self-concept in consumer behavior

5/24/2018 Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior

1/15

Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical ReviewAuthor(s): M. Joseph SirgySource: The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Dec., 1982), pp. 287-300Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488624

Accessed: 09/01/2009 17:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and yomay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Journal of Consumer Research.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488624?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2488624?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/15

Self Concept in Consumer Behaviorr i t i c a l R e v i e w

M.JOSEPH SIRGY*The self-concept literaturen consumerbehaviorcan be characterizedas frag-mented, incoherent,and highlydiffuse.This paper critically eviews self-concepttheory and research in consumer behavior and provides recommendations orfutureresearch.

M ost scholars seem to agree that the term self-con-cept denotes the totality of the individual'sthoughts and feelings having reference to himself as anobject (Rosenberg1979, p. 7). However, self-concepthasbeen treated from various points of view. For example,psychoanalytic heory views the self-conceptas a self-sys-tem inflictedwith conflict. Behavioral heoryconstrues heself as a bundle of conditioned responses. Otherviews,such as organismictheory, treatthe self in functionalanddevelopmentalterms; phenomenologytreats the self in awholistic form; and cognitive theory represents he self asa conceptualsystem processinginformationabout the self.Symbolic interactionism,on the other hand, views the selfas a functionof interpersonalnteractions.Generally,self-concepthas been construed rom a mul-tidimensionalperspective(Bums 1979; Rosenberg 1979).Actual self refers to how a personperceives herself; idealself refers to how a person would like to perceive herself;and social self refers to how a person presentsherself toothers. Global self-attitude(e.g., self-esteem or self-satis-faction)has been treatedas a conscious judgmentregardingthe relationshipof one's actual self to the ideal or socialself (Bums 1979; Rogers 1951).1There seems to be a consensus regarding he existenceand independent nfluenceof at least two self-conceptmo-tives-self-esteem and self-consistency (Epstein 1980).The self-esteem motive refers to the tendency to seek ex-periences that enhance self-concept. The self-consistencymotive denotes the tendency for an individual to behaveconsistentlywith her view of herself. Ordinarily,hese twinmotives are harmonious, but under some circumstances,these same motives conflict (Jones 1973; Schlenker1975;Shraugerand Lund 1975).2

PRODUCT SYMBOLISMIn consumerresearch, Tucker (1957, p. 139) argued hatconsumers' personalities can be defined through producuse:

There has long been an implicitconcept thatconsumerscanbe defined n terms of eitherthe products hey acquireor use,or in termsof the meanings productshave for them or theirattitudes owards products.Products, suppliers, and services are assumedto have animage determinednot only by the physical characteristicof the object alone, but by a host of otherfactors, such aspackaging, advertising,and price. These images are alsoformed by other associations, such as stereotypes of thegeneralized or typical user (cf. Britt 1960; Grubb andGrathwohl1967; Levy 1959).Holman(1981) arguedthat there are at least three con-

*M. Joseph Sirgy is Assistant Professor of Marketing at VirginiaPolytechnic Instituteand State University, Blacksburg,VA 24061. Theauthorexpresses his gratitude o the anonymousreviewers, to ProfessorsRobertFerber and Seymour Sudman, and to the JCR staff who helpeddevelop the final revision of this paper.

'The structure f the self-concepthas been postulated o be characterizedalong at least nine dimensions-content, direction, intensity, salience,consistency, stability, clarity, verifiability, and accuracy (Rosenberg1979). Contentrefersto the inherentaspectsof dispositions,social identityelements, orphysicalcharacteristics nvolved in the self-picture.Directionrefers to the positivityor negativityof the self-attitude.Intensityreferstothe strengthof the self-attitude.Salience refers to the extent to which aself-attitudes in the forefrontof consciousness.Consistency s the extentto which two or more self-attitudesof the same individualare contradic-tory. Stabilityrefers to the degree of which a self-attitudedoes not changeover time. Claritydenotesthe extent to which a particular elf-conceptorself-picture s sharp and unambiguous.Verifiabilityrefers to the extent towhich a given self-conceptis potentiallytestable or verifiable.Accuracyis the extent to which a given self-conceptreflects one's truedisposition.2In additionto this discussion of the self-concept motives, the devel-opmentof the self-conceptwas discussed by Rosenberg 1979). He refersto four self-concept ormationprinciples-reflected appraisals, ocial com-parisons, self-attributions,and psychological centrality. Each of theseprinciplesguides the developmentof an individual's self-concept. Thereflectedappraisalprinciplerefersto the formationof self-conceptsbasedon others' perceptionsof oneself. The social comparisonprinciplesrefersto the influence of one's evaluationof oneself by comparingoneself tosignificantothers. The self-attributionprinciplerefers to the notion thatself-conceptsare inferred rom one's own behavior.And the principleofpsychologicalcentralityrefersto the hierarchical rganizationof the self-concepts.

287? JOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCH* Vol. 9 * December 1982


3/15

288 THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCHditions that distinguish products as communicationvehi-cles-visibility in use, variability n use, and personaliza-bility. For a product o have personalityassociations,it hasto be purchasedand/orconsumed conspicuouslyor visibly.Variability n use is also importantbecause without vari-ability, no differences among individuals can be inferredon the basis of productuse. The personalizabilityof theproduct denotes the extent to which the use of a productcan be attributed o a stereotypic image of the generalizeduser. Sirgy (1979, 1980) used the personalizabilitychar-acteristic as a moderatingvariablein a self-concept study.Munson and Spivey (1980, 1981) used Katz's (1960)value-expressiveness to arguefor the effect of productsymbolism on the activationof consumer self-concept inconsumption-relatedituations.At least four different approachescan be identified inself-concept studies that deal directly with product mage:(1) product image as it relates to the stereotypic mage ofthe generalized product user; (2) product image in directassociationwiththe self-concept;(3) sex-typed product m-age; and (4) differentiatedproduct mages.Many self-conceptinvestigatorsarguethat a product m-age' s, in essence, defined as the stereotypic mage of thegeneralized product user, usually measuredon a semanticdifferentialscale (e.g., Grubb and Hupp 1968; GrubbandStern 1971; Schewe and Dillon 1978). Otherstudiesmea-sure product mage directlyusing the semantic differentialtype of methodology (e.g., Birdwell 1968; Munson andSpivey 1981;Ross 1971;Samli andSirgy 1981; Sirgy 1979,1980, 1981a; Sirgy and Danes 1981).The measurementof the product mage in direct associ-ation with the self-concept has employed a product-an-choredQ-methodology.Therespondents asked to indicatethe extent to which a specificproduct s associatedwith heractual self-concept, ideal self-concept, and so forth (e.g.,Belch and Landon 1977; Greeno, Sommers, and Kernan1973; Landon 1974; Martin1973; Sommers 1964).Sex-typed product mage is restricted o those symbolicattributesdirectly associated with sex roles. This concepthas usually been measured using a bipolarmasculinity-femininity atingorranking cale (e.g., Gentryand Doering 1977; Gentry, Doering, and O'Brien 1978;Vitz and Johnston 1965). Otherstudies, such as Golden,Allison, and Clee (1979) and Allison et al. (1980), haveemployedtwo independent onstructs o measuremasculin-ity, femininity, and psychological androgeny in productperceptions. Subjects were asked to indicatethe extent towhich a specific product is masculine on a rating scalerangingfrom not at all masculine to extremely mas-culine. The same productwas then ratedalong a similarfemininity scale. Allison et al. (1980) found that themajorityof theirrespondentsperceivedmasculine and fem-inineproduct mages as two separateconstructsrather hanas one dimension(cf. Bem 1974).Munsonand Spivey (1980, 1981) broughtout the notionthatproduct magescan be activated n various forms. Twopossible product-expressive self-constructsinvolve (1)self-perceptiongiven a productpreference-defined as howone perceivesoneself given a preference or a specific prod-

uct, and (2) others'perceptionof self given a productpref-erence-defined as how a personbelievesotherpeople viewher given a preference for a specific product. However,results showed that consumersmay not be able to distin-guish between their own feelings about a product andtheirbeliefs about how they are viewed by others (cf. Lo-cander and Spivey 1978).

SELF-CONCEPT IN CONSUMERBEHAVIORThere is ambiguityandconfusion on the precise concep-tualizationof self-concept in the consumerbehaviorliter-ature. A numberof investigatorshave discussed self-con-cept as a single variable and have treatedit as the actualself-concept-i.e., as the perceptionof oneself (e.g., Bel-lenger, Steinberg,andStanton1976;Birdwell 1968; Green,Maheshwari,andRao 1969;GrubbandHupp1968; GrubbandStern 1971). In this vein, self-concepthasbeen labeledactualself, real self, basic self,'' extantself, orsimply self. Within the single self-construct tradition,some investigatorshaverestricted elf-conceptto perceivedsex-role (e.g., Gentryand Doering 1977;Gentry, Doering,and O'Brien 1978; Golden et al. 1979).More recently, Sirgy (1982a, 1982b) has employed theconstructs of self-image value-the degree of value at-tachedto a specific actual self-concept (a concept parallelto ideal self-concept), andself-imagebelief-the degreeofbelief or perceptionstrengthassociated with a self-image(a concept equivalentto the actual self-concept). Furthermore, Schenk andHolman(1980) have argued or the con-siderationof thesituationalself-image,definedas the resultof the individual's repertoireof self-imageand the percep-tion of others in a specific situation.In the multipleself-constructs radition,self-concepthasbeen conceptualizedas having more than one component.Some investigatorshave arguedthat self-conceptmust betreatedas havingtwo components-the actual self-conceptand the ideal self-concept, defined as the image of oneselfas one would like to be (e.g., Belch 1978;Belch and Lan-don 1977; Delozier 1971;Delozier and Tillman 1972;Dol-ich, 1969). The ideal self-concept has been referred o asthe ideal self, idealized image, and desired self.Other nvestigatorshave gone beyondthe dualitydimen-sion. Sirgy (1979, 1980)referred o actualself-image, idealself-image, social self-image, and ideal social self-image.

The social self-concept (sometimesreferred o as looking-glass self or presentingself ) has been defined as theimage thatone believes othershold, while the ideal socialself-concept (sometimes referred to as desired socialself ) denotesthe imagethat one would like othersto hold(cf. Maheshwari1974). Hughesand Guerrero1971) talkedaboutthe actualself-conceptand the ideal social self-con-cept. French and Glaschner (1971) used the actual self-concept, the ideal self-concept, and the perceivedrefer-ence group image of self (this latterconcept was neverformally defined). Dornoff and Tatham(1972) referred othe actualself-concept, ideal self-concept, and image of


4/15

SELF-CONCEPTN CONSUMERBEHAVIOR 289best friend. Sommers (1964) used the actual self-conceptand described other, defined as if I were this person.Sanchez, O'Brien, and Summers 1975), on the otherhand,employed the actual self-concept, ideal self-concept, andthe expected self, which refers to that image somewherebetween the actual and the ideal self-concept. Munson andSpivey (1980) referred o the expressive self, whichper-tains to either the ideal self-concept or the social self-con-cept.Self-Concept Theories

Levy (1959) argued hat the consumer s not functionallyoriented and that her behavior is significantly affected bythe symbols encountered n the identificationof goods inthe marketplace. His argument, although not regarded asconstitutinga theory, did serve to sensitize consumer be-havior reserachers o the potential influence of consumers'self-concepts on consumptionbehavior.Following Levy's proposition, a numberof self-conceptmodels were formulated o describe, explain, and predictthe precise role of consumers' self-concepts in consumerbehavior. Rooted in Rogers' (1951) theory of individualself-enhancement, Grubband Grathwohl(1967) specifiedthat:

1. Self-concept is of value to the individual,and behaviorwill be directed towardthe protectionand enhancementof self-concept.2. The purchase, display, and use of goods communicatessymbolic meaningto the individualand to others.3. The consumingbehaviorof an individualwill be directedtowardenhancing self-concept throughthe consumptionof goods as symbols.

Schenk and Holman's (1980) view of situational self-image is based on the symbolic interactionismschool ofthought.Theydefined situational elf-imageas the meaningof self the individualwishes othersto have. This situation-specific image includesattitudes, perceptions,andfeelingsthe individual wishes others to associate with her. Thechoice of which self (actual self, and so on) to express isinfluencedby the specific characteristicsof a given situa-tion. Once an individualdecides which image to expressin the social situation,she looks for ways of expressingit.The use of productsis one means by which an individualcan express self-image. Thus, productsthat are conspicu-ous, that have a high repurchase ate, or for which differ-entiatedbrands are availablemight be used by consumersto express self-image in a given situation.The advantagesof the concept of situationalself-imageare that (1) it replacesthe proliferating oncepts of actualself-image, ideal self-image, and so forth; (2) it includesa behavioralcomponent;and (3) it acknowledgesthat con-sumers have many self-concepts. Consumptionof a brandmay be highly congruentwith self-image in one situationandnot at all congruentwith it in another.Morerecently, Sirgy developeda self-image/product-im-age congruitytheory (1981a, 1982a, 1982b). Productcuesinvolving images usually activate a self-schema involving

the same images. For example, a producthaving an imageof high status may activateboth a self-schema nvolvingthe self-concept I and a corresponding inkage betweenthat self-concept and the image attribute self-image) in-volving status. This linkage connects the self-conceptI with the status self-image and is referred o as self-image belief. The self-image belief may be either I am ahigh status person or I am not a high statusperson.Self-image beliefs are characterizedby (1) the degree ofbelief strengthconnecting the self-concept I with a par-ticularself-image level, and (2) the value intensityassoci-ated with the self-imagelevel (e.g., I like being the highstatus type ).3Given the activation of a self-schema as a result of aproductcue, Sirgyclaims thatthe valueplacedon the prod-uct andits imageattributeswill be influencedby theevokedself-schema. For instance, if the product s a luxuryauto-mobile and its foremost image is a high status one, itcan be argued that the value inferredfor the automobile'shigh status image dependson the precise natureof theevoked self-imagedimensioninvolving status. If highstatus has a positive value on the evoked self-image di-mension, then this positive value will be projectedto theproduct; f high status has a negative value, thena neg-ative value will be projectedto the productimage. Whatis being arguedhere is that the value or meaning of aproduct mage is not independentlyderivedbut is, rather,inferred rom evoked self-imagedimensions.As Exhibit 1 indicates, a specificvalue-ladenself-imagebelief interacts with a correspondingvalue-ladenproduct-image perception, and the result occurs in the formof:* Positive self-congruity-comparison betweena positiveproduct-imageerceptionnda positive elf-image elief* Positive self-incongruity-comparison betweena positiveproduct-imageerceptionnda negativeelf-image elief* Negative self-congruity-comparison betweena negativeproduct-imageerceptionnda negativeelf-image elief* Negative self-incongruity-comparison betweena nega-tive product-imageerceptionnd a positiveself-imagebelief.

These different self-image/product-image ongruitystateswill influencepurchasemotivationdifferently.Positive self-congruity will determine the strongest level of purchasemotivation,followed by positive self-incongruity,negativeself-congruity,andnegative self-incongruity,respectively.Thisrelationships explainedthrough he mediationof self-esteem and self-consistencyneeds.From a self-esteem perspective, the consumer will bemotivatedto purchasea positively valuedproduct o main-tain a positiveself-image (positive self-congruitycondition)or to enhance herself by approachingan ideal image (pos-itive self-incongruity condition). The consumer will bemotivatedto avoid purchasinga negativelyvaluedproduct

3The strengthof the self-image belief parallels the traditional onstructof the actual self-concept, whereas the value intensity of the self-imagebelief seems to be akin to the traditionalconstruct of ideal self-concept(Sirgy, forthcoming).


5/15

290 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCHEXHIBIT

THEEFFECTSOF SELF-ESTEEMNDSELF-CONSISTENCYOTIVES N PURCHASEMOTIVATIONMediatingactors

Self image & Productmage result Self-image/ Self-esteem Self-consistency Purchasein product-image motivation motivation motivationcongruityleadingto

positive positive positiveself- approach approach approachcongruity purchasemotivationnegative positive positiveself- approach avoidance conflictincongruitynegative negative negativeself- avoidance approach conflictcongruitypositive negative negative self- avoidance avoidance avoidanceincongruity purchasemotivation

to avoid self-abasement(negative self-congruityand self-incongruity conditions). Self-consistency, on the otherhand, predictsthatthe consumerwill be motivatedto pur-chase a productwith an image (positive or negative) thatis congruentwith her self-image belief. This functionstomaintainconsistencybetweenbehaviorand self-image be-liefs (positive and negative self-congruityconditions)andto avoid dissonance generated from behavior/self-imagebelief discrepancies positive andnegativeself-incongruityconditions).The resultantmotivational tate towarda givenproduct s thusthe neteffect of the motivational tatearisingfrom self-esteem and self-consistencyneeds.Self-ConceptMeasurement

One of the earliest attempts in consumer self-conceptmeasurementwas by Sommers(1964). The procedureusedwas a Q-sort, which groups productson dimensionssuchas most like me to least like me. Sommers' studyprovidedan initialnomologicalvalidationof thisprocedure.Many self-concept investigationshave employedthe Q-sort methodology with relative nomological success(Greenoet al. 1973;Hamm1967;Hammand Cundiff1969;Martin 1973). Belch and Landon (1977) modifiedthe Q-sort by using a rating scale with a predetermined istribu-tion. The methodology was relatively successful in thenomological studies conductedby Landonand his associ-ates (Belch 1978; Belch and Landon 1977; Landon 1972,1974). A more traditional Q-sort procedurewas used inseveralstudiesin which personalityadjectiveswere sortedalong a self-conceptdimensionsuch as most like me toleast like me (Frenchand Glaschner1971; Sanchez etal. 1975).Another tradition n self-concept measurement nvolvesthe semantic differential.This method entails having therespondent atea specific self-perspective-actual self-con-cept, for example-along a numberof bipolar adjective

scales (e.g., Bellengeret al. 1976; Birdwell 1968;Delozier1971; Dolich 1969).Othermiscellaneousmeasureshave also beenused to tapthe self-concept. These include the adjective check list(Guttman1973), self-report attitudinal tems measuredona Likert-type cale (JacobsonandKossoff 1963), and otherstandardized ex-role attitudemeasures(Gentryand Doer-ing 1977; Gentryet al. 1978; Golden et al. 1979; Morrisand Cundiff 1971; Vitz and Johnston1965).

Self-ConceptResearchAt least five researchtracks directlyrelated to self-con-cept have been identified:Self-Concept nd Socio-Psychological actors. Sommers(1964) attemptedto differentiateconsumerswho vary insocial stratification SES) by using self-conceptmeasuredin termsof products.A probabilitysample of 100 house-wives and 10 generic productsyielded results that werebasicallyconsistentwith the following hypotheses:

* Membersof a high SES stratum H) describe self signif-icantlydifferently thando membersof a low stratum L).* Membersof L demonstrate reateragreementn describingself thando membersof H.* Membersof H demonstrategreateragreement n describ-ing otherconsumersthanin describingself.* Membersof L demonstrategreateragreement n self de-

scriptionthando membersof H.Martin 1973) andGreenoet al. (1973) attemptedo dif-ferentiateconsumers with varying personalitiesby usingself-conceptmeasured n termsof products.Martin'sstudyemployeda nonprobabilityampleof 223 students, ogetherwithtwo sets of 50 products one foreachsex) froma SearsCatalog.Martin'sstudyrevealedthree femaleclusters(per-


6/15

SELF-CONCEPTNCONSUMERBEHAVIOR 291sonalhygiene, noncommitted,andliberated)and five maleclusters, of which only three were reasonably nterpretable(conservative, religious, and personalhygiene). Greeno etal.'s study, which used a probability ampleof 190 house-wives with 38 generic products, producedsix female clus-ters (homemakers, matriarchs,variety girls, cinderellas,glamourgirls, and media-consciousglamourgirls). No sig-nificantoverlap was visible between the female clusters inthetwo studies, but this could have beendue to the differentpopulations female students versus housewives).

ConsumerBehavior as a Functionof Self-Concept/Prod-uct-ImageCongruity. The discussionof actual self-imageandproduct-image ongruitywas initiatedby GardnerandLevy (1955) and Levy (1959). The main attentionwas fo-cused uponthe image projectedby various products.Con-sumers were thought to preferproducts with images thatwere congruentwith their self-concepts.Exhibit2 includesmost of the studiesthat have examinedthe relationship between self-concept/product-image on-gruityandconsumerbehavior. The findingsof these studiescan be summarizedas follows:

1. Therelationship etweenactual elf-image/product-im-age4congruity self-congruity) nd consumer hoice(i.e., productpreference,purchase ntention,and/orproductsage,ownership,r oyalty) asbeen upportedbynumeroustudies.Those tudieswhich ailed o con-firm hisrelationship ereHughes ndGuerrero1971)andGreen t al. (1969).2. Therelationshipetweendeal elf-image/product-imagecongruity idealcongruity) ndconsumerhoice (i.e.,product reference, urchasentention, roduct sage,ownershiprloyalty)has beengenerally upported.3. Therelationshipetween ocialself-image/product-im-age congruity social congruity) nd consumer hoice(limited o product reference, urchasentention, ndstore oyalty)hasnotbeenstrongly upportedMahesh-wari1974;SamliandSirgy 1981;Sirgy 1979, 1980).4. Therelationshipetween deal socialself-image/prod-uct-image ongruity idealsocialcongruity) nd con-sumerchoice(limited o product reference, urchaseintention, ndstore oyalty)hasbeenmoderatelyup-portedMaheshwari974;SamliandSirgy 1981;Sirgy1979, 1980).5. Therelationshipetween ex-role elf-image/sex-typedproduct-imageongruity sex-role ongruity) ndcon-

sumer hoice(limitedonlyto product sage)has beenmoderatelyupportedGentryt al. 1978;VitzandJohn-ston1965).6. Themoderatingoleof productonspicuousness5n therelationship etweenself-concept/product-imageon-

gru-ity6nd consumer choice (limited to productprefer-ence, purchase ntention,and/orproductusage) has beenlargely unsupported (Dolich 1969; Ross 1971; Sirgy1979). That is, it was expected that the ideal and/orideal-social self-concepts would be more closely relatedto productpreferencewith respect to highly conspicuousproducts than to the actual and/or social self-concepts.Withrespectto inconspicuousproducts, t was expectedthat the actual and/orsocial self-conceptwould be moreclosely related to product preference than to the idealand/or deal-social self-components.7. The moderatingrole of productconspicuousness-socialclass interaction on the relationshipbetween self-con-cept/product-image ongruityand consumerchoice (lim-ited only to productpreference) has been suggested byMunson's (1974) study. His results showed that prefer-ence for conspicuous productswas related to ideal self-conceptfor uppersocial classrespondents,whereaspref-erence for lower class respondentswas not related toeither actual or ideal self-conceptsforeither conspicuous

or inconspicuousproducts.8. The moderatingrole of productpersonalization7 n therelationship between self-concept/product-image con-gruity and consumer choice (limited only to productpreference and purchase intention) has been suggestedby Sirgy (1979, 1980). Thatis, the relationshipbetweenself-concept/product-imageongruityand product pref-erence and purchaseintention seems strongerfor highpersonalizingproductsthan for low personalizingprod-ucts.9. The moderatingrole of personalityon the relationshipbetween self-concept/product-image ongruity and con-sumer choice (limited to purchase intention) has beensuggested by Belch (1978). Belch's results showed that,

based on Harvey, Hunt and Schroeder's 1961) person-ality typology,8 System 3 subjects' intentionsweremoreclosely related to ideal self-conceptthan to actual self-concept.

4Products s used here are not restricted o tangibles, but applyas wellto services, organizations,persons, and so on.5Product onspicuousnessis defined as the extent to which a specificproduct s consumedin public-i.e., the extentof high social visibility orhigh conspicuousness.

6Self-concept s used here in the broad sense, thus denotingany of theself-perspectives,e.g., actual self-concept, ideal self-concept, social self-concept.7Productpersonalization refers to the extent to which a product hasstrong image or symbolic associations.Productsthat are highly person-alizing are those which have strong stereotypic images for the generaluser. This dimension is analogousto the distinction between value-ex-pressiveproducts high productpersonalization) nd utilitarian-expressiveproducts (low productpersonalization)made by Locander and Spivey(1978) and Spivey (1977).8Harvey,Hunt, and Schroeder 1961) presenteda personality ypologybased on the notion of cognitive complexity. Four personalitytypes ofbelief systems were deducted:System 1 persons are those who have asimplecognitive structure nda tendencytowardextreme, polarized udg-ments. They are characterizedby high absolutism,closedness of beliefs,high evaluativeness,strongadherence o rules, high ethnocentrism,dog-matism, and authoritarianism. ystem 2 personscan be describedas hav-ing somewhat more differentiatedand abstractbelief systems. They arecharacterized y an anti-ruleand anti-authority rientation.Theyhave lowself-esteem and are alienated. System 3 persons arethose who have highsocial needs. System 4 persons represent he most abstractandleast con-strictedof the four belief system. They are characterizedby a high taskorientation,risk taking, creativity, and relativism; hey are more tolerantof ambiguityand flexible in thoughtand action.


7/15

292 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCHEXHIBIT

STUDIESRELATING ONSUMER EHAVIORWITH ELF-IMAGE/PRODUCT-IMAGEONGRUITY

Tpe f SelfConcept 'CongruityModel refers to the method used in measuring he.Actualelf _ * | | | * * | * _ | | | * | _ * | | | _ | | _ _ * | | degree of match or mismatch between the product image and the. IdealSelf self-concept for a given consumer. For further etail refer o the. SocialSelf discussionunder ResearchProblems.. Ideal ocialSelf bThe erm product s used in the broadest ense.*Sex-RoleelfImagef BestFriend cGroup-Level nalysisrefers to a procedurewhichaggregate. Perceived eference elf _ across subjects across image attributes; ndividual-Levelnalysirefers o an analysisconductedper subject; nd Image-Level nalSelfConceptMeasure _ _ ysis refers o the procedurewhichaggregates across subjectsper. Semantic ifferential image attribute.Q-taelcales dA number of items in these studies were not reported..Q-SortMethodolog--IAE.Personalitynventory.ExperimentallyanipulatedProductmageMeasures. Semantic ifferentialStapel calesQ-SortMethodology.MDSExperimentallyanipulated -CongruityModela.Euclidean.Absolute Difference. SimpleDifferenceDifferencequaredDivisional ifferenceCorrelationoefficientMeanDifferenceFactor nalysis.Experimentallyanipulated -

.OtherDependentariable(s)b. ProductPreference

Purchase ntentionPrmducthoice. ProductOwnershiI. Product saqe. ProductLoyalty

ModeratorVariable(s)PrductConspicuousnessIMProductSex-Typing.Product Personalization*Significantthers.Attitudes Behavior-Product wnership. SocialClassSexSelf-ConfidencePersonality ypeSample Population. StudenProduct sers.General roduct sers

*Students* eneralPublicH usewivesBusinesspersonsProducts.Brand roducts.Generic roductsB an StoresG nericStores*Activities*ServicesTypefAnalysiscGmrupevelIndividuialevel

=*mg Level


8/15

SELF-CONCEPTN CONSUMERBEHAVIOR 29310. The moderatingrole of personality-productconspicu-ousness interaction n the relationshipbetweenself-con-cept/product-imageongruityand consumerchoice (lim-ited to productpreference)was suggestedby Munson's(1974) dissertation results. Munson used Horney's

(1937) personality ypology. The results showed that forcompliant subjects, preference was somewhat moreclosely related to actual than to ideal self-concept forinconspicuousproducts. With respectto both compliantand aggressive subjects, preference was more closelyrelated to the ideal than to actual self-concept for con-spicuous products. No clear patternwas revealedwithrespect to the detachedsubjects.11. The moderatingrole of type of decisionon the relation-ship between self-concept/product-imageongruity andconsumer choice (limited to productpreference, pur-chase intention, and store selection)has been suggestedby the findingsof Sirgy (1979, 1980) and Domoff andTatham 1972). Sirgy's results showedthatthe ideal andideal-social self-concepts were more closely related to

product preference than to purchase ntention, whereasthe actual and social self-concepts were more closelyrelatedto purchase ntention hanto productpreference.However, this expectedfindingdidnot generalizeacrossall products.Dornoff andTatham oundthatfor routin-ized decisions (supermarket hopping), actual self-con-cept was more closely related to store selection than toideal self-conceptand image of best friend. For non-routine decisions regarding specialty store shopping,image of best friend was moreclosely related o storeselection than to actual or ideal self-concepts. With re-spect to nonroutinedecisions regardingdepartment toreshopping, store selection was more closely related toideal self-concept than to actualself-conceptor imageof best friend.ConsumerBehavioras a FunctionofDirectSelf-ConceptInfluences. Those studieswhichexploredthisrelationshiphave focused their attention on the effects of self-conceptperse rather hanon self-concept/product-imageongruity.The earliest study in this traditionwas conductedby Ja-cobson and Kossoff (1963), who hypothesized hatthereisa direct relationshipbetween consumersperceivingthem-selves as innovativeandtheir attitudes owards small cars.Using a self-conceptattitudinalmeasureof innovativenessand conservatism,and basedon a probability ampleof 250respondents, he results showed an oppositepattern-i.e.,consumerswho saw themselvesas being conservativeweremore likely to express a positive attitudethan those who

saw themselvesas innovative.Guttman1973) tested the hypothesisthat ighttelevisionviewers perceive themselves as achieving and active,whereasheavy viewers perceivethemselvesas more socia-ble. Using 12 personalityadjectivesin an adjectivecheck-list format,and basedon a probability ampleof 336 femalerespondents,the results moderatelyconfirmed he hypoth-esis.With respect to the specific effects of sex-role self-con-cepts, Morrisand Cundiff(1971) exploredthe moderatingrole of anxiety on productpreferenceof hair spray. Sex-

role self-concept was measuredby the femininity scale ofthe CPI personality inventory on a sample of 223 malestudents. The resultsshowed an interactioneffect betweensex-role self-concept and anxiety over preferencefor hairspray. In the same vein, Gentry and Doering (1977) ex-aminedthe effects of sex-role self-concept and sex on pref-erence and usage of 10 leisure activities, 13 products andtheir related brands,and nine magazine types and their re-latedbrands.Sex-role self-conceptwas measuredusing thefemininity scales of the CPI and PAQ personalityinven-tories. Using a sampleof 200 students,the results ndicatedthat sex and sex-role self-concept were significantpredic-tors of preferenceand usage, but the sex variable was thebetter predictor. Similar findings have been obtained byGoldenet al. (1979) and by Allison et al. (1980).

ProductImageas a Function of ConsumerBehavior. Anumberof studies in the consumerbehavior iteraturehaveaddressed the relationshipbetween congruity effects andproduct-imageperceptions.Hamm (1967) and Hamm andCundiff(1969) hypothesized hat self-actualizationas mea-sured by the discrepancybetween actual and ideal self-im-ages in a product-anchoredQ-sort) is relatedto product-image perceptions.Using a sample of 100 housewivesand50 products,the results providedmoderate supportto thehypothesis. In the same vein, Landon (1972) hypothesizedthatneed for achievement(as measuredby the discrepancybetweenactual and ideal self-imagesin a product-anchoredQ-methodology) is related to product-imageperceptions.Using a sampleof 360 studentswith 12 productcategories,the results were foundto be consistent with the hypothesis.In a retail settingandusing a sampleof 325 female stu-dents, Mason and Mayer (1970) found that respondentsconsistentlyrated their patronizedstore as high in statuscomparedto nonpatronized tores. In a study to examinestore loyalty determinants,Samli and Sirgy (1981) inter-viewed 372 respondents n two differentstores(a discountstoreand a specialtyclothing store). One of theirfindingsinvolved high correlationsbetween self-concept/store-image congruityandperceptionsand evaluationsof functionalstore-imagecharacteristics.Using a sampleof 307 studentsand 24 products, Golden et al. (1979) and Allison et al.(1980) providedsome suggestive evidence concerningtheeffects of congruence between sex-role self-concept andsex-typed product mageon sex-typed productperceptions.Their main findingwas an interactioneffect between sex-role self-concept, sex, self-esteem, andproduct ype in re-lationto sex-typed productperceptions.It shouldbe notedthatalthoughthese studiesarguedfora causal type of relationship,they providedcorrelationadata rom which causalinferencescould noteasily be made.Theoretically speaking, this relationshipcan be explainedby what has been referred o in the social psychology lit-eratureas egocentricattribution and attributiveprojec-tion (Heider1958;Holmes 1968;JonesandNisbett 1971;Kelley and Stahelski1970; Ross, Green,and House 1977).That is, attributing a specific image to a productcan bevery much affected by the person's egocentricity: I use


9/15

294 THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCHit; I am this kind of person;therefore,the product magehas to be like me.

Self-Conceptas a Function of Behavior Effects. Canconsumerbehavior affect self-perceptions?This situationcan occur when a product mageis stronglyestablishedandconsumers'self-conceptsarenot articulately ormedwithina specificframeof reference.For example, a consumermayattribute is usage of a pornographicmagazine o his strongneed for sexual relations.The formationof the self-imageneed for sexual relations may have been affected by theproduct image associated with the usage of the porno-graphicmagazine. In social psychology, this phenomenonhas been explainedby Bem's self-perception heory (1965,1967).Indirectevidence for this relationshipexists in the con-sumer self-concept literature. Evans (1968) argued thatBirdwell's (1968) study showed that product ownershipmay have influencedboth self-conceptand product mage,resulting n highself-concept/product-imageongruity.Thesame argumentapplies to the studies by Grubband Hupp(1968), Grubband Stern (1971), and Schewe and Dillon(1978).In an indirect est of this relationship,Belch and Landon(1977) arguedthat productownershipinfluences self-con-cept measurement althoughthis was not causally demon-strated). Furthermore,Delozier (1971) and Delozier andTillman (1972) foundthatself-concept/product-imageon-gruityincreasedwith the passage of time, which may pos-sibly be indicativeof the influence of consumer behavioron self-conceptchanges.

RESEARCH PROBLEMSProliferationof Self-ConceptConstructs

Researchershave generatednumerousconstructsin anattemptto explain consumerself-concept effects on con-sumerchoice. These include ideal self-image, social self-image, expected self-image, situationalself-image, and soon. The proliferationof self-concept constructsnot onlysacrifices heoreticalparsimonybutalso presents heoreticaldifficulties in describingand explainingthe natureof theinterrelationship etween these constructs. To what extentare these constructs independentof one another?What isthe precisenatureof theirinteraction?Underwhat circum-stances? Only recentlyhave some of these issues been ad-dressed.Schenk and Holman (1980) arguedthat the situationalself-image may offer an integratedand parsimoniousap-proach.The situationalself-image is situation-specificandtakes into account the actual self-concept, the ideal self-concept, andso on. In the samevein, Sirgy(1981a, 1982a,1982b, forthcoming)and Sirgy and Danes (1981) arguedfor the use of self-image/product-image ongruity, whichtakes into accountthe interrelationshipetweenthe self andidealcomponentsof the self-concept, togetherwithproductimage.

ExplanatoryUse of Self-ConceptEffectsMost self-concept studies to date seem to be based onthe congruencenotion thatconsumersare motivated o ap-proachthose productswhich matchtheir self-perceptions,

but it is not clearon what theoryor theoriesthiscongruencenotion is based. Rogerianhumanistic heory (Rogers 1951)is implicitin the writingsof Landon,Grubb,and IvanRoss.Goffman's (1956) self-presentation heory has been alsoreferencedn a numberof studies(e.g., SchenkandHolman1980; Holman 1981). However, most self-conceptstudiesseem to be atheoretical e.g., Birdwell 1968;Dolich 1969;Greenet al. 1969; Hughesand Naert 1970).The use of theory is essential in generating establehy-potheses and explaining researchfindings. Consumerre-searchersshouldbe encouraged o generatetheirown self-concept theories in consumption-relatedettings. In addi-tion, many self-theoriesin social psychology can be effec-tively used in consumerresearch.Forexample, Festinger's(1954) social comparison heorycanbe usedto explainhowconsumers evaluate themselves by comparing what theyown and consume with others. Bandura's(1977) self-effi-cacy theorycan be employed to explain the differencebe-tween ideal congruityand ideal social congruityeffects.Self-concept theories can also be used to guide meth-odology. Wicklundand Frey's (1980) workon self-aware-ness can guide methodologicalattemptsto evoke respon-dents' self-concepts in the research setting. Bem (1967,1972) cautionsus against self-reportmethodsbecause theinferencesmade may link respondents'behaviorwith self-dispositions.Similarly,Deci's (1975) cognitive evaluationtheorycan be used to explain attributionalmechanismsoc-curringin self-reportor survey methodologies. Jourard's(1971) self-disclosuretheoryexplains the biased natureofself-concept reports due to the intimate, personal, andthreateningnatureof self-conceptinformation.Self-Image/Product-Image ongruenceModels

Modelingself-image/product-imageongruity n relationto productpreferenceand purchase ntentionhas been, forthe most part, void of theory. Models most predictiveofconsumerchoice or most popular n the research iteraturehave been automatically adopted by self-concept re-searchers.The mathematicalmodels of self-image/product-imagcongruityhave been examinedby a numberof investigatorin relationto consumerchoice. Hughes and Naert (1970)examinedthe following atheoreticalmathematical ongru-ence models in relationto purchase ntention:Simple-differencemodel n (Sij - Pij)i = 1Weightedsimple-difference nmodel 2 Wij Sij - P0j)Simple-difference (Sij - Pij)divisional model Ei=1 Pij


10/15

SELF-CONCEPTNCONSUMERBEHAVIOR 295Weighted ivisionalmodel n (A)

whereS = actualself-image (i) of individual(j)P11= product mage (i) of individual(j)

Wo = importanceweight of image (i) of individual(j)The results showed that weighted simple-difference andweighteddivisionalmodels were equallypredictiveof prod-uct choice and more predictiveof productchoice thantheunweightedsimple-differenceand simple-differencedivi-sionalmodels.Maheshwari (1974) compared the predictive strengthof the Euclidean-distancemodel [E= (P11 S11)2]112er-sus the absolute-differencemodel [1 I pi -silS] in re-lation to product preference. The results showed nosignificant differences between these two congruencemodels in predictingpreferencebehavior. Sirgy (1981a)and Sirgy and Danes (1981) compared the predictivestrengthof a model emanating rom self-image/product-im-age congruitytheorywith the strengthof a numberof tra-ditionally used congruencemodels.

Interactive ncongruencemodel > (2PU1 Sij)Absolute-difference n Itmodels Pij - Sijf nd E Pij -IijtDifference-squaredn n

models E (PI1-S)2)2 and > (P11-i= 1 i a 1Simple-difference n nmodels E (Pi - Sij) and E (Pi-I ij)i=l_ i=Euclidean-distance / 1 \1/2models - (P1 - Sij)2) and

n \1/2E(Pij-Ii )2

Simple-difference- n (Pi.- S i) (P1 i 1ij)divisionalmodels E andyi= 1 Sij i=1 I.where

I= ideal self-imaged (i) of individual(j)The results showed that the interactivecongruencemodel[n=l (2Pij - Sij) I] was generallyequallyor slightlymorepredictive of product preference and purchase intentionwhen compared o the othermodels.Someinteresting ecentdevelopments n communicationsresearchhave used distance models in multidimensionalspaceas measuresof self-concept/product-imageongruity

(Woelfel and Danes 1980; Woelfel and Fink 1980). Con-sumerresearchersmaybenefitfromthe applicationof MDSin modelingthe congruityprocess.Congruencemodeling must be guided by theory. Fur-thermore,any argumentfor the use of a specific type ofcognitive algebra nvolved in the congruityprocess shouldbe theoreticallypositioned in the context of the decision-ruleselectionand decision-making iteratures.Self-conceptresearchers eem to ignoretheworkof theircolleagueswhoaredecision-makingresearchers.ModeratorVariables

The use of moderatorvariables,such as personalitydif-ferences,social class, and productconspicuousness o mod-erate the relationshipbetween self-concept/product-imagcongruityandconsumerchoice has also beenrelativelyvoidof theory. For example, Ross (1971) and Dolich (1969)hypothesizedthat productconspicuousnessmoderatestherelationshipbetween type of self-concept and preferencebehavior.Specifically, the ideal self-conceptwas expectedto be more closely relatedto preference,or conspicuousproductsthan actual self-concept would be, whereas theactual self-conceptwas expectedto be moreclosely relatedto preferencefor inconspicuousproductsthan ideal self-concept would be. Although this hypothesis sounds plau-sible, it was not arguedwithintheframework f a particulartheory.A theoreticalframeworkshould be selected to hypoth-esize the moderating ffects of particular ariables.Forex-ample, if we use self-image/product-imageongruitythe-ory, it has already been shown that type of consumerdecision (attitudetoward productversus attitudetowardspurchase) moderates the effects of self-image/product-imagecongruityon purchasemotivation Sirgy 1979, 1980,1982b). Withinthis theoretical ramework, t canbe arguedthat other personalitymoderatorvariables (e.g., locus-of-control, self-monitoring, self-esteem, dogmatism, socialapproval,and achievementmotivation)can be used to pre-dict consumerchoice. Situationalmoderatorvariablesmayinclude productconspicuousness,image attainability,pur-chase conspicuousness, productpersonalizability,productvariability,and perceivedrisk.The SemanticDifferential

Turning o methodologicaldifficulties,the use of the se-mantic differentialis criticized on many counts. No con-sensualmethod s used to select the imageadjectives.Somehave used generaladjectivesextracted rompersonality n-ventories(e.g., Bellenger et al. 1976; Maheshwari1974).Others have used attributesmost related to the productsbeing tested (e.g., Birdwell 1968; Schewe and Dillon1978). Only one study (Dolich 1969) used terms that fitOsgood, Succi, and Tannenbaum's 1957) evaluation,po-tency, activity, stability, novelty, and receptivityfactors.It is recommendedthat the semantic differentialmethod-ology only includethose images which are most relatedtothe productsbeing tested.


11/15

296 THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCHWiththe exceptionof Hughes and Naert's work (1970),almost all the studies that employed the semantic differ-ential assumed equal weighting of the image attributes.Since these attributes arrydifferent mportanceweights foreach consumer (Maheshwari 1974), this assumption isclearly unwarranted. t is thereforerecommended hat im-portanceratingsfor each attributebe obtained hroughself-reportmethods or other relatedtechniques.With a few exceptions (Bellenger et al. 1976; Delozier1971; Delozier and Tillman 1972; Munson 1974; Stern,Bush, and Hair 1977), the majorityof studies employingthe semantic differential failed to provideevidence of re-liabilityand validity.Most studies using the semanticdifferentialdid not testfor attribute nterrelationships uch as duplication,redun-dancy, or overlap. Exceptions include Sternet al. (1977),Bellenger et al. (1976), andMaheshwari 1974), who useda factoranalytic procedure o reduce the full attribute et.This factoranalytic techniqueis recommended or generaluse with the semanticdifferentialmethodologyto ensureattribute ndependence.Although one may acknowledge thatconsumersmay seesymbolic images in productsand that these images interactwith theirself-images, it canbe argued hatthose images-as tapped by the adjective bipoles in the semanticdiffer-ential-may not be salient across individuals and acrossproducts. Only one or two out of a long list of attributesmay be salient in a given consumer's perception of theproductand of herself. Thus responses to the nonsalientattributesmay presentadditionalmethodologicalconfound-ing. To ensure high image saliency, only those imageswhich are found to be highly relatedto the product beingtested should be included in the semanticdifferential.Inother words, general self-concept standardized cales arenot recommended.Further, the semantic differentialmethodology may besusceptible to halo effects biases. Response to the initialattributesmaybiasresponseson followingattributes.Othermethodologies free from halo effects could be used to rep-licate findingsfrom studies using the semantic differentialmethodology. These other methods may include protocolprocedures,free elicitationprocedures,and so forth.It can be argued hatthe use of bipolaradjectivesassumesthat consumers can identifywith a high degreeof certaintywhich pole of the adjective describes them best. Breakingfrom this tradition, Grubb and Hupp (1968) and Sirgy(1979, 1980) used unipolaradjectivesin a semantic-differ-

ential-type ormatfor tappingthe degreeof applicabilityorcertaintyof one's descriptionof oneself along these adjec-tives. The best possible solutionmay involve both endors-ing an item between the adjectivalbipoles and also ratingthe degree certaintyor uncertainty elt regarding tem en-dorsement.Also, it is not clear how self-concept investigatorsusingthe semanticdifferential methodology avoid social desira-bility bias (Edwards 1957;Crowne and Marlowe 1964). Inan attemptto compensatefor social desirabilitybiases inthe semantic differentialmethodology, investigatorsare ad-vised to (1) select neutral elf-image attributes, 2) use both

positive and negative self-image dimensions if that is notfeasible, and (3) inform consumers hat their responseswillremain anonymous (Pryor 1980).Moreover, the self-image bipolar adjectives used in thesemantic differential methodology are very abstract. Bemand Allen (1974) indicated that psychologists measuringself-concept assume that they can measure he relativepres-enceof a particular, bstract elf-image characteristic crossall persons. However, it is possible that certain abstractself-images may apply to some people but not to others.For example, some consumers may be friendly across avariety of situations.For these consumers, friendliness isa relevantcharacteristic.Other consumers may be more orless friendly accordingto the situation: or them, friendli-ness is not a relevantcharacteristic.Bem and Allen (1974)recommendedat least two approaches o remedythis prob-lem. One possible solutionis to make those self-imagead-jectives situation-specific.This can be accomplishedeitherby instructing consumers to respond to those self-imagecharacterizationswhile thinking of the product situationbeing tested, or by phrasingthose self-image adjectives interms of sentence items reflectinga specific consumptionsituationper self-image, and then using Likert-typescales(instead of the semantic differentialscales) in measuringconsumers' responses. Another solution involves askingconsumersto rate the variation n theirself-imagecharac-terizationacross differentconsumption-relatedituations.Finally, image attributesas represented n the semanticdifferentialmethodology may create a self-disclosureprob-lem. One centralpropositionin Jourard's 1971) self-dis-closure theory is that generalizations about the self areintimate topics thatsubjectshesitate to disclose. A num-ber of possible solutions are presentedthat can lessen theconfoundingeffects of the tendency to refrain from self-disclosure. One possible solution is to replacethe generalpersonality characterizationin the semantic differentialmethodologywith public self-information on behaviors.Accordingto the researchof Rungeand Archer(1979) andFenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975), public self-infor-mationon the form of specific behaviorsis not perceivedto be self-revealingand thereforecan lessen the self-dis-closureproblem.Anotherpossible solutionis to manipulate he immediateenvironmentof the respondents o make it moreconduciveto self-disclosure.This can be accomplishedby (1) placingthe respondents n a cozy room with pictureson the wall,cushionedfurniture,a rug, andsoft lighting (Chaikin,Der-lega, and Miller 1976); (2) using an interviewerwho maybe perceived by the respondentsas similar to themselvesin many respects (ChaikinandDerlega 1974; RohrbergandSousa-Poza 1976); and/or (3) hiring physically attractiveinterviewers to administer the questionnaire (Brundage,Derlega, and Cash 1977).The Product-Anchored-Method

The product-anchoredQ-method s criticizedfor severalshortcomings.For example, some respondentsmay find itdifficult o describethemselvesin termsof products French


12/15

SELF-CONCEPTN CONSUMERBEHAVIOR 297and Glaschner1971). Also, many of the productsused donot seem to have strong personality stereotypic associa-tions-e.g., Greeno et al. (1973) used products such asfrozen orange juice, shoes, catsup, and potatoes; Belch(1978) and Belch and Landon (1977) used products suchas coffee, cameras,anddeodorant; ndFrenchand Glasch-ner (1971) used products such as ovens, shoes, refrigera-tors, and laundrydetergent.It is difficult to conceive howthese productsmay have strong personalitystereotypicas-sociations,or the extentto which the self-concept may playa role with these sortsof products n determining onsumerchoice. In addition, the product-anchoredQ-method failsto differentiatebetween product images and self images.This, in turn, prevents attempts o model the self-concept/product-imagecongruity process. As a result of these ir-remedial problems, the authordoes not encourage the uti-lization of the product-anchoredQ-sort in futureconsumerself-concept investigations.

StandardizedPersonalityMeasuresTo measure sex-role self-concept, Vitz and Johnston(1965) used the femininity scales of the CPI and MMPIpersonality nventories.Fry (1971) employedthe CPI fem-ininity scale, and Gentry et al. (1978) used those of theCPIand PAQ personality nventories.It is not clear whetherthese measures tap self-percep-tions-what Wylie (1974) calls the phenomenalself -or whetherthey tap hidden, covert, nonconsciousperson-ality traitsand motives-i.e., the nonphenomenal elf.Most consumerself-concept investigatorsseem to assumethatself-concept is defined as the totalityof the individ-ual's thoughtsand feelings having reference to himself asanobject (Rosenberg 1979, p. 7). The implicituse of thisconceptualdefinitionof self-concept precludesthe use ofthese standardized, clinical personalitymeasures as in-dicatorsof sex-role self-concept.Elicitationof Self-Awareness

Wicklundand Frey's (1980) self-awarenesstheory pos-tulatesthat most people focus on the environmentbecausethe environmenttypically provides a high degree of per-ceptualstimulation,andthat self-focused attention s some-times aversive. Consumerproduct preferenceor purchaseintentionareusuallymeasured n an environment hat doesnotensure activationof the self-concept. Failingto producea relationshipbetween the self-concept and product pref-erence or purchase ntentioncan thereforebe attributed othe fact that productpreferenceor purchase ntention canbe determined rom a varietyof non-self factors. In orderto studyself-conceptinfluenceson these consumerbehaviorphenomena,a product/situationhatwill elicit the self-con-cept must be used.Pryor(1980) reportedon three differentmethods used tocreate self-awareness in social psychology studies. Onemethod is sensitizing a person to nuances in his past be-havior(i.e., looking back). To induce such retrospectiveself-awareness, social psychologists use videotapefeed-

back, diary methods, or instructionseliciting past self-re-flections. A second methodis to sensitize a person to var-iations in behaviors as they occur (i.e., self-awarenessduringbehavior). This is usuallyaccomplished hrough heuse of mirrorsand/or nstructions eferring o the self. Thethird method sensitizes a person to personalcharacteristicsduring heprocessof self-report i.e., self-awarenessduringself-report).Again, this is usually done through he use ofmirrorsand/or specific written or verbalinstructions.

CONCLUSIONThispaperhas attempted o criticallyreviewself-conceptresearch.In so doing, various conceptualizations, heories,and modelshave been discussed and measuresused in self-concept studies have been reviewed. Research problemsconcerning the theoretical and methodological underpin-nings of self-concept studies have been identified and rec-ommendedsolutions have been proposed.It is disheartening o conclude that, comparedto con-sumer attituderesearch, consumerself-conceptresearch sin its infancy stage. Much work is needed in theoreticalgeneration,model construction,and methoddevelopment.Interestin consumerself-conceptresearchwill increasewhen consumerresearchersrealizethatthe knowledgeex-tracted romthis type of research s valuablefor theappliedsocial science researcher.Such researchershave recentlybecome more comfortablewith employing attitudemodelsin applied social research. To date, however, the use ofattitudemodels has been limited to functionalattributes ndonly rarely appliedto symbolicor personality-relatedttri-butes. Althoughit would be foolhardyto advocate the useof self-concept/product-image ongruitymodels to the ex-clusion of the traditional multiattribute attitude models,bothtypesof models shouldbe usedto maximizeconsumerbehaviorprediction.Knowledge generated romself-conceptresearch analsocontribute to consumer attitude modeling and consumerdecision-makingresearch. For some unknownreason,self-conceptresearchhas been treatedas an offshoot topic thatis of interestto some and of little utility to others. Self-conceptresearch s an integralpartof attituderesearchandshould be considered as such. Attitude theoreticiansandresearchersare challengedto develop attitude heoriesthatintegrate he social cognitive dynamicsinvolved with bothfunctionaland symbolic attributes n explaining, describ-

ing, and predictingsocial behavior.[ReceivedMay 1980. RevisedFebruary 1982.]

REFERENCESAllison, Neil K., Linda L. Golden, Gary M. Mullet, andDonnaCoogan (1980), Sex-Typed Product mages:The EffectsofSex, Sex-Role Self-Concept and Measurement Implica-tions, inAdvances n ConsumerResearch,Vol. 7, ed. JerryOlson, Ann Arbor, MI: Associationfor ConsumerResearch,604-609.


13/15

298 THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCHBandura,Albert (1977), Self-Efficacy:Towarda UnifyingThe-,ory of Behavioral Change, Psychological Review, 84,191-215.Belch, George E. (1978), Belief Systems and the DifferentialRole of the Self-Concept, in Advances in ConsumerRe-search, Vol. 5, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Ann Arbor, MI: Asso-

ciationfor ConsumerResearch,320-325.and E. LairdLandon,Jr. (1977), DiscriminantValidityof a Product-Anchored elf-Concept Measure, Journal ofMarketingResearch, 14 (May), 252-256.Bellenger, Danny N., Earle Steinberg, and Wilbur W. Stanton(1976), The Congruenceof Store Image and Self Image,Journal of Retailing, 52 (Spring), 17-32.Bem, Daryl J. (1965), An Experimental Analysis ofSelf-Persuasion, Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychol-ogy, 1, 199-218.(1967), Self-Perception:An Alternative nterpretation fCognitive Dissonance Phenomena, Psychological Review,74, 182-200.(1972), Self-PerceptionTheory, in Advances n Exper-imental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, ed., Leon Berkowitz,New York: Academic Press.and AndreaAllen(1974), OnPredictingSome of thePeo-ple Some of the Time: The Search for Cross-situationalCon-sistencies in Behavior, Psychological Review, 81 (Novem-ber), 506-519.Bem, Sarah L. (1974), The Measurement f PsychologicalAn-drogyny, Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology,42, 155-162.Birdwell,Al E. (1968), A Studyof Influenceof Image Congru-ence on ConsumerChoice, Journal of Business, 41 (Janu-ary), 76-88.Britt, StewartH. (1960), TheSpenders,New York:McGraw-Hill.Brundage, Lani E., Valerian J. Derlega, and Thomas F. Cash(1977), The Effectsof PhysicalAttractiveness ndNeed forApprovalon Self-Disclosure, Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 3 (Winter),63-66.Chaikin, Alan L. and Valerian J. Derlega (1974), VariablesAffecting the Appropriateness f Self-Disclosure, Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 (August),588-593., ValerianJ. Derlega, andSarahJ. Miller (1976), Effectsof Room Environmenton Self-Disclosure in a CounselingAnalogue, Journalof CounselingPsychology, 23 (Septem-ber), 479-481.Crowne, W. J. and D. Marlowe (1946), The Approval Motive:Studies in EvaluativeDependence, New York:JohnWiley.Deci, Edward L. (1975), Intrinsic Motivation, New York:Plenum, Seligman.Delozier, MaynardW. (1971), A LongitudialStudy of the Re-lationshipBetween Self-Image and BrandImage, unpub-lished Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolinaat ChapelHill.and Rollie Tillman (1972), Self Image Concepts-CanThey Be Used to Design MarketingPrograms? SouthernJournal of Business 7(1), 9-15.Dolich, Ira J. (1969), Congruence RelationshipBetween Self-ImageandProductBrands, Journal of MarketingResearch,6 (February)80-84.Dornoff, R. J. and R. L. Tatham 1972), CongruenceBetweenPersonal Image and Store Image, Journal of the MarketResearchSociety, 14, 45-52.Edwards,Allen Louis (1957), The Social Desirability Variable nPersonalityAssessmentand Research, New York: Dryden.

Epstein, Seymour(1980), The Self-Concept:A Review andtheProposal of an IntegratedTheory of Personality, Person-ality: Basic Issues and CurrentResearch, ed. Ervin Staub,EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Evans, Franklin (1968), Automobiles and Self Imagery: Com-ment, Journal of Business, 41 (October), 445-459.Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier, and Arnold H. Buss(1975), Public and PrivateSelf-Consciousness:Assessmentand Theory, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ogy, 43 (August), 522-527.Festinger, Leon (1954), A Theory of Social Comparison, Hu-man Relations, 7, 117-140.French, Warren A. and Alan B. Glaschner (1971), Levels ofActualization as Matched Against Life Style Evaluation ofProducts, Proceedings of the AmericanMarketingAssoci-ation, 30, 358-362.Fry, Joseph N. (1971), Personality Variables and CigaretteBrandChoice, Journal of MarketingResearch, 8 (August),298-304.Gardner,BurleighB. and Sidney J. Levy (1955), The Productand the Brand, Harvard Business Review, 33 (April),

33-39.Gentry, James W. and Mildred Doering (1977), Masculinity-Femininity Related to ConsumerChoice, Proceedings oftheAmericanMarketingAssociation Educator's Conference,10, 423-427., Mildred Doering, and Terrence V. O'Brien (1978),Masculinityand FemininityFactorsin ProductPerceptionand Self-Image, in Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol.5, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Ann Arbor,MI:Associationfor Con-sumer Research, 326-332.Goffman, Erving (1956), The Presentationof Self in EverydayLife, Edinburgh:Universityof EdinburghPress.Golden, Linda L., Neil Allison, and Mona Clee (1979), TheRole of Sex-Role Self-Concept in Masculine and FeminineProduct Perception, Proceedings of the Association for

ConsumerResearch, 6, 595-605.Green, Paul E., Arun Maheshwari,and VithalaR. Rao (1969),Self-Concept and Brand Preference:An Empirical Appli-cation of MultidimensionalScaling, Journal of the MarketResearch Society, 11(4), 343-360.Greeno,DanielW., MontroseS. Sommers,andJeromeB. Kernan(1973), PersonalityandImplicit Behavior Patterns, Jour-nal of MarketingResearch, 10 (February),63-69.Grubb,EdwardL. and HarrisonL. Grathwhohl 1967), Con-sumer Self-Concept, Symbolism, and Market Behavior:ATheoreticalApproach, Journalof Marketing,31 (October)22-27.andGregg Hupp (1968), Perceptionof Self, GeneralizedStereotypes, and Brand Selection, Journal of MarketingResearch, 5 (February),58-63.and BruceL. Stern(1971), Self-ConceptandSignificanOthers, Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (August),382-385.Guttman, Johnathan (1973), Self-Concepts and TelevisionViewing Among Women, Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(Fall), 388-397.Hamm, B. Curtis (1967), A Study of the Differences BetweenSelf-Actualization Scores and Product Perceptions AmongFemale Consumers, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, 26, 275-276.and EdwardW. Cundiff(1969), Self-ActualizationandProduct Perception, Journal of Marketing Research, 6(November),470-472.


14/15

SELF-CONCEPTNCONSUMERBEHAVIOR 299Harvey, 0. J., D. E. Hunt, and H. M. Schroeder(1961), Con-

ceptual Systems and Personality Organization, New York:John Wiley.Heider, Fritz (1958), The Psychology of InterpersonalRelations,New York: John Wiley.Holman, Rebecca H. (1981), Product as Communication:AFreshAppraisalof a VenerableTopic, in Review of Mar-keting, eds. Ben M. Enis and KennethJ. Roering, Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation, 106-119.Holmes, David S. (1968), Dimensionsof Projection, Psycho-logical Bulletin, 69 (April), 248-268.Horney, Karen (1937), The Neurotic Personality of Our Time,New York: W. W. Norton.Hughes, G. David and Phillipe A. Naert (1970), A Computer-ControlledExperiment n ConsumerBehavior, Journal ofBusiness, 43 (July), 354-372.and Jose L. Guerrero 1971), AutomobileSelf-Congru-ity Models Reexamined, Journal of MarketingResearch,8 (February),125-127.Jacobson, Eugene and Jerome Kossoff (1963), Self-Perceptionand Consumer AttitudesToward Small Cars, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 47(4), 242-245.Jones,EdwardE. andRichardE. Nisbett(1971), The Actor andthe Observer: ivergentPerceptionsf theCausesof Behavior,in Attribution:Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, eds. Ed-wardE. Joneset al., Monistown,NJ: GeneralLeamingPress.Jones, Stephen C. (1973), Self and InterpersonalEvaluations:Esteem Theories versus Consistency Theories, Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 79 (March), 185-199.Jourard,Sidney M. (1971), The TransparentSelf, New York: D.Van NostrandCo.Katz, Daniel (1960), The FunctionalApproach o the Study ofAttitudes, Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204.Kelley, HaroldH. andAnthony J. Stahelski (1970), The SocialInteraction Bias of Cooperators' and Competitors'BeliefsAbout Others, Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 16(1), 66-91.Lamone, RudolphP. (1966), The Use of Semantic Differentialin a Study of Self Image, ProductImage, and PredictionofConsumerChoice, unpublishedPh.D. thesis, UniversityofWashington, Seattle, WA 98195.Landon, E. Laird, Jr.- 1972), Role of Need for Achievement nthe Perceptionof Products, Proceedings of the AmericanPsychological AssociationConvention, 80, 741-742.(1974), Self-Concept, Ideal Self-Conceptand ConsumerPurchase Intentions, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 1(September)44-51.Levy, Sidney J. (1959), Symbols for Sales, HarvardBusinessReview, 37(4), 117-124.Locander,W. B. and W. Austin Spivey (1978), A FunctionalApproach o AttitudeMeasurement, Journal of MarketingResearch, 15, 576-587.Maheshwari,Arun K. (1974), Self-ProductImage Congruence:A Macro-LevelAnalysis, Ann Arbor,MI:University Micro-films International.Martin, W. S. (1973), Personality and ProductSymbolism,Aus-tin: Bureau of Business, GraduateSchool of Business, Uni-versityof Texas.Mason, Joseph B., and MorrisL. Mayer (1970), The Problemof the Self-Concept n StoreStudies, Journal of Marketing,34 (April)67-69.Morris, George P. andEdwardW. Cundiff (1971), Acceptanceby Males of FeminineProducts, Journal of MarketingRe-search, 8 (April) 372-374.

Munson, J. Michael (1974), Typological Investigation of Self-Concept Congruityand Brand Preferences. Toward a Pre-dictive Model, Ann Arbor, MI: UniversityMicrofilms Inter-national.and W. Austin Spivey (1980), Assessing Self-Con-cept, inAdvances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 7, ed. JerryOlson, Ann Arbor,MI:Association for ConsumerResearch,598-603.and W. Austin Spivey (1981), Productand Brand UserStereotypes Among Social Classes, in Advances in Con-sumer Research, Vol. 8, ed. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Arbor,MI: Association for ConsumerResearch, 696-701.Osgood, CharlesE., GeorgeJ. Succi, and Percy H. Tannenbaum(1957), The Managementof Meaning, Urbana:UniversityofIllinois Press.Pryor, J. B. (1980), Self-Reportsand Behavior, in The Self inSocial Psychology, eds., Daniel M. Wegner and Robin R.Vallacher, New York:Oxford UniversityPress.Rogers, Carl (1951), Client-CenteredTherapy: ts CurrentPrac-tices, Implications, and Theory, Boston: Hougton Mifflin.Rohrberg,RobertG. and JoaquinF. Sousa-Poza (1976), Alco-hol, Field Dependence, and Dyadic Self-Disclosure, Psy-chological Reports, 39(3), 1151-1161.Rosenberg,Morris(1979), ConceivingtheSelf, New York:BasicBooks.Ross, Ivan (1971), Self-Conceptand BrandPreference, Jour-nal of Business of the Universityof Chicago, 44, 38-50.Ross, Lee, David Green, and PamelaHouse (1977), The FalseConsensus Phenomenon:An AttributionalBias in Self-Per-ceptionandSocial PerceptionProcesses, Journalof Exper-imentalSocial Psychology, 13 (May), 279-301.Runge, J. E. and R. L. Archer(1979), Reactions to Self-Dis-closure of Public and Private Information, unpublishedmanuscript,Universityof Texas at Austin.Samli, A. Coskun and M. Joseph Sirgy (1981), A Multi-Dimensional Approachto Analyzing Store Loyalty: A Pre-dictive Model, in The ChangingMarketingEnvironmentNew Theories andApplications,eds. Ken Bernhardt ndBillKehoe, Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation,113-116.Sanchez, HumbertoT., Terrence V. O'Brien, and George W.Summers (1975), Self-Concept and Consumer Motiva-tion, Proceedings of the AmericanMarketingAssociationEducator's Conference, 8, 225-227.Schenk, CarolynT. and Rebecca H. Holman(1980), A Socio-logical Approachto Brand Choice: The Concept of Situa-tionalSelf-Image, in Advances n ConsumerResearch,Vol.7, ed. Jerry Olson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Con-sumerResearch,610-614.Schewe, CharlesD. and William R. Dillon (1978), MarketingInformationSystem Utilization:An Applicationof Self-Con-cept Theory, Journal of Business Research, 6 (January)67-79.Schlenker, Barry R. (1975), Self-Presentation:Managing theImpressionof ConsistencyWhenRealityInterfereswithSelf-Enhancement, Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 32(6), 1030-1037.Schrauger,J. Sidney and Adrian K. Lund (1975), Self Evalu-ation and Reactionsto Evaluations romOthers, JournalofPersonality, 43 (March),94-108.Sirgy, M. Joseph (1979), Self-Concept n ConsumerBehavior,unpublishedPh.D. thesis, Departmentof Psychology, Uni-versityof Massachusettsat Amherst.(1980), Self-Concept in Relation to ProductPreferencand PurchaseIntention, in Developments n MarketingSci-


15/15

300 THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCHence, Vol. 3, ed. V. V. Bellur, Marquette,MI: Academy ofMarketingScience, 350-354.(198 la), Testinga Self-ConceptModelUsing a TangibleProduct, in Proceedings of the American PsychologicalAssociation-Consumer Psychology Division, 89, 17.

(1981b), Introducinga Self-Theory to ConsumerPer-sonality Research, JSAS, Catalog of Selected Documentsin Psychology, 11 (May), 33, Ms. 2250.(1982a), Self-Image/Product-ImageCongruityand Ad-vertisingStrategy, in Developments n MarketingScience,Vol. 5, ed. Vinay Kothari,Marquette,MI: Academyof Mar-keting Science, 129-133.(1982b), Self-Image/Product-Image ongruityand Pur-chase Motivation:A Role PlayingExperiment, Proceedingsof the AmericanPsychologicalAssociation-Consumer Psy-chology Division, 90.(forthcoming), The Interrelationship etween Self-Con-gruity and Ideal Congruityin PredictingPurchase Motiva-tion, Journal of BusinessResearch.and Jeffery Danes (1981), Self-Image/Product-ImageCongruenceModels:TestingSelectedMathematicalModels,in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, ed. AndrewMitchell, Ann Arbor: MI: Association for Consumer Re-search, 556-561.Sommers, MontroseS. (1964), ProductSymbolism and the Per-ceptionof Social Strata, Proceedingsof the AmericanMar-ketingAssociation, 22, 200-216.

Spivey, W. Austin (1977), An ExperimentalEvaluationof At-titudeChange for Attitude Functions Serving Combinationsof the Utilitarianand Value-ExpressingAttitudeFunctions,unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Houston,TX.Stem, Bruce L., RonaldF. Bush, andJoseph F. Hair,Jr. (1977),The Self-Image/Store mage MatchingProcess:An Empir-ical Test, Journal of Business, 50 (January),63-69.Tucker, William Thomas (1957), Foundationsfor a TheoryofConsumerBehavior, New York:Holt, Rinehart& Winston.Vitz, Paul C. and Donald Johnston (1965), Masculinity ofSmokersand the Masculinityof Cigarette mages, Journalof AppliedPsychology, 49(3), 155-159.Wicklund,R. A. and D. Frey (1980), Self-AwarenessTheory:When the Self Makes a Difference, in The Self in SocialPsychology,eds. DanielM. Wegner andRobin R. Vallacher,New York: Oxford UniversityPress.Woelfel, J. D. and Jeffrey Danes (1980), MultidimensionalScalingModels for CommunicationResearch, in Multivar-iate Technique n Human Communication f Research, eds.P. Monge and J. Capella, New York:Academic Press.and E. L. Fink (1980), The Measurementof Communi-cation Processes: Galileo Theoryand Method, New York:AcademicPress.Wylie, RuthC. (1974), The Self-Concept:A Review of Method-ological Considerations and Measuring Instruments,Lin-coln, NE: Universityof NebraskaPress.

self-concept in consumer behavior

Documents

conditions of use

self concept

treatthe self

actual self

consumer behaviorr

jstor archive

jstor transmission

noncommercial use