Consumer Behavior Towards Personal Luxury Goods: The Mediating Role of Brand Attachment

Shadma Shahid
PhD Scholar,
Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi;
and Assistant Professor, MIET,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India;
and is the corresponding author.
E-mail: shadma137941@st.jmi.ac.in

Rahela Farooqi
Professor,
Jamia Millia Islamia,
New Delhi, India.
E-mail: rfarooqi@jmi.ac.in.

The Indian luxury market is seen as ‘Next China’, but little has been studied about this upcoming luxury market. With the growing number of luxury products for consumers in India, there is a need to understand the factors driving these consumers’ luxury purchase behavior. The aim of this paper is to develop and understand the Indian luxury products consumers’ buying behavior and test the mediating role of brand attachment between behavioral intention and luxury products actual purchase relationship. The study is based on a survey of real-time luxury consumers who have bought international luxury brands in three categories (Apparels, Footwear and Handbags). Structural equation modeling was applied to test the proposed hypotheses. The results of our study indicate a positive impact of brand attitude on social, functional and personal values, followed by a positive influence on purchase intention, which in turn positively influences actual purchase consumption. Brand attachment was found to partially mediate the relationship between consumer purchase intention towards luxury goods and their actual purchase.

Introduction

Globalization has brought luxury goods within the grasp of common man (Eng and Bogaert, 2010; and Brun and Castelli, 2013). The global demand for luxury products is increasing (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009) with annual luxury sales across the world estimated at $222 bn (Deloitte, 2016). This luxury market has showcased continuous growth (Bain & Company, 2014) across the years. The consumption of luxury goods has always been an attractive topic for academic researchers. Many researchers (Stokburger-Sauer and Teichmann, 2013; Dall’Olmo et al., 2015; Kapferer and Valette- Florence, 2016; Vigneron and Johnson, 2017; and Ahn et al., 2018) in the past have tried to study the consumer behavior for luxury products, but this market still has a dearth of information about the pattern followed by consumers in the consumption of luxury goods in different markets (Wiedmann et al., 2009). Studying the factors that influence consumer purchasing behavior and evaluating the impact of these constructs on consumer behavioral intentions lead to a true understanding and recognition of consumer behavior, which can maximize consumers’ intention to buy the luxury goods (Bian and Forsythe, 2012). The advance in progress and awareness on this subject is apparent in academic literature as several books, specialized journals and articles are devoted to this topic. These works include a large number of topics concerning consumer behavior on luxury products, including the motivation behind luxury consumption, values associated with luxury consumption, cultural differences and counterfeits of luxury products among others. However, previous researchers have not been able to ascertain the luxury consumers’ actual purchase behavior. Therefore, it will be stimulating to explore consumer behavior towards luxury goods and how consumer intention changes into actual purchase behavior.

A large part of research work on this topic has been undertaken in the US and Europe, but there are limited studies in developing countries like India. The luxury sector in India is playing an important role in the economic growth of the country as the demand for luxury goods is increasing. This study attempts to fill the gap in the previous literature by examining the consumer behavior and the role of consumers’ attachment with the luxury brand they buy in the Indian context with specific focus on personal luxury goods (apparels, handbags, and footwear).

While a few research works account for positive consumer purchase intention towards purchase of luxury goods, this indecisiveness demands further investigation on consumer purchase intention changing into consumers’ actual purchase behavior. Most of the studies dealing with consumer purchase behavior are either experiential in nature or have studied the student samples. But in reality, the response of consumers may differ when measuring the real-time luxury consumer behavior. Therefore, it would be interesting to study the consumer brand attitude, luxury value perception and purchase intention and its subsequent effect on their actual purchase behavior.

This study aims at: (1) Exploring consumer brand attitude and determining consumers’ perceived values and studying their relationship; (2) Exploring whether consumer purchase intention changes into actual purchase behavior; and (3) Role of brand attachment in forming consumers’ actual purchase behavior. The findings of this study will make it possible for luxury marketers to supply and introduce a product that is more compatible with the consumers’ needs and demands. In other words, they can provide a commodity that is the result of the factors affecting consumers’ behavior increasing the intention to purchase (Ko et al., 2011).

As this study identifies the essential reasons for diverse Indian luxury market and consumer behavior, three important contributions of the study are: (a) First, the present study is of importance from the academic perspective, as this study will help in expanding the theoretical framework related to consumer consumption of luxury goods with respect to Indian consumers; (b) Secondly, this study identifies and generates measures of luxury consumer behavior and empirically validates these constructs; and (c) Lastly, the interrelationship between the generated constructs is examined with respect to personal luxury goods consumption, and consumer brand attachment is found to be impacting the actual consumption of luxury goods. The study findings exhibit implications for the luxury marketers which can help them in making strategies tailor-made for Indian luxury consumers.

Literature Review

Luxury is defined as the highest level of prestigious brands (Vigneron and Johnson, 1999) along with the physical and psychological values attached to it. According to researchers (Kastanakis and Balabanis, 2014), consumers buy luxury goods for social status or to impress others along with the personal and hedonic characteristics associated with luxury goods (Wiedmann et al., 2009). These attributes of luxury goods have led to the expeditious growth in the consumption of luxury products (Dubois et al., 2005). Kapferer and Bastien (2009) opined that luxury consumption’s key function is conspicuousness and its ability to distinguish oneself from others acting as a social symbol for consumers. Previous research works even put forward other attributes of luxury goods consumption like status factor (Han et al., 2010), socio-psychological factor (Wiedmann et al., 2009), price display (Parguel et al., 2016) and emotional offering (Shukla and Purani, 2012) offered by luxury brands to its consumers.

Luxury Value Perception

As opined by Zeithaml (1988), value is defined as the comprehensive evaluation of subjective value of a product or services taking into account all applicable assessment standards. The literature defines consumer value as a “function of the extent to which the product contributes to the customer’s utility or pleasure” (Afuah, 2002), and “perceived benefits/perceived price” (Liljander and Strandvik, 1993). In short, consumer value is situational, personal and comparative as consumers may undergo a distinct value established on their choice for a certain product over others. Thus, values are also considered as beliefs that influence the assortment or assessment of alluring conduct or behavioral accomplishment (Schultz and Zelezny, 1999). This explanation of value is appropriate with respect to luxury goods as the consumption of these goods centers around the personal and social concepts (Shukla, 2010).

Scholars like Berthon et al. (2009) and Wiedmann et al. (2007) have given a theoretical framework to luxury value perception. However, the research works by these scholars indicate that the discussion on luxury value perception is theoretical and needs empirical investigation (Tynan et al., 2010). Regarding luxury consumption motives, previous research works indicate that consumer behavior differs with each individual on their disposition to interpersonal effect (Mason, 1981; and Pantzalis, 1995). Considering the consumption behavior that clarifies precisely why customers buy or refrain from buying certain products (Sheth et al., 1991), various factors impact the choice of consumers. Consumers’ luxury value perception and their motives to buy luxury brands are not only linked to the social factors that involve desire to impress others, display of status, uniqueness, success, accomplishments but also rely on the functional and personal effectiveness of the brand.

Functional Value

To please consumers’ requirements, the products are designed to execute certain functions. Functional value constitutes the perceived value of a substitute developing from its characteristics inherited or constructs built on the characteristic of a product to accomplish its utilitarian, functional or physical motives (Sheth et al., 1991; and Smith and Colgate, 2007). Wiedmann et al. (2007) gave significance to functional value concept of luxury goods. They proposed that to fulfill the desire and to distinguish themselves from others, the customers anticipate luxury goods to be unique, usable and of high quality. Consumers link luxury goods to high quality standards and reassurance and discern additional value from it. Price and quality of luxury brands go hand in hand and are intrinsic attributes of premium price and superior quality (Beverland, 2005). Tian et al. (2001) suggested that the need for uniqueness acts as an essential factor in consumers’ luxury consumption. Still Mason (1981) and Wiedmann et al. (2007) stated that not much has been studied about the impact of functional perception on consumption of luxury goods seeking more empirical investigation of these concepts.

Social Value

According to Kapferer (1997), the history of consumption of luxury goods is strongly established in the concept of societal hierarchy. Belk (1988) explained that the significant driving power that impacts a customer behavior is the desire to acquire prestige or social status from the possession and purchase of luxury products. Social value perceptions are predominantly outer-directed consumption. Individuals usually buy goods in line with the meaning they associate with themselves and their social reference groups (Wiedmann et al., 2007). Eastman et al. (1999) stated that buyers’ behavior to seek status is proportional to their luxury purchase behavior. O’Cass and McEwen (2004) also suggested that luxury goods are bought either for individuals’ internal factors (selfreward) or external factors (signal of wealth) which might or might not be exhibited publicly. As suggested by Tsai (2005), consumers showcase two reasons for their luxury purchase: social identification and social salience. This suggests that if the consumption of luxury goods is deemed to be socially acceptable, the consumers will have to accept such conduct to fit in with the social measures. This will result in gaining social edge over the reference group members.

Personal Value

Though previous studies show a strong relationship between social value and consumption of luxury goods, one of the prominent factors identified in the luxury consumption studies is the role of personal value perception (Tsai, 2005). It is perceived that luxury consumption is self-directed, and a growing number of individuals are buying luxury goods for symbolic and hedonic reasons (Ahuvia and Wong, 1998). Consumers looking for personal desires are more concerned about their identity to relate themselves with the product, attain a delightful experience from the consumption of goods and complement their personal taste with the image of the product (Ahuvia and Wong, 1998). Tsai (2005) stated that consumers look for individualistic satisfaction from the consumption of luxury goods by aiming at the attainment of hedonic pleasure and personal appreciation, instead of satisfying others’ beliefs. Wiedmann et al. (2009) posited that consumption concerning the personal self is not studied much and needs more investigation (Tsai, 2005).

Objective

The aim of this study is to investigate the Indian luxury consumers’ buying attitude towards international luxury brands. The paper tries to investigate the consumers luxury value perception and the role of consumer attachment with the brand.

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development

This study focuses on consumer brand attitude, luxury value perception, consumer behavior and the role of consumer attachment with the brand. The following section examines how the theoretical framework is developed and Figure 1 presents the conceptual model for this study.

Brand Attitude and Perceived Value

Attitude is a comprehensive subject and many scholars have used it in several contexts. Solomon (2009) defined it as “a lasting general evaluation of people, objects, advertisements, or issue”. It is an “intensive and motivated consumers’ intention to react to a particular object”. Building on this explanation, it can be said that consumer attitude can be formed in favor of a certain brand and this attitude formation is termed as ‘brand attitude’. It is also described as the consumers’ constant inclination to exhibit desirable/undesirable attitude regarding a specific brand (Yim et al., 2014). Additionally, consumer attitude with regard to a brand is formulated on consumers’ experience with the brand and so they are resistant to change (Boone and Kurtz, 2007).

Perceived value has been defined as the customer’s belief about the amount that he/ she will benefit when buying a product (Kim et al., 2008). Studies in the past show that brand attitude can directly affect the perceived value of brand (Hutchinson and Bennett, 2012). Considering the importance of perceived value, consumer behavior can be perceived well when his/her perceived value is examined (Ko et al., 2011). According to the theory of consumer behavior, one of the benefits of consumer attitude concerning luxury brand is the opportunity to strengthen the brand and gain a competitive advantage (Faust, 2013). It is therefore likely that positive brand attitude has a significant effect on consumers’ value perception (Liu et al., 2012; and Riley et al., 2015).

Examining the above-mentioned proposition and the conviction that the consumers’ value perception is impacted by consumers’ brand attitude, and to evaluate the influence of brand attitude on consumer perceived value, the authors formulated the following hypotheses:

H_1: Brand attitude positively influences consumers’ perceived personal value.
H_2: Brand attitude positively influences consumers’ perceived social value.
H_3: Brand attitude positively influences consumers’ perceived functional value.

Perceived Value and Purchase Intention

Values are implicit criteria which customers apply when judging their preferences. Research shows that perceived value affects customers’ purchase intention (Chang and Chen, 2012; and Ponte et al., 2015). Perceived value results from customers’ preferences and evaluation. Customers have expectations when purchasing and consuming products, and the more their expectations are fulfilled, the more the value for the products (Bao et al., 2011).

Effective luxury brand marketing necessitates consumers to regard adequate value in the luxury products to indemnify for the high price of these goods (Tynan et al., 2010). Luxury brand products are purchased by consumers for many different motives such as impressing others, interpersonal aspects, and personal and hedonic factors (Shukla et al., 2016). One of the factors influencing the purchase of luxury products is the perceived value of luxury brands. Perceived value refers to the different benefits of products from a consumers’ viewpoint (Yoo and Park, 2016), and the consumption of luxury products provides additional benefits to consumers (Vigneron and Johnson, 2004), thus helping in increasing their purchase intention.

On this basis, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H₄: Perceived personal value significantly influences consumers’ purchase intention.
H₅: Perceived social value significantly influences consumers’ purchase intention.
H₆: Perceived functional value significantly influences consumers’ purchase intention.

Purchase Intention and Actual Purchase Behavior

Purchase intentions are individual’s influence and inclination towards a product or brand (Ostrom, 1969; and Bagozzi et al., 1989). Intentions constitute “the person’s motivation in the sense of his/her conscious plan to exert effort to carry out a behavior” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).

Actual purchase behavior is the consumers’ action that leads to their actual purchase of the product. There have been many studies in the past (Wiedmann et al., 2007 and 2009; and Shukla, 2012) that have tried to capture the luxury consumers’ attitude towards formation of purchase intention of luxury goods, but few studies have tried to study the consumer intention changing into actual purchase behavior. As Ajzen (1991) stated, consumers’ actual purchase behavior is an outcome of their intention to purchase, and hence purchase intention should be followed by the actual purchase behavior of consumers. It can be said that if a consumer has a favorable perceived value and desirable purchase intention, it can be concluded that a certain product or brand will be bought considering the relationship between these two constructs.

Referencing from the existing literature, it is thus hypothesized that:

H₇: Purchase intention has a positive impact on consumers’ actual purchase of luxury goods.

Mediating Role of Brand Attachment

Attachment is considered as a crucial factor for a strong and long-lasting relationship between a consumer and a brand, and it is more than attitudinal influencer and reports for high consumer behavior allied to commitment. Park et al. (2006) stated that brand attachment is the strong influencer of “the cognitive and affective bond connecting the brand with the self ”. Brand attachment is the emotional attachment between the brand and the consumer. Therefore, brand attachment is an integral attribute of a connection linking the consumer and a brand causing an “automatic retrieval of thoughts and feelings about the brand” (Park et al., 2006). There are two points illustrating brand attachment: first is the intensity of the link between brand and self; and secondly, the consistency of beliefs and feelings with regard to a brand. So consumer attachment with the brands will also lead to actual purchase of the product. Hence, to test the consumers’ brand attachment in the luxury world, we hypothesized:

H₈: Consumers’ attachment with the luxury brand mediates the relationship between purchase intention and the actual purchase of luxury goods.

Data and Methodology

This theoretical model was tested with the young Indian luxury consumers who are avid users of luxury goods. The profiling was suitable as Indian luxury consumers are young, educated, working professionals with enough disposable income to shop for luxury goods; and mature and rational individuals to communicate different experience and reasons for luxury purchase that may give managerial insights to luxury marketers.

The sample for the survey constitutes luxury product consumers residing in Delhi— the capital of India and National Capital Region (NCR), that is, its surrounding cities, besides Bengaluru and Mumbai. Delhi NCR is ranked as number one (KPMGASSOCHAM India Luxury Summit, 2014) amongst India’s leading luxury retail cities and has the presence of luxury stores/malls, Mumbai, the fashion capital of India and Bengaluru, among the leading Indian metro cities. The consumers under this study are individuals in the age group of 25 to 40 years (ruling out limitations as to the frequent use of student samples; Peterson, 2001) who are working professionals and have purchased at least two luxury brands in each of the following three product categories (apparel, handbags and footwear) in the past one year.

Non-probabilistic sampling method has been employed combining convenience and snowball sampling methods. Only female consumers were contacted for this study as women account for 85% of global luxury sales in 2015. Given the growing number of female luxury consumers in India, it is essential for luxury brands to communicate to women’s hearts, minds and wallets at every level of the business.

To test the several dependent and independent relationships simultaneously under this study, the authors employed Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to validate the conceptual model and hypotheses. A SEM approach was conducted using maximum likelihood estimate, with AMOS 21. Based on the literature work (Hair et al., 2006), SEM uses two-stage model-building process. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), followed by evaluating the structural model and testing the path coefficients, was carried out. A structured questionnaire was designed focusing on consumers’ brand attitude, perceived value, purchase intention and brand attachment resulting in consumers’ actual purchase of luxury goods. All items were taken from the existing measurement scales and adjusted according to the requisites of the present study. The survey instrument comprised four sections. The questionnaire started with an introduction describing the aim and purpose of the study and the privacy concerns; then the items relating to consumer brand attitude and their perceived luxury values were asked; the third section items included brand attachment, purchase intention and actual purchase; and in the final section, the questions related to the demographic profile of the respondents were asked.

Brand attitude was measured with four items taken from the study of Sweeney and Soutar’s (2001). Items for perceived values were measured with six items for social value taken from the study of Truong et al. (2008); six items for personal value derived from the study of Babin et al. (1994) and Richins and Dawson (1992); six items for functional value measured from the study of Ruvio (2008), Tian et al. (2001) and Tsai (2005). Three purchase intention items were measured using the scale by Summers et al. (2006). Brand attachment items were reported through Lacoeuilhe (1999) scale. Finally, actual purchase of goods was taken from Schlegelmilchet et al. (1996) and Dubois et al. (2005) scales.

To assess the content validity and face validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by two professionals related with luxury brands. They were requested to improve the present questionnaire to exhibit the real market conditions. The questionnaire was further presented to two academicians who evaluated every item in the questionnaire for clarity, symbolism and certainty. Some of the items were paraphrased and some were deleted from the questionnaire. Lastly, a pilot test was conducted with 45 experienced female luxury product consumers. The final questionnaire had 34 items. All items were anchored from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ on a five-point Likert scale.

Results and Discussion

Sample Characteristics

Data for this study was collected using the survey method. Previous studies have reported this method of data collection in many empirical studies successfully (Phau and Prendergast, 2000; and Bian and Forsythe, 2012). The survey was administered personally using Snowball and Convenience Sampling method and Mall intercept method to collect the data from the real-time luxury consumers between 25 and 40 years of age. More than 850 consumers were contacted in Delhi NCR, Mumbai and Bengaluru resulting in a final usable sample of 384 fully completed questionnaires of people who were actual users of personal luxury goods. The respondents were contacted in luxury malls and personally from the data gathered through references and with the help of luxury store managers. The data from the real-time luxury consumers gave us realistic insight and evaluation of their luxury consumption behavior. The data was collected during eight weeks period. The sample size exceeds the minimum recommended value (Hair et al., 2006).

Details of respondents’ demographic profile are given in Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Analysis

Descriptive statistics are detailed in Table 2. Table 2 also presents the details of the measurement model that includes the measures and their reliability statistics, factor loading of items and Cronbach’s  value of each construct. The analysis shows that all items displayed standardized loadings exceeding 0.5. The reliability of the instrument was measured; Cronbach’s alpha method (Cronbach, 1951) and composite reliability index (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) were used. All the alpha values were greater than 0.70 (Cronbach, 1951) and all the CR values were above 0.7 (Hair et al., 2006), thus proving the reliability of the constructs.

Validity of Measure

Hair et al. (2010) stated two popular and most effective ways to validate an instrument: Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for construct validity (Malhotra and Dash, 2011) and maximum share variance rule for discriminant validity. After running the analysis, the AVE were greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010), indicating the instrument supports convergent validity (Gefen et al., 2000). For the purpose of evaluation of discriminant validity, the AVE values were correlated with the variance shared between the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) and Average Shared Variance (AVE) should be less than AVE for each construct. The results of our analysis met the criterion, indicating the existence of discriminant validity for our questionnaire. All values are shown in Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is a measurement modeling technique. CFA explains the relationship between the constructs and their measures, helping us with construct validity (Roberts et al., 1999). The measurement model included all the 34 constructs under our study. After performing CFA on the dataset available, the model fit indices

were derived, which shows an acceptable overall model fit: Seven factor model (2 = 885.89, degrees of freedom (df) = 503, p < 0.001) fits the data well along Hu and Bentler’s (1999) cut-off criteria: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04, Standardized Root Mean square Residual (SRMR) = 0.033, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.890, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.969, and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.973 indicating a satisfactory measurement model (Hair et al., 2010). Further, this study used three distinct estimates to diminish the common method bias. Firstly, respondents’ personal information was kept anonymous. Secondly, Harman’s single factor test was performed explaining 20.58% of variance. Thirdly, common latent marker analysis was also performed which showed no violations. Thus, common method bias is improbable to be present in our data.

Structural Analysis

After confirming the goodness of measure and the data, SEM approach was used to examine the hypotheses. To test the model fit and scrutinize whether the observed items have an impact on behavioral intentions, it was necessary to perform the structural analysis. The structural model analysis yielded the following results: X² = 930.131, degrees of freedom (df) = 517, p < 0.001, RMR = 0.05, TFI = 0.968, CFI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.044. All these values were within the acceptable range (Hair et al., 2010), indicating an overall good fit for the hypothesized model representing the structures underlying the observed data.

Path Analysis

The next stage was to investigate the hypothesized path coefficients (Hair et al., 2006). Table 4 shows the path coefficients for each hypothesis. The results confirm the significant effect of brand attitude on consumers personal value (β = 0.126; ρ = 0.016), consumers social value (β = 0.214; ρ = 0.000) and consumers functional value (β = 0.107; ρ = 0.040), supporting hypothesis H1, H2 and H3. Further, the impact of personal value (β = 0.189; ρ = 0.000), social value (β = 0.197; ρ = 0.000) and functional value (β = 0.106; ρ = 0.039) on consumers purchase intention was studied. The results supported H4, H5, H6 showing a positive impact of perceived values on consumers purchase intention. Further, the relationship between consumer purchase intention and their actual purchase of luxury goods is also found to be significant (β = 0.187; ρ = 0.000).

Mediation Effect of Brand Attachment

H8 posits the mediating role of brand attachment between purchase intention and actual purchase behavior. To test the proposed hypothesis first, we evaluated the path coefficient between the base model and consumer purchase intention and their actual purchase behavior was studied directly (β = 0.197; ρ = 0.000). Then we added a new variable brand attachment and calculated the mediating effect. The results showed partial mediation (β = 0.30; ρ = 0.017), supporting our hypothesis.

Theoretical Implications

With the increasing demand coming from the Asia-Pacific region and growing importance of emerging markets for luxury goods companies, studying the luxury consumption behavior has become very important. This paper empirically investigated the factors influencing Indian luxury goods consumers to purchase luxury goods through a conceptual framework (Figure I) based on previous literature. This study has tried to explore multiple constructs influencing Indian luxury consumers’ purchase decision leading to a better understanding of these factors across the Indian luxury market. The findings of the study show an interesting pattern of luxury consumers in India which adds to the growing literature on consumption of international luxury brands in India’s emerging economy. The results attained after conducting the structural analysis showed good-fit indices.

Firstly, the outcome from our study exhibited a positive and significant impact of brand attitude on consumers’ three perceived luxury values, namely, social, personal and functional. These results are consistent with the findings of the previous studies stating that consumers generally tend to behave according to the perceived luxury values (Wiedmann et al., 2009) of their reference groups. The findings from our study also revealed that the influence of consumers’ brand attitude on personal value, and social value is strong as compared to its influence on functional value, which indicated that consumers show a desirable brand attitude towards their favorite/preferred brand. The positive brand attitude also exhibits that though the Indian luxury goods consumers are young, they have good experience when it comes to purchase of luxury brands. This positive brand attitude also showcases these consumers’ loyalty towards their favorite brand. In addition, their brand attitude is an antecedent of the social, personal, and functional values which bring about positive behavioral intentions toward the company’s brand (Chattalas and Shukla, 2015).

Secondly, keeping with the previous research work, the social, functional and personal perceived values are found to have a positive influence on consumers’ purchase intention. Particularly, the impact of brand attitude on luxury consumers’ behavioral intention is exhibited through their perceived values. Considering the influence of the three perceived values on purchase intention, the findings of our study shows that social value highly influences their purchase intention (Farooqi and Shahid, 2014), followed by their personal and functional values. This could be due to the fact that Indian luxury consumers are found to be moving from collectivist to individualistic culture (Jain et al., 2015). These consumers are hunting for unique and high quality products along with functional values (Shukla, 2012) associated with luxury brands that enhance their personal value. These results are found to be in line with the previous luxury goods research works in India. The results of this study add to the growing literature on brand attitude theory by taking into consideration the impact of functional value on consumers’ identity and combining the functional identity aspect of luxury goods with the brand image theory, giving us a complete sketch of consumer behavior (Berger and Heath, 2007; and Han et al., 2010). The luxury marketers should focus on their consumers and design high quality, unique and appealing luxury products to boost the perceived functional value of consumers which would impact their purchase decision (Chattalas and Shukla, 2015).

Furthermore, the findings of the study indicate a significant relationship between consumers’ purchase intention and their actual purchase behavior. Previous studies showed a positive impact of purchase intention on consumers’ actual purchase behavior (Gormley, 1974), supporting the same results in the Indian context as well.

Mediating Role of Brand Attachment

In recent marketing research, brand attachment has been gaining merit due to the powerful emotional relationship between the consumers’ self and a brand (Malär et al., 2011). Brand attachment also has marketing value since it assists consumers pick a brand from a set of obtainable brands in a marketplace as it is built on emotional relationship between the consumers’ self and the consumers’ perceived representations of brand’s personality. In our study, the relationship between consumer purchase intention and actual purchase behavior is found to be mediated by brand attachment and brand attachment playing a positive role between intention and actual purchase behavior (Thomson et al., 2005). Consumers tend to strike an emotional bond with brands and in some cases these bonds can be very strong, especially during luxury consumption when the consumers’ self is reflected in the brand image (Fournier, 1998). Brand attachment is an emotional bond and thus it is expected to mediate the comprehensive relationship, sentiments and fondness towards a favorite brand and consumers’ actual purchase behavior. This could be because consumer relationship between an individual and a brand is based on the deep feelings of affection, relation and passion they have with their luxury product purchase. Consumers go with a certain mindset and extensive research when buying luxury products, so they are attached to the brands they buy mostly due to their previous experience or reference group recommendations. Shestakov (2012) in his study found that consumer attachment with the brand influences their purchase intention. It is found that if consumers are attached to a brand, then it is highly significant that their purchase intention will change into their actual purchase behavior supporting our study findings.

Managerial Implications

Besides these theoretical implications, the study also contributes towards the managerial implications for the already established luxury players in India and 70% international luxury players trying to crack the luxury code in the Indian luxury market and approaching luxury consumer base.

The findings of our study recommend that once a consumer is attached to a brand, then he/she will prefer to purchase that brand, so the luxury marketers should concentrate on providing luxurious experience to the consumers that would help them in getting attached to the brand. The luxury products should provide benefits to their consumers, including functional benefits and enhance their personal and social image. These consumers are moving to personal self-concept, but still these consumers are found to display their consumption during the social functions, especially during parties and wedding seasons, along with their reference groups where the Indians spend maximum money. So the international luxury consumers should design, develop and deliver the luxury goods and services according to the needs and seasons of the Indian consumers.

International luxury brands trying to woo the Indian consumers can utilize this research work in making strategies to create customer value for consumers looking out for luxurious lifestyle, trying to build their self-image and acceptance in the society helping the marketers to gain new luxury consumers and retain their already established consumer base.

Conclusion

This study makes three contributions: First, the results from the study show that the Indian luxury consumers look for complete value from the product they purchase and their brand attitude is an antecedent to their perceived value, which in turn acts as an antecedent to their purchase intention. Second, purchase intention is the predictor of consumers’ actual purchase of luxury goods, i.e., our findings showcase intent-behavior relationship. Third, the mediating role of brand attachment in consumers’ actual purchase of luxury goods is evaluated. The findings revealed that purchase intention positively impacts consumers’ actual purchase of luxury goods, and more impact is found if these consumers are attached to the brand.

These findings are empirically tested and verified. They confirm the study results where the relationship between perceived value (Wiedmann et al., 2009) and consumer intention has been studied (Shukla, 2012). Consumer purchase intention should lead to their actual purchase of luxury goods in order for the luxury marketers to gain benefit. Even though studies in the past have not examined actual purchase behavior as a significant factor, they have assumed that once consumer intention is created, they will purchase the luxury good. Many researchers have given a call to examine the actual consumer behavior with the real-time luxury goods consumers. The present research acknowledged this call and extended the present literature by examining the consumers’ actual purchase behavior along with the role of brand attachment that plays on their actual purchase of luxury goods.

Limitations and Future Scope:

Apart from the important findings listed above, there are limitations to this study. The present model is only tested with three categories of personal luxury goods and has considered only female luxury goods consumers who have purchased and consumed personal luxury goods in the past 12 months in Delhi NCR, Mumbai and Bengaluru. Therefore, the findings are not generalized to other regions. The authors suggest that the present model be tested in other categories of personal luxury goods and in other states of India, as India is a country with diverse cultures and consumption patterns. Further, Bain & Company (2012) reports that the growth of men’s personal consumption of luxury goods outperforms the growth of women’s consumption, though women are still the leading consumers of luxury goods. Men’s luxury goods consumption could be studied and a gender comparison could be done.

References

1. Afuah A (2002), “Mapping Technological Capabilities into Product Markets and Competitive Advantage: The Case of Cholesterol Drugs”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 171-179.
2. Ahn J, Park J K and Hyun H (2018), “Luxury Product to Service Brand Extension and Brand Equity Transfer”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 42, pp. 22-28.
3. Ahuvia A and Wong N (1998), “The Effect of Cultural Orientation in Luxury Consumption”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, pp. 29-32.
4. Ajzen I (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 179-211.
5. Babin B J, Darden W R and Griffin M (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 644-656.
6. Bagozzi R, Baumgartner H and Yi Y (1989), “An Investigation into the Role of Intentions as Mediators of the Attitude-Behavior Relationship”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 35-62.
7. Bagozzi R P and Yi Y (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 74-94.
8. Bain & Company (2012), “Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study”.
9. Bain & Company (2014), “The Rise of the Borderless Consumer”.
10. Bao Y, Bao Y and Sheng S (2011), “Motivating Purchase of Private Brands: Effects of Store Image, Product Signatureness, and Quality Variation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 220-226.
11. Belk R (1988), “Possessions and Self ”, Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing.
12. Berger J and Heath C (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 121-134.
13. Berthon P, Pitt L, Parent M and Berthon J P (2009), “Aesthetics and Ephemerality: Observing and Preserving the Luxury Brand”, California Management Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 45-66.
14. Beverland M (2005), “Brand Management and the Challenge of Authenticity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 460-461.
15. Bian Q and Forsythe S (2012), “Purchase Intention for Luxury Brands: A Cross Cultural Comparison”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp. 1443-1451.
16. Boone L E and Kurtz D L (2007), Contemporary Marketing, 13th Edition, Thomson/ South-Western, Mason, OH.
17. Brun A and Castelli C (2013), “The Nature of Luxury: A Consumer Perspective”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 41, Nos. 11-12, pp. 823-847.
18. Chattalas M and Shukla P (2015), “Impact of Value Perceptions on Luxury Purchase Intentions: A Developed Market Comparison”, Luxury Research Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 40-57.
19. Chen Y S and Chang C H (2012), “Enhance Green Purchase Intentions: The Roles of Green Perceived Value, Green Perceived Risk, and Green Trust”, Management Decision, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 502-520.
20. Cronbach L J (1951), “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 297-334.
21. Dall’Olmo Riley F, Pina J M and Bravo R (2015), “The Role of Perceived Value in Vertical Brand Extensions of Luxury and Premium Brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 31, Nos. 7-8, pp. 881-913.
22. Deloitte (2016), “Global Powers of Luxury Goods”.
23. Dubois B, Czellar S and Laurent G (2005), “Consumer Segments Based on Attitudes Toward Luxury: Empirical Evidence from Twenty Countries”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 115-128.
24. Eagly A H and Chaiken S (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
25. 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. 41-52.
26. Eng T Y and Bogaert J (2010), “Psychological and Cultural Insights into Consumption of Luxury Western Brands in India”, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 55-75.
27. Faust M E (2013), “Cashmere: A Lux-Story Supply Chain Told by Retailers to Build a Competitive Sustainable Advantage”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 41, Nos. 11-12, pp. 973-985.
28. Fornell C and Larcker D F (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39-50.
29. Fournier S (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-373.
30. Gefen D, Straub D W and Boudreau M C (2000), “Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 1-70.
31. Gormley R (1974), “A Note on Seven Brand Rating Scales and Subsequent Purchase”, Journal of the Marketing Research Society, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 242-244.
32. Hair J F, Black W C, Babin B J et al. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th Edition, Upper Saddle River, Revised 2010.
33. Hair J F, Black W C, Babin B J and Anderson R E (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
34. Han Y J, Nunes J C and Drèze X (2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 15-30.
35. Hu L T and Bentler P M (1999), “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-55.
36. Hutchinson M and Bennett G (2012), “Core Values Brand Building in Sport: Stakeholder Attitudes Towards Intercollegiate Athletics and University Brand Congruency”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 434-447.
37. Jain V, Roy S and Ranchhod A (2015), “Conceptualizing Luxury Buying Behavior: The Indian Perspective”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 211-228.
38. Kapferer J N (1997), “Managing Luxury Brands”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 251-259.
39. Kapferer J N and Bastien V (2009), “The Specificity of Luxury Management: Turning Marketing Upside Down”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16, Nos. 5-6, pp. 311-322.
40. Kapferer J N and Valette-Florence P (2016), “Beyond Rarity: The Paths of Luxury Desire. How Luxury Brands Grow Yet Remain Desirable”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 120-133.
41. Kastanakis M N and Balabanis G (2014), “Explaining Variation in Conspicuous Luxury Consumption: An Individual Differences’ Perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67, No. 10, pp. 2147-2154.
42. Kim D J, Ferrin D L and Rao H R (2008), “A Trust-Based Consumer Decision- Making Model in Electronic Commerce: The Role of Trust, Perceived Risk, and their Antecedents”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 544-564.
43. Ko E, Lee M A, Lee M Y et al. (2011), “Product Attributes’ Effects on Perceived Values and Repurchase Intention in Korea, USA, and France”, Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 155-166.
44. KPMG-ASSOCHAM (2014), India Luxury Summit-(2014), available at https:// www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/ KPMGASSOCHAM-India-Luxury-Summit-2014.pdf
45. Lacoeuilhe J (1999), Proposition d’une échelle de mesure de l’attachement à la marque. Actes du Congrès International de l’AFM, Strasbourg, pp. 1-13.
46. Liljander V and Strandvik T (1993), “Estimating Zones of Tolerance in Perceived Service Quality and Perceived Service Value”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 6-28.
47. Liu F, Li J, Mizerski D and Soh H (2012), “Self-Congruity, Brand Attitude, and Brand Loyalty: A Study on Luxury Brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Nos. 7-8, pp. 922-937.
48. Malhotra N K and Dash S (2011), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 6th Edition, Pearson Education, NJ.
49. Malär L, Krohmer H, Hoyer W D and Nyffenegger B (2011), “Emotional Brand Attachment and Brand Personality: The Relative Importance of the Actual and the Ideal Self ”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 35-52.
50. Mason R S (1981), Conspicuous Consumption, St. Martin’s, New York.
51. O’cass A and McEwen H (2004), “Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous Consumption”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 25-39.
52. Ostrom Thomas M (1969), “The Relationship Between the Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Components of Attitude”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 12-30.
53. Pantzalis I (1995), “Exclusivity Strategies in Pricing and Brand Extension”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation University of Arizona, Tucson.
54. Parguel B, Delécolle T and Valette-Florence P (2016), “How Price Display Influences Consumer Luxury Perceptions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 341-348.
55. Park C W, MacInnis D J and Priester J R (2006), “Beyond Attitudes: Attachment and Consumer Behavior”, Seoul National Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 3-36.
56. Peterson R A (2001), “On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 450-461.
57. Phau I and Prendergast G (2000), “Consuming Luxury Brands: The Relevance of the ‘Rarity Principle’”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 122-138.
58. Ponte E B, Carvajal-Trujillo E and Escobar-Rodríguez T (2015), “Influence of Trust and Perceived Value on the Intention to Purchase Travel Online: Integrating the Effects of Assurance on Trust Antecedents”, Tourism Management, Vol. 47, pp. 286-302.
59. 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. 303-316.
60. Roberts J S, Laughlin J E and Wedell D H (1999), “Validity Issues in the Likert and Thurstone Approaches to Attitude Measurement”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 211-233.
61. Ruvio A (2008), “Unique Like Everybody Else? The Dual Role of Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 444-464.
62. Schlegelmilch B B, Bohlen G M and Diamantopoulos A (1996), “The Link Between Green Purchasing Decisions and Measures of Environmental Consciousness”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 35-55.
63. Schultz P W and Zelezny L (1999), “Values as Predictors of Environmental Attitudes: Evidence for Consistency Across 14 Countries”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 255-265.
64. Shadma S and Farooqi R (2014), “The Art of Branded Luxury: Indian Consumers Buying Behaviour”, Journal of IMS Group, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 16-23.
65. Shestakov A A (2012), “Moderating Role of Brand Attachment in Brand Crisis. To What Extent Does Brand Attachment Affect Purchase Intention in Brand Crisis: A Study Based on Apple’s Crisis in China”, (Master’s Thesis).
66. Sheth J N, Newman B I and Gross B L (1991), “Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 159-170.
67. Shukla P (2010), “Status Consumption in Cross-National Context: Socio- Psychological, Brand and Situational Antecedents”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 108-129.
68. Shukla P (2012), “The Influence of Value Perceptions on Luxury Purchase Intentions in Developed and Emerging Markets”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 574-596.
69. Shukla P and Purani K (2012), “Comparing the Importance of Luxury Value Perceptions in Cross-National Contexts”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp. 1417-1424.
70. Shukla P, Banerjee M and Singh J (2016), “Customer Commitment to Luxury Brands: Antecedents and Consequences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 323-331.
71. Smith J B and Colgate M (2007), “Customer Value Creation: A Practical Framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 7-23.
72. Solomon M R (2009), Consumer Behavior Buying, Having and Being, 8th Edition, Pearson Education, New Jersey.
73. Stokburger-Sauer N E and Teichmann K (2013), “Is Luxury Just a Female Thing? The Role of Gender in Luxury Brand Consumption”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 7, pp. 889-896.
74. Summers T A, Belleau B D and Xu Y (2006), “Predicting Purchase Intention of a Controversial Luxury Apparel Product”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 405-419.
75. Sweeney J C and Soutar G N (2001), “Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 203-220.
76. Thomson M, MacInnis D J and Park C W (2005), “The Ties that Blind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 77-91.
77. Tian K T, Bearden W and Hunter G (2001), “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 50-66.
78. Truong Y, McColl R and Kitchen P J (2009), “New Luxury Brand Positioning and the Emergence of Masstige Brands”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16, Nos. 5-6, pp. 375-382.
79. Tsai S P (2005), “Impact of Personal Orientation on Luxury-Brand Purchase Value”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 429-454.
80. Tynan C, McKechnie S and Chhuon C (2010), “Co-Creating Value for Luxury Brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, No. 11, pp. 1156-1163.
81. Vigneron F and Johnson L W (1999), “A Review and a Conceptual Framework of Prestige-Seeking Consumer Behavior”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-15.
82. Vigneron F and Johnson L W (2004), “Measuring Perceptions of Brand Luxury”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 484-506.
83. Vigneron F and Johnson L W (2017), “Measuring Perceptions of Brand Luxury”, in Advances in Luxury Brand Management, pp. 199-234, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
84. Wiedmann K P, Hennigs N and Siebels A (2007), “Measuring Consumers’ Luxury Value Perception: A Cross-Cultural Framework”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2007, No. 7, pp. 1-2.
85. Wiedmann K P, Hennigs N and Siebels A (2009), “Value-based Segmentation of Luxury Consumption Behavior”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 625-651.
86. Yim Yi-Cheon M, Sauer L P, Williams J et al. (2014), “Drivers of Attitudes Toward Luxury Brands: A Cross-National Investigation into the Roles of Interpersonal Influence and Brand Consciousness”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 363-389.
87. Yoo J and Park M (2016), “The Effects of e-Mass Customization on Consumer Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty Toward Luxury Brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 12, pp. 5775-5784.
88. Zeithaml V A (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means- End Model and Synthesis of Evidence”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 2-22.