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

net/publication/334000421

Personal value vs. luxury value: What are Chinese luxury consumers shopping
for when buying luxury fashion goods?

Article  in  Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · May 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.027

CITATIONS READS

13 1,588

2 authors:

Lini Zhang Haidong Zhao

Shanghai Institute of Technology Shanghai Normal University
9 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lini Zhang on 17 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personal value vs. luxury value:

What are Chinese luxury consumers shopping for when buying luxury fashion goods?

Lini Zhang, Haidong Zhao

1
 Personal value vs. luxury value:

What are Chinese luxury consumers shopping for when buying luxury fashion goods?

Abstract

This research studies Chinese luxury consumers based on their personal value and

explores what dimensions of luxury value Chinese luxury consumers are shopping for when

purchasing luxury fashion goods. Three personal value variables (face consciousness,

pragmatism, and materialism) and three dimensions of luxury value (symbolic value, experiential

value, and functional value) were examined through cluster analysis, ANOVA, and regression

analysis based on a random sample of 308 Chinese luxury consumers. The findings suggest that

all three dimensions of luxury value have significant impacts on Chinese luxury consumers’

purchase intentions, but different groups of Chinese luxury consumers shop for different

dimensions of luxury value.

Keywords: personal value, luxury value, Chinese luxury consumers

2
 Introduction

The rapid economic development of China awakened people’s needs for material

possessions, which leads to the flourish of luxury goods consumption (Liao & Wang, 2009).

China became the world’s second-largest luxury goods market in 2016 (Chi, 2017). China came

in top in luxury spending growth globally for many years, with 17% growth from 2014 to 2015,

while contributing to 30% of global luxury goods purchases in 2016 (MartinRoll, 2017). In

addition, China is anticipated to be the world’s biggest luxury goods market by 2020, Chinese

consumers will account for approximately 44 percent of global spending on luxury goods

(Independent, 2011). McKinsey & Company also expects the total market share of the global

luxury goods market to reach US$397 billion in 2025, which will be mainly driven by China

(Pan, 2017).

Although the significant increases in luxury goods consumption are inseparable from

economic development, personal value also plays an important role. Consumers’ personal value

implies the reason and desire an individual seek through luxury consumption (Choo, Moon, Kim,

& Yoon, 2012). Woodruff (1997) defined consumers’ personal value as consumers’ preference

for and evaluation of attributes, attribute performance and consequences that are perceived

through the consumption process. Three types of personal value – face consciousness,

pragmatism, and materialism – are widely accepted to be closely related to Chinese consumers’

luxury goods consumption in previous research (Chen & Kim, 2013; Li, Li, & Kambele, 2012;

Li, Zhang, & Sun, 2015).

Rooted in Chinese culture, consumption is regarded more as a tool to serve higher-order

social needs than as an activity in its own right, which also is known as face-saving consumption

(Li & Su, 2007). Face consciousness, an essential part of consumers’ personal value, describes a

3
desire to have favorable social self-worth and to be respected in relation to others and in social

activities (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Previous studies have shown that Chinese consumers

tend to be more concerned with face than their American counterparts (Bao, Zhou, & Su, 2003).

Moreover, Li and Su (2007) found that Chinese consumers are more likely to relate luxury

brands to face and believe buying luxury goods is an important way to preserve, maintain, or

enhance face. The results of Li et al. (2015) further confirmed that face consciousness has a

significant positive effect on Chinese consumers’ luxury goods consumption.

Pragmatism is a personal value that describes the tendency among consumers to pay

special attention to the usefulness of products (Ghosh & Varshney, 2013). Pragmatic consumers

are not concerned much about the appearance of products, but they do care a lot about whether

products are practical for them (Zhang, 2017). In addition, consumers with a pragmatic mindset

appreciate the high quality of luxury goods (He, Zou, & Jin, 2010). However, research findings

were mixed on the impact of pragmatism on Chinese consumers' purchase intentions for luxury

goods. While the findings of Li et al. (2012) showed that Chinese consumers who assigned a

higher priority to the practical aspects of luxury fashion goods exhibited a greater willingness to

pay for them, Zhang and Cude (2018) concluded that Chinese consumers who valued practicality

had lower purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods than others.

Materialism has been defined as a kind of value in consumers’ life, which represents

consumers’ desire to be able to afford to buy more things to enjoy life as well as the importance

a consumer attaches to worldly possessions (Belk, 1985). Richins (1994) noted that consumers

with high levels of materialism are more likely to value expensive items that can be easily

noticed in public to signal their success, identity, and social status. Wong and Ahuvia (1998)

found that consumers in the collectivist cultures like Chinese consumers are more materialistic

4
than are Western consumers in the individualist culture. In addition, Chen and Kim (2013)

concluded that highly materialistic Chinese consumers have stronger intentions to buy luxury

goods not only for self-use but also for gift giving.

Consumer behaviorists have suggested the application of personal value to the

explanation of both attitudes toward and the purchase of specific classes of products (Lessig,

1975; Pitts & Woodside, 1983). Howard (1977) contended that grouping consumers with similar

value provide groups with similar choice criteria and final behavior. Zhang and Bloemer (2008)

concluded that the congruence between consumers’ personal value and brand value is essential.

Based on the previous research, the objective of the present study is to classify Chinese luxury

consumers according to their personal value and explore what dimensions of luxury value

Chinese luxury consumers are shopping for when buying luxury fashion goods.

This study contributes to the literature in several important ways. First, while the term

personal value was used to refer to the personal dimensions of luxury value in many previous

studies (Ajitha & Sivakumar, 2017; Aliyev & Wagner, 2018), this study clearly states that

personal value and luxury value are two distinct concepts. Second, inspired by the consumer-

brand value congruence research (Zhang & Bloemer, 2008), this study is amongst the first to test

the congruence between personal value and luxury value by examining whether different types

of consumers have different preferences for luxury value. Third, although previous researchers

proposed the luxury value framework (Berthon, Pitt, Parent, & Berthon, 2009; Smith & Colgate,

2007; Tynan, McKechnie, and Chhuon, 2010), no empirical evaluation was provided in their

research. This study contributes to the literature by applying the three dimensions of luxury value

framework presented in the Berthon et al. (2009) and testing the framework with survey data

collected from China. Finally, previous research (Zhang & Cude, 2018) has proved that

5
significant differences exist between luxury and non-luxury consumers with respect to luxury

goods consumption. Thus, a random sample of 308 Chinese luxury consumers was used in this

study to ensure the reliability and validity of the results.

Different from previous research which clustered consumers based on their perceptions

of luxury value (Hennigs et al., 2012; Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2009), this research is the

first study that clearly distinguishing personal value from consumer’ perceptions of luxury value

and grouping consumers according to their personal value. The findings of this study are

beneficial not only to provide researchers with a better understanding of the role of personal

value for Chinese consumers but also to develop effective strategic implications for luxury brand

designers, manufacturers, and retailers to better satisfy consumers’ needs in Chinese luxury

goods market.

Literature Review

Luxury is not a term that can be easily defined because everyone has a different opinion

of what luxury is. In recent studies, more and more researchers have noticed that luxury is made

up of three important components: a series of unique features, such as good quality, high price,

scare materials, and complicated production process; experiential meanings, such as fantasies,

feeling and fun that individuals can experience and enjoy; and symbolic meanings, such as high

recognition and good reputation, as well as the symbol of the wealth, identity and social status of

the owners (Li, Robson, & Coates, 2013; Zhang & Cude, 2018; Zhang & Kim, 2013). The term

“luxury brands” was identified by Tynan et al. (2010) as high quality, expensive and non-

essential products and services that are perceived by consumers as rare, exclusive, prestigious,

and authentic and that offer high levels of symbolic and emotional value. Hudders and

6
Pandelaere (2012) proposed that luxury brands are associated with uniqueness and exclusivity,

premium quality, aesthetically appealing design, and expensiveness and rarity.

Previous researchers agree that the term “luxury” defines not a category of products but

conceptual dimensions (Li et al., 2012). The three conceptual dimensions – functionalism,

experientialism, and symbolic interactionism – comprise values that are strongly related to

cultural elements or socioeconomic context (Vickers & Renand, 2003). The strategic mission of

luxury brands is providing sufficient value to compensate for the high product price (Dubois &

Duquesne, 1993). According to Vigneron and Johnson (1999), luxury brands constitute the

highest level of prestigious brands and encompass several physical and psychological values.

The identification and systematization of dimensions of luxury value have been

developed for decades. In the early conceptualization of luxury value, Babin, Darden, and Griffin

(1994) came up with two distinct dimensions of luxury value: hedonic value and utilitarian

value. Berthon et al. (2009) suggested that it is essential to capture the full dimensionality of

relationships among people, products, and brands to understand luxury value and conceptualized

luxury value with three dimensions: symbolic, experiential, and functional. Based on the three

basic consumer needs – symbolic needs, experiential needs, and functional needs – proposed by

Park, Jawarski, and MacInnis (1986), Smith and Colgate (2007) identified four types of value,

including symbolic/expressive, experiential/hedonic, functional/instrumental, and cost/sacrifice

value. Tynan et al. (2010) further expanded the framework of Smith and Colgate by adding

rational value to the framework and suggested luxury value composed of five dimensions:

symbolic/expressive value, experiential/hedonic value, utilitarian value, cost/sacrifice value, and

rational value. Based on previous literature, Choo et al. (2012) developed a four-dimension

luxury value model including symbolic value, hedonic value, utilitarian value, and economic

7
value and tested the model with a sample of Korean luxury fashion consumers. Their findings

confirmed that luxury value represents a second-order construct that can be measured by first-

order factors such as self-expression, social meaning, excellence, experience, and pleasure.

Although little consensus on the dimensions of the luxury value was achieved in the

literature (Alan et al., 2016), recent researchers (Shukla, Singh, & Banerjee, 2015) agreed that

symbolic value, experiential value, and functional value are the three fundamental dimensions of

luxury value. In line with Choo et al. (2012), this study used seven first-order factors to measure

the three dimensions of luxury value framework (see Figure 1) and investigated whether Chinese

luxury consumers with different types of personal value have different preferences for luxury

value when shopping for luxury fashion goods.

[Insert Figure 1 here]

Symbolic value

Symbolic value (also called expressive value) is concerned with the extent to which

consumers attach or associate psychological meaning to a product (Smith & Colgate, 2007).

Psychological benefits are considered to be the main factors that distinguishing luxury products

from non-luxury products (Hennigs et al., 2012; Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000). Previous research

(Jiang & Shan, 2018; Tynan et al., 2010; Wiedmann et al., 2009) supports the use of conspicuous

value, self-actualization, and social comparison to measure the symbolic dimension of luxury

value.

Conspicuousness

Conspicuousness represents the nature of luxury goods to impress others and signal

wealth and status among consumers (Brun & Castelli, 2013). Consumers engage in conspicuous

8
consumption when purchasing high priced items in order to communicate wealth and achieve

social status (Bagwell & Bernheim, 1996).

Wiedmann et al. (2009) proposed that the conspicuousness of luxury goods, as an

indicator of elitism and wealth, can be used as an appropriate criterion of luxury value.

Conspicuousness plays an important role in shaping preferences for luxury goods that are

purchased or consumed in public contexts (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). While earlier studies

(Truong, McColl, & Kitchen, 2009) found that the conspicuousness of luxury fashion products

influenced the act of luxury consumption, recent research (Ajitha & Sivakumar, 2017) found that

conspicuous value was not a significant predictor of luxury cosmetic brand usage in India.

Self-actualization

Self-actualization refers to the inner feelings of consumers about self-satisfaction and

self-fulfillment (Truong, McColl, & Kitchen, 2010). Amatulli and Guido (2011) demonstrated

that self-fulfillment and self-confidence are the main hidden final values that drove consumers to

purchase luxury goods.

Deeter-Schmelz, Moore, and Goebel (2000) showed that buying, possessing, and using

luxury goods contributes substantially to building and preserving an individual’s identity and

self-confidence. Gao, Norton, Zhang, and To (2009) identified five distinct market segments of

Chinese consumers and concluded that idealists purchase luxury fashion goods for self-

satisfaction. Similarly, Wang, Sun, and Song (2011) classified Chinese luxury consumers into

three groups: the elitist, the distant, and the democratic and found that the more consumers buy

luxury goods for self-actualization, the more likely they belong to the elitist group.

Social comparison

9
 In contrast to the self-actualization that focuses on the internal aspect of one’s self, social

comparison refers to consumers’ desire to be recognized and accepted by others (Vigneron &

Johnson, 1999). As a social-directed symbolic value, social comparison brings satisfaction to

consumers through other people’s recognition and compliment (Wang et al., 2011).

Chinese consumers need acceptance to identify with their peers (Zhang & Kim, 2013).

Degen (2009) pointed out that one motivation for Chinese consumers to buy luxury fashion

goods is their demand for social recognition. Sun, D’Alessandro, and Johnson (2016) concluded

that Chinese consumers are conscious of luxury value and they pay great attention to the social

symbolic value of luxury goods. The results of Jiang and Shan (2018) also demonstrated that

perceived social value has a significant positive effect on older Chinese consumers’ purchase

intentions for luxury fashion goods.

Experiential value

The experiential value (also called hedonic value) reflects shopping’s potential

entertainment and emotional worth (Bellenger, Steinberg, & Stanton, 1976). Experiential value is

concerned with the extent to which a product creates appropriate experiences, feelings and

emotions for consumers (Smith & Colgate, 2007). Previous research (Kang, 2018; Kim, Kim, &

Lee, 2010; Klein, Falk, Esch, & Gloukhovtsev, 2016) suggests the use of store atmosphere and

emotions to measure the experiential dimension of luxury value.

Store Atmosphere

A pleasant luxury store atmosphere delivers hedonic value to consumers (Klein et al.,

2016). The construct store atmosphere is referred as the attribute that aims to intensify the store

environment with the combination of different cues such as layout, lighting, color, music, and

even scents (Deeter-Schmelz et al., 2000).

10
 Consumers motivated to shop in certain stores and to buy certain products for their

prestige value may place greater emphasis on store atmosphere (Deeter-Schmelz et al., 2000).

Sanguanpiyapan and Jasper (2010) found that in-store sensory stimulation is an important

motivation for consumers to shop for luxury fashion goods. The results of Klein et al. (2016)

demonstrated that store atmosphere exerts a positive effect on word of mouth intentions towards

a luxury brand. In addition, Hussain and Ali (2015) concluded that store atmosphere has a

significant positive influence on consumers’ purchase intentions.

Emotions

The emotional value represents the perceived utility acquired by an alternative as a result

of its ability to arouse or perpetuate feelings or affective states (Smith & Colgate, 2007). The

emotional value includes joyful, happy, or satisfied (pleasure dimension) and excited, stimulated,

or active (arousal dimension) according to Donovan and Rossiter (1982).

Consumers are increasingly motivated to pursue products that provide emotional benefits

(Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2009). As an experiential value of luxury goods, emotions stem from

consumers’ previous luxury goods purchasing experience and have a significant impact on their

purchase intentions for luxury goods in the future (Wang et al., 2011). Kim et al. (2010) found

that compared to other luxury value, emotional value is the most significant value on brand

loyalty. Consumers are not willing to purchase a luxury brand if they do not receive emotional

benefits (Hwang & Hyun, 2016).

Functional value

The functional value (also called utilitarian value) is often related to the task-related and

rational aspect of shopping (Babin et al., 1994). Functional value is concerned with the extent to

which a product (good or service) has the desired characteristics, is useful, or performs a desired

11
function (Smith & Colgate, 2007). Consumers expect a luxury product to be usable, of good

quality, and unique enough to satisfy their need (Wiedmann et al., 2009). Uniqueness and quality

are the main measures of the functional dimension of luxury value in previous studies (Roux,

Tafani, & Vigneron, 2017; Srinivasan, Srivastava, & Bhanot, 2014).

Uniqueness

Uniqueness refers to the perceived exclusivity and rareness of luxury product (Wiedmann

et al., 2009). Luxury goods are perceived as unique within their category in terms of their

functional features (Romani, Gistri, & Pace, 2012). The uniqueness value provides scarcity and

novelty to consumers (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012).

Luxury brands deliver more uniqueness value to female consumers than non-luxury

brands (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013). Netemeyer et al. (2004) concluded that the

uniqueness value affects both consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay a price premium for

a brand. The results of Srinivasan et al. (2014) showed that the uniqueness value, as an important

aspect of luxury value, has a positive impact on consumers’ purchase intentions for luxury

goods. Chinese consumers were found to value uniqueness more than U.S. consumers in luxury

fashion goods consumption (Simmers, Parker, & Schaefer, 2014).

Quality

Quality is the key to satisfying the consumers’ need to fulfill functional value (Hung et

al., 2011). Quality refers to consumers’ subjective judgment about a brand’s overall excellence

(Li et al., 2012). Luxury goods are different on the basis of their excellent product quality,

craftsmanship, and performance as compared to non-luxury goods (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004).

Luxury brands are believed to have the superior quality that communicates the luxury

brands holders’ intrinsic values such as upscale lifestyle (Bian & Forsythe, 2012). Perfectionist

12
consumers believe that luxury goods are of higher value because of the superior product quality

(Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). The quality of a product significantly increases purchase

motivation and thus affects consumers’ purchasing decisions (Park & Park, 2003). Zhang and

Cude (2018) confirmed that product quality is positively related to Chinese luxury consumers’

purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods.

While all three dimensions of luxury value are important to luxury consumers, it is not

known whether Chinese consumers have preferences for certain dimensions of luxury value. In

addition, as consumers’ preferences are influenced by their personal value (Chen & Kim, 2013;

Li et al., 2015), it is also important to explore whether Chinese consumers with different types of

personal value have different preferences for luxury value. This study fills the literature gap by

investigating which dimensions of luxury value have significant impacts on Chinese luxury

consumers’ purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods and exploring whether Chinese luxury

consumers with different types of personal value prefer different dimensions of luxury value.

Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

An online survey was conducted to collect data in November 2016 from Chinese luxury

consumers. Data for this study were collected through SoJump, a leading data collection

company in China. The respondents were randomly selected from SoJump’s sample library of

2.6 million Chinese consumers. Luxury clothing was selected as the product category because of

its gender-inclusive, relatively affordable, and socially visible nature. Luxury clothing was

defined as one of the 19 specific types of clothing (such as blazers and vests, blouses and tops,

cardigans and knitwear, coats and jackets, denim jeans, ponchos, suits, skirts and dresses, T-

shirts and Polos, and trench coats) selected based on the classification of apparel provided by

13
luxury brands’ websites, produced by one of the 20 luxury fashion brands (Bottega Veneta,

Burberry, Celine, Cerruti 1881, Chanel, Dior, Dolce & Gabbana, Dunhill, Fendi, Giorgio

Armani, Givenchy, Gucci, Hermes, Lavin, Loewe, Louis Vuitton, Michael Kors, Prada,

Valentino, and Versace) selected based on the availability and their market share in China

(IberChina, 2015).

A series of screening questions were asked to examine the eligibility of the respondents

before they were directed to take the survey. Only qualified respondents who bought at least one

piece of luxury clothing in the past year that cost more than US$500 (¥3,250) could proceed to

the survey. The researchers paid approximately US$3 to the SoJump company for each qualified

response from a qualified individual who completed all of the questions in the survey. Qualified

respondents received 600 points (valued around US$1) that could be exchanged for cash or

Amazon gift cards. The starting point of the exchange is 1,000 points. The final sample included

308 randomly selected Chinese luxury consumers.

Measurement Instruments

The measurements used in this study mainly consisted of three parts: personal value,

luxury value, as well as consumers’ purchase intentions and demographics. Face consciousness,

pragmatism, and materialism were used to measure consumers’ personal value. Face

consciousness was measured with four items developed by Zhang, Cao, and Grigoriou (2011).

Three items modified based on Li et al. (2012) were used to measure pragmatism. Materialism

was measured with four items from Richins (1987).

A total of seven first-order variables were used to measure the three dimensions of luxury

value. Three variables – conspicuousness, self-actualization, and social comparison – were used

to measure the symbolic value. Conspicuousness was measured with three items from Hung et al.

14
(2011). Self-actualization and social comparison were both from Wang et al. (2011) and each

variable was measured with three items. In addition, the experiential value was measured by

store atmosphere and emotions. Store atmosphere included four items modified based on Deeter-

Schmelz et al. (2000). Emotions were measured with eight items from Yüksel (2007). Finally,

the functional value was measured by uniqueness and quality. Uniqueness and quality were both

adapted from Hung et al. (2011), measured by three and four items, respectively.

In addition to the personal value and luxury value measures, another measurement

modified based on Hung et al. (2011) was used to measure consumers’ purchase intentions. All

of the measurement items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 =

strongly agree) except for the measurement of emotions, which was measured by a 5-point

semantic differential scale. Demographic information about the respondents, including gender,

age, occupation, and individual monthly income, was also obtained.

All of the measurements of the constructs used in this study are shown in Table 1.

Cronbach’s α values and factor loadings also are reported to assess the appropriateness of the

measurements of constructs in this study. The results largely confirmed the reliability of the

measurements from existing research. The values of factor loadings were all higher than 0.50,

and the corresponding values of Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.744 to 0.914, suggesting high

internal consistency of the measurements.

[Insert Table 1 here]

The questionnaire was originally written in English and then independently translated

into Chinese by three bilingual researchers. Then, the three bilingual researchers worked together

to reach an agreement on the final word selection of the Chinese version. In addition, the

translated Chinese version of the questionnaire was back-translated independently by two other

15
bilingual researchers. The two researchers compared the back-translated questionnaire with the

original one to verify the reliability of the translation and they ensured that the Chinese version

of the questionnaire maintained the original connotations of the English version.

Results

Two-Step Cluster Analysis

To identify the different groups of luxury consumers, the two-step clustering method in

SPSS, which combines the principles of hierarchical and partitioning methods (most notably the

k-means procedure) (Mooi & Sarstedt, 2011), was used in this study. The literature suggests that

the two-step clustering algorithm has desirable features that differentiate it from the traditional

clustering techniques: it has the ability to analyze large datasets (with sample sizes greater than

200) efficiently and it is more robust than traditional hierarchical and k-means methods (Punj &

Stewart, 1983). The two-step clustering procedure is based on a two-stage approach: in the first

stage, the original cases are pre-clustered into many small sub-clusters using a likelihood

distance measure as the similarity criterion; in the second stage, the two-step procedure conducts

a modified hierarchical agglomerative clustering procedure that combines the sub-clusters

sequentially to form homogeneous clusters on the basis of Schwarz’s Bayesian inference

criterion (BIC) and determines the most appropriate number of clusters automatically (Okazaki,

2006).

Personal value variables – face consciousness, pragmatism, and materialism – were used

to cluster the respondents. The two-step clustering procedure in SPSS can automatically extract

the optimal solution, and four clusters were generated automatically in this study. Based on the

variables from which they were derived, the four clusters are described in Figure 2. The zero-

16
centered technique was applied to get the optimal data visualization. Thus, the values shown in

Figure 2 are ranging from -2 to 2 instead of 1 to 5.

[Insert Figure 2 here]

Cluster 1: Perfectionists. The first cluster constitutes 37.01% of the sample. Compared to

the other clusters, the members of this group showed the highest ratings for all three aspects of

the personal value. Consumers in the perfectionist group want the products they buy to be

practical while impressing others and delighting themselves.

Cluster 2: Balancists. The second cluster forms 31.82% of the sample. The ratings of the

members of this cluster are relatively low and balanced in three personal value variables. These

consumers do not require the things they buy to be outstanding in terms of practicality,

impressing others or pleasing themselves, but they value the balance in all three aspects.

Cluster 3: Materialists. The smallest cluster represents 13.96% of the sample. The

consumers in this cluster rate as equally high as perfectionists in face consciousness and

materialism, while their ratings for practicality are the lowest of all groups. These consumers

pursue the prestige and pleasure products bring to them, but they do not care about the

practicality of products.

Cluster 4: Pragmatists. The last cluster consists of 17.21% of the sample. The members

of this cluster receive the lowest ratings among all groups for face consciousness and

materialism. However, they place significantly more emphasis on practicality. These consumers

emphasize substantive attributes and performance of products rather than the opinions of others.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 summarizes the frequency distributions for the demographic variables within and

across clusters, respectively. Interestingly, all four clusters showed a very similar tendency with

17
respect to demographics. Chinese luxury consumers in each cluster consisted mainly of younger

respondents who were in their 20s or 30s. The proportion of male respondents was relatively

equal to that of female respondents within and across clusters. In terms of occupation, the largest

proportion of respondents were general managers in government, business, or an institution

across clusters. The proportions who said they were senior managers, ordinary employees, and

teachers, doctors, scientists, technicians, or other professionals were relatively equal within and

across clusters. While a range of income levels was represented in the sample, nearly one-half of

the respondents reported their individual monthly income between ¥8,001 and ¥10,000

(US$1,230 - US$1,540) or ¥15,001 and ¥20,000 (US$2,310 - US$3,080) across clusters.

According to National Bureau of Statistics of China (2017), the mean individual monthly

disposable income in Tier 1 cities (Beijing and Shanghai) in China was around ¥4,451

(approximately US$685) in 2016. Chi-squared tests were conducted and no significant

differences were found across clusters in demographics.

[Insert Table 2 here]

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to explore whether significant

differences exist among four clusters in terms of purchase intentions and luxury value variables.

The results are summarized in Table 3. The results from ANOVA indicated that there were

significant differences among four-group Chinese luxury consumers in their intentions to

purchase luxury fashion goods and their perceptions of luxury value.

[Insert Table 3 here]

As shown in Table 3, perfectionists and materialists had higher intentions to buy luxury

fashion goods than balancists and pragmatists. Similarly, perfectionists and materialists also had

18
higher evaluations in all aspects of luxury value than balancists and pragmatists. More

specifically, perfectionists and materialists had similar levels of perceptions in terms of symbolic

value (measured by conspicuousness, self-actualization, and social comparison), followed by

balancists. In addition, perfectionists had the highest levels of perceptions with respect to both

experiential value (measured by store atmosphere and emotions) and functional value

(uniqueness and quality), followed by materialists. It is worth noting that pragmatists had the

lowest evaluations in all three dimensions of luxury value.

Regression Analysis

To get a better understanding of differences among the four-group Chinese luxury

consumers, this study examined what Chinese luxury consumers are shopping for when buying

luxury goods through conducting two regression models. While the first model was conducted

based on the entire sample, the second model was conducted separately for Chinese luxury

consumers by four clusters.

Table 4 reports the results from the first regression model conducted on the entire sample.

The dependent variable was Chinese luxury consumers’ purchase intentions for luxury fashion

goods and independent variables included categories of luxury consumers and luxury value

variables. The four categories of luxury consumers were created based on the personal value of

Chinese luxury consumers and pragmatists were used as the reference group. Demographics

were the control variables in the regression.

[Insert Table 4 here]

The results show that the materialists had significantly higher purchase intentions (𝛽 =

0.3160, p = 0.0225) than of pragmatists, while no significant differences in purchase intentions

were observed for perfectionists and balancists compared to pragmatists. After controlling for the

19
personal value of luxury consumers, the results indicate that all three dimensions of luxury value

– symbolic value, experiential value, and functional value – were significantly associated with

Chinese luxury consumers’ purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods. More specifically,

conspicuousness (𝛽 = 0.2048, p = 0.0374), emotions (𝛽 = 0.1653, p = 0.0162), as well as quality

(𝛽 = 0.2588, p = 0.0006) were found to have significant positive impacts on the consumers’

purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods. In addition, all the demographic variables were not

significant in the model.

Table 5 summarizes the results from the regression model that conducted separately for

Chinese luxury consumers by four clusters. Because no significant differences were found in

demographics among the four clusters, demographic variables were excluded from the regression

analysis by clusters.

[Insert Table 5 here]

For perfectionists, the symbolic value variable conspicuousness (𝛽 = 0.3322, p = 0.0297)

and the functional value variable quality (𝛽 = 0.5884, p < 0.0001) were significantly and

positively related to the purchase intentions of Chinese luxury consumers. For balancists, a

significant positive relationship was found between the functional value variable uniqueness (𝛽 =

0.3587, p = 0.0070) and purchase intentions. For materialist, two symbolic value variables – self-

actualization (𝛽 = 0.4774, p = 0.0229) and social comparison (𝛽 = 0.4074, p = 0.0207) – had

significantly positive effects on the purchase intentions. For pragmatists, the experiential value

variable emotions (𝛽 = 0.3026, p = 0.0359) and the functional value variable quality (𝛽 = 0.3524,

p = 0.0471) were positively and significantly associated with Chinese luxury consumers’

intentions to purchase luxury fashion goods.

Conclusions and Implications

20
 While previous researchers (Hennigs et al., 2012; Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000) realized

that psychological factors are the main factors that distinguishing luxury goods from non-luxury

goods, many researchers (Ajitha & Sivakumar, 2017; Aliyev & Wagner, 2018) mixed

consumers’ personal value with consumers’ perceptions of luxury value. This study is amongst

the first to propose that personal value and luxury value are two distinct concepts and that

consumers’ perceptions of luxury value are determined by their personal value. This study

contributes to the literature by successfully classifying Chinese luxury consumers into four

clusters based on three personal value factors (face consciousness, pragmatism, and materialism)

and comparing the differences in their perceptions of luxury value as well as their intentions to

purchase luxury fashion goods.

Significant differences were found among four-group Chinese luxury consumers not only

in their perceptions of all three dimensions of luxury value but in their purchase intentions for

luxury fashion goods. Among the four clusters of Chinese luxury consumers, materialists were

found to have the highest purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods compared to

perfectionists, balancists, and pragmatists, while controlling for the three dimensions of luxury

value and demographics. The results suggest that materialistic consumers should be the main

target of luxury brand retailers when implementing their marketing strategies.

Although previous researchers (Berthon et al., 2009; Smith & Colgate, 2007; Tynan et

al., 2010) proposed the luxury value framework, they failed to examine what dimensions of

luxury value consumers value most when purchasing luxury goods. This study fills the literature

gap by exploring what dimensions of luxury value Chinese luxury consumers are shopping for

when buying luxury fashion goods. In this study, all three dimensions of luxury value – symbolic

value, experiential value, and functional value – were found to have significant positive impacts

21
on Chinese luxury consumers’ purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods while controlling for

their personal value and demographics. The results indicate that Chinese luxury consumers’

purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods were significantly influenced by all three

dimensions of luxury value no matter what personal value a Chinese luxury consumer has.

Consistent with previous research (Truong et al., 2009; Park & Park, 2003; Wang et al.,

2011), the results of this study show that conspicuous value, emotional value, and quality value

had significant positive effects on Chinese consumers’ purchase intentions for luxury fashion

goods. The results indicate that luxury brands can arouse Chinese consumers’ purchase

intentions by adding conspicuous value, emotional value, and quality value to their luxury

fashion goods. To increase the conspicuous value, luxury brand designers can enlarge the logo

size in their design or use bright colors to make the logo more visible. Luxury brands can

describe the lifestyles they want to convey through luxury fashion goods to trigger a deep

resonance of consumers and enrich the emotional value. The quality value can be enhanced from

the fastidious selection of durable raw materials, which will help to reduce the depreciation rate

and extend the service life of luxury fashion goods.

This study confirmed the importance of consumer-brand value congruence recognized by

previous researchers (Zhang & Bloemer, 2008) by showing that Chinese luxury consumers with

different types of personal value have different preferences for luxury value. Both the symbolic

value and the functional value were found to be important for perfectionists to shop for luxury

fashion goods. Balancists’ desire to purchase luxury fashion goods was strongly influenced by

the functional value, while materialists paid special attention to the symbolic value when buying

luxury fashion goods. In addition, the functional value along with the experiential value had

significant impacts on pragmatists’ intention to buy luxury fashion goods.

22
 The findings suggest that targeted marketing strategies can be tailored to different

categories of luxury consumers. For perfectionist consumers, the promotion of conspicuous

value and quality value can arouse their purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods. Luxury

brand designers should focus on designing glamorous and eye-catching products to increase the

conspicuous value of luxury goods, while luxury brand manufacturers should focus on

developing sophisticated techniques to produce superior quality products. In addition, advertising

campaigns can emphasize the precious and conspicuous nature, as well as the premium

craftsmanship of luxury fashion goods in the Chinese luxury goods market in order to be

appealing to perfectionist consumers.

For balancist consumers, the uniqueness value of luxury fashion goods is the most

important luxury value to stimulate their purchase intentions. Therefore, luxury brand designers

and manufacturers should pay special attention to add unique characteristics to luxury fashion

goods when designing and producing new products. Luxury brand retailers should highlight the

uniqueness value by explaining the differences in their luxury products from others to make their

products extraordinary. In addition, luxury brands can consider offering Chinese luxury

consumers with choices to add personalized elements to the luxury fashion goods (especially the

limited editions) they decide to buy to increase the uniqueness value.

For materialist consumers, self-actualization and social comparison are the main values

they are shopping for when buying luxury fashion goods. As materialist consumers seek both

internal and external satisfaction from self-fulfillment and social recognition, luxury brand

retailers can emphasize the role of luxury fashion goods in facilitating the feeling of confidence

and success in the advertising campaign, and luxury brands can invite Chinese celebrities who

are extensively accepted by Chinese consumers to serve as brand ambassadors to increase the

23
social recognition of the brands, which in turn will add social comparison value to the luxury

fashion goods to strengthen materialist consumers’ purchase intentions.

For pragmatist consumers, their purchase intentions for luxury fashion goods can be

evoked by the emotional value and the quality value. The quality value can be improved not only

from the application of high-quality fabrics and flawless workmanship in the design and

production of luxury fashion goods but also from the exquisite and featured packaging.

Therefore, luxury brand designers can design unique and matching packaging for different high-

end products. In addition, luxury brand retailers can use effective marketing strategies to

publicize the emotional value in which consumers could feel happy, joyful, and excited to make

their luxury fashion goods more attractive to pragmatist consumers.

No differences were found among four groups of Chinese luxury consumers in the

demographic variables indicating that it is not feasible to determine consumers’ personal value

based on their age, gender, occupation, or individual monthly income. In addition, none of the

demographic variables was significant in the regression model further suggesting that luxury

brand retailers are unable to identify Chinese consumers’ purchase intentions for luxury fashion

goods through demographic characteristics.

Limitations and Future Research

Although no significant differences were observed among four groups of Chinese luxury

consumers in the demographics (age, gender, occupation, and individual monthly income) in this

study, it might because the sample size was not enough to capture the variations among different

groups of respondents. Future researchers can increase the sample size to explore whether

demographic variables can help to determine the personal value of Chinese consumers.

24
 Based on a range of quantitative research methods, this study found that Chinese luxury

consumers with different personal value have different preferences for luxury value when

shopping for luxury fashion goods. However, it may add more contributions to the literature with

a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methodology. Future researchers can use a

mixed-method approach to further explore the relationships between consumers’ personal value

and their preferences for luxury value.

25
 References

Ajitha, S., & Sivakumar, V. J. (2017). Understanding the effect of personal and social value on

attitude and usage behavior of luxury cosmetic brands. Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services, 39, 103-113. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.07.009

Alan, A., Dursun, I., Kabadayi, E., Aydin, K., & Anlagan, F. (2016). What influences the

repurchase intention for luxury brands? The relative impacts of luxury value dimensions.

International Business Research, 9(5), 11-24.

Aliyev, F., & Wagner, R. (2018). Cultural influence on luxury value perceptions: Collectivist vs.

individualist luxury perceptions. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 30, 158-

172. doi: 10.1080/08961530.2017.1381872

Amatulli, C., & Guido, G. (2011). Determinants of purchasing intention for fashion luxury goods

in the Italian market: A laddering approach. Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management, 5, 123-136. doi:10.1108/13612021111112386

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and

utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.

doi: 10.1086/209376

Bagwell, L. S., & Bernheim, B. D. (1996). Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous

consumption. The American Economic Review, 86, 349-373.

Bao, Y., Zhou, K. Z., & Su, C. (2003). Face consciousness and risk aversion: Do they affect

consumer decision-making? Psychology & Marketing, 20, 733-755.

doi: 10.1002/mar.10094

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of

Consumer Research, 12, 265-280. doi:10.1086/208515

26
Bellenger, D. N., Steinberg, E., & Stanton, W. W. (1976). The congruence of store image and

self image. Journal of Retailing, 52, 17-32.

Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Parent, M., & Berthon, J. P. (2009). Aesthetics and ephemerality: Observing

and preserving the luxury brand. California management review, 52, 45-66.

doi: 10.1525/cmr.2009.52.1.45

Bian, Q., & Forsythe, S. (2012). Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural

comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1443-1451.

doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.010

Brun, A., & Castelli, C. (2013). The nature of luxury: A consumer perspective. International

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 41, 823-847.

doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-01-2013-0006

Chen, J., & Kim, S. (2013). A comparison of Chinese consumers’ intentions to purchase luxury

fashion brands for self-use and for gifts. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,

25, 29-44. doi:10.1080/08961530.2013.751796

Chi, D. (2017). China becomes world’s second largest luxury market. Retrieved from

https://gbtimes.com/china-becomes-worlds-second-largest-luxury-market

Choo, H. J., Moon, H., Kim, H., & Yoon, N. (2012). Luxury customer value. Journal of Fashion

Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 16, 81-101.

doi: 10.1108/13612021211203041

Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Moore, J. N., & Goebel, D. J. (2000). Prestige clothing shopping by

consumers: A confirmatory assessment and refinement of the PRECON scale with

managerial implications. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8, 43-58.

doi:10.1080/10696679.2000.11501879

27
Degen, R. J. (2009). Opportunity for luxury brands in China. IUP Journal of Brand

Management, 6(3/4), 75-85.

Donovan, R., & Rossiter, J. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach.

Journal of Retailing, 58, 34-57. doi:10.1016/0022-4359(94)90037-X

Dubois, B., & Duquesne, P. (1993). The market for luxury goods: Income versus culture.

European Journal of Marketing, 27, 35-44. doi:10.1108/03090569310024530

Gao, L., Norton, M. J., Zhang, Z. M., & To, C. K. (2009). Potential niche markets for

luxury fashion goods in China. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An

International Journal, 13, 514-526. doi: 10.1108/13612020910991376

Ghosh, A., & Varshney, S. (2013). Luxury goods consumption: A conceptual framework based

on literature review. South Asian Journal of Management, 20, 146-159.

Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury: Hedonic potential as a

driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 608-618.

doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.007

He, Y., Zou, D., & Jin, L. (2010). Exploiting the goldmine: A lifestyle analysis of affluent

Chinese consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27, 615-628.

doi:10.1108/07363761011086362

Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K. P., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., ... & Taro,

K. (2012). What is the value of luxury? A cross‐cultural consumer perspective.

Psychology & Marketing, 29, 1018-1034. doi:10.1002/mar.20583

Howard, J. A. (1977). Consumer behavior: Application of theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hudders, L., & Pandelaere, M. (2012). The silver lining of materialism: The impact of luxury

consumption on subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 411-437.

28
 doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9271-9

Hung, K. P., Chen, A. H., Peng, N., Hackley, C., Tiwsakul, R. A., & Chou, C. L. (2011).

Antecedents of luxury brand purchase intention. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 20, 457-467. doi:10.1108/10610421111166603

Hussain & Ali (2015). Effect of store atmosphere on consumer purchase intention. International

Journal of Marketing Studies, 7, 35-43. doi:10.5539/ijms.v7n2p35

Hwang, J., & Hyun, S. S. (2016). Perceived firm innovativeness in cruise travelers’ experience

and perceived luxury value: The moderating effect of advertising effectiveness. Asia

Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 21, S101-S128.

doi: 10.1080/10941665.2015.1016051

IberChina. (2015). Luxury market in China. Retrieved from http://www.iberchina.org/files/Luxur

y_market_China2015.pdf

Independent. (2011). China will be the biggest luxury goods market by 2020. Retrieved from

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/china-biggest-luxury-goods-market-by-2020-

report-2203367.html

Jiang, L., & Shan, J. (2018). Heterogeneity of luxury value perception: A generational

comparison in China. International Marketing Review, 35, 458-474.

doi: 10.1108/IMR-12-2015-0271

Kang, J. (2018). Finding desirable post-consumption behaviors: An investigation of luxury value

and romantic brand love relationships. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 30, 2984-3003. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2017-0410

Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents of the

“bandwagon” luxury consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1399-

29
 1407. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.005

Kim, M., Kim, S., & Lee, Y. (2010). The effect of distribution channel diversification of foreign

luxury fashion brands on consumers’ brand value and loyalty in the Korean market.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 286-293.

doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.02.006

Klein, J. F., Falk, T., Esch, F. R., & Gloukhovtsev, A. (2016). Linking pop-up brand stores to

brand experience and word of mouth: The case of luxury retail. Journal of Business

Research, 69, 5761-5767. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.172

Lessig, V. P. (1975). A measurement of dependencies between values and other levels of the

consumer's belief space. Journal of Business Research, 3, 227-240.

doi:10.1016/0148-2963(75)90024-7

Li, G., Li, G., & Kambele, Z. (2012). Luxury fashion brand consumers in China: Perceived

value, fashion lifestyle, and willingness to pay. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1516-

1522. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.019

Li, N., Robson, A., & Coates, N. (2013). Chinese consumers’ purchasing: Impact of value and

affect. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17, 486-508.

doi:10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0030

Li, J., & Su, C. (2007). How face influences consumption: A comparative study of American and

Chinese consumers. International Journal of Market Research, 49, 237-257.

doi:10.1177/147078530704900207

Li, J., Zhang, X. A., & Sun, G. (2015). Effects of “face” consciousness on status consumption

among Chinese consumers: Perceived social value as a mediator. Psychological Reports,

116, 280-291. doi:10.2466/17.07.PR0.116k11w3

30
Liao, J., & Wang, L. (2009). Face as a mediator of the relationship between material value and

brand consciousness. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 987-1001. doi:10.1002/mar.20309

MartinRoll. (2017). Chinese luxury consumers – trends and challenges for luxury brands.

Retrieved from https://martinroll.com/resources/articles/asia/chinese-luxury-consumers-

trends-and-challenges-for-luxury-brands/

Mooi, E. A. & Sarstedt, M. (2011). A concise guide to market research: The process, data, and

methods using IBM SPSS statistics. (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.

National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2017). National residents’ disposable income in 2016.

Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn

Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., ... & Wirth, F.

(2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity.

Journal of Business Research, 57, 209-224. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00303-4

Nia, A., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury

brands? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9, 485-497.

doi:10.1108/10610420010351402

Okazaki, S. (2006). What do we know about mobile Internet adopters? A cluster analysis.

Information & Management, 43, 127-141. doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.05.001

Pan. Y. (2017). Luxury spending to double in China over next 10 years, says McKinsey.

Retrieved from https://jingdaily.com/luxury-spending-china-mckinsey/

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image

management. The Journal of Marketing, 50, 135-145. doi:10.2307/1251291

Park, H., & Park, J. (2003). Mature consumers’ purchasing motivation for imported and

domestic suites. Clothing Culture Study, 11, 1-10.

31
Pitts, R. E., & Woodside, A. G. (1983). Personal value influences on consumer product class and

brand preferences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 37-53.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1983.9924440

Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and

suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 134-148.

doi: 10.1177/002224378302000204

Richins, M. L. (1987). Media, materialism, and human happiness. Advances in Consumer

Research, 14, 352-356.

Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal

of Consumer Research, 21, 504-521. doi:10.1086/209414

Romani, S., Gistri, G., & Pace, S. (2012). When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury

brands. Marketing Letters, 23, 807-824. doi:10.1007/s11002-012-9190-5

Roux, E., Tafani, E., & Vigneron, F. (2017). Values associated with luxury brand consumption

and the role of gender. Journal of Business Research, 71, 102-113. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.

2016.10.012

Sanguanpiyapan, T., & Jasper, C. (2010). Consumer insights into luxury goods: Why they shop

where they do in a jewelry shopping setting. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,

17, 152-160. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.12.001

Shukla, P., Singh, J., & Banerjee, M. (2015). They are not all same: variations in Asian

consumers’ value perceptions of luxury brands. Marketing Letters, 26, 265-278.

doi: 10.1007/s11002-015-9358-x

Simmers, C. S., Parker, R. S., & Schaefer, A. D. (2014). The importance of fashion: the Chinese

and US Gen Y perspective. Journal of Global marketing, 27, 94-105.

32
 doi: 10.1080/08911762.2013.864372

Smith, J. B., & Colgate, M. (2007). Customer value creation: A practical framework. Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, 15, 7-23. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679150101

Srinivasan, R., Srivastava, R. K., & Bhanot, S. (2014). Influence of ethnicity on uniqueness &

snob value in purchase behaviour of luxury brands. Journal of Research in Marketing,

2, 172-186. doi:10.13140/2.1.1852.8968

Stokburger-Sauer, N. E., & Teichmann, K. (2013). Is luxury just a female thing? The role of

gender in luxury brand consumption. Journal of Business Research, 66, 889-896.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.007

Sun, G., D'Alessandro, S., & Johnson, L. W. (2016). Exploring luxury value perceptions in

China: Direct and indirect effects. International Journal of Market Research, 58, 711-

731. doi: 10.2501/IJMR-2016-021

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An

updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22,

187-225. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00004-2

Truong, Y., McColl, R., & Kitchen, P. J. (2009). New luxury brand positioning and the

emergence of masstige brands. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 375-382.

doi: 10.1057/bm.2009.1

Truong, Y., McColl, R., & Kitchen, P. (2010). Practitioners’ perceptions of advertising strategies

for digital media. International Journal of Advertising, 29, 709-725.

doi:10.2501/S0265048710201439

Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Chhuon, C. (2010). Co-creating value for luxury brands. Journal of

Business Research, 63, 1156-1163. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.012

33
Vickers, J. S., & Renand, F. (2003). The marketing of luxury goods: An exploratory study –

three conceptual dimensions. The Marketing Review, 3, 459-478.

doi:10.1362/146934703771910071

Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-

seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1-15.

Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of

Brand Management, 11, 484-508. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540194

Wang, Y., Sun, S., & Song, Y. (2011). Chinese luxury consumers: Motivation, attitude and

behavior. Journal of Promotion Management, 17, 345-359.

doi:10.1080/10496491.2011.596122

Wiedmann, K. P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2009). Value‐based segmentation of luxury

consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 625-651. doi:10.1002/mar.20292

Wong, N., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal tastes and family face: Luxury consumption in

Confucian and Western societies. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 423-441.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199808)15:5<423::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-9

Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 139-153. doi:10.1007/BF02894350

Yüksel, A. (2007). Tourist shopping habitat: Effects on emotions, shopping value and behaviors.

Tourism Management, 28, 58-69. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.07.017

Zhang, L. (2017). Factors affecting Chinese consumers' purchase intentions for luxury clothing

(Doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Retrieved from

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/zhang_lini_201705_phd.pdf

Zhang, J., & Bloemer, J. M. (2008). The impact of value congruence on consumer-service brand

34
 relationships. Journal of Service Research, 11, 161-178. doi:10.1177/1094670508322561

Zhang, X. A., Cao, Q., & Grigoriou, N. (2011). Consciousness of social face: The development

and validation of a scale measuring desire to gain face versus fear of losing face. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 129-149. doi:10.1080/00224540903366669

Zhang, L. & Cude, B. J. (2018). Chinese consumers’ purchase intentions for luxury clothing: A

comparison between luxury consumers and non-luxury consumers. Journal of

International Consumer Marketing, 30, 336-349.

doi: 10.1080/08961530.2018.1466225

Zhang, B., & Kim, J. H. (2013). Luxury fashion consumption in China: Factors affecting attitude

and purchase intent. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20, 68-79.

doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.10.007

35
Table 1

Measurements of Constructs

Factor
Constructs Items
Loadings
Purchase intention
(𝛼 = 0.851) 1. I have a strong possibility to purchase luxury clothing. 0.805
2. I have a strong possibility to purchase luxury clothing 0.836
within the next year.
3. I have a strong possibility to purchase luxury clothing 0.793
within the next three years.
Personal Value
Face consciousness
(𝛼 = 0.855) 1. I hope people think that I can do better than most 0.792
others.
2. I hope that I can talk about things that most others do 0.803
not know.
3. I hope that I can possess things that most others thirst 0.763
for.
4. It is important for me to get praise and admiration. 0.743
Pragmatism
(𝛼 = 0.817) 1. Practicality and necessity are my shopping standards. 0.755
2. I’m not likely to buy something that is not practical. 0.810
3. I make purchases only when necessary. 0.763
Materialism
(𝛼 = 0.744) 1. It is important to me to have really nice things. 0.651
2. I would like to be rich enough to buy anything I want. 0.625
3. I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things. 0.777
4. It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I cannot afford 0.559
to buy all the things I want.
Luxury Value
Symbolic value
Conspicuousness
(𝛼 = 0.828) 1. Luxury brand clothing is conspicuous. 0.743
2. Luxury brand clothing is stunning. 0.795
3. Luxury brand clothing signals wealth and status. 0.820
Self-actualization
(𝛼 = 0.883) 1. Luxury clothing is special and wearing it makes me 0.812
feel different.
2. I feel successful when buying luxury clothing. 0.869

36
 3. Wearing luxury clothing increases my self- 0.856
confidence.
Social comparison
(𝛼 = 0.877) 1. I want other people to know that I wear expensive 0.866
luxury clothing.
2. I am satisfied when other people compliment me on 0.823
my luxury clothing.
3. When I wear luxury clothing, I feel other people’s 0.828
impressions about me have changed.
Experiential Value
Store atmosphere
(𝛼 = 0.862) 1. Luxury clothing stores have a warm, inviting 0.821
atmosphere.
2. Luxury clothing stores are attractive with artistic 0.743
looking displays.
3. The clerks in luxury clothing stores are well-dressed 0.756
and provide enthusiastic and thoughtful service.
4. Luxury clothing stores provide great personalized 0.804
service.
Emotions
(𝛼 = 0.914) When I shop for luxury clothing, I feel:
1. Annoyed – Pleased 0.734
2. Unsatisfied – Satisfied 0.735
3. Unpleasant – Pleasant 0.786
4. Depressed – Contented 0.704
5. Unhappy – Happy 0.807
6. Relaxed – Stimulated 0.741
7. Calm – Excited 0.781
8. Sluggish – Frenzied 0.762
Functional Value
Uniqueness
(𝛼 = 0.837) 1. Luxury brand clothing is precious. 0.786
2. Luxury brand clothing is rare. 0.833
3. Luxury brand clothing is unique. 0.721
Quality
(𝛼 = 0.870) 1. Luxury brand clothing is handmade (crafted). 0.776
2. Luxury brand clothing has the best quality. 0.840
3. Luxury brand clothing is sophisticated. 0.841
4. Luxury brand clothing is superior. 0.709

37
Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample

Chinese Luxury Consumers

Cluster I Cluster II Cluster III Cluster IV Total
Variables Perfectionists Balancists Materialists Pragmatists
（N=308）
(n=114) (n=98) (n=43) (n=53)
n % n % n % n % n %
Age
Between 20 to 29 years old 46 40.4 42 42.9 16 37.2 27 50.9 131 42.53
Between 30 to 39 years old 52 45.6 42 42.9 23 53.5 21 39.6 138 44.81
Above 40 years old 16 14.0 14 14.2 4 9.3 5 9.5 39 12.66
Gender
Male 48 42.1 54 55.1 18 41.9 21 39.6 141 45.78
Female 66 57.9 44 44.9 25 58.1 32 60.4 167 54.22
Occupation
Teacher, doctor, scientist, etc. 12 10.5 16 16.3 6 14.0 10 18.9 44 14.29
Senior manager 24 21.1 17 17.3 8 18.5 10 18.9 59 19.16
General manager 43 37.7 26 26.5 16 37.2 14 26.4 99 32.14
Ordinary employee 18 15.8 19 19.4 4 9.3 9 17.0 50 16.23
Self-employed 7 6.1 12 12.2 6 14.0 4 7.5 29 9.42
Student, retiree, unemployed, etc. 10 8.8 8 8.3 3 7.0 6 11.3 27 8.77
Individual Monthly Income
Less than ¥8,000 17 14.9 15 15.3 4 9.3 10 18.9 46 14.94
Between ¥8,001 and ¥10,000 29 25.4 29 29.6 11 25.5 14 26.4 83 26.95
Between ¥10,001 and ¥15,000 21 18.5 19 19.4 7 16.3 10 18.9 57 18.51
Between ¥15,001 and ¥20,000 30 26.3 16 16.3 14 32.6 11 20.7 71 23.05
More than ¥20,000 17 14.9 19 19.4 7 16.3 8 15.1 51 16.56

38
Table 3

Results of ANOVA by Clusters

Chinese Luxury Consumers

Cluster I Cluster II Cluster III Cluster IV
Perfectionists Balancists Materialists Pragmatists
Variables (n=114) (n=98) (n=43) (n=53)
M M M M
F
(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
4.38 3.96 4.41 3.71
Purchase intentions 20.02***
(0.61) (0.66) (0.59) (0.89)
4.07 3.88 4.02 3.62
Conspicuousness 26.42***
(0.39) (0.43) (0.45) (0.57)
4.20 3.58 4.26 2.79
Self-actualization 70.93***
(0.67) (0.63) (0.64) (1.07)
4.03 3.45 4.11 2.96
Social comparison 37.89***
(0.73) (0.61) (0.72) (1.11)
4.30 3.78 4.15 3.51
Store atmosphere 32.41***
(0.53) (0.64) (0.67) (1.06)
4.51 4.03 4.36 3.99
Emotions 21.74***
(0.43) (0.60) (0.50) (0.76)
4.28 3.69 4.05 3.32
Uniqueness 60.81***
(0.47) (0.66) (0.58) (0.86)
4.41 3.89 4.18 3.66
Quality 33.42***
(0.46) (0.65) (0.71) (1.06)
Note. *** p < 0.001.

39
Table 4

Results of the Joint Regression with All Respondents

Variables 𝛽 S.E. p-value

(Intercept) 0.8248* 0.3672 0.0255
Luxury Consumers (Reference = Pragmatists)
Perfectionists 0.1731 0.1187 0.1457
Balancists 0.0981 0.1058 0.3548
Materialists 0.3160* 0.1377 0.0225
Symbolic Value
Conspicuousness 0.2048* 0.0979 0.0374
Self-actualization -0.0073 0.0722 0.9193
Social comparison -0.0902 0.0649 0.1656
Hedonic Value
Store atmosphere 0.0526 0.0698 0.4512
Emotions 0.1653* 0.0683 0.0162
Functional Value
Uniqueness 0.1900 0.0797 0.0177
Quality 0.2588*** 0.0745 0.0006
Demographics
Gender (Reference = female) -0.0109 0.0731 0.8811
Age (Reference = 20 – 29)
Between 30 to 39 years old -0.0017 0.0757 0.9823
Above 40 years old -0.1933 0.1127 0.0873
Occupation (Reference = teachers, etc.)
Senior manager -0.0475 0.1274 0.7093
General manager -0.0084 0.1121 0.9404
Ordinary employee -0.1384 0.1228 0.2608
Self-employed -0.0580 0.1431 0.6855
Student, retiree, unemployed, etc. 0.0518 0.1409 0.7134
Income (Reference = Less than ¥8,000)
Between ¥8,001 and ¥10,000 -0.0050 0.1134 0.9646
Between ¥10,001 and ¥15,000 0.1140 0.1253 0.3634
Between ¥15,001 and ¥20,000 0.1199 0.1203 0.3195
More than ¥20,000 0.2063 0.1315 0.1178
Note. N = 308.
𝑅2 = 0.4309. Adjusted 𝑅2 = 0.3870. F (22, 285) = 9.81 (p < 0.001).
* p < 0.05. *** p < 0.001.

40
Table 5

Results of Regression by Clusters

Chinese Luxury Consumers

Cluster I Cluster II Cluster III Cluster IV
Perfectionists Balancists Materialists Pragmatists
Variables (n=114) (n=98) (n=43) (n=53)
𝛽 𝛽 𝛽 𝛽
(p-value) (p-value) (p-value) (p-value)
0.6888 1.6040* 1.4233 0.3999
(Intercept)
(0.3186) (0.0135) (0.1402) (0.6199)
0.3322* 0.1937 0.2612 0.0089
Conspicuousness
(0.0297) (0.2670) (0.2171) (0.9743)
-0.0618 -0.0191 0.4774* -0.1364
Self-actualization
(0.6368) (0.8894) (0.0229) (0.3110)
0.0366 -0.1128 0.4074* 0.0074
Social comparison
(0.7579) (0.3974) (0.0207) (0.9510)
-0.1665 0.1417 0.1318 0.0439
Store atmosphere
(0.1489) (0.3281) (0.4983) (0.7697)
0.1076 0.0001 0.3654 0.3026*
Emotions
(0.4482) (0.9995) (0.0814) (0.0359)
0.0201 0.3587** -0.1631 0.2990
Uniqueness
(0.8857) (0.0070) (0.4899) (0.1324)
0.5884*** 0.0517 0.0234 0.3524*
Quality
(0.0000) (0.7216) (0.8912) (0.0471)
𝑅2 0.2968 0.2930 0.4371 0.5535
Adjusted 𝑅2 0.2504 0.2380 0.3245 0.4840
Note. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

41
 Conspicuousness

Symbolic Self-actualization
Value
Social comparison

Store atmosphere
Experiential
Luxury Value Value
Emotions

Uniqueness
Functional
Value Quality

Figure 1. Three dimensions of luxury value.

42
 1.5

0.5

0
Perfectionists Balancists Materialists Pragmatists

-0.5

-1
Face consciouness Pragmatism Materialism

Figure 2. Four clusters based on the personal value.

43

View publication stats