Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
Gender, Luxury Affection and Status Consumption in an Emerging
Market: The Case of Turkey
Misra C. Gul*
This paper aims to shed light onto the relationship between luxury
affection and status consumption taking into account the gender
differences regarding these constructs. Data are collected using a
purposive sample through an online questionnaire in Turkey, an emerging
market with unique cultural traits. 76 responses are collected and
analyzed through common statistical methods. Well-established scales
from the literature are used in the study. Results indicate a positive
relationship between luxury affection and status consumption. In addition,
no gender differences are found in terms of luxury affection and status
consumption. Marketing and managerial implications as well as future
research directions are presented.
Field of Research: Marketing
Key words: luxury affection, status consumption, conspicuous consumption, luxury, gender
1. Introduction
Even though luxury consumption has become a popular area for research among marketing
academia due to globalization and other driving factors, limited amount of attention has been
given to status consumption (Wong and Ahuvia, 1998) and its relationship with luxury affection
and gender. This study aims to accomplish just that in the emerging and culturally unique
Turkish market. Turkey acts as a bridge between the eastern and western worlds exhibiting
features of both cultural ends. Nevertheless, Turkey is more a collectivist, high-context culture
which makes it a suitable market to study status consumption. Economically, it is one of the
fastest growing emerging markets that was able to display resilient economic stability through
the economic downturn and various global crises over the years.
2. Literature Review
There are many different definitions of luxury and status goods in the literature. Many of the
studies use luxury and status consumption or brands interchangeably although status
consumption relates mostly to the social motivation behind consuming luxury products whereas
luxury consumption includes consuming luxury goods for any reason including intrinsic
motivations, self-satisfaction and prestige. In that sense, status consumption is synonymous
with prestige consumption and luxury consumption is a broader construct.
Nueno and Quelch (1998, p.62) define luxury brands as “those whose ratio of functional utility to
price is low while the ratio of intangible and situational utility to price is high”. According to Heine
(2010), luxury brands are images in the minds of consumers that comprise associations about a
high level of price, quality, aesthetics, rarity, extraordinarity, and a high degree of further nonfunctional associations. Herman (2006) defines luxury brands as outstanding brands, justifiably
priced highly and destined, at least primarily, to a select group of the social-economic elite.
*
Dr. Misra C. Gul, Management Department, Isik University, Istanbul, Turkey. Email : misragul@isikun.edu.tr
1
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
Status goods are defined as goods for which the mere use or display of a particular branded
product brings prestige to the owner, apart from any functional utility (Grossman and Sharpiro,
1988).
Vigneron and Johnson (1999) group luxury consumers into five different categories. According
to Vigneron and Johnson’s (1999) categorization of luxury products, hedonists and
perfectionists are more interested in their own emotions and quality judgments rather than what
others think. The Veblen, snob, and bandwagon categories include consumers who buy luxury
products for social status and prestige. Below is their proposition for each of the categories
(Vigneron and Johnson, 1999):





The Veblen effect – perceived conspicuous value. Veblenian consumers attach greater
importance to price as an indicator of prestige, because their primary objective is to
impress others.
The snob effect – perceived unique value. Snob consumers perceive price as an
indicator of exclusivity, and avoid using popular brands to experiment with inner-directed
consumption
The bandwagon effect – perceived social value. Relative to snob consumers, bandwagon
consumers attach less importance to price as an indicator of prestige, but will place
greater emphasis on the effect they make on others while consuming prestige brands.
The hedonic effect – perceived emotional value. Hedonist consumers are more
interested in their own thoughts and feelings, and thus will place less emphasis on price
as an indicator of prestige.
The perfectionism effect – perceived quality value. Perfectionist consumers rely on their
own perception of the product’s quality, and may use price as further evidence of quality.
Heine (2010) defines a luxury consumer as any person who has acquired several luxury
products within the last few years, which according to Heine, implies that this person also has
some knowledge of the luxury segment or about specific luxury brands or products. Nueno and
Quelch (1998) suggest that the ownership of luxury brands offers some information related to
the owner’s social status, communicating to others the image of success and prestige.
According to Heine and Trommsdorff (2010a), luxury consumers can be differentiated by their
attitudes towards luxury into genuine and skeptical segments. Genuine luxury consumers are
people who have some knowledge about the luxury segment, positive attitudes towards luxury
brands and products, and likes consuming them at present and in the future
(Heine and Trommsdorff, 2010a). On the other hand, skeptical consumers have rather
negative attitudes towards luxury brands and products and most likely receive luxury products
as gifts, buy them out of habit or for reasons other than the common motives of luxury
consumption. Since luxury consumption can be differentiated from luxury affection as actual
consumption behavior versus attitude towards luxury goods, the luxury affection construct
relates to attitude towards luxury and can be used to identify genuine and skeptical segments
(Heine and Trommsdorff, 2010a).
Based on the discussion above we propose the following hypothesis:
H1: Luxury affection is positively related to status consumption.
2
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
Stokburger-Sauer and Teichman (2013) found that, overall, women have a more positive
attitude towards and a higher purchase intention of luxury brands versus non-luxury brands than
men. In addition, female consumers are more likely to have a higher level of brandconsciousness than male consumers (Warrington and Shim, 2000; Lee and Workman, 2009).
Women also have a higher luxury consumption level than men (Gul, 2010). Consequently, we
propose the following:
H2: Luxury affection is higher in women than it is in men.
H3: Status consumption is greater in women than it is in men.
3. Methodology
Data for this study are collected through a self-administered online survey purposively sent to
participants in Istanbul. Building upon the adaptation and extension of past research in the area,
data are collected from 76 respondents, 54 per cent of whom have undergraduate degrees
whereas 46 % have graduate degrees. The measures used are similar to those used in
previous studies. Luxury affection measure is adapted from Heine and Trommsdorff (2010b),
and the status consumption scale is adapted from Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn (1999). The
survey is conducted in English to avoid any loss in translation since all of the respondents are
fluent English speakers. The survey consists of 13 items rated on a seven point Likert-type
scale. In addition, some demographic information on respondents is collected. Table 1
summarizes the sample characteristics and the measures can be found in the Appendix.
Table 1: Sample Characteristics
Gender
Age
Education
Female: 51%
Male: 49%
18-25: 43 %
26-40: 25 %
40+: 32 %
54 % College Degree
46 % Graduate Degree
4. The Findings
Data are analyzed through descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlations, and independent t-tests
for mean comparisons. Scale reliability was assessed for all measures used in the study before
the analysis. SC (status consumption) and LA (luxury affection) variables are constructed by
taking the average of scale items per respondent for each scale.
Reliability analysis was carried out for the measures used in the study. The SC and LA
measures have Cronbach’s alpha values of .884 and .7865, respectively, well above the
acceptable threshold level of .60 (Nunnally, 1970).
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson’s Correlations
SC = Status Consumption, LA = Luxury Affection
Mean
Std. Deviation
SC
SC
LA
3.34
4.79
1.363
.984
1
.760**
LA
1
** p<.01 level (2 tailed)
3
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlations for the constructs can be found in Table 2. In
terms of SC, a mean of 3.34 with a standard deviation of 1.363 shows that status consumption
is not a priority for the participants. If anything, they are close to being indifferent. This result
contradicts both with our assumptions based on theory and what is expected of similar markets.
The LA construct has a mean of 4.79, which suggests that participants have some level of
luxury affection even though it is not at very high levels. This finding is in line with our
expectations.
When correlation findings are reviewed, it can be seen that a significant positive correlation
exists between SC and LA. The status consumption-luxury affection correlation is not surprising
since a significant correlation would have been theoretically expected between these constructs.
Table 3: Findings from Independent t-tests for Gender Comparisons
Variable
N
Std. Deviation
Significance (two
Mean
tailed)
Status
male=39,
m=1.427, f=1.307
m=3.41,
Consumptio female=37
.657
f=3.27
n
Luxury
male=39,
m=4.80,
m=1.039, f=.936
.997
Affection
female=37
f=4.79
When independent t-tests are run (see Table 3), it can be seen that there is no significant
difference between females and males for either construct. Also, the means and standard
deviations are pretty similar for male and female participants both for status consumption and
luxury affection.
5. Implications and Conclusions
This research started out to extend and expand previous studies in order to better explore and
understand the status consumption phenomenon focusing on Turkey, an emerging market with
a collectivist culture between the East and the West. The study has brought about some
interesting findings that managers should take into account.
According to the findings, luxury affection has a positive significant impact on status
consumption. This is not only inline with our proposition based on theory, but also makes sense
since affection for luxury is expected to result in more luxurious or status shopping. Managers
who are trying to increase status consumption levels should first aim at increasing consumers’
like and affection for luxury items.
When findings from descriptive statistics are reviewed, it can be seen that even though affection
for luxury has a relatively high mean, status consumption mean is on the lower side. This
suggests that consumers may be buying luxury goods for more intrinsic or other reasons such
as quality and trust in the product than for showing off or achieving status. Managers of luxury
brands should highlight internal and intrinsic factors in their communications rather than
stressing social and status related drivers of luxury consumption.
Gender comparisons have not shown any significant differences between men and women with
respect to luxury affection. The same result holds true also for status consumption. In light of
these results, marketers should not bother to direct their efforts to one particular gender group in
4
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
hopes that they are more inclined to status consumption or that they have more affection for
luxury items.
There are a few limitations to this study besides its contributions. Even though the sample is a
purposive sample meeting the minimum sample size requirements for the analysis methods
used, sample characteristics are somewhat uniform. A more heterogeneous sample would allow
for a better comparison among different categorical groups.
Further research can be directed towards conducting the same study with a different sample. In
addition, influence of other factors such as cultural dimensions and individual differences on
status consumption can be investigated. This paper focuses on the Turkish market. Other
markets similar to or different from Turkey may be studied.
References
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E. and Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in consumer
behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice,
7(3): 41–52.
Grossman, G.M. and Sharpiro, C. (1988). Counterfeit-product trade. The American Economic
Review, Vol. 78, March, pp. 59-75.
Gul, Misra (2010). Gender differences in purchase of luxury brands, materialism, and social
consumption: An exploratory study in Turkey. Gender and Consumer Behavior vol.10 pp.
224-229. Ambleside UK: Association for Consumer Research.
Heine, K. (2010). Identification and motivation of participants for luxury consumer surveys
through viral participant acquisition. The Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 132-45.
Heine, K. and Trommsdorff, V. (2010a). Practicable Value-Cascade Positioning of Luxury
Fashion Brands. Proceedings of the 9th International Marketing Trends Conference,
Venice.
Heine, K. and Trommsdorff, V.(2010b). Dimensions of luxury brand personality. Proceedings of
the Global Marketing Conference, Tokyo, 9-12 September, pp. 453-465.
Herman, D. (2006). The Eternal Principles For Creating Luxury Brands. Manager Today, August
(21), 2006
Lee, S. and Workman, J. E. (2009). Determinants of Korean Consumers’ Brand Consciousness
to Global Luxury Brands. International Textile and Apparel Association, Proceedings.
Bellevue, Washington USA.
Nueno, J.L. and Quelch, J.A. (1998). The mass marketing of luxury. Business Horizons, Vol. 41
No. 6, pp. 61-8.
Nunnally, J. C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
5
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. and Teichmann, K. (2013). Is luxury just a female thing? The role of
gender in luxury brand consumption. Journal of Business Research, Volume 66, Issue 7,
Pages 889-896, ISSN 0148-2963.
Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (1999). Review and a conceptual framework of prestigeseeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science, 3 (1).
Warrington, P. and Shim, S. (2000). An empirical investigation of the relationship between
product involvement and brand commitment. Psychology & Marketing, 17(9), 61-782.
Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A.C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: luxury consumption in
Confucian and Western societies. Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 423-41.
Appendix
6
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
Status Consumption Scale
Below are five statements that you may agree or disagree with. Using the 1 - 7 scale below,
indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding
that item. Please be open and honest in your responding.







7 - Strongly agree
6 - Agree
5 - Slightly agree
4 - Neither agree nor disagree
3 - Slightly disagree
2 - Disagree
1 - Strongly disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I would buy a product just because it has status.
I am interested in new products with status.
I would pay more for a product if it had status.
The status of a product is irrelevant to me (negatively worded).
A product is more valuable to me if it has some snob appeal.
Luxury Affection Scale
Below are five statements that you may agree or disagree with. Using the 1 - 7 scale below,
indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding
that item. Please be open and honest in your responding.







7 - Strongly agree
6 - Agree
5 - Slightly agree
4 - Neither agree nor disagree
3 - Slightly disagree
2 - Disagree
1 - Strongly disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
I know many luxury brands.
I DON’T know much about luxury brands and their products.
I am interested in products from luxury brands.
I feel attracted by luxury brands and products.
I DON’T like luxury brands and products.
It is important to me to consume products from luxury brands (in the future).
I regularly consume luxury brands.
I want to consume products from luxury brands (also) in the future.
7