“Conspicuous sustainable consumption: the role of status in
explaining the preference for sustainable luxury fashion”
MASTER THESIS
Author: Mirre Bakels Student number: 10641327
Thesis supervisor: T. Dudenhöffer
Submission date: 22-06-2018
MSc in Business Administration- Marketing Track University of Amsterdam
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Mirre Bakels, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are 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 supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
To date, past literature investigating sustainable products mainly focused on commoditized low-value products, such as food and cosmetics. Only a limited amount of research has addressed the consumption of sustainable luxury products. As a result, this study explores the extent to which personal and situational factors are influencing the preference for sustainable luxury products. In particular, it examines whether the relationship between an individual’s need for status and the preference for sustainable luxury fashion products is influenced by the visibility of the product choice and the presence of a financial incentive. The current research is mainly based on two theories: the competitive altruism and the crowding out theory. The competitive altruism theory states that people compete for status by trying to be seen as relatively more altruistic. The crowding out theory, however, argues that this potential to signal altruism decreases when extrinsic rewards are given.
To examine the influence of need for status, visibility of the product choice and financial incentives on the preference for sustainable luxury fashion, and online experiment with a 2 (visibility of the product choice: visible, nonvisible) x 2 (need for status: high, low) x 2 (financial incentive: yes, no) between-subjects design was conducted. The preference for sustainable luxury fashion was subsequently measured by exposing the participants (N = 216) to three product choices in which they were asked to indicate their preferences for either the sustainable or the non-sustainable product option. The results showed that there was indeed a negative relationship between need for status and the preference for sustainable luxury product. However, no moderating effect of either visibility of the product choice or financial incentives was found. Ultimately, the findings of the current study suggest that preferences for sustainable luxury products are influenced by personal characteristics.
INHOUDSOPGAVE
LIST OF TABLES ... 5
LIST OF FIGURES ... FOUT! BLADWIJZER NIET GEDEFINIEERD. 1. INTRODUCTION ... 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 9
2.1SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS ... 9
2.2LUXURY AND SUSTAINABILITY ... 11
2.3LUXURY SUSTAINABLE FASHION ... 12
2.4HOW SUSTAINABILITY DIFFERS FOR LUXURY PRODUCTS ... 14
2.5NEED FOR STATUS AND SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION ... 15
2.6COMPETITIVE ALTRUISM ... 17
2.7THE COSTLY SIGNALING THEORY ... 19
2.8CONSPICUOUS SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION ... 21
2.9FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO BUY SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS ... 22
2.10CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 25
3. METHOD ... 26
3.1PILOT TEST:STIMULI PRODUCTS ... 26
3.2MAIN STUDY ... 28 3.2.1PARTICIPANTS ... 28 3.2.2DESIGN ... 28 3.2.3MANIPULATIONS ... 29 3.2.4.MEASURES ... 30 3.2.5PROCEDURE ... 32 4. RESULTS ... 33 4.1MANIPULATION CHECK ... 33 4.2FREQUENCY CHECK ... 34 4.3NORMALITY CHECK ... 34 4.4CORRELATIONS ... 35 4.5HYPOTHESIS TESTING ... 36 4.5.1HYPOTHESIS 1 ... 36 4.5.2HYPOTHESIS 2 ... 41 4.5.3HYPOTHESIS 3 ... 44 5. DISCUSSION ... 48
5.1THE EFFECT OF NEED FOR STATUS ON PREFERENCE FOR SUSTAINABLE LUXURY PRODUCTS ... 48
5.2THE MODERATING EFFECT OF VISIBILITY OF THE PRODUCT CHOICE ... 49
5.4THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 51
5.5MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ... 52
5.6LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ... 53
6. CONCLUSION ... 55
7. REFERENCES ... 57
8. APPENDIX ... 64
APPENDIX 1:PILOT STUDY ... 64
APPENDIX 2:ONLINE EXPERIMENT AND INDIVIDUAL CONDITIONS ... 67
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Distribution of conditions………...29 Table 2: Means, Standard Deviation and Reliabilities………..36 Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Model of Preference for sustainable luxury item 1……….37 Table 4: Hierarchical Regression Model of Preference for sustainable luxury item 2……….38 Table 5: Hierarchical Regression Model of Preference for sustainable luxury item 3……….39 Table 6: Hierarchical Regression Model of Preference for sustainable luxury (composite)…40 Table 7: Moderation Analysis for preference for sustainable luxury item 1………42 Table 8: Moderation Analysis for preference for sustainable luxury item 2………43 Table 9: Moderation Analysis for preference for sustainable luxury item 3………43 Table 10: Moderation Analysis for preference for sustainable luxury (composite)……...…..44 Table 11: Moderated moderation Analysis for preference for sustainable luxury item 1…....46 Table 12: Moderated moderation Analysis for preference for sustainable luxury item 2...46 Table 13: Moderated moderation Analysis for preference for sustainable luxury item 3……47 Table 14: Moderated moderation Analysis for preference for sustainable products item…....48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual model………..…26 Figure 2: Conceptual model of the moderating effect……….….42 Figure 3: Conceptual model of the moderated moderation effect………45
1. Introduction
Sustainability, a primary issue of the twenty-first century now that in eighty years of time the world population has almost doubled and the advancements of the technology sector and industrial field has led to catastrophic consequences, like global warming and climate change (Au, 2018). The realisation that we need to change is now pronounced and we have finally come to the point that sustainability is penetrating most industries (Kiron, Kruschwitz, Haanaes & Reeves, 2015).
Now that climate change has become such a big issue, governments as well as consumers put more pressure on companies to improve their sustainability (Au, 2018). Governments come with strict environmental standards and policies, like for example the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, an international law that aims to eliminate the production and use of persistent organic pollutants (Lallas, 2001). Besides that, the increased level of environmental awareness by consumers, pressure firms to engage in CSR and produce sustainable products (Rahbar and Wahid, 2011).
An industry that is perceived by experts and consumers to lag behind other industries in terms of sustainable commitment is the luxury fashion industry (Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007). According to Bendell and Kleanthous (2007) luxury companies, and especially luxury fashion companies, are failing to embrace environmental and social challenges as part of their core business strategy. However, there is a need for sustainability in this industry (Kapferer, 2010). This appears from recent online newspaper headlines, like “How sustainable luxury can save the planet” and “The time for sustainability in the luxury industry is now” (Petersen & Muratovski, 2017; Au, 2018). A possible reason why luxury fashion brands are so reluctant to promote and produce sustainable luxury products is that a lot of consumers see sustainability and luxury as incompatible (Beckham & Voyer, 2014). Another problem is the
lack of research regarding sustainable luxury products. For this reason, marketers do not have sufficient information to confidently launch sustainable luxury products.
Existing studies investigating sustainable products mainly focus on commoditized low-value products, such as food and cosmetics (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006; McGoldrick & Freestone, 2008; Grunert, Hieke & Wills, 2014). Now that the consumption of sustainable commodities is growing, there is also need for more research that investigates the consumption of ethical and sustainable luxury products (Davies, Lee & Ahonhai, 2012; Rijksoverheid, 2017). Since luxury consumers are a heterogeneous crowd of people that represents many different consumer segments it is important to research which types of luxury consumers and under which circumstances those luxury consumers are more likely to buy sustainable luxury products.
Beckham and Voyer (2014) called for research that would explore if patricians (low in need for status) and poseurs (high in need for status) express different attitudes towards sustainable luxury products. The desire for status plays a significant role in luxury consumption and a lot of consumers buy luxury products purely for their status (Grossman & Shapiro, 1988). Since status and sustainability seems quite conflicting and people differ in their need for status, the question arises if an individual’s need for status might influences someone’s preference towards sustainable luxury products. This insight is important since it could help luxury brand by giving them more guidance into whom to target for their sustainable products.
Besides researching personal characteristics, it is helpful to investigate which situational factors are positively influencing the purchase of sustainable luxury products, as this can provide insights into how to motivate people to buy those products. Considering that the substantial increase in sustainable commodities consumption was preceded by the boost of sustainable labels for those products, and that the Tesla and the Toyota Prius are much more
popular compared to other green cars (OECD, 2008). It is not unlikely to assume that the increase in sustainable commodity consumption is partly due to visibility of the sustainability of the product. Since the sustainability of most sustainable luxury products are not visible to others, and sometimes even kept as a secret, this may be one of the possible explanations for the lagging behind of sustainable luxury consumption (Kapferer, 2010). Considering that the need for sustainability in the luxury industry is high, it is important to find out whether sustainable luxury products would indeed be more successful when the sustainability of the product is to a greater extent visible to others.
Besides this, financial incentives, like discounts and taxes, are increasingly used as a means of stimulating sustainable consumption (OECD, 2008). Financial incentives can be a costly but effective way to promote sales (Gilberth & Jackaria, 2002). However, Ariely, Bracha and Meier (2009) argue that extrinsic rewards could decrease prosocial behaviour, like sustainable consumption, by reducing signaling motivation, which is strongly associated with luxury consumption (Han, Nunes & Drèze, 2010; Fuchs, Prandelli, Schreier & Dahl, 2013). Therefore, the question is whether financial incentives will also be useful in the case of luxury sustainable products, and especially in the case of visible sustainable luxury products. This is an important research avenue now that more luxury firms are pressured to produce and sell sustainable products. Failing to promote their sustainable luxury products in an effective way could cost those firms a lot of money
To date, no empirical research has been done which studies the different preferences of different types of consumers toward sustainable luxury products. Furthermore, the situational factors influencing the preference and purchase of sustainable luxury product have rarely been researched (Janssen, Vanhamme, Lindgreen & Lefebvre, 2014). Considering that, the need for sustainable consumption is urgent, but the luxury market is lagging behind other industries, it is important, for marketers as well as for the planet, to find effective ways to
stimulate the purchase of sustainable luxury products. Furthermore it is decided to research the consumption of sustainable luxury fashion products, since particularly those firms are failing to embrace sustainability as part of their core strategy (Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007). In addition, the luxury fashion market is one of the biggest and fastest growing markets of the luxury industry (D’Arpizio, Levato, Zito & de Montgolfier, 2015). As a result, this research attempts to answer the following research question:
Do people with a different level of need for status have different preferences towards sustainable luxury fashion products and does this preference change if the choice for the product is visible to others and if a discount is offered for the sustainable product?
2. Literature review
This chapter provides an overview of the relevant literature to get a better understanding of the key concepts and relations studied in this research. In the first part, knowledge is provided on sustainable products, sustainability and luxury, and luxury fashion. Next, it is explained how sustainability differs for luxury products. Thereafter, the subsequent sections provide explanations of the different concepts that may affect preference for sustainable luxury. This includes need for status, visibility of the purchase decision and financial incentives.
2.1 Sustainable products
Sustainability, often seen as an inherently vague concept, can be defined as “using resources to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987; Phillis and Andriantiatsaholiniaina, 2001). Now that there has been considerable evidence backing the need for sustainable development, more and more firms decide to engage in sustainable practices by, for example, engaging in corporate
social responsibility or producing sustainable products (Elliot, 2013). Sustainable products are products that minimize the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as emissions of waste and pollutants so as not to harm the planet and threaten the needs of future generations (Elliot, 2013). Being able to buy those pro-environmental products enable individuals to reduce the ecological impact of their consumption (Amatulli, De Angelis, Costabile & Guido, 2017).
The last decade a lot of research has been done in the field of sustainable and ethical consumption. However, nearly all research, which has been conducted in this research field, has focused on commodity goods (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006; McGoldrick & Freestone, 2008; Grunert et al., 2014). Most of this research has found mainly positive attitudes towards those kinds of products (De Pelsmacker, Driesen & Rayp, 2005; Vermei and Verbeke, 2006). Besides this, almost all research supports the idea that at least some consumers are willing to pay a bit extra or expend some extra resources when allocating or purchasing a sustainable product (Guagnano, 2001; McGoldrick and Freestone, 2008).
Supporting those positive attitudes, recent figures show a substantial increase in the consumption of sustainable commodities, like food and beverages (Rijksoverheid, 2017). Given this increase in sustainable consumption, an increase in the consumption of sustainable luxury products may also be expected. However, we know from existing research that decision-making in luxury purchasing differs significantly from decision-making in commodities purchasing (Ward and Chiari, 2008). Besides this, there is little evidence to assume that consumers, who buy sustainable commodities, would also buy sustainable luxury products (Davies et al., 2002). Another important consideration is that the sustainability of the product is communicated very differently for both types of goods. While consumers are faced with an increasing number of sustainable labels for commodity products, most luxury brands barely communicate the sustainability of the product and are sometimes even keeping it a
secret (Kapferer, 2010; Sirieix, Delanchy, Remaud, Zepeda & Gurviez, 2013; Givhan, 2015). This raises the question whether the positive purchase intentions and attitudes towards sustainable commodities also apply to sustainable luxury products.
2.2 Luxury and sustainability
The term luxury good is a difficult concept to define, as perceptions of luxury differ according to the consumer’s lifestyle (Hauck & Stanforth, 2007). However, luxury products are in general associated with high quality and a higher price in comparison with non-luxury products (Amatulli et al., 2017). In addition, according to Davies et al. (2012), luxury goods are mainly bought to increase self-pleasure and personal well-being and are irregular and aspirational in its purchase occurrence. In this paper luxury goods are defined as high value, irregular purchases, bought to give yourself pleasure (Davies et al., 2012). Consider products, like designer clothes, bags and jewellery, and brands comparable to Chanel, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger.
In the WWF report, Bendell and Kleanthous (2007) stated that luxury brands have both the opportunity and responsibility to promote sustainable consumption. According to Bendell and Kleanthous (2007) luxury companies, especially in the worlds of fashion, are able to strongly influence consumer behaviour, since those brands do not only respond to customer demand, but also create and influence it themselves. They do this by editing consumers’ choices through product design, distribution and other facets over which the consumer has no control, and by example-setting through advertising and sponsoring certain role models (Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007).
Furthermore, the high margins of luxury brands and their emphasis on consumer emotions provide them with the exceptional opportunity to set an example for other markets and industries (Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007). They possess the resources that allow them to
decrease the environmental impact of their products, through, for example, the efficient and eco-friendly use of materials, low impact manufacturing and the offering of repair and recycle services (Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007; Godart & Seong, 2014) It is therefore important that luxury companies change and make greater investments in the sustainable design of their product and services, so others can ultimately follow (Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007).
Another point is that luxury is already from itself inherently sustainable (Amatulli et al., 2017). Durability is central to luxury as well as sustainability (Kapferer, 2010). Another shared characteristic of both luxury and sustainability is rarity (Kapferer, 2010). The premium value of luxury products is partially based on its rarity; think of, for example, rare materials, rare production processes and rare artisanship (Kapferer, 2010). Those shared characteristics give them a potential to play an important role in sustainability development (Amatulli et al., 2017). For example, strongly communicating the longer life that characterizes luxury in comparison with cheaper goods can reduce the amount of waste derived from natural resources, which will eventually minimize the negative impact on the environment (Amatulli et al., 2017).
2.3 Luxury sustainable fashion
As mentioned above, especially firms in the luxury fashion segment has the power to influence consumer behaviour and other firms in the industry (Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007). Those firms are able to really make a difference in changing consumer behaviour and should therefore take the lead in promoting sustainable consumption (Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007). The question is how people react to sustainable luxury fashion, because even if firms in the luxury fashion segment has the power to influence consumer behaviour, they may not see the necessity to do so if consumers are not willing to buy those sustainable fashion products.
In this research, luxury fashion is referred to as exclusive ready-to-wear and fashion accessories, like jewellery and watches (Chevalier & Mazzalovo, 2008; Godart & Seong, 2014). This concept is based on Chevalier and Mazzalovo’s (2008) segmentation of luxury and previously used in the research of Godart and Seong (2014). According to Chevalier and Mazzalovo (2008) exclusive ready-to-wear includes all selective fashion brands such as Chanel and Burberry, but also brands like Hugo Boss and Lacoste, since they are still quite selective in their distribution and production approach.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, luxury is already sustainable from itself as it focuses on rarity and durability. However, according Godart and Seong (2014) luxury fashion presents a specific challenge to the sustainability agenda. While luxury fashion focuses, like sustainability, on rarity, it is not always as durable as it is contingent on the constant pressure for change, which is deep-rooted in the fashion industry (Godart & Seong, 2014). This is because there is a new trend each fashion season, which causes people to throw away and replace still functional fashion products (Godart & Seong, 2014). Since slowing down those fast trend cycles to slower cycles is difficult and almost impossible to realize in a short period of time, it is good to think of other solutions (Godart & Seong, 2014). Other solutions to make luxury fashion sustainable are, for example, reducing waste in the production process, the efficient management of scare resources through the use of eco-friendly materials and recycling of used clothes and materials (Godart & Seong, 2014).
However, the negative perception of luxury sustainable fashion is a problem. The research of Joy, Sherry, Venkatesh, Wang and Chan (2012) explored the perceptions consumers in Hong Kong and Canada have of sustainable fashion. It appears from their research that, although most young consumers actively consider sustainability aspects when making purchase decisions, they still separate sustainability from fashion. Participants saw sustainable fashion as not stylish, frumpy and boring. According to Welters (2008) this is
partly due to the association most people have between eco-fashion and hippies in the environmental movements of the 1960’s and 70’s, in which eco-friendly clothing often meant shapeless recycled clothing. However, the consensus has changed and nowadays sustainable fashion is getting more and more popular (Vehmas, Raudaskoski, Heikkilä, Harlin & Mensonen, 2018). Nevertheless, although consumers are becoming more interested in sustainable fashion and the demand for those products increases, they are still not selling very well (D’Souza, Gilmore, Hartmann, Apaolaza Ibáñez & Sullivan-Mort, 2015). It is therefore necessary to search for a solution, which will help increase the consumption of sustainable luxury fashion products.
2.4 How sustainability differs for luxury products
The last three decades more and more sustainable labels and logos have appeared on packages of sustainable commodity products, thereby making the sustainability of the product substantially more visible (Grunert et al., 2014). This differs for most luxury products. Although almost all major luxury brands have responded in some way to the sustainability demand, this has mostly been done without much communication (Kapferer, 2010)
As earlier mentioned, not much research have been conducted related to sustainable luxury (Davies et al., 2012) The few works that explore the subject almost all agree on the idea that companies should promote sustainable consumption as it can help, for example, improve consumer’s opinion and self-perception and can therefore be an increasingly decisive factor in the psychological satisfaction provided by luxury products (Achabou & Dekhili, 2013). However, not all consumer agree with this appears from the range of contradictory and inconclusive results. For example, Davies et al. (2012) found that consumers considered sustainability and ethics much less in their purchase decision when compared to commoditized products. Similarly, Beckham and Voyer (2014) conclude that consumers will
more readily associate luxury with unsustainability than with sustainability. They also found that bags labelled sustainable where ranked less luxurious than bags without such a label. However, other studies suggest that sustainable luxury goods are perceived more positively and desirable than non-sustainable luxury products (Steinhart, Ayalon & Puterman, 2013). This is supported by the results of Steinhart et al. (2013), who found that an environmental claim positively improved evaluations of both luxury products and utilitarian products.
As earlier mentioned, an explanation for those contradicting results could be that consumers consider sustainability and luxury as conflicting or that consumers do barely consider ethical issues in their luxury purchases since they think price and quality is much more important (Davies et al., 2012; Beckham & Voyer, 2014; Kapferer & Michaut-Denizeau, 2014). This is supported by Davies et al. (2012). They stated that consumers do not consider ethics in their decision, because they think luxury products are already expensive enough. Another possible explanation for the contradicting results is that the choice for sustainable luxury products depends on the type of consumer and the situational factors. Multiple studies regarding sustainable commodity consumption have researched the effects of personal and situational factors on sustainable consumption, however situational and personal factors has not yet been considered by studies regarding sustainable luxury consumption (Tanner & Wölfing Kast, 2003; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006).
2.5 Need for status and sustainable consumption
Luxury consumers are an extremely heterogeneous crowd of people and can be segmented in different ways. One of those ways is the distinction of luxury consumers into consumers who are high and consumers who are low in need for status (Han et al., 2010).
Luxury products are often seen as products for which the mere use or display of the product could bring prestige or status to the owner (Grossman & Shapiro, 1988). According to
Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012) status is linked to the symbolic uses of luxury products, because people often purchase and display them to get acceptance to desired social relationships and to communicate an image of what they are like or what they desire to be like. It is therefore that luxury products are sometimes also called status products (Eastman, Fredenberger, Campbell & Calvert, 1997).
Status can be defined as the rank in society or within a group that others assign to an individual (Goffman, 1959). A prevalent way high status can be derived is from the evidence of wealth provided by, for example, conspicuous consumption, and the power that results from the associated respect, consideration and envy of others (Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn 1999; Eastman & Eastman, 2011). According to Eastman and Eastman (2011) the satisfaction of luxury consumption is for a part of the consumers primarily derived from other’s reactions to the wealth they display rather than from the intrinsic value of the luxury product itself. This tendency for people to buy goods in order to signal status differs per person, and depends on the individual’s need for status (Han et al., 2010). Consumption-related need for status, also called status consumption, is viewed as a personality trait and can be defined as "the tendency to purchase goods and services for the status or social prestige value that they confer on their owners" regardless of income or social class level (Eastman et al., 1999, p. 41; Eastman & Eastman, 2011). Since luxury is so strongly related to status, this research accounts for this personality trait.
Status consumption is mostly negatively associated with sustainable consumption, since competition for status often goes hand in hand with high levels of consumption, thereby contributing to the depletion of natural resources and environmental degradation (Brekke, Howarth & Nyborg, 2003). Besides this, status consumption is traditionally associated with preferences for luxury and self-indulgence (Griskevicius, Tybur & Van den Bergh, 2010). Furthermore, previous research has shown that status consumption is positively related to the
preference for visible luxury goods (Han et al., 2010; Geiger-Oneto, Gelb, Walker & Hess, 2013). This is contrary to sustainable consumption, which often requires making sacrifices, such as paying more for a less luxurious and efficient product (Griskevicius et al., 2010). By purchasing a Toyota Prius, for example, people voluntary choose to support the environment, even though this means giving up the luxury of having a more luxurious car with more comfort, features and a better performance (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Based on this, it is not expected that people high in need for status are voluntary willing to forgo luxury and in stead choose for a less luxurious sustainable product. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: People with a high need for status have a lower preference for sustainable luxury products compared to people with a low need for status.
2.6 Competitive altruism
However, on the other side, Elliot (2013) states that sustainable consumption can be seen as an opportunity for consumers to signal their status conspicuously. As cultural norms changes it is rational to consider that the personality characters and behaviours for which people derive status from also change (Sexton & Sexton, 2014). Although the ownership of luxury cars, jewellery and fashion still affords a certain social status (Sexton & Sexton, 2014). The growing concerns about environmental damage and global warming make that status is increasingly served to those which personality characters and behaviours demonstrate austerity, which is related to a simple way of living without luxuries, rather than ostentation, which is associated with the conspicuous display of wealth and luxury (Sexton & Sexton, 2014).
Pro-environmental behaviour can thus enhance someone’s status and can therefore be seen as a mechanism to obtain status (Elliot, 2013). That status is at this moment associated with pro-environmental behaviour is also supported by Griskevicius et al. (2010) who suggest that there is an important link between displays of caring, environmental behaviours and competition for status. This is in accordance with research on competitive altruism. The theory of competitive altruism states that people compete for status by trying to be seen as relatively more altruistic (Roberts, 1998). Someone could demonstrates his altruism by buying a sustainable product, since this way a persons shows that he is deliberately choosing for a product that contributes to the common good, even though this often means paying a higher price and forgoing the luxury of a product with better features or a better performance (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Demonstrating those prosocial behaviours can consequently function to build and maintain costly prosocial reputations thereby improving someone’s status, since people like those who possess prosocial characteristics (Griskevicius et al., 2010). This is supported by Sexton and Sexton (2014) who state that society rewards those who undertake pro-environmental actions with status. This also appears from research which has shown that sacrifice for the benefit of a group of strangers increases the self-sacrificer’s status in that group, and even the likelihood that that person will be selected as a leader (Gurven, Allen-Arave, Hill, & Hurtado, 2000; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). Besides this, the assumption that prosocial individuals are desirable to have in high power positions suggests that prosocial behaviour might be a feasible strategy for attaining status (Griskevicius et al., 2010).
In addition, the consumption of sustainable goods also demonstrates that someone is able to incur those costs and that he has the capacity to contribute to the common good (Griskevicius et al., 2010). This is associated with status since only wealthy people can afford to spend extra money in a matter that seems irrelevant to someone’s self interests and is only
for the sake of society and the environment (McAndrew, 2002). This is also why wealthy people are seen as the main consumers for eco supermarkets, since they are the ones who can afford it.
Accordingly, this theory argues that consumers may consume sustainable products to display their pro-environmental attitudes and altruism by demonstrating that they are voluntarily willing to incur the cost of owning a product that benefits the environment. Someone with a high need for status may therefore even have a preference for purchasing and consuming sustainable luxury products, since this prosocial behaviour could consequently enhance his or her social status. However, Griskevicius et al. (2010) argue that the prosocial act needs to be visible to others in order to activate a status motive.
2.7 The costly signaling theory
According to the costly signaling theory, people often engage in behaviour that is costly (i.e. charity giving) as a way to signal others useful information about themselves (Grafen, 1990; McAndrew, 2002). The classic example of a costly signal is the peacock’s tail, whereby the quality of the tail signals the quality of the peacock’s genes to potential mates (Zahavi, 1995; Griskevicius, Tybur, Sundie, Cialdini, Miller & Kenrick, 2007). A high quality of the tail is a good indicator of good genes, because there are substantial costs associated with growing and having such a high quality tail. (Griskevicius et al., 2007). It costs him a lot of resources and energy since it restricts the peacock his movements and makes him vulnerable to predators (Van Vugt & Hardy, 2010). This consequently signals good health since only healthy peacocks are able to incur those costs.
Signaling is thus the process of implicitly conveying information about oneself, by engaging in behaviours that reveal preferences or personality traits to observers (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2012). For a particular behaviour to work as a signal, it must be readily
observable to others (Connelly, Certo, Ireland & Reutzel, 2011). There must be an audience who sees the prosocial act and uses this information to form a judgement about the person who performs the behaviour. According to Glazer and Konrad (1996) people are for this reason more apparent to engage in prosocial behaviours when signaling is more likely. People are therefore, for example, more cooperative when their behaviour is visible to group members and people increase their prosocial behaviour when this behaviour is publicly visible and declines when it is not visible (Andreoni & Petrie, 2004; Ariely, Bracha, & Meier, 2009). Additionally, other research has demonstrated that goods with a high signal potential are being seen as delivering greater benefits from association with prosocial behaviours than goods with a low signal potential (Bennett & Chakravarti, 2009).
The sustainability of a product can made visible in multiple ways. One way the sustainability of the product can be made visible is with the use of sustainability labels and logos (Grunert et al., 2014). Another manner in which the sustainability of the product could be made visible is, when the product or brand is strongly associated with sustainability and therefore people recognize it as a sustainable product, as is the case with, for example, a Toyota Prius (Griskevicius et al., 2010). The pro-environmental act can also be visible, if consumers visibly choose for a sustainable product, which is, for example the case if you are shopping in public (versus in private) (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Public purchases can conspicuously signal behaviours and characteristics, since shopping usually entails interacting with salespeople, cashiers, and other customers, who consequently see someone’s purchase (Griskevicius et al., 2010). This implies that people are presumably more likely to buy sustainable luxury products when their behaviour is public and thus visible to others. Since this way they can display their pro-environmental attitudes and altruism.
2.8 Conspicuous sustainable consumption
So, according Griskevicius et al. (2010) consumers are more likely to purchase sustainable goods when status motives are activated, but only when the sustainability of the product is visible to others.
As described above, the signaling theory asserts that people try to implicitly convey information about themselves by engaging in behaviours that reveal preferences or personality traits to observers, and that people are more likely to engage in those behaviours if signaling is more likely (Glazer & Konrad, 1996; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2012). This implies that people are more likely to signal altruism and caring about the environment, if the sustainable or ethical act is visible and therefore can enhance the status of the consumer (Griskevicius et al., 2010). That status is enhanced by publicly visible prosocial behaviour appears from the research of Van Vugt and Hardy (2009) who found that people donated more money in public (versus private) conditions and those who gave more in public received greater status from their group members. This phenomenon manifests also itself at charity events, like fund raising galas and concerts, where people like to care more about being noticed than the actual charity itself (Van Vugt & Hardy, 2010). For some of those people public generosity are a form of social competition, where the most generous individual gains the highest prestige and status (Van Vugt & Hardy, 2006). This is why non-profit organizations are well advised to give their benefactors visible badges or signs (Milinski, Semmann, Krambeck & Marotzke, 2006; Griskevicius et al., 2010).
It is therefore expected that people high in need for status have a higher preference for sustainable products (versus more luxurious non-sustainable products) when they buy those in public. In contrast, if people with a high need for status are buying a product while shopping at home, the signaling of the decision is not salient, and people with a high need for status will therefore probably earlier choose for the more luxurious products. This is in line with the
research of Griskevicius et al (2010) who demonstrated that activated status motives led to an increase in the attractiveness of pro-environmental products when shopping in public, but a decrease in the attractiveness of those products when shopping in private.
People low in need for status, on the other hand, are not impacted by whether there are observed or not, since they do not see the need of signaling status. This appears from the research of Delgado, Harriger and Khanna (2014). They found that the demand for visible environmental public goods, like a Toyota Prius, is mainly driven by social-status seeking desires. Based on this results, they argued that non-status seekers are expected to be indifferent between a Toyota Prius and other pro-environmental cars, since they do not care whether people see that there car is hybrid or not. This leads us to the following hypotheses:
H2: The visibility of the product choice has a moderating effect on the relationship between need for status and preference for sustainable luxury products.
H2a: When the product choice is visible to others, people with a high need for status have a higher preference for sustainable luxury products compared to people with a low need for status.
H2b: When the product choice is not visible to others, people with a high need for status have a lower preference for sustainable luxury products compared to people with a low need for status.
2.9 Financial incentives to buy sustainable products
According to the rational economic perspective, an effective way to motivate people to buy sustainable products is by making products cheaper, more efficient and providing consumers
with financial incentives (Matsukawa, Asano, & Kakimoto, 2000). Financial incentives could be given in the form of subsidies and tax breaks, but also in the form of a discount on a subsequent purchase. Those subsidies, tax breaks and discounts are called extrinsic rewards or motivations, since these are given by others and hence are obtained from outside the individual’s control (Bradford & Weitz, 2012; Wang, Nguyen & Tuyen, 2014). An other motivation for individuals to buy sustainable products are intrinsic motivations which are related to private preferences for the environment and others' well-being, such as pure altruism or other forms of prosocial preferences (Ariely et al., 2009). The third and last main motive for people to behave prosocially is called image or signal motivation (Ariely et al., 2009). People with a high need for status are mainly interested in this type of motivation, since it refers to an individual’s tendency to be motivated by other’s perceptions and opinions (Ariely et al., 2009). As earlier mentioned, people can gain social approval by signaling characteristics which people define as good, such as prosociality (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006). Image motivation thus depends on how much people care about their reputation, and since engaging in prosocial behaviour could enhance this, this is an important motive for acting prosocially (Gneezy, Meier & Rey-Biel, 2011).
Ariely et al. (2009) investigated the interaction effects of extrinsic rewards and image motivation on prosocial behaviour. They claimed that extrinsic rewards decreases prosocial behaviour, through interacting with image motivation by diminishing the signaling value of prosocial behaviour. Bénabou and Tirole (2006) state that when someone receives extrinsic rewards, for example in the form of a discount, other people might consider the person receiving this discount as greedy since they think this person is only behaving prosocially to receive this extrinsic reward. This decreases the signal about someone’s prosocial preferences and increases the signal about someone’s greediness, which eventually results in lower image motivation and subsequently the reduction of prosocial behaviour (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006;
Gneezy et al., 2011). The signaling value thus decreases because extrinsic rewards make people doubt about whether an individual performed the prosocial behaviour for the incentives rather than to do good (Bénabou & Tirole, 2010). This theory of Bénabou and Tirole (2006) is called the crowding out theory.
Consider for example the following situation. A person is considering buying solar panels in order to heat his home. This is considerably more expensive than heating your home at the traditional way. Visibly displaying your solar panels on your roof would probably positively add to someone’s reputation. Suppose the government introduces a well-publicized large tax benefit for those who purchase and use solar panels. The image value derived from the purchase of those solar panels will decrease since people might think you have bought them because of the financial benefits and not because you care for the environment.
Image or signaling value is affected by the amount of observers, since it is a consequence of what others think (Ariely et al., 2009). It is therefore in accordance with the earlier mentioned signaling theory, which states that behaviour can only work as a signal when it is readily observable to others (Connelly, Certo, Ireland & Reutzel, 2011). Therefore, only in the case of a public situation, financial incentives can decrease signaling value and subsequently image motivation (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006). In a private situation, on the other hand, only the individual can observe his behaviour and therefore there will be no image concerns and signaling potential (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006). As a consequence, the financial incentive cannot diminish any image motivation. This also appears from the research of Ariely et al. (2009). They found that the positive impact of material incentives on donations substantially weakened when given in public. Therefore the incentive for sustainable consumption will presumably be more effective in a private condition, than a public condition where signaling potential is large.
According Bénabou and Tirole (2010), the influence of incentives can become negative when image concerns are large, since image motivation increases with the rise of image concerns. Considering that people can differ in the strength of their image concerns, extrinsic incentives for prosocial behaviour will be less effective for some people than for others (Bénabou & Tirole, 2010). Since people with a high need for status are continuously concerned with holding up their image, it is expected that extrinsic incentives will be less effective for people with a high need for status than for people with a low need for status (Kastanakis and Balabanis, 2012). However, this will presumably only be the case when behaviours are visible, since otherwise image value could not be affected. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: The presence of a financial incentive moderates themoderating relationship of visibility of the product choice on the relationship between need for status and preference for sustainable luxury products, so that when the product choice is visible to others the positive relation between need for status and preference for sustainable luxury products becomes weaker when a financial incentive is offered for buying the sustainable product.
2.10 Conceptual model
The hypotheses explained above, lead to the conceptual framework of this study. This conceptual framework is displayed in figure 1. Figure 1 shows the variables and hypotheses, which are investigated in this research, and the expected nature of the relationships proposed in the hypotheses of this study.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
3. Method
This section of the thesis precisely describes the experimental design, which was used to test the aforementioned hypotheses. First, the procedure and the results of the pilot test are explained. Subsequently, the main study is discussed.
3.1 Pilot test: Stimuli products
Prior to the main study, a pilot test was conducted to find out which products best to use in the main experiment. In the choice of the products, factors were taken into account that could possibly have an effect on the results and the manipulation. It is important that other factors will not influence the results, since this could lead to biased results.
Considering that the sustainable product and the non-sustainable product both will have different materials or fabrics, it’s crucial that a preference for a certain type of fabric or material will not or minimally affect the results. The fabric or material should therefore play a minimal role in the purchase of the product. Therefore, participants had to rate the importance of the material or fabric in the purchase of a selection of products in the pilot test.
Need for status
Preference for sustainable luxury products Visibility of the product choice Financial incentive H1 - H2 - H3 -
Besides fabrics and materials, another way to manipulate the sustainability of the product is by changing features of the product relating to its functionality. Therefore it was decided to choose for products were functionality played a relatively high role, since this way the sustainability could be manipulated easier and more obvious. Consequently, participants had to indicate the importance of functionality in the purchase of a selection of products. Both items, the importance of fabric as well as the importance of functionality, were measured using a five-point Likert scale.
The sample of the pilot study consisted of 28 participants and the three products that were eventually chosen for the main study were relatively high on functionality and low on the role fabrics and material played in the purchase of those products. Considering that a high role of fabrics could noticeably influence the results and a high role of functionality would only make the manipulation easier, the role of fabrics had a priority over the role of functionality when choosing the products. The following products where eventually chosen: a wallet, sneakers and a T-shirt. They scored generally high on functionality (Mwallet = 3,72,
SDwallet = 0,614; Msneakers= 3,76, SDsneakers = 0,723; MT-shirt = 2,84, SDT-shirt = 0,624) and
relatively low on the role the type of fabrics or materials play in their purchase (Mwallet = 2,68,
SDwallet = 1,215; Msneakers= 3,16, SDsneakers = 1,106; MT-shirt= 3,04, SDT-shirt= 0,978). It was also
taken into account that the three chosen products could be sustainable in different ways and were three considerably different kinds of products. This way the products are more representative of the whole luxury fashion market. This was also the reason why three products were chosen and not one, since the findings resulting from the analyses of the preferences for only one type of luxury fashion product cannot be generalised to the whole luxury fashion market.
3.2 Main study
In this section, the main study is discussed, including the participants, the experimental design and the manipulations. Lastly, the different measurement variables of the main study and the procedure are described.
3.2.1 Participants
For the main experiment, a total of 275 participants participated in this experimental survey. All participants where recruited through the distribution of a link to the online survey via direct messages, Facebook and e-mail. Besides being able to understand English, no specific requirements had to be met in order to participate in this experiment survey.
From the initial sample, 51 participants (18.5%) failed to complete the survey. These answers were subsequently excluded from the data. As a consequence a sample of 224 respondents remained. The majority of this sample was female (69.9%) and the participant’s ages ranged from 17 to 66 years. The average age was 28 years (M = 28.28, SD = 10.85). The largest group of the participants had a household income from less than €20,000 (60.6%), followed by a household income between €20,000 and €34,999 (13.4%) and over €100,000 (6.9%). Additionally, most participants came from the Netherlands (70.8%), followed by Germany (7.9%)
3.2.2 Design
An online experiment was conducted with a 2 (visibility of the product choice: visible, nonvisible) x 2 (need for status: high, low) x 2 (financial incentive: yes, no) between-subjects design. Status consumption was measured, whereas visibility of the product choice and the presence of a financial incentive were manipulated. For this reason, there were four
Four vignettes were used to manipulate the visibility of the product choice and the presence of a financial incentive. In the vignettes the person was either shopping online on their own or in a store with friends, and they were either offered a 30% discount if they bought the sustainable product or they were not. A vignette study combines the high external validity of a traditional survey with the high internal validity of a classical experiment (Atzmüller & Steiner, 2010). Table 1 gives an overview of the conditions and participant’s distribution over the four experimental conditions.
Table 1: Distribution of conditions
Conditions Visible Not visible
N % N %
Financial incentive 56 25.00% 50 22.32%
No financial incentive 58 25.89% 60 26.79%
3.2.3 Manipulations
Participants were assigned to either the nonvisible no financial incentive condition, the visible no financial incentive condition, the nonvisible financial incentive condition or the visible financial incentive condition. As earlier mentioned, vignettes were used to manipulate the visibility of the product choice and the presence of a financial incentive. Vignettes are defined as “short descriptions of a person or a social situation which contain precise references to what are thought to be the most important factors in the decision-making or judgement-making processes of respondents” (Alexander & Becker, 1978, p. 94).
Visibility of the product choice was manipulated by having the participants read a short story where they were either shopping in a small busy luxury store with friends or on their own online. In addition, participants in the visible condition were told that because of a
special sustainability week, the sustainable product was packed in a noticeable green package, and the non-sustainable product was not. In the nonvisible condition this was not mentioned.
To manipulate the presence of a financial incentive, the participant were told in the visible financial incentive condition that there were big posters in the store, or big banners on the website, in the nonvisible condition, attending them on the fact that they would get a 30% discount on next purchase if they bought a sustainable fashion item. In the no-financial incentive condition, the participants were told nothing about a possible discount. Literature was analysed to find out which discount level is considered normal and effective for fashion products, but does not rule out all other effects. A discount level of 30% met those requirements (Moore & Olshavsky, 1989; Parsons, Ballantine, Ali & Grey, 2014).
To check whether the visibility manipulation was successful, participants had to indicate on a seven-point scale how observable they perceived their purchase behaviour, with “not at all observable to others” and “completely observable to others” at the endpoints. The manipulation will be successful if the participants of the visible condition perceive their purchase behaviour as more visible than the participants in the nonvisible condition.
3.2.4. Measures
Need for status
The consumption-related need for status of the participants was measured by the status consumption scale of Eastman et al. (1999). This scale consists of five items, which participants had to rank on a seven-point Likert scale. The five items that were used to measure need for status were: “I would buy a product just because it has status”, “I am interested in new products with status”, "I would pay more for a product if it had status”, “The status of a product is irrelevant to me" and, "A product is more valuable to me if it has some
In addition, a reliability analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) showed this scale to be highly reliable (α = .88). All items are well correlated with the total score of the scale, since the corrected item-total correlations are all above .30. Therefore, deleting an item would only minimally affect reliability.
Preference for sustainable products
For each of the two product options participants had to indicate their preferences on a one-item nine-point scale (“definitely product A” and “definitely product B” at the endpoints) with the item being phrased: “Please indicate, which of the two products you are more willing to buy”. This approach of measuring preference for sustainable products is equal to the research of Griskevicius (2010).
The reliability test indicates that the Cronbach’s alpha is not sufficiently high enough (α = .594). Since the deletion of an item will not make the Cronbach’s alpha higher. It is decided to measure the effects of the different variables on every preference item separately. Besides this, even though the Cronbach’s alpha has appeared to not be acceptable high enough, it is also decided to combine the preference items into a composite variable. This because it is also interesting to look into the effects on the combined variable and see what the outcome is.
Control variables
A number of control variables were measured to control for other variables that may influence the preference for sustainable products. Those control variables were age, gender and household income. All control variables were measured at the beginning of the survey.
3.2.5 Procedure
The data for this study was collected by the means of an online survey. Participants could participate by clicking on a link that would send them to the online questionnaire. This link was distributed through personal contacts and shared in Facebook groups. The software program Qualtrics was used to design the experiment.
At the beginning of the survey, the aim of the study was introduced and participants were told they were participating in a Master’s business administration survey. The exact aim of the study wasn’t explained, since this could have influenced the results. Besides this, participants were told that their participation was completely anonymous and voluntary and that their responses were only used for academic purposes.
Subsequently, the survey consisted of three main parts. The first part consisted of demographic questions. Participants were asked for their gender, age and household income. In the second part of the experiment participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions, and as earlier mentioned, four different vignettes were used to set a scenario for the participants. After the vignette a control question was asked to check if the participants read the vignette carefully. Subsequently, participants were presented with a choice. For each of the three types of luxurious products, two product options were shown: a more luxurious non-sustainable luxury option or a sustainable luxury option which was a bit less luxurious. For each choice they got a description of both products (not a picture). The participants were told that the two products looked similar, were equal in price, were manufactured by the same company, and were accompanied by three features that described three key aspects of each product. Importantly, the non-sustainable product is superior on dimensions of luxury and performance, whereas the sustainable product is superior on the sustainable dimensions. For each of the products, participants had to indicate which of these two products they were more willing to buy. After this, participants had to answer a manipulation question to check if the
visibility manipulation was successful. In the final part of the survey the participant’s need for status was measured on the basis of responses to five questionnaire items regarding need for status.
4. Results
The results section, first discusses the results of the manipulation check. Subsequently, the results of the frequency check and the normality check are described. Thereafter, the correlations are discussed and conclusively the hypotheses with regards to preference for sustainable luxury products are tested.
4.1 Manipulation check
A manipulation check was included to test whether the visibility of the purchase behaviour was perceived more observable in the visible condition than in the nonvisible condition, to ensure that the visibility manipulations of the conditions were successful. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which their purchase behaviour in the previous purchase situation was observable to others, on a 7-point Likert scale in which one stood for “not at all observable to others” and seven for “completely observable to others”.
For the manipulation check an independent-sample t-test was conducted. This analysis confirmed that the visibility of the purchase situation was rated higher in the visible condition than in the nonvisible condition (Mvisible = 4.28, Mnonvisible = 3.42; F = 2.802, p < 0.001). However, the difference between the conditions is smaller than expected.
No manipulation check was used to check the financial incentive condition, since the participants were explicitly told that they were getting a discount for the sustainable product or not. Therefore it was not considered needed to include a manipulation question. Besides
that, a manipulation check should have drawn more attention to the discount, than would have occurred in a real life situation. This would have decreased the external validity of the study.
4.2 Frequency check
After the manipulation check, the data was screened for errors, using frequencies. No errors were found. Subsequently, to deal with missing data listwise deletion was selected to exclude all cases that had missing data, which included the selection of the “I prefer not to answer” option, in at least one of the selected variables. In the dataset, there were eight cases with missing data. These cases were therefore excluded from further analysis. This resulted in a final sample size of 216 respondents. After this, counter-indicative items were recoded. The recoding of counter-indicative items applied to one of the items of need for status and two of the items of preference for sustainable luxury products.
4.3 Normality check
The distribution of the dependent variables, were checked for normality to ensure that regression analysis could be performed on the data. To find out whether the distribution of the different items of preference for sustainable luxury products were not significantly different from a normal distribution, the skewness and kurtosis of the items were determined for all four conditions. This was analysed for both the composite variable as well as each separate item of the preference for sustainable luxury products scale. Furthermore, histograms were created to determine if the measures were normally distributed and hence were demonstrating a bell-formed shape in each condition.
The skewness and kurtosis of need for status were calculated and appeared to be within the limits, namely between -1.5 and 1.5, for all four conditions (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2013). Besides this, the histogram of the items of preference for sustainable luxury demonstrated a bell-formed shape in all four conditions. Additionally, according to the central limit theorem, any dataset with a sample above thirty can be assumed to be normally distributed (Field, 2003). Since every condition in this study consists of more than thirty respondents, this assumption can be made. It could therefore be assumed that all items of preference for sustainable luxury products are normally distributed in all four conditions.
4.4 Correlations
In the next step of the analysis, the scale means were computed for both need for status and preference for sustainable luxury products. The scale means were computed by summing the responses of all the items in the scale and then divide this by the number of scale items.
Accordingly, the means, standard deviations and correlations coefficients of the three variables were calculated using SPSS. The means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients are exhibited in the correlation matrix of table 2. The correlation matrix demonstrates, among others, that income is positively correlated with age (r=.60, p < .001), that need for status is negatively correlated with age (r=-.22, p < .001), and with all the items of preference for sustainable luxury products. Those last correlations are in accordance with our expectations. The reliabilities of the scales are displayed in the table between brackets.
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gender 1.70 0.46
2. Age 28.23 10.85 -.13
3. Income 2.04 1.60 -.12 .60**
4. Need for status 2.58 .90 -.03 -.22** -.10 (.88)
5. Visibility .51 .50 .08 -.08 -.04 -.01 6. Discount .46 .50 -.04 .02 .03 -.06 .04
7. Preference for sustainability 6.54 1.74 .04 .03 .01 -.33** .05 .00 (.59)
8. Preference for sust. wallet 6.71 2.33 . -.02 .04 .07 -.31** -.02 -.02 .75** 9. Preference for sust. sneakers 5.81 2.63 .05 .04 -.00 -.24** .11 .00 .77** .32**
10. Preference for sust. T-shirt 7.08 2.04 .08 -.02 -.06 -.19** .01 .03 .71** .37** .32** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.5 Hypothesis testing
In this section, the different hypotheses are tested, and the results obtained from the analyses are presented.
4.5.1 Hypothesis 1
In order to test the first hypothesis, a hierarchical regression was used to test hypothesis 1 and examine the linear relationship between need for status and the different items of preference for sustainable luxury products. For all items, a hierarchical regression was conducted to examine the ability of need for status to predict the preference for sustainable luxury products, and to control for gender, age and income. This meant that four hierarchical regressions were conducted, with each regression another dependent variable. The independent and control variables were the same for all four regressions. In the first step of the regression model the control variables; gender, age and income were entered. Subsequently, need for status was
entered in step 2. This way the observed effect of need for status on the preference for sustainable luxury products will be independent of the effects of gender, age and income.
Preference for sustainable luxury products item 1: a wallet
The first preference for sustainable luxury products item refers to the choice between a sustainable and a non-sustainable version of a luxury wallet. For the first item, the outcome of the regression analysis is displayed in table 3. It appears from the regression analysis that the model of step 1 was not statistically significant F(3, 211) = .373, p = .772, and explained only 0.5% of the variance in the first preference for sustainable luxury products item. The model of step 2, where need for status was entered as an additional predictor, was statistically significant F(4, 210) = 6.044, p < .001. The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 10.3%. The addition of the need for status variable explained an additional 9.8% of the variance of the first preference for sustainable luxury products item. Thereby controlling for gender, age and income (R2 Change = .098; F(1, 210) = 22.938; p < 0.001). Need for status was the only significant predictor in the final model ((β = -.322, p <0.001). The significant beta of -.322 implies that there is a negative relationship between need for status and the preference for sustainable luxury products.
Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Model of Preference for sustainable luxury products item 1
R R2 R2 change B SE β T Step 1 .073 .005 .005 Gender -.044 .350 -.009 -.124 Age .000 .018 -.002 -.024 Income -.105 .125 .072 .839 Step 2 .321*** .103 .098 Gender -.143 .334 -.028 -.427 Age -.018 .018 -.086 -1.025 Income .129 .119 .089 1.082
Need for status -.829*** .173 -.322*** -4.789
Preference for sustainable luxury products item 2: sneakers
The second preference for sustainable luxury products item refers to the choice between a sustainable and a non-sustainable version of luxury sneakers. The results of this regression analysis are presented in table 4. The tables shows that also for the second item the model of step 1 was not statistically significant F(3, 211) = .344, p = .794, and explained only 0.5% of the variance of the second preference for sustainable luxury products item. Also for the second item, the model of step 2 was statistically significant F(4, 210) = 3.256, p < .05, and explained 5.8% of the variance in the second item of preference for sustainable luxury products. This indicates that the addition of the need for status variable explained an additional 5.4% of the variance of preference for sustainable luxury products. Thereby controlling for gender, age and income (R2 Change = .054; F(1, 210) = 11.938; p < 0.001). In
the final model, need for status was the only predictor variable, which was statistically significant (β = -.238, p <0.001). The significant negative beta of -.238 indicates that there is a negative relationship between need for status and the preference for sustainable luxury products
Table 4: Hierarchical Regression Model of Preference for sustainable luxury products item 2
R R2 R2 change B SE β T Step 1 .070 .005 .005 Gender .293 .397 .051 .738 Age .016 .021 .065 .749 Income -.059 .142 -.036 -.415 Step 2 .242 .058 .054*** Gender .210 .388 .037 .541 Age .001 .021 .002 .029 Income -.039 .139 -.024 -.280
Need for status -.694*** .201 -.238*** -3.455
