behavioral

sciences
Article
Examining the Moderating Role of Reasons in Masstige Luxury
Buying Behavior
Ayse Sedef Uluturk * and Umut Asan

Department of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Macka, 34367 Istanbul, Türkiye;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This study proposes a new model derived from Behavioral Reasoning Theory (BRT) to
examine the purchasing behavior of masstige jewelry consumers. The suggested model provides
a more comprehensive understanding of the determinants of purchasing masstige products by
considering values and reasons in addition to the global motives and intention. The study also
examines, for the first time, the moderating role of reasons. It explores how reasons may strengthen
or weaken the impact of perceived values on global motives. The proposed model was empirically
tested using partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) with survey data on the
consumption of masstige jewelry brands in Türkiye. To provide a more complete understanding of the
moderating role of reasons, submodels were constructed for different value–reason combinations. The
results demonstrate notable differences in the goodness-of-fit measures between the moderated and
non-moderated models. Specifically, reasons contributed to enhanced explanations of global motives
and intention, both directly and indirectly. However, not all submodels yielded significant results
in terms of the moderator effect. Thus, the empirical tests supported the hypotheses regarding the
moderating effect only partially. Overall, the current findings further extend the existing frameworks
and provide valuable insights into masstige jewelry purchasing behavior, which can be used by
marketers to develop more effective strategies.

Keywords: behavioral reasoning theory; reasons; masstige jewelry consumption; moderator effect;
partial least squares-structural equation modeling
Citation: Uluturk, A.S.; Asan, U.
Examining the Moderating Role of
Reasons in Masstige Luxury Buying
Behavior. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67.
1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.3390/
bs14010067 The luxury product market has experienced a rapid growth in the last twenty years
in the world. According to the research of Bain and Company (2023), the total personal
Academic Editor: Rogelio
luxury product market reached EUR 353 billion in 2022 and is estimated to reach EUR
Puente-Diaz
540–580 billion by 2030 [1]. On the other hand, reasons such as the economic stagnation
Received: 21 November 2023 experienced in America and Europe in the 1990s, the cessation of population growth in
Revised: 11 January 2024 Europe, and the growth of a middle class who wanted to reach luxury caused the need
Accepted: 12 January 2024 for change and expansion in luxury brands [2]. With these recent structural and cultural
Published: 19 January 2024 changes in the capitalist markets, luxury brands that have undergone change have become
accessible to the masses [3,4]. Many studies have defined this change using different terms,
like the ‘democratization of luxury’ or ‘luxury for the masses’ or ‘masstige (mass-prestige)’,
which is the focal point of this study. While the democratization of luxury is a frequent
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
topic of discussion in industry reports, the academic literature remains notably unexplored
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
in this realm [5].
This article is an open access article
With the growth and expansion of the masstige luxury market, the analysis of luxury
distributed under the terms and
consumer buying behavior has become even more important. The jewelry market especially,
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
which is addressed in this study, is growing and spreading day by day with the emergence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
of masstige jewelry brands. However, research examining the purchasing behavior of
4.0/).

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010067 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 2 of 33

jewelry consumers, especially for masstige products, is limited, which underscores the
importance of this study.
Luxury goods, which are accepted as high-involvement products due to their high
price, rarity, and complicated nature, require detailed research and knowledge. The con-
sumer is more likely to choose the decision alternative that is supported by strong reasons
and aligns with his/her values, as they guide the reasoning and selection of decision alter-
natives. Reasons serve as context-specific factors that consumers use to justify and defend
their judgements or intentions that affect their behavior [6]. Values serve as a framework
for what is important and meaningful to consumers. Therefore, incorporating the concepts
of ‘reason’ and ‘value’ into the modeling of (masstige) jewelry purchasing behavior will
provide a more comprehensive explanation of this behavior. Only a limited number of
studies rooted in Behavioral Reasoning Theory (BRT) have investigated the influence of
values and context-specific reasons on consumer behavior. Specifically, reasons are modeled
as mediators between beliefs/values and global motives, where it is assumed that the way
individuals process their belief and value information directly influences the reasons they
provide for explaining their behavior [6]. Despite its advantages, BRT remains significantly
underexplored [7]. Only a few recent studies, including those by Sivathanu [8,9], Pillai and
Sivathanu [10], Gupta and Arora [11,12], Claudy et al. [13,14], and Ryan and Casidy [15],
have tested different hypotheses stemming from both the original and modified versions of
the BRT theory. However, none of these models have been examined within the realm of
luxury consumption (see [7] also).
In luxury consumption, the reasons are generally based on traditions, social culture,
and self; therefore, they are considered as psychological structures believed to be relatively
more stable and have contextual characteristics (see [16]). In addition, reasons may not
necessarily come after values temporally (see [17]). Reasons may strengthen or weaken
the influence of perceived values on global motives. For example, consumers who share
identical values may develop different attitudes due to their varying reasons for purchasing
jewelry. Therefore, it is essential to establish a model that examines the moderating role
of reasons. Sahu et al. [7] point out in their review of BRT that only a few studies have
examined the impact of moderating variables (especially between values and attitudes),
indicating a significant research gap in the existing literature on this topic (see also [6,14]).
Based on the above discussions, three research gaps in the current literature will be
addressed in this study. First, further research is required to model consumer behavior
in the growing masstige luxury market, particularly in the jewelry segment. Second,
previous research has shown that values and reasons are important in explaining consumer
behavior, but there is limited research on the specific values [18] and none on reasons that
underlie masstige jewelry consumption. Third, a deeper exploration of the roles of reason in
luxury consumption is needed. Specifically, the interaction of values and reasons and their
potential impact on global motives have not been examined yet. Addressing these research
gaps will not only uncover the key drivers and motivations behind consumer choices
in the masstige jewelry sector but will also extend the theory of behavioral reasoning.
This will lead to more informed decision-making, targeted marketing efforts, and a better
understanding of consumer motivations in the context of luxury consumption.
To narrow these gaps, this study proposes a modified model derived from BRT for
the examination of purchasing behavior of luxury consumers. The proposed model is
designed specifically for the consumption of masstige jewelry, for which the concepts of
BRT and reasons have not been considered before. The proposed model examines the
impact of values and reasons on global motives and intentions, aiming to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of purchase behavior. Given consistent context-specific
reasons, they are assumed to act as potential moderators between perceived values and
global motives. In other words, reasons may strengthen/weaken or affect the direction
of the causal relationship between the perceived values and global motives. In order
to evaluate the proposed model and test the hypotheses, partial least squares-structural
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 3 of 33

equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed using survey data on the consumption of
brands in the masstige jewelry market in Türkiye.
The key contributions of this empirical study can be outlined as follows:
• By analyzing consumer behavior in the growing masstige luxury market in Türkiye,
particularly in the jewelry segment, the proposed model enriches the literature, where
research is very limited.
• A new model derived from BRT is introduced to examine the determinants of purchas-
ing behavior of masstige jewelry. The proposed model offers a more comprehensive
understanding of consumers’ intention to purchase masstige products by considering
values and reasons in addition to the global motives and intention.
• This study, for the first time, explores how reasons may strengthen or weaken the
impact of perceived values on global motives. It provides a deeper understanding of
the role of reasons in luxury consumption.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, a review of the literature on
luxury and masstige luxury purchasing is provided. The subsequent section introduces
the proposed research model and outlines the research hypotheses. Section 4 presents the
methodology used in the empirical study, while the subsequent section provides the results
of the PLS-SEM analysis and the corresponding findings. In the final section, contributions,
limitations, and further research opportunities are presented.

2. Luxury and Masstige Consumption

The term ‘masstige’ has its roots in the luxury concept, which originates from the
Latin word ‘luxus’ and means ‘extras of life’ or ‘extravagant life’ [19]. Until the fourteenth
century, the common people associated negative meanings with the concept of luxury.
In the following centuries, luxury was seen as an indicator of the noble class or of social
class distinction with the emergence of the bourgeoisie in Europe [20]. Today, luxury
brands and products are often associated with desire, pleasure, comfort, exclusivity, status,
and identity.
In the academic literature, the concepts of luxury and luxury brands lack a univer-
sally accepted definition [21]. Researchers employ the term ‘luxury’ to characterize the
highest tier of prestigious and high-status brands, as noted by Vigneron and Johnson [22].
According to Vickers and Renand’s [23] definition, luxury products serve as symbols of
both personal and social identity. Consumers believe that luxury brands bring dignity to
their owners and meet functional and psychological needs; therefore, the concept of luxury
consumption is defined as ‘conspicuous consumption’ [24]. According to another defini-
tion, ‘luxury brands’ are expensive, high quality, non-essential offers that have symbolic
or emotional value and are perceived as rare, unique, prestigious, and authentic by the
consumer [25].
The following subsections provide an overview of the masstige luxury concept and
related works.

2.1. Democratization of the Luxury

When the luxury product market is examined, it is evident that the market has expe-
rienced a rapid growth worldwide in the last thirty years. Despite declining sales due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2021, the luxury goods industry underwent a rapid recovery
characterized by a V-shaped pattern [1]. Despite the worsening global macroeconomic
indicators, the personal luxury market achieved a retail sales volume of EUR 353 billion
in 2022. [1]. Bain and Company predict that the personal luxury goods market has the
potential to achieve a volume of EUR 540–560 billion by 2030, assuming a consistent annual
growth rate of 6-8% [1].
Parallel to these developments, economic growth has created a middle class (especially
in emerging markets, such as China, India, and Türkiye) with great market potential [26–28].
Companies are now venturing into non-traditional approaches to market luxury products
and services, offering consumers the allure of status, indulgence, and an exceptional
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 4 of 33

experience. In recent years, the definition of ‘luxury’ has evolved, giving rise to the concept
of ‘new luxury’ [29], which encompasses notions of affordability, wider market reach, and
accessibility within the mass market [4].
With these recent changes, luxury brands have become accessible to the masses [3].
Vigneron and Johnson [22] highlight a significant shift in the last two decades, where
brands expanded their marketing efforts from solely targeting the wealthiest consumers to
also encompassing middle-class consumers. This was achieved through new product lines,
new brand launches, and brand extensions. This development is commonly termed as
the ‘democratization of luxury’ [30]. With the democratization of luxury, many companies
have expanded their product range, and they have become accessible both in terms of price
and geography. Firms such as Toyota, Apple, and Honda appear to be adopting a new
marketing approach aimed at enticing aspiring middle-class consumers seeking prestige,
but at a more accessible price point [31]. Luxury brands like Versace, Alexander Wang,
Balmain, and Marni, among others, have engaged in licensing or collaborative partnerships
with high street retailers such as H&M. This collaboration aims to offer a more affordable
rendition of their luxury items, catering to a broader middle-class consumer base through
mass production [32]. Capsule collections from haute couture designers elevate the status
of ready-to-wear clothing or masstige brands, enabling the middle class to access signature
products. The collaborations between Arzu Kaprol and Network, Ozlem Suer and Atasay,
and Dilek Hanif and Koton serve as illustrative instances within Türkiye.
Three different paths have been followed in the democratization of luxury [33]. ‘Ac-
cessible Superpremium’ products have higher quality or taste than other products in their
category and are priced above other products in the category, but these products are still
accessible to mid-range consumers [34]. For example, Starbucks and Belvedere Vodka
are priced 40% higher than similar products [35]. ‘Old-luxury brand extensions’ are well-
established luxury brand extensions, which are affordable products of traditional luxury
brands. This new generation of luxury goods refers to products that are not unique but are
produced in limited quantities. These products achieve the luxury label because of the de-
sign, the aura, or the additional services the brand creates. In this new definition of luxury,
consumers are more concerned with the image of the brand than the product itself. In the
list of traditional luxury brands that have expanded their brands, there are Mercedes-Benz,
Ermenegildo Zegna, Tiffany, and Burberry, which offer economical products along with
traditional products [34]. ‘Masstige’, as the third path, creates a niche market between mass
products and traditional luxury brands [36]. As a fusion of ‘mass’ and ‘prestige’, ‘masstige’
brands offer goods that exhibit superior quality, elegance, and desirability within their
category, yet remain within an affordable price range [34]. In other words, the ‘masstige’
concept refers to a phenomenon wherein premium or high-value products are marketed to
a broad customer base by cultivating a sense of widespread prestige, all while maintain-
ing consistent pricing [37]. They provide the consumer with emotional benefits such as
prestige, self-actualization, or group membership. While traditional luxury items retain
their prestige by emphasizing premium pricing and exclusivity [38,39], masstige products
adopt a mass-targeting approach with relatively lower pricing and limited accessibility, all
while upholding brand prestige. Couch, Miu Miu, and Armani Exchange are examples
of mass-prestige brands [35]. Louis Vuitton, on the other hand, has developed masstige
products in the jewelry industry [36]. In addition to prestige and affordability, masstige
goods must exhibit superior quality, multifunctionality, and prolonged utility. Particularly
in developing countries characterized by extensive mass markets, the significance of the
masstige marketing strategy is widely acknowledged. The masstige strategy achieves
success by striking a harmonious equilibrium between differentiation through prestige
and a justifiable premium. Masstige marketing represents a phenomenon where pricing is
regarded as a composite outcome of product, promotion, and placement strategies [31].
As the masstige luxury market expands, understanding the buying habits of masstige
consumers has become even more important. The jewelry sector, which is a main branch of
luxury consumption, is also growing and becoming widespread day by day, especially with
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 5 of 33

the emergence of masstige jewelry brands, which is the main focus of this study. Jewelry is
highly valued worldwide due to the intrinsic and symbolic value it offers to consumers [40].
Consumers purchase jewelry not primarily for financial gains, but rather as an emotional
investment [41]. In the past, buying jewelry was limited to specific occasions and weddings,
but nowadays, people are buying jewelry as a means of self-expression and to enhance
their personal style (see also [41]). Academic studies on the buying behavior of jewelry
consumers and masstige luxury are limited, which makes this study more valuable.

2.2. Purchasing Behavior of Luxury and Masstige Consumers

Previous studies in the luxury product market have predominantly examined the
meaning and measurement of luxury and masstige (e.g., [3,42]), values and motives in
purchasing luxury and masstige goods (e.g., [21,43,44]), determinants of luxury buying
behavior [45] (for a comprehensive review refer to [46]), and the management of masstige
and luxury brands (e.g., [30,37]). Only the studies related to the current work will be
mentioned here in more detail.
Motivations for luxury consumption have to be thoroughly examined in order to
understand the consumers’ perceptions of luxury brands, which is a prerequisite for
successful brand positioning and market segmentation. Previous studies have focused
on defining the dimensions of the luxury value concept. Wiedmann et al. [21] explored
luxury values from the standpoint of consumers and identified four key dimensions:
functional value, individual value, social value, and financial value. Likewise, Berthon
et al. [47] presented a three-dimensional model, including experiential, symbolic, and
functional values.
On the other hand, Paul [42] introduced a theoretical model and scale to operationalize
mass prestige. He conceptualized ‘masstige value’ as a substitute for brand equity and
developed a scale and index, serving as a benchmark measure for evaluating and comparing
the ‘Masstige value’. Ghimire et al. [48] studied the value dimension of masstige brands
based on the Woodruff’s [49] customer value determination framework. They determined
that Indian customers believed that masstige brands have the highest functionality and
that they provide self-directed image value. They also proposed that the masstige brands
possess qualities of superiority, fashion-forwardness, trendsetting, self-customization, and
innovation. Kim et al. [44] investigated the values conveyed by advertising messages
from luxury and masstige fashion brands. Shared implicit values in these ads encompass
exclusivity, sophistication, authenticity, achievement, and pride. Symbolic interpretations
and motifs commonly associated with masstige brand advertisements include seasonality,
allure, and rejuvenation. In another recent study, Kumar et al. [4] introduced the mass–
luxury continuum to categorize product or service brands in relation to mass prestige. They
also outline the steps for creating a masstige brand, focusing on the marketing mix.
Various studies have focused on different determinants for luxury consumption. In
an empirical study, Jamal and Goode [50] examined the criteria used when purchasing
precious jewelry. Their study emphasized the importance of product category expertise,
brand familiarity, and brand awareness in product assessment. Zhan and He [51] suggested
that culture has an impact on the attitudes and buying intentions of luxury consumers. Their
study focused on Chinese consumers and found that collectivist cultures are predominantly
motivated by social needs. Additionally, they identified value consciousness and the
desire for uniqueness as further key psychological factors impacting consumer buying
behavior in China. The authors also analyzed the moderating role of consumer knowledge.
They claim that consumers are less likely to use the best-known, popular luxury brands
to express their uniqueness when consumer knowledge increases. Granot et al. (2013)
conducted exploratory research focusing on consumer perceptions of masstige brands,
considering factors like conspicuousness, style, signaling, self-indulgence, exploration,
and quality, as well as their impact on purchase decisions. Loureiro and Araújo [18]
examined the influence of individual and social luxury values on customer attitudes,
perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms, as well as how these factors, along
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 6 of 33

with past experiences, affect intentions to recommend and pay a premium for luxury
clothing in the Brazilian market. The results indicate that individual values positively affect
intentions, while social values positively influence subjective norms but negatively affect
perceived behavioral control. Past experience does not notably impact intentions. Hennigs
et al. [52] demonstrated the significant connection between perceptions of luxury brand
value and important outcomes like purchase intention, recommendations, and willingness
to pay. Riley et al. [53] investigated the influence of perceived value in the connection
between perceived fit, brand attitude, extension attitude, and consumers’ purchase intent
for downscale vertical extensions of premium and luxury brands in the automotive and
footwear markets. Their findings demonstrate that perceived value acts with a partial
mediating role in the relationships between brand attitude and extension attitude with
purchase intention. In another study, Mason et al. [54] examined the influence of the
Lipstick effect, employing income as a moderating variable on the relationship between
the primary aspects of service quality and behavioral intentions in a new luxury context.
Loureiro et al. [55] analyzed how involvement, perceived self, social values, and desire are
related to consumer engagement in the fashion luxury context (masstige brands). They also
explored the role of past experience as a moderator in the relationship between consumer
engagement and subjective well-being. In a more recent study, Zhang et al. [45] explored the
factors influencing Chinese consumers’ purchase intentions for luxury goods by extending
the TPB. The findings indicate that both perceived behavioral control and subjective norms
had notable and direct effects on consumers’ purchase intentions. Furthermore, prior
experience with luxury goods purchases also directly influenced consumers’ intentions to
buy such products.
Review of the literature reveals that empirical studies examining the determinants
of luxury/masstige purchasing behavior and their influence are rather limited, especially
in the context of jewelry brands and products. The suggested models have neglected
the role of ‘reasons’ in the motivation mechanism. This study aims to address this gap
by examining the role of reasons and their interaction with values to explain the buying
behavior of masstige luxury products.

3. Conceptual Background and Hypotheses

In this section, the research model derived from BRT will be presented to examine
luxury product purchasing behavior. The proposed research model includes perceived
values, global motives, and intentions that predict the behavior, as well as the reasons
that lead consumers (not) to purchase. While perceived values, global motives, and inten-
tions are interconnected by mediating effect, reasons have a moderating effect between
perceived values and global motives. The proposed model is specifically designed for
luxury consumption, where the BRT and reasons have not been used before. The con-
cepts and relationships in the proposed model are explained in the context of masstige
luxury consumption.

3.1. Concepts
Before presenting the proposed research model, the concepts involved in this model
and their relationships will be explained.

3.1.1. Perceived Value

‘Value’, as one of the most common concepts in the social sciences, may take on
different meanings. In the field of marketing, the concept of value is regarded as one
of the key concepts in understanding and predicting consumer behavior [56]. Luxury
value perception and consumer motivation, which explain why consumers prefer certain
products and avoid some products in the constantly and dynamically growing luxury
consumption market, serve as guidelines for marketing decisions.
The perceived value of a luxury product is associated with the broad concept of luxury,
such as pleasure, rarity, high price, excellent quality, and aesthetic beauty. The luxury
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 7 of 33

product consumer aims to meet these needs by purchasing luxury products. Researchers
working in the field of luxury consumption have suggested different definitions of value.
According to Wiedmann et al. [57], luxury value lies in individual (such as self-identity,
hedonism, materialism) and social (such as prestige, conspicuousness) as well as in fi-
nancial (such as investment, price) and functional (such as usability, quality, uniqueness)
aspects. Vigneron and Johnson [58] identified five different perceived values that affect the
purchasing process of consumers seeking prestige: convenience value, uniqueness value,
social value, emotional value, and quality value. According to Shukla [59], the definition of
luxury value includes conspicuousness, prestige, hedonism, materialism, uniqueness, and
price–quality perception.
In this research study, perceived values were primarily adapted from Wiedmann
et al.’s [57] conceptual framework explaining consumers’ perception of luxury value. This
framework provides a basis for effectively establishing, promoting, and assessing luxury
brands or products across different cultures and is appropriate to reflect the cognitive
and emotional value aspects of the jewelry consumers based on industrial experience.
The perceived values used in this study include self-identity, hedonism, materialism,
conspicuous consumption, prestige, accessible price, and quality. Among these constructs,
accessible price was originally suggested in this study because of its importance in masstige
consumption, and the description of each value construct has been adapted to align with
the concept of masstige luxury. The descriptions of these perceived values are provided in
Appendix A.

3.1.2. Reason
Reasons are context-specific factors that individuals use to explain their predicted
behavior. People use reasons to make sense of the world as well as justify their behavioral
choices, which helps them to avoid feeling uncomfortable or inconsistent [11,14]. According
to BRT, when the individual has strong reasons for or against a behavior, he/she will form
positive or negative evaluations of this behavioral alternative. The theory also indicates
that the individual often favors the behavior with the largest set of verifiable and defensible
reasons [6].
Reasons are important factors that affect jewelry buying behavior. Positive reasons
can support, accelerate, and strengthen individuals’ decision to purchase jewelry, while
negative reasons can negatively affect and weaken their purchasing behavior. In this
study, only the factors that are assumed to positively affect jewelry purchasing behavior
are discussed to not complicate the structure of the research further and to focus on the
moderator effect of reasons.

3.1.3. Global Motives

Global motives basically include attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral
control factors. The first global motive attitude represents an individual’s favorable or
unfavorable assessment of the relevant behavior. It is based on the consequences that are
expected to be associated with the behavior [60].
Subjective norm indicates the perceived societal influences encouraging or discourag-
ing a specific behavior. It is rooted in the perceived normative expectations of important
referent individuals or social groups, like family, friends, relatives, co-workers, or experts
in the relevant field [60,61].
The third global motive is the perceived behavioral control, the level of control (such
as knowledge, ability) that individuals feel while performing a behavior [60,62]. It signifies
an individual’s confidence in one’s capability to perform a specific behavior, influenced
by one’s beliefs about the presence or absence of factors that aid or impede performing
the behavior. Individuals perceive that they have behavioral control if the resources and
opportunities they think they have are high and the difficulties they foresee are few [61].
It is worth noting that attitude, subjective norm, and behavioral control are assumed
to be conceptually independent of each other. However, the relationship between these
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 8 of 33

determinants is often not orthogonal [62]. All these antecedent factors play a mediating
role between values and intentions [62], which will be explained later in detail.

3.1.4. Intention
Intention, which is the main factor of behavioral intention models, is the level of the
individual’s desire and effort to exhibit a certain behavior. Strong intentions will increase
the likelihood of the behavior occurring [62]. While intention is the primary determinant of
behavior, it is influenced by global motives. In other words, intention acts as a mediator for
the impact of subjective norm, attitude, and perceived behavioral control on behavior [63].

3.2. Proposed Research Model and Hypotheses

The hypotheses presented in the research model have their foundations in behavioral
intention models and BRT. The two well-known behavioral intention models, namely
the Theory of Reasoned Action [64] and the Theory of Planned Behavior [65], have been
developed to understand the determinants of behavior. These models mainly assume
that behavior can be predicted by intentions, with global motives acting as predictors of
intentions and beliefs serving as important antecedents of global motives. As a relatively
new model of human behavior, BRT has been developed as an extension of these theories,
which additionally considers the role of reasons [6]. Specifically, reasons are modeled as
mediators between beliefs/values and global motives, where it is assumed that the way
individuals process their belief and value information directly influences the reasons they
provide for explaining their behavior. The details of the hypotheses and their relation to
these theories are explained in the following sections.

3.2.1. Perceived Values and Global Motives

Schwartz [66] claims that values act as fundamental guides in individuals’ choices
and assessments of behavioral options. Values are not objective assessments but rather
the subjective perception of a consumer regarding a specific brand or product [57]. Values,
unlike attitudes or beliefs, constitute an organized system and are usually regarded as
determinants of attitudes and behaviors [67].
According to behavioral intention models and BRT, perceived values are expected
to directly affect the global motives of consumers in their purchasing decisions [6]. This
proposition is also consistent with many psychological models.
According to the value-basis theory [68], attitudes are the result of a person’s more
general set of values (see H1a). Results of an empirical study by Schultz and Zelezny [67]
about predictors of environmental attitudes support the notion that values are linked with
specific attitudes. In a more recent empirical study based on BRT [69], it has also been
shown that environmental values that are in support of environmental protection have a
positive impact on consumers’ green consumption attitudes.
In the case of predicting subjective norm, the individual’s perceptions about specific
normative referents may be related to the person’s perceived values [6]. Several recent
empirical studies based on BRT ([70,71] among others) have also reported significant
findings supporting the impact of values on both subjective norm (see H1b) and behavioral
control (see H1c).
Research on luxury consumption has also shown that luxury values are important
predictors of attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norms [18,72]. For example,
Loureiro and Araújo [18] examined the influence of individual and social luxury values
on customer attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms, as well as how
these factors affect intentions to recommend and pay a premium for luxury clothing in the
Brazilian market. The results indicate that individual values positively affect intentions,
while social values positively influence subjective norms but negatively affect perceived
behavioral control.
In another conceptual study on luxury purchase behavior, Jain [72] proposed a con-
ceptual framework based on the Schwartz value theory and TPB. The discussion of the
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 9 of 33

relationships in this framework, which is based upon an extensive literature review, sup-
ports the link between values and global motives in luxury consumption.
Based on these well-established theories and research on luxury buying behavior, it
can be hypothesized that perceived values affect global motives.

Hypothesis 1. Perceived values positively affect global motives in jewelry purchasing behavior.

H1a. Perceived values positively affect attitude in jewelry purchasing behavior.

H1b. Perceived values positively affect subjective norm in jewelry purchasing behavior.

H1c. Perceived values positively affect perceived behavioral control in jewelry purchasing behavior.

3.2.2. Moderating Effect of Reasons

This study suggests that, depending on how they are conceptualized, reasons have the
potential to serve as moderators. Because of reasons’ multi-faceted influence on behavioral
processes, the role of reasons can be examined from different theoretical perspectives.
Previous studies on reason theory have investigated the motivational impact of reasons.
One of these studies analyzed the effect of the reasons’ salience manipulation on subsequent
behavior [73]. The research showed that context-specific factors (reasons) can overwhelm
values, which clarifies the inconsistency issue between values and behavior. In other words,
missing strong cognitive support (reasons) for values will reduce the impact of the values
on behavior. Other studies have examined the moderating role of reasons on the attitude–
behavior relationship [74,75]. These reason-based models generally hypothesize that an
individual forms a favorable evaluation of a certain option when he/she has strong reasons
aligned with his/her values and attitudes.
In a more recent theory by Westaby [6], reasons are assumed to mediate the relationship
between consumer beliefs and attitudes. In the same study, Westaby also examined the
interaction effect of beliefs and reasons on global motives and intention. However, no
significant results were obtained in the empirical study based on analysis of variance. Sahu
et al. [7] point out in their review of BRT that only a few studies have examined the impact
of moderating variables (especially for the relationship between values and attitudes),
indicating a significant research gap in the existing literature on this topic (see also [6,31]).
To partially address this gap, this research examines the moderating effect of reasons on
the relationship between values and global motives.
Another theoretical perspective useful in explaining the role of reasons is involvement
theory. Involvement as a motivational concept is related to personal values and needs [76].
Consumers are more likely to be cognitively engaged and to actively evaluate reasons for
high-involvement products [13]. Luxury goods, which are accepted as high-involvement
products due to their high price, rarity, and complicated nature, require detailed research
and knowledge [77]. The consumer is more likely to choose the decision alternative that is
supported by strong reasons and aligns with his/her values, as they guide the reasoning and
selection of decision alternatives. Reasons serve as context-specific factors that consumers
use to justify and defend their judgements or intentions that affect their behavior. The
interaction of strong reasons with personal values serves as a navigational tool in the
consumer’s decision-making journey, shaping their perceived control over the behavioral
outcomes associated with high-involvement product choices (see H2c). Consumers will be
cognitively engaged and feel more confident and comfortable when buying luxury goods.
Studies examining high-involvement products, including luxury goods, have used reasons
such as price promotion [77], sign value, and rewarding [78] as moderating variables.
It is essential to also address the conceptual difference between values and reasons
in order to provide justification for the moderating role of reasons. Values have a broad
scope and encompass various forms of thinking, whereas reasons specifically center on
the cognitive processes individuals employ to rationalize their behavior [6]. For example,
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 10 of 33

an individual who has never used jewelry to express herself or does not have hedonic
feelings for jewelry may buy a jewelry as a wedding gift for a friend or relative because
jewelry is a conventional gift for a wedding ceremony. In this example, the reason directly
influences the person’s decision, while values may not always be a factor in the person’s
decision (see also [14]). This suggests that consumers may engage in reasoning processes
rather than solely relying on intuitive motives and values. Therefore, reasons may not
necessarily come after perceived values temporally, as suggested in BRT (see also [17]).
For example, consumers who share identical values may develop different attitudes due
to their varying reasons for purchasing jewelry. In luxury consumption, the reasons are
generally based on traditions, social culture, and self; therefore, they are considered as
relatively consistent contextual variables (see [16]), making them promising candidates for
a potential moderating factor.
All the theories and models mentioned above have mainly examined the role of
reasons with respect to values and attitudes (see H2a). The moderating effect of reasons
regarding subjective norm and behavioral control has only been discussed by Westaby [6].
Therefore, this study aims to justify the moderating role of reasons between values and
attitudes both theoretically and empirically, while also exploring the moderating effects
between values and subjective norm as well as behavioral control.
It is worth noting that, depending on how the phenomenon is conceptualized and
studied, a variable may act as either a mediator or a moderator [79]. In some cases, it can
be mathematically shown that the same variable may function as both a mediator and a
moderator [80]. However, Karazsia and Berlin [81], along with other researchers, state that
it is inappropriate to simultaneously analyze the moderator and mediator effects of the
same concept assessed at the same time (see also the MacArthur approach). Hence, this
study does not compare competing models where the concept of ‘reason’ is proposed as
either a mediator or a moderator. Instead, it aims to provide insight into the moderator
role of the reason.
Consequently, reason may be regarded as a moderator if the relationship between
values and global motives varies significantly in terms of strength and/or direction across
various levels of the reason. The following hypotheses are proposed accordingly.

Hypothesis 2. Reasons moderate the relationship between perceived value and global motives in
the jewelry purchasing process.

H2a. Reasons moderate the relationship between perceived value and attitude in the jewelry
purchasing process.

H2b. Reasons moderate the relationship between perceived value and subjective norm in the jewelry
purchasing process.

H2c. Reasons moderate the relationship between perceived value and perceived behavioral control
in the jewelry purchasing process.

3.2.3. Global Motives and Intentions

One of the main objectives of behavioral intention models is the prediction of inten-
tions. Both TPB and BRT have demonstrated the antecedent nature of global motives and
their direct influence on intentions [6,62,82]. Research on luxury consumption has also
shown that attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control directly impact
intention [45,72].
In behavioral intention models, it is assumed that attitudes directly affect intentions in
the consumer’s decision-making process (see H3a). Empirical studies in different fields,
including luxury consumption, have supported this assumption [59]. As previously men-
tioned, purchasing luxury goods requires high involvement due to its characteristics, such
as high price, rarity, and complicated nature. Research on consumer choice behavior has
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 11 of 33

revealed a strong relationship between attitudes and purchasing decisions made regard-
ing complex or expensive products with high levels of involvement and motivation [83].
Among the global motives, attitude has the highest level of explanation of intention [84].
Perhaps there is a consensus in the literature that one of the significant factors that
can motivate consumers to purchase (masstige) luxury brands is the influence of referent
groups [85]. Social relations and social pressures have a considerable impact on luxury
consumption (see H3b). Apart from social recognition and acceptance within one’s salient
social environment [86], imitating famous people also supports luxury consumption. The
effort to resemble the upper class of society leads to luxury consumption. Moreover, when
purchasing luxury products, where it is difficult to objectively evaluate quality and style,
individuals tend to consider the opinions and thoughts of those they refer to. The social
impact is relatively higher in brand preferences for complex, expensive luxury products
that are rarely purchased and highly visible to others [87]. In a recent empirical study,
Zhang et al. [45] explored the factors influencing Chinese consumers’ purchase intentions
for luxury goods by extending the TPB. The findings indicate subjective norm had notable
and direct effects on consumers’ purchase intentions.
Luxury purchasing behavior, on the other hand, is a process where the consumer is
willing to spend money and time to search and obtain it [88]. This relates to the concept
of perceived behavioral control, which denotes an individual’s perception of how easy
or challenging it is to carry out the desired behavior [62,82]. In several studies on luxury
consumption, findings have revealed that the perceived behavioral control construct has
significant and direct influences on consumers’ purchase intentions (see H3c) ([45,89,90]
among others).
As explained above, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control
directly influence the consumer’s purchase intention. Hence, the following hypotheses
are proposed:

Hypothesis 3. Global motives positively affect intentions in the jewelry purchasing process.

H3a. Attitude positively affects intentions in the jewelry purchasing process.

H3b. Subjective norm positively affects intentions in the jewelry purchasing process.

H3c. Perceived behavioral control positively affects intentions in the jewelry purchasing process.

3.2.4. Reasons and Intentions

Unlike the previous behavioral intention models, BRT suggests that the ability to
predict intentions improves with the addition of reasons. Firstly, reasons activate the
justification and defense mechanisms, which were not addressed by the behavioral intention
models. Essentially, reasons can impact intention, as individuals tend to feel more confident
when they have reasons to justify their behavior, even if their global motives may not quite
align with their intentions. Secondly, further research has proven that there is a direct
relationship between context-specific factors and intention. Context-specific factors that
are ignored by traditional structures are captured through reasons. This finding aligns
with the theory proposed by Davis et al. [91], which suggests that not all connections
in behavioral intention models may become active in certain situations. Gigerenzer and
Goldstein’s [92] research has also shown that reason-based decision-making serves as a
shortcut for determining choices in real-life decision situations. Consequently, context-
specific reasons that the consumer develops to justify his/her jewelry purchasing behavior
and to justify his/her action may directly affect the intentions. The following hypothesis
is proposed:

Hypothesis 4. In the jewelry purchasing process, reasons directly affect intentions without
activating global motives.
 specific reasons that the consumer develops to justify his/her jewelry purchasing behavior
and to justify his/her action may directly affect the intentions. The following hypothesis is
proposed:

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 Hypothesis 4. In the jewelry purchasing process, reasons directly affect intentions without acti-
12 of 33
vating global motives.

The proposed research model and the corresponding hypotheses are presented in
The proposed research model and the corresponding hypotheses are presented in
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Figure 1. Proposed research model.

Figure 1. Proposed research model.
4. Methodology
4. Methodology
In order to examine the proposed model and test the hypotheses, a quantitative
In order
approach basedto examine the proposed
on PLS-SEM model using
was employed and test the hypotheses,
survey data on thea consumption
quantitative ap-
of
proach based
masstige brandson PLS-SEM was employed
in the jewelry market in using survey
Türkiye. Thedata onof
steps the consumption
the of mass-
empirical study are
tige brands
explained in in
thethe jewelrysections.
following market in Türkiye. The steps of the empirical study are ex-
plained in the following sections.
4.1. Measures
4.1. Measures
An online questionnaire was designed for the survey which consisted of two sections.
The first
An section of the questionnaire
online questionnaire involved for
was designed thethe
measurement of the
survey which latent constructs,
consisted where
of two sections.
respondents were instructed to consider their experience purchasing masstige jewelry.
The first section of the questionnaire involved the measurement of the latent constructs, The
second section of the questionnaire introduced the demographic questions, consisting
where respondents were instructed to consider their experience purchasing masstige jew- of
respondents’ gender, age, marital status, educational background, and occupation.
elry. The second section of the questionnaire introduced the demographic questions,
For the measurement of the constructs, common scales developed in the literature
were adapted by adding original items or modifying existing ones. All constructs except
reasons were measured using multiple-item scales. A 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), was used to rate the items.
The perceived value constructs and their indicators, tailored to the consumption of
masstige jewelry, were partially adapted from the scales developed by Wiedmann et al. [21],
Hennings et al. [52], Esmaeilpour [93], Park et al. [94], Shukla and Purani [86], Kim et al. [95],
and Doss and Robinson [96]. Table 1 presents these constructs and their corresponding indi-
cators. It is worth mentioning that two different applications are evident in the literature for
the measurement of perceived values and their incorporation into structural equation mod-
els. Either multidimensional scales (i.e., second-order measurement models) [18,21,56] are
used or perceived values are considered separately as single constructs (e.g., [52,86,97,98]).
The latter is preferred in this study to provide a more comprehensive and clear explana-
tion of the moderating effect (i.e., interaction effect of different combinations of values
and reasons).
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 13 of 33

Table 1. Perceived value dimensions and indicators.

Constructs Codes Indicators References

VSI1 Masstige jewelry reflects the characteristics by which a person defines oneself.
VSI2 Masstige jewelry helps one express oneself. Adapted from
Self-Identification
VSI3 Masstige jewelry helps a person to explain oneself to others. Wiedmann et al. [21], Shukla and Purani [86]
VSI4 The masstige jewelry worn gives an idea about the person.
VHE1 Wearing masstige jewelry gives happiness.
VHE2 Buying masstige jewelry is an exciting experience.
Adapted from
Hedonism VHE3 Wearing masstige jewelry is fun.
Wiedmann et al. [21], Shukla and Purani [86]
VHE4 Wearing masstige jewelry evokes good feelings.
VHE5 Wearing masstige jewelry makes you feel special.
VMA1 Masstige jewelry is a valuable tangible asset.
VMA2 Owning masstige jewelry is financially important to people.
Adapted from
Materialism VMA3 Masstige jewelry is an indicator of a financially successful life.
Wiedmann et al. [21], Kim et al. [95]
VMA4 Financially successful people wear masstige jewelry.
People owning masstige jewelry are appreciated in society because of their
VMA5
financial situation.
VCO1 Wearing masstige jewelry is a sign of high social status.
Conspicuous VCO2 Wearing masstige jewelry makes a strong impression on other people. Adapted from
Consumption VCO3 Wearing masstige jewelry helps to attract attention in the environment. Park et al. [94]
VCO4 Wearing masstige jewelry is a sign of belonging to an elite class.
VPS1 Wearing masstige jewelry strengthens one’s image.
VPS2 Wearing masstige jewelry earns respect. Adapted from
Prestige
VPS3 Masstige jewelry has a positive social image. Hennings et al. [52], Esmaeilpour [93]
VPS4 Wearing masstige jewelry leads to admiration by others.
VPR1 Masstige jewelry is worth the price paid.
VPR2 The price to pay for the masstige jewelry is reasonable. Adapted from
Accessible Price Hennings et al. [52]
VPR3 The value of the masstige jewelry is worth the price paid.
VPR4 The cost of the masstige jewelry is reasonable alongside the benefits to be gained.
VQU1 Masstige jewelry is durable.
VQU2 Masstige jewelry has attentive workmanship. Adapted from
Quality
VQU3 Masstige jewelry has original design. Doss et al. [96]
VQU4 Masstige jewelry has stones of high quality (properties).
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 14 of 33

Reasons serve as important determinants of jewelry buying behavior, though they have
not been used in the masstige marketing literature before. The scope of this study is limited
to reasons that positively influence purchasing behavior to avoid additional complexity
and focus on the moderator effect of reasons. As there has been insufficient research on
the reasons that drive masstige consumption, a group of fifteen experts with over ten
years of retail sales experience in the jewelry industry, specifically serving as jewelry store
managers, were interviewed in an open-ended session lasting 90 min to generate possible
reasons. They were requested to state the common reasons they frequently encountered that
influence the purchasing behavior of masstige jewelry. The top seven reasons considered in
this study are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Reasons.

Codes Indicators
To adhere to traditions (on special occasions such as proposals, engagements, and weddings) by
REA1
buying masstige jewelry.
REA2 To leave a beautiful memory/souvenir by buying masstige jewelry.
To buy masstige jewelry as a gift for special occasions such as Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day,
REA3
birthdays, promotion, and retirement.
REA4 To make an investment by buying masstige jewelry.
REA5 To reward oneself by buying masstige jewelry.
REA6 To benefit from of a campaign or promotion by buying masstige jewelry.
REA7 To express emotions (with symbolic signs) through buying masstige jewelry.

Note that instead of using a multi-item scale for Reason, each reason is handled
as a single item to allow for a more comprehensive and detailed examination of the
moderating role of reasons. To accomplish this, submodels representing various value–
reason combinations are formed and analyzed, the details of which are presented in
Section 5. Using single-item measures for reasons is not an uncommon practice (cf. [18,99]).
As Westaby [6] argues, high reliability among reasons is not theoretically necessary in BRT,
since individuals are likely to demonstrate significant diversity in their evaluations of the
various reasons contributing to their behavior. Thus, each reason item will be considered
separately in the model.
Indicators for measuring attitude towards jewelry purchase, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control (see Table 3) were adapted from the scales proposed by
Loureiro and Araújo [18], Cheng et al. [100], Das [101], and Esmaeilpour [93], which were
specifically designed for the luxury market.

Table 3. Indicators suggested for global motives.

Constructs Codes Indicators References

GMAT1 I find it tempting to buy masstige jewelry.
Adapted from
GMAT2 I like to buy masstige jewelry.
Attitude Cheng et al. [100], Das [101],
GMAT3 I think positively about buying masstige jewelry.
Esmaeilpour [93]
GMAT4 I find masstige jewelry attractive.
When buying masstige jewelry, the opinion of my social
GMSN1
environment is important for me. Adapted from
My friends and family also approve of my masstige Cheng et al. [100], Loureiro and
Subjective Norm GMSN2
jewelry purchase. Araújo [18]
GMSN3 Many of my friends also buy masstige jewelry.
The fact that people I like/admire wear jewelry affects
GMSN4
my masstige jewelry purchase.
GMPC1 I feel comfortable buying masstige jewelry.
Perceived Behavioral GMPC2 I have sufficient knowledge about masstige jewels. Adapted from
Control GMPC3 I do not feel uneasy when buying masstige jewelry. Loureiro and Araújo [18]
GMPC4 I feel confident when buying masstige jewelry.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 15 of 33

Finally, indicators related to intentions towards jewelry purchase (see Table 4) were
adapted from Loureiro and Araújo [18], Zhang et al. [102], and Fishbein [103].

Table 4. Indicators suggested for intentions.

Construct Codes Indicators References

Intentions INT1 I will recommend that others buy masstige jewelry as well.
Adapted from
INT2 I am thinking of purchasing masstige jewelry in the future.
Loureiro and Araújo [18], Zhang
INT3 I will advise my clients to buy masstige jewelry.
et al. [102], Fishbein [103]
INT4 I want to buy masstige jewelry.

4.2. Sample and Data Collection

As mentioned above, an online survey was conducted using a self-administered
questionnaire. Before the full-scale survey was launched, a pretest was performed with
27 respondents to check the wording, length, and consistency of the questionnaire, which
may have affected the reliability and validity of the study. Accordingly, the wording of
eight items were slightly modified.
Following the revision of the questionnaire, the full-scale survey was conducted to
examine the factors that influence the purchasing decisions of consumers who had bought
jewelry (including diamond necklaces, rings, bracelets, and earrings) from the leading three
masstige jewelry retail chains in Turkey within the last twelve months. To increase the
representativeness of the survey, the data were collected from consumers who visited one of
the 109 masstige jewelry stores located in the 16 cities with the highest jewelry consumption
statistics [104]. While visiting the store, these consumers were given a link to the online
questionnaire and asked if they would be willing to complete it. A total of 321 responses
were received in one month, starting from June 2022. It was ensured that the number of
respondents from each city was roughly proportional to the number of stores situated in
that city. After excluding incomplete and inconsistent responses, 295 questionnaires were
available for analysis. The sample size was considered adequate (to achieve a statistical
power of 80% for detecting R2 values of at least 0.10 with a 5% significance level) and met
the minimum sample size requirements for PLS-SEM as recommended by Cohen [105],
Kock and Hadaya [106], and Hair et al. [107].

5. Analysis
5.1. Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive statistics presented in Table 5 describe the demographic characteristics,
including gender, marital status, age, educational background, and employment status, of
the 295 masstige jewelry consumers who participated in the survey. The survey data show
that the majority of participants were female (65.1%), married (69.5%), and aged between 30
and 44 years (60.9%). A significant portion had university degrees (77.6%), and most were
employed (77.6%). Some respondents did not disclose certain demographic information.

5.2. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

In this study, PLS-SEM is used, which enables the modeling of both observable in-
dicators and latent variables within a relational and causal framework. PLS-SEM offers
an effective estimation technique for simultaneously analyzing a set of distinct multiple
regression equations [108]. The aim is to maximize the amount of variance explained in
the dependent latent constructs. This approach is considered a good alternative to the
covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), as it overcomes various limiting assumptions. For in-
stance, CB-SEM lacks the ability to yield consistent solutions when the distributions of
the indicators deviate from normality. Furthermore, when the size of the sample is not
sufficiently large, CB-SEM may either produce invalid outcomes or fail to converge [109].
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 16 of 33

Table 5. Demographic characteristics of participants.

Description Ratio (%) Sample Size

Female 65.1 192
Gender Male 32.2 95
Not Mentioned 2.7 8
Married 69.5 205
Marital Status Not Married 28.1 83
Not Mentioned 2.4 7
Under 24 4.4 13
25–29 15.6 46
30–34 20.7 61
35–39 21.6 64
Age 40–44 18.6 55
45–49 12.9 38
50–59 4.4 13
60–69 1.0 3
Not Mentioned 0.8 2
Primary School 1.3 4
High School 20.3 60
Educational
Graduate 55.9 165
Background
Post Graduate 21.7 64
Not Mentioned 0.6 2
Employed 77.6 229
Employment Unemployed 18.7 55
Not Mentioned 3.7 11

To check whether the indicators were normally distributed, Shapiro–Wilk, Anderson–

Darling, and Jarque–Bera tests were performed. The majority of the indicators did not
meet the normality assumption, even after applying Box–Cox transformations. In addition,
the sufficiency of the sample size was checked by examining the ratio of observations to
estimated parameters. The results indicate a ratio slightly below 10:1. While there is no
single universally accepted rule, the ratio appears to be below the threshold commonly
considered as safe (see [110–112]). Since PLS-SEM provides accurate predictions even in
situations where the sample size is small, the model contains many latent and indicator
variables, and the indicators do not follow a normal distribution [107], the collected data
were analyzed using PLS-SEM via SmartPLS 3.0 software.

5.3. Submodel Analyses and Moderator Effect

In this empirical study, submodels were created to assess the impact of context-specific
reasons on the value–global motives relationship in the masstige jewelry purchase process.
These submodels were carefully selected based on the relevance of the reasons to the
value–global motives relationship (see Table 6). For the evaluation of the measurement
and structural models, one of these submodels, which focuses on the value ‘Hedonism’
(VHE) and the reason ‘to express emotions’ (REA7), will be thoroughly examined. Later, a
summary of the results from the remaining submodels will also be presented to provide
a more complete understanding of how well the hypothesized model structure fits the
empirical data. In other words, the aim was not to compare these submodels; rather, it
was to investigate whether the suggested hypotheses (H1–H4) found support or not across
various combinations of values and reasons.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 17 of 33

Table 6. Submodels.

Reason
Value REA1 REA2 REA3 REA4 REA5 REA6 REA7
Self-
VSI +
identity
VHE Hedonism + + + +
VMA Materialism + +
VCO Conspicuousness + +
VPS Prestige +
Accessible
VPR + +
Price
VQU Quality + +

5.3.1. Measurement Model

Measurement models, referred to as outer models within the context of PLS-SEM,
represent the relationships between latent constructs and the corresponding indicator vari-
ables associated with them [113]. The study employed a reflective modeling approach
to represent the latent variables, and the reflective measurement models were assessed
using various metrics, including ‘Cronbach’s alpha’, ‘composite reliability’, ‘outer load-
ings’, ‘average variance extracted (AVE)’, and ‘heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT)’. Recent
research provides evidence indicating that the widely used Fornell–Larcker criterion shows
a relatively limited ability to detect issues concerning discriminant validity [114]. Therefore,
this criterion will not be reported in this study.

Outer Loadings
Despite following a regression-based approach, PLS-SEM is considered nonparamet-
ric and does not necessitate normal data distribution. This characteristic allows for the
utilization of the non-parametric iterative sampling method known as bootstrapping. Boot-
strapping is employed to determine the significance of the outer loadings. A critical t-value
of 1.96, which indicates 5% significance level, was taken as the basis when evaluating the
significance of the indicators. In the examined submodel, outer loadings of all indicators
were found statistically significant (see Table 7).

Table 7. Outer loadings and t-values of the indicators of the submodel VHE–REA1.

Code Indicators Outer Loadings t-Values

VHE VHE1 0.826 51.149
VHE2 0.811 62.660
VHE3 0.889 107.907
VHE4 0.872 68.803
VHE5 0.750 34.698
GMAT GMAT1 0.898 116.448
GMAT2 0.901 115.653
GMAT3 0.908 113.271
GMAT4 0.818 50.692
GMSN GMSN1 0.520 15.431
GMSN2 0.796 60.381
GMSN3 0.787 48.777
GMSN4 0.741 39.750
GMPC GMPC1 0.785 50.387
GMPC2 0.676 30.532
GMPC3 0.829 56.584
GMPC4 0.871 64.781
INT INT1 0.870 90.007
INT2 0.861 67.282
INT3 0.884 99.531
INT4 0.896 105.005
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 18 of 33

A high outer loading on a latent variable (i.e., a high indicator reliability) indicates
that the corresponding indicators share a considerable amount of common information
captured by the latent construct. In most cases, a threshold of 0.70 is considered acceptable.
Indicators with outer loadings ranging from 0.40 to 0.70 should be omitted from the scale
only if removing them leads to an improvement in composite reliability. Only the outer
loadings of GMPC2 and GMSN1 were less than 0.70, with the values 0.676 and 0.520,
respectively (see Table 7). Since removing these indicators did not lead to improvements in
the AVE and composite reliability values, they were consequently retained in the model.
The remaining indicators demonstrate a strong association with the latent variable they are
intended to measure.

Internal Consistency Reliability

The Cronbach’s alpha values obtained to examine the internal consistency reliability
of the latent constructs in the submodel all exceeded the acceptable threshold value of
0.70 [113], except for the subjective norm (GMSN) construct. Nevertheless, the subjective
norm remained at an acceptable level with a value of 0.69, just slightly below the threshold.
Table 8 provides the construct reliability values for the submodel, including the moderator
effects (i.e., MOD: REA7 × VHE).

Table 8. Construct reliability and convergent validity.

Construct Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability AVE

VHE 0.887 0.917 0.690
GMAT 0.904 0.933 0.778
GMSN 0.690 0.808 0.518
GMPC 0.801 0.871 0.630
INT 0.901 0.931 0.771
MOD1 * 0.890 0.898 0.642
MOD2 ** 0.890 0.918 0.693
MOD3 *** 0.890 0.915 0.630
*: between VHE and GMAT; **: between VHE and GMSN; ***: between VHE and GMPC.

Because of the weaknesses of Cronbach’s alpha reported in the literature (see [115]),
the “composite reliability” metric is employed as an alternative for evaluating the internal
consistency [113]. According to Hair et al. [113], composite reliability values ranging from
0.70 to 0.90 are considered satisfactory. In the submodel, composite reliability values ranged
from 0.80 to 0.93 and were regarded as acceptable (see Table 8).
Note that the construct reliability and convergent validity values of the single-item
REA7 are all 1.00. This cannot be regarded as evidence that the measurement of REA7 is
completely reliable.

Convergent Validity
To ensure convergent validity, the external loadings of the indicators (as mentioned
earlier) and the average variance extracted (AVE) were assessed. An AVE value of 0.50 or
higher is required for convergent validity [116]. In the submodel, the AVE values were
found to be higher than 0.50, indicating that the latent variable explains more than half of
the variance observed in its corresponding indicators (see Table 8).

Discriminant Validity
To assess the discriminant validity of the latent constructs, HTMT [117] was used.
Henseler et al. [117] propose a threshold of 0.90 for structural models that involve highly
similar latent variables. A value close to or greater than 1 suggests potential issues with
discriminant validity [109]. The HTMT values of the constructs in the considered submodel
are given in Table 9. All HTMT values, except for the one between the constructs GMAT
and INT, are close to or less than 0.90. As no HTMT values are near to or greater than 1, it
can be concluded that discriminant validity has been achieved.
 Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 19 of 33

Table 9. HTMT values of the submodel.

GMAT GMPC GMSN VHE INT REA7

GMPC 0.805
GMSN 0.860 0.838
VHE 0.907 0.741 0.794
INT 0.942 0.903 0.902 0.878
REA7 0.440 0.464 0.448 0.444 0.534
REA7 × VHE 0.350 0.275 0.278 0.466 0.386 0.386

5.3.2. Structural Model

Once the reliability and validity of the measurement models have been established,
the subsequent step involves analyzing the structural model to assess the degree of em-
pirical support for the hypotheses and the underlying theory. This evaluation entails
analyzing the explanatory capabilities of the model and examining the relationships among
latent variables [113]. The commonly used evaluation criteria encompass path coefficients,
significance values obtained through bootstrapping, and coefficients of determination [109].

Significance and Relevance of the Structural Model Relationships

First, bootstrapping was employed to determine the significance of the path coeffi-
cients. In this empirical research study, 10,000 resamples were created for the calculation of
t-statistics for all relationships defined in the submodel. The t-statistics computed for all
path coefficients, including the moderator effect, exceeded 2.58, indicating that all relation-
ships between latent variables differ from zero at a 1% significance level (see Figure 2). More
specifically, the analysis of the submodel yielded a t-value of 4.126 for the path linking the
interaction term (MOD1) and GMAT, a t-value of 4.626 for the path linking the interaction
term (MOD2) and GMSN, and a t-value of 4.516 for the path linking the interaction
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of term
34
(MOD1) and GMPC. It can be concluded that REA7 has a significant moderating effect on
the relationships between hedonism and the three global motive constructs.

Figure 2. The standardized coefficients and t-statistics of the submodel, with moderator effect of the
Figure 2. The standardized coefficients and t-statistics of the submodel, with moderator effect of the
reason REA7 on the relationship between hedonism and global motives.
reason REA7 on the relationship between hedonism and global motives.
The next concern is with the direction and size of the path coefficients as well as
theThe nextsizes
effect concern
( f 2 ). isPositive
with therelationships
direction and sizelarge
with of theeffect
path sizes
coefficients asCohen’s
(refer to well as the
[118]
effect sizes (𝑓 ). Positive relationships with large effect sizes (refer to Cohen’s [118] defi-
nition) were found between hedonism and global motives (see Figure 2). To be more pre-
cise, an individual having hedonistic tendencies (VHE) feels the pleasure of buying and
wearing jewelry, and this is reflected in his/her attitude towards purchasing (GMAT) (β =
0.779, p ≤ 0.01, 𝑓 = 1.574), which in turn influences his/her purchase intention (INT) (β =
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 20 of 33

definition) were found between hedonism and global motives (see Figure 2). To be more
precise, an individual having hedonistic tendencies (VHE) feels the pleasure of buying
and wearing jewelry, and this is reflected in his/her attitude towards purchasing (GMAT)
(β = 0.779, p ≤ 0.01, f 2 = 1.574), which in turn influences his/her purchase intention (INT)
(β = 0.501, p ≤ 0.01, f 2 = 0.545). Moreover, emotional reactions arising from buying masstige
jewelry products (VHE) have a positive influence on the social pressure to purchase (GMSN)
and the sense of control over the purchase behavior (GMPC) (β = 0.592, p ≤ 0.01, f 2 = 0.517;
β = 0.560, p ≤ 0.01, f 2 = 0.468, respectively). A lower but significant impact was found on
purchase intention from subjective norm (β = 0.167, p ≤ 0.01, f 2 = 0.066) and perceived
behavioral control (β = 0.262, p ≤ 0.01, f 2 = 0.167). It was also observed that the path
coefficients from REA7 to purchase intention were significant and positive with a small
effect size (β = 0.125, p ≤ 0.01, f 2 = 0.066).
Examining the path coefficients of the moderating effects demonstrates a positive
influence of the interaction term on GMAT (β = 0.081, p ≤ 0.01), GMSN (β = 0.088, p ≤ 0.01),
and GMPC (β = 0.100, p ≤ 0.01) (see Figure 2). These results suggest that for higher levels
of REA7, the relationship between hedonism and global motives increases by the size of
the interaction term. For example, when REA7 is increased by one standard deviation unit,
the relationship between hedonism and GMAT becomes 0.779 + 0.081 = 0.860, while it
becomes 0.779 − 0.081 = 0.698 when REA7 is decreased by one standard deviation point.
The effect sizes of the interaction terms MOD1, MOD2, and MOD3 were found to be 0.028,
0.018, and 0.024, respectively. Based on Kenny’s [119] findings for interaction terms, the
values suggest a moderate effect size. The results provide strong evidence that REA7 has a
significant and positive impact on the relationship between hedonism and global motives.

Coefficient of Determination (R2 Value)

The coefficient of determination, R2 , serves as a metric to assess the explanatory power
of the model. When comparing models with varying numbers of explanatory variables,
using the adjusted R2 metric is recommended [113,120]. The R2 values of the submodel
are given in Figure 2. As seen in the figure, the R2 values of global motives and intention
vary from 0.442 to 0.814, which indicates moderate to high levels of explanation of the
latent variables.
As the primary interest lies in the moderator effect, an additional PLS-SEM analysis
was performed, excluding the moderator variable, and subsequently compared to the
original model (including the moderator variable). The results demonstrate notable dif-
ferences in the goodness-of-fit measures between the two models. The adjusted R2 values
of the attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in the model with the
moderator variable (0.682, 0.441, and 0.446, respectively) are slightly higher compared
to the model without the moderator (0.667, 0.419, and 0.407, respectively). This implies
that for higher levels of the reason ‘to express emotions’ (REA7), individuals may be more
influenced by hedonistic tendencies when forming attitudes, social norms, and beliefs
about their ability to control their behavior in a given situation. On the other hand, those
with lower REA7 might be less affected by hedonism in these aspects.
Further model fit measures (SRMR, NFI, and RMSTheta ) are provided in Appendix B.

5.4. Findings
The findings suggest that the inclusion of REA7 as a moderator improved the model’s
explanatory power, supporting the hypothesis that reasons indeed moderate the relation-
ships between values and global motives. Consequently, as indicated in Table 10, all
hypotheses within the examined submodel were supported.
Examining the results of the remaining submodels revealed similar findings for most
of the value–reason combinations. The path coefficient estimates, t, and R2 values for each
submodel can be found in Appendix C. In order to draw general conclusions about the
proposed hypotheses, the results from all submodels were taken into account.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 21 of 33

Table 10. Hypothesis testing for the VHE-REA7 submodel.

Hypothesis β p-Value Decision

Perceived values positively affect global motives in jewelry
H1
purchasing behavior.
Perceived values positively affect attitude in jewelry
H1a 0.779 <0.01 Supported
purchasing behavior.
Perceived values positively affect subjective norm in jewelry
H1b 0.592 <0.01 Supported
purchasing behavior.
Perceived values positively affect perceived behavioral
H1c 0.560 <0.01 Supported
control in jewelry purchasing behavior.
Reasons moderate the relationship between perceived value
H2
and global motives in the jewelry purchasing process.
Reasons moderate the relationship between perceived value
H2a 0.081 <0.01 Supported
and attitude in the jewelry purchasing process.
Reasons moderate the relationship between perceived value
H2b 0.088 <0.01 Supported
and subjective norm in the jewelry purchasing process.
Reasons moderate the relationship between perceived value
H2c and perceived behavioral control in the jewelry purchasing 0.100 <0.01 Supported
process.
Global motives positively affect intentions in the jewelry
H3
purchasing process.
Attitude positively affects intentions in the jewelry
H3a 0.501 <0.01 Supported
purchasing process.
Subjective norm positively affects intentions in the jewelry
H3b 0.167 <0.01 Supported
purchasing process.
Perceived behavioral control positively affects intentions in
H3c 0.262 <0.01 Supported
the jewelry purchasing process.
In the jewelry purchasing process, reasons directly affect
H4 0.125 <0.01 Supported
intentions without activating global motives.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that perceived values in jewelry buying behavior directly and
positively influence global motives without the need for a causal intermediary. In the
empirical study, it was observed that the path coefficients from values to global motives
were statistically significant in all submodels, ranging from 0.186 to 0.779 for attitude,
from 0.409 to 0.626 for subjective norm, and from 0.201 to 0.638 for perceived behavioral
control (see Appendix C). These findings provide support for the hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c
(see Table 11), indicating that perceived values indeed have a significant and considerable
impact on global motives and are consistent with prior research.

Table 11. Hypotheses testing results of all submodels.

VSI- VHE- VHE- VHE- VHE- VMA- VMA- VCO- VCO- VPS- VPR- VPR- VQU- VQU-
Overall
REA7 REA1 REA3 REA5 REA7 REA4 REA6 REA1 REA2 REA1 REA4 REA6 REA1 REA2
H1a S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
H1b S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
H1c S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
H2a NS S S S S NS S NS S NS S S S S PS
H2b NS S NS S S S NS S NS S S NS S S PS
H2c NS S S S S S S S S S S S S S PS
H3a S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
H3b S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
H3c S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
H4 S S S S S S S S NS S S S S NS PS
S: supported, PS: partially supported, NS: not supported.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that the reason involved in the process of purchasing jewelry
would act as a moderator, influencing the relationship between perceived value and global
motives. It was assumed that the moderator effect would offer a more comprehensive
explanation of global motives. The obtained adjusted R2 values pointed to enhanced expla-
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 22 of 33

nations of global motives and intention through the moderator effect, with an improvement
ranging from 1 to 33% (see Appendix C). However, the empirical tests only partially sup-
ported Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c (see Table 11). While most of the submodels produced
results in favor of the hypothesis, there were three submodels where this was not observed.
The combinations of materialism (VMA) and accessible price (VPR) with the reason ‘to
take advantage of a campaign or promotion’ (REA6) yielded negative moderating effects
for each global motive construct. This will be discussed in more detail later in the conclu-
sion section. VSI-REA7 is another combination where the hypothesis was not supported
and all moderator effects turned out to be insignificant (see Table 11). Moreover, within
five submodels (VHE-REA3, VMA-REA4, VCO-REA1, VCO-REA2, and VPS-REA1), an
insignificant moderator effect was obtained for one of the global motive constructs (either
attitude or subjective norm).
Hypothesis 3 posited that global motives have a positive influence on intentions
within the context of jewelry purchasing. The empirical study revealed that the R2 value of
intention exceeded 0.80 in all submodels, indicating a high level of explanatory power of
intentions by global motives. Additionally, the t-statistics of the path coefficients from global
motives to intention exceeded 2.58, indicating that all path coefficients were statistically
significant at the 1% significance level (see Appendix C). Based on these findings, the
hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c suggesting a positive relationship between global motives and
intention were supported, and this result is in line with past models.
Hypothesis 4 suggests that in the masstige jewelry buying process, reasons can directly
affect intentions without involving global motives. Upon examining the results of the
empirical analysis of the submodels, it was observed that the path coefficient representing
the direct effect of the reason on intention varies between 0.030 and 0.170. Furthermore,
except for two submodels (VCO-REA2 and VQU-REA2), the t-values of the coefficients
were higher than 1.96, indicating that the path coefficients significantly differed from zero at
the 5% significance level (see Appendix C). These findings provide support for Hypothesis
4, indicating that reasons indeed have a direct influence on the intention to purchase
masstige jewelry and are consistent with BRT (Westaby, 2005 [6]).

6. Discussion and Implications

Below, a discussion of the findings is presented, along with their theoretical and
practical implications.

6.1. Implications for Research

This study proposed a new model derived from BRT to examine the purchasing behav-
ior of masstige jewelry. The suggested model offers a more comprehensive understanding
of the determinants of purchasing masstige products by considering values and reasons
in addition to the global motives and intention. Different from the original behavioral
reasoning perspective, this study examined, for the first time, the moderating role of rea-
sons. Reasons were considered as relatively consistent contextual variables, making them
promising candidates for a potential moderating factor. The study explored how reasons
may strengthen or weaken the impact of perceived values on global motives. It has been
shown that, depending on how they are conceptualized, reasons have the potential to not
only serve as mediators (as suggested in the literature) but also as moderators. As argued
by Karazsia and Berlin [81], examining both the moderator and mediator effects of the
same concept simultaneously is inappropriate. Therefore, any comparison of models in
which the concept of ‘reason’ is introduced as a mediator in one and as a moderator in the
other is avoided in this study.
The results of the empirical study demonstrate notable differences in the goodness-
of-fit measures between the moderated and non-moderated models. Specifically, the
moderator effect of the reasons contributed to enhanced explanations of global motives and
intention, with an improvement ranging from 1 to 33% within the analyzed submodels. All
submodels except for two yielded positive moderating effects with reasonable effect sizes
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 23 of 33

for each global motive construct. Nevertheless, not all submodels yielded significant results
in terms of the moderator effect. Therefore, the empirical tests only partially supported the
hypotheses regarding the moderating effect.
When these findings are compared with related studies in the literature, there are both
consistent and conflicting pieces of evidence. In his experimental analysis, Westaby (2005)
examined BRT within the framework of employee turnover and relocation choices. He
conducted an analysis employing ANOVA, which did not reveal any interaction effect (i.e.,
reason × belief) on global motives and intention. In our study, however, the moderating
effect of reasons on the relationship between values and global motives (H2) has been
observed to be significant across the majority of the submodels. The difference in statistical
methods and items used, as well as the problem domain, may have an impact on the
results. In this particular study, the outcomes also revealed that attitude exerted the most
pronounced impact on intentions [6]. This finding aligns with Ajzen’s [62] assertion that
attitudes consistently serve as robust predictors of intentions across various behaviors. In
our study, we also arrived at the same finding.
In another related study based on TPB, Loureiro and Araújo [18] investigated the
relationship between values and global motives (H1) within luxury marketing, employing
Wiedmann’s perceived value constructs. Their findings indicate that values serve as sig-
nificant predictors of global motives. They categorized value dimensions into individual
and social values, differing from the present research study. Their analysis revealed that
individual luxury values significantly predict attitude, behavioral control, and subjective
norms, while social values appear to exert a positive and significant influence on subjec-
tive norms and a negative impact on behavioral control. Specifically, the prestige value,
categorized under social values in their study, demonstrated a negative effect on perceived
behavioral control. However, contrary to their findings, in our study, the prestige value did
not exhibit a negative impact on perceived behavioral control.
Also, the findings obtained in the empirical studies conducted by Tani et al. [70] and
Tani et al. [71] are in line with our findings for hypothesis H1.
The remaining relationships (i.e., hypotheses H3 and H4) that have already been
supported in the literature (e.g., Westaby [6]; Loureiro and Araújo [18]; Tani et al. [70]; Tani
et al. [71]) were also supported in our empirical study, which is an important indicator for
the reliability and validity of the study.
Overall, the results indicate that introducing reasons as moderators in the model
significantly enhances the understanding of global motives and intention, with positive
moderating effects observed in the majority of submodels. Despite some inconsistencies
with prior studies, the empirical findings are generally in line with the theories (reason
theory, behavioral intention models, BRT, involvement theory, and value–basis theory) the
hypotheses are based on. By examining the moderating effect of reasons on the relationship
between perceived values and global motives, this study further extends the existing
frameworks theoretically and offers a key contribution to the theory.

6.2. Implications for Practice

The empirical study relies on survey data concerning the consumption of masstige
brands in the jewelry market in Türkiye, which has experienced a rapid growth over the
past two decades. The current findings provide valuable insights into masstige jewelry
purchasing behavior for marketers.
Understanding consumers’ luxury value perception and reasons for luxury consump-
tion provides a better understanding of why they decide to purchase or avoid masstige
goods. According to the descriptive results (mean), the values of hedonism (5.540) and
quality (5.468) were rated the highest by consumers, implying that marketers should ad-
dress the challenge of managing the balance between the quality, pleasure, and accessibility
of their masstige brands (cf. [5]). The following most highly rated perceived values were
self-identity (4.678) and materialism (4.626). Masstige luxury values closely align with
traditional luxury values. Studies on traditional luxury values highlight hedonism [18],
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 24 of 33

quality [121], self-identity, materialism [18], and prestige [21,122] as primary influencers
of global motives, mirroring the first five masstige luxury values identified in this study.
These parallel findings suggest that masstige consumers share comparable values and
perceptions with their traditional luxury counterparts.
The lower ratings for prestige and conspicuous consumption values among masstige
consumers indicate that masstige jewelry is not perceived as prestigious as traditional
high-end jewelry.
Price holds significance for traditional luxury consumers as a crucial luxury value [21,122],
enhancing the desirability of luxury goods [86]. In the traditional luxury market, there is a
greater desirability for high-priced goods, whereas in the masstige market, goods with an
accessible price are less coveted.
In addition, the results reveal that ‘leaving a beautiful memory/souvenir’ (5.998), ‘ad-
hering to traditions’ (5.732), and ‘buying a gift for special occasions’ (5.336) were among the
highest-rated reasons. These findings suggest that marketers should align their marketing
strategies with these socially oriented reasons. Given the importance Turkish individ-
uals place on traditional matters, such as ‘adhere to traditions’ and ‘leave a beautiful
memory/souvenir’, these factors serve as crucial reasons.
The findings also show that while the attitudes, perceived norms, and perceived
behavioral control of the consumers were partially explained by their values, the level of
explanation improved when considering the moderating effect of reasons. In other words,
for higher levels of the reasons, individuals were more influenced by luxury values when
forming their global motives in purchasing masstige jewelry. This suggests that marketers
can influence consumers with different values to buy for reasons that are relevant to
their values. For example, in the submodel where pleasure and excitement arising from
purchasing and wearing jewelry products were examined, it was observed that this value
was reflected in the consumers’ global motives. If the consumer needs to buy a gift for
a special occasion, this reason strengthens the influence of hedonistic satisfaction on her
attitude toward and comfort in buying masstige jewelry. Marketers can use this information
to their advantage by creating ads that associate these items with the hedonistic pleasure of
celebration and emotional connection. This can help to encourage consumers who place a
high value on pleasure to purchase and wear masstige jewelry when they have a special
occasion coming up. Similar suggestions can be made for the reasons ‘adhere to traditions’,
‘reward oneself’, and ‘express emotions’ in combination with hedonistic satisfaction.
In another submodel, the reason ‘adhere to traditions’ served as a significant moderator
between both the values of quality and conspicuousness and the global motive of subjective
norm. This indicates that people who value tradition are more likely to be influenced
by the social pressure to purchase masstige jewelry that will make the individual stand
out from the crowd. Moreover, it was observed that the attitude and purchasing comfort
of a consumer who cares about quality and conspicuousness are strengthened by the
moderating variable ‘to leave a beautiful memory/souvenir’. The consumer wants to make
every moment unforgettable and leave a lasting impression with quality masstige jewelry.
On the other hand, the combinations of materialism (VMA) and accessible price (VPR)
with the reason ‘to take advantage of a campaign or promotion’ (REA6) yielded negative
moderating effects for each global motive construct.
While masstige jewelry also holds considerable monetary value, materialism ranked as
the fourth highest perceived value of masstige jewelry consumers in Türkiye. Materialistic
individuals view jewelry as a sign of financial success, and when individuals with lower
income can also access the same product during promotions, it becomes less appealing
to them because it diminishes their uniqueness and no longer sets them apart from the
general population. A similar phenomenon can be observed for the value of accessible
price. When a product that was once considered prestigious or exclusive becomes widely
available through campaigns or promotions, it loses its allure as a status symbol or marker
of distinction. As more individuals can afford the product, it diminishes its ability to signal
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 25 of 33

a higher social or financial standing (see also [52]). All these findings provide valuable
insights for marketers in developing their communication strategies.

7. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

In this study, the moderator effect of reasons on the relationship between values and
global motives was empirically examined for the masstige jewelry market in Türkiye. The
contributions of this study can be summarized as follows:
• A new model derived from BRT was introduced that offers a more comprehensive
understanding of the purchasing behavior of masstige products by considering values
and reasons in addition to the global motives and intention.
• By analyzing consumer behavior in the growing masstige luxury market in Türkiye,
particularly in the jewelry segment, the study contributed to the literature, where
research is very limited.
• This study, for the first time, examined the moderating role of reasons and thereby
extended the existing frameworks theoretically and offered a key contribution to BRT.
• There is limited research on the values that underlie luxury consumption, and no
studies have specifically addressed reasons. This empirical study identified values
and reasons that play a crucial role in purchasing masstige jewelry.
• The study employed statistical modeling to empirically test the proposed model using
survey data on the consumption of masstige brands in the jewelry market in Türkiye,
which has experienced rapid growth. The findings provide valuable insights into
masstige jewelry purchasing behavior for both managers and researchers.
There are also some limitations and potential future directions that should be acknowl-
edged. In a few submodels, the hypotheses related to the moderator impact were only
partially supported. While this suggests some level of generalizability within the context
of the masstige jewelry market in Türkiye, it is important to consider its limitations. In
other words, generalizing these results to other luxury markets or regions may not be
appropriate, as consumer behavior and market dynamics can vary significantly. Further
research and replication studies in different contexts would be necessary to determine the
broader applicability of the results.
As another limitation of this study, only reasons ‘for’ buying masstige jewelry were
considered in the empirical analysis, despite the fact that BRT distinguishes between
reasons ‘for’ and ‘against’ engaging in a behavior. Therefore, the effect of reasons against
buying masstige jewelry, such as ‘economic instability’, ‘quality concerns’, and ‘lack of
uniqueness’, can be investigated in future research.
Moreover, each reason was considered as a single-item measure in the PLS-SEM.
Therefore, developing and validating a multi-item measurement scale for reasons will be
another topic for further research.
Research has shown that past behavior is often directly predictive of future behavior
without the need for components of behavioral intention models. Reasons are strengthened
if behavior is consistently repeated [6]. In addition, Hair et al. [113] predicted that the
reasons for repetitive behaviors, which were mediator effects before, can have a moderator
effect over time. In this study, changes that occur with repeated purchasing (i.e., post hoc
effects) were also not considered. Another focus for further research will be to examine the
potential influence of reasons between past behavior and future behavior.
Numerous studies have explored the moderating effect of demographic characteristics
on purchasing decisions. Future research could enhance the current model by incorporating
these moderating effects.
Finally, the negative moderating effect of a few reasons that were expected to posi-
tively influence the value–global motives relationship during the empirical testing of the
submodels should be further investigated through new empirical studies.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 26 of 33

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S.U. and U.A.; methodology, A.S.U. and U.A.; val-
idation, A.S.U. and U.A.; formal analysis, A.S.U. and U.A.; investigation, A.S.U.; data curation,
A.S.U.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.U. and U.A.; writing—review and editing, U.A.;
visualization, A.S.U. and U.A.; project administration, A.S.U. and U.A. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee of Istanbul Technical
University (protocol code 167 and date of approval, 29 April 2021).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Dimensions and definitions of perceived value in luxury consumption.

Constructs Definition References

Self-identity refers to an individual’s inner self in terms of
how he or she perceives himself or herself. The individual
Self-identity expresses himself/herself to the outside world by integrating Wiedmann et al. [57]
the symbolic meaning of the luxury items into his/her own
identity.
Beyond functional utility, hedonism refers to emotional
reactions such as perceived pleasure and reward, aesthetic
Hedonism Wiedmann et al. [57], Shukla and Purani [86]
beauty, and excitement arising from the purchase and
consumption of luxury products.
Materialism can be described as the importance of the
possession in one’s life. The individual has tendency towards
Materialism Wiedmann et al. [57]
acquisition and assigns a high priority to material
possessions.
Conspicuousness refers to the practice of using products as
symbolic representations to influence how others perceive
Conspicuousness oneself, thereby fulfilling social desires. The individual uses Wiedmann et al. [57], Schaefers [123]
publicly visible luxury products for signaling social status,
for differentiation, and for assimilation tendencies.
Prestige is a value that includes the respect that the product
brings to its owner due to positive and successful perception.
Prestige Wiedmann et al. [57]
The use or display of a luxury product brings esteem for its
owner.
Perceived price entails the consumer’s process of interpreting
Accessible Price and assigning significance to price. Accessible price is an Kapferer et al. [124], Kapferer and Laurent [39]
affordable price with reasonable premiums.
Luxury products are associated with superior quality and a
sense of reassurance, which results in higher value
Quality perceptions. In the context of luxury consumption, quality Stylidis et al. [125], Vigneron and Johnson [22]
can be defined as emotional responses to design,
craftsmanship, and durability.

Appendix B
Further fit measures of the structural model are given in Table A2. Since an SRMR
value less than 0.08 is considered a good fit [126], the model indicates an acceptable fit.
Moreover, the NFI values, which are close to 1, also indicate an acceptable fit. However, the
RMSTheta indicates a poor fit, since values below 0.12 represent a well-fitting model. Please
note that these measures should be handled with care, as their potential contribution to
PLS-SEM analyses in general remains an open question (see [113].
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 27 of 33

Table A2. Model fit measures.

Measure Saturated Model Estimated Model

SRMR 0.072 0.090
NFI 0.820 0.808
RMSTheta 0.210

Appendix C

Table A3. VSI–REA7 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VSI → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA7 → INT
GMAT 0.558 (19.152) 0.503 (19.941) −0.087 (1.126) 0.435 0.402
Global
GMSN 0.613 (25.372) 0.163 (6.170) 0.049 (1.492) 0.449 0.437
Motives
GMPC 0.537 (20.518) 0.263 (9.609) 0.064 (0.976) 0.413 0.381
Intention INT 0.125 (6.404) 0.814 0.802

Table A4. VHE–REA1 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VHE → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA1 → INT
GMAT 0.741 (24.161) 0.501 (16.780) 0.067 (4.000) 0.680 0.668
Global
GMSN 0.535 (16.062) 0.170 (6.419) 0.079 (4.697) 0.443 0.419
Motives
GMPC 0.495 (14.795) 0.278 (9.747) 0.115 (5.772) 0.449 0.408
Intention INT 0.062 (2.645) 0.804 0.802

Table A5. VHE–REA3 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VHE → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA7 → INT
GMAT 0.707 (28.990) 0.463 (16.040) 0.057 (3.419) 0.689 0.668
Global
GMSN 0.469 (14.798) 0.139 (5.587) 0.061 (1.428) 0.470 0.419
Motives
GMPC 0.494 (15.193) 0.093 (9.741) 0.093 (3.880) 0.449 0.408
Intention INT 0.170 (7.939) 0.818 0.802

Table A6. VHE–REA5 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VHE → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA7 → INT
GMAT 0.688 (19.790) 0.498 (18.287) 0.074 (2.616) 0.690 0.668
Global
GMSN 0.553 (13.386) 0.176 (6.724) 0.091 (3.654) 0.438 0.419
Motives
GMPC 0.520 (14.640) 0.283 (10.431) 0.091 (4.731) 0.433 0.408
Intention INT 0.049 (2.192) 0.803 0.802
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 28 of 33

Table A7. VHE–REA7 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VHE → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA7 → INT
GMAT 0.779 (46.358) 0.501 (19.050) 0.081 (4.126) 0.683 0.667
Global
GMSN 0.592 (25.069) 0.167 (6.269) 0.088 (4.626) 0.442 0.419
Motives
GMPC 0.560 (19.284) 0.262 (9.696) 0.100 (4.516) 0.448 0.407
Intention INT 0.125 (6.676) 0.814 0.801

Table A8. VMA–REA4 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VMA → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA4 → INT
GMAT 0.455 (16.671) 0.505 (19.116) −0.086 (1.235) 0.322 0.276
Global
GMSN 0.575 (22.967) 0.167 (6.182) 0.115 (2.156) 0.401 0.376
Motives
GMPC 0.373 (12.256) 0.284 (10.058) 0.139 (2.384) 0.241 0.190
Intention INT 0.094 (7.104) 0.809 0.802

Table A9. VMA–REA6 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VMA → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA6 → INT
GMAT 0.420 (15.328) 0.519 (20.364) −0.162 (7.618) 0.388 0.276
Global
GMSN 0.504 (21.031) 0.151 (5.756) −0.055 (1.110) 0.460 0.376
Motives
GMPC 0.301 (10.870) 0.267 (9.066) −0.145 (4.521) 0.344 0.190
Intention INT 0.095 (5.613) 0.808 0.802

Table A10. VCO–REA1 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VCO → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA1 → INT
GMAT 0.274 (9.143) 0.503 (16.447) 0.047 (0.935) 0.435 0.227
Global
GMSN 0.444 (16.373) 0.166 (6.554) 0.079 (3.925) 0.446 0.344
Motives
GMPC 0.240 (8.249) 0.281 (10.016) 0.154 (7.040) 0.371 0.178
Intention INT 0.062 (2.653) 0.804 0.802

Table A11. VCO–REA2 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VCO → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA2 → INT
GMAT 0.186 (7.553) 0.508 (17.994) 0.083 (2.832) 0.556 0.227
Global
GMSN 0.420 (15.585) 0.176 (6.587) 0.052 (1.482) 0.437 0.344
Motives
GMPC 0.201 (6.753) 0.288 (10.131) 0.079 (3.656) 0.370 0.178
Intention INT 0.030 (1.243) 0.802 0.802
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 29 of 33

Table A12. VPS–REA1 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VPS → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA1 → INT
GMAT 0.439 (14.164) 0.503 (16.970) 0.092 (0.924) 0.533 0.388
Global
GMSN 0.503 (17.294) 0.166 (6.419) 0.082 (4.071) 0.483 0.410
Motives
GMPC 0.327 (11.135) 0.282 (9.465) 0.204 (4.038) 0.424 0.255
Intention INT 0.062 (2.770) 0.804 0.802

Table A13. VPR–REA4 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VPR → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA4 → INT
GMAT 0.670 (27.998) 0.504 (19.731) −0.071 (2.587) 0.499 0.490
Global
GMSN 0.626 (25.382) 0.169 (6.510) 0.095 (4.416) 0.423 0.411
Motives
GMPC 0.638 (26.491) 0.280 (10.266) 0.056 (1.995) 0.429 0.425
Intention INT 0.093 (6.421) 0.809 0.802

Table A14. VPR–REA6 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VPR → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA6 → INT
GMAT 0.619 (24.055) 0.519 (19.794) −0.152 (8.600) 0.551 0.490
Global
GMSN 0.533 (22.819) 0.153 (5.661) −0.044 (0.692) 0.475 0.411
Motives
GMPC 0.543 (22.154) 0.263 (9.703) −0.104 (5.007) 0.499 0.425
Intention INT 0.096 (5.487) 0.802

Table A15. VQU–REA1 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-Statistics) Adj R2

VQU → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA1 → INT
GMAT 0.385 (11.056) 0.501 (17.298) −0.078 (3.479) 0.490 0.350
Global
GMSN 0.434 (13.742) 0.171 (6.476) 0.063 (3.608) 0.424 0.347
Motives
GMPC 0.424 (12.908) 0.277 (9.678) 0.070 (2.917) 0.439 0.350
Intention INT 0.063 (2.678) 0.804 0.802

Table A16. VQU–REA2 submodel—standardized path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2 .

Standardized Path Coefficients (t-statistics) Adj R2

VQU → GLBL GLBL MOT → INT
MOD With MOD Without MOD
MOT and REA2 → INT
GMAT 0.266 (7.647) 0.505 (17.030) 0.081 (3.620) 0.576 0.350
Global
GMSN 0.409 (11.741) 0.178 (5.852) 0.083 (4.765) 0.422 0.347
Motives
GMPC 0.386 (10.934) 0.284 (9.764) 0.077 (5.548) 0.439 0.350
Intention INT 0.033 (1.346) 0.802 0.802
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 30 of 33

References
1. D’Arpizio, C.; Levato, F.; Prete, F.; de Montgolfier, J. Renaissance in Uncertainty: Luxury Builds on Its Rebound; 2023. Available
online: https://www.bain.com/insights/renaissance-in-uncertainty-luxury-builds-on-its-rebound/ (accessed on 17 January
2023).
2. Nueno, J.L.; Quelch, J.A. The Mass Marketing of Luxury. Bus. Horiz. 1998, 41, 61–68. [CrossRef]
3. Roper, S.; Caruana, R.; Medway, D.; Murphy, P. Constructing Luxury Brands: Exploring the Role of Consumer Discourse. Eur. J.
Mark. 2013, 47, 375–400. [CrossRef]
4. Kumar, A.; Paul, J.; Unnithan, A.B. ‘Masstige’ Marketing: A Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 113,
384–398. [CrossRef]
5. Shukla, P.; Rosendo-Rios, V.; Khalifa, D. Is Luxury Democratization Impactful? Its Moderating Effect between Value Perceptions
and Consumer Purchase Intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 139, 782–793. [CrossRef]
6. Westaby, J.D. Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Identifying New Linkages Underlying Intentions and Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum.
Decis. Process. 2005, 98, 97–120. [CrossRef]
7. Sahu, A.K.; Padhy, R.K.; Dhir, A. Envisioning the Future of Behavioral Decision-Making: A Systematic Literature Review of
Behavioral Reasoning Theory. Australas. Mark. J. 2020, 28, 145–159. [CrossRef]
8. Sivathanu, B. Adoption of Online Subscription Beauty Boxes: A Behavioural Reasoning Theory (BRT) Perspective. J. Electro.
Comm. Organ. (JECO) 2018, 16, 19–40. [CrossRef]
9. Sivathanu, B. Adoption of Internet of Things (IOT) Based Wearables for Healthcare of Older Adults–a Behavioural Reasoning
Theory (BRT) Approach. J. Enabl. Technol. 2018, 12, 169–185. [CrossRef]
10. Pillai, R.; Sivathanu, B. An Empirical Study on the Adoption of M-Learning Apps Among IT/ITeS Employees. Interact. Technol.
Smart Educ. 2018, 15, 182–204. [CrossRef]
11. Gupta, A.; Arora, N. Understanding Determinants and Barriers of Mobile Shopping Adoption Using Behavioral Reasoning
Theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 36, 1–7. [CrossRef]
12. Gupta, A.; Arora, N. Consumer Adoption of M-Banking: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory Perspective. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017, 35,
733–747. [CrossRef]
13. Claudy, M.C.; Garcia, R.; O’Driscoll, A. Consumer Resistance to Innovation—A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective. J. Acad. Mark.
Sci. 2015, 43, 528–544. [CrossRef]
14. Claudy, M.C.; Peterson, M. Understanding the Underutilization of Urban Bicycle Commuting: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspec-
tive. J. Public Policy Mark. 2014, 33, 173–187. [CrossRef]
15. Ryan, J.; Casidy, R. The Role of Brand Reputation in Organic Food Consumption: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 239–247. [CrossRef]
16. Wu, A.D.; Zumbo, B.D. Understanding and Using Mediators and Moderators. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 87, 367–392. [CrossRef]
17. Kraemer, H.C.; Kiernan, M.; Essex, M.; Kupfer, D.J. How and Why Criteria Defining Moderators and Mediators Differ Between
the Baron and Kenny & MacArthur Approaches. Health Psychol. 2008, 27, 101–108.
18. Loureiro, S.M.C.; de Araújo, C.M.B. Luxury Values and Experience as Drivers for Consumers to Recommend and Pay More. J.
Retail. Consum. Serv. 2014, 21, 394–400. [CrossRef]
19. Danziger, P.N. Let Them Eat Cake: Marketing Luxury to the Masses—As Well as the Classes; Dearborn Trading Publishing: Chicago,
IL, USA, 2005.
20. Brun, A.; Castelli, C. The Nature of Luxury: A Consumer Perspective. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2013, 41, 823–847. [CrossRef]
21. Wiedmann, K.P.; Hennigs, N.; Siebels, A. Value-Based Segmentation of Luxury Consumption Behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2009, 26,
625–651. [CrossRef]
22. Vigneron, F.; Johnson, L.W. Measuring Perceptions of Brand Luxury. J. Brand Manag. 2004, 11, 484–506. [CrossRef]
23. Vickers, J.S.; Renand, F. The Marketing of Luxury Goods: An Exploratory Study Three Conceptual Dimensions. Mark. Rev. 2003,
3, 459–478. [CrossRef]
24. O’Cass, A.; McEwen, H. Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous Consumption. J. Consum. Behav. 2004, 4, 25–39. [CrossRef]
25. Tynan, C.; McKechnie, S.; Chhuon, C. Co-Creating Value for Luxury Brands. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 1156–1163. [CrossRef]
26. Kharas, H.; Gertz, G. The New Global Middle Class: A Cross-over from West to East. In China’s Emerging Middle Class: Beyond
Economic Transformation; Li, C., Ed.; Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
27. Beinhocker, E.D. Tracking the Growth of India’s Middle Class. McKinsey Q. 2007, 3, 51–61.
28. Farrell, D.; Gersch, U.A.; Stephenson, E. The Value of China’s Emerging Middle Class. McKinsey Q. 2006, 2, 60–69.
29. Eckhardt, G.M.; Belk, R.W.; Wilson, J.A.J. The Rise of Inconspicuous Consumption. J. Mark. Manag. 2015, 31, 807–826. [CrossRef]
30. Truong, Y.; McColl, R.; Kitchen, P.J. New Luxury Brand Positioning and the Emergence of Masstige Brands. J. Brand Manag. 2009,
16, 375–382. [CrossRef]
31. Chatterjee, S.; Chaudhuri, R.; Vrontis, D. Masstige Marketing: An Empirical Study of Consumer Perception and Product Attributes
with Moderating Role of Status, Emotion, and Pride. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 155, 113401. [CrossRef]
32. Rosendo-Rios, V.; Shukla, P. When Luxury Democratizes: Exploring the Effects of Luxury Democratization, Hedonic Value and
Instrumental Self-Presentation on Traditional Luxury Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 155, 113448. [CrossRef]
33. Kotler, P.; Keller, K. Marketing Management, 14th ed.; Pearson-PrenticeHall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012.
34. Silverstein, M.J.; Fisk, N. Luxury for the Masses. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 48–58.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 31 of 33

35. Ko, E.; Sung, H. “Trading Up”: A Consumption Value Approach. In Advances in International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing
Limited: Bingley, UK, 2007; pp. 115–137. [CrossRef]
36. Paul, J. Toward a ‘Masstige ’ Theory and Strategy for Marketing. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 2018, 12, 722–745. [CrossRef]
37. Paul, J. Masstige Model and Measure for Brand Management. Eur. Manag. J. 2019, 37, 299–312. [CrossRef]
38. Hwang, J.; Kandampully, J. The Role of Emotional Aspects in Younger Consumer-Brand Relationships. J. Prod. Brand Manag.
2012, 21, 98–108. [CrossRef]
39. Kapferer, J.N.; Laurent, G. Where Do Consumers Think Luxury Begins? A Study of Perceived Minimum Price for 21 Luxury
Goods in 7 Countries. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 332–340. [CrossRef]
40. Austria, E.; Peralta, A.G.; Dacara, B.C. Analyzing Consumer Behavior Towards Luxury Jewelry Brands. J. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2022,
4, 76–90. [CrossRef]
41. Jaggi, S.; Nim, D. Brand Association in Jewellery Segment: Scale Development and Validation. Int. J. Appl. Manag. Sci. 2020, 12,
309–323. [CrossRef]
42. Paul, J. Masstige Marketing Redefined and Mapped. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2015, 33, 691–706. [CrossRef]
43. Amatulli, C.; Guido, G. Determinants of Purchasing Intention for Fashion Luxury Goods in the Italian Market: A Laddering
Approach. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2011, 15, 123–136. [CrossRef]
44. Kim, J.E.; Lloyd, S.; Adebeshin, K.; Kang, J.Y.M. Decoding Fashion Advertising Symbolism in Masstige and Luxury Brands. J.
Fash. Mark. Manag. 2019, 23, 277–295. [CrossRef]
45. Zhang, L.; Cude, B.J.; Zhao, H. Determinants of Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intentions for Luxury Goods. Int. J. Mark. Res.
2020, 62, 369–385. [CrossRef]
46. Dhaliwal, A.; Singh, D.P.; Paul, J. The Consumer Behavior of Luxury Goods: A Review and Research Agenda. J. Strateg. Mark.
2020, 1–27. [CrossRef]
47. Berthon, P.; Pitt, L.; Parent, M.; Berthon, J. Aesthetics and Ephemerality: Observing and Preserving the Luxury Brand. Calif.
Manag. Rev. 2009, 52, 45–66. [CrossRef]
48. Ghimire, K.; Stenberg, P.D.E.; Mumford, M.S.J. The Importance of Customer Value and Luxury Value Perception: Implications
For Masstige Luxury Brands. Master’s Thesis, University of Turku, Turku, Finland, 2018.
49. Woodruff, R.B. Customer Value: The next Source for Competitive Advantage; ABI/INFORM Complete: San Marcos, CA, USA, 1997;
Volume 25.
50. Jamal, A.; Goode, M. Consumers’ Product Evaluation: A Study of the Primary Evaluative Criteria in the Precious Jewellery
Market in the UK. J. Consum. Behav. Int. Res. Rev. 2001, 1, 140–155. [CrossRef]
51. Zhan, L.; He, Y. Understanding Luxury Consumption in China: Consumer Perceptions of Best-Known Brands. J. Bus. Res. 2012,
65, 1452–1460. [CrossRef]
52. Hennigs, N.; Wiedmann, K.P.; Klarmann, C.; Behrens, S. The Complexity of Value in the Luxury Industry/From Consumers’
Individual Value Perception to Luxury Consumption. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2015, 43, 922–939. [CrossRef]
53. Riley, F.D.; Pina, J.M.; Bravo, R. The Role of Perceived Value in Vertical Brand Extensions of Luxury and Premium Brands. J. Mark.
Manag. 2015, 31, 881–913. [CrossRef]
54. Mason, M.C.; Moretti, A.; Raggiotto, F. Service Quality, Behavioural Intentions and Lipstick Effect. Evidence from a Masstige Context;
Franco Angeli: Milan, Italy, 2017; No. 2, pp. 1–27.
55. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Maximiano, M.; Panchapakesan, P. Engaging Fashion Consumers in Social Media: The Case of Luxury Brands.
Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2018, 11, 310–321. [CrossRef]
56. Choo, H.J.; Moon, H.; Kim, H.; Yoon, N. Luxury Customer Value. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2012, 16, 81–101. [CrossRef]
57. Wiedmann, K.-P.; Hennigs, N.; Siebels, A. Measuring Consumers’ Luxury Value Perception: A Cross-Cultural Framework
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY; 2007. Available online: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/wiedmann07-2007.pdf (accessed on 25
January 2021).
58. Vigneron, F.; Johnson, L.W. A Review and a Conceptual Framework of Prestige Seeking Consumer Behaviour. Acad. Mark. Sci.
Rev. 1999, 1, 1–15.
59. Shukla, P. The Influence of Value Perceptions on Luxury Purchase Intentions in Developed and Emerging Markets. Int. Mark. Rev.
2012, 29, 574–596. [CrossRef]
60. Zemore, S.E.; Ajzen, I. Predicting Substance Abuse Treatment Completion Using a New Scale Based on the Theory of Planned
Behavior. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 2014, 46, 174–182. [CrossRef]
61. Ajzen, I. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior; Open University Press: Lonodn, UK, 2005.
62. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
63. Westaby, J.D. Identifying Specific Factors Underlying Attitudes toward Change: Using Multiple Methods to Compare Expectancy-
Value Theory to Reasons Theory 1 . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 1083–1104. [CrossRef]
64. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Glenview, IL,
USA, 1975.
65. Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
66. Schwartz, S.H. Basic Human Values: Theory, Methods, and Applications; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Jerusalem, Israel, 2006.
67. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Values as Predictors of Environmental Attitudes: Evidence for Consistency across 14 Countries. J.
Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 255–265. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 32 of 33

68. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 65–84. [CrossRef]
69. Wang, J.; Shen, M.; Chu, M. Why Is Green Consumption Easier Said than Done? Exploring the Green Consumption Attitude-
Intention Gap in China with Behavioral Reasoning Theory. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2021, 2, 100015. [CrossRef]
70. Tani, M.; Gheith, M.H.; Papaluca, O. Drivers of Student Engagement in Higher Education: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory
Perspective. High Educ. 2021, 82, 499–518. [CrossRef]
71. Tani, M.; Troise, C.; O’Driscoll, A. Business Model Innovation in Mobile Apps Market: Exploring the New Subscription Plans
with a Behavioral Reasoning Perspective. J. Eng. Technol. Manag.-JET-M 2022, 63, 101674. [CrossRef]
72. Jain, S. Factors Affecting Sustainable Luxury Purchase Behavior: A Conceptual Framework. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2019, 31,
130–146. [CrossRef]
73. Maio, G.R.; Olson, J.M.; Allen, L.; Bernard, M.M. Addressing Discrepancies between Values and Behavior: The Motivating Effect
of Reasons. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 37, 104–117. [CrossRef]
74. Wilson, T.D.; Kraft, D.; Dunn, D.S. The Disruptive Effects of Explaining Attitudes: The Moderating Effect of Knowledge about the
Attitude Object. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 25, 379–400. [CrossRef]
75. Millar, M.G.; Tesser, A. Effects of Affective and Cognitive Focus on the Attitude–Behavior Relation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51,
270–276. [CrossRef]
76. Wu, I.H.; Liang, C.; Ip, C.Y. Involvement Theory with Market Segmentation: Effect of False Functional Food Advertising on
Purchase Intention. Foods 2022, 11, 978. [CrossRef]
77. Lin, W.B. Factors Affecting High-Involvement Product Purchasing Behavior. Qual. Quant. 2013, 47, 3113–3133. [CrossRef]
78. Lada, S.; Sidin, S.M.; Cheng, K.T.G. Moderating Role of Product Involvement on the Relationship between Brand Personality and
Brand Loyalty. J. Internet Bank. Commer. 2014, 19, 24–46.
79. Rose, B.M.; Holmbeck, G.N.; Coakley, R.M.; Franks, E.A. Mediator and Moderator Effects in Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatric Research. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2004, 25, 58–67. [CrossRef]
80. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis/A Regression Based Approach; The Guilford Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2018.
81. Karazsia, B.T.; Berlin, K.S. Can a Mediator Moderate? Considering the Role of Time and Change in the Mediator-Moderator
Distinction. Behav. Ther. 2018, 49, 12–20. [CrossRef]
82. Ajzen, I.; Madden, I. Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 1986, 22, 453–474. [CrossRef]
83. Kotler, P.; Armstrong, G. Principles of Marketing, 12th ed.; Pearson-PrenticeHall: Old Bridge, NJ, USA, 2008.
84. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 438–459. [CrossRef]
85. Bearden, W.O.; Etzel, M.J. Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions. J. Consum. Res. 1982, 9, 183–194.
[CrossRef]
86. Shukla, P.; Purani, K. Comparing the Importance of Luxury Value Perceptions in Cross-National Contexts. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65,
1417–1424. [CrossRef]
87. Ford, J.D.; Ellis, E.A. A Reexamination of Group Influence on Member Brand Preference. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 125–132. [CrossRef]
88. Murphy, P.E.; Enis, B.M. Classifying Products Strategically. J. Mark. 1986, 50, 24–42. [CrossRef]
89. Jain, S. Assessing the Moderating Effect of Subjective Norm on Luxury Purchase Intention: A Study of Gen Y Consumers in India.
Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2020, 48, 517–536. [CrossRef]
90. Katyal, K.; Dawra, J.; Soni, N. The Posh, the Paradoxical and the Phony: Are There Individual Differences between Consumers of
Luxury, Masstige and Counterfeit Brands? J. Bus. Res. 2022, 152, 191–204. [CrossRef]
91. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparıson of Two Theoretıcal Models*.
Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [CrossRef]
92. Gigerenzer, G.; Goldstein, D.G. Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality. Psychol. Rev. 1996, 103,
650–669. [CrossRef]
93. Esmaeilpour, F. The Role of Functional and Symbolic Brand Associations on Brand Loyalty—A Study on Luxury Brands. J. Fash.
Mark. Manag. 2013, 19, 467–484.
94. Park, H.J.; Burns, L.D.; Rabolt, N.J. Fashion Innovativeness, Materialism, and Attitude toward Purchasing Foreign Fashion Goods
Online across National Borders: The Moderating Effect of Internet Innovativeness. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2007, 11, 201–214.
[CrossRef]
95. Kim, K.H.; Ko, E.; Xu, B.; Han, Y. Increasing Customer Equity of Luxury Fashion Brands through Nurturing Consumer Attitude.
J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1495–1499. [CrossRef]
96. Doss, F.; Robinson, T. Luxury Perceptions: Luxury Brand vs Counterfeit for Young US Female Consumers. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.
2013, 17, 424–439. [CrossRef]
97. Wong, K.Y.J.; Park, S.Y. That’s so Gucci: A Comparison of Cultural Values and the Influence of Perceived Values on Luxury Goods
Attitudes and Purchase Intention among Korean and Dutch Millennials. Asian Bus. Manag. 2022, 22, 1804–1829. [CrossRef]
98. Sun, G.; D’Alessandro, S.; Johnson, L.W. Exploring Luxury Value Perceptions in China: Direct and Indirect Effects. Int. J. Mark.
Res. 2016, 58, 711–731. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 67 33 of 33

99. Westaby, J.D.; Fishbein, M. Factors Underlying Behavioral Choice: Testing a New Reasons Theory Approach. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
1996, 26, 1307–1323. [CrossRef]
100. Cheng, P.Y.; Chu, M. Behavioral Factors Affecting Students’ Intentions to Enroll in Business Ethics Courses: A Comparison of
the Theory of Planned Behavior and Social Cognitive Theory Using Self-Identity as a Moderator. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 124, 35–46.
[CrossRef]
101. Das, G. Factors Affecting Indian Shoppers[U+05F3] Attitude and Purchase Intention: An Empirical Check. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
2014, 21, 561–569. [CrossRef]
102. Zhang, B.; Kim, J.H. Luxury Fashion Consumption in China: Factors Affecting Attitude and Purchase Intent. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 2013, 20, 68–79. [CrossRef]
103. Fishbein, M. Intentional Behavior. Encycl. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 2, 329–334.
104. TUIK. İllerde Yaşam Endeksi. 2015. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Illerde-Yasam-Endeksi-2015-245
61 (accessed on 4 November 2021).
105. Cohen, J. A Power Primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [CrossRef]
106. Kock, N.; Hadaya, P. Minimum Sample Size Estimation in PLS-SEM: The Inverse Square Root and Gamma-Exponential Methods.
Inf. Syst. J. 2018, 28, 227–261. [CrossRef]
107. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Handbook of Market Research;
Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.
108. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [CrossRef]
109. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,
2–24. [CrossRef]
110. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
111. Schreiber, J.B.; Nora, A.; Stage, F.K.; Barlow, E.A.; King, J. Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor
Analysis Results: A Review. J. Educ. Res. 2006, 99, 323–338. [CrossRef]
112. Bentler, P.M.; Chou, C.-P. Practical Issues in Structural Equation Modeling. Sociol. Methods Res. 1987, 16, 78–117. [CrossRef]
113. Hair Jr, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd
ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022.
114. Franke, G.R.; Sarstedt, M. Heuristics versus Statistics in Discriminant Validity Testing: A Comparison of Four Procedures. Internet
Res. 2019, 29, 430–447. [CrossRef]
115. Sijtsma, K. On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha. Psychometrika 2009, 74, 107–120.
[CrossRef]
116. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark.
Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
117. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation
Modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
118. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988.
119. Kenny, D.A. Moderation. Available online: https://davidakenny.net/cm/moderation.htm (accessed on 25 November 2022).
120. Shmueli, G.; Koppius, O.R. Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 553–572. [CrossRef]
121. Smith, J.B.; Colgate, M. Customer Value Creation: A Practical Framework. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2007, 15, 7–23. [CrossRef]
122. Li, G.; Li, G.; Kambele, Z. Luxury Fashion Brand Consumers in China: Perceived Value, Fashion Lifestyle, and Willingness to Pay.
J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1516–1522. [CrossRef]
123. Shaefers, T. Standing out from the Crowd: Niche Product Choice as a Form of Conspicuous Consumption. Eur. J. Mark. 2014, 48,
1805–1827. [CrossRef]
124. Kapferer, J.N.; Klippert, C.; Leproux, L. Does Luxury Have a Minimum Price? An Exploratory Study into Consumers’psychology
of Luxury Prices. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 2014, 13, 2–11. [CrossRef]
125. Stylidis, K.; Burnap, A.; Rossi, M.; Wickman, C.; Söderberg, R.; Papalambros, P.Y. A Preliminary Study of Trends in Perceived
Quality Design Attributes in the Automotive Luxury Market Segment. In Proceedings of the DS 84: DESIGN 2016 14th
International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 16–19 May 2016.
126. Hu, L.-T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification.
Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.