Self-concept and Image Congruence

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12 1110 Received December 1993 Revised April 1997 Revised November 1997

The s e lf-conce lf-conce pt and image image congruence congruence hypothes hypothes is An empirical evaluation in the motor vehicle vehicle marke markett Ada m P. Heath Heath A SB Bank, A uckla uckland, nd, N ew Zeala Zealand nd and

Don Scott Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 11/12, 1998, pp. 1110-1123, 1110-1123, © MCB Univers ity Pres s, 0309-0566 0309-0566

Introduction Onkv isit and Shaw (1987) (1987) sug gested th at self-concept self-concept is significant significant a nd relevant relevant to the study of consumer behaviour as many pu rchases mad e by consumers are directly influenced by the image individuals have of themselves. T his view has be en reinforce reinforcedd by a nu mber of other researchers (for exa mp le Feinberg Feinberg et al., 1992; Schwer and Daneshvary, 1995; Sirgy and Er icksen, 1992). 1992). From a m arketing persp ective, ective, the study of selfself-concept concept is of pa rticular r e le le v a n c e b e c a u s e t h e i m a g e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a s s o c ia ia t e w i t h t h e m s e l v e s f r e q u e n t l y d i c t a t e s s p e c i fi fi c p u r c h a s e b e h a v i o u r p a t t e r n s . F o r ex ex a m p l e , consumers m ay bu y a product because, among other factors, they feel that th e product enhances their own self-image. Similarly, consumers may decide not to buy a product or n ot to shop at a p articular articular store if they feel feel that these actions are not consistent with th eir eir own perceptions of themselves (Britt, (Britt, 1960). T his process process of consumers consumers pu rchasing products/bran ds tha t they believe believe poss ess sym bolic bolic imag imag es similar similar an d/or complementary to the imag imag e they hold of themselves is referred to as image congruity. Sirgy (1982, 1986) outlined the importance of self-concept theory to consumer behaviour research by explaining explaining that consum consum ers wh o perceive perceive the produ ct image to be consistent with t heir actua l selfself-concept concept ar e likel likelyy to feel motiva ted to pu rcha se and consume tha t product. This occurs occurs because the great er the cong cong ru ity of selfselfconcept concept w ith a p articular product, the great er the likeli likelihood hood tha t the pr oduct will satisfy a consum er. T his study exa mined selfself-concept and image congr uence theory under actual market conditions and in relation to physically similar products with diffe different rent bra nd ima ges. T he New Zealand Zealand m otor vehicle vehicle market wa s chosen as the mark et sector sector to be used, because because it provided an oppor tunity for such a study to be carried carried out.

Self-concept and purchasing behaviour T he s elf-concept In the consum er behaviour literatu re self-concept has generally been identified and image as a multidimensional concept comprising five components: the ideal self, the hypothesis apparent self, the social self, the perceived self, and the actual self (Burns, 1979; Mar kin , 1979; Rosen ber g, 1979; Sirg y, 1981, 1982, 1986). Mar kin (1979) des crib es these multiple components of self as follows “...the perceived self is how one 1111 sees oneself; the ideal self is th e model person wh ich one asp ires to be; the social self is how a person thinks others perceive them; and the apparent self is how people actually view the individua l. T he actua l self is a comp osite of all these concepts”. T his view was also adopted b y other resear chers in the self-concept area (Burns, 1979; Malhotra, 1988; Rosenberg, 1979; Sirgy, 1981, 1982, 1986). T his multidimensional self-concept m ay explain why a nd/or how consum ers are motivated t o intera ct with reference group s, salespeople, and competing br and s. An u nd ersta ndin g of the self-concept’s influence on behaviour m ay enable marketers to develop effective methods of app ealing to var ious target mar kets b y t argeting different s elf-concepts. Levy (1959) sug gested th at consum ers are not functionally oriented a nd th at their behaviour is significantly affected by the sy mbols wh ich identify goods in the marketplace. T his argument sug gests that consumers may p urchase for reasons other than functionality. This concept alerted academics studying consum er behaviour to the idea that consumers may purchase goods in order to develop a particular self-image (self-concept). Following the ideas of Levy, a num ber of self-concept models were formu lated to d escribe, explain, and predict the p recise role of consumers ’ self-concepts in consu mer p urch asing behaviour. Gru bb a nd Gra thw ohl (1967) used th e theory of individua l self enhancement (Rogers, 1951) as a bas is for hyp othesising t hat self-concept is of value to th e individual, and th at a n individua l’s behav iour will therefore be directed toward the pr otection and enhan cement of their self-concept. T he pu rchase, display, and use of goods will commun icate a sym bolic meaning to an ind ividual whose consum ing beh aviour w ill be directed towa rd enh ancing t heir self-concept throug h th e consu mpt ion of “symbolic” goods. W hat th ey sugg ested was t hat th e individua l’s sense of identity or sense of self (self-concept) which was an integral part of their psychological make-up, would be ma intained an d d eveloped th rough th e purchas e of symbolic goods. Thus products and brands that were purchased by consumers would be used by th ose individuals to portray a par ticular image that represented how they wished to app ear to both th emselves and to others. T he role of self-concept has b een investigated in a nu mber of areas, such a s prod uct p erception (French an d Glasch ner, 1971; Hamm and Cun diff, 1969), implicit behaviour pa ttern s (Greeno et al., 1973), sp ecific beh aviour (Gutt ma n, 1973), advertising perception (Debevec et al., 1987; Domzal and Kernan, 1993; Mark us , 1977), adver tising effectiveness (Hong an d Zinkh an , 1995) an d sy mb olic intera ctionism (Leigh a nd Gable, 1992). Much of self-concept r esear ch has been focused on explaining b rand/product p reference, purchase intention or

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12 1112

usa ge in term s of congr uency of the products or bran ds w ith the consu mer’s self-concept. T his notion of congr uency related to th e ideas generated in a stu dy by T ucker (1957) in which h e argued t hat consum ers’ pers onalities could be defined thr ough p roduct use. According to this persp ective, products , sup pliers, and services are assum ed to have an image determined not only by the physical char acteristics of the object alone, bu t by a host of other factors su ch as pa ckag ing, advertising, and price (Sirgy, 1982). Th ese images a re also form ed by other associations, such as stereotypes of the generalised or typical user (Britt, 1960; Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967; Levy, 1959). Therefore, the meanings that products hold for consumers are a function of all the factors listed above and the “product mean ings” determine to wha t deg ree the product is viewed as being congr uent w ith the self-concepts of consum ers. Empirical support for the hypothesis that consumers purchase goods that are congr uent w ith their self-concept h as b een provided by s everal studies (Birdwell, 1964; Gr ub b, 1965; Gr ub b a nd Ster n, 1971; Ross, 1971). Th ese researchers found that self-concepts tended to be similar among owners of the sam e product bran d, but differed across owners of the same product with different b rand s. Such empirically p roven b ehaviour is of interest to b oth marketing academics and practitioners as it suggests that a pu rchase is not likely to take place when t here is a lack of cong ru ency between p roduct image and self-concept (Onkvisit a nd Shaw, 1987). Any product information th at is inconsistent w ith th e consum er’s s elf-concept is un likely to ga in their a ttention, acceptan ce, and retention. W here incong ru ence exists and a p urch ase does take place, consumers a re unlikely to repeat s uch a purch ase (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987).T his pr inciple, which is referred to a s ima ge congr uence, form s one of the ma jor issu es investigated in this pap er. Arising from this research literature d escribing th e relationship between self-concept and image congr uence, the following n ull hypotheses can b e formulated and tested:

Ho(1): T here is no difference between t he m ean self-concept scores of owners of different b ran ds of physically s imilar p roducts.

Ho(2): T here is no difference between the mean scores for the self-concept that owners at tribute to themselves when compa red to the mean scores for the self-concept that they attribute to owners of a competing brand .

Ho(3): U sers of a s pecific bra nd perceive the score for the s elf-concept of a user of that bra nd as n ot being significantly different from the selfconcept score for a user of a competing br and .

Ho(4): T here is no difference between the mean scores for the self-concept that owners at tribute to themselves when compa red to the mean scores for t he self-concept t hat they a ttribute to other owners of the same brand. T hese hypoth eses are evaluat ed empirically in this pap er.

Res earch methodology T he s elf-concept In conducting th is research, it was n ecessa ry to find phy sically equivalent and image products with d ifferent bran d n ames. This situation was found to pertain in hypothesis the smaller m otor vehicle market in New Zealand where the Mazda 323 and the Ford Laser were the sa me motor v ehicles identical in design, styling a nd mechanical characteristics but offered to the customers under different brand 1113 nam es by d ifferent motor vehicle supp liers. The population used for the research consisted of all private motor vehicle owners wh o had pu rchased either a Mazda 323 or a Ford Laser in the previous year. T he nam es of the owners were obtained from the customer databa ses of the New Zealand Ford and Mazda Motor Companies. A random sample of 600 respond ents for each model typ e was selected, and w as contacted by m ail. T he research instr uments were personally addressed to each owner. Of the total of 1,200 research instr uments that were mailed out over a two week period, 17 (1.41 percent) were returned due to incorrect addressing or advice that the owner w as d eceased or h ad cha nged ad dress. In total, 361 respons es (30.1 percent) were received from Mazd a 323 an d Ford Laser own ers. There was a reasonable balance of responses from the owners of the different typ es of motor vehicles, with 189 responses from Mazda 323 owners and 172 respons es from Ford Laser owners. All respons es were used for the pu rp oses of data a nalysis. T he ma jority of the total samp le of responden ts compr ised older people (69.9 percent were aged over 50 years) and th e vehicle sub-samp le char acteristics for both Mazda 323 and Ford Laser own ers were the same as the overall sam ple. T he research instrument included 13 trait an d 11 statement-based q uestions, all of which w ere scored on scales of one to five. Resp ondents were asked to indicate the level of applicability of the traits an d sta tements to thems elves, to other owners of the same bran d, and to owners of the competing brand. Respondent demographic information was also recorded. T he instr ument not only followed the trad itional method of examining personality tr aits, as used by Grubb and Hupp (1968) but also included value statements. Th is approach was adopted b ecause, as Lee (1990) demonstrated, what is valued by a person is another dimension of their self-concept and will v a r y w i t h d i ff er e n t s i t u a t i o n s . F o r e x a m p l e , a p e r s o n m a y n o t c l a s s i f y themselves as a highly “sporty ” oriented person bu t they m ay va lue products that have a “sporty” image. The fact that they value such “sporty” products sug gests th at th ey wish to project a “sp orty ” self-image both to them selves and to others around them. T he 13 trait and 11 value statements w hich were used were not generated from a p re-pub lished, generalised list of ad jectives as had been th e case in previous self-concept research (Gru bb and Hupp , 1968). Inst ead, the ap proach recomm ended by Sirgy (1982) was adopt ed. T his required tha t all the words used t o create the statements were totally prod uct sp ecific so as to ensu re high levels of content v alidity. T he ad jectives for the sta tements were generated by a g r o u p o f ex p e r t s f o r e a c h m o t o r v e h i c l e m o d e l . T h e s e e x p e r t s w e r e t h e


Table I. Reliability estimates usin g Cronbach ’s alpha (α)

m a r k e t i n g m a n a g e r a n d p r o d u c t m a n a g e r o f t h e p a r t i c u la r m o t o r v e h ic le manu facturing firm and the account executive for the a dvertising agency used by t he motor vehicle manu facturer to promote the par ticular motor vehicle model. T he manu facturers continuously engage in marketing research to identify which aspects of motor vehicles are of interest to purchasers. The use of these mana gers, who were aware of the ongoing resu lts of this research, thus drew on the knowledge obtained from ongoing an nua l customer su rveys. Using experts to identify key a spects was considered to be a far better method than using a focus g roup approach. In total, 20 adjectives that described the personality traits of the owners of each mod el were established. Th ese adjectives were then scr utinised by a g roup of marketing research exp erts (senior un iversity m arketing acad emics) to further assess their ability to measure self-concept accurately and to ensure tha t items had n ot been included which could have reflected the results of ma rket research , but m ight n ot have b een solely s elf-concept related. Once this process had been completed, the adjectives were incorp orated into adjectival pre-test scales tha t were sub mitted to five members of staff from the ma rketing depart ments at both Ford and Mazda. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they thought the adjectival statements described the persona lities of both Ford Laser an d Mazda 323 owners. The an chor p oints for the sema ntic differential scales ra nged from 1 = not ap plicable to 5 = very a p p l i c ab l e . A l i s t o f t h e f in a l t r a i t s a n d s t a t e m e n t s u s e d i n t h e s e m a n t i c differential scales for each b ran d is contained in Ap pend ix 1. One way rep eated mea su res ana lysis of var iance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean values produced by the different respondent groups in this pre-test. Only those tra its/statem ents t hat received stat istically significantly different mean scores between the Ford and Ma zda ra tings were used to create the final semantic differential scale. This was done to ensure that none of the trait/sta tement qu estions could be applicable to either of the two bran ds examined. All tests were conducted at the 95 percent significance level, with T u k e y p o s t -h o c t e s t s b e in g u s e d t o e x a m i n e t h e i n d i v id u a l m a i n e ff ec t differences. T he sema ntic differential scales were as sessed for reliability b y calculating Cronb ach ’s coefficient alph a (α) for each scale. See Table I for α values. All of the scales exhibited Cronbach α values equal to or greater than 0.8. This level

Cronbach ’s coefficient alpha for each set of q uestions Mazda 323 Mazda 323 Ford Laser Ford Laser trait value trait value statements statements statements statements Mazda 323 owners

0.93

0.93

0.81

0.80

Ford Laser owners

0.95

0.94

0.85

0.87

of reliability can be considered to b e satisfactory for bas ic research (Nunn ally T he s elf-concept and Bernstein, 1994, p. 265). The content validity of the set of scale components and image had been established by means of the procedures used to establish the original hypothesis trait and value statements and the series of evaluations and pre-tests that were carried out. Analysis Table II show s th e results of a series of one way repea ted mea su re ANOVA ana lyses tha t were us ed to detect if there were significant differences between the averag e self-concept trait a nd value scores of Mazda 323 and Ford Laser owners in either the case of the self-concept trait scales and the value related aspects of self-concept. The results reported in Table II supported hypothesis H o ( 1 ) nam ely th at irresp ective of the scale used, there was n o significant difference in s elf-concept s cores of owners of different br an ds of phys ically similar products. Hypothesis Ho(2) was exa mined by comparing the mean values of owners’ scores for their evaluations of their own s elf-concepts with the mea n va lues of t h e s c o r e s f o r t h e s e l f-c o n ce p t s t h a t t h e y a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e o w n e r s o f t h e competing br and . Again, this analysis wa s carr ied out for both the self-concept trait scale and the value related aspects of self-concepts. Table III reports the results of the repeated m easu res one way A NOVA an alyses used to investigate this relationsh ip and reflects results th at d iffered between th e two owner g roups. Irresp ective of the scale used, Ford Laser owners recorded significant differences between themselves and those tha t owned the comp eting bran d. The scores for both self-concepts a nd for items valued in a m otor vehicle were significantly different an d thu s hyp othesis Ho(2) was r ejected. T his result was consistent with the majority of self-concept and image congruence theory and research.

Concept measured

Scale

F-value

Pr > F

Difference between self-concepts of Ma zda 323 and Ford Laser owners

MT S

0.01

0.9189

Difference between self-concepts of Ma zda 323 and Ford Laser owners

FLT S

0.54

0.4649

Difference between w hat is va lued in a car by Mazda 323 and Ford Laser owners

MVSS

0.03

0.8609

Difference between w hat is va lued in a car by Mazda 323 Ford Laser owners

FLVSS

1.09

0.2982

Notes: MTS = Mazda 323 trait scale FLTS = Ford Laser trait scale MVSS = Mazda 323 value stat ement scale FLVSS = Ford Laser value statement scale

1115

Table II. Owners perceptions of self-concepts


Table III. Owners’ self-concept of themselves compa red with the s elf-concepts that they attribute to owners of the competing brand

Concept measured

Respondent

Scale

F-value

Pr > F

Difference between the self-concept of Mazda 323 owners and the self-concept that they attribute to Ford Laser owners

Mazda 323 owners

MT S

1.39

0.24

Difference between the self-concept of Mazda 323 owners and the self-concept that they attribute to Ford Laser owners

Mazda 323 owners

FLT S

30.42

0.00

Difference between wha t Mazda 323 owners value in a car an d what they believe that Ford La ser owners v laue in a car

Mazda 323 owners

MVSS

1.88

0.17

Difference between wha t Mazda 323 owners value in a car an d what they believe that Ford Laser owner s value in a car

Mazda 323 owners

FLVSS

36.02

0.00

Difference between the self-concept of Ford Laser owners and t he self-concept that they attribute to Mazda 323 owners

Ford Laser owners

MT S

28.49

0.00

Difference between the self-concept of Ford Laser owners and t he self-concept that they attribute to Mazda 323 ow ners

Ford Laser owners

FLT S

100.76

0.00

Difference between wha t Ford Las er owners value in a car an d what they believe that Ma zda 323 owners value in a car

Ford Laser owners

MVSS

57.47

0.00

Difference between wha t Ford Las er owners value in a car an d what they believe that Ma zda 323 owners value in a car

Ford Laser owners

FLVSS

78.20

0.00

Notes: MTS = Mazda 323 trait scale FLTS = Ford Laser trait scale MVSS = Mazda 323 value statement scale FLVSS = Ford Laser value statement scale

In the case of Mazda own ers, results on only two of the scales (the Ford Laser tr ait scale and the Ford Laser value scale) were consistent with the m ajority of selfconcept an d image congr uence theory and research. Contrar y to the theory, the responses of Mazda own ers to the Mazda trait and Mazda value scale supp orted the hy pothesis th at t here was no difference between their self-concepts and the self-concepts they a ttributed to owners of the competitive bra nd. T hus rejection of the hypothesis was b oth respondent category and scale type dependent. Hypothesis Ho(3) was t hat consu mers of a specific bra nd w ould not perceive the self-concept of a us er of their bra nd (i.e. their st ereotyp e of thos e users ’ self-

concepts) as being significantly different from the self-concept of a user of a T he s elf-concept competing bra nd (i.e. their stereotyp e of the self-concept of a competing bra nd and image user). hypothesis Table IV indicates t hat Mazda 323 owners differed s ignificantly in respect of the scores for the self-concept they attributed to other Mazda 323 owners and the scores for the self-concept tha t they attributed to Ford Laser owners. The 1117 same p attern was observed in the scores of Ford Laser respondents. Th is result rejects hyp othesis Ho(3) . Table IV indicates th at th e same relationship wa s also p r e v a l e n t i n t h e s c o r e s o n t h e v a l u e s t a t e m e n t s c a l es . T h e r e s u l t s t h u s demonst rated th at Mazda 323 and Ford Laser owners w ere perceived to be significantly d ifferent; both in t erms of their self-concepts, and in term s of the value related asp ect of their self-concept. Hypothesis Ho(4) was that scores of bran d owner p erceptions of their own self-concept w ould not b e significantly different from th e self-concept scores t ha t they at tributed to other owners of the same bra nd. Table V reports the results of the one way repeated m easu res ANOVAs u sed to investigate this concept.

Concept measured

Respondent

Scale

F-value

Pr > F

Difference between the self-concepts attributed to Mazda 323 and Ford Laser owners

Mazda 323 owners

MT S

79.64

0.00


Mazda 323 owners

FLT S

5.86

0.00


Ford Laser owners

MT S

98.50

0.00


Ford Laser owners

FLT S

92.97

0.00

Difference between w hat Ma zda 323 and Ford Laser owners value in a car

Mazda 323 owners

MVSS

93.40

0.00


Mazda 323 owners

FLVSS

23.68

0.00


Ford Laser owners

MVSS

71.05

0.00


Ford Laser owners

FLVSS

47.43

0.00

Notes: MTS = Mazda 323 trait scale FLTS = Ford Laser trait scale MVSS = Mazda 323 value stat ement scale FLVSS = Ford Laser value statement scale

Table IV. Comp arison of self-concepts for other owners of the respondent ’s bran d and the self-concept that they attribute to owners of the competing br and


Table V. Owners’ self-concept of themselves compa red with the s elf-concepts that they attribute to owners of the same brand

Concept measured

Respondent

Scale

F-value

Pr > F

Difference between the self-concept of Mazda 323 owners and the self-concept that th ey attribute to other Mazda 323 owners

Mazda 323 owners

MT S

64.35

0.00

Difference between the self-concept of Mazda 323 owners and the self-concept that th ey attribute to other Mazda 323 owners

Mazda 323 owners

FLT S

0.00

0.95

Difference between wha t Mazda 323 owners value in a car an d what they believe that other Mazd a 323 owners value in a car

Mazda 323 owners

MVSS

37.38

0.00

Difference between wha t Mazda 323 owners value in a car an d what they believe that other Mazd a 323 owners value in a car

Mazda 323 owners

FLVSS

2.52

0.11

Difference between the self-concept of Ford Laser owners and t he self-concept that they attribute to other Ford Laser owners

Ford Laser owners

MT S

12.10

0.00

Difference between the self-concept of Ford Laser owners and t he self-concept that they attribute to other Ford Laser owners

Ford Laser owners

FLT S

1.44

0.23

Difference between wha t Ford Las er owners value in a car an d what they believe that oth er Ford laser owners value in a car

Ford Laser owners

MVSS

0.00

0.97

Difference between wha t Ford Las er owners value in a car an d what they believe that oth er Ford laser owners value in a car

Ford Laser owners

FLVSS

5.47

0.02

Notes: MTS = Mazda 323 trait scale FLTS = Ford Laser trait scale MVSS = Mazda 323 value statement scale FLVSS = Ford Laser value statement scale

T he Ford Laser tra it scale produced results that supp orted this hyp othesis for both own er group s. T he mean values of the scores did not differ significantly in respect of the self-concepts of the respondents and the self-concepts that they attr ibuted to other owners of the same bra nd of motor vehicle. However, mean scores for the Mazda 323 trait scale for both owner groups rejected Ho(4) . They identified a sign ificant difference between th e mean scores

for the self-concepts of the resp ondents and the scores for th e self-concepts th at T he s elf-concept they at tribut ed to owners of the same br and of motor vehicle. and image In the case of both th e Mazda and Ford Laser value scales, the resp onse hypothesis pattern s were not consistent across the two owner g roups. T hese results therefore provided an amb iguous test of hypothesis Ho(4) . Possible explanations for th is result are presented b elow.

1119

Discussion T his pap er evaluated s elf-concept and image congr uence theory under a ctual market conditions in the motor vehicle market. Two potential sources of bias should be noted w hen considering t he research findings. Th e first is tha t the sample was skewed towards older people. However, this was representative of the new s mall car bu yer mark et (see App endix 2). The second is tha t, even though the instr ument exhibited high reliability and content validity, some respondents found it difficult to assess the applicability of the trait and value statements to other owners. Th e instru ment a sked for p eople’s p erceptions of themselves and other owners. Respondents had no difficulty in indicating the a p p l ic a b il it y o f t h e v a r i o u s s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e m s e lv e s b u t s o m e d i d h a v e difficulty when th ey attemp ted to indicate the degree to which they thou ght th e stat ements ap plied to other owners. These respond ents sta ted that th e difficulty arose because they d id not actually know any of these “other” owners a nd therefore were not certain of the ap plicability of the sta tements to them. Nevertheless, the research results provided interesting information. One of the major implications of this research for the m otor industry is that n o supp ort was found for the idea tha t consum ers of different br and s of physically similar motor vehicles would perceive themselves to have significantly different selfconcepts (see Table II). This finding contradicted the underlying principles associated with imag e congr uence theory. Possible reasons for th is result are first, that s imilar m otor vehicles were examined an d second, that actua l owners of these motor vehicles were questioned in this research. Previous research tended to focus on non-subst itutable products and em ployed stu dent sa mples in the investigation of the self-concept (Grub b an d Hup p, 1968; Gru bb a nd Ster n, 1971). Such limitations reduced the g eneralisability of previous results. Th is pa per found t hat t he theory of self-concept an d its relationsh ip with produ ct image cong ruity is n ot suited to products that are similar in terms of physical char acteristics and thu s similar in their sym bolic ima gery. Another implication of the results is th at t hey illustra te the notion tha t consum ers of a sp ecific bra nd of motor vehicle will have different p erceptions about th e self-concept chara cteristics they a ttribu te to other owners of the brand compared with the self-concept characteristics they attribute to those tha t own a comp eting bra nd (Table IV). In respect of the ambiguou s result obtained in th e case of hyp othesis Ho(4) it should be noted that the results may have been influenced somewhat by the age distribution of the respondents. Owing to the skewness of the respondents’ a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n t o w a r d s t h e “ ol d e r ” a g e b r a c k e t s , t h o s e t r a i t a n d v a l u e


statement items tha t were associated with traditional values may have been rated by respondents as being highly applicable to themselves. Hence, instead of obtaining the pr edicted effect wh ereby respond ents r ate th emselves highly on “their br an d’s” scale and lowly on the “competing br an d’s” scale, both respond ent grou ps m ay have ra ted thems elves highly on one scale (the one with the older orientated statements – in this case the Ford Laser tra it and value statement scales). The high percentage of “older” people represented in th e population of owners of the two brands of motor vehicles may therefore have implications for the typ e of promotional strateg y th at s hould be emp loyed by manu facturers of motor vehicles being sold to a customer segment s uch as that investigated in this research. The results also sug gest tha t while motor vehicle ma rketers can be su re that th e market will perceive comp eting models of motor vehicles a s h aving different self-concept stereotyp es, this does n ot necessar ily mean tha t individual owners of these models will aspire to these stereotyp es or tha t owners of comp eting models will not asp ire to the values express ed through these stereotypes. For some population segments self-concept aspects associated with ma tters other than th e product brand may h ave a greater level of imp ortance. Th is suggests th at advertisers should take care to link a ny bra nd-associated self-concept imag ery w ith the m ost impor tant existing selfconcept asp ects of the likely customer segmen t and establish exactly how their target au dience perceive themselves both as individua ls and w ith respect to the owner stereotyp es of competitive motor vehicle bra nds. If a marketer’s produ ct is used b y consum ers to project an image both t o themselves and to those around th em it is importan t that the symb olic meaning of the produ ct image b e carefully developed so tha t it is p ositioned correctly in terms of competing products an d th eir consumers. Summary W hile the limitations of this research sh ould be noted, the research resu lts question the generalisability of self-concept and image congruence theory and do not supp ort the idea that owners of competing bran ds will always have significantly d ifferent s elf-concepts. When produ cts ar e phy sically similar this effect would s eem not t o app ly. This finding differs from t he un derlying theory behind th e imag e congr uence hypothesis and the finding s of previous selfconcept research (Grub b a nd Hupp, 1968; Gru bb and Stern, 1971; Ross, 1971). By utilising two vehicle typ es tha t were identical in every resp ect except styling, this research adopted a method of study tha t had not previously been employed in tr aditional self-concept research. Past s tud ies tended to investigate products t hat were different both in terms of their p hysical characteristics as well as their sy mb olic imagery. The effect of physical produ ct differences ha s not been stud ied to any g reat degree, and the results of this research suggest that self-concept and image congruence do not occur when product char acteristics are h ighly similar.

Additional research is required to further establish the exact boundaries of T he s elf-concept the ap plicability of the th eory of self-concept and image cong ru ence to product and image market segments, potential customer identities and brands. hypothesis References Birdwell, E.A. (1964), “Influence of image congruence on consumer choice”, in Smith, L.G. (Ed.), R ef l e ct i o n s o n P r o g r e ss i n M a r k e t i n g , American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 290-303. Britt, S.H. (1960), Consum er Behaviour an d the Behaviour al Sciences: T heories and A pplication s, John Wiley, New York, NY. Bur n, R.B. (1979), T he Self-Concept in T heor y, M easurement, Development, and Behaviour, Longman, London. Debevec, K., Spotts, H.E. an d Ker nan , J.B. (1987), “Th e self-referencing effect in pers uas ion: implications for mar keting st rat egy”, in Wallendorf, M. and And erson, P.F. (Eds), A dvances in Consum er Research, Vol. 14, Associat ion for Consu mer Rese arc h, Provo, UT, pp. 417-20. Domzal, T.J. and Kerna n, J. B.(1993), “Mirror, mir ror: some postm odern reflections on global advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 1-20. Feinberg , R.A., Matar o, L. and Bur roug hs, W.J. (1992), “Clothin g an d social identit y”, Clothing and T extiles Research Jour nal, Vol. 11, pp. 18-23. French, W. and Glasch ner, A.B. (1971), “Levels of actua lisation as mat ched ag ainst life style evaluation of products”, Proceedings A m er ican M arketing A ssociation, Chicago, IL, pp. 35862. Greeno, D.W., Sommers, M.S. and Kernan, J.B. (1973), “Personality and implicit behaviour patterns”, Jour nal of M arketing Research, Vol. 10, pp. 63-9. Gru bb, E.L. (1965), “Consum er percep tion of self concept a nd its relation to br and choice of selected product types”, in Bennett, P.D. (Ed.), M a r k e t i n g a n d E c on o m i c D ev el o p m en t , American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 419-22. Gru bb, E.L. and Gr ath wohl, H.L. (1967), “Consum er self-concept, sym bolism, and m ark et behaviour : a theoretical approach”, Jour nal of M ark eting Research, Vol. 31, Octob er, pp. 22-7. Gru bb, E.L. and Hupp , G. (1968), “Perceptions of self, generalised stereotyp es, and b ran d selection”, Jour nal of M ark eting Research, Vol. 5, Febr uar y, pp. 58-63. Grubb, E.L. and Stern, B.L. (1971), “Self-concept and significant others”, Journ al of M arketing Research, Vol. 8, Augu st, p p. 382-5. Guttm an, J. (1973), “Self-concepts and television viewing a mong women”, P u b l i c O p i n i o n Quarterly, Fall, pp. 388-97. Hamm, B.C. and Cundiff, W.E. (1969), “Self actualisation and product perception”, Journal of M ark et Research, Vol. 6, pp. 470-2. Hong, J.W. and Zinkh an , G.M. (1995), “Self-concept and adver tising effectiveness : the influence of congruency, conspicuousness, and response m ode”, Psychology & M arketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 53-77. Lee, D.H. (1990), “Symbolic interactionism: some implications for consumer self-concept and product symbolism research”, A dvan ces in Consum er Research, Vol. 17, pp. 386-92. Leigh, J.H. an d Gabel, T.G. (1992), “Symb olic inter actionis m: its effects on cons um er beh avior a nd implications for marketing strategy”, Jour nal of Ser vices M arketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 5-16. Levy, S.J. (1959), “Symbols for sales”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 117-24.

1121


Malhotra, N.K. (1988), “Self concept and product choice: an integrated perspective”, Jour nal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 1-28. Ma rk in, R.J. (1979), M arketing, John Wiley, New York, NY. Mark us, H. (1977), “Self-schem ata and processing inform ation about the self”, Journal of Personal ity and Social Psychology, Vol. 35, Febru ar y, pp. 63-78.

New Car Buyer Survey (1991/19 92) , MRL Research Group, October/September. Nunn ally, J.C. an d Bern stein, I.H. (1994), Psychometr ic T heory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Onkv isit, S. and Shaw, J. (1987), “Self-concept a nd im age cong ru ence: some research and man agerial implication”, T he Jour nal of Consumer M arketing, Vol. 4 No. 1. Rogers, C. (1951), Client-Centr ed T herapy: Its Cur rent Pr actices, Im plications and T heor y, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Rosenberg, M. (1979), Conceiving the Self, Basic Book s, New York, NY. Ross, I. (1971), “Self-concept and brand preference”, Jour nal of Business of the U niversity of Chicago, Vol. 44, pp. 38-50. Schwer, R.K. and Daneshvary, R. (1995), “Symbolic product attributes and emulatory consumption: the case of rodeo fan attendance and the wearing of western clothing”, Journal of A pplied B usiness Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 74-81. Sirgy, J.M. (1981), “Testing a self-concept model using a tangible product”, in Proceedings of the A m erican Psychological A ssociati on – Consum er Psychology Divi sion, Vol. 89, p. 17. Sirgy, J.M. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behaviour: a critical review”, Jour nal of Consum er Research, Vol. 9, December, pp. 287-300. Sirgy, J.M. (1986), Self-Congruity, Pr aeger, New York, NY. Sirgy, J.M. and Erick sen, M.K. (1992), “Employed fema les clothing preference, self-imag e congruence, and career anchorage”, Jour nal of A pplied Social Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 408-22. Tu cker, W.T. (1957), Foundations for a T heory of Consumer Behaviour, Holt, Rinehart a nd Wins ton, New York, NY. Appendix 1 Personality tra its used in seman tic differential trait scales

M azda 32 3 tr ait scale (M T S)

For d L aser tr ait scale (FLT S)

- fun loving - young - innovative - upm arket-daring - emotive - trendy - sophisticated - fashionable

- depend able - economically mind ed - family orientated - tra ditional

Value statements used in s emant ic differential value scales

M a zd a 3 2 3 va lu e st a tem en t sca le ( M V SS )

F or d L aser v al ue st a tem en t sca le ( F LV S S)

- value a car’s sporty image - value a car’s stylish image - value excitement - value cars that are stunning - value difference in a car - value cars tha t are innovative - value cars that are trendy - value cars with m odern st yling

- value classically designed cars - value a car that is roomy - value a car that is value for money

Appendix 2

Age g roup

Ford Laser (percent in age g roup)

Model of small car Mazda 323 (percent in age group)

Total market (percent in age g roup)

under 30 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 and over

6 6 6 11 5 12 5 15 33

11 8 7 8 11 6 11 8 30

8 6 5 8 8 8 9 14 32

T he s elf-concept and image hypothesis

1123

Source: Adapted from New Car B uyer Survey (1991/1992 )

Table AI. Age distribution within the New Zealand new small car buyer market

Self-concept and Image Congruence

Recommend Documents