Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

A study of antecedents and outcomes of social media WOM towards luxury

brand purchase intention
Jungkun Park a, Hyowon Hyun a, *, Toulany Thavisay b
a
School of Business, Hanyang University, 222 Wangshimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, South Korea
b
Faculty of Economics and Business Management, National University of Laos (NUoL), Po Box 7322, Vientiane, Laos

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research develops a conceptualized model that illuminates the role of luxury perceptions in explaining
Luxury product consumer engagement in social media WOM and luxury purchase intention. It also explores the moderating
Perceived quality effects of consumer demographic characteristics and perceived social status. The proposed model is validated by
Perceived value
using SEM in AMOS against 282 samples, and chi-square difference test is applied to test the moderating effects.
Social media WOM
Consumer characteristics
The findings demonstrate that social media WOM positively influences consumer luxury purchase intention.
Perceived quality highly influences functional and social value, and social media WOM is strongly influenced by
personal and functional value. This research 1) highlights the powerful role of social media WOM in enhancing
luxury brands purchase intention, 2) extends current body of knowledge of the social media WOM and its focal
antecedents, and 3) shows how consumer characteristics (e.g., age, gender, income, education, perceived social
status) are important for developing customized marketing strategy to promote luxury brands on SNS. Overall,
this study helps firms to understand which aspect of luxury brands to be emphasized to initiate consumers into
social media WOM, which in turn, influences purchase intention.

1. Introduction that has been recognized to be one of major influential information

The diffusion of social media has emerged over the last decade as the
principle communication channels of marketing activities (Rialti et al.,
2017). It is the Internet-based applications which are characterized by
accessibility, bidirectionality (e.g. two-way communication), and
interoperability (e.g., exchanging of information) (Kaplan and Haenlein,
2010). By using social media, luxury firms can reach and initiate their
customers into marketing activities of luxury brands in social commu­
nities (Gallaugher and Ransbotham, 2010). For instance, Louis Vuitton
posts their fashion shows on its Facebook page (Kapferer, 2012), which
creates different opportunities for brand-related users to entertain,
interact, and share information. In addition, according to Deloitte
(2017), the sales growth of Estée Lauder is attributed by implementing
social media approach, and luxury firms could optimize the benefits of
such platform to increase its users by customizing pictures, videos, and
design to meet their personalities (Bazi et al., 2020). (Figs. 1 and 2)
Information shared by consumers in social media sites is widely
known to influence and form consumer attitudes and behavioral in­
tentions. For instance, word-of-mouth (WOM) over social media is
known as electronic WOM (Yang, 2017). It is a form of communication
sources on social media sites (Jalilvand and Samiei, 2012). Consumers
who rely on social media need information and opinions from others to
increase their awareness of a certain brand as much as they enjoy
sharing their own experiences of luxury brands with their peers. This
form of communication provides credibility and trustworthiness (May­
zlin, 2006), leading to an opportunity to evaluate brand value and avoid
misunderstanding of brands. In the era of social media boom, firms
being on social platforms is crucial, and it is a part of online marketing
strategies (Sokolova and Kefi, 2020). The advent of social media pro­
vides marketers and consumers with various social platforms, and they
are essential resources of products and services. Instagram for, instance,
is one of them that has been used recently by luxury brands to inspire
their consumers. As such, Instagram has more than 1 billion users
(Intagram, 2019) sharing, tagging, using hashtags, and commenting on
visual contents (e.g., images, videos, gifs) (Vinerean and Oprena, 2019).
As this platform provides more visual extensions with textual descrip­
tion (Sokolova and Kefi, 2020), it is considered as more appropriate for
luxury fashion brands, and it appeals to luxury consumers who are
highly tech-savvy and spend more time using this site (Instagram, 2017).
Consequently, using the content they see on Instagram influences their

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: viroid2007@gmail.com (J. Park), hhwony326@gmail.com (H. Hyun), thavisay.toulany@gmail.com (T. Thavisay).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102272
Received 19 March 2020; Received in revised form 29 June 2020; Accepted 31 July 2020
Available online 10 September 2020
0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Park et al.
future behavioral intention and luxury shopping (Casaló et al., 2018).
Moreover, WOM in social media is the most persuasive information
sources on the Web (Abubakar and Ilkan, 2016) that have led to sig­
nificant changes in consumer behaviors (Gómez-Suárez et al., 2017). It
helps consumers to look for information about products and brands, find
comparisons, and learn about other consumers’ usage experiences with
a particular brand, product, and service, so that they are able to finalize
their purchasing decision confidently (Pentina et al., 2015).
Consumers in the digital age use their profile pages to post recom­
mendations and opinions about a product or brand (Kudeshia and
Kumar, 2017), which creates consumer’s generated contents. Product
reviews and recommendations that users post on social media have
proved to be a key factor in finalizing consumer’s purchasing decision
(e.g., Farzin and Fattahi, 2018) since it influences a decision making of
their friends and acquaintances in their social communities, and other
potential consumers who see the shared posts. However, previous
studies examining consumer purchase intention as a consequence of
WOM in social media have rarely conducted a research in luxury context
(Alhidari et al., 2015; Kudeshia and Kumar, 2017; Tien et al., 2018), and
vice versa (Nwankwo et al., 2014; Park et al., 2018). Therefore, as WOM
is an important factor in shaping consumers purchase decision (Fariz
and Fattahi, 2018), this study aims to find out whether WOM in social
media would have an influence on luxury brand buying decision.
Understanding key antecedents of social media WOM in luxury
context is considerably important because consumer perceptions toward
luxury including perceived quality and perceived value is a subjective
concept (Phau and Prendergast, 2000) that influences behavioral
intention towards luxury brands. It is within this context; the present
study sets to find out the key determinants involved in consumer
engagement in social media WOM behavior and its possible
consequences.
Consumer demographic characteristics and perceived social status
could play an important role in understanding individual consumers.
Particularly, many aspects of consumer characteristics such as age,
gender, income, and education might impact behavioral intentions and
cannot be ignored. This implies that consumption of luxury goods
cannot be well understood without a consideration of consumers of
luxury and their characteristics (Ghosh and Vashney, 2013). Marketers
require this information as key input to create specific consumer seg­
ments (Rialti et al., 2017). In consistent with prior knowledge, this study
aims to show how differences of consumer demographic characteristics
and their perceived social status are related to antecedents of social
media WOM and their engagement, and luxury purchase intention.
Accordingly, the objective of this study is threefold: to examine the
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of luxury brand purchase intention and social media WOM.
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272
effect of luxury perceptions, including perceived quality, social, per­
sonal, and function value on social media WOM; to examine the influ­
ence of social media WOM on luxury purchase intention; and to examine
the moderating effects of consumer demographic characteristics (e.g.
age, gender, income, and education) and perceived social status on the
relationships between perceptions of luxury, social media WOM, and
purchase intention.
This current study expects to provide several contributions to liter­
atures on consumer engagement in electronic WOM and luxury brand
shopping. First, the results provide a new theoretical model regarding
the effect of key luxury perceptions (i.e., perceived quality, social value,
personal value, and functional value) attribute on social media WOM
engagement. Second, this research extends the relationship between
electronic WOM engagement and luxury brand shopping by specifically
examining the role of active consumers in social media WOM with
specific regard to their luxury purchase intention.
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
2.1. Luxury brands and consumer engagement in social media
Luxury brands can refer to attributes pertaining to premium image,
quality, pleasurable purchase and consumption experiences that reflect
the buyers’ perceived luxury after purchasing (Keller, 2009). Phau and
Prendergast (2000) view luxury brands according to exclusivity, brand
awareness, perceived quality, and brand loyalty. To our understanding,
luxury is the combination of quality and value which is the outcome of
core qualities that communicate to the target consumers.
Luxury firms are now engaging in social media, which is a two-way
communication platform allowing consumers to interact with brands,
share information and opinions with other social community’s mem­
bers, and build a relationship with brands (Kim and Ko, 2010). Luxury
brands are generally perceived as high price and believed to provide rare
attributes including both superb quality and exclusive function. With
advanced technology, exclusivity and uniqueness can be communicated
to consumers on social media sites (Miller et al., 2009).
Social media sites including Twitter, YouTube, and Pinterest are
being used widely by luxury brands (Chu et al., 2013; Phan, 2011). For
instance, Louis Vuitton has its Facebook page where social media users
are able to access to various contents like video clips, pictures, text,
links, and stories. Such contents are the stimuli that create consumer
engagement in social media (Dhaoui, 2014; Chu et al., 2019). Consumer
engagement is the interaction between consumers and brands and other
community’s members, which creates two-way communication
J. Park et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272

experiences (Brodie et al., 2013). By the way, consumer engagement in
social media can be understood as interactions. The interactions include
sharing, commenting, reproducing, and liking the contents (Dhaoui,
2014; Martín-Consuegra et al., 2018). Such WOM in social media creates
a capital of opinions and shapes consumers’ attitude and behaviors
including purchase intention (Jin, 2012; Chu and Kamal, 2011).
WOM in social media as the outcome of consumer engagement (i.e., a
consumer creates and shares information to other social media users)
has gained important role in understanding purchase intention towards
luxury goods. Since social media enables consumers to create and access
to various types of information (e.g., reviews, recommendations, pic­
tures) makes purchasing decision more dependent on social media WOM
(King et al., 2014; Park and Kim, 2009). In the past, consumers used to
turn to marketers and friends for information. However, social media
WOM has become powerful source of information in the present days
(Alhidari et al., 2015) because of the advanced technologies that enable
consumers to share and obtain information at a time and place (Nam
et al., 2019). Furthermore, individuals can visit multiple review sites to
seek product and service information which has a clear negative or
positive valence (King et al., 2014), which is viewed as more trustworthy
and honest than the one obtained through firms’ websites and adver­
tisements (Nam et al., 2019). Certain consumer profiles are not being
considered to affirm that WOM social media has become a powerful
source of information today in this present study. However, as cited in
the study of Nam et al. (2019), 91% of consumers search for the infor­
mation from blogs, read product reviews, or visit other online platforms
for user-generated contents prior to purchasing goods (Brightlocal,
2016).
With the advent of digital information and communication tech­
nology, luxury brands are able to showcase particular attributes of
luxury to social media users on social media sites. Attributes such as
quality, rarity, and personality are presented and communicated by
using marketing communications of luxury brands (Dhaoui, 2014). For
instance, within this context, quality attributes are communicated
through advertising and marketing activity, such as public relations,
celebrities, stories, and influences are great potential communication
tools to communicate luxury attributes to consumers (Chu et al., 2019).
Researchers suggest that marketer’s generated content may not be a
reliable source of information compared to consumer’s generated con­
tent as it is generated by actual experiences (e.g., exchanging informa­
tion, judgments, reviews, recommendations, and opinions) since it
makes them feel confident in understanding about products and brands
(Chu and Kim, 2011; Huang et al., 2012). As such result, social media
users get involved in social media activities to discuss about quality and
value of luxury brands on social media.
Despite the fact that adopting social media worries the luxury firms
that the luxury status, appeals of exclusivity, and uniqueness would be
destroyed by democratizing nature of social media (Dauriz et al., 2014),
at the present, luxury brands are now increasingly adopting social media
technologies in retailing landscape (Kwon et al., 2017). As stated by
Pentina et al. (2018), social media produces positive outcomes. Further
suggested by other scholars, such platforms strengthen the relationship
between firms and consumers (Kim and Ko, 2012) and brand engage­
ment (Dhaoui, 2014). Engaging in social media thus enables users to
voice their perceived quality of products by creating a product review or
rating (Shanahan et al., 2019). Also, limiting social media feed with
top-quality visual content (photos and video clips) could boost the
perception of exclusivity and premium quality of luxury branded
products (Pentina et al., 2018).
2.2. Social media WOM and its antecedents
Several recent studies have identified the influential factors that
could draw consumer’s engagement in electronic WOM (See-To and Ho,
2014; An et al., 2019; Liu and Lee, 2016). They show that the ante­
cedents explain the outcome of a solid relationship between consumers
and product, brand, and service. As such result, they create potential
responses and shape consumer’s perceptions towards goods and ser­
vices, and thus enables the customer to voice his/her opinions and give
recommendations to other customers (Ismail and Spinelli, 2012).
Social media WOM is a factor that influences consumers in different
stages of purchasing-decision process (Mishra and Satish, 2016).
Therefore, recent literature on electronic WOM emphasizes that study­
ing of the drivers of social media WOM can help researchers and prac­
titioners gain deeper understanding of why and how they influence (An
et al., 2019). For instance, Kudeshia and Kumar (2016) state that atti­
tude towards a brand acts as an important predictor of social electronic
WOM because it is a result of the evaluation of products (e.g., favorable
or unfavorable attitude toward product, brand, and service), and con­
sumers tend to write online reviews based on their assessment of
brand-related stimuli. Fariz and Fattahi (2018) propose a conceptual
framework explaining the drivers of consumer engagement in social
media WOM. They find that, trust, informational influence, sense of
belonging, altruism, moral obligation, and knowledge self-efficacy are
the positive drivers of social media WOM. Engaging in electronic WOM
is conceptualized around the construct of consumer engagement.

Fig. 2. Structural model of luxury brand purchase intention and social media WOM. Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

3
J. Park et al.
Consumer engagement explains motivation and cognitive response to­
wards brand (Baldus et al., 2015) and online WOM (i.e., liking and/or
commenting) (Simon et al., 2013). However, few of the exiting studies
have examined its effect in online luxury brands (Vinerean and Oper­
eana, 2019).
Other researchers (e.g., Alhidari et al., 2015) conceptualize that
engagement in social networking site (SNS) depends on the level of
importance, time, and effort a user gives to SNS. Thus, they rely on the
Elaboration Likelihood Model to understand electronic WOM partici­
pation by incorporating belief in self-reliance, SNS involvement, and
SNS risk-taking as the important antecedents. Wang et al. (2016) pro­
pose a research framework grounded in the social capital theory and
self-determination theory (SDT) to explain consumers engaging in
electronic WOM on social networks. This study believes that the creation
of shared information (i.e., social capital) content and motivations of
consumers are the key drivers to understand social media WOM be­
haviors. Similarly, Cheung and Lee (2012) show that consumer intention
to engage in WOM on social media is influenced by three motivational
factors such as egoistic, collective, and altruistic.
The results of aforesaid studies may not lead to clear understanding
of social media WOM in luxury setting since WOM behavior could be
dependent on industry (Harrison-Walker, 2001; Yen and Tang, 2019).
The research is missing in the literature on the antecedents related to
luxury perceptions and social media WOM behavior and its subsequent
impact on purchase intention of luxury brands. Cheung and Lee (2012)
content that consumer’s intention to engage in social media WOM is
difficult to explain as a research on this topic is still limited. To address
the issue, this study departs from most electronic WOM studies (e.g.,
Klein et al., 2016; Ismail and Spinelli, 2012; Liu and Lee, 2016; Chang
et al., 2016) in that perceived quality, social, personal, and functional
value of luxury are proposed as potential antecedents that affect social
media WOM.
The present study identifies four selective perceptions of luxury
because consumers’ social media WOM is associated with luxury brands
(Godey et al., 2016; Pentina et al., 2018). Particularly, perceived quality
is one of the salient dimensions of perceived brand leadership (Chang
et al., 2016; Chang and Ko, 2014) that reflects the key aspects of luxury
(Tynan et al., 2010). Functional, personal, and social value are key di­
mensions of luxury value perceptions (Wiedmann et al., 2009). Con­
sumer value perception is a subjective concept (Kortge and Okonkwo,
1993), and it tends to affect the intention to share the information and
promote value of product or service when it accomplishes consumers’
desires. Based on the aforementioned understanding, this research pre­
dicts that perceived quality, functional, personal, and social value are
positively associated with social media WOM of luxury brands. In other
words, consumers develop further relationship with luxury brands by
recommending and sharing the product-related information obtained
from various sources with their peers on SNS in the forms of review,
recommend, comment on luxury brands.
2.3. Perceived quality and perceived value of luxury
Perceived quality refers to a consumer evaluating overall excellence
of a brand based on intrinsic and extrinsic cues (Asshidin et al., 2016). In
a luxury context, for instance, luxury brands consumers explain the
criteria as materials, components, physical performance, workmanship,
and durability as quality. Specifically, the fabric does not shrink after
washing or wearing, and the color does not fade reflect the luxury
brands’ premium quality (Mrad et al., 2020). Some of these criteria
including fabric, color, workmanship, and durability refer to the attri­
butes of the products (Abraham-Murali and Littrell, 1995; Zhang et al.,
2002; Silverman, 1999). Thus, this study justifies perceived quality at­
tributes as tangible and intangible (Keller and McGill, 1994) charac­
teristics such as materials, components, physical performance,
workmanship, and durability.
Quality is a consequence of the judgment of a product or service
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272
made by consumers among two standards of product quality (1) sub­
jective quality (quality as perceived by the consumer) and (2) objective
quality (Molina and Munuera-Aleman, 2009). The judgment made of
quality is likely to be difficult due to its characteristics, which are
intangible (Joung et al., 2016). Consumers have to rely on relevant in­
formation or personal experiences in order to obtain perceived product
quality, which also plays a mediating role between extrinsic cues and
perceived customer value quality (Tsiotsou, 2006).
Consumer perceived quality of luxury brands is shaped by the pro­
cess of perceptions involved in the process of decision making. Great
perceived quality happens as a result of consumer recognition of dif­
ferentiation and superiority of the brand relative to competitors’ brands;
which can influence their purchase decisions and may drive them to
choose one brand over a competing one (Ngoma and Ntale, 2015).
Furthermore, perceived quality also provides value to consumers by
providing them with a reason to buy and by differentiating the brand
against competing brands (Asshidin et al., 2016). These researchers
suggest that value of products or services which consumers search for
are considerably influenced by perceived quality and it is fair to imply
that the overall value perceptions are its outcomes. Joung et al. (2016)
suggest that perceived quality has a significant effect on perceived value
and Kayaman and Arasli (2007); Liu et al. (2014) explain that perceived
quality is one important factor that influences consumer preference
resulting from the comparison of consumer’s intended purpose with the
actual performance (Erdogmus and Bü;deyri-Turan, 2012). Based on
previous observations, it is assumed that consumers weight value of
luxury items on social, personal, and functional attributes. Thus, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. Perceived quality of luxury brand positively influences social
value.
H2. Perceived quality of luxury brand positively influences personal
value.
H3. Perceived quality of luxury brand positively influences functional
value.
2.4. Perceived value and social media WOM
From an economic standpoint, consumers consider perceived value
in relation to the price they are willing to pay for goods or services as
much as the value they receive in return as the offerings. In psycho­
logical perspective, it is rather interpreted in relation to cognitive and
affective issues that impact purchasing decisions and brand selection
(Gallarza et al., 2011). Consumers buy luxury brands for the exchange of
value that is compatible to the amount spent or for the value that sat­
isfies their needs and wants (Kuo et al., 2009). This implies that cus­
tomer’s perceived value yields broad perspectives, such as money,
quality, benefit, and social psychology. Brennan and Henneberg (2008)
emphasizes that there is no consensus or clarity about perceived value.
This current study, thus, argues that consumers perceive value of goods
and services differently depending on the individuals and number of
factors pertaining to the actual purpose of luxury consumptions.
Consumers usually look for value that either satisfies their needs and
wants or quality that provides tangible and intangible benefits. They are
also likely to evaluate the overall luxury value in relation to financial,
functional, and social dimensions which truly reflect the individual’s
luxury value perception (Hennigs et al., 2013). Liao and Wang (2009)
evaluate the individual dimension of value focusing on consumers’
personal orientation towards luxury consumption to deal with personal
issues, such as materialism (Bao et al., 2003; Hirschman and Holbrook,
1982; Vigneron and Johnson, 2004), or hedonism self-identity.
Social value dimensions, such as conspicuousness and prestige value,
which are the acquirement of perceived utility of goods or services that
the individuals recognize within the social groups, are the driving force
of luxury brands consumption and have a significant tendency towards
J. Park et al.
the brand selections (Brinberg and Plimpton, 1986; Liu and Hu, 2012).
Previous researchers show that perceived value leads to behavioral in­
tentions. For instance, Hartline and Jones (1996); Matos and Rossi
(2008); Mayr and Zins (2012) demonstrate that perceived value signif­
icantly influences WOM engagement. However, the study is not con­
ducted in a luxury context. To date, the relationship between perceived
value and WOM has been rarely explored in luxury study. To extend the
previous findings, this study proposes that perceived value is expected to
indicate positive outcome leading to engagement of social media WOM.
This relationship is based on the concept of consumer perceived value.
Consumer interprets perceived value on the basis of the benefits
received from consuming products and services that meet their needs
and requirements (Johnston and Kong, 2011). When this occurs, con­
sumers feel that it is important to recommend good value that they have
received to others in their social groups (McKee et al., 2006). Thus, it is
assumed that consumers might engage in social media and offer WOM
recommendations based on the value (i.e., social, personal, functional)
they gain. The following hypotheses are thus formulated:
H4. Consumer’s social value is likely to influence social media WOM.
H5. Consumer’s personal value is likely to influence social media
WOM.
H6. Consumer’s functional value is likely to influence social media
WOM.
2.5. Social media WOM and purchase intention
WOM in social media sites is a new form of digital communication
playing an important role in exchanging and sharing information among
social media users. Many consumers rely on luxury experiences shared
by others through social media across multiple platforms which enhance
both brand evaluation and purchase intention (Moran et al., 2014).
In the digital era, the main challenge for firms is the rise of the
consumer interaction on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. These plat­
forms allow individuals to communicate and share their luxury brands
experiences on multiple channels to express themselves through posts,
comments, and luxury brand recommendation to their social networking
groups.
With advanced development of social media, users can have a live
conversation with other friends. These users may appear to play a role of
“self-enhancement” or “opinion leader,” in sharing and spreading
knowledge of luxury brands to help others who will buy such brand in
the future (Wojnicki and Godes, 2008). Jalilvand and Samiei (2012)
show that WOM has a positive direct impact on purchase intention.
However, this finding is limited to automobile industry. Thus, it is
worthwhile to take a look at the effect of social media WOM on luxury
purchase intention.
H7. Social media WOM will positively influence luxury purchase
intention.
2.6. Moderating effect of consumer demographic characteristics
Prior research finds significant moderating effects of consumer de­
mographic characteristics (Morris et al., 2005; Venkates et al., 2003).
Stokburger-Sauer and Teichmann (2013) explore a role of gender dif­
ferences in luxury brand consumption. Recent important study con­
ducted by Schade et al. (2016) compares age differences of attitude and
luxury consumption. However, the previous studies have not examined
the moderating effect of income and education. Due to such limitation,
this provides little help in theorizing the moderating effect of income
and education in the paths between luxury value and social media WOM
engagement. Nevertheless, it is believed that these variables differen­
tiate consumer perception and consumption of luxury brands. Higher
income consumers are more comfortable with selecting brands and
spending more for expensive goods and services than lower income
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272
consumers. For instance, the heaviest consumers of luxury goods are the
wealthiest ones (Husic and Cicic, 2009) and middle-income group (Zhan
and He, 2012). Based on these reports, it is assumed that consumers with
different income levels might differ in perceptions towards luxury values
(i.e., social value, personal value, and functional value) and behaviors (i.
e., social media WOM engagement). Hassan et al. (2015) in their study
suggest that higher income group perceives global luxury brands to be
more luxurious than local luxury brands compared to those with lower
income. This could imply that higher income consumers are more brand
loyal and seek the best quality over the price, while its counterpart looks
for the best price for a given quality, less brand prominence, and more
intrinsic luxury cues (Hassan et al., 2015). Malc et al. (2016) further
state that different income levels result in different perceptions of price
fairness. Thus, this could be concluded that difference in income leads to
the difference in luxury perceptions. In addition to income, educational
level has an impact on perceptions and luxury purchase intention. The
attributes of luxury brands are responded differently by consumers with
different educational backgrounds (e.g., graduate, undergraduate, and
postgraduate), which differentiates behavioral intentions (Srinivasan,
2015). This could be because highly educated consumers might feel that
owning luxury brands adds to their status in a social group, they also
might have more experiences and understanding of luxury goods. Thus,
to address an issue in the literature and extend prior observations, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H8. Consumer demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, educa­
tion, income) will moderate the relationship between (a) social value;
(b) personal value; (c) functional value and social media WOM.
H9. Consumer demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, educa­
tion, income) will moderate the relationship between social media WOM
and luxury purchase intention.
2.7. Moderating effect of perceived social status
Consumption of luxury brands is believed to provide social status
because luxury brands emphasize status and image. They also help in­
dividual consumers define luxury through conspicuous, unique, social,
hedonic as well as quality values (Liu et al., 2012). According to Eastman
et al. (1999, p. 43), social status is the desire for social status leads to
status consumption, which is defined as “the motivational process by
which individuals strive to improve their social standing through con­
spicuous consumption of consumer products that confer or symbolize
status for both individuals and surrounding others.” In this perspective,
luxury brands that provide brand prestige and value would respond to
the consumers who seek to improve their status through high product
positioning that is associated with the luxury brands (Steenkamp et al.,
2003;Ahn et al., 2018; Hwang and Han, 2014). So, when people have a
status, which means that they have a certain position in society, they
may be jealous of someone else and others may be jealous of them (Phau
and Teah, 2009). In line with this argument, it is theorized that con­
sumption of luxury brands can reflect the owner as having a social status
(Chan et al., 2015). Those who perceive higher social status tend to be
more credible and reliable (Dommer and Swaminathan, 2013). There­
fore, the individuals with higher perceived social status might possess
higher knowledge and confidence about luxury brands that emphasize
the needs to engage in social media WOM than those with lower
perceived social status. When engaging in electronic WOM, Zhang et al.
(2020) report that WOM receiver is likely to be convinced by electronic
WOM reviews from the senders with high social status. This could be
implied that those who engage in WOM to share information about
products and services, stores, and companies might be more confident
with luxury brands and tend to have convincing power. Therefore, this
study argues that perceived social status may play a moderating role in
perceived value, social media WOM, and purchase intention link. Spe­
cifically, if social media WOM senders try to convey one’s perceived
social status, they are more likely to engage in social media WOM and
J. Park et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272

purchase luxury items to elicit favorable views from others. Further­ and period of usage. In total, the result revealed that there were 282
more, an individual may desire to be associated with luxury products or useable responses.
services to enhance their own social standing (i.e., perceived social The descriptive statistics demonstrate that the sample was familiar
status). As such, luxury is admired. However, perceived status level with social media. The top 3 SNSs they were a member of were Facebook
(either low or high) depends on how an individual compare with others (46.9%), Instagram (27.2%), and Pinterest (11.6%). They also report the
except luxury. This means that differences in perceived social status actual usage periods between one to five years. The respondents appear
depends on how one’s beliefs about the importance of buying or having to be almost equal between female 55% and male 45%. For age, 76.2%
luxury items since social status is a subjective judgment, and its level is were in their twenties and thirties, 22.7% were in their forties and
not constant (Lo, 2008). Accordingly, this study believes that con­ above. With regard to education, 19.9% had an Associate degree or
sumer’s beliefs about purchasing or owning luxury items to be a part of below, and 80.1% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Regarding average
high social class that improves his/her social standing varies from per­ annual income levels, 35.5% had incomes less than $65,000, while
son to person. Thus, it is posited that: 30.9% earned between $65,000 and $100,000, only 8% of incomes were
more than $100,000 per year (See Table 1).
H10. Perceived social status will positively moderate the relationship
between (a) social value; (b) personal value; (c) functional value and
4. Data analysis and results
social media WOM.
H11. Perceived social status will positively moderate the relationship 4.1. Validity and reliability test
between social media WOM and luxury purchase intention.
Exploratory factory analysis (EFA) was chosen to validate the mea­
3. Research methodology surement scales prior to conducting further analysis. Kai­
ser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index and Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed
3.1. Measurement that the sample size adequacy index (0.915) was sufficient to carry out
the factor analysis (Hair et al., 2015). The results showed that the items
Each construct in the current study is adopted from the previous loaded on the respective factors with scores ranging from 0.61 to 0.87
research and measured by using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly except one item measuring luxury purchase intention had a
disagree and 5 = strongly agree). More specifically, most of the mea­ cross-loading with low scores (0.32) thereby it was required to be
surement items have been previously validated. However, specific deleted from the scales, and others were retained. Cronbach’s Alpha (α)
wording was modified based on the experts’ opinions to fit the luxury for the internal consistency of each variable was conducted and all
context. To measure the perceived quality, six items measuring this constructs satisfied levels of reliability with scores ranging from 0.89 to
construct are adopted from Dodds et al. (1991) and a total of sixteen 0.77. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results for overall of
items measuring multi-dimensions of perceived value come from Shukla goodness-of-fit (χ 236 = 641.68), with a significant level at (p < 0.000)
(2012). Social media WOM items are adopted from Arenas-Gaitan et al. and the standards of fit indices (GFI = 0.87; AGFI = 84; RMR = 0.07; CFI
(2013) with mild modification to fit the purpose of the study. The items
measuring perceived social status are taken from Fah et al. (2011) and
Hung et al. (2011) for the items measuring purchase intention. The Table 1
self-administered questionnaire is made simple and understandable by Respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics.
having only two main sections; the main study measurement is the first variable Group Frequency Percent
section and respondent’s demographics and overall SNS-related ques­
Age <30 years of age 215 76.2
tions is the second (See Table 2).
31–40 64 22.7
41–50 2 .7
3.2. Sample and data collection 51–60 1 .4
Total 282 100.0
Gender Male 115 55
This study used online survey to recruit participants. The Amazon
Female 127 45
online marketplace called Mechanical Turk (M-turk) (Goodman et al., Total 282 100.0
2013; Birinci et al., 2018) was employed. The M-turk is deemed Annual income <$65,000 100 35.5
appropriate to increase participants and reach reliable samples with $65,000–100,000 158 30.9
diverse demographic characteristics (Casler et al., 2013). Recently, this >$100,000 24 8.5
Total 282 100.0
approach was employed by Yu et al. (2018) to collect data for a study of Education <Associate degree 56 19.9
luxury. >Bachelor’s degree 226 80.1
In order to incorporate the investigations of influencing effects of Total 282 100.0
social media WOM on purchase intention of luxury brands, an active Social media usage 1 year 0 0
period 2 years 3 1.1
social media user is the central focus. This study thus specifically targets
3 years 122 43.3
social media users. To that end, the respondents were required to pro­ 4 years 111 39.4
vide the information about the social networks they were a member of 5 years 46 16.3
(e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube) from the given Total 282 100.0
list and period of usage at the first step. After that, they could proceed to Social media usage From home (including a home 254 90.1
frequency office)
the next step in which they were asked to provide their opinions on From work 24 8.5
luxury perceptions, social media WOM, and purchase intention. From school 1 .4
An online survey was conducted and U.S consumers participated. From a public terminal (library, 2 .7
According to the report, the U.S market is a key contributor to the cybercafé, etc)
From other places 1 .4
phenomenon of excessive luxury consumption (Chang et al., 2016), and
Total 282 100.0
it represents a mature luxury market (Li, 2016). In addition, the country Members of social Facebook 217 46.9
also has large Facebook (32%), Instagram (32%), Pinterest (31%), and media Instagram 157 27.2
Twitter (24%) users (Greenwood et al., 2016), and the Americans are Pinterest 67 11.6
likely to voice and offer the information online (Fong and Buron, 2006). YouTube 47 8.1
Others 18 3.1
All the respondents indicated the social networks they were a member of

6
J. Park et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272

Table 2
Reliability and validity tests.
Constructs Indicator Loading α C.R AVE

Perceived quality 1. The luxury items are dependable. 0.84 0.89 0.89 0.58
2. The luxury items would be reliable. 0.83
3. The luxury items would be durable. 0.80
4. The luxury items should be high quality. 0.79
5. The luxury items would be sophisticated. 0.66
6. The workmanship of luxury items would be high. 0.61
Social value 1. Owning luxury goods indicates a symbol of achievement. 0.78 0.83 0.84 0.52
2. Owning luxury goods indicates a symbol of wealth. 0.73
3. Owning luxury goods indicates a symbol of prestige. 0.73
4. Luxury goods are important to me because they make me feel that acceptable in my work circle. 0.68
5. I purchase luxury goods to gain/increase social status. 0.66
Personal value 1. Purchasing luxury goods increase my happiness. 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.55
2. It is important to me to own really nice luxury goods. 0.80
3. It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I can’t afford to buy all the luxury goods I want. 0.78
4. While shopping for luxury goods, I feel the excitement of the hunt. 0.70
5. When shopping for luxury goods, I am able to forget my problems. 0.66
6. When in a bad mood, shopping for luxury goods enhances my mood. 0.62
Functional value 1. I often buy luxury goods in such a way that I create a personal image that cannot be duplicated. 0.74 0.78 0.74 0.52
2. I like to own new luxury goods before others do. 0.72
3. I believe luxury goods are of superior quality. 0.71
4. In my mind, the higher price charged by luxury goods indicate higher quality. 0.71
5. I always have to pay a bit more for the best. 0.70
Social media word-of-mouth 1. I’m likely to post status/photos/comments about the luxury items I possess in my social network. 0.82 0.77 0.78 0.55
2. I would recommend the luxury items to my friends and relatives. 0.71
3. If my friends were looking for a new item, I would tell them to try the luxury items I have used. 0.68
Purchase intention 1. I have strong possibility to purchase luxury items. 0.82 0.80 0.81 0.67
2. I’m likely to purchase luxury items. 0.82
Perceived social status 1. I feel that to be part of high-class society, luxury buying is important. 0.84 0.77 0.77 0.69
2. Buying luxury items is symbolic of higher living standard. 0.83
3. I find myself holding a special place in the social gathering as I possess luxury items. 0.81

Goodness-of-fit: χ 236 = 641.683, p < 0.000; GFI = 0.87; AGFI = 84; RMR = 0.07; CFI = 0.94; IFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; NFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.05.

= 0.94; IFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; NFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.05) all indicate
that model fits with the data collected. Furthermore, Pearson’s corre­
lation matrix test with the means and standard deviations for the scale
reveals no correlation coefficient above 0.74 (See Table 3). Finally, the
average variance extracted (AVE) test results fall above the cut-off value,
which is 0.50 with composite reliability coefficient (C.R) (See Table 2).
4.2. Structural equation modeling
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to test the proposed
hypotheses using AMOS program. The overall model fit was satisfactory.
The chi-square statistic (χ 2293 = 539.80) was at a significant level (p <
0.000) and the fit indices were within accepted standards (GFI = 0.88;
AGFI = 0.84; RMR = 0.08; CFI = 0.94; IFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA =
0.06). The first three proposed hypotheses with their path coefficients
were then tested. The results show that perceived quality significantly
influences social, personal, and functional values, supporting H1- H3
with a positive effect (β = 0.62, t = 6.15; β = 0.31, t = 4.36; β = 0.72, t =
7.26) all with significant level at (p < 0.001). H4 was supported with
significant level at (p < 0.05), (β = 0.17, t = 2.07). H5 and H6 were also
supported (β = 0.25; t = 3.45; β = 0.33; t = 3.44) (p < 0.001). The last
proposed hypothesis was supported (β = 0.79; t = 6.05) (p < 0.001) (See
Table 4).
split. For instance, age (i.e., <30 years old; >30 years old); income (i.e.,
<$65,000 per year; >$65,000 per year); lower/high social status. The
median split approach used in this study categorizes the respondents
into groups. This splitting procedure is argued by several scholars,
however, recent other researchers suggest that it is the most common
approach to categorizing the group of subjects with different profiles
based on central tendency (Garcia et al., 2015); especially, Fazeli et al.
(2020); Yoo and Park (2016); Line and Hanks (2015); Lee et al. (2018)
apply median split to categorize respondents in luxury study. According
to the results shown in Table 5, H8 was supported, in that demographics
such as age, education, and income have moderating effects among the
relationship of personal value and social media WOM, while H9 was not
supported indicating that no moderating effects exist in the linkage of
social media WOM and purchase intention. H10 was supported and the
effects of moderators were found in the social and personal values,
whereas H11 was not supported.
5. Discussion
On the premise of existing literature, this research develops a
Table 3
Construct means, standard deviations, and correlations.

4.3. Moderating effect analysis PQ SV PV FV SMWOM PI PSS

PQ 1.00
To examine moderating effects, multigroup analysis was conducted SV 0 .52 1.00
PV 0.30 0.58 1.00
to compare chi-square difference (Δchi-square) with one degree of
FV 0.50 0.61 0.74 1.00
freedom of constrained and unconstrained models. Respondents were SMWOM 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.48 1.00
split into groups such as gender (male vs. female). Education, no- PI 0.20 0.40 0.43 0.47 0.37 1.00
university degree (i.e., have none or less than Associate degree) and PSS 0.47 0.68 0.51 0.60 0.53 0.39 1.00
university degree (i.e., higher than bachelor’s degree). For income, age Mean 3.69 2.20 2.92 3.13 3.61 3.00 3.33
S.D 1.02 1.10 1.12 1.09 0.96 1.03 1.13
and perceived social status, the groups were separated using median

7
J. Park et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272

Table 4 WOM, and purchase intention. As consumption of luxury and social

Structural equation modeling results.
Structural Path Coefficient
H1: Perceived Quality → Perceived Social Value 0.62
H2: Perceived Quality → Perceived Personal Value 0.31
H3: Perceived Quality → Perceived Functional Value 0.72
H4: Perceived Social Value → Social Media Word-of-mouth 0.17
H5: Perceived Personal Value → Social Media Word-of- 0.25
mouth
H6: Perceived Functional Value → Social Media Word-of- 0.33
mouth
H7: Social Media Word-of-mouth → Purchase Intention 0.79
Goodness-of-fit: χ 2293 = 539.808, p < 0.000; GFI = 0.88; AGFI = 0.84; RMR =
0.08; CFI = 0.94; IFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.06.
conceptualized model that illuminates the significant role of consumer
luxury perceptions in explaining consumer engagement in social media
WOM and their luxury brand purchase intention. It also explores the
moderating effects of consumer characteristics and perceived social
status on the relationship between luxury perceptions, social media
media continue to increase, and the relationship between luxury con­
t-Value sumption and digital usage clearly becomes a future oriented fashion, it
is worthwhile to take a look at how consumers currently buy luxury
6.15***
4.36*** products and services in the digital age, and what luxury firms should do
7.26*** to cope with consumer tendencies. Therefore, the effort of this present
2.07** study contributes to current body of knowledge in three main ways.
3.45*** First, the most important finding of the research is the relationship
3.44***
between social media WOM and luxury brand purchase intention. It
demonstrates that social media WOM positively increases consumer
6.05*** luxury purchase intention. This implies that social media WOM is an
effective tool in shaping consumer purchase decision towards luxury
brands, which is a critical process in the customer journey and the major
consequence of social media WOM. Although this proposed effect in the
model is not new, and several previous studies have confirmed the
relationship to be valid, this study examines the model on social media
WOM in luxury setting in which consumer engagement in WOM activity
is conceptualized as those who are active in sharing information about
luxury. This means that consumers who are likely to talk about luxury

Table 5
Moderating effect of gender, age, education, perceived social status.
Structural Path Gender
Male Female Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Social Value → Social Media WOM 0.49*** 0.58*** 0.4
Personal Value → Social Media WOM 0.44*** 0.51*** 1.2
Functional Value → Social Media WOM 0.53*** 0.64*** 0.1
Structural Path Age
Young Old Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Social Value → Social Media WOM 0.50*** 0.55*** 0.27
Personal Value → Social Media WOM 0.47*** 0.49*** 5.278***
Functional Value → Social Media WOM 0.61*** 0.59*** 1.3
Structural Path Education
Low High Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Social Value → Social Media WOM 0.53*** 0.54*** 1.66
Personal Value → Social Media WOM 0.39*** 0.50*** 2.76**
Functional Value → Social Media WOM 0.37*** 0.66*** 0.18
Structural Path Income
Low High Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Social Value → Social Media WOM 0.54*** 0.50*** 1.09
Personal Value → Social Media WOM 0.47*** 0.52*** 6.992***
Functional Value → Social Media WOM 0.58*** 0.56*** 2.56
Structural Path Gender
Male Female Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Social Media WOM → Purchase Intention 0.43*** 0.45*** 0.6
Structural Path Age
Young Old Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Social Media WOM → Purchase Intention 0.54*** 0.44*** 0.13
Structural Path Education
Low High Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Social Media WOM → Purchase Intention 0.43*** 0.46*** 0.63
Structural Path Income
Low High Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Social Media WOM → Purchase Intention 0.43*** 0.45*** 0.14
Structural Path Perceived Social Status
Low High Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Perceived Social Value → Social Media WOM 0.36*** 0.46*** 4.162**
Perceived Personal Value → Social Media WOM 0.41*** 0.37*** 5.236**
Perceived Functional Value → Social Media WOM 0.49*** 0.56*** 0.05
Structural Path Perceived Social Status
Low High Chi-square difference
Coefficient Coefficient (Δdf = 1)
Social Media WOM → Purchase Intention 0.30*** 0.45*** 0.7

8
J. Park et al.
brands on social media, are also likely to purchase them. Unlike extant
literature that generally talks about consumers of SNS who rely on social
media WOM as a source of information, reviews, and opinions of
product, brand, and service (An et al., 2019; Baker et al., 2016).
The result of a positive relationship between social media WOM and
luxury purchase intention is also similar to previous studies conducted
in different context. For instance, the study conducted by Kudeshia and
Kumar (2017) in the context of smartphone and social media WOM via
Facebook fan page. They confirm that the higher social media WOM, the
greater purchase intention of smartphones. The same findings are also
found in the research by Fariz and Fattahi (2018). They report that
electronic WOM significantly affects purchase intention as it accelerates
positive messages about products and brands in SNS.
Second, the results suggest that perceived social, personal, and
functional value significantly influence consumer engagement in social
media WOM. This indicates that consumers who perceive value of lux­
ury product, brand, and service demonstrate greater engagement in
social media WOM. Particularly, this result shows that intention to
participate in WOM on SNS is associated with perceived luxury value,
which implies that consumers are keen to discuss their status with
friends and family, comment on luxury brands, share their own expe­
riences, and even recommend a certain brand to their acquaintances
(Berger, 2014). More importantly, the engagement is greatly enhanced
by perceived functional value, followed by personal value, and social
value. Functional value that consumers perceive are the intangible
rather than the tangible functions. Consumers might use these as a
means to connect themselves to their society in order to create a unique
image and proudly express themselves.
In addition, perceived social, personal, and functional value act as
important antecedents of social media WOM. Ever since the spreading of
social media WOM, which turns into a critical factor influencing con­
sumers in different stages of purchasing process, researchers are in their
quest of finding out of the key antecedents of WOM in social media
(See-To and Ho, 2014; Harvey et al., 2011; Ismail and Spinelli, 2012;
Gvili and Levy, 2018). The findings of present research enhance an
understanding of the social media WOM and its focal antecedents
deriving from consumer luxury perceptions. Particularly, perceived
quality, which tends to be an effective pre-determinant of the three focal
influential factors that motivate consumers throughout the entire pro­
cess of social media WOM. As such result, this study is considered as one
of the few studies linking perceive quality, perceived social, personal,
and functional value of luxury and consumer social media WOM
engagement. Furthermore, as consumer decision-making process is
complicated in SNS, purchasing behavior of consumers becomes unique
(Alhidar et al., 2015). Thus, the current findings explain that consumer
perception of luxury can have the potential to draw consumers to engage
in social media WOM, which in turn, leads to a choice of luxury con­
sumption through SNS.
Finally, significant differences among the groups of consumers with
different age, education, income, and perceived social status are found
in the relationship between perceived personal and social value, and
social media WOM. However, difference in gender is not found to be
significant in any relationship of this study. The explanation might be
that, even though, both male and female consumers might develop
perceptions of luxury value differently, their engagement in social media
WOM tends not to be varied as SNS is a platform where everyone can
make their own choice to participate in sharing, creating, and posting
freely. However, perceiving reviews as positive or negative might create
differences in behavioral outcomes between males and females, such as
purchase intention (Bae and Lee, 2011). Perceived social value is the one
and only factor that differentiates consumers with different age, edu­
cation, and income from engagement in social media WOM. In that,
older age group with higher educational background and greater income
show stronger engagement. This indicates that these groups might have
more luxury consumption experiences, so that they tend to be more
reliable on SNS and are more motivated to participate in social media
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272
WOM. Perceived social status also has a significant difference in the
aforesaid links. The results show that perceived high and low social
status groups engage in social media WOM differently. For instance,
perceived social status significantly moderates the relationship between
perceived social value and social media WOM; highly perceived social
status consumers show greater social media WOM engagement. It is also
significant in the relationship between perceived personal value and
social media WOM. In that, weakly perceived social status group tends
to have more engagement than the higher group. Thus, perceived social
status, social and personal value are effective moderators of perception
of luxury and social media WOM, and none of these moderators have an
impact on the relationship between social media WOM and purchase
intention of luxury brand in this particular study.
6. Conclusions and implications
The present investigation provides both theoretical and managerial
implications. From a theoretical standpoint, since WOM communication
plays an important role in influencing shoppers’ behavioral decisions
(Lyer and Griffin, 2020), and it has developed quickly in online (Kude­
shia and Kumar, 2017), several researchers have identified its ante­
cedents (e.g., An et al., 2019) and examined its effect on purchase
intention (e.g., Zahratu and Hurriyati, 2020; Ismagilova et al., 2019).
Based on the previous studies, however, the engagement process of
electronic WOM and its outcomes have rarely received attention in
luxury setting. This present research, thus, builds upon existing litera­
tures and proposes a conceptual model that incorporates perceived
quality and value of luxury perceptions, social media WOM, and luxury
purchase intention. Incorporating perceived quality and perceived value
(i.e., social value, personal value, and functional value) deepens the
understanding of their effects on social media WOM engagement.
Although these factors are not new in luxury literatures, they have not
been considered in the specific literature on social media WOM
engagement. Of note, while several studies have already advanced the
understanding of the impact of electronic WOM on purchase intention
(e.g., Kudeshia and Kumar, 2017; Erkan and Evan, 2016), they largely
focus on behavior of passive consumers (i.e., those who simply search
for information and opinions of others) (Wang and Fesenmaier, 2004).
The said impact on active consumers (i.e., those who recommend and
share their opinions with friends and acquaintance in social media
platforms) (Wang and Fesenmaier, 2004); however, has been ignored in
luxury setting. The finding shows that social media WOM highly in­
fluences purchase intention. This implies that consumers who are likely
to recommend luxury brands in social media tend to purchase them.
Therefore, the research provides new theoretical perspectives that
contributes to an understanding of the mechanism of luxury purchase
intention. Specifically, the role of active consumers in social media
WOM in enhancing luxury shopping intention. Overall, the findings of
this research offer theoretical contributions to existing studies. In
particular, this study theoretically contributes to both literatures on
consumer engagement in electronic WOM (Yang, 2017; Gvili and Levy,
2018) and luxury brand shopping (Hung et al., 2011; Kautish et al.,
2020).
From a managerial perspective, the findings of this study are
important for luxury firms because the information found in this
research provides suggestions and ideas on how they could work on this
information. First, with the recent advancement of communication
technology, the relationship between social media WOM and luxury
brand purchase intention become a new phenomenon. However, the
influence of social media WOM on luxury purchase intention is not
widely documented in the literature. The result of hypothesis testing
shows that consumers who use social media WOM to spread and share
the information of luxury products and brands tend to buy them even­
tually. Therefore, this implies that social media WOM positively affects
luxury purchase intention, and luxury firms should note these effects.
Especially, they also should consider the market in which users
J. Park et al.
recommending products and brands to others show great intend pur­
chase towards luxury brands. By having said that, firms need to work on
marketing activities that involve the creation of luxury perceptions, such
as perceived quality, social, personal, and functional value as these
perceptions work hand in hand to encourage consumers to share infor­
mation and give recommendations to others on SNS, which in turn, in­
fluences purchase intention. In addition to this, firms might need to
emphasize on the importance of functional value factor as it occurs to be
the most influential factor among the three focal determinants of social
media WOM.
Second, while firms pay attention to developing marketing strategy
to encourage consumers to engage in social media WOM based on
consumer luxury perceptions, they may need to know that the result of
the strategy might not turn out as planned unless they put the emphasis
on the right target market. According to the results, age, education,
income, and consumer perceived social status tend to play an important
role in social media WOM engagement. That is to say, consumer
engagement in social media WOM is dependent on differences in their
characteristics. This gives a signal to firms that the engagement in social
media WOM of luxury consumers can be more complex. For instance,
older age consumers with high income and education are more likely to
engage in social media WOM than their counterparts. If firms want to
focus on these groups as they tend to be more professional in both luxury
experiences and networking, luxury brands and products should be able
to provide personal value. On the other hand, such value might not
encourage the young age consumers to engage in social media WOM,
this might also lead to favorable or unfavorable purchase intention.
Furthermore, SNS creates a place where luxury consumers can showcase
their social status to other users in their social communities. Thus, firms
should identify the market based on perceived social status, and then
they should try to enhance luxury brands that are able to deliver social
status attributes since the engagement in social media WOM tends to
vary. This allows firms to encourage the members of a particular group
to engage in social media WOM in order to generate effective results.
Overall, by working on identifying market segment could allow firms to
adopt personalized and customized strategies to market their luxury
products and services in order to satisfy needs and preferences of con­
sumers on SNS.
Finally, the results are also informative for luxury firms who sell their
products and services online. They are informed about which luxury
perception acts as a vital factor involved in shaping consumer social
media WOM behaviors. Direct effects of perceived social, personal, and
functional value on social media WOM urge luxury marketing managers
and media managers to work together and manage their marketing
communication. By utilizing marketing methods emphasizing on each
factor to form perceptions of luxury brand is a crucial marketing tool to
initiate consumers into social media WOM.
6.1. Limitations and directions for future research
Although this paper provides useful insight into luxury brand pur­
chase intention, it does have some limitations that create opportunities
for future research possibility. First, this study does not include partic­
ular luxury brand or product, which leads to a lack ability to explain
actual experiences of consumers on specific SNS and luxury brands.
Future research may address this limitation by focusing on specific so­
cial networks and brands. This means asking the respondents that which
social media they would be likely to engage in order to recommend the
luxury items. Also, this research finds that gender does not have a
moderating effect in any hypothesized relationships, which could not
support the previous findings. Therefore, future research should
consider these in the sampling method process.
Second, another limitation is related to the ability to make a clear
justification about the actual purchase of luxury brand as this study fails
to capture luxury expenses of an individual. The actual expenses could
be used to identify future expense. Future study might consider
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272
including this as another factor.
Finally, the current research uses generic measurement methods to
estimate the quality and value of luxury brand. Luxury brand is limited
to its category compared to other products which have three major
categories, such as search, experience, and credence. The differential
effects regarding the perceived quality could result in different percep­
tions of values since each category carries different traits, so that con­
sumer evaluating luxury products could be the important factors
resulting in high vs. low purchasing intention. Future research is
encouraged to develop a specific measurement tool in order to examine
the luxury brands under the product category effects and analyze the
consequential outcomes to avoid the equal justification of perceived
value across the luxury brands.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102272.
References
Abubakar, A.M., Ilkan, M., 2016. Impact of online WOM on destination trust and
intention to travel: a medical tourism perspective. JDMM 5, 192–201. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.005.
Asshidin, N.H.N., Abidin, N., Borhan, H.B., 2016. Perceived quality and emotional value
that influence consumer’s purchase intention towards American and local products.
Procedia Econ. 35, 639–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00078-2.
Abraham-Murali, L., Littrell, M.A., 1995. Consumers’ perceptions of apparel quality over
time: an exploratory study. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 13, 149–158. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0887302X9501300301.
Alhidari, A., Iyer, P., Paswan, A., 2015. Personal level antecedents of eWOM and
purchase intention, on social networking sites. J. Consum. Behav. 14, 7–125.
https://doi.org/10.1362/147539215X14373846805707.
Arenas-Gaitan, J., Rondan-Cataluña, F.J., Ramírez-Correa, P.E., 2013. Social identity,
electronic word-of-mouth and referrals in social network services. Kybernetes 42,
1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2013-0081.
An, J., Do, D.K.X., Ngo, L.V., Quan, T.H.M., 2019. Turning brand credibility into positive
word-of-mouth: integrating the signaling and social identity perspectives. J. Brand
Manag. 26, 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0118-0.
Bae, S., Lee, T., 2011. Gender differences in consumers’ perception of online consumer
reviews. Electron Commer R. A. 11 (2), 201–214.
Berger, Jonah, 2014. Word-of-mouth and interpersonal communication: an organizing
framework and directions for future research. J. Consum. Psychol. 24 (4), 586–607.
Baldus, B.J., Voorhees, C., Calantone, R., 2015. Online brand community engagement:
scale development and validation. J. Bus. Res. 68, 978–985. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.035.
Baker, A.M., Donthu, N., Kumar, V., 2016. Investigating how word-of-mouth
conversations about brands influence purchase and retransmission intentions.
J. Market. Res. 53 (2), 225–239.
Bao, Y., Zhou, K.Z., Su, C., 2003. Face consciousness and risk aversion: Do they affect
consumer decision-making? Psychol. Market. 20 (8), 733–755.
Brennan, R., Henneberg, S.C., 2008. Does political marketing need the concept of
customer value? Market. Intell. Plann. 26 (6), 559–572.
Birinci, H., Berezina, K., Cobanoglu, C., 2018. Comparing customer perceptions of hotel
and peer-to-peer accommodation advantages and disadvantages. Int. J. Contemp.
Hospit. Manag. 30, 1190–1210. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0506.
Brightlocal, 2016. Local consumer review survey. June 2020. https://www.brightlocal.
com/learn/local-consumer-review-survey/.
Bazi, S., Filieri, R., Gorton, M., 2020. Customers’ motivation to engage with luxury
brands on social media. J. Bus. Res. 112, 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.02.032.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 (1), 105–114.
Brinberg, D., Plimpton, L., 1986. Self-monitoring and product conspicuousness on
reference group influence. Adv. Consum. Res. 13, 297–300.
Chu, S.C., Kamal, S., Kim, Y., 2013. Understanding consumers’ responses toward social
media advertising and purchase intention toward luxury products. J. Glob. Fash.
Mark. 4 (3), 158–174.
Casler, K., Bickel, L., Hackett, E., 2013. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants
and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral
testing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2013.05.009.
Chang, Y., Ko, Y.J., Leite, W.L., 2016. The effect of perceived brand leadership on luxury
service WOM. J. Serv. Market. 30, 659–671. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2015-
0005.
Chu, S.C., Kammal, S., Kim, Y., 2019. Re-examining of consumers’ responses toward
social media advertising and purchase intention toward luxury products from 2013
to 2018: a retrospective commentary. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 10 (1), 81–82.
Chu, S.C., Kim, Y., 2011. Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic Word- of-
Mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int. J. Advert. 30 (1), 47–75.
J. Park et al.
Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O., 2012. What drives consumers to spread electronic word of
mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decis. Support Syst. 53 (1), 218–225.
Chang, Y., Ko, Y.J., 2014. The brand leadership: Scale development and validation.
J. Brand Manag. 21 (1), 63–80.
Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C., Ibáñez-Sánchez, S., 2018. Influencers on Instagram: antecedents
and consequences of opinion leadership. J. Bus. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.07.005.
Chan, W.Y., To, C.K.M., Chu, W.C., 2015. Materialistic consumers who seek unique
products: how does their need for status and their affective response facilitate the
repurchase intention of luxury goods? J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 27, 1–10. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.07.001.
Dommer, S.L., Swaminathan, V., 2013. Explaining the endowment effect through
ownership: the role of identity, gender, and self-threat. J. Consum. Res. 39,
1034–1050. https://doi.org/10.1086/666737.
Dauriz, L., Ramy, N., Sandri, N., 2014. Luxury shopping in the digital age. June 2020. htt
ps://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/luxury-shopping-in-th
e-digital-age.
Deloitte, 2017. Global powers of luxury goods 2017. The new luxury consumer. June
2020. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/
consumer-industrial-products/gx-cip-global-powers- luxury-2017.pdf.
Dhaoui, C., 2014. An empirical study of luxury brand marketing effectiveness and its
impact on consumer engagement on Facebook. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 5 (3), 209–222.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Market. Res. 28 (3), 307–319.
Eastman, J.K., Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R., 1999. Status consumption in consumer
behavior: scale development and validation. J. Market. Theor. Pract. 7, 41–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1999.11501839.
Erdogmus, I., Büdeyri-Turan, I., 2012. The role of personality congruence, perceived
quality and prestige on ready-to-wear brand loyalty. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.: Int. J. 16
(4), 399–417.
Erkan, I., Evans, C., 2016. The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’
purchase intentions: an extended approach to information adoption. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 61, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.003.
Farzin, M., Fattahi, M., 2018. eWOM through social networking sites and impact on
purchase intention and brand image in Iran. JAMR 15 (2), 161–183.
Fazeli, Z., Shukla, P., Perks, K., 2020. Digital buying behavior: the role of regulatory fit
and self-construal in online luxury goods purchase intentions. Psychol. Market. 24,
737–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21276.
Fah, B.C.Y., Foon, Y.S., Osman, S., 2011. An exploratory study of the relationships
between advertising appeals, spending tendency, perceived social status and
materialism on perfume purchasing behavior. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2 (10), 202–208.
Fong, J., Burton, S., 2006. Electronic word-of-mouth: a comparison of stated and
revealed behavior on electronic discussion boards. J. Interact. Advert. 6, 61–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2006.10722119.
Gvili, Y., Levy, S., 2018. Consumer engagement with eWOM on social media: the role of
social Capital. Online Inf. Rev. 42, 482–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2017-
0158.
Gallarza, M.G., Gil-Saura, I., Holbrook, M.B., 2011. The value of value: further excursions
on the meaning and role of customer value. J. Consum. Behav. 10 (4), 179–191.
Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Singh, R., 2016.
Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: influence on brand equity and
consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res. 69 (12), 5833–5841.
Goodman, J.K., Cryder, C.E., Cheema, A., 2013. Data collection in a flat world: the
strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. J. Behav. Decis. Making 26,
213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753.
Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., Duggan, M., 2016. Social Media Update-2016. Pew Research
Center, Washington, D.C.
Ghosh, A., Varshney, S., 2013. Luxury goods consumption: a conceptual framework
based on literature review. S. Asian J. Manag. 20 (2), 146–159.
Gómez-Suárez, M., Martínez-Ruiz, M.P., Martínez-Caraballo, N., 2017. Consumer-brand
relationships under the marketing 3.0 paradigm: a literature review. Front. Psychol.
8, 8–11.
Garcia, D., MacDonald, S., Archer, T., 2015. Two different approaches to the affective
profiles model: median splits (variable-oriented) and cluster analysis (person-
oriented). PeerJ 3, e1380. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1380.
Gallaugher, J., Ransbotham, S., 2010. Social media and customer dialog management at
Starbucks. MIS Q. Exec. 9 (4), 197–212.
Hung, K.P., Chen, A.H., Peng, N., Hackley, C., Tiwsakul, R.A., Chou, C.L., 2011.
Antecedents of luxury brand purchase intention. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 20, 457–467.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421111166603.
Huang, J., Cheng, X.Q., Shen, H.W., Zhou, T., Jin, X., 2012. Exploring social influence via
posterior effect of word-of-mouth recommendations. In: Proceedings of the Fifth
ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’12).
Harrison-Walker, L.J., 2001. The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an
investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents.
J. Serv. Res. 4, 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050141006.
Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey, B., Pederzoli, D.,
Neulinger, A., Dave, K., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Taro, K., Taborecka ́-Petrovicova, J.,
Santos, C.R., Jung, J., Oh, H., 2013. Consumer value perception of luxury goods: a
cross-cultural and cross-industry comparison. Psychol. Market. 29 (12), 1018–1034.
Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. J. Market. 46 (3), 92–101.
Hartline, M.D., Jones, K.C., 1996. Employee performance cues in a hotel service
environment: influence on perceived service quality, value, and word-of-mouth
intentions. J. Bus. Res. 35 (3), 207–215.
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272
Hwang, J., Han, H., 2014. Examining strategies for maximizing and utilizing brand
prestige in the luxury cruise industry. Tourism Manag. 40, 244–259. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.007.
Harvey, C.G., Stewart, D.B., Ewing, M.T., 2011. Forward or delete: what drives peer-to-
peer message propagation across social networks? J. Consum. Behav. 10 (6),
365–372.
Husic, M., Cicic, M., 2009. Luxury consumption factors. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 13,
231–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020910957734.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2015. Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective, seventh ed. Pearson, New Delhi.
Hassan, S., Husić-Mehmedović, M., Duverger, P., 2015. Retaining the allure of luxury
brands during an economic downturn. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 19, 416–429. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2015-0030.
Ismail, A.R., Spinelli, G., 2012. Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of
mouth: the case of fashion brands among young consumers. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.
16, 386–398. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612021211265791.
Instagram, 2019. Instagram shopping. June 2020. https://www.facebook.com/business
/instagram/shopping.
Instagram, 2017. Experience luxury on Instagram. June 2020. https://business.in
stagram.com/a/insights/luxury.
Ismagilova, E., Slade, E.L., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., 2019. The effect of electronic word
of mouth communications on intention to buy: a meta-analysis. Inf. Syst. Front 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09924-y.
Johnston, R., Kong, X., 2011. The customer experience: a road-map for improvement.
Manag. Serv. Qual. 21, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521111100225.
Jalilvand, M.R., Samiei, N., 2012. The effect of electronic word of mouth on brand image
and purchase intention: an empirical study in the automobile industry in Iran.
Market. Intell. Plann. 30 (4), 460–476.
Joung, H.W., Choi, E.K., Wang, E., 2016. Effects of perceived quality and perceived value
of campus foodservice on customer satisfaction: moderating role of gender. J. Qual.
Assur. Hospit. Tourism 17 (2), 101–113.
Jin, S.A., 2012. The potential of social media for luxury brand management. Market.
Intell. Plann. 30 (7), 687–699.
Keller, P.A., McGill, A.L., 1994. Differences in the relative influence of product attributes
under alternative processing conditions: attribute importance versus attribute ease of
imagability. J. Consum. Psychol. 3, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408
(08)80027-7.
Kaplan, A., Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the world, unite! the challenges and
opportunities of social media. Bus. Horiz. 53 (1), 59–68.
Kapferer, J.N., 2012. Abundant rarity: key to luxury growth. Bus. Horiz. 55 (5), 453–462.
Kudeshia, C., Kumar, A., 2017. Social ewom: does it affect the brand attitude and
purchase intention of brands? Manag. Res. Rev. 40 (3), 310–330.
Keller, K.L., 2009. Managing the growth trade-off: challenges and opportunities in luxury
branding. J. Brand Manag. 16, 290–301.
Kim, A.J., Ko, E., 2010. Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s social media marketing on
customer relationship and purchase intention. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 1 (3), 164–171.
King, R.A., Racherla, P., Bush, V.D., 2014. What we know and don’t know about online
word-of-mouth: a review and synthesis of the literature. J. Interact. Market. 28,
167–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2014.02.001.
Kwon, E., Ratneshwar, S., Thorson, E., 2017. Consumers’ social media advocacy
behaviors regarding luxury brands: an explanatory framework. J. Interact. Advert.
17, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2017.1315321.
Kim, A.J., Ko, E., 2012. Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity?
An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. J. Bus. Res. 65, 1480–1486. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014.
Klein, J.F., Falk, T., Esch, F.T., Gloukhovtsev, A., 2016. Linking pop-up brand stores to
brand experience and word of mouth: the case of luxury retail. J. Bus. Res. 69 (12),
5761–5767.
Kayaman, R., Arasli, H., 2007. Customer based brand equity: evidence from the hotel
industry. Manag. Serv. Qual.: Int. J. 17 (1), 92–109.
Kuo, Y.F., Wu, C.M., Deng, W.J., 2009. The relationships among service quality,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-
added services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25 (4), 887–896.
Kortge, G.D., Okonkwo, P.A., 1993. Perceived value approach to pricing. Ind. Market.
Manag. 22 (2), 133–140.
Kautish, P., Khare, A., Sharma, R., 2020. Influence of values, and brand consciousness
and behavioral intentions in predicting luxury fashion consumption. J. Prod. Brand
Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2019-2535.
Li, Y., 2016. Global consumer behaviour in luxury goods markets. In: Mosca, F., Gallo, R.
(Eds.), Global Marketing Strategies for the Promotion of Luxury Goods. IGI Global,
Hershey, USA, pp. 1–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9958-8.ch001.
Lyer, R., Griffin, M., 2020. Modeling word -of-mouth usage: a replication. J. Bus. Res.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.027 (in press).
Line, N.D., Hanks, L., 2015. The effects of environmental and luxury beliefs on intention
to patronize green hotels: the moderating effect of destination image. J. Sustain.
Tourism 24, 904–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1091467.
Lee, E., Edwards, S.M., Youn, S., Yun, T., 2018. Understanding the moderating effect of
motivational values on young consumers’ responses to luxury brands: a cross-
cultural study of South Korea and the USA. J. Market. Commun. 24, 103–124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.975830.
Lo, S., 2008. The impact of online game character’s outward attractiveness and social
status on interpersonal attraction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 1947–1958. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.08.001.
Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D., Soh, H., 2012. Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand
loyalty: a study on luxury brands. Eur. J. Market. 46 (7/8), 922–937.
J. Park et al.
Liu, X., Hu, J., 2012. Adolescent evaluations of brand extensions: the influence of
reference group. Psychol. Market. 29 (2), 98–106.
Liao, J., Wang, L., 2009. Face as a mediator of the relationship between material value
and brand consciousness. Psychol. Market. 26 (11), 987–1001.
Liu, M.T., Wong, I.A., Shi, G., Chu, R., Brock, J.L., 2014. The impact of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) performance and perceived brand quality on customer-based
brand preference. J. Serv. Market. 28 (3), 181–194.
Liu, C.H.S., Lee, T., 2016. Service quality and price perception of service: influence on
word-of-mouth and revisit intention. J. Air Transport. Manag. 52, 42–54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.12.007.
Mayzlin, D., 2006. Promotional chat on the Internet. Market. Sci. 25 (2), 155–163.
Miller, K.D., Fabian, F., Lin, S.J., 2009. Strategies for online communities. Strat. Manag.
J. 30 (3), 305–322.
Matos, C.A., Rossi, C.A.V., 2008. Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-
analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 36,
578–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0121-1.
Mayr, T., Zins, A.H., 2012. Extensions on the conceptualization of customer perceived
value: insights from the airline industry. International Journal of Culture. Tourism
Hospit. Res. 6, 356–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506181211265086.
McKee, D., Simmers, C.S., Licata, J., 2006. Customer self-efficacy and response to service.
J. Serv. Res. 8, 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670505282167.
Mrad, M., Majdalani, J., Cui, C.C., Khansa, Z.E., 2020. Brand addition in the contexts of
luxury and fast-fashion brands. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 55, 102089. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102089.
Malc, D., Mumel, D., Pisnik, A., 2016. Exploring price fairness perceptions and their
influence on consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res. 69, 3693–3697. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.031.
Martín-Consuegra, D., Faraoni, M., Díaz, E., Ranfagni, S., 2018. Exploring relationships
among brand credibility, purchase intention and social media for fashion brands: a
conditional mediation model. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 9 (3), 237–251.
Mishra, A., Satish, S.M., 2016. eWOM: extant research review and future research
avenues. Vikalpa 41 (3), 222–233.
Molina-Castillo, F.J., Munuera-Aleman, J.L., 2009. The joint impact of quality and
innovativeness on short-term new product performance. Ind. Market. Manag. 38 (8),
984–993.
Moran, G., Muzellec, L., Nolan, E., 2014. Consumer moments of truth in the digital
context: how “search” and “e-word of mouth” can fuel consumer decision making.
J. Advert. Res. 54 (2), 200–204.
Morris, M.G., Venkatesh, V., Ackerman, P.L., 2005. Gender and age differences in
employee decisions about new technology: an extension to the theory of planned
behavior. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 52 (1), 69–84.
Nwankwo, S., Hamelin, N., Khaled, M., 2014. Consumer values, motivation and purchase
intention for luxury goods. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21 (5), 735–744.
Ngoma, M., Ntale, P.D., 2015. Perceived brand quality in Uganda’pharmaceutical
industry: the role of country of origin, marketing orientation and brand affordability.
Adv. Manag. Appl. Econ. 5 (6), 1–1.
Nam, K., Baker, J., Ahmad, N., Goo, J., 2020. Determinants of writing positive and
negative electronic word-of-mouth: empirical evidence for two types of expectation
confirmation. Decis. Support Syst. 129, 113168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2019.113168.
Pentina, I., Basmanova, O., Zhang, L., Ukis, Y., 2015. Exploring the role of culture in
ewomadoption. MIS Review 20 (2), 1–26.
Phau, I., Prendergast, G., 2000. Consuming luxury brands: the relevance of the “rarity
principle. J. Brand Manag. 8, 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.
bm.2540013.
Phan, M., Thomas, R., Heine, K., 2011. Social media and luxury brand management: the
case of Burberry. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2 (4), 213–222.
Park, D.H., Kim, S., 2009. The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of
electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electron. Commer. Res.
Appl. 7, 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2007.12.001.
Pentina, I., Véronique, G., Micu, A.C., 2018. Exploring social media engagement
behaviors in the context of luxury brands. J. Advert. 47 (1), 55–69.
Phau, I., Teah, M., 2009. Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: a study of antecedents and
outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands. J. Consum. Market. 26
(1), 15–27.
Rialti, R., Zollo, L., Pellegrini, M.M., Ciappei, C., 2017. Exploring the antecedents of
brand loyalty and electronic word of mouth in social-media-based brand
communities: do gender differences matter? J. Global Market. 30 (3), 147–160.
Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., Teichmann, K., 2013. Is luxury just a female thing? The role of
gender in luxury brand consumption. J. Bus. Res. 66 (7), 889–896.
Schade, M., Hegner, S., Horstmann, F., Brinkmann, N., 2016. The impact of attitude
functions on luxury brand consumption: an age-based group comparison. J. Bus. Res.
69 (1), 314–322.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., Batra, R., Alden, D.L., 2003. How perceived brand globalness
creates brand value. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 34 (1), 53–65.
Shukla, P., 2012. The influence of value perceptions on luxury purchase intentions in
developed and emerging markets. Int. Market. Rev. 29 (6), 575–596.
See-To, E.W.K., Ho, K.K.W., 2014. Value co-creation and purchase intention in social
network sites: the role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust: a theoretical analysis.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 31, 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.013.
Silverman, D., 1999. Consumers choose comfort as their no. one priority. Daily News
Record 29 (45), 28–29.
Shanahan, T., Tran, T.P., Taylor, E.C., 2019. Getting to know you: social media
personalization as a means of enhancing brand loyalty and perceived quality.
12
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102272
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 47, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2018.10.007.
Srinivasan, S.R., 2015. Impact of education on purchase behaviour of luxury brands. Bus.
Manag. Rev. 5, 66–80.
Simon, C., Brexendtof, T.O., Fassnacht, M., 2013. Creating online brand experience on
Facebook. Marketing review st. Gallen 30, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1365/s11621-
013-0299-6.
Sokolova, K., Kefi, H., 2020. Instagram and youtube bloggers promote it, why should I
buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 53, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2019.01.011.
Tsiotsou, R., 2006. The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on
purchase intentions. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 30, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1470-6431.2005.00477.x.
Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., Chhuon, C., 2010. Co-creating value for luxury brands. J. Bus.
Res. 63 (11), 1156–1163.
Tien, D., Rivas, A., Liao, Y.K., 2018. Examining the influence of customer-to-customer
electronic word-of-mouth on purchase intention in social networking sites. Asia Pac.
Manag. Rev. 23 (1), 1–12.
Vigneron, F., Johnson, L.W., 2004. Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. J. Brand
Manag. 11, 484–506. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540194.
Vinerean, S., Opreana, A., 2019. Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands on
Instagram. Expert J. Mark. 7, 144–152.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27 (3), 425–578.
Wojnicki, A.C., Godes, D., 2008. Word-of-mouth as Self-Enhancement. University of
Toronto Working Paper.
Wiedmann, K.P., Hennings, N., Siebels, A., 2009. Value-based segmentation of luxury
consumption behavior. Psychol. Market. 26 (7), 625–651.
Wang, T., Yeh, R.K.J., Chen, C., Tsydypov, 2016. What drives electronic word-of-mouth
on social networking sites? Perspectives of social capital and self- determination.
Telematics Inf. 33 (4), 1034–1047.
Wang, Y., Fesenmaier, D.R., 2004. Towards understanding members’ general
participation in and active contribution to an online travel community. Tourism
Manag. 25, 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.011.
Yang, F.X., 2017. Effects of restaurant satisfaction and knowledge sharing motivation on
eWOM intentions: the moderating role of technology acceptance factors. J. Hospit.
Tourism Res. 41 (1), 93–127.
Yoo, J., Park, M., 2016. The effects of e-mass customization on consumer perceived
value, satisfaction, and loyalty toward luxury brands. J. Bus. Res. 69, 5775–5784.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.174.
Yen, C.L.A., Tang, C.H.H., 2019. The effects of hotel attribute performance on electronic
word-of- mouth (eWOM) behaviors. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 76 (1), 9–18.
Yu, S., Hudders, L., Cauberghe, V., 2018. Selling luxury products online: the effect of a
quality label on risk perception, purchase intention and attitude toward the brand.
J. Electron. Commer. Res. 19 (1), 16–35.
Zahratu, S.A., Hurriyati, R., 2020. Electronic word of mouth and purchase intention on
Traveloka. In: Proceeding of the 3rd Global Conference on Business, Management,
and Entrepreneurship (GCBME 2018). Atlantis Press, pp. 33–36. https://doi.org/
10.2991/aebmr.k.200131.008, 33–36.
Zhang, H., Liang, X., Qi, C., 2020. Investigating the impact of interpersonal closeness and
social status on electronic word-of-mouth effectiveness. J. Bus. Res. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.020. In press.
Zhan, L., He, Y., 2012. Understanding luxury consumption in China: consumer
perceptions of best-known brands. J. Bus. Res. 65, 1452–1460. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.011.
Zhang, Z., Li, Y., Gong, C., Wu, H., 2002. Casual wear product attributes: a Chinese
consumers’ perspective. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 6, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13612020210422464.
Further reading
Ahn, J., Park, J.K., Hyun, H., 2018. Luxury product to service brand extension and brand
equity transfer. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 42, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2018.01.009.
Aaker, D.A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity. Free Press, New York.
Gallagher, D., Ting, L., Palmer, A., 2008. A journey into the unknown; taking the fear out
of structural equation modeling with AOMS for the first-time user. Market. Rev. 8,
255–275. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934708X337672.
Mukerjee, K., 2018. The impact of brand experience, service quality and perceived value
on word of mouth of retail bank customers: investigating the mediating effect of
loyalty. J. Financ. Serv. Market. 23, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-018-
0039-8.
Susarla, A., Oh, J.H., Tan, Y., 2016. Influentials, imitables, or susceptibles? Virality and
word-of- mouth conversations in online social networks. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 33,
139–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1172454.
Stylidis, K., Wickman, C., Söderberg, R., 2020. Perceived quality of products: a
framework and attributes ranking method. J. Eng. Des. 31, 37–67. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09544828.2019.1669769.
Ulas, S., 2020. Social media usage practices of luxury automobile consumers.
International Journal of Marketing. J. N. Media Mass Commun. 8, 4–28.