“From Prada to Nada”: Consumers and their luxury products: A contrast between second-hand and first-hand luxury products

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

“From Prada to Nada”: Consumers and their luxury products: A contrast between second-hand and first-hand luxury products

T

Aurélie Kessousa, , Pierre Valette-Florenceb,c ⁎

a

IAE Aix-Marseille Graduate School of Management, CERGAM EA 4225, Chemin de la Quille - Puyricard CS 30063, 13089 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 2, France Grenoble-IAE, Université Grenoble Alpes, B.P. 47 38040 Grenoble Cedex 9, France c CERGAM EA 4225, Aix-Marseille Université, France b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: First-hand luxury products Second-hand luxury products Conspicuous consumption Bandwagon effect Snob effect Attachment

Rooted in a multi-method approach, both qualitative and quantitative, two successive studies were carried out to determine the relationships that consumers establish with their luxury products. Two fields of application were considered: second-hand luxury products and first-hand luxury products. Study 1 was based on the projective “Album On Line” technique, and used a sample of 32 customers. It examines the affective and cognitive representations of the way in which second-hand and first-hand luxury products are purchased. It shows that the purchasing of second-hand luxury products is linked to social climbing, eco-conscious concerns, brand heritage and windfall. It reveals that the purchase of first-hand luxury products is motivated by power, social ranking and quality. Study 2 used a causal approach on a sample of 280 customers of second-hand and first-hand luxury products. It examines how motivations to consume, consumption behaviours and consumer-brand relationships, change when one contrasts second-hand with first-hand luxury products.

1. Introduction At a time when growth is slower for luxury brands, the second-hand market is booming; consumption patterns are changing, prices of brandnew items are sometimes seen as prohibitive, and consumers are eager for frequent product turnover. Such changes in behaviour have led to the success of the luxury resale market. Among enthusiasts, consumers turn to “more affordable” luxury products that provide them with “the opportunity to save money” (Amatulli, Pino, De Angelis, & Cascio, 2018). A recent global study, conducted by Bain & Company in 2014,1 valued the luxury resale market at $19 billion. The research attributed such an increase to customers' changing behaviours, as well as the continuous professionalisation and power of the Internet (Okonkwo, 2009; Quach & Thaichon, 2017). The aforementioned study also highlights that, since 2012, channels for discounted price sales – for example, factory outlets – have almost doubled their market penetration rate through shops with more sophisticated merchandising strategies and a higher quality of customer service, which emulate full-price luxury boutiques. Similarly, the success of online classifieds and community websites, such as TheRealReal.com or MaterialWorld.com, has been conducive in undermining traditional luxury brands, with such

websites banking on the restored appeal of luxury consignment. The luxury consignment market has also paved the way for auctioneers of vintage collectors' items, such as Fine Art Auctions in Miami. Still, professionals have mixed opinions about the “cohabitation” of these two markets. Joëlle de Montgolfier, Research Director at Bain & Company's European centre, underlines: “Although the luxury consignment market affects the sales of new products, it provides luxury products with an image of durable goods with better defined resale values, which in the end contributes to increasing their overall value”. If luxury consignment is today a fully-fledged market, no academic study has, to date, thoroughly compared buyers' consumption motives and behaviour patterns in the two distinct markets: second-hand and first-hand. Thus far, academic studies have mainly adopted three primary approaches: 1) The first stream of research focused on the determinants of purchasing vintage items vs second-hand items. Cervellon, Carey, and Harms (2012) defined vintage clothes as pieces dating back to the 1920s and continuing until the 1980s, while second-hand clothes were defined as modern used clothes. The authors showed that clients interested in vintage items looked for rare pieces with heritage, whereas those more inclined towards second-hand items bought

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Kessous), [email protected] (P. Valette-Florence). 1 http://www.bain.com/about/press/press-releases/bain-and-companys-2014-annual-global-luxury-study.aspx ⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.033 Received 22 May 2018; Received in revised form 11 February 2019; Accepted 13 February 2019 Available online 26 February 2019 0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

unique pieces at a good price. The work of Sihvonen and Turunen (2016) on online flea markets revealed the antecedents to the perceived value of second-hand fashion brands. Sarial-Abi, Vohs, Hamilton, and Ulqinaku (2017) focused on the way in which vintage consumption meets certain psychological needs, including the mental connections that link the past, present and future, and the reduction of meaning threats. 2) The second stream of research examined the motives behind buying second-hand luxury items vs vintage luxury items. Turunen and Leipämaa-Leskinen (2015) identified the drivers of second-hand luxury objects being purchased: sustainable choice, a real deal, preloved treasure, risk investment and a unique find. Amatulli et al. (2018) revealed the instrumental (social acceptance) and terminal values (self-identification, self-confidence and self-fulfilment) of purchasing luxury vintage products. 3) Finally, following the work of Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012, 2014) on conspicuous luxury consumption, the third stream of research adopted a more holistic approach to explore the antecedents underlying consumers' commitment to jumping on a particular bandwagon; in other words, the types of snobbery that exist in luxury purchasing behaviour. It is worth noting, however, that the studies included in this category did not consider the purchase of second-hand goods.

contributes to a deeper understanding of the links that consumers develop with their luxury products, be they second-hand or first-hand. The paper is broken down into five sections. First, the literature review focuses on the research that has been conducted on second-hand and vintage luxury, and introduces the distinction between conspicuous consumption and status consumption (Section 2). Then, Study 1 and Study 2, which detail the way in which representations of luxury products vary according to the products' status of “second-hand” vs “firsthand” respectively, are presented (Sections 3, 4). Finally, the paper discusses the results and exposes future research avenues (Section 5). 2. Literature review 2.1. Meaning and determinants behind the purchasing of second-hand luxury and vintage luxury Vintage is frequently confused with second-hand. In the fashion sector, vintage is defined as “a rare and authentic piece that represents the style of a particular era” (Gerval, 2008). Cervellon et al. (2012) consider clothing as vintage “when it is produced in the period between the 1920s and the 1980s”. Vintage deals with a previously owned but not necessarily used item (Sihvonen & Turunen, 2016). Vintage objects are representative of a specific time and their value may increase across time (Sarial-Abi et al., 2017). Having been “previously owned”, they may be valued for their history and for injecting new life into an object from the past (Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015). Conversely, the term “second-hand” categorises any goods that have been previously owned and used, notwithstanding the age of clothes (Cervellon et al., 2012; Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015). Cervellon et al. (2012) investigate the drivers of second-hand consumption and vintage consumption. They show that price and frugality are the main motives behind purchasing second-hand fashion. Motives behind the acquisition of vintage fashion are nostalgia, fashion involvement and, indirectly, consumers' need for uniqueness (CNFU). In both cases, the purchase is not driven by ecological consciousness. Sihvonen and Turunen (2016) examine how customers assess the perceived value of fashion brands in online flea markets. They highlight six antecedents: perceived quality (product attributes and condition), price (comparison with the brand-new counterpart), design (age of the product), availability (scarcity of the brand), origin (brand country of origin, place of purchase, previous user) and authenticity (a product not counterfeited). Very few marketing researchers have investigated the meanings and determinants behind the purchasing of second-hand and vintage luxury products. Based on the interviews with Finnish women, Turunen and Leipämaa-Leskinen (2015) explore the meaning of second-hand luxury possessions. They shed light on five significant themes: sustainable choice (ecological and responsible concerns), a real deal (attractiveness of the price), pre-loved treasure (emotional attachment imbued with nostalgia), risk investment (counterfeiting) and a unique find (or CNFU). A recent work of Amatulli et al. (2018) reveals eight attributes of luxury vintage products: durability, superior quality, relative inexpensiveness, environmental sustainability, reminder of the past, stylish design, alternativeness and uniqueness. Starting from these eight attributes, the authors identify the latent motivations of Italian customers purchasing luxury vintage products. Three functional motivations are noted: “timelessness”, “affordable luxury” and “avoiding waste”. Six psychological determinants are observed: “distinction”, “impressing others”, being “attractive”, being a luxury “connoisseur”, “historical value and emotional bond with the past” and “treasure hunt”. One instrumental value – “social acceptance” – and three terminal values – “self-identification” (to express something about oneself), “self-fulfilment” and “self-confidence” – are identified. Table 1 summarises the results of the previous studies. A synthetic review of the previous studies reveals the recurrence of the following topics: price attractiveness, nostalgia, emotional bond,

As highlighted, existing research on luxury has focused exclusively on one type of market (second-hand or first-hand), while overlooking consumer-brand relationships. The papers investigating the meanings attached to second-hand luxury possessions (Turunen & LeipämaaLeskinen, 2015) or pre-owned vintage luxury items (Amatulli et al., 2018) have not questioned the findings that would have been obtained by focusing on first-hand luxury products. Furthermore, such studies should have distinguished these meanings according to their affective vs cognitive nature, as suggested by Vigneron and Johnson (2004). Finally, these papers rely on studies based on verbal statements; however, the consumption of luxury goods is largely related to emotional and perceptual fields and should also be apprehended through projective techniques. Therefore, considering two fields of application – second-hand vs first-hand luxury products – this paper pursues two objectives: (1) to understand the affective and cognitive representations of luxury product consumption; (2) to apprehend the antecedents and consequences of this type of consumption on the consumer-brand relationship. More broadly, we wonder how the prior life of the product may influence the consumer-luxury brand relationship. Thus, the research questions are as follows: How do representations of luxury product consumption vary according to the status of luxury products as “secondhand” vs “first-hand”? How do consumer-brand relationships change when one contrasts second-hand luxury products with first-hand luxury products? Based on a multi-method approach, both qualitative and quantitative, two successive studies were carried out. Study 1 analyses the affective and cognitive representations of the way in which second-hand and first-hand luxury products are purchased via the projective “Album On Line” (AOL) technique (Kessous, Valette-Florence, & De Barnier, 2017; Vernette, 2007). Study 1 therefore contributes to a better understanding of the differences and similarities in terms of the motivations and needs linked to the two types of purchasing behaviour. Study 2 extends Kastanakis and Balabanis' (2014) model and integrates a number of moderator effects not yet considered in luxury research. It is based on a Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression approach and was conducted with a sample of 280 customers of second-hand and firsthand luxury items, equally distributed between the two types of products. It also provides an explanation of the nature of the links that consumers have with the two types of luxury products and how the consumption behaviours change when one contrasts second-hand luxury products with first-hand luxury products. Overall, this article 314

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

Table 1 Meanings and determinants of second-hand and vintage purchases. Authors

Meaning/determinants of purchase

Cervellon et al. (2012)

Determinants of purchase: Second-hand fashion: price attractiveness, frugality. Vintage fashion: nostalgia, fashion involvement, need for uniqueness. Perceived value of fashion brands in online flea markets: Perceived quality, price, design, availability, origin, authenticity. Meaning of second-hand luxury possessions: Sustainable choice, real deal, pre-loved treasure, unique find and risk investment. Determinants of purchase of vintage luxury products: Functional: Timelessness, affordable luxury, avoiding waste. Psychological: Distinction, impressing others, being attractive, being a luxury connoisseur, historical value, emotional bond with the past, treasure hunt. Instrumental value: social acceptance. Terminal value: self-identification, self-fulfilment, self-confidence.

Sihvonen and Turunen (2016) Turunen and Leipämaa-Leskinen (2015) Amatulli et al. (2018)

influence, foster assimilation finality, thus leading to bandwagon luxury consumption. Acknowledging the contrary, they note that CNFU fosters a contrast finality, which ultimately leads to snob luxury consumption. However, their work is only based on the study of first-hand luxury products and does not consider second-hand luxury products. Moreover, it doesn't examine the impact of conspicuous consumption on brand relationship. Due to these oversights, Study 2 attempts to reconceptualise and extend Kastanakis and Balabanis' (2014) model by integrating a brand relationship variable – brand attachment – and several moderator variables. We decided to integrate the construct of brand attachment, since it is usually this that affects the relationship between consumers and their luxury brands, and raises brand profitability and customer lifetime value (Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci, 2010). Study 2 also specifies the nature of the links that may vary according to the market under study, second-hand luxury vs first-hand. To do so, a multi-method approach, both qualitative and quantitative, lays the foundations of the two successive studies presented in the next sections.

sustainable concerns and CNFU. Among the previous research on luxury, only the work of Amatulli et al. (2018) highlights the way in which vintage consumption enhances consumers' perception of their desired and ideal self-image. However, it is likely that luxury product consumption aims to achieve different personal goals depending on the nature of the product (first-hand vs second-hand). Therefore, considering two fields of application – second-hand vs first-hand – Study 1 aims at investigating the affective and cognitive representations of luxury product purchasing and explores the way in which this impacts on consumers' self. To better apprehend luxury product consumption, before presenting Study 1, the next section introduces the distinction between status consumption and conspicuous consumption. 2.2. Conspicuous consumption and status consumption Based on the work of Veblen (1899), Eastman et al. (1999, p.42) defines conspicuous consumption as “the practice of using products to signal social status aspirations to other consumers”. Following the work of Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014), this paper chooses to conceptualise conspicuous consumption through two types of luxury consumption: bandwagon and snob. Bandwagon luxury consumption is defined as “the extent to which the demand for a commodity is increased due to the fact that others are also consuming the same commodity” (Leibenstein, 1950, p. 189). Snob luxury consumption is the opposite, presented as “the extent to which the demand for a consumer's good is decreased owing to the fact that others are also consuming the same commodity” (Leibenstein, 1950, p. 189). Conspicuous consumption – conceptualised through both bandwagon and snob luxury consumption – is related to consumers' tendency to buy luxury products to display their wealth and reach superior social status (Amaldoss & Jain, 2005; Grace & Griffin, 2009; Pino, Amatulli, Peluso, Nataraajan, & Guido, 2017). As such, conspicuous consumption may be driven by status consumption (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010; Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014; O'Cass & McEwen, 2004), which is defined as “a motivational process by which individuals strive to improve their social standing through the conspicuous consumption of consumer products that confer and symbolise status both for individual and surrounding significant others” (Eastman, Goldsmith, & Flynn, 1999, p. 42). Status consumption is therefore an expression of consumers' yearning to obtain prestige by buying status-laden products and brands (O'Cass & Frost, 2002). Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012, 2014) attempt to explain variation in conspicuous luxury consumption by focusing on how and why individuals buy diverse types of luxuries. Considering that some luxury brands are valued for their scarcity and others for their popularity (Almadoss & Jain, 2008), the authors analyse the impact of self-concept orientation on luxury consumption. They show that relational traits, such as the interdependent self and the susceptibility to normative

3. Study 1: affective and cognitive representations of the way in which second-hand and first-hand luxury products are purchased 3.1. Methodology 3.1.1. Presentation of the technique The objective of this study is to identify the hidden representations of second-hand and first-hand luxury products purchases. The AOL projective technique was chosen to understand how these types of conspicuous consumption contribute to the social-identity construction process. This method is based on elicitations made by respondents about a set of selected images. According to Zaltman (1997), ideas emerge from images, while verbal communication plays a significant part in the representation and storage of these ideas (Bickerton, 1990). Zaltman (1997) claimed that consumers are able to better express the representations of their thinking through images. First proposed by Vernette (2007), the AOL technique aims to measure and map consumers' mental structures (Christensen & Olson, 2002). It combines the benefits of individual in-depth approaches with the social exchanges deriving from focus groups. The technique involves respondents commenting on photographs that are available on search engines. The selected pictures are then evaluated by the rest of the group. The AOL technique is interesting as it enables participants to indirectly express themselves about the chosen issue by projecting their thoughts while considering justifications put forward by other respondents. In practice, the procedure follows a three-step approach. In the first stage, participants are shown either a cognitive or affective scenario in order to elicit their thoughts and motives related to their purchasing 315

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

habits of luxury products, either second-hand or first-hand. Then, participants are asked to search online for the most representative pictures related to these thoughts and motives. At the end of the process, the respondents have to retain the five most important pictures, which form individual albums. In the second stage, a collective album containing all the photos of the individual albums is created. If inspired by the collective album, participants are then able to modify their individual album, adding photos from other users, which they are asked to comment on. In the last stage, each participant has to rate all the photos of the final collective album from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), so as to evaluate whether their felt consumption experience when purchasing either second-hand or first-hand luxury products corresponds with the pictures. In addition to item elicitation, the main advantage of the AOL approach is to structure the images and associated words in a space that represents the associations between the metaphorical images and the evocations. Such a representation enables research to structure the main themes under study and to visualise their relative proximities. Following the data analysis procedure of Kessous et al. (2017), individual differences scaling (INDSCAL) is then used to obtain a joint space representing all the distances between the items depending on their rating by each respondent, while also accounting for each individual space. Finally, a hierarchical cluster analysis is performed on the item coordinates within that space, allowing similar items to be clustered in terms of shared meaning. The denomination of the mapping axes is then based on the images and associated words that surround each axis.

3.1.3. Data analysis The aim of the last analytical step was to structure the images and associated words in a space that exposes associations between metaphorical pictures and evocations. This stage was originally intended to be performed manually by the analyst, which would have been not only time-consuming but subject to any kind of subjective interpretation. Instead, we adopted the approach recently put forward by Kessous et al. (2017), whereby respondents rated each photo and its main associated word on a scale of 1 to 6. The full data set was then analysed by means of an INDSCAL approach, which provides a joint space showing all the distances between the items while still trying to account for each individual space. In practice, the programme takes, for each scenario, a set of eight matrices as input, each of which is a square symmetric matrix (of order p) of similar judgements between the p stimuli. Concretely, the model explains the differences between the individual's evaluations by a distance model where the stimuli are thought of as points positioned in a stimulus map. This map is perceived differentially by the participants, who can give a different salience or weight to each of the dimensions of the map. The stimulus map is the best consensus between all the individual stimulus maps. In the end, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed on the coordinates of the items within that map, thus allowing them to be clustered according to shared significations. 3.2. Results Overall, the interpretation of the cognitive and affective representations for both second-hand and first-hand luxury product purchases, initiated by each experiential scenario, was synthesised in four mappings. We illustrated each mapping image with one word that was the most representative of the meanings given by the participants. The naming of the mapping's axes was based on the images and associated words that surrounded each axis. Globally, the INDSCAL analysis provided good-quality results, representing, on average, 74% of the second-hand affective and first-hand affective scenarios, and 76% of the second-hand cognitive and first-hand cognitive scenarios of the variance, for the four mappings. The graphic displayed for the second-hand/affective scenario (see Fig. 1; mapping on the top left) is structured by two main axes and identifies seven sources of satisfaction when purchasing second-hand luxury products: (1) Superiority, (2) Attachment, (3) Ethical consumer, (4) Sales, (5) Treasure, (6) Grandeur, (7) Success. The vertical axis opposes two types of motivational needs (Maslow, 1943): self-esteem (top) and love and belonging (below). It stresses two facets of the self: the independent self and the interdependent self. The “Superiority” (1) cluster refers to the feeling of pride and vanity; the perception of being part of an elite or included in a private circle. The “Attachment” (2) cluster shows that customers have affection for the luxury items they have bought. Similarly, the “Ethical consumer” (3) cluster deals with the joy of being able to recycle luxury fashion. The horizontal axis is based on the concept of windfall (left side) and social climbing (right

3.1.2. Sample and implementation For this study, two scenarios (cognitive and affective) were created to elicit either thoughts or emotions associated with the purchase of luxury products, both second-hand and first-hand (see Table 2). Both scenarios were pretested in order to confirm they were able to elicit the expected cognitive thoughts and affective feelings. From the outset, these scenarios were necessary and very useful in order to focus more explicitly on either the emotional or more functional motives surrounding the purchasing of second-hand or first-hand luxury products. Study 1 was conducted between November 2016 and January 2017. Four groups of eight customers were recruited with the support of two second-hand luxury websites and two luxury multi-brand stores in the French Rivera area. All respondents had purchased, in the last three years, at least one piece from a luxury product (second-hand or firsthand). We ensured that within each group – “second-hand” vs “firsthand” – the samples were comparable in terms of age and social status. In the first group (“second-hand”), respondents were aged between 22 and 45 with an overrepresentation of 30-year-old persons. In the second group (“first-hand”), participants were aged between 30 and 66 with an overrepresentation of 50-year-old persons. In both cases, the samples were female and were overrepresented by highly educated persons. The four groups were assigned to one of the four scenarios. Table 2 Scenarios used in Study 1.

Affective scenario

Cognitive scenario

First-hand luxury products

Second-hand luxury products

“Think of one of your luxury product purchases… You bought this product in its sumptuous shop. You are sensitive to the reception of the salesmen and to their listening. This luxury product is symbolic for you. You particularly like it because it has a sentimental value. What are the positive feelings and emotions aroused by this purchase?” “Think about one of your luxury product purchases. You bought this product in its very nice shop. You have appreciated the unparalleled reception of the salesmen, their listening and their advice. It's a reasoned purchase considering the reputation of the brand. What are the benefits aroused by this purchase? Why are you satisfied?”

“Think about one of your luxury product purchases … You bought this product from a second-hand shop or from a second websites such as Vestiaire Collective or VideDressing… You remember your excitement when you found it! This is the item you missed! You love it! What are the positive feelings and emotions aroused by this purchase?” “Think about one of your luxury product purchases … You bought this product from a second-hand shop or from a second websites such as Vestiaire Collective or VideDressing … It's a reasoned purchase because it's not a new product. You are satisfied because you paid less for it. What are the benefits aroused by this purchase? Why are you satisfied?”

316

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

Fig. 1. Affective and cognitive joint space representations.

side). It points out two variables: price sensitivity and status seeking. Status seeking being defined as the way people “strive to improve their social standing through the conspicuous consumption of consumer products that confer and symbolize status both for the individual and surrounding significant others” (Eastman et al., 1999, p. 42). The “Sales” (4) cluster refers to the potential bargains and savings that second-hand luxury products offer. Another source of satisfaction is the possibility of finding “Treasures” (5), since certain items are seen as a kind of lucky discovery from the perspective of the collector. Such items also contribute in defining the “Grandeur” (6) and the achievement of “Success” (7) of their owner. The graphic displayed for the second-hand/cognitive scenario (see Fig. 1; at the bottom-left side) is structured by two main axes and identifies seven sources of satisfaction when purchasing second-hand luxury products: (1) Nostalgia, (2) Richness, (3) Piece of collection, (4) Victory, (5) Distinction, (6) Trust, (7) Sustainable development. The vertical axis opposes the concepts of brand heritage (on the top) and vintage (at the bottom), thus reinforcing the symbolic and utilitarian values of these types of brands. The “Nostalgia” (1) cluster refers to prior life and the memories anchored in the second-hand luxury product. The “Richness” (2) cluster points out the action of treasure hunting to get a timeless “Piece of collection” (3). The horizontal axis focuses on the concepts of gratification (left side) and caring (right side), using two variables: status seeking and susceptibility to normative influence. Consumer susceptibility to normative influence (CSNI) is defined as “the need to identify or enhance one's image with significant others through the acquisition and use of products and brands and the willingness to conform to the expectations of others regarding purchase decision” (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989, p. 474). The “Victory” (4)

cluster refers to the euphoria of doing a good deal, which allows the consumer to display a kind of “Distinction” (5). The “Trust” (6) cluster stresses respect for quality standards and mutual consent between buyer and seller. The “Sustainable Development” (7) cluster refers to the satisfaction of saving money and of recycling an object. Regarding the first-hand/affective graphic, we can conclude from the mapping (top-right side) that two main axes help to understand the purchase representations of first-hand luxury products. The vertical axis opposes two types of power – aristocracy and monarchy – and distinguishes two variables: snob effect and social conformism. The horizontal axis delineates an opposition between almighty power and social recognition. It stresses a distinction between two variables: CNFU and status seeking, with the former being defined as “the trait of pursuing differentness relative to others through the acquisition, utilization, and disposition of consumer goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing one's self-image and social image” (Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001, p. 52). A finer analysis of the photos and their associated words put forward six clusters linked to the notion of status, power and competency: (1) Elitism, (2) Status, (3) Legacy, (4) The Eternal, (5) Expertise, (6) Caste. The graphic display for first-hand/cognitive scenario is structured alongside two main axes: a vertical axis that differentiates between absoluteness and expertise; a horizontal axis that delineates an opposition between snobbism and ostentation, revealing a distinction between two variables: snob and bandwagon effects. Seven clusters emerge, all of them linked to conspicuous consumption behaviour: (1) Advice, (2), Individualism, (3) Magnificence, (4) Acknowledgement, (5) Sophistication, (6) Chauvinistic, (7) Zenith. Table 3 presents a semantic interpretation of the four mappings. Study 1 reveals that buying second-hand luxury products 317

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

Table 3 Semantic interpretations of the mapping.

Second-hand luxury

First-hand luxury

Scenario

Axis

Variables

Clusters

Affective

Cognitive

Axis 1. Self Esteem/ Love & belonging Axis 2. Windfall/ Social climbing Axis 1. Brand heritage/Vintage

Affective

Axis 2. Gratification/ Caring Axis 1. Aristocracy/Monarchy

Independent self Interdependent self Price sensitivity Status seeking Symbolical value Utilitarian value Status seeking Normative Influence Snob effect Social conformism Need for uniqueness Status seeking Status seeking

Superiority – grandeur Attachment – ethical consumer Treasure – Sales Success Nostalgia – richness Piece of collection Distinction – victory Sustainable development – trust Elitism Status – legacy The Eternal – expertise Caste Zenith Supremacy – Love of detail Advice – Individualism Magnificence – Acknowledgment Sophistication

Axis 2. Almighty power/Social Recognition Cognitive

Axis 1. Absoluteness/ Expertise Axis 2. Snobbism/Ostentation

Snob effect Bandwagon effect

contributes to satisfying both psychological motivations, such as selfesteem, belongingness and a need for love, and self-fulfilment motivations, such as gratification and social climbing (Maslow, 1943). Such purchasing habits may also be linked to symbolism and nostalgia – finding an authentic piece of a collection or a vintage item imbued with heritage – as well as more sustainable pursuits, fulfilling ecological and responsible concerns, as already pointed out by Turunen and LeipämaaLeskinen (2015). These results therefore highlight that purchasing second-hand luxury products is driven by social considerations: a desire for social recognition, a sensitivity to normative influence and a need to belong. We find three variables of Kastanakis and Balabanis' (2014) model: status seeking, CSNI and the interdependent self. Regarding the purchase of first-hand luxury products, two significant themes emerge. The first deals with a desire for power. Those who purchase first-hand luxury items do so to obtain almighty power, and typically answer to a need for uniqueness. For some of them, luxury products are reserved to an aristocratic elite and symbolise professional success. It is assumed that owners are experts in their field with superior skills and a charismatic personality. For others, a luxury product represents something akin to a family apprenticeship; it is part of a family's legacy and should involve a hereditary or monarchical power. The second theme deals with two types of conspicuous luxury consumption behaviour: bandwagon luxury consumption behaviour and snob luxury consumption behaviour, both of which can be found in Kastanakis and Balabanis' (2014) model. The AOL projective technique enables us to apprehend the affective and cognitive representations, as well as any hidden meanings, of conspicuous luxury consumption. It confirms the relevance of the variables used in Kastanakis and Balabanis' (2014) model and highlights new variables that will be incorporated and more precisely defined in Study 2 (see Table 4).

4. Study 2: antecedents and consequences of luxury consumption on brand attachment: a contrast between second-hand and firsthand luxury products 4.1. Model development and hypotheses Study 2 proposes a reconceptualization and extension of Kastanakis and Balabanis' (2014) model.

• Antecedents of status seeking and of conspicuous luxury consumption behaviour

Contrary to Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012, 2014), who consider CSNI as attributable to status consumption, this study considers CSNI as an antecedent; a concept defined by existing literature as a need. Normative influence plays a central part in the study of conspicuous luxury consumption (Bearden & Etzel, 1982), as luxury products are value-expressive, contribute in displaying a respectable image (Park & Lessig, 1977), and satisfy a desire for social recognition (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014). Therefore, the willingness to conform oneself to normative influence has the ultimate aim of reaching a certain social status, which leads to hypothesis H1. Furthermore, Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014) highlight a significant and positive link between CSNI and bandwagon luxury consumption. We propose a retest of this hypothesis, leading to H2a. H1. CSNI has a direct positive effect on status seeking. H2a. CSNI has a direct positive effect on the bandwagon luxury consumption of first-hand luxury products. It is reasonable to expect opposite results regarding second-hand luxury products. These types of products are different thanks to their own unique stories. They have a more distinctive character and may be presented as a unique item, limited edition or as part of a collection (Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015). Cervellon et al. (2012) reinforce the notion that CNFU is an indirect driver of the intention to purchase vintage fashion. Sihvonen and Turunen (2016) note that scarcity is one criterion used by consumers who value fashion brands in online secondhand markets. Second-hand products become more deeply valued “treasure”, since they are no longer available in shops (Sihvonen & Turunen, 2016). Turunen and Leipämaa-Leskinen (2015) claim that one motivation behind this kind of purchase – i.e. to find a model that is no longer produced – is the desire to distance oneself from the norm. In the specific case of second-hand luxury products, our expectations are opposite to those of Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014), which leads to H2b.

Table 4 Variables mobilzed in Study 2. Variables used in Kastanakis and Balabanis' (2014) model

New variables

Consumer susceptibility to normative influence Consumer need for uniqueness Interdependent self Status seeking Bandwagon luxury consumption behavior snob luxury consumption behavior

Nostalgic connections Brand familaity Attachment

318

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

H2b. CSNI has a direct negative effect on the bandwagon luxury consumption of second-hand luxury products.

Consumers may be connected to a luxury product because it symbolises who they are (Mittal, 2006). As brand attachment is defined as the strength of self-brand connections (Park et al., 2010), the aptitude of a luxury good to indicate who individuals are, may increase their emotional attachment (Rossiter & Bellman, 2012). Bandwagon luxury consumption is the preference for popular luxury products. Popularity is synonymous with social approval and makes it possible to socially represent one's position (Mussweiler, Rüter, & Epstude, 2004). In contrast, snob luxury consumption is related to the preference for scarce products. Scarcity allows consumers to dissociate themselves from the mainstream and to display their singular identity (Mussweiler et al., 2004). As bandwagon luxury consumption and snob luxury consumption serve identity functions, one can expect that both involve a greater brand attachment, which leads to H5 and H6.

The respect of social norms may be seen as an identity threat, particularly to those consumers who feel that they are too similar to others (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977). In order to allay these fears, they choose to adopt self-differentiating behaviours (Zhan & He, 2012) and look for rarer products to meet their own expectations of feeling unique (Tian et al., 2001). Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012, 2014) highlight that CNFU prevents people from buying widespread luxuries and stress a positive link between CNFU and the tendency to engage in snob luxury consumption. We retest H3. H3. CNFU has a direct positive effect on snob luxury consumption.

• Consequences of status seeking, conspicuous luxury consumption

H5. For both second-hand and first-hand luxury products, bandwagon luxury consumption has a direct positive effect on brand attachment.

and nostalgic connections on brand attachment

H6. For both second-hand and first-hand luxury products, snob luxury consumption has a direct positive effect on brand attachment.

Han et al. (2010) posit that status is often signalled by luxury goods, whose simple use or exhibition gives the possessor prestige, if limited practical utility (Grossman & Shapiro, 1988), and a reflection of their own success (Han et al., 2010; Richins, 1994). Luxury products enable consumers to associate themselves with the groups they wish to emulate (Escalas & Bettman, 2003) and to distance themselves from those they wish to avoid (White & Dahl, 2006). For individuals with a higherthan-average need for uniqueness, explicit signals of recognition may be found in the consumption of scarce luxury products. Pino et al. (2017) note that products with slight branding cues, which are recognisable only by consumers who are “in the know”, may satisfy clients with high-status signalling intentions. The “snob” attribute is mentioned in one of the five items of the status consumption scale proposed by Eastman et al. (1999) (“a product is more valuable to me if it has some snob appeal”). Pino et al. (2017) note that consumers seeking status may refrain from publicly displaying the luxury products they buy. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect status seeking to impact snob luxury consumption and not necessarily bandwagon luxury consumption. Following Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014), who stress a positive link between status seeking and snob luxury consumption, we retest H4a.

Some luxury products are able to arouse nostalgic connections. Studying the transference of luxury watches from father to son, Kessous et al. (2017) believe that certain items establish nostalgic connections between donor and recipient. Focusing on luxury possessions formerly owned, Turunen and Leipämaa-Leskinen (2015), as well as Amatulli et al. (2018), posit that such products establish an emotional bond with the past, since they had previously belonged to someone else and “have something to tell”. Moreover, Amatulli et al. (2018) consider “historical value” as a psychological determinant of these purchases, since they often symbolise a significant past that has influenced former consumption trends and are imbued with nostalgic stories. Nostalgic brands may serve psychological functions and foster greater attachment. As an illustration, nostalgic attachment is one of the dimensions of brand relationship quality (Fournier, 1994). Furthermore, recent research shows that brand nostalgia improves brand attachment in that it recalls the consumer's prior brand experience (Ford, Merchant, Bartier, & Friedman, 2018). Therefore, one can expect nostalgic connections to involve a greater brand attachment, as highlighted in H7.

H4a. Status seeking has a direct positive effect on snob luxury consumption.

H7. For both second-hand and first-hand luxury products, nostalgic connections have a direct positive effect on brand attachment.

Past research has shown that luxury products may express status (Han et al., 2010) and play a part in romantic relationships (Griskevicius et al., 2007; Wang & Griskevicius, 2014). In their study on the psychological determinants of purchasing luxury vintage products, Amatulli et al. (2018) identify certain variables related to the concept of status (“distinction”, “impressing others”) and attachment (“emotional bond”). However, they do not empirically establish a link between them. Turunen and Leipämaa-Leskinen (2015) present second-hand luxury products as “pre-loved treasure” that satisfy CNFU. Luxury products are valued for the scarcity of the discovery and reflect the consumer's distinctive personality. Thus, second-hand luxury products allowing consumers to signal status is expected to involve a strong attachment. Considering first-hand luxury products, one can expect similar effects. Indeed, the Brand Luxury Index, developed by Vigneron and Johnson (2004), exposes five highly correlated dimensions. Two of the items, “elitist” and “memorable”, are linked to social positions and to emotional benefits, respectively. As such, one can suppose that, for both second-hand luxury products and first-hand luxury products, status seeking has a direct positive effect on luxury brand attachment, which leads to H4b.

• The moderating roles of the interdependent self-concept, brand familiarity and nostalgic connections • Interdependent self-concept Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014) note that individuals with a higher-than-average interdependent self-concept pay attention to the social role of luxury consumption and, in turn, engage in bandwagon luxury consumption. The authors reinforce the notion that this selfconcept orientation is characterised by a set of collectivist traits, such as social affiliation and comparisons. As already mentioned, we suppose that the willingness to conform oneself to normative influence is rooted in a desire to reach a certain social status. Based on this, the interdependent self is expected to play a moderating role. We therefore distance ourselves from Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014), who stress the antecedent of self-concept orientation on CSNI, and formulate H8. H8. The interdependent-self reinforces the relationship between CSNI and status seeking.

• Brand familiarity

H4b. For both second-hand and first-hand luxury products, status seeking has a direct positive effect on brand attachment.

Brand familiarity refers to the “mindshare” experienced by consumers when reacting to a specific brand and to the importance of past consumers' experiences with a brand (Alba & Hutchinson, 2000). It thus

Luxury consumption may function to express identity and play important roles in relationships (Wang & Griskevicius, 2014). 319

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

reflects consumer knowledge of a brand (Campbell & Keller, 2003). Zhan and He (2012) show that, in the specific context of luxury consumption in China, consumer knowledge moderates the relationship between CNFU and the attitude towards the best-known luxury brand. They explain that a higher level of knowledge combined with a higher need for uniqueness results in a negative perception of the popular luxury brands. Therefore, one can expect the opposite relationship between CSNI and bandwagon luxury consumption. As CSNI highlights the propensity to conform to social norms and has a direct effect on bandwagon consumption (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012, 2014), brand familiarity should reinforce the propensity to engage in bandwagon consumption. This leads to H9.

lists the hypotheses tested by Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014) and shows the ones we chose to retest (Fig. 2). This research is as an extension (and not a replication) of Kastanakis and Balabanis' (2014) model in that it integrates an outcome variable “brand attachment” and three moderator variables. Among all the brand relationship variables, brand attachment seems to be most apt for consideration, based on the fact it was identified as such in Study 1. In addition, it echoes with previous research: Turunen and LeipämaaLeskinen (2015) present second-hand luxury products as “pre-loved treasure”; Amatulli et al. (2018) claim that vintage luxury products create “an emotional bond with the past”. Based on the definition of brand attachment as “the emotional bond connecting a person with the brand” (Park et al., 2010, p. 2), we chose to integrate this variable in our model. Finally, Study 2 goes beyond the work of Kastanakis and Blabanis (2014) in that it specifies the nature of the links that may vary according to whether the market is second-hand or first-hand luxury.

H9. Brand familiarity reinforces the relationship between CSNI and bandwagon consumption behaviour.

• Nostalgic connections

4.2. Methodology for data collection and processing

The relationship between nostalgic connections and brand attachment is quite complex. As noted above, nostalgic connections may be considered as an antecedent of brand attachment. Nevertheless, one can expect a moderating effect of nostalgic connections between status seeking and brand attachment. In their qualitative study on the transference of luxury watches from father to son, Kessous et al. (2017) show that receiving the watch strengthens the attachment link between parent and child, and involves a significant change of status in the son's life. Furthermore, the watch virtually prolongs the donor's existence after his death and embodies an immortal link that can be reinvested in the next generation as nostalgic presentness. As noted in the son's discourse, these nostalgic connections seem to reinforce their attachment to the watch. The study of Amatulli et al. (2018) shows that luxury vintage consumption involves several psychological consequences such as distinction, the willingness to impress others and nostalgia. The fact that possession of luxury vintage products allows the owner to express their own individuality, as well as to stimulate a recollection of the past, results in an emotional bond with the product. Indeed, these previous studies have proven that products are able to elicit strong nostalgic connections (Amatulli et al., 2018; Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015). Such items carry a “historical value” closely linked to the former or current owner of the products, such as celebrities or stars; a fact that implicitly makes reference to the high social status of these former or actual owners. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and social categorisation theory (Turner, 1999) are two well-established and disseminated theories that explain and evaluate how and why individuals view themselves as belonging to certain groups and removed from others. In light of these two theories, social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954; Mandel, Petrova, & Cladini, 2006) adds the point that individuals have aspirational goals in order to enter or reach certain social groups as a way to increase self-esteem. Consequently, we postulate that less healthy people will be more inclined to buy second-hand luxury products, since doing so will help them more easily resemble their target groups. Richer people are less prone to increasing their felt self-esteem since they have already fulfilled their social aspirational goals. This is why we posit that such nostalgic connections may enhance the impact of status seeking on brand attachment in a greater way for second-hand luxury product buyers compared to first-hand luxury products buyers.

Two luxury markets are under study: the second-hand luxury market and the first-hand luxury market. The questionnaires were distributed online between March 2017 and October 2017, with the support of two second-hand luxury websites, one first-hand luxury boutique and two first-hand luxury multi-brand stores in the south-east of France.2 Two filter questions were used to select only true “clients”. We wanted to avoid recruiting people who had an opinion about the topic of the study but who were not buyers. For example, for the firsthand luxury respondents, the questions were phrased as follow: Have you bought, in the last three years, one of these luxury brands? Have you ever bought a second-hand luxury product? Those responding could not participate in the study if they answered affirmatively to the second question, which was used to ensure that only people who had exclusively bought first-hand luxury products were included. To recruit second-hand luxury customers, these questions were formulated in an opposing sense. The aim was to obtain two samples of exclusive buyers of one type of luxury product (second-hand vs first-hand); no consumer should have bought both second-hand and first-hand luxury products. A list of 25 luxury brands was proposed and was related to the brands3 quoted by respondents in Study 1. Then, after having selected one of the 25 brands, respondents had to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement for a series of affirmations evaluating the force of the nine variables studied (CNFU, CSNI, snob luxury consumption behaviour, bandwagon luxury consumption behaviour, status seeking, brand attachment, interdependent self, brand familiarity and nostalgic connections). This same logic was applied to both questionnaires. The final sample comprised 280 clients, who were equally distributed between the two types of luxury markets. 140 second-hand luxury product customers and 140 first-hand luxury product customers responded to the survey in full. The two samples were made up of females of relatively young age (88% under the age of 44 for secondhand; 85% under the age of 64 for first-hand). The research used six-point Likert scales throughout. Following the work of Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012, 2014), the interdependent self was evaluated with the scale of Singelis (1994). For status seeking, we 2 We formally prove they were no differences between the two mentioned modes of purchases. All in all, we managed to get an even split of respondents; half from second-hand luxury websites and half from luxury multi-brands stores. Thanks to a PLS multi-group analysis and a direct step-down analysis (with a dummy variable), no differences either in terms of measurement or path coefficients between the two groups arose. Hence, we can conclude that the mode of purchase for first-hand luxury products doesn't impact the results. 3 Burberry, Cartier, Céline, Chanel, Courrèges, Dior, Dolce & Gabbana, Fendi, Giorgio Armani, Givenchy, Gucci, Guerlain, Hermès, Kenzo, Lacroix, Lanvin, Louboutin, Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs, Montblanc, Nina Ricci, Prada, Valentino, Versace, Yves Saint Laurent.

H10. Nostalgic connections reinforce the relationship between status seeking and brand attachment. More specifically, we posit that this moderating effect of nostalgic connections is higher for second-hand luxury products than first-hand luxury products. The mains points of the literature review, along with the corresponding hypotheses, are summarised in Fig. 1. Of the 10 hypotheses outlined, only three have been retested against their original model. As such, seven hypotheses are totally new. Table 5 320

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

Table 5 Hypotheses re-tested from the work of Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014). Hypotheses tested by Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014)

Hypotheses re-tested

H1a. Status seeking relates positively to the propensity to engage in bandwagon consumption of luxury products. H1b. Status seeking relates positively to the propensity to engage in snob consumption of luxury products. H2a. The inter-dependent self-concept relates positively to CSNI. H2b. CSNI relates positively to the propensity to engage in bandwagon consumption of luxury consumption. H2c. CSNI relates negatively to the propensity to engage in snob consumption of luxury consumption. H3a. The independent self-concept relates positively to CNFU. H3b. CNFU relates positively to propensity to engage in snob luxury consumption. H3c. CNFU relates negatively to propensity to engage in bandwagon luxury consumption. H4. Status seeking relates positively to CSNI.

X X X

Hypotheses in bold form correspond to re-tested hypotheses. All other hypotheses are not tested in this research.

Fig. 2. Conceptual model.

used the status consumption scale of Eastman et al. (1999). CSNI was measured with the scale of Bearden et al. (1989). We used eight items from Tian et al. (2001) to measure CNFU. Bandwagon consumption and snob consumption were evaluated with the scales of Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012, 2014). Brand attachment was measured with the scale of Park et al. (2010). To set up the moderating effects of nostalgic connections and brand familiarity, we chose the scale of Fournier (1994) and the scale of Simonin and Ruth (1998), respectively.

common method bias using a full collinearity approach (Kock, 2015; Kock, 2017; Kock & Lynn, 2012). Kock (2015) stressed that common method biases are caused by measurement methods, rather than by the causes of effects for networks among latent variables. A full variance inflation factor (VIF) threshold value of 3.3 (or 5 for factor-based algorithms) is often recommended to ensure that there is no common method bias (Kock, 2015; Kock & Lynn, 2012). The full collinearity test procedure was performed following the method advocated by Kock and Lynn (2012), which includes random dummy variable consisting of random values varying from 0 to 1 used as single-indicator latent variable. All in all, we found an average VIF value of 2.487 (< 3.3), which indicates that no common method bias occurs in this study. In the following paragraphs, we first present the validity assessments and then the formal tests of the hypotheses.

4.3. Data analysis and test of assumptions In this research, all the encompassed latent variables were measured at the first-order level in a reflective manner. All the moderating continuous latent variables were specified according to the product indicators approach with means-centred values. In addition, a consistent PLS (PLSc) approach was adopted to avoid inflated loadings and to generate consistent structural path coefficients (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015a; Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015b).4 In addition, we also tested for

4.3.1. Validity, reliability and adjustment quality Conforming carefully to the presentation guidelines advanced by Henseler, Hubona, and Ray (2016), we first used the suggested criteria for overall model fit. Additionally, all assessments were based on bootstrapping with 5000 replications (Chin, 2010; Hair and al., 2012; Henseler et al., 2014), which computes standard errors from the standard deviation of bootstrap estimates:

4 We use XLSTAT, ADANCO or SmartPLS softwares to perform the majority of analyses.

321

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

Table 6 Reliability and convergent validity indices. Latent variables

Interdependent-self (ITS) Need for uniqueness (NU) Normative influence (NI) Status seeking (SS) Snob consumption Bandwagon consumption Attachment Nostalgic connections Brand familiarity (BF)

Reliability ρA

Convergent validity

Second-hand luxury

First-hand luxury

Second-hand luxury

First-hand luxury

0,821 0,988 0,907 0,861 0,764 0,731 0,832 0,854 0,787

0,757 0,902 0,889 0,899 0,720 0,810 0,861 0,834 0,740

0,645 0,623 0,608 0,696 0,644 0,637 0,748 0,634 0,704

0,681 0,592 0,566 0,740 0,643 0,654 0,775 0,589 0,678

- For the overall model, in keeping with recent advice from Henseler, Hubona, and Ray (2016), we provide, in addition to the goodness of fit (GoF) value, the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) for the PLSc estimates. The respective values indicate that the two models show an acceptable fit. Although the SRMR indices (0.0861/ 0.0892)5 are slightly higher than the recommended cut-off value suggested by Hu and Bentler (2009), the GoF values (0.3901/ 0.3652)6 remain quite high according to Wetzels, OdekerkenSchröder, and van Oppen (2009), indicating that a relatively important amount of information is being considered within our encompassed causal research model, either at the measurement or structural levels. In addition, two new fit indices, dG and dULS, as recently proposed by Dijkstra and Henseler (2015b), were computed for both second-hand luxury and first-hand luxury data. Both the geodesic discrepancy dG and the unweighted least squares discrepancy dULS indices fall within their corresponding confidence intervals (respectively, dG = 1.436 [1.283, 2.375] & 3.178 [2.164, 5.428] and dULS = 4.522 [3.615, 5.137] and 3.153 [2.1367, 4.175]), thus giving additional support to the overall quality of our statistical PLSc SEM investigation. Once the overall quality of the proposed model had been established, we assessed internal consistency reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. In this study, we refer solely to Dijkstra and Henseler's ρA, which is the consistent reliability measure for PLS construct scores (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015a). Indicators of convergent validity and reliability are satisfied: reliabilities are > 0.7 and convergent validities are equal to or > 0.5 (Table 6). To assess discriminant validity, we rely on heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) criterion which is less to 0.85. Discriminant validity is thus satisfied (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015).

predictive validity of our proposed model using holdout samples in order to ensure that the results were not due to hidden random sampling variations. To do so, we followed the eight-step procedure put forward by Cepeda Carrión, Henseler, Ringle and Roldán (2016): (1) create a training sample (randomly drawing two-thirds of the observations), (2) estimate model parameters on the training sample, (3) standardise the holdout sample data, (4) create construct scores for the holdout sample as linear combinations of the respective indicators using the weights obtained from the training sample, (5) standardise the construct scores for the holdout sample, (6) create prediction scores of each endogenous construct in the holdout sample using the path coefficients obtained from the training sample, (7) calculate for each endogenous construct of the holdout sample the proportion of explained variance (R2) as the squared correlation of the prediction scores and the construct scores, and (8) contrast the R2 values of the holdout sample with the R2 values obtained in the training sample. Table 4 (R2 in brackets) confirms the high stability of our model's predictive power, thus giving credence to the estimated path coefficients. Table 7 shows all PLSc estimates evaluated for significance using the aforementioned bootstrapping approach on 5000 bootstrap samples. Most path coefficients prove statistically significant with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. Globally, all hypotheses (H1 to H10) are validated, thus giving full support to the encompassed model. Two hypotheses are partially corroborated: H27 and H6 are supported for second-hand luxury and rejected for first-hand luxury. As we can observe CSNI has a direct positive impact on status seeking (0,424 for SHL; 0,625 for FHL)8 and has a direct negative impact on bandwagon consumption of second-hand luxury products (0,304), supporting H1 and H2b, respectively. Surprisingly, for firsthand luxury, CSNI has no significant impact on bandwagon consumption; therefore, H2a is rejected. One explanation could be that, with the proliferation of luxuries, the number of products available to consumers has increased, resulting in a rise of consideration set sizes. CNFU has a direct positive effect on snob consumption (0,279 for SHL; 0,134 for FHL), validating H3. Status seeking relates positively to snob consumption (0,217 for SHL; 0,169 for FHL), supporting H4a. Status seeking also has a direct positive impact on brand attachment for second-hand luxury (0,670) and for first-hand luxury (0,220), validating H4b. The outcome variable “brand attachment” is positively influenced by bandwagon consumption (0,232 for SHL; 0,131 for FHL). This result supports H5. For second-hand luxury, attachment is also positively influenced by snob consumption (0,214) but the relationship is, surprisingly, not significant in the case of first-hand luxury (0,048). H6 is thus partially supported. One explanation could be that individuals with higher-than-average snob consumption behaviour look for several unknown luxury brands to reveal distinct facets of their

4.3.2. Hypotheses testing Once the model had been validated, we were able evaluate its structural part. Nonetheless, since two specific types of behaviour were being computed, we first had to establish measurement invariance between them, otherwise any differences between the structural paths could be misleading. Relying on the “measurement invariance of composite models” approach recently put forward by Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2016), we were able to prove that measurement invariance was established between the two groups, thus enabling us to focus more precisely on the structural parameter estimates and their differences between the two groups under study. Overall, most of R2s are fairly good, reaching above 40% for some of the dependent latent variables, thus giving additional credence to our approach. Nonetheless, before interpreting the path coefficients, we had to assess the 5 A permutation test formally proved there was no difference between the SRMR values. 6 A permutation test formally proved there was no difference between the GoF values.

7 8

322

H2b is supported; H2a is rejected. SHL = second-hand luxury; FHL = first-hand luxury.

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

Table 7 Structural path coefficients estimates. Second-hand luxury; SRMR = 0,086; GfI = 0,406 Latent predictors

Parameter estimates

Pr > |t|

Low confidence intervals (95%)

High confidence intervals (95%)

Dependent variable: status seeking; R = 0.439; (R = 0.412 ) Normative influence (H1) 0,424 ITS × NI (H8) 0,236

0,009 0,025

0,216 0,080

0,660 0,451

Dependent variable: snob consumption; R2 = 0.148; (R2 = 0.132) Need for uniqueness (H3) 0,279 Status seeking (H4a) 0,217

0,001 0,006

0,165 0,085

0,421 0,372

Dependent variable: bandwagon consumption; R2 = 0.108; (R2 = 0.102) Normative influence (H2b) −0,304 BF × NI (H9) 0,546

0,050 0,001

−0,452 0,394

−0,263 0,749

Dependent variable: attachment; R2 = 0.521; (R2 = 0.436) Status seeking (H4b) 0,670 Snob consumption (H6) 0,214 Bandwagon consumption (H5) 0,232 Nostalgic connections (H7) 0,623 NC × SS (H10) 0,690

0,000 0,001 0,003 0,000 0,000

0,425 0,074 0,118 0,477 0,370

0,739 0,335 0,309 0,747 0,702

Pr > |t|

Low confidence intervals (95%)

High confidence intervals (95%)

Dependent variable: status seeking; R2 = 0.478; (R2 = 0.456a) Normative influence (H1) 0,625 ITS × NI (H8) 0,246

0,009 0,012

0,496 0,119

0,737 0,487

Dependent variable: snob consumption; R2 = 0.056; (R2 = 0.048) Need for uniqueness (H3) 0,134 Status seeking (H4a) 0,169

0,051 0,047

0,066 0,082

0,189 0,244

Dependent variable: bandwagon consumption; R2 = 0.112; (R2 = 0.106) Normative influence (H2a) 0,016 (NS) BF × NI (H9) 0,329

0,926 0,035

−0,390 0,190

0,451 0,433

Dependent variable: attachment; R2 = 0.446; (R2 = 0.402) Status seeking (H4b) 0,220 Snob consumption (H6) 0,048 (NS) Bandwagon consumption (H5) 0,131 Nostalgic connections (H7) 0,448 NC × SS (H10) 0,533

0,023 0,485 0,045 0,000 0,000

0,117 −0,102 0,048 0,306 0,328

0,285 0,185 0,276 0,763 0,692

2

2

a

First-hand luxury; SRMR = 0,089; GfI = 0,365 Latent predictors

a

Parameter estimates

Cross-validated predictive power.

identity. Being used to buying first-hand luxury products, they are probably not attached to a specific brand. Nostalgic connections, for both second-hand and first-hand luxury products, have a direct positive effect on brand attachment (0,623 for SHL; 0,448 for FHL), supporting H7.

Study 1 focuses on the affective and cognitive representations regarding the purchase of second-hand and first-hand luxury products. Concerning the former, five clusters out of 13 are linked to psychological and fulfilment needs such as social climbing and status seeking: superiority, grandeur, success, distinction and victory. Three clusters are associated to eco-friendly consumption behaviour: sustainable development, trust and ethical consumer. Three clusters are related to brand heritage and vintage fashion trend: nostalgia, attachment and piece of collection, and two other clusters evoke windfall: sales and treasure. Regarding the themes “brand heritage” and “windfall”, the results are in line with previous works on the purchasing of second-hand and vintage products (Amatulli et al., 2018; Cervellon et al., 2012; Sihvonen & Turunen, 2016; Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015). However, our results differ for “eco-friendly consumption” from the quantitative work of Cervellon et al. (2012), who conclude that this type of purchase is not driven by ecological consciousness. Two main reasons may explain this difference. The first is that our work is based on a qualitative study and should be confirmed in a quantitative way. The second may be linked to an ex-post rationalisation, as we asked respondents to think about one of their previous purchases. Ultimately, our results are closer to those of Amatulli et al. (2018), who highlight that vintage products serve selffunctions. However, their work mainly points out the role of these products in the satisfaction of individual identity rather than that of social enhancer, whereas we show that second-hand luxury products

4.3.3. Continuous moderator effects First and foremost, the interdependent self positively moderates9 status seeking (0,236 for SHL; 0,246 for FHL), supporting H8. Brand familiarity reinforces the impact of CSNI on bandwagon consumption (0,546 for SHL; 0,329 for FHL), supporting H9. Finally, nostalgic connections have a moderating influence between status seeking and brand attachment (0,690 for SHL; 0,533 for FHL), supporting H10. 5. Discussion Based on a multi-method approach, both qualitative and quantitative, two successive studies have been carried out to determine the relationships that consumers establish with their luxury products, considering two fields of application: second-hand luxury products vs first-hand luxury products. Table 8 below synthesises the main results. 9 Moderating effects have been estimated by the product indicators approach and mean-centered.

323

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

Table 8 The two studies' main results. Study 1. Representations and hidden significations of the luxury products purchase Second-hand luxury products

First-hand luxury products

Psychologic and fulfilment needs (social climbing) Ecofriendly consumption Brand heritage and vintage fashion Windfall

Social status Puissance Know-how Service quality

Study 2. Impact of conspicuous consumption on brand attachment Similarities between second-hand and first-hand luxury products Snob luxury consumption behaviour mediates the relationship between CNFU and brand attachment. Bandwagon luxury consumption behaviour mediates the link between CSNI and brand attachment. Status seeking has a direct positive effect on snob luxury consumption. For both second-hand and first-hand luxury products, status seeking has a direct positive effect on brand attachment. For both second-hand and first-hand luxury products, nostalgic connections have a direct positive effect on brand attachment. CSNI has a direct positive effect on status seeking. Continuous moderator effects Interdependent-self reinforces the relationship between CSNI and status seeking. Brand familiarity reinforces the relationship between CSNI and bandwagon consumption behaviour. Nostalgic connections reinforce the relationship status seeking and brand attachment link. Differences between second-hand and first-hand luxury products CSNI has a direct positive effect on bandwagon luxury consumption of first-hand luxury brand and a negative one for second-hand luxury brand. For second-hand luxury products, snob luxury consumption behaviour has a direct positive effect on brand attachment, whereas for first-hand luxury products it has no significant impact on brand attachment.

are perceived as a way to enable social climbing and to integrate oneself into social classes that were once previously distant. Regarding first-hand luxury products: five clusters out of 13 are associated to the idea of puissance: The Eternal, zenith, supremacy, magnificence and individualism. Four clusters are linked to social rank and class: elitism, status, caste and acknowledgement. Four clusters are related to the notion of know-how and service quality: expertise, love of detail, sophistication and advice. We also see here the importance of social self and status seeking in the consumption of luxury products. Study 2 extends Kastanakis and Balabanis' (2014) model in explaining how the nature of links between concepts changes when one contrasts second-hand and first-hand luxury products. Several differences and new insights are put forward:

explanations may be proposed. Mentioned earlier, the first is that individuals with higher-than-average snob consumption behaviour are more likely to seek out several unknown luxury brands as way to reveal distinct facets of their identity. Being used to buying firsthand luxury products, they are probably not attached to a specific brand. The second is that snob consumers tend to look after scarce brands and, as noted by Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014), scarcity is an assertion of independence. As independence and attachment are not compatible, this may explain the insignificant relationship between snob luxury consumption behaviour and first-hand luxury brand attachment. This is not the case for second-hand luxury products, which are often seen in the same light as pre-loved treasure or a piece of collection, and therefore involve a greater brand attachment.

• Firstly, contrary to the authors who consider CSNI as attributable to status consumption, this study presents CSNI as an antecedent. • Secondly, if Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014) stress a positive link

•

5.1. Theoretical implications

between CSNI and bandwagon luxury consumption, our research highlights a negative relationship when one considers second-hand luxury products. This relationship is not significant for first-hand luxury products. A managerial explanation may be that, as new products are not yet known, normative influence may not have a significant impact on bandwagon luxury consumption. A theoretical explanation may be provided by optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 2003), which posits that individuals want to reach an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups. These two motives are permanently opposed; when one of them is stronger, the other must rise in order to counterbalance it, and vice versa. Therefore, even if normative influence is expected to result in conformist behaviour, it may be not compatible with bandwagon luxury consumption. Thirdly, this research allows for a better empirical determination of how luxury brand attachment is driven. For the second-hand luxury market, brand attachment is led by conspicuous consumption (bandwagon consumption and snob consumption), by status seeking and by nostalgic connections. For the first-hand luxury market, among the previously mentioned antecedents, only snob consumption has no significant impact on brand attachment. Two

This research is theoretically relevant in several ways. Firstly, it explains that affective and cognitive representations of luxury brands change according to their status: second-hand vs first-hand. Consumers tend to buy second-hand luxury products to boost their self-esteem, satisfy their need to belong and to move up the social ladder. Conversely, consumers of first-hand luxury products tend to display their power, look for social recognition and want to be recognised as an expert. Secondly, it shows how motivations to consume, consumption behaviours and consumer–brand relationships change when one contrasts second-hand luxury products with first-hand luxury products. A comparative analysis of the path coefficients (see Table 9) shows that, other than the impact of normative influence on status seeking, the coefficients are systematically higher for second-hand luxury products than for first-hand luxury products. In both cases, normative influence seems to be the most important construct (0,424 for SHL; 0,625 for FHL). Though this might not be surprising for first-hand luxury products, the same cannot be said for second-hand luxury products. Indeed, Turunen and Leipämaa-Leskinen (2015) argue that consumers buying secondhand luxury products do so as a way to distance themselves from the norm. As such, there is a distinction between our findings and that of 324

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

luxury products, are less inclined to develop a stronger attachment to their possessed luxury brands due to the fact they have fewer important differentiation needs.

Table 9 Comparison of the structural path coefficients estimates between the two types of luxury products. Hypotheses

Variables

H1 H2a, H2b

NI ≥ status seeking (SS) NI ≥ bandwagon consumption (BC) NFU ≥ snob consumption (SC) SS ≥ SC SS ≥ attachment (A) BC ≥ A SC ≥ A NC ≥ A

H3 H4a H4b H5 H6 H7

Second-hand luxury products

First-hand luxury products

0,424a −0,304

0,625a 0,016 (NS)

0,279

0,134

0,217 0,670 0,232 0,214 0,623

0,169 0,220 0,131 0,048 (NS) 0,448

5.2. Managerial implications This research has several implications for practitioners in marketing. First, study 1 shows that the purchasing of second-hand luxury products is motivated by both eco-friendly and vintage concerns. Thus, we encourage firms commercialising second-hand luxury products to use the term “vintage” in their advertising campaigns, as opposed to “second-hand”. Indeed, vintage doesn't necessarily refer to used goods but concerns authentic pieces anchored in a historical area, whose value increases over time. Furthermore, companies should use the theme of eco-responsibility as a differentiating communication axis. Study 2 reveals that nostalgic connections have a greater impact on attachment – either directly or through their moderating effect – an on status seeking for second-hand luxury products (respectively, 0.628 and 0.690 vs 0.448 and 0.533 for first-hand luxury products), with the moderation effect being always greater. In both cases, this points out that managers should again emphasise in their communication strategies the term “vintage”, not only for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, but to increase attachment to the possessed luxury brands. Since status seeking influences attachment directly in a notable manner, managers could highlight the individual's prestigious status. For instance, in the luxury watch-making sector, Rolex insists that its advertising campaigns touch on the notion of status by showing celebrities and high-level athletes wearing their watches (for example, Tom Kristensen and Roger Federer) (Kessous et al., 2017). Likewise, managers targeting second-hand luxury product consumers should emphasise through celebrity endorsement the higher status gained through the purchasing of a second-hand luxury product. Study 2 highlights that the three moderating effects involving managerial implications are driven by the three moderating effects observed. For consumers of second-hand luxury products, the interdependent-self reinforces the relationship between CSNI and status seeking. Therefore, following the example of the Videdressing website, managers should reinforce the notion of community as a way of recalling the existence of norms and rules, which allows for the finding of “pre-loved treasures” (Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015). Such an approach could also subtly allude to the existence of distinct differences in community status; for example, the differences between experts and apprentices. Additionally, as brand familiarity reinforces the relationship between CSNI and bandwagon consumption, managers should increase the perception of closeness by providing consumers with intimate information about the brand. As an illustration, the Porsche Club organises an annual rally in the French Riviera, during which they present recent and upcoming innovations of the brand. Finally, as nostalgic connections reinforce the relationship between status seeking and brand attachment, practitioners should elicit nostalgia to create a strong attachment. A good example in terms of the watch industry is Patek Philippe's “Generation” campaign and its father/son black-andwhite portraits.

a

According to a permutation test with 5000 replications, all parameter estimates in different font are statistically different between the two groups.

these authors. Even if our results underline the relevance of “need for uniqueness” and “snob consumption”, the impact of bandwagon consumption on brand attachment is stronger for second-hand luxury products (0,232) than for first-hand luxury products (0,131). Our results are in line with those of Amatulli et al. (2018), who show that vintage luxury products are used to encourage social acceptance. In terms of synthesis, our contribution is not simply a corroborative approach in line with the original and seminal work of Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014), but more an extension of their research for three main theoretical reasons:

• First, from a theoretical point of view, we rely on a broader con-

•

•

ceptual approach rooted in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), social categorisation theory (Turner, 1999) and social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954; Mandel et al., 2006). The first two theories explain how and why individuals view themselves as belonging to certain groups and removed from others. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954; Mandel et al., 2006) adds the point that individuals have aspirational goals in order to enter or reach social groups as a way to increase self-esteem. Second, we extend their research model by incorporating and justifying three additional moderator effects, namely: interdependent self-concept, brand familiarity and nostalgic connections. All three effects are significant and hence prove useful in improving the overall explanatory power of our causal research model. As expected, the interdependent self-concept reinforces the impact of normative influence on status seeking almost equally across purchasing habits of second-hand and first-hand luxury products. However, the moderating effects of both familiarity and nostalgic connections on bandwagon consumption and attachment, respectively, are higher for the purchasing of second-hand luxury products than first-hand luxury ones. In addition to validating the corresponding hypotheses, this result highlights the categorical moderation of the type of bought products, putting the emphasis on the fact that, contrary to the original work of Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014), the very nature of the brands sought by consumers is of prime importance. Third, we indeed prolong their previous research by contrasting the results between second-hand luxury product purchases and firsthand luxury ones. Our results not only corroborate the stability of our research model within these two specific investigation fields, but also show that the encompassed structural relationships are higher for second-hand luxury product consumers. This result, in line with the aforementioned social identity categorisation and social comparison theories, stresses that the aspirational goals pursued by second-hand luxury product buyers lead to a greater attachment to the brands, reinforced by their nostalgic connections. Wealthier individuals, who are more used to being in touch with diverse

5.3. Limitations and further research Four main limitations of this research should be noted. The first limitation concerns the samples used, which were restricted to women in a French context. These results should be tested against other types of respondents and in other cultural settings to enhance generalisability. The second limitation is that the quantitative study adopted here relied on relatively small sample sizes; future studies should look to work with a larger sample. The third limitation is the lack of variety in terms of status-seeking behaviour within our model. Integrating more variety would provide future research with a better understanding of the changing nature of the relationships between status seeking and brand 325

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence

attachment; i.e. when one passes from first-hand luxury products to second-hand luxury products. Finally, further research could identify other psychographic factors to better understand the effects of bandwagon and snob luxury consumption behaviours. Overall, we hope that this research, along with the previous outlined contributions, will act as a catalyst for further investigation and hence contribute to a better understanding of the underlying motivations behind the purchasing of second-hand luxury products and/or first-hand luxury products.

182–209. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116, 2–20. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (2009). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents of the « bandwagon » luxury consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1399–1407. Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2014). Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: An individual differences' perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2147–2154. Kessous, A., Valette-Florence, P., & De Barnier, V. (2017). Luxury watch possession and dispossession from father to son: A poisoned gift? Journal of Business Research, 77, 212–222. Kock, N. (2015). Common method Bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration (IJeC), 11, 1–10. Kock, N., (2017). Common methods bias: a full collinearity assessment method for PLSSEM. In: Latan, H., Noonan, R. (Eds.), Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Basic Concepts, Methodological Issues and Applications. Springer International Publishing. Kock, N., & Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13. Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers' demand. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64, 183–207. Mandel, N., Petrova, P., & Cladini, C. (2006). Images of success and the performance forluxury brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 57–69. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. Mittal, B. (2006). I, me and mine: How products become consumers' extended selves. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5(6), 550–562. Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., & Epstude, K. (2004). The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 832–844. O'Cass, A., & Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non-product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Product and Brand Management. 11(2), 67–88. O'Cass, A., & McEwen, H. (2004). Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Behavior. 4(1), 25–39. Okonkwo, U. (2009). Sustaining the luxury brand on the internet. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5), 302–310. Park, W. C., & Lessig, P. V. (1977). Students and housewifes: Differences in susceptibility to reference group influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 102–110. Park, W. C., MacInnis, D., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17. Pino, G., Amatulli, C., Peluso, A. M., Nataraajan, R., & Guido, G. (2017). Brand prominence and social status in luxury consumption: A comparison of emerging and mature markets. Journal of retailing and consumer services. Quach, S., & Thaichon, P. (2017). From connoisseur luxury to mass luxury: Value cocreation and co-destruction in the online environment. Journal of Business Research, 81, 163–172. Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 504–521. Rossiter, J., & Bellman, S. (2012). Emotional branding pays off. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(3), 291–296. Sarial-Abi, G., Vohs, K. D., Hamilton, R., & Ulqinaku, A. (2017). Stitching time: Vintage consumption connects the past, present. and future. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(2), 182–194. Sihvonen, J., & Turunen, L. L. M. (2016). As good as new – Valuing fashion brands in the online second-hand markets. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 25(3), 285–295. Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 30–42. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring NFU. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518–527. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In J. A. Williams & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33–47. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66. Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Dossje (Eds.). Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Turunen, L. L. M., & Leipämaa-Leskinen, H. (2015). Pre-loved luxury: Identifying the meaning of second-hand luxury possessions. Journal of Product and Brand

Acknowledgments The authors thank the guest editor, associate editor, and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful and insightful comments. References Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2000). Knowledge calibration: What consumers know and what they think they know. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 123–156. Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Conspicuous Consumption and Sophisticated Thinking. Management Science, 51(10), 1449–1466. Almadoss, W., & Jain, S. (2008). Trading up: A strategic analysis of reference group effects. Marketing Science, 22(5), 932–942. Amatulli, C., Pino, G., De Angelis, M., & Cascio, R. (2018). Understanding purchase determinants of luxury vintage products. Psychology & Marketing, 35(8), 1–9. Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183–194. Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481. Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Brewer, M. B. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. In M. Leary, & J. Tangney (Eds.). Handbook of self and identity (pp. 480–491). . Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research. 30, 292–304. Cepeda Carrión, G., Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Roldán, J. L. (2016). PredictionOriented Modeling in Business Research by Means of PLS Path Modeling. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4545–4551. Cervellon, M. C., Carey, L., & Harms, T. (2012). Something old, something used: Determinants of women's purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(12), 956–974. Chin, W. W. (2010). Bootstrap cross-validation indices for PLS path model assessment. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.). Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 171–193). New York: Springer. Christensen, G. L., & Olson, J. C. (2002). Mapping consumers' mental models with ZMET. Psychology. Marketing, 19(6), 477–501. Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015a). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39, 297–316. Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015b). Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 81, 10–23. Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., & Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in consumer behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7, 41–51. Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Ford, J. B., Merchant, A., Bartier, A. L., & Friedman, M. (2018). The cross-cultural scale development process: The case of brand-evoked nostalgia in Belgium and the United States. Journal of Business Research, 83, 19–29. Fournier, S. (1994). A consumer-brand relationship framework for strategic brand management, Doctoral Dissertation, University Of Florida. Gerval, O. (2008). Fashion: Concept to catwalk. London: Bloomsbury. Grace, D., & Griffin, D. (2009). Conspicuous donation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 8(1), 14–25. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: Wen romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85–102. Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100. Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & 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, 40(3), 414–433. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., ... Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares: Comments on Rönkkö & Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17,

326

Journal of Business Research 102 (2019) 313–327

A. Kessous and P. Valette-Florence Management, 24(1), 57–65. Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Macmillan. Vernette, E. (2007). Comprendre et interpréter une expérience de consommation avec « l'Album On-Line» (AOL): une application au surf des mers. 7th international marketing trends conference. Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of Brand Management, 11(6), 484–506. Wang, Y., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous consumption, relationships, and rivals: Women's luxury products as signals to other women. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 834–854.

Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195. White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not to be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404–413. Zaltman, G. (1997). Rethinking market research: Putting people back in. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 424–437. Zhan, L., & He, Y. (2012). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer perceptions of best-known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1452–1460.

327