Consumen Well Being (CWB) The Effects of Self Image Congruence, Brand-COmmunity Belongingness, Brand Loyality, and Comsumtion Recency
Consumen Well Being (CWB) The Effects of Self Image Congruence, Brand-COmmunity Belongingness, Brand Loyality, and Comsumtion Recency
Consumen Well Being (CWB) The Effects of Self Image Congruence, Brand-COmmunity Belongingness, Brand Loyality, and Comsumtion Recency
DOI 10.1007/s11482-008-9043-9
The role of marketing on consumers’ quality of life has interested many scholars (for
an overview of the literature see Lee and Sirgy 2004; Samli et al. 1987; Sirgy 2001;
Sirgy et al. 2007). Marketing influences consumers’ quality of life (QOL) because
marketing affects life satisfaction (e.g., Day 1978, 1987; Leelakulthanit et al. 1991).
S. Grzeskowiak (*)
Marketing and Logistics Management, University of Minnesota,
3-150 Carlson School of Management, 321-19th Ave South, Minnapolis, MN 55455, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
M. J. Sirgy
Marketing and Virginia Real Estate Research Fellow,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
290 S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy
The Distinction Between CWB and Consumer Satisfaction and the Concept
of Perceived Product Quality-of-Life Impact
believe that Starbucks Coffee contributes to their overall quality of life?” They may
respond by thinking about the extent to which consuming coffee at Starbucks has
helped enhance their quality of life in their social life, their leisure life, their work
life, their physical (sensual) life, etc. The more they perceive that Starbucks Coffee
has made them feel good in various life domains, the more likely they would believe
that Starbucks Coffee does indeed contribute to the overall quality of life.
Based on our definition of CWB, we think there are two important factors we
believe contribute significantly to CWB, namely self-congruity and brand-
community belongingness. We also hypothesize that the effect of self-congruity on
CWB is moderated by brand loyalty. Furthermore, the effect of brand-community
belongingness on CWB is moderated by consumption recency. Our model is shown
in Fig. 1. We will explain the overall model and the various hypotheses in some
detail in the sections below.
Consumer motives for purchase and consumption stem in great measure from the
meaning of the consumption act and the value that meaning provides (Levy 1959).
Marketers strive to provide consumers with value by linking specific meanings with
their market offerings. One approach to influence the meaning of products is through
brand value-expressiveness (Park et al. 1986). Brand value-expressiveness is defined
as the extent to which the brand is associated with a user image—the kind of image
that consumers may compare to their self-image. Much research suggests that
products are more likely to be purchased and consumed if consumers recognize
some convergence between the brand-user image and their own self-image (Sirgy
1982). Starbucks, for example, went to considerable length to design original coffee
houses to re-create the image of coffeehouses of Milan, Italy. Therefore, the brand-
user image associated with Starbucks is that of “the European in style and
mannerism.” Consumers who see themselves as “European in style and mannerism”
(i.e., have an actual self-image of being “European in style and mannerism”) are
likely to identify with the Starbucks brand. Patronizing Starbucks stores and
Self-Image H1
Congruence
CWB
Brand H2
Community
Belongingness
Control Variables
H4 Purchase Amount
Respondent Age
Consumption Respondent Gender
Recency
Consumer Well-Being (CWB) 293
drinking Starbucks coffee, thus, satisfy their need for self-consistency (Epstein 1980;
Lecky 1945). The need for self-consistency is the need to engage in behaviors
consistent with one’s actual self-image. Doing so reinforces one’s identity and view
of the world through the self (i.e., “self-theory”).
Much research has shown that self-congruity (match between the brand-user
image and consumer’s actual self-image) influences consumers’ satisfaction
motivation to purchase the brand and remain loyal to that brand (e.g., Sirgy et al.
1997). Satisfaction is a reflection of positive affect in various life domains in which
the brand impacts. Therefore, the perception of the brand’s QOL impact is most
likely to be directly based on consumer’s perception of the positive affect that the
brand generated in specific life domains. Thus, we introduce our first hypothesis:
H1: The higher the level of congruence between the brand image and the
consumer’s self-image, the greater the consumer’s perception of the brand’s
impact on his or her QOL.
One can argue that the effect of self-congruity on CWB is strengthened when
consumers become increasingly loyal to the brand. Customer loyalty increases the
use of this brand, which in turn, makes it more likely for the consumer to use the
brand more frequently not in relation to one life domain but several. For example,
customers experience self-congruity with Starbucks Coffee. This experience may
cause them to frequent this establishment more often. The more they frequent the
establishment (because of their social identification with the establishment), the
more likely they experience positive affect intensely, not in one life domain, but
several (leisure life, social life, work life, physical/sensual life, etc.). Thus, CWB is
greatest when customers experience high self-congruity and high brand loyalty,
294 S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy
One can argue that the effect of brand-community belongingness on CWB is likely to be
accentuated when consumers have consumed the brand more (than less) recently. The
recency of the consumption experience should moderate the brand-community
belongingness effect. For example, a customer experiences brand-community belong-
ingness with Starbucks Coffee. In other words, that customer feels good interacting with
other Starbucks customers. He feels a sense of community and solidarity with them. The
perceived QOL effect of this sense of community with Starbucks customers should
amplify if he has visited Starbucks more recently than less recently. The more recent his
use of the product (given high brand-community belongingness), the more likely that he
will experience positive affect intensely, not in one life domain, but several (leisure life,
social life, work life, physical/sensual life, etc.). Thus, CWB is greatest when customers
experience high brand-community belongingness and high consumption recency,
conjointly. In other words, the contribution of brand-community belongingness is
significantly amplified given more than less recent brand use.
H4: The strength of the effect of brand-community belongingness on CWB is
moderated by consumption recency. Specifically, the brand-community belong-
ingness effect is strongest under more than less recent consumption.
Method
We will describe the study methods by first describing the data collection and
sampling methods. Then will describe the measures of the model’s constructs and
how we purified the measures. Finally, we will address the issue of method bias
before reporting the study results.
To test our research model (Fig. 1), a 275 coffee shop customers were recruited by
students enrolled in undergraduate business-related courses. Respondents were asked
to report on their last visit to a coffee shop using a web-based survey. Respondents
were provided with a link to the web-based survey and responded within two days of
being contacted. None of the student recruiters participated in the survey.
We chose coffee shops as the product stimulus because coffee is a consumption
good that is typically mass-marketed and our respondents were less likely to use it
for symbolic consumption than other products that are more conspicuous in
consumption. Using a research context that is low on value expressiveness provides
Consumer Well-Being (CWB) 295
a strong test for our research model because the hypothesized relationships are more
likely to be rejected (Popper 1935). If the research model is supported in the context
of a low value-expressive stimulus our results are likely to be robust across a wide
range of product stimuli.
Upon opening the electronic survey, respondents were told that the study
investigates consumers’ satisfaction with coffee shops and how well coffee shops
meet consumer needs. For answering the survey questions respondents were
instructed to focus and report on experiences related to their last coffee shop visit.
We selected the last visit as unit of analysis for our study for two reasons. First,
probing the last visit was expected to facilitate recall and enhance reliability of the
responses. Second, probing the last visit was likely to produce more variance in the brand
loyalty and consumption recency variable than, for example, asking the respondents
about the coffee shop they visit the most.
Construct Measures
Based on this definition of the constructs in our study we reviewed the literature for
existing scales and developed new scale items where appropriate (Churchill 1979).
The resulting survey instrument consisted of 31 items measuring perceived QOL
impact, brand loyalty, consumption recency, brand-community belongingness, and
self-image congruence. Each measure is described next and a detailed list of scale
items, reliability and discriminant validity coefficients is shown in the Appendix 1.
Perceived QOL Impact Perceived QOL impact in the study context refers to the
respondent’s perception of the overall positive or negative affect that he or she
experiences in relation to the coffee shop and in connection with salient life
domains. It was measured as follows: Respondents were prompted by the following
question: “Does shopping at this coffee shop contribute to your quality of life?”
Following this question, respondents were presented with four seven-point Likert-
type scales (e.g., “This coffee shop satisfies my overall coffee needs”). See
Appendix 1.
policy makers to gauge the health of local communities (The Home Office 2003).
Here, respondents were asked to evaluate the social environment in the coffee shop
and the degree to which they are part of it (e.g., “I enjoy being part of the social
activities in this coffee shop”). See Appendix 1.
Consumption Recency This is the time since the respondents had visited the coffee
shop [in days] they reported about (Hornik 1984). We used days as scale increments
because our pretest indicated that typical respondents visit coffee shops no more than
once a day and often multiple days pass between visits.
Control Variables Although the proposed research model captures the central
mechanisms that drive perceived QOL impact (or CWB), some additional constructs
were included in the study to rule out alternative explanations and enhance the
generalizability of the study findings. We added the amount of money the respondent
had spent in the coffee shop [in $], as well as the gender and age of the respondent.
The purchase price was included to reflect the quantity and quality of the product. It
is conceivable that variations in quality and size of product contribute differently to
the respondent’s QOL. The respondent’s age and gender account for potential
differences in the consumer’s life-style and control for variations in impact that the
product may have on their way of life. Each control variable was allowed to affect
dependent variable (i.e., perceived QOL impact of the product).
The data in this study was gathered from respondents who reported on the constructs
of the research model simultaneously and therefore may be subject to common
method bias. Method variance has been defined as all systematic effects associated
with a given measurement procedure rather than the constructs the measures
represent (Campbell and Fiske 1959). In order to control for method variance we
included a single, latent method factor in the structural research model that was
allowed to influence each observed measure (Podsakoff et al. 2003). This latent
factor partials out error variance that is due to the respondent and systematically
affects responses to all measures in the survey.
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for the research
variables. The variable means for all 5-point scales are all below 4 (M=2.97) and the
standard deviations for these variables range from 0.72 to 0.98 (M=0.83), indicating
a substantial amount of variance in the responses. Further, the correlations in Table 1
show significant relationships for all hypothesized relationships at the aggregate
level lending cursory support for the overall model and its hypotheses. We used
Fornell and Larker’s (1981) criterion to assess discriminant validity. Table 1 shows
that the smallest AVE exceeds the squared multiple correlations between any pair of
study constructs indicating a satisfactory level of discriminant validity.
We selected structural equation modeling to test the research model because it allows
not only for a test of the hypothesized interaction effects but can also be used to
simultaneously control for method bias. Similar to the procedure employed in the
measurement model estimation, we included a method factor as previously
described. This latent factor is allowed to simultaneously influence each observed
measure and partials out systematic variance that is due to the respondent. This
systematic error variance would otherwise confound trait variance in the measure.
Table 2 reports goodness-of-fit indices and standardized parameter estimates for
the structural model. The estimated χ2 statistic for the structural model is significant,
which suggests that the hypothesized model
reproduces the sample correlations
within sampling error χ2ð392Þ ¼ 581:67 . In addition, the Goodness-of-Fit Index
[GFI=0.85], Tucker–Lewis Index [TLI=.93], the Comparative Fit Index [CFI=.94],
and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA=.05, p (Close)=0.58]
together suggest that the hypothesized structural model provides a good fit to the
data (Bagozzi and Yi 1988).
a
The dependent variable is consumer well-being (CWB)
b
Standardized coefficients
c
Bold coefficients are significant at the p<.05 level
Consumer Well-Being (CWB) 299
4 Recency)
3.12 (High Cons.
3 Recency)
2
1.94
1.31
1
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Brand Community Belongingness
b
5
Consumer Well-being
4 (High Brand
3.62 Loyalty)
3
2.41
2.30 2.26 (Low Brand
2 Loyalty)
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Self-Image Congruence
300 S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy
Discussion
The results of this study suggest a slight modification of our hypothesized model. The
modified model is shown in Fig. 3. The figure demonstrates that CWB is directly affected
by brand loyalty (instead of self-congruity) and brand-community belongingness. Self-
congruity is found to moderate the relationship between brand loyalty and CWB.
This means that our study has shown that CWB can be predicted by brand loyalty and
brand-community belongingness. And these two effects can be amplified by self-congruity
and consumption recency. That is, not only does brand loyalty contributes to CWB, it does
so much more under conditions when consumers experience high levels of self-congruity.
Similarly, brand-community belongingness does contribute directly to CWB and its effect
on CWB is significantly amplified given recent consumption experiences.
What are the managerial implications of the model suggested by the data?
Marketers interested in contributing to the well-being of their customers (we call them
“QOL marketers”) should have in place marketing programs designed to enhance brand
loyalty (e.g., frequency marketing programs that encourage repeat patronage) and
brand community experience (e.g., giving away or selling T-shirts and mugs with the
brand name, marketing events that facilitate networking among brand users, developing
Internet blogs allowing brand users to connect with others and feel like they belong to
the brand community). QOL marketers should also engage in advertising and promotion
using messages that reflect the kind of brand-user image that the vast majority of the
brand customers can identify with (i.e., experience self-congruity). Such efforts would
further the effect of brand loyalty on CWB. Furthermore, the data suggest that
consumption recency accentuates the CWB effect of brand-community belongingness.
Therefore, QOL marketers should take steps to ensure that customers use the brand often
enough to create a top-of-mind awareness of the brand. The brand has to be experienced
frequently and recently to have the expected desired effect on CWB. Again, promotional
programs designed to regard customers for frequent and continuous use of the brand
should be implemented to generate this desired effect on CWB.
With respect to the theoretical contribution of this research, one can argue that our
study has provided additional theoretical support to the perceived QOL impact
model of CWB. The theory of perceived QOL impact posits that CWB can indeed
be captured by asking consumers to report on their perceptions of the extent to
Brand H1
Loyalty
CWB
Brand H2
Community
Belongingness
Control Variables
H4 Purchase Amount
Respondent Age
Consumption
Recency Respondent Gender
Consumer Well-Being (CWB) 301
which a particular product contributes to positive affect in various life domains thus
affecting their overall quality of life. Our study, in addition to past studies (e.g.,
Sirgy et al. 2006), demonstrates the viability of this approach to conceptualizing and
theorizing about CWB.
With respect to study limitations and future research, future research can build on
the CWB model to answer the following questions:
1. What is the role of life-style congruity on CWB? Can marketers enhance CWB
by embedding their brand in a product constellation that reflects a specific
lifestyle? For example, one can argue that a life-style of business executives who
travel a great may entail the consumption of a product constellation that includes
using airlines, airports, car rentals, chain restaurants, hotels within close
proximity to airports, night clubs within close proximity to airports, How does
a product that fits into a life-style constellation of products contribute to CWB?
Would this life-style congruity play a direct role in CWB? Would it play a
moderating role between brand loyalty and CWB? Would it moderate the effect
of brand-community belongingness on CWB? Future research should incorpo-
rate life-style congruity into the CWB model.
2. What about other factors such as product involvement? How do this construct fit
in the overall model of CWB? One can argue that the more consumers are
emotionally and cognitively involved with a particular product the more they
will experience the emotional impact of that product in the context of various
life domains. If so, does product involvement play a moderating role between
brand loyalty and CWB? Does it play a moderating role between brand-
community belongingness and CWB?
3. Consider other factors such as brand-relationship quality. One can theorize that
consumers experiencing a high level of brand relationship quality are likely to
experience high levels of CWB. Future research should test such hypothesis. Would
the effect of brand-relationship quality on CWB be moderated by other variables
such brand loyalty, product involvement, and consumption frequency and recency?
Future research should also test the CWB model across a wide range of consumer
goods and services to establish the robustness of the model. Better measures of
CWB should be developed and their reliability and validity tested to allow for
measure refinement. Future research should make every attempt possible to reduce
method bias commonly found in self-report surveys. The use of measurement
approaches (e.g., observation, in-depth interviews, and the use of informants) should
reduce method artifacts and demonstrate the real viability of the theoretical model.
Self-image Congruence
Brand-(AVE=0.77; ρ=0.87)
Do the typical people who buy this brand of coffee match how you see yourself?
1. I can identify myself with the people who buy this brand of coffee.
2. The typical person who buys this brand of coffee matches how I see myself.
3. The image of this coffee brand is highly inconsistent with my self-image.XR
Retail-(AVE=0.80; ρ=0.89)
Do the typical people who shop at this coffee store match how you see yourself?
1. I can identify myself with the people who shop at this store.
2. The typical person who comes to this store matches how I see myself.
3. The image of this store is highly inconsistent with my self-image.XR
Personnel- (AVE=0.83; ρ=0.91)
Do the typical people who work at this coffee store match how you see yourself?
1. I can identify myself with the people who work at this store.
2. The typical person who works at this store matches how I see myself.
3. The image of this store’s personnel is highly inconsistent with my self-
image.XR
Brand Loyalty
Behavior-(AVE=0.80; ρ=0.89)
How often do you come to this coffee shop?
1. I am a ‘regular’ at this coffee shop.
2. I visit this coffee shop very frequently.
3. I always go to this coffee shop.X
Cognition-(AVE=0.60; ρ=0.81)
Consumer Well-Being (CWB) 303
Consumption Recency
How long ago did you visit this coffee shop? ______________ (days)
Notes:
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94, (Spring).
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of
Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Day, R. L. (1978). Beyond social Indicators: Quality of life at the individual level. In F. D. Reynolds & H.
C. Barksdale (Eds.), Marketing and the quality of life (pp. 11–18). Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association.
Day, R. L. (1987). Relationships between life satisfaction and consumer satisfaction. In A. C. Samli (Ed.),
Marketing and the quality-of-life interface (pp. 289–311). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Epstein, S. (1980). The self-concept: A review and the proposal of an integrated theory of personality. In
E. Staub (Ed.), Personality: Basic issues and current research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of
Marketing, 56, 6–21, (January).
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60, 7–18, (October).
Fornell, C. D., & Larcker, F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50, (Feb).
304 S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.
Hornik, J. (1984). Subjective vs. objective time measures: A note on the perception of time in consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 615–619.
Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. New York: Island Press.
Lee, D.-J., & Sirgy, M. J. (2004). Quality-of-life (QOL) marketing: Proposed antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Macromarketing, 24, 44–58, (June).
Leelakulthanit, O., Day, R., & Walters, R. (1991). Investigating the relationship between marketing and
overall satisfaction with life in a developing country. Journal of Macromarketing, (Spring), 3–23.
Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: The multiplicity of
meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
34(4), 481–493.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37 (July-August), 117–124.
McAlexander, J., Schouten, J., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing,
66(1), 38–54.
Muniz, A., & O’Guinn, T. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 412–432,
(June).
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the customer. New York: McGraw Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–34.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management.
Journal of Marketing, 50, 135–145, (October).
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Popper, K. R. (1935). Logik der Forschung. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Samli, A. C., Sirgy, M. J., & Meadow, H. L. (1987). Measuring marketing contribution to quality of life.
In A. C. Samli (Ed.), Marketing and quality-of-life interface (pp. 3–14). Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Schouten, J., & McAlexander, J. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers.
Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 43–61, (June).
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research,
9, 287–300, (December).
Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing perspective. Dordecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J. O., Chon, K. S., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J. S., &
Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image
congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), 229–241.
Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Bae, J. (2006). Developing a subjective measure of Internet well-being:
Nomological (predictive) validation. Social Indicators Research, 78(2), 205–249.
Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Rahtz, D. (2007). Research in consumer well-being (CWB): An overview of the
field and introduction to the special issue. Journal of Macromarketing, 27(4), 341–349.
Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical
evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 16–35.
The Home Office (2003). Building a picture of community cohesion. London, UK.: The Home Office
Community Cohesion Unit.