Gender Differences in Millennial Consumers of Latin America Associated with Conspicuous Consumption of New Luxury Goods

Abstract

Conspicuous consumption has been studied in the millennial generation in the United States and Asia; in Latin America, however, it has scarcely been analysed. The purpose of this study is to examine whether conspicuous motivations in millennial consumers are more prominent in men than in women associated with the consumption of new luxury goods in Latin America. A survey was developed to measure conspicuous motivation, more specifically, bandwagon and snob effects. It was responded by 712 university students located in five different cities in Chile. The findings of the study showed that the bandwagon and snob motivations were higher in men than in women. Men also showed a greater tendency than women to purchase and use new luxury products in social contexts. These results suggest that managers could adjust their marketing strategies to better target millennial consumers of new luxury products.

Keywords

Millennial generation conspicuous motivation new luxury gender bandwagon effect snob effect

Introduction

The purchase of luxury products has increased significantly in the last decade, particularly in the new luxury category, which refers to the massification of luxury generated by technological and management improvements (Silverstein & Fiske, 2003). New luxury has achieved high growth in sales due to accelerated economic development in emerging countries such as China (BCG & Altagamma, 2018; Bettiol, Chiarvesio, Di Maria, & Tabacco, 2016). A group that has been targeted by prestigious and accessible brands is the millennial generation—people born between 1980 and 2000 (DeVaney, 2015; Young & Hinesly, 2012)—because of their higher income and access to technology (UBS Group AG, 2018). BCG and Altagamma (2018) forecasts that by 2024, an estimated 50 per cent of purchases of luxury goods in the world will be bought by millennials.

Conspicuous motivation—defined as the search for social prestige—is recognized as one of the main drivers for the consumption of luxury products (Clingingsmith & Sheremeta, 2018; Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014). Two types of conspicuous motivation are commonly recognized: the bandwagon effect—the use of brands to obtain membership and acceptance in prestigious social groups—and snob effect—the rejection of goods and brands used by consumers because they are considered less prestigious (Leibenstein, 1950). The development of prestigious and accessible brands has focused on mass groups like the millennial generation (DeVaney, 2015; Young & Hinesly, 2012).

Several studies have examined conspicuous motivation in relation to socio-demographic variables, such as age and gender (e.g., Amatulli, Guido, & Nataraajan, 2015; O’Cass & McEwen, 2004; Roux, Tafani, & Vigneron, 2017), and psychological conditions such as self-concept and tendency to materialism (e.g., Chacko, Prashar, & Ramanathan, 2018; Podoshen & Andrzejewski, 2012; Truong & McColl, 2011). Studies have found that men show a greater tendency than women to consume luxury goods due to conspicuous motivation (Kamineni, 2005; O’cass & McEwen, 2004) and search for social acceptance through product exposure (Tse, Belk, & Zhou, 1989). Men also show a greater tendency to use status to validate themselves in their work environment and social circles (Segal & Podoshen, 2013). However, there is limited knowledge about whether conspicuous motivation is a relevant driver for the consumption of new luxury goods by Latin America’s millennial generation and whether gender differences are observed. These are the main research issues examined in this study, with a focus on a sample of the Chilean millennial population.

Based on previous research on conspicuous motivation as a driver of new luxury consumption and gender differences observed in this regard, we asked the following research questions: Is the conspicuous motivation of bandwagon and snob types more prominent in men than in women in the millennial generation? Do men tend to show more preference than women to purchase and use new luxury products in work and social contexts? Does conspicuous motivation have high or low relevance in general for this group?

The structure of the article is as follows: the second section presents a literature review on luxury, new luxury and the conspicuous consumption in the millennial generation highlighting differences found between male and female consumers. The third section presents the objectives and rationale of the study. The fourth section explains the methodology employed in the study. The fifth section presents the main findings with their respective statistical analyses; and finally, discussion is presented in the sixth section with the main conclusions and options for future research.

Literature Review

Luxury and New Luxury

Luxury is considered a relative concept. A product can be defined as luxurious depending on who is consulted and the context of its use (Heine, 2012; Mortelmans, 2005). Kapferer (2008, p. 96) points out that the definition of luxury is in ‘constant movement’ because its conditions are permanently transformed. A recent definition of luxury is proposed by Heine (2012), who indicates that ‘luxury products have more than necessary and ordinary characteristics compared to other products of their category, which include their relatively high level of price, quality, aesthetics, rarity, extraordinariness, and symbolic meaning’ (p. 55). Silverstein and Fiske (2003) develop the concept of new luxury, which refers to the massification of luxury generated by technological and management improvements, which implies a reduction of production costs on exclusive and high-priced goods. Brun and Castelli (2013) point out that the new luxury is accessible by a large number of consumers. According to Kapferer and Bastien (2009), the reduction in the prices of luxury goods has generated the concept of ‘democratization of luxury’, that is, the sale of extraordinary products to ordinary people.

New luxury has substantially increased in relevance. Several published studies have focused on new luxury in countries such as the United States and China; however, in South America, studies of this subject are still incipient. In Chile, according to information published by Nielsen (2017), consumption of premium products similar to new luxury goods has increased significantly and maintains high growth projections. Such growth is explained by consumers’ perception of improved financial conditions, the greater purchasing power of the population and online access to products of prestigious brands.

Conspicuous Motivations: Bandwagon and Snob Effects

Various theories have been developed to explain the motivations that lead to preference for, purchase and consumption of luxury products, such as self-concept, social comparison, self-expression, singularity and conspicuous consumption theories (Ko, Costello & Taylor, 2019; Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). Specifically, conspicuous consumption theory identifies the pursuit of social status as the primary driver of luxury consumption. People consume luxury products to transmit signals to their social environment and gain greater prestige. The origin of this approach is the conspicuous consumption theory of Veblen (1899), a perspective that emerged as a critique of the neoclassical theory of consumption (Trigg, 2001). The relevance of conspicuous motivation has been supported by several studies over the years (Bronner & de Hoog, 2018; Dittmar, 1994; Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014; Vohra, 2016). Patsiaouras and Fitchett (2012) indicate that the emergence of new luxury has extended the concept of conspicuous consumption, distancing itself from its economic and elitist origin.

Leibenstein (1950) identifies two types of conspicuous motivations—the bandwagon and snob effects. Under the bandwagon effect, the usefulness of the consumption of a product for a person is more significant if more individuals of status consume it (Becker, 1991). The snob effect, in the inverse sense, is related to the avoidance of consumption of products that are consumed by people of low social condition (Mason, 1981). The utility of consumption of a product decreases as its use by ordinary people increases.

Luxury Consumption by the Millennial Generation

People born between 1980 and 2000 are identified as the millennial generation (DeVaney, 2015; Young & Hinesly, 2012) and, as a category, has been used in different thematic areas, such as the sharing economy and recycling (Godelnik, 2017), financial behaviour (Shaw & Waite, 2015) and behaviour towards mobile devices (Eastman, Iyer, Liao-Troth, Williams, & Griffin, 2014). From the perspective of luxury products, the millennial segment has offered significant opportunities, particularly the development of new luxury goods (Stein & Sanburn, 2013). The True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight study (BCG & Altagamma, 2018) states that by 2024, 50 per cent of the luxury industry sales in the world will be made by millennial consumers. Market research by the UBS Group AG (2018) indicates that 18–35-year-old consumers accounted for 85 per cent of the growth in the luxury market in 2017, and the millennial generation contributed with 65 per cent of Saint Laurent’s revenues and 33 per cent of Gucci’s revenues in the same year.

Millennials show distinctive behaviours about luxury goods. They are buying luxury goods at an earlier age compared to previous generations, they are willing to spend more and they tend to shop impulsively (Grotts & Widner Johnson, 2013; Stein & Sanburn, 2013). As evidence of millennials’ distinctive behaviours, True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight 2018 (BCG & Altagamma, 2018) shows that millennials tend to combine prestigious and non-prestigious brands. Approximately 55 per cent of this group purchased low-price branded bags or T-shirts and combined them with exclusive and luxury brand sneakers or shoes. Based on these observations, perceptual positioning of products linked to tradition and wealth may not be effective in promoting luxury products for millennial customers, and consequently, new luxury brands should adapt their marketing strategies accordingly (Giovannini, Xu, & Thomas, 2015).

Regarding conspicuous consumption, the level of status sought by consumers is higher in millennials than in baby boomers (i.e., those born between 1946 and 1964) (Pitta, Eastman, & Liu, 2012). Young professional millennials tend to search for status by exhibiting symbols of prestige (Heugel, 2015). Millennials show a greater tendency to value sustainability, product quality and personal experiences. Winston (2016) points out that millennials in the United Kingdom and the United States express higher expectations for the actions of companies and their products because they believe that luxury brands cannot ignore sustainability. Smith and Brower (2012) state that millennials in the United States read product labels looking for information to discern if a product is environmentally sustainable and appreciate the reputation of companies.

Gender and Conspicuous Consumption

Previous research has shown that male consumers are more inclined to purchase luxury goods due to conspicuous motivation, explained particularly by their tendency towards materialism (Kamineni, 2005; O’cass & McEwen, 2004). Men are more disposed to search for social acceptance through product exposure (Tse et al., 1989) and to seek validation of their social environment by using status as a resource (Segal & Podoshen, 2013).

With respect to gender differences in motivations for purchasing products, a study by Hudders (2012) found that people’s materialism is favourably related to expressive motives of consumption, with male consumers showing higher expressive motives than female consumers. Expressive motives consist of transmission of signals from the consumer to other people when using products, whereas impressive motives consider the purchase of luxury products for personal benefit as related to hedonic pleasure and functional performance (Miller, 2009).

Similarly, Stokburger-Sauer and Teichmann (2013) concluded, after studying clothing, perfume and watch categories in Germany, that women tend to express a more favourable attitude towards traditional luxury, and that they prefer hedonic experiences. They also search for unique value in categories associated with self-expression, such as accessories and cosmetics. In addition, Wiedmann, Hennigs, and Siebels (2007) argued that women consider various aspects of luxury goods, such as quality and uniqueness, and not just the social value that they obtain from luxury brands.

From a biological perspective, Saad and Vongas (2009) claimed that testosterone is associated with conspicuous behaviours. Their research shows that testosterone in men increased as they drove an expensive sports car and then partially decreased as they drove an old family sedan. More recently, a study by Wu, Eisenegger, Sivanathan, Crockett, and Clark (2017) examined how the outcome of social competition affected conspicuous consumption and its relationship with competition-induced testosterone levels. They found that preference for higher-status versus lower-status products increased when winning competitions; however, no relationship was found between competition outcomes and testosterone levels.

Table 1.

Distribution of Respondents According to Income Range

Income Range	Women (N)	Men (N)	Total (N)
0–636,459	231	114	345
636,460–1,022,729	113	84	197
>1,022,730	76	94	170
Total (N)	420	292	712

Source: The authors.

Note: Amounts in Chilean Pesos. 726 Chilean Pesos was Equivalent to $1 in September 2019.

Objectives and Rationale of the Study

Previous studies have shown differences between men and women regarding the conspicuous motivation associated with the consumption of luxury goods. Thus, the main objective of this study is to test whether these differences are observed in millennial consumers regarding the consumption of new luxury goods in Latin America. We expect to expand the knowledge about the motivations for the consumption of new luxury in a country with an emerging economy in Latin America such as Chile. Furthermore, the millennial generation is a segment that has been analysed in recent research for their growing purchase power and participation in the labour market. The information will contribute to marketing decisions for new luxury brands.

Methodology

Data Sampling

A survey to observe the differences between male and female participants on bandwagon and snob behaviours associated with the consumption of new luxury products was administered to 752 students, aged between 18 and 37, from a Chilean university that has campuses in several cities and serves students from a low-to-middle-income background. Chilean consumers have had growing access to prestigious products in the last 20 years due to better economic conditions, trade agreements and high availability of consumer credits (Nielsen, 2017).

A total of 712 millennial students correctly responded to the survey. The average age was 22.69 (SD = 4.33) for female students (N = 420) and 22.59 (SD = 3.93) for male students (N = 292). All participants signed an informed consent form before responding to the survey. The data used in this study were part of a larger study that examined personality traits as predictors of new luxury consumption. Table 1 presents information on the sample analysed.

Survey Design

The survey was developed as follows. First, to determine brands that would be recognized by millennials as new luxury goods, 62 brands in the following categories were selected—clothing, perfume, smartphones, audio, coffee shops and chocolate. In each category, new luxury brands were included (e.g., Lacoste, Starbucks and iPhones). Then, a questionnaire was administered to assess whether millennials would recognize these brands. A total of 123 college students from the same Chilean university responded to the questionnaire. The results indicated that the most new-luxury brands were recognized in the clothing, perfume and smartphone categories, which included brands such as Ralph Lauren, Giorgio Armani, Dolce Gabbana and iPhone. These categories and brands were incorporated into the final survey. Brands included in the audio, coffee shop and chocolate categories were not recognized as new luxury goods or were less prominent than those in the selected categories. Next, to measure bandwagon and snob behaviours, the scales proposed by Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014) were adapted to and integrated into the final survey. Sixteen students were asked to review this instrument and indicate their difficulties in understanding the questions and measurement scales. Based on the feedback, adjustments were made. The measurement scales were based on their use in previous research related to the topics and their recognized reliability measure. It also included items related to the consumption and use of new luxury brands in social contexts in the clothing, perfume and smartphone categories. Additionally, family income was assessed through an ordinal scale that included socioeconomic levels. Age was asked about as an open question. Table 2 presents the items linked to conspicuous behaviours and product purchase and use in social contexts.

Table 2

. Items for Bandwagon and Snob Behaviours, and Product Purchase and Use Variables

Variable	Items	Scale
Bandwagon behaviour (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014)	B1: You prefer clothing brands with high prestige and quality if worn by most people as a symbol of achievement.	7 Levels, totally agree to totally disagree
	B2: You prefer clothing brands with high prestige and quality if it is well valued by prominent people.
	B3: You wear clothing brands with high prestige and quality, if worn by people recognized for their achievements.
Snob behaviour (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014)	S1: You prefer high quality and prestige clothing brands only if such brands are known to a small group of people.
	S2: You prefer high quality and prestige clothing brands only if such brands are exclusive and of limited production.
	S3: You prefer high quality and prestige clothing brands only if such brands are worn by an exclusive group of people.
Product purchase and use	C1: When buying clothes for yourself, you select brands of quality and prestige, such as Polo Ralph Lauren, Columbia, North Face, Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste or similar.
	C2: You wear in your workplace or place of study, clothing brands of quality, and prestige, such as Polo Ralph Lauren, Columbia, North Face, Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste or similar.
	C3: You wear in social gatherings with friends or family, clothing brands of quality, and prestige, such as Polo Ralph Lauren, Columbia, North Face, Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste or similar.

Source: The authors.

Notes: This table includes only the items in the clothing (C) category, the items in the perfume (P) and smartphone (SP) categories were very similar.

Table 3.

Factor Analysis on Product Purchase and Use Variable for Each Category

Category		Cronbach’sAlpha	p-Value	Loading	AVE	CR
Clothing	C1		<0.01	0.913
	C2	0.942	<0.01	0.926	0.843	0.942
	C3		<0.01	0.916
Perfume	P1		<0.01	0.795
	P2	0.931	<0.01	0.977	0.848	0.943
	P3		<0.01	0.979
Smartphone	SP1	0.926	<0.01	0.929	0.814	0.929
	SP2		<0.01	0.957
	SP3		<0.01	0.815

Note: This table presents the items for the clothing (C), perfume (P) and smartphone (SP) categories.

Source: The authors.

Statistical Analysis

Medians were computed on the responses for the items associated with the variables measured—conspicuous motivation (i.e., bandwagon and snob) and product purchase and use in social contexts. Mann–Whitney U tests were used to assess statistical differences between gender. These analyses are organized by category and income level. Additionally, a confirmatory factor analysis was carried out with the items associated with product purchase and use in social contexts, reporting Cronbach’s alpha and AVE parameters.

Findings

Factor Analysis

Table 3 presents the results of the confirmatory factor analysis on product purchase and use in social contexts in the clothing, perfume and smartphone categories. Cronbach’s alpha values exceeded 0.90, showing a high consistency of factorial constructs (Muñiz, 2005), with significant coefficients (p < 0.01) for the observed variables. Likewise, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values were higher than 0.75, implying an acceptable percentage of the variance explained by the factorial constructs. Also, the CR indices were higher than 0.90, which represents high reliability of the constructs (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1999).

Regarding the bandwagon and snob behaviours, the results also show adequate fit and validity of these factorial constructs. Cronbach’s alpha values exceeded 0.90, and significant coefficients were obtained (p < 0.01). The AVE indices exceeded 0.80, which implies a high percentage of explained variance. Finally, the CR indicators were higher than 0.90, representing high factor reliability.

Table 4.

Medians and p-Values for Mann–Whitney U Tests by Gender on Bandwagon Behaviour Items

			You Prefer Brands Used by Most People as a Symbol of Achievement		You Prefer Brands Valued by Prominent People		You Prefer Brands Used by People Recognized for Their Achievements
	Income	Gender	Median	p-Value	Median	p-Value	Median	p-Value
Clothes	0–636,459	Women	1.00	<0.01	1.00	<0.01	1.00	<0.01
		Men	3.00		3.00		3.00
	636,460–1,022,729	Women	3.00	0.13	3.00	<0.05	3.00	<0.05
		Men	3.00		3.00		4.00
	1,022,730 or more	Women	2.00	0.06	2.00	0.10	2.50	0.25
		Men	3.00		3.00		3.00
Perfumes	0–636,459	Women	1.00	<0.01	1.00	<0.01	1.00	<0.01
		Men	2.00		3.00		3.00
	636,460–1,022,729	Women	2.00	<0.05	3.00	0.17	2.00	0.12
		Men	4.00		3.00		3.00
	1,022,730 or more	Women	1.00	<0.01	2.00	<0.05	2.00	<0.05
		Men	2.50		3.00		3.00
Smartphones	0–636,459	Women	2.00	<0.05	2.00	0.16	2.00	0.08
		Men	2.00		2.00		2.00
	636,460–1,022,729	Women	3.00	<0.05	3.00	0.08	3.00	0.17
		Men	4.00		4.00		4.00
	1,022,730 or more	Women	2.00	<0.05	2.00	<0.01	2.00	<0.05
		Men	3.00		4.00		3.00

Source: The authors.

Note: Amounts in Chilean Pesos. 726 Chilean Pesos was Equivalent to $1 in September 2019.

Bandwagon Motivation

Table 4 shows the results regarding bandwagon behaviour in the clothing, perfume and smartphone categories differentiated by gender and income level. It can be observed that most median values were below the central (neutral) value equal to 4 in most of the items used to measure bandwagon motivation, which shows a tendency to disagree with the statements associated with this conspicuous behaviour.

With respect to comparison by gender, the medians present higher magnitudes for males than females in most of the observed items. Mann–Whitney U tests showed that most median differences (17 out of 27) between women and men were statistically significant, with a 99 per cent or 95 per cent confidence level (p < 0.01, p < 0.05) when analysed by product category and income level; this indicates that men showed a higher tendency than women for bandwagon behaviour.

Table 5.

Medians and p-Values for Mann–Whitney U Tests by Gender on Snob Behaviour Items

			You Prefer Brands Known to a Small Group of People		You Prefer Brands of Limited and Exclusive Production		You Prefer Brands Used Only by an Exclusive Group of People
	Income	Gender	Median	p-Value	Median	p-Value	Median	p-Value
Clothes	0–636,459	Women	2.00	<0.05	2.00	< 0.05	2.00	<0.01
		Men	3.00		3.00		3.00
	636,460–1,022,729	Women	3.00	<0.05	3.00	0.07	3.00	0.28
		Men	4.00		4.00		3.00
	1,022,730 or more	Women	3.00	0.06	4.00	< 0.05	3.00	<0.05
		Men	4.00		4.00		4.00
Perfumes	0–636,459	Women	2.00	<0.05	2.00	0.15	2.00	<0.05
		Men	3.00		3.00		3.00
	636,460–1,022,729	Women	3.00	0.05	3.00	0.15	3.00	0.05
		Men	4.00		4.00		4.00
	1,022,730 or more	Women	2.50	0.13	2.00	< 0.05	2.00	<0.05
		Men	4.00		4.00		4.00
Smartphones	0–636,459	Women	2.00	<0.05	2.003.00	0.10	2.00	<0.05
		Men	3.00				3.00
	636,460–1,022,729	Women	3.00	0.05	4.00	0.06	3.00	0.07
		Men	4.00		4.00		6.00
	1,022,730 or more	Women	3.00	<0.05	3.00	0.15	2.00	<0.01
		Men	4.00		4.00		4.00

Source: The authors.

Note: Amounts in Chilean Pesos. 726 Chilean Pesos was Equivalent to $1 in September 2019.

Snob Motivation

Table 5 presents the results obtained regarding snob behaviour in the clothing, perfume, and smartphone categories differentiated by gender and income level. As with the previous results on the bandwagon effect, most median values were below 4, which mostly indicates that they disagreed with the statements or were neutral. This evidence supports a low relevance of snob behaviour in the millennial generation analysed. Regarding median differences between women and men, it also showed that men tended to show a more prominent snob behaviour than women, indicated by statistically significant differences with 99 per cent or 95 per cent confidence level (14 out of 27) on the Mann–Whitney U tests (p < 0.01, p < 0.05).

Product Purchase and Use in Social Contexts

Table 6 presents the results obtained regarding the items used to measure product purchase and use in social contexts in the clothing, perfume and smartphone categories differentiated by gender. Like previous findings, most differences (8 out of 9) between women and men were statistically significant as assessed by the Mann–Whitney U tests with 99 per cent or 95 per cent confidence level (p < 0.01, p < 0.05), indicating that men tended to evaluate higher than women those statements associated with the purchase and use of new luxury products in work, study and social contexts. Additionally, the analysis presented in Table 6 incorporates the interquartile range (between the 75th and 25th percentiles) as a measure of dispersion. The results show that this parameter is higher in the male group in seven of the nine variables observed.

Table 6.

Medians, Interquartile Ranges (I.R.) and p-Values for Mann–Whitney U Tests by Gender

Items	Men		Women		p-Value
Items	Median	I.R.	Median	I.R.	p-Value
C1: When buying clothes for yourself, you select brands of quality and prestige, such as Polo Ralph Lauren, Columbia, North Face, Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste or similar.	4.0	5.0	2.0	4.0	<0.01
C2: You wear in your workplace or place of study, clothing brands of quality and prestige, such as Polo Ralph Lauren, Columbia, North Face, Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste or similar.	4.0	5.0	2.0	4.0	<0.01
C3: You wear in social gatherings with friends or family, clothing brands of quality and prestige, such as Polo Ralph Lauren, Columbia, North Face, Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste or similar.	4.0	5.0	2.0	4.0	<0.01
P1: When buying perfume for yourself, you select brands of quality and prestige, such as Giorgio Armani, Dolce Gabbana, Paco Rabanne, Ralph Lauren or similar.	5.0	6.0	2.0	5.0	<0.01
P2: You wear in your workplace or place of study, perfumes of quality and prestige, such as Giorgio Armani, Dolce Gabbana, Paco Rabanne, Ralph Lauren or similar.	5.0	6.0	3.0	4.0	<0.01
P3: You wear in social gatherings with friends or family, perfumes of quality and prestige, such as Giorgio Armani, Gabbana, Paco Rabanne, Ralph Lauren or similar.	4.0	6.0	3.0	5.0	<0.01
SP1: When buying a smartphone for yourself, you select a device of quality and prestige, such as an iPhone 8, iPhone X, Samsung Galaxy S8, Huawei P10 or similar.	6.0	5.0	5.0	6.0	0.14
SP2: You use in your workplace or place of study, smartphones of quality and prestige, such as iPhone 8, iPhone X, Samsung Galaxy S8, Huawei P10 or similar.	6.0	5.0	5.0	6.0	<0.05
SP3: You explain to friends, colleagues or family the advantages of smartphones of quality and prestige, such as iPhone 8, iPhone X, Samsung Galaxy S8, Huawei P10 or similar.	5.0	6.0	4.0	6.0	<0.01

Source: The authors.

Discussion, Conclusions and Implications

This research has found differences in conspicuous consumption expressed by men and women in a sample of Chilean millennials. The evidence indicates that men tend to show more traits of bandwagon and snob behaviours than women in the product categories analysed (i.e., clothing, perfume and smartphone) and for different income levels. Male participants also showed a greater tendency than women to purchase and use new luxury products in social contexts such as at work or study, and with friends or family.

These findings are in line with previous studies that have recognized differences by gender, regarding the conspicuous consumption of luxury products. Previous studies have recognized expressions of greater materialism in men than women (O’Cass & McEwen, 2004; Segal & Podoshen, 2013). Similarly, studies in evolutionary psychology have found that men tend to show more prominent competitive traits than women (Zahavi, 1975).

Additionally, this study found that the participants tended to evaluate on the lower end of the scale the statements associated with bandwagon and snob behaviours; although higher on statements related to purchase and use in social contexts of new luxury products. These results are consistent with previous research that maintains that this generation’s consumers tend to express greater collective awareness, and thus they prefer products that send signals of prosocial behaviours to their environment and tend to show altruistic behaviours such as the purchase of sustainable products (Johnson & Chattaraman, 2019; Kapferer & Michaut-Denizeau, 2020; Schemken & Berghaus, 2018). Similarly, Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, and Lance (2010) demonstrated that wage increases are less relevant to this generation compared to Generation X and that altruism and social awareness are characteristics that stand out in millennials.

A theoretical contribution of this research is to prove that gender differences, supported by evolutionary psychology in the consumption of luxury products and by the conspicuous consumption studied in previous generations, are maintained in millennial luxury consumers in Latin America. Such verification would allow sustaining that in the scope of the motivations of consumption of new luxuries, biological and cultural factors maintain their incidence on this generation.

Furthermore, these findings could have relevant implications for managers, particularly regarding helping them develop more effective marketing strategies that not only consider the specific needs of the millennial population but also ponder male and female consumers’ preferences. Most importantly, considering that conspicuous motivation is more prevalent in male consumers, product branding could be adjusted by highlighting social status and competitive behaviours. Consequently, clothing, perfume and smartphone companies could develop brand perceptual positioning associated with social prestige.

Limitations and Future Research

The participants that responded to the survey were university students from five different cities located in the north, centre and south of Chile. Future research is needed to study different populations, mainly working millennials, and examine whether similar patterns of conspicuous behaviour are observed. Studies may also look at different product categories and investigate complementary motivations that could influence the consumption of prestigious products such as self-expression.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions for improving the quality of the article. The usual disclaimers apply.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Gustavo Barrera Verdugo

Héctor R. Ponce

References

Amatulli

, Guido

, & Nataraajan

(2015). Luxury purchasing among older consumers: Exploring inferences about cognitive age, status, and style motivations. Journal of Business Research , 68(9), 1945–1952.

BCG, & Altagamma. (2018). True-luxury global consumer insight 2018 . Retrieved from http://media-publications.bcg.com/france/True-Luxury-Global-Consumer-Insight-2018.pdf

Becker

(1991). A treatise of the family . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bettiol

, Chiarvesio

, Di Maria

, & Tabacco

(2016). Luxury firms in China: The role of design and marketing capabilities. Global Business Review , 17(6), 1269–1279.

Bronner

, & de Hoog

(2018). Conspicuous consumption and the rising importance of experiential purchases. International Journal of Market Research , 60(1), 88–103.

Brun

, & Castelli

(2013). The nature of luxury: A consumer perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 41(11/12), 823–847.

Chacko

P. S.

, Prashar

, & Ramanathan

H. N.

(2018). Assessing the relationship between materialism and conspicuous consumption: Validation in the Indian context. Asian Academy of Management Journal , 23(2), 143–159.

Clingingsmith

, & Sheremeta

R. M.

(2018). Status and the demand for visible goods: Experimental evidence on conspicuous consumption. Experimental Economics , 21(4), 877–904.

DeVaney

S. A.

(2015). Understanding the millennial generation. Journal of Financial Service Professionals , 69(6), 11–14.

10.

Dittmar

(1994). Material possessions as stereotypes: Material images of different socio-economic groups. Journal of Economic Psychology , 15(4), 561–585.

11.

Eastman

J. K.

, Iyer

, Liao-Troth

, Williams

D. F.

, & Griffin

(2014). The role of involvement on millennials’ mobile technology behaviours: The moderating impact of status consumption, innovation, and opinion leadership. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 22(4), 455–470.

12.

Giovannini

, Xu

, & Thomas

(2015). Luxury fashion consumption and Generation Y consumers: Self, brand consciousness, and consumption motivations. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management , 19(1), 22–24.

13.

Godelnik

(2017). Millennials and the sharing economy: Lessons from a ‘buy nothing new, share everything month’ project. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions , 23, 40–52.

14.

Grotts

A. S.

, & Widner Johnson

(2013). Millennial consumers’ status consumption of handbags. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management , 17(3), 280–293.

15.

Hair

J. F.

, Anderson

R. E.

, Tatham

R. L.

, & Black

W. C.

(1999). Multivariate data analysis . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

16.

Heine

(2012). The concept of luxury brands. Luxury Brand Management , 1, 2193–1208.

17.

Heugel

(2015). Status consumption and the millennial consumer: An exploratory study (University Honors Program Theses). Georgia Southern University, Georgia, USA.

18.

Hudders

(2012). Why the devil wears Prada: Consumers’ purchase motives for luxuries. Journal of Brand Management , 19(7), 609–622.

19.

Johnson

, & Chattaraman

(2019). Conceptualization and measurement of millennial’s social signaling and self-signaling for socially responsible consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour , 18(1), 32–42.

20.

Kamineni

(2005). Influence of materialism, gender and nationality on consumer brand perceptions. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing , 14(1), 25–32.

21.

Kapferer

J. N.

(2008). The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand equity long term . London, UK and Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page Publishers.

22.

Kapferer

J. N.

, & Bastien

(2009). The specificity of luxury management: Turning marketing upside down. Journal of Brand Management , 16(5–6), 311–322.

23.

Kapferer

J. N.

, & Michaut-Denizeau

(2020). Are millennials really more sensitive to sustainable luxury? A cross-generational international comparison of sustainability consciousness when buying luxury. Journal of Brand Management , 27(1), 35–47.

24.

Kastanakis

M. N.

, & Balabanis

(2014). Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: An individual differences’ perspective. Journal of Business Research , 67(10), 2147–2154.

25.

, Costello

J. P.

, & Taylor

C. R.

(2019). What is a luxury brand? A new definition and review of the literature. Journal of Business Research , 99(6), 405–413.

26.

Leibenstein

(1950). Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 64(2), 183–207.

27.

Mason

R. S.

(1981). Conspicuous consumption . New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

28.

Miller

(2009). Spent: Sex, evolution, and consumer behaviour . New York, NY: Penguin.

29.

Mortelmans

(2005). Sign values in processes of distinction: The concept of luxury. Semiotica , 2005(157), 497–520.

30.

Muñiz

(2005). Utilización de los tests [Using the tests]. In Muñiz

, Fidalgo

A. M.

, García-Cueto

, & Martínez y R. Moreno

(Eds.), Análisis De Los Ítems [Analysis of the items] (pp. 133–172). Madrid, Spain: La Muralla, S. A.

31.

Nielsen. (2017). 8 out of 10 Chileans are totally or partially willing to pay more for premium products with high quality standards . Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/cl/es/insights/article/2017/8-de-cada-10-chilenos-estan-total-o-parcialmente-dispuestos-a-pagar-mas-por-productos-premium-con-altos-estandares-de-calidad/

32.

O’cass

, & McEwen

(2004). Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour , 4(1), 25–39.

33.

Patsiaouras

, & Fitchett

J. A.

(2012). The evolution of conspicuous consumption. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing , 4(1), 154–176.

34.

Pitta

, Eastman

J. K.

, & Liu

(2012). The impact of generational cohorts on status consumption: An exploratory look at generational cohort and demographics on status consumption. Journal of Consumer Marketing , 29(2), 93–102.

35.

Podoshen

J. S.

, & Andrzejewski

S. A.

(2012). An examination of the relationships between materialism, conspicuous consumption, impulse buying, and brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 20(3), 319–334.

36.

Roux

, Tafani

, & Vigneron

(2017). Values associated with luxury brand consumption and the role of gender. Journal of Business Research , 71, 102–113.

37.

Saad

, & Vongas

J. G.

(2009). The effect of conspicuous consumption on men’s testosterone levels. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes , 110(2), 80–92.

38.

Schemken

, & Berghaus

(2018). The relevance of sustainability in luxury from the millennials’ point of view. In Muthu

S. S.

(Ed.), Sustainable luxury, entrepreneurship, and innovation (pp. 103–130). Honk Kong: Bestseller.

39.

Segal

, & Podoshen

J. S.

(2013). An examination of materialism, conspicuous consumption and gender differences. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 37(2), 189–198.

40.

Shaw

, & Waite

(2015). Exploring the pension ‘X factor’ for generation Y men. Journal of Financial Services Marketing , 20(2), 122–132.

41.

Silverstein

M. J.

, & Fiske

(2003). Luxury for the masses. Harvard Business Review , 81(4), 48–57.

42.

Smith

K. T.

, & Brower

T. R.

(2012). Longitudinal study of green marketing strategies that influence Millennials. Journal of Strategic Marketing , 20(6), 535–551.

43.

Stein

, & Sanburn

(2013). Why millennials will save us all . Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation.

44.

Stokburger-Sauer

N. E.

, & Teichmann

(2013). Is luxury just a female thing? The role of gender in luxury brand consumption. Journal of Business Research , 66(7), 889–896.

45.

Trigg

A. B.

(2001). Veblen, Bourdieu, and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Economic Issues , 35(1), 99–115.

46.

Truong

, & McColl

(2011). Intrinsic motivations, self-esteem, and luxury goods consumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 18(6), 555–561.

47.

Tse

D. K.

, Belk

R. W.

, & Zhou

(1989). Becoming a consumer society: A longitudinal and cross-cultural content analysis of print ads from Hong Kong, The People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan. Journal of Consumer Research , 15(4), 457–472.

48.

Twenge

J. M.

, Campbell

S. M.

, Hoffman

B. J.

, & Lance

C. E.

(2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management , 36(5), 1117–1142.

49.

UBS Group AG. (2018). What trade war? Millennials scoop up Gucci, Hermes—UBS . Retrieved from https://www.ubs.com/global/fr/wealth-management/marketnews/home/article/_jcr_content.0164976961.file/ps9jb250zw50l2rhbs9pbxbvcnrlzc9jaw9yzxnlyxjjac9wzgyvmtmvotavmdcvnc8xmzkwmdc0l2vul3vzlzezotawnzqucgrm/1390074.pdf

50.

Veblen

(1899). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions . London, UK: Macmillan.

51.

Vigneron

, & Johnson

L. W.

(2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of Brand Management , 11(6), 484–506.

52.

Vohra

A. V.

(2016). Materialism, impulse buying and conspicuous consumption: A qualitative research. Global Business Review , 17(1), 51–67.

53.

Wiedmann

K. P.

, Hennigs

, & Siebels

(2007). Measuring consumers’ luxury value perception: A cross-cultural framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review , 7(7), 333–361.

54.

Winston

(2016, February 8). Luxury brands can no longer ignore sustainability. Harvard Business Review . Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/24643965/Luxury_Brands_Can_No_Longer_Ignore_Sustainability

55.

, Eisenegger

, Sivanathan

, Crockett

M. J.

, & Clark

(2017). The role of social status and testosterone in human conspicuous consumption. Scientific Reports , 7(1), 11803.

56.

Young

A. M.

, & Hinesly

M. D.

(2012). Identifying millennials’ key influencers from early childhood: Insights into current consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Marketing , 29(2), 146–155.

57.

Zahavi

(1975). Mate selection: A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology , 53(1), 205–214.