Conspicuous consumption and the perception on
trust
Sibo Agema
Conspicuous consumption and the perception on trust
By: Sibo Agema
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Department of Marketing PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen
Master Marketing Management
January 2018 Van Heemskerckstraat 36b 9726 GM Groningen +31630099921 s.agema@student.rug.nl Student number: s3022285 Supervisors
Abstract
This study builds on previous research in the literature of conspicuous consumption. Little research has been done about the perception of others in relation to conspicuous consumption, but no research has ever linked it with trust. Based on brand prominence, three conditions are defined in order to measure the effect on behavioral and attitudinal trust. A conspicuous prominent logo, a conspicuous subtle logo and an inconspicuous no logo condition was created to empirically test, in which extend a subtle logo is perceived as more favourable relative to a prominent logo. 323 participants were surveyed to empirically test this effects. The results indicated that there is a relation between trust and conspicuous consumption suggesting that a conspicuous prominent logo reduces trust relative to a conspicuous subtle and an inconspicuous no logo. Whereas belongings with no logos, overall is perceived as most favourable. Further research is necessary to be more concise in establishing this relation as the measures of trust were not in line with each other. Furthermore, analysis showed that in several areas the perception of people who show belongings which consist of a conspicuous prominent logo are perceived as more negatively relative to people who show a conspicuous subtle logo or an inconspicuous no logo.
Preface
Dear Reader,
Right in front of you lies my MSc Marketing Management thesis. This research took 5 month to complete. Therefore, I am glad that this preface gives me the opportunity to thank some people, who supported me during this research. First of all, I want to thank my supervisor, Dr. M. Moeini Jazani for his vision, comments, and help. Secondly, I would like to thank my second supervisor Dr. M. Keizer for his final evaluation of this thesis. Lastly, I would like to thank my, friends and family for their support during the thesis and the Master Marketing Management the last couple of months.
Table of contents 1. Introduction 7 2. Literature review 10 2.1 Status signalling 10 2.2 Conspicuous consumption 10 2.3 Brand prominence 11 2.4 Prominent Logo 12 2.5 Subtle Logo 13 2.6 No Logo 13
2.7 Conceptualisation and measurement of trust 14
2.7.1 Behavioral trust 14
2.7.2 Attitudinal trust 14
2.8 Potential moderators 15
2.8.1 Moderator income 15
2.8.2 Moderator materialism 16
2.8.3 Moderator self-brand connection 16
2.8.4 Moderator Subjective Socioeconomic Status 17
3. Conceptual model 18
4. Methodology 18
4.1 Sample 18
4.2 Procedure 19
4.3 Measurement behavioral trust 20
4.4 Measurement attitudinal trust 21
4.5 Measurement moderators 21
4.5.1 Measurement income 21
4.5.2 Measurement materialism 22
4.5.3 Measurement self-brand connection 22
4.5.4 Measurement Subjective Socioeconomic Status 22
5. Results 23
5.1 Results behavioral trust 23
5.2 Results attitudinal trust 24
5.3 Moderation income 26
5.4 Moderation Materialism 27
5.4.1 Materialism on behavioral trust 27
5.4.2 Materialism on attitudinal trust 28
5.5 Moderation self-brand connection 29
5.5.1 Self-brand connection on behavioral trust 29
5.5.2 Self-brand connection on attitudinal trust 30
5.6 Moderation Subjective Economic Status 31
5.6.1 SES on behavioral trust 31
5.6.2 SES on attitudinal trust 32
5.7 Hypotheses testing 33
6. Discussion 34
6.1 Behavioral trust 30
6.2 Effect moderators measured with behavioral trust 34
6.3 Attitudinal trust 35
6.4 Effect moderators measured with attitudinal trust 35
7. Scientific and social implications 36
1. Introduction
Every day, people from all over the world are waking up and have to decide: ’which clothes should I wear today?’ A conspicuous bag or a T-shirt bought last week, signals some social implications for today.
Conspicuous consumption is one of the oldest ideas in consumer behavior (Berger & Ward, 2010). Acquiring and conspicuously displaying luxuries becomes an important part of modern lifestyles in both Western societies and the developing world (Bian & Forsythe, 2010). The worldwide personal luxury goods market (e.g. high-end fashion and handbags) is estimated to be worth between €254 and €259 billion in 2017 (Bain & Company, 2017). Even in social as well in cultural terms there is probably no single issue that dominates the modern psyche as much as fashion and consumption (O'Cass & McEwen, 2004). It forms an important part of everyday consumption decisions, but is also a crucial component of almost all daily events, influencing the clothing people wear and how they communicate and think (O'Cass & McEwen, 2004).
Research have explored how consumers use conspicuous brands in their lives and how they signal their status, personality and boost their self-esteem (Chao & Schor, 1998; Langer, 1997; Souiden, M’Saad & Pons, 2011). It is known that people treat a person who shows luxury brands more favourably (e.g. increased compliance), than a person who does not, or as the same person with identical brand clothing without a brand label (Nelissen & Meijer, 2010). However, a literature gap is existing, since there has been no research on the relationship between conspicuous consumption and trust. This is surprisingly, since trust is an extremely important phenomenon in the society because it is crucial for social (Rempel, Holmes & Zanna, 1985) as well as economic well-being (Zak & Knack, 2001). Even human interactions that constitute social life would not be possible if there is at least a requisite level of trust (Welch, Rivera, Conway, Yonkoski, Lupton & Giancola, 2005). Likewise, among strangers, trust can be seen as the binding element together social relations (Hardin, 2002).
(in)conspicuous belongings of the ‘target’. The target is a person who is showing conspicuous belongings with logos (i.e. prominent & subtle logo) or inconspicuous belongings without logo to the observer. In order to measure the effect of brand prominence relative to trust, this research used a behavioral measure of trust and a new created measure, attitudinal trust. Based on the signalling effects of the three different levels of brand prominence, this research proposed that belongings with a conspicuous prominent logo would result in a relatively lower level of trust in comparison to belongings with a conspicuous subtle logo or an inconspicuous no logo.
A second literature gap in the literature of conspicuous consumption is addressed, since there is little research about the perception of observers towards conspicuous belongings of people. Research provided evidence that showing conspicuous products could be perceived favourable as well as unfavourable (Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Scott, Mende & Bolton, 2013; Lee, Ko & Megehee, 2015). However, no research showed that within levels of conspicuous consumption the effects could be favourable and unfavourable. Literature showed that people who have low power, a low self-esteem and people who are affected by social exclusion, tend to consume more conspicuously (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008; Lee & Shrum, 2012; Souiden, M’Saad & Pons, 2011). To compensate, these people will signal their status with prominent logos. These findings lend support to the claim that a conspicuous prominent logo will backfire relative to a conspicuous subtle logo on trust and in other areas. To investigate this, the research question is formulated as follows:
What is the effect brand prominence on trust between for the observer relative to the target?
Furthermore, in this research paper, I explored which moderators may influence the relationship between conspicuous consumption and trust. Materialism and self-brand connection are variables which already have proven to be related with conspicuous consumption (Ferraro, Kirmani and Matherly, 2013; Segal & Podoshen, 2013). However, not in which extend those moderates the relation with trust. Lastly, this research added observers’ income and subjective economic status as two new variables to explore whether these have a moderation effect.
prominent (i.e. large) and a conspicuous subtle logo. However, those effects were not found with a behavioral measure of trust, a trust game. Furthermore, the data yielded by this study provide convincing evidence that a conspicuous prominent logo is perceived more negatively than a conspicuous subtle logo. People wearing a piece of clothing with a conspicuous prominent logo are according this research, perceived as less competent & more insecure relative to a target with a conspicuous subtle logo or no logo. This research also showed that someone with a conspicuous logo is perceived as someone who is significantly more showing off, trying to impress, is compensating for something and has an ulterior motive than someone with a conspicuous subtle logo or no logo at all. These findings have an important contribution to scientific literature of conspicuous consumption, since no other research has provided findings in which different levels of conspicuous consumption can be perceived favourable and unfavourable, instead of one or the other. Obviously, these findings could have major social implications. Since a logo reflects the signalling intentions of the person who is wearing it (Han, Nunes and Dre`ze, 2010), it seems logical that someone want to perceived positively. Especially those, who just decided which clothes they would wear today.
2. Literature review
The chapter literature review highlights the most important scientific literature concerning conspicuous consumption and trust. From this literature, two main hypotheses will be derived. Subsequently, four potential moderators are explored from which four other new hypotheses will be derived.
2.1 Status signalling
Status signalling is prominent in the literature on conspicuous consumption. To get a better understanding about both concepts, status is defined as ‘a higher position compared to others
on some dimension (e.g., wealth, academic or athletic skill or physical attractiveness) that is deemed important by society’ (Hyman, 1942). Historically, status was attained either through
birth (born in an upper class in the caste system) or by ordainment (knighted by the king) (Han, Nunes & Dre`ze, 2010). This changed at the beginning of the eighteenth century; the worth of a person was to be judged, based on the achievements of this person, which frequently brought great wealth for the person itself (De Botton, 2004). A reliable connection between success and merit was made; well-paid jobs were secured primarily through intelligence and ability. The rich were not just wealthier, they were better (Han, Nunes & Dre`ze, 2010). Affluence became a marker of social status and wealth as such, have been inextricably linked ever since (Han, Nunes & Dre`ze, 2010). Nowadays, social status also serves as a signal of non-observable abilities (Rege, 2008). For this reason, people invest in social status and so can improve their chance of engaging in a complementary interaction with a high ability person (Rege, 2008). People use signals like products and preferences to show which social class they belong to (Berger & Ward, 2010). The underlying argument in favour of using signals to show their social status is that possession of status confers some psychological rewards, including self-esteem (Souiden, et al., 2011), sense of power (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008) and as a signal of one’s abilities (Rege, 2008); this makes status a valued commodity (Sivanathan & Pettit, 2010).
2.2 Conspicuous consumption
sooner complied in the brand logo condition. This was caused by the fact that observers infer status based on the conspicuous clothes of the researchers they saw. This research seems to validate the view that observers, who infer status based on conspicuous clothes, perceive the target person as more capable and powerful. Therefore, it is crucial to operationalize the concept of conspicuous consumption. Conspicuous consumption is defined as: ‘the extent of one’s
behavioral tendency of displaying one’s social status, wealth, taste or self-image to one’s important reference groups through consumption of publicly visible products.’ (Chen, Yeh &
Wang, 2008, pp. 686) So, considering all the signalling effects of conspicuous consumption, it seems rational that people trust those who conspicuously consume.
Whether someone who consumes conspicuously is indeed high in status and therefore should be trusted more based on the positive effects of status, is clouded by the fact that personal characteristics play an important role by conspicuous consumption. There is overwhelming evidence for the notion that people who consume conspicuously signal what they aspire to be, but in reality, do not signal what they really are. An argument that can be advanced to support this claim is, that it is known that people low in status consume conspicuously to restore their power by using conspicuous products that signals their status to others (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008). Moreover, people who are affected by social exclusion also increased their level of conspicuous consumption (Lee & Shrum, 2012). Research showed that people enhanced their self-esteem buying conspicuous goods (Souiden, M’Saad & Pons, 2011). So, on logical grounds, there are many compelling reasons to argue that consuming conspicuously has many benefits. That much that also many other people with a low social status want to enjoy those benefits. It seems that many people by consuming conspicuous signal that they belong to a class where in fact, they do not belong. Those findings shed a new light on the question whether someone should be trusted when they obviously consume conspicuously.
2.3 Brand prominence
To find a relation with trust, it is crucial to investigate how people could signal their status. Brands assist this signalling process through visible logos and explicit patterns (Berger & Ward, 2010). However, there are different ways how brands can present their logo. Han, Nunes and Dre`ze (2010), introduced a new construct to reflect the variation in logo conspicuousness and called it brand prominence. They define it as ‘the extent to which a product has visible markings
intentions of the owner (Han, Nunes and Dre`ze, 2010). According to the researchers, manufactures can produce a product with ‘loud’ (i.e. large) or conspicuous branding, or tone it down to ‘quiet’ (i.e. subtle) or discreet branding to be appealing to different types of consumers (Han, Nunes and Dre`ze, 2010). In this research, the terms prominent (i.e. ‘loud’), subtle (i.e. ‘quiet’) will be used and a no logo condition will be integrated. Further explanation will be provided in the methodology. Based on three different level of brand prominence I will connect this construct with trust in the next part.
2.4 Prominent logo
2.5 Subtle logo
Further research in this area showed that certain people prefer subtle signals and will forgo widespread indication to facilitate interaction with others in the know (Berger & Ward, 2010). This is in line with Fussel (1983), who argues that the middle class cares a lot about what others think of them. Whereas people of higher status can afford not to be recognized. Most consumers want to be identified correctly by their observers, and as a result, they are unwilling to select subtle signals, which decreases the chance of recognition (Berger & Ward, 2010). Still, the rich consumer has a desire to have his wealth displayed, even when the display of wealth is subtle (Piron, 2000). This could explain that wealthy persons avoid obvious signals which would separate them from medium types who are using such signals and therefore use subtle signs (Feltovich, Harbaugh, & To, 2002). On these grounds, it seems that subtle signals are more for the people high in status, whereas prominent logos are for the low class to look high in status. Since this research argued that people high in status should be trusted most, based on their abilities, this research claims that the ones who should be trusted most, based on their high status and abilities, are the ones who signal this with subtle logos.
2.6 No logo
2.7 Conceptualisation and measurement of trust
In this research, different levels of brand prominence will be tested relative to trust. However, there are different ways of conceptualising trust. For instance, trust is defined as: ‘the
willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trust, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party’ (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman,1995, pp. 712). Whereas trust
is also defined as: ‘a psychological state comprising the intentions to accept vulnerability based
on positive expectations of the actions of the trustee.’ (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt & Camerer,1998,
pp. 395). Similar for both definitions is that there is an intention to accept vulnerability and that both definitions include positive expectations (Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007). Besides different definitions, there are also different ways to measure trust (see Berg, Dickhaut & McCabe, 1995; Lount & Pettit, 2012; Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007). Consequently, this research makes a distinction between two different measures of trust: behavioral trust which already includes an existing measure (i.e. investment game) and attitudinal trust which measure will be explained.
2.7.1 Behavioral trust
Behavioral trust is a variable often mentioned in scientific literature of trust (see, Acar-Burkay, Fennis & Warlop, 2014; Schlenker, Helm & Tedeschi, 1973) however, it is not extensively conceptualised in the literature. Nevertheless, behavioral trust is defined as: ‘a reliance on the
communications of another person.’ (Schlenker, Helm & Tedeschi, 1973, pp. 424). A
specifically designed and validated measure of behavioral trust is the investment game (Johnson & Mislin, 2011). This investment game will be used to measure behavioral trust. A more specific explanation how this variable is measured is explained in the methodology.
2.7.2 Attitudinal trust
Based on the three levels of brand prominence and two different measures of trust; taken into consideration the signalling effects of brand prominence, the following hypotheses are derived.
H1a: A conspicuous prominent logo significantly decreases behavioral trust relative to a conspicuous subtle logo and an inconspicuous no logo.
H1b: A conspicuous prominent logo significantly decreases attitudinal trust relative to a conspicuous subtle logo and an inconspicuous no logo.
2.8 Potential moderators
There could be some moderators that might intensify or decrease sensitives in observers to trust a target. This research explores some potential moderators based on scientific literature of conspicuous consumption. Observers’ income, observers’ level of materialism, observers’ level of self-brand connection and their Subjective Economic Status are selected to explore potential moderation effects.
2.8.1 Moderator income
The first potential moderator I wanted to explore is observers’ level of income. As earlier mentioned, it is known that those who earn the least, spend the greatest fraction of their income on conspicuous consumption, to signal their social status (Banerjee & Duflo, 2007). Which is not surprisingly, as previous literature shows the underlying motives of this sample. Therefore, it seems plausible that observers with a low income might recognize the signalling effects of the target, since they might consume conspicuously for the same reason. It also might be that those observers know others, who are consuming conspicuously, for the same reason as proposed. Based on the possible ulterior motive of these people, observers might trust targets with conspicuous belongings less. On the other hand, according to Willinger, Keser, Lohman and Usunier (2003), trust tends to be stronger among richer people. Therefore, it seems plausible to assume that rich observers trust targets independent of their signaling strategy. As a result, the second hypothesis is formulated:
2.8.2 Moderator materialism
The next explored moderator is materialism. It is generally known that a peoples’ willingness to trust, is influenced by stable individual differences (Evans & Revelle, 2008). One of those personality traits, which could moderate this relationship is materialism. Materialism is regarded as a negative value system, since it places possessions and its acquisition at the centre of life with the belief that acquiring more possessions leads to happiness (Podoshen & Andrzejewski, 2012). This can result in the tendency for highly materialistic people to judge others (Podoshen & Andrzejewski, 2012) as well as themselves in terms of both quality and quantity of possessions (Veer & Shankar, 2011). Therefore, it seems logical that materialistic people trust targets with a conspicuous prominent or subtle logo more relative to a target with no logo. Oppositely, people who are not materialistic at all should trust targets with no logos more, relative to targets with a conspicuous prominent or subtle logo, since they place no value for qualitative possessions. Based on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is derived.
H3: Materialistic observers would trust a target with conspicuous logos (i.e. prominent, subtle) more than a target with no logo, whereas observers who are not materialistic would trust a target without a logo more than a target with conspicuous logos (i.e. prominent, subtle).
2.8.3 Moderator self-brand connection
interpreted or perceived. As a result of the proposed reasoning, the following hypothesis is derived:
H4: Observers with a high level of self-brand connection would protect the brand from the conspicuous usage of the brand; therefore, should trust a conspicuous logo (i.e. prominent, subtle) more than an inconspicuous logo whereas people low in self-brand connection would trust no logos more relative to conspicuous logos (i.e. prominent, subtle).
2.8.4 Moderator Social Socioeconomic Status
The last explored moderator, is observers’ level of status. An observer could interpret the signalling effects of conspicuous goods different based on their own status. When an observer belongs to the same reference group as the target, the effect could be perceived as more favourable. Since people high in status are less interested in signalling status and prefer status signalling with subtle logos they might not have a preference for a certain logo type. This is confirmed by Lount and Pettit (2012) who argued that people with a high status led individuals to trust others more. Therefore, I propose that people high in status would not have a preference for any kind of brand prominence, since they are more likely to trust others anyway. Oppositely, I expect that observers with a low level of status can identify themselves with targets who consume conspicuously, since this is one the fundamental reason why people consume conspicuously (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008). Meaning that they can identify themselves with others, who also express their social identity incorrectly (i.e. ulterior motive). Therefore, it seems plausible that observers with low status will trust targets with conspicuous logos (i.e. prominent, subtle) less, than targets with no logos. This leads to the fifth hypothesis:
3. Conceptual Model
Based on all hypothesis presented in the literature review, a conceptual model is developed. This model is displayed in figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual model with behavior and attitudinal trust as DV
4. Methodology
In this chapter, the experimental setup, used to test all hypotheses will be explained. First, the sample will be discussed. Hereafter, the procedure in which the manipulation of the independent variable will be explained. Subsequently, the measurement of the two dependent variables, behavioral trust as well attitudinal trust will be presented. At last, the scales of the four moderators will be given.
4.1 Sample
4.2 Procedure
This study had one manipulated between-subjects factor (brand prominence: prominent, subtle and no logo) and two measures, behavioral trust & attitudinal trust. To promote brand indication, and to find more variation in the results, male participants only saw male clothes and women only saw female clothes. Participants were exposed to one condition in brand prominence including different belongings of the target. To manipulate brand prominence, an existing product photo was taken; brand prominence was digitally manipulated, resulted in three different conditions for each type of product (see figure 2&3). This study controlled for as many other differences between the options as possible. Therefore, the same product was taken each time; products were adjusted in such a way that they were comparable to the real products. The belongings were manipulated in the same way as Lee and Shrum (2012). The selection of male products consisted of a T-shirt, cap and a bag of Calvin Klein. This brand was chosen because it is considered as conspicuous and high in status (Truong, McColl & Kitchen, 2009). The female belongings consisted a T-shirt, a bag and one shoe. Gucci as a brand was chosen, since Gucci T-shirts, bags and shoes are perceived as conspicuous (Wang & Griskevicius, 2013), and therefore applicable for this research. Besides, according to rapport Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2017 of Deloitte, Calvin Klein is placed 10th and Gucci 5th which confirms the
conspicuousness of the brands.
Figure 2: Male brand prominence conditions
Figure 3: Female brand prominence conditions
Prominent logo subtle logo no logo
4.3 Measurement behavioral trust
Behavioral trust is measured with an investment game. This game started with a brief introduction. Participants read that they would take part in an investment game and were paired with another participant. They were told that they will play the role of the investor (i.e. observer) and the other participant will play the role of the broker (i.e. target), in an investment game. Furthermore, they were told that they would not meet the brokers either during or after the experiment. To help the investors to decide what portion of their initial endowment they would like to invest, they were told that the researcher asked the brokers (which are known because they have previously participated in surveys before) to upload 3 pictures of their belongings, mainly clothes and accessories. After the instruction participants started with the investment game.
4.4 Measurement Attitudinal trust
After participants completed the behavioral measure by conducting an investment game, attitudinal trust was measured by 10 items. In order to measure this dependent variable, participants were again, exposed to exactly the same belongings to measure attitudinal trust. The items that belongs to this variable are presented in table 1. The items were measured with a 7 point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree); all motives were asked in a randomized order to ensure the validity of the results.
Table 1: questions attitudinal trust
4.5 Measurement moderators
After participants completed the questions about behavioral trust and attitudinal trust, participants were asked to indicate their income, level of materialism, level of self-brand connection and their Subjective Socioeconomic Status to be able to measure potential moderation effects.
4.5.1 Measurement income
To measure observers’ income, I added one question in which participants select their own income as well their household income in a range. The range varied between under $15.000 to $190.000 and above in 19 steps. Participants were not obliged to fill in their income; in this case, they could answer: ‘I prefer not to answer this question’.
This person is trying to impress me; This person wants to show off; This person has an ulterior motive;
This person is compensating for something;
This person is trustworthy; This person is competent;
This person is confident; This person is insecure;
4.5.2 Measurement materialism
To measure materialism, I used the nine items of the Richins and Dawson (1992), materialism scale. This study utilized those nine items from the scale (see Richins, 2004), consisting three factors for each subscale that comprise materialism. The first factor was success, which represents the use of possessions as an indicator of the participants’ success in life (Richins & Dawson, 1992). Second factor was centrality, which represents participants’ importance of the acquisitions of possessions (Richins & Dawson, 1992). The third factor is happiness, which is related to the perception that participants’ possessions are needed for happiness (Richins & Dawson, 1992). This materialism 5-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree) was a reliable measurement for this moderator, since the Cronbach alpha was 0,81 indicating a high internal reliability. The questions that belongs to those factors are added in appendix B.
4.5.3 Measurement self-brand connection
To measure this continuous moderator, I adapted the self-brand connection scale of Escalas and Bettman (2003), for Calvin Klein and Gucci. This scale consists in total seven questions. This moderator was measured, using a seven-point Likert-scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). All the items were averaged to form a total of one self-brand connection score per participant. The scale seems to be extremely reliable, since the Cronbach Alpha for self-brand connection for Calvin Klein was 0,958 and for Gucci 0,977. The seven questions which belongs to this scale are added in Appendix B.
4.5.4 Measurement Social Socioeconomic Status
To measure the last moderator, the researcher has chosen to use the subjective socioeconomic status (SES) scale from Adler, Epel, Castellazzo and Ickovics (2000). There has not been chosen for an objective socioeconomic status indicator because literature highlighted problems in measuring social classes (Kraus, Piff & Keltner, 2009). In line with Adler, Epel, Castellazzo and Ickovics (2000), to measure SES, in the survey was added a drawing of a ladder with 10 rungs that was described as follows: ‘Think of this ladder as representing where people stand
in our society. At the top of the ladder are the people who are the best off, those who have the most money, most education, and best jobs. At the bottom are the people who are the worst off, those who have the least money, least education and worst jobs or no job.’ Then, participants
5. Results
This chapter describes the results of brand prominence tested with behavioral trust and attitudinal trust. After this, based on the two measures of trust, the results of the moderation effect of all four moderators will be presented.
5.1 Results behavioral trust
A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the main effect of brand prominence on behavioral trust in a prominent logo, a subtle logo and a no logo condition. The one-way ANOVA revealed a non-significant effect of brand prominence on behavioral trust, F(2,323)=0.017, p=0,983 as can be seen in table 2 and figure 4. None of the three conditions differs significantly from each other.
Table 2: Behavioral trust as DV relative to different levels of BP
(A) Prominent logo (B) Subtle logo (C) No Logo F value P Value Behavioral Trusts (M=4,61 SD=3,39) (M=4,64 SD=3,26) (M=4,69 SD=3,01) 0,17 ,983
Figure 4: The effect of BP on behavioral trust
4.61 4.64 4.69 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
Prominent logo Subtle logo No logo
Effect of BP on Behavioral Trust
5.2 Results attitudinal trust
To measure the main effect with attitudinal trust, first, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to measure the effect of all 10 individually. These results are presented in table 3. The results show that 7 items out of 10 items of attitudinal trust have been significant, suggesting that there has been a significant difference between three levels of brand prominence. The results showed that from the 7 significant items, 6 items showed, that a conspicuous prominent logo backfires relatively to a conspicuous subtle logo and no logo.
Table 3: All attitudinal trust items as DV relative to different levels of BP
Items (A) Prominent logo (B) Subtle logo (C) No Logo F value P
Value (A-B) (A-C) (B-C) Impress (M=5,17, SD=1,40) (M=4,57, SD=1,69) (M=3,73, SD=1,53) 24,10 ,000 0,599 (p=.005) 1,435 (p=.000) ,836 (p=.000) Showing off (M=5,15, SD=1,47) (M=4,32, SD=1,79) (M=3,36, SD=1,38) 36,41 ,000 0,826 (p=.000) 1.786 (p=,000) ,960 (p=,000) Confident (M=5,15, SD=1,20) (M=5,38, SD=1,25) (M=5,17 SD=1,06) 1,256 ,286 -,231 (p=,150) -,024 (p=,877) ,206 (p=,195) Insecure (M=3,76 SD=,138) (M=3,28 SD=,140) (M=2,95 SD=,137) 8,907 ,000 0,478 (p=,015) ,816 (p=,000) ,337 (p=,086) Honest (M=4,21 SD=,11) (M=4,43 SD=,11) (M=4,32 SD=,11) 1,470 ,231 -,223 (p=,140) -,221 (p=,138) ,002 (p=,992) Ulterior motive (M=4,09 SD=1,42) (M=3,73 SD=1,40) (M=3,30 SD=1,37) 8,930 ,000 ,365 (p=,056) ,794 (p=,000) ,429 (p=,024) Compensating (M=4,37 SD=1,54) (M=3,67 SD=1,53) (M=3,30 SD=1,28) 15,277 ,000 ,697 (p=,001) 1,070 (p=,000) ,373 (p=,060) Trustworthiness (M=4,09 SD=1,32) (M=4,34 SD=1,19) (M=4,38 SD=,85) 2,046 ,131 -,248 (p=,111) -,287 (p=,062) -,039 (p=,802) Comes from money (M=5,14 SD=1,26) (M=4,86 SD=1,49) (M=4,24 SD=1,26) 12,878 ,000 ,279 (p=,127) ,894 (p=,000) ,615 (p=,001) Competent (M=4,73 SD=,11) (M=5,14 SD=,11) (M=5,05 SD=,11) 3,710 ,026 -,408 (p=,010) -,320 (p=,041) ,087 (p=,579)
To measure the total effect, a factor analysis was conducted; three new factors were created. The first factor is labelled as targets trustworthiness and included the items: trustworthiness, ulterior motive and honest. Whereas the second factor is labelled as targets competence and consists the items: competent, secure and confidence. The last factor was labelled as targets
impression management and consisted the items: impress, compensating and showing off. The
item comes from money is dropped because it did not load enough on the factor target
competence relative to other three items, despite that the items load slightly more than 0,5 on
combination with the three new created variables; these results are also presented in Appendix C.
Table 4: New DV’s relative to different levels of BP
Motives (A) Prominent logo (B) Subtle logo (C) No Logo F value P Value X1 (A-B) X2 (A-C) (B-C) Targets Trustworthiness (Mean=4,07 SD=1,09) (Mean=4,35 SD=1,09) (Mean=4,50 SD=,87) 5,142 ,006 -,279 (P=,045) -,434 (P=,002) -,155 (P=,261) Attitudinal Impression Making (Mean=4,89 SD=1,22) (Mean=4,19 SD=1,37) (Mean=3,46 SD=1,17) 35,516 ,000 ,707 (P=,000) 1,431 (P=,000) ,723 (P=,000) Targets Competence (Mean=4,71 SD=1,08) (Mean=5,08 SD=1,05) (Mean=5,09 SD=,92) 5,029 ,007 -,372 (P=,008) -,387 (P=,005) -,014 (P=,917)
To measure the total main effect of attitudinal trust, all nine items of three factors are averaged and used as measure for the total effect of attitudinal trust. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of F(2,323)=20,929, p=0,000, as indicated in table 5 and figure 5. All three conditions are significantly different form each other.
Table 5: Attitudinal Trust as DV relative to different levels of BP
(A) Prominent logo (B) Subtle logo (C) No Logo F value P
Value (A-B) (A-C) (B-C) Attitudinal Trust (Mean=3.96 SD=0,083) (Mean=4,41 SD=0.084) (Mean=4,71 SD=0,082) 20,929 ,000 -,453 (P=,000) -,750 (P=,000) -,298 (P=,012)
Figure 5: Effect of Brand Prominence on Attitudinal Trust
3.96 4.41 4.71 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
Prominent logo Subtle logo No logo
Effect of BP on Attitudinal Trust
5.3 Moderator income
In this paragraph the results of the moderator income is given, and tested with behavioral trust and attitudinal trust as DV’s.
5.3.1 Income on Behavioral trust
To test the moderating effect of observers’ income on the link between brand prominence and behavioral trust, two dummy variables were created to compare the prominent logo condition with the subtle logo condition (X1) and the prominent logo condition with the no logo condition (X2). The moderating variable of income was mean centred. The results of the regression analysis have been displayed in table 6.
Table 6: Moderation Income on Behavioral Trust between different levels of BP
coeff Se T P LLCI ULCI
Constant 4,6861 ,3151 14,8694 ,0000 4,0660 5,3062 X1 -,0652 ,4509 -,1446 ,8851 -,9524 ,8220 X2 -,0187 ,4477 -,0418 ,9667 -,8996 ,8622 Income MC ,0185 ,0986 ,1877 ,8513 -,1756 ,2126 Int_1 -,0112 ,1297 -,0866 ,9310 -,2664 ,2439 Int_2 ,0286 ,1424 ,2009 ,8409 -,2515 ,3087
As results indicated in table 6, there was no significant interaction between X1, X2 and income suggesting that brand prominence not have influenced perceptions of behavioral trust depending on observers’ income. Series of simple slopes analysis conducted at a low- (M-1SD), (ps > ,8851) and high- (M+1SD), (ps > ,8676) levels of income also indicated no significant effects.
5.3.2 Income on Attitudinal trust
Table 7: Moderation Income on Attitudinal Trust between different levels of BP
coeff Se T P LLCI ULCI
Constant 3,9920 ,0842 47,4362 ,0000 3,8265 4,1576 X1 ,4285 ,1204 3,5587 ,0004 ,1916 ,6654 X2 ,7396 ,1196 6,1865 ,0000 ,5044 ,9748 IncomeMC ,0117 ,0263 ,4430 ,6581 -,0402 ,0635 Int_1 -,0242 ,0346 -,7002 ,4843 -,0924 ,0439 Int_2 -,0027 ,0380 -,0708 ,9436 -,0775 ,0721
Results showed that among people with a low income (M-1SD), prominent logos relative to subtle logos decreased perception of attitudinal trust (B= -0,5108, SE= 0,1711, t= 2,9860, p= .0031, 95%CI [-0,8474, -0,1742]). Similarly, prominent logos relative to no logos decreased the perception of attitudinal trust (B= -0,7487, SE= 0,1679, t=4,4601, p=.0000, 95% CI [-1,0790, -0,4184]). Among people with higher levels of income (M+1SD), prominent logos relative to subtle logos decreased perception of attitudinal trust (B= -0,3463, SE= 0,1653, t= 2,0949, p=.0370, 95%CI [-0,6716, -0,0210]). Whereas, prominent relative to no logos also decreased perception of attitudinal trust (B= -0,7305, SE= 0,1835, t= 3,9812, p=.0001, 95%CI [-1,0915, -0,3694]).
5.4 Moderator materialism
In this paragraph the results of the moderator materialism is given, and tested with attitudinal trust and behavioral trust as DV’s.
5.4.1 Materialism on behavioral trust
To test the moderating effect of materialism on the link between brand prominence and behavioral trust, two dummy variables were created to compare the prominent logo condition with the subtle logo condition (X1) and the large logo condition with the no logo condition (X2). The variable materialism was mean centred. The results of the regression analysis are displayed in table 8.
Table 8: Moderation Materialism on Behavioral Trust between different levels of BP
Coeff Se T P LLCI ULCI
As results indicated in table 8, there was no significant interaction between X1, X2 and materialism suggesting that brand prominence might not have influenced perceptions of behavioral trust depending on observers’ level of materialism. Again, series of simple slopes analysis conducted at low (M-1SD), (ps > ,8504) and high (M+1SD), (ps > ,8238) levels of materialism indicated no significant effects.
5.4.2 Materialism on attitudinal trust
To test the moderating effect of materialism on the link between brand prominence and attitudinal trust, two dummy variables were created to compare the prominent logo condition with the subtle logo condition (X1) and the large logo condition with the no logo condition (X2). The variable materialism was mean centred. The results of the regression analysis are displayed in table 9. As results indicated, there was no significant interaction between X1, X2 and materialism suggesting that brand prominence not have influenced perceptions of attitudinal trust depending on observers’ level of materialism. However, series of simple slope analysis were conducted at low (M-1SD) and high (M+1SD) of level materialism to further analyse this effect.
Table 9: Moderation Materialism on Attitudinal Trust between different levels of BP
Coeff Se T P LLCI ULCI
Constant 3,9581 ,0829 47,7665 ,0000 3,7951 4,1211 X1 ,4507 ,1181 3,8177 ,0002 ,2184 ,6830 X2 ,7608 ,1170 6,5050 ,0000 ,5307 ,9909 MaterialismMC ,0731 ,0603 1,2111 ,2267 -,0456 ,1918 Int_1 ,0010 ,0847 ,0115 ,9909 -,1656 ,1676 Int_2 -,0245 ,0843 -,2907 ,7714 -,1905 ,1414
5.5 Moderator self-brand connection
In this paragraph the results of the moderator self-brand connection is given, and tested with attitudinal trust and behavioral trust as DV’s.
5.5.1 Self-brand connection on behavioral trust
To test the moderating effect of self-brand connection on the link between brand prominence and behavioral trust, two dummy variables were created to compare the prominent logo condition with the subtle logo condition (X1) and the large logo condition with the no logo condition (X2). The variable self-brand connection was mean centred. The results of the regression analysis are displayed in table 10
Table 10: Moderation Self-Brand Connection on Behavioral Trust between different levels of BP
coeff Se T P LLCI ULCI
Constant 4,6836 ,3077 15,2190 ,0000 4,0781 5,2891 X1 -,1369 ,4391 -,3118 ,7554 -1,0008 ,7270 X2 -,0021 ,4324 -,0048 ,9962 -,8528 ,8486 Self-brand connection MC ,5015 ,2126 2,3585 ,0190 ,0832 ,9198 Int_1 -,0379 ,2883 -,1314 ,8956 -,6051 ,5293 Int_2 -,7505 ,2947 -2,5466 ,0113 -1,3302 -,1707
Figure 6: Moderator self-brand connection on behavioral trust
5.5.2 Self-brand connection on attitudinal trust
To test the moderating effect of self-brand connection on the link between brand prominence and attitudinal trust, two dummy variables were created to compare the prominent logo condition with the subtle logo condition (X1) and the large logo condition with the no logo condition (X2). The moderating variable of self-brand connection was mean centred. Results of the regression analysis has been displayed in table 11. As results indicated, there was not a significant interaction between X1 & X2, and self-brand connection suggesting that brand prominence not have influenced perceptions of attitudinal trust depending on observers’ level of self-brand connection. However, further explication of this effect, a series of simple slope analysis were conducted at low (M-1SD) and high (M+1SD) of self-brand connection.
Table 11: Moderation Self-Brand Connection on Attitudinal Trust between different levels of BP
coeff Se T P LLCI ULCI
Constant 3,9731 ,0832 47,7581 ,0000 3,8094 4,1368 X1 ,4289 ,1187 3,6133 ,0004 ,1954 ,6624 X2 ,7400 ,1169 6,3308 ,0000 ,5100 ,9700 Self-brand connection MC ,0860 ,0575 1,4963 ,1356 -,0271 ,1991 Int_1 -,0270 ,0779 -,3466 ,7292 -,1803 ,1263 Int_2 -,0578 ,0797 -,7261 ,4683 -,2146 ,0989
Results showed that among people with a low level of self-brand connection (M-1SD), prominent logos relative to subtle logos significantly decreased perception attitudinal trust (B= -0,4618, SE= 0,1530, t=3,0189, p= .0027, 95%CI [-0,7628, -0,1609]). Similarly, prominent logos relative to no logos decreased significantly attitudinal trust perception (B=-0,8106, SE=0,1471, t=5,5103, p=.0000, 95% CI [-1,1000, -0,5212]). Among people with higher levels of self-brand connection (M+1SD), prominent logos relative to subtle logos decreased perception of attitudinal trust (B= -0,3878, SE= 0,1668, t=2,3254, p= .0207, 95%CI [-0,7159, -0,0597]). Whereas, prominent logos relative to no logos decreased perception attitudinal trust (B= -0,6520, SE= 0,1738, t= 3,7523, p=.0002, 95%CI [-0,9938, -0,3101]).
5.6 Moderation Subjective Socioeconomic Status
In this paragraph the results of the moderator subjective socioeconomic status is given, and tested with attitudinal trust and behavioral trust as DV’s.
5.6.1 SES behavioral trust
To test the moderating effect of Subjective Socioeconomic Status (SES) on the link between brand prominence and behavioral trust, again two dummy variables were created to compare the prominent logo condition with the subtle logo condition (X1) and the prominent logo condition with no logo condition (X2). The moderating variable SES was mean centred.
Table 12: Moderation SES on Behavioral Trust between different levels of BP
Coeff Se T P LLCI ULCI
Constant 4,6142 ,3120 14,7906 ,0000 4,0005 5,2280 X1 ,0300 ,4443 ,0676 ,9462 -,8442 ,9042 X2 ,0802 ,4392 ,1826 ,8553 -,7839 ,9443 SES MC ,1306 ,1727 ,7561 ,4501 -,2091 ,4702 Int_1 -,2209 ,2499 -,8839 ,3774 -,7126 ,2708 Int_2 -,0984 ,2538 -,3877 ,6985 -,5977 ,4009
5.6.2 SES attitudinal trust
To test the moderating effect of Subjective Socioeconomic Status on the link between brand prominence and attitudinal trust, again two dummy variables were created to compare the prominent logo condition with the subtle logo condition (X1) and the prominent logo condition with no logo condition (X2). The moderating variable SES was mean centred. Results of the regression analysis has been displayed in table 13. Results indicated no significant interactions between X1 & X2, and SES suggesting that brand prominence not have influenced perceptions of attitudinal trust depending on observers’ SES. However, to further explicate this result, a series of simple slope analysis were conducted at low (M-1SD) and high (M+1SD) levels of SES.
Table 13: Moderation SES on Attitudinal Trust between different levels of BP
Coeff Se T P LLCI ULCI
Constant 3,9614 ,0827 47,9109 ,0000 3,7988 4,1241 X1 ,4550 ,1178 3,8632 ,0001 ,2233 ,6866 X2 ,7492 ,1164 6,4356 ,0000 ,5201 ,9782 SES MC -,0516 ,0458 -1,1285 ,2599 -,1417 ,0384 Int_1 -,0250 ,0662 -,3780 ,7057 -,1553 ,1053 Int_2 ,0034 ,0673 ,0502 ,9600 -,1290 ,1357
5.7 Hypotheses testing
To give an overview of the hypotheses and the results, table 14 is provided. This table showed that H1b and H4 was supported whereas H1a, H2, H3 and H5 was not supported.
Table 14: hypotheses testing
Hypothesis Result*
H1a: A conspicuous prominent logo significantly decreases behavioral trust relative to a conspicuous subtle logo and an inconspicuous no logo.
H1b: A conspicuous prominent logo significantly decreases attitudinal trust relative to a conspicuous subtle logo and an inconspicuous no logo.
✓
H2: Observers with a low-income trust targets with conspicuous logos (i.e. prominent & subtle) less relative to a target without logo whereas observers with a high income do not prefer variation in brand prominence and trust anyway.
H3: Materialistic observers would trust a target with conspicuous logos (i.e. prominent & subtle) more than a target with no logo, whereas observers who are not materialistic would trust a target without a logo more than a target with conspicuous logos (i.e. prominent & subtle).
H4: Observers with a high level of self-brand connection would protect the brand from the conspicuous usage of the brand; therefore, should trust a conspicuous logo (i.e. prominent, subtle) more than an inconspicuous logo whereas people low in self-brand connection would trust no logos more relative to conspicuous logos (i.e. prominent, subtle).
✓**
H5: People low in status would trust targets with conspicuous belongings (i.e. prominent, subtle logos) less than inconspicuous belongings (i.e. no logo) whereas observers high in status should not have any preference for one of the conditions.
* When a moderator is not supported, it means they were not in line with the hypothesis measured with behavioral and attitudinal trust.
6. Discussion
Building on research examining which favourable and unfavourable effects conspicuous consumption have, this research sheds a new light on the effects of the relationship of conspicuous consumption and trust. This research provides evidence that showing a conspicuous prominent logo is perceived more negatively (i.e. attitudinal trust, perceptions) relative to belongings showing conspicuous subtle logo or no logo. This suggest that showing a conspicuous subtle logo, or not having a logo may breed a preferential treatment from observers, which in turn, may lead to benefits for this person relative to a target which belongings has a prominent conspicuous prominent logo. In this study the effects are investigated with two different measures, behavioral trust and attitudinal trust. In this chapter, the main effects of brand prominence and the effects of the moderators are discussed, based on the measurements of behavioral trust and attitudinal trust.
6.1 Behavioral trust
As results indicated, based on behavioral trust which was measured with an investment game, there is no relationship between three different levels of brand prominence and behavioral trust. Which is not in line with the main hypothesis. However, finding this null effect does not necessarily mean that there is no effect, since the measure attitudinal trust was significant. Further analysis showed that this relation remains not significant controlling for gender. Therefore, further research is necessary to be more concise in establishing this relationship with behavioural trust.
6.2 Effect moderators measured with behavioral trust
6.3 Attitudinal trust
Striking and in line with the hypothesis (H1b) is that by showing belongings with a conspicuous prominent logo, observers perceived attitudinal trust decreased relative to targets’ belongings which has a conspicuous subtle logo or no logo. Furthermore, belongings with no logo increased attitudinal trust relative to a conspicuous subtle and a prominent logo. However, this effect is questionable, as results showed that four out of seven significant items of the measure of attitudinal trust, showed that there is no significant difference in the perception of attitudinal trust between a target with a conspicuous subtle logo and a target with no logo. Suggesting that in most cases, a conspicuous subtle logo and a no logo is perceived most favourable. Further analysis showed that the direction of the means of attitudinal trust, by controlling for gender, stays in the same direction and remains significant.
The results provide also other interesting findings that show that prominent logos’ signalling effect negatively backfires in the perception of the observers based on attitudinal trust. The data provided convincing evidence that targets which belongings have a conspicuous prominent logo, are perceived as less competent and as more insecure relatively to targets with belongings having a conspicuous subtle logo or no. Undoubtedly, this finding has large social implications. Besides, observers who were exposed to a conspicuous prominent logo, perceive this target as someone who, is trying to impress others, wants to show off, wants to compensate for something; very important, has an ulterior motive compared to target with a conspicuous subtle logo or no logo. These findings confirm again, that a conspicuous prominent logo backfires relative to a conspicuous subtle and no logo.
6.4 Effect moderators measured with attitudinal trust
7. Scientific and social implications
This research contributes to scientific literature, since it is the first research which distinguishes differences in the conspicuousness of a product and links it with trust and other attitudinal perceptions. Previous research (see, Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Lee, Ko & Megehee, 2015; Scott, Mende & Bolton, 2013) showed that showing conspicuous and inconspicuous products elects favourable and unfavourable reactions. The present study provided compelling evidence for the notion that a conspicuous prominent logo is perceived as unfavourable and a conspicuous subtle logo as favourable. The research paper expands literature which shows that status characteristics like intelligence and abilities are associated with positive outcomes in social interactions (Berger, Rosenholtz & Zelditch, 1980).
8. Limitations
The first limitation of this research paper is with respect to the difference of the measurements in DV’s. The dependent variable behavioral trust measured with an investment game (p=0,983) was that much different from the other dependent variable attitudinal trust measured with nine items (p=0,000) that the reliability of one, or both measures is questionable. This could be partly explained by the fact that in the introduction part of the investment game was told that some of the participants would be rewarded with the amount of money they have ended up with, as their final endowments in the game. This was done to encourage participants to take the survey more seriously. However, it could be that it became a more financial situation, rather than a situation based on trust. Moreover, according to (Glaeser, Laibson, Scheinkman & Soutter, 2000), a trust game (i.e. investment game) is not correlated with trusting behavior. This finding could also be used as explanation for the difference between the measure behavioral trust and attitudinal trust. Second limitation is the manipulation with respect to brand prominence. I chose for three products for men and women. In total, there were shown eight digitally manipulated products and two original products. This was necessary to be able to control the variables. However, participants could have recognized that some products were digitally manipulated. In which extend participant recognized the products as fake is unknown, since there was not a control question to measure this. I also did not conduct a pre-test to check whether people saw the belongings were fake or real products.
Third, for this research is chosen for Calvin Klein and Gucci as conspicuous brands. However, it is important to take into account that there is a difference between conspicuous brands in relation with trust, since each brand is perceived differently. To give an illustration, Armani is perceived differently than Ralph Lauren, which in turn is perceived differently than Calvin Klein, but these brands are all considered as conspicuous and high in status (Truong, Simmons, McColl & Kitchen, 2008).
9. Future research
Future research could test the relationship with conspicuous consumption and trust with other and new measurements of trust. For instance, I suggest that future research should make use of the measure Specific Interpersonal Trust Scale (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982), which is adapted by Dunn and Schweitzer (2005) to measure the relation with trust and conspicuous consumption. Besides, future research could change the experimental setup of the investment game by using another scale, or adjusting the introduction to check whether the total effect of behavioral trust is different.
The given findings have multiple implications for future research. In this research the participant was direct exposed to multiple (in)conspicuous belongings before they had to answer the questions about the moderator. This was done, to measure the direct response of trust of the participant. Future research could switch this design to measure whether the results would be different or not. By conducting a research where participants first had to answer multiple questions about trustworthiness, ulterior motives or some potential moderators, before they would be exposed with conspicuous clothes they might react differently. In that case, it is also possible to analyse the mediation of some personal characteristics.
Another way of replicating this design with the (in)conspicuous belongings is a within subjects design. Because a within subjects design has more power (Charness, Gneezy & Kuhn, 2012), it is for future research a design which may lead to more significant results. However, research should take into account that this type of design also suffers more from confounds (Charness, Gneezy & Kuhn, 2012).
Another area of future research should investigate the relationship between conspicuous consumption and trust in an experimental setting. Nelissen and Meijers (2011), proved to find significance in an experimental setting and showed that observers showed more compliance. When participants see three levels of brand prominence conditions (within subjects design) or only one condition (between subjects design) physically, they might react and trust differently. Extending this idea, future research could add another target(s), who also should wear (in)conspicuous clothes, to test the perception of the observer relative to targets individually, or for the whole group.
willing to believe that they play the investment game with another real person when the researcher tells that certain clothes belong to a different participant.
This research provided findings that a prominent logo backfires relatively to a subtle logo or no logo. Here lies an opportunity to eliminate this effect. Future research could prime the participant with a story to emphasize with the person with a conspicuous prominent logo. For example: ‘Daniel wears belongings with a conspicuous prominent logo because he is bullied
many times in the past, is always alone and wants to increase his self-esteem. So, he started to consume conspicuously. In what extend would you trust him?’. In this case, observers may
perceive this person completely different, which could also extract another reaction of trust to this person.
10. Reference list
Acar-Burkay, S., Fennis, B. M., & Warlop, L. 2014. Trusting others: the polarization effect of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), pp. 1-62.
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. 2000. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health psychology, 19(6), pp. 586-592.
Arnould, E. J. & Thompson , C. J. 2005. Culture Consumer Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), pp. 868-882.
Bain & Company. Global personal luxury goods market expected to grow by 2-4 percent to €254-259bn in 2017, driven by healthier local consumption in China and increased tourism and consumer confidence in Europe. (2017, May 29). Retrieved October 18, 2017, from http://www.bain.com/about/press/press-releases/global-personal-luxury-goods-market-expected-to-grow-by-2-4-percent.aspx
Banerjee, A. V. & Duflo, E. 2007. The Economic Lives of the Poor. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 21(1), pp. 141-167.
Berg, Dickhaut, J. & McCabe, J. 1995. Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History. Games and
Economic Behavior, 10(1), pp. 122-142.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch Jr, M. 1980. Status organizing processes. Annual review of sociology, 6(1), pp. 479-508.
Berger, J. & Ward, M. 2010. Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(4), pp. 555–569.
Bian, Q. & Forsythe, S. 2010. Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), pp. 1443–1451.
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. 2012. Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), pp. 1-8.
Chen, E. Y. I., Yeh, N. & Wang, C. P. 2008. Conspicuous consumption: A preliminary report of scale development and validation. In Advances in consumer research. ACR North
American Advances., 35(1), pp. 686-687.
Colquitt, J, A., Scott, B, A., & LePine, J. A. 2007. Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust
Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and Job Performance. The Journal of applied psychology, 92(4), pp. 909–927.
De Botton, A., 2004. Status anxiety. New York: Pantheon Books.
Deloitte (2017), Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2017, available at:
https://edu.deloitte.cz/cs/Content/DownloadPublication/luxury-goods-2017
Dunn, J., & Schweitzer, M. 2005. Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), pp. 736–748.
Escalas, J. E. & Bettman, J. R. 2003. You Are What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), pp. 339-348.
Etzioni, A. 2004. The Post Affluent Society. Review of Social Economy, 62(3), pp. 407–420.
Evans, A. M. & Revelle, W. 2008. Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), pp. 1585–1593.
Feltovich, N., Harbaugh, R. & To, T. 2002. Too Cool for School? Signaling and Countersignaling. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(4), pp. 630-649.
Fussell, Paul (1983), Class: A Guide through the American Status System, New York: Summit.
Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. 2000. Measuring trust. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), pp. 811-846.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C. & Dre`ze, X. 2010. Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), pp. 15-30.
Hardin, R., 2002. Trust and trustworthiness. New York: NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hyman, H. H. 1942. The psychology of status. New York: Columbia University.
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. 1982. Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to asses trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 43(6), pp. 1306–1317.
Johnson, N. D. & Mislin, A. A. 2011. Trust games: A meta - analysis. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 32(5), pp. 865 - 889.
Kraus, S. J. 1995. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 21(1), pp. 58-75.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K. & Keltner, D. 2009. Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), pp. 992-1004.
Langer, J. 1997. What consumers wish brand managers knew. Journal of Advertising
Research, 37(6), pp. 60-66.
Lee, J. & Shrum, L. J. 2012. Conspicuous Consumption versus Charitable Behavior in Responses to Social Exclusion: A Differential Needs Explanation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 39(3), pp. 530–544.
Lount, R. & Pettit, N. 2012. The social context of trust: The role of status. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), pp. 15-23.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), pp. 709-734.
Nelissen, R. M. A., & Meijers, M. H. C. 2011. Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), pp. 343-355.
O'Cass, A. & McEwen, H., 2004. Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1), pp. 25-39.
Piron, F. 2000. Consumers’ perceptions of the country‐of‐origin effect on purchasing
intentions of (in)conspicuous products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4), pp. 308-321.
Podoshen, J. S. & Andrzejewski, S. A., 2012. An Examination of the Relationships Between Materialism, Conspicuous Consumption, Impulse Buying, and Brand Loyalty. The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(3), pp. 319-334.
Rege, M., 2008. Why do people care about social status? Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 66(2), pp. 233-242.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 49(1), pp. 95-112.
Richins, M. L. 2004. The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and Development of a Short Form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), pp. 209-219.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), pp. 393-404.
Rucker, D. D. & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Desire to Acquire: Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), pp. 257-267.
Schlenker, B.R., Helm, B., & Tedeschi, J.T. 1973. The Effects of Personality and Situational Variables on Behavioral Trust. Journal of personality and social psychology, 25(3), pp. 419– 27.
Scott, M. L., Mende, M., & Bolton, L. E. 2013. Judging the Book by Its Cover? How Consumers Decode Conspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal
Of Marketing Research (JMR), 50(3), pp. 334-347.
Searcy, T. 2011. The New Rules on Dressing for Success, s.l.: CBS Moneywatch.
Segal, B., & Podoshen, J. S. 2013. An examination of materialism, conspicuous consumption and gender differences. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), pp. 189-198. Sivanathan, N. & Pettit, N. C. 2010. Protecting the self through consumption: Status goods as affirmational commodities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(3), pp. 564-570.
Souiden, N., M’Saad, B. & Pons, F. 2011. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Consumers’ Conspicuous Consumption of Branded Fashion Accessories. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 23(5), pp. 329-343.
Truong, Y., McColl, R., & Kitchen, P. J. 2009., New luxury brand positioning and the emergence of masstige brands. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5-6), pp. 375-382. Truong, Y., Simmons, G., McColl, R., & Kitchen, P. J. (2008). Status and conspicuousness– are they related? Strategic marketing implications for luxury brands. Journal of strategic
