Measuring the Influence of Personality and Gender on Luxury Product Preference : do luxury stereotypes exist?

(1)

Measuring the Influence of Personality and Gender on

Luxury Product Preference

DO LUXURY STEREOTYPES EXIST?

Barend Cox 11420898

Final Version 06-09-2018 Supervisor: Mr. Meulemans

Master Thesis

(2)

1

Abstract

What is the importance of perceived Luxury Attributes on Product Preference? This study explores the relationships between selected personality traits and valuation of luxury

attributes, and the influence of perceived luxury attributes on Product Preference. The author proposes a conceptual framework in which the effect of 5 perceived luxury attributes on Product Preferences are researched. While the personality traits ‘Extraversion’ and ‘Openness to Experiences’ do not show any significant effect on the valuation of the five luxury attributes by Vigneron and Johnson. The paper does show an interesting influence of gender on the relationship between perceived luxury attributes and Product Preferences. The results show that for men, the perceptiveness of the attribute ‘Extended-self’ is related to a higher Product Preferences, while the attributes ‘Hedonism’ and ‘Quality’ contribute to higher Product Preferences for women. Supporting earlier research on the role of gender on luxury consumption.

(3)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Barend Cox who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document

is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the

(4)

3 Table of Contents Abstract ... 1 Statement of Originality ... 2 1. Introduction ... 5 2. Literature Review ... 8

2.1 The concept of luxury ... 8

2.2 (Luxury) Branding ... 9

2.3 Characteristics of a luxury brand ... 10

2.4 Measuring Luxury... 13

Personality Traits and Consumer Behavior ... 13

2.5 Brand Personality, Self-Images and Image Congruence ... 15

2.6 Product Preference and luxury value ... 16

2.7 The role of gender... 17

2.8 Luxury Attributes, Personality Traits, and Product Preference ... 19

3. Conceptual Models ... 19

3.1 Study 1 ... 20

3.1.1 Openness to experience ... 20

3.1.2 Extraversion ... 22

3.2 Study 2 ... 25

3.2.1 Luxury attributes and Product Preference ... 25

3.2.2 Luxury attributes, Product Preference and Gender ... 28

3.2.3 Luxury attributes, Product Preference and Personality ... 30

4. Methodology ... 33 4.1 Design ... 33 4.2 Sample ... 34 4.3 Procedure ... 35 4.3.1 Pre-test ... 35 4.3.2 Study 1... 36 4.3.3 Study 2... 37 5. Results ... 38 5.1 Study 1 ... 38 5.1.1 Respondents ... 38 5.1.2 Data preparation ... 39 5.1.3 Statistical procedure ... 40 5.1.4 Results ... 41 5.2 Study 2a ... 42 5.2.1 Respondents ... 42 5.2.2 Data preparation ... 42 5.2.3 Statistical procedure ... 47 5.2.4 Results ... 48 5.3 Study 2b ... 54 5.3.1 Respondents ... 54 5.3.2 Data preparation ... 54 5.3.3 Statistical procedure ... 55

(5)

5.3.4 Results ... 55

6. Conclusion and General Discussion... 57

7. Managerial Implications ... 60

8. Limitations ... 61

9. Future Research ... 62

References ... 64

Appendix ... 66

Appendix 1: Results Pre-Test 1 and 2 ... 66

Appendix 2: Selected Watches Pre-Test 2 ... 67

Appendix 3: Demographics Study 1 ... 68

Appendix 4: Demographics Study 2 ... 68

Appendix 5: Survey 1 ... 69

Appendix 6: Survey 2 ... 85

(6)

5

1. Introduction

The phenomenon of luxury has accompanied people since the Egyptian era. However, while this phenomenon has long been an elitist concept recently there has been a change in the perception of luxury (Godey, Pederzoli, Aiello, Donvito, Wiedmann, 2013). “In the last few years, it has become clear that luxury consumption is open to different kinds of consumers, and that it therefore contributes to defining differentiated identities” (Godey et al., 2013, p. 229). “These new luxury consumers are younger than clients of the old luxe used to be, they are far more numerous, they make their money far sooner, and they are far more flexible in financing and fickle in choice” (Truong, McColl, & Kitchen, 2009, p. 375).

The luxury market has been booming since the early 1990s (Truong et al., 2009). Currently, “the world’s 100 largest luxury goods companies generated sales of US$212 billion in FY2015” (Deloitte, 2017, p. 1). And while some brands remained focusing on the wealthiest of consumers, emphasizing their product superiority and heritage others shifted their scope by combining their high perceived prestige with reasonable prices enabling them to attract middle-class consumers (Kapferer, 2006) (Truong et al., 2009).

As these luxury brands thus vary in terms of their approach towards increasing market share and revenue, a common theme that characterized all luxury brands was their commitment to brand building (Seo & Buchanan-Oliver, 2015). Currently in this industry, a strong brand identity and image have become key determinants of success (Seo & Buchanan-Oliver, 2015).

While a lot of research is focused on understanding of the construct of ‘luxury’ (Kapferer, 2006) (Seo & Buchanan-Oliver, 2015), it’s dimensions (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004) (Truong et al., 2009), levels (De Barnier, Falcy, & Valette-Florence, 2012) (Kapferer, 1997), and

(7)

consumption motives (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013), little if any research has been done with regards to understanding the relative importance of its attributes for consumers.

Research by Vigneron and Johnson (2004) has shown that luxury brands and thus luxury products contain of 5 attributes. But a lot is unclear regarding the importance of these

attributes per individual, character trait, or due to cultural differences, image congruency, and several other aspects that could influence the subjective nature of perceived luxury and the resulting Product Preference.

Because of this the following questions arise; which attributes of luxury products are of importance for companies that seek to succeed? What attributes should be communicated and where should luxury brands shift their focus to in order to optimize their marketing and branding efforts? “Consumers buy more luxury goods today than before for different reasons, which could include a desire to emulate the lifestyle of the richest or the social class

immediately above them, the superior quality of the products, or on more hedonic grounds on the basis of self-rewards” (Truong et al., 2009, p. 376).

To the best of my knowledge, little if any research has been done to address the gap in the literature regarding perceived luxury attributes and their influence. The focus of this study therefore, is aimed at understanding the importance of the different luxury attributes, the influence of personality traits on this preference for specific luxury attributes and its influence on Product Preference. In other words, what do luxury consumers want? And, to what extent do personality traits have an effect on what is being valued by luxury consumers.

(8)

7 A better understanding of the influence of personality on luxury attribute preference and Product Preference contributes to the body of knowledge in consumer research and luxury by evaluating the relative importance of personality traits in predicting luxury product

preferences. It helps understanding the extent to which personality traits influence purchase behavior and the relationship between ‘who we are’ and what we are looking for in the products that we purchase. This relationship between the two is also important from a managerial perspective as understanding the driving forces behind luxury attribute

preferences help managers and brands optimize their marketing communication and targeting strategies based on general personality traits. Enabling managers to match their product (and thus its attributes) with the right type of consumer.

The first part of this paper summarizes the existing literature on the construct luxury, it’s dimensions and its measurement. Followed by a brief introduction to personality traits and the its expected effect on Product Preference. The second part, after presenting the methodology adopted, sums up the results obtained for this paper and describes its main findings. The conclusion summarizes the findings and its managerial implications. Finally, the limitations section points out the limitations inherent in this study and suggests possible future research that seems to be relevant.

(9)

2. Literature Review

2.1 The concept of luxury

“Luxury is a necessity that begins where necessity ends” Coco Chanel

“The word ‘luxury’ derives from the Latin word ‘luxus’, which according to the Latin Oxford Dictionary signifies ‘soft or extravagant living, (over-)indulgence’ and ‘sumptuousness, luxuriousness, opulence’” (Christodoulides, Michaelidou, & Li, 2009, p. 397). A more

‘recent’ description of the word ‘luxury’ comes from Kapferer (1997) who said the following;

“Luxury defines beauty; it is art applied to functional items. Like light, luxury is enlightening. […] They offer more than mere object: they provide reference of good taste. That is why luxury management should not only depend on customer expectations: luxury brands are animated by their internal programme, their global vision, the specific taste which they promote as well as the pursuit of their own standards … Luxury items provide extra pleasure and flatter all senses at once … Luxury is the appendage of the ruling classes” (Kapferer,

1997, p. 253).

According to Vigneron and Johnson (2004) the description of Kapferer (1997) suggests that we can define luxury goods as “Goods for which the simple use or display of a particular branded product brings esteem on the owner, apart from any functional utility” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 486). Which Indicates, that while luxury products enable consumers to satisfy psychosocial and functional needs, “these psychological benefits are the main factor distinguishing them from non-luxury products or counterfeits” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 486). Luxury goods are thus those goods whose consumption satisfies both functional and psychological needs, emphasizing the hedonic dimension.

(10)

9 The asymmetrical distribution of functional and psychosocial benefits regarding luxury

products however, makes it hard to classify products into categories of luxury and non-luxury as the socio-economic environment has to be taken into account. Christodoulides et al. (2009) argue that “perceptions of what is luxury and what is necessity vary from society to society” (Christodoulides et al., 2009, p. 397). Tyan, McKechnie, and Chhuon (2010) state that “luxury and non-luxury goods are the two extremes of a continuum, so where the ordinary ends and luxury starts is a matter of degree as judged by consumers” (Tyan et al., 2010).

2.2 (Luxury) Branding

While luxury is as old as humanity, the idea of ‘luxury brands’ as a special form of branding focusing on an affluent consumption lifestyle is a relatively new concept (Seo & Buchanan-Oliver, 2015). It isn’t until the 1990s that the market for luxury products transforms from a market consisting of a ‘constellation of small, artisan family-owned businesses’ into an economic sector led by powerful brand-driven luxury corporations (Seo & Buchanan-Oliver, 2015). This shift within the industry resulted in some major changes within the business model of these luxury brands.

While some brands remained focusing on the wealthiest of consumers, emphasizing their product superiority and heritage others shifted their scope by combining their high perceived prestige with reasonable prices enabling them to attract middle-class consumers (Kapferer, 2006) (Truong et al., 2009). While beforehand luxury brands had a relatively small and homogeneous clientele, this change resulted in an increased luxury market size and above all, customer diversity.

(11)

As the luxury brands varied in terms of their approach towards increasing market share and revenue, a common theme that characterized all luxury brands was their commitment to brand building (Seo & Buchanan-Oliver, 2015). “Strong brand identity and image have become the key determinants of success in this industry” (Seo & Buchanan-Oliver, 2015, p. 84).

2.3 Characteristics of a luxury brand

Although all luxury offerings vary in terms of their functional uses, they provide consumers with comparable symbolic and experimental benefits, such as prestige and social status, that mostly come from the intangible attributes of their brands (Seo & Buchanan-Oliver, 2015).

The subjective nature of the luxury concept within its continuum has resulted in little agreement within the academic literature on what defines a luxury brand with regard to its characteristics (Christodoulides et al., 2009, p. 397). “For example, according to Keller (2009) luxury brands possess 10 characteristics among which premium image, products and service quality, pleasurable purchase and consumption experience and so on. Phau and Prendergast (2000) affirm that luxury brands can be defined around four characteristics (i) exclusivity, (ii) well-known brand identity, (iii) increase brand awareness and perceived quality and (iv) retain sales levels and customers’ loyalty” (De Barnier et al., 2012, p. 625).

A perhaps more suiting way of determining the level of luxury is based on consumers’ perceptions. As the person who is buying a luxury product is in fact buying into a dream (Dubois & Paternault, 1995) a luxury brand thus satisfies symbolic needs: “it has a strong imaginary component, remains highly consistent in terms of its various constitutive elements, conveys positive values and shares an ethic or aesthetic with the consumer” (De Barnier et al., 2012, p. 626).

(12)

11 In this view, Vigneron and Johnson (2004) have developed a Brand Luxury Index Scale (BLI) which “support the existence of latent luxury constructs influenced by personal and

interpersonal perceptions towards the brands” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 501).

As the BLI helps explain and measure the key luxury attributes, the scale can be used to compare different luxury brands and determine the ‘differentiating’ differences between them. The five key luxury attributes Vigneron and Johnson found determining the level of perceived luxury and thus essential for the concept of luxury are:

Perceived conspicuousness:

“Considering reference group influences when publicly consuming luxury products” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 490). Helping individuals in their search of social

representation and position, which indicates that social status is or can be associated with a brand.

Perceived uniqueness:

“Scarcity or limited supply of products enhances consumers’ preferences for a brand” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 490). As individuals express a need for uniqueness through searching and obtaining something exclusive or scarce, uniqueness might enhance one’s self image and social image.

Perceived quality:

“It is expected that luxury brands offer superior product quality compared with non-luxury brands” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 491). Emphasizing the need for a long-term commitment to quality for luxury brands.

(13)

Figure 1: Luxury Attributes (Vigneron and Johnson, 2004, p.488)

Perceived hedonism:

“Seeking personal rewards and fulfillment acquired through the purchase and consumption of products evaluated for their subjective emotional benefits and intrinsically pleasing

properties” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 491).

Perceived extended self:

The use of luxury brands to classify or distinguish oneself in relation to relevant others” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 490). In addition, luxury brands might also be used to integrate the symbolic meaning of the brand into their own identity.

(14)

13 2.4 Measuring Luxury

Research of De Barnier et al. (2012), based partially on the BLI scale, shows that as “luxury brands are an exclusive family of brands in their own right” (De Barnier et al., 2012, p. 626). And distributed among this continuum expressing the degree of luxury, there can be three distinctive levels of luxury brands perceived by consumers. Which are; inaccessible luxury goods, intermediate luxury goods, and accessible luxury goods (De Barnier et al., 2012).

As both the attributes of the BLI Scale (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004), the luxury levels of De Barnier et al. (2012), and several other relevant luxury conceptualizations contribute in understanding the luxury brand concept, all depend on the perception of the consumer. Both in terms of attitude and preference. Research by Dubois, Laurent, and Czellar (2005) has focused on understanding the consumer and identified three consumer segments (Democratic, Elitist, and Distance) based on attitudes toward luxury. Findings show that attitudes towards luxury have influenced how this concept of luxury is perceived (suggesting presence of a common cultural definition of luxury) and to some extent which aspects are valued more by each segment.

Personality Traits and Consumer Behavior

“Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are known as the big five personality traits in psychology. The five factor personality traits model (FFM) resulted from several decades of factor analytic research focusing on trait personality” (Zhang, 2006, p. 1178). “The Big Five model of McCrae and Costa (1990) is today regarded as one of the primary benchmarks in the trait theory of personality” (Mulyanegara &

(15)

they may score relatively high on a number of dimensions and significantly lower on others (Mulyanegara & Tsarenko, 2008). The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) (McCrae & Costa, 1990) measures the five personality traits and describes the five traits as followed:

“Neuroticism (N) is the opposite of emotional stability. People high on the N scale tend to experience such negative feelings as emotional instability, embarrassment, guilt, pessimism, and low self-esteem. People scoring high on the extraversion (E) scale tend to be sociable and assertive, and they prefer to work with other people. Openness to experience (O) is

characterized by such attributes as open-mindedness, active imagination, preference for variety, and independence of judgment. People high on agreeableness (A) scale tend to be tolerant, trusting, accepting, and they value and respect other people’s beliefs and

conventions. Finally, people on the conscientiousness (C) scale tend to distinguish themselves for their trustworthiness and their sense of purposefulness and of responsibility” (Zhang, 2006, p. 1179).

An interesting concept within the personality traits theory is its relation to consumer behavior. “Purchasing behavior, media choice, innovation, segmentation, fear, social influence, product choice, opinion leadership, risk taking, attitude change, and almost anything else one can think of have been linked to personality” (Kassarjian, 1971, p. 409). “Studies by McIntyre and Miller (1992) show that “personality traits moderate individual behavior in fashion

consumption” (Mulyanegara & Tsarenko, 2008, p. 360). In addition, “more frequent purchasers of clothing possess distinctive personality traits compared to consumers with lower frequency consumption patterns” (Mulyanegara & Tsarenko, 2008, p. 361), which confirms the work of Goldsmith (2002) who showed that personality traits influence

(16)

15 While these research papers suggest a link between personality traits and consumption

patterns a contrasting study by Summers, Belleau and Xu (2006) finds no significant relationship between personality and purchase intention within the context of controversial luxury products. Despite these recent applications of personality theories in the context of (luxury) consumption, this review of literature indicates that no studies have been undertaken to further examine the specific relationship between the Big Five traits and luxury attribute preferences.

2.5 Brand Personality, Self-Images and Image Congruence

One theory linked to attribute preferences, within the branding context is the idea of the Big Five traits as an extension of the self-congruity theory. This suggests that “consumers have a greater preference for brands/products which are more congruent with their self-concept” (Malhotra, 1988, p. 1). In addition to the self-concept, a perceived “match between a product image and a person’s ideal self-image has been referred to as ideal congruity” (Sirgy, 1985, p. 196). Recent empirical studies have indeed revealed strong correlations between the

personality-brand congruence concept. “These studies concluded that in order for a brand to be successful it must generate perceived attributes that are consistent with the personality of the target consumers” (Mulyanegara & Tsarenko, 2008, p. 361). However, while this gives an insight in the importance of congruity between individual personality traits, brand identity and brand preference it doesn’t help explain what consumers prefer on a product level. With the big five personality traits as an ‘theoretical’ extension of the self-congruity theory and the link between personality traits and consumption patterns I suspect that personality traits will have an effect on luxury attribute preferences. Indicating that personality traits determine the extent to which a luxury attribute is preferred within a product.

(17)

2.6 Product Preference and luxury value

With the enormous growth of the luxury industry in the past decades due to the ‘democratization of luxury’, luxury brands are now competing based on an intimate

relationship with their customers and their customers desire for “pleasure and indulgence of the senses through objects or experiences that are more ostentatious than necessary”

(Okonkwo, 2010, p. 24). “Research gives evidence that the desire for and the consumption of luxury brands involves several dimensions of customer perceived value including financial, functional, individual, and social consumer perceptions” (Hennings, Wiedmann, Klarmann, & Behrens, 2015, p. 923).

Considering the high product price, luxury goods have to deliver sufficient value.

Nevertheless, considering the complexity of luxury, outcomes regarding the perceived value of luxury are poorly understood (Hennings, Wiedmann, Klarmann, & Behrens, 2015). For this reason, product preference will be used as a ‘simplistic’ measurement construct in order to determine the extent to which luxury attributes are actually perceived. Product preference, or the consumers’ attitude towards a product is based on the objective evaluation of a product’s attributes and in this case will be measured by evaluations of Aesthetics (Vigneron &

Johnson, 2004), Perceived Fit (Based on the Self-Congruency theory (Sirgy, 1985)), and

(18)

17 As luxury products address various functional and psychological needs, it is therefore

expected that as the 5 luxury attributes of the BLI scale are perceived more extensively, this will result in a higher overall product preference. This assumption, supported by the self-congruency theory, also suggests that it is expected that this relationship between perceived attributes and product preference is moderated by the personality traits Extraversion and Openness to Experience.

2.7 The role of gender

“Theory and empirical evidence have traditionally suggested gender differences in judgement and decision making with a special emphasis put on issues of interdependence (females) versus independence (males) (Meyers-Levy, 1988). Social gender role designs reflect two opposite basic orientations of women and men. “Women often define their identity in accordance with their environment and through interaction with other individuals while men generally show an individualistic character of autonomy and independence (Prakash,1992)” (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013, p. 890) The role of luxury consumption itself differs tremendously for men and women altogether as historically, the selection criteria for

reproductive investment have been different for females and males (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013).

“Women typically use earning power and status as cues to evaluate the reproductive value of a man” (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013, p. 890). Men in this scenario are more thus more likely to engage in conspicuous consumption than women to show economic

achievement and eventually attract a potential mate as has been shown by Griskevicius et al. (2007).

(19)

As men are more responsive to a women’s physical appearance than the other way around men tend to “evaluate women based on their physical attractiveness thus relying on indirect cues such as beauty” (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013, p. 890). Men display luxury products as signals to attract potential mates, displaying their ability to gather and distribute resources. Research has shown that priming men in the mating context increased spending on conspicuous items, but not on inconspicuous items (Hudders, Fisher, Backer, & Vyncke, 2014).

“While men predominantly consume conspicuously and thus use luxury products and brands to visually portray economic achievement and accomplishment, to women other aspects of luxury consumption seem to be more important” (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013, p. 890). In this regard, female luxury consumers focus on the segments quality, uniqueness, and social value. In addition, women believe that luxury brands provide more hedonic value and status than non-luxury brands (Hudders et al., 2014).

This difference in attribute preferences should be enforced by the difference in consumption motives between men and women. Research on women’s luxury consumption mainly focusses on costly signaling and intrasexual competition, indicating that women buy or wear luxury products as a self-promotion strategy during within-sex competitions (Hudders et al., 2014).

In other words, women differentiate themselves against same-sex rivals when they need to compete for resources and mates. Men display wealth and resources to attract the other sex. This foundational difference in luxury consumption will have an influence on the preference and valuation of on luxury products.

(20)

19

2.8 Luxury Attributes, Personality Traits, and Product Preference

Despite this abundance of research theories regarding the effects of brand personality, self-congruity, motivation and consumer values with regards to either product preferences, brand preferences, or brand loyalty. To my knowledge, and after an extensive examination of literature, little research has been focused on understanding the importance of perceived luxury attributes. The moderating effects of the different personality traits on luxury product attributes and their impact on product preference. In other words; which luxury attributes are valued, for which reasons, and to what extent?

3. Conceptual Models

With previous studies focused on brand-personality and image congruence (Malhotra, 1988), the role of gender on luxury consumption (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013) (Hudders et al., 2014), the effect of personality traits on consumption patterns (Mulyanegara &

Tsarenko, 2008) (Kassarjian, 1971), and the subjective nature of luxury products and their relative value (Dubois et al., 2005) (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). This probes the question to what extent personality has an influence on the valuation of luxury attributes.

Do different personalities value different attributes and thus seek for different products? In addition, does the perception of attributes results in an increase of Product Preference? And if so, does gender play a role in this as gender is a significant influence with regards to the motives of actual luxury consumption? And finally, do the different personality traits moderate the extent to which perceived luxury attributes contribute to higher product preference?

(21)

3.1 Study 1

For answering the question; do different Personality Traits have different effects on the valuation of Luxury Attribute preferences, I will perform more of an exploratory study, rather than actual hypothesis testing. In this exploratory test I will look at the direct effect of the different personality traits on the valuation of the 5 luxury attributes of Vigneron and Johnson (2004). In this study the focus is on two personality traits that are expected to be closely related to all five luxury attributes: Extraversion and Openness to experience.

3.1.1 Openness to experience

Openness to experience, is related to aesthetic, sensitivity, “attentiveness to other feelings, preference for variety, intellectual curiosity, and independence of judgement (Costa and McCrae, 1992)” (Matzler, Bidmon, & Grabner-Kräuter, 2006, p. 428). It is often labeled as intellect, and individuals with high scores on openness are curious about both inner and outer worlds. These “facets of openness can be linked to fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas and values” (Matzler et al., 2006, p. 428). “Those who score low tend to be down-to-earth, insensitive, and conventional” (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002, p. 792). Openness to Experience is most compatible with “values that emphasize intellectual and emotional autonomy, acceptance and cultivation of diversity, and pursuit of novelty and change” (Roccas et al., 2002, p. 796). For this reason, the following hypotheses is proposed:

(22)

21 Individuals scoring high on Openness to experience are willing to entertain novel ideas and unconventional values. They display creativity and flexible thinking (Matzler et al., 2006). Perceived Conspicuousness suggests that a consumer “considered reference group influences when publicly consuming luxury products” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 489).

As social representation and the usage of reference groups in luxury consumption contrasts ‘unconventional values’, flexible thinking, and independence of judgement, it is expected that:

H1a: The level of Openness has a negative impact on Perceived Conspicuousness

As Openness to experience is linked with the valuation of novel ideas and unconventional values, as well as a display intellectual curiosity and creative thinking (Matzler et al., 2006) it is expected that:

H1b: The level of Openness has a positive impact on Perceived Uniqueness

Perfectionist consumers may perceive more value from a luxury product “because they may assume that it will have a greater brand quality” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 491).

Individuals scoring higher on Openness to experience, experience emotions (both positive as well as negative) more keenly than low scoring individuals (Matzler et al., 2006). High scoring individuals in addition experience ‘hedonic’ values of products stronger. As they focus on (usage) experiences, it can be assumed that:

(23)

As high scoring individuals experience emotions more keenly, they perceive hedonic values of products stronger than individuals who score low on openness. They have a higher tendency to search for experientially richer lives (Matzler et al., 2006). In addition, high openness to experience is linked to aesthetic sensitivity and the valuation of nontangible, symbolic benefits. Thus, I propose that:

H1d: The level of Openness has a positive impact on Perceived Hedonism

Individuals scoring high on Openness to experience have a greater preference for subjective and symbolic aspects. Perceived extended-self is linked with using products and brands to distinguish themselves and to integrate symbolic meanings into their lives. As individuals scoring high on Openness to experience prefer subjective, symbolic, and aesthetic aspects of consumption it is expected that:

H1e: The level of Openness has a positive impact on Perceived Extended-self

3.1.2 Extraversion

Extraversion is distinguished by “venturesomeness, affiliation, positive affectivity, energy, ascendance, and ambition” (Matzler et al., 2006, p. 428). “Individuals that score high on extraversion tend to be sociable, talkative, assertive, and active” (Roccas et al., 2002, p. 792). In extent extraversion is compatible with pursuing excitement, novelty, and challenge.

“Extroverted behavior is also likely to facilitate the pursuit of pleasurable experience, the goal of hedonism values” (Roccas et al., 2002, p. 792).

(24)

23 In contrast, extraversion is negatively correlated with tradition values emphasizing humility and moderation regarding feelings and actions. In summary, extroverted behavior “comports with cherishing values that define activity, challenge, excitement, and pleasure as desirable general goals in life” (Roccas et al., 2002, p. 795). Thus, it is expected that:

H2: The level of Extraversion has an impact on luxury attribute preference

As individuals scoring high on extraversion are linked with positive affectivity, ambition, and interpersonal interaction it is expected that they’ll consider reference groups and search for social representation and position. Therefor I expect that:

H2a: The level of Extraversion has a positive impact on Perceived Conspicuousness

Individuals are expressing a need for uniqueness “when they are searching for something that is difficult to obtain” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 490). Uniqueness is sought to enhance self-image and social image. Individuals scoring high on Extraversion are linked with ambition, novelty, excitement and negatively correlated with humility (Roccas et al., 2002). As uniqueness, linked with scarcity and differentiation, enhances the self-image and indicates novelty, it seems that:

H2b: The level of Extraversion has a positive impact on Perceived Uniqueness

Consumers may perceive more value from a luxury brand or product when they assume that it will have greater product quality and reassurance. Individuals scoring high on extraversion value success through demonstrating ‘competence’ according to social standards (Roccas et

(25)

al., 2002). As luxury brands focus on their long-term quality commitment as a way to differentiate themselves from non-luxury brands, it is expected that:

H2c: The level of Extraversion has a positive impact on Perceived Quality

Extroverted behavior is “likely to facilitate the pursuit of pleasurable experience, the goal of hedonism values” (Roccas et al., 2002, p.792). Extraversion is also linked with pursuing excitement and novelty. Both goals of stimulation values (Roccas et al., 2002). As these are linked so closely, I expect that:

H2d: The level of Extraversion has a positive impact on Perceived Hedonism

As discussed earlier, extraversion is linked with socializing, excitement, and hedonic values. Moreover, “the active and assertive aspects of extraversion facilitate the goal of achievement values” (Roccas et al., 2002, p. 792). When combining these achievement values with high levels of socializing, and the need to demonstrate competence it seems likely that:

H2e: The level of Extraversion has a positive impact on Perceived Extended-self

(26)

25 3.2 Study 2

With study 2 the focus is on understanding the effect of perceived level of attributes within a luxury product and its effect on Product Preference. While all luxury offerings vary in terms of their relative functional uses, they provide consumers with comparable symbolic and experimental benefits. The subjective nature of the luxury concept within its continuum however, results in a need to specify which attributes of luxury products are of value and to what extent. Within this study it is important to take not just into consideration the 5 luxury attributes as determined by Vigneron and Johnson’s BLI-Scale, but also the role of gender in luxury consumption as gender plays an important differentiating role in the luxury

consumption motive for both men as well as women.

The Brand Luxury Index scale has been developed as an “instrument measuring the

perception of luxury in the form of a scale” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 484). Within this scale, two products or brands can be seen as having the same level of luxury, while “the scale may reveal that their overall brand-luxury perceptions are combinations of different

evaluations of the same dimensions of luxury” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 485).

3.2.1 Luxury attributes and Product Preference

For the conceptual model, all five attributes will be measured on the extent to which they are perceived within the product. “Although the five dimensions of luxury are likely to be correlated, they all contribute to an index of luxury” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 491). And whilst “consumers may choose to maximize all five dimensions, in practice, consumers would trade off less salient dimensions for more salient ones” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 491). Therefor the following hypothesis is stated:

(27)

H3: The extent to which luxury attributes are perceived within a specific product has a positive impact on Product Preference.

The consumption of luxury products may be important to individuals in search of social representation and position. Indicating that social status associated with a product is an important factor in conspicuous consumption (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). For this reason, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3a: The level of perceived conspicuousness has a positive effect on Product Preference.

As research shows, “scarcity or limited supply of products enhances consumers’ preference for a brand” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 490). As “the uniqueness dimension is based on the assumptions that perceptions of exclusivity and rarity enhance the desire for a brand, and that this desirability is increased when the brand is also perceived as expensive” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 490), this suggests that:

H3b: The level of perceived Uniqueness has a positive effect on Product Preference.

“The literature on luxury emphasizes the importance of leadership in quality to ensure the perception of luxury” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 491). As consumers perceive more value from a luxury brand when they assume that it has greater product quality this indicates that:

(28)

27 According to Hudders et al. (2014) women believe that luxury brands provide more hedonic value and status than non-luxury brands. However, hedonism is linked with luxury for both genders as a way to seek “personal rewards and fulfilment acquired through the purchase and consumption of products evaluated for their subjective emotional benefits and intrinsically pleasing properties (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 491). For this reason, the following hypothesis is suggested:

H3d: The level of perceived Hedonism has a positive effect on Product Preference.

Luxury brands are used by consumers to integrate the symbolic meaning of a brand or product into their own identity. It serves as a way to classify or distinguish oneself (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). This desire to conform to affluent lifestyles, or to be distinguished from non-affluent lifestyles affect individuals in their luxury consumption behavior. This indicates that more subjective benefits and symbolic meaning are expected from more desired luxury goods. Thus, the following hypothesis is suggested:

H3e: The level of perceived Extended-self has a positive effect on Product Preference.

(29)

3.2.2 Luxury attributes, Product Preference and Gender

Social gender role designs reflect two opposite basic orientations of women and men. “Women often define their identity in accordance with their environment and through interaction with other individuals while men generally show an individualistic character of autonomy and independence (Prakash,1992)” (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013, p. 890) As the role of luxury consumption itself differs tremendously for men and women altogether as historically, the selection criteria for reproductive investment have been different for females and males (Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013). While men focus on displaying wealth to attract potential mates and thus focus on actually displaying these luxury products towards women, women on the other hand find other aspects of luxury consumption of more importance. As luxury consumption helps women with their self-promotion strategy towards same-sex rivals. These selection criteria for reproductive investment are linked with luxury consumption motives and purchase decision making. Because of this, it is expected that:

H4: The positive impact of luxury attributes on product preference is moderated by gender, so that this relationship is stronger with congruency between gender traits and perceived luxury attributes.

As men consume and display luxury products to visually portray economic achievement and accomplishment in order to attract potential mates, displaying their ability to gather and distribute resources, men in this scenario are thus more likely to engage in conspicuous consumption. Research has shown that priming men in the mating context increased spending on conspicuous items, but not on inconspicuous items (Hudders et al., 2014). Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:

(30)

29

H4a: The positive effect of perceived conspicuousness on product preference (H3a) is stronger for men than for women.

While men focus on signals to attract potential mates, women’s luxury consumption is more focused on costly signaling and intrasexual competition (Hudders et al., 2014). As uniqueness is linked with scarcity and enhances the perceived value for luxury products it seems logical that women will rely more on perceived uniqueness than men as a way to differentiate themselves. The accompanying hypothesis is:

H4b: The positive effect of perceived uniqueness on Product Preference (H3b) is stronger for women than for men.

As high (perceived) quality and luxury are closely related, and quality is linked with higher prices and as a result a higher desirability, it seems reasonable that a higher perceived quality results in a higher product preference (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). As women differentiate themselves against same-sex rivals in their efforts for gaining resources and mates it is expected that female luxury consumers focus more on quality than men (Hudders et al., 2014). Because of this, it is expected that:

H4c: The positive effect of perceived Quality on Product Preference (H3c) is stronger for women than for men.

As women believe that luxury products provide more hedonic value and status than non-luxury products in comparison towards men, it is expected that women will have a greater focus on hedonic experiences than men. The accompanying hypothesis is:

(31)

H4d: The positive effect of perceived Hedonism on Product Preference (H3d) is stronger for women than for men.

Men predominantly consume conspicuously and use luxury products to visually portray economic achievement and accomplishment towards attracting women. As the extended-self attribute of luxury products is linked with displaying the wealth and success of its wearer and its symbolic meanings. It seems that as a result, men will likely focus more on products that score higher on the extended-self attribute. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:

H4e: The positive effect of perceived Extended-self on Product Preference (H3e) is stronger for men than for women.

3.2.3 Luxury attributes, Product Preference and Personality

In addition, to the role of gender on the effect of perceived attributes on Product Preference, the role of personality as a moderator will be taken into account in order to improve further understanding of the importance of luxury attributes and the extent to which personality traits influence this. Based on the image-congruence theory and several other psychosocial studies, personality traits are expected to have an influence on the relative importance of the perceived luxury attributes.

As mentioned earlier, the personality traits Openness to experience and Extraversion both have specific characteristics that moderate behavior. Based on these personality traits insights and the earlier described luxury attributes I expect the following moderating effect of

(32)

31 Openness to Experience and Extraversion on the relationship between preferred luxury

attributes and Product Preference:

H5: The positive relationship between luxury attributes and product preference is moderated by Personality Traits, so that this relationship is stronger with congruency between personality and preferred attributes.

As individuals scoring high on extraversion are linked with positive affectivity, ambition, and interpersonal interaction it is expected that they’ll consider reference groups and search for social representation and position. As products with higher perceived conspicuousness are expected to enforce this social representation, it is expected that:

H5a: The positive relationship between perceived conspicuousness and Product Preference (H3a) is stronger for higher levels of extraversion than lower levels.

As Openness to experience is linked with the valuation of novel ideas and unconventional values, as well as a display intellectual curiosity and creative thinking it is expected that:

H5b: The positive relationship between perceived uniqueness and Product Preference (H3b) is stronger for higher levels of Openness to Experience than lower levels.

Consumers may perceive more value from a luxury brand or product when they assume that it will have greater product quality and reassurance. Individuals scoring high on extraversion value success through demonstrating ‘competence’ according to social standards (Roccas et al., 2002). As luxury brands focus on their long-term quality commitment as a way to

(33)

differentiate themselves from non-luxury brands and demonstrating competence, it is expected that:

H5c: The positive relationship between perceived Quality and Product Preference (H3c) is stronger for higher levels of Extraversion than lower levels.

Extroverted behavior is “likely to facilitate the pursuit of pleasurable experience, the goal of hedonism values” (Roccas et al., 2002, p.792). Extraversion is also linked with pursuing excitement and novelty. Both goals of stimulation values (Roccas et al., 2002). As these are linked so closely, it is expected that:

H5d: The positive relationship between perceived Hedonism and Product Preference (H3d) is stronger for higher levels of Extraversion than lower levels.

Individuals scoring high on Openness to experience have a greater preference for subjective and symbolic aspects. Perceived extended-self is linked with using products and brands to distinguish themselves and to integrate symbolic meanings into their lives. As individuals scoring high on Openness to experience prefer subjective, symbolic, and aesthetic aspects of consumption it is expected that:

H5e: The positive relationship between perceived Extended-self and Product Preference (H3e) is stronger for higher levels of Openness to Experience than lower levels.

(34)

33

4. Methodology

4.1 Design

To answer the research question and test the developed conceptual models, two quantitative self-administered online questionnaires were developed, and data was collected from a sample of respectively 172 (Study 1) and 252 (Study 2) convenience sampled individuals. The

research is of predictive nature as it aims to identify both the relationship between personality traits (independent variable) and valuation of attributes (dependent variable) as well as the relationship between perceived attributes (independent variable), personality traits

(moderator), and their effect on Product Preference.

(35)

4.2 Sample

The population of interest of this study were consumers who were somewhat familiar with luxury products. Both surveys were administered online via Qualtrics and they consisted of closed fixed-response questions focused on the perception of luxury attributes and their effect on Product Preferences.

Subjects have been approached during a period of five weeks in total, in which the survey has been distributed online through MTurk, Facebook, e-mail, and WhatsApp. Since the research required respondents to disclose information about psychological aspects of the self,

anonymity was viewed as a critical element in the methodology and assured. The minimum number of responses needed for the results to be analyzable was determined using Green’s (1991) comprehensive overview of the procedures used to determine regression sample sizes.

The author suggests N>50 + 8 m (where m is the number of IV’s) for testing the multiple correlation and N > 104 + m for testing individual predictors (Green, 1991). As other rules of thumb are considerably lower in the required number of respondents and probably less comprehensive, Green’s rule of thumb has been selected as the appropriate measurement method for determining the required number of respondents (Wilson Van Voornis & Morgan, 2007).

(36)

35 4.3 Procedure

4.3.1 Pre-test

The first step in answering the research question was selecting a set of five watches and five fragrances (for both men and women) which were each distinguishable at an attribute level based on the 5 attributes by Vigneron and Johnson (2004). The pre-test was divided into two separate pre-tests and was held step-wise. The first pre-test (N=15) required respondents to rate the perception of the 5 luxury attributes for 10 male model watches,10 female model watches, 10 male fragrances, and 10 female fragrances. With these products, guiding texts were used to manipulate respondents. Out of each batch of ten, the five products with each a particular strongest attribute were selected.

The final groups, each containing five products, were used in a second pre-test split up in two versions (Fragrances (N=12) and Watches (N=12)). In this second pre-test respondents were asked to link each of the five attributes to one of the products forcing respondents to pick the product which had a particular attribute perceived the most. The second pre-test showed the same results indicating that the manipulating texts and images of the specified products worked (Appendix 1).

The goal of this pre-test was establishing a selection of 5 watches and fragrances for both men as well as woman that are each distinguishable on one of the 5 attributes of Vigneron and Johnson (2004). Later it was decided to focus only on the luxury watches, in contrast to the study by Stokburger-Sauer and Teichmann (2013) who researched the attitudes towards watches, perfume, and clothing. This decision was made as initial results showed that the attributes of perfume are hard to describe and/or understand using solely images and text.

(37)

4.3.2 Study 1

To answer the research question and to test the first conceptual model, a quantitative study in the form of an online survey (N=172) was conducted. The survey (appendix 5) had a cross-sectional design and was aimed at understanding the effect of personality traits on the valuation of luxury attributes.

The questionnaire was divided into four sections that contained questions related to psychological characteristics, Extraversion and Openness to Experience as developed by McCrae and Costa (1990), as well as the preferred luxury attributes using the 20-item BLI scale. In addition, product preference and demographics were measured. The three constructs: Personality traits, BLI, and product preference were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale. To ensure construct validity, scales from previous studies were adapted wherever possible as described in the measurements section.

Measurements

Personality – Big Five. The Big Five personality scale was adapted from the “Big Five Trait

Factors and Illustrative Scales” (McCrae & Costa, 1990). Respondents were asked to rank themselves on a 5-point semantic-differential scale which contained the adjectives which related to the two Big Five dimensions; Openness to Experience and Extraversion. The original questionnaire had an average reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.79, with values ranging from 0.70 to 0.85, suggesting values ranging from respectable to very good (John & Srivastava, 1999).

(38)

37

Luxury attributes – Preference. The Brand Luxury Index scale (BLI) of Vigneron and

Johnson (2004) was used to measure respondents’ preference to which extend they value the presence of each of the five attributes within a product using a 5-point Likert scale as

prescribed by the authors (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). “The average reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.82, with values ranging from 0.71 to 0.90. These were; for

Conspicuousness (α = 0.90), Uniqueness (α =0.71), Quality (α =0.84), Hedonism (α = 0.78), and extended-self (α = 0.83) indicating values ranging from respectable to very good” (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 499).

4.3.3 Study 2

A second survey (appendix 6) was held in order to test the second conceptual model and to further understand the role of personality (as a moderator) in relation with the perception of luxury attributes and its effect on Product Preferences. This second survey (N=252) also had a cross-sectional design, was administered online via Qualtrics and consisted of closed-fixed response questions which required respondents to select an answer from a predetermined set of responses. Contrasting to study one 100 out of 252 respondents were gathered using Amazon’s MTurk due to time constraints.

The second questionnaire was also divided into four sections but had a slightly different set-up. While the survey similarly started with questions related to psychological characteristics – Big Five – the second part of the survey focused on valuing each of the watches on all the five luxury attributes by Vigneron and Johnson (2004). These questions were followed by 3

additional questions in which respondents were asked to value the watches on aesthetics, personal fit, and evoked desire as measurement of Product Preferences.

(39)

Measurements

Personality – Big Five. For study 2, the same questionnaire was used as for study 1.

Respondents were asked to rank themselves on a 5-point semantic-differential scale which contained the adjectives which related to the two Big Five dimensions; Openness to Experience and Extraversion.

Luxury attributes – Perception. The attributes from the Brand Luxury Index scale (BLI) of

Vigneron and Johnson (2004) were used to measure respondents’ relative perception of each of the attributes.

Product Preference – The construct of product preference was measured by asking

respondents to value each presented watch on aesthetics (appreciation of beauty), personal-fit (symbolic and emotional) and evoked desire.

5. Results

In this section, the results of the data analysis for study 1 as well as study 2a and 2b will be presented. First, a summary of the respondents will be presented followed by a description of the data preparation. Finally, the actual hypothesis testing will be described.

5.1 Study 1 5.1.1 Respondents

Out of the 205 people that started the survey, 172 finished the survey completely showing a completion rate of 84%. Of the 172 respondents, 77 were men (44.8%) and 95 were female (55.2%) with an average age of 30. Of the respondents 87.7% had bachelor’s degree or higher. All demographics can be found in appendix 3.

(40)

39 5.1.2 Data preparation

For this first study, all constructs used were adopted from previous studies and have proven to be reliable by having a Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.7 in their original (and replicated) research. A reliability analysis was used to check if the constructs measured were indeed reliable. Both personality traits had had Chronbach’s alpha of 0.841 (Extraversion) and 0.77 (Openness to Experience) and were thus acceptable. The 5 luxury attributes, measured using the existing BLI questionnaire by Vigneron and Johnson (2004) showed lower Chronbach’s alpha’s. These were α = 0.303 (Perceived Conspicuousness), α = 0.443 (Perceived

Uniqueness), α = 0.520 (Perceived Extended-self), α = 0.528 (Perceived Hedonism), and α = 0.465 (Perceived Quality).

Reversed questions lowered these alpha’s slightly but due to the limited number of questions used for each construct these reversed questions were not removed from the scale. An important note is that a replication study by Christodoulides et al. (2009) focused on these attributes as well and reported higher alpha’s. A possible explanation regarding the difference in measured alphas could be the result of a difference between the countries in which the surveys were held. As the initial research was held in Australia and consisted of native English-speaking respondents. The BLI luxury attributes questions are very abstract and thus perhaps more difficult to understand for non-English respondents. After this check, the scale means of all constructs were calculated for use in further analysis. A correlation matrix, which is put in the table below together with means, standard deviation, and reliability values.

(41)

Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlations, Cronbach's alpha Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extraversion 3.6141 .73955 (.841) Openness 3.7192 .59691 .136 (.77) Conspicuousness 3.0262 .63353 .084 .156* (.303) Uniqueness 3.0174 .73179 -.036 .087 .163* (.443) Quality 3.1116 .66954 -.097 .055 .207** .433** (.465) Hedonism 2.7403 .86578 .02 -.187* .046 -.037 -.082 (.528) Extended-self 3.0625 .67545 -.051 -.074 .054 .237** .244** .193* (.52)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Cronbach's alpha between brackets

5.1.3 Statistical procedure

Before checking hypotheses 1 using a regression analysis, assumptions have been checked. All variables are at the continuous level. Descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis, and normality tests were computed for all variables. When looking at table 2, it shows that while all variables show a low to moderate skewness, values do not exceed the value of -1 or 1 and can thus be considered normally distributed.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Variables

Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

Extraversion -.562 .185 -.272 .368 Openness to Experiences -.715 .185 .612 .368 Conspicuousness .123 .185 .166 .368 Uniqueness .345 .185 .625 .368 Quality .446 .185 -.174 .368 Hedonism -.23 .185 -.079 .368 Extended-self .586 .185 .122 .368 N=172

(42)

41 There was no multicollinearity between the two independent variables ‘Openness to

Experiences’ and ‘Extraversion’ (0.136, not significant). This was checked by using a bivariate correlation analysis. In addition, linear relationships between the two independent variables and 5 dependent variables were shown in table 1.

5.1.4 Results

To test the hypotheses 1 and 2, a multiple regression was performed to investigate the influence of personality traits on the relative valuation of luxury attributes. The 2 attributes (Extraversion and Openness to Experience) were entered as predicting variables. The dependent variables were the 5 luxury attributes. All five multiple regression analyses performed showed no significant relation between the two personality traits and the five luxury attributes, except for the attribute Hedonism on Openness to Experience. As shown in table 3.

These results indicate that personality traits do not explain/predict the valuation of luxury attributes. The personality trait Openness to Experience does has a significant but very weak (negative) relation with the preference for hedonism. When looking at the theory, this

negative relationship between the two variables might be explained by the fact that Openness to Experience is most compatible with values emphasizing intellectual and emotional

Table 3: Multiple Regression Analysis

Extraversion Std. ß Openness Std. ß Model R Model R Square F

Conspicuousness .065 .081 .169 .028 2.472

Uniqueness -.048 .093 .099 .010 .841

Quality -.107 .069 .119 .014 1.217

Hedonism .046 -.193* .192* .037* 3.242

Extended-self -.042 -.068 .085 .007 .610

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(43)

autonomy and the pursuit of novelty and change. Which is contrasted by the attribute Hedonism which revolves around a more traditional search for personal fulfilment acquired through the consumption of intrinsically pleasing products and subjective emotional benefits (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). Thus, Hedonism is focused more on actual materialism than gaining a(n) (novel) experience. Individuals scoring low on Openness to Experience on the other hand “tend to be down-to-earth, insensitive, and conventional” (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002, p. 792). Although this one attribute has small significant

explanatory power, all other attributes show no significant relationship with the personality traits Extraversion and Openness to Experience so the hypotheses H1a-H1e and H2a-H2e are rejected.

5.2 Study 2a 5.2.1 Respondents

Out of the 320 people that started the survey, 252 finished the survey completely showing a completion rate of 79%. This completion rate is probably lower than study 1, as in the second round of survey collection respondents from my network felt less eager to participate again. Of the 252 respondents, 135 were man (53.6%) and 117 were female (46.4%) with an average age of 28. Of the respondents 88.5% had bachelor’s degree or higher. All demographics can be found in appendix 4.

5.2.2 Data preparation

For this second study, the constructs Openness to Experience and Extraversion were adopted from a previous study as was the case in study one. In addition, questions regarding the perception of the five luxury attributes by Vigneron and Johnson (2004) consisted merely of rating all five attributes for each watch on a 5-point Likert-scale.

(44)

43 Product Preference was measured using 3 self-developed questions regarding aesthetics, personal-fit, and evoked desire.

A reliability analysis was used to check if the constructs measured were indeed reliable. The personality traits had had Chronbach’s alpha of 0.77 (Extraversion) and 0.660 (Openness to Experience). For the trait Openness to Experience, one of the (reversed) questions, ‘prefers work that is routine’ was removed improving the Chronbach’s alpha to an alpha of 0.706. Resulting in a Chronbach’s alpha for both traits higher than 0.70.

The Product Preference question reported the following Chronbach’s alphas for each of the men’s watches: α = 0.926 (Men’s Watch 1), α = 0.869 (Men’s Watch 2), α = 0.855 (Men’s Watch 3) α = 0.885 (Men’s Watch 4), and α = 0.892 (Men’s Watch 5). Resulting in an average Chronbach’s alpha of 0.885. For women’s watches the Chronbach’s alphas for the five watches were α = 0.888 (Women’s Watch 1), α = 0.916 (Women’s Watch 2), α = 0.907 (Women’s Watch 3), α = 0.897 (Women’s Watch 4), and α = 0.911 (Women’s Watch 5). Resulting in an average Chronbach’s alpha of 0.90.

With average Chronbach’s alphas of respectively 0.892 (Men’s Watches) and 0.90 (Women’s Watches) it can be concluded that the questions asked informed consistently regarding the respondents’ product preference. After this reliability check, the scale means of all constructs were calculated for use in further analysis. A correlation matrix was developed containing the variables’ means, standard deviation, correlation, and reliability values for all 10 of the planned analysis.

(45)

For all 5 variations of the correlation matrix for men’s watches (table 4.1-4.5) correlations between the independent variables, as well as between the independent and dependent variables were found. These correlations can be explained by the fact that as these luxury attributes are rated, they generally speaking will be valued higher when overall luxury is perceived higher. Thus, a watch with high overall perceived luxury will have high attribute scores for most or even all attributes. However, as shown in the matrixes correlations did not exceed the value of 0.7. For the matrixes presenting women’s watches (tables 5.1 – 5.5) the same reasoning applies. Many variables correlate with each other but none of the correlations exceeds the value of 0.70.

Table 4.1: Men's Watch 1 Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlations, Cronbach's alpha

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Perceived Conspicuousness 3.520 1.381 2. Perceived Uniqueness 3.090 1.406 .468** 3. Perceived Quality 3.400 1.288 .528** .602** 4. Perceived Hedonism 3.530 1.286 .469** .617** .672** 5. Perceived Extended 3.410 1.422 .471** .680** .589** .654**

6. Product Preference Men's Watch 1 4.163 2.068 .342** .709** .638** .652** .652** (0.926)

Cronbach's alpha when available between brackets

Table 4.2: Men’s Watch 2 Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlations, Cronbach's alpha

6. Product Preference Men’s Watch 2 4.682 1.569 .375** .566** .598** .554** .663** (0.869) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(46)

45 Table 4.3: Men's Watch 3 Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlations, Cronbach's alpha

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Perceived Conspicuousness 2.73 1.254 2. Perceived Uniqueness 2.87 1.348 .508** 3. Perceived Quality 3.1 1.292 .445** .479** 4. Perceived Hedonism 2.89 1.195 .408** .510** .548** 5. Perceived Extended 3.19 1.241 .436** .465** .519** .522**

6. Product Preference Men's Watch1 4.237 1.759 .264** .482** .433** .419** .529** (0.892) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).