Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

ISSN: 1069-6679 (Print) 1944-7175 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmtp20

Status Consumption in Consumer Behavior: Scale

Development and Validation

Jacqueline K. Eastman, Ronald E. Goldsmith & Leisa Reinecke Flynn

To cite this article: Jacqueline K. Eastman, Ronald E. Goldsmith & Leisa Reinecke Flynn (1999)
Status Consumption in Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and Validation, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 7:3, 41-52, DOI: 10.1080/10696679.1999.11501839

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1999.11501839

Published online: 14 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

View related articles

Citing articles: 27 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mmtp20

Download by: [Gazi University] Date: 09 February 2016, At: 03:49

 STATUS CONSUMPTION IN CONSUMER
BEHAVIOR: SCALE DEVELOPMENT
AND VALIDATION

Jacqueline K. Eastman
Valdosta State University

Ronald E. Goldsmith
Florida State University
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016

Leisa Reinecke Flynn

Florida State University

This paper describes the development and validation of a short, reliable, and valid self-report scale to measure status
consumption, the tendency to purchase goods and services for the status or social prestige that they confer on their owners. Items
were written to reflect the conceptual meaning of the construct. Six studies were conducted to purify the scale and demonstrate
its unidimensionality, internal consistency, validity, and freedom from response bias. The resultant scale measures an individual
difference construct distinct from social class or materialism. Differences in self-reported status consumption are also shown
to be positively correlated with ownership of brands reputed to be higher in status than competing brands.

INTRODUCTION internally consistent, and valid self-report scale designed to

The desire for status motivates much of consumer behavior.
Popular opinion, journalistic accounts, and academic theory all
point to "keeping up with the Joneses" as an activity for many
people; and the purchase, use, display, and consumption of
goods and services are frequently described as a means of
gaining social status (Veblen 1899, 1953; Packard 1959;
Mason 1981; Scitovsky 1992). Researchers frequently link
the desire for social status to the hierarchical social differences
derived from income level and occupation type that are
described as "social class" (Coleman 1983; Gronhaug and
Trapp 1989). While these hierarchical social relationships are
important in determining the amount of social status one has,
those with whom one makes invidious social comparisons, and
the status symbols one craves, there is another sense in which
consumers are motivated by the desire for status; this is the
concept of status consumption. This paper describes the
development and validation of a short, unidimensional,
measure status consumption as an internal, motivating force
within consumers.
A consumer may seek to purchase or to consume goods and
services for the status they confer, regardless of that
consumer's objective income or social class level. It is
inaccurate to view the consumption of status products as only
a habit of the very wealthy (Freedman 1991; Miller 1991).
Belk (1988, pp. 104-105) states that "even third world
consumers are often attracted to and indulge in aspects of
conspicuous consumption before they have secured adequate
food, clothing, and shelter." Mason (1992) argues that
significant levels of status consumption exist in all
communities in the world where the utility of products is
measured by the social advantage their purchase offers. That
is, independently of social class membership, consumers vary
in the extent to which they seek to buy and to consume
products that are seen to confer status on the user in the eyes

Summer 1999 41
 of significant others. Thus, the popularity of certain brands
may be explained in part by how much status they are s·een to
confer on their owners (Hughes 1996). Moreover, consumers
differ in how much they seek to gain prestige by consuming
status goods.
If consumer researchers could accurately measure the
differences among consumers in their propensity to buy
products for the status these products confer, they could
formally test theoretical models of consumer motivation in
which the desire for status is thought to playa role. A reliable
and valid scale will allow them to do this. Marketers of many
brands of visibly consumed products, such as clothing, cars,
alcoholic beverages, and cosmetics, know that they are selling
"status symbols" and that if they can endow their brands with
the right status image or that if consumers decide that their
brands have cachet, demand will soar and they can command
premium prices. If marketers had a simple and inexpensive
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016
measure to determine which consumers were motivated by
status to purchase these products, they could then fme tune
their promotions as well as test product concepts and
marketing strategies to better reach these status conscious
consumers. Thus, a measure of status consumption as a
motivating force would be important to both researchers and
managers.
The concept of status consumption has often been described
theoretically (Mason 1981; Braun and Wicklund 1989;
Scitovsky 1992). What remains, however, is the development
of an operationalization of the concept of status consumption
that will enable researchers to measure this individual
difference variable reliably and validly. The plan of this study
is to describe how this self-report scale of status consumption
was developed and evaluated for its psychometric
characteristics in a series of six studies and to describe the
managerial implications of this scale. First, though, we review
the status consumption literature.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Status is the position or rank in a society or group awarded to
an individual by others (Bierstedt 1970; Dawson and Cavell
1986). Donnenwerth and Foal (1974, p. 786) defined status
as "an expression of evaluative judgment that conveys high or
low prestige, regard, or esteem." Status is a form of power
that consists of respect, consideration, and envy from others
and represents the goals of a culture. Many people desire
status and devote a lot of energy to acquiring it (Barkow
1992). Scholars distinguish three different kinds of status: (1)
status by defmition or assignment (e.g., royalty), (2) status by
achievement (an individual has higher status ifhe/she does a
better job compared to others in his/her line of work), and (3)
status by consumption (Hayakawa 1963; Brown 1991). Our
focus is on this fmal type of social status, that which is
acquired through possession.
42 Journal ofMarketing THEORY AND PRACTICE
Products have symbolic uses (Levy 1959; 1978). Consumers
acquire, own, use, and display certain goods and services to
enhance their sense of self, to present an image of what they
are like, to represent what they feel and think, and to bring
about the types of social relationships they wish to have
(Goffinan 1959; Belk 1988; Ewen 1988; Braun and Wicklund
1989). Some of the meaning of products can be found in the
status value they have as a result of other peoples' estimation
of the extent to which they express the status of their owners
(Dawson and Cavell 1987). This is why we refer to some
purchases as "status symbols." Using products for status
display has received particular attention from scholars ever
since Veblen (1899, 1953) formulated the idea of conspicuous
consumption to refer to the practice of using products to signal
social status aspirations to other consumers (Mason 1981;
Braun and Wicklund 1989). While Veblen was referring
chiefly to the ability of the rich to lead a life of leisure, in
many industrialized countries such as America, the majority
of citizens have the means to lead lives dominated by leisure
rather than necessity (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton
1981, p. 94).
Packard (1959) took Veblen's economic idea of conspicuous
consumption and applied it to modem society, suggesting that
people consume products to demonstrate a superior level of
status both to themselves and to their friends. Packard (1959,
p. 5) defines "status seekers" as "people who are continually
straining to surround themselves with visible evidence of the
superior rank they are claiming."
Another description of how consumers use products for social
status purposes is status consumption. As discussed by
Scitovsky (1992), belonging to groups is both necessary and
psychologically satisfying to humans. People imitate group
members in order to be accepted as group members
themselves. Scitovsky goes on to argue that the desire for
status involves more than assurance of group membership.
People also seek distinction and recognition within their
groups and strive to gain this (Scitovsky 1992, p. 119).
People also use their income to measure life success and to
gain recognition by spending money to show they are
financially successful (Dawson and Cavell 1987). Thus,
consumers buy products seen as conferring status on their
owners by those significant others surrounding them. This is
the essence of the concept of status consumption.
For the purposes of the present study, we defme status
consumption as the motivational process by which individuals
strive to improve their social standing through the
conspicuous consumption of consumer products that confer
and symbolize status both for the individual and surrounding
significant others. This definition expresses the conceptual
nature of the discussions of status consumption found in the
literature (as previously described) and will provide the
starting point for the scale development process for this paper.
 Status Consumption Exhibit One:
Scale Purification and Validation Procedure
We propose that status consumption has one dimension, an
interest in consuming for status, which involves a desire for
I. Specify Domain of Construct Study 1
status and conspicuous consumption. A desire for status
2. Generate Sample ofitems Study 1
involves an interest in status and status products. With 3. Initial Data Collection Study 1
conspicuous consumption, "satisfaction is derived from 4. Purify Measure Study 1,2,3,4,5,6
audience reaction not to the positive attributes of the good or A. Initial Coefficient Alpha Study 1
B. Exploratory Factor Analysis Study 1,2
service in question but to the wealth displayed by the Study 2,3,4,5,6
C. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
purchaser in securing the product for consumption" (Mason 5. Additional Data Collection Study 2,3,4,5,6
1981, p. viii). While conspicuous consumption involves 6. Assess Reliability with Additional Data Study 2,3,4,5,6
buying a higher priced product to inflate one's ego, a desire for A. Coefficient Alpha Study 2,3,4,5,6
B. TestlRetest Study 4
status involves buying something that represents status to both Study 1,2,3,4,5,6
7. Assess Validity
the individual and to surrounding significant others. Thus, A. Content Study 1
consumption of status products may aid people in their B. Criterion Study 2,3,5
struggle for self-respect and social approval. The more a C. Construct Study 2,4,5,6
(I) Discriminant Study 2,4,5
consumer seeks status, the more he will engage in behaviors, Study 4,6
(2) Nomological
such as the consumption of status symbols, that increase his
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016

status. Source: Churchill 1979

METHOD

. We followed the scale development paradigm described by

Churchill (1979), DeVellis (1991), and Spector (1992). We
refer the reader to these books for more in-depth justifications
for the techniques used here. Our research program consisted
of six studies designed to generate self-report items to measure
status consumption, to purify the scale (unidimensionality), to
demonstrate the reliability and validity of the scale, to show its
freedom from response confounds (social desirability and yea-
saying), and finally to show its usefulness in describing this
aspect of consumer psychology.
The first step in any scale development is to use the definition
to generate a number of items designed to capture the
conceptual and logical true variance present in the construct.
As stated earlier, we define status consumption as: the
motivational process by which individuals strive to improve
their social standing through conspicuous consumption of
consumer products that confer or symbolize status both to the
individual and to surrounding significant others. The item
generation process resulted in 30 items which were used in the
first study. The scale purification and validation procedure
employed in this series of studies is summarized in Exhibit
One.
Study One
The first field study was designed to purify the scale per
Churchill (1979). A seven-point, Likert-type response format
was used. The thirty items were administered to 391
undergraduate students (with an average age of 21.25 years
and a standard deviation of 2.39) in a number of different
classes at a large university. Coefficient alpha was calculated
so that inconsistent items could be removed. Seven items
acted to reduce alpha and were removed leaving a 23 item
scale. Because 23 was too large a number of items for a short
scale that could easily be used by both academics and
marketers, coefficient alpha was computed again and nine
items with squared multiple correlations of less than .30 and
corrected item-to-total correlations of less than .50 were
removed as this indicates they shared little common variance
with the other items (DeVillis 1991, p. 82-83). Because the
construct was hypothesized to be unidimensional we felt that
removing the weaker items was appropriate in order to arrive
at a short, manageable list of items (see Richins and Dawson
1992 for an example of this approach). It is important to note
that this wholesale item removal served to lower alpha by only
.01 (see Cortina 1993). This left 14 items with a coefficient
alpha of.89.
Churchill (1979) suggests that the next step in scale
purification is to examine the dimensionality of the items.
Spector (1992) and DeVillis (1991) describe the use ofEFA
to reduce items. Exploratory factor analysis of the 14 items
revealed a two factor structure with eigenvalues of 5.82 and
1.24. The two factors with 10 and 4 items accounted for 41.6
and 8.8 percent of the total variance. Examination of the
factors revealed that the second factor contained four items
which referred to social relationships rather than the desire for
status. We see sociability as a separate construct and as we
plan to examine the relationship between sociability and status
seeking in the second study we thought it appropriate to
remove these four items from the scale. A follow up
exploratory factor analysis of the ten remaining items yielded
a one factor solution and explained 42.1 percent of the total
variance. Coefficient alpha for the remaining ten items was
.89. (Nunnally 1978; Peterson 1994).

Summer 1999 43
 Study Two
The second data collection was designed to further purify the
scale and to test validity focusing on criterion and discriminant
validity. Criterion validity is the extent to which a measure is
related to actual behaviors or other real life outcomes
(Anastasi 1986; Nunnally 1978). Thus, a focus group of
marketing majors was convened in order to identify brands
that would convey status to the sample. This type of group
was appropriate because the initial scale development was
being accomplished with student samples (Calder, Phillips,
and Tybout 1981). Brands of clothing, electronic products,
and personal care items were discussed by the student focus
group members who identified those brands that would most
likely be seen as conferring status on their users. Eighteen
brands were identified as criterion variables to be included in
Study Two's student survey. The six clothing brands selected
were Ann Klein, Ann Taylor, Armani, Chanel, Guess, and
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016
Ralph Lauren. For electronics, the six brands chosen were
Alpine, Carver, Emerson, Kenwood, Pioneer, and Sony.
Finally, for personal care brands, the six brands were Calvin
Klein, Clinique, Drakkar Noir, Elizabeth Arden, Estee Lauder,
and Joy. Questions about purchase of these status brands
within the past year were included on the second survey to be
used in the initial criterion validity assessment for the scale.
This approach to assessing material, symbol-acquisition has
been used successfully in previous status consumption
research (Braun and Wickland 1989).
Discriminant validity was evaluated by including ten items
developed by the authors to measure the sociability of
respondents and seven items developed by the authors asking
about the student's tendency to buy items for reasons other
than for function. Previous research had lead us to believe
that these constructs are closely related to consuming for
status (Braun and Wicklund 1989; Mason 1992). The survey,
administered to undergraduate students, also asked
respondents to respond to demographic items, the 17
discriminant validity items, the 18 purchase criterion items,
and· the 10 remaining status consumption items. It was
administered to 251 undergraduate business students (with an
average age of21.72 and a standard deviation of2.61) during
class.
Exploratory factor analysis was run on the ten status
consumption items, ten sociability, and seven non-functional
buying items. This resulted in a five factor solution. Three
strong factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 2.0 and
two smaller factors had eigenvalues of 1.28 and 1.06. The
three stronger factors explained 51.9% of the variance, while
the two weaker factors explained 8.6% of the variance. The
ten status consumption items loaded on the third factor, but
four of the ten status consumption items had strong (>.20)
cross loadings. These were dropped for poor discriminant
validity. Four items from the other two scales cross loaded on
44 Journal ofMarketing THEORY AND PRACTICE·
the weak factors and were also dropped from further analysis.
We than re-ran the exploratory factor analysis with six status,
seven sociability, and six non-functional buying items. A
clear three factor structure emerged explaining 56.3% of total
variance and with no cross loadings greater than .20.
Computation of coefficient alpha for the six status items
revealed that one item was not cohesive with the others; it
lowered alpha so it was dropped. The remaining five status
items had reliability of .86, average inter-item correlation of
.55, and formed one factor with an eigenvalue of2.78, which
explained 55.6% of the total variance. These five items with
their factor loadings appear in Table 1.
To further examine the performance of the remaining five
items, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis using
LISREL 7 (Joreskog and Sorbom 1989). The results (shown
in Table 2) demonstrated that the five items formed a
unidimensional scale (the Status Consumption Scale or SCS)
with all items loading significantly on the single latent
construct. The fit of the measurement model was good, with
chi-square of2.42 on 5 degrees of freedom. The goodness of
fit index was .999 with a p-value of. 79 as shown in Table 2.
TABLE 1
FINAL STATUS CONSUMPTION SCALE ITEMS AND STUDY
lWO FACTOR LOADINGS
The Status Consumption Scale Items Factor
Loadin2s
1. I would buy a product just because it has 0.78
status.
2. I am interested in new products with status. 0.80
3. I would pay more for a product if it had status. 0.83
4. The status of a product is irrelevant to me -0.70
(negatively worded).
5. A product is more valuable to me ifit has some 0.59
snob appeal.
n=251
The second study also allowed us to begin to examine the
validity of our new measure. We correlated responses to the
five individual items and their summed scores (after reversing
responses to the negatively worded item) with the total
number of reported brand purchases in each product category
(i.e., we measured the reported purchase of the different status
brands in the past year; not how many of one particular status
brand was purchased). Table 3 shows that each individual
item was significantly correlated with total clothing and
. personal care product status brand purchases. This is good
evidence of individual item criterion validity (Anastasi 1986).
The results for electronic status brands were not as clear, with
two of the five items showing nonsignificant correlations with
 TABLE 2
PSYCHOMETRIC SCALE PROPERTIES: STUDIES TWO TO SIX

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS:

2 251 0.86 2.42 5 0.790 0.99 0.99 0

3 168 0.81 4.61 5 . 0.470 0.99 0.97 0

4a 121 0.87 5.58 5 0.780 0.98 0.94 0

4b 121 0.85 7.59 5 0.180 0.98 0.92 0

5 251 0.81 19.59 5 0.001 0.97 0.91 2

6 254 0.83 11.75 5 0.038 0.98 0.92 0

TABLE 3
restaurants, six local (nonchain) restaurants were selected.
ITEM CRITERION CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR For beer, the brands included: Corona, Dos Equis, Heinekin,
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016

STUDY 2 Lowenbrau, St. Pauli Girl, and Guiness. For athletic shoes,
the brands were: Nike Air, Ascics, LA Gear, K Swiss, Avia,
Item Clothing Electronics Personal
Care and Fila. Finally, for retail specialty stores, the choices were
__ ,• • • H,o", • • • ,• • • ~._._. '."',.'.' • • • ' • '" '" • ._._"..

Express/Structure, Jarrods, The Limited, The Gap, Nics

1. 0.22* 0.10 0.18* Toggery (a local store), and Benetton (note: the store choices
0.33*
were influenced by what was available in the local area). The
2. 0.19* 0.30*
focus groups also felt that Greek fraternal organization
3. 0.26* 0.13* 0.23* membership reflected status, so this membership was also
measured. The inclusion of both status goods and services
4. 0.26* 0.06 0.20*
provides a stronger test for the scale's criterion validity.
5. 0.30* 0.16* 0.23*
The survey instrument contained the five SCS items shown in
SCS 0.37*
.•• w .............w ....................................................... " ......... " ..... ""'. . . . . . . . ~:,!~,~ ......... "..........I!. ~.O* Table 1, 24 status product purchase items, a social desirability

If:~ 0.05 JI scale (Strahan and Gerbasi 1972) to check for the presence of
socially desirable responses (i.e., will the respondents admit
they seek status), demographic questions, and the question
about membership in a Greek fraternal organization. The
total purchases in the category. This may be because forms were completed by 168 undergraduate business
electronic items are not purchased as often as clothing and students. Respondents included 94 males and 74 females
personal care items (such as fragrances). The summed status (88% white, 5% black, 4% Hispanic, and 3% other). A
consumption scale, however, was significantly correlated with summary of the psychometric properties of the SCS are found
all three categories of status brand purchase (see Table 3). in Table 2. These values demonstrate the unidimensionality
This provides initial evidence for the criterion validity of the and internal consistency of the SCS.
SCS.
The validity of a measurement scale must be demonstrated in
Study Three a number of different ways. In this study we added to the
evidence for the scale's criterion validity by correlating the
The guiding purpose of this phase of development of the SCS individual scale items and the summed scale scores with the
was to further test the psychometric properties of the scale, reported purchase of the status products. These results are in
with special attention to demonstrating its validity. To this Table 4. They show a scale that is correlated significantly
end two more focus groups of students were convened to with purchase of status brands in three categories: beer,
select more behavioral measures for criterion validity tests for athletic shoes, and specialty stores and with total overall status
Study Three's student sample. The discussions of these purchases. The individual items were also significantly
groups resulted in the selection of four potential status bearing correlated with the total purchase score and with each of the
product categories (restaurants, beer, athletic shoes, and retail category purchases in all but two cases. The lack of
specialty stores) and six status brands from each category. For significant correlations between the total scale and its items
with the measure of status restaurant purchases could be

Summer 1999 45
 because, while the students (in the focus group) see these the summed scores of the scales at each administration was
establishments as status bearing, the restaurants do not cater .78. This shows the reliability of the SCS.

A self-report scale must be free from the confound of

TABLE 4
ITEM CRITERION CORRELAnON CO-EFFICIENTS FOR yeasaying or the tendency to agree with an item regardless of
STUDY 3 its content. We tested the SCS for this by correlating the
individual scale items with the summed YN-2 (Wells 1961).
Ite Beer Shoe Brands Specialty Overall
m Brands Stores Status None of the items were significantly related to the YN-2 scale.
. Brands Pearson correlations ranged from .06 to .17, and the
correlation of the total SCS with the YN-2 was .15 (ns) .
1. 0.21* 0.16* 0.12* 0.27*
Thus, there is no evidence that the SCS is confounded by
2. 0.16* 0.24* 0.26* 0.28* yeasaying.

3. 0.18* 0.18* 0.26* 0.27* To demonstrate the discriminant validity of the SCS we
4. 0.10 0.06 0.22* 0.19* correlated the SCS with self-esteem (Rosenberg 1989) and
social responsibility (Berkowitz and Lutterman 1968); we
5. 0.27* 0.21* 0.17* 0.26* expected no significant correlation with the SCS and these
scales. As predicted, the Pearson correlations between the
SCS , 0.25*
- 0.23* 0.31* 0.34*
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016

SCS and the self-esteem (-.04) and social responsibility (-.04)

n=168
* p < 0.05
to the student population or the students could not patronize
them as they are not located on campus. These relationships
will be examined with adults in Study Five.
We also found that the status consumption scale was
{significantly correlated (r = .25,p = .001) with membership in
'a fraternity or sorority. This rmding lends some support to the
validity of the scale because students join these organizations
at least partly for the status that membership in them confers.
Finally, the social desirability scale was included to evaluate
the potential effects of this confound. Neither the individual
items nor the summed SCS were correlated with the social
desirability scale (r = -.005).
Study Four
This study included an assessment of test-retest reliability and
coefficient alpha, a confirmatory factor analysis, an evaluation
for yea-saying response bias, and tests of the nomological
validity of the scale. The survey contained the five SCS items,
Wells's (1961) YN-2 (yeasaying) scale, Rosenberg's (1989)
Self-Esteem scale, Belk's (1985) Materialism scale, Berkowitz
and Lutterman's (1968) Social Responsibility scale, and
Kaufman's (1957) Status Concern scale. One hundred and
twenty-two students completed two halves of the survey six
weeks apart (to measure test-retest reliability), where the SCS
appeared in each half. There were 68 men and 54 women with
a mean age of21.5 years (SD = 1.5). Summary pyschometric
characteristics for the SCS showing its unidimensionality are
found in Table 2. Reliability was assessed two ways in this
study. In addition to coefficient alpha (see Table 2) the six
week test-retest reliability of the Pearson correlation between
measures were not significant. The SCS measures a latent
construct different from both self-esteem and social
responsibility .
Evidence of nomological validity is demonstrated by
significant correlations of the scale with measures of other
constructs to which it is expected to be related (Churchill
1979). Studies of consumer psychographics and values have
linked materialism to status consciousness (Meyers 1984, p.
151), so that these two constructs should be empirically
related. In this case we used measures of materialism (Belk
1985, p. 270) (i.e., "People who are very wealthy often feel
they are too good to talk to average people") and measures of
concern for status (Kaufman 1957, p. 381) (i.e., "Ambition is
the most important factor in determining success in life"). We
found the SCS to be positively related to each of these
constructs. The Pearson correlations of .22 and .32 (p < .01)
respectively indicate that the SCS is performing as it might be
expected to with related constructs. It is important to note that
these moderate correlations are more indicative of related
constructs than of multiple measures of the same construct,
although they may be attenuated due to the low internal
consistency of the Belk and Kaufman scales (alphas of.57 and
.77).
Study Five
The fifth study was designed to demonstrate the
generalizability of the SCS to an adult sample and to build
further evidence of the validity of the scale. Thus, we
conducted another focus group to determine status brands and
then designed another survey instrument.
The focus group consisted of five men and three women
recruited from various adult groups around a small
southeastern city. They came from a wide range ofincome

46 Journal ofMarketing THEORY AND PRACTICE

 TABLES
STUDY FIVE CRITERION CORRELATIONS

1 2 3 6 7 8 9 . 10
.. . ..... Variable
.
.,.
4 5

1. SCS 1.00

2. Restaurants 0.14* 1.00

3. Autos 0.24* 0.14* 1.00

4. Shops 0.20* 0.48* 0.18* 1.00

5. Electronics 0.09 0.00 0.26* 0.11 1.00

6. Clothing 0.23* 0.32* 0.29* 0.31* 0.36* 1.00

7. Services 0.01 0.19* 0.19* 0.10 - 0.01 0.05 1.00

8. All Brands 0.26* 0.81* 0.38* 0.70* 0.22* 0.74* 0.17* 1.00

9. Social Class** - 0.02 0.34* - 0.04 0.25* - 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.26* 1.00
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016

10. Income -0.02 0.37* 0.04 0.22* 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.30* 0.71* 1.00

n=251
* p ::..0.05
** Social class membership was determined as an updated version of Coleman's (1983) scale.

groups and educational backgrounds. The group came up with
49 status brands in the categories of cars (Lexus, Jaguar,
BMW, Porsche, Corvette, Mercedes Benz, Cadillac, Infiniti,
Acura, and Lincoln Town car), specialty stores (such as
Parisian and Talbots), electronic items (Sony, Fisher, Pioneer,
NC, Curtis Mathis, and Bose), clothing (Ellen Tracy, Tommy
Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Liz Clairbome, Donna Karan, Guess,
Benetton, Calvin Klein, Armani, Duckhead, and Brooks
Brothers) restaurants, and service organization memberships
(such as belonging to the Junior League or the local Garden
Club). Those status stores or service organizations that are
only known locally are not listed. The survey contained the
SCS, the 49 items measuring purchase of status brands, and
demographic items.
The adult convenience sample consisted of 77 state
government employees and their spouses, 56 members of the
Society of Association Executives, 62 members of the
Chamber of Commerce, and 56 members of a local African
American Primitive Baptist churches (to ensure that the
sample had adequate ethnic representation), for a total sample
size of25l respondents. All surveys were administered by the
authors. Respondents were 64 males, 180 females (7 missing
responses): 191 white, 47 African American, 4 other, and 9
missing. Their ages ranged from 18 to 71 with a median of 39
years (SD = 10.22). The demographic characteristics of the
sample were a good match for those of the area's general adult
population. Again, summary figures for the psychometric
properties of the SCS are reported in Table 2.
correlations with status restaurant patronage (r = .14), the
purchase of status automobiles (r = .24), patronage at status
specialty stores (r = .20), and purchase of status brands of
clothing (r = .33) (see Table 5). We did not fmd a significant
relationship for adults between SCS score and belonging to
service organizations seen by the focus group as having status,
or the purchase of status brands of electronics. This lack of a
significant fmding for electronics similar to that in the earlier
student study may be attributed to the fact that the survey
asked respondents to report purchases within the last 12
months rather than ownership. As electronics are durable
goods, they are not replaced frequently and thus their purchase
may need to be measured over a longer time period. Also,
note that the purchase of status electronics was the measure
least related to the purchase of the other status products. For
the service organization, this result can be attributed to the fact
that very few of the respondents belonged to any of these
organizations.
Discriminant validity is evidenced by a measure's lack of
correlation with a measure from which it is supposed to be
distinct. In this study we found that respondents' scores on
the SCS were not correlated with either their income or social
class. This is evidence that demographic variables are not
proxies for status consumption. Additionally, the SCS
accounts for variance in purchase of status products that is
independent of that explained by income and social class
which are themselves highly correlated (r = .71) in this
sample.

Criterion validity for the SCS is demonstrated by its positive

Summer 1999 47
 Study Six
The final study was conducted to examine the relationship
between the SCS and materialism as operationalized by
Richins and Dawson' s (1992) scale. The questionnaire
contained the five-item SCS and the 18-item materialism scale
developed by Richins and Dawson (1992). Respondents were
152 men and 101 women (one missing response) in business
classes at a regional university in the Southern United States.
Their ages ranged from 18 to 51 with a median of 22 years.
The ethnic makeup of the group was 188 white, 45 African
American, II other and 10 missing. The scores on the SCS
ranged from 5 to 31 with a mean of 14.8 (SD = 5.0) (see
psychometric summary in Table 2).
Analysis of the psychometric performance of the Materialism
scale showed that it formed five factors and had an overall
reliability coefficient of .82. The Pearson correlation between
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016
the SCS and the Materialism scale was .49 (p < .001). This
moderate positive correlation is evidence of the relatedness of
these two constructs. The SCS though measures a distinct
consumer characteristic.
DISCUSSION
The purposes of this paper were to present the concept of
status consumption, the extent to which consumers buy and
use products for the status they confer, and to describe the
development and validation of the Status Consumption Scale
(SCS) as an operationalization of this concept. The result of
our six studies is a short, unidimensional, internally consistent,
and valid self-report scale that can be used in a variety of
studies to measure differences in status consumption. It aids
researchers in tapping into the consumer motivation to
consume for status that is distinct from income or social class.
Summary of Six Studies
We specify the domain of status consumption, the
motivational process by which individuals strive to improve
their social standing through conspicuous consumption of
consumer products that confer or symbolize status both to the
individual and to surrounding significant others. Exhibit One
illustrates the seven steps (Churchill 1979) we used in
purifying and validating the SCS in our six studies. In Exhibit
Two, we summarize the results of these six studies in terms of
this seven step procedure demonstrating that the SCS is a
reliable, valid, and stable one factor structure made up of five
items (one item reverse coded). Further discussion of the
pyschometric soundness of the scale is addressed in the next
section.
48 Journal ofMarketing THEORY AND PRACTICE
Exhibit Two: Summary Results of Six Studies (Churchill
1979)
STUDY ONE:
I. Specified domain of construct (defined status
consumption).
2. Generated the initial 30 items.
7A. Analyzed 30 items for content validity.
3. Collected the initial sample from 391 undergraduates.
4. Performed initial purification with (A) initial
coefficient alpha and (B) exploratory factor analysis
At the end of Study One, we had a reliable, one factor ten
item SCS.
STUDY TWO:
5. Collected data from 251 undergraduate students
(survey included the ten SCS items, 18 status brands
(to measure criterion validity based on student focus
group in the areas of clothing, electronics, and
personal care items), 10 sociability items and 7
buying for nonfunction reasons items created by
authors (to measure discriminant validity).
4. Performed (B) exploratory factor analysis and (C)
confirmatory factor analysis (AGFI of .99).
6A. Assessed reliability with coefficient alpha (.86).
7. Assess validity in terms of (B) criterion with status
brands (signification positive correlations with each
clothing and personal care items and total electronic
items) and (C) construct with discriminant validity
with the sociability and buying for nonfunction
reasons items as they loaded on different factors.
At the end of Study Two, after additional purification, we
had a reliable, valid, one factor, five item SCS (Note: no
additional items were added to or deleted from the SCS in
the later four studies).
STUDY THREE:
5. Collected data from 168 undergraduate students
(survey included the five SCS items, 24 status
products (to measure criterion validity based on two
student focus groups in the areas of restaurants, beer,
athletic shoes, and speciality stores), a social
desirability scale, demographic questions, and a
question about greek social organization
membership.
4C. Confirmatory factory analysis for one factor (AGFI
of .97)
6A. Assessed reliability with coefficient alpha (.81).
7. Showed criterion validity with significant positive
correlations with beer, athletic shoes, retail stores
and greek membership.
With Study Three we demonstrated the continued
reliability, validity, and one factor structure of the five
item SCS and that none of the items were impacted by
social desirability bias.
 STUDY FOUR:
5. Collected data in a 2 part SCS study of 122 students
six weeks apart. Measured Yea-Saying (Wells
1961), Self-Esteem (Rosenberg 1989), Materialism
(Belk 1985), Status Concern (Kaufman 1957), Social
Responsibility (Berkowitz and Lutterman 68).
4. Confirmatory factor analysis for one factor (AGFI
.94 and .92).
6. Both (A) coefficient alpha (.87 and .85) and (B) test-
retest
reliability was measured (.78) showing reliability.
7C. For discriminant validity, the SCS was not
significantly correlated with either self esteem or
social responsibility; for nomological validity, the
SCS was significantly and positively related to
materialism and status concern.
With Study Four we further demonstrated the SCS's
reliability, stable one factor structure, construct validity,
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016
and that the SCS was not confounded by yeasaying.
STUDY FIVE:
5. Data was collected from 251 adult respondents. An
adult focus group was conducted to determine 49
status brands in the categories of cars, speciality
stores, electronics, clothing, restaurants, and service
organization membership. The survey included the
SCS, the brands, and demographic items.
4C. Confmnatory factor analysis showed one factor
(AGFI.91).
6. Coefficient alpha was .81.
7. (B) Criterion validity was demonstrated with
significant posItIve correlations with status
restaurants (.14), automobiles (.24), speciality stores
(.20), and clothing (.33). (C) Discriminant validity
was shown by a lack of significant correlation with
the SCS and either income or social class.
With Study Five, we further demonstrate the SCS's
reliability, stable one factor structure, criterion and
discriminant validity.
STUDY SIX
5. 253 undergraduate students were given the SCS and
the materialism scale (Richins and Dawson 1992).
4. Confirmatory factor analysis showed one factor
(AGFI.92).
6A. Coefficient alpha was .83
7C. Nomological validity was demonstrated with
asignificant, positive correlation with materialism.
Thus, Study Six demonstrated the SCS's reliable, stable
one factor structure and that it is a related, distinct
concept from materialism.
Psychometric Soundness of the Scale
To summarize the psychometric findings of the six studies
described in this paper:
* Repeated factor analyses show that the scale is
unidimensional.
* The scale demonstrated adequate test-retest
reliability.
* Reliability analysis shows that the scale is internally
consistent, that is, coefficient alpha is acceptably
high across the studies.
* The scale possesses criterion validity in that it is
positively correlated with purchase of items
identified by focus group participants similar to the
survey participants as conferring status on their
owners: clothing and personal care items, beer,
athletic shoes, cars, eating at status restaurants,
shopping at specialty stores, and membership in
greek social organizations.
* The scale demonstrates discriminant validity because
it is either uncorrelated or only very weakly
correlated with similar constructs: sociability,
buying products for nonfunctional reasons,
self-esteem, social responsibility, income level, and
socio-economic class.
* The scale is free from the response confounds of
social desirability and yea-saying.
* The scale possesses nomological validity through its
predicted moderate correlation with materialism and
status concern.
Limitations And Future Research
While the six studies illustrate the reliability, validity, and
stable one factor structure of the five-item status consumption
scale, there are several limitations to these studies. First, five
of the six studies utilized undergraduate business student
samples (both in terms of focus groups used to determine
status products and survey samples) from two separate
universities. While Calder et al. (1981) discuss the usefulness
of student samples in developing measures, more research is
needed with different samples, particularly random adult
samples, to illustrate the generalizability of this construct.
Second, additional research is needed that measures status
consumption in different ethnic groups and countries. For
example, new research could test if there are ethnic or cultural
group differences in status consumption; such research could
determine both if there are differences in the levels measured
by the SCS and if there are differences in how this motivation
to consume for status impacts consumption behavior (for
example, do different items represent status to different
groups of people). Third, application of the scale to applied
marketing problems, such as how to promote a status product,
is needed to enhance the external validity of the scale. Fourth,
additional research could aid in building and testing a
Summer 1999 49
 theoretical model of status consumption complete with its
antecedents and consequences in relation to the marketing
mix. Thus, the major limitations of these six studies are the
relatively few domains in which the SCS has thus far been
tested. With a reliable and valid SCS, future research is
needed to expand this work with different consumer
populations and theoretical and managerial contexts.
Managerial Implications
The construct of status consumption presents many
implications. The importance of status products cannot be
dismissed. Estimated sales through the end of the decade for
the top fourteen status product categories (i.e., perfume) in
their top seven markets are estimated to be over forty-six
billion dollars (The Economist 12/26/92). For marketers of
status products, the need to better understand who consumes
for status grows as the importance of properly marketing
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016
status products cannot be overemphasized. Dubois and
Duquesne (1993) note that while the lUXury product market
has grown significantly, little information has been gathered
on who uses status products. Additionally, Dubois and
Patemault (1995) note that over diffused status products lose
their lUXUry character as companies struggle with getting their
status image known without losing their status value.
Status consumption, as described here, is an individual
difference variable. The benefit of the SCS is that it allows
managers to examine both status consumption at the individual
level as well as the interactions between the consumer
motivation to consume for status purposes and various
marketing activities (Richins and Dawson 1992). The SCS
can be used to study the role of status consumption in applied
marketing contexts where managers feel that the search for
status is motivating consumers. Managers could use the SCS
to address consumers in ways other than social class and
income. For example, are certain market segments higher or
lower in status consumption than others? Are product
innovators or opinion leaders higher in status consumption?
How do high status consumers feel about the promotion of
status brands, and how can managers best utilize promotion to
appeal to status consumers? How will high status consumers
REFERENCES
Anastasi, Anne (1986), Evolving Concepts of Test Validation, Annual
Review ojPsychology, 37,1-15.
Barkow, Jerome H. (I 992), Beneath New Culture Is Old Psychology: Gossip
and Social Stratification, The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary
Psychology and the Generation ojCulture, Jerome H. Barkow,
Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby (eds.), New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 627-637.
Belk, Russell W. (1985), Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the
Material World, J. OjConsumer Res., 12 (December): 265-280.
50 Journal of Marketing THEORY AND PRACTICE·
feel about different types of sales techniques? Does
successful status consumption lead to more satisfied
consumers and aid managers in building long-term
relationships with customers? Finally, is there any
relationship between the reputation of a company or the image
its brands project and the motivation to consume for status?
Another area of importance for managers is the global
marketplace. If status consumption levels are the same in
different countries as suggested by Belk (1988), marketers
could utilize a globalized marketing campaign to promote their
luxury products. If either status consumption levels or what
represents status varies in different countries, a more
individualized campaign per country/region would be needed
by managers. The SCS could be administered in different
countries/regions to determine if there are differences in the
level of status consumption. Focus groups could be utilized
to help determine what products represent status with follow
up surveys conducted to compare SCS scores with status
consumption behavior.
Thus, this paper hopes to initiate interest in the construct of
status consumption. The study of status consumption will aid
both managers and academics in better understanding
consumer motivations for purchase and in offering another
means to segment the marketplace.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, there is a great deal of interest in the concept of
status consumption on the part of consumer researchers and
marketing managers. The one-factor, five-item scale
presented here will permit the more precise and systematic use
of this concept by allowing researchers to operationalize it
with confidence. This paper demonstrates in six studies that
the SCS is reliable and valid. Moreover, the measure has been
shown to be related to, but distinct from similar constructs
such as income, social class, and materialism. Thus, the
authors offer an easy to administer, reliable, and valid
measure that can help marketers better understand and predict
status consumption.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), Third World Consumer Culture, Marketing and
Development, Erdogan Kumuc and A. Fuat Firat, eds., Greenwich,
CT: JAI, 103-127.
Berkowitz, Leonard and Kenneth G. Lutterman (1968), "The Traditional
Socially Responsible Personality," Public Opinion Quarterly, 32,
169-185.
Bierstedt, Robert (1970), The Social Order, McGraw Hill, New York.
Braun, Ottmar L. And Robert A. Wicklund (1989), Psychological
Antecedents of Conspicuous Consumption, J. OJ Economic
Psychology. (June), 161-187.
 Brown, D. E. (1991), Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Calder, B. 1., Phillips, L. W., and Tybout, A. (1981), "Designing Research for
Application, Journal ofConsumer Research, 8 (September), J97-
207.
Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Measures of
Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, 16
(February), 64-73.
Coleman, Richard P. (1983), The Continuing Significance of Social Class to
Marketing. Journal ofConsumer Research (December), 265-280.
Cortina, Jose M. (1993), "What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of
Theory and Applications," Journal of Applied Psychology 78
(February), 98-104.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981), The
Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England.
Dawson, Scott and Jill Cavell (1986), Status Recognition in the 1980s:
Invidious Distinction Revisited, Advances in Consumer Research,
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016
Vol. 14,487-491.
DeVellis, Robert F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
Donnenwerth, Gregory V. And Uriel G. Foal (1974), Effect of Resource Class
on Retaliation to Injustice in Interpersonal Exchange, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology (June), 785-793.
Dubois, Bernard and Patrick Duquesne (1993), "The Market for Luxury
Goods: Income Versus Culture, " European Journal of
Marketing, 27, 1,35-44.
Dubois, Bernard and Claire Patemault (1995), "Observations - Understanding
the World ofIntemational Luxury Brands: The Dream Formula,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 4 (July/August), 69-76.
Ewen, Stuart, All Consuming Images, Basic Books, New York. 1988.
Freedman, Alix M. (1991), Little Wishes Form the Big Dream. The American
Way of Buying (Wall Street Journal), 4-10.
Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of SelJin Everyday Life, Garden
City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Gronhaug, Kjell and Paul S. Trapp (1989), Perceived Social Class Appeals of
Branded Goods and Services. Journal of Business Research 6
(Winter), 13-18.
Hayakawa, S. I. (1963), Symbol, Status, and Personality, New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Hughes, Kathleen A. (1996), "Kids, Cabins and Free Time Say Status in .
Understated '90s," Wall Street Journal, September 30, B I.
Joreskog, Karl G. And Dag Sorbom (1989), LlSREL 7: A Guide to the
Program and Applications, 2nd edition, Chicago: SPSS INC.
Kaufman, Walter C. (1957), "Status, Authoritarianism, and Anti-Semitism,"
The American Journal of SOCiology, 62(May), 379-382.
Levy, Sidney 1. (1959), "Symbols for Sale," Harvard Business ReView, 37
(July-August), 117-124.
Levy, Sidney J. (1978), Marketplace Behavior: Its Meaning for
Management, AMACOM, New York.
Mason, Roger S. (1981), Conspicuous Consumption: A Study ofExceptional
Consumer Behavior, St. Martin's Press, New York.
Mason, Roger S. (1992), "Modeling the Demand for Status Goods,"
Proceedings of the International Conference on Materialism, Kingston,
Ontario, eds. Rudmin, Floyd, and Richins, 88-95.
Meyers, William (1984), The Image Makers: Power and Persuasion on
Madison Avenue, New York: Times Books.
Miller, Cyndee (1991), "Luxury Goods Still Have Strong Market Despite
New Tax," Marketing News, 25 (February 18), 1,6,7.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw Hill.
Packard, Vance (1959), The Status Seekers, New York, New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Peterson, Robert A. (1994), "A Meta-analysis of Cronbach's Coefficient
Alpha," Journal of Consumer Research (September), 381-391.
Richins, Marsha L. and Scott Dawson (1992), "A Consumer Values
Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development and
Validation," Journal of Consumer Research (December), 303-316.
Rosenberg, Morris (1989), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image,
Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Scitovsky, Tibor (1992), The Joyless Economy, revised edition, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Spector, Paul E. (1992), Summated Rating Scale Construction: An
Introduction, Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
Strahan, Robert and Kathleen Carrese Gerbasi (1972), "Short, Homogeneous
Versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale," Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 28 (April), 191-193.
Veblen, Thorstein (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, The Macmillan
Co., New York.
Veblen, Thorstein (1953), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Mentor, New
York.
Wells, William D. (1961), "The Influence of Yeasaying Response Style,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 1 (June), 1-12.
Summer 1999 51
 AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES

Jacqueline K. Eastman (Ph.D., Florida State University) is an associate professor of Marketing and MBA Director at
Valdosta State University. She has published in the Journal ofthe Academy ofMarketing Science, Journal ofBusiness
Research, and Journal ofBusiness Ethics.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Ronald E. Goldsmith (Ph.D., University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa) is professor of Marketing at Florida State University.
He has published in the Journal ofBusiness Research, the Journal ofthe Academy ofMarketing Science, and the Service
Industries Journal.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:49 09 February 2016

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Leisa R. Flynn (ph.D., University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa) is an associate professor and the Marketing Department Chair
at Florida State University. She has published in the Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Business
Research, and Marketing Letters.

52 Journal ofMarketing THEORY AND PRACTICE