515920

research-article2013
JHTXXX10.1177/1096348013515920Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchYang, Mattila / Status Seeking and Product Preference

The Impact of Status Seeking

on Consumers’ Word of Mouth
and Product Preference—a
Comparison Between Luxury
Hospitality Services and
Luxury Goods

Wan Yang
University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee
Anna S. Mattila
The Pennsylvania State University

Despite the rapid growth of the luxury hospitality market, academic research has
largely neglected the differences between luxury hospitality services and luxury
goods, as well as the role of status seeking on luxury consumption. Relying on the
status consumption and experience recommendation theories, the authors examine
the combined effects of consumer characteristics (need for status) and product type
(hospitality services vs. goods) on consumers’ word-of-mouth intentions. The results
suggest that parvenus, who are high in need for status, are more likely to talk about
their luxury goods purchases than patricians, who are low in need for status. More
interestingly, both parvenus and patricians indicate equally strong intentions to spread
positive word of mouth on luxury hospitality purchases. This study also extends the
experience recommendation theory and reveals that parvenus are less likely to choose
luxury hospitality services than patricians to advance their happiness.

Keywords: luxury consumption; luxury hospitality services; word-of-mouth;

status consumption; experience recommendation

In the past decade, the luxury segment of the hospitality industry has expanded
at an unprecedented rate. According to a recent survey conducted by Yankelovich/
The Futures Company (2010), 83% of respondents indicate that they are willing
to splurge by dining at luxury restaurants. Similarly, the luxury segment is lead-
ing the recovery of the lodging industry, generating $792.5 million in room rev-
enue in the first half of 2011 (Chiem, 2011; DeLollis, 2010). Data from Smith
Travel Research show that the luxury segment had the highest occupancy rate
(77.7%) in the second quarter of 2013, followed by the upper upscale (76.4%)

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2013, 1­–20
DOI: 10.1177/1096348013515920
© 2013 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015
1
2   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

and upscale (75.9%) segments. Despite this strong performance, only a few
studies have examined consumer behaviors in the luxury hospitality context
(Han & Hyun, 2013; Hwang & Hyun, 2012; Hyun & Kim, in press; Kim, Han,
& Lee, 2001; Kim, Lee, & Yoo 2006; Lee & Hwang, 2011; Wall, Okumus,
Wang, & Kwun, 2011; Wu & Liang, 2009), and little is known about the differ-
ences between luxury hospitality consumption and luxury goods consumption.
Van Boven and Gilovich (2003) conducted a series of seminal studies to inves-
tigate the differences between experiential purchases and material purchases.
They suggested that experiences (e.g., vacations and dining) were more likely to
make people happy than material possessions (e.g., clothes and jewelries), and this
phenomenon was called “experience recommendation” (Carter & Gilovich, 2010;
Rosenzweig & Gilovich, 2011; Van Boven, 2005; Van Boven, Campbell, &
Gilovich, 2010). Building on the theories of experience recommendation and sta-
tus consumption, in the present study we aim to examine the joint effects of pur-
chase type and consumers’ need for status on word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions.
We first link status seeking to WOM communication. Because people who
are high in need for status (called parvenus in Han, Nunes, & Dreze’s [2010]
luxury 4 P’s framework) tend to signal social status through luxury consump-
tion, they are expected to be more likely to talk about their luxury purchases than
people who are low in need for status (called patricians). We further propose
that purchase type (hospitality services vs. material goods) will moderate such
an effect. A recent study revealed that experiences are more closely connected to
the self than material possessions (Carter & Gilovich, 2012). Prior research indi-
cates that consumers are more likely to spread WOM about things with which
they feel closely connected (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005; Asatryan &
Oh, 2008; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Brown, Barry, Dacin, & Gunst, 2005). In
this article, we argue that the impact of need for status on WOM will be attenu-
ated in the context of luxury hospitality services. Although patricians (low in
need for status) are not motivated to use luxury products to signal status, they
should exhibit a high tendency, just as parvenus, to talk about their luxury hos-
pitality purchases (i.e., dining or travel experiences) because such experiences
are close to their self-concepts. On the contrary, luxury goods are not tightly
integrated with the self, and therefore, parvenus who mainly seek social status
via consumption are expected to have a higher propensity to generate WOM on
luxury goods consumption than patricians.
Last, Carter and Gilovich (2012) suggested that the notion of experience rec-
ommendation might not hold true in the context of luxury consumption, in par-
ticular when consumers aim to signal social status through consumption objects.
On the basis of the theory of status consumption and the intangible nature of
hospitality services, we also explore patricians’ and parvenus’ preferences
between luxury hospitality services and luxury goods with the intention of
advancing happiness and enjoyment.
To recap, the purposes of this research are (a) to investigate the joint effects
of product type and consumers’ need for status on WOM intention and (b) to

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

 Yang, Mattila / STATUS SEEKING AND PRODUCT PREFERENCE 3

Figure 1
Luxury 4 P’s Typology

examine whether preferences for luxury goods and luxury hospitality services
vary between patricians and parvenus. The differentiation between patricians
and parvenus will contribute to the luxury consumer behavior literature as well
as to luxury marketing practices. More important, the contrast between luxury
goods and luxury hospitality services will reveal how consumers behave differ-
ently in the two purchase contexts.

Literature Review

Consumers Characteristics: Patricians and Parvenus

In their innovative luxury 4 P’s framework, Han et al. (2010) categorized

consumers into four groups on the basis of their wealth and need for status: patri-
cians, parvenus, poseurs, and proletarians. Need for status refers to a consumer’s
intention to improve his or her social standing through luxury consumption
(Eastman, Goldsmith, & Flynn, 1999). Both patricians and parvenus are wealthy
consumers, but they differ in their quest for status via consumption objects.
Patricians are low in consumption-related need for status, while parvenus seek
status through luxury consumption. Poseurs and proletarians are less affluent
consumers; the former seek status but tend to purchase counterfeits because they
cannot afford authentic luxury products, while the latter do not value status and
therefore are not motivated to purchase either conspicuous or inconspicuous
luxury products (see Figure 1). In the present study, we examine authentic lux-
ury consumptions and hence focus primarily on patricians and parvenus.
The word patrician originally referred to a group of ruling class families in
ancient Rome who had high social status and privileged nobility. The word par-
venu is borrowed from French, and it often refers to those considered “nouveau
riche” or “new money.” In sociology, parvenus are usually people from humble
backgrounds who rapidly gained wealth and have quickly climbed up the social
ladder (Augustine, 1994; Bauman, 2001; Bourdieu, 2000; Walkerdine, 2003).
The distinction between patricians and parvenus is similar to the social class
categorization of upper-upper class and lower-upper class. For example,
Bourdieu (1984) portrayed parvenus as those who have low cultural capital and

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

4   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

are eager to conspicuously display their consumption objects. Conversely, patri-

cians have high cultural capital and tend to avoid ostentatious displays (Holt,
1998; Üstüner & Holt, 2010). However, the sociological characteristics of patri-
cians and parvenus (e.g., socioeconomic status, family background, occupa-
tional status, education level) are beyond the scope of this study. Instead, we rely
on Han et al.’s (2010) luxury 4 P’s framework and differentiate the two groups
on the basis of need for status.
According to Eastman et al. (1999), need for status is defined as “the motiva-
tional process by which individuals strive to improve their social standing
through conspicuous consumption of consumer products that confer and sym-
bolize status both for the individual and surrounding significant others” (p. 42).
Because possessions can be seen as an extension of the self (Belk, 1988), people
crave social status by accumulating expensive possessions.
Veblen’s (1899) theory of the leisure class can be considered the foundation
of status consumption research. His theory sheds light on how people use wealth
and material possessions to enhance their social status. Veblen argued that peo-
ple strive for social status by comparing and competing with one another for
material resources. In other words, people live to show off their wealth. In such
a pecuniary competition system, people try to distance themselves from people
in lower classes, while mimicking the behaviors of people in higher classes.
Similarly, sociologist Georg Simmel (1904/1972) proposed the upper-class the-
ory of fashion. He stated that there are two conflicting forces that drive changes
in fashion. First, lower classes adopt the status symbols of the classes above
them as they attempt to climb the ladder of social status. Second, upper classes
abandon fashions that are adopted by lower classes as they attempt to distinguish
themselves from the lower classes. Therefore, sociological characteristics such
as socioeconomic status and family upbringing are important antecedents of
consumers’ need for status.
Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012) examined the psychological antecedents of
consumers’ need for status. They argued that the notion of self-construal is the
driving force behind social comparisons. Consumers with independent self-con-
strual perceive themselves as independent entities, and consequently, they tend
not to focus on social hierarchies. On the contrary, consumers with interdepen-
dent self-construal define themselves as a part of their social surrounding and
tend to purchase expensive products to enhance their social rankings. The study
results revealed a positive relationship between interdependent self-construal
and need for status, while the relationship between independent self-construal
and need for status was negative.

Need for Status and WOM

As described in the luxury 4 P’s typology, the main difference between patri-
cians and parvenus is the level of need for status. Parvenus are high in need for
status and use luxury consumption as a way to signal wealth and status. More

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

 Yang, Mattila / STATUS SEEKING AND PRODUCT PREFERENCE 5

important, they derive satisfaction from audiences’ reactions to displayed

objects, rather than from the positive attributes of the objects themselves
(Eastman et al., 1999; Veblen, 1899). To achieve satisfying audience reactions,
parvenus who are high in need for status tend to conspicuously display their
consumption objects. For example, Veblen (1899) argued that people put their
wealth on display to demonstrate how wasteful they can afford to be, thereby
elevating their social status. In this article, we argue that to enhance their social
status, parvenus also tend to actively tell their family and friends about their
luxury purchases. As defined by Westbrook (1987), WOM communications are
“information communications directed at other consumers about the ownership,
usage, or characteristics of particular goods and services and/or their sellers”
(p. 261). In other words, WOM communication can help consumers to reach
more audiences and achieve stronger audience reactions. Therefore, parvenus
who are high in need for status are expected to be more likely to spread positive
WOM on their luxury consumptions than patricians. However, we further argue
that product type moderates the effect of need for status (patricians vs. parvenus)
on WOM communication.

The Joint Effect of Product Type and Consumer Characteristics on

WOM

Experience recommendation theory suggests that consumers will be happier if

they spend their money on life experiences such as travel and dining rather than
material possessions such as clothes and jewelry. Life experiences can be defined
as “events or series of events that a person lives through such as a vacation
abroad, a night out on the town, or an afternoon at a local cafe, rather than things
obtained and kept in one’s possession” (Caprariello & Reis, 2013, p. 199).
Although for certain consumption objects, there might not be a clear distinction
between experiential purchases and material purchases (e.g., a pair of skis, a
ticket to a concert), consumers consistently identify hospitality services (dining
and travel) as experiential purchases (Howell & Hill, 2009; Howell, Pchelin, &
Iyer, 2012; Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003).
To reveal why life experiences are valued more than material possessions,
Carter and Gilovich (2012) conducted five studies and demonstrated that expe-
riential purchases composed an essential part of one’s self-concept and were
more closely related to the self than material possessions. Once experiences
such as vacation and dining are consumed, they become a part of memory and
will support consumers’ assessments of the self. On the contrary, material pos-
sessions have permanence only outside of memory. Although Belk (1988, 1990)
suggested that people might define their identities through their consumption
objects, and in turn, those material possessions could contribute to the individu-
al’s self-identity, Carter and Gilovich demonstrated that experiences were sig-
nificantly more tightly integrated with the self than material possessions. In
one of their experiments, for example, respondents drew circles representing

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

6   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

experiences significantly closer to the center “self” circle than they drew circles
representing material possessions.
This is important because extant research on WOM suggests that consumers’
self-identification influences WOM intention and behavior. Customer identifi-
cation can be defined as the overlap between one’s self-schema and an organiza-
tion’s schema (Brown et al., 2005), and it has a positive impact on positive
WOM communication (Brown et al., 2005; De Matos & Rossi, 2008; Kim, Han,
& Park, 2002; Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008; Tuškej, Golob, & Podnar, 2013). Prior
research has shown that consumers who were closely related to an organization
or a brand were more likely to say positive things about the organization or
brand and to recommend it to others (Ahearne et al., 2005; Asatryan & Oh,
2008; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Brown et al., 2005). Asatryan and Oh (2008)
and Brown et al. (2005) measured consumer identification using a visual scale
that captured the distance between a center-self circle and an organization’s
identity circle. This is similar to the method used by Carter and Gilovich (2012),
who measured the distance between a center-self circle and a product-type cir-
cle. Therefore, in this study, we extend the notion of consumer-brand identifica-
tion to the domain of product type.
Because hospitality experiences are closely connected to a consumer’s self,
we argue that consumers tend to actively tell others about their luxury hospital-
ity purchases, regardless of their levels of need for status. Even though patri-
cians are low in need for status and do not use luxury consumptions to attract
audience attentions, they are likely to share their luxury hospitality consump-
tions with their family and friends because such consumption experiences can
help define themselves and support their self-assessments. Therefore, we expect
that both patricians and parvenus will actively spread positive WOM on luxury
hospitality services.
Unlike luxury hospitality services, luxury goods are less closely related to the
self-concept. Compared with patricians, parvenus are high in need for status, and
they engage in luxury consumption to seek social status and impress their audi-
ences (Eastman et al., 1999; Han et al., 2010). In other words, parvenus are moti-
vated to actively promote and broadcast their luxury consumptions. Therefore,
parvenus are more likely to talk about their luxury goods consumptions than
patricians. Taken together, we put forth the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Parvenus are more likely to spread positive WOM on luxury goods
purchases than patricians.
Hypothesis 2: Parvenus and patricians will exhibit an equal likelihood to spread posi-
tive WOM on luxury hospitality purchases.

Luxury Preference Between Patricians and Parvenus

Beyond examining the effect of product type and consumer characteristics on

WOM, we focus specifically on luxury consumption. Per Carter and Gilovich’s

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

 Yang, Mattila / STATUS SEEKING AND PRODUCT PREFERENCE 7

(2012) suggestion, we questioned whether the experience recommendation

holds true among consumers who engage in luxury consumption to signal wealth
and status. On the basis of extant studies on status consumption, we propose that
compared with patricians, parvenus are less likely to show a preference for lux-
ury hospitality services over luxury goods.
Prior research on status consumption has shown that consumers who were
high in need for status preferred highly visible products over less visible ones
(Chao & Schor, 1998; Fan & Burton, 2002; Fisman, 2008; Hudders, 2012;
Schor, 2007). For example, Chao and Schor (1998) revealed that consumers
were more willing to engage in status consumption of highly visible products
(e.g., lipstick) than less visible products (e.g., facial cleansers). Fisman (2008)
also suggested that for people who engaged in status consumption, wealth sig-
nals needed to be easily observed by the audiences they were trying to impress.
Typically, the audiences (including both close companions and strangers on the
street) can easily observe expensive material possessions but will have a harder
time inferring how much people spend on luxury travel and dining experiences.
Therefore, when making consumption decisions, status seekers prefer choices
that are highly visible in public. Heffetz (2012) conducted a national survey on
the visibility of consumer expenditures. He revealed that in general, “physical
objects—durable and nondurable goods—have the highest visibility average
[scores], while the less tangible service-related expenditures have the lowest
visibility averages [scores]” (p. 21). Therefore, compared with luxury goods, the
intangible nature of luxury hospitality services makes them more difficult to
display and less likely to attract attention from audiences.
Parvenus are high in need for status, and their satisfaction and happiness on
status consumption depends mainly on an audience’s size and reactions (Eastman
et al., 1999; Carter & Gilovich, 2012). Therefore, compared with luxury goods,
the less conspicuous nature of luxury hospitality services makes them less attrac-
tive in terms of status-enhancing attributes. In other words, parvenus may prefer
luxury goods in order to impress others. Conversely, patricians are not motivated
to use luxury consumption to mark their social status, and their satisfaction does
not depend on an audience’s reactions. Therefore, they will choose memorable
hospitality experiences over tangible luxury goods in order to advance their hap-
piness. Accordingly, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3: Compared with patricians, parvenus are less likely to prefer luxury
hospitality purchases to luxury goods purchases with the intention of advancing
consumption enjoyment and happiness.

Method

Participants

Real luxury consumers were recruited through a luxury research company

specializing in luxury consumer behaviors. All respondents had annual

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

8   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

household incomes of more than $100,000; they were familiar with luxury
brands and had purchased luxury products (both goods and hospitality services)
in the past 6 months. In total, 228 participants filled out the survey. One hundred
nineteen were women (52.2%), 188 had bachelor’s degrees or higher (82.5%),
196 were Caucasian (86.0%), and the majority were 24 to 70 years of age.
Regarding annual household income, 191 respondents had incomes between
$100,000 and $199,999 (83.3%), and 37 reported incomes between $200,000
and $250,000 (16.7%). As indicated by Danziger (2010), luxury consumers can
be grouped into two basic categories. The first segment is “ultra-affluent” con-
sumers, with annual household incomes of more than $250,000; the other seg-
ment is “high earners not rich yet,” with annual household incomes between
$100,000 and $249,999. According to a luxury tracking report from Unity
Marketing (2012), ultra-affluent consumers represent the top 2% of households
in the United States. To enhance the usefulness of our study findings, we limited
our sample to the “high earners not rich yet” segment in the present study
(n = 191).

Study Design

A 2 (product type: luxury hospitality services vs. luxury goods) × 2 (consumer

characteristics: patricians vs. parvenus) quasi-experimental between-subjects
design was used to test the hypotheses. Need for status was measured and used to
classify participants to either patricians or parvenus. At the beginning of the sur-
vey, all participants were randomly assigned to the two product-type conditions.
They were asked to indicate their favorite luxury hotel and restaurant brands or
their favorite luxury goods brands that they had purchased before. They could
either choose from a provided list or write down a brand name if it was not on the
provided list. The two brand lists were created in consultation with the luxury
research company. On the basis of the company’s quarterly spending survey,
popular luxury brands identified by luxury consumers were included in the lists.
Luxury hospitality brands such as Aman Resorts and Morton’s and luxury goods
brands such as Louis Vuitton and Cartier were provided (refer to the Appendix
for a full list of luxury brands). After choosing their favorite luxury hospitality
services or luxury goods brands, participants were instructed to indicate their
WOM intentions considering all the pleasant purchases they had with their favor-
ite luxury brands. Next, all participants were instructed to fill out several unre-
lated questions to disguise the study purpose. Then, participants were told that the
researchers were interested in examining consumers’ purchase preferences with
the intention of advancing life happiness. They were instructed to imagine that
they received a $2,000 bonus and were considering one of the two luxury con-
sumption choices: (a) a luxury item such as a Louis Vuitton handbag or an Omega
watch or (b) a weekend getaway at a luxury hotel such as The Ritz-Carlton. The
respondents were asked to indicate their anticipated satisfaction with each option
given an intent to advance their happiness and enjoyment.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

 Yang, Mattila / STATUS SEEKING AND PRODUCT PREFERENCE 9

Measurement

Need for status was measured using ten 7-point, Likert-type scales adapted
from Eastman et al. (1999) and Eastman and Eastman (2011) (e.g., “I would buy
a product just because it has status”; Cronbach’s α = .955). WOM intention was
measured using three 7-point, Likert-type scales from Zeithaml, Berry, and
Parasuraman (1996) (e.g., “I would like to say positive things about the brand to
others”; Cronbach’s α = .94). Anticipated satisfaction was assessed using three
7-point, Likert-type scales anchored on dissatisfied and satisfied, unhappy and
happy, and feel bad and feel good (Shiv & Huber, 2000; Cronbach’s α = .965 for
luxury goods option and .957 for luxury hospitality services option).
Previous studies have shown that materialism may influence consumers’
preferences between experiences and goods (Carter & Gilovich, 2012; Millar &
Thomas, 2009; Nicolao, Irwin, & Goodman, 2009). According to Richins and
Dawson (1992), materialist people tend to acquire material goods because such
acquisitions are important to their self-images and life satisfaction. It is possible
that materialist people prefer material goods over experiential services to
advance happiness and enjoyment in life (Richins, 2004). Hence, we included a
short version of materialism (six items) as a covariate (e.g., “I admire people
who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes”; Cronbach’s α = .849).
Demographics were captured at the end of the questionnaire.

Results

The Effects of Product Type and Consumer Characteristics on WOM

To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, a moderated multiple regression analysis was

conducted (Aiken & West, 1991; West, Aiken, & Krull, 1996). Product type was
dummy coded as luxury goods = 0 and luxury hospitality services = 1. Need for
status was mean centered, and the product of centered need for status by product
type was created. We then performed a multiple regression with WOM intention
as the dependent variable and centered need for status, product type, and the
interaction term as predictors. Table 1 presents the results, which demonstrate
that the main effect of product type (B = 0.345, t = 2.665, p = .008) and the main
effect of need for status (B = 0.381, t = 5.678, p < .001) were significant. More
important, the product type and need for status interaction effect was significant
(B = −0.269, t = −2.728, p = .007). This interaction is visualized in Figure 2.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, a simple slope test of the luxury goods group
revealed that need for status was a significant predictor of WOM intention (B =
0.381, t = 5.678, p < .001), indicating that parvenus (high in need for status) are
more likely to spread positive WOM on luxury goods purchases than patricians
(low in need for status). To test Hypothesis 2, we ran another simple slope test with
reverse dummy coding (luxury hospitality services = 0, luxury goods =1). The
results (presented in Table 2) suggest that need for status was not a significant pre-
dictor of WOM intention for luxury hospitality purchases (B = 0.113, t = 1.565,

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

10   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 1
Regression Results for Word of Mouth on Product Type and Need for Status:
Luxury Goods

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient  

Model B SE β t p

1 Constant 5.617 0.092 61.238 .000

  Need for status 0.256 0.050 .320 5.146 .000
  Product type 0.345 0.131 .163 2.627 .009
2 Constant 5.618 0.090 62.117 .000
  Need for status 0.381 0.067 .476 5.678 .000
  Product type 0.345 0.130 .163 2.665 .008
  Status × Product –0.269 0.098 –.229 –2.728 .007

Note: The luxury goods group was the reference group and was coded 0.

Figure 2
Interaction Effects of Product Type and Need for Status (NFS) on Word of Mouth

6.2

5.8

5.6
Luxury Goods
5.4
Luxury Hospitality
5.2 Services
5

4.8

4.6
Low NFS (-1 SD) High NFS (+1 SD)

p = .119). In other words, patricians and parvenus exhibit equal likelihood to spread
positive WOM on luxury hospitality purchases, thus supporting Hypothesis 2.

Luxury Preference Between Patricians and Parvenus

To test Hypothesis 3, an anticipated satisfaction difference score was first cal-

culated (Shiv & Huber, 2000). This score was created by subtracting anticipated
satisfaction with luxury goods from anticipated satisfaction with luxury vaca-
tions. A higher difference score represents a stronger preference for luxury hospi-
tality experiences (Shiv & Huber, 2000). A hierarchical regression was performed,

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

 Yang, Mattila / STATUS SEEKING AND PRODUCT PREFERENCE 11

Table 2
Regression Results for Word of Mouth on Product Type and Need for Status:
Luxury Hospitality Services

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient  

Model B SE β t p

1 Constant 5.962 0.094 63.313 .000

  Need for status 0.256 0.050 .320 5.146 .000
  Product type –0.345 0.131 –.163 –2.627 .009
2 Constant 5.963 0.093 64.223 .000
  Need for status 0.113 0.072 .141 1.565 .119
  Product type –0.345 0.130 –.163 –2.665 .008
  Status × Product 0.269 0.098 .245 2.728 .007

Note: The luxury hospitality services group was the reference group and was coded 0.
The dependent variable was word of mouth.

with materialism entered in the first step as a control variable, need for status
entered in the second step as a predictor, and anticipated satisfaction difference
score as the dependent variable. The results indicate that need for status was a
significant predictor of anticipated satisfaction (B = −0.364, t = −2.407, p = .017).
The negative relationship between need for status and anticipated satisfaction
difference score indicated that compared with patricians (low in need for status),
parvenus (high in need for status) were less likely to prefer a luxury hospitality
purchase over a luxury goods purchase. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Discussion

Prior research on luxury hospitality consumption has focused mainly on under-

standing luxury consumer attitude, values, and luxury brand management (Bian &
Forsythe, 2012; Hwang & Hyun, 2012; Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012; Lee &
Hwang, 2011; Wall et al., 2011; Wu & Liang, 2009; Yang & Mattila, 2014).
However, the differences between luxury hospitality services and luxury goods as
well as the role of status seeking on luxury consumption have received less atten-
tion (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2009). To the best of our knowledge, this study is the
first to contrast luxury goods and luxury hospitality services and further investi-
gate luxury consumers’ behavioral patterns (WOM and consumption preference)
according to their level of need for status. On the basis of extant studies on WOM
communication, status consumption (e.g., Eastman et al., 1999), and experience
recommendation, we show that patricians’ and parvenus’ WOM intentions differ
between luxury goods consumption and luxury hospitality consumption.
Carter and Gilovich (2012) demonstrated the differential centrality of experi-
ential services and material purchases to the self. They suggested that experien-
tial services such as hospitality purchases were more closely integrated with

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

12   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

one’s self-concept. Extant studies suggest that consumers who identify with an
organization or a brand are more likely to say positive things and recommend the
company or brand to others (Ahearne et al., 2005; Asatryan & Oh, 2008;
Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Brown et al., 2005). In this study, we extend the
notion of consumer identification to the context of product type. Because luxury
hospitality services are closely related to self-concepts, we demonstrate that
both patricians and parvenus exhibit equally strong WOM intentions on luxury
hospitality purchases. On the contrary, luxury goods are less closely integrated
with the self, and the effect of status seeking on WOM communication becomes
salient. Parvenus are high in need for status, and they engage in luxury con-
sumption to signal status. They are motivated to impress others via luxury con-
sumption. Actively talking about their consumption objects enables parvenus to
achieve such goals. Our findings indicate that compared with patricians, parve-
nus are more likely to spread positive WOM on luxury goods purchases.
Moreover, this study extends the experience recommendation theory to the
luxury consumption context. Van Boven and Gilovich (2003) suggested that
people with the intention of advancing their happiness and enjoyment preferred
experiences to material goods. However, the less conspicuous nature of luxury
hospitality services falls short of signaling wealth and status (Carter & Gilovich,
2012). Because parvenus’ satisfaction and happiness depend largely on status
signaling, they perceive luxury hospitality consumption as a relatively poor
choice to advance life happiness. Accordingly, compared with patricians, parve-
nus are less likely to choose luxury hospitality services over luxury goods with
the intention of advancing happiness in life.

Managerial Implications
Besides theoretical contributions, this study provides important managerial
implications for luxury hospitality practitioners. Although the classification of
patricians and parvenus depends on the psychometric characteristic of “need for
status,” the difference between the two groups can also be based on customers’
geographic location (Malshe, 2012). Claritas (a marketing research division of
ACNielsen) groups U.S. ZIP codes on the basis of sociodemographic factors and
consumer lifestyles. For example, people living in ZIP code 90274 (the Palos
Verdes peninsula in Los Angeles County in Southern California) are likely to be
patricians (Han et al., 2010). In addition, compared with most European coun-
tries, some countries (e.g., the “BRIC” countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and
China) have newly advanced economic development, and the majority of luxury
consumers in those countries are high in need for status (Eastman & Eastman,
2011; Shukla, 2012a, 2012b). For example, China has become wealthy during
the past 30 to 40 years. The majority of luxury consumers in China arose from
lower classes and accumulated their wealth in the 1970s and 1980s. Therefore,
they purchase luxury products mainly to seek social status and material abun-
dance (Ma, 2010; Malshe, 2012; Shukla, 2012a, 2012b). In fact, countries such

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

 Yang, Mattila / STATUS SEEKING AND PRODUCT PREFERENCE 13

as the BRIC nations, with a majority of luxury consumers being parvenus, have
great potential for growth. According to Bain & Company, Chinese consumers
now account for more than 20% of global luxury sales, and Asian consumers
account for more than 50% of global luxury sales. Therefore, the results of the
present study provide important implications for both domestic and international
luxury hospitality marketers.
As demonstrated by previous studies, WOM is an effective and powerful mar-
keting tool, and it has a strong influence on consumer preferences and behaviors
(Gruen, Osmonbekov, & Czaplewski, 2006; Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991; Zhang,
Ye, Law, & Li, 2010), as well as on sales and revenues (Chevalier & Mayzlin,
2006; Duan, Gu, & Whinston, 2008; Ye, Law, & Gu, 2009). Our results indicate
that both patricians and parvenus indicate strong intention to spread positive
WOM on luxury hospitality purchases; therefore, marketers of luxury hotels and
fine-dining restaurants can take advantage of the power of WOM. They may
provide more marketing campaigns and venues for their consumers to actively
engage in WOM communications. For example, popular social Web sites such as
Facebook and Twitter could be effective platforms for customers to share their
consumption experiences and help promote brands. In addition, our results sug-
gest that patricians are more likely to choose luxury hospitality services over
luxury material goods with the intention of advancing happiness and enjoyment.
Therefore, luxury hotels and fine-dining restaurants should focus on the hedonic
value of their products and promote their services as memorable experiences.
On the other hand, our results indicate that compared with patricians, parvenus
rely heavily on tangible evidence of their luxury consumption and are less likely
to choose luxury hospitality services over luxury goods with the intention of
advancing happiness and enjoyment. Therefore, luxury hotels and fine-dining res-
taurants in countries where the majority of luxury consumers are parvenus might
want to incorporate some forms of tangible evidence into their service offerings.
For example, they might offer complimentary products such as creative photos
and videos, bumper stickers, T-shirts, and coffee-table books that showcase the
luxury experiences to others either during the service consumption or as follow-up
“thank you for your business” gifts. In addition, luxury hospitality firms aiming at
parvenus might want to downplay the hedonic value of their services. For exam-
ple, Wong and Ahuvia (1998) suggest that East Asian luxury consumers tend to be
heavily influenced by social norms, and they seek symbolic values instead of
hedonic values from luxury consumption (Kastanakis & Balabanis 2012; Shukla
& Purani, 2011; Tsai, 2005). With this in mind, luxury hospitality companies may
identify important opinion leaders in East Asian markets and encourage them to
promote their brand use in social media and other marketing campaigns.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Several limitations of this study need to be recognized. First, as indicated by

Van Boven and Gilovich (2003), the difference between experiential and material

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

14   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

purchases is sometimes ambiguous. The two product types are, in fact, at the
opposite ends of a continuum, and there may be overlap between the two types.
Although the majority of hospitality services (e.g., lodging, restaurants, vacations)
can be perceived as experiential purchases, there may be certain types of hospital-
ity products that fall in the middle of the experience-goods continuum. For exam-
ple, some consumers may perceive a beauty spa in a luxury hotel as an experiential
purchase (valuing the intangible services and the memories), but others may per-
ceive it as a material purchase (focusing instead on the tangible beauty products).
Therefore, findings regarding the difference between luxury hospitality services
and luxury goods should be interpreted with caution.
Second, WOM communication was captured as intention rather than actual
behavior, and our WOM measures reflected only traditional WOM via family and
friends. It would be interesting to examine how luxury consumers react to virtual
WOM. Do affluent consumers have less of a need to talk about their consumption
experiences in social media than their less wealthy counterparts? Or do the differ-
ences observed for the traditional WOM across parvenus and patricians carry
over to the Internet? Future research is needed to study such questions.
Third, it is possible that patricians and parvenus identify with different types
of luxury hospitality experiences. For example, patricians might identify with
self-actualizing experiences (Holt, 1998) or educational and challenging activi-
ties (e.g., international travel, ski vacations, high-end sporting events, and some
exotic trips such as safaris) and therefore be willing to generate positive WOM
on such experiences. On the contrary, parvenus might prefer expensive prear-
ranged travel packages that focus on luxury signaling (e.g., exclusive shopping
tours, expensive time-share groups, celebrity-chef restaurants; Üstüner & Holt,
2010). Future research exploring the different preferences of hospitality experi-
ences between patricians and parvenus would be fruitful.
Last, this study was conducted in the United States, and 86% of the respon-
dents were Caucasian. As suggest by several scholars, luxury buying behaviors
and consumers’ need for status are heavily influenced by culture and social
development (Bian & Forsythe, 2012; Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012; Li, Li, &
Kambele, 2012; Shukla & Purani, 2011; Tsai, 2005; Wong & Ahuvia, 1998;
Zhan & He, 2011). Future studies using respondents in other countries and with
different cultural backgrounds may generate interesting findings.

Appendix: Luxury Brands Lists

Luxury Hospitality Brands

  1. Aman Resorts
  2. Conrad Hotels
  3. Del Frisco’s
  4. Four Seasons
  5. Mandarin Oriental
 6. Morton’s

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

 Yang, Mattila / STATUS SEEKING AND PRODUCT PREFERENCE 15

  7. Oceanaire Seafood Room

  8. Orient-Express Hotels
 9. Ritz-Carlton
10. Ruth Chris’
11. St. Regis
12. Starwood’s Luxury Collection
13. Shula’s Steakhouse
14. Smith & Wollensky
15. Sullivan’s Steakhouse
16. Other

Luxury Goods Brands

  1. Bottega Veneta
 2. Burberry
 3. Bulgari
 4. Brietling
 5. Chanel
 6. Cartier
 7. Coach
  8. Donna Karan
 9. Gucci
10. Hermes
11. Louis Vuitton
12. Marc Jacobs
13. Omega
14. Prada
15. Ralph Lauren
16. Rolex
17. TAG Heuer
18. Tiffany
19. Other

References
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences
of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 574-585.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-
tions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Asatryan, V. S., & Oh, H. (2008). Psychological ownership theory: An exploratory
application in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
32, 363-386.
Augustine, D. L. (1994). Patricians and parvenus: Wealth and high society in Wilhelmine
Germany. Oxford, UK: Berg.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

16   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Bauman, Z. (2001). Parvenu and pariah: The heroes and victims of modernity. In
P. Beilharz (Ed.), The Bauman reader (pp. 218-229). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15, 139-168.
Belk, R. W. (1990). The role of possessions in constructing and maintaining a sense of
past. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 669-676.
Bian, Q., & Forsythe, S. (2011). Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural
comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1443-1451.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework
for understanding consumers’ relationships with brands. Journal of Marketing, 67,
76-88.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word:
Investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and
behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33,
123-138.
Caprariello, P. A., & Reis, H. T. (2013). To do, to have, or to share? Valuing experiences
over material possessions depends on the involvement of others. Journal of personal-
ity and social psychology, 104, 199.
Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and experiential
purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 146-159.
Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2012). I am what I do, not what I have: The differential
centrality of experiential and material purchases to the self. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 102, 1304.
Chao, A., & Schor, J. B. (1998). Empirical tests of status consumption: Evidence of
women’s cosmetics. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 107-131.
Chevalier, J., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book
reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 345-354.
Chiem, L. (2011, August 26). Luxury hotels lead the way in hospitality industry’s recov-
ery. Pacific Business News. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/
print-edition/2011/08/26/luxury-hotels-lead-the-way-in.html?page=all
Danziger, P. (2011, May 12). Sound strategy or dumb advice? Luxury Society. Retrieved
from http://luxurysociety.com/articles/2010/11/sound-strategy-or-dumb-advice
DeLollis, B. (2010, May 11). Luxury hotels bounce back faster than overall market. USA
Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/hotels/2010-05-12-lux-
uryrebound12_ST_N.htm
De Matos, C. A., & Rossi, C.A.V. (2008). Word-of-mouth communications in marketing:
A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36, 578-596.
Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B., 2008. The dynamics of online word-of-mouth
and product sales—An empirical investigation of the movie industry. Journal of
Retailing, 84, 233-242.
Eastman, J. K., & Eastman, K. L. (2011). Perceptions of status consumption and the
economy. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9, 9-19.
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., & Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in con-
sumer behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 7, 41-52.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

 Yang, Mattila / STATUS SEEKING AND PRODUCT PREFERENCE 17

Fan, J. X., & Burton, J. R. (2002). Students’ perception of status-conveying goods.

Financial Counseling and Planning, 13(1), 35-47.
Fisman, R. (2008, January 11). Cos and effect: Bill Cosby may be right about African-
Americans spending a lot on expensive sneakers—but he’s wrong about why. Slate
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_sci-
ence/2008/01/cos_and_effect.html
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2006). EWOM: The impact of
customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty.
Journal of Business Research, 59(4), 449-456.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2013). Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting
switching intention: Conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37, 303-329.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Dreze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role
of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74, 15-30.
Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury: Hedonic potential
as a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 608-618.
Heffetz, O. (2012). Who sees what? Demographics and the visibility of consumer expen-
ditures. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 801-818.
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attri-
bute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research, 17, 454-462.
Holt, D. B. (1998). Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of
Consumer Research, 25, 1-25.
Howell, R. T., & Hill, G. (2009). The mediators of experiential purchases: Determining
the impact of psychological needs satisfaction and social comparison. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 4, 511-522.
Howell, R. T., Pchelin, P., & Iyer, R. (2012). The preference for experiences over pos-
sessions: Measurement and construct validation of the Experiential Buying Tendency
Scale. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 57-71.
Hudders, L. (2012). Why the devil wears Prada: Consumers’ purchase motives for luxu-
ries. Journal of Brand Management, 19, 609-622.
Hwang, J., & Hyun, S. (2012). The impact of nostalgia triggers on emotional responses and
revisit intentions in luxury restaurants: The moderating role of hiatus. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 250-262.
Hyun, S., & Kim, I. (In press). Identifying optimal rapport-building behaviors in induc-
ing patron’s emotional attachment in luxury restaurants. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research.
Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents
of the “bandwagon” luxury consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65,
1399-1407.
Kim, W. G., Han, J. S., & Lee, E. (2001). Effects of relationship marketing on repeat pur-
chase and word of mouth. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25, 272-288.
Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S.-B. (2002). The effect of brand personality and brand
identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese
Psychological Research, 43, 195-206.
Kim, W. G., Lee, Y.-K., & Yoo, Y.-J. (2006). Predictors of relationship quality and rela-
tionship outcomes in luxury restaurants. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
30, 143-169.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

18   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Kuenzel, S., & Halliday, S. V. (2008). Investigating antecedents and consequences of

brand identification. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17, 293-304.
Lee, J. H., & Hwang, J. (2011). Luxury marketing: The influence of psychological and
demographic characteristics on attitudes toward luxury restaurants. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 658-669.
Li, G., Li, G., & Kambele, Z. (2012). Luxury fashion brand consumers in China: Perceived
value, fashion lifestyle, and willingness to pay. Journal of Business Research, 65,
1516-1522.
Ma, D. (2010). Luxury shopping behavior of Chinese consumers. Retrieved from http://www.
ceibs.edu/images/bmt/research/2012/02/08/AE1B40615F8503B5E933FA1E981D18D0.
pdf
Malshe, A. (2012, November 3). When should luxury brands use social media? Retrieved
from http://ashwinmalshe.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/when-should-luxury-brands-
use-social-media/
Millar, M., & Thomas, R. (2009). Discretionary activity and happiness: The role of mate-
rialism. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 699-702.
Nicolao, L., Irwin, J. R., & Goodman, J. K. (2008). Happiness for sale: Do experiential
purchases make consumers happier than material purchases? Journal of Consumer
Research, 36, 188-198.
Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and develop-
ment of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 209-219.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and
its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
19, 303-316.
Rosenzweig, E., & Gilovich, T. (2011). Buyer’s remorse or missed opportunity?
Differential regrets for material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 102(2), 215-223.
Schor, J. B. (2007). In defense of consumer critique: revisiting the consumption debates
of the twentieth century. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 611, 16-30.
Shiv, B., & Huber, J. (2000). The impact of anticipating satisfaction on consumer choice.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 202-216.
Shukla, P. (2012a). The influence of value perceptions on luxury purchase inten-
tions in developed and emerging markets. International Marketing Review, 29(6),
575-596.
Shukla, P. (2012b). What is your Chinese New Year luxury strategy? Retrieved from
http://www.pauravshukla.com/what-is-your-chinese-new-year-luxury-strategy
Shukla, P., & Purani, K. (2011). Comparing the importance of luxury value perceptions
in cross-national contexts. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1417-1424.
Simmel, G. (1972). Fashion. In D. N. Levine (Ed.), Georg Simmel on individuality and
social forms (pp. 294-323). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work
published 1904)
Tsai, S. (2005). Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value.
International Journal of Market Research, 47, 429-454.
Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer-brand identification in
building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66, 53-59.
Unity Marketing. (2012). Luxury Tracking Study. Retrieved from http://www.unitymar-
ketingonline.com/catalog/product_detail.php/pid=73~subid=112/index.html

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

 Yang, Mattila / STATUS SEEKING AND PRODUCT PREFERENCE 19

Üstüner, T., & Holt, D. B. (2010). Toward a theory of status consumption in less indus-
trialized countries. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 37-56.
Van Boven, L. (2005). Experientialism, materialism, and the pursuit of happiness. Review
of General Psychology, 9, 132-142.
Van Boven, L., Campbell, M. C., & Gilovich, T. (2010). Stigmatizing materialism: On
stereotypes and impressions of materialistic and experiential pursuits. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 551-563.
Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1193-1202.
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Penguin.
Walkerdine, V. (2003). Reclassifying upward mobility: Femininity and the neo-liberal
subject. Gender and Education, 15, 237-248.
Wall, A., Okumus, F., Wang, Y., & Kwun, D. (2011). Understanding the consumer expe-
rience: An exploratory study of luxury hotels. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, 20, 166-197.
West, S. G., Aiken, L. S., & Krull, J. L. (1996). Experimental personality designs:
Analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions. Journal of Personality,
64, 1-48.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpur-
chase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258-270.
Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consump-
tion in Confucian and western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 423-441.
Wu, C., & Liang, R-D. (2009). Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction with
service encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28, 586-593.
Yankelovich/The Futures Company. (2010, May/June). Recovering the luxury market.
Restaurant Briefing. Retrieved from http://restaurantbriefing.com/2010/05/recover-
ing-the-luxury-market
Yang, W., & Mattila, A.S. (2014). Do affluent customers care when luxury brands
go mass? The role of product type and status seeking on luxury brand attitude.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26.
Ye, Q., Law, R., & Gu, B. (2009). The impact of online user reviews on hotel room sales.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 180-182.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences
of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31-46.
Zhan, L., & He, Y. (2011). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer per-
ceptions of best-known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1452-1460.
Zhang, Z., Ye, Q., Law, R., & Li, Y. (2010). The impact of e-word-of-mouth on the
online popularity of restaurant: A comparison of consumer reviews and editor review-
ers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 39, 694-700.

Submitted April 30, 2013

Accepted October 13, 2013
Refereed Anonymously

Wan Yang (email: wy.wanyang@gmail.com) is an assistant professor in the College of

Hospitality and Technology Leadership at University of South Florida. Her research
interests include luxury consumption, consumer emotions, service failure and recovery,

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015

20   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

and cross-cultural issues in the hospitality and tourism industry. Anna S. Mattila (email:
asm6@psu.edu) is the Marriott Professor of Lodging Management in the School of
Hospitality Management at The Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests
focus on service encounters, with a particular interest in service failures, service recovery,
and cross-cultural issues in services marketing.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on August 12, 2015