and behavioral loyalty (i.e. repeat purchase) based on Khamitov et al. (2019) (Table 7). Per Khamitov et al. (2019), brand relationships have a stronger impact on attitudinal than behavioral loyalty. However, attitudinal and behavioral loyalty are not mutually exclusive, as those who show attitudinal loyalty are also more likely to display behavioral loyalty. For example, 92.9% of the respondents in this study indicated attitudinal loyalty in the colleges, while 76.8% of the respondents indicated behavioral loyalty. In examining the results from both the analyzes of the level of brand identification and the types of relationship loyalty collectively, although the participants showed a high degree of loyalty (especially attitudinal loyalty) to the luxury brand, that loyalty did not translate into a high level of self-brand connection. The analysis of luxury usage/shopping occasions for luxury brands respondents has a relationship with corresponds to Figure 2 Collage illustrating the family influence as a key theme (Green Bay Packers, a professional American football team) Table 6 Level of luxury brand identification Theme Coding criteria PRL reliability Codes n (=56) (%) Level of luxury brand identification (adapted from Escalas and Bettman, 2003) Determine the level of luxury brand identification based on the items from Escalas and Bettman’s scale (2003) discussed in the write-up and/or clearly shown in collages 0.74 Low (does not discuss the items or does so in a very cursory fashion) 31 55.4 High (discusses the items in detail) 25 44.6 Generation Z’s brand relationship Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2022 · 394–414 402

Belk’s (1975) concept of situational dimensions. Usage/ shopping occasions were classified into 10 categories (Table 8). Our analysis shows that vacations/travel and sports/outdoor activities (26.8% each), special occasions including weddings, graduation, parties (21.4%) and birthday/anniversary (19.6%) are the most notable luxury usage/shopping occasions for the participants. It appears that luxury brands are mostly used/ shopped for by Generation Z for various hedonic activities for pleasure and fun if not for special events. This ties in with the importance of hedonic value as a key luxury characteristic for those luxury brands with which Generation Z has a relationship. Not surprisingly, in stark contrast, task-oriented luxury usage/shopping occasions such as for school (16.1%) or career (8.9%) were less frequently mentioned. Many respondents also mentioned luxury brand consumption for holidays (8.9%), as a self-reward for hard work (5.4%) and for general gift purposes (3.6%). Finally, some pets or animals are pampered with luxury brands as 3.6% of the respondents discussed pets as their luxury usage/shopping occasions. The characteristics of participants’ consumer-brand relationships were analyzed two ways based on Babin and Harris’s (2018) categorization of the nature of the consumerbrand relationship which was built on Fournier’s (1998) categorization and Khamitov et al.’s (2019) categorization of brand relationship characteristics. Fournier (1998) discussed 15 types of relationships consumers can have with brands using terms borrowed from interpersonal relationships: arranged and convenience marriages; childhood, casual, compartmentalized and best friendships; committed partnerships and kinships; rebounds, courtships, dependencies, flings and secret affairs and enmities and enslavements. Fournier’s (1998) work covers “the diversity of consumer-brand relationships” (Fernandes and Moreira, 2019, p. 277; Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009). Babin and Harris (2018) condensed Fournier’s (1998) 15 types of consumer-brand relationship into 6 types: 1 love and passion (i.e. a strong emotional relationship in which the consumer loves the brand and is very loyal to it); 2 self-connection (i.e. expressing some central component of a consumer’s identity); 3 commitment (i.e. the consumer is loyal but discusses the brand in more rational/practical terms); 4 interdependence (i.e. the brand is an important part of a consumer’s daily life and is frequently used); 5 intimacy (i.e. the consumer has a high level of knowledge about the brand and feels the firm makes an effort to understand them as well); and 6 brand partner quality (i.e. there is a feeling of trust in which the customer feels the firm does what is best for the consumer). According to the content analysis (Table 9), the most prominent types of consumer-brand relationships among the participants in this study were self-connection (23.2%), commitment (21.4%) and interdependence (21.4%). By contrast, love and passion (16.1%), intimacy (3.6%) and brand partner quality (1.8%), Table 7 Type of brand relationship loyalty Theme Coding criteria PRL reliability Codes n (=56) (%) Type of brand relationship loyalty (adapted from Khamitov et al., 2019) Discussion of brand relationship loyalty in terms of attitudes and behaviors in the write-up 0.81 Loyalty discussed in terms of attitudes (positive evaluation of brand) 52 92.9 Loyalty discussed in terms of behaviors (repeat purchase) 43 76.8 Table 8 Usage/shopping occasion/event Theme Coding criteria PRL reliability Codes n (=56) (%) Luxury usage/ shopping occasions Usage/shopping occasions or situations for a luxury brand in the write-up and/or clearly shown in collages 0.91 Vacation/travel 15 26.8 Sports/outdoor activities 15 26.8 Special occasions (e.g. wedding, prom, party or concert) 12 21.4 Birthday/anniversary (giving/getting self or gifts for others’ birthday/ anniversary) 11 19.6 School-related (buying/using the luxury brand for use for school activities) 9 16.1 Career-related (buying/using the luxury brand in preparation for the interview, going to work, etc.) 5 8.9 Holiday (giving/getting luxury brand for holiday (i.e. Christmas), Black Friday, etc.) 5 8.9 Reward (buying luxury brand as a reward for hard work) 3 5.4 General gift-giving (shopping for gifts for others when no reason is disclosed) 2 3.6 Pet/animal (buying/using luxury brands for pet or the actual animal) 2 3.6 Other 0 0.0 Generation Z’s brand relationship Hyunju Shin, Jacqueline Eastman and Yuan Li Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2022 · 394–414 403