Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Luxury consumption and the dark triad of personality

Wiktor Razmus a, *, Anna Z. Czarna b, Paweł Fortuna a
a
Institute of Psychology, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Al. Raclawickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
b
Institute of Applied Psychology, Jagiellonian University, ul. Stanislawa Lojasiewicza 4, 30-348 Cracow, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Consumption of luxury generates both psychological benefits and costs to consumers. The current work scruti­
Luxury consumption nizes social costs of luxury goods consumption, namely how luxury brand consumers are perceived by observers.
Dark triad of personality Across four experiments (N1A = 343, N1B = 374, N2 = 368, N3 = 113) employing diverse stimuli (brands and
Impression management
models), we tested the effect of luxury consumption on the perception of a consumer as possessing dark per­
Sincerity
Consumer brand engagement
sonality traits, mechanism explaining this effect and its boundary conditions. The results demonstrated that
Social consequences displaying luxury goods increases perception of consumer’s narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, but
this effect is not universal (Study 1A and Study 1B). These social costs were driven by increases in the perception
of consumers’ impression management especially in observers with high levels of sincerity (Study 2). Further­
more, observers’ consumer brand engagement moderated the effect of luxury consumption on their perception of
dark triad of personality: individuals with higher (vs. lower) level of consumer brand engagement perceived
luxury brand consumers as lower (vs. higher) in Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Study 3).

1. Introduction preferential treatment for the consumers (e.g., J. Lee et al., 2015; Nelissen
& Meijers, 2011; Park & John, 2018). For this reason, some scholars note
As a result of the democratization of luxury (A. Kumar et al., 2020), that consumers use luxury goods as “a socially learned strategy to induce
the consumption of luxury goods is becoming an increasingly common beneficial treatment from others” (J. Lee et al., 2015, p. 1348). But con­
phenomenon. Despite experiencing a significant decline in 2020 due to sumption of luxury goods has also its dark side (Dubois et al., 2021). For
the Covid-19 pandemic, the worldwide luxury goods market rebounded example, luxury brand consumers are perceived less attractive as new
in 2021 to reach €1.15 trillion and exceeded expectations by growing an friends (Garcia et al., 2019). So far previous studies focused primarily on
additional 19–21% in 2022 (D’Arpizio et al., 2023). Given that global perceptions of negative overt characteristics. Little is known about (1)
number of luxury consumers tripled to over 330 million in the past ten perception of luxury brand users through the lens of personality traits
years (D’Arpizio, 2018), luxury consumption is analyzed by both theo­ (dispositional attributes), (2) especially those morally worrisome.
reticians and practitioners (Dubois et al., 2021). For years, research into Whereas there is evidence that using a luxury product (e.g., Prada
luxury consumption has focused primarily on consumer motivation handbag) affects consumers’ actual behavior by turning individuals “into
(latest: Bharti et al., 2021; Eastman et al., 2022; Guido et al., 2020; devils, who behaved in a less caring and more selfish way” (Wang et al.,
Jebarajakirthy & Das, 2021; Shao et al., 2019a, 2019b). This research 2021, p. 117), it remains an open question whether observers also attri­
shows, for example, that consumers purchase luxury brands to create a bute dark dispositions to luxury brand consumers. Recognizing such
desirable self-concept by either expressing their beliefs, attitudes, and outcomes is crucial, as using luxury brands to signal certain qualities can
values to others or gaining social approval (Shao et al., 2019b). In lead to misunderstandings (the signal is understood differently from the
addition to motivational determinants, the consequences of luxury perspective of the actor and the observer; Garcia et al., 2019).
consumption have also been studied. Research in this area has been The current paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of
conducted both on the consequences of the actual use of luxury products how luxury goods consumers are perceived. We focus on perception of
on users (e.g., Wang et al., 2021) and on the consequences in the narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams,
perception of luxury brand users (e.g., Razmus & Fortuna, 2022). 2002). Luxury consumption and these dark personality traits share
Numerous studies in the latter approach indicate that the consump­ common motivation – striving for power, money and prestige (Pilch &
tion of luxury goods can bring positive social consequences and Górnik-Durose, 2016). People with high levels of dark personality traits

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wrazmus@gmail.com (W. Razmus).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114246
Received 30 January 2023; Received in revised form 26 July 2023; Accepted 30 August 2023
Available online 9 September 2023
0148-2963/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

use material goods, especially luxury, as tools to confirm their own social consequences concern how luxury consumption affects perception
grandiosity in the eyes of others (Sedikides et al., 2007), protect their of its consumers. On the one hand, luxury brand consumers are
interests in the world (Jones & Paulhus, 2009), or satisfy their hedonic perceived more favorably than non-consumers: wearing a luxury brand
needs, craving for power, financial success and material possessions can increase wealth and status perception (J. Lee et al., 2015; Nelissen &
(Glenn et al., 2017). We argue that luxury brand consumers can be Meijers, 2011), perceived competence (S. Lee & Bolton, 2020; Scott
perceived through the lens of these personality traits. This means that et al., 2013), and facilitate preferential treatment and economic rewards
narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy not only play a central from others (J. Lee et al., 2015; Nelissen & Meijers, 2011). On the other
role in driving luxury purchases (Guido et al., 2020) but are also hand, the use of luxury brands has negative consequences: luxury brand
perceived by observers as personality traits of luxury consumers. consumers are perceived as less warm (Cannon & Rucker, 2019; S. Lee &
Over four experiments, our work aimed to investigate the effect of Bolton, 2020), less attractive as new friends (Garcia et al., 2019), less
luxury consumption on the perception of dark personality traits of con­ generous, less prosocial, and less cooperative (Srna et al., 2022), and
sumers. The research broadens the theoretical understanding of the dark more arrogant and hubristically proud (McFerran et al., 2014).
side of luxury consumption in several ways. First, it uncovers previously While we know a lot about positive consequences of using luxury
unknown costs of luxury consumption. Second, it sheds light on mecha­ goods and the factors that determine these relationships (S. Lee & Bol­
nism and boundary conditions of the analyzed effect. We therefore ton, 2020; Park & John, 2018; Razmus & Fortuna, 2022), the negative
develop a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between consequences are under-researched. It is well established that the luxury
luxury consumption and the perception of dark personality traits by consumption is considered immoral (Goenka & Thomas, 2020; Veblen,
analyzing mediators and moderators of these relationships. Our results 1899) and immoral and unethical behavior are components of dark
also have practical implications. The findings help to understand the personality traits (Harrison et al., 2018). Thus, we propose that using
negative consequences of using luxury brands and appropriately manage luxury goods has its consequences in the perception of narcissism,
the image of others. Moreover, the findings could also guide marketers, Machiavellianism and psychopathy.
for example, on how to plan marketing communication strategies to avoid
associating their luxury brand with negative consequences. 2.3. Dark triad of personality and luxury consumption

2. Theoretical background The dark triad is a term used to describe a set of three personality
traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams,
2.1. Brand prominence and conspicuous consumption 2002). These constructs are considered independent from each other;
yet, they share an overlapping core represented by disagreeableness,
In the luxury goods industry, product design characteristics, such as duplicity, callous manipulation, greed, and a short-term, agentic, and
brand logos, represent a crucial signaling element in interpersonal exploitative social strategy (Jonason et al., 2009; Jones & Paulhus,
communications (Greenberg et al., 2020). Some companies go out of 2017). Narcissism is characterized by a strong status striving, an unre­
their way to meet customer needs and expectations (i.e., identity alistically positive self-view, sense of entitlement, and disregard for
signaling) and use large logos to mark their products. Other products, others (Grapsas et al., 2020; Hermann et al., 2018). Machiavellianism is
even from the same companies, do not have large logos but only subtle characterized by strategic, cynical, cold, selfish and manipulative
cues (Pino et al., 2019). Therefore, in the marketing activities of com­ behavior (Carré et al., 2020; Christie & Geis, 1970). Psychopathy is
panies, it is possible to observe different degrees of brand prominence associated with poor impulse control, low sensitivity to punishment,
indicating the extent to which a product has visible elements that ensure thrill-seeking, social dominance and disinhibition manifesting in reck­
people recognize the brand (Han et al., 2010). The consumption of less antisocial behavior, along with callousness and lack of remorse
products with highly discernible logos (loud luxuries) is in accordance (Hare, 1996; Patrick et al., 2009). Social perception of Machiavellians,
with the idea of conspicuous consumption and the need to attain a and psychopaths is negative: they are perceived as unappealing and
higher social status (Veblen, 1899). This perspective suggests that the antipathetic people, whereas narcissists are judged – relative to Ma­
visibility of goods consumed by individuals allows others to make in­ chiavellians and psychopaths – as consistently more appealing and
ferences about their values or personality (B. Kumar et al., 2022). likeable (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012, 2013).
Conspicuous consumption refers to the demonstration of wealth and Dark personalities exhibit a manipulative interpersonal style and are
status through overt display of possessions (O’Cass & McEwen, 2004). motivated by desire for influence, adoration, power and distinction by
Consumers who engage in conspicuous consumption tend to use high- any available means, including by means of enhancement of their
end products to symbolize success, social power, and improve their physical appearance and displaying luxurious materialistic possessions
image (B. Kumar et al., 2022; Truong, 2010). Even though subtle signals (Grapsas et al., 2020; Pilch & Górnik-Durose, 2016). High narcissists,
have been shown to have communication value (Berger & Ward, 2010), Machiavellians and psychopaths have been shown to buy luxury goods
it is believed that easily recognizable and visible names or symbols are with the aim of showing them off as status symbols, in order to demon­
more effective in signaling one’s identity (Nelissen & Meijers, 2011). strate to observers their own purchasing power or to emulate admired
Research indicates that the effect of brand prominence on consumers’ people (e.g., Guido et al., 2020; Ko et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2022). They
willingness to purchase luxury products varies depending on the market value exclusiveness and high price above all, because they aspire to
maturity level, with emerging markets (e.g., India) showing a greater stand out as privileged from the masses (Dubois et al., 2021). They
emphasis on prominent brands and mature markets (e.g. U.S.) favoring choose loud easily perceptible signals of wealth over subtle ones.
subtle brands (Pino et al., 2019). It is consistent with findings that emerging Each of the dark personality traits can be theoretically related to a
market consumers use luxury goods primarily as visible symbols of wealth slightly different flavor of motivation underlying luxury consumption
and to signal their social position (Wu et al., 2015), while mature market (Zhu et al., 2022). Narcissists tend to wear expensive, flashy, and neatly
consumers prioritize the utility features of luxury products and are less kept clothing as well as a more dressed-up hairstyle (Back et al., 2010;
concerned with flaunting their status (Shukla & Purani, 2012). Vazire et al., 2008). Their luxurious purchases form easily accessible and
salient cues that are expected not only to impress others, be positively
2.2. Perception of luxury brand consumers evaluated by most observers, but also satisfy needs for uniqueness and
superior status by signaling to the less affluent that the owners are not
Owning luxury goods has psychological, economic as well as social one of them and hence deserve preferential treatment (Cisek et al.,
consequences (Dubois et al., 2021). Because luxury goods have their 2014). Narcissists also buy luxuries to find meaning in life and signal
symbolic values and provide opportunities to signal desirable traits, sexual attractiveness (Sedikides & Hart, 2022). Machiavellians do it to

2
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

increase their interpersonal influence via strategic self-presentation so Third, we suggest that consumer brand engagement of the observer
as to win other people’s trust and manipulate them into compliance protects against perceiving higher dark personality traits in luxury brand
(Sherry et al., 2006). Psychopaths likely use luxuries for more risky and consumers. From a broad psychological-behavioral perspective, con­
blatant deception so as to signal sexual attractiveness and facilitate sumer brand engagement is understood as the strength of the con­
material, and sexual exploitation of others (Jones & Paulhus, 2017). sumer’s relationship with the brand (Cheung et al., 2021). We define
Observers often perceive extravagant overt displays of wealth as consumer brand engagement as ‘a consumer’s positively valenced
pretentious and morally suspect (Jarness, 2017). They are not oblivious brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or
to the kinds of motivations behind ostentatious luxury consumption and related to focal consumer/brand interactions’ (Hollebeek et al., 2014, p.
judge conspicuous luxury consumers accordingly by ascribing to them 154). Consumer brand engagement assumes an exchange relationship
vices commonly linked with immorality, greed, selfishness, exploitation between the consumer and the brand (Social Exchange Theory; Emer­
and manipulation. Since ownership and distinction by display of son, 1976; Razmus, 2021). In line with this theory, consumer engages
exclusive luxury items lies diametrically opposed to the values of with the brand based on a cost/benefit analysis, where, for example, the
modesty, cooperation and communion, observers likely ascribe negative consumer invests their time and money in a brand and expects future
(dark) traits related to greed, selfishness, attention-seeking, exploitation return, e.g., the opportunity to signal high social status. Moreover,
and manipulation to conspicuous luxury consumers. Based on these research demonstrates that consumers with high levels of consumer
premises, we formulated the following hypothesis: brand engagement treat other users of the brand as ingroup members
and evaluate others with a visible logo of the brand in which they are
Hypothesis 1. Individuals wearing outfits with a logo of a luxury brand vs.
engaged, more positively (Razmus & Fortuna, 2022). There is also evi­
without this logo are perceived as more narcissistic (H1a), more Machia­
dence that observers with high (vs. low) self-brand connection,
vellian (H1b) and more psychopathic (H1c).
construct related to consumer brand engagement, tend to hold more
positive attitudes towards individuals who conspicuously use the brand
2.4. The roles of impression management, sincerity, and consumer brand (Ferraro et al., 2013). We thus hypothesize that:
engagement
Hypothesis 4. Observer’s consumer brand engagement moderates the
relationship between luxury consumption and the perception of consumer’s
What mechanism explains the relationship between luxury con­
narcissism (H4a), Machiavellianism (H4b) and psychopathy (H4c): a lower
sumption and perception of the dark triad of personality and what
perception of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy resulting from
variables on the observer’s side can strengthen or weaken the effect? We
luxury logo occurs for individuals with higher consumer brand engagement.
argue that there are several variables that play important roles in the
Fig. 1 presents the hypothesized relationships.
relationship between luxury consumption and perception of the dark
triad of personality: impression management, sincerity and consumer
brand engagement. 2.5. Overview of the studies
First, we argue that attribution of impression management motiva­
tion can account for the positive relationship between luxury con­ We tested our hypotheses across four experiments. In Study 1A and
sumption and the perception of the dark personality traits. Observers are 1B, we examined the main effect of luxury consumption on perception of
often well-aware that people buy luxuries to impress others, that luxury the dark triad of personality (H1a - H1c). To examine robustness and
consumption and its conspicuous display is a way to manipulate image generalizability of findings we tested this effect using diverse luxury
and others to provide what the consumer wants (Garcia et al., 2019). brands. Study 2 was designed as an attempt to replicate the results of
They seem aware that using luxury brands is a strategy to distinguish Study 1A and 1B and to examine the roles of consumer’s perceived
oneself, increase prestige, elicit others’ admiration, and achieve inter­ impression management and observer’s sincerity (H2a – H2c and H3a –
personal goals (J. Lee et al., 2015; McFerran et al., 2014). Observers H3c). In Study 3, we tested a moderating effect of observer’s consumer
attribute impression management motive to luxury brand consumers brand engagement which delineates boundary conditions for when
(Cannon & Rucker, 2019) and consumers engaged in conspicuous brand luxury consumption is linked to perception of dark personality traits
usage (Ferraro et al., 2013). Accordingly, we argue that perceiving (H4a - H4c). Our approach to studying consumer brand engagement
higher levels of dark personality traits in luxury brands consumers stems emphasizes the importance of brand ownership as a key element in
from attributing the impression management motive to them. operationalizing this construct. Therefore, in Study 3 we examined in­
Second, there are also theoretical and empirical reasons to suspect dividuals who were users of a selected luxury brand.
that sincerity of the observer can intensify or weaken the relationship We operationalized luxury consumption as wearing luxury brands,
between attributing impression management to luxury brand consumers following Nelissen and Meijers (2011) and Cannon and Rucker (2019). To
and perception of the dark traits. Sincerity is one of the facet-level traits be more specific, we used a luxury label condition (logo) and a non-luxury
of the Honesty-Humility dimension of the HEXACO (K. Lee & Ashton, label (no logo) condition. The luxury label condition involved products
2018), negatively related to impression management behaviors (Bour­ with luxury logos, while the non-luxury label condition involved products
dage et al., 2015). Sincere individuals are authentic in human re­ with no visible logos. Each study used different stimulus material (for
lationships, avoid manipulating other people, flattering them or further details, see Appendix A). We selected luxury brands based on two
pretending to like them in order to gain favor. We argue that individuals reports (KPMG, 2019; PBC, 2017) of research conducted on samples close
with high levels of this trait perceive impression management behaviors to representative. The PBC report research was conducted in a research
in a negative way. Also, sincerity is strongly negatively correlated with online panel on a sample of 18,000 individuals, while the KPMG report
the dark triad (Howard & Van Zandt, 2020; Muris et al., 2017). Based on study used a sample of 1549 respondents and a computer-assisted web
this, we hypothesize that: interview method. The brand selected for Study 2, which was based on
KPMG report (2019), also had high ratings in the luxury assessment from
Hypothesis 2. Attribution of impression management to luxury brand con­
PBC report (2017). The research conducted for the PBC report was con­
sumers mediates the relationship between luxury consumption and the percep­
ducted by the same research panel in which we conducted all our ex­
tion of narcissism (H2a), Machiavellianism (H2b) and psychopathy (H2c).
periments. This additionally confirms the validity of the use of the
Hypothesis 3. The links predicted in H2 between attribution of impression selected brands in our research.
management to luxury brand consumers and the perception of narcissism Our research was conducted in Poland, a post-communist Soviet-
(H3a), Machiavellianism (H3b) and psychopathy (H3c) are stronger in ob­ controlled country where, on the one hand, access to luxury goods was
servers with high levels of sincerity. limited for many years, and on the other hand, in the last decade a rapid

3
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Fig. 1. Conceptual model. Note: IM - impression management.

growth rates in luxury goods’ sales can be observed (Stępień, 2020). The
Table 1
luxury goods market in Poland is still in its early stages (Mroz, 2020),
Demographic characteristics of the respondents (Study 1A, Study 1B, Study 2,
also known as the “show-off” phase, where purchasing luxury items and
and Study 3).
publicly displaying them is seen as a sign of high economic status
Characteristics Study Study Study Study
(Stępień et al., 2016).
1A 1B 2 3

% % % %
3. Study 1A: Luxury consumption and the perception of dark
personality traits Gender
Male 48.4 48.9 49.2 51.3
Female 51.6 51.1 50.8 48.7
Study 1A tested the hypotheses that consumers wearing outfits with
Education
logos of a luxury brand are perceived as more narcissistic, Machiavellian Primary 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4
and psychopathic (H1a – H1c). Vocational 5.0 6.7 7.3 4.4
Secondary 28.3 36.9 34.8 25.7
Postgraduate 65.6 55.1 56.8 68.1
3.1. Method Place of residence
Countryside 25.4 19.5 22.8 25.7
3.1.1. Participants City or town with up to 100,000 36.5 36.9 33.7 36.3
people
Three hundred forty-three people (177 women) aged 25–55 years
City with > 100,000 people 38.2 43.5 43.4 38.1
(M = 39.85, SD = 8.61) participated in the experiment. The sample was
recruited from a nationwide online research panel, using quota sam­
pling, was gender- and age-balanced, and diverse in terms of place of ratings in Polish population-based study (PBC, 2017). Participants were
residence and educational attainment. For a detailed sample descrip­ randomly assigned to one of two conditions: logo (n = 175), no logo (n
tion, see Table 1. Participation was rewarded with points in a loyalty = 168). Participants were asked to rate a man presented in a photograph
program. (Appendix A1) using the dark personality scale. We included one general
attention check in the survey (the instructed item; DeSimone & Harms,
3.1.2. Measures and procedure 2018) and one stimulus attention check to ensure that the participants
We assessed the perception of the dark triad of personality with a had paid attention to the stimuli. The latter was done by asking par­
Polish version (Czarna et al., 2016) of the Dirty Dozen scale (Jonason & ticipants to indicate from among three brands (one of which did not
Webster, 2010) modified so that participants were instructed to rate the appear in stimuli at all) and no logo option which brand logo appeared
presented model instead of self. The instrument has 12 items, four for on the clothing of the person presented in the photo. In the final sample,
each of the three traits: narcissism (α = 0.91), Machiavellianism (α = all respondents passed the attention checks.
0.87) and psychopathy (α = 0.89).1 The items had been edited to a
grammatical third person. Intercorrelations among the dark triad traits 3.1.3. Statistical analyses
were high (ranging between 0.60 and 0.85), yet demonstrated satis­ An independent-samples t-test was performed (SPSS).
factory levels of discriminant validity (Appendix B; Henseler et al.,
2015).
We selected Calvin Klein as luxury brand label, because it is rated by 3.2. Results and discussion
Poles a top luxury brand as indicated by the highest luxury brands
As predicted, the man wearing a luxury brand-labeled shirt
compared to a man without the logo on clothing received significantly
1
The scale had been previously used in peer-rating studies (Rauthmann & higher scores in narcissism (t(332.41) = -6.09, p < .001), Machiavel­
Kolar, 2012). lianism (t(3 4 1) = -2.07, p < .040), and psychopathy (t(3 4 1) = -2.28, p

4
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

< .023), for more details see Table 2. Thus, hypotheses H1a - H1c were present and may depend on brand-related factors (e.g., brand image; a
supported. The results of this study support our conceptual model, luxury brand with a more benevolent image should not be associated
showing new, previously unexplored social costs of luxury consumption. with dark personality traits). Moreover, as previous studies suggested,
characteristics of the observers can play a significant role in the
4. Study 1B: Replication of the main effect perception of luxury brand users (Park & John, 2018; Razmus & For­
tuna, 2022). We thus proceeded to investigate these factors in the
Results of Study 1A indicated that individuals wearing clothes with a following studies.
luxury brand logo are perceived as possessing higher levels of narcis­
sism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy than those not wearing such 5. Study 2: Luxury consumption and the perception of dark
clothes. In Study 1B, we aimed to examine robustness and generaliz­ personality traits: The role of impression management and
ability of findings on a different sample of respondents and using sincerity
another luxury brand.
While Study 1A and 1B did not offer conclusive results, they provided
a good foundation for further exploration. In Study 2, we aimed to build
4.1. Method
upon the findings from Study 1A by testing their replicability and
robustness using different stimulus materials. Additionally, for the first
4.1.1. Participants
time we put the proposed mechanism of this association to a test: linking
Three hundred seventy-four people (191 women) aged 25–55 years
the perceptions of higher narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopa­
(M = 40.81, SD = 8.58) participated in the experiment. Similar to Study
thy in luxury brand consumers with perception of higher impression
1A, participants were recruited via a nationwide online research panel,
management (H2a - H2c). Finally, we examined a possible moderator of
using quota sampling, for details see Table 1.
the indirect effect: sincerity of the observers (H3a – H3c). Through these
tests, we aimed to enrich and expand upon the findings from Study 1A,
4.1.2. Measures and procedure
and to provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationships be­
We assessed dark triad with the same instrument as in Study 1A
tween luxury consumption and perception of dark personality traits.
(Czarna et al., 2016). Cronbach’s α was 0.89 for narcissism, 0.90 for
Machiavellianism and 0.93 for psychopathy subscales. Despite high in­
5.1. Method
tercorrelations among the dark triad traits (ranging between 0.66 and
0.88), satisfactory levels of discriminant validity were indicated
5.1.1. Participants
(Appendix B; Henseler et al., 2015).
Three hundred and sixty-eight people (187 women) aged 25–55
In this study, we chose Lacoste as the luxury brand label for our
years (M = 39.49, SD = 8.61) from a nationwide online research panel
research because it has been consistently rated as one of the top luxury
(quota sampling) participated in the study in exchange for points in a
brands by the Polish population-based study (PBC, 2017). The partici­
loyalty program. The sample was gender- and age-balanced, and diverse
pants were randomly assigned to one of two groups, logo (n = 189) and
in terms of place of residence and educational attainment (Table 1).
no logo (n = 185). They were then shown a photograph of a man (see
Appendix A2) and asked to rate his personality traits.
5.1.2. Measures and procedure
In this study, we utilized similar procedures to Study 1A by including
We assessed dark triad with the same instrument as in Study 1A and
general and stimulus attention checks to ensure that participants
1B (Czarna et al., 2016). Cronbach’s α was 0.93 for narcissism, 0.92 for
correctly identified the brand’s logo appearing on the clothing of the
Machiavellianism and 0.92 for psychopathy subscales. The dark triad
person presented in the photo. In the final sample, all respondents
traits exhibited substantial intercorrelations (values ranging between
passed the attention checks.
0.76 and 0.89); however indicated sufficient levels of discriminant
validity (Appendix B; Henseler et al., 2015). We assessed impression
4.1.3. Statistical analyses
management with a 3-item IM scale (e.g., The man is most likely wearing
An independent-samples t-test was performed (SPSS).
his shirt to impress other people; 1 = not at all, 7 = very much; α = 0.92)
employed by Cannon and Rucker (2019). We assessed sincerity with a 4-
4.2. Results and discussion item Sincerity subscale (e.g., reverse-scored: If I want something from a
person I dislike, I will act very nicely toward that person in order to get it; 1 =
Despite that the pattern of results was similar to Study 1A, partici­ strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = 0.673) from HEXACO 100
pants in the current study did not rate the man with the luxury brand (Skimina et al., 2020).
significantly higher on narcissism (t(372) = -1.69, p < .091), Machia­ This research followed the same procedure as Study 1A and 1B, but
vellianism (t(363.68) = -0.35, p < .723), and psychopathy (t(372) = to test robustness of our findings we used different stimulus materials:
-0.94, p < .346) compared to a man without the logo on clothing (for the Gucci brand as a luxury label (similarly perceived as a top luxury
details see Table 2).2 We concluded that the effect of luxury consump­ brand by Polish respondents, KPMG, 2019) and a different image of a
tion on the perception of dark triad of personality is not universally man (Appendix A3). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two
conditions: logo (n = 181), no logo (n = 187). We used two general and
one stimulus attention checks. In the final sample, all respondents
2
The results may generate doubts as to whether the chosen brand (Lacoste) is passed the attention checks.
actually perceived as luxurious by the respondents. However, the level of
perceived luxuriousness measured in this study dispels these doubts (M = 5.33 5.1.3. Statistical analyses
on a scale ranging from 1 - not luxurious to 7 - luxurious). To further explore the To test the main effect of experimental manipulation, an
relationship between luxury consumption and the perception of dark person­
independent-samples t-test was performed. The PROCESS macro v.3.4
ality traits, we conducted three moderation analyses to examine whether the
(Models 4 and 14, Hayes, 2017) was used to conduct mediation and
level of perceived luxuriousness acted as a moderator. The results of these
analyses indicated that, in none of the cases, perceived luxuriousness signifi­
moderated mediation analyses separately for each dependent variable.
cantly moderated the effect of luxury consumption on the perception of dark We tested the significance of indirect effects using 5000 bootstrapped
personality traits among consumers. Summing up, these results suggest that the
absence of a main effect in Study 1B is not due to the low perceived luxuri­
3
ousness of the Lacoste brand. This reliability value is typical for this subscale (K. Lee & Ashton, 2018).

5
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Table 2
The independent-samples t-test results (Study 1A, Study 1B, and Study 2).
Variable Group Study 1A Study 1B Study 2

M SD t p d M SD t p d M SD t p d

narcissism no logo 3.74 0.92 − 6.09 0.001 0.65 4.12 1.04 − 1.69 0.091 0.18 3.92 1.34 − 5.71 0.001 0.60
logo 4.41 1.12 4.31 1.04 4.69 1.24
Machiavellianism no logo 3.68 0.90 − 2.07 0.040 0.23 3.87 1.12 − 0.35 0.723 0.04 3.46 1.23 − 3.09 0.002 0.32
logo 3.89 0.95 3.91 0.98 3.85 1.17
psychopathy no logo 3.76 0.93 − 2.28 0.023 0.24 3.87 1.12 − 0.94 0.346 0.10 3.58 1.24 − 2.85 0.005 0.30
logo 3.99 0.98 3.98 1.05 3.94 1.14

samples with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A simple slope analysis was 6. Study 3: Luxury consumption and the perception of dark
utilized to probe the moderation using the 16th, 50th and 84th per­ personality traits: The role of consumer brand engagement
centiles as conditioning values. To further understand this interaction, a
floodlight analysis was conducted via Johnson–Neyman technique This study was conducted to test the hypotheses that observer’s
(Spiller et al., 2013). consumer brand engagement moderates the relationship between luxury
consumption and the perception of dark personality traits. We proposed
5.2. Results and discussion that individuals with a high (vs. low) level of consumer brand engage­
ment evaluate consumers displaying a luxury logo as lower (vs. higher)
Participants assigned significantly higher scores to the person pre­ in all dark personality traits (H4a – H4c). In this study we only included
sented with the luxury brand logo, as compared to the person presented actual consumers of the luxury brand whose logo was the stimulus in the
without the logo in narcissism (t(366) = -5.71, p < .001), Machiavel­ experiment. Individuals who use a luxury brand may be less inclined to
lianism (t(366) = -3.09, p < .002), and psychopathy (t(366) = -2.85, p < attribute negative qualities to other users of the same brand. This ten­
.005). For more details see Table 2. These results support hypotheses dency may arise because brand ownership can lead to the formation of a
H1a - H1c and replicate the findings from Study 1A. group, offering protection from negative evaluations by other members
Perceived impression management motive had significant indirect within that community. For this reason, hypotheses H1a - H1c could not
effects between luxury consumption and the perception of all dark be expected to be true here and will therefore not be tested.
personality traits: narcissism (b = 0.898, 95% CI was [0.696 – 1.121]),
Machiavellianism (b = 0.736, 95% CI was [0.563 – 0.932]) and psy­
chopathy (b = 0.654, 95% CI was [0.487 – 0.846]). Thus, hypotheses 6.1. Method
H2a – H2c were supported.
Index of moderated mediation analysis for model with narcissism as 6.1.1. Participants
a dependent variable was not significant (Index = 0.016, Boot SE = 0.02, Out of the initial three hundred and twenty participants, we pre­
Boot 95% CI = -0.015 – 0.050), indicating that sincerity does not screened individuals to identify consumers of the selected luxury brand
moderate the effect of impression management on perceived narcissism (Hugo Boss). Since our focus was on individuals who were users of this
(Table 3). Indices for the next two analyses were significantly different luxury brand, we excluded 207 participants who were non-users from
from zero: for Machiavellianism Index = 0.043, Boot SE = 0.02, Boot the analysis. The final sample consisted of the 113 participants (55
95% CI = 0.008 – 0.078, and for psychopathy Index = 0.045, Boot SE = women) aged 26–55 years (M = 41.63, SD = 8.40). The sample was
0.02, Boot 95% CI = 0.003 – 0.086. We followed up these analyses with recruited from a nationwide online research panel, using quota sam­
the analyses of conditional indirect effects of logo presence on the pling, was gender- and age-balanced, and diverse in terms of place of
dependent variable at different levels of the moderator (Table 3). residence and educational attainment (Table 1).
More detailed results are presented in the floodlight analysis
(Table 4). The analysis demonstrates that impression management 6.1.2. Measures and procedure
significantly positively predicted perceived narcissism (with effects We assessed dark triad with the same instrument as in Study 1A, 1B,
ranging from 0.49 to 0.68) across all tested levels of observer’s sincerity. and Study 2 (Czarna et al., 2016). Cronbach’s α was 0.86 for narcissism,
The significant effect of impression management on perceived Machia­ 0.90 for Machiavellianism and 0.90 for psychopathy subscales. In­
vellianism ranges from 0.24 to 0.67 for distinctive values of sincerity tercorrelations among the dark triad traits were high (ranging between
ranging from 5.60 to 20.00. In a similar vein, the positive association 0.55 and 0.89), yet demonstrated satisfactory levels of discriminant
between impression management scores and perceived psychopathy validity (Appendix B; Henseler et al., 2015). We assessed consumer
spreads in effect from 0.20 to 0.63 for values of sincerity ranging from brand engagement with a 6-item CBE Scale (Razmus, 2021; e.g., I
6.40 to 20.00 (Fig. 2). consider x my brand; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = 0.95).
The results replicate the results of Study 1A and further show that The procedure for this study was similar to Study 1A, 1B and Study 2,
displays of luxury are related to an increased perception of narcissism, however to test robustness of the findings this time we selected Hugo
Machiavellianism and psychopathy via increased perception of Boss brand as a luxury brand label (perceived by Polish respondents to
impression management. The links for Machiavellianism and psychop­ be a luxury brand, PBC, 2017) and used a different image of a man
athy are especially strong in observers with high levels of sincerity. The (Appendix A4). The participants were randomly assigned to one of two
pattern for narcissism was similar (with stronger indirect effects for groups, logo (n = 65) and no logo (n = 48). Similarly to the Study 1A, 1B
observers higher on sincerity) but the moderation by sincerity did not and Study 2, we included one general and one stimulus attention check.
reach the level of significance. Instead, impression management signif­ In the final sample, all respondents passed the checks.
icantly positively predicted perceived narcissism across all tested levels
of observer’s sincerity. Thus, the results support hypotheses H3b and 6.1.3. Statistical analyses
H3c, but not hypothesis H3a. A moderation analysis using the Hayes PROCESS macro v3.4 (Model
1; Hayes, 2013) was performed. Analyses (separate for each dependent
variable) were based on 5,000 bootstrapping samples and 95% bias
corrected CI. A simple slope analysis was utilised to probe the modera­
tion using the 16th, 50th and 84th percentiles as conditioning values. To

6
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Table 3
Testing for moderated mediation analyses.
Predictors narcissism Machiavellianism psychopathy

B SE t B SE t B SE t

Outcome variable: IM
Logo presence (1 = no logo; 2 = logo) 1.42 0.14 10.41*** 1.42 0.14 10.41*** 1.42 0.14 10.41***
Outcome variable: Dependent variable
Logo presence − 0.11 0.12 − 0.96 − 0.35 0.12 − 2.97** − 0.30 0.12 − 2.49*
IM 0.45 0.16 2.77** 0.07 0.16 0.41 − 0.01 0.17 − 0.01
Sincerity − 0.09 0.05 − 1.92 − 0.16 0.05 − 3.31*** − 0.14 0.05 − 2.81**
IM × Sincerity 0.01 0.01 1.06 0.03 0.01 2.84** 0.03 0.01 2.81**
Conditional indirect effects of logo presence on dependent variable at specific levels of
the moderator
Sincerity Effect SE 95% CI Effect SE 95% CI Effect SE 95% CI
12.00 (16th percentile) 0.83 0.11 0.61 – 1.06 0.61 0.10 0.43 – 0.81 0.54 0.11 0.35 – 0.76
14.00 (50th percentile) 0.87 0.11 0.66 – 1.08 0.70 0.09 0.54 – 0.88 0.63 0.09 0.46 – 0.82
17.00 (84th percentile) 0.92 0.11 0.70 – 1.15 0.83 0.10 0.64 – 1.04 0.76 0.10 0.58 – 0.97

Note: IM - impression management; Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; CI - confidence interval.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 4
Floodlight analysis results (Study 2).
narcissism Machiavellianism psychopathy

sincerity effect (SE) t value p sincerity effect (SE) t value p sincerity effect (SE) t value p

4.00 0.49 (0.12) 4.12 0.000 4.00 0.19 (0.12) 1.57 0.117 4.00 0.13 (0.12) 1.01 0.315
4.77 0.50 (0.11) 4.48 0.000 4.80 0.21 (0.11) 1.91 0.057 4.80 0.15 (0.12) 1.30 0.196
5.52 0.51 (0.10) 4.89 0.000 4.93 0.22 (0.11) 1.97 0.050 5.60 0.17 (0.11) 1.63 0.104
6.29 0.52 (0.10) 5.37 0.000 5.60 0.24 (0.10) 2.29 0.022 6.30 0.20 (0.10) 1.97 0.050
7.05 0.53 (0.09) 5.91 0.000 6.40 0.26 (0.10) 2.74 0.006 6.40 0.20 (0.10) 2.02 0.044
7.81 0.54 (0.08) 6.54 0.000 7.20 0.28 (0.09) 3.26 0.001 7.20 0.23 (0.09) 2.48 0.014
8.57 0.55 (0.08) 7.28 0.000 8.00 0.31 (0.08) 3.88 0.000 8.00 0.25 (0.08) 3.01 0.002
9.33 0.56 (0.07) 8.14 0.000 8.80 0.33 (0.07) 4.61 0.000 8.80 0.28 (0.08) 3.65 0.000
10.10 0.56 (0.06) 9.14 0.000 9.60 0.35 (0.07) 5.48 0.000 9.60 0.30 (0.07) 4.41 0.000
10.86 0.57 (0.06) 10.28 0.000 10.40 0.38 (0.06) 6.51 0.000 10.40 0.33 (0.06) 5.32 0.000
11.62 0.58 (0.05) 11.56 0.000 11.20 0.41 (0.05) 7.71 0.000 11.20 0.35 (0.06) 6.39 0.000
12.38 0.59 (0.05) 12.90 0.000 12.00 0.43 (0.05) 9.07 0.000 12.00 0.38 (0.05) 7.60 0.000
13.14 0.60 (0.04) 14.14 0.000 12.80 0.45 (0.04) 10.50 0.000 12.80 0.40 (0.05) 8.87 0.000
13.90 0.61 (0.04) 15.04 0.000 13.60 0.48 (0.04) 11.80 0.000 13.60 0.43 (0.04) 10.06 0.000
14.67 0.62 (0.04) 15.38 0.000 14.40 0.50 (0.04) 12.71 0.000 14.40 0.45 (0.04) 10.92 0.000
15.43 0.63 (0.04) 15.10 0.000 15.20 0.53 (0.04) 13.05 0.000 15.20 0.48 (0.04) 11.29 0.000
16.19 0.63 (0.04) 14.31 0.000 16.00 0.55 (0.04) 12.83 0.000 16.00 0.51 (0.05) 11.17 0.000
16.95 0.64 (0.05) 13.27 0.000 16.80 0.58 (0.05) 12.25 0.000 16.80 0.53 (0.05) 10.73 0.000
17.71 0.65 (0.05) 12.17 0.000 17.60 0.60 (0.05) 11.51 0.000 17.60 0.56 (0.05) 10.13 0.000
18.48 0.66 (0.06) 11.13 0.000 18.40 0.63 (0.06) 10.75 0.000 18.40 0.58 (0.06) 9.51 0.000
19.23 0.67 (0.07) 10.19 0.000 19.20 0.65 (0.06) 10.04 0.000 19.20 0.61 (0.07) 8.92 0.000
20.00 0.68 (0.07) 9.36 0.000 20.00 0.67 (0.07) 9.40 0.000 20.00 0.63 (0.08) 8.39 0.000

further understand this interaction, a floodlight analysis was conducted 7. General discussion
via Johnson–Neyman technique (Spiller et al., 2013).
Across four experiments employing diverse stimuli we demonstrated
new, previously unexplored social costs of luxury consumption. Results
6.2. Results and discussion of our studies showed that: (1) observers attributed complex personality
traits, higher levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, to
We found a significant interactive effect of luxury consumption and luxury brand consumers, but these effects were not always present,
observer’s consumer brand engagement on Machiavellianism and psy­ suggesting that they were conditional − they had boundary conditions
chopathy (Table 5). Observers with a high level of consumer brand and were likely moderated by characteristics of observers; (2) the costs
engagement (vs. those with low consumer brand engagement) rated of luxury consumption in terms of personality perceptions are driven by
individuals displaying a luxury logo lower in Machiavellianism and observers ascribing impression management motive to the luxury brand
psychopathy. No interaction effect of luxury consumption and ob­ consumers; (3) particularly for observers with high levels of sincerity the
server’s consumer brand engagement was found for perception of attribution of higher levels of impression management to luxury brand
narcissism. Thus, hypotheses H4b and H4c were supported whereas consumers is linked to perceived Machiavellianism and psychopathy;
hypothesis H4a was not confirmed. observers, regardless of their sincerity level, attributed high narcissism
The floodlight analysis (Table 6) demonstrates that the significant via high impression management perceived in luxury brand consumers;
effect of luxury consumption on perceived Machiavellianism ranges (4) consumer brand engagement of observers protects against perceiving
from -0.43 to -1.23 for distinctive values of consumer brand engagement other consumers of the luxury brand higher on Machiavellianism and
ranging from 19.20 to 30.00. In a similar vein, the negative association psychopathy.
between luxury consumption and perceived psychopathy spreads in
effect from -0.39 to -1.44 for values of consumer brand engagement
ranging from 19.20 to 30.00 (Fig. 3).

7
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Fig. 2. Floodlight analyses for Study 2. Note: Slopes are presented with 95% confidence bands.

8
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Table 5
Testing for moderated analyses.
Predictors narcissism Machiavellianism psychopathy

B SE t B SE t B SE t

Outcome variable: Dependent variable

Logo presence (1 = no logo; 2 = logo) 0.82 0.70 1.17 1.00 0.67 1.48 1.50 0.64 2.34*
CBE 0.08 0.05 1.59 0.07 0.05 1.56 0.11 0.04 2.31*
Logo presence × CBE − 0.05 0.03 − 1.43 − 0.07 0.03 − 2.32* − 0.10 0.03 − 3.21***
Conditional effects of logo presence on dependent variable at specific levels of
the moderator
CBE Effect SE 95% CI Effect SE 95% CI Effect SE 95% CI
14.24 (16th percentile) 0.14 0.28 − 0.41 – − 0.06 0.27 − 0.59 – 0.47 0.10 0.39 − 0.40 – 0.60
0.69
21.00 (50th percentile) − 0.18 0.20 − 0.57 – − 0.56 0.19 − 0.94 – − 0.56 0.18 − 0.92 –
0.21 − 0.18 − 0.20
25.00 (84th percentile) − 0.37 0.26 − 0.88 – − 0.86 0.25 − 1.35 – − 0.95 0.23 − 1.42 –
0.14 − 0.37 − 0.49

Note: CBE - consumer brand engagement; Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; CI - confidence interval.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 6
Floodlight analysis results (Study 3).
narcissism Machiavellianism psychopathy

CBE effect (SE) t value p CBE effect (SE) t value p CBE effect (SE) t value p

6.00 0.53 (0.51) 1.04 0.300 6.00 0.55 (0.49) 1.12 0.263 6.00 0.91 (0.47) 1.94 0.055
7.14 0.48 (0.48) 1.00 0.317 7.20 0.46 (0.46) 1.02 0.312 7.20 0.79 (0.43) 1.82 0.071
8.29 0.42 (0.44) 0.96 0.339 8.40 0.37 (0.42) 0.89 0.377 8.40 0.67 (0.40) 1.68 0.096
9.43 0.36 (0.41) 0.91 0.367 9.60 0.28 (0.39) 0.73 0.464 9.60 0.55 (0.37) 1.51 0.135
10.57 0.31 (0.37) 0.84 0.402 10.80 0.20 (0.35) 0.55 0.583 10.80 0.44 (0.34) 1.30 0.197
11.71 0.26 (0.34) 0.76 0.449 12.00 0.11 (0.32) 0.33 0.743 12.00 0.32 (0.31) 1.04 0.299
12.86 0.21 (0.31) 0.66 0.510 13.20 0.02 (0.29) 0.06 0.955 13.20 0.20 (0.28) 0.73 0.468
14.00 0.15 (0.28) 0.54 0.593 14.40 -0.07 (0.26) − 0.27 0.784 14.40 0.08 (0.25) 0.34 0.737
15.14 0.09 (0.26) 0.38 0.705 15.60 -0.16 (0.24) − 0.68 0.500 15.60 -0.03 (0.23) − 0.14 0.885
16.29 0.04 (0.24) 0.19 0.853 16.80 -0.25 (0.22) − 1.15 0.251 16.80 -0.15 (0.21) − 0.73 0.469
17.43 -0.01 (0.22) − 0.05 0.960 18.00 -0.34 (0.20) − 1.70 0.094 18.00 -0.27 (0.19) − 1.40 0.165
18.57 -0.06 (0.20) − 0.32 0.750 18.63 -0.38 (0.20) − 1.98 0.050 18.98 -0.36 (0.18) − 1.98 0.050
19.71 -0.12 (0.20) − 0.60 0.547 19.20 -0.43 (0.19) − 2.24 0.027 19.20 -0.39 (0.18) − 2.11 0.037
20.86 -0.17 (0.20) − 0.88 0.383 20.40 -0.52 (0.19) − 2.74 0.007 20.40 -0.50 (0.18) − 2.79 0.006
22.00 -0.23 (0.21) − 1.10 0.272 21.60 -0.61 (0.20) − 3.11 0.002 21.60 -0.62 (0.19) − 3.34 0.001
23.14 -0.28 (0.22) − 1.28 0.204 22.80 -0.70 (0.21) − 3.35 0.001 22.80 -0.74 (0.20) − 3.73 0.001
24.29 -0.34 (0.24) − 1.40 0.165 24.00 -0.79 (0.23) − 3.47 0.001 24.00 -0.86 (0.22) − 3.97 0.001
25.43 -0.39 (0.26) − 1.48 0.142 25.20 -0.88 (0.25) − 3.51 0.001 25.20 -0.97 (0.24) − 4.10 0.001
26.57 -0.45 (0.29) − 1.53 0.129 26.40 -0.97 (0.28) − 3.50 0.001 26.40 − 1.09 (0.26) − 4.15 0.001
27.71 -0.50 (0.32) − 1.56 0.122 27.60 − 1.06 (0.31) − 3.45 0.001 27.60 − 1.21 (0.29) − 4.16 0.001
28.86 -0.55 (0.35) − 1.58 0.118 28.80 − 1.14 (0.34) − 3.40 0.001 28.80 − 1.34 (0.32) − 4.15 0.001
30.00 -0.61 (0.38) − 1.59 0.116 30.00 − 1.23 (0.37) − 3.34 0.001 30.00 − 1.44 (0.3) − 4.12 0.001

Note: CBE - consumer brand engagement.

7.1. Theoretical implications particular attitudes towards overt consumers of luxury. Adding to the
initial research focused on positive aspects of luxury consumption (e.g.,
The current work offers several contributions to the literature. First, J. Lee et al., 2015; Nelissen & Meijers, 2011), our findings enrich the
it extends the luxury consumption literature by analyzing previously discussion on the holistic view of luxury consumption (Dubois et al.,
unknown costs of luxury. Prior research has identified several negative 2021) and fits well with the concluding sentence of the article by Can­
consequences of luxury consumption (e.g., McFerran et al., 2014; Srna non and Rucker (2019, p. 778) that “the social signals of luxury brands
et al., 2022), but none of the studies addressed the perceptions of con­ appear far more complex than previously understood and worthy of
sumers’ dark personality traits. We advance this line of research by further study”.
demonstrating that beyond the fact that dark personality traits are Second, our findings present a nuanced understanding of the rela­
positively associated with luxury consumption (Guido et al., 2020), tionship between luxury consumption and the dark triad of personality
observers actually attribute higher levels of these traits to luxury brand offering the mechanism and boundary conditions of the analyzed effect.
consumers. The findings reveal that the effect of luxury consumption on Ascribing higher levels of dark personality traits to luxury brands con­
the perception of dark triad of personality is not universally present and sumers can be explained by attributing to them the impression man­
that it depends on characteristics of the observers. This is in line with agement motive. Observers perceive wearing luxury logos as a
previous works showing that positive consequences of using luxury also manipulation of impression targeting them. These findings corroborate
depended on characteristics of observers (Park & John, 2018; Razmus & the studies that proved that the conspicuous use of a brand by an indi­
Fortuna, 2022). We find that people do indeed “judge a book by its vidual is often interpreted by observers as being motivated by impres­
cover”. They form complex inferences about personality traits of con­ sion management (Ferraro et al., 2013). Furthermore, a similar
sumers based on brand logos displayed by the consumers. These in­ mechanism was previously identified in relation to luxury consumption
ferences of dark personality traits, even based exclusively on outfits, and warmth perception. Specifically, the perception of luxury brand
certainly have complex interpersonal consequences, starting with users as being less warm was found to be influenced by the assumption

9
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Fig. 3. Floodlight analyses for Study 3. Note: Slopes are presented with 95% confidence bands; CBE - consumer brand engagement.

10
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

that these individuals are motivated by impression management (Can­ traits and are applicable especially to strangers. The use of luxury brands
non & Rucker, 2019). Impression management motive seems crucial in in a conspicuous way (loud logo) should therefore be avoided by people
explaining the perception of luxury brand users. who move into a new environment and do not want to be perceived as
By showing that attribution of higher levels of Machiavellianism and narcissistic, Machiavellian and psychopathic. This is especially true for
psychopathy depends on observers levels of sincerity, the current paper people who want to build their image on the pillars of the “light triad”
demonstrated that observers’ psychological trait may be an important (Kaufman et al., 2019), i.e.: kantianism (treating people as ends unto
variable in assessing people based on their brand use. Therefore, we themselves), humanism (valuing the dignity and worth of each indi­
contribute to the research on the constructs that affect the relationship vidual), and faith in humanity (believing in the fundamental goodness of
between use of luxury and consumer perception (Park & John, 2018; humans). The listed attributes negatively correlate with the traits of the
Razmus & Fortuna, 2022) by adding a previously unknown moderator. “dark triad”, and positively correlate with such traits as fairness,
So far, most works on sincerity in the context of consumer behavior modesty, compassion or respectfulness. In turn, the use of clothing with
focused on the perception of brand sincerity (brand personality; Eisend loud logos of luxury brands should be of interest to people who want to
& Stokburger-Sauer, 2013). We go beyond this perspective by investi­ highlight features positively correlated with the “dark triad of person­
gating observers’ sincerity. Our results demonstrate that this personality ality”, such as: leadership, assertiveness, the need for achievement,
trait plays an important role in consumer behavior. We did not find dominance or openness to change (Kaufman et al., 2019).
support for H3a, which means that attributing higher narcissism to Similarly, companies and marketers should consider the relation­
consumers of luxury brands via impression management does not ships we uncovered. As luxury goods have both a light and dark side,
depend on observers’ sincerity. This could be because wearing outfits marketers should be aware of the potential negative consequences in
with visible luxury logos is a form of ostentatious behavior that is often perception of luxury brand users. For observers, the element that de­
associated with narcissists. As a result, it may be evident to observers, termines whether a product is luxury is the visible luxury brand logo
regardless of their level of sincerity, that such a conspicuous and (Greenberg et al., 2020). Companies (especially related to luxury
attention-seeking display of wealth and status indicates high levels of clothing) could analyze how consumers perceive the typical user of their
narcissism and a desire to manage one’s image. brand and could give guidance to fashion designers on whether a
Our findings also shed light on a factor protecting against perceiving brand’s logo should be highly visible or rather subtle or hidden. If a
luxury brand consumers as more Machiavellian and more psychopathic. company wants its brand users to be perceived as having characteristics
The factor that totally eliminates attribution of higher levels of these of the dark triad, it should use loud logos. Companies that do not wish
traits to luxury brand consumers is consumer brand engagement. Ob­ their brand users to be perceived as narcissistic, Machiavellian, or psy­
tained results correspond with previous findings (Ferraro et al., 2013) chopathic can employ different strategies in addition to using smaller
and support Social Exchange Theory (Emerson, 1976). Particularly, we logos on clothing.
illustrate that social exchange which is assumed by the consumer brand Marketers should be aware that observers may ascribe negative
engagement extends to the evaluation of luxury brands users. Having personality traits to luxury brand consumers because of their perception
invested their resources in the brand relationship, observers with high of impression management motives (Cannon & Rucker, 2019). Com­
levels of consumer brand engagement form considerably more favorable panies should consider ways to reduce the impression management
views of their ingroups users. This expands existing knowledge by motive associated with luxury consumption. For example, they could
showing the same boundary conditions in both the assessment of atti­ focus on producing high-quality products with transparent production
tudes toward conspicuous users (Ferraro et al., 2013) and more negative processes that speak for themselves, rather than relying solely on
personality traits. Specifically, as earlier research has shown, observers extravagant branding or advertising to create an image of luxury and
with stronger personal connection to the brand exhibit more positive exclusivity. This will help to reduce the impression that consumers
attitudes towards individuals who use the brand conspicuously (Ferraro pursue luxury products solely to seek attention, for status or to impress
et al., 2013). We did not confirm H4a, that observer’s consumer brand others.
engagement moderates the relationship between luxury consumption Marketers should also be aware that observers with high levels of
and the perception of narcissism. Again, observer’s characteristics sincerity are more likely to perceive high levels of Machiavellianism and
played little role altogether in the perception of luxury brand consumers psychopathy in luxury brand consumers. Companies should seek ways to
as narcissists. These findings might be due to the fact that narcissism mitigate these negative perceptions among observers with high levels of
carries a different evaluation than Machiavellianism and psychopathy in sincerity. One way to do this is building a strong brand identity that
lay theories. When desirability of each trait, consequences for the self emphasizes positive values such as honesty, integrity, and social re­
and consequences for others are considered, lay perceivers evaluate sponsibility. Moreover, present evidence shows that building brand
narcissism as much “brighter” and desirable than Machiavellianism and engagement can help protect against negative perceptions of luxury
psychopathy, whereas the latter two are rated as quite similarly “dark” consumers. Thus, the observer’s consumer brand engagement not only
and undesirable (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). It could be that consumer strengthens the perception of positive traits of luxury brand users
brand engagement does not lead to the attribution of lower levels of (Razmus & Fortuna, 2022), but also protects against the attribution of
narcissism to luxury brand consumers, as the trait seems natural to these Machiavellianism and psychopathy to these users.
consumers and is simply not perceived as negative.
7.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research
7.2. Practical implications
Our research has several limitations. The research was conducted
Two types of implications can be drawn from our research: (1) for only in one country (where luxury consumption is not yet at a mature
people managing the images of others and (2) for marketers of luxury level, and luxury goods are mainly perceived as positional goods and
brands. status symbols). It is worth testing the obtained results in another cul­
People can create their image through consumption and often use ture, especially in mature markets. In our studies, we did not control for
luxury brands to do so (Garcia et al., 2019). Awareness of the costs of the purchasing power of participants (it is a sensitive issue in the Polish
luxury consumption is crucial for proper image management to avoid cultural context). As the income level of participants could be a factor
misunderstandings. On the one hand, the consumption of luxury goods influencing the perception of luxury brands, it is worth considering
provides benefits (e.g., J. Lee et al., 2015; Nelissen & Meijers, 2011), but measuring this variable in future studies. Another limitation of our
on the other hand, it can also create undesirable perceptions of the research is that the person presented in the photos was always white and
consumer. Our research findings refer to perceived dark personality male. We used only photos of white people as the research was

11
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

conducted in a racially homogeneous society. Future research would Ethical approval

benefit from examining uncovered effects using diverse photos of
models, including people of color and women. In addition, our research Ethical approval for all research was obtained from the Research
utilized photographs of individuals wearing clothing with loud luxury Ethics Committee at the Institute of Psychology at the first author’s
brand logos as well as clothing without logos. The clothes as well as the university.
size of the logos reflected the actual products of the selected brands (the
logos were not enlarged for the research). It is possible that the use of Funding
loud luxury brand logos contributed to an increased perception of
impression management. Further research on this topic could also The work of A.Z. C. was supported by grant 2018/30/E/HS6/00863
analyze how users of luxury brands are perceived when using quiet from the National Science Center, Poland.
luxury. Since the perception of luxury brand users depends also on the
social context of luxury brand consumers (higher-status vs. lower-status CRediT authorship contribution statement
luxury consumers; S. Lee & Bolton, 2020), future research would benefit
from examining the role of consumer status in the studied relationships. Wiktor Razmus: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Project
Future studies would also do well by providing respondents with more administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data
gender categories to choose from, besides men and women. Addition­ curation, Conceptualization. Anna Z. Czarna: Writing – original draft,
ally, as another step, researchers could investigate effects of model Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition. Paweł Fortuna:
gender, effects of respondents’ gender and interaction effects between Writing – original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization.
model gender and respondents’ gender on consumer perceptions.
Finally, it is worth noting that Study 1B did not replicate the results of Declaration of Competing Interest
Study 1A and Study 2. The findings indicate that this discrepancy cannot
be attributed to the low level of perceived luxuriousness of the Lacoste The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
brand, but rather seems to be associated with other brand-related vari­ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
ables, such as brand image. As such, the underlying cause for the the work reported in this paper.
absence of a main effect for the Lacoste brand remains unresolved,
presenting an intriguing area for further investigation. Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request. Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A

Appendix A1

12
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Appendix A2

Appendix A3

13
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Appendix A4

Note: Luxury label (logo, left) and non-luxury label (no logo, right) conditions.

Appendix B

Zero-order Pearson correlation coefficients between dark triad of personality (Study 1A, Study 1B, Study 2, and Study 3).

Variable Study 1A Study 1B Study 2 Study 3

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1. narcissism – – – –
2. Machiavellianism 0.67 – 0.71 – 0.80 – 0.64 –
3. psychopathy 0.60 0.85 – 0.66 0.88 – 0.76 0.89 – 0.55 0.89 –
Note: values are significant at p < .001.
Discriminant validity (HTMT) of the dark triad of personality measures (Study 1A, Study 1B, Study 2, and Study 3).

Variable Study 1A Study 1B Study 2 Study 3

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1. narcissism – – – –
2. Machiavellianism 0.666 – 0.710 – 0.796 – 0.638 –
3. psychopathy 0.600 0.849 – 0.658 0.881 – 0.763 0.884 – 0.548 0.885 –

References Carré, J. R., Jones, D. N., & Mueller, S. M. (2020). Perceiving opportunities for legal and
illegal profit: Machiavellianism and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual
Differences, 162, Article 109942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109942
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first
Cheung, M. L., Pires, G. D., & Rosenberger, P. J., III (2021). Exploring consumer–brand
sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of
engagement: A holistic framework. European Business Review, 33(1). https://doi.org/
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/
10.1108/EBR-10-2019-0256
a0016338
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in machiavellianism. Academic Press.
Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of
Cisek, S. Z., Sedikides, C., Hart, C. M., Godwin, H. J., Benson, V., & Liversedge, S. P.
Consumer Research, 37, 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1086/655445
(2014). Narcissism and consumer behaviour: A review and preliminary findings.
Bharti, M., Suneja, V., & Chauhan, A. K. (2021). The role of socio-psychological and
Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00232
personality antecedents in luxury consumption: A meta-analytic review. International
Czarna, A. Z., Jonason, P. K., Dufner, M., & Kossowska, M. (2016). The Dirty Dozen scale:
Marketing Review, 39(2), 269–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-02-2021-0096
Validation of a Polish version and extension of the nomological net. Frontiers in
Bourdage, J. S., Wiltshire, J., & Lee, K. (2015). Personality and workplace impression
Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00445
management: Correlates and implications. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2),
D’Arpizio, C. (2018). Luxury goods worldwide market study. https://www.bain.com/cont
537–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037942
entassets/8df501b9f8d6442eba00040246c6b4f9/bain_digest__luxury_goods_worl
Cannon, C., & Rucker, D. D. (2019). The dark side of luxury: Social costs of luxury
dwide_market_study_fall_winter_2018.pdf.
consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(5), 767–779. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167218796790

14
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

D’Arpizio, C., Levato, F., Prete, F., Gault, C., & de Montgolfier, J. (2023). Renaissance in Ko, E., Costello, J. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2019). What is a luxury brand? A new definition
uncertainty: Luxury builds on its rebound. https://www.bain.com/insights/renaissan and review of the literature. Journal of Business Research, 99, 405–413. https://doi.
ce-in-uncertainty-luxury-builds-on-its-rebound/. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.023
DeSimone, J. A., & Harms, P. D. (2018). Dirty data: The effects of screening respondents KPMG. (2019). Rynek dóbr luksusowych w Polsce. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/
who provide low-quality data in survey research. Journal of Business and Psychology, kpmg/pl/pdf/2019/12/pl-raport-kpmg-w-polsc-pt-rynek-dobr-luksusowych-w-pol
33(5), 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9514-9 sce-2019.pdf.
Dubois, D., Jung, S., & Ordabayeva, N. (2021). The psychology of luxury consumption. Kumar, A., Paul, J., & Unnithan, A. B. (2020). ‘Masstige’ marketing: A review, synthesis
Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113, 384–398. https://doi.org/
copsyc.2020.07.011 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.030
Eastman, J., Iyer, R., & Babin, B. (2022). Luxury not for the masses: Measuring Kumar, B., Bagozzi, R. P., Manrai, A. K., & Manrai, L. A. (2022). Conspicuous
inconspicuous luxury motivations. Journal of Business Research, 145, 509–523. consumption: A meta-analytic review of its antecedents, consequences, and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.022 moderators. Journal of Retailing, 98(3), 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Eisend, M., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2013). Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of jretai.2021.10.003
antecedents and consequences. Marketing Letters, 24(3), 205–216. https://doi.org/ Lee, J., Ko, E., & Megehee, C. M. (2015). Social benefits of brand logos in presentation of
10.1007/s11002-013-9232-7 self in cross and same gender influence contexts. Journal of Business Research, 68(6),
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362. 1341–1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.004
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100.
Ferraro, R., Kirmani, A., & Matherly, T. (2013). Look at Me! Look at Me! Conspicuous Assessment, 25(5), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116659134
brand usage, Self-brand connection, and dilution. Journal of Marketing Research, 50 Lee, S., & Bolton, L. E. (2020). Mixed signals? Decoding luxury consumption in the
(4), 477–488. workplace. Journal of Business Research, 117, 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., & Chen, P. (2019). The status signals paradox. Social jbusres.2020.06.011
Psychological and Personality Science, 10(5), 690–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/ McFerran, B., Aquino, K., & Tracy, J. L. (2014). Evidence for two facets of pride in
1948550618783712 consumption: Findings from luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4),
Glenn, A. L., Efferson, L. M., Iyer, R., & Graham, J. (2017). Values, goals, and motivations 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.03.004
associated with psychopathy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36(2), Mroz, B. (2020). Consumer behaviours on the luxury goods market in Poland.
108–125. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2017.36.2.108 International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies, 13(3), 273–285.
Goenka, S., & Thomas, M. (2020). The malleable morality of conspicuous consumption. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEPEE.2020.109046
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 562–583. https://doi.org/ Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of
10.1037/pspp0000237 human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad
Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2020). The “why” and (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological
“how” of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. Perspectives on Science, 12, 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070
Psychological Science, 15(1), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619873350 Nelissen, R. M. A., & Meijers, M. H. C. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly
Greenberg, D., Ehrensperger, E., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Hoyer, W. D., Zhang, Z. J., & signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343–355.
Krohmer, H. (2020). The role of brand prominence and extravagance of product O’Cass, A., & McEwen, H. (2004). Exploring consumer status and conspicuous
design in luxury brand building: What drives consumers’ preferences for loud versus consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/
quiet luxury? Journal of Brand Management, 27(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/ cb.155
10.1057/s41262-019-00175-5 Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2018). Judging a book by its cover: The influence of implicit
Guido, G., Amatulli, C., Peluso, A. M., De Matteis, C., Piper, L., & Pino, G. (2020). self-theories on brand user perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(1),
Measuring internalized versus externalized luxury consumption motivations and 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1014
consumers’ segmentation. Italian Journal of Marketing, 2020(1), 25–47. https://doi. Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of
org/10.1007/s43039-020-00002-9 psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/
of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1509/ S0954579409000492
jmkg.74.4.015 Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6),
Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
0093854896023001004 PBC. (2017). Luksus kocha prasę. https://www.pbc.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/
Harrison, A., Summers, J., & Mennecke, B. (2018). The effects of the dark triad on RAPORT_PBC_Luksus-kocha_prase.pdf.
unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 53–77. https://doi.org/ Pilch, I., & Górnik-Durose, M. E. (2016). Do we need “dark” traits to explain materialism?
10.1007/s10551-016-3368-3 The incremental validity of the Dark Triad over the HEXACO domains in predicting
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: materialistic orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 102–106.
A regression based approach. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.047
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis, Pino, G., Amatulli, C., Peluso, A. M., Nataraajan, R., & Guido, G. (2019). Brand
second edition: A regression-based approach (2nd Edition). The Guilford Press. prominence and social status in luxury consumption: A comparison of emerging and
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing mature markets. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 46, 163–172. https://doi.
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.006
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747- Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How “dark” are the Dark Triad traits? Examining
014-0403-8 the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Hermann, A. D., Brunell, A. B., & Foster, J. D. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of trait narcissism: Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 884–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Key advances, research methods, and controversies. Springer. paid.2012.06.020
Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2013). The perceived attractiveness and traits of the
media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Dark Triad: Narcissists are perceived as hot, Machiavellians and psychopaths not.
Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002 Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 582–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Howard, M. C., & Van Zandt, E. C. (2020). The discriminant validity of honesty-humility: paid.2012.11.005
A meta-analysis of the HEXACO, Big Five, and Dark Triad. Journal of Research in Razmus, W. (2021). Consumer brand engagement beyond the “Likes”. Frontiers in
Personality, 87, Article 103982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103982 Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.692000
Jarness, V. (2017). Cultural vs economic capital: Symbolic boundaries within the middle Razmus, W., & Fortuna, P. (2022). Someone like me: The role of consumer brand
class. Sociology, 51(2), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515596909 engagement and social identification in the perception of luxury brand users. Journal
Jebarajakirthy, C., & Das, M. (2021). Uniqueness and luxury: A moderated mediation of Consumer Behaviour, 21(5), 1190–1202. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2071
approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, Article 102477. https://doi. Scott, M. L., Mende, M., & Bolton, L. E. (2013). Judging the book by its cover? How
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102477 consumers decode conspicuous consumption cues in buyer-seller relationships.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Journal of Marketing Research, 50(3), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1509/
Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, jmr.11.0478
5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.698 Sedikides, C., Gregg, A. P., Cisek, S., & Hart, C. M. (2007). The I that buys: Narcissists as
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark consumers. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(4), 254–257. https://doi.org/
triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70035-9
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle Sedikides, C., & Hart, C. M. (2022). Narcissism and conspicuous consumption. Current
(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–108). The Guilford Opinion in Psychology, 46, Article 101322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Press. copsyc.2022.101322
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2017). Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of Shao, W., Grace, D., & Ross, M. (2019a). Consumer motivation and luxury consumption:
deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 329–342. https://doi.org/ Testing moderating effects. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 46, 33–44.
10.1037/pspp0000139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.10.003
Kaufman, S. B., Yaden, D. B., Hyde, E., & Tsukayama, E. (2019). The light vs. Dark Triad Shao, W., Grace, D., & Ross, M. (2019b). Investigating brand visibility in luxury
of personality: Contrasting two very different profiles of human nature. Frontiers in consumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 357–370. https://doi.
Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467 org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.017

15
W. Razmus et al. Journal of Business Research 169 (2023) 114246

Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Klein, C. (2006). Machiavellianism, Wang, Y., John, D. R., & Griskevicious, V. (2021). Does the devil wear Prada? Luxury
trait perfectionism, and perfectionistic self-presentation. Personality and Individual product experiences can affect prosocial behavior. International Journal of Research in
Differences, 40(4), 829–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.010 Marketing, 38(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.04.001
Shukla, P., & Purani, K. (2012). Comparing the importance of luxury value perceptions in Wu, M.-S.-S., Chen, C.-H.-S., & Nguyen, B. (2015). Luxury brand purchases and the
cross-national contexts. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1417–1424. https://doi. extended self: A cross-cultural comparison of young female consumers in Taiwan and
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.007 the UK. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 7(3), 153–173. https://doi.
Skimina, E., Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., Szarota, P., & Izdebski, P. K. (2020). Psychometric org/10.1108/APJBA-05-2015-0046
properties of the Polish versions of the HEXACO-60 and the HEXACO-100 Zhu, X., Geng, Y., Pan, Y., & Shi, L. (2022). Conspicuous consumption in Chinese young
personality inventories. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 8(3), 255–278. adults: The role of dark tetrad and gender. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2020.98693 10.1007/s12144-022-03129-4
Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights,
floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression.
Wiktor Razmus is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Psychology at The John Paul II
Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0420
Catholic University of Lublin, Poland. His research interests include methodology and
Srna, S., Barasch, A., & Small, D. A. (2022). On the value of modesty: How signals of
psychometrics, consumer behavior, consumer-brand relationships, work and organiza­
status undermine cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123,
tional psychology, and the psychology of religion and spirituality.
676–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000303
Stępień, B. (2020). The value of luxury: An emerging perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
Stępień, B., Pinto Lima, A., Sagbansua, L., & Hinner, M. B. (2016). Comparing consumers’ Anna Z. Czarna is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Applied Psychology at The
value perception of luxury goods: Is national culture a sufficiently explanatory Jagiellonian University, Poland. Her main research interests are focused on social, inter­
factor? Economics and Business Review, 16(2), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.18559/ personal, cognitive and affective correlates and consequences of the Dark Triad of per­
ebr.2016.2.5 sonality traits: narcissism, Machiavellanism and psychopathy.
Truong, Y. (2010). Personal aspirations and the consumption of luxury goods.
International Journal of Market Research, 52(5), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.2501/
Paweł Foruna is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Psychology at The John Paul II
S1470785310201521
Catholic University of Lublin, Poland. His research interests include attitude change,
Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Portrait of a
consumer behavior, media communication, cyberpsychology, positive technology and
narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research in
reception of artificial intelligence.
Personality, 42(6), 1439–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.007
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the Leisure Class. Houghton Mifflin.

16