# data[].attributes.body
In "The Lure of Luxury" by Paul Bloom, he details why people are attracted to luxury goods, and why they buy them. Throughout his article, he emphasizes his thesis. His thesis is that the many theories/assumptions of why individuals purchase these luxury goods such as signaling and sensory theories are incomplete without the study of the object's history. On page 8 in "The Lure of Luxury," Bloom explicitly states that "... the lure of such goods is not limited to their utility or beauty or to our beliefs that possessing them will impress people. Part of the lure is that we believe these items have a certain sort of history. The pleasure we get from these objects is genuine and aesthetic, not mostly sensory" (Bloom 8). In this passage, he explains how sensory theories and signaling are not the complete reason as to why people purchase items, and that people buy items mainly because of its history.

# data[].attributes.body
The theory of signaling, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, can be defined as "... convey[ing] information or instructions by means of a gesture, action, or sound; to make a signal. Also with to indicating the recipient." In the context of the article, signaling is the explanation of many theorists as to why people buy unnecessary, luxury goods. Signaling encompasses many components such as the recipient of the information, the giver of the information, and the information that is being transmitted. Signaling is a key component in why individuals buy luxury items, but Paul Bloom counters that signaling is not the only theory that explains the phenomenon. In fact, he rebukes the idea that signaling is the only reason why people buy things.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Paul Bloom, an object's history is equally or even more important than signaling as to why people purchase unnecessary products. When Paul Bloom talks about "an object's history," it includes not just the physical appearance of the object, but it's history of ownership, it's emotional appeal to the owner, it's story, and etc. The history of an item can be derived by its owner and from others; according to Bloom, he explains that the history of an object can correlate to the pleasure of receiving/obtaining the item. The history of an object is an explanation that focuses on the feelings/perspective of the owner rather than the focus being to signal to others; like flexing that they have a Porsche or a valuable art piece.

# data[].attributes.body
Also in "The Lure of Luxury," Bloom describes one effect that captures the essence of the term "ownership." "[T]his is the endowment effect—you come to value an object, such as a mug, more if you own it. You also value an object more if you purposefully chose it than if it was just handed to you. And you value it less if you had previously rejected it" (Bloom 5). This suggests that people who own something fully and chose it out like a house would value it much more than just being given a random house while having to pay rent. The endowment effect happens all over the place with items such as cars, houses, and even tiny little unwanted gifts like a plant.

# data[].attributes.body
The IKEA effect suggests that if you built something on your own, then you will be more likely to like it moreWhat he directly says is how, "[l]aboratory studies show that you like something more if you built it yourself—the “Ikea Effect” (Bloom 6). If you worked harder on something than another you will most likely the object that you worked harder on because there is a deeper connection to that project rather than the project you put less effort in. This ties in neatly with personal pleasure because it shows that one's experience deeply affects their perception of the item.

# data[].attributes.body
In today's society, there is an extreme focus on how you present yourself, and how you can show off your status. Many articles of clothing and certain luxury items can convey status such as a suit or a Louis Vuitton bag. Because many others have a certain luxury item, the culture surrounding that item makes it seem as if it becomes the norm to have it so people buy it just because it symbolizes that they are rich. Thorstein Veblen argues that people buy goods for status symbols.

# data[].attributes.body
One of Paul Bloom's main claims is how many of the theories that try to explain why people buy such unnecessary products/items are true, yet incomplete, meaning that the theories are not the full explanations as to why the phenomenon happens. These incomplete theories comprise of signaling, status symbols, and even sensory theories.

# data[].attributes.body
Most people value things that they fully own rather than being gifted/given the object. Its history also comes down to its history of owners as well. Being able to own something because of its history or because you are able to own it fully is in of itself fulfilling to the owner.

# data[].attributes.body
Paul Bloom signifies that personal pleasure is one of the main reasons as to why someone would purchase an unnecessary good or even just keeping the good. In "The Lure of Luxury," by Paul Bloom, he talks about how some items are useless as signals, yet it pleases the owner still. He says to "[t]hink about your wedding ring or your child's baby shoes. Such objects serve no practical purpose, they need not to be beautiful in any sensory way, and they are useless as signals" (Bloom 7). So why do individuals buy such extravagant wedding rings and baby shoes? It is because it gives themselves a personal pleasure in its deeper nature. That deeper nature being its meaning/symbolism to them, its owner.

# data[].attributes.body
The celebrity effect is when some individual desires an item solely because it was owned by a celebrity or someone of fame. On page 6, Bloom describes how "...[c]onsumers are more likely to buy something that has been touched or tried on by a physically attractive person. Celebrities, in particular, possess the "touch"—one reason why people want objects that have had some contact with them" (Bloom 6). It is somewhat weird that people have that wanting of a celebrities touch. Yet, it all comes down to its history and the celebrity effect is a perfect representation of why it is not only sensory theories that explain why people buy certain items.

# data[].attributes.body
On page 5, Bloom illustrates a good view of why sensory theories are not the only reason as to why people buy luxury goods. He explains that "if pleasure is triggered by the physical properties of what we are looking at or touching, then it shouldn’t matter what we think it is. But it does matter. To most, an Armani is worth more than a knockoff, even if the difference is invisible to the senses....[n]o doubt Rolex loses some sales because people prefer the knockoff, but since the company is still in business, there are apparently enough shoppers who pay a premium of about $29,000 for an authenticity that makes no perceptible difference" (Bloom 5). This illustration perfectly encapsulates as to why the sensory theories are not the only reason because if they were to just want to signal to others, wouldn't be better for them to just buy the knockoff rather than the actual thing?

# data[].attributes.body
Do you like and purchase an item just because it feels nice, or it looks nice, or it smells nice? Well, that's one of the explanations for why people buy things that are luxury; however, Bloom strongly disagrees with the fact that some people believe that this is the only explanation. Bloom basically explains this line of thinking when he talks about James Twitchell's story. What you get from the story is that sensory is where individuals react to an object because their senses are stimulated. On page 4, Bloom quotes Twitchell and Postrel by inserting how, "[Twitchell] describes how customers would stroke the suits and how his daughter, originally skeptical, found herself entranced by the items... '[p]eople pet Armani clothes because the fabrics feel so good. Those clothes attract us as visual, tactile creatures, not because they are ‘rich in meaning’ but because they are rich in pleasure'" (Bloom 4-5). Twitchell explicitly states that he believes that people only buy things not because of sentimentality but because it gives them pleasure through sense. According to Paul Bloom's thesis, Twitchell is completely wrong in the idea that