Consumer Behavior Towards Pers

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/337888096
Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods: The Mediating Role of

Brand Attachment
Article · December 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 4,230
2 authors, including:
Rahela Farooqi
Jamia Millia Islamia
30 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Service automation versus Customer experience View project
Airlines Service Quality View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rahela Farooqi on 11 December 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Consumer Behavior Towards Personal
Luxury Goods: The Mediating Role
of Brand Attachment
Shadma Shahid* and Rahela Farooqi**
The Indian luxury market is seen as ‘Next China’, but little has been studied about
this upcoming luxury market. With the growing number of luxury products for consumers
in India, there is a need to understand the factors driving these consumers’ luxury
purchase behavior. The aim of this paper is to develop and understand the Indian
luxury products consumers’ buying behavior and test the mediating role of brand
attachment between behavioral intention and luxury products actual purchase
relationship. The study is based on a survey of real-time luxury consumers who have
bought international luxury brands in three categories (Apparels, Footwear and
Handbags). Structural equation modeling was applied to test the proposed hypotheses.
The results of our study indicate a positive impact of brand attitude on social, functional
and personal values, followed by a positive influence on purchase intention, which in
turn positively influences actual purchase consumption. Brand attachment was found
to partially mediate the relationship between consumer purchase intention towards
luxury goods and their actual purchase.
Introduction
Globalization has brought luxury goods within the grasp of common man (Eng and
Bogaert, 2010; and Brun and Castelli, 2013). The global demand for luxury products
is increasing (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009) with annual luxury sales across the world
estimated at $222 bn (Deloitte, 2016). This luxury market has showcased continuous
growth (Bain & Company, 2014) across the years. The consumption of luxury goods
has always been an attractive topic for academic researchers. Many researchers
(Stokburger-Sauer and Teichmann, 2013; Dall’Olmo et al., 2015; Kapferer and Valette-
Florence, 2016; Vigneron and Johnson, 2017; and Ahn et al., 2018) in the past have
tried to study the consumer behavior for luxury products, but this market still has a
dearth of information about the pattern followed by consumers in the consumption of
luxury goods in different markets (Wiedmann et al., 2009). Studying the factors that
influence consumer purchasing behavior and evaluating the impact of these constructs
on consumer behavioral intentions lead to a true understanding and recognition of
* PhD Scholar, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi; and Assistant Professor, MIET, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh,
India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: shadma137941@st.jmi.ac.in
** Professor, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India. E-mail: rfarooqi@jmi.ac.in.
© 2019 IUP.
Consumer All Rights
Behavior Reserved.
Towards Personal Luxury Goods: 7
The Mediating Role of Brand Attachment
consumer behavior, which can maximize consumers’ intention to buy the luxury goods
(Bian and Forsythe, 2012). The advance in progress and awareness on this subject is
apparent in academic literature as several books, specialized journals and articles are
devoted to this topic. These works include a large number of topics concerning consumer
behavior on luxury products, including the motivation behind luxury consumption,
values associated with luxury consumption, cultural differences and counterfeits of luxury
products among others. However, previous researchers have not been able to ascertain
the luxury consumers’ actual purchase behavior. Therefore, it will be stimulating to
explore consumer behavior towards luxury goods and how consumer intention changes
into actual purchase behavior.
A large part of research work on this topic has been undertaken in the US and
Europe, but there are limited studies in developing countries like India. The luxury
sector in India is playing an important role in the economic growth of the country as
the demand for luxury goods is increasing. This study attempts to fill the gap in the
previous literature by examining the consumer behavior and the role of consumers’
attachment with the luxury brand they buy in the Indian context with specific focus on
personal luxury goods (apparels, handbags, and footwear).
While a few research works account for positive consumer purchase intention towards
purchase of luxury goods, this indecisiveness demands further investigation on consumer
purchase intention changing into consumers’ actual purchase behavior. Most of the
studies dealing with consumer purchase behavior are either experiential in nature or
have studied the student samples. But in reality, the response of consumers may differ
when measuring the real-time luxury consumer behavior. Therefore, it would be interesting
to study the consumer brand attitude, luxury value perception and purchase intention
and its subsequent effect on their actual purchase behavior.
This study aims at: (1) Exploring consumer brand attitude and determining consumers’
perceived values and studying their relationship; (2) Exploring whether consumer
purchase intention changes into actual purchase behavior; and (3) Role of brand
attachment in forming consumers’ actual purchase behavior. The findings of this study
will make it possible for luxury marketers to supply and introduce a product that is
more compatible with the consumers’ needs and demands. In other words, they can
provide a commodity that is the result of the factors affecting consumers’ behavior
increasing the intention to purchase (Ko et al., 2011).
As this study identifies the essential reasons for diverse Indian luxury market and
consumer behavior, three important contributions of the study are: (a) First, the present
study is of importance from the academic perspective, as this study will help in expanding
the theoretical framework related to consumer consumption of luxury goods with respect
to Indian consumers; (b) Secondly, this study identifies and generates measures of luxury
consumer behavior and empirically validates these constructs; and (c) Lastly, the
interrelationship between the generated constructs is examined with respect to personal
luxury goods consumption, and consumer brand attachment is found to be impacting
8 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

the actual consumption of luxury goods. The study findings exhibit implications for the
luxury marketers which can help them in making strategies tailor-made for Indian luxury
consumers.
Literature Review
Luxury is defined as the highest level of prestigious brands (Vigneron and Johnson,
1999) along with the physical and psychological values attached to it. According to
researchers (Kastanakis and Balabanis, 2014), consumers buy luxury goods for social
status or to impress others along with the personal and hedonic characteristics associated
with luxury goods (Wiedmann et al., 2009). These attributes of luxury goods have led
to the expeditious growth in the consumption of luxur y products (Dubois
et al., 2005). Kapferer and Bastien (2009) opined that luxury consumption’s key function
is conspicuousness and its ability to distinguish oneself from others acting as a social
symbol for consumers. Previous research works even put forward other attributes of
luxury goods consumption like status factor (Han et al., 2010), socio-psychological
factor (Wiedmann et al., 2009), price display (Parguel et al., 2016) and emotional
offering (Shukla and Purani, 2012) offered by luxury brands to its consumers.
Luxury Value Perception

As opined by Zeithaml (1988), value is defined as the comprehensive evaluation of
subjective value of a product or services taking into account all applicable assessment
standards. The literature defines consumer value as a “function of the extent to which
the product contributes to the customer’s utility or pleasure” (Afuah, 2002), and
“perceived benefits/perceived price” (Liljander and Strandvik, 1993). In short, consumer
value is situational, personal and comparative as consumers may undergo a distinct
value established on their choice for a certain product over others. Thus, values are also
considered as beliefs that influence the assortment or assessment of alluring conduct or
behavioral accomplishment (Schultz and Zelezny, 1999). This explanation of value is
appropriate with respect to luxury goods as the consumption of these goods centers
around the personal and social concepts (Shukla, 2010).
Scholars like Berthon et al. (2009) and Wiedmann et al. (2007) have given a
theoretical framework to luxury value perception. However, the research works by these
scholars indicate that the discussion on luxury value perception is theoretical and needs
empirical investigation (Tynan et al., 2010). Regarding luxury consumption motives,
previous research works indicate that consumer behavior differs with each individual
on their disposition to interpersonal effect (Mason, 1981; and Pantzalis, 1995).
Considering the consumption behavior that clarifies precisely why customers buy or
refrain from buying certain products (Sheth et al., 1991), various factors impact the
choice of consumers. Consumers’ luxury value perception and their motives to buy
luxury brands are not only linked to the social factors that involve desire to impress
others, display of status, uniqueness, success, accomplishments but also rely on the
functional and personal effectiveness of the brand.
Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods: 9

Functional Value
To please consumers’ requirements, the products are designed to execute certain functions.
Functional value constitutes the perceived value of a substitute developing from its
characteristics inherited or constructs built on the characteristic of a product to
accomplish its utilitarian, functional or physical motives (Sheth et al., 1991; and Smith
and Colgate, 2007). Wiedmann et al. (2007) gave significance to functional value
concept of luxury goods. They proposed that to fulfill the desire and to distinguish
themselves from others, the customers anticipate luxury goods to be unique, usable and
of high quality. Consumers link luxury goods to high quality standards and reassurance
and discern additional value from it. Price and quality of luxury brands go hand in
hand and are intrinsic attributes of premium price and superior quality (Beverland,
2005). Tian et al. (2001) suggested that the need for uniqueness acts as an essential
factor in consumers’ luxury consumption. Still Mason (1981) and Wiedmann et al.
(2007) stated that not much has been studied about the impact of functional perception
on consumption of luxury goods seeking more empirical investigation of these concepts.
Social Value
According to Kapferer (1997), the history of consumption of luxury goods is strongly
established in the concept of societal hierarchy. Belk (1988) explained that the significant
driving power that impacts a customer behavior is the desire to acquire prestige or social
status from the possession and purchase of luxury products. Social value perceptions
are predominantly outer-directed consumption. Individuals usually buy goods in line
with the meaning they associate with themselves and their social reference groups
(Wiedmann et al., 2007). Eastman et al. (1999) stated that buyers’ behavior to seek
status is proportional to their luxury purchase behavior. O’Cass and McEwen (2004)
also suggested that luxury goods are bought either for individuals’ internal factors (self-
reward) or external factors (signal of wealth) which might or might not be exhibited
publicly. As suggested by Tsai (2005), consumers showcase two reasons for their luxury
purchase: social identification and social salience. This suggests that if the consumption
of luxury goods is deemed to be socially acceptable, the consumers will have to accept
such conduct to fit in with the social measures. This will result in gaining social edge
over the reference group members.
Personal Value
Though previous studies show a strong relationship between social value and consumption
of luxury goods, one of the prominent factors identified in the luxury consumption
studies is the role of personal value perception (Tsai, 2005). It is perceived that luxury
consumption is self-directed, and a growing number of individuals are buying luxury
goods for symbolic and hedonic reasons (Ahuvia and Wong, 1998). Consumers looking
for personal desires are more concerned about their identity to relate themselves with
the product, attain a delightful experience from the consumption of goods and
complement their personal taste with the image of the product (Ahuvia and Wong,
1998). Tsai (2005) stated that consumers look for individualistic satisfaction from the

consumption of luxury goods by aiming at the attainment of hedonic pleasure and
personal appreciation, instead of satisfying others’ beliefs. Wiedmann et al. (2009)
posited that consumption concerning the personal self is not studied much and needs
more investigation (Tsai, 2005).
Objective
The aim of this study is to investigate the Indian luxury consumers’ buying attitude
towards international luxury brands. The paper tries to investigate the consumers luxury
value perception and the role of consumer attachment with the brand.
Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development

This study focuses on consumer brand attitude, luxury value perception, consumer
behavior and the role of consumer attachment with the brand. The following section
examines how the theoretical framework is developed and Figure 1 presents the conceptual
model for this study.
Figure 1: Hypothesized Model
Brand
Attachment
Personal Value H8
H4
H1
H2 H5 Purchase H7 Actual Purchase

Brand Attitude Social Value Intention Behavior
H3 H6
Functional
Value
Brand Attitude and Perceived Value

Attitude is a comprehensive subject and many scholars have used it in several contexts.
Solomon (2009) defined it as “a lasting general evaluation of people, objects,
advertisements, or issue”. It is an “intensive and motivated consumers’ intention to
react to a particular object”. Building on this explanation, it can be said that consumer
attitude can be formed in favor of a certain brand and this attitude formation is termed
as ‘brand attitude’. It is also described as the consumers’ constant inclination to exhibit
desirable/undesirable attitude regarding a specific brand (Yim et al., 2014). Additionally,

consumer attitude with regard to a brand is formulated on consumers’ experience with
the brand and so they are resistant to change (Boone and Kurtz, 2007).
Perceived value has been defined as the customer’s belief about the amount that
he/ she will benefit when buying a product (Kim et al., 2008). Studies in the past show
that brand attitude can directly affect the perceived value of brand (Hutchinson and
Bennett, 2012). Considering the importance of perceived value, consumer behavior can
be perceived well when his/her perceived value is examined (Ko et al., 2011). According
to the theory of consumer behavior, one of the benefits of consumer attitude concerning
luxury brand is the opportunity to strengthen the brand and gain a competitive advantage
(Faust, 2013). It is therefore likely that positive brand attitude has a significant effect
on consumers’ value perception (Liu et al., 2012; and Riley et al., 2015).
Examining the above-mentioned proposition and the conviction that the consumers’
value perception is impacted by consumers’ brand attitude, and to evaluate the influence
of brand attitude on consumer perceived value, the authors formulated the following
hypotheses:
H1: Brand attitude positively influences consumers’ perceived personal value.
H2: Brand attitude positively influences consumers’ perceived social value.
H3: Brand attitude positively influences consumers’ perceived functional value.
Perceived Value and Purchase Intention

Values are implicit criteria which customers apply when judging their preferences.
Research shows that perceived value affects customers’ purchase intention (Chang and
Chen, 2012; and Ponte et al., 2015). Perceived value results from customers’ preferences
and evaluation. Customers have expectations when purchasing and consuming products,
and the more their expectations are fulfilled, the more the value for the products (Bao
et al., 2011).
Effective luxury brand marketing necessitates consumers to regard adequate value in

the luxury products to indemnify for the high price of these goods (Tynan et al., 2010).
Luxury brand products are purchased by consumers for many different motives such as
impressing others, interpersonal aspects, and personal and hedonic factors (Shukla
et al., 2016). One of the factors influencing the purchase of luxury products is the
perceived value of luxury brands. Perceived value refers to the different benefits of products
from a consumers’ viewpoint (Yoo and Park, 2016), and the consumption of luxury
products provides additional benefits to consumers (Vigneron and Johnson, 2004),
thus helping in increasing their purchase intention.
On this basis, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H4: Perceived personal value significantly influences consumers’ purchase intention.
H5: Perceived social value significantly influences consumers’ purchase intention.
H6: Perceived functional value significantly influences consumers’ purchase intention.

Purchase Intention and Actual Purchase Behavior
Purchase intentions are individual’s influence and inclination towards a product or
brand (Ostrom, 1969; and Bagozzi et al., 1989). Intentions constitute “the person’s
motivation in the sense of his/her conscious plan to exert effort to carry out a behavior”
(Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).
Actual purchase behavior is the consumers’ action that leads to their actual purchase
of the product. There have been many studies in the past (Wiedmann et al., 2007 and
2009; and Shukla, 2012) that have tried to capture the luxury consumers’ attitude
towards formation of purchase intention of luxury goods, but few studies have tried to
study the consumer intention changing into actual purchase behavior. As Ajzen (1991)
stated, consumers’ actual purchase behavior is an outcome of their intention to purchase,
and hence purchase intention should be followed by the actual purchase behavior of
consumers. It can be said that if a consumer has a favorable perceived value and desirable
purchase intention, it can be concluded that a certain product or brand will be bought
considering the relationship between these two constructs.
Referencing from the existing literature, it is thus hypothesized that:
H7: Purchase intention has a positive impact on consumers’ actual purchase of luxury
goods.
Mediating Role of Brand Attachment

Attachment is considered as a crucial factor for a strong and long-lasting relationship
between a consumer and a brand, and it is more than attitudinal influencer and reports
for high consumer behavior allied to commitment. Park et al. (2006) stated that brand
attachment is the strong influencer of “the cognitive and affective bond connecting the
brand with the self ”. Brand attachment is the emotional attachment between the brand
and the consumer. Therefore, brand attachment is an integral attribute of a connection
linking the consumer and a brand causing an “automatic retrieval of thoughts and
feelings about the brand” (Park et al., 2006). There are two points illustrating brand
attachment: first is the intensity of the link between brand and self; and secondly, the
consistency of beliefs and feelings with regard to a brand. So consumer attachment with
the brands will also lead to actual purchase of the product. Hence, to test the consumers’
brand attachment in the luxury world, we hypothesized:
H8: Consumers’ attachment with the luxury brand mediates the relationship between
purchase intention and the actual purchase of luxury goods.
Data and Methodology

This theoretical model was tested with the young Indian luxury consumers who are
avid users of luxury goods. The profiling was suitable as Indian luxury consumers are
young, educated, working professionals with enough disposable income to shop for luxury
goods; and mature and rational individuals to communicate different experience and
reasons for luxury purchase that may give managerial insights to luxury marketers.

The sample for the survey constitutes luxury product consumers residing in Delhi—
the capital of India and National Capital Region (NCR), that is, its surrounding cities,
besides Bengaluru and Mumbai. Delhi NCR is ranked as number one (KPMG-
ASSOCHAM India Luxury Summit, 2014) amongst India’s leading luxury retail cities
and has the presence of luxury stores/malls, Mumbai, the fashion capital of India and
Bengaluru, among the leading Indian metro cities. The consumers under this study are
individuals in the age group of 25 to 40 years (ruling out limitations as to the frequent
use of student samples; Peterson, 2001) who are working professionals and have purchased
at least two luxury brands in each of the following three product categories (apparel,
handbags and footwear) in the past one year.
Non-probabilistic sampling method has been employed combining convenience and

snowball sampling methods. Only female consumers were contacted for this study as
women account for 85% of global luxury sales in 2015. Given the growing number of
female luxury consumers in India, it is essential for luxury brands to communicate to
women’s hearts, minds and wallets at every level of the business.
To test the several dependent and independent relationships simultaneously under

this study, the authors employed Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to validate the
conceptual model and hypotheses. A SEM approach was conducted using maximum
likelihood estimate, with AMOS 21. Based on the literature work (Hair et al., 2006),
SEM uses two-stage model-building process. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), followed
by evaluating the structural model and testing the path coefficients, was carried out.
A structured questionnaire was designed focusing on consumers’ brand attitude,

perceived value, purchase intention and brand attachment resulting in consumers’
actual purchase of luxury goods. All items were taken from the existing measurement
scales and adjusted according to the requisites of the present study. The survey
instrument comprised four sections. The questionnaire started with an introduction
describing the aim and purpose of the study and the privacy concerns; then the items
relating to consumer brand attitude and their perceived luxury values were asked; the
third section items included brand attachment, purchase intention and actual purchase;
and in the final section, the questions related to the demographic profile of the
respondents were asked.
Brand attitude was measured with four items taken from the study of Sweeney and
Soutar’s (2001). Items for perceived values were measured with six items for social
value taken from the study of Truong et al. (2008); six items for personal value derived
from the study of Babin et al. (1994) and Richins and Dawson (1992); six items for
functional value measured from the study of Ruvio (2008), Tian et al. (2001) and Tsai
(2005). Three purchase intention items were measured using the scale by Summers
et al. (2006). Brand attachment items were reported through Lacoeuilhe (1999) scale.
Finally, actual purchase of goods was taken from Schlegelmilchet et al. (1996) and
Dubois et al. (2005) scales.

To assess the content validity and face validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by
two professionals related with luxury brands. They were requested to improve the present
questionnaire to exhibit the real market conditions. The questionnaire was further
presented to two academicians who evaluated every item in the questionnaire for clarity,
symbolism and certainty. Some of the items were paraphrased and some were deleted
from the questionnaire. Lastly, a pilot test was conducted with 45 experienced female
luxury product consumers. The final questionnaire had 34 items. All items were anchored
from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ on a five-point Likert scale.
Results and Discussion

Sample Characteristics
Data for this study was collected using the survey method. Previous studies have reported
this method of data collection in many empirical studies successfully (Phau and Prendergast,
2000; and Bian and Forsythe, 2012). The survey was administered personally using
Snowball and Convenience Sampling method and Mall intercept method to collect the
data from the real-time luxury consumers between 25 and 40 years of age. More than 850
consumers were contacted in Delhi NCR, Mumbai and Bengaluru resulting in a final
usable sample of 384 fully completed questionnaires of people who were actual users of
personal luxury goods. The respondents were contacted in luxury malls and personally
from the data gathered through references and with the help of luxury store managers.
The data from the real-time luxury consumers gave us realistic insight and evaluation of
their luxury consumption behavior. The data was collected during eight weeks period.
The sample size exceeds the minimum recommended value (Hair et al., 2006).
Details of respondents’ demographic profile are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents

Variable Characteristics Frequency %
Location Delhi NCR 139 36.20
Mumbai 120 31.25
Bengaluru 125 32.55
Age (in years) 25-30 167 43.48
31-35 133 34.63
36-40 84 21.87
Family Income (pm) in 300,001-500,000 109 28.38
500,001-700,000 165 42.96
700,001-1,000,000 68 17.70
1,000,001 and Above 42 10.93

Table 1 (Cont.)
Variable Characteristics Frequency %
Occupation Government Sector 41 10.67
Private Sector 154 40.10
Self-Employed 189 49.21
Qualification Bachelor’s 122 31.77
Master’s 168 43.75
Doctorate 43 11.19
Diploma/Professional/Others 51 13.28
Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Analysis

Descriptive statistics are detailed in Table 2. Table 2 also presents the details of the
measurement model that includes the measures and their reliability statistics, factor
loading of items and Cronbach’s  value of each construct. The analysis shows that all
items displayed standardized loadings exceeding 0.5. The reliability of the instrument
was measured; Cronbach’s alpha method (Cronbach, 1951) and composite reliability
index (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) were used. All the alpha values were greater than 0.70
(Cronbach, 1951) and all the CR values were above 0.7 (Hair et al., 2006), thus
proving the reliability of the constructs.
Validity of Measure
Hair et al. (2010) stated two popular and most effective ways to validate an instrument:
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for construct validity (Malhotra and Dash, 2011)
and maximum share variance rule for discriminant validity. After running the analysis,
the AVE were greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010), indicating the instrument supports
convergent validity (Gefen et al., 2000). For the purpose of evaluation of discriminant
validity, the AVE values were correlated with the variance shared between the constructs
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) and Average Shared
Variance (AVE) should be less than AVE for each construct. The results of our analysis
met the criterion, indicating the existence of discriminant validity for our questionnaire.
All values are shown in Table 3.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is a measurement modeling technique. CFA explains
the relationship between the constructs and their measures, helping us with construct
validity (Roberts et al., 1999). The measurement model included all the 34 constructs
under our study. After performing CFA on the dataset available, the model fit indices

Table 2: Descriptive and Reliability Statistics
Mean Factor Cronbach’s
Constructs and Measurement Items Source
(SD) Loading 
Social Value Perception
Owning luxury goods indicates a symbol of achievement 3.86(0.968) 0.756
Owning luxury goods indicates a symbol of wealth 3.89(0.935) 0.809
Owning luxury goods indicates a symbol of prestige 3.92(0.940) 0.804 Truong et al.
0.963
Owning luxury goods attracts attention 3.92(1.036) 0.796 (2009)
I buy luxury goods because it has status 3.91(0.996) 0.804

Luxury goods are important to me because they make me feel 3.97(0.961) 0.802
acceptable in my work circle
Personal Value Perception
Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods:

Purchasing luxury goods increases my happiness 3.82(0.975) 0.877
It is important to me to own really nice luxury goods 3.89(0.965) 0.860
It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I can’t afford to buy all 3.89(0.978) 0.873 Babin et al.
the luxury goods I want (1994); and
0.965
Richins and
While shopping for luxury goods, I feel the excitement of the hunt 3.94(1.059) 0.875
Dawson
When shopping for luxury goods, I am able to forget my problems 3.87(1.030) 0.885 (1992)
When in a bad mood, shopping for luxury goods enhances my mood 3.95(0.998) 0.895
Functional Value Perception
I often buy luxury goods in such a way that I create a personal 3.84(0.962) 0.889
image that cannot be duplicated Ruvio (2008);
I like to own luxury goods before others do 3.88(0.936) 0.860 Tian et al.
0.964 (2001); and
When a luxury product becomes popular among others, I avoid buying 3.92(1.008) 0.894
or using it Tsai (2005)
I believe luxury goods are of superior quality 3.87(1.025) 0.882
17
18
Table 2 (Cont.)
Mean Factor Cronbach’s

Constructs and Measurement Items Source
(SD) Loading 
In my mind, the higher price charged by luxury goods indicates 3.89(0.977) 0.884
higher quality
You always have to pay a bit more for the best 4.01(0.956) 0.921
Brand Attachment
I have a lot of affection for my favorite brand 4.01(0.817) 0.872
Buying brand gives me a lot of joy and pleasure 4.06(0.825) 0.841
Lacoeuilhe
I feel a certain comfort when buying products from my favorite brand 4.06(0.759) 0.862 0.916
(1999)
I am very attached to my favorite brand 4.04(0.771) 0.865
I feel attracted to my favorite brand 3.96(0.777) 0.864
Brand Attitude
Luxury brands would give me pleasure 3.96(0.792) 0.856
Luxury brands would make me feel good 3.97(0.877) 0.909
Sweeney and
0.929 Soutar’s
Luxury brands are one that I would enjoy 3.89(0.825) 0.919 (2001)
Luxury products we buy reveal a little bit of who we are 4.00(0.857) 0.899
Purchase Intention
I would like to continue buying luxury goods 3.59(0.868) 0.864
I intend to increase the number of luxury goods I purchase 3.58(0.899) 0.906 Summers et al.
0.885
(2006)
The probability that I would buy luxury brands within next twelve 3.67(0.920) 0.880
months is high
Actual Purchase of Luxury
I only buy luxury products 3.87(0.977) 0.931 Schlegelmilchet
0.922 et al. (1996);
I mostly buy luxury goods for myself 3.69(0.852) 0.914
and Dubois
I would buy luxury brands regardless of their price 3.76(0.866) 0.923 et al. (2005)
The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

were derived, which shows an acceptable
0.826
Brand
Attac
overall model fit: Seven factor model (2
= 885.89, degrees of freedom (df) = 503,
p < 0.001) fits the data well along Hu
and Bentler’s (1999) cut-off criteria: Root
–0.070
0.900
Actua
Purch
Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) = 0.04, Standardized Root
Mean square Residual (SRMR) = 0.033,
–0.137
0.846
Intent
Purch
0.075
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.890,
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.969, and
the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.973
indicating a satisfactory measurement
0.908
Social
0.229
0.189
0.128
Value
Table 3: Discriminant and Convergent Validity Table
model (Hair et al., 2010).
Further, this study used three distinct

estimates to diminish the common
0.904
0.156
0.208
0.128
0.106
value
Perso
method bias. Firstly, respondents’

personal information was kept
anonymous. Secondly, Harman’s single
0.904
0.065
0.070
0.109
0.089
0.033
Funct
Value
factor test was performed explaining

20.58% of variance. Thirdly, common
latent marker analysis was also performed
Attitude
which showed no violations. Thus,

Brand
0.863
0.107
0.124
0.214
0.179
0.048
0.092
common method bias is improbable to be

present in our data.
Structural Analysis
MSV
0.046
0.012
0.043
0.052
0.052
0.036
0.016
After confirming the goodness of measure

and the data, SEM approach was used to
examine the hypotheses. To test the model
0.745
0.817
0.818
0.824
0.716
0.810
0.682
AVE
fit and scrutinize whether the observed

items have an impact on behavioral
intentions, it was necessary to perform the
0.921
0.969
0.964
0.966
0.883
0.927
0.915
structural analysis. The structural model

CR
analysis yielded the following results:

2 = 930.131, degrees of freedom (df) =
517, p < 0.001, RMR = 0.05, TFI =
Purchase Intention
Brand Attachment
Functional Value
0.968, CFI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.044.

Actual Purchase
Brand Attitude
Personal value
All these values were within the acceptable

Social Value
range (Hair et al., 2010), indicating an

overall good fit for the hypothesized
model representing the structures
underlying the observed data.

Path Analysis
The next stage was to investigate the hypothesized path coefficients (Hair et al., 2006).
Table 4 shows the path coefficients for each hypothesis. The results confirm the significant
effect of brand attitude on consumers personal value ( = 0.126;  = 0.016), consumers
social value ( = 0.214;  = 0.000) and consumers functional value (  = 0.107;
 = 0.040), supporting hypothesis H1, H2 and H3. Further, the impact of personal value
( = 0.189;  = 0.000), social value ( = 0.197;  = 0.000) and functional value
( = 0.106;  = 0.039) on consumers purchase intention was studied. The results
supported H4, H5, H6 showing a positive impact of perceived values on consumers purchase
intention. Further, the relationship between consumer purchase intention and their actual
purchase of luxury goods is also found to be significant ( = 0.187;  = 0.000).
Table 4: Path Analysis: Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis Structural Path  Value (p Value) Decision
H1 Brand Attitude  Personal Value 0.126 (0.016) Accepted
H2 Brand Attitude  Social Value 0.214 (0.000) Accepted
H3 Brand Attitude  Functional Value 0.107 (0.040) Accepted
H4 Personal Value  Purchase Intention 0.189 (0.000) Accepted
H5 Social Value  Purchase Intention 0.197 (0.000) Accepted
H6 Functional Value  Purchase Intention 0.106 (0.039) Accepted
H7 Purchase Intention  Actual Purchase 0.187 (0.000) Accepted
Mediation Effect of Brand Attachment

H8 posits the mediating role of brand attachment between purchase intention and actual
purchase behavior. To test the proposed hypothesis first, we evaluated the path coefficient
between the base model and consumer purchase intention and their actual purchase
behavior was studied directly ( = 0.197;  = 0.000). Then we added a new variable
brand attachment and calculated the mediating effect. The results showed partial
mediation ( = 0.30;  = 0.017), supporting our hypothesis.
Theoretical Implications
With the increasing demand coming from the Asia-Pacific region and growing importance
of emerging markets for luxury goods companies, studying the luxury consumption
behavior has become very important. This paper empirically investigated the factors
influencing Indian luxury goods consumers to purchase luxury goods through a conceptual
framework (Figure I) based on previous literature. This study has tried to explore multiple
constructs influencing Indian luxury consumers’ purchase decision leading to a better
understanding of these factors across the Indian luxury market. The findings of the
study show an interesting pattern of luxury consumers in India which adds to the

growing literature on consumption of international luxury brands in India’s emerging
economy. The results attained after conducting the structural analysis showed good-fit
indices.
Firstly, the outcome from our study exhibited a positive and significant impact of
brand attitude on consumers’ three perceived luxury values, namely, social, personal
and functional. These results are consistent with the findings of the previous studies
stating that consumers generally tend to behave according to the perceived luxury values
(Wiedmann et al., 2009) of their reference groups. The findings from our study also
revealed that the influence of consumers’ brand attitude on personal value, and social
value is strong as compared to its influence on functional value, which indicated that
consumers show a desirable brand attitude towards their favorite/preferred brand. The
positive brand attitude also exhibits that though the Indian luxury goods consumers are
young, they have good experience when it comes to purchase of luxury brands. This
positive brand attitude also showcases these consumers’ loyalty towards their favorite
brand. In addition, their brand attitude is an antecedent of the social, personal, and
functional values which bring about positive behavioral intentions toward the company’s
brand (Chattalas and Shukla, 2015).
Secondly, keeping with the previous research work, the social, functional and
personal perceived values are found to have a positive influence on consumers’ purchase
intention. Particularly, the impact of brand attitude on luxury consumers’ behavioral
intention is exhibited through their perceived values. Considering the influence of the
three perceived values on purchase intention, the findings of our study shows that
social value highly influences their purchase intention (Farooqi and Shahid, 2014),
followed by their personal and functional values. This could be due to the fact that
Indian luxury consumers are found to be moving from collectivist to individualistic
culture (Jain et al., 2015). These consumers are hunting for unique and high quality
products along with functional values (Shukla, 2012) associated with luxury brands
that enhance their personal value. These results are found to be in line with the
previous luxury goods research works in India. The results of this study add to the
growing literature on brand attitude theory by taking into consideration the impact of
functional value on consumers’ identity and combining the functional identity aspect
of luxury goods with the brand image theory, giving us a complete sketch of consumer
behavior (Berger and Heath, 2007; and Han et al., 2010). The luxury marketers
should focus on their consumers and design high quality, unique and appealing luxury
products to boost the perceived functional value of consumers which would impact
their purchase decision (Chattalas and Shukla, 2015).
Furthermore, the findings of the study indicate a significant relationship between

consumers’ purchase intention and their actual purchase behavior. Previous studies
showed a positive impact of purchase intention on consumers’ actual purchase behavior
(Gormley, 1974), supporting the same results in the Indian context as well.

Mediating Role of Brand Attachment
In recent marketing research, brand attachment has been gaining merit due to the powerful
emotional relationship between the consumers’ self and a brand (Malär et al., 2011).
Brand attachment also has marketing value since it assists consumers pick a brand from
a set of obtainable brands in a marketplace as it is built on emotional relationship
between the consumers’ self and the consumers’ perceived representations of brand’s
personality. In our study, the relationship between consumer purchase intention and
actual purchase behavior is found to be mediated by brand attachment and brand
attachment playing a positive role between intention and actual purchase behavior
(Thomson et al., 2005). Consumers tend to strike an emotional bond with brands and
in some cases these bonds can be very strong, especially during luxury consumption
when the consumers’ self is reflected in the brand image (Fournier, 1998). Brand
attachment is an emotional bond and thus it is expected to mediate the comprehensive
relationship, sentiments and fondness towards a favorite brand and consumers’ actual
purchase behavior. This could be because consumer relationship between an individual
and a brand is based on the deep feelings of affection, relation and passion they have
with their luxury product purchase. Consumers go with a certain mindset and extensive
research when buying luxury products, so they are attached to the brands they buy
mostly due to their previous experience or reference group recommendations. Shestakov
(2012) in his study found that consumer attachment with the brand influences their
purchase intention. It is found that if consumers are attached to a brand, then it is
highly significant that their purchase intention will change into their actual purchase
behavior supporting our study findings.
Managerial Implications
Besides these theoretical implications, the study also contributes towards the managerial
implications for the already established luxury players in India and 70% international
luxury players trying to crack the luxury code in the Indian luxury market and
approaching luxury consumer base.
The findings of our study recommend that once a consumer is attached to a brand,
then he/she will prefer to purchase that brand, so the luxury marketers should concentrate
on providing luxurious experience to the consumers that would help them in getting
attached to the brand. The luxury products should provide benefits to their consumers,
including functional benefits and enhance their personal and social image. These
consumers are moving to personal self-concept, but still these consumers are found to
display their consumption during the social functions, especially during parties and
wedding seasons, along with their reference groups where the Indians spend maximum
money. So the international luxury consumers should design, develop and deliver the
luxury goods and services according to the needs and seasons of the Indian consumers.
International luxury brands trying to woo the Indian consumers can utilize this
research work in making strategies to create customer value for consumers looking out
for luxurious lifestyle, trying to build their self-image and acceptance in the society

helping the marketers to gain new luxury consumers and retain their already established
consumer base.
Conclusion
This study makes three contributions: First, the results from the study show that the
Indian luxury consumers look for complete value from the product they purchase and
their brand attitude is an antecedent to their perceived value, which in turn acts as an
antecedent to their purchase intention. Second, purchase intention is the predictor of
consumers’ actual purchase of luxury goods, i.e., our findings showcase intent-behavior
relationship. Third, the mediating role of brand attachment in consumers’ actual purchase
of luxury goods is evaluated. The findings revealed that purchase intention positively
impacts consumers’ actual purchase of luxury goods, and more impact is found if these
consumers are attached to the brand.
These findings are empirically tested and verified. They confirm the study results
where the relationship between perceived value (Wiedmann et al., 2009) and consumer
intention has been studied (Shukla, 2012). Consumer purchase intention should lead
to their actual purchase of luxury goods in order for the luxury marketers to gain benefit.
Even though studies in the past have not examined actual purchase behavior as a
significant factor, they have assumed that once consumer intention is created, they will
purchase the luxury good. Many researchers have given a call to examine the actual
consumer behavior with the real-time luxury goods consumers. The present research
acknowledged this call and extended the present literature by examining the consumers’
actual purchase behavior along with the role of brand attachment that plays on their
actual purchase of luxury goods.
Limitations and Future Scope: Apart from the important findings listed above, there
are limitations to this study. The present model is only tested with three categories of
personal luxury goods and has considered only female luxury goods consumers who
have purchased and consumed personal luxury goods in the past 12 months in Delhi
NCR, Mumbai and Bengaluru. Therefore, the findings are not generalized to other
regions. The authors suggest that the present model be tested in other categories of
personal luxury goods and in other states of India, as India is a country with diverse
cultures and consumption patterns. Further, Bain & Company (2012) reports that
the growth of men’s personal consumption of luxury goods outperforms the growth of
women’s consumption, though women are still the leading consumers of luxury goods.
Men’s luxury goods consumption could be studied and a gender comparison could be
done. J
References
1. Afuah A (2002), “Mapping Technological Capabilities into Product Markets and
Competitive Advantage: The Case of Cholesterol Drugs”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 171-179.

2. Ahn J, Park J K and Hyun H (2018), “Luxury Product to Service Brand Extension
and Brand Equity Transfer”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 42,
pp. 22-28.
3. Ahuvia A and Wong N (1998), “The Effect of Cultural Orientation in Luxury
Consumption”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, pp. 29-32.
4. Ajzen I (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 179-211.
5. Babin B J, Darden W R and Griffin M (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring
Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20,
No. 4, pp. 644-656.
6. Bagozzi R, Baumgartner H and Yi Y (1989), “An Investigation into the Role of
Intentions as Mediators of the Attitude-Behavior Relationship”, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 35-62.
7. Bagozzi R P and Yi Y (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 74-94.
8. Bain & Company (2012), “Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study”.
9. Bain & Company (2014), “The Rise of the Borderless Consumer”.
10. Bao Y, Bao Y and Sheng S (2011), “Motivating Purchase of Private Brands: Effects
of Store Image, Product Signatureness, and Quality Variation”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 220-226.
11. Belk R (1988), “Possessions and Self ”, Wiley International Encyclopedia of
Marketing.
12. Berger J and Heath C (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity
Signaling and Product Domains”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34, No. 2,
pp. 121-134.
13. Berthon P, Pitt L, Parent M and Berthon J P (2009), “Aesthetics and Ephemerality:
Observing and Preserving the Luxury Brand”, California Management Review,
Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 45-66.
14. Beverland M (2005), “Brand Management and the Challenge of Authenticity”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 460-461.
15. Bian Q and Forsythe S (2012), “Purchase Intention for Luxury Brands: A Cross
Cultural Comparison”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp. 1443-1451.
16. Boone L E and Kurtz D L (2007), Contemporary Marketing, 13th Edition, Thomson/
South-Western, Mason, OH.
17. Brun A and Castelli C (2013), “The Nature of Luxury: A Consumer Perspective”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 41, Nos. 11-12,
pp. 823-847.

18. Chattalas M and Shukla P (2015), “Impact of Value Perceptions on Luxury Purchase
Intentions: A Developed Market Comparison”, Luxury Research Journal, Vol. 1,
No. 1, pp. 40-57.
19. Chen Y S and Chang C H (2012), “Enhance Green Purchase Intentions: The Roles
of Green Perceived Value, Green Perceived Risk, and Green Trust”, Management
Decision, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 502-520.
20. Cronbach L J (1951), “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests”,
Psychometrika, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 297-334.
21. Dall’Olmo Riley F, Pina J M and Bravo R (2015), “The Role of Perceived Value in
Vertical Brand Extensions of Luxury and Premium Brands”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 31, Nos. 7-8, pp. 881-913.
22. Deloitte (2016), “Global Powers of Luxury Goods”.
23. Dubois B, Czellar S and Laurent G (2005), “Consumer Segments Based on Attitudes
Toward Luxury: Empirical Evidence from Twenty Countries”, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 115-128.
24. Eagly A H and Chaiken S (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers.
25. Eastman J K, Goldsmith R E and Flynn L R (1999), “Status Consumption in

Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and Validation”, Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 41-52.
26. Eng T Y and Bogaert J (2010), “Psychological and Cultural Insights into
Consumption of Luxury Western Brands in India”, Journal of Customer Behaviour,
Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 55-75.
27. Faust M E (2013), “Cashmere: A Lux-Story Supply Chain Told by Retailers to

,
Build a Competitive Sustainable Advantage”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 41, Nos. 11-12, pp. 973-985.
28. Fornell C and Larcker D F (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39-50.
29. Fournier S (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory
in Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-373.
30. Gefen D, Straub D W and Boudreau M C (2000), “Structural Equation Modeling

and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice”, Communications of the Association
for Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 1-70.
31. Gormley R (1974), “A Note on Seven Brand Rating Scales and Subsequent
Purchase”, Journal of the Marketing Research Society, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 242-244.

32. Hair J F, Black W C, Babin B J et al. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th Edition,
Upper Saddle River, Revised 2010.
33. Hair J F, Black W C, Babin B J and Anderson R E (2010), Multivariate Data

Analysis, 7th Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
34. Han Y J, Nunes J C and Drèze X (2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods:
The Role of Brand Prominence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 15-30.
35. Hu L T and Bentler P M (1999), “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance
Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives”, Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-55.
36. Hutchinson M and Bennett G (2012), “Core Values Brand Building in Sport:
Stakeholder Attitudes Towards Intercollegiate Athletics and University Brand
Congruency”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 434-447.
37. Jain V, Roy S and Ranchhod A (2015), “Conceptualizing Luxury Buying Behavior:
The Indian Perspective”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24, No. 3,
pp. 211-228.
38. Kapferer J N (1997), “Managing Luxury Brands”, Journal of Brand Management,

Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 251-259.
39. Kapferer J N and Bastien V (2009), “The Specificity of Luxury Management: Turning
Marketing Upside Down”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16, Nos. 5-6,
pp. 311-322.
40. Kapferer J N and Valette-Florence P (2016), “Beyond Rarity: The Paths of Luxury
Desire. How Luxury Brands Grow Yet Remain Desirable”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 120-133.
41. Kastanakis M N and Balabanis G (2014), “Explaining Variation in Conspicuous

Luxury Consumption: An Individual Differences’ Perspective”, Journal of Business
42. Kim D J, Ferrin D L and Rao H R (2008), “A Trust-Based Consumer Decision-

Making Model in Electronic Commerce: The Role of Trust, Perceived Risk, and
their Antecedents”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 544-564.
43. Ko E, Lee M A, Lee M Y et al. (2011), “Product Attributes’ Effects on Perceived

Values and Repurchase Intention in Korea, USA, and France”, Journal of Global
Scholars of Marketing Science, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 155-166.
44. KPMG-ASSOCHAM (2014), India Luxury Summit-(2014), available at https://

www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/
KPMGASSOCHAM-India-Luxury-Summit-2014.pdf
45. Lacoeuilhe J (1999), Proposition d’une échelle de mesure de l’attachement à la marque.

Actes du Congrès International de l’AFM, Strasbourg, pp. 1-13.

46. Liljander V and Strandvik T (1993), “Estimating Zones of Tolerance in Perceived
Service Quality and Perceived Service Value”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 6-28.
47. Liu F, Li J, Mizerski D and Soh H (2012), “Self-Congruity, Brand Attitude, and
Brand Loyalty: A Study on Luxury Brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46,
Nos. 7-8, pp. 922-937.
48. Malhotra N K and Dash S (2011), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 6th
Edition, Pearson Education, NJ.
49. Malär L, Krohmer H, Hoyer W D and Nyffenegger B (2011), “Emotional Brand
Attachment and Brand Personality: The Relative Importance of the Actual and the
Ideal Self ”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 35-52.
50. Mason R S (1981), Conspicuous Consumption, St. Martin’s, New York.
51. O’cass A and McEwen H (2004), “Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous
Consumption”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 25-39.
52. Ostrom Thomas M (1969), “The Relationship Between the Affective, Behavioral,
and Cognitive Components of Attitude”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 12-30.
53. Pantzalis I (1995), “Exclusivity Strategies in Pricing and Brand Extension”,
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation University of Arizona, Tucson.
54. Parguel B, Delécolle T and Valette-Florence P (2016), “How Price Display Influences
Consumer Luxury Perceptions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 1,
pp. 341-348.
55. Park C W, MacInnis D J and Priester J R (2006), “Beyond Attitudes: Attachment
and Consumer Behavior”, Seoul National Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 3-36.
56. Peterson R A (2001), “On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research:
Insights from a Second-Order Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 450-461.
57. Phau I and Prendergast G (2000), “Consuming Luxury Brands: The Relevance of
the ‘Rarity Principle’”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 122-138.
58. Ponte E B, Carvajal-Trujillo E and Escobar-Rodríguez T (2015), “Influence of Trust
and Perceived Value on the Intention to Purchase Travel Online: Integrating
the Effects of Assurance on Trust Antecedents”, Tourism Management, Vol. 47,
pp. 286-302.
59. Richins M L and Dawson S (1992), “A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism
and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation”, Journal of Consumer
60. Roberts J S, Laughlin J E and Wedell D H (1999), “Validity Issues in the Likert
and Thurstone Approaches to Attitude Measurement”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 211-233.

61. Ruvio A (2008), “Unique Like Everybody Else? The Dual Role of Consumers’ Need
for Uniqueness”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 444-464.
62. Schlegelmilch B B, Bohlen G M and Diamantopoulos A (1996), “The Link Between
Green Purchasing Decisions and Measures of Environmental Consciousness”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 35-55.
63. Schultz P W and Zelezny L (1999), “Values as Predictors of Environmental
Attitudes: Evidence for Consistency Across 14 Countries”, Journal of Environmental
64. Shadma S and Farooqi R (2014), “The Art of Branded Luxury: Indian Consumers
Buying Behaviour”, Journal of IMS Group, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 16-23.
65. Shestakov A A (2012), “Moderating Role of Brand Attachment in Brand Crisis. To
What Extent Does Brand Attachment Affect Purchase Intention in Brand Crisis: A
Study Based on Apple’s Crisis in China”, (Master’s Thesis).
66. Sheth J N, Newman B I and Gross B L (1991), “Why We Buy What We Buy:
A Theory of Consumption Values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, No. 2,
pp. 159-170.
67. Shukla P (2010), “Status Consumption in Cross-National Context: Socio-
Psychological, Brand and Situational Antecedents”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 108-129.
68. Shukla P (2012), “The Influence of Value Perceptions on Luxury Purchase Intentions
in Developed and Emerging Markets”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 29,
No. 6, pp. 574-596.
69. Shukla P and Purani K (2012), “Comparing the Importance of Luxury Value
Perceptions in Cross-National Contexts”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65,
No. 10, pp. 1417-1424.
70. Shukla P, Banerjee M and Singh J (2016), “Customer Commitment to Luxury
Brands: Antecedents and Consequences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69,
No. 1, pp. 323-331.
71. Smith J B and Colgate M (2007), “Customer Value Creation: A Practical
Framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 7-23.
72. Solomon M R (2009), Consumer Behavior Buying, Having and Being, 8th Edition,
Pearson Education, New Jersey.
73. 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,
Vol. 66, No. 7, pp. 889-896.
74. Summers T A, Belleau B D and Xu Y (2006), “Predicting Purchase Intention of a
Controversial Luxury Apparel Product”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 405-419.

75. Sweeney J C and Soutar G N (2001), “Consumer Perceived Value: The Development
of a Multiple Item Scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 203-220.
76. Thomson M, MacInnis D J and Park C W (2005), “The Ties that Blind: Measuring
the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands”, Journal of Consumer
77. Tian K T, Bearden W and Hunter G (2001), “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness:
Scale Development and Validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, No. 1,
pp. 50-66.
78. Truong Y, McColl R and Kitchen P J (2009), “New Luxury Brand Positioning and
the Emergence of Masstige Brands”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16, Nos. 5-6,
pp. 375-382.
79. Tsai S P (2005), “Impact of Personal Orientation on Luxury-Brand Purchase Value”,
International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 429-454.
80. Tynan C, McKechnie S and Chhuon C (2010), “Co-Creating Value for Luxury
Brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, No. 11, pp. 1156-1163.
81. Vigneron F and Johnson L W (1999), “A Review and a Conceptual Framework of
Prestige-Seeking Consumer Behavior”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 1,
No. 1, pp. 1-15.
82. Vigneron F and Johnson L W (2004), “Measuring Perceptions of Brand Luxury”,
The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 484-506.
83. Vigneron F and Johnson L W (2017), “Measuring Perceptions of Brand Luxury”,
in Advances in Luxury Brand Management, pp. 199-234, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
84. Wiedmann K P, Hennigs N and Siebels A (2007), “Measuring Consumers’ Luxury
Value Perception: A Cross-Cultural Framework”, Academy of Marketing Science Review,
Vol. 2007, No. 7, pp. 1-2.
85. Wiedmann K P, Hennigs N and Siebels A (2009), “Value-based Segmentation
of Luxury Consumption Behavior”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 7,
pp. 625-651.
86. Yim Yi-Cheon M, Sauer L P, Williams J et al. (2014), “Drivers of Attitudes Toward
Luxury Brands: A Cross-National Investigation into the Roles of Interpersonal
Influence and Brand Consciousness”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 31,
No. 4, pp. 363-389.
87. Yoo J and Park M (2016), “The Effects of e-Mass Customization on Consumer
Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty Toward Luxury Brands”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 12, pp. 5775-5784.
88. Zeithaml V A (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-
End Model and Synthesis of Evidence”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3,
pp. 2-22.
Reference # 03J-2019-05-01-01

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
View publication stats

Consumer Behavior Towards Pers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Behavior Towards Pers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods: The Mediating Role of

Article · December 2019

Service automation versus Customer experience View project

Airlines Service Quality View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Shadma Shahid* and Rahela Farooqi**

8 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

Luxury Value Perception

Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods: 9

10 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development

Figure 1: Hypothesized Model

H2 H5 Purchase H7 Actual Purchase

Brand Attitude and Perceived Value

Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods: 11

Perceived Value and Purchase Intention

Effective luxury brand marketing necessitates consumers to regard adequate value in

12 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

Mediating Role of Brand Attachment

Data and Methodology

Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods: 13

Non-probabilistic sampling method has been employed combining convenience and

To test the several dependent and independent relationships simultaneously under

A structured questionnaire was designed focusing on consumers’ brand attitude,

14 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

Results and Discussion

Details of respondents’ demographic profile are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents

Location Delhi NCR 139 36.20

Mumbai 120 31.25

Bengaluru 125 32.55

Age (in years) 25-30 167 43.48

31-35 133 34.63

Family Income (pm) in 300,001-500,000 109 28.38

500,001-700,000 165 42.96

1,000,001 and Above 42 10.93

Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods: 15

Occupation Government Sector 41 10.67

Private Sector 154 40.10

Self-Employed 189 49.21

Qualification Bachelor’s 122 31.77

Master’s 168 43.75

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

16 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

The Mediating Role of Brand Attachment

Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods:

I believe luxury goods are of superior quality 3.87(1.025) 0.882

Mean Factor Cronbach’s

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

Mean Square Error of Approximation

model (Hair et al., 2010).

Further, this study used three distinct

method bias. Firstly, respondents’

factor test was performed explaining

which showed no violations. Thus,

common method bias is improbable to be

After confirming the goodness of measure

fit and scrutinize whether the observed

structural analysis. The structural model

analysis yielded the following results:

0.968, CFI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.044.