Advertisement

Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence

  • M. Joseph Sirgy
  • Dhruv Grewal
  • Tamara F. Mangleburg
  • Jae-ok Park
  • Kye-Sung Chon
  • C. B. Claiborne
  • J. S. Johar
  • Harold Berkman
Research Note

Abstract

The predictive validity of two measurement methods of self-image congruence—traditional versus new—were compared in six studies involving different consumer populations, products, consumption settings, and dependent variables (brand preference, preference for product form, consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction, brand attitude, and program choice). The traditional method is based on tapping the subject’s perception of product-user image and the subject’s perception of his/her self-image along a predetermined set of image attributes and adding the self-congruity scores across all image dimensions. Three problems were identified and discussed in relation to the traditional method: (1) the use of discrepancy scores, (2) the possible use of irrelevant images, and (3) the use of the compensatory decision rule. The new method is based on tapping the psychological experience of self-congruity directly and globally. The findings demonstrated the predictive validity of the new method over and beyond the traditional method.

Keywords

Consumer Behavior Traditional Measure Image Dimension Brand Attitude Brand Preference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Berger-Gross, Victoria. 1982. “Difference Score Measures of Social Perceptions Revisited: A Comparison of Alternatives.”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 29:279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Claiborne, C. B. and M. Joseph Sirgy. 1990. “Self-Congruity as a Model of Attitude Formation and Change: Conceptual Review and Guide for Future Research.” InDevelopments in Marketing Science. Vol. 13. Ed. B. J. Dunlap. Cullowhee, NC: Academy of Marketing Science, 1–7.Google Scholar
  3. Cronbach, Lee J. and Lita Furby. 1970. “How We Should Measure ‘Change’—or Should We?”Psychological Bulletin 74 (1): 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ericksen, Mary Kay and M. Joseph Sirgy. 1989. “Achievement Motivation and Clothing Behavior of Working Women: A Self-Image Congruence Analysis.”Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 4 (4): 307–326.Google Scholar
  5. ————— and —————. 1992. “Employed Females’ Clothing Preference, Self-Image Congruence, and Career Anchorage.”Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22 (5): 408–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johar, J. S. and M. Joseph Sirgy. 1991. “Value Expressive Versus Utilitarian Advertising Appeals: When and Why to Use Which Appeal.”Journal of Advertising 20 (September): 23–24.Google Scholar
  7. Johns, Gary. 1981. “Difference Score Measures of Organizational Behavior Variables: A Critique.”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 27: 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maheshwari, Arun K. 1974.Self-Product Image Congruence: A Macro-Level Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
  9. Malhotra, Naresh K. 1981. “A Scale to Measure Self-Concepts, Person Concepts, and Product Concepts.”Journal of Marketing Research 18:456–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ————— 1987. “Validity and Structural Reliability of Multi-Dimensional Scaling.”Journal of Marketing Research 24: 164–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ————— 1988. “Self-Concept and Product Choice: An Integrated Perspective.”Journal of Economic Psychology 9 (March): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin, Warren S. and Joseph Bellizzi. 1982. “An Analysis of Congruous Relationships Between Self-Image and Product Images.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 10 (4): 473–489.Google Scholar
  13. Montgomery, H. and O. Svenson. 1976. “On Decision Rules and Information Processing Strategies for Choice Among Multi-Attribute Alternatives.”Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 17:283–292.Google Scholar
  14. Ogilvy, David. 1963.Confessions of an Advertising Man. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  15. Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah J. MacInnis. 1986. “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management.”Journal of Marketing 50 (October): 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Payne, J. W. 1982. “Contingent Decision Behavior.”Psychological Bulletin 2:382–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peter, J. Paul, Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Tom J. Brown. 1993. “Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 19 (March): 655–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sirgy, M. Joseph. 1982. “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (December): 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. —————. 1985a. “Self-Image/Product-Image Congruity and Consumer Decision-Making.”The International Journal of Management 2 (December): 49–63.Google Scholar
  20. —————. 1985b. “Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Motivation.”Journal of Business Research 13 (June): 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. —————. 1986.Self-Congruity: Toward a Theory of Personality and Cybernetics. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  22. ————— and Jeffrey Danes. 1981. “Self-Image/Product-Image Congruence Models: Testing Selected Indirect Models.” InAdvances in Consumer Research Vol. 9. Ed. Andrew Mitchell. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 556–561.Google Scholar
  23. —————, J. S. Johar, A. Coskun Samli, and C. B. Claiborne. 1991. “Self-Congruity Versus Functional Congruity: Predictors of Consumer Behavior.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19 (Fall): 363–375.Google Scholar
  24. —————, —————, and Michael Wood. 1986. “Determinants of Product Value-Expressiveness: Another Look at Conspicuousness, Differentiation, and Common Usage.” InDevelopments in Marketing Science. Vol. 9. Ed. Naresh Malhotra. Cullowhee, NC: Academy of Marketing Science.Google Scholar
  25. ————— and A. Coskun Samli. 1985. “A Path Analytic Model of Store Loyalty Involving Self-Concept, Store Image, Socioeconomic Status, and Geographic Loyalty.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13 (Summer): 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Snyder, Mark and Kenneth G. DeBono. 1985. “Appeals to Image and Claims About Quality: Understanding the Psychology of Advertising.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (3): 586–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wall, Toby D. and Roy Payne. 1973. “Are Deficiency Scores Deficient?”Journal of Applied Psychology 58 (3): 322–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Joseph Sirgy
    • 1
  • Dhruv Grewal
    • 3
  • Tamara F. Mangleburg
    • 2
  • Jae-ok Park
    • 2
  • Kye-Sung Chon
    • 2
    • 4
  • C. B. Claiborne
    • 2
  • J. S. Johar
    • 5
  • Harold Berkman
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MassachusettsUSA
  2. 2.the University of MiamiUSA
  3. 3.Virginia TechUSA
  4. 4.the University of HoustonUSA
  5. 5.McGill UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations