Having less or saving more: the role of social responsibility perception in reducing guilt over luxury purchases

IF 3.7 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS
Sameeullah Khan, A. Fazili, Park Thaichon, S. Quach, Mohd Ashraf Parry, Irfan Bashir
{"title":"Having less or saving more: the role of social responsibility perception in reducing guilt over luxury purchases","authors":"Sameeullah Khan, A. Fazili, Park Thaichon, S. Quach, Mohd Ashraf Parry, Irfan Bashir","doi":"10.1108/ejm-10-2022-0744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to challenge the notion that “having-less” – limiting consumption of scarce resources to a select few – represents a social responsibility route toward guilt reduction. It rather argues that “saving-more” – the purposeful pursuit of conscious and collaborative consumption – captures consumers’ true representations of responsible luxury which in turn reduces anticipated guilt.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nSix experiments using different operationalizations of saving-more (vs. having-less) and a mix of fictitious and real luxury brands were conducted on real luxury buyers.\n\n\nFindings\nThe findings demonstrate that saving-more (vs. having-less) leads to a stronger purchase intention; an effect explained by a higher responsible luxury perception and lower anticipated guilt associated with saving-more (vs. having-less). Furthermore, the ability of saving-more (vs. having-less) in building responsible luxury perception and reducing anticipated guilt is stronger (vs. weaker) when luxury is distributed based on deservingness (vs. entitlement).\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis research proposes a novel distinction between two responsible luxury approaches: promoting limited consumption for business goals, that is, having-less and promoting conscious consumption for societal goals, that is, saving-more.\n\n\nPractical implications\nBrand managers can enhance responsible luxury perception and reduce consumer guilt through corporate communication, product communication and collaborative product accessibility modes. Managers must also convince consumers that their access to luxury is based on real achievements.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study empirically invalidates the notion that merely invoking scarcity and rarity tactics is an expression of social responsibility. It integrates social responsibility and fairness accounts of guilt into a coherent theory of guilt over luxury consumption.\n","PeriodicalId":48401,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-10-2022-0744","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to challenge the notion that “having-less” – limiting consumption of scarce resources to a select few – represents a social responsibility route toward guilt reduction. It rather argues that “saving-more” – the purposeful pursuit of conscious and collaborative consumption – captures consumers’ true representations of responsible luxury which in turn reduces anticipated guilt. Design/methodology/approach Six experiments using different operationalizations of saving-more (vs. having-less) and a mix of fictitious and real luxury brands were conducted on real luxury buyers. Findings The findings demonstrate that saving-more (vs. having-less) leads to a stronger purchase intention; an effect explained by a higher responsible luxury perception and lower anticipated guilt associated with saving-more (vs. having-less). Furthermore, the ability of saving-more (vs. having-less) in building responsible luxury perception and reducing anticipated guilt is stronger (vs. weaker) when luxury is distributed based on deservingness (vs. entitlement). Research limitations/implications This research proposes a novel distinction between two responsible luxury approaches: promoting limited consumption for business goals, that is, having-less and promoting conscious consumption for societal goals, that is, saving-more. Practical implications Brand managers can enhance responsible luxury perception and reduce consumer guilt through corporate communication, product communication and collaborative product accessibility modes. Managers must also convince consumers that their access to luxury is based on real achievements. Originality/value This study empirically invalidates the notion that merely invoking scarcity and rarity tactics is an expression of social responsibility. It integrates social responsibility and fairness accounts of guilt into a coherent theory of guilt over luxury consumption.
少花钱还是多存钱:社会责任感在减少奢侈品消费负罪感中的作用
目的本文旨在质疑 "少拥有"--将稀缺资源的消费限制在少数人身上--代表了减少内疚感的社会责任途径这一观点。本文认为,"节约更多"--有目的性地追求有意识的合作消费--捕捉到了消费者对负责任奢侈品的真实表述,进而减少了预期的负罪感。研究结果研究结果表明,"更多储蓄"(相对于 "没有储蓄")会导致更强的购买意向;而与 "更多储蓄"(相对于 "没有储蓄")相关的更高的责任奢侈品感知和更低的预期内疚感可以解释这种效果。)此外,当奢侈品的分配是基于应得性(而非应享性)时,"节省更多"(而非 "拥有更少")在建立负责任的奢侈品认知和减少预期内疚感方面的能力更强(而非更弱)。原创性/价值这项研究从实证角度否定了仅仅采用稀缺性和稀有性策略就能体现社会责任的观点。它将社会责任感和公平感的内疚感整合为一个连贯的奢侈品消费内疚感理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
13.60%
发文量
126
期刊介绍: The EJM is receptive to all areas of research which are relevant to marketing academic research, some examples are: ■Sustainability and ethical issues in marketing ■Consumer behaviour ■Advertising and branding issues ■Sales management and personal selling ■Methodology and metatheory of marketing research ■International and export marketing ■Services marketing ■New product development and innovation ■Retailing and distribution ■Macromarketing and societal issues ■Pricing and economic decision making in marketing ■Marketing models
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信