Received: 20 October 2020 | Revised: 25 June 2021 | Accepted: 30 June 2021

DOI: 10.1002/mar.21546

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Can luxury attitudes impact sustainability? The role of desire

for unique products, culture, and brand self‐congruence

Jacqueline K. Eastman1 | Rajesh Iyer2 | Sihem Dekhili3

1
Department of Marketing, Georgia Southern
University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA Abstract
2
Department of Marketing and International This study examines the effect of value‐expressive and social‐adjustive luxury atti-
Business, Foster College of Business, Bradley
University, Peoria, Illinois, USA
tudes on sustainable behaviors, specifically ecologically conscious consumer beha-
3
University of Strasbourg, University of vior, and socially responsible consumer behavior. This study investigates the
Lorraine, CNRS, BETA, Strasbourg, France mediating effect of the desire for unique products on the relationship between
value‐expressive and social‐adjustive attitudes and sustainable behaviors. The
Correspondence
Jacqueline K. Eastman, Department of moderating roles of brand self‐congruence and the cultural values of collectivism
Marketing, Georgia Southern University, P.O.
and masculinity on these relationships are also explored. The results offer support
Box 8154, Statesboro, GA 30460‐8154, USA.
Email: [email protected] for the mediating role of the desire for unique products. Furthermore, the connec-
tion between the desire for unique products and ecologically conscious consumer
behavior (but not socially responsible consumer behavior) is enhanced with the
moderating cultural value of collectivism and the connection between the desire for
unique products and socially responsible consumer behavior (but not ecologically
conscious consumer behavior) is enhanced by the moderating factor of brand self‐
congruence. The findings help to explain the conflicting findings regarding luxury
and sustainability.

KEYWORDS
brand self‐congruence, cultural values, desire for unique products, luxury attitudes, sustainable
behavior

1 | INTRODUCTION luxury consumers who are willing to pay more for sustainable options
for status benefits (i.e., “going green to be seen,” Griskevicius et al.,
In the literature, there is a lack of consensus regarding luxury and 2010, p. 392) may overcome these concerns.
sustainability. Some authors (Hennigs et al., 2013) suggest the two Closer examination is needed as the luxury industry is changing.
notions can be compatible, but others (Achabou & Dekhili, 2013; It suffered a significant drop of an estimated 23% in 2020 and is not
Dekhili et al., 2018) find a weak association between luxury and estimated to get back to prepandemic levels until 2023 (D'Arpizio &
sustainability. While researchers have focused more on the en- Levato, 2020). There is a real opportunity though as researchers
vironmental dimension (Hosta & Zabkar, 2020), there is increasing suggest a new era of conscientious luxury in which consumers are
concern for both environmental and social sustainability (Herédia‐ deeply concerned about the environmental and societal impact of
Colaço & Coelho do Vale, 2018). Additionally, there is an attitude‐ what is perceived as conspicuous blatant consumerism and are
behavior gap, the “green gap” (Johnstone & Tan, 2015), as consumers’ searching for authenticity, quality, and uniqueness (Danziger, 2021).
positive attitudes toward sustainability are not reflected in their As there is an urgency to improve sustainability, it is important to
consumption (Aagerup & Nilsson, 2016; Eckhardt et al., 2010; determine what influences consumers’ sustainable efforts (Morren &
Groening et al., 2018). As price could be a barrier to sustainable Grinstein, 2016). As Americans are responsible for the second‐
consumption (Groening et al., 2018; Tascioglu et al., 2017), reaching highest amount of carbon dioxide emissions (Emissions Database for

Psychol Mark. 2021;38:1881–1894. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC | 1881

1882 | EASTMAN ET AL.

Global Atmospheric Research [EDGAR], 2017), we need to research similar across countries (Craig & Douglas, 2006; Hennigs et al., 2012),
American consumers. Despite Americans’ increasing concerns and particularly the cultural value of collectivism (Tascioglu et al., 2017).
wanting the government to do more in favor of sustainability (Tyson Differences in cultural values within the United States have been
& Kennedy, 2020), in reality, Americans have not made significant determined to influence luxury consumption (Eastman et al., 2018).
changes in their personal sustainable behaviors, such as in terms of The cultural value of collectivism impacts consumers’ sustainability
food waste, use of single‐use plastics, carpooling, and/or overall meat positively (Cho et al., 2013; Salazar et al., 2013; Sreen et al., 2018;
consumption (Desilver, 2019). Thus, there is still a need to increase Tascioglu et al., 2017), while masculinity has a negative impact (Xiao
Americans’ sustainability. & McCright, 2015; Zelezny et al., 2000).
Researchers acknowledge that “other factors beyond internal Finally, brand‐self congruency is also studied as a moderator as
environmental attitudes, values, and norms” are impacting sustain- research finds that when traits associated with brands match con-
able behaviors, but research here is limited (Aagerup & Nilsson, 2016, sumers’ behaviors, trait inference is enhanced (Jerónimo et al., 2018).
p. 274). This is particularly true in terms of luxury and sustainability, We offer these moderators may strengthen the connection of luxury
which has only been a topic of interest in recent years (Athwal et al., attitudes with sustainability, particularly in terms of the mediator of
2019). Costly Signaling Theory (Griskevicius et al., 2010) is a possible desire for unique products and sustainability. Given the complexity
explanation for why consumers may choose sustainability actions for found in the literature regarding what constructs impact environ-
reasons other than concern for the social and physical environment mental and social sustainable behavior (Hosta & Zabkar, 2020) and
(Aagerup & Nilsson, 2016) as it posits that status needs influence the “ambiguity underlying the phenomenon of prosocial status sig-
green purchases (Griskevicius et al., 2010) and prosocial behaviors naling” (Luomala et al., 2020, p. 11), there is a need for a more
(Luomala et al., 2020). By understanding how consumers’ luxury at- complex model to test in what situations luxury attitudes can be
titudes relate to their sustainable behaviors, marketers may better compatible with sustainability (Kunz et al., 2020).
understand how to improve consumers’ sustainability. This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it
Attitudes can play social functions in terms of self‐presentation offers an explanation for the past mixed findings regarding the con-
“social‐adjustive function” and self‐expression “value‐expressive nection between luxury and sustainability (Achabou & Dekhili, 2013;
function” (Wilcox et al., 2009). “When consumers have a social‐ Dekhili et al., 2018; Hennigs et al., 2013; Kunz et al., 2020) by in-
adjustive attitude toward a product, they are motivated to consume it cluding the mediating role of the desire for unique products (Lynn &
to gain approval in social situations. Conversely, attitudes serving a Harris, 1997). Second, it explores both ecologically conscious sus-
value‐expressive function (i.e., value‐expressive attitudes) help peo- tainable behaviors as well as socially responsible sustainable beha-
ple communicate their central beliefs, attitudes, and values to others” viors (Roberts, 1996a, 1996b) to determine if there are differences
(Katz, 1960; Wilcox et al., 2009, pp. 248–249). This study examines based on the type of sustainability. Third, it determines how cultural
how social attitudinal functions influence sustainable behaviors and values and brand self‐congruence (Tsai, 2005) help to strengthen the
determines if the desire for unique products mediates the relation- link between uniqueness and sustainability and if their impact may
ship of luxury attitudes with sustainability. differ based on the type of sustainability. We begin by reviewing the
The desire for unique products is a goal‐oriented construct ad- literature, offering our methodology, and presenting the results. We
dressing how “consumers differ in the extent to which they hold as a then discuss the implications of our findings along with the limitations
personal goal the acquisition and possession of consumer goods, and conclusion.
services, and experiences that few other possesses” (Harris & Lynn,
1996; Lynn & Harris, 1997, pp. 602–603). We utilize the desire for
unique products, instead of the need for uniqueness, as the need for 2 | LITE RATURE REVIEW
uniqueness measure emphasizes socially risky behaviors instead of
socially accepted ways to be unique (Lynn & Harris, 1997). Through 2.1 | Relevant literature
demonstrating that luxury attitudes lead to both environmentally and
socially sustainable behaviors through the desire for unique products, Per the Brundtland Report, “sustainable development is development
our results help lay the groundwork to better understand what im- that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs
pacts both types of sustainable behaviors (Hosta & Zabkar, 2020). of future generations to meet their own needs” with sustainability
Sustainability is operationalized through ecologically conscious con- including environmental, social, and economic aspects (World Com-
sumer behaviors and socially responsible consumer behaviors mission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987, p. 43).
(Roberts, 1996a, 1996b) as these behavioral measures capture a wide Given the importance of sustainability, one assumes consumers un-
variety of actions that help the environment (Roberts, 1996a) and derstand their role and will change their consumption (Gandenberger
society (Roberts, 1996b) and are within the control of consumers. et al., 2011). Unfortunately, sustainable consumption (Thøgersen &
We also explore constructs that could enhance the connection Crompton, 2009) is not ubiquitous because consumers see it being
with luxury attitudes, desire for unique products, and sustainability. too time‐consuming, difficult, and expensive (Valor, 2008). They are
Culture has an enveloping guidance on consumers’ actions, as re- more likely to engage in sustainable consumption when there is a
search suggests cultural values are becoming more diffused and self‐benefit (egoistic) interest beyond helping the environment and
EASTMAN ET AL. | 1883

society (Herédia‐Colaço & Coelho do Vale, 2018). According to the Gabrielli, 2018). Positive consumption behaviors associated with a
green bundle approach (Delmas, 2018), sustainable products are as- high‐status group can provide these visible signals (Childs & Jin,
sociated with a set of complementary individual and altruistic co‐ 2016). Delgado et al. (2015), in looking at Prius pricing, propose
benefits (health, quality, economy, status, and emotion). The pre- environmental signaling value could represent 4.5% of a Prius’ total
servation of the well‐being of the planet and/or the society is one value. How sustainable behaviors provide this status signal (Groening
benefit, among others, of an overall package. In particular, prosocial et al., 2018) needs to be explored.
status constitutes a major factor that impacts the adoption of sus- Identity signaling suggests consumers make choices to socially
tainable behaviors (White et al., 2019). Certain individuals favor communicate who they are, and who they are not, to their social
sustainable practices, mainly in public contexts, to give a good im- groups (Berger & Heath, 2007). This identity signaling goes beyond a
pression of themselves and confirm a social status of an universal drive to be different to ensure social groups make the de-
environmentally‐friendly consumer (Green & Peloza, 2014). sired inferences, rather than undesired identity inferences, about a
In relating sustainability to luxury, the research is mixed as the consumer (Berger & Heath, 2007). Individuals belonging to a group
word “luxury” suggests excess, while “sustainability” implies frugality engaged in sustainability express more willingness to adopt sustain-
(Achabou & Dekhili, 2013; Cervellon, 2013). Luxury is frequently able behaviors than those belonging to groups less sensitive to en-
seen as superficial, while sustainability suggests moderation. Luxury vironmental and social issues (Gupta & Ogden, 2009). Status signaling
is connected with egoist motivations, and these consumers may be could help explain why those with a positive attitude towards luxury
unwilling to sacrifice personal pleasure to support environmental or may be drawn to sustainability, particularly those with a desire for
social issues; additionally, sustainability is associated with more unique products, as it offers a positive means of uniqueness. As il-
considerate behavior (Dekhili & Achabou, 2016). Some suggest sus- lustrated in Figure 1 and tested with the hypotheses, we offer that
tainability is still a secondary criterion for luxury consumers, im- for consumers with a positive luxury attitude, expressed in terms of
pacting the luxury industry's transition toward more sustainability the social functions of attitude, who desire uniqueness, sustainability
(Kapferer & Michaut‐Denizeau 2019) though others suggest luxury may meet their individual needs for uniqueness in a socially accep-
can be compatible with sustainability (Athwal et al., 2019). While table way and strengthen their status within their group. As culture
luxury and sustainability may not be a natural fit, the literature sug- and self has been shown to impact luxury perceptions (Kunz et al.,
gests values to consider in linking luxury to sustainability: socio- 2020), the connection between the desire for uniqueness and sus-
cultural values (such as belonging), ego‐centered values (such as tainability may be stronger for those with a high value of collectivism
youthfulness), and eco‐centered values (such as doing good) (Hennigs given their concern for the group, and weakened for those with high
et al., 2013; Kunz et al., 2020). value of masculinity given their preference for material wealth.
An additional complication is that while consumers may have Moreover, this relationship could be enhanced among individuals
positive attitudes toward sustainability, these attitudes are not re- with strong brand‐self congruity as they seek to communicate their
flected in their consumption, that is, the green gap (Johnstone & Tan, sustainable identity to others.
2015). It is related to “the inconsistency between what the individual
says regarding his/her growing concern about the environmental
problems and what he/she does in terms of actions, behaviors, and 2.3 | Hypotheses development
contributions to lessen the consequences of these problems”
(Elhaffar et al., 2020, p. 3). While the majority of Americans express 2.3.1 | Luxury attitudes
concern for sustainability, only 20% make an effort to be more sus-
tainable in their actions (Pew Research Center, 2016). Thus, it is Per the functional theory of attitude, the motivational foundation
important that sustainable consumption behaviors are measured in- of attitudes plays an important role for attitudes predicting be-
stead of attitudes or concerns. haviors (Shavitt, 1989). Luxury attitudes perform social functions
through self‐expression (value‐expressive), self‐presentation
(social‐adjustive), or both (Wilcox et al., 2009). A value‐
2.2 | Theoretical underpinnings expressive luxury attitude motivates one to consume luxury to
illustrate their self‐identity while a social‐adjustive luxury atti-
According to Costly Signaling Theory, consumers perform costly tude motivates one to purchase luxury to obtain social approval
prosocial behaviors when status motivated (Griskevicius et al., 2010). and build relationships (Wilcox et al., 2009). The literature sug-
Per Cervellon (2013, p. 697), since the Great Recession, luxury gests though that what serves as status signals to gain this social
consumers have been seeking to “demonstrate status without approval is changing, as some consumers may be moving from
shame.” Costly Signaling Theory offers consumers participate in so- conveying status with wealth‐as‐status to values‐as‐status
cially visible behaviors to illustrate a willingness or ability to incur (Cesareo & Patrick, 2019). Schade et al. (2016) suggest that so-
expense to improve their social status (Griskevicius et al., 2010), and cial attitude functions differ by age, as the social‐adjustive
marketers have recommended increasing the visibility of sustainable function has a stronger impact on adolescents while the value‐
products to encourage their use (Aagerup & Nilsson, 2016; Baghi & expressive function impacts young adults.
1884 | EASTMAN ET AL.

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model

Meta‐analysis research illustrates that green attitudes influence been demonstrated to be an antecedent for the desire for unique
green purchase intentions (Zaremohzzbieh et al., 2020), but research products and is a higher‐order construct made up of three factors:
is needed to determine if this applies to luxury attitudes. Aagerup and unpopular choice counter‐conformity, creative choice counter‐
Nilsson (2016) note that consumption of green products is motivated conformity, and avoidance of similarity (Tian et al., 2001); each factor
by self‐enhancement and self‐presentation and is more likely to oc- impacting consumption differently (Jahanshahi & Jia, 2018;
cur in a conspicuous consumption situation. Others find self‐ Jebarajakirthy & Das, 2021). The desire for unique products, a goal‐
expression benefits as another reason for purchasing green products oriented unidimensional construct, looking at uniqueness in a positive
(Jahanshahi & Jia, 2018; Papista & Dimitradis, 2019). Both of these socially acceptable manner (Lynn & Harris, 1997) is more appropriate
attitude functions can influence luxury consumers’ sustainable be- for this study.
haviors if they see these behaviors as providing a social function to Establishing uniqueness is demonstrated through consumption
show others what a good person they are and/or to illustrate their that enhances self‐expression and one's feeling of specialness (Andrei
values. Our research answers the call by Athwal et al. (2019) to in- et al., 2017; Lynn & Harris, 1997). From a study conducted with
vestigate the motivational drivers that can link luxury attitudes with Chinese consumers, Sun et al. (2017) confirm that the need for un-
sustainability. We address this in terms of luxury social attitudes, not iqueness mediates the link between status and face consciousness.
in having a direct impact on sustainability, but rather through the As luxury motivation may increase a consumer's desire for unique
desire for unique products (uniqueness) as a means for consumers to consumer products (Lynn & Harris, 1997), this study offers con-
demonstrate socially their place and their personal values. sumers’ desire for unique products impacts their sustainable beha-
viors as a means to show their uniqueness. We propose that one's
luxury attitudes, both value‐expressive and social‐adjustive, will po-
2.3.2 | Desire for unique consumer products sitively influence their desire for unique products as illustrated in
Figure 1 and described in the following hypotheses.
The desire for unique consumer products offers that “consumers Consumers who hold a value‐expressive attitude will have more
differ in the extent to which they hold as a personal goal the ac- desire for unique products.
quisition and possession of consumer goods, services, and experi- Consumers who hold a social‐adjustive attitude will have more de-
ences that few others possess” (Lynn & Harris, 1997, pp. 7–8). Luxury sire for unique products.
motivation and the desire for unique products are connected as While luxury attitudes may positively or negatively impact sus-
“status aspiration is likely to produce a desire for unique consumer tainable behaviors, the desire for unique consumer products’ litera-
products” (Lynn & Harris, 1997, p. 7). The need for uniqueness has ture suggests it “will increase consumers’ efforts to acquire and
EASTMAN ET AL. | 1885

possess goods, services, and experiences that few other possesses” for unique products to demonstrate how they are sustainable.
(Lynn & Harris, 1997, p. 9) and will cause consumers to evaluate Therefore:
scarce products more positively (Childs & Jin, 2016). In a number of The desire for unique products mediates the relationship between
cultures, the need for uniqueness has a positive relationship to self‐ value‐expressive luxury attitudes and ecologically conscious consumer
expression (Kauppinen‐Räisänen et al., 2018) with the need to gain behavior.
positive judgments to help enhance ones’ self and social image (Sun The desire for unique products mediates the relationship between
et al., 2017). Jahanshahi and Jia (2018, p. 2) offer “customers who social‐adjustive luxury attitudes and ecologically conscious consumer
seek to publicly display their uniqueness may conspicuously consume behavior.
more green products”. Sun et al. (2017) argue those unique products The desire for unique products mediates the relationship between
which enhance one's social approval help them gain face. Lang and value expressive luxury attitudes and socially responsible consumer
Joyner Armstrong (2018) offer that uniqueness impacts female behavior.
consumers’ fashion use through clothing swapping and renting, a The desire for unique products mediates the relationship between
sustainable way to meet one's goal to use fashion in a novel way. In social‐adjustive luxury attitudes and socially responsible consumer
terms of socially responsible consumption choices, Andrei et al. behavior.
(2017) with a Romanian sample, found the desire for unique products
to be positively associated with the perceived importance of personal
power to make a difference. We hypothesize the desire for unique 2.3.3 | Culture
consumer products may directly impact positive sustainable beha-
viors, as follows: “Culture has been defined as a collective programming of the mind
The desire for unique products has a positive impact on ecologically that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people
conscious consumer behavior. from another” (Sreen et al., 2018, p. 178). Culture relates to luxury
The desire for unique products has a positive impact on socially because “cultural norms influence the need to control one's image in
responsible consumer behavior. the social context” and countries have different brand prominence
The outcomes for the desire for unique consumer products in- preferences (Kauppinen‐Räisänen et al., 2018 p. 78). Some past re-
clude innovativeness, possession of scarce products, product custo- searchers on culture have focused on country‐level cultural values
mization, the use of outmoded goods, and shopping venue choice (Hofstede, 1980, 2018), but others hold that cultural values can be
(Lynn & Harris, 1997). For consumers with proluxury attitudes who examined on the individual level (Eastman et al., 2018; Tascioglu
desire unique products, being sustainable might aid their need for et al., 2017). Sharma et al. (2018) suggest the focus on demonstrating
status and help reconcile the potential conflict between luxury and status relates to doing good more than feeling good among con-
sustainability. For those consumers whose luxury motivations are sumers in emerging markets. The current study addresses Oliver and
linked to pleasure, social power, and ego (Dekhili & Achabou, 2016; Lee's (2010) call to examine the role of culture in sustainability by
Dekhili et al., 2018) rather than desiring unique products, one could examining if cultural values moderate the link between the desire for
see how luxury attitudes would not be related to sustainable beha- unique products and sustainable behaviors.
viors as they are not fulfilling these needs. As the literature has il- Individualistic people are driven by their needs and self‐esteem
lustrated the need for uniqueness can work as a mediator (Sun et al., enhancement (Hofstede, 2018) with fewer worries about in‐group
2017), we submit the desire for unique products may also work as a norms and consequences (Sun et al., 2004), while collectivist people
mediator. The link connecting luxury attitudes with sustainable be- prefer a tightly‐knit loyal societal framework where relatives or a
haviors may be illuminated with the desire for unique products as a particular in‐group look after them (Hofstede, 2018). Collectivists are
mediator. The literature's discrepancies connecting luxury with sus- more susceptible to normative influences to be socially accepted (Yim
tainability may be explained through the desire for unique products et al., 2014) with “a greater emphasis on the group's well‐being than
as luxury consumers are willing to engage in sustainable behaviors if the individual's well‐being” (Mai et al., 2020, p. 679).
doing so fulfills their desire for unique products. In relating culture to sustainability, horizontal collectivism posi-
We propose that both social factors, wanting to be seen by tively influences consumers’ perceived effectiveness of environ-
others as sustainable, as well as individual factors, desiring unique mental attitudes and behaviors, leading them to feel obligated to be
products, are at work. Jebarajakirthy and Das (2021, p. 1) indicate eco‐friendly (Cho et al., 2013). Others find peer influence increases
that both the “need for uniqueness and social comparison are vital the selection of green products and attribute it to herd behavior
aspects in shaping people's motive to become distinct in multiple (Salazar et al., 2013). Tascioglu et al. (2017) offers a connection be-
facets of life” including luxury consumption. As consumers “care tween status motivation and consumers’ perceptions of sustainable
about communicating specific, desired identities” (Berger & Heath, retailers, with a stronger connection for those with higher collectivist
2007, p. 133) to others, we postulate that for those consumers with values. Collectivist consumers are “more willing to perform a beha-
luxury social attitudes who want to be seen positively as sustainable, vior that benefits the society at large even though that behavior
they can illustrate how they stand out relative to their social group, might be inconvenient” (Sreen et al., 2018, p. 180). Segev (2015) finds
not in an anti‐conformity or unusual manner, but through their desire collectivism indirectly impacts conservation behavior though
1886 | EASTMAN ET AL.

environmental concern and values, environmental knowledge, and has consumers consider luxury brands but does not define what is a
perceived consumer effectiveness. Additionally, research shows a luxury brand or have the respondents specify a luxury brand in their
positive relationship between the level of reference group identity responses. Consumers’ brand self‐congruence is focused on their
and sustainable purchase intentions (Ferguson et al., 2017). Aagerup perceptions of how they see themselves relative to their perception
and Nilsson (2016) explain green consumption behaviors in terms of of what luxury brands are. Consumers can realize self‐congruence by
the desire to fit in. consumption of brands with a brand personality they consider to be
We suggest the collectivist concern for others enhances the close to either their ideal or actual self (Malär et al., 2011). Brand
connection between luxury attitudes, the desire for unique products, traits must be consistent to the consumer's attributes for self‐
with sustainability. For those consumers with the goal of illustrating congruence to occur (Jerónimo et al., 2018). Self‐congruence may
in a positive manner how they are unique from others, we propose improve consumers’ reactions to the brand (Aaker, 1999) and higher
they will be more likely to exhibit sustainable behaviors given that self‐congruence can increase emotional brand attachment (Malär
sustainability efforts are still at a low level in the United States et al., 2011).
(Desilver, 2019) making it a unique positive action, and that this link In relating brand self‐congruence to sustainability, for example,
will be stronger for those consumers who have a stronger concern for the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility actions relates to
the group (i.e., more collectivist) as proposed below: whether the actions are seen as congruent with the brand's per-
When collectivism is high, the relationship between the desire for sonality (Janssen et al., 2014). When brands link environmental and/
unique products and ecologically conscious consumer behaviors is or social associations to their image, they enhance consumer sa-
stronger. tisfaction (Chen, 2010). A sustainable brand is a purpose‐driven brand
When collectivism is high, the relationship between the desire for that offers meaning by aligning the different stakeholders around a
unique products and socially responsible consumer behavior is stronger. common project which is good for the society. It comprises two di-
Hofstede (1980) categorized societies in terms of femininity mensions: the “being” of the brand (i.e., its personality and values
versus masculinity. If the dominant values focus on quality of life and related to sustainability), which the consumer judges what is ethical
caring for others, the society is seen as more feminine, while if the and responsible in a brand, and the “action” of the brand (i.e., its
focus is on possessions, money, and success, the society is seen to be perceived activities in favor of sustainability) which projects the
more masculine (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). Weidmann et al. (2009) brand's societal commitments (Dekhili et al., 2021). We hypothesize
suggest the cultural values of femininity‐masculinity could motivate the link between the desire for unique products and sustainable
luxury value perceptions. Sustainable offers are targeted to women behaviors are enhanced for those with higher brand self‐congruency
through utilizing more feminine characteristics, such as caring for the for their luxury attitudes as consumers’ need for unique products and
environment (Brough et al., 2016). Per Hofstede (2001), masculinity sustainable behavior is influenced by how they see themselves.
favors a preference for economic growth over environmental pre- Therefore:
servation. In this sense, valuing material success could lead to lower When self‐congruence is high, the relationship between desire for
levels of sustainability, while an orientation for caring for human unique products and ecologically conscious consumer behavior is
relationships could lead to stronger levels of sustainability (Husted, stronger.
2005). We offer that a lower level of masculinity (i.e., more feminine) When self‐congruence is high, the relationship between desire for
would strengthen the link between the desire for unique products unique products and socially responsible consumer behavior is stronger.
and sustainability as these consumers may be more interested in
illustrating their unique concern for sustainability. We propose the
following: 3 | METHODOL OGY
When masculinity is low, the relationship between the desire for
unique products and ecologically conscious consumer behavior is 3.1 | Data collection
stronger.
When masculinity is low, the relationship between desire for unique This survey research utilized a Qualtrics’ US panel of 359 re-
products and socially responsible consumer behavior is stronger. spondents, quota sampled to match the US ethnic makeup (United
States Census Bureau, 2015), aiming to capture a broad range of
luxury attitudes. Kunz et al. (2020) discuss the need to look at
2.3.4 | Brand self‐congruence broader samples to get a fuller picture of the link between luxury and
sustainability. The age category was mostly 25–44 years old (88%).
Self‐congruence has been described as the fit between the brand's The sample was evenly distributed by gender (50% female) and di-
image or personality and the consumer (Aaker, 1999; Sirgy, 1982). verse ethnically with 72% Caucasian. For education, 28% of the
With brand self‐congruence, “the brand image is perceived as in line sample were high school graduates, 46% of the sample had some
with the way the individual consumer perceives him/herself to be, college (associate degree) and 26% had a university or graduate de-
but not necessarily in line with what others perceive him/her to be” gree. The median income category was $30,000–$39,999, and 44%
(Tsai, 2005, p. 438). Tsai's (2005) measure of brand‐self congruence reported they were married, while 44% never married.
EASTMAN ET AL. | 1887

3.2 | Measures To demonstrate discriminant validity, none of the confidence intervals of

the phi matrix include 1.00 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The amount of
As shown in Appendix 1, the survey items were adapted from variance extracted for each variable is compared with the squared phi
current scales and measured on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from estimates (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and the estimates for all variables are
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The independent variables greater than the squared phi estimate, supporting sufficient discrimination
of social‐adjustive and value‐expressive attitudes were measured among variables. The standardized construct correlation matrix of the
with Wilcox et al. (2009) scale. To measure ecologically conscious CFA and the AVE with the construct reliability of the measures are shown
consumer behavior/socially responsible consumer behavior, the in Table 1. The reliability of the scales is determined by calculating
shorter version of the ecologically conscious consumer behavior composite reliability scores. These ranged from 0.77 to 0.94, above the
scale by Roberts (1996a) per Eastman et al. (2019), and the socially cutoff of 0.60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1991). The findings offer good model fit with
responsible consumer behavior scale developed by Roberts sufficient convergent and discriminant validity.
(1996b) were utilized for the dependent variables. Lynn and Har-
ris's (1997) unidimensional scale was used to measure the med-
iating variable of the Desire for Unique Consumer Products. For 3.4 | Common method variance (CMV)
the moderating variables, collectivism and masculinity were mea-
sured using Yoo et al. (2011) scales and brand self‐congruency was We utilized a number of diagnostics to ensure that CMV was not an issue.
measured with Tsai's (2005) scale. Harman's (1967) one‐factor test yielded a factor that extracted only
25.75% of the variance. A principal component analysis offered eight
distinct factors accounting for 69.40% of the total variance, with the first
3.3 | Adequacy of the measures factor accounting for only 13.61%. Also, a single factor CFA
(χ(560)2 = 4951.30; RMSEA = 0.15; p < 0.001; χ2/df = 8.84; TLI = 0.37, and
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is utilized as it can manage complex CFI/IFI = 0.41) did not produce an acceptable fit. We conclude CMV did
relationships among dependent latent variables. Confirmatory factor not bias the conclusions drawn from our results.
analysis (CFA) permits an in‐depth examination of measurement validity.
The measurement model (χ(532)2 = 1096.51; RMSEA = 0.05; p < 0.001; χ2/
df = 2.06; TLI = 0.92; CFI/IFI = 0.92) shows adequate fit. Appendix 1 4 | RESULTS
provides the standardized factor loading estimates. These loadings aid the
computation of the average variance extracted (AVE) and construct We first present the direct and mediating relationships for luxury
reliability estimates. Each of the items exhibits acceptable loadings attitudes, the desire for unique products, and sustainable con-
(path estimate > 0.50), illustrating acceptable convergent validity. sumer behaviors. Next, we test for mediation and address the

TABLE 1 Correlations and descriptive statistics

Measure VEF SAF COLL MASC ECCB SRCB SELF UNIQ

Value expressive function (VEF) 0.94

Social‐adjustive function (SAF) 0.81** 0.90

Collectivism (COLL) 0.42** 0.42** 0.88

Masculinity (MASC) 0.40** 0.34** 0.26** 0.80

Ecologically conscious consumer behavior (ECCB) 0.23** 0.21** 0.28** 0.07 0.88

Socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB) 0.05 0.10 0.23** −0.21** 0.57** 0.84

Brand self congruence (SELF) 0.12* 0.15** 0.14** −0.01 0.20** 0.25** 0.77

Desire for unique products (UNIQ) 0.41** 0.40** 0.29** 0.27** 0.27** 0.17** 0.26** 0.84

Mean 2.62 2.79 2.95 2.49 2.85 3.13 3.34 4.04

Standard deviation 1.14 1.15 0.90 1.00 0.94 1.05 0.92 1.30

Average variance extracted 0.80 0.75 0.54 0.58 0.56 0.57 0.54 0.52

Note: Construct reliabilities are shown on the diagonal.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
1888 | EASTMAN ET AL.

moderating roles of collectivism, masculinity, and brand self‐ and ecologically conscious consumer behavior and socially responsible
congruence. consumer behavior, although at the 0.10 level.

4.1 | Direct relationships 4.3 | Tests of moderation

H1 through H4 are examined with the structural model. As illustrated The moderating roles2 of collectivism, masculinity, and brand self‐
in Figure 1, the results demonstrate the structural model has an ac- congruence are tested using multigroup analyses in SEM as shown in
ceptable fit to the data (χ2 = 638.65, df = 221, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.88; Table 3. Following the commonly accepted approach, we create
RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91).1 groups for self‐congruence, collectivism, and masculinity using a
The squared multiple correlations for desire for unique products, median split.
socially responsible consumer behavior, and ecologically conscious con- For collectivism, a restricted baseline model constraining all of the
sumer behavior are 0.22, 0.07, and 0.13. Per Table 2, our results relationships to be equal among the high and the low collectivism
demonstrate the relationship between value‐expressive attitude groups is investigated. The χ2 difference between the unconstrained
(p < 0.05) and desire for unique products, supporting H1. We also find and the constrained model is not significant (Δχ(26)2 = 35.97, p < 0.10).
support for the relationship between desire for unique products and The multigroup analysis shows that while collectivism moderates the
ecologically conscious consumer behavior (H3; p < 0.01) and socially relationship between desire for unique products and ecologically con-
responsible consumer behavior (H4; p < 0.01). We did not find support scious consumer behavior (p < 0.05) supporting H6a, it does not
for the relationship between social‐adjustive attitude and desire for moderate the relationship between the desire for unique products and
unique products (H2; p = 0.13). socially responsible consumer behavior. The positive relationship be-
tween ecologically conscious consumer behavior and the desire for
unique products is stronger for high‐collectivism consumers.
4.2 | Testing for mediation For masculinity, a restricted baseline model constraining all of the
relationships to be equal among high and low masculinity is in-
The mediating impact of the desire for unique products on ecologi- vestigated. The χ2 difference between the unconstrained and the
cally conscious consumer behavior and socially responsible consumer constrained model is significant (Δχ(26)2 = 42.38, p < 0.05). The mul-
behavior is explored with the AMOS mediating test. The mediating tigroup analysis shows that masculinity does not moderate the re-
effect of desire for unique products on the relationship between value‐ lationship between desire for unique products and ecologically
expressive luxury attitudes and ecologically conscious consumer behavior conscious consumer behavior and. socially responsible consumer beha-
is 0.08 (p = 0.017; CI: 0.027 [lower] and 0.159 [upper]), supporting vior Thus, masculinity does serve as a moderator.
H5a. The mediating effect of desire for unique products on the re- For brand self‐congruence, a restricted baseline model con-
lationship between value‐expressive luxury attitudes and socially re- straining all of the relationships to be equal among the high and the
sponsible consumer behavior is 0.07 (p = 0.018; CI: 0.022 [lower] and low self‐congruence groups is investigated. The χ2 difference be-
0.162 [upper]), supporting H5c. In other words, the desire for unique tween the unconstrained and the constrained model is significant
products mediates the relationship for value‐expressive luxury atti- (Δχ(26)2 = 49.15, p < 0.01). The multigroup analysis shows while brand
tudes with ecologically conscious consumer behavior and socially self‐congruence does not moderate the relationship between desire for
responsible consumer behavior. unique products and ecologically conscious consumer behavior, it does
A similar approach is used to test the mediating impact of the moderate the relationship between the desire for unique products and
desire for unique products on the relationship between socially ad- socially responsible consumer behavior (p < 0.05), supporting H8b. The
justive luxury attitudes and ecologically conscious and socially re- positive relationship between socially responsible consumer behavior
sponsible consumer behavior. The mediating effect of desire for and desire for unique products is stronger for high self‐congruence
unique products on the relationship between socially adjustive luxury consumers.
attitudes and ecologically conscious consumer behavior is 0.05
(p = 0.085; CL: 0.002 [lower] and 0.138 [upper]), supporting H5b. The
mediating effect of the desire for unique products on the relationship 5 | D IS CU SS IO N A N D I MP LI C A TI O N S
between socially adjustive luxury attitudes and socially responsible
consumer behavior is 0.05 (p = 0.09; CL: 0.001 [lower] and 0.137 We provide confirmation of the relationship between value‐expressive
[upper]), supporting H5d. This suggests the desire for unique pro- attitudes and desire for unique products (H1), desire for unique products
ducts mediates the relationship for socially adjustive luxury attitudes and ecologically conscious consumer behavior (H3), and desire for unique

1 2
The measurement model for the base model (not including any moderators) had adequate The moderating effects of the cultural values of consumer independence and power dis-
fit measures (χ2 = 525.54, df = 220, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.39; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.94; tance were also examined in the study, but these cultural values were not significant and
TLI = 0.93). hence are not included in the study.
EASTMAN ET AL. | 1889

TABLE 2 Direct and indirect effects

Hypotheses Direct relationships Effect p value t value Result

H1 VEF → UNIQ 0.29* 0.026 2.23 Supported

H2 SAF → UNIQ 0.20 0.127 1.53 Not supported

H3 UNIQ → ECCB 0.30*** 0.001 4.34 Supported

H4 UNIQ → SRCB 0.26*** 0.001 3.53 Supported

Mediated relationships Effect (AXB) p value LL‐UL

H5a VEF → UNIQ → ECCB 0.08* 0.017 0.027–0.159 Supported

H5b SAF → UNIQ → ECCB 0.05 0.085 0.002–0.138 Supported

H5c VEF → UNIQ → SRCB 0.07* 0.018 0.022–0.162 Supported

H5d SAF → UNIQ → SRCB 0.05 0.09 0.001–0.137 Supported

Note: effect is completely standardized; ***p < 0.001; *p < 0.05.

Abbreviations: ECCB, ecologically conscious consumer behavior; SAF, social‐adjustive function;
SRCB, socially responsible consumer behavior; UNIQ, desire for unique products; VEF, value
expressive function.

products and socially responsible consumer behavior (H4). There is not a level. This study also supports the mediating relationship of desire for
significant connection for social‐adjustive attitudes and desire for unique unique products between social‐adjustive luxury attitudes and ecologi-
products (H2). These findings offer that the relationship between luxury cally conscious consumer behavior (H5b) and socially responsible con-
attitudes and desire for unique products is related to the self‐expression sumer behavior (H5d) though only significant at the 0.10 level.
rather than the social‐adjustive function. This result supports previous In terms of moderating relationships with collectivism (H6),
studies. For example, Papista and Dimitradis (2019) find that the self‐ masculinity (H7), and brand self‐congruence (H8), this study finds the
expressive benefit of buying green products significantly impacts re- connection between the desire for unique products and ecologically
lationship quality while the socialization benefit does not. Our results conscious consumer behavior is stronger for high‐collectivist con-
clarify the connection between luxury attitudes to both ecologically sumers (H6a), meaning that the impact of desire for unique products
conscious consumer behavior and socially responsible consumer behavior on ecologically conscious consumer behavior is higher for those who
is mediated by the desire for unique products. This suggests the desire for are concerned with the group. Collectivism has support as a mod-
unique products mediates the relationship between value‐expressive erator in sustainability research (Tascioglu et al., 2017). Consumers
luxury attitudes and ecologically conscious consumer behavior (H5a) and can be influenced by the expectations, presence, and behaviors of
socially responsible consumer behavior (H5c) and is significant at the 0.05 others, mainly the members of their social groups (White et al., 2019).
Norms about what is appropriate socially impacts sustainable con-
sumer behaviors (Achabou et al., 2018; Peattie, 2010). Also, sus-
TABLE 3 Results of moderation analyses tainable behaviors depend on people's social identities as consumers
are more likely to adopt these behaviors when ingroup members are
Collectivism Low collectivism High collectivism χ2 diff.
(White et al., 2019).
UNIQ → SRCB 0.07 0.38*** 1.57 The relationship between the desire for unique products and
UNIQ → ECCB 0.05 0.44*** 5.23** socially responsible consumer behavior is stronger for high brand

Masculinity Low masculinity High masculinity χ2 diff. self‐congruence consumers (H8b); indicating people who desire un-
ique products with higher brand self‐congruence see socially con-
UNIQ → SRCB 0.12 0.47*** 1.72
scious sustainable behaviors as congruent with who they are. Muniz
UNIQ → 0.17* 0.42*** 1.11
et al. (2019) stress that socially conscious sustainable behaviors must
ECCB
be voluntary to be congruent with who one is. Andrei et al. (2017)
Brand self‐ Low self‐ High self‐ suggest the link for the desire for unique products with socially re-
congruence congruence congruence χ2 diff.
sponsible consumption is due to perceptions of power to make a
UNIQ → SRCB 0.34*** 0.06 4.00** difference and feeling special for being able to do so.
UNIQ → ECCB 0.22** 0.20** 0.03 Masculinity does not serve as a moderator as it does not enhance
the connection for the desire for unique products and sustainable
Abbreviations: ECCB, ecologically conscious consumer behavior; SAF,
social‐adjustive function; SRCB, socially responsible consumer behavior; behaviors (either ecological or social; H7a and H7b). This is in line
UNIQ, desire for unique products; VEF, value expressive function. with the conclusions of Husted (2005) who states that the influence
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05. of masculinity‐femininity is limited. Additionally, the control variables
1890 | EASTMAN ET AL.

of age, gender, and income were tested to see if they had an impact (Kauppinen‐Räisänen et al., 2018; Yim et al., 2014) through moder-
on the model. None of these constructs significantly affected the ating the relationship between the desire for unique products and
model. ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Our findings substantiate
Overall, the results help address why luxury attitudes can impact Sharma et al. (2018) that projecting status may relate to doing good
consumers’ sustainable behaviors through the mediating role of de- and supports research connecting collectivism with sustainability
sire for unique products, and how collectivism and brand self‐ (Segev, 2015; Sreen et al., 2018). The impact of collectivism illus-
congruence strengthen this link for different types of sustainable trates that sustainability signals that one is a desirable, trustworthy,
behaviors. and helpful group member (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Our results also
support that collectivists may be more susceptible to normative in-
fluence and use consumption to be more socially acceptable (Yim
5.1 | Theoretical contribution et al., 2014). Not all cultural values though will enhance the con-
nection between luxury and sustainability as we did not find support
Our research provides a new contribution by suggesting a reason for masculinity as a moderator.
for the literature's mixed findings regarding the relationship Finally, this study contributes to the brand self‐congruence lit-
between luxury and sustainability (Dekhili & Achabou, 2016; erature by illustrating the importance of brand traits’ congruence
Kapferer & Michaut‐Denizeau, 2013). For those with positive with one's sense of identity (Jerónimo et al., 2018). Consumers are
luxury social attitudes (Wilcox et al., 2009), especially in terms of more sensitive to brands’ sustainability efforts with luxury brands
self‐expression, their sustainability behaviors are mediated by their expected to set an example in sustainability (Dekhili & Achabou,
desire for unique products. The symbolic aspects of sustainable 2016). Our findings support Tsai's (2005) observation that luxury
behaviors “provide the opportunity to the consumer to express his motivation extends beyond impression management to illustrate
identity, reflect his belief system and enjoy self‐fulfillment value” one's internal self. An interesting finding of our research is that the
(Papista & Dimitradis, 2019, p. 179). These results support Costly role of brand self‐congruency enhanced the relationship between
Signaling Theory (Griskevicius et al., 2010) by offering that luxury desire for unique products and socially responsible consumer beha-
impacts sustainability through value‐expressive luxury attitudes vior but not ecologically conscious consumer behavior. This suggests
with the need for unique products. The results may address the that how one sees oneself in terms of being socially responsible
divergence between luxury attitudes and sustainability (Eckhardt (including treatment of women and minorities) is more important than
et al., 2010; Groening et al., 2018) by demonstrating the desire for being seen as an environmentalist.
unique products mediates the relationship between value‐
expressive luxury attitudes and sustainable behaviors. In terms of
the green bundle approach, this finding further supports that sus- 5.2 | Managerial contribution
tainability can be driven by other concerns beyond the altruistic
dimensions (Aagerup & Nilsson, 2016). Also, this study addresses There is a need to encourage more sustainable consumption
concerns with student samples and fictitious scenarios (Athwal (Aagerup & Nilsson, 2016). “A profound understanding of the me-
et al., 2019) through utilizing a national panel of US consumers and chanisms behind the successful combination of luxury and sustain-
self‐reported sustainability behaviors. ability can provide insights for both enhancing individual firm success
The lack of findings regarding the social‐adjustive function could and achieving a shift towards more sustainable products, which is
be addressed by Schade et al. (2016) observation that the social‐ desirable from a societal perspective” (Kunz et al., 2020, p. 541).
adjustive attitude function impacts adolescents (16–25 years old) There is a real opportunity as the luxury market is transitioning to an
more, while the value‐adjustive attitude function impacts young era of conscientious luxury (Danziger, 2021). This study contributes
adults (26–39 years old) more. The bulk of our sample is between by illuminating how we can encourage US consumers’ sustainable
25 and 44 years of age (88%), which may explain the relative strength behaviors by engaging their luxury attitudes, especially those serving
of value‐expressive luxury attitudes. a self‐expression function (Papista & Dimitradis, 2019).
This study adds to the culture literature by discussing how the We offer sustainability behaviors may also increase if
diffusion of cultural values creates commonalities (Craig & Douglas, consumers see it helps express themselves and meets their desire
2006; Hennigs et al., 2012). While America is seen as one of the most for unique products. By demonstrating that luxury attitudes lead to
individualistic countries in the world (Hofstede, 2018), we illustrate a sustainable actions through the desire for unique products, the
substantial portion of Americans are more collectivist (i.e., 42% of the findings start to lay the groundwork to show how luxury marketers
sample reported an average collectivism score of 3 or higher on a may effectively market sustainable luxury though future research is
5‐point scale). This finding is supported (Eastman et al., 2018; needed specifically with sustainable luxury products. The findings
Tascioglu et al., 2017) and meshes with the Pew Research Center offer that luxury may be compatible with sustainability. The
which reports Americans want the government to do more in key could be to emphasize product uniqueness and how it aids
terms of sustainability (Tyson & Kennedy, 2020). Cultural values, consumers with expressing their own uniqueness as sustainable
particularly collectivism, can be associated with luxury attitudes consumers. Given the inconsistency of consumers’ attitudes and
EASTMAN ET AL. | 1891

behaviors noted in the luxury literature (Han et al., 2016) as luxury did not consider specific luxury brands or determine which luxury
segments can be dissimilar (Athwal et al., 2019), our research brands the respondents were considering in answering the brand
suggests the role of desire for unique products in helping to self‐congruence items in the survey. While we utilized the brand
address these inconsistencies. Thus, marketers should consider self‐congruence measure as designed by Tsai (2005), we ac-
how to complement altruistic benefits with egoistic ones. For the knowledge the need to examine specific brands, especially sus-
sustainable luxury market, brands may want to focus in particular tainable luxury brands. Future researchers could explore
on status and desire for unique products. This is well illustrated by consumers’ responses to luxury marketers’ sustainability efforts as
Stella McCartney who presents eco‐materials, such as vegetarian well as how marketers can effectively promote sustainable luxury
leather (vs. animal leather) as luxurious, unique, and resulting from a (Athwal et al., 2019). Kunz et al. (2020) highlight the need for
considerable innovative work (Luxiders, 2020). research to determine what product characteristics work best in
As collectivism enhances the connection with the desire for unique successfully combining luxury with sustainability. Finally, given the
products and ecologically conscious consumer behavior, marketers can growth of the sharing economy (Viglia, 2020) and the possibilities
promote awareness of how one can make a difference for the group. As of achieving both sustainability and luxury with luxury rentals, such
more collectivist consumers have been found to be more interested in as the Run the Runway collaborative consumption platform
collaborative consumption platforms higher in consociality (Mai et al., (Pantano & Stylos, 2020), future research needs to explore colla-
2020), this supports our suggestion to stress how one can make a dif- borative luxury consumption.
ference for others with his/her sustainable behaviors. The desire for unique products accounted for only 22% of the
In terms of sustainable luxury, Pantano and Stylos (2020) iden- variance. This suggests there are other constructs not in the model
tified a number of consumer motivations in renting luxury (i.e., that need to be considered. Future researchers could examine addi-
sharing and collaborative consumption), including the desire for tional moderators, such as self‐monitoring and attention to social
“new” items for a special event and consumers’ need to make more comparison (Aagerup & Nilsson, 2016). Finally, while consumers in
sustainable choices. This suggests collaborative consumption may be different countries may express a global attitude toward sustainable
a means for marketers to increase the sustainability of their items for luxury beyond country boundaries and cultures (Kapferer & Michaut‐
luxury consumers. This relates to our finding indicating that luxury Denizeau, 2019), future researchers should examine cross‐cultural
attitudes impact sustainable behaviors through the desire for unique differences.
products. In conclusion, this study offers a possible reason for past mixed
Firms may capitalize on consumers’ luxury attitudes, especially findings regarding the link between luxury and sustainability by il-
with the self‐expressive function, to increase consumers’ sustainable lustrating the mediating impact of the desire for unique products.
behaviors. US consumers may not perform sustainable behaviors This suggests that consumers with positive luxury social attitudes,
because they do not know how they can make a difference (Gardner particularly those that are value‐expressive, are more likely to exhibit
& Stern, 2008), so marketers can promote ways an individual can sustainable behaviors if they desire unique consumption experiences.
indeed make a difference. As suggested by Husted (2005), environ- It needs to be noted that the link between social‐adjustive luxury
mental education programs should consider planet degradation as a attitudes (i.e., those with the function to gain social approval) and
potential threat to the interests of the social in‐groups. Finally, as the sustainability mediated by the desire for unique products is sig-
connection with the desire for unique products and socially re- nificant only at the 0.10 level. This suggests that the impact of po-
sponsible consumer behavior is enhanced by brand self‐congruence, sitive luxury attitudes works more through self‐expression than
marketers should stress how luxury attitudes are compatible with through gaining social approval. This study also illustrates that the
sustainability; for instance, by discussing the long‐term durability of connection with the desire for unique products and sustainability can
luxury goods compared to mass‐produced disposable products be strengthened differently based on the type of sustainability
(Cervellon, 2013) and the ability to extend the lifecycle of (ecological or socially responsible) and moderator. For ecological
luxury products through collaborative consumption (Pantano & sustainability, the link is strengthened by collectivism which submits
Stylos, 2020). that the desire for unique products is more likely to encourage
ecological sustainability if consumers feel it benefits the group rather
than the individual. For social sustainability, the link is strengthened
5.3 | Limitations and future research by brand self‐congruence which indicates that the desire for unique
products is more likely to make someone be socially sustainable if
It is essential to discuss the study's limitations and future research they see that as being congruent with who they are. Thus, this study
opportunities. First, we used cross‐sectional data that do not hopes to help marketers in encouraging US consumers’ sustainable
provide evidence of causality. It would be beneficial for experi- behaviors.
mental manipulation of the desire for unique products. Another
limitation is that the sample did not distinguish between luxury ORC I D
consumers and non‐luxury consumers but instead looked at the Jacqueline K. Eastman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4006-8080
range of luxury attitudes in a large sample of Americans. This study Rajesh Iyer http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5021-9447
1892 | EASTMAN ET AL.

REFERENCES Delmas, M. A. (2018). The Green bundle: Pairing the market with the planet,
Aagerup, U., & Nilsson, J. (2016). Green consumer behavior: Being good or with David Colgan (p. 280). Stanford University Press Stanford.
seeming good? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(3), Desilver, D. (2019). Americans say they're changing behaviors to help the
274–284. environment—But is it making a difference? Pew Research Center.
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self‐expression in https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/19/americans-
persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45–57. say-theyre-changing-behaviors-to-help-the-environment-but-is-it-
Achabou, M. A., & Dekhili, S. (2013). Luxury and sustainable development: making-a-difference/
Is there a match? Journal of Business Research, 66, 1896–1903. Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., Shepherd, C. D., Heugel, A., & Faulk, D. (2018). Do
Achabou, M. A., Dekhili, S., & Tagbata, D. (2018). Mieux comprendre les they shop to stand out or fit in? The luxury fashion purchase
difficultés de développement du doggy bag en France. Décisions intentions of young adults. Psychology & Marketing, 35, 220–236.
Marketing, (92), 53–76. Eastman, J. K., Modi, P., & Gordon‐Wilson, S. (2019). The impact of future
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in time perspective and personality on the sustainable behaviours of
practice: A review and recommended two‐step approach. seniors. Journal of Consumer Policy, 43, 275–294. https://doi.org/10.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. 1007/s10603-019-09440-1
Andrei, G. A., Gazzola, P., Zbuchea, A., & Alexandru, V. A. (2017). Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don't consumers
Modeling socially responsible consumption and the need for consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 167–181.
uniqueness: A PLS‐SEM approach. Kybernetes, 46(8), 1325–1340. Elhaffar, G., Durif, F., & Dubé, L. (2020). Towards closing the attitude‐
Athwal, N., Wells, V. K., Carrigan, M., & Henninger, C. (2019). Sustainable intention‐behavior gap in green consumption: A narrative review of
luxury marketing: A synthesis and research agenda. International the literature and an overview of future research directions. Journal
Journal of Management Reviews, 21, 405–426. of Cleaner Production, 275, 275. https://doi.org/10.1016/jclepro.
Baghi, I., & Gabrielli, V. (2018). Brand prominence in cause‐related 2020.122556
marketing: Luxury versus non‐luxury. Journal of Product & Brand Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR). (2017).
Management, 27(6), 716–731. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait‐multimethod matrices in 2016%26sort=des9. Accessed August 23, 2020.
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 426–439. Ferguson, K. E., Hair, J. F., Jr., Silva, R. V., & Mollah, M. M. H. (2017).
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Consumer perceptions of sustainability: An exploratory study.
Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences,
Research, 34, 121–134. 10(1), 1–21.
Brough, A. A., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco‐ Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with
friendly unmanly? The green‐feminine stereotype and its effect on unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and
sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
567–582. Gandenberger, C., Garrelts, H., & Wehlau, D. (2011). Assessing the effects of
Cervellon, M.‐C. (2013). Conspicuous consumption: Using semiotics to certification networks on sustainable production and consumption: The
understand sustainable luxury. International Journal of Market cases of FLO and FSC. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 107–126.
Research, 55(5), 695–717. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions
Cesareo, L., & Patrick, V. (2019). From ‘wealth‐as‐status’ to ‘value‐as‐ U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment, 50(5),
status’: The millennial luxury consumer mindset. Association of 12–24.
Consumer Research Proceedings, 47, 51–56. Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2014). Finding the right shade of green: The effect of
Chen, Y. S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, advertising appeal type on environmentally friendly consumption. Journal
green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, of Advertising, 43(2), 128–141.
307–319. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be
Childs, M. L., & Jin, B. (2016). Do status symbols in marketing increase seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous consumption. Journal of
product evaluations? An experimental analysis of group differences Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.
on product evaluations for scarce and brand‐presence products. Groening, C., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2018). Green marketing consumer‐level
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 28(3), 154–168. theory: A compendium of applied theories and further research
Cho, Y.‐N., Throff, A., Rapert, M. I., Park, S.‐Y., & Lee, H.‐J. (2013). To be directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1848–1866.
or not to be green: Exploring individualism and collectivism as Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. T. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma
antecedents of environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, perspective on green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(6),
66, 1052–1059. 376–391.
Craig, S. C., & Douglas, S. P. (2006). Beyond natural culture: Implications Han, J., Seo, Y., & Ko, E. (2016). Staging luxury experiences for understanding
of cultural dynamics for consumer research. International Marketing sustainable fashion consumption: A balance theory application. Journal of
Review, 23(3), 322–342. Business Research, 74, 162–167.
Danziger, P. (2021). Welcome to the era of conscientious luxury. https:// Harman, D. (1967). A single factor test of common method variance.
www.therobinreport.com/welcome-era-conscientious-luxury/ Journal of Psychology, 35, 359378.
D'Arpizio, C., & Levato, F. (2020). Pandemic spurs a transformation of the Harris, J., & Lynn, M. (1996). Manifestations of the desire for unique consumer
luxury market. https://www.bain.com/insights/pandemic-spurs- products. American Marketing Association Proceedings.
transformation-of-luxury-market-infographic/ Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K.‐P., Klarmann, C., & Behrens, S. (2013).
Dekhili, S., & Achabou, M. A. (2016). Luxe et développement durable: Sustainability as part of the luxury essence: Delivering value through
quelles sources de dissonance? Décisions Marketing, 83, 97–121. social and environmental excellence. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 52,
Dekhili, S., Achabou, M. A., & Alharbi, F. (2018). Could sustainability 25–35.
improve the promotion of luxury products? European Business Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K.‐P., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey, B.,
Review, 31(4), 488–511. Pederzoli, D., Neulinger, A., Dave, K., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Taro, K.,
Dekhili, S., Merle, A., & Ochs, A. (2021). Marketing durable (p. 216). Pearson. Táborecká‐Petrovičová, J., Santos, C. R., Jung, J., & Oh, H. (2012). What
Delgado, M. S., Harriger, J. L., & Khanna, N. (2015). Analysis: The value of is the value of luxury? A cross‐cultural consumer perspective. Psychology
environmental status signaling. Ecological Economics, 111, 1–11. & Marketing, 29(12), 1018–1034.
EASTMAN ET AL. | 1893

Herédia‐Colaço, V., & Coelho do Vale, R. (2018). Seize the day or save the Mai, S., Ketron, S., & Yang, J. (2020). How individualism‐collectivism
world? The importance of ethical claims and product nature influences consumer responses to the sharing economy:
congruity. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 783–801. Consociality and promotional type. Psychology & Marketing, 37,
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in 677–688.
work‐related values. Sage Publications. Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of
institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed). Sage the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75, 35–52.
Publications. Morren, M, & Grinstein, A. (2016). Explaining environmental behavior
Hofstede, G. (2018). Hofstede Insights – Country Comparison. https://www. across borders: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/. Accessed October 47, 91–106.
11, 2018. Oliver, J. D., & Lee, S.‐H. (2010). Hybrid car purchase intentions: a cross‐
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An cultural analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(2), 96–103.
independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of Cross‐ Pantano, E., & Stylos, N. (2020). The Cinderella moment: Exploring
Cultural Psychology, 15, 417–433. consumers’ motivations to engage with renting as collaborative
Hosta, M., & Zabkar, V. (2020). Antecedents of environmental and socially luxury consumption mode. Psychology & Marketing, 37, 740–753.
responsible sustainable consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, Papista, E., & Dimitradis, S. (2019). Consumer‐green brand relationships:
171, 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04416-0 Revisiting benefits, relationship quality and outcomes. Journal of
Husted, B. W. (2005). Culture and ecology: A cross‐national study of the Product & Brand Management, 28(2), 166–187.
determinants of environmental sustainability. Management Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual
International Review, 45(3), 349–371. Review of Environment and Resources, 35(1), 195–28.
Jahanshahi, A. A., & Jia, J. (2018). Purchasing green products as a means of Pew Research Center. (2016). Everyday environmentalism. https://www.
expressing consumers’ uniqueness: Empirical evidence from Peru pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/everyday-environmenta
and Bangladesh. Sustainability, 10, 1–17. lism/. Accessed March 17, 2020.
Janssen, C., Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., & Lefebvre, C. (2014). The Roberts, J. A. (1996a). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and
catch‐22 of responsible luxury: Effects of luxury product implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36,
characteristics on consumers’ perception of fit with corporate 217–231.
social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 45–57. Roberts, J. A. (1996b). Will the real socially responsible consumer please
Jebarajakirthy, C., & Das, M. (2021). Uniqueness and luxury: A moderated step forward. Business Horizons, 39(1), 79–83.
mediation approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, Salazar, H., Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Van Stroe, S. (2013). Social influence on
1–13. sustainable consumption: Evidence from a behavioural experiment.
Jerónimo, R., Ramos, T., & Ferreira, M. B. (2018). Trait transference from International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 172–180.
brands to individuals: The impact of brand‐behavior congruency. Schade, M., Hegner, S., Horstmann, F., & Brinkmann, N. (2016). The
Journal of Business Research, 88, 54–65. impact of attitude functions on luxury brand consumption: An age‐
Johnstone, M.‐L., & Tan, L. P. (2015). Exploring the gap between based group comparison. Journal of Business Research, 69(1),
consumers’ green rhetoric and purchasing behaviour. Journal of 314–332.
Business Ethics, 132, 311–328. Segev, S. (2015). Modelling household conservation behavior among
Kapferer, J. N., & Michaut‐Denizeau, A. (2013). Is luxury compatible with ethnic consumers: The path from values to behaviours. International
sustainability? Journal of Brand Management, 21(1), 1–22. Journal of Consumer Studies, 39, 193–202.
Kapferer, J. N., & Michaut‐Denizeau, A. (2019). Are millennials really more Sharma, D., Verma, V., & Sharma, S. (2018). Examining need for
sensitive to sustainable luxury? A cross‑generational international uniqueness in emerging markets. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
comparison of sustainability consciousness when buying luxury. 36(1), 17–31.
Journal of Brand Management, 27, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1057/ Shavitt, S. (1989). Products, personalities, and situations in attitude
s41262-019-00165-7 functions: Implications for consumer behavior. Advances for
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Consumer Research, 16, 300–305.
Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163–204. Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self‐concept in consumer behavior: A critical review.
Kauppinen‐Räisänen, H., Björk, P., Lönnström, A., & Jauffret, M.‐N. (2018). Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300.
How consumers’ need for uniqueness, self‐monitoring, and social Sreen, N., Purbey, S., & Sadarangani, P. (2018). Impact of culture, behavior,
identity affect their choices when luxury brands visually shout and gender on green purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and
versus whisper. Journal of Business Research, 84, 72–81. Consumer Services, 41, 177–189.
Kunz, J., May, S., & Schmidt, H. J. (2020). Sustainable luxury: Current Sun, G., Chen, J., & Li, J. (2017). Need for uniqueness as a mediator of the
status and perspectives for future research. Business Research, 13, relationship between face consciousness and status consumption in
541–601. China. International Journal of Psychology, 52(5), 349–353.
Lang, C., & Joyner Armstrong, C. M. (2018). Collaborative consumption: Sun, T, Horn, M, & Merritt, D. (2004). Values and lifestyles of individualists
The influence of fashion leadership, need for uniqueness, and and collectivists: A study on Chinese, Japanese, British, and US
materialism on female consumers’ adoption of clothing rental and consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(5), 318–331.
swapping. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 13, 37–47. Tascioglu, M., Eastman, J. K., & Iyer, R. (2017). The impact of the
Luomala, H., Puska, P., Lähdesmäki, M., Siltaoja, M., & Kurki, S. (2020). Get motivation for status on consumers’ perceptions of retailer
some respect—Buy organic foods! When everyday consumer sustainability: The moderating impact of collectivism and
choices serve as prosocial status signaling. Appetite, 145, 104492. materialism. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(4), 292–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104492 Thøgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The limitations
Luxiders. (2020). How sustainable is Stella McCarthy? https://luxiders. of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of Consumer
com/how-sustainable-is-stella-mccartney/ Policy, 32, 141–163.
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A Tian, K., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, L. G. (2001). Consumers need for
new individual differences scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), uniqueness scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer
601–616. Research, 28, 50–66.
1894 | EASTMAN ET AL.

Tsai, S.‐P. (2005). Impact of personal orientation on luxury‐brand Yim, M. Y. C., Sauer, P. L., Williams, J., Lee, S. J., & Macrury, I. (2014).
purchase value: An international investigation. International Journal Drivers of attitudes toward luxury brands: A cross‐national
of Market Research, 47(4), 427–452. investigation into the roles of interpersonal influence and brand
Tyson, A., & Kennedy, B. (2020). Two‐thirds of Americans think government consciousness. International Marketing Review, 31(4), 363–389.
should do more on climate. Pew Research Center. https://www. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five
pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans- dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development
think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/. Accessed June and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer
23, 2020. Marketing, 23, 193–210.
United States Census Bureau. (2015). United States of America Profile. Zaremohzzbieh, Z., Ismail, N., Ahari, S., & Asnarulkhadi, A. S. (2020). The
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0100000US. Accessed effects of consumer attitude on green purchase intention: A meta‐
August 23, 2020. analytic path analysis. Journal of Business Research, 132, 732–743.
Valor, C. (2008). Can consumers buy responsibly? Analysis and solutions https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.053
for market failure. Journal of Consumer Policy, 31, 315–326. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.‐P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender
Viglia, G. (2020). The sharing economy: Psychological mechanisms that differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457.
affect collaborative consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 37,
627–629.
Weidmann, K.‐P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2009). Value‐based SUPP ORTING INFO RM ATION
segmentation of luxury consumption behavior. Psychology & Additional Supporting Information may be found online in the
Marketing, 26(7), 625–651.
supporting information tab for this article.
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer
behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding
framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy
How to cite this article: Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., & Dekhili, S.
counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2),
247–259. (2021). Can luxury attitudes impact sustainability? The role of
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). desire for unique products, culture, and brand self‐
Our common future (The Brundtland Report). Oxford University Press. congruence. Psychol Mark, 38, 1881–1894.
Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2015). Gender differences in environmental
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21546
concern: Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA.
Environment and Behaviour, 47, 17–37.