Unlocking consumer consideration set size formation for luxury services: A study of self‐identification, brand status and anticipated emotions

Abstract

With a wide array of services touting their luxury and status appeal, consumers must make choices in an increasingly contested marketspace. The choice of luxury services can be complex and entail uncertainty and risk. In an attempt to understand factors that influence consumers’ choices regarding luxury services, this study explores consumers’ consideration set size, the role of self‐identification with the service brand, positive anticipated emotions about using the service brand, and perception of the brand's status. We draw on data collected from 448 white‐collar professionals who had stayed at hotels. The findings reveal that the effect of self‐identification on consideration set size is mediated by the positive anticipated emotions consumers expect to experience when using the service. Furthermore, the path from self‐identification through positive anticipated emotions to consideration set size is moderated by the service brand's status. The findings contribute to the evolving luxury services literature and self‐congruity theory to explain the mechanisms by which self‐identification drives the development of consumers’ consideration sets in the context of luxury service brands. This study further contributes to the luxury literature by accounting for the role of positive anticipated emotions and perceived brand status. Our findings suggest managers should portray customers experiencing positive emotions when using their luxury services to ensure that the alignment of brand and self is correctly translated to their brand being placed in consumers consideration set. Furthermore, we recommend managers to maximise the power of their brand's status which can increase the likelihood of consumers considering their brand.

Has the pandemic altered luxury consumption and marketing? A sectoral and thematic analysis

“…Biological/personal/ demographic (Bae & Jo, 2024;Creevey et al, 2022;Dhaliwal et al, 2020;Dubois et al, 2021;Kunz et al, 2020) Psychological factors (Creevey et al, 2022;Dubois et al, 2021;Gupta, Shin, & Jain, 2023;Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017;Husain et al, 2021;Siahtiri et al, 2022) Macro/structural factors (Dubois et al, 2021;Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017) Social cultural and intercultural factors (Arli et al, 2020;Dhaliwal et al, 2020;Gupta, Shin, & Jain, 2023;Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017;Husain et al, 2021;Sun et al, 2014;Tunçel, 2022) Branding (Bilro et al, 2022;Creevey et al, 2022;Dhaliwal et al, 2020;Dubois et al, 2021;Gupta, Shin, & Jain, 2023;Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017;Husain et al, 2021;Kola nska-Stronka & Krasa, 2023;Kunz et al, 2020;Purohit et al, 2023;Shimul & Phau, 2022;Siahtiri et al, 2022) Counterfeiting (Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017;Husain et al, 2021;Shan et al, 2022;Tunçel, 2022) Sustainability (Atkinson & Kang, 2021;Kunz et al, 2020;…”

Combating lookalike product through adapting advertising appeals to consumer value: Strategic implications to brand imitation management

“…Existing research has identified an array of consumer‐level factors that influence demand for counterfeit or inauthentic products across different countries, include individual differences (e.g., Katyal et al, 2022), consumer motives (Le Roux et al, 2019), benign/ malicious envy (Gupta & Lyndem, 2024), moral and economic justifications (Poddar et al, 2012; Siahtiri et al, 2022), cognitive resources (Kim et al, 2012), brand personality perceptions (Bian & Moutinho, 2009), and need for belonging (Hang & Zhong, 2023; Zhang et al, 2023). Consumers, in many cases, are aware of their buying counterfeits through illegal channels for inferior quality at a low price.…”

Robotic service quality, authenticity, and revisit intention to restaurants in China: extending cognitive appraisal theory

“…Table 3 shows that no extremely high correlations exist among constructs, indicating no common method bias problem (Siahtiri et al, 2022) (see supplementary material).…”