The effect of different motivations to buy luxury goods on the evaluation
of luxury brands’ extensions
A cross-regional perspective
Master thesis
Student: Clara Gabriela Nuta
Student ID: 10232788
Supervisor: Roger Pruppers
1|Page
Abstract
The moderating impact of two different consumer’s motivations to buy luxury goods (self- and
social motivation) on the relation between perceived product fit and the consumer’s attitude
towards a new luxury extension was investigated within the present research. The present study
aimed, as well, at a better understanding of the relation between context of purchase (i.e. cultural
and socio-economic context the consumer belongs to) and the motivation the consumer develops
towards the idea of purchasing luxury products. A cross-cultural and socio-economic angle
between Eastern European and Western European consumers’ motivations was approached given
the historical socio-economic developments that still differentiate the two European regions.
The test was done on a data set of 316 respondents, almost equally split between Eastern
European and Western European nationalities. Two questionnaires, one developed around a high
fit extension with the core product category, and the other one, on a low fit extension, were used
to gather the data.
Familiarity and luxury dimension were pre-tested for the three luxury brands, Dom Perignon,
Jaguar, Guerlain, to support in choosing the appropriate luxury brand for the main test. The lowand the high-fit extensions were pre-tested as well among consumers. In consequence, Dom
Perignon was chosen for the study with Dom Perignon bottle openers, as a high-fit extension and
Dom Perignon men ties as a low fit extension.
On the basis of our findings, it can be concluded that self-related motivation acts as a moderator
on the relation between fit and attitude towards the new luxury brand extension, while social
motivation does not. In addition to that, Western European consumers do differentiate from
Eastern European consumers when it comes to motivations to buy luxury goods, in the sense that
Eastern Europeans scored higher on social motivation.
These findings extend the previous research on luxury brand extensions, more specifically,
focused on factors that could moderate the relation between fit and attitude towards the new
extension, as well as previous body of research focused on consumers’ motivations to buy luxury
goods.
2|Page
Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6
Luxury brands and the difference in motivations to buy luxury brands ......................................... 6
1.1 The implication of different motivations to buy luxury brands on brand extension
evaluations ................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Problem definition ................................................................................................................. 8
1.3.1 Problem statement .......................................................................................................... 8
1.3.2 Sub-questions.................................................................................................................. 8
1.2
Delimitations of the study ................................................................................................ 9
1.5 Contribution .......................................................................................................................... 9
1.5.1 Theoretical contributions ................................................................................................ 9
1.5.2 Managerial contributions .............................................................................................. 10
1.6 Outline of the research ........................................................................................................ 10
Chapter 2: Luxury brands ............................................................................................................. 11
2.1 The dimension of luxury ..................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Luxury brands vs. Functional brands .................................................................................. 12
2.3 Motivations to buy luxury brands ....................................................................................... 14
Chapter 3: Brand extensions ......................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Role of brand extensions ..................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Types of brand extensions ................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Brand extensions’ evaluation processes – drivers of evaluations ....................................... 16
3.4 Evaluation of luxury brands’ extensions and the risk of brand dilution ............................. 17
Chapter 4: Context of purchase and the consumption of luxury products .................................... 20
4.1 Democratization of luxury .................................................................................................. 20
4.2 Motivations to buy luxury goods in a cross-national, cross-cultural context...................... 20
4.3 Motivations to buy luxury brands, cultural context of purchase and the evaluation of luxury
brand extensions ........................................................................................................................ 23
Chapter 5: Conceptual model and hypothesis development ......................................................... 25
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 25
5.2 The direct impact of perceived fit on attitude extension ..................................................... 25
3|Page
5.3 Luxury as a subjective concept. Different motivations in buying luxury brands in a crosscultural context .......................................................................................................................... 26
5.4 Consumer’s different motivations for buying luxury brands as moderators on the direct
impact of perceived fit on attitude extension ............................................................................ 30
Chapter 6: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 32
6.1 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 32
6.2 Stimuli requirements ........................................................................................................... 32
6.3 Pre-test: brands familiarity, luxury dimension, high fit and low fit extensions .................. 33
6.4 Results of the pre-test .......................................................................................................... 35
6.4.1 Reliability ..................................................................................................................... 35
6.4.2 Comparing scales’ means across brands ...................................................................... 38
6.5 Main study ........................................................................................................................... 44
6.5.1 Development of the questionnaire ................................................................................ 44
6.5.2 Sample .......................................................................................................................... 45
6.5.3 Measurement .................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 7: Results ......................................................................................................................... 50
7.1 Reliability check .................................................................................................................. 50
Chapter 8: Discussion ................................................................................................................... 58
8.1 Interpretation of results ....................................................................................................... 58
8.2 Explanation unexpected outcomes ...................................................................................... 62
8.3 Theoretical implications ...................................................................................................... 63
8.4 Managerial implications ...................................................................................................... 64
Chapter 9: Conclusion................................................................................................................... 66
9.1 Summary and answer problem statement ........................................................................... 66
9.2 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 69
9.3 Recommendations for further research ............................................................................... 70
References: .................................................................................................................................... 71
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix A1: Pre-test questionnaire: Dom Perignon ............................................................... 77
Appendix A2: Pre-test questionnaire: Jaguar ............................................................................ 82
Appendix A3: Pre-test questionnaire: Guerlain ........................................................................ 88
Appendix B: European nationalities split.................................................................................. 94
Appendix C: Bonferroni multiple comparisons for Dom Perignon and Jaguar low fit
extensions .................................................................................................................................. 94
Appendix D1: Main test questionnaire - High-fit group ........................................................... 95
4|Page
Appendix D2: Main test questionnaire - Low-fit group .......................................................... 101
Appendix E: Histograms, Q-Q plots and scatterplots used to inspect the assumptions for the
regression analyses .................................................................................................................. 107
5|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction
Luxury brands and the difference in motivations to buy luxury brands
“[We are] persuaded to spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need to create
impressions that won’t last on people we don’t care about.” – Tim Jackson, economics
commissioner in the UK government’s Sustainable Development Commission
Thanks to its growing market potential and to its rather peculiar nature, the concept of “luxury”,
more specific “luxury brands”, has become a widely debated topic in the literature of branding.
Whether it is haute-couture fashion, designer perfumes, cosmetics, hand-crafted watches,
premium car-brands or yachts, sales of luxury products have enjoyed many years of growth.
In spite of worldwide economic downturn, the luxury market managed to prove resilience, while
many other consumer markets faced strong declines. Additionally, according to the latest
research conducted by Global Industry Analyst, Inc. (2010), the global luxury market is expected
to surpass US $307.3 Billion by 2015. One of the main drivers of this growth is represented
mostly by luxury brands companies tapping into the growing demand of emerging economies,
which in 2009 have seen 85% of the new luxury stores opened, out of the total 2009 openings.
Moreover, the different behavior that luxury goods display within the market compared to the
behavior showed by other consumer goods within the same markets, underscore the fact that
differences could arise between luxurious and non-luxurious products.
More than that, luxury brands became an interesting topic for research, also due to the peculiarity
of the “luxury brands’ as a branding concept. This peculiarity is given by the subjective and
multidimensional dimension of the concept, meaning
that in order to explain consumers’
behavior towards luxury brands, marketers have to take into consideration both personal, related
to -self and interpersonal aspects, related to society (Wiedmann et al., 2009, Vigneron et al.,
2004). Therefore, due to the presence of the personal angle, consumers can identify luxury goods
as a means for self-expression, a means of depicting their preferences, as well as to experience
the hedonic potential of the product (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009). In contrast, luxury goods may
well represent a means for social standing, through snobbery and conspicuousness (O’Cass,
McEwen, 2004).
Be it due to hedonism or perfectionist drivers (Dubois and Laurent, 1994) or due to snobbery or
conspicuousness (O’Cass, McEweb, 2004), consumers across the world are triggered to buy
6|Page
luxury goods. Naturally, differences in motivation for purchasing luxury brands could rise
among consumers if we consider the interplay of personal and interpersonal aspects, under the
subjective concept of the luxury brands (Wiedmann et al., 2009).
1.1 The implication of different motivations to buy luxury brands on brand
extension evaluations
One widely known strategy for growth is the development of brand extension. In the context of
luxury brands, brand extensions have always been an attractive option for brand managers to
drive sales behind a brand, thanks to the fact that luxury brands have a greater degree of
extendibility compared to functional brands (Park, Milberg, Lawson, 1991).
We know from previous research, that, when evaluating brand extensions, consumers take into
consideration both the product feature similarity, the degree to which the extensions is related
functionally to the core product, and brand concept consistency (Park, Milberg, Lawson, 1991),
“the extent to which a particular brand is consistent with the values embodied by the core brand”
(Reddy et al., 2009).
According to Park and colleagues (2009), the brand concept consistency weights more in the
evaluation of luxury brands’ extensions compared to non-luxury extensions, in the sense that it
might be easier for luxury brands consumers to accept even lower product fit extensions when
shared concept among the products is high, therefore, they “hang together”. When it comes to
consumers evaluating different brands’ extensions, several factors can influence the way
consumers evaluate them (Park, Milberg, Lawson, 1991),
One of the factors that could potentially influence consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions is
the consumers’ motivations to buy luxury brands.
For instance, consumers engaged in ostentatious behavior and who base their luxury brand
choice and purchase mostly by relating to their peers (O’Cass, McEweb, 2004), could evaluate a
luxury extension less thoroughly than a consumer that is more focused on self-related aspects
when purchasing luxury products, as long as conspicuousness-related cues, such as an emblem or
logo, are noticeable and relevant to social others (Wilcox, Kim, Sen, 2009).
Consequently, there is a need of research to see whether the differences in motivation for
purchase luxury goods have any impact on the evaluation of brand extension.
In addition to this, previous research investigated the difference that may appear among cultures
when it comes to the motivations to buy luxury goods. Shukla (2010, 2011), for example, found
7|Page
out that a variance in the consumers’ purchasing motivations of status products may arise within
a cross-national setting.
1.3 Problem definition
1.3.1 Problem statement
Luxury brand extensions come as a viable solution for companies to increase their profits.
However, luxury brand companies have to be extremely careful when strategizing growth
through brand extensions due to the risk of expanding the brand too much and thus leading to
brand dilution. Even though research in this area was made, little information is known about
how luxury brand marketers could develop extensions worldwide by minimizing the risk of
brand dilution. According to Loken and Roedder (1993), when consumers evaluate a brand
extension as having low-fit with the core brand this can lead to the dilution of brand names by
reducing the positive attribute beliefs consumers have learned to connect with the family name.
In other words, brand extension attributes are conflicting with the family brand beliefs.
Having said that, the main purpose of this study is to examine whether different underlying
motivations to buy luxury goods leads to different attitudes towards the same luxury brand
extensions. This would enable marketers to extend or contract brand extendibility depending on
the core consumers’ drivers to buy luxury brands. In addition, another point of interest of the
present study is the potential connection between the context of luxury brands purchase, seen as
a multidimensional concept, and the motivations to buy luxury goods. Within the scope of this
research, by multidimensional context, we refer to cultural, socio-economic factors intertwined.
Therefore, the main research question is as follows:
What is the impact of the different consumers’ motivations to buy luxury goods on the evaluation
of luxury brands’ extension?
1.3.2 Sub-questions
To better illustrate the focus of the paper, the topic will be divided into sub-questions such as:
 What are brand extensions?
 How are luxury brands different from functional brands?
 What are the core motivations to buy luxury brands?
8|Page
 Is there a cross-cultural differentiated pattern in what concerns the motivations to buy
luxury goods?
 Does the difference in motivations to buy luxury goods have a subsequent impact on the
evaluation of luxury brand extensions?
1.2 Delimitations of the study
Based on the assumption that differences in motivations for purchasing luxury goods could
impact the evaluation of future brand extensions and that consumers’ motivations to buy luxury
goods rely on the context of purchase, this study attempts to provide significant insights into how
marketers could leverage the extendibility of the brand in a cross-regional context.
However, the study has certain delimitations.
Firstly, given the cross-regional comparison angle taken within the present study, a split of
consumers will be made based on similarities found between countries in terms of cultural
dimension, historical development of the societies and economies. However, given the
multidimensional concept of the context of purchase, one could argue that other possibilities of
splitting the consumers by taking their cultural, societal, and economical upbringing could be
found.
Secondly, this research will examine the impact of motivation to buy luxury goods on brand
extensions’ evaluation, by mainly referring to two overarching drivers to buy luxury goods, selfappearance, self-related motivations and self-presentation, social-related motivations.
1.5 Contribution
1.5.1 Theoretical contributions
The research results add to the current literature related to luxury brands and luxury brands
extension by providing a suggestion of consumers’ evaluation of a luxury brand extensions when
considering different underlying motivations for purchase intention to buy luxury products as a
moderator between the perceived fit between the core brand and the extension and the attitudes
towards the new extension of the brand.
Prior studies on luxury brands have mainly focused on luxury value perceptions and
consumption in a cross-national context (Shukla, Purani, 2010; Zhan, He, 2011) the role of brand
origin and brand image on luxury purchase intention (Shukla, 2010), hedonic potential of luxury
9|Page
brands and the importance of the degree of adjacency in brand extendibility (Hagtvedt, Patrick,
2009; Reddy, Ternblanche, Pitt, Parent, 2009), but failed to take into account the difference
consumers might make in evaluation of a same luxury brand extension when having different
drivers to buy luxury goods. In consequence, this research tries to establish the effect that
motivation to buy luxury goods might have on the evaluation of luxury brand extensions, when
considering the perceived fit as a factor of success of the new brand extension.
Moreover, the present study attempts to extend the present knowledge on how consumer’s
motivations to buy luxury goods could differ by taking into account cross-cultural as well as
socio-economical angle.
1.5.2 Managerial contributions
A better understanding of the effect of the level of consumers’ motivation to buy luxury goods as
a moderator of the relation between the perceived fit and the attitudes towards a luxury brand
extensions can have important managerial implications for luxury brands knowledge.
Firstly, an understanding of consumers’ motivations to buy luxury goods in a cross-cultural and
socio-economic context, will enable brand managers of luxury brands companies to better tailor
the communication and product offering to specific consumers. Moreover, this could also
represent an important tool in better managing the risk of brand dilution.
Secondly, understanding to what extent consumers’ motivations to buy luxury goods, and more
specifically, what type of motivations, will impact their evaluation on the new brand extension,
will provide significant insight into how much brand managers can extend their brand to a
specific group of consumers.
1.6 Outline of the research
The next chapters will consist of an overview of the existing literature regarding this research’s
topics of interest, namely brand extensions, luxury brands, different motivations to buy luxury
brands and the context of purchase seen from a multidimensional perspective. Subsequently, we
will develop the hypothesis, the research method and we will interpret the results. The last part of
this research will consist of general discussion about the results, theoretical and managerial
implications as well as the conclusions and recommendations for further research.
10 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Luxury brands
2.1 The dimension of luxury
Coco Chanel, Christian Dior or Jeanne Lanvin made their on the stage of luxury during the
twentieth century when the concept of luxury was already defined. Luxury meant extraneous,
extremely appealing, difficult to obtain, described only the high-class and had the indestructible
ability to conduce pleasure and comfort.
As Coco Chanel put it “Luxury must be comfortable, otherwise is not luxury”. Throughout time,
marketing researchers became more and more interested in the concept of luxury as well as in the
implications of managing a well-known luxury brand.
A myriad of definitions were given to the concept of luxury. For instance, Kapferer (1997)
defines luxurious products as being “enlightening,” pleasure conducive while “flattering all the
five senses at once”. In addition, he also says that “Luxury is the appendage of the ruling class”,
emphasizing on the fact that scarcity and uniqueness are important dimensions that are attached
to the concept of luxury.
Moreover, Cornell (2002) brings into light the personal aspect of luxury, in that “luxury is about
human involvement”, about the unique and subjective experiences one may have when
consuming luxurious products. He also mentions the importance of scarcity and also the fact that
“recognition of value by others” is a key component of luxury concept. In order to be luxurious,
some products have to be owned by a small number of privileged consumers, while desired by a
large number of other people.
Roux and Flock (1996) said that luxury is all about “pleasure, refinement, perfection and rarity,
as well as appreciation, but not necessarily price”, implying that luxury products are something
that consumers do not necessarily need but are something conducive of pleasure and satisfaction.
Additionally, there are some other important dimensions that stick to the concept of luxury,
namely status and conspicuousness aspects of the luxury concept (O’Cass, McEwen 2004)
uniqueness or exclusivity (Atwal,Williams 2009), the symbolic value of luxury products (Keller
2008), non-essentiality (Wiedmann et al., 2009), quality (Atwal, Williams, 2009), premium price
(Keller, 2009), hedonism (Vigneron, Johnson 2004), and extended self (Vigneron, Johnson,
2004).
11 | P a g e
Even though there are many conceptualizations of luxury, one relevant for this study is that of
Wiedmann and colleagues (2009). In their study they conceptualized “luxury” as a subjective
and multidimensional construct.
The subjective nature of the luxury concept was also highlighted by Vigneron and Johnson
(2004) saying that the whole concept of luxury is built on consumer perceptions due to the fact
that the entire meaning of luxury is determined by the dynamics of personal and interpersonal
motivations to buy luxury brands. Thus, luxury brands have an abstract and emotional nature that
differentiates them from functional brands.
As mentioned before, Wiedmann and colleagues (2009) also define the luxury concept as a
subjective construct. Additionally, they also utter the fact that luxury is a multidimensional
concept in that in order to explain consumers’ behavior in relation to luxury brands marketers
have to take into consideration both the personal aspect such as hedonism and perfectionist
drivers (Dubois, Laurent, 1994) as well as interpersonal aspects like snobbery and
conspicuousness (O’Cass, McEwen 2004 ) and purchase related context or as they put it
“situational conditions” (e.g., economic, societal, and political factors) (Vigneron, Johnson,
1999; 2004).
Starting from the idea that consumers’ behaviors in relation to luxury brands is related to both
personal and interpersonal aspects, we might as well assume that for some consumer segments
the personal aspects of the luxury construct are more salient, reflecting therefore a selfexpression motivation to buy luxury goods, while for others the interpersonal aspects such as
conspicuousness will determine a motivation to buy luxury goods based on self-appearance.
2.2 Luxury brands vs. Functional brands
Considering that traditional marketing strategies do not apply to luxury products, as promoted
and proved by Vigneron and Johnson (2004) and that one of the managerial implications of this
study is to provide valuable insight that can support brand managers in better development of
segmentation strategies for luxury brand extensions, urge us to make the differentiation between
luxury and functional brands.
The key aspect that distinguishes luxury products from the non-luxury ones is represented by the
fact that during luxury products consumption the most appreciated benefits are the abundant
psychological benefits rather than utilitarian ones (Vigneron, Johnson, 2004; Arghavan,
12 | P a g e
Zaichkowsky, 2000). Namely, luxury goods are associated with hedonic inclination, while nonluxury goods are related to more utilitarian ends (Dubois, Paternault, 1995).
Luxury products gained the right to ask for premium prices (Keller, 2009), especially due to the
experience and pleasure that provides to the consumer (Vigneron, Johnson, 2004) and to the
symbolic nature that developed in the consumers’ minds (Keller, 2008). Therefore, even though
luxury brands fulfill both functional and psychological needs, the consumers’ emphasis on the
psychological aspect differentiates luxury brands from functional brands (Vigneron, Johnson,
2004; Arghavan, Zaichkowsky, 2000).
Moreover, another difference between luxury and functional brands is represented by the
consumers’ attitude towards those two concepts of brands (Dubois, Laurent, 1994; Dubois et al.,
2002). According to them, consumers can either develop strong favorable attitudes towards the
luxury “concept” or strong negative attitudes. However, only very few consumers can be
indifferent to the concept of luxury (Dubois, Laurent, 1994; Dubois et al., 2002).
Therefore, while in the case of functional brands the appearance of indifferent attitude towards
the brands is possible, in the case of luxury, attitudes towards this concept can hardly be
indifferent, but more ambivalent (Dubois, Laurent, 1994; Dubois et al., 2002).
According to Dubois and colleagues (1994, 2002), the negative attitudes towards luxury
originate from the “snobbish reasons for purchasing luxury”, thus people that buy luxury
products in order to imitate affluent people and to embellish one’s ego are strongly criticized.
However, the affluent people that consume luxury products on a daily basis build positive
attitudes towards luxury brands (Dubois et al., 2001). In contrast to this, in the case of functional
brands people can also develop a neutral or indifferent attitude as long as the product fulfill a
certain needs but do not have any symbolic or hedonic meaning to consumers.
Luxury goods can bring esteem for the owner, and can empower consumers to fulfill both
psychological and functional needs, by only the simple use or display of such a luxury product
(Wiedmann, Hennigs, Siebels, 2007).
13 | P a g e
2.3 Motivations to buy luxury brands
In what concerns the underlying motivations for luxury brand consumption, many researchers
agreed upon the existence of at least two distinct reasons why people like and purchase luxury
goods (Wilcox, Kim, Sen, 2009; Kapferer, Bastien, 2009; Nueno, Quelch, 1998)
On the one hand, through the use or even display of luxury goods, consumers may look for social
adjustment, this showing their yearning to conform to the group of people that are labeled as
having high-status due to the consumption of luxury (Wilcox, Kim, Sen, 2009). In other words,
for this category of consumers the way how they present themselves within society is extremely
relevant (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009) and the drivers for buying luxury products are represented by
interpersonal aspects such as snobbery and conspicuousness (O’Cass, McEwen, 2004).
Luxury brands can develop conspicuousness to the extent to which their brand emblem or logo is
noticeable and relevant to social others. Considering the prominence and pervasiveness of brands
logos, some luxury brands are more conspicuous than others (Wilcox, Kim, Sen, 2009).
Furthermore, according to a research made on counterfeits consumption by Wilcox and
colleagues (2009) a “prominently displayed brand logo enable consumers to acquire and display
to others the brand’s aspirational associations, helping them fulfill their self-presentational goals
even through counterfeits”. Consumers buying counterfeit luxury brands imply that those
consumers may not analyze even the original brands thoroughly in comparison to consumers’
that would not accept to buy counterfeit luxury brands, especially because they can evaluate
better the value and benefits provided by a luxury brand.
On the other hand, luxury goods may well represent a means for self-expression (Kapferer,
Bastien, 2009). Thus, many people buy luxury brands due to personal aspects (Dubois, Czellar
Laurent, 1995) in order to depict their preferences and self, as well as to experience the hedonic
potential of the product (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009).
Therefore, even though people purchase the same luxury goods they may have different
underlying motivations (Overby, Woodruff, Gardial, 2005). This divides luxury brands’
consumers in two categories: consumers that buy luxury products to “show-off”, and people who
buy them in order to express their personality
14 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Brand extensions
3.1 Role of brand extensions
Given the highly competitive market environment that characterizes all industries and product
segments nowadays, companies are in search for new ways of growth. One important strategy
that has become widely considered when strategizing growth is the development of new brand
extensions (Keller, 2008).
According to Kerin and colleagues (1992) developing brand extension implies developing new
products under the same brand name in order to benefit from the equity of the original brand
name and to go into new market segments. Brand extensions come as a viable solution for
growth and diversification due to lower financial risk and advertising costs compared to
developing a new brand (Tauber, 1988).
Successful brand extensions provide a wide variety of advantages for the company such as:
revitalizing the core brand, enabling the company to tap into new consumer segments, creating
the context of facilitating new product acceptance and of providing feedback benefits to the
original brand (Keller, 2008).
A brand extension strategy is also meant for reducing risks and costs of launching new products
(Tauber, 1981, 1985), for increasing sales/profit by tapping into new markets or new consumer
segments (Loken, Roeder, 1998). Thus, new brand extensions can increase market share (Smith,
Park, 1992) and even can enable a certain brand to ask a premium price for its new products
through a more high-end positioning (Swait et al., 1993).
3.2 Types of brand extensions
When deciding to develop brand extensions, Keller (2008) differentiates between two types of
brand extension: line extension and category extension.
Companies can develop line extensions, which represent low-risk extensions due to low
introduction and launching costs and to the high level of perceived fit that is between the
extension and the core brand. Typical line extensions are new flavors or sizes for an already
existing product (Keller, 2008). Additionally, brands have also the possibility to develop
category extensions, which will be the main focus in this study.
Category extensions extended to new product categories involve a higher degree of risk due to
the fact that the brand is extending to new product categories, such as Gucci extended from
15 | P a g e
leather goods and accessories to clothing and shoes. The degree of risk is higher because
marketers have to assure that somehow consumers will be able to transfer the associations from
the original brand to the extension, thus they have to emphasize the importance of productfeature similarity and brand concept consistency.
3.3 Brand extensions’ evaluation processes – drivers of evaluations
A lot of studies have been carried out to find out what are the implications of developing new
brand extensions. Nonetheless, one of the most important aspect that has been and still is in the
attention of branding academic research is the relevance of fit between the core brand and the
brand extension when evaluating different brand extensions (Aaker, Keller, 1990).
According to prior research, marketers are urged to weigh the aspect of perceived fit between the
parent brand and the extension product when considering diversification (Aaker, Keller, 1990).
When evaluating a brand extension, consumers take into consideration two dimensions of the
goodness of fit, namely, the product-feature similarity, referring to concrete or abstract similarity
between the core brand and the extension, and brand concept consistency which denotes the
extension’s ability to accommodate to the core brand concept (Park, Milberg, Lawson, 1991).The
underlying motivation for doing so is mainly due to the strong knowledge and image associations
luxury brands have already established in consumer minds. A brand could have a different set of
associations in the minds of consumers and the cognitive process by which brand evaluation are
made in the mind of consumers is explained by the associative network model (Aaker, Keller,
1990). A strong brand has fixed set of associations in the consumer minds but some of them may
be more salient for some consumers and less salient for others (Aaker, Keller, 1990). Given the
different brand beliefs consumers build in their mind we can assume that there could be different
consumer-related factors that could impact the different evaluation of a certain brand and
consequently, the evaluation of its brand extensions.
Other models have been proposed to explain the processes that develop in the consumers’ minds
and that influence consumer’s evaluation of a brand extension. One of them refers to
categorization theory (Boush et al., 1987).
16 | P a g e
3.4 Evaluation of luxury brands’ extensions and the risk of brand dilution
What is interesting in the case of luxury brands is that they can extend to a wide range of product
categories due to the fact that consumers group the products of a certain luxury brand under a
supra-ordinate category of “luxurious products” (Park, Milberg, Lawson, 1991). One challenge
for marketers is to decide what categories of products are appropriate for a brand extension and
which are not. Theoretically, we have seen that in order to have a consistent luxury brand
portfolio and to minimize the risk of brand dilution, a brand must extend to high-fit product
categories. However, there were numerous situations when brands have extended to low-fit
products and succeeded. This implies that there could be much more behind the idea of fit and
this asks for further research.
Therefore, extending the brand pose certain risks that may appear in the long run and affect the
brand names. When designing and launching low-fit luxury extensions, consumers might not
recognize the values of the original product in the extension and this phenomenon that could
eventually lead to brand dilution (Loken, John, 1993).
While some researchers consider that atypical and low-fit brand extensions certainly lead to
brand dilution and eventually to brand demise (Gibson, 1990), others found no evidence that
unsuccessful brand extensions can dilute brand names (Romeo, 1991).
As a common point between the two streams of thought, some observers acknowledged the fact
that brand dilution, that appears when “brand extensions diminish the favorable attitude beliefs
consumers have learned to associate with the family brand name”, is a complex phenomenon
rising for certain types of brand extensions in only some types of situations (Loken, John, 1993).
The complexity of the brand dilution phenomenon asks for further lines of inquiry regarding this
topic such as determining what factors can mediate the relation between the perceived fit and the
attitudes towards the new extension in that the extension will not dilute consumers’ beliefs
towards the original brand.
In the context of luxury brand extensions there are several studies that focused on the degree of
extendibility of luxury brands.
For instance, Reddy and colleagues. (2009) brought into light on the perceived premium degree
and the importance of brand adjacency when developing luxury brand extensions.
They define brand adjacency as “the extent to which a particular brand is consistent with the
values embodied by the core brand”. According to their study, the most cohesive and consistent
17 | P a g e
luxury brands’ portfolios are those that have the right perceived premium degree and that are
developed along adjacent extended categories. In this case the risk of brand dilution is low.
An example of a luxury brand that pursued such a growth strategy would be Louis Vuitton which
went from handbags to other adjacent categories such as clothing jewelry, perfumes and
accessories. On the other hand, many luxury brands stretched a little bit further and developed
brand extensions that had little connection with the core brand or the core category of products.
What is interesting to consider within this scenario is the fact that some unrelated luxury brand
extensions had success on the market, such as Roberto Cavalli Vodka (Keller, 2008) while others
ended up in failure, such as the Pierre Cardin table wine (Ries, Trout, 1982). This difference in
outcomes triggers the need of further research. Other factors that may mediate the relation
between the perceived fit and the evaluation of brand extension have to be taken in
consideration.
Another relevant study regarding luxury brands extensions is Park’s and colleagues (1991)
research on how consumers evaluate brand extensions. In their study they found out that “brand
concept consistency appears to have a greater effect on the prestige brand than on a functional
brand”. In other words, when consumers perceive that there is a common brand concept-related
link between the extension and the core brand, in our case that being the idea of “luxury”, they
tend to be more tolerant when accepting brand extensions that may have low product-feature
similarity. Hence, this implies that luxury brands have a greater degree of extendibility,
comparing to the functional brands, which do not have the “luxury” link to connect the core
brand with the extensions (Park, Milberg, Lawson, 1991).
Hawking and colleagues (2010) emphasized that in their book “Consumer Behavior- Building
Marketing Strategy” by describing the case of Porche. Considering the importance of fit, Porche
would logically extend to product categories such as motorcycles, tiers, ski boats, leveraging on
the key fit of means of transportation and complementary products. However, given the fact that
Porche is a more prestigious product, and broad enough to be leveraged in multiple ways, Porche
has even developed an entire line of golf accessories, including bag trolleys which are successful
on the market. This case shows once again the complexity of brand dilution and how relative and
difficult it is for brand managers to forecast when a brand extension will succeed and when it
will not.
18 | P a g e
Considering the different outcomes mentioned above such as in the case of Roberto Cavalli
Vodka and Pierre Cardin table wine, we may assume that the “luxury” and “status” link could be
perceived at different levels among consumers in that for some consumers the idea of “luxury” in
a luxury brand portfolio could be more salient than for others, or the key fit criteria may be
different among consumer segments (Hawking et al., 2010). Therefore, some consumers might
tend to look for deepen connections between the extension and the original product while others
do not.
Also in line with Park and colleagues (1991) are the findings of H. Hagtvedt and V. Patrick
(2009) that state that prestigious brands have a greater degree of extendibility compared to
functional brands due to the hedonic potential or “the promise of pleasure” of prestigious brands.
Related to that, the different motivations consumers have when purchasing luxury brands and
that they attach feelings to it could imply the fact that those consumers may expect different
forms of “pleasure” or feelings from a certain luxury brand. For instance, for the consumers who
buy luxury products in order to “show-off” luxury products that promise this form of pleasure
will satisfy them while for consumers that buy luxury products for self-expression it may not.
Thus, this implies that the driver that stands behind luxury consumption may come as a mediator
between the perceived fit and the evaluation of luxury brand extensions.
Therefore, given the fact that developing new brand extensions is a widely known growth
strategy that has been and still is temping for managers of luxury brands, as well as the fact that
luxury brands have an atypical nature, there is a strong reason why there is more need of research
in this area.
Moreover, despite that luxury brands may take advantage on the “luxury” and “status” links to
extend, luxury brand managers still have to pay attention to the degree they could extend the
brand.
19 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Context of purchase and the consumption of luxury products
4.1 Democratization of luxury
In what concerns the development of the luxury market, many changes happened throughout the
last century.
The trading-up of middle class, the increasing exchange of media information between countries,
and the fast growth of more and more countries (Belk, 1995, Featherstone, 1990) are some of the
factors that lead to the increase of the number people who can afford luxurious products. The
number of affluent people increased while the middle class traded-up (Wiedmann, Hennigs,
Siebels, 2009) therefore the luxury market expanded (Kastanakis, Balabanis, 2011).
Under that circumstance, luxury brands companies have to find the right balance between
tapping into more consumer segments extending market share and revenues while still
maintaining their cachet (Kastanakis, Balabanis, 2011).
The first attempts of luxury brands of grasping new potential consumers were deemed with
failure. Gucci and Pierre Cardin started extending their brands to product that had nothing in
common to the core products and this lead to some loss of the prestigious image (Moore et al.
2000). Therefore, there is a need to find different extension strategies that would avoid brand
dilution.
This phenomenon of making available luxury to a larger audience attracted by the exclusive
status of the affluent people is called by previous researchers “democratization of luxury”
(Kapferer, 2006) and “mass affluence” (Nunes, Johnson, Breene, 2004).
One important aspect of the “democratization of luxury” phenomenon is the fact that consumers
that traded-up would sacrifice some product categories, such as food products, in order to buy
luxurious brands (Kastanakis, Balabanis, 2011; Baker, 2006). This behavior could also be a
reflection of the imitation and self-elevation motivations of some consumers to buy luxury
brands.
4.2 Motivations to buy luxury goods in a cross-national, cross-cultural context
Given that the economies of emerging countries become more affluent, the incomes of the
middle class increases, and that consumer culture is spreading from the West to East (Belk 1995;
Featherstone, 1990) consumers from these countries face an increasing desire to buy luxury
20 | P a g e
brands, even “before having adequate nutrition” ( Wiedmann, Hennigs, Siebels, 2007; Vilanilam
1989; Belk, 1988).
Therefore, in order to explain consumer’s behavior towards luxury brands, some research (Bian,
Forsythe, 2011; Shukla, 2010, 2011; Wiedmann, Hennings, Siebels, 2007) focused on
understanding the underlying motivations for purchasing luxury goods in a cross-national and
cross-cultural setting.
Shukla (2010, 2011) found out that a variance in the consumers’ purchasing motivations of status
products may arise within a cross-national setting. The results of his study indicate that
consumers from Eastern markets, collectivist and from an emerging market context buy statusinducing products with mostly ostentation in mind, with the motivation to impress others,
compared to consumers from the Western, individualistic and more developed economies, that
purchase these type of products mainly for self-esteem goals.
Moreover, mostly from a cross-cultural perspective, Shukla’s (2010, 2011) research also
indicates that consumers belonging to an individualistic culture concentrates more on their actual
self-concept (how consumers perceive themselves, self-expression) when purchasing statusinducing products while consumers coming from collectivist cultures focus more on how are
perceived by others (self-appearance).
As we have mentioned before, there are mainly two main aspects that drive luxury consumption:
interpersonal and personal aspects. In what concerns the interpersonal influences, prior research
says that consumers from individualist countries are less vulnerable to normative interpersonal
influences than consumers from collectivist countries (Mourali, Laroche, Pons, 2005). Moreover,
Yoo, Donthu (2001) and Shukla (2010) observed that brands related to higher social
acceptability were significantly favored among consumers in collectivist countries.
On the other hand, the study conducted by Bian and Forsythe (2011) about the effects of selfmonitoring (i.e. “the degree to which consumers are sensitive to social cues” and the degree to
which they modify their behavior based on social situations) and need for uniqueness (i.e. the
need to differentiate from others) characteristics on consumer’s purchase intention (motivation)
of luxury brands reflects slightly different results given the cross-cultural context (U.S. vs.
China). They found out, contrary to their expectations, that consumers from a collectivist
country, China, had a higher need for uniqueness than consumers from an individualist country,
U.S. Having this in mind and knowing that consumers who hold strong self-presentation attitude
21 | P a g e
purchase luxury brands for their symbolic value (Park et. al., 2008) and that consumers who have
need for uniqueness buy luxury brands for their intrinsic values (Park et al., 2008).
In addition to all these, a study made by G. Pop-Eleches within the Princeton University explains
from a social, economic and political point of view why there is a difference in consumption
between West and East. Some prior authors described these historical differences between
Eastern Central Europe and Western Europe in terms of “peripheral or lagging development”
(Berend, 1986; Janos, 1989). Missing out the head start in capitalism for example, historically,
Eastern Central Europe faced isolation versus Western Europe (André Liebich, 2009). While
Western Europe was witnessing Industrial Revolution, overseas development, the instauration of
modern nation state, Eastern Europe would only get to know these transformations a while after
their start in the West side of Europe. As stated by André Liebich, in his article named “Is there
an East-West divide in the conception of citizenship of Europe?” the above mentioned historical
isolation of Eastern Central Europe from plenty essential currents of today’s Western Europe,
“explains certain striking differences in value systems”.
When it comes to consumption behavior differences between Eastern and Western Europe, one
other important cause that led to it, if not the weighting the most importance, would be the fact
that most of the Eastern European countries were under communist rule for numerous years and
thus faced high scarcity on products easily available on Western European markets. However,
with the clash of communism, travel restrictions were removed; Western media sources
penetrated into the Eastern European Countries and more and more Western products were made
available to ex-communist citizens. After years of restrictions, Eastern European Citizens were
eager to gain the status and standards of living of the Western European citizen and this often
meant that they will buy consume the products they bought. The same phenomenon happened in
the world of luxury, because the increasing ex-communist demand of luxury products was based
on a motivation of imitation and self-elevation.
Hence, as we may conclude, different cultural, societal, political and economic factors could
impact, drive and tailor one’s underlying motivations for purchasing luxury products and could
influence the attitudes towards such an abstract consumption.
In this study, we will consider the context of purchase as an antecedent of the motivations to buy
luxury goods.
22 | P a g e
4.3 Motivations to buy luxury brands, cultural context of purchase and the
evaluation of luxury brand extensions
As we know from prior research, when evaluating a brand extension, consumers take into
account the information about the product-feature consistency that exists between the core brand
and the brand extension (Park, Milberg, Lawson, 1991). However, in the case of luxury brands,
given the intangible and subjective link of “luxury” that connects the core brand and its
extensions, there is a greater degree of flexibility when it comes to extending the brand (Park,
Milberg, Lawson, 1991). For example, Roberto Cavalli developed a new brand extension from
mainly luxurious clothing and accessories to Roberto Cavalli Vodka. Even though it may be
perceived as a low-fit extension, Roberto Cavalli Vodka met success due to the fact that
conveyed the same luxurious, high-end, status and even conspicuous image in the mind of the
consumer.
Moreover, the evaluation and consumption of luxury brands are also determined by the context
of purchase or geography. As we have stated before, the results of prior research utters that
consumers from Eastern, emerging, collectivist countries are more prone to consume luxurious
products due to conspicuous motivations, while consumers from West, more developed and
individualist countries tend to consume status-inducing products (Bian, Forsythe, 2011; Shukla,
2010, 2011; Wiedmann, Hennings, Siebels, 2007).
As luxury brands’ conspicuousness is closely related to the extent to which a luxury brand can
become noticeable through the display of its label or of distinguishable features of the brand,
simple “showing off” with luxury brands labels, this could imply that people that consume
luxury products for self-appearance and conspicuousness reasons may be more tolerant when
evaluating different luxury brand extensions if the conspicuous features are still present. In this
case, there might be some implications on the relevance of fit when different luxury brand
extensions are evaluated by conspicuous consumers.
In addition, given the significant differences in consumer behavior that may arise in a crosscultural and cross-national context when evaluating luxury brands, a similar phenomenon could
emerge in evaluation of luxury brand extensions.
The insatiable appetite for luxury brands that recently developed in some countries, especially
Eastern European countries and Asian countries like China and India, could determine a more
tolerant and shallow evaluation of the luxury brand extensions.
23 | P a g e
Therefore, considering the fact that the variances among motivations to buy luxury goods could
also lead to different evaluation of luxury brands’ extensions and the fact that these differences
could also be triggered by differences in geography or the context of purchase, more research is
needed in order to see how people evaluate a same brand extension when having different
reasons to buy the luxury product and when the consumers come from different countries and
cultures.
Building on that and on the fact that several researchers, such as Dubois et al., (2005), Shukla
(2010) and Wiedmann and colleagues (2009) have called for further research into how the
consumption of luxury extension could differ from developed, individualistic to emerging
markets (collectivist), within the scope of the present research we will also investigate if
consumers coming from different cultures will have different underlying motivations when it
comes to purchasing luxury products.
24 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Conceptual model and hypothesis development
5.1 Introduction
In the previous chapters, we have discussed about the concept of luxury, luxury brand
extensions, the importance of fit in evaluating brand extensions and also about motivations to
buy luxury goods and about the cultural context of purchasing luxury brands.
All these dimensions have laid the theoretical base to develop the following conceptual
framework (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. A proposed conceptual model
Multidimensional Context of
purchase
H2a
H2b
Social Motivations
Self Motivations
H4a (-)
Product Category Fit between the brand
and the extension
H4b(+)
H1a (+)
H1b (+)
Attitudes towards luxury brand
extensions
5.2 The direct impact of perceived fit on attitude extension
“A brand extension in a new product category is viewed as a new instance that can be more or
less similar to the brand and its existing products” (Czellar, 2002)
As mentioned in the literature review, this perceived similarity is also called perceived fit (Aaker
& Keller, 1990; Czellar, 2002), which represents the shared associations between the parent
brand and the extension.
25 | P a g e
We know from previous researches (Aaker, Keller, 1990) that when it comes to the direct effect
of fit on brand extension attitude, “the higher the perceived fit, the more positive the consumer’s
attitude toward the extension” (Czellar, 2002). Therefore, according to them the perceived fit is
the key in foreseeing brand extension success.
Perceived fit, that appears when the consumer is familiar with both the parent brand and the new
extension category, is evaluated at 2 dimensions and namely: product category fit, when product
related associations are evaluated, and brand-level fit, when non-product related associations
(brand image) are evaluated (Aaker, Keller, 1990; Bhat & Reddy, 2001; Park et al. 1991).
In this research, we will also consider fit as an important predictor of the success of the new
luxury extensions. Therefore, this brings us to the following hypothesis:
H1a. When product fit between the parent brand and the extension is high, the attitudes towards
brand extensions is higher than when product fit between the parent brand and the extension is
low;
H1b. Higher perceived fit is associated with more positive attitudes towards the brand
extensions, rather than lower perceived fi;
5.3 Luxury as a subjective concept. Different motivations in buying luxury brands
in a cross-cultural context
Within the scope of the present thesis, luxury brands have a main role; therefore we will analyze
how the direct fit between the parent luxury brand and the luxury brand extension can be
influenced.
In order to do that we need to take into consideration the cross-cultural angle of this research.
Therefore, we have to make one step behind and understand whether differences in motivations
to buy luxury goods rise among different cultures.
This assumption could be sustained by the fact luxury is a subjective concept (Phau, Predergast,
2000) that depends on each consumer’s sensitivity to considerate value. Therefore we may
assume that associations related to the parent brand, such as “luxury” or “status”, could differ in
term of importance from consumer to consumer.
26 | P a g e
Previous research, also found interesting the cross-cultural analysis when it comes to luxury
brands purchase.
In Bian and Forsythe’s research on “Purchase intention on luxury brands: a cross-cultural
comparison” the topic of “self- monitoring” was approached altogether with “the need of
uniqueness” as individual consumer characteristics that explain the underlying motivations of
purchasing luxury brands. Moreover, according to previous research, consumers around the
world are purchasing luxury brands to “portray their individuality and/or social standing”
(Nueno, Quelch, 1998; Bian, Forsythe, 2011).
In the same research, Bian and Forsythe investigated if the underlying motivations in buying
luxury brands are different between Western individualistic cultures (USA consumers) and
Eastern collectivistic cultures (Chinese consumers). They assumed that even though consumers
from different cultures buy the same luxury products, it could be that there is a difference
between the underlying motivations in buying luxury brands.
The main reason of this assumption was driven by the differences between collectivist and
individualist cultural characteristics. Collectivist consumers are more prone to “engage in more
self-monitoring and display stronger self-presentation attitude to portray their individuality
and/or social standing” (Hofstede, 1980; Bian, Forsythe, 2011) while consumers from
individualists societies put a lot of importance on emotional independence, and individual
initiative, “which may strengthen their need for uniqueness and bolster their self-expression
attitude” (Hofstede, 1991).
Taking into account that luxury products could convey both self-indulgence and a high and
prestigious social standing, we may infer that the above mentioned differences in culture could
also be reflected in different underlying motivations’ when it comes to purchasing luxury brands.
In previous research, a different number of terms were used for naming the different motivations
that could arise when purchasing luxury brands. Therefore, in the present research we will define
the motivations when buying luxury brands by looking at the luxury brands’ values as perceived
in the eyes of the consumer. The reasoning behind is the fact that if there are differences in the
values consumers appreciate luxury brands, then their motivations to buy them could also be
different.
27 | P a g e
All previous research that looked at luxury brands values in the eyes of the consumers, have
identified the fact that luxury brands have four dimensions.
One dimension refers to the functional value of the luxury brand, which reflects the quality as it
is perceived by consumers (Berthon et al., 2009). Therefore, we may assume that people that find
appealing the quality aspect of the luxury brands will also have the motivation to buy luxury
brands in order to have highly qualitative products.
Moreover, the second dimension focuses on the experiential value of the luxury brands. The
experiential value denotes the individual’s thoughts and feelings towards the luxury brands.
Consequently, this dimension (Belk, 1988; O’ Cass, 2004) could be perceived subjectively and,
thus, people for whom the experiential dimension is really important when it comes to luxury
brands are having the motivation to buy them in order to get a certain feeling and emotion.
The third dimension mentions the symbolic value of the luxury brand, which according to Belk
(2008) and O’Cass (2004) indicates conspicuousness, expensiveness and wealth. In this situation,
a luxury brand is used for signaling to others status.
Next to this dimension, another dimension held by luxury brands that is helping the buyer to
signal status is the social dimension of the luxury brand. In order to understand the motivation
underpinned by this aspect of luxury brands, we quote Tsay (2005), who says that “socially
oriented consumers are motivated to possess luxury brands in order to display their status and
success to their targeted social groups” (Kuang Peng Hung et al., 2011).
Considering the fact that the two first dimensions depict attributes as high quality, preciousness,
uniqueness, rarity, we can say that consumers in search for such attributes when buying or
intending to buy luxury brands are actually driven by hedonic and unique-seeking motivations
(Hung, Chen, Peng, Hackley, Tiwsakul, Chou, 2011). Moreover, the last two dimensions evoke
status seeking and signaling status motivation.
Based on the above and on the fact that “factors driving luxury brand purchase behavior among
consumers in individualistic versus collectivist cultures differ considerably” (Bia, Forsythe,
2012), we could also imply, that consumers from individualistic countries could be driven by
hedonic and unique seeking motivation when purchasing luxury brands, while collectivistic
28 | P a g e
consumers could be driven more by the symbolic and social value of the luxury products, in
order to depict conspicuousness, status and wealth.
In this research we will refer to the hedonic & unique seeking motivation as the motivations
related to self (triggered by the functional and experiential value of the luxury brands) and to the
displaying status motivation as social motivations (triggered by the symbolic and social
dimensions of the luxury brands); Moreover, we will undertake a cross-cultural analysis to
understand what are the differences in consumers’ motivations to buy luxury brands.
The regions chosen for the research are Eastern Europe and Western Europe. The reason behind
that is the fact that according to Hofstede (2004), Eastern European countries, such as Russia
score more on the collectivism score and Western European countries score less on collectivism
score, therefore is a more individualistic region
This brings us to the following hypotheses:
H2a. When it comes to purchasing luxury brands, Eastern European’ social motivations are
higher than their motivations related to self;
H2b. When it comes to purchasing luxury brands, Western Europeans’ motivations related to
self are higher than their social motivations;
To build even more on the comparison between Eastern Europeans’ and Western Europeans’
motivations to buy luxury brands, we can develop the further hypotheses.
H3a. When it comes to purchasing luxury brands, Eastern Europeans’ social motivations are
higher than Western European’s social motivation;
H3b. When it comes to purchasing luxury brands, Western Europeans’ motivation related to self
are higher than Eastern Europeans’ self-related motivations;
If we consider that a consumer has both motivations when buying luxury brands, the crosscultural comparison actually assumes that a type of consumers are more described by one type of
motivation compared to the other, even in a cross-cultural context. Therefore, we assume that for
collectivist societies, in this case, for Eastern European consumers, the social motivations will
29 | P a g e
score higher than the self-related motivations and they will still be higher than the social
motivations displayed by the individualistic, Western European consumers.
5.4 Consumer’s different motivations for buying luxury brands as moderators on
the direct impact of perceived fit on attitude extension
In the context of luxury brands, we know that the brand level fit (brand concept consistency) has
a greater impact on the development of attitudes towards the new extension (Park et al., 1991).
This is based on the fact that non-product related associations such as “luxury” or “status”
associations are more salient for consumers rather non-luxury associations (Park et al., 1991).
The reason behind that is the fact that consumers who can perceive the “luxury” or “status”
association between the parent brand and the extension, they will accept even low productsimilarity fit extensions (Park et al., 1991). Therefore, we can say that when consumers make
the link between the parent brand and the extension by basing on non-product related
associations, related to self- and value– expressive benefits (Czellar, 2002) the impact of
perceived fit on extension attitude weakens (Park et al., 1991)
However, research in the area of fit proves that there are different consumer specific moderators,
as mentioned also in Czellar’s article on “Consumer attitude towards brand extensions”, that
influences the direct impact of perceived fit on the extension attitude, by either weakening or
strengthening the direct impact of perceived fit on extension attitude.
One of such moderators is the “self- monitoring” characteristic of the consumers. According to
previous researches, “high self-monitor” consumers, which refers to the tendency to regulate
one’s behavior in response to social contextual cues, are easing the transfer of social and selfexpressive meanings of products, brand level associations, compared to “low self-monitor”
consumers , who being driven by one’s internal state (Pucinelli, Deshpande, Isen, 2006;
Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 1974, Czellar, 2002).
Based on that, we can also infer that the different underlying motivation on buying luxury
brands, related to either extending one’s self (hedonic and unique seeking) or to extending one’s
conspicuousness (signaling status to others), could also moderate the impact of perceived fit on
the extension attitude.
30 | P a g e
Building on these points, we can develop the following hypotheses:
H4b. The higher the consumer’s social motivation when buying luxury brands, the lesser the
impact of perceived fit on extension attitude;
H4a.The higher the consumer’s motivation related self when buying luxury brands, the stronger
the impact of perceived fit on extension attitude;
31 | P a g e
Chapter 6: Methodology
6.1 Research Design
In order to test the hypotheses mentioned above, we have to quantify variables such as social
motivations, self-related motivations, fit, and attitude towards brands extensions. All these
variables will be measured on 7-point Likert scales developed within previous researches.
Therefore, this research will also undertake a quantitative descriptive research to test the
variables. Furthermore, given the fact that within this research will investigate associations
between the variables, the present research is also a descriptive one.
In order to decrease the risk of errors, the main study will be preceded by a pre-test that will help
us develop the right stimuli and check control variables. The control variables will help in
reducing the impact that the subjects’ characteristics could have upon the relationship we are
investigating. Therefore, we are making sure that the investigated group is as heterogeneous as
possible.
In the pre-test, we will also test the familiarity of the respondents with the brands, if they
perceive the respective brands as luxurious, and we will develop hypothetical brand extensions
for the chosen brands. For the main study, after the pre-test, one luxury brand will be chosen,
with one high-fit and one low-fit extension.
Considering the above, three questionnaires for each brand (see Appendix A) will be used to
collect the necessary data. According to Blumberg and colleagues (2005), the optimum method
of collecting large data sets in a quick and reliable manner is through the use of a questionnaire.
Therefore, the present research made use of a questionnaire through which respondents could
express their opinion.
6.2 Stimuli requirements
Due to the fact that this research targets luxury brands, a well-known luxury brand is required for
the main test. Therefore, in the pre-test three luxury brands were evaluated from a familiarity and
luxury dimension perspective, in order to make sure that the brand used in the final test would
score high on the familiarity and luxury dimensions.
32 | P a g e
When it comes to familiarity, Janiszewski and Van Osselaer (2000)
mention that is not
compulsory for all respondents to have the same degree of knowledge about the tested brands,
but only the awareness of the brands it will be enough to activate the subjects’ associative
network of the brands.
Secondly, real brands should be used so that real brand effect and associations would be
prompted during the brand extension process.
Thirdly, the brand extensions used were hypothetical so that the responders would not be biased
by previous interactions with the tested brand extensions. Therefore, we chose to test a real brand
with hypothetical extensions.
In the final test, we investigated how social and self-motivations moderated the relationship
between a high- or low-fit extension and the attitude of the respondents towards the two
extensions. Therefore, the extensions used the in the final test were designed to vary
independently in terms of level of fit (high and low).
Furthermore, in order to make sure that the extensions used in the final test would differ
significantly in terms of fit, we used the pre-test to determine how consumers reacted to different
product extensions for each brand and to manipulate the perceived product fit for each of the
variables.
Lastly, it was required that the different extensions to be tested in the pre-test and the two
extensions used in the final test to be understandable by all respondents, based on familiar
product categories.
6.3 Pre-test: brands familiarity, luxury dimension, high fit and low fit extensions
The pre-test was conducted to determine which luxury brand will suit best for the main study. A
number of three luxury brands coming from different product categories, namely cosmetics,
beverages and cars, were selected for the pre-test.
The product classes and the brand selected were:
1. Dom Perignon (luxury champagne manufacturer)
2. Jaguar (luxury cars manufacturer)
33 | P a g e
3. Guerlain (luxury cosmetics and skincare products manufacturer)
Within the pre-test, each of the three brands were appointed four brand extensions, out of which
two of the extensions were assumed to be low product-fit and two, high product-fit.
Therefore, within the pre-test we examined consumer reactions to the different product
extensions appointed for each brand and measured the perceived product fit of each extension.
The luxury brand extensions chosen for each brand are depicted in Table 1.
Table 1. Luxury brands and luxury brands extensions by level of fit
Brands
High Product Fit Ext.
Low Product Fit Ext.
Dom Perignon
Whisky
Men leather agendas
Bottle openers
Men ties
Jaguar
Motorcycles
Bycicles
Shavers
USB sticks
Guerlain
Hair dye
Shampoo
Gloves
Sunglasses
The fit measure was based on Aaker & Keller’s (1990) evaluation of fit, using a 7-point Likert
scale.
Other control variables such as familiarity of the respondents with the brands and the dimension
of luxury of the chosen brands were also tested. The respondents needed to be familiar with the
brands in order to trigger real connections when evaluating hypothetical luxury brand extensions.
Moreover, we had to make sure that the respondents considered that the chosen brands were
indeed luxurious.
Pre-test subjects (N=60) were selected from ten student web-based groups belonging to different
European universities and from the Philips Consumer Lifestyle employee database. There was no
monetary compensation for participating in the pre-test study.
The questionnaires were created with the web-based service Qualtrics and were distributed via
social media platforms and email.
For reasons pertaining to the statistical analyses, we aimed to recruit a similar number of
participants originating from Eastern Europe and Western Europe, respectively (see Appendix B)
34 | P a g e
The three surveys, each representing one brand, were sent to 10 Eastern European and 10
Western European citizens each. Therefore, the three questionnaires were sent to 60 people in
total. At the end, the three questionnaires had a relative equal number of respondents (14-18
respondents) per questionnaire.
6.4 Results of the pre-test
The aim of the pre-test was to select the brands which had the highest and lowest fit scores in
terms of their corresponding brand extensions. For instance, as it will be shown below, we chose
Dom Perignon because one of its high-fit extensions and low-fit extensions, scored significantly
higher, respectively lower on the perceived product fit scale, compared to the scores of the highfit and low-fit extensions of the other brands included in the study. An additional criterion was
that these brands needed to have a score over 4 on the luxury and familiarity dimensions.
6.4.1 Reliability
In order to test the internal consistency for each scale, a reliability analysis was conducted for the
items defining the luxury dimension of the brands, the social and self-related motivations when it
comes to purchasing luxury brands, and the product category fit variable which was analyzed for
every extension.
According to DeVellis (2003), a Cronbach alpha coefficient of α=0.7 or above indicates
satisfactory internal consistency.
Dom Perignon
Following a reliability analysis, we found that all scales except the self-motivation scale have
high internal consistency (see Table 2).
The reliability score for the self-motivation scale was very low (α=0.32). However, when the
item “I would buy Dom Perignon products because of their rarity” was eliminated, the internal
consistency increased to α=0.58.
In order to keep the social motivation scale at the same number of items as the self- motivation
variable, we also deleted the item within social motivation scale without which the Cronbach
alpha coefficient was maximized.
35 | P a g e
Therefore, when the item “I would buy Dom Perignon’s products if my friends have already
purchased them”, the internal consistency increased from α=0.72 to α=0.87.
Table 2. Dom Perignon scales reliability scores
Brand
Scale
luxury dimension
Dom Perignon
α
0.82
self-motivation
0.32
social motivation
0.72
fit extension1
0.89
fit extension2
0.74
fit extension3
0.92
fit extension4
0.97
N:15
Jaguar
For the Jaguar brand, the reliability analysis showed that all variables have high internal
consistency, with the exception of self-motivations scale (see Table 3).
The reliability score for the self-motivation scale was low (α=0.56). However, when the item “I
would buy Jaguar products because of their rarity” was eliminated, the internal consistency
increased to α=0.85.
36 | P a g e
Table 3. Jaguar scales reliability scores
Brand
Scale
luxury dimension
Jaguar
α
0.67
self-motivation
0.56
social motivation
0.79
fit extension1
0.86
fit extension2
0.92
fit extension3
0.81
fit extension4
0.97
N:14
Guerlain
With the exception of self-motivation and social motivation variables, all other variables have
high internal consistency (see Table 4).
The reliability score for the self-motivation scale was low (α=0.66). However, when the item “I
would buy Guerlain products because of their rarity” was eliminated, the internal consistency
increased to α=0.87.
The reliability score for the social motivation scale was very low (α=0.54). Moreover, the
internal consistency did not significantly increase when eliminating any one of the items.
37 | P a g e
Table 4. Guerlain scales reliability scores
Brand
Jaguar
Scale
luxury dimension
α
0.87
self-motivation
0.66
social motivation
0.54
fit extension1
0.91
fit extension2
0.90
fit extension3
0.96
fit extension4
0.94
N:18
6.4.2 Comparing scales’ means across brands
Familiarity and Luxury Dimension
In order to be valid for the final test, the mean scores for familiarity and luxury dimension
needed to at least a value of 4.
By evaluating the means of all variables across brands we can conclude that the with the
exception of Guerlain, Jaguar and Dom Perignon scored valid values on familiarity and all of the
brands scored valid on luxury dimension (see Table 5).
Based on these results, we have removed Guerlain from the final test consideration set.
In order to investigate whether there are significant differences between the brands in terms of
variables of interest, we performed one-way ANOVAs for familiarity and luxury dimension.
We have learned that, in terms of familiarity, there were no significant differences between the
three brands, F(2,44)=2.219, p= 0.121. However, given the score under the value of 4, we
decided to keep Guerlain out of the consideration set.
Similarly, we found no significant differences between the brands in terms of luxury dimension,
F(2,44)=2.340, p=0.108.
38 | P a g e
Perceived Product Fit
Going forward, within the pre-test scope, identifying the highest-fit extension, as well as the
lowest fit extension of one of the three brands would help us in choosing the brand for the final
test.
It is important to remind, that within the pre-test, four brand extensions were appointed for each
brand, out of which the first two extensions are assumed of being high fit (extension 1 and
extension 2), while the last two extensions (extension 3 and extension 4) are assumed to be of
low-fit.
Additionally, is important to note that Guerlain did not score at least 4 on familiarity. Therefore,
for the analysis regarding the high-fit and the low-fit extensions, we will only evaluate the ones
pertaining to the remaining two brands, Dom Perignon and Jaguar.
Therefore, by evaluating first the mean scores of Jaguar and Dom Perignon high-fit extensions,
we observed that Dom Perignon extension 1 scored lower that 4 as well as Jaguar’s extension 2
(see Table 5). Given the fact that both scores of the above mentioned extensions did not score a
high value on the perceived product fit, we have taken them out from the consideration set.
Therefore, for the high-fit extensions, we only compared the second extension of Dom PerignonDom Perignon bottle openers, and the first extension for Jaguar- Jaguar motorcycles. An
independent samples t-test did not reveal a significant difference between the perceived fit levels
of Jaguar and Dom Perignon, t(27)=-1.396, p=0.174.
Adopting a similar approach for the low-fit extensions of the two brands, we would have taken
out from the consideration set the perceived fit scores that were higher than 4, given the fact that
in this extension set we were interested in the lowest scores on fit. However, for both Dom
Perignon and Jaguar brands, all assumed low-fit extensions scored low on perceived product fit
(see Table 5). Therefore, no low-fit extensions were taken out of the consideration set.
In order to understand which extension coming from either the two brands has the lowest fit, we
conducted one-way ANOVA. Results indicated that, overall, there are significant differences
between the four low-fit extensions of Jaguar and Dom Perignon.
By conducting Bonferroni multiple comparisons, we found that the second extension of Jaguar
was rated significantly higher than the any of the other three extensions. However, there were no
significant differences between any of these three brand extensions, meaning that they were rated
similarly in terms of perceived fit (see Appendix C).
39 | P a g e
Thus, as shown above, the results concerning the differences between Dom Perignon and Jaguar
brand extensions are not very conclusive and supportive in clearly defining the brand to be used
in the final test. This might stem either because of the low sample size or simply because there
might be no actual differences between the extensions in terms of perceived fit.
Considering these limitations, we selected Dom Perignon because its second high-fit extension
had the highest level of perceived fit compared to the other high-fit extensions and its second
low-fit extension had the lowest of perceived fit compared to the other low-fit extensions.
Moreover, it scored well on both familiarity and luxury dimension making it feasible for the
main study.
6.4.3 Correlations between variables
In order to understand if there was any correlation between motivation behind consumers’
intention to buy a luxury brand and the way they perceive fit across different extensions, we
conducted a correlation analysis.
Before reporting the correlation, we need to note that within the pre-test, extension 1 and
extension 2 were assumed to be of high-fit, while extension 3 and extension 4 corresponding to
each brand in the pre-test were assumed to be of low-fit.
Self-Motivation and Perceived Product Fit (High Fit Extensions)
The correlations between self-motivation and high fit extensions were not significant across
brands for neither extension 1 nor extension 2 (see Table 6).
However, we found that there is a positive linear relation between the self-motivation and high
fit extensions. Thus, the higher the self–motivation, the higher the perceived product fit for
extensions 1 and 2 are, with the latter being assumed to be of high fit. Moreover, according to
Cohen (1988, pp. 79-81) the correlation has a small strength given the .124 value for extension 1
and .132, for extension 2.
When we calculate the coefficients of determination, which is the square of r, we obtain a
percentage of variance of 1.5% for extension 1 and 1.7% for extension 2. That means that the
variance of self-motivation accounts to 1.5% of the variance for extension 1, and 1.7% of the
variance of extension 2.
40 | P a g e
Table 6. Correlations between self-motivation and perceived product fit (high-fit Extensions)
Variables
N
R
p
self-motivation
extension1HF
15
0.124
0.659
extension2HF
15
0.132
0.638
Self-Motivation and Perceived Product Fit (Low Fit Extensions)
The correlation between self-motivation and low fit extensions were not significant across brands
for neither extension 3 nor extension 4 (see Table 7).
However, by looking at the sign before the Pearson correlation coefficient, we found that there is
a negative linear relation between the self -motivation and perceived product fit of extension 3
and 4. The higher the self -motivation the lower the perceived product fit for extensions 3 and 4,
which are assumed to be of low fit. Moreover, according to Cohen (1988, pp. 79-81) the
correlation has a medium strength given the -.358 value for extension 3 (medium when r= .30 to
.49) and a small strength for extension 4 given -.041 (small when r= .10 to .29).
When we calculate the coefficients of determination, which is the square of r, we obtain a
percentage of variance of 12.8% for extension 3 and 0.1% for extension 4. That means selfmotivation helps to explain 12.8% of the variance in respondents for extension 3 and only 0.1%
of the variance in respondents for extension 4.
Table 7. Correlations between self-motivation and perceived product fit (low-fit extensions)
Variables
self-motivation
N
R
p
extension3LF
15
-0.358
0.190
extension4LF
15
-0.041
0.886
To sum up, self-motivation might have a positive linear relation with the high-fit extensions
(extension 1 and extension 2) and a negative linear relation with the low-fit extensions (extension
3 and extension 4). Nevertheless, none of the correlation was significant, but considering the
Pearson correlation coefficients, this might be due to the low sample size.
41 | P a g e
Social Motivation and Perceived Product Fit (High Fit Extensions)
The correlation between social motivation and perceived product fit for extensions 1 and 2
(assumed as being of high fit) were not significant across brands for neither extension 1 nor
extension 2 (see Table 8).
There is a positive linear relation between the social motivation and perceived product fit of
extension 1 and 2, based on the sign before the Pearson correlation coefficient. Therefore the
higher the social motivation the higher the perceived product fit for extensions 1 and 2, assumed
to be of high fit.
Moreover, according to Cohen (1988, pp. 79-81) the correlation has a medium strength given the
.183 value for Extension 1 (medium when r= .30 to .49) and a small strength for Extension 2
given .097 (small when r= .10 to .29).
When we calculate the coefficients of determination, which is the square of r, we obtain a
percentage of variance of 3.3% for extension 1 and 0.9% for extension 2. That means social
motivation helps to explain 3.3% of the variance in respondents for extension1 and only 0.9% of
the variance in respondents for extension 2.
Table 8. Correlations between social motivation and perceived product fit (high-fit extensions)
Variables
social motivation
N
R
p
extension1HF
15
0.183
0.515
extension2HF
15
0.097
0.73
Social Motivation and Perceived Product Fit (Low Fit Extensions)
The correlation between social Motivation and perceived product fit for extension 3 and 4
(assumed as being of high fit) were not significant across brands with p=0.271 for extension 3
and p=0.476 for extension 4 (see Table 9). The insignificance could be explained by the small
number of respondents (N=15).
There is a positive linear relation between the social motivation and perceived product fit of
extension 3 and 4, based on the sign before the Pearson correlation coefficient. Therefore, the
42 | P a g e
higher the social motivation, the higher the perceived product fit for extension 3 and 4, assumed
to be of low fit.
Moreover, according to Cohen (1988, pp. 79-81) the correlation has medium strength given the
.304 value for extension 3 (medium when r= .30 to .49) and a small strength for extension 4
given .199 (small when r= .10 to .29).
When we calculate the coefficients of determination, which is the square of r, we obtain a
percentage of variance of 9.2% for extension 3 and 3.9% for extension 4. That means social
motivation helps to explain 9.2% of the variance in respondents for extension 3 and 3.9% of the
variance in respondents for extension 4.
Table 9. Correlations between social motivation and perceived product fit (low-fit extensions)
Variables
N
R
p
extension3LF
15 0.304
0.271
social motivation
extension4LF
15 0.199
0.476
Summing up, the social motivation variable might show a linear positive relation in relation with
high-fit as well as with the low-fit extensions. Nevertheless, neither of the correlations was
significant.
The results from the correlation analyses concerning self- and social motivation, and the levels of
perceived fit related to the high- and low-fit extensions were unfortunately not entirely
conclusive. However, disregarding the fact that the results were overall insignificant, the
analyses still allowed us to see a possible trend that was in accordance to our expectations. That
is, social motivation tended to be positively associated to high- and low-fit extensions, whereas
self-motivation tended to be negatively associated with low-fit extensions. We note, however,
that the Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from the lower 0.10s to higher 0.30s, and that
sample size was low across the analyses. Together, this hints that we could indeed find stronger
and, thus, significant results in the same directions, have more observations been included in the
tests. Therefore, we can state with some degree of confidence that we found some evidence
supporting our expectations, in terms of the associations between the types of motivation and the
perceived fit for the low- and high-fit extensions.
43 | P a g e
6.5 Main study
6.5.1 Development of the questionnaire
In order to gather the necessary data for testing our hypotheses, two questionnaires were
developed. The first questionnaire contained the low-fit extension of the Dom Perignon brand Dom Perignon men ties, and the second questionnaire contained the high-fit extension of the
same brand - Dom Perignon bottle openers.
We decided to develop one questionnaire for each extension in order to avoid biased responses
coming from the same respondents. Naturally, the split of extensions per questionnaires allowed
us to have different respondents per questionnaire, therefore per brand extension.
Each of the questionnaire consisted of 24 questions, out of which 21 were based on a 7-point
Likert scale items (Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)) and the other three were
demographical questions related to nationality, age and gender. The questions from the two
questionnaires were identical with the exception that some of the questions were adapted to the
brand extension used in each of the questionnaires.
Each questionnaire began with a description of the brand on which the questionnaire focused. In
our case, each questionnaire contained an identical description of the Dom Perignon brand. The
introduction contained the logo of the brand, a few of its products, and a description of the brand
history and the core products the brand sell.
After the introduction of the brand, questions related to control variables followed (familiarity
and luxury dimension). Succeeding the control variables, there were the items related to the
social motivation and self-motivation measures. It is important to note that these items were
intertwined in order to prevent participants from giving biased responses.
Afterwards the brand extension was presented. The presentation consisted of a brief text
describing the brand extension to be introduced by Dom Perignon, the channel of sale of
extension and also a possible visualization of the extension to be released.
Following the introduction of the extension, the questions related to fit and attitude towards the
specific brand extension were introduced.
Manipulation checks were added after the questions related to the attitude of the participants
towards the either low-fit or high-fit brand extension. One role of the manipulation questions
was to identify if there were any respondents who were not involved in filling in the
44 | P a g e
questionnaire, by asking the following question for the high-fit group: Dom Perignon intends to
launch: 1. Glass identifier, 2. Champagne glasses, 3. Bottle openers, 3. Champagne stopper; and
the following question for the low-fit group: Dom Perignon intends to launch: 1.Men’s shoes,
2.Men’s ties, 3.Men’s belts, 4.Men’s shirts, 5. Men’s bow ties. Moreover, manipulation checks
were included to investigate whether any of the respondents had negative attitude towards Dom
Perignon as a brand (through measuring brand favorability).
Succeeding the manipulation checks, demographic questions related to nationality, age, gender
were introduced. Lastly, both questionnaires ended with an open question were respondents were
encouraged to leave comments about the brand extension or about the questionnaire itself.
The questionnaire ended with thanking participants for their involvement and informing them
that after submitting their answers they would be redirected to a Google form where they could
have registered to an online raffle or where they could have registered for receiving the final
results of the main study.
6.5.2 Sample
A minimum of 120 respondents per questionnaire was needed in order to have enough data to get
reliable results. Given the fact that the present study examines a cross regional comparison,
between Eastern and Western Europe, the number of respondents per questionnaire needed to be
more or less equally distributed between Western European respondents and Eastern European
respondents. Overall, for both questionnaires, a minimum of 240 respondents were needed, out
of which around 120 should have been Eastern Europeans and 120 Western Europeans.
In order to collect the necessary number of respondents corresponding to the criteria above, the
questionnaires were distributed through social media (Facebook) to different web-based groups
belonging to different European universities, expat groups, and to different groups pertaining to
different European nationalities. In addition to that a surveying session was organized at the
Schipol International Airport in Amsterdam.
Eventually, we ended up with a an overall sample of 319 respondents for the two questionnaires,
with 163 participants that filled in the questionnaire developed for the high-fit group and 156
respondents for the second questionnaire, developed for the low-fit group.
45 | P a g e
Questionnaire - High fit group
As mentioned above, a number of 163 participants filled in the questionnaire developed for
creating the high-fit group of respondents. However, given the fact that 11 participants dropped
out after filling in the questions pertaining only to familiarity and luxury dimension, those
participants were excluded from the high-fit group data base. Consequently, a number of 152
respondents, representing the high-fit group, were included in the main study analysis. Out of the
152 respondents, 46.68% were Eastern Europeans and 51.31% Western Europeans as depicted
in Figure 2 while from a gender perspective, 39.2% were males, 60% females and 0.7% not
known (see Figure 3). The age of the participants was distributed as follows: 1.4% (< 20yrs old),
46% (20-24yrs old), 31.6% (25-29yrs old), 10.5% (30-34yrs old), and 10.7% (> 34yrs old) (see
Figure 4).
Figure 2: Regional split (high-fit group)
Figure 3: Gender distribution (high-fit group)
Figure 4: Age distribution (high-fit group)
46 | P a g e
Questionnaire – Low-fit group
A total of 156 participants filled in the questionnaire representing the low-fit group, and 12
participants dropped out after filling in only the questions pertaining to familiarity and luxury
dimensions variables. Therefore, 144 valid responses represented the low-fit group.
51.4% of the respondents were Eastern Europeans, while 48.6% were Western Europeans. When
it comes to gender, 33.3% were male, 57.1% female and 9.6% did not mention their gender. Age
of the respondents was represented in the low-fit group database as following: 0% (<20 yrs old),
31.9% (20-24yrs old), 57.6% (25-29yrs old), 6.3% (30-34yrs old), and 4.2% (>34yrs old).
Figure 5: Regional split (low-fit group)
Figure 6: Gender distribution (low-fit group)
Figure 7: Age distribution (low-fit group)
Moreover, it is important to note that the respondents who did not meet the manipulation checks
(scored lower than 4 on brand favorability, or failed to answer attention question while filling in
the questionnaire), were excluded from the hypotheses analysis. Therefore, 5 respondents were
excluded for the overall database because they scored less than 4 on brand favorability and 6
respondents were excluded from the database due to the fact that they did not choose the correct
47 | P a g e
answer for the attention question (bottle openers for the high fit group; men’s ties for the low-fit
group).
6.5.3 Measurement
In order to test the motivations related to self (functional and experiential value) and the social
motivation (symbolic and social value), we used as a basis the measures developed by Berthon
and colleagues (2009) and Vigneron and Johnson (2004). For the perceived fit, we used the
measures developed by Aaker and Keller (1990) based on a seven-point Likert scale. The
attitudes towards luxury brands extensions is measured on a seven-point scale items in the
questionnaire used also by Park, Milberg and Lawson (1991), in their research of how consumers
evaluate brand extensions.
Table 10: Measurement main test: items/scales
Items/Scales
Familiarity
The average of three, seven-point bipolar items with anchors
1. Familiar/Unfamiliar
2. Did not recognize/ Did recognize
References
Simonin et al.(1998)
3. Had not heard of/ Had heard of the brand
Luxury dimension
Simonin et al. (1998)
The average of three, seven-point items; Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
1. Brand's X products are expensive
2. Brand's X products are luxurious
3. Brand's X products are prestigious
Self-motivation
Berthon et al. (2009)
Vigneron et al.(2004)
The average of three, seven-point items; Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
1. I would buy luxury brand X’s product because of its quality
2. I would buy luxury brand X’s product because of the brand expertize in producing it
3. I would buy luxury brand X’s because of the craftsmanship is produced with;
Social motivation
Berthon et al. (2009)
Vigneron et al.(2004)
The average of three, seven-point items; Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
1. I would buy luxury brand X’s because it can support in displaying status & wealth
2. I would buy luxury brand X’s product because it supports in identifying with a high ranked
social class
48 | P a g e
3. I would buy luxury brand X’s product if it’s admired within my social group
Perceived product category fit
Park et al.(1991)
The average of three, seven-point items; Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
SUBSTITUTE: The product of the initial brand and the product that represents the brand
extension are substitutes that I would choose from within the same time of usage situation
COMPLEMENT: The product of the initial brand and the product that represents the brand
extension need to be used together to satisfy the same need, under certain usage situation
TRANSFER: The manufacturer of the initial product class is able to make the product extension
Attitude towards the extension
Park et al. (1991)
The average of three, seven-point bipolar items
1. My attitude towards the extension is good/bad
2. My attitude towards the extension is negative/positive
3. The extension unfavorable/ favorable
49 | P a g e
Chapter 7: Results
7.1 Reliability check
In order to test the internal consistency for each scale, a reliability analysis was conducted for the
items defining familiarity, luxury dimension, the social and self-related motivations when it
comes to purchasing luxury brands, the product category fit and attitude towards the extension.
According to DeVellis (2003), a Cronbach alpha coefficient of α=0.7 or above indicates
satisfactory internal consistency.
As shown in table 11, all scales showed good internal
consistency, with each scale showing α coefficient higher than 0.7.
Table 11. Scales reliability scores
Scale
α
familiarity
0.79
luxury dimension
0.86
self-motivation
0.74
social motivation
0.79
fit
0.78
attitudes towards
0.95
the extension
7.2 Control variables
The groups that will help us analyze the hypotheses are represented by fit groups (high - low)
and nationality groups (Eastern - Western)
Fit groups
After running an independent samples t-test, we observed that there is no significant difference
between the high-fit and low-fit groups in terms of familiarity, t(317)=-1.855, p=0.064, luxury
dimension, t(317)=0.632, p=0.528, nationalities, t(284)=0.464, p= 0.643 and age, t(294)=-0.476,
p=0.634. Additionally, by running a Chi-square test, no significant difference was observed
between the fit groups (high-low) in terms of gender, χ2(2)=1.170, p=0.557.
50 | P a g e
Nationality groups
Similarly, after running and independent samples t-test, we observed that, with the exception of
age, t(294)=-2.478, p=0.14, no significant difference was found for familiarity, t(294)=1.175,
p=0.241, and luxury dimension, t(294)=0.640, p=0.523 between the nationality groups (Eastern Western). Moreover, there were no differences between Eastern and Western Europeans groups
in terms of gender distribution, χ2 (2)=1.647, p=0.439.
7.3 Manipulation checks
In order to test the hypotheses, we have firstly checked whether the respondents perceived the
manipulations as anticipated. The manipulations variables were related to degree of product fit of
the two extensions used for the final test and favorability towards the Dom Perignon brand.
Moreover, the manipulations check helped us identifying if there were any respondents who
were not involved in filling in the questionnaire. As mentioned in the questionnaire development,
this check was made with the following item for the high-fit group: Dom Perignon intends to
launch: 1. Glass identifier, 2. Champagne glasses, 3. Bottle openers, 3. Champagne stopper; and
the following item for the low-fit group: Dom Perignon intends to launch: 1.Men’s shoes,
2.Men’s ties, 3.Men’s belts, 4.Men’s shirts, 5. Men’s bow ties. The respondents, who did not
check Bottle openers- for the high-fit group and Men’s ties- for the low-fit group, were excluded
from the overall analysis. In total, 6 respondents were excluded due to not meeting the above
manipulation check.
Product Category Fit
Participants in the high-fit extension group scored higher on the perceived fit (M=4.82) measure
than participants in the low-fit group (M=3.05). This was in accordance with the results coming
from the pre-test.
Favorability
All participants who scored less than 4 were not included in the overall analysis, based on the
fact that low scores on favorability could have biased the evaluation of future brand extensions.
In total, 5 respondents were excluded from the overall analysis due to not meeting this
manipulation check.
51 | P a g e
7.4 Hypothesis testing
Given the fact that understanding the interaction between two independent/predictors and one
criterion/ dependent variable lies within the scope of the research, we used the linear regression
model to understand the moderation effect of social, respectively self-motivation on the direct
relation between fit and attitudes towards brand extensions.
For the rest of the hypotheses, which assume the comparison of different variables’ means
between two unrelated groups, we will use independent-sample t-tests.
Therefore, by understanding the nature of the hypotheses we observe that for Hypotheses 1a, 2,
3, independent sample-t tests will be used for analyses, while for Hypotheses 1b and 4 we will
use the linear regression model.
All hypotheses were tested at a significance level of α=0.05.
H1a. When product fit between the parent brand and the extension is high, the attitudes towards
brand extensions is higher than when product fit between the parent brand and the extension is
low.
There was a significant difference between the high-fit group and the low-fit group in terms of
attitudes towards the Dom Perignon brand, t(288.126)=4.151, p<0.001.Specifically, participants
in the high-fit group scored higher on the attitudes scale (M = 4.44) than those in the low-fit
group (M = 3.68).
H1b. Higher perceived fit is associated with more positive attitudes towards the brand
extensions, rather than lower perceived fit.
A simple regression analysis revealed that perceived fit significantly predicted attitudes in the
high fit group (β=0.876, t=11.392, p<0.001), explaining 46.5% of its variance (R2=0.465,
F(1,147)=129.773, p<0.001). Therefore, higher scores on the perceived fit scale predicted more
favorable attitudes, thus supporting Hypothesis 1b.
We investigated leverage (the overrepresentation of an observation in the estimation of the
model) by analyzing the Cook’s distance values. The maximum value was 0.073, suggesting that
no observation exerted too high of an influence in fitting the model. Moreover, the assumption of
52 | P a g e
normality and linearity were largely met, with the remark that the distribution of the standardized
residuals was slightly skewed to the left (see Figure 1, 2/Appendix E). Also, there might be
causes for concern regarding the assumption of homoscedasticity of the dependent variable,
since there is less observed variance for lower scores on attitudes (see Figure 3/ Appendix E).
Similarly, for the low-fit group, perceived fit was a significant predictor for attitudes towards the
Dom Perignon brand (β=0.855, t=9.599, p<0.001), explaining 39.7% of the variance of the
outcome variable (R2=0.397, F(1,140)=92.142, p<0.001). This result is line with Hypothesis 1b,
as the data show that individuals in the low-fit group who scored higher on the perceived fit scale
were more likely to express favorable attitudes towards Dom Perignon.
As with the previous regression analysis, there seem to be no leverage problems (the highest
value for Cook’s distance was 0.262). Furthermore, the residuals appear to be normally
distributed, with a slight skew to the left (see Figure 4, 5/ Appendix E). There were however
some issues regarding heteroscedasticity (see Figure 6/ Appendix E), in that there was less
variance of the residuals for higher scores in attitudes.
H2a. When it comes to purchasing luxury brands, Eastern European’ social motivations are
higher than their motivations related to self;
H2b. When it comes to purchasing luxury brands, Western Europeans’ motivations related to
self are higher than their social motivations;
Contrary to Hypothesis 2a, we found no difference between levels of social motivation (M=4.66)
and self-motivation (M=4.68) amongst Eastern Europeans, t(146)=-0.162, p=0.872. However,
Western Europeans did score higher on the self-motivation scale (M=4.64) than on the social
motivation scale (M=3.59), t(143)=-9.391, p<0.001, thus supporting Hypothesis 2b.
H3a. When it comes to purchasing luxury brands, Eastern Europeans’ social motivations are
higher than Western European’s social motivation;
H3b. When it comes to purchasing luxury brands, Western Europeans’ motivation related to self
are higher than Eastern Europeans’ self-related motivations;
53 | P a g e
An independent-sample t-test was used to test Hypotheses 3a and 3b. As expected, Eastern
Europeans scored higher (M=4.67) on the social motivation scale compared to Western
Europeans (M=3.59), t(281,826)=7.163, p<0.001. However, there were no differences between
Eastern and Western Europeans in terms of self-motivation, t(263.399)=0.178, p=0.859.
H4a.The higher the consumer’s motivation related self when buying luxury brands, the stronger
the impact of perceived fit on extension attitude;
Before running the linear regression model, the correlations between the independent variables
were analyzed. In order to investigate this, a 2-tailed Pearson Correlation analysis was
performed.
Results showed that there are no concerns in this regard, since there is no association between
self-motivation and perceived fit (see Table 12).
Table 12. Correlations: Self-Motivation and Product Fit; Social Motivation and Product Fit
Variables
self-motivation
product fit
N
r
p
296
0.029
0.619
social motivation
296
0.001
0.992
In order to test Hypothesis 4a, a multiple regression was conducted, with scores on the fit and
social motivation scales, and an interaction term between perceived fit and social motivation as
predictors, and scores on the attitudes scale as the dependent variable. The regression model as a
whole fitted our data, R2=0.435, F(3,287)=75.394, p<0.001, with the predictors explaining
43.5% of the variance of the outcome variable. Perceived fit was a significant predictor of
attitudes towards the Dom Perignon brand, β=0.708, t=14.763, p<0.001, whereas self-motivation
was not, β=0.079, t=1.195, p=0.233. However, the interaction term was significant, β=0.094,
t=2.298, p=0.022, meaning that self-motivation appears to moderate the relationship between
perceived fit and attitudes. Therefore, the Hypothesis 4a was supported by our data.
54 | P a g e
Table 13. Hypothesis 4a, Statistics for the overall regression model
Std.
Change Statistics
Adjusted Error of
R
R2
R2
the
R2
F
df1
df2
Estimate
.644a
0.441
0.435
1.21437 0.441
75.394
3
287
a. Predictors: (Constant), selfbyfit, cfit, cself
b. Dependent Variable: Attitudes
p
0.001
Table 14. Hypothesis 4a, Regression coefficients and colinearity statistics
Colinearity statistics
Predictors
β
Fit
self-motivation
fit * self-motivation
0.708
0.079
0.094
Std.
Error
0.048
0.066
0.041
t
14.763
1.195
2.298
p
0.001
0.223
0.022
Tolerance
VIF
1
0.99
0.99
1
1.01
1.01
a. Dependent Variable: Attitudes
H4b. The higher the consumer’s social motivation when buying luxury brand, the lesser the
impact of perceived fit on extension attitude;
To test Hypothesis 4b, a multiple regression was conducted, with scores on the fit and social
motivation scales, and an interaction term between perceived fit and social motivation as
predictors, and scores on the attitudes scale as the dependent variable. The regression model as a
whole fitted our data, R2=0.456, F(3,287)=81.987, p<0.001, with the predictors explaining
45.6% of the variance of the outcome variable. Both perceived fit, β=0.705, t=14.938, p<0.001
and social motivation, β=0.195, t=3.864, p<0.001 were significant predictors of attitudes toward
the Dom Perignon brand. However, the interaction term was not significant, β=-0.058, t=-1.760,
p=0.079, meaning that social motivation does not appear to moderate the relationship between
perceived fit and attitudes. As a consequence, we could not find support for Hypothesis 4b.
55 | P a g e
Tabel 15. Hypothesis 4b, Statistics for the overall regression model
Std.
Change Statistics
Adjusted Error of
2
R
R
R2
the
R2
F
df1
df2
Estimate
a
.679
0.461
0.456
1.19162
0.461
81.987
3
287
a. Predictors: (Constant), socialbyfit, csocial, cfit
p
0.001
b. Dependent Variable: Attitudes
Tabel 16. Hypothesis 4b, Regression coefficients and colinearity statistics
Colinearity statistics
Predictors
β
Fit
0.705
Social Motivation
0.195
Fit * Social Motivation
-0.058
a. Dependent Variable: Attitudes
Std.
Error
0.047
0.05
0.033
t
14.938
3.864
-1.76
p
0.001
0.001
0.079
Tolerance
VIF
0.994
0.999
0.993
1.006
1.001
1.007
Colinearity diagnostics and outliers
In order to assess the feasibility of the two models, we investigated whether there were any
issues related to colinearity, as well as checked whether the assumptions of multiple regressions
were met. In terms of colinearity, we found that no predictor had tolerance values of under 0.2
and neither VIFs of over 10, for neither of the models (see Table 14). These suggest that there
are little concerns regarding multicolinearity. By analyzing Cook’s distance values, we also
investigated whether there were certain observations with high leverage in the model estimation.
In both models, two participants had Cook’s distance values exceeding 1.0, which indicate that
these observations might have had high leverage in fitting the regression model. Therefore, we
re-ran the analyses after excluding these cases. However, the results remained almost identical
for each model, meaning that the two observations did not influence the results significantly. The
next step was to investigate whether the assumptions of multiple regressions were met. First, we
visually inspected a Q-Q plot formed by the standardized and predicted values. The plot suggests
that there is indeed a linear relationship between the predictors and the outcome variable and that
that variance appears to be constant across the scores on the outcome variable Attitude (the
56 | P a g e
assumption of homoscedasticity). Furthermore, as shown in Figures 7 and 8 (see Appendix E),
the assumption of normally distributed residuals was also largely met. In both cases there is a
slight skew to the left, but this should not pose important concerns, since regression analysis is
generally robust to violations of this assumption. Considering that the models are not affected by
colinearity and leverage issues, and that there are no clear threats to the assumptions of linear
regression, we can conclude that the results of the regression models are robust and, thus, bring
further support in the case of Hypothesis 4a.
Figure 8: Line graph representing the moderation effect of self-motivation on the relation
between perceived fit and attitudes
57 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Discussion
Within this chapter we will discuss the results of the research, by following a structured approach
given by the order in which hypotheses were analyzed. Moreover, we will briefly focus on the
explanation of unexpected outcomes and finalize with theoretical as well as managerial
implications of the study’s results.
8.1 Interpretation of results
The manipulations conducted at the beginning of data analysis showed that the brand used for
the final test was adequate for the research, with the brand scoring high on favorability.
Moreover, through manipulations we confirmed that the extensions chosen for the test met the
criteria mentioned in stimuli development. Also, we made sure that the data we used was reliable
through a manipulation check that allowed us to test whether participants were paying attention
or not to the questionnaire.
Hypothesis 1 – The direct impact of product fit on attitude formation towards the brand
extension
The first hypothesis involved the relation between product fit and the attitudes towards the new
brand extension. The starting point of this hypothesis were the studies developed by Aaker and
Keller (1990) and Park and colleagues (1990) on brand extension evaluation that mentioned how
important perceived product fit is when evaluating a brand extension and how that influences the
development of attitudes towards the new extension in a direct manner. Therefore, the first part
of the analysis focused on finding out whether the product fit of the extensions had a direct
impact on attitude towards the new extension, therefore whether this was in line with Aaker and
Keller’s (1990) and Park’s and colleagues (1991) view on fit.
As expected, the results of the analysis showed that depending on the fit group they were part of,
participants developed different attitudes towards the new brand extension. In the case of
participants who were part of the high fit group, more positive attitudes were developed
compared to those of pertaining of participants from the low fit group. Thus, Hypothesis 1a was
supported.
Moreover, we found out that perceived fit significantly predicted attitudes in both fit groups. In
other words, higher scores on the perceived fit scale predicted more favorable attitudes, in both
fit groups, thus fully supporting H1b. Overall, H1a and H1b were in line with Aaker & Keller’s
58 | P a g e
(1990) study on “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions” as well as with the study
developed by Park and colleagues (1991) on “Evaluation of Brand Extension: The Role of
Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency”.
Hypothesis 2 – The difference in social and self-motivation levels within regional context
(Eastern Europe and Western Europe)
Building on Shukla’s (2010, 2011) findings, that a variance in the consumers’ purchasing
motivations of status products may arise within a cross-national setting, we investigated whether
consumers belonging to certain cultural and socio-economical context, in our case, Eastern
Europe and Western Europe, balance towards a specific underlying motivation when intending to
purchase luxury brands.
We, therefore, identified that, in line with Shukla’s reasoning, participants from Western
European countries scored higher on the self-motivation scale rather than the social motivation
scale. Shukla (2010, 2011) makes a connection between cultural aspects (individualist vs.
collectivist) and mentions that given the individualistic culture, Western European consumers
would buy luxury products mainly for self-esteem or self-respect. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was
supported.
On the other hand, starting from the finding that Eastern European consumers, according to
Shukla (2010, 2011), are more prone to buy luxury goods with more ostentation in mind, driven
by more social-related motivations compared to Western European consumers, we were also
interested to see whether Eastern Europeans display more social motivation rather than selfrelated motivation within the same group.
However, the results of the analysis revealed however that no significant difference was found
between the levels of social motivation and self-motivation amongst Eastern Europeans.
Therefore, it could be that when compared to Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans display
more social motivation than self-motivation, however, we observed that within the same Eastern
European group of consumers, social and self-motivation were displayed almost on the same
levels. These results, therefore, are more in line with Nueno et al. (1998) and Vigneron et al.
(2004), which mentioned in their studies that consumers look for buying luxury products to
either portray social standing, either their individuality or both, irrespective of their cultural
background. In the case of present study, Eastern European consumers seek therefore to portray
both their individuality as a peer but also their social standing within society.
59 | P a g e
Hypothesis 3 – Cross-regional comparison (Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe) in terms of
motivations (social motivation vs. self-motivation) to buy luxury goods
Previous studies indicate that differences in underlying motivations for purchasing luxury brands
may arise between cultures. Shukla (2010, 2011) mentioned that the difference in motivation to
buy luxury goods exists and balanced towards extrinsic motivations, such as the yearning to
display status within a social group of people, in collectivist countries and towards intrinsic
motivations, related to self, in more individualistic cultures. As mentioned before, a similar study
conducted by Bian and Forsythe (2011), reveled slightly different results, with collectivist
consumers displaying a higher need for uniqueness that leads to self-related motivations,
compared to individualist consumers.
Within the present research however, we are investigating the differences between Eastern
Europeans and Western Europeans motivations not only from a culture standpoint, but more
from a multidimensional perspective, assuming that a wider set of factors make up the context of
purchase a relevant predictor of motivations. For example, the historic socio-economic
development between East and West of Europe sustains the fact that, after years of restrictions,
Eastern European Citizens were eager to gain the status and standards of living of the Western
European citizen and this often meant that they would buy and consume the same products the
latter bought. The same phenomenon was apparent in the world of luxury products, because the
increasing ex-communist demand of luxury products was, thus, more based on a motivation of
imitation and self-elevation. We therefore tend to incline that the different socio-economic
development that took place between East and West of Europe, as well as the cultural
characteristics that differentiate more or less the East from West of Europe, led to the
development of different underlying motivations to buy luxury products which by nature can
fulfill different needs, given the strong subjective dimension.
Our study revealed that, indeed, there was a difference in motivations between Eastern
Europeans and Western Europeans, due to that fact that Eastern Europeans scored significantly
higher on the social motivation scale compared to Western Europeans. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a
was supported and enhanced the argumentation that a multidimensional context of purchase
leads to different motivations to buy luxury goods.
60 | P a g e
On the other hand, the outcomes of the analysis also showed that no differences were found
between Eastern and Western Europeans in terms of self-motivation. That could be determined
by the fact that Eastern Europeans scored similarly high on self- motivation as well as on socialmotivation, meaning that they could see as equally important, both personal and interpersonal
aspects related to luxury goods. This could imply therefore, the fact that consumers are generally
driven by self-related motivations, regardless of the region or culture they belong to. That could
be connected with the fact that is generally known that luxury products are expensive and most
of time consumers associate “expensive” with “high quality”. The motivation of searching for
quality is a self-related motivation, in the sense that a consumer is buying the product to indulge
himself or herself, to enjoy the high quality of the product. This general belief according to
which luxury products convey comfort and quality, could lead therefore to the development of
common motivation to buy luxury goods among consumers, regardless of the context of
purchase. What is interesting, therefore, is to see that besides the self-related motivations, some
people display other type of motivations when it comes to luxury products purchase which
development can be influenced by the cultural and/or socio-economic where the consumer is
coming from.
Hypothesis 4 – Motivations to buy luxury products (self- and social motivations) act as
moderators of the direct relation between product fit and attitudes towards the new luxury brand
extension
Park, Milberg and Lawson (1991) articulated the fact that different factors can influence the way
consumers evaluate a brand extension. Within the present study, we analyzed if different
motivations to buy luxury goods are moderating the effect of fit on consumers ‘attitudes towards
a new extension.
The outcomes of the analysis showed that self-motivation moderates the relationship between
perceived fit and attitudes. Consequently, the higher the interest in the high quality of the
products they intend to buy, craftsmanship and in the high expertize of the manufacturer to
produce luxury products, the more positive the attitudes to the new extension if the extension is
of high fit, and the more negative the attitudes towards the new extension if the extension is of
low fit. Therefore, Hypothesis 4a was supported and confirms our assumptions based on
previous literature.
61 | P a g e
In contrast, the outcomes of the analysis show that the underlying motivation of consumers
related to the level of admiration within his/her social group, to the ability of the product to
support in displaying status and wealth and to the ability to show the belongingness to a high
social group, did not appear to moderate the relationship between perceived fit and attitudes. In
other words, consumers with a social motivation for purchasing luxury goods did not develop a
significant positive attitude towards a low-fit extension, and neither significant negative attitude
towards a high-fit extension, but they rather considered product fit as a very important aspect
when developing an attitude towards a new product. In this case, product fit remained as the
most important predictor of attitudes, without having its effect moderated by social motivation.
However, we identified that social motivation was a significant predictor of attitudes toward the
Dom Perignon brand. In other words, the higher the social motivation, the higher the attitude
towards the brand extension. Even though Hypothesis 4b was not supported, the finding that
social motivation is a predictor of attitudes is to a certain extend showing that consumers with a
high social motivation generally develop more positive attitudes towards the new extension, in
each case of fit.
In order to explain the results above, we refer to Wiedmann and colleagues’ (2009) study
underlying that consumers consider both personal as well as interpersonal aspects when
purchasing a luxury product. Moreover, Dubois and Laurent (1994) mentioned that consumers
mainly purchase luxury products by being driven by hedonism and perfectionism, both referring
to self-related motivations. As mentioned above, the results of our research show that selfmotivation behaves as a moderator between the relation of fit and attitude towards the new
extension, while social motivation does not. Based on that, a possible explanation to these results
would be that when evaluating a luxury product extension, consumers consider the interaction
between product fit and aspects like quality, craftsmanship, expertize of the manufacturer to
produce the extension more important than the relation between fit and social related aspects,
like snobbery or conspicuousness, even though the consumer could generally score high on both
self- and social motivations.
8.2 Explanation unexpected outcomes
One unexpected outcome of the research is the fact that Eastern European consumers scored
similarly high on both self- and social motivations when intending to acquire status-inducing
62 | P a g e
products. One possible explanation would be connected to the fact that when intending to buy a
luxury product, aspects like quality, expertize and craftsmanship with which is produced, could
be extremely important for any consumer, regardless of the cultural and social-economic context
the consumer belongs to, just because of the fact that this aspects could impact the purchase and
the consumer firstly, given that these aspects will affect the consumer directly. On the other
hand, we can connect these results also to the way of sampling of the questionnaires. Given the
fact that the questionnaires were distributed within different web-based groups, and considering
that most of the web-based groups pertained to different universities and expat communities, we
can infer that the cultural and socio-economical aspect to which the Eastern European
participants originally belong to could have been weakened by the interaction with a Western
European culture, society and economy.
Another unexpected outcome was the fact that the social motivation of consumers did not behave
as a moderator on the interaction between fit and attitudes towards the new brand extensions. In
this case, the weight of fit as a predictor of attitudes towards the new brand extensions was not
significantly weakened by the level of social motivation. One possible explanation as mentioned
before could be that the behavior of purchase and even the intention could represent continuous
dynamics between the personal and interpersonal aspects related to the luxury products
(Wiedmann et al., 2009). Given this fact, even though the conspicuous and status-inducing
motivations for that specific consumer can be as high as his self-related motivations, he will
prioritize his self-related motivations such as motivations, such as the level of quality that could
firstly have an impact on him as a consumer.
8.3 Theoretical implications
The present research not only adds value to the overall literature focused on luxury brands, more
specifically on the evaluation of luxury brands extensions and the motivations associated with
the purchase of luxury brands extensions across cultures, but also to the current vast literature
focused on factors that could impact the direct effect of fit on the formation of attitudes towards
the new brand extension.
First, one of the outcomes of the present study extends the knowledge on consumers’
motivations to buy luxury goods in a cross-cultural and socio-economical context. More
specifically, by focusing on Europe, the study indicates that Eastern European and Western
63 | P a g e
European consumers differ in motivations related to luxury goods purchase in the sense that
Eastern Europeans score higher on the social motivations. By taking in consideration only the
cross-cultural dimension, this result, therefore, enhances the study results of Shukla (2010, 2011)
and even extends it due to the socio-economical differences considered for the regions in focus
for this analysis. In addition to that, the present study extends the knowledge on motivations to
buy luxury brands, by the fact that focused not only on understanding how consumers
motivations differ across cultural and socio-economical regions but also how those motivations
differ within those specific regions.
When it comes to the large research base focused on brand extension evaluation, more
specifically, on luxury extensions evaluation, this present research adds to the current literature
by providing a suggestion of consumers’ evaluation of a luxury brand extensions by considering
different underlying motivations for purchase intention to buy luxury products as a moderator
between the perceived product fit between the core brand and the extension and the attitudes
towards the new brand extension. By learning that self-related motivation acts as a moderator on
the direct impact of product fit on attitudes towards the new luxury brand extensions and that the
social motivation does not, that we add knowledge to the current research specially focused on
the different factors that could moderate the relation between fit and attitudes.
In consequence, this research aimed to add knowledge to existing explorations on the evaluation
of brand extensions and luxury brands, by analyzing the effect of different motivation to buy
luxury goods on the evaluation of luxury brand extensions, when considering the perceived fit as
a factor of success of the new brand extension.
8.4 Managerial implications
A better understanding of consumers’ motivations to buy luxury brands within and across a
cross-cultural, socio-economical context, as well as the effect of the of the consumers’
motivation to buy luxury goods as a moderator of the relation between the perceived fit and the
attitudes towards a luxury brand extensions have important managerial implications for luxury
brands knowledge.
One of the implications of the present study is that, knowing that self-related motivation
strengthens the relation between fit and the attitude towards a brand extension in the case of
luxury brands, and that the levels of self-related motivations are similar for Eastern and Western
64 | P a g e
European consumers, could guide brand and marketing managers to look into luxury brand
extendibility from a different angle. More specifically, based on the results of this study brand
managers should consider the fact that within regions with a high level of self-related
motivations, the risk of launching low product fit extension is higher than in regions where selfmotivation scores less.
Moreover, by understanding that Eastern European consumers display both self- and social
motivations when it comes to luxury brands extensions, brand managers of luxury brands could
consider implementing a more tailored communication to these consumers, or even products,
which could simultaneously satisfy both self- and social-related motivations.
Even though, social motivation did not behave as a moderator of the fit-attitudes relation, we
learned that social motivation is a predictor of attitudes, the higher the social motivation the
higher the attitude towards the brand extension. In this case, brand managers should take into
consideration that in regions where consumers have high social motivations, the general attitudes
towards the extensions are higher than when social motivation are low. Therefore, considering
the aspect of social motivation level of consumers when deciding to localize the launch of luxury
brand extensions, could be a valuable asset for brand managers.
65 | P a g e
Chapter 9: Conclusion
The final chapter will comprise the summary of the study as well as the answer found to the
problem statement, limitations of the study as well as recommendations for further research.
9.1 Summary and answer problem statement
The increasing market potential and the peculiarity showed compared to functional brands
(Wiedmann et al., 2009) made of “luxury brands” an intriguing topic for research in the last
decades.
The key aspect that defines luxury products in the market and within consumers’ minds is the
fact that compared to non-luxury products, the most appreciated benefits appreciated by
consumers after purchase are the psychological and hedonic benefits rather than utilitarian ones
(Vigneron and Johnson, 2004, Arghavan and Zaichkowsky, 2000). The reason why luxury
brands gained the right to ask for premium prices (Keller, 2009) is especially due to the
experience and pleasure that luxury brands provide to the consumers (Vigneros & Johnson,
2004).
Therefore, the peculiarity of luxury brands as a concept is given by the fact that in order to
explain consumer’s behavior towards luxury brands, marketers have to take into consideration
both personal, related to –self, as well as interpersonal aspect, related to society (Wiedmann et
al., 2009), this fact creating around luxury brands a subjective dimension.
Given the subjective dimension of the luxury brands, previous studies agreed upon the existence
of at least two distinct reasons why people like and purchase luxury goods (Wilcox, Kim, Sen,
2009; Kapferer, Bastien, 2009; Nueno, Quelch, 1998).
On the one hand, through the use or even display of luxury goods, consumers may look for social
adjustment, this showing their yearning to conform to the group of people that are labeled as
having high-status due to the consumption of luxury (Wilcox, Kim, Sen, 2009). In other words,
for this category of consumers, the way they present themselves within society is extremely
relevant (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009) and the drivers for buying luxury products are represented by
interpersonal aspects such as snobbery and conspicuousness (O’Cass, McEwen 2004).
On the other hand, luxury goods may well represent a means for self-expression (Kapferer,
Bastien, 2009). Thus, many people buy luxury brands due to personal aspects (Dubois, Czellar
66 | P a g e
Laurent, 1995) in order to depict their preferences and self, as well as to experience the hedonic
potential of the product (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009).
Previous research highlights the fact that differences in motivations to buy luxury goods could
arise between cultures. More specifically, results of prior research utters that consumers from
Eastern, emerging, collectivist countries are more prone to consumer luxurious products due to
conspicuous motivations, while consumers from Western, more developed and individualist
countries to consumer luxury products Bian, Forsythe, 2011; Shukla, 2010, 2011; Wiedmann,
Hennings, Siebels, 2007) for self-indulgence and comfort. In addition to the cultural aspect that
could trigger the difference in motivations to buy luxury goods, previous research on luxury
brands in general, imply that different social and economic factors could lead to the appearance
of different motivations to buy luxury goods among different consumers from different regions ”
(Wiedmann, Hennigs, Siebels 2007; Vilanilam 1989; Belk 1988).
When it comes to the growth of luxury brands market, a viable solution used by many luxury
brands companies to expand it is through the use of luxury brand extensions. However, luxury
brand companies have to be extremely careful when strategizing growth through brand
extensions due to the risk of expanding the brand too much and thus leading to brand dilution.
Even though research in this area was made, little information is known about how luxury brand
marketers could develop extensions worldwide by minimizing the risk of brand dilution.
According to Loken and Roedder (1993) when consumers evaluate a brand extension as having
low-fit with the core brand this can lead to the dilution of brand names by reducing the positive
attribute beliefs consumers have learned to connect with the family name. In other words, brand
extension attributes are conflicting with the family brand beliefs.
We know from previous research that when evaluating brand extensions, consumers take into
consideration both the product feature similarity, the degree to which the extensions is related
functionally to the core product, and brand concept consistency (Park, Milberg, Lawson, 1991),
“the extent to which a particular brand is consistent with the values embodied by the core brand”
(Reddy et al., 2009). Moreover, Park, Milberg and Lawson (1991) stated that when it comes to
consumer evaluating different brand, several factors can influence the way consumers evaluate a
brand extension.
Based on all the points mentioned above, the main purpose of this study was, therefore, to
examine whether different underlying motivations to buy luxury goods leads to different
67 | P a g e
attitudes towards the same luxury brand extensions by showing a moderating impact on the
relation between fit and attitudes towards the new brand extension. Moreover, another objective
of the research was also to understand whether the motivations to buy luxury goods differ across
cultures and socio-economic regions.
The main research question was, therefore, the following:
What is the impact of the different consumers’ motivations to buy luxury goods on the evaluation
of luxury brands’ extension?
By running the analysis we firstly identified that fit was indeed a predictor of the attitudes
towards the new brand extensions. Secondly, by investigating the different motivation to buy
luxury goods within a specific cultural and socio-economic context, we learned that consumers
from Western European countries have more self-related motivations than social related
motivations when it comes to the intention to buy luxury goods, while consumers from Eastern
European countries scored similarly high on social as well as self-motivation scales. Moreover,
by comparing the motivations to buy luxury goods across countries, we identified that Eastern
Europeans displayed more social motivations compared to Eastern European consumers, while
no differences were found between Eastern and Western Europeans in terms of self-motivation.
Lastly, we investigated the possible answers to the main question of the research by looking at
the most important topic of this research, namely the moderation effect different motivations to
buy luxury goods on the relation between fit and attitudes. We learned that only self-motivation
acted as a moderator on the relation between fit and attitudes, therefore, strengthened the impact
of fit on attitudes. In contrast, the outcomes of the analysis showed that the social related
motivation did not behave as a moderator between perceived product fit and attitudes towards the
new brand extensions, but we found that social motivation is a predictor of attitudes.
From a theoretical implication perspective, the present research not only adds value to the overall
literature focused on luxury brands, more specifically on the evaluation of luxury brands
extensions and the motivations associated with the purchase of luxury brands extensions across
cultures, but also to the current vast literature focused on factors that could impact the direct
effect of fit on the formation of attitudes towards the new brand extension. From a managerial
perspective, study brand managers should consider the fact that within regions with a high level
of self-related motivations, the risk of launching low product fit extension is higher than in
regions where self-motivation scores less, that tailoring the communication and products in order
68 | P a g e
to satisfy both self- and social related motivations could better attract Eastern European
consumers and that considering the aspect of social motivation level of consumers when
deciding to localize the launch of luxury brand extensions, could be a valuable asset for them.
9.2 Limitations
One of the limitations of the present research is that we encompassed only Eastern European and
Western European consumers in order to understand the differences in motivation to buy luxury
goods that could arise between more collectivist, less developed from a socio-economical
perspective and more individualist, more developed economies. There is a wide range of
countries and regions that could have been included in the scope of the research.
Moreover, one other possible limitation of the present study could be related to the way the
classification on nationalities was done between East and West of Europe. Depending on the
angle of analysis between East and West of Europe, the split can be made differently. The way
we chose to make the split was mostly based on similarities found between countries in terms of
historical development of the society and economy. However, some could argue that the split
between nationalities could be made in a different manner.
The increasing presence of connecting factors between Eastern and Western Europe, such as the
European Union, the centralized rather than globalized communication of brands across Europe,
could weaken the differences between Eastern and Western European consumers that causing a
possible limitation to the present research.
When it comes to the design of the research, the present study could face a possible limitation
related to the sampling of the questionnaires. Given the fact that the questionnaires were
distributed to web-based groups pertaining mostly to universities and expat groups, we can infer
that the cultural and socio-economical aspect to which the Eastern European participants
originally belong to could have been weakened by the interaction with a Western European
culture, society and economy.
Moreover, one possible limitation of the present study is that we took nationalities as the main
factor to compare motivations to buy luxury goods, however, another factors could have maybe
distinguished the motivations to buy luxury goods, such as the level of education of the
participants. Could be that the higher the level of education of Eastern European consumers for
example, the lower their social motivation?
69 | P a g e
9.3 Recommendations for further research
The present research constitutes a good base for a understanding the moderating effect of
different motivations to buy luxury goods on the direct relation between perceived product fit
and attitudes toward new luxury brands. Moreover, it provides insight into how motivations are
different within and across two different regions from a cultural and socio-economical aspect,
Eastern and Western Europe.
Nevertheless, the present research could be enhanced and extended by including within the scope
of comparison different countries pertaining to East and West multidimensional context, but
outside of Europe. It would be interesting to see whether the results of the present research
would be confirmed by comparing the motivation of consumers coming from countries outside
Europe as well.
Moreover, a recommendation for further research towards this direction would be, even if
comparing Eastern Europeans motivations to Western European motivation, to use for sample as
many locals as possible and less consumers that have been lived in other cultures or societies
different from the one they belong to. In this way, we can make sure that their motivations could
not have been modified due to the long interaction with another country.
70 | P a g e
References:
A________________________________________
Aaker, D.A., Keller, K. (1990). Consumer evaluations of Brand Extensions. Journal of
Marketing. 54. 27-41.
Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketing – The experience is everything.
Journal of Brand Management..16. 338-346.
Arghavan, N., Zaichkowsky, J.L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury
brands?. Journal of Product and Brand Management. 9. 485-497.
B________________________________________
Baker, S. (2006). Global market review of luxury apparel – forecasts to 2012.
Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research. 15. 139168.
Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L., Parent, M. and Berthon, J-P. (2009), “Aesthetics and ephemerality:
observing and preserving the luxury brand”, California Management Review. 52. 45-66.
Bian, Q., Forsythe, S. (2011). Purchase intention for luxury brands. A cross cultural comparison.
Journal of Business Research. 65. 1443-1445.
Boush, D., S. Ship, B. Loken, E. Gencturk, S. Crockett, E. Kennedy, B. Minshall, D. Misurell, L.
Rochford and J. Strobel (1987). Affect generalization to similar and dissimilar brand extensions.
Psychology and Marketing. 4. 225-237.
C________________________________________
Cornell, A. (2002). Cult of luxury: The new opiate of the masses. Australian Financial Review.
April 2002. p. 47.
Czellar S., Consumer attitude towards brand extensions: an integrative model and research
proposition (2003), Journal of Research in Marketing. 20. 97-115.
D________________________________________
Dubois, B., Czellar, S., Laurent, G. (2005). Consumer segments based on attitudes toward
luxury: empirical evidence from twenty countries. Marketing Letters. 43. 115-28.
71 | P a g e
Dubois, B., & Paternault, C. (1995). Observations: Understanding the world international luxury
brands: The “dream formula”. Journal of Advertising Research. 40. 69-75.
F________________________________________
Featherstone, M. (1990). Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity; London:
Sage.
G________________________________________
Gangestad, S.W., & Snyder, M., (2000). Self-monitoring: appraisal and reappraisal.
Psychological Bulletin. 126. 530 – 555.
Gibson, R. (1990). The end of the line? Overkill on extensions. Wall Street Journal
Global Industry Analysts, Inc. (2010), “Luxury Goods – A global market report”.
Cognac-expert.com (2011). East versus West in the Luxury Goods Market.
H________________________________________
Hagtvedt, H., Patrick, V.M, (2009). The Broad Embrace of Luxury. Hedonic Potential as a
Driver of Brand Extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 19. 608–618.
Hawkins, D.I, Mothersbaugh, D.L, Mookerjee, A. (2010). Consumer Behavior- Building
Marketing Strategy. Tata McGraw Hill Private Limited. 8. 398-400.
Hofstede G. Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage; 1980.
Hofstede G. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
J________________________________________
Juicy Africa (2012). Luxury Brands: What’s in a name?.
K________________________________________
Kapferer, J. (2006). The two business cultures of luxury brands. Schroeder JE, Salzer-MörlingM,
editors. Brand Culture. Oxon: Routledge
Kapferer, J., (2012). Luxury after the crisis. Pro or no logo?. The European Business Review.
Kapferer, J., Bastien, V., (2009). The specificity of luxury management: Turning marketing
upside down. Journal of Brand Management. 10. 311-22.
72 | P a g e
Kastanakis, M. N., Balabanis, G. (2011). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents of the
“bandwagon” luxury consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand
Extensions. Journal of Marketing Research. 29 . 35-50.
Keller, L.K, (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity. Pearson Education
Kerin, A. R., Berkowitz, N., Hartley, S.W., Rudelius W. (1992) . Marketing (3rd ed), Irwin :
Homewood, IL.
Kuang-peng Hung, Annie Huiling Chen, Norman Peng, Chris Hackley, Rungpaka Amy
Tiwsakul, Chun-lun Chou, (2011),"Antecedents of luxury brand purchase intention", Journal of
Product & Brand Management. 20. 457 – 467.
L_________________________________________
Loken, B., John, D.R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative
impact?. The Journal of Marketing. 71-84.
M________________________________________
Moore, C. M.; Fernie, J., & Burt, S. (2000). Brands without boundaries. The internationalisation
of the designer retailer's brand. European Journal of Marketing. 34. 919-937.
Mourali, M., Laroche, M., Pons, F. (2005). Individualistic orientation and consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Service Marketing. 164-173.
N_________________________________________
Nueno, J.L., Quelch, J.A. (1998). The mass marketing of luxury. Business Horizons. 61-68.
Nunes, P.F., Johnson, B.A., Breene, R.T.S. (2004). Selling to the moneyed masses. Harvard
Business Review. 82. 94-104.
O________________________________________
O’Cass, A., McEwen, H. (2004). Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption.
Journal of Consumer Behavior. 25-39.
Overby, J.W., Woodruff, R.B., Gardial, S.F. (2005). The influence of culture upon consumers’
desired value perceptions: a research agenda. Marketing Theory 2005. 139-63.
73 | P a g e
P_________________________________________
Park, C.W., Milberg, S., Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of
Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency. Journal of Consumer Research. 185193.
Park, H-J., Rabolt, NJ., Jeon, KS. (2008). Purchasing global luxury brands among young Korean
consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 12. 244-59.
Phau I, Prendergast G. (2000). Consuming luxury brands: the relevance of the ‘rarity principle’.
Journal of Brand Management. 8. 122–38.
Pop-Eleches, G. Economic Reference Group Salience in Post-Communist Eastern Europe:
Causes and Consequences.
Pucinelli N.M, Deshpande R. Isen A.M, (2006), Should I stay or should I go? Mood congruity,
self-monitoring and retail context preference. Journal of Business Research. 60. 640-648.
R_________________________________________
Roedder, D., Loken, B. and Joiner, C. (1998). The Negative Impact of Extensions: Can Flagship
Products Be Diluted? Journal of Marketing. 62. 19-33 .
Reddy, M., Ternblanche, N., Pitt, L., Parent, M. (2009). How far can luxury brands travel?
Avoiding the pitfalls of luxury brand extensions. Business Horizons
Roux, E. and Floch, J.-M. 1996, Gérer L'ingérable: La Contradiction Interne De Toute Maison
De Luxe, Décisions Marketing. 9. 15-23.
Ries, A., Trout, J. (1982). Positioning: The battle for your mind. New York: Warner Books.
Romeo, J.B. (1991). The Effect of Negative Information on the Evaluation of Brand Extensions
and the Family Brand. Advances in Consumer Research. 18. 399-406.
S_________________________________________
Shukla, P. (2011), Impact of interpersonal influences, brand origin and brand image on luxury
purchase intentions: measuring interfunctional interactions and a cross-cultural comparison.
Journal of World Business. 242-52.
Shukla P. (2010). Status consumption in cross-national context: socio-psychological, brand and
situational antecedents. International Marketing Review. 108-29.
74 | P a g e
Shukla, P., Purani, K. (2011). Comparing the importance of luxury value perceptions in crossnational contexts. Journal of Business Research.
Smith, D.C. and Park, W.C. (1992). The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and
Advertising Efficiency, Journal of Marketing Research. 29. 296-313.
Stegemann, N. (2006). Unique Brand Extension Challenges for Luxury Brands. Journal of
Business & Economics Research. 4. 57-68.
Swait, J., Erdem, T., Louviere, J. and Dubelaar, C. (1993). The Equlization Price: A Measure of
Consumer-Perceived Brand Equity, International Journal of Research in Marketing. 10. 23-45.
T_________________________________________
Tauber, E.M. 1985, Editorial: Researching Brand Extensions, Journal of Advertising Research.
16. 6.
Tauber, E.M. 1988, Brand Leverage: Strategy for Growth in a Cost-Control World, Journal of
Advertising Research. 28. 26-30.
Tsai, S-P. (2005), “Impact of personal orientation on luxury brand purchase value”, International
Journal of Market Research. 47. 429-54.
V_________________________________________
Vigneron,F., Johnson, L.W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of Brand
Management. 484-508.
Vilanilam, J. (1989). Television advertising and the Indian poor. Media, Culture and Society.
485-497
W________________________________________
Wiedmann, K.P., Hennigs, N., Siebels, A. (2007). Measuring Consumers’ Luxury Value
Perceptions: A Cross-Cultural Framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H.M., Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands?.
Journal of Marketing Research. 247-59.
Y_________________________________________
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. (1998). Cultural influences an service quality expectations. Journal of
Service Research. 178-86.
75 | P a g e
Tauber, E.M. 1981, Brand Franchise Extension: New Product Benefits from Existing Brand
Names, Business Horizons. 24. 36-41.
76 | P a g e
Appendix
Appendix A1: Pre-test questionnaire: Dom Perignon
Dear participant,
I would appreciate you taking time to fill in the following survey. The survey is meant for
gathering data for my Master Thesis at the University of Amsterdam. I am carrying out this
survey in order to understand your opinion on brand extensions related topics. Filling in the
survey should not take more than 5 minutes of your time.
Please make sure that the instructions are read carefully and that the questions are being
answered with your personal opinion. It is important to mention that the research is purely for
academic purpose and your answers will be kept confidential. Moreover, the responses will be
compiled; therefore the individual responses will not refer to any individual.
Thank you for your support!
Kind regards,
Clara Nuta
Amsterdam Business School I University of Amsterdam
77 | P a g e
Dom Pérignon is a brand of vintage champagne produced by the Champagne house Moët & Chandon and serves as the
house's prestige champagne. It is named after Dom Pérignon, a Benedictine monk who was an important quality pioneer
for Champagne wine but who, contrary to popular myths, did not discover the champagne method for making sparkling
wines. Dom Pérignon is always a vintage champagne, meaning that it is not made in weak years, and all grapes used to
make the wine were harvested in the same year. From 1921 to 2003, Dom Pérignon champagne has been produced in 39
years. Three vintage years in a row are a rare phenomenon (which has only occurred twice: in 1969, 1970 and 1971; in 1998,
1999 and 2000).
Q2. How familiar are you with the Dom Perignon brand?
1. Very unfamiliar
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very familiar
Q3. Dom Perignon's products are…
1. Very cheap
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very expensive
Q4. Dom Perignon's products are luxurious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q5. Dom Perigon's products are prestigious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
78 | P a g e
Q6. I would buy Dom Perignon's products because of their high quality.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q7. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because it can support in displaying status & wealth.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q8. I would buy Dom Perignon's products because of the brand's high expertise in producing them.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q9. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because it supports in identifying with a high ranked social class.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q10. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because of the craftsmanship they are produced with. 1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
79 | P a g e
Q11. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products if my friends have already purchased them.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q12. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because of their rarity.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q13. I would buy Dom Perignon's products if they are admired within my social group.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
In 2013, next to their vintage champagne, Dom Perignon brand is planning to produce and launch in
Europe a line of Dom Perignon whisky. Dom Perignon whisky will available online at
http://www.domperignon.com
Q15. Dom Perignon's champagne and the Dom Perignon whisky...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q16. Dom Perignon's champagne and Dom Perignon whisky are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q17. The Dom Perignon brand is able to produce whisky.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
80 | P a g e
Dom Perignon is planning to introduce a fashionable line of champagne bottle openers. The
champagne bottle openers will be sold online through Dom Perignon online shop.
Q19. Dom Perignon's champagne and the Dom Perignon bottle openers...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q20. Dom Perignon's champagne and Dom Perignon bottle openers are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q21. The Dom Perignon brand is able to produce bottle openers.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Dom Perignon seeks the opportunity in launching a new line of men products. One of the products
that Dom Perignon brand is planning to launch soon on the market are "Leather agendas", a perfect
accessory for elegant men.
Q23. Dom Perignon's champagne and the Dom Perignon leather agendas...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q24. Dom Perignon's champagne and Dom Perignon leather agendas are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q25. The Dom Perignon brand is able to produce leather agendas.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
81 | P a g e
The next product in line that Dom Perignon is planning to launch, next to the men's leather agendas,
are the Dom Perignon men ties.
Q27. Dom Perignon's champagne and the Dom Perignon men ties...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q28. Dom Perignon's champagne and Dom Perignon men ties are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q29. The Dom Perignon brand is able to produce men ties.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q30. What is your nationality?
Thank you for your time!
Appendix A2: Pre-test questionnaire: Jaguar
Dear participant,
I would appreciate you taking time to fill in the following survey. The survey is meant for
gathering data for my Master Thesis at the University of Amsterdam. I am carrying out this
survey in order to understand your opinion on brand extensions related topics. Filling in the
survey should not take more than 5 minutes of your time.
Please make sure that the instructions are read carefully and that the questions are being
answered with your personal opinion. It is important to mention that the research is purely for
academic purpose and your answers will be kept confidential. Moreover, the responses will be
compiled; therefore the individual responses will not refer to any individual.
Thank you for your support!
Kind regards,
Clara Nuta
82 | P a g e
Jaguar Cars, since December 2012 officially incorporated as Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, is a British multinational car
manufacturer headquartered in Whitley, Coventry, England, owned by Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC, a subsidiary of
Indian automaker, the Tata Motors company.
Jaguar has, in recent years, manufactured cars for the British Prime Minister, the most recent delivery being an XJ in May
2010.The company also holds royal warrants from HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Charles.
Jaguar cars today are designed in Jaguar Land Rover's engineering centres at the Whitley plant in Coventry and at their
Gaydon site in Warwickshire, and are manufactured in Jaguar's Castle Bromwich assembly plant near Birmingham
Q2. How familiar are you with the Jaguar brand?
1. Very unfamiliar
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very familiar
Q3. Jaguar's products are…
1. Very cheap
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very expensive
Q4. Jaguar's products are luxurious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q5. Jaguar's products are prestigious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
83 | P a g e
Q6. I would buy Jaguar's products because of their high quality.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q7. I would buy Jaguar’s products because it can support in displaying status & wealth.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q8. I would buy Jaguar's products because of the brand's high expertise in producing them.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q9. I would buy Jaguar’s products because it supports in identifying with a high ranked social class.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q10. I would buy Jaguar’s products because of the craftsmanship they are produced with. 1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
84 | P a g e
Q11. I would buy Jaguar’s products if my friends have already purchased them.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q12. I would buy Jaguar’s products because of their rarity.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q13. I would buy Jaguar's products if they are admired within my social group.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
the CEO of Jaguar cars, Ralph Speth, recently announced that in 2015 they will launch a uniquely
designed Jaguar motorcycles to be sold in the European market.
Q15. Jaguar cars and Jaguar motorcycles…
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q16. Jaguar cars and Jaguar motorcycles are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q17. The Jaguar brand is able to produce motorcycles.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
85 | P a g e
Jaguar brand communicated that in a few months will launch on the market a limited edition of
Jaguar bycicles.
Q19. Jaguar cars and Jaguar bycicles ...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q20. Jaguar cars and Jaguar bycicles are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q21. The Jaguar brand is able to produce bycicles.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Being mainly devoted to men, Jaguar brand will launch the Jaguar men shavers. The shavers will be
available only in Jaguar online stores.
Q23. Jaguar cars and the Jaguar men shavers...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q24. Jaguar cars and Jaguar men shavers are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q25. The Jaguar brand is able to produce men shavers.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
86 | P a g e
From 2014 on, Jaguar USB sticks will be available to purchase in Jaguar online stores. The brand sees a
lot of opportunity in extending to electronic products.
Q27. Jaguar cars and Jaguar USB sticks...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q28. Jaguar cars and Jaguar USB sticks are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q29. The Jaguar brand is able to produce USB sticks.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q30. What is your nationality?
Thank you for your time!
87 | P a g e
Appendix A3: Pre-test questionnaire: Guerlain
Dear participant,
I would appreciate you taking time to fill in the following survey. The survey is meant for
gathering data for my Master Thesis at the University of Amsterdam. I am carrying out this
survey in order to understand your opinion on brand extensions related topics. Filling in the
survey should not take more than 5 minutes of your time.
Please make sure that the instructions are read carefully and that the questions are being
answered with your personal opinion. It is important to mention that the research is purely for
academic purpose and your answers will be kept confidential. Moreover, the responses will be
compiled; therefore the individual responses will not refer to any individual.
Thank you for your support!
Kind regards,
Clara Nuta
88 | P a g e
The House of Guerlain was owned and managed by members of the Guerlain family from 1828 to 1994. It was acquired in
1994 by the LVMH group, a multinational investment corporation specializing in luxury brands.
Guerlain's creations have long influenced the trends of perfumery with fragrances such as Jicky, Shalimar, and Vétiver.
Guerlain is among the few older houses (such as Caron) that exist solely to produce and market perfumes, though Guerlain
today also produces a range of makeup and skincare products. Many brands in the perfume industry, such as Chanel and
Jean Patou are in fact divisions of fashion houses or multinational conglomerates that license the brand name.
Q2. How familiar are you with the Guerlain brand?
1. Very unfamiliar
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very familiar
Q3. Guerlain's products are…
1. Very cheap
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very expensive
Q4. Guerlain's products are luxurious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q5. Guerlain's products are prestigious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
89 | P a g e
Q6. I would buy Guerlain's products because of their high quality.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q7. I would buy Guerlain’s products because it can support in displaying status & wealth.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q8. I would buy Guerlain's products because of the brand's high expertise in producing them.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q9. I would buy Guerlain’s products because it supports in identifying with a high ranked social class.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q10. I would buy Guerlain’s products because of the craftsmanship they are produced with. 1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q11. I would buy Guerlain’s products if my friends have already purchased them.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
90 | P a g e
Q12. I would buy Guerlain’s products because of their rarity.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q13. I would buy Guerlain's products if they are admired within my social group.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Guerlain Paris announced that from 2014 on, they will also focus on hair care products by launching a
line of Guerlain hair dye (color). The Guerlain hair dye will be firstly available online.
Q15. Guerlain's products and Guerlain hair dye (colors) ….
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q16. Guerlain's products and Guerlain hair dye (colors) are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q17. Guerlain's brand is able to produce hair dye (colors).
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
91 | P a g e
Guerlain Paris has recently communicated that they will extend their hair care line, mainly represented
by shampoos, to Guerlain hair mask. The hair mask will be sold in a gift pack next to the Guerlain
shampoo.
Q19. Guerlain's products and Guerlain hair mask...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q20. Guerlain's products and Guerlain hair mask are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q21. The Guerlain brand is able to produce hair mask.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
After getting really successful with their fragrances, cosmetics & skincare products, Guerlain Paris is
seeing a great opportunity in designing and creating women gloves. The CEO mentioned that the
gloves will be available in Guerlain online stores from March 2014.
Q23. Guerlain's products and the Guerlain gloves...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q24. Guerlain's products and the Guerlain gloves are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q25. The Guerlain brand is able to produce gloves for women.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
92 | P a g e
In 2014, Guerlain Paris is planning to introduce also a line of eyewear for women. The sunglasses will
be available in Guerlain online shops.
Q27. Guerlain's products and Guerlain sunglasses...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q28. Guerlain's products and Guerlain sunglasses are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q29. The Guerlain brand is able to produce sunglasses.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q30. What is your nationality?
Thank you for your time!
93 | P a g e
Appendix B: European nationalities split
Error! Not a valid link.
Appendix C: Bonferroni multiple comparisons for Dom Perignon and Jaguar
low fit extensions
Appendix C: Dependent Variable: Bonferroni multiple comparisons for low-end extensions (Jaguar and Dom Perignon)
Brand Extensions difference
Dom
Perignon
Ext3
Jaguar Ext3
Dom
Perignon
Ext1
Dom
Perignon
Ext4
Dom
Perignon
Ext1
Jaguar Ext4
Jaguar Ext1
Dom
Perignon
Ext4
Mean Difference
Std. Error
p
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
0.104761905
0.60790308
1
-1.560247056
1.769770866
0.377777778
0.59733005
1
-1.258272297
2.013827852
-1.7286
0.60790308
0.03772731
-3.39358039
-0.063562467
0.273015873
0.60790308
1
-1.391993088
1.938024834
0.61829534
0.02698027
-3.526806048
-0.139860619
-1.8333
Jaguar Ext1
Jaguar Ext4
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 2.676.
*. The mean difference is
significant at the .05 level.
94 | P a g e
Appendix D1: Main test questionnaire - High-fit group
Dear participant,
I would appreciate you taking time to fill in the following survey. The survey is meant for
gathering data for my Master Thesis at the University of Amsterdam. I am carrying out this
survey in order to understand your opinion on brand extensions related topics. Filling in the
survey should not take more than 5 minutes of your time.
Please make sure that the instructions are read carefully and that the questions are being
answered with your personal opinion. It is important to mention that the research is purely for
academic purpose and your answers will be kept confidential. Moreover, the responses will be
compiled; therefore the individual responses will not refer to any individual.
Thank you for your support!
Kind regards,
Clara Nuta
Amsterdam Business School I University of Amsterdam
95 | P a g e
Dom Pérignon is a brand of vintage champagne produced by the Champagne house Moët & Chandon and serves as the
house's prestige champagne. It is named after Dom Pérignon, a Benedictine monk who was an important quality pioneer
for Champagne wine but who, contrary to popular myths, did not discover the champagne method for making sparkling
wines. Dom Pérignon is always a vintage champagne, meaning that it is not made in weak years, and all grapes used to
make the wine were harvested in the same year. From 1921 to 2003, Dom Pérignon champagne has been produced in 39
years. Three vintage years in a row are a rare phenomenon (which has only occurred twice: in 1969, 1970 and 1971; in 1998,
1999 and 2000).
Q2. How familiar are you with the Dom Perignon brand?
1. Very unfamiliar
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very familiar
Q3. I recognize the Dom Perignon brand.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q4. I had heard before about the Dom Perignon brand.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
96 | P a g e
Q5. Dom Perignon's products are…
1. Very cheap
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very expensive
Q6. Dom Perignon's products are luxurious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q7. Dom Perigon's products are prestigious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q8. I would buy Dom Perignon's products because of their high quality.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q9. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because it can support in displaying status & wealth.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q10. I would buy Dom Perignon's products because of the brand's high expertise in producing them.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
97 | P a g e
Q11. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because it supports in identifying with a high ranked social class.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q12. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because of the craftsmanship they are produced with. 1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q13. I would buy Dom Perignon's products if they are admired within my social group.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Dom Perignon is planning to introduce in December 2013, a limited edition line of champagne bottle
openers, consisting of various models. Made out of platinum and black nickel, Dom Perigonon bottle
openers are crafted in a unique way to be the perfect accessory for your most special evenings. The
champagne bottle openers will be sold online, exclusively, through Dom Perignon's online shop.
98 | P a g e
Q15. Dom Perignon's champagne and the Dom Perignon champagne bottle openers...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q16. Dom Perignon's champagne and Dom Perignon champagne bottle openers are complementary
products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q17. The Dom Perignon brand is able to produce champagne bottle openers.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q18. My attitude towards Dom Perignon bottle openers is....
1. Bad
2
3
4
5
6
7. Good
Q19. My attitude towards Dom Perignon bottle openers is....
1. Negative
2
3
4
5
6
7. Positive
Q20. My attitude towards Dom Perignon bottle openers is....
1. Unfavorable
2
3
4
5
6
7. Favorable
99 | P a g e
Q21. Dom Perignon intends to launch:
1. Glass identifier
2. Champagne glasses
3. Bottle openers
4. Champagne stoppers
Q22. My attitude towards the Dom Perignon brand is:
1. Unfavorable
2
3
4
5
6
7. Favorable
Q23. What is your age?
Q24. What is your nationality?
Q25. What is your gender?
Q26. Do you have any suggestions, thoughts or comments?
Thank you for your time! If you wish to receive the results of the study or just participate for the raffle of 3 Amazon Gift
Cards of 20 euro each, please fill in the form in which you will be redirected after the results are submitted. For any
questions and further information, send an email to: [email protected]
100 | P a g e
Appendix D2: Main test questionnaire - Low-fit group
Dear participant,
I would appreciate you taking time to fill in the following survey. The survey is meant for
gathering data for my Master Thesis at the University of Amsterdam. I am carrying out this
survey in order to understand your opinion on brand extensions related topics. Filling in the
survey should not take more than 5 minutes of your time.
Please make sure that the instructions are read carefully and that the questions are being
answered with your personal opinion. It is important to mention that the research is purely for
academic purpose and your answers will be kept confidential. Moreover, the responses will be
compiled; therefore the individual responses will not refer to any individual.
Thank you for your support!
Kind regards,
Clara Nuta
Amsterdam Business School I University of Amsterdam
101 | P a g e
Dom Pérignon is a brand of vintage champagne produced by the Champagne house Moët & Chandon and serves as the
house's prestige champagne. It is named after Dom Pérignon, a Benedictine monk who was an important quality pioneer
for Champagne wine but who, contrary to popular myths, did not discover the champagne method for making sparkling
wines. Dom Pérignon is always a vintage champagne, meaning that it is not made in weak years, and all grapes used to
make the wine were harvested in the same year. From 1921 to 2003, Dom Pérignon champagne has been produced in 39
years. Three vintage years in a row are a rare phenomenon (which has only occurred twice: in 1969, 1970 and 1971; in 1998,
1999 and 2000).
Q2. How familiar are you with the Dom Perignon brand?
1. Very unfamiliar
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very familiar
Q3. I recognize the Dom Perignon brand.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q4. I had heard before about the Dom Perignon brand.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
102 | P a g e
Q5. Dom Perignon's products are…
1. Very cheap
2
3
4
5
6
7. Very expensive
Q6. Dom Perignon's products are luxurious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q7. Dom Perigon's products are prestigious.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q8. I would buy Dom Perignon's products because of their high quality.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q9. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because it can support in displaying status & wealth.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q10. I would buy Dom Perignon's products because of the brand's high expertise in producing them.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
103 | P a g e
Q11. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because it supports in identifying with a high ranked social class.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q12. I would buy Dom Perignon’s products because of the craftsmanship they are produced with. 1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q13. I would buy Dom Perignon's products if they are admired within my social group.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Being inspired by the vintage, classy look of their exclusive champagne bottles, Dom Perignon is
planning to introduce in December 2013, a limited edition of extravagant yet classy men ties.
The men's ties will be sold online through Dom Perignon's online shop
104 | P a g e
Q15. Dom Perignon's champagne and the Dom Perignon men ties...
1. Do not fit together
2
3
4
5
6
7. Fit together
Q16. Dom Perignon's champagne and Dom Perignon men ties are complementary products.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q17. The Dom Perignon brand is able to produce men ties.
1. I strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7. I strongly agree
Q18. My attitude towards Dom Perignon men ties is....
1. Bad
2
3
4
5
6
7. Good
Q19. My attitude towards Dom Perignon men ties is....
1. Negative
2
3
4
5
6
7. Positive
Q20. My attitude towards Dom Perignon men ties is....
1. Unfavorable
2
3
4
5
6
7. Favorable
105 | P a g e
Q21. Dom Perignon intends to launch:
1. Men's shoes
2. Men's ties
3. Men's belts
4. Men's shirts
4. Men's bow ties
Q22. My attitude towards the Dom Perignon brand is:
1. Unfavorable
2
3
4
5
6
7. Favorable
Q23. What is your age?
Q24. What is your nationality?
Q25. What is your gender?
Q26. Do you have any suggestions, thoughts or comments?
Thank you for your time! If you wish to receive the results of the study or just participate for the
raffle of 3 Amazon Gift Cards of 20 euro each, please fill in the form in which you will be redirected
after the results are submitted. For any questions and further information, send an email to:
[email protected]
106 | P a g e
Appendix E: Histograms, Q-Q plots and scatterplots used to inspect the
assumptions for the regression analyses
Hypothesis H1b (high-fit)
Figure 1: Normal distribution of the residuals
Figure 2: Normal distribution of the residuals
107 | P a g e
Figure 3: Homoscedasticity of the dependent variable
Hypothesis H1b (low-fit)
Figure 4: Normal distribution of the residuals
108 | P a g e
Figure 5: Normal distribution of the residuals
Figure 6: Heteroscedasticity of the dependent variable
109 | P a g e
Hypothesis H4a – figures self-motivation
Figure 7: Normal distribution of the residuals
Figure 8: Normal distribution of the residuals
110 | P a g e
Figure 9: Homoscedasticity of the dependent variable
Figure 10: Cook graph: Graph displaying Cook’s distances
111 | P a g e
Hypothesis 4b- Figures social motivation
Figure 11: Normal distribution of the residuals
Figure 12: Normal distribution of the residuals
112 | P a g e
Figure 13: Cook graph: Graph displaying Cook’s distances
113 | P a g e