The present study has demonstrated the impact of consumer’s susceptibility of interpersonal influence and vanity aspects on luxury brand consumption. Study was conducted in the northwestern region of India with 650 research participants; quota sampling was used in the process of research. Researchers used SPSS 21.0 to explore reliability, factorability, and correlation among the variables. For analyzing the structural model, AMOS 21.0 was used. Results found that value-expressive influence affects luxury brand consumption more than utilitarian influence, and informational influence is positively related to luxury brand consumption. Results found that luxury brand consumption is associated with achievement aspects of luxury.
ASSOCHAM. (2016). India’s luxury market to break all-time record in 2016. ASSOCHAM.
2.
ArientiP. (2017). Global power of luxury goods the new luxury consumers. Deloitte.
3.
AwaisM., SaminT., GulzarM. A., HwangJ., & ZubairM. (2020). Unfolding the association between the big five, frugality, e-mavenism and sustainable consumption behavior. Sustainability, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020490
4.
BeardenW. O., NetemeyerR. G., & TeelJ. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2489543
5.
BeardenW. O., NetemeyerR. G., & TeelJ. E. (1990). Further validation of the consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence scale. The Association of Consumer Research, 17, 770–776.
ByarneB. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts applications, and programing (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
8.
ChakrabortyS., & SheppardL. (2016). An explanatory study on Indian young consumers' luxury consumption: The underlying relationship of interpersonal influence, brand image, brand consciousness and demographic components with luxury brand purchase decision. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 6(1), 622–634.
9.
ChangW.-L., LuL.-C., SuH.-J., LinT. A., & ChangK.-Y. (2011). The relationship among consumer vanity trait, materialism, and susceptibility to reference fashion anxiety. African Journal of Business Management, 5(9), 3466–3471.
10.
ChurchillG. A.Jr., (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150876
11.
CII-IMRB. (2015, Nov23). Emerging consumers of luxury lie in Tiers 2 and 3 cities: CII-IMRB report on luxury. http://www.cii.in/PressreleasesDetail.aspx?enc=WBPDNcI90c3sszoaPkRrQo50o8//J6NIp2+/B9V5c3GhpoSEanjKQhaTIs5FcHKI0DUkScl5x8oAK9l1m2afSA==
12.
De BarnierV., & Valette-FlorenceP. (2012). Culture and luxury: An analysis of luxury perceptions across frontiers. In: WiedmannK. P., & HennigsN. (Eds.), Luxury marketing. Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-4399-6_3
13.
Duruvasala. (2001). Does vanity describe other cultures? A cross-cultural examination of the vanity scale. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 180–199.
14.
DurvasulaS., & LysonskiS. (2010). Money, money, money – how do attitudes toward money impact vanity and materialism? The case of young Chinese consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(2), 169–279.
15.
FordJ. K., MacCALLUMR. C., & TaitM. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis. Prrsonnei. Psychology, 291–314.
16.
GefenD., StraubD., & BoudreauM. (2000). Structural equation modelling and regression guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1–74. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407
17.
HafizB., & ShaariJ. A. N. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis of first order factor measurement model ICT empowerment in Nigeria. International Journal of Business Management and Administration, 2(5), 081–088. http://academeresearchjournals.org/journal/ijbma
18.
HanY. G., NunesJ. C., & DrèzeX. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods the role of brand prominence. American Marketing Association, Journal of Marketing, 74, 15–30.
19.
HunagX., & KimH. (2013). College students’ purchase intention for luxury brand fashion counterfeit goods: A cross-cultural comparison. International Textile and Apparel Association, ITTA Proceeding, 70.
20.
IMF. (2017). Regional economic outlook for Asia and Pacific region. IMF.
21.
KastanakisM. N., & BalabanisG. (2014). Explaning variation in conspicuous luxury consumption an individual differences perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2147–2154.
22.
KroppF., LavackA. M., & SilveraD. H. (2005). Values and collective self-esteem as predictors of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence among university students. International Marketig Review, 22, 7–33.
23.
MathurA., BarakB., LeeK. S., ZhangY., & GouldS. J. (2010). Physical vanity across cultures: Measurement and validation. Journal for Global Business Advancement, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1504/JGBA.2010.036036
24.
MouraliM., LarocheM., & PonsF. (2005). Individualistic orientation and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(3), 164–173.
25.
NetemeyerR. G., BurtonS., & LichtensteinD. R. (1995). Trait aspects of vanity: Measurement and relevance to consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4), 612–626.
26.
NunnallyJ. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory (Vol. 1). McGraw Hill.
27.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill.
28.
O’CassA., & McEwenH. (2004). Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4, 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.155
29.
ParkC. W., & LessigV. P. (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in group influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 102–110.
Technavio. (2017). Global personal luxury goods market 2017–2021. Market research report industry analysis size and trends Technavio. Technavio.
32.
Van TeijlingenE., & HundleyV. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update, 35 (Winter).
33.
WootenD. B., & Reed IIA. (2004). Playing it safe: Susceptibility to normative influence and protective self-presentation. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.1086/425089
