The document discusses how materialism, brand engagement, and status consumption influence clothing involvement and brand loyalty. It presents hypotheses that materialism, brand engagement, and status consumption will positively correlate with clothing involvement and brand loyalty based on previous research. The document provides an overview of literature on these topics and concepts in order to develop the hypotheses.

1. Materialistic, brand engaged and
status consuming consumers and
clothing behaviors
Ronald E. Goldsmith
College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Leisa R. Flynn
College of Business, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg,
Mississippi, USA, and
Ronald A. Clark
Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration,
Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show how materialism, brand engagement in self-concept
(BESC), and status consumption influence clothing involvement and brand loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors use data from a survey of 258 US college students to
test a model using structural equation modelling.
Findings – The results show that materialism, BESC, and status consumption positively influence
clothing involvement and brand loyalty.
Research limitations/implications – The study findings are bounded by the country and sample
providing the data. The results strongly support hypotheses derived from the literature and provide
important insights into the motives for clothing involvement and brand loyalty.
Practical implications – The findings suggest that appealing to these three important motivators
can influence some consumers to choose specific brands of clothing.
Originality/value – This study is the first to demonstrate the influence of materialism, especially
operationalized by Kasser’s scale, and brand engagement in self-concept on these clothing behaviors.
Keywords United States of America, Students, Clothing, Brand loyalty, Consumer behaviour,
Materialism, Brand engagement, Status consumption, Involvement
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Researchers have devoted quite a lot of attention to studying the characteristics of
clothing buyers because this industry is so large and competitive. Moreover, the
apparel market is characterized by frequent style changes and rapidly changing
consumer tastes, making the job of understanding why they buy particularly
challenging. Apparel marketers have at their disposal extensive information regarding
the demographics of different segments of clothing buyers, but more work needs to be
done to understand the basic psychology of clothing consumption. This study seeks to
contribute to increasing this understanding by testing hypothesized relationships
between three basic consumer motivations, materialism, brand engagement in self-
concept (BESC), and status consumption, with two important outcomes: clothing
involvement and clothing brand loyalty. Evidence for these relationships should help
researchers better understand the influence of materialism on these important clothing
outcomes and improve clothing mangers’ ability to appeal to involved and loyal
customers.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm
Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management
Vol. 16 No. 1, 2012
pp. 102-119
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1361-2026
DOI 10.1108/13612021211203050
102
JFMM
16,1

2. The study of consumer motivation is important because it provides the basis for
understanding many subsequent consumer behaviors. One of the most important
consumer motives, or at least one that attracts a great deal of attention, is an
exaggerated desire for material goods. Making money, having things, and seeing
things as a means to success and happiness in life are at the heart of the concept of
materialism, whether it is thought of as a personality characteristic or trait or as a
value guiding behavior (Belk, 1985; Graham, 1999; Kasser, 2002; Richins and Dawson,
1992; Rudmin, 1991). Materialism deserves close study because it is a general or
broadly conceptualized characteristic (meaning that it is not limited to specific product
categories) that motivates consumers to acquire across a wide spectrum of goods, is not
limited to a single culture (Ger and Belk, 1996), and is linked to many non-purchasing-
as well as purchasing-related outcomes (Kasser, 2002; Watson, 2003). Although
materialism is often linked to clothing consumption in general (e.g. Ger and Belk, 1996;
Richins and Rudmin, 1994), little research has studied the relationship between
materialism and clothing involvement and loyalty specifically.
Research in consumer behavior has found two other motivations closely related to
materialism. BESC (Sprott et al., 2009) and status consumption (Eastman et al., 1999)
are concepts that link fundamental materialistic tendencies with more specific
marketplace behaviors. The three constructs form a constellation of motivated
behavioral tendencies focussed around the purchase and use of goods to build and
portray the self to others. People high in these traits have been shown to consume
more, pay more attention to advertisements, and be more interested in products and
shopping and thus are of great interest to marketers (Eastman et al., 1999; Rindfleisch
et al., 1997; Sprott et al., 2009). There is little research, however, that specifically
examines how this group of variables works together to affect clothing consumption.
The present study seeks to fill this gap.
Literature review and hypotheses
Materialism
The growing literature on materialism in the fields of marketing and economic
psychology attests to the recognition of its important role in consumer behavior.
Although long a subject for religious, philosophical, and sociological discussion, only
in the past few decades has materialism become an empirical subject for psychologists,
economists, and consumer researchers. The advent of psychometrically sound
self-report measures (Belk, 1985; Richins, 2004; Kasser, 2002) has enabled researchers
to quantify materialism at the individual level so that they can empirically test
hypotheses using both survey and experimental methods. This research yields many
important insights into the antecedents and consequences of materialism.
Scholars have proposed several antecedents that promote the development of
materialistic tendencies. At the most basic level, although there does not seem to be a
genetic origin for materialism (Giddens et al., 2009), evolutionary psychologists argue
that the desire for material goods stems from evolved survival strategies among
modern human ancestors (e.g. Saad and Gill, 2000). As a political sociologist, Inglehart
(1990) argues that materialism is a preoccupation in favor of lower order needs
for material comfort and physical safety to the neglect of higher order needs such as
self-expression, belonging, and quality of life. These materialistic impulses derive from
early life experiences of deprivation. People who grow up in economically deprived
environments internalize a subjective sense of economic insecurity that leads them to
overvalue material comfort and success in later life. In contrast, psychologists
103
Consumers and
clothing
behaviors

3. (e.g. Ahuvia and Wong, 2002; Kasser, 2002) argue that consumer culture, the emphasis
in the media and by other socializing agents on buying, owning, and possessing
materials goods, can be identified as a mainspring of materialism. Social comparison
theories stress the influence of other people and the comparisons consumers make with
their reference groups on encouraging materialistic tendencies (e.g. Dittmar, 1992;
Dusenberry, 1949). Self-identity theorists often point to the ownership of material
goods as a means of creating and expressing individual identities (Belk, 1985; Braun
and Wicklund, 1989). Although this field of research is crucial to our understanding
the origins of materialism, the present study focusses on its consequences, rather than
its antecedents.
Studies of the consequences of materialism often focus either on personal and
interpersonal outcomes, on non-purchasing topics, or on domain-general consumption
outcomes, but rarely on domain-specific consumption outcomes. For example, high
levels of materialism are associated with low life satisfaction, low self-esteem, and
poor interpersonal relationships (e.g. Kasser, 2002; Richins and Dawson, 1992). Ryan
and Dziurawiec (2001) show that individuals high in materialism are less satisfied
with their “life as a whole” and with specific “life domains” than are those low in
materialism. Dittmar and Pepper (1994) investigate the socio-cultural influence of
materialism on how people form social perceptions. They find that highly materialistic
people show a strong tendency to judge others by the number and quality of their
material goods.
Roberts and Jones (2001) did not directly measure materialism, but they do find that
positive attitudes toward money as a tool of power and prestige (status) increases
compulsive shopping, and that credit cards promote this association. Watson (2003)
shows that highly materialistic people tend to have more favorable attitudes toward
borrowing money, to high credit card balances, to paying finance charges, and using
installment credit, than their less materialistic counterparts.
Eastman et al. (1999) show that materialism is strongly related to seeking social
status by acquiring goods among US college students, and Heaney et al. (2005)
replicate this finding among Malaysian students. Wang and Wallendorf (2006) report
that materialism is negatively related to satisfaction with products that signal status
(e.g. cars), but unrelated to satisfaction with products less likely to signal status.
If materialists judge success by the quality and quantity of objects possessed, then
they are, by definition, using goods for status and to express who they feel they are
(Webster and Beatty, 1997). The essence of the person is subsumed by the things they
own, as the brands are self-descriptive and convey social standing.
More specifically, however, few studies document the domain-specific outcomes
of materialism. For instance, Loulakis and Hill (2010) use data from a qualitative
study of US college women to describe how social status and materialism are linked,
especially the role of clothing in demonstrating status to others. The present paper
extends the study of the consequences of materialism for clothing behavior through a
quantitative study.
BESC
There is good reason to suppose on the face of it that as levels of materialism in
consumers increase their levels of BESC also increase. Materialism describes a
preoccupation with acquiring material goods, making that activity a major focus of
people’s lives. Brand engagement describes a strong focus on brands, their meanings,
and using brands to shape and to enhance self-concept (Sprott et al., 2009). Materialists
104
JFMM
16,1

4. find meaning in and extend the self with objects (Belk, 1988), and many companies
focus their strategies on developing brands that have important meaning to customers.
Materialists should therefore be likely to know more about brands than other
consumers, place more emphasis and resources on acquiring brands, and have
preferences for brands that reflect well on them. The brand is the sign that the product
will deliver the emotional meaning the consumer is looking for. This phenomenon
should be strongest where materialism is strongest. Materialism and brand engagement
should converge. Operationally, Sprott et al. (2009) found BESC moderately correlated
(r ¼ 0.42, po0.01) with Richins’s (2004) measure of materialism. We replicate this finding
using a new and different measure.
It is important to separate BESC from materialism. Rather than gratification
through amassing goods, BESC is gratification through the acquisition of specific,
branded goods that express some important element of the self. BESC involves
acquiring specific brands, while materialism involves acquiring possessions in general.
The highly brand engaged person feels that certain brands accurately express their
concept of themselves.
Status consumption
Achieving and expressing status are basic goals of members of human society and
achieving status through consumption has been studied for more than a century
(Veblen, 1967/1899). One of the ways consumers endeavor to demonstrate their social
status is through the purchase and display of certain products. Gabriel and Lang (2006,
p. 8) expressed this idea well: “display of material commodities fix [sic] the social
position and prestige of their owners.” In recent years, as the level of consumer
affluence has grown, so has the consumption of luxury and status goods (Hader, 2008).
While luxury consumption varies with the health of the economy, the increased
availability of credit and overall rising incomes contribute to the use of status items to
enhance social standing.
The tendency of a person to consume to achieve status has been operationalized as
an individual difference variable by the status consumption scale (Eastman et al., 1999).
The scale allows researchers to measure an individual’s propensity to use products and
services as an expression of their own status. In the scale development piece, Eastman
et al. (1999) used fashion clothing as a prime example of a product category used to
express status. More recently, Solomon and Rabolt (2004, pp. 239-241) and O’Cass and
Frost (2002) both use fashion as an example of a product category employed to express
status and personal meaning.
Other studies show that consuming to achieve status is conceptually related to the
idea of instrumental materialism (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton, 1981) where
people accumulate possessions to some end. Status consumption relates also to a
tendency to conform to group norms while expressing one’s need for uniqueness (Clark
et al., 2007). Indeed, status consumers are susceptible to normative influence, but not
necessarily informational influence (Clark et al., 2007). While status consumption
relates to accumulation to express position, materialism is more personal. Materialists’
things make them feel good directly, and status consumers’ things make them feel good
because they show the world personal superiority. At the same time, materialists do
want to signal status (Wang and Wallendorf, 2006), and materialistic consumers have
been shown to be especially attuned to which products have status and how acquiring
them promotes the status (Loulakis and Hill, 2010). Status consumption and
materialism are clearly related individual difference variables.
105
Consumers and
clothing
behaviors

5. Clothing involvement
Product category involvement (interest in and enthusiasm for a product category) is
conceptually different from loyalty toward specific brands in the category. Clothing
involvement is a form of enduring involvement described by Bloch and Richins (1983,
p. 70) “as the general level of interest in the object or the centrality of the object to the
person’s ego structure” that lasts over time. It is a kind of enthusiasm for a product
category due to self-relevance. When the category is clothing, the enthusiasm has
additional meaning. While enduring involvement with a computer game may have no
relation with an individual’s materialistic tendencies, involvement with clothing is
an enduring interest in displaying the self to the world. It is logical that clothing
involvement is related to materialism.
O’Cass and McEwen (2004) found that materialism explained a significant portion
of consumer involvement with clothing. Clothing is a highly symbolic product
category. Not only is it a meaningful and visible display of self, it is also of great
hedonic value. If owning goods generates self-identity, then wearing those goods
achieves the end in a powerful way. Using products to create an impression stems from
materialism (Belk, 1985). Loulakis and Hill (2010) qualitatively reveal the positive
association between materialism and status display using clothing among US
undergraduate consumers such as those in the present study. Thus, the first hypothesis
proposes:
H1. Materialism is positively correlated with clothing involvement.
BESC is a relatively new concept (Sprott et al., 2009) thus there is not a great deal of
literature surrounding it. However, in their original study Sprott et al. (2009) used
fashion brand names and found that subjects higher in BESC recalled more brand
names after being shown photos of people wearing identifiable, branded clothing
(r ¼ 0.43, pr0.01). This finding implies that subjects with higher scores on the
non-domain-specific BESC are potentially more clothing involved than the lower
scoring subjects did. Persons high in BESC feel rewarded by their association with
branded products and because clothing carries so much symbolism and more so
among young consumers, we expect greater brand engagement to be associated with
more clothing involvement:
H2. BESC is positively correlated with clothing involvement.
Clothing is commonly linked to consuming for status. Clothing’s public nature makes it
an excellent vehicle for status displays and it clothing involvement was used to
validate the original status consumption scale (Eastman et al., 1999). Clothing, “says
how important an individual is (and) tells others how much status an individual
has” (O’Cass and Frost, 2002, p. 67). More recently, Truong et al. (2008) used fashion
brands and subjects were easily able to rank them in terms of the status each conveys.
Involvement with clothing has been shown to be related to higher clothing brand
status ratings among generation Y consumers (O’Cass and Choy, 2008). When
consumers are gratified by displaying status through consumption, clothing is a
logical choice and knowing which brands convey the proper status is imperative to
gaining the desired reward:
H3. Status consumption is positively correlated with clothing involvement.
106
JFMM
16,1

6. Brand loyalty for clothing
There is a distinct lack of research on the relationship between materialism and brand
loyalty. Rindfleisch et al. (2009) found a small positive correlation between materialism
and a global measure of brand loyalty. Sprott et al. (2009) found that BESC is related to
brand loyalty and that the concept of brand engagement is close to that of materialism.
Wang and Wallendorf (2006) report that in the case of status conferring products,
satisfaction is negatively related to materialism. This relationship might affect levels of
brand loyalty. Brand names should have more ability to convey the status message
desired by materialists than functional products without the brand imprimatur. The
branded product carries the additional expressive value. We propose that materialism
predisposes consumers to be brand loyal to specific brands of clothing that satisfy their
need for status:
H4. Materialism is positively correlated with clothing brand loyalty.
The developers of the scale measuring BESC tested to see if persons higher in BESC
would wait longer, when the waiting time was three or six months, to buy a new
offering of a favorite brand rather than buying a less familiar competitive product
which was currently available (Sprott et al., 2009). They also used electronics to show
the relationship between BESC and brand loyalty. Electronics are feature-driven goods
more than are fashion clothing items, which are bought more for style. Clothing is also
a more publicly consumed product with more social risk entailed. We expect that for
the case of fashion clothing, BESC will be positively related with brand loyalty:
H5. BESC is positively correlated with clothing brand loyalty.
The relationship between brand loyalty and status consumption has not been studied
yet. A detailed search of the literature finds no papers that link these two important
consumer behaviors. It is reasonable to predict that those people who use goods and
services to create and display status are using branded goods to do that. In the popular
culture, brand name clothing and accessories have become the very definition of status
and success. Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Yves St. Laurent, Chanel, and Gucci are
global examples of status clothing brands immediately recognizable for their style and
cost. It makes good sense to expect that people who are more likely to be using brands
to display status are loyal to the specific brands that carry this benefit:
H6. Status consumption is positively correlated with clothing brand loyalty.
Method
Procedure and subjects
We collected the data using an online survey of undergraduate marketing students at
two US universities, one in the southeast and one in the midwest. We offered the
students extra class credit to complete the survey. We emailed the informed consent
form and survey site URL to them. Clicking on the URL took them to the survey site.
We gave them a week to complete the questionnaire and sent them a reminder email a
few days after the initial invitation encouraging them to participate and thanking them
if they already had. Student consumers are appropriate for the study because they have
considerable experience in the marketplace, clothing is a major purchase category for
them, and they represent a large segment of future consumers. Student samples have
107
Consumers and
clothing
behaviors

7. provided the data for many previous studies of materialism (e.g. Ahuvia and Wong,
2002; Benmoyal-Bouzaglo and Moschis, 2010; Braun and Wicklund, 1989).
Both questionnaires were completed by 292 respondents, but we included a “quality
check” item in the first questionnaire to detect “blind checking,” where survey
respondents provide responses to questions without reading or understanding them.
The item read: “if you read this item, please do not respond to it” (Dollinger and
DiLalla, 1996). Thirty-four respondents provided responses to this item so we
removed them from the data set prior to analysis. Thus, we tested the hypotheses
using complete data from 258 respondents. We also analyzed the data with all 292
respondents included and detected no impact of the “suspect” responses on the results,
but chose not to include them in the reported analysis so as to mitigate the possibility
that blind checking might contaminate the findings. The sample (n ¼ 258) was large
enough to give the statistical tests adequate power (40.80) to detect the moderate-
sized effects we anticipated, and the ratio of subjects to paths estimated in the model
(258/51) was approximately 5:1, which is reasonable large enough to mitigate potential
multicollinearity among the exogenous variables (Grewal et al., 2004).
The sample consisted of 101 men (39 percent) and 157 women (61 percent). The ages
of the respondents ranged from 19 to 62 with a mean of 21.9 years (SD ¼ 4.0). A t-test
showed there was no significant difference in mean age between the men and the
women.
Concern for common method variance arising from the use of similar self-report
scales to operationalize the variables led us to present the measures in two separate
questionnaires completed eight weeks apart, thus mitigating the method artifact by
collecting the measures at different times (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This step also had the
benefit of presenting the self-report scales in different contexts, thus disguising the
purpose of the study. The scales for materialism, status consumption, and price
consciousness appeared in the first questionnaire, the scale for clothing involvement
and brand loyalty and a scale to measure social desirability response style appeared in
the second questionnaire. The purpose of the study was further disguised because the
questionnaires contained scales measuring other constructs so that no special attention
was drawn to the focal constructs.
We took two additional steps to minimize method artifacts. The online survey site
allowed us to randomize the order in which the scale items were presented to the
subjects, thus mitigating potential order effects. In addition, we included a measure
of social desirability, also recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003), consisting of a
ten-item scale derived from Crowne and Marlowe’s (1964) measure. We correlated
the scores on the other scales with the social desirability scores and found only a few,
small significant correlations. We also tested the hypotheses controlling for social
desirability and detected no influence on the results.
Measures
We measured the five constructs using previously published self-report scales to
enhance reliability and validity.
Materialism
Most research on the topic of materialism in consumer psychology uses the scales
developed either by Belk (1985) or by Richins and Dawson (1992). We chose to use a
newer 14-item scale developed by Kasser and Ryan (1996) and shown in Kasser
(2002, p. 10). We chose to use this scale because measuring materialism with a different
108
JFMM
16,1

8. operationalization increases the external validity of the findings by avoiding mono-
operationalization bias and to assess the generalizability of findings from previous
studies to a different operationalization. It has been shown to be psychometrically
sound and robust in measuring materialistic tendencies (Goldsmith et al., 2011). The
scale’s novel dimensions promise to give researchers and managers new insights into
materialism’s effects on clothing purchasing.
Termed the aspiration index (AI) by its authors, the scale measures materialism as
three related sub-constructs. These are excessive concern for social standing (five
items), attractive appearance (five items), and financial success (four items). These
represent aspirational values, especially for young people such as the participants in
our study. All are related to psychological well-being and incorporate prominent goals
and values of consumer culture:
Although strivings for money and possessions certainly constitute the core message
encouraged by consumeristic and capitalistic cultures, two other goals are also typically
encouraged: having the “right” image and being well known socially. Image and fame values
are entwined with those for money and possessions in at least a couple of ways. First, the
media in consumeristic cultures frequently link these values by having good-looking
celebrities sell products. The underlying message is that owning these products will enhance
our image and ensure our popularity with others. A second way these values are connected is
that image, fame, and money all share a focus of looking for a sense of worth outside of
oneself, and involve striving for external rewards and the praise of others. When we focus on
these values [y] we are seeking sources of satisfaction outside of ourselves, whether in
money, in the mirror, or in admiration by others. In capitalistic, consumer cultures such as the
United States, these extrinsic values are often encouraged as worthy because they seemingly
convey a sense of success and power (Kasser, 2002, p. 9).
Kasser (2002) carefully evaluated the AI for its psychometric quality and reports that
findings based on its use agree well with similar findings using both Belk’s (1985)
and Richins and Dawson’s (1992) scales. The AI asks respondents to report, “how
important to you is it that in the future” followed by an aspirational statement such as
“you will have lots of expensive possessions.” The response format is a seven-point
scale anchored by “not important at all” and “extremely important.”
Thus, the study evaluates the potential usefulness of the AI for consumer
researchers and apparel managers. It operationalizes unique concepts (namely, social,
attractive, financial) not included in the other commonly used measures and thus
affords consumer researchers with a new and different perspective on materialism and
its consequences. It has been applied in a marketing context and found to demonstrate
nomological validity with regard to marketing constructs (Goldsmith et al., 2011).
BESC
We used Sprott et al.’s (2009) eight-item BESC scale to operationalize this construct.
Sprott et al. developed their scale by reviewing relevant branding and self-concept
literature streams and evaluating the items for face, nomological, and criterion validity.
The scale is unidimensional, consistently high in internal consistency, and free from
social desirability and gender bias. We used a five-point Likert response format where
1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree.
Status consumption
To measure status consumption we used the five-item scale developed by Eastman
et al. (1999). The scale has often demonstrated unidimensionality and internal
109
Consumers and
clothing
behaviors

9. consistency (e.g. Heaney et al., 2005) and freedom from response artifacts. We used the
same Likert response format for this scale as for the BESC.
Clothing involvement and loyalty
We measured involvement with clothing using the three-item scale shown in Mittal and
Lee (1989). This scale provides a short, valid, and reliable measure of the emotional and
cognitive importance of clothing to consumers. The response format was the same as
that used for BESC and status consumption. We measured clothing brand loyalty
using a three-item measure developed by Beatty and Kahle (1988). The response
format was a nine-point agree/disagree scale. Descriptive statistics for all the scales
appear in Table I.
Results
Preliminary data analysis
We evaluated the scales for their dimensionality, discriminant validity, and internal
constancy. Common factor analysis followed by an oblique rotation where appropriate
showed that each scale was unidimensional and that the scale items loaded on their
appropriate factors. One item measuring clothing loyalty was removed because it did
not load highly enough on its factor to be included, leaving two items to operationalize
that construct. Internal consistency analysis revealed that the scales all had acceptable
a coefficients, which appear in Table III. t-Tests showed that the only male/female
differences (see Table II) in mean scores on the scales were easily understandable.
Women’s mean scores were higher than the men’s on the attractiveness aspiration scale
(Mwomen ¼ 25.0, SD ¼ 4.4 vs Mmen ¼ 21.3, SD ¼ 5.2; t ¼ 6.3, po0.005). This difference
resulted in the women having a higher overall materialism score (M ¼ 67.6, SD ¼ 11.3)
than did the men (M ¼ 63.4, SD ¼ 12.7; t ¼ 2.8, p ¼ 0.006). Moreover, the women’s
mean scores on the clothing involvement scale were higher than the men’s scores
(Mwomen ¼ 12.1, SD ¼ 2.2 vs Mmen ¼ 9.7, SD ¼ 2.9; t ¼ 7.2, po0.005). In addition, the
scale scores were largely uncorrelated with the age of the respondents (see Table III).
As replicated here, Sprott et al. (2009) also report that gender is unrelated to BESC. The
lack of a gender difference in status consumption is consistent with reports by
Eastman et al. (1997) and O’Cass and McEwen (2004).
Hypotheses tests
To test the hypotheses, we first observe the zero-order correlations in Table III, which
are all positive and significant, thus supporting all the hypotheses. Next, to examine
Variable Mean SD Range CR Skewness Kurtosis
Materialism 65.98 12.1 21-95 0.81 À0.666a
0.848a
BESC 25.21 5.99 8-38 0.90 À0.753a
0.309
Status 15.84 3.59 5-24 0.81 À0.398a
0.004
Involvement 11.14 2.74 3-15 0.91 À0.634a
0.042
Loyalty 10.94 3.66 2-18 0.78 À0.370a
À0.415
Notes: n ¼ 258; CR, construct reliability. a
Skewness or kurtosis more than twice its standard
error
Table I.
Descriptive statistics
110
JFMM
16,1

10. the multivariate relationships among the variables, explicitly incorporating their
intercorrelations, we fit the model shown in Figure 1 to the data following the two-step
method described by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, confirmatory factor analysis
was used to test the characteristics of the measurement model in which each item
loaded on its respective factor and all the factors were correlated. The CFA results
showed a reasonably good fit for the model (Hooper et al., 2008). The individual item
loadings were significant and ranged from 0.568 to 0.915. The average variance
extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeded 0.50, and the construct reliability
estimates were uniformly high (see Table I). The AVE for each latent factor exceeded
the respective squared correlation between the factors (see Table IV), evidencing
discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The fit statistics were: w(179)
2
¼
338.0, po0.001, w2
/df ¼ 1.89, CFI ¼ 0.944, TLI ¼ 0.934, IFI ¼ 0.945, SRMR ¼ 0.051,
RMSEA ¼ 0.059.
Materialism BESC Status Involvement Loyalty
Materialism (0.91)
BESC 0.50** (0.90)
Status consumption 0.51** 0.46** (0.81)
Involvement 0.44** 0.38** 0.47** (0.90)
Loyalty 0.34** 0.51** 0.48** 0.37** (0.78)
Sexa
0.17** 0.00 0.10 0.43** À0.07
Age À0.10 À0.10 À0.14* À0.08 À0.13*
Notes: Pearson’s zero-order correlations below the diagonal; cronbach a coefficients on the diagonal in
parentheses. *po0.05; **po0.01. a
point biserial correlations, where 0 ¼ men and 1 ¼ women
Table III.
Correlations
Men Women t-value p-value Cohen’s
Measures (n ¼ 101) (n ¼ 157) d
Materialism 63.4 67.6 À2.8 0.006 0.35
(12.7) (11.3)
Social 20.8 20.7 0.12 0.90
(5.5) (5.6)
Attractive 21.3 25.0 À6.3 o0.005 0.78
(5.2) (4.4)
Financial 21.4 21.9 À1.2a
0.24
(4.1) (3.1)
BESC 25.2 25.2 À0.01 0.99
(6.1) (6.0)
Status 15.4 16.1 À1.6 0.12
(3.4) (3.7)
Involvement 9.7 12.1 À7.2a
o0.005 1.08
(2.9) (2.2)
Loyalty 11.3 10.7 1.15 0.253
(3.4) (3.8)
Notes: SDs are shown in parentheses. a
Equal variance not assumed
Table II.
Tests of mean differences
between men and women
111
Consumers and
clothing
behaviors

11. We tested the conceptual model in Figure 1 and report the results in Table V and in
Figure 2. These results showed a reasonable fit of the model to the data. The w2
on 180
df was 340.9, with po0.001, CFI ¼ 0.943, TLI ¼ 0.934, IFI ¼ 0.944, SRMR ¼ 0.052, and
RMSEA ¼ 0.059. The standardized path coefficients shown in Table V show that four
of the hypotheses continue to be supported, but that two of them are more complicated,
because the direct relationships can be accounted for by relationships with other
variables (see Spector and Brannick, 2011).
H1 proposed that materialism is positively related to clothing involvement. This
hypothesis is supported (SPC ¼ 0.43). This finding supports the contention that higher
Materialism
Brand
engagement
Status
consumption
Clothing
involvement
Clothing
brand
loyalty
H1
H4
H2
H5
H3
H6
Figure 1.
The conceptual research
model
Materialism BESC Status Involvement Loyalty
Materialism (0.59) 0.28 0.44 0.38 0.17
BESC 0.53* (0.54) 0.27 0.16 0.35
Status 0.66* 0.52* (0.47) 0.28 0.37
Involvement 0.62* 0.41* 0.53* (0.77) 0.18
Loyalty 0.41* 0.59* 0.61* 0.43* (0.64)
Notes: n ¼ 258. Correlation estimates from CFA analysis in lower diagonal; AVEs on the diagonal;
shared variances in upper diagonal. *pp0.0001
Table IV.
Correlation estimates
and shared variances
Hypothesized paths SPC
H1 Materialism-Involvement 0.43**
H2 Materialism-Loyalty À0.11
H3 BESC-Involvement 0.07
H4 BESC-Loyalty 0.40**
H5 Status-Involvement 0.22*
H6 Status-Loyalty 0.47**
Notes: Goodness of fit statistics: w(180)
2
¼ 340.9, po0.001, w2
/df ¼ 1.89, CFI ¼ 0.943, TLI ¼ 0.934,
IFI ¼ 0.944, SRMR ¼ 0.052, RMSEA ¼ 0.059, *po0.05; **po0.01
Table V.
Structural model results
112
JFMM
16,1

12. levels of materialism manifest in greater importance and interest attached to clothing
as a product category, likely because clothing is such a universal symbol of
materialistic success.
H2 proposed that BESC is positively related to clothing involvement. The
non-significant SPC (0.07) shows that while BESC is related to clothing involvement,
this association is not a direct relationship but is likely due to the influence of other
variables. Simply using brands to express one’s self apparently does not directly lead to
an interest in clothing per se, but is a consequence of the effects of some other factor.
H3 proposed that status consumption is positively related to clothing involvement.
This hypothesis was supported (SPC ¼ 0.22), confirming previous research (Goldsmith
et al., 2011). Similarly to the case of materialism, status consumption also appears to
manifest itself in an interest in clothing, likely because of the status signaling feature of
this product category.
H4 proposed that materialism is positively related to clothing brand loyalty.
This hypothesis was not supported (SPC ¼ À0.11). It seems as if materialism leads
consumers to pay attention to clothing, but the association between materialism and
brand loyalty is not direct. Perhaps the influence of another variable or variables
accounts for the observed association.
H5 proposed that BESC is positively related to clothing brand loyalty. This
hypothesis was supported (SPC ¼ 0.40). Not unexpectedly, higher levels of using brands
to express self-image appear to be related to clothing brand loyalty. We can surmise that
consumers interested in using brands this way discover those clothing brands that
successfully express their self-concepts and stick with them until they fail to do so.
H6 proposed that status consumption is positively related to clothing brand loyalty.
This hypothesis was also supported (SPC ¼ 0.47). In contrast to the relationship
between materialism and brand loyalty, status consumption seems to lead consumers
to identify brands that signal status and become loyal to them.
Notes: Hypotheses tested in solid lines. Additional paths estimated in dotted lines.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
Brand
engagement
Materialism
Status
consumption
Clothing
involvement
R2
= 0.41
Clothing
brand loyalty
R2
= 0.48
0.43**
–0.11
0.07
0.40**
0.22*
0.47**
(0.14)
0.535**
0.522**
0.665**
Figure 2.
The structural model
113
Consumers and
clothing
behaviors

13. Follow-up analyses
First, we repeated the correlation analysis for the men and the women separately.
Despite the fact that there were a few gender differences in mean scores, these analyses
revealed that the correlations between materialism and the other four variables were
very similar in size for men and women, suggesting that gender does not moderate
these relationships.
Second, we evaluated the correlations for the possible influence of common method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We used the “marker variable” approach described by
Lindell and Whitney (2001) and by Malhotra et al. (2006). We included a separate scale
in the questionnaire as a “marker variable” to assess the influence of common method
bias on the results. This scale was a three-item “involvement with athletic shoes” scale.
It was hypothesized that the construct it measured is theoretically unrelated to the
specific constructs in the study, but it used the same response format as the clothing
involvement measure. The smallest positive correlation among the variables was
between status consumption and this measure of shoe involvement (r ¼ 0.024). As
suggested by Lindell and Whitney (2001), we computed the adjusted t-statistic for
the smallest correlation among the constructs (materialism and loyalty; r ¼ 0.34). The
analysis yielded a t-value of 5.5 (po0.05), indicating that common method variance is
unlikely to account for the significant relationship observed between materialism and
clothing loyalty. Thus, our efforts to mitigate the effects of common method bias
apparently mitigated this problem.
Third, we tested an alternative model in which clothing involvement directly
influences clothing brand loyalty, reflecting the positive correlation between these two
constructs (r ¼ 0.37). This test is shown in Figure 2 by the dotted line linking the two
constructs. Adding this path to the model did not improve its fit to the data over that
of the hypothesized model (difference w(1)
2
¼ 2.9, p40.05). Apparently, the positive
relationship observed between these two constructs is due to their common
relationships with the other variables and they do not directly influence each other. We
also tested a model (not shown) in which BESC and status consumption, marketplace-
specific variables, mediate the relationship between materialism, the basic and
fundamental individual difference, and the domain-specific dependent variables. This
model, however, did not fit the data nearly as well as the model in the figures.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine relationships between materialism,
BESC, and status consumption with two clothing-related behavior outcomes: clothing
involvement and clothing brand loyalty. The theoretical literature proposes that
materialism, brand engagement, and status consumption motivate much consumer
behavior (e.g. Belk, 1985; Eastman et al., 1999; Gabriel and Lang, 2006; Graham, 1999;
O’Cass and Frost, 2002; Rudmin, 1991; Sprott et al., 2009). Very few studies, however
(e.g. Eastman et al., 1999; Sprott et al., 2009), establish positive relationships between
materialism and domain-specific marketplace outcomes. Our study used a new,
psychometrically sound measure of materialism and a new measure of BESC along
with a well-established measure of consuming for status to operationalize the focal
constructs. The results of the study confirm and support previous studies that show
that the three focal concepts are positively related to each other. In addition, the
findings suggest materialism and status consumption have positive relationships with
clothing involvement, and brand engagement and status consumption are positively
related to brand loyalty for clothing. Taken as a whole, the model shows that these
114
JFMM
16,1

14. three related motivating constructs are important influences on specific consumer
behavior outcomes.
Theoretical implications
The results of the study have important implications not only for explaining how
closely related motivations for materialism, brand engagement, and status
consumption are and how these relate to domain-specific market behaviors, but also
for how basic psychological characteristics are related to consumption style and
consumption behaviors. A theme in consumer research has been that personality
drives some consumption, but is hard to measure and use personality concepts. Here
we present measurement of three relatively high-level personality variables and
suggest how they drive specific consumer behaviors, an enduring interest in clothing
and loyalty to clothing brands. We demonstrate psychological factors influencing
important marketplace outcomes. Understanding how materialism and its related
concepts work to motivate marketplace orientations and behaviors gets to the root of
understanding the sources from which people expect to derive happiness. Materialism,
status consumption, and brand engagement are fundamental tendencies motivating
many people to look for happiness and identity in possessions, and we see in our study
that this constellation of characteristics underlies involvement with clothing and loyalty
to clothing brands. While the finding is not a big surprise, it has yet to be operationalized
and contributes to the nomological network in which materialism, status consumption,
and brand engagement play themselves out in the world of behaviors.
The results use a new method, the AI, to operationalize materialism, and a new scale,
BESC. Because the materialism results replicate earlier findings they add to the validity
of these findings by showing they are not due to mono-operation bias. Moreover, the AI
operationalizes materialism as three sub-constructs that are not explicated by the other
measures. It provides a new and well thought out perspective on materialism. The
results also extend the study of brand engagement into new topic areas where it should
provide a good explanation for many aspects of heightened consumer behavior.
Methodological implications
This paper provides three main methodological implications. One is the introduction of
Kasser’s (2002) AI into the marketing literature. This brief scale demonstrates excellent
psychometric properties and measures materialism in a very concrete way. We have
shown that it is not confounded by social desirability and correlates in expected ways
with the other variables. The AI gives consumer researchers the ability to examine the
differential influences of different aspects of materialism that are not operationalized
by the commonly used scale. Thus, they gain additional insight into the specific
motivations of materialistic consumers.
The second methodological contribution relates to the extension of the measure of
brand engagement. In the original scale development, the items were shown to be
related to a measure of brand loyalty that was expressed in terms of waiting for the
desired brand when other brands were already available. Here we measure loyalty
more directly and show the new scale relates strongly to brand loyalty. This result is a
good extension for what promises to be a powerful scale to aid in better understanding
how consumers use brands to express themselves.
The third contribution is the demonstration that common variance and socially
desirable responding likely have little influence on this measurement of materialism
and the brand engagement scale.
115
Consumers and
clothing
behaviors

15. Managerial implications
What managers can take away from our findings is that when they are seeing high
levels of things like clothing brand loyalty and involvement there are elements of
materialism, desire for status, and use of brands for building the self-concept behind
them. Apparently, the constellation of these three interrelated motivations
substantially influence clothing involvement and clothing brand loyalty. If managers
can see that their brand engaged customers are likely also materialists they will know
that they can be motivated by luxury, accumulation of items, and the trappings of fame
and success and even the security derived from the accumulation of goods. Brands
should be linked with status for these consumers.
For companies selling clothing we see that consumers who are involved with
fashion clothing are also likely to be more materialistic and brand and status
oriented than other consumers. This insight implies that they may be more
susceptible to sales approaches that bundle clothing into collections or outfits. More is
better for these consumers. One can imagine ads showing the ultimate, luxury
appointed walk-in closet full of the manufacturer’s clothing. The involvement of
consumers with clothing should also be developed. Involved consumers read
more, shop more, and are more likely to attend events such as fashion shows
(O’Cass, 2004). Brand managers should emphasize status, brand, and accumulation
through these outlets.
Retailers might put more emphasis on branding their stores by featuring brands
and brand names in displays and in specially branded sections. These big spenders
show brand loyalty. This insight argues for use of CRM tactics to reward brand loyalty
especially for materialistic consumers.
Limitations and future research
The principal limitations of the study lie in the data, the operationalizations, and the
underlying model. The sample consisted of a limited number of volunteer respondents
from a specific population. The findings consequently have limited external validity
so that replications with random samples and other populations are needed to define
the boundary conditions for the results. In particular, studies should be done in
other cultural settings either to verify the universality of these clothing orientations or
to set the boundary conditions for the model. There is no guarantee that consumers
in other countries respond in the same way as do these US consumers. Of particular
interest would be cultural differences in the meaning of materialism about which
there are conflicting findings. Although the variable operationalizations met the
criteria for reliability and validity, they remain self-reports. Future studies should use
behavioral operationalizations to validate the findings. The underlying model implies a
causal direction from materialism to its consequences. The present results and
those of many other studies exist only at the correlation or regression level. Additional
research should devise formal causal models and test them with SEM analysis.
Finally, the model is incomplete, specifying only a few of the variables to which
materialism is associated. Future research should focus on adding additional variables
to the model both as antecedents of materialism and consequences and additional
clothing outcomes such as opinion leadership and innovativeness should be evaluated
as well as heavy vs light users of fashion clothing. Finally, future research should
examine these findings in the marketplace. How might the interrelationships in
this model be useful in designing retail spaces and clothing-related marketing
communication?
116
JFMM
16,1

16. References
Ahuvia, A.C. and Wong, N.Y. (2002), “Personality and values based materialism: their
relationship and origins”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 389-402.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Beatty, S.E. and Kahle, L.R. (1988), “Alternative hierarchies of the attitude-behavior relationship:
the impact of brand commitment and habit”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Belk, R.W. (1985), “Materialism: trait aspects of living in the material world”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 265-80.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 139-67.
Benmoyal-Bouzaglo, S. and Moschis, G.P. (2010), “Effects of family structure and socialization on
materialism: a life course study in France”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 53-69.
Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M. (1983), “A theoretical model for the study of product importance
perceptions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 30, pp. 69-81.
Braun, O.L. and Wicklund, R.A. (1989), “Psychological antecedents of conspicuous
consumption”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 161-87.
Clark, R.A., Zboja, J.J. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2007), “Status consumption and role-relaxed
consumption: a tale of two consumers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 45-59.
Crowne, D.P. and Marlowe, D. (1964), The Approval Motive, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981), The Meaning of Things, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Dittmar, H. (1992), The Social Psychology of Material Possessions, St. Martin’s Press, New York,
NY.
Dittmar, H. and Pepper, L. (1994), “To have is to be: materialism and person perception in
working-class and middle-class British adolescents”, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 233-51.
Dollinger, S.J. and DiLalla, D.L. (1996), “Cleaning up data and running preliminary analyses”,
in Leong, F.T.L. and Austin, J.T. (Eds), The Psychology Research Handbook, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 167-76.
Dusenberry, J.S. (1949), Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Eastman, J.K., Goldsmith, R.E. and Flynn, L.R. (1999), “Status consumption in consumer
behavior: scale development and validation”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 41-51.
Eastman, J.K., Goldsmith, R.E., Campbell, D., Calvert, S. and Fredenberger, B. (1997), “Gender
differences in status consumption and materialism: a study of international consumer
behavior”, in Stuart, E.W. and Moore, E.M. (Eds), Enriching Marketing Practice and
Education, Southern Marketing Association, Atlanta, GA, pp. 128-31.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gabriel, Y. and Lang, T. (2006), The Unmanageable Consumer, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ger, G. and Belk, R. (1996), “Accounting for materialism in four cultures”, Journal of Material
Culture, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 183-204.
117
Consumers and
clothing
behaviors

17. Giddens, J.L., Schermer, J.A. and Vernon, P.A. (2009), “Material values are largely in the family:
a twin study of genetic and environmental contributions to materialism”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 428-31.
Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Clark, R. (2011), “The dimensions of materialism: a comparative
analysis of four materialism scales”, Proceedings of the Association of Marketing Theory
and Practice, Panama City Beach, FL, March 24-26.
Graham, J.F. (1999), “Materialism and consumer behavior: toward a clearer understanding”,
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 241-58.
Grewal, R., Cote, J.A. and Baumgartner, H. (2004), “Multicollinearity and measurement error
in structural equation models: implications for theory testing”, Marketing Science, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 519-29.
Hader, S. (2008), “Wooing luxury customers”, Marketing Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 27-31.
Heaney, J., Goldsmith, R.E. and Jusoh, W.J.W. (2005), “Status consumption among Malaysian
consumers: exploring its relationships with materialism and attention-to-social-
comparison-information”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 83-98.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M.R. (2008), “Structural equation modelling: guidelines
for determining model fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 53-9.
Inglehart, R. (1990), Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Kasser, T. (2002), The High Price of Materialism, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kasser, T. and Ryan, R.M. (1996), “Further examining the American dream: differential correlates
of intrinsic and extrinsic goals”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 280-7.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-21.
Loulakis, A. and Hill, R.P. (2010), “Status and materialism among college-aged women”,
American Marketing Association Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings, February
19-22, American Marketing Association, New Orleans, LA, pp. 45-52.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Patil, A. (2006), “Common method variance in IS research: a
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management
Science, Vol. 52 No. 12, pp. 1865-83.
Mittal, B. and Lee, M. (1989), “A causal model of consumer involvement”, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 363-89.
O’Cass, A. (2004), “Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion
clothing involvement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 869-82.
O’Cass, A. and Choy, E. (2008), “Studying Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in
fashion clothing and perceived brand status”, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 341-52.
O’Cass, A. and Frost, H. (2002), “Status brands: examining the effects of non-product-related
brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 67-88.
O’Cass, A. and McEwen, H. (2004), “Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-39.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
118
JFMM
16,1

18. Richins, M.L. (2004), “The material values scale: measurement properties and development of a
short form”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 209-19.
Richins, M.L and Dawson, S. (1992), “A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: scale development and validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 303-16.
Richins, M.L. and Rudmin, F.W. (1994), “Materialism and economic psychology”, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 217-31.
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J.E. and Denton, F. (1997), “Family structure, materialism, and
compulsive consumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 312-25.
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J.E. and Wong, N. (2009), “The safety of objects: materialism,
existential insecurity, and brand connection”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Roberts, J.A. and Jones, E. (2001), “Money attitudes, credit card use, and compulsive buying
among American college students”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 213-40.
Rudmin, F.W. (1991), To Have Possessions: A Handbook on Ownership and Property, Select Press,
Corte Madera, CA.
Ryan, L. and Dziurawiec, S. (2001), “Materialism and its relationship to life satisfaction”, Social
Indicators Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 185-97.
Saad, G. and Gill, T. (2000), “Applications of evolutionary psychology in marketing”, Psychology
and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1005-34.
Solomon, M.R. and Rabolt, N.J. (2004), Consumer Behavior in Fashion, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Spector, P.E. and Brannick, M.T. (2011), “Methodological urban legends: the misuse of statistical
control variables”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 287-305.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The importance of a general measure of brand
engagement on market behavior: development and validation of a scale”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104.
Truong, Y., Simmons, G., McColl, R. and Kitchen, J. (2008), “Status and conspicuousness – are
they related? Strategic marketing implications for luxury brands”, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 189-203.
Veblen, T. (1967/1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Penguin Books, New York, NY.
Wang, J. and Wallendorf, M. (2006), “Materialism, status signaling, and product satisfaction”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 494-505.
Watson, J.J. (2003), “The relationship of materialism to spending tendencies, saving, and debt”,
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 723-39.
Webster, C. and Beatty, R.C. (1997), “Nationality, materialism, and possession importance”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 204-10.
Corresponding author
Leisa R. Flynn can be contacted at: leisa.flynn@usm.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
119
Consumers and
clothing
behaviors