Original Article
Measuring perceived brand luxury:
Correspondence:
George Christodoulides
Birmingham Business School,
The University of Birmingham,
University House,
Edgbaston Park Road,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
E-mail: G.Christodoulides@
bham.ac.uk
An evaluation of the BLI scale
Received (in revised form): 4th September 2008
George Christodoulides
is a lecturer in Marketing and Director of the Centre for Research in Brand Marketing at the University of Birmingham
Business School. With a doctorate in brand marketing, George’s research focuses on branding and E-marketing,
particularly in the way the internet and its related technologies have been affecting brands. George is a regular presenter
at national and international conferences and his research has appeared in journals such as the Journal of Marketing
Management, the Service Industries Journal, the Journal of Product and Brand Management, Interactive Marketing, and the Journal
of Brand Management.
Nina Michaelidou
is a lecturer in Marketing at Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham. She holds a PhD from Warwick in
consumer behaviour and has published papers in European and American journals and conference proceedings on variety
seeking, brand switching, involvement, food choice and antismoking messages. Current research focuses on examining
determinants of food choice. Nina teaches marketing communications and consumer behaviour on a range of degree
programmes.
Ching Hsing Li
was a postgraduate student at the University of Birmingham in 2006–2007. She now works in Marketing for the Qisda
Corporation in Taiwan.
ABSTRACT This paper investigates the psychometric properties of Vigneron and
Johnson’s Brand Luxury Index scale. The authors developed the scale using data
collected from a student sample in Australia. To validate the scale, the study reported
in this paper uses data collected from Taiwanese luxury consumers. The scale was
initially subjected to reliability analysis yielding low  values for two of its five proposed
dimensions. Exploratory and confirmatory factors analyses were subsequently
performed to examine the dimensionality of brand luxury. Discriminant and
convergent validity tests highlight the need for further research into the dimensionality
of the construct. Although the scale represents a good initial contribution to
understanding brand luxury, in view of consumers’ emerging shopping patterns,
further investigation is warranted to establish the psychometric properties of the
scale and its equivalence across cultures.
Journal of Brand Management (2009) 16, 395–405. doi:10.1057/bm.2008.49;
published online 30 January 2009
Keywords: luxury brands; perceptions; scale assessment; culture; replication
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405
www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
 Christodoulides et al
INTRODUCTION
The global market for luxury brands was
last year estimated at US$80 billion.1
According to Bain & Company, a consul-
tancy with expertise in the luxury market,
world luxury goods sales are expected to
grow 7–9 per cent this year, whereas a
further 8 per cent annual increase has
been forecasted for the next 3 years.2 This
growth is largely driven by changing socio-
economic and demographic factors that
impact on consumer demand for luxury
products. Boston Consulting Group (BCG)3
identified a number of specific reasons
accounting for the increase of luxury
spending in Europe. These include a steady
increase of European household income
sustained by a rise in property values;
an increase in consumer credit; the number
of singles who spend considerably more
on discretionary items and European
women who work more, earn more and
became more influential in purchasing
decisions.
In light of the above, this research aims
to empirically investigate the psychometric
properties of Vigneron and Johnson’s4 Brand
Luxury Index (BLI) (Appendix). Although
the authors provide preliminary evidence
of their scale’s psychometric properties,
their data were limited to responses from
business students in a single country
(Australia). The authors call for replications
of their study with actual consumers of
luxury brands.4 In the same line, Easley
et al5 support the idea that approaches re-
examining existing theories and concepts
in other contexts are ‘essential to the con-
duct of good science’ (p. 83), and contribute
to the advancement of knowledge and the
establishment of external validity (also
Hubbard and Armstrong6). Hence, this
research represents an independent admin-
istration of the Vigneron and Johnson4 scale
in an attempt to validate the original scale
using a sample of real consumers of luxury
brands in a new cultural context.
396 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX
This paper opens by discussing the value
of replication studies for scientific progress,
and is followed by a literature review on
the concept of brand luxury. We proceed
by outlining the development of Vigneron
and Johnson’s4 BLI scale. We then summa-
rise the empirical reports on the scale that
provide assessment of scale reliability and
validity for a single data collection. We con-
tinue by reporting scale performance in the
present data collection, and by comparing
the present findings to those previously
reported by Vigneron and Johnson.4 Finally,
we draw conclusions about the usefulness
of the BLI scale.
Contribution of replication studies
Replication of empirical findings is critical
in raising confidence about the external and
practical applications of findings and relia-
bility of published results.7 Although repli-
cation studies have traditionally been
penalised by scholarly journals for lack of
creativity,8 they are absolutely necessary for
scientific progress, and, in Hunter’s own
words, are ‘desparetely needed in order to
determine facts’ (p. 157). External validity
or the potential for generalisability to other
populations, settings and variables is not
something that can be achieved in any
single study, but is an empirical question
that demands comparisons with different
studies.9 In scale development and valida-
tion, arguing that a measure is performing
in a valid manner requires the researcher to
demonstrate the evidence, and this is only
found in follow-up studies.10 Construct
validation ideally requires a pattern of con-
sistent findings involving different researchers
using different theoretical structures across
a number of different studies.11 Construct
validation is in fact a never-ending process.12
Most measures in marketing suffer from
insufficient replications,10 whereas it is not
uncommon for researchers to falsely assume
the equivalence of a measure in a different
cultural context.
Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405

Conceptualising brand luxury
There is little agreement in the academic
literature on what constitutes a luxury
brand. The word ‘luxury’ derives from the
Latin word ‘luxus’, which according to the
Latin Oxford Dictionary signifies ‘soft or
extravagant living, (over-)indulgence’ and
‘sumptuousness, luxuriousness, opulence’.13
Products cannot be classified into simple
categories of luxury and non-luxury based
on their appearance and intrinsic attributes;
instead, the socio-economic environment
needs to be taken into account.14 Despite
the seemingly constant nature of basic
human needs, perceptions of what is luxury
and what is necessity vary from society to
society.15 What is regarded as a basic car in
a developed country may be considered
luxury in a developing country. Alleres16
drew on the dimension of socio-economic
class in the context of luxury goods to
develop a hierarchy consisting of three
levels based on the degree of accessibility.
At the bottom of the hierarchy is accessible
luxury, which refers to luxury products
that are attainable by the middle socio-
economic class who through their purchase
behaviour seek to elevate their status. The
next level in the hierarchy is intermediate
luxury, which relates to a category of prod-
ucts that is attainable by the professional
socio-economic class. At the top of the
hierarchy is inaccessible luxury, which is
associated with an elite socio-economic
class. Products at this level are extremely
high-priced and offer the user exceptional
social prestige.
In contrast, Vickers and Renand17 pro-
posed a different approach to conceptualise
luxury and distinguish between luxury and
non-luxury brands. They proposed a model
with three dimensions: functionalism, expe-
rientialism and symbolic interactionism.
Products with a primary functional dimen-
sion are designed to solve extrinsic con-
sumption needs through physical and
service attributes. Experientialism is associ-
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
Measuring perceived brand luxury
ated with consumer desire to consume
products that provide sensory pleasure.
Luxury products with an experiential
dimension aim to satisfy intrinsic needs
with regard to stimulation and variety.
Goods scoring high on symbolic interac-
tionism are designed to associate the owner
with a desired group, role or self-image.
Although these three dimensions can be
used to conceptualise both luxury and non-
luxury goods, there is a fundamental differ-
ence in the mix of their components.
Empirical consumer research found that the
primary value of luxury brands is psycho-
logical, and that their consumption is
dependent on a distinctive mix of social and
individual cues. In contrast, the mix of
social and individual cues was found to be
of lesser importance for non-luxury
brands.
DIMENSIONALITY OF BRAND
LUXURY
Nueno and Quelch18 defined luxury brands
from an economics perspective as those
whose ‘ratio of functional utility to price is
low while the ratio of intangible and situ-
ational utility to price is high’ (p. 62). Situ-
ational utility derives from the existence of
a specific set of conditions or circumstances.
Furthermore, Nueno and Quelch18 identi-
fied certain characteristics that luxury
brands share, including consistent delivery
of premium quality across product lines, a
heritage of craftsmanship, a recognisable
style or design, a limited production to
ensure exclusivity, a marketing programme
that combines emotional appeal and product
excellence, a global reputation, association
with a country of origin that has a strong
reputation in a specific industry (for example
Italian fashion, Swiss watches), an element
of uniqueness to each product, an ability to
time design shifts when the category is
fashion-intensive and the personality and
values of its creator. Many of these charac-
teristics were verified by Dubois et al,19
Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 397
 Christodoulides et al
who conducted qualitative interviews with
consumers. The authors identified six
dimensions of luxury, including (1) excel-
lent quality, (2) very high price, (3) scarcity
and uniqueness, (4) aesthetics and polysen-
suality,20 (5) ancestral heritage and personal
history and (6) superfluousness.
In a similar line,Vigneron and Johnson21
proposed a framework of luxury-seeking
consumer behaviour consisting of five per-
ceived values that differentiate luxury and
non-luxury brands. Although some con-
sumers may strive to maximise all five values
in the pursuit of luxury brands, others may
be prepared to trade off less salient values
for more salient values. It is essentially these
five perceived values that a few years later
comprised the backbone of Vigneron and
Johnson’s4 conceptual framework for the
development of the BLI scale. The first
three dimensions (that is perceived con-
spicuousness, perceived uniqueness and per-
ceived quality) reflect non-personal-oriented
perceptions, and the other two (that is
perceived hedonism and perceived extended
self) reflect personal-oriented perceptions.
The dimensions are explained below.
(1) Perceived conspicuousness: This draws on
early studies that focussed on the influence
of reference groups on the consumption of
luxury brands. Veblen14 coined the term
‘conspicuous consumption’ to refer to
public consumption of luxury goods as a
means of asserting prestige and status. As
Mason22 contends,
‘To the purely conspicuous consumer, the
satisfaction derived from any particular
purchase comes not from its value in use
but from audience reaction to the wealth
displayed by the purchaser in being able to
secure the product for consumption’. (p. 26)
(2) Perceived uniqueness: Research shows
that consumer perceptions of limited supply
of a brand may lead to increased preference
for that brand.23 This is not surprising given
398 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX
consumers’ need for uniqueness,24 defined
in the literature as ‘an individual’s pursuit
of differentness relative to others achieved
through the acquisition, utilisation and dis-
position of consumer goods for the purpose
of developing and enhancing one’s personal
and social identity’ (p. 50).
(3) Perceived quality: Consumers expect, long
before they consume a luxury brand, that it
will exhibit superior product characteristics
and performance compared with non-luxury
brands.25 It is therefore highly unlikely that
a luxury brand image can be sustained when
product quality is not consistently maintained
at a high standard.
(4) Perceived hedonism: Luxury products are
predominantly ‘hedonic’,26 given that their
consumption is primarily associated with an
affective and sensory experience of aesthetic
or sensual pleasure, fantasy and fun.27 This
point is also echoed by Berry,28 who argues
that a characteristic of luxuries is that they
please people rather than simply alleviate a
state of discomfort such as in the case of nece-
ssities. Most consumers thus describe their
consumption of luxury as a highly hedonic
experience that can engage all the senses.19
(5) Perceived extended self (originally ‘per-
ceived social value’): Belk’s29 concept of
‘extended self ’ suggests that our possessions
are ‘a major contributor to and reflection
of our identities’ (p. 139). Through owner-
ship of luxury brands, consumers aspire to
be associated with certain prestige groups
and at the same time seek to be disassoci-
ated from non-prestige reference groups.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE BLI
Drawing on their previous work,21
Vigneron and Johnson4 argue that luxury
is a multidimensional concept composed of
five dimensions, as outlined above. The
authors adopted the following procedure
to develop the BLI scale. An initial pool of
157 bipolar items was generated from the
literature, manager interviews and focus
groups with postgraduate students. This
Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405
 Measuring perceived brand luxury

pool was then reviewed by a judgement upper range of educational back-

panel of experts, which comprised man- ground;
agers, academics and consumers with exten- — Their social and political attitudes tend
sive experience of luxury brands. Following to be considered less crystallised at this
this stage, the number of items was reduced stage than later in life;
to 30. The authors then carried out two — They also tend to be substantially more
main rounds of data collection in Australia egocentric than older adults;
using a student sample in both cases. No — They have stronger need for peer
items were dropped as a result of individual approval, manifested in dependency,
analysis involving Cronbach’s  and item- conformity and over-identification
to-total correlations. Exploratory factor with peers;
analysis with Varimax rotation was then — They have greater geographical and
conducted with a very strict a priori decision social mobility and later entry into the
criterion to discard factor loadings of 0.6.30 workforce and family life.34
To verify the hypothesised dimensionality
of brand luxury, confirmatory factor anal- In scaling procedures, although it is not
ysis was subsequently used on the 30 items. uncommon to collect data from students to
The chi-square was significant, and the calibrate the scale, it is rather atypical to
values of fit were inadequate for the 30- also rely on students for subsequent data
item model. Items were then trimmed to collection(s) to validate the scale. This does
arrive at the final 20-item BLI scale the not mean that ‘the findings based on stu-
values of fit of which were acceptable, but dents are always wrong … [but that they]
chi-squared value was still significant (see are always suspect’ (p. 492).31
Table 1). Nomological validity was further
established by correlating BLI with mate- METHODOLOGY
rialistic attitudes, fashion involvement, Driven by the need for more replications,
money prestige and so on. and the shortcomings of student samples,
this research evaluates the Vigneron and
Use of student samples Johnson4 BLI with actual consumers of
The suitability of student samples in con- luxury brands. In particular, we focus on
sumer research, particularly of business luxury seekers in Taiwan, as Taiwan is
undergraduates, has been seriously ques- one of the fastest growing markets for
tioned in the marketing literature.31,32 luxury brands.1 The research instrument
Despite various studies showing differences involved a questionnaire administered
between student and non-student sam-
ples,32,33 students are still employed widely
Table 1: CFA results
as research subjects mainly because of easy
access and economy. The heavy reliance of Results Vigneron and Present study
consumer research on college students led Johnson (2004)4
James and Sonner32 to characterise it as ‘the Chi-square 240.74 823.00
science of the undergraduate marketing stu- Degree of F 160.00 160.00
dent’ (p. 63). Students are not typical con- P value 0.000 0.000
Chi-square/d.f. 1.50 5.14
sumers and cannot be used as surrogates for GFI 0.96 0.76
real consumers for the following reasons: AGFI 0.95 0.68
NFI 0.97 0.79
TLI 0.99 0.79
— They usually come from a very narrow RMSEA 0.02 0.13
age range and are concentrated at the

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 399
 Christodoulides et al

Table 2: Exploratory factor analysis (n=260)

Factors Factor one Factor two Factor three Factor four

Eigenvalue 5.76 3.35 2.43 1.92
% of common variance 28.80 16.75 12.18 9.59
Items

1. Conspicuous — — — 0.80
2. Elitist — — — 0.87
3. Expensive — — 0.70 —
4. Wealthy — 0.71 0.38 —
5. Exclusive — — 0.72 —
6. Precious 0.43 0.66 — —
7. Rare — 0.72 — —
8. Unique 0.49 0.60 — —
9. Crafted — 0.64 — —
10. Luxurious — — 0.64 —
11. Quality 0.72 0.43 — —
12. Sophisticated 0.71 0.45 — —
13. Superior 0.78 0.35 — —
14. Exquisite 0.79 — — —
15. Glamorous 0.40 — 0.57 —
16. Stunning 0.75 — — —
17. Leading 0.76 — — —
18. Powerful 0.72 — — —
19. Rewarding 0.64 — — —
20. Successful 0.63 — — —

online. Snowballing was used to draw a Table 3: AVE and standardised correlations
sample of Taiwanese consumers of luxury Average variance extracted
brands. Unlike Vigneron and Johnson,4 we Conspicuousness 0.34
allowed respondents to answer the ques- Uniquness 0.56
Quality 0.63
tions in relation to the luxury brand they
Hedonism 0.50
had last bought. This resulted in a number Extended self 0.80
of different brand evaluations. The data col-
lection stage yielded 260 fully completed Standardised correlations between factors
Conspicuousness and uniquness 0.92 (0.85)
questionnaires. Conspicuousness and quality 0.75 (0.56)
Conspicuousness and hedonism 0.65 (0.42)
Evaluation of the BLI scale Conspicuousness and extended-self 0.73 (0.53)
Uniqueness and quality 0.84 (0.71)
Reliability coefficients were first estimated Uniqueness and hedonism 0.83 (0.69)
for the BLI scale and the five sub-scales. Uniqueness and extended-self 0.82 (0.67)
Cronbach’s  was 0.61 for conspicuousness, Quality and hedonism 0.95 (0.90)
Quality and extended-self 0.84 (0.71)
0.79 for uniqueness, 0.84 for quality, 0.64
Hedonism and extended-self 0.94 (0.88)
for hedonism and 0.90 for extended self.
Although the BLI scale’s  was 0.93, the Note: numbers in parentheses indicate squared scores.
reliability coefficients for conspicuousness
and hedonism are below the recommended
0.70 threshold.35 Vigneron and Johnson4 analysis. Varimax rotation was used in line
reported  values ranging from 0.86 with the original study, but given the sample
(hedonism) to 0.93 (uniqueness). The data size factor loadings < 0.35 were sup-
were then subjected to exploratory factor pressed.36 With eigenvalues greater than

400 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405

unity, four factors were extracted suggesting
serious cross-loadings among items (see
Table 2). Factor analysis was then repeated
using oblimin rotation, which allows factors
to be correlated, but again only four factors
emerged.
Confirmatory factor analysis was then
used to further detect the dimensionality
of the BLI scale. Chi-square was 823.00
(d.f.= 160),which was significant (P < 0.000).
Values of fit were also inadequate. GFI was
0.76, AGFI was 0.68, NFI = 0.79,TLI = 0.79
and RMSEA = 0.13.
Assessment of convergent and discrimi-
nant validity was computed from LISREL
output. Convergent validity was gauged
through the average variance extracted
(AVE), which measures the percentage of
total variance of the data accounted for by
each construct. Fornell and Larcker37 argue
that the validity of a construct will be sus-
pect if the AVE is less than 0.50. AVE for
the five factors was 0.34 for conspicuous-
ness, 0.56 for uniqueness, 0.63 for quality,
0.50 for hedonism and 0.80 for extended-
self (see Table 3). Discriminant validity refers
to the degree to which measures of the
various dimensions of the BLI scale are
unique. Discriminant validity was tested by
comparing the AVE for each factor with
the squared pairwise correlation between
factors. In order to establish discriminant
validity, the AVE for a given factor should
be higher than all 1 estimates involving
that factor.36 Comparisons among AVE and
squared correlations revealed a total lack of
discriminant validity among the five sub-
scales (see Table 3).
Composite reliability estimates were then
projected from the LISREL output. These
were 0.64 for conspicuousness, 0.83 for
uniqueness, 0.87 for quality, 0.73 for
hedonism and 0.92 for extended self.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this paper was to provide
an independent assessment of the psycho-
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
Measuring perceived brand luxury
metric properties of the BLI scale of Vign-
eron and Johnson. The scale was originally
developed and validated using data from
business students in Australia. The analysis
of the present data collected from actual
consumers in Taiwan suggested some prob-
lems with the scale’s psychometric proper-
ties and its equivalence across cultures. The
results are summarised as follows. Reliabi-
lity coefficients of conspicuousness and
hedonism did not pass the threshold of
0.70,35 but exceeded 0.60 for exploratory
research.38 Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses failed to provide support for
the underlying structure of BLI, but indi-
cated serious cross-loadings of items. The
chi-squared test was significant, and values
of fit were inadequate for the factor analytic
model of BLI. Convergent and discriminant
validity were then assessed using data from
the LISREL output. Convergent validity
was not established for conspicuousness
(AVE = 0.34). If the AVE is less than 0.5, it
means that the variance captured by the
construct is less than the measurement error.
In accordance with the earlier indication
of cross-loadings from factor analysis, it
was not possible to establish discriminant
validity. Discriminant validity was parti-
cularly problematic for conspicuousness
and uniqueness, less problematic for quality
and hedonism and least problematic for
extended self. This finding is contrary to
that of Vigneron and Johnson, who reported
adequate discriminant validity for the scale.
One of the reasons might be that business
students are more adept at discriminating
among the five factors than actual con-
sumers. A potential explanation is that busi-
ness students had possibly been exposed to
these concepts during their studies and
therefore were more capable of distin-
guishing among these theoretically distinct
concepts.
A more plausible explanation could
involve cultural differences. Previous
research found culture to affect consumer
Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 401
 Christodoulides et al
perceptions of brands such as those manifest
in brand equity7 and brand personality
measures.39 In light of this, it is not sur-
prising to observe some differences in terms
of brand luxury perceptions of Taiwanese
versus Australian respondents. The view of
brands as socially constructed entities able
to communicate cultural meaning is well
documented in the marketing literature.40
More specifically, research suggests that cul-
tural differences are more salient for abstract,
symbolic traits of brands as opposed to
functional or utilitarian attributes, which
tend to show less variability or significance
across cultures.41,42 As discussed in the lit-
erature review, luxury brands are based pre-
dominantly on symbolic values, making
them prone to cultural influence.
More specifically, past research suggested
that East Asians use holistic reasoning strat-
egies, whereas Westerners use analytic rea-
soning strategies.43 Taiwanese consumers
may therefore take a more holistic view of
brand luxury, and may make more universal
evaluations of brand luxury than their
Western counterparts. In this sense, the
meaning of luxury may differ between
Western and Confucian cultures. Wong and
Ahuvia44 suggest that the Asian style of
luxury consumption is based on four aspects
of Confucian culture, including interde-
pendent self-concept, the balance between
individual and group needs, hierarchy and
the legitimacy of group affiliations. Further,
relative to Western consumers, Asian con-
sumers focus more on publicly visible
possessions that have public meanings.44 As
such, cultural differences between Western
and East Asian societies have implications
for luxury brands. This might suggest that
Vigneron and Johnson’s4 dimension of
uniqueness is not so relevant for luxury
seekers in Asia.
Furthermore, in comparing Australian
and Taiwanese cultures on Hofstede’s indi-
vidualism versus collectivism dimension of
culture,46 Australia represents a highly indi-
402 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX
vidualistic society, whereas Taiwan is pro-
foundly collectivistic.45 In individualistic
societies, the goals of individuals are valued
more highly than the goals of the group,
as opposed to collectivistic societies where
the interests of the group prevail over the
interests of the individual.46,47 Interpreting
the findings of this study in light of this
divergence of cultural values between Aus-
tralia and Taiwan, more individualist Aus-
tralians may seek luxury to enhance their
individual identity and power status in
society. As such, uniqueness is an important
and distinct dimension of brand luxury.
On the other hand, more collectivist Tai-
wanese consumers may pursue luxury not
to stand out from the rest of society and
stress their individuality, but as a way to
conform and be accepted by fellow society
members.
CONCLUSIONS
The research described in this paper evalu-
ates the Vigneron and Johnson4 BLI using
a sample composed of actual consumers.
Findings indicate some concerns with the
scale’s dimensionality, which warrant addi-
tional research attention. This is because a
scale measuring perceived brand luxury is
potentially useful for both researchers and
practitioners. The literature argues for dif-
ferent tiers of luxury,16 so a scale measuring
perceived brand luxury can be used by
practitioners to fine-tune the positioning of
their brand(s) with a view of achieving the
desired level of luxury. Practitioners can also
use such a scale to identify potential
strengths over competition. For example,
two brands (for example Hermes and Louis
Vuitton) may arrive at the same score, but
further analysis is likely to reveal different
perceptions with regard to individual
dimensions of luxury. This can then be used
to inform pricing strategies, as the price
charged for a brand should not be seen as
being outside the brand’s luxury tier (over-
pricing or underpricing). Moreover,
Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405

promotional activities can be assessed for
their potential to enhance a brand’s per-
ceived luxury.
Although a good step in the direction of
developing an instrument for measuring
perceptions of brand luxury, the BLI scale
did not yield adequate psychometric prop-
erties when, in this study, it was applied in
a different context (Taiwan) using a sample
of actual luxury consumers. The conceptual
and measurement equivalence of a con-
struct should not automatically be assumed
when a scale is used in a context other than
the one it was designed for. As the results
of this study suggest, the meaning of brand
luxury might not be universal across cul-
tures. In a collectivist culture, brand luxury
might be more associated with conformity
and conspicuousness, whereas in a more
individualist culture, brand luxury empha-
sises the aspect of uniqueness. This has
implications for international marketers
who may need to stress different luxury
attributes of their brands in different foreign
markets. Further research, particularly cross-
cultural, should closely examine the com-
position of brand luxury in various
contexts.
This study is of course by no means
free of limitations. First, although every care
was taken in translating the question-
naire to Mandarin, the official language of
Taiwan, and back to English, the language
equivalence problem may be responsible
for some of the variation between our
results and those of Vigneron and Johnson.4
Second, our selected sample, albeit more
diverse than a student sample, is also a type
of convenience sample, and therefore cau-
tion should be exercised when generalising
the results for the entire population. Other
researchers should use samples in other
parts of the world to determine how dif-
ferent cultures construe meaning through
luxury brands, and to produce more con-
clusive evidence on brand luxury’s dimen-
sionality.
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
Measuring perceived brand luxury
REFERENCES AND NOTES
(1) Chadha, R. and Husband, P. (2006) The Cult of
the Luxury Brand: Inside Asia’s Love Affair with
Luxury. London: Nicholas Brealy International.
(2) Reuters. (2007) Luxury market growth seen at 8%
next 3yrs study, 17 October. Available from http://
www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/
idUSL1775672020071017, accessed 6 November
2007.
(3) BCG. (2004) Trading Up: Update On Trends,
Brands, and Practices – 2004 Research Update,
Report.
(4) Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L. W. (2004) Measuring
perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of Brand
Management 11(6): 484–506.
(5) Easley, R. W., Madden, C. S. and Dunn, M. G.
(2000) Conducting marketing science: The role
of replication in the research process. Journal of
Business Research 48: 83–92.
(6) Hubbard, R. and Armstrong, J. S. (1994) Replica-
tion and extensions in marketing: Rarely published
but quite contrary. International Journal of Research
in Marketing 11: 233–248.
(7) Kocak, A., Abimbola, T. and Ozer, A. (2007)
Consumer brand equity in a cross-cultural replica-
tion: An evaluation of a scale. Journal of Marketing
Management 23(1): 157–173.
(8) Hunter, J. E. (2001) The desperate need for replica-
tions. Journal of Consumer Research 28(1): 149–158.
(9) Greenberg, J. (1987) The college sophomore as
Guinea Pig: Setting the record straight. The Academy
of Management Review 12(1): 157–159.
(10) Flynn, L. R. and Pearcy, D. (2001) Four subtle sins
in scale development: Some suggestions for
strengthening the current paradigm. International
Journal of Market Research 43(4): 409–423.
(11) Carmines, E. G. and Zeller, R. A. (1979) Reliability
and Validity Assessment. Sage: Beverly Hills,
California.
(12) Anastasi, A. (1986) Psychological testing, 5th edn.,
Macmillan: New York.
(13) Dubois, B., Czellar, S. and Laurent, G. (2005)
Consumer segments based on attitudes toward
luxury: Empirical evidence from twenty countries.
Marketing Letters 16(2): 115–128.
(14) Veblen, T. B. (1899) The Theory of the Leisure Class.
Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
(15) Kemp, S. (1998) Perceiving luxury and necessity.
Journal of Economic Psychology 19(5): 591–606.
(16) Alleres, D. (1990) Luxe…. Strategies Marketing.
Economica: Paris.
(17) Vickers, J. S. and Renand, F. (2003) The marketing
of luxury goods: An exploratory study. The Mar-
keting Review 3: 459–478.
(18) Nueno, J. L. and Quelch, J. A. (1998) The mass
marketing of luxury. Business Horizons, November–
December, pp. 61–68.
(19) Dubois, B., Laurent, G. and Czellar, S. (2001) Con-
sumer Rapport to Luxury: Analyzing Complex and
Ambivalent Attitudes. Working paper 736, HEC
School of Management, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 403
 Christodoulides et al
(20) Dubois, B. and Paternault, C. (1995) Understanding
the world of international luxury brands: The
dream formula. Journal of Advertising Research 35(4):
69–76.
(21) Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L. W. (1999) A review
and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking
consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science
Review 3(1): 15.
(22) Mason, R. (1984) Conspicuous consumption: A
literature review. European Journal of Marketing
18(3): 26–39.
(23) Lynn, M. (1991) Scarcity effects on value: A quan-
titative review of the commodity theory literature.
Psychology and Marketing 8(1): 45–57.
(24) Tian, K.T., Bearden,W. O. and Hunter, G. L. (2001)
Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale develop-
ment and validation. Journal of Consumer Research
28(1): 50–66.
(25) Garfein, R. T. (1989) Cross-cultural perspectives
on the dynamics of prestige. Journal of Services Mar-
keting 3(Summer): 17–24.
(26) Hirschman, E. C. and Holbrook, M. B. (1982)
Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing
46(Summer): 92–101.
(27) Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000) Consumer
choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods.
Journal of Marketing Research 37(February): 60–71.
(28) Berry, C. J. (1994) The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual
and Historical Investigation. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
(29) Belk, R. W. (1988) Possessions and extended self.
Journal of Consumer Research 15(September):
139–168.
(30) Hair et al, 1998 state that for a sample size >350
factor loadings of 0.30 are statistically significant.
(31) Wells, W. D. (1993) Discovery-oriented consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research 19(4):
489–504.
(32) James, W. L. and Sonner, B. S. (2001) Just say no
to traditional student samples. Journal of Advertising
Research 41(5): 63–71.
(33) Burnett, J. J. and Dunne, P. M. (1986) An
appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing
research. Journal of Business Research 14(4):
329–343.
(34) Sears, D. O. (1986) College sophomores in the
laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on
404 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
social psychology’s view of human nature.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(3):
515–530.
(35) Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn.,
McGraw-Hill: New York.
(36) Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L. and Black,
W. C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn.,
Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.
(37) Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981) Evaluating
structural equation models with unobserved
variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.
(38) Bagozzi, R. P. and Yi, Y. (1988) On the evaluation
of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 16(Spring): 74–94.
(39) Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J.
(2001) Consumption symbols as carriers of culture:
A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality
constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
81(3): 492–508.
(40) McCracken, G. (1986) Culture and consumption:
A theoretical account of the structure and move-
ment of the cultural meaning of consumer goods.
Journal of Consumer Research 13(1): 71–84.
(41) Aaker, J. and Maheswaran, D. (1997) The effect
of cultural orientation of persuasion. Journal of
Consumer Research 24(3): 315–328.
(42) Kim, H. and Markus, H. R. (1999) Deviance or
uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
77: 785–796.
(43) Fiske, A., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R. and
Nisbett, R. E. (1998) The Cultural Matrix of
Social Psychology. In: D. Gilbert, S. Fiske and
G. Lindzey (eds.) The Handbook of Social
Psychology, 4th edn., McGraw-Hill: San Francisco,
pp. 915–981.
(44) Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A. C. (1998) Personal taste
and family face: Luxury consumption in Confu-
cian and Western societies. Psychology & Marketing
15(5): 423–441.
(45) http://www.geert-hofstede.com, accessed 4
September 2008.
(46) Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences. Sage:
Beverly Hills, California.
(47) Hofstede, G. (1984) The cultural relativity of the
quality of life concept. Academy of Management
Review 9(3): 389–398.
Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405
 Measuring perceived brand luxury

APPENDIX
See Table A1.

Table A1: The brand luxury index

Non-personal-oriented perceptions

Conspicuousness
Conspicuous __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Noticeable
Popular __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Elitist a
Affordable __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Extremely
expensivea
For wealthy __:__:__:__:__:__:__ For well-off

Uniquness
Fairly exclusive __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Very exclusivea
Precious __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Valuable
Rare __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Uncommon
Unique __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Unusual

Quality
Crafted __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Manufactured
Upmarket __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Luxuriousa
Best quality __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Good quality
Sophisticated __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Original
Superior __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Better

Personal-oriented perceptions
Hedonism
Exquisite __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Tasteful
Attractive __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Glamorousa
Stunning __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Memorable

Extended self
Leading __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Influential
Very powerful __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Fairly powerful
Rewarding __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Pleasing
Successful __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Well regarded

a
Reverse scored items.

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 405