Context
Following the fire of Notre-Dame in Paris, billionaires pledged important donations to help rebuild the mythic monument. When William Plummer announced on Twitter that the Pinault family pledged a 100 million euro donation for the reconstruction, he was either congratulated on the “incredible generous gesture” or accused of pursuing tax savings or criticized because he could afford to give more. On the whole, the billionaires’ gesture was viewed as tactical and mostly serving reputation purposes. Living in a world of luxury, where everything they wish for is at their fingertips, rich people are usually expected to behave in a selfish manner, unless reputational benefits (among others) can stem from their generous behavior. In an article published in the International Journal of Research in Marketing in 2021, Wang, John, Griskevicious further fuel this cliché by explaining how luxury consumption can influence prosocial behavior in public and private contexts.
Research questions
Wang, John and Griskevicious base their research on Schwartz’s model. In this model, a person’s values can be described picking one dimension in two sets of opposed values:
– Self-enhancement (hedonism, achievement, power) VS self-transcendence (benevolence, social concerns, concerns with nature);
– Openness to change (self-direction, stimulation) VS conservatism (tradition, security, conformity)
Put differently, a person’s values may include self-enhancement and openness to change, or self-enhancement and conservatism, but may not include both self-enhancement and self-transcendence.
The authors’ intuition is that luxury products promote self-enhancement values, which will influence consumer prosocial behavior (being helpful, generous towards others) in different contexts.
Therefore, Wang, John and Griskevicious ask the following research questions:
– Does luxury consumption influence prosocial behavior?
– Are self-enhancement values at play in this potential effect?
Method
This research consists of 6 studies.
– Studies 1 and 2 allowed the authors to assess the impact of using a luxury product on prosocial behavior in a private context.
In Study 1, 67 female students were asked to walk around in a busy area either with a Prada or non-luxury handbag. Participants were instructed to put a personal item in the bag and to imagine that they actually owned the bag. After this, participants’ prosocial behavior was measured in two ways. First, participants had to fill in a questionnaire. To do so, they were told to choose a pen from a tray and leave other pens for the other participants (one brand new and two used). Prosocial behavior would translate into leaving the newer pen for participants. Finally, participants filled in the questionnaire with their chosen pen. They were told that their advice was needed for a separate study, in which two people would be competing for a 10$ prize. They had to help the researcher decide how to split the prize between the winner (the participant) and the loser. Prosocial behavior can be measured thanks to the amount of money granted to the loser by the participant.
In study 2, 99 female students were randomly asked to walk around with a Louis Vuitton handbag or to sit in a room with a Louis Vuitton poster or to walk around (without the Louis Vuitton handbag). Prosocial behavior was measured thanks to another prize money allocation study.
– Study 3 investigated the causes of a potential effect of using a luxury product on prosocial behavior. It involved 126 female participants. Participants were asked to either carry around a Louis Vuitton or non-luxury bag. Then, they had to fill in a questionnaire about their prosocial behavior (which measured how willing they would be to help others in different situations) and their perceptions of their social status.
– Studies 4 and 5 concentrated on the impact of using a luxury product on prosocial behavior according to the context (private or public). In Study 4, 107 female students were assigned a Prada or non-luxury bag, and then asked to donate to a charity either in a public or a private context. In Study 5, 100 female students were asked to wear a Burberry or non-luxury scarf. They received monetary compensation for the experiment and were told they could donate part of their compensation to charity. Donations were made either in a envelope (private context) or through a person at an office (public context).
– Finally, Study 6 examined the causes for a potential impact of luxury use on prosocial behavior according to the context. It involved 100 female students who were randomly asked to wear a Burberry or non-luxury scarf around campus. In this study, perceived exclusivity of the Burberry scarf was manipulated, in other words, in the Burberry scarf group, some people were told the brand was very exclusive and others were told it was less exclusive. After walking around with the scarf, participants were given the opportunity to publicly give money to charity.
Results
– Using a luxury good increases self-perceptions of a high social status for users because these products are rare and exclusive. Consequently, when a luxury product is perceived as less exclusive, it loses its impact on users’ perceptions of their status.
– Women who have been given the opportunity to use a luxury product exhibit more selfish behavior (donate less to charity, split money between people less evenly, are less willing to help others) than women who have not been given this opportunity, in a private context. This is because luxury goods elicit perceptions of a higher social status. Luxury users aim at maintaining a high social status and they value self-enhancement. In a private context, self-enhancement can be reached by concentrating one’s efforts on oneself, which translates into decreased prosocial behavior.
– This effect can be reversed when the generous behavior is public. For instance, in study 5, women using a Burberry scarf donated over 25% less money than women using a non-luxury scarf in the private donation condition, while, in the public donation condition, users of the Burberry scarf donated over 50% more money than users of the non-luxury scarf. This is still because luxury goods provoke perceptions of a higher social status. In a public context, luxury users still aim at maintaining a high social status, and self-enhancement can be reached by improving one’s reputation, which translates into increased prosocial behavior.
– Put differently, luxury users aim at maintaining their social status whatever the context. However, whether the context is public or private will dramatically affect their prosocial behavior. In a private context, their self-enhancement aspirations drive them to focus on themselves, which decreases prosocial behavior. However, in a public context, their self-enhancement aspirations entice them to improve their reputation, which increases prosocial behavior.
– The authors controlled that these effects were not biased by the fact that participants’ behavior derived from stereotypes of how luxury users usually behave.
Why is this article relevant for researchers?
First, this article is particularly interesting because it provides a new method to study luxury consumption through real experiments, using real luxury products, and not only thanks to hypothetical scenarios. Moreover, still from a methodological standpoint, the authors are very thorough in their examination of different types of prosocial behavior (choice of pens, willingness to help others, prize money allocation, donation to charity). Second, thanks to their innovative method, the authors are able to look at luxury consumption from an experiential standpoint as opposed to the usual way to study luxury consumption (motivational aspects, determinants, expressions of the self). Moreover, by studying the impact of luxury consumption on prosocial behavior, the authors prove that luxury use does not only affect the consumer, but other people as well, who may (or not) benefit from the consumer’s prosocial behavior (or lack of). Finally, self-enhancement values are proven to be a determining factor for prosocial behavior following luxury consumption depending on the context.
This new way to look at luxury consumption thereby opens new avenues for research. First, the current study focuses on women. It should be extended to men and include other gender-inclusive considerations (such as gender fluid, or transgender). Second, it involves students who were generally familiar with the luxury product but were only allowed to use it for a limited amount of time. Future research could analyze the behavior of regular luxury users or allow participants to use the product longer. It could also try to identify if the effect still holds across different categories of luxury users (newbies, regulars, etc). Finally, since self-enhancement values are at the heart of the current model, other consumer traits could explain the impact of their luxury use on prosocial behavior such as their agency-communion orientation, culture, background, etc.
Why is this article relevant for professionals?
This article is highly useful for luxury brands wishing to engage in charities. It suggests that luxury users will be more likely to exhibit prosocial behavior in a public context, which should encourage luxury brands to give public feedback about which consumers participate in their charities. For instance, the Chateau de Versailles proposes that individuals and companies become patrons of a statue, which implies financing the restoring or the copy of garden statues. In exchange for their donations, patrons are notably acknowledged thanks to a plaque at the foot of the restored original or its copy, thereby improving their reputation and status in a certain community.
Moreover, this article also suggest that luxury managers should pay close attention to the brand’s exclusivity. Though luxury brands do have the reputation to be exclusive by essence, their perceived exclusivity can be manipulated, as shown by Study 6, and they may lose competitive advantages linked to exclusivity. For example, in 2012, in China, Gucci and Louis Vuitton had become commonplace and undesirable for the hype and wealthy.