SOCIAL RANK STYLES, MACHIAVELLIANISM AND THE ATTITUDE TOWARD CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION2

Conspicuous consumption describes signalling of one’s buying power in order to impress others and secure and/or preserve a favourable place in a social hierarchy. The current study, involving 200 junior and senior high school students from Serbia, examined inclination for lavish spending on brand name clothes in relation to social dominance. Our aim was to examine a predictive relationship between an exploitative interpersonal strategy (marked by Machiavellianism, Leadership, and Ruthless Self−Advancement), and the attitude toward conspicuous consumption. Our respondents with high esteem of power, emanating from the principal position within a group, and prone to Machiavellianism and Ruthless Self−Advancement, had a positive attitude toward conspicuous consumption (an indirect measure of the actual behaviour). Although one’s attitude toward conspicuous consumption is likely to be multifaceted, our findings suggest that a positive attitude towards conspicuous consumption may be an accompanying ingredient of the opportunistic and calculating life strategy. The results indicate that conspicuous consumption is most likely embedded in the social ranking processes.


208
Social competition is an inevitable consequence of group living (West−Eberhard, 1979), and it is considered to be a main form of social interaction (Dunbar, 1998), as well as a main driving force of primate (Bates & Byrne, 2015) and hominid brain evolution (Bailey & Geary, 2009).Hierarchical organization of primate social groups warrants that individuals occupying top ranks enjoy primacy in procuring essential resources, such as mates (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 1991).In order to achieve and protect valued positions in the social hierarchy, humans have developed sophisticated strategies that do not rely on physical attributes such as size and force.For instance, in human societies, power and status are achieved not only through accumulation of wealth, but also through its public display.Thus, a conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1902) is considered to be an effective strategy for gaining and sustaining the favourable social status and contingent procuring benefits (De Fraja, 2009;Nelissen & Meijers, 2011;Saad, 2007).Indeed, eye−catching display of signals of dominance is an inevitable ingredient of social competition (Johnstone, 1997(Johnstone, , 2002)).Not surprisingly, Darwin (1871) has been the first to notice that extravagance of outer appearance is usually best explained by pressures of sexual selection.
Recent research (Sundie et al., 2011;Wang & Griskevicius, 2014) demonstrate that conspicuous consumption may be instrumental for gaining advantage over potential mating competition.In the context of intra−sexual rivalry, both women (Wang & Griskevicius, 2014) and men (Griskevicius et al., 2007) use conspicuous consumption to advertise their reproductive superiority over potential competition.Conspicuous consumption seems to be an ubiquitous device for gaining and maintaining a high social rank, as evidenced by its diverse historical instances and cultural practices (Bloch, Rao, & Desai, 2004;Calzi & Corno, 2007;Schoep, 2004;Wisman, 2009;Zuckerman, 2007).Lavish spending on functionally irrelevant items may be a sign of self−centredness and opportunistic and competitive approach to others.However, psychological foundations of conspicuous consumption are not fully understood, and little is known about interrelationships among conspicuous consumption and other expressions of social dominance.We have decided to look at the theoretical overlap among Machiavellianism (as defined by MACH IV; Christie & Geis, 1970), Ruthless Self−Advancement, and Dominant Leadership (as defined by RSPQ; Zuroff, Fournier, Patal, & Leybman, 2010), as well as Leadership as an interpersonal value (as defined by Gordon, 1960), in the context of conspicuous consumption.Our aim has been to examine a predictive relationship between an exploitative interpersonal strategy (marked by Machiavellianism, a high esteem of power, and Ruthless Self−Advancement) and the attitude toward conspicuous consumption.
In their seminal paper, Zuroff and his associates (2010) have approached social dominance from an evolutionary perspective.According to Zuroff et al. (2010), individual differences in preferred strategies for pursuing and defending social dominance (rank) styles are best accounted for by three latent dimensions of their Rank Style with Peers Questionnaire (RSPQ): Dominant Leadership, Coa-lition Building, and Ruthless Self−Advancement.Dominant Leadership is defined by one's tendency for assuming a guiding role among the peers, overconfidence in promotion of one's ideas, and a dominant initiative when making a final decision about the group actions.Coalition Building is characterized by the tendency to cultivate cooperative coalitions, respect for the opinion of other group members, avoiding confrontation and seeking a compromise.Finally, Ruthless Self−Advancement is typified by readiness to secure a higher social rank through manipulative, cheating and self−serving strategies.
Drawing on Zuroff et al. (2010) study, it seems plausible to explore the connection between individual social rank styles and conspicuous consumption.While it seems plausible to assume that there is a positive relationship between self-serving and opportunistic strategies of social competition and conspicuous consumption, today there is no data to support this claim.The problem of this research is focused on the examination of social ranks dimensions which contribute to the formation of attitudes about conspicuous consumption, as well as on the question of how conspicious consumption depends on individual differences in the context of Machiavellianism and Leadership.
Since our preliminary and published paper (Velov, Gojković, & Đurić, 2014) indicates that people are rather reluctant to admit practicing conspicuous consumption, we have opted for examining the attitude toward conspicuous consumption (hereinafter ATCC), as an indicator of the actual inclination toward conspicuous consumption.Namely, one could expect different linear associations between ATCC and the three social rank styles, as defined by RSPQ.This has led to our first hypothesis: H1: There is a positive correlation between ATCC and Ruthless Self−Advancement, as well as between ATCC and Dominant Leadership, but there is no correlation between ATCC and Coalition Building.
In addition, our intention has been to integrate different theoretical perspectives on the self−centred action and its relation with conspicuous consumption.Since Ruthless Self−Advancement is conceptually related to calculated social manipulation (Book, Visser, & Volk, 2015), we have decided to examine theoretical overlap between Machiavellianism (as defined by MACH IV; Christie & Geis, 1970) and Ruthless Self−Advancement (as defined by RSPQ), in the context of conspicuous consumption leading to additional hypothesis: H2: There is a positive correlation between Machiavellianism and ATCC.
In addition, we have expected that there is a positive correlation between Machiavellianism and Ruthless Self−Advancement, and a negative correlation between Machiavellianism and Coalition Building.
For the same reason, we have decided to look at the theoretical overlap between Dominant Leadership (as defined by RSPQ) and Leadership as an interpersonal value (as defined by Gordon, 1960).For the sake of clarity of our exposition, it is critical to emphasize the difference between the two related but distinctive constructs with similar names: Leadership (as defined by Survey of Interpersonal Values; Gordon, 1960), and Dominant Leadership (as defined by RSPQ).Leadership as an interpersonal value is mostly saturated with power emanating from the principal position within a group, while Dominant Leadership is expressed as a disposition to assume a guiding role in a conscientiousness, non−neurotic, extrovert, and non−avoidant manner (Zuroff et al., 2010).We believe that it would be interesting to examine a predictive value of the interpersonal value Leadership on ATCC, and examine its correlations with different social rank styles.Consequently, we have put forward a new set of hypotheses: H3: There is a positive correlation between Leadership (defined as an interpersonal value) and ATCC.
Nevertheless, we expected that there was a positive correlation between Leadership (defined as an interpersonal value) and Dominant Leadership (as defined by RSPQ), as well as Ruthless Self−Advancement, and a negative correlation between Leadership and Coalition Building.
As the final and encompassing test of our approach to psychological underpinnings of the relationship between ATCC and social dominance, we examined joint predictive power of the three RSPQ−defined social rank styles, Machiavellianism, and the interpersonal value Leadership on ATCC.This reasoning was summarized in: H4: There is a statistically significant linear combination of predictor variables (the three RSPQ−defined social rank styles, Machiavellianism, and Leadership) explaining a substantial proportion of total ATCC variance, and exceeding the predicting power of every individual predictor variable.
In short, we assumed that ATCC had substantial parts of common variance with an optimal linear combination of the three social rank styles, Machiavellianism, and Leadership, and empirically tested this proposition.Establishing the aforementioned variables as predictors of ATCC would help us to further elucidate conspicuous consumption as a strategy for gaining and maintaining the social dominance status.
Finally, we assumed that: H5: The original latent structure of the RSPQ scale is replicable on a Serbian adolescent sample.

Sample and procedure
The study involved 107 male and 93 female junior and senior high school students (mean age 16) from six different Serbian schools.The examination was carried out in groups, in the classrooms of the selected schools.The respondents were familiar with the structure of the questionnaire, the purpose of research, and guaranteed anonymity.
After coding, the data were analyzed by standard statistical procedures.Reliability of scales was assessed by use of the Cronbach's alpha coefficient.The Kaiser−Meyer−Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was used to compare observed and partial correlation coefficients, and the Bartlett's test of spherecity was used to check for variable independence in conjunction with the ensuing exploratory factor analysis, involving method of principal components followed by Varimax rotation.Bivariate linear associations among constructs and their latent structures were analysed by Pearson's index of linear correlation.Predictive power of Machiavellianism, Social competition, and Leadership relative to ATCC, were examined by stepwise multiple regression.

Instruments
Attitude toward Conspicuous Consumption Scale (ATCC−55: Mitić, Velov, & Đurić, 2011).Attitude toward conspicuous consumption was evaluated by use of our standard 5−point Likert−type scale ATCC−55.All 55 items consisted of statements related to purchase and wearing of brand name clothes, a manifestation of conspicuous consumption that was familiar to our sample.The examples of representative items were the following: "People respect you more when you wear branded clothing", "Branded clothing raises confidence of people wearing it", and "Wearing branded clothing tells a good financial status".The rationales for using brand name clothes was a manifestation of conspicuous consumption among Serbian high school students, and we followed the rationale for formulating all statements in the third person given by Velov et al. (2014).
Machiavellianism Survey of Interpersonal Values (SIV: Gordon, 1960).Leadership as an interpersonal value was assessed by a 15−item subscale of Gordon's Survey of Interpersonal Values (SIV; Gordon, 1960;Majstorović, 1998), a self−report designed to measure values involving the individual's relationships to other people, or their relationships to him/her across six scales − Support, Conformity, Recognition, Independence, Benevolence, and Leadership.Subscale Leadership used in the research was one-dimensional.A number of studies confirmed its stable structure, which allowed the possibility to use an individual subscale as one-dimensional, without additional factor analyses.Reliability of all scales was assessed by use of Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which was presented in Table 2.

Latent structure of Rank Style with Peers Questionnaire (RSPQ)
The factor analysis of RSPQ extracted three latent dimensions accounting for 50.7% of total variance (Table 1).Rotated Component Matrix was attached to Appendix (Table A).The Guttman-Kaiser Criterion (Eigenvalue > 2), followed by the Scree test criteria, was used for the number of factors to be extracted.When all communalities were high, the two eigenvalue rules performed quite well in terms of identifying the correct number of factors, when there were three or less factors (Pearson, Mundfrom, & Piccone, 2013).The factor analysis was used to display the underlying theoretical structure of the phenomena, as well as to explore factor distribution on the domestic population.As we assumed and wanted to confirm, the original latent structure of the RSPQ scale was replicable on a Serbian adolescent sample.

Descriptive statistics
All scales used in this study had satisfactory reliability, as summarized in Table 2.This finding justified the use of scores on ATCC−55, MACH−IV, Leadership as an interpersonal value, Dominant Leadership, Coalition Building, and Ruthless Self−Promotion in the ensuing statistical analyses.There were some expected de-viations from the normal distribution on the subscale Coalition Building, but it was certainly excluded from the predictive model in further analyses.

Linear associations among scales scores
Table 3 summarizes Pearson product moment correlations between the composite score on Machiavellianism, Leadership, total score on ATCC, and three different rank styles.Bivariate correlation analysis revealed statistically significant linear associations between the total score on Ruthless Self−Advancement and ATCC−55, and no statistically significant correlation between the total score on Coalition Building and ATCC−55.Contrary to our expectations summarized in H1, there was no statistically significant correlation between the total score on Dominant Leadership and ATCC−55, following adjustment for Bonferroni correction.In compliance with our H2 and H3, there were statistically significant correlations between the total score on ATCC−55 and the total scores on MACH−IV and Leadership, respectively.
Machiavellianism negatively correlated with Coalition Building, and positively correlated with Ruthless Self−Advancement, in line with our H2, respectively.In line with hypotheses H3, Leadership positively correlated with Ruthless Self− Advancement and Dominant Leadership, but negatively correlated with Coalition Building (Table 4).This indicates that a high esteem of power predicts preference for self−centred styles of social competition.Conversely, a low esteem of power and low scores on MACH−IV have been associated with inclination toward cooperative social strategy and partnership.In addition, a significant positive correlation between Machiavellianism and Ruthless Self−Advancement have had an additional support for the notion that people scoring high on MACH−IV are prone to advance their own benefits, not being disturbed by universal moral standards.

Prediction model of ATCC
The answer to our main question (whether Ruthless Self−Advancement, Machiavellianism, and Leadership predict ATCC) was obtained by means of stepwise multiple regression.The criterion variable was defined as the total score on ATCC−55.Predictors were total scores on Machiavellianism, Leadership, and each of the three social rank styles, as defined by RSPQ.The analysis was performed in three steps resulting in a multiple regression coefficient, R = .51,F(3, 196) = 23.12,p < .001.The predictors were accepted in the model in the following order: Ruthless Self−Advancement, Leadership, and Machiavellianism (Table 5).Coefficient of multiple determination indicated that predictor variables and the criterion variable had approximately 26% of variance in common.The variables excluded from the model were Dominant Leadership and Coalition Building (Table B in Appendix).

Prediction model of ATCC
The results supported our main assumption that ATCC was predicted by Leadership (operationalized as an interpersonal value by Gordon, 1960) and the two manipulative and self−serving strategies for gaining and maintaining social dominance status: Ruthless Self−Advancement (as operationalized by Zuroff et al., 2010) and Machiavellianism (as operationalized by Christie & Geis, 1970).There were also significant zero−order correlations between Leadership and ATCC, and between Machiavellianism and ATCC, directing these two predictor variables in the multiple regression model.Thus, we concluded that people who were primarily guided by their own interest and leadership−generated power had a more positive attitude towards lavish spending, relative to people who were striving toward team work and collaboration.
In spite of their statistically significant covariance, the linear combination of Leadership, Ruthless Self−Advancement, and Machiavellianism exceeded the predicting power of every individual predictor variable.All three statistically significant predictors provided a positive contribution to the regression equation, with Ruthless Self−Advancement having the greatest impact on the regression slope.A shared vari-ance among these three predictors might point at their common psychological foundation.On the other hand, only Leadership, but not the Dominant Leadership, entered the model.We take it as an indication of their congruence, and also as an indication that in the context of conspicuous consumption power emanating from the principal position within a group, there is a more relevant dimension of leadership than a disposition toward affirmative dominance.Thus, egotistic (Ruthless Self-Advancement and Machiavellianism) and opportunistic (a high esteem of power as exemplified in Leadership) traits go hand in hand with the positive attitude toward conspicuous consumption.This finding suggests that use of conspicuous consumption for gaining advantage in the social competition may be typical, but certainly not limited to socially toxic personalities (Sundie et al., 2011;Wang & Griskevicius, 2014).

Linear associations among scales scores
This study has demonstrated significant correlations between Machiavellianism and Ruthless Self−Advancement, and between Machiavellianism and Leadership.Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism usually go hand in hand constituting a psychological profile known as the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).Although one's ATCC is likely to be multifaceted, our findings suggest that positive ATCC may be an accompanying ingredient of the opportunistic and calculating life strategy.The protean nature of the Dark Triad (Jonason & Webster, 2012) may explain why people are rather hesitant to directly disclose their personal inclination toward conspicuous consumption.
As predicted, there has been a significant correlation between Ruthless Self− Advancement and Machiavellianism.This is in line with Zuroff et al. (2010) who have also reported a moderate positive correlation between Machiavellianism and Ruthless self−advancement.Nevertheless, both variables have been included in the multiple regression model demonstrating their non−redundant individual contributions.It seems that Machiavellianism and Ruthless Self−Advancement have some common qualities, yet they are different psychological constructs as evidenced by the ratio of their unique and their common variance.So far, Ruthless−Self Advancement has been related to different measures of personality and adjustment, and in organizational and clinical psychology (Zuroff et al., 2010).This is the first demonstration of its predictive power in the consumer behaviour domain, demonstrating the instrumentality of this type of consumer behaviour for gaining of a desired social status.People with little or no concerns for others (high Machiavellianism, and those prone to Ruthless−Self Advancement who are at the same time fascinated with power) will use conspicuous consumption as another self-promoting tool.Given the increasingly central role of consumption in contemporary life, conspicuous consumption may be one of many manoeuvres complementing multiple manipulation tactics (Jonason & Webster, 2012), utilized by those who are inclined to exploitative style of personal relationships in their pursuit of selfish gains.
There are still few findings in the literature on the impact of brand and psychological antecedents on conspicuous consumption.While Shukla (2008) has focused on the context of automobile buying behaviour among middle age consumers (40-60) within the region of the South-East of the UK, there is also a domestic experimental research among young population on the impact of branded clothing on the first impression (Mitić, Petrović, & Đurić, 2017).Both research have emphasized the brand significance to perception, attitude and behaviour.

Future research and practical implications
The strength of our conclusions was limited by constraints imposed by our sample, as is the case with most correlational studies in psychology.We used an ad hoc sample of Serbian youth, and scales that were translated from their English original (RSPQ, MACH−IV, Survey of Interpersonal Values).Moreover, ATCC was assessed only through respondents' attitude toward brand name clothes.Any change with respect to sample and/or the scales that were used in the study could have resulted in different outcomes.
Nevertheless, the main shortcoming of the present study comes from the fact that we have studied ATCC which is only an indirect indication of the actual behaviour of conspicuous consumption.Given that attitudes could be treated as proxies for behaviour (Ajzen & Gilbert, 2008), and that ATCC and conspicuous consumption are not identical concepts, future research may benefit from examining the empirical relation between the two.
Other issues that need to be addressed in future studies involve psychological delineation between conspicuous and compulsory consumption, and better understanding of the relationship between narcissism and ATCC.Our recent data (Mitić et al., 2017) suggest that positive ATCC is strongly related to all three dimensions of the Dark Triad.
This study is the first to show the link between ATCC and highly egotistical social strategies.Although far from conclusive, this psychometric evidence is congruent with the idea that conspicuous consumption goes hand in hand with other essentially antisocial behaviours.The recent paper (Velov et al., 2014) has reported predictive relationship between materialism (a strong conviction that possession and accumulation of material objects is the key for happiness and social affirmation) and ATCC.Taken together, these findings extend our understanding of psychological foundations of conspicuous consumption.
Apparently unreasonable purchasing decisions based on motivational underpinnings of conspicuous consumption have multiple implications for economics, marketing, and sociobiology, and throw a somewhat different light on rationale consumer behaviour.Our study shows that the attitude toward conspicuous consumption is associated with reckless, misleading and competitive interpersonal strategies.At the face value, these deceiving strategies are self−defeating, since they will likely be unmasked and retaliated against by the evolved cheater detection mechanisms (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981;Fehr & Gachter, 2002;Suzuki, Honma, & Suga 2013).Nevertheless, these strategies have successful ensuing reproductive consequences (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009), which is probably why they have been reinforced and widely promoted (Gentile, Campbell, & Twenge 2014).This may be helpful for further understanding of the lure of luxury, leading us a bit closer to the answer to the timeless question: What drives men and women to buy more than they will ever need?Approaching conspicuous consumption from an evolutionary viewpoint provides it with both empirically (Griskevicius et al., 2007, Sundie et al., 2011) and theoretically (Saad, 2007;Zahavi, 1975) better founded and much broader interpretative framework, relative to the interpretative framework based on the assumed congruency between the brand-user self-image and the brand image itself (O'Cass & Frost, 2002).

Conclusion
In accordance with the stated aims and assumptions of this research, the data have confirmed the existence of a linear combination of selected predictor variables that participate in the construction of the attitude toward conspicuous consumption: Ruthless Self−Advancement, Machiavellianism, and Leadership.This study is the first to show the link between ATCC and highly egotistical social strategies.Positive ATCC is most likely brought into being by an elaborate competitive approach to others, which includes misleading and deceiving interpersonal strategies.This study has demonstrated significant correlations between Machiavellianism and Ruthless Self−Advancement, and between Machiavellianism and Leadership.Another significant contribution is a complete replication of the original latent structure of Rank Style with Peers Questionnaire (RSPQ) on a Serbian adolescent sample.So far, Ruthless−Self Advancement has been related to different measures of personality and adjustment, and in organizational and clinical psychology.However, this is the first demonstration of its predictive power in the consumer behaviour domain, demonstrating the instrumentality of this type of consumer behaviour for gaining of a desired social status.People with little or no concerns for others (a high Machiavellianism, and those prone to Ruthless−Self Advancement who are at the same time fascinated with power) will use conspicuous consumption as another self-promoting tool.
Scale (MACH-IV: Christie & Geis, 1970).Machiavellianism was assessed by MACH−IV consisting of twenty 5−point Likert type items.Since the factor analysis of MACH−IV yielded two independent factors attracting Machiavellian−view affirmative items, and two independent factors attracting Machiavellian−view negative items.Thus, the composite score on Machiavellianism was obtained by inversely recoding the two factors attracting Machiavellian− view negative items.Rank Style with Peers Questionnaire (RSPQ: Zuroff et al., 2010).Social competition was evaluated with 17−item 5−point Likert scale, intended to measure three individual strategies in the social dominance domain: Dominant Leadership (m = 5), Coalition Building (m = 7), and Ruthless Self−Advancement (m = 5).

Table 1
Latent structure of RSPQ scale

Table 3
Linear association between ATCC, Machiavellianism, rank styles, and Leadership

Table 4
Linear association between Leadership, Machiavellianism and social rank types ** p < .01.

Table 5
Partial contribution of individual predictors Note. t -value of t-test.** p < .01.

Table B
Variables excluded from model prediction Note. β -standardized regression coefficient, t -value of t-test.** p < .01.