newarticle19socialaug12.pdf

Conspicuous consumption orientation: Conceptualisation, scaledevelopment and validation

HIMADRI ROY CHAUDHURI1*, S. MAZUMDAR2 and A. GHOSHAL3

1 Institute of RuralManagement, Anand (IRMA), Anand 388001, Gujarat, India2 MBMDepartment, University of Calcutta,1, Reformatory Street, Kolkata 700 027, India3 Department ofAppliedPsychology, University of Calcutta, 92, APCRoad, Kolkata 700 009, India

ABSTRACT

In this paper individual differences in conspicuous tendencies are examined. A new definition of the construct is proposed and, throughcritical evaluation of the extant literature, the need for a proper scale is posited. Then an extensive exercise is taken up to develop andvalidate the scale. The 11-item scale is found to be uni-dimensional, to have a factor structure that is generalisable across student and non-student samples, and has acceptable internal and testretest reliabilities. The scales validity is attested to by its theoretically tenablerelationships with other personality measures.Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

We live in a society and depend on each other for achieving

many of our personal goals. These clearly include all goals

that are directly related to our place in society and are only

meaningful in a social context. We neither can nor want to

live away from society. Our ability to function in a social

setting is in turn affected by what others think about us.

Consequently, efforts to tout ones success and social

position can be thought to be a fundamental human instinct;

though over time, what is consumed has changed, the game

of display through ownership to impress the neighbours has

remained essentially the same, as the winners are awarded

with status and honour.

In early days of the game, only the elite could participate.

With industrialisation, the nouveau rich participated,

followed by those having moderate or negligible success.

Based on observation, more than a hundred years ago,

Thorstein Veblen (1899) proposed that rich American people

were spending a significant portion of their time and money

on unnecessary and unproductive leisure expenditures and

coined the term conspicuous consumption to describe the

behaviour. Conspicuous consumption can be described as

visible consumption of goods as a mechanism to enhance

ones social standing (Grace and Griffin, 2009: p. 15).

However, it is more of a general understanding of the

phenomenon, which evolved out of observation, than an

operational definition (Chaudhuri and Majumdar, 2006).

With the increase of the mass consumption phenomenon

in societies, where not a thin upper class, but the majority of

individuals enjoys the benefits of consumer goods, the

Veblenian form of conspicuous consumption (hereafter

referred to as CC) may no longer fully explain the process of

status attainment, and enhancement. Our everyday experi-

ence suggests that the nature of CC is going through a

change, yet it remains largely unanswered by the extant

literature (for details see, Chaudhuri and Majumdar, 2006).

This calls for a closer investigation of the dynamics of a more

contemporary perspective of CC. Moreover, new marketing

opportunities can be explored based on these assertions.

CC has been long considered as sinful, wasted expense

that delivers no value (see Mason, 1981 for details).

However, the post-War II era was marked by a far more

rapid spread of capital across boundaries, resulting in the

establishment of a clear hegemony of capitalistic ideologies.

In this stage of capitalism, especially from a period starting

from the late 1970s, emphasis was gradually placed on

marketing and consuming commodities, but not on produ-

cing them and this period has often been related with

postmodernism (Baudrillard, 1975, 1981).

THE EVOLVING PARADIGM OF

CONSPICUOUSNESS

A product may carry polysemic meanings as its creation is

not deterministic, and each individual may ascribe different

and idiosyncratic cultural meanings to it (Elliott, 1994). The

consumer uses these symbolic meanings to construct,

maintain and communicate her/his multiple identities. Also

according to Belk (1988) an individual can be known by

observing what he has. Hence, when an object becomes a

possession, having and being are merged together. Posses-

sions assume superlative importance to enable us to know

who we are and we deliberately seek, express, confirm and

ascertain the sense of being through what we have.

Users driven by social values choose products that convey

an image congruent with the social image they wish to

project (Sheth et al., 1991). Again, scarcity helps provide the

individual with a communication route to express his

distinction to others (and hence, conspicuous) via the route of

need for uniqueness (Snyder, 1992). The perception of

scarcity (of an object) and the value implication thereof is a

socially shared understanding (Lynn, 1992). Empirical

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 10: 216224 (2011)

Published online 13 June 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.364

*Correspondence to: Himadri Roy Chaudhuri, Assistant Professor in Mar-keting, Institute of Rural Management, Anand (IRMA), Anand 388001,Gujarat, India.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

studies have shown that individuals often place a higher

economic value on rare or scarce products and perceive

scarce products as having more prestige than products which

are readily available (Verhallen, 1982).

Now what is scarce in a social context? According to

Bourdieu (1984), people draw on three different types of

resources (economic, social and cultural capital) to compete

for status, referred to as symbolic capital (Holt, 1998).

Cultural capital consists of a set of socially rare and

distinctive tastes, skills, knowledge and practices (Holt,

1998). In the field of consumption, cultural capital influences

ones preferences and tastes for particular product categories

and/or brands. By adopting abstract interpretations and

ascribing complex cultural meaning to products, those with

higher taste but less money would aim to compete with

those with money but no matching taste. The cultural elite,

thus, can make even a mundane or an easily affordable

product express and exhibit their exclusive taste, by

sophisticated, in-depth appreciation and appropriate com-

munication of these taste-symbols which, by design,

remain distinct from status-symbols (for a more detailed

theoretical treatment, see Chaudhuri and Majumdar, 2006).

Thus a change in the dynamics of conspicuousness can be

clearly discerned; previous emphasis on acquisition and

exhibition of physical items shifts to experiences and

symbolic image in the postmodern phase (Pine et al., 1999;

Firat and Venkatesh, 1993).

Based on the above discussion, we propose an alternative

definition of the conspicuous consumption construct as

Conspicuous consumption is a deliberate engagement in

symbolic and visible purchase, possession and usage of

products and services imbued with scarce economic and

cultural capital with the motivation to communicate a

distinctive self-image to others.

Thus, CC can be regarded as an innate trait level,

individualistic variable that motivates consumer to engage in

visible forms of consumption in order to exhibit their

uniqueness, as expressed through product selection and

usage. It cannot be classified as a simple attitudinal variable

that only develops or influence certain product preferences in

a given situation. However, any attempt to measure the same

construct would ideally capture and discriminate between

the individuals having differing level of CC. Thus the scale,

as derived primarily from the definition of CC, would

measure Conspicuous Consumption Orientation (henceforth

called CCO).

Need for a new scaleDespite CC being an important consumer behaviour

construct (McCracken, 1987), it is felt that a major problem

lies in the area of measuring the construct as a consumers

behavioural manifestation. A review of the extant literature

does not yield an encouraging result regarding the

measurement of the CCO construct.

It is important in this context to review the scale

developed byMarcoux et al. (1997). This instrument is found

to be designed to measure conspicuousness and also has

been used in the literature (see OCass and McEwen, 2004).

However, it has some weaknesses in the domains of

conceptualisation and development:

(1) The measure was developed as part of explaining a

marketing issue to study the attitude of Polish consumers

towards foreign goods. The objective suggests that the

paper studied a specific attitude, and hence may not be

appropriate for measuring conspicuousness in general.

There is no definition of conspicuousness construct

stated in the paper, although the same is deemed necess-

ary for the development of any scale (see Churchill,

1979). Further, in the absence of a definition it remains

unclear if the construct is either treated as an attitudinal

variable or as a trait component.

(2) Another important issue in this direction is the absence

of the development history of the scale. Though the a

value appears satisfactory (0.87), the validity tests of the

instrument using standard methodologies have not been

reported. Moreover, the rationale for and the definition

of the existence and nature of the five dimensions of the

scale have not also been provided.

Thus, the appeal of the scale for general use does not seem

to be significant. Further, other scales, like the one devised

byMoschis (1981), bring out only social visibility; it can best

be hypothesised as a construct close to but not substantially

similar to conspicuousness especially in the given context.

This can be considered, at best, an indirect measure of the

construct, and can thus limit the interpretability of the results.

On the other hand, Masons (1995) solution of using means-

end chains, as a methodology, to measure conspicuousness

can be considered qualitative in nature and would pose

problems of generalisation over large samples. In short, the

measurement status of the CCO construct and its related

concepts still remains in a fluid and under-researched state.

Moreover, with a measure of conspicuousness, we can

learn more as to how it changes with age and gender, and how

it may differ across cultures. Such studies may allow some

initial insights regarding the effect of marketing practices.

Finally, we may also be interested in discovering how

conspicuousness can be related to attitudes toward non-

material resources such as love, happiness, or other

parameters of subjective well-being, etc.

SCALE DEVELOPMENT

The fact that the aspects of conspicuousness, as they have

evolved in time and space (as explained above), would reside

side-by-side and would express themselves in the consumers

behaviour. Specially, cultural capital is different from other

forms of capital because it can be converted into other forms

of capital (Bourdieu 1984), thus these forms being closely

correlated with one another. In the field of consumption,

cultural capital influences ones preferences and tastes for

particular product categories and/or brands and which also

requires economic resources to create demand. This means

that conspicuousness would be guided by both these factors

simultaneously and this is particularly true for the

burgeoning Indian urban middle class (with whom the

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 216224 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

Conspicuous consumption orientation 217

entire testing was done), combines both purchasing power

and the taste to appreciate cultural products because of their

peculiar social position and developmental backgrounds

(Chaudhuri and Majumdar, 2006). It would be more

justifiable to have a uni-dimensional scale than a multi-

dimensional one. Hence, dimensionality of the scale is

hypothesised to be one.

The goal of this research was to produce a short, easy-to-

administer instrument that reliably and validly measures

individual differences in Conspicuous Consumption Orien-

tation. A uni-dimensional scale provides additional psycho-

metric advantages over multidimensional ones in terms of

reliability, validity and interpretability (Gerbing and

Anderson, 1988; Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994). The scale

will contain items reflecting the various manifestations of the

construct and it can be summed into a single score.

Based on the new operational definition of the construct,

the scale development process was initiated and it has

been divided into multiple stages which are enumerated

below, starting with the description of the samples used for

the scale:

Study description and samples for scale developmentThe empirical data were collected from University students

as well as from a heterogeneous respondent group (hereafter

referred to as General Consumers), who were located at two

major provinces of India. The first sample consisted of

students (n 10) who took part in a qualitative studydesigned for generating preliminary items of the proposed

scale (Study I).

In Study II, students were recruited as respondents for a

Pilot Survey (n 106), which was principally used fortesting the scale reliability at the initial level. The data were

also used for preliminary item refinement procedures.

The next two studies were done involving a student

sample (Study III) (n 240) (79% males and 21% females this discrepancy is expected given the fact of lower

enrolments of females in technical/professional courses in

India) and the General Consumers (n 400) (54.1% male)(Study IV). Data from Study III were used to confirm the

reliability and for determining the other necessary scale

norms. Initial assessment of the latent structure via CFA and

EFA was also done.

The heterogeneous General Consumer Survey was used to

further validate and generalise the factor structure via CFA.

In total 400 respondents were interviewed of which 50 had to

be rejected because they provided incomplete and/or

unusable questionnaires. The final usable sample size was

350. The selection of this section of the respondents can be

justified, apart from its heterogeneity, by their relative social

positions; the students do not earn and culturally may have

a somewhat limited say on and capability of purchasing

different products. Moreover, the literature also recommends

this particular method where two or more sample types are

selected to cross validate the result (see Bearden and

Netemeyer, 1999).

The next sample of students (n 250) (Study V) was usedto test for the validity and antecedents of the construct. An

additional sample of (Study VI) students (n 60) was used to

validate the consequences of the construct. Sample size

determination is guided by guidelines provided by Peter

(1979).

Study I: item generation, selection andcontent validityFollowing standard processes (see Churchill, 1979) three

major techniques were used to generate necessary items:

(1) A literature survey.

(2) Expert opinions.

(3) Photo-elicitations.

The first two methods are a usual step adopted almost in

all scale development processes (Bearden and Netemeyer,

1999). The photo-elicitation step (for more use in consumer

behaviour, seeMcGrath, 1995) makes this a relatively unique

approach, which was suggested by Soley (2006) and is

principally based on the Thematic Apperception Test

(Murray, 1943). Techniques like this, which are modifi-

cations of the classical TAT, are often used in marketing

research to help uncover not only their internal thoughts and

feelings. However, these techniques (the format as used in

the present study), may not squarely uncover aspects of

personality at a greater depth (which is not our objective)

(see Soley for details). Use of qualitative research tools at the

initial stages of item generation for scale construction is

usually a recommended process (Churchill, 1979). His

suggestion of using critical incidents as an exploratory

technique would find a close resemblance to the photo-

elicitation method as has been used here. Still, use of this

particular variety is not common, though a closely

resembling method has been used by Belk (1984) in his

seminal work on the development of the materialism scale.

This projective tool was thought of primarily because it was

expected that the consumers may not be willing to divulge

their spending patterns due to cultural inappropriateness as

commonly seen among Asians (Wong and Ahuvia, 1998).

The visual material, distributed to ten student respon-

dents, consisted of a Bangla language print advertisement

which highlighted the conspicuous use of leather goods.

Rhetorically, the advertisement highlights the showoff

quality of the brand. However, this brand Sreeleathers is

generally perceived to be in the lower end of the local market,

yet extremely popular and seen as a value-for-money brand

rather than only a cheap alternative. This advertisement

was selected particularly because of its assumed closeness to

the hypothesised definition of CC as devised by the author.

The creative focuses on a lady with a handbag with the

headline, Byag to Noye, Najarkarar Chuto, literally

meaning Not merely a bag, but an excuse to attract

attention. Along with the photocopied material a few

questions were posed to the respondents, e.g. If you think

the bag is attractive-give a few words qualifying

attractiveness?, Why the girl could be so much interested

about attracting others? and similar other questions. The

questions were designed to elicit the respondents purchase

motivations in a conspicuous context in order to view to

generate some primary items for the scale, with five

questions were designed for the purpose. The process is


DOI: 10.1002/cb

218 H. Roy Chaudhuri et al.

supposed to reflect the consumers purchase motivations

(Soley, 2006), thereby making vital contributions to the

generation of items for scale development. The respondents

answers can be summarised to have generated reactions such

as desirability of having acquired an English medium school

background,1 awareness of contemporary taste, looking for

ways to be unique, etc. These statements were reframed and

included in the initial sets of items generated (e.g. Item nos.

15, 24, 28, 31, 35 and 36 in the original item-inventory

(Appendix I) are derived from the responses generated by

this method). In the scale design, reverse coding was dropped

in view of increasing evidences against the efficacy of the

method; reverse-worded items exhibit somewhat lower

reliability and weaker item-to-total correlations than their

positively worded counterparts (Cronbach, 1942; Benson

and Hocevar, 1985; Goldsmith and Desborde, 1991; and

William and Gable, 1990).

The new CCO Scale is proposed to follow a six-point

Likert-type summated format. The rationale for a six-point

scale can be found in the literature as well: according to the

extant literature, midpoints create failure through mid-point

piling (Alreck and Settle, 1985), especially when opinions

are not firm, thereby attenuating score reliability (Alwin and

Krosnick, 1991). Nunnally (1978: p. 522) has also favoured a

six-point scale to five or seven-point scales: . . .. (There is)advantage in having an even number of steps rather than an

odd number. Recent studies by Weems and Onwuegbuzie

(2001) also lend support to these facts. Keeping the findings

in mind, we decided upon a response structure without a mid-

point, and thereby the scale was finally designed to be a six-

point Likert-type response format without any reverse coding

items.

Standard psychometric procedures (Nunnally, 1978)

demand generation of a substantial number of items for a

successful scale. This scale had no significant predecessors,

but a few closely related scales were identified. For this

purpose, around 50 other scales were consulted for

generation of new items. The initial instrument for testing

contained 60 items that prima facie appeared to tap a broad

array of behaviours and dispositions hypothesised to be

related to the proposed construct.

At the next stage, content validity was assessed by

consulting with six experts (senior University professors)

drawn from diverse yet related areas (Economics, Statistics,

Marketing, Psychology, Sociology, Psychometrics). They

were consulted for examining the content validity of the

proposed scale. At this stage the judges were also provided

with the definition of the construct. They were asked to

evaluate the items primarily in terms of their relevance but

they also checked them for language, readability and general

presentation. They allocated statements to a non-applicable

category or to the scale itself. Agreement of at least five

judges was required for the item to be retained in the

proposed scale. This process helped to refine on and check

for the quality of the items to be included in the proposed

CCO Scale. The method was adopted while keeping in mind

the depth of general understanding of the experts in the

related areas and is deemed necessary at the initial stages of

scale development (Bearden and Netemeyer, 1999).

Following this, 24 redundant items were dropped, and the

language was reformatted; the pool now contained 36 items

(see Appendix I). The pool of items exceeds Nunnallys

(1978) recommended minimum number of items necessary

for subsequent statistical analyses.

Study II: scale purification and item refinementThe Pilot Survey (n 106) was conducted to assess theinitial estimates of reliability. The next level of scale

refinement was taken up primarily by eliminating the items

which exhibited low and insignificant corrected item-total

correlation (Nunnally, 1978; Tian et al., 2001: p. 54).

Although no standard statistical measures exist for this

purpose, following usual published standards, we decided on

a cut-off of a correlation value of 0.50 (Bearden and

Netemeyer, 1999; Netemeyer et al., 2001). The initial

estimates of Cronbach a and Split-half measures of

reliability of the scales were found to be 0.82 and 0.73,

respectively.

Once satisfactory values of reliability were achieved, an

item-total correlation was run to find out and subsequently

eliminate the items that contribute minimally to the core

scale value. In the process the number of items in the

proposed scale was subsequently reduced to 12 from the

initial 36. This method is also followed from published

and standardised academic works (Netemeyer et al., 2001).

The relevant results indicated that the scale shows decent

psychometric properties. The reliability of this scale was

assessed with the use of internal consistency and testretest

methods. The a value was estimated to be 0.84 while the

Guttmann Split-half was found to be 0.72. The Average

Measure Intraclass Correlation equals 0.80 and the existence

of all positive inter-item covariance indicate a highly reliable

scale (Nunnally, 1978). To estimate testretest reliability, a

new sample of 50 students completed the scale on two

occasions, 8 weeks apart. The correlation between the two

sets of scores was found to be 0.80. Thus, the CCO scale

displays adequate internal and testretest reliability.

Study III: assessment of scale reliabilityand scale normsFollowing inputs from the previous results, this level of the

study proceeded toward validation of the proposed scale. The

scale was further validated through separate studies using

student samples and a General Consumer sample.

Students with a cosmopolitan background from the

western part of the country were selected randomly (n 240)for the purpose of the study. The relevant results indicated

that the scale shows strong psychometric properties. The a

value was estimated to be 0.82. Additionally, the estimate of

the average measure of Intraclass Correlation equals 0.81

and the existence of all positive inter-item covariates

indicates a reliable scale (Nunnally, 1978).

1In India, English is a language of the culturally and economically elite andis considered as an indicator of the desired state of well-being.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


EVALUATION OF THE LATENT STRUCTURE:

RESULTS OF EFA

A principal component and varimax rotation factor analyses

were then conducted on the student data. Authors used a 0.4

cut-off for the factor loading (Costello and Osborne, 2005) to

select items for the scale. Using this criterion, one item was

removed.

The 11-item CCO Scale (Factor Scores)The 11-item Conspicuous Consumption Orientation Scale (figureson the rt. Margin indicate Factor Loading Scores)

1. It says something to people around me when I buy ahigh priced brand

0.73

2. I buy some products because I want to show othersthat I am wealthy

0.56

3. I would be a member in a businessmens posh club 0.634. Given a chance, I would hang a Hussain painting indrawing my room

0.73

5. I would buy an interesting and uncommon version ofa product otherwise available with a plain design, toshow others that I have an original taste

0.81

6. Others wish they could match my eyes for beauty andtaste

0.72

7. By choosing a product having an exotic look anddesign, I show my friends that I am different

0.74

8. I choose products or brands to create my own stylethat everybody admires

0.72

9. I always buy top-of-the-line products 0.5910. I often try to find a more interesting version of therun-of-the-mill products, because I want to show othersthat I enjoy being original

0.59

11. I show to others that I am sophisticated 0.5512a. I feel by having a piece of a rare antique I can getrespect from others

0.32

aFactor Loading

detected (r 0.03, p ns). This is very much expected giventhe nature of the two constructs, VS focuses on an individual

tendency to select a lifestyle intended to minimise his

consumption and dependency on material items, whereas in

CC we can understand materialism is seen as a central value.

For an additional assessment of discriminant validity, the

CCO Scale was tested against the Need for Uniqueness

Unpopular Choice Counter-Conformity Subscale (Tian

et al., 2001). This scale measures differentness of consumers

at the cost being disliked/disapproved by the significant

others, while in our concept of CCO consumers desire to be

different but still admired.A non-significant relationship was

expectedly detected (r 0.22, p ns).

Test of response bias

The potential confounding of responses to the CC scale by

social desirability bias was assessed. Such an assessment

also seemed warranted because making a distinctive choice

in the Indian society, is often difficult, given the chances of

deviating from established group norms. This assessment

was conducted among students in such a way that the new

CCO measure was counterbalanced with a measure of

socially desirable responding. A shortened 10-item form of

the MarlowCrowne Scale (1960) (Strahan and Gerbasi,

1972) was used. The new CCO Scale did not correlate with

the MC Scale (r 0.06, p ns).

Study V: assessing predictive validityThe CC-orientation is a trait whose intensity varies across

individuals. Individual differences in the intensity of this

desire may have many causes. The sample respondents

(n 250) were the same students who took part in thepreceding study. Each of the findings is being discussed

below.

Self-esteem

Following our definition of the construct, it can be argued

that rather than seeing conspicuous consumption as a mode

of compensatory consumption, it should be seen as a more

positive phenomenon, contributing to the well-being of

individuals mental health. Drawing from this, the CCO

scores were correlated with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem

scores. The correlation was found to be significant (r 0.42,p< 0.05). At the next stage, the respondents with higher SEscores were selected the total scores being divided at the

median. The scores were found to yield stronger correlation

results (r 0.57, p< 0.05). This is very much expectedbecause with CC the individual consumer is making himself

visible and distinct from the others. It is only possible when

he is confident about his abilities and the judicious of his

taste, which are reflected in his higher levels of self-esteem

and clear self-concept. SE measures are often argued to be

less stable (Shavelson et al., 1976). To avoid this problem,

the CC measure was further correlated to the self-concept

clarity construct. Both these constructs were found to be

strongly correlated (r 0.53, p< 0.01). Our result suggeststhat, in the case of CC, the phenomenon is not driven by a

lack of unclear self-concept, mental insecurity and incom-

pleteness.

Materialism

When correlated to the CCO-score, materialism exhibits a

strong and significant relationship (r 0.66, p< 0.01).Consumers see the products as a significant source of

satisfaction in life; they form a part of their social identity

and, in turn, contribute to a dominant value system. Thus,

going beyond considering materialism as a simple person-

ality trait, we see it as a part of a global consumer culture, to

which the consumers, especially these consumers would

subscribe to. On the other hand, cultural capital encourages

the individual to value finer things in life, such as beauty and

aesthetics. Their product choice is often unique, reflecting

sophisticated taste and the ability to appreciate innovative-

ness. The CCO Scale, by design, incorporates this character.

To validate the same, the scale was correlated with aesthetic

response (Holbrook and Zirlin, 1985). The correlation

coefficient was high and significant (r 0.62, p< 0.05).

Study VI: testing consequencesIn general, the Conspicuous Consumption Orientation will

be reflected in consumers efforts to acquire and possess

certain unique goods, services and experiences. But the

differences would manifest in terms of exhibiting their

unique tastes, which might not be pricey, and thereby

communicating their differences with the masses.

A study was conducted to test this consequential

behaviour among the consumers using Home furnishings

as the context. This study was designed with 60 management

students. For this purpose 20 pictures of various interior

decoration items were collected.

The items were purposefully selected in such a way that:

(i) Type A items (10), with their surroundings in a typical

contemporary dwelling, should look expensive. These

mostly included furniture items, e.g. sofa sets, beds and

closets.

(ii) Type B items (10), typically of middle class interior

design accessories, reflect taste but not extravagance.

The items included such elements as Dokra Crafts,

Madhubani Paintings, Kantha Stitch wall hangings,

Miniature style paintings and Rajasthani woodcraft.2

These pictures were mixed and arranged in such way that

they do not reflect any pattern and were shown on a computer

screen using PPT slides. The respondents were asked to

indicate their choices and the probable price they are ready to

pay for each item, without any prior information (about the

items) being given to the respondents. They were also asked

to justify their choices.

ResultsRespondents estimated that the prices and the price quoted

for the cultural items (Type B) were lower than the Type A

items prices (Mean Price Type B Indian Rs. 325; MeanPrice Type A Indian Rs. 8758, with the difference beingsignificant t 68.0, p< 0.05. In spite of the Type B itemsbeing less expensive, the respondents wanted them to be used

to exhibit their uniqueness. When asked to comment about

2All are different forms of Indian Folk Art.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


their reason for choosing these items, the analysis of

respondents arguments, coded as support arguments and

capable of reflecting consumer attitude, (for more details

see Wansink et al., 1994) revealed that 68 per cent of the

statements justified the choice for taste, 55 per cent of the

responses reflect the respondents desire of showing

difference from others and 88 per cent were looking for

appreciation and status. This shows that resident meanings

are adequately interpreted and is being reflected in their price

expectations.

DISCUSSION

The primary goal of this research was to develop and validate

a measure of individual differences in conspicuous

consumption orientation. In addition, the research has been

successful in proposing a formal definition of conspicuous

consumption construct, which was absent in the extant

literature. The 11-item scale was found to be uni-

dimensional, to have a factor structure that was generalisable

across student and non-student samples, and showed

acceptable internal and testretest reliabilities. The scales

validity was attested to by its theoretically intelligible

relationships with other personality measures. Thus, the

attempt to develop a reliable and valid measure of the

conspicuous consumption appears to be successful. Further,

on the theoretical side, using this scale, one is able to explore

the nature of this construct to a considerable depth by

manipulating other related psychological variables. The

present effort has been successful in examining and

establishing explanatory relationships of CCO with some

major measurable personality-related characteristics. As a

consequence, it has been made possible to establish the

initial conjecture that conspicuousness is not to be seen as a

compensatory consumption activity. This assertion can be

considered as a major deviation from the established extant

literature, which treats conspicuousness as an antidote for

mental insecurity and helplessness. Current literature on

conspicuous consumption is still relies on the premises of

economics and its signalling properties (Katsunori, 2008;

Arrow and Dasgupta, 2009). However, recent empirical

evidences lend support to the contention forwarded by the

present paper that scarcity does favour conspicuous

consumption (Heriber and Huettl, 2010). Again the interface

between consumption of art objects and conspicuousness, as

projected in the research, has also been examined very

recently (Mandel, 2009). These research findings also

support the robustness of the conceptual underpinning of

the present effort. In recent times, such efforts that have

incorporated antecedents related to marketing and cross

cultural consumer behaviour (Shukla, 2008; Chaudhuri and

Majumdar, 2010; Podoshen and Lu, 2011) psychology

(Linssen et al., 2011) and even biology for explaining this

construct (De Fraja, 2009; Saad and Vongas, 2009). Such

findings indicate that more investigations are necessary to

comprehend the behavioural of conspicuous consumption,

which can yield very interesting insights to this long

neglected aspect of consumer behaviour. Future research

potential lies in adapting this scale across cultures and

assessing its ability to capture the said construct in a more

diverse context.

On the other hand, the scale should prove useful in

psychographic segmentation and other marketing surveys

because it is a short, valid and easy-to-administer instrument.

Through its use, the manager can examine the interaction

between conspicuousness and various marketing activities.

Managers must understand that in order to maintain and

deliver the meanings of conspicuousness, the brand manage-

ment process should incorporate an image of exclusiveness

as well as elements of aesthetics. We encourage marketing and

consumer behaviour researchers to use the scale to explore

consumer orientation for product-development, pricing, etc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The first Author is grateful to Gautam Banerjee and Late

P. K. Roy for their assistance in data analysis. Further he is also

indebted to the comments, suggestions, and the assistance of

the Editor-JCB, the Journal reviewers and Carol Sonenklar

for their help in modifying, refining, expanding and improv-

ing upon the previous version of the article in terms of

conceptaulisation, design, analysis and presentation.

REFERENCES

Alreck PL, Settle RB. 1985. The Survey Research Handbook. Irwin:Homewood, IL.

Alwin D, Krosnick JA. 1991. The reliability of survey attitudemeasurement. Sociology Methods and Research 20: 139181.

Arrow KJ, Dasgupta P. 2009. Conspicuous consumption, incon-spicuous leisure. Economic Journal 119(541): F497F516.

Bagozzi RP, Heatherton TF. 1994. A general approach to represent-ing multifaceted personality constructs: application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling 1: 3567.

Baudrillard J. 1975. The Mirror of Production. Telos: St Louis.Baudrillard J. 1981. For a Critique of the Political Economy of theSign. Telos: St Louis.

Bearden WO, Netemeyer RG. 1999. Handbook of MarketingScales: Multi-Item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Beha-viour Research. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Belk RW. 1984. Three scales to measure constructs related tomaterialism: reliability, validity, and relationships to measuresof happiness. In Advances in Consumer Research (11), KinnearTC (ed.). Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT; 291297.

Belk RW. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal ofConsumer Research 15: 139168.

Benson J, Hocevar D. 1985. The impact of item phrasing on thevalidity of attitude scales on elementary school children. Journalof Educational Measurement 22: 231240.

Bourdieu P. 1984.Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement ofTaste. Routledge: London.

Chaudhuri HR, Majumdar S. 2010. Conspicuous consumption: isthat all bad? Investigating the alternative paradigm. Vikalpa: TheJournal for Decision Makers 35(4): 5359.

Chaudhuri HR, Majumdar S. 2006. Of diamonds and desires:understanding conspicuous consumption from a contemporarymarketing perspective. Academy of Marketing Science Review11: 118.

Churchill G. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures ofmarketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16: 6473.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


Cook TD, Campbell DT. 1979.Quasi-Experimentation: Design andAnalysis Issues For Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.

Costello A, Osborne JW. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factoranalysis: four recommendations for getting the most from youranalysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 10(7): 19.

Cronbach LJ. 1942. Studies of acquiescence as a factor in the true-false test. Journal of Educational Psychology 33(6): 401415.

Crowne DP, Marlowe D. 1960. A new scale for social desirabilityindependent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychol-ogy 24(4): 349354.

De Fraja G. 2009. The origin of utility: sexual selection andconspicuous consumption. Journal of Economic Behavior &Organization 72(1): 5169.

Elliott R. 1994. Exploring the symbolic meaning of brands. BritishJournal of Management 5 (Special Issue): S13S19.

Firat AF, Venkatesh A. 1993. Postmodernity: the age of marketing.International Journal of Research in Marketing 10(3): 227250.

Gerbing DW, Anderson JC. 1988. An updated paradigm for scaledevelopment incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment.Journal of Marketing Research 25: 186192.

Goldsmith RE, Desborde R. 1991. A validity study of a measure ofopinion leadership. Journal of Business Research 22: 1119.

Grace D, Griffin D. 2009. Conspicuous donation behaviour: scaledevelopment and validation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 8:1425.

Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. 2006.Multivariate Data Analyis. Pearson Education: New Delhi.

Heribert G, Huettl V. 2010. Are scarce products always moreattractive? The interaction of different types of scarcity signalswith products suitability for conspicuous consumption. Inter-national Journal of Research in Marketing 27(3): 225235.

Hirsch PM. 1972. Processing fads and fashions: an organization setanalysis of cultural industry systems. American Journal of Soci-ology 77: 639659.

Holbrook MB, Zirlin RB. 1985. Artistic creation artworks andaesthetic appreciation: some philosophical contributions to non-profit marketing. Advances in Nonprofit Marketing 1: 154.

Holt DB. 1998. Does cultural capital structure American consump-tion? Journal of Consumer Research 25: 125.

Judge TA, Bono JE. 2000. Five-factor model of personality andtransformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 85:751765.

Katsunori Y. 2008. Macroeconomic implications of conspicuousconsumption: a sombartian dynamic model. Journal of EconomicBehavior & Organization 67(1): 322337.

Kerlinger FN, Lee HB. 2000. Foundations of Behavioural Research.Harcourt College Publishers: New York.

Linssen R, Kempen L, Kraaykamp G. 2011. Subjective well-beingin rural India: the curse of conspicuous consumption. SocialIndicators Research 101: 5772.

Lynn M, Harris J. 1997. The desire for unique consumer products: anew individual differences scale. Psychology and Marketing14(6): 601616.

Lynn M. 1992. The psychology of unavailability: explaining scar-city and cost effects on value. Basic and Applied Social Psychol-ogy 13(1): 37.

Mandel BR. 2009. Art as an investment and conspicuous consump-tion good. American Economic Review 99(4): 16531663.

Marcoux JS, Filiatrault P, Cheron E. 1997. The attitudes underlyingpreferences of young urban educated polish consumers towardsproducts made in western countries. Journal of InternationalConsumer Marketing. 9(4): 529.

Mason R. 1981. Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of ExceptionalConsumer Behaviour. Gower: Farnborough Hants.

Mason R. 1995. Measuring the demand for status goods: anevaluation of means-end chains and laddering. In EuropeanAdvances in Consumer Research (2), Hansen F (ed.). Associ-ation for Consumer Research: Provo, UT; 7881.

McCracken G. 1987. The history of consumption: a literaturereview and consumer guide. Journal of Consumer Policy 10:139166.

McGrath MA. 1995. Gender differences in gift exchanges: newdirections from projections. Psychology and Marketing 12(7):371393.

Moschis GP. 1981. Socialisation perspectives and consumer beha-viour. InMarketing Review, Ennis B, Roering K (eds). AmericanMarketing Association: Chicago; 4356.

Murray HA. 1943. The Thematic Apperception Test: Plates andManual. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Nunnally JC. 1978. Psychometric Theory, (2nd edn). McGraw-Hill:New York.

OCass A, McEwen H, 2004. Exploring consumer status andconspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour4(1): 2539.

Peter PJ. 1979. Reliability: a review of psychometric basics andrecent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research XVI:617.

Pine B, Gilmore J, Pine B. 1999. The Experience Economy. HarvardBusiness School Press: Cambridge, MA.

Podoshen JS, Lu L. 2011. Materialism and conspicuous consump-tion in China: a cross-cultural examination. International Journalof Consumer Studies 35(1): 1725.

Saad G, Vongas JG. 2009. The effect of conspicuous consumptionon mens testosterone levels. Organizational Behavior & HumanDecision Processes 110(2): 8092.

Shama A. 1981. Coping with stagflation: voluntary simplicity.Journal of Marketing 45: 120134.

Shavelson RJ, Hubner JJ, Stanton GC. 1976. Validation of constructinterpretations.

Sheth JK, Newman BI, Gross BL. 1991. Consumption Values andMarket Choices. South-western Publishing Company: Cincin-nati, Ohio.

Shukla P. 2008. Conspicuous consumption among middle ageconsumers: psychological and brand antecedents. Journal ofProduct & Brand Management 17(1): 2536.

Snyder CR. 1992. Product scarcity by need for uniqueness inter-action: a consumer catch 22 carousal? Basic and Applied SocialPsychology 13(1): 924.

Soley L. 2006. Measuring responses to commercials: a projective-elicitation approach. Journal of Current Issues and Research inAdvertising 28(2): 5567.

Strahan RK, Gerbasi C. 1972. Short homogenous versions ofMarlow-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of ClinicalPsychology (28)(2): 191193.

Tian TK, Bearden W, Hunter GL. 2001. Consumers need foruniqueness: scale development and validation. Journal of Con-sumer Research 28: 5067.

Veblen TB. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class. HoughtonMifflin: Boston; (Original work published 1912).

Verhallen TheoM. 1982. Scarcity and consumer choice behaviour.Journal of Economic Psychology 2(2): 299321.

Wang CL, Mowen J. 1997. The separateness-connectedness self-schema: scale development and application to message construc-tion. Psychology and Marketing 14: 185207.

Wansink B, Ray ML, Batra R. 1994. Increasing cognitive responsesensitivity. Journal of Advertising 23(2): 6575.

Weems N, Onwuegbuzie A. 2001. The impact of mid-pointresponses and reverse coding on survey data. Managementand Evaluation in Counseling and Development 34: 166176.

William PJ, Gable RK. 1990. The impact of positive and negativeitem stems on the validity of a computer anxiety scale. Edu-cational and Psychological Measurement 50: 603610.

Wong NY, Ahuvia AC. 1998. Personal taste and family face: luxuryconsumption in confucian and western societies. Psychology andMarketing 15(5): 423441.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


APPENDIX I: THE INITIAL 36-ITEM SCALE

1. I consider products can be symbols of success.

2. For me buying means showing my prosperity.

3. It says something to people around mewhen I buy a high

priced brand.

4. I would buy certain brands only because they are more

expensive.

5. I would always prefer to buy imported items because

they are not widely available and are expensive.

6. I buy some products because I want to show others that I

am wealthy.

7. I would enjoy buying a designer label because not many

can afford it.

8. I feel by using up-market brands I can be more popular

with other like-minded successful people.

9. I would be a member in a businessmens posh club.

10. I always buy top-of-the-line products.

11. I often buy the most expensive dress items available.

12. I feel it is easier to get noticed by others when you use a

premium product.

13. Given a chance, I would hang a Hussain painting in my

drawing room.

14. When I take my guests to a restaurant I generally order

the expensive dishes.

15. I think friends would think that I am cheap, when I

consistently buy low priced products or brands.

16. If my friends can see me using a brand or a product, I

will purchase an expensive version that can make me the

centre of attraction.

17. I feel that by buying premium products I can describe to

others who I am and what I am.

18. I always look for products of uncommon designs which

are hard to find.

19. I buy products that make me appear fashionable to

others.

20. I often try to find a more interesting version of the run-

of-the-mill products because want to show others that I

enjoy being original.

21. I am ashamed to buy a dress that has a very shoddy

look.

22. I wont stop at arguing with my architect because I feel a

house can express my refined taste.

23. Wherever possible, I try to find new designs in the

products I buy.

24. I feel proud when others say that I have a fine taste.

25. I feel it is necessary to convey my good taste through the

products I buy.

26. I show to others that I am sophisticated.

27. I would hang a piece of abstract painting in my drawing

room.

28. Even when buying day-to-day items, I see to it that they

have a fine and appealing design.

29. I would prefer to take my guests to see an art film,

rather than a Bollywood masala film.

30. I know how to select items from a store which are not

expensive, yet attract others compliments for their fine

design.

31. Others wish they could match my eye for beauty and

taste.

32. By choosing a product having an exotic look and design,

I show my friends that I am different.

33. I feel by having a rare antique piece I can get respect

from others.

34. I choose products or brands to create my own style that

everybody admires.

35. I feel that by sending ones children to an English

medium school, they can say to others that they are

successful.

36. I closely follow the fashion trends and among my

friends, I am one of the first to try them.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


newarticle19socialaug12.pdf

Documents

Transcript of newarticle19socialaug12.pdf