Exploring consumer status and

conspicuous consumption
Received in revised form.

Aron O’Cass
is Chair of Marketing at the Newcastle Graduate School of Business (NGSB), the
University of Newcastle, Australia. He holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Master of
Business, majoring in marketing, and a PhD in consumer behaviour. He has published
on brand perceptions, consumer behaviour, political marketing, voter behaviour,
export marketing, fashion and numerous other issues, appearing in journals such as
the European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Economic Psychology, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Journal of Advertising, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour and others.

Hmily McEwen
(previously Frost) currently works for Suncorp as an Analyst for the Group Customer
Value division. This role drives revenues synergies and cross sell initiatives. Prior to
Suncorp, Hmily worked for ENERGEX Retail as Business Sales Market Analyst
working closely with the Business Sales team in developing acquisition and retention
initiatives, identifying profitable market segments and assessing interstate
opportunities. Hmily also spent time working for a multinational research firm on
quantitative and qualitative projects, working for clients such as Telstra, Queensland
Rail, Griffith University and Brisbane Markets. Hmily achieved an Honours degree in
a Bachelor of Business, majoring in marketing, at Griffith University.

Abstract
In seeking to expand an understanding of consumption, this study assesses the relationship
between status consumption and conspicuous consumption. Theoretically, the relationship
between status consumption and conspicuous consumption is problematic and, therefore,
the main focus of this paper examines the theoretical and empirical separation of
consumers’ status consumption and conspicuous consumption. Data were gathered via a
survey of individuals aged between 18 and 25. The findings indicate that status
consumption and conspicuous consumption are distinct constructs. Differences in status
Keywords: consumption tendencies between males and females were not found; however, in relation to
Status conspicuous consumption gender differences were found. Status consumption was affected
consumption, by self-monitoring and interpersonal influences, but conspicuous consumption was
conspicuous affected only by interpersonal influences. The brands examined also clearly differed in
consumption terms of status and conspicuous consumption perceptions.

Professor Aron
INTRODUCTION for consumers. It is also evident that
O’Cass
Newcastle Graduate In the context of growing globalisation, certain brand dimensions and
School of Business, heightened competition and increasing associations lead to increased
University House,
The University of differentiation, there is a growing marketplace recognition and economic
Newcastle, emphasis on brands and their success as a result of the value
Callaghan NSW 2308,
Australia characteristics (Lim and O’Cass, 2001). consumers place on them. A company’s
Tel: 02 4921 7729 Increasingly, brands are seen as economic superiority is frequently
Fax: 02 4921 7398
e-mail: aron.ocass@
important in creating an identity, a implied by the strength of its brand
newcastle.edu.au sense of achievement and identification name, giving it the ability to differentiate

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 25

Aron O’Cass and Hmily McEwen
itself, yielding status or greater
conspicuousness of consumption. This
implies that the status and conspicuous
consumption tendencies of consumers
are important in creating relationships
between consumers who possess such
characteristics and specific types of
products and brands that yield status.
This study seeks to contribute to the
status literature by examining status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption tendencies and the
influence that consumers’ self-
monitoring and susceptibility to
interpersonal influence have on status
and conspicuous consumption. This
study also focuses on specific brands,
their perceived status and usage for
conspicuous consumption purposes.
STATUS AND CONSPICUOUS
CONSUMPTION: UNDERSTANDING
CONSUMERS’ PSYCHE
In social and cultural terms there is
perhaps no single issue that dominates
the modern psyche as much as fashion
and consumption. It not only forms an
important part of everyday
consumption decisions, but is also a
central component of almost all daily
events, influencing what and where
people eat, the clothing they wear, the
furnishing they decorate their homes
with, how they communicate and
inherently the very nature of their
thinking. In relation to fashion, status
brands are generally those that have
high-perceived quality, luxury, prestige
and/or high class attached to them
(Shermach, 1997). The contention is
raised that such brands are often
consumed to indicate status and as such
displayed conspicuously to provide a
visual representation of status. Contrary
to this view, however, there are those
who argue that since Veblen’s time
(1934) the conscious, overt display of
wealth (position) has ceased (Trigg,
2001) and status is conveyed in more
subtle ways (Mason, 1992). Such views
seem to counter the marketplace
behaviour of both consumers and
26 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
producers, however, who seek to denote
image and status through brands. For
example, Goldsmith et al. (1996b: 309)
assert that ‘one important motivating
force that influences a wide range of
consumer behaviour is the desire to gain
status or social prestige from the
acquisition and consumption of goods.’
Inherently, ‘the more a consumer seeks
status, the more he/she will engage in
behaviours, such as the consumption of
status symbols, that increase their
status’ (Eastman et al., 1999: 3).
It appears that status and
conspicuous consumption are often
identified in the literature as if they are
inherently the same phenomena. For
example, Kilsheimer (1993: 341) defines
status consumption as ‘the motivational
process by which individuals strive to
improve their social standing through
the conspicuous consumption of
consumer products that confer and
symbolise status both for the individual
and surrounding significant others’.
Such a conceptualisation in effect
defines one construct in terms of the
other. While previous work has been
valuable in building knowledge in this
area, little effort has focused on the
relationships between status tendencies
and conspicuous consumption by
consumers. While research has been
conducted to investigate the links
between conspicuous consumption and
status goods (Bernheim, 1994; Echikson,
1994; Ferstman and Weiss, 1992; Ireland,
1992; Bourdieu, 1984), the literature
inherently treats the two constructs
(status and conspicuous consumption)
as if they have significant overlap, to the
point where they are often used
interchangeably. When definitions of
constructs contain significant overlap
with one another, or when one construct
is defined in terms of another, this
presents significant theoretical and
empirical problems. It appears that the
status and conspicuous consumption
theory may be fundamentally flawed, as
each construct’s domain is not
thoroughly delineated.

It has been argued that ownership of
specific products or brands, as well as
their particular mode of consumption,
may denote status (McCraken, 1988;
O’Shaughnessy, 1992; Packard, 1959;
Bell et al., 1991). The acquisition of
material goods is one of the strongest
measures of social success and
achievement. While the notion of status
possessions resides in consumption, it is
not clear if such consumption must be
conspicuous. It is argued here that this
process is analogous to the acquisition
of cultural capital which Bourdieu
(1984) described as being inscribed as an
objective demand, in membership, and
as such the taste of the consumer with
high cultural capital is used to secure
positions of status.
Despite the importance of the
concept of conspicuous consumption,
empirical research and theoretical
models on the nature and influences of
conspicuous consumption are scarce. It
is often said of conspicuous
consumption that it is pursued in order
to enhance one’s prestige in society,
which can be achieved through public
demonstration signalling wealth and
communicating affluence to others.
Conspicuous consumption also
includes expenditures made for the
purpose of inflating the ego (Veblen,
1934) coupled with the ostentatious
display of wealth (Mason, 1981). It has
been argued that Veblen’s theory of
conspicuous consumption is based on
the premise that those who put wealth
in evidence are rewarded with
preferential treatment by social
contacts, and that such effects depend
upon a comparison of the desirability
of signalling through price, quantity or
quality (Bagwell and Bernheim, 1996).
Furthermore, it has been argued that
status consumption implies or leads to
conspicuousness of such consumption.
The argument presented by Eastman et
al. (1999) implies conspicuousness
when they say that heightened status-
seeking behaviour will lead to an
increase in the consumption of status
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption
goods, thereby augmenting one’s level
of perceived status. Status consumption
tendencies will lead individuals to be
more conscious of displaying their
consumption of status and possessions.
It appears that status consumption is
more a matter of consumers’ desires to
gain prestige from the acquisition of
status-laden products and brands;
however, conspicuous consumption
focuses on the visual display or overt
usage of products in the presence of
others. For instance, a consumer may
wear Calvin Klein underwear because
they see the brand as symbolising
luxury and their own wealth in being
able to afford expensive lingerie. This
does not imply that they will flaunt their
undergarments to people of high status
as a means of advancing their social
standing, which is in contrast to
wearing a labelled Calvin Klein shirt or
jeans. At this stage the difference seems
to lie in the view that status
consumption tendencies emphasise the
personal nature of owning status-laden
possessions, which may or may not be
publicly demonstrated, whereas
conspicuous consumption focuses more
towards putting wealth or position in
evidence, whereby possessions are
overtly displayed. The theoretical
importance of this difference, over and
above the fact that different scales may
measure status consumption and
conspicuous consumption, appears to
be camouflaged by an array of cognate
definitions.
Contrary to the fact that research
initially focusing on status consumption
can and has used terms indicative of
conspicuous consumption and vice-
versa, the authors argue that they are
conceptually and empirically separate
constructs. Given the theoretical belief
that status and conspicuous
consumption are separate but related
constructs, the authors hypothesise that
there will be significant differences
between the constructs of status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption and that:
27
Aron O’Cass and Hmily McEwen
H1a : A two-factor model of status and
conspicuous consumption will fit the
data better than a single-factor model.
H1b : Status consumption will have a
significant positive effect on
conspicuous consumption.
ANTECEDENTS OF STATUS
CONSUMPTION
Importantly, while the potential
antecedents of status consumption and
conspicuous consumption are
numerous, the focus here is on gender
and traits that cause or engender in
individuals a social awareness. A
growing body of work on fashion has
identified that consumers undertake
and engage in different behaviour
depending on their gender. For
example, Goldsmith et al. (1996) found
that female fashion innovators often
consider themselves more excitable,
indulgent, contemporary and vain than
followers. O’Cass (2001) found that, in
the context of fashion clothing, females
were significantly more involved than
males, which implies that females use
clothing and apparel more than males
do to tell others who they are and how
much status they have (Auty and Elliot,
1998; Eastman et al., 1997; Tse et al.,
1989). This implication is important as
Lurie (1981) has indicated that social
display is a prime function of fashion
clothing. As males and females appear
to use products for different reasons
and possess differing attitudes towards
products and brands it is hypothesised
that:
H2a : Gender will have a significant effect on
status consumption, with females
being more status conscious than
males.
H2b : Gender will have a significant effect on
conspicuous consumption, with
females being more prone to
conspicuous consumption tendencies
than males.
Reference group influence appears to be
particularly important to the
relationship between status
28 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
consumption and conspicuous
consumption, as both appear to be
impacted by an individual’s proneness
to interpersonal influence (Marcoux et
al., 1997). Beyond Veblen’s early work
(1934) on conspicuous consumption,
Marcoux et al. (1997) have stated that
social status demonstration is a
dimension of conspicuous consumption,
arguing that interpersonal influence and
social status demonstration were the
two main variables in the context of the
conspicuous consumption scale.
Importantly, products and brands have
the ability to communicate messages to
others, in that product styles determine
how consumers who own them are
perceived by others (Holman, 1981;
Belk, 1978; Solomon, 1983). The role that
interpersonal influence plays is
important in defining status and, more
recently, Eastman et al. (1999: 2)
argued that status, among other things,
is ‘a form of power that consists of
respect, consideration and envy from
others’.
Individuals often gain recognition
and distinction by spending their
income on products that display status
and success to significant others. The
consumption of those who set standards
of taste and quality influences an
individual’s demand for socially
conspicuous products (O’Cass, 2001;
Pigou, 1903). Today, consumers’ desire
for conspicuous goods is still largely
determined by their social networks. In
effect many consumers are no longer
acting autonomously, but as
representatives of a larger group (Wong
and Ahuvia, 1998). Status-conscious
consumers are more socially aware and
more interested in social relationships
(Kilsheimer, 1993). Prominent
characteristics of status-conscious
consumers focus on social relationship
formation, and revolve around
interpersonal influence and self-
monitoring of status.
Such a notion rests on the view that
status consumption involves purchase
and use of products (and brands) in

order to increase a person’s status,
perceived or otherwise (Goldsmith et al.,
1996), and sees a significant influencing
role of others and an ability to monitor
one’s social environment and adjust
one’s behaviour to fit via appropriate
product selection to gain the desired
status. Reference groups typically
portray an image for group members to
refer to, which can be in the form of
common identity or interests. Brands
that have certain characteristics can
provide entry into groups and allow
consumers to fit in by portraying a
particular image, as such it is
hypothesised that:
H3a : Interpersonal influence will have a
significant positive effect on status
consumption tendencies.
H3b : Interpersonal influence will have a
significant positive effect on
conspicuous consumption tendencies.
Self-monitoring is the degree to which
an individual observes and controls
their expressive behaviour and either
maintains or adapts self-presentation
depending on certain social cues,
triggering situationally appropriate
behaviour (Gould, 1993). It ‘is associated
with the degree of interest in
maintaining a front, through products
(such as fashion clothing) that are used
as props because they convey an image
of the self to other people’ (O’Cass, 2000:
399). High self-monitors are concerned
with maintaining their appearance and
overall image, hence they are more
sensitive to interpersonal influence.
High self-monitors place more
importance on the overt self and modify
roles according to the situations
encountered, as opposed to being true
to their inner self (the low self-monitor)
(Snyder, 1979). Conspicuousness is
essential if consumers want to gain
recognition, approval, or acceptance
from their reference groups. The
conspicuousness of a product allows
reference group members to see the
product or brand and provide their
approval or disapproval.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption
High self-monitors may place more
emphasis on conspicuously consuming
status brands to fit into social situations,
as they are acutely aware of their
appearance and status, and understand
that products can communicate
(Sullivan and Harnish, 1990). The
literature indicates that self-monitors
have tendencies to use products as
props and a strong concern for their
image and maintenance of that image;
therefore the authors hypothesise that:
H4a : Self-monitoring will have a significant
positive effect on status consumption
tendencies.
H4b : Self-monitoring will have a significant
positive effect on conspicuous
consumption tendencies.
BRAND-RELATED ISSUES OF STATUS
AND CONSPICUOUSNESS
Specific brands can be positioned to
maintain exclusivity, to communicate
prestige and the social position of the
brand user (Zinkhan and Prenshaw,
1994). The desire for status is not
exclusive to the wealthy (Mason, 1992;
Ram, 1994; Underwood, 1994) and it
may be that outward symbols of status
are meaningful to both the wealthy and
those of modest means (Bansanko,
1995). It has also been argued by Belk
(1988) that, even in third-world
(developing) countries people are often
attracted to and indulge in aspects of
conspicuous consumption before they
have adequate food, clothing and
shelter. While clearly labelling this as
conspicuous, the implication is that
consumers at every class level have the
desire to consume for social status.
Similarly, some have argued that ‘many
. . . people (kids from the ghettos and
typical poverty areas) would rather
have a Rolex than a home’ (Levine,
1997: 144). In saying this, it must be
recognised that status symbols vary
depending on social class, age and
gender, and each may have different
ideas of status symbols. Given the value
of brands in creating individual
29
Aron O’Cass and Hmily McEwen
identity, a sense of achievement and
identification for consumers, it is
hypothesised that:
H5 : Respondents will clearly attribute high
status and low status to specific brands
in the same product class.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The study was based on the
development and administration of a
self-completion survey. Established
scales were drawn from the literature to
generate representative items that,
collectively, tapped the domain and
meaning of each construct. The survey
measured respondents’ status
consumption tendencies (Eastman et al.,
1999), conspicuous consumption desires
(Marcoux et al., 1997), self-monitoring
tendencies (O’Cass, 2000), reference
group influence (normative) (Bearden et
al., 1989) and evaluation of the brand’s
status and desire to consume the brand
conspicuously (Eastman et al., 1999 and
Marcoux et al., 1997), focusing on
specific brand stimuli. These scales were
evaluated on content and face validity
by a panel of expert judges as
recommended by Converse and Presser
(1986), followed by a pre-test via focus
groups.
Fashion clothing and sunglasses were
chosen as the two product categories as
both can be used in a visible way to
signal status (Goldsmith et al., 1996) and
both have the ability to be used for
higher-level needs, such as conveying
self-image (Goldsmith et al., 1999;
Kairser, 1990). Owning the latest styles
of clothing is one of the most common
ways consumers have of gaining
prestige among their peers (Goldsmith
et al., 1996; Gould and Barak, 1988).
Data collection took place via a non-
probabilistic sample of 18–25-year-old
students, and in total 315 surveys were
obtained. The sample consisted of 15.2
per cent aged 19, 21.6 per cent aged 20,
15.2 per cent aged 21, 12.7 per cent aged
22, 11.4 per cent aged 23, 8.3 per cent
aged 24 and 10.5 per cent aged 25. The
30 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
respondents included 61.3 per cent of
females and 38.4 per cent of males. This
result is similar to Flynn and Goldsmith
(1999) with a 70:30 ratio of females to
males. Therefore, given the acceptable
sample size and grouping sizes there
were no problems with the unequal
ratio of females to males.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Preliminary data analysis was
undertaken to examine the psychometric
properties of the scales via measures of
central tendency, dispersion, bivariate
Pearson correlations and principle
components analysis with oblique
rotation, followed by reliability
estimates and confirmatory factor
analysis. The factor structures indicated
that items loaded onto their respective
constructs and reliabilities were all well
above accepted levels. Gaski (1984)
suggests that if the correlation between
two composite constructs is not higher
than their respective reliability estimate,
then discriminant validity exists. The
results indicated that using this criterion
all reliability estimates (Cronbach’s
alphas) were greater than their
correlation, with all correlations ranging
between 0.21 to 0.60 and all Cronbach’s
alphas being above 0.87. Following this
analysis all items within each construct
were then computed into composite
variables to test the models.
To evaluate H1a , confirmatory factor
analysis was undertaken using several
goodness-of-fit indicators, including ÷ 2
statistics, goodness-of-fit index (GFI),
adjusted-goodness-of-fit index (AGFI),
root mean square residual (RMSR) and
root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) (O’Cass, 2000). Following the
preliminary analysis, the hypotheses
were tested via confirmatory factor
analysis for H1a , partial least squares
analysis for H1b to H4 and t-tests for H5 .
H1a tests of differences between
status and conspicuous consumption
H1a focused on differences between
status consumption and conspicuous
 Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption

consumption. Table 1 presents the factor
analysis of status consumption and
conspicuous consumption at the trait
level, showing all items loaded onto
their respective constructs and
reliabilities.
Confirmatory test of H1a
Status consumption construct: The status
consumption scale contains items that
represent the degree to which the
consumer is predisposed to consume for
status (see Table 1). The exploratory
factor analysis results indicate that the
confirmatory factor loadings range from
0.53 to 0.77, explaining 66 per cent of the
variance. The fit indices achieved from
the confirmatory factor analysis indicate
that the model of status consumption
had an acceptable fit on the key indices
with ÷ 2 ¼ 11.6, p ¼ 0.071, a GFI of 0.978
and an RMSEA of 0.055.
Conspicuous consumption construct: The
conspicuous consumption scale contains
items that represent the degree to which
the consumer is predisposed to
consume conspicuously (see Table 1).
The results indicate that the
confirmatory factor loadings range from
0.67 to 0.82, explaining 73 per cent of the
variance. The fit indices achieved from
the confirmatory factor analysis indicate
that the model of conspicuous
consumption also had an acceptable fit
on the key indices with ÷ 2 ¼ 10.31,
p ¼ 0.326, a GFI of 0.986 and an RMSEA
of 0.022.
Single and two factor models of
status and conspicuous consumption
A model of status and conspicuous
consumption as a single factor was then
tested. The results indicate that the
confirmatory factor loadings range from
0.56 to 0.86, significant at , 0.05,
explaining 73 per cent of the variance.
The fit indices achieved from the
confirmatory factor analysis indicate
that the single-factor model of status
and conspicuous consumption had a
poor fit on the key indices with
÷ 2 ¼ 251.10, p ¼ 0.001, a GFI of 0.823 and
an RMSEA of 0.108. While the factor
loadings and reliability are acceptable,
the fit indices indicate that the single-
factor model does not fit the data well.

Table 1 Factor structure of status consumption and conspicuous consumption tendencies

Exploratory factor loadings

Standard Conspicuous Status consumption

Mean deviation consumption

Conspicuous consumption
Noticed by others 3.12 1.30 0.82
Presence of others 3.38 1.22 0.80
Gain respect 2.80 1.15 0.76
Popularity 2.70 1.14 0.75
Show who I am 3.40 1.29 0.72
Seen using it 3.31 1.30 0.67
Variance explained: 33.2%
Reliability: 0.87

Status consumption
Symbol of success 4.97 0.94 0.77
Symbol of prestige 5.16 0.81 0.71
Indicate wealth 4.56 1.01 0.73
Indicate achievement 4.12 1.18 0.72
Interested in status 4.22 1.16 0.66
Status is important to me 3.85 1.22 0.62
Status enhances my image 3.92 1.28 0.53
Variance explained: 26.2%
Reliability: 0.85

Total variance explained: 59.4%

Total reliability of scale: 0.89

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 31

Aron O’Cass and Hmily McEwen

The results of the two-factor model
indicate that the confirmatory factor
loadings range from 0.43 to 0.90,
significant at , 0.05 (t . 1.96),
explaining 72 per cent of the variance in
status and conspicuous consumption
tendencies. The fit indices achieved
from the confirmatory factor analysis
indicate that the single-factor model of
status and conspicuous consumption
had a poor fit on the key indices with
÷ 2 ¼ 107.3, p ¼ 0.001, a GFI of 0.924 and
an RMSEA of 0.068.
While the factor loadings and
reliability are acceptable, the fit indices
indicate that the single-factor model
does not fit the data as well as the two
factor model. The confirmatory factor
analysis, along with the exploratory
analysis, indicate that status and
conspicuous consumption are separate
constructs. Largely, the results support
H1a in that the two-factor model fits the
data better than the single-factor model.
Results for the fitted model: H1b to H4
Given the formulation of the proposed
relationships and the sample size, it was
decided to use partial least squares
(PLS) to analyse the data (Fornell and
Cha, 1994; Wold, 1981). PLS analysis is a
general technique for estimating path
models involving latent constructs
indirectly observed by multiple
indicators such as those used in this
study. Evaluation of the model was
made on the basis of indices assessing
criteria such as their quality, sufficiency
to explain the data, congruence with
hypotheses and precision. A systematic
examination of fit of the indices,
including R2 , average variance
accounted (AVA), regression weights
and loadings was undertaken (O’Cass,
2001).
The results of the inner model are
shown in Table 2, and indicate that all
the paths exceed this criterion and the
bootstrap critical ratios are of the
appropriate size (. 1.96), except for
gender–status consumption and self–
monitoring-conspicuous consumption.
The results support H1b , H2b , H3a , H3b
and H4a , but not H2a and H4b . This data,
therefore, suggest that the status
consumption tendencies of individuals
are associated with the extent to which
they are influenced by their reference
group(s) and are self-monitors,
conspicuous consumption tendencies
are influenced also by reference
group(s), gender and status
consumption tendencies.
The test of the structural model
included estimating the path
coefficients, which are interpreted as
standardised beta weights in a
regression analysis, and R2 , which is
used to assess the proportion of variance
in the endogenous constructs accounted
for by the exogenous constructs. The
path coefficient of an exogenous
construct represents the direct effect of
that variable on the endogenous
variable, an indirect effect represents the
effect of a particular variable on the

Table 2 Partial least squares: results for H1b and H2 to H4

Model

Variance Critical
Predicted variables Predictor variables Hyp. Path due to path R2 ratio

Status consumption trait Reference group influence H3a 0.406 0.18 8.15
Self-monitoring H4a 0.179 0.05 3.26
Gender H2a 0.013 0.00 0.222 ns

Conspicuous Reference group influence H3b 0.482 0.30 9.44

consumption trait Self-monitoring H4b
0.028 0.00 ns
Gender H2b
0.090 0.013
2.02
Status consumption trait H1b 0.301 0.15 0.457 5.00
AVA 0.339

32 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

 Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption

second variable through its effects on a
third mediating variable. It is the
product of the path coefficients along an
indirect route from cause to effect via
tracing arrows in the headed direction
only. When more than one indirect path
exists, the total indirect effect is their
sum. Table 3 provides direct and indirect
effects for proposed relationships as
depicted in the hypotheses (H1b to H4b ).
Results for differences between
brands: H5
H5 focused on perceptions of brands,
status and conspicuousness by
examining if individuals identify a high-
status brand and a low-status brand for
both the clothing brands and the
sunglasses brand categories. Brands
were a priori classified as either high or
low status via the focus groups. The two
high-status brands identified were
Calvin Klein clothing and Oakley
sunglasses and the lower-status brands
were Polaroid sunglasses and Target
clothing. The tests of differences
between a high- and low-status brand
for the clothing apparel and sunglasses
brands were conducted via t-tests. The
results of these tests are presented in
Table 4, which include the means, t
values and p values for H5 . As was
predicted, respondents saw a clear
distinction between brand names that
were a priori perceived to be of high
status and those that were considered
low status.
The results indicate significant
differences ( p , 0.01) between the high-
and low-status brands. Consequently,
H5 has been supported as respondents
identified that Calvin Klein was a high-
status brand in the clothing category,
while Oakley was considered also to be
of high status for the sunglasses
category. Similarly, Target and Polaroid
brands were perceived to be of low
status and were unlikely to be
consumed conspicuously.
DISCUSSION
The findings indicate initially that status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption are indeed related but
separate constructs related to
dimensions of consumers’ motivational
behaviour towards products. The
findings also indicate good

Table 3 Direct and indirect effects

Independent variable + mediating

variable Dependent variable Direct Indirect Total

Reference group influence — Status Conspicuous consumption 0.482 0.122 0.604

consumption
Self-monitoring — Status consumption Conspicuous consumption 0.028 0.054 0.082
Gender — Status consumption Conspicuous consumption 0.089 0.004 0.093

Table 4 Differences between status consumption and conspicuous consumption for high- and low-
status brands

t-test for equality of

means

Status level Brands Mean t Sig. (2-tailed)

Status consumption High Calvin Klein 3.40 8.50 0.001

Low Target 2.06
High Oakley 2.97 4.81 0.001
Low Polaroid 2.17

Conspicuous consumption HIgh Calvin Klein 2.99 8.50 0.001

Low Target 2.26
High Oakley 2.69 4.82 0.001
Low Polaroid 2.24

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 33

Aron O’Cass and Hmily McEwen
psychometric properties of the two
scales. The results indicate that status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption are empirically separate
yet related. This means that each
construct is unique, yet somewhat
related in the context that both ascribe
similar characteristics and tendencies to
the consumer, yet one who desires
status is distinctive to the person
seeking conspicuous consumption. The
extant literature has treated them as
though they can be used
interchangeably. The value of treating
status consumption and conspicuous
consumption as separate yet related
constructs lies in the fact that each
descriptor carries a unique set of
consumer behaviour and consumption
motives. Should each construct continue
to be used interchangeably, without
recognising that each is different, then
results may be fundamentally flawed,
carrying the potential for
misinterpretation. The authors propose
to add clarity to the body of literature
and demarcate each construct by
defining status consumption as:
The behavioural tendency to value status
and acquire and consume products that
provide status to the individual.
In the same vein, conspicuous
consumption can be defined as:
The tendency for individuals to enhance
their image, through overt consumption of
possessions, which communicates status to
others.
These (similar) definitions are an
attempt to articulate what previously
was an under-researched yet promising
area of enquiry for consumer behaviour,
but, combined with these results, they
attest to the value of pursuing this
avenue of research. It should be noted,
however, that status is not only seen as
high status, it is used here to imply or
signify a sought-after social position.
Such a sought-after position implies that
varying degrees of privilege or esteem
are attached to the individual through
34 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
the position. As such, status implies not
just a high or low binary but a
continuum (and that it may stand out or
fit).
As was discussed in the literature
review, many products, particularly
fashion clothing and apparel, are
oriented towards individuals displaying
their image to others, where in effect
they are a code to communicate one’s
personal status. The results indicate that
the influence of significant others is
important in the process. In the context
of antecedents of status consumption
and conspicuous consumption, the
results indicate that reference group
influence, self-monitoring and gender
did influence status consumption and
conspicuous consumption tendencies.
The results also indicate that status
consumption did affect conspicuous
consumption. Intuitively, it is known
that consumers do not always buy
products and brands, particularly
fashion apparel, to consume for its
functional benefits. Similarly, when
consumers wear sunglasses, many do
not wear them just to protect their eyes,
but to fit in, or display an image. In the
context of fashion apparel, sunglasses
and other product categories, the
conspicuousness of products and
brands is affected by their degree of
status. Status consumption influences
the desire to consume conspicuously,
therefore the more status a brand
carries, the more likely it will be used in
a conspicuous manner.
Susceptibility to reference group
influence (normative) directly relates to
an individual’s status consumption
and conspicuous consumption
tendencies. Conceptually this means
that certain status products and brands
are used for image portrayal to
provide entry into certain groups. It
would appear that the need to identify
with, or enhance, one’s image in the
opinion of significant others operates
closely with both status consumption
and conspicuous consumption. This
finding is important as both status and

conspicuous consumption require the
impact of interpersonal influence.
Consuming conspicuously cannot be
achieved without the presence of
‘others’, for instance, signalling wealth,
public demonstration and
communicating affluence to others
(Veblen, 1934) imply that ‘others’ must
observe. Shermach’s (1997) notion that
people use brands for social acceptance
is consistent with this study, showing
how group affiliation can be promoted
or identified through the use of a
particular product via susceptibility to
interpersonal influence. Similarly, the
extant literature and the results here
indicate that consumers’ desire for
conspicuous goods is determined by
their social networks and reference
group influence (Wong and Ahuvia,
1998).
The results also indicate that self-
monitoring influences the desire for
status consumption but not that for
conspicuous consumption, where a
weak direct and indirect influence on
conspicuous consumption tendencies
was found. The effect of self-monitoring
on status consumption means that
status-laden products and brands are
used by self-monitors to fit into different
situations, requiring the user to display
prestige, success and status. In saying
this, however, consumers may not wish
to ostentatiously portray the products
chosen, inflate their own ego or improve
their social standing in preference to the
need to adapt and fit in to different
situations. In other words, people who
have different self-monitoring or
conspicuous consumption tendencies
use products for different reasons. For
instance, the self-monitor may use
products as props to fit in (O’Cass,
2000); however, they may not want to
use products in the same way that an
individual who is interested in
conspicuously consuming that same
product may. Their motivation for using
and displaying products comes from
different desires to ‘fit in’ (self-monitor)
or inflate the ego and ostentatiously
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption
display wealth (conspicuous
consumption consumer).
Significant gender differences were
found in the study for respondents’
tendencies to conspicuously consume,
but not in the context of status
consumption tendencies. Young males
(18–25) placed more importance on the
conspicuousness of product use. The
existence of this difference between
males and females is also consistent
with Eastman et al. (1997) and Tse et al.
(1989), who indicated that males may be
more materialistic and have a stronger
orientation towards external validation
through visually portraying prestige
and accomplishment. Males also may be
more active in processing advertising
cues, which emphasise the
conspicuousness of brands.
Alternatively, females may be rejecting
messages to ‘be noticed’ or ‘stand out’
and/or they may not be accurately
processing these cues as males do. The
authors did not find gender differences
in terms of status, however, which
highlights that males and females are
similar in their status consumption
tendencies.
Implications
As was mentioned earlier, there is a
theoretical concern over the similar
definitions provided to specify the
domain of each construct of status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption. After comparisons were
made, it was not unrealistic that each
theoretical definition could be applied
to both labels (status and
conspicuousness). Based on the
evidence that respondents perceive
each separately, it would be advisable
that the constructs cease being used
interchangeably, as this creates
confusion in the literature. Based on the
findings and discussion of the literature
on conspicuous consumption, it is
reasonable to infer that young males
(18–25) may place more importance on
the conspicuousness of product use.
This implies that young males (18–25)
35
Aron O’Cass and Hmily McEwen
have stronger conspicuous
consumption tendencies, also
suggesting that marketers may benefit
from emphasising the conspicuous use
of status products by males rather than
females in their promotional
campaigns.
Knowing susceptibility to
interpersonal influence is a strong
predictor of status consumption and
conspicuous consumption could lead
marketers to utilise spokespersons and
reference groups in advertising and
promotional campaigns directed at
status-conscious consumers. The groups
selected should be chosen to reflect the
salient dimensions of reference group
influence for status-seeking consumers
and those interested in conspicuously
consuming brands. It was found that the
level of perceived status significantly
influences the likelihood of a brand
being chosen by consumers for status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption. Therefore, if marketers
are targeting segments via appeals to
either inflate the ego, display wealth or
portray status (all tendencies of status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption), then it is advised that the
brand be articulated as being heavily
status-laden, ie carrying the superior
qualities and distinguishing
characteristics that make it a status
symbol. These attributes would include:
symbolic characteristics; standards of
excellence in their field; positive brand
image and identity; superior quality;
‘snob’ appeal; luxurious features;
exclusivity; being associated with the
wealthy, successful or elite; or high
priced.
When a brand gains the title of ‘status
symbol’ or even is labelled as an
aspirational, pinnacle or premium
brand, its appeal can be broad ranging
and extremely profitable for companies.
With the status market valued in
billions of dollars it could be beneficial
for companies to build brands that are
consistent with the aforementioned
benefits, qualities and image, as the
36 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
long-term benefits will exceed any
initial time and cost outlays by far.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Although use of student samples and
‘young consumers’ is limited in
representing the broader population, it
has been heavily debated that student
samples are appropriate for theory
testing (Bearden et al., 1989; Eastman et
al., 1997; O’Cass, 2000; Verlegh and
Steenkamp, 1999). In addition, a student
sample is adequate for this study, as its
objective was not to provide point and
interval estimates of population
parameters (Calder et al., 1981; Ferber,
1977). Hence, generalisation of the
specific results of this study is neither
intended nor implied, beyond those
fitting the sample’s profile. Although
limitations exist with student samples,
students have been argued to be more
fashion conscious and image orientated.
They are also prone to keeping or being
up with the latest ‘fad’ in status brands
(Beaudoin et al., 1998). While it is
evident that students are interested in
consuming and displaying status
products and brands, additional
research is recommended to compare
students against other (non-student)
segments in the population.
Another limitation was the use of four
brands from two product categories. It
is recognised that a plethora of other
product categories exist and should be
considered for future research in this
area. Just as product and brand studies
are unable to address all possible
product categories, this study is no
exception to this limitation and, in light
of this study’s findings and limitations,
future studies may consider the
expansion of the variables covered.
It is hoped that this study provides
some imputes to further research
examining the role of status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption in explaining consumer
behaviour. With increasing globalisation
there is a pressing need for exploration
of research across different countries, as

the same brand can be perceived to
have different meanings and values for
different nationalities. Not only do
countries differ by culture, history,
geography and language but also in the
way in which consumers perceive
products and brands (Domzal and
Unger, 1987; Quelch, 1999; Verlegh and
Steenkamp, 1999).
A parallel study to that conducted
here, might show significant differences
in perceptions and tendencies for the
status consumption and conspicuous
consumption of different age and social
groups. Future research should also test
a different set of brand associations or
variables associated with status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption to examine plausible
differences and relationships. For
example, country of origin, media use,
lifestyles, values, brand personalities
and alternative consumption-relevant
concepts could all realistically be tested
to yield further insights into status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption. Marketing practitioners
and academics would benefit from
understanding the plethora of brand
associations that may be discovered to
be the strongest predictors of status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption tendencies. This may also
extend to how status drives not only
someone to seek higher position, but
also their strong desire to fit in and not
stand out.
The theoretical links between status
consumption, conspicuous consumption
and brand associations across other
products need to be investigated to
ascertain if other products and brands
are perceived to have higher status.
Lifestyle variables could also be used to
compare with individuals’ status
consumption and conspicuous
consumption tendencies. Kelly (1987)
suggested that experience-based status
symbols, such as cultural activities, have
replaced materially-based ones for
people aspiring to be members of the
socially elite. This services-based
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption
comparison would be valuable future
research as services have unique
qualities that products and brands
cannot offer, such as service interaction,
experience qualities and credence
qualities (Comm and LaBay, 1996;
Proctor and Wright, 1998).
Even given the potential areas of
research outlined above, however, a
primary area relates to some deep-
rooted issues yet to be resolved in
consumer behaviour work on status and
conspicuous consumption. This relates
largely to the work of Veblen (1934) and
Bourdieu (1984) and the differing views
of the role of status, its social class versus
lifestyle aspects, its unconscious versus
conscious pursuit and how consumers
display with a conscious versus an
unconscious plan in mind. These issues
are in need of serious work, particularly
as they relate to young consumers’ use of
brands to create and confer identities,
which do not necessarily fit the high–
low status binary.
CONCLUSION
This study has provided insights into
the underlying characteristics of
consumers who seek status and
conspicuously consume brands.
Consequently, it has been revealed that
young status-conscious consumers are
more likely to be affected by
interpersonal influences. There were
indications that males are more likely
than females to engage in conspicuous
consumption, however, no differences
existed in status consumption
tendencies. This insight broadens the
theorist’s discernment of these
consumers and their behaviour towards
status brands. Young consumers are a
prime target for a plethora of products
and brands so long as they are
inherently laden with the ability to
communicate status and prestige to
others.
What this study engenders is the view
that what clothes individuals wear and
how they wear them tells much about
their status and group dynamics and it
37
Aron O’Cass and Hmily McEwen
tells even more about the role of specific
product types and brands that allow
and aid this to happen. This is
potentially the same for many other
products, such as cars, houses and
jewellery, which can be used to display
one’s status or social group
membership. The very nature of status
and conspicuous consumption appears
to be related to the benefit obtained by
an individual’s relationship with their
possessions. Thus, individuals appear to
define themselves and even others in
terms of their possessions. Possessions
serve as key symbols for personal
qualities, attachments and interests and,
as Dittmar has said: ‘. . . an individual’s
identity is influenced by the symbolic
meanings of his or her own material
possessions, and the way in which s/he
relates to those possessions‘ (1992: 205).
REFERENCES
Auty, S. and Elliot, R. (1998) ‘Fashion involvement, self-
monitoring and the meaning of brands’, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 7 (2), 109–123.
Bagwell, L. S. and Bernheim, B. D. (1996) ‘Veblen effects
in a theory of conspicuous consumption’, The American
Economic Review, 86 (3), June, 349.
Bansanko, D. (1995) ’The kinder, gentler, richer
American’, American Demographics, 17 (1), 46.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G. and Teel, J. E. (1989)
‘Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence’,
Journal of Consumer Research, 15, March, 473–481.
Beaudoin, P., Moore, M. and Goldsmith, R. (1998) ‘Young
fashion leaders’ and followers’ attitudes toward
american and imported apparel’, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 7 (3), 193–207.
Belk, R. W. (1978) ‘Assessing the effects of visible
consumption patterns on impression formation’,
Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 39–47.
Belk, R.W. (1988) ‘Possessions and the extended self’,
Journal of Consumer Research, 2, September, 139–168.
Bell, S. S., Holbrook, M. B. and Solomon, M. R. (1991)
‘Combining esthetic and social value to explain
preferences for product styles with incorporation of
personality and ensemble effects’, in ‘To Have
Possessions: A Handbook on Ownership and Property’,
Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6 (6), 243–247.
Bernheim, B. D. (1994) ’A theory of conformity’, Journal of
Political Economy, 102 (5), 841–877.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the
Judgement of Taste, Routledge, London, UK.
Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W. and Tybout, A. (1981)
‘Designing research for application’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 8 (2), 197–208.
Comm, C. L. and LaBay, D. G. (1996) ‘Repositioning
38 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
colleagues using changing student quality perceptions:
An exploratory analysis’, Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 7 (4), 21–34.
Converse, J. and Presser, S. (1986) ‘Survey questions:
Handcrafting the standardised questionnaire’, Sage
University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in
the Social Sciences, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Dittmar, H. (1992) The Social Psychology of Material
Possessions. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead,
UK.
Domzal, T. and Unger, L. (1987) ‘Emerging positioning
strategies in global marketing’, The Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 4 (4), Fall, 23–40.
Eastman, J. K., Fredenberger, B., Campbell, D. and Calvert,
S. (1997) ‘The relationship between status consumption
and materialism: A cross-cultural comparison of
Chinese, Mexican and American students’, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 5 (1), 52–66.
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E. and Flynn, L. R. (1999)
‘Status consumption in consumer behaviour: Scale
development and validation’, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 7 (3), 41–51.
Echikson, W. (1994) ‘The return of luxury’, Fortune, 130
(8), 17th October.
Ferber, R. (1977) ‘Research by convenience’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 4, June, 57–58.
Ferstman, C. and Weiss, Y. (1992) ‘Social status, culture
and economic performance’, Mimeo, Tel-Aviv
University, Israel.
Flynn, L. R. and Goldsmith, R. E. (1999) ‘A short, reliable
measure of subjective knowledge’, Journal of Business
Research, 46 (1), 57–66.
Fornell, C. and Cha, J. (1994) ‘Partial least squares’, in
Bagozzi, R. P. (ed.) Advanced Methods of Marketing
Research, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, UK, 58–72.
Gaski, J. (1984) ‘The theory of power and conflict in
channels of distribution’, Journal of Marketing, 48,
Summer, 9–29.
Goldsmith, R., Flynn, L. and Eastman, J. (1996) ‘Status
consumption and fashion behaviour: An exploratory
study’, Association of Marketing Theory and Practice
Proceedings, Hilton Head, SC, 309–316.
Goldsmith, R., Moore, M. and Beaudoin, P. (1999)
‘Fashion innovativeness and self-concept: A
replication’, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
8 (1), 7–18.
Gould, S. (1993) ‘Assessing self-concept discrepancy in
consumer behavior: The joint effect of private self-
consciousness and self-monitoring’, Advances in
Consumer Research, 20 (1), 419–424.
Gould, S. and Barak, B. (1988) ‘Public self-consciousness
and consumption behaviour’, Journal of Social
Psychology, 128 (3), 393–400.
Holman, R. (1981) ‘Product use as communication: A
fresh look at a venerable topic’, in Enis, B. M. and
Roering, K. J. (eds) Review of Marketing, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 106–119.
Ireland, N. (1992) ‘On limiting the market for status
signals’, Mimeo, University of Warwick, UK, February.
Kairser, S. B. (1990) The Social Psychology of Apparel, 2nd
edn., Macmillan, New York, NY.

Kelly, R. F. (1987) ‘Museums as status symbols: Attaining
a state of having been’, in Belk, R. W. (ed.) Advances in
Nonprofit Marketing, 2nd edn, JAI Press, 1–38.
Kilsheimer, J. (1993) Status Consumption: The Development
and Implications of a Scale Measuring the Motivation to
Consume for Status, a dissertation submitted to the
Marketing Faculty at Florida State University, FL.
Levine, J. (1997) ‘Badass sells’, Forbes, 21st April.
Lim, K. and O’Cass, A. (2001) ‘Consumer brand
classifications: An assessment of culture-of-origin
versus country-of-origin’, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 10 (2), 120–136.
Lurie, A. (1981) The Language of Clothes, Random House,
New York, NY.
Marcoux, J., Filiatrault, P. and Cheron, E. (1997) ‘The
attitudes underlying preferences of young urban
educated Polish consumers towards products made in
western countries’, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 9 (4), 5–29.
Mason, R. (1981) Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of
Exceptional Consumer Behaviour, St. Martin’s Press, New
York, NY.
Mason, R. (1992) Modeling the Demand for Status Goods,
Working Paper, Department of Business and
Management Studies, University of Salford,
UK.
McCraken, G. (1988) Culture and Consumption, Indiana
University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN.
O’Cass, A. (2000) ‘A psychometric evaluation of a revised
version of the Lennox and Wolfe revised self-
monitoring scale’, Psychology and Marketing, 17 (5),
397–419.
O’Cass, A. (2001) ‘Consumer self-monitoring, materialism
and involvement in fashion clothing’, Australasian
Marketing Journal, 9 (1), 46–60.
O’Shaughnessy, J. (1992) Explaining Buyer Behaviour,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Packard, V. (1959) The Status Seekers, David McKay, New
York, NY.
Pigou, A. (1903) ‘Some remarks on utility’, Economic
Journal, 13, March, 58–68.
Proctor, S. and Wright, G. (1998) ‘Mission impossible?
Making sense of the key debates in the services
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 25–39 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838
Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption
literature’, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector
Marketing, 6 (1), 3–29.
Quelch, J. (1999) ‘Global brands: Taking stock’, Business
Strategy Review, 10 (1), 1–14.
Ram, J. (1994) ‘Luxury goods firms find a haven in Asia’,
Asian Business, 30, July, 52–53.
Shermach, K. (1997) ‘What consumers wish brand
managers knew’, Marketing News, 9th June, 31 (12).
Snyder, M. (1979) ’Self-monitoring process’, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 86–128.
Solomon, M. (1983) ‘The role of products as social stimuli:
A symbolic interactionism perspective’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 10, 319–329.
Sullivan, L. and Harnish, R. (1990) ‘Body image:
Differences in high and low self-monitoring males
and females’, Journal of Research in Personality, 24 (3),
291–302.
Trigg, A. (2001) ‘Veblen, Bourdieu, and conspicuous
consumption’, Journal of Economic Issues, XXXV (1),
March, 99–115.
Tse, D., Belk, R. and Zhou, N. (1989) ‘Becoming a
consumer society’, Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
March, 457–472.
Underwood, E. (1994) ‘Luxury’s tide turns’, Brandweek,
7th March, 35, 18–22
Veblen, T. (1934) The Theory of the Leisure Class, Random
House, Inc., New York, NY.
Verlegh, P. and Steenkamp, J. (1999) ‘A review and meta-
analysis of country-of-origin research’, Journal of
Economic Psychology, 20 (5), 521–546.
Wold, H. (1981) ‘Model construction and evaluation
when theoretical knowledge is scarce: Theory and
application of partial least squares’, in Kmenta, J. and
Ramsey, J. (eds) Evaluation of Econometric Models,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Wong, N. and Ahuvia, A. (1998) ‘Personal taste and
family face: Luxury consumption in confucian and
western societies’, Journal of Psychology and Marketing,
15 (5), 423–441.
Zinkhan, G. and Prenshaw, P. (1994) ‘Good life images
and brand name associations: Evidence from Asia,
America and Europe’, Advances in Consumer Research,
21 (1), 496–500.
39